1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The southern celestial pole - looking for a FET explanation

« on: September 30, 2008, 04:34:09 AM »

EDIT: I also just realized, no matter what part of the world we're talking about, any "gear in the sky" (even if only one was visible) would inevitably need to connect to the area around the north star at some point. This would create distortions in the sky around the equator on a flat Earth. Such distortions are not observed anywhere on Earth.

Why would this be so? What kind of distortions do you mean?

2

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: September 24, 2008, 02:06:13 AM »

I still want to know how he plans to use Atomic Clocks to prove the surface of the earth isn't accelerating.

Not talking about the current topic but acceleration in general, atomic clocks are used to show time dilation.  Did you look up the twin paradox and the answer? 

I didn't see you ask me to, but I'm aware of the concept of time slowing as you increase your speed. How would you use that principle?

3

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: September 21, 2008, 04:13:34 AM »

I still want to know how he plans to use Atomic Clocks to prove the surface of the earth isn't accelerating.

4

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: September 18, 2008, 03:39:06 AM »

Atomic clocks (or, in fact, any other local experiment) are therefore not valid for distinguishing gravitation from acceleration.

See you're spoiling my fun there. I am dying to know how he thought they could be used to prove it.

5

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: September 17, 2008, 09:40:28 PM »

Assume an inertial frame of reference by jumping off a tall building. Now tell me the surface of the Earth isn't moving when it reaches you.

The earth's surface isn't accelerating.  Atomic clocks will prove this. 

Sorry to jump in here, but how exactly?

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: So much for the separation of church and state.

« on: September 17, 2008, 08:24:45 PM »

2 different genes? Interesting. I guess bisexuality comes from having both of these genes in the "on" position, and there are bound to be some poor asexual souls that have them both switched to off.

So in this scenario, heterosexual brothers of lesbians are more likely to carry the gene for lesbianism, and pass that on to their children? Not that men generally need help in liking women more.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: So much for the separation of church and state.

« on: September 17, 2008, 07:22:02 PM »

You're suggesting women are a carrier of the gene? Where might the Lesbians come from?

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: So much for the separation of church and state.

« on: September 17, 2008, 03:30:08 PM »

So how would the homosexuality gene be passed along in any given species?

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: So much for the separation of church and state.

« on: September 17, 2008, 03:18:35 PM »

But what about the rest of the animal kingdom? I don't think they have the social pressures that humans have, so wouldn't "lie to themselves" or try to confrom to the norm? Did homosexuality begin with homo sapiens?

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: So much for the separation of church and state.

« on: September 17, 2008, 02:55:43 PM »

I think the point Wardgogg is trying to make is that if being Gay was a genetic trait, then how would it be passed on to the next generation?

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain me these two words

« on: September 17, 2008, 06:22:25 AM »

I can't wrap my head around your constant acceleration model. What is it going about a trillion google billion google miles per second by now? I do know it breaks causality, even given your FAQ explanation.

As I sit in this chair typing, it feels to me as though it travelled up about 9.8m in the last second.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: So much for the separation of church and state.

« on: September 16, 2008, 09:13:14 PM »

All I'm saying is outside influences may have something to do with choices later on.

If someone is born with an inner ear condition that gives them vertigo at altitude they could be afraid of heights.
If someone had a traumatic experience in a glass elevator they could be afraid of heights.

One would be nature, one would be nuture, but in neither instance could you suggest the person chose to be afraid of heights.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why did Jesus LIE to his Apostles.....Only Enlightened People

« on: September 16, 2008, 09:04:55 PM »

Why did Jesus LIE to his Apostles?

Perhaps he was drunk. I heard they were knocking the back like it was their last supper.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: How will Jesus defeat GOD the Father.......Does anybody know?

« on: September 16, 2008, 08:39:20 PM »

and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.

Spiritually.

His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years."

Physically.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: So much for the separation of church and state.

« on: September 16, 2008, 08:35:17 PM »

I don't believe you are born gay.  It's a lifestyle choice.

What's your favourite tasting drink or food? Now did you choose your taste buds to enjoy that particularly flavour, or is it part of your genetic make up?

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: UNBANNED - And More EVIDENCE of a Flat Earth...

« on: September 16, 2008, 07:38:48 PM »

Fletch, did you grow up in a cuboard or some kind of confined space, where you at no contact with human life, or is that still your life?

No.

Seriously, i dont think you even know wtf your talking about, none of you's do. I mean, are you all scientists? have you bullet prove facts to back up your theories? can you prove everything you say about the idea of the world being flat? The very thing that can be easily proven by real scientists, that the world is 100% round, you can tell them there wrong. hmm

What I don't know, is wtf you're talking about.

Instead of wasting your time with this retarded little cult that clearly know themselfs that there wrong, because the faq makes no sense in the least bit, go out, get a life and start facing the facts.

The question is why are you wasting your time with this retarded little cult?

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: UNBANNED - And More EVIDENCE of a Flat Earth...

« on: September 16, 2008, 07:32:47 PM »

How about you try this. Draw a line from the centre of the waxing crescent moon to the centre of the earth. Then draw a line that goes through the centre of the earth AND bisects your first line at right angles (you'll notice this second line goes through the waning crescent and the waxing gibbous moon). You have just illustrated the half of the earth that see the waxing crescent moon. You will see that most of that half of the earth is in daylight, but there is a small section of it that can see the waxing crescent moon at night.

centre?

center. you made this mistake 3 times. we're you nervous per chance?

Yes that's it. I'm scared of you. Oh hang on. No. I'm Australian.

I can't see thru the center of the Earth, neither can you or anyone else, we can only see the surface, how about you try this again; with your left index finger find the waxing crescent and hold it to the screen of your computer, try to remain steady in performing this exercise, with your right index finger point to the dark side of the Earth (preferably the mid-night hour), now, would anyone living where your right finger is pointing see the waxing crescent where your left finger is?

Okay, did you really think I wanted you to draw a line through the actual earth? Instead of your picture that I quoted in my post? Reread my post again, please.

And regarding your experiment, no-one would be able to see the crescent moons at midnight. Which is exactly how things are. What point are you trying to make?

Feel free to duplicate this for the other phases of the moon. As you get closer to the New moon (as the moon gets smaller and smaller) the piece of earth that can see the moon at night gets smaller and smaller. This is exactly what you would expect to see according to RET. Are you claiming something different is what we actually observe?

The Moon doesn't get smaller it remains the same dimension, the light decreases is what you mean and the portion of the Earth also remains the same. The reason why the new Moon is seen in the day, is because on that phase it receives the light from the Sun.

You know I almost went back and corrected my use of the word "smaller" but I thought there is no way anyone would think I am actually claiming the moon decreases in size. My mistake.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: BELIEVE

« on: September 16, 2008, 07:17:11 PM »

Sure. But what I'm saying is if there are RE-ers who enjoy representing themselves as FE-ers, why would they post the truth here? If they're playing a charade, then they're going to keep doing it, you know?

/ Every person who comes on here, proves you all wrong with a simple thread or post, then you's act like complete fannys, instead of just proving us wrong with your amazing theory. Did i get that right?

Did you actually read my post before you replied, or did you just grab one at random to tack your response to?

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How long are your days?

« on: September 16, 2008, 06:20:52 AM »

Someone suggested taking a compass to get a bearing on the Sun. Will this be useful?

Oh, and are we just taking everyone's word? Is there any other sort of verification going to be needed?

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: UNBANNED - And More EVIDENCE of a Flat Earth...

« on: September 16, 2008, 06:16:08 AM »

hold on a sec............ have you ever been to the equator, explain why the sun is above you!!

Where do you think the sun should be?

do you live in the north pole or somthing. explain why water when going down a plug hole spins and dosent just drop through,

The direction the water is spinning in the basin is what dictates the direction it spins when going down the plug hole.

and why it changes direction when you go under the equater, beacause of gravity.

That is just not true.

how would gps work if the world was flat?

Stratelites and pseudolites. Do a search.

why does water fall from a water fall.

As opposed to ...

you make the world seem completely synthethic, when its not.

try to prove a threoy that real. and that can be explained. like gravity.

Explain gravity then.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: UNBANNED - And More EVIDENCE of a Flat Earth...

« on: September 16, 2008, 12:31:55 AM »

Please learn the difference between a crescent moon and a gibbous moon (see my previous post).
Besides, how does seeing a crescent moon in day or night disprove RE again?

With your left index finger find the waxing crescent and hold it to the screen of your computer, try to remain steady in performing this exercise, with your right index finger point to the dark side of the Earth (preferably the mid-night hour), now, would anyone living where your right finger is pointing see the waxing crescent where your left finger is?

How about you try this. Draw a line from the centre of the waxing crescent moon to the centre of the earth. Then draw a line that goes through the centre of the earth AND bisects your first line at right angles (you'll notice this second line goes through the waning crescent and the waxing gibbous moon). You have just illustrated the half of the earth that see the waxing crescent moon. You will see that most of that half of the earth is in daylight, but there is a small section of it that can see the waxing crescent moon at night.

Feel free to duplicate this for the other phases of the moon. As you get closer to the New moon (as the moon gets smaller and smaller) the piece of earth that can see the moon at night gets smaller and smaller. This is exactly what you would expect to see according to RET. Are you claiming something different is what we actually observe?

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: explain this please

« on: September 15, 2008, 07:37:51 PM »

If the sun and moon can achieve sustained space flight, then why can't a man made satellite?

Yes, I asked this in another thread. If the DE is accelerating everything not shielded directly by the earth, why can't we use that to get a rocket to the moon?

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: explain this please

« on: September 15, 2008, 06:57:20 PM »

The fact that the earth is constantly accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s/s

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: UNBANNED - And More EVIDENCE of a Flat Earth...

« on: September 15, 2008, 06:52:24 PM »

If the Earth did revolve around the Sun, and the Moon around the Earth, at some point the Moon would find herself in between the Earth and the Sun.
We would not be able to see the crescents of the Moon in the dead of night (like ehhhh, mid-night) for 29 days are assigned to the Lunar calender (one full revolution around Earth), thereby, the Moon would remain close to the Sun for "days" we would not be able and could "only" see the crescents of the Moon in the day, but we see them at night, under this FAILED theory the Earth remains flat.

Ahh, no. The moon can be seen for approx 12 hours a day. In RET, as in the picture you posted above, The Full moon will only be seen at night and the New Moon will only be seen (or not seen) during the day. As the moon travels around the earth the other phases of the moon will overlap daylight and night time, with first and last quarter being visible for approx 6 hours of each.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How long are your days?

« on: September 15, 2008, 02:56:45 PM »

13hours, my day still has to lose an hour by the 22nd

Really?! That doesn't seem very likely in 6 days. Are you partaking in the collection of data we're doing on the 22nd?

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: someone needs a toxicology exam...

« on: September 14, 2008, 05:35:10 AM »

Well, do you know how to work with an FMGC? Do you even know what that is? Do you know what is the typical take off configuration of an A320? Do you know what a CATIII approach is? do you know what a NAT is? Do you know what's the impact of packs on take off? Do you know what's the true effect of the different settings of the autobrake on landing? do you know what a squak 7600 means? do you know which should you give priority, the TCAS or ATC? do you know where the Vref value usually is on an A320? do you know what to do to relight an engine on the air?

I'm hoping my new sig will be in Wardoggs reply ...

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: BELIEVE

« on: September 13, 2008, 03:54:41 AM »

What do you mean by a mountain of evidence that needs no explanation?

did yuw go too sckool?

Yes.

I have never heard anyone use the phrase "a mountain of evidence that needs no explanation" and I was wondering what you meant by that?

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE is constantly accelerating at 1G

« on: September 11, 2008, 07:39:32 PM »

We know what its properties are. It accelerates upwards through the Universe at 9.8 m s^-2 and causes everything it comes into contact with to do the same.

So why wouldn't a space craft be affected by it as well? Why couldn't we get far enough away from the earth to use it to travel to the moon?

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite TV

« on: September 11, 2008, 07:35:29 PM »

Satellites are not made to fly that low, it's just impossible with that design, so the 2nd answer is invalid.

That low? That's near the high end of the spectrum.

I'm thinking he misread that as feet instead of miles.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: BELIEVE

« on: September 11, 2008, 05:43:48 AM »

Debating? Yes. Arguing? No, not really. Arguments are for stupid people who can't present themselves as they would like or aspire to, or maybe faced with stupid people who can't differentiate between debate and a one sided rant.

I'm keen to see who believes. If you do believe in FE, with the mountain of evidence that needs no explanation then yes, you do have psychological problems; a break in Darwinian progression

Tomarto, Tomate-o. Do you not see any merit in putting forward an opposing view to what you actually believe?

What do you mean by a mountain of evidence that needs no explanation?