1

Arts & Entertainment / Gurren Lagann Ending

« on: April 07, 2011, 02:25:40 AM »

<If by some misfortune you haven't seen this gem, then go watch it instead of reading a spoiler ridden post.>

------------[if you want you can skip to the ]----------------------------------------->

As for me, I just joined the rest of modern society and finished it a couple days ago. It was absolutely my favoritism anime, that was until the last 5 minutes. After watching Simon and Nia get married I should have just turned the screen off, but I stuck through to the bitter end. Now I could get over Kamina's death, it was clear that he never really died, and the characters had plenty of time to grieve for him and turn it into a positive (Older Simon was like him in a lot of ways). After all, they gave us a new character that would be come just as close to the main character: Nia. And despite the annoying voice acting (I watch dubbed anime, because I'm a huge tool), and the inane child like characteristics, she grew on me.

She wasn't at all my favorite character throughout the show, and for most of it I could have cared less about her relationship with Simon (I hate romance 99% of the time in TV). But when Simon proposed, I could sorta feel the love in it, because it was an emotional rebirth for Simon after Kamina died. And when it turned out she was a double agent (lol SALT), the show got me on the edge of my seat, and was pleasantly surprised to see that it could turn out ok in the end. I had felt that Simon had really become a man like Kamina was.

[crucial part of my post/ rant of butthurt]------------------------------------>

The last 6 through the penultimate episodes were awesome to say the least. Nia had represented the goodness and love of humanity, and her becoming a death angel caused much despair. And the idea that somehow the power of love she had attained as a human combined with Simon's fighting spirit would transcend time and space to bring her back made me want to weep manly tears of joy. And I greatly liked the way they treated Viral, who after the timeskip was becoming one of my favorite characters.

The last episode was more epic than I could have ever hoped for, desperately in her time of need Simon did the impossible. And to make it more epic, instead of becoming a rescued damsel, she had become one with the rest of the team. It was the duality between her being an innocent creature of love and a being of evil and hatred that made her return a thing of beauty. They turned hopelessness into bliss.

But then Gainex decided that they needed a tragic ending. They used a diablo ex machina, to make her disappear forever, then Simon let it go, and became a drifter for the rest of his life. Oh, and they made president douchebag Rossiu team leader for life. Yoko's end was ok at best. The only truly good personal end was Viral, who got to continue being a soldier. Perhaps why this end felt like such an FU from the writers, is because they made you love a character, only for them to disappear forever literally or figuratively. It would've been bitter sweet if they had combined as she had promised before.

But this really didn't happen, as Simon clearly went back to being his old self, unchanged by her. They could have given at least some hint that she'd be waiting for him in the afterlife as that's they way it felt with Kamina (god and souls exists in this anime), but it seems that her entire existence was erased. Now I didn't need an episode devoted to the idea that they'd be together forever like the ending of LOST (they stopped just short of showing Jacks A-team unpack their luggage at the pearly gates) But this sort of meant that he failed to return her to normal, as he promised. To me this was just despair. And I kinda nolonger feel motivated by the anime's whole do the impossible theme.

I am I crazy? or did the ending leave a pain in any of your hearts?

2

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Proof that pi=4

« on: March 13, 2011, 06:50:27 AM »

This is obviously false, but does anyone have any disproof, other than proving that pi is approximately 3.14159265358979...?

My initial response was that of fractal dimensions. I don't think you can ascribe a length to this construction in the usual manner, as fractals tend to be 1.x dimensional.

Another, more grounded disproof is through calculus. The derivative as any given point on a circle, in Cartesian coordinates is non-trivial, but solvable or at least defined. However, if the infinite triangles case, the derivative doesn't exist anywhere, as it is not mathematically smooth in the limit sense.

Thoughts?

3

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Forces: What they are, and what they are not.

« on: February 23, 2011, 12:42:37 PM »

ITT: We distinguish between what is a force, in the most fundamental idea, and what is a source.
This is isn't a "look what I learned in physics, dad" thread. I'm just tired of people (mostly FE'ers and RE noobs) calling x a force, when it's a source. The other day ago, someone told me that the solar system in FE had 3 less forces than what's needed in RE. When I talk about forces in the upper fora, this is what I base it on. So I want your input into the validity of this. aka Questions, comments, complaints?:


The basic definition of a force is something that changes the path of an object from its inertial path. In GR gravity isn't a force, the inertial path is toward the gravitating body, the normal force, is actually the electric force, the only important force involved in the dynamic system of planets. Forces act at a distance, they are the exchange of force bearing particles, i.e. the photon. The force on a body, is based only on the relative position of that body and the force coming from it, nothing else. For non infinite bodies, force must vary with position. Things that don't fit this criteria are magic, in that they break the axioms of physics.

A rubber band works via the electric force, when stretched, atoms inside attract each other to contract the total length of the band.
It is probably already known that pulling on something is the same as pushing it, from another perspective. But in general when objects are pushed, it is the electric force, which explains why above I stated that the electric force is the only force involved with orbits in the solar system.

Now lets examine UA in the non GR context (obviously if GR is right UA doesn't exist). Firstly, the only observed facts about the mechanism, is that objects on the earth and the earth accelerate toward each other. This in no way shape or form tells you that there is an object under the earth accelerating it, because all we know if the relative acceleration, which doesn't tell us which body(ies) have a force(s) acting on them. If it is some expanding substance called dark energy, then this should be acting on the Earth, through the pushing electric force, not the heavens. In order for the heaven's to stay in this same frame of reference as the earth, they need A) a force, and B) a source. Neither of which can be assumed to be UA and the electric force,  for the same reason. Finally the movement of the Sun and moon, require a centripetal force, as inertial paths are straight. Here again we need a force, and two sources. The source can't be the earth, as it is in RE, for obvious reasons. Whatever this source is, it too requires a source and force as well. repeat.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Disproof of Bendy Light [revamp]

« on: January 11, 2011, 05:29:53 AM »

Firstly, this proof relies upon the following premises:
light travels at speed c
velocity of light is constant unless acted on by a force
the effects of gravity, or the FE equivalent, is negligible
forces are not dependent on an objects velocity
we can accurately measure our height from the ground.
the apparent visual effects of the horizon effect are equivalent in both RE and FE (parsifal model) note that this is different that the tom bishop model.
this basically means that FE model is validated by any RE measurements of "sinking ships" IF one were to assume bendy light.

Consider a laser beam on the surface of the earth shooting parallel to the ground and along the great circle (diameter for the FE model) ignore any physical impediments.
at precisely pi/4 radians of the earth (one fourth diamter in FE), the light's path will have an asymptote, that is to say its height will reach infinity.

The function for determining the height of the beam at any given distance is given by the equation h=r(sec(2pi*x/r)-1) where r is the radius of the round earth, and x is the horizontal distance traveled.
note that if the appearance of the earth is to remain the same in both models, this formula is valid in both models as well. On RE this formula when added to the height of the earth's curve, creates a straight line, as expected. however if the surface of the earth is planar, the path of light is the function itself. and since this path is not straight, its U shaped, and so force (bendy light) must enact on it.


While there are no problems if we consider one curve, if we look at all of these possible paths, we run into problems. A path like this exists at every point on the flat earth's surface. Take two coplanar paths whose minima are a few hundred miles away. it looks like two intersecting U's.

Curved paths that can be approximated via a circle have approximately center seeking forces, so for a U, the forces on the upper parts are nearly horizontal, and start pointing more and more upwards, untill where at the minima, the force points upwards. One way to visualize this, is to super impose a smaller superscript ^u on the big U such that their heights are the same. now draw arrows from the points on Big U to the corresponding points on little ^u. The point is, you get is a U-shape of arrows, that are all pointing inwards.

As stated before in the premise, force cannot be based on velocity. What would so what would be the force on a photon located on the intersection of the U's ? according to the left curve, the force is pointing upwards and left. But according to the right curve, the force is pointing upwards and right. So we have reached a contradiction. If you continue this thought experiment, you find that the ACCELERATION AND FORCE IS BASED ON BOTH POSITION AND VELOCITY, because the force is perpendicular to the velocity. This is a violation of the laws of physics, so as it stands Bendy Light cannot exist in its current state.


Thank you if you've made it this far. Feel free to point out mistakes (not grammatical ones), or ask for clarification

5

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Question for you guys about light.

« on: August 08, 2010, 12:58:17 AM »

If I understand correctly, as particles, photons go up and down as they travel through space, or at least they are found to be on the classical shape of a wave. And that the angle of oscillation is normally random.

A) is this angle quantized or infinite, like is there say 1000 max possibilities, or infinite?

B) If it is infinite, isn't the amount of light that can pass through a filter relatively zero? because I thought only the ones lined up exactly are allowed to pass. so if the filter was set at 0degrees with respect to the floor, the light with the electric field oscillating at 99.9999999999... other angles would be stopped

6

Suggestions & Concerns / Why mods.

« on: July 18, 2010, 06:22:42 PM »

Why did wilmore shut down my anti-moonlight thread?
It was a legit argument, a reductio ad absurdiam.

If I could persuade the jury against my own stupid case, then parallel it to Ichi's, I could prove my argument there.
And I made that thread as not to derail the other thread where the topic was started.


If I may recap the thread (incase of bawletion), what happened was I started off trying to do the above, then
Pongo said something unrelated
Ichi bawwed
Sean started asking legit questions, which I then tried to help him understand
PP fell into the trap.
Raist nitpicked, and an argument ensued.


Then out of nowhere Lord Wilmore decides to delete it.
Seiously, what is going on here. Don't you guys realize that most of this site is just for sport? and for those who seriously believe, this was in no way an attack or a way to poke fun. I don't see why Wilmore and some of the other regulars feel such hostility to the other side. This is clear cut bias, several less sensible threads have been created (including the thread Ichi made that mine addressed). At least my thread was logically sound. I think Willmore, or the FE'ers, never actually read it.

We're on an internet forum, we're supposed to be friends (or at least civil). why the bias?

7

Technology, Science & Alt Science / "Magnets, how do they work?"

« on: July 17, 2010, 02:21:02 AM »

To not derail the ISS thread, I've made this topic to discuss how magnets work.
The Insane Clown Posse reference aside, magnetic force is mediated by the photon, the particle for light aka electromagnetic radiation.
key word magnetic their. The relationship between the photon and magnetism has been demonstrated in the lab, by deferring the momentum of the photon with a magnet.

Magnets work, because each electron is constantly spewing forth virtual photons is magnetic waves. These waves are created by the angular momentum of the electron. Each virtual photon (named so due to its short lifespan) carries with it kinetic energy and momentum.
When the photon hits another electron, that momentum is transferred, and the wave's energy turns into the added kinetic energy of the receiving magnet.

If you think about it, its like a game of medicine ball, but the math is a little different, because the magnetic momentum (for lack of better words) does not always carry the same sign as its velocity. In swapping particles, the kinetic energy of the photons (which some people call potential energy) turns into the kinetic energy of the magnets, thus causing attraction or repulsion

8

Flat Earth Debate / A thought expirement in the style of Ichimaru Gin

« on: July 14, 2010, 11:42:15 PM »

Dr. Tom Robowtham does a study on humans on the effect of candy on their diet.
The study was done over a course of a week. They all the same diet of meats, vegtables, and grains, with the exception being the foods/drinks listed below.
these are his results:

Groups:                                  Result:
deer park water and candy        Healthy
deer park water                       Healthy
candy                                     R.I.P.
Soda                                      Healthy


Dr Robo's conclusion:
Candy kills people, as the only the candy group was effected differently.
People don't need water, because they lived just fine with soda.

Also, Candy kills trees.

EDIT: as an addendum, Robow refused to think about what would happen if the subject didn't consume water or candy, on the bases that nothing can't cause death
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discuss

9

The Lounge / Question for some of the regulars.

« on: July 08, 2010, 01:30:33 PM »

I've noticed that a large part of this forum has nothing to do with the Flat Earth.
And that very few people are involved with the upper fora.

So why do some of you non argumentitive types stick around? While I can see that this forum is vastly superior in style and function to other places, why stay here if you don't believe in the flat earth?

10

Suggestions & Concerns / Mods breaking demeanor

« on: June 22, 2010, 08:04:49 PM »

I've noticed a trend of James being extremely argumentative.

he excessivly posts warnings about language then says stuff like:

"are you retarded"

11

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Zeteticsim vs. Science.

« on: June 21, 2010, 02:11:37 PM »

ok pretend you are a Zet doctor.

Answer either of the three cases, they are

CASE I
your patient has a frequent history of nose bleeds, and develops internal bleeding, what do you treat for if you cannot form the hypothesis that it is caused by _____,  the obvious choice.

CASE II

your female patients has three children that are not genetically related to her at all, yet you have overwhelming evidence that she they were all born naturally. She has had intercourse and carried the children to term on three separate occasions, all of which are verified by family, OBGYNS, the general practitioner, etc.

CASE III

your patient comes in with a strange symptom. he has been shot in the head, and he has uncontrollable laughter, and has passed out and is bleeding from his facial orifices. his home environment consists of a small plantation of marijuana and a cesspool beside it. his AC unit is also contaminated with bacteria, which tests to be Legionaires. Zets have reason to test this bacteria as well as Scientists, so the playing field is level. simultaneously, he gains cortical blindness and increased sensitivity to pain. one of the visiting family members (non related by blood) comes down with the initial symptoms, but rapidly progresses faster than the original patient...what the heck do Zets do? There are over 10 possibilities to test for, but not enough evidence to swing either way. They cannot create a hypothesis like the scientists, so wat do? solving for what type of substance/organism the cause might be will allow you to narrow the range well enough to test and treat within the time constraint.

12

The Lounge / .Net forum

« on: June 20, 2010, 11:36:21 PM »

what exactly is the point to the .net forum, and why does it exist?

13

Suggestions & Concerns / Mod bias

« on: May 17, 2010, 09:11:48 AM »

Ok, I had a conversation in Blue Moon's thread:

Blue Moon: Well, I'm done with this place. Have fun trolling the locals reasonable-folk!

Thevoiceofreason: I'm sorry your stay was so short, I'll be here defending the Internetz and the World tho.
take care

Parsifal: What exactly are you defending them from?

Thevoiceofreason: trolls

James: Do not make low content posts in these forums, consider this an official warning.

It is my belief that certain members of TFES are internet trolls. And I'm here to debate with them, like most RE'ers are. So how exactly was this post low content? it was an answer to a question. was i supposed to not respond or lie? or rather state it more directly like "people who claim false things as science and spread said opinion on the internet"?

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Noob question: what keeps the air and light on the earth?

« on: May 14, 2010, 11:36:44 PM »

what keeps air from falling off of the face of the earth?
What keeps light from falling to the ground?
earth goes upwards at y"(t)=9.8, and light from a laser parallel to earth travels at x'(t)=c
therefore after 100 second has elapsed, the earth has a height of 49km above light which is still at 0

15

Flat Earth General / Axes to FET (synergy edition)

« on: May 08, 2010, 04:15:35 PM »

ok, so I've been compiling a list of reasons why the Earth is round, not flat, which I'm calling the Axes to FET.
Do any RE'rs have any edits or do any FE's have any definitive arguments against them? I think these three and Ellipses thing on
magnetic fields are pretty solid evidence.

here they are

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=37819.0
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38533.0
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38726.0

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Axes to FES Part 3

« on: May 04, 2010, 06:55:23 PM »

ok nobody has successfully ended Part 1 and 2, which can be found here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=37819.0
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38533.0


So I think its time for the 3rd blade:

When I first considered the flat earth thing a year back, I wondered how might a sphere differ from a disk? well the answer lies within the realm of geometry: on a sphere, a ray or vector will eventually reach its origin, aka if you go west enough you'll find where east was.

Now according to the FET map on the FAQ page, Sydney should be quite a ways from Santiago, Chile, correct?  When looking at that same map Juneau seems to be about halfway between. Therefore a flight from Santiago to Juneau should take considerably less time than a flight from Santiago to Sydney.

However, in reality, they take much longer.

Your average Santiago-Juneau flight would be about 27 hrs.
 
http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=fexp&flag=q&city1=SCL&citd1=JNU&time1=720&time2=720&cAdu=1&cSen=0&cChi=0&cInf=&infs=2&date1=10/09&date2=10/16&&rdct=1

Yet, Santiago to Sydney flights take  about 18hrs

http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=fexp&flag=q&city1=SYD&citd1=SCL&time1=720&time2=720&cAdu=1&cSen=0&cChi=0&cInf=&infs=2&date1=10/09&date2=10/16&&rdct=1

It matters not which points I picked, just take a diameter from the faq and and pick three nearly collinear cities, and repeat the calculation. Explain how this works, and don't just shout conspiracy, private jets exist, and you could easily use an odometer and compass to test this.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Axes to FET Part 2

« on: April 25, 2010, 10:20:14 PM »

One working theory I've heard of the horizon effect is bendy light or electromagnetic acceleration.
 This accounts for the sinking ship effect and Bedford level stuff.


The problem with it is the math. When a force is enacted on something, it undergoes acceleration proportional to that force.
aka F=MA
UA tells of a force that is equal for all parts of flat earth, and constant. If you have constant force, you have constant acceleration. therefore any mass or beam of light should follow a quadratic path.
 
The problem with FET, is that reality requires light to move in a circular path. Why is this?  Take two points that would be opposite each other on a round earth. No matter how high up you get, you will never be able to see the other point.

On a flat earth however you would. Imagine that a laser is pointed parallel to the earth, in the direction of this other point. If the acceleration in the up-down direction is constant, then at some height, you will be able to see this light.


And this key, because it shows were the annoying symmetry of bendy light theory with a round earth breaks down.
light would have to bend in a quadratic because of the aforementioned reasons, but the round earth follows a circular curve

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Axes to FES: Part 1

« on: April 08, 2010, 05:41:58 AM »

I'm back...

On Round Earth, things fall, because the earth has mass. However if you go high enough, you have less gravity due to Newton’s inverse square law: F=G*m1*m2/r^2 with r being distance to the center of mass. Also, if you go in a canyon, you also have less gravity, because there is stuff above you to pulling you. Finally, in you are over a dense part of the earth, such as over rock instead of water, you will have more gravity, because you are closer to denser parts of the earth. How does this work under FET, which predicts even acceleration?
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Sources-
Gravity varies on different parts of the earth.  This coincides with both altitude and geography
Source from Cornell- http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=465
measured results http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Earth%27s_gravity

and if you don't trust the Americans, here's a Swede's 2 cents:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/askExperts/ae111.cfm

Better yet http://science.howstuffworks.com/missing-gravity.htm
And BTW

It can be measured to more than 5 decimal places for you lovers of accuracy
http://www.geol.lsu.edu/Faculty/Nunn/gl4062/chp6.htm
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28263

19

Flat Earth Debate / Axes to FET

« on: December 21, 2009, 05:52:14 AM »

Here's a list of reasons why FET fails, enjoy
no razor's or personal attacks, but solid proof of discrepancies
Universal acceleration:
On Round Earth, things fall, because the earth has mass.
If you go high enough, you have less gravity due to Newton’s inverse square law: F=G*m1*m2/r^2 with r being distance to the center of mass.
If you go in a canyon, you also have less net gravitational force, because there is stuff above you pulling you upwards.

If you are over a dense part of the earth, such as over rock instead of water, you will have more gravity, because you are closer to denser parts of the earth.
Essentially, acceleration is never constant. How does this work under FET, which predicts a constant acceleration?

Sources-
Gravity varies on different parts of the earth.  This coincides with both altitude and geography
Source from Cornell- http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=465

and if you don't trust the Americans, here's a Swede's 2 cents:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/askExperts/ae111.cfm
Better yet http://science.howstuffworks.com/missing-gravity.htm
And BTW
It can be measured accurately to more than 5 decimal places for you lovers of accuracy
http://www.geol.lsu.edu/Faculty/Nunn/gl4062/chp6.html

EA:
On working model theory of the horizon effect is bendy light or electromagnetic acceleration. This accounts for the sinking ship effect and Bedford level stuff. The problem with it is the math. When a force is enacted on something, it undergoes acceleration proportional to that force, i.e. F=M*A.
EA tells of a force that is equal for all parts of flat earth, and constant. If you have constant force, you have constant acceleration, which means you have quadratic paths for position.
The problem with this is, FE requires light to move in a circular path. Why is this?  Take two points that would be opposite each other on a round earth. No matter how high up you get, you will never be able to see the other point. Now on flat earth, imagine that a laser is pointed parallel to the earth, in the direction of the other city. If the acceleration in the up-down direction is constant, then at some height, you will be able to see this light.

Topology:
Now according to the FET map on the FAQ page, Sydney should be quite a ways from Santiago, Chile, correct?  When looking at that same map Juneau seems to be about halfway between. Therefore a flight from Santiago to Juneau should take considerably less time than a flight from Santiago to Sydney.

However, in reality, they take much longer.

Your average Santiago-Juneau flight would be about 27 hrs.
 
http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=fexp&flag=q&city1=SCL&citd1=JNU&time1=720&time2=720&cAdu=1&cSen=0&cChi=0&cInf=&infs=2&date1=10/09&date2=10/16&&rdct=1

Yet, Santiago to Sydney flights take  about 18hrs

http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=fexp&flag=q&city1=SYD&citd1=SCL&time1=720&time2=720&cAdu=1&cSen=0&cChi=0&cInf=&infs=2&date1=10/09&date2=10/16&&rdct=1


Sunlight:
First of all, in FET the sun has a shining radius of 10,000km or in RET terms, a quarter of the earth’s circumference.
Now, let’s consider the southern hemisphere’s summer solstice. Antarctica receives 24 hours of sunlight during this day as most of you know. In FET, Antarctica surrounds the Earth, and the distance between opposite point on this circle is a gaping 40,000km. So how is a spotlight with radius 10,000km supposed to shine light at the same time on points that are 40,000km away?
Furthermore, how is the FE Sun supposed to shine on the earth in a manner that matches up with time zones? Take the spring equinox for example. At this time, there exists a point where Washington DC, is in sunset, and Hong Kong is in Sunrise. This is true for all areas along their longitude line. If you take the FE map, and outline these sunny areas, you get a semi circle, with the base along the longitude lines. The FE sun however shines light in circles, so if that were the case, there is no way the parts of the earth that do get light would get light.


Magnetic fields:
On the round earth, the inner and outer core of molten spinning metals create a magnetic field, where the north magnetic pole is near the north geographic pole, and the south off the coast of Antarctica, near Australia.
Source:
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/hsw/11959-magnetism-the-earths-magnetic-field-video.htm
Proof of Concept experiment:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p01367q453886834/fulltext.pdf
The first problem is, how is this field created? FET demands the north pole to be near the center, and the south pole in a ring around the earth. It also says that the magnetic field lines of each have to be parallel to each other, since science they are perpendicular to a flat surface. The only object that I can think of that produces such a field would be like a horseshoe magnet rotated around one pole, so that the other forms a ring. How is such a field to be made from the interior of the disk shaped earth? If the disk cores were rotating, the South Pole would be under the earth.
Even if such a field was made, in FET the south magnetic field is supposed to circum navigate the earth in a ring shape. However, in reality the pole has been located at specific point. So FET is inconsistent with observation. And if it is argued that in FET the poles do align where the point 63 S 138E is the south pole, how come if you stand off the coast of Chile, the south pole will be detected south, and not the opposite side of the world to the north?

20

Flat Earth Q&A / A good tool for the sunlight debate.

« on: September 27, 2009, 05:06:36 PM »

PES (planet earth society),

here is a good tool for looking at sunlight distribution.
unfortunately no FES map variations exist.
http://www.die.net/earth/

have fun FES

21

Flat Earth Debate / Earth's Shape and Mass

« on: September 27, 2009, 01:47:16 PM »

however what happens when light is pointed perpendicularly towards the earth?
because in our RE, it would speed up.

Light doesn't speed up in any model. The speed of light (in vacuum) is a universal constant, in accordance with Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism.

Um, yes it does. Ever heard of black holes. and please stop flaunting your status of intelligence. Dude, you don't believe in gravity.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / what about temperature?

« on: September 26, 2009, 03:03:23 PM »

I realize that this might be a noob question,
but how does FET account for the fact that the Russian
summer receives 20 hrs of sunlight,  yet it is colder than
Paris, a place of similar landscape, that receives much less light,
and is warmer.

23

Flat Earth Q&A / A fatal flaw in UA

« on: September 25, 2009, 10:19:26 PM »

well,
I'd like to think the ingenious FE'er Suk Mai Wang, from TRES.net
for bringing up a huge flaw in the Universal Accelerator theory.

Gravity varies on different parts of the Earth

http://theroundearthsociety.net/index.php?topic=142.0

So what exactly causes this?

24

Flat Earth Q&A / how do magnetic fields and the reversal there of work?

« on: September 25, 2009, 02:52:33 PM »

How is the magnetic field of the earth created and how does it fluctuate in FET.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Proof of RET via topology

« on: September 25, 2009, 01:48:40 PM »

Okay I am new to FES, so please bear with me.

Now according to your FET map on the FAQ page, Sydney should be quite a ways from Santiago, Chile, correct?
and when looking at that same map Juneau seems to be about halfway between. Therefore a flight from Santiago to Juneau should take considerably less time than a flight from Santiago to Sydney.

However, in reality, they take much longer.

your avergae Santiago-Juneau flight would be about 27 hrs.
 
http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=fexp&flag=q&city1=SCL&citd1=JNU&time1=720&time2=720&cAdu=1&cSen=0&cChi=0&cInf=&infs=2&date1=10/09&date2=10/16&&rdct=1

yet, santiago to Sydney flights take  about 18hrs

http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=fexp&flag=q&city1=SYD&citd1=SCL&time1=720&time2=720&cAdu=1&cSen=0&cChi=0&cInf=&infs=2&date1=10/09&date2=10/16&&rdct=1


Plz. explain how someone could reach Sydney from Santiago in such a short amount of time.