31

Flat Earth Q&A / PROOF!

« on: June 10, 2006, 12:41:39 PM »

Assuming you didn't have a compass, and you travelled in one constant direction that wasn't north or south, what would you come to?

Depends, what are you using to determine your direction, East on the FE model is a counter clockwise circle.  Is you used the North Star, you would travel in a circle around the center point of the disk, above which the north star hangs.

But as you look at the map, most of the sailing was done near land masses,   he traveled from one point to another, not by sailing "Due West" but in the most effective routes given prevailing winds and currents.

Like most of his contemporary explorers, me was looking for better trades routes.  They work in a flat or spherical earth.

32

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: New'er Question

« on: June 09, 2006, 03:08:24 PM »

Can you guys explain the Aurora Borealis

In a round world it goes something like this

The aurora is a glow observed in the night sky, usually in the polar zone. For this reason some scientists call it a "polar aurora" (or "aurora polaris"). In northern latitudes, it is known as "aurora borealis" which is named after the Roman goddess of the dawn, Aurora and the greek name for north wind, Boreas since in Europe especially, it often appears as a reddish glow on the northern horizon as if the sun were rising from an unusual direction. The aurora borealis is also called the "northern lights". The aurora borealis most often occurs from September to October and March to April. Its southern counterpart, "aurora australis", has similar properties.

It's the Bifrost Bridge.  Odin likes to vist Midgard for Octoberfest.  Frigga likes to see the flowers in the spring.

Don't they teach you people anything about religion these days?

33

Flat Earth Q&A / An Ice Wall Cannot Exist

« on: June 09, 2006, 03:05:59 PM »

I'm not into thread necromancy...but I ask, I can see in a flat earth that the sides would freeze. But how did they get 150 feet tall? That would imply that there was water that high to freeze. Now, with the north and /or south poles, there is a single base that ice can freeze and build around. But with a wide edge, there is no reason why ice would pile up 150ft high....

As water collected on the earth and begen to flow over the edges, as it was exposed to the icy cold of space, the water froze, and air passing over released it's moisture as air will when it cools.  Over millions of years this has built up.  In many ways it is similar to why the poles in a RE are ice bound.

34

Flat Earth Q&A / A Question Concerning Coasts

« on: June 09, 2006, 02:59:36 PM »

Also, as long as: (kinetic energy at the bottom of the hill > potential energy at the top of the hill) the water would not pool at the base of the hill.  No need for high banks, the water would just go over the top.

Not quite, if the kintic energy at the bottom of the hill was greater than the potential energy of the banks, it would also overflow the banks.

But the rivers are not runnining fast enough.  To make the illusion of the horizon between the plains of Colorado and the Rocky Mountains, you would need many miles of river going up hill, the force behind the water to push it up the hill at enough speed to create the effect.

I have been there, I lived in Denver for a while.  The rivers are not that fast.

35

Flat Earth Q&A / How would natural forces create a flat suspended object

« on: June 09, 2006, 02:43:56 PM »

I don't understand how that supports the idea of the Earth being flat. Using your analogy, should the Earth not be breaking into individual pieces? Or did whatever force elongated and flattened it become sentient and decide that that was as far as the Earth should be stretched?

Because at some point before it reached the breaking point it either cooled enough to solidify, or the dark energy began pushing it away from the gravity source, and starting it on it's journey.

36

Flat Earth Q&A / An Ice Wall Cannot Exist

« on: June 09, 2006, 01:12:38 PM »

If there is an Ice Wall, then Global warming is even more a problem than Gore protrays it to be!, if it melts, all of the seas, and possibily the air flow away.

37

Flat Earth Q&A / A problem with your "gravity"

« on: June 09, 2006, 01:10:07 PM »

In any case, I think this latest argument if nothing else ought to convince you that it is relative acceleration and relative velocity that are interesting to us, and not the ill-defined concept of "actual" acceleration.

-Erasmus

But you damn your own theory, for if it only relative acceleration that are interesting to us, than what is the earth accelerating relative to?

38

Flat Earth Q&A / How would natural forces create a flat suspended object

« on: June 09, 2006, 01:02:55 PM »

The Earth's gravitational pull is obviously stronger than the orbit it's traveling in.

Is the centripital force of a rotating pizza stronger than the elastic force of it's dough? No, it's just strong enough to warp it, not rip it apart.

But even if it was so, it only is applicable if the earth was a sphere, if the eath is a disk it would not need to be, if it was, then the earth would be  pulled into whatever gravitational field helped pull it disk shaped, unless something pulled it away form the gravitational source.  Which supports the "Dark Energy" theory of the earth accelerating through space.

39

Flat Earth Q&A / Google earth

« on: June 09, 2006, 12:55:19 PM »

do you notice on google earth, they are all DIRECTLY ABOVE.... since an aeroplane is so low (in comparison to a satellite), it has a much smaller field of view, so you'd have to "sweep" over the landscape in order to photograph every street from straight above.....

plus, you can actually see where the seperate photos are "sewn" together.... much too great an area for an aeroplane, as the photo would get oblique around the edges...

Ummm, how about using a wide angle lens, or taking motion pictures, that you then project back onto a still flat targetgiving you the appearance of a larger area.  The merges would either be where recreated images are joined or faked to give the appearance of joined pictures.

And who said that the imagaes could not be taken but a rocket with a camera flying anywhere below the 3000 mile dome of the sky?

What proves they were taken by an orbital craft?

40

Flat Earth Q&A / sattelite anyone?

« on: June 09, 2006, 10:53:04 AM »

many other larger countries that dont have the FCC, like china, also have tons of sattelites in space. why would there be a reason for conspiracy in a place like that? surely they wouldnt lie to their people and tell them the world is flat

Becasue it gives the government a convient way to explain large expenditures, such a satilites that they really don't have to send the money on?  China would have an easier time controlling the information than we do.

41

Flat Earth Q&A / How would natural forces create a flat suspended object

« on: June 09, 2006, 10:48:34 AM »

Yes, a planet is a cluster of particles. Particles which are compacted into a solid. I don't see where you have an argument. That's like debating whether there's even such a thing as a "solid." Everything can be broken down.

As the particles are pulling together, if the oject is spinning and subjected to tidal forces, it should end up like a pizza pie.

42

Flat Earth Q&A / The Bible!

« on: June 09, 2006, 10:44:23 AM »

Doubter wrote:
If you are an FE, then how would all of the plates drift off the disk?

Who said they would?

There is another forum I was diccussing this in where your FE was debating this with me, and the information you have given me here is totally refuting the "evidence" you had in the other post

I believe it was called "continental drift anyone?"

I haven't posted information there, All I did was state that if the world is coming to an end in a few million years and we can't get off of it by then, maybe we deserve to die out.

I have in several places posted about "Space" phenomina that are disk shaped, from Galaxies to planetary rings, even the solar system that RE's believe in in essentially a disk.  Nature only creates spheres when no other influence is added.

Take a molten globe, spin it slightly and it will start to flatten out, add tidal pull towards it's primary, and it should flatten more.  The faster the spin, and the stronger the tidal pull, the flatter it becomes.

43

Flat Earth Q&A / How would natural forces create a flat suspended object

« on: June 09, 2006, 10:28:48 AM »

A galaxy isn't one single hunk of mass. It's a cluster of stars, planets, and so on. Why would it be a sphere?

And a planet isn't a solid thing, It's a cluster of Molecules, Particles and so on.  At the sub atomic level, it's mostly nothing.  It's just a quesion of scale.

Under RE theories, both are formed pretty much the same way, gravity causes the smaller bits to gather around a more massive center.  The earth has a dense core, probably of iron, galaxies has a central core, probably of black holes.

As I said elsewhere with my Pizza reference,  all you need is a little spin to cause nature to form elongated object,  only without any othe influenct will you get a sphere.

44

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Air Travel, distance and flight speed

« on: June 09, 2006, 10:16:06 AM »

Why is it that passenger planes making this flight do not create a sonic boom?  In order to cover that much distance in such a short time, the plane would have to be travelling somewhere near mach 2.

Well, before airplanes take off, and after they land, they are not moving with respect to the atmosphere.  Assuming their velocities are, at all points except the beginning and end of the flight, smooth functions of time, then for some interval of time after takeoff and before landing, they must be moving at sub-Mach speeds with respect to the atmosphere.

I.e., they're travelling below the speed of sound for at least some portion of their flight.  Turns out that, both by nature and by statute, they are travelling below the speed of sound while over populated areas.

The people on board the plane would still experience the boom, probably terminally considering how the nose of a conventional passenger plane is designed.

If you can guarantee (you have not yet rigorously done so) that the airplane must at some point in its flight fly faster than sound, then presumably at that point it will create a sonic boom.

So, what are you questioning, that (according to the FE model) it is 15,000 miles from Chile to New Zealand (the commercial flight is actually longer since you can see the ice pack for a good portion of the flight, and a direct flight on the FE map spends most of its time near the equator), that it takes 13 hours to fly there, or that you must travel faster than the speed of sound to cover that distance in that time?

Since airlines are considered part of the conspiracy, I can think of several ways to get around this one.

The speed of sound varies with the density of the air, Fly in thin enough air, and the speed of sound is not an issue.  Of course that means that the jet engines of the air craft that do this must contain rockets or something, but not being a jet mechanic south of the equator, I wouldn't know.

45

Flat Earth Q&A / How would natural forces create a flat suspended object

« on: June 09, 2006, 09:26:32 AM »

Yes, I have seen galaxies, through telescopes, that appeared to me to be distinctly nonspherical.  While observing the galaxy, I was in a region of the universe that contained the galaxy, so yes, I guess you could say that I was there.

Good try, Erasmus, but everyone knows that the "galaxy" you're viewing through a telescope, assuming that telescopes even work properly, is really just the way the human eye perceives light emitted from the Sun.

Next you'll be trying to tell us that the Earth is flat.

If you assume that the world is round, and try to assert that must be because a flat object is eventually puilled into a round shape, it is likely to assume that you also believe in the RE assertion of modern astronomy wich includes various shapes of galixies, which tend towards variations of disks, which would seem to contradict the original assertion that gravity must tend to pull everything in to a ball.  

Also for the RE's there's the rings of Saturn to explain if things must form balls.

46

Flat Earth Q&A / A problem with your "gravity"

« on: June 09, 2006, 08:54:28 AM »

What exactly is it, basically, that is waving in an electromagnetic wave?

But those things you listed are the ways of demonstraiting the wave aspects of light.

The nodal patterns are a simple way of calculating the wavelengths of light.  Take a glass slide, coat it with paint, cut two parallel lines of a known distance (two razor blades held together, measure the thickness with a mirometer and divide by two)  Project a laser throughthe slits at a known distance onto a screen, measure the distance between the nodal patterns and divide the distance betwwen the slits by the distance to the projection.  (It least I think that was how we did it, Physics class was many years ago.)

What is the medium?  Perhaps Space/time itself, at least that's what some of the theories state, perhaps something outside of our four dimentions, as string theory suggests. Maybe Photons provide their own medium, which is why light acts as both particle and wave. Or perhaps you can have a wave without a medium after all.  As far as I know, this is one of those issues that people much more learned than we, have played with for more than a century without a diffinitive answer.

47

Flat Earth Q&A / The Bible!

« on: June 09, 2006, 08:17:26 AM »

The bible is gods word, if you dont belive in the bible you might aswell not believe in god.

Which Bible? Even the typical "Old Test"s don't agree, and vary greatly from the Torah, which they are supposed to be derived from.

How about the books that were not included?  Do you understand the history behind the Bible?  How it was composed and compiled?

And don't even get me started about the translations....

you admit that the wording is ambiguous.  It could mean circle or sphere.  you  decided which translation to accept, which "Expert" to listen to.  for thousands of years, that's how it has gone.  First the torah, then the bibles, people chose what words to accept, which writtings to include.

One can believe in Jehovah, without believing in "The Bible", One can believe in Christ, without accepting the Bible as the absolute truth, just ask any Moslem.

Any Many of us beleive in a Divinity that isn't limited to Jehovah.  Am I Godless because I believe in something different than you?

</soapbox>  

If the people who post on this site relied only on belief, there wouln't be much to talk about.  What is the differenc ebetween saying "I believe in God, and he made the world <Round/Flat/Trapiziod/whatever>" and "I believe the world is <...>"  it's not about belief, or truth, or reality,  can you support your beleif with supportable facts and will illustraited theories?

48

Flat Earth Q&A / The Bible!

« on: June 09, 2006, 07:59:28 AM »

If you are an FE, then how would all of the plates drift off the disk?

Who said they would?

Luke_smith64 : Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:27 am

49

Flat Earth Q&A / A problem with your "gravity"

« on: June 08, 2006, 08:08:41 PM »

If we were at a steady speed the waves would hit us in a regular frequency.  As we accelerate towards the source the waves hit us more frequently, thus the blue shift.

I can't really picture this unless I imagine the waves as being deformations of some medium.

That's why light is so special.  Some even tried to reassert the idea of "ether" to exlpain who light can travel through vacuum, and still behave like a wave.

50

Flat Earth Q&A / A Question Concerning Coasts

« on: June 08, 2006, 08:03:47 PM »

Like I said, there can be an interveening hill.

Not unless the banks of the river are as high as the top of the hill, or the velocity of the water is grerat enough to force it up and over, and if you've travelled in Colorado you have had a good chance to see several rivers where neither of these conditions could occur.

51

Flat Earth Q&A / continental drift anyone?

« on: June 08, 2006, 07:58:25 PM »

so you believe (and me too) that in the end we'll have moved to a diffrent planet. hopefully by that time we'll have found the secret to immortality so that when we leave on the space shuttle, all you dumb people will relize your wrong  

Or right.  We may need to really boost out tech by then, to break through the dome of the sky and escape into whatever is beyond.

52

Flat Earth Q&A / sattelite anyone?

« on: June 08, 2006, 07:55:24 PM »

Yes, but I'm not in the US. You can't tell me that the FCC is in charge of the Ivory Coast, or such tin pot places.

And yes, the dynamics would change, surely that shows that the limited range is indicitive of the earth being round?

How?  it shows that different formats have different ranges.  This could be due to the physical nature of broadcast, or to interference transmissions by the conspiracy.

If the "Tin Pot Place" is so backward, then it isn't an issue is it?  If it is sufficiently advance then it would be absorbed by the conspiracy, prehaps threatened.  Maybe that's what really happened in Iraq.

53

Flat Earth Q&A / The Bible!

« on: June 08, 2006, 07:47:06 PM »

So by stating that you do nto believe in god, you are admitting in millions of years, we will all die because of A) continental plates faalling off the earth, or B) the sun exploding

so then what is the purpose of life might i ask

And before your posting, no one said they didn't believe in god, just not in the Bible.

I for one believe in a plethera of them, but no book can do them justice, nor is my faith bound to any single tome.

54

Flat Earth Q&A / The Bible!

« on: June 08, 2006, 07:44:01 PM »

So by stating that you do nto believe in god, you are admitting in millions of years, we will all die because of A) continental plates faalling off the earth, or B) the sun exploding

so then what is the purpose of life might i ask

To dance the best dance you can.

To live and learn and experience.

If you believe in the RE, then why wouldn't we find a way off this earth, and build our home out there someplce in the millions of years left to us.

If you are an FE, then how would all of the plates drift off the disk?  They would all have to go south, if they go east or west then they just go around in a circle (much like on the round earth.  If they drift south they might hit the ice wall, making the conspiracy really hard put to hide it.

55

Flat Earth Q&A / Lots of questions (I read the FAQ)

« on: June 08, 2006, 06:49:14 PM »

The difference is, we have PROOF of gravity. We have so so so much proof of the round .....EDIT: You want me to explain gravity? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
Read up. We need no explanation of why it exists, we know fully that it DOES exist and that's enough to prove the earth is round.

Ok, I never denied the existance of gravity, and if you read around you will see that I have argued against the acceleration theory, I was just calling you on the statement you made that  "We can explain Gravity"

We can describe gravity, but no one from Newton to Einstein to Hawkins has really explained it.

To support a flat earth, one has to challenge an assumption made about gravity the is based on the idea of a round earth, that is that gravitational attraction is to center mass.   In a Flat earth one could assume that gravitation attracts to the bottom of the earth.  Proving that gravity goes to center mass is rather hard, if you can not assume a round earth.

Even with the general idea of gravity attracting to center mass, concentrations of great mass can change the direction of the pull.  A flat earth with an underside of great mass, that is properly distributed would give the effect of a "Down" consistant with our experience.

56

Flat Earth Q&A / An Ice Wall Cannot Exist

« on: June 08, 2006, 06:30:57 PM »

except only one of us can be telling the truth.  that would be me.

Actually, that does not have to be the only out come.  Both could be telling the truth.  Both could be telling untruth.  As Indian Jones would say "If you want Truth, philosophy is down the hall".

But we aren't really dealing with truth here, Provable facts and experiments, theroies and ways to test them.

As has been pointed out several times, all one has to do is take off for space, or travel south to the pole and continue north to the other side of the world.  But to do it, and prove it was done...that is the rub.

57

Flat Earth Q&A / sattelite anyone?

« on: June 08, 2006, 06:23:29 PM »

Ah, naturally. But how tall? And where? I know for a fact that after 200km you lose radio reception from the tallest towers here. Do we have pictures, any data about these towers? Towers that would need to be widespread and at least 1/2 a km high?

If the world is flat the dinamic of radio broadcast would change.  A tower on top of a mountain would have extreem range, depending on wavelength and power.  The FCC helps dictate who can broadcast at what frequency and wattage.  The FCC is part of the government.

Satilite broadcast mearly has to use more effective broadcasting.

High altitude pictures can be composite form high altitude aircraft.

They are clues, but not proof.

58

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Bible!

« on: June 08, 2006, 06:17:29 PM »

"There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) The Hebrew word chugh, here translated "circle," may also be rendered "sphere."3 Other Bible translations read, "the globe of the earth" (Douay Version) and "the round earth."—Moffatt.

 7 "He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing"

You really expect us to take seriously a book that talks about a God living around in space, and Heaven as a place floating around above the earth.  

If that was the case, does heaven completely enclose the earth, or just the parts above His chosen ones?  

At best heaven and the dwelling of God use above as a metaphor for an existance beyond the reach of physical man.  Or does God move every time we extend the reach of our space program.

59

Flat Earth Q&A / continental drift anyone?

« on: June 08, 2006, 03:39:20 PM »

so then what happens in that time period? what is at the end of it all? we all die? that doesnt seem very nice hey

If we are still stuck on one planet after all that time, knowing that it will eventually happen, we sort of deserve to die out.  All hail Darwin!!

60

Flat Earth Q&A / A Question Concerning Coasts

« on: June 08, 2006, 03:35:56 PM »

If you're on land you're going to have a tough time proving it's not just a hill. This is why the ocean has been adopted as the official backdrop for the conversation.

You never answer why the effect occurs with the Rocky Mountains.  I can prove there's no hill, because water flows from the mountains down to the plains.  If you are down stream, there can't be an interposing hill.

There can be a hill, as long as it is not as high as the source of the water.  As long as the potential energy of the water at the start of the stream is higher than the potential energy of the water at the top of any interveening hill.

The banks of the river before the hill would have to be as high as the hill or the water would pour over the bank rather than over the hill.  With the exception of limited and extreem conditions (such as a "haystack" in white water or a glacier being forced over something) , water does not flow up hill, but goes to the lowes energy level it can find.