The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Lorddave on April 27, 2010, 02:55:43 PM
-
Yep, I want you to post all holes you see the Round Earth Theory.
The current list posted:
Dark Matter isn't properly explained.
NASA hasn't sent humans to Mars yet.
-
If the Earth were round, people in Australia would all be upside-down! They'd have to tether themselves to the ground to keep from falling off!
-
If the Earth were round, people in Australia would all be upside-down! They'd have to tether themselves to the ground to keep from falling off!
Serious posts please...
-
If the Earth were round, people in Australia would all be upside-down! They'd have to tether themselves to the ground to keep from falling off!
No, they wouldn't because of gravity. So stop being a retard
-
I was being facetious. On this forum, it's understandably difficult to tell a joke from an actual crazy belief. Considering the FE'ers don't believe in gravity, I figured I'd go ahead and get out the first thing I predicted they'd say.
-
I was being facetious. On this forum, it's understandably difficult to tell a joke from an actual crazy belief. Considering the FE'ers don't believe in gravity, I figured I'd go ahead and get out the first thing I predicted they'd say.
Sorrrry. Its just because you'd think that the crap they believe in is a joke, but its not, so you can't joke. Ever. Period.
-
Oh and If I don't get any serious FE responses in 2 days, I will declare that FET is much less likely than RET, cementing my victory over FET.
Then there will be cake. Round Cake!
-
*Whistling.* Hm, no responses. ???
-
Oh and If I don't get any serious FE responses in 2 days, I will declare that FET is much less likely than RET, cementing my victory over FET.
Then there will be cake. Round Cake!
PIE, YOU FOOL!
Well..... ah......yeah.... this is.... going well for FES.
-
Gravity.
The impossibility of space exploration.
-
Gravity.
The impossibility of space exploration.
Difficult, not impossible.
-
Gravity.
The impossibility of space exploration.
Difficult, not impossible.
Indeed, it only needs to be overcome with something of this nature -
(http://whatigotsofar.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/chp_rocket.jpg)
-
Gravitation does not diminish with altitude.
Fortreana
-
Gravitation does not diminish with altitude.
Fortreana
Correct!
The effect of gravity from a specific source, however, does change with distance.
;D
Gravity.
The impossibility of space exploration.
Why?
If I can jump up that means that Gravity can be overcome. The harder I push down, the higher I jump. Thus, all I need is enough thrust and I can overcome gravity for a long period of time. And if the equations are accurate, gravity's effect on an object decreases with distance.
-
Gravity.
The impossibility of space exploration.
Difficult, not impossible.
Indeed, it only needs to be overcome with something of this nature -
(http://whatigotsofar.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/chp_rocket.jpg)
Gravity and space exploration are two separate problems. If we've put so many robots on Mars, why not people? Why no attempts for further afield? Given that you don't need more fuel when you're in space there's no reason not to.
-
Gravity.
The impossibility of space exploration.
Difficult, not impossible.
Indeed, it only needs to be overcome with something of this nature -
(http://whatigotsofar.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/chp_rocket.jpg)
Gravity and space exploration are two separate problems. If we've put so many robots on Mars, why not people? Why no attempts for further afield? Given that you don't need more fuel when you're in space there's no reason not to.
There are two reasons.
The first being cost and benefit. The cost is significant. The benefit is nothing more than fame and that won't get us far.
The second issue is that robots and people eat different things. Robots can eat solar energy. Humans need something a bit more solid. Not to mention you'd have to have a crew of people in a smallish space for months at a time with no decent contact with anyone else. Even being on a submarine isn't nearly as bad since you can stop at port and you have a lot more crew to talk to.
But yeah: robots have very few needs compared to Humans. Sure we could do it but could we do it well enough to be almost certain that no one would die?
-
So you're saying the problem is that we haven't mastered food storage technology, or long-distance communication?
-
Explain Dark Matter.
-
So you're saying the problem is that we haven't mastered food storage technology, or long-distance communication?
Nope.
I'm saying that We'd have to pack enough food for 2 years (give or take), enough water for 2 years (with recycling), deal with the time delay as we get farther and farther out, bring some kind of habitat that will function without a problem for 6 months, bring enough spare parts in case something goes wrong, and have a crew that's psychologically capable of dealing with the same 4 people for 2 years confined in what could be considered a small house.
Oh and we have to pay for it.
Expalin Dark Matter.
What does Dark Matter have to do with the shape of the Earth?
-
Whoa, whoa. We need to get two years worth of food/water and working equipment? And find astronauts that like each other?
This is a truly vast expense! Why, NASA would need to save up for a whole hour to get this!
-
Expalin Dark Matter.
What does Dark Matter have to do with the shape of the Earth?
It has to do with Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Do you claim that RET has nothing to do with the theory of gravitation?
-
Whoa, whoa. We need to get two years worth of food/water and working equipment? And find astronauts that like each other?
This is a truly vast expense! Why, NASA would need to save up for a whole hour to get this!
Oh purchasing the supplies aren't the problem. Tell me, how big of a storage area would you need to store all that?
Expalin Dark Matter.
What does Dark Matter have to do with the shape of the Earth?
It has to do with Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Do you claim that RET has nothing to do with the theory of gravitation?
Well since Dark Matter really only applies when you try to answer why the universe is expanding I fail to see why it applies to the shape of the Earth. Round or Flat Dark Matter would have to exist if the Universe was accelerating in it's expansion. And since observations by astronomers are ground based on this, the shape of the planet, again, doesn't factor in.
However if you want me to explain it, I'm afraid I can't because I don't have that information. I'm a computer expert, not an astrophysicist.
I will point you to the Wiki though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
-
Whoa, whoa. We need to get two years worth of food/water and working equipment? And find astronauts that like each other?
This is a truly vast expense! Why, NASA would need to save up for a whole hour to get this!
Oh purchasing the supplies aren't the problem. Tell me, how big of a storage area would you need to store all that?
That's why taking 2 years worth of food is a stupid idea. The better solution is to grow most of the food during the mission.
-
Expalin Dark Matter.
What does Dark Matter have to do with the shape of the Earth?
It has to do with Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Do you claim that RET has nothing to do with the theory of gravitation?
Well since Dark Matter really only applies when you try to answer why the universe is expanding I fail to see why it applies to the shape of the Earth. Round or Flat Dark Matter would have to exist if the Universe was accelerating in it's expansion. And since observations by astronomers are ground based on this, the shape of the planet, again, doesn't factor in.
Dark Matter has nothing to do with the supposed expansion of the Universe. Try again.
However if you want me to explain it, I'm afraid I can't because I don't have that information. I'm a computer expert, not an astrophysicist.
I will point you to the Wiki though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Why don't you try reading it yourself. Also:
Yep, I want you to post all holes you see the Round Earth Theory.
You're welcome.
-
I am not discussing the issues I posted with RET. I was under the assumption that you were compiling a list.
Gravitation does not dimension with altitude ( obviously altitude above the earth.) RET claims it does.
-
Whoa, whoa. We need to get two years worth of food/water and working equipment? And find astronauts that like each other?
This is a truly vast expense! Why, NASA would need to save up for a whole hour to get this!
Oh purchasing the supplies aren't the problem. Tell me, how big of a storage area would you need to store all that?
That's why taking 2 years worth of food is a stupid idea. The better solution is to grow most of the food during the mission.
Shh, this is fun.
So the problem is real estate? Can't they knock through a wall and get a fuel tank extension? Since these robots can be powered by sunshine and unicorn farts, surely we can make a similar rocket that can overcome the gravity you understand so well but are yet, as a community, to explain.
EDIT: And this would make more room for this pantry/hydroponic farm, maybe a pool table too.
-
I still don't understand what Dark Matter has to do with the shape of the Earth but ok, I'll count it.
And also count it for Flat Earth since gravity exists there too.
I am not discussing the issues I posted with RET. I was under the assumption that you were compiling a list.
Gravitation does not dimension with altitude ( obviously altitude above the earth.) RET claims it does.
I kinda am but so far the list is... well it's vague at best.
Both are gravity based and Dark Matter doesn't seem to apply to the Earth's shape directly. Indirectly perhaps but not directly.
Oh and we have "Why aren't we at Mars" which, again, is Shape independent.
And please explain what you mean by gravitation. Do you mean the force of Gravity on an object doesn't change with altitude? Or that gravity exists?
Whoa, whoa. We need to get two years worth of food/water and working equipment? And find astronauts that like each other?
This is a truly vast expense! Why, NASA would need to save up for a whole hour to get this!
Oh purchasing the supplies aren't the problem. Tell me, how big of a storage area would you need to store all that?
That's why taking 2 years worth of food is a stupid idea. The better solution is to grow most of the food during the mission.
Shh, this is fun.
So the problem is real estate? Can't they knock through a wall and get a fuel tank extension? Since these robots can be powered by sunshine and unicorn farts, surely we can make a similar rocket that can overcome the gravity you understand so well but are yet, as a community, to explain.
EDIT: And this would make more room for this pantry/hydroponic farm, maybe a pool table too.
I'm not understanding your question here. Are you asking why they can't make a space ship the size of a small office building?
-
As I recall we've been doing that for decades. Unless there's been some miniaturization breakthrough while my back was turned.
-
One cannot measure a difference in g at higher altitudes when one considers local geography.
-
One cannot measure a difference in g at higher altitudes when one considers local geography.
???
-
I am not discussing the issues I posted with RET. I was under the assumption that you were compiling a list.
Gravitation does not dimension with altitude ( obviously altitude above the earth.) RET claims it does.
Then why in the blue Hell do your 32 mile wide sun and moon, floating at 3000 miles above Earth not come crashing down if the gravity at 3000 miles up is the same as it is at sea level?
-
Sliver, gravity doesnt exist. I forget what holds them up, but the force keeping us down is the flat earth spiraling upwards at breakneck speed but we are held at position. I cant for the life of me remember I need to re-read the FAQ.
But on the topic of why the bloody hell we haven't gone to the moon again or sent people to mars.
During our trip to the moon a number of issues happened, some minor. A few very minor AMOUNT of major problems also happened. It also cost the US an arm and a leg and the whole state of Texas and Florida combined or so such. AKA, It cost alot.
The only gain we get from going to Mars is bragging rights, a few possible scientific leaps ahead. And that's about all I can list right now seeing as my head hurts from getting jogged in the jaw. (MMA/UFC Style Sparring/Grappling.)
Now, your going to have to understand some Round Earth style reasoning's as we understand your FE style reasoning's to understand the difficulties in going to mars/moon.
The Debt the US has right now is real, and Obama doesnt feel like funding NASA. NASA wanted to go to the moon again in 2011 (Or 2013 I think.) and asked for the funding in '09, Obama declined said funding seeing as it would have been somewhat wasteful of our money at the time.
Now, the SUPPLIES aren't the issue. The Technology to make the vehicle that is capable of holding Humans for extended periods of time, the fuel for such a trip. The cargo hold or bay for said growing or holding of food, and the air supply and protection (From solar rays, mini asteroids, possible technological malfunctions that always happen.) and workout areas for the crew and millions of other minor and major things required for such a trip are costly beyond belief. The required work is also quite the wall. A simple orbit around the earth is a sweat-filled task even. The Shuttle is a very high tech piece of machinery that has alot of maintenance. And they are aging and are planned to be put down (Decommissioned as the shuttles are going to hopefully be replaced by a new vehicle.) in 2011 or late '010.
I hope this at least helps you understand, and again if any of my points are wrong point them out to me, I have a minor headache and my jaw hurts from getting punched and my thoughts may not be clear.
-
Gravitation does not dimension with altitude ( obviously altitude above the earth.) RET claims it does.
The force of gravity becomes weaker with distance between masses. Agreed? Altitude is just the distance between the you and the Earth. Ergo, the force of gravity between you and the Earth should diminish with altitude, and this is indeed what we observe experimentally.
-
Whoa, whoa. We need to get two years worth of food/water and working equipment? And find astronauts that like each other?
This is a truly vast expense! Why, NASA would need to save up for a whole hour to get this!
Dude, quit being a douche bag. The issues he mentioned aren't the only ones that prevent manned missions as of yet. The problems of zero gravity affecting humans' health is another big issue. Organ size diminishes over time when in zero g and it is difficult to find ways to keep fit in outer space. Also, the problems of shielding people from solar radiation comes into play when out in space for years.
I know you think you are being funny or witty, but you just look dumb.
-
The technology currently exists to send people to Mars and return them safely to Earth. The actual tools, financing and commitment, however, currently do not.
-
Whoa, whoa. We need to get two years worth of food/water and working equipment? And find astronauts that like each other?
This is a truly vast expense! Why, NASA would need to save up for a whole hour to get this!
Dude, quit being a douche bag. The issues he mentioned aren't the only ones that prevent manned missions as of yet. The problems of zero gravity affecting humans' health is another big issue. Organ size diminishes over time when in zero g and it is difficult to find ways to keep fit in outer space. Also, the problems of shielding people from solar radiation comes into play when out in space for years.
I know you think you are being funny or witty, but you just look dumb.
Simulating G is easy, as is radiation shielding.
-
Whoa, whoa. We need to get two years worth of food/water and working equipment? And find astronauts that like each other?
This is a truly vast expense! Why, NASA would need to save up for a whole hour to get this!
Dude, quit being a douche bag. The issues he mentioned aren't the only ones that prevent manned missions as of yet. The problems of zero gravity affecting humans' health is another big issue. Organ size diminishes over time when in zero g and it is difficult to find ways to keep fit in outer space. Also, the problems of shielding people from solar radiation comes into play when out in space for years.
I know you think you are being funny or witty, but you just look dumb.
Simulating G is easy, as is radiation shielding.
Well, it looks like the FES has found it's NASA spy! The general obviously knows more about the subject than the numerous scientists surrently in NASA's employ.
-
Whoa, whoa. We need to get two years worth of food/water and working equipment? And find astronauts that like each other?
This is a truly vast expense! Why, NASA would need to save up for a whole hour to get this!
Dude, quit being a douche bag. The issues he mentioned aren't the only ones that prevent manned missions as of yet. The problems of zero gravity affecting humans' health is another big issue. Organ size diminishes over time when in zero g and it is difficult to find ways to keep fit in outer space. Also, the problems of shielding people from solar radiation comes into play when out in space for years.
I know you think you are being funny or witty, but you just look dumb.
Simulating G is easy, as is radiation shielding.
Enlighten us on how this is easy, please. You MUST be a scientist to obviously be able to simulate gravity.
Maybe you should work for NASA.
..Alright sorry for snapping, but REALLY? I mean come on, it is NOT easy at all. Please tell us how to simulate gravity and if you can tell us well hot damn you better go work for NASA and become an insider.
-
Whoa, whoa. We need to get two years worth of food/water and working equipment? And find astronauts that like each other?
This is a truly vast expense! Why, NASA would need to save up for a whole hour to get this!
Dude, quit being a douche bag. The issues he mentioned aren't the only ones that prevent manned missions as of yet. The problems of zero gravity affecting humans' health is another big issue. Organ size diminishes over time when in zero g and it is difficult to find ways to keep fit in outer space. Also, the problems of shielding people from solar radiation comes into play when out in space for years.
I know you think you are being funny or witty, but you just look dumb.
Simulating G is easy, as is radiation shielding.
Enlighten us on how this is easy, please. You MUST be a scientist to obviously be able to simulate gravity.
Maybe you should work for NASA.
..Alright sorry for snapping, but REALLY? I mean come on, it is NOT easy at all. Please tell us how to simulate gravity and if you can tell us well hot damn you better go work for NASA and become an insider.
Have you ever heard of a centrifuge? NASA has.
-
Whoa, whoa. We need to get two years worth of food/water and working equipment? And find astronauts that like each other?
This is a truly vast expense! Why, NASA would need to save up for a whole hour to get this!
Dude, quit being a douche bag. The issues he mentioned aren't the only ones that prevent manned missions as of yet. The problems of zero gravity affecting humans' health is another big issue. Organ size diminishes over time when in zero g and it is difficult to find ways to keep fit in outer space. Also, the problems of shielding people from solar radiation comes into play when out in space for years.
I know you think you are being funny or witty, but you just look dumb.
Simulating G is easy, as is radiation shielding.
Enlighten us on how this is easy, please. You MUST be a scientist to obviously be able to simulate gravity.
Maybe you should work for NASA.
..Alright sorry for snapping, but REALLY? I mean come on, it is NOT easy at all. Please tell us how to simulate gravity and if you can tell us well hot damn you better go work for NASA and become an insider.
Have you ever heard of a centrifuge? NASA has.
Thats not making gravity in space, unless he meant actually simulating its affects. I believe he meant making artificial gravity in space so your not floating around. Which I dont believe we have mastered, simulating? Yes of course we have. But perhaps he should have clarified what form of simulated gravity.
-
Whoa, whoa. We need to get two years worth of food/water and working equipment? And find astronauts that like each other?
This is a truly vast expense! Why, NASA would need to save up for a whole hour to get this!
Dude, quit being a douche bag. The issues he mentioned aren't the only ones that prevent manned missions as of yet. The problems of zero gravity affecting humans' health is another big issue. Organ size diminishes over time when in zero g and it is difficult to find ways to keep fit in outer space. Also, the problems of shielding people from solar radiation comes into play when out in space for years.
I know you think you are being funny or witty, but you just look dumb.
Simulating G is easy, as is radiation shielding.
Enlighten us on how this is easy, please. You MUST be a scientist to obviously be able to simulate gravity.
Maybe you should work for NASA.
..Alright sorry for snapping, but REALLY? I mean come on, it is NOT easy at all. Please tell us how to simulate gravity and if you can tell us well hot damn you better go work for NASA and become an insider.
Have you ever heard of a centrifuge? NASA has.
Thats not making gravity in space, unless he meant actually simulating its affects. I believe he meant making artificial gravity in space so your not floating around. Which I dont believe we have mastered, simulating? Yes of course we have. But perhaps he should have clarified what form of simulated gravity.
Of course, when I said simulating gravity I meant actually magicking gravity into existence out of thin air. That makes perfect sense.
-
Perhaps we both had an issue of miscommunication? Besides, whats the point of mentioning the centrifuge, what does it have to do with long distance spaceflight besides the training regiments?
-
Perhaps we both had an issue of miscommunication? Besides, whats the point of mentioning the centrifuge, what does it have to do with long distance spaceflight besides the training regiments?
I was being sarcastic, what I said was perfectly clear and you're just hiding behind it to look like less of a retard. Simulating gravity prevents muscle/organ atrophy and helps the astronauts adjust.
-
Perhaps we both had an issue of miscommunication? Besides, whats the point of mentioning the centrifuge, what does it have to do with long distance spaceflight besides the training regiments?
I was being sarcastic, what I said was perfectly clear and you're just hiding behind it to look like less of a retard. Simulating gravity prevents muscle/organ atrophy and helps the astronauts adjust.
Yes, I know this, and I know I look like a retard and wont mind it as I obviously misunderstood your post and continued too until I re-read it and got embarassed. But I'm actually not, I was just wondering if you actually meant putting a centrifuge into space. That would be quite the wall to climb over for NASA, possible. But again, the resources and funding would be needed.
-
Gravitation does not dimension with altitude ( obviously altitude above the earth.) RET claims it does.
The force of gravity becomes weaker with distance between masses. Agreed? Altitude is just the distance between the you and the Earth. Ergo, the force of gravity between you and the Earth should diminish with altitude, and this is indeed what we observe experimentally.
The Earth is an infinite plane so it does not diminish with altitude and this is what is seen experimentally.
-
Having the ship rotate would be enough, no specialised equipment would be needed beyond careful design.
-
Having the ship rotate would be enough, no specialised equipment would be needed beyond careful design.
Having the ship rotate to cause similar effects a centrifuge causes? If you want to copy the gravity a centrifuge causes it would have to be rotating rather fast. Unless you mean a speciliazed room inside the ship that rotates on the floor which may be easier. But still, again. They dont even have funding to create new shuttles, otherwise they probally would do something similar to that for a journey. And this is only one of many things they would need.
-
Having the ship rotate would be enough, no specialised equipment would be needed beyond careful design.
Having the ship rotate to cause similar effects a centrifuge causes? If you want to copy the gravity a centrifuge causes it would have to be rotating rather fast. Unless you mean a speciliazed room inside the ship that rotates on the floor which may be easier. But still, again. They dont even have funding to create new shuttles, otherwise they probally would do something similar to that for a journey. And this is only one of many things they would need.
They get $17b/a, which seems to be enough for them to build these manned fireworks they're sending up.
-
Having the ship rotate would be enough, no specialised equipment would be needed beyond careful design.
Having the ship rotate to cause similar effects a centrifuge causes? If you want to copy the gravity a centrifuge causes it would have to be rotating rather fast. Unless you mean a speciliazed room inside the ship that rotates on the floor which may be easier. But still, again. They dont even have funding to create new shuttles, otherwise they probally would do something similar to that for a journey. And this is only one of many things they would need.
They get $17b/a, which seems to be enough for them to build these manned fireworks they're sending up.
Where did you get their income? Because to launch a single shuttle its 400 million or so and it cost 1.7 billion to make them. For a ship the size and complexity your talking of I will give a rough estimate of..oh say. 20 billion for all of the necessities. Now this is a complete guess myself.
And really where ARE you getting that income from? Because Obama has been slacking down in their funding alot.
-
The Earth is an infinite plane so it does not diminish with altitude and this is what is seen experimentally.
Hmm, you're either honestly misguided or are being wrong on purpose, though I'm not sure which. Are you saying the equation for universal gravitation is incorrect, and that gravity between objects DOESN'T weaken with the distance between them? Is this just one of your "it's true because I say so no matter how many experiments demonstrate otherwise" things that we're just supposed to accept without question, disbelieving our own eyes?
Shout-out to another thread: "the compass points the same way." Right. Keep trying to repeat this nonsense until somebody believes you.
-
I just put the current list up on the first post.
I don't agree that any of them break or even have a problem with Round Earth Theory but hey, whatever you say.
-
I just put the current list up on the first post.
I don't agree that any of them break or even have a problem with Round Earth Theory but hey, whatever you say.
Its not that NASA hasnt gone to mars, we have, rovers. Its that HUMANS appearantly werent sent to mars.
-
I just put the current list up on the first post.
I don't agree that any of them break or even have a problem with Round Earth Theory but hey, whatever you say.
Its not that NASA hasnt gone to mars, we have, rovers. Its that HUMANS appearantly werent sent to mars.
I'm just saying that were RE true, space travel would be a lot easier than they seem to be finding it.
-
As far as Infinite Planes go, Gravitational pull does not diminish with distance. Using Gauss's Law in relation to Gravitational Pull:
(http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/2513/latexw.gif)
I suggest you review the squared inverse relationship.
I will not be replying to you further.
The Earth is an infinite plane so it does not diminish with altitude and this is what is seen experimentally.
Hmm, you're either honestly misguided or are being wrong on purpose, though I'm not sure which. Are you saying the equation for universal gravitation is incorrect, and that gravity between objects DOESN'T weaken with the distance between them? Is this just one of your "it's true because I say so no matter how many experiments demonstrate otherwise" things that we're just supposed to accept without question, disbelieving our own eyes?
Shout-out to another thread: "the compass points the same way." Right. Keep trying to repeat this nonsense until somebody believes you.
-
I will not be replying to you further.
Because the force of gravity between two masses (and I doubt you'd deny that the Earth has mass) DOES decrease exponentially with distance?
-
I am not discussing the issues I posted with RET. I was under the assumption that you were compiling a list.
I'm done arguing with a bigot child. You are no longer worth my time.
-
We're also not talking about an infinite plane. We're talking about the Earth.
And please stop with the low-content posts.
Side note: compass thread.
-
We're also not talking about an infinite plane. We're talking about the Earth.
And please stop with the low-content posts.
Side note: compass thread.
The Earth is an infinite slab.
This is your warning to stop member moderating.
-
I just put the current list up on the first post.
I don't agree that any of them break or even have a problem with Round Earth Theory but hey, whatever you say.
Its not that NASA hasnt gone to mars, we have, rovers. Its that HUMANS appearantly werent sent to mars.
I'm just saying that were RE true, space travel would be a lot easier than they seem to be finding it.
It is, its just we -dont have the funding-.
If NASA had continous non-stop funding with at least 5-6 billion a month they would do everything you've stated. But they dont have that much. At most they have 5-6 billion a year. (Estimation.)
-
If the Earth is round, how can a lunar eclipse occur in broad day light?
If the Earth is round, why does the Conspiracy harass everyone who tries to investigate it?
If the Earth is round, why was John Davis not allowed inland into Antarctica?
If the Earth is round, which way is up?
-
If the Earth is round, how can a lunar eclipse occur in broad day light?
If the Earth is round, why does the Conspiracy harass everyone who tries to investigate it?
If the Earth is round, why was John Davis not allowed inland into Antarctica?
If the Earth is round, which way is up?
1.There are no Lunar Eclipses in broad daylight. I have not seen one, I have seen no reports. And alot of investigation today brought no evidence.
2.There is no Conspiracy they dont harass anyone.
3.Probally because there was a scientific research being done or he never went there.
4.This is the stupidest of them all but there is no 'up' technically gravity keeps us all in place and up is anywhere above your head.
-
If the Earth is round, which way is up?
Which way is left? Point to it. Go ahead. Now get a person to face a different direction than you, and tell them to point left. Notice how they point in a different direction? They have a different reference frame. If you stand on your head, which way is up?
-
I just put the current list up on the first post.
I don't agree that any of them break or even have a problem with Round Earth Theory but hey, whatever you say.
Its not that NASA hasnt gone to mars, we have, rovers. Its that HUMANS appearantly werent sent to mars.
I'm just saying that were RE true, space travel would be a lot easier than they seem to be finding it.
It is, its just we -dont have the funding-.
If NASA had continous non-stop funding with at least 5-6 billion a month they would do everything you've stated. But they dont have that much. At most they have 5-6 billion a year. (Estimation.)
They get 17.6 billion a year (Statement of fact) and that's plenty for them to built it slowly.
-
1.There are no Lunar Eclipses in broad daylight. I have not seen one, I have seen no reports. And alot of investigation today brought no evidence.
You have not seen any reports either because you are wildly lazy about this issue or massively inexperience with science. I suspect both. You have not seen a DLE in all probability because you have not lived long enough to witness one in your area.
2.There is no Conspiracy they dont harass anyone.
They have harassed me extensively.
3.Probally because there was a scientific research being done or he never went there.
John Davis is a scientific researcher. What you mean is that there was globularist scientific research going on there. Why would they send him away if they had nothing to hide?
4.This is the stupidest of them all but there is no 'up' technically gravity keeps us all in place and up is anywhere above your head.
This is proof that you are utterly permeated with the globularist dogmas. It is a sickening testament to the mind-control school system which is poisoning our youth with science-fiction fantasies of gravitons and alien planets and space ships.
If the Earth is round, which way is up?
Which way is left? Point to it. Go ahead. Now get a person to face a different direction than you, and tell them to point left. Notice how they point in a different direction? They have a different reference frame. If you stand on your head, which way is up?
If I stand on my head, up is still up. My head is down, and my feet are up.
-
If I stand on my head, up is still up. My head is down, and my feet are up.
Your head is "down?" So you define up as towards the sky and down as towards the ground? Fair enough. If it's the case that the Earth is roughly spherical and gravity pulls us towards the center, then "up" in reference frame A is clearly defined. "Up" in reference frame B is also clearly defined. If A and B are different reference frames, the "up" of one doesn't apply to the other.
-
If I stand on my head, up is still up. My head is down, and my feet are up.
Your head is "down?" So you define up as towards the sky and down as towards the ground? Fair enough. If it's the case that the Earth is roughly spherical and gravity pulls us towards the center, then "up" in reference frame A is clearly defined. "Up" in reference frame B is also clearly defined. If A and B are different reference frames, the "up" of one doesn't apply to the other.
how about gyrocompass?
-
If the Earth is round, how can a lunar eclipse occur in broad day light?
It doesn't.
If the Earth is round, why does the Conspiracy harass everyone who tries to investigate it?
They don't (because they don't exist).
If the Earth is round, why was John Davis not allowed inland into Antarctica?
Bad weather.
If the Earth is round, which way is up?
Up is in a direction most convenient to the observer, but often in a direction opposing the gravitational vector.
Thanks for taking part.
-
We're also not talking about an infinite plane. We're talking about the Earth.
And please stop with the low-content posts.
Side note: compass thread.
The Earth is an infinite slab.
This is your warning to stop member moderating.
I'm going to wipe this one off the list then.
We're talking about RET holes, not "Things that don't make sense when you mix FET with RET". In Round Earth Theory the Earth is NOT an infinite plane.
And how could you know it's infinite if you haven't traveled it?
Oh and BTW:
"Up is opposite direction to the strongest source of gravity relative to you."
-
We're also not talking about an infinite plane. We're talking about the Earth.
And please stop with the low-content posts.
Side note: compass thread.
The Earth is an infinite slab.
This is your warning to stop member moderating.
I'm going to wipe this one off the list then.
We're talking about RET holes, not "Things that don't make sense when you mix FET with RET". In Round Earth Theory the Earth is NOT an infinite plane.
And how could you know it's infinite if you haven't traveled it?
Oh and BTW:
"Up is opposite direction to the strongest source of gravity relative to you."
I am in a free fall. Which way is up?
-
If I stand on my head, up is still up. My head is down, and my feet are up.
Your head is "down?" So you define up as towards the sky and down as towards the ground? Fair enough. If it's the case that the Earth is roughly spherical and gravity pulls us towards the center, then "up" in reference frame A is clearly defined. "Up" in reference frame B is also clearly defined. If A and B are different reference frames, the "up" of one doesn't apply to the other.
Up is the same everywhere in the universe. I don't see the point in inventing directions which change depending on where you are, when there are perfectly good directions which don't.
If the Earth is round, how can a lunar eclipse occur in broad day light?
It doesn't.
How do you explain empirical data to the contrary? Even normal globularists agree they occur, it is only globular fundamentalists like yourself who would deny such a straightforwardly empirical fact in order to preserve your faulty believe system.
If the Earth is round, why does the Conspiracy harass everyone who tries to investigate it?
They don't (because they don't exist).
They have harassed me and several of my colleagues on our bold quest to discover the truth.
If the Earth is round, why was John Davis not allowed inland into Antarctica?
Bad weather.
John is a very intrepid man, this is not a valid reason.
If the Earth is round, which way is up?
Up is in a direction most convenient to the observer, but often in a direction opposing the gravitational vector.
So you believe that up is made up then? Is up mind-dependant?
-
We're also not talking about an infinite plane. We're talking about the Earth.
And please stop with the low-content posts.
Side note: compass thread.
The Earth is an infinite slab.
This is your warning to stop member moderating.
I'm going to wipe this one off the list then.
We're talking about RET holes, not "Things that don't make sense when you mix FET with RET". In Round Earth Theory the Earth is NOT an infinite plane.
And how could you know it's infinite if you haven't traveled it?
Oh and BTW:
"Up is opposite direction to the strongest source of gravity relative to you."
I am in a free fall. Which way is up?
Still in the direction of the strongest source of gravity relative to you.
So if you're in free fall, it would be the path directly towards the center of the Earth. (assuming you're in free fall near, on, or within the atmosphere of the Earth)
In Orbit you're in free fall but you're also traveling forward. This causes you to move along the curvature of the Earth instead of moving away from it or towards it.
-
How do you explain empirical data to the contrary? Even normal globularists agree they occur, it is only globular fundamentalists like yourself who would deny such a straightforwardly empirical fact in order to preserve your faulty believe system.
Nope. Daylight eclipses can occur, close to sunrise and sunset, when the moon is close to the horizon. This is not broad daylight. The reason for such eclipses occuring is well within the bounds of RET.
They have harassed me and several of my colleagues on our bold quest to discover the truth.
Sure. It has nothing to do with RET.
John is a very intrepid man, this is not a valid reason.
Intrepidity is not the issue.
So you believe that up is made up then? Is up mind-dependant?
Up is an abstract concept prone to simple rules of relativity. It has nothing to do with RET.
-
We're also not talking about an infinite plane. We're talking about the Earth.
And please stop with the low-content posts.
Side note: compass thread.
The Earth is an infinite slab.
This is your warning to stop member moderating.
I'm going to wipe this one off the list then.
We're talking about RET holes, not "Things that don't make sense when you mix FET with RET". In Round Earth Theory the Earth is NOT an infinite plane.
And how could you know it's infinite if you haven't traveled it?
Oh and BTW:
"Up is opposite direction to the strongest source of gravity relative to you."
I am in a free fall. Which way is up?
Still in the direction of the strongest source of gravity relative to you.
So if you're in free fall, it would be the path directly towards the center of the Earth. (assuming you're in free fall near, on, or within the atmosphere of the Earth)
In Orbit you're in free fall but you're also traveling forward. This causes you to move along the curvature of the Earth instead of moving away from it or towards it.
So, you are saying that I can decompose my acceleration vector uniquely and determine each component. Nice.
-
The weather appeared fine to me by all accounts. As far as not attempting to go there, I sent a postcard from the tip of South America to a member here as well as provided photographic evidence and posted here from the ship (which can be verified by any moderator that wants to check the ip of my posts.)
-
We're also not talking about an infinite plane. We're talking about the Earth.
And please stop with the low-content posts.
Side note: compass thread.
The Earth is an infinite slab.
This is your warning to stop member moderating.
I'm going to wipe this one off the list then.
We're talking about RET holes, not "Things that don't make sense when you mix FET with RET". In Round Earth Theory the Earth is NOT an infinite plane.
And how could you know it's infinite if you haven't traveled it?
Oh and BTW:
"Up is opposite direction to the strongest source of gravity relative to you."
I am in a free fall. Which way is up?
Still in the direction of the strongest source of gravity relative to you.
So if you're in free fall, it would be the path directly towards the center of the Earth. (assuming you're in free fall near, on, or within the atmosphere of the Earth)
In Orbit you're in free fall but you're also traveling forward. This causes you to move along the curvature of the Earth instead of moving away from it or towards it.
So, you are saying that I can decompose my acceleration vector uniquely and determine each component. Nice.
Of course you can.
You may find that some directions are 0 but there's no reason why you can't have an X,Y, and Z vector component.
The weather appeared fine to me by all accounts. As far as not attempting to go there, I sent a postcard from the tip of South America to a member here as well as provided photographic evidence and posted here from the ship (which can be verified by any moderator that wants to check the ip of my posts.)
Well the post card can only be backed up by a supporter so that's biased.
The photographic evidence really only shows that you went to South America and even then it would have to be something unique to South America.
The post from the ship however says nothing. IP addresses can be faked by posting via Proxy server. Nor does the location trace mean much. I can trace my IP address and, depending on the trace program, end up either in New York or Washington State. You'd have to do a whois to find the owner of the server the IP address originated from then find the address of the server based on the owner.
They don't divide Class A IP addresses geographically.
-
Please enroll in an elementary Physics course at your local High School.
-
The weather appeared fine to me by all accounts.
It wasn't your call to make. They cancelled a flight. You said it was for "honest reasons", and "a coincidence". This is old ground John. You not being allowed onto Antarctica for whatever reason is not a hole in RET.
-
The weather appeared fine to me by all accounts. As far as not attempting to go there, I sent a postcard from the tip of South America to a member here as well as provided photographic evidence and posted here from the ship (which can be verified by any moderator that wants to check the ip of my posts.)
Well the post card can only be backed up by a supporter so that's biased.
Perhaps, but it I made care to send it to a non-moderator RE supporter. Granted, she is now a moderator.
The photographic evidence really only shows that you went to South America and even then it would have to be something unique to South America.
I have several pictures of South America that are unique to South America including the rimmost tip.
The post from the ship however says nothing. IP addresses can be faked by posting via Proxy server. Nor does the location trace mean much. I can trace my IP address and, depending on the trace program, end up either in New York or Washington State. You'd have to do a whois to find the owner of the server the IP address originated from then find the address of the server based on the owner.
They don't divide Class A IP addresses geographically.
It actually traces to the boat companies server. From there one can simply look up the schedule for said boat.
I can never prove 100% to you that I went there, but the evidence I provided I feel is above what is reasonable.
I posted during the trip, provided photographs, and sent a postcard. Above that, I don't see what else should be expected.
-
The weather appeared fine to me by all accounts.
It wasn't your call to make. They cancelled a flight. You said it was for "honest reasons", and "a coincidence". This is old ground John. You not being allowed onto Antarctica for whatever reason is not a hole in RET.
There was no reports of bad weather at the time too.
I like to believe it was honest and a coincidence, but I still have my doubts.
-
The issue that I wish listed is that gravitational pull is not measured differently when one takes into account local geography at higher altitudes.
This is explained in all FETs and not RET.
It should be listed.
Me not being allowed into the Antarctic clearly isn't an issue with RET and should not be listed as Crustinator rightly notes.
-
If the Earth is round, how can a lunar eclipse occur in broad day light?
Please provide at least one documented case where a total lunar eclipse has been observed with both the sun and totally eclipsed moon more than a few degrees above the horizon.
If the Earth is round, why does the Conspiracy harass everyone who tries to investigate it?
Who is everyone?
If the Earth is round, why was John Davis not allowed inland into Antarctica?
I don't know, I wasn't there. And neither were you.
If the Earth is round, which way is up?
The opposite direction of down.
-
2.There is no Conspiracy they dont harass anyone.
They have harassed me extensively.
I have had similar experiences. Again, I tend to like to think that it was all a coincidence and honest mistakes, but it gets harder and harder to believe it as the evidence racks up.
-
2.There is no Conspiracy they dont harass anyone.
They have harassed me extensively.
I have had similar experiences. Again, I tend to like to think that it was all a coincidence and honest mistakes, but it gets harder and harder to believe it as the evidence racks up.
If you could please define who exactly harassed you and how they did. It could, for all we know. Have been pranksters that tried to scare you. Its not uncommon with you two's wild views on earth and science.
James, I wont even touch the rest of your post as Markjo and Crustinator did well enough.
-
Please enroll in an elementary Physics course at your local High School.
1. I work at my local High School.
2. I passed both NYS Regents physics AND college physics with calculus with high marks none the less.
3. Want me to decompose your vector? Here you go:
Let's say you are in free fall with no movement except directly down, like you jumped out of a helicopter (yes I know they can't go that high).
So your acceleration is 9.8m/s^2 down. That can be broken into X = 0, Y = 9.8m/s^2, Z = 0
Working against you is drag. Drag varies with velocity, surface area, and resistance of the medium. As your velocity increases the drag also increases. Once Drag, which is a force, becomes equal to your weight, the acceleration vector becomes 0 and you're in terminal velocity.
So unless I'm mistaking the definition of "decomposing vectors", I don't see the problem here.
-
2.There is no Conspiracy they dont harass anyone.
They have harassed me extensively.
I have had similar experiences. Again, I tend to like to think that it was all a coincidence and honest mistakes, but it gets harder and harder to believe it as the evidence racks up.
If you could please define who exactly harassed you and how they did. It could, for all we know. Have been pranksters that tried to scare you. Its not uncommon with you two's wild views on earth and science.
James, I wont even touch the rest of your post as Markjo and Crustinator did well enough.
I would not be surprised if it was indeed bigotry from round earthers. With Microsoft teaching everyone to despise us, the media slamming us every chance it gets and the general populace going along for the ride these kind of things do happen.
On the other hand, it could be an honest mistake. I choose to believe that it was a mistake or coincidence as there is little I could do if it was indeed bigotry or the conspiracy. Its far more productive to fight the good fight than cry about the conspiracy or people.
The list is long and for reasons I've stated inconclusive. I don't see any need for me to drudge this up.
-
Quite, I wouldnt be surprised if it was in fact Round Earthers. For now I need to go eat my dinner as I'm starving.
Be back sometime later, hm?
-
3. Want me to decompose your vector? Here you go:
Let's say you are in free fall with no movement except directly down, like you jumped out of a helicopter (yes I know they can't go that high).
So your acceleration is 9.8m/s^2 down. That can be broken into X = 0, Y = 9.8m/s^2, Z = 0
It can also be decomposed as:
one vector with <2, 4.6, 0>
another vector with <-2, 4.6, 100>
and a third vector with <0, 0, -100>
Out of the three. The third one has the biggest magnitude. So, according to your definition, down is in that direction.
-
The issue that I wish listed is that gravitational pull is not measured differently when one takes into account local geography at higher altitudes.
Sorry this makes no sense at all.
We've been over it a thousand times.
Gravity varies measurably with altitude. Gravity varies measurably with local geology.
That is to say, two locations can be be at the same altitude, but have different local geology, resulting in different gravity (or gravitation). Likewise two locations can have the same geology but have different altitudes, resulting in different gravity (or gravitation)
You can't use one to negate the other. Not without evidence.
Regardless, your proposition does not (or would not) present a hole in RET, merely make FET conform with RET.
-
The issue that I wish listed is that gravitational pull is not measured differently when one takes into account local geography at higher altitudes.
Sorry this makes no sense at all.
We've been over it a thousand times.
Gravity varies measurably with altitude. Gravity varies measurably with local geology.
That is to say, two locations can be be at the same altitude, but have different local geology, resulting in different gravity (or gravitation). Likewise two locations can have the same geology but have different altitudes, resulting in different gravity (or gravitation)
You can't use one to negate the other. Not without evidence.
Regardless, your proposition does not (or would not) present a hole in RET, merely make FET conform with RET.
I've seen no experimental evidence that shows that gravitation is less with altitude, yet see again and again that it is the same.
-
3. Want me to decompose your vector? Here you go:
Let's say you are in free fall with no movement except directly down, like you jumped out of a helicopter (yes I know they can't go that high).
So your acceleration is 9.8m/s^2 down. That can be broken into X = 0, Y = 9.8m/s^2, Z = 0
It can also be decomposed as:
one vector with <2, 4.6, 0>
another vector with <-2, 4.6, 100>
and a third vector with <0, 0, -100>
Out of the three. The third one has the biggest magnitude. So, according to your definition, down is in that direction.
You'll have to excuse me for not following your math since I'm not very mathematically inclined.
Exactly how do you decompose the down vector like that?
-
3. Want me to decompose your vector? Here you go:
Let's say you are in free fall with no movement except directly down, like you jumped out of a helicopter (yes I know they can't go that high).
So your acceleration is 9.8m/s^2 down. That can be broken into X = 0, Y = 9.8m/s^2, Z = 0
It can also be decomposed as:
one vector with <2, 4.6, 0>
another vector with <-2, 4.6, 100>
and a third vector with <0, 0, -100>
Out of the three. The third one has the biggest magnitude. So, according to your definition, down is in that direction.
You'll have to excuse me for not following your math since I'm not very mathematically inclined.
Exactly how do you decompose the down vector like that?
Decomposing a vector means representing it as a sum of several other vectors. If the vectors are given in Cartesian coordinate form, then vector addition means adding coordinate by coordinate. In this way, you can check that the three vectors sum up to a vertically down vector (y-axis oriented vertically down). If nothing else is specified, vector decomposition is an ambiguous operation. But, you already knew that, didn't you?
-
I've seen no experimental evidence that shows that gravitation is less with altitude, yet see again and again that it is the same.
Strange. I think your account has been hached.
Yes, gravity does vary with altitude somewhat, due to the heavens, local differences in geography, etc.
-
I've seen no experimental evidence that shows that gravitation is less with altitude, yet see again and again that it is the same.
The difference in the force of gravity at differing altitudes is incredibly slight but still definitely measurable. What are you expecting? To go to the top floor of a building and bounce around like you're on the moon?
-
I've seen no experimental evidence that shows that gravitation is less with altitude, yet see again and again that it is the same.
Strange. I think your account has been hached.
Yes, gravity does vary with altitude somewhat, due to the heavens, local differences in geography, etc.
Apologies, I stated incorrectly. Gravity does not vary due to altitude by virtue of altitude alone.
-
Gravity does not vary due to altitude by virtue of altitude alone.
So what's the gravity up where the moon, sun and stars are?
-
Altitude is distance from the surface of the Earth. Distance is involved in the law of universal gravitation. Therefore, altitude is involved in the force of gravity felt between an observer and the Earth. You saying it isn't is just denying an easily observed fact. It's not a hole in the RE idea. It's a hole in your understanding.
-
3. Want me to decompose your vector? Here you go:
Let's say you are in free fall with no movement except directly down, like you jumped out of a helicopter (yes I know they can't go that high).
So your acceleration is 9.8m/s^2 down. That can be broken into X = 0, Y = 9.8m/s^2, Z = 0
It can also be decomposed as:
one vector with <2, 4.6, 0>
another vector with <-2, 4.6, 100>
and a third vector with <0, 0, -100>
Out of the three. The third one has the biggest magnitude. So, according to your definition, down is in that direction.
You'll have to excuse me for not following your math since I'm not very mathematically inclined.
Exactly how do you decompose the down vector like that?
Decomposing a vector means representing it as a sum of several other vectors. If the vectors are given in Cartesian coordinate form, then vector addition means adding coordinate by coordinate. In this way, you can check that the three vectors sum up to a vertically down vector (y-axis oriented vertically down). If nothing else is specified, vector decomposition is an ambiguous operation. But, you already knew that, didn't you?
I suppose I should say the net force and not vector since vector implies a single force in a single direction shouldn't I?
-
They have harassed me extensively.
Oh yeah? The only reason I can see is because you have mental issues because you think the moon emits its own light and that you are a werewolf. This thread is so derailed.
-
Well, the topic is asking for problems with the idea of a round Earth. Only one has been proposed, and it failed utterly. I think we're waiting for another at the moment.
-
Well, the topic is asking for problems with the idea of a round Earth. Only one has been proposed, and it failed utterly. I think we're waiting for another at the moment.
I still think that the only reason someone would harass James is because he is an idiot. And try going to Antarctica again sometime, John Davis. I'm wetty wure wu were wahassed wike Wames.
-
Well, the topic is asking for problems with the idea of a round Earth. Only one has been proposed, and it failed utterly. I think we're waiting for another at the moment.
I still think that the only reason someone would harass James is because he is an idiot. And try going to Antarctica again sometime, John Davis. I'm wetty wure wu were wahassed wike Wames.
Going to Antarctica is not a trivial task that I can do everyday. I am not a rich man.
-
Well, the topic is asking for problems with the idea of a round Earth. Only one has been proposed, and it failed utterly. I think we're waiting for another at the moment.
I still think that the only reason someone would harass James is because he is an idiot. And try going to Antarctica again sometime, John Davis. I'm wetty wure wu were wahassed wike Wames.
Going to Antarctica is not a trivial task that I can do everyday. I am not a rich man.
So how much did it cost you on your first time attempt?
-
Well, the topic is asking for problems with the idea of a round Earth. Only one has been proposed, and it failed utterly. I think we're waiting for another at the moment.
I still think that the only reason someone would harass James is because he is an idiot. And try going to Antarctica again sometime, John Davis. I'm wetty wure wu were wahassed wike Wames.
Going to Antarctica is not a trivial task that I can do everyday. I am not a rich man.
So how much did it cost you on your first time attempt?
I'd rather not get into my personal finances. However, I will say it is not something I can do every weekend ::).
-
Going to Antarctica on a Cruise this Fall.
Will report on what I see.
If it truly exists it backs up Lord Wilmores cliamn that it is a separte continent. (I which I believe)
-
Going to Antarctica on a Cruise this Fall.
Will report on what I see.
If it truly exists it backs up Lord Wilmores cliamn that it is a separte continent. (I which I believe)
Indeed, I saw nothing to discredit that it is a distinct continent, however that doesn't say anything about the layout of the rest of the continents.
I'd also love to get info about sunrise/set times during your trip to add to my data set. Though be careful not to just use the ones printed in ships daily news and instead record them manually. If its not much trouble.
-
So, JD, how would Antarctica look on a map if it does turn out to be a distinct continent? I'm not sure if you're of those who think it's a distinct ring around the edge, but it certainly raises a few questions.
-
If you sail around Antarctica, that does not reject any of the models of being a ring around the World or a separate continent.
-
So, JD, how would Antarctica look on a map if it does turn out to be a distinct continent? I'm not sure if you're of those who think it's a distinct ring around the edge, but it certainly raises a few questions.
I imagine it would just be off from the outer ring. I can't say though, thats just a guess.
-
Now I'm very curious. If you observed the geographic south pole, walked towards it, passed it, and continued on long enough to find that you were suddenly going north, would you conclude that you existed for a moment around the entire edge of the disk before suddenly appearing on it's opposite side? Or would you claim fault in that your walking path might not have been completely straight, and conclude that you had quickly walked those apparently thousands of miles around half the circumference of the disk to show up on its opposing side? Or would you conclude that the Earth is spherical?
-
Now I'm very curious. If you observed the geographic south pole, walked towards it, passed it, and continued on long enough to find that you were suddenly going north, would you conclude that you existed for a moment around the entire edge of the disk before suddenly appearing on it's opposite side? Or would you claim fault in that your walking path might not have been completely straight, and conclude that you had quickly walked those apparently thousands of miles around half the circumference of the disk to show up on its opposing side? Or would you conclude that the Earth is spherical?
What's a geographic south pole?
-
I'm referring to the Earth's axis that goes through roughly the center of the antarctic continent. I agree we should define our terms, but I have enough faith in you to know the location to which I'm referring when I say "geographic south pole."
-
I'm referring to the Earth's axis that goes through roughly the center of the antarctic continent.
wat?
-
If you sail around Antarctica, that does not reject any of the models of being a ring around the World or a separate continent.
Apart from the massive variation in coastline.
-
wat?
The antarctic point where Earth's lines of longitude converge.
Are you just trolling to troll, or do you honestly have no idea of where I'm talking about?
-
Well so far, there are two items on the list. (3 if you really want to count JD's gravity issue)
This confirms my suspicions:
Flat Earth Theory is nothing more than an attempt to refute a working and functional Round Earth universe by proposing alternate reasons for observed phenomenon.
In other words:
FET is merely an attempt to refute the Round Earth Model.
-
See ENaG for several other issues. ::)
-
See ENaG for several other issues. ::)
You mean, like, with Newtons law?
-
FET is merely an attempt to refute the Round Earth Model.
I had this suspicion as well. It's become rather evident that the FEers think purely in the logical fallacy of confirmation bias. They reject outright any and all evidence contrary to their presupposition, then cling to some scraps of random factoids that may be misconstrued by weak minds as evidence for their case. If I may quote Aronra: the only wonder is how so many people can be so dead wrong about damn-near-everything, one hundred percent of the time, for such a long time, and still believe theirs is the absolute truth.
-
Well so far, there are two items on the list. (3 if you really want to count JD's gravity issue)
This confirms my suspicions:
Flat Earth Theory is nothing more than an attempt to refute a working and functional Round Earth universe by proposing alternate reasons for observed phenomenon.
In other words:
FET is merely an attempt to refute the Round Earth Model.
There are several more in the literature. You'd have to sort out the trash though, which could prove time consuming.
-
Well so far, there are two items on the list. (3 if you really want to count JD's gravity issue)
This confirms my suspicions:
Flat Earth Theory is nothing more than an attempt to refute a working and functional Round Earth universe by proposing alternate reasons for observed phenomenon.
In other words:
FET is merely an attempt to refute the Round Earth Model.
There are several more in the literature. You'd have to sort out the trash though, which could prove time consuming.
How about you mention those then? Apparently you know which they are.
-
If the Earth is round, how can a lunar eclipse occur in broad day light?
If the Earth is round, why does the Conspiracy harass everyone who tries to investigate it?
If the Earth is round, why was John Davis not allowed inland into Antarctica?
1. It doesn't. Ever. See my post in the "Antimoon" thread.
2. It doesn't, because it doesn't exist. Harassment may occur, but there is no evidence that it has anything to do with a Conspiracy any more than it's just people who think you are a weirdo.
3. Could be any number of reasons. Anyway, it makes more sense to have Antarctica at the hub and the North to be the rim around the edge because that explains the presence of manned polar bases, doesn't it? So in fact Davis was trying to visit the Hub not the Rim.
-
...it makes more sense to have Antarctica at the hub and the North to be the rim around the edge because that explains the presence of manned polar bases, doesn't it? So in fact Davis was trying to visit the Hub not the Rim.
I still have yet to hear an explanation from an FEer for why this is the case. We could completely invert the map, having geographical south in the middle and north around the edge, and none of their arguments are altered. The models are completely interchangeable.
-
...it makes more sense to have Antarctica at the hub and the North to be the rim around the edge because that explains the presence of manned polar bases, doesn't it? So in fact Davis was trying to visit the Hub not the Rim.
I still have yet to hear an explanation from an FEer for why this is the case. We could completely invert the map, having geographical south in the middle and north around the edge, and none of their arguments are altered. The models are completely interchangeable.
Yes, in fact there are some merits to having South in the centre as there are permanent Antarctic bases but no permanent Arctic ones.
FE'ers just don't think things through I guess.
Just also like to make it clear that I don't believe either to be the case.
-
See ENaG for several other issues. ::)
Hard to filter out what is junk vs what isn't.
To me, it all seems like junk.
-
There are many small icy islands around the edge of the world. Antarctica is confusing.
-
There are many small icy islands around the edge of the world. Antarctica is confusing.
Ah, but Antarctica isn't around the edge. It's at the hub, isn't it?
-
There are many small icy islands around the edge of the world. Antarctica is confusing.
Ah, but Antarctica isn't around the edge. It's at the hub, isn't it?
No, Antarctica is around the outside of the Earth. The centre of the Earth is called the Arctic.
-
No, Antarctica is around the outside of the Earth. The centre of the Earth is called the Arctic.
What makes you think that? All the same FE arguments still apply perfectly with the antarctic in the center and the arctic around the edge.
-
There are many small icy islands around the edge of the world. Antarctica is confusing.
Ah, but Antarctica isn't around the edge. It's at the hub, isn't it?
No, Antarctica is around the outside of the Earth. The centre of the Earth is called the Arctic.
And your evidence of this would be what?
-
There are many small icy islands around the edge of the world. Antarctica is confusing.
Ah, but Antarctica isn't around the edge. It's at the hub, isn't it?
No, Antarctica is around the outside of the Earth. The centre of the Earth is called the Arctic.
Well since this thread is "holes in RET" and not "FET that doesn't conform to RET" that's irrelevant. In RET Antarctica is not around the outside of the Earth.
-
There are many small icy islands around the edge of the world. Antarctica is confusing.
Ah, but Antarctica isn't around the edge. It's at the hub, isn't it?
No, Antarctica is around the outside of the Earth. The centre of the Earth is called the Arctic.
And your evidence of this would be what?
Exactly the same evidence which shows the Arctit to be the edge and the Antarctic to be the hub.