The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Eratosthenes2 on February 21, 2010, 09:46:13 AM
-
????
what about the rest of our solar system?!
Edit, the post that killed FET like a nuclear bomb. Walked right into my trap like a chicken to the slaughterhouse:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36699.msg910287#msg910287
-
????
what about the rest of our solar system?!
No.
-
but, in order to have gravity, which it does... it must be moving UP... right?!
So if it doesn't follow the same principals... the entire theory falls apart!
(in other words, idiots, if other planetary bodies dont follow the same thing, it means your entire theory is not only flawed, its false. whats worse, is that other planetary bodies cannot be mapped flatly, either because they rotate and we can observe it from earth.)
-
????
what about the rest of our solar system?!
It is flat. Please read Rowbothams spectacular scientific revelation Earth Not a Globe. It is only filled with facts.
-
but, in order to have gravity, which it does... it must be moving UP... right?!
So if it doesn't follow the same principals... the entire theory falls apart!
Oh no! This guy's come up with evidence disproving the Flat Earth Theory! No-one's done that before!
-
????
what about the rest of our solar system?!
It is flat. Please read Rowbothams spectacular scientific revelation Earth Not a Globe. It is only filled with facts.
No. It isnt. it freakin rotates, you can observe that with a telescope and a camera.
You can do it from earth, too. From your back yard, even, if its in the middle of nowhere not near a city. it does not have the same type of orbit the moon does, meaning, we can see the entire surface from earth because of its rotation.
-
No. It isnt. it freakin rotates, you can observe that with a telescope and a camera.
I have searched ENaG for "freakin rotates". 0 results found.
-
No. It isnt. it freakin rotates, you can observe that with a telescope and a camera.
I have searched ENaG for "freakin rotates". 0 results found.
that book is classified as science fiction. it is not a reliable source.
-
also, jupiter is a massive gas giant. it has the mass of a golfball, and due to zero gravity its about a thousand times the size of the earth.
space > your theory.
-
No. It isnt. it freakin rotates, you can observe that with a telescope and a camera.
I have searched ENaG for "freakin rotates". 0 results found.
that book is classified as science fiction. it is not a reliable source.
It is gold plated truth. Take an orange. Paint half black. The earth is flat.
-
No. It isnt. it freakin rotates, you can observe that with a telescope and a camera.
I have searched ENaG for "freakin rotates". 0 results found.
that book is classified as science fiction. it is not a reliable source.
It is gold plated truth. Take an orange. Paint half black. The earth is flat.
That doesn't prove anything.
(my statement, however, does. You can observe mars, and other nearby planets actually physically rotate, if you point a telescopic camera at them during their near-earth pass. No. Really. Try it)
Reason I say telescopic camera, is because, obviously, you don't want to sit outside for a full week, looking at a planet to see it rotate. That technique would allow you to speed the video up and actually watch it happen.
-
No. It isnt. it freakin rotates, you can observe that with a telescope and a camera.
I have searched ENaG for "freakin rotates". 0 results found.
that book is classified as science fiction. it is not a reliable source.
It is gold plated truth. Take an orange. Paint half black. The earth is flat.
That doesn't prove anything.
(my statement, however, does. You can observe mars, and other nearby planets actually physically rotate, if you point a telescopic camera at them during their near-earth pass. No. Really. Try it)
Reason I say telescopic camera, is because, obviously, you don't want to sit outside for a full week, looking at a planet to see it rotate. That technique would allow you to speed the video up and actually watch it happen.
so in RET since earth is round is round does that mean that everything in solar system is round? ar black holes round? round like an orange? in FET i think the earth is special and is flat. as an earth shape agnostic i think thats most likely tjhat it is the only flat object we can observr.
-
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Theflatmarssociety/index.php?act=idx (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Theflatmarssociety/index.php?act=idx)
-
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Theflatmarssociety/index.php?act=idx (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Theflatmarssociety/index.php?act=idx)
Well I guess that's that ;)
-
also, jupiter is a massive gas giant. it has the mass of a golfball, and due to zero gravity its about a thousand times the size of the earth.
space > your theory.
i think your very slightly underestimating the mass of jupiter ;)
although it is made of gas, it has more than 100x more mass than the earth (im not sure the exact number offhand)
-
Actually I am pretty sure that only earth is flat, as it is the center of the universe. Because it is what everything rotates around, the centrifugal force of all that rotation forces the shape of the earth to be flat and as you go out, less solar wind is exerted on the other celestial objects and they can become gradually more spherical, with things on the edges of the universe almost a perfect globe.
-
Actually I am pretty sure that only earth is flat, as it is the center of the universe. Because it is what everything rotates around, the centrifugal force of all that rotation forces the shape of the earth to be flat and as you go out, less solar wind is exerted on the other celestial objects and they can become gradually more spherical, with things on the edges of the universe almost a perfect globe.
You're taking the shape of the earth as a constant. You need it to be the dependant variable. In other words, you need to use other variables/observations to prove the shape of the earth. Not the other way around.
-
i think your very slightly underestimating the mass of jupiter ;)
although it is made of gas, it has more than 100x more mass than the earth (im not sure the exact number offhand)
Which is why it's used as a standard measurement of the mass of extrasolar planets.
True story.
-
Mars is a planet. The Earth is not a planet.
-
Mars is a planet. The Earth is not a planet.
What constitutes a planet?
-
also, jupiter is a massive gas giant. it has the mass of a golfball, and due to zero gravity its about a thousand times the size of the earth.
space > your theory.
i think your very slightly underestimating the mass of jupiter ;)
although it is made of gas, it has more than 100x more mass than the earth (im not sure the exact number offhand)
Mass 1.8986×1027 kg[5], 317.8 Earths, 1/1047 Sun[10]
-
Mars is a planet. The Earth is not a planet.
What constitutes a planet?
Apparently Earth is so important that we are at the center of the universe - so we must be different to those that we see.
Get over yourselves, Earth is minuscule and nobody but us would miss it if it were to vanish.
-
Mars is a planet. The Earth is not a planet.
What constitutes a planet?
Apparently Earth is so important that we are at the center of the universe - so we must be different to those that we see.
Get over yourselves, Earth is minuscule and nobody but us would miss it if it were to vanish.
I would
-
Non euclidean geometry means that every planet can be flat without intersecting. Non euclidean geometry is independent of dimension, and consistent with round earth.
-
Mars is a planet. The Earth is not a planet.
What constitutes a planet?
A celestial body, other than the Sun, Moon and Antimoon, whose position changes relative to the Earth.
-
Mars is a planet. The Earth is not a planet.
What constitutes a planet?
A celestial body, other than the Sun, Moon and Antimoon, whose position changes relative to the Earth.
Like an asteroid or a comet?
-
also, jupiter is a massive gas giant. it has the mass of a golfball, and due to zero gravity its about a thousand times the size of the earth.
???
-
Since you can clearly see a circular disc with features on it when you look at Mars (features which change by the way) then if it were a disc, the flat part would have to always face us. If the Earth is constantly accelerating to simulate gravity, then these too must be accelerating in parallel paths. It seems unlikely that the features of the planets would scroll along the surface the way they do like some gigantic conveyor belt, so it is equally unlikely that they are flat.
-
Mars is a planet. The Earth is not a planet.
You can't be serious. You can't be serious. Youcan'tbeserious.Youcan'tbeserious.Youcan'tbeserious.
-
Mars is a planet. The Earth is not a planet.
You can't be serious. You can't be serious. Youcan'tbeserious.Youcan'tbeserious.Youcan'tbeserious.
LOL, maybe he meant that Mars is A planet and earth is THE planet..
-
but, in order to have gravity, which it does... it must be moving UP... right?!
So if it doesn't follow the same principals... the entire theory falls apart!
(in other words, idiots, if other planetary bodies dont follow the same thing, it means your entire theory is not only flawed, its false. whats worse, is that other planetary bodies cannot be mapped flatly, either because they rotate and we can observe it from earth.)
Mars is round, has gravitation, and is affected by Universal Acceleration. There is no flaw, you're just an idiot.
-
but, in order to have gravity, which it does... it must be moving UP... right?!
So if it doesn't follow the same principals... the entire theory falls apart!
(in other words, idiots, if other planetary bodies dont follow the same thing, it means your entire theory is not only flawed, its false. whats worse, is that other planetary bodies cannot be mapped flatly, either because they rotate and we can observe it from earth.)
Mars is round, has gravitation, and is affected by Universal Acceleration. There is no flaw, you're just an idiot.
So then what's the difference between the Earth and Mars? Both seem to be made of matter and matter causes gravity.
-
matter causes gravity.
First of all, I believe you mean "gravitation". And second, that's a pretty rash statement to be making. Do you have any evidence to support that outlandish claim.
-
matter causes gravity.
First of all, I believe you mean "gravitation". And second, that's a pretty rash statement to be making. Do you have any evidence to support that outlandish claim.
There's no need to use the word "outlandish" every time someone claims something that is not in line with FET. You yourself just stated that Mars has gravitation. Saying that earth has it as well is not nearly outlandish enough to justify using those words to mock his claim.
-
matter causes gravity.
First of all, I believe you mean "gravitation". And second, that's a pretty rash statement to be making. Do you have any evidence to support that outlandish claim.
There's no need to use the word "outlandish" every time someone claims something that is not in line with FET. You yourself just stated that Mars has gravitation. Saying that earth has it as well is not nearly outlandish enough to justify using those words to mock his claim.
That's like saying that since fish can breath underwater, so can humans. So either go into the deep end of the pool with several cinder blocks around your waist, or provide evidence for your claim that matter causes gravity (gravitation).
-
matter causes gravity.
First of all, I believe you mean "gravitation". And second, that's a pretty rash statement to be making. Do you have any evidence to support that outlandish claim.
There's no need to use the word "outlandish" every time someone claims something that is not in line with FET. You yourself just stated that Mars has gravitation. Saying that earth has it as well is not nearly outlandish enough to justify using those words to mock his claim.
That's like saying that since fish can breath underwater, so can humans. So either go into the deep end of the pool with several cinder blocks around your waist, or provide evidence for your claim that matter causes gravity (gravitation).
I could just as easily ask you to show me proof of the universal acceleration nonsense. Could you?
-
I could just as easily ask you to show me proof of the universal acceleration nonsense. Could you?
Here's a fool proof testing method.
1. Get a chair.
2. Stand on chair.
3. Jump off chair.
4. Observe the Earth accelerate towards you.
-
I could just as easily ask you to show me proof of the universal acceleration nonsense. Could you?
Here's a fool proof testing method.
1. Get a chair.
2. Stand on chair.
3. Jump off chair.
4. Observe the Earth accelerate towards you.
Not proof. That shows results, with no explanation of why the results happen. With your proof I could as easily make the claim that if proves that the air is so heavy it pushes us back to the earth.
-
I could just as easily ask you to show me proof of the universal acceleration nonsense. Could you?
Here's a fool proof testing method.
1. Get a chair.
2. Stand on chair.
3. Jump off chair.
4. Observe the Earth accelerate towards you.
Not proof. That shows results, with no explanation of why the results happen. With your proof I could as easily make the claim that if proves that the air is so heavy it pushes us back to the earth.
That test proves that the Earth accelerated towards you. Logically something must be causing that, and we call it "Dark Energy".
-
That test proves that in relation to your position the Earth accelerated towards you.
Fixed. It in no way proves that the accelerating object was you or earth.
-
I could just as easily ask you to show me proof of the universal acceleration nonsense. Could you?
Here's a fool proof testing method.
1. Get a chair.
2. Stand on chair.
3. Jump off chair.
4. Observe the Earth accelerate towards you.
Not proof. That shows results, with no explanation of why the results happen. With your proof I could as easily make the claim that if proves that the air is so heavy it pushes us back to the earth.
That test proves that the Earth accelerated towards you. Logically something must be causing that, and we call it "Dark Energy".
Negative ghostrider...All that test proves is that if you move off the chair you move towards the earth/the earth moves to you. The test does Nothing to prove dark energy. You INTERPRET the facts to be that dark energy exists.
Your proof that the earth rushes up to meet you just as easily proofs that we fall back towards the earth.
-
Negative ghostrider...All that test proves is that if you move off the chair you move towards the earth/the earth moves to you.
Your proof that the earth rushes up to meet you just as easily proofs that we fall back towards the earth.
You clearly failed at performing the experiment. The results do not show the earth is moving towards you, and that you're moving towards the earth.
-
Negative ghostrider...All that test proves is that if you move off the chair you move towards the earth/the earth moves to you.
Your proof that the earth rushes up to meet you just as easily proofs that we fall back towards the earth.
You clearly failed at performing the experiment. The results do not show the earth is moving towards you, and that you're moving towards the earth.
Yes it does. For all we know, both objects are meeting halfway.
EDIT: actually, this is technically what happens anyway.
-
Negative ghostrider...All that test proves is that if you move off the chair you move towards the earth/the earth moves to you.
Your proof that the earth rushes up to meet you just as easily proofs that we fall back towards the earth.
You clearly failed at performing the experiment. The results do not show the earth is moving towards you, and that you're moving towards the earth.
Um wait. Are you saying I failed at falling off a chair? Even if somehow I managed to do it wrong (wtf?) i still don't see how the results would be anything other than me impacting the ground. Thus the results of the test are going to be exactly the same as if I do it right or wrong.
-
Um wait. Are you saying I failed at falling off a chair? Even if somehow I managed to do it wrong (wtf?) i still don't see how the results would be anything other than me impacting the ground. Thus the results of the test are going to be exactly the same as if I do it right or wrong.
If you were to use a jetpack and fly upwards, you would have clearly performed the test wrong and gotten very different results versus performing correctly.
-
Um wait. Are you saying I failed at falling off a chair? Even if somehow I managed to do it wrong (wtf?) i still don't see how the results would be anything other than me impacting the ground. Thus the results of the test are going to be exactly the same as if I do it right or wrong.
If you were to use a jetpack and fly upwards, you would have clearly performed the test wrong and gotten very different results versus performing correctly.
You're an idiot and you know very well why. Stop trolling. You should clearly know better.
Your experiment proves nothing.
-
Um wait. Are you saying I failed at falling off a chair? Even if somehow I managed to do it wrong (wtf?) i still don't see how the results would be anything other than me impacting the ground. Thus the results of the test are going to be exactly the same as if I do it right or wrong.
If you were to use a jetpack and fly upwards, you would have clearly performed the test wrong and gotten very different results versus performing correctly.
You're an idiot and you know very well why. Stop trolling. You should clearly know better.
Your experiment proves nothing.
It proves that the Earth and the person falling do not have the same velocity in any Frame of Reference.
-
Um wait. Are you saying I failed at falling off a chair? Even if somehow I managed to do it wrong (wtf?) i still don't see how the results would be anything other than me impacting the ground. Thus the results of the test are going to be exactly the same as if I do it right or wrong.
If you were to use a jetpack and fly upwards, you would have clearly performed the test wrong and gotten very different results versus performing correctly.
You're an idiot and you know very well why. Stop trolling. You should clearly know better.
Your experiment proves nothing.
It proves that the Earth and the person falling do not have the same velocity in any Frame of Reference.
That is true. It doesn't prove nothing.
It does however prove nothing of what it was said to prove.
-
It doesn't prove nothing.
That's a double negation. It is equivalent to it proves something.
-
It doesn't prove nothing.
That's a double negation. It is equivalent to it proves something.
Yea I know. I said it proves nothing and you told me that it does. Therefore I worded it in a way that negated my own comment because you're correct.