The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 11:01:23 AM

Title: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 11:01:23 AM
The "expedition" can be made anywhere. Either from Alaska to Russia's shore, as another user suggested in their thread I just replied to.
Or from France to England, over the Channel. Gratitude to kosh5, for inspiring me with this idea in this thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52315.msg1283413#msg1283413 (ftp://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52315.msg1283413#msg1283413)

The idea is simple. You drag a very light chord, such as nylon, or something resiliant enough to not break, but light enough not to sink from it's own accumulated weigh in the water.

You take a boat from any of the ports on one side, and sail with one end of that chord to a port on the other side. Say you measure your distance on the boat, and it says "100 km".

Thus in a Flat Earth, the chord would then be anchored on the opposite port you've just arrived to. And dragged from both sides, both ports, to be made perfectly straight, or tensed. Then this cable will be measured, exactly from where it starts to enter the sea on both shores. If it's total length, once pulled perfectly straight, but not distended, to create an illusionary "extra length" from being drawn apart or elongated falsely, should be 100 km. The same length that the boat measured it's travelled distance at.

Also, in a Flat Earth scenario, when the cable or chord is being pulled from both shores, to be made "straight", it should become elevated, and rise up from the sea. As it's final aspect should be that of a cable that stays above the water, because the water should have absolutely no curvature after 100 km or much more.

In the unlikely case that the Earth isn't flat, that cable would being to sink, when pulled from both sides, to compensate for the depth it has to reach, in the middle, where it should be sinking beneath the sea, more than 1 km ? Or something like that. In the middle of the cable, beneath the sea, a submarine could measure it's greatest depth reached by it, assuming it is pulled "straight".

So if the cable being pulled across the large mass of water to become very straight and tensed, rises from the water, above it, or just at it's level, this proves there is no curvature across the sea. No gravity, just vertical pressure of the air masses above, pushing everything "down" unto the earth. And no possible way for the Earth to be anything other than Flat. Since it's seas have just been proven Flat, lacking any curvature.

Of course, no sea expedition has EVER tried to, to show how the chord, when pulled from both sides, would sink to the sea depths, to a perfect depth of say over 1 km, or however much the chord should sink to prove the sea is curved above it. Thus proving they are trying to hide the sea not having any curvature at all. And that any cable, no matter how much you drag it across any sea, from very large distances, is still "straight", and remains firmly above the straight level of the seas beneath it.

Also, this experiment can be tested on inner seas, like the Black Sea or even Greater Lakes from Canada. As well as large rivers like the Danube or Nile.

Is anyone interested in using such an experiment or expedition to prove the seas are flat, and the Earth is flat, by obvious theorical extrapolation?

I thank you.

And your welcome, Flat Earth believers for this flawless victory against Idiocy world wide. Hopefully this will help our cause, and lead to even greater expeditions that will also prove beyond suspicion, that the Earth is Flat.

I can attempt to draw some basic visual aids for anyone, in case the theory is hard to understand. Preferably a Flat Earth theorist here with enough editing skills, can create any such graphics to help further explain the theory visually, and I would appreciate their enthusiasm.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: zarg on December 25, 2011, 12:04:45 PM
The idea is simple. You drag a very light chord, such as nylon, or something resiliant enough to not break, but light enough not to sink from it's own accumulated weigh in the water.

You mean like a String?

String Theory has already proven FET, you know.


You take a boat from any of the ports on one side, and sail with one end of that chord to a port on the other side.

We don't have the resources for such extravagant indulgences. Do you think we're drinking fizzing champagne on a yacht or something?


Thus in a Flat Earth, the chord would then be anchored on the opposite port you've just arrived to. And dragged from both sides, both ports, to be made perfectly straight, or tensed. Then this cable will be measured, exactly from where it starts to enter the sea on both shores. If it's total length, once pulled perfectly straight, but not distended, to create an illusionary "extra length" from being drawn apart or elongated falsely, should be 100 km. The same length that the boat measured it's travelled distance at.

Also, in a Flat Earth scenario, when the cable or chord is being pulled from both shores, to be made "straight", it should become elevated, and rise up from the sea. As it's final aspect should be that of a cable that stays above the water, because the water should have absolutely no curvature after 100 km or much more.

Even the best tug-of-war champions wouldn't be able to hold the string taut over 100 km. The force of Universal Acceleration would cause it to sag toward the water. And once it touches the water, the invisible disc-wide Latitudinal Currents (which carried the tsunami from Japan to USA) would cause the string to curve along with the boat's path. No matter which path the boat took.


Is anyone interested in using such an experiment or expedition to prove the seas are flat, and the Earth is flat, by obvious theorical extrapolation?

As I have undeniably demonstrated above, the results of this experiment would be exactly the same in both FET and RET: therefore, RET is false.

See Earth Not a Globe, lurk more, etcetera.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 12:24:40 PM
The string doesn't even have to be perfectly still for the difference to be obvious.

Again, use your imagination to understand this crucial detail.

In FET the string would inevitable rise, even it sunk down in the water, when pulled from both sides, or even one side, while fixed on the other.

In RET the string would inevitable drop, plunging down into the sea, at an exagerated angle, because it has to create a maximum curvature depth at the middle of the distance, say after 50 km.

It doesn't even take a submarine to test this, since the chord will not sink beneath the water dramatically, to compensate for the curvature of being pulled "through" it. Since the seas are flat.

You must not possess the visual qualities to understand this yet.

Even if you don't get the chord to be perfectly still, because of it's weight, even as it's being pulled from both sides, it proves what needs to be proven, and shown what has to be seen.

In FET, it will definately rise. This is what will happen, inevitably.

In RET, the string should be well beneath sea level, as seen by a submarine or underwater pod, pulled perfectly straight, yet still deep beneath the surface. This has never been made by anyone, because they know this would never happen.

Since that chord will be pulled up towards the surface inevitably, as it's dragged from both sides, according to FET.

You must have not have thought this through. You barely even understood the experiment, or used any intellect to understand it. Please share only intelligent opinions next time. And think them at least twice before writing them.

I thank you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Raist on December 25, 2011, 12:33:58 PM
No string, rope, or wire would withstand the pressure needed to keep it anywhere close to taught. Also the pressures required would be nearly impossible to generate.

This idea has been brought up a million times. The rope would go under the water no matter what.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 12:44:34 PM
This is what the chord should look like, when pulled from both sides to be very tense, but not to break of course. The red line above the water surface, that remains straight, no matter how long the distance between it's two ends are on the opposing shores.

________________________________________________________________
                                                 (Flat Earth Theory)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And this is what the chord should look like, when pulled from both sides to highly tense. It's line should "cut" through the waters, and achieve maximum depth, in the middle, where the waters should be curved upwards the most.




                                                                               
                                                                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 ___________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~        (Round Earth Theory)         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~____________________
~~~~~~~~~                                                                                                                                                         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In RET, the string would dive beneath the sea, while still being straight, and achieve maximum depth in the middle, say 50 km from both shores it's anchored to.

This could be even tested across the English Channel, not just over larger seas like the Bering Strait. Maybe it can be used as a challange to the Conspiracists themselves, to humiliate them because they cannot even use this plain experiment to prove the Earth isn't flat.

Since they will never accept this, or try to prove this, because it would be their undoing, it could still gain enough publicity if it was made, to allow further more elaborate expeditions to appear. That would draw more and more interest, to the point they will exposed for their lies.

If I am not mistaken, this could be their worst nightmare. The beginning of the End for their conspiracies. Since anyone across the world, with enough evidence, can simply create an expedition, film it for the world to see it, and sail across the sea to the other port, holding the chord, to show it firmly at sea level, instead of hanging well beneath the sea at the middle of the distance.

It could even be filmed from a submarine, to show it floating just at the surface, instead of lowering down from the shore, or being very very low at the middle point. How elegant.

Sadly, I don't think there's any public celebrity or well known enough or wealthy enough person to be a Flat Earther, and have all the funding to prove this experiment. This is the first obstacle, of course.

But at least it's dramatically less costly and faster to create, than the Antarctic Expedition. So it's a good start, no?

I can't seriously argue with you, because you cannot even understand the points I'm saying here. I need someone truly intelligent to judge this theory, like Levee / Sandokhan.

Is he still on this forum?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 12:49:44 PM
No string, rope, or wire would withstand the pressure needed to keep it anywhere close to taught. Also the pressures required would be nearly impossible to generate.

This idea has been brought up a million times. The rope would go under the water no matter what.

True. That's just the prototype, of course.

The opposite however was never proven. The RET's have never used this experiment to show with a submarine how their chord would radically lower and achieve a very low level several thousands of feet, in the middle of this distance.

Since they cannot perform this, assuming their chord would sink perfectly to the distance it should, by RET curvature measures, this means they are unable to. It's still a great argument to prove they cannot even perform this. Their chord will never sink to the low level it should, when pulled straight.

It will inevitably Rise when pulled from both ends, towards the surface of the sea. Even if it's floating on the sea, or just below the level. It will rise.

Or go down, way below the surface, at the middle point, when pulled from both ends, to the measured depth, to compensate for the supposed curvature of the sea above it.

If that depth is 1 km, and the straight lined chord, just hovers one or two feet below the surface, then it's obvious no 1 km depth is possibly, and the sea is flat.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: zarg on December 25, 2011, 12:57:36 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/KiyXr.png)

Therefore the Earth is flat.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Cosmas on December 25, 2011, 01:04:43 PM
Just take a powerful binoculars and look over the English Chanel, if you see France than the earth is flat. Simple.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 01:10:35 PM
Thanks for the image. Do you know what kind of depth the middle of the string should be, if it's 100 km long?

I am not familiar with RET measurements of their imaginary curves, so I cannot calculate this.

However why do you assume the string will sink so low? Surely a metal string is useless, because of it's weigh. A lighter material, that has enough boyancy not to sink, but not too much as to float above the water (like helium for example).

If such a material exists, and I am sure it does, it is perfect to prove the sea is flat, even beyond what the eyes can see.

If not, a large line of boats can be spread out, in a liniar fashion, each within eye sight of each other, each holding the length of that string on their maast. As they reach the other shore, the two ends holding it from a port, could be very elevated, like many feet to equal the height of the maast from the sea level.

When the string is being drawn from both sides, and made tense, it should sink the middle boats clean under the water, according to RET.

Since this is impossible, the string would remain tense above water, it's weigh no longer pulling it down beneath the surface, because it's supported by hundreds of ships, each in direct sight from the opposite two.

And so, if the string remains tense and very straight, each boat could have two cameras to show the line of it as it reaches the other two ships on their maasts, then the sea is as flat as the line being recorded.

And obviously, none of the ships would sink, not even the middle one, if the string is pulled from both sides. Since not even the weight of such a long string could ever sink the middle boat, as most of the water would easily support the weigh of the string itself. Even if it was made of metal.

A hundred ships could easily do this, even if they were a kilometre apart from one another, spotted with binoculars I guess would still keep them visible to the ship before and backwards, as progressing from the line.

If such as Flat Earth Chord could ever be raised, despite stopping ships from sailing through it, of course, it would be a great experiment to prove to the world how flat it really is. Anyone in the world could sail there, with their own ship, along the length of the Chord, filming it as much as they like, for all to see. And the Chord would be very straight and seen as a clear line for miles ahead on both sides. And remains the same, as the ships sail from one end, from a port, or a shore. To the other side of the port, or shore, where the other end is being anchored to.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 01:15:59 PM
Just take a powerful binoculars and look over the English Chanel, if you see France than the earth is flat. Simple.

Yes, but not everyone can do this. If it were enough, everyone would believe in FET by now. They don't so this experiment is too obscure for them. Ironically, despite how plain it is.

I know England can be seen across the Chanel from France. But almost no one cares about this, or accepts this as irrefutable evidence. They can easily just turn their heads and pretend they cannot use binoculars.

That's why I'm saying a true expedition, with tangible evidence, such as a massive chord, but light enough not to sink under the sea, but to float close to surface, would definately proove it to anyone.

When confronted with that kind of evidence, showing them how the middle section of the Chord is still on the surface, and not 1 km beneath the surface, they have absolutely no chance of denying that.

They will, at least, be silenced for good. No one will take them seriously anymore, as they would have no filmed proof of their own. No tangible evidence. Unlike the Flat Earth Chord, as an international monument, visible to all, and filmed by anyone, to prove it's flat.

So even if the chord is above water, so it doesn't get dragged down from the water, or pushed down, it would still be straight, and not fall deep under the sea, to compensate for a supposed "curvature", that RET requires.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: zarg on December 25, 2011, 01:25:01 PM
When the string is being drawn from both sides, and made tense, it should sink the middle boats clean under the water, according to RET.

Boats float so they would hold the string up above water.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 01:26:55 PM
Just take a powerful binoculars and look over the English Chanel, if you see France than the earth is flat. Simple.
False. RET predicts that you can see France from England as well. Now why don't you try to come up with a real experiment to determine the Earth's shape. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon).
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 01:42:28 PM
Lies. All Lies.

This is very interesting. From a 12 story building in my city, the north side of it, from the 5th floor I could see and even take photographs with a digital camera of a mountain that was over 100 km north of my city.

The photos I have, including what I saw directly, showed a very flat plain, followed by mountains that rose from the horizon. There was no "dissappearing" surfaces or curvey edges.

Despite the supposed curvature that should magically manifest between that building I was in, and the mountain over 100 km north, there was none.

Just flat plain, flat horizon as far as that window showed the rest of the horizon, to the east and west of those far away mountains.

This doesn't always happen, only where visibility is very clear, that these mountains can be seen from my city, and photographed.

Or how about the Balcik, a port in Bulgaria, that has very wide bays, and the beaches can be seen on the other side, despite being very very far away. There is no curvature of the sea, at all.

Just flat sea, despite the waves going back and forth, as far as the eye can see, towards the distant and very flat, horizon.

I also have pictures from it's very tall mountains, on the souther part of the Black Sea coastline, where Bulgaria has it's Balkan mountain lowering down into the sea, forming massive ridges with few beaches.

There is this one cape, with a military base on it's very outer tip (of course). Where you can look directly right, directly left, and see nothing but water. That's how forward from the rest of the coastline is. It allows anyone there to see the Sea forward, left and right, continously.

It is flat. The clouds and cloud lines above it are flat. The straight line they form as they dissappear beyond the sea's horizon are all flat.
Just like the tree line that forms a straight line that unites forward when it appears to touch the lines of the road you're on. They all unite from straight lines on the distant horizon, apparently.

Same with those clouds on the Black Sea, or above it. Seen from a very tall, very proeminent cape, south of the Kaliacra Cape. When driving south towards Istanbul, of course.

So is my camera broken or something? Someone in my family also took pictures at that cape, is their camera also broken?
If so, apparently all three different cameras must be broken, including the one that has those mountains over 100 km away north of my city. Which only on few days are visible, through the air.

At the moment I took those pictures, the sun was shining on the mountains, it was just about sunset. So it was clearer, with very high visibility.

Every video I've seen on Youtube, with people in planes, flying anywhere, filming things outside their window, showed flat horizon, flat cloud lines, flat lakes, flat plains.

And this was as far as the eye could see. Much greater visibility than I had at the 5th floor of a northern building in my city, or on some Balkan mountain cape surrounded on three sides by the Black Sea.

I thank you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 01:47:33 PM
False. RET predicts that you can see France from England as well. Now why don't you try to come up with a real experiment to determine the Earth's shape.

Why don't you come up with an experiment for RET yourself? Shouldn't be that difficult unless you're "too busy", if you know what I mean .....

I thank you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 01:49:07 PM
Just take a powerful binoculars and look over the English Chanel, if you see France than the earth is flat. Simple.

Why don't you use RET to provide a good experiment yourself?

I shall test this, take pictures. No problem.

I thank you.
Really? Have you lurked enough to see the photos of these experiments?

Apollo 8 Christmas Eve
(http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/christmasont.jpg)

Toronto as seen across Lake Ontario
 (http://cdn2.wn.com/pd/84/02/7ad39d49be0ae6841889140e20b7_grande.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Cosmas on December 25, 2011, 01:51:45 PM
Just take a powerful binoculars and look over the English Chanel, if you see France than the earth is flat. Simple.
False. RET predicts that you can see France from England as well. Now why don't you try to come up with a real experiment to determine the Earth's shape. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon).
Acording to RET can you see over the Black Sea  from East to West ?

From Russia we would need a telescope for see over a distance of 1200 km all the way to Romania nude beach,  but some people on this forum have seen satellites at ten times this distance so we can use their help.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 01:53:01 PM
Boats float so they would hold the string up above water.

True. However, even if held above water, the string would have to be longer, if RET is right.

Say the RET's curvature, would add 1% length to a straight cable, because the boats keep the cable also above water, and lengthen it's course, accordingly.

So normal measurements of this cable, even when held up by boats, would suffice.

If the cable is exactly 100 km long, or how ever much it should be in a straight travel by boat, to it, then FET for the win.

If that cable inexplicably has to be 101 km long, or longer, and require more of the cable to reach the other side, then RET's curvature would have to provide the explanation for this.

This is more challanging and requires a more technical approach, and easier to human error and miscalculation. But even with this difficulty, it could still be enough to prove the cable remains it's original "short" FET distance, when help up by the boats.

Instead of the longer RET version, where more than 1 km of it would have to be added, to reach the other side, because the curvature of the sea between it's two ends, would curve it to become longer.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 01:56:29 PM
Just take a powerful binoculars and look over the English Chanel, if you see France than the earth is flat. Simple.
False. RET predicts that you can see France from England as well. Now why don't you try to come up with a real experiment to determine the Earth's shape. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon).
Acording to RET can you see over the Black Sea  from East to West ?

From Russia we would need a telescope for see over a distance of 1200 km all the way to Romania nude beach,  but some people on this forum have seen satellites at ten times this distance so we can use their help.
I don't understand your concern. Are you asking us to assist you in resolving the images at the nude beach?

As far as distance and being able to see the object, I can see on a clear night the Andromeda Galaxy some 2.5 million light-years from Earth. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy).

(http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/Images/ae589a.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 02:00:09 PM
Really? Have you lurked enough to see the photos of these experiments?

Apollo 8 Christmas Eve
(http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/christmasont.jpg)

Toronto as seen across Lake Ontario
 (http://cdn2.wn.com/pd/84/02/7ad39d49be0ae6841889140e20b7_grande.jpg)

Those are excellent fakes. Very interesting material to research optical illusions, indeed.

Really? Have you ever seen mist? You realise water forms a layer of very subtle, mist like particles just above the waves that throw them up into the air, and that thin layer of water particles, barely noticeable for the untrained eye, actually diffuses most of the light?

You can't see the bottom of those buildings, because it's reflected off the thin layer of "mist" just above the sea level. And the sea around it is reflected on your side, "adding water" to your vision line.

Thus giving the illusion to your eyes that there is more water than there actually is. The water is actually thin mist that reflects the water around it, and blocks your vision of the bottom part of those buildings.

Same with the ship illusion. It's lower part dissapears because the water particles risen by the waves below them, reflects and diffuses most of the light that passes through it. Thus reflecting the water between you and the horizon in that thin layer, giving you the impression there's water instead of the actual ship. That is "cloaked" by the reflective properties of the water particles between you and the ship itself.

The more distance between you and your visual target, the more light bounces off the water particles between you two. The closer and lower it is to the level of the waves, the more light is reflected and stops the light waves of the ship's lower part from reaching your eyes.

When the sea is very very calm, with almost no waves at all, does this illusion dissapear. That's the only time when you can see all of the ship, and not just it's mast, since the lower part isn't "masked" by the agitated water particles beneath it.

I thank you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 02:01:29 PM
Really? Have you lurked enough to see the photos of these experiments?

Apollo 8 Christmas Eve
(http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/christmasont.jpg)

Toronto as seen across Lake Ontario
 (http://cdn2.wn.com/pd/84/02/7ad39d49be0ae6841889140e20b7_grande.jpg)

Those are excellent fakes. Very interesting material to research optical illusions, indeed.

Really? Have you ever seen mist? You realise water forms a layer of very subtle, mist like particles just above the waves that throw them up into the air, and that thin layer of water particles, barely noticeable for the untrained eye, actually diffuses most of the light?

You can't see the bottom of those buildings, because it's reflected off the thin layer of "mist" just above the sea level. And the sea around it is reflected on your side, "adding water" to your vision line.

Thus giving the illusion to your eyes that there is more water than there actually is. The water is actually thin mist that reflects the water around it, and blocks your vision of the bottom part of those buildings.

Same with the ship illusion. It's lower part dissapears because the water particles risen by the waves below them, reflects and diffuses most of the light that passes through it. Thus reflecting the water between you and the horizon in that thin layer, giving you the impression there's water instead of the actual ship. That is "cloaked" by the reflective properties of the water particles between you and the ship itself.

The more distance between you and your visual target, the more light bounces off the water particles between you two. The closer and lower it is to the level of the waves, the more light is reflected and stops the light waves of the ship's lower part from reaching your eyes.

When the sea is very very calm, with almost no waves at all, does this illusion dissapear. That's the only time when you can see all of the ship, and not just it's mast, since the lower part isn't "masked" by the agitated water particles beneath it.

I thank you.
Special Pleading Fallacy much?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: zarg on December 25, 2011, 02:03:35 PM
Boats float so they would hold the string up above water.

True. However, even if held above water, the string would have to be longer, if RET is right.

No, the surface is the same length whether it's curved or flat.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 02:09:13 PM
This isn't an Art Fiction thread. Visual fakes are pretty useless to this topic.

Especially since whoever drew that fake of the Earth, forgot to draw all the stars, and completely blacked out anything besides Earth.

That's not only idiotic, and an amateur's mistake, but in Direct Utter Contradiction (DUC) with the picture you posted of those stars in the other post.

How can you see stars so far away, yet unable to see the ones from the Moon, around Earth?

It's too amusing that even your own fakes have a self contradictory quality. In other words, you pretend to see a duck 1000 miles away, but cannot see it 1 mile away.

Your little bright stars appear only in the smaller image where they are numerous. But not in the image of Earth, where barely a couple are shallowly drawn in the blackness around it, to give the impress it's not faked.

Your delusions are throughly unfounded. Do you honestly think I would take an incitator, like yourself, seriously? Please, you're nothing more than a spammer, trying desperately to flood this thread with your lies, because that's your only occupation.

You know I'm right, and this means I've already won. This is just you, in denial. Pitiful peon, that you are.

Now, keep up your feeble propaganda, otherwise I will think I have convery you, or something !!

Keep your compass curved, and aim for "Great Success !!". You are bound to sink your ship on some flat coastline, sooner or later.

I thank you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Cosmas on December 25, 2011, 02:10:27 PM
So if the earth is round, why is the water flat ?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 02:12:55 PM
No, the surface is the same length whether it's curved or flat.

How so? I have a different understanding of RET, in that case.

In the RET imaginative section, the water should be curved upwards, or convex.

In the FET realistic case, the water is still straight. And only in this case.

There is no reason for water to be concave in the RET, so I don't understand what you're saying?

If you have another graphic, to demonstrate your point, I am waiting.

I thank you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 02:21:52 PM
So if the earth is round, why is the water flat ?
In the RET scenario, their water would actually have to be concave. Which is much more unlikely and impossible.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 02:23:57 PM

No, the surface is the same length whether it's curved or flat.
Only if you measure it directly, from the ship's traveled distance.

Hm, I see what you mean. We would first have to calculate the exact distance as it should be FET, then take into account the curvature created by the RET addition.

Since that's not possible, theorically, it's hard to measure. Damn.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 02:45:24 PM
How can you see stars so far away, yet unable to see the ones from the Moon, around Earth?
Answered many times... Here's one answer: (http://)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: zarg on December 25, 2011, 02:47:12 PM
Quote
How so? I have a different understanding of RET, in that case.

In the RET imaginative section, the water should be curved upwards, or convex.

In the FET realistic case, the water is still straight. And only in this case.

There is no reason for water to be concave in the RET, so I don't understand what you're saying?

If you have another graphic, to demonstrate your point, I am waiting.

Okay, I have no idea what's going on in this thread anymore. Silverdane, I thought you were arguing against FET, and I was pulling your leg with a satirical FE response. But your RE vs FE argument became so silly that I could no longer stay "in character", and now you're apparently a FE'er.  ???

For the record, my first two posts were satire. But when you suggested a line of ships holding up the rope, you defeated the purpose of the experiment. Here are the graphics you requested:

(http://i.imgur.com/DYCGK.png)

This is the original experiment with no boats. Whether the Earth is flat or round, the experiment dictates that we travel 100 km, so the black line (representing the path travelled / Earth's surface) is exactly 100 km long. If the Earth is flat, then a taut rope (red) would be the same length, but if the Earth is round, the taut rope must go underwater and naturally be shorter than our travel distance.

This is the second version of the experiment, where the ships hold up the rope:

(http://i.imgur.com/RJ9IN.png)

The ship-lineup necessitates that the rope is always parallel to the water regardless of the shape of the Earth, therefore giving identical results no matter what and making the whole experiment pointless.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 02:47:30 PM
How can you see stars so far away, yet unable to see the ones from the Moon, around Earth?
Answered many times... Here's one answer: (http://)

Why do you provide useless links to unecessary sources?

If you can't explain it yourself, you are utterly useless here.

I thank you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 02:48:22 PM
So if the earth is round, why is the water flat ?
RET predicts that the water will appear flat left to right in the photo. Why do you think otherwise?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 02:49:34 PM
How can you see stars so far away, yet unable to see the ones from the Moon, around Earth?
Answered many times... Here's one answer: (http://)

Why do you provide useless links to unecessary sources?

If you can't explain it yourself, you are utterly useless here.

I thank you.
How is that link useless? Why do I have to explain it to when many people have already publicly explained it to you?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 02:59:22 PM
Here are the graphics you requested:

(http://i.imgur.com/DYCGK.png)

This is the original experiment with no boats. Whether the Earth is flat or round, the experiment dictates that we travel 100 km, so the black line (representing the path travelled / Earth's surface) is exactly 100 km long. If the Earth is flat, then a taut rope (red) would be the same length, but if the Earth is round, the taut rope must go underwater and naturally be shorter than our travel distance.

This is the second version of the experiment, where the ships hold up the rope:

(http://i.imgur.com/RJ9IN.png)

The ship-lineup necessitates that the rope is always parallel to the water regardless of the shape of the Earth, therefore giving identical results no matter what and making the whole experiment pointless.

I thank you. Yes, I do believe in FET. This whole experiment is the easiest known way to prove FET, to the entire world, yes?

That's why I started this thread, I was inspired by kosh5's question about funding some boat ride from Alaska to Russia to measure the sea distance from one shore to the other.

I don't think he realised that Russia and Alaska are far up in the northern "hemisphere", thus closer to the actual geographical Center of the Earth, in the Arctic Sea.

Thus no distortions would appear across the Bering Strait.

However those distortions should appear when flying from Africa to Australia, as the Indian Ocean would be 2-3 times longer to cross than that same paralel distance from Kaliningrad to Japan.

In fact I even proved the flat earth to my parents using a model of the earth's globe.

I did the following easy example. Showing them several air flights from America to Japan, for example, that have absolutely no speed gain from flying east.

If I recall well, the plane should benefit from the earth's rotation, that when flying east towards Japan should actually reach it very very fast in less than 3 hours or so. Judging by the speed of the plane itself, and the speed of the earth flying Japan closer to the plane, as the plane is in mid air.

Only the time distance was still well over 8-9 hours, thus the rotation of the world would have no speeding effect on the plane's journey.

The same example, only when flying west, proves there is no rotation of any kind, as well. Since flying directly West, doesn't mean you reach your destination much slower, because you're racing against the Earth's revolution itself, which should be flying against you, at over 1000 meters per second, or something like that.

By proving with known airflights, their so called distances and their actual flight durations, estimated by the companies themselves, I have proven then, how there is absolutely no way to profit from air flights, to make them shorter, by using the supposed rotation of the earth.

In reality, those planes still have the same distance to fly across, no matter if they fly east or west. There is no movement of the earth beneath them, so they take just as long to get to either place.

If the earth's rotation was real, that plane's speed should reach Japan in three hours.

However it takes over 8-9 hours, because the earth doesn't "bring Japan closer" to the West, since there is no earth movement.

This was years ago, like 4-5 years back maybe. I don't recall all the details, sorry.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 03:02:23 PM
So if the earth is round, why is the water flat ?
RET predicts that the water will appear flat left to right in the photo. Why do you think otherwise?

So accoring to RET, the earth is not flat, while the water between the continents is actually concave by comparisson?

Sorry RET cannot explain flat water. It implies CONCAVE water, meaning it would appear to go down into a pit, beneath the level of the horizon, according to your RET.

Meaning you would actually see the edge of the other shore, with the water beneath it's beach. This is impossible, of course. Water cannot become concave as it would have to be to explain RET. It does however, remain very flat.

Why wouldn't we think otherwise? RET implies only concave water, not flat water.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 03:04:20 PM
In reality, those planes still have the same distance to fly across, no matter if they fly east or west. There is no movement of the earth beneath them, so they take just as long to get to either place.

If the earth's rotation was real, that plane's speed should reach Japan in three hours.

However it takes over 8-9 hours, because the earth doesn't "bring Japan closer" to the West, since there is no earth movement.

This was years ago, like 4-5 years back maybe. I don't recall all the details, sorry.
Are you saying that the atmosphere doesn't move with the Earth? You have hear of Newton's Three Laws of Motion, right?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 03:06:10 PM
How is that link useless? Why do I have to explain it to when many people have already publicly explained it to you?

How is it useful?

Once I carefully place a lense before your eyes, and show you any given pen, would you dare deny that the pen is curved?

You and anyone else seeing through that type of lense, would always see a curved pen. How then, could you deny it's roundness?

How can you say a pen or pencil is flat? Length-wise of course. I have the lense to disprove it's flatness. And prove it's curved !!

I am only providing you with the visual lenses for you to look through, and see that the table or pencil you once thought you saw as "flat", were actually Round All Along !!!

You're welcome.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 03:07:26 PM
So accoring to RET, the earth is not flat, while the water between the continents is actually concave by comparisson?

Sorry RET cannot explain flat water. It implies CONCAVE water, meaning it would appear to go down into a pit, beneath the level of the horizon, according to your RET.

Meaning you would actually see the edge of the other shore, with the water beneath it's beach. This is impossible, of course. Water cannot become concave as it would have to be to explain RET. It does however, remain very flat.

Why wouldn't we think otherwise? RET implies only concave water, not flat water.
No, as usual you're smoking your socks. RET does not imply only concave water. Do the math for yourself or follow the link I gave you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 03:09:02 PM
How is that link useless? Why do I have to explain it to when many people have already publicly explained it to you?

How is it useful?

Once I carefully place a lense before your eyes, and show you any given pen, would you dare deny that the pen is curved?

You and anyone else seeing through that type of lense, would always see a curved pen. How then, could you deny it's roundness?

How can you say a pen or pencil is flat? Length-wise of course. I have the lense to disprove it's flatness. And prove it's curved !!

I am only providing you with the visual lenses for you to look through, and see that the table or pencil you once thought you saw as "flat", were actually Round All Along !!!

You're welcome.
Just because the image doesn't match the predictions of your lame theory, it does not imply a lens. You really need to stop with the special pleading fallacies.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 03:14:27 PM
Are you saying that the atmosphere doesn't move with the Earth? You have hear of Newton's Three Laws of Motion, right?

Are you saying all the planes and all the plane companies are lying to you?

Dear unstable individual. Plane companies DO NOT LIE. The planes themselves DO NOT LIE.

The distances and durations of those flights, prove the earth is flat.

It takes just as much to travel the same distance, for a plane, in any given direction or route.

Why? Because a plane knows it still has to fly the FULL measure of that distance from one airport or another. The earth below it still does not move at all.

So unless you have evidence all those companies and their planes and air durations have reasons to lie to me, or the world in general, I don't see why you would defy basic mathmatics.

Air planes don't lie. They take just as much to travel in any direction, from any chosen airport. Their journey isn't shortened, at all. Or lengthened.

Since pilots and airplanes Prove there is absolutely no Gain from the earth's rotation, from long distance flights, then all those planes are trying to tell me they're flying across a very unmoving earth.

Again, if you think all the planes in the world, and all their companies are lying to me, seek help. Those companies are privately owned, by normal people. They have no reason to elongate their flight durations, or the distances between two airports, simply to support my Flat Earth theory.

Unless, of course, you believe I own all those companies, and all those air planes. Thus ordered them to only give out the conveniant durations and distances of their flights to suit my FET ?

Sorry, those all still privately owned companies. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Airplanes tend to agree with FET, even if I don't own their companies, see?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 03:26:07 PM
Are you saying that the atmosphere doesn't move with the Earth? You have hear of Newton's Three Laws of Motion, right?

Water moves with the Earth. Assuming the Earth moved ..... which doesn't. They all stand very very still.

Why should air also move with them? Air is superfluidic. Meaning it's more mobile and "unbound" than water.

I will reply with a simple experiment. When you're in a car, and you move very fast does the air inside the car move with you? No, new air comes from in front of you.

Air only "travels with you" if you have a perfectly closed hood, with closed windows, and so forth. Because that upper metal layer and glass is actually pushing the air with it's acceleration, and giving it the same speed as the car around or beneath it.

A simple car that has no windshield or hood, or has a retractable roof, can prove air doesn't travel with you.

Even in a normal car, when you stick your hand out the window when racing at over 60 kmph or more, you will feel incredible ressistance or pressure back from the air.

That air just outside is staying very still, and has great opposition and resists against your hand which is rushing against it with a high speed. The air also resists any form of fast moving or flying vehicle.

Air resistance is one of the easiest ways to prove the air doesn't "move with the earth". Because the air has more stability to resist any fast object travelling through it, than can be explained by RET.

If the earth did move, air would lose a great deal of it resistance to most moving objects through it. Since it still has a lot of resistance, no matter the direction you're moving through it, it's obvious it has a lot of stability, from standing generally still. Just like the earth, only with less density.

The air moves faster in upper layers than the lower layers, I see this whenever smoke rises from house chimneys or large factory towers. At one point the vertical line of smoke is broken and dissipates into an almost horizontal line of smoke, as it loses it's density, from being in less denser air above the surface it rose from.

This is just because earth has more density than air. It fully supports FET, no matter the experiment you try.

I thank you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 03:27:53 PM
Just because the image doesn't match the predictions of your lame theory, it does not imply a lens. You really need to stop with the special pleading fallacies.

Do all of your link appear through lenses, that distort direct vision?

If so, allow me to mock your pathetic links.

Explain it here, with your own words, or begone.

Cretin.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 03:39:07 PM
Just because the image doesn't match the predictions of your lame theory, it does not imply a lens. You really need to stop with the special pleading fallacies.

Do all of your link appear through lenses, that distort direct vision?

If so, allow me to mock your pathetic links.

Explain it here, with your own words, or begone.

Cretin.
1) Please stop with the special pleading fallacies. There's no sense in it, as you've been caught. If you have to invoke a magic lens to explain away evidence, you've already lost.
2) Please stop with the straw man fallacies. Newton's Three Laws of Motion explained why airplanes don't benefit or suffer from the Earth's rotation long before the Wright Brothers. Please educate yourself by reading http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00385.htm (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00385.htm).
3) I feel no obligation to explain anything with just my own words.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: zarg on December 25, 2011, 03:53:06 PM
So, Silverdane, you're saying that when a plane lifts off the ground, it should stop moving with the Earth and appear to automatically move relatively as it is stationary and Earth continues rotating below it?

I have to ask then if you believe the Universal Acceleration theory. If so, these two ideas are incompatible. One depends on denying Newton's first law, and the other depends on accepting it.

If not, then what do you propose causes things to fall?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 04:37:00 PM
Electromagnetic pressure from above. All that air is very heavy, heavy enough to throw down anything that doesn't rise upon the earth.

If there were only void, in an entire continent, everything on it would be easier or "lighter". They could be thrown higher up, and people could jump much higher.

The great air pressure across the known world, makes the air very dense, you can feel it's density when putting your hand out the car window, as you're in a fast car. That air pressure just forces your hand back, so it's definately strong enough to force everything you see downwards.

There is no such thing as "vertical acceleration". That is more nonsense than the RET itself.

There is, however, vertical pressure from above. Just like waterfall accelerate as they fall, or anything that falls gains more mass and accelerates as it falls longer, the same is with the air pressure. It's enough to push everything down.

Just like wind, only from above. Vertically instead of side to side, like the wind does.

So vertical winds, from above, are the ones responsable for what you asked for.

This is more throughly explained by the Ether theory, that Levee explained somewhere else on this site.

If you're unfamiliar with the Ether theory, feel free to look for it. If you can't find it, I can post the links here. But then I'd be lazy and useless like the Big Ben.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 04:44:38 PM
So, Silverdane, you're saying that when a plane lifts off the ground, it should stop moving with the Earth and appear to automatically move relatively as it is stationary and Earth continues rotating below it?

I have to ask then if you believe the Universal Acceleration theory. If so, these two ideas are incompatible. One depends on denying Newton's first law, and the other depends on accepting it.

If not, then what do you propose causes things to fall?

There is no magnetic force to force any airplanes to move along with the earth. Is there? If there were, that airplane would be so magnetically bound to the Earth, how could it ever lift itself up?

There is no evidence that an airplane is magnetically attracted to the earth below. It's gravity or weight doesn't decrease the further it distances itself from the Earth.

However it is possible the airplane suffers from a magnetic pressure, from above. The air above it, as well as around it, forces it down, in a standard acceleration downwards, toward the earth below.

As the plane gains enough lift of it's own, it breaks through the magnetic wall of the air, that normally forced it down on the ground.

Simple explanation. Air is electromagnetic itself, only it forces almost everything down. Just like magnets repel their similar ends, the air "repels" most things down, unto the earth. Then the earth compensates with it's density, balancing out the downwards magnetic pressure of the air. By keeping most things stable, in a balance between magnetic pressure from the air above, and resistance from the Earth's density below.

If all the air would be suddenly demagnetised above a region, most things would become extremly light, almost weightless. Until air from around it would rush in, and magnetise it back up, restoring the illusion of gravity.

It's definately not some earth upwards acceleration. It's air downwards pressure (temporary acceleration).

Again, this is possible thanks to the Ether Theory.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 04:56:44 PM
If that's hard to understand, just imagine the air like an expanding, or slowly exploding gas.

As it attempts to expand, it's forced downwards, forcing everything down. Over time it's so strong that it erodes mountains into hills, rivers into great valleys, and so forth.

The pressure of the air, is similar to the pressure on the bottom of the sea. Since air and water are both fluids, only one is just a normal dense liquid, while the other is superfluidic and several times lighter, and less dense.

The air is just like a translucent sea, that floats above the level of the actual maritime sea. It also has greater pressure, and "down force" that you find within the sea itself.

Or imagine the sky above the Flat Earth, like a barrel. The air above us is the cannonball and a powerful magnetic (EM pulse) above the air layers are forcing it down on the earth. Just like a cannon would explode and force it's ball to "fall" horizontally, because of the pressure behind it, the same way the air above us, is forced down by a similar explosive like force. Only electro magnetical in nature, and slower, instead of faster and short lived like gun powder exploding in a cannon.

This EM force that pushes all the air down, and everything within this air, also down until the earth stop it, is measured and called ..... I don't recall? Some myth like the bigbong or ? Star power? Some fluffy nonsense like that.

It's the same one that appears on tv, between channels, and the "white noise" between radio stations. That's the electromagnetic force strong enough to make the air above us "heavier" and force everything down.

The higher up you are, the less acceleration this downward force has. That's why satellites easily float one they're high up enough. The air is so thin there, it's density isn't enough to give it a downforce acceleration, like everything here has.

Fire or warmth is either the most similar to this EM vertical falling force, or it's very opposite. Since warmth / fire, can expand or dilate or "thin" the air enough to lessen it's pressure, and lessens the magnetic acceleration from above, enough to lift things up.

That explains hot air baloons, and so forth. Warmth either has a negating equalising force against vertical magnetism, just like "anti-gravity" to "gravity" if either of these existed.

So that upper force is either ..... very cold air, that pushes everything down, or "anti-fire" an EM field that is as expanding as fire is, only it's direction is "down", instead of fire which is up, up, up, and all around.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 04:58:11 PM
It's definately not some earth upwards acceleration. It's air downwards pressure (temporary acceleration).

Again, this is possible thanks to the Ether Theory.
So can you demonstrate why anyone would believe that it's air downwards pressure? Point us to an peer-reviewed journal article that reports the result you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 05:05:29 PM
If you throw yourself from a bridge, do you need a peer-reviewed journal article to report to you that you can crash into the earth and broke your bones, for you to be able to?

Or do you just break your bones, and fall like everyone else?

See, articles don't make it happen. Your bones are still broken, even without the peers to decide before hand, that your bones will break.

If you can jump from a bridge, not break your bones, and not fall, simply because it hasn't been foretold in a magical prophecy by your prophets or Gods, I will believe there is use to your prophecy.

Until then, do keep in mind this is not the Oracle of Delphi. And even those Oracles can be bought with persian gold to lie about their findings. Or have you not heard of corruption and bribery before ...
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 05:15:22 PM
So can you demonstrate why anyone would believe that it's air downwards pressure? Point us to an peer-reviewed journal article that reports the result you.

You tell me.

Do you deny air pressure?

Do you deny air density?

Do you deny air mass?

Do you deny air has weight?

If air is condensed or frozen, does it not weigh more than before?

If nitrogen is made liquid, does the liquid nitrogen not become more heavy than the non-liquid form of itself?

Just because you can't see air, doesn't mean it's not being pushed down, by something above it.

If you hold a massive tire pump downwards, and press down on the end, forcing the air inside to increase it's pressure, does that air not become forced down, and then through the hose, inflating the tire?

If you push your hand through the air, straight down, fast enough, does your hand not feel resistance from the air density itself?

Does that air density not create a wave of air loud enough to be heard in the room, as you move your hand downwards very fast?

Does that not prove air itself has a kinetic power, that's proportionate to it's density?

If a storm with winds above 70 kmh, direct that air pressure horizontally instead of vertically, does it now push you horizantally or to the side, instead of down towards the ground?

Does that horizontal wind, not weaken and later negate "gravity" enough for you to lift up the ground and fly into the nearest wall, or heavy obstacle?

Or are you unfamiliar with the clichee of a cow that flies into a building, because of the winds inside a hurricane?

If air can have such tremendous antigravitational forces when it's directed horizontally, and creates tornadoes very fast when it's directed vertically, could it not have the force to accelerate or push everything down, or "away from itself" into the Earth, when in it's normal "passive" unaltered state?

Doesn't water have the same pressure, when it pushes things down to the bottom of it's sea?

Doesn't water and air, as fluid and superfluid, allow the same floatability to some elements, or densities or forms of "energy"?

Doesn't wood float on water, the same way polen or light feathers or dust float on air?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 05:15:48 PM
If you throw yourself from a bridge, do you need a peer-reviewed journal article to report to you that you can crash into the earth and broke your bones, for you to be able to?

Or do you just break your bones, and fall like everyone else?

See, articles don't make it happen. Your bones are still broken, even without the peers to decide before hand, that your bones will break.

If you can jump from a bridge, not break your bones, and not fall, simply because it hasn't been foretold in a magical prophecy by your prophets or Gods, I will believe there is use to your prophecy.

Until then, do keep in mind this is not the Oracle of Delphi. And even those Oracles can be bought with persian gold to lie about their findings. Or have you not heard of corruption and bribery before ...
So you can't then? Figures?

How do we know that you aren't the one bribing the oracles?

As far as I'm concerned as soon as you have to invoke "corruption and bribery" you lose the debate.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 05:24:25 PM
My answer are inline below.

You tell me.

Do you deny air pressure? no

Do you deny air density? no

Do you deny air mass? no

Do you deny air has weight? Only in the presence of gravity

If air is condensed or frozen, does it not weigh more than before? no

If nitrogen is made liquid, does the liquid nitrogen not become more heavy than the non-liquid form of itself? no

Just because you can't see air, doesn't mean it's not being pushed down, by something above it.

If you hold a massive tire pump downwards, and press down on the end, forcing the air inside to increase it's pressure, does that air not become forced down, and then through the hose, inflating the tire? yes

If you push your hand through the air, straight down, fast enough, does your hand not feel resistance from the air density itself? yes

Does that air density not create a wave of air loud enough to be heard in the room, as you move your hand downwards very fast? no

Does that not prove air itself has a kinetic power, that's proportionate to it's density? no and no

If a storm with winds above 70 kmh, direct that air pressure horizontally instead of vertically, does it now push you horizantally or to the side, instead of down towards the ground? no

Does that horizontal wind, not weaken and later negate "gravity" enough for you to lift up the ground and fly into the nearest wall, or heavy obstacle? no

Or are you unfamiliar with the clichee of a cow that flies into a building, because of the winds inside a hurricane? yes

If air can have such tremendous antigravitational forces when it's directed horizontally, and creates tornadoes very fast when it's directed vertically, could it not have the force to accelerate or push everything down, or "away from itself" into the Earth, when in it's normal "passive" unaltered state? no

Doesn't water have the same pressure, when it pushes things down to the bottom of it's sea? no

Doesn't water and air, as fluid and superfluid, allow the same floatability to some elements, or densities or forms of "energy"?

Doesn't wood float on water, the same way polen or light feathers or dust float on air? yes
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Thork on December 25, 2011, 05:25:59 PM
^ Rewarding to debate with, isn't he? ::)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 05:26:21 PM
That's true but I never considered to be debating against you.

Your question was "Why should anyone believe it's downwards air pressure", and if I can prove it.

My intention is never to force or fool people to believe anything. That is propaganda thought pattern, right there. You may have it, but don't expect others to.

Let's see .... if you wish me to take you seriously, and pretend to "debate" your so called arguments, very well. I shall.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quote
So can you demonstrate why anyone would believe that it's air downwards pressure? Point us to an peer-reviewed journal article that reports the result you.

If a cannon shots something straight down, does it not have the most force, than if it were facing straight up?

The air pressure that pushes the cannonball down, is directly and immediately ADDED to the vertical pressure of the air itself that magnetises everything to accelerate down.

Since that same forces later decreases the speed of the cannonball when it's cannon is shot straight up, that proves the air has an equal force, but of less density to oppose it.

Since firing a cannon into a void, or very low density air would increase it's speed and impact tenfold (or something like that) it's obvious air has a direct influence on this "weight" you can measure.

Helium proves this. Despite having weight like other gasses, it's polarity tends to reverse the general magnetism "from above" that forces most gasses down towards the earth, increasing their pressure directly by adding the earth's upwards resistance.

If helium as a gas, directly opposes the magnetism of other gases, doesn't this prove helium is an element less "touched" or affected by the magnetism of downwards accelerating air pressure?

Unless, of course, you claim helium was made up by FET infiltrators. I myself came up with the idea of Helium, and cleverly bribed enough scientists and RET to allow me to sneak all these useful tactics to aid my Indoctrination of the Masses.

I see you don't understand normal logic, so I will play on your field of Espionage, Dogma & Other Lies and Manipulations, with which you are most familiar.

Just as I ordered all those flight companies that I personally own, with my various false identities, to pretend they take just as long to fly in any given direction, with no effect WHATSOEVER from the Earth's supposed "revolution".

Any other questions you wish me to debate before you?

I thank you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 05:29:37 PM

If air is condensed or frozen, does it not weigh more than before? no

Quote
A tank filled with compressed air will weigh more than a tank that is filled with air at normal atmospheric pressure.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_compressed_air_weigh_more_than_non_compressed_air#ixzz1hbFhXSdx

Wow, you already lost. And it was just at the beginning questions !!

I am dissappoint.

Air does weigh a lot more, when it is condensed. Gravity has nothing to do with this, it's just the density of the air itself which makes it "weigh more".

As if this wasn't enough to proclaim my victory, I shall continue exposing your fallacies.

I thank you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 05:33:24 PM
So you can't then? Figures?

How do we know that you aren't the one bribing the oracles?

As far as I'm concerned as soon as you have to invoke "corruption and bribery" you lose the debate.

Oh, I have seen through your brilliance !!

By posing as a RET noob who conveniently asks "all the wrong questions" you get all the RET folk reading this to "side with you", so to speak.

Then you purposefully ask enough detailed questions to reveal the flaws in your RET Dogma, thus forcing the ones who previously were RET who thought they were on your side, to be "exposed" and gradually convert FET, by devouring my arguments.

Genius !!

You, sir, are a wonderful Flat Earth Theorist, and you even fooled me for a second. I see now, you are only doing this as a stage play, like Shakespeare.

Brilliant !! Hat is tipped to you.

Keep up the good work, Sir !! For I shall now go back in character, for our avid viewers ...
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 05:38:19 PM

If air is condensed or frozen, does it not weigh more than before? no

Quote
A tank filled with compressed air will weigh more than a tank that is filled with air at normal atmospheric pressure.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_compressed_air_weigh_more_than_non_compressed_air#ixzz1hbFhXSdx

Wow, you already lost. And it was just at the beginning questions !!

I am dissappoint.

Air does weigh a lot more, when it is condensed. Gravity has nothing to do with this, it's just the density of the air itself which makes it "weigh more".

As if this wasn't enough to proclaim my victory, I shall continue exposing your fallacies.

I thank you.
I see. Would you please help me understand. How is your question: "If air is condensed or frozen, does it not weigh more than before?" related to your citation: "A tank filled with compressed air will weigh more than a tank that is filled with air at normal atmospheric pressure." Isn't there more air in the first case than the second?

I think that you should have cited this from that reference: "Since weight is the measure of an object's gravitational pull, the compressed air does not weigh more."
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 05:38:35 PM
Does that air density not create a wave of air loud enough to be heard in the room, as you move your hand downwards very fast? no

Wow I did not expect your hands to be so weak.

When I lower my hand down, very fast, it does create an audible rush of air around it.

As the density and speed of my hand is displacing the air beneath it, to replace the void where my hand once was.

I can prove this to anyone, if they are in the same room. Rushing my hand down very fast, does create an audible sound that echos through the air.

This is because air has friction, from it's resistance to my movement.

When rushing my hand upwards, the sound is weaker because the air is easily forced up, and has less echo and resistance from itself.

When rushing my hand down, the sound is strongest, as the air is more slowly forced down, since it has the most resistance from the floor, and Earth below it.

This cannot possibly be explained by gravity. Only by air magnetism, that is stronger on the vertical direction, from above .... to below.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 05:39:47 PM
^ Rewarding to debate with, isn't he? ::)

Ah yes !! Mostly such.

In fact, I suspect he's Levee, testing us to see which Flat Earther is intelligent and dedicated enough to join the Inner Sanctum of the FE Forums.

Yaaay, I'm so excited !!
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 05:47:00 PM
If a cannon shots something straight down, does it not have the most force, than if it were facing straight up?
nope
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 05:47:53 PM
If a storm with winds above 70 kmh, direct that air pressure horizontally instead of vertically, does it now push you horizantally or to the side, instead of down towards the ground? no


Again, years ago, a storm strong enough to tear down trees, topple them on houses, and kill anyone who was unfortunate enough to be under that falling tree, as each of them broke from the strong winds ....

I went out towards north, from my neighbourhood on foot, with someone else from my family. Who happens to be a scientist and also RET, like yourself.

The winds were constantly over 60 km/h, nobody was bold enough to walk on the streets then. And just near a river (small afluent of the Danube) where the city was more clear, and the air flowed more freely, the winds became so fast, they literally stopped me from moving forward.

So even when trying to move against them or sideways from their origin, I was almost paralysed from the air pressure those winds were throwing against me.

It's the same from above. The EM pressure of the air throws itself at things constantly, making it hard to rise up from the earth as easily as you try to.

Most of your kinetic force remains "landbound". Or is reflected back inside your body stopping you from jumping up very high. Because that EM force of air, that pushes it from above, also pushes you from all sides.

Without it, your body would expand very fast, it's own inner pressure would cause it to explode. This is seen in deep sea divers who's depression chamber is leaking. They literally explode with blood inside the chamber, because the dense air (nitrogen and oxigen) inside their bodies, is surrounded by very low pressure air, from above the sea surface.

So any deep sea diver, and their depression chambers, and air tanks will confirm air pressure has a lot to do with it's kinetic force. It's that same kinetic force slowing you down in water, and stopping you from flying high up into the air above you.

Unless of course, you suspect the visible, tangible laws of fluid pressure (of air and water) .... don't apply to you?

I thank you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 05:57:45 PM
If a storm with winds above 70 kmh, direct that air pressure horizontally instead of vertically, does it now push you horizantally or to the side, instead of down towards the ground? no


Again, years ago, a storm strong enough to tear down trees, topple them on houses, and kill anyone who was unfortunate enough to be under that falling tree, as each of them broke from the strong winds ....

I went out towards north, from my neighbourhood on foot, with someone else from my family. Who happens to be a scientist and also RET, like yourself.

The winds were constantly over 60 km/h, nobody was bold enough to walk on the streets then. And just near a river (small afluent of the Danube) where the city was more clear, and the air flowed more freely, the winds became so fast, they literally stopped me from moving forward.

So even when trying to move against them or sideways from their origin, I was almost paralysed from the air pressure those winds were throwing against me.

It's the same from above. The EM pressure of the air throws itself at things constantly, making it hard to rise up from the earth as easily as you try to.

Most of your kinetic force remains "landbound". Or is reflected back inside your body stopping you from jumping up very high. Because that EM force of air, that pushes it from above, also pushes you from all sides.

Without it, your body would expand very fast, it's own inner pressure would cause it to explode. This is seen in deep sea divers who's depression chamber is leaking. They literally explode with blood inside the chamber, because the dense air (nitrogen and oxigen) inside their bodies, is surrounded by very low pressure air, from above the sea surface.

So any deep sea diver, and their depression chambers, and air tanks will confirm air pressure has a lot to do with it's kinetic force. It's that same kinetic force slowing you down in water, and stopping you from flying high up into the air above you.

Unless of course, you suspect the visible, tangible laws of fluid pressure (of air and water) .... don't apply to you?

I thank you.
You've confused wind and its force with air pressure.

You write so much and say so little.

What are "depression chambers"? These? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_of_despair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_of_despair)

What is "kinetic force"?  This? http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/photobooth/2011/03/max-vadukul.html (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/photobooth/2011/03/max-vadukul.html)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 05:59:44 PM
I see. Would you please help me understand. How is your question: "If air is condensed or frozen, does it not weigh more than before?" related to your citation: "A tank filled with compressed air will weigh more than a tank that is filled with air at normal atmospheric pressure." Isn't there more air in the first case than the second?

I think that you should have cited this from that reference: "Since weight is the measure of an object's gravitational pull, the compressed air does not weigh more."

Yes, if a ton of air is condensed, that same ton of air, would still weigh the same. It would just be in a much smaller area of occupation.

It's your fault for misunderstanding my question, see?

Nitrogen that is very dense, in liquid form, weighs more than normal air nitrogen. It's more dense and affected more strongly by the EM acceleration from above, thus pushed down more strongly.

So gas density of whatever element is directly proportionate to how much it's being forced down by the air above it.

Just like colder air "falls down" from upper layers of air, because it dislodges the less dens air, which more easily rises to the surface, that colder air, with higher density is in fact more "in tune" with the EM force that pushes it down.

Since both Magnetism is weakened and dissabilitates by high temperature, and highly effective in COLD or lower temperatures, the air's EM that has a downwards sense of direction, has the EXACT SAME PROPERTY.

When that air is very cold, the "gravitational" electromagnetism from above it, is the most effective, and pushes it down the easiest.

When that same air is very hot, it's magnetism is weakened to the point the "Upper Magnetism" that should force it down, is less effective, and thus it appears to weigh less.

If both metalic Magnetism and air Magnetism have the same "cool preference" and "warm weakness", how then could they not be the same force?

If you can't even understand how magnetism works, you are an utter tool. And not even a metalic or magnetic one.

..... You're an imagnetic tool.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 06:07:12 PM
Nitrogen that is very dense, in liquid form, weighs more than normal air nitrogen. It's more dense and affected more strongly by the EM acceleration from above, thus pushed down more strongly.
Let's take it slowly...

How do you know that these statements, quoted above, are true? What do you mean by "Nitrogen that is very dense in liquid form, weighs more than normal air nitrogen". What is "normal air nitrogen"? Do you mean N at STP?

Are you making that same mistake as before? Condensing a volume of N does not affect its mass. How do you know that "the EM acceleration from above" affects LN more than gaseous N?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 06:11:08 PM
Because denser nitrogen is also MORE COLD.

And since MAGNETISM is stronger in cold temperature, and weaker in warmer temperature .......

The magnetism of the air above the nitrogen is more effective in forcing it down. With magnetism. Which is better with cold.

And weaker without cold. Thus, the "less cold" nitrogen, is the least affected by Magnetism from above (the upper air and gasses above itself pushing it down with their magnetic weight). Because it's natural heat from within has a negating effect on the Magnetism from Above, that created that downwards pressure.

I'm glad you finally played out your part, little one. Through your sacrifice of dignify and self respect, you have possibly converted anyone reading your questions and my answers, to FET.

Again, hat tipped unto thee ...
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 06:15:08 PM
How do you know that "the EM acceleration from above" affects LN more than gaseous N?

Oh dear .. I suppose no one ever told you that denser gases are also colder?

Or that magnetism is intensified with coldness, and weakened or canceled out in intense heat?

Oh my !! Oh, stars !! Oh, Sacred Mother of Most Sacriledge Most Holy !!

Check ... and Mate.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 06:17:47 PM
Wow, if really are Levee, I am dissappointed.

I thought you to be more skilled in debate. Throwing the battle to me, wasn't the best course of trying to argue against me ...

You ... Do know, you're supposed to be .... on Your side ..... Yes?

Because chosing my side, and abandoing RET is kind of a weak challange for One Such As Myself .... 

I see you are being merciful on me, Levee. Pretending to lose, to spare my feelings.

I thank you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 06:19:10 PM
Because denser nitrogen is also MORE COLD.
That would be your problem. I refer you to the gas laws. Here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws). If pressure is the same then a denser volume of N would indeed be colder. But that's not what you said.

I suggest that you take high school chemistry and then try again.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 06:34:16 PM
Density and temperature are directly proportionate.

That's why liquid nitrogen is able to freeze your face off, and break it up like a glass cup smashed by a piano.

Again. Try and make the simplest of connections. Physics teach (and prove) that density and temperate are affected closely.

Because liquid nitrogen, being so very cold and in tune with normal Magnetism, is most likely to be forced down by Magnetism from above, of the other gases in the upper air layer.

Less denser, or gaseous nitrogen, being less cold and more warm, thus weakens Magnetism all around it, is less likely to be forced down by Magnetism, from above. It's natural "Anti Magnetism", which also gives it some natural warmth or radiation, weaken the upper air's Magnetism to the point it's less affected by your "Gravity".

Again, normal non-thinking RET minds are unable to make this simple connection. That temperature and density are directly proportionate to each other.

Or even the tougher ones, like "Magnetism is directly weakened by high temperatures, and strongest when in lower temperatures".

Which is why, dear Levee pretending not to be an FET,  most people in this brutally Flat world .... are RET imbeciles.

They are unable to see the direct relation between Pressure (or Density) and Temperature, that Physics teaches even from grade school.

Again .... Check and Mate.

But you can struggle, now. Give it more Drama, to nurture the RET's hope here, then send them crashing down when you realise you're Severely undermatched.

I thank you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: zarg on December 25, 2011, 06:36:27 PM
Electromagnetic pressure from above. All that air is very heavy, heavy enough to throw down anything that doesn't rise upon the earth.

If there were only void, in an entire continent, everything on it would be easier or "lighter". They could be thrown higher up, and people could jump much higher.

The great air pressure across the known world, makes the air very dense, you can feel it's density when putting your hand out the car window, as you're in a fast car. That air pressure just forces your hand back, so it's definately strong enough to force everything you see downwards.

http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/sbtroy/Guinea_and_Feather/Guinea_and_Feather.html (http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/sbtroy/Guinea_and_Feather/Guinea_and_Feather.html)

I thank you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 06:40:09 PM
That would be your problem. I refer you to the gas laws. Here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws). If pressure is the same then a denser volume of N would indeed be colder. But that's not what you said.

I suggest that you take high school chemistry and then try again.

Very well, I shall try this again. This time, lowering the bar down to your level of intellect.

Magneto Have Good Power With Magnetism When It Cold Everywhere.

Magneto Lose All Power When Pyro Start Throwing Flame At Magneto.

Magneto + Cold - STRONG MAGNETO

Magneto + Fire - WEAK MAGNETO

With me, thus far? I hope at least X Men is suited enough for whatever character you've acting as.

Good.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 06:41:18 PM
Density and temperature are directly proportionate.

That's why liquid nitrogen is able to freeze your face off, and break it up like a glass cup smashed by a piano.

Again. Try and make the simplest of connections. Physics teach (and prove) that density and temperate are affected closely.

Because liquid nitrogen, being so very cold and in tune with normal Magnetism, is most likely to be forced down by Magnetism from above, of the other gases in the upper air layer.

Less denser, or gaseous nitrogen, being less cold and more warm, thus weakens Magnetism all around it, is less likely to be forced down by Magnetism, from above. It's natural "Anti Magnetism", which also gives it some natural warmth or radiation, weaken the upper air's Magnetism to the point it's less affected by your "Gravity".

Again, normal non-thinking RET minds are unable to make this simple connection. That temperature and density are directly proportionate to each other.

Or even the tougher ones, like "Magnetism is directly weakened by high temperatures, and strongest when in lower temperatures".

Which is why, dear Levee pretending not to be an FET,  most people in this brutally Flat world .... are RET imbeciles.

They are unable to see the direct relation between Pressure (or Density) and Temperature, that Physics teaches even from grade school.

Again .... Check and Mate.

But you can struggle, now. Give it more Drama, to nurture the RET's hope here, then send them crashing down when you realise you're Severely undermatched.

I thank you.
Do you understand the Gas Laws? LN can be warmer than gaseous N. I've told you that you need high school chemistry to advance this wild idea of yours.

Please do tell us how you know that N is affected by magnetism.

Please do tell us how you know that "Magnetism is directly weakened by high temperatures, and strongest when in lower temperatures". Remember that you've been talking about the temperature of N, not the magnet. (Unless you're arguing that N acts a magnet, in which case, I ask you to demonstrate that.)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 06:43:32 PM
That would be your problem. I refer you to the gas laws. Here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws). If pressure is the same then a denser volume of N would indeed be colder. But that's not what you said.

I suggest that you take high school chemistry and then try again.

Very well, I shall try this again. This time, lowering the bar down to your level of intellect.

Magneto Have Good Power With Magnetism When It Cold Everywhere.

Magneto Lose All Power When Pyro Start Throwing Flame At Magneto.

Magneto + Cold - STRONG MAGNETO

Magneto + Fire - WEAK MAGNETO

With me, thus far? I hope at least X Men is suited enough for whatever character you've acting as.

Good.
Irrelevant. Your response has nothing to do with the quote. Please do a better job.

Again, is N the magnet? If so, then do tell us about N magnets. If not, then your analogy fails.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 06:48:02 PM
http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/sbtroy/Guinea_and_Feather/Guinea_and_Feather.html (http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/sbtroy/Guinea_and_Feather/Guinea_and_Feather.html)

I thank you.

You play your part flawlessly, Flat Earther.

Your experiment PROVES BEYOND SHADOW OF DOUBT, that "Gravity" doesn't rely on mass.

Since even in a void chamber, the HEAVY ball and the LIGHT feather fall at the same speed !!

Thus, MASS cannot possibly ever be the cause of GRAVITY, because if it were, the Mass of the Earth would draw the largest objects first, faster than the Objects with less mass, such as a feather.

Since you just negated that mass increases gravity, and the large dense ball falls as the same speed in a void as the very light feather, this proves they aren't magically attracted to the Earth, because of "Mass".

Since both the normal air pressure chamber, and the voided chamber, had the exact same TEMPERATURES, the MAGNETISM of the upper layers above them, had the exact same FORCE OF DOWNWARD ACCELERATION.

Proving, yet again, that temperature is the Prime reason why Gravity / Magnetism from above makes things fall. That temperature is directly affected by Magnetism. And that Magnetism is directly affected by the temperature.

If you would have performed the same experiment in an extremely cold void chamber, you would see they would have fallen A LOT FASTER.

Again, you realise you're supposed to be, not on my side ... in this debate .... right?

And this is why you are brilliant.

I thank you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 06:55:39 PM
http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/sbtroy/Guinea_and_Feather/Guinea_and_Feather.html (http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/sbtroy/Guinea_and_Feather/Guinea_and_Feather.html)

I thank you.
...

Your experiment PROVES BEYOND SHADOW OF DOUBT, that "Gravity" doesn't rely on mass.

Since even in a void chamber, the HEAVY ball and the LIGHT feather fall at the same speed !!

Thus, MASS cannot possibly ever be the cause of GRAVITY, because if it were, the Mass of the Earth would draw the largest objects first, faster than the Objects with less mass, such as a feather.

...
Nope. You don't know Newton's Three Laws of Motion either. <sigh> You might want to consider that acceleration is proportional to mass.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 06:56:07 PM
Do you understand the Gas Laws? LN can be warmer than gaseous N. I've told you that you need high school chemistry to advance this wild idea of yours.

Please do tell us how you know that N is affected by magnetism.

Please do tell us how you know that "Magnetism is directly weakened by high temperatures, and strongest when in lower temperatures". Remember that you've been talking about the temperature of N, not the magnet. (Unless you're arguing that N acts a magnet, in which case, I ask you to demonstrate that.)
Of course, Levee.

I love how you play right into my game, so everyone things you're a legit RET, when you're just throwing the debate to me. Flawless thus far, and you are dedicated to your persona, instead of going out of character, as I do.

Nitrogen has both Protons and Electrons. Which act as opposite poles, just as any Magnet has opposite poles. In fact, one pole of the magnet Rejects electrons, while the other pole Attracts electrons.

Thus, nitrogen has the same polarity as any magnet, because it has opposing protons and electrons. And of course, neutrons who are mostly unaffected by gravity thanks to not being Magnetised from above, and forced down along with everything else.

This is also why neutrons appear to have "no mass". Being unmagnetic and unpolarised by excellence, they are unmoved or unaffected by the air's Magnetism from above, that should push everything else downwards.

When Nitrogen is made very very cold and dense, it's protons and electrons are forced closer to it's neutrons. Thus binding the neutrons in it's core to also be dragged down along with the rest of the particles in Nitrogen.

When Nitrogen is made very warm and less dense, it's protons and electrons are forced away from it's neutrons. Thus releasing it's neutrons from the Magnetic pull of it's other particles, that are less dragged down by upper Magnetism.

I applaud your acting skills !!
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: jraffield1 on December 25, 2011, 06:59:20 PM
http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/sbtroy/Guinea_and_Feather/Guinea_and_Feather.html (http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/sbtroy/Guinea_and_Feather/Guinea_and_Feather.html)

I thank you.

You play your part flawlessly, Flat Earther.

Your experiment PROVES BEYOND SHADOW OF DOUBT, that "Gravity" doesn't rely on mass.

Since even in a void chamber, the HEAVY ball and the LIGHT feather fall at the same speed !!

Thus, MASS cannot possibly ever be the cause of GRAVITY, because if it were, the Mass of the Earth would draw the largest objects first, faster than the Objects with less mass, such as a feather.

Since you just negated that mass increases gravity, and the large dense ball falls as the same speed in a void as the very light feather, this proves they aren't magically attracted to the Earth, because of "Mass".

Since both the normal air pressure chamber, and the voided chamber, had the exact same TEMPERATURES, the MAGNETISM of the upper layers above them, had the exact same FORCE OF DOWNWARD ACCELERATION.

Proving, yet again, that temperature is the Prime reason why Gravity / Magnetism from above makes things fall. That temperature is directly affected by Magnetism. And that Magnetism is directly affected by the temperature.

If you would have performed the same experiment in an extremely cold void chamber, you would see they would have fallen A LOT FASTER.

Again, you realise you're supposed to be, not on my side ... in this debate .... right?

And this is why you are brilliant.

I thank you.

I don't think you understood what actually happened. The larger mass felt a larger force on it than the lighter object, but they both felt the same acceleration. All this experiment proves is that inertial mass is equal to gravitational mass.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 07:00:33 PM
...
Nitrogen has both Protons and Electrons. Which act as opposite poles, just as any Magnet has opposite poles. In fact, one pole of the magnet Rejects electrons, while the other pole Attracts electrons.
...
Nope.

You forget that ordinary matter has an equal number of protons and electrons and therefore no poles. Even if it did, you're confusing having an electrical charge with having the property of responding to magnetism.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 07:00:51 PM
Nope. You don't know Newton's Three Laws of Motion either. <sigh> You might want to consider that acceleration is proportional to mass.


Again. In extremely cold temperatures, that same void chamber would allow everything to fall A LOT FASTER. Because, you already know and understand by now, Magnetism from above, allows it to accelerate objects down a lot faster, the colder it becomes.

Again. In extremely warm temperatures, that same void chamber would allow everything to fall A LOT SLOWER. Because, all magnetism, including the Magnetism from above, prevents it from accelerating objects down, thus slowing their downfall.

You are a very clever actor, Levee !! All the RET are left jaws acleft by now, and are either suiciding or converted to FET, or going into full panic mode !!

I thank you for my small role in your Grand Scheme of things.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: zarg on December 25, 2011, 07:01:36 PM
Your experiment PROVES BEYOND SHADOW OF DOUBT, that "Gravity" doesn't rely on mass.

Since even in a void chamber, the HEAVY ball and the LIGHT feather fall at the same speed !!

You just said that air pressure causes things to fall and nothing would fall in a void. Now you're making an argument based on the assumption that things do fall in a void, clearly contradicting yourself. Please decide what theory you stand for. I'm not going to waste time arguing if you keep changing your premise. Do things fall due to air pressure? Yes or no.


the MAGNETISM of the upper layers above them

Layers of what? There's no gas. There's nothing there. It's a vacuum.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 07:04:25 PM
You might want to consider that acceleration is proportional to mass.
Indeed it is. Yet with only Magnetic acceleration from above, both the ball and the feather have the exact same speed.

Since that Magnetism from above, is Uniformous. It doesn't dramatically accelerate them differently, due to their masses.

It only accelerates them according to their Temperature / Density.

If those feather and ball were cold, they would also fall faster. Because Magnetism would push it down faster.

If they were hot, the feather could very well just float up into the air. In fact feathers do that.

Again, don't make this too easy for me, Levee. I have to appear to have some difficulty in disproving your challanges.

How else are they supposed to be in fear of FET, until they cannot dare to oppose it's Greatness?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Tausami on December 25, 2011, 07:05:36 PM
Did you guys seriously stretch this out over 4 pages in a single day, on Christmas?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 07:05:58 PM
Nope. You don't know Newton's Three Laws of Motion either. <sigh> You might want to consider that acceleration is proportional to mass.


Again. In extremely cold temperatures, that same void chamber would allow everything to fall A LOT FASTER. Because, you already know and understand by now, Magnetism from above, allows it to accelerate objects down a lot faster, the colder it becomes.

Again. In extremely warm temperatures, that same void chamber would allow everything to fall A LOT SLOWER. Because, all magnetism, including the Magnetism from above, prevents it from accelerating objects down, thus slowing their downfall.

You are a very clever actor, Levee !! All the RET are left jaws acleft by now, and are either suiciding or converted to FET, or going into full panic mode !!

I thank you for my small role in your Grand Scheme of things.
I refer you to high school physics.

Would you please provide an experiment that you've performed that demonstrates that objects are accelerated from above differently based on temperature? I'm sure a video of that experiment would go viral and the Nobel Prize will be yours in less than a year. Don't wait. Fame and fortune await your video.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: zarg on December 25, 2011, 07:07:13 PM
Did you guys seriously stretch this out over 4 pages in a single day, on Christmas?
No.

5.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Rushy on December 25, 2011, 07:09:31 PM
The only reason this thread was stretched out so far is because no matter who or what just makes shit up, ClockTower has to argue with it.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 07:13:54 PM
Nope.

You forget that ordinary matter has an equal number of protons and electrons and therefore no poles. Even if it did, you're confusing having an electrical charge with having the property of responding to magnetism.

Not always "equal" but I see you have to play the common RET noob here. So I will let you keep character, for now.

Electrical charges are strong enough to Magnetise common iron and other metals, to BECOME MAGNETS themselves. Check.

Ionised gases from the upper layers of air, are under the highest radiation from the Magnetism of which I speak. Thus they are the first to become ionised and even creates what you see as Aurora Borealis. Check.

Ionisation from Upper Magnetism, and Magnetisation from Electrified metals, are both proof that Magnetism is maleable, and adheres to all these properties.

Magnetism can both create electrical charge, which it does. In the summer when Magnetism is more blocked by warm air, into the upper layers of the air, creates giant electrical storms. Which detense some of this repelled Magnetism horizontally, or sometimes even as vertical lightning bolts.

In the winter, when this Magnetism is most permissive through the air, things not only fall faster, and louder, because Magnetism (that creates your "Gravity") is a bit stronger. But all that magnetism that was locked up in thunderstorms and absorbed by water particles in the summer, is now fully flowing down to the Earth, uninhibited. Thus electricity in thunder clouds is drained down to the earth in colder weather. Check.

Aaaaand Mate.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 07:16:29 PM
You just said that air pressure causes things to fall and nothing would fall in a void. Now you're making an argument based on the assumption that things do fall in a void, clearly contradicting yourself. Please decide what theory you stand for. I'm not going to waste time arguing if you keep changing your premise. Do things fall due to air pressure? Yes or no.



Layers of what? There's no gas. There's nothing there. It's a vacuum.

Air pressure is caused by magnetism. In high magnetism, air has more pressure or "density". In lower magnetism, air has less pressure or "density".

That was, in fact, bait. And you swallowed it, hook line and sinker.

I thank you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 07:20:33 PM

Layers of what? There's no gas. There's nothing there. It's a vacuum.

Magnetism also causes the air to "fall" thus increasing it's density and general pressure.

In a void chamber, the Magnetism is not eliminated. Since the temperature is, in fact, identical.

All you did was eliminate the air, which was only one of the elements forced down by Magnetism from above it.

Since air alone isn't exclusive in it's magnetic properties that force it down, you realise why it's absence wouldn't change Magnetism in other elements, yes?

Air doesn't just force things "down" because it's heavy. It's being forced down itself, by More Air from Above it. From the Upper layers, where MORE AIR is very cold and thus Highly MAGNETISED, and forced down by gravity.

It's pressure forced not only that cold air from above down to the earth, but also all the elements that are also within range of that Magnetism.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 07:24:06 PM
Did you guys seriously stretch this out over 4 pages in a single day, on Christmas?

What can I say ... they keep asking the wrong questions, allowing me to provide all the right answers.

FE Theorists do that, when they're testing my Faith, to see if I'm truly a Believer. In fact, I may have opened their own eyes a bit, in the process.

For this, they are thankful.

Because it's Christmas !! These answers are like ... gifts. From me, unto them.

If I can't even convert people to FET, on Christmas ... When !??!
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 07:25:35 PM
The only reason this thread was stretched out so far is because no matter who or what just makes shit up, ClockTower has to argue with it.

Hey don't interfere with Levee's testing me for FET membership of the Inner Forums !!

If I lose this, I won't be able to post with all the cool Flat Earth Believers on the "Cool Threads" ....  :'(
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 07:31:40 PM
I refer you to high school physics.

Would you please provide an experiment that you've performed that demonstrates that objects are accelerated from above differently based on temperature? I'm sure a video of that experiment would go viral and the Nobel Prize will be yours in less than a year. Don't wait. Fame and fortune await your video.

I point you to a volcano. Throw something into it, and measure the time it takes to fall inside.

I point you to an iceberg. Throw something unto it from the exact same height, and measure the time it takes to fall inside.

And keep in mind the difference of temperature isn't even that great from the air above icebergs and volcanoes.

Maybe if it's cold water and very warm water? Objects would float down a lot faster in colder water, while remaining afloat for longer in very warm water.

I see no reason why you have to bring a Nobel comitee into this. I am, after all, unselfish and don't care for such trivial things such as fame or what not.

You need bring a very cold water and it's container. And a very warm water and it's container. Measure how much slower the objects sink into the warm water, and how fast in the coldest water.

Then repeat this, above a volcano, or gheiser, or what have you, and again over an iceberg, or crevasse, or ....

Or even during the summer and during the winter. Since it's winter in the inner half of the Flat Earth, right now. And summer in the outer half of the Flat Earth, anyone can just travel from Europe to Australia, or something.

And confirm immediately, that the same object falls faster when it's winter, than when it's summer.

Coldness hastens the natural Magnetism that pushes elements down.

Warmth slows them down, along with their own magnetic properties.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 07:32:57 PM
No.

5.

Winning against Levee in just 5 pages? Wow

I DO DESERVE A NOBLE PRIZE !!!!

Or .. Levee was very very merciful with me. Seeing it's Christmas and all.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: zarg on December 25, 2011, 08:06:58 PM
Since the temperature is, in fact, identical.

No it isn't. The vacuum tube is obviously colder.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 26, 2011, 05:43:32 AM
Yes, in every syringe I've voided, to watch the water bubbles decompress, the water immediately froze ...

Except it didn't. It remained normal water, just very decompressed, with all the gases dissolved in it, rising up like bubbles. Same temperature, of course. Which is why hands didn't freeze off when I shot that voided water on my skin.

If even pre-teenage children have the skill to prove you wrong ... might this make you an utter peon?

It might. It Does.

I know you thought your verbalisations here matters for something, to someone ... But if any household items found in any possible house, of anyone who's watching this, can prove you so wrong, you wish you had been properly aborted.

How quaint !! I get to humiliate and drag through the mud, the RET piggies !! Yeah this feels so ...... so nice.

Seeing you all retreat with utter shame and desperation, tails between your thighs like scared dogs, is so exhilarating I think my heart grew 3 sizes in my chest.

It's a Christmas Miracle !!

Proving all your RET agents and incitators and peons payed by your secret piggies running your RET cons(hit)piracy ... dead wrong, is the worst humiliation you all can suffer.

In public. No less. IN PUBLIC !!! Do you get this ?!?! Are you ... are you registering ?!?! Your defeat is so complete, your entire RET conspiracy just spat itself in the mouth. All you little piglets are oinking in utter desperation, now.

Reducing you bacon suppliers from Round Earth Terrorists  ... to Round Earth .... Errorists .... was much easier than I had expect.

Well, if this doesn't grant me membership in the Flat Earth Believers forum, I'll have to agree with you, that FET is also a conspiracy, or something ... right?

We have fun here.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: The Knowledge on December 26, 2011, 06:06:22 AM
Silverdane, don't you have a family to go eat turkey with? Or perhaps you are the turkey?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 26, 2011, 06:15:15 AM
Is alergic to meat.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Around And About on December 26, 2011, 07:47:17 AM
Errorist, heh. I enjoyed that one. Where are you from, Silverdane?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 26, 2011, 08:18:20 AM
Is alergic to locations.

I am ... simple ... there !!
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: The Knowledge on December 26, 2011, 09:37:49 AM
Errorist, heh. I enjoyed that one. Where are you from, Silverdane?

Perhaps Levee got himself an alt?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: El Cid on December 27, 2011, 03:09:05 AM
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)

where:
 F is the force between the masses,
 G is the gravitational constant,
 m1 is the first mass,
 m2 is the second mass, and
 r is the distance between the masses

G is approximately equal to 6.67410^−11 N m^2 kg^−2

^^The universal law.

Point out temperature.  Oh wait, it's not there.  Gravity is based on the masses of the two objects, the distance between them, and the constant.  Universally.

There are complications, in real life, of course:  air resistance happens when particles of air hit a falling object, causing, in Newton's words, an equal and opposite reaction, upwards.  The object slows.

Temperature is the velocity of particles in an object.  It will make no difference in air resistance unless the temperature is hugely different.  I'm talking millions of degrees.  And there still has to be air in roughly the same state of pressure, etc., remember, which is impossible in differences of millions of degrees, really.

Magnetism is caused by the spin of electrons, which causes attraction in certain circumstances.

I just don't understand, Silverdane.  What you're saying is completely incomprehensible to me.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 27, 2011, 06:12:28 AM

I just don't understand, Silverdane.  What you're saying is completely incomprehensible to me.

For some reason, that I am happy not to know, this really made me lol.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Conker on December 27, 2011, 06:53:48 AM
Different temperatures? ON A VACUUM? what is this thread about?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: 29silhouette on December 27, 2011, 08:32:59 PM
Errorist, heh. I enjoyed that one. Where are you from, Silverdane?

Perhaps Levee got himself an alt?
Levee posting as 'Silverdane', arguing with Clocktower, accusing Clocktower of being Levee, thereby pretending to argue with himself?  Well played.

Baseless or unproven theories (bordering on, or including laughable), misspelled words, can't (or won't) understand simple concepts, dodges questions, arrogant attitude, name-calling, and inflated ego....

Silverdane, you are a master troll.

*Perhaps an 'emo' troll, I'm starting to think.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: zarg on December 28, 2011, 12:28:46 AM
Silverdane's posts are like poetry. When I read them, I imagine his voice dramatically enunciating them in rhythm.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: trig on December 29, 2011, 03:34:17 PM
I hereby award my Troll of the Year award to Silverdane. The prize includes a nice, very extended stay in a very private resort, and their signature Straight Jacket attire so he can blend right in. In true fashion the Jacket has long sleeves buttoned behind the back, and very kind buttlers (dressed in white) will carefully button down his straitjacket for him. All the walls are padded, for added comfort.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 29, 2011, 08:53:17 PM
Your all full of it. You know the Earth is round. You just like the argument. It's your social life. So badass. This is the best idea ever. FET? for reals? Priceless.
 ;D
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 11:45:05 AM
Your all full of it. You know the Earth is round. You just like the argument. It's your social life. So badass. This is the best idea ever. FET? for reals? Priceless.
 ;D

You are full of enthusiasm. You know you want to dig straight down, and end up somewhere else on the Earth. You just love to dig. It's your shovel, and your arms. So admirable. This is the best tunnel idea ever. Digging a tunnel for every FET on this earth, to see the world isn't Flat? Thank you !!

I appreciate your noble efforts. Digging a tunnel into the Crust, to prove to every FET on earth that liniar travel through the earth, does rise up somewhere else on it's surface, and that FET is impossible, is very Glorious Deed of you !!

Unfortunately I am a Flat Earth Believer, thus I am forbidden by law to dig. Only Round Earth Terrorists can dig down into the Earth to prove your tunnel disproves FET.

You're Welcome !! Now, what kind of shovel would you and your fellow Round Earth Enthusiant Diggers, be using?

Can us FET believers use like cameras and record your massive failure? Front row tickets to how your RET will fall down from the world, by digging down to the other side of the Earth's Crust, should be priceless, and will not only prove FET, but stimulate laughter in the Flat Earth Society for potentially always.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 30, 2011, 11:48:00 AM
Well dig dug depicted a flat earth.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 11:52:47 AM
Well dig dug depicted a flat earth.

What?

FET believers, like myself, are expressly forbidden by RET law, to dig into the Earth's Crust.

Only RET believers are allowed to dig in the earth's crust, to prove their RET.

FET believers, are truly unable. It's RET that forbids us. We just rest comfortably on the side lines, as we watch RET folk dig holes through the earth, to prove liniar tunnels do arrive faster, by digging clean under the Earth's crust.

Imagine how much shorter distances and long travels will be !! RE Tunnel Diggers will have ushered in a new Era of Very Fast World Travel !!

Thanks to their straight tunnels, through the Earth's Crust.

And us little FET believers, will be banned from using those tunnels. We will have to use the surface of the Earth, and reach destinations very late.

How humiliated will us FET folk, be ?!?!? So humiliated, right ?!

Therefore I suspect these RET will begin digging their Liniar Tunnels into the Earth, as we speak.

Great !! Waiting for humiliation now !!
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: markjo on December 30, 2011, 12:30:17 PM
FET believers, like myself, are expressly forbidden by RET law, to dig into the Earth's Crust.

Would you please cite this law that you are referring to?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 30, 2011, 12:36:20 PM
There's no law and he knows it. You could say, "I like Chinese food", and Silverdane would say that was you conceding to his point. This is all a game. Silverdane just loves doing this. I finally found someone who likes arguing as much as me. I'm gonna keep him busy. Call it a battle of the trolls! Silverdane, you complete me!
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 12:59:09 PM
There's no law and he knows it. You could say, "I like Chinese food", and Silverdane would say that was you conceding to his point. This is all a game. Silverdane just loves doing this. I finally found someone who likes arguing as much as me. I'm gonna keep him busy. Call it a battle of the trolls! Silverdane, you complete me!
Procrastinating piggy is procrastinating.

Get digging, piggy. Imagine all the precious minerals you'll find when you dig through the earth.

You'll also be able to cash it that massive check for proving the FET wrong. That's still going on, piggy.

If you get off your procrastinating bacon and borrow my shovel to start digging, you'll get that prize from the FET for proving it wrong.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 30, 2011, 01:08:51 PM
How did we get onto digging? I forgot. I don't believe you think the earth is flat. And you know it. I'm still waiting for proof. And. It some bs about dropping out of high school. Your proof that you believe the earth is flat is that you dropped out of high school. Really. Prove to me that you really believe the earth is flat. Waiting, piggy.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 01:11:29 PM
How did we get onto digging? I forgot. I don't believe you think the earth is flat. And you know it. I'm still waiting for proof. And. It some bs about dropping out of high school. Your proof that you believe the earth is flat is that you dropped out of high school. Really. Prove to me that you really believe the earth is flat. Waiting, piggy.

I have legal proof I am a Flat Earth believer. LEgal evidence, do you understand this, cretin? You can literally ask my teachers and my family, and even my deskmate from grade school, and they will all come to court as witnesses that I believe the Earth is Flat, and I've said this to them since a decade ago.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 01:16:19 PM
How did we get onto digging? I forgot. I don't believe you think the earth is flat. And you know it. I'm still waiting for proof. And. It some bs about dropping out of high school. Your proof that you believe the earth is flat is that you dropped out of high school. Really. Prove to me that you really believe the earth is flat. Waiting, piggy.

You do know a decade is ten years, right? Why would I keep telling everyone the Earth is flat, for ten years, having believed it myself for longer than that, before telling them?

Why would a RET argue with highschool teachers against RET, while supporting FET in class, with all students present, and even get kicked out of highschool for this?

Sorry, legal evidence proves I'm a Flat Earth believer.

If you truly don't believe I'm a Flat Earther, why don't you go ahead and sue me, piggy?

Then you will see, you are an utter cretin. And a procrastinating little piggy, who needs to get digging. Fast.

Now either sue me, to have everyone I have known for my entire life prove in court in front of anyone that I've always supported, and argued against them for hours and hours, every day, until they simply had a mental break down, and refused to argue against me.

I called you on your bluff, and you have lost. If not even legal evidence from everyone I've known, and the highschool teachers who I argued with specifically on FET, while they were against it, isn't "enough", you probably think you're Napoleon.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 30, 2011, 01:19:46 PM
Since a decade ago? Definitely dropped out before grammar class. Words all words. "Legal proof" how can you have legal proof of what you believe. Did you notarize your heart? All your teachers and parents can testify to is that you've be saying you believe the earth is flat "since a decade ago", and that you couldn't pass high school. Nothing more. I still don't  believe that you believe and I'd wager that nobody else here does either, but I can't speak to anyone else's opinion. Digging and waiting.

Piggy.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 01:24:33 PM

Would you please cite this law that you are referring to?

The Law of Common Sense.

Every RET believer like yourself, knows that FET cannot dig through the Round Earth, because we don't trust it's Round, in the first place.

How could you expect a Flat Earth believer to do something which should prove RET?

The Law of common sense dictates only RET believers can act out your theories, to prove the earth isn't flat, by digging down, and appearing magically on the opposite part of the earth, as perfectly predicted by the RET models.

Logic? Heard of that one, there?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Conker on December 30, 2011, 03:02:12 PM

Would you please cite this law that you are referring to?

The Law of Common Sense.

So the Common Sense forbids youy to publically express your FE "beliefs"? Good to know.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 03:08:46 PM
The law of common sense would prove it irrational for me to directly aid the RET cause, by digging a liniar tunnel through the Earth.

As that would be directly contrary to my FET beliefs.

Just like you, as a RET, are expressly unforbidden from digging any tunnels to prove travel through the Earth is possible, in accordance with RET Dogma.

Legally speaking, you are free and fully permitted to dig through the earth to prove your RET beliefs.

Legally speaking, I am unable to prove RET, since I am a FET believer.

Law of common sense dictates one only supports their own beliefs.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 30, 2011, 03:23:26 PM
Silverdane does not believe the earth is flat.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 03:27:30 PM
Then why would I argue against the RET people here, and actually win against them?

Why would I support the Flat Earth Theory, and actively humiliate the Round Earth Terrorists?

Besides the obvious guilty pleasure of putting RET idiots in your places, which I shan't deny, what is it I gain from this?

Again, explain this resonably so normal people would understand my motivation for not being a Flat Earther.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 30, 2011, 03:35:00 PM
You just have no life and you sit in your room postulating all this nonsense to make it seem like you are part of this underground of persecuted revolutionaries. You aren't. You know it. You just do this when your not playing World of Warcraft of masturbating or whatever else you do when your not leading a productive life. Or until mom calls you upstairs for dinner.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 03:43:33 PM
So if any little kid is capable of using the FET to humiliate you and your fellow Round Earth Terrorists ....... you're saying you RET believers are truly the persecuted ones?

Are you feeling persecuted right now? Does my presence here, humiliate you? Are you in fact saying a single child is able to mock the entire world, or 99 % or whoever is a Round Earther, and you're too impotent to do anything about it?

Go ahead and prove the Earth is Round. Except you can't.

I thank you. Until then FET is pure win.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 30, 2011, 03:45:53 PM
You don't think that. You know it. I know it. Keep clinging. I know it's all you got. You are transparent.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 03:53:49 PM
You don't think that. You know it. I know it. Keep clinging. I know it's all you got. You are transparent.

So you're admiting your defeat?

Wow, it takes less than 40 posts to defeat any Round Earther newbie that comes to this site.

I believe you are receiving some weird form of stimulation from this. Almost as if you want me to prove the FET is real, and destroy all your previous RET beliefs.

Hmmm ..... your subconscious gives you away. You are only hoping someone will show you the light of Flat Earth Theory.

And you hope that someone is me. You know you want the Truth, and you know you want it now.

You're just too afraid to admit it. Because you are aware how impotent, and ignorant that will make you sound and feel. You can't admit you know nothing, and that you want the Truth to shine on your darkened little soul.

For I shall provide you with the instruments of your Enlightenment. A shovel, and any patch of earth for you to dig straight down into. And I'll be greeting you on the other side, as you dig your way up. Which will never happen, as you are a coward.

You do realise that unlike yourself, nobody pays me to support this, yes?

Just because you're being payed by the RET Conspiracy losers to support their lies, doesn't mean I'm also being payed by some FET people.

I'm actually doing this for free, and still winning against you.

Oh wait, I just realised. By failing to disprove my FET logic, you are in fact losing your job and salary !!

OMG This is MAJOR!!! What if the RET Conspiracy people are actually executing their RET agents, whenever they fail to protect the reputation of RET?

What if you're not losing just your salary and job, but also your life, by failing to prove RET is more logical than FET, here?

Hmmm, you are only desperate because you know the RET Conspiracists hold your life, right now?

Oh well, consider yourself a martyr for the Truth, then. If you die, I will have proven I was right all along. Which I already knew.

Hahaha.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 30, 2011, 04:04:15 PM
I'm not asking you to prove the earth is flat. You can't. Not any more than I could prove its round on a forum. I'm asking you to prove that YOU THINK IT'S FLAT. No that you say you think it's flat or that you know or any other such nonsense. Prove to me that you think the earth is flat. You can't, because you don't. You think it's round like everybody else. Keep writing Clancy. I'll be waiting.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 04:09:45 PM
I'm not asking you to prove the earth is flat. You can't. Not any more than I could prove its round on a forum. I'm asking you to prove that YOU THINK IT'S FLAT. No that you say you think it's flat or that you know or any other such nonsense. Prove to me that you think the earth is flat. You can't, because you don't. You think it's round like everybody else. Keep writing Clancy. I'll be waiting.

Grab yourself a lie detector. Travel yourself over here, in my city. You can ask any questions, and even film this entirely. I don't mind.

If you won't believe it when a lie detector says I'm not lying, what would you believe then?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 30, 2011, 04:14:17 PM
What country do you live in anyway?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 04:15:11 PM
What country do you live in anyway?

A very flat one.

On a fun note, your number of posts (49) has the square root of seven (7).

My number of posts (256) has the square root of sixteen (16).

ADD Winning !!
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 30, 2011, 04:22:52 PM
Yeah. Winning. I was just wondering what backward shithole you hailed from cuz that would explain a lot. I'm guessing Europe. Possibly eastern cuz you mentioned the Carpathian Mountains. You got nothing and youve proven nothing. Just a kid type type typing away. A kid, by the way, WHO DOESN'T THINK THE EARTH IS FLAT. And he knows it.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 04:28:57 PM
Are you that desperate? How can you assume to think you know what I believe, or don't believe?

Have you any evidence of your beliefs, or your beliefs on my beliefs?

None, what so ever? How convenient, dear nobody. You have just proven to be a nobody who's very very, in denial about having just been proven to be a common RET cretin.

Fact: You and all your RET lovers have been humiliated, and logically proven to be dogmatic idiots, after being presented with my arguments.

Fact: Your RET friends with benefits fear me so deeply, they have ceased speaking to me alltogether. That's how terrorised they are of having their lies exposed.

Fact: FET is pure Win, and not even here on my own threads, can you disprove the FET arguments being presented here. You're just a desperate, desperate clown, biding your time.

You know I'm right. You know the Earth is Flat. That's why you're so desperate here, because you realise the Truth is coming out and you'll be running up that hill, running up that building, baby.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 30, 2011, 04:34:52 PM
I thought I was a flat earth tested sent to confirm your faith. Or am I an assassin, or a flat earther posing as a round earther dressed as a square earther wrapped up in a oval earthed. You can't even keep track anymore. You don't believe the earth is flat and you refuse to provide proof to the contrary so I assume you are admitting as much. Win one for the Vatos Locos!
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 04:42:29 PM
I thought I was a flat earth tested sent to confirm your faith. Or am I an assassin, or a flat earther posing as a round earther dressed as a square earther wrapped up in a oval earthed. You can't even keep track anymore. You don't believe the earth is flat and you refuse to provide proof to the contrary so I assume you are admitting as much. Win one for the Vatos Locos!

Get your story straight. Kind of like that tunnel you refuse to dig.

Neither your story or your tunnels are linear. Maybe you know the Earth isn't Round, after all?

Tsk tsk tsk ...
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 30, 2011, 04:46:48 PM
Tsk tsk proof. Or go to bed and let the men talk here.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 04:50:17 PM
No proof? Alright I guess that means I was right in chosing the title of this thread as "Flat Earth Victory", was I not?

Good, glad, great !!
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 30, 2011, 04:54:17 PM
Still don't want to prove you you really think the earth is flat. Why. Oh yeah because you don't. I will drive you outta here. Your days are numbered. I can do his forever. You will leave or change your name but your outta here "flat earth" boy. I see you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 05:00:31 PM
Hahahaha, you're pretty funny.

No, none of that happened, because I'm actually very right about all of this.

You're starting to act like a very sad, insecure clown.

Must I pay your therapist as well? Or did your prescription of Prozac run out ....

Someone please, get this clown a tissue. I don't want crocodile tears all over my beautiful Flat Earth thread.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 30, 2011, 05:50:21 PM
Oh I got plenty of Prozac. To keep up with a clown like you. No facts, just talk. No balls just a big mouth. Can't prove a thing, and really doesn't want to. Cuz he DOESN'T BELIEVE WHAT HE'S SAYING. He's just pretending to. High school drop out pretending he thinks the earth is flat. It could be a new show on a&e. Flat earth fakers. I like that.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 06:03:12 PM
Really? Have you lurked enough to see the photos of these experiments?

Apollo 8 Christmas Eve
(http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/christmasont.jpg)

Toronto as seen across Lake Ontario
 (http://cdn2.wn.com/pd/84/02/7ad39d49be0ae6841889140e20b7_grande.jpg)

Four stars or maybe a "planet" on the entire sky .... right. How plausible is that, No?

But yeah ... no. Any look at the clear sky, without clouds would prove how flat the earth is.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: markjo on December 30, 2011, 07:11:25 PM

Would you please cite this law that you are referring to?
The Law of Common Sense.

Quote from: Albert Einstein
Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen.


How could you expect a Flat Earth believer to do something which should prove RET?

I would never expect a Flat Earth believer to do something which should prove RET.  But I would expect a Flat Earth believer to do something which should prove FET.  Providing a coherent model that shows the basic principles of sunrise, sunset, moonrise, moonset, lunar phases, equinoxes and solar and lunar eclipses from a flat earth perspective would be a good place to start.

The Law of common sense dictates only RET believers can act out your theories, to prove the earth isn't flat, by digging down, and appearing magically on the opposite part of the earth, as perfectly predicted by the RET models.

RET models predict thousands of miles of molten rock and a very hot and dense nickle-iron core as one digs throuh the round earth.  How do you expect anyone to dig through all of that?  My guess is that you don't.

Logic? Heard of that one, there?

Yes, I've heard of it.  Have you ever heard of the wonderful therapeutic benefits of lithium?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Silverdane on December 30, 2011, 07:24:54 PM
Quote from: Albert Einstein
Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen.

I would never expect a Flat Earth believer to do something which should prove RET.  But I would expect a Flat Earth believer to do something which should prove FET.  Providing a coherent model that shows the basic principles of sunrise, sunset, moonrise, moonset, lunar phases, equinoxes and solar and lunar eclipses from a flat earth perspective would be a good place to start.

RET models predict thousands of miles of molten rock and a very hot and dense nickle-iron core as one digs throuh the round earth.  How do you expect anyone to dig through all of that?  My guess is that you don't.

Yes, I've heard of it.  Have you ever heard of the wonderful therapeutic benefits of lithium?

I am not interested in the Prophecies of your RET Religion, oh cultist.

The opinions of a dead jew, mean nothing to me. You're barking at the wrongest possible tree with that one.

Quote
But I would expect a Flat Earth believer to do something which should prove FET.  Providing a coherent model that shows the basic principles of sunrise, sunset, moonrise, moonset, lunar phases, equinoxes and solar and lunar eclipses from a flat earth perspective would be a good place to start.

Agreed. Find me a society or group or any form of Organisation, or even independent researchers in my country that actually work with FET and strive to prove it, and I will join it and get to work on it immediately.

I would love to help create a coherent model to explain everything with the FET model. Since I am but a single person, lost in a sea of cultist idiots who haven't even heard of the Flat Earth Theory, I fail to see how doing all that work myself, is possible for now.

I can try to work with other FET from other countries, just as well, to perfect the Flat Earth Theory ideals and models. Why do you think I'm on this site, genius person?

I've tried to contact Levee, on several sites, as I remember reading once in one of his articles, that he's from my country. But I cannot be sure he is, as he never replied to my messages, on any site I've seen his accounts. So working with someone from my country, like Levee isn't possible if Levee is always busy, I guess.

Also Levee is very different than I am, in method of thinking. So I don't see how working together would actually achieve something. Levee's very technical, I'm very general or chaotic.

Of course. You think my RET believing family haven't tried throwing lithium at me for years? Apparently it balances the nerve flow, and prevents depression.

As I don't believe in such female emotions as "happiness" or "depression", nor do I suffer from Premenstrual Syndrome, I would have to ask if you own a vagina?

For if you do, I recommend your keep your depression advice within the confines of your own vagina, as your health problems are your own. I don't believe in the amount of baloonery you would, so do keep your RET nonsense in your own back yard.

I thank you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Around And About on December 30, 2011, 07:45:08 PM
I would have to ask if you own a vagina?

Oh yes, I own one.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 30, 2011, 07:48:50 PM
Silverdane is a faker.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: markjo on December 30, 2011, 08:09:51 PM
I am not interested in the Prophecies of your RET Religion, oh cultist.

Then why the obsession with having RE'ers dig tunnels through the center of the earth?


Quote
I would love to help create a coherent model to explain everything with the FET model. Since I am but a single person, lost in a sea of cultist idiots who haven't even heard of the Flat Earth Theory, I fail to see how doing all that work myself, is possible for now.

I can try to work with other FET from other countries, just as well, to perfect the Flat Earth Theory ideals and models.

Then you're in luck.  This just happens to be an international society that just happens to have some of the most preeminent modern Flat Earth researches on the disc.  Let the collaborations begin.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Conker on December 31, 2011, 03:13:10 AM
This is becoming one of the most succesfull troll threads  I have ever seen from "Bendy Light Theory" thread. Also, Silverdane, Meta-disscussions do not prove anything. Stop arguing about the arguments and if you believe or not and start a real disscussion. Also, if you propose an experiment, you cant claim your victory unless it has bee made, except in the case of mental experiments, which are logically coherent by itself, and eventhat you can only use them in a falsative way. Im sorry
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: kosh5 on December 31, 2011, 06:15:38 AM
I saw FES world map.

And I saw, of course, officialy (conspiracy ?) world map.

There is an enourmous difference for each distances between Russia and Alaska.

FES world map : a very big distance. Thousands kilometers.
Official world map : just 100 kilometers.

You are all OK with that, I suppose ?

So... why believers couldn't organize any boat expedition between Russia and Alaska, to prove their theory ?
Organize that and take a lot of materials. Camcorder, navigation materials, etc.
If you do that, you will prove that official world map is wrong. So, why not organize this trip ?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: zarg on December 31, 2011, 03:09:27 PM
Every RET believer like yourself, knows that FET cannot dig through the Round Earth, because we don't trust it's Round, in the first place.

How could you expect a Flat Earth believer to do something which should prove RET?

The Law of common sense dictates only RET believers can act out your theories, to prove the earth isn't flat, by digging down, and appearing magically on the opposite part of the earth, as perfectly predicted by the RET models.

Every FET believer like yourself, knows the RET cannot dig through the Flat Earth, because we don't trust it's Flat, in the first place.

How could you expect a Round Earth believer to do something which should prove FET?

The Law of common sense dictates only FET believers can act out your theories, to prove the earth isn't round, by digging down, and not appearing magically on the opposite part of the earth, as perfectly predicted by the FET models.

Get digging, piggy.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Red Special on January 06, 2012, 04:48:28 AM
I saw FES world map.

And I saw, of course, officialy (conspiracy ?) world map.

There is an enourmous difference for each distances between Russia and Alaska.

FES world map : a very big distance. Thousands kilometers.
Official world map : just 100 kilometers.

You are all OK with that, I suppose ?

So... why believers couldn't organize any boat expedition between Russia and Alaska, to prove their theory ?
Organize that and take a lot of materials. Camcorder, navigation materials, etc.
If you do that, you will prove that official world map is wrong. So, why not organize this trip ?
They are too lazy, I suppose.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 07, 2012, 08:25:36 AM
I saw FES world map.

And I saw, of course, officialy (conspiracy ?) world map.

There is an enourmous difference for each distances between Russia and Alaska.

FES world map : a very big distance. Thousands kilometers.
Official world map : just 100 kilometers.

You are all OK with that, I suppose ?

So... why believers couldn't organize any boat expedition between Russia and Alaska, to prove their theory ?
Organize that and take a lot of materials. Camcorder, navigation materials, etc.
If you do that, you will prove that official world map is wrong. So, why not organize this trip ?

Because the purpose of this forum is not to find the truth but to show everyone that the world is flat, therefore anything that may go against said purpose is not going to happen.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: Tausami on January 08, 2012, 09:33:23 AM
I can try to work with other FET from other countries, just as well, to perfect the Flat Earth Theory ideals and models. Why do you think I'm on this site, genius person?

Some of his comments aside, I would recommend that at some point Silverdane's account also include membership in the Flat Earth Believer Category (if it is not already) based upon the fact that his belief is evidently quite sincere and his stated desire to associate with other flat earth believers.

I would also suggest that Silverdane also might find a more cordial approach to his enemies to be more effective on several levels. 
I myself occasionally find the words of a global world believer to be highly abrasive, but they are not our teachers.

He's banned right now, and why should Levee have two FEB accounts?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: The Knowledge on January 09, 2012, 12:31:20 PM
He's banned right now, and why should Levee have two FEB accounts?

I am not convinced of that.  Silverdane expressed surprise at the existence of my thread against the existence of nuclear weapons when I made a post which bumped it to the for.  Levee, on the contrary, has not made a post in that thread in a very, very long time - although he does know about it.  There have been a handful of users who have agreed with me on that topic aside from Levee and Silverdane.

Does Silverdane believe anything in which Levee is the only other member on this forum to believe (such as that the world is only 500 years old)?

Two flat earth believers from the same country is not an indication that Silverdane is an alternate account for Levee.
Is that the only reason you make that assertion?  Please do tell me something I do not know.

Because in order to make an alt convincing, you don't make it absolutely identical :P
BTW 17th, that thread about the Humours where you get totally pwned is priceless  ;)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Victory
Post by: zarg on January 09, 2012, 12:35:49 PM
Does Silverdane believe anything in which Levee is the only other member on this forum to believe (such as that the world is only 500 years old)?

Yep.

Ehhhhhh, I have my theory, but I doubt any other FET believer would agree with it.

I don't believe this flat earth has existed for long. I believe it's just a very new, temporary world. Created only for a short period of time, with most of it's history made up.

Basically it's barely existed since after world war 2. And everything before it was forged, or made along with the rest of the world. As part of it's "core illusion", or genesis.

According to this, the world should end very soon.