Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - svenanders

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Debate / Flat Earth Debunk Visualization
« on: March 06, 2016, 10:49:42 AM »
This short video show how we should observe the sun and the moon if they were 32 miles across and at an altitude of 3000 miles.
In reality, as we can clearly see, they do not behave like this.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

The video also goes well with the math provided here:

http://tube.geogebra.org/m/2141849

How do FET explains these observations?

2
Flat Earth Debate / Problems with a flat earth
« on: October 09, 2015, 10:18:09 AM »
Ah, glad to be back! :)

These are all problems for flat earth theory. If you know what you're talking about, you should have no trouble providing an answer to these. Not a link to some video, not a url to somewhere -- an explanation in your own words, with no ducking the question. 


Part A: Movement on the Earth Problems


A1. Distance. Quantas has a flight from Sydney to Buenos Aires every day (week?). It's about 9000 miles, takes 14 hours at 640 mph. On a flat earth, the distance between eastern Australia to Buenos Aires is enormous. They are on opposite sides, exactly, of the flat earth map, more than 12,000 miles apart, and the flight between them would take at least 20 hours. These flights take 14 hours. Explain.


A2. Flights over the south pole. Flights travel from South Africa to New Zealand by going over Antarctica. On a flat earth, this is impossible. You would fly off the disc of the earth. Yet these flights happen. Explain.


A3. Shipping. Shipping regularly sails due south, going around the "bottom" of the globe, and comes north again, without making a 180 degree turn. This is impossible on a flat earth, if you look at the map. You can't be pointing due south and then be pointing north again without making a turn, however gradual, of 180 degrees. Explain.


Part B: Astronomical Problems


B1. The Seasons. It is summer in the southern hemisphere when winter in the northern hemisphere, and vice versa. The sun diagram I've seen does not allow the sun extra time over the "summer" hemisphere. That's why it's warmer in summer -- owing to the tilt of the earth toward or away from the sun, the sun is up longer, and the rays are more direct, in the summer, heating the surface for longer and more directly. This is not accounted for on the flat earth map. Explain how this happens.


B2. Polaris. Currently, the earth's axis points more or less directly at Polaris, the pole star in the northern hemisphere. At the north pole, Polaris is directly overhead. When you travel south, Polaris gets lower and lower to the horizon, until finally it disappears. It does not appear at all above the horizon for most southern observers. Explain.


B3. Constellations. Same as for Polaris. The southern hemisphere has different constellations than the northern. On a flat earth, everybody would see the same constellations all the time. Constellations are also upside down in the southern hemisphere. Orion is standing on his head in Australia. The moon and planets, and the sunspots which are visible, are all "upside down" in the southern hemisphere. On a flat earth, they would look the same everywhere.


B4. Changing size of the Moon vs. Sun. The sun and moon both measure about 1/2 of a degree of arc in the sky. The moon is about 400 times smaller than the sun, but it's also 400 times closer, so by a coincidence it exactly covers the sun during a total solar eclipse.  The moon's orbit around the earth is not a perfect circle. Part of the orbit is closer to the earth than the other. So the moon is visibly, measurably bigger for part of every month, when it is closest to the earth. BUT THE SUN IS NOT. The earth's orbit around the sun is more or less circular, with neither semimajor axis much longer than the other, so the sun is always about the same size. In the flat earth model, the sun and moon are always the same distance away. There is no explanation for the change in the moon's size.


B5. Changing size of Venus. Venus is much closer to earth when it is on the same side of the sun as the earth in its orbit. When it's on the other side of the sun from earth, it is almost twice as far away. So Venus looks noticeably, measurably bigger for the part of the year it's on the same side as us. Same for Mercury, but the change in size is smaller, because the orbit of Mercury is much closer to the sun. So there are Mercury, Venus, and the Moon, all changing apparent size at different times and for different lengths of time. The flat earth model cannot explain this.


B6. The size of the sun. In the flat earth model, the sun is 32 miles across and 3000 miles away from the earth, which is 24,000 miles across. So the sun one thousandth the size of earth, roughly. Yet it is hot enough to warm the earth. A star of that size cannot make enough heat through nuclear fusion to light and warm the earth according to the flat earth model. What is the power source of the sun, and how does it produce the power it produces?


B7. Sun's rays. Flat earthers like to cite crepuscular rays as evidence that the sun is really close to the earth. They don't understand them, but ignoring that for now -- you see crepuscular rays coming from a cloud and striking the earth. You are really seeing a column of light going from the cloud to the ground, reflected by dust in the atmosphere so it hits your eyes. You are seeing the side of a column of light. In the flat earth model, the sun is a flashlight. Day and night are explained by the flashlight shining on different parts of the earth. However, if that were true, observers in the night half would be able to see, in the distance, the column of light illuminating the day half.


B8. More sun's rays. Before you see the sun rise, the clouds above the horizon are lit up from below, because the sun, below the horizon is illuminating them. The same is true after sunset. Twilight is the time when the sun illuminates the sky overhead but no rays hit the ground directly. No matter how you slice the flat earth model, there is no way for the sun to light the clouds without illuminating the earth at the same time.


B9. Viewing the constellation Octans. The south celestial pole is in the constellation of Octans. From any given point in the southern hemisphere it is seen by looking due south, (at various altitudes, depending on the observer's latitude). It is always in the same position in the sky from a given point, all day, all night, all year long. Here we see the directions observers at A, B and C would have to look in order to see it, looking due south from their respective locations. It is clearly impossible for people in all these positions to look due south and see the same thing in the sky. (Note, Octans does rotate on the celestial polar axis, depending on date, time, and location, but it would always be due south.) 
B10. Full moon. Put a flat earth map in front of you. Imagine the moon is in a full moon position, as seen from New York. But someone in Chile would see a new moon. People in Mexico would see the left side of the moon lit and people in West Africa would see the right side of the moon lit. And these would all be at the same time. This is not what we see. Also, notice how it is night in England but day in South Africa. Flat Earthers claim that the reason we have night is because the sun is too far away to be seen. Yet here it is closer to England than it is to South Africa. Finally, if the sun can light up the moon at that distance, then all of North America would be in daylight. 


B11. Lunar eclipse. This is a very big problem for flat earthers. Total lunar eclipses are a fact, visible fairly regularly, by billions of people, and videotaped. There is no way that a flat earth can cast a circular shadow on the moon. Also, there is no scenario in the flat earth model in which the earth comes between the sun and the moon. In any case, the moon and sun in the flat earth model are 32 miles wide, so the earth would totally obscure them, and nothing like an "eclipse" would ever be possible. Please explain.


Part C: Curvature Problems


C1. Setting sun. Flat earthers like to say "I saw such and such and it should have been below the horizon." It is true, refraction sometimes makes it possible to see things a little below the horizon. But suppose refraction doubles the amount you can see: if the horizon on the curved earth is normally 6 miles away for a 6 foot person on the ground, refraction makes it possible to see things 12 miles away. But eventually, curvature wins. Here's proof. The setting sun, for example, can sometimes partly be seen when it is technically below the horizon, due to atmospheric refraction. BUT ONLY TO A POINT. You see this huge sun, which is a LITTLE below the horizon, THEN you don't see it at all. If the earth were FLAT, the setting sun would diminish ever smaller, ever smaller, until it is just a dot ALWAYS ABOVE THE HORIZON.


C2. Ships at sea. It is uncontestable that ships at sea appear "hull down", meaning one sees the tops of their masts and stacks before seeing the hull. The navy has been using the terms "hull down" and "hull up" for centuries. This is not a problem of perspective. Even though the ship goes from smaller to larger, for a time you cannot see the hull, though you can see water all the way to the horizon. All sailor will attest to this. It has been used in maritime action and drug seizure court cases to determine how far apart ships were. There is no satisfactory explanation for this other than the curvature of the earth.


C3. Microwave and other signal repeaters. On a flat earth, a 20 watt microwave signal could travel from one end of the earth to the other, without the need for repeaters. This does not happen.


C4. Setting sun. The sun and moon appear much larger to the eye when they are near the horizon. Yet, if you hold up a ruler or some other measuring tool, you'll find that the sun and moon are always the same size, at the horizon as at the zenith. The larger size is an optical illusion. We are used to things being larger when they're closer to the earth, so we imagine the sun and moon are larger than they are. However, on a flat earth, a person seeing the setting sun sees a sun which is FARTHER AWAY than when it's overhead, and also at the same height in the sky, so the sun would appear SMALLER, not larger.


C5. Dawn and twilight. Sunrise -- clouds first, then ground. The sun illuminates the clouds above you first at sunrise while the ground below remains dark.  If the sun shone like a spotlight then the clouds above you would be lit at the same time as the ground below you. Likewise, twilight -- the time when the sun is below the horizon and the ground receives no direct light, but the sky and the clouds can still be seen lit from below. Again, on a flat earth this wouldn't happen. The sun would just shrink into the distance, getting smaller and smaller.


C6. Line of sight. On a clear day, on an observation deck on the Sears tower, Empire State building, or some other skyscraper, with a telescope, one would be able to see MUCH FARTHER on a flat earth than you can now. The only limiting factor would be objects in the way and atmospheric dust. Objects would get gradually smaller until they were infinitesimal in size. That does not happen in this world. Instead objects get smaller only to a point, and while still quite visible, they disappear from the bottom up. This should not happen on a flat earth.


C7. Distance to horizon. Everybody who's argued this shit knows the calculation by now. The Earth has a radius of approximately 3965 miles. Using the Pythagorean theorem, that calculates to an average curvature approximately 8 inches per mile. The distance to the horizon in miles from height of an observer is approximately equal to 1.23 times the square root of the height in feet. So if you're about 6 feet tall, the horizon is about 3 miles away. Also: the distance to the horizon increases with your height above the ground. Put another way:  Lake Tahoe is 12 miles wide and 22 miles long. For a person's eyes at a height of 5 feet above the water on the south shore, a streetlight at night on the north shore needs to be up on a nearby hill at least 370 feet above the shore, else it is below the horizon. If the earth is flat, a streetlight on a pole at the edge of the south shore should be visible. It is not. Please explain, flat earthers.


C8. Gravity on a flat earth. We do not need to disprove that "gravity does not exist, atmospheric pressure holds you down" like some flat earthers say. That can be easily disproven with the "Coke bottle experiment" below. Gravitational force extends from the center of mass. On a flat earth, gravity would be greater at the center of the plate than on the edges, and the farther out from the center you go, the less the gravity. Apples falling to earth out from the center would fall sideways. This does not happen.


C9. Three poles in the water experiment. The most famous of the curvature observations, and the one that was taught in schools until photographs of the Earth from space became available, involved a set of three poles fixed at equal height above water level along this length (six mile, 9.75 km). As the surface of the water was assumed to be level, the discovery that the middle pole, when viewed carefully through a theodolite, was almost three feet (0.91 m) higher than the poles at each end was finally accepted as a new proof that the surface of the earth was indeed curved.


C10. The Burj Kalifa experiment. Sunset from the tallest building, with the fastest elevator, in the world: 
Go to Burj Khalifa, Dubai. Be stunned at its size.Observe the sunset in the west from the ground.Take the super fast elevator to the top floor observation deck and watch the sunset once again.
As this is a relatively unknown fact, I'll try to explain it. Burj Khalifa is so tall that there is a time difference of 3 minutes between the sunset on the ground and sunset in the top floor observation deck. This would be impossible if the earth was a flat sheet as there would have been no time difference between the sunset. But as the earth is round, there is a difference of around 3 minutes.


C11. Sun altitude. Go to the equator and watch the sun rise and set in an arc going right through the zenith, straight up, then go to the arctic circle and watch the sun follow the horizon. That would not happen on a flat planet.


C12. Fly a triangle using GPS. At your starting point, a noteworthy building or mountain or ground feature, note your GPS coordinates. Fly 300km in any direction. (Note 300km as the crow flies) At his point record your GPS coordinates. Once you have done this change your direction by 120 degrees to the left (original direction is 0 degrees and the degrees increase as you rotate left). Now fly another 300km and repeat the process. If the earth were actually flat then the shape we just made is an equilateral triangle, and you would end up exactly where you started, at your original GPS coordinates and landmark. However, what one will find is that the earth is curved and thus the triangle will no longer be closed since the curvature changes the angles required for closure.


Part D: Rotation Problems


D1. Foucault's pendulum. A pendulum when swinging has its own inertial frame. It resists being moved in any way except along the line it is making. You can try this and see for yourself. A pendulum long enough and heavy enough will swing unaided for 15 minutes, at least. In that time, although the pendulum continues to swing back and forth, it will describe part of circle. This demonstrates the EARTH TURNING BENEATH THE PENDULUM. The pendulum rotates clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the southern hemisphere, just as if the earth were rotating beneath it. 


D2. Water down the drain. Water going down drains swirls exactly the same way. There is no explanation for this in the flat earth model. 


D3. Storms. Hurricanes typically rotate counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere. Typhoons typically rotate clockwise in the southern hemisphere. 


E. Miscellaneous


E1. Space Program. Since a photo from space would end the discussion of the shape of the earth, it is paramount for FEs to deny that we've ever been to space, to deny the existence of a space program covering the US, EU, Russia, China, India, Brazil, employing tens of millions of people and spending tens of billions of dollars a year, putting satellites in orbit, sending probes everywhere, creating the GPS system, satellite TV, etc. All of that is faked, on an ongoing basis, and none of these tens of millions of people has ever exposed the lie.


E2. Thermosphere. Many FEs believe we haven't been to space because the thermosphere is so hot nothing could survive the trip through it. The thermosphere a gaseous layer above the stratosphere, and it is indeed hot, up to 5000 degrees F. However, there are are so few molecules of gas flying around that there's no efficient way to transfer the heat to anything traveling through. I don't know if FEs believe in heat transfer, but you need a lot of moving molecules to transfer heat quickly. You would need to spend hours in the thermosphere for enough of your atoms to be excited to the point of feeling hot.


E3. Evidence from the Internet! With the right search terms it is possible to find thousands of IP Cameras around the world.  Watching these you can see that the sun rises and sets at different times across each.  Were the world flat-and-one-sided and the sun faraway like a lightbulb, they would all rise and set at the same time.  Were the world flat-and-two-sided and the sun faraway like a lightbulb, they would all rise at one of two times.


E4. Evidence of the ancients: Earth is round was known to ancient Indians as Geography in SANSKRIT translates to BHUGOL in which BHU
means LAND or earth and GOL means round so GEOGRAPHY translates to study of a round land or BHUGOL in Sanskrit. So the Indians believed the earth to be round, thousands of years ago. The Babylonians were expert astronomers, who developed the 360 degree circle we use, as well as the use of 60 for minutes and seconds, and the 24 hour day (they really liked the number 60, because it's divisible by so many numbers -- unlike 10). As Ptolemy recorded in The Almagest, in 300BC, the Babylonians concluded the earth was round when the observed that the shadow cast by the earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse was always circular. They knew that the moon's angle with the earth changes, making for different shadow coverage of the moon during partial eclipses, but that THE SHADOW WAS ALWAYS CIRCULAR. The only shape whose shadow is always a circle, no matter what the angle the light cast on it is, IS A SPHERE. The Babylonians thought that this giant ball, clearly hanging in the heavens unsupported, was too massive to move, so the discovery of the spherical earth led to their belief that the earth DID NOT MOVE. The Greeks of course all believed the the earth was a sphere. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth 2800 years ago, within 90% of the modern value. People in 1492 were not afraid that Columbus would fall off the flat earth. They knew that Columbus, against all the evidence, thought the earth was only 17,000 miles around, not 24,000. Had he not bumped into North America, he and his men would have starved, as people feared.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / An argument from morality
« on: February 02, 2010, 09:16:15 AM »
D1: Morality is a set of objective principles of conduct, poetically said to be "written on the hearts of man"

P1: If there exists a Moral Lawgiver there exist Moral Laws
P2: If there exist Moral Laws they are apprehended by Moral Agents
P3: Humans are Moral Agents designed to apprehend Moral Laws
P4: Psychopaths do not apprehend Moral Laws

C1: It is either the case that psycho paths are not humans or it is the case that no Moral Lawgiver exists

P5: Psychopaths are Humans

C2: God does not exist.

4
Technology, Science & Alt Science / UFO's
« on: July 04, 2009, 06:09:03 PM »


What are these? Many of these things floating around are of
course space debris. There are other objects changing direction and speed
so suddenly, that they can't be just space debris.

Discuss!

5
The Lounge / Unknown Sewer Creature Discovered
« on: July 01, 2009, 06:05:06 PM »
What is this?


6
Flat Earth Q&A / Is there anything that CAN'T be faked?
« on: July 01, 2009, 12:07:33 AM »
Many FE arguments consists of something being faked.
This is often because they must deny everything that goes against
their belief. Since the earth is flat, everything that suggests otherwise can't be true,
therefore an illusion or faked, etc.

So, my question is: Is there anything that CAN'T be faked?

Discuss!

7
The Lounge / What movie?
« on: April 29, 2009, 10:23:58 AM »
Ok, we post quotes from movies and people guess what movie the quote is from.
If you don't know the answer, please do not post. If you do post, please stay on topic at least.

I'll start:
(One of my 10 top movies)

"Why shouldn't I work for the NSA? That's a tough one, but I'll give it a shot. Say I'm working at NSA. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. So I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself because I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and 1,500 people I never had a problem with get killed. Now the politicians are saying, 'Send in the marines to secure the area' because they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, getting shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number was called because they were pulling a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some guy from Southie taking shrapnel in the ass. And he comes home to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, because he'll work for 15 cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile my buddy from Southie realizes the only reason he was over there was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the skirmish to scare up oil prices so they could turn a quick buck. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy at 250 a gallon. And naturally they're taking their sweet time bringing the oil back and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long until he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's got to walk to the job interviews, which sucks because the shrapnel in his ass is giving him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starving because every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue plate special they're serving is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what do I think? I'm holding out for something better. Why not just shoot my buddy, take his job and give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president."

8
The Lounge / Purpose of the universe
« on: April 20, 2009, 07:04:50 AM »
What if the universe was created, or exists, to know itself?
Like its asking itself: "I need to sort out all of this!"
And then it began to expand, and all the parts was spilled out.

Just a thought.


9
Flat Earth Q&A / Amazing pictures of the space station and the earth
« on: April 05, 2009, 02:23:01 PM »
This is not a thread to disprove FET or prove RET.
I just thought these images was great.

http://yawoot.com/post/732

10
Technology, Science & Alt Science / A hypothesis within the M-theory
« on: March 13, 2009, 03:18:24 PM »
Ok, here's just a thought I had the other day.

Let's imagine that x = all the building blocks of our universe. Small small particles or strings. (If you believe in the String Theory)
Then let's imagine that the amount of universes that exists = y

So my assumption, and a simple equation, is basically that x = y, which means that there are equally amount of universes that there are particles/strings in OUR universe. Or the other way around. There are equally amount of particles/strings that there are universes.

Is there anyone here who could do some math on this?
Or do anyone have any thoughts on this matter, or anti-matter?  :P

11
The Lounge / Are you from the UK?
« on: March 08, 2009, 03:19:43 PM »
Please post here then.
I have a question for you.

12
The Lounge / Spotify
« on: February 27, 2009, 04:01:48 PM »
For those who have heard about Spotify but has not gotten an invite yet, here's
a guide on how to get an account without an invite.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

13
The Lounge / Aliens
« on: January 25, 2009, 03:38:35 PM »
This is actually a nicely done video.
See the whole video:

(Deleted for brief pornographic introduction.)

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / God is an atheist
« on: January 25, 2009, 04:40:51 AM »
Faith is "belief in things that aren't based in fact."
Since God knows everything, he can't have faith.
And, because he's already the highest power, he
doesn't believe in a higher power. And so,
God is an atheist.

15
The Lounge / Me and my band
« on: January 19, 2009, 04:33:16 PM »
We did an acoustic gig on a local club a while ago.
I'm the fuckface in the middle singing the lead vocal.


" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fountain - How Long

16
Flat Earth Debate / You weigh less on the way down in the an elevator
« on: January 19, 2009, 03:02:40 PM »
At the beginning of a trip down, the elevator is accelerating
downward. Soon it reaches a steady speed, and your weight becomes normal.
Then it DECELERATES downward (which is the same as accelerating upward)
as it comes to a stop at the final floor. Likewise, when going up the elevator
first accelerates upward, then reaches a steady speed upward, and finally decelerates to a stop.

If you stand on a scale in an elevator, there are two forces acting on you:
the downward force of gravity, which is constant (for the purposes of this discussion),
and the upward force of the scale on your feet.

When you are stationary or when you are moving at a constant speed, these forces
are equal and opposite and the scale shows your correct weight. But when you are
accelerating up or down, the effect of that acceleration changes the net force and the scale shows a different weight.

Net force is calculated by mass (your actual weight) times
acceleration and is written as ?ma?.

Thus, to pick one case, at the beginning of a trip up in the elevator, you are accelerating
upward with acceleration ?a?. The vertical force equation is

N - mg = ma

where N is the upward normal force of the scale and -mg is the downward gravitational force. We can solve for N:

N - mg = ma
N = mg + ma
N = m(g + a)

The scale measures the force N, dividing it by g (gravity) to read in units of mass (pounds in this example):

N/g = m(g + a)/g = m(1 + a/g) = m + ma/g

You can see that the scale reads higher than your normal ?weight? m because ?a? is positive
(m and g are always positive). On the other hand, at the beginning of a trip down in the elevator,
the scale reads lower than your normal ?weight? because ?a? is negative (accelerating downward).

Will this work in the same way on a flat earth without gravity? Does UA have the same effect here?

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Earth?s Twin Habitable?
« on: January 19, 2009, 01:32:21 PM »
Scientists have discovered a planet not much bigger than our Earth that may also be covered in oceans and has the right temperature to support life, about 20.5 light years away.

Scientists believe that by 2020, it will be possible for a telescope to take a close look at the planet, which has not yet been named, to search if there are signs of life.

Read more here

18
The Lounge / Database error
« on: January 11, 2009, 04:10:30 AM »
Do any of you know php well enough to solve this problem:

When new user register in my SMF forum I get this error from the log.

Database Error: You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near ' mem.pm_ignore_list)) AS ignored,
FIND_IN_SET(, mem.buddy_list) AS is_buddy, ' at line 4
File: /home/3/f/fountaintheband/www/forum/Sources/Subs-Post.php
Line: 774

The line 774 in Subs-Post.php says:

LIMIT " . count($all_to), __FILE__, __LINE__);

Anyone knows what may be wrong?

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Southern constellations rise higher above the horizon
« on: January 10, 2009, 03:29:08 PM »
According to Aristotle travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon.
This is only possible if their horizon is at an angle to northerners' horizon. Thus Earth's surface cannot be flat.

How do FET explain this?

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Could Mythbusters prove the shape of the earth?
« on: January 10, 2009, 01:30:18 PM »
I've posted a challenge for Mythbusters.

Read more here:

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=6941912904&f=7501919888&m=8781957999&r=8781957999#8781957999

Let's just hope that they take the challenge. :D

21
The Lounge / If you try to fail...
« on: January 08, 2009, 02:08:46 PM »
If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

Any thoughts on this matter?

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Sun and Moon
« on: December 30, 2008, 08:36:02 AM »
There's probably a thread about this somewhere, but I was too lazy searching for it.

What magical force keeps the sun and moon orbiting above the earth?

23
Flat Earth Debate / Air - And how it contradicts a flat earth
« on: December 30, 2008, 07:48:53 AM »
1) Air is a gas. We all know that gases expand until they reach some sort of barrier. In an RE, this barrier is the Ozone layer/gravitational pull. In a Flat Earth...No barrier. Thusly, air would expand and flow off of the edge of the Flat Earth as it is propelled through the universe. We'd be leaking air... but we arn't! Explain why we arn't all suffocating.
(If you say the same force that propels us through the universe also keeps it in, you'd be wrong because that force would push the air easier than the Earth, and would take away air from us)

2) If we are accelerating, air pressure would increase rapidly as the Earth would constantly apply more pressure to the air, and would slowly squeeze it - if the air somehow had a way of being held in on the sides. Aircraft's cielings at which they could fly would decrease, and we would slowly be crushed under air pressure. Eventually, the air would be compressed to the point where it would combust, and we'd all die.
Explain why this does not happen, if the Earth is flat.

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Measuring the distance to an object in space
« on: December 24, 2008, 04:45:15 PM »
How would you FE'er go about to measure the distance to a an object floating around in space?

25
Flat Earth Debate / Proof of a round earth?
« on: December 21, 2008, 08:34:05 AM »
One of the oldest proofs of the Earth's shape, can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere.

Can FE-theory explain this please? It may already been answered, but I haven't seen it.

26
The Lounge / Amundsen Omega 3 South Pole Race
« on: December 21, 2008, 05:52:01 AM »
In December 2008 international teams will race over 400 miles to the Geographic South Pole. Almost 100 years after Scott and Amundsen?s historic race, in the Amundsen Omega 3 South Pole Race of the new century teams of 3 will ski pulling 200lb pulks over the same route, with the same equipment, starting from the same start line.

The team from Norway:

Stian Aker (27)
From Toten, now lives by the Eikern in Hoff together with Jenny Nigg. At the moment I have leave from the armed forces to get more time to prepare for the race to the South Pole. I have been a soldier in the army for 6 years serving both in Norway and abroad. For the last few years I have been doing dog mushing a lot. I am active in mountain climbing and white water kayaking and I like having great challenges to reach for. During my time in the army I have gained good knowledge in survival in extreme environments. I have a strong willpower and I am good at handling adversity. When I set a goal I don?t give up until the goal is reached, even if it should take several attempts. My good mood is a quality I believe will help us see the light when the hardship begins.

Rune Malterud (27)
From Toten, now lives in Oslo together with Lene Kleiven. I study physical therapy at the university college in Oslo. I have always been interested in the outdoor life and while growing up I spent much time in the mountains. Long hikes both summer and winter, on skis and on foot, is something I have always appreciated. I always have a goal of reaching a mountain top and I have among other mountains I have climbed the Kilimanjaro. 5 years as an officer in the army, both in Norway and abroad, have given me a lot of valuable experience. My strongest qualities are cooperation, taking responsibility, leadership, planning and conscientiousness. To push myself for a long time in extreme environment make me feel alive. Challenges like white water kayaking and mountain climbing helps putting a little edge on the everyday. Trough my interest for outdoor life I have gotten used to freezing and to take care of my self.

Read more here: http://kapplopet.no/?page_id=90


27
Flat Earth Debate / SpaceX Successfully Launches Falcon 1 Rocket Into Orbit
« on: September 29, 2008, 03:13:06 AM »

After three consecutive failures, a private spaceflight firm's Falcon 1 rocket successfully blasted into space late Sunday to become the first privately built liquid-fueled booster to reach orbit.


Well, this only means that SpaceX is part of teh conspiracy as well, right?

Read more here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20080929/sc_space/spacexsuccessfullylaunchesfalcon1rocketintoorbit

28
The Lounge / I think my girlfriend is cheating on me
« on: September 28, 2008, 10:40:29 AM »
I've never talked about this before, but I really need the boards advice on what could be a crucial decision. I’ve suspected for some time now that my girlfriend has been cheating on me.

The usual signs… Phone rings but if I answer, the caller hangs up.
My girlfriend has been going out with the girls a lot recently although when I ask their names she always says, “Just some friends from work, you don’t know them.”

I always stay awake to look out for her taxi coming home, but she always walks down the drive. Although I can hear a car driving off, as if she has gotten out of the car round the corner. Why? Maybe she wasn’t in a taxi?

I once picked her cell phone up just to see what time it was and she went berserk and screamed that I should never touch her phone again and why was I checking up on her.

Anyway, I have never approached the subject with my girlfriend I think deep down I just didn’t want to know the truth, but last night she went out again and I decided to really check on her.

I decided I was going to park my motorcycle next to the garage and then hide behind it so I could get a good view of the whole street when she came home. It was at that moment, crouching behind my bike , that I noticed that the valve covers on my engine seemed to be leaking a little oil.

Is this something I can fix myself or should I take it back to the dealer?

29
Philosophy, Religion & Society / My dear christian...
« on: September 14, 2008, 05:09:24 PM »
My dear christian...
You maintain that my future is either on of eternal happiness or one of eternal suffering, nothing in between. In order to experience this eternal happiness, you would have me believe that I must accept that proposition that not only does a god exist, but that this god fathered a child, who grew into a man, who allowed himself to be sacrificed for sins that I committed against a god I don't know is real. And if I choose to believe that these things are true with little to know evidence for them, I will be rewarded with ever lasting happiness.

Many people live as ethically and as lovingly as they can, whether they believe these propositions or not. So let's imagine something. Let's imagine that I choose to accept this proposition as being true, despite the lack of evidence for them. If I spend an eternity in heaven with the knowledge that there are those I cherish, good people, loving people, who are suffering eternal pain because they failed to believe the propositions that I did. Then it would not be an eternity of happiness for me, it would be an eternity of pain. If the rules in heaven are such that they afford me the ability to forget about my suffering loved ones, or to care not all together, then it would not be me in heaven, but someone else, something else, something for whom I would have had a great deal of contempt, and discussed when I lived on earth. Something without its free will. And finally: If my natural character is such, that I need not be changed or manipulated, in to being comfortable with the fact that so many loving, ethical people are being unthinkable tortured for all the eternity. Then perhaps my dear christian, I won't deserve to be there.

30
Philosophy, Religion & Society / If strong exist, then weak must also exist.
« on: September 08, 2008, 08:21:37 AM »
I'm a norwegian guy, so my english is some what limited, but i'll try to explain as good as I can.
My point with this is if you got one thing, you must have the opposite.

Example: If you can define something that is warm, then you must have the opposite, that is cold.
Neither of these words or concepts can't exist alone. You can't know if something is warm if you haven't felt something that is cold. If you got something that is big, something that is small must also exist.

So, by establishing this logic, does this rule apply to the universe?

Let's say we got the weak force gravity, then perhaps the opposite of this must exist right? Anti-gravity?
And to take it even further. We have the universe, do we not have the universe as well?

Hope you understand where i'm getting with this.

Any thoughts on this?  ;D



Pages: [1]