1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sunrise/sunset and your so-called "perspective effect"

« on: July 10, 2007, 02:28:05 PM »

What you are failing to realize is I'm saying you are a member of something called "The Flat Earth Society"

These forums are called "The Flat Earth Society" not "The Flat Earth Society Forums"

I have a couple of questions for you:
1. Are you a member of this forum
2. Is the name of this forum "The Flat Earth Society"

1) Yes. 2) No. It's "theflatearthsociety.org". You're mistaking the FES banner with the Forum name.

No, the FAQ says, quite clearly, "Welcome to The Flat Earth Society" not "Welcome to theflatearthsociety.org"  This forum is known as "The Flat Earth Society."  It is called "The Flat Earth Society."  You are a member of something called "The Flat Earth Society."  You are a member of The Flat Earth Society.

Being a member of something does not require you to follow its beliefs or sign contracts or any of the other shit you spewed on this thread.

Thank you. I feel very warm in my heart knowing that I am welcome. But I will not join, I just read the forum when I have a minute or two to kill.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sunrise/sunset and your so-called "perspective effect"

« on: July 10, 2007, 02:13:47 PM »

How can anyone that doesn't belive this crap be considered a member?
Or someone who registered, and read a couple of posts a year ago?

You don't get to be a part of the olympic team if you watch it on tv...

I mean, really...

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Endless Day/Night in Arctic/Antarctic

« on: June 18, 2007, 11:42:33 AM »

The illustration you posted is 2D. The midnight sun effect takes place in three dimensions. A more suitable illustration would be an overhead view of the Flat Earth. The path of the light would flow over the Ice Wall, encircling the earth.

When the sun is in its southern annulus its light touches the ice crystals in the upper southern polar strata which circles the earth along the Antarctic coast. The rays of the sun are displaced and reflected along that reflective path. The light is bounced in every direction like a house of mirrors, creating a sort of perpetual day all along the Antarctic coast.

The powerful rays of the sun, bounced in every which way along the polar strata, will combine and amalgamate at various point creating a glare which might be mistaken for a sun. This is the "midnight sun" effect. This glare does not take place at any one specific point on the Ice Wall, but at every point. No matter the observer's location along the Ice Wall, he will see an amalgamated concentration of light creating a glare in the sky. If the observer follows the midnight sun he will never reach it, the glare will recede farther and farther back forever unreachable. Each sun is unique to the observer's location, a result of displaced light combining to a point.

As a weak analogy lets imagine a polished billiard ball in a room with a single light source overhead. As we turn the billiard ball the reflection, or glare, of the light will stay stationary. If we move our heads up and down or left to right to the ball the glare will move along the surface of the ball with our new vantage point. If we physically move the ball up or down or left or right the glare will move in tandem. At all points, no matter where or how much the ball is moved, there will be an area there the rays of the lightsource combines and forms a glare. If there are two observers in the room they will both see two different glares located at two different points upon the billiard ball.

The same effect happens with the midnight sun; no matter where the observer is located he will see a point where the sun's rays are compounded and banded together forming a starry glare in the sky overhead.

You gotta be fucking kidding me!!!

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: sunsets?

« on: June 14, 2007, 05:56:43 AM »

He thinks that the sun projetcs on the atmosphere...on a  transprarent medium

Have you never seen a city street lamp at night?

Totaly irrelevant...He talks about a lightsource outside the athmosphere projecting on a transparent medium...and you...well I don't really know what the hell are you talkling about.

But, as I said before, even if there was a projection you would still be in trouble, because the viewing angle would still get smaller. Check Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: sunsets?

« on: June 13, 2007, 01:54:36 PM »

the sun doesnt get smaller, it just vanishes below the horizon

The sun actually changes size wildly as it approaches the horizon. Consult Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

Hahaha...I actually checked this one and LMAO.

He thinks that the sun projetcs on the atmosphere...on a  transprarent medium...but ok, even if that was true, the sun would not apear larger! Altrough its projection (LMAO again) is larger you are looking it at na angle...and thus appears smaller. It is the viewing angle that defines how big things seem. So a FE sun would become smaller with distance.

Don't belive me...Take a piece of paper...if you level it correctly you will see nothing but a line no matter how big the sheet is.

A wrong assumption with wrong results...pathetic.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: tiny question

« on: June 12, 2007, 01:20:57 PM »

I dispute your claim that the universe is widely considered to be infinite in size.

Do you believe in the Big Bang? If so, then you believe in Cosmic Inflation:

I belive you are retarded.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: concorde

« on: June 11, 2007, 01:46:08 PM »

That horizon looks pretty flat to me.

That would be your brain...

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round trips between antipodes

« on: June 08, 2007, 06:47:26 AM »

Chill!...The earth is round.
Here is an even simpler method....You don't even have to leave your home.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13526.0

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A longer criticism of the law of perspective

« on: June 07, 2007, 10:41:10 PM »

Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight.

Oh, no...they're here. It's just that danmn perspective....

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Wave Crests And Sunsets - UNANSWERED

« on: June 07, 2007, 08:46:58 AM »

Don't expect one, he's made one reply in the last 4 pages and it was only a 1 liner, which is enough, for me at least, to know that the debate is dead.  No point in bumping.

I agree. But the situation is analogous to the whole forum. I mean, we KNOW we won't make him understand, but we still TRY. 

Well at least some do...

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Wave Crests And Sunsets - UNANSWERED

« on: June 07, 2007, 08:33:37 AM »

Still waiting (For TomB, who is a lying ignorant imbecil, knows nothing about physics, but that doesn't stop him from blabbering nonsense...) after all these years....

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Wave Crests And Sunsets

« on: June 06, 2007, 02:50:27 AM »

*Bishop Bump*

*FES Bump*

Can none of you guys answer this? It's a big hole in your lovely swiss-cheesy theory...

Cheesy? What cheese?   

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Wave Crests And Sunsets - UNANSWERED

« on: June 05, 2007, 04:49:43 AM »

There's a new Tom patch coming out soon that will allow him to draw basic MS Paint pictures.

  I was also wandering if he is human at all. Sometimes it seems it is just a script copy pasting sections of the holy book...

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Wave Crests And Sunsets - UNANSWERED

« on: June 05, 2007, 02:13:26 AM »

Still waiting for the insight of our genius Leader...
 

Amuse us oh great magician, pull the rabbit out.

Why don't we see the sun at night? Mean combined Robot's or what was it again.

You know what I resent you TomB (i like that  )...you never draw us anything. I wonder why.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A New Guy Has Some Questions For REers!

« on: June 05, 2007, 02:00:26 AM »

Hi everyone! I'm kind of a new guy though I've been reading these forums for a while. I decided it was time to chip in as I've been a Flat Earther since when Johnson was running the society (though I've never been a member, I read a lot of the literature). I've been pretty busy with work (I'm a teacher) but seeing as the end of term is approaching I thought I'd jump in and join the (frankly tiny) number of FEers on this site defending our beliefs.

So, you are a teacher...I hope it's home economics or something. Otherwise my heart goes out for those poor kids.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Once again: how does the sun go down?

« on: June 04, 2007, 02:05:24 PM »

The simplest disproofs are the best, and Tom's frantic googling, book-throwing and post-copying isn't doing the usual magic of wiggling out of this one.

Tom, if you have an answer kindly present it.

There is no answer, we all know that. He is either just fucking with us or is really seriusly retarded. The best we can do is leave this forum, or just ignore him like he does....which consequently leads to leaving this forum.

If he want's to waste his life on a crazy lie...hey it's his choice.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account

« on: June 02, 2007, 11:21:37 PM »

Please reference: Wikapedia

The Bedford Level Experiment was a series of observations carried out along a six-mile length of the Bedford Level (the Old Bedford River), Norfolk, England, during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was an attempt to demonstrate that the Earth was flat.

Early results seemed to prove this contention, but most later attempts to reproduce the observations firmly supported the conventional view that the earth is a sphere.[/list]

The Bedford Canal, by definition a channelized river, is still a river.

Oh, and how goes documenting your view across the bay? I've put money on my belief that you're lying, again.

Very interesting....So he did it on a river. I thought it was just a scam. So Robot was not a cheat, just stupid.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Regarding the fundations of the conspiracy.

« on: June 02, 2007, 11:06:02 PM »

Evidence for that self-evident claim?

Objects on Earth visibly act in a way compliant with both acceleration (of the universal variety) and the theory of gravity. The two theories are hence indistinguishable.

Simpler with the same predictive value always is better. Don't ask any respectable scientist to accept a much more complex theory that does absolutely not provide even one iota of additional value over a simple one.

Well the theory of Universal Acceleration is far simpler than the theory of gravity (One big object pushing another vs. a magical attractive force present everywhere in the universe which is caused by an invisible, unobservable particle called the Graviton, respectively), and they both have the same predictive outcome. What's stopping you accepting UA as "better"?

Uhm...The sun sets.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What way does it turn?

« on: June 02, 2007, 01:44:53 PM »

Rotation would also be measurable in the southernmost latitudes, much like an amusement ride.

If the Flat Earth was hypothetically rotating at one revolution per 24 hours, the rotation would not be noticeable. Centripetal acceleration does not add up linearly with the velocity along the radius.

beeeeeeeeeeeeeep. acceleration + velocity ...m/s^2 + m/s =??


You can't add different dimensions, Einstein!

TomB did seem particularly confused with that post. He really seems to struggling more and more. Good work at keeping him honest.

It s seems he is a bit weak in kinematics... Well you can't know everything. He excels in quantum mechanics and general relativity though.. 

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What way does it turn?

« on: June 02, 2007, 09:01:10 AM »

Rotation would also be measurable in the southernmost latitudes, much like an amusement ride.

If the Flat Earth was hypothetically rotating at one revolution per 24 hours, the rotation would not be noticeable. Centripetal acceleration does not add up linearly with the velocity along the radius.

beeeeeeeeeeeeeep. acceleration + velocity ...m/s^2 + m/s =??


You can't add different dimensions, Einstein!

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: It looks that way up close, eh?

« on: June 01, 2007, 11:13:24 PM »

Nice pic.

How can anyone still believe in this crap (FE "theory"). Every thread debunks it in like 10 different ways.

 

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Wave Crests And Sunsets

« on: June 01, 2007, 11:07:47 PM »

answer the freakin' question Bishop

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A look into the Conspiracy

« on: June 01, 2007, 06:10:50 AM »

As we all know, the entire premise of this website is that NASA is a fraudulent entity. Nothing said or given by NASA or its collaborators is to be trusted. The American Government has great incentive to portray the illusion of space travel. It is this from

.
.
.
yada yada yada
.
.
.

Is anyone able to find a picture of the earth taken by the Soviet Space Program?

Why do yo want to see pictrures if you say they aren't evidence?

There is no conspiracy, retard. Check this thread and really read it this time!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13526.0

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Wave Crests And Sunsets

« on: May 31, 2007, 10:06:04 AM »

Gin,

Even on a table from the perspective of a bacterium, the vanishing point and edge of the horizon is at eye level with the observer.

Corrected image: http://i5.tinypic.com/6fs26tl.gif

Please see Chapter 5 from the Perspective Drawing Handbook or one of these numerous Google references.

Quote:

Horizon line and Eye level

Anyone who has ever been to the seaside will have seen a horizon (as long as it wasn't foggy). This is the line you see far away, out to sea. It's the line where the water stops and the sky starts. There are horizon lines everywhere, but usually you don't see them because something like a hill or a tree or a house is in the way.

You always see the horizon line at your eye level. In fact, if you change your eye level (by standing up, or sitting down) the horizon line changes too, and follows your eye level. Your eye level always follows you around everywhere because it's your eye level. If you sit on the floor the horizon is at your eye level. If you stand up, it's at your eye level. If you stand on top of a very tall building, or look out of the window of an aeroplane, the horizon is still at your eye level. It's only everything else that appears to change in relation to your eye level. The fact is, that everything looks the way it does from your point of view because you see it in relation to yourself. So if you are sitting looking out of the window of an airliner everything is going to look shorter than you because at this moment you are taller (or higher) than everything else.

Tom, the horizon would rise and fall with the observer ONLY if the Earth was flat! And since the flatness or roundness of Earh is the object of debate you CAN NOT use THAT as an ARGUMENT.

tsk tsk tsk, you cheat you.

EDIT: And even it it was flat, that wouldnt help you much :-). The sun still would not set.
You're pathetic

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Wave Crests And Sunsets

« on: May 31, 2007, 08:56:59 AM »

Yep, best thread ever. Mr Retard, you are spoiling our fun. We like to debate.

Yes, I like it to. But the problem with Gin's post is that it is practicaly undebatable.
His proof  is purely geometric. You do not need any evidence, beside the knowledge that the sun really sets. And even Tom agrees with that.

It is the cleanest and simplest disproval of FE "theory" I have yet seen.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Wave Crests And Sunsets

« on: May 31, 2007, 07:42:50 AM »

Tomy boy, when will you answer the question(s) on this thread?

How can the sun set behind the waves, if there are no waves between the observer and the sun? Or more generally...


What blocks the view if there is nothing blocking the view?

You shouldn't even consider posting your random nonsense on other threads until you answer this one. You are a bad bad boy Tommy. Bad boy.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Wave Crests And Sunsets

« on: May 30, 2007, 03:42:11 AM »

Did you read Earth Not a Globe before creating those images?

Did you read the first post of this thread?

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: some flaws which disprove FE theory . . .

« on: May 28, 2007, 06:01:41 AM »

As I've said before, the gravitational field on the earth is not uniform. This has been tested experimentally. I have tested it myself with a simple reversible pendulum. Deep underground it can be as great as 9.83 m/s^2, on the surface it is about 9.81 m/s^2. At great altitudes it can be as low as 9.79 m/s^2.

Actually gravitation would get smaller with depth. If you go for example half the earth radius in depth you would only register the mass that is enclosed in half the earth's radius. The outher mantle (from 1/2 to R) would exactly cancel itself out....

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Wave Crests And Sunsets

« on: May 28, 2007, 05:54:16 AM »

Dont't tell me we've killed the Tominator...

Come on Tom...don't leave us in the dark, cold tundra of ignorance.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Wave Crests And Sunsets

« on: May 27, 2007, 11:59:35 AM »

We're waiting Tom...