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.


Messages - SR388

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: This simply cannot be
« on: September 06, 2007, 10:02:11 PM »
if its coming from hannibal, i suppose i can expect some quote he edited to make the other guy look stupid, some "translation", or some nonsensical graphic

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: This simply cannot be
« on: September 06, 2007, 09:46:47 PM »
This thread is a crime against reason.

your existence is a crime against evolution

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: This simply cannot be
« on: September 06, 2007, 09:39:42 PM »
alright, ill admit defeat on that matter.


FE'ers are all still morons though.  Especially Tom Bishop, since it appears that even other FE'ers dont like him.
Good, you have learned that disproving FE is a lot harder than one first thought.

its the forum equivalent of Sisyphus' punishment in Tartarus

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: This simply cannot be
« on: September 06, 2007, 09:29:44 PM »
alright, ill admit defeat on that matter.


FE'ers are all still morons though.  Especially Tom Bishop, since it appears that even other FE'ers dont like him.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: This simply cannot be
« on: September 06, 2007, 09:15:17 PM »
Okay, so first of all, you come here thinking we've never seen something drop? Once again: Sticky Thread: Universal Acceleration 101. It's valid (except for the atmosphere), even Gulliver admits it (although, he still calls it a "trick"). We never said we were smarter than Newton. Newton's equations on gravity are wrong, though. Einstein fixed those up.

That + read the FAQ + not all of Newton's equations are wrong.

Like I said, READ MORE. Please.

in any case, the experiment i described (sand+beach ball) which has been used to disprove RE theory to the layman is not a valid one

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: This simply cannot be
« on: September 06, 2007, 09:08:19 PM »
Quote
but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.

You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.

Quote
WOW.

my point remains valid.  theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.

yeah, just checked.  things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.

Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?

a) im not about to check on a book that probably exists on the same level of Dianetics
b) you are all saying you are smarter than the man who created Newtonian physics.  i cant really take you seriously
c)  things still do fall when you let go of them in the air. if thats gravity, whoohoo doesnt matter.  if not, my point is STILL valid.

the force that makes things go down is greater than anything you can use to simulate a small scale test disproving RE theory

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: This simply cannot be
« on: September 06, 2007, 08:44:44 PM »
Too bad gravity doesn't exsist. Search General Relativity.

WOW.

my point remains valid.  theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.

yeah, just checked.  things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: This simply cannot be
« on: September 06, 2007, 08:38:13 PM »
Wikipedia is owned by Tom Bishop, and is thus unreliable.

can you refer me to a reliable source for the bedford level experiment?

Christine Garwood's book "Flat Earth: The History of an infamous idea" shows that the post-Rowbotham experiment mentioned in Wikipedia actually demonstrated a Flat Earth. Flat Earth proponent John Hampden won the wager when the referee William Carpenter declared that experimental results showed a Flat Earth.

but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: narcberry
« on: September 06, 2007, 08:37:14 PM »
hey what?

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: This simply cannot be
« on: September 06, 2007, 08:26:28 PM »
Wikipedia is owned by Tom Bishop, and is thus unreliable.

can you refer me to a reliable source for the bedford level experiment?

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: narcberry
« on: September 06, 2007, 08:24:32 PM »
i used to watch stand up comedy to get a real good laugh.

now i think ill just come check the forums every now and then.

Translation:

"I will sit at my I-Mac terminal in the college library every free moment of my time, instead of insterting my genitals into other people, or taking the same ad reversum, and convince myself that my life far surpasses those of the FES members', because I will spend said free time telling them about that."


HOLY CRAP!  Can you read palms too?

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: This simply cannot be
« on: September 06, 2007, 08:22:50 PM »
That's right, the Bedford Level experiment.  That proved a flat earth.  Good job googling!

WTF?  i may only be getting my info from wikipedia, but it says right on the entry:

Quote
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.

i can still read right?  it says that it supports the conventional view that the earth is a sphere

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: narcberry
« on: September 06, 2007, 08:20:10 PM »
i used to watch stand up comedy to get a real good laugh.

now i think ill just come check the forums every now and then.

and the addiction begins.

is that really what this site is?  just a place for people to rant and try to disprove the other, knowing full well that the other party is headstrong and also laughing his ass off?

i think i might just become a pastafarian while im at it

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: narcberry
« on: September 06, 2007, 08:13:48 PM »
i used to watch stand up comedy to get a real good laugh.

now i think ill just come check the forums every now and then.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: This simply cannot be
« on: September 06, 2007, 08:12:15 PM »
Then the large-scale tests Dr Rowbotham performed that proved a flat earth are still valid.  Whew!

do you mean the bedford level experiment?  the one that later only reinforced the RE theory?

cause for the life of me i cant find any of Dr. Rowbotham's other experiments.

so please, enlighten me.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: narcberry
« on: September 06, 2007, 08:07:52 PM »
the internet is horrible

it gives stupid people a way to find more stupid people and then they form stupid societies and try to impose their stupid suggestions upon the non stupid masses

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: narcberry
« on: September 06, 2007, 08:03:35 PM »
narcberry has to be screwing with us.  hes probably a really smart guy who is also a jackass and loves to jerk people around.

for that i applaud him.

if this is not the case, and he really is a true believer, then i laugh until my eyes liquefy at him.

so which is it narcberry?  Faker or dumbass?

18
Flat Earth Debate / This simply cannot be
« on: September 06, 2007, 08:00:41 PM »
You cannot disprove the round earth "theory" by small scale tests.  its impossible.  pouring sand on a beach ball and watching the sand roll off does not equate to people on the earth.

Heres a main flaw with small scale tests such as that, and it is a flaw that exists with both RE and FE theories:

The acceleration 9.8 m/s2 is commonly referred to as "G" or "gravity".  this force exists, there is no denying that.  if you pick up a book and let go of it, the book does not float in the air.  this force is greater than the "gravity" that may or may not exist between two masses that we can relate to.  if you pour sand on a beach ball, the sand is being pulled more by "G" than the gravitational force that may or may not exist between the ball and the sand particles.  thus, the particles will always slide off of the beach ball.

Since we cannot escape this "G" force, as it is everywhere, we cannot subtract it from any equation in a small scale experiment.   and even a larger scale experiment would still be acted upon by "G", and still affect the results.

The logically way a RE'er would escape this force would be to launch into space, where "G" is much much less prevalent.  But this solution cannot exist in FE theory, thus, all small scale tests to disprove RE theory in a FE world are invalid.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Unbiased FE vs RE Poll
« on: September 06, 2007, 07:27:02 PM »
hahahahaha "unbiased" and RE is still winning

hell there are even more people who think there isnt an earth than the FEs


this is definitely the highlight of my night

Pages: [1]