1

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: May 09, 2008, 12:30:36 PM »

The Earth's gravity is caused by the centrifugal force of a rotating ball. Now how does a disc rotate like that?

Oooh ouch.

Not even I made myself this vulnerable to an orgy of piss-rippingly humiliating insults.


ouch

Civ player Ozymandius? Not an insult, just curious.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Navigation

« on: May 09, 2008, 12:27:16 PM »

I like Eric.

Come to my house Eric.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: so HOW many people are in on the conspiracy?

« on: May 09, 2008, 12:25:15 PM »

for example, did you know that commoners in Russia are taught that all americans are liars, cheats and thieves?

You mean that's not true?

LOLWHUT?

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Schrödinger's earth

« on: May 03, 2008, 06:47:20 PM »

Lolz I have no discernible qualifications and I could still tear holes in this hypothesis.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

« on: May 03, 2008, 06:45:26 PM »

Ah I was leaving anyway, narcberry.

I admit my incorrectness regarding the acceleration of a flat earth, but the broader picture remains.

You sordid Flat Earth advocates base your entire hypothesis upon random speculation

2000 mph jet streams, an infinite source of dark energy, massive global conspiracies this entire operation is a farce.

You're all pathetic, every one of you, for clinging to the battered remnants of an obsolete text by a foolish zealot.

You spit in the face of science and wonder why the world does not accept your theories.

Ice walls? Fuck off.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Schrödinger's earth

« on: May 03, 2008, 06:39:56 PM »

I'll admit that I was somewhat incorrect about the acceleration, yes.

But you FE'ers really do sidestep awkward questions, and provide completely inadequate answers.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

« on: May 03, 2008, 06:38:20 PM »

I understand it perfectly well.

cut me some slack anyway, I'm a 15 year old boy.

It would be easier to cut you some slack if you didn't enter a forum claiming superior knowledge and understanding while dismissing those who disagree with you. It's also much harder when after all this you demonstrate that your opposition has a better grasp of the subject material than you do.

Well, you do deny most observable evidence and swear by a series of complex conspiracy theories with no evidence rooted in reality.

I'd say that does constitute some stupidity.

A shitload of stupidity.

8

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: May 03, 2008, 06:36:05 PM »

Still waitin' on people to explain how acceleration is an accurate subsitution for gravity.


Guess i'll be waitin' all day.

this was, i believe, in reference to the equivalence principle's inadequacy at explaining the accuracy of the inverse square law.

you FE'ers just sidestep the inconvenient questions.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Schrödinger's earth

« on: May 03, 2008, 06:33:59 PM »

No, this is no victory for FE. You carefully sidestepped any questions i raised and simply dismissed any studies and evidence aws "flawed" or ignored them completely.

You have much to learn, narcberry.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

« on: May 03, 2008, 06:32:18 PM »

Oh dear, I didn't say Newton's law of special relativity did i?

I meant Einstein.

I understand it perfectly well.

cut me some slack anyway, I'm a 15 year old boy.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

« on: May 03, 2008, 06:31:15 PM »

I am aware that it does not take time into account.




sigh.



I am aware of the effects of time dilation as velocity increases.

And I am aware that this time dilation would only be visible by an independent observer outside of the system, or vice versa.

But would it still not require an infinite energy, presuming that the energy utilised was inside the system of the accelerating earth?

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

« on: May 03, 2008, 06:21:46 PM »

So you're saying that there is nothing that can be observed that is not accelerating at this velocity, or at one similar to it?

What we're saying is that prior to the *possibility* of observation, we cannot quantify what happens inside the box.

narcberry. That's a reference to Schrödinger's cat.

Doesn't work if there isn't a decaying atomic nucleus.

The earth wasn't locked in a state of quantum uncertainty before it was observed, even the question of atomic uncertainty on an atomic level is in doubt.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Schrödinger's earth

« on: May 03, 2008, 06:18:36 PM »

That displayed the curvature of the earth.
As well as some hazy white shit on the horizon.

Proves my point, not yours.

You bore me

Narcberry, tomorrow, I shall be gone. But you will still be pursuing the same, futile scientific goal.

Your theory is wank.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

« on: May 03, 2008, 06:16:51 PM »

So you're saying that there is nothing that can be observed that is not accelerating at this velocity, or at one similar to it?

15

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: May 03, 2008, 06:11:50 PM »

I didn't.

I asked how the inverse square law, which has been recorded, can possibly apply to this.

If it does not apply, then why was it concieved.

To explain the motion of celestial beings, yes. How do they fit in to FE's grand plan?

16

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: May 03, 2008, 06:06:51 PM »

I am fully aware of the equivalence principle.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

« on: May 03, 2008, 06:06:19 PM »

So the Earth can't be constantly accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s, even when time dilation is taken into account, because that is relativistic.

DDUDuuuduuuuuuuhhH!

Bloody spoons

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

« on: May 03, 2008, 06:04:39 PM »

Fuck's sake.

You Fe'ers are just idiots.

you calculate it, engineer.
taking relativity into account.

Ok.

...
...
...
An infinite amount of time.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Schrödinger's earth

« on: May 03, 2008, 06:03:02 PM »

That displayed the curvature of the earth.
As well as some hazy white shit on the horizon.

Proves my point, not yours.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

« on: May 03, 2008, 06:01:45 PM »

Tell me how I'm wrong.

1) Because you think Relativity does not need to be taken into account. 

.. For god's sake.

I have already asserted that it does.

However, when you ask how long it will take a body that ALWAYS accelerates at 9.8m/s/s to reach 300,000,000 m/s (my bad) you imply that the increase in mass is negated: when you state that it always accelerates at 9.8m/s

you calculate it, engineer.
taking relativity into account.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

« on: May 03, 2008, 05:57:08 PM »

Oh fuck shit it's 300,000,000 m/s

Cock!

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Schrödinger's earth

« on: May 03, 2008, 05:53:25 PM »

It's probably on google somewhere.

but I do have this: www.news.harvard.edu/.../photos/01-winter.jpg
explain the aurora borealis + corealis.
I've seen the former, so don't pass it off as a hoax.

http://loose-tooth.ucsd.edu/science/antarctica.jpg
And images such as that are dismissed as hoaxes, aren't they.


Your conspiracy theories smell of fail.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Schrödinger's earth

« on: May 03, 2008, 05:44:45 PM »

Those are just pictures of antarctic ice sheets, which exist in a RE model. The photographs prove nothing.

Why would these features not exist on a RE?

Now, show me the 27,000 km of them, and I'll believe you.



But you have no evidence of that, do you.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

« on: May 03, 2008, 05:41:10 PM »

Because you simply asked me how long it would take an object to reach 300,000 m/s if it was always accelerating at 9.8m/s/s. That's simple maths, as presumably you insist on the existence of some unknown way of overcoming the increase in mass, and presuming it is in a perfect vacuum.

Of course, this would be relativistic, i.e. timed by a an observer on the accelerating body, in this case, us.

Tell me how I'm wrong.

Do explain.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: More round-earth nonsense

« on: May 03, 2008, 05:36:57 PM »

No, I want you to justify your modelt to me.
First explain the mechanism of tectonic activity on a disc, and then move on to the question of lunar eclipses.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

« on: May 03, 2008, 05:32:17 PM »

I told you already.

If a body is accelerating uniformly at a rate of 9.8m/s/s, then no Einsteinian mathematics are required to work it out.

approx. 30,000 seconds.

Please explain this "adjustment" that must be made for relativity. There has been much talk of it, but little detail given but slander.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Schrödinger's earth

« on: May 03, 2008, 05:29:29 PM »

That's the atmoshpere.

And the curvature of the Earth.

Does this not prove my point?

Send me the pictures/

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

« on: May 03, 2008, 05:28:20 PM »

Engineering is based on some book a guy wrote over a hundred years ago. Physics too.

You can take that rubbish elsewhere.

LOL.

Hypocritical statement of the evening, I think.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: More round-earth nonsense

« on: May 03, 2008, 05:26:22 PM »

I know it has no application to an accelerating body.

So you're denying the validity of the tests carried out to verify the inverse square law?



If you are, is there any point arguing with you, for i could equally deny all of your sordid "scientific" conclusions.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Schrödinger's earth

« on: May 03, 2008, 05:23:58 PM »

Oh mien GOTT
narcberry

Are you just stupid?


The entire FE argument is just, obtuse.

It's overly complex.

It's not even a theory, you based it around speculation!

Did you, or did you not, make up the idea of a "massive ice wall", or do you have "first hand evidence.

Show me pictures and evidence.

Show me narcberry.