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 - Iruleuall4

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Concerning navigation:
« on: August 31, 2008, 12:42:50 PM »
That map is only an estimate.  The true flat earth map has not yet been...well...mapped out.

After centuries, a FE map hasn't been created, whereas RE ones have multiple times accurately. Hmmmmmmm.
That's because it's hard to map something that doesn't exist.

The earth doesnt exist? Im fairly sure it does.
Sorry for the typo. I was actually saying the "flat earth" doesn't exist.

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Concerning navigation:
« on: August 31, 2008, 12:36:39 PM »
That map is only an estimate.  The true flat earth map has not yet been...well...mapped out.

After centuries, a FE map hasn't been created, whereas RE ones have multiple times accurately. Hmmmmmmm.
That's because it's hard to map something that doesn't exist.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Energy.
« on: August 30, 2008, 09:05:09 PM »
Sure it would. We only experience 1g at all times. But we are accelerating with the earth as well. Why would you think that as the earth accelerates at 1g, that we would experience 1g on itself exponentially? I don't feel any heavier than I did an hour ago.

Besides, that doesn't have to do with relativity, which you completely ignored.
Anyways.

A semi-off-topic question: What lead you to believe the Earth was flat? When did you start believe the world was flat?

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Energy.
« on: August 30, 2008, 09:02:09 PM »
Obviously, but the theory you guys stated was that Earth is being pushed upward at a constant acceleration on 9.8/m/s^2. If I'm not mistaken, the speed of light is a defined number (appr. 300,000,000m/s). Assuming your theory is correct, in about 355 days, the Earth would be moving at a velocity greater than that of the speed of light.
High school physics would lead you to believe this.  Fortunately, the earth does not adhere to said physics.
How can you prove this?

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Energy.
« on: August 30, 2008, 08:59:42 PM »
Another thing is, if the earth were accelerating, isn't that saying that the first second the Earth existed, it was going 9.8m/s. The second second the Earth would be going 19.6m/s. By this time, the Earth would be going so incredibly fast, it's not even fathomable.
Less than the speed of light is most certainly fathomable.
Obviously, but the theory you guys stated was that Earth is being pushed upward at a constant acceleration on 9.8/m/s^2. If I'm not mistaken, the speed of light is a defined number (appr. 300,000,000m/s). Assuming your theory is correct, in about 355 days, the Earth would be at a velocity greater than that of the speed of light.

EDIT: This is assuming that the space the Earth was moving through is a vacuum.

You haven't taken relativity into effect.
Even then, would the G-force not be unbearable by the time it reached maximum velocity?

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Energy.
« on: August 30, 2008, 08:54:01 PM »
Another thing is, if the earth were accelerating, isn't that saying that the first second the Earth existed, it was going 9.8m/s. The second second the Earth would be going 19.6m/s. By this time, the Earth would be going so incredibly fast, it's not even fathomable.
Less than the speed of light is most certainly fathomable.
Obviously, but the theory you guys stated was that Earth is being pushed upward at a constant acceleration on 9.8/m/s^2. If I'm not mistaken, the speed of light is a defined number (appr. 300,000,000m/s). Assuming your theory is correct, in about 355 days, the Earth would be moving at a velocity greater than that of the speed of light.

EDIT: This is assuming that the space the Earth was moving through is a vacuum.

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Energy.
« on: August 30, 2008, 08:43:56 PM »
Global Moderators are so smart!

But you aren't.
Prove it.

Ok.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=15398;sa=showPosts
If I wanted a link to my recent posts, I would have asked for it; however, I asked for you to prove that I'm not smart. At this point in time, you have failed to do so.

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Energy.
« on: August 30, 2008, 08:41:56 PM »

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Energy.
« on: August 30, 2008, 08:39:54 PM »
Global Moderators are so smart!

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Energy.
« on: August 30, 2008, 08:38:02 PM »
It's hard to post decent content on a forum this ridiculous. There is no such thing as perpetual energy, and that is what would be required to keep the Earth accelerating upwards constantly. Another thing is, if the earth were accelerating, isn't that saying that the first second the Earth existed, it was going 9.8m/s. The second second the Earth would be going 19.6m/s. By this time, the Earth would be going so incredibly fast, it's not even fathomable.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Just a little confused.
« on: August 30, 2008, 08:25:38 PM »
Someone respond to this.

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Just a little confused.
« on: August 30, 2008, 08:20:42 PM »
I think they will claim it is the way we are perceiving it what with atmospheric density or whatever.
What they don't understand is that "atmospheric density" can only change with elevation.

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Just a little confused.
« on: August 30, 2008, 08:16:44 PM »
Oh, and another thing:

Quote
FUCKING RETARDS.

This is how you KNOW the world is round.

Step 1: Go to the ocean.

Step 2: Watch a boat with a mast go over the horizon.

Step 3: Notice how as the boat goes over the horizon you can still see it's mast but the boat is hidden from the curvature of the earth.

Step 4: ???

Step 5: Profit!

If this doesn't convince you, please explain to me how this works in your world.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Just a little confused.
« on: August 30, 2008, 08:12:13 PM »
Oh, right. Even if the world isn't round, it's not flat either. There are still hills and mountains, thusly, you guys are wrong about the world being flat.

Game, set, match.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Just a little confused.
« on: August 30, 2008, 08:07:28 PM »
In the graphic shown, you are saying that the Southern portion of Africa will have a new moon whilst the Northern portion has a full moon. How is this so?

Also, in your graphic, it does not show the moon rotating, meaning that the moon will always be new in Southern Africa, and full in Northern Africa.

Pages: [1]