1

The Lounge / Re: discovermagazine.com thinks its soooo smart.

« on: September 05, 2008, 10:00:05 AM »

very good article, why the *** am I still on this forum, it's filled with people who won't achieve anything in life...

bye bye hahhahahaha you guys made my day for 2 days in a row <3

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Contra FE Gravity-Theorie

« on: September 05, 2008, 09:44:36 AM »

so the earth can travel quicker than the maximum speed of light?

No. Learn some physics.

I know them, but I quoted a guy who obviously doesnt.

learn to reply normally instead of telling people to learn physics.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Contra FE Gravity-Theorie

« on: September 05, 2008, 09:42:15 AM »

You are so very wrong on so very many levels I want to be sick.

Thank you for the proof, that some people just can't debate with serious arguments.

Anyway, in the FEs Gravity Theorie, the earth ist falling up. But as i already said it, wouldn't the energy of the earths movement affect a object (here: a human) on it and the human could just jump of the earth and fly away because he is as fast as the earths speed+his own jump off speed? Especially because there is no RE gravity but only the FE Gravity, which is only because the worlds falling up?

The way its explained in the FAQ is that the earth is undergoing continuous acceleration.  It is not moving at a staedy rate so the story goes that if you jump off the surface, it just keeps out accelerating you since you can only accelerate yourself to a higher velocity than the earth for the instant your legs propel you...once you'v left the surface you're travelling at a constant velocity...meanwhile the earth continues to accelerate and eventually it outruns you and hits you from below.

Not endorsing it...just explaining it.

so the earth can travel quicker than the maximum speed of light?

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FAQ origins.

« on: September 05, 2008, 09:24:11 AM »

Besides, e-Jack, you said "common sense" and a little bit of scientific background. Ok, but I'm very sorry: Common sense is not valid for a scientific theory, nor to interprate facts, because it may change from one person to the other

You need to reread my post. I never said common sense has any relationship with science. Common sense, rather, is what everyone agrees on. Everyone agrees that the sun illuminates some parts of the Earth, as written in the FAQ.

okay now I decided to exclude ranting in all my posts, but how would you see the world as a flat thing with common sense? If the world was flat you would be able to see far far far away, but then you guys state that the sunlight bends upward, this doesn't sound logically to me. The sun goes down the horizon, if you don't know anything about a round or a flat earth, you would think it goes in a angle where you can't see it anymore, you might think it goes over an edge (but you know that if you move to the west, it goes down later so that is not an option... Gravity, an earth thrusting up is not logical to me, at last a conspiracy is not logical to me.

please note it states 'to me'. But I can't imagine anyone else does find it logical, unless someone or something talked it into him.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun spots

« on: September 05, 2008, 09:17:56 AM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

lot's of info there.

a few facts:

Apparent references to sunspots were made by Chinese astronomers in 28 BC (Hanshu, 27), who probably could see the largest spot groups when the sun's glare was filtered by wind-borne dust from the various central Asian deserts. A large sunspot was also seen at the time of Charlemagne's death in A.D. 813 and sunspot activity in 1129 was described by John of Worcester. However, these observations were misinterpreted until Galileo gave the correct explanation in 1612.

They were first observed telescopically in late 1610 by the English astronomer Thomas Harriot and Frisian astronomers Johannes and David Fabricius, who published a description in June 1611. At the latter time Galileo had been showing sunspots to astronomers in Rome, and Christoph Scheiner had probably been observing the spots for two or three months. The ensuing priority dispute between Galileo and Scheiner, neither of whom knew of the Fabricius' work, was thus as pointless as it was bitter.

Sunspots had some importance in the debate over the nature of the solar system. They showed that the Sun rotated, and their comings and goings showed that the Sun changed, contrary to the teaching of Aristotle. The details of their apparent motion could not be readily explained except in the heliocentric system of Copernicus.

The cyclic variation of the number of sunspots was first observed by Heinrich Schwabe between 1826 and 1843 and led Rudolf Wolf to make systematic observations starting in 1848. The Wolf number is an expression of individual spots and spot groupings, which has demonstrated success in its correlation to a number of solar observables. Also in 1848, Joseph Henry projected an image of the Sun onto a screen and determined that sunspots were cooler than the surrounding surface.[8]

etc etc.

If even you can observe this, what would be the FE argument be for seeing these spots?

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the Flat Earth model

« on: September 05, 2008, 06:59:11 AM »

Ah okay I get it now... FETers don't know how to read maps!

another win for the RE... battle was won ageeeeeeeeeeeees ago

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Contra FE Gravity-Theorie

« on: September 05, 2008, 06:04:37 AM »

You are so very wrong on so very many levels I want to be sick.

Thank you for the proof, that some people just can't debate with serious arguments.

Anyway, in the FEs Gravity Theorie, the earth ist falling up. But as i already said it, wouldn't the energy of the earths movement affect a object (here: a human) on it and the human could just jump of the earth and fly away because he is as fast as the earths speed+his own jump off speed? Especially because there is no RE gravity but only the FE Gravity, which is only because the worlds falling up?

very good point, you will never get a good explanation on this forum, because 'they' can only flame.

Gut gemacht! haha

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Contra FE Gravity-Theorie

« on: September 04, 2008, 02:45:58 PM »

you are so right, but probably undereducated people won't be able to think of this in their small minds.

Imagine this:

someone jumps out of a plane at the hight of 1 mile, the earth would be moving towards him with 9.81m*s^-2 since the earth is already accelerating you cant even use the formula which we use for almost all these easy situations:

s=˝gt˛ (since in this formula you don't use starting speed or distance since he starts with v=0)

anyway, the earth will 'jump' onto him, in the meanwhile he wouldnt feel anything but wind and definetally no g's.

well it's all strange, and btw as the faq explains the earth falls up with V and not 9.81m*s^-2 because of the maximum drag.

so everything, also feathers and anvils would drop at the same speed, like in vacuum.

anyway I am talking about 2 things at the same time, but only this fact makes it clear that the earth doesnt move up but we get attracted by the earth instead.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Near-future technology will put an end to FE theory?

« on: September 04, 2008, 09:11:50 AM »

Alot of topics seem to get into the last 4 posts discussion, also contributes nothing to the forum alltho it's a clear win for RET

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: satellites... and moar!

« on: September 04, 2008, 06:08:41 AM »

NASA and russia worked together to make teflon for cooking purposes...with the profit of selling these rights they made a sattelite and let it crash on numerous plases into the earth, seen by common people.

Dah that was an easy one

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Near-future technology will put an end to FE theory?

« on: September 04, 2008, 05:56:01 AM »

It's not near future science which has put a end to this theory, it's common sense since ages before christ.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Couple of questions

« on: September 03, 2008, 03:27:53 PM »

okay you convinced me..

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Couple of questions

« on: September 03, 2008, 03:07:56 PM »

Ah I see you have fallen into the Round earth trap, just because it makes sense and all known laws of physics, maps and observations suggest that the planet is round. This all proves that the earth is flat.
Either that or that flat earthers smoke far too much crack.

Actually I thought of all possibilities, I think you guys fell in the Flat earth trap tho...

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Couple of questions

« on: September 03, 2008, 03:04:28 PM »

Well obviously flat earth theory is meaningless without the conspiracy theory, but the answers to your questions using FET are as follows:
1. Space flight is impossible, so the photo's are all fake.
2. The earth tilts to facilitate tides, thus it follows that the acceleration changes, remember gravity doesn't exist.
3. Light bends upwards, thus the horizon is proof of flat earth.
4. Wavy light causes this, see the FAQ.
5. All laws of physics are created by conspiritors.
6. No, see point 3.
7. All evidence is deleted to keep flat earth secret.

So you see, the fact that no evidence exists to support flat earth actually proves flat earth rather than disproving it.

okay now let's assume that you made this topic and I will respond like you...

1. there are no pictures of a flat earth, the earth is a sphere.
2. the larger the distance between the gravity points of 2 objects, the smaller the gravity, the earth is a sphere.
3. light goes trough air in a straight line, horizon proves that the earth is a sphere.
4. light is parralel, day and night difference proves that the earth is a sphere.
5. all laws connected in any way to this theory prove that the earth is a sphere.
6. see 3
7. there is no evidence for a flat earth, so the earth is a sphere.


see how lame and not realistic it is?

edit:you guys should actually make/buy a straight pole which is 1mile long, you will see that it will only touch the ground in the middle

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Couple of questions

« on: September 03, 2008, 02:46:01 PM »

Hello there, let me start with introducing myself: I'm enjee for the Netherlands, 21 years old and have been reading this forum for a while. At first it was just for a good laugh and later alot of members were so ignorant in their answers without any substance that it turned into annoyment.

I've read the faq and hope none of my upcoming questions are there, if so just tell me and I will read it and try to let my light shine over the A.

1. How is it possible that all photographs from space and high in the sky taken by thousands of private groups and various space organisations in alot of countries all show the same image? and none of them is proven to be fake?

please don't give a answer like: 'It's a conspiracy, there is alot of money involved' There are so many people involved here who have to interest at all in maintaining this secret that it is theoretically impossible.

2. How come 1g differs from location to location?

3. There is a horizon. (Prove that light travels in a curve)

4. all sunlight is almost(negligible) parralel, because of the scientifically proven size and distance of the sun. If the earth was flat it is impossible to have day and night at the same time.

5. there are hundreds of law's which prove that all planets are orbiting in a eclipse and clearly explain why.

example:

http://dept.physics.upenn.edu/courses/gladney/mathphys/java/sect5/subsubsection5_1_1_1.html

6. If there were really use icemountains surrounding the flat earth, you would see them from anywhere.

7. There is no evidence from your side to prove that the current law's in physics are wrong, just twisted thoughts which are as unlikely as the bible itself.



okay these are not all questions, but now try to convince me please.

greetings,

enjee