1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: NASA fakes everything, huh?

« on: April 25, 2009, 06:03:26 PM »

Will we still be friends in a few years time when Russia tries to shit all over Europe because they're the only ones with any gas left?

I just wanted to post this so we could all truly reflect on the raw stupid of this post.

I just wanted to post this so... wait... you have no idea what's going on in the world do you?

Are you Amerkin?

It's either Amerkkkin or Ameripenguin, not Amerkin you failure.

So somehow the middle east and Canada and the ocean and EVERY PLACE WITH OIL is going to somehow run out of gas,but not Russia? Are you a retard?

No. I'm not. Educateshun yo sel mofo b4 yo deicide to pos'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7812368.stm "Russia to cut Ukraine gas supply "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7825476.stm "Russia gas 'flows back to Europe'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4579396.stm "Europe addresses gas supply fears"

 
Oh and...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
"The world's largest proven gas reserves are located in Russia, with 4.757 ? 1013 m? (1.6 ? 1015 cu ft). Russia is also the world's largest natural gas producer, through the Gazprom company."

2

The Lounge / Re: Shall I...

« on: April 25, 2009, 05:56:34 PM »

Go to church tomorrow morning, get angry and pick holes in their theology or sleep?

Whatever you do, rest assured it's what Jesus wanted you to do.

3

The Lounge / Re: Captain Trips?

« on: April 25, 2009, 05:55:39 PM »

This seems like another one of those annoying things like SARS and the bird flu. It will blow over in a couple months. *Knocking on wood*

Well I'm definitely going to avoid mexico for the next few months though.

Especially given my addiction to Sow pussy. Mmmm yeah squeeeeel if you want to go faster.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Falling" towards the earth

« on: April 25, 2009, 05:53:30 PM »

1. General Relativity proves Newton's theory false.

I doubt it. In fact I believe its possible to derive Newtonian theory from General Relativity.

Also you fail to understand that the equivelence principle only applies to small volumes and small units of time.

Keep on failing trukcer.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I *THINK* the earth is round.

« on: April 25, 2009, 05:49:04 PM »

I am somewhat disappointed that I have not received a single response to any of these queries.

Don't worry, you'll get over it.

With proper counseling yes. But who'll pick up the tab?

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: NASA fakes everything, huh?

« on: April 25, 2009, 05:46:58 PM »

Will we still be friends in a few years time when Russia tries to shit all over Europe because they're the only ones with any gas left?

I just wanted to post this so we could all truly reflect on the raw stupid of this post.

I just wanted to post this so... wait... you have no idea what's going on in the world do you?

Are you Amerkin?

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: NASA fakes everything, huh?

« on: April 25, 2009, 05:43:38 PM »

I don't even want to get into explaining to Tom how the cold war was a war fought by proxy over 50+ years. Tom's already shown us how dumb he is. Lets all just laugh instead. Hahahaha Tom. We're laughing at you, not with you. Hahaha.

BTW. Will we still be friends in a few years time when Russia tries to shit all over Europe because they're the only ones with any gas left?

Discuss.

8

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Steve's music

« on: April 25, 2009, 05:19:48 PM »

How do I unsubscribe from this thread?

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: erm horizon?

« on: April 25, 2009, 01:19:39 PM »

This is a rather crude drawing I just cobbled together in Inkscape, but it should get the point across:

Sorry, I need to see the path of light from the sun, the path of light from an object on the horizon, the path of light from an object infront of the horizon, and the path of light of an object beyond the horizon.

Your diagram needs to show how the light from the sun passes through less atmosphere than the object beyond the horizon, since your proposal is that the atmospheric "gradient" blocks observation of objects beyond the horizon.

Good luck.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?

« on: April 25, 2009, 01:09:30 PM »

I suspect there's a pretty big gulf between trying to define whats happening at a subatomic level, and trying to define whats easily observable all around us.

Since when is the attraction between masses "easily observable all around us"?

Look at the moon, the sun, the stars (Castor is pretty interesting) and the tides.

The question was one of consistency, and the lack of consistency in flat earth theory. There is no inconsistency in RET. It is universally accepted that an attraction exists between masses. It is universally accepted that the earth is spherical.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Oceans in RET

« on: April 25, 2009, 01:01:55 PM »

Your posts are hilarious! Please tell us more about the anti-moon!

Is there an anti sun too?! Maybe there's an anti-fail too. You should try and find it.

If all you're going to do is poke fun, don't expect a serious response. Also, stay the fuck out of Debate & Discussion. There's a place for people like you, it's called Angry Ranting.

There is no anti moon, and if there was it still wouldn't account for how tides are observed. You're trying to invoke attraction between masses, which would immediately cause the moon to fall out of the sky (and likewise the anti moon to "whump" the backside of the earth. Lastly there is no clear explanation of how the moon and anti moon are able to maintain synchronisation.

Hence:

If you can't give a serious answer, don't expect a serious response.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Oceans in RET

« on: April 25, 2009, 07:39:50 AM »

If that is the case then why do we have tides? Because in your FET the earth rocking back and forth do not explain why the tides always move in the same direction

The tides in FET are caused by the gravitation of the Moon and the Anti-Moon.

Your posts are hilarious! Please tell us more about the anti-moon!

Is there an anti sun too?! Maybe there's an anti-fail too. You should try and find it.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: erm horizon?

« on: April 25, 2009, 07:34:15 AM »

This is explained by the hypothesis that light rays curve upwards, so they aren't travelling through the lower part of the atmosphere for that distance.

LOL. Light rays curve upwards?! I've never read so much ill informed crap!

But feel free to illustrate this point, showing how the light from the sun (or moon) when rising somehow avoids travelling through the air which you claim prevents us seeing beyond the horizon.

14

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Steve's music

« on: April 25, 2009, 06:24:41 AM »

at times it seems a little kid is just hitting the keyboard randomly.

+1

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: erm horizon?

« on: April 25, 2009, 06:20:24 AM »

And how does this show the atmosphere is a gradient capable of permitting the moon to be observed yet preventing observation of objects on earths surface greater than 6 miles away (ie beyond the horizon)?

Gas molecules and dust particles in the air interfere with the transmission of electromagnetic radiation. Obviously, the more of such particles there are, the less light will be permitted through.

Molecules block light?! Gosh! Seems like thats got little to do with fluid mechanics. Nice diversion though.

Anyway, how is it that the sun (far away) or moon (far away) can be observed rising from the horizon (the same horizon which is blocking light from beyond 6 miles away)

Perhaps (under your flat earth theory) the sun and moon are only 6 miles away?

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?

« on: April 25, 2009, 06:14:49 AM »

Yeah. RET is so much more consistent, what with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics being totally compatible with each other and everything.

I suspect there's a pretty big gulf between trying to define whats happening at a subatomic level, and trying to define whats easily observable all around us.

But feel free to keep making false analogies. Its funny.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Speed of the Sun

« on: April 25, 2009, 06:12:00 AM »

Face it, there's a magical mirror in the sky, invisible to human eyes, undetected by modern science, which reflects light perfectly to make it look as though the Earth is round. Makes perfect sense.

It's not invisible. Go to Antarctica in December, you'll see it plain as day.

Who's your gag writer?

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?

« on: April 25, 2009, 06:10:18 AM »

I don't understand. Is there no concise flat earth theory which either recognises mass attraction or rejects it?

There are several different Flat Earth models. Some say that the Earth is infinite, others that it has an edge. Some claim that light travels in straight lines, others believe that it bends upwards. One of the things that isn't agreed upon by all Flat Earthers is whether masses attract each other; some of us (including myself) believe in gravitation as described by General Relativity, but there are those who feel that masses do not attract one another.

Wow. Sounds like an inconsistent mess to me.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: erm horizon?

« on: April 25, 2009, 06:09:23 AM »

The first equation obviously implies that as one ascends, the air pressure gets lower.

OK.

The second equation relates this reduction in pressure to a proportionate reduction in density.

OK.

And how does this show the atmosphere is a gradient capable of permitting the moon to be observed yet preventing observation of objects on earths surface greater than 6 miles away (ie beyond the horizon)?

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: erm horizon?

« on: April 25, 2009, 05:49:32 AM »

Of course g = a_UA in that first equation.  Habits can be hard to break.

I'm using the general form of the equation for familiarity, and because there's really no difference thanks to the Equivalence Principle. But yes, you are correct of course.

hmm you've just cited a couple of fluid mechanics equations.

How does that show that the atmosphere is a gradient?

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?

« on: April 25, 2009, 05:46:18 AM »

Sorry, I don't think that answers my question. All I need is a yes or a no.

Thanks!

Some do, some don't. Those who do generally refer to it as "gravitation", however.

I don't understand. Is there no concise flat earth theory which either recognises mass attraction or rejects it?

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?

« on: April 25, 2009, 05:27:04 AM »

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0

Sorry, I don't think that answers my question. All I need is a yes or a no.

Thanks!

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Do flat earthers recognise attraction between mass?

« on: April 25, 2009, 05:24:19 AM »

Hello people.

I am new to flat earth I would like to know if you recognise the well documented attraction between masses called "gravity".

Thanks!