1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'll test bendy light theory

« on: May 17, 2010, 03:18:01 AM »

This is Flat Earth Debate. Don't make low-content posts here again, because you'll receive a suspension if you do.

Hey, uh..."Lord" Wilford...this is probably the most worthless post I've seen in this entire thread. Cheers, okay, thanks friend, ur cool.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Terminator of the Moon

« on: October 17, 2009, 12:22:11 PM »

How much did you spend researching this?

Did you talk to anyone else about this?

Uh oh. I think we have our first taste of someone in on the conspiracy getting jarred. I think it would be best we don't talk about the moon anymore.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The moon is obviously a flat disk, not a rotating sphere.

« on: September 30, 2009, 08:45:11 PM »

I know right? I mean are ponchos even spherical? I call b.s.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The moon is obviously a flat disk, not a rotating sphere.

« on: September 30, 2009, 08:36:59 PM »

What if the Moon was actually a proponent of a God-like figure such as the giant turtles or Jebus. Would it still be a disk? Or maybe it could be more like a plate of rocks? Like a dish? Can turtles eat rocks even? I don't know if I believe in turtles.

Or maybe it could be like Earth's poncho. You know, for rain. Only it's off and put away like if you put your poncho in the closet. I know that I usually keep my poncho in my closet. My Poncho is named Juancho.

I mean, it doesn't HAVE to be spherical, does it? When it gets all shadowy, you know, like half moons and stuff, couldn't that just be because it's wearing a poncho of it's own sometimes? You know, because of rain?

So many questions.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: $150 proof the earth isn't flat.

« on: September 21, 2009, 09:27:44 AM »

curved light.

Just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Downward acceleration

« on: September 21, 2009, 09:07:35 AM »

You and I are in total agreeance, but if we don't stay on topic, then this thread is gonna get tossed and I really want to hear a few different points of view.

But thank you for understanding my idea and trying to answer my questions, Parsifal.

*edit And it pains me to say that pussitry...but I've seen it happen before...
 

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Downward acceleration

« on: September 21, 2009, 08:30:03 AM »

]Helium, like everything else in RE, is pulled down toward earth. I was using the balloon as an example of stars, which are NOT TOUCHING earth. Does the UA just effect everywhere exactly the same amount?

The UA is a universal force which accelerates the Earth and celestial bodies upwards at approximately 9.8 m s^-2.

Also, the FAQs say the UA is a real, physical thing. Maybe read them sometime?

ALSO,  hope I get this in in time...

If the UA forces EVERYTHING upwards, right, then I'm constantly accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2? Everything would be? So if I jumped, I'd be, for a second, going faster than that. Then what makes the earth catch up to me, which I would percieve as falling, does the UA stop working on me?

You got it in time, and you actually clarified my question.

 

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Downward acceleration

« on: September 21, 2009, 08:16:10 AM »

No. Consider the RE model for a moment; a helium balloon is being pulled downwards by the Earth, yet it still rises upwards due to the buoyancy force from the air it is suspended in. The same fluid mechanics that govern buoyancy work in the accelerating frame of reference of FET, in accordance with the equivalence principle.

Okay, I just don't know about the properties of helium, so you have to consider this question as legitimate: In the FE model, is helium a lot more dense? I mean are the known properties completely off??? And again, I'm trying really hard to not sound stupid...hahaha

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Downward acceleration

« on: September 21, 2009, 08:07:20 AM »

Oops, accidentally used something from RE in a FE example.

  I sometimes get confused, too. Up, down, left, North, round.....

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Downward acceleration

« on: September 21, 2009, 07:57:55 AM »

I'm not taking anything away from your post supahlova, because you're right on target.


But, I'm gonna try and keep this on topic and only take your balloon example. How would helium work with UA? Wouldn't it make more sense if the Earth were moving downwards?

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Downward acceleration

« on: September 21, 2009, 07:44:50 AM »

What exactly do you consider to be a "physics background"?

I apologize (again) for being vague, but I meant I haven't studied physics.....thanks for being unnecessarily condescending....

No, the UA theory proposes that the Earth has constant acceleration, not constant speed.

Okay, but you're completely derailing my thread, Holmes. Either way, that's completely ridiculous. I think there's some very good arguments for FET, but this isn't one of them.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Downward acceleration

« on: September 21, 2009, 07:36:31 AM »

If the earth were accelerating upwards, wouldn't we all get smashed to the earth then?

Also, if it were accelerating in ANY direction, the speed would always be increasing. Wouldn't we approach and pass stars all the time?

Precisely. The act of acceleration is either growing or slowing speed. The UA is already contradictory because it promotes the idea that Earth is moving at a constant rate. But that's neither here nor there because that's already been mentioned numerous times on this board.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Downward acceleration

« on: September 21, 2009, 07:31:09 AM »

I know, dude, but falling up doesn't make sense. If we had the potential to fall 'up', then surely, at the same rate upwards, we'd have issues with things like airplanes and mid-air suspension with things like helicopters.

See? I've already said these things, too. But, the problem is that I don't have a physics background at all. I have read posts from some extremely intelligent people here that argue the FET that do, though. And, to be honest, no offense, I would much rather hear from them.

*EDIT- Directed toward Parsifal

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Downward acceleration

« on: September 21, 2009, 06:58:24 AM »

Well first you have to understand that I don't think any of this makes sense either. I'm just asking for realistic answers to my original question which was, "what are the major flaws in the downward acceleration theory?". See, my young little God fearing boy, I don't think that the Earth is flying upwards either. Well, simply because there's a plethora of inconsistencies in this ideal.

I would really like someone that, while not actually believing the Earth is flat, but arguing for the FE side, to talk to me.

Go back to bed, young sinner. And remember to repent for the faggotry.

*Sorry mods, I believe I was arguing respectively until this point...*

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Downward acceleration

« on: September 21, 2009, 06:37:50 AM »

Well, isn't the North Pole your epicenter of the FE model? Perhaps, instead of the current popular tectonic plate shift theory, we could say that everything has been continuously been drawn towards the center due to the immense air pressure caused by the flat Earth accelerating downwards?

*Damn, this is some good LSD....*

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Downward acceleration

« on: September 21, 2009, 04:37:47 AM »

And you're right, saying: "You have to understand that I know that the Earth is round...." is irrelevant in this conversation. I apologize.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Downward acceleration

« on: September 21, 2009, 04:34:29 AM »

Well, come on, of course I don't have evidence that this happens...hahaha....*face palm*

I just think this could be an alternate theory that replaces the current idea that "gravity doesn't exist" and what keeps things suspended in air.

a) we would expect there to be air in space

I'm not trying to ignore B and C, but firstly, let's talk about this. *I just realized this might be addressed in the almighty FAQ....*

And I might be wrong, but doesn't the 'fact' that there is air in space support your idea that UA keeps us grounded?

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Downward acceleration

« on: September 21, 2009, 04:12:37 AM »

I respect that.

And as far as lurking more, I did make sure to search this topic before posting.

But,

If the Earth were accelerating downwards, we would all be falling up, including the air around us.

This is what I was arguing when I mentioned the frisbee experiment. We still have air to keep us grounded.

This can't be more far-fetched than the whole idea of FE itself.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Downward acceleration

« on: September 21, 2009, 04:02:58 AM »

The obvious flaw is that it's completely contrary to observation, and totally preposterous to even hypothesise about.

Hahaha....man, I'm trying here...You have to understand that I know that the Earth is round....

I got an experiment for you, though. Tape a frisbee to your hand and swing it downwards and observe the wind flowing over your hand. While I'm not able to write in equation as to why this happens, it does. The wind doesn't just flow straight up and down, it reacts and is attracted towards the center.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Downward acceleration

« on: September 21, 2009, 03:53:46 AM »

Well of course....but, hypothetically, wouldn't that make more sense since we're able to see things suspended in air like hummingbirds and helicopters? I mean, if the Earth were accelerating upwards, than it hasn't caused any detrimental effects on our existence. Given it's theorized speed rate, we're able to survive, so I don't think it's too absurd to think that maybe (what am I saying....) we are accelerating downwards.

I mean, there are obviously major, major flaws in FET, so I was just wondering, from a physics standpoint, what the most obvious flaws are in "DA" for lack of a better way to put it...

21

Flat Earth Debate / Downward acceleration

« on: September 21, 2009, 03:36:30 AM »

I did a quick search and it didn't seem like this has been touched on very much.

In FET, what are the major flaws in the idea that the Earth could be accelerating downwards versus upwards? I have never taken a physics class, but it seems that this would lead to more logical explanations of such things like airplanes not crashing into the Earth's surface.

Serious question...yes I give in...

22

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The perfect god paradox.

« on: September 16, 2009, 03:13:56 AM »

Ok I found it:

Exactly. Biological self-interest != morality.

And I apologize for not lurking quite enough to see the other thread.

I see what you're saying about the word morality. To be honest, I'm appalled it even had the potential to be subject for debate. My example of the holocaust and my opinion, which at the time I figured could of been unique, was something so undeniably shared and it turns out, you got me. The word 'morality' is subjective.

You sound like a Nazi sympathizer, though. It's one thing to think the Earth is flat, but to take away a couple of very appropriate words like 'immoral' and 'evil' that best describe the absolute horror of something like the holocaust is nonredeemable.  

23

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Morality

« on: September 16, 2009, 02:59:26 AM »

I don't steal things because I fear of being caught by the police. How am I being greedy? What am I gaining?

Uhmmm....wh...whatever you're...stealing? I don't know!?

24

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The perfect god paradox.

« on: September 16, 2009, 02:49:40 AM »

Oh man, there's a whole thread on this. I will continue if you respond, but I think I'll get an idea of your stance after reading it.

25

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The perfect god paradox.

« on: September 16, 2009, 02:43:45 AM »

Well now why would you say that there was nothing wrong with their morals? Assuming that you're alluding towards the Nazis. I mean, how sadistic could you possibly be?

If you're attempting to deconstruct the English language, let me just stop you before you answer that question. My point was that the word evil's definition can be broader than it's religious connotation. Hell (another word I use without any religious connotation), the word 'moral' is the opposite of what people find to be bad and wrong.

Do you think what the Nazis did was morally sound under the direct definition of morality?

26

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The perfect god paradox.

« on: September 16, 2009, 12:42:53 AM »

Again, until you prove that an event was evil that is a pointless statement.

How does one prove an event "evil"? Does it have to follow a religious connotation? The word evil is synonymous with 'sinful', but can't we just steal it and say it means morally 'fucked'?

Saying something like, "saying the holocaust was an evil event is a subjective statement" would be morally 'fucked'. 

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: New and has a question.

« on: September 15, 2009, 04:22:35 AM »

In fact, that the earth is a big ball is one of the biggest falsehoods ever to be widely believed in the history of mankind.

Wait, didn't I read you say you believe in god?

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: question about the Sun

« on: September 15, 2009, 04:20:45 AM »

according to your model sun never goes below horizon, it simply circles the north pole. and it gets dark because sun gets so far away and so low, that it's light becomes so weak that it disappears or something like that...



Explain.

Well, the Earth is round. Globe shaped. The planet we live on orbits around the sun.

You're an excellent typer for not ever attended the third grade.

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: the acceleration theory

« on: September 15, 2009, 04:16:50 AM »

Feathers are not appropriate in this discussion. As we all know; feathers are fake and regulated under the conspiracy.

Birds, however, are real. Just not visible over the horizon due to the immense density in the air. When birds fly "south " for the winter, they're actually flying towards the edge of the Earth. Which is Toronto.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I still don't buy it that the earth is flat!

« on: September 14, 2009, 09:34:52 AM »

Well than, in all fairness, what is it called when someone is led to believe the Earth is flat?