1

Flat Earth General / Re: NEXT WEEK I WILL PROVE THE EARTH IS ROUND !

« on: August 27, 2010, 05:08:15 AM »

You mean you'll prove the Earth is flat?

If the Earth was flat we would both see the cruise ship, it's a matter of 50 yards.

Quite clearly my hypothesis states that i will prove the earth is round.
I have gone on to explain my hypothesis. Next i will prove my hypothesis and provide my conclusion in due course.

Good on you. But its probably gonna be more like your DLP with see more of the ship than you do. But that doesn't make much of a difference. You do need a good zoom though, to have some FErs actually convinced.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Invention Required if Earth Rotates !!!!!!!!!

« on: August 27, 2010, 05:03:33 AM »

As per General Theory Earth Rotates around itself.... But Currently for going from Eastern Countries to Western Country takes around 24 hours.... What about inventing sech a space station where a Flight can Halt and Earth while rotating brings the place near it automatically.
Eg. For going From India to USA it takes 24 Hours. Alternatively if Earth Rotates then Flight must only Stop at a station prepared outside the India's Atmosphere and within 12 hours USA will arrive near it where Flight can land back !!!!!!!!!!!!!! it may reduce the Fuel Consumption too !!!!!!

What about it ??

how about no

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How to prove the earth is flat?

« on: August 27, 2010, 04:58:36 AM »

What's the easiest (inexpensive) way to prove (in the sense of a physical theory) that the earth is flat?

I don't have a telescope or a car or anything like that but I can make measurements and whatever

There is non, the earth isn't flat.

4

The Lounge / Re: Satanist Space Agencies

« on: August 23, 2010, 12:26:32 PM »

I had a look at the all logos of second Lists agencies and must say, no, actually no.

Perhaps you have to look more closely. I can't look for you. Personally, I saw pentagrams.

Or, perhaps, you're a conspiracy agent. Your name, MrBob, sounds a lot like Mr Smith from The Matrix. Also, I see the top two prongs of a hidden pentagram in the 'M' in your name. Could this be a coincidence?

Oh God how could I not realise he's trolling
10/10 for this thread.

On the topic, I see what you mean with the JAXA logo, as well with very few others start sympolise rockets and travel by a figure that you COULD identify as a cut pentagram. By the way, are you cut or uncut? If you're cut, that may be quite an explanation of why you're trying to keep finding other stuff also cut in everything (besides you being a toll). I would rather interpret these images as arrows and/or rockets and/or rockets in arrow-form. I suppose you can't ravel on the road because clearly, arrows are cut pentragrams, and hence roads have been built by satan and his fellows.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: bending light and a question posed

« on: August 23, 2010, 11:10:39 AM »

In this manner, can I assume that if I stand some feet away from the axis of the North Pole I will see the back of my head?

No. Generally, there's too much snow.

But I will see the back of my head irregardless of snow yes?

No.

Can you explain why not?

Because human eyesight isn't that good, and neither are telescopes.

Maybe because light doesn't bend at around the globe?
There is a very very slight change in path for light passing close to earth, but thats due to the change in spacetime because of gravitational effects, even with high tech this would be hardly observable if at all.
In black holes, on the other hand, that seems to happen. So if you feel like going into a black hole, maybe you can actually manage to see yourself from behind, I dunno, ask a physicist, I'm speculating here.

6

The Lounge / Re: Satanist Space Agencies

« on: August 23, 2010, 11:05:42 AM »

I had a look at the all logos of second Lists agencies and must say, no, actually no.

But the other day when I peed in my pants I think I saw a pentagram in the urine. I must have sold my sould to Satan and can't even remember! Or, wait, maybe it was just me being really really drunk.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA discovers the moon shrinks; doesn't know why

« on: August 22, 2010, 06:55:46 AM »

Can this thread be deleted, please? This is just ridiculously stupid, even by PizzaPlanet standards.

Attempting to prove a point, I don't think he knows what the point is, though, by using evidence that he thinks is fake? This is clinically retarded. 

I have explained several times that the evidence is not fake. Pay attention.

If you had read the site properly even, you would know that the pictures aren't even "a picture" but a model derived by many many observations

So it's not a real picture, after all? I'm glad we agree!

So you DO predict a loss of shrinkage?

No. Two mistakes in one sentence. First of all, it's NASA that predicts, and it's shrinkage, not the loss of shrinkage. Have you read the article?

I don't think he knows what the point is, though.

So you call a thread retarded because you don't understand it? I'm saying that if NASA's observation will be proven to be true (which might or might not happen in some time), I see a possible FET explanation for it.

Last but not least: The NASA also states loss of energy as a main factor of the shrinkage. I don't know what your problem is.

That's because you think there's a problem. There is no problem. I just stated my opinion, which happens to be similar to NASA's explanation in some points. If anyone has a problem with that, it's their problem, not mine.

My Issue at hand is, that in one case in this thread you said that the FE model predicts shrinkage and then that you don't care what the model actually predicts. I'm sorry for the many errors in my post above, I didn't have much sleep tonight

8

Flat Earth General / Re: OKAY, So let me get this right....

« on: August 22, 2010, 04:11:02 AM »

Sorry to burst your bubble...

Bubbles are spherical.

Just saying...

I love that you spent the time to make and account so that you can just tell us that.

That's not why I made the account.

But even if I had, it was worth it just to see people actually bother attempting to defeat what was a simple throwaway comment.

For the record, though, my comment was obviously referring to the way that a bubble defaults to a spherical shape when is of a size that it can do so. Large bubbles find it harder to hold their natural structure for obvious reasons. Finding a picture of a large bubble did not change the fact that bubbles are still naturally spherical. Sort of like the way that other pedantry on this forum doesn't stop the Earth from being round, either.

I agree, this is simple to understand from the pictures: the bubbles arent even complete yet. They are not floating free in the air. Once they did, they would slowly become spherical until they burst. This is because a sphere has the least surface for any given volume.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA discovers the moon shrinks; doesn't know why

« on: August 22, 2010, 03:49:28 AM »

I do not know if the moon is shrinking. It is NASA, not I, who makes such a claim. All I'm saying is that if their discovery is to be confirmed, it will be consistent with Lunar Biomass. I'm not sure why you want me to prove NASA's claims. Perhaps you are confused?

And thats exacty why the Flat Earth "Theory" is not even a mere "Hypothesis" but just bullshit. You don't actually care about the truth or try to make predictions to be falsifiable, because if you did, you would be falsified.

One shouldn't spend time arguing with this kid, he is lost and I'm very happy to not live in America where lots of his kind seems to run around.

However I will reply to his early post:

Please explain how you obtained the photographs of such resolution without sustained spaceflight. Or are you admitting that FET is wrong by posting this link?

They haven't. The pictures of such resolution are very likely fake. Possibly they managed to take some of lower res, noticed the shrinkage, and then made some "pictures of the moon as seen from space". That wouldn't be new. Or they have used the good old Moon Landing set.
You'd have to ask them, not me.
If you had read the site properly even, you would know that the pictures aren't even "a picture" but a model derived by many many observations

Please document your claim that "they don't know why".

All it takes is reading the article. Allow me to help:

"These exciting results highlight the importance of global observations for understanding global processes," said Dr. John Keller, Deputy Project Scientist for LRO at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "As the LRO mission continues in to a new phase, with emphasis on science measurements, our ability to create inventories of lunar geologic features will be a powerful tool for understanding the history of the moon and the solar system."

Ah, so they have yet to understand the history of the moon. That explains a lot.
Take up science class and try to spread your ingenuity. Thats what science is all about - no theory has yet been proven true for eternity. Other than FET, scientific theories or hypothesis don't even claim to be perfectly true, this is something FETishists have conveyed from their own belief into scientific work, assuming that because they thing they know the absolute truth, their "opponent" science must do similar.

While Earth's tides are most likely not strong enough to create the scarps, they could contribute to their appearance, perhaps influencing their orientation, according to Watters.

How very speculative.
So what? They are trying to find explanations and research those that seem reasonable. If they aren't, they are being discarded.

The team believes they are among the freshest features on the moon, in part because they cut across small craters.

I believe there was a discussion about the usage of the word "belief" and its derivatives on these fora just lately.
And what does it tell us? Refer to answers above.

"The ultrahigh resolution images from the NACs are changing our view of the moon,"

And so the theory changes.
Refer, again, to above.

Please reference a concise and consistent explanation of James's concept of the Moon.

Please use the search feature more often.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0
This is ridiculous - James has no idea what the RE model looks like and how it works. He must be illiterate, he can't even open Wikipedia to see how at least RET thinks the sun or moon work and is made up of. For example, he claims that the sun  and other celestial bodies are mostly made up of "metal, probably iron", while on the other hand claiming that "ancient cultures already knew" - this is just laughable.

Please provide where this explanation makes a prediction that the Moon is shrinking.

Please read the OP before replying.
Lunar biomass + loss of energy.
So you DO predict a loss of shrinkage? Now could you confirm it with non-nasa evidence? Or do you, as stated otherwise, not actually care and don't make predictions about it?

Last but not least: The NASA also states loss of energy as a main factor of the shrinkage. I don't know what your problem is.


Edit:
James doesn't claim the celestial bodies are made up of metal, but that RET claims exactly this fact.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: PROOF that earth is round

« on: August 22, 2010, 02:30:42 AM »

Sound requires a medium. Google it, click your own link or something, I don't care. Just understand that.

In case you haven't noticed, a vacuum is still a medium.

Okay this is bullshit. Go for senior high school before posting stuff like this. This makes you really unrealiable.
Understand what medium means. Go for sciences classes. Vacuum is NOT a medium for sound (if it is for anything, it definitely isn't for sound-waves!).

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Moon Negotiations - Moonlight is God?

« on: August 21, 2010, 02:45:25 AM »

Why not call your understanding of university "god"?

I for myself am agnostic atheist, so I think all the major and minor religions of the world are really bullshitting. However there is no way I can disprove the existence of a god, indeed I would say chances are there is, but nothing like the far-propagated view of some mystical guy in heaven who loves everyone but punishes anyone who didnt believe in him with eternal death and pain and cruelty.
What I think is, that the closest to a "god" would be an omniscient spirit, in a scientific sense: like the branes in string theory.
However there is no way I could either prove or disprove any of this, what I said are mere speculations and philosophical thoughts of mine.

But I am indeed quite sure that if the bible is really the holy word of god and true, and the earth is flat and evolution is a lie, then I dont think god will be too upset, I mean, its like he put all the evidence in place in the first hand then. Hes probably happy we found it and used our brains and minds to interpret it.
Or maybe we just came into existence 5 minutes ago, whith holes already in our socks and hair that needs to be cut.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The edge of the Earth.

« on: August 20, 2010, 05:04:00 PM »

Ice: Guards just out of sight.

Of course. No one can make a picture of the pink jelly bears with rocket launchers, that would destroy any camera because light emitted by them has magical features, even though the freqeuency of the photons seem to be normal. Believe me, I tried, and 10 mates died doing so. Im lucky to be alive.

If you were a true mate, you would have stayed and died with them.

with their last breath they begged me to run and spread the truth.

13

Flat Earth General / Re: PROOF that earth is round

« on: August 20, 2010, 03:09:10 PM »

As the article explains, you can be in the vacuum of space and still hear things. For example you can hear your suit (vice 'suite') as you move in it. You can hear your heart beating. The requirement for sound is only for some matter to transfer the energy, not for any air to do it.

Your conjecture that the thin atmosphere is enough may be right, but I suggest that you consider that sound is being transferring by the materials as well.

If you're in a spacesuit, you're not in the vacuum of space.

Really? I suppose then when you wear a swimsuit while swimming, you're not in the water.

I have a suggestion. Would you please test the conjecture for us? No doubt you can publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal.

You might want to review the OP. The sound was not heard directly by a person, but by a microphone.

It doesn't matter whether the sound is recorded by the human ear or a microphone.

And yes, you indeed are not in a vacuum when wearing a spacesuit, since you wear a suit which seperates you from the vacuum.

But this is nitpicking, the idea is clear and the discussion is useless.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The edge of the Earth.

« on: August 20, 2010, 03:06:16 PM »

Ice: Guards just out of sight.

Of course. No one can make a picture of the pink jelly bears with rocket launchers, that would destroy any camera because light emitted by them has magical features, even though the freqeuency of the photons seem to be normal. Believe me, I tried, and 10 mates died doing so. Im lucky to be alive.

15

Flat Earth General / Re: Moon Negotiations - Moonlight is God?

« on: August 20, 2010, 08:46:36 AM »

still waiting for answers...

how can photons of same frequency behave differently, just because the material emitting it is different?

16

Flat Earth General / Re: PROOF that earth is round

« on: August 20, 2010, 08:45:25 AM »

I've always been told that you cannot hear anything in the vacuum of space.

You were told wrong. You might want to be more skeptical of what you're told.

Reference: http://science.howstuffworks.com/humans-hear-in-space.htm/printable

Yay I got a post of clocktower being wrong.

He especially stated "vacuum of space"

Your source tells us the same tale, with the exception of hitting your space suite against a satellite, but this would not be vacuum anymore, since the sound will travel through a medium.

Read my post, it answer the original question.

17

Flat Earth General / Re: PROOF that earth is round

« on: August 19, 2010, 01:49:01 PM »

I've always been told that you cannot hear anything in the vacuum of space.

you can perfectly verify this with the video.

In the heights they drop the tank, a smallest atmosphere does still exist. However in the beginning, you can clearly hear it - hardly at all. the more time passes, the louder it becomes again, since the atmosphere is getting denser. So thanks for this pro-RE argument.

18

Flat Earth General / Re: Do You BELIEVE In Science?

« on: August 19, 2010, 01:41:56 PM »

You can't expect us to know what this babble means. In fact, I wouldn't expect YOU to know what you mean

As I mentioned in my signature I get criticised of being narrow-minded. Poo that. I'm open to evidence. So yes, science is good!

The apple problem is very pretentious. I know that this apple is an apple because IT'S A FUCKING APPLE.

one can not prove a thing by stating that it is true
and even if you get a prove for the statement
I can again say this is not a prove because of any reason I can think of

it is like convincing a blind person that the light exist
it is impossible

oh no, you can convince him, u simply cant prove it.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Q: "Please explain sunrises and sunsets."

« on: August 19, 2010, 01:33:43 PM »

We just do this for fun.

I get that
and I'm willing to enjoy my self by debating on it
but I need a point because I don't understand the basics of the FE model
so I ask how this model explain a natural phenomena
and I don't get any answers so far


I take my time to read some topics
and I have seen how they go

explain this -
it is illusion, conspiracy, there is no prove for it give us a prove ....
prove
this prove is not legitimate, it is false ... I don't like it...
prove the prove ....

but in sunset case I just don't get the explanation
HOW they think that the sun is setting without going below the horizon    
how one can see the sun after it is set down just by going to the last floor of a building
or if You a in an glass open elevator so u can go up-down freely how u can see sun above horizon on the last floor and no sun on the ground level.
  

its bendy light!

20

Flat Earth General / Re: Do You BELIEVE In Science?

« on: August 19, 2010, 01:24:35 PM »

isn't the credo of science to not accept a belief but choose the best ideas based on your own account?

I do not belief in science.

There are many scientific theories I believe in, because I believe the conducting scientists are honorable and do the best job they can to find the best fitting theories. When I have questions or doubt, I know i can always do research and find the corresponding experts. If I cant, then I should overthink my personal belief in a specific theory.

Hence imho it is wrong to say one believes in "science", because this is - from my point of view and definition - and absolute paradox.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.

« on: August 19, 2010, 12:09:13 PM »

Gravity only begins to pull you down once you are in the air. When your feet are on the ground, resistance is equal to force, so Gravity is not still forcing you down. In your theory about Terra moving up, it never stops increasing speed, so instead of simply overcoming minimum gravity for the first second, you would need to overcome something moving at billions of miles per second, as its speed has been increasing for hundreds of millions of years (Or 6 thousand, according to some loonies). And watch an Olympic high-jumper on youtube. Could they really move that much faster than Terra for that long? Our muscles aren't that powerful. And for the airplane analogy, walking and jumping are two different things. If one were to jump on a plane, while it was accelerating, I daresay we would move backwards. Also, we can stand up on a plane because, for one, you are an attached object until you detach yourself, for instance by jumping. That means that we move at the same speed. Also, acceleration makes a big difference. If we were on a space shuttle accelerating directly upwards, we wouldn't be able to stand up.

do you not get the difference between speed and acceleration?
sorry, but please do some science and maths classes, maybe graduate from high school before posting this shit.

especially, lrn2dynamics & lrn2analysis

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I stood on a long straight road..

« on: August 19, 2010, 12:05:59 PM »

I'm no flatty, but don't use this kind of observation as evidence.

A lot of people could've sworn to see certain things (*cough* religious experience) but it doesn't qualify as empirical evidence. Interesting, though

chances are you are seeing curvatures of the ground, that happen to be quite natural and are not proof of the overall curvature. surely, by the size of the earth, it will be hard to find a straight road that will actually allow you to observe the earths curvature.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: Moon Negotiations - Moonlight is God?

« on: August 19, 2010, 05:28:40 AM »

lets go back to our original topic.

Please elaborate how light photons of same frequency may have different effects depending on the material emitting them.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why is the sun always circular in shape?

« on: August 19, 2010, 03:47:38 AM »

I do not understand how even an infinitely thin disc solves the problem. Guess what, it doesn't.

The OP said that the Sun is always circular in shape. The only shape which is always circular in shape is, unsurprisingly, a circle.

No that even is wrong, as also stated by others. Depending on the perspective, a cirlce most of the time looks more like an ellipse.

The only solution is a spherical sun. and hey, why not implement a spherical sun in FET? Whats so contradicting? excepts, like, everything, but you still dont bother to correct your belief anyway.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.

« on: August 19, 2010, 01:10:07 AM »

But how could we possibly push that hard? If Terra is moving at, say, 2000 mph when you jump, our muscles couldn't possibly move us at 2001 mph. If we could, we would certainly run much faster than we do.

you dont even need general or special relativity for this, even with newton its easy:

when the earth is travelling at 2000mph, then everything on it is, too. Its quite an easy steht to move 2001 mph, then. You only need to gain one extra mile per hour of speed.

What you said is like, you cant even stand up in an airplane, because its SO fast! If you stand up, you will be thrown right to the back of it!
Which is obviously not true.

26

Flat Earth General / Re: OKAY, So let me get this right....

« on: August 18, 2010, 04:26:38 PM »

Did you stop to look behined the large objects and take note of the more numerous objects such as the Dirt, or soil? Have you ever been to a creek bed? How about atoms, and molecules.

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

String theory doesn't say they are "FLAT" as they vibrate and shape is dynamic. Nice try though, and that would be assuming it as well.

Check me if I'm wrong, but the "strings" in string theory are physically one dimensional but vibrate in many dimensions.

for something to be considered flat i think you would need 3 dimension hey? or at least 2, having an infinitely thin something.

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sattelite TV

« on: August 18, 2010, 05:49:34 AM »

I know that this is a stupid question, but have you tried reading the FAQ?  An answer to your question lies within.

I would rather say, the "answer" within it is a lie

Yeah, satellites don't exist, there are stations on earth that send out the signals etc rightio.

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why is the sun always circular in shape?

« on: August 18, 2010, 03:10:16 AM »

I do not understand how even an infinitely thin disc solves the problem. Guess what, it doesn't.

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why is the sun always circular in shape?

« on: August 17, 2010, 01:12:11 AM »

If the earth is a spotlight, why does it always appear as a perfect circle in the sky? As it moves across the heavens should it not at some point appear more of an ellipse? Does the sun simply change its orientation to appear circular to the observer, even when the observers are three thousand miles apart?

That's because the Sun is spherical. And I had pointed out before that this makes FE a failure, especially if they plan on trying to control their timezone problem that already fails by using a spot light approach. All one needs to do to understand this is hang a flashlight from a tree and walk away.

bob lieks fleshlights <3

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity/gravitation?

« on: August 17, 2010, 12:59:33 AM »

Just because Gravity isn't yet fully understood does not mean it doesn't exist.

Now replace Gravity with pretty much anything.

On another note, you want to read this, this physicist thinks that gravity as we think of it is actually a pseudo-force. It is quite interesting.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785

Just because TFET isn't yet fully understood does not mean it doesn't exist.
Like that?

Yes, indeed it is general consensus that gravity is only a pseudo force. What we think of as gravity seems to be bent spacetime. But please dont mix it up with pseudoforces like the ones you feel in a car, because that substantially different. I wrote about it in another thread.