1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect Proves Earth's Rotation

« on: February 27, 2011, 06:59:05 AM »

RE victory anyone?

Does this come as a surprise to you? The only reason we ever see an FE victory is when both theories can explain the same observation (and for some reason this is by default a win for FE) or the FE'ers find our explanations absurd. Gravity or NASA pictures for example. All a part of the conspiracy which concludes an FE victory.

Its called home turf advantage.  If we wanted easy wins we would be on the Round Earth Society.

Berny
QP w/ Cheese X 2

It's as though they're fighting a downhill battle, with 4 of them versus billions of us.

Well, they kind of are...

By the way, saying RE victory usually stirs them up a bit. I suppose they are so lost for evidence that not even that is enough to make them enter seriously into this thread

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect Proves Earth's Rotation

« on: February 26, 2011, 06:10:43 AM »

I don't, really. I just think it's fun looking at their semantics and stupid excuses.

Anyways, FE'ers seem to be unable to come up with any good reasons for the coriolis effect.

RE victory anyone?

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about shadows

« on: February 25, 2011, 04:09:16 AM »

*in before Bendy Light trolls appear*

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Corriolis Force

« on: February 25, 2011, 04:08:29 AM »

Try searching before posting stuff like this. At the very top of the Flat Earth Debate forums this thread has already gone through this topic in detail, and the Flat Earthers have consistently failed to explain how it works.

Essentially we can be very sure that the earth isn't flat, and the coriolis effects points strongly at the earth being round. Of course, the FE'ers are mostly ignoring this thread.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: UA question

« on: February 25, 2011, 04:03:39 AM »

Think about it. Dark energy above, dark energy below, it doesn't really matter. Something allegedly pushes everything upwards. However, it doesn't push me upwards too, or I'd be in free fall. As the elevator example above shows, if you are pushed just as much as your environment you're in free fall.

If it was the equivalent of a giant rocket engine pressing against the earth from below, we would feel gravity. However a universal force that affects everything will not give the same result as I'd be accelerated upwards just as much as the earth. However, that wouldn't work because the moon, the stars and the sun would fall down onto the earth then (or well the earth would bump into them on the way up), as there would be nothing keeping them up.

I'm just saying that UA seems to be very specific about what it pushes up. I'm just asking you to explain how that mysterious phenomenon works.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: UA question

« on: February 24, 2011, 10:50:43 PM »

That does not really matter, it would have the exactly same effect if you'd bother thinking about it.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: gaurdians of the north and the south

« on: February 24, 2011, 02:49:22 PM »

Despite his obvious intellectual difficulties, he has a point. There have been absolutely no whisper or any sightings of any guards at any place in the south pole. One would think at least a bit of intel would have leaked out by now, as they must have been keeping the watch up for quite a long time. No security system is 100%.

One might also further extrapolate that if nobody really goes down there, since not a single sighting or even a hint of the guards has ever appeared, it would seem to be a huge waste of money and resources guarding such a place where nobody apparently ever goes!

8

Flat Earth Q&A / UA question

« on: February 24, 2011, 02:45:13 PM »

I read through the FAQ and did a search, and nowhere could I find this answered. If it has been, excuse my search-fu and enlighten me.

In the UA model, dark energy looms above and pulls everything towards it at 9.81 m/s^2. However, it obviously distinguishes between what to pull and what not to. Otherwise we would all be in freefall, as it would affect and pull us all equally as in this explanation that your own FAQ so sweetly links to,



 

you and the elevator could be in the gravitational field of a mass, for instance that of the earth, as long as the elevator was in free fall. In that case you, everything else within the elevator and the elevator itself would all be accelerated at exactly the same rate so that, inside, no influence of gravity could be detected.

As to what it pulls, that means we can rule out every single element known to humanity; there aren't any weightless elements that just float around! That also means the moon can't be affected by UA, as it apparently doesn't affect the elements that it's made of. The much speculated upon moon shrimp would also just fall right off the surface of the moon, even if we assume it somehow stays there through mechanics as of yet unknown; there's nothing holding them there!

To me this seems like UA simply does not work! Tell me how this mysteriously specific force works its wonders!

As always, I'll expect you to back up any new and/or undocumented statements and theories with at least some kind of factual, empirical and verifiable evidence.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Easy way to prove the earth is indeed flat

« on: February 24, 2011, 08:57:14 AM »

He's one of the more polite trolls. Really the only ones I'm not quite sure are trolls are Tom Bishop, Ichimaru Gin, John Davis and Lord Wilmore

Edit: I should rephrase that: the only ones I see regularly that I'm not quite sure about.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

« on: February 24, 2011, 07:40:24 AM »

becuase that is so, then the sun would lighten up the smallest part right? and it gets all wacky

You're not making any sense.

Then of course, neither are you.

By the way, you still haven't properly explained the nature of a real object that is somehow intrinsically immeasurable by euclidean principles. How can an object be flat, while two radii from the same center have the same circumference?

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Easy way to prove the earth is indeed flat

« on: February 24, 2011, 07:36:34 AM »

@PizzaPlanet:
Which particular facet of the argument do you disagree with? I used Euclidean geometry, i.e., 2-D geometry, as specified in the OP. (A circle is 2-D)

PizzaPlanet is a proponent of the bendy space theory wherein space bends so flat geometry can apparently work like a sphere, to make the measured low circumference of Antarctica seem possible. That is, PizzaPlanet refuses to acknowledge that Euclidean principles can be applied in the real world. And before you ask, no it doesn't make sense at all, and before you continue even further; yes, PizzaPlanet is a troll.

Otherwise, I'll be excited to see the outcries of "conspiracy!" and ignorance when you prove the earth is round for the umpteenth time in here

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How can the world be flat?

« on: February 22, 2011, 11:29:52 PM »

Many of these questions are answered in the FAQ. 

Not satisfactorily, of course. But it does answer them in a fashion, yes.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question for RE's Tides

« on: February 22, 2011, 11:17:25 PM »

os·cil·late  
   intr.v. os·cil·lat·ed, os·cil·lat·ing, os·cil·lates
   1. To swing back and forth with a steady, uninterrupted rhythm.

res·o·nance
n.
   3. Physics The increase in amplitude of oscillation of an electric or mechanical system exposed to a periodic force whose frequency is equal or very close to the natural undamped frequency of the system.

You seem to want an explanation that's already been given. We know the laws of gravity that explain both the orbits of the planets (and the moons) in our solar system, the varying weight of objects around the planet and other phenomena perfectly and independently of each other (why it has more credit that your theory, that creates more discrepancies rather than it solves)

If we apply the laws of gravity as we know them to the moon, tides are a logical conclusion for what would happen. It's as simple as that. Nitpicking about something (oscillations or whatever) irrelevant to his point does not help your cause. He referenced that to explain that just because the moon is overhead, it does not mean that the tides will be there instantly. There is a lot of water to move, of course it's delayed.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: New member of FEB ...

« on: February 22, 2011, 04:00:13 PM »

And the trolls win another battle... Against themselves?

Sad to see you less, Thork. You were a good troll. Had fun 

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question for RE's Tides

« on: February 21, 2011, 02:07:36 PM »

As I recall, even Newton himself said that the prediction of the tides was the least satisfactory portion of the Theory of Gravitation.

What makes you think that Newton is the final authority on gravity?  Is our understanding of gravity not allowed to grow beyond what Newton was able to figure out?

  Oh that's right. I forgot that you are smarter than Newton was.

He's not saying that. He's merely saying that just because Newton "discovered" gravity, it doesn't mean he was right about everything. Our understanding of gravity as a species has grown beyond his through the intervening centuries.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: gravity

« on: February 21, 2011, 01:17:06 PM »

They could simulate zero gravity using the technique used for 'indoor skydiving'.

As I shouldn't have to say, that proposition was thoroughly debunked by me and a few others. Of course fluffycornsnake will say otherwise. I see no need to revive that argument.

Read the thread he quoted from and judge for yourself, OP.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why does light bend and what are its exact properties

« on: February 21, 2011, 01:15:01 PM »

Call people you know then.

I don't know anyone living in the Southern Hemidisk or in all of the latitudes one would need to map out the sunlight.

At least make it a site-wide project. If every member was to help, I'm sure you could do it.

This reluctance is only serving to cement the quite popular belief that you're all trolls trying to have fun.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Your stars are all wrong

« on: February 21, 2011, 06:32:42 AM »

FE responses to this obvious fallacy vary from bendy light to not believing/not understanding the evidence presented to them.

Orientation for the newcomer , this entire forum is more a practice area for trolls and people trying to corner trolls than an actual serious debate concerning a flat earth. There are very few (if any) people that actually believe in FE. Of course the trolls will state otherwise. I suggest you judge their behaviour for yourself.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why does light bend and what are its exact properties

« on: February 21, 2011, 12:18:57 AM »

My point is, there is never any one point where day and night are equal at the same time on the whole planet, which is what Tom is saying.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why does light bend and what are its exact properties

« on: February 20, 2011, 11:54:06 PM »

In RET during the equinox every part of the world is supposed to receive 12 hours of sunlight.  Days are longer/shorter at other times of the year, but on the equinox every point on earth is supposed to receive exactly 12 hours. This has yet to have been demonstrated.

The equinox does not happen simultaneously all over the planet, the time of year it happens varies from place to place.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why does light bend and what are its exact properties

« on: February 20, 2011, 07:21:51 AM »

Pizza Planet is assuming that the earth is a globe in his drawing.

It's not.

I think many of us are more interested in your response to silver's queries.

My mistake. That should have said Silver, not Pizza Planet. That's Silver's drawing. Pizza Planet just reposted it.

Silver is making the fundamental assumption that the earth is a globe in his illustration.

It's not.

How does he do this? His map is the FE map.

He's coloring the FE map with sunlight area as if the earth were a globe. It's not a globe.

No, in the model I made the Earth is flat. The "required" field is where light is supposed to be, because that's where it is in real life. The "actual" field is where a spot/floodlight sun would actually reach with the mechanics FE has described. All I am doing is asking you to explain this discrepancy.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the purpose of this Conspiracy?

« on: February 19, 2011, 02:52:11 PM »

That is a lot of assumptions to make. Just out of curiosity, what causes you to think that a flat Earth would be infinite? It seems just as mad, if not madder, than the version with an edge to me.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

« on: February 19, 2011, 06:32:22 AM »

A flat earther invoking spherical geometry when discussing the shape of the earth to support his own argument . . makes no sense

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: View thru a telescope?

« on: February 19, 2011, 05:36:40 AM »

Or I could just point you at this thread where most of the bendy light stuff is happening right now.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why does light bend and what are its exact properties

« on: February 19, 2011, 02:54:15 AM »

The only way I can make sense of your arguments Pizzaplanet, is if you're assuming the Earth is round, which would indeed make you right. Is that what you're doing?

Also, I think you've perhaps grossly misunderstood the model I made. This is a model I made out from my understanding of the FET bendy light and how it had been explained to me. I am asking you people to make sense of the problem inherent in that model. That is, how the suns light reaches half of the Earth at the same time (the required effect), yet in the bendy light model with a spotlight sun and light that acts in the manner of a concave cylinder bending outwards, it's actual area of illumination would be round (the actual effect). I am asking you to explain why light bends in such a weird fashion.

Additionally, in the typical FE model, the sun orbits directly above the Earth. Not far away, or over what you people tend to call the "outlands". It seems you are now diverging from this model that you yourself also seem to support in that other thread you made. Would you care to explain this?



Your own convictions seem to be remarkably fluid, always changing to fit into whatever thread you're arguing in. All I'm asking for is some consistency.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

« on: February 19, 2011, 02:36:50 AM »

Sorry, I mixed the two formulas together, indeed it is pi*r2. Nonetheless, my point still holds and nothing changes. Nitpicking does not satisfy your burden of proof.

If you refuse to argue with me, then that is not my problem. I guess that means you are unable to argue your point any further. You hardly address 10% of my post. However, let's be magnanimous and just repeat one of the more important questions.

Explain the nature of a geometrically possible flat object upon which the circumferences of two different radii with the same center can be the same. The center is not the same in Ski's model and therefore it means nothing at all.

I really do want to know. I can't imagine this working without some kind of space warping/bending, but maybe that's not right and your genius is so amazing that you have thought of a geometrically possible solution! Enlighten me

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why does light bend and what are its exact properties

« on: February 18, 2011, 05:14:31 PM »

In other words, Pizzaplanet's trolling has reached an all-time low today. I'm actually at a loss for words, this is almost at Parsifal's level. Guys?

But let's pretend I take you seriously for a second. How does that all-new exotic model of yours explain the varying positions of the sun all day, for example as in some places of Earth it appears to be overhead. Surely the position of the sun in that model would make the sun appear to be in the same spot for everybody on Earth at the same time. What makes it cut off at the equator. Am I hearing the catch-all here? Bendy light? Yes, now let's move on to my actual question which you repeatedly have still failed to answer, why does light bend and what are its exact properties?

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Arguments for RET-- Issues with FET's version of Gravity

« on: February 18, 2011, 02:30:11 PM »

I am jealous. Perhaps I shall start making inept arguments and gain this kind of attention once again 

29

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Awful Movies

« on: February 18, 2011, 02:21:49 PM »

The Medallion is pretty horrible.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

« on: February 18, 2011, 01:14:11 PM »

It seems that you are unable to see that simply saying "no" to an argument does not refute it. Reason for it, provide examples and say why what I have stated is false instead of simply saying it is and thinly veiling it in ad hominems, which does not make for a compelling argument!

I must say, you're certainly skilled at seeming like you're actually arguing. I'm not falling for it. Try better this time, please.

Please don't ignore my post, it happens too much.

That's because it was plainly retarded and addressed things already drilled here over and over. Remember to read before posting!

Insulting your counterpart is hardly a sign of maturity and willingness to have a civilized discussion! Do try to keep a hold of your manners, dear sir.

If you take a flat circle and call it Earth (what you state that the Earth is) with a radius of say 10 to keep it simple.

No.

I fail to see how saying "no" here makes any sense unless you're saying that the Earth isn't flat anyways. Is that what you're saying? Please explain your argument.

The center of this circle represents the north pole.

And the South Pole.

Well yes we can have them switch places and it has no effect on my point. What is your point? Please substantiate your claims and explain the logic behind your argument.

Now, let us measure the circumference of a new circle A within circle Earth that has a radius of 2. This new circle represents one trip around the north pole.

The trip around the northpole is pi*2^2 = 12,57 long.

Now, let us measure the circumference of another new circle B within circle Earth that has a radius of 8. This new circle represents one trip around the south pole.

The trip around the southpole is pi*8^2 = 201,06 long.

Of course, another noob posting prior to reading. We've been there, we've done that.
On another note, you've just measured areas. It's clear you don't even have a clue about Euclidean geometries...

I have in no way or fashion measured areas. I have measured distances, circumferences. It seems that it is you who has no idea what you're talking about. Try to stay your hand with the ad hominems they're doing you no good by now.

Point: 12,57 != 201,06

a^2+b^2=c^2 ergo camels are blue and the Earth is a spoon frequently used by Zeus. QED

I fail to see the point of your gibberish, what are you trying to explain with this nonsensical statement? As far as I can make out you're trying to make fun of pythagoras but surely you aren't disputing the validity of that equation? 

In the real world

Define "real world". After that, substantiate your claim.

Move away from your screen, find a window and look outside. That world. Really, I shouldn't have to explain this.

the circumferences of these two circles A and B within circle Earth have been measured to be the same.

Indeed.

So you agree with me? That's a turn.

In a flat earth model these CANNOT be the same.

Incorrect.

Explain the nature of a geometrically possible flat object upon which the circumferences of two different radii with the same center can be the same. The center is not the same in Ski's model and therefore it means nothing at all.

If you say that this does not work like euclidean geometry, do please tell me why it does not, as that means you are assuming some weird kind of space warping and twisting to get what could be called "impossible" geometry, and certainly not a flat earth model.

Incorrect.

Why is this incorrect? Explain your arguments. I repeat, stating that something is false does not make it so.

Tl;dr, A and B cannot be the same on a flat earth

Wrong.

Again, why is this incorrect? Explain your arguments. I repeat, stating that something is false does not make it so.

yet they are

False.

Yet again, why is this incorrect? Explain your arguments. I repeat, stating that something is false does not make it so.

Also, please decide what you think yourself! You agreed with this point just above, you know!

Indeed.

and euclidean principles that do not apply = impossible geometry = cannot be real. (See: Necker cubes and penrose stairs)

Unsupported claim.

It is logical to assume that principles that apply when measuring and calculating geometry would apply when, well, you're measuring and calculating geometry! Apply Occam's Razor and see where you stand. You are the claimant here, why don't euclidean principles apply in real life?

Yet again, why is this incorrect? Explain your arguments. I repeat, stating that something is false does not make it so.