1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How Whales Prove a Flat Earth

« on: November 24, 2012, 06:32:45 AM »

Yes, the ocean magically refracts sound precisely the way RET needs it to.

Holy **** my radiator pipes are also magic, because I can clearly hear a knock on a pipe no matter how many stories down.
The main point is that sound is not a moving particle, it's energy moving as a wave through matter. It doesn't care if  the medium is bent or not.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The problem with FET

« on: November 24, 2012, 05:59:55 AM »

Haha, the theory doesn't have a lot of blanks, it's basically composed of blanks. No matter what specialist you are, if you go deep enough in your field, you will need to face the elementary forces of physics and forces produced by the environment always resulting in round earth.

Here's the old obvious one again: The star trajectories what we can see on north and south pole can only happen on the "tips" of the spinning sphere. Which means the earth must be spherical or reality is so distorted there really is no point to create any logic backed theories.

3

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Curiosity rover

« on: August 12, 2012, 11:13:08 AM »

Panorama available:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia16051_figure_1_raw_smaller-br2.jpg

Big one (ca 50mb):
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia16051_figure_1_raw_smaller-full.jpg

4

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Curiosity rover

« on: August 10, 2012, 08:02:14 AM »

This image is great:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/675227main_pia16029-full_full.jpg

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth rotating

« on: August 08, 2012, 01:50:20 PM »

You can't explain the star trajectories in the south without round earth, even if the earth was flat:

this is what we would see, but it's not... we see similar "pole" as in the north.
flat earth cannot explain the star trajectories in the south.

You might now try to draw a rotating sphere around the flat earth, but the south is all around, pointing outward from the center of disc(according to FE), not in one place, like the stars show in the sky. So it can't be a rotating sphere.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Earth rotating

« on: August 08, 2012, 01:31:36 PM »

There you go. The earth is rotating and is round, and everyone can confirm it by themselves. Australians can confirm that by looking south and taking long exposure image, they can see similar trajectory of stars as northern people see by looking to north. Such thing could never happen on a planar earth, because south would have most straight lines, being the outward part of the disc.

Also, you can confirm the curvature of the earth by looking the sunset from very low, near to the ground and then rising up, and seeing the sun set again.

7

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Curiosity rover

« on: August 08, 2012, 01:02:08 PM »

Hey,
High resolution images coming from Curiosity. First image from descent:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16021.html

8

Flat Earth General / Re: Recent trip to space by a civilian

« on: September 24, 2011, 08:01:52 AM »

See earlier in the thread where I provided evidence that multiple space agencies are involved in The Conspiracy.

Space agencies have nothing to do with the "conspiracy". The "conspiracy" or "round earth" was proposed by independent ancient researchers across the world long before governments or space agencies existed.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: Recent trip to space by a civilian

« on: September 23, 2011, 04:01:42 PM »

Haha, why on earth would NASA make a conspiracy on that scale to earn money? It doesn't make any sense.
Besides, old Greece philosophers and scientists were amongst the first, who discovered the round Earth, the "conspiracy" has nothing to do with NASA. There are lots of other space agencies in the world too.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: Has Xenu disproved UA?

« on: September 22, 2011, 08:59:45 AM »

And that thread should be a warning for you. A warning that if you failed to understand such elementary physics in action, what else could've you overlooked while debating for FE?

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 19, 2011, 06:56:11 AM »

Nope, it just shows that FEr ran out of fantasy.
Notice, i'm using the term "fantasy" instead of "argument", because usually defeating FE'r in one point, means a complete restructuring of the original theory and presenting something completely different, which would be able to beat REr's last argument, but completely fails to fit in with the other FE theories.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why Christians can't be globists

« on: September 18, 2011, 02:34:28 PM »

It also says, who works on Sunday, shall be put to death. So good luck with it.

Exodus 31:12-15

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity?

« on: September 18, 2011, 01:28:31 PM »

Similarly, the force of UA is negligible when applied to small things like apples and other non-celestial objects.

Not really. You see, if that was the case, then heavier objects would appear lighter on earth, because they would be affected more by the UA. And it couldn't be other way around, because that wouldn't explain why is the Earth being affected by it the most.

It's also possible that UA acts as a fluid, and is diverted around the earth before eventually forming back on itself, creating a bubble shaped area of space not affected by it just above the surface of the earth.

I've considered this. But the lack of evidence for UA isn't really something, that keeps you thinking about the properties of the thing. Such things can never be just assumed.

The funny thing is that the edges of the earth could actually be against the law of conservation of energy. Because the space would be easily reachable without using much energy. But what if someone drops the object from the top? This would certainly release more energy than it needed to get it up there in the first place.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity?

« on: September 18, 2011, 01:04:05 PM »

There is no such thing as a celestial body on the physics level, just atoms.

Yet RET's gravity seems to make the same distinction. Why can I not set two apples into orbit with each other?

Was that a serious question? Come on. You mean in vacuum and in space obviously, without additional modifiers?
I've actually studied the physics, which deals with gravity.

The formula which defines the pulling force between two bodies is defined as following:


G represents Gravitational constant

m1 and m2 are the masses of two bodies. and r represents the distance between the centers of the bodies. Now i fill the formula with correct units. 0,2 as m1 and m2 representing the weights of the apples in kg. 0.1 as r, the distance between the two apples(10cm, which means the apples are pretty much touching), you will get a force of 2.669536 × 10^-10 Newtons which is force so small, that it wouldn't be able to rip a single DNA molecule apart. So the force would not be able to hold apple in the orbit of other apple.

The fun thing is that you can calculate gravitational acceleration on earth with this formula. Just remove the other mass, insert earth's mass and radius+your_height and you will get the earth's theoretical gravitational acceleration on the location, which does not include the balancing by the spinning of the earth. 9.821

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity?

« on: September 18, 2011, 12:26:22 PM »

There is no such thing as a celestial body on the physics level, just atoms.

That's why every atom has a gravity, not just huge objects. Everything with mass owns it's own gravitational field.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity?

« on: September 18, 2011, 12:19:03 PM »

So the UA exists to accelerate earth and nothing more?
What would be the physical definition of the earth, so the UA could recognize it?

Btw, there is no correct version of the theory. Just different opinions, which all have zero evidence to back them up.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity?

« on: September 18, 2011, 11:57:45 AM »

Nope, the theory states, that the UA is accelerating everything, not just earth. Thus, no gravity.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity?

« on: September 18, 2011, 10:28:10 AM »

UA cannot explain the gravity on Earth.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Still dont get time zones according to FE theory..

« on: September 18, 2011, 05:43:51 AM »

Yes, and apparently all the astronomers in the world are just stupid, for not realizing that the sun is a disc of metal, which is moving above the earth in circular trajectory...

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Still dont get time zones according to FE theory..

« on: September 18, 2011, 04:25:25 AM »

You missed the part where they wrote, that sun is disc 3000km above the earth and not very big at all.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 18, 2011, 03:23:39 AM »

FE wins have usually nothing to do with the proof of earth being flat, but just dirty tactics. While FErs can throw any theory and evidence away, considering it as a part of the "conspiracy", and create any theory from scratch and present it as "evidence" (read "wobbly earth"), RE'rs actually have to stick by the knowledge available and cannot create new laws of physics. Thus exploiting someone's lack of knowledge in some areas is not a "FE win".

The only way for "FE win" is to create actual scientific theory using scientific method, present it to scientific community, defend it successfully from criticism, and get it accepted by the scientific community.

I'm asking you again. Do you have any proof of flat earth?

they use as a power source Tesla's Cosmic Ray Device

Source?

22

Flat Earth General / Re: science=wasted money?

« on: September 18, 2011, 02:37:10 AM »

The ice wall is well known and documented, you may know of it by another name: Antarctica.

Exactly. And Antarctica's shape is also well documented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica
It's owned by separate countries, which have nothing to do with nasa or any conspiracy, and have been owned since before nasa even existed.

Note that if you'd want to circumference the Ice Wall you'd have to travel about 78,000 miles, and you'd have to constantly turn "inwards", which means that the Antarctica would be surrounding you.
In case of RE you'd only have to travel about 11 000 miles, and you would constantly have to turn "outwards", to circumference the continent.

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 17, 2011, 01:41:17 PM »

The satellites are kept at the orbit by velocity.
There is no such force as UA, and no one has ever recorded any evidence of it.
UA would actually be the force which stops all the objects from falling to the ground, including us, accelerating us at the same speed as earth, creating no gravity.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 17, 2011, 09:54:30 AM »

You stated, that this forum has proved the earth flat innumerable times, so you should be responsible for providing the evidence for that.
There is too much random trash theories written without serious thought to find anything useful in this forum by using the search tool.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 17, 2011, 09:44:20 AM »

There is nothing to challenge nor disprove, because the glass doesn't occur naturally, but is made in artificial controlled environment.
I'm still waiting for a proof of a flat earth.

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 17, 2011, 09:35:22 AM »

That is not a proof of a flat earth. The glass is made on artificial structure.

Plus you may have flat surface for few miles on round earth, because earth is not a perfect sphere.

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 17, 2011, 09:13:10 AM »

Saying repeatedly "The earth is Flat" is not the evidence nor proof of a flat earth.

I know it isn't. However, this fact has been repeatedly proven by my FEer brethren.

Can you link to one page, which contains a proof of a flat earth?

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 17, 2011, 08:57:30 AM »

Saying repeatedly "The earth is Flat" is not the evidence nor proof of a flat earth. The science starts where the measuring begins.

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 17, 2011, 08:49:29 AM »

By withdrawing from the debate due to the lack of evidence supporting you theory, you should consider yourself defeated.

This forum has proven the true shape of the Earth innumerable times

And i have proven it wrong several times.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 17, 2011, 08:43:18 AM »

That is a statement, which needs evidence, because 99.999%(read: almoust everyone) of sane people do not believe so, due to the lack of evidence.