1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Underwater Cable Connecting South Africa and Malaysia

« on: September 06, 2011, 08:47:49 PM »

Alas, this might prove to be the weak point:

"According to the website, the total cable length is 13,500km.
Source: http://www.safe-sat3.co.za/ (click on System Information)"

In other words, we only have the SAFE people's word for it that the cable is 13,500. The beastly swines might deliberately be stating that their cable is shorter than it actually is.

Hmm, so they're in on the Conspiracy too... LOL

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Centripetal Acceleration and Weight

« on: September 05, 2011, 08:50:43 PM »

No one has answered my original question... All I got was some mumbling about the density of the earth and Tom talking about stars. Can anybody on this forum answer a question? Or is everyone too afraid to admit they're wrong, so they just spew out random ideas just to confuse people?

The RET esplains perfectly what goes on, while the FET has all of these holes that are being bandaged and patched with new "theories." Whenever something is wrong with the FET, then, "Woooah wait a second!! The FET isn't reallllly complete and it could be UA or bendy light or stars or the earths density or this or that or..."

Make up your minds and answer our questions like normal human beings. I feel like I'm talking to a four year-old who constantly asks, "Why?" after every answer no matter how satisfying it is.

3

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

« on: September 05, 2011, 08:38:25 PM »

Are you, people, really trying to prove that NASA is true with NASA pictures?

That's insane.

Are you, people, really trying to prove that NASA is part of a conspiracy by discounting all their evidence and using your own illogical arguments?

That's insane.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE

« on: September 05, 2011, 07:56:40 PM »

Somebody has yet to answer my question:

What is greater, the distance on the RE model or FE model? The OP provided proof using BOTH models to show that the distance is shorter using the RE model and is coherent with flight times.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Centripetal Acceleration and Weight

« on: September 02, 2011, 06:39:14 AM »

You are saying that you can prove that someone developed the concept of centripetal force.

No, I'm proving that the weight of a person increases as you get closer to the north and south pole respectively on the RE model.

Yes, theoretically, if the earth were a rapidly spinning sphere this would happen. The question then is: Do you have actual evidence this is case? Or are you simply proffering a thought-experiment for us all while parroting something you've been told?

This "thought-experiment" that I'm "parroting" can actually offer an explanation as to why our weights increase as we deviate from the equator.

What I haven't seen here yet, is an explanation in FE terms... Only ridiculous arguments against the origins of physics principles. Give me YOUR explanation, and then we can compare the reasoning behind both of our so-called "thought experiments."

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Centripetal Acceleration and Weight

« on: September 01, 2011, 03:27:40 PM »

You are saying that you can prove that someone developed the concept of centripetal force.

No, I'm proving that the weight of a person increases as you get closer to the north and south pole respectively on the RE model.

Did you make the experiment or did you learn it from someone else?

Why do you care? Just because you can't answer my questions about how you can explain the weight difference in te FE model, doesn't mean you need to question who exactly derived basic mechanics formulae.

Answer my questions about the FE model and THEN we can discuss the math.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Centripetal Acceleration and Weight

« on: September 01, 2011, 02:38:04 PM »

Are you sure that the proofs of your centripetal acceleration changes are solid enough?

You say "it has been proven". Did you prove it or did you hear it from someone else?

The proof relies on simple Newtonian physics that I myself have performed and others have performed as well. Opening your high-school physics textbook, you can find all the formulae necessary . Of course this applies to the RET as you would inevitably point out, an this is why I turn to YOU to ask how this can be explained in FET?

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Centripetal Acceleration and Weight

« on: September 01, 2011, 01:01:43 PM »

It has been proven that the centripetal acceleration of a person on a RE model makes it so that someone at the equator weighs less than if they were positioned at the northpole... All else being equal. (A distance of about 4g/kg, as has been proven by experiments.)

The same could be said for the "south pole" on a RE model, where one would weigh more than at the equator. 

How is this explained in FET, and even if you were to say that the FE model is rotating (which some say it doesn't) then at the icewall, (or the RE equivalent of the south pole), would a person not weigh MORE, contradictory to what actually happens?

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE

« on: September 01, 2011, 07:07:35 AM »

1) Is the distance travelled by the plane greater in the FE model?

All the flights performed in FE or RE take the same time. FE theory is coherent with Flight Paths.

2) If yes, would it be possible to travel the FE distance via plane?

If you circle, you can.

I asked about distance, not time. Is the DISTANCE travelled greater in the FE model?

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FLIGHT PATHS DISPROVE FE

« on: August 31, 2011, 08:29:54 PM »

Friedman's book "The World is Flat" is about the effects of globalization. Before you google "flat earth" and cut/paste people's words out of context, do some research.

You guys are masters at derailing, so here it is again:
1) Is the distance travelled by the plane greater in the FE model?
2) If yes, would it be possible to travel the FE distance via plane?

I would like answers to both of these questions, and please do not comment on ANY other aspect of this post.