1

Flat Earth Q&A / Join us in the Flat Earth Society chat room

« on: February 03, 2007, 02:36:14 PM »

bump and a nomination that this be made a sticky.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Church/God will hang Gallileos' followers

« on: February 03, 2007, 01:22:34 PM »

I'm glad you can see in the Bible where my Lord and Savior will hang me for believing in a Round Earth.  It's not like he said 'all sins are equal' (if you believe my belief is a sin).  It's also, of course not true that all sins are washed away with the blood of Christ, right, Raa?

The next time you open your over-used, under-educated mouth, think about what you're going to say.

3

The Lounge / Re: How to uproot trees with your mind

« on: February 02, 2007, 12:21:23 PM »

'Even if you had faith as small as a mustard seed," the Lord answered, "you could say to this mulberry tree, 'May God uproot you and throw you into the sea,' and it would obey you'   (Luke 17:6 NLT)

see! and, because the uprooting of mulberry trees by divine forces are so common, its clear that we must all show blind faith to God.

It's called context. Read it before you insult the faith of millions of people throughout the world.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / If the earth is flat?

« on: February 01, 2007, 09:00:16 PM »

Uh, it is ...

Are you telling me that it's impossible to see in three dimensions?

I agree with BOG, it is impossible to see 3 dimensions.

But he forgot to add a vita point.

We have two eyes, which helps see depth.

Thats why in my telescope model, I clearly mentioned a single, not dual, eye piece.

That's funny. I'm still able to see objects in three dimensions with one eye closed.

That's impossible, and I can absolutely prove it, if you take the time to run 1 of 2 tests.  test 1, get color glasses and look at one of those 3-d images.  test 2, look at a good, professional hologram.  with artificial 3-d objects, closing one eye ruins the image.  In the real world, you have 2 eyes open most of the time, so when yo close one eye, your brain more or less makes up the rest.  This is coming, of course, from me, who, ironically, can't see in 3-d anyhow...

5

Flat Earth Q&A / About the 100 Proofs?

« on: February 01, 2007, 07:38:37 PM »

For its time, the book "100 Proofs the Earth is not a Globe" by William Carpenter is completely accurate and verifiable.

Tom, your lack of intelligence amazes me.  Amazes me.  I truly do hope you're just kidding in all of your posts

6

Flat Earth Q&A / RE-winning threads

« on: February 01, 2007, 07:21:38 PM »

This thread wanders a bit, but what it gets down to is there is NO way for the FE sun to move around the sky.  It is a very different idea than the spotlight concept.

 http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8927

The next thread is one where they, interestingly laid out an explanation for the sun staying in the sky.  It was promptly put down like a dog with rabies

 http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6236

7

Flat Earth Q&A / RE-winning threads

« on: February 01, 2007, 07:14:00 PM »

Erasmus isn't an FE'r.  look in the threads they hold out for 'believers'.  He turned down a debate because while he'll play out the scenarios, he doesn't actually believe them.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Ice Wall

« on: February 01, 2007, 02:40:12 PM »

That would be so sweet.

just curious....are you a /btard?

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Fundamental questions

« on: February 01, 2007, 02:03:39 PM »

http://www.nevis.columbia.edu/~westerhoff/

You might wanna look at that page, jadexg.

fair enough, I went through their astrophysics home site, and searched through faculty.  He's not on those departmental lists (hence my statement that I wasn't certain)

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Fundamental questions

« on: February 01, 2007, 01:54:21 PM »

not that it's impossible, but there is no Westerhoff working at Columbia in the astrophysics department.  I may have missed something, or he may be in a different department, but I can find no truth in the evidence brought forth so far.

Let me be clear though, I really don't dislike this guy, I have no problem with him, just if he isn't what he claims to be, he ought to fess up to it.  Simple as that.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Sun

« on: February 01, 2007, 01:45:25 PM »

I'm actually an Aero major, and we have to take some relativity (it's useless, but they want us to know it), so here's the deal, and yes, it's hard to get your head around.  light tracels at c.  whatever reference frame you view it at, it's going at c, so if you're outside, standing still, and a car goes by at mach 1 with headlights on, the light from the headlights, as measured by you will be going EXACTLY C.  However, if someone was out infront of the car going mach one, he, too would measure the light as going C.  I know it's weird, and it defies a lot of the logic you've been presented, but it really is the way light and time and space work.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Sun

« on: February 01, 2007, 12:11:18 PM »

You might just be the dumbest person I've ever heard of.  Velocity exerts NO FORCE on the body.  Accelerations are caused by an exerted force.  You can go 10,000 mph for as long as you want and never feel any effects as long as you aren't speeding up or slowing down.

That would be correct if you were going in a straight line. But the round earth is traveling in a circle around the sun. Thus, centripetal force should apply.

We're traveling 66,705 mph.

Then RE Theory is more absurd than I imagined.

CAN YOU READ?   I calculated the centripetal force exerted on you   SEE it?   I calculated it!!!! IT's a NUMBER  It's SMALL.....READ IT   .0195 ft/s^2.  STOP IGNORING THAT PART OF THE POST.

(in case you missed it: .0195 ft/s^2)

the V in V^2/R is tangential velocity.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Sun

« on: February 01, 2007, 12:01:54 PM »

Oh, that's right. It can't. Best to just forget I even brought that bit up...

On my next trip to Antarctica I'll be sure to bring a Foucault Pendulum.

Man, you just don't get it, do you?? M V^2/R the radius of our path is 1 AU. that's HUGE. 93,000,000 miles to be exact.

365 days in a year times 24 hours in a day = 8,760 hours in a year.

93,000,000 miles around the sun divided by 8,760 hours =  10,615 miles per hour

The earth is traveling at 10,615 miles per hour any way you look at it. 10,615 miles per hour is pretty fast, if you haven't realized.

I don't feel as if I'm being pushed into the earth at 10,615 miles per hour during the day. Do you?

And, are you aware of the fundamental principle of the theory of relativity? Light goes the same speed in ALL reference frames. hence the term RELATIVITY. ALL LIGHT everywhere right now is ALL traveling at c relative to your frame. some at you, some away, some at all sorts of angles, but all at c. If you argue this you're arguing with Einstein and ALL OF MODERN PHYSICS.

Incorrect. Light is warped around you when traveling at relativistic speeds.

You might just be the dumbest person I've ever heard of.  Velocity exerts NO FORCE on the body.  Accelerations are caused by an exerted force.  You can go 10,000 mph for as long as you want and never feel any effects as long as you aren't speeding up or slowing down.  the radial acceleration due to our circling the earth is what I stated above.  DO THE MATH.  I used a speed even higher than yours because you don't even know what the circumference of a circle is!!!!!!!! We're traveling 66,705 mph.  HOWEVER the only acceleration going on is that which maintains the orbit.  remember that space is a VACUUM.  btw, my number was slightly off earlier, accurate acceleration due to solar orbit, THE FORCE THAT YOU FEEL is only .0195 ft/s^2.  gravity is 32.2 ft/s

just so you know something: the circumference of a circle is 2*pi*radius
here you go:  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/astronomical_unit

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Sun

« on: February 01, 2007, 11:30:11 AM »

Yes, the spherical earth is rotating at 1000 mi/hr, but gravity is a much stronger force than the centripetal acceleration needed to hold down a human.

Gravity may be an acceptable answer. But it does not explain why we do not feel the centripetal force while the earth orbits the sun at over 10,000 miles per hour. We should be pancaked into the earth during the day and pulled off of it at night.

As for what you're stating about relativity, it's just plain wrong.  light always travels at the speed of light relative to the viewer. PERIOD.  NO EXCEPTIONS.

I doubt anyone has traveled at relativistic speeds to study the curvature of light from other objects traveling at relativistic speeds.

Man, you just don't get it, do you??   M V^2/R   the radius of our path is 1 AU.  that's HUGE.  93,000,000 miles to be exact.  the acceleration due to Earth's orbit around the sun is Roughly 4.38*10^-4 ft/sec^2   gravity is 32.2 ft/sec^2.  That's about 1/100,000 g.  You couldn't notice that except with the best of measurements.

And, are you aware of the fundamental principle of the theory of relativity?  Light goes the same speed in ALL reference frames.  hence the term RELATIVITY.  ALL LIGHT everywhere right now is ALL traveling at c relative to your frame.  some at you, some away, some at all sorts of angles, but all at c.  If you argue this you're arguing with Einstein and ALL OF MODERN PHYSICS.  (hint: you're wrong)

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Fundamental questions

« on: February 01, 2007, 10:29:34 AM »

Well, I have a PhD in astrophysics, I don't know what else to tell you. I completed the degree in winter of 2006 at Columbia University. My dissertaion was entitled "Anisotrophy of arrival directions of ultrahigh energy cosmic rays"

I suppose cosmic rays are a conspiricy as well?

Either way, I am well aware of the differences between velocity and accelaration, as well as relativity. However, concepts like these certainly do not apply when travelling many times the speed of light.

I don't beleiev I will be posting on the forum much anymore. I don't have the time and all concepts here are too juvinle. Additionally, the responses are insulting. I loved the answer to "how could all the world's governements cover this up when they are conflicting (or something like that)" with the anwer "they are just appearing to be like that to help the cover up (or something like that)"

Wow, was the holocaust orchestrated because too many people were starting to catch on or something?

BTW, that couldn't be your dissertation unless Columbia's standards have dropped recently.  There are numerous papers on the subject, and a dissertation has to be original and, at most schools, be considered as 'a valuable addition to the field of study'.  Such a paper would not be.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Sun

« on: February 01, 2007, 10:21:56 AM »

if the earth is rotating as Tom suggests, then there is no possibility for life on th outer surfaces. centripetal force=M*V^2/R. V being tangential velocity. This means that the centripetal force needed to remain stationary on earth would be SIGNIFICANT. for ANY model witha 24 hour day and a reasonably sized earth, the equator (FE velocities will vary) has to be traveling at just around 1000 mi/h. (I'm using 24k miles, a reasonable circumnavigation by airplane, it's slightly smaller on the ground but you do get the point). This means that standing here on earth we would readily be able to feel which way south is because we would constantly be pulled that way.

The Round Earth model is also rotating at 1000 mile per hour at the equator. Yet we are not being thrown off the face of the planet, are we?

And one more thing. Relativity is irrelevant between the sun and Earth in the FE model. This is because they are in the same reference frame, and have no velocity relative to one another (in the vertical sense).

Once light leaves the sun it is in a reference frame parallel to the speed of light. Since the sun and earth are not traveling at the speed of light it will seem to curve over a long distance from a terrestrial viewpoint. This curvature is so slight that one would not be able to see the effect from a regular light bulb.

This curvature of light over long distance may also explain the sinking boat over the horizon effect.

[/quote]

Yes, the spherical earth is rotating at 1000 mi/hr, but gravity is a much stronger force than the centripetal acceleration needed to hold down a human.  the radial acceleration in both cases is .0477883 ft/sec^2.  The difference is that in the spherical case, gravity opposes this force, and so it isn't an issue.  However, on a FE, it results in an unopposed force that would have to be accounted for in all buildings, and even our daily lives.  Everything would have to lean north to accommodate the constant southward acceleration.

As for what you're stating about relativity, it's just plain wrong.  light always travels at the speed of light relative to the viewer. PERIOD.  NO EXCEPTIONS.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Fundamental questions

« on: February 01, 2007, 09:43:04 AM »

I'm certainly no FE believer, but you need to do a few things.

1)Don't claim you are something you aren't, it makes you look like a complete idiot

2)Learn the difference between velocity and acceleration.  Speed only kills when you're in a vehicle and there's an idiot driving.

3)look into relativity

4)consider everyone here more or less a 'devil's advocate'

5)don't bring up anything about other planets or space, they'll just say it's part of the conspiracy

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Sun

« on: February 01, 2007, 08:50:30 AM »

And one more thing.  Relativity is irrelevant between the sun and Earth in the FE model.  This is because they are in the same reference frame, and have no velocity relative to one another (in the vertical sense).  Hence light would propagate as normal between the sun and earth.  if this were not the case, EVERY LIGHTSOURCE ON EARTH would be 'limited' the way Tom explains the sun to be.

Of course, maybe every lightsource on earth is limited relativistically in a manner only consistent with the ether theory of EM propogation.  and, if Tom or any other FE'r believes in the ETHER moving to cause the effect he describes, it can be quickly disproved with a michelson interferometer test.  ONE OF WHICH I DID ON MY OWN.  Any body taking E&M in college would do this test, and everyone always gets the same result, either the ether isn't moving, or there is no ether.  FE THEORY DISPROVED.  DONE (original FE theory is based on the existence of an ether)

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Sun

« on: February 01, 2007, 08:41:52 AM »

if the earth is rotating as Tom suggests, then there is no possibility for life on th outer surfaces.  centripetal force=M*V^2/R.  V being tangential velocity.  This means that the centripetal force needed to remain stationary on earth would be SIGNIFICANT.  for ANY model witha  24 hour day and a reasonably sized earth, the equator (FE velocities will vary) has to be traveling at just around 1000 mi/h.  (I'm using 24k miles, a reasonable circumnavigation by airplane, it's slightly smaller on the ground but you do get the point).  This means that standing here on earth we would readily be able to feel which way south is because we would constantly be pulled that way.  The only livable place on earth would be the north pole.

I figure the response you would give, barring this bit is that 'centripetal force doesn't exist in an inertial frame' or that I'm talking about centrifugal force not centripetal force, so I'll address the problem first.  A centripetal force would be needed to remain stationary on a spinning disk, because of the radial acceleration (acceleration due to a change in direction as supposed to a change in speed).  I can also prove that centripetal force exists in the reference frame of earth, inertial or not.  when a car corners too fast, it either slides out, flips, or simply understeers, not taking the path desired.  This is absolutely due to centripetal force induced by changing the direction of travel.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / How the sun and moon are held up (photoelectric effect)

« on: February 01, 2007, 08:10:59 AM »

By the way, there is only one way in which two oppositely charged masses like the sun and earth can be held relatively stable in magnetics.  This, sadly for you, requires the metals to be SUPERCOOLED to temperatures very close to absolute zero.  Judging by the amount of infared radiation coming off the sun, there's no point in arguing that the sun is supercooled, and if the earth was supercooled, then magnets on earth would not repel, they would lock in place at set distances.  if you don't believe me look up how certain LEV trains work.

And about that neutral point...at 35,000 ft, a typical altitude for aircraft, one would be well outside the neutral zone, and be doomed, since the airplane would be moving at a VERY high speed (as airplanes do) through a magnetic field.  In case you don't know that results in very high currents, and death in organic life.  It's called magnetic induction, or flux.  As I said, if you believe in the FE model you better never move, because changing your flux in the fields needed would be far more than lethal.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun's Path

« on: February 01, 2007, 07:48:36 AM »

In the FE theory, the suns orbit which, in winter, would certainly be lower to the horizon, should be much more equidistant at all times than on a RE.  I wish I could render an effective image to demonstrate this, but 1, it'd be called part of the conspiracy, and 2, I suck at drawing, so it really wouldn't clear things up so nicely.  JUST CONSIDER THE GEOMETRY.

I think you should have drawn a picture. Instead, here's one I drew for you showing the sun's orbit of the tropic of capricorn with distances to ohio.



As you can see there is a lot more variation in distance in FE where the sun is closer and smaller than there is in RE theory where the sun is an incredible distance away and unbelievably huge.

At noon the sun is closest to you and then when it starts to set again it gets further away.

You should also be able to see that when the sun is on the other side of the earth it is ridiculously far away and this is why you can't see it.

On a separate point: if the Sun's surface is concave, then the light coming from it has a focal point, like a mirror.  I have no ABSOLUTE proof this doesn't exist, but I'd like to point out that a focal point between the Sun and the Earth would be readily visible, as everything passing through it would be vaporized (imagine all the energy the sun exerts all over earth at one instant, but concentrated onto a single point).  if the focal point is behind earth, then the sun would have to be ENORMOUS (much larger than the earth itself, which isn't consistent with FE theory as is posted in the FAQ), and it should be noted that this would result in decreased energy as altitude increases.  This is verifiably not the case.

I have no idea why you're speculating that the sun's surface is concave.

First off, that image is broken for me.  Secondly, I'll work out the geometry after a midterm today, but I think I can prove a DIFFERENT kind of variation between FE and RE, which is easily visible.  What I'm referring to is not the absolute angle between the sun and Ohio, but rather the path that it would follow in the sky.  you see, an FE sun sort of rotates about you (yes, I know it's the north pole that it rotates about exactly, but give it a second) the 'spotlight' should, since it's angle to the earth is 0 (parallel discs), and because the horizon is only an illusion, not a real entity, the sun should maintain a fairly constant angle in the sky vertically, whereas an RE sun will have a much more accented vertical rise and fall.

As to the concavity, I hear constant claims that the sun in the FE model acts more or less like a spotlight, not a pointsource.  for that to be the case it has to be concave, or else you would have a diffuse pattern of light shed around the world at all times. (this is gemoetrically provable, and evident in the way lighting around your home works.)

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Sun's Path

« on: January 31, 2007, 05:41:13 PM »

The sun does not follow the same path throughout the year.

Learn to read.  I said I acknowledged that.  I'm talking about an FE sun on 1 day and a RE sun on one day.  Hence the point about it being only terribly obvious here in WINTER.

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Sun's Path

« on: January 31, 2007, 04:06:03 PM »

Here's a new one for you.  I live in Ohio, and we have an interesting phenomenon in the winter around here.  The sun is always low in the sky, and while that is, by itself explicable in both theories, I have an interesting point that is only possible on a round earth.  The path we see in winter is the sun rising low in the southeast, then drawing closer to overhead (it never gets all that close, but the closest it ever is to overhead is distinctly noon, as ANYONE can observe.  In the FE theory, the suns orbit which, in winter, would certainly be lower to the horizon, should be much more equidistant at all times than on a RE.  I wish I could render an effective image to demonstrate this, but 1, it'd be called part of the conspiracy, and 2, I suck at drawing, so it really wouldn't clear things up so nicely.  JUST CONSIDER THE GEOMETRY.

On a separate point: if the Sun's surface is concave, then the light coming from it has a focal point, like a mirror.  I have no ABSOLUTE proof this doesn't exist, but I'd like to point out that a focal point between the Sun and the Earth would be readily visible, as everything passing through it would be vaporized (imagine all the energy the sun exerts all over earth at one instant, but concentrated onto a single point).  if the focal point is behind earth, then the sun would have to be ENORMOUS (much larger than the earth itself, which isn't consistent with FE theory as is posted in the FAQ), and it should be noted that this would result in decreased energy as altitude increases.  This is verifiably not the case.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Just want to make this clear ...

« on: December 07, 2006, 09:08:04 AM »

Absolute truth most certainly exists, just not in  the sense some people like to evoke it.  Eg: water is a liquid at 1 atm and 70F.  That is true in all cases.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / An interesting pressure proof

« on: December 07, 2006, 08:53:40 AM »

The engineer ought to know this one as well as I...I'm trying to remember the theorem, and I'll find it in my book if I look hard enough.  There's a rule we use: pressure distributions are even only on a sphere, sort of as a rule of thumb.  What is meant by that is say, in the case of a pressurized aircraft, the forces on the skin (from the inside being pressurized) are only equal in the case of a sphere.  In all other situations we have to re-enforce and mold shapes to minimize the variances....I'll find it this weekend.

26

Flat Earth Q&A / An interesting pressure proof

« on: December 07, 2006, 08:34:19 AM »

THE Ohio State University. lol.  If you don't get the THE part, don't worry about it.(that's more aimed at the non-American's on this board, who don't have to deal with us Buckeyes. lol)

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Please explain the horizon

« on: December 07, 2006, 08:26:24 AM »

Right........ Because you would not be able to purchase such equipment you are going to ignore the findings from those pieces of equipment?

No. Because I am not able to purchase such equipment, I have no idea what their findings might be. All I have is your word for it, and I'm skeptical so I don't trust you. Should I believe the word of every wacko in a bar who wants to buy me a beer because the world is going to be destroyed by aliens in six minutes? Then why should I believe you, especially when other people who claim "scientific" results make completely bogus claims such as zero-point energy and the fact that toilets flush in different directions 10 yards north and 10 yards south of the equator?

I don't think Coriolis effect caused by earth rotation is strong enough to be easly measured in a homemade experiment.
If you are desperated enough you can try Foucault pendulum.

Okay, I'm really too lazy to actually do this since I already know what the result would be, but let's say I went to the local science museum (which probably has a Foucault pendulum) and observed a pendulum swinging back and forth and every so often knocking down a wooden peg, so I can see it rotate. Further, let's suppose I were to measure the speed of rotation, and determine that it moves 10º every hour. Why should I then conclude that the Earth is round, and not that the earth is flat and rotates once every 36 hours?

That's a logical conclusion.  It, however requires modifying the FE theory to allow for a rotating earth.  That in itself would, by the way, have a HUGE effect on tides and sea levels.  Again, as with most of my stuff, in no way a total disproval, just proof that modification is needed.

28

Flat Earth Q&A / An interesting pressure proof

« on: December 07, 2006, 08:20:54 AM »

Skeptical, you're off a bit here.  the house doesn't experience pressure differences because it has atmospheric pressure in, above, and around it.  Really, the dome would cause pressure issues.  We actually study it a lot nowadays, because in aerodynamics it makes a huge difference.  you are correct in thinking that pressure distributes, but the way a dome re-enforces pressure would assure a higher pressure at the center of a flat earth than on the sides.

29

Flat Earth Q&A / An interesting pressure proof

« on: December 07, 2006, 08:16:40 AM »

Funny you mention it.  I am one. lol.  Now grated, I don't follow the retarded creationist stereotype, but sometime I'll make a post for my case.  There are a lot of scientists/ engineers that think like I do: God created the earth, the universe, etc, and he also created the rules that govern it.  Christ had dominion over those rules, but on the general, most of (and by most I mean a number so close to 100% it's a 'statistical anomaly') the events we see are totally governed by the rules set in place.  Anyways, not to go on a tangent, just saying, I'm a 2nd year AAE (aeronautical and astronautical enginnering) major, so I'm not exactly stupid.

note to the engineer: AAE's have to have classes in EVERYTHING, so you weren't far off, I've taken a few MSE courses along the way.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / An interesting pressure proof

« on: December 07, 2006, 08:06:57 AM »

And that's fine by this theory.  The point of this is less sheer dismissal of the FE theory itself, and more aimed at getting people to dismiss this idea of some little wall.  we're talking something by far taller than everest; about 1.5 times as high, in fact.  I'm also making the point that any dome structure brought up is, in fact, false.  A dome would cause uneven pressures.  This just calls for, either an adjustment to FE theory or abandonment of it.

*edit for spelling