1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intelligence in Debate

« on: April 08, 2012, 04:17:51 PM »

The scientists you're talking about may have brilliant minds, but unfortunately they don't have zetetic ones.  They all operate from the presumption that the Earth is round, and therefore everything they observe, everything they study, and everything they calculate is all interpreted to fit the RE model.

I almost don't know how to respond to this. We know the Earth is round, and we get nothing by saying it is. You seem to misunderstand how science works.

You "know" it's round because you believe the people that told you it was round.  Before round Earthers were around, everyone believed that the Earth was flat because they believed the people that told them it was flat.

Rather than simply accept what we are told, we observe the would around us for facts.

I don't need other people to tell me everything. We have plenty of videos and pictures that contradict you directly.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intelligence in Debate

« on: April 08, 2012, 03:55:01 PM »

The scientists you're talking about may have brilliant minds, but unfortunately they don't have zetetic ones.  They all operate from the presumption that the Earth is round, and therefore everything they observe, everything they study, and everything they calculate is all interpreted to fit the RE model.

I almost don't know how to respond to this. We know the Earth is round, and we get nothing by saying it is. You seem to misunderstand how science works.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FET finite models cannot have even weak gravity based on GR

« on: April 08, 2012, 03:07:05 PM »

Posting obviously faked images does not constitute evidence. I'm asking for you to link to me an experiment which proves the Earth is round. Surely you have one, right? After all, the stupid people at the Flat Earth Society do, so surely the smart people who aren't members of that silly group of people also have a good experiment I'm having way too much fun with this

You're right. This image was obviously faked, since we have nothing better to do than make our home world  look like an oblate spheroid.

 

I'm just proving a point. You already know how this is going to go.

Is your point that you'll deny any evidence like a child with his hands over his ears screaming "I can't hear you!" over and over?

Yup. He went that route.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FET finite models cannot have even weak gravity based on GR

« on: April 08, 2012, 02:56:25 PM »

Correction: The Earth is a planet in RET. Not so in FET. Anyway, you've yet to provide any evidence.

No no no. The earth is a planet in reality. If you didn't watch the video confirming the Earth's curvature then I can't be held responsible.

I didn't see any curvature in that video. Now please provide evidence that the Earth is round. Surely your side has some experiment which proved it beyond reasonable doubt, right?

Really? You didn't notice the increasingly apparent curve in the video? We must check your hearing. You know what/ I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you're just not good with curves in general. Here's a look from the moon.





Do you see it now? I hope you do. or we'll need to fix those eyes of yours.


EDIT: BAH. I just saw that I wrote "Hearing" instead of "Sight"!

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FET finite models cannot have even weak gravity based on GR

« on: April 08, 2012, 02:46:59 PM »

Correction: The Earth is a planet in RET. Not so in FET. Anyway, you've yet to provide any evidence.

No no no. The earth is a planet in reality. If you didn't watch the video confirming the Earth's curvature then I can't be held responsible.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FET finite models cannot have even weak gravity based on GR

« on: April 08, 2012, 02:38:02 PM »

I'm sorry, but the Earth isn't a planet. Proving how planets form doesn't prove the Earth is round. Now, do you have proof that you're sitting on a giant sphere?

I'm sorry but Earth is quite clearly a planet. Here's a simple Wikipedia definition to define terms here:

A planet (from Greek πλανήτης αστήρ planētēs astēr "wandering star") is a celestial body orbiting a star or stellar remnant that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity, is not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion, and has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals.


And also this video:

Now before you freak out, let me do it for you. OMGWTFBBQ Y IZ TEH URF LUK RAUND FRUM HEREZ?!

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FET finite models cannot have even weak gravity based on GR

« on: April 08, 2012, 02:21:12 PM »

So in other words, you have absolutely no evidence that the Earth is round but feel comfortable in insulting those who disagree. SOunds almost... religious of you.

No. I'm telling you that I'm not qualified to explain the mathematical proofs you asked for. I'm telling you to go talk to someone who is.

You said that I'm an idiot for believing the Earth isn't round. I'm asking you to prove that it is, for example by providing me with an experiment that proves it. You are unable to do so.

Oh you mean, say it with me now .... "E-vi-dence"  We find planetary formation to be a relatively common and linked directly with star formation. We see stages of this occurring in nebulae. The clouds clear up slightly, they take up a rotating motion, and I think we've seen a few protoplanets (I'll get back to you on that one).

EDIT: Protoplanetary disks and hints of protoplanets inside is what we've found.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FET finite models cannot have even weak gravity based on GR

« on: April 08, 2012, 02:07:51 PM »

So in other words, you have absolutely no evidence that the Earth is round but feel comfortable in insulting those who disagree. SOunds almost... religious of you.

No. I'm telling you that I'm not qualified to explain the mathematical proofs you asked for. I'm telling you to go talk to someone who is.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FET finite models cannot have even weak gravity based on GR

« on: April 08, 2012, 01:49:55 PM »

And what, exactly, led you to that conclusion?

Your apparent inability to grasp the concept of a round earth. That is, unless I got mixed up somewhere and I'm bashing a round earth-type person.

And why is the Earth round?

DISCLAIMER: I am not a physicist, an astrophysicist or an astronomer so the following explanation is based only on my limited understanding of the subject. If one wants a more detailed/correct explanation I suggest you go to your nearest university and ask professors in the relevant fields.

*gasps*

Ok. Gravity pulls dust from the accretion disk in an early solar system into clumps composed chiefly of heavier elements.These clumps are then attracted to each other and collide creating intense heat turning them into molten rocks which behave similarly to a liquid. These seek out the formation that exerts an even amount of surface tension throughout  the entire structure, this formation we called a "Sphere" and it can be observed in NASA's videos in the International space station. You know , the ones where they squeeze pouches of water and it gushed out in little balls.

Not what I meant. I was talking about proof. We all know what process created the Earth in RET.

As I said before, I'm not a scientist in the relevant fields. So I'm not really qualified to write down , much less explain, the mathematics involved in this. Take my suggestion please.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FET finite models cannot have even weak gravity based on GR

« on: April 08, 2012, 01:39:11 PM »

And what, exactly, led you to that conclusion?

Your apparent inability to grasp the concept of a round earth. That is, unless I got mixed up somewhere and I'm bashing a round earth-type person.

And why is the Earth round?

DISCLAIMER: I am not a physicist, an astrophysicist or an astronomer so the following explanation is based only on my limited understanding of the subject. If one wants a more detailed/correct explanation I suggest you go to your nearest university and ask professors in the relevant fields.

*gasps*

Ok. Gravity pulls dust from the accretion disk in an early solar system into clumps composed chiefly of heavier elements.These clumps are then attracted to each other and collide creating intense heat turning them into molten rocks which behave similarly to a liquid. These seek out the formation that exerts an even amount of surface tension throughout  the entire structure, this formation we called a "Sphere" and it can be observed in NASA's videos in the International space station. You know , the ones where they squeeze pouches of water and it gushed out in little balls.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FET finite models cannot have even weak gravity based on GR

« on: April 08, 2012, 01:19:19 PM »

And what, exactly, led you to that conclusion?

Your apparent inability to grasp the concept of a round earth. That is, unless I got mixed up somewhere and I'm bashing a round earth-type person.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FET finite models cannot have even weak gravity based on GR

« on: April 08, 2012, 12:56:05 PM »

That's not at all what our obviously proud atheist friend was saying. He was suggesting that physics can only do done by physicists and mathematics can only be done by mathematicians. This is patently incorrect.

As for your own allegations, I'm simply posting possible explanations. If I refused to explain my ideas until I was certain they were plausible, I'd be in the same position as John with his book. I have no issue with being wrong, and your obsession with disproving FET really does help me improve my theories. It's not going public so much as asking for review.

Eh not really a proud atheist here. That's just the first generic name I could come up with, which just so happened to involve my atheism.

On to the topic. It seems you misunderstood me. What I meant was that only physicists can do good physics, and only mathematicians can do [/b]good[/b] math. Right now you're doing bad physics and using inappropriate math. We use calculus to describe gravity (Which doesn't work all the time but that's another story). Algebra is barely enough to perform a Chi square analysis, much less describe gravitational attraction.

My suggestion is simple. Go to college, get a degree, then post your insane troll math on a journal for it to be critiqued. Though I doubt you'll make it past the first semester.

So as long as I have gravity I can make round planets?

Yes. The stronger the gravity, the rounder the planet will be.

You understand that my 'insane troll math' disproved me, right?

You understand that I'm referring to any insane troll math of yours, right? I don't really consider you a very intelligent person so I doubt any attempts of yours to construct coherent, accurate mathematical models will prove (Get it?) successful.

EDIT: Yes I saw the error. I meant to say I think any attempts of yours will fail miserably. I fixed the slip-up.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FET finite models cannot have even weak gravity based on GR

« on: April 08, 2012, 12:45:34 PM »

That's not at all what our obviously proud atheist friend was saying. He was suggesting that physics can only do done by physicists and mathematics can only be done by mathematicians. This is patently incorrect.

As for your own allegations, I'm simply posting possible explanations. If I refused to explain my ideas until I was certain they were plausible, I'd be in the same position as John with his book. I have no issue with being wrong, and your obsession with disproving FET really does help me improve my theories. It's not going public so much as asking for review.

Eh not really a proud atheist here. That's just the first generic name I could come up with, which just so happened to involve my atheism.

On to the topic. It seems you misunderstood me. What I meant was that only physicists can do good physics, and only mathematicians can do [/b]good[/b] math. Right now you're doing bad physics and using inappropriate math. We use calculus to describe gravity (Which doesn't work all the time but that's another story). Algebra is barely enough to perform a Chi square analysis, much less describe gravitational attraction.

My suggestion is simple. Go to college, get a degree, then post your insane troll math on a journal for it to be critiqued. Though I doubt you'll make it past the first semester.

So as long as I have gravity I can make round planets?

Yes. The stronger the gravity, the rounder the planet will be.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FET finite models cannot have even weak gravity based on GR

« on: April 07, 2012, 06:29:03 PM »

One need not have official qualifications to be able to perform this level of math (though many here make it seem like it should be lol), but I find it handy to know what an appeal to authority is.

It's not an appeal to authority, it's elitism. We leave dentistry to the dentists, law to the lawyers, and physics to physicists. Laypeople have no place in making such ridiculous claims and acting as though they're capable of doing even rudimentary physics calculations. If this guy were really at all capable of grasping how physics works and wants to make some kind of breakthrough, I suggest he fix that theory in crisis we call gravity.

Anyone can do mathematics, so long as you have the knowledge and a touch of creativity. What you're saying is tantamount to insisting that I shouldn't try to make a salad because I'm not a chef.

The problem here is quite simple though. You don't have the knowledge. It's that simple really. Gravity is the entire reason planets are round.Yes you act as though it's not.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FET finite models cannot have even weak gravity based on GR

« on: April 07, 2012, 07:28:06 AM »

One need not have official qualifications to be able to perform this level of math (though many here make it seem like it should be lol), but I find it handy to know what an appeal to authority is.

It's not an appeal to authority, it's elitism. We leave dentistry to the dentists, law to the lawyers, and physics to physicists. Laypeople have no place in making such ridiculous claims and acting as though they're capable of doing even rudimentary physics calculations. If this guy were really at all capable of grasping how physics works and wants to make some kind of breakthrough, I suggest he fix that theory in crisis we call gravity.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FET finite models cannot have even weak gravity based on GR

« on: April 06, 2012, 07:19:14 PM »

Yes, let's. Do you have any more issues with this phenomenon for me to keep in mind as I perform my calculations?

One thing that I've been dying to know. What are your qualifications?

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moon features

« on: April 06, 2012, 12:59:27 PM »

who thinks the moon is a disc?
anyone with a cheap telescope can verify it is at least semi spherical, and as a Zetetic, semi - spherical is NOT planar.
even the faqqers agree the moon is spherical.

John Davis thinks it's a flat metal disc (probably covered with moonshramps.)
Anyway, disputing what people believe is avoiding the question. You think it's spherical, so explain why it looks the same everywhere.

It's orbiting the Earth and spinning on it's own axis at such a speed that it always presents the same face to the surface, making it appear to the inhabitants on the surface as though it's static. Simple, no?

EDIT: It seems I misunderstood the question. Still. Food for thought?