1

Flat Earth Q&A / Consider these questions:

« on: January 02, 2007, 05:21:11 PM »

That still wouldn't account for the same variations we have on a spherical earth.

Yes, it does. I don't see where you're going with this. Without mountains and whatnot, even a RE is essentially flat.

PS is implying that the weather patterns on RE are explainable by the Coriolis theory, which is based on RET.

You are implying that the weather patterns on FE are explainable by a suggestion that they are like that because they are.

You'd do better to at least try and make something up.

e.g. the sun's heat warms the oceans. The oceans evaporate (oops, we're treading dodgy ground here, there's that darned tricky particle theory again) increasing air pressure above them, and forcing air "outwards" from the sea. Given the shape of the seas in the FE model we should safely assume that they will produce a spiral effect similar in weather patterns, similar to that of the RE model, but more correct.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / got a question...

« on: January 02, 2007, 05:15:49 PM »

Someone please reiterate why planes flying "around the RE" over Antarctica from, say, Cape Town to Sydney, go directly over Antarctica, and not around it?

As stated elsewhere, they aren't. You are just lead to believe they are.

Me, and the pilots, and ATC?

Just how many people are on the payroll?

3

Flat Earth Q&A / got a question...

« on: January 02, 2007, 05:10:08 PM »

Someone please reiterate why planes flying "around the RE" over Antarctica from, say, Cape Town to Sydney, go directly over Antarctica, and not around it?

4

Flat Earth Q&A / other planets?

« on: January 02, 2007, 05:01:51 PM »

They are probably round. They appear round, but alternative explanations have been proposed.

No, they actually appear flat, but they're round if you take a closer look (with a telescope). You will see they're rotating, you can observe their moons or/and asteroid fields as they move around the planets, and you can observe their eclipses. They're not "probably" round. They're round for sure.

You're forgetting the NASA Planetary Projection system. I think that's the alternative explanation that dysfunction was talking about.

And how does that affect you observing them from your home using your tlescope?

It has a patented NASA designed projection lens which gives a 3D effect to the projected images, much like the Imax screen which is so large that your eyes fool your brain into thinking that you are watching a 3D film.

NASA have been using this lens since before Galileo first identified the celestial bodies.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Why would they?

« on: January 02, 2007, 04:59:20 PM »

The Compendium.

That and the FAQ don't explain the motivation for the conspiracy, only proffering a suggestion which is based primarily on money laundering and ignores all observable and measurable evidence collected since the dawn of human intelligence.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Consider these questions:

« on: January 02, 2007, 04:56:50 PM »

Dude, it doesn't even go so far as explain the entire atmosphere convincingly, let alone the Coriolis effect.

(However, I'd be interested to know how the Coriolis force is answered by the FET)

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Consider these questions:

« on: January 02, 2007, 04:28:52 PM »

And tell me how weather systems works on a flat Earth? I'd really like to know.

Lest we forget that given 300 years of understanding of FET, the world's scientists may have come to completely opposite conclusions.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / The Moon

« on: January 02, 2007, 04:01:36 PM »

You're leaving yourself wide open to bullshit answers, 23.

A better question would be thus:

Why does the shape of the "dark patches" change in direct response to the position of the Sun relative to RET, and not relative to FET? And why does the appearance of the Moon change depending on your position on the Earth's surface?

(Both the above are observable with great clarity and detail through relatively cheap telescopes.)

9

Flat Earth Debate / My Trip To The Ice Wall

« on: January 02, 2007, 03:57:06 PM »

Beg to differ with ya.   Everyone knows that the world isn't flat and it was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

http://www.venganza.org/

I too have been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Respect.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Zetetic Astronomy/Earth is not a Globe

« on: January 02, 2007, 03:53:06 PM »

Leonardo's sketches postulated aerodynamic lift...

The two sketches were made by people much more important to modern science than Leonardo.

If one of them was God, I'll give you that.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Consider these questions:

« on: January 02, 2007, 03:47:55 PM »

Strawman argument.

Is this big enough?

Yes. Now prove those pictures aren't faked by the conspiracy.

or this?

(I'm slap bang under that broken cloud cover right now, and I can verify that it's thick but broken as shown.) I've also cross referenced satellite imagery against my view across the Atlantic from 35,000ft and can verify that they do match up. Now, if NASA/RASA/MUFASA/The Met Office wants to try and install enough meterological stations to accurately report on what the clouds are doing, why can't they predict the weather?

tada

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Consider these questions:

« on: January 02, 2007, 03:46:57 PM »

why can't they predict the weather?

Who said they couldn't?

I was being facetious. You, however, were being obtuse.

Neither of which means anything.

I can see I'll fit right in here

13

Flat Earth Q&A / other planets?

« on: January 02, 2007, 03:45:40 PM »

You're forgetting the NASA Planetary Projection system. I think that's the alternative explanation that dysfunction was talking about.

NASA is projecting planets in space.........?

Obviously. How else would you see them?

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Zetetic Astronomy/Earth is not a Globe

« on: January 02, 2007, 03:43:49 PM »

i dont believe that was an awnser engeneer...

Why not?  He said he doesn't believe in one guy's hand drawn sketches.  Yet I'm sure he would not argue against the other two hand drawn sketches I provided.

Leonardo's sketches postulated aerodynamic lift, and his experiments went some way to proving this, but it wasn't until the Wright Brothers actually achieved the construction of a working aeroplane it that anyone would believed that it could be of any practical use and the world accepted the hypothesis as theoretical fact.

The advent of particle theory (which further debunks FE) simply backs this up.

I don't recall anyone successfully proving any FE hypotheses?

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Antartica

« on: January 02, 2007, 03:28:37 PM »

They went to the south pole, holding a compass that worked everywhere else, and wathced as it spun around at high speeds.

That doesn't actually work, since the south and north poles aren't at the magnetic centre.

Besides, that just backs up the FET since they hypothesise that all magnets point to the centre of the earth laterally. Compasses point to the edge. Get near enough to the edge and the direction towards the edge obviously becomes less distinctive.

However, that raises an interesting point. I'd like to know how the FE'ers would like to explain the movement of the magnetic poles (i.e. the FE "centre" is moving, and has been moving more rapidly of late, and according to geological records it will reverse polarity every few thousand years, seemingly at random). Here's the RE explanation. I think the most striking thing is that they can use a computer to simulate this event successfully, based on RE theories alone.

Would this simulation even be possible if the FET was correct? Is even basic physics capable of explaining FET?

16

Flat Earth Q&A / other planets?

« on: January 02, 2007, 03:25:57 PM »

They are probably round. They appear round, but alternative explanations have been proposed.

No, they actually appear flat, but they're round if you take a closer look (with a telescope). You will see they're rotating, you can observe their moons or/and asteroid fields as they move around the planets, and you can observe their eclipses. They're not "probably" round. They're round for sure.

You're forgetting the NASA Planetary Projection system. I think that's the alternative explanation that dysfunction was talking about.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Antartica

« on: January 02, 2007, 03:24:37 PM »

Before you even get to the armed guards, you have to navigate the Unseen Pits of the Outer Rim. I'm assuming that since all returned unscathed, they didn't even get that far out.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: other planets?

« on: January 02, 2007, 03:19:05 PM »

are other planets and the sun flat too?  plus if the earth is flat, what would happen if we drill downward?

You couldn't drill deep enough, the heat from the core/eternal fire of Hell would kill you before you got near enough, not to mention asphyxiation caused by the breath of Satan (aka sulfuric gases)

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Consider these questions:

« on: January 02, 2007, 03:16:00 PM »

or this?

(I'm slap bang under that broken cloud cover right now, and I can verify that it's thick but broken as shown.) I've also cross referenced satellite imagery against my view across the Atlantic from 35,000ft and can verify that they do match up. Now, if NASA/RASA/MUFASA/The Met Office wants to try and install enough meterological stations to accurately report on what the clouds are doing, why can't they predict the weather?

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Consider these questions:

« on: January 02, 2007, 03:12:23 PM »

Strawman argument.

Is this big enough?

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Zetetic Astronomy/Earth is not a Globe

« on: January 02, 2007, 03:10:39 PM »

Simply writing a FAQ about FET doesn't solve, prove, or even suggest anything.

FAQ does not imply FACT.  It is not a misspelling of the word FACT.  It stands for Frequently Asked Questions.  It serves to simply provide answers to questions we get every day.

So the answers to those questions are, in fact, not fact?

Nothing is fact, everything is proven on the basis of previous understanding.

"Up until the early 20th Century, reality was everything that humans could touch, see, smell, and hear. After the publication of the electromagnetic spectrum, what humans could touch, see, smell and hear became less than 1 millionth of reality."

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Craters

« on: January 02, 2007, 03:07:07 PM »

They don't.

Moon and Sun have a fixed altitude, which means meteorites move in relation to the FE, and thus, with the unimaginable force propelling the FE "upwards", the meteorites impact both equally. If you could see the back side of the Moon, it'd be in even worse condition than the front.

Of course, I'm not even going to try to explain why the craters move around the observable surface of the Moon relative to your position on the Earth's surface. That's for the real FE'ers to postulate over.

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Why would they?

« on: January 02, 2007, 03:03:23 PM »

I'm in on the cover up.

Which is why I'm logging in on my "friend"'s PC in an "internet cafe"

I have 30 seconds more before they complete the trace and I need to move to "Utah".

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Consider these questions:

« on: January 02, 2007, 02:58:09 PM »

1.) How do you explain the Coriolis force? You know, the force that makes low pressures turn clock-wise on the northern hemisphere and counterclock-wise on the southern hemisphere?

Having never observed these effects myself, I am tempted to say I have ne reason to believe that they exist. Although I'm certain I've seen an explanation for them somewhere.

Aside from wind (which could feasibly be explained in other ways, if you're being blindly pedantic in a strawman argument), you will arguably have observed this force if you have ever sat in the bath watching it empty (source).

I saw this experiment tested by Timmy Mallet on Wacaday when I was about 9 years old. He was using a polystyrene foam tray (much like you get from a takeaway) filled with water, on which were floated some matchsticks, with a small hole in the centre. He walked 100yds north of a sign marking the equator in Kenya and allowed the water to drain. It drained anticlockwise. He then walked 200yds due south, and repeated the experiment, observing clockwise rotation. The third time he stood next to the sign and the matchsticks didn't move.

Now, forgive my leap of faith here but although the experiment could have been "faked for educational purposes", I don't think Timmy Mallet is in on the big conspiracy, do you? That would throw the salary calculations out of synch, although it might explain what Timmy Mallet does for a living nowadays.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Zetetic Astronomy/Earth is not a Globe

« on: January 02, 2007, 02:44:03 PM »

I stumbled upon this site today as well, and was assuming that all those who believe in FET do so because they are intelligent enough to argue for it.

However, I am unfortunately mistaken (except in a minority of cases, and I am guessing those people stay quiet much of the time in the faint hope that a remotely valid hypothesis will present itself). There have to be much better arguments to back up FET than can be found on this forum, but I doubt any would stand up to much in the way of scientific or observable dissection.

Simply writing a FAQ about FET doesn't solve, prove, or even suggest anything. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can summate the rantings of a lunatic but that won't make it believable. Just look at the Qu'ran!