1

Flat Earth Q&A / Proof is not spelt c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y

« on: March 04, 2006, 09:14:47 AM »

If the FE'ers can offer an alternative explanation (eg, they are faked) then it's no longer proof.

See, the thing is, an alternative explanation is always offered. Guess what?

God.

So you're saying that there is no way to prove anything which (albeit not neccessarily untrue) is very counter-productive to logical discussions.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / So, how did you end up on this site?

« on: February 28, 2006, 05:27:57 PM »

I found the site through Wikipedia. I must admit, I'm skeptical of the flat earth theory, but don't worry, I'm not here to flame. I'm looking for some intelligent debate on the subject.

Haha, good luck.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model

« on: February 28, 2006, 05:25:56 PM »

To be honest, I think I would suffer damnation just to spite a dogmatic and tyrannical god that only permits his worshippers to achieve joy. I think that that is morally unacceptable, and the world needs people to stand up to evil.

Oh, and the topic? I was really looking for something that the RE model didn't explain, but the FE model did. But that's moot now, I guess.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model

« on: February 22, 2006, 07:20:28 PM »

So, hey, does anyone have anything that the Round Earth model doesn't explain? Someone mentioned something about dust on oranges, but that showed naught but a horrendous understanding of gravity.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Ok, I think I have found a gravity that would work.

« on: February 22, 2006, 07:05:23 PM »

Sharky, your constant misspellings of 'positive' and 'negative' are really starting to annoy me. 'E' is the most common letter in English, you know.

And for more on the question of antimatter gravitation, I give you: Wikipedia!

6

Flat Earth Q&A / The Earth's current velocity is NOT 9.81m/s

« on: February 17, 2006, 03:20:41 PM »

Can there really be any other theory of Gravity? I mean, the Gravitational Constant (6.67x10^-11)  was measured in the Cavendish experiment, which basically proved that all matter attracts other matter.

7

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Creationism?

« on: February 17, 2006, 03:08:27 PM »

Maybe the Universe just is, as fundamental and axiomatic as gravity and electromagnetism. Maybe there was no beginning. That cuts out God, at least.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / The continuous work of the few

« on: February 15, 2006, 09:11:13 PM »

Redemption, perhaps?

Math is unprovable in that everything is unprovable; disproof is readily attainable, but only based on the foundations, such as the reflexive property. Definitions are also always correct, because it isn't possible for them to be anything else. So P=P, three noncolinear points are a plane, etc...

'Common Sense' is either science or ignorance. There isn't any overbeing separating the two. Either you sort things out to the best of your ability and based on all data available, or stop talking. If the Earth is accelerating upward, it means there must be Work done. Work introduced by nothing. Since Work=Change in Kinetic Energy, Energy is added to a closed system (the universe). Every other possibly conceivable test done ever in a closed system reaffirms the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. That would mean that there  is an unexplained exception to the most fundamental law of Thermodynamics; due to Occam's Razor (proved as well as the aforementioned, or axiomatic if you like), as all other things being equal, it is more likely that there is no exception and there is no Flat Earth.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / The Earth's current velocity is NOT 9.81m/s

« on: February 15, 2006, 08:51:12 PM »

Since the force causing the constant acceleration is unexplained, it's safe to say that this is all just utterly ridiculous.

10

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Fun with Infinity

« on: February 15, 2006, 08:48:41 PM »

sphere fans seem to think all items of mass are drawn to eachother, but cannot explain why. Newton and Einstein couldn'

Incorrect.  Newton couldn't, Einstein could (distortions in the four-dimensional spacetime, a geometry effect).

0.9 recurring = 1.

Prove me wrong. I dares ya.

Let
X=.11111...
10X = 1.111111111....
Therefore,
10X-X=1
9X=1

However, since we defined X to be .111.....

9X=.99999999....


Yep, both are true.
Its a limit thing.
(Just an aside.  Its a fun proof.  I know its kinda shocking to get and grasp, but it requires to you fully embrace the idea of an infinite sum an a limit.)
Besides, math is correct by definition.  Its an analytical truth.

01:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Hm, allow me to correct you here:

"And God said:

"

;-)

It's not difficult to grasp unless you don't understand math. 1=.9~, but 2=Two. You cannot use infinity in math, because it is not a number. Also, repeating decimals are real numbers, and there is no such thing as an "illogical number", which happens to be an oxymoron. Anyway, .9~=1, but it doesn't mean anything. At all.