1

Flat Earth Q&A / Explain this phenomenon

« on: January 29, 2007, 01:02:14 PM »

bump for curiosity

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Dr. Evil :)

« on: January 29, 2007, 12:42:43 PM »

The north pole is the ice in the center.

ahhh yeah I see now. how could I have been so foolish?

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Dr. Evil :)

« on: January 29, 2007, 12:38:40 PM »

that's the map that I am talking about. it looks to me that the ice wall is continuos and there should be no reason why animals could not easily migrate from the "north pole" to the "south pole"

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Dr. Evil :)

« on: January 29, 2007, 12:32:19 PM »

so I was looking at another thread about the differant species that live in the north and south poles. the OP asked why this happens and they don't just move along the ice wall such that both places would have the same species. your response was

"The North and South poles are not connected by the ice wall (aka Antarctica)."

how is this possible in FE theory? everything I have read thus far suggests that there is a continuos ice wall around the edge of the earth. This has been shown in several FE maps and used as an explanation for why the water doesn't just fall off the edge of the earth. I was hoping you might shed a little more light on this subject.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Question about the giant ice wall

« on: January 26, 2007, 06:20:47 PM »

I'm still not getting the east/west thing.  How do you not run into the land?

if you follow theeast west lines that are drawn on the map you will end up walking in a circle back to where you started

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Question about the giant ice wall

« on: January 26, 2007, 06:12:45 PM »

Where did the ice ring come from?  How come no one has proven it.  Got a photo or something?  You'd think it ought to be pretty easy.

the government prevents people from getting close to it.

you'll learn

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about the giant ice wall

« on: January 26, 2007, 06:09:49 PM »

When a ship sails due west and winds up at its origin point, or vice versa...how does that work?  How do ships avoid the giant ice wall?

you're not going around a sphere john you're going around a disk
come on man get with it.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / I know people who have been in space

« on: January 26, 2007, 06:05:24 PM »

Ask him how much the Conspiracy pays him to perpetuate its lies.

lol I'll be sure to do that and get right back to you.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / I know people who have been in space

« on: January 26, 2007, 05:56:25 PM »

have you guys ever heard of Tony England probably not. He used to be a NASA astronaut and personally knew the man who took the famous "Blue Marble" picture of the earth from space. this one

http://www.vtce.org/bluemarble.jpg

I know him personally he is the dean of accademic affairs at the university of michigan where I recently graduated. I have spoken with him personally about this photograph and his discussuions with the man who took it. at the time he was working in mission control for the apollo 17 flight where this picture was taken.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Question about gravity

« on: January 26, 2007, 04:56:28 PM »

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing. so since you came into this discussion a little late I will restate my first question. how do you account for changes in gravitational forces at differant elevations?

No, I was talking about the same thing. I was picking up from Tom Bishop's argument. If celestial bodies had gravitational fields, they could account for the difference, because you're being ever-so-slightly less-accelerated when you're closer to one of the other planets in our solar system.

And if you refuse to believe that I'll mention that the change in acceleration from a high place to a low place is so miniscule that you could basically write it off as a fluke.

~D-Draw

oh I see it's possible that at a higher elevation we feel the effects of other celestial bodies because they are not that far away. you didn't say that but I assume that is what you mean.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Question about gravity

« on: January 26, 2007, 04:45:11 PM »

ok so there are two forces which hold us to the ground. gravity which is a lesser force and simple F=ma force from an accelerating earth. yet gravity has been shown to be directly proportional the the square of the diamter of the distance from you to the center of a supposed round earth. when I say directly proportional I mean that interpolation of the experimental data shows that at the center of the earth gravity = 0. this could not be possible in a flat earth theory. at any elevation you would allways have the constant force from the accelerating earth.

No. It's just that not everything necessarily has a gravitational field. For example, the Earth does not. However that doesn't mean that other celestial bodies don't.

~D-Draw

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing. so since you came into this discussion a little late I will restate my first question. how do you account for changes in gravitational forces at differant elevations?

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Question about gravity

« on: January 26, 2007, 04:32:22 PM »

Gravity still exists in the FE model. It is just not the primary force which holds your feet to the ground.

ok so there are two forces which hold us to the ground. gravity which is a lesser force and simple F=ma force from an accelerating earth. yet gravity has been shown to be directly proportional the the square of the diamter of the distance from you to the center of a supposed round earth. when I say directly proportional I mean that interpolation of the experimental data shows that at the center of the earth gravity = 0. this could not be possible in a flat earth theory. at any elevation you would allways have the constant force from the accelerating earth.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / the best part about denouncing accepted scientific theory

« on: January 26, 2007, 04:10:43 PM »

No it isn't.

the answer to most question I have seen "it's a consperacy" with that answer he is right you can make any claim and it can not be disproven.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Question about gravity

« on: January 26, 2007, 04:00:29 PM »

I was joking...

you never can tell around here

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Question about gravity

« on: January 26, 2007, 03:55:08 PM »

Gravity still exists in the FE model. It is just not the primary force which holds your feet to the ground.

ok but it has been shown that the univesal law of gravitation, which presupses a round earth, exactly predicts the changes in the gravitational force that are observed.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Question about gravity

« on: January 26, 2007, 03:53:32 PM »

The government fibbed those results.  They aren't true.

the government didn't fib my results. I have performed this experiment myself.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Question about gravity

« on: January 26, 2007, 03:48:19 PM »

I was reading your faq and you mentioned that gravity is not real but that the earth is accelerating upward at 1g 9.8m/s^2 or 36.2 ft/s^2 if you prefer. yet it has been proven that at differant elevations gravity changes. ie as you go to the top of mount everest gravitational force decreases. This seems to fit the universal law of gravity

F(gravity)= (M1*M2)/d^2

 better than an "earth is accelerating" theory. as you can see from the equation as the distance from the center of a so called round earth increased the gravtitional force would decrease as has been observed. does anybody have any explenation for this.