1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the value of the speed of light?

« on: April 01, 2007, 06:59:24 PM »

As I remember from physics class, the first rough calculations on the speed of light were done with a spinning mirror.

They focused light down to as precise a beam as possible, and shined it on a spinning wheel covered in mirrors. The wheel made the light beam leave the room and aimed it at a tower a few miles away, the tower had a mirror that aimed the light beam back to the source. They then varied the speed of the mirror until they had pulses that went out to the tower, and managed to catch the rotating mirror on the way back in. This gave them a rough but close enough answer at the time for the speed of light.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Not possible on a flat earth

« on: February 19, 2007, 03:27:44 PM »

I do believe you answered yourself in your original post. When the sun is hovering over the top of New York City, it is only conclusive that it is NOT hovering over the top of Chicago.
~D-Draw

I believe that's the whole point. A small sun that's rather close to the earth would have a very extreme change in the length of shadows...

3

Flat Earth Q&A / One major problem...

« on: February 18, 2007, 02:41:25 PM »

Since when is flying in a circle around the north pole, around the earth from Dallas, or Rio De Janeiro, or from Tazmania the same distance?

Back to the original problem already, sheesh. Anyway...

Because, and for the fricken fifth time already... NOT IN A CIRCLE, IN A STRAIGHT LINE. On a round earth this would be around the entire planet by going straight ahead. On a flat earth, you would either have to travel in a circle to get back to where you came from, or fly straight into the ice wall.

Get it yet? Or is this simple question too much for a FE to understand?

4

Flat Earth Q&A / the reversal of the poles on a flat earth

« on: February 18, 2007, 05:16:25 AM »

Yeah, I see no verifiable evidence for pole reversal. It's just them telling us it happened, where's the science?

Want evidence? Sure, easiest thing we ever did.

Go find a nice steady, open piece of land away from metal objects.

Get yourself the strongest, oh, 6 inch or so bar magnet you can.
Find a 4 foot wooden dowel, screws, mounting hardware and etc...
Find or make a 4.5 to 5 foot wide round circular (bowl? dish? water holding device?) that's at least 6 inches deep, and make a cover for the top out of plexiglass to keep the wind out.
And last but not least, a sharpie marker or other marking device that can last years.
Cut, file, or whatever you wanna do to one end of the dowel to make it come down to a nice point that you'll be able to mark on another surface.
mount the magnet to the middle of the wooden dowel, carefully, as to find a place where the dowel will float evenly in water. Try to have magnetic north face the point you made on the dowel.

Add water to 5 foot (bowl? dish) or whatever it was you made to hold all this.

Place dowel in, make sure it floats level in the water. Securely attach the cover, then let the whole thing sit for a few hours so that the magnet can turn the wood like a compass.

After your sure the dowel is pointing at magnetic north. (Check with another compass if you like), take your marking device and mark on the plexiglass cover the spot/direction your homemade compass is pointing. If necessary, also mark the cover's attachments so that you can place the cover on the exact same way later.

Drain water, protect the whole mess from the elements and leave it alone for 5-8 years.

In 5 to 8 years, fill it back up and let it point at magnetic north again. Since scientists are saying that right now the poles are drifting at a rather fast rate, the compass should point in a (however slight) different direction.

There, you've got proof in as little as 5 years. :p

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Plane Flights

« on: February 18, 2007, 04:55:55 AM »

Sorry, they can't actually answer this one. Doesn't fit in with their conspiracy.
There was a thread a couple days back where someone pointed out that flights from Australia to Africa would be horribly long...

Tom himself posted something along the lines of "Oh, but how many direct flights do you see from Australia to Africa..."

When I pointed out there's at least 10 a day by multiple airlines and also almost 20 more from South America to Africa, all direct flights mind you, the thread just died.

I also participated in a thread where we discussed picking a random point on the globe, and flying in a straight line in any direction from that point. Our point was the flight times would be approximately the same no matter which direction you flew.

Well, instead of getting a response to that one we've gotten 3 days of some (retarted? dense?)  forum mod that can't read the whole post and only posts things like "Oh, well how you know you're going straight." And "Oh, if you went straight east or west it works in FE..." rather than actually answering the question.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Satellites

« on: February 17, 2007, 06:29:36 PM »

Look up "Stratellite."

Ok, I did. Very first page that comes up specifically states they operate at 12-13 miles up.

Using math to point out the height of a satellite in geosync would put it at in the area of 19000 to 21000 miles up.

This would be the exact perfect example of why I was asking for just a little thinking and not sad old rehashed "oh it's just"...

Or are we suddenly saying that the flat earth model has a substantial amount of atmosphere extending 22000+ miles from the surface of the earth?

And thank you Quarrior for adding something intelligent. It was much appreciated. We can see something up there at a great altitude.

It's the what I'm asking. And I guess that, yes, I am dismissing a balloon. If a balloon could fly that high, we could fly that high. And you can't get every single person who's ever known how to fly a plane to shut their mouths.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Satellites

« on: February 17, 2007, 06:18:07 PM »

I want something new. Plain and simple. Not something that's been blah blah'd all over this place and is used as a drop in place answer. Some actual thinking needs to occur?

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Magnetic Pole Drift!

« on: February 17, 2007, 06:16:03 PM »

the terms "north" and "south" for magnetism are arbitrary names for analogous but opposite poles of a magnetic field.  if the north pole were to change to a south pole, compasses would still line up the same way, just with the magnet flipped 180 degrees.

I'm not sure if I understand your entire point, but the particles only need to align themselves in one direction (towards the north pole), not two.  If the north pole changes to a south pole, the particles will still align themselves with the same point on the earth, just flipped around.

The point being that to have to poles, you have to have 2 points. Not one point in the middle and one point completely surrounding.  

Secondly. If it were possible to have a north magnetic pole completely surrounded on all sides by a south magnetic ring, how could the pole drift? It would be pulled on equally form all directions?

9

Flat Earth Q&A / One major problem...

« on: February 17, 2007, 06:09:23 PM »

It takes different times, in either model.

Different times for the same length of trip? That's news to the world. We did say accounting for head and tail winds and that a round earth is slightly off round...

How would you know you were going straight?  By the way, if you travel in a straight line in either model, you will end up in space.

Obviously we meant straight as in ahead, keeping close to the surface of the earth.  And as for telling which line is straight. GPS would be fine. If the earth is round, you'll be lead in a straight line back to where you were and can compare times later. If it's flat, the GPS is going to lie to you (oooh, conspiracy ) to get you to go back to where you started and this will affect the travel time severly.

Are you dense or something? Seems like you can't understand simple statements or concepts. Most of the comments I've seen from you add almost nothing to the discussion. Stop nitpicking and start adding something useful.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / One major problem...

« on: February 16, 2007, 07:22:03 PM »

Actually, I do think of it as a game. A very fun mental game. And as I've stated before. Just trying to weed out some smart ones to play with

Having some problems finding ones that aren't either spitting out repeated dribble, or not reading/comprehending the whole question of a post.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / East or west.

« on: February 16, 2007, 07:15:45 PM »

By your beliefs, shouldn't it take many many many miles to circle the southern ice wall and return to your starting position?

Yep.

Also, shouldn't it take an equally huge number of miles to sail or fly from the souther tip of... lets say Australia to the southern tip of South Africa?

Yep. But how many direct flights between South Africa and Australia do you think there are?

More than 10 a day, in fact, it's a scheduled route for several Australian airlines. Flight time of 11hours to 12 hours.  11:20 to Johannesburg. All non stop flights.

You can add even more flights if you include direct from south america to africa. India has direct flights as well.  So basically, if you check the airline schedules for southern flights from multiple points, it seems 20-30 planes make what would be an horrendously long flight on a FE on a daily basis.
Any other bright comments?

12

Flat Earth Q&A / One major problem...

« on: February 16, 2007, 07:09:50 PM »

Um, that's possible on the FE too.  No matter how many times you fly west from California and travel around the earth, it will take you roughly the same amount of time, each time.

Maybe your just not paying attention here, or maybe I just wasn't clear on this, but I thought I was.

Part 1
What happens when you leave from Texas?
Now try it from South America?
Austrailia?
North Pole?

Part 2
And we said "straight line"  Not straight east, or straight west. Straight ahead as in whatever direction you are pointing in you do not turn or deviate from.  If the gps/compasses are deceiving you then some of these trips are going to take a lot longer than others.

Using this method. On a round earth, all trips in a straight line back to the same point should be approximately the same length if you take into account headwinds, tailwinds, and the slight off round shape of the earth.

On a flat earth, some trips will be miraculously short, and others will be horribly long. Or you'll fly straight off the edge of the world.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Magnetic Pole Drift!

« on: February 16, 2007, 07:03:56 PM »

Here's a fun one.
When lava or molten metals cool, the particles in the metals align themselves to the earths magnetic north pole.

It's been found that the magnetic north pole has not always been in it's current location. (In fact it's currently moving quite quickly...)

In fact, it's been noted that in periods of ancient history, the south pole has/was the north. Or at least, it was the strongest source of a magnetic north on the planet.

If the earth is not round, and doesnt converge back into a point on the bottom, how could all the rock particles line up to point at is as if there were a bottom to the earth?

  Really hoping to weed out the smart people with some of these questions.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Satellites

« on: February 16, 2007, 06:55:22 PM »

Really?  Then why is it being done?

Alright then, prove it.

Oh, whoops. You can't. Because anything you show about vehicle designs or theories would be the same as me posting pictures of satellites.

So, once again. As we can logically conclude there isn't near enough air for an "airborne" device (and heck, if we had a huge balloon and an altimeter, prove). Lets have other theories instead of the same one over and over... That's what discussions are for afterall. A collection of many theories. Not just one. Surely you have more idea's that just... it's floating up there held up by air?

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Satellites

« on: February 16, 2007, 06:38:38 PM »

Airborne broadcasting systems.

Nice fast reply but still a problem. You can take the angle that the satellite companies point the dishes at from various locations, and get the height of the broadcasting device.

Since we can climb a mountain or hop on a plane and see how quickly the atmosphere thins out as you go higher, your not convincing me, or anyone else for that matter, that there is anywhere near enough air for an "Airborne" system.

Nice try, strike 1.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / One major problem...

« on: February 16, 2007, 06:32:13 PM »

But you can fly from any point in a straight line round a sphere and it will take the same ammount of time to reach where you left off, assuming you travel at the same speed each time. If you were traveling in circles varying in size depending on how far away from the center you are than it would take a hell of a lot longer to fly round the earth at some points than it would at others.

This would be the key to this question. You can't dismiss that with a whiney "oh your just believing your compass/gps"

Why is it that you can fly in a straight line. From any point on the planet, and end up back at that point, with reasonably the same travel time (accounting for headwinds and tailwinds of course.)

17

Flat Earth Q&A / This is a good one!

« on: February 16, 2007, 06:28:34 PM »

I've seen these too. You can even make one and demonstrate it for yourself.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Actually...

« on: February 16, 2007, 06:26:18 PM »

The idea was that all the objects were accelerating. Not just the earth.  So basically everything else is staying in place by moving with us.

Which opens up the whole other can of worms of...
Everything is apparently accelerating without any form of propulsion or an expenditure of energy.

Oops?

19

Flat Earth Q&A / No?

« on: February 16, 2007, 06:19:27 PM »

No?

Because in order to be traveling either east or west you have to have a point of reference which would be the north pole. As such you would end up traveling in a circle.

Now, if you set out in a perfectly straight line, say in an airplane perhaps? Then you should be able to find ice eventually.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Satellites

« on: February 16, 2007, 06:17:43 PM »

Having fun reading the forums, notice the same discussion coming up a lot.

Satellites.

Seems to get the same answer most of the time. That being...
Oh, there's just a radio tower instead.

Two thoughts on this that seem worth of discussion?

1. Wow, that's a really, and I mean, REALLY, tall radio tower to pretend to be a satellite.

2. Many of the satellites we use are located above the countries that are using them.  Example of satellite tv and radio for USA seems to be located at 115 and 85 degrees or in this area to cover east and west coast.  Since most people would notice a huge radio tower in the middle of southern indiana, or even in north east nevada. There obviously isnt a tower for these satellites, it would have to be another method.

Please do not post about the signal "bouncing" off of the air or some invisible force blah blah. It's not an am or low frequency radio signal, it's not following atmosphere around the word There must be a man made solution to this?  :?:

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Just clarify it already...

« on: February 16, 2007, 05:27:48 PM »

You know if one of you FE people just explained relativity in ENGLISH rather than just blurting the word out every time someone mentions it, this issue would have been dead long ago!

So here we go, my best effort...

FE theory says the earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s^2. This acceleration rate is being observed by a person who is standing upon the earth, and is experiencing the acceleration.

Here's the big scary word... Relativity. This is why you will not hit the speed of light. Why?

Time. Time is relative.
Huh? What's that mean? I'll tell you with an example.

Lets say your standing on the earth, and it's now reached exactly 90% of the speed of light.  You shine a laser straight up. Since were already moving at 90% of the speed of light and light does not move faster just because the object it's on is moving... the laser shoots up, at only 10% of the speed of light. Oops, I think we'd notice this severe problem with the speed of light getting really, really slow...

It doesnt get really, really slow, because time, is relative. Relative to velocity I mean.  This means the faster you go relative to a stationary object, the slower time passes. So at 90% of the speed of light, time slows down enough to the observers who are traveling that speed, that light moves at it's normal speed.

Since the faster you are traveling, the slower time is passing, the slower time is passing, means the slower you are accelerating.

Second example just to clarify.

Your standing on a train. It's moving at 99.999999% the speed of light. You start running toward the engine as fast as you can. Did you exceed the speed of light? No, of course not. Because time is passing so slowly to you, that your run just got you up to 99.9999991% the speed of light.

Since FE theory has the earth continuously accelerating. Time, under this theory, is continuously slowing. If time is slowing, then the observer continues to see a rate of 9.8m/s^s, even though someone who is off the earth would watch the earth slowing in it's acceleration so that no matter how long it accelerates it's only moving that .000000000000000000000001% closer to the speed of light, and never over.


This concludes my mad and rambling effort to explain what someone should have just explained ages ago.

Now shutup about the speed of light. And stop dropping the word, "relativity" whenever someone asks this question...
 :evil: