Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
3. The atmolayer being contained by a "Greater Icewall" was never widely agreed upon by anybody in the first place. An encompassing UA has always been the more popular theory.
Buoyancy if caused by gravity(or UA if you prefer), so you are essentially saying that gravity is caused by gravity, which is probably caused by gravity(or magic). Or are you saying some other force is pushing us toward the surface of Dirac's Sea? Which you are also claiming is infinite?QuoteIf the earth is an infinite plane, how does the universal accelerator work?
The mechanism for th Universal Accelerator is a form of negative energy which permeates the universe, rising up all bodies through a form of buoyancy. Ergo, no external energy source needed, a kinetic property of the universe.QuoteMaybe not our solar system, but there must be life-supporting planets elsewhere in the universe.
Not if the average "planet" is 5 miles in diameter.
Why can somebody get in a plane, travel East for several hours in a straight line, and end up where they started? Why don't they end up at the "edge" of the world?On a spherical earth you need to turn toward the nearer pole in order to maintain an easterly or westerly direction, your point is invalid in the Northern Hemisphere. However in the southern hemisphere you actually need to turn south, yet on the FE model you would need to turn north.
Measure the color that reflects (or is emitted) by any object from two angles.
Angle 1, directly above the object, the higher the better.
Angle 2, from the objects side.
If the color sampled from angle 1 is bluer(the wavelength is longer) than the color sampled from angle 2, the earth is accelerating upwards.
On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 10 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away. Since the supposed curvature of the Round Earth inclines at 8 inches per mile, this should not be possible. There should be a bulge of water twenty two feet tall blocking my view.
The problem is that your theory explains phenomena, but they aren't phenomena if you just realize the earth is round. Also, if the most obvious answer(the earth is round) is plausible there is no reason to try to prove light bends.If you're just going to ignore everyone, this forum will get boring. My theory fits observations. I explained many optical phenomena such as the apparent horizon, the setting sun, eclipses,...Which direction does Light curve in in the curved light theory? Whichever way suits a Flat Earth at the time yes?
Pretty much. When he goes into his theory, do us all a favor and ignore him. In his original thread, I posted why it was ridiculous to create a theory to fit a theory as opposed to observations, and I posted it above again. I also described an experiment he could carry out to test his hypothesis. Of course, he ignored it. Go figure.
I'm afraid I missed the experiment - I thought I got them all. Please remind me, if you're not busy ignoring me, and I'll try again.
Why? wouldn't light from the sun curve up and away from the earth then?The light bending theory is a theory that light bends sometimes, but only when it supports a flat earth. This allows an explanation for the mast of a ship sinking into the horizon. Of course, any idiot with a laser pointer could prove this false, but you're not supposed to think about that.I explain it on the thread "Why ships' hulls disappear, photos from space and other mysteries".
Perhaps an idiot with a laser pointer would think he had disproved it, but when I tried with my laser pointer, I found no problem. The curve is only the same as the apparent Earth's curve, so hard to see over a distance of less than several miles. And how do you prove it? It looks straight? Of course, because the light with which you see it is curved. I'm using an independent standard, the Earth's surface, and light certainly curves away from its surface.
You are to dumb to understand the theory then, please leave and take your evil government with youI will leave when you learn when to use too.
FEers always talk about these things that are unexplained by RE, but I can't think of any. What are they?Why is the earth so flat?
I'm pretty sure you would still be pulled toward the earth's center of gravity, and there is also the problem that it isn't made of exponentially more dense material.Not if it was dense enough at the edge.In fact, that's such a good point, we should check: could someone on this site who has been close to the edge tell us if they felt as if they leaning slightly out? Or is the ground always too rough to tell? If the ground were slightly rounded at the edge, it would be difficult to check.You wouldn't have to be that close to tell, you could definitely tell in southern Chile, and there is no nonmagnetic force toward the north pole anywhere.
In fact, that's such a good point, we should check: could someone on this site who has been close to the edge tell us if they felt as if they leaning slightly out? Or is the ground always too rough to tell? If the ground were slightly rounded at the edge, it would be difficult to check.You wouldn't have to be that close to tell, you could definitely tell in southern Chile, and there is no nonmagnetic force toward the north pole anywhere.
If you were standing at the edge of the earth everything would be hubward of you, and thus you would be pulled toward the center.I don't quite follow. From the hub of the Earth, you would feel vertical pull because everything would be symmetric.If it were thicker toward the outside, it would just create two forces, one toward the center of the earth and one down, and thus the vectors together would put the force toward the earths center of gravity, a flat earth which is thicker on the outside would be marginally more plausible, but gravity would still act toward the center of the earth.The gravitational field would still come from the centre even on a disk. If I'm at the edge facing the centre of the disk then there is more mass diagonally infront/downard of me than beneath me.Only for uniform density - if the Earth was slightly denser, or thicker, towards the Rim, that would compensate.
From closer to the rim, facing Hubwards, you would feel vertical pull because the backwards pull of the closer part of the wall would offset the pull from the greater area in front of you. It would take careful arrangement of the mass, but that just happens automatically because of the rotation of the Earth around the hub: centrifugal force effect.
If it were thicker toward the outside, it would just create two forces, one toward the center of the earth and one down, and thus the vectors together would put the force toward the earths center of gravity, a flat earth which is more dense on the outside would be marginally more plausible, but gravity would still act toward the center of the earth.The gravitational field would still come from the centre even on a disk. If I'm at the edge facing the centre of the disk then there is more mass diagonally infront/downard of me than beneath me.Only for uniform density - if the Earth was slightly denser, or thicker, towards the Rim, that would compensate.
Notice the contents of my previous posts, Geoff:Wow, you actually didn't catch any sarcasm in my post did you?
"The only evidence we have that the Bible is divine in origin is the Bible's statement that it is. This is proof by circulars reasoning, and thus, invalid."
By the same logic, one could argue the divine authorship of any book by simply including a preface and signing it 'God.'
What I am looking for is evidence outside of the bible which gives testamony to it's divine inspiration. This is not unusual, or close-minded, it's just good science.
No, you wouldn't have to turn anymore than someone has to turn while walking in a straight line. The ratio of gravity to lift maintains constant altitude.Use the equator for the example then. On the FE model you would have to turn in order to remain on the equator. In the RE model, however, you would not. This holds true for any two points on the globe that a circle can be drawn through so long as the circle intersects the surface of the earth. This is not true for two points along a circle close to and surrounding the north pole.Oh? So you're saying that you don't have to turn at all in order to circumnavigate the Earth on the round Earth model? You mean to say that if you were to fly along the equator for some forty-thousand kilometers that you wouldn't be traveling around in a circle? Please explain to me, then, how would one reach the point where he originally began if not via a circle. I'm curious to know.
~D-Draw
[What evidence is there to suggest that the biblical authors were truly inspired by God?The bible says it is the word of God, and what would be a better way of determining what the word of God is than the word of God, and therefore, since the word of God said that the Bible is the word of God, the bible must be the word of God
Yeah, and pilots take naps and drink coffee during that time without bothering to look at their course or gauges.QuoteA few hours maybe? Commercial airplanes travel roughly 550mph. Eventually, pilots would start to notice the difference. Unless, of course, they're all in on the conspiratorial paycheck.
Commercial airliners also run on autopilot for most of the trip.
Even on a RE, if you were 10 feet Rimward (oops, South) of the N pole, you'd have to go in obvious circles to go due east.No you wouldn't, you would drop some with the drop of the earth, but you would be going straight. Have you ever looked at a globe?
Jesus died to save you what have you done for him?I can't imagine Jesus dislikes people who think the earth is round more than people who damn other people.
The Bible was written my many men inspired by the one true God and when they say it was the world whether it be flat or round it is the WORLD take it what you will basically this forums debate sides are pretty much those who believe in the word of god and the other(which will be cast into the fiery lake of hell to die infinite deaths for the lengths of eternity amongst unrepenting demons, murderers, and sinners alike.)Wonder what it is about people who tell me I'm going to hell that makes me dislike them.
History of the flat earth: it was proven wrong hundreds of years ago, yet people can't accept that because they are too "free-thinking" to take an see past "the earth looks pretty flat to me."No offense to Tom, but please ignore what he said. It isn't at all compatible with FE consensus. In FE, there was no Big Bang, or at least it was very different from the one in the traditional model.
Are you sure you're an FE? Your posting history reveals you as an RE.
If you knew anything you'd realize that there are multiple FE models. The Earth as a Coin model, the Robotham model, and the Non-Euclidean model are a few. I highly suggest that you do a little research on the the history and literature of the Flat Earth.
They're always moving round, so how come all the continents are safely in the middle of the map? Wouldn't one of them have slid over the side by now?
Maybe one has. How would you know?
