1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What are these phenomena that RE can't explain?

« on: March 06, 2007, 09:52:23 AM »

So basically, there is nothing that FE explains that RE cant explain better? And black holes don't count for a variety if reasons. One, I have never seen a FE model of a black hole, so the RE model wins, two, why would the "conspiracy" introduce the concept of black holes if the theory is flawed? Wouldnt that put a chip in the "conspiracy" who is careful enough to rewrite entire flight paths, and lie to 6 billion people? Come on, not one tiny thing? Thought so, since the obvious theory is right 

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Do you believe in just about evry astronomical definition, law, or anythign

« on: March 03, 2007, 01:50:56 PM »

Makes me laugh FEers always trying to be clever asking everyone to explain gravity. Well wise guys don't forget that gravity exists in FE theory too. Think about that the next time you're about to smugly ask someone to explain gravity.

The only reason I ask people to explain gravity is, is because they claim that either the RE has no holes in the model, or that it can explain everything. 

Oh RE does have holes, just a LOT less than FE does.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Do you believe in just about evry astronomical definition, law, or anythign evr?

« on: March 03, 2007, 07:32:55 AM »

No, i did think you were an RE-er, my explaination was for asterisque who believes the earth has no gravity due to mass. Which is absurd. I mean at least give yourself a fighting chance by saying we feel "gravity" beause the earth is accelerating upwards coupled with its gravity due to mass. That makes the net acceleration 9.81 ms^-2.

What causes gravity?  Mass?  Then why doesn't General Relativity play nicely with Quantum Mechanics?

Quantum mechanics deals with really small particles, smaller than an atom, quarks. General relativity deals with big things, like planets and galaxies. It's hard to put these two theories together, since the small and large world are radically different. The subatomic world is random and chaotic, while the large world is calm and predictable. For example, a quark has a 2/5 chance to be HERE, a 1/9 chance to be THERE, a 1/10000 chance to be NEAR and THERE at the same time, and so on, very chaotic, literraly impossible to predict. Planets and stars are not like that, they are easily predicable. Jupiter can only be in one place, not THERE and HERE

That's all well and good, but what about black holes?  Oops!

Oops? Why oops?

Because you said this:

Quantum mechanics deals with really small particles, smaller than an atom, quarks. General relativity deals with big things, like planets and galaxies.

Remember?  And, last time I checked, a "black hole" was something very tiny (Quantum Mechanics) and also very massive (General Relativity).  Since GR and QM don't play well together, there's a hole in your theory.  Hence the "Oops".

Might as well bring up the big bang, what happened then? What about souls, sicence cant explain weathet or not we have souls, so it must be wrong! Faster than light travel! We dont know how that works, in ohter words, all science is wrong!
You know what? Science is wrong. It is not perfect. Just like Newton's theory got replaced by Einsteins, science changes. And it is still not perfect, it cnat explain black holes, or time zero, or souls, or time travel, and many, many other things. But it is still better than still believing that the earth is flat! That theory is old, and it was thrown out long ago. It's like, again, comparing Newton's gravity with Einstein's relativity. We know that Einstein has a better picture than Newton, but Einstein is still not perfect. THIS is the concep that flat-earthers can't accept, change. Science changes, it is not perfect, deal with it.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Asteroids and Comets

« on: March 03, 2007, 07:17:33 AM »

Personally, I'm all in favour of the big-bang theory and its singularity.  I'm just saying, if its acceptable in your physics, why can't I have just one more singularity at the South Pole.

Well, I admit that it is possible, but I think it would have to be extremley stabelized for it to work. It would have to be in the exact right place, bend light exactly like that, give off constant whatever, just to make the illusion of a round earth? That sounds a lot loke intelligent design, along with the shadow object, and the like, it's as if someone or something has made all this just to study us? Heh, imagine being a little alien kid's diorama  . Hope we get a good grade  !

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Asteroids and Comets

« on: March 02, 2007, 08:18:49 PM »

Does anyone have a solid FE Theory?

The non-euclidean FE model is perhaps the most flawless model. It is so flawless that is does not even invoke the need for a world-wide conspiracy. Just a misunderstanding about hyperbolic space-time.

I'll be writing more about it in a future thread.

I kind of get what you're saying, but for that to happen you would have to break every single law of physics and then grind up the pieces. The true flawless theory is the round earth theory. No need to make up mysterious shadow objects and ice walls, just the universe following the natural laws.

No, the non-euclidean model will do without breaking any laws of physics.  I've already floated it on the "Why ships' hulls disappear, photos from space and other mysteries" thread - I've started with simple examples of the curvature of light, as hyperbolic space-time is a big topic without differential geometry but that's where it's going.  Ultimately, it will require a singularity, but if we can let RE get away with one for the big bang, why can't FE have one of its own?

"if we can let RE get away with one for the big bang"?
How do we "get away" with it? You make it soud like a crime  . Big bang is one of the most widley accepted theorys of creation, and i think mentioning it isn't something to "get away" with if you mention it. Also, there is much proof for the big bang, and none for the singularity theory.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Asteroids and Comets

« on: March 02, 2007, 05:08:45 PM »

No need to make up mysterious shadow objects and ice walls, just the universe following the natural laws.

Just the need for a mysterious force that can't be seen, effects everything, and has only one polarity.

Yes, a mysterious force that without the stars would not form, so no nuclear reaction to make elements more complex than hydrogen (remind me how many elements are there now?) , planets would not form, and the universe would just be a cloud of stray atoms floating off ino nowhere... so yea the existence of gravity is hard to believe.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Asteroids and Comets

« on: March 02, 2007, 04:35:02 PM »

Does anyone have a solid FE Theory?

The non-euclidean FE model is perhaps the most flawless model. It is so flawless that is does not even invoke the need for a world-wide conspiracy. Just a misunderstanding about hyperbolic space-time.

I'll be writing more about it in a future thread.

I kind of get what youre saying, but for that to happen you would have to break every single law of physics and then grind up the pieces. The true flawless theory is the round earth theory. No need to make up mysterious shadow objects and ice walls, just the universe following the natural laws.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Do you believe in just about evry astronomical definition, law, or anythign evr?

« on: March 02, 2007, 04:31:58 PM »

No, i did think you were an RE-er, my explaination was for asterisque who believes the earth has no gravity due to mass. Which is absurd. I mean at least give yourself a fighting chance by saying we feel "gravity" beause the earth is accelerating upwards coupled with its gravity due to mass. That makes the net acceleration 9.81 ms^-2.

What causes gravity?  Mass?  Then why doesn't General Relativity play nicely with Quantum Mechanics?

Quantum mechanics deals with really small particles, smaller than an atom, quarks. General relativity deals with big things, like planets and galaxies. It's hard to put these two theories together, since the small and large world are radically different. The subatomic world is random and chaotic, while the large world is calm and predictable. For example, a quark has a 2/5 chance to be HERE, a 1/9 chance to be THERE, a 1/10000 chance to be NEAR and THERE at the same time, and so on, very chaotic, literraly impossible to predict. Planets and stars are not like that, they are easily predicable. Jupiter can only be in one place, not THERE and HERE

That's all well and good, but what about black holes?  Oops!

Oops? Why oops? Because I didnt mention black holes? Wows, not mentioning black holes cracked the entire round earth theory to pieces, o noes!

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Do you believe in just about evry astronomical definition, law, or anythign evr?

« on: March 02, 2007, 03:26:39 PM »

No, i did think you were an RE-er, my explaination was for asterisque who believes the earth has no gravity due to mass. Which is absurd. I mean at least give yourself a fighting chance by saying we feel "gravity" beause the earth is accelerating upwards coupled with its gravity due to mass. That makes the net acceleration 9.81 ms^-2.

What causes gravity?  Mass?  Then why doesn't General Relativity play nicely with Quantum Mechanics?

Quantum mechanics deals with really small particles, smaller than an atom, quarks. General relativity deals with big things, like planets and galaxies. It's hard to put these two theories together, since the small and large world are radically different. The subatomic world is random and chaotic, while the large world is calm and predictable. For example, a quark has a 2/5 chance to be HERE, a 1/9 chance to be THERE, a 1/10000 chance to be NEAR and THERE at the same time, and so on, very chaotic, literraly impossible to predict. Planets and stars are not like that, they are easily predicable. Jupiter can only be in one place, not THERE and HERE

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Do you believe in just about evry astronomical definition, law, or anythign

« on: March 02, 2007, 01:23:56 PM »

As gravity is the force between two masses in the universe...

So how does gravity influence things without mass?

Gravity can bend light, like when the powerful pull of a black hole does not let even light escape. Also, the sun bends starlight, during a solar eclipse you can see how the sun's gravity bends the starlight that goes around it. The less mass an object has, the less gravity affects it.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Asteroids and Comets

« on: March 02, 2007, 11:35:50 AM »

Just backing up RE  Who wants to bet that this thread will be buried away soon?

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Do you believe in just about evry astronomical definition, law, or anythign evr?

« on: March 02, 2007, 10:28:45 AM »

No, i did think you were an RE-er, my explaination was for asterisque who believes the earth has no gravity due to mass. Which is absurd. I mean at least give yourself a fighting chance by saying we feel "gravity" beause the earth is accelerating upwards coupled with its gravity due to mass. That makes the net acceleration 9.81 ms^-2.

Yes, sorry 'bout that, thought you were quouting me there for a second, but I realize my mistake now.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Do you believe in just about evry astronomical definition, law, or anythign evr?

« on: March 02, 2007, 10:17:50 AM »

Think that it was mentioned before, but gravity is WAY different that acceleration.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Do you believe in just about evry astronomical definition, law, or anythign

« on: March 02, 2007, 08:41:45 AM »

If the stars have a gravitational affect on the sun and the moon it will also have one on the earth.

Assuming the stars pull the earth, the moon and the sun at the same rate. There there would be no net change between the distance from the earth, the moon and the sun.

But seeing as the earth does have its own gravity, therefore would that not pull the moon and the sun towards the earth, which would mean they would eventually collide regardless of the stars???

Do you understand astronomy101 or should i draw you a nice felt tip pen colour picture, like the ones in your nursery?

You're assuming that the earth, the sun and the moon react the same to the "pulling" of the stars. You're wrong.

The "Pulling", or gravity, is the same for all matter. The sun, moon, stars, and earth are all made of matter, and they all have a gravitational pull. Proof? For earth, there is gravity since we seem to "fall" towards it. The moon's gravity is seen in the ocean tides. The sun has a gravitational field since we orbit around it, and the sun also influences the tides to a degree. For the stars, look outside on a clear night and try to find the milky way "strip" of stars. Without gravity, stars would not form into galaxies. Also, look at the Andromeda galaxy, see how the star's gravity pulled it into the spiral galaxy that is so easy to spot? Oh and also, without gravity, stars, planets, everything we see would not form like it did, and the universe would be radically different.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Asteroids and Comets

« on: March 02, 2007, 07:20:37 AM »

Well, this is how it happened. About 380000 years after the "singularity", the first atoms formed, and about a million years all the universe was was hydrogen, forming into clouds. About 200-600 million years after the big bang, galaxies have already formed. Now at a smaller scale, when stars form, they start out as nebulas, with the force of gravity compressing enough to begin nuclear reaction. The "leftover" material turns into planets and asteroids orbeting the star, in some cases stars form binary star systers, sometimes with 4 or 5 stars in one system. That is the natural way that the universe came to existence, and made everything that we see. I cant even think of how the FE universe has to work to create a flat planet that surprisingly does not collapse into itself due to gravity, and the sun, moon, stars, shadow object, conspiracy, OWW i think i have a migrane!