1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The South Pole (For The Benefit Of Tom Bishop)

« on: May 04, 2007, 08:24:16 PM »

Um... it's Skeptic, not sceptic.  Sceptic would be pronounced "septic."  Just FYI.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Atronauts

« on: March 25, 2007, 11:51:28 AM »

My cousin is an astonaut.  He went into space.  He saw the earth from space.  It was round.

Is he being bribed?  If so, where was he that whole time?

If the government is trying to keep people from knowing to truth, then why haven't they done anything to combat the Flat Earth Society?  It would seem like they would, because there are 300,000 members in this society.  Has anyone ever been approached by the government?

3

Flat Earth General / Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium

« on: March 24, 2007, 03:12:11 PM »

I don't know if this has been brought up before in this post, but have any flat-earthers been bribed by the government?

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of FE

« on: March 24, 2007, 01:28:41 PM »

A vector works because the bubble rises to the point farthest from the ground because air naturally rises in relation to the ground in a denser substance (liquid).  If one side of the vector is closer to the ground, the bubble will go the other direction in the tube.  I cannot see how the vector example would prove the absence of curvature on the earth.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: sunsets

« on: March 10, 2007, 03:10:19 PM »

I am not arguing for a flat earth.  I read the FAQ, and they claim that the "sunset" is caused by the sun shrinking as it gets further away

6

Flat Earth Q&A / sunsets

« on: March 10, 2007, 03:06:42 PM »

You said that the sun appears to be setting behind the horizon because it is merely shrinking as it gets further away.  Why is it that during a sunset, the sun is only partially exposed, and the part that is exposed is the same size as when it is in the sky

7

Flat Earth Q&A / How is earth flat?

« on: March 10, 2007, 02:56:05 PM »

Please name one, just one, fact that proves the earth is flat.  I will counter it in 24 hours.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Samuel Birley Robowtham's theories

« on: March 09, 2007, 10:00:31 PM »

I noticed that in Chapter 3 of his book, he argued for the absence of orbital or axial motion, using a model of dropping a ball on a sailing ship to demonstrate that if, in the presence of axial or orbital motion, objects that were dropped would fall behind where they were released.  This doesn't make sense to me.  As you hold the ball on the surface of earth, it is essentially moving through space at a the speed equivalent to the earth's movement.  According to Newton's law of inertia, the ball, when released, would continue moving through space at the same rate unless it encounters resistance.  On Earth, it will encounter no resistance due to the fact that the air is moving along with earth's motion, so it would stay in motion until it reaches the ground.  On the ship, however, the ball would encounter air resistance and so would fall behind the ship.  Please clarify this for me.