1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Entropy?

« on: May 21, 2007, 10:40:51 AM »

Remember that RE is extraordinary. It requires us to accept something other than that our senses tells us. I see a flat horizon. I walk on a mostly flat earth. I see the Sun move in the sky. You want us to believe in RE over FE, but you haven't brought evidence. Are you sure you're right? If so, is it because someone told you so? Did you really think and observe for yourself? Can you persuade us without appealing to authority? Can you argue your position without making personal attacks?

Just trying to help,
Gulliver

What exactly would you need to persuade you? I asked this before, http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12967.0
and the only answer to the question was "Send me to the ISS". As I've said before, its impossible to prove that the earth is either round or flat. But many observations of our world* have an, IMO, poor/impractical explanation in FE, but are explained perfectly with a RE.

*(sunsets/rises, fusion in the sun, two simultaneous high tides on separate side of the earth, changing of visible stars north/south but not east/west, g differential)

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Curvature of the FE

« on: May 20, 2007, 11:31:36 PM »

Apparent curvature from a high altitude means nothing.

If it means nothing then why did you waste your time looking for it while flying in a commercial airplane, as you claimed to have done?
If no curvature present: Proof of FE
If some curvature present: Proof of FE
If complete globe visible: Proof of conspiracy

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Entropy?

« on: May 20, 2007, 11:22:48 PM »

But perhaps we should concentrate on effects that we can observe in our lifetimes. (I'm intent on determining by irrefutable, repeatable observation which theory deserves my confidence.)

In general, I do agree with you, but the consequences of having entropy without gravity would mean that the earth (and therefore the universe?) is fairly young (much younger than the estimated age 4.5 billion years), no?

Entropy has nothing to do with the earth breaking apart. The earth is unmoving, as is the sun and moon. Newton stated that any object not in motion will stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force, and since there is no force existing to act upon these objects, they stay at rest. Entropy has more to do with things like heat transfer throughout a system. You need to check your understanding of entropy.

Try again. According to the FE model supported by this site, the earth is accelerating "up" at 9.8 m/s^2.

Your beliefs hold no more weight than any other.

Holding more water means they are heavier.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Entropy?

« on: May 17, 2007, 03:52:14 PM »

Sorry, but you're not making any sense. Please review Newton's Laws of Motion. A object accelerates in the direction in which the force is applied, not outward from the "up" force.

If gravitational attraction did not exist there wouldn't be anything holding the earth together aside from molecular bonds and particles of different charge. With the UA it would spread out, which conforms to Newton's First Law (by spreading out it is resisting being accelerated aka law of inertia)

I think a better analogy of it like throwing a sphere of pizza dough at a wall. The NET acceleration is in the direction of the force applied by the wall, but it also changes into a flatter more disk like shape.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Entropy?

« on: May 17, 2007, 12:06:50 PM »

I believe you need to state the reason you'd expect these objects to move apart. What force (relative to each other) do you envision would be pushing them apart? I can't think of any.
Gulliver

The reason is entropy. Ordered systems move towards disorder. The earth would break apart into pieces and spread out to a more random state in the universe.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Entropy?

« on: May 17, 2007, 12:08:04 AM »

The UA is only in 1 direction ('up') which would just 'spread out' (for lack of a better term) the earth even more than without it.

7

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Why Flat Earth?

« on: May 17, 2007, 12:04:40 AM »

In the absence of any other evidence, we must initially conclude that the Earth is flat. Why? Because to our eyes it appears flat, and without substantiating evidence, any other explanation violates Occam's Razor.

How can you claim to use Occam's Razor when you have to invent the UA, a new type of power for the sun (since fusion is impossible in FE), "cool light", absurd star movements to mimic what is observed on the RE, equally absurd explanations of sunrises/sets, and an international conspiracy existing for the past century in which time not a SINGLE PERSON has admitted its existence, all to make a FE 'possible'.

RE does not need to make such outrageous leaps.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Entropy?

« on: May 16, 2007, 11:54:05 PM »

Without the force of gravitational attraction, why would any large object (sun, moon, other planets, and EARTH) stay together in one piece?

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does Lunar eclipses work?

« on: May 16, 2007, 11:40:40 PM »

Absolutely incorrect. The horizon line is at eye level whether you are 5, 50, 500, or 5,000 feet in the air. The horizon line does not "go below eye-level" as you ascend.

Do you think before you post?

Parallel lines do not intersect (at a distance less than infinity). If your line of sight is PARALLEL with the plane of the earth (~2m), then your line of sight is still the same ~2m above the horizon at the vanishing point (even though it looks to be very very close).

Imagine turning your head 90 degrees left or right and observing railroad tracks in a straight line. One is your line of sight, one is ground level. They are PARALLEL to each other. They do not intersect.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Australia

« on: May 16, 2007, 11:20:51 PM »

It doesn't have to involve bribes, just a lot of people in positions of power recognizing that their positions depend on maintaining the conspiracy. I doubt many more people would need to be included than, say, the Manhattan Project, and they managed to pull that off without it ever leaking.

Are you seriously suggesting that through the Cold War the USA and USSR collaborated to keep the myth of a RE alive? Do you have any idea how disgraced one would be if the other proved the world to be flat? Or that their/our satellites, moon landings, etc. were fake?

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Just some questions for the FEers'

« on: May 15, 2007, 05:33:49 PM »

The stars in that image are orbiting an imaginary center point near Polaris, the North Star. They are not physically directly orbiting one another. While nearby neighbors may be attracted to each other, the center of mass for the entire group outweigh the local attraction and keeps the stars cemented in place.

Why don't they orbit around Polaris in the southern hemisphere, or 'outside the equator' in FE?

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Basic Flat earth theories

« on: May 14, 2007, 06:08:20 PM »

Rowbotham did not prove the earth was flat. He made observations that seemed to contradict the idea of a round earth at first glance, but these can be accounted for with the inclusion of the refractive properties of the atmosphere.

No, there will never be a 'proof' that the earth is round, because you really can’t prove or disprove the existance of pretty much anything outside of abstract areas like mathematics or predicate logic. So to say you will believe in a flat earth until a round earth is 'proven' is an absurd viewpoint.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: g differential

« on: May 11, 2007, 04:20:05 PM »

But they don't say that they don't have an answer, they just ignore the posts completely.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: g differential

« on: May 11, 2007, 10:59:34 AM »

They (FE'ers) refuse to answer this question. In the FAQ it says that this is due to the 'slight gravitational pull' of the sun and the moon. So gravity exists only when convenient for their "theory".

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Anything that will prove it?

« on: May 11, 2007, 08:52:43 AM »

There's a nice web site here  http://www.icogitate.com/~ergosum/essays/vtth/viewtothehorizon.htm
Some information on the atmospheric conditions on Monterey Bay and pics of Lighthouse State Beach. 

Obviously they are being paid to post this.

 

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Perspective of Sun

« on: May 11, 2007, 08:43:17 AM »

Maybe they are too busy plotting to overthrow NASA. Give them a break. You and your 'science' and 'math' thinking you can prove things. Nonsense.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Anything that will prove it?

« on: May 10, 2007, 09:51:41 PM »

Why should I need convincing when I already know that the Earth is Flat?

Because you're only human, and humans are fallible.  Come on Tom, are you telling me you've never been wrong before?

Just look at my sig

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Anything that will prove it?

« on: May 10, 2007, 08:21:35 PM »

I asked this. TheEngineer said he wanted a trip to the ISS 

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Cold Light...Hot Light.....

« on: May 10, 2007, 07:52:09 PM »

The two may be related, but they are different properties none the less.

Never said they were the same. In fact I explicitly said they were not the same: "c=w*f"

In my original post I clearly said that Cold Light was radiation stripped of the Infrared component. I said nothing about wavelength. You brought it up as a "disproof" when clearly wavelength and frequency are not the same. Related, but not the same.

The type of light can be determined with either frequency or wavelength. The moon reflects the same frequencies AND wavelengths that the sun emits, infrared (along with radio waves, microwaves, visible light, ultraviolet,...) is reflected.

The reason we don't feel the heat is that the INTENSITY IS LOWER

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Cold Light...Hot Light.....

« on: May 10, 2007, 07:32:41 PM »

A certain frequency of light can have only a single (and unique) wavelength, which can be determined:

c(meters/sec)=Wavelength(meters)*Frequency(1/sec)

so

W=C/F

You might want to stop before you embarrass yourself even more

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Cold Light...Hot Light.....

« on: May 10, 2007, 07:24:35 PM »

 


Joking right? Speed of light = Wavelength*Frequency

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Cold Light...Hot Light.....

« on: May 10, 2007, 07:20:34 PM »

Light from the Sun and Moon. The surface temperature of the Sun is 5778 K. Using Wien's law, this temperature corresponds to a peak emission at a wavelength of 2.89777 million nm K/ 5778 K = 502 nm = about 5000 Å. This wavelength is (not by accident) fairly in the middle of the most sensitive part of land animal visual spectrum acuity. Even nocturnal and twilight-hunting animals must sense light from the waning day and from the moon, which is reflected sunlight with this same wavelength distribution. Also, the average wavelength of starlight maximal power is in this region, due to the sun being in the middle of a common temperature range of stars.

Same wavelength distribution. Less intensity.

Want to try again?

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Cold Light...Hot Light.....

« on: May 10, 2007, 06:35:29 PM »

Bump. Anyone FE'er have an explanation for 'cold light' that is more viable than a fairy tale?

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Give me one decent reason for believing the Earth is whirling globe

« on: May 10, 2007, 10:39:17 AM »

Until the mechanism which causes mass to bend space-time is described by modern science, gravity/gravitation is an unknown force.

Einstein.

And nobody answered my question about the pen falling. If the UA was real then acceleration would be constant and not vary by altitude. But it does.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Powerlines in orbit

« on: May 09, 2007, 09:11:08 PM »

Right. On a live video.

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Give me one decent reason for believing the Earth is whirling globe

« on: May 09, 2007, 08:03:24 PM »

Four known forces of the universe: strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force, and gravity.

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Give me one decent reason for believing the Earth is whirling globe

« on: May 09, 2007, 07:51:23 PM »

Why does a pen fall slower the farther it is away from the center of the earth? Why does hydrogen in stars fuse? Why do comets follow exact paths predicted by gravitational equations?

Lose the ego, answer the questions.

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Give me one decent reason for believing the Earth is whirling globe

« on: May 09, 2007, 07:39:15 PM »

lol, way to answer one line out of a giant wall of text of related arguements

lol, way to add nothing to the conversation.

And what did your answer to my post add? Nothing? Ohh....

Still waiting for a serious answer.

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Give me one decent reason for believing the Earth is whirling globe

« on: May 09, 2007, 05:57:26 PM »

What about those meaningless lights in the night sky implies a Round Earth?

Thing is, they are more than just 'lights'. By monitoring the EMF given off by the stars (unless you are looking at another planet) each can be independently identified. What proves that the earth is indeed round is that when traveling east/west, constellations do not change (the exact same stars in exactly the same position, minus the effect of seasons). When traveling north/south constellations (and individual stars) disappear completely and are replaced by separate ones. This is only reasonable with a round earth.

When I release a pen from my hand I see acceleration - the earth catches up to the pen.

Why does a pen released from you hand at the top of a mountain fall slower than one dropped at the north pole? Because gravity is a non contact force that is inversely proportional to distance. It is simmilar to magnetism (I'm sure you don't have any problem believing this non contact force exists) except: (a)Attraction is due to mass instead of +/- charges (b)Gravity is much weaker.

Unless you can show me what mysterious property of innert matter bends space-time, I am more inclined to believe that the "gravity" we experience is nothing more than a purely mechanical side-effect of acceleration.

Mass bends space time. Perhaps if you put down 'Earth Not a Globe' for longer than 20 seconds and read Einstein, you wouldn't be so intimidated by science. By no means do we completely understand gravity, but it does beautifully explain visible orbits of moons, comets, planets, and why a pen falls slower the farther away it is from the center of the earth.

Further more, if there wasn't an attractive force caused by mass (gravity) the biggest pieces of matter would be atomic molecules and charged particles clumped together. The earth would break apart and spread everywhere (entropy). The hydrogen in the sun would not fuse.

But if you, narc, TheEngineer and crew want to ignore my post so you can continue with your childish beliefs, by all means do so.

ps Give me one good reason to believe the invisible pink unicorn isn't pink.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Powerlines in orbit

« on: May 09, 2007, 05:13:44 PM »

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

The Shuttle is not distorted. The roads on the ground are not distorted. So then how can you explain the curvature of just the earth and nothing else in the video?