1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why I truly believe that the world is flat...

« on: November 01, 2007, 06:10:03 AM »

You have a lot of problems in spelling.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are the "UA" of different places different, when theyre supposed to be s

« on: October 31, 2007, 05:32:11 AM »

Yeah, thats how Earth accelerates the air, but it doesnt gives resistance to the parachute I am talking about.

So, why is the parachute free from air resistance?

The parachute is not free from air resistance.

The parachute experiences air resistance because it it moving downwards against the air and not because the air is moving up against it.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are the "UA" of different places different, when theyre supposed to be s

« on: October 30, 2007, 05:35:18 AM »

So you believe something on the flat Earth is containing the atmosphere? Where did you get this from?

If I am an FE: Huh? The atmosphere is not contained? Why isnt it overflowing or something?!!!

If I am a RE: Nah...the air is kept in the atmosphere by gravity.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are the "UA" of different places different, when theyre supposed to be s

« on: October 30, 2007, 05:33:06 AM »

You are on a train. Then, the train accelerates, most of the time, more than 9.8m/s/s. Do you feel the air in the train RUSHING towards you and giving you air resistance? Duh, of course not.

Thanks for proving my point.  This is an excellent example of how the earth would accelerate the air.

Yeah, thats how Earth accelerates the air, but it doesnt gives resistance to the parachute I am talking about.

: P

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are the "UA" of different places different, when theyre supposed to be s

« on: October 29, 2007, 05:10:34 AM »

You are on a train. Then, the train accelerates, most of the time, more than 9.8m/s/s. Do you feel the air in the train RUSHING towards you and giving you air resistance? Duh, of course not.

Now, imagine that the train is Earth and that the acceleration of the train is UA. Does that make more sense now?

So, we are now housed inside the Earth? Is there a glass dome above us blocking the air from reaching us?

I was referring to the air in the train, which refers to the air that is present in the atmosphere. To be more exact, the train is not Earth, the back of the train that is "pushing the air" is the surface of the Earth.

"You fucking moron."

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are the "UA" of different places different, when theyre supposed to be s

« on: October 29, 2007, 04:06:01 AM »

You try placing a small balloon into a significantly bigger one, then, accelerate the bigger balloon upwards. What happens? The small balloon will hit the bottom of the bigger balloon.

The Earth is accelerating the air? haha.

I don't say this often, but you're a fucking moron.

The easiest example to make you understand is this:

Air is a fluid. Water, is also a fluid (granted much more dense). Now fill up a bath tub, place your hand in the water palm-up, and parallel to the bottom. Now, swiftly move your hand up towards the surface and notice what happens. This is equivalent to what the Earth does to the air.

So like he said, air resistance.

Nope. With air, its a little bit more different as the fluidity is more of that of water.

Imagine:

You are on a train. Then, the train accelerates, most of the time, more than 9.8m/s/s. Do you feel the air in the train RUSHING towards you and giving you air resistance? Duh, of course not.

Now, imagine that the train is Earth and that the acceleration of the train is UA. Does that make more sense now?

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are the "UA" of different places different, when theyre supposed to be s

« on: October 29, 2007, 03:40:22 AM »

The air resistances wouldnt matter if Earth is going upwards.

The earth is accelerating the air.  Therefore, air resistance.

You try placing a small balloon into a significantly bigger one, then, accelerate the bigger balloon upwards. What happens? The small balloon will hit the bottom of the bigger balloon.

The Earth is accelerating the air? haha.

8

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: ice vs water

« on: October 29, 2007, 03:35:54 AM »

Why not?  When does E=mc^2 apply?

When matter and energy are being converted, e.g. in nuclear reactions and when matter approaches c.

Yeah, as matter can be converted to energy and vice versa. This does not happen in everyday life, if it does happen, there will be huge explosions everywhere on Earth.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Transit of Venus

« on: October 28, 2007, 04:55:11 AM »

Venus floated in front of the sun.

What about it?

FLOATED?

Amazing.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat or Round

« on: October 28, 2007, 04:49:51 AM »

I am currently a RE believer but I would like to hear the argument of both sides so see which one is truly correct. Because it is my belief that in any argument one should know the belief of both sides. I will be doing research and putting my opinion on as well so Debate.

This whole sub-forum is the argument. Please read.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are the "UA" of different places different, when theyre supposed to be s

« on: October 28, 2007, 04:48:39 AM »

because the birds are also accelerating when they are flying. just take a look with there wings as they fly around, they preventing themselves to crush in the earth due to the acceleration of the UA.

Now I know...

I know that you dont know how wings work.

Anyway, if what you say is correct, it means that the birds must fly upwards while accelerating at an upwards velocity of about 9.8 m/s/s?

Amazing.

Now, how do free falling parachutes work? If UA is correct, why isnt the Earth accelerating upwards towards the free falling parachutes at about 9.8 m/s/s? The air resistances wouldnt matter if Earth is going upwards.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.

« on: October 28, 2007, 04:41:45 AM »

good job!

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.

« on: October 28, 2007, 04:18:39 AM »

Simple. We have real round Earth pictures, but no real Flat earth pictures.

Ps. The next FE will reply that the images are fake/conspiracy.

Then you agree with my opening statement in the second post of this thread:

"The Round Earth Theory is draped in religion. It's a faith issue. In order to believe in a Round Earth we must have blind faith in NASA and its scripture. Otherwise there is zero reason why any living breathing person should believe in, or even consider, the Round Earth model." – Tom Bishop

We've come full circle. Thank you for demonstrating that I am correct after all.

No, you just made a statement, it may be right, it may be wrong. No one said that your statement is correct.

I could also say this:-

"The Flat Earth Theory is draped in religion. It's a faith issue. In order to believe in a Flat Earth we must have blind faith in ourselves and its scripture. Otherwise there is zero reason why any living breathing person should believe in, or even consider, the Flat Earth model." – http://fiqo.blogspot.com

see?

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.

« on: October 28, 2007, 02:28:03 AM »

Many Flat Earthers are atheists. The idea of a Flat Earth has more to do with the apparent and observable than it does with religion.

If anything, it is the Round Earth Theory which is draped in religion. It's a faith issue. In order to believe in a Round Earth we must have blind faith in NASA and its scripture. Otherwise there is zero reason why any living breathing person should believe in, or even consider, the Round Earth model.

Simple. We have real round Earth pictures, but no real Flat earth pictures.

Ps. The next FE will reply that the images are fake/conspiracy.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are the "UA" of different places different, when theyre supposed to be s

« on: October 28, 2007, 02:26:30 AM »

Right, so why isnt the UA accelerating towards the birds that are flying above our heads?

16

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: ice vs water

« on: October 28, 2007, 02:19:05 AM »

Now take that energy, and put it into E=mc^2 to see the amount of mass gained.

FORGET ABOUT E=MC^2!!

It is not used when you are talking about ice and water when they are melting or freezing!!!

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are the "UA" of different places different, when theyre supposed to be s

« on: October 26, 2007, 05:06:28 AM »

Gravity doesn't exist. The stars do not exert ANY gravitational pull.

SWEFES testing has so far confirmed that Universal Acceleration is invariable by location and by altitude, though continual investigation is still going on.

Well, gravity apparently is variable. It is lower at high altitudes and near the equator. Got an explanation?

Dogplatter's sect of the Flat Earth Society attributes those readings to experimental error.

Dipshit, give the reasons why. Dont just say "experimental error".

You FE's always uses such lousy excuses when you lose a battle.

Examples:

"It is a conspiracy"
"It is fake"
"It is experimental error"

18

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: ice vs water

« on: October 25, 2007, 12:50:55 AM »

Mass does not change just by heating it. Ikg of Ice will melt to 1Kg of water, the mass is the same. e=mc^2 does not come into this. that is the conversion of mass to energy and is only achievable at present through nuclear fusion or fission. Ice melts when it absorbs heat from an external source (the atmosphere is the source if left to sit on the kitchen bench).

What do you think happens when you heat something?  You are adding energy to it.  E=mc^2 applies at all times.  Take the amount of energy added, pop it into the equation, and get out the change in mass.

Alright, I assume that you are not paying attention to your physics classes, or that you dont go to physics lessons. No offence, just an explanation.

E=mc^2 exists because energy is able to change into matter(which has mass). The equation is showing the relationship between the mass of an object and how much energy it will CONVERT to.

This equation is not used at all when we are talking about melting/freezing H₂O. When we are talking about melting/freezing H₂O, the equation is actually:-

When H₂O or any other substances is changing state,

Energy (J) = [ Mass of substance (Kg) ] X [ Specific Latent Heat of Fusion/vaporisation of substance ]

When H₂O or any other substance is not changing state,

Energy (J) = [ Mass of substance (Kg) ] X [ specific heat capacity of substance ] X [change of temperature (Kelvin, K) of substance ]

Take note: the "Energy (J)" in the equation is showing energy SUPPLIED to the substance or energy LOST by the substance, not how much energy it can CONVERT into.
__________________________

So, please please please do not ever mention the equation: E=mc^2.

Use the other two equations mentioned. That is all I have to say.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are the "UA" of different places different, when theyre supposed to be s

« on: October 25, 2007, 12:03:22 AM »

The "Firmament" is in fact the event horizon of an inverted black hole, inside which our local universe exists. The light of stars is in fact molecules caught at the event horizon, which have been superheated and is giving off light. The singularity exists outside the event horizon, and us inside it. As you increase in altitude, you get closer to the event horizon so it's gravity increases, countering the UA.

Alright, then how would you explain why different places on Earth have different Gravitational Acceleration, or what you FE call, "UA", even though they have the same altitude? This is called "local gravitational acceleration".

We RE-ers know that the Gravitational acceleration fluctuates depending on where you are standing, this is because factors such as the density of rocks causes the gravitational pull on that area to weaken and this is already proven. Eg. Chicago have "GA" or "UA" of 9.803 m/s² while Singapore have "GA" or "UA" of    9.781 m/s².

If the Universal Acceleration theory is put into place, this will not be true, since in UA, it doesnt matter on the topography or the geology of the area, because the "Dark Matter" will still accelerate them "upwards" at about 9.8 m/s².

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: faith in a flat earth

« on: October 21, 2007, 08:02:35 AM »

And the second point makes no sense. Because there is pictures of something, it exists? Do we need to outline why this logic is faulty? I sure hope not.

Yeah, I agree with you, but only to a small extent.

Having pictures of the whole earth being round and saying that the earth is round is more logical than not having a single picture of the whole earth being flat and saying that the earth is flat.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The conspiracy WOULD be leaked

« on: October 21, 2007, 07:57:12 AM »

there is an overwhelming mound of evidence that prooves the conspiracy wrong.
   

Like what? 

He is trying to say that you are trying very hard to rebel and not give in to the truth, thats what he is trying to say.

Anyway, please give a reason why people such as NASA wants to keep Earth being flat a secret BEFORE you say that it is a conspiracy.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GPS again.

« on: October 21, 2007, 07:49:25 AM »

Oh, now I get it.

GPS do not use satellites. GPS uses ground stations to work. Also, when I am on the seas, I do not have to worry because the ground stations are disguised as OAK TREES, or, any other trees.

Good idea, but its stupid.

(and yeah, we dont need satellites to triangulate, and, we dont always need ground stations to triangulate too, we can also use....satellites.)

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are the "UA" of different places different, when theyre supposed to be s

« on: October 21, 2007, 07:41:37 AM »

Nope, we KNOW why the "gravitational acceleration" or to the FEs, the "Universal Acceleration" is different in altitudes.

The reason being that as you go further away from Earth, the gravitational pull from the Earth will be weaker. A more micro example would be that the the further away you put a nail from a magnet, the less affected the nail will be.

(Also, it also depends on your location on Earth the reason being that the magnetic pull is different in different parts of the Earth.)

No, the UA's replication of gravitation does not account for the variance in g. Not sure where you tried to pull that out of.

No no no.

The FE's theory of UA is their interpretation of RE's "earth's gravity". Gravitational acceleration, which is "g" is therefore, "UA". UA is supposed to be the same for everything on Earth, eg, if a ball is thrown upwards into the air, the Earth will (in FE UA theory) go TOWARDS the ball at about 9.8m/s/s, and this "9.8m/s/s" is supposed to be the same for the WHOLE Earth, since the "dark matter" or "dark whatever" is accelerating the Earth at 9.8m/s/s

What I am trying to argue is: Why is the "UA" in different places different?

This can only be proven by RE's "Earth's Gravitational PULL" theory.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shouldn't everything travel in the direction the UA pushes it?

« on: October 20, 2007, 08:02:40 AM »

And also...

the UA is not "universal" as the "gravitational acceleration" in different parts of Earth is different.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are the "UA" of different places different, when theyre supposed to be s

« on: October 20, 2007, 08:00:11 AM »

Why is everybody against my reasoning? I just want to make this post into a quality debate 

Look. You have to give evidence for that formula. Not giving evidence, experience or logic in support of that formula is useless. I'm not so much dodging the question as making sure there is one to give an answer to.

Let me put it this way. What if I had said:

That page is wrong. The coefficient A has actually been measured to be 0.0132 823 1

Notice how I didn't tell you how this was calculated? That's what you did. You gave a formula and didn't tell us how anybody came up with it in the first place. Were measurements made? In that case, how did they measure it? Was it based on a thought experiment? If so, what logic was used?

In the interest of giving the best answer possible to your question though, I'm going to do a TheEngineer:

I've been on many flights and I've never noticed the phenomenon of which you speak.

This is the only thing that can be said without any actual logic/evidence to argue about.

Alright, I understand what you are trying to argue about.

I cant explain how they came up with the formula simply because I am not a physicist. But the formula is tested and it have been proven CORRECT, so I dont have to explain how the formula is derived from.

Forgive me if anything.

Almost every post in this thread is a mess to bother to read through. I'm assuming the OP is asking about variations of g at different altitudes?

If so, it's not known right now. Tom speculates that the celestial bodies have gravitation that causes g to be less when higher up.

Nope, we KNOW why the "gravitational acceleration" or to the FEs, the "Universal Acceleration" is different in altitudes.

The reason being that as you go further away from Earth, the gravitational pull from the Earth will be weaker. A more micro example would be that the the further away you put a nail from a magnet, the less affected the nail will be.

(Also, it also depends on your location on Earth the reason being that the magnetic pull is different in different parts of the Earth.)

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GPS again.

« on: October 20, 2007, 07:48:43 AM »

HAHAHAHA.

I cant believe those who said that the GPS receiver need a clock!!! They dont even know how the GPS works...

And, if the satellites is subject to wind, jet streams, anything, how the hell are they going to orbit?! Duh, of course they are not subjected to them.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GPS again.

« on: October 19, 2007, 11:45:45 PM »

No point arguing with these Fe-ers. All they say is that it is "something else" or that the government is doing some kind of conspiracy(taking note that the FE will not say WHY the government is doing it).

And example would be:-

RE: Why do we have to point the satellite dish to a "satellite"?

FE: It is coming from OTHER sources.

And then, the FE will stop there, not stating what the "other sources" is. Even if the FE state the "other sources", lets say, "Doppler station", they will not reinforce the statement any further.

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Okay. I want pictures of this ice wall.

« on: October 19, 2007, 11:15:24 PM »

Hold on, if the Ice Wall is such a secret, then how the hell do the Flat Earthers know about it?

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are the "UA" of different places different, when theyre supposed to be s

« on: October 19, 2007, 10:56:24 PM »

Oh my god, the Flat Earthers are so pathetic. I agree to the statement of one Round Earther that:-

"The FE's try to dodge every question that they cannot answer."

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are the "UA" of different places different, when theyre supposed to be s

« on: October 19, 2007, 08:31:17 PM »

Oh, alright, so you know what I meant but you still do not want to answer my question?

Haha, great, "Logs".

Any other FEs that wants to answer my question?