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.

Messages - Penispoop agogo

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So How Fast Are We Moving?
« on: July 17, 2009, 04:52:36 PM »
it's a cop out for a flat earth once again

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Other Planets
« on: July 17, 2009, 04:50:30 PM »
They have this stupid idea that only the earth is flat because it's the special case aka god did it. Anybody who doesn't have this belief cannot be a true flat earther and they are just trolling you

Could you think of a better way to ask me to find an answer myself? (see this isn't a good way to discuss things with people)

I'm just stunned that you haven't realized that pictures of things in space are edited and pretty much never in "true" color, if it was not filtered it would just be a bright blob on a black background with no visible objects in front or behind it

How come the sun looks like an egg yolk?

Great question! On second thought, no it's a terrible question, you really can't think of an answer yourself?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Moons craters
« on: October 07, 2008, 05:41:18 PM »
I mean...what makes them go towards the moon...and dont feel obligated to answer this one since it is a stray from the main question, but if there is no gravity why do we only see 1 side of the moon?

The moon is accelerating up. The moon goes toward the meteors. Also the moon exhibits gravitation, but not "gravity". Please see the sticky on Gravity/Gravitation.

I thought everything accelerates up at the same speed, just like the earth. How exactly would anything manage to bump into anything else?

You're basing an argument on the fact that they used the word "disk". Please make better posts.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What Changes the Sun's Orbit?
« on: October 03, 2008, 10:36:24 PM »
Or, if you want to get back to basics, you can use Ancient Greek techniques to calculate the distance to, and size of, the moon.

It's basic trigonometry really, so get stuck in!

you can't use trig to prove something, apparently it's wrong and indistinguishable from craazy fe trig that says everything is 5000mi or so above earth

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Climate Change
« on: October 03, 2008, 10:33:16 PM »
Ice caps aren't melting, people simply forgot what "seasons" were and don't realize that shit gets hot in the summer even in the arctic

The farmers almanac is predicting a very cold winter this year.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite television
« on: August 29, 2008, 11:29:48 PM »
FEs believe there are giant blimps floating around acting as satellites. They call them stratellites.

What is more interesting is that you should be able to resolve the details on one of these through a telescope since they aren't very high at all and are, necessarily, very large.

However you can't. Just one of many problems with FE

Actually, I have already proven the existence of dangling lenses that are used by high altitude objects. NASA uses dangling lenses to either obfuscate an object, or to make it appear as though it were at a different distance.

Really, dangling lenses? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, congrats

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Where is this evidence of an Ice Wall?
« on: August 26, 2008, 09:14:36 AM »
Once again, how would you know you were going straight?

Define straight please, this all just seems like a battle over semantics as if that disproves anything, another vague theory

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Where is this evidence of an Ice Wall?
« on: August 26, 2008, 07:24:20 AM »
Yes, doing circles. But if you follow a straight line, you would always be travelling south.

How are you supposed to travel in a straight line without something like a compass to relate our position to?

You go in one direction and keep going in that direction without looking at your compass. What roads lead to the ice wall, oh wait it's surrounded by ocean, please make another analogy. Are you saying that neptune will turn your ship around if you keep going in one direction without looking at a compass, like in the fairytales? Are you saying that theoretically if I could drive to the ice wall, that I wouldn't be able to trust my car to go in one direction continuously if I don't move the wheel?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bendy light: The maths
« on: August 23, 2008, 11:53:44 PM »
So, there currently is no math to explain it, therefore you make it up because it doesn't actually exist/happen right?

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Global Warming: The Real Story
« on: August 23, 2008, 03:37:18 PM »
You do know that the area of ice isn't actually decreasing do you? Just because you see videos and pictures of ice walls crumbling apart doesn't actually signify anything other than those areas are melting/breaking off

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Around the World in 80 Days
« on: August 22, 2008, 03:23:46 PM »
It's impossible in RE because, were it done with your method, discounting the fact you would fly into space, you would require Pac-man scrolling, as someone mentioned already.

So just throw away any concept of the properties of a sphere? Sounds awesome

Because you can't prove it

Since when has this stopped any scientific theory being accepted into general use? No scientific theory can be proven - see this thread (

The Earth could be any geometry and this mechanism would still work.

Still doesn't mean you can prove it, and no, I won't read your thread. Virtually anything can be causing global warming or global cooling, but there's really no accurate way to predict or prove it.

It's all a ploy to have people forget that corporations and government don't give a shit about the environment, or about clean renewable resources, and haven't since the history of time. The truth is, is that if the world ran on 100% renewable clean energy, there would be no reason for society, government, jobs, industry, money or anything else for that matter when energy can be made out of thin air and put to any application.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about bubbles??
« on: August 22, 2008, 08:50:34 AM »
Im not really sure about your first question.  And your second post doesn't make any sense at all.

The first post.  Why would bubbles be any different in FE than RE?

Really? He's talking about an objects(notably liquid) natural tendency to form a sphere when introduced to a vacuum like space, i don't see what's so hard to understand

his IR radiation cannot escape through the layer of CO2 just as the Sun's IR cannot get in, but since the two values are not the same (more gets in than is reflected away), the Earth heats up.  I see no reason why this wouldn't work both in RE and FE...

Because you can't prove it

I'm almost 100% positive that global warming is just a ploy to get people to invest in green energy, something we should have been researching and improving ever since the industrial revolution started, but we didn't. Instead we get the general populace paranoid as hell so they'll forget the actual issues in the debate.

But there's no way I can believe global warming or that there even is a way to prove it,seeing as how the shrinking ice shelfs and the ozone layer have already been provne to not be happening, or not be caused by humans

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does satellite T.V. work?
« on: August 19, 2008, 12:19:26 PM »
It's part of the conspiracy, they have no better explanation or can prove the conspiracy, give it a rest.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ok, riddle me this.
« on: August 17, 2008, 07:08:30 PM »
Due to a lack of another flat earth map.

Maybe if you guys start donating funding we'll go out and begin charting every square mile of the earth to make an accurate map.

Why would anybody, especially RE'ers donate to help your cause? You want to build your case, you do it

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellites
« on: August 17, 2008, 07:07:22 PM »
pseudolites and stratellites
zqzkfejkdf and dsordsorg

all have the same definition: None


I'm sorry, but when you google it, all you get is sanswire stuff, which you have labeled as part of the conspiracy. Other records of it being used by anyone else don't exist. If you know what I'm not finding, please share it, because I probably won't find any other evidence if I try all day

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellites
« on: August 17, 2008, 04:55:09 PM »
They are supposed to exist and be in use by probably thousands of companies. But they're invisible at all times even during launch, so you can never see one or know where it is, so there's no evidence of it being used or how it is being used specifically, and if there is evidence, you cant know it because of the conspiracy. You really won't get any more or new answers out of these guys

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Physics, where's the force?
« on: August 16, 2008, 11:57:20 PM »
So we started at 9.8m/s, what are we at now?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE
« on: August 16, 2008, 11:54:33 PM »
as of yet no one can explain this away :)
a 32 mile diameter sun could not accomplish the nuclear fusion necessary to become a bright sun :)

How do you know that the sun operates via nuclear fusion?

How do you know that it doesn't? There's quite a lot of evidence that it does, is there any evidence of someone trying to prove the sun is *not* operating by fusion?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of the conspiracy
« on: August 15, 2008, 06:39:16 PM »
Pictures of beaches and crap doesn't prove a flat earth, just proves that it looks flat from that perspective. It's convenient that in FE you can't go outside the earth and look to see it's actual shape, which would conclusively prove it. As long as nobody can take a picture there's no way to 100% prove it

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of the conspiracy
« on: August 15, 2008, 04:46:19 PM »
That just proves how shaky your proof is.

And? You can use conspiracy for both sides, and virtually any issue

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Physics, where's the force?
« on: August 15, 2008, 04:45:10 PM »

Like I said, you don't know what the definition of proper is.
I know what proper is perfectly fine, you are the one making the claim that proper acceleration will be the same for all observers

He's just going to keep avoiding the issue with semantics no matter how you phrase it, it will never be "answered" because they don't know

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of the conspiracy
« on: August 15, 2008, 03:35:49 PM »
you are WAY in the minority.  round earth is already accepted by 99.99999% of the (round) world.  why would we have to prove that to you?  that doesnt make any sense. 

More sense than believing something just because almost everyone else believes it. That's called a fallacy.

Actually we have proof, but it's all a conspiracy, that's the problem with proving RE. You can just use "conspiracy" for almost anything without having to prove the conspiracy

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I would just like to say..
« on: August 15, 2008, 12:31:49 PM »
They are supposed to exist and be in use by probably thousands of companies. But they're invisible at all times even during launch, so you can never see one or know where it is, so there's no evidence of it being used or how it is being used specifically, and if there is evidence, you cant know it because of the conspiracy

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Maps and Continents
« on: August 13, 2008, 06:00:25 PM »
There are no actual FE maps that have the details you want, there are only distorted maps made to look like the flat earth.But there are no maps

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10