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 - Holy crap!?!

Pages: [1] 2
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum tilt of FE?
« on: September 16, 2008, 11:55:22 AM »
In which direction does the tilt occur? Is it a set point tilt from one particular side of the earth to another or is it rotational tilt?

If we went as far south as possible anywhere on the earth, how large of a level (the liquid and bubble type) would we have to build in order to see the tilt of the planet?

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: No motive, no case
« on: September 10, 2008, 07:52:20 AM »
The best part is all those kids that grow up wanting to be astronauts that eventually make it up through the ranks only to find out that it's all fake. Then of course they accept that and become part of the conspiricy because, "Hey, it pays a good salary". Never mind our dreams of space that drove us to get here. No way would any of them get angry and let everyone know about the conspiricy. Although I imagine NASA would have them killed if they seemed like they might leak. And fake NASA must be the absolute best place to work in the whole freakin world to not ever had a gisgruntled employee. And I guess they never fired anyone. I'll bet that lady that drove all that way in diapers to kill someone is scared to death to tell anyone about the conspiracy.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Contra FE Gravity-Theorie
« on: September 05, 2008, 10:24:58 AM »
Quote
1.  It's the acceleration of the rocket that causes the g-forces.  "Gravity" only applies 1g.

2.  We don't feel velocity, we feel acceleration.

3.  The Earth is accelerating.  When you jump, you are momentarily increasing your acceleration to a value that is slightly higher than the Earth's acceleration of 9.8m/s^2.  Once you leave the surface of the Earth, you are no longer accelerating, but are traveling at a constant velocity.  The Earth is still accelerating and with therefore catch up to you in short order.

I still do not fully understand why air particles are not affected in the exact same way all other objects are. If the constant acceleration of the earth affect all other things then why not air particles?

I've been told they're "pressurized inside whatever FE recognizes as an atmosphere but don't understand why then in a free fall we would feel the air rushing by at an accelerated rate.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the Flat Earth model
« on: September 05, 2008, 10:07:18 AM »
Could someone representing FE please post an accepted map of earth? I have an experiment I want to try but don't want to use the wrong map.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: No motive, no case
« on: September 05, 2008, 09:59:40 AM »
You think putting a satellite in space costs the same as faking it?

No, fletch suggested that all the money beng made by faking the things NASA does goes on to pay for the expenses of guards and such aong the ice wall.

I then asked what would the motive be if not money.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: No motive, no case
« on: September 05, 2008, 06:10:23 AM »
People are using Government and NASA interchangeably. This is a mistake. It is NASAs conspiracy.
I beleive it's stated in the FAQ that it's a government conspiricy along with governments of other countries. NASA alone has not existed long enough to have been manning the ice walls and keeping explorers from discovering that the earth is flat.

quote]
Obvioulsy NASA execs don't have billions of pounds at their disposal as they are using it to pay the people you listed in point B. Regarding that, I don't believe they would both guarding the Ice Wall. Seems a lot of expense for no real gain. The people required to fake video wouldn't necessarily be told the world was flat. I think "We need to get to the moon before the Russians, and all our rockets are exploding on take off. It'll be easier if we fake this stuff and make the deadline that President Kennedy set for us." would do the job.
[/quote]
If NASA is spending all the money they're making off the lie just to support the lie then what is the point? I thought money was the motive. That would be like hiring a gang of thieves for 10,000 dollars and having them pull a heist to steal 10,000 dollars.

What then is NASA's motive for the lie?

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Forces on you and me (w illustration)
« on: September 04, 2008, 12:15:26 PM »
There is no rotation in FET.

Rotation was used to explain ocean waves/tides in another thread. I've also read where they're caused by a slight tilting of the earth.

What is the prevailing stance of FE for ocean waves? When I used the search feature the main topic concerning the subject that I found was the one that suggested the earth rotates.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: No motive, no case
« on: September 03, 2008, 03:35:30 PM »
In a dictatorship scientist and researchers are not given the freedoms they enjoy in other countries. They work for the government and the government alone. They are not given money to spend, instead ask for what they need and are provided with it. There's no such thing as an audit. You produce results or are replaced. No "smart" individual in that type of enviroment is going to be able to con such a government out of billions(or even millions) of dollars.

Ok, how many dictatorships have space agencies in the world?
Sorry. Just got home. Let's just deal with China and Russia for now.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: No motive, no case
« on: September 03, 2008, 02:17:05 PM »
Well, unless dictators (or any other government for that matter) are somehow smarter in relation to space, physics, engineering, etc... than the people in charge of the space agencies of the country, I imagine it's fairly simple to fool them. If they can't discern fact from fiction, how do you propose they'd be shot on the spot?
In a dictatorship scientist and researchers are not given the freedoms they enjoy in other countries. They work for the government and the government alone. They are not given money to spend, instead ask for what they need and are provided with it. There's no such thing as an audit. You produce results or are replaced. No "smart" individual in that type of enviroment is going to be able to con such a government out of billions(or even millions) of dollars.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: No motive, no case
« on: September 03, 2008, 02:05:51 PM »
Why would a dictatorship need to "pretend" to spend money on a "space program" just to put it back in their own pockets when they could openly do so?

They aren't pretending. They are being swindled by the space agencies.
You believe that in governments that are ruled by the gun, a person would be daring enough to try and fool a government where they could be shot on the spot for such a thing? And do you think these types of governments would allow these space agencies to just run around free doing whatever they wanted, free spirited experimentation-with the occassional check in by the government just to see how they're doing?

That may be the craziest thing I've ever read on this site. ;D

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: No motive, no case
« on: September 03, 2008, 01:53:57 PM »
Why would countries with dictatorships need to hide spending?
Why are they hiding spending?
::) Well I walked right into that topic switch didn't I? My bad.

Why would a dictatorship need to "pretend" to spend money on a "space program" just to put it back in their own pockets when they could openly do so?

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: No motive, no case
« on: September 03, 2008, 01:33:35 PM »
And what profit goes to other countries governments that know the earth is flat but keep it secret also? Is some of our money going to other countries as "hush money"?

The other space agencies receive their own governmental funding.
Why would countries with dictatorships need to hide spending?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: No motive, no case
« on: September 03, 2008, 01:18:55 PM »
NASA makes their request for a budget amount, complete with justifications and such to Congress. Congress looks it over and approves or attempts to amend based on their decisions. The resulting money from the budget is used to fake the subsequent missions and plans they had submitted to Congress, and given that it costs much less to fake it than actually produce the real results, the higher-ups can profit the difference.
Who are these "higher ups" who know that the earth is flat? And again, don't you think there would be an easier way to launder the money? And what profit goes to other countries governments that know the earth is flat but keep it secret also? Is some of our money going to other countries as "hush money"?

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: No motive, no case
« on: September 03, 2008, 12:07:44 PM »
Where does the money go? Into certain "in the know" individuals pockets or is it used on things that the government fills it needs to hide?

I find it really hard to believe that the governments of the world would use space travel and a round earth theory to hide money laundering. I mean we used the fact that one poster here could do so with his brother-in-laws business. The government had to resort to outer space?

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do you deny private spacecraft?
« on: September 02, 2008, 12:32:19 PM »
These post never seem to stay on subject very long  :'(  It seems like once the arguement gets going a lot of drabble is presented in an attempt to swerve the conversation elsewhere.

I like how proof was asked for which then promised return proof but that was completely ignored.

I'm truely interested in seeing evidence that the government has this conspiricy going and that the earth is flat but it seems like none is ever actually presented.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth is not flat...
« on: August 29, 2008, 01:51:31 PM »
About the ice wall, my opinion is that this is simply what you would call the coast of Antarctica, but encircling the earth and holding in the oceans as fits flat earth geography.  Many people have seen it and confirmed its existence, thus I don't feel its necessary to visit it myself.  Unfortunately, circumnavigation would not serve as disproof of FET because it's perfectly possible on a flat earth.

A circumnavigation of the Antarctic coast would serve as evidence against the FE model of the Earth because of the differences in distance that would be present between the two models.

I noticed that no one responded to this one. Would going to the coast, planting a flag, and then sailing along the coast until you arrive back at the flag present proof that the world is indeed round after reviewing distance traveled/time?

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« on: August 29, 2008, 01:28:32 PM »
Quote
I am sure he does not, if you look at the other work he has done you will notice that none of them look anything close to the "painting" of the girl. His other works are good but they are still obvious paintings

I don't know what you're talking about. Most of his other paintings look pretty photo-realistic

http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/comersus_listCategoriesAndProducts.asp?idCategory=55

More trickery?

Quote
That doesn't look like a 400 year old image to me.

What tipped you off?

I swear to the lord of FE and of RE and all things holy that I had the poster labeled "Last Hot Flight" on  my wall as a youth. I had 3 of the Blackbird and I swear that was one of them.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« on: August 28, 2008, 02:34:02 PM »
The only problem with that is that you refuse to accept and form of proof you're presented with. All documentation is faked. Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies. The man that walked on the moon is a liar. The moon rocks brought back are just old coal.

Other than putting you in a ship and flying you there, what type of proof would you accept?

I mean come on, so far the only response to the "laser proof" is someone calling it lame. Why is it lame? Unless you come up with some real arguement then the debate is no fun.

Now this just isn't fair.  Yes, we say that photographic and video evidence is fake, but given how easy it is to fake something like this I don't see how you could rationally call it "evidence" in the first place.  The same is true about astronauts who have "been to the moon" or "been to space" and moon rocks (ooh, ROCKS, that proves everything!  ::))

But I really take issue with your statement that "Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies".  This is not our position at all.  We feel that this scientific knowledge you speak of is mostly based on a misunderstanding, brought about by a dogmatic belief that the earth is round instilled in the minds of everybody at a very young age.  It's not lies; it's simply misguided.
But their are grown men with no government ties out there that will tell you that they've been to anartica. They've flown around the world. They've sailed all the seas. They've seen they world. You would either have to say they're lying or they "misunderstood what they saw". That would be like me going to a store that you've never been to and me buying a blue pen. I get back with it and you tell me that they don't sell blue pens there and what I've got isn't even a blue pen.

But even if it's misguided knowledge, if it's based on a lie instead of study, then how can anything that comes from it be considered anything but garbage?

And I'd still like to know what type of proof would be accepted. I'm not demanding or anything if it comes off that way--just curious.


19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« on: August 28, 2008, 12:23:02 PM »
You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?

It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.

The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.

The only problem with that is that you refuse to accept and form of proof you're presented with. All documentation is faked. Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies. The man that walked on the moon is a liar. The moon rocks brought back are just old coal.

Other than putting you in a ship and flying you there, what type of proof would you accept?

I mean come on, so far the only response to the "laser proof" is someone calling it lame. Why is it lame? Unless you come up with some real arguement then the debate is no fun.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What this site is REALLY about
« on: August 25, 2008, 02:25:13 PM »
It took me about a day and a half of reading here to come to a similar realization-thus my screen name. I find the actual discussions interesting. Some things make the site seem a little childish but for the most part it's a lot of fun.


But you shouldn't have said anything out loud  ;)  It's like telling everyone how a magic trick works.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« on: August 21, 2008, 07:24:19 PM »
When you jump out of the plane you're stationary while the earth speeds up towards you correct? Then the air rushing past you must be moving at the same rate as the earth in order for us to feel it's "resistance"?

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Three models of Gravity
« on: August 20, 2008, 07:03:56 PM »
You would. You feel resistance to the Earth's acceleration, too. People who don't fully understand the phenomenon call it "gravity".

If I were travelling 90 miles per hour in my vehicle and reached forward to change the radio station what resistance would I feel? Would this resistance differ at various speeds? Would if differ even if I continued to accelerate constantly?

In the same way why, in a pressurized atmosphere, would my body or any other object resist the upward motion?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Three models of Gravity
« on: August 20, 2008, 06:58:35 PM »
Enjoying the discussion but have to put the kids to bed. Will resume tommorrow if it's still going at work.


24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Three models of Gravity
« on: August 20, 2008, 06:56:13 PM »

Weight is a fictitious force in the same way that centrifugal force doesn't really exist. The reason an object in your hand feels as though there is a downward force on it is because you are accelerating up with the Earth, and the object is resisting this acceleration.

What causes that resistance? If I were traveling in a pressurized vehicle that was accelerating at the same rate as the earth I would feel no resistance if I tried to move forward inside the vehicle would I not?






25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Three models of Gravity
« on: August 20, 2008, 06:45:25 PM »

Ahh... yea... well... your intuition is wrong. Hard to adjust, I can appreciate that. Did you hear of the story of Galileo droping a heavy ball and a light ball off of the leaning tower of piza (apocryphal I know) or about the astronaut who dropped a feather and a ball on the moon?

Similarly, if I drop an "air particle" on the moon, it will fall to the ground.

On the off chance that you did have some physics but forgot... the force is less on the air particle, but then so is its mass. They "just happen" to cancel each other out so everything is accelerated at 9.8m/s/s.

The "just happen" bit is a whole 'nuther story.

;D I was trying to keep from using any "off earth" references seeing as that many on this site don't believe that space travel has happened so the knowledge would be unproven.

And I'm sorry to say-no physics here. Not even the basics :-\  I was not a good student back in the day (maybe would have graduated last in my class if I had even graduated) and during my college career when I was a good student I never took physics and remeber very little even from my other science courses in the way of physics. I am less than a layman.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Three models of Gravity
« on: August 20, 2008, 06:34:58 PM »
The Earth applies a force to the atmoplane, which (by Newton's third law of motion) applies an equal and opposite force to the Earth. This force causes the air to compress, causing the force between them to increase until the force being applied to the atmoplane is enough to accelerate it at 9.8 m s-2. This equilibrium occurs when the air reaches standard atmospheric temperature and pressure. Then the atmoplane accelerates at the same rate as the Earth.

So then the atmosphere is is like a bubble on top of a solid surface. And the air around us is pressurized and is not impacted by the upward accelerating earth. Why then would any object be caught up to by the earth?

Maybe I'm confusing myself ???  Without RE gravity, do we even have weight? If there is no "downward" force being applied to us and the reason an object seems to fall is only because it is no longer traveling faster than the earth, what then causes an object to want to go to the ground when held in one's hand?

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Three models of Gravity
« on: August 20, 2008, 06:21:07 PM »
What makes you think "gravity" works differently in this case? Wouldn't your logic apply if you replace FE's acceleration with RE's gravity?

The reason why an "air particle" doesn't hit the ground is because of the other air particles underneath it.

I've always thought that air particles didn't have enough "weight" for RE gravity to affect them as much. That would explaint why air is "thicker" at sea level and gets "thinner" at higher altitude.

I guess I see RE's gravity as a pulling force that does not affect all things equally. But when I try and envision an upward accellerating mass, I can only imagine it's effect to be constant.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Three models of Gravity
« on: August 20, 2008, 06:12:10 PM »
Ok... let's try another analogy. Let's assume you're in an elevator with a glass of water and something floating inside it. The elevator can be on the earth, but once it starts moving it maintains a constant accceleration, let's call it "g". Start up the elevator. You're now feeling a 2g force (combined). Did the floater in the glass move? Did you feel a breeze once the elevator started?

yea, you may have gotten weak in the knees, but that's your strength, not any wind pushing you down. Air pressure may change as now the air "weighs" twice as much, but that happens immediately and quickly reaches a steady state. So after that possible(?) initial burst... no wind.
Ahh.. but take the "roof" off the same elevator and you will feel the air "blowing" against you as you rise wouldn't you?

I honestly don't know what the floater would do :P I don't have the scientific knowledge that a lot of you on this site display.

But I enjoy the discussion thoroughly. Gets my brain going.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Three models of Gravity
« on: August 20, 2008, 06:04:35 PM »
The earth is not travelling at a given speed, it is accelerating. You jump up at a given speed which is faster than the earth is travelling at that time, but because the earth is accelerting it catchs up to you. Does that make sense? The principle is the same for the atmosphere.
It does and it doesn't :)

If I accept that the earth is accelerating and that is the reason objects "fall" then I question again why a stationary air particle (or in this case multiple particles) are not impacted by the earth in the same way.

The atmosphere would have to be accelerating at the same rate as the earth in order for us not to be able to "see" the effect wouldn't it?

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Three models of Gravity
« on: August 20, 2008, 04:57:49 PM »
As the flat Earth moves upward at 9.8 m/s/s, it is not "pushing against" any outside air, our atmosphere is traveling with us.
If the atmosphere is traveling with us and is not affected by the upward movement of the earth, then why is anything contained in that atmosphere affected? For an example let's say we're in space standing on a giant asteroid/rock/mass. It just so happens that we're standing at the exact "top" of this mass and it also just so happens that the mass is traveling at any given speed in the direction that us standing there would consider straight up. Now supposing we jumped up-we would expend energy and fly upward away from the mass. What force would then cause the energy we created to cease?

I'm not understanding how the same would not hold true here if the air around me is not affected by the only force known to keep things from floating off the ground. If the air around me is not affected by the upward movement then how am I?

Quote
There doesn't need to be a dome, but our atmosphere must be contained at the sides. Air pressure is 15 psi at sea level, so there must be something in the vicinity of the Ice Wall that holds back the air from escaping into space. This barrier must be like a cylinder as tall as our atmosphere is thick (no definite boundary, but many people use the value 62 miles).

So at the Ice Wall there must be a barrier around 62 miles tall, preventing our atmosphere from escaping due to air pressure at altitude.
If there is no "dome" what then keeps the air pressure maintained? I can envision the barrier that you're describing and for my simple mind I think of a cup over even a pail as oldsoldier described traveling upward through space. But with no "top"-that is-nothing to push against why wouldn't it be the same as opening a glass jar full of air in a vacuum?

Pages: [1] 2