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 - g.g.

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: flat moon scociety
« on: October 22, 2008, 10:26:09 PM »

You're missing the point. We can't assume that these similarities are there without looking to see if they match observations. Observational evidence suggests that the moon is round.

thanks to galileo for his pretty drawings. he was an excellent empiricist! and yet he thought the earth was round... odd. he suffered so much for that belief!

 ::) No he didn't.

didn't what?

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Do you believe the earth is flat?
« on: October 22, 2008, 06:44:02 PM »
Hi. I really am curious about this, so I hope you guys give real answers. :)

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: flat moon scociety
« on: October 22, 2008, 06:29:05 PM »

You're missing the point. We can't assume that these similarities are there without looking to see if they match observations. Observational evidence suggests that the moon is round.

notice my picture of the phases of the moon. :) thanks to galileo for his pretty drawings. he was an excellent empiricist! and yet he thought the earth was round... odd. he suffered so much for that belief!

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How open are FErs??
« on: October 22, 2008, 06:16:46 PM »
If the earth were flat, and Newton's laws were applicable the moon (a mere 3000 miles away) would crash down to earth, probably in a matter of minutes. Then the sun. Swiftly followed no doubt by the rest of the heavenly bodies.
???

Based on Newton's first law, an object accelerate only if it is applied by a force. DE exerts a force on Earth, causing it to accelerate. DE exerts a force on the moons and sun, causing them to accelerate at an equivalent rate relative to Earth. Based on the formula from Newton's second law, force is inversely proportional to mass, so the smaller objects experience smaller force from DE: DE accelerates all objects in the universe at 9.8m/s2. They won't collide in any way. Based on Newton's third law, DE exerts a force on FE, and the FE exerts an equivalent reaction force back on DE.  Newton's laws surely are compatible to FE to me.

Oh, you still ignored these:
Newton's three laws:

1st: When I'm "free-falling" in FE under no fluidity, no force is acting on me. Thus, I'm undergoing inertial motion. Fluid exerts the drag force on me, causing me to accelerate slightly up; therefore, I'm no longer undergoing inertial motion in my inertial frame of reference.
2nd: Relative to an inertial observer, the FE surely is accelerating while having mass and momentum with respect to time. Thus, the FE has a net force.
3rd: DE exerts a force on FE, and the FE exerts an equivalent reaction force back on FE. I exert a force on a brick wall in FE, and the brick wall exerts an equivalent reaction force back on me.

The equivalence between free-fall and inertial motion:

When I jump out of a plane in FE under no fluidity, I undergo inertial motion. That's free-fall in FE.

The equivalence between proper acceleration and gravity:

Proper acceleration is something we feel. Thus, while standing on the surface of FE, we undergo proper acceleration because the FE exerts an upward force on us. We perceive that as "gravity".


The laws work on FE. Deal with it.


WHAT THE HELL IS DARK ENERGY? and where did it come from? :) is it something that resulted from the big bang? (damn, that's a lousy name for the creation of a universe) does it keep the moon and sun and all moving upward too? and wher is "up"? how do you decide up or down in space? or maybe you can if the earth is flat and you compare everything relative to the position of the earth.
and further explaination as how to how newton's law work on fe? what makes acceleration "proper?"

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How open are FErs??
« on: October 22, 2008, 05:55:12 PM »
Dark Energy, great.  I assume that goldstein was just being an asshole.

goldstein is not an asshole! he is the purveyor of truth! there must be a copy of the book for you to read somewhere! then you'd know that war is peace, ignorance is strength (cough), freedom is slavery, and 2+2 really does equal 4!!!

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sunrise / sunsets
« on: October 22, 2008, 05:45:22 PM »
No, actually it's more like kodak film.  I'll tell you why, but you'll have to bash out your brain with a lump of gold wrapped in a l e m o n peel.  When the pokemon evolve, they turn shiny.  Then you take a picture of it when it's shiny and it looks like the sun.  Then when you develop the film, it looks all bright and stuff.  So the kodak film is like the sun.  But because of the pigeons, your picture will get pigeon poop on it so you won't see it.  Then pigeons poop on the sun and you won't see it.  When you can't see anything, that's when you're blind because another pigeon stabbed your eves out with its beak.  Then it would take the sword of Gryffindor and stab you through the roof of the mouth and take one of your teeth.  Then it would use your tooth to stab a book and kill some weird spirit thing.  When the weird spirit thing is dead it will use its unlicensed nuclear accelerator and a ghost trap to bring it to a storage facility thing.  No, actually the sun is like the new coke.  It'll be around forever.  Heh heh heh.




i understand it all now!! :-)
The sun is like a pokeball, but instead of a pokemon inside, it has the golden snitch! Eventually it heats up so much the pokeball pops open and the golden snitch breaks free, and that's why it looks smaller! But you don't notice the popping out part because a pigeon poops right in front of your eyes! Which thankfully doesn't blind you, so you can watch the golden snitch get farther and farther away until it fades completely out of sight beyond the so-called horizon. eventually, the g.s. cools down enough that it goes back inside the pokeball for warmth, and the cycle starts all over again!

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how deep is the earth?
« on: October 22, 2008, 05:30:40 PM »
How deep is the flat earth? as in, how far would you have to dig down untill you get to the other side?

because if it is not so thick. shouldn't you just be able to dig your way into space?

FE'ers believe that the FE has a molten core some miles down that is responsible for the FE's magnetic field. 

how can something that flat have a core below it?? or am i quibbling over semantics?
so this molten thing would be like what us RE'ers know as the mantle?

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: whats keeping us together?
« on: October 22, 2008, 05:28:46 PM »
Nope Einsteins relativity doesn't have a whacking great hand of God pushing a flat earth through the universe.
Except, General Relativity stated that we are undergoing proper acceleration because the Earth is exerting an upward force on us. Therefore, my previous statement stands.

Under both Newton and Einstein a mass is able to generate its own forces.
Generate what forces on its own?


in physics, the upward force is called "normal force," which is the planet pushing up on you while you push down on the planet (while gravity pulls you, that is). said concept is confusing, but it would be as necessary on a flat earth as it is on a round earth.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy?
« on: October 19, 2008, 09:32:28 PM »
I like how you argue that faking a space program is cheaper than having one.

Having one is not even in talk, since there would be no reason when it's not possible.
The real argue is, faking a space program is cheaper than not having one? And i can pretty easily disagree with that.
You say loosing face... How can not loosing face be worth all the money it would cost to keep this fake space program running?

Sorry to bump this, but i do not feel that any of my questions have been answered.

List of the answers i have gotten:
1. Why would the government keep the truth about our planet secret.

Not to loose face, and to magically gain money. I disaprove this answer, it is not specific enough. Who cares if NASA looses face, if NASA is not doing anything but making a conspiracy.
2. What could they possibly gain?
Money... No one has told me where these money come from. You do not gain money from having somthing that is cheaper than something else.
3. Also who is this government?

The FAQ says it's a government, but it's not a government, its the space guys. WAIT! It's the space guys and ONE government. You don't seem to agree.
4. Were the videos of spaceships taking of the earth manifactured? How come i have talked to people who have seen spaceships leave our atmosphere first hand?

No answer. I know someone who was present at a space take off. And a garanteee that he was not working for any kind of space-conspiracy.
5. Where are these towers that are supposed to be here instead of satelites?

Stratellites you say?
These were invented around 2005, so i'm pretty sure we can agree that we would have been using something else before then.

:)


yay! you make sense! what about the whole gravity thing? i'm not seeing how a planet, even a flat one, works without gravity.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: In the beginning
« on: October 16, 2008, 01:02:20 PM »
OH MY GOD xDDDDDDDDDDD

*coughs*

Well, seriously:

- Can you give a proof that the Earth is infinite and bisects the universe? OBJECTIVE PROOF, not your visual impressions.
- Can you give proof that ANY OTHER PLANET is unable to sustain life?

I have time, so feel free. But remember this word:

OBJECTIVE.

Do you have PROOF the earth is round?




i wish i was a physicist!!! but since i'm not, i personally don't have "proof" the earth is round--according your conspiracy theory that everything, everywhere is faked. how can you argue with that? there's no argument against irrationalities like "it's all a conspiracy." everything can be explained away by that... Of course, there's no proof of any conspiracy... Or do you have some that you haven't disclosed?

11
Hey, if you don't like the answers then don't ask the questions :P

"In fact, one thing that I have noticed . . . is that all of these conspiracy theories depend on the perpetrators being endlessly clever."

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My opinion and some questions.
« on: October 15, 2008, 04:25:19 PM »
Apply this to a flat earth:
The Earth's atmosphere is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth that is retained by the Earth's gravity…
There is no definite boundary between the atmosphere and outer space. It slowly becomes thinner and fades into space
Even assume that this happens on a flat earth—how can it be true without gravity? Why wouldn’t the earth’s atmosphere dissipate into space while the planet keeps moving upward? Inertia MIGHT push a little of the air up with it, but since air is gaseous rather than solid, it would naturally spread out (diffuse) away from the planet or any other specific spot anyway.

citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere

Try typing "Equivalence principle" into Wikipedia instead.

If that doesn't convince you, then how about this:

If my calculations are correct, then the value of y (elevation above sea level) for a given radius to the Ice Wall r to have one molecule of the atmoplane (using the atomic mass of nitrogen) in a cylinder of height h formed by the Ice Wall with its base at elevation y is given by (y, r and h are the magnitudes of the measurements in metres, all numerical data given to three significant figures):

y = 1.07 * 1028 [ 56.7 + ln { πr2 ( 1 - e-9.36 * 10-29h ) } ]

As you can see, for any finite value of r, we can make h as large as we like, such that there will always be a value y where we will only find a single molecule in that space. Pick any r for the radius of the Greater Ice Wall, and pick any h such that having a single air molecule in a cylinder of that size would convince you that there is no danger of the atmoplane flowing out into space, plug them into that equation and you will get the necessary height of the Ice Wall for that data.


I admit that at first you had me confused. :) I read about the equivalence principle via a lot of different (and unconnected) websites. Here's the thing--the equivalence principle, in any of its three forms, applies to objects that fall. Gases do not fall; their mass is not heavy enough. Otherwise we'd all have to crawl around on the floor to breathe, if we could breathe at all.

I have some things to say about the equation, but please explain it more clearly first. I don't follow from where you derive your variables, or the equation itself, for that matter. For instance, I don't know why you have to use e, ln, or 10 to the negative twenty-ninth power... among other things. Did you get it from a website? If so please include the link.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My opinion and some questions.
« on: October 15, 2008, 01:32:52 AM »
Where does the atmosphere come from if there's no gravity? That can't be explained by inertia. How does our atmosphere stay with the earth instead of floating off into space?

Uh... inertia.


Apply this to a flat earth:
The Earth's atmosphere is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth that is retained by the Earth's gravity…
There is no definite boundary between the atmosphere and outer space. It slowly becomes thinner and fades into space
Even assume that this happens on a flat earth—how can it be true without gravity? Why wouldn’t the earth’s atmosphere dissipate into space while the planet keeps moving upward? Inertia MIGHT push a little of the air up with it, but since air is gaseous rather than solid, it would naturally spread out (diffuse) away from the planet or any other specific spot anyway.

citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My opinion and some questions.
« on: October 15, 2008, 12:42:13 AM »
I read more of the FAQ and i have another question. If sunrises and sunsets are just the sun moving closer and further away then shouldnt sunrise and sunsets occur at the same point to everyone on earth? My friend in Thailand sees the sun at times where I (im America) havnt seen it in hours. Please explain.

The sun is circling around a central hub above the north pole, roughly above the equator at all times.  The density of the earth's atmosphere prevents the sun from being seen in all places at one time.


Where does the atmosphere come from if there's no gravity? That can't be explained by inertia. How does our atmosphere stay with the earth instead of floating off into space?

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy?
« on: October 15, 2008, 12:31:44 AM »
I'm not from the US either, I don't think any country advocates so many inverted commas. When they discovered that the Earth is flat, the space programs had to save face, so it began, faking a space program is cheaper than having one, it isn't the government, it's a coalition of the world's space programs, no, but the ones of them in "space" are, and we don't actually need towers, we can use stratellites. Sorry for the condensed answers, my laptop battery's running low.

wouldn't it be more profitable to expose everyone else as a fraud? make oneself look good?

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Mars Landings
« on: October 14, 2008, 03:25:34 AM »
Mars landing is impossible in the FE theory simply because it's impossible to go out into space. Same reason why the moon landing never happened. NASA is part of the consipircy. They protect the Ice Wall too. Which is apparently only 150FT high. Anyone living in an 22nd story appartment. Use a telescope and see if you could see the wall. You are higher than it.

Sorry, but FE does not contend that space flight is impossible.  Only sustained space flight is considered impossible.

Why is space flight possible but not sustained space flight? What counts as sustained?

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy?
« on: October 14, 2008, 03:20:16 AM »
faking a space program is cheaper than having one

What about countries with no space programs?
How is it so many of us are stupid enough to fall for this?

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy?
« on: October 14, 2008, 03:12:48 AM »
Saving face and making money, of course.

How do they make money from their round-earth scheme?

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy?
« on: October 14, 2008, 03:07:29 AM »
It's not the governments, just the space agencies. And they have no reason to antagonise each other. They all have a common interest, and if one goes down, they can fuck it up for everyone, so they have to keep each other sweet.

What common interest?

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: In the beginning
« on: October 14, 2008, 03:04:49 AM »
Yes. It's been photographed from high altitude. By many thousands of people, not just the lizard army that runs NASA.

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/discovery-project-earth-balloon-cam-raw.html

Double standard.

FE'er: The Earth looks flat to my own eyes, therefore it must be.
RE'er: You're an idiot.

RE'er: Look at this picture taken from high up where very few people have ever been. The Earth looks round, therefore it must be.
FE'er: That picture is faked.
RE'er: You're an idiot.

Let's forget the "you're an idiot" part, OK?
Are you familiar with pointillism? It's a late 19th century art movement. A pointillist painting, up close, looks like nothing but a bunch of dots. As you back away from it, you can see people, animals, trees... whatever the painter chose as his or her subject. What I'm trying to say is: although something make look a certain way from up close, it can be an entirely different thing from farther away.

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: In the beginning
« on: October 14, 2008, 02:47:01 AM »
Aha! Now we're getting somewhere!  When the particles started clumping together why did some form round planets and stars but some a flat earth?

It is likely that in the past, Dark Energy was a much more rigid flux, and so the Earth formed as layer upon layer of molten rock was compacted onto itself with nowhere to go due to the inertia of the rock in front of it. It would have accelerated at a phenomenal rate during this early formation; perhaps millions of metres per second per second. As the rigid Dark Energy struck the flat underside of this large cooling disk, a large region in front of it, extending for millions of kilometres, was shielded from the Dark Energy, allowing for spherical bodies to form, most of which plummeted straight into the surface of the Earth. As the initial rigidity of Dark Energy subsided for reasons not fully understood, the acceleration of the Earth slowed and the region that was shielded from Dark Energy began to shrink, until finally the heavens as we know them today were struck by the force of Dark Energy and caused to remain where they were.

Dark Energy is still becoming less rigid and less powerful, so in a few billion years we will likely be accelerating much more slowly, and more of the upper atmoplane will have stopped being shielded from Dark Energy and will escape into space, causing much lower air pressure at the surface. The oceans will eventually evaporate due to low pressure, creating an uncontrollable greenhouse effect and the Earth will overheat before Dark Energy spills over the ice wall and acceleration stops altogether, at which point the Earth will be left to slowly cool and eventually collapse into a sphere.


What is Dark Energy?

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy?
« on: October 14, 2008, 02:44:30 AM »
although the science seems to be based on false principles to me (i'm a nerd, so sue me). the thing i find most difficult to believe is that all, or even most, of the world's governments would conspire together. we can't even get along with each other on more minor details--why would all governments get along to deceive us all? (we also can't agree on major issues.) how is it every, single country is in on a conspiracy to make us believe the world is spherical? don't most countries have other things to worry about? for instance: starvation, internal wars, genocide, disease, lack of potable water...

23
Flat Earth Q&A / question about flat earth theory
« on: October 13, 2008, 04:12:28 PM »
why are there parts of the planet (does an FE-r call earth a planet?) where the suns shines for days on end or the sun doesn't appear for days on end? (alaska, for instance)

also... what force makes the sun move? by move i mean get closer or farther to the north pole during different seasons.

24
The Lounge / Just a question about the site.
« on: October 13, 2008, 03:58:39 PM »
  hi :)

is there any way the site creators can mend the forums and make them easier to read? sometimes they don't go in chronological order (by date), and the threads diverge all over the place so it's hard to figure out who's answering what. just a thought. it actually might make the site more open to other people... at least easier to use or understand.

Pages: [1]