1

Flat Earth Q&A / What's up?

« on: June 14, 2008, 08:55:28 PM »

Anyone I know that still posts here? What about that guy with like over 10000 posts that kept changing his name? Anyone? :[
-subby

2

The Lounge / Re: Useless Crap Subforum

« on: May 03, 2007, 01:53:18 PM »

I thought angry ranting was more tied in with the discussion/debate on Flat Earth, and that it consisted mostly of threads started by newcomers who'd post the routine "omg rofl flat earth? fucking idiots" (in more or less detail than that, with more or less emphasis on scientific evidence).

3

The Lounge / Useless Crap Subforum

« on: May 03, 2007, 01:40:11 PM »

Just offering my opinion to the mods and admins, take it for what it is.

Personally, I find these forums unreadable.  I occasionally log on during class because most forums worth visiting are blocked, and when I come here with the intent of "checking up on the gang," I run into this:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13219.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13165.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13066.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13179.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13175.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13178.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13176.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13073.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=10818.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13146.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13163.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13159.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13154.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13122.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13092.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12993.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13069.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13074.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11936.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11797.0

What I'm getting at is, should the Everything Else forum be used BOTH as a forum for non-FE-related discussion AND as members' personal playground on which to play assgrab?  Speaking from experience, I mod a forum for one of the oldest (if not, THE) oldest online games still being played - Subspace/Continuum - where whiny shits are abundant.  Having a Useless Crap subforum for inside jokes and very specific messages that may be addressed to only one or a few forum members does wonders.  It makes the other subforums readable: all the posts in that subforum would actually CORRESPOND to the name of that subforum.  Basically what I'm suggesting is, take the useless crap out of Everything Else and make Everything Else more than just a refuse bin for spam and upping post counts.  Maybe even merge Everything Else into the General Discussion forum with the addition of a Useless Crap forum.  I know half of you will respond with "Just don't read it, then," which is why I'm directing this post at the mods and admins who realize what a terrible answer that is.

4

The Lounge / Re: The "Post Your Poem" Thread

« on: May 03, 2007, 10:23:25 AM »

Conflict boils over like an angry sludge



Hope.
Springs.

5

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Schweet Flash Games

« on: April 28, 2007, 04:01:24 PM »

http://www.handdrawngames.com/DesktopTD/
Post your scores on normal or hard mode to the group "flatearth"

6

The Lounge / Re: Tombstone

« on: April 28, 2007, 10:11:38 AM »

"POW, right in the kisser.
POW, right in the kisser.
POW, right in the kisser.
POW, right in the kisser.
POW, right in the kisser."

7

The Lounge / Re: The Sun Doesn't Rise (Not what you think it is!)

« on: April 27, 2007, 09:03:18 AM »

tl;dr

8

The Lounge / New "Earth-like" planet found. Scientists say it's habitable.

« on: April 26, 2007, 10:23:02 AM »

Link: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/04/24/earthlikeplanet_spa.html?category=space&guid=20070424164530&dcitc=w19-502-ak-0000

April 24, 2007 — Astronomers have found the first Earth-sized world circling its mother star at a distance suitable for life. It also has good prospects for liquid surface water — believed to be a key ingredient for life.

"This planet will most probably be a very important target of the future space missions dedicated to the search for extra-terrestrial life," said Xavier Delfosse, with Grenoble University in France.

It will be years before more sensitive instruments are developed to glean additional clues about whether life exists on the planet.
advertisement
line

"It is not possible with current telescopes and instruments yet," Xavier Bonfils, an astronomer with the Lisbonne Observatory in Portugal, wrote in an e-mail to Discovery News. "But in the next decade, we may have the tools to answer this question."

The planet, which is about 50 percent larger than Earth, circles a star in the constellation Libra known as Gliese 581, about 20.5 light-years away. Light travels in a vacuum at about 187,000 miles per second.

Astronomers previously have found a Neptune-sized world circling Gliese 581, as well as strong evidence for a third planet about eight times the mass of Earth.

The new planet, which is the smallest planet beyond our solar system found to date, circles its star 14 times closer than Earth orbits the sun. But because Gliese 581 is smaller and colder than our sun, the system's so-called habitability zone, where liquid water and thus life is possible, is closer to the mother star than in our solar system.

Astronomers estimate the mean temperature of the newly discovered planet to be between 0 degrees and 104 degrees Fahrenheit.

"Water would be liquid," notes lead researcher Stephane Udry with Switzerland's Geneva Observatory. "Models predict that the planet should be either rocky — like our Earth — or covered with oceans."

The discovery likely will bolster efforts to find other Earth-like planets circling so-called red dwarf stars, which are the most common type of stars in our galaxy. Of the 100 closest stars to the sun, 80 are red dwarfs.

"Red dwarfs are ideal targets for the search for such planets because they emit less light, and the habitable zone is thus much closer to them than it is around the sun," Bonfils said.

Planets closer to their mother stars are typically easier to find than those farther away. The scientists, part of an international team from Switzerland, France and Portugal, submitted their findings for publication in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics.

The discovery was made using with the Chile-based European Southern Observatory High Accuracy Radial Velocity for Planetary Searcher instrument.

Interesting stuff.

9

The Lounge / :(

« on: April 26, 2007, 10:17:31 AM »

I was riding home from a store today on the bus, listening to music and not paying attention to anything. As we we're at a bus stop, a girl started screaming her head off at the back of the bus and pointing out the window, as soon as I looked I saw 3 guys. One on the ground, bleeding everywhere, and saying "Please, I didn't mean it" over and over, one with a baseball bat, and one standing there yelling at the man on the ground. As soon as they realized there was a whole bus of people staring at them, the man who was yelling took a gun out and shot the man on the ground in the head. The bus instantly went up in screams, and the two men got in a car and sped away. As the bus driver radioed in for help, a third of the bus was screaming, a third calling 911 and the other third (including me) just staring silently.

Eventually they let us leave the scene after getting statements, and I finally got home around 2pm. When I came home I was visibly shaken, and I told my mom what I had just seen. Then all of a sudden my mom got scared, she said "You're moving with your auntie and uncle in Bel-Air." I whistled for a cab and when it came near, the license plate said "Fresh" and it had dice in the mirror. If anything I could say that this cab was rare but I thought "Nah, forget it, Yo holmes, to Bel-Air!" I pulled up to the house about seven or eight and I yelled to the cabbie, "Yo holmes, smell ya later!" I looked at my kingdom, I was finally there, to sit on my throne as the prince of Bel-Air.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sighs

« on: April 25, 2007, 01:42:42 PM »

FDAU

11

The Lounge / Re: The "Post Your Poem" Thread

« on: April 24, 2007, 12:15:17 PM »

here's a haiku inspired by Louis C.K.

Bought a tomato
I ate it and it was good
Shut the fuck up now.

12

Arts & Entertainment / Re: The Great Top Ten Debate- vote for best song

« on: April 23, 2007, 08:38:26 PM »

Umm.... duh?

I said that all the others were crap.  Read, will you?
Avril Lavigne isn't going to write the song of the century, but she's not bad.

LOL

oh god, could only find this on these forums

13

Arts & Entertainment / Re: The Great Top Ten Debate- vote for best song

« on: April 23, 2007, 05:57:00 PM »

Akon's stuck in my head, and Cupid's Chokehold was ok but they started overplaying it, now it's like why bother, I know the lyrics better than the singer.

14

The Lounge / Re: Post An Image of Your Leg!

« on: April 22, 2007, 11:21:31 AM »

15

The Lounge / Re: THe most ridiculous website on the internet (Not FES)

« on: April 08, 2007, 08:25:32 PM »

fags

16

The Lounge / Re: Add a caption!

« on: April 05, 2007, 04:09:12 PM »

"Kirk Johnson has moved on to bigger and better things."

(Google Kirk Johnson if you don't understand this.)

I win, btw.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Occam's Razor

« on: April 04, 2007, 06:28:09 PM »

Ok, Occam's Razor, if there are two answers the simplest is right.
1. The earth is round and it goes around the sun.
2. The earth is flat, it is constantly accelerating upwards at 1g, the Sun and Moon are giant spotlights, and a giant Icewall holds everything in and somehow holds the atmosphere in with methods unkown.

Hmm?

And please, no going off topic, I am trying to be serious here.

That's a pretty loaded question, don't you think?  BTW I'm a RE'er, I just think if you ARE trying to be serious you should weight both options equally (as in, go into as much detail about the 1st as you did in the 2nd).

18

The Lounge / 5th Grade Teacher Leaves Class, Orgy Commences

« on: April 04, 2007, 06:20:13 PM »

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2007/04/03/3907148-ap.html

Felony.. wow.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Planet Earth

« on: April 03, 2007, 11:23:33 AM »

I'm pissed that my DVR reset and all the recording to-do's got deleted, but I was able to salvage the last 20 minutes of the Deserts episode, and the complete Ice Worlds episode.

The only thing negative I can say about this show possibly is that they recycled footage from the previous episodes.  Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the Pole to Pole episode was just an all-encompasing "preview" of future episodes in which they go deeper into each subject area, but the same re-used penguin footage and polar bear footage really wasn't necessary in my opinion.  Despite all that, what I hadn't seen before wowed me as usual... the penguin behavior (the 3-4 mothers fighting to adopt one chick, and nearly crushing it ), also some of the ice spires and formations with big gaping holes in them.  And the walruses pwning the polar bear

The great thing about this show is that anyone can get into it.  I know some real tough guys, football and basketball players at my school who are really into it, you just couldn't mentally picture them watching a nature show.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Planet Earth

« on: March 30, 2007, 03:32:27 AM »

I laughed out loud at:
(Narrator explains how baby elephant becomes blind during sandstorm and remains blind for some time afterward)
...
(baby elephant walks straight into a tree)

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Planet Earth

« on: March 28, 2007, 11:03:58 PM »

Just watched them.. wow.  I agree, the ocean floor stuff was the coolest, along with the birds of paradise.  And it's pretty neat that they got those full hunts/chases.

Just look at this guy, loving how the Round Earther's gather up information regarding Planet Earth. Yet he's one of the most idiotic guy from the FE believers who is very close minded. Don't you think these people had a conspiracy too? Everything is photoshopped? No? Why? Because they 100% never mention on how the Earth is so round? You think that these people who videocam'd and took pictures believes the Earth is Flat? Ha! They're one of us, Round Earthers. You see where I'm going?

If you don't believe the Earth is round, don't bother getting information from an RE'er on this planet Earth. Everything should be false according to you and your believers.

Shut the fuck up tool.

This thread is back to being about Planet Earth the series.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Bring GeneralGayer back!

« on: March 27, 2007, 11:34:25 PM »

Quix, you've been here long enough to notice the MASSIVE influx of spam everywhere throughout this forum. For a period, no one was spamming the serious forums (FE discussion&debate, FE Q's, religion and phil), so the Mods put up with it.

These guys were banned particularly for spamming in the serious forums, after it is well advertised that they will be heavily moderated, and repeated spamming of those forums isn't on.

In addition to that, the serious forums are now the only ones that are deciferable at the moment, due to the sheer number threads being started every day.

There was also the chatting problem (of which I was a  part) where chat was done in the forum, chewing up the bandwidth.

In short, Gayer is gone (tho I have a feeling we haven't seen the last of her), but the mods had some basis for their decision, despite how fantastically awesome she is.

Funnily enough, I was under the impression Vauxhall was as well....

Lol, yeah, I was semi-active here a few months back, got bored... recently came back to see if there was anything new and I see people with 5000 posts in the span of months, some averaging around or over 100 a day, was like "...wow".  Something tells me these bans are probably just as good for the posters as the forum...

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Planet Earth

« on: March 27, 2007, 10:47:14 PM »

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/planet-earth/planet-earth.html
Anyone see this this past sunday on the Discovery Channel?  I DVR'd it because the commercials were awesome, they had 3 different episodes on, going to watch it when I have time.
The ad they ran was like "A new breakthrough series... over 2,000 days of film shot, over 100 locations"... sounds tight and LOOKS tight.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plane on conveyor on a FE... Will it ever take off?

« on: March 19, 2007, 05:51:05 PM »

This is a pure mechanics problem, and we must examine it in terms of forces applied on the plane.
While still on the conveyor/runway, the plane is subjected to the following forces:

Gravity, oriented downwards, constant.
Lift, oriented upwards, function of airspeed.
Thrust, oriented forwards, assumed constant.
Drag, oriented backwards, superposition of air resistance and friction in the wheels.

Obviously the plane will not take off until the force due to lift overcomes the force due to gravity. For this to happen, the plane must achieve some minimum forward velocity relative to the air. Forward acceleration will only occur as long as the force of thrust overcomes the drag force.

Because the conveyor belt speed is the inverse of the plane's airspeed, we can say that the conveyor belt does not move until the plane begins to accelerate forward. Thus, rolling resistance has already been overcome by thrust when this problem really begins.

Initially, the engine thrust is considerably higher than the drag—this is what allows aircraft to take off on regular runways. So the question is, once we start moving and the conveyor belt starts up, does it impose some force on the aircraft that can overcome the force of thrust?

Certainly not initially. Consider the case where the aircraft has just begun to move through the air at, say, 1 m/s. The conveyor belt is then moving backwards at 1 m/s and therefore the speed of the aircraft relative to the conveyor is 2 m/s. If a 2 m/s rolling speed created enough friction to overcome the engines, then no aircraft could ever accelerate beyond this speed on a regular runway.

In fact, we know that at the moment of takeoff the wheels are still on the ground and rolling and the aircraft is still accelerating. So up to that rolling speed at least, the engines still win the thrust vs. friction competition. Would rolling at twice that speed cause sufficient friction?

Consider the thrust of an aircraft engine. I won't give you figures here because it depends widely on the type of engine. But... it's a lot of force. Now contrast this with rolling friction. I'm guessing here, but I think that before a wheel could provide enough friction (without using the brakes) to completely counteract an aircraft engine at full throttle, the wheel would be spinning so fast that it would come apart. At any rate, it certainly would not reach this tremendous amount of friction at a rolling rate twice that of a standard takeoff speed.

The airplane would take off normally, with the wheels spinning twice as fast as normal and a *slight* reduction in acceleration due to added friction.

I think where people get thrown off is the idea that if the conveyor is moving backwards and the plane is on the conveyor, then this must translate to some backwards momentum that has to be overcome by the thrust. But of course the conveyor doesn't start up until the plane is already moving forward. It is the conveyor that must overcome the forward momentum imparted by the engines—and the forces just aren't comparable.

http://mouser.org/log/archives/2006/02/001003.html

25

Flat Earth Q&A / North seeking rotating mass gyrocompass.

« on: August 23, 2006, 01:17:33 PM »

I got it, I got it!:

Jesus came to my door yesterday.  He told me the earth was round.  I replied, "Tis a fine observation, my friend."  He then offered to sell me a globe.  I grabbed the globe out of his hands and beat the shit out of him with it, and slammed the door.

There are many lessons to learn from the above  

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity At Different Altitudes

« on: August 20, 2006, 01:58:30 PM »

Take your adderall and then tell me where I said I was doing research you arrogant twit.  I just linked a site EXPLAINING RE theory's take on this.  In no way is it a 100% proof via the scientific method or anything close to that, I'm just citing an example of RE EXPLANATION for this fact.  Which is better than the NOTHING you or any FE'ers are giving me so far.

If you need to put words in my mouth and belittle me in an attempt to "throw off" my argument, just don't.  Realize that you don't have to post in every thread.  And I sure as hell don't need to belittle you to help myself, but I did it anyway because you're just that much of a natural dumbass.

Next?

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity At Different Altitudes

« on: August 20, 2006, 12:15:10 PM »

his is a RE explanation of why g varies at different parts of the earth. What's the FE explanation? Or are you saying "it doesn't vary"?

Well, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so why don't YOU put in the FE explanation?

What is your point?  You're saying that "unreliable sources" may have contributed to that wikipedia article?  I did a google search for "acceleration due to gravity", and this was the top result, probably because it was the most RELEVANT?  I'm just posting the most relevant page it gave me - if you don't like it, I can post a hundred more that have nothing to do with wikipedia.

And why should I try to explain something that it's my opponent's job to?  Honest to goodness I wouldn't even know where to begin... I'm a RE'er.  Leave it to the "professionals".

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity At Different Altitudes

« on: August 20, 2006, 11:49:55 AM »

The acceleration due to gravity has been measured at different altitudes on the earth

Measured by who? Those who have worked so hard to make the world believe the earth is flat?  Please try harder not to confuse myth with fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_due_to_gravity

^This is a RE explanation of why g varies at different parts of the earth.  What's the FE explanation?  Or are you saying "it doesn't vary"?  We're talking on a most fundamental level here - this is simply a website that exposes a hole in FE theory.  g varies, it's a given.  I don't know how to make it any more clear-cut for you.  It isn't a "myth" when you can test this out for yourself with nothing more than some video equipment, linear measuring tools and a marble.

And the cash to do an intermediate amount of travelling.

Edit: Here's a fun site to play around with: http://bpesoft.com/s/wleizero/xhac/?h=-86&M=g

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity At Different Altitudes

« on: August 20, 2006, 12:19:23 AM »

I haven't searched the forums for a post about this, and frankly I wouldn't even know what keywords to use, so I'll address it here.

The acceleration due to gravity has been measured at different altitudes on the earth.  It's been shown that that acceleration is lower at high altitudes than it is at sea level.  How would the FE model account for this?

30

Flat Earth Q&A / New definition of planets

« on: August 18, 2006, 02:05:07 AM »

you're tittering now.

But no one will be laughing when I launch a satellite into space and take a picture of the flat thing we love that we call the earth! Bwahahahahahaha! Then all will be revealed! Everyone will know the earth is flat!

... I just need 100 million dollars first.

Anyone wish to donate?

100 million dollars couldn't buy you enough lobotomies or LSD to neutralize your bigotry.