1

Flat Earth Q&A / To Tom:

« on: February 18, 2007, 07:49:42 PM »

Guess I'll just wait for someone to reply......

2

Flat Earth Q&A / FE magnetic field

« on: February 18, 2007, 07:40:30 PM »

If the earth is flat then god sure as hell exists.

OK, interesting point.  Could you phrase that in the form of a logical proof?

I'm sure someone on here wants to argue with you about it.

The possibility of an omnipotent creator of the universe is greater than that of a planet taking a flat shape upon its formation (which even the FEers wouldn't be able to explain in a million years) so if a planet can be flat then there is a god.

However, I have not seen evidence that there is significant amounts of iron in the Earth's core nor have I seen any evidence of the direction of the magnetic field in any igneous rock (nor the assertion that said rock has a known position and direction throughout the history of the Earth). Thus, it would be unscientific of me to believe what you are saying.

Science doesn't claim that something doesn't exist until you've seen it.

The internet is the main form of evidence for magnetic polar drift? You really don't get it? Let me slap you in the face yet again: You don't know the evidence. You have never studied the magnetic striations of an igneous rock. I'm not saying the evidence is falsified, though it might be. My point is that you -- do -- not -- know. You don't know anything about it! You think you do, that much is obvious. But you only know what someone else has told you.

So you can't beleive in anything until you did it yourself? So you won't buy a car before you've studied mechanics, you won't buy a house before knowing everything about architecture, plumbing ect?  You don't beleive that you sleep at night because you've never seen yourself sleep?

He never said the internet was the evidence, it lets you access the information, you know what the sources are, you cen either reproduce what was done, or verify the sources yourself. I don't see where the problem is.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / To Tom:

« on: February 18, 2007, 07:29:16 PM »

Can't we just ban Tom?

It's annoying how he pollutes perfectly fine topics with his nonsense.

I guess he can't be banned for that, maybe we could just ignore him until he goes away?

4

Flat Earth Q&A / One more querstion - where are we moving "up" from

« on: February 18, 2007, 07:21:15 PM »

So where is this starting point?

The center of the Big Bang.

The big bang, by definition, expanded matter in every direction at once. Whic hdoesn't fit with the UA accelerating everything in a single direction.

Furthermore, if it originated merely from the big bang, why is it accelerating? Shouldn't it slow down?

5

Flat Earth Q&A / I want a serious answer ...

« on: February 18, 2007, 07:13:51 PM »

Tom ... Ok ... So, You are saying the Earth retains a certain ammount of heat, but lets it out at certain points.

The constant flow of heat ( comming from a spec that is 32 miles wide ) Is also being released, Thus not even provideing enough STARTUP heat...

Also, I still dont see how something 32 miles can heat us up. Ludicrious!

It could if it were sufficiently hot...   Also bear in mind that in the FE model, all of the energy produced by the sun is directed at the earth, but in the RE model, the earth only receives 1/10,000,000,000 of the energy of the Sun. So in the FE model, the sun actually puts out less energy per square mile of surface area than it does in the RE model. It is, in fact, easier for the sun to heat the Earth if you believe the FE model, not harder.

Wait, how could it be easier for the FE sun to heat the same surface with a lesser energy output?

6

Flat Earth Q&A / still confused about gravity

« on: February 17, 2007, 07:53:27 PM »

Probably, as FE gains mass but never looses any.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / *REAL* proof as too why the Earth is spherical (serious)

« on: February 17, 2007, 07:48:51 PM »

Your proof is coming straight from the mouth of the conspirators.  

The rest of the Earth is dark (nightime), thus preventing a "rocket propelled camera" from picking up the rest of the Earth.

The earth is not a barren wasteland. You'd be interested to know that people still function when the sun comes down, and all cities are illumimated at night. Thus making it EASIER to spot them from high altitude than it would be during the day.

That was one of the dumbest answers yet.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / List of questions that the flat earthers are ignoring:

« on: February 17, 2007, 07:35:57 PM »

As I stated in that thread, these channels are direct from the conspirators, thus cannot be trusted.

Unless you can demonstrate that they are, this amounts to saying nothing.

and FYI, those channels only provide the various documantaries and shows and play publicity, they usually have nothing to do with their production and filming. So conspirators owning the channels wouldn't do anything.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / serious question.

« on: February 17, 2007, 07:24:41 PM »

Mysterious unknown force known as UA (universal accelerator) with an unknown energy source. Its origin is also unknown, (big bang maybe, though it would logicaly push in every direction at once)

10

Flat Earth Q&A / FE magnetic field

« on: February 15, 2007, 03:59:06 PM »

God doesn't exist.  So screwed, you are.

If the earth is flat then god sure as hell exists.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Total Lunar Eclipse on March 3rd

« on: February 15, 2007, 03:57:04 PM »

NO, it wouldn't The dark object would NOT need to be between us and the moon. It would need to be BETWEEN THE SUN AND THE MOON being that the sun is the source of light that allows us to see the moon.

here's a sketchy diagram:

 m    _  d_ s
 o <-  | O
|_\___\__|      
  __  1___2

as I understand it, observer at point 1 would view a luna eclipse, as the dark object (d) is between the moon (m) and the sun (s), therefore blocking the light. An observer at point 2 is still in the effects of daytime, and as a result, would not be able to see the dark object.

Although that's quite sketchy, maybe I can expand a bit more.

On FE, when it's night time, the sun is over a different part of the Earth, so I'd imagine the dark object would be closer to the sun (being that's we've never seen it). So during a luna eclipse, neither the sun, or the dark object is far enough overhead to be viewed. The people who do have the sun (and dark object) overhead cannot view the dark object, because it's still daytime.

Does that make sense?

That doesn't work. In FE, the moon radiates "cold light" (whatever the hell that is) so even with the object between it and the sun, we would still see the moon as usual.

Fe has a habit of having one of its explanations prevent another from being possible.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / FE magnetic field

« on: February 15, 2007, 03:34:07 PM »

all you need now is to show the evidence that is believable to the criteria of this forum

Not even god could do that. The only evidence deemed beleivable so far is evidence that supports FE.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Stuff

« on: February 15, 2007, 03:27:22 PM »

The fact that we feel a pseudo-force of gravity. We exchange your Gravity for our Acceleration; get it now?

It still doesn't answer my question.

How can you determine that it is due to everything in the universe being accelerated in the same direction?  How can you tell that this is what's happening rather than another phenomenon, when you have no frame of reference to allow you to know that everything is moving?

The fact that the forces felt would be the same does nothing to show that it is one phenomenon over the other.

Simply saying "the equivalence principle" did not answer the question.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / from the faq ???

« on: February 15, 2007, 03:05:27 PM »

That's only a possible explanation. The more commonly accepted theory is that the observable celestial bodies clearly are spheres, but the Earth is not.

Maybe the "commonly accepted" theory should be the one to actually appear in the FAQ.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Chinese Riddle.

« on: February 15, 2007, 03:03:47 PM »

How is that a riddle?

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Whaling ship sabotaged by icewall guards for getting 2 close

« on: February 14, 2007, 08:39:31 PM »

And what indicates that there was a conspiracy involved?

I'm pretty sure Rick_James is mocking the RE perception of FE.

You don't know what Rick James think, only Rick James does.

So FUÇK YA COUCH NIGGA!.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Where do atoms come from?

« on: February 14, 2007, 08:37:57 PM »

how does gravity apply to atoms in other celestial bodies but not to those that formed Earth?

FE also has gravitation. It's a side effect of acceleration.

Fe doesn't have gravitation, check your own FAQ.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Whaling ship sabotaged by icewall guards for getting 2 close

« on: February 14, 2007, 08:31:11 PM »

Maritime New Zealand spokesman Lindsay Sturt says it does not appear the 8,000-tonne processing ship Nisshin Maru is in danger of sinking.

You wonder how they can keep up a conspiracy when they"re so inneficient as to fail to sink a lone ship in the middle of nowhere.

And what indicates that there was a conspiracy involved?

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Another question about gravity

« on: February 14, 2007, 02:49:11 PM »

Wrong about what, exactly?  That the force we feel as gravity is actually acceleration?  That's funny, as Einstein doesn't seem to think I'm wrong.

I'm pretty sure Einstein never talked to you.  Also, this guy named Hubble showed your theory to be incorrect in 1929, long before you started misusing special relativity.  And, he corrected Einstein's math, which Einstein deliberately fudged because of his personal beliefs blinded him to the obvious reality.  Einstein was notorious for this.  He actually believed he knew what God thought.  Pretty crazy, really.

And yes, the force we feel known as gravity is gravity, not acceleration.  I will quote the article, since youre too lazy to read it, "We analyze apparent magnitudes of supernovae and observationally rule out the special relativistic Dopple interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23sigma."

You mean the cosmological constant, in which Einstein wanted a stable universe.

...and then went on to admit it was the biggest blunder of his career.

At least he did. Can you imagine the chaos if he was stubborn and didn't

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Stuff

« on: February 14, 2007, 02:44:12 PM »

Equivalence Principle = frames undergoing gravity are equal to frames undergoing constant acceleration. General Relativity.

I know what it is. But that does not answer the question of "How can you tell that everything is being accelerated?"

That is assuming the UA is a force-at-a-distance. It could be the result of some intrinsic property of the universe that we cannot see; not necessarilly coming from 'somewhere' but from 'no-where' (as can be detected by us). Since we don't know what it is I think it would be better to make no assumptions about what it is (sounds very much like dark matter to me).

That only strenghtens my position that the UA is an unknown.

But if it was merely a property of matter, why would they all move in the same direction? Furthermore, if it was a property of matter, an object would not fall down when you'd let go of it.

Now, my point of argument is that dark matter is given too much credit, I think. We don't know what dark matter is made of, where it came from, or whether it even exists. We cannot see it.

No one claims to know exactly what Dark matter really is. It's pretty much a scapegoat. We know something exists because the universe's expension would not be exponential otherwise, it was arbitrarly named "dark matter" But we do know it exists. If it didn't, gravity would win, and we would have an occilating universe (we still could, but the conditions are much harder to reach).

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Conversion

« on: February 14, 2007, 02:25:15 PM »

THANK YOU phaseshifter.

No problem kupo.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / question on optics and rivers

« on: February 14, 2007, 02:22:06 PM »

How do you figure that?

Because the elevation of land really has nothing to do with its location on the Earth. I thought that was common sense, but apparently it isn't. :roll:

I never said it had anything to do with it. I was refering to the rivers.

Is there any solid evidence that says that it couldn't be purely coincidental?

Things are considered coincidental after it is proven that they are not related. Which is not the case here. What evidence do YOU have that it's a coincidence?

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Conversion

« on: February 14, 2007, 02:16:55 PM »

That isn't fact, it's opinion until you show me the scientific method of these alleged experiments to prove me wrong.

Step 1. Look outside your window

Step 2. Read the FAQ

Step 3. Read the book "Earth not a Globe" by Samuel Birley Rowbotham

Step 4. Preform the experiments described in the book for yourself.

Step 5. Read the book "One hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe" by William Carpenter

Step 6. Preform the experiments described in the book for yourself.

Step 7. Read the back-issues of "Flat Earth News Quarterly"

Step 8. Preform the experiments described in the newsletters for yourself.

Step 9. Read the book "Flatland" by Edwin A. Abbott

Step 10. Repeat steps 1 through 10 until it sinks in.

Tom, You're dumb.

The Faq is not a proof. Some of the "proofs" in the FAQ are links to threads where people are arguing about the subject.

1.Samuel Rowbotham's experiment have already been replicated and no one but him got the results he claims to have gotten.

2. When Rowbotham performed his experiment in the presence of an observer, by some strange coincidence, it failed.

If you accept as proof an experiment that works exclusively when the scientist is alone and unobserved, then it goes back to my first statment, you're dumb.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / 12hours of Darkness?

« on: February 14, 2007, 02:11:01 PM »

I think Tom doesn't understand what you're trying to explain, which is why his answers make no sense (well, less sense than usual.)

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Where do atoms come from?

« on: February 14, 2007, 01:55:23 PM »

The flatness of the earth was due to sheering and rotational forces in its young life.

And why was it rotating?

Unknown. Ejected from a larger mass of debris, perhaps. No one was around 4.5 billion years ago to say for certain.

Being ejected would give it motion and a direction, not rotation.

And you don't need to be around to know, all you need is logical deduction. We weren't around when the sun formed but we know how old it is. By your own logic, how can you tell me it was rotating in the first place?

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Conversion

« on: February 14, 2007, 01:51:57 PM »

It looks flat, and everything that tells me it's spherical is from outside sources.  Am I going to trust someone else over my own eyes?

You doctor tells you that you have lung cancer. But when you look at your chest it seems fine. Stupid doctors.

If it really seems fine, well then, you go to another doctor.

If it seems fine why would you consult a doctor?

27

Flat Earth Q&A / question on optics and rivers

« on: February 14, 2007, 01:51:13 PM »

No, you would have to go much higher to see every part of the world. You would have to go higher than any commercial plane can even fly

Actually, you'd just need to be higher than most objects (buildings, mountains) that would obstruct your view. And even if you don't see the whole world, you'd be able to see a lot farther than we actually do in reality.

It is probably just a coincidence.

How do you figure that?

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Conversion

« on: February 14, 2007, 01:45:30 PM »

It looks flat, and everything that tells me it's spherical is from outside sources.  Am I going to trust someone else over my own eyes?

You doctor tells you that you have lung cancer. But when you look at your chest it seems fine. Stupid doctors.

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Just one little question...

« on: February 14, 2007, 11:44:12 AM »

That picture doesn't even look real, you could have made an effort. And the Banana in it doesn't look giant either.

Nana man will kick your butt.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Stuff

« on: February 14, 2007, 11:41:11 AM »

In Fe, an unknown force (I don't know what they call it) is used to explain the phenomenon of the UA, which itself is an unknown used to explain the equivalent of gravity on earth and its movement.

I think the unknown force and the UA are the same thing (is UA universal accelerator?)

Yes, it is Universal accelerator. But in order to transfer Kinetic energy on every piece of matter un the iniverse, the UA would need an energy source. And since it's accelerating, the required energy becomes greater with each passing second. Also, heat would be created in the process.