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 - alex2539

Pages: [1] 2 3
Flat Earth Q&A / Explanation for day and night.
« on: January 26, 2006, 03:08:17 PM »
I have my own theory: You've never been to University. If you had, first of all your grammar and spelling might be a bit better...
but then a went to university
"then a went" ?!? And that's just the most obvious problem! But, this has nothing to do with your topic, so I'll move on.

First you say you KNOW it's a giant laser in the sky. No proof, no backup, nothing but a statement that you and a couple of people claim to know something. If things worked that way, then I could just as easily say "I know you're wrong!" and you'd have to take my word for it. Good thing it doesn't work that way, huh?

You then claim that the light is funneled throught a "giant molten metallic 'shield'".
-First off, why molten? Solid metal not good enough for you?
-Second, if it did go as close to the Earth as your diagram seems to display, then it should be quite visible to the naked eye as it approached.
-Third, what is a central radius? A radius is the distance from the center to the edge of a circle, so how could it be anything BUT central? The word central need not apply here.
-Fourth, you present no proof, no backup, merely another theory based on no evidence whatsoever. You don't even suggest how it got there. It most certainly can't have been the Americans, nor the Russians since the Sun and Earth have existed far longer than either nationality, let alone space travel and the means to construct such a monstrous apparatus.

Next, you say you KNOW it wouldn't be a laser... let's back up a bit in your post:
ANyway, what if the sun wasn't as some claim, a 360 degree spherical light emitting source, but as i and 2 or 3 others KNOW, a giant freaking laser.

Well, I guess you showed you! But anywho, if it's not a laser then what is it? You say that it can't be one because of the wihte light. You then proceed to say that your friend was telling you about "point light sources". However, you fail to explain what these are. Judging by the words that make it up, I can assume that it is a light source that is focused on a point. That would probably accomodate your theory, wouldn't it? If only! Luckily one of us did his research (I'll give you a hint, it wasn't you). Check this out:
Point Light Source

A Point light source is one that emits light in all directions. It is a point source of light which has no "lamp shade" to restrict the direction in which the light can travel.
Wow! That sounds a lot like the current model of the sun, doesn't it? Now you're wondering "Where did he pull that arbitrary definition from?" And, I'll be nice and give you the URL:
One link not enough? How about two?
That one is more science-y I think.

Also, one request: if people are going to steal my diagram method of presentation, could they at least be done neatly and decently? I sincerely doubt that took and hour. If you're not going to put effort into defending your theories, at least put some into your pretty pictures, okay?

Flat Earth Q&A / Reason for why the governments conspire!
« on: January 26, 2006, 02:31:13 PM »
Probably! Those Reptoids are sneaky little bastards. Especially since they can shape-shift.

Flat Earth Q&A / Reason for why the governments conspire!
« on: January 25, 2006, 05:27:36 PM »
The question has been asked many times by many people: "Why would every government in the world ignore everything they hate about each other to conspire together to make us all believe that the Earth is round, with no evidence of any possible gain on their part?". The answer is simple; Reptoids!

Reptoids are shape-shifting lizards that theoretically live beneath the Earth's crust and have infiltrated different levels of our society. They have only been heard of by a few people, and are detectable by fewer still. These Reptoids have shape-shifted into human form long ago, surfaced in various parts of the world and infiltrated governments while they were weak, or have taken the place of reputed scientists. From there, they could easily insitute the education of the youth. For hundreds of years people have been learning about the round Earth from Reptiods and took it as truth. When they teach it to others, it's not because they are part ofa government consiracy, but rather have been misled by shape-shifting lizards!

Why would the Reptoids want us to think the Earth was flat? Purely and simply because they DO live beneath the crust, and so long as people think that they can't travel farther than a few kilometers before having their drills melt from the mantle's heat, they won't search for the Reptoids' cities! If people found it, the conspiracy would be blown open and then the Reptoids would be defeated forever.

I suggest you go to to see more.

« on: January 19, 2006, 05:19:23 PM »
Quote from: "Hardhead"
I wasn't aware that claiming the sun and moon were secretly submarines constituted a real effort.
That was when I was bored, uninspired, and at the very end of my flat-earth run.

Flat Earth Q&A / are all planets flat?
« on: January 18, 2006, 05:25:03 PM »
but i was reading how our planet moves upwards (to explain why things fall) all the time but then if some planets were round then what do they do?
Then you obviously didn't read the whole thing. There are a million reasons as to why that's wrong. Completely wrong. So wrong it's borderline idiotic.


Flat Earth Q&A / Where are all the flat-earthers?
« on: January 18, 2006, 05:04:13 PM »
There weren't too many to start off with, and now that two of the strongest debaters (6strings and I) have given up hope on them, I haven't really seen them stand up for themselves.

Flat Earth Q&A / Sunsets/Sunrises?
« on: January 18, 2006, 05:01:14 PM »
Quote from: "putthepinback"
why doesnt the sky go dark?  ^
I don't have THAT much free time... well... I do, but I'm just lazy. Quite frankly, if you're dumb enough to believe that, then you're not exactly the kind of keen observer that would notice such details.

Flat Earth Q&A / are all planets flat?
« on: January 18, 2006, 11:24:48 AM »
The sun, most likely not since it's basically a fireball. The moon maybe though. The same side of the moon always faces the Earth no matter what. Does no one wind it slighlty unlikely that it happens to be rotating and orbiting at the exact speeds that would cause the two to, in effect, cancel out and only show one side? The moon therefore, may very well be flat. As for other planets, who know. Gas giants are probably round due simply to their make-up, but other like mars or mercury, I don't think there would be any way of telling.

And so ends my final post as a flat-earther. You guys obviously aren't able to answer even the simplest of questions, so why should I continue to do the work for you if I don't believe it myself?

Prepare to get destroyed  8-)

Flat Earth Q&A / Questions regarding a Flat Earth
« on: January 16, 2006, 05:34:35 PM »
Well there was an entire topic. It is smaller and less powerful, but closer so it gives the same result as if it were bigger, more powerful and far away.

« on: January 16, 2006, 05:17:29 PM »
You know what, if I have to come with one more bullshit answer on my own and then defend it again without help, I may switch back as well. We can't be expected to do all of the work. Do you think my diagrams just pop out of nowhere? I make those to help out you flat-earthers and you can't even take my simplest explanations and expand on them.

Flat Earth Q&A / Questions regarding a Flat Earth
« on: January 16, 2006, 05:10:55 PM »
You failed to mention that it is less powerful and smaller than assumed as well. This would be the reason as to why they don't. Granted, they're melting because of global warming, but that doesn't exactly disprove a flat Earth. A flat Earth has an atmosphere as well, and we would have destroyed it just as much anyways.

Flat Earth Q&A / Sunsets/Sunrises?
« on: January 16, 2006, 04:59:17 PM »
I have evidence of my claim! As you can see from this footage, the Sun pauses for an instant while the submarine expands around it, then proceeds to sink into the ocean.

Flat Earth Q&A / Questions regarding a Flat Earth
« on: January 16, 2006, 04:04:19 PM »
#1 is unknown since there has never been any recorded travel off the face of the Earth, but theoretically there is a gigantic mass which is what accounts for our grvity.

#2 is because it's cold. It's like asking why isn't the South Pole melting.

I'm detecting a slight note of sarcasm here, but I'll say it anyways:
Religious text is not viable proof purely because there are other religions that exist that are just as viable.

Flat Earth Q&A / Final Proof
« on: January 16, 2006, 01:06:28 PM »
1. Go into space and look at the Earth.
In this day and age space travel is easily simulated artificially.

2. Get some flying lessons, the fly round the Earth. Take notes of which countries you fly over too, just to prove the flat map innacurate.
Yeah, because the countries are all different colours with big letters stating their names just like on a map!

Flat Earth Q&A / Sunsets/Sunrises?
« on: January 15, 2006, 04:37:27 PM »
The answer is the same as for why boats disappear over the horizon. The sun and moon are actually secretly submarines. When the sun has gone far enough out into the ocean, it begins to descend, eventually going completely  underwater. It then travels underwater until it is far enough away that the coast will not be affected by its light and then rises, giving the effect of a sunrise. It repeats once it hits the other ocean.

Flat Earth Q&A / Why the Earth is round.
« on: January 15, 2006, 03:11:52 PM »
First, I didn't say the submarine was under the boat, I said it IS the boat.

Second, circumpolar expeditions have not occured.

Flat Earth Q&A / More plausible gravity theory
« on: January 15, 2006, 03:04:21 PM »
Well, if the mother disc exerts large enough gravity on the Earth, and the coefficient of friction is low enough, then yes, I suggest the Earth would move down the slant. This is because when I take a plastic bowl and put, say, a corn flake on the slant, it slides down. I expect things slide down slants.
Alright, there may some mis-interpretation on my part. Which way is the "bowl"? If it were like an upside-down bowl, like a dome of some sort, and the Earth were on the outside, then it could work.

Flat Earth Q&A / More plausible gravity theory
« on: January 15, 2006, 01:39:27 PM »
At different points on the Earth, the angle would change, yes, but the distance you would have to go to notice such a change would be quite a bit. As you move around, the change in the angle would be so small, that it would be imperceptible. It would be like trying to notice the difference between in temperature between 20 degrees and 20.001 degrees (both celsius). The relative size of the Earth to the disc would make the change in angle fromeven one side to the other almost completely imperceptible to all but the most highly perceptive people in the world.

You can restrict the distance from the center that the Earth can be, but then you've broken the rule you were trying to follow, i.e., I could ask the question, "Why would the Earth be so close to the center?"
That wasn't a rule I was trying to follow, that was trying to kill 2 birds with one stone. Gravity works like this, and if we weren't at the center, we wouldn't noticce because of this.

You can suggest that the mother disc is slightly bowl-shaped. Like, very very slightly. This would explain why the Earth is always very close to the center.
Why? Are you suggesting that the Earth would move  down the slant?

maybe that the differences are so tiny that they're not noticed anyway

Flat Earth Q&A / More plausible gravity theory
« on: January 15, 2006, 12:48:18 PM »
My putting the Earth slightly off from the center was solely to avoid questions like "Why would the Earth, out of everything else, be what's exactly in the middle?" or "What would happen if it weren't in the exact center?". The Earth may very well be in the exact center. It only works better for my theory if it is, but I myself find that unlikely. Also, I already said the disk is just an example since there's no way of knowing what shape it is. It could be a dodecahedron for all I care, and it would still apply. It could also be a sphere, which would make the placement of the Earth irrelavent, but the disk is just simpler and I find it covers most of my bases...

... and how do you know about my puffins?

Flat Earth Q&A / More plausible gravity theory
« on: January 15, 2006, 12:16:22 PM »
"What observable phenomenon does your off-center hypothesis explain that other theories fail to account for?" For these purposes I don't count "I disagree with other theories" as an observable phenomenon, despite its being clearly observable and, well, phenomenal.
What you fail to grasp is that there is no other theory right now for gravity on a flat Earth since the other one was disproven in so many ways. So, until THIS one is disproven it will remain.

I've already given by observations. I've given them repeatedly. I even quoted myself stating my observations in my last post.

Flat Earth Q&A / Poles cold, equator not: Why?
« on: January 15, 2006, 12:10:30 PM »
Here's an explanation of cause and effect: Something happens, then something else happens because of it. You have two events. The first makes the second happen. The first is the cause, the second is the effect. The second cannot occur without the first.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:07 pm    Post subject:
You obviously don't understand cause and effect. The two go hand-in hand. Foreshortening is the effect of the inverse-square law. It couldn't happen without the inverse-sqaure law, and the inverse-square law causes foreshortening to happen. They are therefore, grouped together within the same theory.

Actually, I don't understand cause and effect, due to my confusion surrounding some phenomena in fluid dynamics. I will hazard a guess that nobody else really understands it either, on anything but the most colloquial level. However, this is probably a topic better suited to another thread.

Anyway, I will repeat only once more the example of the piece of paper in the flashlight beam. When you turn the paper, one part (A) will get closer to the source, and the other part (B) will get farther. If the inverse-square law were the only law that needed to be considered, then A should get brighter and B would get dimmer. However, it is in fact the case that *both* A and B get dimmer.
So, you're basically saying that I was right and the two theories do go hand-in hand. The inverse-square theory says that the energy is affected by how far away the object is. That's not the only thing though. You have to ask WHY does the farther object receieve less energy. The amount of heat and light does not change as it gets farther, but they ARE emitted at angles. So, the farther they go, the larger area they cover. Since there is a larger are but the same energy, the energy that was able to adequately light up a close object is spread out over a large area, of which the farther object is only a small part of a much larger area. This is demonstrated in a diagram:

What you say about foreshortening is that when something is at an angle, the area increases, but the amount of light remains the same, so the light is distributed along the area, but less densely than it would in a small area. So basically, it's the same thing again, only the effect now has a name. The angle creates the same result as distance would in that the area is increased.

Cause: The distance is greater or there is an angle.

Effect: The area the energy must cover is greater, so the amount of energy given to any one place is decreased.

Cause -> Effect

[EDIT]Whoops... forgot my diagram :S There it was, made and uploaded and I forget to paste it into the post.

Flat Earth Q&A / Why the Earth is round.
« on: January 15, 2006, 11:13:13 AM »
how do you explain how people circumnavigate the globe?
When you g oaround the Earth, you don't actually do it the way you assume. You're atually just going in a circle around the North pole at the center.
Why is it possible to get into an airplane and fly completely around this flat Earth?
See previous answer
And why, when standing on the beach looking out at the ocean, does the water at the edge of your field of vision appear curved?
It never has to me, and I've been to quite a few beaches in my time. My explanation: a whole lot of people with stigmatisms.
And when a boat is approaching, why do you see the sails first and only gradually see the rest of the boat as it gets closer?
They're all secretly submarines, they jsut don't want to admit it. Even your uncle's sailboat is a submarine, he just hasn't found the secret button that is mandatory in the production of boats.

Flat Earth Q&A / More plausible gravity theory
« on: January 15, 2006, 11:07:13 AM »
A theory is an assumption that things are what they are based on observed facts.
That's what I said. I even stated my observations:
I "know" that the Earth is flat, that gravity accelerates objects at a rate of 9.8m/s^2, that living beings can adpat to changse in their environment, and that gravity is caused by the mass of an object and the attraction to its center.
And then made an assumption based on these facts that my model is how gravity works. A theory isn't proved. That's why it's called a "theory" and not a "statement of fact".

Flat Earth Q&A / Poles cold, equator not: Why?
« on: January 15, 2006, 11:02:05 AM »
As arbitrary as they would have been when they were first created. North and South still point to the "poles", so if you were standing facing North, East would simply be to your right, and west to your left. It's just that if you try to go in a straight line, you'll actually be heading slighlty South-East or South-West.

Flat Earth Q&A / Why the Earth isn't Flat
« on: January 15, 2006, 10:56:13 AM »
3. Yeah, but it would be a part of common knowledge by now if people came off the edge.
Ever heard the expression "He just fell off the face of the Earth"? Now it's just an expression meaning "we can't find him", but in the time where the majority did believe in a flat Earth, people were reported as falling off the Earth many times. Although, odds are they didn't because of the ice wall.

4. I've never seen or heard about any 150 foot wall of ice.
That's because I don't think it's been encountered yet. If you look at this model of the flat Earth:

You can see that it is bordered by the South "Pole", which is shown as a large strip of white. If you compare the thickness of it to some place on the Earth, you can see that it's almost half the width of North America. So, it's just so large there, that no one has actually made it to the wall yet. Even in the round Earth mindset, people haven't been that far into Antarctica.

5. If it wasn't, then there would never be satellite interferences by weather, and the government wouldn't bother spending millions of dollars on radio towers or satellite dishes.
Odds are there are satellites, simply because they demostratably make things work. They get launched up outside the Earth's atmos-dome (not a sphere ;) ) and orbit in a circular motion with the North Pole serving as the center. Much in the same way as I demostrated the sun does in another topic, but at a much lower level.

6. The Sun is too far away to shine on certain locations. If it's only dozens of miles away like you say, it still would cover a huge amount of land at a time being as bright as it is.
You're assuming that what is currently assumed to be true about the sun really is. The sun is actually much smaller, and much closer than previously assumed. It is also much less powerful. It therefore cannot shine on the entire world, but only parts of it as it rotates at a high "orbit".

Flat Earth Q&A / More plausible gravity theory
« on: January 15, 2006, 10:35:19 AM »
Hi, I'm back.

So, what I meant was, "Exactly which observable phenomenon do other theories of flat-Earth or round-Earth gravity fail to address, which you hope your theory adequately explains?"
The other one was torn to shreds in every way possible, so I took it upon myself to make this one.

And pablo, a theory is basically that. You take what you know and put togehter a likely explanation. I "know" that the Earth is flat, that gravity accelerates objects at a rate of 9.8m/s^2, that living beings can adpat to changse in their environment, and that gravity is caused by the mass of an object and the attraction to its center. If the Earth itself were attracting us with its gravity,then people would be standing at angles of something around 5 degrees in some places of the world, more so as they get closer to the rim, which just doesn't work. So, it stands to reason that there must be a larger object on which the Earth rests to allow gravity to occur in a more natural, liveable manner. That manner which we currently experience.

Flat Earth Q&A / Poles cold, equator not: Why?
« on: January 15, 2006, 10:19:46 AM »
In fact, no, foreshoretening is distinct from inverse-square. Do the paper-and-flashlight experiment in a dark room, really. You'll see that as long as the paper is far from the flashlight, the whole piece of paper gets darker, even the bit that's getting closer to the light. And to take advantage of one of your diagrams, consider the one with the red lines emanating radially from a point. Imagine rotating one of the "A" cards so that its normal vector doesn't point radially anymore: now fewer of the red lines will intersect it. Foreshortening and inverse-square are two different manifestations of the same physical law -- that incident energy in a given solid angle is constant.

For example,

Ray B hits the Earth obliquely, thus covering a larger area, but delivering less power than ray A which hits perpendicularly and delivers the same amount of energy over a smaller space.

is a statement about foreshortening, whereas "Mars receives less solar energy per unit area than the Earth because it's farther from the sun," is a statement about inverse-square.

You obviously don't understand cause and effect. The two go hand-in hand. Foreshortening is the effect of the inverse-square law. It couldn't happen without the inverse-sqaure law, and the inverse-square law causes foreshortening to happen. They are therefore, grouped together within the same theory.

No, not in this case. But people used to use ice boxes, which were boxes that were cold because they had ice on top of them. I know that when I jump naked into the snow I get cold. It seems that cold things have a way of making things around them cold.
Here's how this works: the ice in an icebox doesn't stay frozen forever, it melts after some time, which is why the ice would need to be bought an replaced regularly. Since the ice is in an isolated environment, the melting takes more time. As the ice melts, what it is really doing is absorbing energy from the environment (the air around it and whatnot). So, it melts because it's gaining energy so it gets warm enough to melt, whereas the air is losing its energy to the ice, so its temperature is decreasing. When you walked into the icebox, it feels cold because the air is cold, and that is what you come in contact with. When people put food in it, the food would stay cold because the air would absorb its energy. All of this energy absorbtion occurs because when two things of different temperatures meet, the temperature will level out between them, causing one to get warmer, and one to get cooler. In this case, the cold ice and the warm air even out, and the warm food and the colder air will even out.

In cold places, it happens the other way around. The snow doesn't fall and then it gets cold, it's the opposite. Because of the drop in the environment's temperature (in this case, outside), when it would normally rain, the rain freezes and becomes snowflakes... or in the less enjoyable scenario, hail (which can really hurt btw). Also, the light reflecting off the white snow has little effect. I know this because it's winter here evry year, and every spring the snow manages to melt, despite its colour. What happens is the air absorbs more energy from the sun because of it being closer, and the snow absorbs energy from both the sun and the air around it. The snow then melts, and happy little squirrels romp the fields.

One final note: feeling cold is relative to your body's temperature. You're warm, so anything less so with feel cold to you. That's why people shiver when they have a fever; their body temperature increases, ans so everything is relatively colder than it was.

(No diagrams this time since the only real proof is math, and I don't feel like thinking up an example.)

[EDIT]So.. you think you can post while I'm in the middle of typing eh?
According to the first diagram, and any other reproduction of a so-called flat earth, the north "pole" is located at the center of the disk or whatever shape the flat earth has, and the south "pole" is situated all around. Which means that whichever direction we are looking at we are either looking north or south, no more east or west... so let's just stop using these "west" and "east" references as they don't exist.
They still exist, they just aren't the straight lines we assumed they were. They could be referred to as clockwise and counter-clockwise as well, but we've just given them different names.

Flat Earth Q&A / Round earth Gravity vs. Flat earth "Gravity"
« on: January 14, 2006, 11:34:15 PM »
The cover would fall because of air resistance and gravity acting on it. Here, there is no gravity and the air is theoretically being pushed as well so it is undisturbed. So, where is the other force that would cause the leg to fall? What resistance does it meet to not allow it to continue to rise with the rest of the body?

BTW, it's late, so I'm going to sleep. You'll have to wait until tomorrow before I can destroy the rest of your posts.

Flat Earth Q&A / Flat-Earth's gravity Vs Planes
« on: January 14, 2006, 11:29:24 PM »
The real problem with the Earth-as-piston theory is not what happens to airplanes, but what happens to air. Air is a fluid, and if not kept in a container, would flow away from areas of high pressure (e.g., the Earth-as-piston). So if the Earth were a circular disc acting as a piston, air would flow away from the center of the piston, unless some other force held it in (pistons in engines, for example, sit inside cylinders). The ancients hypothesized a Firmament to perform this function. I don't know what the status on this site is concerning moon landings, but if you're willing to throw out that and various other evidence as being features of a conspiracy or delusion, then I can accept that there's some sort of Firmament that holds in the air, and the Earth+Firmament is rushing upwards, accelerating at 9.8 m/s
First off, who are "the ancients"? Other than that, you're pretty much right. There's a better reason as to why it doesn't work though, and that is because if the Earth WAS accelerating at a speed of 9.8m/s^2, then just before the end of its first year of existance, it would have hit light speed and theoretically even started travelling back in time. This is obviously not the case.

Pages: [1] 2 3