1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What direction is FE travelling in ...

« on: December 24, 2008, 05:15:09 PM »

Couldn't a flat earth go around in a circle? That way it's still constantly accelerating while not having to change speed. This sounds more likely due to the fact that the earth can't accelerate to the speed of light. This would also give centrifugal force to be observed as gravity.

Actually, I think that in this model, the centripetal force would act along the radius, directed to the center of the circle, the angle of which would vary depending on where you stood on the FE.  That is, the direction gravity is pulling you would vary depending on where you stood on the earth.  Of course, you could probably account for this by making the circular path along which we're traveling sufficiently large compared to the earth... 

But as to your comment that the speed of light somehow represents a barrier: it does not.  SR states that no observer will ever measure an object as exceeding c, and we do not; the earth always has a velocity equal to zero, relative to us.

-6strings

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So are all planets flat?

« on: December 24, 2008, 12:25:31 PM »

That's why we have also posted simple experiments that provide evidence that the earth is not flat.  An experiment as simple as having members of this forum observe and report the sunrise and sunset on the day of the equinox is irrefutable evidence that the current FE models do not match observations.

Well, yes and no.  You're correct in the spirit your idea, but in the case of your example, it's entirely possible that many of the members are simply government shills, planted to obfuscate the data and make it seem as though the earth were round.

As to C-Ray, I was quoting that one piece of your post, because I felt it encapsulated much of the premise of your post; your complaint hinges on the idea that FEers refuse to accept techniques that "everyone in the field accepts", ignoring the fact that, from the point of view of the FE model, these very people are suspect.  I mean, I could have quoted more of your post, but I felt it would have been redundant.

Guess they'll let anybody be a moderator on FES.  Nice to know.

Actually, it requires a pretty face and an absence of gag reflex.  Daniel's pretty strict about that.

-6strings

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If the Earth is flat, where is proof?

« on: December 24, 2008, 12:04:00 PM »

Locked, because this doesn't deserve to be at the top of the list...

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So are all planets flat?

« on: December 23, 2008, 09:06:22 PM »

I don't see why we continuously post proof of the questions you guys ask and you just brush it aside.

C-Ray, I'm assuming you have trouble dealing with people, even outside the FE forums.  Now, I know this seems like a craaaaazy claim, but allow me to qualify it.

See, a pretty fundamental premise in convincing someone that they're wrong (what I'd assume is a pretty basic people skill, as people have the irritating habit of being wrong a large portion of the time) is showing them that, somehow, the axioms they're reasoning from are inconsistent, either internally, or with observations that they can make.

In other words, you can't just argue from your own point of view, and expect others to agree with you, because the only ones who will agree with you already agreed with you, and then you're just preaching to the choir.  True convincing requires you to temporarily accept the opposing axiomatic system and reason from its confines.

For example, let's assume that you hold the position "I believe that killing hookers is OK, because they aren't people", I can't simply say, "But C-Ray, hookers are people!  Look, I got a scientist to agree with me!".  You'd likely stab me with your bloody hooker-killing knife.  If however, I got you to concede that your mother were a person, and then pointed out how she fellated me for a paltry sum the previous night, you'd be forced to concede that hookers were people, and realize that you were batshit crazy.

See, logic can be fun, sometimes, too!

-6strings

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: general question

« on: December 23, 2008, 08:43:28 PM »

For the original work by the man who created the Flat Earth Society over a hundred and fifty years ago, please see Samuel Rowbotham's Earth: Not a Globe.

Most of the foundational work for FET was laid by Sam R. in his most enlightening book.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Two More Questions About FET

« on: December 20, 2008, 11:10:18 PM »

I'm sorry, but I'm a little confused.

Are you telling me that there are objects in the heavens that, if we follow their path, occlude the sun when we would expect their path to be in front of the sun, and disappear behind the sun as their observed paths pass behind the sun, and this somehow disproves the FE model?

I have trouble envisioning your description (although that may just be mental frailty on my part), but could you perhaps explain exactly how we know what the paths of these celestial bodies are, and why the only explanation for these apparent eclipses are the positions of said heavenly bodies?

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So are all planets flat?

« on: December 20, 2008, 10:55:20 PM »

It seems to me that the number and nature of extra-solar planets discovered (or not) is entirely irrelevant to the OP's query.  There is no reason to assume that because one thing resembles another in some respects, it must necessarily resemble it in all respects; such is weak reasoning by analogy, and the universe tends to refuse to be bound by such arguments.

The argument that the earth must be round/ other planets must be flat is analogous (aha!) to the argument that since puffins can fly, penguins, too, must be able to fly, because, I mean, really, they look kinda alike, don't they?

-6strings

8

The Lounge / Re: Nearly Steak and Blowjob day

« on: March 13, 2007, 01:04:09 PM »

Wait...isn't every day Steak and Blowjob day?  And if not, Montreal is the greatest city in the world.

9

The Lounge / Re: You can all go consult the FAQ..

« on: March 13, 2007, 12:30:46 PM »

Maybe Vaux is taking a walk on the wild side

Sweet, for cleverly referencing Lou Reed, you get a prize!
Anyone who can cleverly reference Captain Beefhart wins the next one

10

The Lounge / Re: Post an image of yourself!

« on: March 13, 2007, 12:26:29 PM »

Nomad, you act like you've never been penetrated during a sofa bundling before...

11

The Lounge / Iraq for sale: what happens when corporations go to war.

« on: February 17, 2007, 07:13:51 AM »

Know why no one's answering?  Because this has nothing to do with FE.

Please post in the appropriate section next time.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / How was the Ice Wall created?

« on: January 28, 2007, 06:22:39 PM »

We're alive arnt we? If it was imperfect, the water would go out into outer space.

Exactly, it's the anthropic principle at work.  Yay! Problem solved!

13

The Lounge / Title Requests?

« on: January 25, 2007, 07:46:43 PM »

I would suggest PMing an admin with the subject heading saying something to the effect of "Pointless request", or, better yet, "Please ban me".

14

Arts & Entertainment / So...Musical Preferences?

« on: January 25, 2007, 07:44:42 PM »

Well, I knew it was only a matter of time before this thread's siren call caught me, and it figures it did so when I should be transcribing (is this structured procrastination, Erasmus?).

Gotta say that I'm a great fan of "deep", "complex" music, like prog, and jazz, but there's always a soft spot in me for some down and dirty blues and rock.  Why?  Because pentatonics still blow my mind, that's why.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Einstein and Flat Earth theory

« on: January 21, 2007, 06:13:54 PM »

[Earth] is the largest planet in the world.

Well, it's actually kind of right; I mean, if we're restricting the choice of planets to "the world", then Earth is the largest planet.  Granted, it's also the smallest.  And the bluest.  And the yellowest.  And the most kitten-filled...

16

The Lounge / The Holocaust didn't happen.

« on: January 18, 2007, 10:59:46 AM »

I don't judge anyone for their race.

I do not like non-Caucasoids as much as I like Caucasoids.

I know that every Serb I ever met, still does. And i know Red Skull does.

Tell ya what.. Send you family to Serbia and yell out loud that Serbia sucks.

Fine, all the Serbs you've met are pricks, then.  Make better friends.

As for that last part, I'm gonna agree with Red Skull there.  Hell, if you come to Canada and shout that Canada sucks, I'll beat the hell out of you; mostly cause you're being an antagonistic prick by going to someone's country and telling shouting that it sucks.

17

The Lounge / The Holocaust didn't happen.

« on: January 18, 2007, 10:51:53 AM »

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

I just favor my people over others.

*cough*

18

The Lounge / The Holocaust didn't happen.

« on: January 18, 2007, 10:46:26 AM »

6strings.... is the son really sorry in this case....? Is he...? Serbs still dream of "Great-Serbia". Even the sons do. Because thats what the fathers thought them.

Really?  Does every single Serb dream of this?  Have you asked them? Is it a prerequisite for being Serbian?  If not, I suggest you get off your high horse and start judging people on their actual beliefs, rather than what you assume their beliefs to be based on some racist, and it is indeed racist, view that you have of them.

Tell me 6strings... have you lost 2 grandfathers, an uncle a a few cousins.... all because they were executed in cold blood? You have no right to judge me.

No, I haven't.  But you know what?  It doesn't matter.  At least, not in this particular discussion, I'm sure it matters in a hundred different ways, but it has absolutely no place in this discussion.  If I had lost family members in such a manner, and presented the same case I have here, would it be any more valid or sound? No, it wouldn't.  Don't pull the "Oh, I lost people, so I can be racist" card, it's very unbecoming.

That said, I have no problem with you hating Red Skull; he's clearly a racist prick, but you should hate him for his abhorrent views, not the fact that he's a Serb.

Because I do not like non-Caucasoids as much as I like Caucasoids. I don't hate, dislike or discriminate them. I just favor my people over others. That equals a nationalist, not a racist. Every liberal piece of shit labels nationalists or patriots as racists. God I hate liberalism and socialism.

Right, I think beast went over this; stating that what you're saying isn't racist does not make it not racist.  If you were a nationalist or a patriot, then you would support your country and you countrymen.  Note that this has no race prerequisite, so a "non-Caucasoid" could easily be included in this set.  Disliking people (or liking them less) based on their race is called racism.

19

The Lounge / The Holocaust didn't happen.

« on: January 18, 2007, 10:26:33 AM »

you gonna call me a racist because I would kill a Serb and then spit/dance on his grave?

Yes! Yes I am, because you're a freaking racist nut job.

Did every single Serbian civilian open fire on you and your family?  No.  Do you have the right to hate the descendants of even the people who did open fire on them?  In my opinion, no, you don't; the sins of the father shouldn't be visited upon the son, espescially if the son is truly sorry for what his father did.

Your hating every Serb based on this is akin to my believing that gypsies have the right to hate every single German.  It is, in short, ludicrous.

20

The Lounge / A Members Only Forum

« on: January 17, 2007, 05:11:01 PM »

I believe this was actually brought up once in the moderator's section; I think it ended in the creation of the flat earther's only section...

The main problem that was voiced was that this would make the rest of the forums into some creepy intiation that you have to go through before getting access to the "real" forums.

That said, I kinda like the idea.  I think it's nifty.
That's right, I said nifty.

21

Arts & Entertainment / Television shows

« on: January 17, 2007, 11:01:45 AM »

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Why So Pessimistic?

« on: January 16, 2007, 11:39:26 PM »

I seriously doubt that accepting RE requires a rejection of 99.99% of modern science.

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Foucalt's pendulum

« on: January 16, 2007, 07:57:32 AM »

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

24

Arts & Entertainment / Television shows

« on: January 16, 2007, 05:56:40 AM »

This stuff so does not belong in Alt. Science.

*Split and moved*

Incidentally, House is the shit.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Antartica

« on: January 14, 2007, 07:43:23 PM »

Wait...you're saying that a flat earth would be physically different from an earth that is a sphere?

You mean the properties of a disk and that of a sphere are not the same?

Say it ain't so!

No one is contending that a flat earth and a round earth have the same physical properties, in fact, if they did, this debate would not be happening.

Hey, looks like I did understand after all, didn't I?

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Antartica

« on: January 14, 2007, 07:28:12 PM »

Once again, is this the only dribble you can come up with Rick?

Way to moderate the forum!

Well, I mean, it wasn't really spam or anything was it M?  I mean, if you want, we could just delete the post...otherwise I see no reason it would need moderating...

I think we posted at the same time

Errrr...unless it took you 17 minutes to type that out, I somehow doubt that's what happened...

What, exactly, is your problem with the FE model of antarctica anyhow M?  Is it just the lack of evidence?  Christ, just go whine about the conspiracy then; it won't be more productive, but it'll make you easier to ignore.

27

Arts & Entertainment / Best PC/Video-game ever?

« on: January 10, 2007, 10:47:49 PM »

Woah woah, I leave you kids alone for a little while and the discussion devolves into rating people on their looks?

I should have been informed.

First,

You like games that are visually unappealing?

Kind of like your choice in women?

Hey, I called you gorgeous, didn't I.
Although I have the feeling this may be the point you're trying to make...hmmm, a quandry...

Furthermore, Astantia, your system of rating women is horribly, horribly flawed.
X= Attractiveness
Tadaaaa!
Of course, we'll have to set bounds for it, like you so kindly did, but I maintain that my equation is far more accurate.

For the more sensitive type of guy, may I suggest the following equation:
X= Attractiveness + lim h->infinity 1/h

Although, I have to say, I do agree with the statement:

If X = 0, chick should be avoided, and possibly killed with fire.

More with the latter part than the former, but hey, if you feel like wearing your legs out by running rather than just whipping out your trusty lighter and siphoning the fuel out of a nearby car, be my guest.

Ugly chicks need crazy monkey sex?

Okay, but at whose expense?

Ugly guys, one would assume...Unless you're talking about some sort of government funded program for it, in which case you're out of your mind.  I may live in Montreal, but there is no way in hell my tax dollars are going to help ugly chicks get laid, even if it is just by monkeys.  Isn't that illegal, by the way?

28

Arts & Entertainment / Best PC/Video-game ever?

« on: January 09, 2007, 10:18:27 PM »

Super Metroid
Street Fighter Alpha 2
Legend of Zelda, A Link to the Past
Super Mario World
Secret of Evermore

Notice a trend?

You like games that are visually unappealing? :wink:

29

The Lounge / The Holocaust didn't happen.

« on: January 09, 2007, 10:52:11 AM »

www.talmudunmasked.com

http://talmud.faithweb.com/
http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/pr.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/

30

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Assumptions

« on: January 08, 2007, 07:27:50 PM »

Right, Kwaun Se, this is basically just really weak Humean philosophy.  All you've done is pointed out that inductive reasoning is incapable of proving anything with 100% certainty.  Indeed, science never presumes to prove anything with 100% certainty, but we tend to see the reason in accepting something as fact when we know it to be true with 99.9999% certainty.