1

Flat Earth Q&A / War may be a farce.

« on: October 30, 2006, 06:19:43 PM »

Hah, yes, war is quite farcical. It's all just a big joke. Quite like the Flat Earth theory in itself, but that's a matter best left to another topic, eh?

2

Flat Earth Q&A / What we need

« on: October 26, 2006, 07:26:49 PM »

A good comparison is the spanish inquisition lol.

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!

lolmontypythonrefrence

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Flawed at the very core

« on: October 24, 2006, 09:08:37 PM »

So it's more like an oval shape than a honest-to-goodness flat shape, or is is more like a concave lense?

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Flawed at the very core

« on: October 24, 2006, 08:59:58 PM »

I guess that makes sense.

What lies under the magma in the FE model anyways? Is there another crust on the opposite side that keeps all the magma from hardening?

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Flawed at the very core

« on: October 24, 2006, 08:48:25 PM »

Okay, so I read that wrong. But without a barrier of some sort along the outside edge, there wouldn't be any of the tension necessary for subduction to occur in the first place. One plate would just push the other plate away since there's no resistance to force one plate to move under the other.

And if there was a barrier along the edge, that would keep all the plate immobile, like putting a frame on a jigsaw puzzle. Then over time, the magma flow would harden and join all the plates into one big landmass. I can't see how the concept of tectonic plates works with the FE model.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Flawed at the very core

« on: October 24, 2006, 08:37:42 PM »

Wait, what? Why would it subduct under the less dense part of the earth? Unless I'm reading that wrong or something.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Flawed at the very core

« on: October 24, 2006, 08:28:14 PM »

In a way, yes. However in the RE model, each plate is in contact with another plate on all sides. The contact of the plates and gravity are what keep the plates from floating off into space.

In the FE model, the plates on the edges have nothing to keep them from drifing off into space, therefore leaving the interior plates free to drift off as well.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Flawed at the very core

« on: October 24, 2006, 07:23:07 PM »

Why would there not be plates on an FE?

Wouldn't they just drift apart? And if the ice wall is keeping them in place, wouldn't they not move and gradually fuse over time?

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Flawed at the very core

« on: October 23, 2006, 09:57:16 PM »

Sorry that post was responding to B, I understand the concept.  I just don't understand what he's talking about.  You posted while I was posting Engineer.

Okay, B was responding to Erasmus's comparison of the Earth and a sandwich. Erasmus said that magma was pushed out of the earth's crust by the same force that caused the FE to accelerate.

B wanted to know why there was not a perpetual amount of magma flow caused by the continuous force. TheEngineer said that it was pressure in the RE that caused magma flow, however B is stating that the force of gravity holds things against the earth's core in the RE, thus only coming out when enough pressure builds to erupt.

At least, that's how I understand it.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / The Southern Cross and North Star

« on: October 22, 2006, 03:51:57 PM »

I've not seen an explanation for the rotation of the other stars either.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Flawed at the very core

« on: October 22, 2006, 03:50:42 PM »

Exactly what is the earth being pushed up by anyways?

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Flawed at the very core

« on: October 21, 2006, 06:51:52 PM »

so, as we near the speed of light we can defy gravity?

B, you forget, FE people don't believe in gravity.

13

Flat Earth Debate / My Trip To The Ice Wall

« on: October 21, 2006, 03:37:37 PM »

I've seen the ice wall too, but it's a lot more psychedelic than anyone's ever imagined.



Note the ninjas climbing it.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Flawed at the very core

« on: October 19, 2006, 09:34:15 PM »

I like how nobody has actually addressed B's initial challange.