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 - WTF

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« on: December 04, 2007, 09:46:04 PM »
@OP. Most of that list is overly-biased. Many items in that list targetting FE are problems in RE too. And in my time reading the forums, I don't see one item there that FE'ers haven't already explained.

3/10. Nice formatting, did make things easier to read.

What problems with FE carry over to RE? And I think the list is meant to show how valid the theory is. (credit for this nice work goes to cpt_bthimes)

Er, are you serious?  The "issues" in this chart are all perfectly understood in conventional science.  However there are enough question marks on the FE side to make a lifetime supply of suits for Matthew Lesko.  Of course it's kind of a waste of time even posting here anymore because most of the FE's are fakers and so not really worth the time to "discuss" this with.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« on: March 29, 2007, 09:23:57 PM »
RE science confirms that the "CBR" is in fact "moving with us", whatever that is supposed to mean: it has been observed to be isotropic.  This means that its spectrum is the same in all directions; there is no observed blue- or redshift in any part of the sky (to my knowledge; this has been disputed but I have not seen any references).

Um, yeah.  That part in bold means we aren't accelerating through the universe.  It makes no sense to state that the CMB is "accelerating" with us.  How exactly can background radiation "accelerate"?  Are you suggesting that the photons created at the surface of last scattering which are coming directly "toward" us somehow "slow down" at a rate of 1g?  That's nonsensical.  And considering that you invoke relativity in your defense of the FE "gravity", I'd suggest you not ignore the invariance of the speed of light.
We should see blueshift.  A hell of a lot of it.  We wouldn't expect to see it until we approach more significant fractions of the speed of light.  That's why we don't in the real world.  But at constant 1g we'd be at extremely high velocity very, very quickly.  For example we'd reach the moon in about 2.5 hours and the sun in about 2 days starting from rest at 1g acceleration.

What is the force which supposedly accelerates the earth anyway?  How exactly does it manage to accelerate us (and everything) at a constant 1g?  The faster we go, the more "oomph" is required to maintain that level of acceleration.
How does that work exactly?
Conventional theories of gravity, though they change, explain the universe pretty damn well.  The FE explanations tackle one bit at a time without any regard to the larger consequences.  The explanation of why we feel gravity (the constant acceleration of the earth through space) could explain the isolated observation of gravity on earth from the perspective of one person.
But what about planet and solar system formation?  What about black holes, how do they form?  What causes supernovae? What about stellar evolution?  FE theory falls silent because it's not created to attempt to explain the real word; it's created to attempt to explain one singular, isolated question.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« on: March 28, 2007, 05:25:01 PM »
We are not in a rocket ship, we are on a planet with an atmosphere and a magnetic field that shields us from all sorts of cosmic radiation. Even with those, some high intensity gamma rays still make it through but we still aren't cooked by them. we accelerate the intensity of the radiation would increase.  Are you suggesting that the "atmosphere and magnetic field" has near unlimited capacity to shield us from radiation?  That is horribly, horribly incorrect.

Of course, if you consider the CBR isn't accelerating with us, then you have an external reference frame which of course the FE'ers would deny. If the sun, moon and even the stars are in the same reference plane as the earth, it only stands to reason everything we can see and measure, including the CBR is moving with us, so therefore your assumption is wrong.

How exactly can the CMB "accelerate with us"?  That doesn't even make sense.

Look at the very last paragraph from one of the links I included:
One major problem you would have to solve is the need for shielding.  As you approach the speed of light you will be heading into an increasingly energetic and intense bombardment of cosmic rays and other particles. After only a few years of 1g acceleration even the cosmic background radiation is Doppler shifted into a lethal heat bath hot enough to melt all known materials.[/b]

That's after only a few years.  I wonder what would happen after a few billion?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earthers have the burden of proof.
« on: March 27, 2007, 08:24:05 PM »
It's hard to consider the mainstream position "trolling" so it's unlikely I'm projecting.  Maybe I'm wrong - you could always be a post-count whore, too.

On this board, the mainstream position is the Flat Earth. Or did you not notice... um... THE NAME OF THIS BOARD?!?!

Don't you advocate an infinite-plane earth?  That isn't mainstream any more than a round earth is by your standard.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air, and how it contradicts a flat earth
« on: March 27, 2007, 07:33:56 PM »
The original post was without any physics merit.

Translation:  You can't explain why we don't lose air.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earthers have the burden of proof.
« on: March 27, 2007, 07:21:56 PM »
It's hard to consider the mainstream position "trolling" so it's unlikely I'm projecting.  Maybe I'm wrong - you could always be a post-count whore, too.

On this board, the mainstream position is the Flat Earth. Or did you not notice... um... THE NAME OF THIS BOARD?!?!

Well then why don't you answer game_guru's post which was one of the many evidences for a round earth?  If the burden of proof is on RE then why don't you reply when evidence is presented?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« on: March 27, 2007, 07:19:14 PM »
I know Wiki quoting is not the best but I think we can all agree it has a pretty good description of equivalence principle and is well sourced. So have a read through this, you might see what I mean.
You just aren't paying attention. I know the Equivalence Principle, probably better than you. That isn't in debate here. My whole point if you go back a read again from the beginning is in order to refute the idea of a FE, you have to refute it as a whole. My point is that their claims are impossible to refute if you take their whole argument. You can't argue only parts of their theory without taking into account all of their other explanation. IOW, all evidence we have for a RE is countered by some principle of theirs. Their idea of an accelerated earth ONLY works if the sun, moon, and stars are accelerating with us, making us in a single FOR, or the enclosed box. You say that I set impossible examples, but they aren't mine, they are the FE'ers ideas. You can't prove we aren't accelerating by using physics alone was my only point all along. Sure, if you want to point out we have been to space and all, I agree, but if you take their argument's against that, you go back to square one.
So to restate, using the FE theory, due to the EP, it is impossible to distinguish between gravitation and acceleration. And I challenge you to try to be specific again (you still haven't been able to do so) you need to give me an exact description of an experiment or some observation that shows that we are not accelerating but experiencing gravity. No links to the EP, that isn't the contention here. You are just not answering the questions that are put forth. You are talking in circles.

How about the fact that we aren't molten slag?  I doubt anyone would argue that the cosmic background radition is "accelerating with us" given the constancy of the speed of light from all reference frames.  It wouldn't take long at constant 1g acceleration before even the background radiation blue shifts to such extremes that it would melt the planet.  See and for references which took 5 seconds to find.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earthers have the burden of proof.
« on: March 27, 2007, 07:12:33 PM »
It's hard to consider the mainstream position "trolling" so it's unlikely I'm projecting.  Maybe I'm wrong - you could always be a post-count whore, too.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earthers have the burden of proof.
« on: March 27, 2007, 07:07:53 PM »
Gravity pulls with equal strength in all directions; therefore any variations from a spherical shape will lead to gravitational forces that bring the shape back into that of a sphere. There... now where is yours?

Yup that is true - I'm curious what the mechanism is that produced a flat earth and that keeps it that way.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earthers have the burden of proof.
« on: March 27, 2007, 07:06:55 PM »
Which are you anyway, Franc - a nutjob or a faker?  My standard assumption is faker, which can further be divided into bored devil's advocate who actually knows a thing or two and punk troll who gets kicks doing this on probably most forums they visit.  I think you're probably the latter variety of faker but I've been known to be wrong.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earthers have the burden of proof.
« on: March 27, 2007, 06:56:04 PM »
Please explain how any of these provide evidence for your religion.

If I were religious I could comment.  I'm not.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A plea for rational argument on the boards!
« on: March 27, 2007, 06:42:10 PM »
What this board actually needs is not an ignore button, but moderaters who do their job to make the board a decent place to discuss.  Even though he was absent all the time, this board was better when it was only Daniel in the mod/admin role.  It didn't have the long cast of people who turn each thread into garbage.
Perhaps that's a conscious choice by the admins given that this is a flat earth board and serious discussion isn't really encouraged.  I don't know.  But these days there are enough devil's advocates (why that is, I don't know.  I'm not a fan of spreading ignorance when there really ARE nutbars enough to do that) for decent discussion.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earthers have the burden of proof.
« on: March 27, 2007, 06:37:38 PM »
This has got to be one of the dumbest OPs I've ever seen.  And this being a "Flat Earth" board sets the bar for that pretty high.
There is proof all over the freakin place for a round earth.  It's called science - physics, geology, astronomy for starters - ever heard of those?
How the world works is completely harmonious and only makes sense with a round earth.  That's why only the fringe (and in the case of this website, the fakers) argue for a flat earth.  When you have to invoke impossible worldwide conspiracy and suspend or re-write basic science to support your paradigm then *clearly* the burden of proof belongs on that end.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: wait a second... I think I got somthing!
« on: December 23, 2006, 11:13:16 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Zulroth"
A cresent moon is the shadow the earth - to all you FEr's, right?

My understanding is that the moon is thought to be a source of light all on its own.

By what mechanism does the moon produce light?  By what mechanism does the moon go through its phases?  What's the FE explanation for eclipses?  Why would the moon's gravity cause tides in a FE scenario?

Those (and more of course) are all easily answered with conventional theory.  FE, as usual, doesn't stack up.

Flat Earth Q&A / What convinced you?
« on: December 23, 2006, 11:05:17 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Yeah, sure..."
Translated: They looked out the window and thought 'Ough, that looks flat.'.

Yes, naturally.  If you can't trust your eyes, how can you trust anything else?

Well, you can't see atoms either.  I suppose we shouldn't believe they exist, despite overwhelming evidence.  You wouldn't expect time dilation, yet GR has a wealth of evidence.  You can't see 1 species turn into 2, yet evolution stands on solid ground (despite what religious nutjobs would have you believe).
Your senses and intuition are only reliable for everyday scales of size and time.  The really big, the really small, the really long, the really short - forget your senses and intuition because you'll get the wrong answer.  And that IS common sense.

Flat Earth Q&A / One of the many ridiculous topics to discuss
« on: April 04, 2006, 03:59:04 PM »
OK I see what you're saying - the standard line has changed in the months I've been gone from the FE argument.  But if this model is correct...

Start at the North Pole, and look at the moon.  Travel south, pass the moon, then turn around and look at it.  Why are you now staring at the exact same side of the moon from before - only upside down.  Didn't you pass it, shouldn't you to a large degree be seeing the other side of the moon?

Flat Earth Q&A / One of the many ridiculous topics to discuss
« on: April 04, 2006, 03:28:34 PM »
Well, not when the equator remains the hottest part of the earth - year round.

Flat Earth Q&A / One of the many ridiculous topics to discuss
« on: April 04, 2006, 03:25:12 PM »
That doesn't explain why on the poles, you get all daylight in the summer/all darkness in the winter.  Not to mention why it's still so COLD there when it's getting all daylight.

Flat Earth Q&A / Explain Time Zones
« on: April 04, 2006, 04:21:17 AM »
It'd have to be one weird-ass spotlight.  A long line across the earth that's the brightest and dimming off to each side.  I've never seen a spotlight like that.
And that doesn't help with seasons, which I see no one has addressed in the thread I started.

Flat Earth Q&A / One of the many ridiculous topics to discuss
« on: April 03, 2006, 03:11:03 PM »
Quote from: "The FAQ"

The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions as a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light." Their apparent rising and setting are caused by optical illusions.

This is completely incompatible with the seasons we observe on earth.  I can easily explain the seasons using conventional science.  Please explain them in the flat earth model?  A failure to do so will be just one, of many, easy victories for a Round Earth model.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question for FEers
« on: April 03, 2006, 03:04:11 PM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"

The velocity would indeed be ungodly, but relative to what?

How about the speed of light?  If we're accelerating constantly at 9.8 m/s^2 then it'd take a little under a year to go from rest, to light speed.  Considering how many billions of years the earth has existed, I think it's safe to say that this whole idea of an upwards accelerating earth is extremely stupid.  Unless, of course, relativity (among other things...)at the most basic level is completely incorrect and there is no upper limit to velocity and no noticable effects of reaching those speeds.  It'd be hard to argue that though considering that relativity has passed every test we've thrown at it as well or better than every other scientific theory we have.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Breatharianism
« on: April 02, 2006, 10:07:44 PM »
Ok flat earth, young earth, ang dipping babies into magic water is one thing...but this?  LOL there's no way anyone can be stupid enough to believe it

Flat Earth Q&A / Flat Earth Society
« on: April 01, 2006, 06:21:41 PM »
What does your belief have to do with what's true?  People can choose to live in ignorance by sticking their fingers in their ears chanting "I don't believe you" all day long.  But that doesn't change reality, or what is the most reasonable thing to believe.

Flat Earth Q&A / Flat Earth Society
« on: April 01, 2006, 03:51:28 PM »
More likely, you're just pretending like most people I've seen argue for a flat earth.  Of course a round earth is common sense, we can discuss a large variety of topics that are easily explained by a round earth, and only explained by ad hoc explanations which usually disregard entire branches of science if you're arguing for a flat earth.  It's pretty obvious which side isn't thinking clearly.  Time zones, the horizon, seasons, eclipses, space flight, global travel, satellites, communications, the night sky, take your pick.  My explanations will be simple, in agreement with mainstream science, involve no mega-conspiracies, and often be verifiable by just about anyone.  Yours...won't be.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Fun with Infinity
« on: March 31, 2006, 06:42:25 PM »
The only reason people get hung up being unable to believe that 0.9999...=1 (exactly) and .33333...=1/3 (exactly) is because we use a base 10 number system.

There isn't any special property about's a concrete value just like a single digit.  But because of the properties of using a decimal number system, certain values (such as 1/3) can't be represented exactly without using an infinite number of digits.  If we used a a base 9 system for example, "one third" would be 0.3.

0.3+0.3+0.3 = 1.  No one would argue that it isn't exactly one-third if we were all used to base9.  Yet if we transition over to a base 10 system, it gets represented differently.  0.3 becomes 0.3333333....  But they are the exact same values.

0.9999...=1 and 0.3333...= 1/3.  Exactly.

« on: March 31, 2006, 06:15:34 PM »
The ice wall is just as arbitrary as any other ridiculous explanation that flat earthers believe in.  The wall is there to keep in water - gravity is produced by the upward acceleration of the earth - the moon landing is fake - most of the governments in the world share a grand conspiracy.  It's hard to single out the ice wall as any more absurd than any of the rest.

« on: March 31, 2006, 03:34:02 PM »
I had to vote no - there's far too many MORE absurd parts of believing in flat earth.  Conspiracies that encompass millions of people and the denial of entire fields of well substantiated science come to mind.

Flat Earth Q&A / The Earth is Round, yes...
« on: October 01, 2005, 07:22:59 AM »
That is also understood, you are just nitpicking.

Flat Earth Q&A / Ok, it is flat ...
« on: October 01, 2005, 07:22:13 AM »
Good stuff

Flat Earth Information Repository / The Plane Truth
« on: September 29, 2005, 06:25:55 PM »
If you don't want to hear idiots claiming that not only are the moon landings fake, but the entire space program is, then you are on the wrong message board.  It's the only position they can take to still keep flat earth "theory" alive in their minds.
Kind of like bible literalists.  They have to say that physics, geology, biology and so on are wrong on fundamental levels to keep dreams of the Flood, and a Young Earth alive.
Of course, everyone else knows how absurd it is.  But they start with beliefs and impose them on reality, as opposed to science that looks at reality and then forms their theories about it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9