1

Flat Earth Q&A / couple of questions concerning disc and atmosphere

« on: January 30, 2006, 09:19:27 AM »

Apologies, Seņor.

 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Good, too good.

« on: January 30, 2006, 09:14:22 AM »

bullhorn, I never doubted for a moment that the governments couldn't afford it, and I trully do believe that our governments do VERY bad things, but no one in their right mind would pay almost two grand for a toilet seat!  :wink:

3

Flat Earth Q&A / walking off the earth

« on: January 30, 2006, 09:11:39 AM »

dood, you're living in the 20th Century. China & India will be the new world super powers for the 21st Century. Walmart (worlds largest company) shelves are full of stuff from china and india. When exactly these two nations will dwarf the US is up to speculation.

Please don't say the word "dood" around here.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Another challenge for flat earthers.

« on: January 30, 2006, 09:04:21 AM »

That coin did it. I'm convinced. I hadn't seen a photopshopped image that makes something flat appear spherical. Nice work. It appears the flat- earthers have scored a point.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / The BIG Question

« on: January 25, 2006, 03:45:41 PM »

Interesting, Erasmus. It appears that knowing his intentions would be harder to accept rather than His existence. If you knew He existed, and you knew his demands, would you adapt accordingly? Anyone is open to answer.

6

Arts & Entertainment / Favorite TV shows

« on: January 25, 2006, 10:51:07 AM »

LOST is the best. Hands down.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / The BIG Question

« on: January 25, 2006, 10:49:48 AM »

Although this won't fall anywhere near my area of expertice, I will offer everyone here a question anyway"

If God did/didn't exist, would you want to know?


Please think about this very carefully. Also, consider the consequences of knowing.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Why would we be lied to...

« on: January 25, 2006, 10:48:09 AM »

If we were being lied to...there must be a good reason. It would be interesting to hear some theories and opinions as to why it's best for us to not know. Perhaps there is something as a society that we aren't capable of handling or understanding.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / any flat cartographers?

« on: January 25, 2006, 10:36:32 AM »

Alright, I'll offer you a serious response. Search for a logo of the United Nations on Google. There is your flat earth map. The north pole is centered in the middle and the rest of the world moves outward on the circle. The leaves (excuse my lack of knowledge regarding their real name; leaves will do) around the southern edge symbolize the "Ice Wall" that is surrounding Earth.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / I'new in this forum

« on: January 25, 2006, 10:32:00 AM »

. . . if your definition of unbiased is taking one bizarre viewpoint, arguing consistently for that side and no other, ignoring any arguments which contradict your position, bringing up invalid points which contradict nothing at all, failing to give any real evidence for one's views, claiming that the whole thing is a conspiracy anyway, and then doing the whole lot again, seemingly oblivious to all that has come before.

I was more specifically referring to "bizarre viewpoint" and "invalid points." Your opinions about an individual on this website don't offer anything to the debate. In fact, you didn't have to post at all! Bullhorn offered his insight to a flat earth, and I offered mine to a round one. Thread's over.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / I'new in this forum

« on: January 24, 2006, 10:22:30 PM »

^No use in being rude. It appears that you haven't offered anything "valid" in this thread yourself.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / I'new in this forum

« on: January 24, 2006, 06:26:44 PM »

then check out my post titled "Orbital/Space/Moon/Tides Discussion" for a round earth perspective.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / couple of questions concerning disc and atmosphere

« on: January 22, 2006, 09:21:38 AM »

Radio waves don't bounce off the atmosphere. In fact, radio is one of the few areas of the spectrum that can penetrate atmospheres.

Besides that, I am also curious about tall buildings, mountains, and airplanes.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Simple logic

« on: January 22, 2006, 09:05:38 AM »

the "visible universe" (there is a distinction) is expanding due to an overall observation of a "doppler red shift."

analogy used in 5th form science textbooks
you are standing at the side of a road and you see a fire truck driving towards you. The sound of the siren is increasing in pitch until it passes you; then the sound of the siren is decreasing in pitch.

If you know what the original pitch of the fire truck is (i.e. not in motion relative to you standing by the curb) you can decipher when the fire truck is coming towards or moving away from you (cf doppler redshift).

What you are referring to is not Red Shift. Doppler Red Shift implies that objects moving away from us have a "stretched" emission of light. Stretching these waves calls for a lower frequency and longer waves, which is the "red" end of the spectrum. Looking out into the far reaches of our Universe we only see red, therefore, the Universe is expanding.

No, again. The universe is expanding at a constant rate. And as I said, we feel acceleration impacting on our bodies, not constant velocity. If we were travelling upward on a Flat-Earth at constant velocity, Earth would be weightless. Like the space around it. This is the weightless effect you get when free falling by cancelling out the gravity.

The Universe is accelerating, and not expanding at a constant rate. As stated by another poster, Dark Energy is involved. The weightless effect you feel is not "cancelling out gravity." It is simply free falling. In space, you are weightless because you ARE free falling. The MOON is free falling towards the Earth! (This is correct I assure you. If anyone has questions I can explain further.)

Please see my post on the moon/tides/etc. for detailed information on many subjects.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Indisbutable proof that theories are WRONG!

« on: January 22, 2006, 08:54:29 AM »

Gravity could be cause by centrifugal forces as the tube spins.

Centrifugal is a ficticious force. Living on the inside of the tube as it rotates is plaucible. This event can be witnessed in 2001: a Space Odyssey or Mission to Mars (both are movies.) Same basic idea. Scientists are actually planning on replicating gravity in future space stations and shuttles by using rotating rooms.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Orbital/Space/Moon/Tides Discussion

« on: January 22, 2006, 08:46:56 AM »

Interesting. UrSerbianBuddy, do you have a web page reference to read about this?

Unfortunately, I do not have a solid source on the internet. Online, the information tends to be inacurate, vague, and deceiving. I would, however, be more than willing to answer any questions you may have and try my best to offer you valid sources such as books or videos.

your bit about the heavier side is total crap im afraid. What actually happened was that over hundreds of millions of years the effect of tides was to slow the spin of both the earth and the moon until teh moons spin was exactly teh same as its revolutions around the earth, this stabiisd the system, If your way was correct then we would always see exactly the same side but in truth the moon wobbles around its axis of rotation meaning we see a considerable amount more than just one side.

When I initially posted I asked everyone to refrain from acting childish. Now that you have disregarded my polite request, you will be treated as such. The moon DOES NOT rotate. The same side of the moon is seen every single night. It has a "dark side" that we never see. The moon has a molten core, however small it may be. The mantle, as well as the core, is shifted towards the Earth, creating a lop-sided satellite.

Concerning tides. The moon's gravitational pull on the seas is roughly one ten millionth of the earth's which is only enough to raise the water level by 20cm's ish. The majority of the tidal force comes from the centripital force of the spinning earth causing a bulgea round teh centre of the earth. The moon and earth(and suns) gravity then adjusts this bulge into an ellipsoid with its centre at the centre of the eath explaining why there is a high tide at either side.

Incorrect. Oxygen, Ozone, Carbon Dioxide, etc. are all lighter than water. If what you were saying were true, all of these particles would fly out into space. Obviously, such an event isn't possible. The moon is the MAIN contributor to the tides. It is one of the few things in astronomy that can simply be stated in such a fashion.

not sure on this one but string theory is out of date i believe.

I did not spend an extra 4 years advancing my studies so that someone such as yourself could insult me by telling me my information is "crap" and "outdated." You, my friend, are simply wrong. I have plenty of information to offer to EVERYONE ELSE who is genuinely interested in debating facts and theories. What I have presented you with is known as scientific fact. If you do not believe in the modern ways of science, that is your choice, but if you do, DON'T tell me I am wrong by refuting my works with ill-conceived fibs about how you believe physics works.

I am sorry I had to digress.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Orbital/Space/Moon/Tides Discussion

« on: January 21, 2006, 12:47:59 PM »

It was believed that billions of years was a good estimate, however, scientists have recently been convinced that Earth is also forming a "heavier" side. This will create an exponential slowdown.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Orbital/Space/Moon/Tides Discussion

« on: January 20, 2006, 01:55:08 PM »

I'm new to the website and I recently finished my doctoral studies in Astronomy and Physics. I was disturbed by the information here and decided to offer my knowledge.

We see the same side of the moon because it is what we call "tidally locked" to the Earth. The earth is much bigger, and the inside of the moon is made up of heated metals (mostly liquid). Over time, these metals shift to one side, creating a "heavier" side of the moon. This can be observed using everyday object. For example, if you hold up a basketball and put a finger on each side to represent the poles, but the placement is about 3/4 of the way down from the top, the ball will spin around with the heavy side down, and that side will remain down. This brings up another question, and yes, the Earth is actually slowing down because the moon has that same effect on the Earth, however, that effect is almost negligable, and will take tens of thousands of years for Earth to stop rotating.

I noticed that the phases of the moon are frequently discussed as well. Using the same basketball and a fixed source of light, you can replicate the phases of the moon. A "New Moon" is simply this: The Sun shines light on the moon, and we are behind the moon. Keep in mind that there is a slight tilt on the moon's orbit around the Earth of approximately 5 degrees, therefore, we don't always have a solar or lunar eclipse.
During waxing and waning phases, we can observe a slight curve to the shadow. Using the basketball and light, we can observe the same type of shadow. A rounded object created a rounded shadow.

The tides are affected by both the moon and the sun, however, the moon has a greater infuence because it is much closer to the Earth. We observe two tides because of a "bulge" effect. To put it in perspective, the general shape is that of a football with a sphere inside. The side of the Earth facing the moon experiences this bulge effect, which is a high tide, and at that same time, the opposite side of the Earth is also in a high tide state.

Gravity, although not proven, has a strong theory to back it. The "String Theory" which is a very complicated theory, explained by many formulas, which took me years to master, explains that all particles, no matter how microscopic in size, are "connected" by "strings." Now these aren't strings in the literal sense, but in the electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravitational forces.

Furthermore, if a flat earth was accelerating through space in a constant direction, the speed would eventually reach obscene amounts. If the flat earth was moving at a CONSTANT rate, with NO ACCELERATION, then this would make sense. Newton's first law states that an object in motion will stay in motion, therefore, a flat object moving through space will continue to move at that rate until it collides with another object.

Through my studies I have learned that space is finite, and there will never be a Big Crunch. We think of the Big Bang as matter expanding into space, but this is not the case, SPACE ITSELF IS EXPANDING. We often refer to this as the "Raisin Bread Universe." Think of it this way: The bread is the Universe and the raisins are cellestial objects in the universe. As the bread expands in the oven, the object move further apart from each other. This is a simplified version, but for the sake of this discussion, it serves an appropriate purpose.

I have plenty more information to offer for anyone willing to engage in MATURE debate and discussion. This thread is not for those who will resort to name calling. Please excuse any typos as I am typing without proof reading.