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 - Pablo the Incredible

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon Landing was no fake!
« on: September 25, 2007, 05:12:05 PM »
On the moon are altogether 5 laser reflectors. Three come from the Apollomissionen 11, 14 and 15 and two from the Luna missions 17 and 21. Four are used this very day for the highly precise ion measurement of the moon movement. The reflector of Luna 17 does not function since beginning.

You can go to a observatory and proof by yourself that there is a laser reflector on the moon!
By multipling the speed of light with the time that the laser light took from earth to the moon and backwards, and dividing it by 2, one can calculate the distance from earth to the moon, which is ~ 400,000 kilometers.

How has this laser reflector been placed on the moon, when the moon landing was a fake?

So, when moon landing was real, your flat earth theory cannot be true.

Now hold on a second. The Flat Earth Society rejects any evidence you present on the grounds of it being part of a vast multinational Conspiracy dedicated to subverting the truth for financial gain. Any photographs, testimonials, or studies you reference are also rejected as part of the Conspiracy. We will not accept books, diagrams, graphs, or physical theories. We will not accept analogies or appeals to authorities.

Now that that's out of the way, with all of that taken into account, what actual proof do you have demonstrating that the earth is a whirling globe?

Since books arent evidence, you can't use Robot-ham's book. Even if you claim that you recreated his expiriments, it is only anecdotal evidence. Since you can't use graphs, you can't prove your evidence. Therefore, neither side will ever be able to prove their views. Congradulations Tom, you have singlehandedly DESTROYED both sides of the debate. :o ;D ;D ;D

The moon also sometimes passes between us and the sun. Does that mean that the moon is in orbit around the sun?
The moon orbits us as we orbit the sun, therefore it does orbit the sun.
Mercury still passes in front of the sun in the geocentric model of Claudius Ptolemy.
This model is very complex. It involves crazy loops and spirals to act the same way as in RE. Our model is simpler in this respect.

And again I must ask, why is the sun a sphere and the earth a disk? And don't give me that crap logic "the sun is not the earth." That's stating the ****ing obvious. Give me one decent explanation as to how the earth formed a disk.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Quite interesting...
« on: May 24, 2007, 01:38:45 PM »
Do I detect a hint af SARCASM? No matter how you people put it, this is pseudoscience. You reverse the burden of proof EVERY DAY. You constantly quote doctor robot ham and no one else. And you ignore evidence that conflicts with your claims. It's sort of obvious. And Tom, you just freaking proved me right. You claim the earth is flat, and when skeptics try to say otherwise, you say we need to prove the roundness of the earth, flipping the burden of proof onto us. This identifies you as pseudoscience.

Flat Earth Debate / Quite interesting...
« on: May 24, 2007, 01:25:31 PM »
Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.[21]
Failure to make use of operational definitions. (i.e. a scientific description of the operational means in which a range of numeric measurements can be obtained).[22]
Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor)[23]
Use of obscurantist language, and misuse of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.
Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess boundary conditions (well articulated limitations) under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.[24]

 Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
Assertion of scientific claims that cannot be falsified in the event they are incorrect, inaccurate, or irrelevant (see also: falsifiability)[25]
Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict[26]
Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance)[27]
Over-reliance on testimonials and anecdotes. Testimonial and anecdotal evidence can be useful for discovery (i.e. hypothesis generation) but should not be used in the context of justification (i.e. hypothesis testing).[28]
Selective use of experimental evidence: presentation of data that seems to support its own claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims.[29]
Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests on the individual making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.[30]
Appeals to holism: Proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the “mantra of holism” to explain negative findings.[31]
Lack of openness to testing by other experts
Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called "science by press conference").[32] Some proponents of theories that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their work to the often ego-bruising process of peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is inherently biased against claims that contradict established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forego the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.[33]
The science community expects authors to share data necessary to evaluate a paper. Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claimed results is a lack of openness.[34]
Assertion of claims of secrecy or proprietary knowledge in response to requests for review of data or methodology.[35]

From wiki article defineling pseudo-science. Just thought it interesting that this site fits the bill here. :D

Especially the burden of proof thing.
Don't bring out the old "wikipedia can't be a good source because it's edited by everyone" excuse ::). It's sad, It only furthers my point, and it's false. Wiki has mods that patrol the site looking for errors. They fix them as they find them. :o

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Simple answers to simpl questions
« on: May 23, 2007, 12:47:46 PM »
Beyond the 150 foot Ice Wall is anyone's guess. How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness. Some hold that the tundra of ice and snow stretches forever eternally.

However, The Flat Earth does not necessary need to be physically infinite in order to contain the atmosphere - just very big. Often we might hear "infinite earth" from Flat Earth proponents as an analogy for what exists past the ice wall; a stretch of land incomprehensible by human standards.

In order for barometric pressure to rise and fall, an element of heat must be present. Heat creates pressure. These two elements are tightly correlated in modern physics.

In our local area the heat of the day comes from the sun, moving and swashing around wind currents from areas of low pressures to areas of high pressures with its heat. Past the Ice Wall, where the rays of the sun do not reach, the tundra of ice and snow lays in perpetual darkness. If one could move away from the Ice Wall into the uncharted tundra the surrounding temperatures would drop lower and lower until it nears absolute zero. Defining the exact length of the gradient would take some looking into, but at a significant distance from the edge of the Ice Wall temperatures will drop to a point where barometric pressure nears the zero mark. At this point, whether it be millions or hundreds of millions of miles from the edge of Ice Wall, the world can end without the atmosphere leaking into space.

The atmosphere exists as a lip on the surface of the earth, held in by vast gradients of declining pressure.


This is Tom's bad answer you poser.
Be creative...the more outlandish your claims, the harder it is to give a coherent de-bunking without laughing your head off.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunrise / sunset
« on: May 18, 2007, 12:00:31 PM »
Oh my god. You're just spewing the same tripe as Tom does on a daily basis. And as for #3 on your list of answers, sand is SMALL. A grain of sand is about the same size as the next period in this sentence. A grain of sand can't obscure an ant 1 cm long. By a sickeningly obvious law of logic, it can't obscure an alleged 36 mile wide shining disk. This becomes more implausible on a round earth as the sun is so much brighter, bigger, and farther away.

I'd love to assume you're another troll like Tom, but I just think you're here for a laugh, like me. (Although I really enjoy destroying FE explanations for things. ;D)

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 6 Months Of Night
« on: May 08, 2007, 12:35:34 PM »
So by freak coincidence, the rate of the sun's movement directly corrolates to the amount of air its light has to pass through? Give me a break.

Oil , when put in water, forms circles...When first dumped, it forms spheres.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 6 Months Of Night
« on: May 08, 2007, 12:20:18 PM »
How many times must this simple observational fact be told? THE SUN DOES NOT GET SMALLER AS IT SETS, RISES, OR MOVES. IT THEREFORE IS NOT A PERSPECTIVE EFFECT. ::) For the love of all that is good in the world, stop trying to say otherwise. Three year-olds can observe this without problems, WHY CAN'T YOU? ???

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Simple Questions :)
« on: April 29, 2007, 04:46:55 PM »
I think the dimwit comment he added was added to lower the ancients' status as intellectuals to further his theory.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Simple Questions :)
« on: April 29, 2007, 04:42:02 PM »
We are led to believe that the ancients, being the dimwits they were, believed in a Flat Earth. In reality the ancient Greeks, dating back to 2700 B.C, as well as most ancient other societies clearly believed in a Round Earth.

That's not what I'm getting from the above phrase.
That aside, the ancients did believe in a round earth. This is becasue they employed simple expiriments with simple math and logic.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Simple Questions :)
« on: April 29, 2007, 04:36:40 PM »
Dimwits? Who built massive aqueducts without mortar that still stand? Who built the pyramids? The Parthenon? The ancient Greeks invented hydraulics, rudamentary calculators (not the abacus, the Antekitherum device.) Steam powered machines, mechanical birds, the Sphinx, they practically invented modern mathematics, philosophy, and science. The ancient Greeks and Romans, Egyptians, Chinese, Inians, Mesopotamians, Phonicians, and Minoans were all incredibly advanced for their times. They proved through simpler means than Doctor Whatever can provide, and they employed an amazing tool called LOGIC. Geez Tom, Someone needs to re-think their perspective on the past.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: List of FE illusions
« on: April 29, 2007, 04:26:02 PM »
How many optical illusions is there in the round earth?

Round Earth illusions:

    Alexander's band
    Anticrepuscular rays
    Aurora Borealis
    Ball Lightening
    Belt of Venus
    Blue Jets
    Blue Moons
    Cafe Wall Illusion
    Circumzenithal arc
    Crepuscular rays
    Crepuscular rays
    Diffraction of light
    Earthquake lights
    Fata Morgana
    Full circle rainbows
    Ghost Lights
    Green Sun
    Haidinger's brush
    Hering's Illusion
    Hessdalen lights
    Large Sun at the horizon
    Light Pillar
    Light of Saratoga
    Min Min lights
    Monocular diplopia (or polyplopia)
    Night Rainbows
    Opposition effect
    Phosphenes from stimulation other than by light (e.g., mechanical, electrical)
    Purkinje images
    Ray scattering
    Shadow set
    Ship sinking over horizon
    Summer Moon Illusion
    Sun Dogs
    Sun Halos
    Sun Pillars
    The Green ray
    The Marfa Lights
    Thunderstorm Elves
    Thunderstorm Sprites
    Tyndall effect
    Zodiacal light

Et cetera, Et cetera.

And how is a rainbow an illusion? Oh and you put "Crap-iscular" rays twice. Maybe to try and make your hilarious list longer? ::)

Flat Earth Debate / Re: List of FE illusions
« on: April 29, 2007, 04:21:03 PM »
Tom, I know know beyond a shadow of a doubt (no that I doubted it before) that you are full of BS. Blue Moon ::)? Don't make me laugh. That is a term used for the second full moon of the month. It isnt blue. At all. The Aurora is not an illusion, it is charged particles colliding with the atmosphere and the magnetic field of the earth. Ball lightning is not an illusion either. It is electricity trapped within a small area of an opposing charge to it, making it into a ball. Coinsidentally, It forms into a ball (big suprise there) not a disk or cylinder. That's just a thought (used to find a round earth by logic.)

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Astronauts and Microgravity???
« on: April 26, 2007, 12:19:37 PM »
The muscles expirience no exertion when there isn't any gravity resisting the muscle's pull on an object. They therefore atrophy. After a month or two, the muscles are so weakened, it is hard to do anything. When did you come up with the idea that NASA drugs the astronauts? Did you brainstorm all the ideas that sound plausible at first glance but aren't when you actually think about them? Sheesh.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Commerical Space Flight
« on: April 26, 2007, 12:14:34 PM »
The pencil accelerates, yes. This acceleration is caused by the force of gravity attracting the pencil. Why? Because it makes as much sense as acceleration, if not more.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Astronauts and Microgravity???
« on: April 26, 2007, 12:03:54 PM »
There was an astronaut who stayed in space for a relatively long period. When he got back he was actually physically UNABLE to lift a book of matches. This was documented by doctors and news alike. How can this be explained without space travel.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Unanswered Round Earth Questions
« on: April 23, 2007, 05:40:33 PM »
the core's high iron content causes it to act approximately like a dipole, resulting in nearly vertical lines at the poles

Completely and entirely unsatisfactory. How do you presume it has iron in its core? How do you presume there is a core at all? What causes a swirling molten core with an iron content to become a dipole? Multitudes of unanswered questions arise from your primitive model of the earth.

So Tom, can you come up with answers to questions regarding the flat earth?

The thousands of FE posts on this forum correctly explain and address your observations. Do take a gander at them. Within my last 2,000 posts I've done nothing but addressed these concerns. You Round Earthers ask the same unendearing questions every single day of the year. Why does the boat sink? Well I'm not going to tell you in this thread, you'll just have to do a little introspection and searching for yourself. The subject of this thread is exploring the glaring flaws in the Round Earth hypothesis.

Mainly, the fallacy of the Round Earth hypothesis stems from an early age of Astronomy when the universe was parceled out into systems, co-existent and illimitable. Suns, planets, galaxies, and comets, were assumed to exist infinite in number and boundless in extent; and to enable the theorists to explain alternating and constantly recurring phenomena, which were everywhere observable. What reasoning! what shameful perversion of intellectual gifts!

Please. Spare me your Science Fiction, spare me your hypocritical unproved answers and technobabble. I've had enough of it. It is a sad state of affairs when not even one person of the thousands I've encountered on this forum, could show or reference one experimental inquiry conducted at any point throughout the history of all time which has proved the earth as a sphere.

Tell me why even one of those answers is wrong or incomplete, and I will complete it for you or tell you why it is not possible to do so.

I demand answers to each of my questions with a modicum of reasoning behind them. Not magic wands. I've grown tired of your magic wands. The whole of Round Earth dogma is composed of stacking one magic word on top of another and then regurgitating it authoritatively to children without a basis of fundamentals. "The big bang did it!", "The natural attraction of matter did it!" It's sickening in the extreme to see the perpetuation of witchcraft and magic in the modern age. Round Earth science is nothing more than a religion.

If you are unable to understand the very basics of your own theory, it speaks volumes of your character and the depth of your delusion.

Humor me.
And speaking of magic wands Tom...

Two words: Shadow object.
Two more: Universal Acceleration

Geez... you're such a hypocrite. At least I can stay coherant and not change theories every time need be.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Unanswered Round Earth Questions
« on: April 23, 2007, 12:07:18 PM »
So Tom, can you come up with answers to questions regarding the flat earth?
I'll give some that have been asked before but havent been answered without a link to a 150 year old book on the internet.
Why do ships seem to sink below the horizon?
Why is there a clear line of a horizon?
Why have people traversed Antarctica which according to FE'ers, doesn't exist?
Why does the earth even have a magnetic field if it's south pole is non-existant?
How do the sun and moon manage to not fall into the earth?
Explain fully the transit of Venus in the flat earth model.
How did the flat earth form?
How did the sun and moon above it form?
Describe the FE universe since it is so different from the RE one.
I'll post more when I think of them.
Now lets keep these threads clear of insults to peoples' intelligence. Tom, you make me sad. This is because instead of saying why the answers I, and a few others gave are unacceptabe, you just call us stupid dogmatic media-hype followers when you yourself are unable to fully explain many FE phenomena without referencing the Equivalence Principle or your dogmatic 150 year old text by the man who allegedly infiltrated the "conspiracy" ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)


Flat Earth Debate / Re: Unanswered Round Earth Questions
« on: April 22, 2007, 06:33:26 PM »
1.) Was it Columbus or Magellan who proved that the earth is round? Who did it?

2.) How do planets form?

3.) Why are the magnetic field lines vertical throughout the entire Arctic and Antarctic circles? What causes this?

4.) How did the man who claimed to make a transcontinental journey across Antarctica over the pole do it if compasses don't work there?

5.) If a gyrocompass can detect the rotation of the earth, how does it do it and why does its patent imply that the electronic error correcting device uses a magnetic compass to calibrate itself?

6.) Why does the sun appear much bigger at setting near the horizon than it is overhead at zenith? Why does it still appear large at the horizon in a picture?

7.) Why does the sun lose a large amount of its visible intensity when it is near the horizon?

8.) How does the magnetic North Pole "wander" to and fro over the years without breaking Newtons first law of motion?

9.) How did the scientists discover the exact point of magnetic North?

10.) In the Analemma of the Sun, how do you explain the retrograde motion of the sun in its Winter annulus and the prograde motion during its Summer annulus?

11.) How did the axis of the earth become tilted in its rotation around the sun? Why doesn't the gravity from the sun tilt it back into place?

12.) Fully explain the property of matter which causes it to bend space-time.

13.) How did astronomers find the distance of the Astronomical Unit?

14.) What causes the acceleration of the expanding universe?

15.) How Does Earth's core work? Can you provide evidence to go along with your assertions?

16.) Where do ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays come from?

17.) What powers quasars?

18.) Is there a discrete unit of measurement? Is there a discrete unit of time?

19.) Can we develop a general theory of the dynamics of turbulent flows and the motion of granular materials?

20.) What causes ice ages?

21.) Are there earthquake precursors that can lead to useful predictions?

22.) What is the origin of homochirality in nature?

23.) Is there a simple test for determining whether an elliptic curve in the Newtonian model that has an infinite number of rational solutions?

24.) Does the Standard Model of particle physics rest on solid mathematical foundations?

25.) What drove cosmic inflation in the early universe? 

26.) Does dogma against "basic fact" exist in scientific circles?

I'll answer these in order to the best of my abilities.
Neither Columbus or megellan discovered the earth to be round.
The earth's magnetic field has its ends at the poles. It comes out vertically here and curves over to the other pole.
He found his bearing on the edge and followed it.
How does this relate to the roundness or flatness of the earth?
The sun only looks bigger because you can use the trees, mountains, etc as a reference. The same goes for the moon.
The atmosphere filters the light because there is more for the light to pass through.
The earth has a slight wobble which causes certain bearings to shift.
The earth's tilt is the same as it rotates and revolves. The angle is different in relation to the sun in different seasons.
The young earth was hit by a mars-sized object a few billion years ago, causing a tilt. The earth's tilt isnt affectad by the sun's gravity because the earth is a sphere.
Check out General Relativity.
One AU is the distance from the earth to the sun.
See general relativity once again.
It rotates seperately from the rest of the earth, causing a dynamo effect. We can use seismicdata to find out what the layers are.
Quasars, supernovas, Gamma ray bursts, Black hole jets, pulsars.
Quasars are powered by nuclear fusion.
How is this question relevant? :-\
See above. :-\
Planets form when dust clumps together. This continues until it gets really big. These giant balls of rock compress into denser balls of rock and so on, until a planet forms. (gasses are pulled in, comets hit the surface and make water, etc.)
Global warming periods can cause fresh water to disrupt the oceanic currents, cooling the planet.
It's just easier to make in nature.
There's a test, but I doubt it's simple. :o
I don't think it would be the standard model if it didn't. ::)
The Big Bang.
Science tries to promote basic fact unless it is proven wrong.

Oh definitely. So the sun and moon have gravity? TheEngineer and Dogplatter agree with you on this one do they? Why doesn't the Earth have gravity then? Is it magic?

Gravity doesn't exist in Flat Earth Theory. I said the force was due to Gravitation. Particularly the type of space-time bending gravitation which Einstein describes in his Equivalence Principle.

Classical gravity relies on a speculative messenger particle called the Graviton that has not been discovered by modern science. There is a big problem with the existence of the Graviton. In a previous post on this forum Narcberry shares his concerns, which I believe sums it up:

    If a subatomic particle is responsible for gravity, I can show you my major problem with that. Lets say the world is round and all celestial bodies orbit each other due to a force called gravity. Well the earth and sun send gravitons back and forth that will cause a certain amount of attraction towards one another dependant on the quantity of gravitons and in what direction they came from or what message they might contain.

    Heres my problem: There is a potential energy in the sun and earth due to their distance. Meaning that they have the energy to fall to each other and collide with massive energy. Now if a graviton exists, what if something interferes with its path or message? What if the sun is told to be attracted to the earth in a different direction? That would violate the whole principals of newtonian physics. It would mean you could create energy from nothing.

    This is due to the fact that the idea of gravitons implies that the sun has the ability to accelerate itself in any direction. All it is doing is waiting to find out what vector of acceleration to apply. This is inconsistant with many theories. The force of attraction on the sun, must be a direct cause of the earth and visa versa.

    Additionally, gravity is a pulling force. In physics, a very basic lesson is there is no such thing as a pulling force, only a pushing one. These can be complicated, so as to seem like a pulling force when it is actually a series of pushing ones. This makes me inclined to believe in gravity (and magnetic and electric) forces that are a series of pushing ones. But that is off topic. If you want to know more I will explain elsewhere.

Incidentally, your model of the Sun's movements, sunrises sunsets etc was shown to be totally invalid here:

Maybe. Maybe not. In the past that particular author had trouble had trouble calculating the centripetal force an object would experience from being rotated at one revolution per hour on the edge of a Flat Earth. When I provided a centripetal acceleration calculator he could use from a pretentious university website he scoffed and implied that he was smarter than any PHD who derived those equations.

When the author mentioned "look at my math" in that thread I immediately and emotionlessly scrolled down to the next post.

Here's the problem with your assumption. The earth and sun don't send out gravitons to each other. Instead, the gravitons exert an attracting force on one another. The combined force of all the gravitons in the earth and all the gravitons in the sun attract each other. That's why we dont all fly into space when there is a solar eclipse. According to your theory here, the moon would stop the particles from reaching the earth and we all go flying. Also, if all the stars are fixed points, how are there binary star systems at all?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Two Topics the FE'rs can't explain
« on: April 21, 2007, 02:42:01 PM »
We have a theory as to how gravity and gravitations work.
It's called the Graviton. A massless particle that exerts an attracting force on other particles. The force is minimal, but en masse, they exert a noticable pull. Hence, the more mass an object has, the stronger its gravitational pull. Another theory is the string theory which you can research on your own.  8) :o :o 8)

The FE'ers say the big bang caused UA. This makes me laugh. How would the earth form in such a scenario?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Conspiracy evidence
« on: April 12, 2007, 03:38:51 PM »
So where do all of these rockets crash?
Most likely they crash into one of the oceans.

And if that were true, why not just launch rockets near the south pole, which is your supposed edge of the Earth?
Too expensive, not to mention the risk of losing the balloon permenantly to the abyss.

And losing lots of rockets to the ocean isnt expensive at all [SARCASM! LEARN IT WELL!]

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why no round Earth?
« on: April 12, 2007, 11:55:23 AM »
Why is the sun only 3000 miles away?

I think I'll use one of the flat earth generic answers: It's a perspective effect...or a conspiracy.

I really hope you falt earth people know that Aristotle found the earth to be flat in ancient Greece. Islamic astronomers also knew the spherical shape of our planet.  And all you people can call upon to back you up, is some British guy who wrote a book on it in the 1800's? Sad. Truly sad.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What proof exactly?
« on: April 05, 2007, 05:09:16 PM »
Why the hell would the earth being flat cause mass panic?

"holy $*#&!! the earth is flat!?! MY LIFE IS OVER! NOOOOOO!!!"

Come up with a more plausible explaination please narc.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: For FE people
« on: April 05, 2007, 05:05:22 PM »
"more denser" I simply love your grasp of the english language Tom.

You infer that because water refracts light and makes pencils look broken, thin air must make the earth look round.  Geez.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity proven false
« on: April 05, 2007, 05:02:19 PM »
The earth's gravity attracts both you and your television. This mass is much greater than both your masses combined and tripled. The force of gravity keeps the TV in place even when you get within 2 nanometers of it. Bring your TV to the interstellar medium outside the solar system and perform the same thing, and you will be attracted to each other.  This isn't feasible however. Narc gets an D for the intellegence of the question and a C+ for trying to act like he knows what he's talking about.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which way is up again?
« on: April 05, 2007, 04:21:37 PM »
Correct: bubbles DO go up. However, up is relative. the bubble is travelling away from the earth because it is lighter than air. You fail narcberry.

Up means up to me. If up means down or sideways to you, you are mistaken.

Up in China is away from the ground. It is the same in the U.S., and everywhere else. Again narc, you fail.

To someone observing the world from outside, say, on a large camel, a bubble, I'll use a helium balloon, just because, two released from Australia and America will both move away from the opposite directions. For the third time, you fail narc.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What proof exactly?
« on: April 05, 2007, 04:19:57 PM »
The conspiricy has one motive: to keep itself alive. :o

Nasa takes tax dollars and makes high-end photoshopping and imaging software to fake space missions. This is done to create the illusion of a round earth, which is done to use tax -dollars to make imaging software. The whole damn consipicy is one huge paradoxial loop.

See? make a comprehensive list of motives, narc, then I'll believe you...maybe.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which way is up again?
« on: April 05, 2007, 04:11:17 PM »
Correct: bubbles DO go up. However, up is relative. the bubble is travelling away from the earth because it is lighter than air. You fail narcberry.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4