1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GPS again.

« on: March 23, 2007, 12:41:30 AM »

TheEngineer,
No offense, but do you really have nothing better to do than to debate about GPS with a bunch of morons on this site?  You seem to post the exact same things every day and you have over 5,000 posts.  I guess I don't really understand why any of the members stay on this site for any significant length of time, but you seem to stand out the most.  What's the point?

Anyways, if GPS does not use satellites, then why would the government(or whoever is behind the conspiracy) go through all the trouble to convince us that it does?   Why would you make it into a huge conspiracy if there is no reason too?

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Most of you are confused, there are very few who know the truth.

« on: March 15, 2007, 01:43:49 PM »

Modern technology is far too advanced for there to be a conspiracy in which only a few people know.  We use space dependent technology on a daily basis.  Everything that relies on satellites must be faked.  That means you have to have hundreds of engineers who are in on the conspiracy to develop and implement the fake satellite technology and ensure that all the technology developed based on satellites still works on the flat earth and that no one knows the difference. 

Then there are the space programs like NASA.  All of the astronauts need to be in on the conspiracy.  You also have to have a significant amount of people to organize the fake shuttle launches and landings.  Where does the shuttle go?  You would have to say that they land it at some secluded location and then relaunch it for when the shuttle is supposed to land.  That would require an enormous amount of people and funds.  Then you have the space probes which are launched, and things like the hubble telescope.  There are hundreds of engineers at NASA that operate these things and are constantly analyzing the data they produce.  Either all of those people are in on the conspiracy or there is a significant amount of people who are faking the data at real time so that they don't know.  NASA would have to pay all of its normal employees and provide the funding for the RE related projects, while still having a huge amount of money left over to pay all of the conspirators and pay for all the infrastructure needed to fake a round earth. 

Then there is the problem of long distance transportation.  The distance between two places on the flat earth could be greatly different than on the round earth.  Don't you think pilots, for example, would notice this?  Or are there people deceiving them?

These are just a few of the things that would need to happen for the earth to be flat.  Do you really think this could be accomplished by a few people telling a lie?

3

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: .9999... equals 1?

« on: March 11, 2007, 09:08:23 AM »

There is no such thing as 0r1

On the theoretical number line which 0.9r is a point, 0.0r1 would be the very next point after zero. Also, on that same theoretical number line, 0.9r would be the number preceding one.

Even if you don't understand math you should be able to figure it out from basic logic.  0.0r1 cannot exist.  You can't have an infinitely long string of zeros with a 1 at the end because there is no end.  0.0r means that it repeats to infinite which means you can't have a 1 at the end because there is no end.  How can you put at one at the end of something that has no end?

4

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: .9999... equals 1?

« on: March 10, 2007, 11:58:06 PM »

If you think that .9r does not equal 1, and you can't come up with a mathematical proof to show it, why do you keep arguing?  There is no such thing as 0r1 in mathematics!  It simply shows that you don't understand the concept of infinity. 

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: SKY TV, COMMUNIATIONS, ETC.

« on: March 09, 2007, 02:55:23 PM »

4 point location between radio towers for GPS and TV signals.

Why is it GPS rarely works in the middle of nowhere? Or Cell Phones?

GPS does work in the middle of nowhere.

Cell phones don't work in the middle of nowhere because they're fucking CELL phones.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical

« on: March 08, 2007, 08:25:19 PM »

I often wonder who really does.

It seems as though there might be a couple people on here that truly believe the earth is flat, but it's hard to tell.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical

« on: March 08, 2007, 08:09:27 PM »

I'm simply trying to come up with an FE response.  I don't actually believe this shit. 

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical

« on: March 08, 2007, 07:41:07 PM »

Who said the flat earth is rotating?

School me in atmospheric mechanics!!!

Everyone on this forum when given this issue has said just that. 

Coriolis Effect can only occur on a rotating body.  Coriolis effect is the reason for Buys Ballot's Law that when you stand with your back against the wind lower pressure is to your left in the Northern hemisphere.  Also, Vorticity is stronger towards the poles since the Coriolis effect is much stronger.  Also, the Subtropical jet is formed as Coriolis force causes it to recurve back to the Equator inducing the conservation of angular momentum thereby producing higher winds. 

The Coriolis force would be much much stronger on a flat disk than on a sphere.  Not to mention the fact that cyclonic rotation in the southern hemisphere is in opposite direction from that of the Northern hemisphere  which would be impossible on a flat Earth.

Would you like me to elaborate?

The Coriolis effect is caused by the container that holds the atmosphere on the flat earth.  The flat earth does not rotate. 

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical

« on: March 08, 2007, 07:06:32 PM »

I don't mean to go off on a tangent or anything, but has anyone accounted for the acceleration towards the edge of the rotating Flat Earth which would cause sea-levels to be consistently and significantly greater as you move south? 

Not to mention the fact that a mere 150ft ice wall could not withstand the immense water pressure of such event.

If anyone even tries to say that the Earth doen't rotate, I will quickly put them in their place with atmospheric mechanics.

Who said the flat earth is rotating?

School me in atmospheric mechanics!!!

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical

« on: March 08, 2007, 05:48:54 PM »

The surface distance from the North Pole to the Equator is 10,011.720km.  For this point, we're only going to use the Northern Hemisphere.

The circumference at the equator is 40,075.02km.

Did you measure those distances?

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What are these phenomena that RE can't explain?

« on: March 06, 2007, 11:23:30 PM »

Anything else?  I'm extremely curious.

The Flat Earth also provides better explanations for:

Aether Theory
Fluid Mechanics
Archimedes’ Principle
Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion
Beer-Lambert Law
Newton’s three laws of motion
Newton’s law of universal gravitation
Newton’s law of cooling
The Acquiescence Effect
Boyle's Law
Ideal Gas Law
Maxwell's equations
The First Law of Thermodynamics
Buys-Ballot's Law

For full detailed information on these subjects please consult the books listed in the thread The Flat Earth: A List of References.

LOL.  Tom, you can't be serious.  You post a list of theories, most of which have no relevance to the shape of the Earth, and then provide a list of books as your proof.  Care to explain how any of those theories suggest that the Earth is flat?

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Important question about the moon

« on: March 03, 2007, 12:59:20 PM »

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Number of People in the Conspiracy

« on: March 02, 2007, 11:59:11 AM »

Obviously, the gravity that stars have so much of pulls the space ship off the earth, and the space ship only uses fuel to leave its gravitational pull and come back to the Earth.

Or maybe they just land the shuttle on the other side of the moon until it's time to come back.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Number of People in the Conspiracy

« on: March 02, 2007, 11:39:42 AM »

Here's something else to think about.  What happens to the Space Shuttle after they launch it?  You can watch the shuttle pretty much all the way until it leaves the atmosphere.  In a RE model the shuttle goes into orbit around the Earth, but in a FE model the Earth is accelerating upward.  That means the whole time the shuttle is in space it must be producing enough thrust to keep accelerating with the Earth or it will just come crashing down.  From an energy standpoint that would be impossible for how long the space shuttle stays in space.  So what happens then?  Does NASA have a secret base somewhere where they land the shuttle and relaunch it so that everyone can see it come back from space when its supposed too.  That might take a significant amount of conspiracy money. 

Could you support this statement with proof ?

You should be smart enough to prove it to yourself.  Go find the weight of the space shuttle and the density of its fuel.  Then calculate how much thrust would be required to maintain the shuttle at a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s.  Then figure out how much fuel would be needed to maintain the mass of the shuttle and its fuel at that constant acceleration for the 10-15 days the shuttle is in orbit.  Start crunching the numbers and you'll realize how ridiculous this is. 

(anticipated response)Have you ever measured the mass of a space shuttle or the density of it's fuel? If not then how do you know what it is?  Maybe the fuel has negative mass.

ROFLMAO

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Number of People in the Conspiracy

« on: March 02, 2007, 11:27:26 AM »

Here's something else to think about.  What happens to the Space Shuttle after they launch it?  You can watch the shuttle pretty much all the way until it leaves the atmosphere.  In a RE model the shuttle goes into orbit around the Earth, but in a FE model the Earth is accelerating upward.  That means the whole time the shuttle is in space it must be producing enough thrust to keep accelerating with the Earth or it will just come crashing down.  From an energy standpoint that would be impossible for how long the space shuttle stays in space.  So what happens then?  Does NASA have a secret base somewhere where they land the shuttle and relaunch it so that everyone can see it come back from space when its supposed too.  That might take a significant amount of conspiracy money. 

Could you support this statement with proof ?

You should be smart enough to prove it to yourself.  Go find the weight of the space shuttle and the density of its fuel.  Then calculate how much thrust would be required to maintain the shuttle at a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s.  Then figure out how much fuel would be needed to maintain the mass of the shuttle and its fuel at that constant acceleration for the 10-15 days the shuttle is in orbit.  Start crunching the numbers and you'll realize how ridiculous this is. 

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Number of People in the Conspiracy

« on: March 02, 2007, 07:51:08 AM »

Here's something else to think about.  What happens to the Space Shuttle after they launch it?  You can watch the shuttle pretty much all the way until it leaves the atmosphere.  In a RE model the shuttle goes into orbit around the Earth, but in a FE model the Earth is accelerating upward.  That means the whole time the shuttle is in space it must be producing enough thrust to keep accelerating with the Earth or it will just come crashing down.  From an energy standpoint that would be impossible for how long the space shuttle stays in space.  So what happens then?  Does NASA have a secret base somewhere where they land the shuttle and relaunch it so that everyone can see it come back from space when its supposed too.  That might take a significant amount of conspiracy money. 

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Number of People in the Conspiracy

« on: March 01, 2007, 08:55:15 PM »

A massive world-wide conspiracy isn't absolutely necessary for FE, depending on the FE model we look at. Especially if the topology of the model exists in non-euclidean space. It's very possible that NASA is simply bad at science.

Apparently you have no idea what the scientists and engineers at NASA actually do. 

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Number of People in the Conspiracy

« on: March 01, 2007, 03:35:44 PM »

What about all of the non-government operated companies involved in space related technologies?  Companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon, etc all have large space technology divisions.  Are the hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers that work for these companies all part of the Conspiracy too?  I just had an interview with Lockheed Martin.  Maybe I can get one of those fat conspiracy checks too!

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Who Cares

« on: February 27, 2007, 12:44:58 PM »

Did you seriously just say that science isn't important in our world?

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Indisputable Evidence

« on: February 26, 2007, 10:05:24 PM »

Is that based on your proof from the first page of this thread?  Because none of that was mathematically correct. 

That as well as obvious reasoning. Everyone here is underestimating the sheer size of the Earth. The pictures posted from the plane show the Earth at a very small size. Maybe my mathematics were off, maybe they weren't but if you look at it, it's obviously too sharp of a curve to be correct. You can't see the curvature of the horizon on ground level or anywhere close to ground level. It's just obvious.

~D-Draw

Ok, if it's so obvious then prove it mathematically.  With real math this time.  Simply stating that its obvious is poor evidence for someone who seems so hell bent on pointing out the logical fallacies of others. 

The world is flat! It's obvious!  I don't need evidence!

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Indisputable Evidence

« on: February 26, 2007, 06:49:32 PM »

i still cant believe he actually is trying to say i have a fisheye lense. pisses me off.

I still can't believe you're actually trying to say that you can see the curve at a few-thousand feet when you're obviously lying or your eyes are obviously deceiving you. As mentioned numerous times, it's well-known that even on a round Earth, you still cannot see the curve in the horizon until you're very high in the air. The curve on the pictures you show depict what would be an Earth with a very small diameter, or at least quite significantly smaller than it actually is.

~D-Draw

Is that based on your proof from the first page of this thread?  Because none of that was mathematically correct. 

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Anger (Not Rant)

« on: February 25, 2007, 11:53:55 PM »

Why would the GPS unit care where the transmitter is?

I'm sure that receiving a land based signal would create some serious challenges compared to an unobstructed view of the sky.  A land based signal that is coming from fake satellites on the ground that must be hidden so that no one knows they exist.  I would also imagine that the design engineers of the gps units would realize something isn't right when the time responses being received by the units don't match up with what would be expected from an orbiting satellite.

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Anger (Not Rant)

« on: February 25, 2007, 11:31:19 PM »

Exactly, so this handful of people that knows must be secretly developing these no satellite GPS and communication systems and implementing them so that no one else is the wiser.  They must also manipulate the people that think they are actually designing and manufacturing technology that uses satillites so that they don't know any better, and so that the products they produce still function.  Sounds like a challenging job and hence, they must not have a lot of personal time. 

Edit: I wonder how they have time to spend that load of cash they're getting from the government?

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Anger (Not Rant)

« on: February 25, 2007, 11:13:28 PM »

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=6308.0

~D-Draw

Hmmm....so just to clarify.  The thousands of scientist and engineers in the US that work on space related technology on a daily basis (space exploration, satellite and GPS, defense systems, etc) are all being manipulated and misguided by a few people at the top?   These people then must also produce all the faked photos, videos, and data which is constantly being collected so that it shows a spherical Earth.  They also must design, build, and implement all of the systems which we believe are based on satellites but really aren't, so that we don't know any better.  They must not have time to get out much. 

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Indisputable Evidence

« on: February 24, 2007, 09:10:17 PM »

His "proof" was completely false.

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Indisputable Evidence

« on: February 24, 2007, 09:06:59 PM »

But you haven't proved anyone wrong yet. So how do you know what happens if you do?

Perhaps you should look at my first post in this thread.

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Indisputable Evidence

« on: February 24, 2007, 09:03:31 PM »

Night.

And would you mind removing or re-sizing the fake image before you go? It's annoyingly large, and makes my internets bog down.

No thats just the internet giving minimal effort to a complete idiot

I gotta hand it to you. You guys really know how to conduct behavior in a debate.

~D-Draw

At least they reply.  When I prove you wrong you just ignore my post.

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Indisputable Evidence

« on: February 24, 2007, 08:59:08 PM »

So the Earth appears perfectly flat until you get to some magical altitude the it immediately becomes curved?

Not at all. The supposed curvature in the RE model just wouldn't be visible until much higher altitudes than the posted pictures were taken from.

Precisely how high does one need to be to see this curvature then? 

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Indisputable Evidence

« on: February 24, 2007, 08:44:30 PM »

That must be one unusual camera trick.  It makes the Earth look curved while the rear section of the wing remains perfectly straight.  The curvature of the Earth is always visible.  It just gets more apparent the higher you go. 

It's not unusual at all. Lots of people take pictures from high altitudes and think they can see Earth's supposed curvature. But I assure you, I have viewed the horizon from the tops of mountains and airplanes, and no curvature is visible from those altitudes whatsoever.

So the Earth appears perfectly flat until you get to some magical altitude the it immediately becomes curved?

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Indisputable Evidence

« on: February 24, 2007, 08:38:43 PM »

Firstly, you are aware that flying over the north pole is perfectly possible on a FE, yes?

Second, those are some nice pictures, but the curvature in them is nothing more than a trick of the camera, as no curvature is visible whatsoever from that altitude.

I think you fail to appreciate just how big Earth really is in either model.

That must be one unusual camera trick.  It makes the Earth look curved while the rear section of the wing remains perfectly straight.  The curvature of the Earth is always visible.  It just gets more apparent the higher you go.