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.

Topics - Logic hopeful

Pages: [1]
The Lounge / It may be late but...
« on: October 31, 2008, 08:03:23 PM »

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Jack Thompson is in trouble now...
« on: May 21, 2008, 10:22:13 AM »
I wasn't sure where to put this, but check out this link

As a gamer myself, I'm finding a certain amount of satisfaction from this.  Any other gamers on the forums?  Anyone think Jack got a raw deal?  Come on, discuss!

EDIT:  Found a second link in case the first one is glitchy.

Flat Earth Debate / Moon visible during the day
« on: May 08, 2008, 10:02:51 AM »
According to FET, the sun and moon both orbit overhead at an altitude of about 3000 miles.  Atmospheric refraction prevents us from being able to see the sun at night, but what accounts for the moon being visible during the day?  Why would the moon be visible when it's in a position where the sun isn't visible?

Flat Earth Debate / Terminal Velocity
« on: May 05, 2008, 03:16:19 PM »
As skydivers know, an object can only fall so fast before reaching the terminal velocity.  At this point, it won't go any faster (at least not noticeably).  So, if the theory of UA were to hold true, how could there be terminal velocity?  The Earth should just keep accelerating upward, and there shouldn't be a point where the acceleration seems to stop (until you hit the ground of course).

Flat Earth Debate / Universal Accleration
« on: April 29, 2008, 08:00:16 AM »
Okay, I'm no physics major so I may be wrong about this, but in regards to UA...

I understand that, according to Einstein, even with endless acceleration it is impossible to reach the Speed of Light.  I remember that much from my physics classes and I'm willing to accept that theory.

However, the acceleration of such a large body as the Flat Earth (which, if it isn't infinite, is at least very big) would create a large amount of force on whatever it is pushing on.

Say for example, everything on the surface.

So why is it that people and objects on the surface of the Earth aren't just crushed flat by the constant acceleration?  It's kind of like when you're on an elevator that has just started going up, the acceleration at the start makes it feel like something is pushing down on you.  Except in this case, the acceleration is endless and the mass of the body beneath you is much, much bigger.

Flat Earth Debate / Why things work
« on: February 16, 2008, 07:52:10 PM »
Okay, for those arguing FE, I was wondering how you counter this:

Navigational instruments, weather patterns, star movement, radar, ocean currents, and a whole host of other things that I can't think of right now are all based on the idea that the Earth is round.  Now, if the Earth were flat then eventually one of these would cease functioning the way that it's supposed to and we'd begin to notice something, wouldn't we?

Flat Earth Debate / I was wondering...
« on: February 14, 2008, 08:24:37 PM »
Okay, maybe this should be in another section of the boards, but i couldn't think of where.  My apologies to the moderators.

I was wondering why everyone out there believes in a round/flat earth (I mean really believes, not just argues for).  Just curious really.  I expect this thread will be moved/locked soon enough but I had to try.

Anyway, I'll start:

I believe the Earth is round because the RE model allows for so many predictions of events such as eclipses and star movements.  i can't think of how these calculations could work the same on a flat Earth.

Flat Earth Debate / Travel to the moon might be possible in FE
« on: February 06, 2008, 09:52:08 PM »
Okay, let's take things one step at a time.  According to the FET, NASA has faked all of the moon landings due to sustained space flight being impossible, correct?  So, they get to pocket the difference left over between the cost of staging a fake rocket flight and the cost of actually getting a rocket up to the moon.

However, moon landings could be possible, even in an FE world.  It would be like tossing a ball up into the air while riding an elevator:  The ball doesn't immediately crash down to the ground, it accellerates up at a rate equal to the elevator and how much acceleration you throw it with, right?

Same principle, larger scale.  A rocket blasting off from an Earth accelerating upward at a rate equal to one g will move upward at a rate of one g + however much the thrusters accelerate it.  It wouldn't need to move upward forever either, but just long enough to actually reach the moon or move beyond the point where the Earth shields it from UA (There must be a point where this happens in order for the moon and sun to remain in the sky without crashing down on us).

With all that being said, and me going off the assumption that I'm correct (I'm no physics major, so bear with me and feel free to point out mistakes), let's pretend for a minute that the Earth is flat, but that the moon landings are possible.

Is it just me, or did the conspiracy just lose a great deal of its motivation?

I will now accept rebuttals

Flat Earth Debate / RE: The Conspiracy
« on: January 30, 2008, 07:09:10 PM »
I would just like someone to clarify on a few questions:

1.  Roughly how long is this conspiracy theorized to have been in power to cover up the shape of the Earth?

2.  Roughly how many people are thought to be needed, and of what professions, in order to protect the conspiracy?

3.  About how much money is thought to be needed to run the conspiracy?

I don't expect exact numbers, I'd just like to get some rough estimates from the FE proponents so I can understand the whole idea behind the conspiracy before trying to debate it.

Flat Earth Debate / FE sun
« on: January 08, 2008, 09:05:51 PM »
Trying my hand at disproving a part of the FET.

This time, I'm taking a look at the part about the sun.  According to FET, it is 3000 miles overhead and acts like a spotlight shining on the area below.  It orbits around the central hub of the Earth, and slowly works its way in and out as the seasons go.  That's the basic understanding I gather about the FE sun.

Here's my problems with it.

1.  If the sun were a spotlight orbiting overhead, then it would never truly sink under or rise over the horizon, it would just fade away into the distance as it went along its orbit.

2.  When I look at the sun at any given time during the day, it is shaped like a circle and looks like it is following an arc from east to west.  Now, if the FET were correct, I can't imagine this working because, as the sun travels further away, the angle that it is viewed from would cause the shape I see to be distorted somewhat.  Try it, find youself a room where there are a few circular lighting fixtures on the ceiling, or tape a view circles to the ceiling of one room from one end to the other, then lay on your back under the middle one.  The further the circle is from where you lay, the less like a circle it looks (This works better over slightly longer distances, don't have the exact numbers, sorry.)

That's all I've got so far.  Anyone wants to post any explanations then they're more than welcome to.  But please, provide some math or a video or picture to back it up, I personally won't accept the whole 'optical illusion' excuse without some explanation of how that works.

Flat Earth Debate / Creation of a Flat Earth
« on: January 07, 2008, 07:37:05 AM »
Okay, here's a question I came up with.  According to the RE, our planet formed thanks to dust and gas gathering and swirling together after the Big Bang that created the universe.  Overtime, these particles solidified into the Earth, adopting a round shape like the shape a water drop makes when it falls to the ground.

So, in the FET, how is is possible for the Earth to form as a disk or cylinder?  I just can't imagine how the countless amount of tiny particles could gather to form any shape other than a sphere.

Flat Earth Debate / Gravity in Flat Earth
« on: December 27, 2007, 08:30:36 AM »
Okay, first time poster on these boards, but don't feel the need to go easy on me because of that.  :)

I haven't seen something like this posted, so I need to wonder:

According to the Flat Earth Theory (FET) our planet is accellerating upward at a rate of approximately 9.8 m/s2.  So, in theory, whenever an object is dropped, the Earth rushes up to it at that rate, and it looks to us like it is falling due to our frame of reference, correct?

So what about when stuff like feathers and single sheets of paper fall.  They definitly fall a lot slower (initially) then stuff like a pen or a ball.  In the Round Earth Theory (RET) this is explained by air resistance: flat, light weight objects have their fall slowed by the force of the air underneath them.  They eventually reach the ground anyway because of the Earth's gravity pulling them down, which overcomes the air resistance.

In FET though, the Earth is accelerating up toward them, so where exactly would air resistance come in?  If the air is moving up with the earth then shouldn't something that catches air easily stay up forever (Like, say, a sky diver with a parachute)?  If it doesn't, then shouldn't stuff like that plummet to the ground like a rock, despite its surface area or weight?

The explanations for this as I see it are:

1.  The atmosphere in FET is somehow exempt from moving upward with the rest of the world.

2.  The atmosphere does move upwards, and the idea of air resistance is another 'optical illusion.'

3.  The idea of gravity in the FET is wrong.

Personally, I'm leaning toward idea 3.

Pages: [1]