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 - cbarnett97

Pages: [1] 2
The Lounge / Take That Mac Users
« on: January 26, 2009, 01:45:39 PM »

The Lounge / Grant Opportunity
« on: January 14, 2009, 10:32:47 PM »
NASA has about $400000 do give away for research grants for scientists to conduct experiments in microgravity using the commercial space agencies. So you really want to prove your idea of a flat earth write up a proposal and then you can head up on a suborbital flight

Flat Earth Q&A / For the Fe astronomer's
« on: December 23, 2008, 06:53:43 AM »
Since an experiment to take all the measurements needed to properly chart the movement of the planets would take a very long time, I figured that we could use the measurements of an astronomer who was a firm believer in the geocentric universe(of sorts) and conducted many observations over a period of years to try and confirm this.
This man was Tycho Brahe and he had an assistant that helped him out by the name of Johannes Kepler who did not believe in a geocentric universe. He believed in something similar to what we believe now with the exception that the planets moved in perfectly circular orbits.
Both men used the data that you can download from the site to try and prove their respective theories and eventually arrived at what we know today. So to all the FE'ers out there, here is your chance to show that what Kepler discovered was incorrect and our understanding of planetary motion is flawed and we need to rethink the nature of the universe
Good Luck!

Flat Earth Debate / Hey narc which way is left again?
« on: August 09, 2008, 04:02:12 PM »
So which way is it

Flat Earth Debate / Narcberry
« on: August 09, 2008, 03:45:02 PM »
Just wondering. And before you ask of course you can vote Narc

Flat Earth Debate / Space flight
« on: August 06, 2008, 04:26:21 PM »
I am starting a new topic for this becuse I feel it deserves to be looket at more closely

if the UA keeps the earth and the stars and the sun, moon, other planets ect. then why can it not be used to keep spacecraft up? if the UA is indeed like a tabletop then why should we still be affected by it once we leave the surface of the earth but not at a hight altitude

Flat Earth Debate / Big G for Ski
« on: August 04, 2008, 11:17:14 AM »

How is this not accurate?

Flat Earth Debate / Distnce to the Sun
« on: July 05, 2008, 12:01:25 AM »
I am pretty sure I can guess what the FE response will be but here it is anyway. How does FES refute the distance to the sun, moon, venus and mars in the modern age since we can now measure the distance by bouncing a laser off the planet and calculating the distance from how long it takes(this is a very simplified explanation of course)

Flat Earth Debate / Cassini
« on: July 01, 2008, 01:37:21 AM »
How does the FE model explain the Measurements of Cassini? In 1655 he measured the suns face over the course of the year to test the theory that the earths distance to the sun varied during the year. Over the course of 4,500 observations the projected face of the sun varied in size between 5 and 33 inches in diameter demonstrating that the distance between the earth and the sun did indeed vary.

Flat Earth Debate / Accelerating Earth
« on: June 27, 2008, 11:33:48 PM »
How would this mesh with the FE model:


Flat Earth Debate / High Flying Aircraft
« on: June 07, 2008, 08:46:42 PM »
If you observe a high flying aircraft at sunrise or sunset it will be illuminated as well as its vapor trail yet the the ground around you will be dark but if the sun follows the FE model then objects at higher altitudes should be in shadow before objects on the surface. and before you try to tell me it is because of shadows of nearby mountains and other things, I live on the west coast and I can observe this at sunset standing on the beach with thousands of miles of flat ocean in front of me. So how does this happen?

Flat Earth Debate / Copernicus, Better like math
« on: December 16, 2007, 12:35:14 PM »
Good Proof of RE theory.

From De Revolutionibus by Nicholas Copernicus

In so many and such important ways, then, do the planets bear witness to the earth's mobility. I shall now give a summary of this motion, insofar as the phenomena are explained by it as a principle. As a whole, it must be admitted to be a threefold motion.

The first motion, named nuchthemeron by the Greeks, as I said [I, 4], is the rotation which is the characteristic of a day plus a night. This turns around the earth's aids from west to east, just as the universe is deemed to be carried in the opposite direction. It describes the equator, which some people call the "circle of equal days", in imitation of the designation used by the Greeks, whose term for it is isemerinos.

The second is the yearly motion of the center, which traces the ecliptic around the sun. Its direction is likewise from west to east, that is, in the order of the zodiacal signs. It travels between Venus and Mars, as I mentioned [I, 10], together with its associates. Because of it, the sun seems to move through the zodiac in a similar motion. Thus, for example, when the earth's center is passing through the Goat, the sun appears to be traversing the Crab; with the earth in the Water Bearer, the sun seems to be in the Lion, and so on, as I remarked.

To this circle, which goes through the middle of the signs, and to its plane, the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were affected exclusively by the motion of the center, no inequality of days and nights would be observed. On the contrary, it would always be either the longest or shortest day or the day of equal daylight and darkness, or summer or winter, or whatever the character of the season, it would remain identical and unchanged.

The third motion in inclination is consequently required. This also is a yearly revolution, but it occurs in the reverse order of the signs, that is, in the direction opposite to that of the motion of the center. These two motions are opposite in direction and nearly equal in period. The result is that the earth's axis and equator, the largest of the parallels of latitude on it, face almost the same portion of the heavens, just as if they remained motionless. Meanwhile the sun seems to move through the obliquity of the ecliptic with the motion of the earth's center, as though this were the center of the universe. Only remember that, in relation to the sphere of the fixed stars, the distance between the sun and the earth vanishes from our sight forthwith.

Since these are matters which crave to be set before our eyes rather than spoken of, let us describe a circle ABCD, which the annual revolution of the earth's center has traced in the plane of the ecliptic. Near its center let the sun be E. I shall divide this circle into four parts by drawing the diameters AEC and BED. Let A represent the first point of the Crab, B of the Balance, C of the Goat, and D of the Ram. Now let us assume that the earth's center is originally at A. About A I shall draw the terrestrial equator FGHI. This is not in the same plane [as the ecliptic], except that the diameter GAI is the intersection of the circles, I mean, of the equator and the ecliptic. Draw also the diameter FAH perpendicular to GAI, F being the limit of the [equator's] greatest inclination to the south, and H to the north. Under the conditions thus set forth, the earth's inhabitants will see the sun near the center E undergo the winter solstice in the Goat. This occurs because the greatest northward inclination, H, is turned toward the sun. For, the inclination of the equator to the line AE, through the agency of the daily rotation, traces the winter solstice parallel to the equator at an interval subtended by EAH, the angle of the obliquity.

Now let the earth's center start out in the order of the signs, and let F, the limit of maximum inclination, travel along an equal arc in the reverse order of the signs, until at B both have traversed a quadrant of their circles. In the interim the angle EAI always remain equal to AEB, on account of the equality of their revolutions; and the diameters always stay parallel to each other, FAH to FBH, and GAI to GBI, and the equator to the equator. In the immensity of the heavens, for the reason already frequently mentioned, the same phenomena appear. Terefore from B, the first point of the Balance, E will seem to be in the Ram. The intersection of the circles will coincide with the single line GBIE, from which [the plane of the axis] win not be permitted by the daily rotation to deviate. On the contrary, the [axis'] inclination will lie entirely in the lateral plane. Accordingly the sun will be seen in the spring equinox. Let the earth's center proceed under the assumed conditions, and when it has completed a semicircle at C, the sun will appear to enter the Crab. But F, the southernmost inclination of the equator, will be turned toward the sun. This will be made to appear in the north, undergoing the summer solstice as measured by the angle of the obliquity, ECR Again, when F turns away in the third quadrant of the circle, the intersection GI will once more fall on the line ED. From here the sun will be seen in the Balance undergoing the autumn equinox. Then as H by the same process gradually faces the sun, it will bring about a repetition of the initial situation, with which I began my survey


Alternatively, let AEC be in the same way a diameter of the plane under discussion [the ecliptic] as well as the intersection of that plane with a circle perpendicular thereto. On AEC, around A and C, that is, in the Crab and the Goat, draw a circle of the earth in each case through the poles. Let this [meridian] be DGFI, the earth's axis DF, the north pole D, the south pole F, and GI the diameter of the equator. Now when F is turned toward the sun, which is near E, the equator's northward inclination being measured by the angle IAE, then the axial rotation will describe, parallel to the equator and to the south of it, at a distance LI and with diameter KL, the tropic of Capricorn as seen in the sun. Or, to speak more accurately, the axial rotation, as viewed from AE, generates a conic surface, having its vertex in the center of the earth, and its base in a circle parallel to the equator. Also at the opposite point, C, everything works out in like manner, but is reversed. It is clear therefore how the two motions, I mean, the motion of the center and the motion in inclination, by their combined effect make the earth's axis remain in the same direction and in very much the same position, and make all these phenomena appear as though they were motions of the sun.


I said, however, that the annual revolutions of the center and of inclination are nearly equal. For if they were exactly equal, the equinoctial and solstitial points as well as the entire obliquity of the ecliptic would have to show no shift at all with reference to the sphere of the fixed stars. But since there is a slight variation, it was discovered only as it grew larger with the passage of time. From Ptolemy to us the precession of the equinoxes amounts to almost 21°. For this reason some people believed that the sphere of the fixed stars also moves, and accordingly they adopted a surmounting ninth sphere. This having proved inadequate, more recent writers now add on a tenth sphere. Yet they do not in the least attain their goal, which I hope to reach by the earth's motion. This I shall use as a principle and hypothesis in the demonstration of the other [motions].

To see the full text

Flat Earth Debate / Spotlight?
« on: December 05, 2007, 11:47:15 PM »
If the sun is truly a spotlight then isnt the curve of darkness curving in the wrong direction?

Flat Earth Debate / Retrograde Motion
« on: November 28, 2007, 05:15:47 PM »
Since in the FE model the earth is not moving how does the FE model explain the retrograde motion of planets to be observable?

Flat Earth Debate / Predicting Behavior
« on: November 27, 2007, 09:32:29 PM »
I am just wondering if there are any Fe'ers out there who can predict when the next solar eclipse will occur by using only the laws set forth in the FE model. I would love the see the proof for that. Hey I will even help you out the next total solar eclipse will occur on August 1, 2008.

Flat Earth Debate / How do we know how far away stars are?
« on: August 27, 2007, 07:57:30 PM »

Flat Earth Debate / Parachutes
« on: August 23, 2007, 01:09:04 PM »
how would these work on the FE, since the earth is accelerating up to us at 9.8m/s2 the forces will never balance out because there is no acceleration actin on our bodies to counteract the wind rushing past us so based upon the size of our parachute we would be accelerated up and out of the atmosphere

Flat Earth Debate / Quick question about mercury
« on: July 17, 2007, 10:07:23 PM »
I was watching "The Universe" and it made me wonder how Mercury can exist since periodically it must pass between us and the sun. And if the sun is as close as you guys say then where is the room for another planet. Oops I mean 2 planets, forgot about venus.

Flat Earth Debate / Einstein vs Newton
« on: July 12, 2007, 07:29:10 PM »
There are those of you out there that wish to use relativity to prove the lack of gravity on earth, in your defense of this you say that newwtons gravitaional equations are wrong. Now they are an complete picture of gravity (as is Einsteins, I am sure). But lets look a bit closer shall we

Gravity in relativistic circles is g= GI/r2{vc/(sqrtc2-v2)+1}

now when v is roughly 0 the equation goes to g= GI/r2

I is the rest inetia of an object which can be expressed as I=m{(vc/sqrtc2-v2)+1}
And once again when v is roughly zero we get I=m

Using substitution we get g=Gm/r2

Just as a reminder the equation for Newtons version of gravity is g=Gm/r2
now that is interesting

Flat Earth Debate / Distance to the moon
« on: July 10, 2007, 11:32:57 PM »
Why has no FE'er ever pointed a large laser at the moon to verify its distance???? if it as close as you guys say it is then it should be a no brainer to show that distance.

Flat Earth Debate / More Gravity Anyone?
« on: July 10, 2007, 05:40:28 PM »
So if the earth is indeed accelerating upwards then it should be easy to prove because anytime you accelerate along the ground you should be able to show that there is a component of acceleration along your path as well as a component of acceleration up when there should be none.

Flat Earth Debate / Where do waves come into play here?
« on: July 06, 2007, 12:12:29 AM »
so when a ship goes over the horizon it is the waves that make it seem to sink, but what about on a large dry lake bed where there are no waves like this one?

Flat Earth Debate / Another horizon question
« on: July 04, 2007, 07:37:20 PM »
If it is indeed the waves that cause the "sinking effect" of ships, cities, landmasses, ect. then wouldnt the horizon always be wavy? it seems that for the horizon to be smooth there would need to be an infinite amount of waves of uniform size to create the solid line of the horizon. now I find that pretty far fetched but hey if someone could prove that there is a waviness to the horizon maybe you guys could score a point for FE

P.S. Happy getting those Brits out of our country day!! Now lets go get a beer and blow some stuff up

Flat Earth Debate / I just do not get it
« on: June 30, 2007, 10:40:47 PM »
While I enjoy deabing an issue with someone who has an opposing viewpoint why is there no effort to go out and prove that we have been lied to and the earth is indeed flat. It is not really that hard or expensive to launch a weather balloon into the upper atmosphere with a high resolution camera and take pictures then by using geometry show that the area in the picture shows an area smaller than that if the earth was round or mount some sort of clandestine operation with a live video feed 24/7 to the ice wall so that way even if you are taken out before you get there then at least it will be on video and you will in turn prove a conspiracy

Flat Earth Debate / Greenland
« on: June 30, 2007, 02:29:19 AM »
Now I am tired so this probably has a very easy explanation, but here it is. if the earth is flat why is greenland always distorted when a flat map is drawn? while on a globe it is dimensionaly sound

Flat Earth Debate / Gravity
« on: June 27, 2007, 11:32:06 PM »
While I reading TomB example of how RE'ers are the Conspiracy nuts he used this as an example
"REers are unable to answer basic questions about their model, or provide reference to experimental evidence demonstrating the mechanisms of their model (eg. gravity)."

So I thought that I would Help him out a bit and since he used gravity as his example, so will I

Now us RE'ers have developed over time mathematical equationsto help explain and predict what will happen on our world and as it pertains to gravity we have a very novel equation : F=GM1m2/r2 and this equations will hold true as long as you are not traveling close to the speed of light where "G" is the gravitaional constant of 6.67*10-11 and M1 is the first mass and m2 is the second mass and r2 is the square of the distance.

For example if you want to calculate your body weight at a given altitude then we just need to manipulate the equation a bit and if you need to seee the derivaton of it let me know but the end result will be g= GMe/(Re+h)2

also needed to calculate the force properly you will need to convert your weight to mass by dividing your weight by 9.8m/s2

If you want you can take the altitude of the highest point around you and use that as your test height, do the math I have just shown and then take a good scale up to that height and see if it worked out (which it will) but be aware that due to the fact that your height will more than likely not be very large when compare to the readius of the earth the force of gravity will not change much so therefore your weight will not change much hence the need for a precise scale

I hope this makes the idea of gravity a bit more clear.

Flat Earth Debate / Concorde
« on: June 26, 2007, 10:42:10 PM »
Now I understand any pictures taken from space that show a round earth are just part of the "conspiracy" but how do you guys explain the fact that the concorde flew at 60,000 ft where the curve of the earth was clearly visible. now this would have to be hard to be part of the conspiracy because it is a private company and private individuals would take trips on it and if you ask any of the thousands of passengers who flew on it they will be more thatn happy to tell you about the curve of the earth.

Flat Earth Debate / Sun Rises in the West?
« on: June 19, 2007, 09:53:54 PM »
Now this may have been brought up before but if the sun is rotating in a circle and that is how we get sunrises and sunsets then wouldnt half the world have the sun rise in the east and set in the west while the other half would get a sunrise in the west and sunset in the east?

Flat Earth Debate / Math??
« on: June 16, 2007, 10:57:41 PM »
Is there any math to support FE theory?? I mean we have mathematical backing on most things in RE so if ther is any math that would show anything to be true in RE could you please post it so I could take a look. And if possible please do not send me to some book that you love just paste it in here. Thanks

Pages: [1] 2