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 - Kasroa Is Gone

Pages: [1]
Arts & Entertainment / For those who like Tower Defence games
« on: January 08, 2012, 01:53:42 PM »
This is one of the best I've ever played

Suggestions & Concerns / Fardull223
« on: December 25, 2011, 05:41:17 AM »
Should be fargone.

The Lounge / Brass Eye. (NSFW)
« on: July 01, 2008, 01:16:57 PM »
Never seen it mentioned on here before, anyone else remember this awesome program? Our American cousins may never have heard of it, but I reckon you guys on here will appreciate it.

Here's one of the best episodes. There's more on Youtube.

Edit: Almost forgot NSFW in parts :)

The Lounge / House / Trance
« on: June 30, 2008, 02:28:16 PM »
Hello I have randomly decided to get into house and trance music (or anything similar; I'm not exactly familiar with all this dance music lingo) and wondered if anyone could recommend me anything. I'm looking for melodic, uplifting, up-beat sort of stuff.

Flat Earth Debate / I challenge FE
« on: June 13, 2008, 03:32:32 PM »
Explain spacetime.
What is it? How is it measured?

Flat Earth Q&A / I'd like some opinions on this, spanks.
« on: June 04, 2008, 03:13:09 PM »
I was a bit bored and was having a think about the spot-light sun and refraction and all that shizzle so I decided to draw a quick diagram because I was having trouble working it out in my head. I've not given this a HUGE amount of thought so it's probably wrong but this is how I see it. Shouldn't the sun be setting at some point above the horizon? I've also had a very confusing thought whilst I was writing this post. Where exactly would the horizon be in the diagram? What's the last point at which light is reflecting off the ground to meet the observer's eyes?

I'd like input from everyone; REers, FEers, Devil's Avocado's. I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything I'm just looking for ideas, opinions, corrections...etc.

Also I'm still not sure what shape the sun is in FE theory; whether it's a disc or a sphere but either way it has to produce a spot-light effect of some kind. My diagram could be redrawn with a spherical sun and the result would be similar I think so I'm not sure it matters what shape you take the sun to be.

Sorry I posted the wrong picture, I had the letters the wrong way round.


God may work in mysterious ways, but a simple computer program may explain how religion evolved

By distilling religious belief into a genetic predisposition to pass along unverifiable information, the program predicts that religion will flourish. However, religion only takes hold if non-believers help believers out – perhaps because they are impressed by their devotion.

"If a person is willing to sacrifice for an abstract god then people feel like they are willing to sacrifice for the community," says James Dow, an evolutionary anthropologist at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, US, who wrote the program – called Evogod (download the code here).

Dow is by no means the first scientist to take a stab at explaining how religion emerged. Theories on the evolution of religion tend toward two camps. One argues that religion is a mental artefact, co-opted from brain functions that evolved for other tasks.
Aiding the people

Another contends that religion benefited our ancestors. Rather than being a by-product of other brain functions, it is an adaptation in its own right. In this explanation, natural selection slowly purged human populations of the non-religious.

"Sometime between 100,000 years ago to the point where writing was invented, maybe about 7000 BC, we begin to have records of people's supernatural beliefs," Dow says.

To determine if it was possible for religion to emerge as an adaptation, Dow wrote a simple computer program that focuses on the evolutionary benefits people receive from their interactions with one another.

"What people are adapting to is other people," he says.
Religious attraction

To simplify matters, Dow picked a defining trait of religion: the desire to proclaim religious information to others, such as a belief in the afterlife. He assumed that this trait was genetic.

The model assumes, in other words, that a small number of people have a genetic predisposition to communicate unverifiable information to others. They passed on that trait to their children, but they also interacted with people who didn't spread unreal information.

The model looks at the reproductive success of the two sorts of people – those who pass on real information, and those who pass on unreal information.

Under most scenarios, "believers in the unreal" went extinct. But when Dow included the assumption that non-believers would be attracted to religious people because of some clear, but arbitrary, signal, religion flourished.

"Somehow the communicators of unreal information are attracting others to communicate real information to them," Dow says, speculating that perhaps the non-believers are touched by the faith of the religious.
Ancient needs

Richard Sosis, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Connecticut in Storrs, US, says the model adds a new dimension to the debate over how religion could have evolved, which has previously relied on verbal arguments and speculation. But "these are baby steps", he cautions.

Sosis previously found that in some populations – kibbutzim in Israel, for instance – more religious people receive more assistance from others than the less faithful. But he notes that the forces that maintain religion in modern humans could be very different from those that promoted its emergence, thousands of years ago.

Palaeolithic humans were probably far more reliant than modern humans on the community they were born into, Sosis says. "[Now] you can be a Lutheran one week and decide the following week you are going to become a Buddhist."

The Lounge / Started already.
« on: February 13, 2008, 04:38:21 PM »
FES keeping me up too late :(

The Lounge / I need a new name.
« on: June 10, 2007, 09:58:44 AM »
All this talk of name-changes made me think I'd like to change my name but what to?

The Lounge / Ignore Function?
« on: March 27, 2007, 07:45:16 AM »
It's become apparent that several people have expressed a wish for an ignore function to be allowed. Adding an ignore option would be a good idea in my opinion as it allows a user to completely ignore a user they do not want to hear from and it may even cut down the arguing.

The Lounge / The "I'm not going anywhere" thread.
« on: March 25, 2007, 02:30:12 PM »
Post here if you're not going out, going on the 'phone, going to bed or pissing off in general.

The Lounge / You can all go consult the FAQ..
« on: March 12, 2007, 06:59:58 PM »
..I'm going to bed.

Flat Earth Q&A / Tired of FAQ. Drastic update is needed.
« on: February 20, 2007, 07:44:42 PM »

Q: "Why do the all the world Governments say the Earth is round?"

A: It's a conspiracy

This needs serious elaboration. This is an answer to “how?” not “why?”

Q: "What about NASA? Don't they have photos to prove that the Earth is round?"

A: NASA is part of the conspiracy too. The photos are faked.

Evidence? Or is this just an assumption to fit the conclusion?

Q: "Why has no-one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"

A: The government prevents people from getting close enough to the Ice Wall to take a picture.

Evidence? Or is this just an assumption to fit the conclusion?

Q: "How did NASA create these images with the computer technology available at the time?"

A: Since NASA did not send rockets into space, they instead spent the money on developing advanced computers and imaging software instead

Evidence? Or is this just an assumption to fit the conclusion?

PLEASE NOTE This means that pictures confirming the roundness or flatness of the Earth DO NOT IN THEMSELVES CONSTITUTE VALID PROOF

Q: "What is the motive behind this conspiracy?"

A: The motive is unknown although it is probably money

Broken link.

Also if the motive is unknown then saying "probably money" is misleading and unneccesary.

Q: "If you're not sure about the motive, why do you say there is a conspiracy?"

A: Well it's quite simple really; if the earth is in fact flat, then the governments must be lying when they say it isn't.

Oh good, no need for the FAQ then!

Q: "The government could not pull off the conspiracy successfully"

A: Actually, they could.

Broken link.

Q: "How are the world governments organized enough to carry out this conspiracy?"

A: They only appear to be disorganized to make the conspiracy seem implausible.

Evidence? Or is this just an assumption to fit the conclusion?

Q: Why hasn’t this site been shut down by the government?

A: Doing so would prove that the government is hiding something.

Or perhaps they’re not concerned because they have nothing to hide with regards the shape of the Earth?

Q: No way could the government possibly guard the entire Ice Wall!  It would take too many men!  Millions of men!

A: Not really.  You could do it with a few hundred and some basic equipment.

Broken link. So it’s been guarded for hundreds of years with a few hundred men and basic equipment? Please elaborate.

Q: Why is NASA’s space shuttle runway curved?

A: It was specially constructed by NASA to be so. After all NASA are at the heart of the conspiracy.

Evidence? Or is this just an assumption to fit the conclusion?

The Earth in space

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

A: "Circumference: 78225 miles, Diameter: 24,900 miles

Please explain the origin of these figures and how they have been calculated.

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions similar to a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light." As they are spotlights, they only give light out over a certain are which explains why some parts of the Earth are dark when others are light. Their apparent rising and setting are caused by optical illusions.

Please explain the origin of the size and altitude figures or provide links to such information. Also, further down it is stated that it is possible the moon is not a spotlight. Please clarify whether it is a spotlight or not, or is it unknown? Also what the hell is cold light?

Please explain why time zones run from North to South if the Sun is a spotlight and hence could not shine a long shaft of light from North (centre of disk) to south (edge of disk). According to the FE model time zones should actually be circular.

In the "accelerating upwards" model, the stars, sun and moon are also accelerating upwards.

The stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston. (3100 miles)

Please give the origin and calculations of this distance.

Q: "Please explain sunrises/sunsets."

A: It's a perspective effect.  Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

This does not explain sun rises/sets. As the spotlight sun on FE moved further way it would not sink down it would simply get smaller and more elliptical. As we know the sun stays circular in the sky from sun up to sun down and it rises and falls in the sky. Please explain this in more detail than “it’s perspective really”.

Q: "Why are other celestial bodies round but not the Earth?"

A: When you look at these celestial bodies, even with a telescope, they're entirely two-dimensional.

This is actually a lie. When you look at other celestial bodies they look spherical (even the sun through appropriate means of course), you can even watch them rotate over time. The moon even has shadows cast by it’s various features, as do other planets and moons.

Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A1: They don't, satellite signals come from radio towers.

Please explain where all the millions of enormous radio towers (which is what would be needed) are located in order to provide us with GPS navigation, and other satellite functions. This needs some serious detailing.

Q: "What's underneath the Earth?" aka "What's on the bottom?" aka "What's on the other side?"

A: This is unknown. Some believe it to be just rocks, others believe the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.

Q: "What about gravity?"

A1: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s-2) along with every star, sun and moon in the universe. This produces the same effect as gravity.

A2: Gravity comes from an external source (to be discussed)

Q: "Isn't this version of gravity (A1) flawed? Wouldn't planes/helicopters/paragliders crash into the Earth as the Earth rises up to them?"

A: No. By the same argument, we could ask why planes/helicopters/paragliders don't crash into the Earth as they accelerate down towards them.  The reason that planes do not crash is that their wings produce an upthrust which, when the rate of acceleration upwards equals that of gravity's pull downwards, causes them to remain at a constant altitude.

The same thing happens if the Earth is moving up. The plane is accelerating upwards at the same rate as the Earth, which means the distance between them does not change. Therefore, the plane stays at the same height and does not crash.

Q: "Doesn't this mean we'd be traveling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible?"

A: No, here is a detailed explanation.

Q: "If the world was really flat, what would happen if you jump off the disc's edge?"

A: You would enter an inertial reference frame, moving at a constant velocity in the direction the Earth was moving before you jumped. The Earth would continue accelerating upwards past you at a rate of 1g, so it would appear to you that you were falling into space.

Q: "If the Earth was indeed a flat disc, wouldn't the whole planet crunch up into itself and eventually transform into a ball?"

A1: If the Earth generated a gravitational field, yes, it would eventually happen, after a billion years maybe. FE assumes that the Earth does not generate a gravitational field. Also, I'm not sure what FE's stance on the age of the world is, but it's plausible that it's a younger estimation than the RE claim.

The problem is, that mass is proven to attract mass. Whatever you believe about gravity or what causes this attraction, the fact remains that the attraction does exist. If you suspend two masses on wires you can measure the attraction between them. All mass exerts an attractive force on all other mass. Until you can prove otherwise please leave this explanation as “unknown”

A2: There is a counter-mass which pulls the Earth back into a disc shape.

If this is a possibility please elaborate as to why it would pull the Earth into a disk shape and not some other shape.

Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

The Moon and Stars are made of the same matter as found on Earth yet Earth is assumed to have no gravitational pull. Furthermore the slight gravitational pull of the moon and the Stars would pull them towards either each-other or Earth or most likely both (if they pull you or me or a spaceship towards them then they would pull Earth towards them). Please also explain why force of gravity diminishes following an inverse square law.

Q:  Follow-up to previous question:  How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?

A:  This argument is a non sequitur.  You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?"  Snakes are not dogs or cats.  The Earth is not a star or the moon.  It doesn't follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

The problem is that on an atomic scale, snakes are dogs and the Earth may as well be a moon because they are made of exactly the same fundamental parts arranged in a different way. What we do know is that no matter how you arrange them they always have the same gravitational force associated with them. This is also a completely unscientific and very typical conspiracy theory fallacious argument and should be removed from the FAQ to retain credibility.


Q: Do you have a map?

A: See this one, created by one of our members.  There is also this map attributed to a person named Wilbur Voliva, and another by Heinrich Scherer.
Also, there is Cosmas Indicopleustes' world picture, 6 th century in the Christian Topography.

Q: Exactly what shape is the Earth if it's flat? Square or circle?

A: Circle, like in the UN logo

Please explain the source of this information or provide a link.

Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"

A: There is a vast ice wall that keeps the water where it is. The ice wall is roughly 150ft high. This also explains why you can find a vast plane of ice when you travel south.

What wall of ice. The random one that has just been made up to answer this question? Why is it not found everywhere else around the disk?

Antarctica as a continent does not exist.

I think you will find that it does so unless you have evidence to the contrary please do not state that it does not as some kind of fact

Q: "How does global warming affect the ice wall?"

A1: Global warming is melting the ice wall, but the government isn't doing anything because cutting carbon emissions would damage the economy, and they only care about making money.

This I can believe!

A2: Global Warming doesn't happen. It and its counter-theory (Global Cooling) are effects that cancel each other out. Remember, these "greenhouse gasses" can reflect heat back out into space as well as keep it on Earth. Yes, there are recorded rises in temperature, but the only records we have go back, at most, around 150 years. This is very likely an occurrence that happens every [x>150] years, that's happened before (perhaps many times), and that the Earth has thus survived before.

Global warming is very much real and there is alarming and overwhelming evidence to support it.

Q: "What about tides?"

A: The tides exist due to a slight see-saw effect on the earth. As it goes back and forth, the water rushes to the side that is lower. Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes. They keep the tides in check. Notice that large earthquakes result in large tides or "tsunami".

Tides follow the movement of the moon. By no stretch of the imagination could they be caused by so called “wobbles”

Q : "Why is the North pole colder than the equator?"

A: The sun circles over the equator, not the North pole

Q: "How do volcanic eruptions happen?"

A: The Earth is thick enough to have a core of molten lava. Once there's too much of it in too confined a space, it finds its way out, just like the water will come out of a full bottle if you squeeze it too hard

Molten lava is cause by intense pressure from the gravity of Earth. A disk with no gravity could not have molten lava or a “core”

Q: "What about time zones?"

A: The sun is a spotlight which shines light on a concentrated area, so not everywhere on Earth will be lit at once. Times zones exist so that everyone's clock will be at 12:00 around the time the sun is approximately directly overhead.

As pointed out earlier, time zones on the FE model would be circular around the moving sun. This answer makes zero sense.

Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"

(Possible A) The moon isn't a spotlight; it glows with light from the sun, reflected off the Earth. Different parts of the Earth are more reflective than others (the seas, the polar cap, the ice wall, for example). Sometimes, the position of the sun (which is a spotlight) means that only very low-reflective or non-reflective parts of the Earth's surface are illuminated, so the moon is abnormally dark. This could potentially explain lunar phases as well.

If this is a possibility then we would have very erratic eclipses as the sun and moon past over all the various seas and lakes. This answer is completely unfeasible.

Q: "How come the travel time by air from South America to New Zealand, via the polar route, is SHORTER than the travel time going North first and then South again?"

A: (Presumed answer: The airline pilots are misled by their GPS, or are deliberately conspiring to make it appear that the flights take different times)

Presumed to fit with the conclusion that was reached before any investigation had taken place yes? That’s an awful lot of dodgy pilots all in on the same conspiracy even pilots from countries that are virtually at war with each other. All conspiring for the common cause? Not just unlikely but impossible. They may possibly be misled by GPS if indeed GPS location is given by enormous invisible radio towers. They’re probably not as reliable as a satellite.

Q: "When traveling in a straight direction, you will always reach the same point on the globe from where you started. How can this happen if the world is flat?"

A: You need to have evidence for this to be true. Also, define "straight." Remember, the northern point on the compass is, under most circumstances (unless near the centre or deep in the ice wall), pointing toward the centre of the Earth. Therefore, if you follow your compass due east or due west, ending up at the same point you started from, you've just gone around the world in a circle.

“you need evidence for this to be true”? That’s a bit rich is it not?
Define straight? keep going parallel to the Earth (I add the parallel bit just in case some smarty pants says that a straight line on RE would send you into space....Yes some people are that stupid as to use that as an answer) and don’t deviate from that path. On a FE you would never end up where you started you would always end up hitting the ice wall at some point. You would actually have to keep turning left or right if you wanted to circumnavigate E-W or W-E. And of course circumnavigating N-S or S-N is impossible as the North and South are not joined together in FE model.

Q: If you go directly south won’t you eventually fall off the edge of the Earth?

A: Yes, you will. In order to use this fact as proof you need to record a video of someone flying directly south around the world without falling off the edge. Furthermore you need to prove that your navigational equipment allows you to travel directly south without deviating.

It is clearly stated in this FAQ that photo and video evidence is not accepted so that one is out. Also “prove your navigational equipment allows you to go in a straight line”? Why do I get the feeling that this would be impossible to a FEer? Can you circumnavigate from East to West and prove you’re NOT going in a straight line? because that’s what you’d have to do to prove the FE model.

Q: How come when I flush my toilet in the northern hemisphere it goes counterclockwise but I have this friend in Australia and when he flushes it goes clockwise?

You're mistaken.  On a round Earth, the Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day; fewer as you get closer to the equator.  The water in your toilet/sink/bathtub/funnel spins much faster than that (probably at least once per minute, or 1440 times per day) so the additional/lost rotation from the Coriolis effect wouldn't be noticed.

Q: How do seasons work?

The radius of the sun's orbit around the Earth's axis symmetry varies throughout the year, being smallest when summer is in the northern annulus and largest when it is summer in the southern annulus.

Please explain what causes the Sun to deviate from it’s path so much and keep going back and forth year by year. Please also explain why this would cause temperature changes (and indeed all heat patterns on earth) that are exactly what you would expect from a spherical object being shone on by an energy source.

Here are some very good diagrams of seasons on the flat Earth.  The first is by thedigitalnomad:
and the second is by Erasmus:


Q: "Are most or all FE's Biblical literalists, who feel like their religious belief system would be threatened by a round (i.e. spherical) earth, or are there any atheists/agnostics who are FE's as well?"

A: Not all FE's are biblical literalists. This poll has more details: Poll


Q: Explain magnetism is there is no South pole. Discussed in and

Q: How does the atmosphere stay on the Earth?

Q: Explain the Coriolis force?

Q: Why does the hull of a ship disappear over the horizon before the mast does?

Q: If the moon is a spotlight, why can I see a "man" in the moon (shadows cast by the sun on the hills and mountains on it) last I checked a light can't contain shadows.

Q: Explain fully the optical illusion causing sunrises and sunsets.

Q. Let’s say I have four points A, B, X and Y. Lets suppose that A and X lie on the same longitude and A is the same distance north of the equator as X is south of it. Now let’s suppose that points B and Y lie on the same longitude as each other but it is 1000 miles East (or west, doesn’t matter) of the longitude of A and X. Let’s say A and B are on the same latitude and X and Y are on the same latitude. In practice the distances A-B and X-Y take the same time to traverse if you go at the same velocity. However on the FE model they distances are very different with the X-Y line being longer. Why then does it take the same time to traverse as A-B and at the same speed.

Q.. etc...etc...See all responses to all FAQ answers..

Flat Earth Q&A / Some beautiful photographs of curved horizons.
« on: February 18, 2007, 02:35:22 PM »

Pages: [1]