1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The liquid earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 02:28:55 PM »
oh dear, your being picked on again and in my forum, again. anyway. i'm off now but i'm sure i'll see most of you lot on here again somtime.
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.
Pages: [1]
2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The liquid earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 02:24:52 PM »
ah thats why you used the other photo!!
3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The liquid earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 02:13:06 PM »
ok, lets see another photo. not that i could tell the difference
4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The liquid earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 02:06:51 PM »
well a presure difference causes a buoyency under water so i assume it causes a gradient of force out of water aswell.
therefore would it not be possible to see if there was a noticable force on small objects.
therefore would it not be possible to see if there was a noticable force on small objects.
5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The liquid earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 02:01:59 PM »
so are you "postulating" that the speed of light is accelerating
6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The liquid earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 01:54:07 PM »
by the way narcberry, is that you in the picture or not.
7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The liquid earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 01:51:59 PM »
yes although i was wrong with the infinite acceleration, however an infinite force regardless
8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The liquid earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 01:47:53 PM »
sorry, you'll need to explain that one to me.
9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The liquid earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 01:44:08 PM »
ahh yes, that rule.
this also means that an infinite force IS needed.
faster than the speed of light = infinate Mass
infinate mass= infinate force
i was right eddy.
this also means that an infinite force IS needed.
faster than the speed of light = infinate Mass
infinate mass= infinate force
i was right eddy.
10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The liquid earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 01:35:39 PM »
infinate supply of energy, this sounds like nuclear fusion.
the answer to the energy problem might be closer than we think.
but then where is the heat?
i'm not sure what cold fusion is but that might have somthing to do with it
the answer to the energy problem might be closer than we think.
but then where is the heat?
i'm not sure what cold fusion is but that might have somthing to do with it
11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The liquid earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 01:29:23 PM »
the earth must be going faster than the speed of light if the basic equation of acceleration is correct.
it says the the earth would have reached the speed of light in 354 and a bit days! if we are not going this speed yet, the earth is less than 1 year old. Is it??
someone is wrong somewhere and i don't think it was prof. newton
it says the the earth would have reached the speed of light in 354 and a bit days! if we are not going this speed yet, the earth is less than 1 year old. Is it??
someone is wrong somewhere and i don't think it was prof. newton
12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The liquid earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 01:07:44 PM »
yes, however all rock in inherently viscous, hence the continual moovement of mountain ranges. and surely at an infinate speed it could be comparably like dough.
Or, on the other side, the infinate speed and acceleration would cause INFINITE forces on the materials of the earth. This would destroy the earth.
Or, on the other side, the infinate speed and acceleration would cause INFINITE forces on the materials of the earth. This would destroy the earth.
13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: circular earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 01:01:52 PM »
I'm quite shocked that just like how this discusion began, with a sensible persons comments into slagging, it has changed into a bitch-fest. who cares if he is not a "scientist" he appears to have alot more intellegence than most on this site.
any way, who next to cast the stone.
any way, who next to cast the stone.
14
Flat Earth Debate / The liquid earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 12:51:14 PM »
You acknoledge the existence of valcanoes, you say the earth is thick enough for a liquid core.
If the centre of the earth is liquid, then the accelerating force (apparently infinite) propelling us upwards must surely cause the earth to spread outwards, imagine a ball of dough being squashed, so that the earth must become continually wider and thinner.
If the centre of the earth is liquid, then the accelerating force (apparently infinite) propelling us upwards must surely cause the earth to spread outwards, imagine a ball of dough being squashed, so that the earth must become continually wider and thinner.
15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: circular earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 10:49:45 AM »
yes, i suppose that is true. don't worry, i'm not a nazi. I changed the picture for a laugh earlier!!
In the creation of earth, would a flat earth be supported by up to date science, the string theory for example (as far as i know the most up to date creation theory)
and although not a natzi, hitler did altleast have ambition, not that i condone his actions.
In the creation of earth, would a flat earth be supported by up to date science, the string theory for example (as far as i know the most up to date creation theory)
and although not a natzi, hitler did altleast have ambition, not that i condone his actions.
16
Flat Earth General / Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« on: April 11, 2007, 09:12:17 AM »
i was chosen from accross thousands in scotland to go to space school. i've met many astonauts from america, china and russia and have seen their personal photos of earth that they took. there are hundreds of these pictures for every single mission. could anyone really spend time faking hundreds of photos every time theres a flight. also, the people that i have met who have been into space are very nice people and would not live their whole lives a fake.
17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: circular earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 08:50:27 AM »
No. wow! just like most FEers. ignor the debate when they see their wrong.
18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: circular earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 08:36:12 AM »
In my original statement,
"Many of the earths basic principals are based on circular, indeed dare I say it, spherical forms; atoms, droplets of water, meatballs and peas to name but a few. The circular arguments used on this website are perhaps demonstrative of the inherently circular nature of earth? Discuss"
I would say I used reasonable language, if anything, your language isn't brilliant. I think your most likely using sigmond freuds theory of protection.
however i may be wrong so you like to suggest any corrections?
"Many of the earths basic principals are based on circular, indeed dare I say it, spherical forms; atoms, droplets of water, meatballs and peas to name but a few. The circular arguments used on this website are perhaps demonstrative of the inherently circular nature of earth? Discuss"
I would say I used reasonable language, if anything, your language isn't brilliant. I think your most likely using sigmond freuds theory of protection.
however i may be wrong so you like to suggest any corrections?
19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: circular earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 07:41:27 AM »
i am infact only one year younger than your self.
20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: circular earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 07:10:53 AM »
is that picture the kind of thing you want.
22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: circular earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 06:57:53 AM »
The Ayrian Super Race V's a vixen and a troll!
I hunt vixens with hounds from atop my valient stead! You should see the blood, oh its divine.
I hunt vixens with hounds from atop my valient stead! You should see the blood, oh its divine.
23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: circular earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 06:30:43 AM »
what are you, my incarcerated gay uncle's 4 year old retarded niece has a poster just like your picture?
24
Flat Earth Debate / circular earth
« on: April 11, 2007, 06:18:15 AM »
Many of the earths basic principals are based on circular, indeed dare I say it, spherical forms; atoms, droplets of water, meatballs and peas to name but a few. The circular arguments used on this website are perhaps demonstrative of the inherently circular nature of earth? Discuss.
25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: experiments to disprove or prove
« on: April 09, 2007, 02:07:38 PM »
At last some sense!
26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Real Conspiracy
« on: April 09, 2007, 11:45:05 AM »
but do you beleive them? what about the one about the human lizards. you know, "the queen is a green lizard" and all that.
27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Real Conspiracy
« on: April 09, 2007, 03:42:02 AM »
"apparently" the government isn't shutting down this site because it would show the government to be "flat earth hiders"!!!!!!!!
they don't seem to to consider that the government would just start posting terrosist information on it and say it was a dangerous site. there, i've just thought up a way the government could close the site down. if i can why can't the government?
ooh, maybe because the earth is round.
they don't seem to to consider that the government would just start posting terrosist information on it and say it was a dangerous site. there, i've just thought up a way the government could close the site down. if i can why can't the government?
ooh, maybe because the earth is round.
28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: experiments to disprove or prove
« on: April 09, 2007, 03:32:00 AM »
how high is the ice wall meant to be? And if the ice wall is simply "antarctica". Then yes i do expect you to go there. infact i'm sure the itv news were there a couple months ago. you can go on trips to the arctic. my local school is doing a competition to go to the antarctic, or are they going to the ice wall. and what about all those animalsthat live on the "ice wall" is that why polar bears are endangered? are they falling off.
29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What proof exactly?
« on: April 08, 2007, 02:54:11 PM »
not a very good argument, just because everyone believes somthing, doesn't mean that they are right. at one time, everyone believed the earth was flat. does that mean they were right? following your argument, they were. But then, so are the people of today. and so what you must be saying is that the earth was flat at one time but it has now become round? that makes even less sense.
sorry for mocking your argument. i thought it would be funny.
sorry for mocking your argument. i thought it would be funny.
30
Flat Earth Debate / experiments to disprove or prove
« on: April 08, 2007, 02:10:33 PM »
I'm sorry if this topic has already been covered, i'm new to all of this.
what i don't understand is why somone doesn't simply go to the ice poles (or ice wall) and fire a rocket, with a camera, up the way. looking down, this would surley be conclusive evidense. if a wall was visible rather than a glacia or ocean etc. than the flat earth theory would be proven.
what i don't understand is why somone doesn't simply go to the ice poles (or ice wall) and fire a rocket, with a camera, up the way. looking down, this would surley be conclusive evidense. if a wall was visible rather than a glacia or ocean etc. than the flat earth theory would be proven.
Pages: [1]