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.

Messages - Unimportant

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Quick Question
« on: April 12, 2008, 09:14:23 AM »
Suppose one day everyone had tunneling vehicles made of Unobtainium* and we could all dig through the Earth.  What would you RE'ers say when RE was proven wrong when the other side of the Earth was a barren landscape where 'gravity' tried to rip you from the surface? 

What would become of your theories?

*Unobtainium is a registered trademark of Paramount Pictures. 

Well, Engy, we wouldn't know now would we? What with there being no eyewitness accounts, you know how they all got sucked off and eaten by the turtle.
Yeah but what if you tied a rope around yourself and anchored it topside? Then you'd be able to climb back up and let everyone know the truth.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Incentive for Round Earth "Conspiracy Theory"
« on: April 11, 2008, 09:11:55 PM »
I've always postulated that there is some alien race which is holding the proverbial gun to the heads of our leaders and saying, no doubt in some curious alien dialect, "If you let the massed know the Earth is flat, we'll vaporize you all!"
Thus the motive of the government for hiding this secret is as base and instinctive a motive as possible; the desire for self-preservation and the preservation of mankind.

Now the motives for the alien's, on the other hand, I have no idea. But they're aliens, who knows what they're thinking?
Maybe some other aliens are threatening them, and some more aliens are threatening those aliens, and...

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Increasing Force
« on: April 09, 2008, 08:40:07 AM »
Gammama is what I used to call my Grandmother when I was little.

Leave my Grandmother out of this.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The curvature...
« on: April 09, 2008, 08:36:20 AM »
If there is no curvature then why are the clouds light from the bottom when the sun is setting?
The same reason they are lit from the bottom at noon; reflected light.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why Can't I See Mt.Everest?
« on: April 09, 2008, 08:27:41 AM »
I don't think you have provided evidence to yourselves yet. The death throws of Flat Earth Hypothesis is the "mass conspiracy".

I suppose all I need to do is take pictures of a ship sinking in the horizon, and then increase my optical zoom to show it is still at the same "depth" of supposed sinking regardless of zoom.

I have pretty much come to the conclusion that this entire site is a joke. Tom, and his drones are here for a laugh. If you Flat Earth Hypothesizers agree with me on this site being a joke, just say something similar to "No we are serious".

"death throws".  :D
The favored technique of the Wall Police for dealing with "polar explorers".

Flat Earth Q&A / I feel pity for the FE'ers
« on: November 05, 2006, 10:17:28 PM »
I don't understand. What does "God" have to do with the creation of the flat earth?

Please explain your irrational claim.

Flat Earth Q&A / I feel pity for the FE'ers
« on: November 05, 2006, 10:07:39 PM »
It is also obvious that, since Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are sometimes visible on earth, they would have to be on the same side as the sun.

That diagram is quite ridiculous.

Flat Earth Q&A / DirecTV (not spam)
« on: October 25, 2006, 03:10:35 PM »
Quote from: "Mad_Aussie"
satellite dishes pick up microwaves.

your car radio doesnt.

And what is the difference between a radio wave and a microwave?

Theyre physically the same. The term microwave is just the arbitrary name assigned to waves of a certain frequency range. There isn't actually any difference, which is why the RE model claims different satellites transmit either. They're interchangeable.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: satellite signals and more...
« on: October 25, 2006, 03:06:37 PM »
Quote from: "mikanch"
my parabolic antenna is pointed at 13 south (hotbird). when I watch south I can see AT LEAST 6 miles of plain country. so let's say the tower is somewhere overthere, it sould be about 1.3 miles... and it's simple math... tangent and all that stuff. so you're telling me that man can build 1.3 miles high invisible towers? because I can't see any...

What were you trying to say here? Because what you did say doesn't make any sense.

How do tangents apply to a flat earth?

Flat Earth Debate / My Trip To The Ice Wall
« on: October 25, 2006, 03:04:57 PM »
Well obviously the greeks are in on the conspiracy, so it only makes sense that they would contribute some of their finest to the cause of guarding the ice wall.

Flat Earth Q&A / Antartica not existing
« on: October 19, 2006, 02:21:25 PM »
That's funny because I've been to the ice wall (what you call antarctica) and I walked right up to the edge and looked over into space.

Hmm, I guess one of us must be lying. How do we know which one?

Flat Earth Q&A / The earth is round
« on: October 19, 2006, 02:18:23 PM »

....................and he's banned!


Flat Earth Q&A / Sun/Moon orbits and shape
« on: October 19, 2006, 02:17:30 PM »
Quote from: "holybrain"
Quote from: "Yardstick2006"
Thank you for that productive post, jackass.

The FEers wont answer this, as they do every time someone asks this question.

YStick, we all now you're the one who should chastise Unimportant for unimportant posts, because as I was looking through YOUR posts, I found nothing but well thought out posts.

Or not.

edit: corrected spelling of "looking"

It's actually pretty flattering having a fanboy like Yardstick follow you around commenting on all of your posts. Does great things for the old ego :)

Flat Earth Q&A / Why do you believe?
« on: October 19, 2006, 02:15:25 PM »
Quote from: "Yardstick2006"
Dogplatter wrote:

Penguins were actually created in the 1960's by Russian scientists who combined the DNA of otters and birds.

Yardstick2006 wrote:

I am completely incapable of discerning between jokes and serious claims.

Flat Earth Q&A / Burden of Proof
« on: October 19, 2006, 02:13:26 PM »
Quote from: "Yardstick2006"

Please tell me that you realize I could say the exact same thing to you.

Of course if you realized that you wouldn't have posted, so I don't know what to think.

Flat Earth Q&A / The arc of a released object
« on: October 19, 2006, 02:11:01 PM »
What he said.

Flat Earth Q&A / Sun/Moon orbits and shape
« on: October 19, 2006, 12:26:56 AM »
How would you know what shape they are?

Didn't your mother teach you never to look at the sun?

Flat Earth Q&A / Why a Flat Earth?
« on: October 19, 2006, 12:24:38 AM »
By math he means numbers and stuff.

In case you were wondering.

Flat Earth Q&A / The arc of a released object
« on: October 19, 2006, 12:20:06 AM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
There you go.

There you go.

Wow! You know, I have to admit, when I saw you do it, it just looked stupid and pointless. But now that I've done it myself, I see that it's really very fun!

Thanks, phaseshifter!

Flat Earth Q&A / The arc of a released object
« on: October 18, 2006, 10:11:04 PM »
Because it conflicts with my intuitive sense of what happens to objects dropped from height. My intuition tells me they fall straight down, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Flat Earth Q&A / Question
« on: October 18, 2006, 09:02:46 PM »
Chances are you didn't make a good point.

Other planets might be round. I'm not sure. It really doesn't have anything to do with the shape of the earth, though.

Flat Earth Q&A / Burden of Proof
« on: October 18, 2006, 12:15:41 PM »
Quote from: "Yardstick2006"
Maybe in your warped little mind but us in the real world know that if want to 'challenge the norm.' so to speak, then you have to back it up.

Yeah, exactly; if we went out into the real world and claimed the earth was flat, it would be up to us.

We don't do that. Instead, you come into our world and accuse us of having a faulty model. You're the one accusing us, so you've got to prove your claim.

Flat Earth Q&A / Can you fall off the edge of the earth?
« on: October 18, 2006, 06:21:27 AM »
That's funny, because I kayaked the entire shoreline of the southern continent and my paddle-o-meter told me I had gone over 75,000 miles, which means the earth is flat. And there were numerous attempts to kill and capture me!

Now obviously the REers will say I'm lying because this is a religion to them and no evidence will ever convince them (thats why the round earth hypothesis cannot be considered science), but it is true and I'm lucky to be alive to tell the tale :)!

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity Question
« on: October 17, 2006, 06:09:39 PM »
I do!

(Just kidding.)

((Or am I?))

(((Yeah lol I am)))

((((Or maybe that's what I want you to think...))))

Flat Earth Q&A / Burden of Proof
« on: October 17, 2006, 06:08:28 PM »
Quote from: "Skeptical Listener"
Now, I don't know general relativity that well, but I'm pretty sure that the Earth's gravity is nowhere near strong enough to bend light to the extent that you say it does.

On the other hand, I can explain why light can bend. The index of refraction of light through air depends on the density of air, which depends on the temperature (Ideal Gas Law). When you see a slight shimmering above the road, it is becuase the air near the road is less dense than the above it, and hence has a lower index of refraction. Hence, the light will bend away from the road, and you will see the sky. Note that you can only observe this shimmering effect when you are looking nearly parallel to the road, because the light is not bent very much.

"Bending" and "curving" are different things in the context of this discussion. It's semantic and sometimes frustrating, to be sure, but they are still unique concepts.

No one is denying that light bends in the presence of mediums of variable density - and anyone who does is likely beyond help - but the issue is whether or not light curves under such conditions. As physics defines a curve of light, no, it does not. It only bends.

I think burden of proof lies with the people who believe in the Flat Earth.

And you would be wrong, unfortunately.

Flat Earth Q&A / TIDES!
« on: October 17, 2006, 02:10:11 PM »
Quote from: "Slorrin"
The force required for this to happen is not released by the combined tectonic action of the earth on an average day.

At some point you are going to have to recognize that claims such as these aren't considered valid in the context of the FE discussion. You can say things like this - and it could be that in "real life" it is true - but without proof we have no reason to believe you.

You saying "The force required for this to happen is not released by the combined tectonic action of the earth on an average day" carries no more inherent validity than if I were to say "The force required for this to happen is in fact released by the combined tectonic action of the earth on an average day."

Flat Earth Q&A / The arc of a released object
« on: October 17, 2006, 01:34:14 PM »
Quote from: "Slorrin"
Quote from: "Unimportant"

How can flat earth science explain this repeatable and observable phenomenon, the easterly direction of freefalling spheres from great heights?

I don't think it really happens. I think the cannonball drops straight down.

That is not an answer.  What you think happens doens' tmatter.  What is a demonstrable phenomenon matters.  This happens, whether you want to believe it or not.

The cannonball moves eastward.

It's a fact.

There's two parts to this sort of thing.

1) Prove something happens.

2) Explain why said phenomenon is evidence of a round earth model over a flat one.

You've done 2, but not 1.

I think the flaw is in how you conceptualize inertia.  For the plum bob to lean eastward, that would mean all spheres would roll eastward naturally.  Things don't just MOVE to the east without force.

No, I misunderstood what you were claiming. I knew the plumbob wouldn't deflect, but the reasoning you gave for the cannonball deflecting made it seem like you believed the force at work would be one that similarly causes the plumbob to deflect.

After reading your posts, I see you are claiming an entirely different reason for the displacement than I originally assumed. Now that we're on the same page, you've succeeded in in 2).

Good luck with 1). You can start by doing the calculations to give specific values for displacement from a certain height. Then, if someone is so inclined, they can go out and try and verify your calculations. Until then, I don't really have a reason to believe the cannonball falls anywhere but straight down.

Flat Earth Q&A / The arc of a released object
« on: October 17, 2006, 01:00:11 PM »
Quote from: "Slorrin"
These are also questions not relevant to the original one.

They are relevent to whether this experiment is valid.

Would the plumbob not be deflected in the same direction as you claim the cannonball is displaced? If I accelerate along the surface of the earth with a plumbob in my hand, it trails behind me, even if I hold it at a constant height. If I understand your cannonball claim, you are saying it displaces eastward for a similar reason. Why, then, would the plumbob not be similarly displaced?

And if the plumbob is displaced because of its inertia, it does not indicate true up/down, and so cannot be used as a valid reference for measuring the horizontal displacement of your cannonball. Without a valid reference, the measurement of displacement is invalid, and so the results of the experiment are invalid.
How can flat earth science explain this repeatable and observable phenomenon, the easterly direction of freefalling spheres from great heights?

I don't think it really happens. I think the cannonball drops straight down.

Flat Earth Q&A / The arc of a released object
« on: October 17, 2006, 07:56:58 AM »
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Not too bothersome- find a level surface (using a level, of course), put up a tower of reasonable height, put a ruler down on the ground along the direction of the Earth's rotation, and drop a dense object with low air resistance (say a bowling ball) on a day with as little wind as possible. Set up a camera to record exactly where on the ruler the ball lands. If the Earth is rotating, the ball should land farther along the ruler than where it was dropped.

It seems like the level might be subject to the same inertial conditions as the bowling ball, and so level wouldn't really be level.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41