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 - sheepofdarkness

Pages: [1] 2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Current Unanswered Questions - FEers Please!
« on: April 24, 2007, 09:24:36 AM »
How does stuff fly in FE theory? Like aeroplanes and birds?
Exactly the way they do in RE.  The shape of the earth has no effect on flight.

Does that mean then that space flight IS a thoeretical possibility then?

It would be if the world's space organizations weren't already under the control of the RE conspiracists.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Current Unanswered Questions - FEers Please!
« on: April 23, 2007, 01:47:19 PM »
How does stuff fly in FE theory? Like aeroplanes and birds?
Exactly the way they do in RE.  The shape of the earth has no effect on flight.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Contradiction
« on: April 23, 2007, 01:44:50 PM »
Yes, and because the Earth is moving in both RE and FE theory, real Bible literalists must believe in something completely different.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How is it possible?
« on: April 23, 2007, 01:40:38 PM »
The only conclusion I can come to is that the nature of gravity is rather different on a FE than on a RE.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Narcberry Proves A Round Earth
« on: April 23, 2007, 01:32:04 PM »
A curve is the sum of it's parts, says Narcberry, confusing everyone. Ok then, so a Flat surface is also the sum of it's parts, being a special kind of curve. When I step out of my door on the way to a friend's house, I walk over a curved hill. How can a flat surface have a curve as a part? The sum of it's parts equals the whole thing, and one of the parts is curved, therefore the Earth is not flat.

Narcberry is a genius, we should totally get him on our side!

It's quite simple.  Since a curve is the sum of its parts, therefore there must be a valley (a negative hill) somewhere to balance out your hill.  Negative hill + hill = Flatness.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Contradiction
« on: April 23, 2007, 01:29:21 PM »
It is fixed in respect to the people walking on it.  The earth is the reference point for everything else, and thus it cannot be moved within its own reference point.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How is it possible?
« on: April 23, 2007, 01:24:50 PM »
Does this bridge have a name?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shoe results are in!
« on: April 23, 2007, 01:15:28 PM »
Actually the toes of my shoes curve upwards, proving that the Earth is round and we are living inside of it.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rotation Of A Flat Earth - Bishop Owned
« on: April 22, 2007, 07:48:52 PM »
Well to be exact, the Sun and Earth both orbit around their common centre of mass. Which is deep inside the Sun, though not quite at its centre. The interaction with other planets make the exact dynamics of the system horribly complicated.
I would also include the Earth because, not being Tom Bishop, I see no reason not to.  This just makes it even more horribly complicated.

My attempt at a Tom reply:

Yes we do not know the exact mechanism for gravity, but we know that if mass bends spacetime and this causes gravity, then it is a universal property of mass the evidence of which we see all over the universe. Tom is suggesting that some objects have gravitation by mass and some do not, which seems very bizarre indeed, and I was wondering if he could suggest the properties which give on object mass and gravitation and another object no gravitation.

We know that some mass bends some spacetime, but can you prove that all mass does?  In order to do that, you would have to know how gravity works, and no one does. The principle of universal acceleration makes the assumption that gravity is not a universal property of mass and this is a fair assumption because we have no evidence either way.

I think that's what Tom believes.  If only he would weigh in himself...

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunlight Hitting the Earth
« on: April 21, 2007, 09:36:39 PM »
People who live in Eastern China get the same amount of sunlight as people living in Western Australia. People living in Seattle get the same amount of sunlight as those living in San Diego. People who live in southern Greenland get the same sun as people living in southern Brazil.

Kinda like this picture:
And this picture:

Only possible on a spherical earth.

I'll take a shot at providing a Tom answer and say Snell's Law.  We don't know what the air is like above 100 km or so.  Therefore it is possible that the air is refracting sunlight in such a way as to make a circular spotlight appear like a line.  This would also explain why places that are far from the equator get less sunlight than places near the equator.

Snell's law is the answer to everything.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: TheEngineer
« on: April 21, 2007, 09:10:40 PM »
Rubbish troll who stole Toothy's avatar *sighs*


To be honest the Earth is actually a cube.

After 20 years in researching in the finest schools in Scottland I have come to the right but maybe profound conclusion that the Earth is indeed cube.

I have seen the ice wall it merely blocks the sharp edges of the Earth.

Your mathematic analysis will prove inferior to my data.

If the Earth is really a cube, then how do you explain the fact that it is accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2?   You can't!  At least not without breaking Snell's law.  So therefore, the Earth is flat.

Tom, you still haven't answered on how the sun and moon have gravity?

Neither have you.  Gravity is a phenomenon that no one understands, not even Einstein.

My attempt at a Tom answer.

Of course Tom is assuming that they work like electromagnetic radiation, not like the force-mediating particles proposed by physicists.  That doesn't change the fact that gravitons are still purely hypothetical, and we really don't know how gravity works.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Nature Of Tom Bishop
« on: April 21, 2007, 05:09:51 PM »
Really? I bet you an arm, a leg, and my right nut that a good portion of the "REers" who come on here are actually FEers who just want to make REers look stupid. Am I the only one who's considered that?

And perhaps Tom is the devil's advocate of FE devil's advocates.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunlight Hitting the Earth
« on: April 21, 2007, 01:32:55 PM »
That's not the correct picture of the sun's illumination on the Earth. The person who made that wasn't an FE'er. He just assumed that since "half the world is illuminated" in RE, it must be the same in FE.

No part of the world receives 12 hours of light.

A little while ago I timed the length of the day for my latitude to 10.5 hours.

From Wikipedia:
An equinox in astronomy is the event when the Sun can be observed to be directly above the Earth's equator, occurring around March 20 and September 23 each year. On these dates, night and day are nearly of the same length and the Sun crosses the celestial equator (i.e., declination 0). More technically, the equinox happens when the Sun is at one of two opposite points on the celestial sphere where the celestial equator and ecliptic intersect. In a wider sense, the equinoxes are the two days each year when the center of the Sun spends an equal amount of time above and below the horizon at every location on Earth. The word equinox derives from the Latin words aequus (equal) and nox (night).

So are you denying that equinoxes(sp?) occur?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rotation Of A Flat Earth - Bishop Owned
« on: April 20, 2007, 11:35:25 PM »
Air resistance wouldn't render a very real and measurable force immeasurable. Though the force in the far south is significant enough to notice in every day life, if you don't agree with this you can at least say that sensitive scientific or engineering equipment would be caused a serious problem. THe photons of light being affected makes no difference to these observations (explaination on request).

Air resistance would not render this force immeasurable, but I think it would put it beyond the "try this at home, kids" point.  But you are correct, the centrifugal force would have such an effect.  This is why I think that it is more likely that the Sun revolves around the stationery Earth...somehow.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: You're a hypocrite, Tom!
« on: April 20, 2007, 11:19:19 PM »
I don't deny that the Earth may be rotating. I'm implying that the pendula is affected by the hand the observer uses to put it into motion and the effects of the room. Most people are right handed so, guess what, it will tend to swing a certain way.
So people are left handed in the southern hemisphere?  Or is it the other way around...

Try building a pendulum yourself, using a rock and a fishing line. It's extremely easy to build.

Conduct the experiment with the door open, using your bad hand to put it into motion, with the temperature turned up, with a window open, and with a fan on in the corner of the room pointed away from the pendulum. Also try it at different times of the day. You'll find that the unpowered  Pendula is VERY erratic.
  If you use your BAD hand, won't that make it more erratic?

I meant using RE physics, the increase or decrease in size of the sun could be proved to be erroneous using Kepler's laws.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth doesn't matter!
« on: April 20, 2007, 10:17:33 PM »
But underneath the volcanoes and plates, there would still be the 'unobtanium' shell.  This shell would probably have less volume than the flat earth but more density, giving the same gravity as a round earth.  The irregularities in weight (why do you weigh less at the equator?) could be explained as irregularities in mass or density.
That would work if the mass of the Earth attracted other mass, but according to FE it doesn't do that! What we feel as gravity is supposedly just the Earth accelerating. Leading to the holes I pointed out.

I might as well give up. The thread is about to reach its two page event horizon; all the real FEers have bailed out by now.

I am merely proposing an alternate version of the FE.  If people never challenged the accepted norms, there wouldn't be a FE theory.  Or there wouldn't be a RE theory.  One of them.

Besides, if the Earth doesn't curve space time around it, that presupposes a very different structure from the rest of the universe anyway.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Im gonna use a tom bishop style excuse
« on: April 20, 2007, 10:12:13 PM »
Prove to me that you can go into space and see the earth from the moon. Then i will believe the earth is flat

Get a really big rocket, and see for yourself.  No need to worry about a return trip...

Does anybody care about Kepler at all?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Magnetotaxic Bacteria as evidence for a RE
« on: April 20, 2007, 10:07:49 PM »
If FE theory can explain compass needles, then it can explain magnetotaxic bacteria.  There's really no difference.  Basically FE theory rearranges the magnetic poles so that the magnetic field lines are exactly the same as those on a hypothetical RE.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Zetetic Conspiracy
« on: April 20, 2007, 10:01:02 PM »
Quote from: sheepofdarkness
Why do you believe in a flat earth?
Because it sort of looks that way up close

If that's not direct observation, I don't know what is.

I just assumed that you were probably not very familiar with astrophysics, due to your post, so I used lay language. If you want, look up Kepler's laws and apply them to the Earth.  Just because I don't feel like it doesn't mean you can't.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Just another Thought...
« on: April 20, 2007, 09:40:41 PM »
Why would you want to exclude FEers?  Surely they know more about what they believe than REers do.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunlight Hitting the Earth
« on: April 20, 2007, 09:38:40 PM »
Ah. Well I made those allowances anyway! Damned hard it was too!

Well, you shouldn't have.  Then Tom could come in and point out your error, and you could then proceed to own him.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Nature Of Tom Bishop
« on: April 20, 2007, 09:37:19 PM »
Yes, I would have chosen rhino, but it wasn't one of the options.

My friend was introduced to an experiment that was conducted by his astrophysics professor.  My friend found it pretty interesting(and I agree) so he decided to conduct it himself.  It is a very simple experiment that anyone can do.  What it shows is, that the earth follows an elliptical orbit around the sun. 
Here is what you do.
Find a spot where you can clearly see the sun every day.  Take a picture of the sun at a given time of day (12pm is good because the sun is out and about).  Do this every 15 days, or even once a month or every two months.  The pictures must be taken at the exact time of day and at the same interval for an entire year.  What he found was, the pictures of the sun vary in size.  As the orbit of the earth was more distant around the longer end of the ellipse, the sun appeared smaller.

How is this possible if the earth does not orbit the sun in flat earth theory and instead stays at a constant distance to the earth as it accelerated along with the earth at the same speed.

I could use math to prove this, but I don't feel like it right now.  According to RE science, the Earth orbits in an ellipse, correct, but one with a very, very small eccentricity.  So small, in fact, that the foci are inside the sun.  This results in a circular orbit, for most intents and purposes, and the difference between the major and minor axes is not observable with your average camera.  What you have probably observed is the difference in air density or humidity as the seasons change.

Therefore, while the OP would contradict the FE theory if it were true, but it is not. Just a case of bad science.

RE scientists don't explain seasons as the result of an elliptical orbit, they explain seasons as the result of the Earth's tilted axis.  This is why it is winter in Australia when it is summer in Mexico, and vice versa.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunlight Hitting the Earth
« on: April 20, 2007, 09:08:22 PM »
I think you'll find I made allowances in the seventh and fourteenth quadrangles of the central (northern) hemi-plane, with appropriate cubic and quartic value adjustments for the sun's asymmetric motion. You underestimate me!
I know your map is perfect, which is why I responded to this one.

Pages: [1] 2