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 - ezsteve

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does Lunar eclipses work?
« on: May 18, 2007, 11:35:33 AM »
Absolutely incorrect. The horizon line is at eye level whether you are 5, 50, 500, or 5,000 feet in the air. The horizon line does not "go below eye-level" as you ascend.

This picture pretty much proves that comment wrong (for both FE and RE), angle x is clearly bigger than angle y, hence a different level than eye level...



Unless of course you believe that earth is an infinite plane.

2
The Lounge / Re: Burning video to DVD?
« on: May 17, 2007, 01:24:50 PM »
MAGIC ISO OWNS!!!

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sorry to disappoint the believers...
« on: May 15, 2007, 03:05:17 PM »
This is the sort of picture I would like to see with a flat earth, one that clearly shows the magnetic fields and how the solar winds function about the poles (see original page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(astronomy) under "The solar wind and magnetosphere".


4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sorry to disappoint the believers...
« on: May 15, 2007, 01:54:35 PM »
I think the main question is how can the flat earth sun, which is a "spotlight" emit the high energy electrons required to create the auroras, especially if it is a spotlight. Also, i have read in a few other threads that the south pole on flat earth is on its underside, so surely this would annihilate the chances of seeing any light shows at the ice wall.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sorry to disappoint the believers...
« on: May 15, 2007, 01:28:41 PM »
Theres something not quite right about this, can you explain in full?

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sorry to disappoint the believers...
« on: May 15, 2007, 01:17:28 PM »
Sorry, I meant how are they swept into the atmosphere around the ice wall.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sorry to disappoint the believers...
« on: May 15, 2007, 01:08:06 PM »
It sounds very skeptical to me, how exactly are these particles "swept" into the atmosphere near the ice wall, and wouldnt this create a rather different visual effect on to the aurora borealis, where in reality we know they are very much identical.

Does the round earth theory not make much more sense in the explanation of these phenomina, it is so much more simple, and more likely.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sorry to disappoint the believers...
« on: May 15, 2007, 10:16:18 AM »
That still doesnt explain the aurora australis...

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
« on: May 15, 2007, 09:06:26 AM »
Wouldnt someone have measured and noticed by now, if the oceans were far to big to fit the scale of the round earth map?

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
« on: May 15, 2007, 08:56:53 AM »
But then that means that the oceans would be HUGE in proportion to the continents?

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
« on: May 15, 2007, 08:47:58 AM »
That does not mean that these map could at all be an accurate representation of the flat earth. Australia is not that stretched out, and south america is not that big in proportion to north america.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
« on: May 15, 2007, 08:17:50 AM »
Good effort on the maps, but still, as i've said before, the continents are not that shape, or those proportions.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sorry to disappoint the believers...
« on: May 15, 2007, 08:13:57 AM »
Explain the picture please.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
« on: May 15, 2007, 08:11:00 AM »

Just by using the FAQ and a few cionfused posts before, I've provided you with some:

Standard flat earth map
South-pole centric map (to show just how distorted the Eaerth is on FE)
The Earth at night (because it's pretty)
Time-zone map
Tectonic plate map
Flat Mars map

use the search for 'FE Cartography) by Chrissetti to find them

What? I cant find any of these?!

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: One "Unanswered" Question Answered
« on: May 15, 2007, 07:55:49 AM »
The question makes the assumption that Flat Earth has no South Pole: this is false. It is true that while the North Pole is located in the same location as it is on Round Earth, the South Pole is not located anwhere along the Ice Wall (or "Antarctica"). The South Pole is located on the underside of the earth, the surface of the earth is only affected by one of the poles.




So how come there is an aurora borealis AND australis?

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sorry to disappoint the believers...
« on: May 15, 2007, 07:51:59 AM »
The magnetic south pole is near the geographic north pole, and the magnetic north is directly under it.

Please give more detail...

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
« on: May 14, 2007, 11:32:14 PM »
I want a flat earth map that is exactly to scale. If the world is flat then surely drawing a map of it should be easier, right?

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Google(Flat)Earth™
« on: May 14, 2007, 03:31:42 PM »
To be fair to the FEers, without going out and physically measuring the continents, we just trust cartographers without really questioning them

Then I suggest some serious measuring time for the FEers, as up to now those measurements are what we've got and what were stuck with!

I'm off now anyway, apoligies if i don't get back to any replies until tomorrow.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sorry to disappoint the believers...
« on: May 14, 2007, 03:24:57 PM »
I have heard of strange magnetic field activity, including multiple, random poles in various locations when hearing about the round earths magnetic pole flip, so i can see how this could be plausible, but not how it could be sustained for any large periods of time. Also, in this argument you are considering there is no round earth, rendering this evidence invalid.

Anyway, im off now, apoligies if i dont get back to any replies until tomorrow.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Google(Flat)Earth™
« on: May 14, 2007, 03:19:00 PM »
I think the ocean distances would change instead of the continent shapes.

So theoretically, if i measured these distances, they would all be correct to the proportions of a flat earth map (with the oceans changed, not the continent shapes).

That would mean that the Atlantic ocean (and many others) would be HUGE in proportion to the continents.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sorry to disappoint the believers...
« on: May 14, 2007, 03:08:41 PM »
North in the middle, south all the way around the outside, surely this is not possible?! I'm no expert at magnetic fields, so i shall certainatly research this, but it doesnt sound right to me.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Google(Flat)Earth™
« on: May 14, 2007, 02:55:24 PM »
IS SOUTH AMERICA THAT SHAPE!? IS NORTH AMERICA THAT SMALL!?

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sorry to disappoint the believers...
« on: May 14, 2007, 02:52:54 PM »
And here's an experiment you can try yourself to confirm the flatness of the earth.  Go outside to a wide open space.  Look down at the ground.  Tell me if you see that you are standing on the top of a giant sphere, or if you are standing on flat ground. ::)

This is a childish comment, have you ever taken into account how huge the earth is? Just under 25,000 miles (assuming that you believe in a round earth). But consider this, why is it that when observing a ship through a telescope, travelling away from/towards you, the mast is the last thing to disapear (if the ship is departing) and the first thing to appear (if travelling towards you)? At this point i feel i may be told to read the FAQ and may find something about there being a slight curvature to "the flat earth" so i will put this to you, how is it possible for the sea to follow a curvature?

Another issue that i have not seen whilst briefly scanning these forums, is the Aurora Borealis/Australis. How could these two acts of scientific phenomena occur on a flat earth? I have seen maps of "the flat earth" and a magnetic field would simply not arrange itself in a pattern that is congruent to that of the north and south poles on the "flat earth".

Pages: [1]