1

Flat Earth Q&A / Moon issues...

« on: May 01, 2006, 09:02:42 PM »

I'm gonna throw out the obvious bone here...

The moon isn't a flat disc, but a convex one?

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Can the Flat Earth Theory explain these counterpoints?

« on: May 01, 2006, 08:37:02 PM »

Well, as I pointed out before, their compasses are designed around the assumption that the Earth is round. They travel in a large circle which comes close to the southern edge, and as soon as they are halfway through the circle or course their compasses will start pointing north.

Eh. Compasses are designed around the assumption that there's a strong magnetic pole somewhere. Regardless of "north" or "center." It has absolutely nothing to do with spheres. That's how orienteering works on a 2-D plane. Surely you're not going to argue that I *didn't* arrive at my destination all those times I used a compass and a map in Boy Scouts, survival training, and all those camping trips in my teenage years? A more plausible argument for you here is that magnetic north is not center, or even on the earth at all, but somewhere in orbit around the earth. Or something. Hell, I can't think of a remotely plausible argument against compasses. GPS systems, OK, you can play the conspiracy card here, but a compass is a compass, it points to something magnetic, end of story. For our purposes, given any fixed point, traveling away from that point on a finite plane, I will reach the edge, but my consistent indicator of that point will continue to orient to the origin point. It will not suddenly freak out, spin in circles, and point the opposite direction.

Let's put this in math terms. Start on a Riemann sphere at the origin, and walk an absolutely straight line towards the infinity pole.. With the SLIGHTEST deviation in your initial direction, you will just walk in a big circle and wind up back at the origin, even though your path is absolutely straight. The Riemann sphere is isometric to the complex plane, so the line you just walked on the sphere corresponds to a large curve in the plane.

I'm not really following you on this argument. I understand what a Riemann sphere is; I don't understand how you're applying it here. Admittedly, geometry was always a weak point for me, so I'm at a disadvantage. I was much more interested in chemistry and physics, and the two don't *always* go hand in hand.

If you want to argue deviation, then we have to start talking about how much space we've got to work with, and I can't really see how you're going to argue that there's enough earth to account for slight magnetic deviance or human error in all circumstances.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Coriolis Force

« on: May 01, 2006, 07:22:35 PM »

The big problem in this whole thread is that Coriolis has to do with air, not water.

Can we please READ the theory and THEN debate it?

Also, more talk about Pantera Live in Sydney on DVD.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Coriolis Force

« on: May 01, 2006, 04:48:02 PM »

A more measurable and consistent theory is in Coriolis Mosh Pit Theory. Which I myself invented.

It's a simple, reproducable, and measurable fact that concert mosh pits swirl clockwise in the northern hemisphere, and counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere.

Being as how there is no scientifically relevant difference in the number of righties and lefties per hemisphere, I have yet to come up with an explanation for this hypothesis, but it's certainly demonstratable and repeatable.

I learned this by watching lots of rock DVDs filmed in Sydney, and my own experience here in the USA.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Calling all new members: how can we improve the FAQ?

« on: May 01, 2006, 04:19:38 PM »

As my first post in another thread said, I particularly have a problem with the section of the FAQ that attempts to explain traveling east or west and arriving back at your starting point.

The generally accepted FE'er theory seems to be that magnetic north is the pole in the middle of a planar disc. Thus, if you start at point on the disc other than dead center, and travel constantly in one direction east (right) or west (left), you draw a circle around the center point and end up back where you started.

OK. That's fine, and perfectly reasonable. It's also completely irrelevent at best, and an exercise in deception at worst. The point you NEED to be addressing in the FAQ is that if you start at a given point and travel south, AWAY from the center point of the disc, you should hit the edge of the disc (The "Ice Wall" or whatever you believe is at the edge) - Which is not quite what happens according to anybody who has been to the south pole. You know, the "members of the vast conspiracy."

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Can the Flat Earth Theory explain these counterpoints?

« on: May 01, 2006, 04:02:32 PM »

1. Compasses and GPS system rely on the hypothesis that the earth is round to keep you in a straight line. Since the hypothesis is false, the results are inaccurate, and you travel in a big circle, thus reaching your starting point eventually.

I'm loving how all the FE'ers, and the FE FAQ, use this example.

The "accepted among FE'ers" philosophy seems to be that magnetic north is roughly at the center of a planar disc that is the earth. Thus, if you go East <-> West, you're essentially circling around the fixed point (magnetic north.)

The problem that nobody seems to want to answer, in the FAQ or posts that I've read, is that if you go SOUTH, away from the center point, you'll hit the edge of the disc. This is glaringly obvious, but conspicuously absent from all explanations I've read thus far.

This, however, is not the case, according to any pilot, researcher, or scientist who has ever been in the Antarctic. They can all attest to traveling south, and instead of hitting some gigantic ice wall or whatever, instead the compass freaks out for a bit, then claims they're traveling north again. Which is kind of suggestive that it is, in fact, a sphere.

But they're probably part of the "vast conspiracy."

Regardless, the FAQ should be updated to argue THIS point, not the East<->West one - It's irrelevant and an excercise in deception.