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 - Fredo

Pages: [1] 2
1
Ok, yes I know I made a retarded mistake. But I don't see why you have to mark down and sig every RE'ers mistake when FE'ers make so many more mistakes (not including when they say that the earth is flat).

2
According to the faq the earth doesn't have a gravitational pull, but everything else does. First of all, this is pure nonsence.  And the only explination is that it's "special?" Secondly, where's the atmosphere?  If there's no gravity, then one of 2 things could occur. 1) The air molecules simply drift of the edge. 2) the air molecules would be compacted to the point that everything would be crushed under the pressure. Also, then in order to have the feeling of moving upwards to simulate gravity, one would need an oppisite force to be pulling agianst.  That would mean that the universe would need a floor, and that would have gravity to pull agianst, but then the earth would be pulled downwards and we would all be in free-fall.  The only way for the system to work, is if the earth was round, and had it's own gravity.

1) No they wouldn't , the air is accelerating.

2) Why?  Equivalence Principle.  Acceleration is exactly like gravitation.  You might as well say that about the Round Earth.

3) WTF?  No.  The Earth is accelerating upwards, simulating a gravitational pull.  There's no need for a "floor".

I know that this post was from a while ago, but....

If the air is accelerating upwards along with everything else, wouldn't that mean that if you inhaled a lot of air, and then jumped, you would be able to jump higher than normal? I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen.

LOL.  Can you explain the science leading to that conclusion?

Sorry, I realize my mistake. I had forgotten about the air that is under you, which would be pushing against you too, so there would be no difference. However, you still have no proof that anything is accelerating upwards, while RE'ers have a lot of evidence proving you wrong.

EDIT: There is also no reason that humans, as well as any other life form, wouldn't be accelerating upwards too, considering how we are made out of the same stuff the earth is made of...

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Out of Curiousity...
« on: May 09, 2008, 02:03:48 PM »
I don't know about anyone else, but I think the earth is flat because of the evidence.

The evidence leads me to the unavoidable conclusion that the earth is flat.  That some others disagree cannot let me sway my opinion to ignore the evidence.  Science is based on evidence, belief in a round earth tends not to come from evidence, but from the ideological state apparatus of culture.

The thing is, it was actually the other way around...

A long time ago, people knew that the earth was flat. There was no evidence for it, but they were taught it and they just knew that it had to be flat. Then people found out new evidence, and using that evidence, found out that the earth was in fact round. So no, the belief in a round earth does not just come from being taught that from early childhood, but also from evidence that was found long ago.

And where is the evidence that shows the earth is flat? I have yet to see any.

4
According to the faq the earth doesn't have a gravitational pull, but everything else does. First of all, this is pure nonsence.  And the only explination is that it's "special?" Secondly, where's the atmosphere?  If there's no gravity, then one of 2 things could occur. 1) The air molecules simply drift of the edge. 2) the air molecules would be compacted to the point that everything would be crushed under the pressure. Also, then in order to have the feeling of moving upwards to simulate gravity, one would need an oppisite force to be pulling agianst.  That would mean that the universe would need a floor, and that would have gravity to pull agianst, but then the earth would be pulled downwards and we would all be in free-fall.  The only way for the system to work, is if the earth was round, and had it's own gravity.

1) No they wouldn't , the air is accelerating.

2) Why?  Equivalence Principle.  Acceleration is exactly like gravitation.  You might as well say that about the Round Earth.

3) WTF?  No.  The Earth is accelerating upwards, simulating a gravitational pull.  There's no need for a "floor".

I know that this post was from a while ago, but....

If the air is accelerating upwards along with everything else, wouldn't that mean that if you inhaled a lot of air, and then jumped, you would be able to jump higher than normal? I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen. And since air contains water, and we are about 75% water, then wouldn't we be really lightweight if everything is accelerating?

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Out of Curiousity...
« on: May 09, 2008, 01:43:37 PM »
This question is directed to those who believe the Earth is flat:
What would it take to convince you that the Earth is round? And don't just say "hard evidence" or something like that. That's obvious. What I'm wondering is what would you consider to be hard evidence?

How could anything convince me that the earth is round when it's not?  ???

You use that confused smiley a lot. Obviously you are easily confused, like right now.

The earth is round, which is why it would be possible to convince you. Well, maybe not you, because you are Tom Bishop. You don't think the earth is flat because of evidence, but because you think the earth is flat. You have no real evidence that suggests that the earth is flat, and yet we have a ton of evidence proving you wrong.

There's your answer.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The sun and north star positions
« on: May 09, 2008, 01:19:40 PM »
I don't think I really need to. It's common knowledge that the sun's altitude during an equinox is 90-their latitude. If it was otherwise, people would know. I had to find it out in earth science class, which means that other people had to find it out, too.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The sun and north star positions
« on: May 09, 2008, 01:07:30 PM »
90-42 = 48 shows that the altitude of the sun during an equinox is equal to 90-your latitude. I live at about 42 degrees, and the sun's altitude during an equinox is 48 degrees. At the equator (0 degrees), the sun is directly overhead during an equinox (90 degrees).

42+48 = 90
0+90 = 90

That proves that the altitude of the sun is 90-latitude, which is only possible on the round earth model.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How?
« on: May 09, 2008, 04:10:05 AM »
4. Upward acceleration.
Again, just common sense.  If someone uses a magnet to slide little metal filings around your desk from underneath, you don't stare at it in disbelief.  Gee, metal different than desk, me figure out!

Ok, what is the earth made of that we aren't? What makes it accelerate and not us? Are you just using magnets as an example, or are you saying that we aren't accelerating because we aren't magnetised? If that's what you are saying, then why do magnets fall when you drop them?

He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.  -- Psalm 104:5
Then how can it move along with everything else in the universe (besides things that fall when you drop them).

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon visible during the day
« on: May 08, 2008, 07:31:27 PM »
goddamn gnomes and their tinkering of quotes!

How should I change this one.....

awesome gnomes and their amazing tinkering of quotes!

Ah! There we go!  :)

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon visible during the day
« on: May 08, 2008, 07:25:35 PM »
[ ] Conspiracy.
[ ] Pseudo Science.
[ ] Logical Fallacy.
[ ] Magic.
[ ] Read "Earth: Not A Globe"
[ ] Look out your window.


Take yer pick.

can i add "gnomes" to the list?
aw hell, ill do it anyway.

[ ] Conspiracy.
[ ] Pseudo Science.
[ ] Logical Fallacy.
[ ] Magic.
[ ] Read "Earth: Not A Globe"
[ ] Look out your window.
[ x ] Gnomes.

It could have been Fredo!

Darn, you found me!

Another fail for FE!

Fixed.  ;D

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon visible during the day
« on: May 08, 2008, 07:14:39 PM »
[ ] Conspiracy.
[ ] Pseudo Science.
[ ] Logical Fallacy.
[ ] Magic.
[ ] Read "Earth: Not A Globe"
[ ] Look out your window.


Take yer pick.

can i add "gnomes" to the list?
aw hell, ill do it anyway.

[ ] Conspiracy.
[ ] Pseudo Science.
[ ] Logical Fallacy.
[ ] Magic.
[ ] Read "Earth: Not A Globe"
[ ] Look out your window.
[ x ] Gnomes.

It could have been Fredo!

Darn, you found me!

12
thats cool and all, but the earth is flat.

If you say the earth is flat, prove my evidence wrong (link in my sig).

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How?
« on: May 08, 2008, 07:04:40 PM »
He does have a point, though. Why is it that everything in the universe except for things that are on the earth are constantly accelerating? What is it that the earth, sun, moon, and stars are made of that everything else doesn't have that causes it to accelerate?

14
I never said it was possible. I just said that if it was then that would happen. I'm not sure if it's even true, but it's cool.

It's a cool concept, but I wonder how they 'discovered' this theory. It seems like they've pulled it out of their ass.

Possibly, but I'm sure they did some weird experiment to figure it out...

15
Unless Google translator really messed this up, I don't see what testicular cancer has to do with the original topic of this thread...

16
I never said it was possible. I just said that if it was then that would happen. I'm not sure if it's even true, but it's cool.

17
On some show on the science channel they said that if you could somehow go faster than the speed of light, you would be traveling backwards in time. So if you go from 0 to 299,793,458 m/s (1000 m/s faster than the speed of light) in 1 millisecond for 2 seconds:

1)you would most likely explode, along with everything else near you from the extremely intense speed and friction.
2) you would travel back in time (I'm not sure how long, could be hours, days, months)

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Global warming
« on: May 08, 2008, 05:20:28 PM »
The source of earths heat comes from beneath. If it were from the sun, then why are deep shaft mines so much hotter than earths surface?
In the RE model, heat comes from the sun and the earth's core, not just from the sun.

Glad we agree, the sun reflects the earths light and heat.
Wouldn't the moon reflect the earth's light and heat, too? That would mean that it would be the same temperature at night when the moon is out than during the day. And is it even hotter when the sun and moon are out at the same time?

Absorbing heat in the upper atmosphere would create more heat on earths surface than absorbing heat on earths surface?
Gases in the upper atmosphere also prevent heat from escaping. That is why it is usually colder on a clear night than on a cloudy night.

Says who?

Um...which part are you talking about?

Off Topic: Are we going to start a very long chain of quotes?

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Global warming
« on: May 08, 2008, 05:17:26 PM »
The source of earths heat comes from beneath. If it were from the sun, then why are deep shaft mines so much hotter than earths surface?
In the RE model, heat comes from the sun and the earth's core, not just from the sun.

Glad we agree, the sun reflects the earths light and heat.
Wouldn't the moon reflect the earth's light and heat, too? That would mean that it would be the same temperature at night when the moon is out than during the day. And is it even hotter when the sun and moon are out at the same time?

Absorbing heat in the upper atmosphere would create more heat on earths surface than absorbing heat on earths surface?
Gases in the upper atmosphere also prevent heat from escaping. That is why it is usually colder on a clear night than on a cloudy night.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Global warming
« on: May 08, 2008, 05:00:06 PM »
Heat comes from the earths core in the FE model? Not from the sun?

Wow, that certainly explains why its warming during the day than it is at night...or not.

If you block heat between the earth and the sun, the gases would absorb more energy from the sun making the atmosphere warmer.

Another fail for FE!!!
I think that the FE'ers think that the ice wall is actually a mountain range covered in ice. They probably came up with that when someone asked about global warming's effect on the ice wall.

Besides, we are barely helping global warming at all. It's mainly the sun's fault. The more sunspots there are on the sun, the hotter it is. Did you know that the average temperature was actually higher before the industrial revolution than after? Also, the temperature started to rise more before cars were invented, and after the temperature was increasing at a slower rate.

People think that because we are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, the temperature is increasing. Carbon Dioxide is only about 5% of the greenhouse gases (water vapor is the most common), and it is actually the other way around. As temperature increases, the oceans release more CO2.

Great Global Warming Swindle much?

Possibly...it's true, though. If you look at Al Gore's (inventor of the internets  :)) graph showing temperature versus CO2, you will notice that the CO2 level increases several hundreds of years after the temperature does (because it takes a while for entire oceans to heat up).

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Global warming
« on: May 08, 2008, 04:44:14 PM »
I think that the FE'ers think that the ice wall is actually a mountain range covered in ice. They probably came up with that when someone asked about global warming's effect on the ice wall.

Besides, we are barely helping global warming at all. It's mainly the sun's fault. The more sunspots there are on the sun, the hotter it is. Did you know that the average temperature was actually higher before the industrial revolution than after? Also, the temperature started to rise more before cars were invented, and after the temperature was increasing at a slower rate.

People think that because we are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, the temperature is increasing. Carbon Dioxide is only about 5% of the greenhouse gases (water vapor is the most common), and it is actually the other way around. As temperature increases, the oceans release more CO2.

22
I know this is kind of a "little kid" question but what would be on the other side of the wall?

Most likely nothing. Empty space.

I love talking about stuff like this. It is so interesting. Here are some weird facts that I learned (most of them from the science channel):

If the string theory is correct (that every atom is made up of a ton of extremely small strings that are basically codes that tells it what it does), then if an atom were expanded to the size of the known universe, one of these strings would be about the size of a medium sized tree.

The nucleus of an atom is about 10,000 times smaller than the entire atom. An atom is mostly empty space.

2600 (2 multiplied by itself 600 times) is greater than the number of atoms in the known universe.

The closer you get to the speed of light, the faster you travel through time.

If you could travel faster than the speed of light, you would go back in time.

There are no laws of physics that say that it is impossible to go back in time, which means that it is possible (somehow).


There are probably some more facts that I know, but I can't think of them right now.

23
But what is the wall around the universe made of? It had to have come from somewhere. That of course leads to the question: Where did all the matter in the universe come from?

It is possible that the universe is 4 dimensional. If you were to go past the 'end' of the universe, you would appear on the other side. Light would also do this, which would mean that we would not notice going to the other side of the universe. Some people think that there is an infinite amount of matter in the universe, but it might just be light going past the end of the universe and ending up at the other side, creating an infinite loop.

I would really like to know how everything started. I mean all matter. Everything in the universe. If there were multiple big bangs, how did the first one start? Where did the matter come from?

Sometimes I think that there is a god like being, but acting more as a programmer. He (or she or it) coded in all the laws of physics and created matter and watches as it expands, and maybe restarts the program every now and then to see what changes. But then I think, "So where did he come from?" No, I don't think that there is a god watching over us. If there was a god, then he/she/it would be extremely busy watching over the entire universe. He/she/it could be watching a more advanced life form on a planet billions of light-years away.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The sun and north star positions
« on: May 08, 2008, 12:17:42 PM »
OK, since its been about a day without a reply (more if you include the other days nobody has posted), so I guess nobody can prove me wrong.

Win for RE!

That must mean the earth is round.   :)

You can't argue that that must mean that every time someone says 'Win for FE' that the earth is flat, because you people only say that when RE'ers leave because they don't want to argue anymore because you guys are idiots. I have successfully proven that the earth is round. People can still post here if they have a way to prove my evidence wrong.

25
This doesn't support the FE theory at all. It is more like a 2D round earth (gravity towards the center). I don't recall any FE theory with gravity towards the center (north pole) of the earth... It's more like if you cut the round earth in half and were looking at it from the side.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The sun and north star positions
« on: May 07, 2008, 12:06:13 PM »
Ok, does anyone have some real arguments against my evidence? I assure you, taters, that 90-42 is in fact 48.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The sun and north star positions
« on: May 06, 2008, 03:18:11 PM »
Ok I'm going to bring this back so that people can try to prove my evidence wrong. It would also be good if someone could move this to the flat earth debate & discussion thread.

I remembered today that I had in fact figured out the altitude of the sun during an equinox. I had forgotten about it because it didn't seem that important to me at the time I did it in earth science class last year. I don't really remember much of it, but throughout the day we went outside during the September equinox. We had these clear domes (representing the sky from our point of view), and a toothpick (held up with modeling clay) at the side. I don't remember what it looked like exactly, but we used markers to put the endpoints of the shadow on the dome, which represented the altitude of the sun at that time. We did this about 8 times that day. At the end of the day, in science class, we connected the dots and figured out the zenith (highest altitude of the sun). I live at about 42 degrees north, and the zenith was 48 degrees. This goes with what I said before - the altitude of the sun at an equinox is equal to 90 minus your latitude.

Now nobody can prove me wrong by saying that I didn't gather my own evidence.

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is your flat earth?
« on: April 29, 2008, 04:56:56 PM »
In the interest of restoring some purpose to this thread, I believe that the earth is round. All of the scientific evidence which I have seen points to this conclusion. Please, someone, try to prove me wrong.

NO U

Obviously you don't know who Jeebs is.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: gravity
« on: April 29, 2008, 03:28:13 PM »
Why is it that the earth doesn't have a gravitational pull when stars do? They are made of matter, and so is the earth. That means that the earth should have a gravitational pull. What feature do the stars have that the earth doesn't?

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is your flat earth?
« on: April 29, 2008, 03:16:53 PM »
That's what you think, but I actually poisoned it. Now you will die! At some point at least. The poison just makes it so you won't live forever.

Pages: [1] 2