### 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 - Atheist Antagonist

Pages: [1]
1
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Dome shaped earth theory
« on: September 01, 2008, 10:51:58 PM »
so the center is higher than the ice walls?

That depends on how high the ice walls are. Of course, the ice walls are imaginary, so they can be as high as you want them to be.

2
##### Flat Earth General / Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« on: September 01, 2008, 10:50:26 PM »
Rr332211, gravity has nothing to do with how fast Earth is moving, it all depends on Earth's acceleration. If you jump up into the air, the gap between you and the ground will close at an increasing rate of 9.8m/s^2. Every time you jump. No matter how many times you jump.

Let me simplify the physics for you with a simple example. Let's say you're in a car. The car is still. Now it starts moving. You feel a slight force pushing your head back against the headrest. It accelerates a bit. The force gets stronger. Let's skip forward a bit. Say it's a sports car or you're on a highway. You're moving really fast. Rediculously fast. There must be a rocket strapped to the back of the car. You're having a really hard time pulling your head forward. The skin on your face is stretching backward.

This is due to the car's acceleration. Objects resist acceleration. It's what they do. That's the whole reason for momentum and g-forces during high-speed motion, which is what I'm talking about. Therefore, on an upwardly accelerating surface, not only would falling speeds be affected by the constantly increasing speed, but all other effects of the g-forces would also change. The g-force would eventually become so strong that human bodies would be crushed by it. Have you felt yourself and everything around you getting heavier as time progresses? Thank you.

3
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What was the piece of evidence that convinced you that the Earth was flat?
« on: September 01, 2008, 07:34:00 PM »
This book presents evidence that the surface of standing water cannot possibly be convex.

So there is no such thing as a drop of water? Because that's essentially what the Earth's oceans are (according to RET): a gigantic drop of salt water surrounding the rocky crust of the Earth, with the exception of the continents. If you look at it from a more distant perspective like that, you will notice that the oceans are not actually standing water at all. Not only are they basically a drop of water, they have currents as well and are therefore in constant movement. So they defy every possible definition of "standing water". In addition, presuming that the author's argument is just an observation of water in a still container or on a flat surface, the reason for the flat surface would be gravity. Due to the nature of gravity, there is no actual up or down in space, only "in" towards concentrations of matter (read:objects). The water on Earth is only strongly affected by the gravitational pul of Earth itself, which pulls it evenly inward to form a roughly spherical shape. The only other object that has a major effect on the oceans but not the rest of the Earth is the Moon, which causes the tides.

Well, then. I've contradicted a whole lot of FET doctrine just now, haven't I?

4
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antarctica or an Ice Wall?
« on: September 01, 2008, 06:35:15 PM »
Brilliant!! You have no evidence of that and its an easy kop out to actually having no evidence of your own for your ice wall claims, eh?

This is a non Government organisation with no ties to NASA or any space agencies so what is their motive?
simple - money.

How exactly does decieving the world into believing the world is a certain shape make anybody rich?

5
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Seriously
« on: September 01, 2008, 06:30:05 PM »
AHA! For once, your precious post-preventing FAQ fails you, Flat Earth Society! I finally have a valid point!

6
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Seriously
« on: September 01, 2008, 06:25:01 PM »
And why does nobody here even seem to take into account all the explorers who have been to the Antarctic? If there is no Antarctica, where did they film March of the Penguins? Wait, don't tell me that's in the FAQ too. I'll go look it up...

7
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I have a question.
« on: August 31, 2008, 10:30:55 PM »
B) Photoshop wasn't even invented until 1987 while the Neil Armstrong landing happened in 1969. How can you explain that? Heck NASA is a space program, if they were fake we would've known by now. Just look at Justigne3's videos on youtube.

Apparently Adobe programmers are the only people who are able to create tools for the manipulation of images.

Are you serious? In 1969, the proper hardware didn't exist to run programs nearly as advanced as image editing software. It doesn't matter when Photoshop was invented. What matters is when it could have invented. And that time definitely wasn't 1969.

8
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Concerning navigation:
« on: August 31, 2008, 10:13:06 PM »
That map is only an estimate.  The true flat earth map has not yet been...well...mapped out.

As difficult as it is to make maps, I think if maps have been made of a round world, and the world is actually flat, how could maps of the flat world have not been created by now? Surely, at least one lone ship's crew must have sailed around the edges of the continents with intentions of mapping a flat Earth by now.

Also, what's with this "Global Moderator" rank? Not to argue against my own side, but isn't that term a bit biased?

9
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Thank you for locking my topic before I got a chance to respond.
« on: August 31, 2008, 10:06:43 PM »
It's not satisfactory that we don't know what's under it?

It's not satisfactory that nobody has bothered seriously pursuing an answer. You don't need to go directly to a place to see what's there. There must be some means of examining the world around us and coming up with at least an educated guess. Even speculation would do for me if it explained something. Then at least you'd be trying. I mean, the rest of the FE theory is speculation. A little more couldn't hurt, could it?

EDIT: I've read through the FAQ, and I find the answers stupid and paranoid. Most of them are rediculously flimsy, many of them are vague, and some of them even avoid the questions outright. If you don't know the answer, don't try to make it look like you do.
Additionally, the logic behind what Professor Gaypenguin wants us to post is seriously flawed. Of particular concern to me is this article:
Quote
Is it a sensible questioning of the theory behind Flat Earth?

I can see that you only want us RE'ers to post insensible questions, crippling our arguments from the start. You FE'ers are really poor sports, you know that?

10
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Thank you for locking my topic before I got a chance to respond.
« on: August 31, 2008, 09:54:34 PM »
It's not satisfactory that we don't know what's under it?

It's not satisfactory that nobody has bothered seriously pursuing an answer. You don't need to go directly to a place to see what's there. There must be some means of examining the world around us and coming up with at least an educated guess. Even speculation would do for me if it explained something. Then at least you'd be trying. I mean, the rest of the FE theory is speculation. A little more couldn't hurt, could it?

11
##### Flat Earth Q&A / So according to this theory, nothing has ever been launched into orbit.
« on: August 31, 2008, 09:38:36 PM »
Because the Earth is not round. How do you explain satellite TV, then?

12
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Thank you for locking my topic before I got a chance to respond.
« on: August 31, 2008, 09:31:50 PM »
I'm looking at you, Osama Bin Laden. I admire how subtly you cut me off before I could get a decent argument in. This forum isn't neutral; it's a one-sided totalitarian state designed to shelter those who are too weak-minded to accept the vastness of the THREE-DIMENSIONAL universe.

Anyway, back to the business of my previous topic:
Quote
Q: "What's underneath the Earth?" aka "What's on the bottom?" aka "What's on the other side?"

A: This is unknown. Some believe it to be just rocks, others believe the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.

^This is hardly a satisfactory answer. Surely you can do better than that.^

13
##### Flat Earth Q&A / What's beneath the Earth?
« on: August 31, 2008, 09:15:11 PM »
Is it just empty space? Is it air? Is the Earth just a massive column sticking out of something much larger? What is it that we're all standing on top of, apparently? Is the Earth a giant platform in freefall? If so, what happens when it hits the bottom? Should I be worried?

Pages: [1]