1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bio-luminescent moon and conservation of energy

« on: December 30, 2010, 08:10:58 AM »

"Maybe" sounds like a random guess.

Lunar dew would be a possible source.

Just out of curiosity, how do these shrimp-like bacteria survive with no known sources of liquid water or any discernible atmosphere on the moon?

It's no secret that the topmost moon material contains water molecules known as 'lunar dew.'  The microscopic individuals of the biomass that James describes may be subsisting on this.

Evidence?

No FEer has ever provided evidence. Mainly because they cannot.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: North or South

« on: December 30, 2010, 08:07:23 AM »

FE'er: Oh, you disproved this aspect of FET? That's OK because not everyone believes in it.

Everyone or no-one?

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Horizon

« on: December 30, 2010, 12:31:54 AM »

The horizon is very far away, but the edge of the Earth is still further.

Are you implying James that in a FE model the sun sets at an infinate distance on the horizon? If not then why mention the edge of the earth being further? You need to effectivly explain sun sets, perspective only explains image resolution and not the actual shape.

Please try better next time James.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bio-luminescent moon and conservation of energy

« on: December 30, 2010, 12:19:35 AM »

Lunar dew would be a possible source.

Just out of curiosity, how do these shrimp-like bacteria survive with no known sources of liquid water or any discernible atmosphere on the moon?

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

« on: December 29, 2010, 05:39:14 AM »

I am sure that you TD are well aware of the issue. Despite the over whelming scientific texts that explain theory and experimentation, we (REer's) cannot expect them to research and test FET.

I would say that most FEer's would not claim to be RE specialists but understand scientific principles. Since this is the FES, I would expect that FE members are FE specialists (as they claim). Therefore if FEer's are genuine in promoting FET (ha ha ha), they need to read scientific texts, constructivly critique and provide reasonable alternitive theory.

Does any out there really expect FES to promote FET?

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bio-luminescent moon and conservation of energy

« on: December 29, 2010, 05:16:52 AM »

Like some type of ordanary matter that doesn't exsist on earth? Since there is no matter on earth that does this. All the scientists on earth have not found such a matertial.

If you are going to make claims, please back them up or stop trolling.

Ordinary matter exists on Earth. Assuming this theory, it's more likely that it's the being creating the bioluminescent light which doesn't exist on Earth.

If you're going to make claims, please spell them properly or stop trolling.

What sort of matter would you be refering to and does the term chemical potential mean anything to you?

Typical FE method of attacking the spelling and not the topic.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: North or South

« on: December 29, 2010, 05:01:12 AM »

Ichi's, Bishop's and Parsifal's comments all prove that they have nothing constructive to add.

Correct me if I'm right but isn't low content posting discouraged? Why do these guys get away with it?

Berny up to his usual quality posting. The lack of FE'ers indicates that they can't answer this question.

VICTORY FOR THE ROUND EARTH

<sniff>

Berny
Its the small things in life that make you happy.

Here here.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bio-luminescent moon and conservation of energy

« on: December 27, 2010, 06:54:21 PM »

\
The FAQ states it is made of ordinary matter.

And? Maybe the beings there convert ordinary matter to light somehow.

Like some type of ordanary matter that doesn't exsist on earth? Since there is no matter on earth that does this. All the scientists on earth have not found such a matertial.

If you are going to make claims, please back them up or stop trolling.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How Flight Times Prove a Flat Earth

« on: December 26, 2010, 08:50:11 AM »

Here is your claim:

If you figured out a way to use an accelerometer to tell the difference between gravity an the UA, then yes, you did.

I never claimed to. I only claimed to be able to tell whether a falling object or the Earth's surface was accelerating.

Yes. Your point being?

That you are a dim wiyyed Troll!

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I just do not get this.

« on: December 24, 2010, 04:51:18 AM »

Unless you mean "flat" like a galaxy? Other than that I cannot think of any other "flat" bodies in the universe.

Only real way that I could possibly conceive a FE, is if it were rotating at a significant rate (far greater than in RE). If this were the case it would be possible to measure the centripetal acceleration. Also this would not explain any other phenomenon.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Next Assaults on FE

« on: December 24, 2010, 04:38:29 AM »

Yet another flaw in FE.

Can I also say that if magnetic pole flip is the same as in the RE model, then Danukenator123 must really belives that the Earth is round.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Longest Day / Longest Night

« on: December 23, 2010, 11:52:50 PM »

I think it's possible the system might explain the midnight sun phenomena. I've made no progress on a diagram. I'm frightfully busy right now.

And you wonder why the FES does not progress.

I have an idea of how to acheive world peace. But I'm frightfully busy right now. Can I have my Nobel prize any way?

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Next Assaults on FE

« on: December 23, 2010, 09:10:16 PM »

If that's the case, how do you explain the switching of magnetic poles every 300,000 years?

Assuming Ski is correct, it could happen the same way it does in the RE model.

You can not claim RE theories where they are convinent and disregard others. Where is your FE evidence?

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: You've got to be kidding me! (FAQ)

« on: December 23, 2010, 09:03:27 PM »

Also, why hasn't any country spilled the beans for political reasons? Russia had a man in space by at least the early sixties, and the U.S. by the late sixties. This was still during the cold war! Why the hell wouldn't they rat the other country out?

Governments are run by multinationals, and I would assume that those multinationals are in the conspiracy. So they would loose more from spilling the beans

Current multi nationals or 1960's multi nationals? If so which ones? Is this also an American centric opinion? What about comunist, facist and socialist countries, are these also run by multi nationals?

Any that are relevant to the conspiracy.

Can you give any examples or can I report you for loow content posting?

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: You've got to be kidding me! (FAQ)

« on: December 23, 2010, 04:59:19 AM »

Also, why hasn't any country spilled the beans for political reasons? Russia had a man in space by at least the early sixties, and the U.S. by the late sixties. This was still during the cold war! Why the hell wouldn't they rat the other country out?

Governments are run by multinationals, and I would assume that those multinationals are in the conspiracy. So they would loose more from spilling the beans

Current multi nationals or 1960's multi nationals? If so which ones? Is this also an American centric opinion? What about comunist, facist and socialist countries, are these also run by multi nationals?

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Explain This!? Your 32 mile sun has not yet burned out.

« on: December 23, 2010, 04:44:59 AM »

Because the sun has obviously not depleted itself, the sun is possibly powered by a 100% efficiency reaction that at present is not understood.  An electromagnetic explanation is intriguing to me.

I take this to mean that you do not have a model!

Does it mean that you do not believe in the laws of thermodynamics?

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Next Assaults on FE

« on: December 21, 2010, 06:31:55 AM »

In short, gravity makes sense and UA just doesn't.

In what way does a rock magically dragging stuff towards itself make more sense than a rock flying around?

Does the Caverndish Experiment mean anything to you?

Also, what about 2 charged particles. Would you say that they are attracted/repelled by magic?

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Tectonic Plates

« on: December 19, 2010, 06:01:11 AM »

I'm not familiar with seismology, but would it be possible to have a layer of some material which bounces back the waves?

When you get a change in the medium in which the wave travels, you can get some reflection. This has already been taken into account with th RE model.

Until the FES tests the Earths composition and layers for themselves, I would find it hard to accept any of their claims.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Tectonic Plates

« on: December 17, 2010, 06:40:14 AM »

Why wouldn't they be read from various points on the earth?

I think the point he is a FE would have considerable trouble explaining the S wave Shadow zone, explained easily by RET.

Yeah this.  An EQ in brazil would be felt more in india than in russia with the RE model, which is illogical when looking at the FE.

That just about explains any FE comment.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Give me good physics and I admit defeat

« on: December 17, 2010, 06:33:55 AM »

Can we take the lack of response form FEer's to mean that they do not understand Physics?

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Longest Day / Longest Night

« on: December 17, 2010, 06:32:09 AM »

If you have been to a FAR north country like Greenland, Finland, etc, you will know that they have 24 hours of nighttime in the winter and 24 hours of daylight in the summer.

Done some motorcycling in the Arctic. I watched the sun not set at midnight, whilst sitting by the banks of a fjord in Norway drinking Iish whiskey. A very good night.

The Earth is flat and I witnessed a sunny midnight so it cannot be impossible.
[/quote
What? This is based on RE data, not FE! So How can you claim that the resulst confirm a FE?

The OP should also include that the same happens in the southern hemisphere (northern summer --> southern winter) How does FE cover both  north and south at the same time?

If you want raw data, sun rise sun set times have already been posted on a previous thread. Thork has also claimed an accurate FE map. So off you go.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Noether's Theorem

« on: December 15, 2010, 06:01:14 AM »

In short, a flat earth does not obey the laws of physics.

Or logic or common sence or scrutiny...

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: shadow of a disk during lunar eclipse & curved gravity?

« on: December 15, 2010, 05:58:23 AM »

If a FE were rotating, it should be possible to measure the angular acceleration. Simple plumbob experiment comes to mind. UA/gravity force in the y direction, centripital force in the x direction. If no x vector force is measured then either the Earth is not flat or FE is not rotating.

24

Flat Earth General / Re: I think I understand the resurgence in flat earth theory

« on: December 15, 2010, 05:49:30 AM »

First, we know its on the UN flag. It hasn't escaped us. We also know our map is what RErs call a Polar azimuthal projection. The only difference being we do not think it is a projection, but an accurate representation of the earth.

Southern Hemisphere navigation can be easily explained but there is a lot of it, so pick which facets do not sit well with you.

Woah... Wait! The FES has an Accurate map! Eureka!

Great, now you can explain accurate weather/seasonal patterns and day/night cycles. Consistant for Northern and Southern hemisphere.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Data consistency test.

« on: December 15, 2010, 05:20:23 AM »

There doesn't seem to be an "unknown" option to select.

If RE can calculate the thickness of the earth, then why can't FE?

Simple answer is, because the Earth is not flat, therefore no FE thickness can be determined.

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Will Virgin Galactic change any FE believers when it goes operational soon?

« on: December 15, 2010, 05:15:59 AM »

From memory, the FES stance on this type of evidence involves a conspiricy, lost of drugs (seditives or LSD) and bowed windows (fish eye lens effect).

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Burden of Proof?

« on: December 14, 2010, 06:21:39 AM »

So you believe the Earth is flat but won't admit it?

Well, at least you are halfway there!

You are full of yourself!

I put young earthers, intelligent designers and FEer's into the same nut bar. You know that there is a overwhelming amount of data, theory and experiments that support RE. FE is internally inconsistant and contradictory.

Try travelling a bit, doing some experiments and correlating some of the data. You will find that the earth is round. But I do believe that you English Gentleman, that you will still be a FEer.

Hows the FE map going?

28

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Stop deleting my threads!

« on: December 14, 2010, 05:54:51 AM »

Any topic that makes too much sence on the RE behalf tends to get moved to the bottom of the pile. This way FEer's don't have to argue against questions that they know they do not have answers to.

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Atmosphere

« on: December 13, 2010, 06:22:04 AM »

Is it flat or domed?

This presumably depends on whether the Earth is a small disk or a vast plane. As such, FErs will not all agree on this question.

There's a supprise! If FEer's can't agree amoung themselves, how are they expected to convince anyone?

If this is also your opinion fluffy, then I suggest that you stop posting now. This response shows that you have no credibility.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: sun's angle

« on: December 13, 2010, 06:14:58 AM »

no matter how far the north pole is away from the sun, the angle would not be the same as a round earth.

this statement is not truthful.

Are you just trying to increase your posts by filling it full of low content? Stop trolling and post something worth while.