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 - Ejak2021

Pages: [1] 2 3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: December 22, 2009, 12:47:28 PM »
But my face is not made of rock.
Therefore I have no reason to suspect that I was born out of a rock.
This is a non sequitor, so I'll just leave it at that.

I think it's pretty immature to doubt my sincerity, my theory is widely accepted in the non-globular scientific community, and is backed up by pages of careful research and abundant fossil evidence. Your claims are outlandish.
1) Non-globular scientific community is an oxymoron.
2) "Pages of careful research" isn't very impressive.  Basically, it's a college essay paper.
3) How does the "abundant fossil evidence" in any way support your claims?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: December 21, 2009, 05:29:33 PM »
That's a pretty abysmal induction. If I found a rock formation which I could fit my face into, would I be inclined to induce that I had been born out of a rock? (I wouldn't. You might, I don't know, but the point is, most people wouldn't, because what kind of an argument is that?)
Maybe, if your face was made of rock with a similar structure and composition, and there was evidence that rock was missing from the formation.

I challenge you to demonstrate, or at least explain why an ocean crossing would be impossible for these creatures. I very strongly disagree. Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?
I know you aren't being serious right now, especially because of the underlined.  But, if you really want people to believe in dinosaur-pirates, you'll have to provide evidence.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: December 21, 2009, 11:26:48 AM »
Did you draw the vectors showing the movements of the plates on there, too?

Here's a very good picture of Pangaea, and please note that I did not say "perfectly.":

I would've used a different font for the title, or at least made it not bold.

Now, would you like to address anything else from my post?  If you want to argue against Pangaea, you're going to have to explain the fossils and such.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: December 21, 2009, 11:00:55 AM »
Excuse me, have you seen Pangea? Also, how can we trace back thing we don't properly understand?

And what stop Antarctica from being there all along, even when/if Pangea was there?
No, I haven't, because it hasn't existed for 250 million years.  If you take areas where plates are separating and move them back together, and do the opposite with areas where plates are meeting, you get one big landmass.  The continents even fit together!  Also, there exists fossil evidence that the continents were once joined--the fossilized remnants of the same types of animals on two separate continents.  An ocean crossing would be impossible for for these creatures. (No Dinosaur-Pirates)

Also, I thought the mechanisms of plate tectonics were well-understood, at least at a basic level.  Regardless, the plates--and where they are converging, separating, or sliding past one another--have been mapped out.  That information alone is enough to conclude that there used to be a super-continent.  And Pangaea wasn't the first, nor will it be the last super-continent;  the formation and break-up of super-continents is cyclic.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: December 20, 2009, 03:59:32 PM »
@Optimus:  Okay, I did not understand that you were proposing that.  Well, there is one very obvious obstacle to FE tectonics being the same as they are in RE:  Pangea.  If you trace back the movements of the plates, you get this one giant landmass.  Antarctica was a part of Pangea, but FE requires the Ice Wall (Antarctica) hold in the oceans.  These two things are exclusive, only one can be true.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: December 20, 2009, 03:43:37 PM »
...the ice will come off worse against 7+km of solid rock.
Now that is a very good point and one I can't believe I didn't think about.  So, even if plate tectonics happened like it would on an FE, it still qouldn't work because the Ice Wall would be eventually destroyed.
I do agree with your point that FE plate tectonics would work, assuming the mantle holds convective currents, but the way they're mapped out wouldn't.

Anyway, nice response Ejak, always good to see polite and well written posts.  They're often few and far between on these forums.
You rage, you lose.  The point of this site is to get a rise out of anyone expecting an easy win.  This site is a great place to get yourself thinking about things you've never really thought about before, and it's good for a few laughs too.  Oh, and thank you!

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: December 20, 2009, 10:58:24 AM »
@ Joeval:  I figure that if there was an immovable Ice Wall, then when a plate pushes against it it's going to be the same as when two plates collide.

@ Optimus:  Saying "plate tectonics won't work on FE" is a bad argument, because--as you've been saying--there could be plate tectonics on FE.  But, we know how plate tectonics works on Earth and the movements of the plates, whose boundaries have been mapped out, only makes sense on a round Earth. 

When someone says "plate tectonics won't work," I believe they are making latter argument--that the observed system of plate tectonics wouldn't be possible on an FE.  You're referring to the general idea of "the movement of plates of crust material due to convection currents," which is what "plate tectonics" means.  So, I think the huff and puff going on in here is a misunderstanding.

Also note:  The "FE Map" is an azimuthal projection (I believe) of the Earth from the North Pole.  A line from the north pole (or crossing it) to any other point on that map will be to scale with a similar line.  So, if two lines are drawn in this manner, then the longer one will be a greater distance.  Otherwise it is only useful as a demonstration of the general layout of the FE.  Also, it was grabbed straight off of Wikipedia.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: December 18, 2009, 04:50:38 PM »
Wouldn't there be a subduction zone around the perimeter of Antarctica?  And lava spewing out of the North Pole?  When you make pasta in a pot, the pasta surges up at the center and goes down at the perimeter.  FE plate tectonics would work something like that, wouldn't they?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Magnetic Flow (Simplified)
« on: December 17, 2009, 08:26:59 PM »
The reason you aren't having luck with it is probably that the Earth isn't flat.  Anyway, those points (roughly) have been proven to be the magnetic poles.  From what I gather, the Canadian government watches the northern pole, while Vostok Station in Antarctica watches the southern one.  There could be others involved, too.  So, while making the FE's edge "south" might work, it is false because the geographic south pole (the edge) is not the the magnetic south pole. 

Something I learned from Wikipedia:  There are the magnetic poles, and the geomagnetic poles.  The magnetic poles are the points on the surface of the Earth where the magnetic field is vertical.  The geomagnetic poles are the points where an axis that best-represents (because the Earth isn't perfectly dipole) the Earth's field intersects the Earths surface.  Basically, because of variables in the Earth, the field isn't vertical directly over the would-be axis of the Earth's magnetic field.  Not sure if this is relevant info or not.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Magnetic Flow (Simplified)
« on: December 16, 2009, 08:23:49 PM »
Quote from: Optimus Prime
Therefore Magnetic North is the Center of our Earth, while the Magnetic South would encircle it.

But, the Magnetic Poles are at different locations than the geographic poles, aren't they?  I looked it up and marked their (general) locations on the FE "map."  If anyone has a problem with my map, just let me know.

The FE magnetic field is REALLY wonky.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Where is magnetic south under FET?
« on: December 06, 2009, 07:50:25 PM »
Here is a picture of the side-view of the FE.  The Magnetic Poles are in their proper places.  I also included a top-down view.  Also, from now on, I'm going to refer to the magnetic poles as "the one up-top" and "the one down-below" because sometimes they are referred to by their location and sometimes their polarity.  My terminology removes any possible confusion...North is generally regarded as the "top" of the Earth, and no one disputes this, right?  Also, I made that picture before I decided to do this, but since it's a picture, it shouldn't be confusing.

Locations of the magnetic poles:
The Magnetic Pole Up-Top (82.7*N, 114.4*W)
The One Down-Below (63.5*S, 138*E)

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Where is magnetic south under FET?
« on: December 06, 2009, 05:22:24 PM »
Geographic Poles =/= Magnetic Poles

Where the Magnetic South Pole is*.

It would be on the surface of the Flat Earth, not underneath.

*Well, an estimate of its location in 2004.

Actually, the "magnet" that is responsible for the earth's magnetic poles is located deep inside the earth.  You may have heard it referred to as the earth's core.
Uh, I think you misinterpreted my post.  I know the Earth's core is made of iron(?), and that its spinning creates a dynamo effect (I think?), and that creates a magnetic field.  In the last sentence in my post, by "it" I meant "the Magnetic South Pole."  Whether it's the North or South (magnetically), I'm not sure, but the way I'm referring to it is the magnetic pole nearest the Geographic South Pole.

Anyway, my point was this:  The top of the FE Rectangle diagram here in this thread (which is supposed to be a side-view of the FE, I think) will have the entire surface of the Earth on its top.  The Magnetic North Pole (In the Southern Hemisphere (why'd they have to use directions?)) is on the surface of the Earth, hence it is on the top of the rectangle.  Walk around it [the pole] with a compass and the needle will spin to point at one point.  If the magnetic south pole was under the Earth, then--correct me if I'm wrong--there probably shouldn't be a place where this happens.  It will always point "to the Ice Wall," that is to say, the Geographic South Pole.

Now, if someone draws the field lines from a bird's eye view from this point to magnetic north, they will get confused very quickly.

Edit:  Here is a picture with the magnetic poles marked.  Now it just needs the field lines.  The locations are approximate because the FE map is super deformed.  Actually I could use the lines of latitude and longitude to place the marks.  I'll get on that, but the current map is good enough to demonstrate my point.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Where is magnetic south under FET?
« on: December 02, 2009, 07:43:57 PM »
Geographic Poles =/= Magnetic Poles

Where the Magnetic South Pole is*.

It would be on the surface of the Flat Earth, not underneath.

*Well, an estimate of its location in 2004.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Lit Portion of the Earth Disagrees with FE.
« on: October 29, 2009, 12:26:20 PM »
Yes, and that observation is exactly what the Ice Wall hypothesis would predict. About half of it would be lit directly by the Sun, with the other half being lit by the sky mirror. Because the sky mirror focuses the light onto Earth, the Sun would appear to be in the sky - and, thanks to bendy light, it could appear quite close to the horizon, too, if the sky mirror were large enough.
It'd be more than half, because the sun can only light up a circular area with a diameter equaling the distance between the poles.  Draw a circle, then draw a circle within it with a diameter equal to the former's radius.  You'll see what I mean.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Lit Portion of the Earth Disagrees with FE.
« on: October 29, 2009, 11:46:55 AM »
No. I should perhaps be a bit more lucid in my description of the mirror; it is not perfectly ellipsoidal, rather, each azimuthal segment of the mirror is part of an ellipsoid with a focus somewhere on the other side of the Earth. The Sun is focused only onto the opposite side of the Ice Wall to the one it is currently nearest.
No, I mean it is observed that the entire Ice Wall would be lit.  You can see in the .gif's on page 1, that during the winter solstice Antarctica is completely in daytime.  What would the Sun even look like in the sky?  The Southern sky in FE is really fudged up because you can look south and see the same thing on opposite sides of the disc.

I love that for each bit of disproof of FET, the true believers have to add one more level of complexity to their model making it that much more improbable.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to go into Spore and add a bunch of stuff to my Earthship.  Plus, I have to make a bunch of different ones because there is no 'one' FE model.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Lit Portion of the Earth Disagrees with FE.
« on: October 29, 2009, 10:34:36 AM »
When the Sun is south of the Equator, it is closer to one focus of the ellipsoidal mirror, and the light is more directly focused onto the portion of the Ice Wall opposite the Sun.
Okay, but the entire Ice Wall would be lit up, I think.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Lit Portion of the Earth Disagrees with FE.
« on: October 29, 2009, 10:12:38 AM »
As I have already stated, it does not change shape. I think I recall coming up with a figure of about 8 Mm for its altitude when I first came up with the idea, but I don't remember where that number came from. It is a natural object.
How does it reflect light to completely different parts of the Earth at different times of the year?  The Sun doesn't move that much.  Enigma might have to make those animations. :/

During an equinox, it [the lit area of the Earth] is a semicircle.
In the Southern Summer, it's a ring (with a larger area on one side).  If the sky mirror stayed in the same orientation, the lit area would be the same general shape throughout the year.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Lit Portion of the Earth Disagrees with FE.
« on: October 29, 2009, 09:56:38 AM »
No; it is probably an ellipsoidal mirror, so that when the Sun is at one focus, a particular point on the surface of the Earth is at the other and light is mostly reflected to that point and those around it. For this reason, light from the Earth is focused onto the Sun, but by the time it gets back down to Earth it has become so unfocused that it blends in with the blue background of the sky, so we don't see the ground reflected.
Okay, so does it change shape?  Also, how high does you figure it to be?  And is this a natural object or did the Conspiracy make it so that exactly half of the Earth would be lit along a great circle path at any given time so that it would make sense with a round Earth?  Because, if it wasn't like that, it would definitely prove the Earth wasn't round.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Lit Portion of the Earth Disagrees with FE.
« on: October 29, 2009, 09:11:24 AM »
What are you guys even going on about?

Okay, so if the sky mirror is as large as the Earth, wouldn't it reflect light back on the entire Earth?  And wouldn't we be able to see the ground in the sky?  It would have to change shape to light up different parts of the at different times of the year, because the sun moving doesn't really explain it at all.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Lit Portion of the Earth Disagrees with FE.
« on: October 28, 2009, 10:48:47 PM »
If you don't like the answers you get, don't ask the questions.
So, you're saying I shouldn't ask anything on these forums, because I won't get a good answer?

As I've said, this is "Debate & Discussion," so I figured I could discuss any answers given in this thread.  If I only wanted an answer, I would've posted in Q&C.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Lit Portion of the Earth Disagrees with FE.
« on: October 28, 2009, 10:23:58 PM »
Okay so right now, FE doesn't have an explanation.  It has an idea for a possible explanation, but it hasn't really been developed at all.

Oh, and I was referencing it Matrix that says that?  Everyone switches usernames and avatars and it confuses me. :(

Well, somebody says basically, "The Earth is flat, therefore the RE explanation can't be correct, so there must be an explanation that works with FE."

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Lit Portion of the Earth Disagrees with FE.
« on: October 28, 2009, 10:11:50 PM »
@ Parsifal:  I said "explain."  Okay technically, I asked what could explain, but would you mind explaining anyway?  This is Debate & Discussion.

There is a mirror in the sky which reflect sunlight onto the far side of the Earth during the southern summer.
How does it change its orientation to shine on different parts of the Earth during the course of a year?  How large is it? What's it made of?  What supports it?  How do you know it exists besides the Earth is flat, so it can't be that the Earth is round?  How do you know it isn't Jesus that makes it happen?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Lit Portion of the Earth Disagrees with FE.
« on: October 28, 2009, 10:00:21 PM »
I could make those too.  It'll take me a while though.  Give me a couple of days.
If you want to.  They aren't really necessary to explain--it's pretty easy to visualize.

I wonder if there is a program that can show azimuthal projections through the day-night cycle?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Lit Portion of the Earth Disagrees with FE.
« on: October 28, 2009, 09:53:28 PM »
Here are some animations I did a while ago for something else.

I remember seeing those, but I forgot who made them, and didn't know if anyone would know what I was talking about if I asked for them.  Unfortunately that isn't the usual FE map.  It would be even more screwed up on that one, I bet.

Also, the regular FE map is an azimuthal projection too, isn't it?  Just centered at the North Pole. 
I've been meaning to make a satire thread about how FE accurately predicts distances, but only using points situated directly North/South of each other.  Just so ya' know.

@ Parsifal:  I said "explain."  Okay technically, I asked what could explain, but would you mind explaining anyway?  This is Debate & Discussion.

Flat Earth Debate / The Lit Portion of the Earth Disagrees with FE.
« on: October 28, 2009, 07:29:11 PM »
There was a thread by some guy a little while ago--he kept saying the sun would have to have a lampshade to work.  He was using pretty much the argument I'm going to post, but he didn't explain it very well from what I remember.

What shape will the light from the Sun make on the ground?  It would make sense if it was a circle.  But, if you map the actual lit portion the world on an FE map, it definitely isn't a circle.  On an equinox, a semicircle is lit up.  It's actually worse when it's Summer in the Southern Hemisphere because there is a ring of light around Antarctica (Ice Wall).

What could possibly explain this in FE?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Night and Day
« on: October 28, 2009, 06:41:43 PM »

In order to see the whole sun, each light ray would have to come out of the sun at a slightly different angle.  The angle between the extreme "edges" of the sun entering your eyes gives you information about its size and shape.

I believe Parsifal has answered the question about the curvature.  The short answer is yes, in the same way that a parabola curves at a steady rate.
I really hate my internet. (failed to post my reply)

How I understand Bendy Light:  Light follows a parabola.  The parabola is always oriented the same way.  So, light originating on the side of the Sun starts at the bottom of the dip in the parabola.  Light from the bottom of the Sun starts in a steep part.

I might make a diagram of this.

I didn't create the intersecting light argument, so I may have misunderstood it.  I haven't really seen anyone try to disprove it beyond saying "it won't happen."  But, I think it won't happen from the insight provided by this discussion.

I just thought of a really good question, though, so I am going to make a thread in Q&CI think its better suited to D&D.

Also, I just realized I copied my post in case the internet failed, so it was on my clipboard and I didn't have to type that.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Night and Day
« on: October 28, 2009, 05:52:32 PM »
@ enigma:  shouldn't there be a light ray identical to that one coming from all sides of the sun?  Otherwise, you'd only see part of the sun at any one time.  And does bendy light always curve at a steady rate?

Just because the beams intersect doesn't mean they appear in the same place. They would be approaching an observer from different angles; the ground would still appear below the Sun.
Okay, I can see that in my brain.  I'm gonna make ONE more diagram..

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Night and Day
« on: October 27, 2009, 08:21:30 PM »
So what exactly are you trying to show in this diagram?
Same thing all the others have been brought up to explain--the sun appearing superimposed on the ground at sunset.  When light from the sun curves back up, it will intersect light from the ground at some point.  If you look at the two intersecting beams of light, you will see the sun and the ground at the same time.  I could be confused, though.

[Good job, mods with the page-stretching and stuff.]

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Night and Day
« on: October 27, 2009, 06:13:39 PM »
I made this diagram here to explain the effect everyone is discussing.  It is as simple as possible, with only 2 lines and the Earth...and the Sun.  The curves are identical.  The light coming from the Sun starts out perpendicular (pretty much) to the Surface, from the middle (pretty much);  If you have a problem with the inaccuracy, you can move the sun around and the validity is unaffected, as the effect should occur at multiple points.  The red line starts at 0*, so it is the farthest away you could see on its corresponding light curve ray thingy.  Though, it still hasn't been pinned down exactly how bendy light is alleged to travel--what curve, exactly, it will follow.

Anyway, analyze:

ONE MORE THING:  Light radiates out in all directions, doesn't it?  So, the light ray could be coming from any point?  The FES should work on bendy-light paths, rather than leaving it up to RE'ers.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: satellites
« on: October 26, 2009, 07:27:55 PM »
hey whats going on?

hey got a couple of questions

1) i live in the bush and at night when im outside i can see a lot of stars. also on occasion i can see satellites passing overhead. like lights flashing and moving really fast. they only stay in the sky for a minute or so before passing off the horizon.
2) some one i know is hell into bouncing radio waves off satellites and to other people in the other countries. how does that work?
3)people have sailed around antarctica. people have.
4)oh yeah. how bout in the 18th century of whatever when people where discovering the world. when explorers sailed around the world and make maps. im almost sure they were not in on the conspiracy.
5)do we have bases in Antarctica according to your theory? like where people are doing research and stuff?
6) what is the south pole? is it a stick they have stuck in the ground as part of the conspiracy to show that there is a south pole?
FE'ers are so helpful, aren't they?  I'll try to explain based on what I've seen posted in this forum.

1) a) "holograms projected by the conspiracy"
    b) "high-altitude fake-satellites," what exactly those are and how they emulate a satellite in orbit is never explained, though.

2)There was a thread about this, but without satellites, a while ago.  Despite Tom Bishop's efforts, it wasn't reconciled with FE.

3) a) They are sailing around the ice wall and don't notice they are turning the wrong way.
    b) Another landmass everyone thinks is Antarctica--disproven easily by taking a compass with you.  If it ever points at the landmass, it isn't Anarctica.

4) That's a very good point, actually!  I haven't seen a thread on that.  Maybe consider it for a future thread, if you can stand the company.

5) Maybe?  Very close to the edge, if there are.  Or they are Conspiracy bases with evil penguins with lasers to keep the elephants and the turtle secret.  You'll get that joke eventually.

6) Geographically...the edge, I guess.  The magnetic south pole doesn't make sense at all, really.

7) Oh, there were only 6.

Pages: [1] 2 3