1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Flaw with the EA

« on: March 28, 2010, 06:34:01 PM »

And since this is a Round Earth victory, it gets treated the way all the other Round Earth victories do.

Ignored.

Like my legitimate EnaG critique, or my Sextants topic.

So the best solution is for RE'ers to just keep posting in these topics so that they stay at the top of the board.  That way, even if the FE'ers try to ignore victories like this, they still get shoved in their face!

Also like the Antarctic Sun topic, the Why Can Nobody Go Further Than 90^oS topic, the Why Do Geostationary Satellite Dishes All Point In The Same Direction topic, etc.

Exactly.  I'm such an egotistical bastard I decided to make it seem like I had the most awesome topic ever.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Flaw with the EA

« on: March 28, 2010, 12:11:29 PM »

And here's why:

My question still hasn't been answered.

WHY does the bow-effect occur?

WHY does the influence of the UA manage to only effect the earth the stars above us?

All you've done is given a name to the phenomena I have so far failed to find any explanation for.

Most of the topics that came up when I searched were people simply saying what the bow effect is/causes, and people like yourself telling others to go search for it.

Let me repeat myself.

To be fair, we still haven't proven how gravity works. Sure, we see the correlations of it and have theories, but we still don't know what the actual mechanism behind gravity is.

I don't think its quite right to say that FE must know what causes all of it's forces when RE still does not know what causes it's own fundamental force.

Two Wrongs don't make a right?  Aren't you guys trying to make your theory superior to ours?  You shouldn't be using flaws in ours as excuses for yours.

Also we have plenty of valid theories behind the mechanism of gravity and are looking into proving them (most physiscists seem to think that since all other particles except for the higgs boson and the graviton in particle field theory have been found, the higgs boson and graviton will one day present themselves making the graviton the most likely explanation.)

And since science is something which is testable, you guys  should get on failing to disprove (since the scientific way of proving something is failing to disprove it.) the UA theory and give it a better basis than the graviton (which it currently does not have).

explain that and how the starts in the sky's change over the season's due to the fact that the earth is round and rotating?

They will probably tell you the flat earth is spinning and that bendy light only lets you see certain stars or something.  Even though bendy light would probably majorly fuck around with the way the stars looked in the sky if it were true, as Thermal Detonator pointed out.

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)

« on: March 28, 2010, 12:01:55 PM »

We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that)

All I see is some conspiracy mumbo jumbo, and labeling anything that proves it as being made up.



Why don't you just call yourself blind and we'll call it a day?

Because, that would be a lie. You are the one who has been blinded my friend. So blind you are, you can't even find the search function.

Using the search function on this site is a logical fallacy.

All your proof is defined as such because you think that the world being flat is fact, therefore any observations must be able to be explained in such a way that fits, nomatter how stupid and illogical they are.

And the predictable FE'er response is: Science proves flat earth quite readily.

Without providing any proof of this statement whatsoever.

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)

« on: March 26, 2010, 11:11:36 AM »

Yes, you must prove that x doesn\'t work in science. We have already tried and failed to disprove FE as a \"community\".

Henry Yule Oldam fails to disprove the Bedford level experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Yule_Oldham

Erastothenes fails to disprove the radius of the earth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

etc etc etc etc

Both of those people disprove EnaG, but some people will probably be as quick to call those experiments fake or cheats as the RE'ers with Rowbotham.

That or they will cite Blount's experiment.  However, given the fact that there have been no repeat trials recorded with the same results, scientifically those results aren't really valid.

And before I get a Bishop-esque response simply saying "Actually there have been." or some such thing, please post some sort of link to these recorded subsequent trials.  Otherwise, your claim is as valid as me saying I'm actually a giant pear.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)

« on: March 26, 2010, 10:37:28 AM »

You make a poor analogy. The info is up, you just have to quit being lazy and retrieve it.

I did.

The FAQ clearly says that this site is supposed to be a debate between both sides in order to ascertain the truth.  Meaning that both sides have valuable info to bring the to the table and neither side is strictly correct.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Flaw with the EA

« on: March 26, 2010, 08:46:57 AM »

And here's why:

My question still hasn't been answered.

WHY does the bow-effect occur?

WHY does the influence of the UA manage to only effect the earth the stars above us?

All you've done is given a name to the phenomena I have so far failed to find any explanation for.

Most of the topics that came up when I searched were people simply saying what the bow effect is/causes, and people like yourself telling others to go search for it.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Flaw with the EA

« on: March 26, 2010, 08:29:44 AM »

So what is this thread about? Did RE win?

Basically.

We pretty much showed that the FE'ers don't really know anything about how the UA would work.  It doesn't show FET to be false, but its a step forward in showing just how unfounded it is.

Or, it shows that RE'ers perpetually fail at doing a little research. Search for 'bow-shock'.

The search yielded another theory.

It was theoretical explanation of how the force of a theoretical mass affects a theoretical flat earth.

I think my statement still stands.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Theories

« on: March 26, 2010, 12:51:44 AM »

Try and stay focus guys.

This topic has been settled, so these low content posts are just its death throes.

Normally I apply a higher standard to what I post, but since Tom Bishop made an adequate response to my Op on the first page, there's not much left to talk about here.

So I'm letting of some steam in the form of these random posts, because lets face, lots of stress is never a good thing.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)

« on: March 26, 2010, 12:27:33 AM »

We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that)

All I see is some conspiracy mumbo jumbo, and labeling anything that proves it as being made up.



Why don't you just call yourself blind and we'll call it a day?

Because, that would be a lie. You are the one who has been blinded my friend. So blind you are, you can't even find the search function.

Okay repeating the same argument over and over without providing any valid backup does not make you a good debater, it makes you an idiot.

Please post a new argument or an example of what you're talking about.  I could say the Earth is shaped like a giant penis, but that doesn't automatically make it so.  You telling us that there is proof somewhere that the earth is flat means just as little.

I'm still not convinced you've done any form of research.

I'm not the one making the claims here.  You've made the claim that the earth is flat, so I'm asking you to back it up since you are the claimant in this case.

If I had been going around claiming the earth was round in the same argumentative sense you have been, I would present research.

I have, however I don't feel like restating it every time some angry newb wants it. It's on this forum, I'm sure you're smart enough to find it.

I should try using the "I'm tired of providing research" in my biology lab next week.  I'm sure I'll get a great grade on that lab report.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Flaw with the EA

« on: March 25, 2010, 11:05:12 PM »

And since this is a Round Earth victory, it gets treated the way all the other Round Earth victories do.

Ignored.

Like my legitimate EnaG critique, or my Sextants topic.

So the best solution is for RE'ers to just keep posting in these topics so that they stay at the top of the board.  That way, even if the FE'ers try to ignore victories like this, they still get shoved in their face!

11

Flat Earth General / Re: More konspirasee?

« on: March 25, 2010, 11:00:37 PM »

where did that come from jim?

It's a Dylan Moran quote.

Haha another fan 

oh, i thought he was serious, lol

What makes you think that he wasn't?

BECAUSE ITS THE KUHNSPEHREHSEH!!!!!!

I'm tempted to try to spend time coming up with more ridiculous ways to spell that. 

Ways which symbolically represent my opinion of the conspiracy itself.

Illogical, bloated, and too large to work in an practical sense.

I think it would be a good idea for someone to go through and work out a hypothetical cost/income for the conspiracy and see if its actually profitable in any way shape or form.

If someone actually does that and shows the conspiracy to not be profitable, FET will collapse until they find a seconday explanation for the falsification of NASA's info.

12

Flat Earth General / Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)

« on: March 25, 2010, 10:56:51 PM »

We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that)

All I see is some conspiracy mumbo jumbo, and labeling anything that proves it as being made up.



Why don't you just call yourself blind and we'll call it a day?

Because, that would be a lie. You are the one who has been blinded my friend. So blind you are, you can't even find the search function.

Okay repeating the same argument over and over without providing any valid backup does not make you a good debater, it makes you an idiot.

Please post a new argument or an example of what you're talking about.  I could say the Earth is shaped like a giant penis, but that doesn't automatically make it so.  You telling us that there is proof somewhere that the earth is flat means just as little.

I'm still not convinced you've done any form of research.

I'm not the one making the claims here.  You've made the claim that the earth is flat, so I'm asking you to back it up since you are the claimant in this case.

If I had been going around claiming the earth was round in the same argumentative sense you have been, I would present research.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Theories

« on: March 25, 2010, 09:34:38 PM »

I pointed out that DSLR's dont have digital zoom in this thread why was it deleted

I probably removed yours by accident while I was removing the spam comments. My apologies.

no worries man i was just baffled, anywhoo

Damn!  My RE Conspiracy Theory has been foiled!  Or has it?

Pwned

earth is flat

rejoice

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Damne you Flat Earth Society!  My evil Round Earht related plans have been foiled again!

*cue Tom Bishop wearing nothing but a red cape, red underwear, and a red mask, flying through the sky with a victorious smirk on his face*

14

Flat Earth General / Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)

« on: March 25, 2010, 09:32:54 PM »

We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that)

All I see is some conspiracy mumbo jumbo, and labeling anything that proves it as being made up.



Why don't you just call yourself blind and we'll call it a day?

Because, that would be a lie. You are the one who has been blinded my friend. So blind you are, you can't even find the search function.

Okay repeating the same argument over and over without providing any valid backup does not make you a good debater, it makes you an idiot.

Please post a new argument or an example of what you're talking about.  I could say the Earth is shaped like a giant penis, but that doesn't automatically make it so.  You telling us that there is proof somewhere that the earth is flat means just as little.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Theories

« on: March 25, 2010, 08:35:32 PM »

I pointed out that DSLR's dont have digital zoom in this thread why was it deleted

I probably removed yours by accident while I was removing the spam comments. My apologies.

no worries man i was just baffled, anywhoo

Damn!  My RE Conspiracy Theory has been foiled!  Or has it?

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Theories

« on: March 25, 2010, 06:39:03 PM »

... and that antarctica exists.

Nobody denys the existence of Antarctica.

FETs don't believe it's a polar land mass though.

Does that mean it doesn't exist?

It doesn't exist as a continent.

Unless you're looking at willmore's model where the continent antarctice exists in conjunction with the wall.  But everyone's pretty much said that model is shit.

17

Flat Earth General / Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)

« on: March 25, 2010, 06:26:24 PM »

We (FE'rs) have already done much to disprove RE (a simple search will prove that)

All I see is some conspiracy mumbo jumbo, and labeling anything that proves it as being made up.



Why don't you just call yourself blind and we'll call it a day?

If only it were so easy right?

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Flaw with the EA

« on: March 25, 2010, 05:47:52 PM »

It's because I'm always right. Sometimes I just feel the need to portray it.

But you should know being a semantics bitch is really really annoying.

I know. But you kept me going so I had to comply.

or you could have stopped.  But apparently being wrong became a death sentence when I wasn't looking.

Exactly.

So what is this thread about? Did RE win?

Basically.

We pretty much showed that the FE'ers don't really know anything about how the UA would work.  It doesn't show FET to be false, but its a step forward in showing just how unfounded it is.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Theories

« on: March 25, 2010, 05:46:09 PM »

I pointed out that DSLR's dont have digital zoom in this thread why was it deleted

That's a good question. I saw the original post and it didn't seem delete-worthy at all. It actually helped with the conversation greatly.

It's because FET is attempting to create a conspiracy to hide the fact that the earth is round.  Part of doing that was deleting your assertion that you were not using digital zoom.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Flaw with the EA

« on: March 25, 2010, 05:27:06 PM »

It's because I'm always right. Sometimes I just feel the need to portray it.

But you should know being a semantics bitch is really really annoying.

I know. But you kept me going so I had to comply.

or you could have stopped.  But apparently being wrong became a death sentence when I wasn't looking.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Flaw with the EA

« on: March 25, 2010, 05:21:34 PM »

It's because I'm always right. Sometimes I just feel the need to portray it.

But you should know being a semantics bitch is really really annoying.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Flaw with the EA

« on: March 25, 2010, 05:06:48 PM »

"Isaac Newton first proposed that Earth was not perfectly round. Instead, he suggested it was an oblate spheroid—a sphere that is squashed at its poles and swollen at the equator. He was correct and, because of this bulge, the distance from Earth's center to sea level is roughly 21 kilometers (13 miles) greater at the equator than at the poles."

-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earth-is-not-round

2fst4u is being a worse semantics bitch than the FE'ers.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)

« on: March 25, 2010, 04:27:09 PM »

Yes, you must prove that x doesn't work in science. We have already tried and failed to disprove FE as a "community".

So you and all the other FE'ers have made active efforts to disprove FET?

Link me to those efforts and I concede to you.

On the same taken I encourage RE'ers to attempt to disprove RET and if they fail to do so, that can be interpreted as proof of its validity.

So all of you FE'ers and us RE'ers as a community made active and collaborative efforts to disprove FET?

Link me to those efforts and I concede to you.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Flaw with the EA

« on: March 25, 2010, 04:25:54 PM »

Oblate means squashed. An oblate spheroid is still perfectly round as it still has no flat sides.

I'm right, I actually am.

Then by your definition a prolate spheroid is also a perfect sphere?

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Flaw with the EA

« on: March 25, 2010, 03:56:11 PM »

An oblate spheroid is perfectly round. I don't know of any spheroids that have flat sides.

... That's why they're not they're not spheroids.

The "Oblate" part means they're not normal everyday spheroids, as they have flat sides.

Jesus why is this so difficult?

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Flaw with the EA

« on: March 25, 2010, 03:14:29 PM »

The Science that says a radio signal, even from the tallest mountain, can't reach the other side of the world?

Um... Well, it can. HF can be reflected off the ionosphere.

Isn't the ionosphere art of the conspiracy?

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Theories

« on: March 25, 2010, 02:47:16 PM »

Piss off with your faggotry pages. Nobody takes you seriously when you post them.

Keep inflammatory comments out of the upper forums, please.

If inflammatory comments aren't allowed, how come spam is?

Technically, it isn't allowed.

28

Flat Earth General / Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)

« on: March 25, 2010, 02:46:12 PM »

Yes, you must prove that x doesn't work in science. We have already tried and failed to disprove FE as a "community".

So you and all the other FE'ers have made active efforts to disprove FET?

Link me to those efforts and I concede to you.

On the same taken I encourage RE'ers to attempt to disprove RET and if they fail to do so, that can be interpreted as proof of its validity.

29

Flat Earth General / Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)

« on: March 25, 2010, 02:43:45 PM »

Newsflash:  All FET has done is prevent counter-theories.  None of them have been shown to  be superior to RET yet.  ENaG was the closest attempt to do that, but Rowbotham's math was wrong.

Actually, it wasn't.

Actually it was.

If you look up the estimations for the curvature of the Earth which RET theory espouses you'll find they are far different from Rowbowtham's calculations.

Rowbowtham succeeded in disproving "a" round earth.  But not "the" round earth.

30

Flat Earth General / Re: To all RE'ers: why are we arguing?

« on: March 25, 2010, 01:34:44 PM »

I'm here to practice debating with illogical people and debating in general.