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 - troy2000

Pages: [1] 2
1
You're not going to get any intelligent answers from FE supporters with this question.  They already know that a low-cost trip to the supposed "ice wall" will invalidate their theory in an instant.

2
"lawl", is every single one of your posts "LOL" ? ::)

3
I'd be willing to contribute 20.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why?
« on: August 15, 2008, 06:34:06 AM »
Oh I see.  Well, have fun Robosteve ;D.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why?
« on: August 15, 2008, 05:54:08 AM »
If that is your opinion, why did you continue to post after reading the original question.  Off-topic debate aside, I have already recieved the answer I was looking for from Mayhem.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why?
« on: August 15, 2008, 05:33:15 AM »
In the FE model, why do the stars (and possibly the moon) need to exist?  Obviously they are not there specifically for our amusement, so why then do they exist?
I don't want to put words in Robosteve's mouth, but I believe his responses are related to the fact that you asked a ludicrous question. Why does something NEED to exist? It exists because we can see it. Exactly the same is in the RE model. Why does it NEED to exist? I don't think you thought enough about your question before you tried to put it into words.

I'm asking because according to FE, there is no solid explanation of what the stars are.  The reason I question whether they need to exist (assuming on the FE model they are not other suns) is because if they serve no relevant function to Earth, they would not have formed above the planet in the first place.  It's a perfectly valid question.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why?
« on: August 14, 2008, 04:02:37 PM »
I'm not asking why the universe exists.  I'm asking why stars are orbiting and accellerating with the Earth.  There is no known possible way for them to emit light and no explanation of what they are in FE.  They do not create any relevant contribution to overall illumination either.  In either theory, phenomena do not come into existance for no reason what-so-ever.



They exist because people opened their windows and looked up at the sky at night.  Saw a bunch of points of light and had to explain them. 

They must exist in FET because they are observable directly.  The explanation fits the naked eye observations and thus is their correct model, subject to change.

Not all FET proponents consider them to be starts and just the same, not all FET proponents consider them to be tiny points of light on a fixed sphere 5000km away.  Tom for example seems to think Start are pretty close to us and are actually fractal bits of energy (his explanation for telescope-observable galaxies IIRC, I don't want to put words in his mouth inaccurately) and others (cannot recall screen names now) consider the bulk of our universe outside our solar system to be more or less the way RET explains it...its just our solar system thats different.

Thank you very much, Mayhem.  That is the most coherent answer I have read in this entire thread :).

If other solar systems are mostly general in their exhibited characteristics, what phenomenon could possibly cause our solar system to become so drastically unique?  Furthermore, I have just read that the Moon supposedly emits "cold light".  I want to assume this to be an innacurate explanation, as all light sources must radiate heat also.

And BTW:  Robosteve, why do you insist on distorting the topic of EVERY single RE thread?



8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why?
« on: August 14, 2008, 10:20:43 AM »
I'm not asking why the universe exists.  I'm asking why stars are orbiting and accellerating with the Earth.  There is no known possible way for them to emit light and no explanation of what they are in FE.  They do not create any relevant contribution to overall illumination either.  In either theory, phenomena do not come into existance for no reason what-so-ever.


9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why?
« on: August 14, 2008, 09:54:51 AM »
Really, how could that be a serious question?  In what way does it even REMOTELY apply to our reality? ???

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why?
« on: August 14, 2008, 09:28:13 AM »
How amusing :) (Not really).

The Moon and stars exist in the RE universe because they were formed naturally.  What I really mean't to ask is why the stars exist according to FE, but serve no purpose.  In FE, they are described as points of light and nothing more relevant.  This does nothing to explain why they are luminescent or why they are also accellerating upwards.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Why?
« on: August 14, 2008, 09:07:49 AM »
In the FE model, why do the stars (and possibly the moon) need to exist?  Obviously they are not there specifically for our amusement, so why then do they exist?

Furthermore, what exactly are the stars in FE?  Since they orbit the Earth, they could not possibly be other suns. 

The more you read into the finer details, the less statistically likely it becomes.

12
The Lounge / Re: Unofficial "Post your Desktop 7"
« on: August 07, 2008, 01:55:10 PM »

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Evidence of Flat earth?
« on: August 07, 2008, 07:16:53 AM »
but if that is the case then the apple will be accelerating at 10m/s^2 until it drops, so correct me if I'm wrong but that is a lot of acceleratin that it would undergo in its lifetime.

Also, if a plane takes off from the earth, then (on this model) it would stop accelerating at the speed of the earth and the earth would crash into it. I know this is in the faq but it was quite a vague answer. On this principle the apple would not hit the ground (as the plane does not) and the plane does not create 10m/s^2 acc^n upwards lift. Ask any aeronautical engineer.

I understand what you're trying to say, but it does not bear any meaning in the current FE theory.  Your argument does not take into account that (according to FE) the Earth has a self-contained atmosphere, moving and accellerating together.  Therefore the Earth would not accellerate into the plane. 

Example:


14
Flat Earth Debate / Atmospheric Pressure
« on: August 06, 2008, 06:25:16 PM »
I just had this sudden thought while posting something completely unreleated on another forum and need some feedback (I'm betting Dogplatter will be the first to jump on this one ;D).

If the Earth was accellerating upwards, wouldn't this mean that atmospheric pressure would be identical regardless of altitude?  Because I'm pretty sure it would.

We already know for a fact that pressure decreases with altitude.  If the Earth was spherical, it's own gravitational field would pull the atmosphere towards the surface and it's effects would dicsipate as distance from the core increases.  Thus creating different atmospheric pressure.

I've gone over this idea countless times and it seems to be indisputable evidence in my opinion.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Planets
« on: November 22, 2007, 03:29:54 PM »
There's no doubt about that, but when they landed the rover on the surface of mars and discovered the sky to be mostly blue, they realised that rivals in Russia would think they'ed faked the landing so they adjusted thr RGB to make it appear redder, there's more information on the main Flat Mars Society page

Mars contains no liquid water, no nitrogen, and very little oxygen (if any).  Therefore, the sky is not blue.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Noob here with one question
« on: November 22, 2007, 03:12:43 PM »
Yep, it really is, isn't it  ;D

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I demand praise!
« on: November 21, 2007, 12:33:55 PM »
Happy Birthday, Engy :D.

This is R-E-A-L-L-Y late, plus I haven't gotten online much recently.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Noob here with one question
« on: November 21, 2007, 10:09:15 AM »
The planets and the moon all illuminate themselves, just like stars.

I've certainly never heard that one before...  Evidence please?

The fact that they shine.


Using that poor logic, one could say that an airplane illiuminated by its own strobe light is a star.  Therefore I doubt that counts as viable evidence.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Noob here with one question
« on: November 20, 2007, 11:29:00 PM »
The planets and the moon all illuminate themselves, just like stars.

I've certainly never heard that one before...  Evidence please?

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Noob here with one question
« on: November 20, 2007, 11:10:39 AM »
My first post here in a while, so I will try to make it count ;).

If, according to FE theory, the Sun is indeed only 3000 miles away and is a spotlight, then how do you possibly account for the fact that it illuminates other planets (excluding the moon, obviously)?

Before an FE'er responds with the answer I'm just about 100% sure they will, I'll add more evidence to back my claim.  We can currently precisely measure the distance between the Earth and Venus, and that distance is approximately 92, 955, 820.5 miles.  The sun is a spotlight, in otherwords, the light it emits is  mono-directional.  Given that this spotlight is only 3000 miles away vs. the much longer distance from the Earth to Venus (or the moon, for that matter), how could it be illuminating Venus (or the moon)?

Simple answer:  It can't.

At the time of posting, I was at a loss to find any holes in the logic of my post, but if you spot an error, please, let me know :).

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Earth Curve Can Be Seen From A Plane (sometimes)
« on: August 08, 2007, 03:13:20 PM »
Uhm, no I'm not.  The explanation of 4 elephants and a turtle can't be supported by ANY scientific theory, its also against the laws of physics (which have been proven).

Er, that had nothing to do with it.

I guess I'll explain for the sake of no one. Saying that because you see curvature, there is curvature and therefore the Earth is round, is poor logic. With that logic, as I pointed out and you seemed to miss, seeing Criss Angel levitate would mean that he is really levitating. Therefore, I said that we had another Criss Angel believer.

I'm not saying that because I can see curvature that the Earth is spherical, I'm using that one piece of evidence, which is backed up by many other pieces of evidence to form a reasonable argument.

Actually you could still say the same about Criss Angel.  For He has performed many miracles, so His levitating is backed up by many other pieces of evidence confirming that He is divine.

You seem to be saying that it is impossible to prove anything (although technically that is correct under a certain intepretation).  The only way that a theory can become fact, is if it is backed up by evidence which has been proven and can be verified.  "The conspiracy" theory has absolutely no verifiable evidence to back it up, so it will always remain a theory until evidence is found (by definition, even a theory requires some sort of evidence, so it would be best to call this a hypothesis).  The fact of a spherical Earth is known as fact, because it has been proven constantly, even accidentally by people every day. 
    Flat Earth theory becomes even more unlikely when you take into account the number of conditions nessesary for it to be true.  For example:  The Sun,   supposedly tiny compared to Earth, with nothing allowing it to orbit.  Exactly how does the sun stay in the sky if there is no gravitational field around the Earth to keep it there.  According to tests conducted in accurate raytraced environments by many people on these forums (myself included ;)), an object that small CANNOT generate enough light to brighten such an area at any one time.  A very important factor which I haven't seen discussed is where it gets its energy from?  A giant spotlight hovering over the surface of the planet, providing enough energy to light the surface must have incalculable energy requirements, which in FE theory, are not fulfilled.  The rotation of the Earth and other planets has been proven by several forum members and photographed (looks like other planets are moons are spherical, so why not Earth?).  When confronted with this evidence, main "FE'ers" simply change the facts of their theory to fit it, and there you go, no more gaping hole in the theory ;).  I could continue to point out even more holes and impossibilities, but I don't want to go too far off topic :).

When you consider the evidence so far, the spherical Earth *fact* seems much more plausable.  The only factors the spherical Earth relys on are the combustion of gasses, and that all matter generates a gravitational field of some sort.

By the way, although I'm sure FE'ers won't hesitate to point out inaccuracies, if you do notice something out of place, please notify me :).

I am aware that 98% of people on this site do not really believe the flat Earth theory, but I'd like a so called real FE'er to answer this question:

Can you say 100% truthfully that you seriously believe the planet is flat?  Because I can't help thinking that many of you are saying you believe these theories and sitting back and laughing as the rest of us try to disprove something you don't believe anyway.

Just a thought...

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Earth Curve Can Be Seen From A Plane (sometimes)
« on: August 07, 2007, 12:01:30 PM »
Uhm, no I'm not.  The explanation of 4 elephants and a turtle can't be supported by ANY scientific theory, its also against the laws of physics (which have been proven).

Er, that had nothing to do with it.

I guess I'll explain for the sake of no one. Saying that because you see curvature, there is curvature and therefore the Earth is round, is poor logic. With that logic, as I pointed out and you seemed to miss, seeing Criss Angel levitate would mean that he is really levitating. Therefore, I said that we had another Criss Angel believer.

I'm not saying that because I can see curvature that the Earth is spherical, I'm using that one piece of evidence, which is backed up by many other pieces of evidence to form a reasonable argument.

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Earth Curve Can Be Seen From A Plane (sometimes)
« on: August 05, 2007, 10:47:05 AM »
The same could be said for the entire FE theory  ;)

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Earth Curve Can Be Seen From A Plane (sometimes)
« on: August 05, 2007, 08:25:13 AM »
I'm not sure what you're talking about :D

You're using the logic that what you see is what actually is.


Uhm, no I'm not.  The explanation of 4 elephants and a turtle can't be supported by ANY scientific theory, its also against the laws of physics (which have been proven).

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Earth Curve Can Be Seen From A Plane (sometimes)
« on: August 04, 2007, 10:47:31 AM »
@ Durdan:

You're kidding right?  Thats the best I've heard so far :D.  Maybe it would be accepted (though not by many people) if you tried to prove your case?  There is already proof for a spherical Earth and some for a flat Earth, but as far as 4 elephants and a turtle...  ::)

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Earth Curve Can Be Seen From A Plane (sometimes)
« on: August 04, 2007, 03:41:06 AM »
I'm not sure what you're talking about :D

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Earth Curve Can Be Seen From A Plane (sometimes)
« on: August 03, 2007, 05:52:19 PM »
Every time someone brings up this topic, some people claim to be able to see the curve of the Earth at high altitude on a plane, but the majority of "FE'ers" dismiss it as people either "seeing things" or being part of the "conspiracy".  The fact is, it is possible to see the curve of the Earth from a plane SOMETIMES.  This is mainly dependent on visibility conditions (how far you can see).  I was on a flight from Spain last week.  During the flight it was possible to see the curve of the Earth very clearly (quite a number of people sitting near me did not hesitate to point this out to their neighbours).  No doubt "FE'ers" will take no notice of this :).

28
I got a few good shots with my telescope, I'll post a few later :)

29
Eclipse is over here, that was the first lunar eclipse I have ever seen! :).  Well worth the hour in the freezing cold ;).  BTW:  I'm sorry to tell u that it's virtually impossible to get a good image of the eclipse with a digital camera, or any other camera for that matter.  Pictures taken through a telescope lens will usually produce excellent results :D.  Because of the moon's distance from earth, a regular camera will capture no other detail than a large white-and-red blob, lol.

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Lunar Eclipse Tonight!
« on: March 03, 2007, 12:38:12 PM »
oops, didn't see that ;). thx.

Pages: [1] 2