1

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"

« on: January 24, 2012, 10:55:48 PM »

My understanding of particle wave duality has been and is currently correct.

You assumed I didn't know about it when I said that a "radioactive wave" made no sense. radiation that exhibits behavior of both particle and wave is acceptable, a radioactive wave however is not.

2

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"

« on: January 24, 2012, 08:29:06 PM »

You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something. 

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.

Lol implying em bounces off of things without being re-emitted.

So how's junior year of high school?

Not all radiation is "reflected" like this. Have you ever heard of an alpha particle scattering off a target by being absorbed and "re-emitted?"

Thought not.

I would not know how junior year is, as I am not in high school at the moment.

Still waiting for a reference to "radioactive waves" though...

Did you drop out?

That's certainly one possibility. But no, I skipped the 11th grade. 

You apparently skipped the whole high school curriculum.

Nope, just what was learning in the 11th grade. Apparently it wasn't that much because I did perfectly well in the 12th grade without it.   

Any luck finding those "radioactive waves" yet?

3

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"

« on: January 24, 2012, 08:18:04 PM »

You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something. 

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.

Lol implying em bounces off of things without being re-emitted.

So how's junior year of high school?

Not all radiation is "reflected" like this. Have you ever heard of an alpha particle scattering off a target by being absorbed and "re-emitted?"

Thought not.

I would not know how junior year is, as I am not in high school at the moment.

Still waiting for a reference to "radioactive waves" though...

Did you drop out?

That's certainly one possibility. But no, I skipped the 11th grade. 

4

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"

« on: January 24, 2012, 06:15:58 PM »

You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something. 

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.

Lol implying em bounces off of things without being re-emitted.

So how's junior year of high school?

Not all radiation is "reflected" like this. Have you ever heard of an alpha particle scattering off a target by being absorbed and "re-emitted?"

Thought not.

I would not know how junior year is, as I am not in high school at the moment.

Still waiting for a reference to "radioactive waves" though...

5

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"

« on: January 23, 2012, 11:39:34 PM »

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

Ah, semantics, the cry for help of the defeated individual.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.

I never mentioned that.

While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.

Please, please stop trying to pretend you know what you're talking about. Just admit you don't fully understand the concept and move on. Someone who can't understand when they are so wrong is heartbreaking to say the least.

Particle/wave duality is when something is both a wave and a particle. Shocking isn't it. There, now that I fully understand the topic (and hopefully you do as well now)...

Lol, go back to school little boy, you have much to learn 

6

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"

« on: January 23, 2012, 09:42:25 PM »

You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something. 

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.

7

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"

« on: January 23, 2012, 08:44:44 PM »

What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What harmful radiation is emitted by the moon?

We have an entire pigmentation system designed to keep out these harmful radioactive waves. Also gamma rays bounce off of the moon and are detectable here on earth. So, also gamma waves.

Any other rather incompetent question?

I notice that you didn't actually give any support for your ideas. Use evidence next time, it will bring you better results.

Also, there is no such thing as a radioactive wave. Either it is a radioactive emission or wave, it doesn't make sense to be both.

Any other incompetent answer?

I'm sorry I thought you had the mental competence of an 8 year old and could do it yourself.

a) light is both a wave and a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

b) our skin has pigment to keep light out

ever had a sunburn? I'd say there are some bad things in light.

http://www.oprah.com/omagazine/Bright-Light-May-Cause-Cancer-Health-Risks

http://cancer.stanford.edu/skincancer/skin/causes/uvrad.html

c) gamma rays bitch?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060527.html

here's the moons picture taken in the gamma ray spectrum.


lrn2physicsplzkthxbye

Lol, pay more attention in science class, you might learn a thing or two.

Wave/particle duality has absolutely nothing to do with a "radioactive wave." For one thing, nowhere in scientific literature is this term used. Another thing is that is still doesn't make sense when applied to radioactive emissions. How is a helium nucleus (alpha particle) a wave exactly? Do more research and you'll get better results.

The picture you posted was obtained from the Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) in orbit. As such, you have shown that gamma rays are detectable from orbit, but you have not proven that moon-light (i.e. what normal people see at night) contains gamma radiation. Unless you plan on being in orbit every night, your link is quite useless.

I suggest you review your materials and construct a better argument.

Off you go, little bitch. 

God damn, you're stupid. I really, Jesus, I really don't know where to start with you.

You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something. 

8

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"

« on: January 23, 2012, 08:10:47 PM »

What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What harmful radiation is emitted by the moon?

We have an entire pigmentation system designed to keep out these harmful radioactive waves. Also gamma rays bounce off of the moon and are detectable here on earth. So, also gamma waves.

Any other rather incompetent question?

I notice that you didn't actually give any support for your ideas. Use evidence next time, it will bring you better results.

Also, there is no such thing as a radioactive wave. Either it is a radioactive emission or wave, it doesn't make sense to be both.

Any other incompetent answer?

I'm sorry I thought you had the mental competence of an 8 year old and could do it yourself.

a) light is both a wave and a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

b) our skin has pigment to keep light out

ever had a sunburn? I'd say there are some bad things in light.

http://www.oprah.com/omagazine/Bright-Light-May-Cause-Cancer-Health-Risks

http://cancer.stanford.edu/skincancer/skin/causes/uvrad.html

c) gamma rays bitch?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060527.html

here's the moons picture taken in the gamma ray spectrum.


lrn2physicsplzkthxbye

Lol, pay more attention in science class, you might learn a thing or two.

Wave/particle duality has absolutely nothing to do with a "radioactive wave." For one thing, nowhere in scientific literature is this term used. Another thing is that is still doesn't make sense when applied to radioactive emissions. How is a helium nucleus (alpha particle) a wave exactly? Do more research and you'll get better results.

The picture you posted was obtained from the Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) in orbit. As such, you have shown that gamma rays are detectable from orbit, but you have not proven that moon-light (i.e. what normal people see at night) contains gamma radiation. Unless you plan on being in orbit every night, your link is quite useless.

I suggest you review your materials and construct a better argument.

Off you go, little bitch. 

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Energy of the Sun

« on: January 23, 2012, 07:47:51 PM »

I would certainly hope the sun is at least a fluorescent light bulb. I can't stand the thought of an inefficient non-eco-friendly sun.

I'd have to go with a halogen light, based on the warmth I feel from it.

How about it FE, how does the sun work?

What will happen when incandescents and halogens are banned?

Then we shall wage war on the sun-dwellers and extinguish their immoral hologens.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...

« on: January 23, 2012, 07:46:52 PM »

u all talk alot about truth in here!! but first of all there should be a right definition on truth!!! the truth is personal... and no one can claime to have monopol on the truth.... but when 2 ore more have the same truth.. a realety is then made for them... im new to this forum but i have thougt about the earth as flat before:)

the main stream science(the truth that most western humans agree opun) is quite borring and do not leave anything to the fantasy... its very linar thinking!! so i will change my considerations to this new and way more open truth and hope this will be realety for most humans:)

Science should make the theories fit the facts, not the other way around. If we made our own theories based on our imaginations we wouldn't know nearly as much as we do now.

11

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"

« on: January 22, 2012, 09:49:27 PM »

What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What harmful radiation is emitted by the moon?

We have an entire pigmentation system designed to keep out these harmful radioactive waves. Also gamma rays bounce off of the moon and are detectable here on earth. So, also gamma waves.

Any other rather incompetent question?

I notice that you didn't actually give any support for your ideas. Use evidence next time, it will bring you better results.

Also, there is no such thing as a radioactive wave. Either it is a radioactive emission or wave, it doesn't make sense to be both.

Any other incompetent answer?

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: V2 rockets

« on: January 17, 2012, 11:22:13 AM »

At the edge of space the rocket is looking down at a circle.

Incorrect, it is looking across the edge of a sphere.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How we can prove that this theory is beyond a doubt true in a matter of days.

« on: January 17, 2012, 11:14:01 AM »

We know that this explanation is true because there are reports of half sunken ships restored by looking at them through telescopes.
This is basically just a lie, or at best a rare mirage type effect. I'm sure the many sailors aboard naval vessels, who had powerful telescopes in order to identify enemy ships in times of war, would have said something about this and been familiar with the phenomenon. If you can find one of these "reports" that dates from the last hundred years, go right ahead and post it. Failure to do this means the claim that this has been observed can be dismissed. Tom Bishop's own observations are not admissible evidence.

Using telescopes to observe enemy ships have gone out of style over the last 100 years. But the most recent replacement, Over the Horizon Radar, is a proof for a flat earth.

Over The Horizon Radar should be impossible in a Round Earth model where the curvature of the earth prevents direct line-of-sight, yet the excuse is that radiowaves are bouncing off the atmosphere without significant scatter -- as if we're expected to believe that radar waves can bounce off of the atmosphere, hit a body, and bounce off the atmosphere again to return to their destination.

Bouncing photons off of the atmosphere? Ridiculous.

The simplest explanation is that the signals can travel such great distances because the earth is flat. No need to imagine absurdities such as signals bouncing off the atmosphere, off of a distant body, off the atmosphere again and arriving to their destinations without experiencing extreme scattering.

RE'ers are clearly making wild and elaborate explanations for what we can explain plain and simply: That the rays took a direct path to their destination.

Lol, Tom thinks light can't bounce off the atmosphere. I suggest you take a basic physics course and get back to us. 

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity as a universal law

« on: January 15, 2012, 12:54:11 AM »

Gravitation exists but it is not as strong as currently thought in modern science. In the beginning the aetheric winds forced loose matter from the big bang in a whirlwind like effect and gravitation more or less helped it together. Being propelled by the aether, the earth formed an even, flat disc over the wind and solidified. Why it did not form a bowl-like shape is attributed to the aetheric pressure being stronger near the north pole than the ice wall (however a this effect only went so far, causing the ice wall to be "bowl-like" in nature.

You would think that eventually the "aetheric winds" would lose energy and cause the Earth to be accelerated at a slower and slower rate.

Also, even if gravity were weaker than we believe, shouldn't matter be pulled towards the North pole?

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religious Confusion

« on: January 12, 2012, 08:02:50 PM »

Abortion brings babies to Jesus faster.

I totally agree, the faster these christians kill their children (and then themselves) the better.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: V2 rockets

« on: January 12, 2012, 10:10:57 AM »

video i see shows a giant disc light by our spherical sun,

thank you for sharing

And what exactly keeps the rest of the Earth from being lit up?

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religious Confusion

« on: January 11, 2012, 08:12:41 PM »

Hoppy. If hypothetically you agreed that a fetus had no soul, and was not able to feel pain, and didn't have brain activity capable of conscious thought, would you be open to allowing other people to have abortions as needed?

Well, I'm an atheist and I'm pro-life.

Same question, except the without the moot premise regarding the soul.

All those ifs listed are the reasons I'm against abortions.

If you had a child and someone showed you two buttons, one red and one green, and asked you to choose one.

If you choose the red button, your child will never suffer, never become ill, and gets a 100% guaranteed trip to heaven where it will be with you when you die...

If you choose the green button, the child will be brought into a world of pain, and will be forced to endure a cruel world where the only thing that matters is how miserable you are. The child will no longer be guaranteed heaven, but is left with a 50/50 chance of eternal damnation.

I think its obvious what button you would pick. The only christian answer is to bash your child's head in with a rock. 

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Stop Abortion!

« on: January 11, 2012, 10:57:51 AM »

OR, you could just jump off a building and repent on the way down. Try not to get distracted though, you're under a time constraint.

That's a funny one pongo, but you will never trick God at any time.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111013144531AA8xWeu

That link is a fail, God has not been nor can be fooled.

Lol, I don't think its that hard to defeat God.

Judges 1:19
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. "

Apparently iron is to God what kryptonite is to Superman. At least superman didn't threaten people with eternal torture for not worshiping him.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religious Confusion

« on: January 10, 2012, 05:59:42 PM »

You need not babtism to get into heaven, when Jesus hung on the cross he told one of the other dudes being crucified that he would see him in paradise. My understanding is that children go to heaven just on the fact of being a child. After the age of accountability they need Jesus. I think the age can vary with different people an circumstances.

Wouldn't you agree then that it is best to kill all the children so they will get a free ticket to heaven? If you let them grow up there's a chance they won't make it.

You don't have any children do you?

Apparently you don't want your children to go to heaven, you'd rather risk their immortal souls. I understand.

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religious Confusion

« on: January 10, 2012, 03:22:59 PM »

You need not babtism to get into heaven, when Jesus hung on the cross he told one of the other dudes being crucified that he would see him in paradise. My understanding is that children go to heaven just on the fact of being a child. After the age of accountability they need Jesus. I think the age can vary with different people an circumstances.

Wouldn't you agree then that it is best to kill all the children so they will get a free ticket to heaven? If you let them grow up there's a chance they won't make it.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: gravity and time relation

« on: January 10, 2012, 03:21:21 PM »

Celestial gears also better explains why celestial bodies are on almost perfect horizontal planes with the sun.

Conservation of angular momentum in the early solar system seems to explain it well enough. Come to think of it though, if everything were on rigid gears, wouldn't everything be perfectly in the same plane instead of "almost perfect?"

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: gravity and time relation

« on: January 10, 2012, 02:28:02 PM »

RE can predict the amount of gravity and its range provided it is known the amount of mass of a body.
 However, we can use mathematics to predict how and why the gravity is in there.

Being able to predict something =/= understanding how something works.

True. But then again, FET can't predict anything, let alone explain anything.

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: gravity and time relation

« on: January 10, 2012, 12:44:01 PM »

Why for 2 objects with the same mass and speed but in different altitudes are subjected to different time experiences?

The same thing that causes weight to differ at different altitudes, celestial gravitation.

If you are going to claim that celestial bodies have gravity, you need to give a good reason why the Earth doesn't.

The earth is not a celestial body.

If you can arbitrarily say that celestial bodies possess gravity, then why can't RE'ers say that all mass has gravity?

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...

« on: January 10, 2012, 12:36:01 PM »

The best map would have no distortions, accurately portray distance and area, and every point would be simply connected to every other point. Interestingly enough, you will find that a spheroid is the only surface to which we could map the Earth and meet all the criteria.

Fine. Then take the globe. It's also useful for studying spherical geometry. So long as you don't mistake the symbol for reality, it's fine. The Earth is not a big Euclidian sphere, not an inflated globe, so to speak, but a maximal sphere in spherical geometry, and it's surface is therefore flat.

If the curvature of the Earth were zero (flat as you claim), then it would not be possible to map it accurately to a globe. Since we can map it neatly this way, the Earth cannot be flat.

Are you suggesting that space itself is spherical and the Earth is a plane in that space?

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: gravity and time relation

« on: January 10, 2012, 12:31:57 PM »

Why for 2 objects with the same mass and speed but in different altitudes are subjected to different time experiences?

The same thing that causes weight to differ at different altitudes, celestial gravitation.

If you are going to claim that celestial bodies have gravity, you need to give a good reason why the Earth doesn't.

26

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Religious Confusion

« on: January 10, 2012, 12:18:08 PM »

I've been wondering this for a little while.

If Christians believe that dead babies go automatically to heaven and atheists believe that they just turn into plant food, then why don't their views on abortion match their beliefs?

To a christian, the best chance for their child to get into heaven is to kill it before it's born. If they let it grow up, there's a chance it'll go to hell, and what christian would want a 50% chance of heaven over a 100% chance ticket to heaven. Of course, most Christians don't do this, they would rather risk their child going to hell, than insure their arrival to heaven

To an Atheist, there is no life after death, so this life is the only one you get. Wouldn't it make more sense for the atheist to want to keep their child so that it may enjoy the only existence it will ever know. Isn't a mixed good/bad existence better than none at all? This may not be the norm, but the majority of atheists I've spoken to are pro-choice.

Don't their actions and thoughts seem a bit switched?

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: gravity and time relation

« on: January 10, 2012, 12:02:51 PM »

Black holes have infinite mass? : O

Time slows down for any accelerated reference frame.

But I am asking about a specific reference. The altitude.

Assuming this: 2 people with the same weight, same speed, and different altitudes on earth.  They will find out that their clocks aren't in sync. The time for the guy in higher altitude is faster.
So you can't explain this due the different in speed. The only explanation you have left is the effects of gravity, or whatever other force the FE theory offers.

Relativity states both gravity and different velocities can cause time dilation due to the difference in the frames of reference. This means it does work in both RET and FET, and my original answer to your question stands as correct. I don't understand why you continue to pursue this.

Your answer would only be valid if the UA decreased with approximately the square of the distance so that gravity (acceleration) would decrease with altitude. Neither the disk theory or the infinite plane theory predicts this. That is why your answer isn't relevant.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...

« on: January 10, 2012, 12:00:13 PM »

I heartily and sincerely recommend all readers of this forum, especially the FE-believers, of course, to take this approach very seriously and give it an in depth look.

Okay. So, show us a map.

A map, why? Don't you know the outline of the Earth? Take any map you like, there are different projections, each with its pros and cons. You can even take a globe, if you wish, so long as you keep in mind that the globe is just a symbol, that it does not represent the true shape of the Earth, that the Earth's surface is not curved like a globe. If you insist on a two-dimensional map the best way to do it would probably be what Barthel called a Lambertian coin (and the disk theorists here -- are there any? Is this website serious, or is it just a psyop to confuse people by ridiculing those 'nutty' flat earthers in case they suspect something might be wrong with our world view, that the Earth might be flat after all? -- should like it):
Cut a circle out of card board. On the front side put an azimuthal equidistant projection of the northern hemisphere, the north pole being in the center. (Just like on the UN flag, but only half of the earth, so that the equator runs along the edge.) Now turn the "disk" and on the back side put the southern hemisphere (again azimuthal, the south pole being the center). Voilą, there's your map of the world and it's disk shaped, too. It has the big advantage of not having an edge (surrounded by whatever), but instead being unlimited (like the total plane of the Earth). Whenever you come to the edge of the map you have to turn it upside down. (This does, of course, not mean that you have to do a 180° turn when you cross the equator of the Earth.)
There is no other way of depicting the entirety of the total plane of Earth (i.e. the equator plane of the cosmos) on a tiny fragment of the whole.

The best map would have no distortions, accurately portray distance and area, and every point would be simply connected to every other point. Interestingly enough, you will find that a spheroid is the only surface to which we could map the Earth and meet all the criteria.

29

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Stop Abortion!

« on: January 10, 2012, 11:53:37 AM »

It's so tragic because the baby skipped all the BS of living on this planet and went straight to paradise for eternity, in Jesus's arms. 

All unbaptised children go straight to hell in satans arms, for eternity.

Cool story bro.

30

Flat Earth General / Re: Hi looking for some photographic evidence of the conspiracy/flat earth

« on: January 09, 2012, 08:07:14 PM »

You'll see when you get your stubborn arse onto a plane and go overseas my good sir. You will have the only proof you can truely believe - something you've seen with your own two eyes. Clearly you FE'ers will no accept any evidence or science that anyone presents you with, so see it for yourself!

What is this magical evidence that appears when I ride a plane?

For one thing, aircraft would need to travel nearly twice as fast in the southern hemisphere (hemidisk?) as they do in the North to fit with FET. That might be interesting evidence.