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 - GUN

Pages: [1] 2
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Hemisphere size
« on: March 24, 2007, 02:05:45 PM »
The FE layout looks something like this:

http://i11.tinypic.com/2w2mzr5.png

The oceans are bigger certainly, but to this day no one has chartered every nautical mile of the oceans to say for sure.

How would wind origins be effected? The Coriolis force is a myth.

I don't think that map is quite that accurate......

For example, if I were to fly from Sydney to South America, my plane would go (according to that map) over Papua New Guinea, California and Mexico. But it wouldn't, it would instead over the ocean - it wouldn't cross any land at all, and would stay in the southern hemisphere.
And even then, how can a plane hold enough fuel to do a trip like that? You would be going some 50,000 miles in a plane without landing.

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Hemisphere size
« on: March 24, 2007, 01:28:07 PM »
With the RE model, both hemispheres are the same size. But with the FE model (I'm referring to the UN logo that is supposed to be the proper map), the southern hemisphere is three times as large as the northern hemisphere.
Wouldn't this make the southern hemisphere continents larger, or the southern oceans bigger? Wouldn't the weather be effected, notably the wind origins?
Can someone clarify this for me?

3
Flat Earth Q&A / The Hemispheres
« on: November 18, 2006, 05:24:01 AM »
Theres something I don't get.

On a flat earth model, the Southern Hemisphere is twice as large as the nothern hemisphere. All of the NH continents are squashed, and the oceans in the SH are stretched out.

Can someone explain this?

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Government Conspiracies?? earth flat??? Ice wall??
« on: November 18, 2006, 05:08:50 AM »
So there HAS been sprobes sent to the moon....

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Government Conspiracies?? earth flat??? Ice wall??
« on: November 17, 2006, 08:02:33 AM »
Quote from: "beast"
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
Quote from: "beast"
Surely the round Earth argument is based on accepting the evidence that astronomers present.  Are you now discrediting it for the sake of your argument?

There is no special pleading here.

You can't tell us that pictures can not be used in arguments and then turn around and use one for your argument.

Either you accept them for both sides, or you don't accept them at all.


False.  FEers do not accept photos but REers clearly do.  Hence when we post a photo that discredits your argument, the obvious explanation that you can respond with is 'it's fake' - and that's good, because it supports our argument that photos can be faked.  On the other hand if you accept the photo we've put forward that proves your statement wrong (I'm assuming that's the reason we would post it) then you have to accept that you're wrong.  We already know that you're wrong.  Of course not all photos are fake; we just don't accept them as evidence - but REers do.  In my mind, at least, this argument makes perfect sense.


Then where are these pictures?

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: what does the ice wall rest on?
« on: November 17, 2006, 08:00:52 AM »
Quote from: "beast"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "beast"
Quote from: "GUN"
Quote from: "beast"
No, I just said in that very post that we had no proof.  You asked how we know about the ice wall.  I am not in any way trying to convince you that what we're saying is true - you can believe whatever you want.  I'm just saying that our Bothan spies confirmed to us that it's existence and had you heard their evidence you probably would also be convinced.  Unfortunately you didn't and I wouldn't expect you to become convinced - I was explaining why we're convinced, not why you should be.


So you are saying that despite the immense planning (yes, there would have been alot of planning to get past the billions of dollars of security), not one of your spies packed a fucking camera?


Security at the ice wall is just a tad tighter than you imagine...


If they got in, it can't be that tight.


Yes but considering many Bothans died to bring us this information, having lots of dead Bothans before you get your information and even then, having only their word, seems to suggest tight security to me.  Maybe you don't consider security that kills the majority of the spies going there tight, in which case I will probably scrap my idea of breaking into your house and writing 'redrum' in red paint on walls opposite mirrors.


Oh come on. Do you have ANY idea about how small cameras are nowadays? Are you telling me a camera the size of a credit card would add so much bulk to your spies that they would be seen?

It seems that all of these stories involving "I saw it with my own eyes! I just didn't get any kind of proof to say I actually saw it....." generally don't get believed.

7
Flat Earth Q&A / the definitive burden of proof thread
« on: November 17, 2006, 07:54:19 AM »
Quote
You forgot to take into account the fact that everything that teaches that the earth is round is created by the conspiricy so it therefore false.


Prove there is a conspiracy.

Quote
Also, you may think that the Flat Earth Society is a joke but thats your opinion.


Not really. I've heard several comments involving the flat earth society in an unfavourable light. One such example is in the newspaper.
Also, go up to someone and say you think the earth is flat. I can guarentee that they will laugh at you.

Quote
More to the point, this is a topic about burden of proof, and who the burden of proof lies with.


Yes. And I'm saying that it doesn't matter. I'm 100% sure that of all the RE'ers who come on here, not a single one has been convinced that the earth is flat. This is mainly bacause when they ask "How is the earth flat?" they get the reply "How is the earth round?" and a list of reasons about why THEY need to provide the proof.
As I have already said, you won't get anywhere unless you start providing some answers.

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Earth's Acceleration
« on: November 16, 2006, 11:06:01 AM »
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
That still doesn't describe how gravity works, though.  The truth is that everything has gravity, not just objects with large mass.


Yes, thats true.

Perhaps I should have given some clarification - the earth has enough mass to have a subsantial gravitational pull.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Water in the toilet
« on: November 16, 2006, 11:03:59 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Erasmus did it right here.


But thats says the sun is over the equator - But it's not. It would have to change it's path to account for the seasons.

And if the sun was directly over the equator, how is it that the effects on the weather on the same, considering on a FE model the southern hemisphere is about twice as big as the northern hemisphere?

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Earth's Acceleration
« on: November 16, 2006, 10:57:29 AM »
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
Quote from: "Cheech6"
we live on a round earth, on this earth we have a thing called gravity.

Really. That's amazing, because I like how gravity has absolutely no scientific value either. Do you actually know what force causes gravity? Absolutely nothing. It sounds fishy to me.

~D-Draw


What causes gravity is a huge mass.

The earth is thousands and thousands of cubic kilometers of rock and iron - a huge enough mass to have a gravitational pull.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Water in the toilet
« on: November 16, 2006, 10:48:51 AM »
Screw toilets.

How about explaining the different rotation directions of cyclones?

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Flat Earth Radio
« on: November 16, 2006, 10:46:38 AM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "Max Fagin"
Well beast, something tells me that this particular radio show could make FE good radio.

Multiple times, they have had a debate between an astronomer and a man who believed that the moon landings were faked.  The Moon Hoax believer was (in my opinion) soundly crushed, yet they invited him back for a second round.  I think they wouldn't mind bringing on a FEer.


Yeah but the moon landing subject is more narrow though. It always comes down to faked pictures.


And more importantly, pointing out what makes them say the pictures a fake.

How will the interview be done? By phone, in person?

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Houstan, we have a problem.
« on: November 16, 2006, 10:36:30 AM »
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Obviously haven't read Dogplatter's Universal Accelerator theory in the Flat Earth Information Repository.


I can't see the article.
Could I get a link?

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Government Conspiracies?? earth flat??? Ice wall??
« on: November 16, 2006, 04:40:27 AM »
Quote
Read the FAQ more carefully. It says:

Quote:
Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"

(Possible A) The moon isn't a spotlight; it glows with light from the sun, reflected off the Earth. Different parts of the Earth are more reflective than others (the seas, the polar cap, the ice wall, for example). Sometimes, the position of the sun (which is a spotlight) means that only very low-reflective or non-reflective parts of the Earth's surface are illuminated, so the moon is abnormally dark. This could potentially explain lunar phases as well.  




But wouldn't that mean that it is impossible to view a full moon over the centre of Asia, because it is all land and cannot reflect enough sunlight?

Quote
ncn_hitman wrote:
the moon doesnt emit light theyres been theories as how it was formed one stats that its a part of earth that seperated after a metoer strike which is higly beilavble at the moment the reason it stays is because of the earth gravitatunial pull it also has an effect on us by pulling the earth's tides. also gravity has an impact on weight so also when your at the equatoer you weigh less because weight is the force of gravity on your mass.


Gravity doesn't exist.


Ummm.........
This is what you said on the first page:
Quote
What FE model says that weight can't vary with altitude?

If you look in the FAQ, you'll see that it says:

Quote:
Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitiude?"

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.
 

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6313&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

Is it just me, or did you just CONTRADICT YOURSELF?

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: what does the ice wall rest on?
« on: November 16, 2006, 04:28:14 AM »
Quote from: "beast"
No, I just said in that very post that we had no proof.  You asked how we know about the ice wall.  I am not in any way trying to convince you that what we're saying is true - you can believe whatever you want.  I'm just saying that our Bothan spies confirmed to us that it's existence and had you heard their evidence you probably would also be convinced.  Unfortunately you didn't and I wouldn't expect you to become convinced - I was explaining why we're convinced, not why you should be.


So you are saying that despite the immense planning (yes, there would have been alot of planning to get past the billions of dollars of security), not one of your spies packed a fucking camera?

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Please explain
« on: November 16, 2006, 04:24:23 AM »
Quote from: "beast"
Quote from: "The_Earh_is_round"
well, so far the poll is 4-1, so... i am thinking i will keep my belifs of 16 years... but hey maby they can come up with something that actually makes sense to someone who is sober... i am guessing you would have to be high on both crack and pot, plus be drunk with beer to understand this stuff


I fail to understand how the poll results can have anything to do with the shape of the world.  Given what you currently know, if a poll was run tomorrow that showed that every single person in the world apart from you believed that butterflies are actually the most intelligent life form on the planet, would that make you believe it too?


Yes, because "everyone" would also mean scientists, who we can safely assume that they have done extensive research on the subject.

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Houstan, we have a problem.
« on: November 16, 2006, 04:19:56 AM »
What causes this force?
What is it made from? Air? Water? A giant hand?

18
The Lounge / Lincoln and Kennedy Coincidences
« on: November 16, 2006, 04:17:22 AM »
Another thing was missed out:

Lincoln was shot in a theatre called the "Ford"
Kennedy was shot in a "Lincoln" made by "Ford"

But yeah. This is just a coincidence.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Space shuttle videos...
« on: November 16, 2006, 04:07:10 AM »
Quote from: "dysfunction"
The pockets of the power structure.


Then why aren't these guys listed on the worlds most richest people? If there really is only 3 people in NASA who are in on this, then shouldn't they be getting billions of dollars each year?

And what about the rest of the people? Shouldn't some of the NASA workers who are not in on it question why they are making computers soley to generate a video of a rocket taking off?

20
Flat Earth Q&A / My Problems With FE.
« on: November 15, 2006, 12:31:42 PM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "skeptical_scientist"
So you could disprove all of flat earth theory by taking a 50 gram brass weight and a precision digital scale to sea level and then to a 5000 ft. mountain pass? Sounds pretty doable. In fact, there was another thread a while back where a high school student actually did it.


With a mass that small, and only 5000 ft difference, any any change in weight would be negligible.
Even if you used a 1kg object, you'd still need to lug it up to the top of Everest to get a weight difference of even 6/100 of a Newton.

Edit: doing the math, your 50 gram weight will weigh abouit .4903325 N at sea level, and about .490103 N on top of the 5000 ft mountain. A difference of .0002295 N.


See here?

Even a FE'er is saying that gravity changes at different altitudes.

21
Flat Earth Q&A / My Problems With FE.
« on: November 15, 2006, 10:39:21 AM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "GUN"

Are you saying that the earth is made of air, and the moon made of lead?


No.


Reply to my statement, you twit.

That is pretty much what you are saying when you say that the earth has no gravitational pull. That it has next to no mass while the moon has lots.

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Space shuttle videos...
« on: November 15, 2006, 10:35:27 AM »
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Quote from: "GUN"
Quote
They could easily make a realistic looking shuttle launch with 3D Studio Max or Maya. They don't need advanced computers to do that either.


But shuttles have been going up into space since the sixties.

And don't tell me a 40 year old computer could make something so realistic.


Maybe most computers couldn't 40 years ago, but the government may well have had far more powerful computers than is generally known. Where do you get that 40 years figure, anyway? It's dead wrong, we have not had a shuttle program since 1966; we hadn't even landed on the Moon then yet. The first shuttle launch was in 1981.

It would be relatively simple to fake a shuttle launch. First, the shuttles would actually be capable of flight- but not in space. The shuttle would launch from the pad and boost upwards until beyond the range of human sight; all video from beyond that point would be computer-generated.


But wait a minute.......
I thought that the money that was supposed to develope these advanced computers was taken by the people in charge....

Quote
Government Paychecks:
It's very possible that the conspiracy runs by just sucking money out of the government that they are underneath. Seeing as the head honchos in those governments don't have to know about the conspiracy, it'd be pretty easy to take money from the government. Also, even if the leaders DID know, it's tax money that's going into the space exploration research, so really, they'd still be pulling profit. Basically, if you chose to believe this option, the leaders of the conspiracy are taking tax money and getting filthy stinking rich off of it. Sounds like a motive to me.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6308&start=0

23
Flat Earth Q&A / My Problems With FE.
« on: November 15, 2006, 10:31:02 AM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "GUN"

Why the hell does a 32km-in-diameter moon have a gravitational effect when an earth that has a diameter of 42000km and a thickness of 20km does not?


Quote from: "The FAQ"
Q: Followup to previous question: How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitiational pull, but stars and the moon do?

A: This argument is a non sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It doesn't follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.


But gravity is a product of mass. The more mass an object has, the more of a gravitational pull it has.

Are you saying that the earth is made of air, and the moon made of lead?

24
Flat Earth Q&A / My Problems With FE.
« on: November 15, 2006, 10:22:22 AM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
What FE model says that weight can't vary with altitude?

If you look in the FAQ, you'll see that it says:

Quote
Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitiude?"

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.


Why the hell does a 32km-in-diameter moon have a gravitational effect when an earth that has a diameter of 42000km and a thickness of 20km does not?

(sorry, double post)

25
Flat Earth Q&A / My Problems With FE.
« on: November 15, 2006, 10:20:36 AM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Earth is not a gravitational source.


Oh yeah, gravity doesn't exist.

Sorry I forgot. :roll:

26
Flat Earth Q&A / the definitive burden of proof thread
« on: November 15, 2006, 10:06:00 AM »
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
The internet is far from being full of "proof" of anything.  Anyone can say anything on the internet.


Then read a fucking book.

And no, when I said to look on the net, I did not mean random blogs and other such bullcrap.

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: My Problems With FE.
« on: November 15, 2006, 10:04:16 AM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "GUN"
And yes, gravity DOES vary as you increase in altitude.


No it doesn't.


It does.

Very slightly.

This is because the further you are from a gravitational source, the less effect it has on you.

If you are further from the centre of the earth, then the further you are from the source of gravity. So it is less.

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Space shuttle videos...
« on: November 15, 2006, 09:53:24 AM »
Quote
They could easily make a realistic looking shuttle launch with 3D Studio Max or Maya. They don't need advanced computers to do that either.


But shuttles have been going up into space since the sixties.

And don't tell me a 40 year old computer could make something so realistic.

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Space shuttle videos...
« on: November 15, 2006, 09:44:18 AM »
And the videos of them landing as well.

In another thread (a sticky, I think), it says the shuttles were a hoax, and could not fly.
It even said that it was falling apart while sitting on the ground.

And that was said by some big FE'er.
More proof this is BS.

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: My Problems With FE.
« on: November 15, 2006, 09:42:03 AM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
You can find the answers to most of your questions in Samuel Rowbotham's Earth: not a globe. As for the rest, I will either attempt to address them, or give you a link to an appropriate thread.

7 and 3: Supernovas and Earthquakes are caused by the same mechanism that causes them in the round Earth model.

8: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1361&highlight=magnetism

9: There are two current explanations for this:
Explanation 1: Gravity doesn't, in fact, vary as you increase altitude. Or:
Explanation 2: The stars exert a slight gravitational pull.


You do know supernovas are massive stars exploding, don't you?
I was under the impression the stars were only a few miles away.

And yes, gravity DOES vary as you increase in altitude.

Pages: [1] 2