1

Flat Earth Q&A / This is ridiculous

« on: January 04, 2007, 06:54:08 PM »

i doubt any of thats true.  stop beliving anything your told.  to be quite honest...i didnt even read any

Like any FEer.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Acceleration rate.

« on: January 04, 2007, 06:12:38 PM »

The fallacy does not lie in saying that astronomers are good sources of information on matters relating to astronomy. The fallacy lies in implying that your claim is valid simply because astronomers say it is. Anyone can be wrong. In order to prove your argument you have to find evidence supporting it.

Even we FE's use the same fallacy every time we say "Einstein agrees with us" on matters relating to relativity.

I'm losing my time with you since you know as I do that Mars is a planet.

That's ridiculous.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Acceleration rate.

« on: January 04, 2007, 06:00:28 PM »

A bad argument from authority is when the authority is not, in fact, an authority that has to do with the subject. No one's more concerned by celestial objects than astronomers.

There is no good or bad argument from authority Yop. It is a fallacious argument based on the assumption that a person or group of people are an authority on the subject, so they must be right.

"It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regards to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source."

Credibility of the source, credibility of the source, credibility of the source.

If astronomers aren't credible enough in matters of astronomy, then who is ?

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Acceleration rate.

« on: January 04, 2007, 05:27:29 PM »

NASA experimented on Mars with the robot they sent recently, maybe before with the calculation of the attraction force when being in orbit. Do you have any evidence that they didn't calculate it ?

No, I have no evidence that they didn't. I also have no reason to believe that they did, either.

What are your evidence that they didn't ? The conspiracy I guess ? You don't have any evidence that there's a conspiracy. Nor I have any evidence to prove that there isn't

Hmm... all astronomers say that I'm right.

This is an argument from authority Yop. You know better than that.[/quote]
A bad argument from authority is when the authority is not, in fact, an authority that has to do with the subject. No one's more concerned by celestial objects than astronomers.

If gravity doesn't exist, how do you explain my initial post ?

I did not say gravity doesn't exist. I said simply that Earth does not posses a gravitational field. Obviously the effects we feel as "gravity" exist. It is simply the cause of these effects that is under question.[/quote]
You really didn't catch up what my thread was about.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Acceleration rate.

« on: January 04, 2007, 05:13:22 PM »

1. One of the greatest spatial agencies in the world calculated it on ground.

Do you have any evidence that they actually calculated it? Or are you just taking what they said as fact?

NASA experimented on Mars with the robot they sent recently, maybe before with the calculation of the attraction force when being in orbit. Do you have any evidence that they didn't calculate it ?

3. WTF ? Are you serious ?

Quite serious. What evidence do you have that Earth and Mars ar both the same thing?

Hmm... all astronomers say that I'm right.

4. Since Universe being cannot arbitrary decide which objects have which fundamental properties. All objects have the same fundamental properties, which includes gravity.

Can you actually prove this? Or is it just an assumption?[/quote]
If gravity doesn't exist, how do you explain my initial post ?

Oh maybe it's that you can't explain it that you're getting away of it... as FEers use to do.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Acceleration rate.

« on: January 04, 2007, 04:59:15 PM »

It means that his opinion may not represent that of the FE theory.

That is the reason of my :

Next. :arrow:

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Acceleration rate.

« on: January 04, 2007, 04:58:37 PM »

What evidence do you have that Mars has a lower rate of acceleration? What makes you think Mars cannot have a gravitational field if Earth doesn't? What makes you think Mars and Earth are both planets? What makes you think Earth shares the same physical properties as Mars?

1. One of the greatest spatial agencies in the world calculated it on ground.

2. I said that it must have one.

3. WTF ? Are you serious ?

4. Since Universe being cannot arbitrary decide which objects have which fundamental properties. All objects have the same fundamental properties, which includes gravity.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Acceleration rate.

« on: January 04, 2007, 04:50:20 PM »

What makes you think he's an FE?

What does it change if he's a FE or not ?

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Acceleration rate.

« on: January 04, 2007, 04:41:13 PM »

the FE'ers say they are fake. how do you know they're not?

Because he first admitted that gravity exists. When I showed him that he was wrong, he changed his mind in order to be "right".

Next. :arrow:

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Acceleration rate.

« on: January 04, 2007, 04:36:50 PM »

you ever been to mars? how do you know there is gravity there?

Another pathetic FEer that changes his mind right away when a REer shows him how he's wrong.

NASA went there, satellites from other countries went there also and they were all attracted in the orbit of Mars by its gravity.

Next  :arrow:.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Acceleration rate.

« on: January 04, 2007, 04:31:21 PM »

your mixing gravity with the acceleration rate.


they're different things explaining the same occurence. us staying on the surface of the earth.

it goes up as the same rate as everything else. otherwise it would fly away or crash into the earth. seems obvious to me.

I don't see how could gravity + acceleration rate could give something lower than the actual acceleration rate.

The only gravity that is possible to be produced on Mars is the one that can be produced by Mars' revolution "around" Earth or Sun. And this one cannot be negative since the gravity clearly attracts Mars to the center of gravity of Earth or Sun.

So I don't see how could 9.8m/sē + x m/sē = 3.69m/sē, considering that x cannot be negative, because of what I explained above.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 9.8m/

« on: January 04, 2007, 04:24:06 PM »

Because the force of gravity is equivalent to an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s. If it the Earth accelerated at less than that, we would feel lighter, and vice versa.

They will refuse to believe that. rofl will deny it, and yop will start flaming you about it.

Take a look at the other thread I just started. I bet you're too much idiot to simply understand it.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Acceleration rate.

« on: January 04, 2007, 04:22:04 PM »

The acceleration of the Earth is 9.8m/sē, flat or round, accelerating of gravitating, it's still 9.8m/sē to both models.

In the FE model, all of the Universe must be accelerating at 9.8m/sē since we can always see the same celestial objects in the sky.

But, how come have we calculated that Mars has an "acceleration" rate of 0.38G, or 3.69 m/sē? (Source : Wikipedia)

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 9.8m/

« on: January 04, 2007, 02:49:18 PM »

The Earth is being accelerated "upwards' through space at 9.8m/s^2.

How did you come up with that number?  
And Any reason not to just type: 96.04 m/s or  345.6 km/h or  214.7459 Miles/hour?

:lol:

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: CONQUERING INFINITY

« on: January 04, 2007, 11:37:44 AM »

infity/0 = 0

Am I the only one bothered that he has divided something by zero? Maybe I'm wrong buy I just don't understand how that's possible... Or was that supposed to be 0 / infinity?

Also does this mean that we can use Unicorns in maths?

I noticed it but I didn't go into this debate since the guy is apparently stupid... infinity / 0 = indefinite (dunno how to say it in English, but anyway)

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: CONQUERING INFINITY

« on: January 03, 2007, 08:47:45 PM »

I CAN CONQUER INFINITY WITH NOTHING WATCH THIS


infity/0 = 0        I HAVE SUBDUED ALL OF ETERNITY. QUAKE IS MY PRESENSE. BOWN DOWN TO YOUR NEW LORD.

OMG, I know someone who needs some math courses

17

Flat Earth Debate / My Trip To The Ice Wall

« on: January 03, 2007, 11:00:16 AM »

I would if you could show me undeniable legit convincing proof of your trip. So when where you there? Can you show us any flight tickets to Antarctica?

I don't know when Diego Draw went there but I can also answer those questions as I have been there myself.

I went there last year by boat. I was actually heading for Australia* but was turned aside by the government because they feared I was a refugee. I didn't see any Ice Wall Guards or even evidence of the like.

Here's a photo I took while I was there:

:lol: The Ice Wall ends on a perfectly straight line and there was an astronaut in space. Hahaha, it must be a stupid joke :lol:

18

Flat Earth Q&A / The Round Earther and the Biologist

« on: January 03, 2007, 10:23:18 AM »

The FET is bigger than the conspiracy. If there's no FE, there's no FET.

Here you go yop, this is my basic lesson for the day:

-Different threads cover different aspects of the theory.

This is not about the whole FET vs. RET, this is about the Conspiracy. Do you understand yet?

Well, there is very little chances that ALL governments have always said the same thing since they know the Earth is round (about 1500s?). But it could be possible, even if it's veeeeery unprobable. People would have noticed that their government has changed his idea about the shape of the Earth very quickly with no apparent reasons.

I can't say that the conspiracy doesn't exist, but I can say that it's veeery unlikely to exist.

So, I go at a bigger point that includes the conspiracy thing.

No FE = no FET = no conspiracy.

And based on a lot of proofs and logic errors in the FE, I can say that it's not true since nobody can prove without any doubt that it's true, and since the opposite side have hundreds of photos, hundreds of facts all pointing to a RE, etc.

Do you get my point or you'll keep saying that I'm not in the right thread (even if I'm talking about the conspiracy and pointing to a larger argument... but it's how it works on FES, I guess ??)

19

Flat Earth Q&A / The Round Earther and the Biologist

« on: January 03, 2007, 10:11:57 AM »

So, REers have MANY more arguments than your sucky conversation show. That's not the type of conversation. That's the type of conversation you want to remember in order to make your answers (to the question about the shape of the Earth) more accurate or I don't know why.

I wasn't demonstrating a typical conversation nor talking about FET vs. RET as a whole.

I was merely demonstrating the futitlity of trying to argue against the conspiracy. It is impossible to disprove.

The FET is bigger than the conspiracy. If there's no FE, there's no FET.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?

« on: January 03, 2007, 10:10:34 AM »

They're satellites. I don't even think you have a telescope. No, really, since you're content on having wrong and not telling the truth (either you're doing it on purpose or you're an idiot), we have nothing more to discuss, jackass.

How do you know he is wrong? The only "evidence" you have against his arguments is a topic that you mysteriously lost. :lol:

Whenever you are losing a debate, just call the opposing side a Jackass and run away. :lol:

I wonder if you have something intelligent to say, sometimes. Only... sometimes.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / The Round Earther and the Biologist

« on: January 03, 2007, 10:08:08 AM »

Well, your example is not accurate since neither one position or the other have any proofs of what they say.

REers have over 400 years of proofs and nearly 40 years of space exploration, while FEers have one book showing one "major" argument which is based on the work of only one man (too little to be considered as a transparent scientific work), an amateur experimenting with nearly no calculations (also, in no way a scientific demonstration), and I doubt he had went to University in physics or any sciences that could have helped him.

So, REers have MANY more arguments than your sucky conversation show. That's not the type of conversation. That's the type of conversation you want to remember in order to make your answers (to the question about the shape of the Earth) more accurate or I don't know why.

The typical conversation should have looked like this :

FEer : The Earth is flat, look at Rowbotham's book and the FE compendium.
REer : The Earth is round since there are over 400 years of proofs and 40 years of space exploration.
FEer : There's a conspiracy (which I can't prove, nor I can't prove why I know about it even if it's a, indeed, secret conspiracy) and we have PROOFS.
REer : Your book is not scientifically credible (because of the reasons I've already noticed).
FEer : No answer. Changes thread or answer anything but the real question.

In all : sorry, try again.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Explain in a flat earth, how the Coriolis Effect works?

« on: January 03, 2007, 09:55:21 AM »

Wait, hold on! So you actually think there's a Coriolis effect?

Well, I believe in calculus, so I guess I have no choice but to believe in the Coriolis force, which is by no means a mysterious natural phenomenon but is simply the result of looking at motion from a certain viewpoint.

I mean, if you believe in that, you believe in a RE because the effect can't apply on a FE.

Not really.  The Coriolis force is not a physical force; it has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.

I suggest you to travel to the Southern Hemisphere and feel the Coriolis effect on your own body,

What?

You just admited that the Coriolis effect exists. So how does the Coriolis effect work in the FE model ?

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Questioning the FAQ

« on: January 02, 2007, 10:26:51 PM »

What is it that causes the earth to accellerate upwards?

Who knows ?

The real question is : why the Earth doesn't have any gravity but Moon and stars do have gravity. This is arbitrary and is completely stupid since the FAQ claims that the Moon and everything else in the sky is flat. They have no difference that would make all celestial objects but the Earth to have gravity and not the Earth.

That's the real question.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / gravity differences based on location?

« on: January 02, 2007, 10:15:06 PM »

One proposed explanation is that the stars each some some mass, and therefore have a slight gravitational pull. The higher you climb, the closer you are to the stars, resulting in a slight upwards pull. This makes it appear that you weigh less as you gain altitude. Keep in mind this is only a proposed explanation, we have not tested it as yet.

Hmm, well if that were true would that not negate the upwards acceleration gravitational theory? Plus if just changing your altitude by a few 10 kilometers or so has a significant change in gravitational effect, with the star being several million kilometers away, wouldn't that mean the gravity closer towards the star would be reaching black hole levels?

The stars aren't several million kilometers away, they're several kilometers away. In the FE model, anyway.

Any evidence of this ?

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Antartica

« on: January 02, 2007, 09:45:45 PM »

Is even basic physics capable of explaining FET?

Newtonian mechanics do a good job of explaining movement of objects on the FE.

Again, a shitty way in order to avoid the principal question.

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Consider these questions:

« on: January 02, 2007, 03:45:38 PM »

Strawman argument.

Is this big enough?

Yes. Now prove those pictures aren't faked by the conspiracy.

Could you first prove that there's a conspiracy?

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Consider these questions:

« on: January 02, 2007, 02:37:51 PM »

1.) How do you explain the Coriolis force? You know, the force that makes low pressures turn clock-wise on the northern hemisphere and counterclock-wise on the southern hemisphere?

Having never observed these effects myself, I am tempted to say I have ne reason to believe that they exist. Although I'm certain I've seen an explanation for them somewhere.

:lol: Coriolis force doesn't exists in the FE model. :lol:

You're only making the RE model easier to defend :lol:

28

Flat Earth Q&A / HUGE CONTRADICTION HERE!!!

« on: January 01, 2007, 12:43:52 PM »

I think he said that when you're in a car that's going to a constant speed and you drop a ball, the ball will "follow" the car until it goes down. The relative speed of the ball to the car is zero.

If you accelerate with your car and drop a ball, the ball will go at the speed at which you droped it and won't "follow" the car in its acceleration.

You can try this with a set of keys. Walk at constant speed and throw a set of keys straight up. You will catch it at about the same place where you threw it. But if you accelerate when throwing it, you won't be able to do the same.


It works the same way with ether and Earth. The relative speed of the ether to the Earth is zero, so it means, as it does with the ball and the car, that the Earth is not accelerating, but going at a certain speed.

This experiment is very important in this debate.

29

Flat Earth Q&A / FE model

« on: January 01, 2007, 01:08:34 AM »

This is not perspective. Perspective makes far objects to be little. Nothing else.

Absolutely false.  Take this example I created relatively recently, actually:



This is how perspective works.  Things that are further away do indeed appear lower, closer to the horizon.  You cannot refute that.

I'm further than this. What if the airplane disappears under the horizon ?

We can easily see this with a boat on the ocean : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shiphorp.jpg

It is closer to the horizon, it's true. But it's not only closer to it, it's under the horizon.

That's what I was asking FEers to explain with scientific basis, not only unexperimented theories. I want a theory, scientific links between different theories to come up with the theory which explains the boat being under the horizon. Also, if you have calculations, it'd be welcomed.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / FE model

« on: January 01, 2007, 12:56:27 AM »

It's called perspective. An airplane several miles away from you might appear to be just above the horizon when it is in fact a thousand feet up. Likewise, as the sun gets farther away from you it appears to get lower in the sky.

This is not perspective. Perspective makes far objects to be little. Nothing else.

But do you have any evidence that proves the optical illusion ?

Prove it to me how this optical illusion works.

I bet you can't.