1

Flat Earth Q&A / Any proof for flat earth?

« on: February 20, 2006, 03:42:42 AM »

Yeah, well what's with your name? We all know it's Nortbooz backwards! C'mon, such a blatant attack on our civilization! How dare you?!

Also, the fact that you won't give any proof suggests that you don't have any. At least we give you some, even if it is just "technobabble".

2

Arts & Entertainment / The Music Game

« on: February 19, 2006, 08:25:24 PM »

Well, like you said, I listened to both.

I'm no big fan of electric guitar solos (hey, a palindrome), so I can't say much in terms of skill or whatever else have you because I don't understand the genre too well. That's not dissing your music by any means.

Actually, I should say, give it some time and I might get to like them. See, it sounds like good background music when I'm reading a book, playing my PSP or flaming some flat-earther, so eventually, yeah, it could rock (well, technically, yes, it is already rock).

Anyway, I guess I have to suggest something, give me a bit.

While I'm thinking about it, let me say, I'm back. I've been gone a while because I got sick of all the crazy science. Well, I'm ready for another round, but so many new faces... Who would've thought it could be so much fun?

Oh, by the way, try this:
MC Paul Barman - Vulture Shark Sculpture Park

3

Flat Earth Q&A / My question to all the round-earthers

« on: January 23, 2006, 03:49:05 AM »

Hey, when did we start proving metal boats didn't exist?! Is there a point to this arguement? Is there a point to any arguement here? The Earth is round.

And can someone please answer my question about the word "lem-on"! If I don't put that space there, it gets changed to "lime"! Don't Flat-Earthers like lem-ons? Are they a conspiracy, too? Did the government start sending agents out to paint all the limes?

4

Flat Earth Q&A / How thick is Earth?

« on: January 23, 2006, 02:35:48 AM »

Thanks, that cleared it up.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / How thick is Earth?

« on: January 23, 2006, 01:54:04 AM »

I assume the Flat-Earth has thickness, how thick is it?

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Round Earthers you must throw what you have been taught away

« on: January 23, 2006, 12:32:44 AM »

Understand that it is difficult for us to combat your sciences because you always have another theory lined up, It all seems a little to convenient if you ask me.

So you denounce science because it answers everything, or lots of things at least (but it's working on everything), but you readily accept a theory based on it-just-is-isms and don't-ask-questions-isms?

Yes, bullhorn, it really is convenient that science which has evolved and strengthened over many centuries to go from answering some things, to answering most things*. All that convenience! I mean, wow, cars are convenient. So is mass production. Hey, agriculture and farming is convenient. Computers and the Internet are pretty convenient. Wow, science is convenient and so is the world... that's coincidence, right? Or a government conspiracy?

Meanwhile how convenient is it that your Flat-Earth theory doesn't provide any answers to any real questions? You can't do a thing with your theories. You dispute our claims saying it's a government conspiracy, but don't offer any substantial alternative that can replace it.

All of us have said on countless occasions that if you could provide us with a mathematical model, a physical model or a scientific model of any sort that has been able to stand as much scrutiny as science has, then hey, we could convert. But all we get from you is a "believe me because I heard from someone who heard from someone" theory. Then when we ask the "yeah, but why?" question that science can stand up to, you either:[list=a]

• shut up.
• tell us we are government agents.
• make up some flim-flam that still can't stand a "yeah, but why?" question.[/list:o]And then you expect us to throw away our rock solid doctrine so we can all stand around in your jelly-like theories all day. Like that horrible pineapple jelly that looks and tastes horrible. Go on, then. Prove it. Tell me your theory that stands up to the "yeah, but why?" tests. Why is the Earth flat? What's the theory? Can you make up enough non-contradictory statements to prove your point? That is my Round-Earth challenge to you!
  
  If you don't like our maths, use Flat-Earth maths. If you don't like our physics use your own. Whatever. As long as you can validate your theories with experiments (ie. prove them). I dare you to find a more complete model of the universe or even just of Earth than the model we give you.
  
  *I say most, but it's often said that "the more you know, the more you realise you don't know" and this is true for science as well. I mean, we still don't know to exactness, the processes of our sun. We don't have a 'quantum theory of relativity', which we very much want. And we don't have the technology for hyperdrive, hover cars, telportation, nanomachines, etc. We will though, and no doubt, when we do, we will have opened up even more questions that we will strive to answer.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Simple logic

« on: January 22, 2006, 07:19:14 PM »

If an object is accelerating upward (or in any direction, since there is not up and down in the space) at a constant rate, from an external referece frame you won't see a contact acceleration, but you'll se a decreasing acceleration...

Hey, you know, he could be on to something. Check out this article.

Also, I read about this problem in Time Travel in Einstein's Universe by J. Richard Gott.

Mind you, Javier_Vierja, you still haven't explained not only what started the acceleration, but also how it is maintaining this acceleration. Also, another important question is that the mass of earth is considerably less that you are implying it would be.

You see, the faster you go, the heavier you get (we're talking exponential increases the closer you get to light). That's why travel at near the speed of light is impossible right now - because our rocket boosters can't propel enough weight.

In order to maintain acceleration at 9.8m/s², when velocity is near the speed of light, would require immense force. Where does Earth get it from? What exactly is propelling Earth upward?

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Simple logic

« on: January 22, 2006, 06:06:52 PM »

I understand that the vacuum is expanding, but I don't know if the matter is expanding also.

Of course matter isn't expanding. But it's moving away from each other. It's irrelevant anyway, because matter is accelerating away from each other in big chunks called galaxies. All matter in the galaxies are affected by this universe expanding jingo at a uniform rate so it's effect on us standing on Earth is null.

No, again. The universe is expanding at a constant rate.

The universe is expanding at a constant rate, the speed of light. Dark matter was involved in the process of stopping the acceleration by adding the much needed gravity that didn't quite add up.

This means that each galaxy is moving away from the centre of the universe at a rate proportional to its distance, but at a constant rate. Galaxies further away are moving faster so they look like they are accelerating. Galaxies that are moving slower also look like they are accelerating in the opposite direction. In fact the acceleration is the same as the difference of their velocities. If I need to draw a diagram, damn, because then I have to learn about image hosting, but I will do it motivated by my frustrating need to prove a point.

Anyway, the effect of all that mumbo-jumbo is that the galaxies move away from each other at an accelerated rate. (Refer to the cliché of the balloon with dots drawn on the surface.) But they are moving at constant velocity. So my point is still the same.

Here's another tidbit. Since gravity is what holds galaxies together, if there was none, then the part of the galaxy closer to the edge of the universe would be travelling faster that the side closer to the centre. The result? Every galaxy would be torn to shreds. In fact, galaxies wouldn't have been formed in the first place. And humans, which wouldn't exist, would have that universal theory of everything that they want so badly.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Indisbutable proof that theories are WRONG!

« on: January 22, 2006, 03:56:14 AM »

I've got an idea.

Gravity could be cause by centrifugal forces as the tube spins.

Hey, I believe in it now. All you Round-Earthers are government spies. And God is an alien who controls the governments using invisible collars of mind control.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Simple logic

« on: January 22, 2006, 02:51:46 AM »

newty82, that explains how we know the universe is expanding. The actual reason for the expansion is the Big Bang... which exploded in 20 different dimensions. That not only sounds cool, that is cool.

Anyway, it doesn't count as an explanation of anything, because if the whole universe is moving outward at light speed, then all objects in it are moving proportional to it. That means, we wouldn't feel the effects of it because everything would be moving at the same speed.

Here's an experiment you can try everywhere you go. The common elevator. Well, maybe not a common one, but one like the Sydney Tower... Or the Empire State for you Americans. Those things travel upward fast. Yet there is no perceptory change in the effect of gravity. Hell, there's no change at all!

Yet, even though you are being pushed up at great speeds, you can't feel it because of the constant (or near constant velocity). You only feel funny at the start when it's accelerating.

So two stances on the moving upward thing:

1) We are accelerating upward, that's why there is an effect.

No because, eventually you would be travelling so fast that you couldn't accelerate anymore. Someone else covered that in greater detail.

2) We are travelling upward because of the Big Bang.

No, again. The universe is expanding at a constant rate. And as I said, we feel acceleration impacting on our bodies, not constant velocity. If we were travelling upward on a Flat-Earth at constant velocity, Earth would be weightless. Like the space around it. This is the weightless effect you get when free falling by cancelling out the gravity.

Oh, wait there is one other option:

3) The Earth has gravity, which has caused it to be round.

Hey, I like that one. Yeah, that explains it pretty well.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Flat-Earth Atmospheres

« on: January 22, 2006, 01:57:02 AM »

Newty82... I think you're a little confused. Erasmus is being sarcastic.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Are there images available a the ice-wall?

« on: January 22, 2006, 01:11:19 AM »

It's possible to bend light without gravity... See light follows the fastest route possible. In nearly all cases, that is a straight line. But it's faster to go closer to a large gravitational mass, so they follow the curve. And it's faster to glide through hot air than cool air, so on hot days when the tarmac is REALLY hot, light from the sky travels near the road and then up to our eyes. That is what causes the reflecton on the road.

I mean, that still doesn't help the case of Flat-Earthers since there isn't any real way to simulate the same Round-Earth from a Flat-Earth for every person facing different directions all from different positions. The illusions would cross somewhere (much like two people facing the same road from different directions wouldn't see the same mirage) and there'd be someone out there see a pretty funny shaped world. And I'm fairly certain that the only (insert shape here)-Earth Society is this one.

Besides, this technology isn't even available yet. A proper theory of light is only just coming into being with advancements in quantum mechanics. If we could create cool illusions like that, we'd have holographs by now. Damn, I can't wait till that happens.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / My question to all the round-earthers

« on: January 22, 2006, 12:49:04 AM »

No I have a better explanation. It must be the strange configuration of gravity that causes the construction of flat planets that also causes stars to do figure-eights in the sky.

Or maybe they're advanced precision satellites that have a specific path, all for the purpose of the conspiracy, which is actually, now, costing more money to harbour than the rewards of actually creating it. Although I'm not to sure the point of the conspiracy...

Anyway, I'm good at making stuff up on the spot. Can I believe in a Flat-Earth too?

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Flat Earth???!!!!!

« on: January 21, 2006, 06:37:44 AM »

Is it me, or did he say 90 - 7 = 84?

15

Flat Earth Q&A / My question to all the round-earthers

« on: January 21, 2006, 01:09:33 AM »

Thanks. First of all, I said disprove it. I know it's provable. It's math. If you can't prove maths with simpler maths, it's not maths. So thanks for proving my point.

Secondly,

Whereas Einstein's book, "Relativity" made a world of sense and could be applied to most every situation I came across.

meaning, in lay terms, I didn't just read it and believe, I read it and saw analogous situations in real life and found consistency in his theory and results in teh real world. Something I am yet to find in any Flat Earth theories as such.

But, yes, I can see how reading about the world, applying my own test situations (my best test was of vector calculus using my highly scientific lime bazooka ) is far less trustworthy than hearing something and believing it without running tests because, "hey, I trust the guy".

I mean, why should I trust the science that gave me the computer I'm using, the car I drive, the food I eat. Surely all this stuff isn't actually working. I just feel like it does, but that must all be the government. In fact, come to think of it, I did see a secret agent pushing my car down the freeway at 100kph and I do vaguely remember that guy with a calculator putting fridge-magnet letters on my monitor. Could it be that the world I live in truly isn't the result of science. Oh no, wait, I'm not an idiot, of course it is.

You telling me that my "belief" in science is a sorry error of judgement is laughable in itself, since that is all that Flat-Earth theory has to it's name; a belief.

PS. Why does the word "l e m o n" get changed to "lime"? Is there a definite fruit bias on this site, I am unwarily participating in?

16

Flat Earth Q&A / My question to all the round-earthers

« on: January 20, 2006, 11:39:52 PM »

Forget all the books, TV programs, documentaries, science magazines, schools, etc...

Right, well, if I did that, I wouldn't be sure of anything. But fortuantely, when I read things, I don't just take it for granted, but in fact, look for ways to disprove it using my knowledge.

Look, I know it's been done to death, but try and disprove that "1 + 1 = 2". YOu can't for the simple reason that it works. Then move on to the harder stuff. Disprove by contradiciton, or example, or by first order logic that the derivative of a curve will produce the instantaneous tangent at a point. It's more complicated, but you still can't do it. I can prove that it does.

I've read Steven Hawking's book about superstring theory and chose not to believe it because I thought it was flimsy at best. It was based on science I could neither prove not disprove. Whereas Einstein's book, "Relativity" made a world of sense and could be applied to most every situation I came across (except when it got too complicated and my brain melted).

The point is, your best argument is that everything in science is a lie, but somehow it all works. Part of the process of passing a new theory is to realease it to public scrutiny in journals for two to three years. Many offer up a possible way to disprove it as part of their original conjecture.

So if Round-Earth science is a lie, then what is a more viable science? What makes more sense, half-arsed contradictory flim-flam about the way the world works with only your word to go by, or publicly scrutinised, empirical evidence backed theories based on laws that have proven their worth in the real world and have gained the recognition of the entire society?

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Are there images available a the ice-wall?

« on: January 20, 2006, 11:07:07 PM »

Yes, absolutely right. The sun bends light due to it's gravitational pull (which Flat-Earthers claim doesn't exist). But here's the thing, light travels faster than most objects in the universe (Those that aren't slower, are the same speed - gravitons for instance). The faster you are moving, the harder it is to turn (that's why we slow down at corners when driving) At the speed of light, bending of the path is very minimal, and from our position on earth, the effect is only visible when staring straight at the edge of the Sun (through a polarised telescope, since you can't see much when staring at the Sun).

The picture, thankfully, cleared up absolutely nothing. It doesn't make any sense. The only thing that would cause curvature of light as you have described around earth, is Earth's gravitational pull (which doesn't exist) and even then, the pull has to rival the Sun's to make any noticable effect. Which would also affect us, by crushing us under the brute force of air.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Flat-Earth Atmospheres

« on: January 20, 2006, 10:25:02 PM »

Oops... I just realised... I am making a jibe at you Flat Earth believers. And Raelians and neo-buddhist and star people and also you people paranoid about alien invasions and ghosts.

Well, sorry if I hurt your feelings, but, um... it's true.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Flat-Earth Atmospheres

« on: January 20, 2006, 10:21:37 PM »

Well, the two go hand-in-hand. If there is an ice-wall and it is 150 ft. high and there's nothing higher outside it, then that's as high as the atmosphere can get.

Sorry, I thought that made perfect sense. If the Earth is travelling upward with acceleration 9.8ms¨², then anything higher than the Ice Wall (that isn't bolted down, of course) would be flung out the sides.

Is anyone so bold as to say there is some internal mechanism in the Ice Wall that shoots out a force field with an effective range of about 800km? Actually, that would be kind of cool, like a Sci-Fi movie, but not very much like reality. But if this is, nevertheless, what is happening, I'd love to know what exactly is going on inside the Ice Wall. Or if there is something I've missed, I'd be equally eager to know what that is.

Right, well, I'll get right on that as soon as I get (A) the money and (B) a reputable scientist that'd actually do that.

Yes, well, I'm not making any personal jibes at you or anyone else on this forum unless they fall into any of the categories I am about to mention. What I am saying is that out there is a rich Flat-Earth believer (such as the president of the society, no doubt) who is not out there paying the money to do the research. There is most likely a energetic, adventurous Flat-Earth believer who is not out there trekking to the Ice Wall to scale it. There is a subversive Flat-Earth believer (actually, there is probably a lot) who is not out there revealing the truth through damning photo evidence or tapped calls between government agents.

Why do the Flat-Earth believers so adamantly believe in a Flat Earth, but are doing nothing but posting on Internet forums with no unquestionable evidence, pretending to be in on the biggest scam in human history? It's the same as alien invaders and ghosts and magic. People believe in these but offer no evidence that means anything. Aliens and ghosts are at least portrayed in our society as the unexplainable, because there is the off chance that they exist.

But, secret government agents trained in the arts of Photoshop and the "maths is wrong" philosophy aside for a moment, there is huge evidence that our Earth, every other planet in the system, every other planet revolving around a sun, the Sun and all the stars are spherical. So obvious is this that our society laughs in your collective faces at the very idea of a flat Earth.

Like neo-buddhists and raelians and star people, Flat-Earth beleivers obviously feel they need to be more knowledgeable than the general public, but they can't using knowledge alone. So they make up fake "knowledge", spew it out and think it makes them somehow on a higher plane than the rest of us (it definitely puts them on a plane of some description, at least in their eyes). But then generation after generation of don't-know-any-better folk hear this dribble and actually believe it. Then the world plunges into dark chaos feeding the egos of the long lost souls of the Flat Earth ancestors.

Oh, by the way...

I don't believe in the ice wall. It may exist. It may not.

If you don't believe in the Ice Wall and you do believe in a flat Earth, what is your, no doubt, plausible answer to the water not falling off the edge of the Earth?

20

Flat Earth Q&A / So, how did you end up on this site?

« on: January 20, 2006, 11:38:37 AM »

Actually, a friend of mine sent me a link to some article about Flat-Earthers. It mentioned something about the 100 reasons why the Earth is NOT a globe. Anyway, so I pasted that line into google, and I ended up here.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Flat-Earth Atmospheres

« on: January 20, 2006, 10:39:56 AM »

I was just wondering what the Flat-Earth atmosphere is made of? I mean, the Round-Earth atmosphere is something like 800km. The Troposphere which is where we live (the blue one) is 18km and the Stratosphere goes up to 50km. Our ultra-thick atmosphere protects us from space-debris, meteors, and UV rays from the Sun and left over microwaves from The Big Bang.

My question is this; How does the Flat-Earth atmosphere protect us from all of this, if it is only 150ft (46m) high? And it's just air. What? No ozone? Actually, that sort of brings up another question.

Most, if not all, factories only start spurting their pollutants above the 46m mark, so why do we care about pollution? Or is the government just making more conspiracies? I can't imagine why, though. Because they make all their money from industry.

Or maybe, their Round-Earth conspiracy backfired and actually slowed their technological and industrial progress? Surely, that can't be it either, because these guys are GOOD. I mean, they've managed to cheat the majority of the population with their Round-Earth hoo-har, surely they would have thought of a way to convince us that pollution isn't a problem. In fact, they control science, so they shouldn't even have invented pollution in the first place!

Also, what is space in the Flat-Earth universe? I mean, it can't be entirely pressureless like the Round-Earth universe, because then the Ice Wall would sublime from the outside, eventually cracking under the fabled pressure that created it. So space must actually have pressure. So what is space made of that gives it the pressure required to sustain the Ice Wall?

OK, so hopefully any attempts at sarcasm are blatantly obvious. I, personally, believe the Earth is round (call me crazy... - um... I guess some of you actually will), but I also am mildly interested in how it is that the current world model works in a flat world. I mean, I want to know everything about the world and the universe. I want to know why the sky is blue, I want to know why volcanoes erupt, etc.

But, then I come here, to The Flat Earth Society and I see people who are content to say the Earth is like this and that's that. I find it so frustrating that you don't know and don't attempt to find out the answers to these questions yourselves by boating to the Ice Wall to see it for yourself or by raising money for independent research into the effects of Flat-Earth pseudo-gravity.