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 - Sharky

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debate: Atmosphere
« on: October 04, 2007, 04:03:51 AM »
The atmosphere doesn't flow over the side of the earth thanks to the Ice Wall.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: RE floating oceans.
« on: October 02, 2007, 02:07:37 PM »
So you deny everything I just showed you and your counter argument is one of your facts that you haven't proven.

After have being put into error an huge amount of times <insert subject> refuse to accept it. Therefore there are noe two options :

1. This whole topice is a joke, even tho schooling you was fun (which is <was than is> probably the case)
2. Your opinion is worth nothing for a lack of giving better counter-arguments and yet still refusing to accept it.

<insert two options anytime>


Your opinion is invalidated by your inability to speak english.

Oh my! I had a typography issu and didn't reread what I had written... Nice one. I prefer that over being a complete dumbass.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to debunk the FE theory in 1 sentence
« on: October 02, 2007, 08:52:36 AM »
Mr Ireland: <nelsonvoice>ha, ha</nelsonvoice>, if you guys have never realized this obvious contradiction, well, let's just say it shows you never put much thought into your pet theory...

See this image: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1264&start=16
Look at the icy strip of land just south of South America, it's called the Antarctic Peninsula and sits right on the Antarctic Circle. Now, given the trajectory of the Sun in this image, explain me how parts of this peninsula can be in the daylight for at least 24+ hours (ie. a polar day) at least once a year ? Embarrassing isn't it ? Oops ;D

Gunznroses: of course. Now observe how a FE'er is going to reply right below this message by saying that polar days are part of the "conspiracy" or are an "optical illusion": (see next msg)

Well yes, Antarctica is supposed to be part of the conspiracy. And seeing as you haven't been there to give proof of it's existence this argument doesn't work.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth is moving up
« on: October 02, 2007, 08:34:45 AM »
I'm interested in knowing where you got that from (emailking)

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: RE floating oceans.
« on: October 02, 2007, 08:12:37 AM »
So you deny everything I just showed you and your counter argument is one of your facts that you haven't proven.

After have being put into error an huge amount of times refuse to accept it. Therefore there are noe two options :

1. This whole topice is a joke, even tho schooling you was fun (which is probably the case)
2. Your opinion is worth nothing for a lack of giving better counter-arguments and yet still refusing to accept it.

6
Once you will have grown enough and will be a bit more mature and intelligent. You might find out that "gravity" is a term to designate  G*(EarthMass/EarthRadius^2) where G is the constant of universal gravitation (or whatever they call it in english) and that mass, no matter how little of it, "generates" gravitation.

So whenever you want to post a smartass wall of text be sure of your facts first.
You appear insecure, my facts?...

...Your quoted post.

Wow what a great argument! I'm just fed up of smartasses that bring nothing to the debate.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: RE floating oceans.
« on: October 01, 2007, 12:48:34 PM »
Here is a little scheme to explain to you that what you say is idiotic (Smarticus)


m=ocean's mass
M=earth's mass

G=constant of universal gravitation
r=earth's radius

-F=G*((m+M)/(r^2))

Meaning that F= The inverse of the gravitational pull exerted between the ocean and the earth=What force the helicopter needs to exert on the ocean to lift it up from the ground.
Meaning the ocean has mass. And that means (because you seem really dumb) that gravity will have an effect on our oceans.

Because you seem really extremely dumb I will prove you wrong once again : Are you saying that if we were to measure the whole ocean's weight even if we were to go gallon by gallon (BTW weight=mass*gravity) and that we add one more gallon into the ocean's water it wouldn't have one more gallon's worth of weight?

And even if you still don't believe it, let me just say that in any case, the air exerts a pressure on the water keeping it pinned down.

PS: To illustrate what you're saying : My hand has no mass within my hand, the earth has no mass within the earth, your bedside lamp has no mass within your bedside lamp.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A legitimate question to the FEers
« on: October 01, 2007, 12:10:06 PM »
Like I said, "our" science? Since when have there been more than one?
It would be idiotic to think there is only one science. There are alot of different sciences. If you contradict basic laws of physics and try to replace them with others that seem totally irrational with our modern physics, it would be creating a new form of science

As far as I remember, FE conforms with SR and Gulliver agrees (at least I think). The next points you bring up are simply things that are not known at this time. Nothing about different science.
It may conform on little occasions yet it still ignores or rejects basic modern day physics. And I don't understand what place Gulliver has in your argument.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A legitimate question to the FEers
« on: October 01, 2007, 11:47:55 AM »
1. Way to go on answering the post by pointing out something that is of least importance

2. Yes our science. As I don't think FEers can really use the same science as REers when they contradict einstein's theory where nothing can go faster than light or when for some reason the earth isn't subject to gravitation. As well as other stuff such as a strangely orbiting sun and moon around nothing or that they haven't said anything yet about how, by using the same laws of thermodynamics, are earth isn't much colder at contact with a universe at 3K when the only heat source is as meaningless as the sun they've depicted.

I'm not against this theory (I'm still an REer) but I think you FEers should try and get some mathematical sense into your theory and I aswell as alot of others might consider it.

10
Flat Earth Debate / A legitimate question to the FEers
« on: October 01, 2007, 10:52:55 AM »
You guys seem all very well rounded in the science in a RE world and you use a lot of it to proove FE.
You contradict a few basic laws of physics and yet still use our science in your theory.

What makes RE so much more accepted is that we have laws etc that fit, that can be tested experimentally, calculated and we'll get the same answers.
Now my question is, why don't you come up with a whole new system? This might be a huge task considering that our system as taken century's to perfect. But now that mathematics have advanced alot (with calculators and computers) the process should be a lot shorter.

Mathematics divorced in it's entirety with FE except for a few people who have tried to keep them together. And it's time for this community to really start their own theory which means a lot of new laws to prove it.

Just to add this, as some FEers seem to have a difficult time splitting from the modern science (you can't really blame them when it's so anchored in our society), these new laws that you will one day have to create if you want FEism to gain importance may have no resemblance what so ever with the actual ones we have. So long as they can be proven by experiments and calculations they are just as valid as the current flow.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: the blue marble
« on: October 01, 2007, 08:15:50 AM »
Yes I thought so. Altho it doesn't change the fact that this isn't a photo.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with FE, Version 2.0
« on: September 30, 2007, 01:49:20 PM »
Explain why spherical triangles are problems with FE.

13
Once you will have grown enough and will be a bit more mature and intelligent. You might find out that "gravity" is a term to designate  G*(EarthMass/EarthRadius^2) where G is the constant of universal gravitation (or whatever they call it in english) and that mass, no matter how little of it, "generates" gravitation.

So whenever you want to post a smartass wall of text be sure of your facts first.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: the blue marble
« on: September 30, 2007, 01:36:42 PM »
That picture is known to be "fake" (not really the right term as it wasn't meant to be thought as a photo).

If you were to be in space and the sun on the opposite side of the earth you wouldn't see as clearly as that.
Also in RE the world is said to be a tad flattened (not to be mistaken with FE :D) due to rotation. Which obviously isn't the case here. Altho I don't know if you could see it in a picture like this.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / FE magnetic field
« on: April 02, 2006, 12:30:05 PM »
May I please ask what the flat earth's magnetic poles problem is ?

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Eclipse
« on: March 30, 2006, 07:52:01 AM »
They're called yo's here... Go figure

17
Flat Earth Q&A / More plausible gravity theory
« on: March 26, 2006, 12:21:24 PM »
If gravity exist, it will pull everything to the center, from every direction, not only down, and so the mass will be pulled into a sphere and not a disc

18
Flat Earth Q&A / More plausible gravity theory
« on: March 26, 2006, 08:10:21 AM »
v_v the thing is, if gravity exists everything is pulled into to the center, in a sphere. Therefor you can't use gravity as an explanation in FE

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Please clear this up
« on: March 17, 2006, 01:01:16 PM »
I think erasmus is starting to like drawing...

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Planets?
« on: March 17, 2006, 07:28:52 AM »
Quote from: "Welsh"
Have u ever seen another planet, all you see are these edited pictures on the news, and articles from scientists saying there are other planets. WHy have they never given us proper proof, cos they dont really exist, planets were made up so ppl could invent shows like star trek.


I went to an observatory two days ago... the planets seemed pretty clear  and real to me...

Quote from: "Welsh"
Man on the moon had a really clear transmission back in the 70's when it apparently happened yet i cant even phone my neighbour on a mobile without it cutting out


Do you really think NASA we're using regular telephone lines ? Unless you wanted to buy a 200000 $ it wasn't possible to phone your neighbour without it cutting out...

Like in mid 1985, did you have the internet ? No, that didn't mean it wasn't possible at the time, because the american army had it.

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: We are all just sit'n and spinning here......
« on: March 17, 2006, 07:21:15 AM »
Quote from: "Mach1"
Scientist say we are spinning about 1,038Mph at the equator. This would mean that we are spinning faster than the speed of sound.

If we are spinning this fast, then how are we able to hear anything? The sound would always be behind us. So no way this is true that the earth is spinning this fast. It's all a lie, we really are just sitting on a flat disc and not really spinning or going anywhere.....


If that's what you think on your flat earth, how do explain we're still hearing stuff on a flat earth if we're accelerating upwards ?

22
Oh shit, I forgot...

Anyway, I was pointing out something his site forgot to mention

23
Flat Earth Q&A / What Have The Governments Got to hide?
« on: March 16, 2006, 08:20:32 AM »
With no absolute meaning what so ever... One can always theorise on why there is a secret, and what they are trying to hide, even if it might not be true.

But with this conspiracy, you cannot, as there is no reason to hide it, no benefit, especially at the cost to hide it all.

24
I find it strange that your site doesn't talk about the earth's shape... Because the earth isn't a perfect sphere. The earth rotates on itself creating a centrifugal (don't how that is spellt) force that is stronger at the equator than the poles.
Therefor the earth isn't perfectly spherical, because the forces at the equator are pushing the mass more outwards that the forces at the poles, maiking it a flattend ball (not to mistake with a flat earth). Which means that the distance between the equator and the center is higher than from the poles to the center, making gravity variations.

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Proof for a flat earth is all around us
« on: March 16, 2006, 08:12:35 AM »
Or the earth is already a sphere >_>

By the way, what is the earth's age in FEism ?

26
Flat Earth Q&A / What Have The Governments Got to hide?
« on: March 15, 2006, 10:29:32 AM »
That was to cheesejoff

27
Flat Earth Q&A / What Have The Governments Got to hide?
« on: March 15, 2006, 10:28:41 AM »
I think he's talking about this particular conspiracy... not in general... What have they got to hide about the earth being flat ?

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Proof for a flat earth is all around us
« on: March 15, 2006, 09:54:45 AM »
Then your mass is acting upon the earth in a strange way...

I also find it ironic that the topic's title is "proof for a flat-earth all around us" and the topic creator doesn't even give a shred of proof for a flat-earth, not even ask for some.
Instead he asks us to prove the earth is round.

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Proof for a flat earth is all around us
« on: March 15, 2006, 08:05:35 AM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Quote from: "6strings"

The model cheesejoff (I'm fairly sure it was him, if not, I apologize) proposed, in which there is a large mass over the earth exerting a countering gravitational pull, did explain that one fairly well.  (I'm paraphrasing the explanation because I can't find the thread where it was originally posted, if anyone knows it, please post a link.)


Yup, that's basically what I suggested. Of course we still to work out what shape the mass is in order to counter the FE gravity...


That would still be basing on the fact that gravity exists... So if gravity exists, how come the earth (having alot of mass) hasn't pulled everything to the center, making a sphere?

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Proof for a flat earth is all around us
« on: March 14, 2006, 02:05:31 PM »
FEism has never explained solar and lunar eclipses.

FEism has never explained the tides being relative to the moon's placement.

FEism has never explained the change of attraction to the earth at different altitudes (and don't give me the crap about the sun attracting us to it, because that would mean gravity exists, therefor (the earth having a enormous mass), the earth is a sphere).

FEism has NEVER EVER explained the ships gradually sailing underneath the horizon line.

Are you trying to tell me that the whole time humans have walked this planet, nobody ever went to this so called "ice wall" ?

How come I can't see further than the horizon line with a telescope if the earth is flat ?

Why the hell would the government hide the fact that the earth is flat ? How does it benefit them ?

Don't say that round-earthers are the ones clinging desperatly onto there theory, because obviously, we are not the minority, we have more proof and we use our brain when we think.

Pages: [1] 2 3