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 - edlloyd

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15
1
Flat Earth Debate / After 150 years...
« on: December 11, 2007, 09:06:31 AM »
After 150 years since Rowbotham, I was just wondering what new theories FE people have proposed since. E.G. formation of the earth. How an Ice wall came to form. In fact...does any FE person on this website actually conduct research into anything or is it just arguing?

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: at the end of the day...
« on: December 02, 2007, 12:48:20 PM »
That is the evidence for MY belief.

But that's not producing evidence for your own belief without the help of others.  Can't you do that like you claimed?  Or are you just going to claim that people telling you they've put satellites in the sky, and a ship mysteriously disappearing below the horizon is evidence enough (which isn't even what you claimed you would provide) for you to believe the earth is round?
 
Didn't say it doesn't disappear. That example is to point out that it doesn't distort like that of a ship. As u say...try reading.

Distort?  Are we talking about atmospheric distortion now?  Or are we talking about the ship disappearing from the bottom up?  Make up your mind.

Semantics..whatever.

Opp...don't forget the government conspiracy I mentioned as well. Seems more than you mate. Which you seem to of ignored.

If it was an optical illusion of the ship, it would be distortion would it not? Same difference.


3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: formation of Earth
« on: December 02, 2007, 12:40:55 PM »
Question:
We're asking if you have an idea/theory, something, as to how earth formed. Yes or no?

I've already given you one.

And then I asked you how the intial bit might have formed. You didn't answer. Try reading...

You want to know how rock is made?

Yeah...how do you reckon it came together without the aid of gravity?

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: at the end of the day...
« on: December 02, 2007, 12:36:00 PM »
I said reasons for my beliefe...not evidence. I was moaning at you for reasons for you belief instead of refering to Bishop.

That's why I mention out towards sea. There's nothing there. So what's it facing that why for then?

I don't quite see the same affect when the moon is around the horizon though. Only works with ships does it?

I'm referring to this:
I said earlier that I can produce evidence for my own belief without the help others.

Apparently you've claimed it more than once.

The moon doesn't disappear from the bottom up at the horizon?  Are you feeling ok?

That is the evidence for MY belief.

Didn't say it doesn't disappear. That example is to point out that it doesn't distort like that of a ship. As u say...try reading.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: formation of Earth
« on: December 02, 2007, 12:32:10 PM »
Semantics...whatever.

Did einstein need a massive budget to theorize special relativity? No...he  even waited some years for experiments to prove some parts.

We're asking if you have an idea/theory, something, as to how earth formed. Yes or no?

Ideas/theories can come first without experiments and vice versa.

Einstein would need to be gathering some evidence for special relativity.  Just him saying 'this is how it works' doesn't make it a theory.  I've given you an idea as to how it formed.  Try actually reading what's being written.  You can't have a theory if it's just an idea.

And then I asked you how the intial bit might have formed. You didn't answer. Try reading...

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: formation of Earth
« on: December 02, 2007, 12:31:11 PM »
You have to construct a theory about the past based on what you know about the present.

Exactly!  We don't know anything about the present earth's features (relating to its formation) so we can't come up with any reasonable idea as to how it formed.

That spinning and shearing there isn't much to expand on.  There would just be a really big piece of molten rock that would have been spinning quickly (causing it to 'plane' out into a flatter area) while also being influenced by outside factors (which could be anything)  It would have at some point come in contact with dark energy (causing its acceleration) and been implanted with life.

So I can't rule out god as well then...

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: at the end of the day...
« on: December 02, 2007, 12:24:13 PM »
Why would the optical illusion affect just the hull. They are at the same distance the hull and mast.

Well...why else would a satellite dish be pointed in that direction, if a satellite do not exist. Just pointing to sea for no reason is it? I don't see any communication masts out at sea bopping up and down at sea.

The optical illusion is affecting the whole ship and anything else at that distance.  The fact that you 'see the ship dipping below the horizon' is a result of the illusion.  Who says it needs to be a satellite it's pointing at, again?  It could be anything in that area.

But, I thought this was about evidence you can produce which requires no help from others.  I don't believe you've put satellites into orbit.

I said reasons for my beliefe...not evidence. I was moaning at you for reasons for you belief instead of refering to Bishop.

That's why I mention out towards sea. There's nothing there. So what's it facing that why for then?

I don't quite see the same affect when the moon is around the horizon though. Only works with ships does it?

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: formation of Earth
« on: December 02, 2007, 12:20:21 PM »
So if I were to just sit around and think 'God stepping on Earth made it flat', would you say it's a theory?

Do you like to argue or something?

Did Einstein have a massive budget to formulate his ideas? Did Newton? No yet they came up with theories.

So a theory of how the earth was formed in FE could be done without a massive budget or indeed even a budget.

A hypothesis could. but measurement equipment, geotechnical analysis and astronomical data would be hard to acquire for free. do you honestly believe that you could put together a near-accurate model of the Round Earth's formation, on your own, without the benefit of already knowing it without a sizeable research fund?


Not asking for near accurate...just asking does anyone have an idea as to how a FE could form? an Idea does not require money. To test it, yes. The Greeks knew the earth was round though? Sizeable reseach fund they had? No. But an idea at least. Point being..you would an idea of something before you went off and tested for it. But you have none.

 

Once again....

So we've gone from theory to idea I see.  You should have something to base your idea on before making it.  If you have an idea that 'all flowers in bloom will be pink' before actually observing some flowers in bloom, then your idea is meaningless.  Kind of like the FE theory of how the earth formed.  We haven't gone out and made observations that could lead us to conclusions as to how the earth formed, so simply 'making something up', or, having an idea, is almost meaningless.  It would cost money to make an educated guess, even, as to how the earth formed.

Semantics...whatever.

Did einstein need a massive budget to theorize special relativity? No...he  even waited some years for experiments to prove some parts.

We're asking if you have an idea/theory, something, as to how earth formed. Yes or no?

Ideas/theories can come first without experiments and vice versa.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: at the end of the day...
« on: December 02, 2007, 12:10:57 PM »
You agree you believe the earth is round, correct?  What does a satellite dish facing 'towards the sea and up' have to do with evidence of a round earth?  That giant organizations told you what they're pointing to?  And ships disappearing below the horizon, how do you know it's because the earth is round?  How do you know it's not an optical illusion?  If it were an optical illusion, you wouldn't be able to tell as you're simply observing exactly what the illusion implies you will observe, right?

Why would the optical illusion affect just the hull. They are at the same distance the hull and mast.

Well...why else would a satellite dish be pointed in that direction, if a satellite do not exist. Just pointing to sea for no reason is it? I don't see any communication masts out at sea bopping up and down at sea.

 

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: formation of Earth
« on: December 02, 2007, 11:57:51 AM »
So if I were to just sit around and think 'God stepping on Earth made it flat', would you say it's a theory?

Do you like to argue or something?

Did Einstein have a massive budget to formulate his ideas? Did Newton? No yet they came up with theories.

So a theory of how the earth was formed in FE could be done without a massive budget or indeed even a budget.

A hypothesis could. but measurement equipment, geotechnical analysis and astronomical data would be hard to acquire for free. do you honestly believe that you could put together a near-accurate model of the Round Earth's formation, on your own, without the benefit of already knowing it without a sizeable research fund?


Not asking for near accurate...just asking does anyone have an idea as to how a FE could form? an Idea does not require money. To test it, yes. The Greeks knew the earth was round though? Sizeable reseach fund they had? No. But an idea at least. Point being..you would an idea of something before you went off and tested for it. But you have none.

 

Once again....

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: formation of Earth
« on: December 02, 2007, 11:39:30 AM »
So if I were to just sit around and think 'God stepping on Earth made it flat', would you say it's a theory?

Do you like to argue or something?

Did Einstein have a massive budget to formulate his ideas? Did Newton? No yet they came up with theories.

So a theory of how the earth was formed in FE could be done without a massive budget or indeed even a budget.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: at the end of the day...
« on: December 02, 2007, 11:37:08 AM »
I'm going for a cigarette. Then I'll say why I believe the earth is round.
In other words, "I have to go look up something on the interwebs that I could possibly have thought up/done myself.  Brb."

Yes quite...like why would there be a worldwide conspiracy to convey that the earth is round? It would serve no purpose.

I live on the south coast of england, all the satellite dishes face towards the sea and up. There's nothing out there.

I regular see the hull of ship disappear below the horizon due to visits to the beach. No optical illusion. Mast and hull are at the same distance.

Oh...an ice wall? Water forming an ice wall before it had the chance to fall off the earth?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: at the end of the day...
« on: December 02, 2007, 11:22:35 AM »
You missed the hint.  Anyway, what evidence have you produced showing the earth to be round which required no help from others?

I have reasons for my belief. Which if you want I can state now. But you on the other hand resort to someone else to state reasons for you beliefs. In other words...why do you believe.

I'm going for a cigarette. Then I'll say why I believe the earth is round.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: formation of Earth
« on: December 02, 2007, 11:20:24 AM »
We need a budget to get something behind it to make it a theory and not simply an idea.

As I explained before. The great men of physics just sat and thought about it. No great budget, which you suggest is needed, was involved mate.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: formation of Earth
« on: December 02, 2007, 11:16:21 AM »
It does all come to one. You're quite right. But I'm asking for the theory idea at the moment, at least so that you won't need worry about your budget.

Earth's early life? Suggesting it was already slightly formed anyway. An idea as to how they might have happened then?

Not already slightly formed.  A big mass of molten rock could have simply undergone spinning and sheering causing it to come out flat and solid once it cooled.  I don't know why you're asking for stuff that has nothing behind it.

So as you have no theory for it...don't moan about not having a budget by which to test it.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: at the end of the day...
« on: December 02, 2007, 11:11:51 AM »
Pointing out that you're complaining about yourself, duh.

Thanks...but I'm not. Just moaning about you following something which you need other people to explain for you.

But thanks for the concern.

Hehe. Hint Hint

I said earlier that I can produce evidence for my own belief without the help others.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: formation of Earth
« on: December 02, 2007, 11:08:44 AM »
It all comes as one, not just the 'first bit'.  And I did give you a possibility.  Spinning and shearing in the earth's early life caused it to come out flat.

It does all come to one. You're quite right. But I'm asking for the theory at the moment, at least so that you won't need worry about your budget.

Earth's early life? Suggesting it was already slightly formed anyway. An idea as to how they might have happened then?

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: at the end of the day...
« on: December 02, 2007, 11:03:54 AM »
Pointing out that you're complaining about yourself, duh.

Thanks...but I'm not. Just moaning about you following something which you need other people to explain for you.

But thanks for the concern.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: at the end of the day...
« on: December 02, 2007, 10:56:55 AM »
You've been pestering me to give a reply when I already said Tom Bishop would cover the topic the best.  Then you complain that I shouldn't bother answering if Tom Bishop will be giving the answer.  You're complaining about yourself.

So what you doing here then?

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: formation of Earth
« on: December 02, 2007, 10:50:06 AM »
Sorry...now we're talking about it? Is that not the title of this thread? A theory does not require evidence to be theorized at least. Only to be proven. But since there is not even a theory how is it meant to be proved?

Theory: A possible explanation for repeatedly observed patterns in nature supported by observations and results from many investigations

Yeah...first bit. Possible explanation. Do you have that? No...Do that, then worry about your so called budget.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: at the end of the day...
« on: December 02, 2007, 10:43:54 AM »
I believe Tom Bishop covers that the best.  There's the Earth: Not a Globe quote with the 150 word sentence, and his own words on the subject.  I hope he posts them.

so you don't know why a theory so full with facts and evidence and experiments is not accepted by the worlds best minds....

hint hint

Read the first line again.  Hint Hint

I believe Tom Bishop covers that the best.  There's the Earth: Not a Globe quote with the 150 word sentence, and his own words on the subject.  I hope he posts them.

So you don't even know yourself then? If you need Tom Bishop to answer on your behalf...don't bother answering mate.

You see, I gave you a reply which you could have simply accepted and waited for the reply which I'm expecting, but instead you took the bullshit approach and started making stupid posts about how I don't know why.  You're complaining about yourself.

No...because I believe is round and can present evidence on my own behalf for that. That's the difference mate.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: formation of Earth
« on: December 02, 2007, 10:41:09 AM »
Now, we're talking about explaining how a FE was formed.  There's the ol' 'spinning and shearing' quote, but there really isn't anything behind it.  I guess if all you want is a 'theory' (which is still going to require evidence...), then there's the spinning and shearing idea which would have happened in its early life causing it to come out flat - but it'd be nice to have something behind that which would cost quite a bit of money.

Sorry...now we're talking about it? Is that not the title of this thread? A theory does not require evidence to be theorized at least. Only to be proven. But since there is not even a theory how is it meant to be proved?

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: at the end of the day...
« on: December 02, 2007, 10:26:08 AM »
I believe Tom Bishop covers that the best.  There's the Earth: Not a Globe quote with the 150 word sentence, and his own words on the subject.  I hope he posts them.

So you don't even know yourself then? If you need Tom Bishop to answer on your behalf...don't bother answering mate.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: formation of Earth
« on: December 02, 2007, 10:21:21 AM »
Err, wouldn't 'proofs' of a FE let us 'know' the earth is flat?

Instead of arguing by being pandatic and so avoiding the issue. Why not just answer. I mean...what's the point in flat earth society? You've not got anywhere have you?

Bold is important.

Thanks very much...so explain why a massive budget is needed? All the great men of physics had none, yet they came up with theories. Why do you need a budget to theorize. A budget would only be needed to conduct tests.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: formation of Earth
« on: December 02, 2007, 10:17:51 AM »
Err, wouldn't 'proofs' of a FE let us 'know' the earth is flat?

Instead of arguing by being pandatic and so avoiding the issue. Why not just answer. I mean...what's the point in flat earth society? You've not got anywhere have you?

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: formation of Earth
« on: December 02, 2007, 10:11:19 AM »
Nor do you know the earth is flat yet you come up with theories and proofs for it to be so. Why does no one speculate as to how. Einstein formulated the special theory of relativity on the wage of patent office employee.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: formation of Earth
« on: December 02, 2007, 08:50:57 AM »
doesn't say much for flat earth theory then

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why do balls bounce on a Flat Earth?
« on: December 01, 2007, 03:50:34 PM »
Take this:

What is the difference between you accelerating toward a brick wall and the brick wall accelerating towards you at the same rate?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!
- Equivalence Principal

What's the difference between me throwing a ball at a wall and rolling a ball at a wall? The one with more momentum is gonna bounce back further?

Here's one of the problems. I bolded the words.

Exactly...by the time the earth and ball meet again, earth will have more momentum due to it's 'accelertion' and when they meet again the ball would have stopped, relatively,  and as i stress the next collision will have more momentum resulting in the ball bouncing higher.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why do balls bounce on a Flat Earth?
« on: December 01, 2007, 03:44:04 PM »
and we're not talking about walls either. We're talking about essentially collisions. Hypocrite...

By the time the ball collides the earth again after an initial collision the earth will have sped up due to it's acceleration. If it's sped up, more momentum hence it bounce higher. Wind resistance slows the ball to a certain point in space, the earth traveling even faster now will meet it again... another collision with more momentum.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why do balls bounce on a Flat Earth?
« on: December 01, 2007, 03:32:46 PM »
Take this:

What is the difference between you accelerating toward a brick wall and the brick wall accelerating towards you at the same rate?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!
- Equivalence Principal

What's the difference between me throwing a ball at a wall and rolling a ball at a wall? The one with more momentum is gonna bounce back further?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15