1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So what shape is it?

« on: May 28, 2007, 08:50:03 PM »

It's a cylinder, with the North Pole in the center of a base and Antarctica spread around the circumferance like a delicious pizza crust.

(That was one sentance man, I understand the old "use search nub" if it would take several paragraphs to explain but it's a really straightforeward answer)

(oh and use search nub)

2

The Lounge / Re: Rate the person's signature above you

« on: May 27, 2007, 07:32:51 PM »

lol, medical

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about FE Model for Sun

« on: May 27, 2007, 06:53:59 PM »

Yes, this is how much fuel is burned, but the by-products still remain in the Sun and contribute to its mass.

So the Sun would still have the immense gravitational pull?

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about FE Model for Sun

« on: May 27, 2007, 03:38:15 PM »

Wow sure is quiet today

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Graviton

« on: May 27, 2007, 11:01:09 AM »

Gravioli with graviton gravy?  Sounds delicious.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Graviton

« on: May 27, 2007, 10:53:59 AM »

I believe we should be less worried about gravitons and more worried about graviolis

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about FE Model for Sun

« on: May 27, 2007, 10:39:22 AM »

I love the post.  You simply went through calculations and possibilities without any insulting.  But Pyrochimp, it was determined that the UA couldn't possibly effect objects in proportion to their mass, and that it has other methods.

Yes, you're right, silly me

Well FEers, until you come up with a good way for the sun to provide energy (besides magic), this is another thing that's been shown impossible with actual math.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about FE Model for Sun

« on: May 27, 2007, 10:07:22 AM »

11/10 post, A+++++++, fast shipping, would read again

Seriously though that's very nicely put.  However, nobody truly knows how deep the Earth is on FE, or how much of the total downward pull on the surface of the Earth is a result of Earth's gravitation.  Since the mass of the Earth has to result in a gravitational force of less then 9.8 m/s² at the surface, what would the calculations look like if the Earth were to supply the vast majority of the downward pull we feel at the surface, assuming the density is similar to the round Earth?  Would we still be pulled into the Sun and killed?

(You'll probably get a lot of "The sun's energy source is unknown" from the FEers, they're difficult like that)

Edit:  Oh!  Another important note.  If the Universal Accelerator (what supposedly replicates the feeling of gravity on the Earth's surface) is a property of the universe and applying an equal force to all objects, the mass of the Sun would have to be identical to the mass of the Earth, since if it were any different, it would either be lightyears ahead of Earth or crashed into Earth long ago.  However, if the UA is just a property of Earth and another force is accelerating the Sun, this obviously wouldn't be necessary (though in that case you have to ask "then WTF is accelerating the sun?").

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Around world...

« on: May 27, 2007, 09:57:01 AM »

Come on Gullykins, you know what he meant.  Semantics, semantics, semantics.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you explain the red line? 2

« on: May 27, 2007, 07:50:30 AM »

He was arguing 'cause he's TheEngineer.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why would they care?

« on: May 26, 2007, 09:49:23 PM »

The idea is that the conspirators take the several billion NASA budget that goes to space exploration, uses a fraction of it to bribe astronauts and high-ranking NASA officials as well as stage rocket launches, then keeps the rest as profit.

No seriously.

Edit: Damn you Roundy!

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: someone explain the tides to me please

« on: May 26, 2007, 09:45:03 PM »

I think you're thinking of spring and neap tides.  During a spring tide, the Sun, Earth, and Moon form a straight line, which makes both sides of the Earth have high tide like this



so the moon IS technically on the opposite side of one of the high tides, though directly above the other high tide.

Neap tide is when they form an "L" shape, causing the gravity of the Sun and Moon to effectively (at least partially) cancel out, like this





(you probably know all this but I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page)

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Around world...

« on: May 26, 2007, 09:34:39 PM »

Actual website?  This is the actual website, I think... link?  There's a few joke ones.

Anyway, I don't know if the distortion on the Southern hemisphere is spread evenly across the continents and oceans and they're both wider then they should be, or if the continents are normal and the oceans are ****ing huge.  Either way, it's a miracle nobody ever noticed after all these years

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: someone explain the tides to me please

« on: May 26, 2007, 09:28:30 PM »

The tides are simply predicted based on well known tables and equations. The mechanism for th tides isn't given in the equations; a pattern is simply calculated and derived.

Except for the fact that the moon is always directly over the center of the high tide

As an aside, couldn't the positions of the moon and sun cause the tides in FE too?  They're supposed to have gravitation, which is why the pull of the Earth is weaker as you go to higher elevations according to the FAQ.  I don't know if it would translate well or not, seeing how the Earth's map is discombobulated when you turn it into a flat surface.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Around world...

« on: May 26, 2007, 09:23:22 PM »

You can change the appearance in your profile, the default theme sucks nuts.

Also, think of it as a disc, with the North pole in the center, and Antarctica spread out around the edge like a tasty pizza crust.  Someone made a good map, but I don't have it.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: someone explain the tides to me please

« on: May 26, 2007, 11:40:03 AM »

and maybe the basic motion of the Sun in the sky.

Eh?  I always thought the FE model's explanation of the Sun's movement was kind of flakey and hard to believe.

Whats so flakey about magic? 

Well, where's the wizard hiding?  How'd he gain that kind of power?

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: someone explain the tides to me please

« on: May 26, 2007, 11:35:04 AM »

and maybe the basic motion of the Sun in the sky.

Eh?  I always thought the FE model's explanation of the Sun's movement was kind of flakey and hard to believe.

18

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Teleportation, it could be possible with household items

« on: May 25, 2007, 07:01:48 PM »

What if the teleporter takes you piece by piece afew quadrillion times.  Then you would still be the same you.

Wouldn't you, like, die?

I don't mean "you", I mean both the current you and the teleported you.

19

The Lounge / Re: America wins

« on: May 25, 2007, 05:08:16 PM »

Apple pie.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you explain the red line? 2

« on: May 25, 2007, 04:52:53 PM »

Yes, but you were quoting someone saying that most early navigation systems were based on or augmented by stellar navigation, then went on as if they were saying that people navigated by sun alone.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you explain the red line? 2

« on: May 25, 2007, 04:47:57 PM »

So, regarding the OP etc, how do FEers explain how we reached the South Pole, and flew across the Antarctic?

Tom should note that most early navigation systems were based on, or augmented by, stellar observation. This is valid and accurate everywhere, even where compasses fail....

If you're using the sun to make a trancontinental crossing of Antarctica without a compass you'd fly away from the sun inland for 1,600 miles and plant your flag, right? What would happen then?

Well, on a Round Earth you'd have to fly back north towards the sun no matter which direction you go. Floydd Bennet assumed a Round Earth, and so that's exactly what he did.

Stellar.  Using the stars, not the sun.

22

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Teleportation, it could be possible with household items

« on: May 25, 2007, 02:56:05 PM »

To be honest, I don't think feeling how it is to teleport is possible. If we are turned into photons, and reassemble into fermions again, the stream of consciousness would be halted, and it would be as if we were a new person. The others wouldn't realise the difference, but our old self would be "dead". Maybe it's speculation, but that's how it seems to me.

Our "self" dies all the time, according to the Buddhists.  At every moment we are new people.  Personality or self is a nominal entity, like that possessed by the Philadelphia Phillies; it consists of many interacting and sometimes contrary subparts that don't really cohere, that have no center. 

Teleporting probably just feels like this.  Like how we are right now, as people bouncing from one thing to another.  As long as the neurons and whatnot are perfectly copied, one is the same person that one has always thought.  Said person has the same memories and thinks the same way. 

Have you seen The Prestige? 

This is exactly what I was trying to get across, only put a lot more eloquently and understandably.

23

The Lounge / Re: Rate the person's signature above you

« on: May 24, 2007, 07:32:44 PM »

I lol'd heartily!

24

The Lounge / Re: Rate the person's signature above you

« on: May 24, 2007, 03:25:11 PM »

magic dirt, lolz

25

The Lounge / Re: Rate the person's signature above you

« on: May 24, 2007, 03:11:00 PM »

...>_> What do I do?

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you explain the red line? 2

« on: May 23, 2007, 09:00:08 PM »

I already have.

Yes, your "You can circumnavigate the earth by going south, as long as half the time you go north" argument was a real work of art.   Since when does going north constitute going south?  I'm surprised those B-2's didn't end up going in circles over Missouri.


I stated that circumnavigation was not possible by going south.  Gulliver decided this was incorrect and decided to toss in his two cents.  North vs. South is not exactly semantics.

Yeah, it kinda is in this case.  I still think you know what he meant.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can a FEer answer a few simple questions?

« on: May 23, 2007, 06:11:11 PM »

Dark matter doesn't emit anything.  That's why it's dark.  No X-rays, no infrared, no ultraviolet, no visible light, no gamma rays, no anything.

28

The Lounge / Re: Rate the person's signature above you

« on: May 23, 2007, 06:02:19 PM »

blogwhore/10

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you explain the red line? 2

« on: May 23, 2007, 06:00:49 PM »

Come on TheEngineer, you're better then this.  You know he meant that if you keep traveling in the same direction on the round Earth's surface, that direction being South from your starting point though not necessarily remaining South on your compass after nearing or passing the magnetic South pole, adjusting your vector continuously for the curvature of the Earth (because I know you'll say "you would fly off into space" if I don't mention that), you would end up back where you started.

Well, that was probably a bit more in-depth, but you still know what he meant.  I'm not saying he shouldn't have tried to explain it better for Captain Semantics but it's the concept he was trying to get across (I hope).

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question about GoogleEarth/Satellite Images

« on: May 22, 2007, 06:08:06 PM »

Actually the real Google Earth has a lot of its pictures taken from airplanes...