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 - Unimportant

Pages: 1 ... 39 40 [41]
Flat Earth Q&A / Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« on: April 15, 2006, 05:04:01 PM »
Do you win by being uninformed? Or because you missed the numerous threads explaining this very topic?

The FAQ is very clear. Faster-than-light travel is possible, the only issue is accelerating from SOL-1 to SOL+1. If the earth has always been travelling greater than the speed of light, that issue would never come up. What's the problem?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: It's called a Telescope
« on: April 15, 2006, 05:01:05 PM »
Quote from: "UNJO"
Years ago they invented this thing known as a "telescope". With this, "Telescope" people could see farther then they normally could with the naked eye. Why is it that when I look through a friends $3,000 doller telescope to see a tiny Mars, that it is round?

The earth is "round" too, in a sense. It is also flat.
The same way a coin is round, and also flat. Mars could be the same way. If you are looking straight on at a flat disc, it would be hard to tell it apart from a sphere, unless you could examine it from a number of different perspectives. Unfortunately, from your friends back yard, you don't have that luxary.

Flat Earth Q&A / Why...
« on: April 15, 2006, 04:57:22 PM »
If it was of any significant height it would be possible to see a curve in the horizen. This can be observed by anyone at any time, anywhere, as per my other thread.

I can't recall having noticed this phenomenon recently. Could you perhaps post a picture illustrating your claim?

Flat Earth Q&A / If The Earth Is Flat...
« on: April 15, 2006, 04:55:40 PM »
If by "the rest of the universe" you mean the sun, moon, and cosmos that hang perpetually at a fixed distance a few thousand miles above earth, then yes they are accelerated at the same rate.

Flat Earth Q&A / Why...
« on: April 15, 2006, 04:53:13 PM »
Quote from: "Hiro54"
I see your point, but, what about my other questions? Why would the goverment want to do this? What proof do you have that the earth is flat?

I looked out my window, and it looks flat.
I even got up on my roof, and it still looked flat.
Even from the top of a tall building, it looked flat.

What proof do you have that it's round?

As for the government, I don't pretend to understand half of what they do when it doesnt involve a worldwide conspiracy. How would I hope to comprehend their motives behind a centuries-old coverup like this?

Flat Earth Q&A / If The Earth Is Flat...
« on: April 15, 2006, 04:50:22 PM »
Dark enegry exerts force on the "bottom" of the earth, accelerating it upwards at a constant rate so that we don't float away.

I discovered it this morning when I did not float away.

Flat Earth Q&A / Why...
« on: April 15, 2006, 04:44:47 PM »
The pictures are faked.

The FE model that most appeals to me doesn't ban space travel or even NASA having landed on the moon, it only rejects the supposed "evidence" they offer of a round earth. Just because they've been to space doesn't mean they're showing us the real pictures.

Flat Earth Q&A / If The Earth Is Flat...
« on: April 15, 2006, 02:13:47 PM »
Ok, you're halfway there!

Now apply the same logic to a flat earth that appears curved. Take a piece of wood, and carve a mound in the center. Now you can see, that section on the flat piece of wood is, in fact, curved.

We call these mounds "hills".

Flat Earth Q&A / If The Earth Is Flat...
« on: April 15, 2006, 01:45:41 PM »
Have you heard of hills?

Can I claim the earth isn't a sphere because the foundation of my house is perfectly level? Surely you realize that every inch of surface area on a sphere has some curvature, so any flat area on earth certainly proves the earth is not a sphere.

Flat Earth Q&A / Why no satellites?
« on: April 15, 2006, 11:50:56 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Interesting suggestion, but it creates a bit of a paradox.  Imagine you're the atmosphere, and dark matter or dark energy or whatever comes knocking on your door with a message saying, "Please be so good as to accelerate upwards."  You have two options: COMPLY or IGNORE.  Presumably, since air falls to the Earth (hence pressure/density variations), the atmosphere has chosen to IGNORE.  But then how does it "shield" us from the dark energy?  In order to do so it would have to interact with it in some way.

You're right, the atmosphere wouldn't be the thing doing the protecting in this case. Maybe it's better to think of the atmosphere being the result of the earth's "compliance" with dark matter. Assuming dark matter is, at least in some context, "matter", perhaps the atmosphere as we know it could be described as the wake left behind by the earth as the dark matter pushes around it. The dark matter is a giant river of energy pushing the earth along, and the atmosphere on "top" of the earth - the downstream side - is a bit of a void left behind. That's why we feel like we're being sucked back down unto the surface of the earth; we aren't directly subject to the forces of the river.

Once you get far enough away from the barrier that is the flat earth, however, you're once again in the stream, and will continue to flow along at the same rate of acceleration. I think this works better than the idea of the atmosphere protecting us, so much as the atmosphere is simply the result of the earth diverting the flow of dark matter.

This could also explain a bit of why people weigh less and the atmosphere bcomes thinner the higher you go. Of course, the atmosphere would also be thinner the closer you got to the edge of the earth, but we're assuming noone has gotten close enough to tell about it anyways.

And if you really wan't to go all the way with the river analogy, could not the orbits of the sun and moon and behavior of the cosmos be the result of eddies and whirlpools created by the barrier of the earth? These eddies might even be a function of the "height" above the earth, which would require only that you place a satellite at the correct distance from the earth's surface to flow in the proper "orbit".

That said, I think geosynchronous "orbit's" are the more plausable.

To keep them above the plane of the Earth, yes -- but not to make them go around in circles.

This is another reason why the idea of geosynchronous orbits struck me as being the most valid under these circumstances. In the FE model, geosynch "orbits" aren't orbits at all, they just sit there, and geosynch satellites would be more than enough to handle things like GPS and communications.


In fact, that's another tick mark against satellites: some of them go from north pole to south pole and back. This would be totally impossible in the FE, and the plausibility of slightly deviated orbits would be correspondingly slight.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing when it comes to whether we believe the idea of satellites as presented to us by the government. Certainly, like with everything the government does, the ultimate goal is to convince us all that the earth is round. Perhaps they established a number of geosynch satellites because they help with the efficiency of communication and navigation, and at the same time took the opportunity to fabricate any number of "extras" to help solidify the roundness of earth: pictures taken from space, lattitudal and otherwise unusual orbits, things like that.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE = crap
« on: April 15, 2006, 10:56:50 AM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Isac_Newton isn't an engineer.

He said he was:

Quote from: "Isac_Newton"
Erasmus, NEVER challenge an engineer to prove a cientific fact for you, because he will.

Sorry, what I meant to say is "I do not believe Isac_Newton's claim to be an engineer; I think he was lying."

Of course there is nothing to stop the fry chef at mcdonalds from calling himself an engineer unless you set up some guidelines, so if he wants to call himself an engineer because he got a 'B' in 10th grade physics that's fine.

Flat Earth Q&A / Why no satellites?
« on: April 15, 2006, 10:47:27 AM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
One solution would be to say that rockets do in fact accelerate, but it would take a lot of fuel for a rocket to keep accelerating at 1g for several weeks. Probably more than would fit on the actual rocket.

Why can't we say the same thing that is causing the sun, moon, earth, and cosmos to accelerate has the same affect on satellites? We here on earth are guarded from this phenomenon by the atmosphere, and so we experience the acceleration of the earth as gravity. Once you get out of the atmosphere, however, the "dark matter" (I'm using this as a represantative term for whatever is actually doing it) takes over and creates the acceleration needed to keep the satellites from plummeting back to earth.

Or letting the earth catch up, as it were.

Flat Earth Q&A / Why no satellites?
« on: April 15, 2006, 10:43:27 AM »
All that said, a geosynchronous "orbit" would, in an FE model where the flat earth doesn't spin, would require no "orbit" at all. The satellite would just fly sraight up sit there, at a fixed point above the earth, being pushed along by dark matter in the same direction as earth.

Hell, that seems a lot less complicated than the whole "moving orbit" thing to me.

Flat Earth Q&A / Why no satellites?
« on: April 15, 2006, 10:35:43 AM »
In the FE model satellites don't orbit the earth at all. They do they same thing the sun and moon do; they "orbit" above the FE equator, or whatever particular line of longitude their creators desires. An FE satellite "orbiting" over the equator would have no need to accelerate towards the earth, only a need to stay accelerate towards a point located directly above the "north pole", however high up the orbit is.

The vertical (that is, perpendicular to the flat earth) acceleration of the satellite, relative to the earth, would be zero. The same as it is with the sun and the moon.

It seems completely reasonable to me that whatever force is accelerating the earth - dark matter or not - could just as easily be accelerating any sattelites in "orbit" at the same rate.

As for the satellites needing acceleration towards a point (I'm sure that's somewhere in the definition of an orbit, actually), all FE's would need to establish is how they follow that particular circular path above the surface of the flat earth. Since the path is similar to that the sun and moon follow, why not use the same reason as we have for those orbits?

Or better yet, maybe the sun and the moon are the things providing that force needed to create the circular path; since the sun and moon exert gravity, they could be "dragging" satellites around behind them on their orbital paths.

Flat Earth Q&A / FE = crap
« on: April 15, 2006, 09:17:43 AM »
Isac_Newton isn't an engineer.

« on: April 15, 2006, 09:15:40 AM »
Then why are you posting here instead of studying?

Flat Earth Q&A / Why no satellites?
« on: April 15, 2006, 09:13:55 AM »
I know that is the FE theory, but I'm curious as to why space travel is expressly forbidden in the FE model.

I don't see how satellites or space travel is necessarily exclusive with a flat earth.

« on: April 14, 2006, 09:30:49 PM »
Quote from: "Isac_Newton"

That seems a strange outcome considering both of those guys believe the Earth is round.

Have you considered that you just haven't yet offered a worthwhile argument?

Flat Earth Q&A / Why no satellites?
« on: April 14, 2006, 03:33:19 PM »
Presumeably the same way the Sun, Moon, and Stars do.

[Edit] Dark matter, of course!

Flat Earth Q&A / Why no satellites?
« on: April 14, 2006, 12:17:06 PM »
I'm curious about the FE ban on satellites and space travel in general. The only argument I can see is that, to accept the possibility of travel beyond out atmosphere, we would have to accept the associated "evidence" for the RE model. I, however, don't see how this is true.

What is to stop the governments of the world from having satellites in space for communication, GPS, television or what have you? What's more, why can't we have visited the moon, as the governments would have us believe? Any "evidence" of an RE model associated with these feats could easily be faked. In fact, what better way for the governments to convince us the earth is round, once and for all?

We've been to space, and we saw it; see, look at these pictures!

After all, wouldn't it be much easier to doctor up some photographs of earth from the perspective of space, than to fake the hundreds of space launches that have been witnessed in person by thousands?

Why do we have to discount the entire idea of space travel; why not just discount the easily-faked RE evidence it provides?

Flat Earth Q&A / The earth isnt flat
« on: April 14, 2006, 12:09:29 PM »
The FAQ clearly states GPS signals are broadcast from towers here on Earth, which makes perfect logical sense on a flat earth.

And, given that there are no GPS towers past the edge of the earth, the triangulation used to determine your location would be exponentially less effective the closer you got to the ice wall, and the edge of the earth. So it's not just the magnetic interference messing with your cardinal compass, but the breakdown of the tower-driven GPS system as well.

Flat Earth Q&A / earth
« on: April 14, 2006, 12:04:34 PM »
Frankly, the government doesn't see this site as a threat to their coverup. The absolute lack of any forum for "flat earth" believers might very well be more suspicious than a relatively harmless site such as this.

In fact, it wouldn't be surprising if the government had a hand in the creation of this website just for that reason. They don't want the public to forget that some people believe the earth is flat, because then the public might forget how ridiculous the idea is supposed to be. Having a reminder of how "silly" the FE ideal is can only help cement the supposed validity of the RE model.

Flat Earth Q&A / The earth isnt flat
« on: April 14, 2006, 12:00:52 PM »
Who said anything about radio waves? I was thinking more in terms of magnetic interference, much like that encountered in the region known as the north pole of the earth.

Flat Earth Q&A / earth
« on: April 14, 2006, 11:58:38 AM »
Quote from: "Isac_Newton"
Quote from: "Unimportant"
This supposed alternate society would have long since been "left behind", since there would be nothing holding them on to the earth.

no , thats not true, because, the flat earth that we live on has layers with spaces between them, and THEY just simply live on top of another layer thats beneth our layer.

So what you're saying is that there might be other civilizations living underground.

That is fine, but it is not what you said earlier, where you claimed they would be living on the "other side" of the Earth.

Flat Earth Q&A / Ways of knowing
« on: April 14, 2006, 11:50:39 AM »
Quote from: "Isac_Newton"
this is why u get no where kid, u allways miss the point by talking about the unimportant things. u never have any inteligent come backs, I feel like im argueing with an 8 year old. or maybe you really are 8 years old who knows. ooo , u must be a "greater detect geek spell" ???? thats so immature.

I think you might find that people have a hard time taking you seriously given the way you choose to write. Ignoring a few typos or some improper syntax is one thing, but you obviously put no effort into making your replies readable, and so it is easy for us to assume you put equally little thought into the substance of the replies themselves.

When I think of science in the context of how I know what I know, I think of it as a more or less linear progression of logic, inductive reasoning without any cognative gaps. Given A, B must be true. Given B, C must be true. Given C... and so on. Even with the most complex and intensive concepts in science, if someone took the time to explain it to me, step by step, building on what I already know to be true, I would eventually be able to accept their conclusion without having to make any logical leaps of faith. In other words, I don't just have to take his word for it; I can see for myself that what he claims is true.

Now obviously this isn't how things work in practice, because it just isn't efficient. If every chemistry class took the time to explain the rigorous testing that went into the development of a specific constant, or every physics class started at the quantum level to explain simple mechanics, we would be all old men by the time we "knew" enough to calculate the momentum of a falling rock, or the atomic mass of a carbon atom. It turns out we do end up taking their word for it, because otherwise no progress would ever be made.

It would be like trying to build a house, and at the start of every new day you have to rebuild to foundation.

So, while in reality we do take a lot of what science gives us on faith, the thing that makes science different is that we don't have to. If I really, really wanted to go back and proove that the acceleration of an object due to gravity was 9.81 m/s^2, I could do that. If I wanted to reproduce the experiments that yielded the Boltzmann's constant, that would be possible. And if I really, really wanted to, I could build a rocket ship and blast off into space, and see for myself the true shape of the earth. I don't do these things because I accept them as given and choose to continue on learning new things, but that doesn't mean I couldn't prove them to myself if I really really wanted to.

The other two types of "knowing" Erasmus mentioned don't satisfy this need. In scholasticism, there is no way I could make those personal, simple logical steps myself. If I wanted to know what it was like to be in a trench during World War 1, I would simply have to take someones word for it. It might be a first person account, or maybe there are even photographs and other evidence to help me, but I could never in a million years experience that knowledge for myself.

The same is true, almost as a definition, for the last category: Faith. If I want to see that God exists, not only do I have to take the word of another person on it, I have to take the word of a person who cannot even himself "know", in a scientific sense, it is true. Unlike scholasticism where I can hear or read the words of someone who did personally experience that truth, faith often doesn't even have that. While I cannot personally follow the logical chain that leads me to believe something scholastically, in something based on faith alone the chain is either missing entirely or has significant gaps that aren't reconciliable with logic. You just have to believe them, and accept that an absence of reasons why doesn't mean it's untrue.

Flat Earth Q&A / earth
« on: April 14, 2006, 11:09:12 AM »
This supposed alternate society would have long since been "left behind", since there would be nothing holding them on to the earth.

Flat Earth Q&A / This may seem silly...
« on: April 14, 2006, 11:06:04 AM »
I think the majority of the FE'rs here look out there window and say "Hmm, looks flat to me."

And there you have it. They have a reasonable, personal, repeatable experience to make them think the Earth is flat.

The question is, why do YOU think the earth is round? Surely you can't claim to see the curvature of the Earth with your own eyes, and the rest of what you likely base your opinion on is heresay; heresay from textbooks, from television, from the government. Why should FE'rs believe those things more readily than their own eyes?

Flat Earth Q&A / The earth isnt flat
« on: April 14, 2006, 11:01:52 AM »
Quote from: "Isac_Newton"
Quote from: "Mephistopheles"

My father's a pilot, he's allready done it, and no government stopt him. and you guys should rellax with making your government such a monster like that, you sound pethatic by saying that. no wonder bush gets to win every time, its cuz of ppl like you who probably think that if you dont vote for him, the "government" is gonna get you.

I find a couple things suspect about your claim. First, I don't know of any commercial jets or private planes than can "circle" the earth in one shot without refueling.

And second, I find it hard to believe that your father would choose to complete such a circuit flying entirely by dead reckoning and manual control. It is well known that the ice wall interferes with navigational instrumentation, so any aircraft operating on autopilot, or even navigating with the help of instruments, would very likely be "turned back" when they approach the edge of the Earth. Whether he realizes it or not, you father might not have been flying in as straight a line as he thought.

Pages: 1 ... 39 40 [41]