61

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'

« on: June 07, 2007, 10:29:19 PM »

They're all too lazy to read it and respond.  Or maybe just incapable of it.

62

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A longer criticism of the law of perspective

« on: June 07, 2007, 08:01:07 PM »

Thanks. I decided to omit that for now though. I didn't like the way I put that part of the argument together, and I don't think I was properly adressing what I wanted to.

Whatever floats your boat.

63

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A longer criticism of the law of perspective

« on: June 07, 2007, 07:43:55 PM »

To post a picture, go to http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/.  You don't have to register or anything.  Just follow links to your picture (by clicking on it [twice, on two different pages]) and copy the url.  I just use this for one-time pictures.  For stuff I want to keep/reuse I use photobucket.

64

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Almighty Sun

« on: June 07, 2007, 07:19:09 PM »

Just because he says there is an ugliness does not mean he is rejecting the point made.

It sure does. If you consider a blind date "ugly," does it not mean that you are rejecting her outright?

Would you sleep with an ugly girl?

You and your rhetoric, Tom!  You won't fool me!

Did you know that words don't always have the same meaning?!  Shakespeare made this pretty obvious.  You know, I'm actually tested on being able to distinguish the meanings of words in context.  "Ugliness" in this case simply means "difficulty".

65

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Almighty Sun

« on: June 07, 2007, 07:08:08 PM »

Ha! He doesn't say "alleged", "proposed", or "possibly". He say "spherical earth". He said it. Get over it. You lost.

Yes, Einstein does mention the phrase "spherical earth." But in the very next sentence he says "but this model is ugly." He rejects the model outright!

Tom, I'm going to have to say you're an idiot.  I'm going to go through Mr. Einstein's quote and point out where you're wrong, okay?

"The core of this objection against Newton's fundamentals is best explained through the analogy with the "center point of the world" of Aristotelian physics: there is a center point of the world, towards which heavy bodies strive. This explains, f[or] e[xample], the spherical shape of the earth."

Notice how "explains" is in the present tense.  This is because it was, and still is, true.  Einstein agrees with what is being said.

"The ugliness in it is that this center point of the world acts on all others, but that all these others (i.e. bodies) do not act back on the center point of the earth. (One-sided causal nexus.)"

Just because he says there is an ugliness does not mean he is rejecting the point made. He is creating a juxtaposition with how it "explains...the spherical shape of the earth" and also implies "that the center point of the world acts on all others".  Einstein is pointing out a difficulty in the truth.

And don't put things in quotes that weren't actually said.

Amazing well put! Job well done.

Hooray for tenth grade English!

66

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice Wall Expedition

« on: June 07, 2007, 07:02:45 PM »

BULLSHIT.

What are you talking about? That's how the Ice Walls form in the Round Earth model, too.

I may or may not have actually read what you said.

67

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Almighty Sun

« on: June 07, 2007, 07:01:19 PM »

Ha! He doesn't say "alleged", "proposed", or "possibly". He say "spherical earth". He said it. Get over it. You lost.

Yes, Einstein does mention the phrase "spherical earth." But in the very next sentence he says "but this model is ugly." He rejects the model outright!

Tom, I'm going to have to say you're an idiot.  I'm going to go through Mr. Einstein's quote and point out where you're wrong, okay?

"The core of this objection against Newton's fundamentals is best explained through the analogy with the "center point of the world" of Aristotelian physics: there is a center point of the world, towards which heavy bodies strive. This explains, f[or] e[xample], the spherical shape of the earth."

Notice how "explains" is in the present tense.  This is because it was, and still is, true.  Einstein agrees with what is being said.

"The ugliness in it is that this center point of the world acts on all others, but that all these others (i.e. bodies) do not act back on the center point of the earth. (One-sided causal nexus.)"

Just because he says there is an ugliness does not mean he is rejecting the point made. He is creating a juxtaposition with how it "explains...the spherical shape of the earth" and also implies "that the center point of the world acts on all others".  Einstein is pointing out a difficulty in the truth.

And don't put things in quotes that weren't actually said.

68

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice Wall Expedition

« on: June 07, 2007, 06:51:49 PM »

How does it keep the water in if it can allow water beneath it?

The Ice Wall is a natural formation, a thick mass of floating ice that is attached to land, formed from and fed by tongues of glaciers extending outward from deep within the uncharted tundra into sheltered waters. Where there are no strong currents, the ice becomes partly grounded on the sea bottom and attaches itself to rocks and islands. The wall is pushed forward into the sea by glacial pressure until its forward growth is terminated.

The entire coast of the Ice Wall is not one single complete wall, however. There are actually a series of thousand mile long walls, divided by Transantarctic Mountain Ranges up to 11,500 feet high. The weight of The Ice Walls are so enormous that they have literally pressed the land two thirds of a mile (one kilometer) into the earth. Under the massive forces of their own weight, the ice walls deform and drag themselves outward. Very large glaciers called ice streams flow through them continually, transporting ice from deep inland out to the sea.

BULLSHIT.

69

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice Wall Expedition

« on: June 07, 2007, 06:43:18 PM »

An ice shelf is a thick, floating platform of ice.

How does it keep the water in if it can allow water beneath it?

I'm not trying to prove you wrong here, but improve your theory.

70

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Round-Earther Poll.

« on: June 07, 2007, 08:58:02 AM »

I'd even be convinced by a photo of a Flat Earth.

Why should you need a photograph when you can simply look outside your window?

Someone please own Tom.. erg.. I'm tired and lazy...

71

Flat Earth Debate / Can a mod please do something about Belivin?

« on: June 06, 2007, 05:02:09 PM »

He's like Mad_Catz, only worse.

Thank you.

72

Flat Earth Debate / Re: It's a new world record of speed and the winner is...

« on: June 06, 2007, 03:46:03 PM »

you can't reach the speed of light.  It's something about relativity, but you can't.

73

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Almighty Sun

« on: June 06, 2007, 01:39:28 PM »

We're never going to get a response out of him.

74

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Almighty Sun

« on: June 06, 2007, 01:28:50 PM »

I agree with slappy. I also think, Tom, that you should learn the difference between having an IDEA about how something MIGHT work, to knowing how it works. FE does NOT know what the UA force comes from, it has some THEORIES that have not been tested or verified in any way.

Now please listen one last time:

Whatever you have to say about gravitation also applies to FE, which now relies on it thanks to your ingenious 'modifications'. The FE Sun 'orbits' a common barycentre; this implies gravitation. The differences in g are attributed (poorly and inexpertly) to the Sun's gravitational field. Please stop trying to pick holes in RE when your theory has exactly the same holes and more.

I concur.

75

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Almighty Sun

« on: June 06, 2007, 01:18:33 PM »

Now you are just trying to be stupid.

How could an atmosphere form on a spherical planet if it is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s²?

Gravity?

and why must it be accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s²?
and how could an atmosphere form (or stay) on a flat planet accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s² with only a 150 foot ice wall around it?

76

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Almighty Sun

« on: June 06, 2007, 01:09:47 PM »

Possible of extraterrestrial life: certain.  Why would we be an exception?

Extraterrestrial life has not been found. There is no certainty.

You edited it?!  I liked the first one better.

77

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Almighty Sun

« on: June 06, 2007, 01:03:55 PM »

Holy shit. A new record.

And what evidence is there for the UA?

Lift a pen into the air and release it from your grip. Do you see acceleration?

Alternatively, you can look into the night sky and observe the cosmos accelerating away from itself.

What would happen if I were to lift a sun into the air and release it from my grip?
And also, look up into the night sky and see BILLIONS OF GALAXIES all spinning according the theory of gravity.  There have been over 250 earth-like, habitable planets discovered.  One scientist says that about %20 of stars (minus dwarfs, red giants, etc.) have habitable planets.  %20 of BILLIONS OF TRILLIONS OF STARS. Possibility of extraterrestrial life: certain.  Why would we be an exception?

Or the conspiracy, for that matter?

For proof of the Conspiracy simply ask a government official what the shape of the earth is.

I fail to see how that proves anything.  I might as well say that by asking you a question that disagrees with what I say, I have proved that you are a conspiracy.

At least on my side we have a well-developed theory.

It's not very well developed if you don't even know the mechanism for gravity, is it?

You want to talk about well-developed theories, Tom? Okay!!  What's the mechanism for the UA? What about the shadow object? And as Gin has already mentioned several times without a response: YOUR THEORY RELIES ON GRAVITY, TOO.

78

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Almighty Sun

« on: June 06, 2007, 12:47:47 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
I shouldn't need to copy and paste the basics of Round Earth Theory. If anyone is interested in learning more about RET then they should take the initiative to read up on the issue themselves.

The graviton is hypothetical.

It is an undiscovered, unsubstantiated, unproven subatomic particle. There is zero evidence for the existence of the graviton. There is zero evidence for the existence of gravity. Additionally, there are major problems with the existence of the graviton which forum poster Narcberry sums up in a previous post:

"If a subatomic particle is responsible for gravity, I can show you my major problem with that. Lets say the world is round and all celestial bodies orbit each other due to a force called gravity. Well the earth and sun send gravitons back and forth that will cause a certain amount of attraction towards one another dependent on the quantity of gravitons and in what direction they came from or what message they might contain.

Heres my problem: There is a potential energy in the sun and earth due to their distance. Meaning that they have the energy to fall to each other and collide with massive energy. Now if a graviton exists, what if something interferes with its path or message? What if the sun is told to be attracted to the earth in a different direction? That would violate the whole principals of Newtonian physics. It would mean, by creating gravitons, you could create energy from nothing.

This is due to the fact that the idea of gravitons implies that the sun has the ability to accelerate itself in any direction. All it is doing is waiting to find out what vector of acceleration to apply. This is inconsistent with many theories. The force of attraction on the sun, must be a direct cause of the earth and visa versa.

Additionally, gravity is a pulling force. In physics, a very basic lesson is there is no such thing as a pulling force, only a pushing one. These can be complicated, so as to seem like a pulling force when it is actually a series of pushing ones. This makes me inclined to believe in gravity (and magnetic and electric) forces that are a series of pushing ones. But that is off topic. If you want to know more I will explain elsewhere."

And what evidence is there for the UA?  Or the conspiracy, for that matter?  At least on my side we have a well-developed theory.   You want to talk about evidence?  What's yours?

79

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Almighty Sun

« on: June 06, 2007, 12:45:48 PM »

I don't believe in the graviton, I prefer Einsteins thoery of warped spacetime

Choose what you like.  I haven't studied it enough to pick one.

80

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Almighty Sun

« on: June 06, 2007, 12:33:51 PM »

Goddammit, just copy and paste it like the rest of your arguments.  He has no idea what in the FAQ you're talking about.

If Gin claims to have read the FAQ, then he should know why there are different levels of g at different altitudes. I shouldn't need to copy and paste the basics of Flat Earth Theory. If anyone is interested in learning more about FET then they should take the initiative to read up on the issue themselves.

And Tom, we're not going to trust you're FAQ over mounds of true scientific evidence.

What scientific evidence tells us the mechanism for 'gravity'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
I shouldn't need to copy and paste the basics of Round Earth Theory. If anyone is interested in learning more about RET then they should take the initiative to read up on the issue themselves.

81

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Almighty Sun

« on: June 06, 2007, 12:25:35 PM »

Fact 3: The gravitational field on Earth has been measured as non-uniform.

Consult the FAQ for an explanation.

Goddammit, just copy and paste it like the rest of your arguments.  He has no idea what in the FAQ you're talking about.

Jesus was good, right?

Consult St. Lucifer's Bible for an explanation.

And Tom, we're not going to trust you're FAQ over mounds of true scientific evidence.

82

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Almighty Sun

« on: June 06, 2007, 12:08:22 PM »

How can you get them mixed up?

Are you saying that you are smarter than Albert Einstein?

ALBERT EINSTEIN SAID THAT YOU CAN'T TELL THE EFFECTS OF ACCELERATION FROM THOSE OF GRAVITATION.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE THE SAME.

83

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Almighty Sun

« on: June 06, 2007, 11:59:09 AM »

How can you argue that gravity is not acceleration when they both have the same units ffs?

Definitions? Okay!

Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects attract each other.
Acceleration is defined as the rate of change of velocity.

How can you get them mixed up?

84

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Almighty Sun

« on: June 06, 2007, 11:50:04 AM »

A Google search is good evidence after all 

Don't you think it would be mentioned somewhere on the interwebs other than just blags and forums if it was such a true statement?

85

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Almighty Sun

« on: June 06, 2007, 11:40:24 AM »

I see indisputable proof of gravitation by some means, not just UA, ya tit.

Acceleration is gravitation. Open a book.

Somebody somewhere came up with this "acceleration is gravitation" or "gravitation is acceleration" junk and now every amateur physicist in the forum decided that it is true!

Open a book? What book? A physics book or a book of analogies?

I already challenged TheEngineer to come up with any book whatsoever with those three words and never got an answer. Wonder why?

Physics arguments without the correct context and precision in concepts is just garbage.

Agreed. 

Thirded.

And look!  Seven results! (One of which is from this site):

86

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Once again: how does the sun go down?

« on: June 06, 2007, 11:32:15 AM »

Do you even read, you dislectics?

Is that like dyslexic?

No, it's like dyslectic.

87

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Almighty Sun

« on: June 06, 2007, 11:17:26 AM »

So what would happen if I were to hold a sun high in the air and release if from my hand?

Genius...

Bahahaha

88

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Almighty Sun

« on: June 06, 2007, 11:12:31 AM »

Evidence?

For indisputable proof of UA simply hold a pen high in the air and release it from your hand. Do you see acceleration?

So what would happen if I were to hold a sun high in the air and release if from my hand?

Hooray, more discussion! It was getting boring there for a while..

Okay, so I know that the FE sun is very small, and it revolves around some invisible thing up in the sky, but how exactly does it work?  Is it a disk, or more of a ball? Does just the bottom shine, or do the sides shine as well?  It seems that a lot of this talk about how the sun goes off onto the horizon is too vague since I don't fully understand the FE sun itself.  Diagrams are appreciated; telling me to read a book is not.

How can they know?

They seem to know lots of other things they can't prove.  I just want their explanation.

89

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lets talk again about gravity

« on: June 05, 2007, 09:02:38 PM »

When someone decided it would be a logical conclusion.  I forgot who it was, and I'm too lazy to look.  Either way, you have been appointed.

Someone decided?  What is this a dictatorship?

Every one of my comments in this conversation has been pretty sarcastic.. you might want to talk to what's-his-name about it.  You know, that guy who wanted you to draw pictures with numbers and stuff.

90

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lets talk again about gravity

« on: June 05, 2007, 08:44:47 PM »

My name implies what?  That I'm an engineer?  Yea, that's the point.  But still, when did it become my job to make models and numbers for you RE'ers?

When someone decided it would be a logical conclusion.  I forgot who it was, and I'm too lazy to look.  Either way, you have been appointed.