61
Flat Earth Debate / Re: "TheEngineer, I have A Question About Mass"
« on: August 22, 2007, 09:34:52 AM »
You're welcome 
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.
62
Flat Earth Debate / Re: "TheEngineer, I have A Question About Mass"
« on: August 22, 2007, 09:27:02 AM »
Well, in RE, the core of the earth is supposed to be really dense iron, i though, because of the heat and pressure. Not 100% positive.
63
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is Earth different?
« on: August 22, 2007, 08:48:54 AM »It's all been said already, but straight from the horse's mouth:
Yes, I hold that essentially all celestial bodies are flat, matter does not bend space time, and hence gravity does not exist. Yes, my colleagues and I have performed experiments which seem to suggest that gravitation does not vary with altitude (I accept the various criticisms put forth in this thread, however I point out how "convenient" it is that the only acceptable tool for discovering this phantom discrepancy is unavailable to anyone except the scientific elite).
I've proven saturn to be round:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=15767.0
and anyone with a mildly powerfyul, commercial telescope and a pair of functional eyes can tell the moon is round.
64
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Uh-oh. The civilian space race must scare you guys.
« on: August 22, 2007, 08:31:39 AM »(under private supervision. Somehow they'd notice tv panels stuck on the window)Private spacecraft wouldn't have any stuff like that (spaceship 1)(It was built by a government contractor)
65
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Uh-oh. The civilian space race must scare you guys.
« on: August 22, 2007, 07:43:04 AM »With civilians now beginning their squander into space(X-prize and such and then those ships taking civs up), you guys must be scared. The reason being that before all this stuff, NASA and the governments of the world could maintain their "conspiracy" that the world is round cause they were the only ones to have gone into space. But now, since civilians are going up that whole government conspiracy theory falls to pieces. People are gonna take pics and stuff, and when you ask "Pics or it didn't happen" they are gonna have a ton. So what are you guys gonna do now?
Civilians aren't really going into space. After they pay, The Conspiracy puts them in a highly advanced simulator which tricks them into thinking they are going into space. Once they reach "outerspace" and look out the "windows" (tv screens), they see a round Earth; this is The Conspiracy's way of hiding the truth that the Earth is actually flat. My dad is part of The Conspiracy; he showed me the simulator on "bring your kid to work" day.
Private spacecraft wouldn't have any stuff like that (spaceship 1)
66
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Uh-oh. The civilian space race must scare you guys.
« on: August 22, 2007, 07:42:25 AM »With civilians now beginning their squander into space(X-prize and such and then those ships taking civs up), you guys must be scared. The reason being that before all this stuff, NASA and the governments of the world could maintain their "conspiracy" that the world is round cause they were the only ones to have gone into space. But now, since civilians are going up that whole government conspiracy theory falls to pieces. People are gonna take pics and stuff, and when you ask "Pics or it didn't happen" they are gonna have a ton. So what are you guys gonna do now?
Civilians aren't really going into space. After they pay, The Conspiracy puts them in a highly advanced simulator which tricks them into thinking they are going into space. Once they reach "outerspace" and look out the "windows" (tv screens), they see a round Earth; this is The Conspiracy's way of hiding the truth that the Earth is actually flat. My dad is part of The Conspiracy; he showed me the simulator on "bring your kid to work" day.
67
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My Problem with Universal Acceleration
« on: August 22, 2007, 07:27:24 AM »
I've always pictured the UA more like a giant wind, with earth creating a lee that allows objects to fall to it. FEers have never been unified or even coherant as to how the UA works.
68
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proving FE by locking yourself in a church and plugging your ears?
« on: August 21, 2007, 04:31:15 PM »
I reject your reality and substitute my own!
69
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A simple question
« on: August 21, 2007, 04:25:31 PM »
money is a fine motivator, but there is no where near enough of it for all the stuff thry need to do.
70
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« on: August 21, 2007, 03:11:35 PM »
Yes, thats true, tom. But thats primarily because of gravity's effect. A personal FoR allows for a "straight" line, as opposed to RE, where the FoR would still necessitate a curved line.
71
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If you reject RE...
« on: August 21, 2007, 02:05:36 PM »Thats not true at all, primarily because eventually you would reach the point where gravitation by mass replaces acceleration. Furthermore, the forces would then necesitate a sphere.If the FE is sufficiently large in diameter or depth it would be nearly impossible to detect differences in the direction of pull as a function of distance from the 'center'.The mass or density does not matter. No matter what they are, the gravitational center would be at the North Pole.
The only way I think you could show this is if you somehow knew the mass and density and such of the flat Earth. I don't think anyone knows that.
72
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earthquakes
« on: August 21, 2007, 10:42:32 AM »I can see my picture. Is it still broken?
Nope,it works fine now ^^
73
Flat Earth Debate / Re: For Gulliver
« on: August 21, 2007, 05:34:46 AM »I wasn't here for the infamous post; I had thought he had already admitted his error.
I already apologized and adimited my error, midnight.
74
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If you reject RE...
« on: August 21, 2007, 05:34:00 AM »
As for divito's contension, I agree, it is possible that there is a flat planet in the universe. It would have to be extraordinarily young, or its spin so rapid that it counteracts its own relatively small gravity. The material would probably need to be a cooled lava. Perhaps a larger asteroid sucked close to an extremely hot sun, licked by solar flares that melt the surface to a lava. The rapid spinning then pulls the lava out, and it then cools and solidifies into a rock that appears a disk.
Yay science fiction imagination!
Yay science fiction imagination!
76
Flat Earth Debate / Re: For Gulliver
« on: August 20, 2007, 06:37:26 PM »
I wasn't here for the infamous post; I had thought he had already admitted his error.
77
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If you reject RE...
« on: August 20, 2007, 06:36:45 PM »
What derails it is the necessity of a conspiracy.
78
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earthquakes
« on: August 20, 2007, 06:18:55 PM »
Lol, good old Spiderman J Jonah lines.
Anyway, how about those earthquakes going under the poles?
Anyway, how about those earthquakes going under the poles?
79
Flat Earth Debate / Re: For Gulliver
« on: August 20, 2007, 06:16:11 PM »
He doesn't reply because the thread is pointless. You make an attack against him, not against RE. It doesn't deserve a reply.
80
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If you reject RE...
« on: August 20, 2007, 06:14:42 PM »
Prove that FE says it doesn't?
81
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If you reject RE...
« on: August 20, 2007, 02:54:03 PM »
The function of radio beams certainly.
82
Flat Earth Debate / Re: turn on 60 mins now!!
« on: August 20, 2007, 09:55:05 AM »
Civ IV rocks lol, one of my fav games.
Subs can go under the ice 0.o
Subs can go under the ice 0.o
83
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earthquakes
« on: August 20, 2007, 08:24:20 AM »
Actually, I don't...
Tom, don't run away when you've been proved wrong. It makes your theory look/sound stupider.
Tom, don't run away when you've been proved wrong. It makes your theory look/sound stupider.
84
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flight.
« on: August 19, 2007, 06:25:31 PM »
regardless f the charge of the particle, the lines always meet.
85
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flight.
« on: August 19, 2007, 06:13:31 PM »Yes, but that's not incredibly realistic.Sure it is. That's the way is works with the RE, except there's a sphere in there.
You would still have to make the magnetic lines meet...
86
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flight.
« on: August 19, 2007, 05:05:16 PM »
monopoles sounds more likely, although I freely admit i know little on the subject. I am certain acceleration would not flatten out magnetic field lines; if anything, it would make them shorter as they were in a state of constant lag in relation to the surface of the earth.
87
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flight.
« on: August 19, 2007, 04:50:39 PM »
Well, we know that the magnetic field pretty much runs parralell to the lines of longitude, correct? But magnetic lines have to meet again. So they would be forced into a position where they'd be straight and parallel to earth when they should be meeting again below the north pole. In RE, they curve around the core, the center of magnetic attraction. In FE, this would be impossible, as the lines must travel on into oblivion.
88
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My Problem with Universal Acceleration
« on: August 19, 2007, 04:47:15 PM »
Acceleration does not have a distance relationship. The force of gravity is weaker in RE higher up, making the light bend slower (i.e. a logarithmic or quadratic relationship instead of a linear one in FE). The light bends more and more the further it enters the field. Because FE presents constant acceleration, there can be no change in the bending of light--in fact, light would not bend at all, but continue in a linear fashion, although a viewer would percieve "bending" due to the acceleration of the planet.
At least, thats what i got from this.
At least, thats what i got from this.
89
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flight.
« on: August 19, 2007, 04:39:20 PM »
but how do the magnetic lines BEND like that?
90
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flight.
« on: August 19, 2007, 04:32:14 PM »
What is the FE idea of the North Pole? I never actually heard it.