91

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: got some questions

« on: November 14, 2007, 10:20:26 PM »

At any rate, I think we can agree that it's stupid to pick on a kid whose first language isn't English for his grammar.   

92

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Just a quick thought

« on: November 14, 2007, 10:19:02 PM »

Are you kidding? They'd be ridiculed, called a phoney, taken in for questioning, laughed out into the streets, then screamed at from all four corners of the earth that they were full of crap and keep walking MORON!

... or something like that. Besides, do you really think the government would LET this person reveal their secret after so many years of a deal like that?

I mean just think man, they torture you for tax refunds - what would they do to you for spilling the beans?!?!?!?

Honestly? 

I don't think any of that would happen.

I mean, have you seen some of the shit people write?!

Seriously.

You can write ANYthing nowadays, and no one looks at you cross-eyed.

93

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Doctored Photos

« on: November 14, 2007, 10:17:17 PM »

You know...

If these 'photographs' have been taken over many years, by many different people with many different camera rigs with completely different technology as it develops, you would HAVE to have inconsistencies. I mean, honestly, you just couldn't get it the same every time...




Right?

~D-Draw

Blurs and "fuzzies" would become sharper and clearer over time.  But if you take a picture of the same thing from one year to the next at the same angle with different cameras, it'll still be the same.

Try it!

Tennis ball + 5 cameras (one from the 60s, one from the 70s, one from the 80s, one from the 90s, one from current times)

Take one pic with each.

Isn't it just the same 'ole tennis ball?

94

Flat Earth Debate / Why Argue Semantics?

« on: November 14, 2007, 10:14:37 PM »

n scientific usage gravitation and gravity are distinct. "Gravitation" is the attractive influence that all objects exert on each other, while "gravity" specifically refers to a force which all massive objects (objects with mass) are theorized to exert on each other to cause gravitation. Although these terms are interchangeable in everyday use, in theories other than Newton's, gravitation is caused by factors other than gravity. For example in general relativity, gravitation is due to spacetime curvatures which causes inertially moving objects to tend to accelerate towards each other.

Okay.  Generally, people who come here are LAYpeople, right?  Not people with PhDs in physics.  Not always people who have even sat in on a physics class once in their lives. 

So, if gravity and gravitation are interchangeable in everyday use, why not let it slide when new people use the term "gravity?"  Maybe tell them the difference, then go on to discuss whatever point they were trying to make?  It only serves to piss people off when you treat them like morons.  Seriously, why?



PS, I think that if you keep going on about "there is no such thing as gravity," you should just shut up about the UA as a force.  Both are theoretical.  One isn't true just because you say the other is false.

95

Flat Earth Debate / Re: where is the south celestial pole located?

« on: November 14, 2007, 10:04:21 PM »

Common convention is that magnetic north is near geographic north, and magnetic south is near geographic south.  However, this is incorrect, as can be seen by simply using a compass.  The north ends repel, so the north end of the compass points to the magnetic south pole.  Magnetic fields are vectors and thus have direction, so it does matter which is which.

That's doesn't, right?


So... The terms don't really matter, they're just names?  We could just lable the north end of a compass "south," and that would basically be correct, right?  As far as magnetic poles are concerned, that is?

96

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Ultimate RE/FE Showdown!!!!!

« on: November 14, 2007, 10:00:07 PM »

I think I win.

That's actually an image of the earth that's quite well-known to be doctored.  That's a big lose for you.  And a fail.

Well-known to be doctored? Prove it. lol (with pictures!) 

I think it says its a composite image on the source site.

Well, I think there's a website that says you don't exist.  And it proves it.  With pictures!

*Blip*



















Hey, where'd Roundy go?

 

97

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: got some questions

« on: November 14, 2007, 09:56:26 PM »

And I believe firmly in personal responsibility.  But do you honestly think that a kid who starts out with a 5 year disadvantage is going to have the same potential for learning as someone without it? 

Everyone is different. I've known several exchange students who were far more intelligible about the language than several others in the class.
[/quote]

Same.  They have generally been Japanese, in my own experience. 

...

However, the reason they were so well advised of the English language and its properties is because English is taught in many  (if not most) Japanese schools.

98

Flat Earth Debate / Re: where is the south celestial pole located?

« on: November 14, 2007, 09:54:07 PM »

Q: "How can a compass work on a Flat Earth?"

A: The magnetic field is generated in the same fashion as with the RE.  Thus, the magnetic south pole is near the geographic north pole, just like on the RE.  The magnetic north pole is on the underside of the Earth.  The Ice Wall is not the south pole, but acts as it, as it is the furthest from the center of the earth that you can follow the magnetic field.  The field is vertical in this area, accounting for the aurora australis.

Um... This doesn't even make sense to me.  Magnetic south is geographic north and magnetic north is under the earth??  Wha....  Engy, are you sure that's right?  I'm confused again.   

99

Flat Earth Debate / Re: where is the south celestial pole located?

« on: November 14, 2007, 09:47:01 PM »

So, is this a new page in FE theory, or is it an older theory I've never heard before?

(It's kinda hard to keep track.   )

100

Flat Earth Debate / Re: where is the south celestial pole located?

« on: November 14, 2007, 09:39:20 PM »

Oh!  So they're BOTH right? 

Does the magnetic field go around the FE in a spherical shape?

THAT would be ironic, wouldn't it, Engy?   

101

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Theories VS hard evidence.

« on: November 14, 2007, 09:36:49 PM »

Sure, I agree that man has been to space. In FE there is lagrange point between the stars and the earth where bodies can become weightless, trapped between the gravitation of the stars and the acceleration of the earth. Reaching this point is what can cause the weightlessness seen in space shuttle videos.

The earth appears curved at an altitude of 100 miles. Most pictures of the earth are not doctored. Flat Earth Theory holds that there is elliptical curvature from the edge of space, one hundred miles in altitude. Any photograph showing a curved elliptical horizon from very high altitudes poses no affront to FE.

Example: http://www.natrium42.com/halo/flight2/

Curvature results from the fact that on a flat earth we are looking down at a flat circle. And a circle is always curved in two dimensions. The Antarctic coast and other distant continents of the earth are still tens of thousands of miles away horizontally from the observer at an altitude of 100 miles (edge of space), and thus beyond the resolution of the human eye and merged with the line of the horizon, indiscernible and faded with the thickness of the atmosphere. This is why the view is limited to the immediate vicinity below the observer, and why the land fades into a blueish fog as it recedes.

We can confirm that we are looking down at the circle of the earth by noting that shots from amateur high altitude balloons show an elliptical horizon. If the earth were a globe, curving downwards in three dimensions, all curvature seen in photographs would appear as an arc of a circle. However, curvature does not appear as an arc of a circle. The Earth is elliptical in Russian, Chinese, and amateur space photographs. A striking indication of a Flat Earth.

The only pictures which show the horizon as an arc of a circle are NASA's Apollo shots. The Apollo missions did not occur.

Please provide a link to ONE picture which shows a downward shot of the ENTIRE visible earth from a balloon (not a space-related shot).  One which encompasses the entire thing.  You CANNOT hold that the pictures taken are "of an elliptical earth" if the entire earth is not in the picture!

102

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: got some questions

« on: November 14, 2007, 09:29:07 PM »

Grammar is not taught in California. 

Grammar as I know it meant studying the layout of sentences, prepositions, verbs, adverbs...

Ask any public-school-taught Californian high schooler, "What is a preposition?" and you won't get any sort of valid response, I assure you.

I'll take one from the FE playbook: Prove to me that California schools DO teach grammar!   



And I believe firmly in personal responsibility.  But do you honestly think that a kid who starts out with a 5 year disadvantage is going to have the same potential for learning as someone without it? 

Look at it this way:

Learning Spanish
Learning English
Learning at a level of English with which one can fully comprehend the subject matter

Average American student:
0-----5-----10-----15-16

ESL Student:
0-----5-----10-----15-16

Let's say that, by age 10, the ESL student has a firm grasp on English.  Well, what about all that learning the American student did while the ESL student was learning the language?  (Yes, yes, I know he would also be studying other subjects in his native language; Let's focus on English for the time being.)  The ESL student isn't going to magically learn English vocabulary and/or "grammar" (blegh) at twice the rate of the American student.  While the ESL student is learning how to use English verbs and nouns, the American student is learning new vocab words. 

There's no way an ambitious ESL student could live up to the bar set by an ambitious American student (given relatively equal inherent intelligence).  You can't get more information into your brain than you can study by sheer willpower.

103

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Surface tension breaks RE model predictions.

« on: November 14, 2007, 08:59:52 PM »

The oceans aren't weightless, you moron!  They're not weightless!  They weigh a lot!  They wouldn't float away on a RE!!!

You haven't proven anything!  The oceans AREN'T WEIGHTLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!










Huh?

What?

WHAT?!

I'm a week late for that thread?!?!

Goddamnit.   

104

Flat Earth Debate / Re: sources of information

« on: November 14, 2007, 08:51:42 PM »

Tom Bishop is a moron.

Best.  Quote.  Evar.   

105

Flat Earth Debate / Re: where is the south celestial pole located?

« on: November 14, 2007, 08:50:20 PM »

So... um... maybe I'm thick. 

Below are the two images I have: First, what I've always believed FE to believe.  Second is the only way I could see the south pole being "underneath" the north pole.  What do I have wrong?

106

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So.... The Real FES...?

« on: November 14, 2007, 08:08:45 PM »

The Flat Earth Society ended a looog time ago. This site is for exercising our mad debating skillz... and evidently to attract trolls.

2001 isn't a long time ago. And it hasn't ended, it's schismed. There are still local Flat Earth chapters and groups.

Besides - as long as even one person knows the truth - there will ALWAYS be a Flat Earth Society.

Someone should start up the OFFICIAL version again, then!   

Seriously, a theory with proponents shouldn't just be abandoned... Well, unless you believe in that Aryan superiority, racial purity, heil Hitler sh*t.  Then you can just go burn in hell.

107

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: got some questions

« on: November 14, 2007, 08:03:12 PM »

Totally agreed, Engy.  Totally and completely.

The reason education came up is because, in conjunction with learning English at an older age, the OP was at an educational disadvantage from the start.  I just hate arrogant, pompous assholes who gang up on kids over stupid things that really aren't their fault.  Seriously, I could pick apart grammar and spelling on 3 out of 4 posts I read here--sometimes more.  That doesn't make me superior.  I got a good education at a good school.  I could just as easily have been in a public school where grammar wasn't taught.

108

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: got some questions

« on: November 14, 2007, 07:29:35 PM »

first of all can u all stop making fun of my spelling
second, US schools suck u get credit just for trying and they pass you

So, you've basically learned all of your spelling and grammar in the USA, and you blame it on the school system that you suck?  Sorry, but there are many intelligent (let alone able to spell) people in the USA - you just aren't an achiever, I guess.

I'm sick of this BS.  Stop picking on the kid's spelling and grammar.

"...And you blame it on the school system that you suck?"
Awkward usage.  Better sentence would be: "...And you blame the fact that you suck on the school system?"

"Sorry, but there are many intelligent (let alone able to spell) people in the USA..."
Do you realize that you wrote not only "Sorry, but there are many intelligent people in the USA," but also "Sorry, but there are very many let alone able to spell people in the USA"?  Why don't you write instead, "Sorry, but there are many intelligent people in the USA, let alone those who are able to spell..."



Before you pick on someone else's grammar and spelling, check your own! 

Besides, most 5 year olds go to school knowing basic English.  He's basically 5 years behind the rest of his class.  Aside from that, the US school system is notorious for turning out sub-par students.  Grammar isn't taught (at least, not in California).  Students don't even get introduced to pre-algebra until 9th or 10th grade at times.  Learning history is a joke.  Science classes are, as well (In 9th and 10th grade, you begin learning about the Water Cycle and what Photosynthesis is). 

So, lay off the kid!  Is this how you feel better about yourselves, by picking on a 16 year old when he's coming here to learn?

So you're going to tell me that it took him as long as someone who knew no language to learn the english language? lol  Someone doesn't understand this site/the internet

Edit:  Wth, I didn't even hate on this guys grammar.  As for my spelling, I'm pretty sure it's doing alright.  So, I guess you've just joined us on the big hate trip of laughing at people ON THE INTERNET (<--capital words right there are key) for silly reasons.

1) See bold/underlined sections.  You DID "hate on this guys grammar." 

2) From http://www.language-learning-advisor.com/age-and-language-learning.html#olderlanguagelearner

Researchers also caution against withdrawing home language support too soon and suggest that although oral communication skills in a second language may be acquired within 2 or 3 years, it may take 4 to 6 years to acquire the level of proficiency needed for understanding the language in its academic uses (Collier, 1989; Cummins, 1981).

Some teachers assume that children who can converse comfortably in English are in full control of the language. Yet for school-aged children, proficiency in face-to-face communication does not imply proficiency in the more complex academic language needed to engage in many classroom activities. Cummins (1980) cites evidence from a study of 1,210 immigrant children in Canada who required much longer (approximately 5 to 7 years) to master the disembedded cognitive language required for the regular English curriculum than to master oral communicative skills.

Educators need to be cautious in exiting children from programs where they have the support of their home language. If children who are not ready for the all-English classroom are mainstreamed, their academic success may be hindered. Teachers should realize that mainstreaming children on the basis of oral language assessment is inappropriate.

All teachers need to be aware that children who are learning in a second language may have language problems in reading and writing that are not apparent if their oral abilities are used to gauge their English proficiency. These problems in academic reading and writing at the middle and high school levels may stem from limitations in vocabulary and syntactic knowledge. Even children who are skilled orally can have such gaps.

REFERENCES

Collier, V. (1989). How long: A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language. "TESOL Quarterly, 23," 509-531.

Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. "TESOL Quarterly, 14," 175-187.

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In "Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework." Los Angeles: California State University; Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center.

So, yes, I AM saying that it takes someone at 5 years old with no knowledge of English as long to learn English to an extent that it is functional AS LONG AS a national.  If you want to look up more sources, be my guest.  I don't have time to argue further with people who don't research before making stupid, ineffective arguments.

I was taught algebra in the 8th grade.  And that was a long time ago.

I was taught pre-lgebra in 6th grade and algebra in 7th, but I went to private school.  That's not the point.

The point is that PRE-algebra is available to 9th and 10th grade students in California.  You only have to pass algebra some time before senior year (at least, as of 8 years ago when I graduated).  Which is sad, but true.  There's a reason that, at the time, California ranked number 49 out of the top 50 states (ranked according to quality of education).  Can't cite the year, but I remember that paper.  Only state lower was Alabama.

109

Flat Earth General / Re: wait so site is joke right?

« on: November 14, 2007, 06:47:32 PM »

Wait.

I want TheEngineer to tell me what he REALLY believes.

I've been under the assumption all this time that he was a FE'er with above-average intelligence, although eccentric in his beliefs about the shape of the world.

If he does not believe this theory, then NONE of the FE believers have substantial intelligence to warrant argument.

I'm not trying to disprove FE here;  Intelligence of believers has nothing to do with accuracy of the belief.

But, for my own peace of mind, I would like to know if Engy specifically believes this.  Pretty much all of the other intelligent "FE'ers" have been determined to not be for FET at all.  I mean, TomB isn't exactly a brain surgeon.  Dogplatter never posts (and made that weird post about penguins...).  Daniel I have never seen actually post.  Username (who even knows if he believes it?) mostly regurgitates what other people say.

Substantial intelligence to warrant argument? LOL. Might be the other way around.

TheEngineer doesn't believe in a flat Earth. His posts merely clarify issues that people misunderstand or bring up incorrectly.
Tom keeps all the noobs who are too stupid to read busy.
Dogplatter doesn't have much time to post, but he answers stuff when he can. He is one of the few that truly profess a belief in the flat Earth.
Daniel, I have never seen post either.
Username proclaims a belief in a flat Earth, and doesn't really regurgitate much as you claim.

Awwww.... 

But Engy's postulations are always so... so... plausible. 

Tom is annoying and trite, always changing opinions, always coming up with the most illogical explanations for an illogical theory...

Dogplatter seems intelligent enough, and has a lot of original-ish ideas.

Daniel is a ghost. 

And username... Ah username.  I'm not calling him stupid, what I'm trying to say is that the others on my list have ideas that are either their own or that they have expanded on. 

Those are the only five people on the site that I truly have believed are "for" a FE.  Well, besides the religious "wackos" who believe that Jerusalem is the center of the universe and all that... (No offense, but I can't understand how anyone would believe that...)

110

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctica? Reasons WHY it exists (and why the earth is round)

« on: November 13, 2007, 10:46:46 PM »

Thanks, Roundy.  I got 2.5 hours of sleep last night.  I'm utterly exhausted.   

BTW, yes, I was an English major.  I never said I was infallible, just that I'm not "science-y" enough to participate in some discussions.

111

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Quick Question

« on: November 13, 2007, 10:42:52 PM »

i think it stands to reason that those who believe in god would also be quite persuaded to believe something as preposterous as a flat earth.

I am offended by that insinuation.  What, so belief in God is equal to scatterbrained and unsubstantiated theories and insanity?

Ask all the FE'ers here.  Not all (or even most) of them believe in God.  Of course, there are some (go see the Flat Earth Believers forum for some examples). 

Also, there was a poll, but it's disappeared.  It's linked in the FAQ, though. 

Also in the FAQ:

Religion

Q: "Are most or all FE's Biblical literalists, who feel like their religious belief system would be threatened by a round (i.e. spherical) earth, or are there any atheists/agnostics who are FE's as well?"

A: Not all FE's are biblical literalists. This poll has more details: Poll

112

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: got some questions

« on: November 13, 2007, 10:36:46 PM »

first of all can u all stop making fun of my spelling
second, US schools suck u get credit just for trying and they pass you

So, you've basically learned all of your spelling and grammar in the USA, and you blame it on the school system that you suck?  Sorry, but there are many intelligent (let alone able to spell) people in the USA - you just aren't an achiever, I guess.

I'm sick of this BS.  Stop picking on the kid's spelling and grammar.

"...And you blame it on the school system that you suck?"
Awkward usage.  Better sentence would be: "...And you blame the fact that you suck on the school system?"

"Sorry, but there are many intelligent (let alone able to spell) people in the USA..."
Do you realize that you wrote not only "Sorry, but there are many intelligent people in the USA," but also "Sorry, but there are very many let alone able to spell people in the USA"?  Why don't you write instead, "Sorry, but there are many intelligent people in the USA, let alone those who are able to spell..."



Before you pick on someone else's grammar and spelling, check your own! 

Besides, most 5 year olds go to school knowing basic English.  He's basically 5 years behind the rest of his class.  Aside from that, the US school system is notorious for turning out sub-par students.  Grammar isn't taught (at least, not in California).  Students don't even get introduced to pre-algebra until 9th or 10th grade at times.  Learning history is a joke.  Science classes are, as well (In 9th and 10th grade, you begin learning about the Water Cycle and what Photosynthesis is). 

So, lay off the kid!  Is this how you feel better about yourselves, by picking on a 16 year old when he's coming here to learn?

113

Flat Earth General / Re: wait so site is joke right?

« on: November 13, 2007, 10:17:12 PM »

Wait.

I want TheEngineer to tell me what he REALLY believes.

I've been under the assumption all this time that he was a FE'er with above-average intelligence, although eccentric in his beliefs about the shape of the world.

If he does not believe this theory, then NONE of the FE believers have substantial intelligence to warrant argument.

I'm not trying to disprove FE here;  Intelligence of believers has nothing to do with accuracy of the belief.

But, for my own peace of mind, I would like to know if Engy specifically believes this.  Pretty much all of the other intelligent "FE'ers" have been determined to not be for FET at all.  I mean, TomB isn't exactly a brain surgeon.  Dogplatter never posts (and made that weird post about penguins...).  Daniel I have never seen actually post.  Username (who even knows if he believes it?) mostly regurgitates what other people say.

114

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctica? Reasons WHY it exists (and why the earth is round)

« on: November 13, 2007, 10:07:57 PM »

Hi Paradise.  Welcome to the forums.   

I will outline this a little for you:

• There are many different theories concerning the Ice Wall, as the almighty "Conspiracy" prevents anyone from knowing "the truth" for sure.
• While some people hold that Antarctic trips are "part of the Conspiracy," most admit that there would be too many to pay off, and have adjusted their theory as follows.
• Some people suggest that it may go on forever.
• Even if it doesn't, they believe the "continent" known as Antarctica to be much larger than in most pictures.  (Please see above link for a picture.)
• Some (Mostly just TomB ) hold that we have discovered parts of the "ice wall" already
• Regardless of who you are speaking to, most current FE'ers believe that the ice wall rests on mountain ranges to the south.

On a side note:

• Most people hold that it would take roughly between 500 and 2,600 men to guard the ice wall.
• However, TomB (and anyone who believes what he does) believes the plane of ice we call Antarctica stretches on  endlessly and has no need for guards.  Or at least, he does on certain occasions.
• Of course, TomB also states that the ice wall has been discovered and documented by one man, although he goes on to list many ice shelves.

At any rate, you will find that the FE'ers have an "answer" for everything, even if they have to pull it out of their collective ass, bend the laws of nature, invalidate certain tenants of accepted physics or declare every picture ever taken "part of the conspiracy."  You will find it amusing, annoying, and at times downright dumbfounding, to read their arguments.  But it's interesting, if nothing else. 

Welcome to the FES Forums, and enjoy your stay!   

115

Flat Earth General / Re: wait so site is joke right?

« on: November 13, 2007, 08:55:03 PM »

Great, now my purpose for living is gone, GONE I TELL YOU!   

Good.

...

116

Flat Earth General / Re: wait so site is joke right?

« on: November 13, 2007, 11:48:52 AM »

Well, you're not saying you DO.  That's kind of like an admission, engy.     Great, now my purpose for living is gone, GONE I TELL YOU!   

117

Flat Earth General / Re: wait so site is joke right?

« on: November 13, 2007, 11:43:32 AM »

So, wait... Does Engy NOT believe all this?   

?

Do I believe the sinking of the Titanic was a conspiracy?  Uh, no.

You know quite well I was talking about the idea of a Flat Earth.  It'll just break my heart if you're not REALLY convinced it's flat.   

118

Flat Earth General / Re: wait so site is joke right?

« on: November 13, 2007, 11:40:40 AM »

So, wait... Does Engy NOT believe all this?   

119

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So.... The Real FES...?

« on: November 13, 2007, 11:26:58 AM »

Yes. This site is a big troll magnet, it attracts and absorbs trolls so other forums don't have to suffer.

Lol, this made me giggle.   

120

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So.... The Real FES...?

« on: November 12, 2007, 10:44:08 PM »

Okay.  So, um... This isn't an "official" site, is it?  IS there an official site?  I want to see it if it exists...