1441

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about geologists?

« on: December 28, 2007, 12:39:07 PM »

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

You're appealing to authority. Because the figures and information come from scientists or government officials, they must be accurate and correct.

You're assuming that they're correct, and that they actually happen the way they do. Probabilistically, they do; however, I haven't really seen anything more than conjecture in that the waves would perform any differently with the Earth less curved than it is now, except at the larger distances.

And even more than that, none of this needs to invoke conspiracy.

The problem is, the larger distances have been measured. I remember reading about USGS stations over on the opposite side of the world recording the Sumatra quake which caused the tsunami. Now, I will admit, there is the absolutely remote, absolute remote possibility that the material that comprises the Earth is just perfect for simulating a sphere. But I would put it around the probability of getting struck by lightning, while getting a hole in one in golf, all while holding the winning lottery ticket in your pocket. This is only because we can only seismically test the Earth, and can't really go there. But I still think that the science is valid, and I'm thinking the probability of a flat earth is very, very, very slim.

My reasons are:

• You invoke conspiracy theory(granted, you've been trying to minimalize it, but you require it, at the very least, for government officials, NASA, everybody who claims to have been to the South pole, and every military person guarding the Ice Wall)
• You also claim the universe is against you(so many odd things, like mystical properties of the planet, a spheroid emulating cylindrical material, just odd things like that)
• You have no sufficient explanation for events like the Coriolis effect, the origins of a flat Earth, or seasons. Yes, I read the FAQ, and I don't buy it. See my thread. Round Earth has all of these explained fairly well.
• You ignore Occam's Razor, the most fundamental rule of science. You have also not provided a reason why I should.

1442

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Another "civilization" on the bottom of FE?, Earth really a Giant Hemisphere

« on: December 28, 2007, 12:28:59 PM »

Nice. Can we meet em?

1443

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ALL flat earthers: Draw your earth!

« on: December 28, 2007, 12:28:25 PM »

Relax. That was a joke.... Ok, fine, I'll quit mocking the conspiracy theory...for now...

1. They are curved in both models, but according to flat earth, one hemisphere should exhibit the OPPOSITE curve. Which would end up rather nastily for flights, as in ending up in the wrong place. That's because FE states that the rotation of the Earth from anywhere in explored territory is either clockwise or counterclockwise; which would lead to one curve. Always. Take a look at this video.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com:8100/legacy/college/strahler/0471238007/animations/ch07_animations/animation1.html

It explains the coriolis effect, and it assumes a round earth. Think about it with a flat earth. They would always curve in one direction. The only way for it to curve in the opposite direction would be to end up on the bottom of the earth, which is impossibly for humans, according to you guys. The only possible explanations would be that the southern hemisphere(RE definition) has a equal and opposite rotation, quite something to imagine tectonically. Not sure how that would be possible...again, I invoke Occam's Razor.

1444

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Another "civilization" on the bottom of FE?, Earth really a Giant Hemisphere

« on: December 28, 2007, 12:09:51 PM »

Don't you guys say that gravity comes from acceleration of Earth + universe? So the bottom siders would have to be capable of fighting 1g gravitational forces.

1445

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What's powering the Sun?

« on: December 28, 2007, 12:08:52 PM »

OK, yeah, I keep thinking in RE, but how do you explain the gravitational constant G's effect of adding additional gravity to the acceleration? And according to you, the top of all the planets would experience more force than the bottoms of the planet, leading all the planets to form pancaked versions. For example, a round Pluto or moon could not exist, seeing as the bottom of Pluto would break off due to the fact that it doesn't enough gravity to keep itself together. Both of them would keep losing pieces., so the only way for this to work is for half of our gravity to be caused by gravitational force from the mass of the Earth, and the other half from acceleration. And that would just destroy the planets without an Earth level gravitational force. So how do you work this? Do you deny universal gravitation, the fact that objects attract each other?

1446

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about geologists?

« on: December 28, 2007, 10:44:34 AM »

Ya Bishop. Its fairly impossible. Your also operating under the odd sort of assumption that earthquakes would only produce waves at or above the critical angle for internal reflection. It would be clearly noticeable, and nobody's mentioned it. As in clearly noticeable as in an earthquake in Peru showing up on Bolivia. Or worse.

1447

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Seasons....

« on: December 28, 2007, 08:48:51 AM »

Ah, good to see people with a sense of humor with that in mind, allow me to point that according to newton, your spiders can do nothing, while remaining on the sun. In order for it to work, the spiders must have a larger population, and eject from the sun.

Humor aside, is there no answer from FE. In space, spheroid objects will form. Where'd a cyllinder come from?

EDIT: Whoops, wrong discussion. I meant what moves the sun back...

1448

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about...the Coriolis effect?

« on: December 28, 2007, 08:29:17 AM »

ah yes, but then how do you explain the fact that on different hemispheres, the coriolis effect points in opposite directions? Storms in the northern hemisphere veer west, and vice versa on the southern hemisphere, all under an RE definition. How can this be on a flat earth?

1449

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ALL flat earthers: Draw your earth!

« on: December 27, 2007, 11:45:57 PM »

Yes, we have plants among us! Aaarrgghh!

LOL. Shoulda seen that coming...

1450

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ALL flat earthers: Draw your earth!

« on: December 27, 2007, 11:37:09 PM »

That wasn't the point of the sentence. The point was to mock bishop tom for lacking to refer to his theory correctly. Even if FE were somehow true, the explanation that only the RE definition of the southern hemisphere would observe said results(look back) is absurd, hence my pointing out to him that according to his theory, there are no hemispheres.

1451

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What's powering the Sun?

« on: December 27, 2007, 11:32:59 PM »

So the moon, Jupiter, and especially Pluto/charyon, all have at least 9.8 m/s gravity. So why does charyon not smash into pluto? If both had Earth level gravity, they would smash very well into each other if spheroid, right? And wouldn't astronomers note the additional range of all objects comet/asteroid capture range, regardless of shape? So are all astronomers part of the conspiracy, as none have revealed such results?

1452

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ALL flat earthers: Draw your earth!

« on: December 27, 2007, 11:25:31 PM »

My apologies. Clearly I lack the profound geometrical skills to realize that a cyllinder has hemispheres. Perhaps you can explain to us, the unintelligent masses?

1453

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What's powering the Sun?

« on: December 27, 2007, 11:22:06 PM »

I confess to ignoring part of your comment, but only because I am tired and am not sure what you refer to. So you're saying that the entire observable universe is accelerating, hence the lack of relativistic events. Which begs a question: why don't all planets have 9.8 m/s gravity? The moon should have at least that much on its northern hemisphere? This happens no matter whether the moon is flat or spheroid. You with me?

1454

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Seasons....

« on: December 27, 2007, 11:13:31 PM »

Bump. I'm beginning to think Trekkies answer is the best FE has to offer...

1455

Flat Earth Q&A / The origins of a flat earth...

« on: December 27, 2007, 11:11:59 PM »

Now that I've heard a lot of arguments, I'm going to ask a rather irritating question. From where did this flat earth arise? The big bang predicts spherical, mostly gaseous objects, but how did a flat earth get lost in the equations?

1456

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What's powering the Sun?

« on: December 27, 2007, 11:06:35 PM »

You didn't really answer me there. I asked about why we don't observe relatvistic time dilation, but of course I forgot that every astronomer capable of such an observation is a member of this not-so-exclusive conspiracy. However, you didn't explain about whether the other celestial bodies also travel with us on this little excursion of acceleration.

1457

Flat Earth Q&A / What about...the Coriolis effect?

« on: December 27, 2007, 10:55:18 PM »

Now, heres one I want to hear answered. How do FE'ers explain the Coriolis effect without the Earth being curved? And remember, the Coriolis effect affects hurricanes and so on, so it certainly exists. Well?

1458

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What's powering the Sun?

« on: December 27, 2007, 10:52:37 PM »

If it wasn't, and your theory was correct, we would observe some extremely interesting time dilation effects. We don't. You're taking advantage of a specific section of GR that states that an accelerating spaceship will give the same characteristics as a gravitational force. However, you ignore relativistic effects of time, distance, and so on. Also, are the stars, sun, and moon accelerating with us? If not, why aren't we getting closer to them?

1459

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What's powering the Sun?

« on: December 27, 2007, 09:41:15 PM »

If I may be so bold as to interject here, let me give an analogy to help define GR, which states that gravity is a fictitious force, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Uh, that is exactly what it means.

Lets imagine we're 2D objects on a RE globe. Lets see you and I start at the equator and go straight north. By the end of it, because there was a 3rd dimension we were unaware of, we ended up right together at the north pole. Now, what will you and I assume, having no knowledge of the third dimension? That there was a force pulling us together. However, there was no force, just a fictitious force we imagined to make sense of the metric. Something similar happens with us in gravity because massenergy curves spacetime, only with time as the fourth dimension we are unaware of. Does that make sense?

Gravity only appears to us to be a force  because we assume we are at rest.  We are not, we are accelerating.

Wrong. Look at my sphere analogy. Does it matter if we are accelerating or traveling at a constant speed. Technically, its accelerating due to the fact that any object following a spheroid path is accelerating, but if that's wat you were saying, you weren't clear. The reason gravity occurs is because we are traveling forward through time. Always. However, all of this is elementary, as none of this predicts serious breaks with newton on an everyday level, and regardless of whether it is a perceived or "real" force, the effects observed will be mostly identical.

1460

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ALL flat earthers: Draw your earth!

« on: December 27, 2007, 07:39:12 PM »

Explain how, on a flat surface, a curved path has the same travel time as a straight one. Also, according to you guys, there is no southern hemisphere. Go figure.

1461

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: If we are not looking at something, does it still exist?

« on: December 27, 2007, 06:20:32 PM »

I prefer to think that it does exist, and that quantum superpositions are destroyed by decoherence theory. I'm a proponent of that theory, because the naive model undermines a crucial failure of the Copenhagen interpretation. In theory, with an incredible detector, I could detect which way the quantum superposition actually was at merely by studying a lone air molecule that struck the object, and then observed. Therefore, the slightest interactions will destroy the superposition, and therefore resolve the universe. Which would explain Schroedinger's cat a little better

1462

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Poles and Magnetism...

« on: December 27, 2007, 06:02:32 PM »

Yes, I did. I don't think there were men in uniform on that travel page. Won't they be worried someone will take a peek down and notice a very jagged edge in the world?

1463

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Poles and Magnetism...

« on: December 27, 2007, 06:00:39 PM »

I thought that there was no Antarctica, only a great Ice Wall guarded by men in uniform?

1464

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ALL flat earthers: Draw your earth!

« on: December 27, 2007, 05:59:06 PM »

I'm a pilot and I have never been to any of the government's meetings.   

Blast! I was hoping to find one at last. Or...maybe...you're a plant by "The Conspiracy"... Yes, we have plants among us! Aaarrgghh!

1465

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Poles and Magnetism...

« on: December 27, 2007, 05:57:05 PM »

Oh OK, so the evidence of a pole existing on the south doesn't happen. OK, tell me, why are there trips to Antarctica? From Ushuaia(I think thats how its spelled) in South America? Won't the military shut down the little organization to protect their Ice Wall?

Here's one:

http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/travel/index.shtml

1466

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ALL flat earthers: Draw your earth!

« on: December 27, 2007, 05:55:12 PM »

You do know that such information is on the rather odd place called the Internet. Oh wait, we're on it. I know that they are mostly taken down now in favor of new flights, but find a new one.

Airports don't post flight logs on the internet. If they do, why don't you direct us to some?

OK, I misspoke. Not flight logs, nitpicker. They do post departure and arrival times so that people can pick up people who fly. I'll get back to you on the sites in a sec, I know I saw one a while ago.

Ah, here's one: http://flightaware.com/live/

Guess they're controlled by "The Conspiracy" too. My bad.

1467

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ALL flat earthers: Draw your earth!

« on: December 27, 2007, 05:51:46 PM »

I didn't invite you to call them you know . You do know that such information is on the rather odd place called the Internet. Oh wait, we're on it. I know that they are mostly taken down now in favor of new flights, but find a new one. Or just create an audio recording the next time you go on a flight. You see, I think our problem is that each of us thinks that the other needs to prove the other wrong personally, and thats just never going to happen. You claim conspiracy, but do you honestly think that the insane amount of people required for that conspiracy would all keep quiet? No disenfranchised, unhappy people in this little group of oh...thousands at least?

As someone who has led teams, the attempt of keeping such a group together would be monumental, if not impossible. You'll claim assassins, but its easier to run then you might think while alerting people. Military people guarding the Ice Wall, right? Not one of them gets pissed off with their job and takes a small, miniature camera? I must admit, you're giving me a great idea for a Bourne themed movie, but I find it unlikely.

1468

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellites, and the False information they provide

« on: December 27, 2007, 05:48:34 PM »

I apologize for going off topic, but that's the way threads go on the internet. It happens to every forum. Or do you think that threads never go off topic when FE'ers are involved, eh?

1469

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Poles and Magnetism...

« on: December 27, 2007, 05:47:17 PM »

Assuming you are correct, NOT NOW!!!! However, there is the odd phenomenon known as geomagnetic reversals, during which time, the current north pole ends up at the south pole. Do you acknowledge that phenomenon, and if you do, how do you explain it? If you don't, how many freaking members of this conspiracy are there!

1470

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellites, and the False information they provide

« on: December 27, 2007, 05:40:02 PM »

Exactly! But you(strictly defined as your brain), did not directly observe said photon.