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 - fshy94

Pages: 1 ... 49 50 [51]
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellites, and the False information they provide
« on: December 27, 2007, 02:34:56 PM »
Exactly. That's a lot of balloons :D. Its much easier to imagine an object constantly falling, but moving fast enough to counter that acceleration due to the earth dropping away(its perspective).

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Poles and Magnetism...
« on: December 27, 2007, 02:32:37 PM »
I'm not. I'm just going to ask every Flat Earther willing to draw a picture of how they think the Earth looks like. I'm interested if there is unanimity in this.

Flat Earth Q&A / ALL flat earthers: Draw your earth!
« on: December 27, 2007, 02:31:55 PM »
OK, I've been a little confused by the inconsistency I've been hearing about the shape of the earth from FE'ers. I'd all Flat Earther's interested to draw a picture of what they think the earth looks like. Draw it any way you feel will convey you're idea of how the earth looks from space. No need to get fancy, just an easy drawing.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Poles and Magnetism...
« on: December 27, 2007, 02:29:47 PM »
I think there's a good deal of confusion regarding what is the flat earth theory itself. I've heard everything from spindle theories, to the old one I'd envisioned. I'm going to start a new thread for flat earther's to draw a simple picture of the way they believe the earth to exist.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellites, and the False information they provide
« on: December 27, 2007, 02:26:51 PM »
Edwin Hubble did find it. It was verified by the telescope, IIRC, and its changing. So we don't know the rate of change. You're merely nitpicking, however. The point was, that many of the facts we take for granted were found by satellites, and if they don't exist, we must throw out the data generated there. Would you agree?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Poles and Magnetism...
« on: December 27, 2007, 02:21:32 PM »
Just read em. Still doesn't counter my first argument, about the z direction. The magnetic field would appear above and below the center of the earth, not at the center and at the ends.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellites, and the False information they provide
« on: December 27, 2007, 02:18:24 PM »
OK, maybe this time you'll understand. The hubble constant was measured by satellites. As was all the discoveries about the ozone layer. And WMAP. Since you stated satellites don't exist, and are part of the conspiracy, we must disavow all of this information. Would you agree?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about geologists?
« on: December 27, 2007, 02:16:41 PM »
They just add people to the "conspiracy" who can disprove their theory absolutely. Heck, judging by my arguments about the magnetic field, soon, everyone with a compass will be part of the conspiracy.... Good point though, I sorta touched on it in my other thread, but you defined it better. Lots of people in this conspiracy. Which begs the question, if so many people are in on this conspiracy, surely they've infiltrated every ISP, tapped every internet line, and so on; which begs the question...why haven't all the flat earther's been assassinated? Or are they doing this on the run, constantly tapping into unsecured wireless networks........

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellites, and the False information they provide
« on: December 27, 2007, 02:13:00 PM »
Ok. That's fine by me.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Poles and Magnetism...
« on: December 27, 2007, 02:12:29 PM »
Saw no need, seeing as so many of you disagree with the FAQ on so many points. Heck, it seems like everyone here has their own flat earth theory. A little consistency in ideas needs to be developed before I read a FAQ about a theory who's proponents don't agree over basic points(a little disagreement is fine, but it seems like there's a flat earth theory, a spindle theory, each with their own mix of dark matter, optical illusions, conspiracy theories, dark energy, antimatter, and pretty much everything fancy-sounding under the sun, regardless of what those things

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellites, and the False information they provide
« on: December 27, 2007, 02:07:07 PM »
Hubble Telescope- All the breakthroughs of the Hubble telescope are fake, because it actually doesnt exist. The universe might be expanded, or not, as nothing is known about the Hubble constant, you know, the value at which the universe is suppose to be expanding.
What do these have to do with each other?

My dear genius, THEY WERE ALL FOUND BY SATELLITES! By your own arguments, SATELLITES DON"T EXIST! Did that clarify things for you?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about modern explorers?
« on: December 27, 2007, 02:05:13 PM »
Quit the GE/FE = win nonsense, it irritates me.

Anyhow, a quick peek at google maps reveals that Terrametrics is responsible for the imagery, which uses...satellites. Guess google's part of the conspiracy as you'll have to find a new search engine not controlled by the global conspiracy. Try ask, surely they're too small to be part of the conspiracy...

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Poles and Magnetism...
« on: December 27, 2007, 01:51:15 PM »
What is this material?

I wish I knew. Even then, Dark Energy could be possibly affecting the gravitation. Less likely, but it's an idea.

About monopoles, too large means that you'll never see them, meaning that it would have to be on a cosmic scale, and they're properties would be easily observed.

So, not the Earth's size?

Well, its possible, I admit, that monopoles exist, but the earth would have distinct properties if it was one. For example, how do we explain the south magnetic pole? Another monopole? They would just combine to form a single bar magnet, and the question then arises; why do we not observe the earth's magnetic pole constantly waning due to degaussment? There is no power to produce it, so it would inevitably wane. Instead, we see it waxing and waning, and occasionally reversing(this has been proven with geologic evidence near trenches, a very fascinating discovery), which leaves us with the core theory as your only hope. Also, I was wondering where exactly the spindle is, because I'm confused with the spindle theory upon further thought. We have been to the south pole, how did we not notice getting off the flat surface on top? Or is this more conspiracy? Because honestly, I enjoy debating, but whenever someone throws up conspiracy, it irritates me. I wouldn't mind this theory but for the whole "coverup" idea. I would be fine if you thought things were mistaken, heck maybe NASA was subject to optical illusion, but really, the idea of a coverup is lunacy. Why not just tell people the earth is flat and go back to bed? Its not exactly a big secret, like nanobots controlling the world...

Anyway, this "unobtanium" that holds the earth together, as I shall refer to it from now on, would be near mystical in its properties. Why the secrecy over it? Why not just learn its properties, and have the most indestructible materials in the world? I just don't like the idea over this theory being untestable, because a new and yet more complex explanation is found to counter every argument. Also, let us not forget the more mundane proof of ships on the horizon. Say what you will, but its been observed experimentally, and it is easy to find; heck, one person on this forum did it. I still vote for the choice of Occam's Razor: Round Earth Theory.

EDIT: Oh, I almost forgot. In the spindle theory, if we all live on the top, where do we get seasons? If it were like that, it'd be nearly all like Alaska: half of the year the sun never sets, the other half, barely any sun at all. Not pleasant.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Just a few questions
« on: December 27, 2007, 01:09:32 PM »
Well I nominate fsht94 to be the man to denounce the RE theory, he seems to be the man for the job.

Good to know. When fsht94 shows up, let me know, will you? I'd love to have an argument with him, or at least a sock-puppeted version of him.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Poles and Magnetism...
« on: December 27, 2007, 01:08:03 PM »
That's a very very interesting idea, the spool of thread, but it also poses certain problems... However, I find it interesting because it does not deviate significantly from the idea of a sphere. However the question is, what one earth is the center bit made of! In objects of relatively small(by small I mean human proportions), such a device is possible. However, when one gets large enough so that the gravitational constant G is no longer a significant barrier, one needs an incredibly strong material to prevent crumpling into a more stable object. What is this material? And remember, at one point, if there is a core, that area is going to be very weak due to the rather sad fact of liquid dynamics. About monopoles, too large means that you'll never see them, meaning that it would have to be on a cosmic scale, and they're properties would be easily observed. It would also mean that there would be no south pole.

Sadly, the monopole theory doesn't work(believe me, I wish it was true, they have lots of useful applications that would be cool if they existed). You're best hope is some sort of thing similar to how spherical Earth gets its field. GUT theories and TOE theories(yes, I know those are repeated phrases there, but it helps with clarification), predict their possibility, but if they exist there, why can't we create them, or at least dig some up? If there are monopoles there, we should be able to scale down into the spool's center, and extract some monopoles. That would help your theory a lot.

I have heard theories of dark matter interfering with gravity; sadly, that doesn't do anything. All dark matter would do is help the earth on its way to crumpling. Gravity, unlike magnetism, has only one charge. Nice discussion though, nonetheless.

Some people claim that scientists hate the flat earth theory. That's not exactly true. If flat earth theory really was true, there would be fantastic possibilities in the applications of such wonder forces. If dark matter or dark energy really was so close, it would be every physicists dream to grab some and study it. Occam's razor merely states that the simplest explanation is the best, and round earth is the simplest. Nonetheless, gedankenexperiments are fun, and I enjoy plaing with them.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Just a few questions
« on: December 27, 2007, 12:46:08 PM »
True, but it also subject to time. And in today, is that considered rational? I assume we are working in this year, correct? And does the majority believe that to be rational? That's not the way the scientific process has worked for centuries. And if we abandon that method, we must also abandon all other conclusions based upon that method, or at least re-examine them under a new method. Which must be rigorously defined first, and proven to be better than the current one. That's how GR superseded Newton, and how quantum theory superseded Bohr's model, as well as many other things.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Poles and Magnetism...
« on: December 27, 2007, 12:43:25 PM »
Here's an experiment to show you about monopoles. Take a bar magnet, preferably one labeled with N and S. Snap it in half. Now tell me, do you have a north monopole and a south monopole? I didn't think so.

If the process works the same, where is the core? I thought the earth was flat, remember? A core implies a sphere... If somehow the core is just in the center of the earth, why are the north poles in the same place as where a spherical theory would predict? Magnetism(a simple experiment with an electrical wire can show you this), tends to end up in the z direction; inevitably going up in the case of a flat earth. That would place the north and south pole just above and below the center of the earth. Even if you can somehow rationalize this into ending up at the far ends of the poles(I remember that the north pole or the south pole was actually distributed across a large circular area at the ends of the earth), how do you account for a moving pole? How about magnetic reversals?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Just a few questions
« on: December 27, 2007, 12:34:06 PM »
Oh god, I love trolls. Imagine this:

Skeptic: OK, so show me just where the new object you've called a black hole is; I mean, give me the coordinates for the telescopes so that others around the world can experimentally verify your results.

Scientist: Go find it yourself you lazy skeptic. OMG all of us black holers are persecuted!! Its a massive conspiracy! OMG, the global government! AAARRRGGGH, don't touch my tinfoil hat!

Now tell me this is a reasonable scenario for a scientist to prove his theory.

Flat Earth Q&A / Poles and Magnetism...
« on: December 27, 2007, 12:29:23 PM »
How does your magnificent theory describe our dear friend the north and south magnetic poles, my friends? Now, RE describes a spinning inner and outer core, which is consistent with EM theory, but how does flat earth explain this away? We do agree that compasses and magnetism exist, yes? Or is everyone with a compass part of the "conspiracy"? Oh wait, that includes me! Lets find out the latest grand explanation of the FE'ers. The hilarious thing is that the inner core was not discovered until 1936, so they can't exactly turn to their old idiot, Rowbotham...

Oh, and by the way, if you don't agree with current theories of magnetism, you have to figure out how aurora's work. Just mentioning, as I'm sure this is going to happen. Oh, and seismic experiments have proved the inner and outer core using the timing of seismic events traveling through the earth. So yeah, don't give me any nonsense about the cores and mantle not existing. Oh, and by the way, how is it that you define the earth in 3D space(since we agree on that, I hope)? As a 2D object  in a 3D world(pretty tough to imagine)? As a paper thin wafer? Or as a cakeish object, with us on the top?

Happy explaining, and have a happy new year. Cheers!

Pages: 1 ... 49 50 [51]