1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof

« on: September 17, 2008, 09:06:12 PM »

First off ... Its not really an Ice wall
Its the edge of a petri dish.

Second ... The conspiracy is headed up by the pharmaceutical companies ... so its easy to see how you Re'rs are delusional.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sun spots, and craters on the moon.

« on: September 13, 2008, 10:54:23 PM »

For starters ... any body that looks at the sun is going to see spots .... thats a fact

next I would say that ... you said there was one peice of evidence for craters .."meteorites,comets...

thats 2 ... I can boil it down to one if you want ... "Rocks"

does that fit the description?

My theory on what happened is ... When they used to have those catapults (dark ages)

they flung alot of rocks at the moon , because they over engineered it back then.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE is constantly accelerating at 1G

« on: September 11, 2008, 09:58:31 PM »

So here is a quick question...

FE is constantly accelerating at 1G... So are the stars, the moon the sun and everything we see when we look up.

This is explained by DE right?

DE pushes everything at 1G?

Some one please answer this or clarify what I got wrong here.

You know I have read the FAQ, which doesn't specify what is pushing the things above FE or how everything gets pushed.

Think of it mostly like ... The Universe is being squeezed out the end of a tube of toothpaste.
or gods rectum ... wich ever you prefer.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If gravity doesn't exist, then explain this...

« on: September 05, 2008, 07:51:48 PM »

Here's something for FE people to explain:
according to RET, the earth's sphericality and rotation combine to make toilets and drains spin clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere. How could this opposite rotation happen on a FE with no hemispheres?

*Sigh*  The water drain thing is a myth. 

The biggest Myth since Sliced Bread ...
and maybe jelly ,,, thats suppose to hold the Universe together 

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flaw

« on: August 31, 2008, 08:56:43 AM »

hmm ... im sorry, id love to continue this one right now , but they need me in the lab. Will be back in a couple of days, due to the long and uniterupted hours this experiment will take .... But im sure some one else will come along to aleive your fears that you might go flying off of a round spinning globe.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flaw

« on: August 31, 2008, 08:46:08 AM »

Well thats a bit of a problem isnt it ... can you prove its the same everywhere all the time?

I suggest you reread my post of when i said .....

"And by the way ... how could you be everywhere at once , in order to get an accurate perceptive account of the effects of gravity , to assume it is the same all the time everywhere you go. "

Finding flaw  using a flaw (you dismissed the 1g acceleration) only proves that you are probably under the effects of the pharmacuetical companies (The probable conspirators)

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flaw

« on: August 31, 2008, 08:35:22 AM »

Hi Doc, i suggest u re-read my post,
since i am saying that what we call gravity Decreases at the same rate, everywhere in the world, as you go up in altitude.

Well I had read it a few times , But now that youve thrown in the we part. Youll need to be more specific on ... We =

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flaw

« on: August 31, 2008, 08:22:18 AM »

FAQ says:

Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

The moon does not always have the same position, you do  not see the same stars everywhere in the world. How come the gravitational pull decreases at the same rate everywhere you go?

Well I see your making asumption based on what newton came up with after the apple hit him on the head.(he probably had a concussion after that ... not a good time to make scientific speculation) no?

The apple hitting newton in the head was clearly the effects of the 1g acceleration upwards of the flat faced cylinder we sit on.

Now if you want to discuss this thing called gravity ... I believe its true that matter does attract other matter to some degree . We can see the effects of it here on earth all time (bodies attracting bodies) VaVoom!!! if  you know what i mean. But , it is clear that 1/2 of these bodies like to keep it mysterious as to the actual workings of what makes the attraction to the other bodies ... Hence there are varying oppinions on this magical force know as gravity among FE'ers.

So this thing you say is a constant everywhere you go ... is actually the 1g acceleration.  Actual gravity (if you want to call it that) is no where near as constant as you would like to believe.  CLEARLY

And by the way ... how could you be everywhere at once , in order to get an accurate perceptive account of the effects of gravity , to assume it is the same all the time everywhere you go.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 2 cases for a round earth

« on: August 31, 2008, 07:37:44 AM »

  I would think that the angle of the Dark object in relation to the sun or moon could be deduced by mathematics and direct observation of light and angles.

Ofcourse this is possible , But you are making assumtions that the shadow object,Sun,moon, and earth all act the same.As if Dogs,cats,and mice have the same habbits. So you would start off with a very flawed base to begin your math.
Read the FAQ on the sun and moon difference and how it relates to the earth with reflective light. Then you must make an assumption on the shadow object , that it does not behave as these three others do ...  in that it reflects no light .... Hence its called the shadow object.

And celestial non man made sattelites were never part of FE that im aware of.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: All you Flat Earth Believers, Try this:

« on: August 30, 2008, 08:59:04 PM »

Holy toledo ... and they say the FE'ers are an unstable bunch ...
This looks more like something that you would read in the angry ranting section. Plus who in their right mind would walk around in 40 below weather just to prove some inconcievable theory.
I think this just proves my theory of the RE'ers being under the control of the pharmacuetacle companies( who are starting to look more and more like the ones behind the conspiracy anyway.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 2 cases for a round earth

« on: August 30, 2008, 08:27:57 PM »

I feel so ignored. 

Im going to handle your first question and ignore the second one.  First we need to clarify something.  What causes the moon phases in round earth theory?

Im so sorry for getting in the way here Wardogg ...
But you can obviously see they are just going for easy to pick and poke return. And your Awnser/question just gave them to much to think about.

But let me awnser the mast thingy quick ...
Its the surface tension ... Light ... having a limited penetrating power is not letting the lower part of the ship appear as soon as the higher part of the ship.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 2 cases for a round earth

« on: August 30, 2008, 08:05:02 PM »

I think I can handle the second question simply by stateing you said "that this cannont be said about modern ships."

And as far as Aristotle ... wasnt he considered a deviant in his day?

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If gravity doesn't exist, then explain this...

« on: August 30, 2008, 07:35:47 PM »

Read nxt tym!

Im serious ... I have a belief that mass carries some attractance to other mass. Floating objects in water are what i have observed to believe this.

Have you heard of this thing called surface tension?

Ah yes ... Im the one that was directed at.
I have heard of surface tension , And it really has no bearing on my thoughts of gravity. Infact i wouldnt even call it gravity ... Its merley how mass has an attraction for other mass to some small degree. And as i stated in that post , It certainly doesnt explain how we would remain on the outside of a so called spinning sphere and not get thrown off into oblivion. Simple test here in the real world show that the centrifuge force would greatly overcome this so called gravity theory that  RE'ers would have you believe.
But Im glad you brought up the surface tension , Because that is a very good explanation of why you cant see from continent to continent.
To Mkee:
You have to understand that light has a limited penetrating power , especially at the surface. And it is in light that we are able to see. Even when using a telescope , you will notice the higher the power of magnification , the dimmer the image will appear ... as you increase magnfication to look further across the earth , it will fade into nothing.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If gravity doesn't exist, then explain this...

« on: August 30, 2008, 07:09:14 PM »

ma bad..im gettin confused between signatures and quotes lol

Thats Ok ... its obvious your just trying to hold on to your RET , but getting close to the precipise of opening your mind to the possibility youve just been deluded these many years.
So I will attempt to awnser your question of where we are going.
The awnser is forward ... And yes it is the simplest awnser.
But let me elaborate a little more ... first with a question.

Is life ever changing and moving forward? .... Or does it stay in the same stagnant circle always ending up in the same place once a year?

So If your not to controlled by the pharmacuetical companies (my theory on whose behind the conspiracy) Then you can obviously see that life is patterned after the movement of the Flat faced cylinder that is ever so boldy moving forward , Not playing ring around the posey's.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why the earth cannot be accelerating to create the effect of gravity

« on: August 30, 2008, 04:06:24 PM »

@Dr Eon Phlatamus
Well I've never used a telescope muc but I don't know anyone that would stare into the sun and then stare into the sun with a telescope to see how dim it becomes due to distance, not to mention with the amount of light that the sun gives off you'd have to have some really high tech equipment to be able to tell.  But the government has all the high tech equipment so yea.  Also about the "maybe I'm moving and the light isn't," well if that were true we'd have to be moving in all dimensions at once to be able to pick up the light with our eyes.

No body is debating that the sun is not something to be stared at with or without magnification. If you read my replay , the effects of light having a certain amount of penetrating power are best seen when stareing across the earth , not into the heavens.
And you saying that you believe it because the goverment must be telling the truth because they must have the high tech gadgets , Is only more evidence about the conspiracy theory. And your living in a state of mind that has been programmed into you since birth. Most likley from the epidural the pharmacuetical representitive used on your mother.
And as far as the light is stationary and your the one moving , is just a question I threw out there to try to get you thinking outside of the obvious programming you have recieved.
Although , It is a theory I have about what light is and how it works in relation to the FET .... But I must save all that for another post.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If gravity doesn't exist, then explain this...

« on: August 30, 2008, 03:18:42 PM »

Mass does carry some gravitational force to it . It is observable when placeing floating objects in water , they will gravitate towards each other and the edge of the container.

Please tell me you are serious.

Im serious ... I have a belief that mass carries some attractance to other mass. Floating objects in water are what i have observed to believe this. But like all other theories , its only my perception that can prove or disprove it to myself. Im certainly not going to fall for what all the sheep want to believe reality is.
And you must admit there are alot of sheep out there , just believing and doing what they'er told by the pharmaceutical companies.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why the earth cannot be accelerating to create the effect of gravity

« on: August 30, 2008, 02:52:11 PM »

Thats some very good math you have LEARNED Lobo ...
But you are making asumptions based on what you have been told.
That the earth is supposedly 93 million miles away and that light travels at a certain speed based upon how long it takes to get to you from that distance. RET right?
Well in FET , The light producer(s) is much closer , and based on tests here on earth , the speed of light appears to be imeasurable, virtually instant in its penetrating distance. And I must point out , that it does have a penetrating distance , atleast one that is percievable by the human eye.
Have you ever looked through a telescope? And have you noticed a percievable drop in the intensity of luminosity ,the further one wishes to magnify objects at a distance , the dimmer they become.(this test is easier done looking at land based objects with known not made up distances)
Hence the penetrating power of light cannot be anywhere near the distance the sun is supposedly at in RET.

So instead of trying to disprove theories , with math based on assumptions , You might ask yourself ... maybe im the one moving and the light is not?

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If gravity doesn't exist, then explain this...

« on: August 30, 2008, 02:19:35 PM »

Sorry my bad, I ddint phrase it right. The way you use the theory seems far fetched. It seems like you are forcing the theory to fit.

Hmmm ... an interesting choice of words.

I for one do believe in gravity ... But not to the preposterous proportions that RET would have us beleive.
How rediculous is it to beleive that the gravity generated by the mass of the earth is enough to overcome the centrifuge force that is created by the so called spinning of the earth.
Mass does carry some gravitational force to it . It is observable when placeing floating objects in water , they will gravitate towards each other and the edge of the container.
When magnetism is not at play though , the force of gravity is not very strong , certainly not enough to account for things like bullets comming back down to the surface. Therefore the theory of earth accelerating with 1g in a fixed direction is a very plausible therory to explain it.
But it is still a theory ... no less plausible than your so called RET with this enormous force called gravity.
So I ask you ... Wich theory seems more forced?

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?

« on: August 30, 2008, 01:19:07 PM »

Well I'd like to start by saying "Hello" im new to this whole internet forum thing, And Im glad to see there are still a few people out there with a firm grip on reality. (Reality is only agreed upon perception)
Lets first start with , The use of math in favor for FE theory.
This theory has been believed for much longer than this new fangled RE theory, and I might add they are both theories.
But the FET has a longer track record than the RET , therfore with simple math logic , it is much more believable.
Now when the RET has as many years under its belt as the FET , Then and only then will it be on equal ground with FET.
And I know what some of you are going to say , That the number of people on the earth since the RET was more widely accepted is greater than the number that have believed in the FET since the dawn of time.
To that question , I would pose another question , How many people have been under the influence of synthentic substances during the RET golden years , compared to the number of people during the FET golden years?
The theory that a conspiracy of this size and magnitude is virtually impossible , Is merley flawed thinking of those who have been programed by the conspirators.
How is this programing taking place you might add .
Well the awnser would be in the question in that case (PROGRAMING ADDS)
You have but to take a step back and look around you , to see all the untruths being fed into the human mind today.
Who is in charge of this conspiracy you might say.
Well that my friends is still to be discoverd , But I do have a theory ...

None other than the Pharmaceutical companies ... And its inside of this theory , that we can conclude the earth is Flat.
How you ask?
First lets make a model of what is happening when a scientist is working.
They are playing god to some degree ... yes?
They are working in a laboratory  ... the known universe.
They'er attention is focused through a microscope (not always though)
They are observing a world of organisms wich is on petri dish.
And what shape is that petri dish?

Its true there are many more things to discuss in this theory , But I feel it is best saved for the serious discussion forum.