1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can we see the moon?

« on: June 28, 2013, 06:55:18 AM »

The sun and the moon and stars are all inside the ice dome.
The suns beam hits the moon directly from one side of the dome and as the sun and moon move at different rates , you see the suns light move away, creating half moons etc.

Isn't the Sun a spotlight in FET? Pointing downward, so that not everyone on Earth can see it at the same time, so there's a difference between night and day?

If the Sun is a downward facing spotlight, I don't see how its light could directly hit the Moon.

The sun isn't a downward facing spotlight. It's angled which gets slighter and slighter as it comes down the dome in it's wavy circular path.

Okay, but still, it has to be a pretty wide spotlight if it can shine both below it and on the Moon at the same time. Also, people who can see the Moon right above their heads, why don't they see the Sun too? The Sun should be visible to them too.

Because the sun is opposite.

What I mean is, the Sun is shining on the Moon, and it's also shining directly below it, and if the people on the "night side" have the Moon overhead, it should be shining on the ground there too, since it's between two points that it shines on.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can we see the moon?

« on: June 28, 2013, 05:19:32 AM »

The sun and the moon and stars are all inside the ice dome.
The suns beam hits the moon directly from one side of the dome and as the sun and moon move at different rates , you see the suns light move away, creating half moons etc.

Isn't the Sun a spotlight in FET? Pointing downward, so that not everyone on Earth can see it at the same time, so there's a difference between night and day?

If the Sun is a downward facing spotlight, I don't see how its light could directly hit the Moon.

The sun isn't a downward facing spotlight. It's angled which gets slighter and slighter as it comes down the dome in it's wavy circular path.

Okay, but still, it has to be a pretty wide spotlight if it can shine both below it and on the Moon at the same time. Also, people who can see the Moon right above their heads, why don't they see the Sun too? The Sun should be visible to them too.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can we see the moon?

« on: June 28, 2013, 04:35:59 AM »

The sun and the moon and stars are all inside the ice dome.
The suns beam hits the moon directly from one side of the dome and as the sun and moon move at different rates , you see the suns light move away, creating half moons etc.

Isn't the Sun a spotlight in FET? Pointing downward, so that not everyone on Earth can see it at the same time, so there's a difference between night and day?

If the Sun is a downward facing spotlight, I don't see how its light could directly hit the Moon.

4

Flat Earth General / Re: A different thought on POTUS's FES comment

« on: June 28, 2013, 04:30:12 AM »

I agree, it is advertising, since most people don't know of FES in any way.

I don't agree, however, that it will bring a huge load of FET believers to the site (statistically it will bring a few). There's a reason why 99.9% of the population believes the Earth is a globe, and the reason is not brainwashing.

Well what is it then? because earth is certainly not a rotating globe.

Come on, you know very well what my answer is, there's no reason to ask that.

So, it's indoctrination then, is all I'm saying.

Is that any different from brainwashing? Very subtle difference between the two. But no, it's neither of them.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Just curious...

« on: June 28, 2013, 04:17:59 AM »

I don't think it'd have much impact on everyday life. And Pongo is right, it doesn't come up very often, unless you're the kind of person that wears an "I believe Earth is flat!" T-shirt...

I think most people would see Flat Earthers just like they see religious zealots. There's nothing preventing regular interaction, as long as the particular topic doesn't come up. I have friends that are religious zealots, and I would have no problem having Flat Earther friends either. One belief does not describe the whole of a person.

6

Flat Earth General / Re: A different thought on POTUS's FES comment

« on: June 28, 2013, 04:12:22 AM »

I agree, it is advertising, since most people don't know of FES in any way.

I don't agree, however, that it will bring a huge load of FET believers to the site (statistically it will bring a few). There's a reason why 99.9% of the population believes the Earth is a globe, and the reason is not brainwashing.

Well what is it then? because earth is certainly not a rotating globe.

Come on, you know very well what my answer is, there's no reason to ask that.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: A different thought on POTUS's FES comment

« on: June 28, 2013, 04:08:38 AM »

I agree, it is advertising, since most people don't know of FES in any way.

I don't agree, however, that it will bring a huge load of FET believers to the site (statistically it will bring a few). There's a reason why 99.9% of the population believes the Earth is a globe, and the reason is not brainwashing.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth's shadow on the Moon

« on: June 27, 2013, 01:23:34 AM »

Thanks for posting the video,  it is another win for FET.

No, you think it's another win for FE, but when explanations are asked for, the RE explanation is far simpler, more logical, and much easier to prove than the FE explanation. Failure to understand a relatively simple phenomenon does not mean you are right.

Relax, Scintific... Need I remind you of the pigeon and chess comparison? Really, just the fact that he's "counting wins" like it's some sort of game and that's what really matters, should tell you about the nature of those "victories".

9

Flat Earth General / Re: How did the accepted speed of 9.8 m/s^2 become accepted?

« on: June 27, 2013, 01:15:15 AM »

I don't, frankly, believe the universe is expanding. But, my point here is that you find it easy to swallow an amount of mystical energy much larger, but think an unknown source to accelerate the smaller flat earth universe is pure fantasy and impossible.

If you really want a comparison...
Like I said before, we don't know what Dark Energy really is. We haven't detected it, and it's a possibility we never will. But we know it exists in some form and it exists everywhere in the universe, because the energy density resulting from it is what is making the Universe expand, and we can measure the rate of expansion and its acceleration, therefore we can estimate the quantity of Dark Energy (whatever it may be) that's in it.

In comparison, UA is a directional effect that supposedly doesn't even work on everything, only on whatever FErs decide it should work on, and it is increasing in energy. Because, if you're pushing an object at relativistic speeds, you need more and more energy to maintain the same acceleration. How is it possible that UA is constantly increasing in energy, and specifically just at the right rate that its imparted acceleration is constant? This is not the realm of science-fiction, it's the realm of pointless idiocy.

The whole of FET is full of these idiotic theories to attempt to explain why our experiences are exactly as they would be if the Earth was spherical. Basically, the whole concept of FET is "The Earth seems spherical no matter how you look at it, but it's really an illusion and we say it's flat!"

10

Flat Earth General / Re: EVA right now!

« on: June 27, 2013, 01:04:50 AM »

And why are these astro-nots so good at public speaking/showmanship???   

ALSO..WHY even wear necklaces if they are going to constantly be so bothersome... they always show with the necklaces flying up to the face and having to pull down?? do they just put on a necklace for the camera..what the hell for... and couldnt that get caught on something??? wth

Some people wear necklaces because they have emotional value. But maybe some just put up the necklace for the camera, it looks real cool.

It's another one of the pointers toward "Why would NASA be faking this?" They'd just lose the necklace instead of going all CGI on it... the same with a lot of other details that don't even get noticed but are there if you look for them. Faking all that is just loads of extra money they lose.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight

« on: June 26, 2013, 04:07:14 PM »

Scepti, you still haven't given a reaction to my post about industrial pressure containers. Do you not think those components are really as strong as they are rated? Because that would mean a lot of non-functioning industrial equipment. Do you not think that with such engineering, one could easily build a container that has no trouble sitting at the bottom of the ocean without imploding?

Industrial pressure containers are as strong as they are rated, I've never said otherwise so what are you going on about, or is it an attempt at trying to twist my words?

It's an attempt to make you understand that deep sea submarines are possible. If industrial pressure containers can withstand 150,000 psi, why do you say a submarine can't possibly withstand 16,000 psi?

If you believe submarines can go to the Mariane trench then go for it. I don't buy into it and in fact it's just made up, even the trench.

Well your whole argument was saying that it's not possible, the sub wouldn't withstand the pressure. I showed you that it's possible, and that stuff exists for withstanding much higher pressures. Does that not prove that it's possible to go that deep in a sub?

To clarify, this is not about whether there's been or not such a voyage. That's a historical question, but we're talking here about what's possible and what's impossible.

And really, why would they make up the existence of the Mariana Trench? What would the point be, really? Is it NASA doing that too, or does everybody just really like making stuff up without having connections to other pranksters?

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight

« on: June 26, 2013, 11:55:02 AM »

Scepti, you still haven't given a reaction to my post about industrial pressure containers. Do you not think those components are really as strong as they are rated? Because that would mean a lot of non-functioning industrial equipment. Do you not think that with such engineering, one could easily build a container that has no trouble sitting at the bottom of the ocean without imploding?

Industrial pressure containers are as strong as they are rated, I've never said otherwise so what are you going on about, or is it an attempt at trying to twist my words?

It's an attempt to make you understand that deep sea submarines are possible. If industrial pressure containers can withstand 150,000 psi, why do you say a submarine can't possibly withstand 16,000 psi?

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET

« on: June 26, 2013, 04:12:34 AM »

Like this one? 

Clearly, the Sun is only 1cm in diameter. This photo is certain proof of it. I don't understand how people can think it's a huge ball of fire much larger than the Earth. Look at how it fits between two fingers!

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight

« on: June 26, 2013, 04:06:59 AM »

Scepti, you still haven't given a reaction to my post about industrial pressure containers. Do you not think those components are really as strong as they are rated? Because that would mean a lot of non-functioning industrial equipment. Do you not think that with such engineering, one could easily build a container that has no trouble sitting at the bottom of the ocean without imploding?

15

Flat Earth General / Re: How did the accepted speed of 9.8 m/s^2 become accepted?

« on: June 26, 2013, 03:31:34 AM »

Where does the energy for this expansion and resultant acceleration come from, markjo?

From all the stuff within it. The correct answer would be Dark Energy, but science calls it that because it doesn't know what it really is or how it's spread across the Universe.

We just know Dark Energy is really something that exists, and we know exactly how much of it has to exist, from the rate of acceleration of the Universe. But we have no clue what constitutes Dark Energy, and we can't detect it, which is why we just call it that. For now.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: Seasons, gravity and orbits

« on: June 25, 2013, 03:45:59 PM »

The general FET answer is "I don't know why it behaves exactly as it would if the Earth was spherical, but the important point is that it does, but remember the Earth is not really spherical."

17

Flat Earth General / Re: How did the accepted speed of 9.8 m/s^2 become accepted?

« on: June 25, 2013, 03:43:34 PM »

Your math is wrong. The earth will never reach the speed of light.

Nor could it accelerate constantly forever.

No, he's kind of right. Earth would constantly accelerate forever, but would never reach the speed of light. But I doubt Ski knows why the math is wrong, so I digress.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: June 25, 2013, 03:28:19 PM »

Gravitation   

Don't be afraid to elaborate.  Just trying to have a conversation.  What do you think causes gravitation?

Momentum, mass and energy.

If you are not interested in a conversation it's cool, but these terse monosyllabic answers are fairly asinine. Why bother posting if you don't want to talk?

EDIT:  not monosyllabic but rather monotonous I should say.

I just answered your question. I don't have time to type an essay everytime I visit the site. The forum is filled with posts I've made on the subject.

An occasional link to a certain thread doesn't hurt... So we're certain not to take things out of context...

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why is a round Earth so bad?

« on: June 25, 2013, 03:26:08 PM »

Care to share? I've shared mine (in other threads). Or are you just going to make smart-arse comments and not back them up?

The comment was designed to make you think.  I see it has failed.

Think about what? Is this a lesson on how to make asinine comments?

By replacing the crux of the post with something equally as fallacious I was trying to point out how flimsy the argument was. It seems the readers saw the inanity but failed to apply that it their line of reasoning.  It feels... sad having to explain it in such detail.

The "readers" have themselves had experiments which prove the real shape of the Earth, so there's nothing to apply to your case... sad that you failed to do any real experiments.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth's shadow on the Moon

« on: June 25, 2013, 06:51:46 AM »

Also, what migration, I though the Moon was supposedly just a few km across in FET. What lives on the Moon in those conditions, and how the hell is there need of migration...

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why is a round Earth so bad?

« on: June 25, 2013, 06:47:26 AM »

It doesn't matter.  It is a part of RET.

It does matter, a lot. First, because "RET" does not exist. There is no theory named like that and basically no theory that deals with that subject anyway.

If "RET" is just your colloquial term for all science then it's a pretty bad one. Is cancer research part of RET? Is manufacturing technology part of RET? I'm thinking you'll say no.

So what qualifies as "RET" in your eyes? Because, if we take it after the naming, it should only concern the shape of the Earth, right? Or do you just call anything you don't believe in as "RET", so that FET can have a nicely lined-up antagonist?

Dark energy does not concern the shape of the Earth in any way.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why is a round Earth so bad?

« on: June 24, 2013, 10:12:00 PM »

Care to share? I've shared mine (in other threads). Or are you just going to make smart-arse comments and not back them up?

The comment was designed to make you think.  I see it has failed.

The comment was designed to make him think? By being a complete fabrication as opposed to his true statement? I don't see what the point of the comment was then...

23

Flat Earth General / Re: EVA right now!

« on: June 24, 2013, 10:06:52 PM »

I love how lame the actual CGI of NASA looks like. You know, those where they show some satellite in orbit... it looks like something I could do in a few hours.

If NASA's such a CGI beast, why don't they do those scenes a little bit better?

24

Flat Earth General / Re: Gravity is atmosphere v mass/weight.

« on: June 24, 2013, 04:05:35 AM »

Yes, this works and would be expected for anything travelling south, as in reaching the ice rim that is known as Antarctica in all southern directions.

East and west will simply take you round in circles, do you agree?

Yes, I'm familiar with the model. Now, as I said before, what I think according to your explanation on sunset/sunrise is that it would happen south. You wouldn't see the Sun setting to the west, but to the south, understand what I'm saying? At least that is how I see it, according to your spiral path for the Sun.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight

« on: June 24, 2013, 04:02:18 AM »

Still avoiding the answer...Please share your calculations that show that for example Mr Piccard's "Trieste" cannot go to -10000m

I don't need calculations to know bull crap when I see it.

I guess you completely skipped my comment:

Pressure at the bottom of the Mariana Trench is almost 16,000 psi. Seems very high, until you check out industrial pressure containers and valves, which are designed to withstand pressures way above 150,000 psi (i.e. nearly ten times as much as at the bottom of the Mariana Trench).

Proves that human engineering can produce devices that could withstand the pressure at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, rather easily. This is as common sense as it can get.

26

Flat Earth General / Re: Gravity is atmosphere v mass/weight.

« on: June 24, 2013, 01:21:16 AM »

Well, I took a FET disc and pasted four wind roses on it around the equator (had to cut the middle out so the roses are visible).



It shows what a compass would show at those points on the equator.

Do you not agree with the directions shown?

27

Flat Earth General / Re: Gravity is atmosphere v mass/weight.

« on: June 24, 2013, 01:04:45 AM »

Which way is south?

North is towards the center of the disk, right? Where the north pole is. South is in the opposite direction, i.e. towards the shortest path to the edge of the disk.

If north is the centre, south is hardly going to be at the edge of a disc, is it, if you really think hard on it.

I don't understand. The way I know it, if you're on the disc, North is the center of the disc. West and East are along a concentric circle around the center, and south is opposite north, which is towards the closest part of the edge of the disc.

I'll make a drawing fast, but first, this south we're talking about, it is the south a compass shows, is it not?

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: on the fence, looking to be persuaded

« on: June 24, 2013, 01:01:52 AM »

Not even bendy light (as I know it at least) explains why the Sun goes below the horizon. Puttah, I've seen your drawing and in it it really does, but what I know of bendy light is it's used to explain why the Sun isn't visible everywhere on the disc... so its rays move in a sort-of falling exponential curve, thus they don't have a turning point where they then start gaining altitude like in your drawing.

29

Flat Earth General / Re: Gravity is atmosphere v mass/weight.

« on: June 24, 2013, 12:51:39 AM »

Which way is south?

North is towards the center of the disk, right? Where the north pole is. South is in the opposite direction, i.e. towards the shortest path to the edge of the disk.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why is a round Earth so bad?

« on: June 24, 2013, 12:45:58 AM »

Guys, stop defending dark energy, it will just derail the thread.

Point is, dark energy has nothing to do with the Earth's shape, so it isn't part of whatever "RE Theory" supposedly means, so there's no point in discussing it here. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have talks about it too, but it's pointless here.