31

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: RE Picture Proof

« on: April 16, 2009, 06:05:53 PM »

What is it that you are going to be experiencing? Terminal velocity? What the heck are you implying here, because it's completely unclear what effects we are supposed to see.

When the Earth slams into you at fifty metres per second, I think that'll provide some pretty strong evidence that it's being accelerated by Dark Energy, don't you?

that is no proof of FE at all. in both FE and RE you would hit the earth at terminal velocity. let me ask something. why, if a person jumps out of a plane, does the parachute slow them? if it was truly dark energy accelerating the earth towards you, why would the parachut make a difference? wouldnt you hit the earth at exactly the same speed? the impression i get in FE is that you dont fall, at all, just that the earth moves towards you. or am i missing something?

I can help you FEers out with this one:

The reason why a parachute works in FE is because Dark Energy is pushing the Earth up which is pushing the air up which pushes your parachute up.

FE Theory has been carefully constructed to allow for everything in the RE model with everything that can't be explained being a conspiracy (the "Ice Wall", NASA, and Satellites) and everything else is explained by mythical forces ("bendy light"0. Everything looks and behaves the same on a very local level, which is to say, for 99.999999% of the population who travel an average of 40 miles per day along the surface of the earth.

well the parachute makes sence. but what did the freefall thing have to do with the dark energy as robosteve says, as the earth hits you at 50 m/s? thats just the person falling towards the earth terminal velocity due to gravity. anyone answer that, please?

32

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Clear Undeniable Proof

« on: April 16, 2009, 06:02:07 PM »

For me to "convert" it would require RE to have well constructed arguments and evidence. Also, PiratePete, calm the fuck down,you're not cute enough to be a dick.

then convert to RE. its arguments are alot more logical than FE. there are also alot more and have been proven. go go go!

33

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: RE Picture Proof

« on: April 16, 2009, 04:32:40 PM »

What is it that you are going to be experiencing? Terminal velocity? What the heck are you implying here, because it's completely unclear what effects we are supposed to see.

When the Earth slams into you at fifty metres per second, I think that'll provide some pretty strong evidence that it's being accelerated by Dark Energy, don't you?

that is no proof of FE at all. in both FE and RE you would hit the earth at terminal velocity. let me ask something. why, if a person jumps out of a plane, does the parachute slow them? if it was truly dark energy accelerating the earth towards you, why would the parachut make a difference? wouldnt you hit the earth at exactly the same speed? the impression i get in FE is that you dont fall, at all, just that the earth moves towards you. or am i missing something?

34

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Clear Undeniable Proof

« on: April 16, 2009, 04:25:44 PM »

Thank you, NTheGreat, for replying within the context of the question.

As to the multiplicity of the thread topic, I apologize. I'm not very good at navigating forums. If there's another thread like this one, that answers my question, then I would be more than happy to drop this thread and forget about it. Otherwise, please think about the question I have posed and answer it.

Robosteve: Maybe you're right. I probably could have put this in the Questions and Clarifications area. I was on the fence about which category it falls under. I finally decided on Discussion and Debate because this is an essential question to the debate. If nothing will ever change your mind, then there really is no debate. Its just an argument. If, however, people answered the question, then the whole forum would have a clearer idea of the criteria needed to make a strong point.

So back to the original question. What would it take for you to believe in an opposing viewpoint?

To the believer, no proof is necessary. To the non-believer, no proof is possible.

that is more true to religion than science.
all sciencists accept the fact that they may be wrong, that they may have missed something, and as such are prepared to review new findings. however, the FE dont do that. they just constructed (or more, ressurected an ancient) model of the earth and use pseudoscience to "prove" it with nothing to back up their wild claims of bendy light, dark energy and the sun and moon being the same size and distance from earth. all of these things have been repeatedly disproven with RE.

35

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Science of the flat-earth hypothesis

« on: April 16, 2009, 04:18:29 PM »

Which, believe it or not, is included in the single answer.

So the answer must be "yes," light does bend in RE.

actually the only time light bends in any noticible way is around the, for lack of a better word "anomalies" of space such as black holes, quazars, pulsars and the like. it doesnt bend enough, nearly enough, on earth for it to be noticible, let alone cause the illusion of the round earth. in anycase, the light would bend down, not up. it would bend towards the centre of the gravitational pull. oh yeah, gravity is a scientificly accepted fact. its NOT a fictitious force

36

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Clear Undeniable Proof

« on: April 16, 2009, 03:14:15 AM »

stop complaining about the fact i supposedly havent lurked enough, because that is clearly not the point of this thread. now, answer the original questions or dont bother posting on this thread

I'll post where I like, thanks. And you'll lurk moar, won't you?

mmm...no. no i wont. not until you answer the question of what it will take to change your mind after FET

37

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Clear Undeniable Proof

« on: April 16, 2009, 03:07:28 AM »

i lurked, but when i never saw a single piece of evidence that proves FE but can not be explained with RE, i decided to post to find one. and you still havent answered the question, or do you simply not know?

Oh dear. It seems you haven't lurked enough yet.

stop complaining about the fact i supposedly havent lurked enough, because that is clearly not the point of this thread. now, answer the original questions or dont bother posting on this thread

38

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Clear Undeniable Proof

« on: April 16, 2009, 02:59:52 AM »

and you try to make yourself sound intelligent by using bullshit pseudoscience to disprove a universally accepted fact, and never back it up with any real evidence.

now answer the fucking question. what would it take to prove FE is wrong? without having to resort to the "conspirators" like nasa for photos

Have you tried lurking moar yet? I hear it can be good for the soul.

i lurked, but when i never saw a single piece of evidence that proves FE but can not be explained with RE, i decided to post to find one. and you still havent answered the question, or do you simply not know?

39

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Fictitious Forces

« on: April 16, 2009, 02:58:02 AM »

swing a rope around your head with a weight on the end. let it go. it will be following the direction your arm was moving at the time you let it go, because inertia is trying to make it go in one uniform, straight direction, yet swinging in an arc prevents this, and the outward force is the weight trying to find one straight line to travel in. get it yet?

You said it yourself:

inertia is trying to make it go in one uniform, straight direction

Inertia is not a force, because forces cause a change in momentum (as seen by an inertial observer). The only force involved in this experiment is an inward force, created by the muscles in the arm and transmitted to the rock via tension in the rope. This force continually accelerates the rock away from its natural (inertial) path until you let go of the rope, at which point the rock is in freefall (if we ignore air resistance) and has no forces acting on it.

fine, ill rephrase it. centrifugal force is a misnomer, because it doesnt apply force but simply attempts to change the direction of it. the force comes from the device or whatever it may be that is moving the rope/causing the spin, but centrifugal "force" pushes it outwards, due to the inertia of the object on the end trying to find a straight path

40

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Clear Undeniable Proof

« on: April 16, 2009, 02:51:39 AM »

regardless, if you truly do believe in FET at this time, there is always going to be some type of evidence that will change your mind. that is one of the main basic foundations of science. dont like it? prove it wrong. wana convert someone? prove it right.  what would make you change your mind. his question, regardless of what forum it was placed in, is still a valid one. now, what would make you change your mind

Well, to start with, it would help if Round Earthers like yourself tried to sound a bit more intelligent. Then we might take you guys more seriously.

and you try to make yourself sound intelligent by using bullshit pseudoscience to disprove a universally accepted fact, and never back it up with any real evidence.

now answer the fucking question. what would it take to prove FE is wrong? without having to resort to the "conspirators" like nasa for photos

41

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Fictitious Forces

« on: April 16, 2009, 02:48:50 AM »

centrifugal force, regardless of the observers frame of reference, pushes things outwars, due to inertia. centrifugal force is simply inertia in a circle. what dont you get about that?

Inertia doesn't push anything anywhere. See Newton's first law of motion:

Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_first_law:_law_of_inertia

Also, how does a force push something "outwards" regardless of the observer's frame of reference? The term "outwards" itself is a relative one which requires a frame of reference in order to be meaningful.

swing a rope around your head with a weight on the end. let it go. it will be following the direction your arm was moving at the time you let it go, because inertia is trying to make it go in one uniform, straight direction, yet swinging in an arc prevents this, and the outward force is the weight trying to find one straight line to travel in. get it yet?

42

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Clear Undeniable Proof

« on: April 16, 2009, 02:44:03 AM »

and just because you have 1 post doesnt make the post any less true, so answer the damn questions the man put forward if you truly belive in a FE, you shouldnt have any problems then, right?

He didn't ask any questions about Flat Earth Theory, he asked what would make one personally believe in an alternative theory. This does not belong in Debate & Discussion, and I don't feel compelled to answer it because it is irrelevant.

regardless, if you truly do believe in FET at this time, there is always going to be some type of evidence that will change your mind. that is one of the main basic foundations of science. dont like it? prove it wrong. wana convert someone? prove it right.  what would make you change your mind. his question, regardless of what forum it was placed in, is still a valid one. now, what would make you change your mind

43

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Fictitious Forces

« on: April 16, 2009, 02:40:30 AM »

which is what centrifugal force is, an obviously nonfictitious force.

No, it is a fictitious force. It is said that it does not exist because it arises purely through the observer's choice of a non-inertial frame of reference, just as gravity does.

centrifugal force, regardless of the observers frame of reference, pushes things outwars, due to inertia. centrifugal force is simply inertia in a circle. what dont you get about that?

44

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Fictitious Forces

« on: April 16, 2009, 02:35:08 AM »

the original post seems to be slightly confused. it says centrifugal force does not exist. it does, obviously. the car-tape animation is simply inertia, the tape is not attached tothe car and as such will attempt to follow its original path, which is outwards. which is what centrifugal force is, an obviously nonfictitious force.

centrifugal force is simply inertia of an object moving in a circle, trying to find a straight path, hence pushing itself outwards


if you say "then why arent people thrown off the earth because of earths spin", that is due to gravity another nonfictituos force which can be observed by monitoring every single galactic body; stars, planets, moons, blackholes, pulsars etc. the gravity is easily noticible. espeically here, on earth. the acceleration bullshit has nothing to back it up, yet gravity has countrless reports, expereriments and observations to back it up

45

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Clear Undeniable Proof

« on: April 16, 2009, 02:19:50 AM »

Not another one of these threads. Please, can we set a minimum post count for posting in Debate & Discussion?

Oh, and:

If your answer to these questions is "I would have to see it with my own eyes," or something very close to that, you don't belong here.

Please don't presume to tell us who does and does not belong here. You have one post; you are not integrated into the community here, nobody knows you, we don't give a shit what you think.

and just because you have 1 post doesnt make the post any less true, so answer the damn questions the man put forward if you truly belive in a FE, you shouldnt have any problems then, right?

46

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 15, 2009, 04:46:32 AM »

you know one thing ive noticed with almost all of these FET theories? they lack any substantial evidence to back them up, yet RET has so many simple ways of proving it, such as flight times, the sunset and the boat explanations. all FET does is give a continually disproven idea and gives it new explanations to account for simple RET concepts.
you say its a conspiracy for money even though im sure everyone here has been on a boat, or a plane, or seen a boat leaving port, and will notice the last thing you see of a boat is the mast, and first thing you see when heading towards land on a boat is the highest buildings in the area, and that a flat earth simply can not procude the flight times we get, or why we get the boat/tallest object effects


ps; why do any RET'ers even bother here? its obvious that FET's are all idiots or trolls. the later being the site creatores, and the former being those who were suckered in by the trolls.

47

Flat Earth Debate / Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon

« on: April 04, 2009, 08:00:55 PM »

There are a few home-demonstration-type indications--not proofs--that the earth is a ball.

(1) Departing boats gradually sink below the horizon, as do buildings on the shore from the viewpoint of the sailors. Admittedly this only proves the earth is round right where you are--the frisbee hypothesis.

(2) "The sphericity of the earth is proved by the evidence of ... lunar eclipses," Aristotle says. "For whereas in the monthly phases of the moon the segments are of all sorts--straight, gibbous [convex], crescent--in eclipses the dividing line is always rounded. Consequently, if the eclipse is due to the interposition of the earth, the rounded line results from its spherical shape" Of course a frisbee, properly angled, would make a round shadow too. But if the frisbee rotated while the eclipse was in progress, the curvature of its shadow would change. The earth's does not.

(3) The constellations shift relative to the horizon as you move north and south around the globe, something that could only happen if you were standing on a sphere. (You may have to draw a few diagrams to convince yourself of this.) Given sufficient world travel combined with careful observation on your part, the frisbee hypothesis becomes well-nigh insupportable. I suppose this doesn't qualify as a home experiment, but I never said science would be easy

The Flat Earther's already have their own explaination for these phenomenons. Try looking around more.

and its all falsified crap. pseudoscience. they come up with complex explanations for simple things :thumbsup:

48

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Does it really matter?

« on: March 27, 2009, 12:19:09 AM »

it would appear to be flat because the curvature at that altitude appears to be so shallow that it appears to be flat. its barely enough that, looking out over the ocean in a plane, you can see a slight, SLIGHT curve. the earth is round. this has been proven long ago as scientific fact. FET comes up with normally comples solutions for simple concepts.

There's no reason to assume that the earth is a globe if experience says it's not.

There's no reason to assume that the sun isn't setting when experience says it is.

Actually the phenomenon is ascribed to optical illusion in both models.  Experience, based only on what we observe, says that the sun sinks directly into the Earth.  Obviously that's not what's happening, even in RE.

in re it doesnt sink into the earth. the earth spins, and as such the sun will eventually be just below the horizon- the point at which, due to the curvature, will appear to make the earth stop. this is (i think) less than a single degree on re. if the earth was larger, the horizon would be shorter, and if earth was larger, so would be the horizon, because the distance to reach that point would be smaller or larger, respectivelly. there is no optical illusion, just the point where the earth drops below our sights.

Of course it doesn't sink into the Earth in RE.  It just appears to because the Earth is so large you can't see the curvature.  Observation alone tells us that the Earth is flat and stationary.  The flatness of the Earth itself is an optical illusion.  When I see a sunset it doesn't look like the sun is going around the Earth.  It looks like it's sinking right into the Earth's surface.  That's what makes it an optical illusion.

not an optical illusion. just because you cant see where something goes, doesnt mean its an illusion. YOU are thinking its an illusion when its not. its simply falling out of our sights. theres a difference

49

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Does it really matter?

« on: March 26, 2009, 03:08:30 PM »

it would appear to be flat because the curvature at that altitude appears to be so shallow that it appears to be flat. its barely enough that, looking out over the ocean in a plane, you can see a slight, SLIGHT curve. the earth is round. this has been proven long ago as scientific fact. FET comes up with normally comples solutions for simple concepts.

There's no reason to assume that the earth is a globe if experience says it's not.

There's no reason to assume that the sun isn't setting when experience says it is.

Actually the phenomenon is ascribed to optical illusion in both models.  Experience, based only on what we observe, says that the sun sinks directly into the Earth.  Obviously that's not what's happening, even in RE.

in re it doesnt sink into the earth. the earth spins, and as such the sun will eventually be just below the horizon- the point at which, due to the curvature, will appear to make the earth stop. this is (i think) less than a single degree on re. if the earth was larger, the horizon would be shorter, and if earth was larger, so would be the horizon, because the distance to reach that point would be smaller or larger, respectivelly. there is no optical illusion, just the point where the earth drops below our sights.

50

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Does it really matter?

« on: March 26, 2009, 03:38:21 AM »

it would appear to be flat because the curvature at that altitude appears to be so shallow that it appears to be flat. its barely enough that, looking out over the ocean in a plane, you can see a slight, SLIGHT curve. the earth is round. this has been proven long ago as scientific fact. FET comes up with normally comples solutions for simple concepts.

There's no reason to assume that the earth is a globe if experience says it's not.

even though experience says it is

51

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Does it really matter?

« on: March 26, 2009, 12:14:15 AM »

"flat earth delusion."

Flat Earth is not delusion. The Earth IS flat.

Before you got your evidence that whole earth is flat you must correct your claim like - The Earth IS flat in my near vicinity.

No way. England, Greenland, Iceland and Atlantic Ocean are not my near vicinity. Yet I was recently flying over all that stuff in a plane, looking out the window - and guess what? It was flat. Flat as a table.

You were probably flying, too. What did you see when you were looking at the Earth below?

it would appear to be flat because the curvature at that altitude appears to be so shallow that it appears to be flat. its barely enough that, looking out over the ocean in a plane, you can see a slight, SLIGHT curve. the earth is round. this has been proven long ago as scientific fact. FET comes up with normally comples solutions for simple concepts.

52

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stars and Gravity

« on: March 25, 2009, 04:47:37 AM »

they are attracted to eachother to a DEGREE.

Proof? If they are moving away from each other how can you conclude that they are attracted to each other by any degree?

Take two oppositely-charged magnets and place them together. They are attracted to each other no? Now, start moving them away from each other. Despite the fact that they are moving further away from each other, there is still an attraction between the two said magnets.

Am I wrong?

well it would be a repulsion, not an attraction, unless you consider it as a negative attractive force

just nit picking

its not repulsion, the magnets are still trying to pull themselves together. an outside force is moving them appart. the "repulsion" is the hand moving them

53

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stars and Gravity

« on: March 23, 2009, 03:35:35 AM »

they are attracted to eachother to a DEGREE.

Proof? If they are moving away from each other how can you conclude that they are attracted to each other by any degree?

proof they dont? just because they are moving appart doesnt mean there isnt some force (regardless of how small) trying to slow them down

Are you even listening to yourself?

"Just because invisible fairies are pulling the stars apart doesn't mean that there aren't other fairies trying to push them back together"

 

i never said anything about fairies?
the same force pulling them one way is pulling them another aswell. this is G R A V I T Y. it is not a fictional force like everyone here seems to think. its real. its been proven. eveyrone knows its real. the gravity from stars, super clusters, back holes etc is exerting this force on everything within the reach of it. the one that has the highest gravity will pull things in that direction. you only made your self look like an idiot by mentioning fairies even though i never mentioned them. in any way. you just tried to put a childish spin on it to make me look stupid. mission failed

proof gravity exists? drop an object. why does it hit the ground? not some retarded universal acceleration shit, but gravity. UA doesnt even make sence. oh yeah, and news flash. the ua speed was 9.8m/s^2 because thats earths gravitational pull, due to its size and mass. it should therefore be different on every planet, they have diferent ammounts of gravity. they cant all be using you "UA" at different speeds. theyd be alot further appart by now. much, much farther. there is no UA. just gravity

54

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stars and Gravity

« on: March 23, 2009, 03:17:27 AM »

they are attracted to eachother to a DEGREE.

Proof? If they are moving away from each other how can you conclude that they are attracted to each other by any degree?

You can. If you look at my previous posts you will see you are wrong.

all you said is you are wrong in your last post. also , these guys are trying to argue with tested, confirmed and accepted scientific fact. if they wana prove it, they can present evidence to support their outlandish claims

55

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stars and Gravity

« on: March 23, 2009, 02:37:54 AM »

they are attracted to eachother to a DEGREE.

Proof? If they are moving away from each other how can you conclude that they are attracted to each other by any degree?

proof they dont? just because they are moving appart doesnt mean there isnt some force (regardless of how small) trying to slow them down

56

Flat Earth Debate / Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera

« on: March 23, 2009, 02:16:11 AM »

So you'll believe that billions of nuclear explosions throughout the Universe have managed to stabilise themselves for billions of years

Well, what's wrong with that? Why shouldn't they be stable?

Exactly what happens when hydrogen nuclei fuse on Earth. Create a giant explosion in the sky, lasting a few seconds or so at most.

Why would it stop?

are star is not like a nuclear bomb on earth. the same basic principle is the same, but the scale is much different. the stars are billions of times bigger, and as such last alot longer. the time could increase exponentially(i think thats the word) compared to the size
aka, something 10x the size may last 50x the time. but stars are much more massive, billions of times the size


as for the argument about how stars shine? the produce light and heat. lots of it. the light makes them shine. the movement of particles in the atmosphere makes them "twinkle" at night.

57

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stars and Gravity

« on: March 23, 2009, 01:42:24 AM »

Things can still "spread away from each other" and be attracted to each other. In this case the "spreading" just needs to overcome the force of attraction. Although the force of gravity is infinite, it is also considered a very weak force.

If everything in the cosmos is expanding away from itself, how do you know that they're all attracted to one another? 

By observation and experimentation.

What experiments did you conduct on the cosmos to prove that they are all attracted towards each other?

If those objects appear to be spreading away from each other, it does not mean that they do not exhibit any attraction at all.

It doesn't lead to the conclusion that they do exhibit attraction either. In fact it leads to the direct opposite conclusion.

I'm not sure why you insist that something is happening when it's not.

Attraction does not mean that things will 100% of the time get closer to each other. There are so many variables to count for.

An example for you Tom. Get 2 magnets. Put them together so they 'stick' together.

Now, very slowly, start pulling them apart.

As soon as you slowly start pulling them apart, do they lose all attraction 100%? Or do they still attract each other while still moving away?


EDIT: As the ones who have done this example before know the outcome, we call all say Tom has his thought process going the wrong way. Maybe they let some noob have a go at using his account, instead of one of the others.

If things are moving away from each other it cannot be concluded that they are attracted to each other.

If magnets are observed to be moving away from each other at an accelerated rate, does it lead to the conclusion that they are attracted to each other? No.

If the stars are all moving away from each other at an accelerated rate, does it lead to the conclusion that they are all attracting each other? No it doesn't.

If Mary puts a restraining order against John and moves to another state, does it lead to the conclusion that Mary is attracted to John? Nope. (But I'm sure you'll tell me that Mary is attracted to John, and that it was her invisible step mother who filed the restraining order in her name and forced her to move away)

The fact is that the conclusion of universal gravitation between all bodies in the cosmos is an unfounded speculation with no relation to the real world. There is absolutely no evidence behind that assertion. There is no observational, experimental, or meaningful evidence suggesting that all bodies in the heavens are attracted towards each other.

LOL. Wrong. Please learn to learn.

if you are going to argue, please actually give arguments and example based on fact rather than "YOUR WRONG"...that gives everyone on your side a bad name

58

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Something for RE believers to try to explain...

« on: March 23, 2009, 01:41:09 AM »

According to RE theory, the entire universe started from the Big Bang, and in the initial microseconds all the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny volume.

However, this would violate the Heisenberg uncertainly principle, since with a constrained volume like that it would be possible to know an individual particle's position and velocity quite precisely.

Therefore, either modern quantum mechanics is severely flawed, or the universe was never that small to begin with.

the big bang isnt so much a "this is how it happened, if you believe if your a fool" thing, its more of "we dont know exactly, so we are trying to come up with feasible ideas to explain it" type of thing. you got any better ideas? my understanding of FET was that it didnt care about how the universe formed, but rather just how the earth works. where did the FET universe come from?

or maybe humans simply cant yet comprehend it, so come up with outlandish ideas. thats my view on the start of it all, and the big bang.
humans as of now cant properly comprehend something having being in existance for eternity, they prefer everything to have a defined start.
aka, if god made us, what made god? kinda thing
(no, im not religious. just an example)

59

Flat Earth Debate / Re: New User with a New Question... Maybe?

« on: March 23, 2009, 01:36:12 AM »

Anyway,  I would enjoy any insight to the topic.

Welcome to FES! An excellent opening post, if I may say so - I hope you have many interesting and entertaining debates here.

In response to your post, it is a very seductive position of modern science (and, indeed, prior science and philosophy) to say that the Earth is 'nothing special' when the most obvious piece of evidence - ourselves - implies otherwise.  The easy answers come from the anthropic principle, which you are clearly familiar with, but which leaves a somewhat unpleasant taste in the mouth of any rigorous inquiring mind.  FET gets around this, of course, by saying that the Earth is special in that it seems to behave differently to other celestial bodies.

This causes problems with mainstream science, but is it not possible that the flat Earth is not, in fact, special, but is only one of many similarly accelerated bodies in the Universe?  We haven't been looking for them and have not seen any direct evidence to support this, but there are unexplained phenomena in the Universe which could all be symptoms of the same cause.  Could it be that bodies accelerated by the UA/DE are unable to directly observe each other?  Could these bodies be responsible for the 'dark matter' in the Universe?  These are interesting possibilities worthy of debate, but often get lost in a sea of trolling and incoherent attempts at derailment.

You seem to be the type to enjoy a rational, reasoned discussion, so I hope you may help us to get to the bottom of the mysteries still present in FET (and RET) without getting trolled too much

you say that the reason earth is different is because of the fact that we have life here, when we know of no other plantets that do

actually, there are bound to be other planets in the multiverse that support life.
do you know what allows life? 2 things. temperature and atmosphere. earth is just far enough away from the sun to gain enough heat for not everythhing to freeze, and not enough to burst into flames. pure luck that earth formed in the sweetspot of the solar system.

the second is also a result of luck. there is gas in space. albiet not much, but earth also managed to end up with a mainly oxygen based atmosphere, which life needs to survive. earth formed the same way as every other planet in space. there is nothing to say earth is "special" just "LUCKY" for the position it is in. but when you say earth is specail because of life, so it must be special in other ways, that is just stupid. life=/=flat earth. they have no effect on eachother, so do NOT use that argument. it is illogical and simpleminded

any FET'rs wana try and shed some light on how this works with their beliefs? aside from just saying "your wrong, we are special"; all matter in the universe follows the same laws. earth is no exception

60

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stars and Gravity

« on: March 23, 2009, 01:31:45 AM »

they are attracted to eachother to a DEGREE. not so much that they collide at rapid speeds, because for every galaxy, super cluster etc, there is a black hole. it keeps the cluster together. this is the super massive black hole. there is one in the centre of the milkyway and it is not strong enough to pull everything in, but not so weak everything drifts off. this is caused by gravity


"If things are moving away from each other it cannot be concluded that they are attracted to each other."
ill give you an example. have a tug of war contest, with one side obviously underpowered and one over. the one with more people is the local gravity giant. aka, star, or planet if you have a moon. the smaller team is the regional gravity source. have a knot in the middle of the rope. this is the body being acted on. aka moon to a planet or a planet to a star. pull against eachother. the bigger team will invariably end up with the knot closer to them. there will obviously be some resistance tho, due to the other gravity source or team in this analagy. now do it again with no other team. no resistance. easy. even if one force can not overpower another, it doesnt mean that it has no effect. you seem to be unable to grasp that.

its hard to measure the effect the sun has on the moon compared to the earth does to the moon, when these things are so massive. if you remove one from the equation, we are all fucked, so thats ouy of the question