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 - brathearon

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
151
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How are we still accelerating?
« on: May 22, 2009, 11:24:07 AM »
an object can accelerate within it's own reference frame at a constant speed, and never reach the speed of light.  This is true for both the RE and the FE theory.

152
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Jimmerson Spiral
« on: May 21, 2009, 10:00:39 AM »
that looks like circularly polarized light  ;D


i know its not supposed to be, but i cant be the only one who thought of that when i saw it!


EDIT:  im not exactly sure what you mean by "bendy" light though, doesnt light from the sun already bend in both the RE and the FE theory?

153
you would have to devise some way that would take a small amount of time, no money, it has to be something everyone can do, that prooves the world is flat.

154
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why an ice "wall"
« on: May 20, 2009, 07:33:49 PM »
oh, i thought his question was about the height.

155
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lunar Eclipse
« on: May 20, 2009, 07:31:54 PM »
I believe the moon emits it's own light. I see no reason why the moon couldn't pass in front of the sun.

"The moon is the brightest object in the night sky but gives off no light of its own. Instead, it reflects light from the sun."

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/moon_worldbook.html




all objects at non-zero temperatures will emit light.  Whether its in the visible spectrum is something else entirely.

156
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why an ice "wall"
« on: May 20, 2009, 06:04:27 PM »
it would be similar to dark matter, it's existance is only theorized because its the only thing that makes sense.

157
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dispelling some myths about NASA
« on: May 20, 2009, 02:02:53 PM »
BTW, i dont get anything extra from nasa to keep a conspiracy either =)

158
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why an ice "wall"
« on: May 20, 2009, 02:00:21 PM »
well, what i meant to imply was that there could be something on the other side. 

Maybe a secret lab!!!!   j/k, but something, maybe it just continues for a while as an ice mountain range.

159
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why an ice "wall"
« on: May 20, 2009, 05:35:42 AM »
its not really that absurd.  It doesnt have to extend out into infinity either, as it could just extend out far enough for the approximation to take effect.  The more important thing is the uniform density/depth, which a meteor crashing into earth might distort a little, but it wouldnt make an overall difference.

160
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE earth accelerating
« on: May 20, 2009, 05:33:27 AM »
assume i throw a ball up into the air at 9.8m/s.  Since the ball is only moving and not accelerating, it doesnt change speed.  However, since the earth is accelerating, it will get faster, and match its speed 1 second.  In RE theory and FE theory, thats going to be the time it takes for the ball to reach it's maximum height (defining height as distance from the earth's surface like it usually is).  After that, it starts to fall.  The earth is always getting faster, so it may be going some speed today, but it will be a great deal faster tomorrow (in FET anyway, and a "great deal" is relative of course).

In RE theory, its not the earth that is accelerating upward at 9.8 m/s^2, its everything else accelerating downward at that speed.  Do you understand how the two are exactly the same?

161
Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth really is flat!
« on: May 19, 2009, 06:11:46 PM »
the problem with the sun that size isnt that something cant heat the earth from that distance,

i posted this in another thread

unless the sun is really dense, it doesnt seem the right size to fit how much H2 He, and Li it has.  And if it is that dense, it would have burned out a long time ago.

What direct evidence do you have in support of that conclusion?

Also, since when is Lithium a principal component of the sun? Actually, I don't recall Li ever being mentioned at all in the sun's composition.

the He-H fusion is rare, but it does happen.  I dont know if there is anything heavier than Li in the sun.

the problem with the sun that size isnt that something cant heat the earth from that distance,

i posted this in another thread

unless the sun is really dense, it doesnt seem the right size to fit how much H2 He, and Li it has.  And if it is that dense, it would have burned out a long time ago.

What direct evidence do you have in support of that conclusion?


it was a homework problem i had, ill dig it up if i can find it.  It didnt involve information that isnt readily measureable, like the power, and the frequency spectrum.

But you could agree that the more dense the sun is, the hotter it is, right?  Approaching the energy required for the fusion

162
Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth really is flat!
« on: May 19, 2009, 05:16:41 PM »
the problem with the sun that size isnt that something cant heat the earth from that distance,

i posted this in another thread

unless the sun is really dense, it doesnt seem the right size to fit how much H2 He, and Li it has.  And if it is that dense, it would have burned out a long time ago.  if it isnt that dense, then the fusion reactions would occur too infrequently for it to give off much heat at all (and probably never have Li inside it at all).

Basically, the sun is nearly the heat it needs to do the fusion reactions, so it does it by the ever elusive quantum tunneling.  The amount of particles is sufficient to keep this going at a healthy rate (it wont burn out in 2 seconds, burn us, or keep us cold).  However, a denser sun would be hotter

163
Spanner, they used a filter. That is very common to use when taking pictures of the sun.
We almost agree then, I say faked, you say altered.

Putting it that way distorts what he means.  I can say nothing you see exists because your eyes have to focus the light.  Your eyes cannot see the entire spectrum of light, its only in the limited visible range, so in that sense the images you see with light are also filtered, and altered.  so everything you see in the world with your eyes is actually faked.

164
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE earth accelerating
« on: May 19, 2009, 10:07:52 AM »
If the Earth is accelerating at ummm w.e speed squared than if i jump than move up at that speed wouldnt I be levitating O.o

acceleration is not a speed

Also if i dropped something and filmed it than wouldnt everything fall at the that w.e speed of 9.8m2 right?

It does, but remember, acceleration is not a speed.


unless it accelates :O PAPER HOW COME IT FLOATS INSTEAD OF FALLING AT A SPEED OF 9.8M2 OF W.E OF MORE :O guess its magical


Well, the earth is accelerating, but that doesnt mean air wont affect the paper.  The paper is still affected by air.


None of your questions are actually relavent to the FE vs RE =/.  It seems more like your asking about acceleration.

Yes but the air isnt move up at a speed of 9.7m2 right? O.o so it cant keep the paper from getting smashed by an accelerating earth

Acceleration is not a speed, so anything in contact with the earth will experience an upward force by the floor.  Anything not in contact with the earth will seem to accelerate downward.  Since the air is in contact with the floor, approximated as elastic collisions, it's relative speed and density dosent seem to change that much with varing altitudes.  So, the paper will have to get through the air molecules, which more are hitting the bottom than the top since it is moving downard, and will slow it down.  The accelerating earth model is exactly the same as the RE model with gravity (for these examples anyway), which is why you cant use it to disprove either theory.

i am an REr btw

165
i cant really say i see anything wrong with those pics...

166
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE earth accelerating
« on: May 19, 2009, 06:01:55 AM »
If the Earth is accelerating at ummm w.e speed squared than if i jump than move up at that speed wouldnt I be levitating O.o

acceleration is not a speed

Also if i dropped something and filmed it than wouldnt everything fall at the that w.e speed of 9.8m2 right?

It does, but remember, acceleration is not a speed.

unless it accelates :O PAPER HOW COME IT FLOATS INSTEAD OF FALLING AT A SPEED OF 9.8M2 OF W.E OF MORE :O guess its magical


Well, the earth is accelerating, but that doesnt mean air wont affect the paper.  The paper is still affected by air.


None of your questions are actually relavent to the FE vs RE =/.  It seems more like your asking about acceleration.

167
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dispelling some myths about NASA
« on: May 18, 2009, 01:12:50 PM »
Take for example, sattlelite TV, would you (sattlelite users) change anything if you found out your signal didnt involve space at all?

Yes. I'd realign my dish.

lol, but then you wouldnt get a signal.

I was just using that as an example of nobody benefitting from lying about the shape of the earth, or about going to space or not

168
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Flat Earth
« on: May 18, 2009, 10:22:14 AM »
i thought the FE theory had the existance of gravity, but just not from earth


also, unless the sun is really dense, it doesnt seem the right size to fit how much H2 He, and Li it has.  And if it is that dense, it would have burned out a long time ago.  if it isnt that dense, then the fusion reactions would occur too infrequently for it to give off much heat at all (and probably never have Li inside it at all).


What is simpler? The idea that everything is attracted to everything else by... ??? something???, or the idea that a small group of humans have been lieing to the rest of us.

No matter how you look at it, gravity is not simple.


i think that the idea that everything is attracted to everything else by some force of unknown origin is simpler.  it follows rules that makes sense (a force dying off ~r^-2).  There is a reason people expect to find a Higgs boson in colliders. 

Not everyone understands everything that we study, even electromagnetism, despite what we have done with it so far.  it doesnt mean it doesnt exist, or that its easier to believe that people have been lying to us.  Electrostatic forces behave very similar to gravity.

169
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dispelling some myths about NASA
« on: May 18, 2009, 10:18:24 AM »
like i've said before, people care little about the method, so long as they get results. 


Take for example, sattlelite TV, would you (sattlelite users) change anything if you found out your signal didnt involve space at all?


NASA gets results, they serve no purpose to fake their method, since if they never did use space, people would be MORE impressed.

170
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dispelling some myths about NASA
« on: May 18, 2009, 07:53:17 AM »
NASA was not required to show any footage or photos to the public.  The ones we see are really meaningless to everyone, including NASA.  It would be a LOT easier to not bother to have to shoot and drag that extra junk.  Their interviews would have been enough for shows, and reinactments.  They may even have considered the possibility to reinact the landings and space travel so that they woudlnt need to gather extra footage for the public.


What im not understanding is why didnt NASA say the more profitable thing, about the earth being flat?  If NASA themselves don't profit from it, certainly someone would.  Why didnt they take the most beneficial route?  After all you could say they had two options

-Fake space launches, get all the research and technology by other means unknown to everyone else, and say the earth is round, which would not get that much recognition, as this is already well accepted.

-Fake space launches, get all the research and technology by other means unknown to everyone else, and say the earth is flat, which would give them a significant place in history (should it be true).  If it wasnt true, they would still get additional research funds beause nobody would have done any research on this discoory (untill they are exposed).


All signs point to saying the earth is flat would be the best route (whether it be a lie or not).

171
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dispelling some myths about NASA
« on: May 18, 2009, 05:45:08 AM »
NASA's never been to space. They have nothing to profit from it. They just pretend they do these things. Understand?


i've read many threads and i understand this is the general theory from the FErs (just as the RErs have the theory that they did).  Like i said before though, nasa is not paid just because it can go into space, it is paid for the benefits of it.  There are things (that is, research and chemical preperation) that can be done on earth that we send into space to do, but it is far cheaper (and a great deal quicker) to send those into space.  GPS, and weather tracking wasnt working on earth by other companies, and if nasa found a way to do all of this by faking going into space, then like i said before, they got what they are being paid to do.  In our case, it either takes way too long to do on earth or to expensive, or both.

Consider this.  Lets say some army men higher an engineer to build robot(s) to spy on people because they dont want to risk people's lives.  The engineer instead goes there himself and spies on them and tells them he built the robot and thats how he got the information on whoever he spied on.  If the army found out, i suppose they would be upset, but were they after the spy bot(s)?  They wanted the robots because it was impractical to actually send someone themselves. 

Also, NASA doesnt often get all of the money it asks for =)


Also, you say that as if NASA's money source would benefit from lying about the shape of the earth.  Actually, they have nothing to gain from doing that (regardless of if they went into space or not).  Their space program could exist for either shape (of earth), so there is no reason to lie.  They would gain more from saying the world is flat

172
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Someone Explain things to me please.
« on: May 17, 2009, 03:10:08 PM »
What is dark energy in the Round Earth theory?

Dark energy in the Round Earth theory explains why our Universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate.

Nope, that's dark energy.  Dark matter is why galaxies act "heavier" than they're supposed to.


E=mc^2

173
Flat Earth Debate / Dispelling some myths about NASA
« on: May 17, 2009, 02:50:00 PM »
After reading as much as i could, i thought i'd like to clarify some things that seem to be distorted about NASA.

First off, before i get brutally flamed, i dont need to say that much about the conspiracy, or even about it's existance.


So, most people believe that NASA gets most (if not all) of its money because of their "awsome space program".  Thats true, but the way its used distorts the facts.  It would be the equivalent of saying Colombus only needed to go to India to say he went there and nothing more.  The money that NASA gets are more for the benefits of going into space, not necessarily going into space itself. (ill talk about it more a little later)

Another thing i am seeing a lot of is that NASA benefits more from saying earth is round rather than flat.  Well, that doesnt cover the whole story either.  After all, nasa could claim the earth was actually flat in the model, and say they went to the moon, launched sattlelites, w/e.  If anything we would get more recognition from saying that it was round, and dispelling a popular theory.  Not to mention, lying about the earth's shape like that would only give them the looming threat of being exposed. 

NASA's money sources dont really care THAT much about space.  They really only care about the benefits of it.  Staying ahead of storms, 0 gravity research (those protein crystals grow SO much better in space!), GPS, etc.  People tried on earth themselves, and deemed it impossible or impractical to get these benefits on earth, so if they can do that without going into space, then they got what they were paid to do anyway.  In all honesty, if they were able get all of that research/data/materials, without going into space, i must say, i am MORE impressed.

174
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why an ice "wall"
« on: May 17, 2009, 08:31:12 AM »
if the earth were an infinite plane, you wouldnt need acceleration to cause gravity, you would just need it to be affected by laws of gravity.

an infinite plane with finite depth produces a gravitational field that does not vary with height.

175
Flat Earth Q&A / why an ice "wall"
« on: May 16, 2009, 12:24:38 PM »
hi, im new here, and i just wanted to know, why is it that the FE theory advances a "wall"?

Why isnt it just assumed that beyond this wall is more... ice?  And if this is the case, coudlnt there be more regions of this vast disk where there is liveable conditions?  The FE theory seems to say (correct me if im wrong) that the sun keeps us from freezing (just like the RE theory).

so, if the sun isnt at the ice wall as much, or beyond it, why isnt it assumed.

176
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions for Clarification.
« on: May 16, 2009, 12:16:50 PM »
Quote
but in RE theory's are widely accepted or not accepted atall , this seems different in FE though because all FE'er seem to have different theory's

Do you honestly expect us to know how to detect Dark Energy, know what's beyond the uncharted tundra of the south, and know precisely how the cosmos work?

if u cant detect it , don't know how it works then why do you assume its in the FE theory ? o that's right because people can't disprove you because no 1 knows what its about .. good tactic.

I am a RE btw, but i just wanted to say, it IS detectable, which is why people think it exists.  Its through gravity.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]