### 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 - jiffy

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
##### Flat Earth Q&A / I can proove the world is round.
« on: January 19, 2007, 12:58:04 AM »
In a RE model, the world is sphere. It doesn't matter where you are or which direction you travel, as long as you continue to travel in the same direction, you will end up where you started.

Similarly, in the FE, it doesn't matter which direction you travel, eventually you will reach the ice wall.

Planes travel in a straight line every day of the week. The only difference is the distance.

2
##### Flat Earth Q&A / More Proof
« on: January 18, 2007, 11:34:55 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Stare at the sun for a couple of minutes and you will see that you cannot see.
That was funny!!

3
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Calling all FE's
« on: January 18, 2007, 11:33:39 PM »
Okay, thank you, we have one FE'er.

4
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Water drops resemble the earth
« on: January 18, 2007, 11:30:47 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Earth is accelerating "upwards" at 9.8m/s^2, creating the effects we feel as gravity.
Question... how can something be accelerating at a constant pace?

5
##### Flat Earth Q&A / I can proove the world is round.
« on: January 18, 2007, 11:25:54 PM »
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
Now, I'm not flying ace (actually I barely know a thing...), but I can almost assure you that if you never touched the controls for a couple hundred miles on a plane, you wouldn't be going in the same direction, or at least definitely not on the same course.
You're clutching at straws. The point I was making about not touching the control is that you do not alter your course, you continue travelling in a straight line.

Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
And anyways, there's a curve on the RE model, too. If THAT curve practically unnoticeable, are you saying that a small turn to the North every once in a while would be? For the most part, on the FE model, you're traveling in an almost-straight line.
I don't agree. As per the above post, if you were to travel south and reach the ice, in the RE, you would continue your course but you would then be travelling back up the earth (north), but on FE, to go north, you would need to do a 180 degree turn because the ice wall is right in front of you, and the south poll is directly behined you.

6
##### Flat Earth Q&A / I can proove the world is round.
« on: January 18, 2007, 11:17:48 PM »
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"
Jokes go in the Angry Rantings forum.
Huh? Is it just me or does this sound like a oxymoron??

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"
1)  Explain this more; elaborate.

What I am saying is that if you travel in a straight line, you will eventually get to the ice wall or south pole (despite niggly little arguments of exact straight lines and not touching the controls etc etc etc).

On a FE, to not reach the ice wall, you would need to eventually turn 180 degrees, which is not exactly just a little bit off course.

Essentially, the fact still remains. In a FE, travelling south is travelling directly to the ice wall. In RE, travelling south is travelling to the north pole. Once you reach due south, in RE, you will begin to head north. In FE you will reach the ice wall (or have to bank turn the aircraft 180 degrees in order to head north).

7
##### Flat Earth Q&A / RE's, are you here for entertainment?
« on: January 18, 2007, 11:02:26 PM »
Here's an example of the kinda thing I was thinking of (but obviously a flat one)

8
##### Flat Earth Q&A / RE's, are you here for entertainment?
« on: January 18, 2007, 10:52:20 PM »
There was no need for an insult, I didn't use one.

For me to accept that the description you gave is correct. would require the person who took the picture to be truthful and of course, every person from there to be truthful. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that the picture is real, but it would be a little much to ask if you expected me to take a description just typed down the bottom at face value.

The photo you provided, while it did look good, has very little in the way of actual detail. If a picture is supplied of RE, it generally has details such as outline of countries and such.

It's for this reason I asked for an additional photo, taken where more detail/distance can be seen.

9
##### Flat Earth Q&A / RE's, are you here for entertainment?
« on: January 18, 2007, 10:35:30 PM »
Thanks

First of all, I will not debate the realism of the picture, as that always ends up getting us no-where.

So, assuming the picture is real...

It is possible that with no edges on the picture, it could either be a large part of a FE or a small part of a RE.

Do you have any pictures that show all of FE including the ice wall and where it joins space? Eg. similar to what we have of the whole RE?

10
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Calling all FE's
« on: January 18, 2007, 09:49:01 PM »
Guys, just a straight yes or no would have been nice, like I asked for.

11
##### Flat Earth Q&A / RE's, are you here for entertainment?
« on: January 18, 2007, 09:47:30 PM »
anyone??

12
##### Flat Earth Q&A / RE's, are you here for entertainment?
« on: January 18, 2007, 08:55:36 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "jiffy"
Which is denied as a personal unproved experience, unless the use of camera equipment is employed, in which case, they will say it's a fake.

Just as you would if we provided photographic evidence of FE. See how this works?

Can you please provide me with a picture of FE that at least looks like a photo, so I can evaluate it for myself? (so far, the only ones I have seen are quite visibly computer generated)

13
##### Flat Earth Q&A / RE's, are you here for entertainment?
« on: January 18, 2007, 08:54:04 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "jiffy"
Absoloutly... stalemate. It's always a stalemate. Why? Because FE's refuse to accept absoloutly anything the supports commonly accepted modern science. In fact, just about anything that support the RE model, regardless of how logical.

This is double standards. You won't accept FE because of the "holes" in it, but are fine with these magical "gravitons"

No.
I am not trying to justify RE. As far as I'm concerned, RE has already been proven by those before me. Before us all.
If no-one questions RE, then there would be no need to even consider the topic. However, there are a small group, who have questioned RE theory. I am waiting to hear the proof of such. I am pointing out that the holes in FE theory nullifies any "proof" offered so far.

14
##### Flat Earth Q&A / RE's, are you here for entertainment?
« on: January 18, 2007, 08:40:33 PM »
Quote from: "RESOCR"
now you're just being stupid. Some of their ideas, normally sound, has been thwarted by observations. However, primary sources, IE you or a direct quote, is all thats accepted besides a form of solid math.

"Stupid" is being nasty. "Sarcastic" or "Sinical" would have been more polite, and more accurate. Yes I am. You get to a point when that's all that's left.

My other point still stands though.
Quote from: "jiffy"
Which is denied as a personal unproved experience, unless the use of camera equipment is employed, in which case, they will say it's a fake.

15
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Calling all FE's
« on: January 18, 2007, 08:32:33 PM »
How many of you are there? Just want to get an idea of FE supporter numbers. No judgement. No smart replies, just after numbers.

16
##### Flat Earth Q&A / RE's, are you here for entertainment?
« on: January 18, 2007, 08:26:09 PM »
Quote from: "RESOCR"
um, no, its just because this site has a rigid standard of evidence.

Correct.
Rule1 - all evidence must support FE theory
Rule2 - no evidence must deny FE theory
Rule3 - all evidence must deny RE theory
Rule4 - no evidence must support RE theory
Rule5 - all evidence not obeying rule 1-4 will be accepted as supporting FE theory.

Quote from: "RESOCR"
it only allows primary observational evidence.

Which is denied as a personal unproved experience, unless the use of camera equipment is employed, in which case, they will say it's a fake.

17
##### Flat Earth Q&A / RE's, are you here for entertainment?
« on: January 18, 2007, 08:14:52 PM »
Absoloutly... stalemate. It's always a stalemate. Why? Because FE's refuse to accept absoloutly anything the supports commonly accepted modern science. In fact, just about anything that support the RE model, regardless of how logical.

18
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Satellite Imagery - The Reprise Edition
« on: January 18, 2007, 08:11:16 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Which means no food for the ice guards - Oops! except they could ship food in from anywhere
Does the government have top secret farmers to provide this food?? I thought the idea was that they were self sufficient? Or did I miss-read this somewhere?

Quote from: "Rick_James"
Which means no Guards - oops except people could very well have happened upon the ice wall and left again believing they'd seen antarctica. Unless you go there yourself, you cannot reasonably say that the ice wall could be distinguishable from anartica. Or have you done that little reading you think the ice wall is a sheer face of ice sticking out of the ocean?
Very true. But, one could fly in a straight line, pass over the south pole and come back up in the RE model. In the FE model, if one were to continue flying in a straight line, they would pass over the ice wall and continue into outerspace. Big difference.

Quote from: "Rick_James"
Or have you done that little reading

I'm curious to find out why you assume I haven't done my reading, and why you assume I haven't used the search engine and why you assume I'm new to the thread... etc... etc... just because you perceive me as uninformed does not mean that I am, or that I have not used the site correctly. That is your own assumption.

Quote from: "Rick_James"
Your turn - take away "Gravitons" - your whole theory of Gravity loses it's conerstone. No gravity means something else must be causing the force we feel. If I keep using your chain of logic, we could end up proving FE here!!!!
You have missed the point here. The idea was not to proove the existance of one theory, it was to proove the existance of the RE/FE model without the use of one theory. So, without the use of "Gravitons" as an explanation, can I explain the RE? Absoloutly, as mentioned, which photo would you like?

19
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Satellite Imagery - The Reprise Edition
« on: January 18, 2007, 08:02:15 PM »
sorry, didn't see that, bare with me, I'm a slow reader...

20
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Satellite Imagery - The Reprise Edition
« on: January 18, 2007, 08:00:29 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Penguin and photos are equivelant?
It's called an "example".

You're welcome to come up with another one... which two pieces of evidence do you choose to eliminate?

21
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Satellite Imagery - The Reprise Edition
« on: January 18, 2007, 07:59:19 PM »
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"
Jiffy, that makes no logical sense whatsoever.
of course not, that would be too detrimental to your rebuttal.

22
##### Flat Earth Q&A / RE's, are you here for entertainment?
« on: January 18, 2007, 07:55:03 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
1. Posting a thread declaring no one cares about a theory, on a website completely devoted to that theory, would seem without thought or content. Especially when the given content is re-iterations of stuff already available in the other threads in General Discussion, if any newcomers bothered to use the search function.
So, does that mean that you guys, talking about a Flat Earth theory on an earth that is predominantly accepted by most as round, is without thought or content? Of course not. It just means that the content and thoughts you are portraying are not widely accepted in the given environment or by the appropriate authorities. Just like my post on the flat earth society about the earth being round was not without thought or content, you talking about a flat earth to people that generally accept the earth as being round is not without thought or content.
Maybe I did bother to use the search, but choose to find a path of my own. Almost everything being said at this time in all threads has been offered before, but that's why it's a discussion forum, not a reference essay.

Quote from: "Rick_James"
2. The posts following yours are a fantastic example of why this thread will eventually end up in AR as well - this thread is turning into an FE bashing exercise.
No, it will end up there because the moderators will choose to put it there. I don't know if you have noticed, but nearly every thread on this whole forum has turned into a "FE Bashing Excersize" of some sort. It is not my fault that people after my post choose to bash you. I edited my post so that it would fit in with your request.

Quote from: "Rick_James"
3. No, not all moderators are genuine FE believers. Note this does not automatically mean they are RE'ers.

Thank you. I have another, more accurate question then. Are there any RE moderators?

23
##### Flat Earth Q&A / I can proove the world is round.
« on: January 18, 2007, 07:36:25 PM »
Okay, this is getting more serious than I intended, was just a joke.

But the way, flying south would prove/disprove the theory

RE - you take off, turn the plane due south. Do not touch the controls until you pass over the south pole and keep coming up the other side. In this scenario, the curve you travel is under the belly of the plane.

FE - you take off, turn the plane due south. Do not touch the controls. You will eventually come to the ice wall (or the guards who protect it). If you were to travel in a curve, you would need to bank the aircraft in which case the curve is under the wing, not the belly.

24
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Satellite Imagery - The Reprise Edition
« on: January 18, 2007, 07:30:42 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "jiffy"
So, if there were a competition to solve the problem, all you would have to do is deny the use of just one form, and RE would be proven.

Eg.
FE'er might choose photos and RE'er might choose penguins.

Without this one thing, the RE would still be able to proove the existance of RE (remembering that FE could not longer deny ALL science, only photos), but the FE would no longer be able to sustain the FE theory.

Nono, FE'ers choose "Gravitons"... wait, RE exists "without" those too, being that they haven't been discovered yet. OMG there's holes in RE as well!!! How can you go on?

I'm not saying that there's no holes as far as you see it. I'm saying, you get to deny one piece of our evidence and must accept the rest. In turn we get to deny a piece of your evidence and must accept the rest.

With ours, the theory will survive without that piece of evidence. With yours, all other theries rely on that piece of evidence that we choose to deny in order to survive.

25
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Satellite Imagery - The Reprise Edition
« on: January 18, 2007, 07:28:14 PM »
The FE theory relies on a chain of theories to survive, the RE has many individual sources of evidence.

Eg. in this example...

no penguins, no food for ice men. No food for ice men, no protection for ice wall. No protection for ice wall, it can be seen or disproven. No ice wall means no water. We both agree to the sea being there, so the absence of water would then disprove the FE theory.

For RE's, you take away photos, easy fixed... video, telescopes, lasers, mathematical theories. These all work independantly and do not require the use of a photo.

26
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Satellite Imagery - The Reprise Edition
« on: January 18, 2007, 07:24:13 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "jiffy"
The difference between RE science and FE conspiracy is how robust it is.

RE theory can survive without one of the elements of science.

Take away gravity and what happens?

Okay, I cannot use gravity to proove my argument.

Which photo of the earth would you like?

I win.

27
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Satellite Imagery - The Reprise Edition
« on: January 18, 2007, 07:22:21 PM »
So, if there were a competition to solve the problem, all you would have to do is deny the use of just one form, and RE would be proven.

Eg.
FE'er might choose photos and RE'er might choose penguins.

Without this one thing, the RE would still be able to proove the existance of RE (remembering that FE could not longer deny ALL science, only photos), but the FE would no longer be able to sustain the FE theory.

28
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Satellite Imagery - The Reprise Edition
« on: January 18, 2007, 07:17:28 PM »
The difference between RE science and FE conspiracy is how robust it is.

RE theory can survive without one of the elements of science. For example, take away photos, can exist with use of video. Take away video, can exist with photos. Take away both, can exist with mathematics, or personal accounts of astraunaughts etc etc etc.

With the FE theory though, without every single part of the theory intact, it is busted and therefore so is the FE model. Eg. no icewall means no water.BUSTED No guards means people can find the ice wall.BUSTED No single, above all government means free speach, which means science must be honoured.BUSTED.

The only way FE theory can survive is if every part is kept intact. If however one part is taken from RE's, the theory can still survive. The only way FE's can continue their story is to deny ALL tangible evidence such as photos, deny ALL modern science pointing to a RE and maintain ALL of the conspiracy theory.

29
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Satellite Imagery - The Reprise Edition
« on: January 18, 2007, 06:34:36 PM »
Quote from: "texta"
The "conspiracy theory" is clearly a key element of FE theory.

Asking a FEer to explain evidence contrary to FE theory without invoking the conspiracy theory would be like asking a Christian to explain why the ten commandments are what they are without refering to the Bible or anything it contains.

Look at it like this.

1. FACT: The vast majority of people on Earth Believe that it is Round.
2. FACT: Mainstream science clearly states that the Earth is Round.
3. If you entertain the possibility of the world being flat then you have to explain points 1. and 2.
4. The best explanation for this is a conspiracy (the other explanation is that everyone sucks at science).

So anyone who believes the world is flat is going to a) reject popular opinion and b) reject mainstream science.

So if you want to provide an argument against the FE theory; Posting videos and photos taken by mainstream scientists isn't going to be a convincing argument to a FEer. And nor should it.

You summed it up 100%. FE's refuse to accept modern science in nearly every debate on this forum. RE's do not believe the conspiracy theory. Therefore, the arguments for both sides are null and void as far as the opposition is concerned and the issue will never be resolved. Hence the reason for my other post.

30
##### Flat Earth Q&A / I can proove the world is round.
« on: January 18, 2007, 06:20:51 PM »
There was this show on TV. And this girl by the name of Charlene challenged the flat earth theory. She told them that if she is wrong, she is prepared to die provided she could choose the punishement. She failed to proove the round earth theory, so she said she would like to be killed by being thrown off the earth. When they had circulated they earth, they had to return her home, having been proved wrong.

The show.... Dinosours.

Episode 40: "Charlene's Flat World"
When Charlene's class is assigned to think of an original idea, her world-is-round theory falls flat, and she's tried for heresy.

http://www.impawards.com/tv/posters/dinosaurs_ver2.jpg

Pages: [1] 2 3