1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Another earth has apearently been found
« on: May 02, 2007, 02:51:44 PM »
Bah... FE'rs get all the chicks.
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.
2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Another earth has apearently been found
« on: May 02, 2007, 02:21:20 PM »That it's Tom's? Yeah I know...but he just humped and dumped me
Tom will deny it. When you show him your big round belly, he'll just say it's flat and only looks round because it is an optical illusion.
3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How dost thou
« on: May 02, 2007, 02:19:14 PM »
(I'm a RE'r, but since there doesn't seem to be many FE'rs, I will answer for them)
Sunspots don't exist. NASA claims sunspots exist and mess up technology so that the government gives them more money for sunspot research, which they put in their pocket.
Sunspots don't exist. NASA claims sunspots exist and mess up technology so that the government gives them more money for sunspot research, which they put in their pocket.
4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Star Trails
« on: May 02, 2007, 10:30:10 AM »
So this cloud is between the sun and earth?
5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Star Trails
« on: May 02, 2007, 09:54:32 AM »
Stars are holes in a giant meteor cloud. That's a pretty dense cloud.
Why is the meteor cloud static? Why do we always see the same stars, and don't see some pop up or disappear? Why don't the meteors inside the cloud move amongst themselves?
Why is the meteor cloud static? Why do we always see the same stars, and don't see some pop up or disappear? Why don't the meteors inside the cloud move amongst themselves?
6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tell me this
« on: May 02, 2007, 07:16:58 AM »
All this experiment tells me is that the FE theory of the UA is invalid.
Earth, at a height of 'A' fires cannonball straight up. The ball goes up for 14 seconds to a height we call 'B', then down for 14 seconds. If the UA was real, then when the cannonball was at its apex, the Earth below it would be at a height greater than 'A'. So if the cannonball goes from A to B, the Earth is now at a new height, we will call 'C'. Distance of AB is greater than that of CB. So, the cannonball first travels AB, then when it begins to fall, it falls AC, a less distance than AB, so therefore, should take less than 14 seconds. If the UA was real, the cannonball would go up for 14 seconds, but only fall like 10 seconds.
So, this experiment doesn't prove or disprove FE or RE, I think it is a clear debunking of the UA.
Earth, at a height of 'A' fires cannonball straight up. The ball goes up for 14 seconds to a height we call 'B', then down for 14 seconds. If the UA was real, then when the cannonball was at its apex, the Earth below it would be at a height greater than 'A'. So if the cannonball goes from A to B, the Earth is now at a new height, we will call 'C'. Distance of AB is greater than that of CB. So, the cannonball first travels AB, then when it begins to fall, it falls AC, a less distance than AB, so therefore, should take less than 14 seconds. If the UA was real, the cannonball would go up for 14 seconds, but only fall like 10 seconds.
So, this experiment doesn't prove or disprove FE or RE, I think it is a clear debunking of the UA.
7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Google Earth and cartography
« on: May 02, 2007, 07:09:53 AM »Well, good luck with that endeavor, buddy. With the space elevator physically impossible from an engineering standpoint right now, I'd hope that cheap space tourism comes into fashion sometime soon.
From an engineering standpoint it isn't impossible. It is from a textiles standpoint. =) But there are already great strides being made towards developing a fiber that is thin and strong enough to act as the cable.
9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Conspiracists not cooperating
« on: May 01, 2007, 12:02:54 PM »But the BBC never lies!!!
BBC = Big Bad Conspiracy!!
10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How deep is it?
« on: May 01, 2007, 11:23:52 AM »FINALLY I'M IN ON THE CONSPIRACY!
Did they send you your "Official FE Banana Hammock" yet?
11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Differences in g - one more you can add to your "unanswered"
« on: May 01, 2007, 11:11:40 AM »
<puts on a RE hat>
The discrepencies come from more mass in certain parts of the Earth. It just means gravity isn't uniform across the surface of the Earth.
<puts on a FE hat>
Part of the force you feel as gravity is a combination of UA and localized air pressure resulting from UA. In a place of higher altitude, the UA will affect you the same, but the localized air pressure at a higher alititude will be lower, thus giving the "illusion" of less overall force acting on you.
The discrepencies come from more mass in certain parts of the Earth. It just means gravity isn't uniform across the surface of the Earth.
<puts on a FE hat>
Part of the force you feel as gravity is a combination of UA and localized air pressure resulting from UA. In a place of higher altitude, the UA will affect you the same, but the localized air pressure at a higher alititude will be lower, thus giving the "illusion" of less overall force acting on you.
12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: $5,000 for Proving the Earth is a Globe (Modern Mechanics - Oct, 1931)
« on: May 01, 2007, 11:07:55 AM »
The Voliva prize probably will remain uncollected unless some future space traveler some day anchors his ship a few thousand miles out in space and takes a movie of a globular world turning on its axis. That seems to be the only way the $5,000 can ever be collected.
Hasn't that already been done?
Seems like rubbish to me though. He wants you to prove the earth is round, but denies any claim because it has to be wrong because the earth is flat. Seems he has been given valid proofs, but rejects them.
Hasn't that already been done?
Seems like rubbish to me though. He wants you to prove the earth is round, but denies any claim because it has to be wrong because the earth is flat. Seems he has been given valid proofs, but rejects them.
13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault's pendulum... stil not refuted
« on: May 01, 2007, 10:39:03 AM »
Foucalt is just part of the conspiracy, and so is his stupid pendulum!
14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why did you come to this site? and other questions...
« on: April 27, 2007, 01:44:35 PM »You're just saying that because you can't answer my questions...
Oh, here's another question for you... do you really believe in "black holes" (ha!). So a star stops shining occasionally and that's proof there is this huge vacuum cleaner in space sucking up everything? So isn't it just a matter time before these interstellar vacuum cleaners suck up the entire universe? What happens then? Is there a proof for that?
A black hole has the same gravitational attraction as the star it was made from. It does gain gravitational attraction as it swallows stuff up though. However, suppose the black hole in the center of our galaxy swallowed up our entire galaxy. Our galaxy wouldn't just begin to swallow other galaxies, unless they were already destined to collide with us.
If you were to shrink the moon down small enough to become a black hole, then it would still orbit the earth the way it does now, and would still give us the tides and still regulate our tilt. It would not suck the Earth into it.
Also keep in mind, science doesn't say with 100% absolute fact black holes exist. If some experiment or other observation provided a better, more plausible explanation, the concept of black holes would be discarded.
15
Flat Earth General / Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« on: April 27, 2007, 01:21:37 PM »
Only 1 person in the GPS industry knows of the conspiracy? He writes all the software and designs all of the electronics?
16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Direct TV
« on: April 27, 2007, 12:43:13 PM »Beyond the Ice Wall is a tundra of ice and snow which stretches into the horizon, as the picture shows.
So that's an actual picture of the ice wall? Why haven't those in charge of keeping the conspiracy secret stopped you from spreading the truth through intimidation or assassination?
17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why did you come to this site? and other questions...
« on: April 27, 2007, 12:37:43 PM »The Flat Earth Society wouldn't have persisted for over 150 years if Rowbotham's findings were fallacious.
Then why would the Round Earth Society persist so long if his findings were accurate?
18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Direct TV
« on: April 27, 2007, 12:34:12 PM »Beyond the 150 foot Ice Wall is anyone's guess. Some hold that the tundra of ice and snow stretches forever into infinity.
How do they know how thick the ice wall is? Did someone climb to the top and measure the peak? If so, they surely would have seen what is on the other side of the ice wall.
19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why did you come to this site? and other questions...
« on: April 27, 2007, 12:26:50 PM »
What do you measure the horizon with? Do you just look and say "looks flat to me", or do you actually break out some survey equipment or put any thought into it? What proof do you have the horizon is flat? See how I turned it around?
20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why did you come to this site? and other questions...
« on: April 27, 2007, 12:12:48 PM »From what I've gathered so far, round earth theorists believe in these fundamental truths:
1. Truth can only be found by consensus. You cannot rely on yourself alone since you can be deceived. What the majority constitutes as evidence is proof. What the minority constitutes as evidence is an illusion.
That's a fallacy. Science holds a majority opinion in no greater light than a minority opinion. It's about observation and experimentation and being able to make accurate predictions through these observations and experiments. Even when the majority said black holes were science fiction, the observations and experiments said they exist. And since then, future observations and experiments support the theory black holes exist.
21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Direct TV
« on: April 27, 2007, 12:02:36 PM »
So the UA is responsible for inner pressure that creates lava and magma. Why doesn't the UA cause the planet to expand outward, flattening it like a pancake? What keeps the Earth at a constant diameter?
22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Direct TV
« on: April 27, 2007, 11:14:01 AM »Do you really believe the warmth and energy from the sun comes from a source beneath the earth?
What's the source of energy that makes lava hot?
23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: 100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe
« on: April 27, 2007, 11:10:38 AM »
So, the earth isn't round because mariners use a flat map to navigate.
Weather maps use a big line with arrows on it to represent a cold front, so this means a cold front is a big green bar that travels across the sky? I've never seen one.
Weather maps use a big line with arrows on it to represent a cold front, so this means a cold front is a big green bar that travels across the sky? I've never seen one.
24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Direct TV
« on: April 27, 2007, 11:06:49 AM »Stratellites can maintain its geocentric position over the face of the earth easily. It's a solar powered device.
Would I be able to see one of these stratellites through a telescope?
25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Direct TV
« on: April 27, 2007, 09:51:43 AM »
Stratellites... um, low orbit satellite? How does a stratellite maintain it's position, it's geocentricity?
26
Flat Earth Debate / Direct TV
« on: April 27, 2007, 09:48:50 AM »
If the Earth is flat, and there are no satellites, then what is my Direct TV dish pointing at? And why do I only get a signal if it is pointed up into space?
The only connection my dish has to my TV is through the coaxial cable which runs into the receiver. And no adjustments to the receiver are required to gain or lose the signal, it just sits on top of my TV. But by moving my dish, I can gain or lose my TV signal. So, the signal comes from the dish, which points out into space. What is the origin of this signal?
The only connection my dish has to my TV is through the coaxial cable which runs into the receiver. And no adjustments to the receiver are required to gain or lose the signal, it just sits on top of my TV. But by moving my dish, I can gain or lose my TV signal. So, the signal comes from the dish, which points out into space. What is the origin of this signal?
27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Sun
« on: April 27, 2007, 06:15:09 AM »
(reply to Tobias)
Because FE is a completely ridiculous, inconsistent theory full of exceptions and inconsistencies. Earth doesn't have gravity, but the sun moon and stars do. Why doesn't the sun and moon exert gravity on us? Are we immune to gravity? If they do, then the UA is more than 9.8 to compensate for pull from the sun and moon.
Because FE is a completely ridiculous, inconsistent theory full of exceptions and inconsistencies. Earth doesn't have gravity, but the sun moon and stars do. Why doesn't the sun and moon exert gravity on us? Are we immune to gravity? If they do, then the UA is more than 9.8 to compensate for pull from the sun and moon.
28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Sun
« on: April 27, 2007, 06:00:33 AM »Why would they rise/fall in a wave like path?They wouldn't.
29
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: since i am new here and already causing headaches....
« on: April 27, 2007, 05:57:33 AM »..and am i the only male in this thread? let alone this forum? haha
No, I too suffer from the disease of maleness.
30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Sun
« on: April 27, 2007, 05:55:12 AM »
Binary star systems do revolve around an "invisble" barycentric point. But, they rotate around it in a flat plane, not a rising and falling sine-wave like path.