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 - Ezkerraldean

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
Flat Earth Q&A / GPS satellites???
« on: February 08, 2007, 03:39:23 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"

wrong. actually it's "negative deceleration"

dark energy = energy presumably

energy = pressure * volume

the volume of the universie is infinite which means that pressure * volume is infinity, or effectively zero. therefore there is no energy.


The Lounge / Reincarnation
« on: February 08, 2007, 03:34:23 PM »

have you been reincarnated? etc.

oi, don't diss communism, i'm a communist

Flat Earth Q&A / concord
« on: February 08, 2007, 03:31:50 PM »
the windows were actually TV screens

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Round world
« on: February 01, 2007, 06:19:39 AM »
Quote from: "Mr.T.Hill"
I was recently on the space ship one program for Richard branson, and i have been into space and can confirm the world is indeed round and iam not part of NASA or work for the government.
can you prove this?

The Lounge / Is it ok for churches to say "Jesus Loves Osama"
« on: February 01, 2007, 06:09:23 AM »
he's supposed to love everyone isnt he? therefore he loves osama bin laden too. whats the big deal?

Flat Earth Q&A / Cavendish Experiment
« on: January 29, 2007, 03:46:34 PM »
Quote from: "CharlesJohnson"
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Structural integrity. Everything would be pulled to the center of the flat earth, not the north pole.

Actually neither of you are right. If the earth were a plain, regardless of how thick it was, the resulting gravitational field would be in a direction
perp. to the plane, and constant everywhere (so long as you're far from
the edges). blah blah

er......... how?
gravity acts towards the centre of mass. the centre of mass of a cylinder would be directly beneath the middle of the circular face. gravitational pull would be to a point directly beneath the north pole and not underneath any other point.

Flat Earth Q&A / Cavendish Experiment
« on: January 29, 2007, 02:36:09 PM »
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Actually, the Universal Accelerator does not exist in Rowbotham's model. In his model the flat earth has enough mass to have a gravitational pull.
which would mean everything is pulled towards the earth's centre of mass which is the north pole. this is clearly not the case, since you can walk upright in places other than the north pole. explain.

Flat Earth Q&A / Evidence of flat earth
« on: January 29, 2007, 02:31:24 PM »
Quote from: "Jeffbowe"
 The universe is what, 14 billion years old since the "big bang"? How has it maintained it's perfectly balance motion for 14 billion years?

has it? stuff moves around and stuff hits stuff you know.

Quote from: "Jeffbowe"
It takes a perfect match-up in weight difference to create a permanent, fixed orbit. Nothing else will work.
clarify. what the fuck does this mean? please put in a formula or something.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Evidence of flat earth
« on: January 29, 2007, 02:22:16 PM »
Quote from: "Jeffbowe"

There is one scientific fact that gives this "theory" credibility. And that is the elipticial orbits of every object in space. Objects in space MUST be in an eliptical orbit around a larger object to stay in continous motion. Otherwise they would lose speed and the orbit would decay. Circular orbits do not exist in space. A circular orbit is a dying or decaying orbit, much like our communication satellites.
Bollox. F=mv^2 /r = Gm1m2 / r^2 (gravitational force = centripetal force). i know these formulas work through personal practical verification for A-level physics coursework. nothing about elliptical orbits in there - notice the single radius figure implying a circle.
Quote from: "Jeffbowe"

It is impossible for every object in space to be in a "captured" eliptical orbit around another object because that would require ALL objects to be captured by a larger object in order to create an eliptical orbit. That would mean that our Sun would be captured by a much larger Sun in an eliptical orbit and so on and so on.
(followed on from previous) Bollox.
Quote from: "Jeffbowe"

The Universe only makes sense if EVERYTHING in it is captured in orbit around ONE immense object (whose magnetic field is strong enough to hold everything in orbit, and keep it going with a power source).
magnetic field? thats not what holds "celestial" orbits together. anyway, ever seen an electron beam in a perpendicular magnetic field? looks like a circular orbit to me.
Quote from: "Jeffbowe"
The Earth is that object and everything else is slung around it using the power of it's magnetic field, and a slight lateral shift as the Sun and other objects follow an eliptical orbit. This lateral shift creates an acceleration point at the smaller objects closest point to it's larger master. That acceleration point slings the smaller object back out in space where it finally slows and begins it's return trip. The magnetic attraction causes a slight lateral shift of the larger object until it tries to "get away" around behind and is slung back again to space., blah blah blah etc.
whats magnetism got to do with anything?

Flat Earth Q&A / so why do ships disappear over the horizon?
« on: January 29, 2007, 02:15:00 PM »
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
Quote from: "BobDole"
there are objects visible in the sky that are at a much greater distance than that point where a boat will disappear, whether the stars are on the horizon or not is not entirely important

It is not the distance that matters, it is how much atmosphere you are looking through.

And where I live, you CAN NOT see stars near the horizon. I live near several cities, so the sky is much too bright for most stars to be visible, and it is not possible to see any near the horizon.

ever been into the countryside? you can see stars on the horizon.

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity
« on: January 25, 2007, 02:08:07 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "Ezkerraldean"
cavendish experiment = proof that FE acceleration gravity crap is BOLLOX

Hmm, 'cause I say gravity=acceleration.

how can FE acceleration cause things to be gravitationally attracted to eachother in a direction perpendicular to the FE's aceleration? please explain this or accept that you are all wrong.

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity, Static and Polarity
« on: January 25, 2007, 01:57:40 AM »
Quote from: "CharlesJohnson"

It would take an object as massive as a planet to make the effects of this
force felt.

Cavendish Experiment
(i love it! i forgot all about it, but it PROVES gravity!)

« on: January 24, 2007, 06:42:24 PM »
the best one went something like

"i've been doing some calculations and i've come to the conclusion that you ar eall total wankers"

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity, Static and Polarity
« on: January 24, 2007, 06:37:38 PM »
Quote from: "Derek"
Okay, Round-Earth gravity pulls. I know it's there, to some extent, and it's contant, sure. But -why- is it what it is? What makes it constant, what makes it pull down at the same rate? What does that have to do with a round earth?

I've got a better quote. It's shorter: "Gravity doesn't exist, Earth Sucks."

- Derek

think about centres of mass.

if we had a FE, gravity would pull to the centre of mass which would be the north pole for a FE disc. if this was so, only at the north pole would you be pulled downwards by gravity. people in australia would experience nearly horizontal gravitational pull!

this is blatantly bollox since wherever you are, the gravitational pull is vertical therefore wherever you are the earyth's centre of mass is directly below you therefore the earth can only be a sphere.

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity
« on: January 24, 2007, 06:34:00 PM »
cavendish experiment = proof that FE acceleration gravity crap is BOLLOX

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE space missions
« on: January 24, 2007, 12:51:44 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "Ezkerraldean"
is it possible to launch a rocket in FE?

Why would it not be?
i thought they were a Conspiracy or something.

Flat Earth Q&A / The Cavendish Experiment
« on: January 24, 2007, 12:46:18 PM »
Quote from: "dantheman40k"
Flat Earther wont reply to this, this has been brought up in other threads and the FEers ignore it.

that's why they phuck me off soooooo much, and why i essentially just became a troll. because when you actually think of something decent, they totally ignore it.

Flat Earth Q&A / The Cavendish Experiment
« on: January 24, 2007, 08:37:58 AM »
it proves that "round-earth" gravity works. flat-earth acceleration cannot explain it, since the gravitational attraction that is observed happens horizontally. Explain.

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity, Static and Polarity
« on: January 24, 2007, 08:15:43 AM »
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
Well then, I am going to refuse to accept the Round Earth theory of gravity. I think the Flat Earth theory makes more sense.

even when the said formula is known to be true? know the Cavendish experiment? i've done it myself a few times for coursework. it works. and FE acceleration shite does not explain it.

Arts & Entertainment / So...Musical Preferences?
« on: January 24, 2007, 07:57:36 AM »
music is a Sin, he who wastes his time in idolatry listening to pleasing sounds is one who will be banished by Allah into hellfire.

Flat Earth Q&A / meteorites
« on: January 24, 2007, 07:55:40 AM »
i just wondered how meteorites fitted into the FE universe model. theres lots of meteorites, but apparently "space" is quite small, all contained in a little dome thingy.

Flat Earth Q&A / meteorites
« on: January 24, 2007, 07:49:31 AM »
where do FE meteorites come from?

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity, Static and Polarity
« on: January 24, 2007, 07:46:45 AM »
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"

No, you "know" that it works. You have no idea what causes Round Earth gravity.

And obviously RE gravity doesn't fit the FE. Its not supposed to, as we don't believe it exists.

we know how it works. there is a formula to describe it. and that formula, combined with everyday observation, goes against FE.

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity, Static and Polarity
« on: January 24, 2007, 07:34:23 AM »
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
Quote from: "Ezkerraldean"
a force acts between masses. it is called gravity. it is proportional to the product of the masses involved divides by the square of the distance between them.

Yeah, thanks for that. Now explain why it works.

isnt that what particle physics is currently about? finding the Higgs boson.

why is the earth flat?
why does the sun shine?
why do radios work?
why do lightbulbs work?
why does my car drive when i put petrol in it?
why do the clouds outside move?

 we know how, but why?
"why" is subjective.

we know very well how gravity works. wether we are on a FE or a RE. and it doesnt really seem to fit the FE idea.

so FEism is based on biblical literalism?

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Australia doesn't exist
« on: January 24, 2007, 07:25:27 AM »
the USSR does not exist

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity, Static and Polarity
« on: January 24, 2007, 07:22:44 AM »
a force acts between masses. it is called gravity. it is proportional to the product of the masses involved divides by the square of the distance between them.

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity, Static and Polarity
« on: January 24, 2007, 07:00:47 AM »
Quote from: "CharlesJohnson"
No... Im talking about G, the Universal Gravitational Constant.
Not g which can be measured to a very high degree of accuracy

fair dos. g is not a constant anyway remember.

but like you said it's accurate enough. accurate enough for astrophysicists anyway. but maybe it's all a Conspiracy.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11