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 - doyh

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13]
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Obvious Problem with Zeteticism
« on: October 10, 2010, 11:54:50 AM »
No, you continue to misunderstand me. I'm saying that the fact that you can look at the Earth and say it looks flat is irrelevant, because you are not looking at a good representation of the Earth. There is no point on the planet that is a good representation, because the planet's slope varies too much. In the Himalayas, the curvature (or lack thereof) of the Earth may be different than it is in the American Southwest. Curvature cannot be seen as a constant, therefore you cannot apply zeteticism to it. Do you understand now? Should I use smaller words?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Obvious Problem with Zeteticism
« on: October 10, 2010, 11:24:48 AM »
First of all, not to be pedantic, but there was no reason to quote me there. Second of all, no, you misunderstand me. It would be more like if the RGB scale randomly changed, and 255,0,0 could mean anything.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Problem with UA
« on: October 10, 2010, 09:44:12 AM »
In that case, he should argue instead of whine.  ;)

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Obvious Problem with Zeteticism
« on: October 10, 2010, 06:08:31 AM »
But because the Earth isn't smooth, you cannot say that it is flat because it looks flat. Some parts of it would indeed appear flat, while others may appear round.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinite Slab FE model is false
« on: October 09, 2010, 09:39:23 PM »
Can we all stop quoting everything? It's getting obnoxious. If you are replying to the post above you, there is no reason to quote it.

Flat Earth Q&A / Obvious Problem with Zeteticism
« on: October 09, 2010, 09:32:27 PM »
The Earth is not smooth. If I were looking up at a mountain, should this convince me that the Earth is a massive diagonal slant? The biggest 'proof' of a flat Earth is that it appears flat. If the Earth was a big, glassy sphere/disk, this might be valid. But it isn't. Therefore, appearances may not be used as proof.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Problem with UA
« on: October 09, 2010, 09:16:49 PM »
@Parsifal: how about you answer questions instead of complaining about how they were posted.

How about you don't bother us with questions that have been asked hundreds of times before? We aren't here to cater to your whims, although if you'd like to pay us money that may change.

I wasn't specifically speaking of this question. I've been lurking here a bit, and I've found that you never answer questions, you just complain about how they're worded. Why?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Problem with UA
« on: October 09, 2010, 02:15:22 PM »
@Parsifal: how about you answer questions instead of complaining about how they were posted. Also, I just realized how it would work. If air is moving up with the Earth, and we must assume it is, then it moving against the skydiver would make him/her move up at a certain speed.

Flat Earth Q&A / Problem with UA
« on: October 08, 2010, 07:11:15 PM »
If the Earth is moving up to meet a skydiver, and is constantly accelerating, then how does Terminal Velocity work? Genuine question, not spam.

Flat Earth General / Re: My problem with NASA
« on: October 08, 2010, 07:01:57 PM »
Yeah... and isn't it funny how, if you look through a telescope, you can see many of their pictures? (note: I'm speaking of those giant ones on mountain sides, not the one you have in your basement)

But your only "evidence" of the Earth being flat is that you cannot directly see its curve. Therefore, you cannot call it a reality. Only laws can be called reality. Newton's Third Law, for example, is reality. There may be no problems whatsoever with it to consider it reality, and that is simply not true of Flat Earth theory. In truth, the only true realities are the laws of thermodynamics, especially the zeroth (If object A has the same amount of energy as object B, and object B has the same amount as object C, then object A has the same amount of energy as object C).

Actually, yes you do. You're entire argument is based on the idea that massive amounts of modern physics are completely wrong. We have undeniable proof of these physics being correct. Therefore, it is necessary for all of this evidence to be fake. Therefore, a conspiracy is in order.

NASA is into the conspiracy, therefore all their photos and data are fakes.

If you need a massive conspiracy involving every country in the world that supposedly has space travel (i.e. America, China, Brazil, the U.K, Bulgaria, etc.), your theory doesn't work. Ever heard of Occam's razor?

No, they haven't, because their current theory is that there is a great wall of ice stopping you from getting there. No, they haven't seen the wall. And no, they don't have proof.

Okay, thanks for a straight answer. I'm new here, so I don't actually know too much about any of your theories.

Gravity only begins to pull you down once you are in the air. When your feet are on the ground, resistance is equal to force, so Gravity is not still forcing you down. In your theory about Terra moving up, it never stops increasing speed, so instead of simply overcoming minimum gravity for the first second, you would need to overcome something moving at billions of miles per second, as its speed has been increasing for hundreds of millions of years (Or 6 thousand, according to some loonies). And watch an Olympic high-jumper on youtube. Could they really move that much faster than Terra for that long? Our muscles aren't that powerful. And for the airplane analogy, walking and jumping are two different things. If one were to jump on a plane, while it was accelerating, I daresay we would move backwards. Also, we can stand up on a plane because, for one, you are an attached object until you detach yourself, for instance by jumping. That means that we move at the same speed. Also, acceleration makes a big difference. If we were on a space shuttle accelerating directly upwards, we wouldn't be able to stand up.

But how could we possibly push that hard? If Terra is moving at, say, 2000 mph when you jump, our muscles couldn't possibly move us at 2001 mph. If we could, we would certainly run much faster than we do.

One quick question: if Terra is constantly moving up at 9.81 meters/second/second, how can we jump?

Flat Earth Q&A / More proof of a round Earth
« on: August 18, 2010, 08:42:21 PM »
I have a fact for you that cannot be explained away. If one were to be launched, completely horizontally, and stayed that way for five miles, they would be several meters above the surface of the Earth. How can that be disproven? And please do not assume human error was involved, as usually is assumed.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13]