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 - alex2539

Pages: 1 [2] 3
Flat Earth Q&A / More plausible gravity theory
« on: January 14, 2006, 11:25:37 PM »
I'm trying to come up with a:
Quote from: "From the topic's title"
More plausible gravity theory

This means that there was another theory beforehand and I have a better one. Otherwise, what am I more plausible than. Basically nothing you said is relavent to the topic. Go read some other topics (who's titles include the word "gravity") and come back later.

Flat Earth Q&A / Poles cold, equator not: Why?
« on: January 14, 2006, 11:21:09 PM »
Quote from: "pspunit"
still doesn't work
I dunno... try copy/pasting the link manually. It works just fine for me.

2. Unless you claim that our sun is vastly different from other stars, there's no reason to suggest that the light that comes out of it travels a finite distance. We know that those stars are very far away (using parallax), and they are chemically and physically similar to our own (using spectroscopy), yet we can still see them. Of course, you may want to reject the claims I've made... I can't stop you.
Those starts don't light up the Earth with daylight though because they're too far away. The sun is like that, but much smaller than normally assumed and therefore much less powerful. Also, its distance is counted into that. I'm not saying that the light stops. That's just stupid.

3. The hypothesis implies that the south pole is a circle, whereas everybody who's every been to it insists that it's a single point. Similarly, having the north pole as a hub creates serious distance issues... why are things not observed to be so far away from each other "south" (i.e. radially outward) of the equator?
That would just so happen to be the flat Earth model. The flat Earth model says that the North Pole is at the hub of the Earth, and the circumference is lined with a large ice wall (or possibly a mountain range) that is perceived as being the South Pole. As for the distances, it's not necessarily the land masses who havea different size, but the oceans between them. An airplane can easily fly at different speeds to simulate the correct distance, as well as boats. And before recent years, boats didn't exactly have advanced chronometers to tell how long it takes to get somewhere.

Now to your other theories:
1. Inverse-square law. Incident power on a surface a distance r from a light source drops according to 1/r^2. The poles are farther from the sun than the equator.
All that does is say why mine could be RIGHT. That law states that a physical quantity or strength (in this case light and heat) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity. Basically, how strong the light and heat are decreases when the source is farther away from the destination. I have found a nifty diagram to demonstrate this theory (I'm to tired too make my own right now):

As you can see, object B's coverage is much less dense.

Anyways, there's basically the same light and heat being produced fro mthe same source, but as it gets farther away, it has to be distributed over a larger surface. This is actually the same as the reason as to why the poles are cold in the round Earth theory, as demostrated by another diagram:

Ray B hits the Earth obliquely, thus covering a larger area, but delivering less power than ray A which hits perpendicularly and delivers the same amount of energy over a smaller space.

2. Foreshortening. The reason it's colder at the poles is primarily due to the following: a surface at a ninety-degree angle to light rays receives more energy per unit area than a surface at a lower or higher angle. If you hold a piece of paper in the beam of a flashlight in an otherwise dark room, and tilt the paper at various angles, you can see this. You can also see it in old photographs where the edges are very dim. Since the sun is never directly overhead at the poles, the poles get less solar energy throughout the year and thus never get a chance to warm up. By the way, this is the same explanation for seasons (in a spherical- or flat-earth cosmology): sometimes the sun is directly overhead in the north, sometimes in the south.
I'm fairly certain you have just re-stated your previous theory...

3. A friend of mine has just pointed out, "Isn't it that they're colder because there's snow there? Snow is pretty cold, man." And, "But also, the high albedo of the snow reflects sunlight, instead of absorbing it, so it receives less heat from the sun."
Tell your friend he's a moron. Places aren't cold because they have snow, they have snow because they're cold. Snow is basically itty bitty pieces of ice, therefore forzen water. Ask yourself this: is your freezer cold because of the ice, or is the ice there because the freezer froze it (as indicated by its name)? The answer may surprise you!

BTW, in case nobody's noticed, I've decided to use diagrams to help back up pretty much all of my point from here on. :D

Flat Earth Q&A / Poles cold, equator not: Why?
« on: January 14, 2006, 06:29:05 PM »
It's just the original, which is why I didn't waste space putting it there. And what do you mean it doesn't work? it works fine for me... try the full URL

Flat Earth Q&A / Poles cold, equator not: Why?
« on: January 14, 2006, 06:12:19 PM »
I have an answer! Not only that, but also another diagram and an explanation for timezones as well.

I found this, and I'm fairly certain that it is what is accepted as the flat map of the Earth.

We can't deny that it is cold in the North "Pole" and the regions close to the "equator" are pretty freaking hot. Now, if you look at that map, it's pretty much the globe, all continents the relatively correct shape and position. However, the North Pole is at the hub and the contentents are sorta bent around it with the Southern-most points being closer to the rim. When you say "East" and "West", you are assuming that those are straight directions, and the sun goes around the disc from one edge to the other. That would not be the path. In "reality", the sun hangs above the Earth, most likely just above the atmos-dome ( ;) ). It travels in a cirular "orbit" around the hub of the Earth going from East to West in a clock-wise turn. Or, if you don't like the Sun revolving around the Earth, it could go the other way, and stay still while the Earth sorta spins. It doesn't matter to me really. The sun however, is not quite as strong as it is thought to be and its rays only go a certain distance, creating a limited radius of light. As the sun travels, different areas of the Earth are hit by the light as it gradually gets closer and brighter. This explains timezones (after all, they aren't man-made, just observed to happen). As the sun travels, it remains about half the length of the radius away from the hub, thus making it closer to the parts of the world situated on the "equator". These parts of the world are therefore hotter. And so, since the North and South "Poles" are the farthest, they are the coldest.

And now, for the highly anticipated diagram:

The red circle is roughly the "equator", the yellow circle is the Sun (no shit!) and finally the green arrow is the direction of the path. I've also shadowed the world and included the estimated radius of light. I'm probably off, so it could be larger or smaller or whatever, but that's basically it.

Flat Earth Q&A / More plausible gravity theory
« on: January 14, 2006, 01:24:00 PM »
God, I already explained that! There's even a freaking DIAGRAM!!! Of course things are pulled towards the center, that's why I've located the center. I said that the earth is so close to the center that the angle it's being pulled at is small. So small in fact, that people have adapted to it and don't notice its existance. Also, I never said the large object was a disk, I just used a disk as an example. No one has seen this object, so it could very well be a cube, a pyramid, or a sphere wherein the placement of the Earth wouldn't matter. I only used a disk because it is similar to the Earth's alleged shape.

Flat Earth Q&A / We must have a serious discussion of the evidence.
« on: January 13, 2006, 03:32:00 PM »
Quote from: "pablo"
but ice floats...
Not if it's part of the ground it doesn't. If you had the time, you could make a large ring of ice, put it on the ground and make sure there is no crack (by melting the bottom and letting it freeze again) then fill it with water and the ice would not float away. It would merely contain the water

Flat Earth Q&A / We must have a serious discussion of the evidence.
« on: January 13, 2006, 01:02:58 PM »
According to flat-Earth theories, it doesn't. The world is surrounded by some sort of barrier assumed to be a giant wall of ice. For the water to get out it would have to climb the wall.

Flat Earth Q&A / the flat earth concepts crumbled
« on: January 12, 2006, 06:45:55 PM »
You didn't pwn at all... There have been pwns here, and that's not one of them.

Flat Earth Q&A / Yea mhm.
« on: January 12, 2006, 05:18:01 PM »
Just because I don't have an answer doesn't mean someone that's not online can't explain it. After all, our lead bullshitter - bullhorn - hasn't posted yet. Quite frankly, I'm not a douchebag, I just don't like impatient pricks who think that the world is there to answer their question at any given point in time. But, if you want an answer now, it's whales jumping up and down relatively near the shoreline, thus creating disturbances in the water.

Flat Earth Q&A / Yea mhm.
« on: January 12, 2006, 05:05:51 PM »
God, you've gotta wait more than two hours. People have actual lives and aren't here 24/7 for your convenience. To teach you patience, you shall wait one more day for a response  :twisted:

Flat Earth Q&A / Evolution - dispelling the myths
« on: January 12, 2006, 03:25:47 PM »
Umm... That's a waffle...

Quote from: "dunko182"
EVOLUTION? thats blasphemy. the bible- the worlds only reliable source, states, as requested by  god how we came to be from the unlawful acts of adam and eve. FOOLS! DO YOUR RESEARCH!
Where do I start with this? Oh yeah! How about that the Bible is not a reliable source. It is a religious book based on the beliefs of the christian society. The entire thing is metaphorical/allegorical and there are very few of its stories which are actual fact. I'm fairly certain Jesus was proven archealogicaly to have lived, but there is no proof except for the word of the Bible to say that he is the son of God.

Also, in this case you are referring to the story of Adam and Eve. Here's the thing about people; when someone can't explain something, they will often try to find an explanation. 2000+ years ago, no one knew what evolution was or that it could possibly exist. Someone asked "Where did people come from?" and they tried to answer as best they could.  Actually , it was not all too different from a modern scientific theory in that people took what they knew and brought up the best, most logical explanation. The thing about theories though, is that once another, better, more explainable one comes along, the other is pretty much gone.So anyways,  God created the first man and woman and we are all decended from them. That doesn't make it true. Also, the story of Adam and Eve is fictional, and odds are the theory didn't go past "God made 'em". Unfortunately, that's not interesting and wouldn't fit in with the point of the Bible, which is to teach people a better way of life for themselves and those around them When Jesus came along the lessons started to be taught more obviously so that people actually got the point. Up until then, it just seems like a bunch of stories. So, names were made, a story was written and a moral was slapped right on it. It is now suitable for the Bible.

Long story short, the Bible is not reference. Partly because it's not really all true. It teaches valuable life lessons, but very little of it has been proven to have actually occured. Also, because not everyone in the world is Christian, the Bible's views do not necessarily apply to their beliefs, and odds are they think you're as daffy as you think they are.

Flat Earth Q&A / Proof that the Earth is indeed flat
« on: January 12, 2006, 03:10:41 PM »
Quote from: "t609"
ok, so bullhorns thingy has been proven wrong. Alex, you say that you have a model for a possible flat earth, can you explain it to us?

Go to this topic
Replace everything I say about evolution with adaptation though, because Cinlef pointed out that evolution is not a valid proof since it itself is not proved and could be refuted in different ways (not that he menioned any). Adaptation however is easily demonstrated in human beings.

Flat Earth Q&A / Ban request
« on: January 12, 2006, 02:49:06 PM »
Monthly is once per month, and not a good quality for a staff member.

Flat Earth Q&A / We must have a serious discussion of the evidence.
« on: January 11, 2006, 08:31:23 PM »
Quote from: "Scratchacid"
whoa, steady on there Tiger, put away those fight'n gloves
Are you coming on to him now :shock: ?

Anyways, waves wouldn't account for it. Your line of sight is much higher than the waves at see. The true answer is that all boats are actually submarines and slowly dive as they gain distance, thus giving the illusion of going around the curve. They then slowly resurface as they reach the destination, giving the opposite effect.

Flat Earth Q&A / Proof that the Earth is indeed flat
« on: January 11, 2006, 03:24:07 PM »
See, that's why I prefer my model of flat-earth gravity. This one has been torn to shreds. Also, I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but if the Earth is accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/sē, then it's velocity is obviously increasing at a constant rate. If the speed of sound is as documented - 340.3 m/s - then after a mere 35 seconds in existance, the earth would have broken the sound barrier. Then if the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s, let's do some rough calculations to see when we'll reach that

299 792 458 m/s
divided by 9.8 m/sē
=30 591 067 seconds

30 591 067 seconds
divided by 60 seconds/minute
=509 851 minutes 7 seconds

509 851 minutes
divided by 60 minutes/hour
=8 497 hours 31 minutes 7 seconds

8 497 hours
divided by 24 hours/day
=354 days 1 hour 31 minutes 7 seconds

354 days
divided by 30 days/month
=11 months 24 days 1 hour 31 minutes 7 seconds

Put it all together and you've got 11 months 24 days 1 hour 31 minutes 7 seconds.

Now, I realize that I used numbers that were quite rounded so my answer is a bit off, but that's a general idea. Basically, just before 1 year of existance the Earth would have reached light speed. Now as far as I know (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), in theory nothing can travel at that speed without a mass of 0. Also, if something were to travel faster than light, it would actually travel back in time. That's why it is said that time travel is impossible, is it not?

So... is the Earth traveling back in time?

[EDIT] Alright, it's come to my attention that this HAS already been said. Whatever, I still said it.

[EDIT2] Slight miscalculation, I left out a division by 60. The correct numbers hae been substituted

Flat Earth Q&A / People instinctively know the earth is flat!
« on: January 11, 2006, 03:02:42 PM »
Quote from: "Arthas57"
Six strings, you are not cool. You pretend you know much more than everybody else, but you really don't.
Wow you really put him in his place. Obviously because he's not cool he's wrong. Everything he said was valid and right. Unless you disprove him. Which you didn't. Also, don't gravedig. If something hasn't been responded to in this long, that usually means that the topic is over. It's sorta irritating, especially if you don't add anything to it except for your dislike of another member.

Flat Earth Q&A / The days of this site are numbered
« on: January 11, 2006, 02:54:40 PM »
Not $20 to go up, $20,000. There's a slight difference in the 0's. Still, a flat-earther could argue that with today's technology, realistic 3D image creation along with advanced display screens could easily project the illusion of space travel. Also, it is possible to simulate speed and motion. I went on this ride at Disney world where you start off at a sort of computer screen, design a roller coaster, then you get into this little pod and it honestly feels like you're riding it. The pod rotates at a high speed and centrifugal force gives the illusion of accelerating to high speeds. The whole thing also rotates for loops, corkscrews and whatnot. It was fun. A few years later, we went back and they had that new ride that simulates space travel. If I didn't know I was in Disney World, I would have almost believed that I was in space. Except for the lack of Zero-G. Even still Zero-G is easily simulated with a freefall inside a ship. This makes it even easier to perpetuate the illusion of space travel because there is actually a ship that you can see going up into the sky. The "space flight" could easily last a minute or two, then return to the Earth safe and sound with a happy customer.

It's not impossible to simulate space travel... although I really do want to go when it becomes affordable. Sounds like such an awesome trip!

Flat Earth Q&A / More plausible gravity theory
« on: January 11, 2006, 02:43:55 PM »
THat's because you obviously missed the point entirely. Anyways, talking to 6string and Cinlef today, Cinlef further elaborated on what he was saying and we decided that "evolution" is not usable as an argument. Adaptation is, and it was proved to happen thanks to my examples; the Christmas tree and free-fall airplane (but mostly the Christmas tree since that can be observed by anyone around mid-December).

So, my theory still stands, but with evolution replaced by adaptation. THey're basically the same thing in my book, but it's much harder to disprove adaptation.

Flat Earth Q&A / Ban request
« on: January 11, 2006, 02:34:11 PM »
Then find someone trustworthy who might havea different schedule from you and can be on at different times. It would help spread the workload.

Flat Earth Q&A / More plausible gravity theory
« on: January 10, 2006, 08:19:36 PM »
Cinlef, so far all you've done is try to say I'm wrong because I'm using something you believe but don't have proof for. What other explanations am I going to disprove? Put one on the table! As of yet, this is the only theory, and as a matter of fact, not the one at hand.

First off 6 strings is right I haven't disproved his theory, however his theory doesnt disprove the round earth theory either. As Mundi has pointed out since round earthers are the majority the burden of disproving our model should rest with you.
But here's the thing; it's been asked before "Well if the Earth is flat, then why (blah blah blah)?" I'm trying to come up with those answers first. Why would I start attacking your side if I can't defend my own? I was angry at bullhorn because every time something he can't explain comes up he stops making comments. How does he have a chance of disproving the round-earth if he can't even properly defend the flat  earth? I'm just trying to make sure my side is still standing when I try to crumble yours.

My theory there has yet to have a flaw pointed out except for you saying I can't prove evolution. I think I did a fair job defending it. You basically dismissed one comment I made about primitive man, out of all of the other examples I gave, and all you said was that people can doctor photos. That still doesn't explain the camel's hump. Also, why do Zebras have stripes and horses don't? Horses aren't goingto be jumped by a Lion is why. Zebras evolved striped fur to camouflage in the grass. If you want to get back to people, then why is it Russians are traditionally said to be big, hairy men while an Asian man is much less so? It's because people are pretty much animals with thumbs, and when an animal enters a cold climate, it grows fur to stay warm. People grow chest hair.

All-in-all, you still haven't disproved my statement, only a part of it. You're also trying to dismantle somthing you believe to be true. Why? Is it because you want me to be wrong so much you're willing to refute what you believe yourself just to disprove me?

6string said it right "feel free to disprove it, but asking him to prove it is pointless". So, go ahead and disprove the fact that living organisms adapt to their environment.

Flat Earth Q&A / We must have a serious discussion of the evidence.
« on: January 10, 2006, 05:59:41 PM »
Hey doody head: Make a useful post with actual content or just don't bother.

Flat Earth Q&A / Final proof against flat earth model.
« on: January 10, 2006, 05:57:25 PM »
Qi is real in some form or another. It might not be an actual life force energy, but it does exist. Two years ago we got practically our entire grade level to experience it in one of it's simplest manifestations - the qi ball. This is a technique which allows you to form a ball of ki in your own hands. Google it, there are plenty of websites that explain it. We learned how to make them, and taught it to others. For those that at first had trouble, we were able to frop balls into their hands, and pretty much every reaction was along the lines of "whoa!". It may or may not have something to do with a flat earth, but you don't know what you're talking about until you've played catch across the room without a ball.

Flat Earth Q&A / Ban request
« on: January 10, 2006, 05:47:05 PM »
Could someone with some sort of power PLEASE just IP Ban the idiots who are posting insurance and porn? It's irritating and pointless. If I were looking for car insurance and porn on the internet, there are far better places to go than a forum about the world being flat.

Flat Earth Q&A / I can prove bullhorn doesn't exist b/c of the flat earth
« on: January 10, 2006, 05:44:01 PM »
Because I have nothing better to do?

And I don't fail. Who says I was re-iterating what YOU said? All I said was you were right.

Flat Earth Q&A / More plausible gravity theory
« on: January 10, 2006, 05:38:35 PM »
Oh, but I've very close to proved that evolution occurs. I've given at least a very good explanation of its existance and I find it would be hard to disprove evolution anyways, because that would rely on either creating a better explanation. Tell me Mr. Cinlef, why it is that in hot countries skin darkens? Why are Africans black? Indians brown? Hell, even South Americans are pretty freaking tan. And it's not a tan, since a tan is really just sorta burning your skin to be just brown, and is not a genetic trait like skin colour. Why is it that camels have humps? Evolution and adaption to the environment.

Flat Earth Q&A / I can prove bullhorn doesn't exist b/c of the flat earth
« on: January 10, 2006, 05:26:59 PM »
They're right you know :)

If you say "I think, therefore I am", then jolly good for you! I can say the same thing. So, If can prove to myself that I exist, then I could easily say that no matter what, you don't necessarily exist. A figmant of my imagination can say absolutely anything at all. In fact, I've jsut imagened a purple Flogsturtrump saying "I think, therefore I am". The ting is though, that doesn't prove to me he exists, it just proves that I can imagine it speaking. So, as far as anyone knows, you don't exist. We're just imagining you (and everything else for that matter).

Flat Earth Q&A / More plausible gravity theory
« on: January 10, 2006, 05:18:16 PM »
alex2538 if your going to be a flat earther you must abide by their principles.
Under flat earther logic you have no basis for this statement
That's the thing; flat-earther logic sucks, so I substitute my own. That and my name has a "9" not an "8". The thing is though, evolution itself is a constantly occuring event. It adapts a species to their environment. but at such a slow rate that it's not noticed. You have to remember that it won't happen in an individual, but when they have children. The children will be slightly more evolved than the parents. That means that each step takes an entire generation to advance, so about 20-30 years.

The mere fact that people have different coloured skin proves evolution. People from hot and/or desert climates have darker skin to cope with the sun, while people from colder regions have lighter skin and hair. Also, the pinky toe is a good example. It's almost dissappeared, and other toes are shrinking with it. If you look at a pre-historic man, his toes are almost the same length. This is because the purpose of toes is for balance. Man used to have to stand much more, and since the spine wasn't as straight his toes would compensate for him and allow him to balance upright. No that we have straighter spine and also because we spend just so much more time seated, toes are becoming less necessary and are being phased out. Eventually, they'll have all phased out and people will be toe-less. This won't be for millions of years, but it'll happen eventually... that is unless some cataclysm occurs and strands us in a primitive world. Then they'll probably come back out of necessity.

Also, you cannot deny the fact that the body and mind adapt to the environment to compensate change. It happens all the time when you get used to something. It happens to everyone and is basically just part of being a living human. When you get a Christmas tree, you smell pine at first, but then after it's been in your house for a while, you don't smell it anymore. That is, until you leave the house and come back. This could also happen with gravity. Many people are put in Zero-G situations all the time. There is a kind of plane that will take you so high up in the atmosphere (or is it atmosflat? or atmosdome?) then initiate a free-fall for a length of time. Because you are inside the plane, there is no air resistance from falling. That's all outside. Since everything inside is effectively accelerating at 9.8m/sē, it seems as though there is no gravity. People often claim that they experience disorientation and dizziness and whatnot during this event. It then re-occurs when they reach the ground. This is because they have left the environment and returned, just like you would have done with the tree.

Flat Earth Q&A / More plausible gravity theory
« on: January 10, 2006, 04:36:20 PM »
Well, since I've decided to aid 6string in his quest to help the Flat-Earthers develop better arguments and defend their beliefs in a logical way, I have decided to start posting better explanations for certain phenomena for which the current falt-earth explanation downright sucks. I'm sorry, but "atmospheric conditions" just doesn't cut it.

The first is gravity. Gravity as explained by current science is the attraction of small masses towards a large mass's center. Like people to a planet. This is why on a spherical Earth if you were to dig straight down, you would start going up after you hit the center. On a flat Earth, gravity could very well work in exactly the same way.

My theory is that the Earth actually sits on a much larger mass, possibly another disk, but very close to the center. I have made a diagram to demonstrate:

In this model, the red lines represent gravity. The force is still pulling towards the center of the disk, but the Earth is so close to the center on the surface, that the angle at which gravity pulls is practically non-existant.

Some of you might say "Well then why haven't we noticed the angle? I notice when I'm on a slight incline". The answer is evolution. Don't say evolution is just a theory, it's not. It happens, it's real, and it's still happening. The only part of it which is under debate is whether or not we come from apes. So, anyways, the purpose of evolution is to adapt to the environment. If it's hot our skin darkens, if it's cold, animals grow fur, if the entire world seems to be at a slight incline, our balance is adjusted to compensate.

Also, when the body is subjected to something constantly and it is out of the ordinary, the body normally tries to fix the problem. I remember hearin of an experiment where people were given special glasses which mirrored the image and made it seem as thoguh everything were upside-down. After a period of time, all of them adjusted and their brains automatically compensated and reversed the image.

The same occurs when there is a smell in the air for a long time. After an hour you won't smell it, but it's still there. You just "got used to it". The same goes for sound. Sometimes I like to set my watch to beep every second just to piss people off and after a while, you don't hear it anymore unless there's either a long, dead silence or you try to hear it.

"Getting used to" something really means that the body, mind, or both have adapted temporarily to the environment to help make you more comfortable. It's pretty much temporary evolution. The same thing happens with the angle of gravity. We've gotten used to it, and since the angle is always there, the adaptation has become permanent. We have, effectively, evolved to compensate what could be perceived as a slightly tilted Earth.

« on: January 10, 2006, 02:41:48 PM »
There's nothing like it because it hasn't happened yet. That's why 6string and I need to step in.

« on: January 10, 2006, 01:31:20 PM »
Lol! Good show Cinlef! I like how you used only his statements to prove your point :P

Anywho, 6strings is serious about switching sides to help you flat-earthers defend your beliefs. I've spoken to him a lot about it, and I actually decided to help him on his quest. The two of us have actually come up with some arguments for a flat Earth that seem pretty plausible. I actually think that he will be able to create better debates and bring better arguments to the table than bullhorn ever did with his "univercity"-level education.

It is important to remember, we're not idiots and we know the Earth is a sphere. We just want to play devil's advocate a bit and maybe give the other side a chance.

Pages: 1 [2] 3