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 - flat_earth_really?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
61
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Slinky in freefall
« on: October 11, 2011, 06:33:53 PM »
The inhomogeneity of earth's gravitational field is what proves UA does not exist, as UA cannot vary from place to place. Forget slinkies, interesting though they are.
Very true. What is the typical FEtarded response to this?

62
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: South Polar Base
« on: October 11, 2011, 06:20:43 PM »
Incorrect. Flights to the Antarctic bases often leave from New Zealand. Oh look, New Zealand's on the other side of the earth...

Links please.
A quick Google search gives this flight that used to do a round trip in 11 hours.http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/history/te901.html

63
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: South Polar Base
« on: October 11, 2011, 03:03:50 PM »
I'd love to explain, but it used fractions...

Seriously though, that's an estimate based on the fact that, in RET, the base is just South of that one peninsula near Argentina. Thus, I took an approximation of the distances (there's no legend on the FET map) and came up with that.
You seem to not have noticed the fact that, in RET, the South Pole Base is, by definition, just south of the entire coastline of Antartica. Why take the random peninsula?

Because it's significantly closer to that peninsula than to any other coast. Look it up.
So what if its closer? By definition, if you start at the opposite side, such as Queen Mary Land on this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctica_Station_South_Pole_Amundsen-Scott.gif and head south, you will reach the south pole & the south polar base.

Why not put the X at the opposite side of your funny flat earth map?

Are you really not getting this?

64
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Slinky in freefall
« on: October 11, 2011, 02:45:08 PM »
Google the Equivalence Principle. There is no problem here.
How can you reference the Equivalence Principle (i.e. part of Einstein's Relativity) while blatantly discarding everything that it says about gravity? Do you eat all of these cherries that you keep picking or send them to the ice wall to feed the ninjas?

Gravity and acceleration being indistinguishable is the only thing the EP says about gravity. In fact, that is the EP.

These aren't FEers that are saying this, these are just people who evidently have a better understanding of simple physics than you, who you would be well advised to listen to. But we forgive your angry noobdom because I actually hadn't seen that video before and it's pretty cool.
A better understanding of physics that includes an object not collapsing into a sphere due to its own gravity. OK. The world is flat.

65
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: South Polar Base
« on: October 11, 2011, 01:19:16 PM »
"Just south of the entire coastline" ...?

That peninsula is very recognizable. It's also south of SA in both models.
My point is that, in RET, you can pick any part of Antarctica's coastline, head south and reach the south pole. Why pick that peninsula? Why not pick some other random point, put an X there and say "I picked here because it's just south of where I started".

66
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Slinky in freefall
« on: October 11, 2011, 01:16:25 PM »
Google the Equivalence Principle. There is no problem here.
How can you reference the Equivalence Principle (i.e. part of Einstein's Relativity) while blatantly discarding everything that it says about gravity? Do you eat all of these cherries that you keep picking or send them to the ice wall to feed the ninjas?

67
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: South Polar Base
« on: October 11, 2011, 01:12:34 PM »
I'd love to explain, but it used fractions...

Seriously though, that's an estimate based on the fact that, in RET, the base is just South of that one peninsula near Argentina. Thus, I took an approximation of the distances (there's no legend on the FET map) and came up with that.
You seem to not have noticed the fact that, in RET, the South Pole Base is, by definition, just south of the entire coastline of Antartica. Why take the random peninsula?

68
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What proof will you accept?
« on: October 11, 2011, 08:08:27 AM »
You are either the biggest troll ever or else you have Down's Syndrome. I'll let you choose.
I understand what you are trying to achieve here, but my niece has Down Syndrome and I'm not sure I appreciate her condition being associated with whatever negative connotation you are trying to express.  In fact, I'm sure I don't.  She certainly had no choice in the matter.
I already acknowledged that it was offensive. However, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, if you're going to take offense from what one stranger says to another stranger on an anonymous internet forum, you probably need to relax a little.

That said, I'm sure your niece is lovely. She was in no way meant to be the object of my ridicule. For that, I do apologize.

69
Flat Earth Debate / Slinky in freefall
« on: October 11, 2011, 07:10:59 AM »
For anyone who hasn't seen one of these:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

This video is very possibly faked, however it is a pretty cheap experiment to replicate. Just buy a slinky.
I have done this and can confirm that they fall exactly as depicted in these videos. You don't even need the benefit of slow motion replay. You can see it happen in real time.

The simple explanation for why the bottom doesn't fall once you let go, according to REal science, is as follows:

When you extend the slinky and hold it suspended until it has stopped bouncing, it is in a state of equilibrium. The force of gravity (acting downwards) is balanced out by the tension in the slinky (acting upwards).

When you leave go of the top, it starts to fall.

The tension at the bottom has not yet changed, so the forces are still in equilibrium.

Once the slinky has collapsed sufficiently, i.e. the top has fallen far enough, there is no longer enough tension to at the bottom to counteract the force of gravity.

The bottom of the slinky falls.


According to UA theory, shouldn't the bottom seem to fall immediately?
According to UA, while the bottom seems to "hover", it is actually accelerating upwards at the exact same speed as the Earth. What is causing this acceleration? If it is the tension in the slinky, then surely, while it is still held, this tension should be sufficient to cause the bottom to go up relative the the Earth?

For the record, I have also done this experiment in an elevator as this is the cheapest (and admittedly imperfect) replication of UA I could think of. I took no video proof, as FEtards would simply claim it is faked. However, again, it is a cheap experiment. You don't need my proof, just go out and do it. In the elevator, the bottom fell noticeably quicker than otherwise.

For me, this pretty much disproves UA and proves that the traditional model of gravitation on this small scale is a more accurate representation of reality.

70
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The moon
« on: October 11, 2011, 06:41:54 AM »
LMAO

perfect example of FE's going off topic when they dont know what to say

Apologies. We were just having some fun. The Moon is also a disk, and it is illuminated by bio-luminescent bacteria. It's also radioactive, so avoid direct exposure when possible.
REer posts something off topic: Watch the low content. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. Example: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51112.msg1253400#msg1253400

FEtard posts off topic: LOL that was fun. See how clever we are? If I pat your back, will you pat mine? We're so clever.

How have you ascertained that there are bio-luminescent bacteria and why do you think it is radioactive. Can we make stuff up and claim it as fact too?

71
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I'm new here and have some questions.
« on: October 11, 2011, 06:39:09 AM »
1) How many of you truly believe that the Earth is flat?
2) What proof is there that the Earth is really flat?
3) Who would gain from creating a conspiracy that the Earth is an oblate spheroid?
4) What would be gained by stating that the Earth is an oblate spheroid?
5) Does gravity exist, and if not, why do we stay firmly on the surface of the Earth or man-made structures except for brief periods of limited flight or in mid-jump?
6) If the Earth is flat, why can we circumnavigate it?
7) If the Earth is flat and gravity does not exist, why does water not fall off the face of the Earth?
8.) How were the 'false' images of Earth as an oblate spheroid created?
9) How are the mathematical equations showing the Earth to be an oblate spheroid incorrect, and are there other mathematical equations proving it to be flat?
10) How large is the Sun and the Moon, and how far away are they? Are they too flat?
11) Does the Earth rotate? How about the Sun and the Moon?
12) Why do the Sun and the Moon move across the sky?
13) Are other planets and stars flat?
14) How thick is the crust? Is there magma, liquid and solid nickle and iron beneath the crust as in the Round Earth models? If not, where does lava come from?
15) Do either of the documented poles actually exist?
16) Anything else I should know?

Thank you for answering my questions. I am merely curious and truly do wish to know your viewpoints.

1) I think none. This is a troll site.
2) None.
3) Nobody. It is utterly absurd.
4) Nothing more than speaking the truth.
5) Yes.
6) It isn't.
7) It isn't.
8) Satan made them. There are many other suggestions, each one approximately as ridiculous as the one I just made up.
9) Maths is for nerds.
10) They look pretty small to me. I mean, if I hold up my hand, they get blocked. How big can they be right?
11) Yes.
12) The Earth's rotation causes the sun to appear to be moving. The moon is in orbit of Earth and so it moves.
13) It depends on whose model you're looking at. You can haz model too.
14) Lava is the devil's poop. It comes from the toilets in hell. Volcanoes are their drainpipes.
15) Yes, both.
16) Get out of here while you still can. IT SUCKS YOU IN......

72
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: South Polar Base
« on: October 11, 2011, 06:31:51 AM »
Yes indeed.  Infact Australian antartic researchers would have to travel halfway around the circumference of the earth just to get to the South Pole.  Somehow I think they would notice this.
"Australia" again. I mean, seriously, who makes up the names for these imaginary places?

Yes quite I agree, and as one such imaginary Australian I must say the proposition that I exist at all is quite preposterous, but we are discussing a map with Australia marked on it clearly.  I think it's important in scientific matters to be consistent.
How much does it cost to pay off the Manic Street Preachers to sing about this imaginary place as if it exists? " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
That should probably be taken into account in all calculations of the cost of the conspiracy.

73
Flat Earth General / The wiki needs to be updated
« on: October 11, 2011, 04:08:40 AM »
http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Experimental_Evidence
This section says:
Quote
A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!

This should be updated to say
Quote
A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie, unless it shows something we deny to be true, in which case it is automatically a lie.

74
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What proof will you accept?
« on: October 11, 2011, 04:00:58 AM »
We already established that the flatness of the earth could indicate the earth is flat (most likely) or that the earth is a sphere any shape of great enough size that it's curvature is not apparent from your local viewpoint (least likely).
When was it established that one was more likely than the other? Now you're just making stuff up.

Quote
My question is, why in the world would one assume it is something other than the obvious?
Again, why is one so obvious?
Quote
www.rif.org
That's pretty ironic considering I've had to requote myself in this thread multiple times to correct where you have incorrectly claimed that I said something. Also, for someone who is so proud of their reading ability, you ignored this:
Quote
Your ridiculous banana & doughnut comment can be ignored as there are no other banana or doughnut shaped celestial objects. You accept that other planets are spherical. There are no flat celestial objects (other than your proposed FE). I'm really not getting how any form of logic could lead you to believe in a flat Earth.

Quote
I'm done with you, as you clearly cannot comprehend the relevant points of the conversation nor are you able to navigate the conversation without being highly offensive.
You seem to be picking and choosing what's relevant to you while ignoring the parts you like, but whatever. Yes I was offensive, no point denying it. I was pretty bored with the circular conversation.

75
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What proof will you accept?
« on: October 10, 2011, 03:11:25 PM »
You are either the biggest troll ever or else you have Down's Syndrome. I'll let you choose.

Please refrain from personal attacks.  Consider yourself warned.
Personal attacks? I gave him a choice...

76
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What proof will you accept?
« on: October 10, 2011, 01:39:24 PM »
You seem to think since there would be no notable difference between a sufficiently large object and a plane, that we should arbitrarily decide that it is a whirling, twirling sphere.
Firstly, if you think that there would be a notable difference between a sufficiently large sphere and a plane, feel free to elaborate.

Secondly, I'm trolling? As I said earlier, then quoted to correct your lack of understanding:
Quote
The fact that the Earth appears flat gives two possibilities:
1) The Earth is flat.
2) The Earth is a sphere of great enough size that its curvature is not apparent from your local viewpoint.
You are either the biggest troll ever or else you have Down's Syndrome. I'll let you choose.

77
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What proof will you accept?
« on: October 09, 2011, 05:19:04 PM »

We can turn that around just as easily, couldn't we?

The problem is that globularists take local flatness as an absolute illusion and then invent ways to explain away the most blatant and accessible evidence which might work if the earth was round.

Actually, as I said earlier:
Quote
The fact that the Earth appears flat gives two possibilities:
1) The Earth is flat.
2) The Earth is a sphere of great enough size that its curvature is not apparent from your local viewpoint.
Maybe you missed that, maybe you just ignored it. I did specifically say that appearing flat means nothing. You yourself said:
Quote
I'm quite ready to accept that the planets are spherical without the benefit of that trip. No one is doubting the existence of spheres.
Your ridiculous banana & doughnut comment can be ignored as there are no other banana or doughnut shaped celestial objects. You accept that other planets are spherical. There are no flat celestial objects (other than your proposed FE). I'm really not getting how any form of logic could lead you to believe in a flat Earth.

OK Ski, I take it you were just trolling as you haven't continued that line of conversation.
Anyone else have any idea of what proof would be acceptable and not immediately ignored of part of some ridiculously elaborate hoax? Or is this actually just one big troll site?

78
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity on other planets
« on: October 09, 2011, 05:15:32 PM »
Anyone else who actually believes that the Earth is a flat disc feel like answering my OP. I have used the search function & checked the FAQ and there's nothing.

79
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: It looks that way
« on: October 09, 2011, 05:11:23 PM »
(Correct) The earth looks flat, therefore there is no reason to assume that it is round but that is pretty meaningless, as any body that big would look flat up close.
I fixed that for you. You're welcome.

80
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: South Polar Base
« on: October 09, 2011, 05:09:45 PM »
Yes indeed.  Infact Australian antartic researchers would have to travel halfway around the circumference of the earth just to get to the South Pole.  Somehow I think they would notice this.
"Australia" again. I mean, seriously, who makes up the names for these imaginary places?

On a more serious note, Tausami what kind of ninja maths made you come up with that arbitrary spot on a made-up map? Are you trolling?

81
Flat Earth General / Re: Government protected wall of ice - lol wut?
« on: October 09, 2011, 02:39:03 PM »
It can be difficult. Dioptimus Prime left before I joined, so I'm not sure about him.
Well the thread has been stickied so I'm thinking that, unless this website stickies troll threads, the example stands as an example of a serious FEtard who believes in ice wall ninjas.

82
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: amazing concept!
« on: October 09, 2011, 10:51:29 AM »
You RE'ers are like spoilt children...
Are you really *that* arrogant?...
You're an arse...
Now feck off, you prick.

You come here essentially to insult people
Ah sweet irony...

83
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity on other planets
« on: October 09, 2011, 10:46:35 AM »
The fact that the Earth appears flat is one of the best observations we can have about it's shape. What you are saying is analogous to saying that it's pretty dumb to say a basketball is orange because it appears orange.
Did you really read what I said and think that? Let's try again. If you look at almost any shape up close, it will appear flat. Whether the Earth is flat or round, it is obviously huge. Appearing flat is meaningless in this situation.
I can misquote what you say to make your point seem less relevant too:
What you are saying is analogous to saying that a basketball is an orange because it is spherical and orange.

Quote
Creationism was the solely accepted theory until evolution came around. You do know that, right?
Accepted by whom? You know that atheism is not a new thing right? You know that "God did it" has always been the answer of the religious idiot. It doesn't make it an acceptable scientific theory. You should look up scientific theory. They are both verifiable & falsifiable. Creationism is neither.

Quote
The only "religious nut" that is legitimately referenced, and even this happens sparingly, is Samuel Rowboatham, and it is the secular portions of his work that are referenced.
Sparingly? He's referenced all over this site, including in the recommended reading and in the FAQ. How have you ascertained what was secular in his work?

Isn't zetetic science (and I'm open to correction here) supposed to start with a question, in this case "What is the shape of the world?" as against an answer, i.e. "The world is flat/round". Are you seriously claiming that a guy who published a paper arguing against mainstream science and its opposition to the scriptures had no favourable answer that he wanted to prove, i.e. "The world is flat because the bible says it is flat".

84
Flat Earth General / Re: Government protected wall of ice - lol wut?
« on: October 09, 2011, 10:21:42 AM »
Can we stop with the pedantics, please? You people are annoying me. The final answer to this thread is that Antarctica is not protected because there's no reason for it to be. There was another thread about this recently; find and read it if you want more answers. Any posts beyond this one are redundant.
If there is an unprotected ice wall, it should be pretty easy to get photographic proof. You know, now that we have ascertained that it isn't inhabited by ninjas who are hell-bent on preventing photographic evidence...

There's a very recent thread about this. Find and read it if you want our answers to this.

Any posts beyond this one are redundant.
The way you say "our answers" is as if all you FEtards can actually agree on something. And yet there are still FEtards who claim that the ice wall is guarded day and night, in direct contradiction with what you have said.

Can you find an example of a serious believer saying that they believe this with certainty?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=6308.0 This one jumps immediately to mind. Just for clarity, how am I to tell the difference between serious believers and fake believers when they all sound equally ridiculous?

85
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: amazing concept!
« on: October 09, 2011, 10:04:21 AM »
We would like other people to realise that its flat.
And yet, whenever a question is asked the answers range from "LURK MOAR" to "Read the FAQ". Or else they get ignored.

86
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: South Polar Base
« on: October 09, 2011, 08:01:44 AM »


It's around there.
Is this a joke? I mean seriously? Not only is that map so inaccurate and inconsistent with reality as to be laughable to a 10 year old, but you have just marked a random point on your imaginary ice wall area and said that its the south polar base.

If you are joking, that's just fine and is actually pretty funny. If you're serious, then wow. Seriously, wow. That is all.

That's not a random point. I took some measurements and did some math, and that's the spot I came up with.
Ooh, you've just piqued my curiosity. What did you measure and what maths made you pick this arbitrary spot on a bad map?

87
Flat Earth General / Re: Government protected wall of ice - lol wut?
« on: October 09, 2011, 07:59:15 AM »
Can we stop with the pedantics, please? You people are annoying me. The final answer to this thread is that Antarctica is not protected because there's no reason for it to be. There was another thread about this recently; find and read it if you want more answers. Any posts beyond this one are redundant.
If there is an unprotected ice wall, it should be pretty easy to get photographic proof. You know, now that we have ascertained that it isn't inhabited by ninjas who are hell-bent on preventing photographic evidence...

There's a very recent thread about this. Find and read it if you want our answers to this.

Any posts beyond this one are redundant.
The way you say "our answers" is as if all you FEtards can actually agree on something. And yet there are still FEtards who claim that the ice wall is guarded day and night, in direct contradiction with what you have said.

88
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: South Polar Base
« on: October 09, 2011, 07:29:37 AM »


It's around there.
Is this a joke? I mean seriously? Not only is that map so inaccurate and inconsistent with reality as to be laughable to a 10 year old, but you have just marked a random point on your imaginary ice wall area and said that its the south polar base.

If you are joking, that's just fine and is actually pretty funny. If you're serious, then wow. Seriously, wow. That is all.

89
Flat Earth General / Re: Government protected wall of ice - lol wut?
« on: October 09, 2011, 05:32:07 AM »
Can we stop with the pedantics, please? You people are annoying me. The final answer to this thread is that Antarctica is not protected because there's no reason for it to be. There was another thread about this recently; find and read it if you want more answers. Any posts beyond this one are redundant.
If there is an unprotected ice wall, it should be pretty easy to get photographic proof. You know, now that we have ascertained that it isn't inhabited by ninjas who are hell-bent on preventing photographic evidence...

90
Flat Earth General / Re: Thoughts
« on: October 09, 2011, 05:29:36 AM »
Greek cosmological error began with the Pythagoreans who believed the earth to be a sphere because it was the perfect shape.
Wow. The Earth must be flat then. My bad.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5