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 - zaudragon

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Quote from: "sd0"
Ok then, whoever was the one who invented humans with the concept of time already in their heads, is the asshole that invented time.

Anyone can figure that out!

Don't be so obtuse.

There are two answers to this:
1. A deity, a creator of some sort.
2. Evolution.
1 would imply that the creator is an asshole. They would be even more asshole-ish if they didn’t create us at all. Also, without time, we would be horribly disorganised, and accomplish nothing that the creator would’ve wanted us to do.
2 would imply that evolution is an asshole. Since an asshole is material, then you are implying that evolution is material. And this isn’t true. Therefore, the concept of time is needed and good.

The Lounge / Classification of Members
« on: January 05, 2007, 09:04:12 PM »
I’m a debater, than argues in favour of FE.

I blend this forum’s ideas with “fake” sites’, when they’re applicable and inclusive. I do believe in Universal Acceleration.

Flat Earth Q&A / the government
« on: January 05, 2007, 09:00:30 PM »
Quote from: "jk12"
The most powerful nations in the world are run by people who have been elected, most of them are good and honourable people, they are not out and about to hide something this ridiculous

Oh really?

You think you would be accepted if you lied about something for half a millennium and suddenly said you were wrong? I don’t think so.

Imagine, mass boycotts, riots, protests, lynchings, and terrorism. This is real disorganisation. And you probably couldn’t fix them; there would be… I dunno… 6.5 billion angry people?

Flat Earth Q&A / the government
« on: January 05, 2007, 08:55:48 PM »
Quote from: "jk12"
is Al Quaeda in on it too? haha

Al Quaeda? Who are they? It was an arbitrary name the U.S. assigned, which means “The Foundation”.

And whoever they are are probably in on it too; we have failed so far to enlighten them.

Flat Earth Q&A / Flat Earth Map
« on: January 05, 2007, 08:53:13 PM »
Quote from: "jk12"
You know you can pay to go into space and have a look for yourself, right? What will your government do to fool you then? Drug you?

Nope, they just transport you to an anti-gravity pod in a virtual “space”. Remember, the government spent taxpayers’ money, and that had to go somewhere. One of the most interesting prospects, anti-gravity, could be invented already.

Or they might have a contract stating that you won’t talk about how it was all a lie.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: the government
« on: January 05, 2007, 08:50:45 PM »
Quote from: "jk12"
what is this government of which you speak? I live in New Zealand, and our prime minister Helen Clark seems to have quite a dislike of the American red-neck Bush, so if your so called 'Democracy' was having a big cover up I highly doubt we'd be in on it, as of yet we have yet to hear anything of the Earth being flat. This is not hate mail  :roll: , just wanna see what you believers have to say on this.

Q: "Why do the all the world Governments say the Earth is round?"

A: It's a conspiracy

Q: "How are the world governments organized enough to carry out this conspiracy?"

A: They only appear to be disorganized to make the conspiracy seem implausible.

That basically sums it up.

Flat Earth Q&A / Flat Earth Map
« on: January 05, 2007, 08:42:14 PM »
Quote from: "jk12"
so its based on an ancient story book???

That map is. We have other maps.

And your argument about how the Earth would be wobbly is irrelevant. It isn’t wobbly, so why wouldn’t it be rigid?

The FAQ has a really good map. The first one.

Quote from: "sd0"
Yes you are right, but bills and speeding tickets are a good reason to keep this bullshit up.

As for the original asshole who invented time, I don't know his reasons, but I'm sure they were evil.

Proabaly a way to control people.

Now let’s suppose Time did not exist. What would happen? Ever single scientific theory out there would collapse, even Flat Earth and Round Earth. All theories are based upon physics, and physics uses time. Without time, there is no gravity, no speed, no anything. Therefore, Flat Earth and the Time conspiracy theory are mutually exclusive. Time has to exist for Flat Earth to exist. Going upward accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 wouldn’t work if there is no time to measure it.

Time is a convenience. When do you play? Oh right, you don’t, since you don’t know what time it is.

Flat Earth Q&A / Bad Astronomy
« on: January 05, 2007, 08:34:43 PM »
Is this Parallax theory? That we see the shift after 6 months?

So this means that the Sun has shifted its radius; why not the stars?

Just because the Earth is stationary, doesn’t mean that the stars are. They just so happen to move that much every 6 months. Each have their own special path in the sky. Polaris, being right over the North Pole, still has the same properties: there is more angle towards the south. You see different stars in different places because they’re also spotlights, like the sun and the moon.

Quote from: "sd0"
What if a month had 100 days instead of 30, then you would only have to pay your bills 3.6 times a year, but some asshole dicided that a month would be 30 days so his greedy little ass could get paid 12 times a year instead, this theory can also apply to the greedy cops, I'll explain:

If there was no such thing as an hour, how in the hell could they write all those speeding tickets for exceeding Xmiles per hour, if some greedy asshole had never invented time we could all drive as fast as we pleased.

The flaws with your argument: Bills and Speeding Tickets existed far after time did. Did the Mayans have a calendar? Yes. Did they have Bills and Speeding Tickets? No!

They haven’t disproved us, yet. So why should we stop proving ourselves correct? Did not the great philosophers of Greece speculate? Did they not think? Are you telling us to stop thinking, therefore becoming mindless automatons that follow everything the government says, who would go to Iran and bomb the place thus starting a Third World War?

The disadvantages of us not speculating and challenging “fact” far outweigh the reasons why we shouldn’t. If we were wrong, you just have to prove so. A credible source would do, directly refuting that the Earth is Flat. We disproved that the Earth is Round, so you must also then come up with an alternate theory.

Have fun!

Flat Earth Q&A / Zetetic Astronomy/Earth is not a Globe
« on: January 05, 2007, 07:52:36 PM »
Quote from: "Disappointed In Humans"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
You pick up a book where a man is trying to DISPROVE the notion that earth is round and here is what he gives you: 50 "Experiments" with NO replication, NO observer confirmation, NO photographs or anything like that of modern replications, NOTHING

Actually, he did allow an observer once. At that time, the results differed from what he had previously "observed", (and they actually confirmed what we would observe on a spherical planet), and his experiment failed, weird coincidence huh?.

HAHAHAH, wow, that's the single best thing I've heard since beginning to peruse these forums.  Haha, and none of the flat earthers paid any heed to this post.  So let's get this straight.  This dude purports to be a scientist but he WON'T let people observe? hahah that's rediculous, and further, the one time he does his results support the real picture of the earth haha, that's priceless.  Anyone wanna comment on this?

Sure. If you’re so sure about yourself, observe on your own one of his experiments. It’ll either disprove that experiment, and you’ll have to prove that the others are false as well, or it’ll prove that experiment, and you would lose the whole discussion. Good luck doing all those experiments. I, on the other hand, have complete faith that he is correct.

The Lounge / Your age?
« on: January 05, 2007, 06:19:42 PM »
I’m 14.

Flat Earth Q&A / Geography question
« on: January 05, 2007, 05:59:25 PM »
Quote from: "NinjaMidgetOwnsU"
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "NinjaMidgetOwnsU"

Yes, of course.  99% of the world knows the earth is round.  Old and young, rich and poor, fat and skinny...everyone from rocket scientists to garbage collectors know that this is a fact.    But I'm the one who needs to convince you of this.

Right you are, Ninja.
You see, it simply does not matter who believes in something, or how many believe in it. That has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's correct. Therefore you must provide evidence to support your claims, instead of telling us how many people agree with you.

That's awfully convenient for you.  I could point you to any number of literary sources, pictures of the world, people who are smarter than both of us who could tell you that you are definitely full-O-crap.    Buuuuuut I have a feeling that there would be a lot of talk of conspiracy in your reply.  That the earth is round has been proved over and over again for years.  You were proved wrong before you were born

I see no evidence provided in your assertions that people have proved it.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Hollow Earth! - Much better
« on: January 05, 2007, 05:49:18 PM »
How about Concave Earth Theory?

I like that more!

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Time Cube
« on: January 05, 2007, 05:46:22 PM »
Of course time is cubic! Did you not read Robert A. Heinlein’s The Number Of The Beast?

Oh wait, that’s fiction. Never mind.

Flat Earth Q&A / Geography question
« on: January 05, 2007, 05:40:32 PM »
Quote from: "NinjaMidgetOwnsU"
Quote from: "zaudragon"
Some questions come to mind:
1. Have you travelled this route?

No.   I have also never been to Lagos, Nigeria, but I am reasonably sure it exists.

People have gone to Lagos before, but I guess the question could be better: has anyone travelled this route?
Quote from: "NinjaMidgetOwnsU"

Quote from: "zaudragon"

2. Can you prove you ended up south-east of Australia?

I'm pretty sure that can be proved with a gps..of course that relies on the round earth and satellites.

And on this FE without satellites, the radio towers could easily be lying.
Quote from: "NinjaMidgetOwnsU"

Quote from: "zaudragon"

3. Can you prove each and every piece of “high-tech nautical equipment” is credible and has no flaws? Can you prove they’re not part of the conspiracy?

I can't prove that every piece of “high-tech nautical equipment”  has no flaws, but they are used daily, so they are credible.  The conspiracy part of that question is beneath me.

“Used daily” does not prove that the next day, they could be untruthful. Just because a car’s been acting well, doesn’t mean it won’t malfunction tomorrow.
Quote from: "NinjaMidgetOwnsU"

Quote from: "zaudragon"

4. Are you sure using a map projection that preserves angles and direction? Because it might not, and therefore you would be lying from the first place…


Some map projections, like the Mercator projection, don’t preserve direction. Go east from Japan, and you won’t follow a line of latitude.

Flat Earth Q&A / Question for believers
« on: January 05, 2007, 05:31:47 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Yeah, all those old books are hard to understand. Plus they're all rubbish. Who needs 'em anyways?


It makes sense, though. It’s not hard to understand at all; it’s just that small parts of something disappear before the whole does. When you see a backpack upclose, you can see all the zippers, but as you move farther away, they become invisible, even though you know they’re there.

Flat Earth Q&A / Earth's acceleration
« on: January 05, 2007, 05:27:21 PM »
That only happens when you use æther.

One “FE” site is hugely misleading. It appears as though FE uses æther, when it really doesn’t :D

Flat Earth Q&A / Geography question
« on: January 05, 2007, 05:14:31 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Are these questions for RE's or FE's?


Their “evidence” is all based on equipment, which would make you go that way.

However, if this equipment was false, they can perceive to go that way by going “South-west”.

No guarantee you’ll end up where they say you would. I haven’t done it, neither has he.

Flat Earth Q&A / Geography question
« on: January 05, 2007, 05:06:26 PM »
Some questions come to mind:
1. Have you travelled this route?
2. Can you prove you ended up south-east of Australia?
3. Can you prove each and every piece of “high-tech nautical equipment” is credible and has no flaws? Can you prove they’re not part of the conspiracy?
4. Are you sure using a map projection that preserves angles and direction? Because it might not, and therefore you would be lying from the first place…

Flat Earth Q&A / Question for believers
« on: January 04, 2007, 07:36:01 PM »
Here’s the original reason:

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question for believers
« on: January 04, 2007, 06:31:22 PM »
Quote from: "John Smedley"
Isn't the fact that every other celestial body is a sphere prove the earth is one too?


Then what dose it mean.[/quote]

Quote from: "FAQ"
Q: "Why are other celestial bodies round but not the Earth?"

A: When you look at these celestial bodies, even with a telescope, they're entirely two-dimensional.

Flat Earth Q&A / Question for believers
« on: January 04, 2007, 06:15:57 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "zaudragon"

1. Quantum Mechanics states that light does not travel in straight lines;

Does it?

Yes. It is just the net result of cancelling light rays.

I guess it’s not Mechanics, it’s Electrodynamics. My bad.

Flat Earth Q&A / Question for believers
« on: January 04, 2007, 05:37:07 PM »
I want to put forth my idea:
1. Light, as with anything else, is affected by acceleration upward.
2. Now, light would therefore angle downwards (barely).
3. This is affected the same amount as a RE model does for a boat’s mast. It seems as though the Earth is round.
4. Therefore, any object’s light is travelling at an angle, leading to the same affect.
5. This also means that stars are really above what we perceive them to be. Everything is likewise.
6. Thus, a ship appears the way it does.

I hope it’s not too outlandish as my first post ;)
This is the one issue I hope will be set in stone.

Let’s try another one:
1. Quantum Mechanics states that light does not travel in straight lines; there are many paths on which light can travel.
2. We are seeing the net product of some of that light; the other light is absorbed by the ocean.
3. The hull is so close that a LOT of the light is absorbed, as opposed to the mast, which a lesser amount is.
4. The light of the hull is so dim where you’re at that it’s undetectable.
5. The light of the mast, however, is bright enough that we actually see it.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]