1
Flat Earth Q&A / FE is a derivation of RE
« on: January 14, 2007, 12:32:36 PM »
So, my turning radius is dependent upon magnetics? Wouldn't I always end up at the center?
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.
Pages: [1]
2
Flat Earth Q&A / The Atmosphere
« on: January 14, 2007, 12:30:14 PM »
Really, I enjoy this as much as you do.
Why is there, all of a sudden, this huge mountain range without any tectonic interference? Even Mount Everest was the result of tectonics.
Why is there, all of a sudden, this huge mountain range without any tectonic interference? Even Mount Everest was the result of tectonics.
3
Flat Earth Q&A / Conspiracy
« on: January 14, 2007, 09:36:05 AM »
The point of most conspiracies are to make money. A conspiracy like the one which is a facet of your dogma would not make money within the persons lifetime.
If this is all due to those people's greed, then it is implausible.
If this is all due to those people's greed, then it is implausible.
4
Flat Earth Q&A / flight times
« on: January 14, 2007, 09:27:31 AM »
That's because these guys use azimuthal projections as factual representation.
As a matter of fact, these have the same biases as map projections do.
This means that the "flat earth', is invalid.
As a matter of fact, these have the same biases as map projections do.
This means that the "flat earth', is invalid.
5
Flat Earth Q&A / An Analogy For a Flat Earth/Round Earth Debate
« on: January 14, 2007, 09:21:42 AM »
Geoguy, if you're that desperate to find out for yourself, why don't you go trekking across Antarctica.
If you die the world will be a better place.
People have done it before. Now, try it for yourself.
If you die the world will be a better place.
People have done it before. Now, try it for yourself.
6
Flat Earth Q&A / FE is a derivation of RE
« on: January 14, 2007, 09:17:08 AM »
According to your azumithal map, at least.
You see that map which you use to annoy us? It has several biases.
First of all, according to its projection, you end up miracuolously turning when you go East. There is a similar bias in RE, but it is accounted for via the quickest way from one place through another being underground, and you having to stretch it around the sphere that is an Earth.
There is a mathematical explanation for that.
There should be an explanation for this.
You see that map which you use to annoy us? It has several biases.
First of all, according to its projection, you end up miracuolously turning when you go East. There is a similar bias in RE, but it is accounted for via the quickest way from one place through another being underground, and you having to stretch it around the sphere that is an Earth.
There is a mathematical explanation for that.
There should be an explanation for this.
7
Flat Earth Q&A / The Atmosphere
« on: January 14, 2007, 08:42:36 AM »
Your theories sound like rubbish.
I think it would be impossible for there to be an ice wall structurally stable at that height.
A celestial dome assumes the earth is like the bottom of a crystal ball, right? Because if that is true, I wonder why airplane flights from South America to Australia haven't crashed into it yet. Or is it so high that it holds the stars up? If that is true, then, once again, I doubt its structural integrity.
Do I even have to comment on the last one? It contradicts the very notion of an ice wall.
I think it would be impossible for there to be an ice wall structurally stable at that height.
A celestial dome assumes the earth is like the bottom of a crystal ball, right? Because if that is true, I wonder why airplane flights from South America to Australia haven't crashed into it yet. Or is it so high that it holds the stars up? If that is true, then, once again, I doubt its structural integrity.
Do I even have to comment on the last one? It contradicts the very notion of an ice wall.
8
Flat Earth Q&A / Skycrapers
« on: January 13, 2007, 09:49:19 PM »
Err, guys, sea level is uniform.
Water naturally looks for the lowest possible location, and any fluctuation, like those caused by waves or other disturbances, would almost definitely not be visible, even with making the Earth's curvature noticeable
Water naturally looks for the lowest possible location, and any fluctuation, like those caused by waves or other disturbances, would almost definitely not be visible, even with making the Earth's curvature noticeable
9
Flat Earth Q&A / Skycrapers
« on: January 13, 2007, 09:05:12 PM »
You're missing the point. I'm not adding a curve, I'm merely accentuating an already existing one. :roll:
10
Flat Earth Q&A / Skycrapers
« on: January 13, 2007, 08:59:45 PM »
If you really want it, why don't you take a photo of the ocean with a hi-res digital camera, and then stretch it out enough that enough so that it is possible to see the curvature.
Someone try it. And make sure to get a wide spread as well. :!:
Someone try it. And make sure to get a wide spread as well. :!:
11
Flat Earth Q&A / Skycrapers
« on: January 13, 2007, 08:27:56 PM »
O RLY
I hope you can see what I mean.
I hope you can see what I mean.
12
Flat Earth Q&A / Skycrapers
« on: January 13, 2007, 08:13:36 PM »
:lol:
You do realize it's possible to see the curvature of the horizon from several large skyscrapers in the world?
And skyscrapers are tourist attractions, so you cannot call the traditional
"conspiracy" thing on this.
You do realize it's possible to see the curvature of the horizon from several large skyscrapers in the world?
And skyscrapers are tourist attractions, so you cannot call the traditional
"conspiracy" thing on this.
13
Flat Earth Q&A / The Atmosphere
« on: January 13, 2007, 07:04:39 PM »
The "gravity" caused by Earth's constant rising.
And to 18C, I meant, why doesn't it spill over the side?
:?: [/quote]
And to 18C, I meant, why doesn't it spill over the side?
:?: [/quote]
14
Flat Earth Q&A / The Atmosphere
« on: January 13, 2007, 01:46:58 PM »
Why is there an atmosphere, according to the Flat Earth theory?
It just doesn't seem to fit that a gas would rise along with the other gravitational forces :?: :!:
It just doesn't seem to fit that a gas would rise along with the other gravitational forces :?: :!:
Pages: [1]