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 - flyingleaf

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Flat Earth Q&A / How 'bout this one...
« on: May 25, 2006, 03:18:20 PM »
Quote from: "Rejected"
Nothing yet huh?

Come on guys donít let me down.

You can't honestly expect people to have time to answer your question, posted in the wee hours of the morning, to be answered within two hours?  Somebody'll answer eventually.

Oop, looks like somebody did.  As to your unanswered questions:

1) Antarctic 6-month days don't exist on a Flat Earth, and I bet you have no direct proof that it happens.  Arctic 6-month days/nights as well as 6 month of darkness in the Antarctic are both fine though.

2. If the sun looks like it sets everyday just by moving far away, then the north start will "set" too, if you moved far enough from the north pole.

Flat Earth Q&A / How does sunset happen?
« on: May 25, 2006, 03:08:38 PM »
Quote from: "You undeducated morons"
Quote from: "mariaconda"
There's no sunset you morons!! If the sun never dips below the horizon there can't be a sunset, no can there? Have you ever actually seen a sunset with your own eyes? I didn't think so, CAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST!!! It's just a myth, so shut up about the stupid nonexistent sunset.

Oh, I see, it is one of those handy 'optical illusions', right? Caused by 'atmospheric conditions'? :wink:

To be fair, your question is unreasonable, which is why nobody answered.

It's as if you asked your science teacher to explain mirages and said, "But don't use 'optical illusion' in your explanation.  I want to know why on a hot day, water gathers in pools far away from you, and then drains suddenly when you get near it!  It's not an illusion, I could see the water right there, and now it's gone!"

Flat Earth Q&A / My reason(s) for the world being Round
« on: May 25, 2006, 02:46:10 PM »
Quote from: "Scruffy"
It Is possible to fly around the earth without adjusting your altitude, bearing or speed (if you had sufficient fuel)

I'm nitpicking a bit here, but you'll have to further refine your statement, because it is still not true:  Even if fuel is not a problem, due to local wind direction and/or imperfections in the airplane, no airplane flies in a perfectly straight line.

It's like driving: you have to keep your hands on the steering wheel, even while driving on a perfectly straight section of the highway, because even if your wheels are perfectly balanced (which they rarely are), sooner or later small bumps in the road will send you off to one side or the other.  Also, a driver can use objects in the distance for directions since they are at least a few hours away and presumably stationary.

Airplane pilots have no such markers in the air (sun, moon, and the stars all move relatively fast when your travel time is counted in hours), nor can they rely on their plane to fly straight for hours without drifting.  They have to use a compass or ground signals (or the ground itself) to orient themselves.

Of course, if pilots do that, then the plane will simply fly in a circle around the North pole on a Flat Earth, but think that the plane has circumscribed the Earth.

Announcements / Forums announcements, suggestions, etc..
« on: April 01, 2006, 11:45:45 PM »
Spherical is a more accurate description, but I liked Round in that one can also say RE stands for "Real Earth" (as opposed to "Fake Earth").  Although I suppose SE could also be "Standard Earth".

Flat Earth Q&A / Flat Earth Society
« on: April 01, 2006, 11:42:04 PM »
Also, I think FlatAsAPancake and From Down Under are the same person.  So one less FEer there...

Makes me wonder how many members out of Johnson's 3000 subscribers were actual Flat Earth Believers; and how many were people who subscribed for amusement reasons.

Oh, and how many more were mere aliases for government organizations keeping tabs on Johnson.

Flat Earth Q&A / What about parachuting and hang gliding?
« on: April 01, 2006, 11:30:13 PM »
Quote from: "mbczion"
sudden "deceleration"

"Jerk", in the jargon of physics.  Bravo.

Flat Earth Q&A / Can some FE's explain the following...
« on: March 27, 2006, 10:32:01 AM »
I seem to remember there was an answer to most of them in the FAQ.  Of course, now that this animation is almost finished it should be clearer:

Unfortunately, I was idiotic enough to give it transparency, which makes it really difficult to watch.  I'm fixing that as well as the size constraint for photobuckets.

Observe that in the 'summer', the sun orbits closer to the north pole, and lights it continuously; while in 'winter' it never shines on the north pole.

Also note that in FE theory there can be no such thing as 6 months of continuous daylight in the Antarctic, only conspiracies.

Flat Earth Q&A / More plausible gravity theory
« on: March 27, 2006, 10:22:08 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
I wave my private parts at your volume integral.
Child's play.

Hey!  Some people happen to have a healthy fear of volume integrals.  (and I apologize for the unfortunate placement of the <snip>)

Some satellites follow lines of longitude; how would they get through the big disc?

Good point.  They're not really satellites?  I'm afraid most aerospace endeavors run into the 'conspiracy' theory.

Anyway, I think I like the mother pillar theory better than the mother disc theory.  You need the disc to be really thick anyway, so that the center of gravity is as far down away from the Earth as possible.  Having a very wide disc doesn't really help, except insofaras it adds mass.

Does it really?  If the disc is almost infinitely wide but very light, then the CoG becomes a nebulous region immediately under the Earth.

The problem with a more distant centre of gravity is that we can actually measure the distance to the centre of gravity using the inverse-square relation for gravity.  From that, we can calculate the mass of the pillar or disc required.

I'm not too sure this is possible.  There are two unknowns: Mass of disc or pillar, and distance to CoG, and only one equation.  It would actually be easier if the CoG is closer, that way, we can vary r and discount experimental errors in precision.

Lastly, the problem with the centrifugal acceleration model, while appealing, is the same as with the linear acceleration model: why does it appear that the stars have this simple circular motion through the sky?

Right.  However, in any acceleration model the skydome would have to move with the Earth in order for the stars to keep appearing.  Otherwise, we'd lose some eventually behind the FE disc.

The Lounge / God's alignment
« on: March 26, 2006, 09:54:42 PM »
But the Tree of Knowledge did not impart mortality to Adam and Eve.  They were mortal to begin with.  The betrayal of trust meant that God did not also want them to eat from the Tree of Life, which would have given them immortality.

Flat Earth Q&A / More plausible gravity theory
« on: March 24, 2006, 04:17:03 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Um, no, it's a bowl in the orientation of a bowls that you eat cereal out of or knead dough in or whatever.  Concave-up.

First of all, I can't believe I missed this thread when I signed up here.  Very interesting, as I was thinking along the same direction for a while to cope with FE gravity alternatives.

Now, typically Erasmus has good points, but I think this one is a bit off.  The center of gravity of a concave object may not be inside the object's surface.  For a bowl with enough slant for a FE to slide toward the center it may be above the surface.  This could potentially make theta very noticible because we're not attracted to a point way under the earth.

It also makes the math of calculating gravity very tricky. Instead of simply using the total mass of the disc and distance to geometric center, you'd have to do a volume intergral of the bowl.

For some reason, I like this hypothesis better than the accelerating upward model.  Although, the centripetal model is intriguing too.  I guess it is because both of these assume a finite universe instead of an infinite one with nothing else in it.

Flat Earth Q&A / can FE do me a favor?
« on: March 17, 2006, 02:07:39 PM »
That is why there are two conditions, the second of which is that the earth actively repels light.

Otherwise you'd be right: light rays parallel with the ground would stay parallel forever, and light rays coming in from less-dense materials would become parallel forever.

But all that is sort of moot since this is just a thought experiment, and that first part is very iffy.  I could contend that from air to liquid (e.g. water) or solid (e.g. prism) light bends toward the normal, but air-air works differently?

Let's make the theory even simpler: The Earth actively and STRONGLY repels light, despite atmospheric refraction.  My pictures still stand.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Devil Worship?
« on: March 17, 2006, 12:10:48 AM »
A few points:

Another reason for Jesus becoming flesh and be sacrificed is also that as an omnipotent being without flesh, God has never experienced what dying entails.  Therefore, being one of us and experience that particular bit of truth about mortality is a way of saying, "You know what?  I get it now.  Dying is not pleasant.  I should know; I died once.  As for this and this morality problem you have, if I were you (and I was just like you, remember?), I'd do this instead of this...  You know what?  All this stuff is in a book.  Go read it."

Of course, one interpretation of the Apocalypse requires the son of the Devil to live amongst us, gets assassinated, and rises from that death to claim the world throne.  This, I imagine, is a even more difficult task.  If Satanists believe in 'living it up', as the saying goes, it'd be very difficult to say, "Alright, time to take over the world...  Who's gonna shoot me?"

Flat Earth Q&A / Which camp are you in? POLL
« on: March 16, 2006, 11:45:39 PM »
So many juicy things to tear apart.  I had to jump in before Erasmus wakes up for the day:

Quote from: "googleSearch"
Because Mormonism and Jehovahís witnesses were not around in 1600, Bible was.

Similar doesn't mean "taken from". And how do YOU know that there are older religions than Christianity? How do you know rituals were taken from other religions? I don't think you were there at that time.

Neither were you.  How do you know which religion is older?

Quote sometime in 16 century there were too many translations of the Bible, some of them were corrupt, so King James ordered a new translation from Hebrew, which I think is the closest to the original as you can get.

Ha ha ha!  Somewhere out there, a biblical scholar is spinning in his grave.

If I recall correctly, the KJV was not translated from the Aramaic but rather the Greek version. The Old Testament translations were all kinds of messed up.  Granted, the New Testament was pretty much already written in Greek, but there were mistranslations even there.  For example, the "mustard tree" that grew from a "mustard seed", such a popular term in Christianity, neither existed in the Middle-East region in Biblical times, nor is it a 'Tree' by any definition of the word (mustard is a shrub plant, at the most).

Actually it would, thatís why they signed it.

Whoa... You have a Bible signed by Adam, Noah, and Moses?  You should sell that sucker on eBay!

It also contains the story of Paul, who was there with Jesus, and his story matches Luke's

I'm disappointed.  I thought you have read your Scriptures.  Paul was named Saul before his conversion, before which he prosecuted the Early Christians fanatically.  Luke was a follower.  Neither Paul nor Luke has ever seen Jesus in person during their lifetime.

And how do you know nobody was there? (Regarding the soliloquy in the Garden before Jesus's capture)

Again, if you read your Scriptures, you'd known that it specifically states that Jesus left the diciples to go pray alone, came back to find them sleeping, and scolded them for it.  Judas did not lead the soldiers to Jesus until after He got back to the diciples.

So? People still write books about WW2 and holocaust, so what?

Man.. don't go there.  Especially with some Holocaust deniers hanging around here sometimes.

(Regarding Bible's compilation) I'm sure those people were not politicians, but religious leaders.
All of the stories were talking about the same thing, I think it was the matter of picking the ones that were easier to read, or maybe ones that were in better physical shape than others.

So why aren't you Catholic?  The Council of Trent was composed of the top religious leaders of the time, and they chose what went into the Catholic version of the Bible (which is the original version, BTW).  The Protestant Bible was the version picked by Martin Luther.  It's one man vs. a whole Council.  Who are you going to believe in?  :)

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: We are all just sit'n and spinning here......
« on: March 16, 2006, 10:57:05 PM »
Quote from: "Mach1"
We are moving in so many directions I'm starting to get veritgo, ohh crap I'm having problems standing, no I don't think it is the speed and direction we are going that is making me sick, it is the bad booze I have been drinking.

No no no.  You have it backwards.  Alcohol is the antidote that gives you a glimpse of the real world.  When you feel drunk and the room looks like it's spinning, that is because the whole world is actually spinning and you're seeing it for exactly what it is.

If you buy that, I know a good deal on a certain bridge in Brooklyn.

Flat Earth Q&A / Proof of Gravity
« on: March 16, 2006, 10:51:17 PM »
Quote from: "Icekiller33"
There is obiously nothing attached to the moon. I mean i can look at the damn thing with my telescope. The moon is orbiting us, by gravity, gravity that the earth has.

In the Flat Earth Society's model, the moon does not orbit the earth but rather, a point above the earth.  Therefore, the earth does not have to have gravity, and indeed cannot have gravity in this model, because that would literally cause the sky to fall.

And at this point, I would like to point out to ALL the people who wants to talk about "earth's gravity is too great for blah blah blah", that a spherical Earth's crust contributes considerably less than .01% of the mass of Earth.  If the Flat Earth is relatively thin (like a pancake, as FEers usually say), then the gravity it provides is almost negligible.

Quote from: "Icekiller33"
And if there was a track, what would it be powered by?

Force-labored angels with 2 pairs of wings each?  Apollo's chariot?  Oh wait no, that's the Sun...  Maybe the moon is a sentient being, going around in circles eating stars, like Pac-man.  *wakka wakka*

Scientists have worked with the spherical earth model for a long time, so most things in the ordinary world are explained with it, for it.  For Flat Earth, not as much.  So, it's an incomplete theory.  Feel priviledged that you may get to add to it.  Just don't credit me...  For the love of God, please don't.

Flat Earth Q&A / Please clear this up
« on: March 16, 2006, 10:30:17 PM »
First of all, on a Flat Earth, the sun and moon disappear off the horizon every day just by being far enough away east or west from where you are.  So it's very easy to see different sets of stars as you travel North-South.  They are simply too far north or south for you to see on a fixed point on earth.  But you'd have to travel pretty far to see a whole different set of stars.  But then, that's true on a spherical Earth as well.

Secondly, I don't believe anybody who lives in the Southern half (3/4 if Earth is flat) can believe that there is no South Pole.  They only have to look to the sky and see the celestial south pole as proof that there is a southern end to Earth.

Unless down under, they believe that the South Pole is the center of a flat earth...

Flat Earth Q&A / can FE do me a favor?
« on: March 16, 2006, 09:42:32 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
The Earth would appear smaller than it really is.

Not just smaller.  You only get half a pat on the back.

Following your example, I started playing with MS Paint.  So this is how the FE-distortion theory works on a ship sailing off (Yellow lines being line-of-sight, or how light curves because of the many slight bendings as it passes through layers of different density of air):

And from above the atmosphere:

So yes, it definitely would look smaller because you'd only see a part.  That partial view would also look.....

Flat Earth Q&A / Air, can FE'ers prove it?
« on: March 15, 2006, 12:04:51 AM »
Quote from: "Silent Knight"
In Japanese, it means 'Advanced life, one who has advanced' but I also think it can mean 'advancing life'.

For those of you who speak neither, it is read as Sen-Sei, and means teacher. So I suppose it could mean 'sir' in that respect too, as in 'Is that the right answer, Sir?'

Devotion is partially correct.  The characters in Chinese actually also means "earlier/advanced" "born/life".  However, it cannot mean 'advancing life' in Chinese, only 'born earlier'.  And colloquially, it does mean 'mister' or 'Sir' because the connotation that someone older than you should be respected.  In Chinese it is almost exclusively used for male, with exceptions only when honoring someone, and even then it is rare (the phrase meaning "Lady" is used more often).

And that is the Chinese lesson for the day.  Class dismissed.

By the way, b***tard has only three *'s.

Zing!  But I think he meant a different prefix before -tard.  One that rhymes with duck.

Flat Earth Q&A / can FE do me a favor?
« on: March 14, 2006, 11:46:50 PM »
This is a good time to introduce another thought that has been haunting me since I've been here about the "atmospheric distortions":

So, with a giant leap of illogic, let's say that the laws of refraction works in reverse in the air, so that light bends more off the angle of incidence when it enters a denser part of the atmosphere (instead of less, like it does in real life).  In addition, Earth's surface somehow repels light just a bit.  Then this "atmospheric distortion" would work.

Think of these distortions as light is "repeled" away from Earth's surface as it travels.  I use "repel" and not "bent" because it is a gradual effect as air density changes gradually.  The longer light travels through the atmosphere parallel to Earth's surface, the farther off its original course it becomes.  That is, until it exits the atmosphere.  Therefore, it should be a global phenomenom. Ok "global" is a bad term for FE.  I mean that the effects should affect the entire earth.

Anyhow, the net effects I'm trying to achieve is that let's assume the distortion really works in this gradual manner.  One would see objects 'sink' as it departs from us; one would see the sun, moon, and stars go below the horizon; and one would see the horizon as a fixed radius.

Now, the million-quatloos questions is:  What would an astronaut (or a camera on a spaceship) see once it is above the atmosphere, given this distortion?

The first to answer gets to pat him/herself on the back.

Flat Earth Q&A / If the Earth is flat...
« on: March 14, 2006, 11:17:31 PM »
Quote from: "Silent Knight"
So, supposing the earth is acting like the bucket on a rope? It is accelerating towards the centre, but it has a sideways motion which means that it will never reach it. We can then have acceleration for an infinite amount of time, and we don't ever have to approach the speed of light.
Of course, this involves the existence of something pulling us towards the centre of whatever we're then going round, but the other theory had a force pushing it too.

How does that sound?

You know, I've been pondering that possibility as a revised model of FE ('cause Johnson's model has large holes) for a while now, but couldn't figure out how to begin to calculate the centripetal-orbit.  You see, there is no reason that this centripetal-orbit is a yearly cycle.  But a year is a good point to start.  At least we'll get some numbers.

Flat Earth Q&A / Tides!?!?!
« on: March 14, 2006, 10:33:51 PM »
Somehow, I think Penguin888 meant on Flat Earth.  Although I guess one could say that the Flat Earth's rocking is somehow synchronized with the moon's movements.  After all, the Round Earth does.

As to the details, we'll need somebody who is good with fluid mechanics.

Flat Earth Q&A / Proof of Gravity
« on: March 14, 2006, 09:55:19 PM »
Quote from: "ADI82"
Ok, now, refill the bucket. Has to be a bucket with some type of handle. Now flip it in circles going up and down as fast as you can. Just spin your arm. The water stays in. So that proves there is *some* force that is using its momentum to grip onto another object. We have named that force gravity.

I wouldn't exactly call that gravity.  I think that's what commonly (and erroneously) referred to as the centrifugal "force".  Of course, any physics teacher will tell you "Centrifugarl force is not a real force" and give you a long explanation on how centripetal force works.

Of course, what you see is what you get with FEers, so centrifugarl force might be enough.

Flat Earth Q&A / Which camp are you in? POLL
« on: March 13, 2006, 04:48:51 PM »
Quote from: "googleSearch"
That is brilliant, espesially the "not limited to the Bible" part. So, how do you choose which parts are to be taken metaphorically and which are not? Which parts of the bible do you believe in?

Certainly the obvious metaphors: visions, dreams, prophecies, poetry, songs, allegorical stories, and parables, have to be taken as such.

As for the rest, it's a discerning process:  If a particular "historical" scripture contradicts with most other credible historical evidence, then look at that verse from the writer's perspective, and see what a biased history teaches us about our faith.  If a particular "scientific" scripture contradicts with most other credible scientific evidence, then look at that verse through the eye of the writer to see what was observed to make the writer come to this conclusion while attempting to put God's Words into human words.

Basically, we just look for God's Truth in words tainted by human ignorance, pride, and bias.

Flat Earth Q&A / How about this proof?
« on: March 13, 2006, 02:51:22 PM »
Yes, you are both correct.  Now that I've thought about it more, the effect could not be exactly the same.  After all, if the north-pole-center magnetic disc cannot actually exist, one cannot approximate its field anyway.  The closest approximation is the torus magnet, which I'm not too sure can exist either.

However, I'm convinced that it could be similar, at least in that all compasses on this surface will point out "North" and "South" in the FE-correct fashion: North being toward the center, and South toward the edge/side.

Recall the toy/experiment with iron filings on a piece of paper and a magnet underneath pointing with the north pole straight up:  While the filings form spikes directly above the magnet, the spikes point outward from the "center" of the magnet's upper surface.

It is a very awkward explanation of the magnetic field of FE, and can be disproved by a North-South road-trip experiment as well.

Quote from: "Welsh"
Where the hell would u find a black piece of paper in space?

Where would you get a beach ball in space?  Same reason: you brought it with you for the experiment

Flat Earth Q&A / The Flat Earth FAQ Thread
« on: March 13, 2006, 12:03:13 AM »
Quote from: "mbczion"
Well, according to the Flat Earth Society's home site:

This comes up often enough that maybe it should be included in the FAQ as a spoof site.

Flat Earth Q&A / The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?
« on: March 12, 2006, 11:51:33 PM »
Quote from: "Mech Tau"
... If the earth is flat, then the lengths of all the shadows should be identical when measured simultaneously, since all rays of sunlight that strike the earth are parallel. However, they are not identical, but in fact, varies in such a way that the angles indicate a spherical surface. (This was one of the earliest methods to determine the radius of the earth)"

Ah, but this experiment assumes the sun to be far away from the earth and much larger than earth, resulting in all sunlight rays to be parallel.  Flat Earth Theory assumes the opposite (sun is much smaller and relatively close).  (Also, if you haven't, please go through the FAQ thread.)

Flat Earth Q&A / How about this proof?
« on: March 12, 2006, 11:40:05 PM »
Quote from: "I_am_me"
sorry erasmus. I forgot to tell you, I looked it up, and asked about it on physicsforums. It is impossible to have a maget with a pole in the center and the other pole as a ring around the outside. A flat earth could not have a magnetic field where one pole is at the north pole, and the other is at the south pole. Because magnetic north is always in the direction of the north pole (generally) then a flat earth could not exist, at least not one where the north pole is in the center.

Sorry, but I have to poke a hole in your statement.  I believe that people told you it's impossible.  And they should, because you were asking the wrong question.  A thin disc with the north pole in the center and the south pole on the edges is pretty much impossible, even without attempting some Maxwell's equation on it.  Just drawing the magnetic lines would tell you that (magnetic lines cannot have sharp turns, which they would have to at the "north pole" of this disc).

However, the flat earth is the top of a cylinder with the top as north pole, and the bottom as south pole.  You would get the same effect as if the edges of that cylinder is the south pole, if you were limited to only the flat top disc of that cylinder.

Am I making any sense with this?  The edge of the FE would not be the real magnetic south pole, just the effective magnetic south pole.

Of course, in this model, the magnetic field would weaken the further one is from the magnetic north pole, which is not at the exact center of Flat Earth, but pretty close.  Although I suspect that magnetic field varies a bit on the real Earth, I also suspect that it becomes stronger near the magnetic north pole (which currently is not at the "top" of the real Earth, but somewhere in the seas off northern Canada) and also near the magnetic south pole.

Another possibility may be that FE is not a thin, solid disc, but a torus, just like a CD, DVD, or LP, and the inside edge is north while outer edge is south pole.  Although I'm not too sure if this magnetic configuration is possible.


Do you even bother reading these people's replies?  What are your thoughts?  Or are you just trolling with this obviously outdated "question"?

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Moon landings information
« on: March 11, 2006, 07:23:33 PM »
to gran:

The reason is economics: The Russians are willing to "send somebody up to space" for about 2 US$million, while NASA needs one US$billion for each space shuttle launch, and refuses to take anyone but trained people doing actual semi-valuable work (very few of which has resulted in anything worth the investment).

Of course, the reason that Russian price is so relatively low is that their equipment is even older than the US space shuttles, which were designed over 30 years ago.  They are also much less concerned with this concept called Safety.  Let's not even mention "comfort".

Oh yeah, and also, apparently their definition of "send somebody up to space" is the same as "Oh the rockets aren't ready today.  We'll send you in 10 years, if we haven't spent all the money on other infrastructure or sold our rockets to Iran... what?  You already paid?  Too bad!" :p

Pages: [1] 2 3 4