Do you believe in just about evry astronomical definition, law, or anythign evr?

  • 397 Replies
  • 117077 Views
*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Your right, I cant travel back in time.  If I could I could go there and detect the changed gravity. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • +0/-0
  • Rick <3 Gayer
lol tell that to your internet you are using right now,  And your cell phone in your pocket, and your TV, and your GPS in your 2007 Escalade.   


None of those thing require sattelites on FE.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
  I have been arguing with Engineer on GPS, he is losing.

I must have missed that.  Perhaps you can remind me of what thread that's in.


BTW, that satellite 'picture' of gravity is nothing of the kind.  It is a false color representation of data collected by 'satellites' on the density of the earth's crust.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

lucky

  • 127
  • +0/-0

So assuming that the value of g at the north and southpole is less than at the equator at sea level. You are still sure that the rocking motion causing the tides are also linked to that of the change in gravity at the diffeent locations?

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • +0/-0
  • Rick <3 Gayer



Is it just me, or does that black spot seem to grow larger if you look around the picture then back at it? (like those email optical illusions)

?

lucky

  • 127
  • +0/-0

And on the subject of GPS, i remember earlier engineer you said about lighter then air transievers as to how we can propagate information, that would have the same purpose as a satellite, to relay information.

But to do this and cover the whole world would require a whole network of these lighter than air transievers. Does such a network exist?

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • +0/-0
  • Rick <3 Gayer
Possibly - but on FE, large radio towers could also contribute well.

?

Theearthisafreakingsphere

Erm.. do all FE-ers use 'conspiracy' as a result of being unable to answer questions with definitive and evidencial theory?

?

Theearthisafreakingsphere

FE-ers say that the earth, sun, moon etc. are accelerating upwards at 9.81m/s^2; the moon and sun have gravititional pulls whereas the earth does not. If this is so then wouldn't the 'flat earth' eventually hit the sun or moon due the its diagonal motion- gravitional pull from the sun and moon and its apparent acceleration upward?
« Last Edit: March 01, 2007, 02:29:45 AM by Theearthisafreakingsphere »

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • +0/-0
  • Rick <3 Gayer
Erm.. do all FE-ers use 'conspiracy' as a result of being unable to answer questions with definitive and evidencial theory?

Where has that been claimed in this thread?  :-\

?

lucky

  • 127
  • +0/-0
FE-ers say that the earth, sun, moon etc. are accelerating upwards at 9.81m/s^2; the moon and sun have gravititional pulls whereas the earth does not. If this is so then wouldn't the 'flat earth' eventually hit the sun or moon due the its diagonal motion- gravitional pull from the sun and moon and its apparent acceleration upward?


An interesting theory, so you are saying that the stars pull the earth upwards slightly faster than 9.8 m/s^2 because of the gravitational attraction between, so we are accelerating slightly faster than the sun and moon??? So eventually we will crash into them?

But in the FAQ it says the earth does not generate its own gravity, and an FE-er would probably argue that it would be uneffected by the stars gravitational attraction.

But Wait. The earth does not have its own gravitational field? IS this not another vialation of a fundimental law of physics?

The earth has a mass, and gravity is a propery of all mass.

« Last Edit: March 01, 2007, 04:26:07 AM by lucky »

?

The Terror

  • 1773
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Propane Tank
How can the moon and the sun, which in the FE model are quite small, generate gravity, where the earth, which is massively bigger than them, doesn't?

?

lucky

  • 127
  • +0/-0
Yeh, they say something about that in the FAQ, and i quote:

Q:  Follow-up to previous question:  How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?

A:  This argument is a non sequitur.  You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?"  Snakes are not dogs or cats.  The Earth is not a star or the moon.  It doesn't follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.



Which violates a very fundimental law of physics. That every mass produces gravity.


?

The Terror

  • 1773
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Propane Tank
They seem to be saying "the universe doesn't make sense, which means we're right and you're wrong"

?

lucky

  • 127
  • +0/-0

But really, RE-ers can hardly say they understand the complete workings of the universe. It just seems to me that they can however explain a lot more with more consistant answers that all tie in with each other and make sense in the context of each other.

If this is not true then FE-ers please tell me how the earth does not have its own gravity? The earth obviously has a mass, therefore it MUST have its own gravity.

It is the a FUNDIMENTAL LAW OF PHYSICS.

If this is wrong we might aswell start all scientific theories from the stoneage. Seeing as almost everything in modern science is based on this.


Well can any FE-er help me out?

Really i want to believe the earth is flat.

?

lucky

  • 127
  • +0/-0
Can i get an answer FE-ers? or is this beyond you? Proof that at at least some of your theory is wrong?

?

akira

  • 415
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earth Proponent
they'll just say "its already asked on other previous threads". trust me :P

for now, it's better to log out and come back after 12 hours, or else you'll just have a nonsense argument with one of the FE'ers.

YOU'RE WRONG, IM RIGHT.
IM RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG.

PS: Engineer is very stupid and brainwashed, probably from the tv show 'Teletubbies' -- when he was still in juvie.

Engineer, go back to school, or perhaps be smart enough to get in NASA and disprove what we believe in.
GPS does not require satellites, fortunately it uses it.

?

lucky

  • 127
  • +0/-0

Well FE-ers are you going to take this?

Come on, you must have some come back, another theory, or conspiracy to this arguement. Well?

How can a mass not have/be effected by gravity? because that is what you are effectively saying in your FAQ.

So in theory the earth should be uneffected by a black hole? ..... according to you.

Have i understood you correctly?


*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • +0/-0
  • The Reverse Engineer
Engineer, go back to school, or perhaps be smart enough to get in NASA and disprove what we believe in.

Based on what I have read on this forum I will say with much certainty that TheEngineer is more educated that yourself.  He has never said anything that is untrue -- at least to the best of my knowledge. 

Can i get an answer FE-ers? or is this beyond you? Proof that at at least some of your theory is wrong?
The Earth is not as massive as you think it is.  Thus, there is MUCH less acceleration due to gravity. 

?

lucky

  • 127
  • +0/-0

So you are telling me that the earth does produce gravity?

In this case your FAQ is wrong. Or misleading as it says:

Q: "If the Earth was indeed a flat disc, wouldn't the whole planet crunch up into itself and eventually transform into a ball?"

A1: If the Earth generated a gravitational field, yes, it would eventually happen, after a billion years maybe. FE assumes that the Earth does not generate a gravitational field. Also, I'm not sure what FE's stance on the age of the world is, but it's plausible that it's a younger estimation than the RE claim.




Q:  Follow-up to previous question:  How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?

A:  This argument is a non sequitur.  You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?"  Snakes are not dogs or cats.  The Earth is not a star or the moon.  It doesn't follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.




Well is it wrong then?

and to Eviltoothpaste, therewill always be a force due to gravity on an object no matter how small the mass is.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • +0/-0
  • The Reverse Engineer
I believe the Earth does produce gravity, yes.  But that's just, like, my opinion, man. 

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • +0/-0
  • Rick <3 Gayer
Some members believe the Earth does not produce gravity, some believe it has a slight gravitational pull.

?

lucky

  • 127
  • +0/-0
Some members believe the Earth does not produce gravity, some believe it has a slight gravitational pull.


CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN PLEASE. YOU IZ ALL NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.



HOW CAN THE EARTH HAVE NO GRAVITY, IT IS A MASS!!
« Last Edit: March 01, 2007, 06:50:37 PM by lucky »

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • +0/-0
  • Rick <3 Gayer
Some members believe the Earth does not produce gravity, some believe it has a slight gravitational pull.


CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN PLEASE. YOU IZ ALL NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.



HOW CAN THE EARTH HAVE NO GRAVITY, IT IS A MASS!!


I'd say it's safe to say that those who believe the Earth has no gravity probably challenge the accepted theory of gravity.

?

lucky

  • 127
  • +0/-0
Some members believe the Earth does not produce gravity, some believe it has a slight gravitational pull.


CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN PLEASE. YOU IZ ALL NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.



HOW CAN THE EARTH HAVE NO GRAVITY, IT IS A MASS!!


I'd say it's safe to say that those who believe the Earth has no gravity probably challenge the accepted theory of gravity.



HEY DO YOU PLAY DOTA TOO???

And those who challenge gravity f33d.

?

Closso

  • 32
  • +0/-0
The Earth would not shrivel up into a ball if it has a gravitational field because a flat earth does not have the majority of its mass located at the center, like a round Earth does (I'm fairly certain the round Earth does have most of its mass concentrated at the core, though it may be in the mantle.  Either way, its somewhat centralized, and therefore it makes sense that the mass of the Earth would scrunch up into a ball if it were not already spherical).  The mass of a flat earth is, more or less, equally spread out and therefore there is no reason for it all to be pulled to the center.  So, its perfectly reasonable for the Earth to have some gravitational field.

At least, that's how I think the FE'ers should explain it.

?

astronomy101

  • 297
  • +0/-0
FE-ers say that the earth, sun, moon etc. are accelerating upwards at 9.81m/s^2; the moon and sun have gravititional pulls whereas the earth does not. If this is so then wouldn't the 'flat earth' eventually hit the sun or moon due the its diagonal motion- gravitional pull from the sun and moon and its apparent acceleration upward?


An interesting theory, so you are saying that the stars pull the earth upwards slightly faster than 9.8 m/s^2 because of the gravitational attraction between, so we are accelerating slightly faster than the sun and moon??? So eventually we will crash into them?

But in the FAQ it says the earth does not generate its own gravity, and an FE-er would probably argue that it would be uneffected by the stars gravitational attraction.

But Wait. The earth does not have its own gravitational field? IS this not another vialation of a fundimental law of physics?

The earth has a mass, and gravity is a propery of all mass.



Thje stars with their gravity pull the sun and the moon at the same force the moon and sun pull us thereby offsetting any net gain.
Damn fool.
Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell.... Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.

?

lucky

  • 127
  • +0/-0
FE-ers say that the earth, sun, moon etc. are accelerating upwards at 9.81m/s^2; the moon and sun have gravititional pulls whereas the earth does not. If this is so then wouldn't the 'flat earth' eventually hit the sun or moon due the its diagonal motion- gravitional pull from the sun and moon and its apparent acceleration upward?


An interesting theory, so you are saying that the stars pull the earth upwards slightly faster than 9.8 m/s^2 because of the gravitational attraction between, so we are accelerating slightly faster than the sun and moon??? So eventually we will crash into them?

But in the FAQ it says the earth does not generate its own gravity, and an FE-er would probably argue that it would be uneffected by the stars gravitational attraction.

But Wait. The earth does not have its own gravitational field? IS this not another vialation of a fundimental law of physics?

The earth has a mass, and gravity is a propery of all mass.



Thje stars with their gravity pull the sun and the moon at the same force the moon and sun pull us thereby offsetting any net gain.
Damn fool.


Are you seriously stupid or something astronomy 101?

Firstly this is not my theory i am just commenting on it.

Secondly, based on the FE-ers theory in the FAQ it says the earth has no gravitational pull. Which if you choose to believe that you really do belong in a nursery, with astronomy101.

SO, assuming the earth does have gravity, the stars, the sun and the moon will have a gravitational force on the earth.

Now DamnFool101..... i mean astronomy101. This is where you should listen:

If the stars have a gravitational affect on the sun and the moon it will also have one on the earth.

Assuming the stars pull the earth, the moon and the sun at the same rate. There there would be no net change between the distance from the earth, the moon and the sun.

But seeing as the earth does have its own gravity, therefore would that not pull the moon and the sun towards the earth, which would mean they would eventually collide regardless of the stars???

Do you understand astronomy101 or should i draw you a nice felt tip pen colour picture, like the ones in your nursery?

« Last Edit: March 01, 2007, 11:58:20 PM by lucky »

?

lucky

  • 127
  • +0/-0
ASTRONOMY101 WHY SUDDENLY NOT SO LOUD NOW??????


Well FE-ers i leave that question open to you all?   Can i get an answer??

?

astronomy101

  • 297
  • +0/-0
FE-ers say that the earth, sun, moon etc. are accelerating upwards at 9.81m/s^2; the moon and sun have gravititional pulls whereas the earth does not. If this is so then wouldn't the 'flat earth' eventually hit the sun or moon due the its diagonal motion- gravitional pull from the sun and moon and its apparent acceleration upward?

Your so smart. I wish I was a FEer so I could make up something to post again. I repeat, I usually believe the earth is a sphere.
Sayin'


An interesting theory, so you are saying that the stars pull the earth upwards slightly faster than 9.8 m/s^2 because of the gravitational attraction between, so we are accelerating slightly faster than the sun and moon??? So eventually we will crash into them?

But in the FAQ it says the earth does not generate its own gravity, and an FE-er would probably argue that it would be uneffected by the stars gravitational attraction.

But Wait. The earth does not have its own gravitational field? IS this not another vialation of a fundimental law of physics?

The earth has a mass, and gravity is a propery of all mass.



Thje stars with their gravity pull the sun and the moon at the same force the moon and sun pull us thereby offsetting any net gain.
Damn fool.


Are you seriously stupid or something astronomy 101?

Firstly this is not my theory i am just commenting on it.

Secondly, based on the FE-ers theory in the FAQ it says the earth has no gravitational pull. Which if you choose to believe that you really do belong in a nursery, with astronomy101.

SO, assuming the earth does have gravity, the stars, the sun and the moon will have a gravitational force on the earth.

Now DamnFool101..... i mean astronomy101. This is where you should listen:

If the stars have a gravitational affect on the sun and the moon it will also have one on the earth.

Assuming the stars pull the earth, the moon and the sun at the same rate. There there would be no net change between the distance from the earth, the moon and the sun.

But seeing as the earth does have its own gravity, therefore would that not pull the moon and the sun towards the earth, which would mean they would eventually collide regardless of the stars???

Do you understand astronomy101 or should i draw you a nice felt tip pen colour picture, like the ones in your nursery?


Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell.... Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.