Some proofs of FE

The proofs of FE are innumerable and beyond counting. Amongst them:

* When we look out at sea, the Earth looks flat. There is no so-called "horizon." Ships dissapear uniformly, not bottom to top.
* The gravitational vector never changes orientation, even when you go to "the other side of the planet," proving that we live on a flat surface where gravity is always straight down.
* The UN logo.
* Why should the Earth be finite? Why should it have 924,375,700 km circumference? Why not 924,375,600 km or 924,375,800 km? Stop denying the obvious truth of the Infinite Planar Earth.
* How could explorers report all these things in their secret journals about other lands? With such concordance? Are they ALL lying?

The proofs of FE are innumerable and beyond counting. Amongst them:

* When we look out at sea, the Earth looks flat. There is no so-called "horizon." Ships dissapear uniformly, not bottom to top.
* The gravitational vector never changes orientation, even when you go to "the other side of the planet," proving that we live on a flat surface where gravity is always straight down.
* The UN logo.
* Why should the Earth be finite? Why should it have 924,375,700 km circumference? Why not 924,375,600 km or 924,375,800 km? Stop denying the obvious truth of the Infinite Planar Earth.
* How could explorers report all these things in their secret journals about other lands? With such concordance? Are they ALL lying?

Quote from: Francois Tremblay, of the Infinite Plane on March 15, 2007, 11:55:38 PM

The proofs of FE are innumerable and beyond counting. Amongst them:

* When we look out at sea, the Earth looks flat. There is no so-called "horizon." Ships dissapear uniformly, not bottom to top.
* The gravitational vector never changes orientation, even when you go to "the other side of the planet," proving that we live on a flat surface where gravity is always straight down.
* The UN logo.
* Why should the Earth be finite? Why should it have 924,375,700 km circumference? Why not 924,375,600 km or 924,375,800 km? Stop denying the obvious truth of the Infinite Planar Earth.
* How could explorers report all these things in their secret journals about other lands? With such concordance? Are they ALL lying?

*If there is no so called horizon, how do ships appear to sink from view ubrupty rather than gradually fading.
*The gravitational vector always points towards the center of mass.  So a round earth is not impossible.
*The garvitational acceleration would be much greater than 9.8m/s/s, at least within a lcoalized area of FE
*The UN logo has been stated numerous times that it is a 2-D representation of global Earth (or a poorly constructed and inaccurate FE model).
*Look up Eratosthenes' calculations.
*Those journals wouldn't be secret now, would they.  Which journals are you refering to and provide the proofs these journals contain.

Quote from: Geordi la Forge on March 16, 2007, 10:19:06 AM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay, of the Infinite Plane on March 15, 2007, 11:55:38 PM

The proofs of FE are innumerable and beyond counting. Amongst them:

* When we look out at sea, the Earth looks flat. There is no so-called "horizon." Ships dissapear uniformly, not bottom to top.
* The gravitational vector never changes orientation, even when you go to "the other side of the planet," proving that we live on a flat surface where gravity is always straight down.
* The UN logo.
* Why should the Earth be finite? Why should it have 924,375,700 km circumference? Why not 924,375,600 km or 924,375,800 km? Stop denying the obvious truth of the Infinite Planar Earth.
* How could explorers report all these things in their secret journals about other lands? With such concordance? Are they ALL lying?

*If there is no so called horizon, how do ships appear to sink from view ubrupty rather than gradually fading.
*The gravitational vector always points towards the center of mass.  So a round earth is not impossible.
*The garvitational acceleration would be much greater than 9.8m/s/s, at least within a lcoalized area of FE
*The UN logo has been stated numerous times that it is a 2-D representation of global Earth (or a poorly constructed and inaccurate FE model).
*Look up Eratosthenes' calculations.
*Those journals wouldn't be secret now, would they.  Which journals are you refering to and provide the proofs these journals contain.

* They don't.
* No... it always points DOWNWARDS.
* No it wouldn't. Gravity on the Flat Earth is uniform at the surface, and becomes lesser as you go up in altitude.
* No one said it was accurate.
* No.
* They ARE secret.

Quote

*Yes they do, have you ever watched a ship. My father was in the navy and when his ship went out to sea I recall it slowly sinking over the horizon.

I hate this argument.

Quote from: Francois Tremblay, of the Infinite Plane on March 16, 2007, 05:31:36 PM

Quote from: Geordi la Forge on March 16, 2007, 10:19:06 AM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay, of the Infinite Plane on March 15, 2007, 11:55:38 PM

The proofs of FE are innumerable and beyond counting. Amongst them:

* When we look out at sea, the Earth looks flat. There is no so-called "horizon." Ships dissapear uniformly, not bottom to top.
* The gravitational vector never changes orientation, even when you go to "the other side of the planet," proving that we live on a flat surface where gravity is always straight down.
* The UN logo.
* Why should the Earth be finite? Why should it have 924,375,700 km circumference? Why not 924,375,600 km or 924,375,800 km? Stop denying the obvious truth of the Infinite Planar Earth.
* How could explorers report all these things in their secret journals about other lands? With such concordance? Are they ALL lying?

*If there is no so called horizon, how do ships appear to sink from view ubrupty rather than gradually fading.
*The gravitational vector always points towards the center of mass.  So a round earth is not impossible.
*The garvitational acceleration would be much greater than 9.8m/s/s, at least within a lcoalized area of FE
*The UN logo has been stated numerous times that it is a 2-D representation of global Earth (or a poorly constructed and inaccurate FE model).
*Look up Eratosthenes' calculations.
*Those journals wouldn't be secret now, would they.  Which journals are you refering to and provide the proofs these journals contain.

* They don't.
* No... it always points DOWNWARDS.
* No it wouldn't. Gravity on the Flat Earth is uniform at the surface, and becomes lesser as you go up in altitude.
* No one said it was accurate.
* No.
* They ARE secret.

*Yes they do, have you ever watched a ship. My father was in the navy and when his ship went out to sea I recall it slowly sinking over the horizon.
*On a round Earth, the center would be downwards.
*The UN thing is probably so they can show all the nations at once, not that the world is flat.

For the rest, others can answer with more accuracy.

Quote from: FEIPS on March 16, 2007, 05:38:48 PM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay, of the Infinite Plane on March 16, 2007, 05:31:36 PM

Quote from: Geordi la Forge on March 16, 2007, 10:19:06 AM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay, of the Infinite Plane on March 15, 2007, 11:55:38 PM

The proofs of FE are innumerable and beyond counting. Amongst them:

* When we look out at sea, the Earth looks flat. There is no so-called "horizon." Ships dissapear uniformly, not bottom to top.
* The gravitational vector never changes orientation, even when you go to "the other side of the planet," proving that we live on a flat surface where gravity is always straight down.
* The UN logo.
* Why should the Earth be finite? Why should it have 924,375,700 km circumference? Why not 924,375,600 km or 924,375,800 km? Stop denying the obvious truth of the Infinite Planar Earth.
* How could explorers report all these things in their secret journals about other lands? With such concordance? Are they ALL lying?

*If there is no so called horizon, how do ships appear to sink from view ubrupty rather than gradually fading.
*The gravitational vector always points towards the center of mass.  So a round earth is not impossible.
*The garvitational acceleration would be much greater than 9.8m/s/s, at least within a lcoalized area of FE
*The UN logo has been stated numerous times that it is a 2-D representation of global Earth (or a poorly constructed and inaccurate FE model).
*Look up Eratosthenes' calculations.
*Those journals wouldn't be secret now, would they.  Which journals are you refering to and provide the proofs these journals contain.

* They don't.
* No... it always points DOWNWARDS.
* No it wouldn't. Gravity on the Flat Earth is uniform at the surface, and becomes lesser as you go up in altitude.
* No one said it was accurate.
* No.
* They ARE secret.

*Yes they do, have you ever watched a ship. My father was in the navy and when his ship went out to sea I recall it slowly sinking over the horizon.
*On a round Earth, the center would be downwards.
*The UN thing is probably so they can show all the nations at once, not that the world is flat.

For the rest, others can answer with more accuracy.

* I lived near a big river all my life, so yes, I have watched ships depart. I have never seen any horizon.
* According to Round Earthism, the gravitational vector should change orientation depending on the geographical position of the observer.
* Hiding in plain sight.

Quote from: Francois Tremblay, of the Infinite Plane on March 16, 2007, 06:26:24 PM

Quote from: FEIPS on March 16, 2007, 05:38:48 PM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay, of the Infinite Plane on March 16, 2007, 05:31:36 PM

Quote from: Geordi la Forge on March 16, 2007, 10:19:06 AM

Quote from: Francois Tremblay, of the Infinite Plane on March 15, 2007, 11:55:38 PM

The proofs of FE are innumerable and beyond counting. Amongst them:

* When we look out at sea, the Earth looks flat. There is no so-called "horizon." Ships dissapear uniformly, not bottom to top.
* The gravitational vector never changes orientation, even when you go to "the other side of the planet," proving that we live on a flat surface where gravity is always straight down.
* The UN logo.
* Why should the Earth be finite? Why should it have 924,375,700 km circumference? Why not 924,375,600 km or 924,375,800 km? Stop denying the obvious truth of the Infinite Planar Earth.
* How could explorers report all these things in their secret journals about other lands? With such concordance? Are they ALL lying?

*If there is no so called horizon, how do ships appear to sink from view ubrupty rather than gradually fading.
*The gravitational vector always points towards the center of mass.  So a round earth is not impossible.
*The garvitational acceleration would be much greater than 9.8m/s/s, at least within a lcoalized area of FE
*The UN logo has been stated numerous times that it is a 2-D representation of global Earth (or a poorly constructed and inaccurate FE model).
*Look up Eratosthenes' calculations.
*Those journals wouldn't be secret now, would they.  Which journals are you refering to and provide the proofs these journals contain.

* They don't.
* No... it always points DOWNWARDS.
* No it wouldn't. Gravity on the Flat Earth is uniform at the surface, and becomes lesser as you go up in altitude.
* No one said it was accurate.
* No.
* They ARE secret.

*Yes they do, have you ever watched a ship. My father was in the navy and when his ship went out to sea I recall it slowly sinking over the horizon.
*On a round Earth, the center would be downwards.
*The UN thing is probably so they can show all the nations at once, not that the world is flat.

For the rest, others can answer with more accuracy.

* I lived near a big river all my life, so yes, I have watched ships depart. I have never seen any horizon.
* According to Round Earthism, the gravitational vector should change orientation depending on the geographical position of the observer.
* Hiding in plain sight.

*You cannot convince us what you saw as truth.  I continue to notice a horizon when lookig out to sea.
* The vector is directed towards Earth's center of mass.  Whether the observer is stationary or moving the vector continues to point towards the center of mass.  If you don't believe me look up gravitation.
*"Hiding in sight" - Nothing but pure speculation. Proof?

* Then stop parading what YOU saw as truth.
* I know it is. That is why RE is nonsense.
* It is not speculation but right in front of your eye

Quote from: Francois Tremblay, of the Infinite Plane link=topic=11624.msg157087#msg157087

* Then stop parading what YOU saw as truth.
* I know it is. That is why RE is nonsense.
* It is not speculation but right in front of your eye

*Its not merely jut ME but a large consensus of people and a vast majority of
*Once again, look up gravitation.
*I still do not see the proof that you believe is in front of my eyes.  I suggest mathematical  proof since your visual 'proof' is not showing any definitive results.

• You know
• there is a bullet point option

• ok

When I saw the part about the gravitational vector I knew this guy was kidding.  Nobody's that dumb.

Quote from: Pyrochimp on March 17, 2007, 12:30:56 PM

When I saw the part about the gravitational vector I knew this guy was kidding.  Nobody's that dumb.

And they call ME arrogant.

If you only come to OUR board to insult us, why don't you get the hell out?

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 03:40:33 PM

Quote from: Pyrochimp on March 17, 2007, 12:30:56 PM

When I saw the part about the gravitational vector I knew this guy was kidding.  Nobody's that dumb.

And they call ME arrogant.

If you only come to OUR board to insult us, why don't you get the hell out?

*sigh* Okay, okay, I'll play along just in case you were serious.  Let's just assume this is a mysterious alternate universe where the Earth is somehow round.  On this mystical spherical Earth, the direction of "down" is defined by the direction gravity pulls objects, just like any other alternate universe with any different shape of Earth.  Therefore, the direction of "down" is really just the direction the center of gravity of the Earth is from someone on the Earth.  That way, to an observer on the North pole, their definition of down is actually the opposite of someone on the South pole's (the Earth is round in this hypothetical situation so the South pole is a point instead of a circle) definition of down, and they're both right, since the Earth's center of gravity is directly below both of them, AKA down.

Quote from: Pyrochimp on March 17, 2007, 03:49:40 PM

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 03:40:33 PM

Quote from: Pyrochimp on March 17, 2007, 12:30:56 PM

When I saw the part about the gravitational vector I knew this guy was kidding.  Nobody's that dumb.

And they call ME arrogant.

If you only come to OUR board to insult us, why don't you get the hell out?

*sigh* Okay, okay, I'll play along just in case you were serious.  Let's just assume this is a mysterious alternate universe where the Earth is somehow round.  On this mystical spherical Earth, the direction of "down" is defined by the direction gravity pulls objects, just like any other alternate universe with any different shape of Earth.  Therefore, the direction of "down" is really just the direction the center of gravity of the Earth is from someone on the Earth.  That way, to an observer on the North pole, their definition of down is actually the opposite of someone on the South pole's (the Earth is round in this hypothetical situation so the South pole is a point instead of a circle) definition of down, and they're both right, since the Earth's center of gravity is directly below both of them, AKA down.

How does that prove that the gravitational vector would not change?

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 05:18:32 PM

Quote from: Pyrochimp on March 17, 2007, 03:49:40 PM

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 03:40:33 PM

Quote from: Pyrochimp on March 17, 2007, 12:30:56 PM

When I saw the part about the gravitational vector I knew this guy was kidding.  Nobody's that dumb.

And they call ME arrogant.

If you only come to OUR board to insult us, why don't you get the hell out?

*sigh* Okay, okay, I'll play along just in case you were serious.  Let's just assume this is a mysterious alternate universe where the Earth is somehow round.  On this mystical spherical Earth, the direction of "down" is defined by the direction gravity pulls objects, just like any other alternate universe with any different shape of Earth.  Therefore, the direction of "down" is really just the direction the center of gravity of the Earth is from someone on the Earth.  That way, to an observer on the North pole, their definition of down is actually the opposite of someone on the South pole's (the Earth is round in this hypothetical situation so the South pole is a point instead of a circle) definition of down, and they're both right, since the Earth's center of gravity is directly below both of them, AKA down.

How does that prove that the gravitational vector would not change?

The gravitational vector does change, if you talk in absolute terms.

• You know
• there is a bullet point option