# Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis

• 22 Replies
• 4961 Views

#### Nicolae Carpathia

• 95
• E=mc˛ DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!
##### Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« on: March 30, 2007, 06:58:37 PM »
Ok, so here it is. This is the FE map, as we all know it:

1) If this is true, then would we be able to see the sun 24/7? Instead of "setting and rising", we would see it go around the sky, going to the horizon and coming back. Never going away.

2) Does each planet has a sun of its own? Or do they go around the planet Earth? And if so, where are they?

3) How were the planet made? (RE has a very convincing theory, yet I don't see one for FE)

4) Nobody has been able to answer this one (they either ignore it or make a hollow answer).
What made this original motion of the planet? And what makes they accelerate? For RE, we have the big bang and gravity, what is there for FE?

5) If the planet is accelerating, then that means that the air must be slipping out of the planet by the "Ice Wall". Then that means that the oxygen levels in parts near the "Ice Wall" must be low, no? Would countries like Australia and Chile have lower oxygen level than USA? I know they can adapt to it, but a person from the USA would notice it, no?

6) If a person is traveling by Airplane from South Korea to Australia, shouldn't that person see the end of the planet from the Airplane? (sitting at the cockpit, that is)

I think that is pretty much it. I'll tell you if I see more flaws. Answer these for the moment.

So many questions, no logical answers.

?

#### rginer

• 15
• Flat Earth Proponent
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2007, 08:35:14 PM »
Despite your Einstein picture you are quite dumb I see. All these questions have been answered here before.

?

#### Flat Earth Master Mint

• 81
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2007, 11:28:40 PM »
Despite your Einstein picture you are quite dumb I see. All these questions have been answered here before.
You have 8 posts. How would you know unless you've been here a while?

#### cmdshft

• The Elder Ones
• 13129
• swiggity swooty
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2007, 11:38:36 PM »
Haha, pwned.

#### Midnight

• 7671
• RE/FE Apathetic.
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2007, 11:42:38 PM »
Despite your Einstein picture you are quite dumb I see. All these questions have been answered here before.
You have 8 posts. How would you know unless you've been here a while?

Because, just like Captain Midnight told him earlier, he is Tom
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

#### Vauxhall the Vampire

• 2811
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2007, 11:43:56 PM »
Despite your Einstein picture you are quite dumb I see. All these questions have been answered here before.
You have 8 posts. How would you know unless you've been here a while?

You have 43 posts at the moment, 32 of which are in the Flat Earth Debate & Discussion forum, 9 of them are located in the Flat Earth Questions & Clarification forum, and the last 2 are located in General Discussion & Angry Ranting. Your average post count per day is 14.333.

results of my study? U R N00B

#### Nicolae Carpathia

• 95
• E=mc˛ DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2007, 08:27:27 AM »
Ok, since I opened this topic, I have been insulted, attacked and called a noob. But I still don't see my answers.

Ok, so I'm a noob, then enlight me with you knowledge.

And rginer, well answer them again. When someone in school come to me and ask me how can Intelligent design not exist, I answer them. I don't just say "I have answered that before". When I talk, no everybody hears me. So to those that don't hear me (that are not in the room) I have to explain it again.

And to Robo Vauxhall, noob in the forum I may be. But mentally, you can consider me a Admin, and (according to what I have seen in you) too bad I can't say the same for you.

To Flat Earth Master Mint, yes, I have been here a just a while, 3 days actually. But I can be here a millennium and don't know anything if someone doesn't explain it to me. How you guys became so knowledgeable in FE hypothesis? Someone explain it to you, no?

Now, am I going to get my answers or not?

So many questions, no logical answers.

?

#### Ludo

• 8
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2007, 08:36:44 AM »
Now, am I going to get my answers or not?

Don't think you will get any answers. Mainly because there aren't any. At least, no intelligent, rational ones anyway.

#### Nicolae Carpathia

• 95
• E=mc˛ DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2007, 08:47:51 AM »
Now, am I going to get my answers or not?

Don't think you will get any answers. Mainly because there aren't any. At least, no intelligent, rational ones anyway.

Probably. But I have hope that there is someone who is FE and has a very good reason for being it. Or am I wrong?

So many questions, no logical answers.

#### dysfunction

• The Elder Ones
• 2261
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #9 on: March 31, 2007, 10:59:43 AM »
Ok, so here it is. This is the FE map, as we all know it:

1) If this is true, then would we be able to see the sun 24/7? Instead of "setting and rising", we would see it go around the sky, going to the horizon and coming back. Never going away.

The sun seems to disappear over the horizon because, as it gets farther away, the angle we view it along decreases and the sun's light has to penetrate more atmosphere to reach us. Eventually, it is so far away that atmospheric refraction dissipates most of the light before it reaches us, and the sun seems to disappear. This same atmospheric refraction is what causes the sun to appear to grow in size and change in hue as it sets.

Quote
2) Does each planet has a sun of its own? Or do they go around the planet Earth? And if so, where are they?

Most of the other planets 'orbit' us, but in a circle far above the plane of the Earth.

Quote
3) How were the planet made? (RE has a very convincing theory, yet I don't see one for FE)

Go here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=3568.0

Quote
4) Nobody has been able to answer this one (they either ignore it or make a hollow answer).
What made this original motion of the planet? And what makes they accelerate? For RE, we have the big bang and gravity, what is there for FE?

Quote
5) If the planet is accelerating, then that means that the air must be slipping out of the planet by the "Ice Wall". Then that means that the oxygen levels in parts near the "Ice Wall" must be low, no? Would countries like Australia and Chile have lower oxygen level than USA? I know they can adapt to it, but a person from the USA would notice it, no?

No, because the Ice Wall holds the air in. There is no leakage, or at the most very minor leakage.

Quote
6) If a person is traveling by Airplane from South Korea to Australia, shouldn't that person see the end of the planet from the Airplane? (sitting at the cockpit, that is)

Can that person see Antarctica, even according to RE authorities? In the FE model, Antarctica is the edge of the world. If even REers don't claim someone on such a flight could see even the coastline of Antarctica, why should they be able to see the edge of the world, which is far inland in Antarctica?
the cake is a lie

?

#### Darkfrog

• 106
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2007, 11:29:57 AM »

The sun seems to disappear over the horizon because, as it gets farther away, the angle we view it along decreases and the sun's light has to penetrate more atmosphere to reach us. Eventually, it is so far away that atmospheric refraction dissipates most of the light before it reaches us, and the sun seems to disappear. This same atmospheric refraction is what causes the sun to appear to grow in size and change in hue as it sets.
Then we should see the sun fade away and get dimmer, not continue to drop below the horizon
Quote
Quote
5) If the planet is accelerating, then that means that the air must be slipping out of the planet by the "Ice Wall". Then that means that the oxygen levels in parts near the "Ice Wall" must be low, no? Would countries like Australia and Chile have lower oxygen level than USA? I know they can adapt to it, but a person from the USA would notice it, no?

No, because the Ice Wall holds the air in. There is no leakage, or at the most very minor leakage.
With an ice wall of only 150ft?
Quote
Quote
6) If a person is traveling by Airplane from South Korea to Australia, shouldn't that person see the end of the planet from the Airplane? (sitting at the cockpit, that is)

Can that person see Antarctica, even according to RE authorities? In the FE model, Antarctica is the edge of the world. If even REers don't claim someone on such a flight could see even the coastline of Antarctica, why should they be able to see the edge of the world, which is far inland in Antarctica?
RE'ers don't claim to see Antarctica because the earth curves away and it is beyond the horizon (except in south Chile and Argentina, you can see Antarctica from a plane). However if the earth was a plane surface, at altitude you should be able to see further than near the ground, and should be able to see the Antarctica and possibly the ice wall.

?

#### Flat Earth Master Mint

• 81
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #11 on: March 31, 2007, 11:36:19 AM »
results of my study? U R N00B
POST COUNT = SELF-WORTH

I don't claim to know everything about the forum. Also, you are a disgrace to Robo-Ky, Robo-Ky users, and GG as a whole.

#### Nicolae Carpathia

• 95
• E=mc˛ DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #12 on: March 31, 2007, 11:57:15 AM »
Ok, so here it is. This is the FE map, as we all know it:

1) If this is true, then would we be able to see the sun 24/7? Instead of "setting and rising", we would see it go around the sky, going to the horizon and coming back. Never going away.

The sun seems to disappear over the horizon because, as it gets farther away, the angle we view it along decreases and the sun's light has to penetrate more atmosphere to reach us. Eventually, it is so far away that atmospheric refraction dissipates most of the light before it reaches us, and the sun seems to disappear. This same atmospheric refraction is what causes the sun to appear to grow in size and change in hue as it sets.

If that is true, then I wouldn't be able to see the stars that are on the direction of the Sun. In NYC, I can't see stars no matter where I look, but I remember in the Dominican Republic, in the night, I would see stars every way I look. If FE is true, I wouldn't be able to see stars in the direction where the sun went (west). Also, what about the summer and winter solstices? And the Season? Oh and the 6 months day and 6 months night in the north and south pole? I don't see how that happens in FE.

Quote
Quote
2) Does each planet has a sun of its own? Or do they go around the planet Earth? And if so, where are they?

Most of the other planets 'orbit' us, but in a circle far above the plane of the Earth.

They do? Every single one of them? Including the ones that are outside our solar system? What's so special about the Earth?
And how can they orbit us if they are being pushed up. Or is there another accelerator that makes "some" things go in circles?

Quote
Quote
3) How were the planet made? (RE has a very convincing theory, yet I don't see one for FE)

Go here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=3568.0

There is only one, little, yet huge flaw in that hypothesis. Last time I checked, anti-matter and matter destroy each other when in contact and release an enormous amount of energy. If the Earth, which is made of matter, is on a Accelerator, that is made of Anti-matter, then the Earth would have been long destroyed.

Quote
Quote
4) Nobody has been able to answer this one (they either ignore it or make a hollow answer).
What made this original motion of the planet? And what makes they accelerate? For RE, we have the big bang and gravity, what is there for FE?

Quote
Quote
5) If the planet is accelerating, then that means that the air must be slipping out of the planet by the "Ice Wall". Then that means that the oxygen levels in parts near the "Ice Wall" must be low, no? Would countries like Australia and Chile have lower oxygen level than USA? I know they can adapt to it, but a person from the USA would notice it, no?

No, because the Ice Wall holds the air in. There is no leakage, or at the most very minor leakage.

How can a wall hold air in? Wouldn't the air just go up the wall and then down? You can try this by running while holding a flat cardboard. Pass by someone and ask them if they felt the air coming out. You can also make some "walls" around the cardboard, and the effect will be the same (except that more wind will be created on the side that the walls are pointing at)

Quote
Quote
6) If a person is traveling by Airplane from South Korea to Australia, shouldn't that person see the end of the planet from the Airplane? (sitting at the cockpit, that is)

Can that person see Antarctica, even according to RE authorities? In the FE model, Antarctica is the edge of the world. If even REers don't claim someone on such a flight could see even the coastline of Antarctica, why should they be able to see the edge of the world, which is far inland in Antarctica?

In a RE, you can't see Antarctica because when you look on the direction of Antarctica, what you are looking at is the sky (horizon). In a FE, you should be able to see it. Such a person should be high enough and close enough to see it. (If you are going to come with the "you see this first and then that and that's why you can see the horizon" please explain it. Because everyone uses that to explain the horizon, but none wants to explain it)

So many questions, no logical answers.

• Official Member
• 35365
• Former President of Iraq
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #13 on: March 31, 2007, 02:18:23 PM »
Who needs scientific answers anyway?  The Bible clearly states that science is silly, vain, profane, and at odds with Christianity (1 Timothy 6:20).  All you need to know is that our great President, George W. Bush, is being lied to by NASA.

#### Nicolae Carpathia

• 95
• E=mc˛ DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #14 on: March 31, 2007, 04:02:20 PM »
Who needs scientific answers anyway?  The Bible clearly states that science is silly, vain, profane, and at odds with Christianity (1 Timothy 6:20).  All you need to know is that our great President, George W. Bush, is being lied to by NASA.

LMAO

Ok, Flat Earth is one thing, but "Bush" and "Great" in the same sentence? Without the word "isn't" in the middle?
Either that was a joke or you are just playing silly.

So many questions, no logical answers.

#### Midnight

• 7671
• RE/FE Apathetic.
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2007, 06:10:39 PM »
Ok, since I opened this topic, I have been insulted, attacked and called a noob. But I still don't see my answers.

Ok, so I'm a noob, then enlight me with you knowledge.

And rginer, well answer them again. When someone in school come to me and ask me how can Intelligent design not exist, I answer them. I don't just say "I have answered that before". When I talk, no everybody hears me. So to those that don't hear me (that are not in the room) I have to explain it again.

And to Robo Vauxhall, noob in the forum I may be. But mentally, you can consider me a Admin, and (according to what I have seen in you) too bad I can't say the same for you.

To Flat Earth Master Mint, yes, I have been here a just a while, 3 days actually. But I can be here a millennium and don't know anything if someone doesn't explain it to me. How you guys became so knowledgeable in FE hypothesis? Someone explain it to you, no?

Now, am I going to get my answers or not?

You're a savant aren't you?

You type like someone who needs ONE MORE pill. You seem bright, but there is a dim area on that bulb.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

#### Nicolae Carpathia

• 95
• E=mc˛ DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2007, 07:49:26 PM »
Ok, since I opened this topic, I have been insulted, attacked and called a noob. But I still don't see my answers.

Ok, so I'm a noob, then enlight me with you knowledge.

And rginer, well answer them again. When someone in school come to me and ask me how can Intelligent design not exist, I answer them. I don't just say "I have answered that before". When I talk, no everybody hears me. So to those that don't hear me (that are not in the room) I have to explain it again.

And to Robo Vauxhall, noob in the forum I may be. But mentally, you can consider me a Admin, and (according to what I have seen in you) too bad I can't say the same for you.

To Flat Earth Master Mint, yes, I have been here a just a while, 3 days actually. But I can be here a millennium and don't know anything if someone doesn't explain it to me. How you guys became so knowledgeable in FE hypothesis? Someone explain it to you, no?

Now, am I going to get my answers or not?

You're a savant aren't you?

You type like someone who needs ONE MORE pill. You seem bright, but there is a dim area on that bulb.

Ok, I'll take that as a compliment. ( or at least half a compliment)

So many questions, no logical answers.

?

#### StupidLosers

##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2007, 09:05:54 PM »
I would also like to see some answers. Honestly, all of this is complete bogus in my opinion. You say that pictures taken of earth from satellites are all fake? Why is it then that I have never seen a picture of this so-called ice wall at the edge of the earth? Everything Nicolae Carpathia says is true, and there is no way that you can prove it wrong since all of this has already been proved by hundreds of scientists. Science has proven absolutely nothing for FE theory, and there is no evidence at all behind FE theory in the first place.

?

#### Darkfrog

• 106
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #18 on: March 31, 2007, 09:08:15 PM »
They won't respond to Nicolae's or my answers or will just repeat the same tired answers again without clarification.

?

#### rginer

• 15
• Flat Earth Proponent
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #19 on: April 02, 2007, 02:26:01 PM »
This is an elite club. If you cannot think for yourself you don't belong here.

?

#### Darkfrog

• 106
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #20 on: April 02, 2007, 06:17:04 PM »
This is an elite club. If you cannot think for yourself you don't belong here.
So you are saying you don't have the brains to answer our questions?

#### Nicolae Carpathia

• 95
• E=mc˛ DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #21 on: April 03, 2007, 06:35:55 AM »
This is an elite club. If you cannot think for yourself you don't belong here.
What does that has to do with anything?

So many questions, no logical answers.

?

#### BOGWarrior89

• 3793
• We are as one.
##### Re: Big Flaw in the FE hypothesis
« Reply #22 on: April 03, 2007, 10:26:02 AM »
This is an elite club. If you cannot think for yourself you don't belong here.
What does that has to do with anything?

Mind the trolls - they like making messes of things.

And, on the subject of post count - theonlydann had upwards of 6,000 posts before he deleted them all.  Was he an integral part of the FE debate?  Didn't think so.