Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.

Since these mindless children trying to support the RE theory have been trying to prove their point with insults and "period-the-end" statements for long enough, I figured you FE folks might want to debate someone with a brain. What I will try and do is de-spell all "evidence" of a flat earth (as stated in your FAQ), one by one. Please (as in any civilized debate) counter any points with your own.

FAQ Section: The Earth in space.

Question 1
My reply: Please elaborate on where you got these numbers.
Question 2
My reply: Where did you get "3000 miles"? How can an orb emit light omni-directionally? The moon emits "cold light"? I assume you mean cold on the kelvin scale? What about when the moon and sun are in the same area of sky together? Rise/setting illusion? I will get to that later.
Question 3
My reply: Do I need to get my eyes checked? When I'm watching the sun/moon set/rise it looks the same size (disregarding the part below the horizon) all the way to the horizon. By the way, how exactly does anything descend below a solid flat plane?
Question 6
My dumbfounded reply: Four elephants and a turtle? You have got to be joking me. I always thought their was some lose change and candy wrappers under their.
Question 7
My reply: This was brought up again in Question 9 but the answer was more like a guy trying to get out of a speeding ticket by saying "But officer, the speed limit 25 sign never said I COULDN'T go 50". FOREVER, MEANS INFINITE, THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT INFINITE. Einstein predicted that an object could not go the speed of light because time it's self had a finite speed. If the earth was constantly accelerating, eventually the earth would reach the speed of light. This would make the mass of earth and everything else along for the rides mass infinity. Because acceleration is based on time and distance, if something was to go the speed of light, it would be going the same speed as time. All of a sudden, acceleration would become X distance (X is the distance traveled at the speed of light) divided by 0 (zip, zilche, nadda) time, thus weight (WEIGHT IS DIFFERENT THAN MASS) would be infinity. Simply put, the earth is going nowhere fast (and so is this theory of a flat earth).
Question 10: If you jumped off of the edge your say you would just float their? Perhaps you forgot that their is no such thing as "Zero Gravity", only Zero Acceleration. Not Zero Velocity BTW. The point is, their is always something acting as a "body of influence".
Question 11
Reply to answer one: You say "gravity" is only a concept of RE theory? I will remember you said that...
Reply to answer two: This cracks me up. Mass: anything with volume and weight. Mass has nothing to do with any kind of energy of motion (kinetic energy to anyone who paid attention in 7th grade science [of which it seems like those people come few and far between on this website.]) therefore a COUNTER-mass would be less than ANYTHING. So it would be nothing at all. Does that magically make it something? I think someone has been reading too much Sci-Fi.
Question 12
My reply: You say gravity var- Hold the phone... I thought gravity was a figment of RE theory, and did not exist. for the sake of argument I will ignore that for a second. If gravity varied with altitude, which it truly does in RE theory, how could this be explained in FE theory if the moon or sun was not overhead? Quite the brain buster if I do say so myself. Especially since this makes no sense when you consider that gravity is lessening the higher you go. But you say your getting getting closer to a body with gravity, so wouldn't gravity be increasing (albeit pulling up)? Mabey I'm getting too specific.

I will leave the rest of the FAQ for later. So you don't have to type a whole page to reply to this argument. Unless this whole FE theory is being fueled by magic and a higher power, I think this pokes some big holes in your figurative "Ice Wall".

Scott

Have fun!

6) A reference to an ancient Hindu belief.

7) Any object can accelerate at a constant rate forever and never reach the speed of light.  This is quite evident in the equations of Relativity.

10)  You would actually travel at the speed the earth was traveling at when you jumped.  To you, it would appear you were stationary and the earth was accelerating away from you.

11) This cracks me up:

This cracks me up. Mass: anything with volume and weight.

So, an object not experiencing gravitation has no mass?

12)  Gravity as a force does not exist.  No, you are not getting too specific, just thinking about it the wrong way.

6) A reference to an ancient Hindu belief.

7) Any object can accelerate at a constant rate forever and never reach the speed of light.  This is quite evident in the equations of Relativity.

10)  You would actually travel at the speed the earth was traveling at when you jumped.  To you, it would appear you were stationary and the earth was accelerating away from you.

11) This cracks me up:

Quote

This cracks me up. Mass: anything with volume and weight.

So, an object not experiencing gravitation has no mass?

12)  Gravity as a force does not exist.  No, you are not getting too specific, just thinking about it the wrong way.

You're find that TheEngineer is a REer who enjoys having fun at noobs expense. I'll try to clarify a little for you, but I must ask in return that you join the RE team and contribute to the existing threads for a while before starting a new thread.

6) A common evasion here: "It's not my idea." You'll find that the FE doesn't have a well-defined procedure for improving their theory. It's not even a 'design-by-committee' approach.
7) The FEers and TheEngineer enjoy word games. Here they left out an important phrase. To those on the object, an object can accelerate at a constant rate (so that the feel of gravity is constant) forever--if there were enough energy (and there isn't). To an observer in a proper FoR, the acceleration would decrease and velocity asymptotically approach c. This concept in the FAQ is pretty much proven wrong. You see that there are detectable tidal forces on Earth that prove that what we consider gravity is caused mass and not acceleration. Search on the name "Focualt" in the Forum for one experimental proof. Furthermore, without this concept, FE quickly trips up.
10) He's right. Relativity is hard to understand, so give yourself some time here.
11) He knew what you meant. He just enjoys baiting you. Just smile, and move onto the issues.
12) TheEngineer likes to bully about gravity. He's often off on a rant about how gravity doesn't exist based on Einstein's General Relativity. The fact of the matter is that GR is a useful and elegant theory. He's just wrong that it's eliminated the concept of gravity as a force. Pick up any high school textbook, and you'll see it well described that way. Indeed, except for some very special cases, that FE couldn't predict, Newton's concept of gravity does a wonderful job of predicting reality when we're dealing with anything in the Solar System. I advise you to stand up to bullies. Often they're just full of hot air.

Please consider me your friend. I look forward to working with you to build the case for RE, and maybe learn a thing or two along the way.

Regards,
Gulliver

I am not seeing any valid response to the OP.

I'd like to warn you that the FAQ is by no means the definitive authority on the Flat Earth.

I, as a Flat Earther, hold that the FAQ is plain wrong on a number of very important issues. Tom Bishop, as I understand it, also disagrees with many (different) points in the FAQ.

You're find that TheEngineer is a REer who enjoys having fun at noobs expense. I'll try to clarify a little for you, but I must ask in return that you join the RE team and contribute to the existing threads for a while before starting a new thread.

6) A common evasion here: "It's not my idea." You'll find that the FE doesn't have a well-defined procedure for improving their theory. It's not even a 'design-by-committee' approach.
7) The FEers and TheEngineer enjoy word games. Here they left out an important phrase. To those on the object, an object can accelerate at a constant rate (so that the feel of gravity is constant) forever--if there were enough energy (and there isn't). To an observer in a proper FoR, the acceleration would decrease and velocity asymptotically approach c. This concept in the FAQ is pretty much proven wrong. You see that there are detectable tidal forces on Earth that prove that what we consider gravity is caused mass and not acceleration. Search on the name "Focualt" in the Forum for one experimental proof. Furthermore, without this concept, FE quickly trips up.
10) He's right. Relativity is hard to understand, so give yourself some time here.
11) He knew what you meant. He just enjoys baiting you. Just smile, and move onto the issues.
12) TheEngineer likes to bully about gravity. He's often off on a rant about how gravity doesn't exist based on Einstein's General Relativity. The fact of the matter is that GR is a useful and elegant theory. He's just wrong that it's eliminated the concept of gravity as a force. Pick up any high school textbook, and you'll see it well described that way. Indeed, except for some very special cases, that FE couldn't predict, Newton's concept of gravity does a wonderful job of predicting reality when we're dealing with anything in the Solar System. I advise you to stand up to bullies. Often they're just full of hot air.

Please consider me your friend. I look forward to working with you to build the case for RE, and maybe learn a thing or two along the way.

Regards,
Gulliver

Nice answer.

I'd like to warn you that the FAQ is by no means the definitive authority on the Flat Earth.

I, as a Flat Earther, hold that the FAQ is plain wrong on a number of very important issues. Tom Bishop, as I understand it, also disagrees with many (different) points in the FAQ.

FE standard evasion algorithm:

1. If first response, then respond "Read the FAQ".
2. If second response, the response with some hand-waving, such as "It's complicated." or "I don't have time right now."
3. If possible, ridicule the poster or their parentage. Switching the topic to "ad hominem" works wonders.
4. If pressed with scientific or historical data, impugn the score.
5. If necessary, claim that there's a conspiracy preventing the real data from coming out.
6. If caught between the FAQs and readily observable facts, just say the FAQs are being updated.
7. When pressed what should the FAQs say, dodge by saying that it's not up to you.
8. When pressed for when the FAQs will be updated, answer something about how busy you are.
9. At all costs, avoid performing any experiment that could possibly lead to a problem for FE.
10. When challenged with a monetary award for performing an experiment, dodge by saying you're too busy, too poor, or not talented enough. Of course, attacking the challenger as a liar or scoundrel is a good ploy.
11. Be prepared to be creative. For example, explain the speed and height of the ISS by a hot air balloon with a dangling lens.
12. Don't respond to the better attacks at all. Just ignore them. The REers might just think we didn't read that thread.

We're in the process of updating the FAQ in order to include a comprehensive series of answers derived from the various different FE models.

Gulliver, you are an unbelievable jackass.

My reply: Please elaborate on where you got these numbers.

Consult the book Earth Not a Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

My reply: Where did you get "3000 miles"?

The triangulation method used for finding the altitude of the sun can be found in Earth Not a Globe.

How can an orb emit light omni-directionally?

The earth and cosmos are accelerating upwards at extreme velocity. This causes light to become warped downwards.

The moon emits "cold light"? I assume you mean cold on the kelvin scale?

"Cold Light" simply means light without an infra-red component.

My reply: Do I need to get my eyes checked? When I'm watching the sun/moon set/rise it looks the same size (disregarding the part below the horizon) all the way to the horizon.

Actually the sun appears much larger when it is near the horizon. This is all described in Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

By the way, how exactly does anything descend below a solid flat plane?

The setting sun, and the effect of receding objects descending below the horizon is explained in Chapters 9 and 14 of Earth Not a Globe.

Simply put, the earth is going nowhere fast (and so is this theory of a flat earth).

Relativity allows bodies to accelerate forever without breaching the speed of light.

If gravity varied with altitude, which it truly does in RE theory, how could this be explained in FE theory if the moon or sun was not overhead?

The stars emit a gravitational field.

Unless this whole FE theory is being fueled by magic and a higher power, I think this pokes some big holes in your figurative "Ice Wall".

The 150 foot Ice Wall at the southern regions also exists in the Round Earth model.

We're in the process of updating the FAQ in order to include a comprehensive series of answers derived from the various different FE models.

Gulliver, you are an unbelievable jackass.

That would a #6 and a #3, wouldn't it?

The 150 foot Ice Wall in the southern regions also exists in the Round Earth model.

I believe the Ross Ice Shelf to be different to the "main" Ice Wall. Technically, the Ross Ice Shelf is holding in the oceans, while the Ice Wall proper is holding in the atmosphere (in my non-infinite atmosphere model).

REers who deny the existence of the Ross Ice Shelf are delusional - its existence is well documented.

That would a #6 and a #3, wouldn't it?

I rest my case.

The earth and cosmos are accelerating upwards at extreme velocity. This causes light to become warped downwards.

Care to prove this or provide a mathematical proof at least?

"Cold Light" simply means light without an infra-red component.

And yet you can get pictures of the moon in infrared.. how odd.

Actually the sun appears much larger when it is near the horizon. This is all described in Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

Actually, no it doesn't. It seems larger because of how ur brain interprets what it sees, but if you measure it's size, you'll see it is in fact the same size.

The setting sun, and the effect of receding objects descending below the horizon is explained in Chapters 9 and 14 of Earth Not a Globe.

And the explanations are crap, which is what we keep trying to say and adress in numerous threads, but you just run away like a little b*tch.

The 150 foot Ice Wall at the southern regions also exists in the Round Earth model.

It's called Antactica. And it's nowhere near as big as it would be on the FE

Here is what I have to say to the only two legitimate responses. My words are in bold.

6) A reference to an ancient Hindu belief.

Ok, so this isn't relevant to this discussion then.

7) Any object can accelerate at a constant rate forever and never reach the speed of light.  This is quite evident in the equations of Relativity.

I understand what you're saying.Yet I do not fully retract my statement. As we are accelerating our weight would also increase the faster and faster we are going.

10)  You would actually travel at the speed the earth was traveling at when you jumped.  To you, it would appear you were stationary and the earth was accelerating away from you.

I realize now that what I said may be obviously contradictory to the FE model. But I still have one more question, WHAT IN THE HELL MAKES THE EARTH ACCELERATE!?

11) This cracks me up:

Quote

This cracks me up. Mass: anything with volume and weight.

So, an object not experiencing gravitation has no mass?

Thats exactly what I mean

12)  Gravity as a force does not exist.  No, you are not getting too specific, just thinking about it the wrong way.

Oh really? Care to elaborate?

Quote

My reply: Please elaborate on where you got these numbers.

Consult the book Earth Not a Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Quote

My reply: Where did you get "3000 miles"?

The triangulation method used for finding the altitude of the sun can be found in Earth Not a Globe.

Is it now? Why don't you help me understand.

Quote

How can an orb emit light omni-directionally?

The earth and cosmos are accelerating upwards at extreme velocity. This causes light to become warped downwards.

So that would mean that over time the daylight area of earth would shrink.

Quote

The moon emits "cold light"? I assume you mean cold on the kelvin scale?

"Cold Light" simply means light without an infra-red component.

This picture (like many others) was taken with an IR sensitive camera.

Quote

My reply: Do I need to get my eyes checked? When I'm watching the sun/moon set/rise it looks the same size (disregarding the part below the horizon) all the way to the horizon.

Actually the sun appears much larger when it is near the horizon. This is all described in Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

The sun appears larger when it close to the wha-? I'm well aware that the sun and moon are perceived by your brain to be larger near the horizon, but what does it matter if the earth has no horizon. I'm sure "Earth Not a Globe" is a good read. But I'm going to spend my money on an atlas, so why don't you fill me in.

Quote

By the way, how exactly does anything descend below a solid flat plane?

The setting sun, and the effect of receding objects descending below the horizon is explained in Chapters 9 and 14 of Earth Not a Globe.

I'll take your word for it, so why don't you go into some more detail?

Quote

If gravity varied with altitude, which it truly does in RE theory, how could this be explained in FE theory if the moon or sun was not overhead?

The stars emit a gravitational field.

Are you making this up as you go along? How exactly does all that junk up their stay airborne? Tractor beams I would guess.

Quote

Unless this whole FE theory is being fueled by magic and a higher power, I think this pokes some big holes in your figurative "Ice Wall".

The 150 foot Ice Wall at the southern regions also exists in the Round Earth model.

That was a figure of speech, but what ever.

Tom Bishop: I'm not asking Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, so why don't YOU reply from now on?

Why did you guys all avoid my other questions?

I also want to know if you think algebra is BS? In order for a globe to be projected onto a plane SOMETHING has to be stretched. If you were to sail from South Africa to the southern tip of South America, with an average speed of 40 MpH how long would it take you? I don't know the answer to that but if you divide the distance (a little over 4100 miles) by the average speed, you get the time it will take. 4100/40=102.5 hours, make that 4.3 days. This number will be different if the earth is flat because of the greater amount of stretching needed to make the map. Who volunteers to sail across the Atlantic and determine the fate of this website?

haha dude.. here's the thing. you have no idea what you're up against here. seriously, you'll make good points, and i guarantee they won't answer you or they'll give you complete bs. Here's a few good and relativelly recent threads poking major holes in FE theory. read through that and get a feel for just how you can expect a good argument to progress on this forum.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14325.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11295.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13526.0

And here's another post about what you can expect to run into, from someone who used to post more regularly a little while back:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14353.0


you might find this amusing (like i did), and you might even learn a new thing or two, but i'm telling you now, don't hold your breath. you're not gonna convert any of these FE clowns.

rentacow. what a great picture of the moon you have up. it looks quite ROUND, but of coarse the other FE people on this thread will account this as being a fraud, or fake picture. nothing will get through to these people

11)  So, an object not experiencing gravitation has no mass?

 You are getting Mass mixed up with Matter. Matter is constant. Matter can weigh anything depending on the gravitational pull. So if there were 0 Gravity which usually there isn't considering the massive gravity of nearby stars (even if they are hundreds of light years away) it would weigh 0 kg. But the matter would still be there.

Quote from: TheEngineer on June 13, 2007, 12:29:17 AM

11)  So, an object not experiencing gravitation has no mass?

 You are getting Mass mixed up with Matter. Matter is constant. Matter can weigh anything depending on the gravitational pull. So if there were 0 Gravity which usually there isn't considering the massive gravity of nearby stars (even if they are hundreds of light years away) it would weigh 0 kg. But the matter would still be there.

Is that not a contradiction?  And isn't it mass that is constant?

Quote from: Slippers on June 13, 2007, 06:10:25 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on June 13, 2007, 12:29:17 AM

11)  So, an object not experiencing gravitation has no mass?

 You are getting Mass mixed up with Matter. Matter is constant. Matter can weigh anything depending on the gravitational pull. So if there were 0 Gravity which usually there isn't considering the massive gravity of nearby stars (even if they are hundreds of light years away) it would weigh 0 kg. But the matter would still be there.

Is that not a contradiction?  And isn't it mass that is constant?

 Mass is not constant, mass changes with gravitational pull, Matter is constantly there but it's Mass can change. I worded the structure of my paragraph wrongly.

sorry my friend but you're terribly wrong. mass is constant. it's weight that changes with gravitational pull.

mass is constant. it's weight that changes with gravitational pull.

That's what I thought.

 Yes it seems i was terribly mistaken. I was confused for a moment. But we were both wrong, mass is not constant.


On the other hand i found this:

We often use the terms "mass" and "weight" interchangeably in our daily speech, but to an astronomer or a physicist they are completely different things. The mass of a body is a measure of how much matter it contains. An object with mass has a quality called inertia. If you shake an object like a stone in your hand, you would notice that it takes a push to get it moving, and another push to stop it again. If the stone is at rest, it wants to remain at rest. Once you've got it moving, it wants to stay moving. This quality or "sluggishness" of matter is its inertia. Mass is a measure of how much inertia an object displays.

Weight is an entirely different thing. Every object in the universe with mass attracts every other object with mass. The amount of attraction depends on the size of the masses and how far apart they are. For everyday-sized objects, this gravitational pull is vanishingly small, but the pull between a very large object, like the Earth, and another object, like you, can be easily measured. How? All you have to do is stand on a scale! Scales measure the force of attraction between you and the Earth. This force of attraction between you and the Earth (or any other planet) is called your weight.

If you are in a spaceship far between the stars and you put a scale underneath you, the scale would read zero. Your weight is zero. You are weightless. There is an anvil floating next to you. It's also weightless. Are you or the anvil mass-less? Absolutely not. If you grabbed the anvil and tried to shake it, you would have to push it to get it going and pull it to get it to stop. It still has inertia, and hence mass, yet it has no weight. See the difference?


The Relationship Between Gravity and Mass and Distance
As stated above, your weight is a measure of the pull of gravity between you and the body you are standing on. This force of gravity depends on a few things. First, it depends on your mass and the mass of the planet you are standing on. If you double your mass, gravity pulls on you twice as hard. If the planet you are standing on is twice as massive, gravity also pulls on you twice as hard. On the other hand, the farther you are from the center of the planet, the weaker the pull between the planet and your body. The force gets weaker quite rapidly. If you double your distance from the planet, the force is one-fourth. If you triple your separation, the force drops by one-ninth. Ten times the distance, one-hundredth the force. See the pattern? The force drops off with the square of the distance. If we put this into an equation it would look like this:

Yes it seems i was terribly mistaken. I was confused for a moment. But we were both wrong, mass is not constant.


On the other hand i found this:

We often use the terms "mass" and "weight" interchangeably in our daily speech, but to an astronomer or a physicist they are completely different things. The mass of a body is a measure of how much matter it contains. An object with mass has a quality called inertia. If you shake an object like a stone in your hand, you would notice that it takes a push to get it moving, and another push to stop it again. If the stone is at rest, it wants to remain at rest. Once you've got it moving, it wants to stay moving. This quality or "sluggishness" of matter is its inertia. Mass is a measure of how much inertia an object displays.

Weight is an entirely different thing. Every object in the universe with mass attracts every other object with mass. The amount of attraction depends on the size of the masses and how far apart they are. For everyday-sized objects, this gravitational pull is vanishingly small, but the pull between a very large object, like the Earth, and another object, like you, can be easily measured. How? All you have to do is stand on a scale! Scales measure the force of attraction between you and the Earth. This force of attraction between you and the Earth (or any other planet) is called your weight.

If you are in a spaceship far between the stars and you put a scale underneath you, the scale would read zero. Your weight is zero. You are weightless. There is an anvil floating next to you. It's also weightless. Are you or the anvil mass-less? Absolutely not. If you grabbed the anvil and tried to shake it, you would have to push it to get it going and pull it to get it to stop. It still has inertia, and hence mass, yet it has no weight. See the difference?


The Relationship Between Gravity and Mass and Distance
As stated above, your weight is a measure of the pull of gravity between you and the body you are standing on. This force of gravity depends on a few things. First, it depends on your mass and the mass of the planet you are standing on. If you double your mass, gravity pulls on you twice as hard. If the planet you are standing on is twice as massive, gravity also pulls on you twice as hard. On the other hand, the farther you are from the center of the planet, the weaker the pull between the planet and your body. The force gets weaker quite rapidly. If you double your distance from the planet, the force is one-fourth. If you triple your separation, the force drops by one-ninth. Ten times the distance, one-hundredth the force. See the pattern? The force drops off with the square of the distance. If we put this into an equation it would look like this:

Unless you're dealing with relativistic velocities, mass is constant. Regardless of velocity, intrinsic mass, also known as rest mass, is constant.

This is ridiculous. FE'ers cannot accept defeat in the face of undeniable physical proof. I will tell you that any FE'er that comes clean and admits that he has been convince that the earth is indeed a sphere will be no less than a mature individual in my eyes. Sure, it's human nature to not immediately accept defeat but truly, once your beat, YOUR BEAT! Their are absolutely NO flaws with the RE model as yet understood. It is impossible to say the same of the FE.

Here are some rock solid facts that make the flat earth impossible:
The sun and moon go below the horizon. Their is no denying that the sun and moon stay the same apparent size for their entire path through the sky, and, in fact, sink and rise above the horizon line.

sustained space flight is possible, just look up for proof. You can see it with your own two eyeballs! Don't know where to look? Luckily the orbits of satellites can be predicted, as with any other orbiting body. It doesn't take a government agency to do it either!

That picture was taken with an earth based civilian telescope.

Objects in motion, stay in motion unless a force is applied. If the earth were accelerating constantly, something would need to be pushing it faster and faster. This can be proven by trying to roll a ball up a hill.

You have looked at the curve of the earth weather you like it or not. Assuming you have set foot on an ocean coastline. If you have not seen the curve of the earth their is little doubt that don't get out of your own little fantasy world much. Looking past the horizon line, do you see earths surface, or sky?

look very closely at the center of the horizon in this picture (taken by myself) and near the edges, with the reference line. Now before you waste your time saying "It's a distortion effect caused by the lenses field of view", I will remind you that the horizon line in the picture goes down the horizontal plane of the lens. The only editing I have done to this picture is to boost the contrast to make the horizon/sky terminator clearer and add the reference line which runs absolutely horizontal. For the original image go to: http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o210/cantstopgoogle/round_earth1.jpg

You may have noticed, I'm not trying to disprove the flat earth, but PROVE the round earth. I will admit I got off track a few times though.

If you FE'ers cannot admit that a round earth is the only earth model that works, then congratulations, you are displaying child like behavior to the entire modern round world.

EDIT: HAHAHAHAHA, oh lord my side hurts now! I'm sorry, but I guess I for got to mention that I fly for FedEx. I just read this in the FAQ: Q: "How come the travel time by air from South America to New Zealand, via the polar route, is SHORTER than the travel time going North first and then South again?"

A: (Presumed answer: The airline pilots are misled by their GPS, or are deliberately conspiring to make it appear that the flights take different times)
I've flown over the south pole about 3 times on a leg from Philadelphia to Houston to Chille to Sydney and then to Frankfurt. After that it's a hop across the pond to JFK and home again in Philly. I'm sorry to say this but their really is nothing down their except some wobbly penguines and a big disk of ice. I never thought you didn't have an answer for crossing the SOUTH pole. I promise, I'm not conspiring against the citizens of this good earth. Does this make a suspect?

Since these mindless children trying to support the RE theory have been trying to prove their point with insults and "period-the-end" statements for long enough, I figured you FE folks might want to debate someone with a brain.

   Quoted for irony.

You're find that TheEngineer is a REer who enjoys having fun at noobs expense.

This is starting to look like spam to me.  I'm sure everyone knows how much I hate spam.

6) A common evasion here: "It's not my idea."

Too bad that's not an evasion.  That's where that idea in the FAQ comes from.  It's a little humor to your humorless life.

7) The FEers and TheEngineer enjoy word games. Here they left out an important phrase. To those on the object, an object can accelerate at a constant rate (so that the feel of gravity is constant) forever--if there were enough energy (and there isn't).

That wasn't the question.  You really should learn to read.

11) He knew what you meant. He just enjoys baiting you. Just smile, and move onto the issues.

Looks like I did know what he meant, you are the one that didn't.

12) TheEngineer likes to bully about gravity. He's often off on a rant about how gravity doesn't exist based on Einstein's General Relativity. The fact of the matter is that GR is a useful and elegant theory. He's just wrong that it's eliminated the concept of gravity as a force. Pick up any high school textbook, and you'll see it well described that way. Indeed, except for some very special cases, that FE couldn't predict, Newton's concept of gravity does a wonderful job of predicting reality when we're dealing with anything in the Solar System. I advise you to stand up to bullies. Often they're just full of hot air.

Except that General Relativity states that gravity as a force doesn't exist.  Newton's concept of gravity does a good job, except that it allows for 'gravity' to propagate at FTL speeds.  That, is what makes it wrong.  Well, that and the fact that Newton's 'gravity' is a force.

7) Any object can accelerate at a constant rate forever and never reach the speed of light.  This is quite evident in the equations of Relativity.

I understand what you're saying.Yet I do not fully retract my statement. As we are accelerating our weight would also increase the faster and faster we are going.

The earth is accelerating at a constant rate, so our weight would not increase due to this acceleration.  Relativistically, our mass would increase only to someone outside our frame of reference. 

10)  You would actually travel at the speed the earth was traveling at when you jumped.  To you, it would appear you were stationary and the earth was accelerating away from you.

I realize now that what I said may be obviously contradictory to the FE model. But I still have one more question, WHAT IN THE HELL MAKES THE EARTH ACCELERATE!?

The mechanism is unknown but is often given the place holder name of Dark Energy.  It is also referred to as the UA.

11) This cracks me up:

Quote

This cracks me up. Mass: anything with volume and weight.

So, an object not experiencing gravitation has no mass?

Thats exactly what I mean

Mass has nothing to do with gravitation.

12)  Gravity as a force does not exist.  No, you are not getting too specific, just thinking about it the wrong way.

Oh really? Care to elaborate?

Sure.  Gravity is a pseudo force that arises from transforming a non inertial frame of reference into an inertial one.  We live in a non inertial state, but to us, it seems like we are at rest, so by transforming our NIFOR into an inertial one, a pseudo force is introduced, hence, gravity.

Mass has nothing to do with gravitation.

Besides the fact that it causes it. 

Is this some sort of joke? Is it not possible to post a thought and get a direct, legitimate, appropriate, complete, relevant answer? At least to the best of the responding party's knowledge. I guess I was right in thinking that only an idiot would still believe the earth is really flat, contrary to all evidence against it. I felt when I registered to this forum that their was the possibility that the FE theory had at least SOME evidence supporting it still. Otherwise, why would totally sane, mature, adults bother to debate it? This is a one sided battle. And not because of lack of evidence, but lack of the defending party's (thats the FE'ers) ability to argue their points honestly. I feel the problem is that their has been no legit answer to any questions yet proposed by the RE believers. Does anyone agree or disagree to that statement? Are any of you able to respond with some sort of relevance to the question?

This is me thus far...