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

  • 100 Replies
  • 21721 Views
?

slappy

  • 281
  • +0/-0
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #30 on: June 13, 2007, 10:16:33 PM »
Haha, see.. I told you you didnt know what you were up against. I came here with the same expectations as you and perhaps that was naive since it is a flat earth forum after all.
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • +0/-0
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #31 on: June 13, 2007, 10:19:15 PM »
Yet in their FAQ/FEB (Flat Earth Bible) It is stated that the forum is on non-bias grounds, persuading open debate as to weather or not the earth is flat.

?

slappy

  • 281
  • +0/-0
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #32 on: June 13, 2007, 10:23:52 PM »
Haha yea but a debate with morons is still a debate with morons. Besides, most ppl on this forum are REers. There's only a handful of people that actually believe in and argue for a flat earth. And there's some that do it just for kicks.

Edit: To be perfectly honest, I sometimes wonder whether even hardcore ppl like TomB aren't just messing with us.. coz some of the things that he says are so incredibly stupid, that it's hard to believe that a person could say them as anything but a joke. But if you think FEers here are messed, you should see some of the newsletters from the International Flat Earth society that Charles Johnson used to lead. I don't know if there is a greater collection of material representing human stupidity anywhere.. ever.. enjoy: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43.0
« Last Edit: June 13, 2007, 10:32:31 PM by slappy »
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..

?

Tom Bishop.

  • 9
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Proponent
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #33 on: June 13, 2007, 10:34:44 PM »
Mass has nothing to do with gravitation.
Besides the fact that it causes it. 
There is no evidence for this.  Round Earthers use this excuse time and time again, but when evidence is asked for, all that they can give is a hollow shell of vague references.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #34 on: June 13, 2007, 10:36:25 PM »
Mass has nothing to do with gravitation.
Besides the fact that it causes it. 
There is no evidence for this.  Round Earthers use this excuse time and time again, but when evidence is asked for, all that they can give is a hollow shell of vague references.
Ok fake tom
GR states mass bends spacetime.  You and the engineer can take it up with Einstein if you want. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Tom Bishop.

  • 9
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Proponent
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #35 on: June 13, 2007, 10:37:40 PM »
Mass has nothing to do with gravitation.
Besides the fact that it causes it. 
There is no evidence for this.  Round Earthers use this excuse time and time again, but when evidence is asked for, all that they can give is a hollow shell of vague references.
Ok fake tom
GR states mass bends spacetime.  You and the engineer can take it up with Einstein if you want. 
Fake?!  Er..  shhh.. keep it on the DL..

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #36 on: June 13, 2007, 10:44:07 PM »
Mass has nothing to do with gravitation.
Besides the fact that it causes it. 
There is no evidence for this.  Round Earthers use this excuse time and time again, but when evidence is asked for, all that they can give is a hollow shell of vague references.
Did you review the Eotsov Experiment? It provides astounding verification that inertial mass equals gravitational mass. Did you review the APJ article? It points out that the weak form of the EP is wrong, nice, interesting, but still wrong. And if you're going to impeach RE for using gravity instead of acceleration, you need to tell us how Mercury orbits the Sun and Mars orbits the Earth in your model, pal.

?

Tom Bishop.

  • 9
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Proponent
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #37 on: June 13, 2007, 10:52:04 PM »
Mass has nothing to do with gravitation.
Besides the fact that it causes it. 
There is no evidence for this.  Round Earthers use this excuse time and time again, but when evidence is asked for, all that they can give is a hollow shell of vague references.
Did you review the Eotsov Experiment? It provides astounding verification that inertial mass equals gravitational mass. Did you review the APJ article? It points out that the weak form of the EP is wrong, nice, interesting, but still wrong. And if you're going to impeach RE for using gravity instead of acceleration, you need to tell us how Mercury orbits the Sun and Mars orbits the Earth in your model, pal.
The Ptolemaic System perfects explains the positions of the inner planets. I encourage you to read up on the subject here.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #38 on: June 13, 2007, 10:56:27 PM »
Mass has nothing to do with gravitation.
Besides the fact that it causes it. 
There is no evidence for this.  Round Earthers use this excuse time and time again, but when evidence is asked for, all that they can give is a hollow shell of vague references.
Did you review the Eotsov Experiment? It provides astounding verification that inertial mass equals gravitational mass. Did you review the APJ article? It points out that the weak form of the EP is wrong, nice, interesting, but still wrong. And if you're going to impeach RE for using gravity instead of acceleration, you need to tell us how Mercury orbits the Sun and Mars orbits the Earth in your model, pal.
The Ptolemaic System perfects explains the positions of the inner planets. I encourage you to read up on the subject here.

THIS ISNT THE REAL TOM!
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #39 on: June 13, 2007, 10:57:37 PM »
LOL
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #40 on: June 13, 2007, 11:11:34 PM »
GR states mass bends spacetime.  You and the engineer can take it up with Einstein if you want. 
Why would I take it up with Einstein?   ???


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

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #41 on: June 13, 2007, 11:13:02 PM »
Oh Jesus, here we go again.   ::)
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • +0/-0
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #42 on: June 13, 2007, 11:16:45 PM »
Because your "home boy" tom just suggested gravity does not exist. Can we move on for Christ sake?!

I think we left off with TheEngineer asking the question "Does mass cause gravity?"

My reply is, yes, an object with mass has a gravitational attraction to other objects with mass.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #43 on: June 13, 2007, 11:29:08 PM »
No, that was not my question.  You asked how something can have mass without 'gravity'.  Mass is not dependent on 'gravity'.



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

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • +0/-0
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #44 on: June 13, 2007, 11:59:41 PM »
Well I don't know anything about that but I'm sure someone else does...

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #45 on: June 14, 2007, 12:15:26 AM »
Uh, ok, I just told you.   ???


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

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • +0/-0
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #46 on: June 14, 2007, 07:00:11 AM »
So I have no way of knowing weather or not your claim is BS or real science. Do you really think I'm going to take your word for it?

Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #47 on: June 14, 2007, 07:43:56 AM »
TheEngineer is correct in the regard that mass is a property of matter, and does not rely on any force to exist.  Weight, on the other hand, is a measure of gravity's (or acceleration's, in the FE model) effect on an object.

Unfortunately for TheEngineer, his original statement was not equivalent to the one he just used to dispute.
Quote from: TheEngineer
Mass has nothing to do with gravitation.

This is not the same as saying that mass is independent of gravity.

Lastly, I'd like to just make quick mention that I doubt it's likely anyone would call Tom his/her "home boy," but it's moot because the Tom posting on this thread is a fake account.  I'm not sure why, as Tom is perfectly capable of making himself look like a fool without help, but nonetheless, it's not him.

?

Tommy Peh

  • 10
  • +0/-0
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #48 on: June 14, 2007, 11:15:14 AM »
Curiously enough I did accept the existence of the Ross Ice Shelf because it exists in the real RE scenario. Now, Some of you FE'ers seem to be intelligent people but you are acting plain silly. I have just downloaded outlines of that guys side thingies work and it is interesting but not correct. He went around convincing people of this existence because he would convince people more stupid than him. So rise above it guys, wake up and smell the trash. All these hypothesis made up by scientists are for sodding attention. You guys are the damn conspiracy not the goverment. And how do you know about tis existence but others don't.

?

mikerocks

  • 21
  • +0/-0
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #49 on: June 14, 2007, 11:35:48 AM »
SO you consult with a book made in 1881?  ::)

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #50 on: June 14, 2007, 11:37:20 AM »
Quote
SO you consult with a book made in 1881?

Does truth have an expiration date?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #51 on: June 14, 2007, 11:38:38 AM »
No.  But it does have this property where it has to match up with reality.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

mikerocks

  • 21
  • +0/-0
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #52 on: June 14, 2007, 11:40:37 AM »
Yes when technology progresses. Why would the government wast time on photo editing programs when they would rather go into space?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #53 on: June 14, 2007, 11:43:02 AM »
Quote
Why would the government wast time on photo editing programs when they would rather go into space?

What financial incentive does the government have for spending trillions of dollars just to send some tin cans into space?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #54 on: June 14, 2007, 11:45:02 AM »
What does that have to do with anything?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #55 on: June 14, 2007, 11:49:17 AM »
Quote
What does that have to do with anything?

It's quite simple, really. If there is no financial incentive for the government to go into space, then why would it waste significant portions of its budget in pursuit of such fruitless things?

Originally the main incentive for NASA was a "space race" with the Soviets. That's the reason it was formed. NASA was not created as a genuine scientific organization, but as a competitive response to Soviet technology claims. At the time of Apollo, the Soviet Union had five times more manned hours in space than the US. They had achieved:

   1. First manmade satellite in orbit (October 1957, Sputnik 1).
   2. First living creature to enter orbit (November 1957, Sputnik 2).
   3. First to safely return living creature from orbit, two dogs Belka and Strelka, 40 mice, 2 rats (August 1960, Sputnik 5).
   4. First man in space (April 1961, Vostok 1).
   5. First man to orbit the Earth (April 1961, Vostok 1).
   6. First to have two spacecraft in orbit at the same time and first to conduct a space rendezvous (August 1962, Vostok 3 and Vostok 4).
   7. First woman in space (June 1963, Vostok 6, as part of a second dual-spacecraft flight including Vostok 5).
   8. First crew of three astronauts on board one spacecraft (October 1964, Voskhod 1).
   9. First spacewalk (EVA) (March 1965, Voskhod 2).

Later on the American side of the fence, on January 27, 1967, three astronauts aboard Apollo 1 died in a fire on the launch pad during training. The fire was triggered by a spark in the oxygen-rich atmosphere used in the spacecraft test, and fueled by a significant quantity of combustible material within the spacecraft. Two years later all of the problems were declared fixed. We here at the Flat Earth Society believe that the accident led NASA to conclude that the only way to 'win' the space race was to fake space travel entirely. In any case, the first manned Apollo flight, Apollo 7, allegedly occurred in October, 1968, just 21 months after the fire.

In a mere 21 months after a catastrophic disaster, America had apparently caught up with decades of Russian research. Less than a year later, in July of 1969, America achieved the profound and spectacular technical capacity to send man to the moon. On the television screens far and wide, man was seen to have touched down on the moon.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2007, 12:14:11 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

mikerocks

  • 21
  • +0/-0
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #56 on: June 14, 2007, 11:49:41 AM »
Yes sending tin cans with people to the moon. Why are moon rocks brought back then? Why is it that we are getting pictures of  mars back and they are on the Nasa website? I went to the aerospace museum  in Washington DC and looked at videos of space launches I have even been to one. We watched a rocket carrying a tv satellite into space. We watched it leave the atmosphere.

?

Skeptical ATM

Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #57 on: June 14, 2007, 11:52:31 AM »
Tom... you are just messing, hyou can see why the government says it goes into space right? Why someone would? Resources, Power, Knowledge.

Oh, and guy who started thread? Don't be so ignorant.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #58 on: June 14, 2007, 11:53:17 AM »
Quote
What does that have to do with anything?

It's quite simple, really. If there is no financial incentive for the government to go into space, then why would they waste significant portions of  its budget in pursuit of such fruitless things?

Originally the main incentive for NASA was a "space race" with the Soviets. That's the reason it was formed. NASA was not created as a genuine scientific organization, but as a competitive response to Soviet technology claims. At the time of Apollo, the Soviet Union had five times more manned hours in space than the US. They had achieved:

   1. First manmade satellite in orbit (October 1957, Sputnik 1).
   2. First living creature to enter orbit (November 1957, Sputnik 2).
   3. First to safely return living creature from orbit, two dogs Belka and Strelka, 40 mice, 2 rats (August 1960, Sputnik 5).
   4. First man in space (April 1961, Vostok 1).
   5. First man to orbit the Earth (April 1961, Vostok 1).
   6. First to have two spacecraft in orbit at the same time aand first to conduct a spave rendezvous (August 1962, Vostok 3 and Vostok 4).
   7. First woman in space (June 1963, Vostok 6, as part of a second dual-spacecraft flight including Vostok 5).
   8. First crew of three astronauts on board one spacecraft (October 1964, Voskhod 1).
   9. First spacewalk (EVA) (March 1965, Voskhod 2).

Later on the American side of the fence, on January 27, 1967, three astronauts aboard Apollo 1 died in a fire on the launch pad during training. The fire was triggered by a spark in the oxygen-rich atmosphere used in the spacecraft test, and fueled by a significant quantity of combustible material within the spacecraft. Two years later all of the problems were declared fixed. We here at the Flat Earth Society believe that the accident led NASA to conclude that the only way to 'win' the space race was to fake space travel entirely. In any case, the first manned Apollo flight, Apollo 7, allegedly occurred in October, 1968, just 21 months after the fire.

In a mere 21 months after a catastrophic disaster, America had apparently caught up with decades of Russian research. Less than a year later, in July of 1969, America achieved the profound and spectacular technical capacity to send man to the moon. On the television screens far and wide, man was seen to have touched down on the moon.

Tom, by pointing out that the roots of the space race were competition with Russia, you've just demonstrated that there need not be a financial motive for going into space.  I always appreciate it when you argue my points for me.  Thank you.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

mikerocks

  • 21
  • +0/-0
Re: Hit me with your best shot. Hardcore FE believers, check it out.
« Reply #59 on: June 14, 2007, 11:59:59 AM »
I Like the fact that you leave in a discussion when you know you are wrong.