Where's that atmosphere? Wait...where's the sun? Where's all life on earth?!

  • 63 Replies
  • 14039 Views
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
In addition to providing the opposite force?
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

If the sun is so close then there would be no polar ice caps, because they would be melted by the heat that it generates. plus, the sun would run out of fuel after a few hundred years because it's so small.

And obviously, you're wrong. There are polar ice caps and the sun is still going.

Isn't that statement solely built on the assumption that your views on universe are right, and his are wrong, without taking any other facts in consideration?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
If the sun is so close then there would be no polar ice caps, because they would be melted by the heat that it generates. plus, the sun would run out of fuel after a few hundred years because it's so small.

And obviously, you're wrong. There are polar ice caps and the sun is still going.

Isn't that statement solely built on the assumption that your views on universe are right, and his are wrong, without taking any other facts in consideration?

I think that statement was actually built on the fact that there are polar ice caps and the sun is still going.  Do you have evidence otherwise?  :o
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
If the sun is so close then there would be no polar ice caps, because they would be melted by the heat that it generates. plus, the sun would run out of fuel after a few hundred years because it's so small.

And obviously, you're wrong. There are polar ice caps and the sun is still going.

Isn't that statement solely built on the assumption that your views on universe are right, and his are wrong, without taking any other facts in consideration?

I think that statement was actually built on the fact that there are polar ice caps and the sun is still going.  Do you have evidence otherwise?  :o

Correct and win. Have a third generation iPot nano.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

If the sun is so close then there would be no polar ice caps, because they would be melted by the heat that it generates. plus, the sun would run out of fuel after a few hundred years because it's so small.

And obviously, you're wrong. There are polar ice caps and the sun is still going.

Isn't that statement solely built on the assumption that your views on universe are right, and his are wrong, without taking any other facts in consideration?

I think that statement was actually built on the fact that there are polar ice caps and the sun is still going.  Do you have evidence otherwise?  :o

No matter if the earth is flat or round, the polars ice caps and the sun would still be there...
The observation that the sun and the ice caps does exists doesn't mean anything.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
No matter if the earth is flat or round, the polars ice caps and the sun would still be there...
The observation that the sun and the ice caps does exists doesn't mean anything.

I refer you to the original post, clearly stating that:

If the sun is so close then there would be no polar ice caps

Another win for FE!
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
If the sun is so close then there would be no polar ice caps, because they would be melted by the heat that it generates. plus, the sun would run out of fuel after a few hundred years because it's so small.

And obviously, you're wrong. There are polar ice caps and the sun is still going.

Isn't that statement solely built on the assumption that your views on universe are right, and his are wrong, without taking any other facts in consideration?

I think that statement was actually built on the fact that there are polar ice caps and the sun is still going.  Do you have evidence otherwise?  :o

No matter if the earth is flat or round, the polars ice caps and the sun would still be there...
The observation that the sun and the ice caps does exists doesn't mean anything.

Which was exactly the point divito was making.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

BattleMetalChris

How high is this ice wall meant to be?

Concorde flies (or flew at least) at around 55,000 feet, meaning the atmostphere reaches at least that high (in the FAQ it's stated that aircraft fly due to the accepted idea of lift-due-to-differential-air-pressures). If a flat earth was accelerating constantly the atmosphere would spill over the edges unless there was something to keep it in. The height of concorde flights means these cliffs would have to be a minimum of 55000 feet (that's over 10 miles) high. You'd see them, especially with line-of-sight to everywhere, since you've decided there's no curvature.

If the sun is so close then there would be no polar ice caps, because they would be melted by the heat that it generates. plus, the sun would run out of fuel after a few hundred years because it's so small.

And obviously, you're wrong. There are polar ice caps and the sun is still going.

Isn't that statement solely built on the assumption that your views on universe are right, and his are wrong, without taking any other facts in consideration?

I think that statement was actually built on the fact that there are polar ice caps and the sun is still going.  Do you have evidence otherwise?  :o

No matter if the earth is flat or round, the polars ice caps and the sun would still be there...
The observation that the sun and the ice caps does exists doesn't mean anything.

Which was exactly the point divito was making.

The point Blaze was trying to make is that the sun (with nuclear fusion) cannot be as close to the earth as presumed in the FE theory, since the heat would be too intense (icecaps would melt), and since the reaction would not be able to sustain itself (sun would die), and hence he draws the conclusion that no matter if we have a round or flat earth, the estimated distance must be wrong.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
or the sun isn't as big as you assume.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

or the sun isn't as big as you assume.

The nuclear fusion cannot be sustained unless the body of the star (for example) is large enough. Also the reaction requires huge amounts of fuel.
To emit the heat and sunlight we observe today, the sun needs to consume four million tons of hydrogen every second, so it needs to be massive or it couldn't burn.
Assuming we're talking about nuclear fusion, ofcourse.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm just trying to understand the FE theory.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Well a sun oodles of miles away would certainly need alot of heat. The much smaller one only 3000 mi or so away, probably isn't that large and hot or we wouldn't be having this discusion.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Quote
To emit the heat and sunlight we observe today, the sun needs to consume four million tons of hydrogen every second
Only if the sun is millions of kilometers away, which you assume it is.

?

tristancliffe

Quote
Would you care to elaborate?

As an elaboration on the multi-dimensional cadence, the Big Bang did not occur from nothing; the mechanism was actually the result of higher dimensions collapsing unto themselves. This collapsing of higher dimensions is what sparked the Big Bang and gave rise to the universal constants which permeate our universe.

As far as where those higher dimensions came from, or what came before the Big Bang, that will be a subject forever unknown to human knowledge as all evidence had been wiped clean at the moment of the Big Bang.


How do you know this? The cleverest physicists haven't got any proof whatsoever of your statements. Or did you just make it up based on one theory you read in a Stephen Hawking book?

Quote
To emit the heat and sunlight we observe today, the sun needs to consume four million tons of hydrogen every second
Only if the sun is millions of kilometers away, which you assume it is.

We can put it like this: If the sun was closer, it would need to be smaller, and if it was smaller, the reaction would either burn out too quickly, or not burn at all, due to the laws of basic nuclear physics.
Unless the sun does not use nuclear fusion, of course.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
I suggest the fact that it is burning and is 32 miles wide and is roughly 3000 miles away suggests a misunderstanding on your part...
« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 12:28:00 PM by Ski »
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Is it such a stretch to think that a body that we have never directly observed might generate energy in a fashion we are not entirely familiar with?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Is it such a stretch to think that a body that we have never directly observed might generate energy in a fashion we are not entirely familiar with?

Well, it certainly leaves a hole in the theory, until we know more.
Or, the FE theory distances may simply not be entirely correct?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Is it such a stretch to think that a body that we have never directly observed might generate energy in a fashion we are not entirely familiar with?

Well, it certainly leaves a hole in the theory, until we know more.
Or, the FE theory distances may simply not be entirely correct?

I wouldn't be the least surprised if they weren't entirely correct.  It's not something we've been able to directly measure, obviously.  But it has to be a close approximation, otherwise there would be sunlight everywhere, all the time, and it wouldn't make any sense that it was rotating around the hub of the north pole above the equator!
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

According to the faq the earth doesn't have a gravitational pull, but everything else does. First of all, this is pure nonsence.  And the only explination is that it's "special?" Secondly, where's the atmosphere?  If there's no gravity, then one of 2 things could occur. 1) The air molecules simply drift of the edge. 2) the air molecules would be compacted to the point that everything would be crushed under the pressure. Also, then in order to have the feeling of moving upwards to simulate gravity, one would need an oppisite force to be pulling agianst.  That would mean that the universe would need a floor, and that would have gravity to pull agianst, but then the earth would be pulled downwards and we would all be in free-fall.  The only way for the system to work, is if the earth was round, and had it's own gravity.

1) No they wouldn't , the air is accelerating.

2) Why?  Equivalence Principle.  Acceleration is exactly like gravitation.  You might as well say that about the Round Earth.

3) WTF?  No.  The Earth is accelerating upwards, simulating a gravitational pull.  There's no need for a "floor".

I know that this post was from a while ago, but....

If the air is accelerating upwards along with everything else, wouldn't that mean that if you inhaled a lot of air, and then jumped, you would be able to jump higher than normal? I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen. And since air contains water, and we are about 75% water, then wouldn't we be really lightweight if everything is accelerating?
30,000 feet isn't very high. It's certainly possible to breath.
Or not...
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20398.0
I win

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
According to the faq the earth doesn't have a gravitational pull, but everything else does. First of all, this is pure nonsence.  And the only explination is that it's "special?" Secondly, where's the atmosphere?  If there's no gravity, then one of 2 things could occur. 1) The air molecules simply drift of the edge. 2) the air molecules would be compacted to the point that everything would be crushed under the pressure. Also, then in order to have the feeling of moving upwards to simulate gravity, one would need an oppisite force to be pulling agianst.  That would mean that the universe would need a floor, and that would have gravity to pull agianst, but then the earth would be pulled downwards and we would all be in free-fall.  The only way for the system to work, is if the earth was round, and had it's own gravity.

1) No they wouldn't , the air is accelerating.

2) Why?  Equivalence Principle.  Acceleration is exactly like gravitation.  You might as well say that about the Round Earth.

3) WTF?  No.  The Earth is accelerating upwards, simulating a gravitational pull.  There's no need for a "floor".

I know that this post was from a while ago, but....

If the air is accelerating upwards along with everything else, wouldn't that mean that if you inhaled a lot of air, and then jumped, you would be able to jump higher than normal? I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen.

LOL.  Can you explain the science leading to that conclusion?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
It's too bad it was so verbose. It was almost sig worthy.  There should be a RE Hall of Shame for quotes...
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Deist

  • 115
  • Hey! Don't blame /my/ God
If the air is accelerating upwards along with everything else, wouldn't that mean that if you inhaled a lot of air, and then jumped, you would be able to jump higher than normal? I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen. And since air contains water, and we are about 75% water, then wouldn't we be really lightweight if everything is accelerating?
Say what?

Should I assume from that message that you think that we aren't /all/ accelerating with the Earth?
Your world sounds weird.

According to the faq the earth doesn't have a gravitational pull, but everything else does. First of all, this is pure nonsence.  And the only explination is that it's "special?" Secondly, where's the atmosphere?  If there's no gravity, then one of 2 things could occur. 1) The air molecules simply drift of the edge. 2) the air molecules would be compacted to the point that everything would be crushed under the pressure. Also, then in order to have the feeling of moving upwards to simulate gravity, one would need an oppisite force to be pulling agianst.  That would mean that the universe would need a floor, and that would have gravity to pull agianst, but then the earth would be pulled downwards and we would all be in free-fall.  The only way for the system to work, is if the earth was round, and had it's own gravity.

1) No they wouldn't , the air is accelerating.

2) Why?  Equivalence Principle.  Acceleration is exactly like gravitation.  You might as well say that about the Round Earth.

3) WTF?  No.  The Earth is accelerating upwards, simulating a gravitational pull.  There's no need for a "floor".

I know that this post was from a while ago, but....

If the air is accelerating upwards along with everything else, wouldn't that mean that if you inhaled a lot of air, and then jumped, you would be able to jump higher than normal? I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen.

LOL.  Can you explain the science leading to that conclusion?

Sorry, I realize my mistake. I had forgotten about the air that is under you, which would be pushing against you too, so there would be no difference. However, you still have no proof that anything is accelerating upwards, while RE'ers have a lot of evidence proving you wrong.

EDIT: There is also no reason that humans, as well as any other life form, wouldn't be accelerating upwards too, considering how we are made out of the same stuff the earth is made of...
« Last Edit: May 09, 2008, 02:32:23 PM by Fredo »
30,000 feet isn't very high. It's certainly possible to breath.
Or not...
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20398.0
I win

How is it possible for someone to say something like that, then realise it was incorrect but for completely the wrong reason?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
This thread just keeps getting better...  I'll correct my incorrect statement and raise you another one....
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Deist

  • 115
  • Hey! Don't blame /my/ God
EDIT: There is also no reason that humans, as well as any other life form, wouldn't be accelerating upwards too, considering how we are made out of the same stuff the earth is made of...
Well, he's getting there... sloooowly...

Ok, yes I know I made a retarded mistake. But I don't see why you have to mark down and sig every RE'ers mistake when FE'ers make so many more mistakes (not including when they say that the earth is flat).
30,000 feet isn't very high. It's certainly possible to breath.
Or not...
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20398.0
I win

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Ok, yes I know I made a retarded mistake. But I don't see why you have to mark down and sig every RE'ers mistake when FE'ers make so many more mistakes (not including when they say that the earth is flat).

It's more funny when an REer makes a mistake.  Sorry, but it is.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Ok, yes I know I made a retarded mistake. But I don't see why you have to mark down and sig every RE'ers mistake when FE'ers make so many more mistakes (not including when they say that the earth is flat).

I'm sorry, but if I went to another forum and made a simple little mistake trying to make a case for FE, you don't think people would laugh?  I suggest turn about is fair play...
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."