Schrödinger's earth

That's the atmoshpere.

And the curvature of the Earth.

Does this not prove my point?

Send me the pictures/

Of course there is a curve -- it's a disc. It certainly doesn't show a sphere, does it?

Here's a quick look at the lesser ice wall. Not to be confused with the larger one.
http://www.vebjorn-sand.com/images/ice_shelf.jpg
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/images/wsci_02_img0265.jpg
http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/frigate.jpg
http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/larsenbtewksbury_f.jpg
http://aphriza.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/polarstern.jpg


There's more, but I'm lazy. If you're too lazy to read "E:NaG" I can't really be bothered to do your research for you...


That's several more pictures than you've provided of sinking ships on the horizon...

Those are just pictures of antarctic ice sheets, which exist in a RE model. The photographs prove nothing.

Why would these features not exist on a RE?

Now, show me the 27,000 km of them, and I'll believe you.



But you have no evidence of that, do you.

Show me a picture of the south pole with a compass pointing in all directions and the expeditionists all clearly in view with their identification visible and legible.

But you have no evidence of that, do you.

It's probably on google somewhere.

but I do have this: www.news.harvard.edu/.../photos/01-winter.jpg
explain the aurora borealis + corealis.
I've seen the former, so don't pass it off as a hoax.

http://loose-tooth.ucsd.edu/science/antarctica.jpg
And images such as that are dismissed as hoaxes, aren't they.


Your conspiracy theories smell of fail.

Those are just pictures of antarctic ice sheets, which exist in a RE model. The photographs prove nothing.

Why would these features not exist on a RE?

Now, show me the 27,000 km of them, and I'll believe you.

Well, I'd suppose the RE model would have to account for it somehow or it wouldn't be a very good model. You still haven't shown pictures of the sinking ship effect.

As to your picture of "Antarctica", I have no doubt that such an island may exist -- Cook did likely circumnavigate something after all. I'm not sure what your picture proves, and I can't verify it's authenticity because it comes from NASA.

And I showed you evidence of the greater ice wall, and you threw it away because it didn't fit your model...

That displayed the curvature of the earth.
As well as some hazy white shit on the horizon.

Proves my point, not yours.

That displayed the curvature of the earth.
As well as some hazy white shit on the horizon.

Proves my point, not yours.

You bore me

That displayed the curvature of the earth.
As well as some hazy white shit on the horizon.

Proves my point, not yours.

Forgive me for using the same standard to interpret the data, then.

Quote from: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 06:03:02 PM

That displayed the curvature of the earth.
As well as some hazy white shit on the horizon.

Proves my point, not yours.

You bore me

Narcberry, tomorrow, I shall be gone. But you will still be pursuing the same, futile scientific goal.

Your theory is wank.

Another victory for FE!!!

doubt not believers, for all such as he shall leave as he and it shall be good.

I see an apparant curvature in the earth.

"Even amateur balloonists can observe a curvature in the earth" - Tom Bishop, apparantly.

The earth appears curved from a very high altitude near the edge of space because the observer is looking down at the circular (or slightly ovular as it is in come models) spotlight of the sun upon our Flat Earth.

No, this is no victory for FE. You carefully sidestepped any questions i raised and simply dismissed any studies and evidence aws "flawed" or ignored them completely.

You have much to learn, narcberry.

No, this is no victory for FE. You carefully sidestepped any questions i raised and simply dismissed any studies and evidence aws "flawed" or ignored them completely.

You have much to learn, narcberry.

Like how to lose a debate?
OMG ZING!

Another victory for FE!!!

You carefully sidestepped any questions i raised and simply dismissed any studies and evidence aws "flawed" or ignored them completely.

Isn't this exactly what you've done? Dismissing ideas before you even understand the premise behind them?

I'll admit that I was somewhat incorrect about the acceleration, yes.

But you FE'ers really do sidestep awkward questions, and provide completely inadequate answers.

I'll admit that I was somewhat incorrect about the acceleration, yes.

But you FE'ers really do sidestep awkward questions, and provide completely inadequate answers.

But you RE'ers ignore the thousands of posts ready to be searched and go directly into asking poorly worded questions and deny any answers.

Quote from: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 06:39:56 PM

I'll admit that I was somewhat incorrect about the acceleration, yes.

But you FE'ers really do sidestep awkward questions, and provide completely inadequate answers.

But you RE'ers ignore the thousands of posts ready to be searched and go directly into asking poorly worded questions and deny any answers.

Further, when shown to be wrong, instead of saying, "I'm sorry; I don't understand Lorentzian Transformation or know the correct formula to use to calculate acceleration at high relative speeds"   He says," I understand them perfectly well. I'm only 15. You're still idiots."
The irony here is thick...

Lolz I have no discernible qualifications and I could still tear holes in this hypothesis.

Lolz I have no discernible qualifications and I could still tear holes in this hypothesis.

You've done a hell of a job so far...

Ahaha.