Simple question

  • 19 Replies
  • 4227 Views
Simple question
« on: June 07, 2006, 02:09:24 AM »
If the Earth is flat explain this:
In the Boxing day tsunami where oceanographers and seismologists have revealed that the crust of the earth split open beneath the sea. How come as a result of this, all the water didnt drain out of the oceans and tumble into space?????

Simple question
« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2006, 02:12:30 AM »
um..cos the crust is only the top layer. they do beleive that there is layers below the crust and is infact quite deep/thick.
he world is round u stupid f*cks...

Re: Simple question
« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2006, 03:50:54 AM »
Quote from: "Pogmothoin"
If the Earth is flat explain this:
In the Boxing day tsunami where oceanographers and seismologists have revealed that the crust of the earth split open beneath the sea. How come as a result of this, all the water didnt drain out of the oceans and tumble into space?????

Actually there are several layers beneath earth, most of which come under the jurisdiction of a place called hell.
-ujb.

Simple question
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2006, 04:05:49 AM »
...here we go :roll:
he world is round u stupid f*cks...

Simple question
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2006, 06:06:55 AM »
In my fervant study, I've discovered the possibility of 4 elephants and a single turtle supporting the ultimate final layer...

...long live the Pentumverat.
o man, my head is BUMPIN'

Simple question
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2006, 06:35:24 AM »
So regardless of this seismic activity on a planetary scale, (or disc scale) massive sub oceanic cavities opening up or indeed the fires of hell being doused or extinguished. The oceans have returned to their previous levels and no steam clouds have materialised in the area of the disaster.
Doesn't really comprehensivly answer my original question does it?

Simple question
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2006, 06:37:48 AM »
The flat Earth got tipped on an angle by one of the supporting Elephants.

No mammal is perfect.

You try supporting an entire planet on your back for eternity and not flinching...
o man, my head is BUMPIN'

Simple question
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2006, 07:05:24 AM »
what i wanna know is how the fuck the earth cruises at such a speed with elephants and turtles strapped to it. must have an RB in it :wink:
he world is round u stupid f*cks...

Simple question
« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2006, 10:07:56 AM »
Quote from: "Pogmothoin"
So regardless of this seismic activity on a planetary scale, (or disc scale) massive sub oceanic cavities opening up or indeed the fires of hell being doused or extinguished. The oceans have returned to their previous levels and no steam clouds have materialised in the area of the disaster.
Doesn't really comprehensivly answer my original question does it?

By your logic, why did the waters of the ocean not drain into the core of the round earth? This question is a great example of a phenomenon which has absolutely nothing to do with the shape of the earth; the water didn't go anywhere because there was stuff under the crust that kept it in place. Same answer for both.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Simple question
« Reply #9 on: June 07, 2006, 11:55:37 AM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote from: "Pogmothoin"
So regardless of this seismic activity on a planetary scale, (or disc scale) massive sub oceanic cavities opening up or indeed the fires of hell being doused or extinguished. The oceans have returned to their previous levels and no steam clouds have materialised in the area of the disaster.
Doesn't really comprehensivly answer my original question does it?

By your logic, why did the waters of the ocean not drain into the core of the round earth? This question is a great example of a phenomenon which has absolutely nothing to do with the shape of the earth; the water didn't go anywhere because there was stuff under the crust that kept it in place. Same answer for both.

x2
Damn I wish people would think about their thread before they posted. Honestly, think about why your idea would be different in a FE than in a RE.   Why would the underlying structure of the earth differ in a FE than a RE?


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

Simple question
« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2006, 07:08:57 AM »
I accept that a round earth is not hollow, what goes down one hole comes up somewhere else.

Thus far, by the logic demonstrated here the earth is in fact not a 2 dimensional disc but is a multi layered 3 dimensional cylinder, oh, supported on the backs of 4 elephants who in turn stand on the back of a giant turtle. Just imagine what that would look like if viewed from space. Sideways on it would appear square or rectangular, in fact the only angle it would look like a perfect disc is if viewed from directly above. (underneath would just provide a view of the turtles arse) But as we have established we cannot view it from above because it is travelling upwards so fast that we would be smashed to death. Sorry, your logic remains flawed.
Fucking amazing regardless!

Simple question
« Reply #11 on: June 08, 2006, 07:54:35 AM »
Quote from: "Pogmothoin"
But as we have established we cannot view it from above because it is traveling upwards so fast that we would be smashed to death. Sorry, your logic remains flawed.


Only round earther's maintain such a ridiculous statement.  The physics of launching a craft from a flat accelerating earth are similar to one pulling things to it with gravity, as long as you are not dealing with relativistic speeds.  You can find several threads where that angle is or has been debated, but the natives will get restless if you just bring up the same old arguments without adding anything new.

I believe the current theory about viewing it from above is that, all methods of getting pictures from above the atmosphere are suspect because they are taken by groups controlled by or influenced by the government (for example NASA)

Simple question
« Reply #12 on: June 08, 2006, 08:29:28 AM »
Escape velocity from the Earth is 11.2KM/Second, is a constant and is measurable, check it out. Escape velocity from an accelerating body is an ever increasing variable, therefore the physics of launching a craft from one as opposed to the other are in NO ways similar.
Is that a bit too difficult to understand for you?

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Simple question
« Reply #13 on: June 08, 2006, 09:36:20 AM »
Quote from: "Pogmothoin"
Escape velocity from an accelerating body is an ever increasing variable,


Um, that doesn't seem very likely to me.  Note that the escape velocity of an inertial body is zero.

Furthermore, note that gravitation is indistinguishable from acceleration.  So if a gravitational field doesn't have an ever increasing escape velocity, then neither does an accelerated reference frame.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Simple question
« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2006, 10:09:06 AM »
Quote from: "Pogmothoin"
Escape velocity from the Earth is 11.2KM/Second, is a constant and is measurable, check it out. Escape velocity from an accelerating body is an ever increasing variable, therefore the physics of launching a craft from one as opposed to the other are in NO ways similar.
Is that a bit too difficult to understand for you?

Escape velocity assumes gravity.   Under an accelerating system it has no meaning.  So all you have to do to prove that there is gravity is prove that you have launced something which will not fall back to earth.

And no, stating that NASA or a similar agency has done it is not proof.

But you never mentioned trying to reach escape velocity, only going high enough to take the pictures.

Simple question
« Reply #15 on: June 08, 2006, 10:14:00 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Pogmothoin"
Escape velocity from an accelerating body is an ever increasing variable,


Um, that doesn't seem very likely to me.  Note that the escape velocity of an inertial body is zero.

Furthermore, note that gravitation is indistinguishable from acceleration.  So if a gravitational field doesn't have an ever increasing escape velocity, then neither does an accelerated reference frame.


An accelerating model does not have escape velocity,  a gravitational model does.  Equivalence only works in small systems by definition.

Under an acceleration model the object would need to continue to accelerate to "Out Pace" the earth.  But, oh how to prove that you can do it?  Got any spare Titan Rockets laying around?

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Simple question
« Reply #16 on: June 08, 2006, 10:16:01 AM »
Quote from: "Doubter"
Escape velocity assumes gravity.


Not quite.  It assumes a gravity whose strength decreases with distance.

Quote
Under an accelerating system it has no meaning.


Escape velocity in an accelerating system (in the absence of other gravitational fields) would be infinite.

Quote
So all you have to do to prove that there is gravity is prove that you have launced something which will not fall back to earth.


Yep... that would do it.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Simple question
« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2006, 02:06:56 PM »
No need for titan rockets, throw a ball into the air, if you succeed in the launch program you have exceeded the escape velocity, when, as it inevitably does, fall back to earth the inertia is lost and gravity has overcome the initial velocity. In your constantly accelerating stupidity model the inertia would be enough to drive the said projectile through the base of the earth/disc/cylinder/turtles back and beyond into deep space and you would probably weigh about 42x10-1billion metric tons and that would be constantly increasing by the second.
Now I personally cannot consume enough big Mac's to offer that sort of weight increase in such a short space of time. You FE's must be some sort of fat bastards.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Simple question
« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2006, 02:16:07 PM »
Quote from: "Pogmothoin"
No need for titan rockets, throw a ball into the air, if you succeed in the launch program you have exceeded the escape velocity,


That obviously not what escape velocity means, since obviously you can project a ball upwards at an arbitrarily small speed and it will "succeed in the launch program".

Escape velocity is the minimum velocity necessary to go into an orbit that escapes Earth's gravitational well.  I.e. it's the velocity of a parabolic orbit with the Earth at the focus.

Quote
In your constantly accelerating stupidity model the inertia would be enough to drive the said projectile through the base of the earth/disc/cylinder/turtles back and beyond into deep space and you would probably weigh about 42x10-1billion metric tons and that would be constantly increasing by the second.


What?  Why would you weigh so much?
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Simple question
« Reply #19 on: June 09, 2006, 04:47:35 AM »
Quote from: "Pogmothoin"
In your constantly accelerating stupidity model the inertia would be enough to drive the said projectile through the base of the earth/disc/cylinder/turtles back and beyond into deep space and you would probably weigh about 42x10-1billion metric tons and that would be constantly increasing by the second.

The acceleration of the flat Earth is 1g, so why would you weigh billions of tons? If you sit in a car that is accelerating at a constant speed, you are also not pushed through your seat, but you are pushed into it with a constant force.