Vomits in disgust

well, the FAQ is different, but either way.  I think you shouldnt, because there FAQ was a conglomeration (making up words is fun) of the admins, mods, and many users.  It is a basic guideline, not getting nearly as specific as I'm gussing that post is.  




which post are we talking about again?

I think i lost it

I must admit I don't know. I only posted to make the screw falnders joke.
But when an FE-er posts a long response, I read it and form a reply. You should do the same.

Fair enough, I will try, but that one just took up more than half my screen in just WALL OF TEXT format, so I kind of got over it

it distorts due to the energy (negative) which cancels out the energy of matter (positive)

[acting like an RE]
Where does this negative energy come from?  Do you have proof that it exists?  How does the earth emit positive energy?  Fails Occam's razor, etc, etc...
However, if you have a link to someplace where I can read about this 'theory' please provide it.

What, no answer in 11 hours?  An_Atheist you lose.  I win!!11!1!woot!

did the notion that I actually have a life outside the internet occur to you?

the positive/negative energy theory is a theory. there isn't proof that it's true, but it's a really good explanation. like string theory.

not that I'd care if it were wrong. that still doesn't mean the Earth is flat, and accelerating upwards.

the flat Earth on the other hand is both flawed and baseless, with no evidence to back it up.

Wait, you're made a claim that you can't back up?  Hypocrite!

The difference is that scientists admit these hypotheses are only hypotheses, propose methods of testing them, and don't ignore all evidence against there pet hypotheses by putting their fingers in their ears and saying "Lalala, it's a worldwide conspiracy!"

Wait, you're made a claim that you can't back up?  Hypocrite!

wait, you actually think it matters if it's wrong?
I specifically stated that I wouldn't care if it were wrong. meaning, it could be, and I am admitting it. the chances of it being wrong are much much slimmer than a flat earth. and even if it were wrong, it wouldn't matter anyway.
Einstein's relativity has been proven correct through experimentation and observations.
the positive/negative energy, while still a theory, is not based on any assumptions. Einstein's relativity is correct. the positive/negative energy hypothesis is just an extension.

it holds a lot more merit than the flat Earth, because the Flat Earth hypothesis requires lots of assumptions. no flat earth theories actually has any proof, but for the flat earth hypothesis and connecting theories to be true, it must all be true, or at least the vast majority.

not to mention, the flat earth assumptions are weak at best.

Quote

How about geological suveys performed by private company's who have seen  into the planets core?

No one has ever seen the Earth's core.

private companies? probably not - universities etc.

"seen" the core - no. but rudimentary knowledge of seismology reveals the structure of the earth.
refraction patterns reveal the various discontinuities. total blocking of some seismic (S) waves reveal the liquid state of the outer core. shear waves reveal the solid state of the inner core.

Quote from: "An_Atheist"

it distorts due to the energy (negative) which cancels out the energy of matter (positive)

[acting like an RE]
Where does this negative energy come from?  Do you have proof that it exists?  How does the earth emit positive energy?  Fails Occam's razor, etc, etc...
However, if you have a link to someplace where I can read about this 'theory' please provide it.

you don't understand. the Earth doesn't emit positive energy. the Earth is positive energy. matter is actually energy, as proven by the atomic bombs. E = MC˛
the positive energy of the Earth is cancelled out by the negative energy that makes gravity.

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote

How about geological suveys performed by private company's who have seen  into the planets core?

No one has ever seen the Earth's core.

private companies? probably not - universities etc.

"seen" the core - no. but rudimentary knowledge of seismology reveals the structure of the earth.

Yea, that's what I said.

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "An_Atheist"

it distorts due to the energy (negative) which cancels out the energy of matter (positive)

[acting like an RE]
Where does this negative energy come from?  Do you have proof that it exists?  How does the earth emit positive energy?  Fails Occam's razor, etc, etc...
However, if you have a link to someplace where I can read about this 'theory' please provide it.

you don't understand. the Earth doesn't emit positive energy. the Earth is positive energy. matter is actually energy, as proven by the atomic bombs. E = MC˛
the positive energy of the Earth is cancelled out by the negative energy that makes gravity.

Yea, I got it the first time around.

Quote from: "Ezkerraldean"

"seen" the core - no. but rudimentary knowledge of seismology reveals the structure of the earth.

Yea, that's what I said.

Seismology also reveals that the structure of the earth is spherical.
Are seismologists part of the conspiracy, too?

They're just narrow-minded confused buffoons who think they know everything. They can't see beyond the illusion.

Congratulations.  You are the 129th person to do this exact same thing.  You get zero points for originality.  Your consolation prize is the knowledge that your post is too long and no one will read it.  But thanks for playing!

That's really funny...a post that blows about 36552 separate holes in FE "theory" and it's discredited because it's too detailed...

L
M
F
A
O

 :lol:

P.S. The A in the Q&A to the question about the sun and the stars is simply laughable and requires no refuting...that is all...

They're just narrow-minded confused baffoons who think they know everything. They can't see beyond the illusion.

Er, no they're SCIENTISTS investigating ACTUALITY! The results they get proving the Earth to be spherical are illusions?? Oh this is too good, I wondered what Paul Daniels was up to these days...  :lol:

Oh by the way, it's "buffoons"  8-)

That's really funny...a post that blows about 36552 separate holes in FE "theory" and it's discredited because it's too detailed...

You must have skipped page 3.  That is where I tear apart his refutation.

Hmm, that must be one hell of a long post(!) Hold on, I'll just have a read of it...

Oh by the way, it's "buffoons"  8-)

not in germany, it's not! In germany, it's "Daschingerwaldenspoogenditzer".

Hmm, that must be a non-Berlin dialect, no-one uses that word to describe FE'ers on the streets here  :lol:

Hmm, that must be a non-Berlin dialect, no-one uses that word to describe FE'ers on the streets here  :lol:

stop being a Daschingerwaldenspoogenditzer



(Source: Martha Stewart Daily)

Quote from: "merg"

That's really funny...a post that blows about 36552 separate holes in FE "theory" and it's discredited because it's too detailed...

You must have skipped page 3.  That is where I tear apart his refutation.

That was a joke, right? Mind you, I dunno why I was expecting anything other than pure pedantry, I can just see you laughing to yourself, congratulating yourself on your own literalism...you know full well he was using sarcasm to make points, not prove anything...it still amuses me how anyone using science to disprove ridiculous notions like the Ice Wall or the distance of the Sun and Moon (P.S. Why is the Moon CALLED the Moon?)  :lol: can just be laughed off, as if these things like the Ice Wall that are ENTIRELY THEORETICAL are the things that have to be attacked and disproved, not established and proved...!  :lol:

P.S. Why is the Moon CALLED the Moon?

That's simple. If it were called something else (Like the spooglespoink) the it'd be so awkward.

COMPARE
"honey, there's a full moon out today"
"honey, there's a full spooglespoink out today"

see? the first is so much better.

But i digress.

you know full well he was using sarcasm to make points, not prove anything...

Really?  Because he specifically stated that he was proving all the points false.  He did no such thing, as I have shown.

Quote

P.S. Why is the Moon CALLED the Moon?

That's simple. If it were called something else (Like the spooglespoink) the it'd be so awkward.

COMPARE
"honey, there's a full moon out today"
"honey, there's a full spooglespoink out today"

see? the first is so much better.

But i digress.

No you don't, you actually try to be funny, but fail dismally...

The correct answer is of course because of the period of time it takes to go ROUND the Earth, namely approximately a MONTH...

Quote from: "merg"

you know full well he was using sarcasm to make points, not prove anything...

Really?  Because he specifically stated that he was proving all the points false.  He did no such thing, as I have shown.

Nobody likes a literalist...

And if you believe what you type, then that's even worse and I feel sorry for you...now stop wasting my time man!  :lol:

Quote from: "gxfu"

Quote

P.S. Why is the Moon CALLED the Moon?

That's simple. If it were called something else (Like the spooglespoink) the it'd be so awkward.

COMPARE
"honey, there's a full moon out today"
"honey, there's a full spooglespoink out today"

see? the first is so much better.

But i digress.

No you don't, you actually try to be funny, but fail dismally...

The correct answer is of course because of the period of time it takes to go ROUND the Earth, namely approximately a MONTH...

there are so many other words that could round off to moon. How do you know it's approximated for month? And even if the moon cycle is every month (which it is) why must you say the cycle is because it goes AROUND the earth?

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "merg"

you know full well he was using sarcasm to make points, not prove anything...

Really?  Because he specifically stated that he was proving all the points false.  He did no such thing, as I have shown.

Nobody likes a literalist...

And if you believe what you type, then that's even worse and I feel sorry for you...now stop wasting my time man!  :lol:

You are the one who brought this up.  Now after reading my replies to ElFroggo's post, why don't you show me where it

blows about 36552 separate holes in FE "theory"

You can't explain why it's called the moon, because then you'd have to explain why it's called whatever it's called in the hundreds of languages that exist in the world. : )