A Flaw with the EA

Quote from: Anteater7171 on March 25, 2010, 01:53:57 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2010, 01:49:43 PM

Quote from: Anteater7171 on March 25, 2010, 01:40:11 PM

We know "satellite" TV works and exists. We also know the earth is flat. Thus we know it must not work via satellites. I have not done any testing, therefor (at least to me) the method of there operation is unknown.

See, that's my problem.  You go on assuming the Earth is Flat and everything must therefore work around that.  THEN you yell at us for assuming the Earth is round.

I do assume the earth is flat. However I know that the earth is not round.

Well, not perfectly round. It's actually an oblate spheroid.

An oblate spheroid is still round.

Sorry bout that the F and R key's are quite close.

You mean science that says light doesn't bend but can be refracted, reflected, and distorted via change in medium (index of refraction)?
The science that says that the sun is a ball of hydrogen that sends energy in all directions?
The science that uses satellites to map the Earth's surface?
The Science that says a radio signal, even from the tallest mountain, can't reach the other side of the world?
The Science that says the Earth is Rotating with proof?

So far all I've seen by Flat Earth in the form of "science" are one or two experiments with cameras and a lot of unproven assumptions such as bendy light, anti-moon, Constant acceleration upwards due to a force pushing Universe, ect...

In fact, the Old Bedford Canal experiment disproves Bendy Light because according to Bendy Light, he shouldn't have seen the sheet at all.

The Science that says a radio signal, even from the tallest mountain, can't reach the other side of the world?

Um... Well, it can. HF can be reflected off the ionosphere.

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2010, 02:55:18 PM

The Science that says a radio signal, even from the tallest mountain, can't reach the other side of the world?

Um... Well, it can. HF can be reflected off the ionosphere.

Isn't the ionosphere art of the conspiracy?

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2010, 02:55:18 PM

The Science that says a radio signal, even from the tallest mountain, can't reach the other side of the world?

Um... Well, it can. HF can be reflected off the ionosphere.

He was likely referring to the line-of-sight restrictions of VHF and UHF communication, which is far more common in telecommunication technology.

An oblate spheroid is still round.

I'm aware that it's round, but it's not perfectly round. I'll try to make the important words bigger next time.

I'm aware that it's round, but it's not perfectly round. I'll try to make the important words bigger next time.

An oblate spheroid is perfectly round. I don't know of any spheroids that have flat sides.

An oblate spheroid is perfectly round. I don't know of any spheroids that have flat sides.

... That's why they're not they're not spheroids.

The "Oblate" part means they're not normal everyday spheroids, as they have flat sides.

Jesus why is this so difficult?

... That's why they're not they're not spheroids.

The "Oblate" part means they're not normal everyday spheroids, as they have flat sides.

Jesus why is this so difficult?

Oblate means squashed. An oblate spheroid is still perfectly round as it still has no flat sides.

I'm right, I actually am.

Oblate means squashed. An oblate spheroid is still perfectly round as it still has no flat sides.

I'm right, I actually am.

Then by your definition a prolate spheroid is also a perfect sphere?

Then by your definition a prolate spheroid is also a perfect sphere?

No, you utter twat.

ROUND != SPHERE.

A prolate spheroid is also perfectly round. It is not, however, perfectly spherical.

Quote from: Xibar on March 25, 2010, 03:44:38 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 25, 2010, 02:51:00 PM

Quote from: Xibar on March 25, 2010, 02:48:57 PM

Quote from: Anteater7171 on March 25, 2010, 01:53:57 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2010, 01:49:43 PM

Quote from: Anteater7171 on March 25, 2010, 01:40:11 PM

We know "satellite" TV works and exists. We also know the earth is flat. Thus we know it must not work via satellites. I have not done any testing, therefor (at least to me) the method of there operation is unknown.

See, that's my problem.  You go on assuming the Earth is Flat and everything must therefore work around that.  THEN you yell at us for assuming the Earth is round.

I do assume the earth is flat. However I know that the earth is not round.

Well, not perfectly round. It's actually an oblate spheroid.

An oblate spheroid is still round.

I'm aware that it's round, but it's not perfectly round. I'll try to make the important words bigger next time.

An oblate spheroid is perfectly round. I don't know of any spheroids that have flat sides.

"Isaac Newton first proposed that Earth was not perfectly round. Instead, he suggested it was an oblate spheroid—a sphere that is squashed at its poles and swollen at the equator. He was correct and, because of this bulge, the distance from Earth's center to sea level is roughly 21 kilometers (13 miles) greater at the equator than at the poles."

-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earth-is-not-round

"Isaac Newton first proposed that Earth was not perfectly round. Instead, he suggested it was an oblate spheroid—a sphere that is squashed at its poles and swollen at the equator. He was correct and, because of this bulge, the distance from Earth's center to sea level is roughly 21 kilometers (13 miles) greater at the equator than at the poles."

-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earth-is-not-round

2fst4u is being a worse semantics bitch than the FE'ers.

2fst4u is being a worse semantics bitch than the FE'ers.

The FEers usually do that to escape questions. Not sure why he was, though.

It's because I'm always right. Sometimes I just feel the need to portray it.

It's because I'm always right. Sometimes I just feel the need to portray it.

But you should know being a semantics bitch is really really annoying.

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 25, 2010, 05:20:33 PM

It's because I'm always right. Sometimes I just feel the need to portray it.

But you should know being a semantics bitch is really really annoying.

I know. But you kept me going so I had to comply.

Quote from: jtelroy on March 25, 2010, 05:21:34 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 25, 2010, 05:20:33 PM

It's because I'm always right. Sometimes I just feel the need to portray it.

But you should know being a semantics bitch is really really annoying.

I know. But you kept me going so I had to comply.

or you could have stopped.  But apparently being wrong became a death sentence when I wasn't looking.

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 25, 2010, 05:22:53 PM

Quote from: jtelroy on March 25, 2010, 05:21:34 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 25, 2010, 05:20:33 PM

It's because I'm always right. Sometimes I just feel the need to portray it.

But you should know being a semantics bitch is really really annoying.

I know. But you kept me going so I had to comply.

or you could have stopped.  But apparently being wrong became a death sentence when I wasn't looking.

Exactly.

So what is this thread about? Did RE win?

Quote from: Anteater7171 on March 25, 2010, 12:55:43 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2010, 12:53:47 PM

I wouldn't trouble yourself over it.

Nothing you say, do, or attempt to prove is going to change their minds.

Evidence most certainly will change my mind, however it is very hard for RE'rs to produce it.

But Satellite TV doesn't change your mind that something is in orbit I take it?

Use that nifty search button. I guarantee you there have been at least four threads that talk about this.

Quote from: jtelroy on March 25, 2010, 05:27:06 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 25, 2010, 05:22:53 PM

Quote from: jtelroy on March 25, 2010, 05:21:34 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 25, 2010, 05:20:33 PM

It's because I'm always right. Sometimes I just feel the need to portray it.

But you should know being a semantics bitch is really really annoying.

I know. But you kept me going so I had to comply.

or you could have stopped.  But apparently being wrong became a death sentence when I wasn't looking.

Exactly.

So what is this thread about? Did RE win?

Basically.

We pretty much showed that the FE'ers don't really know anything about how the UA would work.  It doesn't show FET to be false, but its a step forward in showing just how unfounded it is.

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 25, 2010, 05:28:45 PM

Quote from: jtelroy on March 25, 2010, 05:27:06 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 25, 2010, 05:22:53 PM

Quote from: jtelroy on March 25, 2010, 05:21:34 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 25, 2010, 05:20:33 PM

It's because I'm always right. Sometimes I just feel the need to portray it.

But you should know being a semantics bitch is really really annoying.

I know. But you kept me going so I had to comply.

or you could have stopped.  But apparently being wrong became a death sentence when I wasn't looking.

Exactly.

So what is this thread about? Did RE win?

Basically.

We pretty much showed that the FE'ers don't really know anything about how the UA would work.  It doesn't show FET to be false, but its a step forward in showing just how unfounded it is.

To be fair, we still haven't proven how gravity works. Sure, we see the correlations of it and have theories, but we still don't know what the actual mechanism behind gravity is.

It's because I'm always right. Sometimes I just feel the need to portray it.

I've seen your posts. You usually occasionally are.

Nothing can be 100% though.



EDIT: Read more of his posts.

And since this is a Round Earth victory, it gets treated the way all the other Round Earth victories do.

Ignored.

Like my legitimate EnaG critique, or my Sextants topic.

So the best solution is for RE'ers to just keep posting in these topics so that they stay at the top of the board.  That way, even if the FE'ers try to ignore victories like this, they still get shoved in their face!

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 25, 2010, 05:28:45 PM

So what is this thread about? Did RE win?

Basically.

We pretty much showed that the FE'ers don't really know anything about how the UA would work.  It doesn't show FET to be false, but its a step forward in showing just how unfounded it is.

Or, it shows that RE'ers perpetually fail at doing a little research. Search for 'bow-shock'.

Quote from: jtelroy on March 25, 2010, 05:47:52 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 25, 2010, 05:28:45 PM

So what is this thread about? Did RE win?

Basically.

We pretty much showed that the FE'ers don't really know anything about how the UA would work.  It doesn't show FET to be false, but its a step forward in showing just how unfounded it is.

Or, it shows that RE'ers perpetually fail at doing a little research. Search for 'bow-shock'.

The search yielded another theory.

It was theoretical explanation of how the force of a theoretical mass affects a theoretical flat earth.

I think my statement still stands.

And here's why:

My question still hasn't been answered.

WHY does the bow-effect occur?

WHY does the influence of the UA manage to only effect the earth the stars above us?

All you've done is given a name to the phenomena I have so far failed to find any explanation for.

Most of the topics that came up when I searched were people simply saying what the bow effect is/causes, and people like yourself telling others to go search for it.

And here's why:

My question still hasn't been answered.

WHY does the bow-effect occur?

WHY does the influence of the UA manage to only effect the earth the stars above us?

All you've done is given a name to the phenomena I have so far failed to find any explanation for.

Most of the topics that came up when I searched were people simply saying what the bow effect is/causes, and people like yourself telling others to go search for it.

Let me repeat myself.

To be fair, we still haven't proven how gravity works. Sure, we see the correlations of it and have theories, but we still don't know what the actual mechanism behind gravity is.

I don't think its quite right to say that FE must know what causes all of it's forces when RE still does not know what causes it's own fundamental force.

explain that and how the starts in the sky's change over the season's due to the fact that the earth is round and rotating?

Quote from: jtelroy on March 26, 2010, 08:46:57 AM

And here's why:

My question still hasn't been answered.

WHY does the bow-effect occur?

WHY does the influence of the UA manage to only effect the earth the stars above us?

All you've done is given a name to the phenomena I have so far failed to find any explanation for.

Most of the topics that came up when I searched were people simply saying what the bow effect is/causes, and people like yourself telling others to go search for it.

Let me repeat myself.

Quote

To be fair, we still haven't proven how gravity works. Sure, we see the correlations of it and have theories, but we still don't know what the actual mechanism behind gravity is.

I don't think its quite right to say that FE must know what causes all of it's forces when RE still does not know what causes it's own fundamental force.

Two Wrongs don't make a right?  Aren't you guys trying to make your theory superior to ours?  You shouldn't be using flaws in ours as excuses for yours.

Also we have plenty of valid theories behind the mechanism of gravity and are looking into proving them (most physiscists seem to think that since all other particles except for the higgs boson and the graviton in particle field theory have been found, the higgs boson and graviton will one day present themselves making the graviton the most likely explanation.)

And since science is something which is testable, you guys  should get on failing to disprove (since the scientific way of proving something is failing to disprove it.) the UA theory and give it a better basis than the graviton (which it currently does not have).

explain that and how the starts in the sky's change over the season's due to the fact that the earth is round and rotating?

They will probably tell you the flat earth is spinning and that bendy light only lets you see certain stars or something.  Even though bendy light would probably majorly fuck around with the way the stars looked in the sky if it were true, as Thermal Detonator pointed out.