FE crashing into god?

According to flat earth theory, the universe is only 500,000 miles big?

What will happen when earth accelerates to the end?

According to flat earth theory, the universe is only 500,000 miles big?

What will happen when earth accelerates to the end?

Why do you assume there is an end?

According to flat earth theory, the universe is only 500,000 miles big?

Where did you get that from?

So you admit the universe is infinite?

So there is no need for a conspiracy?

So you admit the universe is infinite?

So there is no need for a conspiracy?

The conspiracy doesn't exist to cover up the size of the universe.


You're really not getting this whole FET thing, are you?

Ok answer me this.

According to FE theory is space travel possible or not?

So you admit the universe is infinite?

Are you saying that since I have no knowledge regarding the size of the universe, I must conclude that it is infinite? I'm afraid that I'm not following your logic here.

According to FE theory is space travel possible or not?

Some say space travel is possible to a certain degree, while some say it's not.

The whole point of the conspiracy is to make money off the funding for space travel. Making people think that space travel is possible when its not.

Space travel is very much possible thus no reason for a conspiracy.

Space travel is very much possible

Prove it. Have you personally been to space?

No, I have not been into space. Have you been to the ice wall?

According to the FE theory, gravity exsists everywhere but earth. Therefore space travel is possible.

EDIT: Let us not forget the damn GPS that you love so much

No, I have not been into space. Have you been to the ice wall?

According to the FE theory, gravity exsists everywhere but earth. Therefore space travel is possible.

Why is space travel magically possible? The point is that nothing can 'orbit' because there is nothing to orbit. A flat earth has no constant pull all the way around. Many FEers say space travel is possible for a small amount of time, just not without burning fuel constantly.

Ok I guess there is no such thing as satellites  case solved.

Ok I guess there is no such thing as satellites  case solved.

Yeah dawg,stratelites is where its really at.

Ok I guess there is no such thing as satellites  case solved.

I hope you understand which side of the argument I agree with.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36546.0

lolwut? I refuse to believe this GPS thingy.

Prove it.

lolwut? I refuse to believe this GPS thingy.

Prove it.

That's the point of the link I provided. Stop being a fagtard. Read it and understand it.

I read it a long time ago.

Have you personally been into space and seen a satellite?

Im only using the same fagtard attitude you are using on me.

I read it a long time ago.

Good. Then you understand what side I agree with

Have you personally been into space and seen a satellite?

No, but I proved their existence

Im only using the same fagtard attitude you are using on me.

I'm not being a fagtard at all. I'm answering your questions in such a way that allows you to initiate your own thought process.

So satellites exists. Therefore space travel MUST exist?

So satellites exists. Therefore space travel MUST exist?

Yes.

Therefore no need for a conspiracy.

Therefore no need for a conspiracy.

Unless we are in fact being duped and they have an other means of emulating satellites, which I do not believe is possible.

Why cant a satellite exist in the FET?

Why cant a satellite exist in the FET?

Because in order for satellites to stay 'up', they orbit the earth. On FE, there is nothing to orbit. It would instantly fall down without a propulsion system constantly accelerating it upwards at 9.82ms^-2 to match the earth's speed and remain the same distance away. Not only that but they can be seen moving across the sky. This means they need to be propelled at an oblique angle so not all of their propulsion is countering the earth's speed. They would quickly run out of fuel.

Quote from: frozen_berries on April 14, 2010, 04:25:54 PM

According to flat earth theory, the universe is only 500,000 miles big?

What will happen when earth accelerates to the end?

Why do you assume there is an end?

Quote from: frozen_berries on April 14, 2010, 04:31:29 PM

So you admit the universe is infinite?

Are you saying that since I have no knowledge regarding the size of the universe, I must conclude that it is infinite? I'm afraid that I'm not following your logic here.

It was in 1929, that Edwin Hubble presented evidence that the universe is expanding.

Meaning it's not constant - no more than distance (the length), time and mass are also not absolutes as addressed in Einstein's "special theory of relativity" (in 1905), which is not to be confused with his general theory of relativity (in 1916) where he wove gravity, space, and time together and refined the physics of Isaac Newton.

Well we already knew that la supernovas are exploding stars that shine brightly as a billion suns for a short time, and astronomers use these supernovas as a standard of measurement.  However in 1998 while analyzing light from a special kind of supernova, astronomers found evidence that the universe expansion is ACCELERATING.  However they did not know what was causing the accelerating of expansion.  For one thing is seemed to work in opposition to gravity, and 2nd was not predicted by any of their current theories.  Now their theories point toward dark energy. 

Since Hubble's time, astronomers have been trying to measure as accurately as possible the rate of expansion, referred to as the "Hubble Constant."

I'm sure there are many out there that would disagree with the evidence found.  Don't shoot the messenger, just the message.   

Everything you just said is in direct contradiction with FET.

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 14, 2010, 04:27:45 PM

Quote from: frozen_berries on April 14, 2010, 04:25:54 PM

According to flat earth theory, the universe is only 500,000 miles big?

What will happen when earth accelerates to the end?

Why do you assume there is an end?

Quote from: Jack on April 14, 2010, 04:41:03 PM

Quote from: frozen_berries on April 14, 2010, 04:31:29 PM

So you admit the universe is infinite?

Are you saying that since I have no knowledge regarding the size of the universe, I must conclude that it is infinite? I'm afraid that I'm not following your logic here.

The universe is expanding AND the expansion is accelerating.

It was in 1929, that Edwin Hubble presented evidence that the universe is expanding.

Meaning it's not constant - no more than distance (the length), time and mass are also not absolutes as addressed in Einstein's "special theory of relativity" (in 1905), which is not to be confused with his general theory of relativity (in 1916) where he wove gravity, space, and time together and refined the physics of Isaac Newton.

Well we already knew that la supernovas are exploding stars that shine brightly as a billion suns for a short time, and astronomers use these supernovas as a standard of measurement.  However in 1998 while analyzing light from a special kind of supernova, astronomers found evidence that the universe expansion is ACCELERATING.  However they did not know what was causing the accelerating of expansion.  For one thing is seemed to work in opposition to gravity, and 2nd was not predicted by any of their current theories.  Now their theories point toward dark energy. 

Since Hubble's time, astronomers have been trying to measure as accurately as possible the rate of expansion, referred to as the "Hubble Constant."

I'm sure there are many out there that would disagree with the evidence found.  Don't shoot the messenger, just the message.   

The assumptions made preceding Edwin's conclusion render this explanation impossible to apply to FE theory... tis a moot point unless you alter FE theory.

Everything you just said is in direct contradiction with FET.

I am not a FE'er.  And like I had said, some may not agree - that's ok.

The assumptions made preceding Edwin's conclusion render this explanation impossible to apply to FE theory... tis a moot point unless you alter FE theory.

Key words "assumptions" and "preceding."  I was not speaking of assumptions, and you even said ... prior to HIS conclusion.  So he did conclude, and you seem to agree with that, based on your language.  And  .... as it relates to preceding - I did not know we were limiting ourselves to a certain time frame, whether before or after his conclusion.  One of Frozen Berries' questions was, .... so you agree the universe is infinite? (after stating previously the size of it)

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 14, 2010, 06:48:12 PM

Everything you just said is in direct contradiction with FET.

I am not a FE'er.  And like I had said, some may not agree - that's ok.

Quote from: Pid^2 on April 15, 2010, 12:28:23 PM

The assumptions made preceding Edwin's conclusion render this explanation impossible to apply to FE theory... tis a moot point unless you alter FE theory.

Key words "assumptions" and "preceding."  I was not speaking of assumptions, and you even said ... prior to HIS conclusion.  So he did conclude, and you seem to agree with that, based on your language.  And  .... as it relates to preceding - I did not know we were limiting ourselves to a certain time frame, whether before or after his conclusion.  One of Frozen Berries' questions was, .... so you agree the universe is infinite? (after stating previously the size of it)

No no no, his conclusions are based on observations supported by underlying assumptions... It is referred to as theory-dependance of observations.  The assumptions that he made to come to his conclusion would render the conclusion impossible to apply to FE theory because the assumptions themselves contradict FE theory.  Do you see?

Observation involves both perception as well as cognition. That is, one does not make an observation passively, but is also actively engaged in distinguishing the phenomenon being observed from surrounding sensory data. Therefore, observations depend on our underlying understanding of the way in which the world functions, and that understanding may influence what is perceived, noticed, or deemed worthy of consideration. More importantly, most scientific observation must be done within a theoretical context in order to be useful. For example, when one observes a measured increase in temperature, that observation is based on assumptions about the nature of temperature and its measurement, as well as assumptions about the way the instrument used to measure the temperature functions. Such assumptions are necessary in order to obtain scientifically useful observations (such as, "the temperature increased by two degrees").