Earth is straight or sloped?

It would be like me saying that there are poor fossils in the area of whale development so the entire theory of evolution should be scrubbed. This is, of course, silly.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact, much like flat earth is a theory, not a fact. Round earth is not a theory, it is a fact, proven, tested and demonstrated time and time again for thousands of years. Even the ancient greeks new the earth was round. Europeans in the dark ages thought it was flat because the Catholic church repressed any and all knowledge so they could keep their stranglehold on the masses.

Narcberry is doing a wonderful job of avoiding The Knowledge's points that an object cannot accelerate at varying speeds simultaneously without tearing apart. This is a fact and it cannot be argued. Therefore we can conclude that UA is a false theory, and a ridiculous one at that.

Would you agree that gravity is also a theory, not a fact? (I would)

Would you agree that gravity is also a theory, not a fact? (I would)

Gravity is a theory which (to date) fits all observational data which can be cross checked.
UA is a theory which (to date) fits some observational data badly, and other observational data not at all.

Please give an explanation of how Chile is accelerating faster than India all the time without their relative altitude changing.

On a round earth, how would that work? The distance to the core would be relatively equivalent for those countries. The data doesn't exactly fit with RE, here.

The distance to the core would be relatively equivalent for those countries.

Relative to what? Sea level?

Irrelative.

Quote from: Hazbollah on February 17, 2012, 06:45:33 AM

The distance to the core would be relatively equivalent for those countries.

Relative to what? Sea level?

Irrelative.

Alright, poor word usage. Roughly equivalent. Now please address the point.

Quote from: zarg on February 17, 2012, 07:29:38 AM

Quote from: Hazbollah on February 17, 2012, 06:45:33 AM

The distance to the core would be relatively equivalent for those countries.

Relative to what? Sea level?

Irrelative.

Alright, poor word usage. Roughly equivalent. Now please address the point.

Did you consider the effect of the Earth's rotation?

Quote from: Hazbollah on February 17, 2012, 08:12:18 AM

Quote from: zarg on February 17, 2012, 07:29:38 AM

Quote from: Hazbollah on February 17, 2012, 06:45:33 AM

The distance to the core would be relatively equivalent for those countries.

Relative to what? Sea level?

Irrelative.

Alright, poor word usage. Roughly equivalent. Now please address the point.

Did you consider the effect of the Earth's rotation?

They're just going to deny the earth's rotation. What was that link you posted awhile back? To the experiment conclusively proving the earth's rotation involving a pendulum? Everybody seemed to ignore that one. Post it again, lets get some attention focused on it.

Quote from: ClockTower on February 17, 2012, 08:13:10 AM

Quote from: Hazbollah on February 17, 2012, 08:12:18 AM

Quote from: zarg on February 17, 2012, 07:29:38 AM

Quote from: Hazbollah on February 17, 2012, 06:45:33 AM

The distance to the core would be relatively equivalent for those countries.

Relative to what? Sea level?

Irrelative.

Alright, poor word usage. Roughly equivalent. Now please address the point.

Did you consider the effect of the Earth's rotation?

They're just going to deny the earth's rotation. What was that link you posted awhile back? To the experiment conclusively proving the earth's rotation involving a pendulum? Everybody seemed to ignore that one. Post it again, lets get some attention focused on it.

This is the usual link that I post on that topic: http://www.calacademy.org/products/pendulum/.

Thanks. I'm going to make a thread about this.

Quote from: The Knowledge on February 15, 2012, 05:29:48 PM

Please give an explanation of how Chile is accelerating faster than India all the time without their relative altitude changing.

On a round earth, how would that work? The distance to the core would be relatively equivalent for those countries. The data doesn't exactly fit with RE, here.

Why are you taking this out of context - to try and confuse people? It means "[in the scenario of a flat earth accelerating under UA] Chile is accelerating faster than India all the time without their relative altitude changing."

Quote from: zarg on February 17, 2012, 07:29:38 AM

Quote from: Hazbollah on February 17, 2012, 06:45:33 AM

The distance to the core would be relatively equivalent for those countries.

Relative to what? Sea level?

Irrelative.

Alright, poor word usage. Roughly equivalent. Now please address the point.

I believe I just did address the point. Roughly equivalent is not equivalent. It makes a difference, especially when it's "rough" at a scale the size of Earth's radius.

Quote from: Hazbollah on February 17, 2012, 08:12:18 AM

Quote from: zarg on February 17, 2012, 07:29:38 AM

Quote from: Hazbollah on February 17, 2012, 06:45:33 AM

The distance to the core would be relatively equivalent for those countries.

Relative to what? Sea level?

Irrelative.

Alright, poor word usage. Roughly equivalent. Now please address the point.

I believe I just did address the point. Roughly equivalent is not equivalent. It makes a difference, especially when it's "rough" at a scale the size of Earth's radius.

Zarg, see above. You're arguing a point based on an out of context misquote.

I get that, but I assume he's saying that gravity should be the same in RET because the altitudes are the same.

Here's an image of measured gravity differences on earth.
Source: http://geophysics.eas.gatech.edu/classes/Geophysics/misc/Gravity.html

If UA is true, the areas on the red side of the spectrum are accelerating faster than areas on the blue side.  Over time, the redder areas would move up and up into the sky.

I'm no expert on this issue, but the lower gravity in southern India has been noted since at least 1976
edit:  Whoops, not a relevant link, let me try to find a better one.  http://www.bssaonline.org/content/66/5/1683.abstract
edit2:  Well, here's one from 1981, but unfortunately I don't have access to anything but the abstract  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0040195182901615

If these values stay stable over time, even a small difference like .5% in acceleration would start causing some big problems for the world.

Knowledge: the two answers for the question you incessantly ask have been told to you over and over again. Either gravity exists in amounts significantly smaller than in RET, or celestial objects exhibit an unknown force to cause it. Please do pay attention.

Knowledge: the two answers for the question you incessantly ask have been told to you over and over again. Either gravity exists in amounts significantly smaller than in RET, or celestial objects exhibit an unknown force to cause it. Please do pay attention.

What the hell are you on about? The first excuse doesn't even make sense to me as a solution: and as for the second, "celestial objects do it" is no different from "God did it" without some sort of evidence or data, however slight, to back it up, which I have repeatedly asked for and which you nor anyone else has ever supplied. In fact, observations of celestial gravity actually support the theory that earth has it.
Until such time as you are able to explain how you know celestial objects cause this, it is not an explanation but a fobbing off, no better than appeal to religion. And as such, shall be treated as a non-explanation.