Overcomplicated

Isn't the flat earth theory just way to complicated? The round earth fits patterns that can be seen throughout the solar system, the galaxy, and the unvierse.

With the flat earth theory, there have to be so many exceptions. A very common FE argument is "just because the moon, planets, and stars are spherical doesn't mean the earth is spherical."

Another one is that all the bodies of the solar system have their own gravitational field, but the earth must continually accelerate upward to create gravity.

Proven physical laws must also be ignored. All other heavenly bodies are spherical, yet somehow the earth is disk-shaped. For some odd reason, gravity won't force the earth to form a more spherical shape, even though that would be the most efficient way the particles could be arranged around the earth's gravitational center.

All-in-all, earth has to be one giant exception to the universe, for reasons unspecified.

As an aside, why is eviltoothpaste the only person who has bothered to do any math?

i think i read that they also said that the sun and other celestial objects were flat

i think i read that they also said that the sun and other celestial objects were flat

They contridict each other on that one. Some FEers say they are flat, some say that they're round, and some switch back and forth depending on the situation.

Some celestial bodies are flat, some are not.

Some celestial bodies are flat, some are not.

You have proof of this? Oh.

Just look outside your window for all the visual proof you need of a flat celestial body.

Isn't the flat earth theory just way to complicated? The round earth fits patterns that can be seen throughout the solar system, the galaxy, and the unvierse.

Does it matter?  I would say the RE is rather complicated, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

Another one is that all the bodies of the solar system have their own gravitational field, but the earth must continually accelerate upward to create gravity.

Proven physical laws must also be ignored. All other heavenly bodies are spherical, yet somehow the earth is disk-shaped. For some odd reason, gravity won't force the earth to form a more spherical shape, even though that would be the most efficient way the particles could be arranged around the earth's gravitational center.

You just said it:  the earth does not have a gravitational field.

As an aside, why is eviltoothpaste the only person who has bothered to do any math?

It's funny that RE'ers think that the site did not exist before they joined.
I've calculated pressures and forces on the ice wall, I've made a nice graph of the velocity of the FE as it accelerates over time, I've verified Rowbotham's numbers, Erasmus just did math on a Cavendish apparatus, he has also provided numerical results numerous other times, even Skeptical Scientist did a piece on the curvature of the earth wrt altitude, before evil did his.

Isn't the flat earth theory just way to complicated?

If that means it's not true, it should follow that the universe does not exist.

Just look outside your window for all the visual proof you need of a flat celestial body.

That does not qualify other celestial bodies to follow that pattern. Be a better debater Tom, you're losing your touch.

Just look outside your window for all the visual proof you need of a flat celestial body.

Look at the sky during the day. The sky is blue. Look at it during night. The sky is black. Therefore air must change color every 12 hours or so.

That statement above uses the same logic that you're using. Ignoramus.

Quote from: "Big N"

Isn't the flat earth theory just way to complicated? The round earth fits patterns that can be seen throughout the solar system, the galaxy, and the unvierse.

Does it matter?  I would say the RE is rather complicated, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

The round earth follows a pattern that all other celestial objects follow. Therefore, it's simple. The flat earth is an exception to known patterns, making the system complicated.

Quote

Another one is that all the bodies of the solar system have their own gravitational field, but the earth must continually accelerate upward to create gravity.

Proven physical laws must also be ignored. All other heavenly bodies are spherical, yet somehow the earth is disk-shaped. For some odd reason, gravity won't force the earth to form a more spherical shape, even though that would be the most efficient way the particles could be arranged around the earth's gravitational center.

You just said it:  the earth does not have a gravitational field.

That is the most dick-headed statement you've ever made. Usually you don't do things like taking what people say and twisting it to meet your own expectations. It's obvious that I was explaining it using flat earth logic, and I was explaining why it doesn't make sense.

Quote

As an aside, why is eviltoothpaste the only person who has bothered to do any math?

It's funny that RE'ers think that the site did not exist before they joined.
I've calculated pressures and forces on the ice wall, I've made a nice graph of the velocity of the FE as it accelerates over time, I've verified Rowbotham's numbers, Erasmus just did math on a Cavendish apparatus, he has also provided numerical results numerous other times, even Skeptical Scientist did a piece on the curvature of the earth wrt altitude, before evil did his.

Post the math you did.

Also, a 9th grader could make a graph of velocity vs. time if they knew the acceleration.

It's funny that RE'ers think that the site did not exist before they joined.  I've calculated pressures and forces on the ice wall, I've made a nice graph of the velocity of the FE as it accelerates over time, I've verified Rowbotham's numbers, Erasmus just did math on a Cavendish apparatus, he has also provided numerical results numerous other times, even Skeptical Scientist did a piece on the curvature of the earth wrt altitude, before evil did his.

I've been slogging my way dumbly through some of the old posts.  There seems to be a cyclical pattern between people that know what they're talking about and people that just say, "UR STOOPID.. ROUND ERTH RuLZ!!!!111  WooT"

. . . But the better posts are impressive.

I've been slogging my way dumbly through some of the old posts.  There seems to be a cyclical pattern between people that know what they're talking about and people that just say, "UR STOOPID.. ROUND ERTH RuLZ!!!!111  WooT"

. . . But the better posts are impressive.

You see now why FE'ers aren't climbing over each other to prove their theory to every new member that comes along and demands it.

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

It's funny that RE'ers think that the site did not exist before they joined.  I've calculated pressures and forces on the ice wall, I've made a nice graph of the velocity of the FE as it accelerates over time, I've verified Rowbotham's numbers, Erasmus just did math on a Cavendish apparatus, he has also provided numerical results numerous other times, even Skeptical Scientist did a piece on the curvature of the earth wrt altitude, before evil did his.

I've been slogging my way dumbly through some of the old posts.  There seems to be a cyclical pattern between people that know what they're talking about and people that just say, "UR STOOPID.. ROUND ERTH RuLZ!!!!111  WooT"

. . . But the better posts are impressive.

EvilToothPaste, it might be beneficial to compile a sort of encyclopedia explaining various FE phenomena. Certainly the vast intelligence of this forum could produce a better, more comprehensive FAQ.

A wiki that could be used for both FE and RE (make them separate as to not confuse them) would be awesome. It could be amended as new things are discovered.

The round earth follows a pattern that all other celestial objects follow. .

Like life?  Oh, wait, no.  That's a pattern other celestial objects don't follow.

That is the most dick-headed statement you've ever made. Usually you don't do things like taking what people say and twisting it to meet your own expectations. It's obvious that I was explaining it using flat earth logic, and I was explaining why it doesn't make sense.

You were trying to explain using gravity.  The FE is gravitationally 'neutral'.

Post the math you did.

Do a search.

Also, a 9th grader could make a graph of velocity vs. time if they knew the acceleration

Yes, but unless they understand Relativity, it would be wrong.

So you guys use mathematics?  Ridiculous.  If that's the case, then explain to me how you can map the surface of a sphere on a plane--in EUCLIDIAN SPACE--without a linear increase in distortion at increasing radii.

Like life?  Oh, wait, no.  That's a pattern other celestial objects don't follow.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Gravity can be observed in the lab on any object. Why is the Earth any different?

You were trying to explain using gravity.  The FE is gravitationally 'neutral'.

Why?

Quote

Also, a 9th grader could make a graph of velocity vs. time if they knew the acceleration

Yes, but unless they understand Relativity, it would be wrong.

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. For an engineer, you have pathetic understanding of fucking freshman physics.

Acceleration, time, and velocity are all mathematically related and has nothing to do with relativity, at all. They can be done of any object with any change in distance.

If you are a real engineer, you would know about this thing called calculus that allows this even easier. If you aren't one, you are just another dirty fucking liar.

If you are talking about velocities getting closer to the speed of light, the graphs still fucking work. The laws of physics are the same for all observers, regardless of their own velocity (velocity relative to what I must ask)

Actually, on this one, he's right.  Newtonian mechanics is adequate for low accelerations, the Earth's acceleration times the age of the Earth would mean that it has long since approached relativistic velocities.  You'd need Einstenian mechanics to plot a v/t graph accurately.

Newtonian mechanics is adequate for low accelerations, the Earth's acceleration times the age of the Earth would mean that it has long since approached relativistic velocities.

Velocity relative to what? That is the most important question before bringing in "relativity". It is called that for a reason, you know.

That's a good point.  I've actually brought that up before--"What is being accelerated"?

They've mentioned before that it's possible to jump "off the side" of the Earth and thereby escape the continuous intervention of the "Universal Accelerator".  In that case, you'd have an inertial frame of reference with which you could see the acceleration of the Earth.

So I suppose the relative PoV would be a frame of reference that has never been affected, directly or indirectly, by the universal accelerator.

You have no fraking idea what you are talking about. For an engineer, you have pathetic understanding of fraking freshman physics.

Acceleration, time, and velocity are all mathematically related and has nothing to do with relativity, at all. They can be done of any object with any change in distance.

If you are a real engineer, you would know about this thing called calculus that allows this even easier. If you aren't one, you are just another dirty fraking liar.

If you are talking about velocities getting closer to the speed of light, the graphs still fraking work. The laws of physics are the same for all observers, regardless of their own velocity (velocity relative to what I must ask)

Well, there goes your credibility.

TheEngineer:

Teapot calling the kettle black.

Well, there goes your credibility.

Cut out the ad-hominum fallacies and answer the point, asshole. Is that what you call debating?

Quote from: "Scientist"

You have no fraking idea what you are talking about. For an engineer, you have pathetic understanding of fraking freshman physics.

Acceleration, time, and velocity are all mathematically related and has nothing to do with relativity, at all. They can be done of any object with any change in distance.

If you are a real engineer, you would know about this thing called calculus that allows this even easier. If you aren't one, you are just another dirty fraking liar.

If you are talking about velocities getting closer to the speed of light, the graphs still fraking work. The laws of physics are the same for all observers, regardless of their own velocity (velocity relative to what I must ask)

Well, there goes your credibility.

What credibility?

So I suppose the relative PoV would be a frame of reference that has never been affected, directly or indirectly, by the universal accelerator.

The acceleration would remain constant relative to the Earth, and relativistic effects would certainly be visible if we were looking back on this frame or if an observer in this frame were looking at us. But, if we are talking about the sun, since we can see it, it must be accelerating with us, thus there would be no relativistic effects. The distortions from the initial frame might be an interesting theoritical thing to talk about, but it would have no effect on the visible universe from the Earth, flat or otherwise.

What credibility?

Do you have anything productive to add or are you just being a worthless troll who has nothing better to do than follow me around and make snippy bullshit comments?

Quote from: "MMMM"

What credibility?

Do you have anything productive to add or are you just being a worthless troll who has nothing better to do than follow me around and make snippy bullshit comments?

I rest my case!

I rest my case!

If you have nothing to say, then just shut the fuck up and cut out the spam.

TheEngineer:

Teapot calling the kettle black.

Example?