PROOF THAT THE EARTH IS ROUND

esspecially at those speeds.

What speeds?

Quote from: "Van Allen"

Quote from: "Masterchief2219"

Quote from: "Van Allen"

how so?

prove that your Universal Accelerator isnt gay.

you cant.

i can prove gravity isnt gay.

I just jumped up and landed back on earth... it didn't stick a dildo in my ass.

Nope, that was you sticking the dildo in your ass, not gravity.

oh, a gay joke.

DID EVERYONE SEE THIS GUYS GAY JOKE?

Quote from: "Van Allen"

prove that your Universal Accelerator isnt gay.

Quote from: "Van Allen"

i can prove gravity isnt gay.

Quote from: "Van Allen"

it didn't stick a dildo in my ass.

DID EVERYONE SEE THIS GUY'S GAY JOKES?

dont try to piggy back on my success.

Personally, I think it is a force. But not all Flat Earthers agree with each other.

dont try to piggy back on my success.

I was just saying that you've got a plank in your eye.

Quote from: "Van Allen"

esspecially at those speeds.

What speeds?

everything accelerates at 9.8 m/s2. by now its got to be going pretty fast.

everything accelerates at 9.8 m/s2. by now its got to be going pretty fast.

Funny, it doesn't seem to be moving at all to me.

Quote from: "Van Allen"

dont try to piggy back on my success.

I was just saying that you've got a plank in your eye.

but you didnt say that. You used big bold letters to attact attention to yourself using my posts as a base.

Quote from: "Van Allen"

everything accelerates at 9.8 m/s2. by now its got to be going pretty fast.

Funny, it doesn't seem to be moving at all to me.

because its not moving.

your saying this accelerator is like magnetism and effects certain elements on the bottom of the earth?

everything on the surface of the earth would then just crumble off starting at the sides becasue it isnt being accelerated with it.

Unless of course all of the matter that isn't affected is being held in my the matter that is.

esspecially at those speeds.

Motion is relative.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "Van Allen"

dont try to piggy back on my success.

I was just saying that you've got a plank in your eye.

but you didnt say that. You used big bold letters to attact attention to yourself using my posts as a base.

I was telling you that maybe you should practice what you preach.

because its not moving.

Not from my accelerated reference frame, no.

because its not moving.

Not true. Even in Round Earth theory we are supposed to be moving around the sun.

how do you explain satalite photos of antarctica?

how do you explain satalite photos of antarctica?

Satellites do not exist. Without gravity it is not possible for something to orbit the Earth.

Quote from: "Van Allen"

because its not moving.

Not true. Even in Round Earth theory we are supposed to be moving around the sun.

and we do.

if you haven't noticed, i've given up on argueing the topic with such nieve people.

Quote from: "Van Allen"

how do you explain satalite photos of antarctica?

Satellites do not exist. Without gravity it is not possible for something to orbit the Earth.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... i can't believe you believe that satellites don't exist. What moves across the sky at such a high rate of speed at night with blue and red colours to it that is to far off and fast to be a plane?

and how to planes fly then?

Try using the Search function. Every one of these questions has been answered countless times.

and how to planes fly then?

Same way they do on a RE.

What moves across the sky at such a high rate of speed at night with blue and red colours to it that is to far off and fast to be a plane?

Nothing.

Alleged satellites are not alleged to have red and blue lights.  Airplanes have them so that it is possible for ground observers and other airplanes to see them, and to tell which way they are going.  This is not a particularly useful feature for alleged satellites, and costs energy -- a lot of energy if you want them to be visible from the ground.

Alleged satallites are alleged to be visible because sunlight is alleged to reflect off their allegedly-shiny surfaces.

Satellites are a conspiracy too. And satellites don't have lights on them, so...

*Nibbles on kitten*

So how does FE explain the (for lack of a better term) gravitational force between two objects observable to the human eye?

FEs biggest problem is that 90% of it is circular reasoning. The majority of theories start with "Well, Earth is flat, therefore it has to be this." Thousands of scientific theories were made before it was commonly believed that Earth was round, and those theories held true once it became common knowledge because they didn't presuppose anything.

Oh, and how does FE explain Lunar Eclipses?

So how does FE explain the (for lack of a better term) gravitational force between two objects observable to the human eye?

It says it isn't there, and that isn't observed.

FEs biggest problem is that 90% of it is circular reasoning. The majority of theories start with "Well, Earth is flat, therefore it has to be this."

That's not circular reasoning.  Circular reasoning is arguments of the form, "The Earth is flat, therefore such-and-such, ..., therefore the Earth is flat."

Quote from: "EnCrypto"

So how does FE explain the (for lack of a better term) gravitational force between two objects observable to the human eye?

It says it isn't there, and that isn't observed.

Quote

FEs biggest problem is that 90% of it is circular reasoning. The majority of theories start with "Well, Earth is flat, therefore it has to be this."

That's not circular reasoning.  Circular reasoning is arguments of the form, "The Earth is flat, therefore such-and-such, ..., therefore the Earth is flat."

Way to avoid his lunar eclipse question.

Way to avoid his lunar eclipse question.

Read Earth not a Globe.

Quote from: "Kevin."

Way to avoid his lunar eclipse question.

Read Earth not a Globe.

Care to prove him wrong? Instead of typing jibberish irrelevant to his question

Care to prove him wrong?

Yes. By having him read Earth not a Globe.

Quote from: "GeoGuy"

Quote from: "Kevin."

Way to avoid his lunar eclipse question.

Read Earth not a Globe.

Care to prove him wrong? Instead of typing jibberish irrelevant to his question

Your ignorance is painful.

Way to avoid his lunar eclipse question.

I don't know what came over me.  Normally I love it when people bring up totally unrelated crap in a thread.

Quote from: "Kevin."

Way to avoid his lunar eclipse question.

I don't know what came over me.  Normally I love it when people bring up totally unrelated crap in a thread.

So you're saying that

Oh, and how does FE explain Lunar Eclipses

? Is COMPLETLY unrelated to this thread, tittled "PROOF THAT THE EARTH IS ROUND"?