Stuff

Quote from: "Quarrior"

that is from my head based on years of University education...

So much for University education, eh?

He really should see if they will give him his money back.

omg The Engineer, your idiocy has NO BOUNDS.

Relative statement, and an ad hominem; boy, you really know how to debate intelligently.

firstly Relativity says gravity DOES EXIST you GOD DAMN MORON...it just describes it differently to Newtonian Physics...once again fail to disprove me

No, gravity doesn't exist, because Newton says it's a force.  Einstein says that gravity is a pseudo-force, and is actually an intrinsic property of space-time; matter tells space-time how to curve, and curved space-time tells matter how to act.  But, you should have already known this, considering how knowledgeable you always say you are.  What you seem to be unable to understand is the fact that Einstein said that accelerating reference frames and frames under the influence of gravity are equivalent.  That's important.

How can stars, move in other directions but the same way we do in this accelerating universe IF THERE IS NO OTHER FORCE TO PUSH OR PULL THEM ABOUT...once again, your rebutal lacks any strong case, only the support of a moron.

How can nothing go the speed of light?  Why does an electron behave like a wave and a particle?  Just because you cannot understand the workings of something doesn't automatically make it incorrect.

Quote

The purpose of this Website is to provide the “Real Physics” involved with developing “Warp Drive” and “making Star Trek a reality.”  Gravity manipulation and amplification is the key that unlocks the Milky Way galaxy and the rest of the universe.  By navigating the heavens on a Starship using an Amplified Gravity Field Propulsion System, man will no longer be bound to a portion of our Sun's Solar System.

The information the website provides is true. Its trying to show you how it is possible to travel at great speeds. For morons like you the only representation you can understand is stat treck, the theory explained is 100% correct, try reading what it has to say. You can look for another website if you want to, it will disprove your pathetic flat earth theory.

Really?  Why hasn't it made Physics news?  I mean, if someone found a way to unify the gravimetric force with any of the other three fundamental forces the Physics world would be abuzz with this news.  Since I haven't heard anything, it must be one of those theories that hasn't received any experimental backing.

String Theory

Yeah, that. (PS - Which one?  There's five - Type I, Type IIA, Type IIB, Heterotic-E, and Heterotic-O; they're all said to be special cases of the ever-elusive M-Theory)

This theory isn't by one physicist either. Its by a group of men from all around the world. The document you read is 7 years old, we are a lot further into string theory and uniformed force theory now than we were 7 years ago. You can't give the nobel prize to one man for a theory which comprises several different scientists from many different organisations...

Oh lol.  You mean it's all pretty numbers and equations, but hasn't been tested yet.  Ok.

Also...sorry for trying to explain Quantum Mechanics to those who don't understand it...such as yourself.

Bring it, bitch.

I didn't quote any textbook unless i specifically said so, that is from my head based on years of University education, something im sure u'll never experience

I claim that your claim is baseless, and I base that on absolutely nothing (except for the fact that you can't prove that the information presented came from your head; also, knowledge deteriorates over time, my friend).

I answered it.

And what's your answer? All I see is you dancing around the bush like a little schoolgirl.

Acceleration is relative, as I have stated about 10 times in this thread alone.

No, gravity doesn't exist, because Newton says it's a force.  Einstein says that gravity is a pseudo-force, and is actually an intrinsic property of space-time; matter tells space-time how to curve, and curved space-time tells matter how to act.  But, you should have already known this, considering how knowledgeable you always say you are.  What you seem to be unable to understand is the fact that Einstein said that accelerating reference frames and frames under the influence of gravity are equivalent.  That's important.

Love it, you just confirmed what I said read my original post

How can nothing go the speed of light?  Why does an electron behave like a wave and a particle?  Just because you cannot understand the workings of something doesn't automatically make it incorrect.

We understand why nothing can go the speed of light...we arn't talking abuot wave-particle duality here either, we are talking about Stars, could a bus move on the surface of the earth if it were not for some push pull force? Gravity keeps it on the ground and then other movements require independent forces

Really?  Why hasn't it made Physics news?  I mean, if someone found a way to unify the gravimetric force with any of the other three fundamental forces the Physics world would be abuzz with this news.  Since I haven't heard anything, it must be one of those theories that hasn't received any experimental backing.

Quote from: "Quarrior"

String Theory

Yeah, that. (PS - Which one?  There's five - Type I, Type IIA, Type IIB, Heterotic-E, and Heterotic-O; they're all said to be special cases of the ever-elusive M-Theory)

It has made scientific news, im sure there is a lot in the universe you don't know about...remember this theory was original published seven years ago. If you can find a paper that disproves it, go ahead. There is physical evidence for it, nucleii with proton and neutron "magic" and "double magic" are similar to electron shell structures. Quantum Chromodynamically it is difficult to see but it has been shown because we are dealing with the nucleus of the atom as opposed to orbiting electrons.

As for your string theory remark...maybe you'd like me to go through all the differences in the theories...you're just being pedantic, this website is not for people to try and learn the differences between humanities multiple attempts at a unifying theory. If you want to disprove me, go ahead but use solid evidence, don't come back until you do

Oh lol.  You mean it's all pretty numbers and equations, but hasn't been tested yet.  Ok.

Theory has been tested my boy...physical evidence...Nucleus of Atoms...Strong Nuclear Force...Gluon...OBSERVED SPACE-TIME COMPRESSION

Bring it, bitch.

Done and done

I claim that your claim is baseless, and I base that on absolutely nothing (except for the fact that you can't prove that the information presented came from your head; also, knowledge deteriorates over time, my friend).

Good thing im only a youngster then aye, still got plenty of time before the altzeimers will be claiming this mind lol

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

No, gravity doesn't exist, because Newton says it's a force.  Einstein says that gravity is a pseudo-force, and is actually an intrinsic property of space-time; matter tells space-time how to curve, and curved space-time tells matter how to act.  But, you should have already known this, considering how knowledgeable you always say you are.  What you seem to be unable to understand is the fact that Einstein said that accelerating reference frames and frames under the influence of gravity are equivalent.  That's important.

Love it, you just confirmed what I said read my original post

Ok, let's break it down:

firstly Relativity says gravity DOES EXIST you GOD DAMN MORON

For your first segment, you proclaimed that Relativity says that gravity exists, but you failed to mention what you meant by that -- did you mean as a force, or as the bending of space-time?  It could be interpreted differently relative to whoever was reading your statement at the time.  It is neither mine nor anyone else's fault that your statement was entirely ambiguous. So, this is you:

(HINT: You're now missing an arm.)

it just describes it differently to Newtonian Physics...once again fail to disprove me

So, it exists but it's different?  Can I call a butterfly a caterpillar?  I mean, they're the same thing, only different, and the difference didn't change the existence of the creature ... but why do people correct me when I call a butterfly a caterpillar?  Oh yeah -- because they're not the same thing!  So, that is why you must specify what you mean, rather than hiding behind ambiguous statements and claiming victory when people misunderstand what you mean.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

How can nothing go the speed of light?  Why does an electron behave like a wave and a particle?  Just because you cannot understand the workings of something doesn't automatically make it incorrect.

We understand why nothing can go the speed of light...we aren't talking abuot wave-particle duality here either, we are talking about Stars, could a bus move on the surface of the earth if it were not for some push pull force? Gravity keeps it on the ground and then other movements require independent forces.

You totally missed my point - purchase a laser scope.  My point was that just because you don't understand something doesn't make it less true.  Saying, "It makes no sense so it CAN'T be true!" is logically stupid; like Nature gives a rat's ass about your thoughts.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Really?  Why hasn't it made Physics news?  I mean, if someone found a way to unify the gravimetric force with any of the other three fundamental forces the Physics world would be abuzz with this news.  Since I haven't heard anything, it must be one of those theories that hasn't received any experimental backing.

Quote from: "Quarrior"

String Theory

Yeah, that. (PS - Which one?  There's five - Type I, Type IIA, Type IIB, Heterotic-E, and Heterotic-O; they're all said to be special cases of the ever-elusive M-Theory)

It has made scientific news, im sure there is a lot in the universe you don't know about

Dude, I'm at college right now; I hang out with the graduate students.  None of them have mentioned this bullshit.

remember this theory was original published seven years ago. If you can find a paper that disproves it, go ahead.

Not enough time to wade through 50,000+ papers just to prove you wrong, sorry.

There is physical evidence for it, nucleii with proton and neutron "magic" and "double magic" are similar to electron shell structures. Quantum Chromodynamically it is difficult to see but it has been shown because we are dealing with the nucleus of the atom as opposed to orbiting electrons.

Pachycephalosuar, Austropithecine, Phylogeny, Antorbital Fenestra.  See, I can say lots of "big words" and sound smart, too; that doesn't automatically mean I understand them, it just means that I heard them somewhere and remembered them.

As for your string theory remark...maybe you'd like me to go through all the differences in the theories...you're just being pedantic, this website is not for people to try and learn the differences between humanities multiple attempts at a unifying theory. If you want to disprove me, go ahead but use solid evidence, don't come back until you do

I sense an argument via authority coming on ...

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Oh lol.  You mean it's all pretty numbers and equations, but hasn't been tested yet.  Ok.

Theory has been tested my boy...physical evidence...Nucleus of Atoms...Strong Nuclear Force...Gluon...OBSERVED SPACE-TIME COMPRESSION

"Theory" is vague.  Which theory?  You're being vague in a desparate attempt to confuse me so I can't refute this; too bad I caught you.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

I claim that your claim is baseless, and I base that on absolutely nothing (except for the fact that you can't prove that the information presented came from your head; also, knowledge deteriorates over time, my friend).

Good thing im only a youngster then aye, still got plenty of time before the altzeimers will be claiming this mind lol

I sure hope you don't have to do a lot of graphin; you seem to miss a lot of points.

It has made scientific news, im sure there is a lot in the universe you don't know about...remember this theory was original published seven years ago. If you can find a paper that disproves it, go ahead. There is physical evidence for it, nucleii with proton and neutron "magic" and "double magic" are similar to electron shell structures. Quantum Chromodynamically it is difficult to see but it has been shown because we are dealing with the nucleus of the atom as opposed to orbiting electrons.

I'm still waiting for evidence that more than the person who created this crap backs it.  Who are the other scientists and where to they work.  Hell, what does the crackpot who came up with this theory do?

And what's your answer? All I see is you dancing around the bush like a little schoolgirl.

I didn't know schoolchildren of either gender were prone to frolicking around shrubbery, but whatevs.

Acceleration is relative, as I have stated about 10 times in this thread alone.

Which is not the answer to my question. Here. Let me quote myself and make the question really big so you won't be able to miss it.

Quote

In other words, from Bob's perspective, the Earth is always stationary (we are Bob), but undergoing constant acceleration. From Alice's perspective, the Earth moves at an ever increasing rate, but the acceleration is not constant -- it decreases over time in such a way that the Earth never surpasses the speed of light.

Care explaining how the earth can undergo constant acceleration, while not being constant, and by constantly decreasing its speed?

I sense contradiction.

Because if its decreasing its speed so that it doesn't surpass the speed of light, that means its decreasing its speed with the same ammount it accelerates in. Which means its not changing its speed at all.

Which means one of 3 things

1) you're wrong
2) we're right
3) the earth's speed it constant, its acceleration is not(read: its acceleration is 0).

case 3 may very  well be the case. If earth had a constant speed, you'd still feel the "gravitational pull" you're exlaining. Sadly, that's not what your theory is about. So you're wrong either way.

 I think you have no idea what acceleration really means.

Maybe next time I should spell it out more obvious. Although I admit, I did write the post twice. First time I got an error, so it didn't et posted. That time I wrote it something like "How can" instead of the way I wrote it the second time.

Either way, that's the one I want the answer from. It has nothing to do with gravity, really.

so in case you find that one odd, and in order to give you no chance to escape the question, here it is again, reworded.

In other words, from Bob's perspective, the Earth is always stationary (we are Bob), but undergoing constant acceleration. From Alice's perspective, the Earth moves at an ever increasing rate, but the acceleration is not constant -- it decreases over time in such a way that the Earth never surpasses the speed of light.

How can it constantly be accelerating, while still constantly be decelerating? It either doesn't accelerate at all, or it constantly accelerates (and thus reaching the speed of late), or constantly decelerate (thus eventually standing still, and then moving backwards).

Because if its decreasing its speed so that it doesn't surpass the speed of light, that means its decreasing its speed with the same ammount it accelerates in. Which means its not changing its speed at all.

How can it constantly be accelerating, while still constantly be decelerating? It either doesn't accelerate at all, or it constantly accelerates (and thus reaching the speed of late), or constantly decelerate (thus eventually standing still, and then moving backwards).

First off, we never said Earth decelerates, we said it's rate of acceleration decreases. It still gains speed each second, it just gains less speed than it did the previous second.
Next, as Engineer keeps having to repeat over and over, acceleration is relative. Earth's acceleration is not decreasing in any FoR in which it is not approaching c.

You totally missed my point - purchase a laser scope.  My point was that just because you don't understand something doesn't make it less true.  Saying, "It makes no sense so it CAN'T be true!" is logically stupid; like Nature gives a rat's ass about your thoughts.

I'm not going to waste my time with the rest of your pointless post. Attack me all you want it wont save FE theory. You once again highlighted the major flaw in FE theory. It fails to explain, or even give a reason for this mystical force which accounts for objects moving around in space. All scientific theories, even if they were wrong, tried to account for it. The original FE theory never had this problem because the movement of celestial bodies could not be observed. When they could, FE theory was shown to be false. How does FE theory account for this, you can't just say it happens, if FE theorists have incredible imaginations, i mean they can imagine an accelerator which defies the laws of thermodynamics, then surely they can account for this. Maybe all the planets are being pulled by invisibile chariots and the suns are really just basketballs which Apollo likes to shoot hoops with every now and again?

You still Havn't explained how FE theory accounts for Einsteins concept of gravity as a curvature in space time, and how it can be observed by the bending of light around stars either

P.S. Both GR and Newtonian physics account for the force of "gravity", whether it is something that pulls you towards the centre of an object with mass, or the centre of a curvature in space-time. Eistein says that gravity is not a force, but just the effects felt due to a curvature in space-time. We know this doesn't compute with the current QM model either, but one day the two theories will be unified and what a day that shall be, almost as glorious as the day when "non government" human beings will look down upon the earth and say...ooh look the earth is round after all...

P.S.S
here are your 4 crackpot physicists, you could have just gone back a page. Read the whole document, its quite educational

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Nuclear_Gravitation_Field_Theory.htm

We know this doesn't compute with the current QM model either, but one day the two theories will be unified and what a day that shall be

What?  I thought your crackpot buddy already did?  

P.S.S
here are your 4 crackpot physicists, you could have just gone back a page. Read the whole document, its quite educational

I don't see the names of any physicists that support his ideas.  How about you actually provide a link and some names.  The only people who 'support' his site are those of questionable character, such as paranormal and UFO 'experts'.

Earth's acceleration is not decreasing in any FoR in which it is not approaching c.

The FoR where FE's speed is approaching c would have to be outside the universe? I mean the universe seems to be accelerating with FE, right?

Quote from: "Quarrior"

We know this doesn't compute with the current QM model either, but one day the two theories will be unified and what a day that shall be

What?  I thought your crackpot buddy already did?  

Quote

P.S.S
here are your 4 crackpot physicists, you could have just gone back a page. Read the whole document, its quite educational

I don't see the names of any physicists that support his ideas.  How about you actually provide a link and some names.  The only people who 'support' his site are those of questionable character, such as paranormal and UFO 'experts'.

I provided the link, its in the post...read...The UFO material is unrelated to the thesis on Quantum Gravitation, stop basing your pathetic defence on this.

The classic QM model proposes that Gravity is dictated by the Gravitron, however my "crackpot" buddies proposed that it is infact dictated by the Gluon as it and the strong nuclear are the same thing. However Relativity and Quantum Mechanics still dont compute because the problem is not limited only to gravity.

The FoR where FE's speed is approaching c would have to be outside the universe? I mean the universe seems to be accelerating with FE, right?

Well obviously the whole universe isn't accelerating along with Earth, otherwise things wouldn't 'fall' when you drop them.

I provided the link, its in the post...read...

I can't find those scientists' names anywhere.  I must have missed them, but since you know where to find them, how about just telling me?

The UFO material is unrelated to the thesis on Quantum Gravitation, stop basing your pathetic defence on this.

He has a page dedicated to 'Supporters of this Site'.  The only people who are listed on that page are paranormal and UFO 'experts'.  

Again, how about just providing the names of those scientists?

That paper was written by Kenneth F. Wright, P.E.

However I will admit to this, Nuclear Gravitation is not as main-stream as most other areas of M-Theory because it is so hard to unite Strong Nuclear and Gravity outside of an atom. I first read about Nuclear Gravitation in a news-paper in 2003. I followed up on the idea and found several papers that presented, but did not describe in detail the idea of unified Nuclear gravitation. The papers I read are not available on the Internet, but I will go to my University library and find you the published PhD thesis in which I read them. However there is still strong evidence which supports Nuclear Gravitation on an atomic scale, most of which is provided in the linked paper.

However for the sake of the argument of FE theory verses SE theory, you arn't bothering to disprove my other points simply by forever requesting evidence and stalling the inevitable. I don't ask for evidence supporting FE theory, because there simply is none. Why don't u explain to me the effect of GR since Gravity in FE theorist eyes is not as Einstein would say, a bending of space-time.

Or why don't you explain to me, without saying that it is a magic force we can't understand, that the universe seems to be moving in directions apart from uniformly upward at 9.8m/s/s.

Or Why don't you explain to me, how your FE universe defies thermodynamics, where energy cannot be created or destroyed and that "in any process, the overall energy of the universe must remain constant". The infinite amount of work being done by the FE universe clearly contradicts this caused  by this mystic accelerator.

What?  Why would there need to be an infinite amount of energy?


So when you told me there were scientists named in that paper and I just had to look for them, you were lying?  I can't find even one person besides the author (who, for a person who has solved the greatest problem in physics, does not have any formal education in nuclear physics, nor does he teach anywhere, which seems to be a major waste for a man of his talent, nor does he have a Nobel Prize) who backs the theory.

Quote from: "Uzor"

Because if its decreasing its speed so that it doesn't surpass the speed of light, that means its decreasing its speed with the same ammount it accelerates in. Which means its not changing its speed at all.

How can it constantly be accelerating, while still constantly be decelerating? It either doesn't accelerate at all, or it constantly accelerates (and thus reaching the speed of late), or constantly decelerate (thus eventually standing still, and then moving backwards).

First off, we never said Earth decelerates, we said it's rate of acceleration decreases. It still gains speed each second, it just gains less speed than it did the previous second.
Next, as Engineer keeps having to repeat over and over, acceleration is relative. Earth's acceleration is not decreasing in any FoR in which it is not approaching c.

Unless it decreases its acceleration by as much as it increases, earth will indeed pass the speed of light.

The equation for adding velocity in relativity is:

w= (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2)

Start with u=0m/s, v=9.8m/s, and then use w as u in the sucessive calculations.  Let me know when we pass the speed of light.

Unless it decreases its acceleration by as much as it increases, earth will indeed pass the speed of light.

Not necessarily.
If you look at the graph of y=1/x, the graph asymptotically approaches zero as x gets higher, but it never reaches zero.
Basically, look at it this way.  Imagine you're traveling at half the speed of light.  You then accelerate to 3/4 the speed of light.  Then you accelerate to 7/8 the speed of light.  Then you accelerate to 15/16 of the speed of light.  You're constantly accelerating, but you're accelerating by less an less each time.  If, every second, you speed up by half the difference between your speed and the speed of light, you'll be constantly accelerating, but you'll never reach the speed of light.

What?  Why would there need to be an infinite amount of energy?

Because relative to the accelerator the universe's mass would be forever increasing and it would require more and more energy to continue to accelerate the universe towards - but never reaching - C

Who said it would need to be infinite?  As a matter of fact, I say it would be finite.

Who said it would need to be infinite?  As a matter of fact, I say it would be finite.

Firstly, if something is not infinite, it is finite, why would you bother to say the exact same thing twice, in a two sentence post

Secondly, how could it be finite, unless the accelerator knew how much energy it would require to continue to accelerate the universe until the end of time, if there is a point when time and space will end. Only a supreme being could know that, in which case u are basing flat earth theory entirely on faith. Maybe you're a creationist as well?

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Who said it would need to be infinite?  As a matter of fact, I say it would be finite.

Firstly, if something is not infinite, it is finite, why would you bother to say the exact same thing twice, in a two sentence post

The first sentence was a question.  The second was a statement.  The two are not the same.

Secondly, how could it be finite, unless the accelerator knew how much energy it would require to continue to accelerate the universe until the end of time, if there is a point when time and space will end. Only a supreme being could know that, in which case u are basing flat earth theory entirely on faith. Maybe you're a creationist as well?

Well if the universe is going to end at some point in time, then the energy needed would be finite.

Quote from: "Quarrior"

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Who said it would need to be infinite?  As a matter of fact, I say it would be finite.

Firstly, if something is not infinite, it is finite, why would you bother to say the exact same thing twice, in a two sentence post

The first sentence was a question.  The second was a statement.  The two are not the same.

Quote

Secondly, how could it be finite, unless the accelerator knew how much energy it would require to continue to accelerate the universe until the end of time, if there is a point when time and space will end. Only a supreme being could know that, in which case u are basing flat earth theory entirely on faith. Maybe you're a creationist as well?

Well if the universe is going to end at some point in time, then the energy needed would be finite.

haha you're even more stupid than i thought. Statements and questions are still sentences...but what your said were two identical things. The first sentence suggests that you believe the accelerator could have finite energy, the second sentence just restates the first.

The accelerator, unless it was the tool of god could have no idea of when the universe was going to end because it would have had to of known, before the beginning of the universe, precisely when it was going to end. Basically before there was matter, there was a universal accelerator...which means that it could NOT be part of the universe itself. This means that again the universe defies thermodynamics because the universe would be forever gaining energy from an external independant source, for those in the universe, it could be observed as energy being created from nothing.

That doesn't even make sense.



1.  I asked you a question: Who said it would need to be infinite?    Meaning:  I would like to know who told you it would need to be, or did you just pull it out of your ass.
2.  I made a statement:  As a matter of fact, I say it would be finite.     Meaning:  I say it would be finite.


Why would the accelerator need to know when the universe was going to end?  My car does not know when my trip will end, so does that mean that I must have had an infinite amount of gas in my tank before I left on my trip? Or is my car being fueled from outside the universe as I go?  

If my trip ends before I run out of gas, well, all is well, and I did it with only a finite amount of gas.  If my car runs out of gas before my trip ends, well, I got as far as the finite amount of gas could get me.

That doesn't even make sense.
1.  I asked you a question: Who said it would need to be infinite?    Meaning:  I would like to know who told you it would need to be, or did you just pull it out of your ass.
2.  I made a statement:  As a matter of fact, I say it would be finite.     Meaning:  I say it would be finite.

AHAHAHAHA omg classic, im in tears here, don't try and bullshit your way out of it mate. You screwed up, the first question, whether you actually wanted a response or it was rhetorical, depending upon the responders interperetation, still made the identical point your second statement made. All that was needed was for you to say "who said it had to be infinite?" that question already positions your argument as "I say it would be finite" hahahahaha

Why would the accelerator need to know when the universe was going to end?  My car does not know when my trip will end, so does that mean that I must have had an infinite amount of gas in my tank before I left on my trip? Or is my car being fueled from outside the universe as I go?  

If my trip ends before I run out of gas, well, all is well, and I did it with only a finite amount of gas.  If my car runs out of gas before my trip ends, well, I got as far as the finite amount of gas could get me.

Ok Ok so just quickly before I make my next point, how do you feel the FE Universe was created? It is important because what you are saying is that before the universe actually started moving there was a accelerator powered and ready to go. Now, either that accelerator was around before the creation of the universe...or solid matter from the surface of the Earth has floated off into space before the accelerator started and there was no gravitational force

I'm curious. If you really do believe in "Flat Earth" theory, how would you reply to these ideas? I'm not trying to be rude, angry, or at all unbelieveing toward you're ideas. I just need more facts before I'm willing to believe ANYTHING. I believe in "Sphereical Earth" theory because of facts. All I've seen on your side is blind faith, paranoia toward the government, and a total lack of science. So please fill me in on the part that I'm missing.

It's true, ive not seen one shred of physical evidence to support flat Earth theory, bar rediculous studies trying to determine the curvature of large lakes which don't actually prove anything anyway.

Quote from: "Lucretius"

I'm curious. If you really do believe in "Flat Earth" theory, how would you reply to these ideas? I'm not trying to be rude, angry, or at all unbelieveing toward you're ideas. I just need more facts before I'm willing to believe ANYTHING. I believe in "Sphereical Earth" theory because of facts. All I've seen on your side is blind faith, paranoia toward the government, and a total lack of science. So please fill me in on the part that I'm missing.

It's true, ive not seen one shred of physical evidence to support flat Earth theory

Haven't you read anything that Tom Bishop has wrote on this forum? He has looked out of the window, and noticed no curvature. What more proof could you possibly need?