Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science

  • 66 Replies
  • 15660 Views
?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« on: May 30, 2008, 06:48:31 PM »
The Best of RE Science

RE on RE

Gravity comes from the incessant spinning of the Earth.
If you go straight along enough you'll end up where you were
even crazy people belive the earth is round.
you can go AROUND the world in a straight line, it has been done.
I know this FOR A FACT, the government knows the Earth is round, and they don't give a rat's ass about it
[about gravity] Basically, big things attract small things. This has been tested many times.
air resistance wouldn't play much part in how fast a person travels down towards the earth. Is it that hard to understand.
The gravity keeps you from descending into space because it holds you down. DUH!
In RE theory, once an object is too far from a massive celestial body, like the Earth or the Sun they go into a state of ingravity, where the forces of gravity are to small to force the object unto them, in other words, the object now only behaves in relation to its own centripetal force of movement. In other words, it retains the speed that was applied to it the last time it was under the influence of a celestial object's larger mass.
we can't design instruments to measure [gravity]
if I cannot feel [gravity], its not happening.
"Majority rules". Its as simple as I can get it. I mean, if the majority believed in FLAT EARTH, I would also believe it. But its not the case!
when something becomes big enough, it creates it's own heat.
Cosmologist do create odd universes, but more appealing ones..
97% of the Earth is water.
the further away from the mass of the earth the slower time will go.
[on dividing by 0] Sure it sounds bad. And yet there it is.
The ISS maintains a constant orbit around the earth because of the frictionless atmosphere it resides in.
Except that there's nothing about round-earth that we haven't already proven.


RE on FE

Why can't I wave hello to my friend in Las Angeles while I'm here in Sydney, Australia?
Forget [Earth Not a Globe]. That is bias.
In REALITY people dont spend [money] on covering up what would ultimately be very widely known
saying that the Earth is accelerating exactly proves my point that when you throw something up, it should stay where it is!!
In the FE model everything would weigh the same.
If you inhaled a lot of air, and then jumped, you would be able to jump higher than normal. I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen. And since air contains water, and we are about 75% water, then wouldn't we be really lightweight if everything is accelerating?
If the earths speed is increasing, how come I don't hear myself speaking backwards when I look up and talk?
Explain to me how you are posting on the internet if satelites dont exist.
also tell me, an object travelling at 9.9m/s straight upwards still falls back to earth.
without the presence of gravity and if the earth only moves a 9.8 m/s, it is impossible for it to fall back to earth... yet it does.
If your theory that everything is falling upwards along with Earth was correct, we would be see stars and other objects as lines, instead of as dots in the night sky, much like a camera with a prolonged exposition shows.
If Gravity Didn't Exsist, Either Would Earth! (Or the Solar System)
Quote from: ROUND000's sig
If you "believe" the Earth is flat it might be...
Becasue. Servere. Retardness.
If Earth is constantly moving up then when a car is on a hill shouldn't it stay there? Since it's already on Earth.

Other notable mentions

If they exist, why haven't I learnt about them in school?
The correct use of words in context is part of grammer so it was a grammer.
What do you mean by the cup not being supported?? It is falling.
All the statements ... are 100% true except a few.
acceleration is directly proportional to the velocity

Index
« Last Edit: August 05, 2008, 09:47:52 PM by narcberry »

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35363
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2008, 07:00:54 PM »
Is it really fair to say that "the best of RE science" comes from a retarded troll?

Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2008, 07:13:42 PM »
Oh yes, do let us collect these gems in one thread however.

For example:

1. This is not the prevailing model of thought in Minkowski-Einstein spacetime.

Anyways, I'm hardly done, I have a few more questions:

4. Why is the causal horizon of the Earth spherical?
The causal horizon of the Earth as measured by Earth based instruments is spherical. If the Earth was flat, and as large as you claim it to be in relation to the universe there would be:

1. No observation of the effects of the causal horizon, that is to say: Red shift of galaxies and stars would not be observed, and no celestial bodies would have been observed slipping out of the Earth's causal horizon.

2. The causal horizon would be cylindrical, not spherical and would be impossible to see the "underside" because it would become an avoidance zone.
 


If the earth is indeed flat, why can't I wave hello to my friend in Las Angeles while I'm here in Sydney, Australia?

Also, can you guys explain continental drift to me if the earth is flat? Can you explain volcanoes? If there is a huge ice-wall, wouldn't that hold all the tectonic plates in perfect alignment?

Yours,
Concerned.


*

physics101

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 8137
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2008, 01:16:53 PM »
Even as an REer I think this is classic, people can be really stupid.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35363
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2008, 01:41:15 PM »
Yes, but just because the most retarded things come from RE'ers doesn't mean that the fault lies with RET.  Were I an obnoxious RE proponent like Gulliver, I could make a thread entitled: "Proof that FET is a lie: 101 retarded things that Tom Bishop has said".

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2008, 09:57:29 PM »
The difference is, such a thread on FE'ers is impossible.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35363
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2008, 07:38:38 AM »
Sorry, Narc, but that's wishful thinking.  There are lots of things I could post critically of FE'ers: Floating oceans, dinosaurs with boats, penguins built by conspiracy, etc.

*

Taters343

  • Official Member
  • 11963
  • Pope/Tater/Robot with flower girl capabilities!
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2008, 07:43:10 AM »
You forgot this:

According to the faq the earth doesn't have a gravitational pull, but everything else does. First of all, this is pure nonsence.  And the only explination is that it's "special?" Secondly, where's the atmosphere?  If there's no gravity, then one of 2 things could occur. 1) The air molecules simply drift of the edge. 2) the air molecules would be compacted to the point that everything would be crushed under the pressure. Also, then in order to have the feeling of moving upwards to simulate gravity, one would need an oppisite force to be pulling agianst.  That would mean that the universe would need a floor, and that would have gravity to pull agianst, but then the earth would be pulled downwards and we would all be in free-fall.  The only way for the system to work, is if the earth was round, and had it's own gravity.

1) No they wouldn't , the air is accelerating.

2) Why?  Equivalence Principle.  Acceleration is exactly like gravitation.  You might as well say that about the Round Earth.

3) WTF?  No.  The Earth is accelerating upwards, simulating a gravitational pull.  There's no need for a "floor".

I know that this post was from a while ago, but....

If the air is accelerating upwards along with everything else, wouldn't that mean that if you inhaled a lot of air, and then jumped, you would be able to jump higher than normal? I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen. And since air contains water, and we are about 75% water, then wouldn't we be really lightweight if everything is accelerating?

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35363
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2008, 07:47:10 AM »
You can probably edit that all out except for Fredo's quote.  But yes, it was extremely retarded.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2008, 08:14:53 AM »
This thread has epic potential, though you shouldn't limit it to RE retards, cause there's a lot of FE'ers making ridiculous comments as well.  You should make a new thread titled FES Darwin Awards or something similar.

Edit:  PS  My sig should be added to your list.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 08:16:42 AM by Robbyj »
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

Taters343

  • Official Member
  • 11963
  • Pope/Tater/Robot with flower girl capabilities!
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2008, 09:24:28 AM »
You can probably edit that all out except for Fredo's quote.  But yes, it was extremely retarded.

What if I don't want to?

Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #11 on: June 01, 2008, 10:02:37 AM »
You forgot this:

I know that this post was from a while ago, but....

If the air is accelerating upwards along with everything else, wouldn't that mean that if you inhaled a lot of air, and then jumped, you would be able to jump higher than normal? I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen. And since air contains water, and we are about 75% water, then wouldn't we be really lightweight if everything is accelerating?


DAM THAT IS AWESOME!

*

Taters343

  • Official Member
  • 11963
  • Pope/Tater/Robot with flower girl capabilities!
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #12 on: June 01, 2008, 10:43:26 AM »
Why'd you do that? I made it clear I wanted all of the quotes to remain a part of that!

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35363
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #13 on: June 01, 2008, 01:34:12 PM »
He prefers me.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #14 on: June 01, 2008, 01:54:49 PM »
Sorry, Narc, but that's wishful thinking.  There are lots of things I could post critically of FE'ers: Floating oceans, dinosaurs with boats, penguins built by conspiracy, etc.

But the REers say it with such hilarious passion!

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #15 on: June 01, 2008, 02:06:16 PM »
These are pretty good too.

 
The correct use of words in context is part of grammer so it was a grammer.
Trust we world class physicists have shown that gravitons are good at explaining gravity
the gravity we experience of Earth is a result of the Earth spinning at an extremely high speed.
Explain to me how you are posting on the internet if satelites dont exist.
also tell me, an object travelling at 9.9m/s straight upwards still falls back to earth.
without the presence of gravity and if the earth only moves a 9.8 m/s, it is impossible for it to fall back to earth... yet it does.
The gravity keeps you from descending into space because it holds you down. DUH!
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #16 on: June 01, 2008, 02:14:42 PM »
These are all brilliant! :D

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #17 on: June 03, 2008, 09:04:37 AM »
air resistance wouldn't play much part in how fast a person travels down towards the earth. Is it that hard to understand.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #18 on: June 03, 2008, 09:19:06 AM »
Can we bring in the terminal velocity thread quotes. That one was prime.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #19 on: June 03, 2008, 07:55:12 PM »
Edit:  PS  My sig should be added to your list.

I have avatars and sigs turned off. I clicked on your profile, and I have hot chocolate all over my screen now. That was absolutely awesome.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #20 on: June 03, 2008, 09:19:51 PM »
Sorry, Narc, but that's wishful thinking.  There are lots of things I could post critically of FE'ers: Floating oceans, dinosaurs with boats, penguins built by conspiracy, etc.

Perhaps you could pose a counterargument in the corresponding threads?
Didn't think so.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #21 on: June 03, 2008, 09:40:37 PM »
Sorry, Narc, but that's wishful thinking.  There are lots of things I could post critically of FE'ers: Floating oceans, dinosaurs with boats, penguins built by conspiracy, etc.

I agree with you on the floating ocean thing, but you're way off on that other stuff...
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #22 on: June 03, 2008, 09:43:57 PM »
Sorry, Narc, but that's wishful thinking.  There are lots of things I could post critically of FE'ers: Floating oceans, dinosaurs with boats, penguins built by conspiracy, etc.

Perhaps you could pose a counterargument in the corresponding threads?
Didn't think so.
I bet not a single person on here could post even a fallacious argument in the floating oceans thread....

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #23 on: June 04, 2008, 07:24:45 AM »
"Majority rules". Its as simple as I can get it. I mean, if the majority believed in FLAT EARTH, I would also believe it. But its not the case!
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17457
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #24 on: June 04, 2008, 10:03:58 AM »
Quote
"Majority rules". Its as simple as I can get it. I mean, if the majority believed in FLAT EARTH, I would also believe it. But its not the case!

Only six hundred years ago the majority of the population believed that witchcraft existed.

Did witches exist 600 years ago?  ???

Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #25 on: June 04, 2008, 10:29:01 AM »
Quote
"Majority rules". Its as simple as I can get it. I mean, if the majority believed in FLAT EARTH, I would also believe it. But its not the case!

Only six hundred years ago the majority of the population believed that witchcraft existed.

Did witches exist 600 years ago?  ???
No, but people were dumber back then and believed too much in religion, i'm sure most of the population also thought that god was watching them 20 fo seven and that satan was watching them too like in a shitty M. Night Shymalan Movie. Either way, how does this prove anything?

Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #26 on: June 04, 2008, 10:32:26 AM »
omg....

It was posted in this thread as an example of stupefying RE science.

And here is an RE'er coming across it and arguing that it is valid.  Right... people are smarter now.  Evolution right?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17457
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #27 on: June 04, 2008, 10:34:38 AM »
Quote
No, but people were dumber back then

The average IQ hasn't risen in the last millennium. It's not a matter of intelligence.

Quote
i'm sure most of the population also thought that god was watching them

Most of the population still believes that God is watching over them.

Quote
Either way, how does this prove anything?

It proves that "majority rules" is not a valid argument.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #28 on: June 04, 2008, 06:07:21 PM »
Quote
"Majority rules". Its as simple as I can get it. I mean, if the majority believed in FLAT EARTH, I would also believe it. But its not the case!

Only six hundred years ago the majority of the population believed that witchcraft existed.

Did witches exist 600 years ago?  ???
No, but people were dumber back then and believed too much in religion, i'm sure most of the population also thought that god was watching them 20 fo seven and that satan was watching them too like in a shitty M. Night Shymalan Movie. Either way, how does this prove anything?
You make my brain hurt.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Narc's FE Guide: The Best of RE Science
« Reply #29 on: June 04, 2008, 06:11:15 PM »
20 fo seven

You must've skipped that part, it cleared it all up for me.