Recent Posts

1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity, and the sun and moon
« Last post by OrigamiBoy on Today at 08:27:05 PM »
I may be more willing to believe in your conspiracy if you actually debated with us instead of saying "research it yourself". This is a debate forum, please debate. Saying "research it yourself" is implying that you don't know the information your self. If you have information on concepts that prove the earth is flat, I'm happy to hear you explain them! :)
2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity, and the sun and moon
« Last post by StinkyOne on Today at 08:13:38 PM »
it would take a ton of energy for us to be constantly accelerating.
Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration.

Let's not forget this jewel as evidence of junker's extensive knowledge on acceleration, where he claims that constant acceleration "possibly, but not necessarily" requires energy. If this was somehow a misstatement of what he was intending to say, then the window to provide clarification has long since passed. First let us consider that the property of requiring energy is binary. It either does or it does not require energy. The answer is not neither. It is not in a superposition of both needing and not needing energy. So automatically, a response of "possibly, but not necessarily" demonstrates he doesn't know what he is talking about. It is not that acceleration "possibly, but not necessarily" requires energy, it is that he doesn't know which.

In response to being called out on this, he offers as an explanation but fails to explain it adequately, proper vs coordinate acceleration. I can only assume from the thoroughness of his post that he means that the requirement of energy for constant acceleration is dependent upon your frame of reference, which is ridiculous because changing between reference frames does not in any way alter the fundamental laws of physics, hence why the concept of reference frames in physics is so vital to begin with. Our choice of coordinate systems is completely arbitrary and has absolutely no bearing on physical reality. If it did, then that implies that the laws of physics are not constant, and a law not held constant is the epitome of an oxy-moron. But what do I know, I'm completely ignorant and not fit to share the (flat) earth upon which junker walks ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That was a long-winded post for you just to confirm your ignorance. Also good to see you’re the arbiter of how long I’m allowed to have to engage or disengage in a topic.

I’d suggest spending more time brushing up on your own knowledge, and less time displaying your ignorance to the world. Best of luck!

Why not just explain yourself so he knows what you're talking about? Mora is correct in his comments concerning frames of reference and you FEers tend to play pretty loose with your misappropriation of scientific principles. It isn't exactly easy to guess what you're on about. If you spent as much time explaining your position as you did telling people they are ignorant/calling them morons (which is against the forum rules, if I remember), you might actually convince someone.
3
There does not seem to be a write up of these observations. Please do an appropriate write up and show appropriate conclusions rather than linking us to a 6 hour long video and telling us to go investigate.

It appears that you took this from a Flat Earth youtube channel. Several of these people seem to be arguing that the earth is flat that the sun does not behave as expected. A full write up would be helpful.
4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity, and the sun and moon
« Last post by ShowmetheProof on Today at 07:30:55 PM »
I’ll point you in a direction to try to help you, but I’m not going to bother trying to convince you of something since no one so far has shown the capacity to think beyond what they think they already know.
Science is not where we think beyond what we already know.  It is where we use what we already know to think beyond what we already know!  We can't confirm the Flat Earth, as it does not use any current proof or any proof of their own.
5
The government has lied about many things, such as the moon landing and the existence of the "moon". Not only was 9/11 planned to boost the US economy, but the government is lying to protect us from aliens. Various experiments are being conducted in area 51 as we speak. It's only a matter of time until they get to us.

In fact, the government wants the aliens to come to us in order to experiment on them. If the Earth is round, it would be impossible for the aliens to land, as their spaceship would fly off. But since the Aliens know the Earth is flat, they can land. Once they do, our military immediately seizes them.

God bless America.

What is your proof of these "lies"?
6
Announcements / Re: Changes to the merch store
« Last post by Boscar on Today at 07:01:01 PM »
noice
7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity, and the sun and moon
« Last post by junker on Today at 06:50:56 PM »
it would take a ton of energy for us to be constantly accelerating.
Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration.

Let's not forget this jewel as evidence of junker's extensive knowledge on acceleration, where he claims that constant acceleration "possibly, but not necessarily" requires energy. If this was somehow a misstatement of what he was intending to say, then the window to provide clarification has long since passed. First let us consider that the property of requiring energy is binary. It either does or it does not require energy. The answer is not neither. It is not in a superposition of both needing and not needing energy. So automatically, a response of "possibly, but not necessarily" demonstrates he doesn't know what he is talking about. It is not that acceleration "possibly, but not necessarily" requires energy, it is that he doesn't know which.

In response to being called out on this, he offers as an explanation but fails to explain it adequately, proper vs coordinate acceleration. I can only assume from the thoroughness of his post that he means that the requirement of energy for constant acceleration is dependent upon your frame of reference, which is ridiculous because changing between reference frames does not in any way alter the fundamental laws of physics, hence why the concept of reference frames in physics is so vital to begin with. Our choice of coordinate systems is completely arbitrary and has absolutely no bearing on physical reality. If it did, then that implies that the laws of physics are not constant, and a law not held constant is the epitome of an oxy-moron. But what do I know, I'm completely ignorant and not fit to share the (flat) earth upon which junker walks ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That was a long-winded post for you just to confirm your ignorance. Also good to see you’re the arbiter of how long I’m allowed to have to engage or disengage in a topic.

I’d suggest spending more time brushing up on your own knowledge, and less time displaying your ignorance to the world. Best of luck!
8
Flat Earth Debate / MOVED: A few questions from a new user
« Last post by junker on Today at 06:46:26 PM »
9
Flat Earth General / Re: Discord?
« Last post by junker on Today at 06:44:19 PM »
A few members have tried them before, but no one uses them. The forum is the primary method of communication. We also have an IRC channel which is more social in nature.
10
Have you ever witnessed the Sun doing this? Has anyone here witnessed it? If the freaking Sun was truly flickering, EVERYONE would know about it. It isn't like that would be an easy thing to hide. These videos are very obviously fake. It seems like your desire to believe in really out there ideas is hindering your ability to apply a little rational thought to things. I can get the same effect by messing with the exposure levels on my phone's camera.