Flat Earth theory gaining converts???

[The Anti-Targ]

What's this about the disc rushing up? Do they not realise that for movement to feel like gravity there must be acceleration? I.e. the earth must be perpetually accelerating. 1 g = the acceleration equivalent to earth's gravity is 9.8m/s^2.

So let's say we've only existed since the time creationists say the bible tell us. 10,000 years, So the earth has been accelerating (from a standstill I assume) for 10,000 years at a rate of 9.8m/s^2.

10,000 years is about 315,000,000,000 seconds. So our current speed through space should be about 3,090,000,000,000 m/s (current speed = initial speed (0) + acceleration*time) and climbing. The speed of light is about 300,000,000 m/s. So our current speed, if Earth is 10,000 years old is a mere 10,000 times the speed of light, give or take. That's quite fast.

Even if we chop our existence down to 6,000 years we're still currently travelling at ~6,000 times the speed for light. That doesn't really help the "moving up really fast" cause.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

8 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

What's this about the disc rushing up? Do they not realise that for movement to feel like gravity there must be acceleration? I.e. the earth must be perpetually accelerating. 1 g = the acceleration equivalent to earth's gravity is 9.8m/s^2.

So let's say we've only existed since the time creationists say the bible tell us. 10,000 years, So the earth has been accelerating (from a standstill I assume) for 10,000 years at a rate of 9.8m/s^2.

10,000 years is about 315,000,000,000 seconds. So our current speed through space should be about 3,090,000,000,000 m/s (current speed = initial speed (0) + acceleration*time) and climbing. The speed of light is about 300,000,000 m/s. So our current speed, if Earth is 10,000 years old is a mere 10,000 times the speed of light, give or take. That's quite fast.

Even if we chop our existence down to 6,000 years we're still currently travelling at ~6,000 times the speed for light. That doesn't really help the "moving up really fast" cause.

Disc-Earth goes FTL --> FTL travel causes Mandela Effect --> Mandela Effect destroys the Berenstein Bears/my childhood.

It all adds up.

[The Anti-Targ]

I was going to say that the flat earthers would be better off acknowledging gravity. But now with the Mandela effect being proved by the Berenstein Bears conjecture the FTL disc starts to paint a consistent narrative. Perhaps every time the Earth breaks through the light barrier there is a time glitch. And that's why there have been several noted time glitches noted in the Mandela effect.

But basically we are breaking through the light barrier every year. So every year there should be a time glitch. Actually it's more like every 354.3 days we break the speed of light barrier.

Do you know what measure of time is 354 days? It's one year in the lunar calendar, or more popularly known as the Islamic calendar!! 

It's all starting to come together.

[TrueMetis]

55 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

What's this about the disc rushing up? Do they not realise that for movement to feel like gravity there must be acceleration? I.e. the earth must be perpetually accelerating. 1 g = the acceleration equivalent to earth's gravity is 9.8m/s^2.

So let's say we've only existed since the time creationists say the bible tell us. 10,000 years, So the earth has been accelerating (from a standstill I assume) for 10,000 years at a rate of 9.8m/s^2.

10,000 years is about 315,000,000,000 seconds. So our current speed through space should be about 3,090,000,000,000 m/s (current speed = initial speed (0) + acceleration*time) and climbing. The speed of light is about 300,000,000 m/s. So our current speed, if Earth is 10,000 years old is a mere 10,000 times the speed of light, give or take. That's quite fast.

Even if we chop our existence down to 6,000 years we're still currently travelling at ~6,000 times the speed for light. That doesn't really help the "moving up really fast" cause.

Oh they know it requires acceleration, but like a lot of things they don't think through the implications.

ETA: Though some will claim that because of special relativity the earth never actually reaches the speed of light. See here for the "explanation".

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I can't tell if y'allz is a bunch of trick --- marks or mark --- tricks.

Clearly the Lizard People are behind this conspiracy.

[Corvinus85]

20 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I was going to say that the flat earthers would be better off acknowledging gravity. But now with the Mandela effect being proved by the Berenstein Bears conjecture the FTL disc starts to paint a consistent narrative. Perhaps every time the Earth breaks through the light barrier there is a time glitch. And that's why there have been several noted time glitches noted in the Mandela effect.

But basically we are breaking through the light barrier every year. So every year there should be a time glitch. Actually it's more like every 354.3 days we break the speed of light barrier.

Do you know what measure of time is 354 days? It's one year in the lunar calendar, or more popularly known as the Islamic calendar!! 

It's all starting to come together.

Well I picked a great time to look at this thread.

So if they don't believe in gravity, what force do they believe in that causes this acceleration? 

And how does the bottom hold together while the Earth is moving up? Do they believe in tectonic plates, and magma layer, etc? Not the core I imagine.

[all swedes are racist]

Clearly the earth periodically flips around, enters into a 1G deceleration burn until eventually accelerating in the opposite direction, reaching just shy of C, then repeats. Duh!

but on a serious note, gravity doesn't exist, but "gravitation" does? Double you tee motherfucking eff?

[The Anti-Targ]

Why is it necessary for Flat Earthers to not believe in the force of gravity for the flat earth model to be viable?

[all swedes are racist]

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Why is it necessary for Flat Earthers to not believe in the force of gravity for the flat earth model to be viable?

Because gravity wouldn't allow for a body the earths size to not collapse into a sphere

[Lordsteve666]

8 hours ago, R'hllors Red Lobster said:

Because gravity wouldn't allow for a body the earths size to not collapse into a sphere

This ^ essentially.

Gravity naturally pulls from all directions and so anything with such a large mass would naturally form itself into a spherical shape. It basically pulls itself into the shape that distributes the gravitational force evenly throughout the mass. There's no way a flat disk the size they are suggesting would exist without collapsing under it's own gravitational pull, tearing itself apart trying to reach equilibrium.

[DanteGabriel]

8 hours ago, Lordsteve666 said:

This ^ essentially.

Gravity naturally pulls from all directions and so anything with such a large mass would naturally form itself into a spherical shape. It basically pulls itself into the shape that distributes the gravitational force evenly throughout the mass. There's no way a flat disk the size they are suggesting would exist without collapsing under it's own gravitational pull, tearing itself apart trying to reach equilibrium.

That's obviously why you have the elephants facing in opposite directions to hold it up and keep it from pulling inward.

[TerraPrime]

And why the elephants need to stand on turtles for some extra sturdy support.

[Lordsteve666]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

That's obviously why you have the elephants facing in opposite directions to hold it up and keep it from pulling inward.

Are these Asian or African elephants though? Because the one would require more animals on account of them being smaller.

[Corvinus85]

On 2/7/2016 at 3:32 PM, Lordsteve666 said:

Are these Asian or African elephants though? Because the one would require more animals on account of them being smaller.

Depends on what kind of coconuts they can carry.

[The Anti-Targ]

On 7/02/2016 at 4:12 PM, R'hllors Red Lobster said:

Because gravity wouldn't allow for a body the earths size to not collapse into a sphere

But wouldn't it be less nutty to come up with some contrivance for gravity being a thing but we still have a disc than perpetual upward acceleration of the disc?

[Corvinus85]

12 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But wouldn't it be less nutty to come up with some contrivance for gravity being a thing but we still have a disc than perpetual upward acceleration of the disc?

Gravity is a force that acts perpendicularly to the direction of the flat earth motion in this plasma space. Problem solved. 

[Darzin]

But how does gravity affect the turtles? Inquiring minds want to know. 

[Prince of the North]

13 hours ago, Darzin said:

But how does gravity affect the turtles? Inquiring minds want to know. 

Also, I totally get that the giant elephants are standing on the even more giant turtle...but what's the turtle standing on?!!  Inquiring minds certainly do want to know (at least mine does).  Hey, now that I think of it...maybe it's a giant flying turtle?

[DanteGabriel]

3 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

Also, I totally get that the giant elephants are standing on the even more giant turtle...but what's the turtle standing on?!!  Inquiring minds certainly do want to know (at least mine does).  Hey, now that I think of it...maybe it's a giant flying turtle?

Well, there are two schools of thought on this. The Pratchetites do believe in a giant turtle that swims through the void. More primitive sects hold to the Russellian Exception, that it is, in fact, "turtles all the way down."

[Prince of the North]

3 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Well, there are two schools of thought on this. The Pratchetites do believe in a giant turtle that swims through the void. More primitive sects hold to the Russellian Exception, that it is, in fact, "turtles all the way down."

Heh.  Yes, thanks for the reminder.  I guess I had heard of both of these but I wonder if the Flat Earthers have already come up with an explanation of how, exactly, anything can "swim" through "nothing".  Hmm...I think I like the "Infinite Turtles" theorem better