Rayvin

I've thought about this a lot over the past few months, and I think Hillary would have won previous elections if she'd beaten Obama in the run off. I think she would have won vs. Bush junior too. Times have changed though.

Agreed, but him being there acts as a pressure release. No one on offer was ever actually going to change anything for anyone - but if enough people believe that Trump has, or has tried to, it might settle down the anti-establishment sentiment again. If he's ousted 4 months in, a decent number of them will think it's a stitch up. Moreover, even if they don't we'll have to re-run this fiasco with someone quite possibly more dangerous, in 5 years time.

It would transform the principle of a Trump government though. It would just be another off the shelf Republican package. Not saying that's a bad thing, but it'll not alleviate the frustrations that brought us here which, crazy as he is, Trump stood a chance of doing.

Ryan?? Yikes... Pence looks too cowardly to be involved in this stuff IMO. It's a shame though, because if an election re-run were a possibility, maybe we could get Sanders. Although there's an equal chance it'd be Hillary I suppose.

Do you think he's trying to be impeached? Genuinely think it might be an option. Since it looks like he's now going to go, I've been wondering what will happen instead. Will it be Pence? Or will we have to re-run the election?

And more importantly, readjust our expectations of how feasible he is to buy in the first place If Bournemouth are spunking £30m on those two, we'd get far better value for money outside the PL.

Wolfy, we can explain how all of this works based on observable science. For instance the conservation of momentum you could see in any object that moves. We don't even need to get into the flat earth debate to investigate that one. If we can see that applying in totally unrelated circumstances (passenger in a plane, person on a bike, etc) then it's absolutely sound thinking to apply that to the relationship between the earth and everything on it. So what you're saying isn't that we should expand our thinking, it's that we should overlook an observable, rationally sensible pattern. We would, in effect, need to look at this irrationally.

This is absolutely on you mind you started this.

I suppose you can, but for that to stack up... Ok better question, what do you think the earth looks like?

They're not being dragged along by atmosphere though. Atmosphere isn't acting on the helicopter in this scenario. Both the atmosphere and the helicopter have sideways momentum already. Once the helicopter lifts, it keeps this sideways momentum because there is no force acting against it (because the atmosphere is going in the same direction, at the same speed). The only way it slows down is if the wind or some other force works against it. And obviously in a live test that would happen - but assuming absolutely no wind, the atmosphere would have no impact at all - because it's matching the helicopter's speed. Which is presumably why it doesn't matter whether or not this happens in a vacuum. Because the atmosphere and all components involved in the process, travel at the same speed. Thus they don't act upon each other. Same for Baumgartner. Whatever he jumped from was in orbit at the same sideways speed it had when it departed. Thus he retained that sideways speed also. As he fell, then wind currents will have come into play and pushed him off course. But as you say, not by that much - because actually, he's moving at the same sideways speed as the earth more or less throughout.

I work in academic publishing in STM, and can absolutely confirm that the government does not pre-vet any of our publications for anything, let alone specifically for information concerning whether or not the earth is flat. So again, this would have to be such a thorough conspiracy that those responsible couldn't be reliant upon it self perpetuating - they'd have to be actively distorting how everyone sees the world. I thought of something else though - I'm guessing you don't believe it's possible to circumnavigate the globe? That would be testable - you could do it by plane if you really wanted to.

I think with the helicopter, it's not so much that the earth pulls it along with it, it's that the helicopter itself was already moving horizontally at the same speed as the earth - and nothing is acting against it to slow it down. Thus, conservation of momentum would apply. The atmosphere is also matching this speed, so doesn't act on the helicopter (assuming no wind).

I found it. Damn Freudian slips..

...it was? I have absolutely no memory of this

I don't think many people on here would consider me to be someone who follows the standard school of thought tbf. I seem to spend half my forum posting time arguing with people about the wider failings of Western civilisation. It's why no one likes me anymore But even I'm struggling with your position here. There is clear evidence refuting your theory, and no "non-theoretical" evidence in support of it - and the only basis upon which to challenge that is to question the legitimacy of absolutely every aspect of our society, and indeed I would argue, every person you meet. That's such a big jump that for it to make any rational sense, surely, you would have to have actual physical evidence of the claim. That's for you to be satisfied by it as a position, as someone with a skeptical mind, I would argue.

Also, what if you can clearly see the point at which the disappearing ship meets the sea (which you can)? Surely that means that a whole section of the horizon has not only been omitted, but that the rest of the picture has 'shifted down' to accomodate this loss?

Ok but... Wolfy, you're now saying something that we can see with our own eyes isn't real and is a distortion of the light as it hits our eyes. That's a level up from 'everyone is lying to us' - you're now saying we can't even trust our own senses. On that basis, surely if you did go to space, and did observe the earth as a sphere, couldn't you just argue that it remained a trick of the light?

Have to say we're far more likely to go for a foreign, overseas model. At £20m maybe we can make that work but still...

Surely no way we should be blowing £30m on one player...

Well, that and the fact that the financial crisis happened on Labour's watch (not that they were responsible for it). The Tories would have never been elected without it though, so it's hard to imagine a scenario where they're in charge for such a melt down. Or it would have been, until Brexit.

Somewhat wishful thinking but agreed, that's special

Indeed. If it was made up, then the guy who made him up instead becomes the most influential person throughout all of human history. Either way, someone is responsible for it whether the man himself or the guy who invented him. 2000 years man In 2000 years from now, will anyone from this time period be remembered (in the same sense) at all? The only person I can think of is Trump, and only if he triggers some form of event which brings about the end of existence. And even then, no one would be left to remember him anyway!

You do love to twist my words. It could distort inflation considerably, yes. Presumably the BOE would be able to regulate this to a degree though? And if it went up 69% we'd be in real trouble.

I can see that from a logical point of view but your average guy on the street won't have a clue who Constantine was. Jesus is known throughout the world, has had wars fought in his name hundreds of years after his death, and still to this day has millions of people worshipping him. The more I think about it, the more astounding it becomes.