Recent Posts

1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Shots Fired at republicans!
« Last post by Ghost Spaghetti on Today at 11:23:18 AM »
Right. In a hypothetical scenario where non-violent Islamist extremists tried to take over, I'd agree with you.

Likewise, if a party was threatening to take over through threats, intimidation, and violence, then I'd argue that the people have the right to resist violently.
2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Last post by SexWarrior on Today at 10:47:28 AM »
Australia's size is 2x as large as it should be.
You repeating this over and over does not make it true. You've made a flawed and unsubstantiated assumption.

Last time I checked, this is a forum, not the wiki, and I'm asking YOU.
That's nice, dear. I'm still not here to lecture you. If you'd like to read the basics, read up on them.
3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Shots Fired at republicans!
« Last post by SexWarrior on Today at 09:07:20 AM »
Right. In a hypothetical scenario where non-violent Islamist extremists tried to take over, I'd agree with you.
4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Shots Fired at republicans!
« Last post by Ghost Spaghetti on Today at 08:17:38 AM »
If they started 'The American Shariah Party' and pushed their ideology by taking out ads and making public speeches about the benefits of shariah then your fightback should be in the form of counter-arguments and your own ads. If, by engaging with the system, they found that they had majority support to push shariah laws through the legislature, then the fightback would be to get anti-shariah politicians elected to vote those kind of bills down.
That worked well in the Weimar Republic, didn't it?

The Nazis weren't a non-violent party. They frequently called for violence against other parties, regularly attacked perceived enemies, and attempted a coup to take power unlawfully. (See the Beer Hall Putsch)

As I said, violence shouldn't be used against politicians who are 'not pushing their ideology with violence.'

5
If your model doesn't represent....REALITY, then the model doesn't hold true.
Excellent news, given that my model does represent.... REALITY. Does.... YOURS? (hint: no)

And I'm still looking forward to your reply on the specific mechanism that enables Southern star trails
I already replied. Celestial gears.


Celestial gears: Oh man, that's a great one.  Does anyone have to lube the gear bearings or is there a celestial grease gun?

I suppose those celestial gears must also be something like an automatic transmission. There must be some way to shift the gears to change the sun from its summer orbit to its winter orbit and then back and forth ?

Its run by a giant pendulum and much like the dark object it can't be seen.
Just like the ice wall it can't be seen. ???
Cars have planetary gears. Why can't the flat earth ?
6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Curiosity
« Last post by Curious Squirrel on Today at 04:45:37 AM »
General FE consensus is that anything having to do with going beyond the atmosphere of Earth is a hoax, because space travel itself is a lie. Wiki goes over this some, but that's the broad strokes of it. As for the planets and stars we see, I believe that's no precise agreement, even here. The two most common views are that they are in fact all out there and real, or that they're holes in some form of sky dome. The former is the more prevalent upon these forms though I would say, and is the one espoused in the wiki.
7
If your model doesn't represent....REALITY, then the model doesn't hold true.
Excellent news, given that my model does represent.... REALITY. Does.... YOURS? (hint: no)

And I'm still looking forward to your reply on the specific mechanism that enables Southern star trails
I already replied. Celestial gears.


Celestial gears: Oh man, that's a great one.  Does anyone have to lube the gear bearings or is there a celestial grease gun?

I suppose those celestial gears must also be something like an automatic transmission. There must be some way to shift the gears to change the sun from its summer orbit to its winter orbit and then back and forth ?

Its run by a giant pendulum and much like the dark object it can't be seen.
8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« Last post by TomInAustin on Today at 12:48:14 AM »
The sun being visible from both poles can be explained in RET because in Spring and Autumn the earths tilt is tangential to its orbital path. This means it does not appear tilted relative to the sun and neither pole would be in the earths shadow.

And how is it impossible for the sun to be seen from both poles at some point in the bipolar model?
If that were the case the sun would be visible from all points on earth all the time... no?  In the spot light model painted by the wiki.
9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« Last post by geckothegeek on July 23, 2017, 11:42:05 PM »
If your model doesn't represent....REALITY, then the model doesn't hold true.
Excellent news, given that my model does represent.... REALITY. Does.... YOURS? (hint: no)

And I'm still looking forward to your reply on the specific mechanism that enables Southern star trails
I already replied. Celestial gears.


Celestial gears: Oh man, that's a great one.  Does anyone have to lube the gear bearings or is there a celestial grease gun?

I suppose those celestial gears must also be something like an automatic transmission. There must be some way to shift the gears to change the sun from its summer orbit to its winter orbit and then back and forth ?
10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« Last post by Tom Bishop on July 23, 2017, 10:24:15 PM »
"The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the VSOP87 theory constructed by Bretagnon and Francou (1988) at the Bureau des Longitudes, Paris."

"For the Moon, use has been made of the theory ELP-2000/82 of Chapront-Touzé and Chapront (1983), again of the Bureau des Longitudes."

The section says nothing about the coordinates of the sun or moon being used to predict when the eclipse will occur.

lol that's literally exactly what it says.  like, almost word-for-word.  you keep quoting this bit, but you don't seem to understand that it supports my argument.  elp-2000 is an ephemeris.  this literally says "we used two ephemerides to predict eclipses: vsop87 and elp-2000."  not "we used saros cycles to predict these eclipses."

No. It LITERALLY says that "the coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the VSOP87." It does not say that the eclipse predictions are based on VSOP87. It merely says that they are used in the eclipse predictions.

The coordinates of the sun are important because it tells us where we will be able to see the solar eclipse from. They are used in the map described further into the book.

Look at the quote you brought up:

Quote
The accuracy of the eclipse maps depends principally on two factors. The first is the rigorousness of the solar and lunar ephemerides used in the calculations (Sect. 1.3). The Moon’s close proximity to Earth coupled with its relatively low mass, results in orbital perturbations that make the Moon’s position far more difficult to predict compared to the Sun’s position.

See that? It says that accuracy of the eclipse maps are dependent of the accuracy of the solar and lunar ephemerides that tell us the coordinates of the sun and moon. That clearly suggests that the coordinates are used in the maps portion, which are used to tell us where we will be able to see the eclipses from.

The actual method of finding when the eclipse will occur is explained at length in the book as being the Saros cycle. The Saros cycle method is not being described across over half the pages of the book for mere educational or superfluous purposes. Why dedicate so much space to a method that is not being used?