Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Rekt

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >
1
I'm almost certain that Shaq is not loved for his intelligence. That's like saying that Kim Kardashian supporting Flat Earth makes it more truthful.

2
Flat Earth General / Re: How orbits work.
« on: March 19, 2017, 08:59:01 PM »
Does anyone know how to start an original post?
Yes. Use the "New Topic" button.

3
Flat Earth General / Re: How orbits work.
« on: March 17, 2017, 12:22:26 AM »
MAybe because galaxy rotations are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from orbits? Hence why they are not called "Galaxy Orbits?" This is a big strawman.

Galaxy rotations don't involve orbits in RET?  ???


I was simply describing the small-scale orbits of planets and spacecraft. I am not qualified to answer this question, I was merely providing an anecdotal description of orbits on a small scale.

Well, thanks for nothing I guess.
If you don't want the information than don't listen, I was just providing my 2 cents.

Do you really consider your anecdotal, unqualified opinions information?

A point on a spinning disk does not have an apogee, as it is a fixed distance from the center at all times, hence a "uniform apogee". My point is that the galaxies spin as if they were solid disks, not massive stars orbiting around each other.

Do any of the astrophysicists here have an answer for this that doesn't contradict their beliefs?
It's not opinion, it's an ancedotal description of a fact. And dark matter is a concept for how this galaxy spin discrepancy works

4
Flat Earth General / Re: How orbits work.
« on: March 16, 2017, 12:40:30 AM »
MAybe because galaxy rotations are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from orbits? Hence why they are not called "Galaxy Orbits?" This is a big strawman.

Galaxy rotations don't involve orbits in RET?  ???


I was simply describing the small-scale orbits of planets and spacecraft. I am not qualified to answer this question, I was merely providing an anecdotal description of orbits on a small scale.

Well, thanks for nothing I guess.
If you don't want the information than don't listen, I was just providing my 2 cents.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: How orbits work.
« on: March 15, 2017, 12:40:07 PM »
MAybe because galaxy rotations are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from orbits? Hence why they are not called "Galaxy Orbits?" This is a big strawman.

Galaxy rotations don't involve orbits in RET?  ???


I was simply describing the small-scale orbits of planets and spacecraft. I am not qualified to answer this question, I was merely providing an anecdotal description of orbits on a small scale.

6
Flat Earth General / Re: How orbits work.
« on: March 14, 2017, 11:19:12 PM »
The "gravity" invented to explain the rotation of planets around the sun under RET cannot explain the rotation of galaxies, which rotate at a set uniform speed and apogee, much like a solid disk. Describing the movements of galaxies have been a challenge to astronomers.

See this article on softpedia.com:

    "According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk – as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below)."

See this article on Wikipedia:

    "In 1959, Louise Volders demonstrated that spiral galaxy M33 does not spin as expected according to Keplerian dynamics,[1] a result which was extended to many other spiral galaxies during the seventies.[2] Based on this model, matter (such as stars and gas) in the disk portion of a spiral should orbit the center of the galaxy similar to the way in which planets in the solar system orbit the sun, that is, according to Newtonian mechanics. Based on this, it would be expected that the average orbital speed of an object at a specified distance away from the majority of the mass distribution would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line in Fig. 1). At the time of the discovery of the discrepancy, it was thought that most of the mass of the galaxy had to be in the galactic bulge, near the center.

    Observations of the rotation curve of spirals, however, do not bear this out. Rather, the curves do not decrease in the expected inverse square root relationship but are "flat" -- outside of the central bulge the speed is nearly a constant function of radius (the solid line Fig. 1). The explanation that requires the least adjustment to the physical laws of the universe is that there is a substantial amount of matter far from the center of the galaxy that is not emitting light in the mass-to-light ratio of the central bulge."
MAybe because galaxy rotations are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from orbits? Hence why they are not called "Galaxy Orbits?" This is a big strawman.

7
Flat Earth General / How orbits work.
« on: March 14, 2017, 08:57:32 PM »
Some may not understand how the Earth is kept rotating around the sun, in its orbit. I am not an astrodynamicist, but here is a simple explanation: The earth is pulled towards the sun at all times by gravity, therefore giving it speed towards the sun. However, the earth is moving sideways so fast that it misses. This is repeated over and over again, with the pull not strong enough to pull it all the way in but the sideways movement not fast enough to allow the earth to escape.

8
There's again no motive. Why would they fake a failure?

The motive is covering up a prop malfunction.
But why wouldn't they just cover up that there was any failure at all?

Millions of people saw an alleged space ship full of people blow up spectacularly on live TV. They had to do something about that.
But couldn't they have just made a fake segment to show to the TV companies? Why would they have a REAL prop that ALSO could blow up?

9
There's again no motive. Why would they fake a failure?

The motive is covering up a prop malfunction.
But why wouldn't they just cover up that there was any failure at all?

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How do things fall?
« on: February 16, 2017, 01:55:46 PM »
Flat earthers argue that things fall due to density. For example, my shoe is denser than the air that surrounds it, so it falls down. The problem with this is that things do not move unless moved. Meaning a force must act upon the shoe for it to fall. Since this is the case, what force is pulling or pushing things down?

Any object does not fall unless it is released to fall.

Once an object is released (the action), density takes over.

Why anyone claims there is no buoyancy is beyond me.

I'm most curious about what defines "up" and "down," as far as the 3rd dimension is concerned
There is no up or down, it is all relative, on earth "Up" would be away from the center of the earth, "Down", would be towards the center, although that's debatable also

11
There's again no motive. Why would they fake a failure?

12
Flat Earth General / Re: This wiki entry though......
« on: February 15, 2017, 01:41:16 PM »
http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/

i find baysinger's recordings extremely compelling
Simply amazing. I love it when someone determined does something this cool. Great evidence, I'll be adding this to my collection.

13
Flat Earth General / Re: This wiki entry though......
« on: February 14, 2017, 05:49:55 PM »
The moon landing wasn't real. The technology didn't exist and it still doesn't exist.
Any proof of this?

14
Prop malfunction.
What a disgusting way to pass off the deaths of seven people, just because your closed mind can't accept the truth.
I'm pretty sure that independent people also found pieces of Challenger.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/18/us/challenger-parts-wash-ashore-almost-11-years-after-explosion.html

They found pieces of a prop.
So you're ACTUALLY telling me that they made an ACTUAL shuttle that COULD FLY....... but it was just a prop..... that malfunctioned? Okay. Assuming that you're correct, I'll look at this from your perspective. They spent millions of dollars on fake math and engineering to find what a spacecraft should look like and do on a spherical earth. They spent more on fake math of how the orbits would work, and then published all of this completely useless math that works on a round earth that doesn't exist. So they've already invented an entire new planet, reality, and several new types of math, along with inventing quite a few new laws of physics. They then build on this by making several hugely expensive rockets, many of which fail on launch, just to.... hit the dome? They then recruit astronauts, brainwash them or whatever, and send them somewhere and back down, either tricking them or keeping them quiet. They continue to send up more and more complex rockets, again publishing huge volumes of work, all of which checks out flawlessly, all with the assumption of the globe earth, also publishing limited amounts of pictures and videos and broadcasting them live. They then go on the Apollo Program, hiding the astronauts somewhere (They got in the rocket, they didn't get out, it launched and nothing came down but parts that hit the ocean), for several days, sending back hundreds of pictures of our moon, then they fake a landing there (They would need some kind of.... zero gravity chamber?..... to simulate the movement of the dust in the videos and there is too much footage for a plane in a parabolic arc) They then get their funding lowered due to Vietnam and low public interest, and start to work on the shuttle "Prop", which can obviously fly, as many have seen, and caries a fuckton of fuel, so it's going SOMEWHERE. They continue through test flights, not any great accomplishments, but the shuttle does its job, and it does it well. You then have the Colombia disaster, where Shuttle Columbia disintegrates over Texas, after re-entering with a loose heat shield. (No idea what the flat earthers think about how this happened) You start building the International Space Station (That's an argument for another day), and then you lose Challenger, shortly after liftoff. The shuttle program gets shut down a bit later, and now they're going to space courtesy of the Russians, with unmanned probes being launched every so often, and returning a lot of data (Let me guess, they just INVENTED unique characteristics for every planet). SO for this conspiracy to work you need the government of every country to collaborate, you need somewhere to put the Apollo astronauts for a few days, as radar would detect any return, you need to somehow keep International Space Station astronauts in the sky for months when space doesn't exist, and invent an entire new reality and make several books worth of calculations based on it. That's a bit..... far fetched, to say the least.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain this video
« on: February 14, 2017, 01:44:55 PM »
The Ballon popped when it hit the electromagnetism of the firmament.
............ Have you ever put a balloon in a vacuum chamber? And how would electromagnetism cause a balloon to pop exactly?

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Answer these:
« on: February 14, 2017, 01:42:54 PM »
You have posted it.

It is your interpretation of the events and reports that are lacking in depth and vetting.

That is my opinion.

Your opinion is different.

What is so hard to understand about that?
Your opinion is WRONG. That's why I won't acknowledge it. If you have nothing to say, let someone else put up an argument against my original post.

You are looking really desperate and sad right now Rekt. How can you tell someone their opinion is wrong? He gave you his interpretation of things, and his reasons behind his interpretations. All you are doing is shouting "Nah Uh!" like a petulant child.

He has no reason to want to convince you, and he isn't even pushing his ideas on you, you are begging him for them. I don't usually do this, and I HATE when other people use terms like this, but if this isn't the most clear cut case of cognitive dissonance I've seen on TFES than I don't know what is.

Feel free to continue to believe what you want, and lackey will do the same. You demanding more from him is selfish and would be a waste of his time considering you have no true intention to understand, just deny and ridicule. Just being a combative pain in the dick isn't exactly "Rek"ing anyone.
I want to know his opinions and his support for them, which he is supposedly using to disprove my statements. I still haven't seen a single rebuttal with EVIDENCE to these, all that you've put up are thoughts.

17
Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« on: February 13, 2017, 02:50:34 PM »
Why would you believe an ancient religious text when considering the shape of the earth?

18
Prop malfunction.
What a disgusting way to pass off the deaths of seven people, just because your closed mind can't accept the truth.
I'm pretty sure that independent people also found pieces of Challenger.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/18/us/challenger-parts-wash-ashore-almost-11-years-after-explosion.html

19
Flat Earth General / Re: This wiki entry though......
« on: February 13, 2017, 02:02:15 PM »
Why would a space agency hold pieces of its lunar lander together with tape?
Just as an FYI, NASA did not design or build the Lunar Module.  Grumman Aircraft did.
But, however, they don't understand the contractor system of NASA's operations. For example, their "Muh scotch tape use" argument is completely invalid, as Scotch was chosen as a CONTRACTOR to create SPECIFIC TYPES of tape for use in the Lunar Module, due to their industry prevalence and experience. Why would an aircraft company build a spacecraft? Because NASA contracts are a lot of fucking money.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Answer these:
« on: February 13, 2017, 01:56:11 PM »
You have posted it.

It is your interpretation of the events and reports that are lacking in depth and vetting.

That is my opinion.

Your opinion is different.

What is so hard to understand about that?
Your opinion is WRONG. That's why I won't acknowledge it. If you have nothing to say, let someone else put up an argument against my original post.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >