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 - junker

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 99  Next >
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« on: Today at 01:43:01 AM »
I would attempt to verify if stands up to measured distances and so on.

How would you go about doing that?

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« on: July 26, 2017, 09:21:39 PM »
So "Gravity Wave" as highlighted above isn't the same as "gravitational waves" in your book?
No, they aren't the same in my book.

How do they differ?
In their definition. Also in that one of them have been detected.

They appear to be speaking about the same idea/phenomenon to me.
Then the person posting should use the correct terminology. Especially when trying to prove that one thing exists (even though that hasn't been shown to be the case) by invoking another thing that may or may not be related.
How do you define their definition difference then? Because my search results don't turn anything up, and in fact searching gravity wave gets me the information about the LIGO team's discovery. (Granted this could be Google trying to be helpful all things considered.)

Based on their actual definitions. Gravitation can certainly exist without gravity. I know people may use the terms synonymously, but they're not identical.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« on: July 26, 2017, 08:53:31 PM »
So "Gravity Wave" as highlighted above isn't the same as "gravitational waves" in your book?
No, they aren't the same in my book.

How do they differ?
In their definition. Also in that one of them have been detected.

They appear to be speaking about the same idea/phenomenon to me.
Then the person posting should use the correct terminology. Especially when trying to prove that one thing exists (even though that hasn't been shown to be the case) by invoking another thing that may or may not be related.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« on: July 26, 2017, 08:24:25 PM »
He DID say that.
False.
Quote
So - enter the gravity wave observatories, there are (I believe) three of these with sufficient sensitivity to actually detect gravity waves.  For 10 years, they got no results, until just last year they improved the sensistivity of the "LIGO" detector just a little bit more - and BINGO.   A gravity wave was detected...and if there is a wave - there must be a particle to be it's dual.
He did say so. Right here. Direct quote from his post. That's how I knew the name to search for.

Funny, I do not see the term:
...gravitational waves ...
anwhere in what you quoted.


If you're going to state something is false, it's generally an accepted rule of debate to provide a counterpoint, or explain why your opponent's claim is incorrect.
To be honest, I gladly would have if that was just what the reply had asked for. Instead, it was a whiny rant about how no one ever tells him what he wants and wants me to self-ban. Sorry, I am not enabling that kind of behavior.

I have not seen you doing this, at minimum in this thread. The idea of a debate is to spur discussion on the topic at hand. Simply stating something is false squashes said discussion. It is out of place in a debate, and it should be out of place in a debate forum. One wouldn't get up in a debate and simply state 'My opponent is incorrect' and sit back down, and expect any sort of points to be given.
I tend to agree. One also wouldn't go on the aforementioned rant, and would instead maybe just ask for clarity. My posts in this thread, while brief, are at least on the topic.

This is why, in the first post, I attempted to offer an allegory of sorts on what you seemed to be doing. You are, in effect, sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating 'fake news' or 'false' in reply to points brought up, instead of giving an explanation or reasoning for why they are false, that could spur rebuttals or further discussion.
That is simply not happening. I am happy to have a discussion, but I am not going to partake in long diatribes about FES/FET, or me in general. At least not in this forum.

You're right, I'm not. Just to be certain, would the appropriate forum to express my concern that you aren't doing a good job be the 'Suggestions and Concerns' forum? Would it be of use to provide links there to the posts I am speaking about?
If you have a concern, then yes, S&C is the place. If you want to rant angrily about me, I'd suggest Angry ranting. Feel free to post links to anything you have an issue with, and an admin will review and respond in time.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« on: July 26, 2017, 06:21:18 PM »
You're not engaging in a discussion - you're just saying "FALSE" or "LOOK IN THE WIKI/FORUMS" - you never, ever, not even once ever come up with a coherent explanation when someone presents a difficult question to you.
Incorrect. If you are struggling with basic comprehension, I don't think I can help you. But I would be happy to try.

I have done my research and there is absolutely nothing on the Wiki, in the other writings or on the forums that are searchable that explains ANY of the serious problems with FE gravity.

Not...one...single...one.
Either you are terrible at searching, or you just decided to start lying. It is fine if you don't want to make an attempt, just be honest about it.

If you're going to carry on claiming that there is - then either point them out - or NOBODY is going to believe you. 
I don't care if you believe me. Once you learn how to search, you will find it for yourself. Acting like a child throwing a tantrum isn't going to encourage me to help you.

You always use this hand-wavey approach and it just gets tiresome to those who come here to understand what you guys are trying to tell the world.
I am sorry that giving direct instructions comes off as "hand-wavey" to you. You seem to think you are entitled to something. I assure you that you are not.

I don't think you have *ANYWHERE* a fully explained theory of how FE explains gravity - variable over altitude, variable by latitude and explaining the tides.
I suppose it is good I never claimed otherwise, then.

You're continual "look for it" or "false!" posts are a waste of bandwidth
I am sorry if you think facts are a waste of bandwidth.

- the kind of thing you'd be the first to ban someone over.
Literally and objectively false.

If you're not going to present a reference, a discussion, or an explanation of any kind - then why bother posting?
To point out falsehoods perpetuated by folks such as yourself. You do know that you don't even have to reply if you don't want to, right? It would be more productive than just going on a rant complaining about things that aren't happening.

Your responses are FAR less useful than those of many people you ban.  I recommend you give yourself a three day ban to consider this.
If you want to continue your rant, I suggest you take it to the proper forum. Alternatively, if you have a concern, we also have a forum dedicated to that. I will ask you to refrain from derailing the thread further and if you are going to post, then stay on topic. Consider this a warning.



He DID say that.
False.

You're not debating, you're shouting your side without providing rationale, or anything to refute.
I don't think there is much shouting going on, except for angsty round earth proponents who get upset when someone doesn't agree with them, or points out their incorrect claims.

The opposite of having a discussion. What you claim is false is exactly what you are doing, no matter how many times you want to say it's not true. Please either engage in discussion, or stop doing anything more than moderating the debate forms, because your posts are most assuredly low content posts in the context of a debate forum.
You aren't a moderator. If you are going to post, keep it on topic. If you want to complain about me, take it to the appropriate forum. Consider this a friendly warning.



Sadly, because they don't know enough math and science,
Nice projection, friend.

The fact of gravity wave proves that gravity works the way we think it does.  F=G.m1.m2/(d.d) - that equation works very well, and even without the evidence of gravity waves, it explains 100% of the effects we see on Earth.   FET's explanation for these effects (as you can see from my compendium of all of the discussions on the Wiki) merely says things like "the pull of the objects in the sky accounts for these effect"...but it doesn't.   The same stars are overhead all of the earth, the sum of their attractions must result in some results - but those results can't explain a perfectly circular decrease in gravity around the equator because (for example) the density of stars over the two hemispheres is observationally identical.  If their explanation were correct then the most "sky gravity" would be over the arctic - and the gravity there would be LESS than at the equator...not more.
So, you still have no evidence for the mechanism behind gravity. Gotcha.

So carping on about the lack of direct evidence for gravitons (which has precisely ZERO effect on our understanding of RET physics) is just a pathetic distraction to cover for the fact that there is no viable theory of FET "gravity" (or "universal acceleration") that comes remotely close to explaining what we actually see.
RE gravity is irrelevant in FE. Is there something about that which is confusing for you?

Junker is employing standard FE'er tactics of trying to distract people by picking apart a tiny, tiny nit of RET in the hope that we won't notice the gigantic CHASM of errors, inconsistencies and flat out impossibilities that make up FET.
This is a literal strawman and I would suggest you refrain from it if you want anyone take you seriously (from what I have seen so far, that isn't a concern for you so no big deal). You should stick to debating the things people actually say, not whatever you have made up in your head.

So junker... is this just "FALSE" - or can you actually explain FET "gravity" to us without saying "Look in the Wiki"...because I just did that and produced the results for everyone to read.
Sure thing. FET doesn't have gravity. If you want to understand FE's theories, I would suggest you search the fora and the wiki.

If you're just going to say it's not your job to find the explanations in the forum
Remember the earlier point about attacking a strawman? You are doing it again.

- then you might as well stop posting here because you're adding precisely nothing to the conversation - and that's often your criteria for banning people from posting.   A "self-ban" would be more honest here.

Please see my earlier comment about your ranting. If you want to complain, then take it to the appropriate forum. Otherwise, please stay on topic.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« on: July 25, 2017, 09:45:20 PM »
All you did was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'fake news!' at him.
False.

LIGO DID in fact detect gravitational waves https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html
Maybe that is what the person I was responding to should have said, then...

While this is theory, this is still the current scientific consensus, and it's not a terrible stretch to say gravitational waves proved gravitons.
I disagree. It is quite a stretch.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« on: July 25, 2017, 08:57:52 PM »
Wow!  What a clever and compelling argument!   Just grab a few random sentences from my post and say "FALSE!" to all of them!   I like it.   Very "FE" of you.

Yes, I point out false statements when I see them. I am sorry if that bothers you. You should do your research before posting if you would like to prevent that from happening in the future.

8
Thanks for the count !  Does that "we" include yourself ?
But I think it has been said close to 7 billion times  "around"  (if you'll pardon the pun) the world !


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

Please refrain from off-topic, and low-content posting in the upper fora, especially Flat Earth Debate. Gecko, you already know better.

Consider this a warning to you both.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: No Religion= Peace
« on: July 22, 2017, 06:47:32 PM »
IF THE EARTH IS FLAT .... then explain why you do not always have a direct straight line of sight to the Sun < No FErs gotta answer for this ?

Are you sure you're in the correct thread? Please try to stay on topic.

11
All you said was "do research"
Yes, because everything that was posted has been covered in the wiki and in various threads on these very fora.

you didn't actually reply to any of his points.
False.

Or mine. So, I'll ask YOU. What's the force that causes objects to accelerate to the ground?
Ah, so you have not read the wiki either. That is apparent based on the very existence of this nonsensical thread. The entire thread is literally a strawman.

12
Well do you actually have a reply to him?

Of course. It was in the post you quoted. I would suggest you go back and read the thread again if you are confused.

If there is something you want to debate, then feel free to make a point. Otherwise, I will ask you to refrain from making posts that do not contribute to the discussion.

13
2) The Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s/s because of...magic pixie dust...whatever.   This would indeed reproduce all the effects of gravity.  Albert Einstein was kind enough to prove that equivalence in his General theory of relativity.   The first complaint of most RE'ers about this is that after a billion years of this acceleration, the world would be going faster than light and that's not possible...but enter Albert Einstein again - and because time/length and mass change for the people inside the moving Earth - any outside observer would see the earth's acceleration being slowed by the slowing passage of time as it goes faster - so it never exceeds light speed...and for people on the accelerating earth, there is no problem whatever.   The reason this theory cannot be true is that gravity is measurably different at the equator compared to the poles - and the earth can only accelerate at one rate without tearing itself apart.   So although this is by far the most popular FE theory on this forum, it's also BUSTED.

Well, since you used all capital letters, you must be right. It is clear you have done no research into UA, otherwise you would know that your points have literally been addressed. I would suggest you maybe do some research before you post again so you don't come off so ignorant. It would also probably be good if you refreshed yourself on acceleration and Special Relativity as well. It would help the conversation move forward.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« on: July 21, 2017, 01:48:10 AM »

We don't need to directly detect a graviton
False.

because we've detected gravity waves...and they provide PRECISELY the same level of proof as their particulate dual.
Also false.


So yeah - we know gravity is a thing that's carried by a wave
There seems to be a pattern here.


Feel free to retract your claim at any time.
Why? You have literally done nothing to fulfill the requirement for me to do so.

17
Do you enjoy arguing with yourself? No one here is a proponent of this density model. I think you have the wrong forum.

18
Flat Earth General / Re: Why is NASA sociopathic organisation?
« on: July 20, 2017, 01:05:30 AM »
Well, one of us is definitely confused. You don't even know if the earth is flat or not. Do you?
If you are going to post in the FE discussion fora, please stay on topic. I am trying to be patient here.


Secondly, didn't you delete my other post which had much smaller picture? Do you have something against cats? Why do I have to use smiley faces?
I didn't delete any of your posts. I split them out of this thread and moved them to a forum where spamming cat pictures is not against the rules. 

Please ensure your next posts remain on topic so as not to further derail the thread.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: Why is NASA sociopathic organisation?
« on: July 19, 2017, 11:19:17 PM »
I get that you are new, so I will give you another warning to refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora and spamming a thread. Continued low-content posts will result in a 3-day ban.

Also, refrain from arguing moderation in the same thread where you received a warning. All it does is derail a thread further. We have a forum for you to post any concerns you may have. I see you posted a concern, albeit in the wrong forum (I went ahead and moved that for you).

I'd suggest reading the rules and respecting the upper fora. We have fora dedicated to shitposting and you are welcome to post your nonsense there.

How is your FES makes sense to you and how does my theory does not? Iran has an image satellite and they are refusing to release the pictures to the public. Why are you deleting my opinions and keeping others? Iran might have the pictures that you have being waiting for.

I think you are confused. You weren't warned for your opinion. You were warned for including giant cat pictures in your posts which did not have anything to do with your opinion, or the topic. Then, you argued about the warning you received which only served to derail the thread further.

We have other fora where you can spam cat pictures. The FE discussion fora are more strictly moderated. Again, I would suggest you read the rules and the descriptions of each fora.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: High Places
« on: July 19, 2017, 03:35:46 PM »
I recently went to a county fair. From the ferris wheel, I could plainly see the curvature of the earth at the top.  This is true for tall buildings as well. How can this be possible if the Earth is flat?

You absolutely cannot discern curvature on a Ferris wheel or from the top of buildings. You cannot even discern it as a passenger on common commercial airliners. This is true in even the round earth model, so I am afraid your eyes are deceiving you. You'd have to be at a very high altitude and have a wide field of view to perceive curvature in the round earth model.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 99  Next >