881

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves of Bullshit

« on: February 24, 2016, 03:35:11 PM »

How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long?  What is the FE dance for this to happen?

Easy:  matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. 
I learned that in "globular" school.

Did you drop out of globular school prior to learning that matter and energy can be transformed?

The only way the FE sun could last as long as it has is if it is somehow transforming matter into energy (light and heat) and is somehow converting this energy back to matter in an equal measure.  Most of the energy would be lost to radiation.  How does it get the energy back to transform back into matter?

How does the sun do that on a RE?

882

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun Dogs and You.

« on: February 24, 2016, 06:10:39 AM »

You need to explain why you get an extra sun either side using ice crystals and not a halo as expected.

Read the wiki.  No, not the TFES wiki, I mean the wikipedia article cited by Lugger in the first post.  The explanation is right there.  Along with some photos that DO exhibit shapes more halo-like than this one.

I've lost a lot of respect for using wikipedia as a source for anything anymore... most stuff I read is written with some kind of bias, or obvious view... when the information there should be objective as possible. (not a defense of TFES wiki btw, which obviously has a bias, and point of view)

Looking at the article though, it's talking about being a result of "horizontal, hexigonal ice crystals" but I don't see anywhere on the wiki how this conclusion came about.

883

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth? Or Round Earth?

« on: February 24, 2016, 05:59:48 AM »

I think your font choice really pissed rabinoz off lol...

But honestly, I'm having trouble distinguishing whether you are a legit user or another one of the forum members just trying to troll. But if you're legit, I'd love to see your rocket footage regardless. Perhaps you could be a help with experiments of your own.

884

Flat Earth Theory / Re: gravity

« on: February 24, 2016, 04:37:33 AM »

Well I'm sorry to frustrate but I totally don't put my faith in scientists, the government, or man in general. You can trust in whoever or whatever you'd like to, I won't judge you for it. All I ask is that you reserve your judgement as well.

885

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 24, 2016, 04:27:29 AM »

Just trying to understand the person I'm talking to.

No you're not but such is the nature of this forum.  The entire thing is built upon the structure of a sentence or paragraph and everyone, myself included, waits on baited breath for the person they are arguing with to make a slip in grammar so that they can then attempt to tear their argument apart.

Bad on me for structuring my statement incorrectly.  Good on you for catching it and latching on to it.

Care to address the actual paradox that I posed?

How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long?  What is the FE dance for this to happen?

Hey speak for your own breath lol...

Definitely wasn't trying to back you into a corner, or trick you, I was just trying to see if you had a unique perspective on how life came to be on this planet. I am even willing to admit, surrounded by atheists and armchair scientists, that I believe the universe is a product of intelligent design.

So no, my purpose here isn't to bicker and argue with people, I'll save that for YouTube comment section. I'm here to learn more about something that intrigues me, and I prefer a mutual respect for each others ideas. I apologize if I've come off any other way.

886

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 24, 2016, 12:57:06 AM »

Just trying to understand the person I'm talking to.

887

Flat Earth Theory / Re: gravity

« on: February 23, 2016, 09:56:45 PM »

Have you ever taken a pair of binoculars and looked at the ISS? Or are you just sure that you can because you heard you can? Regardless of whether you can or can not see something in the sky with binoculars, the point is, I can almost guarantee you didn't try to do it.

The similarities between the Church in the Dark Ages and the authoritative institutions in our time are striking. They both attempt to control the flow of knowledge, through censorship and indoctrination, and the goal in this is still ultimately power and maintaining it.

"Science" as you keep referencing isn't an actual thing... it is a method to examine phenomena. Nothing more nothing less-- it doesn't "prove" anything, as everything is subject to future findings. Now don't forget that many of the scientists of the dark ages were actually employed by the church. Just as there are many that are employed by NASA, NOAA, ESA, etc today. I am not denying "science" as you put, but I don't just read space.com or watch Cosmos and take what they say for Gospel... can't you see that's just as absurd as the peasants gobbling up everything their Priest told them in the past?

I am not here to convince you one way or the other, of anything, but to accuse me of spreading ignorance because I'm looking at concepts long thought "disproven" by "modern" science with an open yet critical mind, is insulting to me.

Ignorance is king because no one likes to think for themselves anymore. Apathy is crown prince because even when clearly shown evidence contrary to a popular belief it is ignored because it's much more convenient to trust those in power to actually give you the truth.

888

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Ultimate Proof?

« on: February 23, 2016, 05:42:44 PM »

If you are at all interested in the nature of our reality and the existence of a creator, you have two hours to spare to watch this video:



I was a sceptic and an atheist until I watched this yesterday, but I am currently reconsidering this. I am having to come to terms with the magnitude of what this all means.

You can test for proof yourself like he says in the video: Try searching for flights that will head directly West from Buenos Aires to Wellington, NZ. You will find none, because the globe is not real.

I stopped watching when he got to the flights between Australia and South America.
Then looked up QF28, non stop from Sydney to Santiago, 14hrs.
Is this aircraft able to travel much faster or something?

Typical Flat Earth Answer would be :"QF28 does not exist."

I dont think the fact that it exists is the question, what I'd be more interested in finding is a flight that actually goes over antartica, from south america to australia. That would be the nail in the coffin per se, if it was something that ever existed.

889

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 23, 2016, 05:23:50 PM »

Speaking of paradoxes...

How has the sun of the FET even lasted long enough to get the earth to the point of being able to generate life let alone supporting life for the entire age of life?

Speaking of paradoxes... How has the sun ever been able to generate life? Is that what you truly believe happened?

890

Flat Earth Theory / Re: gravity

« on: February 23, 2016, 04:57:54 PM »

They both were off by some margin of error, but they were both surprisingly accurate for that time. We have made incredible improvements in technology in that field of science in the next 2000 years, like satellites that can measure the earth's circumference, etc.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2006-08/1155321706.Es.r.html

The method is still the same. Except we claim to use "satellites" now instead of land based instruments, which really seems like a waste of energy and money.

As advanced as you think we've become in 2000 years, I'm just trying to let you take into perspective how germ theory didn't come around until the 19th century. There was a massive period of human existence where the Catholic Church controlled every bit of knowledge and education available, that happened in those 2000 years. What it appears to me, is that "Science" is basically trying to take the place of the Church, in keeping people in the dark as much as possible. With black holes, dark matter, etc its all slight of hand. NASA tells us that hey gravity works after all, we have a satellite 1 million miles from Earth, but it is nothing more than a display of authority. "They" take the "knowledge" and horde it while giving us this dog and pony show.

So you might think we've truly advanced, but have we really? It is human nature to feel that we are at a pinnacle when we could be anywhere along the hill, for all we know. There is still so much more to learn about life itself, Mankind's true origins, but instead we waste our time measuring space, with ancient techniques mangled into abomination with abstract mathematics.

As long as we trust people supposedly smarter than us, wiser than us to do the thinking for us human consciousness will never evolve, instead we are stuck in this modern day version of the dark ages where ignorance is king.

891

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 23, 2016, 04:12:51 AM »

You're right, how stupid could I be. We are an insignificant spec in the cosmos after all. Gravity does exist even though they've never found a particle responsible, a rudimentary experiment in a shed is all we needed to prove it. I guess all the astronomers were foolish to think they could predict the movement of the stars and planets, and eclipses of the sun and moon without the heliocentric theory showing them the way. I'm so stupid for not trusting we went to the moon with technology equivalent to a speak and spell. Thanks for opening my eyes to the folly of my ways guy on the internet. What would the flat earth society do without such a dedicated dissenting voice here to bring them back to (globular)earth. I now am comfortable knowing that I know the knowledge that I didn't know I could know. Go home guys, the mysteries of the universe are solved. Black holes and dark matter, quantum mechanics and other stuff you need a doctorate to pretend to understand are what drives it all. No way we are infinite beings on an infinite plane created by some kind of infinite higher power. Just space dust.

892

Flat Earth Theory / Re: gravity

« on: February 22, 2016, 08:45:59 PM »

Again, I dont think that you understand how old and inaccurate their equipment was. Archimedes was born in 287 BC and died in 212 BC, over 2000 years ago! The equipment he had on hand compared to the equipment we have today would be like trying to zoom in on the moon with a magnifying glass, rather than using the Hubble space telescope to do it. The fact that we praise him for getting such an accurate estimate for his time does not mean that we praise him because we like him, but because we see how intelligent he was by being able to calculate the earths circumference with such accuracy.

What equipment do we have today to measure the Earth's Circumference?

893

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 22, 2016, 08:05:26 PM »

News flash: Space-time doesn't exist. None of this wild abstract stuff that humans have pulled out of their ass to feel smarter than the Creator of the Universe is real.

You don't think space or time exists?  Tell us more...  In another thread preferably.

It seems perfectly fair to discuss in this thread, considering very little of this conversation has to do with Polaris.

I believe time is an abstract concept used to keep track of our existence, nothing more. Space, in regards to 3D plane based XYZ coordinates obviously exist, and the various ways to display and chart points in space do have uses, but the higher levels of mathematics have little to no practical use, or relation to reality.

894

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 22, 2016, 07:04:17 PM »

News flash: Space-time doesn't exist. None of this wild abstract stuff that humans have pulled out of their ass to feel smarter than the Creator of the Universe is real.

895

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 22, 2016, 04:51:16 PM »

I never told you to do anything dawg... I cant find the article but I just read recently from the artist behind the image about how he used hundreds of photos, something like 4.5gb a piece, on the official nasa website. Can you give me a source for the info that this was taking by your the magic satellite floating in space capable of honing in on earth from way beyond its orbit? Yall can believe what you want but I refuse to believe we have the ability to do the shit NASA claims they do, round earth or not.

I do find it quite amusing really! You refuse to believe any satellite is real even though there is abundant evidence but you:

• believe the the sun magically rotates above on a funny, though quite unexplained, spiral sort of motion.
• believe the sunlight bends in amazing ways for the sunrise and sunset directions to magically match the exact locations predicted by the rotating globe earth.
• believe the sunlight bends in amazing ways for the sunrise and sunset times to exactly match the times predicted by the rotating globe earth.
• believe the sunlight and moonlight bends in amazing ways for the sun and moon to stay the same size and shape from rising to setting.
• believe that somehow this odd spiralling sun and moon can cause the moon phases and eclipses - usually some other completely imaginary bodies are postulated - yet these event are easily explained and predicted for the globe earth.
• believe that even though the sun travels quite different distances in the various seasons it still manages to rotate exactly once each 24 hours.
• believe that the earth magically has kept accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s² since the earth began. I won't scare you now with the distance it might have travelled - of course you may have some other explanation for gravity!
• believe in some funny sort of perspective that appears to make ships, the sun and the moon disappear behind the horizon in exactly the way predicted by the globe!
• believe that the planets and stars are only tiny spots of light, yet when observed with powerful telescopes show such amazing detail.

You can believe all this and much more magical stuff, yet cannot accept say gravitation that has been demonstrated by hundreds of measurements! You know something, I will stick to something simple like the globe earth!

Yet I have seen Flat Earthers (maybe not you) call Newton an Alchemist - really you need some witches and wizards to explain the magic needed in any flat earth model and that is before having no map to show the true shape, dimensions and location of the continents!

Come off it! I prefer to keep away from all the magic needed to explain the flat earth! A lot of the problem is that so few flat earthers take the trouble to find out how their own "model" really works (or doesn't)!

What you fail to account for is the things that are predicted by a globe earth, are the very things they used to predict that the Earth was a globe. Long before we were somehow launching satellites into deep space and maintaining their course, or sending humans through massive belts of radiation to land on the moon and take perfectly framed photographs for us, it was only the movements of the celestial bodies that led people to adopt the globe model. And it wasn't instantaneously accepted, or precisely matching what we observe. It took concessions like Earth being tilted on an axis, its heliocentric orbit elliptical, our moon spinning the opposite direction around the earth than we observe, and pseudo-scientific forces like universal gravitation to hold the model together.

Other than that you have never seen me claim to know anything. Especially the things you listed in your bullet points. I am here to discover the ways that the phenomena we experience on Earth can be explained in alternative ways. I do however hold that Man has never been on the moon, the photos from space are fake (especially photos of satellites) and that universal gravitation is a fallacy. Other than that I couldn't tell you how the sun and moon work. I can also tell you that I don't approach our existence as a mere accident, a lucky coincidence amid a massive explosion. I don't believe we are an insignificant speck in the universe, relying on a fairy tale "Goldilocks" zone to evolve from single cell organisms into apes into man.

So its obvious to me we are coming from two very different perspectives in the first place. I am intrigued by the "flat-earth" for philosophical reasons just as much as you are adhered to the "globe-earth" for scientific reasons. I appreciate your vigor for debate, and I respect your opinions, however I'm not here to prove anything to anyone, or be proven anything by anyone. Strictly here for interesting discussion on the possibilities of alternate views of our existence, with the caveat that I am an Agnostic at heart. I would never pretend to "know" anything, and I simply don't put as much faith in Man as those that pretend to know. "TheTruthIsOnHere" doesn't mean I know the Truth, or have the truth as you have said a few times... it means the truth of our existence is HERE, not THERE. I prefer to look inward as opposed to outwards in my meditation, because if man can not know himself, how can he expect to know the entire universe.

896

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 22, 2016, 06:43:44 AM »

I never told you to do anything dawg... I cant find the article but I just read recently from the artist behind the image about how he used hundreds of photos, something like 4.5gb a piece, on the official nasa website. Can you give me a source for the info that this was taking by your the magic satellite floating in space capable of honing in on earth from way beyond its orbit? Yall can believe what you want but I refuse to believe we have the ability to do the shit NASA claims they do, round earth or not.

897

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 21, 2016, 08:45:49 PM »

Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.

I don't believe there are objects orbiting the earth, in space that is. Considering the recent release of the new blue marble photograph, it seems to lack a single anomaly (besides the word sex in the clouds) that could be considered one of the 2,000+ satellites apparently in orbit. Also, given the probabilities, it's very hard to believe that there aren't several satellites crashing into one another on a yearly basis, or more of them crash landing around the planet (since space engineers even say that the satellites are slowly falling back to earth the entire time)

Apply simple research and math to your question.

The speed of orbiting satellites ranges, due to elevation and type of orbit, between 1.5 and 10 kilometers per second.  At least make an attempt to comprehend this speed.  Even though the exposure time of the Blue Marble photograph is short it is not short enough to stop the motion of anything moving at this speed.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that the average satellite has a visible surface area of 600 square meters and that it is orbiting at 20,000 km above the surface.

The photograph you are referencing was taken at a distance of 1,600,000 km.

Attempt to at least comprehend the probability of imaging something so small, moving so fast from so far away.

Its not a photograph. It is a composite and nasa admits it. It is not a photo taken from 1.6 million km away... It is thousands of photos taken from low orbit stitched together. I'm on mobile but feel free to search for the corresponding article from NASA about the creation of this graphic you mistakenly are calling a photograph.

898

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun and Moon shape

« on: February 20, 2016, 06:03:21 PM »

the problem with this theory is that if the sun and moon are flat like some of the youtube videos say they are then we wouldn't get the crescent moon we get sometimes

One of troubles with heliocentric theory's sun or moon is that both the sun and moon appear the same size and shape from all parts of the earth.

Ftfy.

So even though the sun and moon appear the same size from all parts of earth shouldnt the moon in the very least, look smaller from a vantage point in north America when it's over Europe? Even slightly? Shouldn't we ever see a slightly different angle of the face? With that aside, are we instead to believe that even though they appear the same size, it's just an illusion, one is actually 93 million miles away and the other is much closer, and even though their movements look very similar, one revolving around the earth opposite the direction we actually observe, while the other inexplicably stationary? Doesn't it just sound stupid? I guess if you have the chalkboard full of equations you can pass anything off as truth huh.

899

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water finding it's own level

« on: February 20, 2016, 05:46:20 PM »

You honestly believe the moons gravity, 10 million times less powerful, pulls the actually earth from under our feet up? There is a such thing as seismic activity, though not an exact science is predicated on tectonic plates moving and grinding, collapsing etc. Houses are built on foundations that would crack and shift at unexplainable rates, underground oil wells would be destroyed, you say a mountain, that is the definition of rock solid, pulsates because the moon passes overhead, and with no verifiable proof, I should believe it against common sense? No thanks bud, keep believing whatever the MSM pays NDT to say and Ill do fine over here

900

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Ultimate Proof?

« on: February 20, 2016, 05:37:09 PM »

I don't even understand why anyone would come here attempting to "prove" the earth is round. Obviously 12+ years of public indoctrination and however many photos from NASA hasn't convinced the skeptics of a globe earth, it's surprising people like rabinoz even try. There's obviously enough reasonable doubt to at the very least say: we can not be sure. You can pull numbers and hypotheses up all day but you can not one way or another prove it either way. It is well accepted that even things we take for granted like heliocentricity is just a "model" and the motions of heavens, eclipses etc can all be charted, mapped, and predicted just as well on a geocentric model. So to me I remain agnostic, until something does come along and remove all reasonable doubt one way or the other.