1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: ISIS and the Middle East

« on: August 28, 2014, 03:01:22 PM »

Isn't the IS opposed to other terrorist groups like Hamas anyway? Just let them fight it out and mop up the survivors.

Waiting to do that could take decades. With entire populaces to recruit it would never end. It's like having five different civil wars going on at once in the same area. We need to put an end to the terrorist ideal once and for all. No more pussyfooting around.

Except, Thork, that Israel is the only friend, reliable one, at least, that we have in the Middle East, as well as being the only truly democratic state there. Your stupidity at failing to realise that is just that, YOUR STUPIDITY, not Israel's fault, or that of the USA. Mountain, I am inclined to agree. The US would simply have to declare entire groups, like Hamas, ISIL, and, in another part of the world (Africa), Boko Haram, to be red lines. If you belonged to those groups in in any capacity, you would be reduced to slag. We would have to do that all over the world, declare some groups on the "Most Wanted for Destruction" and go after the bastards. The USA would have to be on a permanent war footing, as would the entire Western World, including Israel, Britain, France, etc.

Indeed.  More ground support from allied nations would definitely help. Just it them from different fronts.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: ISIS and the Middle East

« on: August 28, 2014, 02:35:23 PM »

Indeed. Why can't we just finish a war properly and pound the enemy into dust or surrender? Although I will admit doing so in the middle east isn't as easy as dealing with equally industrialized nations. Kinda hard to eliminate an enemy you have trouble distinguishing from the local population. Our efforts in stabilizing the middle east are completely in vain if the leaders aren't competent enough to squash out there own problems.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: ISIS and the Middle East

« on: August 28, 2014, 02:12:00 PM »

Although I know it wouldn't be totally popular among the American people we simply could just go back to Iraq and fight the good fight. It was fairly obvious something like this would happen. 

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Constellations and their respective hemispheres

« on: August 28, 2014, 03:03:51 AM »

You have photographic evidence of stars that shouldn't be seen from a given point of view by Round Earth standards? Holy shit, please post them immediately, that would settle the debate once and for all! I'm so excited for this new FE evidence you claim to have!

I mean in terms of photographic evidence of a spherical Earth

The fact that you can see the arc of the curvature of the Earth from the air ( much easier seen over water).

See: Electromagnetic accelerator.

False. You can still see the arc with nothing but dim moonlight.

With a flat plane there would be no distinguishable arc.

This is incorrect under virtually any Flat Earth model.

How so?

Fact the orbit of our satellites are based on spherical principles.

Please substantiate this claim, keeping in mind that you used the word fact.

See mathematics of satellite motion
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Mathematics-of-Satellite-Motion

Fact it can be observed that the sun is a spherical object that gives off light in every direction.

Please substantiate this claim, keeping in mind that you used the word fact.

The sun's reflection off of the moon even the planets is substantial enough

If the sun acts essentially as a lighthouse why then does light from the sun reflect off of the moon if it is facing the earth?

It doesn't.
[/quote]

It can be observed that the sun rotates on it's axis making one full rotation every 25 days. That would leave us with a period of darkness every 25 days if it truly acted as a lighthouse. Even if the sun where revolving around the earth it still rotates. The principles about the lighthouse concept do not work. Also simply saying that the Sun's rays do no reflect off of the moon does not refute what I said. Please provide where the light reflecting off of the moon comes from.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Constellations and their respective hemispheres

« on: August 27, 2014, 05:09:43 PM »

It's simple really my POV is supported by facts, evidence, and observation.

Okay, feel free to present those. I'm particularly curious about the "facts", since science doesn't deal with those.

Care to answer what I asked btw? 

Of course, right after you're done backing up (or retracting) your misconstrued claims.

Hmm.. some facts..  lets see.. Well photographic evidence surely supports my POV. The fact that you can see the arc of the curvature of the Earth from the air ( much easier seen over water). With a flat plane there would be no distinguishable arc. Fact the orbit of our satellites are based on spherical principles. Fact it can be observed that the sun is a spherical object that gives off light in every direction. If the sun acts essentially as a lighthouse why then does light from the sun reflect off of the moon if it is facing the earth?

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Constellations and their respective hemispheres

« on: August 27, 2014, 04:22:49 PM »

Unfortunately that is not true.

Could you provide some reasoning to support that?

It's simple really my POV is supported by facts, evidence, and observation. Your POV is supported by conspiracy theories, far out theoretical ideas, and pseudoscience. Care to answer what I asked btw? 

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Constellations and their respective hemispheres

« on: August 27, 2014, 04:05:00 PM »

Alternatively, we can't do that because the atmosphere is still too thick from that POV.

Unfortunately that is not true. Riddle me this. In FET is the atmosphere to thick to see an an object let's say roughly 384,000 km away from Earth? I mean if you can't see stars only what, 3,000 miles away, what about an object that far?

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Constellations and their respective hemispheres

« on: August 27, 2014, 03:19:57 PM »

What you would need to penetrate the "atmolayer" or whatever it's called is a telescope with infrared capabilities. IR has a longer wavelength that can pass through dense clouds and atmosphere where visible light cannot.

I can assure you infrared does the opposite of what you seem to think it does. Nearly everything absorbs IR radiation, it doesn't get as far as visible light through most substances, including the atmoplane.

My bad haha. IR works so well when used.. in orbit around the globe.. anyways even with that annoying atmospheric distortion we can still see beyond it. Take the Mauna Kea Observatory for example. High in altitude like it is we can indeed observe with it. If the FEM was correct then logically with the MKO we would still be able to see those pesky little stars (not so) far above us. Unfortunately we can't due to that darned curvature of the Earth.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Constellations and their respective hemispheres

« on: August 27, 2014, 09:05:44 AM »

Irrelevant. As I stated earlier, with a powerful enough telescope you would be able to see the stars again. Also if the FET was true the the Sun, also a star, would clearly become visible again. Which it does not.

How, in your opinion, would a telescope alter or counteract the transparency of the atmolayer? Can we extrapolate from that and conclude that a "powerful enough" telescope could see through any substance? I'd really like to lay my hands on that x-ray vision technology.

What you would need to penetrate the "atmolayer" or whatever it's called is a telescope with infrared capabilities. IR has a longer wavelength that can pass through dense clouds and atmosphere where visible light cannot.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Constellations and their respective hemispheres

« on: August 27, 2014, 03:46:42 AM »

The Earth's atmolayer is quite thick and won't allow you to see every star simultaneously. Even the Sun eventually fades from view. From a geometric standpoint, you could graph a straight line between you and any star in the sky. This doesn't mean you can see them.

Irrelevant. As I stated earlier, with a powerful enough telescope you would be able to see the stars again. Also if the FET was true the the Sun, also a star, would clearly become visible again. Which it does not.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Constellations and their respective hemispheres

« on: August 26, 2014, 08:23:48 PM »

Sorry but even that is incorrect. As demonstrated in the picture of viewing the stars on a flat Earth if I had a powerful enough telescope from lets say your ice wall for example, I would then be able to see Polaris again. Something that is not possible due to the curvature of the Earth.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Constellations and their respective hemispheres

« on: August 26, 2014, 07:50:42 PM »

I could not open your link but I assume this is the illusion you are talking about.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships%20appear%20to%20sink%20as%20they%20recede%20past%20the%20horizon

This form of optical illusion does not contend with the fact that we are not dealing with an object going beyond our view but an object that is in view at the same relative size until it dips below the horizon. A ship will appear smaller as it increases it's distance from you. A star dipping below the horizon does not.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Constellations and their respective hemispheres

« on: August 26, 2014, 07:05:45 PM »

I noticed that this was never properly answered in previous threads so I will revive it anew. Constellation visibility being specific to your latitude alone disproves the flat earth theory. The farther you are from the equator the closer the constellations are to the horizon until they are no longer visible. You can't see the same constellations in the southern hemisphere that you can see in the northern hemisphere. If the world was indeed flat then you would be able to see the same constellations regardless of your location on Earth. Here are two simplified pictures demonstrating my point. Please attempt to provide reasoning as to why I'm wrong.