1

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 16, 2022, 09:16:23 AM »

Good point. A little more info:

Since the conclusion and opening for signature of the CTBT, nuclear testing has become taboo. Today, even those nuclear-armed states that have not signed or not ratified the CTBT, including India, Israel, and Pakistan, observe nuclear testing moratoriums. Only one country has conducted nuclear test explosions in this century, and even that country—North Korea—halted nuclear testing in 2017. Although the CTBT has not formally entered into force, the treaty has, for now, achieved its primary goal: ending nuclear weapon test explosions.

This is correct.

Also, regarding the motive for signing such a treaty, the treaty has been signed by lots of countries that do not have nuclear weapons yet so the big powers would push for it because it guarantees that they are the only ones that do have such weapons.

Edit: Just rephrased it for clarity

2

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 16, 2022, 07:33:39 AM »

For the record, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty of 1996 is not into force yet.

3

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 14, 2022, 06:33:55 PM »

I never claimed that they don't happen.

4

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 14, 2022, 04:02:44 PM »

I think that the reason why evil governments do not use nuclear weapons is the same reason for which they do not use "at least one crate of TNT".

I'd imagine most conventional weapons used in warfare are equivalent to one or more crates of TNT.

Whatever weapons were used in the video that Stack posted (or anywhere where we've seen a huge mushroom cloud forming) were obviously very destructive, but we do not see them being used in modern conflicts.
 
You said that it was TNT so I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you accept that the videos of mushroom clouds are real. You just don't believe that they were caused by nuclear weapons.

They were caused by some kind of weapon, though, which should still be available to governments. For whatever reason, it is clear that governments are not willing to resort to the use of such destructive force as otherwise they would already have done so.

My point is that the fact that nuclear weapons are not used today is not proof that they do not exist unless you also do not accept that the videos of the mushroom clouds are real.

5

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 14, 2022, 09:43:23 AM »

I think that the reason why evil governments do not use nuclear weapons is the same reason for which they do not use "at least one crate of TNT".

6

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic

« on: September 09, 2022, 05:27:02 AM »

Where do NG say that they "hired" this Independent group? They never claim that these are scientists or that they were hired by NG.
All they say is that there are some people that try to hit back on the flat Earth claim (and it seems that they found some of the most lazy/incompetent ones).

They do not focus on the particulars of the experiment at all. They probably should have, but the purpose of this video is not to prove that the Earth is round (it is clear that they take it for granted), but to discuss briefly about the flat Earth movement.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Russia doesn't invade, they recognize Donbass Republics: send in peacekeepers !

« on: April 15, 2022, 07:49:03 AM »

A Russian missile cruiser magically exploded all on its own. At least, that's what Russia would prefer you believe instead of it getting hit by a missile.

It is still unconfirmed if it was hit or if it was caused by a fire on board.
I think that both alternatives are embarrassing for Russia.

8

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path

« on: April 11, 2022, 05:08:05 AM »

Auckland - Santiago direct with LATAM:

In regards to compass directions as seen on these flights, it seems that these flights make more sense on a Monopole model.

Max Igan reports that, according to his compass, when traveling between Chile and Australia that after takeoff the plane left Chile traveling towards the North-West and then towards the end of the flight it approached Australia from the South-West, despite his passenger terminal map displaying the RE directions. His experience regarding directions is what should generally occur if the flight were traveling on a Flat Earth Monopole Model.

On an RE the flight should leave Chile from the South West and arrive from the North West:



On a Flat Earth Monopole Model the flight would leave Chile from the North West and approach Australia from the South West:



I don't think the plane is necessarily taking a straight line directly over the US, or always makes straight line paths in FE models, but we can clearly see that the compass directions experienced align more with the Monopole Model.

The excuse for this is "magnetic declination", but is is quite curious that it happens to agree with the Monopole model in both areas.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the FE monopole map that you posted wouldn't the plane approach Australia from the North East rather than the South West? That's what the black line on your map shows.

9

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory

« on: November 15, 2021, 07:31:09 PM »

A map is by definition flat, that doesn't mean it's intended to represent a flat earth.

Even if this map did represent a flat earth it still is not a north-centric map. I think that it has no relation to any of the FE models proposed in this site, but please correct me if I am wrong.

10

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory

« on: November 14, 2021, 08:45:08 PM »

That relies on the assumption that long-distance trade is a much more recent invention than it really is.

It depends on how you define long-distance trade.

11

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Current Events

« on: October 04, 2021, 07:44:16 AM »

Climate change.
We do talk about it, but we do not do anything about it.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New model of the Universe.

« on: September 22, 2021, 06:30:00 PM »

OK if this is how these plates were formed then how were the other small ones created?

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New model of the Universe.

« on: September 22, 2021, 04:18:14 AM »

Why do you single out these three plates and do not consider other plates of similar sizes such as the Arabian and the Indian ones?

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New model of the Universe.

« on: September 19, 2021, 08:59:33 PM »

What else, if not the Sun and Moon, could have formed tectonic plates in these places?

I think that you need to explain this a bit as at first glance it really does not seem to make any sense.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New model of the Universe.

« on: September 06, 2021, 01:35:09 PM »

I recently learned that there's a huge magnetic void around South America (see https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/when-north-goes-south-is-earths-magnetic-field-flipping?fbclid=IwAR355ZL2_HRrECEMm3-GyYo-cXcGCAZUPnn-V8JGH8Kdb3KxL08u-9LOHZg towards the bottom). 

The "South Atlantic Anomaly".  Some think that the moon hit the Earth in the early days of formation and left a big chunk beneath the Earth surface which blocks convection currents of Lava which causes a lack of electricity generation and a weak spot in the Earth's magnetic field. Maybe this is why Mexico is named after "Moon".

Well Mexico is in North America nowhere near this anomaly so this is not very likely.

Also your link does not support the theory that the moon hit the Earth in the early days of formation. It rather supports the "mainstream" view on how the Moon was created.

Finally, this must have happened billions of years ago. So how could such an event have affected the people that first named Mexico?

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Something odd about magnets

« on: August 30, 2021, 09:46:50 AM »

So just to check if I understood what you wrote, if the Earth was originally a globe then under UA it would remain one as all the atoms would be pushed upwards by UA with an equal force. And if it started as a flat plane then it would continue to be one for the same reason. Is this correct?

I cannot answer about havn, but I can assure you that I am simply trying to understand what it proposed by FE.
I am not an expert on it and cannot remember all the details in the wiki and more importantly I do not understand all that is proposed in there. It is very likely that on occasion I will ask something that is already covered in the wiki/forums, but please consider this as an unintentional mistake.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Something odd about magnets

« on: August 30, 2021, 05:30:42 AM »

You also argued that this is analogous to water on the Earth's surface. You know, one of those things which aren't directly subjected to UA. This is where your appalling understanding really shines through. "If UA affects the Sun, then it should act like water on the Earth" as an argument boils down to "something affected by UA should be indistinguishable from something expressly unaffected by it". Or, in terms of propositional logic: true is false.

Water is not directly subjected to UA, but it is subjected indirectly by Earth pushing it upwards. This is why it is "flat". If the Earth consisted only of water then the ocean would still be flat because of UA (assuming that UA could affect water in this scenario).
So if UA applies to the Sun then it should also be flat unless it is a solid object or a liquid/gas in a container as hvanmunster suggested.

In any case this is a debate so I do not understand why one needs to be replying in an aggressive manner.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New Moon orbit on FE

« on: August 20, 2021, 08:05:42 PM »

In this map the South Pole is at the center of the Earth's disk.
Does this mean that in this version the North Pole is at the outer ring?

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New model of the Universe.

« on: August 16, 2021, 07:12:42 AM »

What do you mean when you say that the sun has thorns?
And how do the armadillos and the hedgehogs confirm your model of the universe?
What is so significant about these two animals in particular?

20

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !

« on: July 14, 2021, 01:31:32 PM »

I am pretty sure that the people that paid to be onboard this flight knew exactly where they were going.
And I am pretty sure that none of them consider themselves to be astronauts.

Saying they went to space is just a marketing ploy.
The flight was still an impressive feat of engineering, though.