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 - jayjay

Pages: [1]
1
Lack of CGI is not damning evidence. Your entire basis is factually incorrect.

2
would be the lack of a CGI rendering of the complete model, along with a detailed release of all inputs used for creating the model.

Those inputs used for creating the model would need to minimally include Kepler's Laws of planetary motion and Newton's Laws of motion and universal gravitation and account for the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Does anyone have such a model, open for inspection?

How is the lack of a CGI model damning evidence of a heliocentric model?

If there are no CGI models, it only proves that nobody has done the work.

If you claim there are no mathematical models, then how would that prove that heliocentric is false, either? Wouldn't it merely mean that it hasn't been proven? Is that what you mean by damning? You are saying there is an x percentage chance that heliocentric is false? If so, then you admit it is mathematically possible that heliocentric is true?

Oh, wait, you also have another option that you don't believe in mathematics (or physics), which, shockingly enough, might actually be possible with you Total Lackey.

If you can talk yourself off the ledge and admit that it is possible that the planets revolve around the sun, then you are being reasonable. If you explicitly believe that it is literally impossible that the planets revolve around the sun, then you are being unreasonable and ignoring a significant amount of science in order to convince yourself that you're right.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2+2
« on: January 15, 2018, 02:25:35 AM »

So, if this axiom is sometimes true, is it also scientifically 'sometimes true' that the earth is round?

There is a big difference between someone who believes: "it is scientifically impossible that the world is round", versus believing: "it scientifically possible that the world is round, but I believe it is flat".

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2+2
« on: January 15, 2018, 01:59:36 AM »

At least you validate that this axiom is sometimes true. Little victories!

So, if this axiom is sometimes true, is it also scientifically 'sometimes true' that the earth is round?

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2+2
« on: January 15, 2018, 01:57:40 AM »
Those axioms do not apply in all situations.

Arithmetic only works in a situation where those axioms are true. There are many models and situations where those axioms do not apply.

At least you validate that this axiom is sometimes true. Little victories!

6
Flat Earth Community / Re: planes
« on: January 15, 2018, 01:46:40 AM »

Yep, hence my original statement included the words, "becoming fewer and fewer," in reference to the amount of errors.

Please take a remedial reading course in terms of comprehension.

Excellent, then you agree that your evidence for your claim is without merit. Thank you!

7
Flat Earth Community / Re: planes
« on: January 14, 2018, 11:19:46 PM »
Unless you can provide some documentary evidence of that, I am going to insist that it is totally fabricated rubbish!
If you look at what you said:
Quote from: totallackey
Any map presented to any explorer south of the Equator has errors to this day (becoming fewer and fewer) and that explorer will soon find themselves off-heading, sometimes up to several hours of travel time.
Unless you can provide some documentary evidence of that, I am going to insist that it is totally fabricated rubbish!
Yes, your claim was, "Any map presented to any explorer south of the Equator has errors to this day".

You have given one chart with possible errors of 200-300 m.
The video title claims that the GPS doesn't work, but the GPS did work and gave differences with the chart of 200-300 m.
Unless you show some independent evidence there is no way of knowing whether the error is in the GPS or the chart.

My guess is that the GPS was accurate and charts for South Georgia were not up to date.
Especially as the navigator says, "We have to round up this corner because the map is wrong. It's a little more like this."

So, you are complaining about a 200-300 m error in a remote location, when you don't even have an official flat earth map! What a joke!

In any case, it's a far cry from "Any map presented to any explorer south of the Equator has errors to this day" so you have not made a case especially when you go on to say "that explorer will soon find themselves off-heading, sometimes up to several hours of travel time".

So try again, better luck next time.
Better luck?

You asked for documentary evidence.

I provided documentary evidence; specifically, the Mighty Ships documentary.

And if you pay attention, the charts are also suspect.

So, get bent.

You have not presented evidence that "Any map presented to any explorer south of the Equator has errors to this day". Can you at least admit that?

It's awesome that you have presented evidence of one map being incorrect, but how does that prove or disprove that all maps are wrong? Is it possible that over time the science of drawing maps has improved and some older maps were not drawn correctly, and they are getting better over time?

And how does any of that prove or disprove that the earth is flat?

8
Flat Earthers have yet to show how hiding the shape of Earth provides the government/NASA/Illuminati with any money and/or power.

I believe the idea is that by only pretending to go to space, large amounts of money can be funneled into space pursuits, and then a fraction can be used to fake it and the rest goes into the pockets of the people on top.

NASA is .5% of the overall US budget. Why such a complicated scheme to get such a small amount of money?

And how does NASA split the profits with Japan, Russia, etc.?

And how do the hundreds of thousands of scientists, manufacturers and support personnel all maintain this lie?

Too many questions for it to be as simple as you say, it requires a lot more than just "they are in it for the money".

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2+2
« on: January 14, 2018, 10:44:58 PM »

So, in a real world problem an example has been found where 2+2 =/= 4.

I think everyone here owes Tom an apology.

Transport yourself all the way back to caveman culture. Little language exists other than grunts. But there was still math. If you found four pieces of fruit, you knew that you and your cave-mate could each have two. Or, maybe you take three because you're hungrier, and your mate gets one. No matter how you slice it, it always adds up to four when calculating the representational number of these objects.

How about those grunts? Let's say a caveman grunts twice. Then he takes a few minutes and grunts twice again. How many grunts has he uttered? Would there be any possible situation that it would not be four?

What Tom did was change the rules to include other formats of the object so that the argument suited his purpose. The undeniable and absolute fact (no matter how hard you try to twist it), is that 2+2=4.

Pages: [1]