741

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: July 26, 2015, 09:52:25 PM »

Iran is Shia, ISIS is Sunni, they hate each other that's why you're cosying up, if anyone gives them nukes it wil be the Saudi's and they have been buddies with the Republicans for years.

"The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" only works if the enemy of your enemy isn't already your enemy. Iran hates the West bucketloads more than they hate ISIS.

Although they do hate Americans, this sectarian divide has been running since muhammad died, the death toll since the end of the Iraq war between them dwarfs that which the Americans managed,  in 2014 ISIS forces killed over 1,700 Shia civilians at Camp Speicher alone, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations, it's not a pretty picture.
In trying to manipulate this to the wests advantage we/you have released a geni we have no hope of controlling, model 29 is right.

742

Flat Earth Media / Re: Illustrations for Education Purposes

« on: July 25, 2015, 08:24:38 PM »

Well if there are any people on a fence, you should point them to the dingo fence in Australia, that is about 3,500 miles long, by your reasoning that would be an even better proof

743

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: July 25, 2015, 08:09:35 PM »

You'll want war soon when Iran gives a nuke to ISIS who then nukes London.

Iran is Shia, ISIS is Sunni, they hate each other that's why you're cosying up, if anyone gives them nukes it wil be the Saudi's and they have been buddies with the Republicans for years.

744

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: July 23, 2015, 09:36:04 PM »

From an outsiders point of view the Republicans scare me most with their connection to the religious bampots, I can't see any future if a country is still shackled to a 2,000 yr old superstition, on that ticket alone I would have to be a democrat, has Trump come out with his beliefs? I know fuck all about him other than his scary visage and the fact he tried to buy Scotland to build a big golf course.

745

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: July 22, 2015, 08:33:35 PM »

I don't get to vote, seems like a choice between an ugly American version of Silvio Berlusconi or an airbrushed Lucrezia Borgia, read up on Italian history and make your choice.

746

Flat Earth Media / Re: Illustrations for Education Purposes

« on: July 22, 2015, 11:04:28 AM »

your reasoning was deficient, so I did you simple drawings, however, still too complicated, so give me a bit of time to make some hand puppets.

747

Flat Earth Media / Re: Illustrations for Education Purposes

« on: July 21, 2015, 08:47:27 PM »

Okay, because you have misunderstood both me and your engineer I have done you another drawing, I'm nice like that.

First, the mile and a third you tout isn't what you would get if you put a perfectly flat bridge onto a curved earth in the manner you describe, it's the drop you would get if you ran it at 90 degrees to a perpendicular through the earth (see "de earth" on former post), they are different.

If you can bring yourself to look at the "earth 3" pdf attached, what you would get is a 0.331 mile hump if you anchored the ends of a perfectly flat bridge to the earth, taking the earth as a perfect sphere using its RE mean and then ran your bridge through the earth/water.

If you look at "zoom earth 3" you will see your mythical bridge in red and how a real bridge is made in blue and pink, the spans (pink) although they look to follow the curve of the earth (green) are actually flat, the span is set at an arbitrary 0.5 units/miles for simplicity and the height of the stanchions at 0.1, much larger than the spans and stanchions on your picture, but that is how a bridge is built(these are vectored pdfs so you can zoom right in to look at the detail).

Now you state on your third image that the bridge is "observably level", when it clearly isn't, in fact the first true image has at least three dips and rises, one clearly a raise-able bridge for allowing ships through, as most of the bridge is over paddy fields, canals, rivers and wetlands I would expect further undulations, so frankly you are wrong.

I would be interested to know if any of the other FE'ers agree with you on this as they have been conspicuously reticent to weigh in on your behalf?

748

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake

« on: July 21, 2015, 07:29:32 AM »

As far as the radiation belts are concerned, back in the day they were a lot more blasé about safety of crew because of less understanding of the dangers maybe (they were still making and wearing radioactive glo'watches at this time), probably more to do with winning the "space race" over-riding individual welfare.

749

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How Clouds Once Again Prove Flat-Earth Theory

« on: July 18, 2015, 10:01:49 PM »

And the Anti-crepuscular rays?

The two are two different things, and should't be confused with one another, neither unintentionally, and especially not deliberately.

But here's the primary and major difference.

Anti-crepuscular rays originate at the source - when going through trees for instance, all rays converge with the entry point of the light, then fan out below.

Crepuscular rays on the other hand can be seen to come out of the cloud not at a convergent point from the clouds; but the light is seen to originate above the clouds - i.e. the beams are spread apart when leaving the clouds; not converging together at one point.


Crepuscular rays do not converge at the point of light entry, but originate at the light source.
— https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Crepuscular_rays_over_Plymouth_Sound_crop.jpg
— http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6215/6270094520_dd6d78bc48_z.jpg

In the following photos the sunbeams can be seen to originate at the light source; even when the beams are broken up by clouds in places.
— http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7663/17318420350_292e90e5b5_z.jpg
— https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3388/3188034492_449e460c34_z.jpg
— http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sunset-crepuscular-rays-580x390.jpg
— https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3902/14920572835_0c15463747_z.jpg



—

Sorry you have misunderstood what anti-crepuscular both look like and how they are the from the same source, ie the sun shining through clouds (nothing to do with trees?), you have to turn 180deg' from the sun to see them and they converge on the opposite horizon showing that it is a perspective thing.
See  http://earthsky.org/earth/how-to-see-anticrepuscular-rays

But even normal Crepuscular rays show a different perspective when viewed from the side, see https://cloudappreciationsociety.org/find-a-cloud/#p=2&t=cloud70&i=33
Just in case you wanted to see the clouds I meant, it's the one at the bottom right labelled Toronto as this link only takes you part of the way(?) Bloody hell! they have moved it to the next page, look for it "Toronto bathed in crepuscular rays"

Ok you make your point. All the same anti-crepuscular rays do not disprove the notion that sunbeams give us a basis for calculating the distance of the sun. So then "anti-crepuscular" is moot to the subject at hand. The points I made are still valid, even if I did mix up anti-crepuscular rays. My interest isn't in such extraneous information.

—

It's called getting the basics right. So the anti rays are not moot as they seem to fan out but narrow down behind you they show it is a perspective thing.

750

Flat Earth Media / Re: Illustrations for Education Purposes

« on: July 17, 2015, 10:40:55 PM »

While you are quite happy to denigrate other peoples intelligence you seem to over egg the amount you have.
For instance the bridge you show is only the 5.6 mile section going over a lake, but more important is the fact that the bridge wasn't built as a 102 mile straight section that was then plonked on to the earth, which may or may not have proved your point, but stanchion by stanchion, over a four year period. Whether the Earth is flat, round or crinkle cut crisp shaped, built this way it will follow the contours of the land and prove nothing.

Watch the personal insults.  If you find yourself typing things that aren't relevant to the discussion, chances are they shouldn't be said.

Really?

751

Flat Earth Media / Re: Illustrations for Education Purposes

« on: July 16, 2015, 09:14:54 PM »

I never used to be able to spell engineer now I are one.

Jesus! Mr Smug with so little to be smug about.

For starters “your engineer” did do the the full length,
"I did the calculations and in the span of that bridge, 102.4 miles, the distance it would be up off the earth would supposedly be 1.3 miles."

I don't need an engineer I are one, so I have drawn it for your convenience,“de earth” shows the the earth (unfortunately in pale green) @ its supposed mean diameter with the length of the bridge drawn @ 102.4 units in relation to the sphere, if it was made by a 5 yr old or a literal idiot.
“de Earth 2” zooms to the end of the bridge where the said idiot stands looking at the 1.325units/miles between him and the ground.

But as “your” engineer tried to tell you, they don't build bridges like that, that's why there isn't a problem, this isn't a proof it's an exercise in wilful ridiculous misinterpretation.   

752

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing

« on: July 16, 2015, 07:32:14 AM »

The Lard is my Shepard.

753

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing

« on: July 15, 2015, 09:55:15 PM »

All music is objectively terrible. Please prove me wrong.

Try Thorks theme.

754

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing

« on: July 15, 2015, 09:17:42 PM »

Mr Thork, I'd almost forgotten this beautiful song.

Beardo... No, it really isn't.

755

Flat Earth Media / Re: Illustrations for Education Purposes

« on: July 15, 2015, 09:04:20 PM »

While you are quite happy to denigrate other peoples intelligence you seem to over egg the amount you have.
For instance the bridge you show is only the 5.6 mile section going over a lake, but more important is the fact that the bridge wasn't built as a 102 mile straight section that was then plonked on to the earth, which may or may not have proved your point, but stanchion by stanchion, over a four year period. Whether the Earth is flat, round or crinkle cut crisp shaped, built this way it will follow the contours of the land and prove nothing.

756

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is Satan really all that bad?

« on: July 14, 2015, 12:55:57 PM »

If you are truly representative of those headed for heaven, then Satan's got a new disciple in me.

757

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How Clouds Once Again Prove Flat-Earth Theory

« on: July 13, 2015, 09:32:21 PM »

And the Anti-crepuscular rays?

The two are two different things, and should't be confused with one another, neither unintentionally, and especially not deliberately.

But here's the primary and major difference.

Anti-crepuscular rays originate at the source - when going through trees for instance, all rays converge with the entry point of the light, then fan out below.

Crepuscular rays on the other hand can be seen to come out of the cloud not at a convergent point from the clouds; but the light is seen to originate above the clouds - i.e. the beams are spread apart when leaving the clouds; not converging together at one point.


Crepuscular rays do not converge at the point of light entry, but originate at the light source.
— https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Crepuscular_rays_over_Plymouth_Sound_crop.jpg
— http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6215/6270094520_dd6d78bc48_z.jpg

In the following photos the sunbeams can be seen to originate at the light source; even when the beams are broken up by clouds in places.
— http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7663/17318420350_292e90e5b5_z.jpg
— https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3388/3188034492_449e460c34_z.jpg
— http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sunset-crepuscular-rays-580x390.jpg
— https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3902/14920572835_0c15463747_z.jpg



—

Sorry you have misunderstood what anti-crepuscular both look like and how they are the from the same source, ie the sun shining through clouds (nothing to do with trees?), you have to turn 180deg' from the sun to see them and they converge on the opposite horizon showing that it is a perspective thing.
See  http://earthsky.org/earth/how-to-see-anticrepuscular-rays

But even normal Crepuscular rays show a different perspective when viewed from the side, see https://cloudappreciationsociety.org/find-a-cloud/#p=2&t=cloud70&i=33
Just in case you wanted to see the clouds I meant, it's the one at the bottom right labelled Toronto as this link only takes you part of the way(?)

758

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How Clouds Once Again Prove Flat-Earth Theory

« on: July 12, 2015, 07:39:32 PM »

And the Anti-crepuscular rays?

759

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched

« on: July 09, 2015, 09:40:18 PM »

If you just like the idea read Battle Royale. Teenagers kidnapped and forced to fight one another to the death with random weapons. Plus it's gruesome as feck.

Is the movie actually any good? I keep seeing it on Netflix but it just doesn't seem like it would be great.

Hunger Games?  No good. Steer clear.

No. Battle Royale.

Watch it, it's Japanese so it's a bit fucked up, but it's worth a watch, plus it's got the psycho girl from the Crazy 88 from Kill Bill in, and she is fit.

760

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is Satan really all that bad?

« on: July 08, 2015, 09:19:00 PM »

And don't forget that near the end of the year he makes an anagram of his name, disguises himself with a beard and gives all the children of the world presents.