21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Людин Рɣси's "No Forests on the Flat Earth"

« on: August 16, 2016, 02:57:05 AM »

Wrong ... stone and precious metals are NOT remnants of trees !!!

There are a lot of petrified trees, even [remnants of] entire petrified forests. Wood can become stone. You got me on the metal. Wasn't really me personal claim, he mentions it in the video though  which I don't know how to defend.

Usually trees are broken down by fungi etc and their matter is returned to the soil.

For the 'big trees', there must have been some big fungi back in the day.  Don't think I've ever seen any 'ancient shrooms' on top of a messa, so this is a VERY good point against 'big trees' theory.

However under the right conditions trees sometimes break down over time to form coal (primarily made of carbon) ... and I guess that eventually some of that coal can form diamonds ... but that is incredibly rare, and requires massive amounts of pressure and time. That's only because diamonds are virtually pure carbon, and carbon is one of the 3 basic elements of life forms.

Periodic table, gotcha. No idea what types of 'trees' may have been around in the world, if his theory is correct. Though, it is a good explanation for the fine particles of gold in the ocean, I suppose. I don't have much more right now about [t]his theory.

By no means am I saying I believe [t]his theory. I'm just curious about any criticism of it! Like bellow...

What the world needs now is better science and maths education ... !!!

I agree. But it's each generation's responsibility to make such advancements to actually have to hand down to the next gen. It doesn't happen without such conflict! Understand silly theory to know how to defend against future ones. If silly theory accidentally proves new things, that's just new 'groundbreaking' science either way. No need to afraid of it.

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Length of a day in the Southern Hemisphere in December

« on: August 16, 2016, 01:31:09 AM »

The simple fact that Flat Earther's will not address is the in the south of the Equator at the Summer Equinox the sun rises south of East.
Just a few places:

Location		Sunrise Azimuth		FE Sunrise Dir
Brisbane, Australia		117°, or 27° South of East				I know this one, I live here!
São Paulo, Brazil		115°, or 25° South of East		23°, or 67° North of East
Puntas Arenas, Chile		133°, or 43° South of East		39°, 51° North of East

To me this is quite a big argument against the FE theory of the sun's movement, and ultimately against the whole FE hypothesis.

Heh. Can't hold a debate without both perspectives is all.

As I already stated, the difference here we are all ignoring is the fact that 'degree' doesn't mean anything on the FE!

FE degrees are different from Globe degrees in Southern Hemisphere due to lattitude/longitude getting longer instead of shorter. That's all. It's a matter of translation. Don't ask me for the translation! I wouldn't know. I don't defend the FE model, only misrepresentations of it. I never went so far as to learn this 'translation'.

Example:



flat earth would be more like this:

http://i65.tinypic.com/1zbqv79.png


I know I'm the only one arguing for the FE model. I'm not claiming to be FE'r. I'm just pointing out the misrepresentation of the FE model. Actually, this argument has a better smoking gun against the flat earth, I was thinking about making a topic on myself. It is this; yes the sun works funny in the southern hemisphere. But if the sun works funny... the stars are a bloody circus. I have wasted a lot of time trying to figure out how the southern hemisphere (or hell, the equatorial at that) stars work in the FE model for months... and I'm not better off. Here is a good example (starts at 3:26. To prevent going off topic, I can make a separate thread if anyone wants to share their humorous reactions to this.

For personal tastes, I like to use both models when I approach understanding of things. However like many others, I am still a dabbler on the FE model, but don't mind pointing out mistakes where I find them. That is golden 

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Length of a day in the Southern Hemisphere in December

« on: August 14, 2016, 02:03:56 PM »

Nametaken, the last time the OP was edited was August 3rd. You missed the date originally. It's your mistake, not TotesNotReptilian's. You should probably apologize too.

True didn't see that. Didn't realize how slow this forum moves, this was the second post I saw in this board, and assumed it was recent. That is my bad. I probably won't post here anymore anyway. Every other post I made in the past here similarly had a response asking me to either apologize or leave; typically because my posts were poor quality anyway. That's [the literal reason] why I left last time (though I typically welcome that type of response on most boards). I meant, what I said above, was I edited my post several times due to errors in post-posting proofreading, not anyone else's. This is the only forum I've ever received a ban warning flag from in my entire life. I only responded here mainly because I saw the words "last call"; tbh I'm arguing a point I don't even agree with here (and failing apparently anyway, so I'll stop), I just challenge accepted it since TNR did me the same favor. In that capacity TNR did a much better job than I did of that, and I didn't even have to sit through a 2 hour movie like I forced [them] to. As for whatever mess I tried to convey above, for that I will sincerely apologize; I am still trying to make heads and tails of it myself (hence the edits).

This is the first forum I've ever had anyone address me by my username, I've never seen that before but I see it constantly here. Anyone else notice that?

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Людин Рɣси's "No Forests on the Flat Earth"

« on: August 14, 2016, 10:13:20 AM »

I saw some potatoes that were sort of shaped like submarines the other day. By his logic, submarines are actually giant metal-based potatoes.

So I guess you didn't like it 

True you about sum it up. I wanted to hear I was crazy, to be frank. I ran with the 'pillars of the earth' (not mentioned in his video) by correlating the tectonic plates with the fiber fascia like structures, like living things. But it is true like saying legoes are living things that get hurt when you step on them too.

That's the type of opinion I hoped to hear, to be honest. Like I said, I went a little crazy with some of this theory, playing around. However, some compelling discoveries were found, like the right angles of above-mentioned IoW...

Maybe a duck is a duck, but it does seem some sea 'basins' may be ancient quarries, at very least.

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Length of a day in the Southern Hemisphere in December

« on: August 14, 2016, 09:59:09 AM »

I made a few edits to the post for clarity and to fix a few mistakes.

Nametaken, I'm pretty sure you completely missed the point of my post.

That's what I'm best at. On google Earth, all of your points of sunrise and sunset are mapped concisely. Simply fire it up and navigate to the point of sunrise and spin towards the corresponding town, and you will feel like the sun, just as you have depicted. Interesting trick, about which way the sun rises from.

I caught the fact that you listed December right after I posted. But I had too much fun writing that. I probably do owe a slight apology there, but it sure was fun. That is a nice diagram. Wish I made it myself to be honest, I might have been slightly jealous.

Yes, it would have to speed up to make it around the longer loop in the same 24 hour period. This is yet another problem with the FE model. However, that wasn't the point of my post.

It has to move faster to cover more area in the same amount of time, but that still means it spends more time in the sky in December. The only inconsistency I see is with sun rise direction to be honest (FE Model); but it uses shady logic. The sun doesn't actually appear from over another continent, as the image you put will seem to show (illusion). Basic geometry, if I may borrow your image... What these people might see:

Proof I'm not a FE shill I made a mistake: old one I messed up:
http://i.imgur.com/r9OE9bA.jpg

Real One:


The black lines are what these people in each city should see... not the rising from another continent. The sunrise and sunset are time-based, not location based in the image you provided. Unless like you said I am missing the point entirely. Simple geometry. Although that leaves the issue of sunset direction for the FE model it seems, so my diagram may be incorrect.

As you admit, that scale is incorrect and not official FE Map. So we are both shooting in the dark on that one. In FE model, as I stated above, in winter the sun moves much, much slower in the 'southern hemisphere'. So the daylight cycle is accurate on both model's as far as I can tell; that's not a problem with the FE model, nor the globe. The sun gives the Southern Hemisphere more December love in both models. Though for People in Punta, I imagine the sun seems to move VERY slow considering that margin of window they have.

I am fairly sure I did not imply anything of the sort. Even if I did, how on earth would that prove that the earth is flat? I merely plotted the location of the sun during sunrise/sunset for each city, based on the amount of daylight they receive. The goal was to highlight some geometric problems with the flat earth model.

Regardless, the FE model implies that it appears to go 'slower' in southern hemisphere, due to more area to cover. This argument automatically implies that at the outset. It's not an argument otherwise. I should have said 'proof of longer days this time of year favors neither flat earth nor globe model' instead of 'if anything it proves flat earth'. I meant, it's not an argument for or against either model, as both models sufficiently account for it.

Nope! Looks like both models check out. Though it looks a little funny for sunset direction on FE model. The downside of not having a official FE map, maybe? I'm assuming it has to do with sunrise/sunset angles on globe model assuming the lat/long gets smaller on globe, when in fact, they get larger on FE model, meaning a translation is required. I may simply be missing something, I admit.

#TIL

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hi Flat Earthers

« on: August 14, 2016, 05:07:00 AM »

HI... not sure why this is in debate section, though thanks for the Korean site.

IN Trump we Triumph.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Length of a day in the Southern Hemisphere in December

« on: August 14, 2016, 04:00:17 AM »

My Favorite Flat Earth Topic! Yay!

Bascially on the flat earth model, you have, as you have shown, 3 'layers' of orbits to the corkscrew 'orbit' path. The 'inner' path seems to move the fastest (less surface area to cover on 'the dome')... the middle path (spring/fall) is the medium speed (slightly more 'surface area' to cover on the dome), and then... DUH DUH DUH! The outer ring, the wiiiiiiiidddeeeeesssssttttt and slowest (weneedtogowider.jpeg).

It never fails to leave me with a smirk. I feel it coming on now. Imagine a pancake. A kind of big one. The surface area near the 'middle' of the pancake is small, can be navigated fast. The outter edge though, if you go the same speed as in the middle, is much slower and takes longer to traverse.

Only problem with OP's post is not posting the time of year, you see. Obviously with a sun that has 3 orbital paths to go between sometimes he/she shows up late, early, or not at all (OOPS!). Busy guy/gall can't be everywhere at once. I have seen FE try to say... IM TRYING NOT TO LAUGH that the sun SPEEDS UP on the outer ring to keep appearance of same speed. But this OP implies it does go 'slower' maybe on the outer ring? If anything that actually PROVES Flat Earth then; though the reported sunrise direction does sound like checkmate to me.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Людин Рɣси's "No Forests on the Flat Earth"

« on: August 14, 2016, 01:42:57 AM »

This reply got longer than I thought it would. I guess you have a good point, I should have stated something concrete to argue with. I didn't offer much substance other than 'hey guys watch this vine lol so funny cat videos xDDD'. So, thanks.

The guy in the video makes a crazy statement about forests, insists that he has a good point

You don't have to watch it if you don't want to. I thought it was a trash video myself, just more crappy clickbait but I gave it 5 minutes and his tone amused me. That's why I called spoilers; his 'crazy statements' and insisting is part of the joke. Granted, his presentation method appeals only to a certain-humored crowd.

but then starts rambling about random optical illusions.

I watched the video 3 times now, but don't remember anything about optical illusions? The 15 minute (or so) intro is a little laden with facts I admit I haven't verified (such as ocean/ice carbon levels, and how that indicates global fires of the past; 99 atmospheres of pressure lost at some point in antiquity), and by all means I wouldn't mind debating. For early opinions of the video I was expecting an argument about those points, to be honest, since the whole theory he is proposing is based entirely on this. The point about boobies vs dolphins was just how he chose to illustrate that we don't see the world as a quarry waste zone - we are distracted by 'boobies'. That's less than 2 minutes on optical illusions in a 2 hour video.

He presents the theory about 'tall trees' almost exclusively on the fact that the amount of fires indicated by the carbon dioxide levels in the ocean (and ice) could not be accounted for by the land mass we have; unless there were much larger trees ('vertical land mass'; here is a great place to stop and discredit his theory, where I expected most debate to begin... not on optical illusions haha but that's fine, hard to argue about a video you didn't watch). Of course, that part is hard to understand in the video, but many other youtubers have made attempts to 'translate' that theory. He doesn't represent the data well, though that is more due to language barrier from what I can tell.

I doubt many people will sit through an hour of his mindless rambling just because he promises he has a good point at the end. Nobody is worried about spoilers. If you want to make a point, just say it.

It's kind of a viral video RN. Rare that a viral video exceeds an hour, granted (it's a 2 hour vid). At worst (or best) it will be annoying and get facts wrong and make horrible conclusions from distorted figures. At best (or worst), it could potentially change the way you look at the world. I'm feeling a bit of both from it. Aristotle quote:

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

That said I don't have much to say about it really tbh, unless someone has already seen the whole thing. Impossible to argue on equal footing with someone lacking basic understanding of a theory. I think Flat Earth pages get enough of that as it is LOL. This isn't exactly a 'new' theory, I've heard it off and on in my life, but never this suciently and compacted.

Now... I suppose I could at least provide some source pictures to demonstrate [a part of] the argument he has put forth, at very least; however, I'm just some random person who watched this video; I have no background in any of the related fields, other than the fact that I spent some time working in a quarry several years back, and was trained under MSHA. Basically [part of what] he is saying [is that] the world is an ancient quarry zone... that got flooded somehow (deluge/flood). It also posits that, since stone and precious metals are remnants of trees, these 'quarries' are merely the signs of our 'termite' nature on 'tree Earth' (taking my above extrapolation into consideration about tectonic plates).

These are just 2 examples I've found in a few minutes 'digging around', but I'm sure there are more. He lists several examples near the end of the video, if you want to find more. I will certainly be looking; for me, once I saw 'quarries' instead of 'natural monuments', there was no going back. That is all he means about his 'optical illusions' or the 'Matrix' analogy; I don't watch many movies so I don't know anything about the latter. Anyway:

A known quarry, flooded (near or at Kelly Islands, Ohio, couldn't confirm):


Isle of Wight - underwater 'basin' look


They look very similar. Isle of Wight is the best example I can think of, but I'm sure there are more ocean-based examples; what we call 'basins' may have actually been nothing more than ancient quarries from when sea levels were lower. He also mentions The Sea of Asov as displaying obvious signs of having been a quarry before the ocean took it. His point about the 'conical mountains' also really struck me in the heart.

As for what I said about tectonic plates... I merely took his theory and amplified it to 'global' scale... was Earth itself a tree at some point? The quote from Isaiah 14:8 about fir and cedar trees; I recall Gilgamesh cutting down cedar trees. Also, the bible says 'nothing new under the sun', so maybe we really have been quarrying for millennia.

Anyway it is 'highly fantastical', but it's definitely something to think about. As far as the fantastical goes, I admit I used to look at the world as 'how could I implement what I'm seeing in minecraft' for a time, but this video [revived the impulse and] changed that to 'what am I really looking at, and what is it really the remnants of'. I think anyone with any type of interest in the Flat Earth or the somewhat-prevailing debate about it, should check it out; if they think they can handle 2 hours of rambling, that is.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Людин Рɣси's "No Forests on the Flat Earth"

« on: August 13, 2016, 03:41:58 AM »

I searched and haven't seen a topic here on it yet. I was here a few months back but quit due to only taking a passing interest in FE, and of course, I was a jerk somewhat. If you haven't seen it, there's a huge new video by a Russian (Rus) everyone is talking about. Literally. It has been mirrored over a dozen times already. My apologies if there is already a topic here about it, I didn't see one.

The original version

Globebuster's mirrior

I recommend the later as the CC (closed caption) picks up some things the original misses; though the GB version has synchronization errors at 2 points.

SPOILERS BELLOW






To summarize the video, without trying to ruin anything... SPOILERS...

He basically puts forth the idea that, for the most part, much of scientific consensus is little more than a badly repeated joke, and that 'planet earth' is little more than a quarry waste zone. There are a lot of other key central points he uses to back this claim, and it is interspersed with just enough humor to make it entertaining at very least. I am still laughing almost 2 weeks later from some of his points (take that for what you will).

Anyway it's kind of hot topic in the FE community right now, surprised there isn't a topic here already for it. If you haven't seen it yet I recommend it.

SPOILERS: He shows silicon life to form distinctive 'columns' on both small and large scale; I consider that 'the world's' tectonic plates take such appearance as well; though, only with the azimuthal equidistant overlay - to a much lesser extent on 'globe'.

That's all I've really got (that I'm willing to share) for now. Just a little curious. Knowledge is power, but power corrupts. Be safe...

30

Flat Earth Media / Re: What's on the underside of the Earth?

« on: April 03, 2016, 06:46:49 AM »

Oh I'm on this part of the internet... I see now...

BTW how did you dig that deep. Is not easy without industrial technology. Also, high noon =/= overhead depending on location/time of year, so that religion isn't very smart. You could at least call it Agartha, or Sheol.

31

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why not fly a Remote Control Drone Plane (due south) over Antartica?

« on: April 03, 2016, 05:54:00 AM »

Pretty sure I literally just answered this here. Granted, you have the right idea, circumference and AA is the way to go... but you're better off trying to find bigfoot. At least the USGov (and others) won't try to kill you, there...

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: edge of the earth

« on: April 03, 2016, 05:37:25 AM »

So why has no flat earther hired a plane flown at 30,000 feet got as far they can get before having to turn around? at least they could confirm a minimum distance which the earth would stretch beyond the wall?

#1 it's illegal
#2 some have tried, and been shot down; others, simply vanished.
#3 HP Lovecraft predicted the above #1-2, plus whatever shenanigans exist today, as well as elder gods shenanigans, over 100 years ago.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: edge of the earth

« on: April 03, 2016, 02:30:07 AM »

Rekt. John Cena and Chuck Norris know what's over the Ice Wall.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Salt flats

« on: April 03, 2016, 02:25:12 AM »

I was not asking for anyone to go out and do the research for me. I was asking for thought on the suggested experiment. I am asking for people to voice their imagination as to the outcome of the proposed experiment. What is wrong with that?

Granted, I expected that. I have several things I'd love to test as well if budget permitted. I did [imply that I did] give you kudos for such an experiment. Hell. I'll even give you a freebie. From my (currently hidden) compilation of FE talking points; Kansas proven to be flat. Great point bringing up Salt Flats, a point not least of which it being mentioned in a movie you might know.

Edit since I'm new here too, I'll inform you of what I've seen here; most users here have seen every ad hoc argument front middle and center so you *may* have come to the wrong place if you think you're going to convince someone. If that doesn't bother you, a genuine welcome!

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: CGI?

« on: April 01, 2016, 05:11:44 AM »

Since the distance from the equator to the north pole is 10,000 km and the circumference of the equator is 40,000 km, please tell me how the earth can possibly be flat.

If you don't like those figures, just tell me your figures for those measurements - after all they have been known for many centuries.

I have seen those figures and understand the implications. Hell, I even helped explain how Napoleon played his part in the creation of the metric system, after all; I'm just not so sure about equatorial circumference, but have no reason not to believe the 40k.

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round-earth evidence: the sound from Krakatoa

« on: April 01, 2016, 04:33:08 AM »

Now you're talkin'!

Love how Cuba looks like a smear of bird poop on the windshield of the Earth on that image...

And the secrets out... That wasn't an eruption of the sort the history books tell you... that's where I went in the Time Machine after I ate at that one Mexican restaurant that time...

But more (or less) seriously... if there were a dome on a flat Earth, the sound would have to bounce back eventually, right? Like, whoever smelt it dealt it, it doesn't exactly have anywhere to go in a dome, as anyone stuck on a plane with a stinker will tell you.

37

Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Debate

« on: April 01, 2016, 01:22:39 AM »

OP = banned
Everyone else = butthurt

I am beginning to see the trend of self-important entitled ego-freak OP newbies here, and am assuming they are all the same person multi-accounting.

To break it down to prove I'm not just trolling

OP = Onion Patrol/Original Poster/etc
Everyone else = Plural
self-important = I don't have time to research; tell me your results
entitled: see above
multi-accounting: see all the new posts, and if that doesn't help, check the official forum rules

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Salt flats

« on: April 01, 2016, 01:09:24 AM »

To elaborate on what Luke Chapter:Verse said, each new ad hoc argument is welcome! But that doesn't mean it's anyone's job to go out and do the field research for you.

If globe knew it were legit, would defend itself? If it were afraid of being found out, would it bother?

39

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Miitomo

« on: April 01, 2016, 01:05:55 AM »

fack mii

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: CGI?

« on: March 31, 2016, 11:35:00 PM »

Image

Wow nostalgia. hfs smh that made me lawl.

OP's image is beautiful... no doubt, especially the stitch-marks, tell-tale signs of composite imagery. I really admire people coming here to disprove FE; that's what I came here to observe, after all - but it is amusing seeing so many fall short.