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 - UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7  Next >
Ok, was just checking if you have any consistency.

Moving on to the topic, all your argument are philosophical and you said it yourself:
therefore the world seems to be round but it is just a reflection of people mind.
No matter what physical experiment we do, it just matches with the spherical Earth, we may use tools, but it's results are needed to be reviewed by our senses, and they too matches with a spherical Earth.

Then if the Earth is spherical by our senses, should it matter what shape is it outside our sense? Should we even speculate how it works outside our senses?

@truth Can you tell me the definition of "lie"?
Lie is the fear of letting the truth leaking out.

Ok then, but what exactly do you mean by this?

law is a lie.

Isn't law a rule? Of what can be done and what cannot? Which part of the definition of law making it the same as "fear of letting the truth leaking out"?

@truth Can you tell me the definition of "lie"?

I'm sure some of my colleagues will disagree with me on some of these names because there truly are quite a few to choose from. Top to bottom, I'd say Tom Bishop, James McIntyre, John Davis, myself, Lord Wilmore, Dr David Thork, Sandokhan, Sherry Shepherd, BoB, and, rounding out the list, the vivacious Tila Tequila.
BoB and Tila Tequila aren't even flat Earth thinkers, they are a typical flat Earther who happens to be celebrities.

either that or a simulation  ;)
What matters is observation inside our sense, everyone that is seeing the Moon would see (almost) the exact same side and phase. Of course it's possible the Universe could be a simulation, but that is irrelevant, because we would just be inside a simulation discussing simulated things without being able to know what's the outside explanation.

This guy proves midnight sun in Antarctica is different than midnight sun in arctic. The video owner is seems reliable by some rounders here.
You are quick on jumping to conclusion aren't you?

So all we can trust him. lets see.

unbelievable. perfect prove that nobody can deny this video by safe guy. Well done.
A midnight Sun in Antarctica would prove that Antarctica isn't an ice ring surrounding the Earth.
And we know that there is a midnight Sun in the Arctic regions, so both pole exist and fit with a round Earth season.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy debunk: The stars are not exist !
« on: June 29, 2016, 09:38:06 AM »
If you accept this video, so you accept the earth is flat because the owner of the video proves the earth is flat. In your opinion if the video is right, so the earth is flat like as described on the video. Do you accept the video is true and safe? If you accept it, you'll accept that the moon has it's own light as i argued.
No, i just blindly giving this video as proof that we can see stars in high altitude while being ignorant if the video is safe or not.
I did it simply because you ask if is there any video showing stars at high altitude.
Do i really have to do the experiment myself? You didn't do yours either, you only choose someone else's video not intended for your experiment as your proof and i did the same to counter it, we're being fair.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy debunk: The stars are not exist !
« on: June 28, 2016, 02:46:18 AM »
Who can show me a video took from altitude upside from the clouds and shows the stars.

A plane, a jet, a ballon, a rocket, or anything.? I'm waiting for a popular science hero. :)

If nobody shows a good prove about the stars exist, the disprove will be complete. My work is done about here. There is no resistance depends on real evidences. There is no any resistance.

Astronomy debunked. There is no stars seems on high altitude. There are stars seems on only low altitude or visual effect. Good bye fake astronomy, good by fake stars.

Where is the video?

Where is?


Is the video?

the video?


I'm trying to different ways to explain my want because of my weak english.

Videoooooooo  :D

hohoooo videooooo vid vid videooo . video.  ;D

Is there anybody?

I know you are searching a video like crazy but can't find.  Because there isin't.  :-X

an eye for en eye, so a video for a video.

I posted some videos as a proof so you should to show me some videos for disprove it. yeah man an eye for en eye,  and a tooth for a tooth.

consult to your teacher is free.  ;D  :D  8)

edit: 300 spartans. :)

Ugh if you must:

A video of a night time balloon launch supposedly to proof a flat Earth did show stars.
Noticed how the Moon is bright in white, surface feature are not shown, meanwhile any videos or photos showing the surface feature of the Moon does not show stars.

And by the way, by being arrogant you are disrespecting my opinion and several others that arrogance is a bad thing, how would you expect for others to respect your opinion if you act like this?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy debunk: The stars are not exist !
« on: June 27, 2016, 12:49:37 AM »
Your "proof" are not reliable because:
1. It's recorded by someone else (remember you said İntikam works alone)
2. You do not bother to learn how exposure affect photogaphy, should the video/photograph show a star, other brighter things will be drowned in light.
3. You did not provide anyone's testimony of unable to see stars with their own eyes in a higher altitude

You should go into an airplane several times, check if you can see stars at higher altitude, photograph it several times and compare with your own memory, think carefully is this what you really saw? Get several people to do this too and get their testimony and photograph of different exposure.

They would just claim Venus and Mercury is orbiting the Sun with low inclination to the ecliptic (while the Sun circling above the flat Earth).
What i don't get is the outer planets, how are we able to see outer planets in opposition and conjunction relative to the Sun?
I'm also confused about the inner planet's orbital period, suppose the Sun circle above the Earth every 24 hours, Venus have a (sideral) orbital period of 224.701 days around the Sun. Why doesn't whatever force making the Sun circle Earth every 24 hours strip Venus and Mercury away?

This is what creates the seasons - long summer days and short winter days in the North, and vice versa for the South.
Correct, but what is the bi-polar model explanation of it?
March to September equinox: 186.4 days
September to March equinox: 178.84 days

Why does the Sun hangs around in the North longer?

Ok then, is there an explanation to apsis of the Sun and Moon?
Like how there is a super Moon and mini Moon, and the Sun being larger in January than in July?

Flat Earth Community / Re: 1963
« on: June 20, 2016, 10:03:15 AM »
"I certainly believe."  Your words.  If you had empirical evidence you would not make a statement like this.  Thus, the question of a flat or round earth is philosophical.  I have never said the earth was flat.  It might be?  I can't prove it is round or ellipsoid or whatever.

I don't subscribe to any ideas.  You sure do.
Does a question regarding weather a Box is really a cuboid shape counts as a philosophical question?
By default no, but all answers to any question can be applied with philosophy.
I can answer just yes, because it does looks cubical or i can apply philosophy that it might be another shape
because our perception are stuck in our body, who knows what it's actual shape is outside our body.

The same can be done with the question regarding of Earth's shape, it is a physical question and like all questions, it's answers can be applied with philosophy.

Flat Earth Theory / Pre-Rowbotham flat Earth research?
« on: June 15, 2016, 11:16:06 PM »
Before Rowbotham came along and did Bedford Level Experiment, why wasn't there any serious flat Earther doing a serious flat Earth research?
Ever since Aristotle provided his 3 proof of a spherical Earth, most just abandon flat Earth idea, surely someone before Rowbotham could have done some sort of (serious) experiment to led the conclusion of a flat Earth. And by serious, i don't mean experiment like look at the ground, people in the south fall off and stuff like that.

Flat Earth Community / Re: i am not trolling
« on: June 15, 2016, 10:58:47 PM »
A non moving spherical Earth, otherwise known as Geocentricsm.
To make this simple, you are half right, let's say you are standing on the ground and a moving car passed you, the car is moving relative to the ground, but you are not. The same thing with the Earth around the Sun, we could say the Sun is moving around Earth, it's the same thing, it's just most people say it's the Earth that's moving, because the Sun is more massive, just like when people say it's the car that moves, not the ground.

Flat Earth Community / Re: i have a thing with the moon!!!!
« on: June 15, 2016, 10:45:14 PM »
Oh the path just so happens to appear the exact same as the suns too, even though it is orbiting Earth in the opposite direction.
False, the Moon does not share the Sun's rise and set path, i observed this around June-July of 2014 from the 7th parallel south, the Sun sets a bit north while the Moon sets nearly south. Neither does the Moon orbits the opposite direction, viewed from above the north ecliptic pole, the Earth orbits the Sun, rotates around on it's axis and the Moon orbits the Earth all in the counter-clockwise direction.

Oh yeah, we only see one side of the moon even though it rotates once every 29 days because it is perfectly locked to Earth's spin like a gear.
We've been over this before, it's not perfect, even the old astronomers know that when making a map of the Moon.

No, the moon isn't locked to the earth's spin. It's orbit is locked to it's own spin. See tidal locking. Tidal locking can be a bit difficult to understand, but it is very real. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is impossible.

I'm familiar with the concept. You say it's real, but it can't be verified by any experimentation. It is an astronomers best guess.
Iapetus one of Saturn's moon are observed to be brighter when it's on the western side of Saturn (viewed from Earth) and very very dim when it's on the eastern side of Saturn, this could only mean that Iapetus is tidally locked and have a dark and bright hemisphere.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Apollo mission photos are NOT fake !
« on: June 10, 2016, 11:09:51 AM »
Oh yeah, then they somehow escaped the moon's gravity and let Earth's gravity pull them back? Not to mention the sun's gravity being
Don't forget the Moon orbits the Earth, which is inside of Earth's Hill sphere. The Hill sphere of the Moon (relative to Earth) extends up to 63,000 km which is always inside the Hill sphere of Earth (relative to Sun) that extends up to 1.5 million km.


It comes from here Russia/ESA to Colonize the Dark Side of the Moon.

Thanks for proving space travel really exists - maybe you really had better learn a bit about digital images!

Are you a joke or real?

I said i talked about the edges when i say the photo is true.

Russia or another country who says gone to space is a lie. Why don't you be serious?
No, if you want them to understand what you said, improve your grammars.
You told them the picture of the Moon's far side have good edges and the photo is real, and that picture can only be taken by space probes going behind the Moon. If you only use that photo as an example of "good edges" you should have choose better wording.

Sure it partially fix the problem, but what is the mechanism of stars, planets, Moon and the Sun to disappear from one end and appear on the other?


Irrelevant, i'm saying if a star/planet/Moon/Sun sets in the west as seen on Ecuador, how does it suppose to rise on the east as seen on Borneo?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Apollo mission photos are NOT fake !
« on: June 06, 2016, 07:31:24 PM »
As you can see the astronauts are doing many things in the extensive amount of video available from the mission, constantly taking photos is not one of them.

If taking photos was the only mission for the apollo landings, then yes, the amount of photos might make sense.
All that was needed to take a picture was to open the shutter. Film winding was automatic.

But there was a ton of other tasks that astronauts were supposed to complete, such as constructing the rovers etc.
It was already constructed, they just deploy it:
Deployment of the LRV from the LM's Quadrant 1 bay by the astronauts was achieved with a system of pulleys and braked reels using ropes and cloth tapes. The rover was folded and stored in the bay with the underside of the chassis facing out. One astronaut would climb the egress ladder on the LM and release the rover, which would then be slowly tilted out by the second astronaut on the ground through the use of reels and tapes. As the rover was let down from the bay, most of the deployment was automatic. The rear wheels folded out and locked in place. When they touched the ground, the front of the rover could be unfolded, the wheels deployed, and the entire frame let down to the surface by pulleys.

The rover components locked into place upon opening. Cabling, pins, and tripods would then be removed and the seats and footrests raised. After switching on all the electronics, the vehicle was ready to back away from the LM.

I have not checked the entire picture collection, do you mean that most of their task are not pictured such as deploying the rover?

It doesn't add up. Thus, there is cause for doubt. You'd have to be a fool to believe there isn't.
Considering the rovers were deployed early, they may have not yet start taking pictures, i'd pick the most simple explanation and an explanation that the landing was fake for something so minor facts should be the least to consider as it's hard to be consistent with the major facts.

"We?" Are you part of some kind of online NASA defense brigade or something?
It's my choice of wording, again you should take the complicated explanation as the least to consider.
And no, i may be a NASA enthusiast here, but i'm not their defender.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7  Next >