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 - CableDawg

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >
"Incorrect you can observe bacteria on old bread, coffee grounds, and even standing water. You can observe bacteria on the human body through infections etc. "

Incorrect.  What you can see and/or observe is mold or the effects of bacteria.  You can NOT, with the naked eye, observe bacteria.

My cost to correct you is $200.00 per mistake corrected.  This one is free though.

I will be in touch with you to arrange payment for future mistakes corrected.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Essay
« on: January 02, 2017, 01:16:10 PM »
Next time you are visiting your prata man take a walk on his dough.  Once you've done this get back to us and tell us the difference you see and feel between the dough and the Earth beneath your feet.  Once you've done this maybe then you can inform us as to how you've made a valid comparison above.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Things You Can Do Everyday!
« on: December 10, 2016, 03:24:21 AM »
This thread appears to have gotten very off topic.

Most do on this site.

When a trip into the rabbit hole is the only way to support ones belief/argument going off topic can't be helped.

The Red Queen would find herself right at home here.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Things You Can Do Everyday!
« on: December 10, 2016, 03:21:41 AM »
Is there any artist who believes that the earth is flat? I don't think so.

In art class I was taught the horizon line is always at the EYE LEVEL or the artist. It is not determined by being able to see at a fixed distance. The website attached has some useful illustrations.

Standing on a cliff even a few meters away from the beach, one will see further than a man with binoculars on the same beach. Why?
Because of the atmosphere, it changes according to the observer.
Behold, the atmosphere is self-aware!

The atmosphere and horizon are both self aware and they are conspiring against us mere humans so that we are kept off balance regarding the truth of RE or FE.

I'm sure it's in the Wiki...somewhere.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Things You Can Do Everyday!
« on: December 07, 2016, 02:19:17 AM »
And the Great Tom Bishop is back in the ring with bendy light folks.

We all, I'm sure I speak for everyone here, wait on bated breath to see where the argument goes this time around.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Other Questions Arising From The Conspiracy
« on: December 06, 2016, 12:14:27 PM »
Let's assume for a second that I believe the evidence and assumptions of the flat earth society and that we are living in a domed world created by some intelligent being/beings and that there is a massive conspiracy to cover the truth beginning an education system that promotes a false heliocentric model. This raises some other questions about what else is false truths/flat out lies, such as:

If astronomy is a lie are other sciences a lie? Is chemistry made up? Is geology made up? Is the earth 4.7 billion years old? Did the dinosaurs ever exist?

If such a cover up of the one of the most basic things taught to school children exists, is it not logical to assume that everything else we've ever been told is also a fabricated manipulated lie? If gravity and the distances to different celestial objects are bogus concepts are the periodic table of elements and fundamental building blocks of life such as protons, neutrons, and electrons also bogus?

Where does the conspiracy end?

If they consider it beneficial for them to do so all conspiracy theorists will deem any given idea or thing to be a lie.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round earth using flat earth material once again.
« on: December 06, 2016, 12:10:11 PM »
Predictions: someone is going to use mathematics.

I can only assume that you mean that mathematics doesn't play a part in FET.  This explains quite a bit actually.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Antarctica Pictures Leaked on WikiLeaks
« on: November 30, 2016, 11:52:56 AM »
What about Wikileaks makes you trust their pictures above any others?  What makes the picture you posted special above all other pictures of sunrise/set over Antarctica?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: it all begin with the will...
« on: November 30, 2016, 02:59:44 AM »
Did ─░ntikam take over somebody else's user name?

Flat Earth Community / Re: The concept of Universal Acceleration can't work
« on: November 29, 2016, 02:49:10 AM »
1. Absolute velocity doesn't matter. All that matters is how fast you are moving relative to other objects. If everything else is accelerating along with you, then there is absolutely no way to know how fast you are going, and frankly, it doesn't matter how fast you are going.

What reference did/do FE supporters use to determine the acceleration of FE?  The sun and moon are supposedly attached to FE via some firmament and I can only assume that the other planets of the solar system and the visible stars are attached to the same.  From the inside looking out, if all were attached to the firmament and being dragged along, FE supporters would have no point of reference to determine the velocity of FE.  Has someone actually made it to the edge of FE?  Have they found a way to see past the firmament holding the sun, moon, planets and stars?  Have they seen something outside of the firmament?

It may not be a successful endeavor to directly apply special relativity to FET as FE2000 attempted but looking at FET through the lens of SR still chips away at, if not disproves, FET.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Lots of questions
« on: November 26, 2016, 03:47:44 AM »
Speaking only on the idea of a firmament.

Flat Earth Theory (FET) holds that FE is rushing headlong through space (though they deny the existence of space as it pertains to RET) and it is this constant forward motion which provides the sensation of gravity.

You mention meteorites.  Any number of people have witnessed at least one meteorite in their life and those meteorites are seen to be falling/flying across the sky at some angle other than 90 degrees.  They are never seen to be falling/flying perpendicular to their point of impact.

The reason I bring this up is that the headlong rush through space, at the speed which FET holds, prohibits any object from entering our atmosphere and streaking across the sky.  It may well enter from an oblique angle but the upward rush of FE would make that object impact Earth on a perpendicular trajectory, not obliquely as witnessed, measured and studied.  On Earth meteorites can and do enter our atmosphere and impact (or not) at any number of angles.

Of course FE proponents will probably argue that those meteorites are entering our atmosphere at a speed greater than that of FE's but I would like to see what speed they propose for the meteorites as well as the math they would use to allow for it.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?
« on: November 21, 2016, 10:32:39 AM »
Why does the 'shard' and every other landmark 'Eiffel tower', 'Empire State building' etc look perfectly vertical no matter how far away its viewed from?  Never leaning to the left or right. 

Why do you think they would or should be leaning?  No matter how far away you are, if you are viewing them they are in your direct line of sight.  Now, if you are far enough away, you may only be able to see the top portion but there's no reason it should appear to lean.  Now, if their degree of inclination is measured relative to you (with you being the perpendicular, zero degree, standard) they are leaning.  Keep in mind that the first full degree of lean relative to you would be at 69 miles (364,320 feet).  Now that comes out to approximately 0.0000028 degrees of lean per foot.  If your eyes are fantastic enough to resolve this miniscule amount you really, really need to quit wasting your time on sites such as this.

Why does water only have the ability to bend in the ocean?  Is it down to the 'no laws at sea scenario'?  Maybe the laws of physics don't apply at sea?  Maybe it's magic water when way out in the middle of the ocean?

Who has ever said that water bends?  Water finds level.  Now, if you want to see bendy water, go fill your tub and jump in.  The water will "bend" around your body.

Why don't airplanes have to constantly fly at downward angle to avoid flying out into 'space'?  That magic place we call space hahaha.  Sorry, it does make me chuckle. 

Why would they have to constantly fly at a downward angle?  Once at cruising altitude they are flying at a more or less consistent altitude as referenced by air pressure.  What makes you think planes are in a constant climb?

If I dug vertically down through the 'magic ball (lol)', and descended through it very very slowly, when would I start to turn upside down to join my southern 'hemisphere' cousin?

Why would you turn upside down?  Take a rubber ball.  Drill a hole through it.  Does your drill bit turn upside down before you come out the other side of it?

If the shortest route between 2 points is a straight line, why do 'space ships' turn horizontal?  Isn't that a waste of precious 'magic space fuel'?

Efficiency.  It's actually the best way to achieve the end result using less fuel than flying straight up.

Why can I see parts of London from the top of Alexandra palace (also standing perfectly perpendicular to my position, so obviously not to their position) that should be out of sight?  Or at least leaning even a minimal amount to one side?

I've no frame of reference for this so can't provide an answer for the first part.  For the second part see the answer for your first statement above.

Why does a ship that 'vanishes over curvature' become visible again through a telescope?

A ship that 'vanishes over curvature' doesn't become visible again through a telescope.  If the ship is far enough away that part, but not all, of it has disappeared 'over curvature' you may be better able to resolve the portion which hasn't disappeared through a telescope but you can't bring the part that has disappeared back above curvature.

Why isn't the 'curvature of the earth' taken into account in surveying and architecture?

For the vast majority of surveys and architecture the curvature of Earth is irrelevant.  For some things, like particle accelerators, it is relevant and is taken into account.

Why isn't the 'spin of the earth' felt?

For the same exact reason that the constant acceleration of FET isn't felt.  Because it's constant.  Same principal as when you're in a car.  On acceleration you feel it.  At constant cruising speed you don't.

Why isn't the 'trajectory of the earth through the so called universe' felt?

Same as just above.  It's constant.  Driving straight down the road you don't feel your trajectory.  Change direction slowly and you may not feel your trajectory.  Change direction quickly and you will feel your trajectory as a function of gravity.

I don't make my decisions based on the Internet, I make them based on common sense and intelligence.

Please do point out to us where, in your original list, there is common sense and/or intelligence.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Weather Differences prove the earth is flat
« on: November 19, 2016, 02:36:05 AM »
"I'm closed myself to discussing."

When were you ever open to discussion?  All you've ever done is throw out a ton of meaningless information and claimed you were the only one who has any knowledge and/or that you are the only one who is right.  You never cared to discuss anything when it was brought to your attention, time and again, that you were wrong.

Since you don't want discussion my advice to you would be for you to set up your own website where you can post whatever you want without anyone ever seeing it or commenting on it.  In this way your echo chamber would be absolutely protected.


If manned lunar landings were so easy in the 60's and 70's why has no one else done it?

Why hasn't FES mounted an expedition to map and explore the ice wall?  Surely there are enough FE believers out there to overcome any type of conspiracy yet all they do is regurgitate the same 100 plus year old story and conspiracy theories and call it good.  Why not put half that effort into something which will definitively prove your theory to be correct?

I saw the title of this thread and was actually excited about the possibility of an interesting and engaging debate/discussion.  Clicking on the link ended up being as big a disappointment as opening the largest birthday present only to find underwear.

As to this gem:

"it is the process of the tectonic plates to make sure the earth will change its form."

Tectonic movement changes the way Earth looks but it doesn't change Earth's form.

If you truly do believe Earth's form changes due to tectonic movement I'm interested in hearing the physics (which would constantly be in flux) you propose to accommodate such change in form.


So god doesn't play dice, he plays roulette to me,!

Dear Jura-Glenlivet -
It sure looks like a roulette wheel world to me , too !
Does it spin, too ?
Does that mean Las Vegas is the capital of the world ?

Does it spin?...

I'm betting that, in answer to my question above, spin will be part of (if not all) the answer for the distribution of water across Earth.  Of course this will then require special allowances for centripetal and centrifugal forces to allow for relatively even distribution of water.

Dear Intikam,

Please dazzle us with your brilliance.

Your "shape 4" is labeled as being "the nearest shape to be real".

The alleged ice wall around the perimeter looks to be at an elevation of X.

The alleged north pole also looks to be at an elevation of X.

The line of latitude which is approximately 20 degrees south of the equator looks to be the lowest elevation which we will call Y.

All other degrees of latitude are at some elevation less than X.

All of the continents are positioned at some degree of latitude less than X.

With this in mind it seems that, unless FE magic is used, a good portion of the southern part of North America, a good portion of the northern part of South America, most (if not all) of Australia and the central portion of Africa would be completely submerged.

The part which I'm hoping you can bedazzled us on is, with "the nearest shape to real" being a tub (or bucket if you wish) what is keeping the waters of the oceans from inundating all of the land which is at the lowest elevations?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?
« on: November 13, 2016, 02:21:38 AM »
I feel so sorry for you people who believe what you're told on tv, I really do.  I pity you. 

What should we feel for people like yourself who believe whatever you're told to believe on the internet?


I am of the understanding that 40 Km is the upper limit of elevation you can achieve with balloons.
Cool story, who is talking about balloons?

You.  Remember that post a few back when you were imploring everyone (at least RE's) to think outside the box?  You know, the one in which you posited similar ideas to two balloons.

I would suggest you go back and read the thread again to gain a better understanding of what's being discussed.

What's to understand?  You told all the RE's to think outside the box and posted two links to balloon based systems.  If you don't want to talk about balloons or systems similar to the two you linked to, don't introduce them to support your argument.


I am of the understanding that 40 Km is the upper limit of elevation you can achieve with balloons.
Cool story, who is talking about balloons?

You.  Remember that post a few back when you were imploring everyone (at least RE's) to think outside the box?  You know, the one in which you posited similar ideas to two balloons.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >