1681

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread

« on: April 04, 2016, 10:40:25 PM »

GO 'NOVA! WHOOOOO!

1682

Flat Earth Community / Re: Believe

« on: March 30, 2016, 01:34:03 AM »

Just a quick question.

How many flat earthers are either veterans of previous service or presently on active duty of any navy - of any  nation ?
If so  how does that go along with your belief that the earth is flat ?

Are believers in a flat earth considered Conscientious Objectors ?

Of course I realize that all the navies of all the nations  in the world are all part of The Great Round Earth Conspiiracy

This goes for all similar  government and civilian occupations.

You thought this thread was the best place to ask this? 

1683

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No Stars

« on: March 29, 2016, 01:31:43 AM »

That's not a real photo.

And you have proof of this claim?

It's actually a well-known fact.  I invite you to do your own research, as UOSSP should have before he even bothered posting it.

I'd admit both side have bias, i did research why this photo is real, not why it's not. I could say it's real without cite my claim just like what you did, but if you ask for proof, why should i be the one who give you proof?

No bias here, the picture is not real.  Again, it's a well-known fact.  I don't have the inclination to cite sources, because I'm not engaging in debate, and I really don't give two shits if you believe it.  I'm just trying to help you and your brothers avoid looking like a smacked ass by pointing to a photo that is expressly not real as evidence of... well, anything, really.

1684

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Diplomacy

« on: March 28, 2016, 01:46:50 AM »

Sorry about the missed turn, guys, that was my bad.

1685

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No Stars

« on: March 27, 2016, 09:23:39 AM »

That's not a real photo.

And you have proof of this claim?

It's actually a well-known fact.  I invite you to do your own research, as UOSSP should have before he even bothered posting it.

1686

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No Stars

« on: March 26, 2016, 09:46:39 PM »

That's not a real photo.

Irrelevant, the OP was asking why don't we see stars in NASA's pictures containing sunlit planet, but in fact the Blue Marble does contain some stars when zoomed in. And if the Blue Marble was a fake, why the heck would they even bother put the stars that are hard to see anyway? They could just say no stars because low exposure.

So basically you're saying that you can't see stars in their "real" photos, but you can in the ones that aren't real.  Well, thanks for the contribution.

1687

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No Stars

« on: March 26, 2016, 09:00:01 PM »

NASA does have stars in their long exposure photos
See http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/index.php
Look at any picture detail and you'll find their exposure, pictures that do show star have long exposure.
Also, if you zoomed in the Blue Marble photo, it actually does contain some stars.

That's not a real photo.

1688

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A refutation of RE that RE-ers will accept - experiment at home on 20th March

« on: March 25, 2016, 05:23:33 PM »

I don't see how this would ultimately disprove the premise of a round Earth anyway.  At most it would force it to need a little tweaking, but that seems to be something you guys are good at, tweaking your theories to explain why they don't always match observation.

Please explain how at either equinox the sun rises (almost) due east everywhere on earth, except close to the poles where they have 24 daylight.
And, no I have not seen it everywhere, but all evidence I have seen indicates that it does!

I know it does here at 27.680°S 153.049° - I have checked it!

I think you're confused again, rabinoz.  This thread was supposed to be about an alleged refutation of RET.  If you have something to add to the discussion feel free, but I won't be baited into responding to your random musings.

1689

Flat Earth Community / Re: Believe

« on: March 25, 2016, 06:55:54 AM »

What book?  WHY ARE YOU KEEPING ME IN SUSPENSE??

1690

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A refutation of RE that RE-ers will accept - experiment at home on 20th March

« on: March 23, 2016, 11:59:19 PM »

I don't see how this would ultimately disprove the premise of a round Earth anyway.  At most it would force it to need a little tweaking, but that seems to be something you guys are good at, tweaking your theories to explain why they don't always match observation.

1691

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the Sun

« on: March 17, 2016, 08:55:06 PM »

In this thread, we observe that it's perfectly fine for REers to not have all the answers, but still expected (by REers, of course) that FEers have a valid answer for every little aspect of the theory, or else we are "wasting time", and it's a severe blow against our theory.

Ladies and gentlemen, yet more evidence of the general hypocrisy of the RE mindset. Thanks for the demonstration, fellas!

1692

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

« on: March 15, 2016, 05:56:19 AM »

Suddenly this thread has become kind of epic.

1693

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: March 15, 2016, 02:25:31 AM »

Gravitation exists on the Earth.  You throw a ball up, it comes back down.  Obviously that is a form of gravitation.  I feel like I've only recently mentioned this to you, but you should look up the universal accelerator in the wiki.

You (along with I believe every FEer) have not yet answered my question.

In any case gravitation between masses on the earth has been verified numerous times (measured).
I have asked many times, just what did Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measure?

I had hoped not to repeat all this again, but I guess I have to!

So many dismiss gravitation, but just what did Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measure?

Some have accused Cavendish of knowing the answer beforehand and quessing the Universal Gravitational Constant "G". But, he never set out to measure "G", but to "weigh the earth" - find its density.
Newton before him, had no way of knowing this density so he assumed it would be about the same as the surface rocks - around 2,800 to 3,000 kg/m³.
This was all the information Cavendish had to start with. The result of about 5,500 kg/m³ surprised everybody,

but his results have been shown to be within about 1%. Not that bad for such a difficult experiment!

Of course once the mass of the earth was known "G" could easily be found, so he effectively measured the Universal Gravitational Constant "G". Now before you dismiss Cavendish[1] (as so many Flat Earthers try to), just remember the value of "G" determined from the Cavendish experiment was within 1% of the currently accepted value.  You don't get that close by accident! His result was verified in 1873 and there have been many modern version done to improve the accuracy.  There have been numerous versions of the Cavendish experiment performed since then. His result was verified in 1873 and there have been many modern version done to improve the accuracy.  Most of the measurements were done using variations of the equipment used by Cavendish, though in at least one the equipment was evacuated to minimise interference. The "atom interferometry" one uses "the minuscule gravitational tug between rubidium atoms and a 516-kilogram array of tungsten cylinders. The uncertainty in the latest measurement is 150 parts per million, or 0.015%" from the same source. None of this pretends that gravitation is fully understood, but it appears to be a real phenomenon that causes an attractive force between two masses. (Pity we don't know how to reverse it yet!)

This table summarises the modern work: from: http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-method-closes-in-on-gravitational-constant-1.15427

When one person does an experiment (like cold fusion or even detecting gravity waves) it might be looked on as interesting, but will not be taken too seriously until it can be shown to be repeatable. So the results of Cavendish's experiment could easily have been dismissed, had they not been verified numerous times.

[1]

Some might argue that Miles Mathis has "debunked" Cavendish, but on reading his paper, I would not give much credence to it.  Mind you Miles Mathis seems to have had little to say on all the modern work, with better equipment and the means to avoid some of the sources of possible error.  In any case many of the "errors" Miles Mathis alludes to are simply constant masses in the vicinity, as no-one has questioned the additive property of gravity. Another paper by Miles Mathis proves π = 4, and is not "dimensionless".  Interesting fellow, Miles Mathis!

Well, I apologize, after seeing that the rest of your post was based on a faulty proposition I decided to skip it, as your posts sometimes give me a headache (this time for a change at least the meandering was somewhat on topic), but as it happens, I don't know what's being observed in the Cavendish Experiment.  Obviously something is causing something to react somehow, but I do think that Miles Mathis makes some excellent points that can't be dismissed out-of-hand, however eccentric he might seem (Sir Isaac Newton was an alchemist yet he's revered as something of a God to you people, after all) and we must be cognizant of the fact that there's no reason to assume that the theory behind the Cavendish Experiment isn't flawed, or misunderstood.

This is why an open-minded approach to FE research is so important.  Rather than deny something that has been observed many, many times by people of all walks of life, we should be pondering this fascinating experiment, and striving to understand it.  To me, that's what the modern Flat Earth Society is all about, or at least should be.

Whatever the case may be, the Cavendish Experiment does not prove that the Earth is not flat.

1694

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: March 14, 2016, 05:38:01 AM »

Gravitation exists on the Earth.  You throw a ball up, it comes back down.  Obviously that is a form of gravitation.  I feel like I've only recently mentioned this to you, but you should look up the universal accelerator in the wiki.

1695

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: March 13, 2016, 05:22:41 PM »

You seem to claim "Celestial Gravitation" that even affects objects on the earth (supposedly the tides, etc), yet deny gravitation between the earth and objects on it.

No I don't.

1696

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: March 13, 2016, 06:34:15 AM »

Then why do the moon and other satellites follow the same laws when they travel around the earth, as the earth does when travelling around the sun?

They don't, in FET.  According to FET every celestial body is not traveling around the Earth, but rather the celestial hub (a fixed point above the north pole).  I'm sure you can see that it is not the same in any way as what RE has to say.

And why do these same rules apply to the other planets and their moons?  Furthermore, why can we apply those laws to our own motion here on earth, as well as the tides?

Because scientists wanted it that way.  It's all about how the math is interpreted; scientists choose to assume that gravitation works the same on Earth as it does in space, but their reasoning for choosing to do so is flawed.  It's really more faith-based than rational.
 

1697

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Perception

« on: March 13, 2016, 06:10:59 AM »

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

I'll ask you the same question I asked Hoppy.

Did you see the part where I said the x-ray was for the doctors use?  Did you misunderstand that part?

I really don't see the relevance.  I was referring specifically to the standard RE battle-cry that trusting our senses is nothing short of mind-numbingly stupid, at least on a level of mental retardation with Forrest Gump, maybe even I Am Sam, because they are always lying to us.  I hope you understand better.

You would have us believe that NASA simply crammed a cylinder full of explosive stuff, threw a couple of guys on top of it and aimed it at the moon hoping for the best?

Well... no... actually we believe the moon landing was a hoax.  I thought like pretty much everybody understood that.

You don't see the relevance between what I said and how you and hoppy tried to twist it to fit what you believe?

Again, I was referring to what REers in general seem to believe.  Your post was kind of a springboard for the observation, but the observation was never meant to be based on or in response to anything you said.

Where did I say anything about going to the doctor to get confirmation of a broken arm?  Would you not go to the doctor if you had a broken arm to get it fixed or does your perception of a random person on the street telling you he is qualified to set the bone good enough for you to forego going to the doctor?

Now I think you're just being insulting for the sake of being insulting.  Why wouldn't I go to the doctor if I can plainly see it's broken?  I'm not qualified to fix it and obviously I'm not leaving it in the hands of a random stranger...

1698

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Perception

« on: March 13, 2016, 02:59:41 AM »

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

I'll ask you the same question I asked Hoppy.

Did you see the part where I said the x-ray was for the doctors use?  Did you misunderstand that part?

I really don't see the relevance.  I was referring specifically to the standard RE battle-cry that trusting our senses is nothing short of mind-numbingly stupid, at least on a level of mental retardation with Forrest Gump, maybe even I Am Sam, because they are always lying to us.  I hope you understand better.

You would have us believe that NASA simply crammed a cylinder full of explosive stuff, threw a couple of guys on top of it and aimed it at the moon hoping for the best?

Well... no... actually we believe the moon landing was a hoax.  I thought like pretty much everybody understood that.

1699

Announcements / Re: Admin Resignation

« on: March 11, 2016, 05:55:39 AM »

I have decided not to put myself forward for this role.

Please let me be the first to thank you for that.

1700

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

« on: March 11, 2016, 03:43:44 AM »

The 90s were pretty fucking sweet too.