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 - DSC

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: January 04, 2018, 10:35:03 AM »
With a 3000 mile high sun, no. No they don't. The color is completely irrelevant anyway. The light is hitting the clouds from underneath. You can clearly see that upon clouds in various positions to the left and right of the image where the underside is lit up, but the top is still dark. This is visible up towards the top of the image as well. How does this happen on a FE? You have to have bendy light on a FE, or this can't happen.

The sun is in a higher position in the sky when you are at a higher altitude vs when you are at a lower altitude. It is for this reason that you can rise the sun up from the horizon just after sunset by rapidly increasing your altitude.

An object at a higher altitude will be lit at a different angle than a lower altitude. Therefore, if the rays are hitting lower clouds differently than higher clouds they will be lit differently.

are you saying that the sun changes it's altitude according to where the observer is physically located? Hogwash. You really should give up mate. There is a mountain of evidence to prove our earth is round, and broken non relatable theories that are engaged or ignored depending on what evidence you are attempting to disprove.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: blackhole created the big bang.
« on: January 02, 2018, 08:06:40 AM »
If you believe in any of this nonsense, the book I mean. Aside from some kind of guide tomoral justification. it's not a far stretch to believe in a flat earth I guess.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: blackhole created the big bang.
« on: January 02, 2018, 08:04:59 AM »
quote author=Baby Thork link=topic=8326.msg137039#msg137039 date=1514812051]
and you can keep your god. I don't want it.
You'd rather choose to believe a made up theory that makes your existence utterly worthless, than a made up theory that makes you special? Atheists have some dreadful self-loathing issues. Its called blind faith for a reason. You ignore the bits that make no sense and turn a blind eye (Adam and Eve having 3 sons for example), in order that you can embrace the bits that you wish were true, such as justice for those who may wrong you or reunification with a deceased loved one. Its called being happy.

And on that note, Happy New Year. May you find God and therefore peace.  :)

yes, i rather prefer to believe in science and the strive of understanding our world tham rely on an old fable ro give me comfort. I do not need threats of eternal damnation to guide my morals.

If you do, good on you. I believe anyone can follow whatever they like it as long as it gives them what they are seeking. 

Tell me. If adam and eve had three sons, how did they populate the planet?

he early chapters of Genesis are concerned with the origin of the Earth and all life, including man. The Author's intention is seemingly to present the grand picture first and then add certain details throughout the rest of Scripture; this is called Progressive Revelation. All we are told about Adam's offspring is that the first son was named Cain, the second son named Abel [Genesis 4:1-2 ], then after Abel's murder, another son named Seth was "begotten when Adam was 130 years old." After that, Adam "begot sons and daughters" [Genesis 5:3-4]. This same passage also tells us that Adam lived for 930 years [Genesis 5:5]. Therefore, according to Scripture, Adam and Eve's family consisted of sons Cain, Abel and Seth, plus a minimum of two other sons and two daughters, giving a total of seven children. However, accepting that Adam, and likely Eve, lived for 930 years, seven children would be the minimum number, but does this seem reasonable?

Genesis chapter five presents the genealogies of the descendants of Adam where we are simply given the father's name, his age when he "begot" the first son and the total number of years he lived. With the exception of Enoch, all of these pre-flood descendants of Adam lived a minimum of 777 years, while most were over 900 years. In each instance, the record simply gives the name of the first son, then adds "and begot sons and daughters." With these words, the minimum number of children per family then becomes five. But is this really a credible number?

Living over 900 years means living ten times longer than we do today. Proportionately, the female period of fecundity – today 30 to 35 years – would then be about 350 years. At a rate of only one child every seven years, this would result in 50 children for Adam's immediate family. Interestingly, two ancient books written about the time of Christ but not having the authority of inspired Scripture confirm these figures. The Book of Jubilees, whose author is unknown, was written in the second century B.C. and states that Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Paradise seven years [p.49]. Then Eve gave birth to her first child, Cain, between the ages of 64-70, or the same numbers as the age of the Earth, anno mundi. Eve's second child, Abel, was born seven years later – between the years 71-77 anno mundi [p.51]. The total number of Adam's children is not given in this work; however, it is found as a footnote in The Works of Josephus where it states: "The number of Adam's children, as says the old tradition, was 33 sons and 23 daughters." In view of their longevity, these appear to be reasonable figures while it would have to be said that, sinners though they were, Adam and Eve had faithfully obeyed God's first commission to: "be fruitful and multiply …" [Genesis 1:28].

Science & Alternative Science / Re: blackhole created the big bang.
« on: January 01, 2018, 12:30:22 PM »
Yes correct, a bit like the chicken and the egg. Maybe universes have always existed. We postulate on the age of our own, and I know there are many blackholes within our Universe. I also understand what a blackhole is thought to be and know thst it's not the same as a hole in the ground.

and you can keep your god. I don't want it.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Walking in a straight line
« on: January 01, 2018, 12:19:37 PM »

Science & Alternative Science / Re: blackhole created the big bang.
« on: January 01, 2018, 12:03:45 PM »
Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black
S. W. Hawking1
1DAMTP, University of Cambridge, UK
It has been suggested [1] that the resolution of the information paradox for evaporating black
holes is that the holes are surrounded by firewalls, bolts of outgoing radiation that would destroy
any infalling observer. Such firewalls would break the CPT invariance of quantum gravity and seem
to be ruled out on other grounds. A different resolution of the paradox is proposed, namely that
gravitational collapse produces apparent horizons but no event horizons behind which information is
lost. This proposal is supported by ADS-CFT and is the only resolution of the paradox compatible
with CPT. The collapse to form a black hole will in general be chaotic and the dual CFT on the
boundary of ADS will be turbulent. Thus, like weather forecasting on Earth, information will
effectively be lost, although there would be no loss of unitarity.
∗ Talk given at the fuzz or fire workshop, The Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, Santa Barbara, August
arXiv:1401.5761v1 [hep-th] 22 Jan 2014

Science & Alternative Science / Re: blackhole created the big bang.
« on: January 01, 2018, 12:01:00 PM »
Interesting stuff.

 had always thought the theory on black holes didn't compketely fit in with current physics. There is always much more to learn about. Quantum physics is evolving so much these days.

Hawkings paper attached. Suprisingly for such a huge deal, only two pages long.

*couldn't attach. File to large?

Science & Alternative Science / blackhole created the big bang.
« on: January 01, 2018, 04:04:52 AM »
My own layman thoughts.

"first law matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. ... It can change from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again, but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant."

where does energy go when consumed/destroyed by a black hole?

I think that the whole big bang theory points directly to what happens on the otherside of a black hole.

of course this must lead to an assumption of wormholes or for my thinking a multiverse.

anyone have anything? I'm happy to bw proven wrong.

But based on newtons law, the energy consumed by a black hole must go somewhere, or else it is contained, which is improbable.

Flat Earth Media / Re: Rounds are always asking for new maps
« on: January 01, 2018, 01:54:05 AM »
According to Nesbitt, the earth is flat and square. It says so at the beginning of this film.

a minute in the earth is a circle,  you know because the bible.

Technology & Information / Re: I Bought a Sony Xperia X
« on: January 01, 2018, 12:00:46 AM »
I was given an Xperia X last year by a client and found it was the best performing and styled phone ive ever seen. Two weeks later i dropped it and the screen went blank. Sony would not offer warranty or repair as i had no receipt. Sucks.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me your physics
« on: December 31, 2017, 11:18:14 PM »
  A few things to wrap my mind around. Been interesting. Still much to learn.

thanks to both sides.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me your physics
« on: December 31, 2017, 01:54:04 PM »
Well how are any of us able to withstand such force? All land based life on earth would have had to evolve tremendously powerful trunks and legs to withstand this constant acceleration. Much like trees. And why can i not feel this constant acceleration? Even the slightest change in my car by pushing the cruise control to increase my speed is perceptible.

As much as I try, these theories and assertions are becoming more and more preposterous.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me your physics
« on: December 31, 2017, 01:17:18 PM »
UA can be debunked by simply realizing the 9.81 figure changes along earths surface and with altitude.

Oh wow you must be the first person to have brought that up.

It’s accounted for in FET.

junker, something something about low content posting in the upper fora??

Rules are rules.

and for the OP i have understood we are travelling at the mentioned 9.81m/s, not continually accelerating at this rate.Though I may be wrong. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side of the Earth?
« on: December 31, 2017, 09:43:23 AM »
Depending on where you are located currently. For me in Northern Australia directly opposite, as in tunneling straight through, lands me in the northern Atlantic Ocean. If you lived in Argentina, directly opposite would land you somewhere in China.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is earth special?
« on: December 30, 2017, 11:46:26 PM »
2: The planets do exist. Or, well, they do not exist in the same way NASA tells you. In my Celestial Ocean Theory, which I find the most reliable, the planets - as well as meteorites - are simply debris generated by cracks in the Firmament. This debris floats above the Sun and the Moon as the laws of buoyancy dictate. 

Please elaborate.  If there is a firmament holding back a 'Celestial Ocean' and cracks did appear. Would this ocean not leak and fall to earth. Either by force of gravity or UA?

Explain how this does or does not occur.

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Lets agree on a chapter format
« on: December 30, 2017, 02:04:27 PM »
Whatever happened with this book? Is it in progress, been published? I am genuinely interested in how this project developed, albeit 2 1/2 years later.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Chemtrails
« on: December 30, 2017, 10:48:07 AM »
I'm  not a proponent of the fe.

Vaccines? I don't know enough to have an informed opinion. I have friends whom have autistic children and are against vaccination. Myself have two children, both of whom are vaccinated.

Diana. Couldn't really care less.

9/11 though. That is a debateable one. I for one aide with those whom believe the US government played a major if not sole role in that attack.

So one who may believe in a conspiracy doesn't necessarily have to follow with all conspiracies.

I know there are other fe believers here on the site, but in my short time reading and following threads, you could be excused for thinking that Tom Bishop is the only one active at this time. Aside from Junker whom would appear to mainly monitor conversation as an administrator.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tides.
« on: December 29, 2017, 08:53:40 AM »
I must live in the special area where the sun goes straight overhead, never across the horizon. Granted i live in a tropical zone, but this has not always been the case. Ive also lived in southern parts of australia and the sun and moon behaved as would be expected on a round earth.
I would also like to see the fe model showing relative speeds of thw sun and moon to describe how each month i can view both dueing the day.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« on: December 27, 2017, 01:48:05 PM »
Well I did; what you are attempting is mathematical gymnastics. I could apply simple arithmetic to how a hare may overcome a tortoise in a race. You on the otherhand attempt to deflect or deny any contention that does not fit to your small world view. Greek maths work when you want, and are unproven phallacies when undesiref outcomes are derived. Surely a true scholar would be tiresome of such nonsense by now.  But then, google is everyones friend.

You really are a tool of the highest order.

#edit. Ok, sorry junker and tom bishop. I will refrain from personal attack in future.

Pages: [1] 2  Next >