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.
And you have proof of this claim?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.
You can't be a flat Earther if you believe the Big bang is right.Unless the FE was the "lid" of whatever held the big bang and has been accelerating ever since the almighty kaboom
It bothers me to no end to see a bunch of people so god damn sure of themselves when they've only been told these things about our existence, and then they accept it to their core, it's part of their identity now.I've been told that the Grand Canyon exists for as long as I can remember, but I've never seen it. How can I believe that it actually exists as I've never seen it. All pictures of it must be dismissed as fakes and until I see it with my own eyes, it cannot exist. All who say it exists are lying or part of a conspiracy to make me think that it does exist for some reason.
spotlight sunHang on, Tom said the sun is a globe in FE theory. This would explain how the moon is illuminated.
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.Sorry to join the party late, but if the FE is accelerating upwards, why haven't we crashed into the sun and Moon yet? They're only a few miles up yes?
Do they clearly move?Yes, they clearly do!
Yes, the clouds are moving. The FE believers just won't accept it.The funny thing is about those two images is that if you look at the cloud formations carefully when the moon's shadow is near Australia you can see that the two images are actually depicting the same eclipse.
Why is it that the clouds are moving in one animation and not moving in the other, if it is of the same event?
I think maybe just looking at it frame by frame my answer the question if clouds are moving in both pictures.
If you cannot see that the cloud formations above Australia have moved, you are clearly in denial.Ignoring your ridiculous formatting methods for a moment, the pictures you posted are at different angles and literally show that the clouds haven't moved. I get that you try to use presentation to obfuscate the actual points you may try to make, but that won't work here. Please try again.
The clouds clearly move. If you deny that then you undermine your own credibility as an honest contributor.
The clouds (in left left image) clearly do not move. If you deny that then you undermine your own credibility as an honest contributor with under 20 posts.
I'm sorry Junker, but it would almost seem that you have decided that I am not a proponent of flat earth and therefore not entitled to voice my opinion?The definitive answer is:
"The earth looks flat, therefore it must be."
Nothing presented to support RE theory will be accepted without definitive proof, yet everything supporting FE theory is accepted without proof such as:
Celestial gears, NASA guards at the south pole, shadow moon object, massive space conspiracy, magic gravity, bendy light, etc.
You get used to it after a while.
I am happy you feel the need to speak for flat earth proponents, but please refrain form doing so.
So how does GPS tracking work then?
Well, it mentions satellites, so it's out the window from the get-go.
Firstly, I wouldn't advise looking into a laser beam with a spotting scope as this will likely give you some serious eye troubles.An addition was added to the Magnification at Sunset page in the Wiki:If I setup a laser, travel a hundred meters out in front of it, and look back at the source, will I see the source as a tiny source of light, or will I see it enlarged. If I double the distance, will it appear even bigger (enough that it appears the same size as it did at the hundred meter mark)?
http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_SunsetQuoteBeam Divergence
This phenomenon of enlarging rays is also seen in lasers. Supposedly "straight" rays of light will spread out when shining over long distances.
From the Wikipedia entry on Beam Divergence we read:Quote"The beam divergence of an electromagnetic beam is an angular measure of
the increase in beam diameter or radius with distance from the optical
aperture or antenna aperture from which the electromagnetic beam emerges."
Or to clarify, if I go out far enough that the beam is 1 meter wide, if I look back with a spotting scope, will the source of the beam appear to be 1 meter wide also, instead of 1mm (or whatever size it is physically)?
Ok, I am a relatively firm believer that the Earth is round, though I would be interested if somebody could explain to me their point of view. Then I will explain mine. And please, don't just turn this into a cyber shouting match.The definitive answer is:
I'd like a link to that flight.
I can't see any direct flights, and the fastest is almost 18 hours.
http://www.skyscanner.net/transport/flights/buea/akl/160518/160525/airfares-from-buenos-aires-to-auckland-international-in-may-2016.html?adults=1&children=0&infants=0&cabinclass=economy&rtn=1&preferdirects=false&outboundaltsenabled=false&inboundaltsenabled=false&qp_prevProvider=ins_month&qp_prevCurrency=GBP&qp_prevPrice=1053&age=10#results
Hi,As I've stated in another thread, my friend has caught the return flight recently and it does only take 11 hours or so.
I just found a direct flight from Auckland to buenos aires which takes 11 hours. It's with New Zealand air flight no anz30. Looking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is huge, i am no expert but I don't think the plane would cover the distance in 11 hours only and without anyone noticing the flight path. What are your thoughts?
Empiricism is a view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced. The tenets of empiricism promotes a back to the basics approach to knowledge, where theoretical concepts are scrutinized for their applicability to the real world. Many believe that only empirical knowledge should be considered truth, as anything less is a diversion into fantasy and conjecture.
Yeah, it is convenient. I would say that the flight time basically rips the FE map to pieces.Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere link=topic=4311.msg90610#msg906i10 date=1456249364My friend recently caught a flight from Santiago to Auckland, non-stop. I asked her if she could see Antarctica, but she said the flight path was too to high (in latitude).If you are at all interested in the nature of our reality and the existence of a creator, you have two hours to spare to watch this video:
I was a sceptic and an atheist until I watched this yesterday, but I am currently reconsidering this. I am having to come to terms with the magnitude of what this all means.
You can test for proof yourself like he says in the video: Try searching for flights that will head directly West from Buenos Aires to Wellington, NZ. You will find none, because the globe is not real.
I stopped watching when he got to the flights between Australia and South America.
Then looked up QF28, non stop from Sydney to Santiago, 14hrs.
Is this aircraft able to travel much faster or something?
Typical Flat Earth Answer would be :"QF28 does not exist."
I dont think the fact that it exists is the question, what I'd be more interested in finding is a flight that actually goes over antartica, from south america to australia. That would be the nail in the coffin per se, if it was something that ever existed.
Regardless, the flight time was about 13hrs. I know because I spoke to her when the was boarding in Santiago and she texted me when she got to Auckland.
Convenient
In the FE model, is the moon rotating at a similar speed as the sun?The wording is correct. Here is an alternative version:
a shadow [caused by] the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon
I see! Thank you, that is perfectly clear to me now, and I would suggest this wording be adopted to replace the text found in the wiki (and I would change it to "...illuminating only half..." as well) It appears we are in agreement that the dark side of the moon is in shadow not because of a third object, but because it faces away from the light source.
...Also why when we jump, why doesn't the Earth move under us??Regardless if you use the the RE model (Earth is spinning on its axis and orbiting the Sun) or the FE model (Earth is rotating about the north pole and accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s² (or some other method of attraction)):
My friend recently caught a flight from Santiago to Auckland, non-stop. I asked her if she could see Antarctica, but she said the flight path was too to high (in latitude).If you are at all interested in the nature of our reality and the existence of a creator, you have two hours to spare to watch this video:
I was a sceptic and an atheist until I watched this yesterday, but I am currently reconsidering this. I am having to come to terms with the magnitude of what this all means.
You can test for proof yourself like he says in the video: Try searching for flights that will head directly West from Buenos Aires to Wellington, NZ. You will find none, because the globe is not real.
I stopped watching when he got to the flights between Australia and South America.
Then looked up QF28, non stop from Sydney to Santiago, 14hrs.
Is this aircraft able to travel much faster or something?
Typical Flat Earth Answer would be :"QF28 does not exist."
I dont think the fact that it exists is the question, what I'd be more interested in finding is a flight that actually goes over antartica, from south america to australia. That would be the nail in the coffin per se, if it was something that ever existed.
If you are at all interested in the nature of our reality and the existence of a creator, you have two hours to spare to watch this video:
I was a sceptic and an atheist until I watched this yesterday, but I am currently reconsidering this. I am having to come to terms with the magnitude of what this all means.
You can test for proof yourself like he says in the video: Try searching for flights that will head directly West from Buenos Aires to Wellington, NZ. You will find none, because the globe is not real.
