1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How Clouds Once Again Prove Flat-Earth Theory

« on: December 22, 2015, 05:09:55 PM »

Oh my, the Sun must be right behind these trees!

How do you know that's sunlight?

Because I have seen scenes like that in person.

Oh my, the Sun must be right behind these trees!

How do you explain that on a round floating ball fantasy earth??

It's called perspective.  Parallel lines can appear to converge or diverge if you are looking at them from the correct angle, like these train tracks which are perfectly parallel:



Are you seriously suggesting that the Sun is actually right behind those trees?  WTF?

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: "Assault" weapons, for it or against it?

« on: December 22, 2015, 05:03:29 PM »

But the second amendment has not been revoked, and as long as that's the case Americans will have the right to bear arms.  All this gun control people are fighting for is unconstitutional and if they are willing to disobey the constitution then what's stopping them from taking away our freedom of speech or right to not be slaves?

They already removed your right to free speech. You say something homophobic, or racist, or anything that the liberal left disapproves of and they will arrest you on crimes of 'hate speech' and allow vigilante justice to prevail as your job and future income is forcibly removed.
They also made you a slave. When you were born, you were issued with a birth certificate. If you were the child of a multi-millionaire your birth certificate went to the Federal Reserve and was placed in the pile for 'preferred stock'. If you are anyone else your were packaged as 'common stock'. Your birth certificate (which reads like a shipping document) was then sold by the federal reserve to the highest bidder as 'bonds'. The clue is in the name. Your future labour will pay back those bonds as interest for the rest of your life via income tax ... in other words someone out there has a stake in your future income and gets that money! If that isn't slavery, I don't know what is. If you were ever to get your own birth certificate back, you'd see a list of banks on the back, all of which who had OWNED you before selling you on to the next.

Bit about both certificates starts at 2:30 but the entire video is interesting and I picked this video as it is a good explanation.

So now you know nothing in your constitution means anything anyway, can we move on from "But its my constitutional right to bear arms", please?

And do you agree with our constitutional rights being violated?  The constitution is there to protect the people from the government and it's the supreme law of the land that even the givernment is under.  There are systems in place to change it if the need arises and if the vast majority of people agree that the change is needed.  I know that the constitution was written by mistake making human beings, but if we are OK with the government defying the constitution then we revoke the rights it guarantees us and opens the doors for a dictatorship, monarchy, socialism, and stuff like that.  If the government has too much power then power is taken away from the people and it ceases to become a democracy.  I know you don't agree with the second amendment, but do you see why the constitution must be upheld?

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: "Assault" weapons, for it or against it?

« on: December 21, 2015, 07:33:56 AM »

American's always have this thing about their constitution being like a religious text. It can't be challenged, anything in there is gospel, it's absolutely perfect and only straying from the constitution causes problems. There is of course a small chance anything written by man, especially hundreds of years ago contains a large amount of bollocks in it. Your constitution included.

But the second amendment has not been revoked, and as long as that's the case Americans will have the right to bear arms.  All this gun control people are fighting for is unconstitutional and if they are willing to disobey the constitution then what's stopping them from taking away our freedom of speech or right to not be slaves?  The constitution can indeed be amended but the vast majority of states must agree to change it and we know that such a thing is never going to happen, and and because the constitution still contains the second amendment any politician trying to take away guns is breaking the oath they swore when they were put into office which is basically treason.

The statistics don't lie. The more guns a nation has, the more likely people will shoot each other with them. So if you give them more powerful guns, they'll do more damage with them. Is the reward of putting a smile on a hillbilly's face when he blows up a melon in the dessert, worth horror on a mother's face when she discovers her child was shot dead by a guy with a mental illness whilst at school?

Just because you can have these things, doesn't mean its a good idea.

Indeed, statistics don't lie.  You should look up which states have the most crime and which states have the strictest gun control.  You will find that the two lists look remarkably similar.  The states that have high gun control like Callifornia drive up the national average.  I've been to California and let me tell you, I'd prefer being in my home state Utah with low gun control any day.  Just compare the crime rates of those states and you will see what I mean.

Internationally the correlation is much less noticeable simply because all nations are very different in many ways and crime rates are effected my more then the number of guns available.  If you want some examples: Mexico has strict gun control and high crime while Switzerland has very high gun ownership and very low crime.  Individual states make for a more accurite controlled comparison because that are more simelar.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How Clouds Once Again Prove Flat-Earth Theory

« on: December 17, 2015, 05:28:34 PM »

Oh my, the Sun must be right behind these trees!





And you better not let any trains go on these rails, because they clearly converge and meet in the distance:



Either that or the OP is mistaken.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why ship masts appear to sink over the horizon

« on: December 16, 2015, 09:06:27 PM »

I still can't see any laws of relativity being broken.  By your logic, since magnetism is not predicted by Newton's equations, Newton's equations are wrong.  Also, you are using ad hominem fallacies and acting as if my typo proves something.  You are really getting desperate, aren't you?

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why ship masts appear to sink over the horizon

« on: December 16, 2015, 08:33:58 PM »

You clearly don't know much about physics.  Physics as we know it is incomplete and still a work in progress.  No physicist has ever claimed that they know everything about the universe.  Laws of physics are called "laws" for good reason, they state what must happen and what can't happen in the universe and using that framework you can make predictions.  If a law is violated by the universe doing something a law says is impossible or not doing something a law says must happen then that law is disproven, but if those limitations are upheld yet the outcome doesn't match a prediction then that doesn't nesesarily mean that the law is wrong, it most likely just means that something is going on that is not being accounted for.

The Allias effect breaks no laws put forward by relativity as far as I can tell, it simply suggests that something else is going on that nobody is accounting for.  What I am looking for is something that contradicts relativistic laws of what can't and must happen like something going faster then light or proof that time dilation doesn't happen.  Can you do that?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why ship masts appear to sink over the horizon

« on: December 16, 2015, 06:53:24 PM »

I am currently banned from the flat Earth society forum, so I can't view your sources for the ether experiments.

Your other sources started loosing credibility when one said that modern physics denies the existence of centrifugal force as if physicists believe that a spinning object would not feel an aperent outward pull.  Physicists don't deny that an aperent outward pull exists, what they deny is the notion that it's an actual force field pushing something out as the term "centrifugal force" implies.  The point is, my confidence in the credibility of your sources is deminishing by the minute.  Another one of your sources flat out lied about what relativity predicts about gravity.  Seriously, find better sources.

Your logic seems to be "Maxwell was right about electromagnetism, and he believed that Aether exists so he must be right about that too.  Einstein was the one who debunked the notion of Aether, and since he apears to be wrong about that he must be wrong about everything else too".

How about this: I will accept that relativity is false once you produce one observation that contradicts a relativistic prediction.  Should be easy enough, right?

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why ship masts appear to sink over the horizon

« on: December 16, 2015, 04:20:19 PM »

I skimmed through your articles and lost count of how many logical fallacies I saw.  The people you linked to clearly had no understanding of relativity.  For example: one of your sources said that people who believe in relativity doubted that GPS would work yet it does, but in reality the reason it works is because they account for relativity by resetting the clocks whenever time dilation offsets them.

As for Maxwell's equations being "altered", all alterations made kept the same function of the equations such that plugging in the same numbers in both will yield the same result.  It's kind of like how X=2Y is the same as 2X=4Y and -X+2Y=0.  Any and all solutions for one of these equations are solutions for the other two, so they are basically the same equation even though they look different.  The same thing happened with Maxwell's equations, exept a few were added together F(G(X)) style.

Some of your sources mentioned that Maxewll believed in an Aether, as did most scientists of the time.  The reason people stopped believing in it is because experiments kept failing to detect it and the theory had more holes then Swiss cheese.  It was replaced by relativity because that theory had math to prove it that nobody could refute and it was confirmed hundreds of times by experiment.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: "Assault" weapons, for it or against it?

« on: December 15, 2015, 07:22:05 PM »

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

It should be noted that I do not 100% oppose gun control of any kind.  I believe that the solution to the vast majority of probelems lies between extremes and this is no exeption.  I do believe that things like a minimum age to own guns and requiring at least 3 steps to fire a concealed gun are good laws, but it shouldn't be taken too far.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space Tourism

« on: December 15, 2015, 06:56:34 PM »

I don't know.  Bribes may have been involved, but given how high-profile these people are, it may have been threats instead.  In any case, all I'm really saying is that widespread space tourism is far from the done deal that most people just seem to assume it is.

If space tourism does become wide spread then will that convince you that space travel is real and falsify flat Earth?

I have a feeling that this will be the last nail in the coffin of flat Earth.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why ship masts appear to sink over the horizon

« on: December 15, 2015, 06:06:50 PM »

Sandokhan, that's a nice claim you got there.  It would be a shame if someone were to look into it.

But those are not Maxwell's equations at all; on the contrary, they are the Heaviside-Lorentz equations:

Heaviside-Lorentz equations?  Do you mean Heaviside-Lorentz units, which are a set of standards about how units are expressed in physics equations?  Maxwell's equations in Heaviside-Lorentz units are still Maxwell's equations because they are the same exept they are written in a different equivelent form.

As for the "real" equations, I have searched and searched and I cannot find where you got your information.  In all the sources you cited I did not find where you got the most important part of your argument on which everything else is built, which is that Maxwell's equations don't require the speed of light to be a constant.  I don't even know what all te variables mean in those "real" equations so I can't do anything with them.

Your post also doesn't address the fact that special relativity and general relativity have been proven experimentally multiple times.  One famous experient is one where an atomic clock was put on a plane and another perfectly synced one was left on the ground and when the plane flew around the world the clocks were offset by a tiny amount that matches perfectly with presictions made by relativity equations.  This experiment was repeated multiple times with different clocks, different planes, and different flight paths all with simelar results.

There is another experiment where the speed of light was measured coming from the Sun at sunset and sunrise.  The Sun rises to the east of you and sets to the west of you, so there is no question that it moves west relative to you no matter what model you use.  The experiment found that the speed of light was the same in both instances.  This experiment was repeated multiple times with simelar results.  This experiment lead to the theory that light travels at light speed relative to the "aether", but that model failed to explain so much.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Repost: Geocentric? More like Egocentric

« on: December 14, 2015, 04:07:05 PM »

Alternatively, we're not fans of "evidence" which heavily relies on assuming the intended conclusion. It usually goes like this:

• The Earth is round
• Since the Earth is round, <stuff happens>
• Therefore, the Earth is round and only a fanatic would think otherwise!

You see, insulting your discussion partner for demanding a high standard of evidence and especially resorting to ad hominems and No True Scotsman fallacies is very unlikely to help your case.

I have actually done multiple experiments testing said predictions that all seem to agree that Earth is round.  There is one that I have not yet done yet that is meant to measure horizon curvature from a mountain top.  According to round Earth predictions, curvature should be measurable (but not noticeable without measuring equipment) from the top of a decently sized mountain.  Flat earthers seem fond of claiming that the horizon is always at eye level and that proves flat Earth.  This seems like the perfect experiment to settle the debate once and for all.  Would you like to make a bet on what the results will be?

What is a falsifiable experiment to test the shape of the Earth?  Would you abandon flat Earth if the experiment found that Earth was round?  What would convince you that Earth is not flat?

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Repost: Geocentric? More like Egocentric

« on: December 11, 2015, 04:35:51 PM »

This is not the most persuasive evidence I have seen that Earth is round, not that it isn't persuasive.  The point is: it's not about evidence.  Flat earthers will religiously stick to their beliefs no matter what evidence they see that they are wrong because their bias is so strong it could survive a nuclear blast.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space Tourism

« on: December 11, 2015, 04:31:51 PM »

The Soyuz flights aren't an ongoing program.  They stopped doing that years ago, and only seven private citizens took part in it.  That's a number the conspiracy could easily control.

Perhaps you could describe what you think happened when those people approached the space agency and told them that they want to go to space.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why ship masts appear to sink over the horizon

« on: December 11, 2015, 04:30:10 PM »

Aren't ships supposed to lean backwards when they disappear over the horizon? The same thing should be true for tall buildings.

I have done the calculations multiple times and it turns out that they are only supposed to lean backwards by a tiny fraction of a degree.  I could do the calculations again if you want.

The answer is simple. Light waves are repelled by gravity. As the light from the ship travels towards you, it is pushed upwards. The further away it gets, the further the light is bent.

What you claim is in direct violation of general relativity and special relativity.  It doesn't just conflict with a minor prediction, it is in direct violation of the core principals of these theories and the only way for it to work is for a model that allows relativistic paradoxes to happen.  Anything repelling gravity is physically impossible, unless you debunk relativity.  Relativity is based on Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism, so you can start by proving that magnetism, electricity, and light don't exist.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Has anyone ever flown a plane across Antarctica?

« on: December 07, 2015, 03:42:18 PM »

Hey I'm kinda new here. Why are there so few threads? To me there seems to be two ways to prove the earth is round: if a plane can fly across Antarctica, then it supports the round earth.

A second way is to measure the distance traveled by a plane from Mexico to Japan, heading WEST. If the distance is greater than the distance EAST from Mexico to Japan, then it supports the flat earth. Have these things been documented I don't know. Just some thoughts!

Only 2 ways to test the shape of the Earth?  Come on, I could spam experiments that prove Earth's shape all day.  I have even done a few and they all seem to invariably agree that Earth is round.

17

Flat Earth Community / Re: What if I applied to become an astronaut?

« on: December 07, 2015, 03:38:52 PM »

Are you going to address my claims or not?

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space Tourism

« on: December 07, 2015, 03:36:22 PM »

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. It's something that's been promised as "just around the corner" for 50 years now.

Public space flight? Don't hold your breath.

And some of these "promises" have been fulfilled because anyone with a few million dollars who is in good physical condition can get a ride to the ISS on a Soyuz.  Many people have done it and none of them claim that they didn't get exactly what they paid for.

Recently Blue Origin did a successful test flight of their suborbital space craft designed for commercial space flight and Virgin Galactic has had such a ship for a while now.  All that's left is to do enough test flights to make sure it's safe enough and to fix any errors they find in the process, which might take 2-3 years at the most.  There are also dozens of other companies emerging that are attempting to get into the newly developing space tourism industry, like one that sells a private suborbital space plane and one that sells private inflatable space stations.  Boeing is also getting in on it with their WIP orbital passenger vehicle meant for tourists.  By far the most developed private space travel agency is SpaceX which has already started launching resupply missions to the ISS and they have nearly developed a passenger vehicle.

So yeah, I guess we will have to wait and see.  Would you become a round earther if all this stuff becomes a reality?  Just curious.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space Tourism

« on: December 02, 2015, 05:34:10 PM »

I don't believe any so-called "flat earth believers" are going to stop "believing" in a flat earth no matter what evidence you published. Hasn't worked so far. LOL.

It would be interesting to see how they still justify their belief when civilians go to space on a regular basis.

20

Flat Earth Community / Re: What if I applied to become an astronaut?

« on: December 02, 2015, 04:08:14 PM »

Before he was murdered and his 500-page report has mysteriously gone missing, he did manage to leak some of his findings to the press.

Do you have any non-circumstantial evidence that Baron's death was not an accident?  There are people who get hit by trains in their cars by accident, and if no evidence of murder was found then don't jump to conclusions and assume the government murdered him.  Also, isn't the press supposed to be in on the alleged conspiracy?

His original claim was that the Apollo 1 stood no chance of getting to the moon.

Apollo 1 was a Saturn 1 rocket designed to only go to low orbit and test the functionality of the command service module in space.  It's crew ended up dying when the capsule caught on fire on the launch pad and the problem that caused the accident was fixed for future missions.  The ship did indeed had no chance of landing on the Moon because it was not designed to and it was not part of the flight plan.  I have to agree with his claim.

You might be referring to Apollo 11 which was the first Saturn 5 with a flight plan requiring a Moon landing.  His concerns were legitimate because 1960's rockets don't have a great safety record and there is a reason they don't do things like that any more.  I'm not sure when this guy spoke out, but it is worth noting that Apollo missions 1-10 had a purpose, they were missions sent to test different mission elements to make the Moon bound missions safer.

Whether or not you consider a lunar landing mission which would never get to the moon to be "real" or "not real" is a matter of opinion and choice of definition.

Weather you consider one man's opinion a fact is a matter of cherry picking evidence.

Even the parts which NASA readily admits suggest that the project has been intransparent to say the least.

You can learn more about Baron here: http://projectcamelot.org/nasa.html

Last, but not least: It's ^{[citation needed]}, you absolute philistine.

according to your source one of the Apollo 1 astronauts said "How are we going to get to the moon when we can't communicate between two buildings?" shortly before the disaster.  This clearly shows that this astronaut who has been to space multiple times believes that the Moon missions were real.

What I want to see is two whistle blowers with the same story.  The people you showed me have very different stories and the second one doesn't even claim that space travel is fake.