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 - Kokorikos

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3  Next >
Quora versus Cornell.

I do not think that it conflicts the information in the other links that were posted.

However, I cannot verify if what is mentioned in the link is correct as I do not have the necessary knowledge.
I only posted it as it is on topic and it offers some additional information.

I found this:

It basically says that it is difficult (but not impossible) to see the stars during daytime while on the moon.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing
« on: July 05, 2021, 05:56:23 PM »
Or it could just be that they did not like speaking to the press.
So you begin a rigorous recruitment process from the air force to find the absolute best of the best ... and you pick 3 guys who don't like communicating?

Have another go.

Why would liking to speak to the press be one of the skills needed to become an astronaut?
In any case, saying that looking at their faces is enough to determine that they did not go to the moon is not exactly the best argument against the Moon landings.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing
« on: July 05, 2021, 04:01:53 PM »
You only have to look at the Apollo 11 conference to see that not one of the team had been to the moon.

Or it could just be that they did not like speaking to the press.

It shows that the galaxies are not as envisioned. They don't behave as they should in many different ways. Compared to the conventional belief of Galaxies, they are cartoons. This is not generally publicized, the problems are often ignored or only murmured about, and it takes a lot of research to just dig it out.

Come back in a few years and you will find similar articles on the Sun and Planets too. It is being put together piece by piece. The entire sky is a fantasy cartoon.

It also shows that when scientists find new evidence that debunk their theories they try to find new theories that match to the new evidence. Also, the issues described in the wiki article were put forward by the scientists themselves so I do not see how one can say that they are not "generally publicized".

Saying that the sky is a fantasy cartoon is so extraordinary as a claim that very strong evidence is needed to support it.

The galaxies are cartoons -

My understanding is that the wiki article lists some of the problems of the galaxies in order to challenge the predictive power of the Newtonian and Einsteinian theories.
It offers nothing on what galaxies actually are.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Gravity Explained
« on: June 17, 2021, 07:52:54 PM »
It sounds like you have, in many words, re-invented the concept of Universal Acceleration, an inseparable element of elementary FET. Please read the FAQ and skim through the Wiki before posting.

True, but they are very good examples on how UA works.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Gravity Explained
« on: June 17, 2021, 04:58:14 AM »
If the Earth is being pushed up then that also must be true for the Sun, the Moon and the stars. Otherwise they would fall just like the apple.
What causes UA? And why does it push the Earth, the Moon and the stars, but it doesn't push the apple?

Maybe the sun uses this electricity to fuel its thermo nuclear reactions?

I am not an expert on electricity to know if this could be feasible in theory, but thermonuclear reactions require that the sun is huge as otherwise it would run out of hydrogen very quickly.

So in FE the sun has to be burning in some other way. I did not find anything in the wiki on this so please let me know if I am wrong.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« on: June 03, 2021, 12:21:03 PM »
The OP stated that Round Earth is bound by gravity. I assumed that this statement is based on the notion that gravity is responsible for the creation of planets.
If you still believe that I am veering off topic then please correct me.

The traditional theory of gravitation is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model. At least this is what is written in the wiki on Universal Acceleration.
Therefore the mechanism by which the Earth maintains its shape under FE is not stated and needs to be defined.

Regarding the use of terms gravity and gravitation, in my native language there is only one word that covers both. Therefore it is very difficult for me to understand the difference between the two.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« on: June 02, 2021, 10:07:38 PM »
Even if we squint our eyes very hard and assume that you meant "gravitation", that is plainly not the case, nor is it one that would distinguish between RE and FE.

Gravity causes all bodies beyond a certain mass to be spherical. Without the effect of gravity a planet would not necessarily break apart, but it would not have formed at all.
Note that I refer to gravity as it is described by "mainstream" science and not as described in the FE wiki.,and%20pulls%20everything%20toward%20it.&text=The%20only%20way%20to%20get,is%20to%20form%20a%20sphere.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« on: June 02, 2021, 02:24:53 PM »
In other words, this is a silly question, made in a poor attempt at a "gotcha". OP's preferred theory doesn't get us any closer to a meaningful answer.

Well in RE Earth the main force that keeps the planet from breaking apart is gravity. In what way is this not a meaningful answer?

Well I also do not see how this thread is relevant to the FE debate. Both FE and RE agree that the sun is a major energy source as otherwise I do not see what would explain the lower temperatures in the poles compared to the rest of the Earth.

He clearly said “major source”
I don't see how this changes the simple contradiction in his argument.

Fair enough. I should have said something like "...  would not drop significantly at night...". And by significantly I mean to the extend that temperature drops under these circumstances.

Note that the comment that I answer to implies that all energy comes from heat deep underground the surface. This cannot be true and this is what I am trying to counterargue against.

The Earth's energy comes from heat deep underground the surface. The deepest we have drilled on record is about 7 miles at the Kola superdeep borehole. Boy that lava must be really deep. No one knows how deep because we can't stick a tape measure down there.

If this was the major source of energy in the surface, then temperatures would not drop at night or when the sun is blocked from clouds.

Well RE predicts that both the Southern Cross and the North Star would be at 90 degrees to the direction of travel (at opposite sides of course).
If the proposed test is performed and the above is not observed then RE is debunked.

FE needs to come up with some falsifiable predictions of its own. If FE cannot come up with any predictions then how can we determine if it is true or not?

if the sun is much smaller than believed by modern science, then how can it produce enough energy for the earth, and is there another energy source that I’ve missed?

The simplest answer is that it is unknown.  Once the fusion mythology, which is no more sound (indeed, profoundly stupid) than the "theory" of the giant ignited street lamp in the sky that preceded it, is done away with - there is no obvious potential explanation for the source of the power.  In any case, the output of the sun doesn't vary just because our mythology does. 

The very concept that the sun is the source of all power is most likely flawed, and a manifestation of basic primative sun/helios worship.

I would say that it is because of the sun being the source of all power that the basic primitive sun/Helios worship was manifested rather than the other way round.


This man found three poles:

Magnetic poles and geographical poles are two different things and are not related.
One could even argue that geographical poles are somewhat arbitrary in a sphere, but for Earth we define them in relation to the rotation axis as it is the most practical thing to do.


In other words, not testable.

Just like I wrote earlier.

Tell you what.

You go ahead, get a couple of cameras, rent a plane, get back to me with all the particulars, and then we will both go up and test out your BS together.

If the facts bear your position out, then I will pay for everything, no question.

Even if it is not testable, if we had the resources to do this what does FE propose that we will see? Will the Southern Cross and the North Star remain at 90 degrees or not? If not what would we witness?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof positive the earth is flat
« on: May 16, 2021, 08:17:47 PM »
Thank you for the CGI and none coming up from horizon. We've all been outdoors at night and none EVER to straight up from the distance horizon.

How do you know that the videos are CGI?

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3  Next >