Recent Posts

1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Last post by Curious Squirrel on Today at 07:09:24 AM »
What is also obvious the models that exist are not based on the science that gave birth to the  heliocentric model.
Prove your claim.
2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Last post by douglips on Today at 05:43:47 AM »
It would be super helpful for you to stop using heliocentric, because then people think you want a model of the solar system if which plenty exist.

What you really want is a model of the entire galaxy, which seems like a really weird thing to want, given the difficulties in observing the galaxy.

Isn't it sufficiently supportive of Newtonian mechanics to have accurate models of the solar system?
3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Last post by totallackey on Today at 04:38:43 AM »
You’re seeing the trees but not the forest.  Each of the models you find so ridiculous to even suggest?  THAT’S THE POINT.  Demanding a computer model of a thing, then rejecting that the thing exists when no model is presented, is ridiculous.
I am of the impression you are the one who lacks understanding.

There are models that exist.

It is obvious they exist.

What is also obvious the models that exist are not based on the science that gave birth to the  heliocentric model.
4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Last post by Rounder on Today at 04:05:23 AM »
You’re seeing the trees but not the forest.  Each of the models you find so ridiculous to even suggest?  THAT’S THE POINT.  Demanding a computer model of a thing, then rejecting that the thing exists when no model is presented, is ridiculous.
5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Last post by totallackey on Today at 03:46:26 AM »
There does not exist a complete computer model of the economy of Australia
How do you know?

I am of the opinion there are many computer simulations of economies, utilizing many different economic theories.

When I attended Fresno State University in 1981, we did computer modeling in my Macro Economic class (actually using PUNCH CARDS for data entry!!! LMFAO!!!)

Please provide evidence of your assertion.

Plus, there are no competing theories on regard to the heliocentric model. You have an accepted theory governed by specific Laws of Motion and Thermodynamics.
nor a model of ridership on the tube wrt each individual;
Why would a model of any subway be broken down to the individual riders?

A demographic model would be of far more value.
nor a model of the electrical wiring in the Louvre.
Well, this is just about the most ridiculous claim I have ever seen in my life.

Does not even deserve an answer.

As an aside, the models which you are proposing are so far removed from the CGI rendering of the Solar System it could be considered quite meaningless as a base for arguing the issue.
That models of these things have yet to be made
A dubious claim which requires more evidence than your word, I am afraid.
is not evidence that economists don't understand Australia, nor urban planners the tube, nor electricians the Louvre. At best, it is evidence that making these models is not necessary to prove they exist nor to understand them effectively.
You need more evidence models do not exist. 
So it is with the solar system; or it would be, except that computer models of it do exist, as so many examples were given in the previous thread you made on this exact topic, that went so well.
None of which fit the bill.
I again present solarsystemscope.com to the forum, and again decline to participate further in this highly-regarded shitshow.
It would be smart of you to decline further participation as your argumentation is flawed and baseless. Your model is in the wrong thread. Plus, it has no verified pedigree. Plus the rest of the forum disavowed your model as accurate.
6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Last post by xenotolerance on Today at 03:04:19 AM »
There does not exist a complete computer model of the economy of Australia; nor a model of ridership on the tube wrt each individual; nor a model of the electrical wiring in the Louvre. That models of these things have yet to be made is not evidence that economists don't understand Australia, nor urban planners the tube, nor electricians the Louvre. At best, it is evidence that making these models is not necessary to prove they exist nor to understand them effectively.

So it is with the solar system; or it would be, except that computer models of it do exist, as so many examples were given in the previous thread you made on this exact topic, that went so well.

I again present solarsystemscope.com to the forum, and again decline to participate further in this highly-regarded shitshow.
7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Burden of Proof
« Last post by xenotolerance on Today at 02:55:44 AM »
The kangaroo is space travel. There is no reasonable doubt that space travel is faked, and there is an abundance of public knowledge and material evidence demonstrating its history and ongoing use; people insist that kangaroos aren't real.

This is my chosen sticking point for flat Earth debate. Prove the space travel conspiracy; without it, nothing else matters. (See also the Burden Of Proof link in my signature)
8
Flat Earth Debate / The Death of Heliocentricity
« Last post by totallackey on Today at 12:59:46 AM »
I find the lack of a CGI rendering of the heliocentric model (depicting the complete revolutionary movement of the Sun as it travels throughout the Milky Way) to be absolute certain evidence of:

1) The model being a lie:

2) Newton is wrong;

3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.

If humans can manufacture trash like this:
 


Then why can we not post the real deal, based on "real science?"
9
Newton's Laws of Motion/The Laws of Thermodynamics/etc.

Given that science claims the Sun is speeding along at roughly 483,000 MPH, with planets, their moons, asteroids, comets, etc., dutifully in tow, and given that science claims that Kepler and Newton have all the math figured out and that is what allowed for the discoveries of planets and their orbits to begin with:

Please present a correct CGI rendering of the Solar System in its travels throughout the galaxy.

The coding for the CGI must be demonstrated to have references to Newton and make account for the Laws of Thermodynamics.

The model should have the ability to render the visual movement of the Solar System at a speed similar to this (already demonstrated to be inaccurate)one:



Please note the topic of this thread is not up for debate.

I will open up a debate thread for that purpose.
10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Burden of Proof
« Last post by InquisitiveREer on January 20, 2018, 11:26:32 PM »
I have walked around outside for a while now and i can onestly say that it does not look flat it lumps and bumps.

So how is looking at the earth evidence?