121

Flat Earth Community / Re: What Makes conspiracy Theorists believe.

« on: May 09, 2018, 06:05:51 PM »

Let me read those, and I thought we did the Nazi thing because the Germans had superior rocket science...

It was more than that. They put the Nazis in control of NASA. Wernher Von Braun, a notorious war criminal and SS Officer, was made into a NASA director.

The Soviets were the enemy at the time, not former Nazis.

Given that von Braun didn't start a second Holocaust in the US, I don't think any mistakes were made.

122

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If there are supposedly thousands of satellites orbiting earth, why hasn't the

« on: May 09, 2018, 05:54:52 PM »

You know, we can see satellites orbiting from the ground... They clearly aren't faked. You don't even have to be on the ISS to see them. We can also see the ISS from the ground.

I can also see airplanes from the ground, are you about to tell me airplanes prove the world is round because they're in orbit?

No, because airplanes don't travel at orbital speeds, they don't follow Kepler's laws, and they don't stay in the air indefinitely. That said, airplanes CAN prove the world is round using flight times.

123

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?

« on: May 09, 2018, 05:47:46 PM »

They are also barren and lifeless.

Only as far as we know. My favorite solution to the Fermi Paradox: they're out there somewhere, just impossible to see.

The two are quite related.

Correlation =/= causation.

Round worlds can't support life.

If Europa's surface ice suddenly melted, what would stop life from forming?

124

Flat Earth Theory / Re: So what benefits for government lying to us?????

« on: May 09, 2018, 02:03:25 AM »

So if they are not orbiting a round earth, what do they do? How do they stay in a fixed geostationary place?

I've seen aircraft move at many speeds, as well as hold still. There are numerous methods that could be used, and I'm hardly qualified to tell you the exact mechanics of hypothetical aircraft.

Hmm… rocket equations anyone? I wonder how long those "satellites" have been up.

We believe it is because the data is being beamed to a Geostationary satellite above us, which in turn relays that data to a ground station, which in turn puts it into the system of high speed data transmission used for the inter web.

What is your explanation? A few basic details would be good.

You want me to explain how the internet works to you? I can tell you my connection uses a series of cables buried in the ground, and the data usually runs to some major city and then back to me. It seems like running all the data up into space, or the upper atmosphere, would really be unnecessary.

A+ strawman. Didn't Tontogary also tell you that those cables would be wildly impractical for a ship that regularly moves between continents?

125

Flat Earth Community / Re: What Makes conspiracy Theorists believe.

« on: May 09, 2018, 01:33:51 AM »

Conspiracy theories are silly. Your government would never lie to you, and conspiracy theories have never been proven right.

So I take it then that the Moon landings are completely true and that the images of Earth from them are indeed irrefutable evidence that the world is round?

Also, my government lies to me on a daily basis. *ahemcoughtrumpahemcough*

126

Flat Earth Media / Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation

« on: May 08, 2018, 04:18:26 PM »

I found something wrong in the first two minutes.

"It's technically an oval so why does the blue marble look like a circle"

I looked it up and the difference is about 15 miles. The human eye would not be able to tell the difference between that and a perfect circle.

Not even gonna bother with the rest. I don't really want to watch a half-hour TV special and nitpick every little detail.

Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable. In fact, JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.

How did you cme by this infomation? Have you conducted a survey that gave you this data?

Does it matter? It's still not enough to see an oval rather than a circle.

127

Flat Earth Media / Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation

« on: May 08, 2018, 02:30:09 PM »

I found something wrong in the first two minutes.

"It's technically an oval so why does the blue marble look like a circle"

I looked it up and the difference is about 15 miles. The human eye would not be able to tell the difference between that and a perfect circle.

Not even gonna bother with the rest. I don't really want to watch a half-hour TV special and nitpick every little detail.

Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable. In fact, JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.

Well then, can you tell me, just from eyeballing it, which of these are the perfect circles?



I'll give you a hint: 47 are perfect circles and 53 are slightly oblate.

I can make an answer key or larger version if needed. I can also produce the code that generated it to prove that the oblate ones exist.

128

Flat Earth Theory / Re: So what benefits for government lying to us?????

« on: May 08, 2018, 01:39:17 AM »

If they told me it was magic pixies then I wouldn't believe them because I neither believe in magic nor pixies. But satellites have been a thing since Sputnik in the 50s.

So if someone told you that the Russians had magic pixies in the 1950's then you'd believe in magic pixies? Got it.

Nice strawman there.

It's heartbreaking to find out that Santa isn't real, but it can be accepted knowing that it was your parents the whole time. That's what you need to tell us: if Santa (satellites) isn't real then who fills your stocking (how does satellite TV work) on Christmas?

129

Flat Earth Media / Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation

« on: May 08, 2018, 01:19:39 AM »

I found something wrong in the first two minutes.

"It's technically an oval so why does the blue marble look like a circle"

I looked it up and the difference is about 15 miles. The human eye would not be able to tell the difference between that and a perfect circle.

Not even gonna bother with the rest. I don't really want to watch a half-hour TV special and nitpick every little detail.

130

Flat Earth Theory / Re: So what benefits for government lying to us?????

« on: May 07, 2018, 09:02:56 PM »

why do you all tell us NASA/Government are lying to us? What possible benefits are there to be gained? Don't tell me they are scared to admit they were wrong as science is always striving to better understand our universe.

They faked space travel during the space race, and when they faked it they made fake images of the earth that the public already believed--a spherical earth. Now NASA and other space agencies are just used as a cover for government leaders and the wealthy elite to take tax money from taxpayers. The money allocated to space agencies go into their pockets.

The space race was between 1957 - 1975. Photoshop debuted in 1987.

Explain how the fake images were created.

You do realize that the tools in Photoshop are just digital replications of the tools and processes that have existed in art studios for many years. Slice, erase, burn, sponge, smudge, et cetera.

And how would you use those techniques to modify a photograph in the real world? Without it looking blatantly obvious.

The quality of any art piece is primarily dependent on skill of the artist, just as the quality of any Photoshop piece is dependent on the artist's skill.

Well, they would need to make animations, with take notoriously long, that totaled some 180 hours of live footage for each of six Moon landings, in only 11 years. Ponder how long the release cycle is for a modern animated 2-hour feature and consider if that's possible.

Speaking of animated features, take a look at a few of these and tell me how that quality could make even a remotely convincing Moon landing.

131

Flat Earth Theory / Re: So what benefits for government lying to us?????

« on: May 07, 2018, 06:25:52 PM »

why do you all tell us NASA/Government are lying to us? What possible benefits are there to be gained? Don't tell me they are scared to admit they were wrong as science is always striving to better understand our universe.

They faked space travel during the space race, and when they faked it they made fake images of the earth that the public already believed--a spherical earth. Now NASA and other space agencies are just used as a cover for government leaders and the wealthy elite to take tax money from taxpayers. The money allocated to space agencies go into their pockets.

The space race was between 1957 - 1975. Photoshop debuted in 1987.

Explain how the fake images were created.

You do realize that the tools in Photoshop are just digital replications of the tools and processes that have existed in art studios for many years. Slice, erase, burn, sponge, smudge, et cetera.

Those are tools that were used for paintings and sketches. Film is slightly different from those.

132

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: May 06, 2018, 11:59:03 PM »

I think you should make the leveling water easier to see.

133

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flat-heads willing to admit that they are wrong?

« on: May 06, 2018, 07:41:28 PM »

Ah, yes, Pickel B Gravel again. That signature admittedly triggered me the first time I read it, but now I'm used to it. Let's see... You have a rather short memory, right? I dug up a rather engaging thread I had with you https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8013.60
You got destroyed. Remember?

I didn't get destroyed at all. You completely misrepresented my positions and engaged in such cowardice, resorting to strawman fallacies, ad hominem attacks, and red herring attacks. And you kept doing it even after I requested you to refrain from such.

Could you point me to a few examples?

It was you who didn't understand the conservation of energy.

Of course I understand it. As I've said on that thread, I haven't provided all the details for the proposed model of the Sun. You take the lack of detail I provide and use it to discredit me and the proposed Sun model. Would you like me to do the same? Alright, the Sun isn't billions of years old because comets still exist, which violates the second law of thermodynamics.

How exactly does that violate the second law again?

It was you who couldn't do the basic calculations for black body radiation from the Sun.

I don't believe in the premise that the calculations of black body radiation are based on. And asking you why you believed the sun was a certain temperature doesn't mean I couldn't do the basic calculations.

Just curious, but which part of it do you reject?

• Particles in a material will tend towards a particular distribution of kinetic energy.
• When two collide a photon is emitted.
• That photon's frequency is proportional to the energy that it releases.

It was you who made up some electrolysis junk while we tried to explain to you that the energy just wasn't there (aka not addressing/understanding the argument).

You are absolutely wrong. I have addressed the arguments you've made. You kept making too many assumptions and resorted to ad hominem attacks, red herring attacks, and strawman attacks that it just became pointless to argue. You didn't want to have a meaningful discussion of the proposed scientific theory that I was proposing; you simply wanted to insult, fight with, and misrepresent me.

I really would like to know what arguments of yours didn't get addressed.

We then reduced you to asserting that the water came from somewhere and you didn't really understand where the energy came from (and that there's a water stream in space that we cannot see).

I have stated quite clearly that the water vapor formed into clouds and then reversed back into separate hydrogen and oxygen via natural electrolysis. These separate molecules would then diffuse into the Sun to be recombined into h2o and released back into the atmosphere. The water came from the Sun. I've made this clear.

Does that answer where the energy comes from, though?

Not to mention the many different posts douglips and I had to make explaining that combustion reactions cannot make the Sun as hot as 5700 K.

When have I ever said the Sun was that hot? NEVER.

Then why do we see the spectrum that we see?

And then I caught you in a lie about a 1595 on the SAT, which I know isn't true.

I didn't lie. I told you that the essay is graded in one-point intervals. You just can't admit you're wrong.

And either way the SAT doesn't cover any science or chemistry.

And the holocaust? Everything I've typed about it has not been disproved. Now WHY is that?

Have you actually tried using Google?

134

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 05, 2018, 03:17:43 PM »

I saw nowhere the derivation of observable 26000 years precession within General Relativity formalism.

That's because it's outside the scope of relativity. The people to ask about this would be geologists.

135

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flat-heads willing to admit that they are wrong?

« on: May 04, 2018, 07:16:36 PM »

Well still, lying about SAT scores or not, he didn't get destroyed in the thread.

You seem to have a different definition of "destroyed". Have you seen the first Trump v. Clinton debate? Trump got "destroyed" in that. Even some the Trump supporters had to admit that.

I consider this word to mean, in the context of a debate, that one person is making points that their opponent has an easy rebuttal to, and/or struggles to make rebuttals to their opponent's points.

How about you? Unless you state your definition of "destroyed", it's a fairly straightforward No True Scotsman fallacy:
"No true scotsmen do X."
"My friend is from Scotland, he does X."
"Then clearly they are not a true scotsman."

We simply get bored,

Just come back a day later. Boredom will pass.

This really doesn't work as an excuse, since a lot of the time I see FEers "getting bored" with a thread, yet still actively posting in other threads.

get frustrated (because you guys are ignorant), or just because it's very exhausting arguing with you guys, it's like arguing with a wall.

Kinda how Round Earthers sometimes feel. Do you ever see us randomly leaving just one thread, without commenting about such?

136

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 04, 2018, 01:29:30 PM »

1. Bullet flies inside the air, thus it can violate my math, because I have bullet in vacuum.

Most bullets are streamlined to minimize the impact of the atmosphere, and are usually made of dense materials so that also reduces it. Not to mention, the idealization of inertia is, wow would you look at that, a vacuum!

2. I should see the bullet test for myself. What ever they will do, to protect the atheism!

Believe whatever you want. I'm not here to doubt your gods, I'm here to doubt your logic.

3. If the bullet-test in vacuum of space would show, that my math is violated, then I will say, that there is Light Force K{\nu}, which has rotated the axis of the bullet.

I really must ask, how does your Light Force work?

137

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 04, 2018, 01:11:37 PM »

.........
My problem here is that, while tidal locking like this exists, it requires a specific angular momentum that Earth doesn't have.

Perhaps a better question for you is, just what force is causing this rotational axial precession?

Do you believe in Church Grace? The Grace is the Force-Field, which is banned from text-books due to war against Priesthood.

I don't follow. What is this force field? How does it cause the Earth's rotation to precess around the celestial pole?

My result is falsifiable: just show me credible mathematics, which shows why Earth axis (not the axis itself, but the Celestial Pole) is practically motionless during one year of orbiting the Sun.

I don't need math. Inertia is an axiom of modern physics.

Angular momentum does not change within an orbit. I'll make a video with Kerbal Space Program if I need to.

138

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 03, 2018, 11:31:50 PM »

.........
My problem here is that, while tidal locking like this exists, it requires a specific angular momentum that Earth doesn't have.

Perhaps a better question for you is, just what force is causing this rotational axial precession?

Do you believe in Church Grace? The Grace is the Force-Field, which is banned from text-books due to war against Priesthood.

I don't follow. What is this force field? How does it cause the Earth's rotation to precess around the celestial pole?

139

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science

« on: May 03, 2018, 06:34:38 PM »

Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.

1. The rocket, which flies inertially around the Sun is directed as tangent to the orbit. Correct?

The rocket would need to have the proper angular momentum for that. If it doesn't, then it won't stay tangent.
.......

O.K. give the thing this momentum, can you do it? Yes. There be weightlessness inside this rocket. Correct?

If I give it angular momentum, then it doesn't work in your analogy. We can't easily give the Earth any angular momentum we want, although there have been hilarious proposals to try it.

I do not see your problem here. You are in ignorance.

My problem here is that, while tidal locking like this exists, it requires a specific angular momentum that Earth doesn't have.

Perhaps a better question for you is, just what force is causing this rotational axial precession?

140

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flat-heads willing to admit that they are wrong?

« on: May 03, 2018, 06:23:51 PM »

He got "destroyed" because he didn't do the calculations?

Well, if you refuse to do your own calculations, and are presented with someone else's calculations, then you must either accept them, find significant fault in them, or concede that you don't understand the equations used.

Well whoop-dee-doo he didn't do the calculations... apparently he got destroyed because he didn't know how or was simply uninterested in your thread. Yeah sure he got destroyed.... Let's just go with that.

Well, as John stated, it was also the fact that they misunderstood conservation of energy, made up some crap that AP Chemistry students can tell is wrong, and lied about SAT scores.