1

Flat Earth Community / Re: Which space missions do you consider to be legitimate?

« on: August 20, 2015, 09:31:34 PM »

Maybe some "whistle blower" will come across with some information re the Australian acre scheme ?

Not likely gecko, the shill pay is too good. I myself am off to Cabo for a bit due to the windfall payment for posting here. Good thing they don't check all of the posts eh?

2

Flat Earth Community / Re: Which space missions do you consider to be legitimate?

« on: August 20, 2015, 06:54:17 AM »

How much land did NASA  buy in Australia ? The Australian acre is even larger than the South American acre ? At least it's a lot wider ?

Sorry, that is information I do not have as I didn't have "a need to know." Besides I've already violated my NDA. Imagine my surprise when hired to discover that I'd be involved with cinematography and CGI rather than engineering. But I was able to transition nicely from NASA to working for George Lucas, so not all bad.

3

Flat Earth Community / Re: Which space missions do you consider to be legitimate?

« on: August 20, 2015, 03:22:53 AM »

Is it not funny that the flat earth theory jumps a whopping 600% in people searching it. As that happens all of sudden a deep space climate observatory takes a pic of the earth from the other side of the moon with some fancy camera HUMM

Don't flatter yourselves, the FES is not on NASA'a radar.

I have to agree with you on that one. NASA does't concern itself with anything having to do with earth space or science.
—

It was a real estate scam from the start. By convincing people the earth was a globe NASA was able to buy up land in South America before people began to notice that a South American acre is three times larger than a North American acre.

It all fell apart when they discovered that the sun deposits three times less energy in the Southern Hemisphere. Now they are trying to keep up the charade long enough to off load all the useless real estate. They'll come clean once that goal is achieved.

4

Flat Earth Community / Re: infinite expanding flat earth is right, flat earth map and theory are wrong.

« on: August 20, 2015, 12:01:30 AM »

The common thread is paranoia.

http://psymed.info/paranoid_personality_disorder_test

5

Flat Earth Community / Re: infinite expanding flat earth is right, flat earth map and theory are wrong.

« on: August 19, 2015, 10:54:34 PM »

I feel that one of the biggest mistakes many (but not all) flat-earthers make is in making assumptions.

WE haven't been to Antarctica to WITNESS whether it's expanding, or if there's a dome. So what's wrong with saying "I don't know"?

Making assumptions and passing theory off as truth only hurts the flat earth argument, because it makes us look foolhardy.

So Orbisect-64, are you agreeing with these people?
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/03/flat-earth-society-controlled-op.html

Your question is vague at best - completely lacking specifics. It would almost appear as if you're trying to entrap me by getting me to respond Yes or No to such a vague question. If you agree with ONE or TWO things Obama says, does it automatically go to reason that you agree with EVERYTHING he believes?

Your reason, as usual, is flawed.

How about you, do you believe everything Neil deGreasy Tyson says?


—

They are calling you the shill. You are a fake flat earther according to them. You are the one making the flat earth argument look ridiculous to make FET look bad by asserting UA.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Horizon

« on: August 19, 2015, 06:03:09 PM »

So the bottom line on this website is to not take any "flat earth fantasies" seriously.

I wasn't. I don't take the FE supporters seriously either. I think the dumb is an act.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Horizon

« on: August 18, 2015, 05:44:18 PM »

I can stand on a tall mountain, and on a clear day, the outline of distant mountains will be pretty crisp - especially when looking through binoculars.

Most importantly in this case, do you know how close the photographer was to the water when taking the photo?

Judging by the photo itself, I'd say he was pretty darn near water level. That close to the water your view distance would be severely limited by the water itself - as it's well known that you can see farther at greater height; and you can not see far at all when close to ground-level (or water-level).

Therefor if the person is close to water level, it makes sense that he would't be able to see very far at all, and hence the waterline would be crisp.

Now go get a photo of a large sea vessel taken at a great distance, and then explain why on a ball earth the horizon is so incredibly blurry. Now your argument is working against you. . . lol.

After you do that, go the the ocean with a telescope and watch a ship "go over the horizon." Once the ship is totally gone "over the horizon" zoom in with your telescope and try to explain why the ship is still there, and not over the horizon. Our view distance is only limited by a) how far we can see, and b) atmospheric weather conditions (haze).


—

Why should you be able to see further the higher you are in FE?

Pick a point in the distance that you can see standing on the ground in FE. Now scale an imaginary ladder that extends as far as you like into the sky. The distance to that point is greater from the tall ladder than it is from the surface. You are viewing along the hypotenuse of a triangle. The length of your elevated viewing distance is the square root of the surface distance squared plus the height above the surface squared which is greater than the surface distance.

So altitude should cause you to lose sight of things in the distance in FE. The higher you climb the less far you should be able to see if FE were true. The fact you get to see farther the higher you go falsifies FE.

But these kinds of arguments are not what real FEers (if there are any) need. Hypothetical real FEers would need interaction with people from a different profession.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What difference does it make?

« on: August 16, 2015, 02:56:07 AM »

Can somebody explain why a "theory of gravity" even matters? 

What difference does it make?  Who needs it??

You need gravity, to keep the lie of a spherical earth.

You also need gravity to keep the lie of a flat earth.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What difference does it make?

« on: August 14, 2015, 11:32:29 PM »

Can somebody explain why a "theory of gravity" even matters? 

What difference does it make?  Who needs it??

You need it to build rollercoasters.
https://www.teachengineering.org/view_lesson.php?url=collection/duk_/lessons/duk_rollercoaster_music_less/duk_rollercoaster_music_less.xml

10

Flat Earth Community / Re: infinite expanding flat earth is right, flat earth map and theory are wrong.

« on: August 14, 2015, 09:35:54 AM »

I feel that one of the biggest mistakes many (but not all) flat-earthers make is in making assumptions.

WE haven't been to Antarctica to WITNESS whether it's expanding, or if there's a dome. So what's wrong with saying "I don't know"?

Making assumptions and passing theory off as truth only hurts the flat earth argument, because it makes us look foolhardy.

So Orbisect-64, are you agreeing with these people?
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/03/flat-earth-society-controlled-op.html

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity once again

« on: August 14, 2015, 06:01:15 AM »

gravity is density.

Could you tell me what the formula for the period of a pendulum is with your explanation of gravity?
And maybe through an experiment illustrate the variation in the period of a pendulum with density.
Thanks.

12

Flat Earth Community / Re: Another Neil deGrasse Tyson and NASA Booboo

« on: August 14, 2015, 04:49:49 AM »

The most useful thing I personally got out of the 1st video is that it's very clear that many of the shots in space are CGI. For instance the camera zooms through clouds - and yet we know that no spacecraft or probes have gotten that deep into space.

Because the CGI is so real looking. . . this makes one ask: "How can I tell the difference between this and what they say is reality?" Because you can not tell the difference, it makes the photos and videos they claim are real, suspect and unbelievable.

And whenever they show us video footage claiming to be from the space station, it's never anywhere NEAR as clear as the footage in that video. So we're supposed to believe they can't get clear shots a few miles above our heads; but they can get crystal clear HD footage in other galaxies. . . YEAH RIGHT!

I downloaded that video because I'm making a presentation - and I need pictures and video that are admitted as art and CGI, but you can't tell the difference between them and NASA's pictures.

—

I can certainly see the difference. It is pretty easy actually.

#t=19

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity once again

« on: August 13, 2015, 09:14:30 PM »

better yet, provide practical and experimental demonstrations....that's what science is all abt!

Without the math you lose the precision that makes the physics useful in making predictions about the real world. If I want to design a boat I need to know something more than the idea that it will float on the water. I have to calculate the weight of the boat itself and the intended load to know where the water line will end up, etc. Without math this would become a messy process of trial and error while with the math and the principles of physics I can do it right the first time.

You seem to be adopting the ideas presented on the other Flat Earth site that says this one is run by globalists intent on discrediting FE that are really shills of the illuminati. So no 9.8 m/s^2 for you. Let me ask you, why you are so averse to the idea that matter can attract other matter? You accept attraction due to electric charge I presume. Why should an attractive force of mass for other mass be so incredible?

I am providing you with "practical and experimental demonstrations":
https://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/


Don't trust the video? Then do the experiment yourself. Isn't that in keeping with the Zetetic way of thinking?


Your video is filled with many blatant errors not least of which is the fact that density would not make a bit of difference in where things are located relative to one another without the existence of a gravitational pull. Without gravity, buoyant force is dead in the water, no pun intended.

The statement was made that buoyant force is the opposite of density. Density is measured in kg/m^3 while force is measured in Newtons or equivalently kg-m/sec^2.

The statement was made that density causes objects to fall, not gravity. Gravity is measured in m/sec^2 while density again is measured in kg/m^3.

The statement was made that we can do so much more than we can imagine. (while showing a dung beetle engaged with some excrement)
Might not this include the use of proper definitions of units and some math?

And finally the statement was made that everything is connected through life energy

Right on man! Don't bogart that joint.

(there's also that mine experiment conducted in the late nineteenth century, i think.....with the two plumb-bobs down a mine-shaft......instead of veering slightly towards each other as would be expected by conventional Newtonian gravitational theory, they actually veered away from each other...as you would expect if 'gravity' was some-thing pressing down from above rather than [pulling towards] from underneath/centre of the Earth....sorry!...i forget the actual name of the experiment....but....i will look it up [if i remember].....unless some-one else knows & can post it.....ta!)

I've come across this already. If this is proof that RE is wrong, it is also proof that FE is wrong. Please remain consistent. So you accept this as proof that FE is wrong then?

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun Is A Spotlight

« on: August 13, 2015, 02:00:48 AM »

In other words, you don't feel the need to support your assertions with evidence.  Good to know.

Flat earthers mistakenly think that if they have collected data that is consistent with their hypothesis, then they have collected data that confirms their hypothesis. What they don't understand apparently is the idea of falsification. A sun that remains the same apparent size in the sky for all observers falsifies the flat earth model, end of story.

Making up hypothetical atmostuff which is unevidenced is the same thing as apologetics and is engaged in by those who make the mistake in their thinking of starting off with the conclusion and then shoehorning the data to force fit their preconceived world view. Since they started off with the answer they can never be moved from it.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun Is A Spotlight

« on: August 12, 2015, 10:42:53 PM »

So you have no explanation for why the apparent size of the sun in FE remains the same wherever it is above the flat earth. Got it. Thanks.

No, you didn't get it at all. Again with making shit up instead of observing. I'm gonna give you one more chance, but then I'll stop wasting my time with you. If you're genuinely more interested in what you think FET is than actually reading up on it, then so be it, although I have to say I don't understand why you'd come to this website then.

So you can't be troubled with experiments, and you can't be troubled to explain your FE model and you can't be bothered to provide a link where it is explained somewhere since surely I am not the first person to notice that a sun moving over the surface of the earth at an altitude of 3,000 miles is going to change apparent size to an observer at the surface. Why do you run this website?

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun Is A Spotlight

« on: August 12, 2015, 07:56:08 PM »

So your interpretation of "directly overhead" was sitting on top of your scalp rather than being positioned vertically above your head at 3,000 miles? Cute.

Where on Earth did you get that from? Have you gone insane, or are you doing the thing where you make shit up again?

So you have no explanation for why the apparent size of the sun in FE remains the same wherever it is above the flat earth. Got it. Thanks.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun Is A Spotlight

« on: August 12, 2015, 06:13:14 PM »

You seem to assume that the Sun will be directly overhead at some point. Of course, it never comes anywhere close to that.

So nobody lives at the equator in FE?

What?

Nor directly under the sun's path as it wanders north and south?

Yes.

So your interpretation of "directly overhead" was sitting on top of your scalp rather than being positioned vertically above your head at 3,000 miles? Cute.
And when the sun is directly overhead (as in 3,000 in the vertical direction) of someone standing 5,196 miles away from me, the sun is twice as far away from me as before and should appear about half as big across. Why isn't there any variation in the apparent size of the sun? Because the sun is 93 million miles away, not 3,000 miles away.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun Is A Spotlight

« on: August 12, 2015, 05:39:45 PM »

You seem to assume that the Sun will be directly overhead at some point. Of course, it never comes anywhere close to that.

So nobody lives at the equator in FE? Nor directly under the sun's path as it wanders north and south? Really? What flat Earth model do you subscribe to and where is it's wiki?

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun Is A Spotlight

« on: August 11, 2015, 07:46:00 PM »

If the "sunset" on the FE is when "the sun gets so far away it fades away into the distant" it would seem that the apparent diameter of the sun would be smallest at sunrise, largest at noon and smallest at sunset ?

Of course not, that would mean that the reason the Sun vanishes is due to its angular size diminishing. I hope frisbee is the only person here who didn't immediately notice how ridiculous that is. The Sun vanishes due to the intransparency of the atmoplane.

The sun in FE is 3000 miles overhead. When it moves 5,196 miles away it will be twice as far from you (30-60-90 triangle, ignoring the curved flight path in FE for the moment).
The angular size of the sun is about 1/2 degree, just a fact in either model.
If it is 3,000 miles away when directly overhead then it must be 26 miles in actual diameter, FE.
And 26 miles at 6,000 miles away gives you an angular size of 0.25 degree, FE.

So the apparent size of the sun should vary in FE as it moves about only 3,000 miles above the earth surface, because the distance to the sun varies significantly in FE.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun Is A Spotlight

« on: August 11, 2015, 06:48:25 PM »

If the "sunset" on the FE is when "the sun gets so far away it fades away into the distant" it would seem that the apparent diameter of the sun would be smallest at sunrise, largest at noon and smallest at sunset ?

Bingo. Just look out your window, er, well maybe not this time.