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 - Munky

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >
1
Flat Earth Community / Re: Idea for a new proof
« on: February 04, 2016, 06:50:00 PM »
But you are the one quoting his information. You are posting it either erroneously or as evidence to support your point.

Why is it that you feel his information is worth mentioning?

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?
« on: February 04, 2016, 05:16:53 PM »
My arrows are pointed correctly. Do you know where japan is on a regular map? or where Singapore is?

3
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 04, 2016, 04:23:22 PM »

SAME REGION.. That's the keyword.

It doesn't matter if they pointed their telescopes 1 Billion times into THE SAME REGION.

I pointed mine into the same region more than 8 times last night. Does that give me right to say there are 40 Billion trillion stars in our viewable universe?

Even more so, does that give me the right to spread that statement as fact?

While it might be fine that you are including the word estimate, the original person I was quoting, whom was attempting to "school" me, DID NOT.

You just simply don't understand how the test works. Admit that you do not understand it and move on. Don't just discount it because you don't understand it.
If we discounted everything we did not understand the world would never have progressed technologically as far as it has.

4
Flat Earth Community / Re: Idea for a new proof
« on: February 04, 2016, 03:24:08 PM »
We are taking it up with you. Since you are a "Zetetic Council Member" as it may seem.

Why are you refusing to answer direct questions?

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?
« on: February 04, 2016, 03:21:34 PM »
Tom you still have not responded to my post about the distances between LAX and Tokyo being equal to Tokyo and Singapore.

I eagerly await your response.

6
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 04, 2016, 06:01:15 AM »
I am sorry I am not following, what exactly is your point here? No one other than you as far as I can tell posted anything on the following quote:

"Now, try to realize that there are 30 billion trillion stars just in the visible universe. 3x10^22 (that's a 3 followed by 22 zeroes)."

Only you..

Then you claim that it is not true but you supported it with an article.

I am confused...

Do you not understand the article? Are you asking for guidance?

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?
« on: February 04, 2016, 03:42:44 AM »
I am sure we have Junker. Do we have your permission to continue with the discussion now?

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?
« on: February 04, 2016, 03:37:46 AM »
Tom Bishop:

Based on your prior post, it appears that this is the Flat Earth model you are comfortable with As you will see below, the Distances are the same on this model as well. So the previous Math still applies. In this model the distance from Tokyo to Singapore is close to the same as the distance from LAX to Tokyo:



By the same math "Two times 11.36 (by your own admission of the time it takes to go from LAX to Japan) is 23.12 hours. Not accounting for taxi on the take off and landing as well as airtime. total trip should be 25 hours or more on a flat map model."

These flights do not work on the Flat Earth Model, yet they do on a Globe Model. how do you explain this?

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun and Moon shape
« on: February 04, 2016, 03:12:39 AM »
Sandokhan,

do you have a youtube channel or already have posted videos out there?

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?
« on: February 04, 2016, 03:08:30 AM »
Junker, I am honestly not trying to go against the grain or be a wise ass here. I am merely inquiring.

The mention of SPAM or "Spamming" as it were is under the subtext of "Keep alternate accounts within reason"

I don't believe I am spamming as I am continuing the discussion, neither do I have any Alternate accounts.

I am just curious as to why I am being seemingly singled out and asked to abide by additional rules that do not apply to the rest of the community.

I was unaware of this additional rule that you are now imposing that requires me to edit my prior posts to add information. or to not make back to back posts.

But I will conform as you requested in kind.

The only mention of SPAM that you have in your published rules states the following (Again your own posted forum rules):

8. Keep alternate accounts within reason

We will be taking a very relaxed policy towards alternate accounts ("alts"), provided that people do not force us to take a stricter stance by abusing this policy. Alts are allowed, and will be permitted free reign across all fora, provided that they follow the rules for the forum they are posting in. FES has a history of alts that contribute to discussions in addition to the usual complement of spamming and trolling alts, and it would be a shame to try to restrict this.

There are two exceptions to this policy: one, an alt that is used for the purpose of furthering a main or another alt's argument without itself contributing a unique point of view on the situation ("sockpuppetting") will be immediately banned; two, an alt that is intended to impersonate a member either here or on the old FES will be immediately banned, and deleted if it is occupying the username of an old FES member, as otherwise it would bar them from registering here.

An alt breaking any rule that would ordinarily result in a warning can (at moderator discretion) be handled by immediately banning the alt account, and instead warning the main account of the person controlling it.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?
« on: February 04, 2016, 02:55:59 AM »
Are back to back posts against the forum rules?

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?
« on: February 04, 2016, 02:38:34 AM »
what did I post twice?

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?
« on: February 04, 2016, 02:19:49 AM »
If you cannot or refuse to. Say that you cannot or refuse to do so. Then concede that the flat earth model does not work with these flights. Then admit that you are wrong about the flat earth.

14
Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 04, 2016, 02:15:54 AM »
We are not talking about your logic of using girl children to describe non existing circular objects in space.

Please stay on topic. This thread is about how we know the earth is Spherical.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?
« on: February 04, 2016, 02:03:48 AM »
Then please show me the model you are talking about and illustrate the distances in the same respect that I have. Quantify it with math as I have shown here.

16
Flat Earth Community / Re: Idea for a new proof
« on: February 04, 2016, 02:02:54 AM »
the flat earth model in the book you linked does not work either.  ::)

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: A few genuine questions from a "round earther "
« on: February 04, 2016, 01:06:35 AM »
1. Incorrect! the Temperature range of space can vary widely. "Some parts of space are hot! Gas between stars, as well as the solar wind, both seem to be what we call "empty space," yet they can be more than a thousand degrees, even millions of degrees. However, there's also what's known as the cosmic background temperature, which is minus 455 degrees Fahrenheit." http://www.space.com/14719-spacekids-temperature-outer-space.html

2. Also incorrect! The distance to the center of the Earth is 6,371 kilometers (3,958 mi), the crust is 35 kilometers (21 mi) thick, the mantle is 2855km (1774 mi) thick — and get this: the deepest we have ever drilled is the Kola Superdeep Borehole, which is just 12km deep. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/154357-earths-core-is-much-hotter-than-previously-thought-hotter-than-the-surface-of-the-sun

3. Majorly Incorrect!  The treaty you linked to states the following:

Article 1 – The area is to be used for peaceful purposes only; military activity, such as weapons testing, is prohibited but military personnel and equipment may be used for scientific research or any other peaceful purpose;
Article 2 – Freedom of scientific investigations and cooperation shall continue;
Article 3 – Free exchange of information and personnel in cooperation with the United Nations and other international agencies;
Article 4 – The treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;
Article 5 – The treaty prohibits nuclear explosions or disposal of radioactive wastes;
Article 6 – Includes under the treaty all land and ice shelves but not the surrounding waters south of 60 degrees 00 minutes south;
Article 7 – Treaty-state observers have free access, including aerial observation, to any area and may inspect all stations, installations, and equipment; advance notice of all activities and of the introduction of military personnel must be given;
Article 8 – Allows for good jurisdiction over observers and scientists by their own states;
Article 9 – Frequent consultative meetings take place among member nations;
Article 10 – All treaty states will discourage activities by any country in Antarctica that are contrary to the treaty;
Article 11 – All disputes to be settled peacefully by the parties concerned or, ultimately, by the International Court of Justice;
Articles 12, 13, 14 – Deal with upholding, interpreting, and amending the treaty among involved nations.

You clearly do not understand the Treaty or probably did not take the time to read it. Everyone, meaning you, me, and anyone else, as long as it is not a military activity, has the right to go to the south pole. And DO go there now. ( see link http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/05/travel/felicity-aston-antarctic-explorer/ )

4. Prove that Nasa is faking their space missions with something other than "because I said so" or  "because I read somewhere" or "because I saw some video"
Site your information and sources that proves that the space missions are fake. no need to dispute photos, that has been talked to death by FE'ers. Provide concrete Proof.

5. Prove that Nasa is developing weapons for the military. Same requirements apply as item 4. Provide a Nasa Budget that outlines such Military activity or roster.


18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?
« on: February 04, 2016, 12:33:38 AM »
Is that your rebuttal?    ::) ::) ::)

"Japan to LAX is 11:35 hours"

Are you kidding me?

No one needs to stretch any map out.. The Globe Map works. The Flat Earth Map does not!

Do the math and you will realize that the distances on your flat earth model make trips like this much longer where we are taking these trips in less distance and shorter times.

Attached is an image of two lines. They are approximately the same length going by the flat earth map. So on a flat earth model the trip from Japan to Singapore should be close equal in distance and time. Two times 11.36 (by your own admission of the time it takes to go from LAX to Japan) is 23.12 hours. Not accounting for taxi on the take off and landing as well as airtime. total trip should be 25 hours or more on a flat map model.

This trip currently takes around 16.66 hours as stated before on the round earth model.

So either the planes are able to fly much much faster than their designed cruising speed, or the flat earth model does not work and the earth is round.


19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?
« on: February 03, 2016, 09:52:45 PM »
Also to add, the article you posted is from October 21, 2013 and is now outdated.

United Airlines now takes up that flight space. The attachment on my post just above shows an upcoming flight this Friday that is leaving for Singapore out of LAX.

Even if it were just flying to JAPAN from LAX, the flat earth model could not explain why it takes such little time to travel from LAX to Japan.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?
« on: February 03, 2016, 09:43:44 PM »
I have already stated that the flight from US in this case LAX to JAPAN to Singapore covers about 8775.004 Miles based on the amount of distance covered.

It makes sense that a flight with 9500 miles would take longer.

In your own article it says the flight is starting in Newark so that is added distance. They are also taking the Artic route, which although slightly longer saves on fuel for the longer trip because of the headwinds being in the favor of air travel. I personally have taken this flight about 7 times in my life and can attest to the length of the flight.

But even at 9500 miles (in actuality it is 9520.028 Miles not 9500 miles as in the article) if you do some quick math, with a Boeing 777 cruising at 562 mph trying to cover 9520.028 miles should equate to 16.93 hours IFFFF they were going average cruise speed. This Artic Route cruises at a slightly slower speed. so it will take much more time to cover the distance... Much in the same way if you don't floor the gas on your car, you wont run out of fuel as quickly, they do the same thing while in the air on longer trips.

They don't need to do that for the LAX to Singapore flight because its a smaller distance, as they don't need to conserve fuel as much because they have a refueling point to fill back up the fuel. (Japan)

In the article itself you quoted it mentions the variables that make the flight longer are headwinds and routing variables!!! All still within the time frames that are attainable with a Round Earth Model.

By comparison... On a Flat Earth, Because there are no actual distances to scale, my rule of EYE, it would seem that the distance would be 3-4 times the current distance (just using a ruler) From Singapore to LAX on a flat earth map. If we went with a modest 3 times the distance  of 8775.00 miles - we get 26325 miles. Divide that by the speed of the Boeing 777 (562 MPH) we get 46.84 hours direct total flight time (Not accounting for taxi to runway two segments, and time to get up to cruising speed after take off, and slowing down before landing)  Clearly the Math doesn't add up on a FLAT earth Model.


"Singapore Airlines’ (SIA:SP) daily nonstop from Newark stretches across 9,500 miles and averages about 18 hours via the North Pole, although the flight can last more than 21 hours because of some wind and routing variables. The final departure from Newark for the longest flight will be Nov. 23. The second-longest flight, Singapore’s nonstop from Los Angeles, departed for the final time on Sunday night and landed early Tuesday—Singapore time—after a nearly 17-hour journey across the Pacific."

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >