[İntikam]

Description of the "disappearance"

In populer science, nothing will imperishable if it is presence, nothing will created is it is imperishable. But actually this is a nonsence!

In the real life this is possible.

definition:

To disappearance a pair of substance or a paior of an energy when it encounters the opposite, is called "disappearance".

in mathemathichal:

+1 - 1 = 0

On the graphic:

[İntikam]

Description of the "Creation"

definition:

To making a pair of substance or a paior of an energy with the opposite  from The zero point, is called creation.

in mathemathichal:

0 = +1 -1

[İntikam]

Flat Earth Proof: Rain comes from sky and clouds just an evaporation effect

As we know that meteorology knows where is the next rain fall down by looking the clouds. And we think that so the clouds cause the rain. This is not true.

God said us on the various different books that the rain falls down from the sky.

As we surely know that the sky is an ocean that surrounding us. It is reasonable to be in ice to don't fall down . when it melt to water then into rain water .

To understand the mechanism we need to look this image to understand it well.



Cloudless rain.



This one is better



Cloudless rain is possible. Because raining don't need a cloud. Clouds are not reason, clouds are result!

[İntikam]

Globe Earth Debunk: Why aren't there majority of the clouds on the oceans?

We see the truth, so rain comes from the sky, don't come from evaporation caused by high temperature on the oceans. If it's true,

1- Why aren't there majority of the clouds on the oceans?
2- Sometimes a cloudy day it's not raining and sometimes it's raining with a few clouds on a sunny day. These cases show us the clouds aren't the exact cause for occuring the rain.
3- We must see the clouds on the oceans on every day in summer because it such as boiling pans. But we don't ! And sunny days the air in the ocean usually open like the lands.
4- We must see the clouds usually moving from oceans and seas to lands but this situation does not usually occur. Clous move random.

These substances can be increased.

[İntikam]

will be continued...

[Jura-Glenlivet]

I can't wait!

[İntikam]

I can't wait!

You are waiting for what?

[İntikam]

Why the world isn't a big magnet:

1- The earth is not a big magnet. If it is, then it causes neurological problems on all human in the world.
2- Anything not stuck to the world.

Calculating the center and depth of the earth by using a compass.



Control: Using another compass far away to first compass.




For prove or debunk it somebody need to use a compass on the Antarctica. If it shows about horizontal then the earth has one magnetic pole on the center and there isn't another pole. If it shows the bottom ot the earth then;

If the earth has two magnetic poles and one of them is the "South Pole" ; or the earth is a sphere. Or there is another magnetic case we dont understand it.

Edit. Notice:

This theory depends on the force between charged particles. F= KQq/R^2

Here is;

F= Force
K= a constant
Q= charge of the earth
q= charge of the Compass bar
R= The distance between the center of the earth and the compass.







Test2:

I see that Bacgammon board has a few nails and these facts the measurement. So this test i used a wooden game board.

L= 15cm = 150mm
H= 3mm

R= 5.091 kms (From Istanbul to Geographic North)

h (center of the earth) = 3*5091 / 150 = 102 kms

H (depth of the earth) = 2*3*5091/150 = 204 kms

This test isn't  consistent with first . one of them is wrong.

probably this measurement is more accurate than first.

Test3:

Board is same board that used on test2

L= 15cm = 150mm
H= 2,5mm

R= 5.091 kms (From Istanbul to Geographic North)

h (center of the earth) = 2,5*5091 / 150 = 85 kms

H (depth of the earth) = 2*2,5*5091/150 = 170 kms

[İntikam]

Hello guys.

Today we will destroy a lie: "nuclear power of the uranium". This is a lie. The world is here about tousends of years, did you see any nation that lived old times whose heated by firing the uranium? I don't remember and you?

As you know that i don't believe the meteors and call them as "fallen stars". Meteors are firing when falling down because they are stars.



A star has "about" infinitive energy. How can we understand this? Because they are firing since tousends of years and unquenchable.

Some of the nations know this truth and they are using the meteor parts as combustible and calling it "nuclear energy".

Same nations buying the parts of meteors by "very high price". Because they need to parts or the meteors for continue to working the "nucler reactor (?)".

"Nuclear energy is a lie". Uranium is a lie. Nuclear power is a lie. The only truth is "infinitive star energy".

[andruszkow]

Hello guys.

Today we will destroy a lie: "nuclear power of the uranium". This is a lie. The world is here about tousends of years, did you see any nation that lived old times whose heated by firing the uranium? I don't remember and you?

As you know that i don't believe the meteors and call them as "fallen stars". Meteors are firing when falling down because they are stars.



A star has "about" infinitive energy. How can we understand this? Because they are firing since tousends of years and unquenchable.

Some of the nations know this truth and they are using the meteor parts as combustible and calling it "nuclear energy".

Same nations buying the parts of meteors by "very high price". Because they need to parts or the meteors for continue to working the "nucler reactor (?)".

"Nuclear energy is a lie". Uranium is a lie. Nuclear power is a lie. The only truth is "infinitive star energy".

Will anyone from the TFES please clarify whether they agree with this or not?

[İntikam]

Hello guys.

Today we will destroy a lie: "nuclear power of the uranium". This is a lie. The world is here about tousends of years, did you see any nation that lived old times whose heated by firing the uranium? I don't remember and you?

As you know that i don't believe the meteors and call them as "fallen stars". Meteors are firing when falling down because they are stars.



A star has "about" infinitive energy. How can we understand this? Because they are firing since tousends of years and unquenchable.

Some of the nations know this truth and they are using the meteor parts as combustible and calling it "nuclear energy".

Same nations buying the parts of meteors by "very high price". Because they need to parts or the meteors for continue to working the "nucler reactor (?)".

"Nuclear energy is a lie". Uranium is a lie. Nuclear power is a lie. The only truth is "infinitive star energy".

Will anyone from the TFES please clarify whether they agree with this or not?

İntikam works alone. 

[andruszkow]

Hello guys.

Today we will destroy a lie: "nuclear power of the uranium". This is a lie. The world is here about tousends of years, did you see any nation that lived old times whose heated by firing the uranium? I don't remember and you?

As you know that i don't believe the meteors and call them as "fallen stars". Meteors are firing when falling down because they are stars.



A star has "about" infinitive energy. How can we understand this? Because they are firing since tousends of years and unquenchable.

Some of the nations know this truth and they are using the meteor parts as combustible and calling it "nuclear energy".

Same nations buying the parts of meteors by "very high price". Because they need to parts or the meteors for continue to working the "nucler reactor (?)".

"Nuclear energy is a lie". Uranium is a lie. Nuclear power is a lie. The only truth is "infinitive star energy".

Will anyone from the TFES please clarify whether they agree with this or not?

İntikam works alone. 

Could you then please stop referring to your "findings" as definitive facts? A lot of your assumptions and statements are pretty far from whats usually defined as facts, even by FET. It makes the debates a bit cluttered, especially because every time someone argues against you, you refuse to listen.

[thatsnice]

Andrew, my boy, I admire the effort, but he's just going to bitch and moan about how we are "the hoaxers" and  "telling him the fables" and how you shouldn't be talking to him in his information repository.

[İntikam]

Hello guys.

Today we will destroy a lie: "nuclear power of the uranium". This is a lie. The world is here about tousends of years, did you see any nation that lived old times whose heated by firing the uranium? I don't remember and you?

As you know that i don't believe the meteors and call them as "fallen stars". Meteors are firing when falling down because they are stars.



A star has "about" infinitive energy. How can we understand this? Because they are firing since tousends of years and unquenchable.

Some of the nations know this truth and they are using the meteor parts as combustible and calling it "nuclear energy".

Same nations buying the parts of meteors by "very high price". Because they need to parts or the meteors for continue to working the "nucler reactor (?)".

"Nuclear energy is a lie". Uranium is a lie. Nuclear power is a lie. The only truth is "infinitive star energy".

Will anyone from the TFES please clarify whether they agree with this or not?

İntikam works alone. 

Could you then please stop referring to your "findings" as definitive facts? A lot of your assumptions and statements are pretty far from whats usually defined as facts, even by FET. It makes the debates a bit cluttered, especially because every time someone argues against you, you refuse to listen.

I'm working on my own theories, but these are based on the fact that the world is flat. THE FES is not a corporate structure, it's a truth with a way you look at life. it doesn't matter to me what others think, I will defend the truth in every situation. What others believe is not my problem.

I do not have sufficient data to convince you. but if you want that I can change your perspective on life. if you don't i can nothing.

you're used to someone research on your behalf. so you can't understand our perspective on life.

FET not a religion like "RET". Because we think, research and calculate. But RE's usually taking the same knowledge what somebody say like NASA, school teacher, grandfather, etc. then, according to this belief, developing an argument, or argue that existing arguments. These are superstitions. We investigate, and then we can defend it.  Anyone "convince" I'm not trying to. Explore for yourself, measure for yourself and find out for yourself. Fe's including me usually often think like this so they ain't going to convince each other. if necessary this can be done.

I claim no one did a "persuasive draw" the velocity "diagram" of the atmosphere. Can you explore this?

[thatsnice]

I claim no one did a "persuasive draw" the velocity "diagram" of the atmosphere. Can you explore this?

I would if I knew would you were asking for.

[İntikam]

I claim no one did a "persuasive draw" the velocity "diagram" of the atmosphere. Can you explore this?

I would if I knew would you were asking for.

Then who know let him come and done.

[thatsnice]

I claim no one did a "persuasive draw" the velocity "diagram" of the atmosphere. Can you explore this?

I would if I knew would you were asking for.

Then who know let him come and done.

I'm saying I don't understand your wording, please clarify.

[İntikam]

I claim no one did a "persuasive draw" the velocity "diagram" of the atmosphere. Can you explore this?

I would if I knew would you were asking for.

Then who know let him come and done.

I'm saying I don't understand your wording, please clarify.

You don't need to understand me. Who understand my wording let him come and speak.

[andruszkow]

I claim no one did a "persuasive draw" the velocity "diagram" of the atmosphere. Can you explore this?

I would if I knew would you were asking for.

Then who know let him come and done.

I'm saying I don't understand your wording, please clarify.

You don't need to understand me. Who understand my wording let him come and speak.

I'm pretty sure he wants to answer, but he doesn't understand the English in your post.

[AnswerTheQuestion]

Any more "findings", Intikam?

Also, it is clear that your English is not correct. I don't know what the fuck a "persuasive draw" is. I know being a grammar nazi is against the rules, but all of Intikam's findings could be correct and verifiable, yet we can't understand a word of it.