« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Craters

  • 61 Replies
  • 12656 Views
?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Craters
« on: November 13, 2015, 12:49:22 PM »
Logged
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Craters
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2015, 12:55:59 PM »
It really is a pity you haven't learn DET.
Logged
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.
?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Craters
« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2015, 02:48:42 PM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 12:55:59 PM
It really is a pity you haven't learn DET.
I am sure your DEF fantasy can explain everything from unicorns to fairies... Until you provide FALSIFIABLE TESTS, it isn't even a hypothesis worthy of discussion. I am sorry I wasted my time on it. I thought you were serious.
Logged
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Craters
« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2015, 03:23:20 PM »
Something falling and hitting the Earth is not possible on a flat Earth?  You really do not make any sense. 
Logged
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Craters
« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2015, 03:24:58 PM »
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 12:55:59 PM
It really is a pity you haven't learn DET.
I am sure your DEF fantasy can explain everything from unicorns to fairies... Until you provide FALSIFIABLE TESTS, it isn't even a hypothesis worthy of discussion. I am sorry I wasted my time on it. I thought you were serious.
I thought you were honest. It seems we're both mistaken.
Provide a falsifiable test for RET.
Logged
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.
*

Kirk Johnson

  • 582
Re: Craters
« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2015, 03:30:54 PM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 12:55:59 PM
It really is a pity you haven't learn DET.

It really is. You missed the funniest show on earth!
Logged
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Craters
« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2015, 03:33:03 PM »
Quote from: Kirk Johnson on November 13, 2015, 03:30:54 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 12:55:59 PM
It really is a pity you haven't learn DET.

It really is. You missed the funniest show on earth!

Oh piss off, you don't understand the slightest thing about the model. The sum of your knowledge seems to be from a post when i was still developing it, which you ignored correction over. It's that simple. You don't know the model, you don't know anything about it, and yet you constantly whine in every thread as if you're suddenly an expert.
How about you shut up about things YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
Logged
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.
?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Craters
« Reply #7 on: November 13, 2015, 03:52:14 PM »
Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2015, 03:23:20 PM
Something falling and hitting the Earth is not possible on a flat Earth?  You really do not make any sense.
Like what that would make those craters?
Logged
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Craters
« Reply #8 on: November 13, 2015, 03:54:22 PM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:24:58 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 12:55:59 PM
It really is a pity you haven't learn DET.
I am sure your DEF fantasy can explain everything from unicorns to fairies... Until you provide FALSIFIABLE TESTS, it isn't even a hypothesis worthy of discussion. I am sorry I wasted my time on it. I thought you were serious.
I thought you were honest. It seems we're both mistaken.
Provide a falsifiable test for RET.
Stop derailing. We are not here to prove RET.

Explain how these craters are made in the FE model?
Logged
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Craters
« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2015, 03:55:54 PM »
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 03:54:22 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:24:58 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 12:55:59 PM
It really is a pity you haven't learn DET.
I am sure your DEF fantasy can explain everything from unicorns to fairies... Until you provide FALSIFIABLE TESTS, it isn't even a hypothesis worthy of discussion. I am sorry I wasted my time on it. I thought you were serious.
I thought you were honest. It seems we're both mistaken.
Provide a falsifiable test for RET.
Stop derailing. We are not here to prove RET.

Explain how these craters are made in the FE model?
You're the one that demanded falsifiable tests, fuckwit. I ask exactly what you askf or me.

Rocks... fall...
Logged
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Craters
« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2015, 03:59:05 PM »
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 03:52:14 PM
Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2015, 03:23:20 PM
Something falling and hitting the Earth is not possible on a flat Earth?  You really do not make any sense.
Like what that would make those craters?

Perhaps they were pieces of the bottom of the Earth that broke off due to the Universal Accelerator?  They then returned to the Earth in the form of meteors, and left impact craters. 
Logged
?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Craters
« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2015, 05:15:19 PM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:55:54 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 03:54:22 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:24:58 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 12:55:59 PM
It really is a pity you haven't learn DET.
I am sure your DEF fantasy can explain everything from unicorns to fairies... Until you provide FALSIFIABLE TESTS, it isn't even a hypothesis worthy of discussion. I am sorry I wasted my time on it. I thought you were serious.
I thought you were honest. It seems we're both mistaken.
Provide a falsifiable test for RET.
Stop derailing. We are not here to prove RET.

Explain how these craters are made in the FE model?
You're the one that demanded falsifiable tests, fuckwit. I ask exactly what you askf or me.

Rocks... fall...
What rocks?
Logged
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Craters
« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2015, 05:20:26 PM »
Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2015, 03:59:05 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 03:52:14 PM
Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2015, 03:23:20 PM
Something falling and hitting the Earth is not possible on a flat Earth?  You really do not make any sense.
Like what that would make those craters?

Perhaps they were pieces of the bottom of the Earth that broke off due to the Universal Accelerator?  They then returned to the Earth in the form of meteors, and left impact craters.
What is the "Universal Accelerator?" How did they get through the dome? Are there cracks in it we can see?
Logged
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Craters
« Reply #13 on: November 13, 2015, 05:23:25 PM »
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 05:20:26 PM
Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2015, 03:59:05 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 03:52:14 PM
Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2015, 03:23:20 PM
Something falling and hitting the Earth is not possible on a flat Earth?  You really do not make any sense.
Like what that would make those craters?

Perhaps they were pieces of the bottom of the Earth that broke off due to the Universal Accelerator?  They then returned to the Earth in the form of meteors, and left impact craters.
What is the "Universal Accelerator?" How did they get through the dome? Are there cracks in it we can see?

What "dome" are you referring to?  To my knowledge, there is only one or two people who subscribe to the "domed Earth theory."  Please don't lump us all together.  It only makes you look less intelligent. 
Logged
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Craters
« Reply #14 on: November 14, 2015, 02:10:49 AM »
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:55:54 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 03:54:22 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:24:58 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 12:55:59 PM
It really is a pity you haven't learn DET.
I am sure your DEF fantasy can explain everything from unicorns to fairies... Until you provide FALSIFIABLE TESTS, it isn't even a hypothesis worthy of discussion. I am sorry I wasted my time on it. I thought you were serious.
I thought you were honest. It seems we're both mistaken.
Provide a falsifiable test for RET.
Stop derailing. We are not here to prove RET.

Explain how these craters are made in the FE model?
You're the one that demanded falsifiable tests, fuckwit. I ask exactly what you askf or me.

Rocks... fall...
What rocks?
If you don't understand DET, I'm not going to waste time outlining half the model, required for you to understand this step. DET predicts rocks in the sky. Some of them are dense enough to form metal and stars, others are torn apart.
Logged
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.
?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Craters
« Reply #15 on: November 14, 2015, 07:27:58 AM »
Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2015, 05:23:25 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 05:20:26 PM
Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2015, 03:59:05 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 03:52:14 PM
Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2015, 03:23:20 PM
Something falling and hitting the Earth is not possible on a flat Earth?  You really do not make any sense.
Like what that would make those craters?

Perhaps they were pieces of the bottom of the Earth that broke off due to the Universal Accelerator?  They then returned to the Earth in the form of meteors, and left impact craters.
What is the "Universal Accelerator?" How did they get through the dome? Are there cracks in it we can see?

What "dome" are you referring to?  To my knowledge, there is only one or two people who subscribe to the "domed Earth theory."  Please don't lump us all together.  It only makes you look less intelligent.
Stop with the insults - act like an adult discussing something. You're supposed to be the moderator of this forum.
So what is the "Universal Accelerator?"
How does it produce rocks (pieces of the bottom)?
OK, no dome. Where are the Sun, Moon, planets, stars, nebulas and galaxies in YOUR model?
Logged
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Craters
« Reply #16 on: November 14, 2015, 07:29:48 AM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 14, 2015, 02:10:49 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:55:54 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 03:54:22 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:24:58 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 12:55:59 PM
It really is a pity you haven't learn DET.
I am sure your DEF fantasy can explain everything from unicorns to fairies... Until you provide FALSIFIABLE TESTS, it isn't even a hypothesis worthy of discussion. I am sorry I wasted my time on it. I thought you were serious.
I thought you were honest. It seems we're both mistaken.
Provide a falsifiable test for RET.
Stop derailing. We are not here to prove RET.

Explain how these craters are made in the FE model?
You're the one that demanded falsifiable tests, fuckwit. I ask exactly what you askf or me.

Rocks... fall...
What rocks?
If you don't understand DET, I'm not going to waste time outlining half the model, required for you to understand this step. DET predicts rocks in the sky. Some of them are dense enough to form metal and stars, others are torn apart.
How big are they? And why do they fall?
Logged
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: Craters
« Reply #17 on: November 14, 2015, 07:35:57 AM »
It's obviously a sink hole. They are happening all the time.
Logged
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Craters
« Reply #18 on: November 14, 2015, 07:41:38 AM »
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 14, 2015, 07:29:48 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 14, 2015, 02:10:49 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:55:54 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 03:54:22 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:24:58 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 12:55:59 PM
It really is a pity you haven't learn DET.
I am sure your DEF fantasy can explain everything from unicorns to fairies... Until you provide FALSIFIABLE TESTS, it isn't even a hypothesis worthy of discussion. I am sorry I wasted my time on it. I thought you were serious.
I thought you were honest. It seems we're both mistaken.
Provide a falsifiable test for RET.
Stop derailing. We are not here to prove RET.

Explain how these craters are made in the FE model?
You're the one that demanded falsifiable tests, fuckwit. I ask exactly what you askf or me.

Rocks... fall...
What rocks?
If you don't understand DET, I'm not going to waste time outlining half the model, required for you to understand this step. DET predicts rocks in the sky. Some of them are dense enough to form metal and stars, others are torn apart.
How big are they? And why do they fall?
They can reach a lot of sizes, there's no one answer. Most would be rock, some would be metal, though those would typically be much larger: though the smaller could have broken off from a larger. They fall because of the downwards force well defined under DET, if they fall out of a whirlpool, or are caught between whirlpools.
It is your refusal to learn DET. You would know this if you had.
Logged
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.
*

MettaKail

  • 63
Re: Craters
« Reply #19 on: November 14, 2015, 08:56:51 AM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 14, 2015, 07:41:38 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 14, 2015, 07:29:48 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 14, 2015, 02:10:49 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:55:54 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 03:54:22 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:24:58 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 12:55:59 PM
It really is a pity you haven't learn DET.
I am sure your DEF fantasy can explain everything from unicorns to fairies... Until you provide FALSIFIABLE TESTS, it isn't even a hypothesis worthy of discussion. I am sorry I wasted my time on it. I thought you were serious.
I thought you were honest. It seems we're both mistaken.
Provide a falsifiable test for RET.
Stop derailing. We are not here to prove RET.

Explain how these craters are made in the FE model?
You're the one that demanded falsifiable tests, fuckwit. I ask exactly what you askf or me.

Rocks... fall...
What rocks?
If you don't understand DET, I'm not going to waste time outlining half the model, required for you to understand this step. DET predicts rocks in the sky. Some of them are dense enough to form metal and stars, others are torn apart.
How big are they? And why do they fall?
They can reach a lot of sizes, there's no one answer. Most would be rock, some would be metal, though those would typically be much larger: though the smaller could have broken off from a larger. They fall because of the downwards force well defined under DET, if they fall out of a whirlpool, or are caught between whirlpools.
It is your refusal to learn DET. You would know this if you had.

Hey, JRowe. I'm interested in this "DET".
I know the world is flat, but if this can explain the flaws in the current model, I'm all in! Do you have any links to any published works that you can link me to so I can read up on it? Thanks! :)
Logged
Members of SPANK (Dual Earth Scientists)
1. abaaaabbbb63
2. MettaKail
3. JRoweSkeptic
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Craters
« Reply #20 on: November 14, 2015, 09:34:38 AM »
Quote from: MettaKail on November 14, 2015, 08:56:51 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 14, 2015, 07:41:38 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 14, 2015, 07:29:48 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 14, 2015, 02:10:49 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:55:54 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 03:54:22 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:24:58 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 12:55:59 PM
It really is a pity you haven't learn DET.
I am sure your DEF fantasy can explain everything from unicorns to fairies... Until you provide FALSIFIABLE TESTS, it isn't even a hypothesis worthy of discussion. I am sorry I wasted my time on it. I thought you were serious.
I thought you were honest. It seems we're both mistaken.
Provide a falsifiable test for RET.
Stop derailing. We are not here to prove RET.

Explain how these craters are made in the FE model?
You're the one that demanded falsifiable tests, fuckwit. I ask exactly what you askf or me.

Rocks... fall...
What rocks?
If you don't understand DET, I'm not going to waste time outlining half the model, required for you to understand this step. DET predicts rocks in the sky. Some of them are dense enough to form metal and stars, others are torn apart.
How big are they? And why do they fall?
They can reach a lot of sizes, there's no one answer. Most would be rock, some would be metal, though those would typically be much larger: though the smaller could have broken off from a larger. They fall because of the downwards force well defined under DET, if they fall out of a whirlpool, or are caught between whirlpools.
It is your refusal to learn DET. You would know this if you had.

Hey, JRowe. I'm interested in this "DET".
I know the world is flat, but if this can explain the flaws in the current model, I'm all in! Do you have any links to any published works that you can link me to so I can read up on it? Thanks! :)

Note my sig. I dislike explaining via walls of text: I've tried it before, but no one ever reads every line, and threads swiftly get derailed by trolls and people who haven't understood the basics but act as though they're experts. It's the kind of thing that needs to be taught bit by bit: with constant back and forth, to prevent any misunderstanding. All of it is based on deduction from fairly simple observations, but if those deductions are not fully understood, nothing falls into place.
Logged
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.
?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Craters
« Reply #21 on: November 14, 2015, 11:27:58 AM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 14, 2015, 07:41:38 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 14, 2015, 07:29:48 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 14, 2015, 02:10:49 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:55:54 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 03:54:22 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:24:58 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 12:55:59 PM
It really is a pity you haven't learn DET.
I am sure your DEF fantasy can explain everything from unicorns to fairies... Until you provide FALSIFIABLE TESTS, it isn't even a hypothesis worthy of discussion. I am sorry I wasted my time on it. I thought you were serious.
I thought you were honest. It seems we're both mistaken.
Provide a falsifiable test for RET.
Stop derailing. We are not here to prove RET.

Explain how these craters are made in the FE model?
You're the one that demanded falsifiable tests, fuckwit. I ask exactly what you askf or me.

Rocks... fall...
What rocks?
If you don't understand DET, I'm not going to waste time outlining half the model, required for you to understand this step. DET predicts rocks in the sky. Some of them are dense enough to form metal and stars, others are torn apart.
How big are they? And why do they fall?
They can reach a lot of sizes, there's no one answer. Most would be rock, some would be metal, though those would typically be much larger: though the smaller could have broken off from a larger. They fall because of the downwards force well defined under DET, if they fall out of a whirlpool, or are caught between whirlpools.
It is your refusal to learn DET. You would know this if you had.
What downwards force? Aether?
Logged
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Craters
« Reply #22 on: November 14, 2015, 11:42:26 AM »
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 14, 2015, 11:27:58 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 14, 2015, 07:41:38 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 14, 2015, 07:29:48 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 14, 2015, 02:10:49 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:55:54 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 03:54:22 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:24:58 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 12:55:59 PM
It really is a pity you haven't learn DET.
I am sure your DEF fantasy can explain everything from unicorns to fairies... Until you provide FALSIFIABLE TESTS, it isn't even a hypothesis worthy of discussion. I am sorry I wasted my time on it. I thought you were serious.
I thought you were honest. It seems we're both mistaken.
Provide a falsifiable test for RET.
Stop derailing. We are not here to prove RET.

Explain how these craters are made in the FE model?
You're the one that demanded falsifiable tests, fuckwit. I ask exactly what you askf or me.

Rocks... fall...
What rocks?
If you don't understand DET, I'm not going to waste time outlining half the model, required for you to understand this step. DET predicts rocks in the sky. Some of them are dense enough to form metal and stars, others are torn apart.
How big are they? And why do they fall?
They can reach a lot of sizes, there's no one answer. Most would be rock, some would be metal, though those would typically be much larger: though the smaller could have broken off from a larger. They fall because of the downwards force well defined under DET, if they fall out of a whirlpool, or are caught between whirlpools.
It is your refusal to learn DET. You would know this if you had.
What downwards force? Aether?
If you don't know the model, I'm not going to waste time trying to explain every fragment to you, we'll be here forever. The original question has been answered, the rest is just follow-ups related to DET: a model you are not interested in learning.
Logged
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Craters
« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2015, 11:50:35 AM »
There is no universal accelerator.

The dome consists of a very dense barrier of aether, the very reason of the fact that Nasa could not go beyond some 12-15 km in altitude with any of their missions.

There are openings in the dome for the Sun/Moon/Black Sun (the very reason for the anomalies of the Allais experiment): the radiation emitted by the stars also reaches the surface of the Earth.

Occasionally, during a normal solar precessional period (that is, we do not find ourselves at either the beginning or the end of a world age), it is possible for small meteorites/asteroids to go through those openings and also reach the Earth.

However, the very large craters were created during the extraordinary cataclysms which occured in the past, when Venus and Typhon (Mercury) were allowed to actually use the openings to wreak havoc on the atmosphere and surface of the Earth (larger asteroids/meteories also).
Logged
*

MettaKail

  • 63
Re: Craters
« Reply #24 on: November 14, 2015, 06:31:30 PM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 14, 2015, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: MettaKail on November 14, 2015, 08:56:51 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 14, 2015, 07:41:38 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 14, 2015, 07:29:48 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 14, 2015, 02:10:49 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:55:54 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 03:54:22 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:24:58 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 12:55:59 PM
It really is a pity you haven't learn DET.
I am sure your DEF fantasy can explain everything from unicorns to fairies... Until you provide FALSIFIABLE TESTS, it isn't even a hypothesis worthy of discussion. I am sorry I wasted my time on it. I thought you were serious.
I thought you were honest. It seems we're both mistaken.
Provide a falsifiable test for RET.
Stop derailing. We are not here to prove RET.

Explain how these craters are made in the FE model?
You're the one that demanded falsifiable tests, fuckwit. I ask exactly what you askf or me.

Rocks... fall...
What rocks?
If you don't understand DET, I'm not going to waste time outlining half the model, required for you to understand this step. DET predicts rocks in the sky. Some of them are dense enough to form metal and stars, others are torn apart.
How big are they? And why do they fall?
They can reach a lot of sizes, there's no one answer. Most would be rock, some would be metal, though those would typically be much larger: though the smaller could have broken off from a larger. They fall because of the downwards force well defined under DET, if they fall out of a whirlpool, or are caught between whirlpools.
It is your refusal to learn DET. You would know this if you had.

Hey, JRowe. I'm interested in this "DET".
I know the world is flat, but if this can explain the flaws in the current model, I'm all in! Do you have any links to any published works that you can link me to so I can read up on it? Thanks! :)

Note my sig. I dislike explaining via walls of text: I've tried it before, but no one ever reads every line, and threads swiftly get derailed by trolls and people who haven't understood the basics but act as though they're experts. It's the kind of thing that needs to be taught bit by bit: with constant back and forth, to prevent any misunderstanding. All of it is based on deduction from fairly simple observations, but if those deductions are not fully understood, nothing falls into place.

I didn't ask for any "walls of text" just any links or names of any published works on the matter. Sorry if I made you think otherwise. Just by your responses to RE'ers it seems like you believe in a very solid model. So the aether is making dense rocks in the sky that fall to Earth? It sounds like dense concentrations of aether can form matter. Any large enough rock/metal object falling from high in the sky would definitely make all sorts of holes in the ground.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2015, 07:25:52 PM by MettaKail »
Logged
Members of SPANK (Dual Earth Scientists)
1. abaaaabbbb63
2. MettaKail
3. JRoweSkeptic
*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Craters
« Reply #25 on: November 14, 2015, 09:24:39 PM »
Quote from: Yendor on November 14, 2015, 07:35:57 AM
It's obviously a sink hole. They are happening all the time.

The stupidity of this statement is absolutely astounding. I'm not even going to bother trying to prove RET or FET this time around, I'm just going to disprove this stupid statement.

Consider Meteor Crater in Arizona:



Now, consider your average sinkhole:



Do these two look related in any way!? No, and there's even more evidence to back this up. Consider this: the largest sinkhole ever discovered was only about 80 metres in diameter. Now, consider this: the smallest known confirmed impact crater resides in Maharashtra, India, and is already 1.2 kilometres in diameter. There's no way that any "sinkhole" could create an "impact crater" that large.

Do your research next time Yendor before you make a complete fool of yourself.
Logged
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Craters
« Reply #26 on: November 14, 2015, 11:25:52 PM »
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 14, 2015, 07:27:58 AM
Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2015, 05:23:25 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 05:20:26 PM
Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2015, 03:59:05 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 03:52:14 PM
Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2015, 03:23:20 PM
Something falling and hitting the Earth is not possible on a flat Earth?  You really do not make any sense.
Like what that would make those craters?

Perhaps they were pieces of the bottom of the Earth that broke off due to the Universal Accelerator?  They then returned to the Earth in the form of meteors, and left impact craters.
What is the "Universal Accelerator?" How did they get through the dome? Are there cracks in it we can see?

What "dome" are you referring to?  To my knowledge, there is only one or two people who subscribe to the "domed Earth theory."  Please don't lump us all together.  It only makes you look less intelligent.
Stop with the insults - act like an adult discussing something. You're supposed to be the moderator of this forum.
So what is the "Universal Accelerator?"
How does it produce rocks (pieces of the bottom)?
OK, no dome. Where are the Sun, Moon, planets, stars, nebulas and galaxies in YOUR model?

The sun, moon, etc. are suspended in the Aetheral Whirlpool above the Earth's surface.   
Logged
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Craters
« Reply #27 on: November 15, 2015, 03:17:06 AM »
Quote from: MettaKail on November 14, 2015, 06:31:30 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 14, 2015, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: MettaKail on November 14, 2015, 08:56:51 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 14, 2015, 07:41:38 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 14, 2015, 07:29:48 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 14, 2015, 02:10:49 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:55:54 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 03:54:22 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 03:24:58 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 13, 2015, 12:55:59 PM
It really is a pity you haven't learn DET.
I am sure your DEF fantasy can explain everything from unicorns to fairies... Until you provide FALSIFIABLE TESTS, it isn't even a hypothesis worthy of discussion. I am sorry I wasted my time on it. I thought you were serious.
I thought you were honest. It seems we're both mistaken.
Provide a falsifiable test for RET.
Stop derailing. We are not here to prove RET.

Explain how these craters are made in the FE model?
You're the one that demanded falsifiable tests, fuckwit. I ask exactly what you askf or me.

Rocks... fall...
What rocks?
If you don't understand DET, I'm not going to waste time outlining half the model, required for you to understand this step. DET predicts rocks in the sky. Some of them are dense enough to form metal and stars, others are torn apart.
How big are they? And why do they fall?
They can reach a lot of sizes, there's no one answer. Most would be rock, some would be metal, though those would typically be much larger: though the smaller could have broken off from a larger. They fall because of the downwards force well defined under DET, if they fall out of a whirlpool, or are caught between whirlpools.
It is your refusal to learn DET. You would know this if you had.

Hey, JRowe. I'm interested in this "DET".
I know the world is flat, but if this can explain the flaws in the current model, I'm all in! Do you have any links to any published works that you can link me to so I can read up on it? Thanks! :)

Note my sig. I dislike explaining via walls of text: I've tried it before, but no one ever reads every line, and threads swiftly get derailed by trolls and people who haven't understood the basics but act as though they're experts. It's the kind of thing that needs to be taught bit by bit: with constant back and forth, to prevent any misunderstanding. All of it is based on deduction from fairly simple observations, but if those deductions are not fully understood, nothing falls into place.

I didn't ask for any "walls of text" just any links or names of any published works on the matter. Sorry if I made you think otherwise. Just by your responses to RE'ers it seems like you believe in a very solid model. So the aether is making dense rocks in the sky that fall to Earth? It sounds like dense concentrations of aether can form matter. Any large enough rock/metal object falling from high in the sky would definitely make all sorts of holes in the ground.

There are a few links around to where I've written on it online, but they're inevitably walls of text and keep the same problems. I'm working on designing some video explanations though.
Concentrations of aether forming matter is a poetic theory, and not impossible, but a more scientific model would simply be that it carries dust (from the Earth, or from elsewhere).
Logged
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.
?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Craters
« Reply #28 on: November 15, 2015, 08:09:38 AM »
Quote from: jroa on November 14, 2015, 11:25:52 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 14, 2015, 07:27:58 AM
Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2015, 05:23:25 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 05:20:26 PM
Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2015, 03:59:05 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 03:52:14 PM
Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2015, 03:23:20 PM
Something falling and hitting the Earth is not possible on a flat Earth?  You really do not make any sense.
Like what that would make those craters?

Perhaps they were pieces of the bottom of the Earth that broke off due to the Universal Accelerator?  They then returned to the Earth in the form of meteors, and left impact craters.
What is the "Universal Accelerator?" How did they get through the dome? Are there cracks in it we can see?

What "dome" are you referring to?  To my knowledge, there is only one or two people who subscribe to the "domed Earth theory."  Please don't lump us all together.  It only makes you look less intelligent.
Stop with the insults - act like an adult discussing something. You're supposed to be the moderator of this forum.
So what is the "Universal Accelerator?"
How does it produce rocks (pieces of the bottom)?
OK, no dome. Where are the Sun, Moon, planets, stars, nebulas and galaxies in YOUR model?

The sun, moon, etc. are suspended in the Aetheral Whirlpool above the Earth's surface.   
So, are you subscribing to the DEF FANTASY? - not uniplanar FET (one plane with N.Pole in the middle and the Antarctica "wall" on the edge)?
Logged
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Craters
« Reply #29 on: November 15, 2015, 08:12:30 AM »
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 15, 2015, 08:09:38 AM
Quote from: jroa on November 14, 2015, 11:25:52 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 14, 2015, 07:27:58 AM
Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2015, 05:23:25 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 05:20:26 PM
Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2015, 03:59:05 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 13, 2015, 03:52:14 PM
Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2015, 03:23:20 PM
Something falling and hitting the Earth is not possible on a flat Earth?  You really do not make any sense.
Like what that would make those craters?

Perhaps they were pieces of the bottom of the Earth that broke off due to the Universal Accelerator?  They then returned to the Earth in the form of meteors, and left impact craters.
What is the "Universal Accelerator?" How did they get through the dome? Are there cracks in it we can see?

What "dome" are you referring to?  To my knowledge, there is only one or two people who subscribe to the "domed Earth theory."  Please don't lump us all together.  It only makes you look less intelligent.
Stop with the insults - act like an adult discussing something. You're supposed to be the moderator of this forum.
So what is the "Universal Accelerator?"
How does it produce rocks (pieces of the bottom)?
OK, no dome. Where are the Sun, Moon, planets, stars, nebulas and galaxies in YOUR model?

The sun, moon, etc. are suspended in the Aetheral Whirlpool above the Earth's surface.   
So, are you subscribing to the DEF FANTASY? - not uniplanar FET (one plane with N.Pole in the middle and the Antarctica "wall" on the edge)?

What?  Don't say idiotic things if you don't want people to think you are an idiot.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
« previous next »