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.
Don't come to me with childish appeal. Your appeals seems are trolling .
I do not force anyone to believe it. Close your eyes, or don't comment to my subjects .
I do not want to deal with trolls... Just i want to deal people who has brain.
I'm not a troll. I'm a person who understands extremely simple concepts trying to explain them to you.
Here's a diagram seeing as you love them so much. It took me about 30 seconds to draw...
The idiot with the camera turns 90 degrees from facing the sun and sees a moon half lit by the sun. What's so spectacular about this? *bangs head against wall*
These brainless drawn don't show the position which shown on the video.
Where is the moon looking the side on your drawn? To the sun. Where is the moon is looking the side on the second video? The opposite side of the sun.
Nevermind. Look that.
Defences forces are going to goal with counterattack !!
Impossible my baby impossible.
The person in the second video merely turned right round about 270 degrees from the sun to show the moon trying to show it as facing the wrong way! Use your mind and some logic. You're really desperately trying to find errors where there are none. Don't get so upset when someone challenges your errors. It's ok to be wrong sometimes!
Don't come to me with childish appeal. Your appeals seems are trolling .
I do not force anyone to believe it. Close your eyes, or don't comment to my subjects .
I do not want to deal with trolls... Just i want to deal people who has brain.
I'm not a troll. I'm a person who understands extremely simple concepts trying to explain them to you.
Here's a diagram seeing as you love them so much. It took me about 30 seconds to draw...
The idiot with the camera turns 90 degrees from facing the sun and sees a moon half lit by the sun. What's so spectacular about this? *bangs head against wall*
The moon isn't on the near side.
Watch the video:Why ever does it have anything to do with NASA? The phases of the moon were well understood millennia before NASA or space flight was dreamt of! You have a pure and simple NASA phobia!
Watch the defences are destroying the devil.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Nobody can explain how a half moon created on a sun light.
It is clearly, %100 impossible!
Thank you Frederick
Frederic done the score 6 points.
The Globe earth has nothing to do with NASA! Just understand that simple fact for a start. Back over 2,000 years ago lunar phases and eclipses were well understood. A part the evidence for the Globe in the earliest times was that the part shadow cast on the moon by the earth was part of a circle!
The video is so jumpy and poor quality that it is hard to judge it properly, but there is no problem at all having the sun and part moon in the sky together.
At the time of a new moon everyone knows that the moon appears close to the sun!Where is this great revelation?It is exactly what we expect.
Now, you are never going to sort out your full moon problem until you realise that the sun, earth and moon are almost in the same plane.
I think it was a "Godly gift" or something other. Can you see the winner?. As i see that, NASA trolls have raid and got here. Clearly this is a frustrating situation. I proposal to admin for this city that change the name to "anti the flatearth society .org".
Why do you spend so much efforts for something you reject? Then how are you talking about the science? You receive money to do that or you are believers a religion assertives the globe.
This is my last writing and last warning about these trolls. Please read with want to understand:
I'm not a writer for change up their idea those who don't thinking like me.
I am writing for i want to they are not alone who thinking like me..
Is it clearly?Before you run off in a huff, let's get a few things straight!Now, in you first post you claimed that the full moon was impossible on the globe. I countered this by claiming that your diagrams were grossly misleading!
- I am certainly not a "NASA troll" and I am certain no-one posting on this sight is! I have not changed my view of the shape of the earth or the nature of the universe since NASA came into being.
- No,we certainly do not "receive money to do that"! (Do YOU!). No, we do it to stop as many young people as possible from falling into this trap that could block their lives in so many areas!
- The Heliocentric Globe Earth was accepted centuries before NASA or space travel was thought of.
- Not everyone in the Islamic world accepts that the earth is flat!
There were studies being carried around the end of the first millenium (when the "west" was in the "Dark Ages") Abu Rayhan al-Biruni clearly accepted that earth was a sphere and was "measuring" the earth's size.Quote from: Syed Aslam THE MUSLIM OBSERVER, Thursday, May 15, 2008Muslim Scientists and ThinkersNote that this quotation is not from any western publication, but from THE MUSLIM OBSERVER. Clearly around the year 1,000 AD many at least in the Islamic community believed the earth is a globe.
From:http://muslimobserver.com/abu-rayhan-ibn-al-biruni/
Abu Rayhan al-Biruni was born in Kath, Uzbekistan in 973 CE a region adjoining the Aral Sea. He began his studies at a very young age under the famous mathematician Abu Nasr Mansur. In 1017 Sultan Mahmud Ghazni extended his kingdom to Kath area and he took al Biruni with him to his capital.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Al-Biruni is regarded as the father of geodesy and made numerous contribution to earth science, cartography, geography and geology. He introduced techniques to measure the distances on earth using triangulation. He solved complex geodesic equation and accurately calculated the circumference of the earth which is very close to the present value. His calculated value of earth's radius is 6339 km, which differs from the modern value by 16 km. This value was not obtained by the Europeans until the middle of 16th century. While he was very young he accurately calculated the latitude of various places.
Well here is the Earth and Moon drawn to scale. I hope your can see the massive difference it makes to your argument!The moon is so much further away from the earth that it makes you graphics look ridiculous - relative scale matters here!
Well few days ago my geology class teacher was asking us a few questions, and i stated that earth is flat and fiercely defended that theory which resulted in me getting an F. So she asked me to give her some proof earth is flat and she will erase the F what should i show her?
I told you earlier that most of the NASA trolls here in. therefore I will not feed the trolls .Well, I am certainly not a NASA troll. I have no connection with it and I have not change my beliefs on the shape of the earth since NASA came along.
So a question: What is the top speed of overall airbus?
Then just what Airbus do you mean? There are a lot.
A320 Family. A318 A319 A320 A321.
A330 Family. A330-200 A330-300.
A340 Family. A340-200 A340-300 A340-500 A340-600.
A350 XWB. A350-800 A350-900 A350-1000.
A380
Take some common ones:
A320 Cruise speed: 828 km/h Top speed: 871 km/h
A340 Cruise speed: 890 km/h Top speed: 913 km/h
A380 Cruise speed: 945 km/h Top speed: 1,020 km/h
The routes that are more of a challenge are Sydney to/from Santiago, Sydney to/from Johannesburg and Aukland to/from Buenos Aires.
I told you earlier that most of the NASA trolls here in. therefore I will not feed the trolls .Well, I am certainly not a NASA troll. I have no connection with it and I have not change my beliefs on the shape of the earth since NASA came along.
So a question: What is the top speed of overall airbus?
Then just what Airbus do you mean? There are a lot.
A320 Family. A318 A319 A320 A321.
A330 Family. A330-200 A330-300.
A340 Family. A340-200 A340-300 A340-500 A340-600.
A350 XWB. A350-800 A350-900 A350-1000.
A380
Take some common ones:
A320 Cruise speed: 828 km/h Top speed: 871 km/h
A340 Cruise speed: 890 km/h Top speed: 913 km/h
A380 Cruise speed: 945 km/h Top speed: 1,020 km/h
The routes that are more of a challenge are Sydney to/from Santiago, Sydney to/from Johannesburg and Aukland to/from Buenos Aires.
Most commercial flights, however, fly at 38,000 feet above the Class B maximum height and there is not a specific speed limit imposed.
BA Captain Dave Thomas stated why they fly at this height: 'This sort of altitude is a good compromise between engine efficiency and aerodynamic efficiency for jet aircraft.
'Of course, the more efficiently we fly the more fuel we save, which is good for the environment and allows us to keep fares low for our customers.'
Although there is not a specific speed limit for commercial planes above 10,000 feet, pilots have to abide by the aircraft manufacturer's maximum safe speed for the aircraft to fly.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3115752/Is-speed-limit-planes-sky-happens-pilot-breaks-Plane-questions-answered-industry-experts.html
The delta-wing Concorde reached speeds of mach 2.04, almost 1,553 mph - more than twice the speed of sound - whilst flying at an altitude of 60,000 feet.
If Concorde was still operating and flying from Melbourne and Sydney to London, the flight time would be under 12 hours, even allowing for two refuelling stops.
Don't blame me for that! That is what the Flat Earth Society says.Day and night are supposedly produced by the light of the sun directed only to the part of earth below it that is in daylight. I think this is rubbish, but it's not my theory!
You describe to me how the sun moves on the flat earth and how day and night and the seasons are produced.
Then how the phases of the moon are produced on the flat earth, and we can talk again.
Your turn!
I'm throwing out a theory . I prove it in a graph. you 're putting forward a theory but do not show the graphic .Are you seriously trying to say that graphics are the only way to prove anything? Really?
Please go away and don't troll us. Thank you.So, anyone questioning your ineffable wisdom is trolling! That might be your idea of debating, but it is certainly not ours!
I'm throwing out a theory . I prove it in a graph. you 're putting forward a theory but do not show the graphic .Are you seriously trying to say that graphics are the only way to prove anything? Really?
