1

Flat Earth General / Re: Video war: Jeranism vs mikeman7918

« on: June 21, 2016, 04:15:20 PM »

To all of you criticizing jeranism's video:  feel free to make your own.

I'm already working on it, as that is the point of the debate.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Video war: Jeranism vs mikeman7918

« on: June 20, 2016, 11:56:35 PM »

I have seen the video and I will begin working on the response in the morning.  I already have a pretty solid plan about how I will do it, it's just a matter of writing a script, narrating the video, and doing a bit of animation to help drive home the point.  I will get right to work on it in the morning.

PS: that scrolling text is really annoying.

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Video war: Jeranism vs mikeman7918

« on: June 10, 2016, 09:52:59 PM »

Thanks for the warm welcomes.

I haven't been on this forum lately because I moved on to other things for a while.  Even though I am back I won't be too active on this forum, but videos give me a chase to practice some skills that could come in handy (like flash animation, which there will be a bit of in my videos) and they allow for much more versatility then text based communication.  I think it will be quite fun, and I am just as excited as the rest of you to see how this plays out.

I watched Jeranism's latest video and in the end he did mention this video debate, so his subscribers are aware of this too.  Here is a link to that video, and the link will automatically bring you to when he mentions it:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Oh yeah, and sorry about encouraging Heiwa.

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Video war: Jeranism vs mikeman7918

« on: June 09, 2016, 11:56:28 PM »

Jeranism has contacted me again recently, he has apparently been quite busy lately.  The challenge is back on though, and he told me that he should be done with his video in the next few days.  I am bumping this thread to inform any newer users about this challenge and I will still be posting the videos I make here as planned.  Finally, after 5 months, this video war is happening.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers

« on: March 10, 2016, 07:46:46 PM »

Your figure is misleading. Both Earth and the spacecraft (Rosetta) are in orbits around the Sun but the spacecraft is faster and is approaching from behind. The encounter is a sneak-up with the spacecraft overtaking planet Earth. At the encounter both objects have the same directions relative the Sun. They are in orbits around the Sun.
Your figure does not show that.

According ESA at the encounter the spacecraft should increase speed both before and after the overtaking while being  kicked outwards into a new orbit around the Sun at increased speed. All due to the gravty force between Earth and spacecraft. That force is a function of the distance between the two. It is bigger the shorter the distance. When the spacecraft leaves the planet, the speed relative the planet should in principle be reduced, but I do not see that.

According ESA, if the encounter had been head-on (and not sneak-up) the spacecraft should turn 180° around planet Earth and continue in the opposite direction at much (>4X) higher speed, i.e. first stop in one direction and speed up in another. Try to do an animation of that.

I also remind you about the alleged fly-by and landing 15 January 2006 that took place close to you in Utah. The NASA spacecraft Stardust flow by above you on Earth at very high speed and dropped off a small spacecraft - a Sample Return Capsule - that landed. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#SD . Try to make an animation of it!

Could you please provide a link (to somewhere other then your website) where ESA claims what you say they do?  It seems to me that you are lying about the things that they claim.  Also, how is the somulation and/or mathematical proofs coming along?  Have you made any progress?

6

Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers

« on: March 07, 2016, 01:17:35 PM »

The ESA/Rosetta web site is a mess but if I recall ESA sent away Rosetta from Earth ahead of Earth exactly one year prior to the first gravity assist kick 4 March 2005 to kick Rosetta to an encounter with Mars, where Rosetta was kicked back to a second encounter with Earth and was kicked again for a third encounter/kick with Earth ... and then Rosetta was kicked away to encounter the comet - no kick - and land a sond on the comet. Rosetta was orbiting Sun all the time. No hyperbolic trajectories ever.

So the first trajectory of Rosetta was an elliptic, elongated orbit at higher average speed around Sun, while Earth continued in its circular orbit at 28 900 m/s around Sun and after a year they met again with the Rosetta sneaking up from behind at say 40 800 m/s speed. Then the kick could take place putting Rosetta in a new orbit around the Sun that would intercept the orbit of Mars.

No hyperbola! Earth and Rosetta always orbited Sun. Earth in a circular orbit. Rosetta in an elliptic elongated orbit.
Your figure does not make any sense. Earth is orbiting the Sun at constant speed in a circel. Rosetta is orbiting the Sun at variable speeds in an ellipse. After a year they met again. 

Then Mars kicked Rosetta back to intercept Earth that kicked Rosetta to intercept Earth again for a final kick to the comet.

But let's face it - gravity assisted kicks are BS and do not prove that Earth is a globe - your challenge. They do not work. If a spacecraft happens to encounter a planet in space, the planet will attract the spacecraft to it by gravity and the spacecraft will crash on the planet or burn up in the atmosphere like a meteorite. The alternative is that they just miss each other and continue in their separate trajectories in space what ever they are.

Remember the albatross. He was also orbiting the wet Earth above the waves but could stop on my ship that was also orbiting Earth plowing through the waves.

There were no hyperbolas relative to the Sun because Rosetta did not do a gravity assist of the Sun.  In that diagram the blue ball is supposed to represent a planet like Earth or Mars.  I assumed that you were smart enough to figure that out, which was clearly a mistake.  Relative to the Sun it would look something like this:


According to every physicist since Newton, an object on an escape trajectory of a celestial body takes a hyperbolic trajectory.  If the object came form outside the sphere of influence then the encounter will effectively change the object's direction relative to the celestial body which causes acceleration or deceleration from any other reference frame.  I could show you all the math involved, but something tells me you won't understand a thing.  If you want to win my challenge then you need to use a simulation or math, if you don't do that then you might as well give up.

Would I win your challenge if I make a simulation proving that gravity assists are possible?  I can do it but it would take a lot of work.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers

« on: March 06, 2016, 10:41:26 AM »

According experts of gravitation encounters or kicks the following happens at a head-on encounter between planet Earth and a space craft: The space craft turns 180° around planet Earth and speeds off in the same direction as Earth but at much increased speed. This is the famous head-on kick! The space craft stops while turning 180° around planet Earth and is then kicked away in the other direction. There is no contact between Earth and space craft - only gravity force and dynamic forces at play. It is really magic.

If the space craft arrives from behind planet Earth in space, i.e. is faster, there is no 180° turn and the space craft is slowed down by some magic kick and continues in the same direction. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .

A gravitation encounter assumes that planet Earth is a globe orbiting the Sun in space.

Crossing perpendicular encounters in space are likewise not possible! The encounter is too fast unless the gravity force produces a COLLISION between the two objects. Either the encounter is head-on (opposite directions) or sneaking up from behind (same direction/different speeds) but there will be no kicks!

Your Challenge was to see something on Earth that indicates Earth is not a round globe.

I suggested the famous ESA 4 March 2005 Rosetta encounter with Earth, where Rosetta, arriving from behind, was kicked off sideways (!) by Earth to encounter planet Mars at increased speed (in lieu of straight on at reduced speed according to the theory).

I didn't see it, so maybe Earth is not a round globe. That was my solution to your Challenge. Or maybe the whole ESA Rosetta story is a hoax? I assume so. Rosetta does not exist and ESA is just making up fantasies about gravitation encounters or kicks. But ESA also maintains Earth is a globe! So what to believe? If ESA lies about gravitation encounters, it could also lie about the shape of Earth.

As a safety at sea expert and seaman I once actually sailed around the Earth by ship from west to east on the oceans and in the middle of the Indian Ocean I encountered an albatross flying in the opposite direction. The albatross stopped to relax on my ship so I could ask him - "What are you flying about?" Answer: "I just fly around Earth for fun. Normally I live on the South Georgian islands off Antarctic but I like to fly around Earth!"

Between you and me I believe the albatross. Everything happens at sea.

Where does ESA claim that Rosetta went on a trajectory like the one discribed?  That is not how a gravity assist works according to every source I have ever seen, the trajectory is a hyperbola.  Please cite a source that's not your website which claims that gravity assists are anything like you described.  There are diagrams like you discribed, but they are simplified representations of the trajectory and they do not represent the real trajectory of the space ship because they just demonstrate only a small part of gravity assists.  This is how gravity assists really look:



That is what ESA (and everyone else except you) says is the trajectory Rosetta took.  To win you must prove that such a trajectory is impossible, and if you stick to disproving your misconception of how it works then I can add strawman to the massive list of logical fancies you are committing.  To prove that such a trajectory is impossible you must use math and/or a simulation, if you don't do that then you have lost the challenge.

8

Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers

« on: March 05, 2016, 06:43:12 PM »

Heiwa, I am the person hosting the challenge.  If you want to win then you will have to win the debate against me, not some other person like Master_Evar.  The burden of proof is on you to prove that it's impossible to alter the speed of a space craft using a gravitational encounter, and I will only accept math and simulations.  Either follow the rules or give up, otherwise you are just wasting your time and cluttering up my thread.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers

« on: March 04, 2016, 06:58:18 PM »

Your challenge was: "tell me one thing we expect to see on a round Earth that we don't see in reality.  If Earth were really flat then this would be easy."

So I reported that I didn't see the ESA/Rosetta 4 March 2005 gravity assist kick off to Mars up in the sky.

You also didn't watch me as I typed this message.  Does this mean it didn't happen?  Not seeing something may just mean that you weren't looking in the right place or something.  What I want is for you to prove that gravity assists can't happen as you suggest by using irrefutable proofs like math and simulations that use math.  Since such evidence is applicable to this

A gravity assist kick off apparently requires a round Earth globe that one way or other kicks off approaching space crafts in new directions/speeds.

But I didn't see it. ESA says many amateur astronomers not only saw it but took photos of it 2005 ... but where are the photos and the names of the amateurs, etc, etc.

If it indicates the Earth is flat does not matter. I only observed that a round Earth globe didn't kick off anything visible in another direction/speed.   

Your argument is a logical fallacy.  If A implies B then B does not nesesarily imply A.  Flat earth requires space travel to be fake, but if space travel were fake then Earth is not nesesarily flat.  Elephants are grey, so by your logic if you see something grey then it has to be an elephant because all elephants are grey.  Being an elephant implies being grey, but being grey does not nesesarily imply being an elephant.  Logical fallacies cannot win my challenge.  Please follow the conditions of victory I laid out, if you don't then you fail the challenge.  It's as simple as that.

PS - You spell like a typical uneducated, racist, religious, poor, proletarian American fanatic. It is not your fault, though. You know why?

Because you are analyzing my spelling and attacking me instead of my argument, which is a logical fallacy and makes you look as if you have never been in a debate before.  Such behavior is tipical of closed minded people who have nothing better to defend their argument with.  When I'm in a debate I generally take insults like this as complements because it means that I'm winning.

I think ESA faked it.

I don't care what you think, I care what you can prove.  Either start doing math, start writing a simulation program, or get off my thread.

Are you going to reply Heiwa or are you giving up on the challenge?  You better be either solving equations or typing code, because otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers

« on: March 02, 2016, 01:56:17 PM »

Your challenge was: "tell me one thing we expect to see on a round Earth that we don't see in reality.  If Earth were really flat then this would be easy."

So I reported that I didn't see the ESA/Rosetta 4 March 2005 gravity assist kick off to Mars up in the sky.

You also didn't watch me as I typed this message.  Does this mean it didn't happen?  Not seeing something may just mean that you weren't looking in the right place or something.  What I want is for you to prove that gravity assists can't happen as you suggest by using irrefutable proofs like math and simulations that use math.  Since such evidence is applicable to this

A gravity assist kick off apparently requires a round Earth globe that one way or other kicks off approaching space crafts in new directions/speeds.

But I didn't see it. ESA says many amateur astronomers not only saw it but took photos of it 2005 ... but where are the photos and the names of the amateurs, etc, etc.

If it indicates the Earth is flat does not matter. I only observed that a round Earth globe didn't kick off anything visible in another direction/speed.   

Your argument is a logical fallacy.  If A implies B then B does not nesesarily imply A.  Flat earth requires space travel to be fake, but if space travel were fake then Earth is not nesesarily flat.  Elephants are grey, so by your logic if you see something grey then it has to be an elephant because all elephants are grey.  Being an elephant implies being grey, but being grey does not nesesarily imply being an elephant.  Logical fallacies cannot win my challenge.  Please follow the conditions of victory I laid out, if you don't then you fail the challenge.  It's as simple as that.

PS - You spell like a typical uneducated, racist, religious, poor, proletarian American fanatic. It is not your fault, though. You know why?

Because you are analyzing my spelling and attacking me instead of my argument, which is a logical fallacy and makes you look as if you have never been in a debate before.  Such behavior is tipical of closed minded people who have nothing better to defend their argument with.  When I'm in a debate I generally take insults like this as complements because it means that I'm winning.

I think ESA faked it.

I don't care what you think, I care what you can prove.  Either start doing math, start writing a simulation program, or get off my thread.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers

« on: March 02, 2016, 12:15:39 AM »

Hm, you said in post #1 that "tell me one thing we expect to see on a round Earth that we don't see in reality.  If Earth were really flat then this would be easy."

So I told you I hadn't seen the Rosetta fly by gravity assist 4 March 2005 - I had not seen anything at all but a blue sky - and now you ask me to "prove using the methods specified previously that it's physically impossible for a space craft to come close to a planet without crashing into it."

According Newton & Co. I thought gravity was attracted anything towards Earth, apples, etc, but maybe you are right. Space crafts are not subject to gravity.

Re "a large asteroid came very close to Earth without hitting, if it had hit then it would be bad for us because that thing was massive but instead it just passed by Rosetta style.  Either asteroids are an exeption to the laws of physics or you are wrong." I think you are just trying to scare me.

Asteroids passing Earth either just pass (too far away) or burn up in Earth atmosphere.

Why do you change the Rules of your Challenge. Either say I failed or not. Do not start a stupid discussion about anything else. Or, you know I like your foolishnesses. So just carry on. You know how to navigate in space, incl. gravity assist kicks. You are the most beautiful and intelliegent object in SW Utah, etc, etc. Go tell Donald Jr. Trump!

Weather space travel is real does not nesesarily have anything to do with Earth's shape.  I have encountered flat earthers who believe that the Moon landings happened, and round earthers who believe that they were faked (mostly the latter).  Space travel is not nesesarily something you would expect on a round Earth because it's possible for Earth to be round and for space travel to be fake at the same time.  Regardless, I made an exemption for you by adding two ways to win that do not involve disproving round Earth.  That rule change is in your favor, so I don't see why you are complaining about it.

I am fully aware of how gravity works, but unlike you I also know how inertia works.  According to every calculation and simulation I have done, it is quite easy to not hit the planet.  Either do some math, run a simulation, or give up.  Those are your options.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How does the UA model explain gravity waves.

« on: March 01, 2016, 10:33:18 AM »

GR can't explain gravity waves.  Why do you think that you are so much smarter than Einstein?

The experiment that detected gravitational waves was set up because GR literally PREDICTED the existance of gravitational waves.

The equivalence principle can't explain this one, so I guess like the result of any non local experiment it's going to be a force made by the stars.

Fortionately, relativity consists of more then just the equivalence principle.  The gravitational wave detection experiment was definitely not in a sufficiantly small region of space as the equivalence principle requires because the thing is huge.  How would gravitational waves be explained without general relativity?

13

Flat Earth General / Re: Relativity is wrong?

« on: March 01, 2016, 10:19:54 AM »

The equivalence principle specificly states that you must only consider a sufficiantly small amount of space.  It refers only to the "force" generated by gravity, not gravitational inconsistancies.

If relativity were wrong then I would love to hear how you explain gravitational waves.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers

« on: March 01, 2016, 09:57:21 AM »

Thanks for considering my application. I was just suggesting that, if Earth is a globe orbiting the Sun attracting objects (like asteroids) to it by gravity, the ESA Rosetta spacecraft should have crashed on Earth 4 March, 2005, but I didn't see that. I saw no Rosetta at all!

You must prove using the methods specified previously that it's physically impossible for a space craft to come close to a planet without crashing into it.  If you don't do that then you won't win, it's as simple as that.

ESA suggests that Rosetta was kicked away some way and how it was possible due to gravity alone is beyond me. If Earth is flat maybe a the kick is like a tennis ball (Rosetta) bouncing against a window screen of a car (the upper atmosphere of the flat Earth) but I doubt it.

Prove that it's impossible and you will win.  The burden of proof is on you.  Interestingly enough, just a week or two ago a large asteroid came very close to Earth without hitting, if it had hit then it would be bad for us because that thing was massive but instead it just passed by Rosetta style.  Either asteroids are an exeption to the laws of physics or you are wrong.

15

Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers

« on: February 29, 2016, 11:30:49 AM »

Good! After the first fly-by of Earth in 4/5 March 2005, the Rosetta spacecraft headed to Mars and then returned to Earth twice in November 2007 and November 2009 for its second and third fly-bys of Earth.

Amateur astronomers were asked to take pictures and to submit them to ESA, which apparently happened. Rosetta also took pictures of the Earth when flying by and being kicked in new directions at increased speed to show a round Earth.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Highlights/Rosetta_flybys

However as I said in my application for your $250 - I looked and didn't see any fly bys to confirm that Earth is a globe. I think ESA faked it to make us believe things that are not real.

I suggest you contact ESA to confirm its amazing findings.

I have done gravity assists in multiple simulations many times.  Gravitational energy transfer is the whole reason why systems with more then two bodies are unstable which is the 3 body problem.

I will allow you to enter the challenge with that argument, even though it doesn't pertain to the shape of the Earth.  Since this is my challenge, you will have to play by my rules.  Since this entry is an exemption to the normal rules, I will have to define the conditions of your victory.  There are two ways you can win.  You can use orbital mechanics and physics equations derived by Obearth, Keppler, Newton, Hoffman, and other physicists and mathematicians to mathematically demonstrate that using a gravitational encounter to alter velocity without impacting the planet is impossible, or you can demonstrate that same thing using an open source simulation.  If you have a problem with my conditions, then I will have to ask you to stop cluttering up my thread with your BS.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers

« on: February 25, 2016, 06:47:57 PM »

This is an easy one. According the European Space Agency, ESA, their spacecraft Rosetta  approached planet Earth from behind at a speed of ~40 000 m/s and almost collided with it 4 March 2005. See Chapter 1.19.1 of http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm#JTC

“The first Earth swing-by will take place on 4 March 2005 at around 22h10 UT, when the spacecraft will be 1900 km from the surface. Rosetta will approach from the direction away from the Sun and have its closest approach on the illuminated side of the Earth. As the spacecraft approaches, it will seem to fly to the west and will disappear on the dayside of the Earth,”according ESA.

According https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Rosetta_spacecraft :

“2005 March 4 — The first planned flyby of Earth was executed successfully. ESA asks amateur astronomers that took pictures of the spacecraft to submit them. Also, tests with the Moon as target standing in for a comet or asteroid, produced pictures and other data as expected.”

However, as an amateur astronomer I didn’t see any spacecraft flying by and I could thus not take any pictures of it. If planet Earth would have been a globe, I assume the ESA spacecraft Rosetta would have crashed on it Bull’s Eye and it would have been a nice picture.

If Earth was flat, I assume the spacecraft would just fly by as suggested by ESA or maybe not turn as expected, but I didn’t see any spacecraft at all.

My observation indicates that Earth is not a globe. Pls send the $250 to your Church fund. I asked ESA to provide pictures of the flyby but they could not produce any.

I need observations backing up your claim that gravity assists are impossible (simulations will do) and I need an explenation of why this should make me doubt that Earth is round.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 101 Globe Earth Facts

« on: February 11, 2016, 12:10:50 PM »

It is true to state that the globe shape of the earth is irrefutable, depending on the sense one means for the word 'irrefutable'.  I was using 'irrefutable' in a common/generic sense, not in a literal sense.  For example, I know that one can test, or attempt to falsify/refute, the globe shape of the earth.  Flat earthers do this constantly.  That's not how I meant 'irrefutable'.

People will commonly use the word 'irrefutable' when discussing an issue that has an overwhelming abundance of evidence supporting its truth: "There is irrefutable evidence that he committed these crimes" - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irrefutable

My point was simply that there is such an overwhelming abundance of evidence in favor of the globe shape of the earth (viz. '101 Globe Earth Facts'), that any attempt made by flat earthers to refute its globular shape would fail.

Your statement that there are no facts in science is nonsense.  Even the website you linked to refutes you: "Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."

Notice that it says 'what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow".  It's not saying there are no facts, but rather that what is accepted as true today, 'may be' - not 'will be' - debunked tomorrow.  It's saying that science can be wrong sometimes, not that there is no truth or facts in science at all.  Its statement, "Truth in science... is never final," also does not mean there is no truth or facts, but rather that the scientist is open to new data that may contradict the old measurement.  It's not surprising that a website defending evolution and 'climate change' (both of which are a hoax), would take an extremely skeptical stance on the nature of truth, for it is a website defending lies.

OK, I was wrong about what I thought you were trying to say before.

"Scientists are careful to distinguish between: 1) states of affairs in the external world and 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science

You need to be careful not to fall into the false philosophy of scientism:

"an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)" - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism

"Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning - to the exclusion of other viewpoints." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Well then, I suppose it's a god thing that I don't apply science to everything.

You are being dishonest again.  I didn't say 'all evolutionists are dishonest'.  I said that dishonesty is 'typical of evolutionists'.  This means there could be exceptions (in which case they would be either deceived or deluded), but that a hallmark characteristic of almost all evolutionists is dishonesty.

Please excuse my non-photographic memory.  Lying implies an intent to deceive, which I assure you is not present.  My point still stands though, you are generalizing which is a logical fallacy, you are judging my character based on my belief in a theory.

After all, evolution (GTE) is a lie, and so to obstinately defend it after seeing the evidence against it is to be a liar.

You are aware that that is circular reasoning, right?  You started with the premise that evolution is a lie and concluded that evolution is a lie.

I know that science is not perfect and that it's been wrong before.  I understand that creationism is a possibility and that I could be wrong.  This is called open mindedness.

If I were incorrect, then that doesn't make me a liar.  For example: flat earthers believe flat Earth despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary.  The truth is hard to find, which is why there are so many different religions in the world.

I am actually a Christian.  I used to believe that evolution was a lie like you.  I cringed at the thought of it, but then I decided to question why I cringed at it and actually learn the other side of the debate.  I was convinced one idea at a time.  I still engage in debates like this one because I am open to being proven wrong.

So I have one question for you.  Are you open to the idea that you with your imperfect reasoning might be wrong?  In other words, are you open minded?

18

Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers

« on: February 11, 2016, 11:22:55 AM »

CURVATURE. It does not exist.

Prove it.

This challenge requires an observation that conflicts with round Earth.  You need to prove that the curvature doesn't exist by some observation such as an experiment.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 101 Globe Earth Facts

« on: February 10, 2016, 01:26:00 PM »

You contradict yourself a lot.  You stated earlier that in science, there are no facts.  Yet here again, you are speaking as if there is such a thing as a 'fact'.  Not all knowledge needs to pass through the lense of science in order to be true or factual, and the word science means 'knowledge'.

As I explained earlier, your definition of "facts" (which you define as "irrefutable" in the OP) does not exist in science.  I should have made that more clear at first, sorry for the confusion.  In science, no idea is beyond question.

It should also be noted that generalizing people and judging them based off of their beliefs (like calling all "evolutionists" dishonest) is a sign of closed mindedness.  I on the other hand I don't care that you are a creationist and I realize that you are probobaly a pretty decent person, I don't know for sure though because I judge people on an individual basis rather then generalizing.  I suggest you do the same.

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Veganism

« on: February 10, 2016, 12:55:18 PM »

Yeah...  You're right.  We need to stop eating so much meat 'cause it's bad for us and the (round) Earth.  It's also inhuman and unsustainable.  I know it's no excuse, but bacon is delicious and I lack the motivation to become vegan.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 101 Globe Earth Facts

« on: February 09, 2016, 09:42:47 AM »

In science, there are no "facts"... In science, the single highest status an idea can have is a theory...

- citation needed

Citation provided.

You also contradict yourself.  You linked to a website that stated:  "There's the fact of evolution... The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution."

I should clarify, in science there are no facts by your definition.  You clearly define a fact as something that cannot ever be refuted and is for sure 100% true beyond question.

You are being dishonest (typical of evolutionists).  A theory explains the facts (data).  The theory itself is not a fact.  You are not distinguishing accurately between facts and theory.

Yeah, theories and facts define different things and a no theory can ever become a fact.  That's what I have been saying this whole time.

101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe - http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

I skimmed it and I have debunked most of those arguments on prior debates already.

The evolutionist trolls are trying to derail this thread.

You are the one who started debating evolution, I just posted a source explaining what theories are that also talks about evolution a bit.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: upward acceleration and the universal speed limit?

« on: February 08, 2016, 08:29:30 PM »

This isn't a challenge..

So mass bends space time, but the world is flat and gravity is magic?

Cool story bro, when I troll i do my research.

Ignore TheEngineer, he is just a troll who perpetually sits on the fense between flat Earth and round Earth and is a nuisance to everyone.  He literally evaded me twice when I asked him what model he supported, he won't tell anyone.  I literally just got back from putting him on my ignore list.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: My theory on the theory of gravity

« on: February 08, 2016, 08:17:40 PM »

Seriously, this is like debating with Heiwa again.  I am giving you one last chance to answer, and if you don't answer this question in your next reply then you will earn yourself a spot on my ignore list.

Were we not debating whether gravity was a force or not?  What does that have to do with the shape of the Earth?  It seems to me that you are looking for a way to run away from our debate since you have been proven wrong.

Congratulations, you are now on my ignore list for being a troll.  The list is pretty exclusive, as the only other two people on it are the two most hateful people I have ever encountered.  You are actually the first moderator to make it on the list, which is really saying something.  It's pretty herd to get on, and since you seem so dedicated to letting nobody know what shape you believe the Earth to be, it's clear that you are only here to argue with anyone and everyonle about anything and everything.  You just get on everybody's nerves and then argue about semantics.  You can't say I didn't give you a chance.

If I really was trying to run away from the argument, you could have foiled it by typing two letters on your keyboard, either FE or RE.  If you want to get off my ignore list, then just PM me saying what shape you believe the Earth to be.  Until then, good riddance.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 101 Globe Earth Facts

« on: February 08, 2016, 08:02:36 PM »

"In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science

The globe shape of the earth is an observable fact.

On the other hand, evolution is not a fact.  It is a pseudoscientific theory, just like flat earth theory:

Is evolution pseudoscience? - http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience

You still don't understand the meaning of "theory" in a scientific context I see.  In science, there are no "facts".  Nothing is accelted as a universal truth because everything is subject to change, this is because scientists are open minded and willing to accept that they might be wrong as open minded people do.  In science, the single highest status an idea can have is a theory, and for something to be a theory it must have enough evidence backing it up that nobody in the peer review process can find anything wrong with it until it becomes universally accepted.  Other examples of theories are cell theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, quantum theory, atomic theory, programming theory, and music theory.  That's right, the way computers work and the way music works is "just a theory".

I could get into a big debate about evolution like I am having with the Luke [insert numbers here] fellow over email, but just because I have a sense of humor I am going to have to link you to a website containing 101 evolution facts:
http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 101 Globe Earth Facts

« on: February 08, 2016, 01:32:20 PM »

The globe shape of the earth is not a theory.  It is a fact.

Do you even know what the word "theory" means in a scientific context?  The existence of cells is also a theory.  This website explains it quite nicely:

http://notjustatheory.com

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: My theory on the theory of gravity

« on: February 08, 2016, 01:21:50 PM »

So you admit you were wrong.  I'll take that apology now.

My opinion hasn't changed, I just pointed out that it agrees with yours.

Also, an apology for debating with you on a debate forum?  You must be very easy to offend.

Oh, and you also didn't answer my question.  I will make it big this time so you don't miss it.

What shape do you believe the Earth to be?  The lack of an answer will be interpreted as "I am a troll who is here to argue with anyone and everyone about semantics".  This really shouldn't be that hard.

Seriously, this is like debating with Heiwa again.  I am giving you one last chance to answer, and if you don't answer this question in your next reply then you will earn yourself a spot on my ignore list.

27

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 9/11 an Inside Job?

« on: February 08, 2016, 09:47:28 AM »

It was an interesting video to say the least. But there are still things that need to be explained such as the British news anouncing  the towers being hit minutes before they actually did. Then there's building 7. Also if the the plane hit the pentagon then we should see pieces of the wings on the lawn.

Like I said, that was part one of a 7 part series.  Here are parts 2-5:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Parts 6 and 7 are in a very different format:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

If you don't feel like watching all of these, I could just explain the various points they bring up when s point arises.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: My theory on the theory of gravity

« on: February 08, 2016, 09:08:28 AM »

I'm arguing that gravity is not a force.  RE or FE does not come into play in this scenario.  General Relativity and I are in complete alignment.  You are the one that is arguing against established science.

Weather gravity is a force is a matter of interpretation, which is why it's the subject of ongoing debate.  I am not saying that it is a force, I am saying that it can be interpreted as such.  It seems that we never had any disagreement on this, you are just arguing about semantics.  What I was arguing against was your forum signature, which still confused the heck out of me.

You didn't answer my question.  What shape do you believe the Earth to be?  The lack of an answer will be interpreted as "I am a troll who is here to argue with anyone and everyone about semantics".  This really shouldn't be that hard.

29

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 9/11 an Inside Job?

« on: February 08, 2016, 07:31:41 AM »

Here's the link I forgot to post earlier.

http://www.911proof.com/

If we are just posting links with tons of content now then there is something I want you to see:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

This is part one in a 7 part series.  It debunks most (if not all) of what that website claims.  I will still read through your website, but I also want you to watch this.  If you watch it in YouTube then the other parts will be in the suggested video section.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: My theory on the theory of gravity

« on: February 07, 2016, 08:46:48 PM »

Because gravity does not exist as a force.  As I've said a bunch of times, now.

Yet you say this:

Gravitational and inertial mass are equivalent.
In this context, it means that a non inertial observer who believes himself to be at rest must introduce fictitious forces to resolve the apparent acceleration observed in the rest frame.  Therefore, it is not possible to distinguish between an accelerating frame of reference and one in a gravitational field in a sufficiently local region of space.

I would love to see a source that uses the word "fictitious" the way you did.

Also, as I have mentioned many times and quoted Einstein saying, reguardless of weather you treat gravity as a force or spacial curvature, all predictions made are exactaly the same.  This means that by definition they are indestinguishable and equivelent.

To start, your forum signature.

What about it?

The picture that says that gravity is magical.  Magic is a synonym of supernatural, which is made up of the greek word parts super (meaning above or beyond) and natural (meaning nature).  If gravity is beyond nature, then this means that it's not natural law, or in other words it does not exist at all.

You are lacking a cited source that it conflicts with.

https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf

I don't really want to spend all afternoon reading all 184 pages.  Could you just give me a page number(s) where it says that the equivelence principal is not real and that gravity is magical as you claim?

"A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field"

The equivalence principle?  How does that show you are correct in any of those quotes I posted?  That doesn't even make sense.  All of those quotes that I posted of yours are against General Relativity.

I made the part more obvious that I want you to take note of.  The quotes you posted were of me claiming that gravity was a force, and that gravity was an aperent force.  Both assertions are true, according to Einstein himself.  Gravity can be described as a force and produce identical predictions.  Weather it should be among the fundemental forces is a subject of ongoing debate among people who know all the equations of general and special relativity off the top of their heads.

Let me ask you something.  What shape to you believe the Earth to be?  Everything about your forum profile suggests that you are a flat earther, yet your posts suggest otherwise.  Your position on this whole debate is about as clear as mud, it's almost as if you are just trying to get into debates with anyone and everyone.  I am really confused about this, and some clarification would be nice.