61

Flat Earth General / Speed of light

« on: September 25, 2011, 03:53:01 PM »

What is your FEs take on speed of light?
Is it true, false, also a hoax?

62

Flat Earth General / Was this a hoax as well?

« on: September 25, 2011, 03:52:20 PM »

And there's another one coming in october.
Are all those people with iPhones part of the conspiracy?

63

Flat Earth General / Re: Why dont you send a baloon up and take pictures? Why not rent a plane?

« on: September 25, 2011, 03:48:30 PM »

It is not a real flight, it is just a projection on the canopy to make it look like they are seeing the curvature of the Earth.  I don't need evidence, I am a zetetic.

When exactly does the projection begin?
You can clearly experience for yourself that you are approaching and boarding the plane.
When you are inside, you still see stuff that was around there before you came in.
Not to mention the Gs you are about to experience, how do they "project" Gs?

64

Flat Earth General / Re: Thork, you have been challenged

« on: September 25, 2011, 03:37:50 PM »

The North and South geographic poles are both at the center of our disk (which is to say the explored region of our plane.)

lets just keep the discussion about the distance between NZ and ARG, and how do FE prove it is 15000 miles?

This is about the distance between NZ and ARG.  The distance is the same as it is on a flat earth due to fractally recursive geography.

You guys should set your stories straight. Is the FE model that has been shown on this forum the one you stand behind?
If it is what you stand by, then what in the hell's name do fractals have to do with anything? Your map shows roughly 15000 miles between ARG to NZ. RE says it's around 6000 miles.
This is easy to verify. RE has already stated 6000 miles, this is a simple thing to verify, and you can not end up with 15000 no matter what you do, that is unless you admit the Earth is a round sphere.

65

Flat Earth General / Re: Thork, you have been challenged

« on: September 23, 2011, 08:18:16 AM »

The North and South geographic poles are both at the center of our disk (which is to say the explored region of our plane.)

lets just keep the discussion about the distance between NZ and ARG, and how do FE prove it is 15000 miles?

66

Flat Earth General / Re: Thork, you have been challenged

« on: September 23, 2011, 07:39:03 AM »

But humour us Thork, we beg for your explanation, just this one more time...

Can you not humor us, and just use the search function that we are kind enough to have available for your use?

I tried but none of the results offers an answer to my question regarding different lengths between N.Zealand and Argentina between RE and FE.
And FE says around 15000 miles, which is far from the actual length. So, either explain this or simply state that FE theory has been busted.

67

Flat Earth General / Re: Recent trip to space by a civilian

« on: September 21, 2011, 03:19:09 PM »

It makes me wonder why we use this:

Probably because all other stars don't seem to be round when you watch the night sky, especially not those that seem to spark. So, a PENTAGRAM resembles to a sparking thing more than a round object

68

Flat Earth General / Re: Is this a huge joke?

« on: September 21, 2011, 03:15:31 PM »

all human kind are from adam and eve

Excuse me, what?
We all root from a incestual relationships? Come on...

69

Flat Earth General / Re: Is this a huge joke?

« on: September 21, 2011, 03:13:57 PM »

Ah yes, the mid-1800's were the height of our technological prowess! How silly of me to accept that scientific understandings could have possibly evolved over the span of 150 years!

Since the advent of space exploration, advanced telescopes, and a general improvement of technology, how can you possibly still take a paper that old at face value, when it has been thoroughly shattered as a theory? Do you also believe that the four elements of chemistry are Earth, Wind, Water and Fire? I would hope not. The periodic table and atomic theory has long since abolished that primitive understanding.

Truth does not have an expiry date.

Neither do fairy tales

70

Flat Earth General / Re: Thork, you have been challenged

« on: September 21, 2011, 03:12:10 PM »

But humour us Thork, we beg for your explanation, just this one more time...

71

Flat Earth General / Re: Thork, you have been challenged

« on: September 21, 2011, 06:09:12 AM »

so, I'm still waiting for the 15000 vs 6000miles issue
Thork, where are you hiding?

72

Flat Earth General / Re: Could someone demonstrate a photoshop magic?

« on: September 17, 2011, 12:00:10 PM »

Oh, I completely agree. This is exactly what NASA is doing with your billions of dollars every year. Hopefully, this will put to rest for you the endless questions of "How would a conspiracy make money?"  The Apollo project alone cost nearly 85 Billion dollars.

Don't avoid the subject.
You just said you needed billions of dollars to fake Nasa stuff, and I proved otherwise. Now, go on and fake the pics and videos. A couple of thousands of dollars is next to nothing if you so strongly support the bigger picture of the FE theory and your beliefs.

73

Flat Earth General / Re: Thork, you have been challenged

« on: September 17, 2011, 10:53:19 AM »

It is unhealthy for the flat earth movement.

not to mention yourself

C'mon THORK! Still waiting you to announce what is the distance between Argentina and New Zealand,... and Paris to Vladivostok, according to FE of course. Thanks infront

74

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 17, 2011, 10:51:18 AM »

satellites can and do exist.
there is no reason why they cannot in a spherical or disc earth.

just another piece of fiction from the very unzetetic FAQ.

Obviously, if you have flat disc that has no gravity you can't have satellites, not to mention geosynchronic orbit. This is why they simply discarded the fact that satellites exist.

75

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 17, 2011, 10:48:16 AM »

This can all be very simple. If FEs can't prove distance between Argentina and NZ is roughly 15000 miles, and at the same time they conclude both distances (NZ- Arg, and Paris to Vladivostok) are approx. 6000 miles then RE wins.

No need to water down the discussion, just prove straight line from ARG to NZ is 15000 miles and we are done. And please don't say to us to prove otherwise as both boat and airlines from ARG to NZ have already proven the 6000 miles distance.

76

Flat Earth General / Re: Thork, you have been challenged

« on: September 17, 2011, 03:42:44 AM »

Well several reasons. The first is that if you bothered to use the search function you will find I have answered Southern Hemiplane distance questions hundreds of times before and I didn't fancy doing it all again. The second is that if I answer every single FET thread you only get my opinion and not that of the rest of the FErs so I tend not to be in all threads at once. It is unhealthy for the flat earth movement. Third and most importantly, I only just woke up because I live in England and so I have been asleep and not answering your posts last night.

Well, the topic is more than 24h old and we're practically in the same time zone, at least in the same RE time zone

Anyways, I would very much appreciate if you could then provide links as obviously you can manouver this site more skllfully than me.

77

Flat Earth General / Thork, you have been challenged

« on: September 17, 2011, 03:06:23 AM »

Thork, why aren't you letting us know about your take on distance between Argentina and New Zealand. And how do you explain that by FE theory that distance is roughly 15000 miles and by RE theory it's 6000miles.
Boats that travel that route have already confirmed the distance is 6000miles.
It is also something you can determine by yourself for not so much money involved...

78

Flat Earth General / Re: Could someone demonstrate a photoshop magic?

« on: September 17, 2011, 03:01:30 AM »

If you give me a few billion dollars, I'll hire the best people in the business and produce a film for you. Deal?

The most expensive sci-fi films today cost in range of about 100.000 million, however huge portions of that funding goes to famous actors and all those other people in credits, and those films last at least an hour and a half. If you wanted to produce a short film showing 2 guys jumping on the Moon you would not need no famous actors, you would not need to produce 1.5h long film and you would only need to pay special effect guys.

I'm thinking a couple of thousands of dollars would do.
If that would be too expensive you could hire photoshop pros to do a 3-4 days work to produce fake pictures, I'm thinking these guys would cost a lot less than special effect film guys.


All of that is very very VERY far from BILLIONS of dollars.

79

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 16, 2011, 04:16:25 PM »

Even if you are delivering cargo in bulk, which will eventually be split up and transported elsewhere, it's still more efficient to schedule stops at multiple ports along your way to pick up and drop off cargo. More cargo is getting delivered and passing through the ship than one single large shipment.

You are assuming that the cargo ship isn't already full of cargo going to a single destination.  The logistics of loading and unloading a cargo ship going to a single distribution center is complex enough without having to constantly rearrange everything as you travel from port to port.

not to mention all ports can't even dock bigger ships...
but can we please get back to the issue at hand - the distance between NZ and ARG...

80

Flat Earth General / Re: Could someone demonstrate a photoshop magic?

« on: September 16, 2011, 04:13:55 PM »

Photo manipulation does not require photoshop. On behalf of everyone old enough to remember film, please talk to your parents about this.

I know and is exactly why I let you use photoshop. Because you will say you dint have the equipments for photographic film manipulation. Now that you have the superior tools, show me how it is done?

That would require for FEs to invest in photoshop, and according to their posts and theoretical/fairy-tale arguments, they are broke... Which is actually the main reason they started the FE project - to try to cheat someone to give them money as this is exactly what they are accusing NASA and the whole scientific world.

81

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 16, 2011, 03:40:32 PM »

Water is a polar molecule. The seas are held onto the Earth in spite of the wobbles due to huge electromagnetic forces caused by charged plates of rock on the seabed.

In that case no strong currents could exist, and that's what you need to support FE theory, apart from mariners not being aware of 50mile/h current carrying their ships.

82

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 16, 2011, 03:38:37 PM »

Still noone of the FEs replied about distance between Argentina and New Zealand. My last post begs for your replies, and yet you choose to ignore it... Ignoring facts won't change them.

83

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 16, 2011, 07:38:13 AM »

"The earth is wobbly. Therefore, flight times can be misleading as planes can fly above the wobbles and therefore cover large distances in less time than would be expected. "

very scientific!

1) The wobbles have the be HUGE, to make any difference.
2) GPS systems would show some serious anomalies while sailing on the "wobbles". Like weird accelerating and braking on x-y plane.
3) The wobbles would not match with FE gravity theory. Because it's known that gravity is caused by the acceleration of the earth. Which means these wobbles would be filled with water.
No measurements done on the bottom of the ocean have shown anything likely to match your statement.

4) You could see the other side of wobble approaching as a huge wall, if approaching one.
5) The wobbles have never been mentioned before or seen by anyone, but the earth is very well measured and explored every day, which means you are LYING.

got more?

lets leave them the wobble option, it in fact doesn't affect anything when it comes to ship travel from Argentina to NZ.

84

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 16, 2011, 06:58:57 AM »

Since the majority of seafarers believe in a round earth, they wouldn't find the 5 day trip surprising, would they? They would think they had travelled a shorter distance than they actually had.

Nope, you don't need to involve seafarers in this as, clearly, they are all in the conspiracy.
What you need is 2 boats, one on the Argentinian shores, one on the coast of NZ. Both boats ran by FE believers.
Have the boats take off towards NZ/ARG. Lets assume both boats would reach their destination in roughly the same time that would take X number of days.
Repeat the experiment: have the boats come back and again measure time. X no. of days again.
And for the 3rd time. X number of days again (it doesn't matter if the earth is round or flat, it would roughly be X number of days again).
However, having 2 boats going this way, and finishing the trip in about the same time during some nice weather conditions, would prove the following:

- no strong currents that either slow down or speed up this route no matter what the direction was. as obviously if there was a strong current it would speed one boat up and considerably slow down the other.

So the only thing left to unveil would be the X. If you guys ended up with the X being 5 days, then the earth is round. If the X would be 12.5, then the Earth is flat.

Do not reply this with : come back with results when you get them, as RE results are already here, and they say 5 days if the boats are moving at 50miles per hour. Remember, you can't point out that the speed instrument is faulty if you have two boats in the project doing the opposite direction like described. And what is more important: you can always determine if the boat speed instrument is reading the speed right simply by running a boat along the coast and point a speed-radar towards it. This way you'd rule out the possible conspiracy about speed instruments that have been tampered with.

85

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 16, 2011, 05:10:16 AM »

it is you who need to dispute the already established evidence, not me.
and
you don't need "reference points in the middle of the ocean" you only need to determine how long does the trip take and make sure the current that is rushing you to the argentina is not speeding at about 50mil/h.
You only need your eyes to confirm this, as stream that fast isn't something that's unnoticable.

But it all comes down to this:
a perfect calm sea would give you 5 days trip on RE or 12.5 days trip on FE. If the Earth was Flat, not only would you have to cover the 15000miles in 5 days, but you would have to be unaware that you are being carried by a constant rush of water moving over 50miles/h, plus your own cruising speed of 50miles/h.

86

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 16, 2011, 04:44:13 AM »

I just learned that fastest gulf speed (fastest of all) is about 5.6miles/h. Or 10 times slower than required for the FE to be correct to cover the length of this discussion.
Not to mention that you would need a constant 50mile/h current from NZ to Arg...

87

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 16, 2011, 04:37:17 AM »

A glorified tire pressure gauge invented in the 18th century? Very scientific.

Well, have you got some evidence that proves the device is faulty? Why don't you discuss it with marine techs and point to the faulties? Maybe you are up for a reward in marine technology?
I mean seriously, do you know how big is the marine industry, and how it obviously needs accurate instruments.

Not in the RE model, no.

Ok, and the FE model has some high-speed currents?
Lets do some numbers.
A bigger cruiser would average in about 50miles per hour speed (the faster ones go over 60 miles/h).
If the distance between NZ - Argentina is indeed as RE says it is (6000 miles) the Cruiser would take what 120 hours? This is exactly 5 days trip.
If FE was right, the trip would take 12.5 days.
In order for a FE trip with A CONSTANT fast current to take 5 days you would have to have a current that moves over 50miles per hour. Please name any sea or ocean's current in the FE or RE model that moves that fast? And please provide any evidence...

JUST IMAGINE a boat running 50miles/h on a current flow that rushes more than 50miles/h. What a ride would that be

88

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 16, 2011, 04:16:01 AM »

Actually, the airspeed and boat speed is determined about the same and has been around for quite some time.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question597.htm

This is just one invention if you don't want to believe in GPS.

BTW, there is no SUCH STRONG CURRENT on the Earth (even if you used the water-speedometer) that would make 15000mile trip seem like 6000mile.

89

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 16, 2011, 04:01:55 AM »

It actually isn't difficult at all.
You simply need to measure speed or keep constant speed. If you should be pulled by a current, your speedometer (or whatever it's called for boats) would detect it.
In any case, maintaining speed and travelling in a reasonable straight line towards Argentina gives you ROUGH estimation of the length. You simply bring the speed and time needed for the trip, into equation and result with the length covered.
I'm stressing the ROUGH part, as you only need to determine it is far from 15000miles, and when you are doing it ROUGH you don't need no fancy instruments, that is: costly investments.
Whatever you used you'd end up in the range of 6000mile travel, hence proving the FE model wrong.

90

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 16, 2011, 03:39:16 AM »

so, I didn't say you should sail. Use a boat with an engine or a motor.
Currents don't add/subtract from the 10000 miles, currents affect your speed, and speed again is something you can monitor and come up with accurate calculations at the end of the trip.
Remember, you only have to determine that distance between Argentina and New Zealand is ROUGHLY 6000 miles, OR that it is NOWHERE CLOSE to 15000 (which is what it would be by FE or even more than 15000 by wobbly model).

Wait a sec, are you trying to imply that it is impossible to meause length or speed or both by travelling by a boat?