The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: EternalHoid on November 22, 2015, 03:15:52 PM
-
Is it possible to get anyone on this site to change what theory they believe. As everyone probably thinks they are right, is there any point to the debates. Probably not.
-
Jroa used to think the Earth was round. Then he fell into the unfortunate hellhole that is FET. Now he thinks he's always right and never wrong.
-
The short answer is no, not really.
-
Nice double-shitpost.
You could've just edited your first post, yet you didn't...
Now why would that be, I wonder?
(lol - forum slide creation!)
Why are you not banned?
-
Jroa used to think the Earth was round. Then he fell into the unfortunate hellhole that is FET. Now he thinks he's always right and never wrong.
He also has troubles making claims. It's like he lives to "seed doubt" but never actually coming up with anything that explains anything.
It's easier to plant the seeds of doubt than answering them, sure. But he truly cannot expect people with scientific formation and access to scientific material to just believe all this FE nonsense. Even weaker minds won't believe these dumb ad hoc explanations FE makes simply by being told some elaborate nonsense or by being pointed supposed contradictions on physics.
Jroa tries to attack RE without being able to give anything in return. It's like he's talking like this: "Hey! RE Believers! NASA and the Gov are probably lying to you, but I cannot explain any shit with the theory I believe, so why don't you believe the Earth is flat so we can finally form a softball team with FE believers? We're short on people!"
-
Jroa used to think the Earth was round. Then he fell into the unfortunate hellhole that is FET. Now he thinks he's always right and never wrong.
He also has troubles making claims. It's like he lives to "seed doubt" but never actually coming up with anything that explains anything.
It's easier to plant the seeds of doubt than answering them, sure. But he truly cannot expect people with scientific formation and access to scientific material to just believe all this FE nonsense. Even weaker minds won't believe these dumb ad hoc explanations FE makes simply by being told some elaborate nonsense or by being pointed supposed contradictions on physics.
Jroa tries to attack RE without being able to give anything in return. It's like he's talking like this: "Hey! RE Believers! NASA and the Gov are probably lying to you, but I cannot explain any shit with the theory I believe, so why don't you believe the Earth is flat so we can finally form a softball team with FE believers? We're short on people!"
Why are you ragging on Jroa? He has his opinions and it wouldn't be much of a fun forum if this site didn't have people like Jroa on here to offer other opinions. You REers only regurgitate what you were taught and in school and you can find tons of information to back up your claims. On the other hand, people like Jroa has to question things because they are not the type to just simply roll over and say what the masters tell them to say. There are tons of people like Jroa out there who have other thoughts and opinions, but are too shy to say them because they don't want to stir the pot. They simply take the easy road and go along with the status quo.
-
Jroa and TheEngineer argue dishonestly and overly aggressive, but at least they argue ...
I prefer them over Papa Legba's childish provocations, JRoweSkeptic's angry selfishness or Heiwa's confused condescension every time ...
-
Why are you ragging on Jroa? He has his opinions and it wouldn't be much of a fun forum if this site didn't have people like Jroa on here to offer other opinions.
We'er clearly not talking about the same person. Jroa never shows any opinions, only tries to cast doubt on RE beliefs (but not FE beliefs). He never proposed anything, and never backed up any claim, simply because he can't make any.
You REers only regurgitate what you were taught and in school and you can find tons of information to back up your claims.
Yeah... It would be better if we never set foot in school and kept talking things without minimal knowledge, right? ;D ;D ;D
On the other hand, people like Jroa has to question things because they are not the type to just simply roll over and say what the masters tell them to say. There are tons of people like Jroa out there who have other thoughts and opinions, but are too shy to say them because they don't want to stir the pot. They simply take the easy road and go along with the status quo.
The easy road here is what he chose: To question without any knowledge and/or evidence. Why question something you don't have a clue about? ;D
-
Accept it, yes: assume it, no.
Most REers seem to rely on their confidence in their model and subsequent arrogance in lieu of any honest argument. I may lose my temper, but at least I have answers. Of course, they don't mean anything if you're simply going to ignore them.
-
I personally think FE can't be true because of contradictions, but I will change my mind about RE being right if I am shown evidence that the earth can't be round.
Question about DET, is it falsifiable.
-
I personally think FE can't be true because of contradictions, but I will change my mind about RE being right if I am shown evidence that the earth can't be round.
Question about DET, is it falsifiable.
There aren't anywhere near as many contradictions as you think, REers just rarely stop using an argument.
DEt is certainly falsifiable, even if it has not been falsified.
-
I personally think FE can't be true because of contradictions, but I will change my mind about RE being right if I am shown evidence that the earth can't be round.
Question about DET, is it falsifiable.
DEF - yes. See the "Amateur Astronomy - Equatorial Alignment". Aligning equatorially mounted telescopes is a falsifiable test that has FALSIFIED all Flat Earth models (including DEF). BTW, FYI, I refer to it as Dual Earth Fantasy (DEF). It is no where remotely a theory. It is not even a hypothesis. See "How do stars stay together/form on a flat earth?" reply #18.
-
Jroa and TheEngineer argue dishonestly and overly aggressive, but at least they argue ...
I prefer them over Papa Legba's childish provocations, JRoweSkeptic's angry selfishness or Heiwa's confused condescension every time ...
I read nearly every post on here and I don't think Jroa really tries to be dishonest. He is trying to bring out what he believes and does a great job of explaining the other side of a discussion. Most everything REes try and prove can be explained a different way that makes a lot of sense. It is just that you believe what you were taught and nothing will convince you otherwise. Jroa is different, Like myself he sees a lot of things that don't necessarily line up with conventional thinking and beliefs and he is not afraid of expressing it. This has happened to him enough times that he seems totally convinced things are not as they want us to believe. I can almost say the same thing, but I'm not quite as convinced as Jroa. Maybe I will be someday or I may flip back the other way, who knows.
-
I personally think FE can't be true because of contradictions, but I will change my mind about RE being right if I am shown evidence that the earth can't be round.
Question about DET, is it falsifiable.
DEF - yes. See the "Amateur Astronomy - Equatorial Alignment". Aligning equatorially mounted telescopes is a falsifiable test that has FALSIFIED all Flat Earth models (including DEF). BTW, FYI, I refer to it as Dual Earth Fantasy (DEF). It is no where remotely a theory. It is not even a hypothesis. See "How do stars stay together/form on a flat earth?" reply #18.
Please note that Jadyyn is still debating this argument, and has been incapable of responding to anything I've said over several pages, and yet he insist on posting this argument over multiple threads like it's some kind of cut-and-dried victory: and he does so without linking. Sure, he references a thread, but no one ever checks like that. If he linked, you'd see that he's been constantly evading a simple question for multiple plages, and you'd have to make up your own mind, rather than simply doing what he says.
Plus he feels the need to spam multiple threads, often with the exact same post. It's very tedious to have any kind of discussion with someone so arrogant.
-
I'm willing to change my mind. That's why I'm here. But the more time I spend here, the more convinced I am that the earth is round.
-
Jroa and TheEngineer argue dishonestly and overly aggressive, but at least they argue ...
I prefer them over Papa Legba's childish provocations, JRoweSkeptic's angry selfishness or Heiwa's confused condescension every time ...
I read nearly every post on here and I don't think Jroa really tries to be dishonest.
I would not call that dishonesty, but incapacity. Jroa and the engineer both show no evidence for their claims. All they can do is try - and fail at - seeding doubt on the weaker minds. They seem much more interested in spreading misinformation than providing a flat earth explanation that could be a little scientific (They CANNOT do this, since science already knows the Earth is round).
-
Jroa and TheEngineer argue dishonestly and overly aggressive, but at least they argue ...
I prefer them over Papa Legba's childish provocations, JRoweSkeptic's angry selfishness or Heiwa's confused condescension every time ...
I read nearly every post on here and I don't think Jroa really tries to be dishonest.
I would not call that dishonesty, but incapacity. Jroa and the engineer both show no evidence for their claims. All they can do is try - and fail at - seeding doubt on the weaker minds. They seem much more interested in spreading misinformation than providing a flat earth explanation that could be a little scientific (They CANNOT do this, since science already knows the Earth is round).
But kirk, you can't know that for sure unless you have been on the outside looking in. Only a few people have done that and I find it hard to believe you are one of them. So, you simply take their word for it as if it was a religion.
-
But kirk, you can't know that for sure unless you have been on the outside looking in. Only a few people have done that and I find it hard to believe you are one of them. So, you simply take their word for it as if it was a religion.
You seem to be a disciple to jroa. Employing the same "tactics" as him. ;D
Of course I know for sure. The moon must be a body with mass and opacity. Otherwise, there would be no eclipses. See? I don't need to believe some guy that landed on the moon and even took back photografic evidence with him.
See? You tried to cast a shadow of doubt on my position, and now everyone just knows it is perfectly logical and true.
The moon is a physical body, no matter what you say.
-
But kirk, you can't know that for sure unless you have been on the outside looking in. Only a few people have done that and I find it hard to believe you are one of them. So, you simply take their word for it as if it was a religion.
You seem to be a disciple to jroa. Employing the same "tactics" as him. ;D
Of course I know for sure. The moon must be a body with mass and opacity. Otherwise, there would be no eclipses. See? I don't need to believe some guy that landed on the moon and even took back photografic evidence with him.
See? You tried to cast a shadow of doubt on my position, and now everyone just knows it is perfectly logical and true.
The moon is a physical body, no matter what you say.
I'm not a disciple of Jroa, I'm just someone who tries to see if there is another side to an issue and if there is, can it make more sense to me. You used the eclipses to prove, in your mind, that the Earth is a globe. Well, to me when the Moon is full and the Earth passes directly between the Sun and the Moon, the Earth’s shadow shows up on the Moon’s surface as being curved. It doesn't mean to me that it is necessarily ball shaped, it could possibly be shaped like a disc. To me that is perfectly logical if we live on a flat Earth. I admit that there are things that I can't explain on a flat Earth, maybe I never will. But to me it is fun investigating.
(http://i.imgur.com/0ZE9aFt.jpg)
-
I'm not a disciple of Jroa, I'm just someone who tries to see if there is another side to an issue and if there is, can it make more sense to me. You used the eclipses to prove, in your mind, that the Earth is a globe. Well, to me when the Moon is full and the Earth passes directly between the Sun and the Moon, the Earth’s shadow shows up on the Moon’s surface as being curved. It doesn't mean to me that it is necessarily ball shaped, it could possibly be shaped like a disc. To me that is perfectly logical if we live on a flat Earth. I admit that there are things that I can't explain on a flat Earth, maybe I never will. But to me it is fun investigating.
(http://i.imgur.com/0ZE9aFt.jpg)
The moon is not a disc. It's round, the phases alone confirm this. Have your "fun" investigating something else ::)
-
I'm not a disciple of Jroa, I'm just someone who tries to see if there is another side to an issue and if there is, can it make more sense to me. You used the eclipses to prove, in your mind, that the Earth is a globe. Well, to me when the Moon is full and the Earth passes directly between the Sun and the Moon, the Earth’s shadow shows up on the Moon’s surface as being curved. It doesn't mean to me that it is necessarily ball shaped, it could possibly be shaped like a disc. To me that is perfectly logical if we live on a flat Earth. I admit that there are things that I can't explain on a flat Earth, maybe I never will. But to me it is fun investigating.
(http://i.imgur.com/0ZE9aFt.jpg)
The moon is not a disc. It's round, the phases alone confirm this. Have your "fun" investigating something else ::)
You can't tell me that the Moon doesn't look like a disc. Have you seen all the way around it and how does it illuminate?
-
I personally think FE can't be true because of contradictions, but I will change my mind about RE being right if I am shown evidence that the earth can't be round.
Question about DET, is it falsifiable.
DEF - yes. See the "Amateur Astronomy - Equatorial Alignment". Aligning equatorially mounted telescopes is a falsifiable test that has FALSIFIED all Flat Earth models (including DEF). BTW, FYI, I refer to it as Dual Earth Fantasy (DEF). It is no where remotely a theory. It is not even a hypothesis. See "How do stars stay together/form on a flat earth?" reply #18.
Please note that Jadyyn is still debating this argument, and has been incapable of responding to anything I've said over several pages, and yet he insist on posting this argument over multiple threads like it's some kind of cut-and-dried victory: and he does so without linking. Sure, he references a thread, but no one ever checks like that. If he linked, you'd see that he's been constantly evading a simple question for multiple plages, and you'd have to make up your own mind, rather than simply doing what he says.
Plus he feels the need to spam multiple threads, often with the exact same post. It's very tedious to have any kind of discussion with someone so arrogant.
It is funny. When I link my threads, I am accused of spamming or pushing my threads. Now, I am not linking. I can't win.
As far as the argument, it disproves ALL Flat models. JRoweSkeptic does not understand REAL amateur astronomy requirements, the physics of rotating things, and the differences between spherical and flat surfaces. When given examples, he ignores what REAL astronomers do and dreams up explanations (altitude of stars), with no specifics of course, to explain what he does not understand.
Yes, please look at what needs to happen as explained multiple ways, with links and diagrams. Then, IF you can find his responses, see what BS he as come up with. Since he does not even know where an observer is or the height of the N. Celestial Pole in DEF, he can not determine an angle. Yet, he says he knows DEF can align a telescope! Total BS. Check it out (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64697.0#.VlSeB3arSUk (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64697.0#.VlSeB3arSUk))
-
It is funny. When I link my threads, I am accused of spamming or pushing my threads. Now, I am not linking. I can't win.
You can win if you'd do something as unthinkable as staying on topic rather than whinging like a terrified child.
Yes, please look at what needs to happen as explained multiple ways, with links and diagrams.
Rather, find what needs to happen under the RE model, without even an attempt to address any alternative.
Since he does not even know where an observer is or the height of the N. Celestial Pole in DEF, he can not determine an angle. Yet, he says he knows DEF can align a telescope!
And observe that Jadyyn believes the default position should be to reject a model, which makes his attempt to falsify pretty pointless. Either we should reject anything beyond RET because he says so, or there is a valid argument to do so: in which case Jadyyn needs to show impossibility, and by contraposition, to refute that I need only show possibility.
No understanding of even the basics of logic.
-
Yes, please look at what needs to happen as explained multiple ways, with links and diagrams.
Rather, find what needs to happen under the RE model, without even an attempt to address any alternative.
I present the REQUIREMENTS of aligning telescopes - that you do not understand. These are not RET things but telescope things. RET fulfills these requirements and actually, the requirements PROVE RET. You do not present alternatives that fulfill the requirements. Just random alternatives that can not align a telescope! When asked for specifics to test against what astronomers actually do, the alternatives you suggest can not provide any - but you state with authority they can and do! Total 100% BS.
As I asked, if you don't know where an observer is on your model nor the height of the NCP, how can you determine an angle? How can you assert/claim the angle matches what astronomers do? How can you say DEF works? How can you say you refuted aligning telescopes? These you keep asserting/claiming in other threads when I bring up this disproof.
Since he does not even know where an observer is or the height of the N. Celestial Pole in DEF, he can not determine an angle. Yet, he says he knows DEF can align a telescope!
And observe that Jadyyn believes the default position should be to reject a model, which makes his attempt to falsify pretty pointless. Either we should reject anything beyond RET because he says so, or there is a valid argument to do so: in which case Jadyyn needs to show impossibility, and by contraposition, to refute that I need only show possibility.
No understanding of even the basics of logic.
Um... that is what falsifiable tests do. If the test is falsified, the model is a FANTASY. Duh...
No, (1) you don't only need to show possibility. ALL things are possible in a FANTASY. I totally 100% agree EVERYTHING in DEF is POSSIBLE!!! It is a FANTASY. You do not need to show ANYTHING. (2) If you want DEF to be more than a FANTASY, you need to show it matches REALITY. Demonstrate the required ANGLES. Provide REAL evidence.
Even IF another model works (definitely HE and possibly CE - it is not impossible - I admit it) aligning telescopes, so what? It has nothing to do with DEF. DEF remains a FANTASY. We are not here to prove Hollow Earth or Concave Earth theories. Congratulations! You win! Other models can align telescopes! They are not FLAT! WOW! ... but ... ALL FE models (including DEF) remain FANTASIES because they are FLAT! What have you won?
-
To bring this back on topic:
If I was ever wrong, I would accept it. However, I'm never wrong.
Unless you ask my wife.
-
Would any of you confirm the existence of Manned space travel and NASA being authentic if you personally observed the ISS with say an 8 inch telescope?? or something similar. I know you need first hand sensory evidence to believe something. i am just wondering if this would fit the requirements to form a belief??
-
No, (1) you don't only need to show possibility. ALL things are possible in a FANTASY. I totally 100% agree EVERYTHING in DEF is POSSIBLE!!! It is a FANTASY. You do not need to show ANYTHING. (2) If you want DEF to be more than a FANTASY, you need to show it matches REALITY. Demonstrate the required ANGLES. Provide REAL evidence.
And here's your dishonesty plain as day. All I need to do is demonstrate possibility: which I have done. Therefore, you haven't falsified a damn thing. Do you understand anything?!
To demonstrate DET matches reality, there's more than this alignment argument you have a hard-on over. All your argument boils down to is the fact I have limited resources, which I have never denied. Try to be honest for once.
-
Jadyyn, from what I have read DET seems to predict that astronomy works exactly the same as in RE, the reason is probably that the ather distorts or creates the stars and their movement.
About falseablity and predictions, are there any experiments that should give different results in DET or RE. Because the predictions of DET seem to match RET, if they perfectly match then they kind of become the same theory, because the main part of a theory is its predictions.
-
I'm not a disciple of Jroa, I'm just someone who tries to see if there is another side to an issue and if there is, can it make more sense to me. You used the eclipses to prove, in your mind, that the Earth is a globe. Well, to me when the Moon is full and the Earth passes directly between the Sun and the Moon, the Earth’s shadow shows up on the Moon’s surface as being curved. It doesn't mean to me that it is necessarily ball shaped, it could possibly be shaped like a disc. To me that is perfectly logical if we live on a flat Earth. I admit that there are things that I can't explain on a flat Earth, maybe I never will. But to me it is fun investigating.
(http://i.imgur.com/0ZE9aFt.jpg)
The moon is not a disc. It's round, the phases alone confirm this. Have your "fun" investigating something else ::)
You can't tell me that the Moon doesn't look like a disc. Have you seen all the way around it and how does it illuminate?
Yes, I have. It's a round object, not a perfect sphere though. It's quite spherical indeed.
-
To bring this back on topic:
If I was ever wrong, I would accept it. However, I'm never wrong.
Unless you ask my wife.
You're not wrong believing the earth is flat. You can always believe anything you want. However, if you claim that, then you're wrong.
-
I'm not a disciple of Jroa, I'm just someone who tries to see if there is another side to an issue and if there is, can it make more sense to me. You used the eclipses to prove, in your mind, that the Earth is a globe. Well, to me when the Moon is full and the Earth passes directly between the Sun and the Moon, the Earth’s shadow shows up on the Moon’s surface as being curved. It doesn't mean to me that it is necessarily ball shaped, it could possibly be shaped like a disc. To me that is perfectly logical if we live on a flat Earth. I admit that there are things that I can't explain on a flat Earth, maybe I never will. But to me it is fun investigating.
(http://i.imgur.com/0ZE9aFt.jpg)
The moon is not a disc. It's round, the phases alone confirm this. Have your "fun" investigating something else ::)
You can't tell me that the Moon doesn't look like a disc. Have you seen all the way around it and how does it illuminate?
A simple experiment for you is get a ball, a flat disc, a spotlight of some kind, and a dark room. Put the ball in front of the spotlight and it will emulate the phases of the moon. Try that with the disc.
-
To bring this back on topic:
If I was ever wrong, I would accept it. However, I'm never wrong.
Unless you ask my wife.
You're not wrong believing the earth is flat. You can always believe anything you want. However, if you claim that, then you're wrong.
Like I said: I'm never wrong.
-
It's the Engineer! The New Golden Age can begin. <returns from hiding />
-
It's been the better part of 6 years since my hiatus. I'd forgotten how much fun this place is.
-
To bring this back on topic:
If I was ever wrong, I would accept it. However, I'm never wrong.
Unless you ask my wife.
You're not wrong believing the earth is flat. You can always believe anything you want. However, if you claim that, then you're wrong.
Like I said: I'm never wrong.
So gravitation is acceleration?
-
Like I said: I'm never wrong.
So gravitation is acceleration?
If by that you mean what's right there - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Gravity (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Gravity)
He's not stupid (For someone who believe in a flat earth, at least...). He won't claim that, he knows it's wrong (every sane person knows it ::)). He knows this was already disproved, and can be disproved again as easy as pie. All he can do is try to nitpick something out of the current model - like jroa does. That's why almost no one can believe this fraud of "theory": No proof, no evidence, no science. Nothing... Just a bunch of out-of-the-blue ad hoc explanations that contradict not only scientific observation, but, sometimes, even themselves ;D
You cannot believe FE unless you really want it. You need to forget about science, disregard any observation, get mad at any STEM people working on aerospace stuff, cry out loud about conspiracies and fix your caps lock key once a week. You will also need a wikia, since no media will really take any of this seriously.
-
Like I said: I'm never wrong.
-
Like I said: I'm never wrong.
I hope you're joking because how do you know you're never wrong? What if I told you that I'm never wrong?
-
What if I told you that I'm never wrong?
Well, I've already proven you to be wrong. So, you are unable to claim you are never wrong.
-
What if I told you that I'm never wrong?
Well, I've already proven you to be wrong. So, you are unable to claim you are never wrong.
Where have you proven that I'm wrong? Absolutely no one can be always correct.
-
Where have you proven that I'm wrong?
I'm fairly familiar with what's a plane and what not as I used to want to be a fighter pilot and have a pretty fair grasps on planes and helicopters. Planes have blinking red and green lights on them. The lights I saw were were solid white to yellowish glow to them. My father who is retired Air Force also saw them and he agreed that they were satellites.
Except for the fact that aircraft navigation lights don't flash and that you can only see them when the aircraft is facing you. Oh, and aircraft have rear facing steady white lights. So...I would say you don't know much about aircraft.
-
To bring this back on topic:
If I was ever wrong, I would accept it. However, I'm never wrong.
Unless you ask my wife.
You're not wrong believing the earth is flat. You can always believe anything you want. However, if you claim that, then you're wrong.
Like I said: I'm never wrong.
You were wrong a couple of times in our debate about gravity... ;)
-
Nope, not even once. You, on the other hand, had no idea what you were even talking about.
-
Jroa used to think the Earth was round. Then he fell into the unfortunate hellhole that is FET. Now he thinks he's always right and never wrong.
Knowing more about science than the roundies does not make me wrong, no matter how you try to spin it. Sorry.
-
To bring this back on topic:
If I was ever wrong, I would accept it. However, I'm never wrong.
Unless you ask my wife.
You're not wrong believing the earth is flat. You can always believe anything you want. However, if you claim that, then you're wrong.
Like I said: I'm never wrong.
You were wrong a couple of times in our debate about gravity... ;)
You're never eh? Ok, how many of each kind of animals do God told Moses to take on the ark?
-
To bring this back on topic:
If I was ever wrong, I would accept it. However, I'm never wrong.
Unless you ask my wife.
You're not wrong believing the earth is flat. You can always believe anything you want. However, if you claim that, then you're wrong.
Like I said: I'm never wrong.
You were wrong a couple of times in our debate about gravity... ;)
He is but won't admit. Just like all FE won't admit anything about eclipses.
-
To bring this back on topic:
If I was ever wrong, I would accept it. However, I'm never wrong.
Unless you ask my wife.
You're not wrong believing the earth is flat. You can always believe anything you want. However, if you claim that, then you're wrong.
Like I said: I'm never wrong.
You were wrong a couple of times in our debate about gravity... ;)
You're never eh? Ok, how many of each kind of animals do God told Moses to take on the ark?
Probably none. Your fairy tale is fictional. Sorry.
-
To bring this back on topic:
If I was ever wrong, I would accept it. However, I'm never wrong.
Unless you ask my wife.
You're not wrong believing the earth is flat. You can always believe anything you want. However, if you claim that, then you're wrong.
Like I said: I'm never wrong.
You were wrong a couple of times in our debate about gravity... ;)
You're never eh? Ok, how many of each kind of animals do God told Moses to take on the ark?
Probably none. Your fairy tale is fictional. Sorry.
Wrong answer. How you know it's a fairytale?
-
To bring this back on topic:
If I was ever wrong, I would accept it. However, I'm never wrong.
Unless you ask my wife.
You're not wrong believing the earth is flat. You can always believe anything you want. However, if you claim that, then you're wrong.
Like I said: I'm never wrong.
You were wrong a couple of times in our debate about gravity... ;)
You're never eh? Ok, how many of each kind of animals do God told Moses to take on the ark?
Probably none. Your fairy tale is fictional. Sorry.
Wrong answer. How you know it's a fairytale?
Oh, are you saying that the bearded man in the sky told Noah to seriously put two of each creature in a man sized arc? Are you stupid, or just brainwashed?
-
To bring this back on topic:
If I was ever wrong, I would accept it. However, I'm never wrong.
Unless you ask my wife.
You're not wrong believing the earth is flat. You can always believe anything you want. However, if you claim that, then you're wrong.
Like I said: I'm never wrong.
You were wrong a couple of times in our debate about gravity... ;)
You're never eh? Ok, how many of each kind of animals do God told Moses to take on the ark?
Probably none. Your fairy tale is fictional. Sorry.
Wrong answer. How you know it's a fairytale?
Oh, are you saying that the bearded man in the sky told Noah to seriously put two of each creature in a man sized arc? Are you stupid, or just brainwashed?
What are you talking about "man sized ark"? That thing was two football fields long. And he put two of each KIND of animal.
-
To bring this back on topic:
If I was ever wrong, I would accept it. However, I'm never wrong.
Unless you ask my wife.
You're not wrong believing the earth is flat. You can always believe anything you want. However, if you claim that, then you're wrong.
Like I said: I'm never wrong.
You were wrong a couple of times in our debate about gravity... ;)
You're never eh? Ok, how many of each kind of animals do God told Moses to take on the ark?
Probably none. Your fairy tale is fictional. Sorry.
Wrong answer. How you know it's a fairytale?
Oh, are you saying that the bearded man in the sky told Noah to seriously put two of each creature in a man sized arc? Are you stupid, or just brainwashed?
What are you talking about "man sized ark"? That thing was two football fields long. And he put two of each KIND of animal.
How big is a zoo?
-
Jroa used to think the Earth was round. Then he fell into the unfortunate hellhole that is FET. Now he thinks he's always right and never wrong.
Knowing more about science than the roundies does not make me wrong, no matter how you try to spin it. Sorry.
See my sig for evidence against this statement.
-
Jroa used to think the Earth was round. Then he fell into the unfortunate hellhole that is FET. Now he thinks he's always right and never wrong.
Knowing more about science than the roundies does not make me wrong, no matter how you try to spin it. Sorry.
See my sig for evidence against this statement.
See your post history for a snap shot into your intellectual capacity. ::)
-
What was the last thing I said that was wrong?
Remember when you didn't know a condenser condenses?
Remember when you thought an M16 was recoil operated?
Remember when you thought a cyclone had crossed the equator?
-
You're never eh? Ok, how many of each kind of animals do God told Moses to take on the ark?
Probably none. Your fairy tale is fictional. Sorry.
Can you provide evidence that the whole Ark episode is fictional?
-
To bring this back on topic:
If I was ever wrong, I would accept it. However, I'm never wrong.
Unless you ask my wife.
You're not wrong believing the earth is flat. You can always believe anything you want. However, if you claim that, then you're wrong.
Like I said: I'm never wrong.
You were wrong a couple of times in our debate about gravity... ;)
You're never eh? Ok, how many of each kind of animals do God told Moses to take on the ark?
Probably none. Your fairy tale is fictional. Sorry.
Wrong answer. How you know it's a fairytale?
Oh, are you saying that the bearded man in the sky told Noah to seriously put two of each creature in a man sized arc? Are you stupid, or just brainwashed?
What are you talking about "man sized ark"? That thing was two football fields long. And he put two of each KIND of animal.
How big is a zoo?
Pretty big, but I bet if need to you can compact it into something the third of the size of the Titanic.
-
What was the last thing I said that was wrong?
Remember when you didn't know a condenser condenses?
Remember when you thought an M16 was recoil operated?
Remember when you thought a cyclone had crossed the equator?
You are delusional about some of your statements, and confusing me with someone else with the rest. I know you are mentally challenged, but could you please try to keep up with the big kids?
-
Golf clap
-
Where have you proven that I'm wrong?
I'm fairly familiar with what's a plane and what not as I used to want to be a fighter pilot and have a pretty fair grasps on planes and helicopters. Planes have blinking red and green lights on them. The lights I saw were were solid white to yellowish glow to them. My father who is retired Air Force also saw them and he agreed that they were satellites.
Except for the fact that aircraft navigation lights don't flash and that you can only see them when the aircraft is facing you. Oh, and aircraft have rear facing steady white lights. So...I would say you don't know much about aircraft.
You can see all of the lights at 40,000 feet. It's not all that hard to do.
-
Where have you proven that I'm wrong?
I'm fairly familiar with what's a plane and what not as I used to want to be a fighter pilot and have a pretty fair grasps on planes and helicopters. Planes have blinking red and green lights on them. The lights I saw were were solid white to yellowish glow to them. My father who is retired Air Force also saw them and he agreed that they were satellites.
Except for the fact that aircraft navigation lights don't flash and that you can only see them when the aircraft is facing you. Oh, and aircraft have rear facing steady white lights. So...I would say you don't know much about aircraft.
You can see all of the lights at 40,000 feet. It's not all that hard to do.
Sure, if you are next to it.
This however, does not, in any way, prove you were not wrong. So, I don't know what you are trying to do.
-
Where have you proven that I'm wrong?
I'm fairly familiar with what's a plane and what not as I used to want to be a fighter pilot and have a pretty fair grasps on planes and helicopters. Planes have blinking red and green lights on them. The lights I saw were were solid white to yellowish glow to them. My father who is retired Air Force also saw them and he agreed that they were satellites.
Except for the fact that aircraft navigation lights don't flash and that you can only see them when the aircraft is facing you. Oh, and aircraft have rear facing steady white lights. So...I would say you don't know much about aircraft.
You can see all of the lights at 40,000 feet. It's not all that hard to do.
Sure, if you are next to it.
This however, does not, in any way, prove you were not wrong. So, I don't know what you are trying to do.
Google it yourself. You'll see that I'm right.
-
I already showed you to be wrong. Why would I need to google your wrongness?
-
I already showed you to be wrong. Why would I need to google your wrongness?
You haven't proved me wrong. You can see navigation lights from 40,000 feet.
-
I'm fairly familiar with what's a plane and what not as I used to want to be a fighter pilot and have a pretty fair grasps on planes and helicopters. Planes have blinking red and green lights on them. The lights I saw were were solid white to yellowish glow to them. My father who is retired Air Force also saw them and he agreed that they were satellites.
Except for the fact that aircraft navigation lights don't flash and that you can only see them when the aircraft is facing you. Oh, and aircraft have rear facing steady white lights. So...I would say you don't know much about aircraft.
-
I'm fairly familiar with what's a plane and what not as I used to want to be a fighter pilot and have a pretty fair grasps on planes and helicopters. Planes have blinking red and green lights on them. The lights I saw were were solid white to yellowish glow to them. My father who is retired Air Force also saw them and he agreed that they were satellites.
Except for the fact that aircraft navigation lights don't flash and that you can only see them when the aircraft is facing you. Oh, and aircraft have rear facing steady white lights. So...I would say you don't know much about aircraft.
Ok, I was wrong about that but you can still see the green and red lights from 40,000 feet
-
I already showed you to be wrong. Why would I need to google your wrongness?
You haven't proved me wrong.
Lolz.
-
Nope, not even once. You, on the other hand, had no idea what you were even talking about.
So that's why you evaded and discontinued the debate, right? ;)
-
So that's why you evaded and discontinued the debate, right? ;)
That's rich coming from the guy that took multiple pages to answer the question about which spacecraft was accelerating. But at least you finally realized you were wrong and admitted the answer. So...
Nope, not even once. You, on the other hand, had no idea what you were even talking about.
-
It won't add anything to the debate, but I would be the first to admit that I am human can be wrong at times. There seem to be a few, what would you call them, maybe cyborgs among the posters who can, by definition never be wrong.
Even on the earth's model there may be evidence I have not yet seen that could change things.
So far the only arguments I have seen seem counter to my own observations or to those I regard as reliable.
Of course my evaluation of sources may differ from other posters.
-
That's rich coming from the guy that took multiple pages to answer the question about which spacecraft was accelerating. But at least you finally realized you were wrong and admitted the answer. So...
Back to lying already? Guess you just can't process the fact that you were obviously wrong. Side note: The question was not which spacecraft was accelerating. So wrong, again.
Nope, not even once. You, on the other hand, had no idea what you were even talking about.
Except it was the other way around, so almost right this time.
-
That's rich coming from the guy that took multiple pages to answer the question about which spacecraft was accelerating. But at least you finally realized you were wrong and admitted the answer. So...
Back to lying already? Guess you just can't process the fact that you were obviously wrong. Side note: The question was not which spacecraft was accelerating. So wrong, again.
Nope, not even once. You, on the other hand, had no idea what you were even talking about.
Except it was the other way around, so almost right this time.
Nope x 2.
Yet another lame attempt, Master_Evar. You are really bad at this.
-
That's rich coming from the guy that took multiple pages to answer the question about which spacecraft was accelerating. But at least you finally realized you were wrong and admitted the answer. So...
Back to lying already? Guess you just can't process the fact that you were obviously wrong. Side note: The question was not which spacecraft was accelerating. So wrong, again.
Nope, not even once. You, on the other hand, had no idea what you were even talking about.
Except it was the other way around, so almost right this time.
Nope x 2.
Yet another lame attempt, Master_Evar. You are really bad at this.
Ok, I pick object 1. Object 1 happens to be a spacecraft will no windows and no external sensors. Object 2 is also a spacecraft with no windows and no external sensors. What is object 1's acceleration?
See? the question was "what is the acceleration of object 1?", not "which object is accelerating?". So you were wrong about that. Let's see if you'll accept you got this wrong, or if you'll even try to deny something as obviously wrong as this.
-
See? the question was "what is the acceleration of object 1?", not "which object is accelerating?". So you were wrong about that. Let's see if you'll accept you got this wrong, or if you'll even try to deny something as obviously wrong as this.
Answer two questions, then:
1. Which one is accelerating?
2. What happens if one of them is removed?
Lolz again. Do you ever get tired of being wrong Master_Evar? Why do to even bother trying? I slam the door in your face at every turn. At some point you need to learn that following me through the door is a bad idea. I do particularly enjoy making you look foolish, however. I find it very fun, even if it is overly easy.
-
Nice double-shitpost.
You could've just edited your first post, yet you didn't...
Now why would that be, I wonder?
(lol - forum slide creation!)
Why are you not banned?
Why are you not banned?
-
Answer two questions, then:
1. Which one is accelerating?
2. What happens if one of them is removed?
Lolz again. Do you ever get tired of being wrong Master_Evar? Why do to even bother trying? I slam the door in your face at every turn. At some point you need to learn that following me through the door is a bad idea. I do particularly enjoy making you look foolish, however. I find it very fun, even if it is overly easy.
*Facepalm*
You changed the question, remember?
Answer two questions, then:
1. Which one is accelerating?
2. What happens if one of them is removed?
1. Both, in relation to each other. Depends on whichever you use as a reference point.
Ok, I pick object 1. Object 1 happens to be a spacecraft will no windows and no external sensors. Object 2 is also a spacecraft with no windows and no external sensors. What is object 1's acceleration?
So, you are still wrong.
-
*Facepalm*
You changed the question, remember?
Really? Because it looks like I asked this:
Answer two questions, then:
1. Which one is accelerating?
2. What happens if one of them is removed?
And you said:
See? the question was "what is the acceleration of object 1?", not "which object is accelerating?". So you were wrong about that. Let's see if you'll accept you got this wrong, or if you'll even try to deny something as obviously wrong as this.
So nice try, but you fail, yet again.
-
*Facepalm*
You changed the question, remember?
Really? Because it looks like I asked this:
Answer two questions, then:
1. Which one is accelerating?
2. What happens if one of them is removed?
And you said:
See? the question was "what is the acceleration of object 1?", not "which object is accelerating?". So you were wrong about that. Let's see if you'll accept you got this wrong, or if you'll even try to deny something as obviously wrong as this.
So nice try, but you fail, yet again.
*sigh*:
*Facepalm*
You changed the question, remember?
Answer two questions, then:
1. Which one is accelerating?
2. What happens if one of them is removed?
1. Both, in relation to each other. Depends on whichever you use as a reference point.
Ok, I pick object 1. Object 1 happens to be a spacecraft will no windows and no external sensors. Object 2 is also a spacecraft with no windows and no external sensors. What is object 1's acceleration?
So, you are still wrong.
1. You changed the question immediately after I answered it, as if you weren't clear enough with the question.
2. I never took multiple pages to answer which spacecraft was accelerating. I answered it immediately. The question which came directly afterwards, as a changed question, did take a long time to answer because you didn't inform me what answer would satisfy you. I gave you a couple of answers which were both right, but you didn't seem satisfied with them and didn't immediately explain why. Which is why it took a long time to give you the answer you wanted.
Can you please stop "forgetting" parts of the conversation?
-
So you admit that I did in fact ask which one is accelerating when you said I did not ask that question. At least you can admit to one of your failings.
I love how you idiots jump at the opportunity to 'prove me wrong' and just end up making yourselves look even more idiotic. It's hilarious and sad at the same time. And, it's not a fight you can win. I'll keep slamming that door in your face at every turn. So if you enjoy the misery I cause you, please keep it up, because it makes me want to do it even more.
-
So you admit that I did in fact ask which one is accelerating when you said I did not ask that question. At least you can admit to one of your failings.
I love how you idiots jump at the opportunity to 'prove me wrong' and just end up making yourselves look even more idiotic. It's hilarious and sad at the same time. And, it's not a fight you can win. I'll keep slamming that door in your face at every turn. So if you enjoy the misery I cause you, please keep it up, because it makes me want to do it even more.
You said a question which I didn't answer for many pages. So of course I assumed you meant after restating it. Otherwise, you were wrong when you said I didn't answer for many pages. Which means either you got the question wrong, or the time before an answer wrong. Now, which would you rather be wrong in?
-
So you admit that I did ask the question that you said I did not ask. Good to know.
-
So you admit that I did ask the question that you said I did not ask. Good to know.
Yes. I never said you didn't asked that question. I said this:
You said a question which I didn't answer for many pages. So of course I assumed you meant after restating it. Otherwise, you were wrong when you said I didn't answer for many pages. Which means either you got the question wrong, or the time before an answer wrong. Now, which would you rather be wrong in?
So either you meant the wrong question, which is what I originally claimed, or you got the time before answer wrong.
-
See? the question was "what is the acceleration of object 1?", not "which object is accelerating?". So you were wrong about that. Let's see if you'll accept you got this wrong, or if you'll even try to deny something as obviously wrong as this.
Answer two questions, then:
1. Which one is accelerating?
2. What happens if one of them is removed?
Lolz.
-
See? the question was "what is the acceleration of object 1?", not "which object is accelerating?". So you were wrong about that. Let's see if you'll accept you got this wrong, or if you'll even try to deny something as obviously wrong as this.
Answer two questions, then:
1. Which one is accelerating?
2. What happens if one of them is removed?
Lolz.
So the fact that you were wrong about a thing made you completely break down?
-
But I was the one that was right. Which is clearly evidenced by the quote I provided. (Your idiocy is showing again...)
-
But I was the one that was right. Which is clearly evidenced by the quote I provided. (Your idiocy is showing again...)
You said a question which I didn't answer for many pages. So of course I assumed you meant after restating it. Otherwise, you were wrong when you said I didn't answer for many pages. Which means either you got the question wrong, or the time before an answer wrong. Now, which would you rather be wrong in?
You were wrong about one thing at least. Either you got the question wrong, as I explained here (and also explain why I could legitimately assume you meant a different question) or you got the time flow wrong. Now, which is it?
-
Neither.
See? the question was "what is the acceleration of object 1?", not "which object is accelerating?". So you were wrong about that. Let's see if you'll accept you got this wrong, or if you'll even try to deny something as obviously wrong as this.
Answer two questions, then:
1. Which one is accelerating?
2. What happens if one of them is removed?
Lolz.
What I find hilarious, is that you idiots are trying to prove me wrong, even just once, on something I've posted, yet the best you can come up with is the wording of a question (which I've clearly proven you wrong about). That's pretty pathetic on your part. And nothing short of pure awesomeness on my part.
-
Neither.
See? the question was "what is the acceleration of object 1?", not "which object is accelerating?". So you were wrong about that. Let's see if you'll accept you got this wrong, or if you'll even try to deny something as obviously wrong as this.
Answer two questions, then:
1. Which one is accelerating?
2. What happens if one of them is removed?
Lolz.
What I find hilarious, is that you idiots are trying to prove me wrong, even just once, on something I've posted, yet the best you can come up with is the wording of a question (which I've clearly proven you wrong about). That's pretty pathetic on your part. And nothing short of pure awesomeness on my part.
You are wrong on one thing of these things I have brung forth. It is impossible to be right on both of them. You can't both have meant the right question and the right timespan. Either you meant the question you are now because of some reason spamming all over the thread, and got the timespan wrong, or you meant another question (i.e. the wrong question), and got the timespan right. Because that question you keep spamming I answered immediately and then you changed it immediately:
Answer two questions, then:
1. Which one is accelerating?
2. What happens if one of them is removed?
1. Both, in relation to each other. Depends on whichever you use as a reference point.
Ok, I pick object 1. Object 1 happens to be a spacecraft will no windows and no external sensors. Object 2 is also a spacecraft with no windows and no external sensors. What is object 1's acceleration?
So, either you got the question wrong or the timespan wrong. Now, which is it?