1
Flat Earth General / Re: AXIS OF EVIL
« on: January 10, 2016, 01:38:14 PM »
Google it, you might find it a bit interesting too
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Flat Earth General / Re: AXIS OF EVIL
« on: January 10, 2016, 01:24:22 PM »
It would have been a shame to let a thread go waste but at least now its been moved to General everyone else who's never heard of the axis of evil can explain why it must be wrong then ask for a link.
3
Flat Earth General / Re: AXIS OF EVIL
« on: January 10, 2016, 01:09:27 PM »
Misrepresented the quote? yeah thats probably what i must have done, my bad, thing is i didn't ask if id described the axis of evil correctly, i asked if anyone had heard about it, i wasn't really after a discussion thats why i posted it in Q&A, i only asked empirical his views on the implications of the axis of evil on the Copernican principle because i was sure he didn't have any when all i really wanted to know was had he heard about it but i deduced he had not when he asked for a link. that will teach me to post questions in Q&A.
4
Flat Earth General / Re: AXIS OF EVIL
« on: January 10, 2016, 10:56:07 AM »How could the CMB (cosmic microwave background) have anything to do with if the planet is spining. The CMB is radiation from soon after the big bang.
i have no idea thats why i asked if anyone else had heard of it, i presume you have or you wouldn't have replied to my post, i'd be a bit interested to read what your views are regarding the implications of the so called axis of evil on the Copernican principle as a whole
5
Flat Earth General / AXIS OF EVIL
« on: January 10, 2016, 09:02:29 AM »
Is anyone familiar with some studies conducted over the last fifty years incorporating data confirmed by three different satellites cobe wmap and most recently, planck.
Respected scientists interpreting data are describing hotspots in the cosmic microwave background that indicate a perfectly uniform (not random) spinning universe at the exact centre of which sits a stationary earth, the findings have been dubbed the "axis of evil" by scholars who wish the data would go away because apparently it proves Copernicus was wrong and sets what is known about the earth back 500 years
Has anyone else heard about this "axis of evil" it sounds a bit interesting.
Respected scientists interpreting data are describing hotspots in the cosmic microwave background that indicate a perfectly uniform (not random) spinning universe at the exact centre of which sits a stationary earth, the findings have been dubbed the "axis of evil" by scholars who wish the data would go away because apparently it proves Copernicus was wrong and sets what is known about the earth back 500 years
Has anyone else heard about this "axis of evil" it sounds a bit interesting.
6
Flat Earth General / Re: A typical behaviour rampant in modern science
« on: December 16, 2015, 11:58:04 PM »
Dont equate actual science to what he did.
i don't
7
Flat Earth General / Re: A typical behaviour rampant in modern science
« on: December 16, 2015, 11:25:45 PM »
There are two ways of interpreting the results,
1 The test failed to prove all flatties are gullible therefore proves not all flatties are gullible
2 The test failed to prove all flatties are gullible therefore proves all flatties are gullible but testing was a failure
why are the results of the test invalid, just because he set out to make flatties look stupid but failed to do so and made a fool of himself? does falling on your own sword mean your sword was faulty?
1 The test failed to prove all flatties are gullible therefore proves not all flatties are gullible
2 The test failed to prove all flatties are gullible therefore proves all flatties are gullible but testing was a failure
why are the results of the test invalid, just because he set out to make flatties look stupid but failed to do so and made a fool of himself? does falling on your own sword mean your sword was faulty?
8
Flat Earth General / Re: A typical behaviour rampant in modern science
« on: December 16, 2015, 10:19:59 PM »9
Flat Earth General / Re: A typical behaviour rampant in modern science
« on: December 16, 2015, 10:17:55 PM »10
Flat Earth General / Re: A typical behaviour rampant in modern science
« on: December 16, 2015, 10:09:52 PM »
As the only person gullible enough to treat the "gullibility test" as a genuine post was another prolific round earther, its a shame the thread was locked because it had great comedic potential.
11
Flat Earth General / A typical behaviour rampant in modern science
« on: December 16, 2015, 04:29:55 PM »
I read with some amusement mikeman/namekims post about his genius plan to expose flat earthers as gullible which resulted in him being rumbled straight away and banned,
Mikeman describes the endeavour as a failed test but was it? it delivered some eye opening (for roundies) raw data about how roundy science works.
If performing an experiment results in convincingly disproving the point you were trying to argue, declare the test a failure and discard data. Do not, under any circumstances accept data as valid, review your theory or contemplate the connotations of having devoted so much time and energy arguing a widely accepted theory without realising it was based on a fundamentally flawed concept.
Mikeman describes the endeavour as a failed test but was it? it delivered some eye opening (for roundies) raw data about how roundy science works.
If performing an experiment results in convincingly disproving the point you were trying to argue, declare the test a failure and discard data. Do not, under any circumstances accept data as valid, review your theory or contemplate the connotations of having devoted so much time and energy arguing a widely accepted theory without realising it was based on a fundamentally flawed concept.
12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ***Flat Earth Q&A Change***
« on: December 10, 2015, 10:17:43 PM »
What's the worst that could happen if it was given a try?
13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ***Flat Earth Q&A Change***
« on: December 10, 2015, 10:05:31 PM »The Flat Earth Q&A forums are changing on a trial basis. From now on, the only people allowed to answer questions are flat-earthers or people giving genuine flat earth responses.I think its a good idea but will mean the moderators will have to be on the ball to make it work, i would suggest an additional board set aside where primarily the posts auther gets to moderate their own post and can block unwanted posters on their own thread. it will allow the current moderators to get away with doing very little, it will allow the option of a conversation with friendly forces instead degenerating into a battle and name calling with perceived trolls, flaties and roundies alike can still start thier own thread and both can block antagonists that prevent a discussion moving in the desired direction on thier own thread only, if any one has a problem with being booted out of one thread they can start thier own to complain, it will undoubtedly result in a space with two camps that dont talk to each other but i think at least one safe space like that is what this place needs it will enable like minded people to converse without harrassment, if they feel the need to argue for the sake of arguing they can still use the existing boards
Things this will fix:
-Round-earthers peppering earnest questions with quick and flippant responses.
-People will be able to have their questions answered without the thread quickly dropping into chaos.
-It will preserve the image of the society as a place of seriousness.
-It will help better define the different forums.
Things to avoid:
-Snarky responses. We will remove them.
-Dissenting round-earth opinions. We will remove them or move them to FE Debate where they belong.
-Disingenuous responses. (Example... Q: How does the moon work on a flat-earth? A: We think there is no moon.) We will remove them.
You are allowed to present a true flat-earth opinion, if so inclined and we will be giving out plenty of warnings until everyone is accustomed to the new system. If you have a burning desire to respond to a post in a way that will start a debate, open a new thread in Flat Earth Debate and argue there.
We will entertain questions here, but if you would like to dispute the change, please make a post in Suggestions and Concerns. Thank you and good hunting.
14
Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to round earthers
« on: November 18, 2015, 11:43:04 AM »
In fact mikey you are right the earth is round, i was wrong but now i realise this i'm obviously on the wrong forum for a round earther such as myself so i'm going to leave now, never post here again and do something constructive with my life, but your work is not done, you should stay here untill there are no more flatties left. keep up the good work, Bye
15
Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to round earthers
« on: November 18, 2015, 11:35:01 AM »
Mikey, i don't believe any one here gives a fuck what your beliefs are, believe what you want to believe.
16
Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to round earthers
« on: November 18, 2015, 08:39:08 AM »
Spoken like a bias person? mikey do you have any spacial awareness at all, exactly what (insert shape) earth society forum did you think you were on while complaining about a flat earth bias where you peddle your round earth bias you fucking idiot!
17
Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to round earthers
« on: November 17, 2015, 01:02:24 PM »1591 posts suggests you doStart your own society forumWhy? We do not need a chaotic forum to quell ouregocuriosity.
18
Flat Earth General / My challenge to round earthers
« on: November 13, 2015, 08:08:10 AM »
Start your own society forum
19
Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« on: September 24, 2015, 12:47:42 PM »
the same way ripples travel across the surface of a pond to the edge if you throw a stone in the middle, i think you're confusing "consistent with" and "proof of" for example; a bloody nose is consistent with a punch in the face but a nose bleed is not by itself proof of the face having been punched, when shock waves travel from one side of the earth to the other it only proves that shock waves travel across the surface, (like ripples) whether that surface is round or flat makes no difference.
20
Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« on: September 24, 2015, 10:42:46 AM »i just read the whole section and thats not science, it just describes how unproven methods are employed to reach unprovable conclusions. Unless they also took core samples that confirmed what they concluded from seismic analysis it has no more credibility than claiming to have won the lottery before the numbers are even drawn.to be honest it has more to do with the validity of your reply to my post than the shape of the earth but while we're on the subject you will have to cite your sources and explain how earthquakes and seismic analysis proves the earth is round as you claim. dazzle me.
Check out the "mapping the Earth's interior" section of this Wikipedia article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismology
21
Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« on: September 24, 2015, 10:19:08 AM »No, this is not a debate, this is a challenge but my source was "the internet"Why, are you putting up $250 too?on a round earth with an iron core you'd "expect to see" a hole all the way to the centre of the earth created by the drill that took the core samples, on a round earth you wouldn't expect to see captain cook travel 60,000 km around a polar continent if the equator is only 24,000 km
And please provide you source for Cooks 60,000km polar navigation.
No, this is a debate and I'm asking you to back up your claim.
22
Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« on: September 23, 2015, 10:36:39 PM »to be honest it has more to do with the validity of your reply to my post than the shape of the earth but while we're on the subject you will have to cite your sources and explain how earthquakes and seismic analysis proves the earth is round as you claim. dazzle me.Mikey, you are correct about the deepest hole ever drilled, the kola ultradeep hole in Russia not breaking through the thin crust however, observations of the physical core drill samples revealed that the understanding of the crust gleaned from seismic analysis couldn't be more wrong, it became less dense and more porous the deeper they went, it proved the crust was formed in layers, all the exact opposite of what was "known" by expert geologists with their seismic analysis so to say the later proves the earth is round is erroneous at best. now given what the knowledge gained from observation of physical evidence and empirical data proved the theory to be completely wrong do you concede that what we "know" about what lies beneath the crust is merely speculation or do you concede that if what we "know" about what lies beneath the crust is empirical then we would expect a much deeper whole than the poultry 40,000 feet and core samples taken from the hole consistent with the depth of our knowledge.
Does this have anything to do with my challenge? If it does then you will have to cite your sources and explain how this proves anything about the shape of the Earth.
23
Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« on: September 23, 2015, 07:28:58 PM »Why, are you putting up $250 too?on a round earth with an iron core you'd "expect to see" a hole all the way to the centre of the earth created by the drill that took the core samples, on a round earth you wouldn't expect to see captain cook travel 60,000 km around a polar continent if the equator is only 24,000 km
And please provide you source for Cooks 60,000km polar navigation.
24
Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« on: September 23, 2015, 07:11:05 PM »Mikey, you are correct about the deepest hole ever drilled, the kola ultradeep hole in Russia not breaking through the thin crust however, observations of the physical core drill samples revealed that the understanding of the crust gleaned from seismic analysis couldn't be more wrong, it became less dense and more porous the deeper they went, it proved the crust was formed in layers, all the exact opposite of what was "known" by expert geologists with their seismic analysis so to say the later proves the earth is round is erroneous at best. now given what the knowledge gained from observation of physical evidence and empirical data proved the theory to be completely wrong do you concede that what we "know" about what lies beneath the crust is merely speculation or do you concede that if what we "know" about what lies beneath the crust is empirical then we would expect a much deeper whole than the poultry 40,000 feet and core samples taken from the hole consistent with the depth of our knowledge.on a round earth with an iron core you'd "expect to see" a hole all the way to the centre of the earth created by the drill that took the core samples, on a round earth you wouldn't expect to see captain cook travel 60,000 km around a polar continent if the equator is only 24,000 km
We indeed would expect that if any drills actually did take core samples, but that has never happened. The deepest borehole ever made extended only 40,000 feet down and by comparison the Earth's radius is about 4,000 miles. That borehole didn't even puncture the thin crust.
The reason we know as much as we do about the interior of the Earth is because of volcanic a activity and seismic analysis, the latter of which proves that Earth is round. Seismic analysis works by waiting for an earthquake to happen and then picking up the seismic waves after they travel through Earth. By analyzing how the seismic waves refract it's possible to get a pretty good idea of what they passed through.
25
Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« on: September 23, 2015, 12:45:13 PM »
on a round earth with an iron core you'd "expect to see" a hole all the way to the centre of the earth created by the drill that took the core samples, on a round earth you wouldn't expect to see captain cook travel 60,000 km around a polar continent if the equator is only 24,000 km
26
The Lounge / Re: A New Scientist on the Forum
« on: September 16, 2015, 05:47:22 AM »
If its of any interest, when i see a ship disappearing bottom first over the "horizon" i assume its because perspective makes the distant ship look so small that even the small waves between the ship and my eyes look about the same size as the bottom of the ship.
I've posted this video before but it never gets old
I've posted this video before but it never gets old
27
Flat Earth General / Re: Your first impression doesn't always reflect reality
« on: September 15, 2015, 01:20:43 PM »
heres a puzzle for you mikeman, if it takes an 80 piece orchestra 8 minutes to play a symphony, how long will it take a 45 piece orchestra?
28
Flat Earth General / Re: Your first impression doesn't always reflect reality
« on: September 15, 2015, 12:05:50 PM »Hey Papa Legba, you don't have a twin brother do you? You know, like the challenger crew, (wink wink)FEScientist sent my a private message and he figured out the logic puzzle.
FEShitehawk claims to be a woman, RETARD.
Not that anyone believes anything either It or You say anyway...
29
Flat Earth General / Re: Your first impression doesn't always reflect reality
« on: September 15, 2015, 11:40:22 AM »
sorry it must have been a dream i had.
30
Flat Earth General / Re: Your first impression doesn't always reflect reality
« on: September 15, 2015, 11:04:12 AM »nah, i'm just a backward flat earther with bad parking habbitsThe back wheels take a short cutGod, you are really smart.