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.
Fake
I do not believe Pongo is suggesting the extra distance will kill the birds. I think he is suggesting that birds have evolved to be excellent navigators and would choose the shorter distance for themselves. Why would the birds want to spend an extra hour or so flying to a destination?
Let me give the example of the Alaskan Bar-tailed Godwit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar-tailed_Godwit
This bird makes a staggering 11,000 km trip almost all across the Pacific Ocean (so no obsticles). It does it at a mere 30mph in one go on the wing at 6,500ft.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3307832/Bar-tailed-godwits-non-stop-Pacific-crossing.html
Now this bird would save 2 hours flying lower on its non-stop flight.
Actually, you are incorrect. The working model of gravity is fundamentally flawed and cannot explain the movements of the cosmos.
Incorrect logic. The working model of gravity is as odds with the visible cosmos. You have made an assumption that everything in the cosmos is visible, therefore gravity is incorrect. Gravity could be incorrect, but this cannot be proved with an assumption. A far simpler explanation is that not everything emits photons.
Please try again.
Inventing large quantities of conveniently undetectable odd-matter which does not emit or reflect visible photons, or emit anything in the IR, Ultraviolet, or any other spectrum, is not the simplest explanation for why gravity does not work in the universe.
Mumbling "oh gravity isn't wrong, this invisible undetectable stuff did it" is absurd beyond the extreme, and in no way approaches a coherent explanation.
This only means it'simpossibleunlikely for governments to be in charge of the conspiracy.
How is this video related to the shape of the Earth?
Not at all. It just shows the circular shape of the Earth.
How is this video related to the shape of the Earth?
It's not possible. Thus why they would fake it.
America didn't start NASA for the "betterment of mankind". NASA was started for military propaganda purposes. Once a country becomes a space power, it can now rain ICBMs down upon its enemies at a push of a button. The "space race" was a race to put nukes into orbit, or at least give the appearance of such.
Fallacy #1: False premisesQuoteIt's not possible
No proof or anything to back that up, the RET has pictures of satelites orbitting earth.QuoteOnce a country becomes a space power, it can now rain ICBMs
No, ICBM's don't need a spaceprogramm. To give you an example, Nazi Germany was already using them in the form of their "Wunderwafe" the V-2 rocket. Thus your reason to have a spaceprogramm for ICBM or nuclear warfare is flawed.
When it comes to the burden of proof subject, few people know or even realize that the entire soviet/russian space program was completely faked from the very start (Lunik/Sputnik/Gagarin/Leonov/Soyuz/Mir):So fake that we pay the Russians to send us to the ISS space station...
What is more, the presence of iron in the shell or the migration of heavy metals from the core to the shell has not been sufficiently explained. For these metals to have left the core, they must have been ejected by explosions, and in order to remain spread through the crust, the explosions must have been followed immediately by cooling.Volcanoes, meteorites and plate tectonics would account for heavy metals found in the crust/mantle.
If, in the beginning, the planet was a hot conglomerate of elements, as the nebular as well as the tidal theories assume, then the iron of the globe should have become oxidized and combined with all available oxygen. But for some unknown reasons this did not happen; thus the presence of oxygen in the terrestrial atmosphere is unexplained.When the earth first formed, there was no oxygen on the planet for this to happen.
What I've learned from this website:
1. The word "earth" was supposedly originally intended to refer to a flat plane, therefore the Earth is not round.
2. Using large words makes you sound smart, but spelling most of your post wrong negates most of what you just said.
3. If you look at two raindrops, 1 + 1 = 2. If those drops merge, 1 + 1 = 1. Therefore, the Earth is not round.
This site is awesome.
Must this question really be asked? Obviously, the air simply absorbs most of the light coming straight down. However, the light coming down at a less severe angle is less affected by this absorption.
Then you're contradicting the magnification effect of Air to account for the sun appearing to retain it's shape and size during the day even though it's moving further away from us at a constant altitude.
Since you seem so interested in arguing semantics would it help if I said that for all intents and purposes, so far as the issue applies to the question at hand, FEers know that FE has been proven? You and I just frame it as belief because we disagree with them; FEers don't see it as a belief, but as the truth, period.
Everything I have seen of FET is merely an alternate explanation that makes less sense for things RET describes perfectly well. I have not seen a shred of evidence that anything in FET is a better explanation for natural phenomena than the generally accepted RET ones.
Again, it's a question of whether or not you believe a FE has been proven. I agree with you that it hasn't, but there are some here who believe that it has. For them, some sort of conspiracy is an inevitable consequence of the proven facts.
The Flat Earth Society in it's modern form is made up of trolls, the delusional, and devil's advocates. You can never, ever, ever convince them to admit otherwise or to admit that they lost an argument even if they lose badly.
It's like convincing the Pope to admit there is no God.
As soon as you realize that this is more or less a joke site designed for massive trolling and debate skill practice, you'll be happier.
Well, it's very simple. If it's been proven that the Earth is flat, as any legitimate FEer will claim is the case, and if sustained spaceflight is impossible if the Earth is flat, as many FEers rationally argue is the case, then space exploration must be a Conspiracy.
Or, looked at another way, if it's the case that the view from space is impossible if the Earth is flat, and the Earth is flat, then space exploration must be a Conspiracy. It's not illogical; it's essentially a corollary to FET, as it's not necessary for a Conspiracy to exist if the generally-held FET is true, but as conditions do exist, if the generally-held FET is true, a Conspiracy must exist. Actually, it's highly logical, as logic is the only real reason to believe it.
Since the human race has observed the Earth from space...
That is, of course, assuming that all of the world's space programs aren't involved in a 50+ year hoax.
A hoax that would have inevitably shown itself due to our quick expansion in higher technology since the time of the Apollo missions. The private sector has broken into this market already. If it were a hoax, it would have been discovered a long time ago; the conspiracy sounds more like wishful thinking to me...
--And a side note on that; the major fundamental problem with the hoax theory is that it requires the Soviet Union (late 50's) and the United States to be working together. Is someone gunna tell me that the historians are in on this conspiracy too? I love this website because it is just so creative! But alas, I just cannot believe it.
Lurk moar. The conspiracy is some of this site's most creative work.
Since the human race has observed the Earth from space...
That is, of course, assuming that all of the world's space programs aren't involved in a 50+ year hoax.
Actually they are. Light can bend in both theories, and there is acceleration in both theories without an apparent mechanism for it. All arguments against bendy light and the UA involve "LOL IT DEOSNT HAPPAN", which is wrong no matter what you believe, so saying that is just shutting up stupid noobs or making them find some points worth debating.
