1

Flat Earth General / Re: Zero gravity planes are not zero gravity planes.

« on: March 04, 2014, 09:39:17 AM »

Wow, you really believe that if you put an object in a pool will humans in it, the humans inside will experience simulated weightlessness?
I think I gotta take a couple days away from this intellectually devoid place...

Yes, it's called the ISS floating in water whilst special effects do the rest inside ISS mock up shipping containers, plus the odd trip out on a vomit comet.

How can you be in a place like this and talk about science when you obviously do not understand elementary school physics? I won't even explain it to you... It hurts my brain too much to dumb things down to that extend.
You should seriously take a good hard look at your own level of competence in this field, and maybe, just maybe consider that you are absolutely, and completely, retarded. I truly believe you are making people dumber, just by being here. Dear god.
I'm out of here.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Zero gravity planes are not zero gravity planes.

« on: March 04, 2014, 09:27:13 AM »

What is ridiculous is your lack of understanding of acceleration sorry. Yes, the ISS and everything in a stable orbit is technically falling towards earth, and because of the simultaneous forward velocity this gives a constant falling, i.e. orbit. When it does a reboost every now and then, off course the passengers will float horizontally?! The craft is experiencing an acceleration which all non-fastened contents (humans included) will respond to visually, by moving...

Watch this video: Everyone, really, it's nice and gives a prime example of a reboost aboard the ISS.
Action begins at 2:00

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

Good luck getting an explanation - I used this video several times in a thread where it was claimed a "top secret anti gravity machine" was used to fake the iss videos. And it was ignored everytime.

Can you tell me how much faster the ISS goes during a reboost?  I mean, it doesn't appear to be much at all.

It's not much, indeed. He states it in the video as a change in velocity of 2,7m/s, performed by accelerating with a mere 0.0185m/sē. So it's very discrete.

It boost about as much as they can push it in the pool or as much as they want to move the model airfix for the camera.

Wow, you really believe that if you put an object in a pool will humans in it, the humans inside will experience simulated weightlessness?
I think I gotta take a couple days away from this intellectually devoid place...

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What could be gained by fooling people in to thinking that the earth is round?

« on: March 04, 2014, 07:57:47 AM »

You know, insanity is directly proportional to the sum of the squareroot of a banana and any other function involving vegetables and/or shoe polish.
Umami.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth, Round Earth or Rectangular Concaved Inner-Weaved Earth?

« on: March 04, 2014, 07:33:25 AM »

I believe this is the first time I've seen one be so completely wrong in the optical behaviour of light, meteorology, the laws of gravity, thermodynamics and geometry, all at the same time
Basically, nothing you just said made sense whatsoever.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What could be gained by fooling people in to thinking that the earth is round?

« on: March 04, 2014, 07:19:47 AM »

reading your crap is like getting stabbed in the eyeball with a dwarf.

BWAHAHAHA!!
On a serious note though, scepti, you should lighten up. If I choose to take an education it's danm well because I chose it myself, and when I chose to do nothing for a year and go walk around in the alps and pyrenees, is because I chose it myself.

In the end, you have to chose whether you want to contribute to society and join the fun, or lock yourself away like a coward, refusing to face "the system" and the sheep on the surface.
If your mind is a strong as you say, you shouldn't have anything to fear.

6

Flat Earth General / Re: What education do to you have?

« on: March 04, 2014, 02:26:31 AM »

Chemistry degrees are getting more popular.
I don't think I want people like you working on this.



Although it wasn't a multimillion dollar project. Many steps in the process though.

Nice Rotavap
What'ya doing there?

7

Flat Earth General / Re: Ridiculousness

« on: March 03, 2014, 04:36:35 PM »

He used to threaten to beat people up when he got mad, lol. I'm not even sure if he's an FE'er or RE'er.
Everyone is accepted here as part of the community if they want to be, even RE'ers.

Even if they threaten to beat people up? that's interesting

8

Flat Earth General / Re: toronto cn tower horizon debunked

« on: March 03, 2014, 04:35:13 PM »

Fantastic video. I love the female voice class dismissed. I also love the "opaque air" at sealevel counter-explanation. It is highly entertaining.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: What education do to you have?

« on: March 03, 2014, 04:22:03 PM »

And just as I a was curious about the level of educaiton in a separate thread excellent.

BSc Engineering (Biotechnology, Chemistry and Environmental engineering)
MSc Engineering (Chemistry) <--- as of 2015  (yes, I'm still young)

I actually had to dig up my diploma to remember the title... Tedious titles.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: Zero gravity planes are not zero gravity planes.

« on: March 03, 2014, 04:13:18 PM »

Ahh, we linked the same video nice.
Anyway, I read through that thread, and had to stop... The Dunning-Kruger was too strong in there.

I would actually really love a spreadsheet showing the degree of education of FE'ers vs. RE'ers. I strongly believe we should see a trend.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Zero gravity planes are not zero gravity planes.

« on: March 03, 2014, 03:27:22 PM »

We are told that astronauts on the ISS fall AROUND the Earth in space orbit and this gives them a zero gravity environment.... That makes no sense.
What would make sense would be for them to be falling to Earth (assuming it was real, which it isn't) and then the astronauts would feel a sense of weightlessness....BUT... the ISS would then have to do what the plane does and keep dropping under power and rising under power,  yet we are told that the ISS just falls round the Earth and only every now and again does it use a bit of power to speed up;  yet the weird part is  (if anyone would like to view a video of it supposedly speeding up)  the astronauts actually move horizontally backwards whilst this supposed action is being performed.... Are you lost?

Take a look at Cady Coleman in the clip where she was giving a supposed interview inside the ISS. She could not keep still. She was either floating up to the roof and had to stop herself (it's comical to watch) and yet a little boost of the station in anotehr video and the astronauts move horizontally from a standing (or should I say, floating) start. It's ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is your lack of understanding of acceleration sorry. Yes, the ISS and everything in a stable orbit is technically falling towards earth, and because of the simultaneous forward velocity this gives a constant falling, i.e. orbit. When it does a reboost every now and then, off course the passengers will float horizontally?! The craft is experiencing an acceleration which all non-fastened contents (humans included) will respond to visually, by moving...

Watch this video: Everyone, really, it's nice and gives a prime example of a reboost aboard the ISS.
Action begins at 2:00

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

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What could be gained by fooling people in to thinking that the earth is round?

« on: March 03, 2014, 01:58:12 PM »

Is power not a good motivation?  If you can control their minds, you control everything. 

So lying is neccessary to control the minds of the people? That makes no sense

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you differentiate between flat earth vs very large sphere?

« on: March 03, 2014, 01:25:41 PM »

Oh btw, scepti, can you post the experimental data it in a separate thread? It's just that I think it will get lost and be hard to find in the middle of this mess
Will make going through it easier

PS: mega prefix: M, milli prefix: m. I'm just assuming that your laser isn't 500 megawatts here

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you differentiate between flat earth vs very large sphere?

« on: March 03, 2014, 11:15:56 AM »

Sure, but a detailed representation of the procedure is neccessary, not just the end results. Until then, let's stick to what we have so far in this thread

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you differentiate between flat earth vs very large sphere?

« on: March 03, 2014, 11:10:10 AM »

So there you go. That's your work all destroyed...but look on the bright side. You at least know you can choose the actual real shape, knowing that the globe model is obsolete.

You're welcome. 

Yeah, I wouldn't break out the champagne just yet let's see the results, and we'll judge from there.

PS: I edited my previous post, just a heads up.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you differentiate between flat earth vs very large sphere?

« on: March 03, 2014, 10:53:01 AM »

None of you measured anything. You decided it, unlike the experiments I've just got back which proves otherwise. I've been waiting for ages to get it.

Ok, so you are simply claiming Scintific was lying about his measurements and that they are in fact, what, a conspiracy?
Only to claim YOU are much better at measuring things (except it was seemingly your friend that performed the experiment)...

I'm actually giggling a bit here this is fun. Looking forward to seeing this experiment. Well, except I'm not expecting much since you're saying it was done a 2km scale (keep in mind that we 'claim' the round earth to have a diameter of 12500km, 2 km is a puny dot). For any real result you will have to measure on a scale where the mean error is NOT larger than what you're aiming to measure. Science 101.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you differentiate between flat earth vs very large sphere?

« on: March 03, 2014, 10:45:22 AM »

I had my friend do a test on a frozen lake using a laser and two identical upright props with markers. He's just posted the results and it's fantastic. 2000 metres apart, the levels and markers on the props were 3 millimetres out.

Proof that the Earth is NOT a globe.

There we go, this is better content! However, can you provide more details as to how this was carried out? From what you're saying, what was actually measured is not clear whatsoever...

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you differentiate between flat earth vs very large sphere?

« on: March 03, 2014, 10:41:25 AM »

Wow, more insult and ignoring real results.

I'll take a guess. Is it because you lot come on here and simply make stuff up, then excitedly claim that you solved the issue that you all professed had been solved years ago by all those old timers of the Greek days and what not.

If you want to state "we" made up very simple trigonometry, sure, it just serves to ridicule your entire cause. Thank you.

Earth is a globe because we measured a mountain.

You clearly have NO idea what was measured. This lack of comprehension of whats going on is almost frightening. Let me rephrase your sentence;
Earth is a globe because we measured an actual curvature, via a mountain.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: This time solid proof - we live inside hollow Earth.

« on: March 03, 2014, 10:30:55 AM »

Science makes sense now.
Is pretty, aswell.
Here's more evidence:  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">  so pretty

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you differentiate between flat earth vs very large sphere?

« on: March 03, 2014, 10:25:05 AM »

Geoof pretty much sums this up. You say

I'd love to but I cannot physically verify my theory, no more than you can, yours. We can all give out pointers as to why this and that is so - but it doesn't make it, so.

Except round earth "theory" just got verified through this measurement, which you can do yourself to make sure (off course you will not accept that). So you are dead wrong, scepti

Round earth theory can be physically verified, whereas flat earth theory cannot.

Care to guess why?

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you differentiate between flat earth vs very large sphere?

« on: March 03, 2014, 06:11:09 AM »

You don't need to. Scinny has done all the work for you. His mountain measuring has proved it all to you, hasn't it?

Well, his measuring has not changed anything for me, as it only cements what I know.

Again, someone mentioned that it was you, the flat earth society, who should really be doing measurements like these, since YOU are the ones questioning reality with alternate theories. As far as research goes, you should be doing your best to verify YOUR theory, that's the usual mode of conduct in a scientific proces. However this is not what I'm seeing. The game is a little weak, from proponents of a flat earth, I must say.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!

« on: March 03, 2014, 03:24:39 AM »

This thread is fantastic. The pure lack of actual input and attention from FE proponents has me thinking they have given up
Does this mean we win?

On a sidenote, a while back I calculated the height of occlusion from a curving horizon to be 1 meter per 7,3 km of distance. Calculated as the height of a chorde (entirely theoretical).
It's a nice number to remember.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you differentiate between flat earth vs very large sphere?

« on: March 03, 2014, 03:12:32 AM »

Look good lads
These are the kind of measurements I was talking about. Let's see if this receives any answers or recognition, just like http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59240.0#.UxRjBPl5Oqg seems to be lacking any challenging replies. Really good job

Unfortunately there are no mountains in my country the biggest elevation here is a whopping 170 meters, so I will have to find an alternative! Haha

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you differentiate between flat earth vs very large sphere?

« on: March 01, 2014, 03:55:12 AM »

What about the NASA whistle blowers?  I suppose that you are claiming they are just lying, right?

Did these NASA whistleblowers claim the earth is actually flat?

Anyway, back on topic? I have not seen any answers from FE proponents that even attempt to answer the initial question. A RE answer would be "Yes, you CAN differentiate these things". By measurements.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you differentiate between flat earth vs very large sphere?

« on: February 28, 2014, 02:24:24 PM »

Now, I can only wonder why you people ignore all of the evidence.

But ignoring evidence that cannot exist within the boundaries of the laws of nature is only fair, in my opinion. Is there anything specific you are thinking of that cannot be ignored right of the bat?
Just to be clear, I have not yet actually seen any FE evidence, solid or sketchy. Since I am still new here.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you differentiate between flat earth vs very large sphere?

« on: February 28, 2014, 02:05:54 PM »

I would love to be able to just soak in all of these facts and not have to think for myself. 

Also, once again, argumentum ad populum.   

Ahh, but here I must disagree; learning from being taught and thinking for one self is not mutually exclusive. Being educated gives you powerful tools to analyze the world around you, and to be critical, even of the tools themselves.

If these facts you soak up can be verified by experimenting and thinking for yourself, it would appear something is verified, yes? Basically how all knowledge works.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you differentiate between flat earth vs very large sphere?

« on: February 28, 2014, 02:00:56 PM »

I would love for the Earth to be round.  I would not have to be so suspicious or do so much research if it was. 

The fact that you come here shows that you are not sure about the shape.  Maybe it is round, or maybe it is flat.  The thought of it just eats you up, does it not?

Good to se an openminded comment I must admit, toying with ideas that flip well accepted facts upside down is very interesting, and I'm always open to that.
But, at the same time I just do not see the motivation for believing so sternly that the earth is flat, and I have yet to se a single shred of evidence pointing towards this idea. I am not in doubt, whatsoever, that the earth is round, just to be clear
You see, no compelling evidence or anything else for that matter on this forum, thus far, has seeded any doubt in my mind.

What convinced you, personally, that it must be flat? If you don't mind me asking. Was it evidence, or more of a belief?

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you differentiate between flat earth vs very large sphere?

« on: February 28, 2014, 12:49:42 PM »

Seems that if the Earth is sufficiently large, our measuring techniques could not be refined enough to determine whether the Earth is flat, or whether it is a very, very, very, very large sphere. If you cannot, then why flat earth society? If there's no evidence for a flat earth (which could not also be interpreted as a sufficiently large spherical Earth), and there's no evidence for a spherical earth (which you seem to assert), then you should suspend judgement until further information has been provided - you should not jump to the conclusion that the earth is flat just because we can't measure far enough

I don't think your motives are scientific, let's jut say that 

Excellent point! This is also something that intrigues me, this need or yearning to believe we are all victims of conspiracy theories by an evil government to hide the fact that the earth is flat, science is false along with everything else "official"... For what reason? "Them" fooling the public into believing earth is round, has exactly what advantages?

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD8QeNQCPuZzwklMwlq05TQ this guy is a good example, believing clouds, satellites, atomic bombs and so on, are conspiracies. It would not surprise me if he is a member here. Now, I don't want to exhibit this guy and talk behind his back, so I shall speak no further of him. It is merely a good example of the mindset there seems to be around here.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The importance of the discovery of planet Vulcan

« on: February 28, 2014, 12:33:59 PM »

Well for starters space and time doesn't curve (it's completely flat) and this is proven to me by studying background radiation. Now if we take standard logic we can't end up with a universe that is 13.7 Billion years old with light that is 156 Billion light years across, if that is correct it would mean that light would have to be traveling faster then is physically possible. The speed of light has never been observed to be exceeded so the only way that would be physically possible is if the speed of light is actually slowing down over time and if it is indeed slowing down over time then you would have to divide 156 Billion by 13.7 Billion to get basically 5.7 (vectored) times of slowdown or in other words you count in vectors one is 1, two is 4, three is 16, four is 64, five is 256, six is 1024 to get percentage you take 1024-256=768x.7=537.6+256=793.6 so you end up with 793.6 times of slowdown which if that is correct to get the age of the Earth you would actually have to divide expansion rate times expansion rate so you would take 793.6x793.6=629800.96 then you would multiply that number by 5.7 to get 3,589,865 then you would take 13.7 Billion divided by 3,589,865 to get an age of about 3,816 years however you would also have to adjust for pi to vector which is about times 1.146 so 3816x1.1416 = 4373 years then take away 6% to account for vector overlap and you get about 4,126 years adjust for modern to ancient calender conversion and you get about 20 years added to that date for about 4146 total years since the creation of what modern science calls the 'Universe'.

What just happened? 
I'll try not to sound offensive in the following, but the question is necessary;
can someone answer honestly, are Sculelos and sceptimatic an average example of FE proponents? (this is not a personal attack, just trying to get a good idea of the state of things here)

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: At sceptimatic's request...

« on: February 28, 2014, 07:01:52 AM »

Ooooh, size of the illuminated area then! I see. Well, I don't believe that, that would be silly. It must light up roughly half of the moons surface at any given time. Except in cases of lunar eclipse, of course. Did anyone claim otherwise? I have read through most of the pages, but I might have missed that.