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.


Messages - narcberry

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 156
1
The Lounge / Dear general Gayer
« on: September 03, 2019, 06:29:15 PM »
Gayer!!!

I hope to be in the UK in 2010 or 2011. Would love to meetup for a drink, meet the fam. Maybe confess my eternal love.

Does she even post here anymore? I'll check in 6mo's more more.

2
Flat Earth General / Re: The Candle Experiment
« on: September 03, 2019, 06:22:08 PM »
The candle experiment PROVES that the earth is flat in the simple way shown By John. It is irrifutable.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Maths in regard to the theory
« on: September 03, 2019, 06:18:10 PM »
As a keen mathematician, I revel in the chance to prove things in terms of equations. I am wondering if there are any ones that work for the flat earth but not the globe earth

Please see some of my posts for complete theorems and supporting proofs.

4
People ask this question a lot. Here's a simple answer. Do you know anybody that actually works for NASA?

Nobody does. Case Closed.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: “Sigma Octantis” and the Infinite Plane?
« on: September 03, 2019, 06:12:19 PM »
Sounds like psuedo-science to me

6
The Lounge / Re: Britain in Five Words or less
« on: September 03, 2019, 06:10:57 PM »
This thread should have died years ago.

7
The Lounge / Re: When is Gayer going to have the baby?
« on: February 09, 2018, 05:24:45 PM »
Finally going home

Dont drop him. He'll resent you his whole life. Dont even let it get in your head - accidentally dropping your baby - I mean.

Congrats! Momma!

8
The Lounge / Re: When is Gayer going to have the baby?
« on: January 26, 2018, 11:27:52 PM »
I'm watching this thread every couple days. Gayer, are you really due soon?

9
The Lounge / Re: When is Gayer going to have the baby?
« on: January 22, 2018, 09:02:31 PM »
Yup

What the hell, you didnt even wait for my answer to your marriage proposal before you get all shacked up with some dude and have his babies for a decade? WTF!?

10
The Lounge / Re: Does narcberry really think he's a mod?
« on: December 26, 2017, 02:59:22 PM »
*** MOVED TOPIC TO THE LOUNGE ***

11
but how do you get your balloon to travel ant 8,100 m/s, taking only 96.2 minutes to complete each orbit.
That 96.2 minutes to complete each orbit was easy to verify.

In FET, you cannot orbit the earth. You REALLY should read the FAQ
You're right.  They would be circling above at an incredible and exactly predictable speed.  Doesn't sound possible for a balloon.

Strawman
Dodge
Spam

12
but how do you get your balloon to travel ant 8,100 m/s, taking only 96.2 minutes to complete each orbit.
That 96.2 minutes to complete each orbit was easy to verify.

In FET, you cannot orbit the earth. You REALLY should read the FAQ
You're right.  They would be circling above at an incredible and exactly predictable speed.  Doesn't sound possible for a balloon.

Strawman

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« on: December 26, 2017, 01:27:14 PM »
Many amateurs have performed this test and found 1-4 photons reflected. You could attempt it yourself.
That isn't the question.  The question is why is that what you would EXPECT on a flat earth.

Because the moon is closer, so more photons would be reflected than in RET.
What would be expected if the moon was farther away?

Fewer returning photons. The amount would of course vary with how far away.

14
but how do you get your balloon to travel ant 8,100 m/s, taking only 96.2 minutes to complete each orbit.
That 96.2 minutes to complete each orbit was easy to verify.

In FET, you cannot orbit the earth. You REALLY should read the FAQ

15
Flat Earth General / Re: more proof of a globe
« on: December 26, 2017, 01:21:32 PM »
You're the one who posted the cgi
Wasn't me or the guy who started the thread.

I simply brought up a well known fact.
The more people involved in a lie, the more likely it is that someone will spill the beans.

Instead of responding to minor threads like this
Shouldn't you be working on your flat earth map?

After all, the flat earth map is like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
It would be worth a lot if real.

But so far there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow
And there is no flat earth map that works.

You'd be surprised how tight-lipped people can be when personally profiting.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« on: December 26, 2017, 01:20:44 PM »
Many amateurs have performed this test and found 1-4 photons reflected. You could attempt it yourself.
That isn't the question.  The question is why is that what you would EXPECT on a flat earth.

Because the moon is closer, so more photons would be reflected than in RET.

17
This is probably the most absurd claim an RE'er has made today.
Nope.
It isn't absurd at all.
Perhaps you can try to address the massive differences between satellites and balloons?

Such as... ?
Geostationary satellites follow precisely predictable orbits at approximately 35,786 km above mean sea level.
Balloons follow unpredictable paths determined by the local wind at an altitude of no more than about 50.0 km.

Hence one geostationary satellite can broadcast to a whole continent the size of USA or Australia plus New Zealand.
But one balloon can cover only a limited region.

On a flat earth the radio signals from the balloon wouldn't be occluded as soon. Using atmosphere penetrating wavelengths - balloon origined signals can travel quite far.
But in the case of geostationary satellites like for TV that would mean dishes across the country would be pointed in vastly different directions.  That's not the case.
In the US ALL such dishes are pointed south at an angle to receive from a height far too great for a balloon.

Not true, in FET they'd just be pointed at a lower altitude.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« on: December 26, 2017, 01:01:50 PM »
Why is it an error to assume rotational symmetry?

The earth is not a perfect disc, there is an elliptical nature to it's rotation.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« on: December 26, 2017, 01:00:41 PM »
I think you missed SavagePilot's post
No, I responded directly to it.
Perhaps you can try addressing the issue at hand for once?

All I see in this thread is a bunch of posts of you whining. I've lost track of your actual question. Unless you're talking about something I've already answered.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« on: December 26, 2017, 12:59:18 PM »
Many amateurs have performed this test and found 1-4 photons reflected. You could attempt it yourself.

21
So you're saying someone is adjusting the exposure just right to make the sun appear to move further away and then closer again? That they are deliberately abusing the "glare" to create this effect?
No, I'm saying they are incompetent.

So they accidentally made the sun appear this way? And that was because of glare they didn't account for. Yet the path of the sun is such that it appears to have been deliberately manipulated?

I don't see the strength of your argument.

22
This is probably the most absurd claim an RE'er has made today.
Nope.
It isn't absurd at all.
Perhaps you can try to address the massive differences between satellites and balloons?

Such as... ?
Geostationary satellites follow precisely predictable orbits at approximately 35,786 km above mean sea level.
Balloons follow unpredictable paths determined by the local wind at an altitude of no more than about 50.0 km.

Hence one geostationary satellite can broadcast to a whole continent the size of USA or Australia plus New Zealand.
But one balloon can cover only a limited region.

On a flat earth the radio signals from the balloon wouldn't be occluded as soon. Using atmosphere penetrating wavelengths - balloon origined signals can travel quite far.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« on: December 26, 2017, 12:53:31 PM »
You didn't look very hard, you can easily measure the shape of the earth with a level and a laser sight.
And what the hell does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Here, let me remind you what you need to back up:
They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!

Do you have any proof this is the "EXACT AMOUNT" you would measure under FET?

I do - it is what is measured.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« on: December 26, 2017, 12:39:33 PM »
I think you missed SavagePilot's post

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« on: December 26, 2017, 12:38:24 PM »
Oh yeah, you were talking about sea people inventing boats. I remember now.

Your first error is assuming rotational symmetry. Try again.

26
So you're saying someone is adjusting the exposure just right to make the sun appear to move further away and then closer again? That they are deliberately abusing the "glare" to create this effect?

27
This is probably the most absurd claim an RE'er has made today.
Nope.
It isn't absurd at all.
Perhaps you can try to address the massive differences between satellites and balloons?

Such as... ?

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« on: December 26, 2017, 12:34:07 PM »
Anyone can replicate this through study in math. I don't desire to handhold you in every thread.
Really? And what math do you use to come to your number?
Check my sig for links to all my studies and proofs.
I have checked. Your sig links to mountains of crap.
There are no studies to determine the shape of Earth and no proofs.

Nowhere in it do I see any link to any claim about the number of photons you would expect if shone a laser at the moon.

Now provide it here or shut up.

You didn't look very hard, you can easily measure the shape of the earth with a level and a laser sight.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« on: December 26, 2017, 12:20:12 PM »
You're also forgetting that the speed of light is for light in a vacuum - which is not the scenario we're dealing with.
No I'm not.
The speed of light does not change by a large enough amount to cause any significant issue.

Now how about instead of just spouting crap you try to actually justify your claim?
Explain how the sun manages to appear so low.

The earth is accelerating upwards, occluding low angle light.
The light is slowed down in the atmosphere, as expected, increasing the amount of occluded light.
Light is bent within UA turbulence, increasing time to target as expected in FET.

All these, and other factors, cause this optical illusion

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« on: December 26, 2017, 12:17:28 PM »
Mathmatics is so Uncommon in the Heliocentric Theory that it is completely non-existent!

There is considerable Mathematics involved in a detailed description, but little is needed for a qualitative explanation.

Read the FAQ
We have, now how about you address the issue?
The issue is how uncommon math is in FE models, and how math used from these models with the results compared to reality shows the models to be incorrect.

Care to give an example of your claim?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 156