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 - antonindvorak

Pages: [1]
1
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Rolf Harris
« on: June 25, 2015, 02:14:49 PM »
I was always fond of his music...

Shame that he's a paedophile.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: An unbiased debate.
« on: June 25, 2015, 01:53:41 PM »
Your suggestion is more than reasonable mate but there's a big problem: This is the FES we're talking about here; the existence of which not even all round-earthers can agree as to whether or not is real or just a really long troll/prank/con-job. No, truly!

If the FE'ers were to agree with your rules, most would be unable to post to begin with (including our much esteemed 'mod') and the others who actually could would have to agree within a few pages the Earth is indeed an oblate spheroid. Am I perhaps exaggerating? Not even close.

All they have is derailing, avoiding questions, ad hominems, fallacies and really, really entertaining delusions about how they think the world works (eg. see some of JRowe & sceptimatic's work; it's gut-busting stuff). Let's face it: that's why most of us are here - for the fun of it.

In their heart of hearts, they know the Earth is a spheroid, all other noise is just an attempt to distract them from their empty lives because they 'figured it out' and that sets them apart and makes them special.

- This is aside from the debate -

While I completely agree with your statements, my idea is that this debate can help those who are not trolling and are seriously buying into the FE model come back to reality.

- Bias deactivated -

3
My goodness, no one listened when I said watch the video entirely.
That's because most of us that have been here for a while already know that Coriolis is too weak to influence how water drains.

Must I insult your intelligence by repeating myself?

In a toilet, a sink, or a bathtub, yes, you are correct, and I as well as the individuals in the video agree with you.

4
reply to anton...
FE'ers are actually in the majority - along with the word of the Bible, Koran, Hindu, Chinese, Aborigine, Native American, etc. etc. Modern science is a control freak ruled by the elites. It is a brainwashed, materialistic teenager insulting his parents and ancestors. He'll wake up to reality the hard way, but eventually he will have to accept what has been known since the dawn of creation. You are not an accident. You live in a world designed for you, so you can grow and learn truth. Your fellow man, past and present are a part of you, not against you. good luck in your journey.

I don't disagree with most of what you said. I do disagree (as does Dr. Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist who supports creation) with the belief that when the Bible mentions the circle of the Earth it's talking about a flat disc. The Hebrew word for circle can mean "round" or "sphere." I don't believe I'm an accident as it appears you assumed, and I do believe the world was designed.

However, I disagree when you say FE'ers are the majority, and my previous point still stands.

5
Did you or did you not witness the portion of the video where the pool of water on one hemisphere drains in the opposite direction of that in the other hemisphere?
Do you honestly think that earth rotating once per day can possibly provide enough force to influence a toilet flush?  It's far more likely that the toilet manufacturers build in the swirl direction at the factory.

You also didn't watch the video entirely!

They say early on that the hemisphere you're in does not affect a toilet flush! They later use two still baby pools full of water on either hemisphere, and drain them without disturbing the pool, and they conclude that the force is small, but it still is there.

My goodness, no one listened when I said watch the video entirely.

6
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

You have to synchronize it with this video to make sense:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Just watch the first few seconds and they explain how to do that.

Then, watch the entire video.

Then you can admit you were wrong about a flat Earth and go home with some amount of dignity.
500 years of deception and little liars like you won't disappear after one video.

Did you even watch the video, you poor unfortunate soul?
i saw what i need and i know people are lying without end.

You also deflected without answering the question.

Did you or did you not witness the portion of the video where the pool of water on one hemisphere drains in the opposite direction of that in the other hemisphere?

EDIT - Talk about people who aren't open minded...

7
Flat Earth Debate / An unbiased debate.
« on: June 25, 2015, 12:56:43 PM »
I would like to see if we can come to some sort of an understanding.

Some individuals believe the Earth is flat. Some individuals believe the earth is round (or spherical.) Obviously, only one group of individuals is correct, and the other group is entirely wrong. For the moment, I am willing to take the stance that I believe nothing about the shape of the Earth. It could be flat, or it could be round. However, I must ask that everyone drop their bias for the moment, whether you support a RE or a FE. We are just here to examine the evidence and come to an ultimate conclusion.

So, how can an unbiased person come to a conclusion?

First, let us determine what evidence is valid. Many flat Earth supporters say that video and photography that supports a round Earth cannot be trusted, because the camera lens can alter the material, and it can also be edited using software. I will agree to this, but it also applies for footage that demonstrates the opposite, because for all we know this evidence could also have been modified. So, the kind of evidence we are looking for to reach our conclusion is the kind that cannot be maliciously changed or misinterpreted.

There are a few rules that everyone must follow in this debate:
  • No attacking individuals personally.
  • No biased statements.
  • You must stay on topic.
  • No raging.
  • No provoking anger.
Break a rule once and you are automatically disqualified from participating in this debate. No exceptions.

Now, let's respectfully begin this thread.

8
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

You have to synchronize it with this video to make sense:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Just watch the first few seconds and they explain how to do that.

Then, watch the entire video.

Then you can admit you were wrong about a flat Earth and go home with some amount of dignity.
500 years of deception and little liars like you won't disappear after one video.

Did you even watch the video, you poor unfortunate soul?

9
These people make so much suspicion, even one who would claim to be in space was probably much more open mind than this people.

Sorry, but I am open minded. It's not my fault that your arguments are bizarre, illogically fallible, and generally don't fit well with each other.

The fact is, the FES has failed to produce any convincing, or otherwise definitive evidence to support their theory. And what little so called evidence there is cannot compete with the vast amount of proof that the Earth is spherical.


You need to get it out of your heads that you aren't apart of the 0.0001% of non-brainwashed individuals today that have broken free from the system and discovered the "truth."

10
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

You have to synchronize it with this video to make sense:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Just watch the first few seconds and they explain how to do that.

Then, watch the entire video.

Then you can admit you were wrong about a flat Earth and go home with some amount of dignity.

11
Itchy didn't you understand that Flat earth=god and round earth=science
and they are contradict at the essence. Science and religion are a system of power create to make human ruling over human and a system hiding the true god.
Round earth religion = science.
God=flat earth and simple life.
Think about it, don't quote the science if you believe in flat earth.

I am a Christian and I believe in round Earth and science.  Just because God made the universe doesn't mean we shouldn't learn everything we can about it with experimentation.
Yea we know, you are 17 American who make so many spelling mistake.

And you're a hypocrite that has the nerve to trash someone else's spelling when your own sentence is so grammatically incorrect, it would get you an F in elementary school. I see no spelling mistakes in his post, by the way.

12
Edwin Hubble was the first person to realise that everything in the universe is moving away from us (red-shifted). This fact is now universally accepted by the cosmology community.

Everything in every direction is getting further away. In round Earth theory, this can only mean one thing - our little globe is the centre of the universe. I think most will agree this is ridiculous, or so unlikely that it be dismissed as a realistic explanation.

Now, in Infinite Earth Theory (IET) this all makes perfect sense. IET states that Earth is a flat plain making up the floor of the universe. The big bang was an event at the bottom of the universe, projecting all matter upwards. This energy continues today, as observed by red-shift. Only heavy elements have fallen to create the Earth, as well as lighter elements produced on Earth itself (the atmosphere).

Of course, this is only an idea of what happened at the beginning of the universe. Much more research is needed.

Ha. Ha ha ha. Ridiculous.

Pick any point in the universe, and it will appear that everything is moving away from that point. So the Martians can use this same principle to conclude that they are at the centre of the universe!

This does not prove a flat Earth.

13
I have heard of this. What baffles me is how anyone with a telescope, during most phases of the moon, can clearly tell by the shading of craters near the edges of it that there is no possible way a flat disc could assume this form.

I've never thought of this before. Would you mind elaborating on the crater point? It seems like pretty good evidence against FET if it can't easily be hand-waved away.

Certainly.

Let's have a look at the moon during the waning gibbous phase: (Please pardon the sloppy handwriting, had to use a mouse. Also, the images are a bit large because I wanted to show the detail. You'll have to scroll over to see the whole shabam.)

Edit: I would recommend right clicking and opening them in a new tab.



Beautiful, isn't it? Although a quick glance seems to indicate that the moon is a ball by the overall shape it has during this phase, our FE supporters are a bit slow, so let's give them a little more evidence.

In the image below, I've pointed out that the craters facing us all appear round, and as we approach the edge of the moon, they gradually become more distorted, turning into more of an oval shape. (Which can only be explained by a spherical moon.)



In the final image, I prove that the moon is round, because where the light is hitting the craters directly, we see little to no shading, while as we move further away from the light, they become darker and darker until you can't see the moon anymore, because (surprise, surprise!) the moon is not a disk.



I can provide links to a few videos that explain this as well if you'd like.

14
So answer me this, why, as the earth continues to ascend, do the sun and the moon continue to affect as at all? If Earth is not orbiting the sun and the sun is not orbiting the Earth and the Earth is gradually moving upwards then why for Pete's sake don't we eventually pass the sun and the moon?
Why wouldn't the sun and moon continue to affect us?  :-\
Why would we expect to pass them if both we and the sun/moon/observable universe are being accelerated at similar rates by similar force(s)?

Quote
All right, so you believe  in some gravity. Now answer me this: is this gravitational pull enough to leave you with no need for an ascending, accelerating planet
Not in my opinion, though the Davis Model features a stationary infinite plane.


Quote
I can't dig to China because I would burn up as I approached the Earth's core.
Same issue.


Quote
I may have a poor argument for this one, but I fail to understand why a FE would remain perfectly circular, and why it isn't some other abstract shape.

I certainly can't say that it is circular and not an abstract shape. Only that the known regions of the earth are loosely circular in extent. That is the nature of zeteticism.


Quote
For starters, please explain to me how a massive cylindrical heavenly body was formed and perpetuated after the supposed big bang.
Do we know that it was necessarily formed as a massive cylindrical body? Further, why could it not be perpetuated if static forces are stronger than exhibited gravitation. My pencil exhibits gravitation, but does not collapse into a sphere.


Quote
Also, I said creation scientist, specifically, meaning having a degree of some sort.
Anaximander will be devastated

I will respond to this tomorrow. It is late where I live and I am going to bed now.

Before I do, I would like to apologize if I came off a bit rude. You've been very polite in your posts and I respect that. Although I disagree with almost everything you've said, there's no reason for anyone to get upset. I beg your pardon.

15
     FE supporters embrace the idea that gravity doesn't really exist, and the reason their frisbee shaped planet doesn't collapse into a spherical world is due to this belief.
This isn't necessarily true. First, gravity is highly out of vogue even among globularists.
Further, the Davis Model, for example, has no issue with gravitation. Nor do I particular have issue with gravitation. Assuming something very much like GR is true, the earth must exhibit some gravitation. 

Fair enough - for now.

I beg the question, why do the sun, the moon, satellites, and other heavenly bodies orbit the Earth?
I don't know of any contemporary flat earth models which feature the celestial bodies orbiting the earth.

So answer me this, why, as the earth continues to ascend, do the sun and the moon continue to affect as at all? If Earth is not orbiting the sun and the sun is not orbiting the Earth and the Earth is gradually moving upwards then why for Pete's sake don't we eventually pass the sun and the moon?

If there is no gravity, and the reason we are kept on the surface is because Earth is ascending at an increasing rate, then there is absolutely no logical reason for anything to orbit anything else.

Does not follow.

All right, so you believe  in some gravity. Now answer me this: is this gravitational pull enough to leave you with no need for an ascending, accelerating planet, and if so, then back to my first statement, why doesn't the earth just turn into a ball anyway? Or is there some balance of ascension as well as gravity? In which case, my second point still stands.

     These flaws are just the tips of the iceberg. Why can't I dig a hole through the ground that leads right into space?

Why can't you dig to China?

I can't dig to China because I would burn up as I approached the Earth's core. Not to mention, even if the heat weren't a problem, I would get stuck in the middle of a theoretical tunnel because the gravitational pull would be equal on all sides of me. That or I would fall down at one end, reach the other, and be shot back down the other side. In your model, I'm not sure if you have a core, where it would be, or if gravity would be as big of a deal as it would be on a spherical world. These questions I wait for you to answer.

How do volcanoes operate? What about tectonic plate movement?
Assuming tectonic plates theories are true, is there a reason you believe they could not operate in the same manner they would on a globular earth?  ???


I may have a poor argument for this one, but I fail to understand why a FE would remain perfectly circular, and why it isn't some other abstract shape.

what's to stop me from taking a boat over the edge of the planet, or flying in an aircraft for that matter?
Distance?


Gesundheit?

     Another problem I have with the FE notion is what it tells us about the beginning of the universe. The FEer certainly doesn't believe in the big bang, because environments for the two ideas are logically incompatible.
In what manner?


For starters, please explain to me how a massive cylindrical heavenly body was formed and perpetuated after the supposed big bang.

And I can't name a single Creation scientist who accepts the FE model either.
You've not met all our members then.


This I can not argue; I have not in fact met all of the members of this forum. However, I'm going to assume that they base their belief for a flat earth off of Job 26:7 or Isaiah 40:22. Dr. Jason Lisle agrees that these verses don't inherently imply that the Earth is circular, but they apply for a spherical Earth just as well.

Also, I said creation scientist, specifically, meaning having a degree of some sort.

16
Here's my thoughts on the matter.

I'm not a FE advocate per say, nor do I believe the earth is entirely what we are told it is. There are just too many absurdities to support the globe paradigm and too many futile FE arguments to support the generally accepted FE map.

There are lost of puzzling and off worldly concepts to wrap our tiny brains around with both theories, like us travelling at whatever the insane speed it is that we are supposed to be travelling at a galactic scale not to mention the mind blowing speed that we must be travelling at a universal scale. Our tiny atmosphere somehow seems to protect us from these otherwise fatal physics and this is just a cosmic accident :o

The OP above does a good job of questioning some of the FE problems, albeit a little flippant.

One of the FE arguments I see a lot is the aeroplane travelling with or against the earths rotation and the seemingly anomalous flight times. Because we occupy the same atmosphere as a aeroplane (relatively speaking) ergo the same physics apply, we can quite clearly see that a simple jump in the air does not cause us to land in a different location, so the whole air travel thing is just a convoluted and unnecessary way in which to demonstrate that either the earth is spinning along with its atmosphere or the earth is not spinning at all. Any closer to the truth? I don't think so. Misinformation? Phony bone of contention?

There is so much deception on this planet by those who control it and purport to be the official purveyors of truth, that I question EVERYTHING they tell us and I try to bring logic and critical thinking along for the ride too. I will go where the evidence leads and not get duped by the rigid scientism paradigm that lots of the RE advocates are hell bent at repeating.

If you are interested in the subject of ancient technology, you soon learn that in some respects the ancient people were far more intelligent than us. We may have intellect but they possessed holistic intelligence (there is a world of difference between the two) and understood natural law both on a micro and macrocosmic level. They possessed seemingly inexplicable knowledge of the cosmos that up until the last few centuries we did not know. A lot of these civilisations also understood the earth to be flat.

Either way unless I go in to space and actually see the earth through my own eyes, I will never claim to support either theory.

Interesting rebuttal.

I, personally, believe in a Creator God that made the perfect conditions for life to exist and flourish on the Earth, which deals with the "cosmic accident" issue. It it not widely accepted - but you question everything, yes? Even the ever growing theory of evolution? - but I believe that God exists outside of time, space, and the physical realm, and that He created all these concepts. He invented all these concepts, including mathematics, which appear to exist on a transcendental level. Numbers have laws, always consistent, and are universal; three properties that don't make sense in a chance universe. (If you want more on the brilliance of God and infinity, look up the Mandelbrot set.)

I agree with you that man's intellect is not what it was when he was created. (See my signature.  ;) ) The fact is the average IQ is dropping and continues to drop, about 14 points since the last century. This is not consistent with the model of evolution by any means. Since you are informed on the topic, you may know that many engineers today are baffled by the pyramids, as well as the similar structures found around the world (specifically Central America.) How did ancient man construct such towers? Creationists have a great explanation. (Look up Ron Wyatt for more; I don't always trust his opinions but in the case of the pyramids, his discoveries are magnificent.)

In the end, I fail to see how the shape of the Earth really affects our day to day lives.

17

Sure. I've spotted some points of contention that FE'ers could bring up with your OP.

I'll admit I'm not the most informed on the topic. My intentions with the OP were to inform the casual browser of a few impracticalities just a glance at the FET yields.


Firstly, FE'ers don't think that the Sun and Moon are spherical. They are also disc shaped, and they act like spotlights above the Earth, which rotate in whatever way that works for FE'ers at the time. Now, this brings up several problems of course. One of them being: sun sets, eclipses, etc.

I have heard of this. What baffles me is how anyone with a telescope, during most phases of the moon, can clearly tell by the shading of craters near the edges of it that there is no possible way a flat disc could assume this form.


Eclipses are explained by an object simply called "the shadow object" or "the anti-moon". This is a mysteriously invisible (they don't know how it's invisible, it just is sometimes) disc shaped object that is the exact same size as the sun/moon/whatever that blots out the sun at set intervals (that adhere to RE predictions, of course). Some will claim that you can see this "shadow object" at night by looking for a circular spot in the sky where the stars appear blotted out, but I've never seen anything like that in my entire life of stargazing. Why you can't see the "shadow object" and how it has the ability to blot out the sun while remaining completely invisible at the same time is also left unexplained.

Haven't heard of this one. Goodness, that's humorous.  ;D


"Moonlight" is also explained by Moon Shrimp emitting light via bioluminescence. I don't know much about this theory. Since it is so ridiculous and unbelievable many FE'ers will tell you that it's a "joke theory", but really... it's all a joke theory, so it's just as valid in debates as any other point brought up by FE'ers.

I would go on, but I am a bit busy at the moment. Hope you found this entertaining.

I did, thank you for explaining some of this to me.

18
The general consensus of Fe'rs is that they failed in getting to space, and found that it was flat, but didn't want to say that humanity was wrong for millennium.

So what happens when a company like Virgin Galactic succeeds in offering commercial space flights to the public, and people start taking video of the Earth and giving eyewitness accounts of what they saw?

I suppose the FEer would say that such an event is impossible, because we can't go into space, so no such video will ever be recorded by the masses; but once the evidence is there, this whole theory will be torn to shreds.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How thick is the FE?
« on: June 19, 2015, 05:44:32 PM »
jroa's trying to say: "I don't know and I don't care enough to even BS an answer at this point".

But to give an honest answer; it has to be at least about 7 or 8 miles deep to accommodate for the deepness of the Earth's oceans.
Perhaps this is why so many bottom feeders appear strangely peculiar; in fact, they are extraterrestrial beings that have dug their way into the ocean through the underside of the planet, and have evolved to survive in their new environment!

Brilliant.

20
That's the case for most of the FET supporters though, isn't it? ;D

For the most part, yes. If you've browsed the wiki then you've seen how flimsy the Flat Earth model is. If you're posting here, then I suppose you've already given thought to the fact that you'll be arguing with trolls and "me too!"s, though.

While some people do bring up good points about the Round Earth model and how it's flawed... more specifically, how the Round Earth theory of the universe is flawed on a fundamental level,  that's about the extent of actual meaningful discourse you're going to get here.

By no means are you going to get anything meaningful from a conversation with the poster about me, however. Simply browse his post history. He is a cancer, and the only way to get rid of him if to ignore him (which people seem to have a hard time doing).

His trolling is much too obvious to the experienced internet browser. It's laughable really. Even if English isn't your native language, you should still be able to write your college major without too much error - "gealigey," are you kidding me?

You see, it's the same mentality with these public shooters that keep popping up in the news. They crave attention and chaos, and the media gives them everything they want and more. If you really wanted these events to stop happening, you wouldn't show the criminal's face, you wouldn't go on about it for days, and you certainly wouldn't elevate it to a level of national (or even international) concern. Similarly, if everyone ignored trolls, they would eventually give up and move elsewhere.

To quote Joshua from War Games, "The only winning move is not to play."

Anyway, back on topic now.

21
Because it makes Earth special? Because they have nothing better to put resources towards in this age of financial doom?

Please enlighten me.

22
EJ is about to post in this thread. He is a disingenuous troll that has no interest in anything but causing drama.
That's the case for most of the FET supporters though, isn't it? ;D

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How thick is the FE?
« on: June 19, 2015, 04:54:01 PM »
What makes you think that any of us have this in order to know the answer?

Could you please rephrase your question? It makes little grammatical sense to me, thank you.

24
     Before I begin, I'd like you to note that I'm having a tremendous amount of fun reading the nutty claims you flat Earth believers make. I myself am no scientist, but it doesn't take a handful of brain cells to deduct that there is no possible way that our wonderful little planet is flat. However, I understand that not everyone was able to graduate from preschool, so I will try my best to argue with small words. Let's grab our sippy-cups and get started.

     FE supporters embrace the idea that gravity doesn't really exist, and the reason their frisbee shaped planet doesn't collapse into a spherical world is due to this belief. I beg the question, why do the sun, the moon, satellites, and other heavenly bodies orbit the Earth? If there is no gravity, and the reason we are kept on the surface is because Earth is ascending at an increasing rate, then there is absolutely no logical reason for anything to orbit anything else. Also, what keeps the sun held together? Gas (as anyone who has ever farted knows to be true) expands, and since the sun is so close to the Earth as you propose (even if gravity did apply and exist solely for the sun) its mass should be way too small to keep all that gas from staying together.

     These flaws are just the tips of the iceberg. Why can't I dig a hole through the ground that leads right into space? How do volcanoes operate? What about tectonic plate movement? Are some plates running over the side of the Earth, making it jagged and not round by any means? And - sorry if some adhoc argument has already been made for this - what's to stop me from taking a boat over the edge of the planet, or flying in an aircraft for that matter?

     Another problem I have with the FE notion is what it tells us about the beginning of the universe. The FEer certainly doesn't believe in the big bang, because environments for the two ideas are logically incompatible. And I can't name a single Creation scientist who accepts the FE model either. The only sane people today (aside from the nuts on this forum) who believe in a flat world are tribal peoples, secluded from the world and all the scientific advances it has made. And don't use the Roman Catholic church as an example. Not only has their doctrine evolved since the days of Issac Newton and Christopher Columbus, but they just aren't a steeple for reliable information. So what does a flat Earth believer... believe in?

     Take off your tin foil hat for a moment and use your brain. The FE model doesn't work. I fail to see how rational adults can come to the conclusion in 2015 A.D. that the world is flat.

     Try not to throw a temper tantrum, now.

25
Flat Earth Q&A / How thick is the FE?
« on: June 19, 2015, 03:03:32 PM »
I will ask this question with as much sincerity as I can.

If Earth is flat as this forum suggests, then how far down does one have to dig before he falls into space? A mile? A thousand miles? I assume many of you disagree on the answer, but I'd like an idea of the general consensus.

Thank you.

Pages: [1]