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 - Serulian

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Solar Tides
« on: October 04, 2015, 09:46:38 AM »
You forgot the part where the Sun's gravity is so strong it forces distant Pluto to revolve around it, but then the Sun's gravitational pull is not strong enough to pull the moon away from Earth's orbit.

2
Flat Earth General / Re: Thing explaining
« on: September 30, 2015, 10:34:05 AM »
Quantum Levitation

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Total lunar eclipse September 27
« on: September 26, 2015, 05:22:38 AM »

Anybody who actually thinks the sun is only 3000 miles above the earth's surface obviously doesn't have a clue about just about everything, lol.

This is exactly how I feel about people that think the Moon Landing actually happened.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Someone explain the basics
« on: September 26, 2015, 05:09:13 AM »

There is no logical proof or even explanation. It is just extremely childish and ridiculous. There is no reason to believe in the Earth being flat.


   To me the illogical thing would be to believe the world is round, and most rational adults would reject the idea if they were not taught that Earth is round since kindergarten. The RE model goes against everything we observe in our daily lives and we have gone through them all many times such as:

Gravity- Water doesn't cling to a ball. Somehow this pretend force is all around us and keeps the entire universe perfectly in order.

Rotation of the Earth -  If the Earth is rotating then flights going the opposite direction of the rotation should take less time than those going the same direction.

Curvature- Where is the curvature??

The list goes on and on...

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Someone explain the basics
« on: September 24, 2015, 10:25:24 AM »
It boils down to observation and common sense. Look at how much mainstream science has gotten wrong in the past. Almost everything being taught is a theory built upon another theory.

If all of science is nothing more than an amalgam of popular guesses,  where is the harm in doubting the established RE theory of our world?

6
Technically all of the ground could be considered an edge depending on your perspective. We know on this side of the Earth we are safe, going beyond the continent of Antarctica you might walk off into space, the same as if you were able to dig a tunnel straight to the bottom of the Earth and fall into space. Aside from the restrictions and astronomical cost of the expedition, the serious potential for danger is why so many are reluctant to photograph the edge you are referring to.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The shape of Oceania and Australia today
« on: September 21, 2015, 08:08:31 PM »

Are there any other members in this forum apart from the 3 or 4 trolls
answering me back along 48 hours..?

.

It might be best if you were to reveal all the information pertaining to your cube Earth theory/ post apocalyptic scenario and then answer questions and comments. It seems you are reluctant to provide additional details, but are upset we are not continuing to ask.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« on: September 21, 2015, 06:19:06 PM »
If I where to picture a leprechaun standing in front of my target when I pulled the trigger and doing so improved my accuracy, would that prove the existence of leprechauns to you? What if I trained others to do the same and they all had similar results?

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earthquake tremors and the Earth's core
« on: September 21, 2015, 06:15:39 PM »
I still think these readings line up just fine on a Flat Earth map. The waves could be happening at different points with varying intensity and still form a spider web like pattern. We have no idea what is below the Earth where we can not see, and what conditions might case a shadow zone.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« on: September 21, 2015, 04:50:27 PM »
I already said they might need to factor in the wind. How does wind direction prove round Earth theory? In any case, if a sniper has to make adjustments for clockwise and counter clockwise wind that would disrupt his shot, he might not be the best person for the task. He should move closer or send a drone or something.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« on: September 21, 2015, 02:22:38 PM »
They might need to factor in wind speed and distance. Bullets shoot in a straight line so there is no curvature to factor unless you are confusing fiction with reality as seen in the movie Wanted.

12
You make us sound like we all believe these concepts, which to me seem more in line with Law of Attraction on a massive scale.


In my experience we Flat Earthers have many different and often conflicting beliefs. We are all only united by a common belief that our Earth is flat, beyond that there is not a single model we all agree on.

We are not in denial, but we have seen the theories and supposed evidence of other models of the world and decided we do not agree with them. This is like saying we are all in denial because we all don't believe in your religion in spite of all the theories and evidence proving your god was the "correct" one. The facts of science are always changing. In 100 years from now children will laugh at all the things you knew to be true.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: star trails
« on: September 21, 2015, 09:39:11 AM »
That would be a matter of perspective, the same as a rainbow. Also this is more an argument for the shape of the atmosphere, not the Earth itself.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earthquake tremors and the Earth's core
« on: September 21, 2015, 09:19:06 AM »
There are other factors science ignores, such as conditions or substance below that we can not detect that may amplify or diminish seismic waves. Most of this argument ties into the theory of plate tectonics, which I do not agree with. I believe the expanding Earth theory makes more sense in my opinion.

Until we are able to delve deeper underground we can not be certain of the technology. To me that is the same as trying to identify the contents of a building using only X-rays.

15

It's amusing how your definition of "trouble making" is everyone else's definition of "pointing out mods breaking the rules."

Not true, as I just pointed out on the Scientologist thread, your posts often seem like an attempt to agitate someone. After I posted that you went on to confirm that you hadn't even read FEScientist's post before insulting her, and then posted another insulting thing.

That was in the lower forum, where it's a bit more relaxed. As to the issue I'm raising in this thread, it's not any of your business. You're not a mod or an admin and you don't write the rules. Same goes for "Charming" Anarchist.

Neil feel free to ignore my posts or Charming Anarchist's if they bother you. I will no longer address you personally in this thread.

Please note that Neil denies he is a troublemaker, though his original post concerns a conversation he was not even involved with. Posts where the users themselves didn't find it necessary to post the issue here. 

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earthquake tremors and the Earth's core
« on: September 20, 2015, 05:27:24 PM »
If the readings would be obstructed by the core in RE theory, then the readings should be the exact same for the Flat Earth model. Why wouldn't they be?

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: September 20, 2015, 01:48:37 PM »
I believe the Sun to be composed of an element or elements unknown to modern science. I believe this material does not require oxygen for combustion and reacts differently when in contact with other elements. I believe this material goes through advanced stages of combustion as well as stages of dormancy when certain unknown conditions are met.

I believe this "Fire" inside the sun is (In a lesser degree) the same fire deep within our Earth. On Earth, in contact with the rocks and soil I believe it produces magma during stages of activity.   

I also believe that our Sun is dying. I will have more to post on that subject soon, though I could be wrong and it might be that our Sun too is preparing for a stage of dormancy or lesser activity.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Hi everyone this theory is amazing but one question.
« on: September 20, 2015, 07:33:52 AM »
Yes, one can easily prove to themselves our Earth is indeed flat by following the rim of ice. Assuming you had a capable vessel the only trouble you might have is running into stationed military officers who might question or obstruct your trip. Almost all major countries have a base somewhere on the continent and most areas are highly restricted. 

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Cubic Earth
« on: September 20, 2015, 06:04:06 AM »
I would like to hear more about the nature of the other five worlds, more specifically their inhabitants.

20

It's amusing how your definition of "trouble making" is everyone else's definition of "pointing out mods breaking the rules."

Not true, as I just pointed out on the Scientologist thread, your posts often seem like an attempt to agitate someone. After I posted that you went on to confirm that you hadn't even read FEScientist's post before insulting her, and then posted another insulting thing.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earthquake tremors and the Earth's core
« on: September 19, 2015, 03:29:44 PM »
On a Flat Earth, why is it that when earthquakes occur, seismologists can detect tremors all around the world, but not in places where it would be obstructed by the Earth's core on a Round Earth? And why does the strength of these tremors vary, from location to location, with the same patterns as a Round Earth model would have predicted?


   It sounds to me like this is more an issue with the limits of the technology rather than the Earth's shape.

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: so if the earth is flat...
« on: September 19, 2015, 12:08:35 PM »
It would work just fine at a distance of 6 miles. You wouldn't even need the telescope.

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: so if the earth is flat...
« on: September 19, 2015, 09:32:34 AM »
The atmosphere would still obscure the Sun. The same way you can not see stars through a telescope while the Sun is still overhead.

24
There are three main factors to consider in attempting to view the distant Sun:

The limits of human vision

The atmosphere

Perspective

Unless you were able to follow the path of the sun, from a stationary point it will always appear to rise and set.

25

You know nothing about science - I've read your posts about gravity. Why don't you answer the question?

I apologize if my posts on gravity frighten you, Neil. It is not my intention to shatter your worldview so rapidly.

The truth is that gravity is a myth and I have no choice but to expose the truth of the theory and all of its many flaws, but gravity is just scratching the surface. The very real problems are rooted in the core of many modern scientific methods and beliefs.

There is a reason I have chosen a sorcerer for my avatar and not a scientist. I have studied many areas of science and mathematics and have come to the conclusion that what we are told is not the truth, but it easier to push forward with wrong information that works most of the time, then change the fundamentals and start from scratch. You are mistaking my disdain for science as ignorance.   

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How old is the flat earth?
« on: September 18, 2015, 03:23:36 PM »
These are philosophical questions for both RE and FE, the best answer is the one that most makes sense to you. Unfortunately the truth of the matter can never be known for certain and you will easily find yourself in an endless number of debates on these subjects.

 

27
The Lounge / Re: Hello to all
« on: September 18, 2015, 03:11:27 PM »
Glad to have another ally on the side of reason and common sense. Don't let the many Round Earthers here bully you away from discovering the truth.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Now prove me mountain lions exist
« on: September 18, 2015, 10:22:19 AM »
If this is the type of debate you guys desire, why not post in the complete nonsense section?
Why are you bothered? Exercises like this are a fairly effective way to gauge problems in theories and justifications, so it's much more than nonsense. Personally I'm content that what there is of my model is better-defined and less conspiracy-based that I don't feel victimized by this thread, and it's quite a fun experience. If you find a problem with this thread, you might want to check your model.

How is this thread helpful to you, Claire? The entire point could be summed up in the first post. Mikeman just did the same thing 2 weeks ago about computers. I find it amusing that both authors felt the need to clarify they didn't actually believe what they were saying.

It is amusing, but I wouldn't consider it debate worthy especially since they were not looking for an actual debate. I don't find it threatening to my model just in the wrong category. I don't know about you, but I would prefer an organized forum over one that just allows random posts in any section.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problem with the "spotlight sun" theory
« on: September 18, 2015, 09:53:30 AM »
This is not an accurate map and your proportions are way off. If you are trying to appear credible, you need to play fair.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: when did the Round Earth model appear in history?
« on: September 18, 2015, 09:47:48 AM »
And ever since those times the powers that be have done everything in their power to keep the public believing in that model. Once science fully developed the theory of gravity they knew they had to keep the Earth as a ball for it all not to fall apart.

Gravity is not real and a round Earth is not possible.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5