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 - sircool

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The moon terminator illusion
« on: March 17, 2016, 08:06:57 AM »
Lol, can you think of more BS to try to make your ad hominem points?  You are a little pathetic. Sorry.

Hey, better a little pathetic than full retard right? :)

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What's up with Luna?
« on: March 17, 2016, 03:51:57 AM »

But why shouldn't it be questions? That's exactly like the catholic church, or islam. "You should not question our ways".
I didn't say that? At all?
Islam says that, you said: "The question of why someone believes in FET is too big to get into here."

Quote
Quote
I reached that conclusion from observing what you told me. There seems to be a group of individuals who believes the earth is flat, they make claims of how this is possible but provide no evidence. At this point, one might say you have faith in the flat earth society. Because faith can be defined as believing something with no supporting evidence.
A fair few claim to provide evidence, it's just a matter of how good that evidence is. It's simply too big a topic to get into as an aside on a thread on a separate matter, especially one in Q&A.

No, there's just evidence. If it's evidence, it's good. If it's bad evidence, it's not evidence.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The moon terminator illusion
« on: March 17, 2016, 03:40:32 AM »
Too many issues and inconsistencies with FE, I call occam's razor to figure this out.
Not possible. Inconsistencies can't be addressed by Occam's Razor, only working explanations can be.

You are seeing it from "inside the box", it's really just about which explanation requires the fewest assumptions.
And how can you gauge how many assumptions are required when you haven't seen the explanation?
Occam's Razor isn't the end-all of logic. Something can be wrong without even approaching a situation where it's relevant. A theory needs to offer an actual explanation before it can be analysed.

We'll make a list.

FE assumptions:
Aether, aetheric winds
Living animals on the moon, life can thrice in close vacuum
Spaceflight conspiracy, scientific conspiracy
Spotlight sun
Rockets don't work in vacuum
Universal acceleration
A superhard disk shaped crust
Fixed orbits
Gravity does not exist
Everything we sence is real
Causality

RE assumptions:
Everything we sence is real
Causality


4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What's up with Luna?
« on: March 17, 2016, 02:52:11 AM »
There we have it. FE is a religion.
In practise it can be. I don't know how you reached that conclusion from "The question of why someone believes in FET is too big to get into here."

But why shouldn't it be questions? That's exactly like the catholic church, or islam. "You should not question our ways".

I reached that conclusion from observing what you told me. There seems to be a group of individuals who believes the earth is flat, they make claims of how this is possible but provide no evidence. At this point, one might say you have faith in the flat earth society. Because faith can be defined as believing something with no supporting evidence.

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The moon terminator illusion
« on: March 17, 2016, 02:36:32 AM »
Too many issues and inconsistencies with FE, I call occam's razor to figure this out.
Not possible. Inconsistencies can't be addressed by Occam's Razor, only working explanations can be.

You are seeing it from "inside the box", it's really just about which explanation requires the fewest assumptions.

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The moon terminator illusion
« on: March 17, 2016, 12:28:42 AM »
Who knows? 

The sun I'd read about and it doesn't work No model of a sun for FET I have seen works. But that is another issue. 

Glowing organisms in a vacuum?

The FET says rockets cannot work in a vacuum, but life can?   Leroy Jethro Gibbs head slap.
There are a few issues with the FE Sun, definitely. Sunsets, midnight Sun, length of days as it goes further out... Still, there are a few models that try to address that out there. I suggest JRowe's, it gets points for effort.
As for the moon, jury's out on whether it'd be a vacuum under FET. Don't assume anything from RET automatically holds.


Too many issues and inconsistencies with FE, I call occam's razor to figure this out.

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What's up with Luna?
« on: March 17, 2016, 12:14:47 AM »
There we have it. FE is a religion.

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Human viewing range inquiry
« on: March 16, 2016, 10:19:26 AM »
Why would you expect to see the exact same horizon with the naked eye as with a telescope?  The human eye requires a minimum angular size in order for something to be detected.  A telescope requires a smaller angular size.  I would expect to see many more objects through a telescope than with the unaided eye.

That's the funny part. You don't expect it, but you see the exact same horizon with or without optics. This can only be explained with curve.

No, you are making yourself look foolish.  The average person can not see anything smaller than around .3 mil in angular size with the unaided human eye.  With a telescope that has a power greater than 1x, you can see smaller angular sizes.  This means that you see many more things with a telescope than with the unaided eye, making your argument that you see the same thing with your eye as you see in a telescope not only wrong, but one of the most pathetic attempts at a debate that I have seen for quite a while.  Would you like to try again, or would you prefer to throw in the towel now?

First of all, I'm far from average.
Second, wtf's a 0.3 mil? pls use metric mister merican
Third, you are obviously confused with zoom and distance. Just because something can zoom doesn't mean it can look further. Yes you are 100% correct that you can see more details with advanced optics. But you can't see details hidden under the horizon, obviously. It's the same horizon, just enlarged.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What's up with Luna?
« on: March 16, 2016, 10:09:32 AM »
However there are no scientific indication that aether exists.
There is under FET.
There is nothing scientific about FE

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What's up with Luna?
« on: March 16, 2016, 09:38:46 AM »
So you don't know, yet you say it's aether, but you don't know... sounds very intelligent indeed.
Just equate aether and dark energy. It's a placeholder for "What makes this work." They say it's aether because aether is defined to be what makes it happen: the details aren't known.
Let it go. When they assign more properties, then ask them as to the source. Otherwise, it's a simple placeholder.

No. We have pretty good theories that support the existance of dark energy. Both astronomical observation and quantum physics, it is present in the biggest and smallest places in physics.

However there are no scientific indication that aether exists.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Human viewing range inquiry
« on: March 16, 2016, 09:33:21 AM »
Why would you expect to see the exact same horizon with the naked eye as with a telescope?  The human eye requires a minimum angular size in order for something to be detected.  A telescope requires a smaller angular size.  I would expect to see many more objects through a telescope than with the unaided eye.

That's the funny part. You don't expect it, but you see the exact same horizon with or without optics. This can only be explained with curve.

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The moon terminator illusion
« on: March 16, 2016, 09:23:08 AM »
150 views and not one single flat earther could suppply. FES, I'm sorry but I think I broke your trolls.

13
It acts identically for wherever you are on a flat earth.

Quote
If it's a giant magnet inside earth, then the earth must be round, or else the south magnetic field wouldn't act as a mathematical pole.

Please explain why. The field lines would line up perfectly with common everyday observation.

Because a mathematical pole is a point. And the circumference of a circle, is not. That is the explanation why.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What's up with Luna?
« on: March 16, 2016, 07:56:55 AM »
We can only speculate about what the Aether is.  It is not different in that respect to your round Earth scientists speculating about dark matter or dark energy.  Your own scientists can not explain or provide proof of either of those concepts, yet, you people just gobble up everything they say.

well said.  Someone explain space Time continuum and gravity. See what nonsense that leads to-

Rounders: "gravity occurs when mass distorts space time."
Sir Richard: Okay what, pray tell, is space time? 
Rounders: "Oh it is caused by quanta vibrating on a string- this is self evident"
Sir Richard: "Dear Sir please tell me what makes the quanta vibrate?"
Rounders- "Energy"
Sir Richard: "and Friend what is the boundless source of energy?"
Rounders: We don't know yet but we're trying to find out. meanwhile stop calling it magic.
Nice one. Yeah, you have to dig through several layers of shit before they will ever admit they have no idea what's going on.
Notice that when I answered about flat earth continually accelerating- on another thread someone asked me- what causes it? and I answered "I don't have a clue" and the response "well is it magic"
So when FE don't know it is magic- but when rounders don't know well it is NOT magic...
Yep. We are intelligent because we know we don't know. They are not because they refuse to admit that. It would shatter their eggshell reality and then they'd be forced to ask the question - "Is the earth flat?" If they stay long enough, sooner or later they will ask it, and they might not like the answer.

So you don't know, yet you say it's aether, but you don't know... sounds very intelligent indeed.

15
The geographic north pole is actually the south pole of the magnet. It seems like no one in this thread understands this.

North is south? Or are you pointing out that the "south" of a magnet points to the North Magnetic Pole? Otherwise this goes against everything I learned in the military about cross country land navigation AND what I learned about flight nav in Flight School.

Being I was NEVER lost, it is safe to say my schooling in both were correct.

A quick google reminds us of the round earth model:
"the magnetic pole near earth's geographic north pole is actually the south magnetic pole. When it comes to magnets, opposites attract. This fact means that the north end of a magnet in a compass is attracted to the south magnetic pole, which lies close to the geographic north pole "

All of which has nothing to do with there being a celestial NP and Mag NP.

From the maps I have seen of FE it would be impossible to have two poles.
This has been discussed before, and I believe someone has given a model in the past that shows how this functions. As I have said earlier, the south magnetic pole is roughly below the North Pole. The north magnetic pole is below this.


If the north pole is a magnet then why does it shift?
Also this do not explain the south pole
I just explained the south pole. What exactly is the issue?

"As I have said earlier, the south magnetic pole is roughly below the North Pole. The north magnetic pole is below this."

Then how can you believe it's flat? If it's a giant magnet inside earth, then the earth must be round, or else the south magnetic field wouldn't act as a mathematical pole.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What's up with Luna?
« on: March 15, 2016, 11:22:41 AM »
We can only speculate about what the Aether is.  It is not different in that respect to your round Earth scientists speculating about dark matter or dark energy.  Your own scientists can not explain or provide proof of either of those concepts, yet, you people just gobble up everything they say.

well said.  Someone explain space Time continuum and gravity. See what nonsense that leads to-

Rounders: "gravity occurs when mass distorts space time."
Sir Richard: Okay what, pray tell, is space time? 
Rounders: "Oh it is caused by quanta vibrating on a string- this is self evident"
Sir Richard: "Dear Sir please tell me what makes the quanta vibrate?"
Rounders- "Energy"
Sir Richard: "and Friend what is the boundless source of energy?"
Rounders: We don't know yet but we're trying to find out. meanwhile stop calling it magic.





17
The geographic north pole is actually the south pole of the magnet. It seems like no one in this thread understands this.

North is south? Or are you pointing out that the "south" of a magnet points to the North Magnetic Pole? Otherwise this goes against everything I learned in the military about cross country land navigation AND what I learned about flight nav in Flight School.

Being I was NEVER lost, it is safe to say my schooling in both were correct.

A quick google reminds us of the round earth model:
"the magnetic pole near earth's geographic north pole is actually the south magnetic pole. When it comes to magnets, opposites attract. This fact means that the north end of a magnet in a compass is attracted to the south magnetic pole, which lies close to the geographic north pole "

All of which has nothing to do with there being a celestial NP and Mag NP.

From the maps I have seen of FE it would be impossible to have two poles.
This has been discussed before, and I believe someone has given a model in the past that shows how this functions. As I have said earlier, the south magnetic pole is roughly below the North Pole. The north magnetic pole is below this.


If the north pole is a magnet then why does it shift?
Also this do not explain the south pole

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How to calculate the distance of the sun?
« on: March 14, 2016, 11:48:27 PM »
No, it is more like this.



Maybe this could work, if the sun was much closer. But then again, we'd all be dead.
Only if the sun were as large as the rounders suppose- but it is not

Care to explain how you could possibly know this?

19
Æter.

According to ancient and medieval science, aether (Greek: αἰθήρ aithēr), also spelled æther or ether, also called quintessence, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere. The concept of aether was used in several theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the traveling of light and gravity. In the late 19th century, physicists postulated that aether permeated all throughout space, providing a medium through which light could travel in a vacuum, but evidence for the presence of such a medium was not found in the Michelson–Morley experiment.

- Wikipedia
oh DEAR ME- you have convinced me. You quoted WIKIPEDIA... the fount of all knowledge...I am not LONGER a FE but am now a ROUND HEAD. I cannot stand before such geyser of profundity as Wikepedia. 
You should start a forum where you do nothing but ask and answer questions.  Within a week the traffic to such a site would probably bring down all the servers in the United Kingdom.

Do you know you could actually go to wiki and write something if you think the info is wrong? It's for everyone so stop bitching.

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How to calculate the distance of the sun?
« on: March 13, 2016, 10:14:57 AM »
I'll take that as a no, then.  ::)

What, you think it's a theory?

the·o·ry
ˈTHēərē/Submit
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

::)


No no no, you've got it all wrong.

What you describe is a hypothesis.
It's not a theory untill it's proven by repeated experiments.
Just like evolution, quantum physics, chemical combustion or electricity.
Perhaps you should contact Merriam-Webster and explain to them how you are so much smarter than they are?

It's an allright definition of the word theory, but fails to explain what a scientific theory is. These are two different things.

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How close is the sun on FE?
« on: March 12, 2016, 01:02:00 PM »
I don't care about accurate, I want approx.


Between zero and ten thousand light years.

Yes just about zero light years approximately 0.00001522 light years


22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How close is the sun on FE?
« on: March 12, 2016, 08:17:15 AM »
and how the hell we are not burned to death?

There must be something very very wrong with the sun. Maybe she's ill.

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How close is the sun on FE?
« on: March 12, 2016, 08:11:31 AM »
Surely that would depend on what makes up the Sun under FET?

The typical figure's based on running Eratosphenes' experiment assuming a flat plane, check the FAQ for it. The one issue is that the answer's different depending on what time you run the experiment.
With all the weird and wonderful rules that are applied to make sense of that, measuring the distance to the Sun with any kind of accuracy is impossible.

I don't care about accurate, I want approx. The sun wouldn't suddently get lethal depending on a few thousand kilometers.

And we do know that mostly hydrogen and helium makes up the sun no matter what religion you believe in. Just look at the light refraction through a prism. Wavelengths signaling hydrogen and helium should be missing. Warning this could harm your eyes, use camera.

24
Flat Earth Q&A / How close is the sun on FE?
« on: March 12, 2016, 02:49:55 AM »
I'm asking because I want to know what sun protection factor to wear.

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How to calculate the distance of the sun?
« on: March 12, 2016, 02:39:51 AM »
I'll take that as a no, then.  ::)

What, you think it's a theory?

the·o·ry
ˈTHēərē/Submit
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

::)


No no no, you've got it all wrong.

What you describe is a hypothesis.
It's not a theory untill it's proven by repeated experiments.
Just like evolution, quantum physics, chemical combustion or electricity.

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What's up with Luna?
« on: March 11, 2016, 01:35:51 PM »
NOW WHAT THE THORK IS AETHER AND WHAT THE ACTUAL FUNK IS AETHERIC WINDS?????
Every FEer seems to have a different definition of aether. Treat it as dark energy: that term's used as well, for functionally the same thing.

I'm looking for a good movie, I know it's early but I live in europe and it's night time now, because of the shape and all, aether way.. I like smart movies, feelgood, sci-fi, comedy. Huge fan of Nolan btw, just throwing it out there if anyone have a good movie tip.

27
IF there is a conspiracy, there is no doubt that Virgin is involved.

If I made a space corporation today, and launched a rocket into space and took video of curvature in real time, would I be making CGI? Would I be in on the conspiracy, even though I know the Earth is round? Would I be affiliated with NASA?

1. buy hydrogen gas
2. buy a balloon
3. launch balloon

wait for nasa to call and offer you billions to shut up

this is how I made my fortune

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What's up with Luna?
« on: March 11, 2016, 01:23:16 PM »
No.  A troll is a troll is a troll. And shame on you for wanting it to be the typical level instead of taking the first step to correcting an issue you already know exists.
I usually have better discussion, but when there are no better answers forthcoming, there's little else to do. Plus there's not much point in detailed discussion with SirCool.

You were all invited to a serious discussin by the Sir of all Royal Coolnes's.
Unfortunately not one person could answer my question.
I know I wasn't 100% clear when I wrote that funky title.
But my intentions were good and the follow up question was explanatory.

NOW WHAT THE FUCK IS AETHER AND WHAT THE ACTUAL FUNK IS AETHERIC WINDS  ? ?

or any other explanation will be accepted as long as it's not stupid

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What's up with Luna?
« on: March 10, 2016, 03:10:24 PM »
Captain Pharaoh

30
I think he only posts when drunk.  It would explain a lot.

^Massive shill.

^Claims airplanes make clouds.

^Monitors all my posts.

^Because not a shill.

^lol really!

So your response is jump head first into name calling.

^Sock puppet with worst name ever.

^Needs tissue/fresh adult diaper.

If NASA faked such a extraordinary feat, then why haven't they faked one bigger than that?

^Idiotic non-sequitur.

The Apollo missions were very extraordinary, but that's not evidence.

^More floundering idiocy.

^Capering Clowns a go-go.


Tell me more about how NASA landing on the moon is evidence the earth is flat

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14