1

Flat Earth General / Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe

« on: August 09, 2017, 03:48:06 PM »

Now that I have your attention. Why does everyone always ignore me?

You and your Heliocentric brethren have said the angular velocity of the earth is a 1000 mph.

Get your shit straight, angular velocity is not in miles per hour, it's in degrees/time. Also could you draw up a model, to scale, to show how a solar eclipse is supposed to work in both a heliocentric system and in a flat earth system?

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe

« on: August 08, 2017, 02:18:59 AM »

How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?

The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

Why am I doing this again?

Jesus, where to start.

1. Did not even attempt to make it work, like a good researcher would
2. Did not do the math
3. Did not provide an alternate hypothesis in which it works
4. Based research on animations which do not accurately represent the rotation and orbit of the earth and moon, or the scale of size and distance of these two.

If you actually make a scale model in which the size, distance, rotation and orbit works, you'll realize that because of the distance between the moon and earth, it's shadow moves across the surface super fucking fast.

Later weirdo's

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do people believe it is illegal for average people to travel to Antarctica?

« on: May 02, 2017, 01:48:14 AM »

In other words, if you plan on doing any kind of testing, exploration, or anything that might further prove the Earth is flat, you wont ever be allowed there. Period.

Then just tell them you're doing some kind of glaciological survey or whatever.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Geothermal energy

« on: April 29, 2017, 04:38:03 PM »

Hi,
i'm new of this theory and i want to deepen on it.

I have a question. How do you explain the geothermal energy, the lava and the eruptions if there isn't a core?

- heat from when the planet formed
- heat from the decay of radioactive elements

Wait then how would you explain the earth forming as a flat thing?

This is probably an issue for most FE theories, as forming the earth kinda requires gravity.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe

« on: April 29, 2017, 01:59:44 AM »

Why is it even remotely relevant what Newton thought? Back in his time, they only had a fraction of the knowledge and understanding of now.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe

« on: April 28, 2017, 03:58:41 AM »

In this thread, sandokhan shows that he is not capable of holding a reasonable debate and is also not open to anything that does not fit his current views.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe

« on: April 27, 2017, 11:13:02 AM »

You really don't understand, do you? I don't have to explain how gravity based on mass works for it to exist. If an apple is red but I can't explain why, does that mean that the apple isn't red?


Besides, how is your working model for FET coming along?

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Geothermal energy

« on: April 27, 2017, 11:10:19 AM »

Probably the best I've heard is that whatever is causing the upward universal acceleration (UA) that simulates gravity, be it aether currents or something else, is also heating up the bottom of the flat earth. If you believe in UA, then, sure, why not?

That is a very interesting thought. It must be noted, that such a process would likely be able to erode the bottom as well, sending bits of material up. Did I just figure out the source of meteorites in FET, noting that meteorites often show mantle or core like compositions?

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe

« on: April 27, 2017, 10:04:48 AM »

<snip>

I indeed had no idea of the faint young sun paradox (although I've heard about it elsewhere in the mean time and there was no lack of potential solution to this paradox), the Allais effect and whatever else you mention. Why would that be an issue, though? The shape of the earth is not dependent on my knowledge.

Also, the word "magic" is a bit outdated, don't you think? We used to call things we could not explain, "magic", centuries ago. Meanwhile we know there is no such thing and even if we can't explain something, we know something else is behind it. Also, those three "by magic, blabla" points make 0 sense. And once again, I don't have to explain how two bodies attract eachother, for it to actually happen.

Now let me try your tactics back on you. PLEASE SUGGEST A WORKING, COMPLETE FET MODEL.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe

« on: April 27, 2017, 08:01:00 AM »

If an apple falls but we can't explain why, does that mean the apple didn't fall at all? No it doesn't. We observe that mass attracts mass, whether we can explain it or not.

How an apple falls to the ground is explained clearly and beautifully in the correct FE theory.

Plenty of experiments carried out by some of the greatest physicists of the 20th century.

And those experiments prove clearly that mass does not attract ANYTHING AT ALL.

In the classic Lamoreaux experiment, performed at Yale, in full vacuum, the two plates ARE PUSHED TOGETHER BY AN OUTSIDE FORCE.

No attraction at all.

Please inform yourself before posting a message.

First of all, you failed to understand the point. Just because our current working theory contains a component that is yet to be properly explained, does not mean that the theory is wrong. We look everywhere and see the effects of mass attracting mass. For example in the orbit of planetary bodies. Us not being able to explain it to the fullest, does not mean that it doesn't happen. You can't deny that.

Furthermore, all you do is:
-Point out paradoxes
-Point of things that have not been solved yet
-Misinterpret research
-Cite unscientific sources, going blatantly against well established science for no particular reason
-Don't give anything a second thought; you never seem to try to come up with arguments that would disprove your case, which is quite essential really. How can you support a theory if you haven't thought about how it could be disproven? If you haven't given it a try yourself?

And in the end, all your "proof" and "debunking science", or whatever you call it doesn't mean a thing. Mostly because science is a work in progress; a paradox doesn't mean that everything involved doesn't work, it just means that we're missing something. Not having explained something yet doesn't mean that it doesn't work or exist, it just means that we're not that far yet.

And most of all, you have yet to propose an actual working model for a flat earth that doesn't fall apart immediately.

Go do your homework before telling others to do so.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Is it possible?

« on: April 27, 2017, 05:03:00 AM »

That strongly depends on the mind set of whoever participates. On quite a few occasions, threads were started with the question: what would it take to convince you? While some people come with very reasonable answers, may I say mostly the non-angry REers, the large majority is so stubborn and close minded that there is almost no point in debating. In the end, the majority will still believe whatever they want to believe, what fits their interests best to believe, and this is a mind set that is very dangerous to our modern society. Something isn't true just because you want it to be true; alternatively, something isn't a lie simply because you don't like or understand it.

12

Flat Earth General / Re: I would love to pay to have on TRUE Flat Earther go onto the ISS...

« on: April 27, 2017, 03:24:59 AM »

If only there was a way to see Antarctica from space.

13

Flat Earth General / Re: Let's Just Go to the Damn Ice Wall...Anyone??

« on: April 26, 2017, 04:14:56 PM »

You can literally book trips to Antarctica.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: I blame the education system

« on: April 26, 2017, 09:47:20 AM »

I think it's funny how scientists here are generally regarded as either in on the conspiracy, or the most brainwashed of them all.

Meanwhile, scientists are probably the hardest of all people to brainwash. They're the ones who are the most actively seeking the truth and the majority of them will be ever so glad to be able to prove that the current accepted theory is wrong. And that's how it has been for centuries.
Are university students being loaded with lots of propaganda and brainwashing? No. The main point of university is to provide students with the tools to continue expanding our knowledge. University students don't sit around all day learning the names of planets or dinosaurs from the top of their head, they learn tools and skills to be able to find out for themselves what the best theory is to explain their observations.

Besides, there is a reason that university researchers represent a significant part of the most intelligent people on earth. They're not in it for the money, because universities generally tend to pay shit - no, they're scientists because they want to, because it's their passion.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe

« on: April 26, 2017, 04:05:16 AM »

The very basis of RE theory, the notion/concept of attractive gravitation remains TOTALLY UNEXPLAINED.

Does that matter? If an apple falls but we can't explain why, does that mean the apple didn't fall at all? No it doesn't. We observe that mass attracts mass, whether we can explain it or not.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the Density model of Gravity

« on: April 25, 2017, 02:47:01 PM »

What I'm curious about is the driving force behind this buoyancy. It doens't appear out of thin air. Why is it directed downwards?

17

The Lounge / Re: How many people think there is a dome?

« on: April 25, 2017, 02:45:02 PM »

It's called a rocket de-spin and videos explaining it have been posted many a time on here.

18

Flat Earth General / Re: 666 Days in Space

« on: April 25, 2017, 04:38:08 AM »

Doing research, in orbit.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA's hands are filthy.

« on: April 25, 2017, 04:36:30 AM »

I did a quick search on this, and came across something on a different moon rock incident:

The sample the space agency had been looking for went missing in 1970 when the registered and certified mail shipment it had been part of was stolen.

I'm fairly certain they're doing their best to recover moon rock that was lost/stolen. This shit valuable yo, not necessarily just for money but for science. Since we don't have a source on how the engineer obtained the moon rock, I think it is unfair to assume the worst of NASA. Also, the video in the OP is obviously biased.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Conspiracy

« on: April 24, 2017, 03:27:35 PM »

That has to do with the way the picture was taken. When we usually take, and look at, pictures - it's made of red, blue and green light. There are of course other wavelengths of light, but we can't see them. If you take a picture using ultraviolet or infrared, you're going to want to have it show up on your screen. How this is done, is that one of the regular colours - red, blue or green - is replaced with the intensity measured for ultraviolet or infrared, resulting in these odd looking pictures. For the russian picture, it looks like red has been replaced with presumably near infrared, in which vegetation shows up. That's why the African rain forest as well as india, china, thailand etcetera have a very red-orangish tint.

Thank you for your efforts !!, but i hope you see the problem with these kind of pictures.
If the real footage had to be translated into odd looking pictures for the sake of visuality, then how can we determine anyhing at all ?
I am sure that a photoshop expert can make an equall quality rendering without relying on supposed ''space'' data....i think i've allready seen them and they look equally valid.
I am also sure that NASA can make a cube earth rendering that looks as valid as the globe earth renderings.

I truly cannot believe that globers can't see this obvious problem. Photos from space don't cut it as undeniable proof for a globe earth.
But thanks again. I alway appreciate these kind of responses !

How else would you suggest visualizing UV or IR in pictures?

21

Flat Earth General / Re: Why cant we go to the moon?

« on: April 24, 2017, 02:24:52 PM »

So I heard you guys were talking about rocks and there's no way in hell that anyone with even a little bit of knowledge of rocks would mistake petrified wood and a rock from the moon. They are not even close to similar. Rocks from the moon are quite unique even and someone I know once had access to them - it's a giant freaking hassle because they're doing their best to avoid contamination.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Conspiracy

« on: April 24, 2017, 02:18:44 PM »

Sounds kinda simple what was said. For earth to be flat then the photos from NASA and other agencies are fake.

Yes, what was said was simple. It was also a non-sequitur.

Looks kinda like a sphere to me.

DSCOVR EPIC 187_1003703_africa

Russian Satellite Photo (around midday) - December 2015

Himawari-8 20160705120000fd

Hey the Russians forgot to add the rain forest in Africa.....silly Russians.
Or is it a cosmic mirage ?

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2015/oodiamondraeunice.jpg

That has to do with the way the picture was taken. When we usually take, and look at, pictures - it's made of red, blue and green light. There are of course other wavelengths of light, but we can't see them. If you take a picture using ultraviolet or infrared, you're going to want to have it show up on your screen. How this is done, is that one of the regular colours - red, blue or green - is replaced with the intensity measured for ultraviolet or infrared, resulting in these odd looking pictures. For the russian picture, it looks like red has been replaced with presumably near infrared, in which vegetation shows up. That's why the African rain forest as well as india, china, thailand etcetera have a very red-orangish tint.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: Keep up the good work

« on: April 24, 2017, 11:56:21 AM »

No one is stopping you form performing your experiments. Maybe a lack of funding is, because the majority of people do not feel the need to test the idea of globe earth.

It would be something that would be one of my priorities when money wouldn't be a problem.
It is not the need to test the idea of a globe per see, but because the current tests are invalid.
Surely one cannot take cgi ''pictures'' from space to serious nowadays, because photoshop is going to be more and more capable than ever before.
When an artist's rendering looks as real as what NASA presents ,then you can't blame the ordinary flat earther or other sceptic to be very critical.

There is a difference between being sceptic and immediately discarding all visual evidence as faked, without reason (besides said evidence not lining up with your beliefs).

Therfore it is not in the interrest of globers to rely on such evidence too, it should be their priority too to lead the way
And with Neil deGrasse Tyson joining tv shows more and more lately (and even a Joe Rogan podcast) then it is time to stop talking and do some real testing before a huge audience.
I can think of several test that could be usefull,...the pro's can think of even better ones, i am sure of it.
Our technical tools are limitless, surely we can do better than a Foucault pendulum, a Cavendish rock, CGI and lots of assumptions that have not stood the scrutiny test (counterclockwise drainage in the Southern Hemisphere, seing curvature from an average plane, longe range shooting and the coriolis effect etc.)

I like it here, can take any form of insult, but i rather see that real testing and the scientific method would undergo a renaissance, because what is considered to be the ''scientific method''  is alarmingly under severe pressure.
What is wrong with certain scientific fields nowadays that the collapse of building 7 and the official NIST report explainations doesn't receive the at most condamnation and outrage ?

But the latter has nothing to do with the topic,....i know....

What do building 7 and certain scientific fields have to do with eachother? Also, the way in which you speak of science makes me think that you do not fully understand how it works and what it's for. Do you?

24

Flat Earth General / Re: Keep up the good work

« on: April 24, 2017, 08:19:46 AM »

But over 3 km the earth will have a bulge of only 0.18 meters or 6.95 inches.

So, back to the drawing board. But when will Flat Earther finally be convinced that

• "Space Earth is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is.
  I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to the Earth space."[/i]

Lighten up  rabbi, why do ''whole towns'' bake the largest apple pie on earth ? Because they want to enter the Guinness book of records, or whatever....
Before you start scrolling the internet for how many citizens were involved in whatever baking attempt........i made it up as an example and reference...

If people invest time, money to set all sorts of crazy records, why shouldn't we try to proof a spinning globe in modern times with modern equipment ?,.... beyond fake cgi images and an extremely poor attempt with some ancient pendulum or counterclockwise drains that make a couple of Nigerians some dollars and a BBC reporter happy that he got a live demonstration of the Coriolis effect ,proving a spinning globe....(the latter is sadly very true)

It is about time that we abbandon fake cgi/photoshop pictures, old static rocks (Cavendish) and rigged pendula (Foucault) to proof the spinning globe.
It is time to enter the 21ste century with new and accurate proof and testing devices.
With modern fibres we can stretch cables to the limit.
Sorry that i didn't test my idea, because i happen to believe others are thousend times more qualified than me to make a proper set up.

It is much more than an idea to test the globe, because hardly anyone with brains believes a boat's mast is slowly covered by the curvature, because people in ancient times observed the horizon and thought that is what they saw.
No that is not good enough now, and the pendulum isn't either, the coriolis effect in sinks a proven falsity, photo's from space enhanced not only by adding colour and contrast but glueing many small fragments tohether pretending it's one single shot from outerspace....untill recently of course where a NASA spokesman explained the amount of origami before presenting a single shot to the general public.

So maybe you have superiour ideas in how to test a globe, i would wellcome them very much indeed, but to hang on to fraudulent and insufficiant proof of the past and current photoshop achievements won't cut it for much longer.
[/list]

No one is stopping you form performing your experiments. Maybe a lack of funding is, because the majority of people do not feel the need to test the idea of globe earth.

25

The Lounge / Re: Chemtrails stopped in İstanbul after 27 march 2017

« on: April 24, 2017, 05:47:35 AM »

There is none.  Like every other "chemtrailer" he is afraid of clouds.

Obviously they are spraying retardo chemicals.
Very selective retardo chemicals.

Steam.

H₂O

DiHydroMonoxide.

I hear that everyone who is exposed to dihydromonoxide, dies - especially in high doses.

I hear beer contains a high concentration of dihydromonoxide.
I'm doomed!

And years ago I went scuba diving. I'm not certified. Got down 10 feet and I don't know what went wrong with the gear. Wound up gulping over 4 oz of dihydromonoxide.

I should probably get a lawyer.

We should get this dihydromonoxide substance banned already. Think of the children!

26

The Lounge / Re: Chemtrails stopped in İstanbul after 27 march 2017

« on: April 24, 2017, 05:28:21 AM »

There is none.  Like every other "chemtrailer" he is afraid of clouds.

Obviously they are spraying retardo chemicals.
Very selective retardo chemicals.

Steam.

H₂O

DiHydroMonoxide.

I hear that everyone who is exposed to dihydromonoxide, dies - especially in high doses.

27

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Teory Evolution Darwin

« on: April 24, 2017, 03:55:47 AM »

So what exactly is the link between evolution and satan?

Evolution is a process that from a biological point of view, makes sense. I'm not even talking about the part where we are suggested to have evolved from a common ancestor with apes - I'm just talking about the process. How our features are determined mostly by our genes, and how an individual with genes that cause him or her to be more successful at surviving and reproducing, is more likely to pass on those genes. I do not see how this process clashes with the concept of God.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Europe is completely flat

« on: April 24, 2017, 03:46:25 AM »

Ah yes, the further you zoom in, the easier you can shove the curvature under the error margin of whatever method you're applying.

29

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What should we call the Big Bang Hypothesis or The Big Bang Theory or The Big Ba

« on: April 24, 2017, 01:48:33 AM »

This image fucking nails it. Just because the earth immediately around you appears flat, does not mean that the entire earth is flat. Your observation is not the entire story.

30

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Question concerning the Accepted Model

« on: April 24, 2017, 01:46:37 AM »

Let it be known that I comment here not because I care about Intikam but about those who may be unaware of why the shit he says is wrong.

It's all about acceleration, not speed. Your drink will spill in a cornering car because you accelerate strongly; on an airplane that's cruising ahead, there are no issues at all, while it's going 10x the speed of a car.