1

Flat Earth General / Re: Tom Bishop thinks "the RE should try to figure out the nonsense in their model".

« on: May 30, 2019, 05:30:40 PM »

Euclid's Elements represents almost all the geometry you learned throughout grade school. It is one of the most notable and known non-fiction books of all time. For over two thousand years it served as the textbook on the subject. When someone says "non-euclid" geometry, you should be able to guess that its a geometry that is against the most notable work in geometry of all time.

You see, that is where you and I differ.  I choose not to guess when I don't understand something completely.  I am humble enough to look up an answer and not guess on exactly what it means.  In my line of work, I am an accountant, non-euclidean geomentry does not play a factor, so I am sorry that I am unfamiliar with it.  But I should have guessed that.   I mean, you actually claim the earth is flat.  If that is not a guess, then I don't know what is...

Do you really feel copy pasting a google search lead you to a better answer over deductive reasoning (read: actually reading the word before pasting it.) I am being a bit harsh. I suppose lots of educated people don't know who Euclid is.

Stash, he has told you exactly where to go and where to look. You were just too lazy to repeat the experiment before crying foul.

First I posted by accident and didn't know how to delete.  That wasn't the point I was trying to make but oh well. Yes, I know who Euclid is, doesn't mean that I understood what non euclidean geometry was. You don't  need to be an arrogant prick because of my ignorance. Unlike you I don't pretend to know it all.

Sorry, I was too harsh. You are absolutely right, and I let the heat of the argument overtake my good sense and manners. I am sincerely sorry. I agree with you more than you know; I hold very dear the phrase: "I know I am intelligent because I know I know nothing."

Again, I am very sorry. That was out of line.

Thank you for the apology, I really appreciate it. I didn't mean to be so touchy.

Can you explain how you use non euclidean geometry to show a flat earth? Or is this more of a thought experiment?

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Tom Bishop thinks "the RE should try to figure out the nonsense in their model".

« on: May 30, 2019, 03:50:35 PM »

Euclid's Elements represents almost all the geometry you learned throughout grade school. It is one of the most notable and known non-fiction books of all time. For over two thousand years it served as the textbook on the subject. When someone says "non-euclid" geometry, you should be able to guess that its a geometry that is against the most notable work in geometry of all time.

You see, that is where you and I differ.  I choose not to guess when I don't understand something completely.  I am humble enough to look up an answer and not guess on exactly what it means.  In my line of work, I am an accountant, non-euclidean geomentry does not play a factor, so I am sorry that I am unfamiliar with it.  But I should have guessed that.   I mean, you actually claim the earth is flat.  If that is not a guess, then I don't know what is...

Do you really feel copy pasting a google search lead you to a better answer over deductive reasoning (read: actually reading the word before pasting it.) I am being a bit harsh. I suppose lots of educated people don't know who Euclid is.

Stash, he has told you exactly where to go and where to look. You were just too lazy to repeat the experiment before crying foul.

First I posted by accident and didn't know how to delete.  That wasn't the point I was trying to make but oh well. Yes, I know who Euclid is, doesn't mean that I understood what non euclidean geometry was. You don't  need to be an arrogant prick because of my ignorance. Unlike you I don't pretend to know it all.

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Tom Bishop thinks "the RE should try to figure out the nonsense in their model".

« on: May 30, 2019, 01:52:19 PM »

Euclid's Elements represents almost all the geometry you learned throughout grade school. It is one of the most notable and known non-fiction books of all time. For over two thousand years it served as the textbook on the subject. When someone says "non-euclid" geometry, you should be able to guess that its a geometry that is against the most notable work in geometry of all time.

You see, that is where you and I differ.  I choose not to guess when I don't understand something completely.  I am humble enough to look up an answer and not guess on exactly what it means.  In my line of work, I am an accountant, non-euclidean geomentry does not play a factor, so I am sorry that I am unfamiliar with it.  But I should have guessed that.   I mean, you actually claim the earth is flat.  If that is not a guess, then I don't know what is...

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Tom Bishop thinks "the RE should try to figure out the nonsense in their model".

« on: May 30, 2019, 01:32:17 PM »

...as the surface of the earth is a non-euclidean closed flat plane whose 3 dimensional projection would be more or less a globe - explaining the accuracy of the globe in spite of its inaccurate interpretation.

Isn't "non-euclidean closed flat plane" pretty much just a fancy way of saying "globe"?

I don't know, Markjo. Is a globe flat?

ummm...Here is a definition of Non-Euclidean geomentyr from a simple Google Search

What is non Euclidean geometry used for?
A non-Euclidean geometry is a rethinking and redescription of the properties of things like points, lines, and other shapes in a non-flat world. Spherical geometry—which is sort of plane geometry warped onto the surface of a sphere—is one example of a non-Euclidean geometry.Oct 17, 2014
What Are Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry?
https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/.../what-are-euclidean-and-non-euclidean-geometry

A non-euclidean geometry is one which breaks or loosens one (or more) of Euclid's axioms. There shouldn't have been a need to google that.

Most often, this is done by relaxing or removing the parallel postulate which historically has a lot of contention around it.

Why not? 

5

Flat Earth General / Re: Tom Bishop thinks "the RE should try to figure out the nonsense in their model".

« on: May 30, 2019, 01:24:21 PM »

...as the surface of the earth is a non-euclidean closed flat plane whose 3 dimensional projection would be more or less a globe - explaining the accuracy of the globe in spite of its inaccurate interpretation.

Isn't "non-euclidean closed flat plane" pretty much just a fancy way of saying "globe"?

I don't know, Markjo. Is a globe flat?

ummm...Here is a definition of Non-Euclidean geomentyr from a simple Google Search

What is non Euclidean geometry used for?
A non-Euclidean geometry is a rethinking and redescription of the properties of things like points, lines, and other shapes in a non-flat world. Spherical geometry—which is sort of plane geometry warped onto the surface of a sphere—is one example of a non-Euclidean geometry.Oct 17, 2014
What Are Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry?
https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/.../what-are-euclidean-and-non-euclidean-geometry

6

Flat Earth General / Re: Tom Bishop thinks "the RE should try to figure out the nonsense in their model".

« on: May 30, 2019, 12:09:20 PM »

What a bunch of fools.

Indeed, round earthers have a lot to answer for.

Ok John, exactly what do you need from round earthers that they already haven't given you with substantial proof which you deny to show the shape of the earth?  It actually appears the flat earthers have a lot more to answer, as nothing they claim can actually fit into reality without making up conspiracy and new types of physics...

As Bishop suggests, they number far more than what can be answered in a forum post. They require a whole sub-forum.

However, let's start with an easy one. The distances to see many natural objects are shown to be incorrect when putting round earth theory next to actual observations. Many of these are noted in Earth Not A Globe and other literature, and many have been brought up here. How are these to be explained?

Ok, I am sure somebody that can explain this issue much better than I will respond.  But how about you do the same with simple one.  How come there is no accurate Flat Earth Map that reflects anything close to reality? 

7

Flat Earth General / Re: Tom Bishop thinks "the RE should try to figure out the nonsense in their model".

« on: May 30, 2019, 11:26:46 AM »

What a bunch of fools.

Indeed, round earthers have a lot to answer for.

Ok John, exactly what do you need from round earthers that they already haven't given you with substantial proof which you deny to show the shape of the earth?  It actually appears the flat earthers have a lot more to answer, as nothing they claim can actually fit into reality without making up conspiracy and new types of physics...

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Proof #2

« on: May 29, 2019, 01:42:29 PM »

I'm not entirely sure what to make of the fact that Wise and JackBlack agree with each other as regards my views on flat Earth. I think I'm flattered. When opposite extremes agree that you're wrong, I think that's a good thing.

Wise: You are mistaken when you assert that there are no intermediate forms. The fossil record is piled high with them. And more intermediate forms are discovered every year. Consider the whale (and related cetaceans): When I was young, creationists cited the lack of intermediate forms in their argument that whales did not evolve from land animals. But then an intermediate fossil was found, And then another, and another, and another, and today there is a clear chain of intermediate forms between a land mammal vaguely resembling a wolf (not actually a wolf, since those had not evolved yet) and the modern-day whale. But creationists continue to repeat the outdated argument that their predecessors published half a century ago, before those intermediate forms were found.

On glaciers, I have visited places in Canada where I have seen with my own eyes, glaciers that are smaller each year I've seen them. And the great ice masses are shrinking every year. The northern sea ice where polar bears hunt is smaller in extent and shorter in duration every year, resulting in less area and less time for them to obtain food, and they have measurably less fat on them at the end of each successive hunting season. The southern sea ice is shrinking also, which is good for the emperor penguins, who now have a shorter walk to the sea from their mating grounds, but is another indication of climate change.

Evolution and climate change are real. And I do not need to believe in a bunch of silly conspiracies to assert that the Earth is flat. The Earth does not care what people believe about the JFK assassination or chemtrails, or any of the rest of it.

And just because some flat-Earth believers also believe in silly conspiracy theories does not mean they are wrong about FE.

Then tell me how in the world can you believe the earth is flat and that fact is not a conspiracy?  What about all the images from satellites the show the round earth.  What about circumnavigation?  Many countries have been to space and viewed the globe.  Tell me, how if the earth is flat, how is that possible without a conspiracy?

The "Brain In A Vat" argument does not require a conspiracy if it's carried out on you by a single entity.

I don't see that argument pertains to this issue.  Please explain.

For the earth to be flat, it requires that multitudes of evidence was falsified to justify a round earth.  In itself, it has to be a conspiracy.  This isn't about a misunderstanding, the only way for the earth to actually be flat, we have to been lied to.  I cannot see anyway around this fact...

You asked for a way it is possible for the earth to be flat without a conspiracy. If the earth is flat and you are a Brain In A Vat (see any number of online references if you are unfamiliar with this epistemological argument, or its modern equivalent Living In A Computer Simulation) and the perpetrator is a single individual, then it is not a conspiracy, which requires collaboration between more than one individual.

I get your point.  Philosophically it is possible to not be a conspiracy.  But this is reality, not a thought experiment.  He is trying to have his cake and eat it too.  The reality is for the earth to be flat, it has to be a conspiracy.  I can respect if a FEB admits that it is a conspiracy, but when it is denied with the belief that the earth is still flat, then it lacks integrity. 

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Proof #2

« on: May 29, 2019, 12:42:46 PM »

I'm not entirely sure what to make of the fact that Wise and JackBlack agree with each other as regards my views on flat Earth. I think I'm flattered. When opposite extremes agree that you're wrong, I think that's a good thing.

Wise: You are mistaken when you assert that there are no intermediate forms. The fossil record is piled high with them. And more intermediate forms are discovered every year. Consider the whale (and related cetaceans): When I was young, creationists cited the lack of intermediate forms in their argument that whales did not evolve from land animals. But then an intermediate fossil was found, And then another, and another, and another, and today there is a clear chain of intermediate forms between a land mammal vaguely resembling a wolf (not actually a wolf, since those had not evolved yet) and the modern-day whale. But creationists continue to repeat the outdated argument that their predecessors published half a century ago, before those intermediate forms were found.

On glaciers, I have visited places in Canada where I have seen with my own eyes, glaciers that are smaller each year I've seen them. And the great ice masses are shrinking every year. The northern sea ice where polar bears hunt is smaller in extent and shorter in duration every year, resulting in less area and less time for them to obtain food, and they have measurably less fat on them at the end of each successive hunting season. The southern sea ice is shrinking also, which is good for the emperor penguins, who now have a shorter walk to the sea from their mating grounds, but is another indication of climate change.

Evolution and climate change are real. And I do not need to believe in a bunch of silly conspiracies to assert that the Earth is flat. The Earth does not care what people believe about the JFK assassination or chemtrails, or any of the rest of it.

And just because some flat-Earth believers also believe in silly conspiracy theories does not mean they are wrong about FE.

Then tell me how in the world can you believe the earth is flat and that fact is not a conspiracy?  What about all the images from satellites the show the round earth.  What about circumnavigation?  Many countries have been to space and viewed the globe.  Tell me, how if the earth is flat, how is that possible without a conspiracy?

The "Brain In A Vat" argument does not require a conspiracy if it's carried out on you by a single entity.

I don't see that argument pertains to this issue.  Please explain.

For the earth to be flat, it requires that multitudes of evidence was falsified to justify a round earth.  In itself, it has to be a conspiracy.  This isn't about a misunderstanding, the only way for the earth to actually be flat, we have to been lied to.  I cannot see anyway around this fact...

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Earth is round

« on: May 29, 2019, 09:10:32 AM »

Jack: I've said the photos are real. I've also said that because photos are flat, they prove nothing about the shape of the Earth. So I'll answer your question yet again: The photos are real photos. Flat ones.

Rab: I don't try to "explain" anything. I've admitted I have no explanations for anything.

Kabool: You are correct: All photos are flat. That's my point. You can't prove a thing is round from a photo of it because the photo is by its nature flat.

Sorry all for the brevity of this post. I'm nearly out of time and have to run.

Take a photo of yourself.  Look at it.  Are you flat?  Are you so blind that you can't see that you have depth?  Can you not tell that your ears are further back than you eyes?  The wall you are standing in front of is actually a few feet away?  Or is your head so deep in the sand that you have never learned the meaning of integrity?

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Proof #2

« on: May 29, 2019, 09:06:57 AM »

I'm not entirely sure what to make of the fact that Wise and JackBlack agree with each other as regards my views on flat Earth. I think I'm flattered. When opposite extremes agree that you're wrong, I think that's a good thing.

Wise: You are mistaken when you assert that there are no intermediate forms. The fossil record is piled high with them. And more intermediate forms are discovered every year. Consider the whale (and related cetaceans): When I was young, creationists cited the lack of intermediate forms in their argument that whales did not evolve from land animals. But then an intermediate fossil was found, And then another, and another, and another, and today there is a clear chain of intermediate forms between a land mammal vaguely resembling a wolf (not actually a wolf, since those had not evolved yet) and the modern-day whale. But creationists continue to repeat the outdated argument that their predecessors published half a century ago, before those intermediate forms were found.

On glaciers, I have visited places in Canada where I have seen with my own eyes, glaciers that are smaller each year I've seen them. And the great ice masses are shrinking every year. The northern sea ice where polar bears hunt is smaller in extent and shorter in duration every year, resulting in less area and less time for them to obtain food, and they have measurably less fat on them at the end of each successive hunting season. The southern sea ice is shrinking also, which is good for the emperor penguins, who now have a shorter walk to the sea from their mating grounds, but is another indication of climate change.

Evolution and climate change are real. And I do not need to believe in a bunch of silly conspiracies to assert that the Earth is flat. The Earth does not care what people believe about the JFK assassination or chemtrails, or any of the rest of it.

And just because some flat-Earth believers also believe in silly conspiracy theories does not mean they are wrong about FE.

Then tell me how in the world can you believe the earth is flat and that fact is not a conspiracy?  What about all the images from satellites the show the round earth.  What about circumnavigation?  Many countries have been to space and viewed the globe.  Tell me, how if the earth is flat, how is that possible without a conspiracy?

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Proof #2

« on: May 29, 2019, 08:52:44 AM »

I told that we have proved evolution's being fake.



As we clearly see that Turkish people think evolution theory is false. After those discussions, we have removed the evolution fakery from curriculum. Round earth fakery will be share same end too.

Here is what I don't understand about your attitude Wise.  How come everytime you come across a theory you don't agree with, you immediately claim it is fake and a terrorists plot?  Science is continually evolving.  Einstein himself said “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”  Is evolution 100% correct the way it is presented now?  Probably not.  This doesn't make it fake or a lie.  It makes it a work-in-progress.

And the earth is round, and just because you claim all evidence to the contrary, that does not change the facts.  Put your head in the sand all you want.  But if you want to be taken seriously, try having a little integrity in your debates. 

And I always wanted to ask a Turk this question, "Why did Constantinople get the works?

13

Flat Earth General / Re: Tom Bishop thinks "the RE should try to figure out the nonsense in their model".

« on: May 28, 2019, 12:38:25 PM »

"We are working on it" doesn't really cut the mustard when you claim to understand how the entire universe works, let alone our small part of it, and then use that false knowledge to say we don't have a right to pursue our view and knowledge.

Is this all one big myth we are supposed to believe in, out of spite towards common sense and the falsification that already exists for your model?

First of all, nobody has ever "claimed to understand how the entire universe works."  And "We are working on it" is a standard answer from any FEB regarding any theory they have or a simple map.  It is claimed by FEB that the FE is the obvious truth, then why is any consistent model/theory non-existent?  You can't even reconcile how an eclipse works.  All you have in conjecture, and then throw straw man arguments. 

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Proof #2

« on: May 25, 2019, 07:13:17 AM »

You guys are as blind to the evidence of wealth-bias in our justice system as you accuse us flat-Earthers of being regarding the shape of the Earth. But I'm really kind of surprised that you seem to be more upset with FEers who do not accuse you of lying and conspiracy than with those who do. Then you wring your hands about how we won't listen to your arguments, but you keep coming back to try to convince us. This is the FES chat board, after all. You know when you come here that you will find people who believe the Earth is flat. And you know that we've heard all the arguments and are aware of the evidence, and yet you imagine that if you repeat them just one more time, you'll change our minds. Now, I wouldn't dream of telling you you shouldn't post here, because the board is open to the public, and you are much more senior members of the board than I am. I just don't get it. What's the point of repeating your "evidence" and your arguments at people who have already considered it and reached different conclusions? If you enjoy a fruitless and futile argument, more power to you, and welcome to a forum the other members of which find your participation amusing. You get upset when people accuse you of being part of a massive conspiracy, but then you say it's worse when someone argues that there is no conspiracy. I'm here because I enjoy talking about the flat Earth. I honestly hope that you enjoy your participation here also, because I really don't think you are going to convince anyone to change their mind. Hugs and kisses.

So basically you are saying is that the only thing you will believe is science saying the earth is flat? Thanks for proving my point...

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Proof #2

« on: May 24, 2019, 09:56:18 AM »

The reason the prison reference confused me is that our court system is clearly not based on evidence:

No it is highly based upon evidence.
Yes, some lawyer BS gets in there as well which is a shame, but without the evidence the people would not be convicted and with strong evidence all these lawyers manage to get is a reduced sentence. All a lawyer does is change the burden of proof slightly, and that is based more upon not pointing out flaws with evidence or using evidence misleadingly.

With regard to prison, there are two possibilities: Either virtually all crimes are committed by poor people, or the system is so distorted that poor people are practically the only ones ever charged and convicted. Since we have abundant evidence that plenty of rich people commit crimes, often far more heinous than anything a poor person has the resources to commit, and we can see that our prisons are stuffed to overflowing with poor people with hardly a rich person to be found, the obvious conclusion is that the whole justice system is skewed by its reliance on the competence of lawyers, and the ability of rich people to hire good ones while poor people cannot.

The justice system is the last place in our (U.S.) society (I don't know how it is in other countries) where evidence plays a significant role.

You are missing the point entirely.  The point isn't about the justice system or politics.  It is about evidence that FEB will accept, which is none if it contradicts their already established belief.  You say you don't believe that there is a conspiracy and that scientists are not lying, yet you refuse to accept the overwhelmingly substantial evidence that the earth is a sphere.  I read one theory on this site stating that space is curved so even though the earth is flat, it just looks like a globe.  So that is a theory that has a built in bias that will make sure no other evidence will be accepted.  FEB can put their heads in the sand all you want, it doesn't change the facts.  But until a FEB shows some integrity in their debates, this whole exercise is fruitless.

If you believe in science, work the scientific method.  Test your hypothesis's and see where they lead.  If they have a different outcome than expected, then maybe the experiment shows what should happen, or maybe the experiment is flawed.  Try again regardless of the results and see if you come to the same conclusion.  Then test other like hypothesis's and compare.  If you do honest experiments, refuse to cherry pick you data, and not be bias of your results, the true answer awaits you.  But I have yet to see any evidence that any FEB has the integrity to follow this process.  They had to invent another type of scientific process to fit their narrow views.  That is not integrity, that is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

*edit: spelling

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?

« on: May 22, 2019, 08:55:29 AM »

It's not dishonest at all. We see the light of the sun moving towards the earth, not the earth moving towards the sun. That is a direct description of the experience. If you think that an illusion did it then you should seek to provide evidence for your illusions.

View the picture in this link.  My direct experience looking at this picture shows it moving.  Cannot argue that point at all.  Does it make it so?  Obviously not. Just because you see something doesn't make it so.  Just a little critical thinking, an experiment or two, or God forbid and education, this can be explained.

https://www.optics4kids.org/osa.o4k/media/optics4kids/Moire-2.jpg?ext=.jpg

From our perspective on the ground, it does appear that the sun is moving and we are not.  And no RE can deny that.  But if we were standing on the sun, it would appear that the earth is moving, and the sun is stationary.  What is really happening is different than what we can perceive.  I can make the argument that driving in my car that it appears I am not moving and the ground is moving by me.  Is that the argument you would make, because that is how it appears? 

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Proof #2

« on: May 22, 2019, 08:41:16 AM »

I'm simply stating your options.

And I'm saying that your statement of options is incomplete.

https://images.app.goo.gl/r8kq7egPxBAo4At97

Grass

But it doesn't explicitly say it isn't pineapples. So do we really know?

Now you've got it. I knew you would.

And this is the lack of integrity when it comes to debating these topics.  Anybody can nit-pick any piece of evidence or statement and claim that whatever is incomplete.  But we all know that is all it is, just cherry picking ideas and trying to leave a door open for debate.  I have not seen any real argument from a FE that has shown any integrity.  They work the scientific process backwards and expect everyone to do the same.  If they have integrity, they would see where their investigations will lead and trust the conclusions, even if it mean they have to re-test over and over again to convince themselves.  But as we all saw in the Behind the Curve documentary on Netflix, two FE experiments showed were expected to prove the flat earth showed exactly what should happen on a globe earth, yet they rejected the result because it did not agree with what the already "knew".  Total lack of integrity.  Question everything, I have no problem with that.  But FE claim to be open minded, yet all evidence points to the opposite.  The whole FE debate has to start with a conspiracy.  There is no other way around it.  Fool yourself if you want, but you have to reject mounds of evidence to the contrary to accept FE. 

And I know, if anybody even bothers to respond to this post, that somebody will make some snide remark about why I am here, or nit-pick some statement I made and how I am wrong.  But if we sent people to prison with FE definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, we wouldn't have a prison population problem in society, because we probably would not have anyone to find guilty.

But I know I am not the first person to say such a thing, nor will I be the last.  But can anybody here who truly defends the FE logic and "science" really look in the mirror and say they have integrity?  Because the only person who can answer that will be looking at you from the mirror.

*And yes, I understand this grass/pineapple is in jest, but it still proves my point...

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?

« on: May 21, 2019, 11:37:47 AM »

Impossible on a flat earth, yet here it is



The sun doesn't get smaller and smaller, it disappears behind the horizon.

I don't see a spherical earth rotating into the sun. I see the light of the sun setting into a Flat Earth.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sunrise_and_Sunset

And I see that there is a total lack of integrity involved with trying to debate anybody that claims to believe in the flat earth. 

19

Flat Earth General / Re: Rowbotham A contemporary account

« on: May 13, 2019, 08:40:11 AM »

How many workings of me or sandokhan inside; other FE scientists outside did you see we have mentioned to Rowbotham? 5%?, 1%? 0,1%? Or nope?

You can use here to search our mentiones to Rowbotham:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.0

Ah but you are a mere flat earth midget of little consequence. Sandokhan, on the other hand, is obsessed with Sagnag....or rewriting history.  Flat earth giants on the other hand like John Davis, the most eminent flat earth scientist alive, worships Robotham. Possibly that's where you have been going wrong.

Come on, who the hell of John Davis? He is just one of the five flat earth scientists here, and the weakest one. His theory of UA model has never mentioned by Rowbotham. And John Davis and his theories are old and demode. Sandokhan's sagnac obsession is his own problem, can not change his being a great scientist.

Again, John Davis is a mere of flat earth scientists here, he is only a giant for angry globularists like you. You are only using his name to mock flat earth believers. He definitely does not represent us at all. He represent himself, fake flat earthers, controlled opposition group and globularists like you whose want to mock FE.

Did you forget to go back and make it seem like you don’t know English?

Edit:  your last post is like that too. It’s a miracle.

I am glad somebody else noticed this too.  Had to laugh my ass off when I read the above post.  What benefit does it serve  him to fake his low English-writing abilities? 

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Proof #2

« on: May 10, 2019, 12:56:26 PM »

You must know by now that the only admissable evidence is anything a FEer can see with their own eyes. Anything filmed in space is deemed a NASA fake.

If literally faced with FE breaking evidence, they will close their eyes.

We have debunked thing about so called space many times. And globularists have closed their eyes instead.

What's this "evidence" you call that space is fake? I made a thread giving three reasons why NASA is not a conspiracy, and you only "debunked" one of them. And, you used videos from today to prove they had the technology to fake it as they did in 1960's. You have yet to respond to the other two I presented.

According to vacuum science, it is impossible existing of something as space. If there would be something as a space could absorb everything firstly atmospher then all the earth to the space. After the scientists realized this error, they started to say that "there is no absolute space, there is a matter in space although a bit." because space means infinite gravity, nothing can resist its absorb every object. Yes, you read it true, space means infinitive gravity. The power of absence.

You can find out many professors have explained the matter in space. So it can not be space anymore since have matter. In short, space isn't space. There is nothing as space. Space is absent.

Source please?

Source for what?

Source for your claim above where you state:

"According to vacuum science, it is impossible existing of something as space. If there would be something as a space could absorb everything firstly atmospher then all the earth to the space. After the scientists realized this error, they started to say that "there is no absolute space, there is a matter in space although a bit." because space means infinite gravity, nothing can resist its absorb every object. Yes, you read it true, space means infinitive gravity. The power of absence.

You can find out many professors have explained the matter in space. So it can not be space anymore since have matter. In short, space isn't space. There is nothing as space. Space is absent."

You wrote it so you must have something that can back it up, correct?

There are many sources in and out this forum adresses the outside sources. You need just research.

Ok, the just give me one independant source that backs up your claim.  You made the claim.  This should be at your disposal...

wiki is forbid in our country but I found a source in it by using proxy. There are many, but this is the easiest source I find.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space". According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.

I hope you think its enough.

Ok, thank  you.  Now what does this prove?  That space can't exist?

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Proof #2

« on: May 10, 2019, 07:29:32 AM »

You must know by now that the only admissable evidence is anything a FEer can see with their own eyes. Anything filmed in space is deemed a NASA fake.

If literally faced with FE breaking evidence, they will close their eyes.

We have debunked thing about so called space many times. And globularists have closed their eyes instead.

What's this "evidence" you call that space is fake? I made a thread giving three reasons why NASA is not a conspiracy, and you only "debunked" one of them. And, you used videos from today to prove they had the technology to fake it as they did in 1960's. You have yet to respond to the other two I presented.

According to vacuum science, it is impossible existing of something as space. If there would be something as a space could absorb everything firstly atmospher then all the earth to the space. After the scientists realized this error, they started to say that "there is no absolute space, there is a matter in space although a bit." because space means infinite gravity, nothing can resist its absorb every object. Yes, you read it true, space means infinitive gravity. The power of absence.

You can find out many professors have explained the matter in space. So it can not be space anymore since have matter. In short, space isn't space. There is nothing as space. Space is absent.

Source please?

Source for what?

Source for your claim above where you state:

"According to vacuum science, it is impossible existing of something as space. If there would be something as a space could absorb everything firstly atmospher then all the earth to the space. After the scientists realized this error, they started to say that "there is no absolute space, there is a matter in space although a bit." because space means infinite gravity, nothing can resist its absorb every object. Yes, you read it true, space means infinitive gravity. The power of absence.

You can find out many professors have explained the matter in space. So it can not be space anymore since have matter. In short, space isn't space. There is nothing as space. Space is absent."

You wrote it so you must have something that can back it up, correct?

There are many sources in and out this forum adresses the outside sources. You need just research.

Ok, the just give me one independant source that backs up your claim.  You made the claim.  This should be at your disposal...

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Proof #2

« on: May 10, 2019, 05:12:58 AM »

You must know by now that the only admissable evidence is anything a FEer can see with their own eyes. Anything filmed in space is deemed a NASA fake.

If literally faced with FE breaking evidence, they will close their eyes.

We have debunked thing about so called space many times. And globularists have closed their eyes instead.

What's this "evidence" you call that space is fake? I made a thread giving three reasons why NASA is not a conspiracy, and you only "debunked" one of them. And, you used videos from today to prove they had the technology to fake it as they did in 1960's. You have yet to respond to the other two I presented.

According to vacuum science, it is impossible existing of something as space. If there would be something as a space could absorb everything firstly atmospher then all the earth to the space. After the scientists realized this error, they started to say that "there is no absolute space, there is a matter in space although a bit." because space means infinite gravity, nothing can resist its absorb every object. Yes, you read it true, space means infinitive gravity. The power of absence.

You can find out many professors have explained the matter in space. So it can not be space anymore since have matter. In short, space isn't space. There is nothing as space. Space is absent.

Source please?

Source for what?

Source for your claim above where you state:

"According to vacuum science, it is impossible existing of something as space. If there would be something as a space could absorb everything firstly atmospher then all the earth to the space. After the scientists realized this error, they started to say that "there is no absolute space, there is a matter in space although a bit." because space means infinite gravity, nothing can resist its absorb every object. Yes, you read it true, space means infinitive gravity. The power of absence.

You can find out many professors have explained the matter in space. So it can not be space anymore since have matter. In short, space isn't space. There is nothing as space. Space is absent."

You wrote it so you must have something that can back it up, correct?

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Proof #2

« on: May 09, 2019, 01:48:59 PM »

You must know by now that the only admissable evidence is anything a FEer can see with their own eyes. Anything filmed in space is deemed a NASA fake.

If literally faced with FE breaking evidence, they will close their eyes.

We have debunked thing about so called space many times. And globularists have closed their eyes instead.

What's this "evidence" you call that space is fake? I made a thread giving three reasons why NASA is not a conspiracy, and you only "debunked" one of them. And, you used videos from today to prove they had the technology to fake it as they did in 1960's. You have yet to respond to the other two I presented.

According to vacuum science, it is impossible existing of something as space. If there would be something as a space could absorb everything firstly atmospher then all the earth to the space. After the scientists realized this error, they started to say that "there is no absolute space, there is a matter in space although a bit." because space means infinite gravity, nothing can resist its absorb every object. Yes, you read it true, space means infinitive gravity. The power of absence.

You can find out many professors have explained the matter in space. So it can not be space anymore since have matter. In short, space isn't space. There is nothing as space. Space is absent.

Source please?

24

Flat Earth General / Re: What's it like living as a FE believer?

« on: May 08, 2019, 08:06:37 AM »

How about listing some references for your claim.  What facts and direct evidence?  Just saying it doesn't make it so.  If you want to be taken seriously, cite some of your sources.  If flat earth theory is believed by so many and has been around so long, there must be a plethora of documented examples that have been peer reviewed and can withstand the weight of an actual debate.  And no, saying you are a liar is not debate, it is childish...

Well, you write here as children .... I laugh in my hoof. You failed the test! Failed. You just troll here. The post contains the complete answer. You don't care about the facts, you will not accept them. You just love to argue. Lead you do not deny that from space the earth looks like a ball? Or you need to prove it - ha ha ha. He waved his tail. Hey. I will write further in Old Russian, anyway, the meaning of my posts does not reach you.

Please enlighten me, please show me your "post contains the complete answer".  Your right, I am a child, I know not what I do.  Please, I beg of you, educate me. 

25

Flat Earth General / Re: What's it like living as a FE believer?

« on: May 08, 2019, 06:09:13 AM »

And how do you know this?

Based on facts and direct evidence. Facts are a stubborn thing!

How about listing some references for your claim.  What facts and direct evidence?  Just saying it doesn't make it so.  If you want to be taken seriously, cite some of your sources.  If flat earth theory is believed by so many and has been around so long, there must be a plethora of documented examples that have been peer reviewed and can withstand the weight of an actual debate.  And no, saying you are a liar is not debate, it is childish...

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?

« on: May 03, 2019, 10:09:37 AM »

Apparently light bends. In a one gee gravitational field. Something special to do with the universal accelerator because.... well no one knows why, someone just thought it sounded good and made an evidenceless claim.

(Don't try and make your own evidenceless claim, such as the light is bent by a unicorns breath. Doing such a thing as a REer will get you banned for a few days)

I do notice a lot how it is only Re's that get chastised for stupid posts...

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?

« on: May 03, 2019, 09:47:08 AM »

I haven't seen any FE replies so far, so these are just some comments.
I have seen some comments that the moon and sun are only  15 KM above the earth.
Also that sunset is caused by the sun getting so far away that it gets so small that it can no longer be seen.
Sunrise is when the sun gets close enough and large enough to be seen.
Also that the sun "acts like a spotlight'' and just shines down in a circular pattern causing night and day.

Any comments, FE's ?

My favorite is how the sun just gets smaller.  How come if a plane takes off and I am viewing it from behind, it simply get smaller until it is too small for my naked eye, but it sure doesn't sink in the horizon?

28

Flat Earth General / Re: What's it like living as a FE believer?

« on: May 03, 2019, 09:35:48 AM »

10 years ago, the believers of this movement were one in ten thousand. Three years ago, he was one of a thousand people. and one in ten people today believes or have doubts in the flat earth. at the end of this year, the number of believers in the flat world will be equated or about with the number of believers in the round world. this is a technique and scientific movement and its pioneers are scientific people, certainly not ordinary people.

I am curious, where do you get your stats?  Are you claiming 10% of all people have doubts of a round earth?  Or are you just "guessing"?  Because if you are a "pioneer" and a "scientific" person, I think it is irresponsible to make claims with out evidence backing it up.  If it is your opinion, you should make that clear. 

29

Flat Earth General / Re: Stuck at home with nothing to do?

« on: April 30, 2019, 01:53:05 PM »

Photoshop isn't real, you are a liar!! Prove to me that Photoshop is real, or you admit you are a liar...

And don't tell me to go to Wal-Mart or check on Amazon, cause they are obviously liars too...

30

Flat Earth General / Re: Shape of the Moon

« on: April 26, 2019, 01:46:55 PM »

if flat earth modal are truth why does moon has such an strange shape?
i mean why don't we have an uniformed moon?

You can't really say 'the moon is round and therefor the earth is round'. That's like saying 'that car is red therefor my bike is red'.

While it is true that the shape of the moon and the shape are caused by the same thing (gravity), it's not enough to just look up at something in the sky and draw conclusions on the shape of your own world.

What if you looked at the sun in stead? Would the question 'if the sun is a hot round ball of gas and therefor the earth is too' make sense?

i didn't say because moon is round therefore earth should be too!
what i'm saying is if flat earth modals are truth then what did damage the moon? what can in a close system like ours(according to flat earth modals)do this to the moon?

You are assuming the moon is what you have been told about it. Maybe it is what it looks like, a light in the sky with bright spots .

Visual evidence is considered to be one of the most unreliable types of evidence.  And this is what you base you whole FE belief on?