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 - Smoke Machine

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 69
1
Flat Earth General / Re: How can you dismiss all the space footage?
« on: March 26, 2024, 05:56:47 AM »
Quote
1. An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless an external force acts upon it. Similarly, if the object is at rest, it will remain at rest unless an unbalanced force acts upon it.
If I were to knock a series of balls tied to a string, it would seem like this "law" that things stay in motion would mean this process never stops. But this is in violation to real scientific laws, those of the laws of thermodynamics. Motion does indeed wind down, as energy is gradually lost through conversion. Only a rare few things exist in perpetual motion. The sun, the moon, the tides. Stuff like that exist as long as there is an Earth.

Similarly, objects change despite themselves when left in stasis. They gather dust or cobwebs, people set on a couch forever either become morbidly obese (whereupon the couch collapses and from staying at rest, they are suddenly in motion) or they starve to death and have to be moved due to the stench.
Quote
2. When a force acts on an object, it will cause the object to accelerate
Not all forces are forces of motion. When entropy acts on an object, it generally causes it to lose energy (slow down)
Quote
3. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
More snappy patter words to sell nonsense theories. Newton was a marketeer and a plagiarist, not a scientist. Is there always equal reaction? Is it always opposite? And how can he possibly say for every action?

In fact, he actually did self-proclaim these The Laws of Motion.
https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/NATP00105

They weren't laws because of scientific method. They weren't laws because of peer review. They were laws because of practical usage.

They were laws because "Sir" Isaac Newton said so. And everyone went along with what he said. Excuse me, Newton, but you're no knight. I hereby undub thee Sir Isaac Newton. You are now "Just Some Hack."

"They were laws because of practical usage." You said it yourself. Everything else you said is garbage, but you managed to debunk your own garbage with this one sentence of truth.

Just another fumbled attempt by a flat earther to discredit an esteemed scientist.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A hermit comes down from the mountain...
« on: March 25, 2024, 03:22:00 PM »
You tell the hermit he is living on Earth which is a huge sphere and he can prove it to himself by selecting a direction and walking. On his walk he will notice the peaks of very high mountains appearing on his horizon, which as he gets nearer, become taller and taller, until he stands at the base of very high mountains. When looking behind, he will observe tall objects such as buildings, pine tree forests, towers, and also mountains, disappearing from the ground up. This can only happen if Earth is a sphere.

Hmm, interesting. I don't see any flat earthers weighing in on this thread. This should be a piece of cake to them!

3
Flat Earth General / Re: How can you dismiss all the space footage?
« on: March 25, 2024, 06:21:48 AM »
144 is 122. It's also a gross number.

Quote
Globe Earth holds water because of gravity



Seriously, give me all your money.

You have people who claim to have circumnavigated the globe.


Not circumnavigation.



What about this?

Or this?


Skirting the edge is not proof. This is what skimming actually looks like on a flat Earth map.


Your maps are inside out.

My bad. I lost count of all your backwards posts and missed replying to this steaming pile of doo doo.

What's the significance of 12 x 12 to you?

Skimming the edge of Antarctica and plotting its shape, is circumnavigating it. As for your sophisticated drawings of how rain fills a bowl but runs down a hill, all I can say is I'm glad you asked your two year old sister to do the artwork for you. The drawing style really suits the babyish concepts you promote.

Ritalin is just a fancy name for speed isn't it? I hope you aren't self medicating on that shit.....


4
Flat Earth General / Re: How can you dismiss all the space footage?
« on: March 25, 2024, 03:03:24 AM »





This is amazing

If the model of a globe earth has thinhs falling toawrds the center of the globe, why then would you draw (middle image)  the cut southern half with the water falling to bottom of the screen, vs center of the globe.


Where did the center go?
Do you not know how to find the center of a circle?


If you cut the circle in half up-down.
And it rained on each.
What wiuld you imagine that looking like?
The rain clouds oriented up-down alao as originally drawn?

It's not amazing. It's one of the saddest things I've ever seen in my life. They don't call him bullshitbeliefs144 for nuthin, and boy does he live up to his name!

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The model is all that matters...
« on: March 24, 2024, 07:40:38 PM »

Flat Earth General / Re: Proof that the Earth isn't round?
« on: March 21, 2024, 08:20:32 PM »
I think I get the model now. Or at least one semi-coherent version.
1. The earth is flat because that's how it appears to the casual observer close to the ground.
2. Outer space is fake, so there is a glass dome to keep in the air we breathe.
3. The stars are projected onto the dome, presumably for our entertainment.
4. Gravity doesn't exist, the earth is continually accelerating thru space at 9.81 m/s/s. Creating the illusion of gravity.
5. Magnetic north is a big secret tower of some sort. Magnetic south is a circular pole around the edge.
6. The oceans are held in place by a gigantic ice wall around the perimeter. Beyond which there may or may not be more lands, but we can't go there.
7. The sun is small and rotates above the earth plane some 3000km high.
8. The moon is a projection? Not sure I got that one. Seems not a consensus on the moon thing.
Do I have it about right,? It's a lot to absorb.

You forgot the ice giants and dragons. Santa claus and the easter bunny also control a lot of what happens on flat earth. You also forgot that nobody can find the edge to the flat earth or touch the dome, and somehow weight and density is not defined by gravity.

Remember - flat earth is all about fantasy and letting your imagination run wild, to hell with science and common sense.

6
Flat Earth General / Re: How can you dismiss all the space footage?
« on: March 24, 2024, 04:48:03 AM »
Yes, yes, I'm running away.



You're the gutless coward that does a 2-on-1 gangup.

And I'm supposed to somehow field all the questions you and JackBlack (and maybe Code-Beta) ask.

Bullies are cowards. Every school child knows that if someone had any guts, they'd fight people alone.
What they call "pick on someone your own size." 

But while we're all the topic of fleeing, I do believe Code-Beta is the only one who even bothered to respond and his answer made no sense. Something about a sphere collapsing into tinier spheres.

Man up, and answer the question. You say gravity holds water in place, but I can plop down a hemisphere where it is sure to rain and a basin right next to it, and only the basin will hold water. You never will admit this, so you instead get your buddies to all talk at once, and then accuse me of fleeing when I honestly don't feel like answering two or three people today. You've been running away from this question since I asked it, but you're gonna tell me I'm fleeing.

I am not obligated to answer any of your questions while you still haven't addressed this.
And I'm pretty sure you haven't, because I haven't noticed it in any of your posts.

But if you're interested, the model is simple.

You see, buoyancy divides the water and the sky into layers. Less air molecules on top, more air molecules below that, some water molecules below that, dense water molecules on bottom. Gravity, on the other hand, is not a stable model. If we were to follow the train of thought to its logical conclusion, the entire atmosphere ought to be falling towards the ground. But that's not what happens!

Hey Jerkovsky, the only time you will ever experience buoyancy is when you open a playboy centerfold.

As for gravity, your low hanging fruit knows all about gravity. Why didn't you just do your globe shattering experiment by unzipping your fly while standing over a bucket, and pouring in ice cold water to prove water will flow off a ball but be collected in a container? You could also prove that heat expands while cold contracts, while you're at it!


7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A hermit comes down from the mountain...
« on: March 23, 2024, 02:53:58 AM »
A hermit comes down from the mountain and says to you -

"I have lived in a cave my entire life. I know nothing of this world. I trust only my own senses and reasoning.
Tell me, what shape is the earth and what can I observe that I will know this to be true?"

What do you tell him?

I tell him the shape of the Earth is the last thing he should be concerned about and he'll work it out in time.

8
Flat Earth General / Re: FE is a sad little world.
« on: March 22, 2024, 04:18:54 PM »
I love it when normal people behave like abnormal flat earthers!

Wishbone and Dataoverlord, if neither of you can bring first hand celestial navigation experience to the forum, you can both at least, admit what sources you are each relying upon.......

Bulmabutt, you can just go back to your bible and dictionary and find us all another little passage to support whatever garbage you are injecting into the proceedings...and another word from your dictionary you have suddenly learned the meaning of.

9
Flat Earth General / Re: How can you dismiss all the space footage?
« on: March 21, 2024, 03:53:34 PM »
Quote
The sun never goes beyond 180 degrees, your diagram below shows that.

Exactly. Now you're getting it.

When the sun moves at a distance where it would be approaching 180 degrees (if not before), your vision reaches what is known as the vanishing point. The object either shrinks or sinks.

If you stopped listening to "esteemed professors" and bothered looking at planes, bridges, skylines, etc. yourself, you would be able to tell me that yourself. Instead, you are convinced that what you see is a curve, and when people like me tell you over and over again, that no, in fact it is not, you sit there blankly not understanding. It's painful to watch.

Quote
Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE can't work.
Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE can't work.

Yet again, you are just baselesssly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE can't work. Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE can't work. Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE cantwork. Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend that REEEE can't work.

I'm writing this over and over again to emphasize the point that like this guy,

you're nuts. Flat Earth is what you are standing on. It is what holds water. Not only can it work, the alternative doesn't work.
Neither the most basic physics nor geometry supports the idea of any of this.
"But what about..." No. You bother learning basic logic, then maybe we'll talk.

Unpacking more bull from your briefs today I see, bulinmabriefs144? Does the 144 denote your waist size in inches? It certainly doesn't denote your IQ!

Globe Earth holds water because of gravity. Flat Earth holds water because of what? Just because. Or did duh bible tell you so?

We have circumnavigated the Earth because it is a globe. You can't circumnavigate a plate where you can't even find an edge to, or the precise size of the plate.

Why can you not see we each live in two worlds? Our own little day to day world (which you can't see beyond) and the much larger entire world?

10
Flat Earth General / Re: FE is a sad little world.
« on: March 21, 2024, 02:00:17 PM »
We all "knew." That's another word you have misused. Off to a great record are we? To know something is to have unassailable proof. But as you can see, 500 later, people are still assailing that "proof."

If PT Barnum said the same things as Copernicus or Galileo, should we believe it? Or don't you know a sham when you see one?

Quote
When I used the racetrack and racecar analogy to earth and Earth's orbit, did you notice I said the racetrack would have to be an extremely large oval? Well, I meant, like hundreds of times larger than any existing racetrack, but you aren't intelligent enough to cotton on to that, are you chum?

 "Chum" is a word for fish. And for friends. It's not a word you use when insulting people. 0 for 3 here. And making bigger ovals doesn't automatically make a faulty theory suddenly work. Neither will insulting me here. There are some people who can manage to piss me off, and some people whose criticism I don't care about. Guess which pile you're in?

 Did you notice in the racecar video, they showed skid from momentum? As object moves on a path at steady speed, the more it skids, the more off track it goes. The sun goes in a circular orbit around the Earth as ordained by God. In 500 years (since we're using that number), sundials have been accurate. In fact, there is a 3200 year old sundial. You don't have to adjust its position. In spring and fall, the sun moves to the equator. In winter and summer, it moves between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn. To be precise, it's not a circular path but a subtle infinite spiral. Something that Fibonacci would eat up, a spiral that yearly goes in then out then back in.

You drive a car in a ellipse path, the racer has to actively adjust for turns, as momentum is a real bitch. The more elliptical the path, the larger the apex of the turn.
 A circle requires simple 6° (or 1/60 of a 360° circle) turns at regular intervals. A clock can do it all day, and does. At a regular speed, the sun can do this all day long. In fact it does, until it reaches the 180° point of our view, whereupon it sets.
An ellipse goes straight line, straight line, straight line, HAIRPIN TURN, straight line, straight line...
Quote
The Earth doesn't change velocity or conduct sudden turns, it is more like a racecar at a set speed on an extremely large and smooth oval track
Wasn't it you that said this? But the very definition of an oval is sudden turns! A circle has regular incremental turns. So the more the RE adjust their model to be elliptical, the more false this becomes. The sun's path is like a pendulum. Sundials show this.

Does that look like an oval to you? Year after year, this crude device keeps solar time. It doesn't have to adjust for sidereal days, it doesn't have to adjust for wide oval orbit, because these things aren't real!
 Maintaining a steady speed on an ellipse is a pipe dream, and people telling you that when you see the sun move across the Earth, you are really seeing the Earth move along that kinda of path are part of a hoax. Either they are useful idiots, or the hoaxers themselves.

Here you go.


Is truth typing totally out of the question for you? We all do know the Earth is a globe with unassailable proof, and have so, for fifty centuries. People like yourself prefer to live
in denial.

I also know my posts piss you off, otherwise you wouldn't consistently cherry pick, which parts of my posts you respond to. So, more bull from you.

See, now you are trying to be clever again, (which doesn't suit you), by comparing the unique physics of a racecar on a racetrack to a planet in an elliptical orbit through space around a sun. One has all sorts of physics including traction, racetrack camber, air resistance. Can you guess which one?

The big factor for you to take away is both the race car and earth can be on an elliptical path. We can all rest that you obtaining a bachelor's degree in orbital mechanics is something you will never achieve in your lifetime.

Care to elaborate where you obtained your very definition of an oval is "sudden turns"? Or just do what you usually do, and cherry pick to ignore this question. Why embaras yourself even more, little wet fishy?

11
Flat Earth General / Re: FE is a sad little world.
« on: March 21, 2024, 04:33:51 AM »
Quote
The Earth doesn't change velocity or conduct sudden turns, it is more like a racecar at a set speed on an extremely large and smooth oval track, on a constant curve, so your argument is obsolete.

It's always entertaining when people try to be clever. Wrong word choice there.

Obsolete:
1. No longer in use.
2. Outmoded in design, style, or construction.
3. Vestigial or rudimentary, especially in comparison with related or ancestral species, as the tailbone of an ape.

You are basically saying that my argument is outdated, rather than simply wrong. "Like, get with the times, we believe this now," is the only sense that that word even works.

But here's the thing. It's not an outdated argument, because there's no such thing. It's an argument that a bunch of suits said was "old", as though that made it wrong. This would be like proving for centuries that plants photosynthesize, having climate activists say they don't, and having 150 years of stupid where people don't realize putting plants in a room makes them breathe cleaner air. Old is old, but arguments can't become obsolete. The Unmoved Mover by Aristotle was mentioned again as late as 1892. Technology can become outmoded. Ideas and philosophy cannot. Why can they not? Re-read the first definition.

Quote
1. No longer in use.

So long as ideas are still able to be used, they are still useful. Technology however can be outmoded when you invent something better. Your idea isn't any better, it's just stupid.

For a valid application of the "racecar" idea, we have only to watch an actual car. I was riding in a car with a rubber ball (left over from when kids visited) some two years ago. I put on the seat, watched it roll back and reach a particular spot. This idea of the object "adjusting" to the speed never happened. Every minor turn at the same speed nonetheless made the ball bounce or roll, and particularly wide turns made the ball roll. Whether it slowed down or kept the same speed.

Here is the correct word. Your argument is fallacious. It is built on a fallacy that because arguments are old, they are inherently wrong. On the contrary, if an old argument is still being talked about, it is not settled science no matter how loudly "scientists" scream otherwise (like they do, again, with climate change). It is also fallacious because it built on a begging the question fallacy. You already assume that a racecar behaves as you say, but having driven such courses at a steady speed, I can recall whiplash. It is further fallacious because I have pointed out numerous problems with the actual orbit theory, but here's 10 more.
Quote
Problem 1 – The Helio model requires a sidereal day of 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds without fail for as long as records have been kept. The Helio model assumes the earth rotates on its axis in the midst of a universe full of dark matter, dark energy and galaxy masses. Yet all these causes within the universe never act to slow down the earth’s daily rotation rate. The consistent Earth rotation rate is inconsistent with the variable rotation rates of other solar system planets. The inconsistency between the slowing rotation rates and the consistent earth rotation rate lends support for the earth in a special place.
Problem 2 – The Helio model requires a yearly orbit around the sun of 365 ¼ days per year without fail for as long as records have been kept. The Helio model assumes the earth moves around the sun in the midst of a universe full of dark matter, dark energy and galaxy masses. Yet all these causes within the universe never act to slow down the earth’s yearly orbit rate around the sun. The long term, consistent Earth orbit rate is inconsistent with the universal causes acting throughout the universe to cause a long term decay in the earth’s orbit velocity.
Problem 3 – NASA scientists calculate that tsunamis and earthquakes slow the earth’s rotation rate. The models NASA use, assume the earth rotates, and calculate the energy in those events and then calculate the deceleration of the earth’s rotation. There are about 1,450,000 earthquakes every year. About 25,000 have a magnitude of 4 to 9 on the Rictor scale. If these events slow the earth rotation rate every year, by 0.5 microseconds per major earthquake event, then over 10,000 years, and 250 million earthquake events, the earth rotation rate should have slowed by about 2 minutes. Going back 1 million years the earth rotation rate changes by 200 minutes. 10 million years: 2000 minutes, 100 million years:20,000 minutes. 200 million: 40,000 minutes, which means the Earth would have a rotation rate of 12 hours. Go back 4.5 billion years and the Earth would spin 10 times per second.
The problem is that very old sun clocks indicate the earth’s rotation rate has not changed by minutes over thousands of years. Hence the claim that tsunamis and earthquakes slow the earth’s rotation rate is adverse to very old sun dials. If there is no practical evidence for the change in Earth’s rotation rate due to tsunamis and earthquakes then the Newtonian based models that assume the Earth rotates daily are invalidated. If invalidated then the Helio model is invalidated.
Problem 4 – Heliocentrism is based upon the Copernican principle, which says there is no special location in the universe. Hence the earth must rotate around the sun, just as all the other planets are thought to rotate around the sun. Similarly the local Milky Way is thought to be just one of many galaxies within the universe. According to the Copernican principle, the Milky Way is only an insignificant galaxy amongst all the other galaxies in the universe. Yet WMAP shows the universe is aligned with the earth, having an octopole and quadrupole perpendicular to the ecliptic. According to Dragan Huterer, the universe is aligned with the solar system (Astronomy, December 2007, 38-39). The alignment of the universe with the solar system is a major breach of the Copernican principle (CP). As the CP has been invalidated, the Heliocentric model no longer has the CP has an assumed principle to model the earth orbiting the sun. Hence the Helio model is a model founded upon an invalidated principle, which invalidates the Helio model.
Problem 5 – The Helio model says the Earth’s velocity in orbit around the sun varies over the year. The orbit velocity changes without any explanation given within Newtonian mechanics for how the Earth’s orbit velocity changes, other than to comply with Kepler’s laws derived from orbital observations. As there is no physical mechanism to cause the earth’s change in velocity during the Earth’s orbit around the sun, then here is no certitude that the Earth actually does accelerate and decelerate around the sun as assumed within the Heliocentric model. As an empirical based model is only as certain as its least certain component, and there is no mechanism and no certitude of the cause of the variable Earth velocity, then the Helio model is most uncertain. And what is most uncertain is not the preferred model. Hence the Helio model is not the preferred model.
Problem 6 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun requires a fictitious centrifugal force acting within the Earth for the Newtonian model to account for the Earth’s orbit around the sun. The fictitious centrifugal force has no connection with the physical properties of the mechanical system. As there are no physical properties of the mechanical system within the Helio model, then there is no certitude that the Helio model is a correct measure of the local solar system motions. Hence the Helio model is really only a Newtonian base, physical force fiction, without any physical mechanism to prefer the Helio model over any other competing model.
Problem 7 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun infers a preferred reference frame whereby the sun is the local mass that controls the orbital motions of the other planets. The preferred reference frame at the sun contradicts relativity theory that teaches there is no preferred reference frame. As Helio theory contradicts an accepted theory of motion, Helio theory is either invalid, or inconsistently applied with a principle of relativity theory.
Problem 8 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun is said to follow Kepler’s laws for elliptical orbits within the Helio model. The Helio model is said to be the preferred model, for the model is said to have removed the need for Ptolemy’s epicycles in the Geo model. Yet Kepler’s laws applied to the elliptical orbits require an epicycle relative to the orbiting planets circular, deferent orbit swept out when centred upon the orbit centre of the deferent (see pictures below). The alleged absurdity of epicycles in the Ptolemy’s model is replaced by an apparently equally absurd Kepler modelled based epicycle. The use of the epicycle within the Kepler model indicates the Kepler model is not geometrically superior to the Ptolemy model. For the apparent absurdity of the epicycle is used in both the ancient Geo and more modern Helio models.


Problem 9 – The WMAP data demonstrates the Copernican Principle is invalid. Hence for the Helio model to be the preferred model, the model requires the application of an invalidated model. Hence if Helio is a preferred model, Helio is preferred against the scientific evidence that says the Helio is based upon a false principle. Hence the Helio model is in principle unscientific.
Problem 10 – The Helio model of Copernicus was introduced over Ptolemy’s model because the planets orbital motions were observed to be non-circular. The non-circular orbits were replaced by elliptical orbits, yet within the Helio model, the Earth neither orbits in a circular, nor elliptical orbit. For the Earth is gravitationally linked to the Earth-moon barycentre, whereby the Earth cannot orbit the sun in an ellipse. Therefore the motive to change from the Geo model of Ptolemy to the Helio model of Copernicus does not translate into a clearer understanding of what sort of orbit the Earth is doing around the sun. As the Helio model does not provide any clear evidence for the Earth’s elliptical orbit as a better alternative to the Ptolemy model, the Helio model has no strong basis to be the preferred model.


Since this was literally "borrowed" from another forum, I don't expect you to read it, but the point is, motion is transferred at every turn you make. Earth's orbit would have to be arrow-straight with the sun orbiting the Earth for us not to feel it moving at a steady speed. Like a car going on a straight road, not a race track.

But don't take my word for it! Let's find out from actual racecar drivers!

You notice they don't cut in suddenly at full speed? That's because what you saw at the start with plowing against the wall would happen. Steady speed plus turn isn't steady speed. If a real racecar tried to follow the sort of rigid curve you describe without slowing, it would be a mess.

Every turn, every skid, moves the car and the driver. Exactly like that ball I mentioned earlier.
It's not a change in a speed that makes the difference. Change in velocity is change in directional momentum.

Lol! You know what else is entertaining? Watching an insipid snivelling flat earth punk like you trying to be clever! Yeah, I used the word "obsolete" when I could have used the predictable word, "invalid". Your argument however, has been obsolete for what, fifty centuries? Five centuries ago, we all knew earth was a globe at least, but misrakenly thought we were the centre of the universe, stationary, while everything else revolved around us. It's obsolete because it's fucking useless. But naturally, it is also invalid.

When I used the racetrack and racecar analogy to earth and Earth's orbit, did you notice I said the racetrack would have to be an extremely large oval? Well, I meant, like hundreds of times larger than any existing racetrack, but you aren't intelligent enough to cotton on to that, are you chum? But, of course, ol Dumbo nevertheless tries to outwit me with a small racetrack with tight bends. You have quite a heavy load of bull in ya briefs these days, bulinmabriefs144!

Oh, and if you're going to post a direct quote, tell us where you got it from. In this case, some dickhead who thinks dark matter and dark energy along with distant galaxies should slow the Earth down. The rest of the quote is a mountain of shit because it ignores the fact Earth has been proven to be a globe in space a thousand times over.

12
Flat Earth General / Re: FE is a sad little world.
« on: March 20, 2024, 06:48:27 PM »
Quote
Bulinmabriefs144, the old testament was right. The Earth is fixed in the speed of it's rotation and speed of orbit around the sun, and cannot be moved from that (by us puny humans at least). Can you feel yourself moving when you set your car at cruise control and travel at a fixed speed? If you could be honest, the answer would be "no".

Who here is not being honest?

1. Cruise control doesn't just set a car going steadily on a fixed speed. If it did, maybe your analogy might hold, but the cruise controls I've had annoyed the hell out of me to the point where I had to shut them off, as they were constant automatic gasing the car, and impractical for real driving. That is, it doesn't coast along but rather adjusts (poorly), making the ride get me motion sick.
2. In actual fact, you can feel motion whenever velocity changes. If you remember your science classes, velocity is speed AND direction. If you have steady speed at exactly 60 mph, but suddenly do a hard right or even a hairpin turn, even were speed to never go down 1 mph, you would be able to feel whiplash or stomach churn. I know this one personally, having eaten cheese grits before heading down a windy road, and subsequently voided the entire contents of my stomach.
3. TL;DR version: steady speed is not enough. Every turn is felt. Unless you are going as straight as Ryoga Hibiki (literally running offroad and through buildings) you are going to notice a turn.

The Earth is fixed, because everything moves around it. We do not feel movement, because we are not moving!

The Earth doesn't change velocity or conduct sudden turns, it is more like a racecar at a set speed on an extremely large and smooth oval track, on a constant curve, so your argument is obsolete. The rotation of the Earth is also constant with no changes in velocity. That's why we don't feel the movement.

Have you never been a passenger in a car and tossed a tennis ball up and down? We do not feel the movement because everyone of our molecules stems from the Earth itself. We are walking talking bits of Earth.

So caught up in your own little world, the immediate experience of the world around you, and that bible, aren't you bulinmabriefs144?  You can't see the forest for the trees, or in your case, the globe shape of the earth for your own immediate little world.

Why do you even want to argue this? Why not just settle back into your delusion that the whole world revolves around you, and not worry about the big picture?

13
Flat Earth General / Re: FE is a sad little world.
« on: March 20, 2024, 03:01:40 PM »
Bulinmabriefs144, the old testament was right. The Earth is fixed in the speed of it's rotation and speed of orbit around the sun, and cannot be moved from that (by us puny humans at least). Can you feel yourself moving when you set your car at cruise control and travel at a fixed speed? If you could be honest, the answer would be "no".

The reason only 676 people have left the karman line, is leaving the karman line is very expensive. Perhaps small minded people don't want to see the bigger picture offered by a universe outside the Earth?

A flaterfer commenting on world energy reserves, is priceless! How deep is your flat earth? Care to explain why it gets hotter the deeper you go into the Earth? As for plastic waste, what concern is that of a useless flat earther, whose only concern in life is the shape of the world? Stick to what you know - NOTHING.

Oh, and anyone can take a plane flight over Antarctica and the South pole, anytime they feel like it. No VIP membership needed. No unreasonable expense. No dome to stop anybody. 


14
Flat Earth General / Re: FE is a sad little world.
« on: March 19, 2024, 04:19:09 PM »
To the original poster.

It is in fact much more sad to live in the world of a globularist. For you to think that eventually, everything will cease to exist in the universe due to it's uncontrollable expansion must be immensely depressing.

Everything that you've ever done, that has ever happened, that has ever existed will be gone without any trace. Everything about you and your existence is pointless and heading towards a cold future where nothing happens.

The life of a globularist is therefore meaningless. Take comfort in your false religion while flat earthers live with purpose.

So, flat earth for you, is all about a meaningful existence? Meaningful to who? There is a big difference between the shapes of a dinner plate and a basketball, isn't there?

News flash: Pretending the Globe you live on is instead a big dinner plate, does not, and will not, give your life new purpose. Afterall, you can't tell me or anyone where your version of heaven exists, can you?

If you choose to live life in your immediate surroundings and ignore scientific knowledge in the field of outer space and the universe, that's totally fine. But the moment you start trying to project your immediate surrounding experience on others to literally be the worldwide truth, that's where you will run into roadblocks.

Life is a mystery. Embrace it and live your best life for you. Don't worry about what the crusty old testament version of God might think. That god was a mega loser and is as fictional as the most popular fictional character you'll ever read!

* I'm weaning myself off this forum. Cold turkey may not be the solution.

15
While your real horizon curves downward atop an illusionary higher surface, where no curve would be atop that illusionary higher surface, that’s your version of it?

Surfaces don’t ‘win’ over an illusion, it is the illusion that ‘wins’ over the surfaces. And the illusions decide when they end on surfaces, not the surface.

You think you can pick out horizons as real, when there is nothing of the surface which is the height of a horizon anywhere. Because horizons are also illusions, like the rising surface is up to them. If you saw the same surface a fraction above the ground, your ‘real’ horizon would be closer to you. They don’t exist, they are illusions, they can move out or in anywhere you see them from.  Illusions will do that, because they aren’t real.  They don’t have invisible curves hiding behind them either. If there was a curve behingmd then, we’d see them from a perpendicular view in the middle of a horizon.  No invisible curves exist. You can’t make them exist by saying they do, it doesn’t work that way in the real world.

Best of luck to you and your flat earth brigade. I've been reminded recently of my own mortality and to value the time I have been given in life and to use it wisely. I have to admit that my time on this site with arguments that go around in circles and go nowhere, posts that are blatantly ignored, is not a good use of my time.

I hope you wake up to yourself one day soon to the realisation flat earth belief is a fools errand, before you have no more time in your life left.

You now have one less flat earth denier to argue with.

16
Flat Earthers don't realise what they really are. They are people who recognise their immediate environment as we all do in our day to day life, but they can't see outside that. They don't even want to see outside their immediate environment life, as they have no interest in proving the shape of their flat world belief.

The moment they accept this, they can move on with their lives, and stop with their madness of constantly trying to prove the Earth is an undistinguished flat plane.

They are people who will never take space travel seriously, and who cares?

17

So your argument is NASA built rocket ships capable of going to the moon but they didn't bother actually sending anybody to the moon in them? Same with spacesuits your grandfather helped make?  You also think you will get indoctrinated from raw footage of the Apollo 11 launch and a series which details how man actually did get to the moon. If your grandfather could read what you typed about him building spacesuit props, he would roll over in his grave. You are an utter disgrace to your ancestors.

Go and check yourself into a mental health facility, because you are clinically insane. You are equipped in life to be nothing more than a professional stamp licker. I was going to say paperclip counter, but that would require you being able to actually count.

I'm nor suggesting they just sit there. I am suggesting that these rockets are often relabeled and reused. Which is good, because if NASA narrative were true, they should be sued by the EPA for the crap they supposedly waste. That they aren't shut down already but a quiet agreement to clean up tossed fuel containers.... yeaaaah, these never ended up in the ocean anymore than the shuttle ended up in space. Both objects flew out of sight into more remote areas and quietly hauled their fuel tanks (possibly in sections) on trucks to be reassembled.

You ever see a magician on stage saw someone in half? It looks real, right? Especially if you're not looking carefully?

Well, movies, stage magic, and space travel all have this in common. They look convincing enough when you see the shuttle fly out of sight from nearby. They look convincing enough while watching TV. But much like watching a fireworks show from a distance appears to have much less height, a rocket from our back yard can be seen turning around and heading back down. We are far enough from site to notice that the rocket never entered space, it just went outside our vision. It flew somewhere remote.

I probably eventually will do so, but that would be for a combination of severe depression (you people being so stupid is really making me sad for the state of humanity) and because apartments are expensive in comparison to state institutions.

But you're the one insane enough to believe obvious tricks.

Oh, ok. So according to you the expert on space travel, NASA is being run by David Copperfield, David Blaine, and Criss Angel. Also according to you, the expert, rockets are powerful enough to travel hundreds of kilometres, but nobody was smart enough to build a rocket powerful enough to take people into space and to the moon.

Is your brain actually flat and you're projecting that to the shape of your world? Is that the problem here?

As for any depression you may feel - well hello? You chose to be an outcast, didn't you? You chose to be a flat earther and go against the rest of humanity in the accepted shape of the Earth.

The only way for you to regain your sanity and purge the fucked up flat earth shit from your brain you've been pouring into it like lsd, is to go and visit a space centre.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars
« on: March 09, 2024, 04:25:43 AM »
They make countless claims about space, which has no proof of existing at all.

Proving that ‘space’ really exists, at least that it could exist, and everyone could actually see that it might exist, is just to send up some rockets on a clear day, straight upward, until they fly so high up, we only see them as a tiny speck in the skies above, then fly up out of all sight, even through all of our telescopes, and that would be an amazing sight to see! 

It’s easy to demonstrate it is true, or not true. That’s why they’ll never demonstrate it, when the rockets hit the Firmament and spin off or crash down to Earth afterwards.

Why wouldn’t they prove the Firmament exists?  Their whole story would be ripped to shreds if we knew the Firmament existed.

They wanted to remove our God, our creator, that is proven with the Firmament existing, as Gods creation.

If anyone thinks it’s a myth, a fable of fiction, why wouldn’t you want to prove its fictional, beyond any doubt? This would leave no doubt anymore, and I would love to see the proof, no matter what it may be.

They’ll never do it, for one reason, because it would prove their whole story is a lie. No reason not doing it if it was a myth.

The only morons in the entire world talking about the firmament as a hard dome other than bible literalists, are flatardians such as yourself. Everybody else understands the firmament simply to refer to the heavens being the outer space beyond Earth. Bible literalists are the dumbest of the dumb. Not even animals and insects are as supremely stupid as bible literalists.

I'm so glad you're definitely not a bible literalist, Turbonium. That's right isn't it?

PM me, and I'll fly over to Florida from Australia and meet up with you, and we can do a week of touring the Kennedy Space Centre. The only cure for you is a dose of reality.

Yes, it will be tempting to lock you in the baggage compartment of the next rocket planned to go into orbit, but I promise I will control myself. You have my word.  ;)

Just pack some extra warm clothes.

19
You think whatever they claim is from ‘space’, is truly from ‘space’, when nothing can confirm it at all, when it’s never tested by outside parties, independent and unbiased and valid parties!

The first thing we always must do, always have done, to start with, is a gauge, a marker of some sort.

Nothing can determine something like ‘space’ at all, that it even exists, yet they have told us for centuries, seen it and calculated it and proved it’s real, all of their claims about space, are real.

That’s total bs.

It’s no different than claiming pink flying elephants are real, by claiming you and others have seen them, many times, and so would everyone else too, if they ever allowed anyone else to see it!

That’s the key to this whole story, for everything else claimed afterwards.

Space is all based on illusions, excuses and never proving or having to confirm any claims they’ve made.

Think about what is ever been proven about ‘space’ to begin with, because if that’s never had proof, it doesn’t mean anything else is valid either. And it’s all bs, based on bs.

The illusion would be easily crushed already, without all sorts of trickery, lies, deception, and hiding the truth, so blatantly obvious, yet nobody can see it, because they tell us what to think is true, what not to think is wrong, or unusual or not logical, that’s for them to tell us or not tell us.


Nobody thinks why every rocket has flown away out of all sight, in about 4 minutes, because they’ve mostly flown over the ocean, and they must never let anyone see them after that point, which makes no sense to do.

Many things they do make no sense, no reasons for doing, so they make up bs excuses for them. And makes it even worse than before.

Higher altitudes have less air than at lower altitudes, so that’s why planes fly at high altitudes, all the time, even for shorter flights. Yet planes have to ascend upward to reach it, of course, but go up fast as possible in it.

That’s logical, and makes perfect sense.

So why don’t rockets fly straight upward to high altitudes, but actually fly so low altitudes, where planes are going through to much higher altitudes all the time?

If planes were wasting fuel from flying high up asap, they’d not do it.

Rockets would certainly fly up like planes do, but faster, in direct paths upward, as they’d take the ideal flight path up to higher altitudes in far less time and less wasting fuel than all planes will, due to their paths of flight.

Rockets don’t even fly paths that make any sense, and it’s even harder to make up excuses for it, and it has many more excuses. Or lies, that is.

But when we’ve seen rockets veer off around clouds, even below clouds, we know they’re flying at low altitudes right there.

They’re flying off at about 10-15000 feet altitude, if that high even. This would obviously waste lots of their fuel, that’s why planes fly up so high so soon.

So rockets either don’t make sense, wasting tons of fuel unlike our planes, only one makes sense, the other one doesn’t make sense, but it does make sense if it’s not really done as they claim it is.

A rocket is simply a missile, bigger and dressed up fancier than other missiles are, without the explosives, less weight to design a bigger faked version and call them rockets, instead of big dud missiles. Sounds way better than what they really are.

The design of all our rockets, their basic form, their main purpose, which shows in their design, that it isn’t like airplanes, nor is their purpose like planes, nor could ever use to develop them into something useful as planes, nor anything advanced in a giant leap to go beyond planes, thats for sure.

Again, look at how much fuel they burn off within the first few minutes, when their huge fuel tanks are dumped off into air, which burned most of its fuel away in the first five or six minutes in flight, while veering off from the ideal flight path it was first on, which uses the least fuel. yet when it burns away most of its fuel in a few minutes, the rest of its fuel is spent in the next few minutes, when it’s over the ocean, out of all sight in their off limits zones.

Rockets are just big missiles in fancy dressing, and no warheads attached to their noses. Rockets and missiles have guidance systems, mostly are launched up from ground, both fly upward at first, both veer off laterally and slightly upward for awhile, then pitch down more and more afterwards.

The only difference is that missiles fly down to a target and explode their warheads, while rockets just burn all their fuel in air and dive down into the ocean.

The grand illusion that still sells as space flights!

Your post is what you get when you have a person who knows literally nothing about anything, but thinks they are an expert on everything. Of course you are a flat earther, what else could you be?

An individual who can tell anybody who asks, literally nothing about the flat earth he believes he lives on, and can provide literally no reasonable explanation for how any piece of evidence verifying space travel and mankind landing on the moon, is fake. Of course you are a flat earther, what else could you be?

Turbonium, why don't you walk to the edge of your fucking stupid flat earth, and bring us all a photo?

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The model is all that matters...
« on: March 08, 2024, 05:32:19 PM »
Don't you just love this? The final version of the RE concept of gravity is... the gravitational theory from FE. Amazing!

For those who are dreaming about balloons, they must explain this first:

"The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”  This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.” Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases."

I do love this! This is educational and vital to my flat earth thesis! You are educating the forum on how to pretend to answer a question with so many words that don't answer the question, but the reader doesn't know that, until the reader has read all those words to find out. Brilliant!!!

Do you have a formula for the word count of one of your posts to how many minutes of a person's life who reads said post, you have just wasted?

At a guess, how many days of Jack Black's life do you think you have robbed from him?

Only an evil genius such as yourself, could have devised a model for robbing the time of the Globe earth enthusiast and flat earth debunker. You are deserving of an award! The other genius of your agenda, is there is no offence in any country for wasting a person's time.

It is most definitely a form of fraud, but your defence is likely that you are never wasting a person's time, you are educating them in scientific history, jargon, and facts and figures.

21
You are wrong about the way hordes is spelled. I have no opinion about the rest, except as it pertains to my own beliefs.

No need to waste your own money, I'll tell you that now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock
The main rocks supposed to be on the moon are Plagioclase feldspar (also found on Earth), Pyroxene (as a gem, definitely found on Earth), olivine (again, found on Earth's upper mantle), Ilmenite (found in Cornwall, originally). All of these can be found by geologists without ever leaving Earth, and some of them without much effort.





The rocket ships being actual doesn't mean they went into space, just as a nice car doesn't mean I drove it from US to Canada. There is nothing inherent about the building of a monstrous ship that proves it went anywhere.

My grandfather helped design spacesuits. He worked at Hamilton Standard which contracted under NASA along with making toilets and plane propellers. It doesn't mean his work wasn't just a prop for astronauts.

And I wouldn't believe anything astronauts told me.

There. I saved you money, which is more than I can say of the space cadets who routinely take billions from American taxpayers hoping to save for their children.

Quote
In the meantime, while you are deciding, if you haven't already done so, do yourself a favor and watch the documentary movie, "Apollo 11", and the documentary series, "From the Earth to the moon".
Should I also watch Williamsburg: Story of a Patriot? I'd get about as indoctrinated from that.

I exercise that brain of mine by debating you. Even though it seems like you guys never learn anything, as we always have the same stupid arguments.

Here's your education.


I was being polite when referring to you flat Earth drubes. If I spelled the word correctly, I would have spelled it, "whoreds".

So  you're argument is NASA built rocket ships capable of going to the moon but they didn't bother actually sending anybody to the moon in them? Same with spacesuits your grandfather helped make?  You also think you will get indoctrinated from raw footage of the Apollo 11 launch and a series which details how man actually did get to the moon. If your grandfather could read what you typed about him building spacesuit props, he would roll over in his grave. You are an utter disgrace to your ancestors.

Go and check yourself into a mental health facility, because you are clinically insane. You are equipped in life to be nothing more than a professional stamp licker. I was going to say paperclip counter, but that would require you being able to actually count.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The model is all that matters...
« on: March 07, 2024, 06:46:20 PM »
Bullet trajectories is small fry. Let's go for the big prize: long range artillery ballistics.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2029817#msg2029817 (introduction)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2032069#msg2032069 (FE and RE formulas)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2106204#msg2106204 (conclusions)

I am the only FE who has ever dared to address the long distance artillery topic, no one else had been able to explain this within FET.

Big fry for you would be explaining the mechanism behind the gravitational attraction between a drop of ocean water and a planetary iron core. (With diagrams) Your gravitons creating wormholes which suck in aether, explains nothing, pal.

I've noticed keeping explanations simple is not in your repertoire, is it, sandykhun? You really are an expert flat earther at attempting to waste the scientific reader's time by causing a ton of reading just to understand what the fuck you are attempting to argue. I tip my hat to you.

Confucius say, woman who fall asleep on beach will wake up with a sandokhan. What a lucky woman, ey? Just like anyone who wakes up to find one of your word salad riddles - an irritation likely to cause an unpleasant rash.


23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The model is all that matters...
« on: March 05, 2024, 08:46:52 PM »
Quote
"The mechanism of attractive gravity is all matter is attracted to all matter?"

Only someone who has inherited the IQ of an ape would write something like that.

How do you know gravity is attractive, if you have no mechanism for it? All you have is a worthless hypothesis. Have you fucking lost your mind to declare that gravity is attractive with no proof behind your statement?

Here is your best chance to win the entire dispute: simply explain the attractive mechanism. Use any reference you need. Let me help you: how is a molecule of water from say Lake Ontario being attracted by the iron/nickel core? That molecule of water is emitting gravitons (notwithstanding you also have to explain the stability of such particles for the interval of five billion years), and so are the atoms of Fe/Ni. Provide a mechanism for your desired attractive gravitational setting. If you cannot, it means you are trolling this forum.

I know gravity is attractive (Not in the same way Scarlet Johanson is attractive) from observations and scientific experiments which continue to prove it is, between all matter. The mechanism behind that attraction is irrelevant to proving that attraction occurs. It's like you telling me my car can't drive because I can't explain the mechanisms that cause it to drive, after I turn the ignition key. It drives and I can prove it drives. I don't have a hope in hell in proving the mechanism behind that attraction, and clearly neither do you.

Excuse the pun, but which mechanism behind this attraction, do you yourself gravitate towards?

You don't really believe your statement, "Gravity is a wormhole in the centre of a right handed graviton which absorbs aether", do you? I mean, I didn't even know gravitons had two hands? Do they have feet as well? So, you're saying left handed gravitons don't have a wormhole in their centre which absorbs aether, but right handed gravitons do? Left handedness really does get a bum rap in life, doesn't it, even at the at the atomic level!

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The model is all that matters...
« on: March 05, 2024, 07:38:50 AM »
You are fucking required to explain the mechanism of attractive gravity, since it is your claim that gravity is attractive. You are saying that it is a fundamental force, but also that it is attractive.

You are dodging the most fundamental issue. Here is your golden opportunity to put to rest every FE belief on this forum: explain the mechanism of attractive gravity, which is required to justify your claim that four trillion billion liters of water adhere to the outer surface of a sphere.

Here is your last chance to do so. If you are unable to do so, have the honesty to explicitly say so. Then, your RE hypothesis belongs to the realm of pure magic.

Sandy, you play your role of an asswipe so well!! Lol! (Nobody takes Diapa seriously anyway.)

I don't really want to help the newb (DiapaOverFlow) but doesn't all he have to say is, "The mechanism of attractive gravity is all matter is attracted to all matter?"

Every FE belief on this forum is now dead. Nice meeting you. Time we all went home.

If you want an explanation of how all matter is attracted to all matter, ask your God. It's a law of the universe, or at least in our part of the universe.

25
Quote
That's how I don't need to be an expert to know the moon landings happened.

In other words, you could be completely wrong on all counts, but hey! Why worry about that? You don't really need science or the ability to be right! Just having someone tell you something is enough to know!

Quote
I know it would be impossible to fake all that.

On the contrary. The Apollo moon landing was July 20 (my brithday!) 1969.


By this point, despite still not having CGI, they were able to make convincing backgrounds and effects 10 years earlier in Ben Hur and Ten Commandments. If they can convince you that a matte painting and some model ships are real galleys, and that Ben Hur is actually riding a chariot, they can basically show you anything. Especially a moon landing, with government funds and a discretely hired film studio.


Oh, and fun fact! The ship actually sinks twice in Ben Hur.
http://www.wizardofmgm.com/2016/12/ben-hur-1959-miniature-ships.html

You're only a few years older than me.

Could I be completely wrong about the sky being colored blue in the daytime? Could I be completely wrong about me living in Australia? Could I be completely wrong about my gender?

How about we gather up the flat earther hoards from this site, and I'll join you all, and we'll spend a whole week touring the Kennedy Space Centre? Then you can tell me to my face as we are looking at actual rocket ships, moon rocks, space suits, talking to actual astronauts, etc., how it is all props and actors in an elaborate hollywood studio.

In the meantime, while you are deciding, if you haven't already done so, do yourself a favor and watch the documentary movie, "Apollo 11", and the documentary series, "From the Earth to the moon".

Make an attempt to understand the science, Bulma, and exercise that brain of yours for once, instead of always just your fingertips on your keyboard.

26
So curvature only blocks their bottoms, not the rest of them?

If it blocks the bottom at some distance away, it would block the rest, upward, until not seen at all, right?

Where is the rest of them being blocked out, or just the bottom parts?

In fact, that would show if it IS blocked by a curve or not, if it blocks the rest of it seen further away from them, would it not?

It doesn’t block the rest of them, does it? It doesn’t block the bottoms, or block anything.

Show me a high rise blocked from the bottom up, until it’s completely blocked from sight.

I’m sure you can show me that, can’t you?

Go ahead then

You really are a flattard aren't you?

You think there are no videos out there taken from a person at the back of a boat or ship, filming the city they just left port from, and around 5m to 10km out to sea, recording that city skyline disappearing from the bottom up?

Hire a boat and film the city skyline disappearing from the bottom up, yourself, or find some lousy videos of others doing it.

Tell me something Turbonium. What kind of an absolute moron would think the average man on the street can't easily prove Earth curvature?

27
Thr stupidity on display here by a number of flat earthers is simply mindboggling.

They seem to think mankind only landed on the moon once and totally ignore the fact mankind landed on the moon seven (7) times. Each time, the astronauts saw and filmed the globe earth from the moon. Twelve (12) people have walked on the surface of the moon.

I agree. If the reality of earth being in space is superfluous to your life, then concentrate on your immediate environment life and don't even think or worry about the shape of the planet. Nobody else needs to know. Keep it to yourself. But know that if your self radicalisation is not held in check and you feel you must argue the shape of the entire world, know that you will have your ass handed to you.
Humans also landed on an asteroid the size of Texas.
In total 14 were to land but ended up trying to land 15 with one cosmonaut picked up from the devastated Russian space station.
Only 10 landed on the asteroid alive.
2 shuttles were sent up but only one made it because the other crashed.
I'm sort of an expert on this so I know it happened, just like you're an expert and know the moon landings happened, right?

Lol! I see what you did there. Proclaiming yourself an expert on an event that never happened and comparing that to me mentioning the moon landings.

I never said I was an expert on the moon landings, but what in your opinion would qualify me being an expert on the moon landings? Do I need to be an expert in the moon landings to accept they happened or mention they happened?

I don't think I need to be an expert on the moon landings to know they happened, at all. I know I can find all the information I want at any time on each of those moon landings. I can physically go and see the actual moon rocks they brought back to Earth. I can physically attend the Kennedy Space Centre if I want to and see first hand, the lunar modules, rovers, space suits, - pretty much most of what went to the moon and returned.

I know it would be impossible to fake all that. That's how I know it happened. In fact, it would be harder to fake it all, than to just go to the moon.

That's how I don't need to be an expert to know the moon landings happened.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are Experts so feared?
« on: February 28, 2024, 04:51:31 AM »
Okay, I merged the threads. With MAGIC.

But, why little one? They were three distinct debates.

29
Thr stupidity on display here by a number of flat earthers is simply mindboggling.

They seem to think mankind only landed on the moon once and totally ignore the fact mankind landed on the moon seven (7) times. Each time, the astronauts saw and filmed the globe earth from the moon. Twelve (12) people have walked on the surface of the moon.

I agree. If the reality of earth being in space is superfluous to your life, then concentrate on your immediate environment life and don't even think or worry about the shape of the planet. Nobody else needs to know. Keep it to yourself. But know that if your self radicalisation is not held in check and you feel you must argue the shape of the entire world, know that you will have your ass handed to you.

30
Thank-you bulmabriefs, for finally sharing with us some of the flat earth cool aid you've been drinking all this time. Phuket word? Phuket word??

Everything this guy says, is exactly like the name of his channel suggests. Every word he says is "phuket". It is really, really phuket! (Just like his hairstyle :))

I mean, you take your cues in life from a wanker like that? He used a dvd to represent the sun shrinking in size! What is he? Is he some kind of a monk? I'll bet you dress exactly like he does, in your best Hawaiian shirt from the 1990's, and neck beads.

Find yourself a world globe, Bulma, which will have printed on it, it's scale compared to the real world. Find that scale, because you will need it. Then, pull out your measuring tape, your calculator, and your geometry formulas, and start testing things.

Everything will work just perfectly.

Bulmabriefs, you wouldn't happen to live in Phuket by any chance, would you?

Phuket word recognises we each live in two separate worlds. Our seen immediate experience of the environment world and the greater entire world which is unseen. His mistake shared by all flat earthers is in thinking he can magically extend his immediate experience of the environment world to the entire world. He fails, but ten points for him trying.






Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 69