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 - kopfverderber

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
1
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Name one, please...
« on: September 20, 2019, 04:14:10 PM »
If water is so easy to mimic, why don't you explain how it's done.

To be fair, algorithms for simulating water have gotten much better over the years.  Here's something from 2002:


Simulating a bubble of water is probably trivial these days. But in the NASA videos you also see the face of the astronaut and the background through the bubble. The water bubble is like a lens deforming the face of the astronaut in different ways as the shape and position of the bubble changes. I'm not sure if that can be done so perfectly with CGI, those  water bubble videos from the ISS are pretty amazing.


2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Questions from and airline pilot
« on: September 20, 2019, 01:20:22 PM »
And no commercial flight crosses directly over the south pole, but that doesn't bother you.

You are correct and this is why. In a globe, the closest distance between two points (cities) is call Great Circle distance and if you try to link any city pair on a globe you will realize that none of this GC distance lines will cross over the south pole or even over Antartica.

You can play and probe this by yourself on this website.

http://www.gcmap.com/

I'm not flat earther. I was just exposing how the same arguments some flat earthers use to deny the north pole can be used for denying the south pole and viceversa.

South pole denial is more common though.

3
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Name one, please...
« on: September 20, 2019, 09:47:19 AM »
Just a question for all the NASA believers...

Name one particular difference between the scenes of astronauts on the ISS produced by NASA and those scenes of Simon Helberg (playing Howard Wolowitz) on the ISS, produced by Chuck Lorre (The Big Bang Theory).

Water:


Some of the best CGI movie portrayals of water were depicted in the X-Men movies where Quicksilver took on prison guards and rescued mutants from the Xavier mansion.

Water, while absent from the TBBT, isn't that hard to mimic for show...

Could you share the video so that we can compare? Making some floating balls is not difficult. Making it move while refracting and lensing as in the ISS video is another thing.

4
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Name one, please...
« on: September 20, 2019, 09:39:52 AM »
Just a question for all the NASA believers...

Name one particular difference between the scenes of astronauts on the ISS produced by NASA and those scenes of Simon Helberg (playing Howard Wolowitz) on the ISS, produced by Chuck Lorre (The Big Bang Theory).

If you can't see the difference, it's because you are either not paying attention or don't want to see it.

Winner of the best reply so far!!!

[/sarcasm]

You missed half of the answer and the video. I guess you weren't paying attention or you didn't want to see it:

Many real ISS videos are far too long to be filmed in the vomit comet and astronauts move around far too much to be using cables.

There is just no way to fake a weightlessness with astronauts moving around for several minutes in a single take.



5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Questions from and airline pilot
« on: September 20, 2019, 01:42:51 AM »
Intense solar activity? Is it a made up excuse? Flights never be influenced by solar activity. Fog or ash might cancel a flight, but solar activity? No way.

There is difference between "crossing the north pole" and "flying along the surrounding of north rim" which is an inefficient and ridiculous attempt.

And no commercial flight crosses directly over the south pole, but that doesn't bother you.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: behavior of gravity
« on: September 20, 2019, 01:19:37 AM »
The orbits of celestial bodies follow the tracks above the dome like a perfect clock mechanism.
Some flat earthers (like Sandokhan) believe that the other plants are tiny, only a few dozen or hundred kilometers across.  I guess they'd have to be tiny to fit inside the dome.  This also makes them very close.  Do you also believe that the the celestial bodies are close to us, only slightly further than the clouds?

If so, why aren't your asserted tracks visible?  Surely someone with a telescope should be able to see them, either during the day or night or twilight, right?

To me the real north star and the surrounding stars are extremely far away otherwise they could not form specific reflections as seen on the northern hemiplane.

My hypothesis is, the track is not visible because it is made of some thing transparent as much as the dome is.

If we cannot see certain architectural celestial bodies, we can indicate their existences by the impacts in astronomical occurrences.

High leveled refractrion of sunlight needs a solid transparent body, more than mere air and gas.

I don't  think the tracks on the dome theory is even remotely feasible.

In the heliocentric model planets orbit the sun in elliptical orbits.
In the geocentric model planets orbit the earth in some kind of flower-shaped orbits.
In the flat earth model planets cross the sky every day in circles.

If planets are using tracks on the dome, then they must be using a different track every day, as the planet's path on the sky as seen from any given location on earth will vary slightly from day to day.

There is also the problem of planet transits and occulations. Inferior planets do transit the sun, superior planets never do. Planets never transit the moon. Moon and Sun can both occultate planets.

That would indicate:
- The moon is always lower than planets
- The sun is sometimes higher  and sometimes lower than inferior planets. This can be also confirmed by planetary phases of Venus and Mercury, which are also a difficult topic for FE.
- Superior planets are higher than the sun

That would mean the sun and the moon must be able to travel below planet tracks. How does that happen if the tracks are on the dome? It doesn't make any sense unless sun and moon are inside the dome. But the sun is also sometimes higher than Mercury and Venus, which would mean the sun is higher than the dome. It doesn't make any sense.

Other planets have their own moons as well, which from our perspective can be seen transiting the planet, adding further complexity to your model.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« on: September 19, 2019, 05:36:38 AM »
For scientific athmoplane, the words "no explanation" sounds bad.
It's better to state "the explanation is not available yet"

Ok thanks, I updated the poll.

8
Flat Earth General / Re: Why are round earth maps so perfectly accurate?
« on: September 19, 2019, 05:17:44 AM »
Ankara to Istanbul trip by land & by air.
What makes you think the data makes sense?

I don't know what is the problem with the flights between Istanbul and Ankara. I can say I have done the trip by car and found nothing strange.

However the topic is maps, not flights. RE maps are publicly available in sites  like Google Maps. You can zoom in and out, find any address and calculate duration of trips and distance between two points.

Turkey has a population of 80 million and millions of tourists visit Turkey each year. All these people use RE maps to navigate and find places without problems. It doesn't look like there are any glaring problems with the map of Turkey.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« on: September 19, 2019, 04:56:45 AM »
I pick option 5: no explanation. Better admit that you don't know than invent something that doesn't make any sense.

It would be awesome and probably impossible for you to explain what you are insinuating.

I'm saying none of FE theories I know seems to make sense or be consistent with facts, therefore  saying that "things just fall" is the most reasonable answer, at least in my opinion as RE person.

However if I still had to pick one from the list, I'd say UA is the most clever and elaborated, while the density theory is the easiest to disprove and the worst.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« on: September 19, 2019, 04:47:11 AM »
Gravity by RE... does it make sense?
Be honest, it doesn't make sense, right?

Gravity by Newton or by Einstein are not an option in the poll, this thread is only about FE theories. RE is offtopic.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« on: September 19, 2019, 01:44:36 AM »
I pick option 5: no explanation. Better admit that you don't know than invent something that doesn't make any sense.

12
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Name one, please...
« on: September 17, 2019, 06:26:13 AM »
Just a question for all the NASA believers...

Name one particular difference between the scenes of astronauts on the ISS produced by NASA and those scenes of Simon Helberg (playing Howard Wolowitz) on the ISS, produced by Chuck Lorre (The Big Bang Theory).

If you can't see the difference, it's because you are either not paying attention or don't want to see it.

Many real ISS videos are far too long to be filmed in the vomit comet and astronauts move around far too much to be using cables.

There is just no way to fake a weightlessness with astronauts moving around for several minutes in a single take.


13
Flat Earth General / Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« on: September 17, 2019, 01:52:14 AM »

14
Flat Earth General / Re: Lunar eclipses
« on: September 16, 2019, 05:55:14 AM »
There are some explanations in the Tfes wiki about the so called Shadow Object:

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse

Quote
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.

This satellite is called the Shadow Object or Antimoon. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned.

Of course this shadow object has never been seen or detected outside of lunar eclipses, it just happens to be there when needed.

This explanation seems to be at odds with another common FE belief, that the moon has its own light. 

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Logical error of heaven&hell
« on: September 16, 2019, 04:27:14 AM »
A loving father would never send his children to suffer eternal punishment in hell.

16
Flat Earth General / Re: The Equinox approaches.
« on: September 16, 2019, 02:25:01 AM »
Trying draw Greenwich meridian Meridan on the phew map I came up with this:



 ::) This map hast to be a joke.

17
Flat Earth General / Re: The Equinox approaches.
« on: September 16, 2019, 01:28:44 AM »
To Rabinoz, Markjo etc.

If everybody sees the sunrise due east, it's because of the dome's refraction.

And if there are places with the same longitudes experience delay of the sun's supposedly position, it's because grids created by the sun is curved, not vertical.

This diagram can describe how sunrise time is not uniform on places with the same longitude.

You can also see how a places with lesser latitude can see the sunrise earlier than certain places with higher latitude than the previous place.



However, to make the diagram better presented, I'd like to ask you about  the NORTH. How do you define the NORTH? Is it identical with the direction of Polaris?
Also what is SOUTH?

According to your drawing days should be much longer in the southern hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere during the equinox, which isn't the case.

18
Flat Earth General / Re: The Equinox approaches.
« on: September 16, 2019, 12:32:18 AM »
Quote from: rabinoz
at equinox the day-night terminator would simply divide the Ice-Wall map with a straight line as in:

Quote from: rabinoz
No one with any knowledge of the topic would claim that "The sun will rise from due east on this day for all locations on earth" or that "the earth will experience exactly equal times of day and night".

Okay. We will discredit and discard your input on this topic.

I'm not sure what the big mystery is. The FE sun simply doesn't appear even remotely as observed on Equinox from my location nor for anyone I know, anywhere. The FE sun isn't even in the ball park.



Is that what our Wikis and websites say about how the sun operates and what happens at equinox?

The FES wiki doesn't even try to provide a rational explanation for the equinox. Your constant deflection proves that FE has no explanation for the equinox.

How can the day/night terminator be a straight line? How can the sun rise due east and set due west from almost everywhere? You are not even trying to answer these questions.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: The Equinox approaches.
« on: September 14, 2019, 10:52:55 PM »
The day / night terminator is parallel to the latitude lines during the equinox.

On the FE map that would be a straight line across the FE disk. I wonder what arrangement of bendy lights and atmospheric banks causes this.

20
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Question addressed to the admin/mods
« on: September 14, 2019, 04:47:46 PM »
I have disagree with Sandokhan on on this one. I think Rab is one of the best posters in this forum. I generally agree with most things Rab says, but his answers to Sandokhan's nonsense are particularly top notch. I honestly find Sandokhan's post much more spammy and repetitive,  I lost count of how many times I had to read that Hermann Weyl was the best mathematician of his time or that someone was doing Einstein's home work, when I read this I just skip to the next post.

However I think there's a lack of FE vs FE debate in this forum, maybe something could be done about that.

21
Flat Earth General / Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« on: September 14, 2019, 04:19:55 PM »
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.

I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.

To be fair flat earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago and here you are.

Prove flat Earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago. What were the arguments and who was invovled and what was the date and who recorded the event? The words of the opposition donít carry any weight.

Flat earth was debunked by ancient greeks more than 2000 years ago, since then it has been all down hill for FE. For instance Aristotle made this deduction after observing different stars could be seen when travelling further south. Remember the earth has a south celestial pole and a north celestial pole? Well Aristotle was smart enough see the proof of spherical earth in the night sky, all by himself without using youtube, just watching the stars. Really smart people those ancient greeks. Have you ever observed and studied the stars Platt Terra? I mean the real sky, not in youtube.

22
Flat Earth General / Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« on: September 14, 2019, 02:48:03 PM »
The Gleasonís Map is ďScientifically and Practically Correct.Ē The following video proves this with verifying distance from one location to another and also verifies longitude and latitude. The video includes details on how to measure longitude, latitude and distance correctly according to the Gleasonís map.

The opposition have a big problem with our map being correct and they want it to be known as incorrect.  So, donít believe what the professional deniers say. It is their job to lie and discredit us and the Gleasonís map in any way they can.



That's great news for you. Can you now tell us the distance from SF to Boston using this method?

Why?

Because that was asked to you several times and you never answered the question?

23
Flat Earth General / Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« on: September 14, 2019, 02:28:10 PM »
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.

I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.

To be fair flat earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago and here you are.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« on: September 14, 2019, 02:24:27 PM »
The Gleasonís Map is ďScientifically and Practically Correct.Ē The following video proves this with verifying distance from one location to another and also verifies longitude and latitude. The video includes details on how to measure longitude, latitude and distance correctly according to the Gleasonís map.

The opposition have a big problem with our map being correct and they want it to be known as incorrect.  So, donít believe what the professional deniers say. It is their job to lie and discredit us and the Gleasonís map in any way they can.



That's great news for you. Can you now tell us the distance from SF to Boston using this method?

25
Flat Earth General / Re: What else do Flat-Earthers believe?
« on: September 13, 2019, 04:41:31 AM »
Yes it looks flat and it looks like the sun is hiding underground during the night.  Evidence for old flat earth wins.

26
Flat Earth General / Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« on: September 13, 2019, 02:06:39 AM »
It's amazing the Mason symbol actually represents a Flat Earth. That's one of the secrets found in the Gleason map. The thieves and their kind have been exposed.

Can you see it?



The Glenson map doesn't represent known distances accurately, this fact is very easily proven.


27
Flat Earth General / Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« on: September 13, 2019, 12:39:00 AM »

Einstein original equations apply only TO STATIC SITUATIONS.

They do not have A BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.

This is the reason why A. Gullstrand refused to give Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.

Einstein's equations cannot be applied to Mercury's perihelion, or lensing, or to the bending of light.

That might be a valid critic to Einstein GR. However non of the physicists critic with GR are proposing aether waves pressure as alternative to GR. GR is incomplete, some physicist claim GR is wrong, but that doesn't automatically lead to aether wave pressure.

Showing issues with GR is not enough. You also need to show how your aether waves pressure fits all the facts better than GR. The only way you can do this is denying all the facts that don't fit your theory, such as all space missions. That's why nobody takes your theories seriously, they are just pseudoscience. 

28
or admit that rockets do work in a vacuum?

The ring shaped exhaust rocket CANNOT function in pure vacuum (without even scalar waves, ether).

A proven fact.

I take that is proven by your Romanian book, is that the case? Or are there any documents on the subject outside of Romania?

Quote
There is no pure vacuum even right under the dome and right above it: you still have the ether waves travelling through the vacuum with no problems at all.

I wonder what experiments did you perform in order to arrive to this conclusion. Did you take a sample of the dome?

29
Flat Earth General / Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« on: September 12, 2019, 04:40:15 AM »
mountains of evidence

Completely wrong.

The spherical earth hypothesis is but the parturition of the mountain and the birth of the mouse.

And to prove your point to refer to authors investigating alternative methods of propulsion in space, wrap drives and interstellar travel. Good job.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11