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 - brathearon

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Flat Earth General / Re: More evidence for Flat Earth Theory
« on: June 09, 2010, 01:49:30 PM »
I love how you pathetic hipocrites always avoid the "It's as photoshopped/untrue as a NASA image" comment.


This is irrelevent. If you like, assume that it is photoshopped. Now tell me, does this 'photoshopped' image contain visible curvature or not? I say it doesn't.

it may not be clear that there is curvature, which is why he tested it with those two lines.  If there were no curvature, the lines would be parallel

2
Flat Earth General / Re: Round Earth from a Balloon
« on: June 08, 2010, 11:23:30 AM »
i saw levee's vids, and none of them showed anything regarding distance.  The only thing it showed is that ISS is closer to us than the sun.  

Since we have a rough idea at how big ISS is, we can tell how far away it is.  But we've never had the sun on earth, but based on the amount of heat we get from it, we should be able to calculate the closest ISS could be to the sun without melting.

3
Flat Earth General / Re: I can't believe this place really exists
« on: May 27, 2010, 02:05:17 PM »
crustinator, iirc wardog is a pilot

So? What does this have to do with the complete lack of lions in Africa?

if i could reply before the lions came up, i would have  :)

@OP, there are much more unbelieveable things you can find  :)

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« on: May 27, 2010, 02:03:56 PM »
its nearly impossible, if not useless, to experiment without a hypothesis.  Although it is possible, it rarely happens, and im not sure people would call those hypothesisless experiments.

would anyone here experiment to see if lets say, copper was a superconductor?  Well, thats a hypothesis right there.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: I can't believe this place really exists
« on: May 27, 2010, 01:39:43 PM »
crustinator, iirc wardog is a pilot

6
For a conspiracy that spans the entire earth, it's pretty sweet that only the United States has a flag there.

Perhaps our ice guards are in conflict with other nation's ice guards? Ultimate 'Capture the Flag' tournament?

*ahem*


is that the magnetic one?

7
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth: The Novel
« on: May 11, 2010, 01:12:41 PM »
if you want to make a round earth in a video game, you'd have to make it so large it wouldn't fit on the CD.  That or, make it contain mostly textureless land.  By mostly i mean more than 99%.  So basically, they wouldnt take so much time to make meanlingless content in a video game when they could just confine it to a small space

Flight Simulator X uses a round earth model. It fits nicely on one DVD.

it is rather small compared to earth and uses loops to give the impression that its round. It also lacks some detail outside of cities.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Submarine Navigation?
« on: May 11, 2010, 09:15:33 AM »
Deep Sea SONAR maps were made under the erroneous assumption that the earth is round.  As such, maps were created to conform to this fallacious model.  
Explain how the model is fallacious.

The earth is flat.


Also, for everyone calling foul with the reversible north/south parallel I drew, here is a link that will clear things up for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy


they are saying your analogy isnt right because it uses the same models, but different notation; not different models.

10
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth: The Novel
« on: May 11, 2010, 09:12:36 AM »
if you want to make a round earth in a video game, you'd have to make it so large it wouldn't fit on the CD.  That or, make it contain mostly textureless land.  By mostly i mean more than 99%.  So basically, they wouldnt take so much time to make meanlingless content in a video game when they could just confine it to a small space

11
Flat Earth General / Re: The "conspiracy proof"
« on: April 14, 2010, 01:40:03 PM »
The video regarding whether we could have gotten to the moon, ( and not died) due to Radiation - is a good point - but completely in vaild in terms of proof of a flat earth. It is based on the scientific knowledge we have of the sun, and the radiation belt, and general knowledge of Physics. If you are a flat earther, you could not claim the sun does such things - as they do not believe the sun is anything alike what it is claimed, nor do they believe that Physics works the way it is claimed to give evidence against AGAINST the possibility of these flights.

I am talking about this video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748&q=what+happened+on+the+moon&total=51&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0#



there is a lot of radiation yes, but the spaceship sent,and the spacesuits the astronauts are in, are more than capable of handling that radiation.

The video attempts to proove its not by saying that the ship couldnt possibly be enough to protect them from a high amount of gamma radiation.  Fortunately, that type of radiation is not contained in the belts, and the exposure they get from space is similar to what we get on earth.

12
Flat Earth General / The "conspiracy proof"
« on: April 14, 2010, 12:29:23 PM »
so, going through http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Conspiracy you would probably be convinced that there is a conspiracy right? /facepalm

http://blip.tv/file/3246084

so, lets take a look at that moonball that was "used for fake landings".  Notice the end videos of the real flight (or so they say it is). Notice the "string" that is somehow holding the object off its center of mass, or that other "strings" appear in the footage that seem to be there for no reason.  Notice the track that they claimed nasa used would not work to have that camera footage, the moonball is simply not large enough.

http://blip.tv/file/3246099

to someone who believes the conspiracy exists,  you could say that they did this.  however, to everyone else, you would say that the two surfaces have dont have many things in common.  One could make the argument that some earth surfaces look like moon surfaces, but that's nothing new.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748&q=what+happened+on+the+moon&total=51&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0#

this one is a little long and i havent gotten through all of it yet.

first thing though, a shuttle that can get as high as you can see at the speed seen, should be able to protect you from the radiation in the belts.  Also, since the radiation in the belts is mostly directional, the bottom of the shuttle should easily take care of that.  Same thing goes for the photography.  The photography can be protected by leaving it within the camera untill reaching earth.  Nobody in the missions took the photos out of the camera and look at it through the sun (that is direct radiation exposure as the other experimenter did in the video)

Also, When they attempt to say that the moon's surface is not reflective enough to light things, they show photos of rocks that are obviously uphill.  Then they show nasa's photos that were taken from concave surfaces, or downhill.  The moon's surface is simply not that uniform.

Ill get through the rest of the "proof" and post again later.  I've seen some of the mars ones and laughed to =)

13
Flat Earth General / Re: Apollo 13
« on: April 14, 2010, 12:04:57 PM »
i believe the astronauts who die in a space mission are people who had the potential of spilling the beans so to speak.  Or any other number of reasons.

Consult an FEr actually, dont listen to me, lol

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Digging a hole
« on: April 14, 2010, 11:42:21 AM »
You can't dig through molten hot magma.

ILL SHOW YOU!

someday  :)

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« on: April 14, 2010, 11:41:45 AM »
because nothing can be taken for granted or overlooked in order for a theory to have basis.
Then please stop claiming the moon can from the Earth when you have done none of your own experimentation.

regardless of if the moon came from the earth or not, its made of similar materials, so of course you can find something like the moon on earth.

16
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: profile should show FE or RE
« on: April 07, 2010, 08:57:23 AM »
profiles should have an FE or RE option.  

Also, an option to hide this.

A simple solution to your problem would be lurking moar. The way to implement this feature is by posting less and reading more. Try to read at least 10 threads for each new post you make. Eventually you will realize how useless this feature is.

kthxbye
Raist

check my join date, then check my posts.  i bet i have a higher read/post rate than you =P

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« on: April 06, 2010, 11:26:14 AM »
with a round Earth, scientists can explain the shape of the Earth using gravity and the geological history of the planet. 

I don't understand how a round Earth would form
I'm not sure how a round Earth could form either!

There are a few theories.  One idea is that bits of particles in space were attracted together by gravity.  As the ball got bigger, more particles were attracted and the Earth was formed in this way.  The Earth formed a globe because that is the equilibrium for the settling dust(the idea is similar to why when you blow bubbles, they form spheres, it's the most stable shape). 

Another theory suggests that the Earth was molten and spun off from the sun, once again settling as a sphere in equilibrium
Dang.  If only you guys could get it down to 1 theory instead of a million different ones to fit each explanation.

You first.
Heh.  That was fairly tongue in cheek =-).

Anyways, seriously,  some flat earth models hold that the earth didn't form and always existed.

If the Earth had always existed, then it would be infinitely old.  If the Earth were infinitely old, evolution would have given us perfect organisms.  It's based on an idea in probability that if have a roomful of monkeys bang away at keyboards for an infinite amount of time, they would eventually produce Hamlet.  But so far, evolution has only given us a rough draft of the first couple acts. 
A perfect organism will never exist.

That's only because you're not thinking in terms of infinity.   Let's assume that a perfect organism cannot exist, but a better one always can.  If there is a better organism than humans, longer evolution would have given us that.  Now consider that new organism.  If there is a better organism than that, longer evolution would have given us that.  Since the Earth is infinitely old, we can keep adding time to evolution and creating better and better organisms indefinitely.  This is the nature of infinity.  This is why it almost never crops up in nature.  It creates too many logical paradoxes when something is considered infinite in size or age.  That's why we have a hard time understanding black holes.  We aren't sure what it actually means to have an object with infinite density like the singularity in a blackhole.

evolution doesnt make organisms better.

18
Suggestions & Concerns / profile should show FE or RE
« on: April 06, 2010, 11:20:55 AM »
profiles should have an FE or RE option. 

Also, an option to hide this.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Terminator of the Moon
« on: April 06, 2010, 09:21:35 AM »
a few posts above has an explanation for the phases of the moon.  I havent thought of a cheap inexpensive way to proove or disproove it

20
As much as this argument is actually rather a good question, games dont take into account curvature for a round planet generally because its just a detail, why have it curved as it does actually take more work then needed to add a pointless detail, and adding more coding into a program could just cause more bugs later on when they update or change said game causing problems with the said coding.

World of Warcraft for example is a VERY large mapped game with multiple zones that makes the planet wide and large, including three continents so far on the world of -azeroth- as its called, they dont add curvature in the distance because the zones eventually end out at sea or the ocean. However its widely known the planet in World of Warcraft is spherical from multiple models of the planet actually inside the game including in the dungeons and in other areas where actual globes of the planet are found. The reason they dont add curvature is because the length of the planet must eventually end in the game and cant continuously sphere around itself.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
That would be a simulation of the fabric of space-time bending back upon itself.
I lol'd, I just had to say that.  :P


and yet, world of warcraft is still very tiny compared to the real size of the earth.

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What causes Gravity?
« on: March 28, 2010, 02:44:53 AM »
ya know, you make it seem like your saying Jesus causes gravity

22
HA HA love the photo anteater.....nice bit of photoshop! Still a bit mystified as to why I've never seen it on my ocean mapping travels though. And what's over the top of it again....where is the point where man can go no more, does anyone have a photo of that?

could just be a piece of a glacier

23
Flat Earth General / Re: Just discovered this forum
« on: March 25, 2010, 03:55:45 PM »
If the Earth is flat what is under it? Why hasn't anyone gone underneath and taken photo's?

That's an interesting question... I know people have dug down into the earth very deeply and it's hot down there, but nobody has dug right the way through to the other side (round earth theory says you'd come out in australia..)
I live in New Zealand. If I dig directly down, I won't come out in Australia.

what if you get turned on your way out? =)

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Has anyone been converted?
« on: March 25, 2010, 03:52:37 PM »
I'm not 100% but I'm leaning more on the flat earth side of things now  :)

this site has not changed my view of the round earth =)

25
i think one response you should expect is

why dont you sail around the world in all directions and prove the world is round.  Or fund your own satellite  to do so, etc.

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Theories
« on: March 25, 2010, 10:03:44 AM »
except, there is someone on this forum that did the experiment and got very different results

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.0


and there is something wrong with just about every single video in that second link showing nasa is "untrustworthy"

for example, it shows that changing color to a higher contrast makes it a lower contrast.... how does that make sense? 

Or, that holding an object on its edge wont make it hang from its center of mass, that doesnt make sense either, lol


27
Flat Earth General / Re: More konspirasee?
« on: March 25, 2010, 08:36:08 AM »
where did that come from jim?


It's a Dylan Moran quote.

Haha another fan  ;D

oh, i thought he was serious, lol

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is Evidence?
« on: March 24, 2010, 10:30:09 AM »
unfortunately, much like any theory, evidence will not destroy their theory, only modify it to accommodate new observations.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: Occam's Razor
« on: March 24, 2010, 10:23:54 AM »
they dont understand the concept of acceleration

For example, have you ever been in a car accelerating at 9.8m/s2?

imagine being hit by one such car, it probably wouldnt do anything unless you wated a long time, which you could do by being a long distance away.  Similar to the FE model of the earth, of "falling" down from a long height, you definitely will feel the impact of sudden change in motion.  On the FE earth, as long as you are on it, you are moving the same speed UNTILL you lose contact. 

Of course, this would not apply to the RE earth because gravity is the explanation used, and not a constantly accelerating plane.

30
Flat Earth General / Re: More konspirasee?
« on: March 24, 2010, 10:11:41 AM »
where did that come from jim?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6