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 - Fizzy Logic

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Breaking news: Satellites do exist !!!
« on: August 22, 2013, 01:34:13 AM »
They are simply wrong.

No, they are not. They sometimes make mistakes, but nothing in their work disprove a round Earth.

It would be nice if you could offer some evidence or something that would help make your statement credible.

Why didn't you start with providing evidence?

Everything, apart from a book, a website with people who wouldn't reconize their arse at night and quite a handfull of zealous bigots points to a round Earth. I mean everything. Scientists to start with. People with methodology and logic. People who don't say "Duh, this video is faked because (insert there silly arguments).

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Weightlessness" and faked video evidence
« on: August 21, 2013, 03:12:17 AM »
FEers are also asuming that because the videos can be faked (that's what they say, and they don't try to prove it either), they are (which they don't prove as well).

This double asumption means that we cannot take their saying seriously.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sceptimatics theory
« on: August 20, 2013, 11:46:54 AM »
The big problem is that low pressure causes expansion while high pressure causes condensation (not water droplets but a condensing of matter).  Condensed matter is a solid while expanded matter is a gas,  in simplified terms.  Of course the state of matter is also determined by its temperature, so it's really the temperature that seems to cause the gases to solidify, though how they instantly freeze from a gaseous state is beyond me.  One would expect a very cold hydrogen rain before any hopes of every getting a naturally forming hydrogen ice dome.
The lightest elements freeze because they are at the very top, the lightest and last element from the densely packed ones at the bottom of earth.
Just as diamond becomes a crystal by super pressure, the opposite happens at the top against zero pressure, with the very lightest element also having zero pressure. It is in it's completely fully expanded state.
Everything else under it, is under pressure in various strengths, all the way to the bottom. Pile on pile on pile.
Can you answer why it wouldn't liquify first and fall through the gaseous form of the element?  Why does it instead flash freeze?  A lot of gases liquify long before becoming solid.
Under huge pressure Hydrogen turns to liquid so it's hardly going to be liquid up in the sky, is it?

And under very low temperatures? What do you think (since you don't read)?

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Breaking news: Satellites do exist !!!
« on: August 20, 2013, 11:45:05 AM »
They are simply wrong.

No, they are not. They sometimes make mistakes, but nothing in their work disprove a round Earth.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sceptimatics theory
« on: August 20, 2013, 11:37:31 AM »
That's very lame ( and very lazy from you). Why don't yoy do some reading about the experiments performed in order to measure the speed of light?
That's very lame of you, asking me to read up from mainstream books that I do not trust. We are just organisms living with many others in this cell of earth. Our eyes enable us to do the basics of viewing our environment.
The brain of man, has become ultra arrogant and took on a fantasy story telling stance to gain the upper hand against those of us who chose to sit and listen. Those story telling speeches have been put into print, so, no..I don't think I'll be looking it up.

You don't want to read books about science!?

You perfer to rely solely on your biased senses?

6
The Lounge / Re: Hello from France
« on: August 20, 2013, 07:21:06 AM »
Acually I live in Normandie (check Omaha Beach, thanks for saving us you Yankees and Brits), but can't see England coasts
You would need to live on a flat Earth in order to do that.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sceptimatics theory
« on: August 20, 2013, 07:05:33 AM »
That's very lame ( and very lazy from you). Why don't yoy do some reading about the experiments performed in order to measure the speed of light?

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problem with supported FE map
« on: August 20, 2013, 07:01:37 AM »
Give me monies and I will make a proper map.  To date, there is no official FE map.

Draw at least something to start with!

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun's Function
« on: July 01, 2013, 04:54:22 AM »
He does that for eveyone and on every subject. This guy is the best asset of RET.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight
« on: July 01, 2013, 04:36:24 AM »
Still nothing to back your claims?

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun's Function
« on: July 01, 2013, 04:34:32 AM »
Not before you give me proper explainations.

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun's Function
« on: July 01, 2013, 04:32:16 AM »
The sun isn't nuclear fusion.
The sun is inside the ice dome of earth and is powered by hydrogen which is constantly sent into the higher atmosphere.

Have you got any sources? Have you done any experiments? Have you a working theory?
Not for peanut heads like you I don't.

Not for anyone either...

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight
« on: July 01, 2013, 04:31:18 AM »
Still avoiding the answer.
You have some personal views of how rocket work. Fine enough. Please give some estimate of the reached maximum speed, and the corresponding altitude. Or if you want, give somme idea of the speed increase, if any, when climbing.

Why are you avoding this simple question ?
You are a round earth nut, so I don't play by your rules.
My belief of the earth's shape is irrelevant here.
Is it possible to discard personal attacks ?
Lets try again.
You give some out of the box explanations about rocket science. Please give some factual elements other than "I'm 100% correct", or "believe me" to backup you claims. No indoctrinated science here, just simple and verifiable arguments

You may start with an approximation of the speed of a rocket, along his path.
I suggest you read this thread in its entirety before you go any further.
Already done, and I'm afraid, there are no such elements
Care to asnswer now (7th attempt) ?
When you understand how rockets work, I'll converse with you.
To understand how you say rockets work, I'm afraid, I need some real life elements, not just your words. Remember "don't accept anything without questioning it" ?
I'm questioning it.
Care to answer now ?
When you understand how rockets work , we can talk.

Wrong. YOU don't have a clue.
See you later pea brain.
I see that that you haven't got any science to bring to the debate.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight
« on: July 01, 2013, 04:20:31 AM »
Still avoiding the answer.
You have some personal views of how rocket work. Fine enough. Please give some estimate of the reached maximum speed, and the corresponding altitude. Or if you want, give somme idea of the speed increase, if any, when climbing.

Why are you avoding this simple question ?
You are a round earth nut, so I don't play by your rules.
My belief of the earth's shape is irrelevant here.
Is it possible to discard personal attacks ?
Lets try again.
You give some out of the box explanations about rocket science. Please give some factual elements other than "I'm 100% correct", or "believe me" to backup you claims. No indoctrinated science here, just simple and verifiable arguments

You may start with an approximation of the speed of a rocket, along his path.
I suggest you read this thread in its entirety before you go any further.
Already done, and I'm afraid, there are no such elements
Care to asnswer now (7th attempt) ?
When you understand how rockets work, I'll converse with you.
To understand how you say rockets work, I'm afraid, I need some real life elements, not just your words. Remember "don't accept anything without questioning it" ?
I'm questioning it.
Care to answer now ?
When you understand how rockets work , we can talk.

Wrong. YOU don't have a clue.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight
« on: July 01, 2013, 04:08:06 AM »
Still avoiding the answer.
You have some personal views of how rocket work. Fine enough. Please give some estimate of the reached maximum speed, and the corresponding altitude. Or if you want, give somme idea of the speed increase, if any, when climbing.

Why are you avoding this simple question ?
You are a round earth nut, so I don't play by your rules.
My belief of the earth's shape is irrelevant here.
Is it possible to discard personal attacks ?
Lets try again.
You give some out of the box explanations about rocket science. Please give some factual elements other than "I'm 100% correct", or "believe me" to backup you claims. No indoctrinated science here, just simple and verifiable arguments

You may start with an approximation of the speed of a rocket, along his path.
I suggest you read this thread in its entirety before you go any further.
Already done, and I'm afraid, there are no such elements
Care to asnswer now (7th attempt) ?
When you understand how rockets work, I'll converse with you.

...says Stupid.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun's Function
« on: July 01, 2013, 04:07:17 AM »
The sun isn't nuclear fusion.
The sun is inside the ice dome of earth and is powered by hydrogen which is constantly sent into the higher atmosphere.

Have you got any sources? Have you done any experiments? Have you a working theory?

17
Not treacherous enough to hide an "icewall".

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain retrograde loop
« on: June 18, 2013, 04:16:45 PM »
Yet again, if the sun revolves around the earth, there is no explaination of the retrograde movement of the planet. In FET, there's only one expression, celestial gears, no explaination.

19
That's against basic laws of physics. But then, UA is so bizarre, so unexplained...

20
Flat Earth General / Re: New theory
« on: June 18, 2013, 04:08:19 PM »
That's your idea of an evidence!?

Beliefs of ancient indians?

21
Flat Earth General / Re: Infinite earth as infinite disks
« on: June 17, 2013, 03:20:54 PM »
I think FES's problem is septimatic, because:
- he doesn't understand
- he doesn't read
- he doesn't work
- he doesn't do experiments

Etc.

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FIXED STARS - end of heliocentric
« on: June 17, 2013, 02:48:49 PM »
FET never proved they were as close as you say they are.

23
Flat Earth General / Re: Turns out the Earth really is flat*
« on: June 11, 2013, 03:28:43 PM »
'Round earth' is more true than 'flat earth.'
'Fire is the result of combustion' is more true than 'it is magic.'

Is there any substance to this thread?

Flatsies try to make this bad argument all the time, saying that because "Round Earth theory" (meaning actual science basically) does not have all the answers, and neither does FET, therefore FET is just as valid as RET. So I thought I'd make a thread to address it. So far no FE'rs have responded. I was hoping to hear some reasons why FET should be taken seriously other than "RET is wrong".

FET is only a couple of websites, some outdated books and millions of unanswered questions and flawed demonstration. It' nowhere a theory.

RET might be flawed, but it's by a million miles working better than FET?

Tere's nos such thing as 2 theories as valid as each other.

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Lunar Eclipse curvature
« on: June 11, 2013, 03:18:13 PM »
There is no antimoon for at leat two  very simple reasons: how could it obscure the moon or the sun and not the stars and remain completely undetected?

25
I generally believe some sort of big-bang event kicked off the creation of the universe as we know it.

How did a big bang create a flatdisc?

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Where does the FET map come from?
« on: June 06, 2013, 10:08:09 AM »
I thing he should pursuit this idea, it's the only one which settlesnthe question on FET maps for good.

27
Flat Earth General / Re: My "hypothesis" of what gravity could be.
« on: June 06, 2013, 10:06:50 AM »
High speed cameras? Special chronometers?

28
Flat Earth General / Re: My "hypothesis" of what gravity could be.
« on: June 06, 2013, 10:00:58 AM »
This is what I was thinking about.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: My "hypothesis" of what gravity could be.
« on: June 06, 2013, 09:58:52 AM »
Or you could try to devise an experiment where the resistance of the air would be negligeable.
Only a vacuum and accurate measurements of items hitting the floor would really, only suffice.

Even an imperfect experiment could clear things to you'

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight
« on: June 06, 2013, 09:57:31 AM »
Why don't you join arocketry club an learn something?
It would be pretty pointless if they are all relying on bogus science wouldn't it.
It would be ok just to go and watch them fly rockets though, even though they are misinformed as to how they really work.

You could see their experimentation, your could see if their calculations are accurate, you could have some information, you could confront your ideas...
What experimentation is that?

Sending rockets high in the atmosphere? May be into space?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4