1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Pangea and FE Theory?

« on: May 06, 2011, 08:23:45 PM »

Responding to you point by point is futile. I must say, you are a surprisingly effective troll. Well, I hope you're a troll. If you really believe this stuff, then I feel sorry for you. It must be such a strange way to live.

I was hoping to post on this forum and have real debates with serious people. If you're going to treat this forum like your own personal playground for aggravating honest people, I don't need to be a part of it anymore.

No, I am not retreating. You have done nothing to demonstrate the flatness of earth or to support any other theory. The few times you post evidence it is of a satirical, ironic, wordtwisting, pedantic sort. Never the kind of thing that would simply put your opposition to rest. Every move you make is clearly calculated to illicit a (normally hostile) reaction from the other side.

I'm tired of it, and I am going to spend my time on other things.

Have a good life James, I hope you find happiness, regardless of your method!

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Pangea and FE Theory?

« on: May 06, 2011, 07:57:24 PM »

Dinosaurs did not go extinct, they evolved into birds (modern dinosaurs).  It is not my fault if the general public do not know what a dinosaur is.

Yes they did. Nearly all species of dinosaur went extinct in the Cretaceous period. Only a few species survived the extinction event, including the ancestors of modern day birds. Aside from birds there were over 500 distinct genera and over 1,000 different species of non-avian (not a bird!) dinosaurs. Almost none of them survived the extinction event.

Here is another video clip from the same series in which a dinosaur uses tools for farming insects.  As if building a sex house wasn't enough.

Well, you got me there. I did not know that birds used tools. This is still a far cry from building ocean-faring rafts/boats though. And considering the birds are the longest lived and highly evolved group of dinosaurs, I don't think it would be reasonable to claim that ancient dinosaurs could travel across oceans. Especially when no evidence exists to support that claim.

Racists often try to use biological and historical evidence to back up their horrible arguments.  You will not win me over to your hate with this sort of argument, however.

You know who else uses biological and historical evidence? Everyone else. You forgot paleontological and archeological by the way.

You did not, in fact, ask for proof that we were geologists.  However, I think you will find that the definition of a geologist is that they study the shape of the Earth.  If you need evidence of that, you can look on the rest of this website, because we have all made lots of posts showing that we have been studying that.

...

Please provide a link to a geologist who believes the Earth is flat, who has said so since 1975, and who has a demonstrable (i.e., available for us to verify) degree in geology.

Did you miss that?

And in case degrees in geology are no longer required to be a geologist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologist

Geologist - "A geologist is a scientist who studies the solid and liquid matter that constitutes the Earth as well as the processes and history that has shaped it."

Geologist Education - "Their training typically includes significant coursework in physics, mathematics, and chemistry, in addition to classes offered through the geology department; historical and physical geology, igneous and metamorphic petrology and petrography, hydrogeology, sedimentology, stratigraphy, mineralogy, palaeontology, physical geography and structural geology are among the many required areas of study. Most geologists also need skills in GIS and other mapping techniques. Geology students often spend portions of the year, especially the summer though sometimes during a January term, living and working under field conditions with faculty members (often referred to as "field camp"). Many non-geologists often take geology courses or have expertise in geology that they find valuable to their fields; this is common in the fields of geography, engineering, chemistry, urban planning, environmental studies, among others."

So please. Prove to me that you are a geologist, and not somebody who says they are in order to attempt to accrue creditability for your assertions.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Pangea and FE Theory?

« on: May 06, 2011, 07:32:43 PM »

Here is a video of some dinosaurs building a house.  You can see they are very artful at using their mouths and hands in the construction process:

In that video they are actually building sex houses, in their culture it is normal to build a new house every time you want to have sex, because they don't like to have sex in old or ugly looking houses.  It explains that bit at the end.

I look forward to debating with you on your new account, but please negotiate with the administrators to delete you old one because having more than one account is against the site rules.

When I say dinosaurs, I mean what the general public and nearly every human being on the planet will mean. Not modern day birds, the descendents of dinosaurs. Yes, I am aware that birds or officially a type of dinosaur. I should have been more specific in my post. I am referring to ancient dinosaurs. The ones that went extinct. The ones whose fossils, from which we can tell they could not swim and probably could not manipulate tools, are still found across multiple continents.

In fact, not only dinosaurs, but many ancient fossilized remains of all manner of creatures have the same phenomenon. Some were amphibious, many were not.

Dinosaurs most certainly mastered the art of simple toolmaking, as I can amply demonstrate.  They also had many more millions of years than humans to perfect all manner of ingenious crafts.

Nowhere in that video did even birds, the "dinosaurs" with the longest time to have evolved, create and use simple tools.

You seem to be quite racist about the abilities of dinosaurs. Just because they aren't mammals it doesn't mean they can't do all the things you can do.

Dinosaurs were a group of different species, with different races. Racism is not the correct term, and you are using it to troll. At least try, man. And is not the fact that they aren't mammals that makes me say they can't do the things I can. The fossil record and the sum total of all paleontological, archaeological, biological, and historical evidence is what makes me say that they couldn't do all the things that I can do.

There are plenty of us on this site.  I have not said so since 1975 because I was a reformed globularist who only recanted after the millenium; I don't know about Tom Bishop, Dionysius or Crustinator for example, it is possible that they've been saying so since 1975 but I don't actually know their personal histories.  You should ask them.  Other famous geologists from history include Samuel Rowbotham (who was saying it since the mid 19th century) and Charles K Johnson (who said it during the period you are talking about).

I am well aware that you people call yourselves geologists. What I asked for was proof that you are geologists.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Magnetic poles?

« on: May 06, 2011, 07:18:00 PM »

I thought I'd chime in by the way Ali, that since you're not going to look it up, A.R. Wallace was a round earther who demonstrated the curvature of the earth in an experiment in which two large items were placed six miles apart on a canal at the same height above the water. A telescope of equal height, when aimed at them, showed one to appear higher than the other (demonstrating that the earth is curved).

Ever since then FEers have come up with all sorts of reasons for why the experiment was wrong, flawed, mislead, dishonest, etc. Though I have a suspicion that had the experiment demonstrated a flat earth, they wouldn't be contesting any of the variables in the experiment!

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the origin of the flat Earth?

« on: May 06, 2011, 07:09:48 PM »

It is extremely likely that the Earth has always existed.  Earth historians who think they are going to discover the origin of the Earth are chasing after mere phantoms of the truth.

Radio dating of several different forms has pegged the earth's age very reliably to ~4.54 billion years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Pangea and FE Theory?

« on: May 06, 2011, 07:06:45 PM »

It is not true that dinosaurs have never invented so much as a simple tool; in fact, it is demonstrably false.  There is ample footage of dinosaurs building all manner of wonderful tools, they build a great many ingenious structures all the time.

Provide even one frame of footage, even the slightest legitimate evidence that this is true, and I will delete my account and make a new one that is pro FE.

The inability to swim does not stop somebody from building a raft in order to traverse the high seas, people do it all the time.  Most 16th century sailors were unable to swim, it is only a relatively recent cultural phenomenon that a sailor is expected to be able to swim (and a silly one too, because the whole point of a boat is that one does not have to swim).

Of course, but those are people. People thousands of years and many generations beyond the inception of simple toolmaking, a feat that dinosaurs never achieved.

I disagree.  If you look at sea-faring migratory societies such as the pilgrim fathers and the Egyptians you will see that in the vast majority of cases they made extensive use of agriculture.  This is because if every body is hunting and gathering all the time, it leaves a very limited amount of time to practice building boats.

Again, those are people, not dinosaurs. This was well documented for ancient humans, but completely undocumented for dinosaurs (which went extinct millions and millions of years ago, before humans walked the planet)

There are many geologists who to this day do not believe that the Earth is round. Get your facts right.

Please provide a link to a geologist who believes the Earth is flat, who has said so since 1975, and who has a demonstrable (i.e., available for us to verify) degree in geology.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Pangea and FE Theory?

« on: May 06, 2011, 06:41:03 PM »

There is no evidence that dinosaurs, a group which never invented so much as a simple tool, gained the ability to cross entire oceans when it is obvious from their fossils that multiple landlocked (i.e., cannot swim!) species were found on multiple continents, which themselves even visually appear to fit together.

There is also no evidence of dinosaurs practicing agriculture or keeping livestock. Yes I understand that this was probably a trolling comment, but in case it wasn't, I'm just saying that there is no empirical evidence. If there is, provide it and I'll shut up.

By 1975, EVERY geologist had agreed that the Earth was round, because every shred of evidence and math they used showed them that it was, and nothing - nothing - demonstrated anything to the contrary.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the origin of the flat Earth?

« on: May 06, 2011, 06:11:32 PM »

Hollywood was not capable of faking images of the Earth when NASA came back with the first images of the Earth. There is no getting around that fact.

The ability to do this has been around for centuries. Tell me, what does this look like to you?



It is a painting.

photorealistic paintings did not exist until after the invention and widespread assimilation of photography and optical effect.

And now, the ability to generate imagery of the earth that was photorealistic did not exist when NASA first brought back images of Earth. Argue all you want, but I work in the film industry and know the history of CGI.

Had you been an art student you would know that the Ancient Greeks were among the first to introduce hyper-realism in paintings. Hyper-realism has been around for a very long time.

Photorealism implies that it looks like a real photo. Photohraphic effect (lens abberation, chromatic abberation, abnormal focal length perspective, specular crowning, dynamic range, etc.) were not documented and certainly not the topic of painting technique. Hyper realism is a relatively new style of painting, an advanced form of photorealism, and the term was coined in the 70s by a Belgian art dealer using the french word for Photorealism (Hyperréalisme). True hyperrealist paintings have only begun to branch off from photorealism since the turn of the millenia.

I have no clue where you got the idea that ancient Greeks were the first to make hyperrealist paintings.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the origin of the flat Earth?

« on: May 06, 2011, 02:31:56 PM »

Hollywood was not capable of faking images of the Earth when NASA came back with the first images of the Earth. There is no getting around that fact.

The ability to do this has been around for centuries. Tell me, what does this look like to you?



It is a painting.

photorealistic paintings did not exist until after the invention and widespread assimilation of photography and optical effect.

And now, the ability to generate imagery of the earth that was photorealistic did not exist when NASA first brought back images of Earth. Argue all you want, but I work in the film industry and know the history of CGI.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity, or the lack of it.

« on: May 06, 2011, 01:11:02 PM »

Acceleration is defined as a change in velocity.  I could be wrong, but adding velocity sounds like a change in velocity to me.

This is adding two velocities from two different objects to obtain a relative velocity to a third object. That is not acceleration.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the origin of the flat Earth?

« on: May 06, 2011, 12:59:48 PM »

English Gentlemen, if you can't spot CGI, may I suggest you never go to the cinema, it will cause you to have a mental breakdown.

Really? Because this looks real.

Damn real.



The point is, Hollywood has been capable of making realistic looking fakes even before CGI. Just because it looks real, does not mean that it is.

Hollywood was not capable of faking images of the Earth when NASA came back with the first images of the Earth. There is no getting around that fact.

How do you explain video and images from space showing recent disasters, such as volcanic ash in iceland, smoke in japan, smoke from the WTC collapse, etc. that were released very nearly after the events, much faster than a CGI team can build an effect like that (at least a CGI team small enough to make a conspiracy possible).

Why is it that NASA can employ quite possibly the smartest people in the country, and perhaps the world, and manage to fool them all into thinking the Earth is round using nothing but falsified images (which, we know, those super smart analysts spend hours examining in close detail and NEVER find evidence of falsification)?

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity, or the lack of it.

« on: May 06, 2011, 12:51:07 PM »

Yes, but how does it do that? What is the mechanism?

What mechanism? It IS the mechanism. Mass causes distortions in the fabric of space-time. These distortions are the mechanism of gravity. If you're asking for the mechanism by which mass creates these distortions, I don't know. Scientists may know, but we just proved that it exists, that this phenomenon occurs. Constantly asking for the next explanation is akin to saying that because we don't know how life started, we can't know how life works.

Uh, no:

In non-relativistic mechanics the velocities are simply added and the answer is that A is moving with a velocity w = u+v relative to C.  But in special relativity the velocities must be combined using the formula

               u + v
         w =  ---------
              1 + uv/c²

Crunch the numbers using that formula and let me know when we break the speed of light.

This formula is used for finding relative velocities. I don't understand how you intend for this to apply to my argument? If you're trying to demonstrate that we cannot break the speed of light, then yes, I agree, we cannot. That is exactly why we can never continuously accelerate for an indefinite period of time. Let's suppose for a moment that I am object A with velocity u and the Earth is object B with velocity v which is equal to the speed of light (after 5 billion years of constant acceleration, this would be required). Relative to a fixed point in the universe C, when I jump exactly 1m/s from the surface of the earth, my velocity relative to C is given by:

      (c+1) + c
w= -----------
      1 + (c+1)c/c²

      2c + 1
w= -----------
      1 + (c+1)/c

      c(2c + 1)
wc= -----------
      c + (c+1)

      c(2c + 1)
wc= -----------
         2c + 1

     
wc= c

w = c/c

w = 1


This is, clearly, impossible, and is demonstration that nothing can exceed the speed of light. It does NOT demonstrate that a linearly accelerating mass will not reach the speed of light. In fact, this equation doesn't even have a function of acceleration.

Feel free to check my math. I haven't done it in a long time so I may have made a mistake. Even if I did though, this equation has nothing to do with acceleration.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity, or the lack of it.

« on: May 06, 2011, 02:42:05 AM »

You constantly accelerate and never reach the speed of light. There is no reason to suspect that UA requires an output to accelerate objects, just as gravity does not.

I drop a ball. It falls. Oh my goodness! There must be some energy expended to move the object!

Then the RE'ers reply, "Gravity just doesn't need energy."

Did you not read my link? They've just confirmed empirically the function by which gravity appears to accelerate objects. Masses cause deformations ("depressions" perhaps) in the space-time fabric. Masses traveling and being influenced by gravity are simply following the depressions in the space-time fabric. This was all theory (Einstein's, the same guy you accept unconditionally on the subject of light speed), and the conclusion of a recent study totaling what, 47 years?, has provided empirical, observable, evidence confirming it.

And yes, UA requires a source. Gravity's source was theorized, and was just given a good hunk of proof. UA's source is not theorized. You pretend it doesn't need one. Objects can only be set in motion by forces. Forces are powered by energy. Energy is created through various processes, most of which I believe are atomic or subatomic.

Gravitational theory, which is very nearly fact at this point, allows forces to exist in such a way that no physical laws (the ones you agreed on!) are broken. UA does not. Light speed is a finite speed. Accelerating towards that speed will require increasing amounts of energy. This energy must be provided by something. It must come from somewhere. If UA has been acting for the billions of years we have demonstrated Earth to have existed, then it would have already reached the speed of light and would have consumed greater amounts of energy than are held in the universe. More energy than can be released by all the matter in the universe.

Don't give me that "we can keep accelerating but not hit the speed of light" crap unless you can link me to a legitimate source saying so. The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. You cannot accelerate at 9.81m/s/s constantly and not expect to eventually reach 299,792,458 m/s. At some point you must stop accelerating or you will achieve and then exceed 299,792,458 m/s, which is in direct violation of Einstein's theories (which, again, you have already submitted to).

And even to approach that speed you would still require more energy than exists, and it would need to come from somewhere. UA is simply not a viable option for explaining what we feel to be gravity.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity, or the lack of it.

« on: May 06, 2011, 02:16:43 AM »

Also, an example of continous acceleration caused by gravity would be an orbit.

Orbits do not continuously accelerate. Acceleration is the marked increase in velocity of a mass. Continuous acceleration means that the mass continuously becomes faster and faster. This is not the case with most orbits, though I am not an astronomer, and if you can show me to be wrong, then so be it.

Link please

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/


As for UA. If Earth is constantly accelerating, and yet never reaches the speed of light, then it must at some point decrease and eventually negate its acceleration. To continue accelerating to the speed of light would require a nearly infinite amount of energy. Where does this energy come from? What of the law of preservation of mass and energy? You cater to some physics and ignore others? Even if in one second we could harness the sum total energy of the entire universe to accelerate the entire universe, the next second would require even more! It is clearly a paradox. It can not happen. Nothing about gravity is a paradox. It is predictable, well understood, tested, observed, and (of course) not yet fully understood. UA siphons its predictability by charading as gravity in our environment, but examining it on a cosmic or even mathematical frame of reference will always lead to rejecting it as a possibility.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: He must have been going some.....

« on: May 06, 2011, 02:07:00 AM »

I accept the photographic and video evidence of the shape of the Earth and it's geography, provided by NASA and centuries of seafaring cartographers before them.

Wow!  Really?  Centuries of photo and video evidence?  What format was that video in, Sony Alpha?  And I thought the FEs had some wacky ideas.  That takes the cake!

You're ignoring his argument and making semantic attacks on his sentence structure and diction.

He clearly meant that he trusts photographic and video evidence of a round Earth, provided by NASA, as well as the testimony of centuries worth of seafaring cartographers.

Just because he made a blunder in his sentence structure doesn't mean you can jump all over his very valid point. The only people eccentric enough to believe that videography and photography have existed for centuries are the same people arguing for a Flat Earth. You know that, I know that, Ali knows that. Stop kidding around and get down to business already.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the origin of the flat Earth?

« on: May 06, 2011, 02:03:28 AM »

And? That's clearly CGI. So your nonsense forum is prepared to right off the single greatest achievements mankind has ever made as a "conspiracy" and only you lot know the truth? You do have amazingly inflated egos.

How is that "clearly" CGI? I think that time lapse video that was posted was clearly CGI.

And I suppose that all of the video and photographic evidence of Earth from space before CGI was developed enough to generate realistic "fakes" was actually faked by NASA, who spent all their money pioneering CGI technology decades ahead of the rest of us, while also managing to keep every living soul involved quiet?

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the origin of the flat Earth?

« on: May 05, 2011, 10:26:18 PM »

You guys are the ones not trying! He asked for evidence. The best way to get rid of him is to give him the evidence.

Either you like arguing with people you don't like, or you don't have any evidence and are trying to take the fight to Ali, not Ali's argument. Either way you're kindergarteners.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity, or the lack of it.

« on: May 05, 2011, 10:18:08 PM »

We don't know, but then again you don't know the mechanism for gravity. I don't see how RET is any more plausible in this respect.

Seeing as FET doesn't have an answer either, I don't see how RET is any less plausible in this respect.

In fact I'd argue that RET is more plausible, since countless tests and experiments related to gravity have been carried out with predictable results. In fact a recent experiment was just completed that demonstrated the existence of space-time fabric. Of course I'm sure FEers will think it is a conspiracy and ignore it outright.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why can't I see Norway?

« on: May 05, 2011, 12:52:21 AM »

Ali, you could raise the question of why we can see the sun on the horizon and not see silhouettes of distant norway in front of it. Even if the air is too dense for light from norway to reach us, it should still BLOCK light from the sun getting to us if it is placed inbetween us. And yet, strangely, I think you'll find that there are no silhouettes of norway, or any distant land, in front of the setting sun.

come to think of it, the sun can't set in a flat earth either.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: He must have been going some.....

« on: May 05, 2011, 12:46:59 AM »

SO why does it take a similar length of time to reach Antarctica from Australia and South Africa?

Give it up, even if you find irrefutable proof that any of their theories are wrong, they will always fall back on the "Well that part is a conspiracy" argument.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The reason for the seasons

« on: May 05, 2011, 12:42:52 AM »

If the earth inexplicably stopped or decreased acceleration we would feel a change in what us RE'ers call gravity. A measurable one. That alone is enough to throw your entire hypothesis into the garbage can.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: bendy light

« on: May 03, 2011, 07:42:02 PM »

And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.

This is again an optical phenomenon.

In fact, everything we observe is an optical phenomenon! Astounding.

This is true, but not relevant.

It is quite relevant.

Anyhow, how is the star's rotations relative to your latitude an optical phenomenon (in the sense that I think you mean to say illusion)

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: bendy light

« on: May 03, 2011, 06:02:50 PM »

so in order to make sense of their theory I simply need to forget about physics, in the same way that in order to fly one simply throws oneself at the ground, and misses?

Light bends in different mediums, why should the atmoplane be different?

Because it has never been shown to...?

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Pangea and FE Theory?

« on: May 03, 2011, 03:14:30 PM »

I giggled at your comparison of a REer trying to argue his theory to a paraplegic trying to do cartwheels

Ha-ha. I see what you did there.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: bendy light

« on: May 02, 2011, 07:35:58 PM »

By definition you cannot "prove" a theory, or it would be a law. Theories are, however, normally well documented and supported by evidence. I believe he was asking for this evidence.

Bending of the horizon, sinking ships, clouds lit from below, the discrepancy between downscaled optical distances and real distances.

Yes we know that all of the usual arguments for a RE become arguments for bendy light. That isn't new. The question is what makes bendy light more than a crackpot idea to explain those phenomena? What process or mechanism makes bendy light work, why aren't radio waves effected by it, and why does celestial light not get effected?

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: bendy light

« on: May 02, 2011, 06:34:11 PM »

Give me a link to the proof.

Pray tell, how does one prove a theory?

The scientific method is usually a pretty good place to start.

Could you please give an example of where the scientific method had proven a theory?

By definition you cannot "prove" a theory, or it would be a law. Theories are, however, normally well documented and supported by evidence. I believe he was asking for this evidence.

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Pangea and FE Theory?

« on: May 02, 2011, 01:28:42 PM »

So I guess we win? He's ignoring the thread now

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How does Flat Earth explain radio propagation?

« on: May 02, 2011, 01:25:21 PM »

I'm surprised people are questioning that light can bounce off of air. After all, that is why the sky is blue

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussing Infinite Earth Model

« on: May 02, 2011, 02:48:31 AM »

I don't think anyone's saying it was exactly the same, but the word 'created' has a very different set of connotations.

So, tell us the connotations. Which connotations will make a bio-luminescent Sun not loose energy? Or is a connotation what makes the Sun the only thermodynamic closed system that looses energy but has zero entropy?

Because the real Earth, for example, can harbor life because it has an external source of energy. Any system with life in it has positive entropy as a whole, and either receives energy from the outside or becomes a dump of spent matter in no time.

And you are saying Earth was never created.

I believe that Wilmore was suggesting that the word "created", in lieu of shall we say "formed", had a religious undertone to it. That's silly of course, but religion is one of the more prevalent invokers of the word "create" in their everyday issues, so its natural to think that someone might interpret that word, incorrectly of course, as implying a Creator.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Pangea and FE Theory?

« on: April 23, 2011, 08:35:24 PM »

My video says it's false.

I saw this video before. It is a comedy and it does not debunk anything. The flying crafts are very clearly depicted in this hieroglyphs especially the helicopter. Erosion is not gonna cause multiple crafts to appear on a stone wall lol

If you choose not to believe in ancient flight, it is your choice. I have given enough evidence, consider this subject closed. I will not respond to more non sense.

Do you really think that designs on a heiroglyph are sufficient evidence to consider this matter closed? Seriously? Let's say for sake of argument that we didn't have a plausible explanation for what the hieroglyphs were supposed to be. That wouldn't mean they were modern objects. Humans have a tendency to see patterns where none exist. . So, which seems more plausible, an unexplained set of hieroglyphs, or a set of hieroglyphs which depict all sorts of extremely advanced technology, which we have no evidence of in ancient Egypt, with all the pictures crammed into a tiny area on one inscription which then has none of the surrounding text talking about those objects at all?

Not to mention the fact that the hieroglyphics in question can be graphically shown to be a combination of known hieroglyphics which make more sense in context and are consistent with well documented practices of ancient Egyptian inscriptions.

The asserting video is a cut-up over-shortened clip that cuts out halfway through from a history channel documentary which may have even debunked it itself (we'll never know, the clip cuts off the second her words are convenient for the asserter!)

The debunking video cites its sources and lays out a clear argument that explains point by point why the symbols are NOT ancient technology.

Thoroughly denied.

And besides New Earth, even ignoring that now-debunked video, you still haven't responded to any of JoshuaZ's other points questioning ecological and archeological lack of evidence.