1
The Lounge / Changing
« on: October 19, 2012, 11:35:26 PM »
I'm going to change my name to Prawn now.
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.
Photos are not really evidence; if you'd read the FAQ you'd know that though. Also this really needs to go in the correct thread when another perfectly good thread exists on the matter.Photos are really evidence. There are http://www.lockergnome.com/blade/2012/04/13/how-to-tell-if-a-photo-is-authentic-or-altered/ many ways to prove or disprove the authenticity of a photo beyond any doubt. The photo has to be digital and completely unmodified.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=54698.0;topicseen
What, specifically, tells us that the very fabric of space-time is bending, or that it even exists?
Day and night in FET:It didn't get harder at all. It's as simple as always, and my old explanation matches it perfectly.
The shadow, in that image, seems to be curved. A balloon camera in space just got a lot harder for FET to explain.
The light you drew on the known Earth is just part of the very large circle cast by the Sun. Consider the following:
Picture not to scale, only intended to illustrate the concept.
As we make the lit area larger, the lit area on the Earth becomes progressively closer to half the area of the Earth, whilst remaining curved.
Isaac Newton thought he could turn lead into gold.Yes, he did. Newton was one of those insane geniuses you hear about, like Vincent van Gogh. In fact, the two were very similar. They did not get along with other people. Both were known to become extremely angry when challenged. This does not, however, change the fact that they were geniuses with good ideas. That is true Argumentum ad hominem.
One model should be enough. Imagine this above us.Look closely at the Earth in this image. It is distinctly round. This model works based on a spherical Earth. If you flattened out the Earth, this model would no longer explain the view of Mars in the sky. Look at http://www.jimloy.com/cindy/ptolemy.htm. First diagram shows a red arrow. This is an observer on Earth observing Mars. The planets both move, but the arrow itself slows down, goes backwards, slows, and turns forward again. This is what causes the view to be like the second diagram. Ptolomy believed that the Earth was a sphere in the center of the universe, so his epicycles were his explanation for the behavior. It makes no sense on a flat Earth.
FET only has 5 planets.
Yes. "Sizable" generally means something like "pretty big." So a celestial object of a pretty big mass will always collapse into a sphere due to gravity. A giant cube is a sphere with eight huge mountains that are incredibly unstable and will immediately crash in a huge mess of avalanches and rockslides, etc.Are you saying that irregularly shaped asteroids can't be of a sizable mass (whatever that means)?Way to be willfully obtuse there Markjo. All celestial objects of any sizable mass are spherical.Which one(s)? (let's leave the Earth issue aside, for it hasn't been demonstrated flat)
Most (if not all) asteroids.
Its the exact opposite. You aren't on a little ball, an insignificant dot whirling around an unimaginably large and bleak nothingness after a tiny ball of hot gases. You are in the centre of the Universe. A Universe crafted around your home. Who knows why, by whom, or what for ... but you're at the centre of it all ... you must be important.Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a phone call when you are unable to speak?
Oh, dear...I'll never look at you the same way again. You jumped to that because, of course you couldn't resist if you had the slightest reason to say something completely ridiculous. I searched for what the slightest reason was for quite a while, because I don't really see anything, but I think I see it. "You would if they were all only 3100 miles away" you interpreted as "They ARE that far, and then that would be the case if there were that many stars!" So you say, "A-ha! So you must agree that there are fewer!"So clearly there are less. Excellent. I think you are getting it.QuoteI do not think I can withstand the glare of 300 sextillion stars.
You would... if they were all only 3100 miles away.
May be we get answers from this one?
This gets into moral philosophy. You can't really measure and say, "The Nazis had ten thousand bad-units and the US only has 3.5 thousand." How can you measure horror? Does a number of deaths work? Can you use a percentage of the total population? Is that allowed?Well, of course history is going to favour the victors. We can't have us going around feeling bad about our atrocities, can we?
I am an american and i have been taught rigorously about the faults of my own government. Regardless of who won WW2 its simply an extremest position to assert that any single act of prejudice or atrocity was equal to the holocaust. This is not to say that an extremest position is wrong, its just not the majority view among historians from any country. Unless you pick perhaps the Native Americans who really got a the shitty end of the stick. (again though this was not due to a hatred of the Natives so much as disease. There were definitely attacks against the natives but there are also examples of friendships between settlers and Natives (many more attacks). The goal of the settlers was to settle the lands, not exterminate an entire race of people. Thats why the majority view is that the Holocaust is the single worse event in modern history. An entity literally went around exterminating an entire race of people. The Americans have done some horrific things, many in fact, and i certainly have been taught a majority of them that are available to the public as i have had an extremely liberal education, but to suggest that anything committed by the Americans as being equal to the holocaust is stretch that usually can be justified by personal experience.
So can we stop with the one liner atrocity posts? If you have an opinion contrary to the one above that is fine, more than fine, thats great and its what the US stands for. But simply throwing out a single atrocity as if its worse than the Holocaust with no explanation as to why you feel that way is just pointless.
Ha, this is funny. Plus, the U.S. has committed war crimes far worse than the Nazis. Some of the rules are to never hurt citizens and soldiers indiscriminately, or citizens at all, never go to war unless all possibilities of negotiation are exhausted, and other things like that. One needs only to look at the war in Iraq. Plus, "war crime" is a silly word. In war, all the rules are off. It doesn't make any sense.Gee Tom, if I didn't know any better, I'd say that you were arguing that the German war criminals that the US kidnapped after WWII were able to actually build rockets that really could go into orbit and to the moon.
Fortunately you do know better, and know that isn't my argument.
Never forget this. You claim that the image bends. This explains the fact that the Earth appears round, but we encounter another problem, which is what this thread is about: the image of angles would bend. This renders huge structures based on carefully designed architecture and mathematics to completely collapse. In fact, if it bends as much as it would need to to balance out the view, probably a simple lean-to would be collapse immediately. This does not happen. Therefore, bendy light is untrue.Light produces the image to begin with.Which is exactly why the image bends. Where's the confusion?
Yes, but the problem is, a second for us would be a trillion years for someone in whatever we're moving relative to (what is it?). True, the time would still pass, for us we wouldn't notice it, but you're being unrealistic. The universe isn't perfect. Something large would hit the Earth. Considering how fast we're moving, it would probably destroy the Earth, especially when millions of meteorites of the size that destroyed the dinosaurs would be hitting every second, if you assume that one hits every 65 million years, approximately (and by the way, it's probably a whole lot more than a trillion years anyway). Also, we would observe, through our telescopes, that everything's happening really fast. Not a single hint of anything like this has been observed....But only for the observers not being accelerated by FE's mysterious Dark Energy. From your perspective on the RE, time continues normally.
Time will slow down until it is, essentialy, not moving....
Relativity often trips up REers here. Indeed, I recall reading when the FEers decided to drop normal gravity (as it causes serious problems for FET), they were quite happy that they would be able to confound REers.
Now, if you want to attack this concept in FET, I suggest you look at the energy requirements to maintain that incredible acceleration. FET requires a 'fiat' of energy greater than all energy seen in the Universe it all its history in the next second. See math at http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43779.msg1085683#msg1085683.
Satellites exist? So this satellite picture of Antarctica is real?So please explain to me why Roundy claims that "the current theory is that there is no Conspiracy". What is your response to this? I think "the current theory" is a constantly fluctuating vagueness that happens to be the opposite of whatever it is that you FE'ers can't think of an answer to at the time.
Please don't misunderstand me; I never meant to imply that the theory that there is no Conspiracy is the only one believed right now. It's simply one that's gained a lot of momentum of late and one that many FEers have come to agree with. Obviously there are still FEers (like Tom) who believe in the Conspiracy.
But you yourself clearly aren't among those who no longer believe in the Conspiracy, as evidenced by the second thread I linked to.
Second thread you linked to where?
I should point out that I sometimes play the part of devil's advocate when it comes to Conspiracy topics, as I haven't completely ruled it out (some of the points, like Tom's about the shoddy appearance of the lunar lander, seem shockingly plausible). But my general belief is that there's sufficient evidence that the Earth appears curved from high above it, and that there sure seem to actually be satellites whizzing high above us, so that the necessity of a Conspiracy is effectively nullified.
The opinion I espouse in this thread represents my sincere belief regarding FET and the Conspiracy.
So orbit IS possible. It's just caused by magic, not gravity. Why didn't you just say so? Why has everyone always said that orbit is impossible? Why didn't you, when you first saw the thread, said, "Orbit is possible, but it's caused by magic, not gravity."You should really probably read the first post of this thread. This thread is supposed to be about CubeSat, a satellite that orbits the Earth. Did you not know that?You're all doing it wrong then. Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.
That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth.
Incorrect.
In FE, it is not the Earth that the satellite is orbiting (see your fellow REer jraffield1's post for clarification). Do you understand that?
Who said orbit is impossible?
It's certainly not in the FAQ, and the only mentions of it I see in this thread is by REers... who have been corrected about their error by FEers. Have you considered visiting www.rif.org? It may change your life.
We are not discussing orbit around the Earth.
Yes we are. I am discussing orbit around Earth; El Cid is discussing orbit around Earth. LinearPlane was discussing orbit around Earth when he posted this thread, iwanttobelieve was discussing orbit around Earth when he claimed it was possible in FET, and then LinearPlane was still discussing orbit around Earth when he replied to that. The only person who is not discussing orbit around Earth is you. Hence, you are accused of distraction techniques and evasiveness.
You're all doing it wrong then. Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.