### 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 - PlanetEarth

Pages: [1]
1
« on: April 24, 2012, 11:11:28 AM »
Start another thread about it if you're so concerned, Tausami.  It'd be nice to see some actual explanations here and not pages of derailing about schuler tuning.

...Also, since trans-antarctic expeditions indeed do not happen, I'm afraid both I and reality are going to have to fail this thread, in FET and RET.

Essentially, TK, you've created a thread in which you demand answers and refuse to accept said answers in the same sentence... If you allow us to simply give the explanations for these various phenomenon, on the other hand, we can get somewhere.

You still have yet to provide one real explanation. All of FE's explanations amount to "You're wrong," "You're lying," or "That doesn't happen". When are you going to provide a real explanation?

2
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Wiki Critique: Occam's Razor
« on: April 22, 2012, 11:17:22 PM »
Nope. You're confusing a standard by which to determine a proposition with determining if a proposition is true. You really fail at logic, don't you?

Requiring standards for truth would imply truth can bend to standards. Truth is absolute and therefore the best way to know if something is true is by... asking whether it is true or not.
So you don't use criteria then? Why did you claim otherwise?

If you believe I have not stated a criterion, then it is you who claims that truth is not a criterion for truth.
I do claim that a standard to which a proposition can be determine to be true is not whether it is true. How is "asking whether it is true" a criterion? Are you saying that if you ask if a proposition is true, then you know it's true? Have you confused asking a question and determining if you have the correct answer? If so, I have a more complete understanding of your failures.

Asking yourself whether something is true or not would be the easiest and most logical way to discover whether it is true or not. You are adding unneeded steps to the process.

So you inherently know everything already?
If I want to know what causes aging, I should just ask myself? How could that possibly result in finding truth?
How is this in any way logical? Is it logical to base judgements on belief and feelings rather than observation and actual logic?

Apparently evidence is a circumstantial convenience..

3
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Last night.....
« on: April 22, 2012, 10:42:56 PM »
...a space station with no propulsion system to move it, yet it did. Nor did it fall, although it has the aerodynamics of a brick.
Please explain how this is possible.

Vacuum + Centripetal Force + Inertia.

The shuttle launches move the modules to a height where Earth's gravity isn't strong enough to pull it back down and releases it. Because it launched from a rotating surface, the shuttle and ISS have the same centripetal force as the Earth's surface during launch but after burns in orbit, the shuttle/ISS generate enough centripetal force to keep the ISS modules at a constant height. It doesn't slow down because it exists in a vacuum with no matter to generate friction.

But, knowing Flat-Earthers, they will claim that centripetal force is a hoax...

4
##### Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: The Scriptural Basis for a Geocentric Cosmology
« on: April 22, 2012, 10:34:19 PM »
Are we supposed to take the hearsay of ancient, ignorant desert-dwellers who knew nothing of the world as fact?

5
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Somethings that have been bothering me.
« on: January 28, 2012, 06:12:16 PM »
As I told you in that post, I did myself many times. And so can any honest inquiring mind reach the same conclusion. You cannot measure the distance to the Sun as Robotham and you claim.

RE'rs regularly claim that they've observed communication satellites with the naked eye, that they are NASA astronauts, or otherwise a pilot or a surveyor for the purpose of the discussion. We have multiple Neil Armstrongs, several administrator's of NASA, rocket scientists, dozens of professional astronomers, and a large number of pilots/navigators.

RE'ers who reply and claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources. Referencing a third party study would be far more credible.

But how is it not trustworthy when YOU yourself can do the same thing?
He's not telling some magical or supernatural tale that can't possibly be replicated. Anyone with enough motivation can do the same experiments and get the same measurements. If FE'ers cared about facts and data, they could do the same thing.

Besides, even if a third party study was referenced, FE'ers would claim that they must be in on the conspiracy.

6
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Why do you guys believe the earth is flat?
« on: January 28, 2012, 05:52:28 PM »
The Earth looks flat.  And I've never seen solid evidence to suggest otherwise.  Even Mars and the moon appear to be flat; while further study myst be done, I think there's sufficient reason to consider the possibility that flatness is the natural state of large objects, and that even the sun is flat.

What would the Moon and Mars have to look like to appear flat? Obviously they look flat (Mars at least) because we're looking at them from one angle.
The Moon however is clearly round, if you look at it through a telescope you can see that the craters only appear circular towards the center, and they appear distorted and stretched towards the edges. Wouldn't this suggest that you are looking at those craters from the side?
Wouldn't the shadow on the moon also suggest that it is round? How would the Sun cast a round shadow on the Moon unless the Moons surface was curved?

You misunderstand me, but I can see where I was a little vague in what I was getting across so that's okay.  Mars and the moon both appear round from Earth; any lunatic can see that (even one who's in that state because he's been exposed to the moon's rays).

It's the images of the moon and Mars up close that strongly suggests that these bodies are actually flat.  If we are to take NASA at face value, and assume there is no Conspiracy to hide the shape of the Earth, then we have photographic evidence that these bodies are actually flat.  They just appear round when seen from very far away, through the medium of space.

This is, of course, consistent with what we observe of the Earth, as well; from very far away, the Earth's surface appears to curve, until you get so far away that it appears to curve back onto itself, into what appears for all the world to be a ball.

So as you can see, the evidence is quite compelling that the Earth isn't the only flat body we observe in the universe, and we can safely extrapolate that the universe is likely lousy with them.

But when you look at them up close, they do not appear flat. If you take a telescope in your backyard, and point it at the Moon, the craters become more eliptical and curved around an axis as you get closer to the edge.
What could make such a crater? Or how can vacuum alter light to make it "seem" round? How does Flat Earth Theory explain the phases of the Moon and Venus? How does it explain the rotation of Jupiter's cloud belts and the red spot?

Also, when you get farther away from a planet, it "appears to curve back onto itself" because you are viewing the edges from a sharper angle. You can see it's features warping around the center.
If you view a flat surface, nearly every point should have the same angle, or the warped features would be parallel rather than curved and perpendicular to the center. Mars may still appear flat, because it doesn't have many prominent figures for reference.
But even it was flat, how would it look any different (from this distance) being a sphere?
You can replicate the effect with a ball and a small camera. Up close, it would appear flat, but as you got farther away, the camera would be able to see the edges from sharper angles and see that it is spherical, not because of a trick of light, but because of simple geometry.

7
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Nasa Releases Ultra Hi-Res Picture of Earth
« on: January 28, 2012, 05:27:27 PM »
So pictures of other planets are real, but pictures of Earth are all fakes?

Seeing as how I can go outside and take a picture of saturn, but only NASA can take high altitude photos of earth. Yes, other celestial objects are real. Whether they too are flat is up for debate.

How can you assume it's fake with no evidence?

8
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Maps?
« on: January 27, 2012, 09:59:32 PM »
i do realise that. but im jsut saying on a roundy map continents do appear the wrong size. there is no excuse for the flat map but i thought it was worth mentioning before the flat finger demanded an explanation

The flat map is distorted because it uses a picture of a round Earth. The continents on the edge are distorted because they are being viewed from an angle, not 90 degrees

9
##### Flat Earth General / Re: You can't be serious...
« on: January 27, 2012, 09:54:09 PM »
Gravity does not exist and therefore your entire paragraph based on such a pointless topic is irrelevant.

Wow, I'm convinced; and all this time I thought it really DID exist.. What a waste..

Instead of spewing that what we say IS BS, why not prove that what you say is NOT BS?
Your "theory" (using the term very loosely) is based entirely on assumption.

10
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Nasa Releases Ultra Hi-Res Picture of Earth
« on: January 27, 2012, 09:09:44 PM »
Doesn't even look real.

I agree. America isn't that brown and has houses.

Do you expect America to be green in Fall or Winter?
And you would have to be less than 135 miles above the surface just to see a large city, how could you possibly see individual buildings from an altitude that would allow a view of an entire hemisphere?

11
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Nasa Releases Ultra Hi-Res Picture of Earth
« on: January 27, 2012, 09:03:36 PM »
Doesn't even look real.

What does a real planet look like?

Just curious.

So pictures of other planets are real, but pictures of Earth are all fakes?

12
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Why do you guys believe the earth is flat?
« on: January 27, 2012, 08:54:55 PM »
"The moon" and "the sun" are those things in the sky which we know as the moon and the sun. Just as the "earth" is the thing we live on. They're names. A planet, however doesn't refer to a specific object but to a type of object in space.

No, the names are "Luna" and "Sol".  "The sun" and "the moon" are not names. You could turn them into names by capitalizing Sun and Moon, but why would you do this? It would be like naming your cat Puppy. They are denoting a specific sun and a specific moon, where sun and moon are defined as things which you do not believe exist.
• planet (1) : any of the large bodies that revolve around the sun in the solar system (2) : a similar body associated with another star
• sun : a self-luminous heavenly body; star.
• star : a self-luminous gaseous spheroidal celestial body of great mass which produces energy by means of nuclear fusion reactions
• moon : satellite; specifically : a natural satellite of a planet
You have no problem regularly using the words sun, star, and moon to mean things contrary to their definitions, but suddenly planet is blasphemous. Why not just be misleading by disregarding the real definition, like you usually do?

P.S.  Earth often goes by the name Planet Earth, too.

P.P.S.  If you actually name your cat Puppy, I'm totally cool with that. No hard feelings.

"Sun" and "Moon" are names. Luna and Sol are the latin, scientific names, Sun and Moon are the English names. If you want to say that sun and moon are not names, you would also have to say that Earth is not a name because the latin/scientific name is Terra. The moon was named "Moon" because, at the time, we didn't know of other moons.

13
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Why do you guys believe the earth is flat?
« on: January 27, 2012, 08:52:05 PM »
The Earth looks flat.  And I've never seen solid evidence to suggest otherwise.  Even Mars and the moon appear to be flat; while further study myst be done, I think there's sufficient reason to consider the possibility that flatness is the natural state of large objects, and that even the sun is flat.

What would the Moon and Mars have to look like to appear flat? Obviously they look flat (Mars at least) because we're looking at them from one angle.
The Moon however is clearly round, if you look at it through a telescope you can see that the craters only appear circular towards the center, and they appear distorted and stretched towards the edges. Wouldn't this suggest that you are looking at those craters from the side?
Wouldn't the shadow on the moon also suggest that it is round? How would the Sun cast a round shadow on the Moon unless the Moons surface was curved?

14
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Why do you guys believe the earth is flat?
« on: January 27, 2012, 08:47:09 PM »
doesn't matter if you look out your window, look  at the horizon over a large water, climb the tallest buliding, see the horizon in a plane, or even send up your own balloon to the edge of space with a camera and you will see that there is no sphere, just a straight horizon and a giant "lit" disc.

You have to be at least 60,000 feet above the surface to see the curvature.
The Earth's circumference is 25,000 miles, so even one degree is still 60 miles. You would need to be at least 60,000 feet above the surface, and most passenger/commercial planes fly around half of that. How can you expect to see noticable curvature at sea level when these huge scales are involved? Unless you are in a military plane or spacecraft, it is simply too big.

Pages: [1]