1
The Lounge / Re: Greatest NHL goaltender of all time?
« on: September 07, 2013, 11:37:53 PM »
1. Brodeur
2. Roy
3. Luongo
2. Roy
3. Luongo
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.
ive been to antarctica with a team of 15 other microbiologists. i assure you the trips are not a hoaxseeing that Antarctica has become a tourist attraction, no, it is not a 50 meter uniform "ice wall".
You believe that Antarctica became a tourist attraction because the internet says so?
Seeing as how "the Internet" can put you in touch with many people who either have been there or can get you there, I'd say it's on you to prove it's not a tourist attraction since you seem to be the one in doubt.
One time I saw an interesting video about a supposed portal to another dimension located deep in the Andes of Peru. The natives call it the star gate of Aramu Muru, the video mentioned that there is a tour guide in America that can take you there for a fee, a phone number was provided to call to book a trip. I called the number and no one replied or called me back. and No it was not some youtube hoax, they had a legitimate website and there was a real voice mail when I called the number. The moral of the story it was bull shit, just like the trips to Antarctica, lol
So no dear friend its on you to prove me that such trips exist. Go ahead and book a trip come back and tell me where you went and what you saw, a stupid internet link is not a F"N prove. Just like the fake NASA pictures of earth. lol
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56539.msg1413191.html#msg1413191the light only bends because of the curved plastic
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56685.msg1419137.html#msg1419137
Also fun
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bending the light - physics experiment
videos can be easily faked, seems like you only believe videos that support your cause and dismiss the restThe ISS does this every 90 minutesNo it doesn't.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">International Space Station Hoax : Air Bubbles Rise- Space Walks Simulated in A Massive Water Pool
no, the point was that this shouldn't have been posted to begin with.the world must be flat, this is undisputable evidence
Your reading comprehension is enviable.
???not sure if youre being sarcastic, ill reply anywayswhy would one waste time and money measuring the circumference in a boat or plain when it can be done with simple mathematicsI'm not on about the Greek who looked down a well and saw the sun or shadows here and there.
I want to know if anyone has ever actually measured the Earth's circumference by normal means, whether it be a plane or whatever, where the actual starting point is dead centre back to the exact place.
Also, how does anyone know which is dead centre on the Earth to which they can take this measurement if there has ever been one?
Excellent question. I did some research, and you are right - no one has actually measured the "circumference" by direct means It's always by calculations removed by the third of fourth degree. Yes, I know what you're about to say - that's a tad suspicious.
So that people who don't understand mathematics can be sure we know the size of the earth, obviously.
why would one waste time and money measuring the circumference in a boat or plain when it can be done with simple mathematicsI'm not on about the Greek who looked down a well and saw the sun or shadows here and there.
I want to know if anyone has ever actually measured the Earth's circumference by normal means, whether it be a plane or whatever, where the actual starting point is dead centre back to the exact place.
Also, how does anyone know which is dead centre on the Earth to which they can take this measurement if there has ever been one?
Excellent question. I did some research, and you are right - no one has actually measured the "circumference" by direct means It's always by calculations removed by the third of fourth degree. Yes, I know what you're about to say - that's a tad suspicious.
There is a clear correlation between FE'ers and high intelligence. There is also a clear correlation between high intelligence and high morality. Since RE'ers are generally less intelligent, they are generally going to have lower moral standards. Hence why this thread exists.theres a clear correlation between FE'ers and ignorance.
i am canadian, and we use KMs and miles when we talk but its not common to compare an object in miles with another in KMsfor starters, use either miles or KM's to describe sizes not bothan interesting video, but i highly doubt NASA landed on Mars, they did land somewhere, but I assume its terrestrial.what place on earth would have no life or vegetation? also no outside disturbances such as aircraft
Mars is very small, no more than 1-2 km in diameter. Maybe the rover crash landed in an Earth desert and NASA is simply mistaken.
either way, thank you for sharing.
how do you know the size of mars?
We know Mars's appoxmate size because the moon passes in front of it.
Since they are only a few hundred miles apart, and the moon is 32 miles in diameter,
we can tell MArs is very small, 100s of times smaller than the moon.
Venus and Mercury are even smaller yet.
second, you are again making bogus claims that mars is only a few hundred miles away from the moon, how did you come up with that number?
Try growing up in Canada someday and you'll know why not only using units of measurement but also languages are interchangeable.
The FAQ states the sun in 3100 miles above earth, the planets 3200 and the stars above.
The only thing incorrect about this, and possibly due to the uneven weight of the earth, and the UA.
Sometimes Mercury and Venus come closer, because the transit the sun.
for starters, use either miles or KM's to describe sizes not bothan interesting video, but i highly doubt NASA landed on Mars, they did land somewhere, but I assume its terrestrial.what place on earth would have no life or vegetation? also no outside disturbances such as aircraft
Mars is very small, no more than 1-2 km in diameter. Maybe the rover crash landed in an Earth desert and NASA is simply mistaken.
either way, thank you for sharing.
how do you know the size of mars?
We know Mars's appoxmate size because the moon passes in front of it.
Since they are only a few hundred miles apart, and the moon is 32 miles in diameter,
we can tell MArs is very small, 100s of times smaller than the moon.
Venus and Mercury are even smaller yet.
I understand you have a "spotlight" explanation for the moon but what about moon phases? How does this work with your spotlight?im a RE'er but these have been discussed many times
And what about a lunar or solar eclipse? How is this effect achieved with the spotlight?
And while we are on the subject of the moon....how are ocean tides explained?
an interesting video, but i highly doubt NASA landed on Mars, they did land somewhere, but I assume its terrestrial.what place on earth would have no life or vegetation? also no outside disturbances such as aircraft
Mars is very small, no more than 1-2 km in diameter. Maybe the rover crash landed in an Earth desert and NASA is simply mistaken.
either way, thank you for sharing.
you are still looking through the camera in which it was filmedThe curvature you saw was a combination of lens distortion and seeing the edge if the sun's spotlight (something we would expect to be curved).
The reason that the skydiver "fell" at 32 feet / second squared is because the earth was accelerating up towards the diver at 32 feet / second squared.
Lens distortion? But I saw this on the tv?
other than everyone seeing it everyday with our own eyes?Do you have any evidence to support this outlandish claim?
Twang simply forgot to take mulitple variables into account. For example, the atmolayer is not 100% transparent. You can't see through air for long distances any more than you can see more than five meters in a thick fog. Eventually the light from the Sun ceases to reach you and from your observer standpoint, everything is dark.
Yes - it goes dark shortly after the sun has disappeared below the horizon. Have you never noticed this phenomena ?
before this gets ignored, please explain FE'ersNow, the internet tells us that the smallest object visible to the human eye is ~0.1 mm. So h(d,x)<.0002 m.
d/x < .0002
For argument's sake, let's make the object 2 meters tall (btw, why is distance x and height d? Doesn't vice versa make more sense?)
2/x < .0002
2 < .0002x
10,000 < x
So that's 10 km, which sounds about right for a perfectly clear day on a perfectly flat plane that isn't a body of water. In fact, wikipedia tells us that in the arctic one can see as far as 100 km on a good day, so 10 km seems a perfectly reasonable estimate.
See a person at 10km ? That's good eyesight. Wait until you're my age mate
So at (ahem) 32miles in diameter (50km in modern measurements) should be visible at ~25,000,000 km.
But it disappears at night
So? I'm not here to defend other versions of RET. Look at the name of the site.and there are FE'ers who disagree with the scientfic consensus regarding the dimensions of the Earth.
I'm just pointing out that there are RE'ers who disagree with the scientfic consensus regarding the dimensions of the Earth.