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.

Topics - dim

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth General / Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« on: July 28, 2010, 04:02:34 AM »
Hello, FE and RE people. I would like to share my thoughts with you and show you something:

Okay, for this we will get ENaG and take into considiration one of the experiments; one of those that shows that Earth has no axial motion. Here I advise you to read carefully the entire page i linked below:

Now my little addition word for this:

If the Earth revoling then speeds of every point of the surface of the Earth that are in different latitudes should differ(due to rotundity). From normal RE literature we know that point on the surface that lays on the equator will have a speed of rotation around 1500km/s, and the point on the surface that lays on the territory of England would have a speed around 1000 km/s. What it giving to us?

Here is a citation from the ENaG(from the same link): "in all cases where a ball is thrown upwards from an object moving at right angles to its path, that ball will come down to a place behind the point from which it was thrown; and the distance at which it falls behind depends upon the time the ball has been in the air"

So, with all other conditions even we should be astonished with the fact, that if the world was RE - the place where ball will come down behind the point from it was thrown MUST DIFFER ACCORDING TO THE LATITUDE WHERE EXPERIMENT HAPPENS. But no such thing is observable. On every latitude the distance is the same!

If so, how would we appreciate the modern physics with this notorious Foucault pendulum, if the big part of the science is based on the rotunditiy and velocity of the planet, but the simpliest RE laws are not happen on the Earth?

In other words, when two strenghts(impulses) that drive the ball upwards and let's say eastward are gone, then, if on the RE, third impulse comes into play - the speed of the rotation of the Earth on every exact latitude. So, this strenght must be different around the globe, hence we should get different results at different latitudes. But seems, like that not happens. It really shows now that the Earth has no axial motion(therefore no orbital motion also).

Do you have any concerns about this phenomena? Let's talk.

Flat Earth Q&A / White Nights prove FE?
« on: June 29, 2010, 01:09:49 AM »
White Nights are only visible in the Northen Hemisphere. You can always see the Sun in the time when days are the longest, while it is summer in the Northern Hemisphere.

In the Southern Hemisphere there are no evidence about White nights. And FE explains this well. Cuz Sun rotates with the axle in the Northern Pole, when there is summer in the North Sun could be seen alldaylong if you're situated close enough to the N.Pole. And there is no such sitatuation happens in the Southern Hemisphere. At least we havan't heard about them. All we heard, is that there are also White NIghts but only seen from Antarctica. But due to lack of information about Antarctica we can't verifiy it. But according to RE White Nights should be seen in the Argentina and New Zealand too, but this not happens.

Flat Earth General / Why they lie on National Geographics.
« on: January 26, 2010, 12:23:23 AM »
Although this channel is rather good, last sunday i was watching a program about space and earth and I met a lie from their side.

Maybe somebody watched it too. There was a scene, where man standing in the center of corn field telling us: look this field is big, and on such big spaces we can see even the curvature of earth. Then camera shows the curved corn field.


We ALL know, that no curvature is visible, even from 10.000 meters high in the sky. And therefore NatGeo Channel lied to the watchers. Why did they do this? Why would they lie? For sure they hide something from us... right? So?

Flat Earth General / Hmm, will you make me a RE'ers by answering this.
« on: January 11, 2010, 04:22:35 AM »
It is well known that there are polar days and polar night on the North pole, it is the time when the day or the night stays for half of the year. Well, I am a FE'er and the FE explantion is great if to say about North pole. But. It is well know(all everywhere populated) that in the South Pole there are polar nights and days too. But how the sun can be visible for half of the year, if you're observing it somewhere from the Antarctica?

If the Earth is globe - then there is explanation - same effect as on the North Pole, but if the Earth is flat, there shouldn't be a polar night or polar day in the given spot of Antarctica.

So how FE explains the polar days and polar nights in Antarctica?

Flat Earth Q&A / Sun IS a spotlight.
« on: March 01, 2009, 08:26:10 AM »

Just a look at those pictures and make your deductions about, how ray of light comes from a single point in the sky. This effect could not happen, if sun was that much bigger, as RE tells us.

Flat Earth Q&A / Picture of the Sun from space!
« on: November 29, 2008, 10:39:15 AM »
Do anybody of you guys, especially RET ones, has a picture of the Sun from any shit "orbitting" Earth. For example a snapshot of the Sun from ISS?

That's just question about, what color and light intesnity will be the sun rays in the space! lol.

So, does anybody of you happen to have such picture? Please, post here.

P.S. All pictures that I seen was different and all looked like it is obvious photoshop. But really, do you have a picture of the Sun from the Earth orbit that would look real! Post it please. We have to discuss.

Flat Earth Q&A / OK. GPS for the last time!
« on: October 29, 2008, 10:18:26 AM »
Ok, guys. I just want to know how would you prove bad the RE theory of using sattelites for GPS.

Means, in RE theory everything is explained very well of how it works, so how would one make those statements seem unplausible?

For example: some guys telling you that GPS works like this and that and therefore FE is bullshit, how would one prove them wrong?
They saying: if you're staying near the ferroconcrete wall no signal from sattelites would come thru this wall, if you move yourself futher from the wall the signal from sattelite in space start being recieveable, but only from those sattelites that are high in the sky, and no signal from sattelites that seems lower. If you step more futher then the signal from the sattelites that are seems lower began to be achieveable too.

And that seems plausible...

So, any ideas how to disprove this?

Flat Earth Q&A / Sun Warmness in Winter and in Summer
« on: March 26, 2008, 08:38:02 AM »
How can you guys explain next thing.

In winter we can see the sun shining directly on us at the angle of let's say 30 degrees and you would not feel the warmness, at least not that warmness when you're in summer, and the sun is also at the angle of 30 degrees.

So, FE theory can be plausible. In summer Sun just closer to us, that's why you can feel the warmness. And in winter, sun is just far from us, so you can't feel that warmness.

In the both sitatuations, nevertheless sun would blind you, so it will be like the same effect in winter and in summer.

I think, that's very important moment. Who can disagree? Your comments please.

Flat Earth Q&A / Funny, but its flat(high altitude airplane picture)
« on: March 18, 2008, 11:51:35 PM »

You can see cumulus clouds really down below, so you can assume by yourself what altitude is that. I believe it's over 10.000 meters high. You can definitely see no seeable curvature.

Taken by myself in 2006. No any editing.

P.S. I know pictures are not good on that web-site, but I found out, that sometime you really like what i upload.

Flat Earth Q&A / Lunar Eclipse today, and some questions.
« on: February 20, 2008, 10:42:39 AM »
Today is a lunar eclipse, Wikipedia explains this effect as: A lunar eclipse occurs whenever the Moon passes through some portion of the Earth’s shadow (the moon gets behind the earth or the sun, earth, and then the moon). This can occur only when the Sun, Earth, and Moon are aligned exactly, or very closely so, with the Earth in the middle.

What I cant understand that is the following:

If Lunar Eclipse is an effect when we see shadow of the Earth on the Moon's surface, what then we see almost weekly as a curved black shadow on the Moon. It should also be called Lunar Eclipse then, but no, science says it just the one of the phases of the moon. Why not Lunar Eclipse then?

Also, if the moon shines because of reflected light of sun from earth's surface, what is the effect when we see the moon and the sun at the same time in thy sky in the evening. And you see that sun is closer to the shadowed part of the moon. For example, if the part of the moon on you right is shadowed, then the sun will be also on your right from the moon.

( ))        -o-    <--- it looks like this somewhat

I dont really get the theory.

FE's say moon emits light and that one is really what you can observe in the sky if to think logical.

Answer these 2 please at your best with simple words.

Flat Earth Q&A / Explaing "falling stars" please
« on: February 10, 2008, 07:55:43 AM »
I would like to know, how FE explains falling stars a.k.a. starfall. You know in summer sometimes you can see the sky full of stars and some of those stars are apper to fall down leaving a short instant trace behind them. What is it? How RE explains that also?

Flat Earth Q&A / Moon position right now.
« on: January 22, 2008, 12:00:58 PM »
Let us all make a little experiment.

I am in Belarus(eastern europe). And right now 22.00 local time, 22nd of January the full moon can be perfectly visible at the city of Minsk. even  though it's cloudy, it's seen perfectly.

Just write where you are now and do you see the Moon right now or not?

Will it work for the all sides benefits?

Flat Earth Q&A / Just think a little about this picture.
« on: January 10, 2008, 07:20:54 AM »

That one really makes me think the Sun is a spotlight and at low altitude. I am not true FEer, but if Sun was that million miles away, would those rays be visible under such an angle?

Such pictures really make you think about FE for serious.

Flat Earth Q&A / NASA Mars Program - what is it?
« on: December 15, 2007, 05:29:29 PM »
According to the news NASA going to launch MARS Program.. It implies a flight to the Mars with a man on the board,. Everything about the program is at high secret. But, they're going to build a space-module, that will become a base for the Mars Flight. I dont know what kind of space-module they're talking about, but they say it is going to be constructed right in the SPACE.

Also, before the flight they will select candidates to the flight, it means people will live in the conditions that are going to be similar to what is going to happen on the spaceship flying to Mars, and living on the Mars.

This program is going to start in 25 years as they stated.

I think, we are all future fans of Travel to Mars TV Shows and stuff like that. ;)

Flat Earth Q&A / Can you see it flat?
« on: December 11, 2007, 12:16:53 PM »

In this one does picture have straight line of horizon in it or it has a curvature?

That picture I've taken by myself and it has no photoshop in it.You can check it yourself by going Properites->Summary. To me, it seen like it has a curvature, or it just doesnt have it.... !?

Pages: [1]