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 - Flopsinator

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Colonization of Moon and Planets
« on: September 26, 2015, 05:18:08 PM »
It is impossible to travel to those far worlds. Any such claims are lies, spread by demons or corrupted, possessed or tricked humans.

The worlds are not planets, they are the archangels given blasphemous, Pagan names by the fallen. What we observe is merely their radiance: an angel's true form is hard to behold.

'Mercury' is Raguel, the friend of God who speaks with Him often. 'Venus' is Ramiel, who once fell but was atoned with Christ's sacrifice. 'Mars' is Sariel, 'Jupiter' is the greatest Gabriel. 'Saturn' is Michael, the rings are the Holy Prepuce which ascended to shield him for when he will do battle in the end times. 'Uranus' is Uriel, and 'Neptune' is Raphael.

Sariel clearly cannot be colonized.

You know people usually use scientific facts as arguments here on this site. And (not to be offensive) religious things are usually not seen as a fact.

To be honest, 99% of FE'ers make up bullshit anyway and then claim it's fact.

Science is meant to be the pursuit of truth. God who made all will know far more about it than humans with our limited perspectives. I trust Him. If science is to be observations that reject anything God states, I will reject it in turn.
You may learn God to be fact by praying with an open mind and open heart: then all you must do is read His word. His light is the light of the Sun (Genesis 1:3-5, day was defined with solely the light created by God before there were any stars), the moon is the light of Christ (the Star of Bethlehem, a new object in the sky that shines, whose appearance is immediately apparent, and which moves visibly). What then are other celestial beings? The stars contradict God's word that the Earth is flat, and Revelation 12:4 confirms they are sent to Earth by the Devil and so must be fallen angels (or demons), which leaves the planets to be some of the angels still loyal to God. In what would be a stunning coincidence, there are seven archangels and seven brightly shining planets. It is fairly simple to conclude which world must be which archangel. 'Saturn', for example, ringed in the Holy Prepuce (first concluded by Leo Allatius in De Praeputio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Diatriba) must have some purpose for the blessing: Michael will do battle with the Devil in the end of days (Revelation 12:7), so it must be him.

Conclusions from God's word are just as much fact as anything, if not more so. God does not lie.

I was not trying to argue. i was trying to tell you that most people don't really care about that stuff here and they will most likely see it as make belief or they will not take it seriously.

Just saying, that's all.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Colonization of Moon and Planets
« on: September 26, 2015, 04:52:32 PM »
It is impossible to travel to those far worlds. Any such claims are lies, spread by demons or corrupted, possessed or tricked humans.

The worlds are not planets, they are the archangels given blasphemous, Pagan names by the fallen. What we observe is merely their radiance: an angel's true form is hard to behold.

'Mercury' is Raguel, the friend of God who speaks with Him often. 'Venus' is Ramiel, who once fell but was atoned with Christ's sacrifice. 'Mars' is Sariel, 'Jupiter' is the greatest Gabriel. 'Saturn' is Michael, the rings are the Holy Prepuce which ascended to shield him for when he will do battle in the end times. 'Uranus' is Uriel, and 'Neptune' is Raphael.

Sariel clearly cannot be colonized.

You know people usually use scientific facts as arguments here on this site. And (not to be offensive) religious things are usually not seen as a fact.

To be honest, 99% of FE'ers make up bullshit anyway and then claim it's fact.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The shape of Oceania and Australia today
« on: September 22, 2015, 02:25:45 PM »
He lost me when he nuked my town, and turned it into a frozen barren wasteland.  :)
Maybe he mean culturally, not physically  ;)

You mean that Australian's regularly nuke their towns? Like so much its part of their culture now? :P

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The shape of Oceania and Australia today
« on: September 22, 2015, 08:18:21 AM »
I'm not sure debating this guy will do any good...

Yep,  going by the name,  and some of the things he's written,  Zero Point,   I wonder if that's the sum total of his arguments, or is it his IQ?

He lost me when he nuked my town, and turned it into a frozen barren wasteland.  :)

My suspicions are pretty much confirmed that the Flat Earth Society is just a meeting place for really, REALLY bad comedians who rarely can get anyone laughing. This just may be one of them rare (laughable) jokes.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Cubic Earth
« on: September 21, 2015, 02:07:02 PM »
Hey... asking me to mistake a cloud on the Western Hemisphere for the South Pole is really "clever" from you...
keep on the good work... your mistakes indeed elucidate the general confusion you have or intend to cause.

Not mentioning the cloud is cleverly placed above Oceania to hide
it's position on the West-Northern Hemisphere.
BRAVO.
GAME OVER FOR YOU.

.

To who are you replying?

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Cubic Earth
« on: September 21, 2015, 12:35:31 PM »


It is big because i have no clue how to change the size of it.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Cubic Earth
« on: September 21, 2015, 10:26:13 AM »
Dude just give us the source. I mean how hard is it?

It's not hard for me doing that, but I do not wish to...
what is really hard is you showing me a satellite view of the south pole...

.

Why don't you want to give us the source? Because you don't have a source?

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Cubic Earth
« on: September 21, 2015, 08:48:13 AM »
Dude just give us the source. I mean how hard is it?

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Cubic Earth
« on: September 20, 2015, 02:17:58 PM »
And about that magnet and water thing. I have no idea where you are going with that as it does not make any sense.

The Magnetic Pole attracts on a circular circumference, more attraction at the center and less attraction as the circular angle expands... what's so difficult to understand about this..? And the water always flattening in which contains it it's another point, don't mix one with another because it gets confusing.

And you got that from where? A website? A news article? From what source did your claims come?

That is not important and you do not need to know it...
just concentrate on the information and if you find it with any fault tell me
about it and I'll retract myself apologizing to everyone.

.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

That is all i needed to know that you are either a retard or a troll.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Cubic Earth
« on: September 20, 2015, 12:43:10 PM »
And about that magnet and water thing. I have no idea where you are going with that as it does not make any sense.

The Magnetic Pole attracts on a circular circumference, more attraction at the center and less attraction as the circular angle expands... what's so difficult to understand about this..? And the water always flattening in which contains it it's another point, don't mix one with another because it gets confusing.

And you got that from where? A website? A news article? From what source did your claims come?

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Cubic Earth
« on: September 20, 2015, 11:07:48 AM »
Is it possible to travel to these other worlds,  other sides of the cube?

Not yet for humans, because Higher Power established we are not allowed just yet... a "selection" will have to take place before, but very very soon... you can't imagine how soon will be.

I'm very curios about how you know this.

How I know this is not important... what matters most is that I'm not bound to serve lesser powers, so I'm in a position from which I can disclose the information to you. Now, if you have questions about the disclosed information I'll be happy to answer.


So, did the voices in your head told you this? You know there are medications for that. I myself take medication for bi-polar disorder, there is nothing shameful in seeking help, it's up to each of us to take responsibility for our conditions.

If you have nothing to comment nor any questions related to the disclosed information look for something else to do and stop trolling... you just came to attack and insult me personally, but you have no intelligence enough to approach the subject itself... you are a very retarded troll with bad intentions.

So much irony.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Cubic Earth
« on: September 20, 2015, 10:11:04 AM »

I'm wondering if this thread is just destined to roll down bellow other threads without any reasonable comment or question is made...

.

Here is one: how does gravity work?

Gravity works the same way on "our" cubic Earth, just the same way as the theory explains it to a round Earth...
except for water, which flattens, so it must be contained by the ice barriers at the edges.

.

Wrong. Because gravity tends to make everything spherical.

It's not gravity that makes the things spherical... what makes things spherical is the Magnetism from Zero Point, the Magnetic Pole... water flattens in which contains it. Besides your affirmation is totally wrong because most things big or small are not spherical... please revise your thoughts.

Gravity makes thing spherical. we don't see a truck suddenly become a ball, because it does not have enough mass. Now if you take something the size of earth, then you definitely have enough have mass to make it spherical.

This is everything about gravity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
Quote
Gravity or gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all things attract one another including stars, planets, galaxies and even light and sub-atomic particles.
Now if everything is attracted to each other, why would earth have have sharp edges like a cube?

And about that magnet and water thing. I have no idea where you are going with that as it does not make any sense.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Cubic Earth
« on: September 20, 2015, 08:25:47 AM »

I'm wondering if this thread is just destined to roll down bellow other threads without any reasonable comment or question is made...

.

Here is one: how does gravity work?

Gravity works the same way on "our" cubic Earth, just the same way as the theory explains it to a round Earth...
except for water, which flattens, so it must be contained by the ice barriers at the edges.

.

Wrong. Because gravity tends to make everything spherical.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Cubic Earth
« on: September 20, 2015, 05:58:26 AM »

I'm wondering if this thread is just destined to roll down bellow other threads without any reasonable comment or question is made...

.

Here is one: how does gravity work?

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Cubic Earth
« on: September 20, 2015, 05:55:44 AM »
Is it possible to travel to these other worlds,  other sides of the cube?

Not yet for humans, because Higher Power established we are not allowed just yet... a "selection" will have to take place before, but very very soon... you can't imagine how soon will be.

I'm very curios about how you know this.

How I know this is not important... what matters most is that I'm not bound to serve lesser powers, so I'm in a position from which I can disclose the information to you. Now, if you have questions about the disclosed information I'll be happy to answer.

.

Dude it is important! As far as anyone could tell, you are making up stuff. Give some form evidence, proof or just anything!

There is not any amount of evidence enough to please someone who does not which to see... but if you have any questions or a way to disprove what I disclosed I'll be happy to answer or retract what I informed.

.

I wish to see the evidence. I think that was pretty clear.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Cubic Earth
« on: September 20, 2015, 04:48:48 AM »
Is it possible to travel to these other worlds,  other sides of the cube?

Not yet for humans, because Higher Power established we are not allowed just yet... a "selection" will have to take place before, but very very soon... you can't imagine how soon will be.

I'm very curios about how you know this.

How I know this is not important... what matters most is that I'm not bound to serve lesser powers, so I'm in a position from which I can disclose the information to you. Now, if you have questions about the disclosed information I'll be happy to answer.

.

Dude it is important! As far as anyone could tell, you are making up stuff. Give some form evidence, proof or just anything!

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Cubic Earth
« on: September 20, 2015, 04:40:21 AM »
Is it possible to travel to these other worlds,  other sides of the cube?

Not yet for humans, because Higher Power established we are not allowed just yet... a "selection" will have to take place before, but very very soon... you can't imagine how soon will be.

I'm very curios about how you know this.

Good point! I can also just make up something and make it work. Just like that dome some FE'ers believe: no evidence that the dome even exists, and if it is related to the sun or something, then they will just make up something to make it work the way they want it to. The only thing limiting them then is their imagination.

18
The atmosphere mostly spins with the earth,  but that causes some interesting effects,   like banding,    as you move away from the equator,  the rotational velocity decreases,  and  eventually at the poles the rotational velocity is zero.    The velocity gradient leads to circulation patterns in the atmosphere that define bands.    If you look at a picture of Jupiter, you can see very sharp banding,  but Jupiter is a big gas giant,  and rotates very fast,  about every 11 hours, if I recall correctly.  By comparison the banding effect is much smaller on earth.



Good one Razor, THE EARTH SPINS. That should be the name of your next comedy act. Keep it up you are getting funnier every day. ROTFL  ;D ;D ;D

While Yendor wrote that reply his head was spinning right round: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sun as a spotlight?
« on: September 19, 2015, 04:34:26 PM »
Light doesn't behave according to the RE model on a flat Earth, by necessity. Judging the sunset by the laws you would expect to hold large-scale on a RE isn't particularly useful.
I hold that light is 'attracted' to objects with a high refractive index, (similar to how metal is attracted to magnets: this may be untrue, and the justifications aren't relevant right now, just take my word for it for the purposes of explaining my hypothesis). In this case, the so-called ice wall around the rim of the Earth would attract a lot of the Sun's light, skewing our observations (also meaning the outer part of the Earth receives more sunlight). When the Sun is distant, the force curving the light would have had far longer to act, so the upper semicircle of the Sun will remain more visible as the Sun as a whole fades out. That's a simplification, I think it's likely there's more at play (it isn't a complete explanation, and I wouldn't expect it to be), but it's an idea of one possible answer.

So you are saying that the sun rises/sets in the north, and that it sets/rises in the south?

It's very hard to map compass directions from a RE model to the FE model. What you're saying is both true and false. If you define North to be the theoretical centre (it's not proven that this is the core, that should be acknowledged: it's likely, but not certain), and South to be the outside rim, then yes, but also every direction the Sun could possibly set in would be South, and every direction it could possibly rise in would be North.
If you take the more intuitive, and more complex model of defining the four cardinal directions to be curved, East and West being tangents to a concentric circle, then it will still rise in the East/set in the West, rather than rise in the Northeast and set in the Southwest.

Would a diagram help? My scanner's broken so I can only really do dodgy paint diagrams, but it may make it easier to visualize. The idea's actually pretty simple, it's just a pain to put into words.

Any diagram would help as i have trouble imagining that the light from the sun goes to the south and... what again?

It would still set/rise in the south, and rise/set in the north (actually not because the Arctic does not have a wall). Unless light goes for a joy ride in a giant pinball machine and makes lots of curves everywhere it feels like it.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earthquake tremors and the Earth's core
« on: September 19, 2015, 04:08:49 PM »
If an earthquake happened to a flat earth, would it not break the entire earth like one of them "end of the world" movies?

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: when did the Round Earth model appear in history?
« on: September 19, 2015, 12:45:17 PM »
And ever since those times the powers that be have done everything in their power to keep the public believing in that model. Once science fully developed the theory of gravity they knew they had to keep the Earth as a ball for it all not to fall apart.

Gravity is not real and a round Earth is not possible.

Prove it.  Tell me one thing that you expect to observe on a round Earth that we do not observe in reality.  I have asked many times and no flat earther has been able to do it so far.

This is the question that always shuts them down. At this point, flat earthers have two option: 1. Ignore the question or 2. Create a strawman of the round earth model and refute that. Meanwhile, there are several things that the flat earth model would predict that we simply don't observe.

For example, if we observe the sun going below the horizon at sunset (which we do), then the sun would have to go under the flat earth. If the sun was under the earth, it would be night everywhere in the world. It is never night everywhere, so we know this doesn't happen.

For another example, if the sun acted like a spotlight and shined on different parts of the world at different times, then the sun must always be above the flat earth. We would never see the sun go below the horizon. We do observe the sun going below the horizon, so we know the sun does not act like a spotlight.

You need about 3 to 6 suns (and moons) to make the FE sunset/rise work correctly. Oh and you need to have the suns go TROUGH the earth to make them rise in the east and set in the west.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sun as a spotlight?
« on: September 19, 2015, 12:22:40 PM »
Light doesn't behave according to the RE model on a flat Earth, by necessity. Judging the sunset by the laws you would expect to hold large-scale on a RE isn't particularly useful.
I hold that light is 'attracted' to objects with a high refractive index, (similar to how metal is attracted to magnets: this may be untrue, and the justifications aren't relevant right now, just take my word for it for the purposes of explaining my hypothesis). In this case, the so-called ice wall around the rim of the Earth would attract a lot of the Sun's light, skewing our observations (also meaning the outer part of the Earth receives more sunlight). When the Sun is distant, the force curving the light would have had far longer to act, so the upper semicircle of the Sun will remain more visible as the Sun as a whole fades out. That's a simplification, I think it's likely there's more at play (it isn't a complete explanation, and I wouldn't expect it to be), but it's an idea of one possible answer.

So you are saying that the sun rises/sets in the north, and that it sets/rises in the south?

23
That section of ice wall would inconvenience anyone, but might not stop them completely. I'm sure there are plenty of places around the world where the wall might be very easy to cross. If a penguin can get back on shore after a swim how hard could it be?

First of all, the picture you had was misleading. Because that is definitely not the ice wall.

And the second thing, what keeps us from just flying over the ice wall With a plane or helicopter?

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I've got a new idea to simplify the debate
« on: September 07, 2015, 09:30:17 AM »
This is my argument, please archive this if you wish.

1. Start at north pole. Walk/Fly/Drive/Swim/Hover in a straight line, the shortest route to the equator, any direction will do as long it's a straight line.

2. When you reach the equator, make a 90 degree turn. Directions don't matter, as long as you walk the same distance.

3. when you reach the same distance, make a 90 degree turn in the same direction. Walk the same distance.

4. now, this is the funny part. on a sphere, these steps will make a perfect triangle and you will be back to where you started.

if however you were on a flat earth, you will end up in the middle of nowhere, but if you repeat the last step you will make a perfect square and be back at the north/south pole.



This also works if you start at a random location.

When did you conduct this experiment?  Please, post your methods and data so that it can be verified.

Before telling that to others, post the data and the experiments that allows you to prove Earth is flat. ;)

Do you have these data ? I don't think so. ::)

Perhaps you people should be the ones checking facts.  You should check to see if anyone has ever performed this experiment.  From my research, this is only a thought experiment that has never been verified.  It would be like me giving flat Earth evidence by saying, "If the Earth is flat, then you can walk to the edge.  If the Earth is round, then you can't."  Do you see how my statement would not be evidence of anything, especially since neither I, nor anyone I know of, claimed to have walked to the edge?  Kind of funny how evidence works.  And by funny, I mean that you can not just present a thought as evidence.

No, nobody has ever performed the experiment, but you don't actually need to do it. You can just check it by checking the distances. That's why I told you to try to disprove the distance from Norway to South Africa to China.

You can probably use a globe and a pencil and you are done (a globe you can put on your desk).

25
lol, there are plenty of videos on youtube of videos that show ghosts and the chupacabra.  We are supposed to believe it because it is on youtube?  Is this what this Free Thinking site has degraded to?  A youtube fight?

Then what about this: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/30/travel/stunning-timelapse-antarctic/ ?

Just as I expected. Amateurs are lying and non amateurs are paid by the government. The fact that there is a midnight sun in Antarctica is well known and documented ever since people crossed the Antarctic circle, but it's a lie. The 35,000 tourists are paid by the government not to admit that there is no midnight sun. I

Is this what free thinking has degraded to? Saying that every single thing that doesn't agree with you is false?

Perhaps there is a reflective property unique to the land beyond the oceans, almost like a mirror. Regular snow is surely reflective enough.

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/snow/science/characteristics.html

And how is this related to what Definitely Not Official just said?

26
I've got two new questions :

If we can fly to Antartica, why no one is able to see the Ice Wall during the flight ?

And why can't the FE'ers tell us what is after Antartica ?




Try using Google if you love it so damn much.

This picture depicts an ice shelf!

Here is the article it was used in: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/global-warming-antarctic-ice-shelf-collapse-18014

It literally says: "An in-flight photo shows the edge of the Larsen B Ice Shelf"

Ok then, this picture shows a glimpse of the ice shelf that surrounds the worlds oceans.

You do know what an ice shelf is, right?

It looks like a wall of ice to me.  Perhaps you expected it to be made of ice bricks or something?  ::)

So FE'ers don't know what an ice shelf is? Okay then let me explain.
An ice shelf is a big platform made out of ice floating in water.

So if that is the ice wall then how do the oceans not get drained?

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I've got a new idea to simplify the debate
« on: September 05, 2015, 06:32:22 PM »
I suggest the RE'ers to list and numerotate here all the RE arguments, and same for the FE'ers.

And FE'ers could correctly try to give an explanation to RE arguments. Same for RE'ers.

This would allow us to maintain a list of all of the evidence for each side, and help us to know which one is the most scientifically plausible.

I don't think anybody will be bothered enough to keep track of arguments for any more than a day. Unless you are willing to make this list.

28
I've got two new questions :

If we can fly to Antartica, why no one is able to see the Ice Wall during the flight ?

And why can't the FE'ers tell us what is after Antartica ?




Try using Google if you love it so damn much.

This picture depicts an ice shelf!

Here is the article it was used in: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/global-warming-antarctic-ice-shelf-collapse-18014

It literally says: "An in-flight photo shows the edge of the Larsen B Ice Shelf"

Ok then, this picture shows a glimpse of the ice shelf that surrounds the worlds oceans.

You do know what an ice shelf is, right?

29
I've got two new questions :

If we can fly to Antartica, why no one is able to see the Ice Wall during the flight ?

And why can't the FE'ers tell us what is after Antartica ?




Try using Google if you love it so damn much.

This picture depicts an ice shelf!

Here is the article it was used in: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/global-warming-antarctic-ice-shelf-collapse-18014

It literally says: "An in-flight photo shows the edge of the Larsen B Ice Shelf"

30
Who said you can't see "the ice wall?"  Maybe you just need to quit before you make your side look even more foolish than they already do.

So you are claiming that everyone that has gone to Antarctica can see the ice wall? And everybody that was there has not said anything about it? Never ever?

Looks like some Men In Black stuff.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4