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 - GlobeDebunker

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
1
Flat Earth General / Re: The ISS is a Gulfstream jet.
« on: April 27, 2016, 07:37:35 AM »
So, you're saying that we can push huge amounts of propellant mass out of a rocket engine at extreme velocities, and somehow there will be no reaction force at all?

Who's this 'we', white man?

Do you & a group of friends stand in the back of a rocket pushing 'huge amounts of mass' out of it?

You don't sound much like an aerospace engineering student when you use such garbled & unscientific terms...

In fact you sound like just another sock-puppet Shill quoting his Shill handbook.

Go away & stop your bullshit.

LOL Dude, I was beginning to think you were actually a good troll. Until! I come back to this same old forum, on this same old thread, where you're posting the same old middle-school insults.

Papa: "Do you want to buy some death sticks?"

Me: "You do not want to sell me death sticks"

Papa: : "I don't want to sell you death sticks"

Me: "You want to go home and rethink your life"

Papa: "I want to got home and rethink my life"
*still comes to the same old conclusion trying to sell death sticks*

2
Just another thread of nonsense started by someone who his clueless about how plotting a course for a planned flight and the actual route of the flight works.

Then of course he fails to note that the FE has NO map that is accepted by his own group of believers.

Another troll and other nonsense!

No we have some maps but i'm working on it to verify and correct if it has falses.

We don't believe anything for just said by somebody like you cheap trolls. We are controlling and checking them. You are just believing NASA as o god. But he isn't. Therefor you'll loose everything you have.

Perhaps you could share a rough draft of a flat Earth map with distances for the entire planet. It doesn't need to be completely accurate, just with the continents in the right place and the right shape.

Surely, but still it's needs to continents on the true pleace.

Right! So you can just save yourself the trouble and use a globe map instead of wasting your time on creating an impossible map!

3
I haven't spent very much time (if any) reading this thread, but here is the short answer:
No.

4
Just another thread of nonsense started by someone who his clueless about how plotting a course for a planned flight and the actual route of the flight works.

Then of course he fails to note that the FE has NO map that is accepted by his own group of believers.

Another troll and other nonsense!

No we have some maps but i'm working on it to verify and correct if it has falses.

We don't believe anything for just said by somebody like you cheap trolls. We are controlling and checking them. You are just believing NASA as o god. But he isn't. Therefor you'll loose everything you have.

And, while you spend your time 'verifying' your flat Earth 'maps', I'll be not-wasting-my-time by doing something that wasn't proven to be incorrect hundreds of years ago!  ;D :P ::)

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Europe Is Completely Flat !
« on: April 18, 2016, 08:01:21 AM »
Qantas = Santa Q[laus]

Santa Qlaus won't be bringing you any gifts this Qristmas. You've been very naughty lntikam. All you will be receiving this year is qoal.

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If the sun is a spotlight then...
« on: April 15, 2016, 01:54:11 PM »
Light can not propagate infinitely through our atmoplane.
Light can travel a long way though, on the FE model. For example if you're far south of the equator on the winter solstice, you can see the sun for something like 17 hours.

I don't know if this is an actual antecdote or you are just parroting something that you have heard in the past.  However, back when I used to live in the Blue Ridge Mountains, I could barely see a mountain peak that was 30 miles away.  I stand by my statement that you quoted.

There's quite a difference between a mountaintop and a giant burning ball in terms of visibility.

Something I've always asked myself is what keeps the sun together under FE.
Nuts and bolts

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A flat Earth has to look round from space?
« on: April 14, 2016, 09:49:50 AM »
Palmerito I think what he's saying is that the 'FE' debate that "it looks flat" because "the horizon is flat" is contradictory. We 'should' see a 'curved' horizon whether the Earth is spherical or a circular plane. If the horizon truly were flat, we would be looking at a polygon ("a plane figure that is bounded by a finite chain of straight line segments" -wiki).

Earthdude, there is another contradictory implication in the denial of high atmosphere photography. Technically, according to FET, we can never see the horizon (unless of course, you are at the "edge"). You know, the whole, "ships disappear at the horizon" thingy. So, their debate that said photography is altered, is moot. You wouldn't need to argue against high altitude photography. All you would need to say (if you were a FE'er) is that you can't see the true horizon. Also, the horizon would appear to be curved because of your perspective. Assuming all atmosphere bends light the same amount, then you would have an equal view: 360*.

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If the sun is a spotlight then...
« on: April 14, 2016, 09:17:40 AM »
How does the Sun shine on the bottom of the clouds in 'FET'?


Edit: Oh, my first thread. How naive I was then.

9
I don't believe in coincidences.

Oh really now? My brother lives 2000+ miles away from me. The other day I bought a redbull, a pack of cigarettes, and I put $10 in gas on a pump, and it came out to $17.77. The same day my brother sent me a picture text message that he purchased 17.177 gallons of fuel for $34.34 (I still have the picture message). That's a pretty big coincidence to me! It happened on the same day! Are you suggesting that my brother who is 2000+ miles away is stalking me? Or is it the government? How could you explain this to not be a coincidence? Also, just the fact that my brother purchased fuel, and it came out to $34.34 from 17.177 gallons of fuel is a coincidence. Are you suggesting that this gas station prices their fuel for this to happen? Since we do know that 17+17=34. That's a coincidence, hmm....?

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Google maps absurdity
« on: April 12, 2016, 09:43:47 AM »
I can explain the differences. 8)

At first, the pilot was using a FE map, and then he realized it was taking him the wrong way. So, he changed his flight path to correlate with the round Earth maps. And problem solved!! He was back on track!

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me your top ten proofs for a flat earth
« on: April 12, 2016, 09:32:56 AM »
10 models to explain the same thing.

That's better than having no models that reflect observation.

12
This have a basic answer.

Nasa didn't go to the moon at 1969. They needed concoct some pictures to be convincing.

They choose the picture of the earth is globe, because it was the widespread belief that the world is a globe.

But NASA made a big mistake because the world is not a globe. NASA has about 20 billion $ income per year. So they must to continue the lies.

There are trolls here taking salary from NASA they just working on defending NASA lies. Maybe these trolls are junior satans. :D

Winning salary instead of winning heaven. I thing they have a bad trading, or they are idiots. I'm not sure, maybe both of them are true.

Because which brain thinks a wrong like this? I'm giving you some money and you are giving up to heaven and prefer to go hell. How much does it cost? I'm thinking what is been "The cost of not give up to heaven" and accept to go to hell. 1 million dollars? No it is not enought. 1 billion dollars?  No it is not enought too. 100 trillion dollars? No it is not enought too. This is just a short life and it has absolutely no value.

These men (nasa trolls) are absolutely idiots. Clearly, absolutely imbecile and idiots.  ;D

The only logical implication here is that you have an income of $20 billion per year.

13
QUANTAS ==== SANTA QLAUS

It's an early Christmas for everyone! That's who's been behind the conspiracy the whole time! It's Santa! He doesn't want us to find out where he lives at the "North Pole"

14
Oh I see your first question now. These postulates can be shown incorrect because Satellites (in perfect stable orbit) do not adhere to Euclid's geometry because they are travelling straight lines that eventually cross themselves. Admittedly some definitions allows a line to be parallel to itself, others don't.

I get to the other posters questions when I have a bit more time on my hands. I have a lot of work to catch up on this weekend and some work for the new front page and the new documentary.

I'm not seeing the justification for assuming stable satellite orbits are straight lines.

Take your time... I'll be around. I'm kinda busy myself for a while.
Since they feel no experimental or theoretical acceleration and are thus in an inertial frame of reference, they must be (by Newtons Laws of motion) either still or travelling a straight line at a constant speed - by definition of acceleration. To clarify, they could be under the influence of another unknown force evening it all out, but this isn't the case.

Why not?

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Explain this.
« on: April 11, 2016, 12:38:36 PM »
I've seen saturn and it's rings in great detail with my naked eye.

I find this hard to believe.

Obvious troll is obvious

Yes, you are.

Ditto

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Galactic Rotational Speeds
« on: April 11, 2016, 12:24:15 PM »
Roundies did invent like 96% of the mater in the universe solely for solving the issue that some galaxies rotate faster than expected.

Let that sink in. Instead of going to Modified Newton Dynamics, a competing and equal theory given falsification of their equations, they instead invent 96% of the universe.

96%. Of the Universe.


For comparison this is 4%: '' and this is 96% ''


That is how falsifiable round earth science really is. 4% falsifiable. They will invent 96% of the universe to avoid dealing with the remaining 4%. And roundies have the balls to say they aren't a religion. And why? Surely its not because their beliefs are falsifiable. We just saw that isn't the case. Yet again.

On to another base problem: mathematics. The only pursuit, as John Barrow joked, that can prove that it must rely on faith (via Godel's Incompleteness and/or Axiomatic Theory I assume.) But its not even that, its the use of mathematics, as well as mathematics itself, that is already faith based. They fit curves to data that is barely arguable. Roundies be all like "close enough! Let's go ahead and invent enough mass to help support this already weak tie. That will fix it." Good old normal science. So blinded by coherency and continuity it is made foolish.

When people make fun of Newton for having his Universe held together by God, this is the kinda stuff they are talking about guys. The round earth universe is held together by faith in that curve fit. Magellan once said "The Church says that the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow of the earth on the moon and I have more faith in the Shadow than the Church" Our reply? I'd sooner put my faith in a Flat Earth than put it in the ridiculous notion that 96% of the universe is unaccounted for to account for a dying theory - that the earth is round. Hell at that rate, I'd sooner put my faith in a Potato.

That's a bit more than just forgetting where your keys are in the morning, I'd say.

This is like saying FET is .0000000000000000001% falsifiable. And you have to create 99.999999999999999999% of the universe to avoid dealing with the rest of it. I am exaggerating here, but the figure could be a lot more drastic than that.

Edit: It is at this point, John, that I would like to note that I know you are too intelligent to believe in 'FET'.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Europe Is Completely Flat !
« on: April 11, 2016, 12:17:24 PM »
I'll sum up the thread for anyone who is behind:

"Teh erths is shape like flat. Heres is me 100% proofs of mathematical proportions:

1000 mile
2000 mile
3000 mile = 3000 flat earth mile

SEE? I prove it. You no see? You know prove it?"

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The flat earth software challenge...
« on: April 11, 2016, 12:06:17 PM »
My GPS displays a perfectly flat map.  Check mate.

I got the new Galaxy S7 Edge... and your comment... it's falling off the pa...

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Explain this.
« on: April 11, 2016, 11:44:40 AM »
I've seen saturn and it's rings in great detail with my naked eye.

I find this hard to believe.

Obvious troll is obvious

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Small sun
« on: April 11, 2016, 11:41:05 AM »
The sun is not a spotlight.  It has been merely postulated that it acts like a spotlight.

A spotlight that shines down toward Earth, and also in the direction of the moon? How does it know to point toward the moon?

You can attempt to answer those questions, or you can give up on the postulation that the Sun acts like a spotlight.

21
Flat Earth General / Re: Name the shramps!
« on: April 11, 2016, 11:23:46 AM »
Mewn-skrizzamps. Am I too late?

22
The issue with an accurate representation of a flat earth map comes up a lot. There have been some suggestions.
 
Personally, I believe it is a closed finite surface in non-euclidean space. This is a mouthful of math terms, but the end result of this is that its difficult if not impossible to create a map of the flat earth, similar to how it would be impossible to map the globe model to paper accurately without use of projections. The underlying problem is the assumption you can draw accurately a very large body in curved space on a very small flat piece of piece of paper and have it hold to scrutiny without projecting it. We already know this isn't strictly the case.

It's basically assuming Euclid's postulates are correct even though we know for a fact they aren't - ignoring what was the greatest scientific revolution of the last 2000+ years. If the earth is non-euclidean and a closed finite space he is essentially asking the impossible.

Want he wants is a map that matches the globe. Its like saying "You believe elephants are gray. I won't believe you about elephants until you produce a blue elephant for me."

Or in other words:

"If one were able to view the Earth from a two dimensional perspective, it would be flat"

23
Flat Earth General / Re: Nice Job NASA. Great time-lapse.
« on: April 08, 2016, 11:10:06 AM »
NASA released a timelapse of the Earth from the ISS yesterday. You want us to believe the sky glows yellow and green at night? Come now. Are you even trying NASA?
The NASA-nerds need to up their game and more people need to ignore them.  They are boring. 

Until the NASA-nerds release a live-stream of the ENTIRE "globe" in view, I am amazed that any earthling pays attention to the NASA nonsense.  Watching grass grow is more exciting.

Congratulations on making yet another irrational decision!

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth is actually a CYLINDER
« on: April 08, 2016, 11:07:48 AM »
Explains gravity by centrifugal force, and no force would be needed to keep the cylinder rotating, so you don't have any consternation of energy issues. The rotation also explains Foucault pendulum and the coriolis effect without aether.
The stars could be explained by all the stars being on a sphere near the center, and each star has a spotlight effect. This explains the two centers of rotation and circumpolar stars.

I hadn't even thought of that!! The stars could be the back side of the sun. The sun has a 'sheet' over it, and over time the sheet gets worn producing pinholes for light to get through. Over a looong period of time, the sheet could be totally worn through and it will be daylight 24/7!

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth is actually a CYLINDER
« on: April 08, 2016, 11:03:04 AM »
If the earth is a cylinder like that, how would the mass extinction events occur? do the asteroids and other space debris that hit earth in the past just WARP from outside to inside?

I don't exactly see how this model would correlate with history.
(Hit me with your best shot!)

The 'top' and 'bottom' of the cylinder are not closed off (at the poles). The space debris came in from an angle. See first picture.

26
Flat Earth General / Re: Nice Job NASA. Great time-lapse.
« on: April 07, 2016, 11:50:35 AM »
Exposure could easily account for the differences in the pictures. Take a course on photography and learn for yourself. I did not watch the videos as I do not have the time.

The quality of debate on this forum has fallen incredibly since I joined. Or perhaps it has just lost its luster. Why don't we come up with a debate that involves more than just conjecture? Clearly, no one on here has enough information to declare one thing or another indefinitely. Just "hmm this looks funny" and "of course it looks funny". Or perhaps this was the aim of the OP: To pick a topic that nobody knows enough about in order to be a reputable source on the subject. There's probably only a handful of people in the world that could explain this to-a-T, regardless of whether it is fact or fiction.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: New to forum have a question
« on: April 07, 2016, 08:39:46 AM »
In this model, the Aetheric Whirlpool is caused by the Aetheric Winds parting and then collapsing into an eddie as the winds blow past the Earth.  Therefore, the whirlpool travels with the Earth and just above it.

Oh, so there's another force holding the moon and the sun up?

Edit: Or in other words, there is another force pushing the aetheric whirlpool back on top of the Earth to perpetuate it?

It is not a force that causes the collapse, it is more like differential pressure of the Aetheric Winds and the void left by the Earth being in the way of these winds.

Now it's collapsing? I thought we didn't want it to collapse. And if it's not a force, how does it stay up there? Or is it collapsing, and that's why it's not staying up there? But it looks like it's staying up there everyday.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: New to forum have a question
« on: April 07, 2016, 07:50:47 AM »
In this model, the Aetheric Whirlpool is caused by the Aetheric Winds parting and then collapsing into an eddie as the winds blow past the Earth.  Therefore, the whirlpool travels with the Earth and just above it.

Oh, so there's another force holding the moon and the sun up?

Edit: Or in other words, there is another force pushing the aetheric whirlpool back on top of the Earth to perpetuate it?

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: New to forum have a question
« on: April 06, 2016, 04:05:53 PM »
Quote
Perhaps you should not limit your education to Youtube videos, then. 

I wouldn't be here if you were correct.


Owned

Also, jroa, since you're here and we're on the subject. Why doesn't the Earth accelerate into the balls rolling around in the aetheric whirlpool? Why don't they smash into the Earth killing everyone and everything? Are planets sentient?

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth is actually a CYLINDER
« on: April 06, 2016, 03:59:41 PM »
I have created some crude drawings to illustrate my theory->>

As you can see, the land on the Earth is on the inside of the cylinder, much like the ring planets from Halo.

The sun is stationary in the middle of the cylinder, and acts much like the FE sun in the fact that it is a spotlight->>


The Earth rotates around the sun, and the 'stars' you see in the night sky are actually city lights on the other side of the planet!
Interesting theory but with some issues that must be addressed. I do wish I had the skills to make such a drawing of my ideas and display them here. I must say I viewed you "illustration" with some envy of your drawing skills. It also had the benefit of very nice and bright colours that draw the eye in a most beneficial way.

Bro, you got some issues you need to address. However, thanks! I wish my drawing skillz were as good as your Shakespeare skillz!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9