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 - DavidOrJohn

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Flat Earth General / Re: Space Travel
« on: November 03, 2018, 04:10:46 AM »
As the most renowned RET poster I must say no one has yet to convince me that space travel is fake

2
Flat Earth General / Re: Johannesburg - Perth - Amsterdam
« on: September 30, 2018, 04:18:02 AM »
As the most renowned RET poster on this site I can confirm that no one has been able to produce even a slightly workable version of a flat earth map.

There is plenty of theory floating around but all of it is contradicted by existing evidence so I struggle to envision even the most renowned FET poster from producing a workable map.

There is a working map and have numbers.

Then prove it. In fact take it to the airlines and become a millionaire.

3
Flat Earth General / Re: Johannesburg - Perth - Amsterdam
« on: September 29, 2018, 12:55:24 AM »
As the most renowned RET poster on this site I can confirm that no one has been able to produce even a slightly workable version of a flat earth map.

There is plenty of theory floating around but all of it is contradicted by existing evidence so I struggle to envision even the most renowned FET poster from producing a workable map.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: No one knows <Side perspective>_It's the key
« on: September 28, 2018, 12:02:23 PM »

Data does not exist until it has been viewed by you?

I know you aren't used to dealing with a behemoth of a poster such as myself, but as the most renowned RET poster I just cannot stand by and let comments like this lie.

You offer very little on this forum with many low quality posts.

Normally I wouldn't bother with such a low level of posting as it is inherently against the forums rules but it seems no one else has taken you to task on the matter.

I must insist that if you are to reply to someone it is a reply consisting of a higher quality and a reply which actually adds to the debate and moves it forward.

Next time I frequent this site, ensure you are complying with the sites rules.

As for the debate at hand, please explain which data you believe to support the FET, whilst the data will exist regardless of others seeing it, if you aim to move a debate forward it is preferable that such data is shared.

Thank you and good day.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: What's the motive?
« on: September 16, 2018, 02:23:37 PM »
As the most renowned RET poster I obviously have a higher standard for evidence than the regular posters on this site and I must say I've never once seen a convincing argument in favour of "the conspiracy".

There might be enough to convince lesser posters but no one is yet to convince me.

6
As the most renowned RET poster on the site I have to say this is the most ludicrous thing I've seen on the site.

Obviously I'm a bit higher brow than the average poster so I'm not going to get involved in this ridiculous thread, I just wanted to make my feelings clear.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: So, I guess telescopes are selective?
« on: September 11, 2018, 09:25:38 AM »
Perspective. Buoyancy. Universal acceleration.

How do either of those 3 explain the question posed by the OP?

When giving an answer please go into detail about why it justifies your stance.

Now bear in mind, I'm not just any old poster, I'm the most renowned RET poster on the site so any answers need to be detailed enough to justify a response from me.

Let's see if your up to the challenge.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does this work
« on: August 14, 2018, 12:27:29 AM »
If the Sun and Moon aren't dropping below a horizon but just getting further away. Then why dont they all get tiny just before night, and why aren't they absolutely gigantic when they're right over head?
As the sun and moon rise they both give the visual impression of being much larger than they are.

This could be due to the amount of lower level atmoplane through which they are being observed. The amount of water vapor in the atmoplane at these levels could act similarly to a fun house mirror at those distances.

The only experience anyone has in witnessing objects at 35-50 miles across in the sky would be the sun and moon, so it does not surprise me these objects do not appear to get smaller as they cross the sky above us.

As the most renowned RET poster I would like you to clarify some things for me before I give you any more of my time.
Nobody asked for your time...
Do you have any scientific evidence backing your claim that water vapour will make an object look exactly the same size as it moves away.
yep.

Observation.
What exactly are 'these levels"...
Varies day to day...
how high are the levels...
Varies day to day...
and what is the amount of water vapour present?
Varies day to day...
How do you know the sun and the moon reside within 35-50 miles?
Never wrote that...
Why does it not surprise you that as an object moves far away it does not get smaller?
An object 35-50 miles in size would more than likely remain in sight until it disappeared totally from view.
Remember I'm the most renowned RET poster here so your arguments best be water tight if you want my time.
blah, blah, blah...

Neener, neener, neener...

As I suspected. This might be secure enough to argue with lower level posters but someone of my level, not happening.

Enjoy your day sunshine.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Emergency landing proves flat earth?
« on: August 12, 2018, 12:54:15 PM »
As the most renowned RET poster on this site I must admit I have yet to be shown a flight path or emergency landing that proves FET.

The simple reason is because there are none. Mainly because the Earth is a globe.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does this work
« on: August 10, 2018, 01:04:45 PM »
If the Sun and Moon aren't dropping below a horizon but just getting further away. Then why dont they all get tiny just before night, and why aren't they absolutely gigantic when they're right over head?
As the sun and moon rise they both give the visual impression of being much larger than they are.

This could be due to the amount of lower level atmoplane through which they are being observed. The amount of water vapor in the atmoplane at these levels could act similarly to a fun house mirror at those distances.

The only experience anyone has in witnessing objects at 35-50 miles across in the sky would be the sun and moon, so it does not surprise me these objects do not appear to get smaller as they cross the sky above us.

As the most renowned RET poster I would like you to clarify some things for me before I give you any more of my time.

Do you have any scientific evidence backing your claim that water vapour will make an object look exactly the same size as it moves away.

What exactly are 'these levels" how high are the levels and what is the amount of water vapour present?

How do you know the sun and the moon reside within 35-50 miles?

Why does it not surprise you that as an object moves far away it does not get smaller?

Remember I'm the most renowned RET poster here so your arguments best be water tight if you want my time.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the scientific community?
« on: August 10, 2018, 01:00:46 PM »
Obviously I'm the most renowned RET poster and this is one of the strongest arguments against FET.

There is zero reputable sources in favour of a flat earth.

There is not one single peer reviewed paper in favour of the flat earth.

I am yet to see a single convincing argument.

Now obviously I'm like the big dog on this website, so some lower level posters might be convinced, but for me, clearly, it will take a lot more.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: About the moon landing
« on: August 08, 2018, 08:31:10 AM »
Well as the most renowned RET poster on this site I must admit that this argument has never even come close to swaying my opinion.

If you wanna convince me, you need a much stronger argument.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The strongest arguments of the flat earth theory
« on: August 02, 2018, 12:45:07 PM »
Obviously I'm the most renowned RET poster on this site and I must admit I've never come across any serious argument in favour of FET.

You get the stubborn "look out of your window" or "NASA is a lie" type and they will never cede, but mathematically speaking there's not been a single solid argument in favour of FET.

Some lesser posters might concede ground on this matter but I'm a different kettle of fish.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: proof by contradiction
« on: July 22, 2018, 06:36:50 AM »
In mathematics, proof by contradiction means assuming a thing is true and showing that it conflicts with a known fact. In math, as I recall (45 years since I did proofs in math class), once you had proved that assuming the hypothesis would conflict with a known fact, you can say definitely with the authority of logic that it is not true.

Does this work on FE? If I show that assuming FE leads to something that can't be true, does that mean the earth is not flat?

In math, you could never say, "I know that seems right, but it isn't. We haven't been working on the problem long enough."
The hard part is in proving that; I don't know how far you did maths, but if you did it to a more advanced level you likely reached the point where you ended up needing to prove things you previously took for granted. Like, for example, showing 0*x=0 for all x, from axioms. And the if you were working with a new set of mathematical objects, you actually had to prove that all over again rather than just assume it.
Eg: multiplicative inverses exist in the rational numbers, but not in the integers. If you want 2*x=1, you need x=0.5. Things true in one set aren't true in the other.

That's the problem with FET. Yep, all the basic laws of logic still hold, but that goes all the way. Every result requires proof, and proofs that might hold in RET don't automatically hold in FET.

You can't even assume the multiplicative inverses are commutative either i.e. Matrices.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: proof by contradiction
« on: July 20, 2018, 04:28:39 PM »
As the single most renowned RET poster I can confirm this is a valid train of thought.

Assume the earth is flat, hit a contradiction based solely on that assumption and the earth must not be flat.

I don't do this often, but I give my support to this post.

16
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Just my two cents
« on: July 15, 2018, 02:28:44 PM »
As the most renowned RET poster in these parts
The what? Who the fuck are you?

I told you who i am, the most renowned RET poster.

I'm yet to ever lose a debate with an FET poster and I have a degree in mathematics which makes me more qualified than most who frequent this site.

I am the most renowned RET poster.

17
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Just my two cents
« on: July 15, 2018, 01:29:26 PM »
As the most renowned RET poster in these parts I must admit I disagree wholr heartedly with your post.

The majority of debates on this forum are educational and enjoyable.

There's just one guy who routinely loses his shit and gets banned for it but he only posts sporadically now.

18
As the most renowned round earther on this site I must admit I'm yet to see a valid argument against the round earth.

I wonder if the thread starter has such an argument?

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is there no unified Flat Earth model?
« on: April 16, 2018, 10:53:05 AM »
It's because they would rather come up with their own model and convince others it's accurate.

One guy even thinks the world is two separate disks lol.

20
DavidOrJohn, are you there?

Yes I'm here. How do you know the handles are to gain access to the monitor?

21
So because you don't understand the technology you've decided it's closer to a microwave than a computer?

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice Wall debunked by Stanford VLF experiment
« on: April 11, 2018, 01:54:28 AM »
Irony:  JROWE's made up DET model matches reality better than all other FE models to date.  And aether is everything in his model, literally everything.  No ice wall needed for JROWE's DET model, aetheric/space density differential powered instant teleportation that you cannot tell it happens due to ... reasons. 
Just considering the Ice Wall claims, DET makes more sense than all FE notions that use the wall. 
Let that sink in folks.  DET kills FE.

It is funny how half an hour of scribbling is able to produce a better theory than the ice wall version. Soon people won't be debating RET against FET, they'll be debating RET Vs DET.
To be fair to JRowe, while I still claim that has no valid basis, he did put a lot of thought into his model - though better diagrams would help a lot.
The problem is that he did it all more or less as a "thought experiment" with no experimental or theoretical backing.

And then, to top it off, as soon as any contrary observations are presented, he simply claims that they are fake or "can't be measured".

And I have seen no flat-earthers that openly support his DET, yet JRowe seems to expect Globe supporters to accept it - not likely!

Yeah like I said half an hour of scribbling is a lot of work. Just a shame it's based on an incorrect premise.

They won't hop on board because it isn't a FET it involves two disks.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: NASA Live
« on: April 10, 2018, 01:33:52 AM »
I've said it before, as far as I'm concerned these live feeds from space are absolute proof that the Earth is a sphere because the only refutation is conspiracy.

25
I don't think there are any real world scientists nor engineers who believe in a flat earth.
If there were, they certainly wouldn't keep their jobs for a very long time.

Absolutely, too many industries require accurate use of the Earth's curvature and shape.

26
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Directly Benefits My Daily Life
« on: April 08, 2018, 11:42:32 PM »
There's no way this is true.

27
Quote
No, Mr JRowe,  In my opinion, and I am allowed to have an opinion, "the underlying mechanism",
is based on assumed, totally unproven properties of aether, for which you have neither physical nor theoretical evidence".
I see you persist in ignoring every word I say.
That is not an opinion. It is a false claim about reality that anyone who would click the link in my sig can quickly see is false. It is not an opinion because whether or not evidence exists is a matter of fact.

Quote
Yes, I have seen your evidence section and I can't find this evidence.
Then you are a fucking idiot.

No one thus far has been able to locate your evidence.

Perhaps you could provide an example for us here.

28
I don't think there are any real world scientists nor engineers who believe in a flat earth.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances flying around the earth
« on: April 08, 2018, 11:15:45 PM »
The given measurements are accurate enough such that Joe Bloggs can plan a journey.

Those who require more accurate details probably have other ways of verifying as well.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Difference Between FE and RE believers?
« on: April 08, 2018, 11:13:58 PM »
It is a wholly different mindset between the two but I kinda think that FET believers are not genuine and they actually accept the globe model. Those who aren't RET nor FET are in a world of their own.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7