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 - WestToEastEastToWest

Pages: [1] 2 3
It's not about burden of proof. To anyone who has never been able to look back at the whole earth they are both theories. Theories need to continue to work based on clear observational and practical evidence in order to endure as valid.

Shifter posted
What you believe to be stars ARE the vent holes.

Vent holes that glow in the dark and circle around in the night sky? Yeah, that make sense and should be easy to prove with logic.

It must be colder out there on the outside of the universe, where the vent holes are venting the heat to. All we have to do is apply the formula for heat transfer, Q = mcΔT, plug in the appropriate values, and bingo, a whole new picture to replace the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram.

So, it's just a coincidence that so many of those vent holes happen to glow the same as the Sun (Class G stellar spectra)? Oh, wait, the Sun must be one of those vent holes too! Well, that's good. Being so close to the Earth, and so much bigger than all those other vent holes, the Sun helps to keep the Earth cool.

I love it when all the facts fit together so well to give us a better understanding of the universe.

Those vent holes also move in relation to each other in an annual cycle. Some of them even seem to orbit around each other if you look closely enough.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproving strong Round Earth arguments
« on: March 13, 2019, 03:58:13 AM »
Scientists in the true sense of the word don't lie. They don't have an agenda where they start with the conclusion and then try to make evidence fit while at the same time ignoring any evidence which is contrary to reaching that desired preset conclusion. That is a conspiracy theorist.

Scientists , experiment, observe and measure in order to extract a model which works best based on the conclusions. They don't state it as fact and will continually update the model based on new evidence.

Individuals can ponder which group they're a member of, if any.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« on: March 12, 2019, 05:30:04 AM »
The very same unsubstantiated claims come from people like yourself,
Such as?

Quote from: sceptimatic
unless you think Hollywood type films are your evidence as well as made up equations to suit whatever size fantasy rockets are put before the public.
No, the equations are not "made up equations to suit whatever size fantasy rockets" they were carefully derived and suit all sized rockets.

The operation of rockets has been understood for centuries and even the limits of what rockets can do was first shown some 150 years ago.
And "The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, classical rocket equation, or ideal rocket equation" that defines these limits is about 120 years old.

Quote from: sceptimatic
You're sat there reeling off nothing more than book and picture feed by mimicking.
And do you expect me to waste my time drawing those diagrams and deriving those equation just to be ridiculed by you ;D!
Not plurry likely!

Like conspiracy theorists in general, though far worse than most, you simply justify all your fiction by automatically claiming that all contrary evidence is faked.
But in your case you've got nothing, no evidence nor explanations that really work for anything yet you've got the cheek to riducule everybody else.

You could forgive anyone for thinking he might be a troll....

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« on: March 11, 2019, 10:48:52 AM »
Sceptimatic is now confusing a (near) vacuum's lack of particles with having a lack of dimension. You don't need matter to be present in every part of space for the dimensions of time and space to exist in those parts, just the gravitational field created by the matter and energy that does exist in the universe. So it's possible to move about in a vacuum (or near vacuum) in space and spacetime.

Flat Earth General / Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« on: March 11, 2019, 07:16:50 AM »
Probably just you. The real connection is almost certainly their age. Since time immemorial the elder generation have thought scornfully of the younger.

Flat Earth General / Re: Tonight's lunar eclipse..
« on: January 23, 2019, 05:13:39 AM »
Why would "4 trillon gallons of water" stick to a flat earth? What magic force keeps everything from floating?

The spherical earth model can predict eclipses for the thousand years and beyond and they are always correct. How does the flat earth model predict them? Does it?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Was Today's Modular Mars Landing Fake?
« on: November 30, 2018, 05:31:26 AM »
Someone claims to have some information which won't be corroborated for decades but they can't tell us why because of the time continuum paradox and they don't care anyway.

There seems to be very little point in them posting.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« on: November 30, 2018, 05:10:07 AM »
Science is a methodology. if something is proved fact it doesn't become a religion, it becomes fact. Religion is something accepted by someone without proof or even scientific method.

The methodology in determining a fact is science, the fact never was science even before it was proved fact. It was a hypothesis or theory. Science requires that something is potentially refutable, not that it is refutable.

A question for those that don't accept the heliocentric model.

Presumably most believe that the planets orbit Earth? If so what do they believe causes the periodic retrograde motion of the night time planets, which are further than the sun in the heliocentric model?

This retrograde motion isn't seen with the two planets, Mercury and Venus, which are also always observed when close to the sun's position and never in the middle of the night. They are deemed to be closer to the sun than Earth in the heliocentric model.

All these observations fit very well with the heliocentric model, is there a geocentric model which fits these basic observations just as well?

Apologies if this has been answered before.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What would it take to fake the ISS?
« on: November 23, 2018, 09:47:49 AM »
Can you back that up? If it is indeed a "proven fact"?

I think you meant figuratively. If he was literally the Grinch, he'd be a fictional character.  ;)
But for added fun with English, literally can mean figuratively.

No, just no.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How Tall?
« on: November 01, 2018, 10:59:26 AM »
The question of why stars are visible at horizon level yet nearer objects aren't will need answering.

Flat Earth General / Re: Admiral Byrd's interview and the North Pole
« on: November 01, 2018, 10:51:06 AM »
In order for someone straight thinking to be "shattered by the Flat Earth" there would need to be firm observable/measurable/verifiable evidence that that earth was flat, rather than the complete opposite being the case.

Flat Earth General / Re: Space Travel
« on: October 30, 2018, 09:29:21 AM »
Look forward to it. Why you believe something is the basis for any theory.

Flat Earth General / Re: Admiral Byrd's interview and the North Pole
« on: October 30, 2018, 09:25:16 AM »
He's a flat earth believer but states that the admiral flew over both poles.  ???

Flat Earth General / Re: Space Travel
« on: October 30, 2018, 07:21:45 AM »
If you believe the ISS exists and that it can be accurately predicted as to where it appears at a given time. How do you explain on the Flat Earth the smooth transition that predicted and observed path takes from country to country, trans-hemisphere, without some sudden break in the smooth path in order to double back round the underside of the earth?

A lot of extra money "spent'' on the fix. No better way to get money than to convince people they'll lose all the original investment.  And no one now blames NASA on the error, they laud them on the repair.

It's amazing that they manage to invent so many people and industry companies to pay this money to and it all survives decades of strict government audit.

Why go through the pretence?  A simple viewing of a sunset destroys all FE models.  That happens daily.

How does a sunset destroy "all" FE models? The sun goes underneath the Earth at night and comes back up in the morning. Even the Aztecs knew this, though they believed the sun had to fight off demons underneath the Earth so they killed people to give the sun strength for its battles, which was even more wacky than the round-Earth theory.

Sunsets are sometimes very pretty. I love a good sunset. (And I'm glad the sun doesn't actually have to fight off demons at night.) But the sun going under the Earth does not disprove all FE models. It only disproves the wackadoodle FE theories that claim that the sun doesn't go underneath at night.  ;)

If the sun goes underneath the Earth, there would be no daylight on the earth for a period of time for anyone.  That doesn't happen, so.... back to sunset destroys FE Models.

There would be daylight for the people living on the under-side of the Earth.

Interesting. Where is this edge which we travel round to reach the Southern side of the earth? Surely this is the proof FE needs? Presumably we can stand on the edge and watch the sun double back round?

Personally, I think that could be an ocean swell, but if the earth were spherical, would we really see a curved horizon if we saw the same distance in all ditrections?

No on a Spherical earth if you stand on a boat in the middle of the ocean and look in all directions the horizon should be flat. The curvature would be a way from you and objects should disappear below the horizon as they travel away from your location.

For non linear motion it is angular speed/acceleration you feel, RPM or degrees per second. It takes the earth 24 hours to turn through 360 degrees.  On a fairground carousel it's something like 10 rpm or 36 degrees per second, a car going round a corner could be as much as 100 degrees a second. For the earth it's 0.0003 RPM or 0.004 degrees per second.  You aren't likely to feel that.

Flat Earth General / Re: The Dome
« on: October 26, 2018, 07:38:58 AM »
The moon and sun have been mathematically calculated to be around 3000 miles above the Earth.
  • Show me these mathematical calculations of the moon's being "around 3000 miles above the Earth".

  • And I can just as easily show you mathematical calculations of the sun's being:
          less than 700 miles above the earth (using Rowbotham's data),
          a little over 1600 miles above the earth (using Voliva's method but with points 5000 miles apart),
          around 3000 miles above the Earth (using Voliva's method) and
          almost 4000 miles above the Earth (using Eratosthenes locations applied to a flat earth).
    And all based on the Flat Earth Wiki though using that information puts the sun using Voliva's method at a bit over 3100 miles.

    Funny that! Just how far is the sun above the flat again?

You have been here for years.  This is probably the 10th or 12th time you have asked me to provide calculations for this subject, and each time I do, then you go silent or pretend to ignore me.  I am not here to be ignored, so I will no longer be providing you with the same calculations over and over.  I am tired of your games.

I'm new here, could I see the calculations please?

Flat Earth General / Re: The Dome
« on: October 26, 2018, 07:37:52 AM »
Call someone in L.A. from London at 4pm UTC and ask them the coordinates of the sun in the sky and to measure it's angular size. Either of those things independently will show the sun cannot be 3,000 miles near and that the sun must also be very very large, as in much bigger than the earth. Together they give you a good idea of the scale of size and distance.

Flat Earth General / Re: Space Travel
« on: October 26, 2018, 06:27:10 AM »
The flat earth hypothesis needs it to be impossible so the photographs showing a globular can be dismissed as fake.

That's not what I said. I asked why in the flat earth model is space travel not possible? and if it is why have no flat earth people tried?

I still think my answer is the correct one. You won't get any actual science as to why from them because that is the reason.

Maybe really isn't good enough considering the strength of conviction conspiracy theorists have in discrediting something which is built on robust actuals.

Flat Earth General / Re: Space Travel
« on: October 25, 2018, 10:19:56 AM »
The flat earth hypothesis needs it to be impossible so the photographs showing a globular can be dismissed as fake.

Flat Earth General / Re: I am very, very sorry.
« on: October 24, 2018, 09:15:42 AM »
I love the dichotomy of claiming all satellite photos are faked but then pointing to the lack of detailed photos of Antarctica or the Apollo landing sites as proof neither exist.

Flat Earth General / Re: Ice wall warming
« on: October 23, 2018, 03:48:33 AM »
A mini ice age wouldn't mean and end to the general uptrend of global warming, there have always been fluctuations within the general trend. However we are in an inter-glacial period of a continuing ice age in any case. As someone mentioned, for most of Earth's history the poles were not ice bound and the continued presence of ice caps is indicative that the ice age has not run its course. So while the temperature is on the general rise we are due a glacial period if the ice age is ongoing. Some scientists have even proposed that global warming may save us from that.

Flat Earth General / Re: I am very, very sorry.
« on: October 18, 2018, 05:38:25 AM »
and massive amount of photographic evidence?
Bah.  Who cares about photographic evidence?  I'd settle for a plausible explanation for a flat earth sunset.

Just a rudimentary working map would be a start.

Flat Earth General / Re: UFO's come from infinite earth beyond Antarctica
« on: October 10, 2018, 05:23:00 AM »
I hope New Earth is a parody account, for his sake an those in his path.

Pages: [1] 2 3