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 - Stash

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 110
1
Trump signed the executive order today, but I can't find the text of it anywhere. It's not on the gov site yet.

I'm not sure if this is the draft or the final signed EO.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

2
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: May 28, 2020, 02:08:17 PM »


Do you have to have personal access to everything in order to believe anything is real? For instance, you believe there is a dome over the earth and the sun is a projection from some crystals and such buried in a hole at the north pole. Have you personally had access to and verified those two physical things?
It doesn't matter what I believe.
You do not know for sure that nuclear bombs, exist.
You are happy to accept they do because you are happy to follow mass opinion that was garnered through storylines by so called authoritative people.

I know that there is a tremendous amount of evidence that nuclear weapons do exist. From eyewitnesses to video and everything inbetween.
There's a tremendous amount of evidence that Santa exists. Does he exist?

I am unaware of any evidence that shows that Santa exists. Just like you, me and the rest of humanity are unaware of any evidence revealing a domed earth with a carbonite projecting sun at the north pole. Now if I'm mistaken and you do have some evidence of Santa and a domed carbonite projecting sun earth, do lay it on us.

3
Flat Earth General / Re: Seeing Polaris and Southern Cross
« on: May 28, 2020, 01:55:13 PM »
Their lights are blocked by the earth's surface because the flat earth is traveling >> Downwards Universal Deceleration AKA DUD (the better version of Universal Acceleration).

1. The stars' lights go downwards (while go other directions) by velocity while the earth goes downwards by deceleration.
2. By DUD model, the air (which relatively resembles the earth's deceleration) will hit the stars' lights somewhat upwards. So it needs more height to see those stars.

I'm not seeing an upward/downward movement, just a rotation. In this video, the user sets the equatorial mount as fixed on the night sky (Southern Cross, in this case):


4
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85986.msg2253479#msg2253479

Are those images images of coronium and netwonium or just something sandokhan made up

Not necessarily made up, just ancient and out-moded:

"In 1902, in an attempt at a chemical conception of the aether, the Russian chemist and chemical educator Dmitri Mendeleev hypothesized that there existed two inert chemical elements of lesser atomic weight than hydrogen. Of these two, he thought the lighter to be an all-penetrating, all-pervasive gas, and the slightly heavier one to be coronium. Later he renamed coronium as newtonium.[3]

It was not until the 1930s that Walter Grotrian and Bengt Edlén discovered that the spectral line at 530.3 nm was due to highly ionized iron (Fe13+); other unusual lines in the coronal spectrum were also caused by highly charged ions, such as nickel, the high ionization being due to the extreme temperature of the solar corona.[4]
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronium

5
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: May 28, 2020, 12:09:13 PM »


Do you have to have personal access to everything in order to believe anything is real? For instance, you believe there is a dome over the earth and the sun is a projection from some crystals and such buried in a hole at the north pole. Have you personally had access to and verified those two physical things?
It doesn't matter what I believe.
You do not know for sure that nuclear bombs, exist.
You are happy to accept they do because you are happy to follow mass opinion that was garnered through storylines by so called authoritative people.

I know that there is a tremendous amount of evidence that nuclear weapons do exist. From eyewitnesses to video and everything inbetween.

There is zero evidence for a dome over the earth and a sun as a projection from some carbonite crystals and such buried in a hole at the north pole. Yet, you believe that without ever having witnessed it yourself nor any other human ever having observed these things. So I don't understand your contradiction.

On the one hand you dismiss something that has mountains of evidence, yet on the other, fully embrace things that have zero evidence. Have you ever applied your own logic to your belief systems? Like since you can't verify a dome and carbonite sun and no one else has in the history of humanity that perhaps they don't exist?

6
There is also the BiPolar Flat Earth Map.
Note comments from other flat earth believers.

Yes, I'm trying to be VERY precise and I'm ONLY arguing against the monopole flat earth map.  I'm not sure that WW2 in the Pacific makes the bipolar flat earth map impossible, as I haven't studied the bipolar version as much. 

But if I can discredit the monopole one because of my understanding of WW2 in the Pacific, that's enough for me!

While I fully appreciate your enthusiasm, discrediting the azimuthal projection map only takes asking about Sigma Octantis.

Sure.  In my view there are many ways to disprove it.  What I meant to say is that this is a novel approach (I believe) - no one has argued against the monopole map in this way that I have seen yet.   The more problems FET has, the fewer people will subscribe to it (I hope).

As for the monopole model (and the bi-polar) Pearl Harbor doesn't make sense either. The below map shows the route that Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo used to lead the Japanese Carrier force Kido Butai to attack Pearl Harbor undetected:



A larger map of the planned theater from Japan's perspective:




7
You don't seem to understand what is going on.

You have to account for the distribution of the Riemann zeta zeros at the Planck length level,  O ( 10-35m ).

In a boson.

In an electron.

In each and every atom.

How do you fit an infinity of zeros at that quantum level?

No one can explain how and why.

But I can.

Whoever can prove how the Riemann zeta function fits at the quantum level has the correct gravitational model.

You need the Riemann zeta function to describe how a suction cup works?

8
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: May 27, 2020, 01:13:46 PM »
...with only your side being given a higher pedestal due to mass belief in a storyline.

The highest pedestal is granted to those with overwhelming evidence; experimental, video, eyewitness accounts, etc. The lower pedestal is granted to those who have zero evidence such as yourself.
No.
The highest pedestal is given to those who have the authority to tell the stories which ordinary everyday people swallow and accept and the only evidence required is evidence that no ordinary person gets to see......including you, unless you want to show me any evidence that is irrefutable.

Do you have to have personal access to everything in order to believe anything is real? For instance, you believe there is a dome over the earth and the sun is a projection from some crystals and such buried in a hole at the north pole. Have you personally had access to and verified those two physical things?

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how does air stay on earth
« on: May 27, 2020, 01:23:43 AM »
No. The point is that Foucault Pendulum is a lie, it is absent, hence, no need to explanation.
No the "Foucault Pendulum" is NOT "absent"! There are lots of Foucault Pendulums around the world demonstrating that the Globe rotates:

Foucault Pendulum at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry



Foucault's Pendulum (Umberto Eco) - this one in Paris.


And plenty more but topic is "how does air stay on earth?" so please answer the TOPIC question - not something that was NOT asked!
These are not Foucault Pendulum system but demonstration of it. These system works like a clock work. A mechanisma moves the ball. It is just like the cgi animations of space mars jupiter rovers.

Regarding the Foucault Pendulum at the Smithsonian in DC:

"To keep the Foucault Pendulum going, one must replace the energy lost with each swing. This can be done by giving the pendulum a little "kick" with each swing.

To do this, two iron collars are attached to the cable near the top. There is a doughnut-shaped electromagnet built into the ceiling, and the iron collar swings back and forth inside the hole of the doughnut. When the pendulum cable reaches a particular point in its swing, it is detected by an electronic device and the magnet is turned on at just the right time to give the collar (and thus the cable and the bob) a little "kick" in the exact direction of its natural swing. This restores the energy lost during the swing and keeps the pendulum from stopping. It has no effect on the direction of the swing, and thus does not interfere with the demonstration that the earth is rotating."

10
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: May 27, 2020, 12:53:09 AM »

If weight wasn't real, we would all be floating around and be capable of lifting anything.
Dense mass is real. It does not require being weighted on a man made scale to give a measurement of that mass for us to know it's easier or harder to pick up.

So all this floating about stuff makes no sense by using weight...and you know this.


Why does your magic push us down? Rather than against a wall, a ceiling, or in any random direction?


Massive stacked atmosphere above us. As simple as that.
No different to massive amount of water being above a bottom feeding fish or the likes.

So the stack is pushing in all directions, not just from above?
Of course it's pushing in all directions but it is equalised around you horizontally as opposed to above you where it is stacked above your head as your feet are clamped to the deck.

How does it get equalised horizontally around me yet not vertically?

11
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: May 27, 2020, 12:38:16 AM »
...with only your side being given a higher pedestal due to mass belief in a storyline.

The highest pedestal is granted to those with overwhelming evidence; experimental, video, eyewitness accounts, etc. The lower pedestal is granted to those who have zero evidence such as yourself.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how does air stay on earth
« on: May 27, 2020, 12:32:38 AM »
Air stays on Earth because it's stacked in atmospheric layers from more densely packed matter at the bottom (ground) to less and less densely packed with each layer above until the very top layers sit atop of the rest ans basically freeze under little agitation due to those gases being the very last Earth has to give and so creating the ice dome.

And there's evidence of an ice dome that looks like what?

13
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: May 27, 2020, 12:29:55 AM »

If weight wasn't real, we would all be floating around and be capable of lifting anything.
Dense mass is real. It does not require being weighted on a man made scale to give a measurement of that mass for us to know it's easier or harder to pick up.

So all this floating about stuff makes no sense by using weight...and you know this.


Why does your magic push us down? Rather than against a wall, a ceiling, or in any random direction?


Massive stacked atmosphere above us. As simple as that.
No different to massive amount of water being above a bottom feeding fish or the likes.

So the stack is pushing in all directions, not just from above?

14
Flat Earth General / Re: Eratosthenes experiment
« on: May 26, 2020, 10:29:56 PM »
Quote
We don't have to go all the way back 2000+ years to see that light is straight. You can experiment today using a test that little kids are taught:
So since when looking out your backyard window, your realize terra appears flat - then the earth looks flat - and then it is? -- and then so light is?! Quite a liberty.

Light being straight is a novel conception that most novel conceptions disagree with.

Do tell of these disagreeable novel conceptions.

15
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: May 26, 2020, 10:28:11 PM »


No CGI back then.


Really?
Maybe just clouds that hold formation against the magical blast then.
It all depends on what you want to grasp as CGI of those days. Overlays and what not would be a good start for them in those days.
And all the ships on the water surface around the water stem with crew watching the show don't heave, pitch or roll. The alleged a-bomb was 30 meters below the surface. But no sand is pushed out sideways to come up on surface outside the water stem. It is not easy to do trick film.

Per usual you assumptions are misguided and incorrect.

"The results of this test were incredible - more than ten vessels were sunk, while the landing craft from which the bomb hung was melted by the high temperatures, disappearing without a trace. The U.S.S. Arkansas, a battleship boasting tremendous WWII combat credentials, was thrust up in the air by the massive burst of water shot forth from the ocean before making a vertical descent and sinking to the seafloor. An instant after the explosion waves measuring over 20 meters in height rose from the area surrounding Bikini Atoll, quickly covering all nearby islands."
Sounds terrible ... but there is no evidence of any tsunami wave, sunk ships, dead fish, sea floor mud displaced, adjacent islands flooded , e.g. photos.

Untrue. Damage to the USS Independence from the Baker test blast:



More damage:




16
Flat Earth General / Re: Eratosthenes experiment
« on: May 26, 2020, 10:06:13 PM »
Show that "any other" geometry can not hold these axioms, and I will show you the next.

Go ahead, show away.

17
Flat Earth General / Re: Eratosthenes experiment
« on: May 26, 2020, 10:05:05 PM »
Quote
It's highly ingenious but no matter what they claim it is simply a hypothesis with no evidence other than that it "explains away" a lot of the observations that support the Globe

The only reason to say that is if you had no positive evidence that light traveled in straight lines, hence pitting one 'hypothesis' against another.

What's to make me think that light doesn't travel in straight lines? That's common scientific knowledge. To refute that, you need to come up with some extraordinary evidence to the contrary. What do you have?

'It's common knowlegde' is hardly evidence for the straightness of light. Maybe you can tell me what experiments the Ancient Greeks did on light's straightnesa before assuming the straightness of light for the globe model.

We don't have to go all the way back 2000+ years to see that light is straight. You can experiment today using a test that little kids are taught:



So what experiments do you have, old or new, that show an EA bendy light?

18
Flat Earth General / Re: Eratosthenes experiment
« on: May 26, 2020, 08:08:51 PM »
Quote
It's highly ingenious but no matter what they claim it is simply a hypothesis with no evidence other than that it "explains away" a lot of the observations that support the Globe

The only reason to say that is if you had no positive evidence that light traveled in straight lines, hence pitting one 'hypothesis' against another.

What's to make me think that light doesn't travel in straight lines? That's common scientific knowledge. To refute that, you need to come up with some extraordinary evidence to the contrary. What do you have?

19
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: May 26, 2020, 03:07:42 PM »


Muster up some evidence and you may have a leg to stand on. In the absence of evidence, I'm afraid you have nothing.
The evidence is right there in the picture and I have zero need to muster up anything else to people like you.

Correct, the evidence is right there in the picture: A nuclear bomb test captured on film in July, 1946 at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific. There's tons written about it as well as tons of footage and witnesses of the event.

20
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: May 26, 2020, 02:55:41 PM »


No CGI back then.


Really?
Maybe just clouds that hold formation against the magical blast then.
It all depends on what you want to grasp as CGI of those days. Overlays and what not would be a good start for them in those days.

Overlays? What are those?

The far simpler conclusion is that it is simply an atomic explosion.
It is far simpler to just go with the mainstream flow. The narrative. The mass handed opinion on what you're told.
It is much simpler.
But to be true to one's self, it's much more logical to see it for what it is, which is....... BULL CRAP.

Muster up some evidence and you may have a leg to stand on. In the absence of evidence, I'm afraid you have nothing.

21
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: May 26, 2020, 02:53:09 PM »


No CGI back then.


Really?
Maybe just clouds that hold formation against the magical blast then.
It all depends on what you want to grasp as CGI of those days. Overlays and what not would be a good start for them in those days.
And all the ships on the water surface around the water stem with crew watching the show don't heave, pitch or roll. The alleged a-bomb was 30 meters below the surface. But no sand is pushed out sideways to come up on surface outside the water stem. It is not easy to do trick film.

Per usual you assumptions are misguided and incorrect.

"The results of this test were incredible - more than ten vessels were sunk, while the landing craft from which the bomb hung was melted by the high temperatures, disappearing without a trace. The U.S.S. Arkansas, a battleship boasting tremendous WWII combat credentials, was thrust up in the air by the massive burst of water shot forth from the ocean before making a vertical descent and sinking to the seafloor. An instant after the explosion waves measuring over 20 meters in height rose from the area surrounding Bikini Atoll, quickly covering all nearby islands."


22
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: May 26, 2020, 02:44:45 PM »


No CGI back then.


Really?
Maybe just clouds that hold formation against the magical blast then.
It all depends on what you want to grasp as CGI of those days. Overlays and what not would be a good start for them in those days.

Overlays? What are those?

The far simpler conclusion is that it is simply an atomic explosion.

23
That is not what your tag team partner said.

Quote
"This plasma mostly consists of electrons, protons and alpha particles with kinetic energy between 0.5 and 10 keV"? That plasma IS the Solar wind!

The NASA articles proves that the ion streams could not have originated from the visible exterior Sun, but from inside the atmosphere.

Your tag team partners insist that the plasma could ONLY have originated from SOLAR WIND.

EXACTLY! The solar wind emitted by a second Sun.

Unfortunately for your claim, a second (or third) Sun has never been observed by humanity in recorded history. That's a lot of humanity and a lot of history and nothing - No sun other than The Sun.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Eratosthenes experiment
« on: May 26, 2020, 02:26:30 PM »
And it matters because its circular logic to supposedly include what you are proving in your axioms. It shows nothing. You actually have to show that "you can't make geometry fit any other way" which is not the case mathematically. And as you know, math is math.

So waiting on you to prove your assertion...

Great Circle Navigation seems to assert a specific shape of the earth. And all of the worlds transport of goods and people rely on it to get from point A to point B via the shortest route:


25
Flat Earth General / Re: Eratosthenes experiment
« on: May 26, 2020, 12:45:15 PM »
Uwe Topper, one of the best European new chronologists:

"...From these data Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of our planet to be 252,000 stades, which is astonishingly correct. The stade used in Egypt is 157,5 m, and thus the earth's circumference 39,690 km which is fairly correct (today a bit more than 40,000). It means roundabout 110 km distance between two parallels (today 111 km)..."

It seems that your best European new chronologist is a Globe Earther as he stated that Eratosthenes' calculated circumference is "astonishingly correct".




26
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: May 25, 2020, 07:17:38 PM »
Nuclear fission doesn’t produce any smoke.

"In the case of explosions where the less dense hot air is centralized, this "shooting through" of the less dense hot air through the more dense colder surrounding air, occurs at a centralized point. The interactions of these gases causes the mushroom shape to form."

https://interestingengineering.com/what-creates-the-mushroom-cloud-when-an-atomic-bomb-blows-up

27
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: May 25, 2020, 01:46:24 PM »
It convinced me that a-bombs do not exist.
So all the other evidence means nothing.
There is no evidence that a-bombs can explode...

No CGI back then.


28

I was not banned on scienceforums, my account is still open.

Didn't seem to end well in your threads:



And one actually regarding this topic:



Your links are not reliable for sure and it seems the moderator said what we've been saying all along, that no one in London saw the explosion line of site at only 7 KM high. Here's what that would like on a flat earth with zero terrain or structures in the way:



29
You have failed to provide an explanation for the attractive mechanism.

As have you.

Which means you believe in fairy tales.

My fairy tale has experimental proof. Yours does not.

The article explains exactly how ether waves affect each and every quantum particle in an object to cause it to be subject to their influence (terrestrial gravity).

No where does it explain "how ether waves affect each and every quantum particle", it just says that it does. Just like saying mass attracts mass.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is essentially needless to GPS b/c the frame of reference is the Earth, not the Sun. GPS satellites care not where it is in relationship to the Sun.

Let's put your word to the test.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f606/87008dd7b3e872c67770eaa9ada9128bbf8b.pdf

Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well.

Sounds like these folks believe the earth is a rotating globe.


30
You are bamboozling your readers.

The phenomenon has nothing to do with solar wind.

The acceleration takes place in the ATMOSPHERE.

And its cause completely unknown.

The second Sun can accelerate ions in the ionosphere as well as create its own streams.

What about the third sun? Why do you keep leaving that one out?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 110