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 - JCM

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
I have a few questions.   

Stars are acoustic waves in a rotating ocean? How is an acoustic wave fixed in place while rotating in an ocean?  Have you considered spectrographs of starlight and their implications since star spectrograph and our sun spectograph are very similar.

The ocean of stars has a few issues with the axis of rotation just like all other celestial gear problems above a flat plane not matching observations.  (Star axis above the earth moving to 90 degrees as you approach and at the horizons at the equator).  How does your model improve on the existing flat earth models which donít address this adequately.  How do huge constellations crossing the equator maintain their shapes?

Sheol causes earthquakes from deep within the Earth?  With seismographs we monitor faultines and can pinpoint exactly where these earthquakes come from and it is certainly not deep in the core of the Earth.

Why does the transparent firmament rotate and how does does it rotate with ďgear likeĒ precision/attributes while maintaining a barrier holding back an ocean in the sky?

The Libyan desert glass isnít really a mystery at all.  It was likely formed some 29 million years ago in a meteor impact called El-Baz in the Egyptian desert measuring 60 by 100 km.  Giant meteor plus sand plus massive heat = glass. 

2
Flat Earth General / Re: Serious Question about the edge of the world
« on: April 14, 2019, 09:46:11 AM »
The path of the ship would be nice to know.  If it is just a cruise to see some penguins on some islands hundreds of miles from the shelf I donít know what they think they will find.   I have full faith they will live stream the 24 hour Antarctic Sun with some equipment (assuming they travel in the Antarctic summer).  I do hope some media types come along to document the entire thing if it happens.  Frankly, Iíd love to be on that cruise myself as I have always wanted to see Antarctica.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: March Equinox
« on: March 26, 2019, 08:05:46 AM »

Did any FE supporter even look outside yesterday to test this out? 
With the P9000 camera in hand, I am sure zooming in on the Sun would reveal its true location, alas I cannot afford such a powerful zeteticists tool myself. 

You could have rented one if you were serious.
People come here to either learn or to mock. Trust me, we know the difference.

Well, I donít have a p9000 super zoom camera...  I do have a couple telescopes and a dslr Iíve adapted for some pictures I use (poorly) to take pictures of the moon, the sun (with a homemade filter that worked somewhat), planets, the Galilean moons, and longer exposures of nebulae etc.  I am very much still an amateur in astral photography.   I have never seen an object move away from me as I zoom in with different eyepieces as long as I use my EQ mount properly aligned and certainly the Sun didnít move further North upon looking through the telescope.  Since I donít have a p9000 I canít claim that is the case for such a tool of course.

Bullwinkle, did you look to see the Sun rise in the East and set in the West near exactly?  This was the easiest experiment for every single person on this forum to perform which could boost FE.   Perhaps you could share your experience and some knowledge could be shared here? 



4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: March Equinox
« on: March 22, 2019, 06:19:34 AM »
Did any FE supporter even look outside yesterday to test this out? 
With the P9000 camera in hand, I am sure zooming in on the Sun would reveal its true location, alas I cannot afford such a powerful zeteticists tool myself. 

Isnít this phenomenon of looking outside the predominant evidence for FE since it just looks flat?

This experiment is a ďzeteticistsĒ perfect experiment!  Just walk outside and see.  No fancy tools or expense are required to see this. 

This would require zeteticists from different parts of the world to share information and believe each other, so I am not sure if that is possible at all.   Now that I think about it, this experiment may be too hard as well since the zeteticist would need to personally view the Sun rising due east and set due west everywhere on the planet!. That is completely unrealistic to think one person could in their lifetime view the equinox from everywhere on the planet.

This is similar to the issue of the flat Earth map, how to believe the cartography of someone else without doing it personally yourself!  If only zeteticists could share their knowledge somehow... Perhaps if such a way were found, then progress could be made on matters like ďWhere is the Sun?Ē or a myriad of other questions.

5
Flat Earth Debate / March Equinox
« on: March 20, 2019, 10:27:15 AM »
Tomorrow is the March Equinox when most everywhere on the planet who can watch it will view the Sun rise due East and set due West.  This is not exactly perfect due to refraction, latitude, and a persons altitude but it is really close.

Now, if this is true, it is a strong case for the globe Earth.  If it is grossly untrue, then it would be a huge win for the flat Earth argument.

As many rounders and flatters who have the ability to wake up early or watch the sunset should record them.  Share your results!  Include a compass and maybe some reference indicating the day and location so it canít be said there is missing information.

 

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I proved gravity
« on: March 17, 2019, 11:49:11 AM »
Well folks, I guess the general consensus (as close as we're gonna get to one I suspect) is that we all agree that my experiment did demonstrate a rather gravity like force, that did in fact measure surprisingly close to the official number for gravity considering the highly imprecise aspects of my apparatus.

I feel confident that it is very reasonable for me to consider that I did in fact demonstrate gravity or something pretty much just like gravity.

Whether it's a force of attraction or a force of shadowed repulsion I do not know. But I do know that it did bring my weights together, not apart.

And it stands to reason that any two masses would be likewise attracted to each other.

This naturally  raises some interesting questions, for example, "What keeps the flat earth, whether small or a virtually infinite plane, from bunching up into a globe?" and other such mundane questions.
Why would an infinite plane "bunch up into a globe?"  Even a finite earth would not "bunch up into a globe" if the pressure gravity hypothesis is correct.

Do you still believe that "gravity" explains orbits when it has been shown that orbits are mathematically impossible with an inverse square acceleration gravity?

If ďby shownĒ you mean in the conspiracy website and fringe science of Septclues.com then I guess you are correct.  Are we to believe everything on that site because much of that site has some conspiracies which might rival the flat Earth!  Linking to such sites doesnít mean much for any ďscienceĒ contained in it.

7
No it isn't possible,because orbital motion requires and infinite series of higher order forces whereas gravitation is postulated to be a mere acceleration.  http://septclues.com/TYCHO_SSSS/Gopi%20Papers/Celestial%20Dynamics%20and%20Rotational%20Forces.pdf

In textbooks, the derivation of the equations for orbital motion stop at the first derivative but due to the nature of orbital motion and infinite number of non-vanishing derivatives exist for orbital motion.  Gravitation (as postulated) provides only first order acceleration in the radial direction.  Read the above paper for the derivation.

Is that paper or similar published in any scientific journals by chance?  Septclues.com is a conspiracy kook website pushing fringe science and conspiracy theories.

8
Flat Earth General / Re: If FEs had a meeting with famous astronomers
« on: March 15, 2019, 06:51:35 AM »
1-0


Absolutely.

What is it absolutely?  A sunrise with the sun illuminating the bottom of the clouds as it rises from below the horizon maintaining the same size as expected on a spherical Earth? Absolutely indeed!

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: About the whole acceleration thing...
« on: March 08, 2019, 02:53:58 PM »
Petition for every new member to be sent an introductory PM consisting of

RELATIVISTIC VELOCITY ADDITION. LOOK IT UP.

This is very important to understand I agree since every post seems to come back to relativity, dark matter, the Big Bang, or some other lesser understood science instead of the very simple geometric shape of the Earth and matching simple observations to the never ending FE models.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« on: March 08, 2019, 10:31:48 AM »
.
How do broadcast satellites that we all use get into a geosynchronous position?
Foundations deep in the ground or guy wires.

Foundations deep in the ground?  So, a radio antennae? One so tall it can be viewed as a non moving small light in the sky hundreds to thousands of miles away with long exposures of a camera?  How tall are these antennaes?  The entire Earth has been explored where those antennaes are located...  their location is, wait for it...  along the Equator for most of them...  Why arenít there any photographs of these multiple mile high antennaes reaching above the clouds or any acknowledgement or conspiracy of them on the entire internet? 

Guy wires?  Like they are hanging from a dome with wires?  Can you draw a diagram or expand on this theory?
Honestly stop going on about bright lights for crying out loud. What do you think so called satellites are? glow sticks?
LORAN and DELTA and the likes. That's all that's required and always has been.

No space stuff.
The very extreme is weather balloons and such.
As for communication, big structures all over the inhabited world do a great job.

You are aware you personally can take some longer exposure photographs of the sky over the Equator and you will see the pale lights of the geosynchronous satellites right not rotating with everything else in the sky?  This would require some photography skills and equipment you may not have.  This is easy to find online if you refuse to look for yourself with your own equipment. So no, a balloon cannot stay in one place seemingly indefinitely to produce that light (which is what dishes are pointed at) and is not providing your satellite cable 24/7 with only problems when the dish is bumped... or weather gets in the way of the signal... 

Can you elaborate on how balloons and massive antennaes with deep foundations are providing that point in the sky transmitting satellite TV for thousands and thousands of miles around them? Or guy wires?  How do they work? Are they hanging off the dome made of frozen helium?  You made the claim, you should defend it.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: question about sun/moon
« on: March 08, 2019, 06:58:25 AM »
Who will explain this from the position of the earth of the ball?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=I07Q7vpSz14

Explanation is it is above the Arctic Circle, so the amount of daylight they get varies dramatically, from near 24 hours of visible sun, to the opposite.   This is due to the spherical shape of the tilted Earth orbiting the Sun.   At this particular time, that light they see in the darkness, is an incredibly large forest fire?  It is well documented and a simple query would find this information.  The Sun did not mysteriously rise when it wasnít expected to just for that location on the planet.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« on: March 08, 2019, 06:49:53 AM »
.
How do broadcast satellites that we all use get into a geosynchronous position?
Foundations deep in the ground or guy wires.

Foundations deep in the ground?  So, a radio antennae? One so tall it can be viewed as a non moving small light in the sky hundreds to thousands of miles away with long exposures of a camera?  How tall are these antennaes?  The entire Earth has been explored where those antennaes are located...  their location is, wait for it...  along the Equator for most of them...  Why arenít there any photographs of these multiple mile high antennaes reaching above the clouds or any acknowledgement or conspiracy of them on the entire internet? 

Guy wires?  Like they are hanging from a dome with wires?  Can you draw a diagram or expand on this theory?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« on: March 07, 2019, 03:02:15 PM »
Sceptimatic you still have added nothing to the conversation.  Now all rockets are fake?  How about the dozens of launches spacex and other private agencies failures and aborted launches that blew up? Are those fake too?  I am at work and canít post much, but there are loads of rocket video failures that behave exactly like a rocket would if their trajectory changed dramatically and explosively.  They have no shared behavior of any balloon.

Why would they fake explosions and failures?   How many failures would need to be faked to make it look real?  You see this is a little silly right?

You have been shown dozens of amateur videos showing the spacex landings match the official videos.  You yourself could go watch a landing if they land back on soil and videotape it to prove itís all fake! Yet, you donít do anything other then say fake! cgi! with zero evidence and zero ambition to test your theories.  Who has more credence? The person willing to fly from Chile to Australia nonstop or the armchair conspiracist who calls it all fake?  The person who takes HD cameras and any other tools he needs to a launch/landing to disprove a launch or the person who just cries FAKE and never researches anything as far as we can tell?

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: About the whole acceleration thing...
« on: March 07, 2019, 12:42:37 PM »
JCM, if you can give better answers give it a shot.

I would love to, as it helps me understand the perspective of the FET more. However, Q &A looks to be dangerous ground for RE type people over reaching with their posting.  I see the recent nonsensical posts not supported by the wiki in that forum and see no intervention from mods leads me to think itís a free for all as long as you arenít a REer.  The silly answers not helping people searching for answers and likely alienating seekers of the truth even more.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: About the whole acceleration thing...
« on: March 07, 2019, 11:46:28 AM »
I think boydster is quite knowledgeable.

I believe heís a mod, which around here seems to mainly mean picking away at ďround earthersĒ understanding of physics, whether or not they actually agree with the heliocentric model.

Ďtis a funny old place here.

Honestly they should just scrap the ďGeneralĒ and ďDebateĒ sections, and replace with ďHow well do you understand gravity/relativity?Ē and ďIs space travel fake?Ē

That would cover about 95% of the threads with any real discussion.

Agreed.
The reasons for that are obvious as no one wants to defend any FE models lack of matching observations. Conversations always seem go immediately go to Gravity which is countered by UA, countered by real world observations not explained by UA, countered by mathematical explanations and relativity how UA is possible but disregarding all observations made worse with UA, then it moves to relativity and then special relativity and why REers canít explain the math behind relativity and dark matter or the Big Bang.

Q&A is just nonsensical answers half the time seems like lately.  Answers which arenít even supported by the wiki...  clearly troll answers just making stuff up on the spot.  I could give better FE answers then responders this week there...

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« on: March 07, 2019, 10:00:02 AM »

A couple of hundred miles away?
Why?

Why land on the barge instead of land back at Cape Canaveral launch site? Thatís easy.  Just re-using the first stage costs the potential payload by up to 30% depending on where the landing attempt is made!  To land on the barge it takes less fuel! Landing on the barge rather then spending extra fuel to land back at the launch site gives  them 15% payload capacity! Donít you think if you were able to make 15% more money selling payload capacity you would try it, as crazy as landing on a barge might sound?   Side note, if it was all fake...  why would they try it at all?  Following the money leads to the truth pretty frequently as it does here in this as well.

This is the difference between private space flight and the ridiculously inefficient NASA shuttle which cost 400 million per launch regardless of the payload!

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« on: March 07, 2019, 09:17:38 AM »
Terrible analogy
Perfect analogy.

This reasoning is exactly why no one comes to your aid in defending your notions.  Even in your world with your rules, your analogy makes zero sense. 

Explain how an object with enough speed, altitude, fuel, and ability to change direction canít hit a target anywhere it wants to?  Forget the mind blowing vertical landing it does live in HD in front of millions via satellite, TV, and personal videos by amateurs of their non barge landings. (With this in mind, SpaceX 1st stages are not landing anywhere in the world, they are landing only a couple hundred miles away.)
A couple of hundred miles away?
Why?
Are you telling me it lands on a barge a couple of hundred miles out to sea in a big choppy ocean and can land nice and simple on this barge that must surely be bouncing around like crazy.
Or have you decided to let loose of your sense and opt for your sci-fi goggles?

By your next ridiculous argument, how do cruise ships sail hundreds of miles across the ocean and people manage to walk around this incredibly unsteady ship and have dinner without their wine glasses and everything tipping over immediately no matter the sea conditions? Donít you think the weather and sea conditions are taken into account if they want to try a barge landing?  Whatís your next silly analogy?

Why canít an object that has enough altitude, fuel, and ability to change direction hit a target?

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« on: March 07, 2019, 08:56:35 AM »
Terrible analogy
Perfect analogy.

This reasoning is exactly why no one comes to your aid in defending your notions.  Even in your world with your rules, your analogy makes zero sense. 

Explain how an object with enough speed, altitude, fuel, and ability to change direction canít hit a target anywhere it wants to?  Forget the mind blowing vertical landing it does live in HD in front of millions via satellite, TV, and personal videos by amateurs of their non barge landings. (With this in mind, SpaceX 1st stages are not landing anywhere in the world, they are landing only a couple hundred miles away.)

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« on: March 07, 2019, 07:41:41 AM »
You can believe what you like but that's what happened.
So the so called tube went into a so called near as damn it vacuum, right?
Yes.
Quote from: sceptimatic
Felix supposedly only went to 128,000 feet and that was termed as a near vacuum by the silly screen numbers put out to us.
Yes but nowhere near as close to where the rocket was at nearly 218,000 feet!
Quote from: sceptimatic
So it once again begs the massive question of, why didn't the Earth spin under it and leave it well of course by the time it came back down pumping fire from its arse end?
Why shoud it? That was already explained in an earlier post. You must have a memory like a sieve.
Quote from: sceptimatic
No need to use the old Earth atmosphere drags it along stuff, because if that was a reality it would be negated in short order.
As I explained before there's "No need to use the old Earth atmosphere drags" because that has nothing to do with it.
But to repeat, the rocket was launched relative to the moving earth and never "lost" that velocity.
So there is none of your stupid rubbish about the Earth spinning under it!

But one thing you should note is the the earth's surface is only crawling along compared to the 8338 km/hr  the first stage was going.

You seem totally self-indoctrinated and incapable of absorbing new ideas. Why do you bother asking questions if you totally the answers?
If your Earth is spinning at close to 1000 mph then it's going fast compared to anyone trying to leave it.
Let me make this clear.
If I was on a massive spring on the back of a speeding truck going 100 mph and that spring released me into the air vertically plumb, I'm going to land back down onto the deck  and seeing the truck in the distance.

So don't give me this nonsense about a so called rocket doing the same thing with the so called spinning Earth under it coming back down to a point not far away from where it went up, because it's utter utter garbage.

I know this keeps getting brought up but it needs to because it's so ludicrous.

I generally laugh when I see the way this thing is shown to come down swinging onto the barge.
The navy have issues landing jets on a big aircraft carrier and yet this thing just saunters down vertically with a few swings and lands near perfect on a steady barge out at sea.  ;D

Terrible analogy.  What is causing you to jump up and miss the vehicle if you did?  Air Resistance right?  The more truthful answer is you would be behind your launch spot only equal to the force of the air resistance slowing your horizontal movement shared with the train.  If you applied just the right force towards the front of the train  you would overcome that air resistance slowing you down right?   The rocket is moving at magnitudes of speed greater then the initial velocity of the spinning Earth so why couldnít it catch up (overcome air resistance)?  The barge is a couple hundred miles out to sea if I recall anyway so itís not trying to land at the same location anyway.  The rocket isnít launched completely straight up (it quickly tilts to the east) for obvious reasons as it wants to ultimately release an orbit capable capsule so your analogy is completely, utterly, useless. 

Why canít something flying at speeds magnitudes faster then any spin land anywhere it wanted to if it had enough fuel and enough altitude?

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: question about sun/moon
« on: March 04, 2019, 02:39:28 PM »
Quote
To just get to near the speed of light would take an unimaginable amount of force
You all keep saying that as though the velocity means something. Do you have any evidence that the earth is being accelerated from an outside frame? If not, it's imaginable . Large, because the earth is large, but imaginable.

Quote
  In order to have continual acceleration the force applied to continue it has to increasing to keep accelerating. 
False. See above.

Quote
Again, how does UA help the Earth be flat? 
Gee, I wonder...  ::). i ask of you for the umpteenth time: Have you ever considered giving a modicum of thought to something before you post it?

Quote
The OP is about the near Sun/Moon.  Explain how the near 32 mile wide Sun/Moon match the simplest of observations.
How would a near Sun match the simplest of observations? It doesn't. Why harangue me over something I did not propose?

So basically, you are saying UA is legitimate because it questions the need for Gravity.  Evidence for it is unnecessary and unimportant as long as it helps get rid of Gravity as we know it.  Itís issues are not important Got it.

Why question you about the near Sun/Moon?  Well, it is the OP, you are a moderator, itís the point of the thread!  You would rather change the subject then address the OPís question.  I ask you those questions because they are integral to make the near Sun/Moon work. 

Before any UA can even be considered, the simplest geometry of the flat Earth with a near Sun/Moon must be explained in a way that matches reality even a little.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: question about sun/moon
« on: March 04, 2019, 01:48:00 PM »
Quote
To just get to near the speed of light would take an unimaginable amount of force
You all keep saying that as though the velocity means something. Do you have any evidence that the earth is being accelerated from an outside frame? If not, it's imaginable . Large, because the earth is large, but imaginable.

Also, the Orthodoxy full already full of un-imaginable large forces (from ANY frame).  Do you believe the universe is expanding? That this expansion is accelerating? That the mystery energy needed to make Orthodox physics work is so monumentally large that if you took all the total mass in the universe, you'd need to multiply it's energy-equivalence by a dozen or so. E=mc^2, so we're talking about unimaginably large amounts of energy, right? I can scarcely fathom the total mass in the universe, let alone an unobservable energy-equivalence over 12 times as large.  Are you prepared to reject the Orthodox model as "unimaginable" yet? Or are you applying different criteria for your beliefs and imaginings?

That sounds great except your UA model is not just accelerating the Earth. It is accelerating the entire Universe that we can see at least (however you want to define as existing or how much you want to deny, either way).  Not only a velocity since with no friction everything would just keep moving the same velocity indefinitely, but with acceleration.  In order to have continual acceleration the force applied to continue it has to increasing to keep accelerating.  You talk of reference frames, as if that just brushes the issue away.  What part of the Universe we can see wouldnít be affected by your UA?  Then come back and scoff as if the energy needed to make the entire visible Universe (however you want to define it) accelerate indefinitely (as far as we know). 

Again, this UA fantasy also would have to create a spiraling force for all the objects in it to make them rotate around the Earth.

Again, how does UA help the Earth be flat?  UA makes FET weaker.  Star trails with 2 celestial axi both  90 degrees above the surface of the Earth mean either the Earth is spherical and stationary  with the Universe orbiting us or it is spherical and simply rotating. But we can ignore star trails since they are beyond the scope of the OP.

The OP is about the near Sun/Moon.  Explain how the near 32 mile wide Sun/Moon match the simplest of observations.

Why do their angular size not change for a near Sun and Moon?

Why doesnít the near Moon follow the growing and shrinking near Sunís circles since it needs to for solar eclipses at any time of the year and how would it wobble just right to block the Sun?

If the predictable periodic Super Moon is caused by a wobble bringing it closer to the Earth why doesnít it moving thousands of miles each day make it shrink?

Why donít the Sun and Moon visibly slow down as their paths get much shorter for the Northern Hemisphere summer and speed up for Southern Hemisphere summer as their path along the southern Tropic is MUCH longer?

How can the phases of the Moon be seen worldwide just shifted according to latitude with a near Sun/Moon system? 

Why do seasonal stars exist at all with a near Sun/Moon system as the Earth wouldnít be orbiting a distant Sun?

This all assuming that a mystical force/gear could just keep everything as observed.  FET has zero explanation that matches reality for just these simple observations for which you and other FE proponents have no answer for.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« on: March 04, 2019, 06:52:49 AM »
If I was trolling, I would at least TRY to disguise my amusement.

I do suppose it's OK for SpaceX to test their technology before risking human lives...

I mean, money dries up when you start killing highly trained astronauts.

You don't need highly trained astronauts to suicide themselves. Criminal scum on death sentences, or stupid volunteers (how many signed up for the chance to die on the fake 'Mars One' project) will do. But these people could 'talk' I guess.

'hey! This is a crappy green screen room!'

Except that we value human lives, at least most people do.  We donít experiment on criminals anymore either.  They are a private company who has had rockets blow up and fail, why would they test out a new system with human lives in it if it is testable without?  If humans were to die on their maiden launch of this technology, that would probably put a damper on their program donít you think?

They included supplies in the capsule for the ISS.  So, the mission wasnít just to test the rocket and capsule, it did bring items with it needed by the space station.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: question about sun/moon
« on: March 04, 2019, 06:34:10 AM »

Why are you assuming the earth has always been accelerating or will continue to be accelerating at the same rate, or at all, really? We can measure earth's acceleration, but that value only has meaning for the time(s) of measurement. We would need to accelerate "literally" forever to need " infinite energy". So what? Noone said the earth has been or will be accelerating forever except a few dumbshoes who have not or will not apply themselves to understanding anything they rail against.

Why are globularists incapable of reading what my replies are in response to and generating context instead of trying to create their own fictional context?
Why donít you say exactly what you mean then?  Are you suggesting at some point the Earth was not accelerating so Earth had no gravity at all while life was developing on the planet or maybe gravity just started when humans came around?  Dinosaurs, was there an accelleration then? Was there Gravity or an accelerating Earth while plants were developing roots, then ultimately decaying and becoming fossil fuels?  How long would it take for our fossil fuels to form then be covered with more and more stratification? This is pretty easy to see where Iím going with this, it has obviously been millions and millions upon millions of years (billions of years) that the Earth has been accelerating.  We can see time through geology and it can tell us many things. First and foremost is that Gravity or a replacement for it has been allowing compaction/stratification of the the Earths crust for billions of years.

Even if it was just recorded history, thatís what, 6000 years?  30,000 years if you count cave paintings?  To just get to near the speed of light would take an unimaginable amount of force that would for some reason keep INCREASING (as far as we can tell) How long exactly? Who cares, but for an immensely long time as evidenced by geology, fossil fuels, etc.  Does it matter if Gravity or its replacement was a different amount billions of years ago?  Not in the slightest since it would still be an acceleration, an immeasurable amount of force for all intents and purposes forever as far as we know (if billions of years isnít long enough for you). 

Again...  What does any of this have to do with the present problem of the lack of supporting evidence for a near Sun/Moon circling above us with growing and shrinking circles and apparently a wobbling moon that jumps under the Sun just in time for a solar eclipse amongst the other issues?

Where is the evidence supporting the perfect moon periodic phases seen across the world?

Why dont we observe the moon following the same exact path as the Sun if it is following its concentric shrinking and growing circles causing eclipses on any day throughout the year?

Why doesnít the Sun/Moon change apparent size as it moves thousands of miles if they are only 3000 miles away at their zenith to oneís location?

I can go on and on, the point is, Nothing about a near Sun/Moon matches our observations without ever more increasingly unexplained phenomena, essentially ďmagic,Ē the very same type of fundamental forces like magnetic, gravitational, and nuclear... the very forces FET likes to complain about with RET (as if thatís a thing).  We know much of how they work but not exactly to the finest detail why they work.   FET just creates these phenomena (which donít even match our observations) and says they exist with zero evidence.  At least create new forces in the world that match our observations! I understand why you donít defend them since they donít even work as you describe!

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: question about sun/moon
« on: March 04, 2019, 06:28:20 AM »
Why are you assuming the earth has always been accelerating or will continue to be accelerating at the same rate, or at all, really? We can measure earth's acceleration, but that value only has meaning for the time(s) of measurement. We would need to accelerate "literally" forever to need " infinite energy". So what? Noone said the earth has been or will be accelerating forever except a few dumbshoes who have not or will not apply themselves to understanding anything they rail against.

Why are globularists incapable of reading what my replies are in response to and generating context instead of trying to create their own fictional context?
Why donít you say exactly what you mean then?  Are you suggesting at some point the Earth was not accelerating so Earth had no gravity at all while life was developing on the planet or maybe gravity just started when humans came around?  Dinosaurs, was there an accelleration then? Was there Gravity or an accelerating Earth while plants were developing roots, then ultimately decaying and becoming fossil fuels?  How long would it take for our fossil fuels to form then be covered with more and more stratification? This is pretty easy to see where Iím going with this, it has obviously been millions and millions upon millions of years (billions of years) that the Earth has been accelerating.  We can see time through geology and it can tell us many things. First and foremost is that Gravity or a replacement for it has been allowing compaction/stratification of the the Earths crust for billions of years.

Even if it was just recorded history, thatís what, 6000 years?  30,000 years if you count cave paintings?  To just get to near the speed of light would take an unimaginable amount of force that would for some reason keep steady (as far as we can tell) How long exactly? Who cares, but for an immensely long time as evidenced by geology, fossil fuels, etc.  Does it matter if Gravity or its replacement was a different amount billions of years ago?  Not in the slightest since it would still be an acceleration, an immeasurable amount of force for all intents and purposes forever as far as we know (if billions of years isnít long enough for you). 

Again...  What does any of this have to do with the present problem of the lack of supporting evidence for a near Sun/Moon circling above us with growing and shrinking circles and apparently a wobbling moon that jumps under the Sun just in time for a solar eclipse amongst the other issues?

Where is the evidence supporting the perfect moon periodic phases seen across the world?

Why dont we observe the moon following the same exact path as the Sun if it is following its concentric shrinking and growing circles causing eclipses on any day throughout the year?

Why doesnít the Sun/Moon change apparent size as it moves thousands of miles if they are only 3000 miles away?

I can go on and on, the point is, Nothing about a near Sun/Moon matches our observations without ever more increasingly unexplained phenomena, essentially ďmagic,Ē the very same type of fundamental forces like magnetic, gravitational, and nuclear... the very forces FET likes to complain about with RET (as if thatís a thing).  We know much of how they work but not exactly to the finest detail why they work.   FET just creates these phenomena (which donít even match our observations) and says they exist with zero evidence.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« on: March 03, 2019, 11:06:02 PM »
Except this person is a mannequin. Who conveniently can't talk....

Imagine the bullseye shot in getting 1 tiny object to intercept another, hundreds of kilometres skyward travelling at ~27000km/h

And globe earthers are just like 'meh' as if it's no small achievement.

For humans of the early 21st century it is an impossible achievement!

If there was any real confidence, that mannequin would have been Elon Musk himself. Or some other moron who thinks it's all real. Because why send up a mannequin when there are no shortage of volunteers or criminal scum you would give 2 shits about if the whole thing blew up on the launch pad?

Except there was no reason to include a passenger as it was testing the system. Ideally, you donít endanger peopleís lives if the system can be automated, thatís common sense.  If you recall, we had some  disasters with the shuttles killing a number of astronauts shutting down the shuttle each time so just including a full load of unnecessary passengers if the system can be automated isnít a great idea since we greatly value human lives.

26
Sydney to Satiago Chile use LATAN airways direct nonstop 12:30hours  my daughter has done this Sydney to LA nonstop direct flight takes 13:40 hours
Perth West Australia to Joh/burg South Africa direct nonstop use SAA  South Africa Airline takes about 11 Hours Our South African friends do this at least once a year.My wife is also going this July 2019 and is already booked

IF she is up for it, film the entire flight and post it, if it was me, Iíd include gate information etc on both airports too.  Now, pointing a camera out the window for 11 hours or more is really boring which is why there arenít very many full length videos of these flights.  Flat Earthers think these flights are fake or the planes are flying two or three times faster then they say they are. 

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: question about sun/moon
« on: March 03, 2019, 11:27:26 AM »
@SKI
 
it would take a little over 10 years to get to the speed of light accelerating at the speed of gravity.  I have been alive for 30 years and i have always felt the force of gravity--yes, yes, it is relative, but to me the flat earth model doesn't add up.  people can fight over math all day so lets not...
Well, the "fighting" really only occurs when people such as yourself do nor understand the very things they are trying to assert as fact.



Quote
Wouldn't you agree that a flat earth  accelerating at the speed of gravity (for at least 30 years, i can attest) in a giant universe comprised of a bunch of objects in the shape of spheres a a little harder to swallow? 
Neither gravity or gravitation are a speed.  :-\      Isn't an enormous universe spawned from a nothingness where physics breaks down, which constantly accelerates for reasons noone knows, where gravitation does not work in sufficiently small or large scales, with seemingly no mechanism hard to swallow?

What does any of that have to do with a flat Earth and its Sun and Moon orbiting in shrinking and expanding circles above us?  Before you can even address UA and its issues, explain how the Sun and Moon orbit as necessary for flat Earth to work and why simple observation of those objects donít match reality? 

This is incredibly basic.  For flat Earth to be taken seriously, it has to match our observations. 

What force is causing the movement in and out of the Sun and Moon? 

How are the phases seen on the moon seen worldwide just shifted depending on latitude work on a flat Earth and near Moon/Sun?

The moon clearly causes solar eclipses, year round.  Why doesnít the moons path follow the Suns path in its narrowing and expanding circles as necessary to cause those solar eclipses?

Why do the stars change from season to season if the Earth isnít orbiting the Sun?

Why does Venus and Mercury have specific visible phases and the outer planets donít have near as many phases? 

This was all figured out hundreds to thousands of years ago with limited tools and people canít figure this out today with all tools and technology available to them.    Flat Earth has zero answers that hold up to the lightest scrutiny. Instead of attacking the minute details of how we donít know everything about the Universes origin or why exactly Gravity works as measured, why not provide some answers to why the Earth is flat and how the near Sun/Moon is possible which matches basic day to day amateur Sky-Watcher observations?

28
Flat Earth General / Re: Here be dragons
« on: March 03, 2019, 11:06:32 AM »

Comparing the shuttle efficiency to what private companies are doing for half the price tag isnít even close.  Yes, the shuttle was amazing but it was a grossly inefficient machine which turned into a lower orbit cargo ferry with an enormous price tag while endangering teams of astronauts with every launch.  We used Soyuz because it was significantly cheaper to use their simple very successful rocket then to restart another low Earth orbit program.  Frankly, the shuttle program was an abject failure for NASA.  During its reign, NASA lost its way by spending the majority of its budget on simple satellite and resupply missions instead of focusing on much bigger projects like manned flight past Earth orbits and the infrastructure to support it.

Yes, the space shuttle was massively over specíd for simple passenger ferrying and manned vehicles arenít necessary for satellite launches.

But these are real world considerations, assuming itís all real.

If you start with the assumption that space flight is fake, it doesnít really work.

Why the decade long gap between NASAís fake manned missions and private sector fake manned missions, where they need to rely on the Russians?

And why use a less advanced overall design concept?

If I was in charge of a fake space program, Iíd have faked a smaller, lighter space plane concept to replace the shuttle, and had it ready to roll out (either by NASA or private companies) by the end of the shuttleís ďlifeĒ. 

Iíd probably base it off the concept of taking off and landing like a normal plane, just as NASA and others had long been hinting was the next logical step, and I think the public was expecting.  This would also save a fortune by not having to uselessly fire rockets into the Atlantic.  All NASA would need is some kind of plane they could pass off as a space ship for take off and landing (I believe most space deniers do at least accept their was a physical vehicle they called the space shuttle).

Interesting way to look at it...  IF itís all fake, then why change anything?  Why go to a more simplistic (Iíd argue reuseable rockets isnít a step back) delivery system at all?  And why use Russian technology to continue the ruse?  Good questions... of course, if it is all real, then it makes sense.  Following the money usually leads to the truth.  Private industry has to figure out how to make it efficient, they are very good at it.  Competition keeps them honest.  The conspirator could create dozens of theoretical scenarios where it is still fake of course since their burden of proof is negligible.  Iíd argue the mere size and number of the space programs around the world and the thousands of launches and satellites are evidence it isnít fake and the more likely answer is that the FE are completely utterly wrong on everything.

29
I'm not sure about what Sandokan is talking about.

However, for other far more obvious reasons, it is practically impossible to know the distance to the sun or moon.

Well, since we can predict the shadow of the moon on the surface of the Earth to an incredibly accurate degree including insets where a valley on the edge of the moon narrows its shadow during a total solar eclipse, we would have to know very accurately the distances of the Sun and the Moon.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: tell me this and im 100% on board
« on: March 03, 2019, 09:59:07 AM »
There is no edge.

A property common to all spheres.
I disagree.
A sphere has infinitely many edges.

Well then you're even more fucked in the head than the most retarded flat earther. Show us the edge of a sphere then. There are an infinite number of them so you should have no trouble choosing one, fucking numbnutz.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/edge

Quote
noun
a line or border at which a surface terminates:
Grass grew along the edges of the road. The paper had deckle edges.

Synonym study

1. Edge, border, margin refer to a boundary. An edge is the boundary line of a surface or plane: the edge of a table. Border is the boundary of a surface or the strip adjacent to it, inside or out: a border of lace. Margin is a limited strip, generally unoccupied, at the extremity of an area: the margin of a page.
Sounds like a sphere has an edge...  many of them...  Unless you are suggesting the sphere is all encompassing and infinite.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8