1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using radar to measure the distance to the Sun?

« on: March 06, 2019, 02:41:28 AM »

Why don't we use radar to find out how far away the Sun is?

 We have used radars for the sun since 1960's.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19660046247 - Radar observation of Sun, noting continuous wave transmitter, antenna, etc
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19700053736 - Solar radar echo characteristics, discussing coronal compressional waves and refraction by plasma clouds and moving plasma irregularities
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19670037674 - The reflecting and occulting of galactic radio energy by the sun at 38 megacycles.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19670035582 - Radar experiments of sun at 38 mc/s, presenting results on echo variation with sunspot number, coronal irregularities, etc
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02276574 - Some observed characteristics of solar radar echoes and their implications
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2002HiA....12..389M - Plasma theory of solar radar echoes after thirty years
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000RS002454 - Plasma theory of solar radar echoes
http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/SolarRadar/SolarRadar.html
http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A169021&dswid=-2147 - Radar Probing of the Sun
and so on

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS

« on: March 06, 2019, 01:34:34 AM »

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

It seems that you believe that there is some BIG GUN somewhere which just shots the rocket toward something and rocket does not have any engines and guiding capabilities but is just something like a bullet which flies toward target. I guess you don't have imagination capabilities to imagine more complex things but just simple things. We feel for you.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproving strong Round Earth arguments

« on: March 06, 2019, 01:25:21 AM »

Googleotomy says:
"Should I ask this in "Flat Earth Q&A" ?"

Please start a thread there, we'd try to answer but since these are new subjects, and the research is ongoing... no guarantee for satisfactory answers.  

Don't even try to ask anything in Q&A, its pointless. The answer you get there is basically - its magic or its something and it is so because I say so, and so on.
And all explanations are in style like when you ask - why sun sets? And answer is - perspective - or - sun moves so far away that you don't see it.
They are explanations but...

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity isn't constant

« on: March 06, 2019, 01:19:32 AM »

You were asked how did you specifically measured that heavens above exert foce to the objects and not something else

As has already been explained, I'm not sure how you expect to separate and measure that or other vectors with a vertical component.  How do you propose to do this?

I do not know how you would expect me to compute values for all the unknown vectors that have a vertical component. How do you propose to do that exactly, since you are asking it of me? Noone seems to have a method beyond, create arbitrary values. I did that for demonstration's sake, and it seems pretty useless for the purpose, I'm sure you'll agree.

  I don't know how you can do that. You made the claim so you should have something to back it up. But instead you only talk how you can't do anything and ask from others how you could to something. Its kind of stupid.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope

« on: March 01, 2019, 04:50:11 AM »

This is the experimental data published by Michelson and Gale in 1925:

You really can't get any more relevant data? Why do you insist working with 100 years old data and theories when there are more up to date data available. To show how outdated you are?

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile

« on: March 01, 2019, 04:41:59 AM »

 I have actual, physical and demonstrable evidence, that is enough. You don't have anything except your speculations. Talk, talk, talk, talk.... and same talk all these years. Nothing new, no progress and no any demonstrable or physical evidence.

What physical evidence do you have?

I gave you one earlier. And others have shown you multiple other evidence. But you... Talk, talk, talk, talk.... and same talk all these years. Nothing new, no progress and no any demonstrable or physical evidence. I guess I go to hibernation soon but I predict with 100% accuracy that when I come back and look at that thread after some time, months, year, more years, etc, you are exactly in same place. Nothing new, no progress and no any demonstrable or physical evidence. Just talk.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproving the gravity in 30 seconds

« on: March 01, 2019, 04:37:55 AM »

All objects in the earth are under force of gravity, right?

Think an object, like human, has density about 1t/m^3
Water has 1t/m^3 too.

Imagine a person in water. the water at the top of it and the water under it are equal forces him and create a balance.

So; The total force applied to the person by water is zero.

if the force of gravity was present, the person would move downward in the water. but it is not. Anything that is equal to the weight of the self-weight of the water remains in a fixed position within it, not falling down.

If you have read this writing in 30 seconds so you've saw a disprooof which disproves the gravity in 30 seconds. it's your problem that you haven't gone to a fast reading course.

Are you claimng hat humans can't drown? But sure, I can give you that if you give us replacement equation for weight and buoyant force without gravity.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity isn't constant

« on: March 01, 2019, 04:32:45 AM »

I have done an experiment for the local value of g. Multiple times.

You were asked how did you specifically measured that heavens above exert foce to the objects and not something else. Measuring g is not that. Really... how do you expect anyone to be reasonable and coherent here when you set forward such standards. Being vague, evasive, word playing, derailing, irrational and so on.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)

« on: February 26, 2019, 09:50:39 AM »

Are you under the impression that a ball on a string in a swinging motion is independent of atmosphere in order for this to happen?

 You are going somewhere else now. Talk was about the object tied to the string and connected to rotating motor. If motor rotates then object rotates same with atmosphere and without atmosphere. There is only negligible effect from air drag. Nothing more.
If you are talking about pendulum then again, only difference is air resistance and drag. It is demonstrated here for example

Are you under the impression that a ball or beads or any object would hug the inner lip of a dish on a fast or reasonably fast turntable and the reason for it is not down to atmosphere.

  Atmosphere has negligible effect through resistance and drag. So the result is same with or without atmosphere.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile

« on: February 26, 2019, 09:28:02 AM »

What are you trying to prove here?
If this is the best you people can do it's no wonder your space and globe nonsense is being shown up for the fiction it is.

I am not trying to prove anything. I just showed the evidence that you are wrong.

Then you failed miserably.

No, I did not fail. I showed the evidence that you are wrong. Rocket motors do not need the atmosphere to push against. You are demonstrably wrong, that is a fact.

Your facts are on a platter for you. What you physically know, is zero but you will continue to ride on the coat-tails of those who write the stories.
Fair enough but don't take it as a fact when you have no proof of it.

I have actual, physical and demonstrable evidence, that is enough. You don't have anything except your speculations. Talk, talk, talk, talk.... and same talk all these years. Nothing new, no progress and no any demonstrable or physical evidence.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity isn't constant

« on: February 26, 2019, 09:23:48 AM »

How does picking an arbitrary baseline or making a single measurement answer the original request?

I am interested how did you determine that something above even has any effect on objects? How did you eliminate the effect from above from all other effects? How do you make out  difference from "effect from above" and everything else?

Is anyone here capable of a coherent conversation? I'd like to spend my time talking to that person, please.

 Then you should start being coherent yourself. You claim here that here is some "heavenly gravitation, "effect from above" but in same time you say that you haven't done single measurement and you haven't done because you don't have baseline. Not much coherency here.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile

« on: February 25, 2019, 06:17:17 AM »

What are you trying to prove here?
If this is the best you people can do it's no wonder your space and globe nonsense is being shown up for the fiction it is.

I am not trying to prove anything. I just showed the evidence that you are wrong.

Then you failed miserably.

No, I did not fail. I showed the evidence that you are wrong. Rocket motors do not need the atmosphere to push against. You are demonstrably wrong, that is a fact.

13

Flat Earth General / Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)

« on: February 24, 2019, 09:27:57 AM »

Are you deliberately trying to show yourself as stupid? Chamber with pressure evacuated sitting on the massive sphere is not same as massive sphere inside vacuum. Your chamber is inside the earth gravitation field and that affects everything you do. So no, it definitely is not same with the massive earth and with tiny vacuum chamber which sits on the earth.

Ahhhhh, ok. So now centripetal force is not your gravity reliance then. So it is atmospheric pressure and resistance that ensures the bead rotates outwardly, like I said.
I just wanted to make sure you admitted it.

  If you rotate some object attached to the string and attached to the rotating motor then no, gravity is not centripetal force here. The string/wire/whatever with which you attach object to the rotating motor is exerting centripetal force onto the object. And it behaves in same way with atmosphere and without atmosphere.
I also did not admit anything here. But you just admitted that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
 

It kills your space and fictional gravity.

It does not kill anything. As I said, you looking at experiment and then making up some irrelevant stuff is really fucked up way to do something.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: Looking for FE explanation of video

« on: February 24, 2019, 09:19:33 AM »

wow.....

Well let's put some perspective and talk about the whole idea behind the current cosmology.
How far can we actually see ?
...

 Wow... really wow... You just shrugged it all off and ignored it and went again with some conspiracy stuff. But how far we can actually see... We can see as far as globe model predicts we can see. I wonder why flat earth can't predict how far we can see?
But your bold quote was quite correct. Somehow you have opinion that if you can't understand something then others also can't. It really is weird.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile

« on: February 24, 2019, 09:07:23 AM »

What are you trying to prove here?
If this is the best you people can do it's no wonder your space and globe nonsense is being shown up for the fiction it is.

I am not trying to prove anything. I just showed the evidence that you are wrong.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: Looking for FE explanation of video

« on: February 23, 2019, 04:17:36 AM »

I strongly object, because since the flatearth came active many, many footage out there disproves the current globe.
I don't want to go into a YouTube battle with you, but here is one you should watch about refraction.
...
I don't buy into the nonsense of a flip-flopping mirage perfectly alligned with the horizon while in reality i't's deep down under the bulge.

You can object all you want but you have no other reason for that than your lack of knowledge and understanding. Video yuo referred to is just observation about refraction. And it is consistent and in accordance with current model. There are couple of refraction simulator where you can play with different parameters and it shows that there is no magic or anything and it all fits in current model.
http://walter.bislins.ch/RefractionSim
https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/

First i would ask what the definition of ''music'' is in order to come to some sort of agreement about my knowledge of music.
Music is a form of art; an expression of emotions through harmonic frequencies.

It really does not matter what definition is. I can claim based on my own ignorance that you are fraud, you don't know anything and all you think you know is just fed to you by authorities and you follow them with blind faith. And nothing you say can convince me otherwise. Sonds fair and true? Because that is exactky what you do with topics of geometry/math/physics and so on.

You are stucked in your globeearth reality and everything that differs from it is out of tune for your ears !!

I am not stuck with anything. You are just telling me not to believe what I know without any other evidence than your own ignorance and incredulity and that I must accept some nonse. And again without any evidence. Just with blind faith. Why?

And for the proof ....in the eighties professor of the Cairo university, Mustafa Abdelkader, has created a mathematical inversion of any possible observation from earth that still stands.

I am familiar with it but it does not stand. It is just mathematical exercise. Nothing more.

And flatearth has many, many difficulties to fix, i agree....but we've only just started.

Flat earth has nothing. It also has some 200 year history if we start with Rowbotham during which time it has had exactly zero progress. If you want to claim that FE has something then can you provide one simple prediction specific to flat earth. Plan observation, make a prediction, go out and see if observation matches prediction. And then explain how you predicted it and how others can use that something to predict.

And I just can't stop repeating it - I am really amazed how you always just slide over the simple and demonstrable observations everyone can make and which show evidence of the curvature and start talking about NASA and cgi and conspiracies and so on.

17

Flat Earth General / Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope

« on: February 23, 2019, 03:57:36 AM »

I sometimes wonder if sandokhan even reads what he posts. Seems more that he has some keywords and then takes some text from somewhere and copies/pastes it here.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile

« on: February 23, 2019, 03:49:52 AM »

Atmospheric resistance is imperative. No air needed means no resistance, means no reaction to flow, means no opposite movement.

 That is demonstrably incorrect. Among many videos demonstrating this
Some explanations about it also here - https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/4p3nq0/how_do_rocket_engines_transfer_the_force_upwards/
But  Iguess it is just wasted on you.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity isn't constant

« on: February 22, 2019, 01:12:22 PM »

Then my previous post did answer the question:

Have I surveyed and found local or celestial source to account for every alleged variation of g on earth's surface?  NO, of course not. I don't believe it has been done by anyone else either or there would be no need for further gravimetry.

How did that answer the question about how did you determine that specifically something from above affects things and nothing else and how did you measure it? That is only you stating that you didn't measure anything.

How can I measure and find deviations from a baseline without first looking at the system as a whole to establish that baseline?

  In short you say again that you did not measure anything but now you are having excuse that you didn't measure anything because you don't have a baseline. I got it first time that you did not measure anything. Why repeat it.

20

Flat Earth General / Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)

« on: February 22, 2019, 01:05:33 PM »

So, you can't give any real experiments which somehow support your speculations. Thought so. Also, just doing and experiment, looking at it and starting to make up things randomly and making baseless assertions is not a way to go. I don't know what you have dreamed up but your "small thing" has nothing to do with the space and the shape of the earth.

Really?
Because things are supposed to be orbiting Earth and don't fly into so called space because they're on a hypothetical string where they don't fly into so called space because so called gravity is holding onto that string.
Centripetal force we are told.

So this should be the case inside a chamber with pressure evacuated, right?

Are you deliberately trying to show yourself as stupid? Chamber with pressure evacuated sitting on the massive sphere is not same as massive sphere inside vacuum. Your chamber is inside the earth gravitation field and that affects everything you do. So no, it definitely is not same with the massive earth and with tiny vacuum chamber which sits on the earth.

A small bead tied to a string on a small fan motor should swing like a helicopter blade, right?

A bead should stay inside jammed against a lipped lid which is glued to the shaft of the motor and under spin in atmosphere and then also stay the same under evacuation.

Why don't you go and try this out and see if it works.
I've done it so I know the answer.
Let's see how you get on.
Or are you going to make excuses for why you can't perform this?

  No, I am not going to make excuses. I am just not going to do it. If you got some result then you got some result. What comes after that is what I am talking about. You look at that experiment and then just make up some stuff which has absolutely no relevance to the experiment. That is what is really fucked up.
 

21

Flat Earth General / Re: Looking for FE explanation of video

« on: February 22, 2019, 12:31:24 PM »

Have you been to space yourself ? NO
You probably went as high as a commercial airplane gets you.
What did you see looking outside the window ?

All the rest that has been fed to you is faith and authority based ...

 And there he goes again, talk about conspiracy theories and ignoring reality. If I talk about simple observations I don't talk about space. I talk about simple observations. Sharp horizon line and objects disappearing behind it. Parallel lines not convergint to the point on water surface. Horizon line droping from eye level. All these are in accordance how objects and lines behave on spherical surface. They don't behave that way on flat surface. But as I said - I am really amazed how you always just slide over the simple and demonstrable observations everyone can make and which show evidence of the curvature and start talking about NASA and cgi and conspiracies and so on.

 And I think I have said it before, if you don't undersand stuff and take things on faith then please, don't project your own ignorance and incredulity to others who actually understand how things works. If you don't know, don't understand, have a disbelief, base your worldview on faith then it is your problem. Don't assign these views to other people. You have some expertise in the field of music as I remeber. What would you think when I would start claiming that you have not learned anything and don't really understand anything about music. All things about it are fake and you just believe things about music because others have told you so. That does not matter that you are in touch with it. I am not and I don't understand it and so it is all fake, deception, you don't know anything and are just blind believer. Sounds fair and true?

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile

« on: February 22, 2019, 12:15:35 PM »

You need to understand what science is

Exactly, yuo do not know jack shit about it. You look at something and then make up things. That is not science.

Of course they won't. To do that would lose them their status. Their bread and butter and even their sanity.
Follow the narrative. Toe the line. Do as you're told. Do not question your pay masters or your authority figures.

And that paragraph is the proof that you don't  know jack shit about science. What you wrot ehere is 100% incorrect.

You mean this magical pull force?

Says a person who only and only talks about magic. Isn't it ironic.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)

« on: February 22, 2019, 08:11:07 AM »

Tell me how this electron microscope works in simple terms to see these so called atoms and what not...and even arrange them like was mentioned.

Now you are just demonstrating here your willful ignorance. I gave you wikipedia link and if you have any ability to comprehend the text you read then you can do search with your preferred search engine and read up. Asking me here to explain just shows that you don't want to understand anything. Just deflect and derail topic.

Good luck standing in a windowless room with no means of illumination and then tell me your eyes can see perfectly well with no medium.

  I really don't know how to react to this. You think that light is a medium? If I stand in a windowless room then it does not mean that there is no medium. It only means there is no visible light. And if I use some night goggles or any other device which enables to see infrared or other wavelengths then I can see quite well. Visible light is no requirement for "seeing" something. You can also use sound or any other radiation/whatever which reflects back from surroundings and if you have device which detects waves which reflect back and interprets them then you can "see" quite well.

It depends on who is being willfully ignorant to sci-fi or facts as opposed to someone being ignorant to looking for the potential truth's of potential lies.

You are willfully ignorant and honestly... you are telling lies here. You haven't presented among your speculations anything that can be called "fact" here.

Unless you can give me an experiment that 100% proves something that I'm arguing against, which you can verify to be that truth.

You are arguing against everything. Go get elementary level physics and chemistry books and start with simple experiments. You can also be specific and aks something. If not me then others can recommend experiments to you but you have to at first understand the basics and have a budget if yuo are going to ask for example to see or measure elementary particles.

Ok then give me something that backs up what I'm arguing against but make sure what you back up you physically back up. Don't just sling out your math and physics for something if you have no hands on proof of it.
Appealing to authority is not evidence to me.

Why you are always asking others to provide when you don't provide anything and you always appeal to yourself as authority?

Give even one actual demonstration which anyone can do in real life and you have something to stand on.

I have a few experiments that you can do but you're not really into that, just like the rest.
Why?
It's obvious why. The truth is not what you want. You want to hang onto the sci-fi as your truth.

Just in case you want to, go and look up the centripetal force in a low pressure chamber. I explained what you need and how to do it in atmosphere and then in low pressure.

This small thing alone scuppers the globe and with it, space. It basically shuts it all down in one simple experiment.

So, you can't give any real experiments which somehow support your speculations. Thought so. Also, just doing and experiment, looking at it and starting to make up things randomly and making baseless assertions is not a way to go. I don't know what you have dreamed up but your "small thing" has nothing to do with the space and the shape of the earth.

24

Flat Earth General / Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope

« on: February 22, 2019, 02:50:15 AM »

My formula is totally up to date.

 This is not about formula. You are out of date with most of your sources. And if you quote some contemporary ones they don't support your ideas and sometimes contradict with your earlier and outdated sources. You just quote them for... I don't know for what reasons.

25

Flat Earth General / Re: Looking for FE explanation of video

« on: February 22, 2019, 02:39:04 AM »

But you brainwashed, hypnotised followers of a fake reality will swallow just about everything being served on the cgi dish of artificcial reality.

 Says a person who deliberately ignores reality. I am really amazed how you always just slide over the simple and demonstrable observations everyone can make and which show evidence of the curvature and start talking about NASA and cgi and conspiracies and so on. It is also kind of weird that persons who do not understand topic always accuse people who do understand topic that they "swallow everything being served". Is this some kind of psychological projection of their own ignorance to others? Because they don't understand then others also can't?

26

Flat Earth General / Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)

« on: February 22, 2019, 02:18:43 AM »

If you can see atoms through a microscope then you are seeing them through atmosphere. If you are seeing them through atmosphere then you can't see it but you can see through it. It's still physical but not discernible by eye.

There is no atmosphere inside electron microscope. They get air out from there so there is quite high-vacuum environment there. They could not use electron microscope when there is air or some gas between target and electron cannon. Electrons would bounce of from air/gas particles and they could not see anything correctly.

Tell me what an electron microscope is and what it does to capture and magnify matter, because that's essentially what a microscope is.

  Go and read wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_microscope . You are talking about building blocks of universe and yuo don't know what electronic microscope is. And don't start that it is som magix device which ordinary people can't get hands on and use it. From Applied Science channel for example -

Try and understand how your eyes work. They make sense of waves and frequencies, reflection and refraction.
This all requires a medium like atmosphere.

I know how eyes work. Seems that you don't know and are making up things again. Light does not need other medium than space for propagation like any other electromagnetic radiation.

I question it. I can be sceptical and I can not believe. Nobody has produced anything that makes me believe in something I'm questioning. I'm still waiting for that.

No, no, no. You don't question it. You just deny it and refuse to research anything. There is nothing to do if you are deliberately and willfully ignorant.

My stuff is made up. But why are they?
Did I just sir there one day and think " I know, I'll just make something up"......?

Not quite.
I formed my hypothesis based on how the simple things work as opposed to the magic trickery of how weare told they work.
I tried and better tried to explain something that most people simply take for granted as a simple vacuum without knowing what a vacuum is and why it happens to do what it apparently does.

I explain it and yet nobody explains their side from a global point of view that makes any rational sense, yet are happy to tell me that my theory is bordering on the wayward lunatic fringe.
Funny that.
...

I appeal to my own senses and I will sift through the stories and palce the potentials in the places that I think suit best.

You contradict yourself here. First of all you acknowledge that your stuff is made up. Then you say you formed hypothesis. Hypothesis is usually based on evidence, something real that everyone can observe and test. Seems that you don't have anything like that and you just dreamed up your hypothesis and it does not base on reality. Then you talk that you "tried and tried to explain..". No, you just tell other people your dreams and say that even when they can't verify anything they must accpet it without any evidence whatsoever. Then you are saying you have theory when you even don't have hypothesis yet but only speculations that quite exactly are bordering on the wayward lunatic fringe. And then you say that you appeal to your own senses but what senses? Your hallucinations inside your brain? Because no one can verify or sense or see or detect with their senses or with any apparataus these things you claim to be sensing. Only you. And then you wonder why others don't understand or accept anything when you literally talk about your dreams/hallucinations.
 And for last, we are not told how things work. We are taught how things work and explained with real demonstrations, examples, observations, hands on experiments and so on. Math and physics to predict and back up all of that. You don't have anything like that and your "explanations" are just talk, made up fantasies. I guess everyone should have a hobby but don't expext that anyone should listen to you when you can't demonstrate absolutely anything you say. Give even one actual demonstration which anyone can do in real life and you have something to stand on.

27

Flat Earth General / Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope

« on: February 21, 2019, 03:08:52 AM »

 I don't really care if you understand what you copy/paste here but thank you for demonstrating how out of date you are. Some hundred and more years always.

28

Flat Earth General / Re: Looking for FE explanation of video

« on: February 21, 2019, 02:58:22 AM »

At ground level the horizon is a straight line, because we, the observer, are in the middle of a ''hula hoop'' and we are looking sideways to the hula hoop as if it was a straight line, while in reality the circle of vision is....well a circle warping the same amount in all directions.

 This circle of vision has a name, horizon line and its distance from observer can be calculated. Current calculations are based on round earth and they work. Things start disappearing after calculated distance. Also "hula hoop" is real circle as the part of the sphere where horizon line is is real circle. And we see curve because it is real circle. If the surface is flat in all directions then it does not work that way. There is no distance which depends on the altitude of the observer and where all just stops and disappears into some magical darkness which exists only near the surface and no one can see anything any more. You can argue this side to side curvature if you want but fact is that surface definitely curves in direction away from you and sharp horizon line and horizon line drop from eye level is clear evidence for that. I really don't understand why you deliberately ignore and deny that evidence.

29

Flat Earth General / Re: Persuasive Essay

« on: February 21, 2019, 02:37:05 AM »

Hello everyone,
I will be writing a persuasive essay in school on why the earth is flat, any suggestions or help?

  If you really write about the "why" then I guess your only choice is to write about God. Because God made it so. I may be wrong but this site is more about how things work on FE, not why the earth is flat. Or is there some resource in this site which really speculates on the question "why"?

30

Flat Earth General / Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)

« on: February 21, 2019, 02:13:23 AM »

If you can see atoms through a microscope then you are seeing them through atmosphere. If you are seeing them through atmosphere then you can't see it but you can see through it. It's still physical but not discernible by eye.

There is no atmosphere inside electron microscope. They get air out from there so there is quite high-vacuum environment there. They could not use electron microscope when there is air or some gas between target and electron cannon. Electrons would bounce of from air/gas particles and they could not see anything correctly.

No need to argue this, you know what I'm saying is on the mark.

Knowing means that you can demonstrate it. You can't. So you are not on the mark but just speculate and make up whatever you want.

Nano materials eh?
You have no clue what these nano materials are other than (like I said) being told this that and the other.

I don't know why do you think that just denying things make them go away. Nanomaterials are real and in use. There is no arguing about that. You can deny them all you want but that is just you denying facts and others can just ignore you on this topic

You reply, so you're either doing it because you're bored or doing it for fun or you are inquisitive and want to delve.

I want you to go further from just making up things and talking. Its been what, some 3..4 years now and you only talk and make up things. Also no one can't delve anywhere because all your things are made up. No one can research anything. If you say that you KNOW something and it is not only just imagination in your head then you MUST be able to demonstrate it in actual and physical world in some way. So that some other person sees it, not only you. If it is only you then it is your personal hallucination.