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 - Algol

Pages: [1] 2
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Burden of Proof
« on: September 04, 2008, 12:00:37 PM »
Dumbed down, I think what singularity is saying is "you have proposed a theory that has little or no evidence. Therfore, you need to prove it, not us". He's right. It may be their forum, but they are proposing these theories to the rest of the world. We have already done so, and ours has been accepted. Now, you need to show yours is the more likely.

really? care to explain what these theories are that you have proven?

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Burden of Proof
« on: September 04, 2008, 08:26:53 AM »
don't know how to do the damn spellcheck thing online, anyway it isn't a case of selling out, it's having respect for people in their own place.

we are the ones on here saying they are wrong so it isnt up to them to prove, it's up to us

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Thread Sprouts on Volconzo
« on: September 04, 2008, 06:20:54 AM »
Quote
Well, we could start with celestial observations for navigation in both the northern and southern hemisphere.  There is also the measuring of distances to objects based on their height above the horizon.  There is the calculation of courses and distances between ports that can't be justified by the FE geography.

I've never read or seen any accounts of such observations confirming celestial bodies to be where predicted.

I have read many books with accounts where RE Theory fails, however. Look up any Astronomical Anomaly book in your local library to see collections of thousands of accounts from astronomers which contradict the current model.


i would like to hear some of these "anomalys" if you please tom? as a keen astronomr i would be very interested, yet doubt that my local library would have said books. as it only just has four walls and a door :o

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Burden of Proof
« on: September 04, 2008, 06:16:41 AM »
although i am definately RE, i happen to agree with the FE'ers on this one, the burden of proof must be with us RE guys.

i mean in the real everday world the burden of proof would be on FE people but here and now online, we are the one on their boards and the accepted view here is FET so it is up to us to prove it wrong.

to be honest when i joined a few days back i was annoyed and angry at the easy get out answers but i've adjusted and have found some people to be great at scientific debates, specifically, osama and tom.

anyway come on RE guys get prooving

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« on: September 04, 2008, 05:56:36 AM »
bravo this man ^^^^^

another astronomer that sees how stupid the FET really is compared to waht we see with our scopes and naked eye observations.

eclipses, and occulations and other such astronomical behaviour really do show up FET.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why?
« on: September 03, 2008, 01:53:25 PM »
i think judas was probably kept out ofheaven due to the whole suicide thing, mortal sin and all that

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why?
« on: September 03, 2008, 12:37:01 PM »
i don't think it was a case of judas and pilate must do what they did i just think it was in their nature.

their nature made judaswant to betray jesus and by roman law pilate basically had no choice. he tried to offer a way out but correct me if im wrong didnt the jewish people chose another prisoner to release? barabus maybe?

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Boats And Planes
« on: September 01, 2008, 10:49:20 AM »
i may stop asking if i got a satisfactory answer with proof or some evidence of course.

i'm not totally unreasonable.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Boats And Planes
« on: September 01, 2008, 10:44:08 AM »
of course, he wouldnt want to sound stupid on a site where the majority of people claim the earth is flat. how stupid would he feel.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antarctica or an Ice Wall?
« on: September 01, 2008, 10:30:58 AM »
you're right a giant wall of ice around the only flat planet in the solar system is much more plausible.

look the EA model and the moving upwards thing would cause the other planets to be flat also yet they are round. physics surely wouldn't allow this shape with such upwards velocity.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Heavens Above
« on: September 01, 2008, 10:12:39 AM »
agreed and a lot of the southern constellation eg' southern cross, dorado, centaurus etc. can't be seen from uk. and are not part of the northern hemisphere charts.

wow this should be so obvious

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antarctica or an Ice Wall?
« on: September 01, 2008, 10:05:42 AM »
I found this information on Antarctica from the British Antarctic Survey.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk

It seems to have a lot of information that would back up a Round Earth.
Can anyone produce as much evidence to suggest the Antarctica is actually just an ice wall surrounding a Flat Earth?

Kind regards



of course not why ask? it's all complete tosh.

people do realis this i'm sure.

i wonder if i'll ever meet a real FE fan

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bendy light: The maths
« on: September 01, 2008, 10:04:16 AM »
Quote
Tom, isn't this whole upward bendy effect completely incompatible with you own observations?   You have said that you can see children playing on a beach 30 miles away.

Surely your observations falsify this bendy hypotheses?  Or are your own observations now in doubt?

If EA is correct, then it just makes such observations of being able to see past the curvature of the earth nothing more than a curiosity.

Perhaps refraction did it, as I'm so very often told.

perhaps ??? or perhaps it was the pixies and the little elves showing you a magical world over the horizon that only you can see? ::)

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: satelites
« on: September 01, 2008, 09:13:57 AM »
no way dude, "the MAN" would somehow put a complex mirror between you and the satelite baloon and make it seem further away.

obviously ::)

what a pile of crap

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Heavens Above
« on: September 01, 2008, 03:42:56 AM »
glad to see the elephants and turtles weren't neglected in that crap.

seriously some people will beleive anythin.

so as stars can get oculted by planets that must mean the planets are closer than the stars.

making them only at most 3100 miles away as i think the FAQ said.

WOW we have been seriously oversizing jupiter ::)

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Heavens Above
« on: September 01, 2008, 03:29:31 AM »
so who built the damn gears then ;D

surely not us as we've never travelled in space.

you're right this all makes far more sense than a round earth.

fake moons, ballon satelites, and invisible gears making the stars turn. ???

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Heavens Above
« on: September 01, 2008, 03:22:30 AM »
so are these gears invisible?

oh and also dont forget that at different times of year different stars are visible.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Heavens Above
« on: September 01, 2008, 03:16:20 AM »
i've looked at that thread but call me stupid i can't see the bit that explains about the stars.

also you stated how the sun and moon rise, but how do the stars? do they orbit us also?

19
Quote
Glad you'd like to share with us your feelings on the issue.

Yeah I love to share I don't want to be selfish since Selfish breed envy and jealousy breeds hatred :)

and hate leads to the dark side, we know

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Heavens Above
« on: September 01, 2008, 03:04:07 AM »
it makes no sense, i mean in your FE model australia can't see the same stars as south america as they are on opposite edges of the "Disc" yet they do. care to explain?

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: 2 cases for a round earth
« on: September 01, 2008, 02:27:09 AM »
really, so niow theres gears up there

no satelites but plenty of gears

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: 2 cases for a round earth
« on: September 01, 2008, 02:09:16 AM »
yes but with your model you should be able to see all the stars on the above sheet. yes?

but in say the uk you cant see the southern cross

and in australia you can't see ursa minor

so how does that work?

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Heavens Above
« on: September 01, 2008, 02:03:21 AM »
yes as it is half way down and so can see some of the southern stars.

yet in the FE model the north pole is pretty much central so should be able to see some of the southern stars ie. southern cross or centaurus

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: 2 cases for a round earth
« on: September 01, 2008, 02:01:20 AM »
not true.

as on one edge of the flat disc you would see certain stars and on the other edge different stars yet they dont. all of the southern hemisphere sees the same stars?

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: satelites
« on: September 01, 2008, 02:00:09 AM »
not in "3-D" as you say but they do rotate, for example the Great red spot on jupiter, moves around the planet.

and saturn has rings so that defo aint flat.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: satelites
« on: September 01, 2008, 01:56:39 AM »
hmm i've seen the other planets and they are round so thats kinda wrong already

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: satelites
« on: September 01, 2008, 01:53:16 AM »
come on.  ;D

also if the other planets have moons why is ours fake?

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: 2 cases for a round earth
« on: September 01, 2008, 01:52:11 AM »
you're kidding me right? so how come at night people one one side of the FE say in australia can see the same stars in the sky as people on the other side of the FE ie. south america?

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Heavens Above
« on: September 01, 2008, 01:49:21 AM »
also why wouldn't we all see the same stars? surely if you lived at the north pole you could see some of the stars uk sees and some australia sees?

but no instead you see all northern hemisphere stars

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: 2 cases for a round earth
« on: September 01, 2008, 01:47:20 AM »
no but i doubt thatan average joe astronomer in his backyard would fake something like that.

and the PST solar telescopes needed to observe a transit are only about 300-400 so not too expensive.

hope to have one soon as the transits of venus and mercury are apparently quite spectacular first hand

Pages: [1] 2