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 - Lolflatdisc

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Physics at play
« on: August 05, 2015, 04:34:23 PM »
Hello there!

A question to the flat eart believers. Are meteorological services in the conspiracy as well?

FIRST OFF EARTH IS NOT FLAT ok?? get it good...we live inside A CONCAVE EARTH and this has been proven by basic science and common sense... now you know the truth if you accept it or not IS not up to me... CLEAR... ok good... move along and dont bother responding or asking questions cause its not my problem if you dont accept a truthers words... peace...

Concave earth? That's interesting. However, I solely ask for those who think the earth is flat. Mind if you let them speak up?

2
Flat Earth Debate / Physics at play
« on: August 05, 2015, 12:44:45 PM »
Hello there!

A question to the flat eart believers. Are meteorological services in the conspiracy as well?

3


Also interesting that he accuses flat earth theory of being a conspiracy. If that is the case, ask him, "What would they gain from hiding the shape of the earth from people?".


He could ask that same exact question.

NASA isn't hiding the shape of the Earth. It's hiding its own lack of spaceflight. Let's not go down this road. I don't feel like having a conspiracy argument.

Nonsense. You can see the ISS from the earth. It is real and for you to see as well.

You can see something, but that doesn't mean its the ISS or that its orbiting.
[/quote]

You can see it clearly using a telescope, many people have done so (including myself). It is orbiting, since it does not have any sort of wing. Also if it were high in the sky, the ISS would need constant propulsion. This would be impossible to achieve.


4


Also interesting that he accuses flat earth theory of being a conspiracy. If that is the case, ask him, "What would they gain from hiding the shape of the earth from people?".


He could ask that same exact question.

NASA isn't hiding the shape of the Earth. It's hiding its own lack of spaceflight. Let's not go down this road. I don't feel like having a conspiracy argument.
[/quote]

Nonsense. You can see the ISS from the earth. It is real and for you to see as well.

5
There wouldn't be a hard line, like we see in these pictures. If the opacity would play a role, the transition from light to darkness would be much more gradual.

In the far distance, near the horizon, hundreds of miles takes up a single pixel of the screen. Why would the fading be gradual?
Because, if I follow your reasoning, the opacity does not suddenly become too thick. It is gradual. Like you see in this picture. The ground near the photographer is clearer, but as the opacity decreases, the ground fades away in the mist.




Are you denying that a penny has curvature?

That penny, the size of the earth would look like an oval. Ever wondered why the road marks are stretched, why 3d street art always look stretched if you are not looking at it from the right direction? #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Street 3D Art

Only when these images were taken from the Flat earth's northpole, it would show up equally on all sides. Dallas is not the centre, so I got the FET busted right there....again.

I can't tell that the curvature displayed in the images shows up is an arc of a circle rather than an ellipse. Please demonstrate that the curvature shown is an arc of a circle and not an elliptical.
[/quote]

If you would have watched the videos, provided in the link, you'd know. The camera spins around. Not one particular side stands out from the rest, it is the same horizon everywhere. Also the photos of the horizon. It shows the same incline, not one part of the horizon is more stretched than the other.

6
Are you denying that a penny has curvature?

That penny, the size of the earth would look like an oval. Ever wondered why the road marks are stretched, why 3d street art always look stretched if you are not looking at it from the right direction? #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Street 3D Art

Only when these images were taken from the Flat earth's northpole, it would show up equally on all sides. Dallas is not the centre, so I got the FET busted right there....again.

7
Ah, I see what you're saying.  It's pitch black outside of the circle of light, and so you can't see past it.  You still haven't said why most landmasses can't be seen.  Assuming that we are just looking down upon a circle of light, where's Africa?  It should be visible from a camera so high above the UK, considering they're lit at about the same time of day.  If the curvature is the result of the end of the light reflecting off of Earth's surface, we should still be able to see Africa and England, as well as continental Europe and parts of Asia.

Scroll up to the near-space pictures which were posted and try to make out the distant land features. Everything is faded by the atmosphere and shrunken by perspective. It's impossible to make out anything.

There wouldn't be a hard line, like we see in these pictures. If the opacity would play a role, the transition from light to darkness would be much more gradual.

8
Quote
Why, when from Earth there is no curve to the surface because it is planar, is there a readily apparent curve from high above?

Because you are looking down at a circle of light. When you are looking at a penny edge on you see flatness, when you look at it from above you see roundness.

Once again, this explanation is lacking.  We are either not looking at the entirety of the earth, at which point this falls apart because a portion of a plane of any shape which isn't the edge doesn't reflect the shape of the plane as a whole, or we're looking at the entirety of the earth while the observable landmasses, or lack thereof, don't match up with FE models.

I don't see what's so hard to understand. The earth in its entirety is not illuminated, as the sun does not shine on it all at once. At high altitudes near the edge of space you are looking down at a circle of light, and will therefore see some curvature to the horizon.

Any distant landmasses are shrunk by perspective and indescernable in the distance by the opacity of the atmosphere.

Tom Bishop! Give me a break, will ya?
These pictures show a curvature. Something you would never, ever should expect when the earth is flat. NEVER

So all these other excuses you're trying to find do not explain the curvature! Even the excuses you'll give are perfectly refutable.
But I will not give you any lead to stray away from the fact that there is a curvature...

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Movement
« on: July 12, 2013, 02:29:14 PM »
1 - I do not say you said it, but I took aether as a way to help understand you my reasoning. I wonder what force acts on the sun for it to move and you asked me What device and method of delivery do you propose we could use to measure such a force?.

Hence I took aether as an auxiliary to make clear that another force in the FET has also never been measured. Your question does not make sense.

1- Why do you expect others to measure a force for you when you can not describe what you want measured or how to go about doing so? This forum is not purposed to spoon feed you knowledge.

2 - You have a very wrong assumption that science makes stuff up.  The RET is never manufactured. In fact it is not just a theory, it has been proven with countless methods. The rules for science is that the same experiment in same conditions, result the same results, over and over again. I find it quite remarkable the FET does not have any answers. It has a very very weak basis to even consider it as an option.

2- RET has never peen proven, hence why this forum exists. For example, gravity was invented to account for RET. Then when astronomers discovered entire galaxies moving as if they were rigid discs, gravity was destroyed. Therefore, dark matter was invented. RET is a house of cards stacked upon itself, all entirely fabricated to glue itself together. It's funny, really. Espeically when people defend it with vague statements verifying that they themselves cannot defend such a terrible theory.

1 - I thought the FES in general is on the edge of cutting edge knowledge, scientific breakthroughs. A wealth of knowledge, for anyone to catch on. Once and for all FES will deal with this persistent global conspiracy, in which almost the entire world was tricked in. But I digress. I would like to know how to sun is moving through space. If you were to put me in a classroom and I were the one asking the teacher a question. Would I expect the teacher to ask me how I wanted things to be measured? No...

I am asking YOU, because you have a theory about the flat earth, you'll need to answer the questions. How you measured it, how you people came up with this (crazy) idea...I don't know. To me it does not make sense that there is an aether pushing constantly accelerating the earth upwards. But then there is no 'thing' to explain the movement of the sun in the FET.

I want to have knowledge, from you...about how the sun moves. I know in the RET this is pretty straight forward. The earth is rotating around its axis, which causes day and night. Now the FET. What causes day and night? The sun moves...yeah I got that...now how does the sun move? What magic force causes this?

I'm not talking chinese to you, am I?

2- This forum exists, because some people are crazy and cannot grasp the simpliest thing, if you ask me, but since I did not intend to discuss the RET, I will stick to my question. What force causes the sun to move from west to east and makes it rise again in the west the next day.

The lack of answers from your side and from the FES in general, proofs once more you're all a bunch of....(you fill it in...)


10
Here, some pictures by a random guy with a balloon and a camera, his name is Robert Harrison.  He has no incentive to prove a round earth if it had turned up flat.
http://reinhardkargl.com/iBlog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/4340514598_db7d5065d7_b.jpg

http://reinhardkargl.com/iBlog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2961118445_de06c0ea79_b.jpg

To compliment them, a collection of video by the same apparatus and belonging to the same man as the camera floats into the upper atmosphere.  They're not in the highest quality, but I'd imagine you wouldn't send your most expensive and probably quite heavy camera up into space on a whim.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30721501@N05/sets/72157608267950423/

In FET when you are significantly above the surface of the earth you are looking down at a circle.

You're looking down to a circle in the same fashion you look at the moon. Except that circle has all the characteristics of a sphere. You will never ever be able to see the other side of the earth from your location, no matter how high you would go. There is always a part not visible. If you look down at Mexico, you won't see India, etc. These cameras sent up high in the amtosphere however never show a flat earth. Everytime they show you a curved earth, one which matches a sphere. How hard could it be to comprehend? And if you dispute their footage, redo the experiment yourself. Untill then, any comment on this just shows the lack of common sense.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Movement
« on: July 12, 2013, 12:42:44 PM »
1 - No, similar question. You talk about aether as a force, a force never measured. Still you hold on to believing aether is true.
I find that strange.

1- Not once has my post mentioned the term "aether."

2 - No, I am taking one thing to explain my point of view. You're lacking to grasp it, but that does not mean I derail my own thread. Your comment however does.

...

3 - I know a way for the round earth, but that does not hold for the flat earth theory. I am here, asking the FES for answers and now you're asking me a way to measure it. I think I just debunked the FET just right there, since you do not have any answers.

2- FET does not have all the answers. We do not nor will we ever claim any form of omnipotence regarding the universe. FET, unlike RET, does not manufacture answers in order to satisfy the ego of scholars.

1 - I do not say you said it, but I took aether as a way to help understand you my reasoning. I wonder what force acts on the sun for it to move and you asked me What device and method of delivery do you propose we could use to measure such a force?.

Hence I took aether as an auxiliary to make clear that another force in the FET has also never been measured. Your question does not make sense.


2 - You have a very wrong assumption that science makes stuff up.  The RET is never manufactured. In fact it is not just a theory, it has been proven with countless methods. The rules for science is that the same experiment in same conditions, result the same results, over and over again. I find it quite remarkable the FET does not have any answers. It has a very very weak basis to even consider it as an option.

However, back to the original question. I can safely assume there is no answer to why the sun is moving around?




12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Movement
« on: July 12, 2013, 11:15:51 AM »
What device and method of delivery do you have which we could use to measure aether?

1 - Irrelevant to my question.

I know, if I take the round earth, gravity has been described as a force acting equally on all objects. Galileo already did such an experiment a few centuries ago to demonstrate that. This theory has been tested on the moon as well, with the use of a feather and a hammer. This experiment again has been recreated in a vacuum by Mythbusters and even more, this experiment can be repeated over and over again, by pretty much anyone.
This tells us the theory that gravity, pulling equally on all objects, does apply and is true.

2 - You're derailing your own thread? odd.

The fact the sun moves through the sky, for our observation does not tell us that we are moving, nor could it tell the sun is moving. Either way, we have to proof one to be true over the other. Since the flath earth theory suggests the earth to be the middle of the universe and everything evolves around the earth, while the earth itself is constantly accelerating upwards, I wonder what other force (which goes undescribed) causes the sun to move?

3 - I wonder, too. Perhaps you have an idea on how to measure it?

For the round earth theory I know this is gravity, but I do not need to defend it here.

Seems rather silly to make a force up just to explain away something we can't personally measure, doesn't it? Especially when you can't explain where the energy for such a force emerges from.

1 - No, similar question. You talk about aether as a force, a force never measured. Still you hold on to believing aether is true.
I find that strange.

2 - No, I am taking one thing to explain my point of view. You're lacking to grasp it, but that does not mean I derail my own thread. Your comment however does.

3 - I know a way for the round earth, but that does not hold for the flat earth theory. I am here, asking the FES for answers and now you're asking me a way to measure it. I think I just debunked the FET just right there, since you do not have any answers.

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Movement
« on: July 12, 2013, 10:38:22 AM »
What device and method of delivery do you propose we could use to measure such a force?

Let me question in reply.

What device and method of delivery do you have which we could use to measure aether?

I know, if I take the round earth, gravity has been described as a force acting equally on all objects. Galileo already did such an experiment a few centuries ago to demonstrate that. This theory has been tested on the moon as well, with the use of a feather and a hammer. This experiment again has been recreated in a vacuum by Mythbusters and even more, this experiment can be repeated over and over again, by pretty much anyone.
This tells us the theory that gravity, pulling equally on all objects, does apply and is true.

The fact the sun moves through the sky, for our observation does not tell us that we are moving, nor could it tell the sun is moving. Either way, we have to proof one to be true over the other. Since the flath earth theory suggests the earth to be the middle of the universe and everything evolves around the earth, while the earth itself is constantly accelerating upwards, I wonder what other force (which goes undescribed) causes the sun to move?

For the round earth theory I know this is gravity, but I do not need to defend it here.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Movement
« on: July 12, 2013, 10:09:10 AM »
How does the sun move through space? As became apparent, some simple souls did not understand the question I will need to explain a tad more.

The sun is moving across the sky. I was wondering what forces act upon the sun for it to move around through the sky.



15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« on: July 12, 2013, 09:05:55 AM »
No wonder you believe the earth is flat.

I never said the earth was flat.  ???

Don't try to be smarty-pants.
You did, by stating that it was "another RE failure".
 

16
In the model with Antarctica as a continent the sun "switches gears" every 6 months between the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere. There are not two suns.

Okay, I did some calculations, and according to your theory, on the winter solstice (shortest day of the year), I (at 45.5 N) should see the sun rise about 21 degrees east of due south and set about 21 degrees west of due south.

Instead I've observed it rise about 60 degrees east of due south and set about 60 degrees west of due south.

While this isn't as bad as when I was in the Falkland Islands (discrepancy of about 90 degrees), 40 degrees isn't something to shake a stick at. How does the light from an object make it appear as though it rises and sets 40 on either side?

And that is the difference between someone like you and the FES. You actually care to provide proof, while FES never does. Still the people from FES fail to grasp the proof stacked against their theory.


17
You have no obligation to provide them, since there is no law saying you should. However, whenever someone is presenting a new theory, be prepared to defend it. You know there are no answers. You said you would help me, but never provided me with any links to serious scientific research about the flat earth society or provided answers which were debunked a gazillion times already.

I don't care if you people say lurk moar all the time. To me that is like saying "I don't have any answers for this crazy theory, but I still believe every word of it".

There are plenty of answers if you are willing to take the time to look.  If you showed that you were willing to take time yourself, I would be willing to help where I could.  I imagine others would too.  But you left (were banned?) for a couple months and come back expecting everyone to do your work for you.  That is not how it works around here.  Also, people are going to be put off by your signature.

Junker, we went over this before. There is no need to discuss it again. I never found any answers, instead what I found was pseudo scientific research, easily debunked. You have no idea how I looked for answers, so stop pretending like you know. Again this can turn into yes-no discussions. This is about me, and I know what I have done...you don't. This is also not the thread to discuss my absence. If you feel like you want to discuss this, open a new thread. I thought you'd know!

18
You have no obligation to provide them, since there is no law saying you should. However, whenever someone is presenting a new theory, be prepared to defend it. You know there are no answers. You said you would help me, but never provided me with any links to serious scientific research about the flat earth society or provided answers which were debunked a gazillion times already.

I don't care if you people say lurk moar all the time. To me that is like saying "I don't have any answers for this crazy theory, but I still believe every word of it".

19
Yeah, I have no interest in getting into this particular argument again. Lurk moar, is all I can say.

Standard response when FES has no answers. Fine with me, you're just proofing my right just again.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Kern the gnome
« on: July 12, 2013, 07:30:29 AM »
That is no valuable reply to this discussion..you should know better by now Tausami.

Lol

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« on: July 12, 2013, 07:27:43 AM »
Right, you stick to grammar then. Let me know when you want to get back to discussing science.

It's spelled GRAMMER, yet another RE failure.

Nowhere on Earth has the proper spelling of grammar as grammer.  And that's not relevant to the shape of the earth regardless, nor is it even a grammatical error, because grammar and spelling are distinct parts of language.  It's your thread, but at least try to be somewhat consistent with your off topic statements, why don't you?

I think you'll find...

Oh my gosh...and English is your mother tongue? It says
GRAMMER A common misspelling of grammar due to the vowel reduction in English.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar

Grammar
AR!

No wonder you believe the earth is flat.

22
We're perfectly aware of this. RET has been assumed for little to no good reason for thousands of years, which is why people today think that the idea of the Earth being flat is so insane.

Perhaps you would care to explain that how come these ancient civilizations, with no big million dollar co-operations, no fancy internet spy programs, or anything we know today...came to the conclusion the earth was a sphere and not a disc. How come?

They saw the Sinking Ship Effect and noticed that constellations were different in different places. It's a perfectly valid hypothesis to explain these phenomena; however, nobody bothered to test it because the scientific method hadn't yet existed. It's the same deal as Aristotle saying that there were five elements (earth, air, water, fire, quintessence/aether) or that objects in motion tend to slow to a stop because they are lazy. It explains the phenomena and makes sense, and it never occurred to anyone to actually test it.

To my knowledge they have also been observing the night sky and other objects and events in space, such as the moon, the other planets. They all appear (even till this day) to be spheres. During lunar and solar eclipses the shadow is cast as if it is cast on a ball. They even calculated the earth's circumference quite accurately. This is quite a lengthy article on that http://www.metrum.org/measures/measurements.htm - I'm ok if you don't feel like reading it, but just showing it is there.

If pretty much all the other objects in space are spheres. Why would Earth be the odd one out?

Furthermore I can direct you to many videos and scientific articles on the fact that it is well established the earth is a sphere. Even some simple experiments explained in this article, for you to read. Some of which I can also testify myself. Riding on a plane for example. In addition to that, for my geographic location I can testify for lengthy summer days. About 4 weeks ago it was the longest day. Now we're heading towards the shortest and the days get shorter again.

http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/

Perhaps I brought too much points for you to debate properly, but the fundamental question I am asking, apart from all the evidence stacking up. What reason is there to believe the earth is actually flat. Apart from looking around and seeing a flat world, because as you described, it's a perfectly valid hypothesis to explain these phenomena. However, with all the testing these days...what still holds?

And last for now. Does the stack of evidence does not strongly suggest a spherical earth? 

23
Flat Earth Debate / Kern the gnome
« on: July 11, 2013, 05:34:28 PM »
I am looking forward to a debate on this. Here is the introductionary article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2117738/Long-weigh-gnome-The-bizarre-experiment-garden-ornament-travels-world-measure-gravity.html

Here is the full website to the scientific research on this topic.
http://www.gnomeexperiment.com/

Here is the video that introduces the experiment:

http://www.gnomeexperiment.com/

As a side note. The experiment does not dependent specifically on having a garden gnome. Any object with the same mass will do. For the same reason they could have taken a plastic brick.

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Aether, what is it?
« on: July 11, 2013, 05:28:14 PM »
The following article debunks Aether and the allegded constant accelerating upward speed of 9.81 m/s

I have been discussing this topic before and gave access to scintific research on this topic as well, but this article is what I stumbled on lately. Perhaps more interesting than all the scientific articles. The article is about a garden gnome, take to different places around the world and measured on the same scale. It is determined that the weight of the gnome varies over different locations.

For anyone interesting in the scientific stuff. I will dig up the old thread. Just keep an eye out on an update on this reply. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2117738/Long-weigh-gnome-The-bizarre-experiment-garden-ornament-travels-world-measure-gravity.html

Update. Here is it http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58676.msg1495764.html#msg1495764

25
We're perfectly aware of this. RET has been assumed for little to no good reason for thousands of years, which is why people today think that the idea of the Earth being flat is so insane.

Perhaps you would care to explain that how come these ancient civilizations, with no big million dollar co-operations, no fancy internet spy programs, or anything we know today...came to the conclusion the earth was a sphere and not a disc. How come?

26
Exactly...fake unless the depict a flat earth. That kind of logic...

if you'd actually care you know they aren't, but you don't...
The are likely fake regardless of the shape of the Earth in the photos.

Likely isn't conclusive and there is no reason to assume that these are "likely" fake.
There is also no reason to assume they are real, which is why pictures are not considered evidence here one way or the other.

If that is you stance, do not call that these are likely fake, because you're reasoning allow for NO stance as "likely" fake or "likely" real, but being "inconclusive". You reply strongly suggest you have a biased view.

However there are in fact tons of reasons. If you'd care you'd know them. The fact the launches can be publicly witnessed. Especially in the days of the space shuttle, now they're launching from Kazachstan it is a lot harder to get there, but still these launches are monitored and witnessed by tens if not hundreds of people.

The fact that the ISS can be seen from Earth. The fact that there are no indications these are fake. No Snowden-like person who leaked information on this, while PRISM was meant to be completely off radar, but I digress. We're talking about great PUBLIC organizations, with thousands of people involved. The fact that so many pictures exist and not one standing out of the ordinary, about this space walk there is hours of footage from beginning till end, all publicly available.

Something which is quite the contrary to what North-Korea does when it lies to its people. North Korea for example tends to keep public available imaging and videos to the minimum. Even the world cup against Brasil was only shown after the match was played and only the good parts were shown to the mighty people of North Korea. #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">North Korea won the world cup 2010 !

Iran? Same story...this one is claimed to be the latest and stealthiest aircraft. All it did was publish some pictures of a mock-up plane. Later they published a picture of that same plane flying. Well...."flying". Photoshop of the same mock-up plane over a mountain picture. An Iranian blogger noticed all the fakery..http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/02/13/Fake-stealth-plane-Iran-photoshops-super-jet-jet-still-cant-fly/5541360782836/



Then, the USA who DO have a very stealthy aircraft..the F-117, a lot of pictures and videos are widely available. Even the public can see the plane for real during airshows...publicly available..


Again, there is no reason whatsoever to assume these pictures are even "slightliest" fake.

 

27
Exactly...fake unless the depict a flat earth. That kind of logic...

if you'd actually care you know they aren't, but you don't...
The are likely fake regardless of the shape of the Earth in the photos.

Likely isn't conclusive and there is no reason to assume that these are "likely" fake. 


28
Newton started the NASA conspiracy. I'm hardly going to take his word for anything!
You do realize that low content posting is not appreciated in the serious discussion forums, don't you?

What is wrong with his comment. It contributes to this valuable discussion

29
It looks like a flat disc altered by a fish eye lens.

If you would actually care and watched any of the videos provided in the link, you would come to the definite conclusion that these are no fish eye lens. If you'd only care...but you don't...
I only said looked like, not that it was definitively.  I am more inclined to agree with you that they aren't.  They are likely fake.

Exactly...fake unless the depict a flat earth. That kind of logic...

if you'd actually care you know they aren't, but you don't...

30
It looks like a flat disc altered by a fish eye lens.

If you would actually care and watched any of the videos provided in the link, you would come to the definite conclusion that these are no fish eye lens. If you'd only care...but you don't...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19