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 - Part of the Problem

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why is sustained space travel impossible?
« on: August 28, 2012, 01:41:44 PM »
This is a more suitable answer to my question. So sustained space flight is not impossible?

Obviously it is not impossible.  The sun, moon, and stars all prove that.

2
- I said that the sun did not disappear to perspective in the text your quoted.

At least we're on the same page, then.  The sun does not disappear due to perspective.

4
Flat Earth General / Re: Space flight is possible
« on: December 05, 2011, 10:27:21 AM »
The evidence is my first hand testimony. You may peer review my claims if you wish.

Can you provide first hand testimony of someone who hasn't been shown to be a liar, please?

5
Then organize a flight across Antarctica.  This is probably one of the biggest longshots of FE - that Antarctica doesn't even exist.  There are, literally, flights over Antarctica every day, to get from Argentina to New Zealand, or from South Africa to Australia.

There are surely more than 200 RE'rs.  Why don't you organize a flight over Antarctica?

6
So what's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

So the simplest explanation is that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen photoshop technologies from scratch that still withstands scrutiny?

What does NASA do that's impossible on a daily basis?

Also, you've still yet to list a technology that was seen before it was designed and invented.

7
In biological terms, perfection is having a sufficient level of fitness.

So, according to your definition, a camera is perfect.

A camera for the most part is inorganic, thus the concept of fitness doesn't really apply.

So, an eye in need of corrective lenses is more reliable than a camera?

8
In biological terms, perfection is having a sufficient level of fitness.

So, according to your definition, a camera is perfect.

9
Reevaluate your definition of perfection.

Please define it then.

10
It is extremely well documented that mans judgment is less than perfect. Thus most designs stemming from man will also inherit this imperfection. In contrast, devices designed by god, e.g., life, are perfect. If we were to accept this, then we would inevitably conclude that the cameras perception was more likely to be flawed than my eyes.

If we were to accept this, then we would also inevitably conclude that there is no need for corrective lenses.

11
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Infinite earth vs parallel earths
« on: November 11, 2011, 07:41:10 AM »
My understanding is that we'll either face doom and destruction or peace and prosperity.  Neither of those sounds like things will just stay the same, which leads me to believe that we will know when this quantum shift has occurred.

12
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Infinite earth vs parallel earths
« on: November 10, 2011, 01:30:10 PM »
No I never said 2012. People played pranks and misquoted my statements. So even if you do find a quote, chances are I didn't write it.

It's not hard to search for posts for 2012 and filter for those made by New Earth.  People can misquote you, but I find it hard to believe that you misquote yourself.

Example:
OK well this is whats going to happen; in 2012 our reality will split into two. One version will face doom and destruction, the other timeline will enjoy peace and prosperity.

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Atmosphere
« on: November 09, 2011, 01:23:26 PM »
When I jump up, I see the ground move away from my feet.  Am I doing something wrong?

Probably.

I also noticed that when I do pushups I'm strong enough to push the earth down.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Atmosphere
« on: November 09, 2011, 12:36:47 PM »
When I jump up, I see the ground move away from my feet.  Am I doing something wrong?

15
Flat Earth General / Re: On perspective
« on: November 03, 2011, 10:57:59 AM »
Nice work, Squevil.  Thank you for the illustration.

16
Flat Earth General / Re: RErs ... earn $10,000
« on: November 01, 2011, 10:42:12 AM »
So we're supposed to believe that some society that won't even try to prove their own beliefs is going to hand over $10000 to someone who "proves" it.

Yeah.



Right.

You should lurk moar in your own forums.

This isn't a reward offered by the FES.  You should read the article.

17
Flat Earth General / Re: On perspective
« on: October 31, 2011, 11:42:58 AM »
So we're on page 4 and the closest thing to a defense of perspective has been that the ground reflects the sunlight back into the clouds.

18
Flat Earth General / Re: RErs ... earn $10,000
« on: October 29, 2011, 05:40:38 AM »
Yeah, being in orbit around a RE wouldn't prove anything.

Ha ha ha.

So your proof is going to be "I was in orbit, trust me."  Good luck with that.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: RErs ... earn $10,000
« on: October 28, 2011, 09:12:19 PM »
Can someone book me a ticket in the next space mission?

That wouldn't prove anything.  Just saying.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: RErs ... earn $10,000
« on: October 28, 2011, 04:40:48 PM »
Religious fanatics still have money that is as fun to spend as anyone elses.

I agree... they just don't have the open mind to accept another point of view.
Once you have the proof, you could sue him into the floor for not paying up.

Why are you all scared? You argue with us for free, but you don't want to argue the exact same thing for $10k? Set this old guy straight. All these unclaimed FET wagers make RET look awful.

I never claimed to have absolute proof of anything.  I just have yet to see a flat earth theory that explains the world and universe around us anywhere near as well as round earth theory does.  I consider myself open minded and I'd be excited to see a flat earth theory that can match round earth theory. 

21
Flat Earth General / Re: RErs ... earn $10,000
« on: October 28, 2011, 04:29:23 PM »
Religious fanatics still have money that is as fun to spend as anyone elses.

I agree... they just don't have the open mind to accept another point of view.

22
Flat Earth General / Re: RErs ... earn $10,000
« on: October 28, 2011, 04:16:09 PM »
Wow... if that's still his address he lives about 20 minutes from me.

He lost me once he mentioned scripture.  You can't prove anything to a religious fanatic.

23
Flat Earth General / Re: On perspective
« on: October 28, 2011, 07:42:20 AM »
Can someone (perhaps Tom) explain to me how the rising sun can cast a shadow of a mountain on the bottom of clouds if Rowbotham's explanation of perspective is correct? 

See:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/26/the-long-shadow-of-mt-rainier/

Light is reflected from the earth back towards the clouds. I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to consider.

I have considered it and I never said it was difficult to consider.  It is difficult to believe as I've never seen sunlight reflect off the ground in that way.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: On perspective
« on: October 27, 2011, 08:23:23 AM »
FEīers are like a bunch of little boys trying to convince each other they have superpowers. They try to explain why they can see through walls, saying they have X-ray vision. When somebody ask why they donīt kill people by the radiation, they say "thatīs because itīs very little powered!" which contradcts the first affirmation. Also, they donīt need to have common theories, as they are not scientists

Okay, I'd just like to keep this on topic.  I feel like if we can eliminate certain models of FE, it will be a step in the right direction towards a unified model.

25
Flat Earth General / Re: On perspective
« on: October 27, 2011, 07:39:58 AM »
Quote
[Thread]

Answer: Bendy Light.

Thatīs all folks

Again, this thread isn't about bendy light.  There are people out there who swear light doesn't bend and the earth is flat.  I'd like to know how this can happen within those parameters.

26
Flat Earth General / Re: On perspective
« on: October 27, 2011, 07:31:17 AM »
Just to try to stay on topic, this isn't about bendy light.  It's about perspective. 

Can someone (perhaps Tom) explain to me how the rising sun can cast a shadow of a mountain on the bottom of clouds if Rowbotham's explanation of perspective is correct? 

See:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/26/the-long-shadow-of-mt-rainier/

Perspective makes sun to appear for an eye at the eye level and even at below eye level. It is just a visual effects. So, the very peak of a mountain obstructs the light (the effect of light) and makes a shadow on bottom of clouds. What discrepancy you see here?

The discrepancy I see here is thus:

The sun is over 2000 miles above the clouds, which are above the mountain.   Not only do I not understand how the sun can light the bottom of the clouds (being that is above them), I don't understand how it can project a shadow of the mountain on the underside of the clouds.

27
Flat Earth General / Re: On perspective
« on: October 27, 2011, 05:09:39 AM »
Just to try to stay on topic, this isn't about bendy light.  It's about perspective. 

Can someone (perhaps Tom) explain to me how the rising sun can cast a shadow of a mountain on the bottom of clouds if Rowbotham's explanation of perspective is correct? 

See:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/26/the-long-shadow-of-mt-rainier/

28
Flat Earth General / Re: On perspective
« on: October 27, 2011, 03:03:40 AM »
Thanks, I've been here before and that's not very helpful.

And what is wrong with that picture? Shows flatness.

Did I say there was something wrong with it?  I just don't see how it is possible on a flat earth without bendy light.  Specifically, I believe it is evidence against Rowbotham's perspective explanation.  I'm just looking for someone who believes in Rowbotham's explanation of perspective (like Tom) to explain how it is possible.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: On perspective
« on: October 26, 2011, 02:51:00 PM »
Thanks, I've been here before and that's not very helpful.

30
Flat Earth General / On perspective
« on: October 26, 2011, 12:36:51 PM »
Can someone (perhaps Tom) explain to me how the rising sun can cast a shadow of a mountain on the bottom of clouds if Rowbotham's explanation of perspective is correct? 

See:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/26/the-long-shadow-of-mt-rainier/

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13