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 - raziel

Pages: [1] 2
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Observational Evidence for a Round Earth
« on: September 08, 2009, 05:12:47 AM »
Seems that nerd has run away from the forum after being confronted. Typical of round earthers.

Yup, Just like a guy who run away after asking name of people who has circled south pole or prove when he has run fake space program ::)

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Beam Neutrinos
« on: September 05, 2009, 05:03:27 PM »
Google for the "long baseline neutrino experiment".

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Beam Neutrinos
« on: September 05, 2009, 04:46:01 PM »
Beam neutrinos, as is heavily implied by the name, are man made beams of neutrinos. Rather like the LHC at CERN beam beams of protons are accelerated to high energies. Unlike CERN the beams are collided with a solid target even less like CERN the resultant beam of muon neutrinos is aimed into the ground. Why the madness a sane person might ask? Well as I mentioned in the solar neutrino thread neutrinos do not interact strongly, infact they barely interact at all. Where as a gamma ray from nuclear radiation will penetrate a few feet of lead a neutrino will penetrate a few light years of lead. So for these experiments we need lots of neutrinos and big detectors. The sun provides lots of neutrinos but that is a long way away, so we'd rather make our own and target them exactly where we want them to collect lots more quickly. So we aim the neutrinos into the ground and build a big detector where they re-emerge from the ground. So this isn't really a tricky particle physics question is more of a geometry question. A beam of neutrinos is fired into the ground to be detected elsewhere. How do you do this with a flat surface. Keep in mind that they dont really interact so they don't bend, at least not unless your talking about cosmological distances (real ones not FE ones).

Please tell us the locations from where they are emitted and where they are detected. I suspect this is highly possible according to FE.

learn2read

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Beam Neutrinos
« on: September 05, 2009, 11:53:59 AM »
So, flat earth is impossible after all..

5
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Fusion
« on: August 26, 2009, 06:08:50 AM »
imaging how fukin exited you would still be if u got an 'a'. that's all that education is about---to boot u into the laboratory while laughing, exited, drunk, totally brainwashed, and fuked only to guess and become sad and depressed.

I Think it's time for you to eat you meds! NOW!!!

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How can one prove that the world is round?
« on: August 26, 2009, 05:56:38 AM »
OK here is something that is flat but looks curved because the optics used in the photograph. Round lens focuses a wider range of view onto a flat plane (film or whatever digital cameras use).

I'm speaking of the dock going right to left in the picture. I'm sure that is straight.



All that picture proves is that fish-lens like the one used in the picture can bend things. If the earth was flat, even through fish lens you would be able to see all the continents. Fish lens don't take away anything from the picture but it just curves it.

Which in turn, distorts it. Ahhhh. See?

and iush eye lens distort everything not just the horizon. See?

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Elevator to space
« on: August 24, 2009, 06:04:31 AM »
so... when they actually build this thing... would you believe that earth is round??
and dont tell me it is impossible... because thats not what I am asking

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How can one prove that the world is round?
« on: August 22, 2009, 06:44:33 AM »
Scientists thinking something cannot change how things are. Just because scientists accept that the earth is a sphere doesn't make it so. Peer reviewed doesn't mean anything.

If you are not satisfied with this explanation, please just Google appeal to majority. I'm not going to waste anymore time explaining it to you.


When you got a toothache you go to a dentist
when you want to know true shape of the earth you go to a scientist

it is just logical these guys know more about what they do instead any ordinary people...


9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration?
« on: August 21, 2009, 07:42:50 AM »
Can you read, Anduie? Have another look at this part of your quote:

Quote from:  p. 1097
we assume that a wave moving through a medium travels in a straight line in the direction of its rays

Do you understand the meaning of the word "assume"?

at least they dont assume it is bend...

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy Theory Questions
« on: August 12, 2009, 09:27:36 AM »

Actually, it was written by a medical doctor with a PhD. It was in no way written by a cult leader, and please refrain from ad homeins.

there is million doctor and Phd out there saying earth is round...

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Climate change on a flat earth
« on: August 12, 2009, 09:25:21 AM »
Then why is the atmosphere not clear? Sure you don't work for NASA?  ::)

Erm...  It is clear...  Otherwise you wouldn't be able to see what's in front of you...

Then why can't you see Africa from America with a strong enough telescope? You people refuse to see what is in front of your face then call it a conspiracy when you get called out on it. I am becoming more and more convinced of the FE model with every response I receive on this forum.

errr... because it is round???


12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Did i just lose 20 IQ points...?
« on: August 12, 2009, 09:16:42 AM »
And your assumption about thinking is because you say that young people are spoon-fed with info about round earth without any explanations behind it.

Were you, or were not taught that the Earth was round when you were in school?

I was taught it far before school... when I was 4 my mom told me the earth was round. I was completely baffled as to how this could be; I asked her more and more questions about how it could be round when it was so clearly flat.

then it must be your mom's fault not explain it good enough...

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Beam Neutrinos
« on: August 12, 2009, 09:07:30 AM »
Why lead? What magical properties does it have to interact with neutrinos better than the atoms of other elements?

Anything seems to be magical to you...

Then why must it BEND??

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: An argument nobody can argue against.
« on: August 11, 2009, 07:32:41 AM »

 Jesus died for your sins.

What does that actually mean?

it means he is christian

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Beam Neutrinos
« on: August 11, 2009, 06:56:06 AM »
and yet still no arguments... they google for arguments long enough  :P

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I can't wait to see how this is countered...
« on: August 11, 2009, 05:04:12 AM »
I dont know how Fe'ers would answer this... heck!! I dont think they will answer this aside saying that you are part of the conspiracy,and they cant trust your words...

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Scared of the Shadows?
« on: July 29, 2009, 08:34:49 AM »
well done.. even though many FE'ers will troll in this thread...

18
You should stop posting that qoute from some 'pilot' in every single thread cause it means nothing.

Sure it does. He's the pilot. You're not.
And do you have proof he is a pilot?

No he does not...HA!!

he denied people who already put the pics of themselves being a pilot, but chose to believe those pilot who hasnt prove anything...

19
The only problem is that those figures are only valid when: 1) you measure from the 45 degrees latitude at noon on the day of the equinox; and 2) assume that light doesn't bend.
And I guess Rowbotham forgot his perspective law when he did his measurements.

No...No... rowbotham didnt forget about perspective law... HE DIDNT KNOW ABOUT PERSPECTIVE LAW...
I said "his perspective law" which states that "The smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average, for different sights, the sixtieth part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable; consequently the greatest distance at which we can behold an object like a shilling of an inch in diameter, is 3000 inches or 250 feet."

Oh yeah... I am sorry... it is HIS perspective law

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Your Hypothesis
« on: July 28, 2009, 04:47:30 AM »
Those surveyors are assuming that the earth is round, looking at the angle of the sun at different places on earth, and assuming all sorts of things.

How about me saying :
rowbotham are assuming that the earth is flat, looking at the angle of the sun at different places on earth, and assuming all sorts of things.

21
The only problem is that those figures are only valid when: 1) you measure from the 45 degrees latitude at noon on the day of the equinox; and 2) assume that light doesn't bend.
And I guess Rowbotham forgot his perspective law when he did his measurements.

No...No... rowbotham didnt forget about perspective law... HE DIDNT KNOW ABOUT PERSPECTIVE LAW...

22
Flat Earth General / Re: Why do you think the Earth is round?
« on: July 27, 2009, 05:16:12 AM »
well if any FE'ers are scientist and truly believe earth is flat than they would make a science journal, instead trying convince other people earth is flat through some forum board

23
round earthers need flat feet to realize that the earth is flat. that way once they convert we'll know they were once round earthers.

flat earthers need flat brain to realize that the earth is round. that way once they convert we'll know they were once flat earthers.
THAT'S RIGHT! Ha ha ha smile :) ;D ::) :D ;)

I am glad you happy  ;D ;)

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Your Hypothesis
« on: July 27, 2009, 04:54:39 AM »
Read Earth Not a Globe.

If you were on a raft in the middle of the ocean, the earth would appear flat. Therefore, you assume it is flat until sufficient solid evidence is given otherwise. I have never seen any solid evidence for a round earth.

just show how close minded you are... go to a library in your town bring some science book which is scientifically better than earth is not a globe and conduct the experiment on your own...
numbers dont lie u know....
or, you could study real hard and go to NASA ( be a devil advocate there ) and see for yourself your evidence of conspiracy or whatever...


25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Benefits of a Flat Earth
« on: July 25, 2009, 05:25:35 AM »
The fact that Rowbotham's work has been reproduced demonstrates that it is credible.

Please look up the concept of peer review.
The fact is, that no scientist has reproduced his work and that demonstrates that his work isn't credible. Or do you still use your term "peer review" as a nonscientific peer review done by fellow believer? Others are using it as scientific peer review done by scientists.




Rowbotham's work has been reproduced by independent researchers, demonstrating that the work is valid and that the earth is flat.

Read more. Post less.

well I got this from other thread


[/quote]
Schadewald relates how Rowbotham cited the book Lighthouses of the World to "prove" FET by showing how various lighthouses could be seen from much farther away than would be expected if RET were true.  According to Rowbotham:

"This conclusion [that the Earth is flat] is greatly confirmed by the experience of mariners in regard to certain lighthouses. Where the light is fixed and very brilliant it can be seen at a distance, which the present doctrine of the Earth's rotundity would render altogether impossible. For instance, at page 35 of ?Lighthouses of the World,? the Ryde Pier Light, erected in 1852, is described as a bright fixed light, 21 feet above high water, and visible from an altitude of 10 feet at the distance of 12 nautical or 14 statute miles. The altitude of 10 feet would place the horizon at the distance of 4 statute miles from the observer. The square of the remaining 10 statute miles will give a fall or curvature downwards from the horizon of 66 feet. Deduct from this 21 feet, the altitude of the light, and we have 45 feet as the amount which the light ought to be below the horizon!"

Shadewald pointed out that soon after Rowbotham made that claim, a Reverend M. R. Bresher decided to check Rowbotham's veracity by reviewing the same book Rowbotham used as his source and found that:

"I have carefully looked over the book alluded to, and find that out of above 2000 cases, the few selected by ?Parallax? are nearly the whole that do not verify the truth of the doctrine in question. And what do these few, about thirty out of upwards of 2000, prove?"

and that:

[W]hile ?Parallax? was attentively scanning the ?Lighthouses of the World? to find out some that could be seen farther than they ought to be seen, on the supposition that the earth is a globe of about 25,000 miles in circumference; he could not but find many more which cannot be seen as far as they ought to be, on the above supposition...

"The proper conclusion from the above facts is, that either there is a misprint in the book at these places, or that the localities where these lighthouses are situated possess some peculiarities which, if known, would account for these deviations. For it is a monstrous assertion which 'Parallax' makes ... that one single instance, like the one he mentions, entirely destroys the doctrine of the earth's rotundity."

Schadewald then concluded (and I heartily concur):

"Rowbotham, of course, was neither the first nor last to promote the 1.5% of the data that supported his position while ignoring the 98.5% that contradicted it. This technique is the common property of those determined to convince others of their position by whatever methods they find expedient. Thus, many creationist evangelists comb the scientific literature trying to find things that don't seem to fit the conventional view. Then they present these anomalies to the public as representative, just as Rowbotham presented his anomalous lighthouses."

and also:

"And what about Rowbotham's anomalous lighthouses? Beats me. Perhaps the reported observations were made under unusual conditions. Perhaps, for those lighthouses still operating, new observations would not confirm the reported anomalies. By now, however, some of Rowbotham's lighthouses presumably have been closed, torn down, or destroyed by the elements. For these, we will never know. One thing is certain; those who seek only anomalous lighthouses will never find light."

Not only were Rowbotham's conclusions totally unwarranted in the light of the 98.5% of the evidence he chose to ignore, he violated his supposed Zetetic principles by even relying on Lighthouses of the World as his argument because he did not do the cited experiments and measurements himself, thus exposing himself as a hypocrite! [/quote]

No tom, an independant researcher tell rowbotham as a hypocrite...

26
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: A Question for a Christian
« on: July 25, 2009, 04:23:27 AM »
I'm reading it as God using the word "god" as a title, not a name.  Am I reading it wrong?

You're right but I don't think he would use the word even there if he considered it blesphemy.

He didn't use the word, because presumably he did not speak English to the Hebrews at the time.

True... God is in English... 'Tuhan' is in Indonesia... it is just a matter of languages...

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Education Standards
« on: July 25, 2009, 03:56:25 AM »
I just get my degree in advertising, with a cumlaude  :D
well.. I am no scientist, but I take few astronomy class. and pass it with an A  :D

28
round earthers need flat feet to realize that the earth is flat. that way once they convert we'll know they were once round earthers.

flat earthers need flat brain to realize that the earth is round. that way once they convert we'll know they were once flat earthers.

29
It might shocked you, but not every country in this world is crazy about US... lets just say if somehow north korean and Iran manage to launch satellite into space, they surely wont be part of the conspiracy right?

30
How about Russia? japan? china? India? are they also part of NASA?? how about Indonesia? we just send satellite into space...that would make my gov. part of the conspiracy?

Pages: [1] 2