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 - Misterkami

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sun position and flat earth
« on: July 21, 2016, 02:58:37 AM »
I would love to see a graphical depiction of this ice dome

Does it not exist yet? Or do we need like a petition or administrative rights to see it?

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Testable proof or disproof
« on: July 21, 2016, 02:03:29 AM »
I haven't been on this forum in a while, but I noticed that it's pretty much always both sides proving their own point.

Surely there is much to gain from experiments where both sides agree it will show the truth, no matter in whose favor.
I suggested one of those ideas about 2 years ago and I've seldom seen a thread on this forum fall silent so fast. Such a pity..

3
Who cares about public media?
That is basically the essence of the OP's question. He simply wants to know FE'ers reactions (not their thoughts or opinions, but their actual reactions)

4
Flat Earth General / Re: valuable experiment to determine RE or FE
« on: October 08, 2010, 05:00:45 AM »
We probably all know the story of a huge suspension bridge where the tops of the supporting pillars are wider apart then the bottoms of those supporting pillars, because of the curvature of the earth.

This is false. There's an article in the Wiki abut this:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Humber+Bridge
and your point is..?

I didn't make any claims about that. It was just a quick way to sketch a situation to explain an experiment. From the content of that experiment it should be clear to you that it makes this wiki-page totally irrelevant. Thank you for trolling. Now I'd like to ask you to think along with us to find a way to make this experiment work in reality; it just might prove a Flat Earth.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: valuable experiment to determine RE or FE
« on: October 07, 2010, 11:23:29 PM »
Of course it's not going to be easy to get a controlled invironment for the experiment and of course there is the bendy light problem.. but what I'm wondering is;
if these differences in distances would be accurately measurable (and I think it could be) does this not create a way to determine whether gravitation-like effects are caused by a force toward the centre of a globe, or a force that is uniformy divided over the surface? That would finally be a wonderful and repeatable way to see who's right. Which is what most of these threads on this forum are about, right?

I have already said yes. This is why we are discussing how you would go about doing it.

Now go find two structures that are extremely tall and have no wind.

Or a building that is extremely tall as well as extremely wide.

Not to mention you would have to get the people who own the structures to allow you to go on the top of it, and throw large objects off of it.

Good Luck!

I'm glad that the fact that you agree with the theory seems to mean that we all agree then.

So.. moving on; should be possible to find a large suspension bridge, (such as the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, but could actually also just be two tall skyscrapers far enough apart) hang down a plumb bob at each end (thanks, Crustinator) and shield the hanging lines from wind by some sort of big tube for example. Then use several ways of measuring the distances to rule out bendy light trouble (which I think was already disproven loooong ago anyway) and we're done.

You are going to get a tube the size of the skyscrapper?  ???

Also, I find it highly unlikely that a tube of that sort of length is going to be perfectly straight.

Well, how about WE go find a solution for this problem? I'm only offering an idea to find out the truth in this FE / RE discussion. I think it's in the interest of both parties. Don't you want to find out? How about we all think constructively.
In case of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, the distance between the towers is 1,2 km and the height of the towers is 211 metres. Apparently that is already enough to give a measurable result. That should make it easier than skyscraper-like altitudes already. If the tube (or maybe another solution?) is also wide enough, it doesn't need to be perfectly straight, just straight enough. Any suggestions?

6
Flat Earth General / Re: valuable experiment to determine RE or FE
« on: October 07, 2010, 03:44:28 PM »
Of course it's not going to be easy to get a controlled invironment for the experiment and of course there is the bendy light problem.. but what I'm wondering is;
if these differences in distances would be accurately measurable (and I think it could be) does this not create a way to determine whether gravitation-like effects are caused by a force toward the centre of a globe, or a force that is uniformy divided over the surface? That would finally be a wonderful and repeatable way to see who's right. Which is what most of these threads on this forum are about, right?

I have already said yes. This is why we are discussing how you would go about doing it.

Now go find two structures that are extremely tall and have no wind.

Or a building that is extremely tall as well as extremely wide.

Not to mention you would have to get the people who own the structures to allow you to go on the top of it, and throw large objects off of it.

Good Luck!

I'm glad that the fact that you agree with the theory seems to mean that we all agree then.

So.. moving on; should be possible to find a large suspension bridge, (such as the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, but could actually also just be two tall skyscrapers far enough apart) hang down a plumb bob at each end (thanks, Crustinator) and shield the hanging lines from wind by some sort of big tube for example. Then use several ways of measuring the distances to rule out bendy light trouble (which I think was already disproven loooong ago anyway) and we're done.

7
Flat Earth General / Re: valuable experiment to determine RE or FE
« on: October 07, 2010, 03:33:54 PM »
I don't quite see why you added the "ZOMG the earht is flat!!!!!!!!!!!!" to a quite helpful comment.

Your knew hear aunt ewe.

Nope, just been away for a while.. can very well be that I missed something yeah

8
Flat Earth General / Re: valuable experiment to determine RE or FE
« on: October 07, 2010, 03:11:30 PM »
Not sure why you need to drop balls from a height.

Just measure the distance between the top and bottom of your bridge.

Then drop a plumb bob at each end of the bridge.

ZOMG the earht is flat!!!!!!!!!!!!

dropping a plumb bob is also a good way to do the experiment, thanks!
Now, until we try.. there can be no conclusion to this experiment if it will show whether it's flat or round. Both answers are still possible. I don't quite see why you added the "ZOMG the earht is flat!!!!!!!!!!!!" to a quite helpful comment.

9
Flat Earth General / Re: valuable experiment to determine RE or FE
« on: October 07, 2010, 03:04:32 PM »
Of course it's not going to be easy to get a controlled invironment for the experiment and of course there is the bendy light problem.. but what I'm wondering is;
if these differences in distances would be accurately measurable (and I think it could be) does this not create a way to determine whether gravitation-like effects are caused by a force toward the centre of a globe, or a force that is uniformy divided over the surface? That would finally be a wonderful and repeatable way to see who's right. Which is what most of these threads on this forum are about, right?

Now if we can first agree if the theory checks out; then we can worry about the practical conditions to actually try this in reality.



PS: about bendy light; do the experiment with the tops of the two pillars at 30 metres from the surface and use a laser to determine the distance (oh no.. but bendy light will make light behave differently at the bottom of the pillars then at the top altitude) and then: do the same experiment with two pillars at 60 metres above the surface where a ball is dropped till a point 30 metres lower, so the bottoms are now at the same altitude as the tops were in the first experiment.. that way, the 30 metre altitude laser beam becomes a constant, even if light bends..

(Please don't troll about the 30 metres number; we're all smart enough to understand that this theory also applies to 10 metres, 100 metres, or whatever relative dimensions)

10
Flat Earth General / valuable experiment to determine RE or FE
« on: October 06, 2010, 08:53:21 AM »
I may have found a way to determine whether this thing under us is a spheroid or a disc;

This is an experiment that needs to be done in a controlled environment and with sophisticated measuring equipment, but I'd like to hear your opinions about the possibility of using it to determine the difference betwen RE and FE.

We probably all know the story of a huge suspension bridge where the tops of the supporting pillars are wider apart then the bottoms of those supporting pillars, because of the curvature of the earth. I'm not goin got make any claims about this, but what if we take that situation and do the following:
-drop 2 balls from two points at a considerable height and a large distance between them. (point A and B)
-measure if the distance between the points where they meet the ground (A2 and B2) is smaller than the distance between the points they were released at (A and B).

Since the only noticable difference between a gravitation-like effect caused by gravity and one caused by UA would be that gravitaty pulls towards the center of a globe and UA pushes uniformly, the results of this experiment would give either proof for the existence of gravity, or at least more useful information about the directional push of the UA.

(This should be possible with various ranges and distances, but would obviously give more noticeable results when used distances get bigger)

Any opinions?

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 15 points
« on: August 06, 2010, 05:07:56 AM »
I'm having some trouble figuring out in which direction the jetstreams would go.

If these streams for example make a plane not go over the main African continent on its way flying from Cape Horn to Madagascar.. (compare standard FE map and globe for the flightpaths)
-is the stream going counterclockwise in a circular shape?
-Or is it pushing the plane outwards and back to the centre? What about the way back?

Can't have a Jetstream going in two opposite directions at the same time right?

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why
« on: July 09, 2010, 04:51:11 AM »
1. You observe a ship go over the horizon
2. You observe the sun set
3. You observe the light on the moon
4. You observe the movements of the stars and planets
5. You observe objects from high ground
6. You observe shadows cast at various times at various geographical locations.
These are all covered by FET. God loves a trier.

They're all covered by nonsense.. but let's be a little more specific.. for example on nr 4.: I'm kinda still waiting for a sensible answer to this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=40477.0
How is that "covered" by FET?

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If the Earth is flat
« on: July 09, 2010, 04:36:39 AM »
I think they're gonna say something like:
those stars are the same stars.. just sometimes they seem to be different ones or more or less stars, due to atmospheric disturbance and clouds.. the program (i have it too.. love that program..!) is obviously created by the Conspiracy to give us a false idea of how a Round Earth would work...

However.. since that would be total bogus.. i think this thread is one of the best in disproving a Flat Earth..

Nice one LoGiCaL

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: James' Ideas on the Sun and Moon
« on: June 13, 2010, 12:49:27 AM »
How did he establish these "facts"? Only one of those is true.

I, too, would love to know.  Especially considering we already showed that moonlight isn't "highly injurous to plants, animals and humans".  The "injurous to humans" part is especially ridiculous.
I heard it was opposite for vampires...

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Few Issues With the OTHER FES Map
« on: June 12, 2010, 11:18:42 AM »
Well, until you prove it wrong at some point in time, 'estimate' is much more sufficient than 'I have no clue'.
It is you who makes wild claims such as "I know the composition of Earth", so it's your job to prove it. Here, I'll help you:

How to prove the composition of Earth, and possibly RET in ONE easy step

1. Dig a huge hole in the Earth. It has to go through all of it. Possible outcomes:


Somehow I'm now in the mood for baking eggs..

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is a unified theory being developed?
« on: June 12, 2010, 11:07:17 AM »
Oh they're just busy eating chicken..

17
Here's an idea; maybe one day a UA happened to be accelerating through the unknown universe and it gradually started picking up particles, rocks and small moons that stuck to it, forming a big accelerating disc. I'm not saying I believe this, but hey, it's an idea.. and therefor in this case the first and only one and it 'explains' meteor impacts.

-any FET followers?

If universal acceleration exists throughout the universe (hence the term universal acceleration), all particles in the universe would accelerate at the same rate, and would never clump together to form a rocky plane.  Now, if gravity existed in this model, the particles would clump together to form spheres, which would begin colliding into and orbiting around each other, while some became so heavy that they ignited fusion reactions within... wait, this is sounding a lot like round earth theory!
Yop.. thanks. Conclusion: neither of us believes in that theory.

Any FET people have a theory other than: it was always there, or we don't know..? (Of course we don't know. RET doesn't know for sure either, but at least there's thories, based on research)

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Few Issues With the OTHER FES Map
« on: June 12, 2010, 11:01:13 AM »
OK, so we got a step further.. do you mean to say that this map is showing only the known flat earth and there might be parts of the earth outside of it.. but they are unknown. Just like the old maps created by for example the romans.
I'm ok with that.

I had thought that was self-explanatory from Wilmore's post.

Seismic surveyors working with mining and drilling companies.  It's amazing what you can learn with the creative use of explosives.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_seismology
Reflection seismology (or seismic reflection) is a method of exploration geophysics that uses the principles of seismology to estimate the properties of the Earth's subsurface from reflected seismic waves. The method requires a controlled seismic source of energy, such as dynamite/Tovex, a specialized air gun or a seismic vibrator, commonly known by the trademark name Vibroseis. By noting the time it takes for a reflection to arrive at a receiver, it is possible to estimate the depth of the feature that generated the reflection. In this way, reflection seismology is similar to sonar and echolocation.

I have emboldened the important word for you.

Wilmore's posts are a lot of things, but self-explanatory is a rare characteristic of them.. anyway, it was never mentioned that the map was not only just a rough estimation of what the FE would look like, but also just a rough estimation of what only a part of the FE would look like. I just mentioned it to check that. These maps are not the most precize and do sometimes lack some basic info like north, south and where they actually end, so I just thought I'd check it, that's all.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Few Issues With the OTHER FES Map
« on: June 12, 2010, 03:57:13 AM »
No, not if that map is not claiming to show the surrounding area.

Then we don't have any problem with this map.
OK, so we got a step further.. do you mean to say that this map is showing only the known flat earth and there might be parts of the earth outside of it.. but they are unknown. Just like the old maps created by for example the romans.
I'm ok with that.

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Few Issues With the OTHER FES Map
« on: June 12, 2010, 01:50:34 AM »
uhmm, yes it is. maybe you were never taught its composition, but I'm sure a quick trip to the library will disabuse you

Who has visited the interior of the Earth and made measurements of its composition?

If someone provides a map, it gives the viewer the impression that that person knows what is located on that surface. When that viewer then proceeds to ask the provider questions about the map and it turns out that an essential part of the map (the outer ring, which determines its shape) is unknown, it undermines the credibility of the map.

This implies that every map of a local area has its credibility undermined, by not representing areas outside of that.

No, not if that map is not claiming to show the surrounding area.
Now if the map is claiming to be a part of a global mapping system and that other local maps will help you see the area beyond what this one is showing you.. and that area would not be what it shows on the other local maps... yes, then that local map's credibility would be undermined.

21
Here's an idea; maybe one day a UA happened to be accelerating through the unknown universe and it gradually started picking up particles, rocks and small moons that stuck to it, forming a big accelerating disc. I'm not saying I believe this, but hey, it's an idea.. and therefor in this case the first and only one and it 'explains' meteor impacts.

-any FET followers?

22
I imagine it would also smell round, taste round, feel round, and sound round from space, yet still be flat? Zeteticism at its best: "I must ignore what my senses are telling me!"

At the edge of space one is looking down at the circular area of light of the sun. This is why there is some slight curvature in amateur balloon pictures.

What about space pictures taken of the night side of the earth? Or pictures where the terminator between night and day is visible?

Example: http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/6692.jpg

That's a NASA picture.

-I was wondering.. if space flight is possible on a flat earth. and if this picture is a fake NASA picture.. what is the furthest point from the earth's surface ever reached by any person according to FES?

-Understandibly, because of the conspiracy, there are no photos of the Flat Earth from high altitude, but if this NASA picture is not showing what the earth really looks like according to FET, what would a situation like in this NASA picture look like? Maybe someone can create a CG image (roughly) of a flat earth from great altitude showing the terminator between night and day? (just asking out of curiosity, not saying it's impossible)

23
Flat Earth General / Re: Pictures of the Earth
« on: June 12, 2010, 01:23:23 AM »
If one can't recognize the difference between a composite and a real image of the earth, what does that say about their credibility in telling us what is and isn't true about the earth's shape?
It tells us that the reality is probably not like a flat picture but more like a 3d model, just like all objects around us.

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Few Issues With the OTHER FES Map
« on: June 12, 2010, 01:05:58 AM »
Don't feed the trolls guys..

Anyway, whether the interior is unknown or not. Like Sliver said, this is not about the interior; it's about the surface.

If someone provides a map, it gives the viewer the impression that that person knows what is located on that surface. When that viewer then proceeds to ask the provider questions about the map and it turns out that an essential part of the map (the outer ring, which determines its shape) is unknown, it undermines the credibility of the map.

That does not mean the map is incorrect; it simply is fair to ask questions about it and it's fair to be surprised when there are great unknown areas on it. Speculating that someone else's map is incorrect because there are might be unknown areas outside of the portrayed surface of the map is rubbish. The RE map is not showing the inside, and even if it did it is no valid argument to defend hiates in the FE map.

So.. it is unknown what is on the outer ring of this FE map.
Therefor nobody knows what happens if you would succeed in following the red line because and apparently nobody did.
Also, it is unknown what holds the water in.

Let's get on with your next question, Sliver. I'm curious to see if anyone knows the answer to that one..

25
Flat Earth General / Re: Who started this Conspiracy Theory?
« on: June 11, 2010, 05:23:08 PM »
I guess it really doesn't matter.  After looking at a lot of information about space, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would go to such lengths to fake a space program.  I don't really think anything anyone says could convince me otherwise.  If nothing else, at least this site got me interested in space exploration.
.. to boldly go where (according to this site) no man has gone before..

that's the spirit of a true pioneer

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Few Issues With the OTHER FES Map
« on: June 11, 2010, 04:00:17 PM »
I think the flight times argument alone would already rule out this map.. Now, as long as we're on the subject of magnetism and poles.. Since this map is quite radically differently from the global one most of had learnt about in school, can a FE'er tell us, just to be sure, where the magnetic north and south are on it? They migt be completely somewhere other than most of us expect.
(Of course I ask this question realizing that this map is not intended as an absolutely accurate portrayal of reality. A rough estimate of which continent has which pole will do)

btw, just out of curiosity and not meaning to lead this away from the main thread.. the islands roughtly under the red line.. which island group is it actually?

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Few Issues With the OTHER FES Map
« on: June 10, 2010, 04:44:11 AM »
BS and you know it, loser.  East and west are opposite, north and south are opposite.  You're just posting nonsense to aggravate me and derail the thread.

Is somebody in Vancouver travelling north moving in the opposite direction to someone in Helsinki travelling south?
Not in RET model. However their paths do cross after going aroudn the world so you could say they have been going roughly in opposite directions. Also North and South are only opposite of each other in reference to the viewpoint of one person.
In FET model I'm not sure. It depends on which FET model and map you use. Using the map presented in this thread I'd say they're either indeed moving in opposite direction (taking north as the top of the map and south as the bottow) or moving in different directions at an angle of about 90 degrees (taking the large piece of ice in the top part as the north pole and the large piece of ice in the lower part as the south pole.
Of course it also depend on if we mean the magnetic pole or the geographical pole..

Now, to get back on topic:
The image I posted has no ice wall, since I got it from the Wiki, and no one has made any changes to it, such as adding an ice wall, I'd say that's proof enough. 

I wasn't aware maps were intended as absolutely accurate portrayals of reality.

Also, you'll notice in the original image, there is a longitude line, known commonly as the Prime Meridian.  That would be your line of travel.  Now, I ask again, with a little more clarification, what happens when a traveler, heading due south along the Prime Meridian, reaches the edge of the Earth?

I understood perfectly well what you meant; unless you can show me a navigational method which allows one to travel in a perfectly straight line, your argument is void because this could not feasibly happen. If there were some magical device enabling a traveller to do this, they would reach the ice wall.
I'd say that if someone (using the map of this thread) traveled from Ghana, then crossed Antarctica and on the other side encountered the island group seen crossing the red line (whether it is New Zealand or Hawaii.. kinda hard to tell with this map) pretty much has confirmation of traveling in a straigh line. Just continue like that from that moment on and you should be getting to the infamous edge soon   

28
Flat Earth General / Re: Who started this Conspiracy Theory?
« on: June 10, 2010, 03:51:02 AM »
In case of this site, I think it's likely it was started just before the FAQ were posted

29
Believing I could show them that they are wrong.
Internet Superhero.

Stop with the low-content troll posts.
After you.

When was the last time I trolleld?
LOL.. that last comment was a perfect trolling action..

Anyway, I agree with you guys, this is one of the better threads in terms of clarity and supported by strong arguments.
It's just a pity that especially these threads are ignored by most FET's, while an interesting debate could have been formed.
In the end that simply leads to us RET's chatting, which has a trolling effect on its own..
 
I haven't been on this forum for a long time (not since bendy light was disproved) but it seems now that FES has gone into a coma or chewing through an infinitely large amount of chicken..
Is there no serious FET attempt to look into the above mentioned arguments and provide an intelligent answer at all? 

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE Proof please refute
« on: April 04, 2010, 01:56:10 AM »
well if the gravity was so strong to keep the atmosphere in place going 1,000 miles per hour i'd imagine things like clouds and balloons would need some kind of propeller just to rise!

i mean wtf is atmosphere consisting of that it is pulled in place by gravity? cant be much off from my cigarette smoke which is rising..
I find you funny now. New favourite.

Buoyancy and displacement keep clouds up. If the air becomes unstable, it rises, causes condensation, creates clouds.

The atmosphere consists of air. That's what makes it exist and become pulled on by gravity. I thought that one was pretty obvious.

*Offers 2fst4u a beer*
I think you earned it after these last posts here..

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6