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 - Rob Valensky

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Flat Earth General / Re: Tom Bishop
« on: May 19, 2010, 02:30:18 AM »
Add this hypothesis in your FAQ too Tom. It's very interesting + credible because you said it  ::)

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I suggest rewriting the FAQ
« on: May 05, 2010, 01:13:50 PM »
You've said what you would change. I've got that. I'm asking you how you would change it. Unless you tell us what is wrong with the current FAQ and why, it's very hard for anyone to suggest specific changes (something you should be doing yourself).


I'm asking you what sepcific changes you would make to what is currently written. Please answer properly.

Start by removing some of the hypothesis notes that has been shown to be totally invalid.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Bendy light
« on: May 03, 2010, 11:59:29 AM »
Whether anyone believes it is irrelevant.

An extremely stupid post.

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions about the flat earth
« on: April 29, 2010, 01:58:07 AM »
Hello. I'm new here, at flat earth society.....

But i just want to ask.... how can you possibly believe the earth is a flat disc?

Because we believe everything that the Earth Not a Globe book says.

What about people who have sailed around the world?

Obviously they lied, never happened.

What about people who have flown around the world?

They're all part of the conspiracy, which includes pilots for public airlines, etc.

What about pictures of the earth from satellites?

Doctored/photoshopped images obviously. Lurk more.

If the earth is flat, then if i have an airplane i can fly off the edge, then i can turn directly downwards
and then fly into space?

The plane will be frozen before it reaches the edge.

Whats on the underside of earth?

There is another world filled with humans and the other creatures you see in our world. Difference is, gravity exists in their world so they dont fall off.

----

/s

5
Flat Earth General / Re: What a psychological masterpiece!
« on: April 27, 2010, 03:10:34 PM »
I have checked in on TFES website many times and get a big kick every time I visit.  The quality and quantity of psychological data gleaned from these "forums" is amazing to witness.  There is enough data here to keep the psyc departments of several universities busy for a long, long time.  Funny how all interactions between FE and RE proponents always end the same: "This is not an argument, it's contradiction" - quiet pause - "No it isn't"...  Wish I could be in on the conversations between profs and grad student as they discuss the latest rant, has to be hilarious.  Now just sit back and watch as the FE people pull out all the best responses  -   "So where is your data?"   -  "I'll conclude from you silence that you have no data."   -  "Unless you produce any credible data there is no reason to continue the thread."  Lol, I would love to see the documentation on average number of posts before a RE goes Postal :)  - but then again, that would be "data" which the FE's are not willing to share.  Love it guys, at least it is a free treasure trove of psychological analysis.


Sure, you've lurked around the threads regarding FE & RE debates, but have you read the FAQ / Wiki? Have you read Earth Not a Globe?

6
Your FAQ says the moon is 32 miles wide and 3000 miles away.  Well, the formula for apparent size and distance is Sa=S/D.  So, that means that the Apparent size=size/distance.  You your model, that means an object measuring 32 miles wide, viewed at a distance of 3000 miles would appear to be .01 ft or .128 inches.  Not even a quarter of an inch.  Last time I looked at the moon, it appeared bigger than that.
And for you metric folks...
Quote from: The same thing I posted above but in metric
Your FAQ says the moon is 51.5 km wide and 4828.03 away.  Well, the formula for apparent size and distance is Sa=S/D.  So, that means that the Apparent size=size/distance.  You your model, that means an object measuring 51.5 km wide, viewed at a distance of 4828.03 km would appear to be .01067 m or 1.067 cm.  Last time I looked at the moon, it appeared bigger than that.

Confirmed.

Another FE hypothesis proven to be totally wrong and unreliable.

Move along people..

7
No one thinks there is Ice wall gaurds.

Very good! Then what stops someone getting a picture of the edge?

Millions of angry penguins.

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: more Q and A for my interest...
« on: April 27, 2010, 12:36:40 PM »
Read the FAQ / Wiki, then read Earth Not a Globe.

9
Flat Earth General / Re: lol joke?
« on: April 27, 2010, 12:33:36 PM »
YOU EVER READ EARTH NOT A GLOBE>!?!? HUHHD?!

In all seriousness you oughta read it! i just read it and I think that the guy who made it is very educated, unlike you.

I did.
I got to the point where he talks about a ball, thrown in the air on a moving ship, would suddenly stop moving forward and fall to the ground.  You know, in contradiction to newton's laws of motion.   :D

ah so youwere too lazy to finish the whole thing, huh>?!

I don't know if lazy is the right word.  When you realize that the book is full of poor ideas, bad thought experiments (and that seems to be most of it) and concepts that require the laws of physics to work in ways that they don't, is there really any reason to continue reading?

I know that it was a rhetorical question, but I'm still gonna say: No.

10
The Lounge / Re: Post an image of yourself!
« on: April 27, 2010, 10:41:50 AM »
I'm Italian and my dad is a tile-setter, they gave him a bunch of free stuff for going to a meeting. Tis' a very cool hat.

You look like a redneck tbh.

11
Flat Earth General / Re: What would convince you?
« on: April 26, 2010, 05:02:24 AM »
The earth is flat because the FAQ says so.

12
The Lounge / Re: What do the stars mean?
« on: April 26, 2010, 04:56:47 AM »
My one dominates all the existing stars.

13

What the hell are you talking about?

Just to clarify the subject that you are so passionately arguing even though you do not dominate, let me explain:

Every model in theoretical physics is based on a mathematical formulation, and every model shows, through equations, the experiments and observations that could theoretically be made. When the solution of those equations has no numerical solution that variable in that experiment is not observable.

In some cases it can be shown mathematically that there is no possible experiment or observation that gives a numerical solution to the equations. That is what untestable theory means.

I can see why this subject is hell for you, who has not been able to make any scientifically valid experiments. You cannot discern between untestable theories (a mathematical concept) and experiments that are not possible with current technology (an empirical problem). An example of the first case is the Tachyon particles, which are impossible to detect assuming the Relativity theories are right and there is mathematical proof of this fact (a theorem). An example of the second case is the experiment where you put an atomic clock on the first floor of a building and another on the last floor; the clocks should run at different speeds, but we do not have precise enough clocks to do this experiment.

Wilmore will never understand what you are talking about. Even if he does, he'll dodge what you say, and share more of his gibberish hypothesis that can never EVER be tested by anyone. He would fit to be one of those people who starts their own religion; surely he could get a couple of gullible victims to join his doctrine.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: More reasons the Wilmore Model is crap
« on: April 26, 2010, 04:04:50 AM »
Are you claiming that I should have used some other, more certain term? Because if you are, then you're a dolt. As for evidence, as I said, the model is incomplete. I do not claim to have evidence supporting an incomplete model.

No one cares what you personally believe in. Keep it to yourself until you can back it up with at least a valid theory. So far, you have shown no valid theories, let alone a single evidence for any of your fairytale-like beliefs. So again, keep your fantasies to yourself if you cannot live with the truth. And the truth is, the Earth isn't flat.


What, you claim to 'know' the 'truth'?

Of course, anyone with a functional brain knows what the shape of the Earth is. All your questions are so lame and childish. Read my previous posts and stay in silence.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: More reasons the Wilmore Model is crap
« on: April 25, 2010, 03:18:30 PM »
Are you claiming that I should have used some other, more certain term? Because if you are, then you're a dolt. As for evidence, as I said, the model is incomplete. I do not claim to have evidence supporting an incomplete model.

No one cares what you personally believe in. Keep it to yourself until you can back it up with at least a valid theory. So far, you have shown no valid theories, let alone a single evidence for any of your fairytale-like beliefs. So again, keep your fantasies to yourself if you cannot live with the truth. And the truth is, the Earth isn't flat.

16
I have no problem believing in some level of creation.  In my opinion, the human body is simply to complex to have happened by chance.  I could be wrong, but it's how I feel.


I see, so your beliefs are based on 'how you feel'. How touching. ::)

Please clarify what your beliefs are based on? I've asked you the same question several times, yet no answers. Surprise me.

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: More reasons the Wilmore Model is crap
« on: April 25, 2010, 12:25:57 PM »
You must surely be aware that I believe light bends in some capacity. I do not believe that the sun whizzes around the Earth at huge speeds. I believe that its observed movement is constant, though its apparent position may not necessarily correspond to its actual position. You are most likely confused, believing that images such as the following represented my actual beliefs concerning the sun's movement:

That is how I believe light is distributed across the Earth, however, it is not how I believe the Sun moves. I believe the effect is produced by the bending of light, so you can essentially ignore the Sun's movements in the above diagram. This is why I am so excited by John's Aetheric Eddification Theory, as I think it lends itself very well to the above model. However, to my knowledge he is developing it with the standard model in mind, and I would like to see John consider how his idea would function within the above model.

Wonderful, didn't really count how many things you believe there. Anyway, wheres the data that supports these frivolous beliefs? A single testable evidence would be great too.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: More reasons the Wilmore Model is crap
« on: April 24, 2010, 11:00:03 AM »
It is possible that there are three Suns, which orbit the Earth instead of circling above it. While one Sun is directly above it, the other two are beneath. While one is directly beneath, one of them is in the west where it is afternoon, and the other is in the east where it is morning.

Seriously? I lol'd.

19
The Lounge / Re: Post an image of yourself!
« on: April 24, 2010, 05:19:24 AM »
Here's me and Tom Bishop

Note: We had a really long RE/FE debate before we decided to just chill off.

Tom is the one wearing the hat.


20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Simple question.
« on: April 24, 2010, 01:07:49 AM »
If the earth is flat, what's on the other side?

Billions of Shaolin monks pushing the Earth upwards at a constant speed of 9.8m/s2. They have also somehow pushed the Sun & the Moon at the same speed rate. There's a lot you can do with "Ki Energy".

21
Questioning the validity of what we are given as immutable truths leads to the path one may finally see the Earth for what it is.  It doesn't prove the shape of the Earth either way, if such a thing was possible, but it puts us on the path.  
The search for knowledge, especially outside or beyond of what is taught, is the first step to seeing the truth of the Earth - or really anything.  I myself first came to be a flatty through a mystical experience, something that at first I was very at odds with.

The topic of the post isn't always the subject.

If we question what is taught, then this leads to greater understanding of the faults that lead to issues in so called "Science."  Thats what I took most out of his post.

Obviously there is no proof in it of a flat or round earth, but it starts us on a path.   We must question the foundations of Science.  Sure, so far its a useful tool, but that could be happenstance, and there is nothing to suggest there is no greater tool that would arise form counter-intuitive methodologies or beliefs.

Thats what I take from the OP, though obviously he takes it further, supposedly with reasons we are yet to know.

I have said this before, but I will repeat it again.

Many of us are skeptics (in general). But skepticism is not disbelief of everything until you obtain absolute proof. There are scales of certainty and granting "acceptance" of theories (scientific theories being the explanatory models that a consensus of the world's experts agree best fit the experimental evidence...and knowing that theories will continue to be tested and refined). Skepticism is a weighing the available evidence (critical thinking) and putting your best foot forward. However, with hyper-skepticism, you'll be stuck forever on the question of whether reality exists or not.

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spacial Length?
« on: April 23, 2010, 03:08:07 PM »
It's just a representation of the FE map model, they have no idea what the Earth really looks like.

23
Flat Earth General / Re: lol joke?
« on: April 23, 2010, 02:36:01 PM »
No dude they are serious. And I mean if I were going to make a fake spaceship I would make it way cooler than that.  Have like all sorts of cool shit in space to.  Holy crap I would go crazy.  To bad it's real, and rockets have been made for nearly have a centuryAny moron who thinks we can't take a picture from space should stay on this forum.  Save your self from the world. Thanks

Who's the moron here.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: lol joke?
« on: April 23, 2010, 08:44:05 AM »
this has to be a joke right.. there are not people this dumb in the world surely?? what about all the videos from space? do you think they all fake.. serious LOL if people still do.. in this day and age people think this is just hilarious..

so i presume this video is fake??

That video obviously is fake. I suggest you read the book "Earth Not a Globe" by the smartest person that ever lived, then read the FAQ. lurk more.

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Volcano in Iceland proves Earth is flat.
« on: April 23, 2010, 08:40:09 AM »
Eyjafjallajökull doesn't even exist.

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Question for Tom Bishop
« on: April 23, 2010, 08:37:09 AM »
What articles are you concerned with?
Let's start with how you calculated the size of the Earth, sun, and moon? 

He calculated nothing. It's all based on the FE hypothesis. They had to come up with the suitable numbers so it fits the FET. Otherwise you'd find even more contradictions in their theory.

27
Flat Earth General / Re: The great Pilot Conspiracy
« on: April 22, 2010, 09:08:01 AM »
I'm new here.  I only registered to ask these questions, so please forgive me if it's been sufficiently answered elsewhere.  I looked around on the site before I posted this, but couldn't find exactly what I was looking for:

You haven't invested much time into it. Go back to the FAQ, and lurk more.

28
The Lounge / Re: Dear FES
« on: April 22, 2010, 08:45:17 AM »
I just realised that as of last week, I've been here for 4 years. Thanks for all the hilarity, pedantry, fgtry and most of all, the epic drama. Long may it continue.

Congrats, you will be rewarded with the special edition of Earth Not a Globe.

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Explain this...
« on: April 22, 2010, 08:42:54 AM »
I have long contended that Antarctica is not the 'ice wall'.

You should believe in a hollow earth instead.

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How's the reviewing going for EA?
« on: April 22, 2010, 08:29:53 AM »
So what alternative hypothesis have you guys come up with besides bendy light? Shine upon us.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5