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 - 29silhouette

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 99
1
Nice work.

2
Flat Earth General / Re: Sunset at Sealevel
« on: April 01, 2019, 06:04:20 PM »
Applying actual perspective and optics, it is obvious it only works on a globe.  Using flerspective and floptics, it's flat..... somehow.

3
Flat Earth General / Re: Where is eye level in this photo?
« on: December 26, 2018, 06:07:18 PM »
A little above the horizon.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ANGULAR MOMENTUM
« on: December 25, 2018, 09:50:27 AM »
So, while spinning 33 000 km/h on the equator you would be launched into orbit, wouldn't you?
Well, then why wouldn't you be launched even further (out of the orbit) when you are in orbit (spinning 27 000 km/h)?
Because low-Earth orbit speed is about 28k kmh, not 33k kmh.  Obviously if they tried orbiting at 33k, they would start moving out.

5
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Metal (music) Thread
« on: December 24, 2018, 10:23:11 PM »
but I never really heard any from other countries.
What about Sepultura?  I picked up Hamferđ (Faroe Islands) last year, and Be'lakor  (Australia).  The first being doom metal, and the second melodic doom metal.  I don't know what kind of metal you're going for though.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ANGULAR MOMENTUM
« on: December 24, 2018, 09:46:09 PM »
I apologize for my off topic tendency. I'm kindof on the same page as more peopl than you'd believe.
Don't worry about it. Nothing cikljamas was on the topic of ANGULAR MOMENTUM anyway and it's his thread ;).
Oh by page 2 or 3 he'll be on about the arctic sun zigzag or something else.

7
You're indoctrinated to think time pieces work how they want you to think they work. In your own words so that a child could understand, explain to me how this so-called stopwatch works?
You're indoctrinated to think explaining works how they want you to think it works.  In your own words so that Tom Bishop could understand, explain to me how this so-called explaining works?

8

2:55-3:10
We live in a pressurised whirlpool at the centre which spans out as far as life itself can live as the outer dome foundation slopes up,
Basically agitated from the centre where our carbon arc sun is inside the centre of that slope. We call that the north pole and the outer slope (dome foundation) would be a supposed south pole, yet in theory the south would be down the north pole slope where the central Earth sun is that is feeding from the atmospheric whirlpool.

This naturally creates pressured movement by agitation/vibration of matter which would be felt in varying ways from large to extremely small...including the minutely moveable pivoted masses.
That doesn't explain why they move toward eachother.


Quote
Quote from: 29silhouette
If your space is a true vacuum or not attached particles/molecules, then it simply cannot exist to be anything other than fiction.
Why not?
No vibrational frequencies.
Because it's a vaccum?



Quote from: rabinoz
A tree branch collapses under the weight of accumulated snow whether or not a person measures it or even observes it.
A tree branch collapses under the mass of snow pushing into the atmosphere and the atmosphere crushing back to break it.
The snow flakes formed above and traveled down.  Doesn't that mean the air they displaced should be forcing them back up?


So let's look at it this way. Cavendish experiment exhibits what convention thinks of as gravity; masses attract each other, calculations ensue, blah, blah, blah. Fine. But CavendishX does not exhibit any semblance of den pressure. So, is there an experiment that exhibits den pressure, but does not exhibit gravity?
Let's say we are sat in  a room. You have the Cavendish experiment in front of you. I ask what it is and you explain that it's going to show mass being attracted to mass.
I ask what it proves.
You say gravity.
I ask how you can prove it's gravity and do you have absolute proof of it so when I walk away I can be under no illusions about anything other than what you tell me.


Over to you.
The smaller bearing at the ends of the hanging strut weren't moving.  The bowling balls were placed, and then the bearings moved toward the bowling balls.  if the bowling balls were moved through the air into place and the air molecules were displaced and stacked away in the direction of movement, why didn't the bearings move away with all that air pushing toward them?

9
Flat Earth General / Re: Our true position on Earh
« on: December 16, 2018, 10:50:33 AM »
how are y'all standing on a globe right now at this very moment.
I'm at about 46.47 north latitude.

Quote
Are you standing vertical, horizontal or upside down.
Vertical

10
Well, here is one more demonstration.
All of those things prove denpressure, not gravity.
Nope, the experiment in that video proves gravity.  How does your denpressure explain it?
Pick a piece at a time and I'll explain how.
2:55-3:10

If your space is a true vacuum or not attached particles/molecules, then it simply cannot exist to be anything other than fiction.
Why not?

11
Well, here is one more demonstration.
All of those things prove denpressure, not gravity.
Nope, the experiment in that video proves gravity.  How does your denpressure explain it?

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ARISTARCHUS
« on: November 17, 2018, 11:02:36 PM »
This is one very telling comment which i have posted below the video "FEEL FREE TO DEBUNK THIS - I AM WAITING" :


This is easy.  Learn how velocity, acceleration, and wind resistance work.

You don't even understand most of what you post anyway.  You're just doing a copy and paste from other sites for a lot of it.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Himawari-8 Satellite
« on: October 29, 2018, 10:56:49 AM »
We are talking about the WEIGHT OF THE CLOUDS.
So how do they stay aloft on a flat Earth?

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: 1m Wave block 100m building
« on: October 21, 2018, 09:17:14 AM »
Ignored again because I won the argument again. 

Eventually the list will grow, he will demand an apology, get none, and remove everyone from his ignore list anyway, and the cycle repeats.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: 1m Wave block 100m building
« on: October 20, 2018, 08:49:31 AM »
Actually I have tested it by some spesific examples and verified it.
Did you put a camera next to the 'distant' object and get footage of it physically shrinking as you moved far away from it?

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: 1m Wave block 100m building
« on: October 19, 2018, 10:25:18 PM »
In short; This simple geometry is not actually valid.


So you are saying it is due to the distant object physically shrinking.  This is what your diagram shows.  Again, how does it shrink?  How does it know to shrink?  What happens if it is being viewed by someone close and someone far away at the same time?

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: 1m Wave block 100m building
« on: October 19, 2018, 07:41:11 PM »

So the distant object physically becomes smaller.  How does that work?

18
Flat Earth General / Re: Discussions by Tom: Moon Terminator Illusion
« on: August 20, 2018, 01:35:39 PM »
Now you're getting into visual perception, which is very complex since our brains do a lot of analysis to interpret what we see.
And we're talking about viewing a straight line from different angles, which is a very complex thing for TB to understand.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: Discussions by Tom: Moon Terminator Illusion
« on: August 19, 2018, 11:08:18 PM »
It was only asked for about one hundred times.
It's been answered probably just as many times.  Your argument consists of you confusing yourself Tom.  It works on a globe.  I don't know what else to say.

You understand this correct?
I guess not.


20
Flat Earth General / Re: Discussions by Tom: Moon Terminator Illusion
« on: August 19, 2018, 07:25:49 PM »

That's called a Fish Eye Lens/Wide Angle Lens. The pictures aren't taken with fish-eyes. This is a phenomenon that anyone can see for themselves.
Tom, you do realize that when you look left at moon, and then look right toward the sun, you are seeing a "wide angle" of view.  A "wide angle" lens is simply taking that "wide angle" view and turning it into a 2-d image, which does represent what you saw when you looked to the left and then to the right.  You understand this correct?

21
Flat Earth General / Re: Discussions by Tom: Moon Terminator Illusion
« on: August 19, 2018, 09:43:56 AM »
I am asking for an explanation using the Round Earth model, because other than suggestions that the sun and moon are close to the earth as FET posits, so far no explanation has been provided. This is totally unexplainable.
You've been given an explanation several times.  We all know the globe Earth distances to the moon and sun.  At the periods of the moon's orbit when the phase doesn't appear to line up with the sun, it can be scaled down to an experiment done in a hallway.  The movement of the moon and rotation of Earth are insignificant and irrelevant during the brief period someone is observing this. 

You're only making up silly excuses in a vain attempt to say it doesn't work.

22
Flat Earth General / Re: Discussions by Tom: Moon Terminator Illusion
« on: August 18, 2018, 08:02:13 PM »
The assertion that arrows would not point at they are pointing at also implies that if you took a picture of any line in 3D space, that it would appear curved on the picture. What a wacky idea. Please demonstrate this wild assertion.
Here's a simple explanation again.
When you look down one end of the hallway the corners are angled upwards and when you look down the other end it is angled upwards.

23
Flat Earth General / Re: Discussions by Tom: Moon Terminator Illusion
« on: August 16, 2018, 08:01:44 PM »
It's been explained Tom.  You even admitted to understanding it, but keep making up reasons (that amount to nothing) to deny it.  I can pretty much just copy and paste all my replies (along with several others) into this thread, and in a few weeks to a few months, it will all be repeated. 

24
Flat Earth General / Re: What broke your belief in the globe earth?
« on: August 12, 2018, 09:36:36 AM »
Let's see what you think of duplicated clouds in an official NASA satelite picture.....
It's a composite.  NASA even stated this.  They're not trying to fool anyone with that one. (except maybe flat earthers)

Try to find the differences in India's landmass  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D from ''Spayce''
Not really seeing anything different.  What is your point?

25
Everything looks, works, and feels like it should on a globe.

(std non math response example of looks flat and eye level horizon?)
And the horizon doesn't even rise to eye level.

26
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 3-D Printed Guns
« on: August 01, 2018, 06:47:42 PM »
Dang... I was going to download some.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: sextant, polaris, equator
« on: July 15, 2018, 09:54:28 PM »
It is 6225 miles from the north pole to the equator....
Not to derail this thread, but I still haven't heard how a flat earth can have an equator with a circumference of 24,900 miles, and a distance from the north pole to equator of 6,225 miles.

28
The Lounge / Re: Good-bye
« on: July 09, 2018, 09:55:53 PM »
....Good-bye
Well.................... bye

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: southern cross
« on: July 09, 2018, 10:12:25 AM »
A better way to ask the question (especially with jroa) regarding the south celestial pole;  How is the same celestial pole seen in multiple directions even though it remains in a fixed position?

30
Cikljamas is the only one I'm aware of here who also posts a lot of youtube videos.  He even quoted me in one of his videos even though my comment debunked his case.

Karen B isn't all that bright anyway.  I've seen a few of her videos.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 99