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 - Itchy_Arris

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14
31
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ask a Time Traveller Anything
« on: June 14, 2015, 04:05:33 AM »
Mikeman you believe humans are infested by "spirits" from another dimension.

Frankly this time-traveller is more credible than you.

32
Flat Earth Debate / Re: When Round Earth Theory Breaks Down
« on: June 14, 2015, 04:01:30 AM »
What you all fail to realise is that the land masses are not necessarily where you think they are.
So why did you say that for a flat earth map: "just take a standard map and surround it by ocean"?

Now someone has done that, you're saying that it's all wrong.  So we are back to no flat earth map.

It's approximately correct. Obviously I don't have the resources to produce a really accurate map. What do you expect me to do?

33
Flat Earth Debate / Re: When Round Earth Theory Breaks Down
« on: June 14, 2015, 01:04:57 AM »
What you all fail to realise is that the land masses are not necessarily where you think they are.

34
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Shows the Earth is Flat
« on: June 14, 2015, 01:01:45 AM »
3. Satellites do not have the power necessary to constantly change their angular velocity
There's only one person lying here.

Do you seriously believe that a satellite has the thousands of kilometers of dV required to constantly change angular velocity? Do you realize most satellites don't even have engines- instead reaction control rockets

Glad you admit that satellites move under their own power. I rest my case.

35
Flat Earth General / Re: The flat Earth map
« on: June 14, 2015, 12:52:10 AM »
What's to explain? Nobody is claiming that is a correct flat earth map.

36
Flat Earth Debate / Re: When Round Earth Theory Breaks Down
« on: June 13, 2015, 03:39:33 PM »
The red line represents the route from LA to China. It obviously takes much longer on your map then it does in real life. Please explain

It takes how long it takes. Nobody is denying that. I really don't see what your point is here.

37
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Shows the Earth is Flat
« on: June 13, 2015, 03:38:03 PM »


3. Satellites do not have the power necessary to constantly change their angular velocity



There's only one person lying here.

38
Flat Earth Debate / Re: When Round Earth Theory Breaks Down
« on: June 13, 2015, 02:18:55 PM »
SO can you answer my questions?

I've no idea what your questions are.

39
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Shows the Earth is Flat
« on: June 13, 2015, 02:15:37 PM »
You think satellites propel themselves at 17000 kmh? Oh dear oh dear. The rockets propel them to that speed, and they maintain it in the vacuum of space.

There are such proposals.



This is a bit irrelevant. Understand that many space probes already do have the delta V necessary to accelerate 4 kilometers per second. Notably ones off into trajectories heading very close to the sun, or far away from it.

It doesn't take much to change orbit. Just a tiny thrust at that velocity wold make a huge difference. You should improve your physics knowledge a bit.

40
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Shows the Earth is Flat
« on: June 13, 2015, 01:22:57 PM »
Satellites and planets do fall when they run out of energy, but as long as they have enough energy to defy gravity, they stay up.

Except Satellites don't consume energy while they are in orbit... gravity keeps them in orbit, and for orbits to work the planet must be round. How do you explain this?

Planets are round. Well done.

Satellites just circle the Earth. They are solar-powered. Have you not noticed how they all have huge solar panels?

What are you talking about? Do you even know how satellites work? Satellites do not have enough power to propel them around a flat Earth, that is impossible. The only way satellites can exist is if the Earth was a globe, so that they can properly orbit around it, requiring no power. Satellites use solar panels to power electronics. Solar panels do not create enough energy to power engines that can propel you at multiple times the speed of sound.

You think satellites propel themselves at 17000 kmh? Oh dear oh dear. The rockets propel them to that speed, and they maintain it in the vacuum of space.

41
Flat Earth Debate / Re: When Round Earth Theory Breaks Down
« on: June 13, 2015, 01:13:00 PM »
IET has a single, coherent map.

It does? Can we see it?



"I don't believe..." "I think..." "I believe..."




How many times do I have to repeat this? Take wall map and surround it completely with ocean. That's the map. I know you roundies are close-minded, but surely you can imagine that?

So basically this:

http://imageshack.com/a/img538/9355/8DjY1k.png

The red line represents the travel from Los Angeles to China in your model, which would take much longer then it actually does. Additionally, lands in the northern hemisphere are inflated, making Siberia, Greenland, and Canada look much larger then they actually are.



That's not what I was imagining?   I was thinking of just taking the map off the wall and throwing it in the pacific.

That's the right idea. Obviously the land near the poles is not really that size, as you've used a projection of the globe, and the pacific is a bit bigger. And the continents aren't really where we think they are.

42
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Shows the Earth is Flat
« on: June 13, 2015, 11:46:38 AM »
Satellites and planets do fall when they run out of energy, but as long as they have enough energy to defy gravity, they stay up.

Except Satellites don't consume energy while they are in orbit... gravity keeps them in orbit, and for orbits to work the planet must be round. How do you explain this?

Planets are round. Well done.

Satellites just circle the Earth. They are solar-powered. Have you not noticed how they all have huge solar panels?

43
Flat Earth Debate / Re: When Round Earth Theory Breaks Down
« on: June 13, 2015, 11:44:14 AM »
IET has a single, coherent map.

It does? Can we see it?



"I don't believe..." "I think..." "I believe..."




How many times do I have to repeat this? Take wall map and surround it completely with ocean. That's the map. I know you roundies are close-minded, but surely you can imagine that?

Yes I use terms like " I believe "when talking about ideas that have no evidence yet. It's called good science.

44
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Shows the Earth is Flat
« on: June 13, 2015, 11:37:37 AM »
I still don't understand why earth should be the floor of the universe. Who can explain me how it got here.(do not tell me of gods.)
Earth is a cell. It's part of probably infinite cells that could be part of a body that could be a cell among cells of another body and so on and so on.

The truth is, nobody knows.
All we know is; gravity doesn't exist inside this cell of ours. This cell is self sustaining and is covered by a skin just like cells are in our bodies, except to us, this skin is made of light gases that freeze against what we perceive as a vacuum.

The so called gravity inside this clear ice covered cell is merely built up pressure from inside the cell to outside in our atmosphere, which creates a pressure upon us. That is your gravity. It's atmospheric pressure better known as my new word for it, "denpressure."

I'm paralyzed with laughter....   of all the unsupported, idiotic, brainless,  numbskull ideas you have ever conceived,  this is the creme de la creme of idiocy.   What evidence do you have for this "Infinite Cell Earth Theory"  which I'm going to christen the rapper theory.    ICE-T   has a cool ring to it.
 
Dr Dre, eat your heart out.

You shouldn't be so dismissive. We've discovered that the scale of matter goes a lot smaller than the atom. We've no idea how far that scale goes in the other direction. The universe could well be a part of a much larger structure - even a living one.

You're right of course,  since your infinite flat earth trolling seems to have hit the wall,  it's time to update to the new hip, ICE-T infinite cell earth theory.    Who needs evidence.   Not the Andromedans,  not the time travellers,  not the brain dead youtube zombies.   Lead on Itchy,  your loyal followers and detractors await.

I didn't say I agreed with scepti's theory. Just that you shouldnt dismiss the idea that the universe may be part of something much larger. So although agree that denoressure etc is nonsense, but in a wider context his theory is not as crazy as at first seems.

45
Flat Earth General / Re: The other planets?
« on: June 13, 2015, 11:31:55 AM »
If the earth is really flat, what is with the other planets?(do not say they are projections, some planets were discovered by ancient civilisations)

The other planets looks round and orbiting the sun, why should the earth be flat?

I want proves not only theories.
Greetings rounder studint!

Becuz the earth is not planet. Planet comes from the Greek word "planetes" mening "wanderer" becuz it moves! In order for something to be a planet it must move but that does not aply to the earth witch is a stationarey body. Lol the planets are CERTINTNLEY not projections ;D .

I myself am a beleiver in the "Infinite" Earth Thoery (its not reley infinite since that the Big Bang thoery tells us the universe is finite. The earth penguininious to expand with the rest of the universe). In my own cosmologey I see the Earth as the ultamit gravitationel "dent" in the universe, spekeing from a generel relativitey viewpoint. The earth is practicley "infinite" and so does not round up. However the other planets do becuz gravitey tells us they will. And yes im a flat earther and I beleive in gravitey

To sum it up the Earth does not round up becuz it is infinite and the eqwater of the cosmos!

It was hard to decode your words (learn to speak english better)

It's almost impossible for a object with mass like earth to be infinite, infinite radius-infinite mass-infinite gravity so, every object in cosmos should crash into earth because they cannot orbit the floor (right?).

Gravity and flat earth togheter are impossible.

"infinite Earth Theory" is a slightly misleading term. The Earth is a vast plain, as wide as the universe, but not infinite strictly speaking, although it may as well be in practicality.

Everything is attracted to the floor of the universe, after all, everything must fall to the bottom eventually. However, the stars still have enough energy left from the creation of the universe to defy Earths gravity, and will for millions ?billions of years.

Planets,of course, are in orbit around their stars.

46
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Shows the Earth is Flat
« on: June 13, 2015, 09:42:27 AM »
I still don't understand why earth should be the floor of the universe. Who can explain me how it got here.(do not tell me of gods.)
Earth is a cell. It's part of probably infinite cells that could be part of a body that could be a cell among cells of another body and so on and so on.

The truth is, nobody knows.
All we know is; gravity doesn't exist inside this cell of ours. This cell is self sustaining and is covered by a skin just like cells are in our bodies, except to us, this skin is made of light gases that freeze against what we perceive as a vacuum.

The so called gravity inside this clear ice covered cell is merely built up pressure from inside the cell to outside in our atmosphere, which creates a pressure upon us. That is your gravity. It's atmospheric pressure better known as my new word for it, "denpressure."

I'm paralyzed with laughter....   of all the unsupported, idiotic, brainless,  numbskull ideas you have ever conceived,  this is the creme de la creme of idiocy.   What evidence do you have for this "Infinite Cell Earth Theory"  which I'm going to christen the rapper theory.    ICE-T   has a cool ring to it.
 
Dr Dre, eat your heart out.

You shouldn't be so dismissive. We've discovered that the scale of matter goes a lot smaller than the atom. We've no idea how far that scale goes in the other direction. The universe could well be a part of a much larger structure - even a living one.

47
Flat Earth General / Re: The other planets?
« on: June 13, 2015, 09:39:21 AM »
There have been two recent threads on this.

48
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Archeology supports IET
« on: June 13, 2015, 08:39:49 AM »
Since I have been reading on the topic of ELISA, please send me a link to your supposed thesis then.  I would like to see how you utilized the process, whether it was antigen based color change or electrochemical based signals.
Since the process was used in a newer way that allowed for the detection of things precise enough like a virus or genetic level changes in 1988, I would like to see your take on it from 1995.   
I also do not like what Google brings up for me so I have requested some scholarly articles that are being obtained for me through the university that I am an alumni at. 

If you do not wish to provide anything, I understand as many of us do not wish to divulge our identities to unknown people on the internet.  But know that you have given me a new research project and you will be asked many questions from someone who is very skeptical of your claims.

As I said, there's no link as it was pre-internet and not published work.

ELISA was a well-known assay at the time, I was just evaluating it's use in measuring a couple of proteins in urine which are markers for renal tubular disease - beta-2 microglobulin and retinol-binding protein.

It's an antibody-antigen-antibody sandwich technique: plastic wells are coated with an antibody to what you are measuring (antigen), sample (containing antigen) added, then a second antibody which is labelled with an enzyme is added. Then a substrate is added which reacts with the enzyme causing a colour change which is measured using spectroscopy in a plate reader. The amount of absorbance at a particular wavelength is proportional to the amount of antigen (beta-2mic or RBP) present.

Okay!

49
Flat Earth Debate / Re: When Round Earth Theory Breaks Down
« on: June 13, 2015, 08:26:16 AM »
I don't believe the Greenwich meridian marks the centre of the earth. I think it's a bit east of that, running through East Africa. I believe this as this is where the first humans started, and we migrated out from there.

If you travel north from here, or anywhere, you would end up in the pacific ocean as it surrounds the earth.
Wouldn't Canada get in the way if you started further east?

Cant you read? The pacific ocean surrounds the earth.
Show me a map that proves it.

Take a standard wall map, then surround it with ocean. There's your map. Simple.
Do you mean a Mercator projection of a globe map like this?

Wouldn't make westward travel from North America to Asia very inconvenient?

Why? Travel from NA to Asia involves crossing the Pacific, which should be surrounding the map.

50
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: For unto us a child is born
« on: June 13, 2015, 05:53:02 AM »
There are several different ways of interpreting Isaiah 9:5-6, but none of them have to do with Yeshu.

I believe he is yet to come.

I am inclined to agree.

What's he waiting for?

51
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Shows the Earth is Flat
« on: June 13, 2015, 05:49:50 AM »
I still don't understand why earth should be the floor of the universe. Who can explain me how it got here.(do not tell me of gods.)

It formed early in the universe, as matter has naturally accumulated at the bottom of the universe.

52
Flat Earth Debate / Re: When Round Earth Theory Breaks Down
« on: June 13, 2015, 05:48:12 AM »
I don't believe the Greenwich meridian marks the centre of the earth. I think it's a bit east of that, running through East Africa. I believe this as this is where the first humans started, and we migrated out from there.

If you travel north from here, or anywhere, you would end up in the pacific ocean as it surrounds the earth.
Wouldn't Canada get in the way if you started further east?

Cant you read? The pacific ocean surrounds the earth.
Show me a map that proves it.

Take a standard wall map, then surround it with ocean. There's your map. Simple.
What, so I should take this:



And then surround it by ocean and I have a flat earth map  ??? ???

Oh, you think a globe is a wall map  ::). Typical roundie intellect.

53
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Shows the Earth is Flat
« on: June 13, 2015, 04:35:33 AM »
There are aproximations but how can you say the earth is the heaviest object in the universe or the floor of the entire universe?Are you just lying?

http://imageshack.com/a/img540/368/qhL2Yg.jpg

"Heavy" is not the correct term. I think you mean massive. Earth is the floor of the whole uinverse, so it's mass is vast. However it is not the most dense matter in the universe, which I think is where you are confused.

54
Flat Earth Debate / Re: When Round Earth Theory Breaks Down
« on: June 13, 2015, 04:32:03 AM »
More itchy failures.  I love em.  Keep them coming.
Looking at the Flat Earth map, holy cow, you would be roughly in the same place.
Now lets try that in the Southern Hemisphere.  OOPS.

There is no agreed flat earth map. The one I think you are referring to is totally wrong.

In IET the earth is roughly the same as the common wall map (with the Greenwich meridian in the centre, not the silly ones with USA in the centre) except that the Pacific encircles the whole map. And there are hidden continents.
What makes the Greenwich meridian the correct center for a flat earth map?  Where would you end up if you followed it north as in your OP?

I don't believe the Greenwich meridian marks the centre of the earth. I think it's a bit east of that, running through East Africa. I believe this as this is where the first humans started, and we migrated out from there.

If you travel north from here, or anywhere, you would end up in the pacific ocean as it surrounds the earth.

How could an infinite Earth have a center?

Pedantry, the last resort of the beaten. I mean centre if the known world.

55
Flat Earth Debate / Re: When Round Earth Theory Breaks Down
« on: June 13, 2015, 04:30:16 AM »
I don't believe the Greenwich meridian marks the centre of the earth. I think it's a bit east of that, running through East Africa. I believe this as this is where the first humans started, and we migrated out from there.

If you travel north from here, or anywhere, you would end up in the pacific ocean as it surrounds the earth.
Wouldn't Canada get in the way if you started further east?

Cant you read? The pacific ocean surrounds the earth.
Show me a map that proves it.

This thread is mistitled. As usual, it's the the flat-earth idea breaks down *again*, because the particular flavor of the flat-earth map used is critical to some particular situation. Do you think the flat earth itself changes depending on your starting and ending point? That would be a reason you don't have a single, consistent, map. Meanwhile the ol' globe just keeps spinnin' along on its annual journey around the Sun, as consistent as can be, with no need for teleportation to travel between any two points on the surface, no matter matter your origin or destination[nb]As far as the Earth is concerned. Political issues can prevent some travel, but the spherical Earth doesn't care about any of that. It doesn't change no matter who you are or where you're going.[/nb]. That's why so many of us like it - it seems far more consistent with everyday life.

This was a cute idea, but that's what happens when someone thinks a Mercator Projection of the globe is accurate for all purposes, like great-circle routes near the poles. It may be best to use actual globes for that, not projections - or at least not that one.

IET has a single, coherent map. And it works - you don't get magically transported across the world, unlike your globe.

56
Flat Earth Debate / Re: When Round Earth Theory Breaks Down
« on: June 13, 2015, 04:27:48 AM »
I don't believe the Greenwich meridian marks the centre of the earth. I think it's a bit east of that, running through East Africa. I believe this as this is where the first humans started, and we migrated out from there.

If you travel north from here, or anywhere, you would end up in the pacific ocean as it surrounds the earth.
Wouldn't Canada get in the way if you started further east?

Cant you read? The pacific ocean surrounds the earth.
Show me a map that proves it.

Take a standard wall map, then surround it with ocean. There's your map. Simple.

57
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Shows the Earth is Flat
« on: June 13, 2015, 04:25:14 AM »
The gravity cannot exist on a flat Earth.
 If the gravity existed on a flat earth , because of it's big size, the Earth will reshape into a spherical object.
And it is known that Jupiter is very very big in comparision to earth so why should is fly in the sky?
And what forces keep the planets in the sky if the earth is the floor?
Earth's atmosphere have hellium and hidrogen, and i don't think venus is lighter that these gasses.
Things just don't work!

Jupiter and the other planets are in orbit around the sun numbnuts.

58
This is a flat earth society forum, and you don't believe in a flat earth. You're lucky to be allowed here t all. MTFU.

If your theory were really true then people like me wouldn't be a probelem because you can't disprove a correct theory and the best way to prove a theory is to fail at disproving it.

If mikeman is banned he will lose his job hahahaha i know it he afraid of being banned because his job depends on it.

If I really were a dishonest shill I would just make a new account and pretend to be someone else.  I wouldn't do that though because I am not a dishonest shill.  That's why I don't want to get banned.

You think we don't meet people trying to disprove us in real life? This place should be a haven for flat earth discussion. It's very difficult to have proper scientific discussions with all the roundie derailing.

59
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ask a Time Traveller Anything
« on: June 12, 2015, 11:27:31 PM »
For a time traveler your language definitely sounds very 2015.  Language evolves fast you know.

I don't talk any differently than I did in 1994. That's the same timescale. Your grasping at straws and this guy is clearly the real deal. He's Doctor Who.

No, it's not the same time scale.  He claims to be born in 2030 and assuming he is at least 20 years old that means he is supposedly from 35 years in the future.  That is the same time scale as between the 80's and today.

I didn't talk any different in the 80s either. It only seems like a long time to you because your a kid. You dig it?

60
This is a flat earth society forum, and you don't believe in a flat earth. You're lucky to be allowed here t all. MTFU.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14