1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Creation of a Flat Earth

« on: April 23, 2013, 01:37:24 PM »

Did I ever say that I will leave in Dec 2012?

Yes, you did. You specifically said numerous times a few years back that some kind of quantum phenomenon will happen on the day of armageddon and you will leave this doomed Earth and move to your infinite Earth paradise because the power of the mind is (I don't remember exactly how you described it... "powerful"?) and you will be transported to wherever you wish to be, or something like that. If I have the time, I'll search for various quotes.

Where do you come up with this non sense?

lol really? I'm not the one that comes up with crazy far out theories around here, and it's not beyond the realm of your imagination.

And let me ask you something, if FE theories are fantasies, why do you have almost 2000 posts on this website? You must enjoy telling us dreamers not to dream or what?

The usual FE theories - while blatantly false - aren't fantasies, but your theories are. You're specifically imagining an infinite flat Earth paradise as I recall you explaining it because that's exactly what you hope for, hence, fantasize about.

I do not fantasize, I know the reality and I know where I'm going. It doesn't matter if its December 2012 or not.  Look around you, does it get any better? I guarantee it will get far worse for the people of the world.  Why are you hanging around flat earth society if you think its false. Move on already do something productive. But no you are here cause you doubt your own beliefs. You my friend doubt that the world is a sphere, don't you? You lying sack of shit you lol

You don't know where you're going for sure. Just because things aren't getting better doesn't mean much.

I also like how you insult people, which Jesus would have hated seeing you doing, probably.

Another noob trying to tell me about Jesus. LOL Listen dude Jesus offended and insulted an entire religious leadership of Israel. Why do you think he was crucified? Think before you speak of things you know nothing about.  Now Jason, you are my least favorite noob. I know you are very young and instead of showing me respect you are running at the mouth, (in your case keyboard) trying to put me down and label me according to your fucked up ideals. In real life you would regret your words but because we are on the internet I guess there is nothing I can do huh?

Believe it or not I also formed an opinion about you. Basically you are a fucking geek, with your 4D sphere avatar. Now what the fuck is a 4D sphere anyway? You say I fantasize and shit right? But you believe that earth is a 4D sphere, that is not a fantasy, I guess somewhere somehow I cut a science class and missed the lecture where a 4D sphere was taught lol

New Earth, is there any person in this world who doesn't spit on you?

What exactly is your problem. No one spits on me. I'm sure some want to, but then they realize what's gonna happen and they change their mind. I put the natural fear of God in humanity, that includes you geek. lol

I have no problem with you unless you stand in front of me and have a gun. You sound like a person who hates everybody and is hated by everybody. Actually I don't want to spit on you. I even tried to kind of defend you, or at least understand you, some posts ago. I allways try to see the good, or the reasonable, in everything. But in your case I can't do anymore. The problem with you is that you let everybody here take a look in your deep black soul, so it's not easy not to abhore you. I think you even enjoy that.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Creation of a Flat Earth

« on: April 23, 2013, 11:18:35 AM »

Did I ever say that I will leave in Dec 2012?

Yes, you did. You specifically said numerous times a few years back that some kind of quantum phenomenon will happen on the day of armageddon and you will leave this doomed Earth and move to your infinite Earth paradise because the power of the mind is (I don't remember exactly how you described it... "powerful"?) and you will be transported to wherever you wish to be, or something like that. If I have the time, I'll search for various quotes.

Where do you come up with this non sense?

lol really? I'm not the one that comes up with crazy far out theories around here, and it's not beyond the realm of your imagination.

And let me ask you something, if FE theories are fantasies, why do you have almost 2000 posts on this website? You must enjoy telling us dreamers not to dream or what?

The usual FE theories - while blatantly false - aren't fantasies, but your theories are. You're specifically imagining an infinite flat Earth paradise as I recall you explaining it because that's exactly what you hope for, hence, fantasize about.

I do not fantasize, I know the reality and I know where I'm going. It doesn't matter if its December 2012 or not.  Look around you, does it get any better? I guarantee it will get far worse for the people of the world.  Why are you hanging around flat earth society if you think its false. Move on already do something productive. But no you are here cause you doubt your own beliefs. You my friend doubt that the world is a sphere, don't you? You lying sack of shit you lol

You don't know where you're going for sure. Just because things aren't getting better doesn't mean much.

I also like how you insult people, which Jesus would have hated seeing you doing, probably.

Another noob trying to tell me about Jesus. LOL Listen dude Jesus offended and insulted an entire religious leadership of Israel. Why do you think he was crucified? Think before you speak of things you know nothing about.  Now Jason, you are my least favorite noob. I know you are very young and instead of showing me respect you are running at the mouth, (in your case keyboard) trying to put me down and label me according to your fucked up ideals. In real life you would regret your words but because we are on the internet I guess there is nothing I can do huh?

Believe it or not I also formed an opinion about you. Basically you are a fucking geek, with your 4D sphere avatar. Now what the fuck is a 4D sphere anyway? You say I fantasize and shit right? But you believe that earth is a 4D sphere, that is not a fantasy, I guess somewhere somehow I cut a science class and missed the lecture where a 4D sphere was taught lol

New Earth, is there any person in this world who doesn't spit on you?

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Creation of a Flat Earth

« on: April 23, 2013, 11:10:21 AM »

Sandokhan is likely paranoid schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur (in my completely unqualified lay opinion). His "research" apparently leads him to the conclusion that history is only about 500 years old, and that logarithms are wrong.  It's far more likely that he is completely nuts, than that he is among the most brilliant minds ever.

Actually the method he gave for calculating logarithms is spot on. I crunched a few numbers in excel and also did some analysis. Kudos to Sandokahn.

Really? You must be damned surprised then, right? Me for sure, cause I didn't take one sentence serious I've read of him up to now.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Creation of a Flat Earth

« on: April 22, 2013, 12:00:37 PM »

By the way I like his mystical pseudodimensional infinite earth theory, for it is - by definition - not in variance with natural science. He even said: Earth can be round and flat at the same time. I remember  having proposed the same in a thread some time ago. He is the first here who understands that flat earth is an entirely religious thing.

Oh, he's not the only.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54799.0.html#.UXWID8r0408

But reading his post I stand corrected. His views are in variance with natural science.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Creation of a Flat Earth

« on: April 22, 2013, 11:41:42 AM »

You are not gonna get a reply. This is going absolutely nowhere. This is not a social justice or biblical discussion forum, so from now on I will only focus on FE vs RE topics. If you want to engage in conversation with me, discuss my theory of how the earth is multidimensional. And how Antarctica is a gateway to infinite earth.

Sure, but if you come here threatening people, raining hate on everyone and saying women should be stoned to death, and then deny it and try to change the subject, don't be so surprised if some/most of us hold the view that you're a bigoted degenerate (and an absolutely woeful christian I might add - have you ever perused the second half of the bible?).

Feel free to disappear and pretend this conversation never happened, I won't bring it up again if you don't.

Please quote any threats that were made. You obviously fail to distinguish a warning from a threat. You can hold any kind of view of me, positive or negative, your view of me does not add one dollar to my bank account nor does it effect my life in any way, so keep hating lol

Also please do not judge my Christianity, only God will judge. You have no right to make such statements. You have no idea who I'm or what I do, nor are you qualified to determine my spiritual level.   I've been here long time bro, so its you and your noob friends who should disappear.

O..okay, I think I understand New Earth, please listen:

In OT you have to stone women to death for adultery. That's very clear.

In NT you don't have to and you shouldn't, because GOD will do that for you on Last Judgement's Day and he can do it better. And he will do it (or something equally nasty), unless she confesses her sins and quits sinning again. Sorry if you don't like it, but that's good NT thought.

So New Earth, while believing that sinful women deserve to be stoned, being a Christian, he won't threaten women to be stoned (by mortal men, like him), he just warns them, that they will get stoned by God. That's what he clearly (?) says. And additionally he warns us all, that we may get punished for being unbelievers and ridiculing his theories. That's very nice of him!

By the way I like his mystical pseudodimensional infinite earth theory, for it is - by definition - not in variance with natural science. He even said: Earth can be round and flat at the same time. I remember  having proposed the same in a thread some time ago. He is the first here who understands that flat earth is an entirely religious thing.

6

Flat Earth General / Re: Conspiracy? Lamest thing I ever heard

« on: April 21, 2013, 06:23:41 AM »

Stop intimidating me and proove me wrong! What do you have to hide?

7

Flat Earth General / Re: Conspiracy? Lamest thing I ever heard

« on: April 21, 2013, 05:52:06 AM »

The real FES was destroyed a long time ago. The government even put their headquarters on fire, and all the proofs they had assembled are now lost. This site is obviously run by the Conspiracy. Open your eyes, you morons!

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Will the sun turn into a red giant star about 5 billion years in the future?

« on: April 20, 2013, 01:27:12 PM »

Both wrong. It's commonly accepted that the sun is composed of a quark-gluon plasma

Are you aware, that you are - unintentionally I guess - the main popularizer of this theory?

9

The Lounge / Re: Dawkins and Atheistic arguements against the existence of God

« on: April 18, 2013, 08:40:50 AM »

Ok. That's horrible.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: This topic contains a little story.

« on: April 18, 2013, 08:06:26 AM »

The man was intelligent but not remarkably so.

Like us then.

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: This topic contains a little story.

« on: April 18, 2013, 07:45:30 AM »

The man came up with one of the most common objections to god “If he created everything, who created god?” It’s such a common and simple objection that most ‘serious’ theologians you talk to tend to brush it off as a childish question.

No, he didn't ask: "Who created God?". He asked himself: "What does the notion of an uncreated creator imply?" and he concluded, that it implies his non-existence. And then he had to express his thought in simple Pidgin English and in a manner, the missionary, uneducated in Papuan Philosophy (which resembles some aspects of Indian Philosophy), was able to understand.

12

Flat Earth General / Re: Has anyone on this forum...

« on: April 18, 2013, 03:06:41 AM »

I just wonder if the speed of light has been measured properly and I wonder if it actually can be a constant.

Yes it has been measured properly, the speed that light travels though can be affected by the medium it is travelling through.

I honestly don't see how the speed of light can be a constant, I believe it's infinite, only our little brains probably will never comprehend it.

You are right in a way. Of course speed of light has a finite value. But at the same time it is infinite. If you could ride on a photon or otherwise travel at the speed of light, every distance, even millions of lightyears, would become infinitely short for you. You would experience the whole history of the universe, the birth and death of billions of stars and galaxies, in just one moment. We have a name for this phenomenon (Lorentz-contraction) and we have the equations for it, but nevertheless "our little brains probably will never comprehend it."

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: This topic contains a little story.

« on: April 18, 2013, 02:28:50 AM »

isn't that reasoning remarkable?

Not really. He raised the sort of issue that children spot as soon as they're confronted with God.

"If God made everything, who made God?" Except he's an adult who isn't feeling vulnerable so was able to put this thought across more confidently.

It's only remarkable if you wrongly assume that 'primitive' people are stupid.

I know they are not stupid. I work with them. I help to save their poetry and science from oblivion. In fact that is my job.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Creation of a Flat Earth

« on: April 17, 2013, 04:59:06 PM »

This man talks like a spree killer. New Earth, seriously, that's no fun at all.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: This topic contains a little story.

« on: April 17, 2013, 01:18:28 PM »

What?

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: This topic contains a little story.

« on: April 17, 2013, 12:05:26 PM »

Also, in Papuan tradition there is no such thing as creation from nothing. As in modern science, the only way possible for things to come into being is transformation. So another way to read his statement is, that he wanted to show the missionary that the notion of creation itself is ridiculous.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: This topic contains a little story.

« on: April 17, 2013, 08:01:19 AM »

Boring play on words. The English language is limited and words carry different connotations. A linguistic proof is tantamount to the 1 raindrop plus 1 raindrop equals 1 raindrop proof.

Well, I find this anecdote most interesting. That's why I posted it.

In the middle ages theologians argued with a number of proofs for the existence of God. One of them is the ontological proof. It has many variations, but essentially it states, that the very concept of God implies his existence. That is, as soon as you understand what God is, you know that he exists by logical deduction only.

The "primitive" in this story does the opposite. He concludes that the very concept of God implies his non-existence. After all it may well turn out to be a play of words, as most theology is, but given that it is the first thought of an adult person about it who was  the first time in his life confronted with that concept, isn't that reasoning remarkable?

18

Flat Earth General / Re: The FET sun model is demonstrably false

« on: April 16, 2013, 07:55:19 PM »

I recently did very simple trigonometry to find out how a beam of light, which is thought to pass horizontally over a flat earth must bend upwards to cause the illusion of a spherical surface. I got y=1/cosx - 1. Nobody would argue that light bends according to such a formula. It's ugly. The wiki-equation looks much more plausible and looking plausible is also the only task it has to fulfil. Even the wiki states that it's not really valid,

but it can give an idea of how much sunlight would bend on its way to the Earth, for instance.

I'm afraid, the only reasonable choices left for the shape of earth are Barthel's total plane, squevils Klein bottle and your 4D n-sphere whatever that is.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Creation of a Flat Earth

« on: April 16, 2013, 05:31:19 PM »

I would make your life better dumb ass.

Best slogan ever! Do I have a vote?

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / This topic contains a little story.

« on: April 16, 2013, 01:47:52 PM »

I have a nice story for you. The best thing is, that the story is a true one. It happened in Papua New Guinea in one of the early decades of the last century.

It's about the encounter of a missionary with a nameless savage philosopher and his views  about the existence of God. You must understand, he had never heard about that concept, for in his country they believed in every kind of spirits and magical forces, but they definitely had no belief in God.

Our priest was one of the - not quite uncommon - kind of missionarys, who had some interest in the belief systems he was paid to destroy. (therefore I guess that he was rather successful in his work). But as anywhere in the world, most people he met didn't waste much thought in what they believed, and when he asked any deeper going questions, they frequently pointed to a certain village, whose inhabitants were said to be exeptionally thoughtful and knowledgable. It was, so to speak, the Athens of this remote hill valley.

I have no information that he did ever go to this village. Can be he either had no time or his interest was not deep enough. But one day a man from there appeared at the mission station to hear about the message of the foreign ju ju man, one who was known to be well versed in secret things, and the missionary, of course, was glad about that and eager to explain him the essentials of the Christian religion. The philosopher, naked exept a long penis gourd, listened quiet and carefully, and when he took his leave he promised to bethink what he was told and come again on the next day to give response.

Next morning he arrived at the  missionary's hut again and said: "I thought about God this night and I tell you he doesn't exist. You self have proven it."

The missionary was surprised. "No, surely you must have misunderstood something. God most certainly exists. Didn't I say he created everything?"

"That's the point", said the philosopher, "you say he created everything?"

"Sure he did!"

"Everything that exists?"

"Yes, my friend."

"So did he create himself?"

"Oh...no! God has allways been there and he will allways be."

"So if everything that exists is created by God , but God himself is not created by God, I must conclude that God does not exist. But if he does not exist, how can you pray to him?" said the primitive and back he went to his fields.

21

Flat Earth General / Re: The FET sun model is demonstrably false

« on: April 16, 2013, 11:37:04 AM »

Than I probably just don't understand. You don't have to "spoon-feed" me (I learned that term on this site .) I can live with it.

By inverse square law being invalid you meant that light intensity would not fall relative to distance? Observation gives quite solid support for inverse square law.

...Unless of course in FET sunlight is somehow different from any other light.

My point was that sunlight bindybendybonds in a way, that energy, which would otherwise get lost in space......ah, screw it.....

22

Flat Earth General / Re: The FET sun model is demonstrably false

« on: April 16, 2013, 03:44:57 AM »

Than I probably just don't understand. You don't have to "spoon-feed" me (I learned that term on this site .) I can live with it.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: What does FET say about Antarctic species?

« on: April 16, 2013, 03:40:07 AM »

There virtually is no wild life deep into antarctica, only microscopic fungi and snow algae and the like.

24

Flat Earth General / Re: The FET sun model is demonstrably false

« on: April 16, 2013, 03:32:09 AM »

Jason_85, one of us is sceptimating now.

When I claim

"The seasons are caused by the sunlight reaching the earth plane under different angles in summer and winter, and not by variance in distance of the sun"

Isn't it the same as I would say

"P is constant all over the year and Ps depends only on theta"?

No, it is slightly different. It might be easier to think of "Ps" as the sunlight that hits an area on the surface of the ground. This changes throughout the year obviously, giving rise to the differences in temperature between summer and winter. "P" is the amount of heat received by a flat plate held up directly toward the sun. In an FE model, this changes throughout the year for both the atmospheric and the spotlight model. In reality, it does no such thing.

Of course, the distance of the sun varies during the year. But the sunlight gets focused to the earth plane, so the 1/r^2-law doesn't apply. But if the 1/r^2-law doesn't apply, there is no reason, why P should be small in winter (long distance to the sun) and larger in summer (short distance to the sun).

Don't know how to say it clearer. (It's 5 in the morning and I didn't sleep)

The inverse square law applies for a spotlight just as it does for any other light source, it is merely the radius of curvature that changes. Besides, this is somewhat off-track, as I am only concerned with the observable fact that the intensity of light reaching us from the sun is constant, whereas an FE model requires it to vary substantially (the reason being that if the earth is flat, the amount of light reaching us has to change in order for day/night cycles to exist - I think maybe this is what you are asking about?). I hope this explains it a little better.

Good night

Do we agree, at least, that the alleged variability of P in FET is due to the inverse square law, and that your arguement stands and falls with the assumption of its validity?

25

Flat Earth General / Re: The FET sun model is demonstrably false

« on: April 15, 2013, 09:04:50 PM »

I know I'm playing along because it's an interesting discussion. I did prove it though. Let me explain it differently and hopefully it will make more sense. Here is a copy of the equation I used earlier:

Ps = P * sin(theta) + A

Where Ps is the heating caused by sunlight per unit area on the surface of the groun and theta is the angle of elevation of the sun. P is the heat per unit area of sunlight (constant). A is a small variable that changes seasonally.

In an FE model the seasons and day and night are produced from intensity changes of the sun, either by distance or by the direction it is pointing (depending whether you subscribe to the atmosphere or spotlight models, or both). For example, in winter, in the FE model the sun is farther away and thus produces less light (P is small), but in summer it is closer (P is large). At night, P is 0 and during the day it is somewhere close to Ps/sin(theta).

It is easily provable that this is false because the intensity of sunlight (Ps/sin(theta), or P) is almost constant throughout the year, with small variations in atmospheric conditions.

It is simply not possible for an FET model to function.

Jason_85, one of us is sceptimating now.

When I claim

"The seasons are caused by the sunlight reaching the earth plane under different angles in summer and winter, and not by variance in distance of the sun"

Isn't it the same as I would say

"P is constant all over the year and Ps depends only on theta"?

Of course, the distance of the sun varies during the year. But the sunlight gets focused to the earth plane, so the 1/r^2-law doesn't apply. But if the 1/r^2-law doesn't apply, there is no reason, why P should be small in winter (long distance to the sun) and larger in summer (short distance to the sun).

Don't know how to say it clearer. (It's 5 in the morning and I didn't sleep)

26

Flat Earth General / Re: The FET sun model is demonstrably false

« on: April 15, 2013, 08:18:17 PM »

You know that seasons are explained by the sun changing between an inner and an outer cercle. If the sun is at the outer circle, the rays will reach the northern latitudes at a lower angle than if on the inner circle. So seasons are caused by essentially the same effect than in RET. Bendy light would further increase it. Why has A to be very large in FET?

You know I'm not defending FET. You claimed to have proved that FET is wrong in the OP, but you didn't.

27

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bible literalists

« on: April 15, 2013, 07:53:07 PM »

Thank you, babsinva!

I almost forgot how disgusting the Bible is

28

Flat Earth General / Re: The FET sun model is demonstrably false

« on: April 15, 2013, 07:34:16 PM »

To my understanding the spotlight effect is also causing day and night. The sun is not allowed to radiate at every angle, period. Don't ask me why the sun behaves that way, that's not subject of your thread.

What is A? How is it defined?

29

Flat Earth General / Re: The FET sun model is demonstrably false

« on: April 15, 2013, 07:15:50 PM »

So Rowbotham is wrong again. In fact, in FET as in RET P is constant and Ps depends only on theta. The spotlight model implies that.

30

Flat Earth General / Re: The FET sun model is demonstrably false

« on: April 15, 2013, 07:04:51 PM »

The sun never varies in size due to distance, so why should it vary in amount of heat per square unit? You falsely assume that the sun is allowed to radiate radially in all directions like in RET. This is not true in FET, where, due to the spotlight effect, which assures that most of the sun light shines upon earth, the heat of the sun does not diminish with the square of the distance of the sun.