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 - Serulian

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
61
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Quick Questions? Confusion
« on: September 09, 2015, 07:55:05 PM »
I believe space to be a vast void and the stars we see may in fact be very similar to our own sun. Assuming you were Superman I believe you could leave Earth whenever you so desired, after all you would have came here from Krypton.

62
Flat Earth Debate / Re: trolling
« on: September 09, 2015, 07:40:35 PM »

Antarctic sun at 2.47am at the South Pole - another nail in the FE coffin.


Great Nail...

Because it would be impossible to set a Timex to the wrong time.

63
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If all of the satellites are only a NASA conspiracy
« on: September 09, 2015, 10:54:10 AM »
The majority of the population that knows NASA is full of crap are actually Round Earthers, and yet all the Round Earthers I have seen post on this site believe NASA and trust the government.

I feel like you guys know the Earth is Flat but can't admit it for some stubborn reason or another the truth. You need to look up the definition of denialism.  :-\

64
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antimoon? What is it?
« on: September 08, 2015, 07:41:47 PM »
Jroa isn't the one with communication problems, you keep throwing tantrums because you are displeased with the answers you are receiving.

I am not interested in the pre-adolescent emotional ranting and unnecessarily insulting

and then go on to call someone an "axxhole".


65
That section of ice wall would inconvenience anyone, but might not stop them completely. I'm sure there are plenty of places around the world where the wall might be very easy to cross. If a penguin can get back on shore after a swim how hard could it be?

66
Welcome to the real world. I look forward to reading your 50 page thread.  ;)

67
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's razor leans hevily on round earth
« on: September 07, 2015, 06:06:35 PM »
Oh. I actually read the article, and it does pose some very interesting points. However, I'm not a paleontologist or a geologist and I can't comment on that. It does seem really ridiculous to me though that dinosaurs lived alongside primitive humans and mammoths. A very important problem would be the fact that, as far as I know, we don't have evidence of theropod dinosaur bite marks on any pleistocene fossils.

Well, we do have the palluxy tracks: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm. Though it is highly controversial of course...
Less old, but still too old, ar the Laetoli footprints... Modern human footprints, while this should not have evolved yet...

And here are footprints of a species, that are older than their ancestor tiktaalik:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/07/tetrapods-are-older-than-we-th/

Well, I could go on for a while. You may like to see some movies about it: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlMdh2EGHepWAjJ7HJs53Btm1AuOtpv_k

And yes, I'm a YEC  ;)

 I remember seeing some interesting documentaries about this based on the book Forbidden Archeology. There were people coming forward who were being suppressed by the scientific community.

68
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA conspiracy
« on: September 07, 2015, 05:24:27 PM »
I think NASA's real mistake was how horrible of a job they did in faking the moon landing. That event caused a mass awareness of what frauds they are.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366566/more-people-believe-moon-landing-was-hoax-obamacare-will-lower-healthcare-costs-andrew

69
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: just a couple of questions :)
« on: September 07, 2015, 03:24:17 PM »
Why is the sun hot and the moon cold? 

70
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's razor leans hevily on round earth
« on: September 07, 2015, 02:44:36 PM »
I guess I did miss that.

I don't know why scientists bother to analyze anything in a lab these days if they are able to determine an object's composition based on it's temperature and what it looks like.

I don't feed the troll ;D

How was I being a troll? That is the method you guys are claiming is proof science knows the composition of the Sun. I say it is a best guess based on the reasoning of current scientific methods. I stand by the truth that in reality we do not know for certain the composition of our Sun or it's age.

Back at the beginning the original post stated the first assumption:

now lets take a look at all the assumptions we have to make for round earth:
1: that science is (mostly) right about gravity, astronomy, and physics


    I do not agree with any of these assumptions and so I spoke out against them and continue to defend my stance.

71
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's razor leans hevily on round earth
« on: September 07, 2015, 01:56:00 PM »
I guess I did miss that.

I don't know why scientists bother to analyze anything in a lab these days if they are able to determine an object's composition based on it's temperature and what it looks like.

72
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's razor leans hevily on round earth
« on: September 07, 2015, 01:15:37 PM »
It is entirely possible the Sun is made up of elements unknown to science. It is extremely arrogant to say you know the composition and age of the Sun.

First of all, I didn't say anything for the age of the sun. Second, no, it's not arrogant to say we know the composition of the sun, and it isn't possible that it's made up of elements unknown to science, because its spectral lines are those of hydrogen.

I first mentioned that we can not prove the age of the Sun based on our experiments because we had not made a hydrogen fusion experiment lasting 4.5 billion years.  You said yourself that Suns hydrogen fusion could go on for billions of years, if that wasn't speaking about the Sun's age why would you have said it?

Saying that it could not be possible that the Sun is made of elements unknown to science shows the depths of your ignorance.

I've said it before and I will say it again, no, the Sun is not made of elements unknown to science. Do you know what spectral lines are?

Also, I didn't say anything on the sun's age. I merely commented on your belief that the sun may not be made out of hydrogen and that if it was made of hydrogen, it would have burnt out.

Where can I find a chart showing spectral line information for elements unknown to science? I assume you believe we have already discovered all the elements we are going to find in the universe?

Are you seriously that dumb or are you trying to frustrate me and piss me off? The sun's spectral lines are those of hydrogen. It really is that simple. Each element has its own pattern. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#/media/File:Hydrogen_Spectra.jpg See that? These are the spectral lines of hydrogen. If you examine the spectrum of a star and you get these spectral lines, it means that it's made out of hydrogen. Simple as that.

   Sorry you are getting pissed off, I apologize if a little critical thinking is frustrating you.

To me it is not as simple as that, because the sun may be composed of unknown elements that give a similar pattern to hydrogen.

Today, science believes the Sun to be composed of gasses, before that it was supposed to be liquid. Science really does not have all the answers you believe it does. You need to realize that best guesses do not constitute facts.

Nope, science believes that the sun is composed of plasma. And by examining the temperature of the sun and the behaviour of it it can be concluded that it is composed of plasma.

  How is that any different from a best guess? Science thinks it behaves like plasma so it is plasma?? 

73
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's razor leans hevily on round earth
« on: September 07, 2015, 11:57:15 AM »
It is entirely possible the Sun is made up of elements unknown to science. It is extremely arrogant to say you know the composition and age of the Sun.

First of all, I didn't say anything for the age of the sun. Second, no, it's not arrogant to say we know the composition of the sun, and it isn't possible that it's made up of elements unknown to science, because its spectral lines are those of hydrogen.

I first mentioned that we can not prove the age of the Sun based on our experiments because we had not made a hydrogen fusion experiment lasting 4.5 billion years.  You said yourself that Suns hydrogen fusion could go on for billions of years, if that wasn't speaking about the Sun's age why would you have said it?

Saying that it could not be possible that the Sun is made of elements unknown to science shows the depths of your ignorance.

I've said it before and I will say it again, no, the Sun is not made of elements unknown to science. Do you know what spectral lines are?

Also, I didn't say anything on the sun's age. I merely commented on your belief that the sun may not be made out of hydrogen and that if it was made of hydrogen, it would have burnt out.

Where can I find a chart showing spectral line information for elements unknown to science? I assume you believe we have already discovered all the elements we are going to find in the universe?

Are you seriously that dumb or are you trying to frustrate me and piss me off? The sun's spectral lines are those of hydrogen. It really is that simple. Each element has its own pattern. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#/media/File:Hydrogen_Spectra.jpg See that? These are the spectral lines of hydrogen. If you examine the spectrum of a star and you get these spectral lines, it means that it's made out of hydrogen. Simple as that.

   Sorry you are getting pissed off, I apologize if a little critical thinking is frustrating you.

To me it is not as simple as that, because the sun may be composed of unknown elements that give a similar pattern to hydrogen.

Today, science believes the Sun to be composed of gasses, before that it was supposed to be liquid. Science really does not have all the answers you believe it does. You need to realize that best guesses do not constitute facts.

74
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's razor leans hevily on round earth
« on: September 07, 2015, 09:08:03 AM »
It is entirely possible the Sun is made up of elements unknown to science. It is extremely arrogant to say you know the composition and age of the Sun.

First of all, I didn't say anything for the age of the sun. Second, no, it's not arrogant to say we know the composition of the sun, and it isn't possible that it's made up of elements unknown to science, because its spectral lines are those of hydrogen.

I first mentioned that we can not prove the age of the Sun based on our experiments because we had not made a hydrogen fusion experiment lasting 4.5 billion years.  You said yourself that Suns hydrogen fusion could go on for billions of years, if that wasn't speaking about the Sun's age why would you have said it?

Saying that it could not be possible that the Sun is made of elements unknown to science shows the depths of your ignorance.

I've said it before and I will say it again, no, the Sun is not made of elements unknown to science. Do you know what spectral lines are?

Also, I didn't say anything on the sun's age. I merely commented on your belief that the sun may not be made out of hydrogen and that if it was made of hydrogen, it would have burnt out.

Where can I find a chart showing spectral line information for elements unknown to science? I assume you believe we have already discovered all the elements we are going to find in the universe?

75
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's razor leans hevily on round earth
« on: September 07, 2015, 07:01:12 AM »
It is entirely possible the Sun is made up of elements unknown to science. It is extremely arrogant to say you know the composition and age of the Sun.

First of all, I didn't say anything for the age of the sun. Second, no, it's not arrogant to say we know the composition of the sun, and it isn't possible that it's made up of elements unknown to science, because its spectral lines are those of hydrogen.

I first mentioned that we can not prove the age of the Sun based on our experiments because we had not made a hydrogen fusion experiment lasting 4.5 billion years.  You said yourself that Suns hydrogen fusion could go on for billions of years, if that wasn't speaking about the Sun's age why would you have said it?

Saying that it could not be possible that the Sun is made of elements unknown to science shows the depths of your ignorance.

76
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's razor leans hevily on round earth
« on: September 07, 2015, 05:57:18 AM »
It is entirely possible the Sun is made up of elements unknown to science. It is extremely arrogant to say you know the composition and age of the Sun.

77
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's razor leans hevily on round earth
« on: September 07, 2015, 05:27:31 AM »
Also the sun is not a spotlight lazer, we know the sun is just a star meaning it's a hydrogen fusing ball of plasma.

False. We have no way of testing the composition of the Sun. If it was made of hydrogen it would have burned up long ago.

False, if the sun was burning yes it would. But we know hydrogen fusion drives it, and we can recreate the conditions in a lab. Btw if you anslyse the light spectre which is emitted, you will see it contains mainly of hydrogen, to burn you also need oxygen, it's basic chemistry.

Two problems here:

1. By recreating similar conditions in the lab the experiment could not have lasted 4.5 billion years, thus there is no way to verify the age of the sun or the exact composition of it.

2. These conditions have not been recreated in space.

78
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's razor leans hevily on round earth
« on: September 07, 2015, 05:08:20 AM »
Also the sun is not a spotlight lazer, we know the sun is just a star meaning it's a hydrogen fusing ball of plasma.

False. We have no way of testing the composition of the Sun. If it was made of hydrogen it would have burned up long ago.

79
Oh I'm sorry, I have found a better link that more clearly expresses the concept I was referring to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage


80
lol, there are plenty of videos on youtube of videos that show ghosts and the chupacabra.  We are supposed to believe it because it is on youtube?  Is this what this Free Thinking site has degraded to?  A youtube fight?

Then what about this: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/30/travel/stunning-timelapse-antarctic/ ?

Just as I expected. Amateurs are lying and non amateurs are paid by the government. The fact that there is a midnight sun in Antarctica is well known and documented ever since people crossed the Antarctic circle, but it's a lie. The 35,000 tourists are paid by the government not to admit that there is no midnight sun. I

Is this what free thinking has degraded to? Saying that every single thing that doesn't agree with you is false?

Perhaps there is a reflective property unique to the land beyond the oceans, almost like a mirror. Regular snow is surely reflective enough.

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/snow/science/characteristics.html

81
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: just a couple of questions :)
« on: September 06, 2015, 06:48:10 AM »
Hey sup guys i'm lately been intressed in al these different strange yet possible theory about the world like the inner earth, the annoaki and all those kind of things and now i'm just checking out what the flat earth theory is all about and i got some questions i would like to get anwsers to :p

1 if the earth is flat and the sun and moon rotate a flat earth are the moon and sun flat to? how those that make sense :p
2 if we are accelerating up at 9,81 m/sē how do you explain the slight differences in the G amount between locations around the world. and btw accelerating into what, where, why. why are we accelerating up why not down no reason given. are we pushed upwards by god? of maybe 4 elepants on the back of a space turtle or maybe it just a faint hope to get ride of the laws of gravity in a lame way. to suit your needs for a flat earth theory.
3 how do you explain the Coriolis effect.
4 if i get the "photos" of a flat earth correclty then overal size of the north part of the world is much smaller then the southern part right? so if you flew a plane over the world in a circle "aroud" the world at equal distance of the equator north and south of it. then southern trip would take longer much longer the futher away from the equator. wich looks like something people would notice and point out but that never realy happens.

now if may seem like a beeing very scepitcal here but on the one hand i kinda wanna believe in a flat earth but atm i haven't seen any real prove so for. only attemps of disprove other theory without proving there own.

1. They appear spherical.

2. Gravity theory is wrong. There are many flaws, and I highly suggest you read one of the many threads concerning gravity in the debate section.

3. If you are asking about water in toilets and drains, that is a myth. Anything else can probably be explained by wind direction and speed.

4. By North part do you mean the center? I don't think you would be able to circle the entire ice wall without running out of fuel.


82
The questions are simple:
-the sun orbits above us in different ways, following the seasons, but if gravity is real, how does it stay there and doesn't fall on Earth?
-scientists say that the sun is a huge ball of burning gas, but if this theory says that the sun is about 50km wide, how is it made of?
-are other planets spherical?

Many thanks to all you guys ^^

1.Gravity is not real. It is the nature of space for objects to float in it.

2. Impossible to know, but if the Sun was made of the of the gasses they claim it is, it would have burned up long ago.

3.It is possible planets are spherical, although some may be flat like our Earth is.

83
I've got two new questions :

If we can fly to Antartica, why no one is able to see the Ice Wall during the flight ?

And why can't the FE'ers tell us what is after Antartica ?




Try using Google if you love it so damn much.

This picture depicts an ice shelf!

Here is the article it was used in: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/global-warming-antarctic-ice-shelf-collapse-18014

It literally says: "An in-flight photo shows the edge of the Larsen B Ice Shelf"

Ok then, this picture shows a glimpse of the ice shelf that surrounds the worlds oceans.

84
Of course it's easier to reach by ship, the ice wall encircles all other continents.

Generally, it's easier to cross massive ice walls by flying over them than trying to cross it in a ship.

I never said that it wasn't easier to cross by plane, I was speaking of getting there. I have never seen an advertised commercial flight to Antarctica.

You've never seen an advertised commercial flight to Antarctica for the simple reason that you've looked for one.

Lo and behold, the following link, which was found by using the internet (google search 'sight seeing flights to Antarctica')
shows one of many commercial sight seeing companies offering scenic flights to Antarctica. There are of course many, many others if you would only look. But of course it's this sort of thing that FEer's hate to see because it completely destroys their theory, ie 24 hour Antarctic sun.

http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/

These flights don't go to Antarctica, they fly around the wall and go home.

Read the FAQs:

   Will The Flight Land?
We do not land on Antarctica, primarily for environmental and safety reasons. Antarctica is as close to a pristine environment as there is on Earth. The activity of Antarctica Sightseeing Flights has been approved by all Antarctic Treaty nations. Most importantly, you cannot see the spectacular views available from the aircraft when you are on the ground.

85
I've got two new questions :

If we can fly to Antartica, why no one is able to see the Ice Wall during the flight ?

And why can't the FE'ers tell us what is after Antartica ?



Try using Google if you love it so damn much.

86
Of course it's easier to reach by ship, the ice wall encircles all other continents.

Generally, it's easier to cross massive ice walls by flying over them than trying to cross it in a ship.

I never said that it wasn't easier to cross by plane, I was speaking of getting there. I have never seen an advertised commercial flight to Antarctica. 

87
Of course it's easier to reach by ship, the ice wall encircles all other continents.

88
Explain me this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen%E2%80%93Scott_South_Pole_Station

Without conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory is in fact not scientific : it only consists at throwing away all contradicting arguments that cannot immediately be percieved, by telling it's only a conspiracy. If you have proofs that it is a conspiracy, we can trust you. But not if you only come and use the conspiracy argument. No.

Oh, and this station (like many others) has an airport : it can in fact be reached, and several flights go to Antartica each day : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_F._Paulus_Skiway
http://worldaerodata.com/wad.cgi?id=AY06454&sch=NZSP

Show me one commercial flight that goes to Antarctica.

89
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If all of the satellites are only a NASA conspiracy
« on: September 05, 2015, 03:18:33 PM »
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.

Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...

Until then, f**k off.

Only I can see satellites and the ISS with my telescope, so... Yeah. I think you get the idea.

How can you be certain that what you are seeing is not just holographic projections set up by NASA? They seemed to convince a lot of people that they landed on the moon in the past using smoke and mirror theatrics.

If these were holographic projections on a flat earth, they would be visible nearly at the same time everywhere. It's not the case, NASA give the observable time for each city, and we are clearly able to observe that these are the true observable times. So it's not an hologram, or the Earth isn't flat.

You believe in an organization that supposedly has the technology to send people into space, and you seriously doubt their ability to make a convincing projection?

Do you seriously think that making enormous holographic projections in the sky that are visible from everywhere and always appear solid and extremely bright is possible?
Government technology is decades ahead of what most people believe to be possible today.

90
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If all of the satellites are only a NASA conspiracy
« on: September 05, 2015, 03:06:25 PM »
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.

Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...

Until then, f**k off.

Only I can see satellites and the ISS with my telescope, so... Yeah. I think you get the idea.

How can you be certain that what you are seeing is not just holographic projections set up by NASA? They seemed to convince a lot of people that they landed on the moon in the past using smoke and mirror theatrics.

If these were holographic projections on a flat earth, they would be visible nearly at the same time everywhere. It's not the case, NASA give the observable time for each city, and we are clearly able to observe that these are the true observable times. So it's not an hologram, or the Earth isn't flat.

You believe in an organization that supposedly has the technology to send people into space, and you seriously doubt their ability to make a convincing projection?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5