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 - dyno

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 18
61
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ISS in beautiful HD
« on: July 01, 2009, 06:05:51 AM »
I just think it's a beautiful illustration of mankind's achievements. For the skeptics it is also a very long and high quality video should they wish to peruse it for faked bits.

62
I'm really requesting input from FE believers.

I don't really understand their reluctance to participate. Can some FErs at least indicate why they don't wish to contribute and participate?

63
Flat Earth Q&A / ISS in beautiful HD
« on: June 29, 2009, 06:07:22 AM »

64
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« on: June 27, 2009, 10:06:52 PM »
come on levee. as i've said before, you need reference shots for comparison and higher resolution. those videos are rubbish.

you still haven't explained my telescope shots. wanna have a crack at those instead? do some real thinking instead of regurgitating.

65
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plate Techtonics
« on: June 26, 2009, 10:53:24 PM »
Although it relatively easy to tell how a mountain was formed just by looking at the rocks it is made of.
Volcanic mountains will be composed primarily of igneous rock. They will be more uniform.

66
Still nothing?
Any FE believer? Looking for multiple inputs here.

67
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« on: June 26, 2009, 06:41:52 PM »
You forgot "light bends downwards".

WTF ?!?!?

as the earth is covered with an atmosphere of many miles in depth, the density of which gradually increases downwards to the surface, all the rays of light except those which are vertical, as they enter the upper stratum of air are arrested in their course of diffusion, and by Snell's Law bent downwards towards the earth;

I believe this theory is falling out of favor among FEs. Watch for it's selected use.

68
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« on: June 23, 2009, 03:53:51 AM »
perhaps you need to mimic their technique in order to elicit a response.
start spamming all of their threads with your question on radio signals.

69
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Clouds
« on: June 23, 2009, 03:35:16 AM »
This would only occur on an infinite plane FE.
The question is, on an infinite plane, with the Sun only heating the area we consider the Earth, why wouldn't the atmosphere freeze out.
The further away you get the colder it gets. At some point, it will be cold enough to condense nitrogen and oxygen. Gas will flow from high pressure to low.

70
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the Sun hold together?
« on: June 23, 2009, 02:20:55 AM »
Then you need to come up with a sensible source of that power.  So far you haven't.  That is unless I missed it where you've shown evidence of a large supply of stable mesons in the sun and a process by which those mesons are broken down into unbound quarks and antiquarks for annihilation.

I never suggested there was a large supply of stable mesons within the Sun.

This illustrates just why I dislike FE trolls so much. He hasn't made a definitive post summarizing his FE Sun at all. He is just baiting us to draw it out and have you believe he might actually know what he is talking about. Don't you get it? He has no clue but he his trolls skills are up with Tombot's.
Grinding his troll XP

71
Star trails over the south pole are possible.  I can try for polaris if people would like. I don't have a lens wide enough to cover the whole sky. I can take multiple shots. Want me to image star trails pointing north?

I can image a specific area of the sky.
No one wants me to image the Sun? Moon? Planets? Galaxies? Nebula?

72
Quote
since you are much more familiar with the resources and have them at hand, perhaps you could give me the specific details?

that way I won't be able to misinterpret them.

The resources are available in my signature link.

Ah. So you really want me to perform the exact experiment as I had before except lowering the telescope to 8 inches above the water. I think the results of my last effort are sufficient.
I was thinking along different lines.

73
Rowbotham outlines what the particulars of the experiment need to be in Earth Not a Globe.
since you are much more familiar with the resources and have them at hand, perhaps you could give me the specific details?

that way I won't be able to misinterpret them.

74
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the Sun hold together?
« on: June 21, 2009, 06:29:56 PM »
Relevance?
Neutron stars aren't neutrons produced in a particle accelerator.
They are atoms crushed under gravity into a state where protons and electrons are effectively neutrons.

75
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the Sun hold together?
« on: June 21, 2009, 06:24:06 PM »
You would, but I wouldn't.  There is a difference between observing the raw materials of a reaction in a natural state and controlling the reaction under laboratory conditions.

I take it, then, that you do not believe in neutron stars? You see, neutrons have never been observed in a stable state without protons mixed in.

Also incorrect.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n00-01.htm
Neutrons have been isolated and contained.

What else have you got for us to refute?

76
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the Sun hold together?
« on: June 21, 2009, 06:21:03 PM »
Because unbound quarks have never been observed for more than a few nanoseconds.

And nuclear fusion has never been performed in such a way as to liberate more energy than is required to initiate the reaction without blowing itself to pieces. I'd say FET is on a level footing with RET on this one.
Incorrect.
It's actually the energy required to sustain the reaction. These are all research reactors. The new generation reactors being built are larger and based on discoveries from previous work, should produce more energy than that fed into the plasma for the reaction. Fusion is based on science.
Your quark sun is based on your imagination. This is where is falls down.

77
Well I have to say it's been a pretty poor showing from the FE's.

May I take silence as a sign that none of you have any idea of an experiment that could be performed? None of you care strongly enough to convert some REs? None of you actually believe in a FE?

Pretty lame.

78
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« on: June 21, 2009, 06:11:00 PM »
Ah the sweet fairness of debate that is FET.
This is why I bagged out the mods.

You know they only reason they are running offtopic is because they don't have answers to your questions julian. This is actually as close as you will ever get to admission that they can't argue their case. It's what happens in all threads where FE loses ground.

79
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plate Techtonics
« on: June 19, 2009, 11:06:04 AM »
There are a number of theories dealing with plate tectonics.  According to the "infinite plane" theory proposed by Username, the Ice Wall extends on forever, so there is always a place for the plates to go.  As for the mountains, that's not "confirmed" as being part of FET, as some people believe tha there is only ice.  I'm not sure if any FE'ers would agree with me, but one thought that I've had is that there may be a mountain range on the outskirts of the Ice Wall, then an infinite glacier of ice on the other side.

I subscribe to the idea that there is a cave leading to a lush prehistoric jungle. I call this area the Savage Land.

Prove me wrong.

Thank you for adding to the discussion immensely.  I always enjoy hearing your thoughts.

explain the hawain islands. they have been formed over a hotspot in the earth's mantle and is clearly visible from the chain of islands and the tectonics movement

What are you talking about?  Hawaii was formed from volcanic activity, not plate tectonics.

and here i was thinking FEs actually researched topics they debated on

hawaii has been formed over a hot spot in the earrth's mantle. as the crust has moved over, progressive islands have been formed as the magma upwells.;
take some basic geology you stupid fuck

80
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plate Techtonics
« on: June 19, 2009, 10:48:49 AM »
explain the hawain islands. they have been formed over a hotspot in the earth's mantle and is clearly visible from the chain of islands and the tectonics movement

81
Flat Earth General / Re: Why do you think the Earth is round?
« on: June 19, 2009, 10:40:25 AM »
RET just makes more sense than FET.

Why's that? Because you've been brainwashed to feel comfortable with it?

1.Dark matter (exactly what is it?)
2.the edge (can people be propelled upward by UA?)
3.the other side ("nobody knows" is not a good pro argument)
4.the "shadow object" or "antimoon" (srsly?)
5.the ice wall (look out or the guards will get'cha)
6.the Super-Ultra-Powered Conspiracy of Satanism (again, srsly?)

Let's draw comparisons to RET, shall we?

1. Dark matter (exactly what is it?)
2. The intergalactic medium (could people live without a source of gravitation?)
3. The inside ("nobody knows" is not a good pro argument)
4. "Gravitons" and "black holes" (srsly?)
5. Antarctica (look out or the 200 K winters will getcha)
6. The Super-Ultra-Powered Space Race (again, srsly?)

But we're getting off topic here. This thread is not about why you don't believe in FET, it's about why you do believe in RET.

RS:
Strange that you are pursuing an education from a area you believe is lies. Obviously you haven't spoken up. So you are just as willing to suck up the concepts as we are.
Drunk as I am. Suck my cock you fucking lying penguin. What university do you attend?

Yeah... its banworhty and worth it.

82
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE is false because...
« on: June 19, 2009, 10:36:45 AM »
You know what? Ski is the only FEr's opinion I can actually respect. He is the only one to actually show some degree of rationalism in his discussions.

Ski: I applaud you.

83
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FET is creationism, nothing more.
« on: June 18, 2009, 05:21:40 PM »
When I read it synoptically with consideration of the cultural context of the publication, I thought, 'great job, Dr Rowbotham, a nod to religion will net you a far greater level of support from a large potential audience which might otherwise abhor you'.

Hmm. So you thought Rowbotham was (deliberately) lying, and you somehow knew he was lying. Yet you though it was OK for him to lie in order to aquire a following that might not have occured if Rowbotham had not lied. In todays cultural context we call that deception.

Interesting.

Same could be said for di vinci. He made many works for churches and many religious paintings, but inside them you can find many intentional discrepancies hinting at his more atheist view.

Dogplatter: So it's quite plausible that you would deceptively state FE evidence as factual when you knew it was a lie in order to gain a greater following? You've just condoned and possible endorsed this exact action.
It doesn't bode well for your credibility.

84
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of human intervention on the moon?
« on: June 18, 2009, 05:07:26 PM »
awww my scope is only 8 inches.

85
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the Sun hold together?
« on: June 18, 2009, 06:03:27 AM »
FAQ states SO causing phase  and eclipses.

Detection of created quarks. Quarks don't occur naturally. If your sun was composed of quarks the union would be rapid and total. E=MC2 does not describe a mechanism of heat generation. Please link any supporting evidence or please explain how you arrived at your chosen mechanism.

86
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the Sun hold together?
« on: June 18, 2009, 05:25:57 AM »
Opacity is a problem with <<32miles of atomic gas when we have hundreds of kilometers molecular gas and dust between us and the sun and we can see it just fine.

The SO causes lunar phases and lunar eclipses. Lunar phases have a totally opaque SO and lunar eclipses have a partially opaque SO. Sunspots are totally opaque.

Got any info on quarks existing outside nucleons or as a mode of heat generation?

87
Exactly. And I'm fine with the burden of proof being on me as long as they define the parameters of the experiment. That way any results provided can't be ignored.

88
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the Sun hold together?
« on: June 18, 2009, 05:08:20 AM »
Ok, you don't have any evidence for your heat generation mechanism. I don't believe quarks can exist outside nucleons. If you have evidence otherwise please let us know.
Opacity would be required in order for the spectral lines to match.
You mean that shadow object that isn't 100% opaque but appears so on the Sun's surface? You don't see a problem with the Sun swallowing pieces of the shadow object?
Is this an official flat earth position or just the most recent one to pop into your head?

As a side note RS, how is your physics course going? Have you managed to convince any of your lecturers of the errors of their ways? Discovered any evidence for your new laws of physics in the lab? Proved the existing laws wrong? Are you still enrolled?

89
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the Sun hold together?
« on: June 18, 2009, 04:46:48 AM »
So you don't actually have a mechanism for heat generation.
Your gaseous atomic coating would rapidly disperse and would need to be completely opaque. Considering the FE Sun is 32miles wide, it's ludicrous to suggest any coating at all could be opaque. Also ignoring x-ray imaging of the Sun. Sun spots, close up of solar cells

90
Yeah the real issue is for a FEr to contribute ideas. Otherwise they end up looking at the results and saying "oh but you didn't do it properly".

Might be able to clarify who are just trolling and those who can put in some effort.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 18