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 - Kogelblitz

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
31
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellites and their use in flat earth theory?
« on: October 18, 2015, 10:49:33 AM »
I did not say it was evidence, since you claimed I was lying, I simply claimed you was. It's your word against mine and vica versa. Btw I am convinced earth is very much flat.

32
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellites and their use in flat earth theory?
« on: October 18, 2015, 10:10:59 AM »
Satelites are real guys, just watch the sky between dusk or down hours. Slowly drifting points of light is what you will see, use binoculars and you will see antennas, and solar panels.

Understand the concept of a lie before you embarass yourself. It's impossible to make out any detail on those pinpricks of light, everyone admits that. Even if they were large enough and close enough to be seen, the speed they move at along with how little you can see through a telescope renders the aim impossible. You might glance it, but as it wouldn't look like what you'd expect, you'd assume you saw something different.
You're being lied to. Accept it, admit it, and move on.

Allright it's a lie, but wait a minute maybe you are the one who is lying.

33
Gotta say, round Earther tactics are getting worse and worse. Classic fallacy of the argument from exhaustion, and then a refusal to engage or discuss when someone actually does dedicate the (likely wasted) time to answering.
My compliments adn admiration to the Engineer, I doubt I'd have the patience.

It's because they know they can't win.

34
Flat Earth General / Re: Antarctic scientists are drunks
« on: October 18, 2015, 09:54:34 AM »
Did you read the article or just the headline? Alcohol abuse could be a sign of darkness depression as a result of 24 hours darkness. how was this possible on flat earth again? I forgot because you have so many different answers, escuse me.

35
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Starflip
« on: October 18, 2015, 09:30:28 AM »
Bring Up My Post

Jroa it would be satisfying if you could answer the simplest questions and not troll away when cornered in an argument. Do you know there are actually people on this site who cares about flat earth? Try not to ruin this forum for them, thank you in advance.


36
It's not a theory.

37
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellites and their use in flat earth theory?
« on: October 18, 2015, 09:07:44 AM »
Satelites are real guys, just watch the sky between dusk or down hours. Slowly drifting points of light is what you will see, use binoculars and you will see antennas, and solar panels.

38
Bump for general interest.

39
Hi round earther, I will attempt to answer all Q's.
Sorry in advance for bad grammar, English is not my native tongue.

1. Because they are spherical.
2. I agree thatís weird.
3. Saturn looks kind of round to me. The rings are flat, of course.
4. I don't know.
5. Jupiter also looks pretty round.
6. Because they are behind the sun.
7. Good question, it is of course, more likely that earth is not special.
8. Again, it's very unlikely that earth is special. Science hates special.
9. On a spherical surface, the shortest path between two points is always an arc. This is why we see them as parts of greater circles when projected on a flat surface.
10. Because they are in orbit, that way their image of the world is pretty close to complete spherical.
11. It is simply the earth rotating away from the light source, our sun.
12. The continent, in which some people call the ice wall, is simply Antarctica.
13. Great speed will cause an object to overcome the "acceleration" just like newtons canons shows.
14. 14 million square kilimeters
15. Yes, by air photograph. Also scientists are living on Antarctica.
16. Not sure if correctly interpreted, I think the basic principle of a lence is a small point for light to penetrate, and then be projected on a sheet directly behind. The image will be disstorted and upside down, of course.
17. I dont even know if that is possible.
18. No, but some may have.
19. Yes.
20. They are not.
21. There are plenty of pictures of earth.
22. Seasons are when a parts of the surface of earth gets less/more sunlight.
23. The moon does not rotate, but yes it is orbit and light.
24. tides are pert of a phenomenon caused by gravity, the same phenomenon is what causes the moon to be in gravitational "lock".
25. They are only kind of round, a perfect sphere is only theoretical.
26. Because they are in orbit.
27. You ask very complex questions, sorry I cant anwer that.
28. No.
29. Graviy.
30. No, earths crust.
31. Again, gravity.
32. Read answer 9.
33. No.

40
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA faked Europa with a frying pan
« on: October 16, 2015, 11:42:33 AM »
Not sure if that was for me, but I'd change my mind if I was proven otherwise, would you? and that picture was mine sorry the failed link. Is it possible to upload?

41
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity's Special Pleading
« on: October 16, 2015, 11:31:00 AM »
Not sure if I understand, could you give me an example of patchwork of special pleading regarding the theory of gravlty?
I'm assuming you are talking about the most accurately described general theory of relativity by Einstein 1915.

42
Flat Earth Debate / Great News !
« on: October 16, 2015, 11:19:57 AM »
Earth is flat!

43
We accept it for different reasons. I simply realized how flawed the principle of science is (everything is based on what was claimed by people centuries ago. Normally centuries old notions would be rejected as archaic traditions or fantasy stories: instead modern sciences teaches and builds on these claims without room for questions). It's simple to observe the Earth is flat.

Flat earth is a much older world view.
How exactly do you observe earth is flat?

You're comparing apples and oranges. the idea of a flat world is very old, but there was no science at that time. RE theory came about a little later, still predating science, but no one questioned it, and it developed by that flawed basis.
Look out a window sometime.

its more like the birth of science through astronomy, but yes.
So if, and only if we lived on a sphere with a diameter of 6000 km, we could see curvature from sea level?

44
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA faked Europa with a frying pan
« on: October 16, 2015, 09:49:20 AM »
There are at least three frying pans in orbit around Jupiter. According to my own observation

45
We accept it for different reasons. I simply realized how flawed the principle of science is (everything is based on what was claimed by people centuries ago. Normally centuries old notions would be rejected as archaic traditions or fantasy stories: instead modern sciences teaches and builds on these claims without room for questions). It's simple to observe the Earth is flat.

Flat earth is a much older world view.
How exactly do you observe earth is flat?

46
Flat Earth General / Re: Antarctic scientists are drunks
« on: October 16, 2015, 08:33:53 AM »
Antarctica is populated by drunks.  Next time you people tell me that people have seen this or that in Antarctica, I will ask if they also saw pink elephants and point to this article, lol. 

http://www.wired.com/2015/10/scientists-antarctica-drink-lot-maybe-much/

What, drunk people can't do great things?
Did you know Beethoven was drunk? Are you implying he was a bad composer?
Van Gogh certaintly was very much drunk, you are basically saying he was a bad painter.

Mikhail Gorbatsjov was drunkest of them all, and he ended the cold war and freed Berlin. You are saying that was a bad thing. Why would you say that, are you really that evil? Why do you hate freedom and human rights?

47
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Struggling to understand...help?
« on: October 16, 2015, 08:07:24 AM »
You roundies are like little naive children.
That's an insult to children!

No children were harmed in the making of this thread.

How is this relevant to the topic. Just go home drunk, you're troll.

48
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Starflip
« on: October 16, 2015, 04:13:50 AM »
I suppose you missed the part where he said that the instruments need to be, "super super accurate," because otherwise, you will not measure anything.  Or the part where he said that you can only do this for a small amount of stars.  Perhaps you should watch your own video.  Next, you will probably be spouting stuff about red shift and claiming that anyone with a few brain cells can measure it.  ::)

The point was not to have accurate measurements, it was to show stars are very very very far away. But I realize now that you are fooling me to derail the topic.

I hope you see, that we don't have to accept how far away stars are to answer my question.
Anyone with more brain cells than you apparently, understands that if stars disappeared when we move along earth's surface, because they got too far away to see, they would not set below the horizon but they would slowly fade away while still in the sky, of course.


I see that you, once again, are ignoring the claim in your own video that said, "You have to have super, super accurate instruments in order to measure anything."  Why do you keep ignoring this, and keep insisting that anyone can perform these measurements?

Anyone can, but if course if you want accurate data you need accurate instruments. Now why don't stars fade?

It's not just about accuracy, it is also about detection.  If you can't detect something, then why would you harp on about accuracy?

No it's not about accuracy at all.
Haha wow, funny guy since you are the one getting hung up on te method not being accurate.

But yeah you didn't answer my question which was: why dont stars fade slowly, but rapidly dissapear below the horizon? Surely if they were converging like railroad tracks they would do exactly that, converge. Not rapidly pop in and out of view?

49
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Starflip
« on: October 14, 2015, 10:51:32 PM »
I suppose you missed the part where he said that the instruments need to be, "super super accurate," because otherwise, you will not measure anything.  Or the part where he said that you can only do this for a small amount of stars.  Perhaps you should watch your own video.  Next, you will probably be spouting stuff about red shift and claiming that anyone with a few brain cells can measure it.  ::)

The point was not to have accurate measurements, it was to show stars are very very very far away. But I realize now that you are fooling me to derail the topic.

I hope you see, that we don't have to accept how far away stars are to answer my question.
Anyone with more brain cells than you apparently, understands that if stars disappeared when we move along earth's surface, because they got too far away to see, they would not set below the horizon but they would slowly fade away while still in the sky, of course.


I see that you, once again, are ignoring the claim in your own video that said, "You have to have super, super accurate instruments in order to measure anything."  Why do you keep ignoring this, and keep insisting that anyone can perform these measurements?

Anyone can, but if course if you want accurate data you need accurate instruments. Now why don't stars fade?

50
Tell me round Earthers, if I pasted all of Earth Not A Globe into a forum topic, would you take the time to respond to each in turn?
Or are you just going to be hypocrites?

I gave references to where answers could be found. To someone who offers no clarification on an inexplicable question, and has not spent time even skimming the FAQ, there's nothing to say. They're wasting time, not trying to learn.

I'd love to see that thread  ;D

51
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Starflip
« on: October 14, 2015, 10:58:36 AM »
I suppose you missed the part where he said that the instruments need to be, "super super accurate," because otherwise, you will not measure anything.  Or the part where he said that you can only do this for a small amount of stars.  Perhaps you should watch your own video.  Next, you will probably be spouting stuff about red shift and claiming that anyone with a few brain cells can measure it.  ::)

The point was not to have accurate measurements, it was to show stars are very very very far away. But I realize now that you are fooling me to derail the topic.

I hope you see, that we don't have to accept how far away stars are to answer my question.
Anyone with more brain cells than you apparently, understands that if stars disappeared when we move along earth's surface, because they got too far away to see, they would not set below the horizon but they would slowly fade away while still in the sky, of course.

52
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the FE explain tide?
« on: October 14, 2015, 10:45:59 AM »
Me thinks tides are more a matter of geology than the Round Earth fantasy. No Round Earther can even explain tides, and I've tried to get them to. It's become a thread filled with Round Earthers quabbling among themselves, lying, ignoring responses, contradicting one another and themselves, evading and pretending not to understand.
The moon has nothing to do with tides. if the gravity model is accurate, the far stronger force of the Sun shoudl outweigh it.

No, tides are the work of simple geology. Put some water in a bowl, slosh it: look. It's the same thing, just on a large scale.


What causes the large scale sloshing then?

53
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Starflip
« on: October 14, 2015, 10:15:54 AM »

1.   Still works on a flat surface. Square surface. Round surface. Spherical surface. Every surface you can stand on. And its not a gimmick, its just mathematics, but it's okay if you don't understand, I know it can be confusing.
2.   To get accurate results you need accurate instruments, to get an estimate you only need instruments. And my point was merely to show you that stars are more than a few thousand kilometers away.
3.   If you must, then I will gladly accept it, Iíll pay the shipping ;D But I must inform you that it's very hard to measure these angles with only eyes yo observe.
4.   What? No, this sums up nothing, did you watch the video?

54
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Starflip
« on: October 14, 2015, 09:17:40 AM »
I am not suprised just a little disapointed that no flat earther can give me an answer. Maybe the question is hard to understand, so let me ask something else in the same cathegory.

What?  I gave you an answer in reply #1.  You not understanding an answer is not the same thing as you not receiving an answer. 

What is the reason some constallations are only visible in the southern hemisphere, and some only in the northern?

Jroa if this is hard then I must simplify for your own needs. Why do stars pop in and out of view below horizon when observer is moving?

If you are in the northern hemiplane, then some of the constellations that can be seen from the southern hemiplane are simply too far to see.

Haha no sorry, a few thousand kilometers will have no effect at all on several light years.

Wait what? Hemisplane what is that?

Who said anything about light years? ???

Astronomers. By using the parallax in earth's orbit astronomers calculate different stars in our galaxy to be between a few and a hundred light years. ;D

Oh, I see.  You are just blindly repeating the lies you have been told.

Not quite, this is something everyone with a telescope and some brain cells can figure out.

I have a telescope packed in a box somewhere and a few brain cells.  Please, tell me how I can determine the distance to the stars.  Thanks.

I am so glad you ask ;D

This guy is better at explaining than me so please watch this.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

No advanced math of physics is needed, high school level will me more than enough.
Stellar Parallax rely on one basic principle, that distances appear shorter from far away.
Example:
1. When you drive fast, close objects will appear faster than objects far away.
2. Railroad tracks seem to get closer together in the distance.
When this is understood we can use it as a tool in our physics:
The basic method is to measure the angle shift of a star as earth moves over a distance in space. You can use this angle and the distance earth has traveled. apply some fancy trigonometry and you get a rough estimate of the distance to the star. Its not hard at all, but requires a lot of dedication.

Hope this was helpful  ;D

55
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Starflip
« on: October 14, 2015, 08:02:10 AM »
I am not suprised just a little disapointed that no flat earther can give me an answer. Maybe the question is hard to understand, so let me ask something else in the same cathegory.

What?  I gave you an answer in reply #1.  You not understanding an answer is not the same thing as you not receiving an answer. 

What is the reason some constallations are only visible in the southern hemisphere, and some only in the northern?

Jroa if this is hard then I must simplify for your own needs. Why do stars pop in and out of view below horizon when observer is moving?

If you are in the northern hemiplane, then some of the constellations that can be seen from the southern hemiplane are simply too far to see.

Haha no sorry, a few thousand kilometers will have no effect at all on several light years.

Wait what? Hemisplane what is that?

Who said anything about light years? ???

Astronomers. By using the parallax in earth's orbit astronomers calculate different stars in our galaxy to be between a few and a hundred light years. ;D

Oh, I see.  You are just blindly repeating the lies you have been told.

Not quite, this is something everyone with a telescope and some brain cells can figure out.

56
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Starflip
« on: October 14, 2015, 07:45:24 AM »
I am not suprised just a little disapointed that no flat earther can give me an answer. Maybe the question is hard to understand, so let me ask something else in the same cathegory.

What?  I gave you an answer in reply #1.  You not understanding an answer is not the same thing as you not receiving an answer. 

What is the reason some constallations are only visible in the southern hemisphere, and some only in the northern?

Jroa if this is hard then I must simplify for your own needs. Why do stars pop in and out of view below horizon when observer is moving?

If you are in the northern hemiplane, then some of the constellations that can be seen from the southern hemiplane are simply too far to see.

Haha no sorry, a few thousand kilometers will have no effect at all on several light years.

Wait what? Hemisplane what is that?

Who said anything about light years? ???

Astronomers. By using the parallax in earth's orbit astronomers calculate different stars in our galaxy to be between a few and a hundred light years. ;D

57
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Starflip
« on: October 14, 2015, 07:29:51 AM »
I am not suprised just a little disapointed that no flat earther can give me an answer. Maybe the question is hard to understand, so let me ask something else in the same cathegory.

What?  I gave you an answer in reply #1.  You not understanding an answer is not the same thing as you not receiving an answer. 

What is the reason some constallations are only visible in the southern hemisphere, and some only in the northern?

Jroa if this is hard then I must simplify for your own needs. Why do stars pop in and out of view below horizon when observer is moving?

If you are in the northern hemiplane, then some of the constellations that can be seen from the southern hemiplane are simply too far to see.

Haha no sorry, a few thousand kilometers will have no effect at all on several light years.

Wait what? Hemisplane what is that?

58
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Starflip
« on: October 14, 2015, 12:55:28 AM »
I am not suprised just a little disapointed that no flat earther can give me an answer. Maybe the question is hard to understand, so let me ask something else in the same cathegory.

What is the reason some constallations are only visible in the southern hemisphere, and some only in the northern?

Jroa if this is hard then I must simplify for your own needs. Why do stars pop in and out of view below horizon when observer is moving?

59
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Starflip
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:52:55 AM »
If you actually have 3D vision, then you can see the back side of something, as well as the front side.  Please don't make yourself look so dumb.

Why do you care what i look like, u gay or something?
Yes I can see behind things, everyone with two eyes can. I can see behind thin objects if I tilt head to make eyes axis normal to the objects axis. And why can't you answer a simple question? Is your brain damaged? Can you even read this?

Btw 3D sight has nothing what so ever to do with my original question.

60
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Starflip
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:53:05 AM »
People only see in 2 dimensions.  Your brain is programmed to interpret the 2D pictures and perceive a 3D image, which you do not actually see.  It is the same when you look at stars or look at a portrait on the ceiling.  Please, try harder not to be wrong all the time.

Wow, how rude are you?

Sorry if I offended you with my question.

I actually have 3D sight, this is because I have more than 1 eye. Not that this have got anything to do with my problem, as we would observe the same thing with a camera or one eye.

Space isn't just a flat roof just over our heads, it is the volume of all things surrounding us streching maybe infinitely far away.

So I ask again maybe someone else might care to actually read the top post, why do constallations appear flipped horizontaly when observed from oposite hemispheres?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6