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 5 6
61
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Starflip
« on: October 13, 2015, 08:51:20 AM »
Quick question, if earth is flat then why do star constellations appear flipped horizontally in the southern hemisphere compared to northern and vice versa?

Now I must be careful, if you try to cite the bible you will not be taken seriously. This is not a debate so do not attack the question. If you do not understand it, I suggest you STFU and go debate someone else. Keep it short and simple, Thank you!


Take a portrait picture of someone and tape it to your ceiling.  From one side of the room, it will appear that the top of the person's head is at the top of your field of view.  From the opposite side of the room, it will appear that the top of their head is at the bottom.  I don't see what the problem is with constellations doing the same thing.

Yes, but my roof is only two dimensions, while space is 3D, this creates a problem. If we assume space is flat like a roof over earth then yes problem is gone, but that's not possible is it?


62
So, you agree that the atmoplanic distortion makes it impossible to see anything past a certain point?

Another win for the FE!

Id rather say its a conclusion for my theory: objects gets distorted when observed through a frozen video image screenshot of youtube.

So, what is the point of this thread, then?

If you don't know that I can't help you.

63
So, you agree that the atmoplanic distortion makes it impossible to see anything past a certain point?

Another win for the FE!

Id rather say its a conclusion for my theory: objects gets distorted when observed through a frozen video image screenshot of youtube.

64
Flat Earth Q&A / Starflip
« on: October 13, 2015, 06:32:08 AM »
Quick question, if earth is flat then why do star constellations appear flipped horizontally in the southern hemisphere compared to northern and vice versa?

Now I must be careful, if you try to cite the bible you will not be taken seriously. This is not a debate so do not attack the question. If you do not understand it, I suggest you STFU and go debate someone else. Keep it short and simple, Thank you!

65
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« on: October 13, 2015, 06:13:22 AM »
Typical RE'er: balls are attractive.

But they are, at least according to the Cavendish Experiment. I know it's a joke but hey, I'd rather be gay than dumb.

Typical FE: Earth must be flat because it looks flat up close.

66
You guys keep going back and forth on something that VW never even did.  VW never made that claim in marketing or otherwise.  It was Top Gear that made the claim.  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

It would have made it a lot easier for all of us if the OP had given a reference.  Regardless, who do you think provided those facts and figures?  VW, maybe?  So, my point still stands.

So VW provided incorrect facts and figures to Top Gear, a television program that was testing one of VW's cars to see if it can achieve a top speed of 253 mph.  Facts and figures that Top Gear would need to calculate if the top speed was possible on that track, exit speeds out of the last curve into the main straight, and at what point they would need to start braking to ensure they don't run the car off the end of the straight.  What exactly is the motive here for giving misleading info?  Marketing?  So people watching the segment on Top Gear are going to say "forget about this 1000 hp car VW engineered and built that can go faster than 250 mph, nah, I'm impressed on how long, flat, and straight that tarmac is, I'm going to buy a VW tomorrow."

VW provided incorrect facts and figures to the entire world, and now people will be going to jail for it.  Do you even read the news?

Entirely irrelevant to my post.

And your post was irrelevant to the thread.

What? What thread do you think you are in?  We are discussing the VW test track in this one.  My post was entirely about the VW test track.

I challenged the credibility of VW, or do you have a reading comprehension problem?  Perhaps rif.org might help?

No, my reading comprehension is just fine.  Are your debating skills entirely based on trying to discredit the person you are debating against?  Why not try and discuss the content of my post rather than try and pin a learning disability on me.

So, this is the conversation, as I see it.

OP: X corporation has this really cool track that proves the Earth is round.

me: X corporation lies and is not trustworthy

you: this conversation is not about whether they are trustworthy or not, it is about them giving you facts and figures

Do you see the problem here?

The problem is you have trust issues?  So once someone tells one lie, every other word that follows is also a lie? 

Explain why VW would lie to Top Gear about the dimensions of their track when the test of the car is depending on accurate dimensions.

You explain how Red Bull gives you wings.  Thanks.

Red bull giving one wings is a metaphore, but the bugatti veyron actually does 430km/h which top gear showed us, on a test track that need to be very accurate in dimentions to make the car go that fast. There is no logical problem here, only in the head of one who believes earth is flat. Please explain what the problem is.

67
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the FE explain tide?
« on: October 13, 2015, 03:13:36 AM »
chtwrone, thanks for your chart, I'll try and learn how to read it.

For all you "teachers", believing tides are caused by the moon's gravity, you are easily fooled.

"Seeing" the Earth and Moon to Scale
The moon is about 1.3 light-seconds away (240,000 miles). Here is a scale picture of the Earth-moon system, with the earth (actual diameter: 8,000 miles) represented by a circle just a little bigger than 1/8 inch:
 


Do you see the Earth and how big it is compared to the moon? You believe the moon's gravity is that much stronger than the Earth's gravity that it can actually pull the oceans away from the Earth, and you call yourselves "teachers". I wouldn't let you all teach my dog tricks.

It doesen't have to be "pulled away from earth's gravity" if you cared to do some research before you participate in a debate, this might be a place to start:

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr221/Gravity/tides.html

It was never the gravitational pull, but differensial forces which is a natural phenomenon caused by attracting forces. The neat thing is that they dont even have to be that strong because there is so much water, and more mass=stronger pull. At least if we can believe newton. This is why big lakes only experience a few millimeters.

And also the moon is about 30% the size of earth, it just seems small it is a few light seconds away. If it was 1/8 inch we would never even see it and it would certainly not be a moon.


Kogelblitz, did you do your research and can you prove that, "It was never the gravitational pull, but differensial forces?" Because this article doesn't agree with you, I thought I'd share it with you. By the way, the FAKE force talked about is your differensial force.
 
TIDES
It is true, the farther you are from a massive object, the less the gravitational force. So, the side of the Earth that isnít facing the moon has a lower gravitational force from the moon than the side facing the moon. Itís easy to claim that this causes the tides. Itís simple and easily digestible. However, the Earth has TWO tides. How do you explain the tide on the far side of the Earth?
 
     

In the above diagram (which is not even close to the correct scale), you can see both of the water bulges from the tides. There are some other important things in this picture. First, the red dot shows the center of mass of the Earth-moon system. If these two objects (Earth and moon) were the only things in the universe, they would both orbit around this center of mass. Second, the moon AND the Earth are both moving in circular orbits. It just so happens that the Earthís orbital radius is smaller than the radius of the Earth. The fact that the Earth is orbiting is important in an explanation of the tides. When an object moves in a circle, it is accelerating. And how do we handle being on an accelerating surface? The best way is to use a fake force? A fake force is a force that we like to add to a situation to account for an accelerating reference frame. Here is a quick example. Suppose you are in an elevator that is accelerating up.

 
 

There are only two real forces on you in this case. There is the gravitational force pulling down and the floor pushing up. The gravitational force doesnít change since your mass doesnít change. The floor has to push up with a larger force than gravity in order for you to accelerate up. However, in the frame of the elevator, it seems like you are at rest. So, in your mind (and in calculations) you can add this fake force pushing down. With the fake force, the net force is zero and you stay at rest (in the elevator). The same thing happens on the far side of the Earth. Since the Earth is moving in a circle (due to the orbit of the moon), this part of the Earth is accelerating towards the moon. The fake force for this acceleration would be in the opposite direction as the acceleration, so it would push AWAY from the moon. This is why there is a second tide. Yes, itís actually more complicated than that. The point is that it canít JUST be the differential gravitational force that causes the two tides. Consider the following experiment. Suppose that I take the Earth and the moon and tie a rope to each one like this:



Yes, you would need some serious ropes. But the point is that if the two objects are stationary then all the water on the Earth would be pulled towards the moon. It would just have water on one side. So, itís not JUST stronger gravity on one side.

Alpha2omega said it well so I wont add much, however I would like to say something about these "fake" forces. Just because its called a fake force does not mean it's not real. Example: centripetal acceleration creates a force called centrifugal force and it's called a fake force because all acceleration happens in the opposite direction, like when you get pushed to your car door while turning sharply. Even tho there is no force acting on you, you still feel it. Hope this helps to understand "fake" forces.

68
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the FE explain tide?
« on: October 12, 2015, 10:56:20 AM »
What would cause Earth to have this "breath"?
tThe energy of the earth itself which comes back to us through the sun.

Haha, you guys are hilarious! How do you  come up with this stuff? Can i borrow this? Haha fc it i'll steal it anyway ;D

69
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the FE explain tide?
« on: October 12, 2015, 10:15:21 AM »
chtwrone, thanks for your chart, I'll try and learn how to read it.

For all you "teachers", believing tides are caused by the moon's gravity, you are easily fooled.

"Seeing" the Earth and Moon to Scale
The moon is about 1.3 light-seconds away (240,000 miles). Here is a scale picture of the Earth-moon system, with the earth (actual diameter: 8,000 miles) represented by a circle just a little bigger than 1/8 inch:
 


Do you see the Earth and how big it is compared to the moon? You believe the moon's gravity is that much stronger than the Earth's gravity that it can actually pull the oceans away from the Earth, and you call yourselves "teachers". I wouldn't let you all teach my dog tricks.

It doesen't have to be "pulled away from earth's gravity" if you cared to do some research before you participate in a debate, this might be a place to start:

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr221/Gravity/tides.html

It was never the gravitational pull, but differensial forces which is a natural phenomenon caused by attracting forces. The neat thing is that they dont even have to be that strong because there is so much water, and more mass=stronger pull. At least if we can believe newton. This is why big lakes only experience a few millimeters.

And also the moon is about 30% the size of earth, it just seems small it is a few light seconds away. If it was 1/8 inch we would never even see it and it would certaintly not be a moon.


70

It would have made it a lot easier for all of us if the OP had given a reference.  Regardless, who do you think provided those facts and figures?  VW, maybe?  So, my point still stands.


So, uhh.. Volkswagen is run by NASA?

71
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the FE explain tide?
« on: October 12, 2015, 07:19:04 AM »

There is a constant but variable pressure of the atmosphere upon the surface of the earth and all the waters.

Thank you, my colleagues wanted to know what made me laugh out loud. Either it is constant, that is unchanging, or variable, that is always changing, pressure. These terms are incompatible.  Either you are terribly confused about what these terms mean, or your grammar was in serious error and you meant a constantly variable pressure. Which is it?

You and your colleagues must be a bunch of fifth graders. You can't figure out what constant but variable means. Let me put it this way, maybe you will understand. "the words coming from your mouth are constant but variable loudness." In other words, the pressure is always there but the pressure varies. Does that help you and your colleagues out. I hope you guys work as hair dressers.

Actually, stating that atmospheric pressure creates tides is stupid and funny. I showed it to my classmates and we all had a good laugh. Thanks for that! Your intelligence may vary, but stupid is constant ;D

72
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How old is the flat earth?
« on: October 11, 2015, 04:23:37 AM »
Then the earth is 6000 years old.

What is your thoughts on dinosaurs, Testify?

73
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disk Moon
« on: October 09, 2015, 03:35:09 PM »
Understand:

What matters is what causes the moon to be lit. It is not a luminous rock, that's ridiculous. It is part of the dome that covers the Earth, and the migratory route of the animals that live on the dome. Do you think life could only reach the floor of the disc? Climbing is easy. They live in darkness, so they remain lit. They move in a predictable path, a migration, and aren't all lit at once. We see the same group, which is why it looks similar, but different aspects light up at different times. Lunar eclipses are probably mating season, or some equivalent.
There is no moon per se, disc or otherwise.

What caused the moon to be lit? Good but wrong question, its not lit.
Take a rock, turn off the light, shine a flashlight on rock, can you see the rock? Good.

And no, there's no life on the moon, at least as we know it.

We are not discussing your fantasy Earth model and your bizarre moon, we are discussing the dome. Are you capable of having a discussion without bursting in with what is little more than "I'm right you're wrong na-na-na-na-naa!" or is that too hard for you?

I'm sorry if I missunderstood what you wrote. But in my defence I was simply stating that the moon is a rock, which we know. And the fact that we have NOT detected life on the moon, yet. Of course the moon being a rock is way more bizzare than it being luminecent animals mating in the sky. I get that now.

And you default to insults rather than any arguments. You assume your nonsensical floating-glowing-rock model, reject mine because you can't bear to question your assumptions, assume that space agencies are honest, and then bastardize my theory. It's pathetic. If you're so secure in your model why are you incapable of honest discussion?

Yet you seem eager to discuss, but I am incapable of discussing scientific matters with anti scientific people.

74
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« on: October 06, 2015, 01:42:10 PM »
No, just the stuff in it.  Which is what I said. ???

Alright I think I understand this now, this means we would experience the same accelerational force on every cosmic object, right?

75
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disk Moon
« on: October 06, 2015, 01:32:58 PM »
Understand:

What matters is what causes the moon to be lit. It is not a luminous rock, that's ridiculous. It is part of the dome that covers the Earth, and the migratory route of the animals that live on the dome. Do you think life could only reach the floor of the disc? Climbing is easy. They live in darkness, so they remain lit. They move in a predictable path, a migration, and aren't all lit at once. We see the same group, which is why it looks similar, but different aspects light up at different times. Lunar eclipses are probably mating season, or some equivalent.
There is no moon per se, disc or otherwise.

What caused the moon to be lit? Good but wrong question, its not lit.
Take a rock, turn off the light, shine a flashlight on rock, can you see the rock? Good.

And no, there's no life on the moon, at least as we know it.

We are not discussing your fantasy Earth model and your bizarre moon, we are discussing the dome. Are you capable of having a discussion without bursting in with what is little more than "I'm right you're wrong na-na-na-na-naa!" or is that too hard for you?

I'm sorry if I missunderstood what you wrote. But in my defence I was simply stating that the moon is a rock, which we know. And the fact that we have NOT detected life on the moon, yet. Of course the moon being a rock is way more bizzare than it being luminecent animals mating in the sky. I get that now.

76
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about global warming and flat earth theory
« on: October 06, 2015, 07:34:13 AM »
Sorry I was wrong. USA CO2 emission per capita by 2014 was 14th in the world. USA CO2 emission in per capita by 2010 was 8th in the world. Good job America.

And how do we get more data? we have to pay the scientists to do science work.


But science works in consensus, if a 97% of world scientists made the research and concluded that water is wet. 3% of reports where inconclusive, what do you think that means? water is most likely wet.

You are speaking as if you do not know what scientific research is. Of course they have to adjust the theory if the data suggests it, anything else would be cherry picking. I fail to see why this is wrong.
Global warming! !!!!
Co2 is a trace gas required gas for plant life to  synthesize carbohydrates .  What is wrong with you poor excuses for humans. Are you trying starve the population  of the world . With this scheme to tax anything & everything. Care to list wht dosen't contain carbon & wont be taxed?

So you admit the world is global?

Yes my biggest dresm is to starve the world. Take a chill pill dude, or I will starve you too.
Yes to top Carbon polluting we can tax it but its easier to pay the scientists directly to get the best and fast solutions to the problems we face.
Thats what your clown troop called it, now the same clowns call its climate change . What are you going to call it next week or the week after? The reality is thousands of tons of polluteing  aerosols have & still are being dumped in to the atmosphere , along with the use of harrp to charge theses particals. Climate change ? No!!! weather modification . Its more important for theses syhcopaths to  control the slave market., the world trade makets. . While they rape the earth & collect massive taxes for the bankster butt phucks. They dont  care about the earth & what inhabits it , only profits at any cost.

You are making this too complicated. Carbon blocks heat radiation, air heats up. Doesen't matter what its called.

77
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Does albatross migration prove a flat earth?
« on: October 06, 2015, 07:09:21 AM »
Very interesting, but I must ad that the conclusion is some what weak because too little data is included.
Also I noticed some questionable things.

From the article shown in video, it says the birds allways follow the west gong winds. Not the shortest way. And this requires detours of 10.000s km in 2-3 circumnavigations of antarctica.

When distances are compared, real paths are shown in global map but in flat map the paths are streched out to reach the shortest path possible. Which is not the case. I suspect some cherrypicking here but I might also be wrong.

78
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disk Moon
« on: October 05, 2015, 11:05:39 PM »
Understand:

What matters is what causes the moon to be lit. It is not a luminous rock, that's ridiculous. It is part of the dome that covers the Earth, and the migratory route of the animals that live on the dome. Do you think life could only reach the floor of the disc? Climbing is easy. They live in darkness, so they remain lit. They move in a predictable path, a migration, and aren't all lit at once. We see the same group, which is why it looks similar, but different aspects light up at different times. Lunar eclipses are probably mating season, or some equivalent.
There is no moon per se, disc or otherwise.

What caused the moon to be lit? Good but wrong question, its not lit.
Take a rock, turn off the light, shine a flashlight on rock, can you see the rock? Good.

And no, there's no life on the moon, at least as we know it.

79
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about global warming and flat earth theory
« on: October 05, 2015, 08:18:58 AM »
Sorry I was wrong. USA CO2 emission per capita by 2014 was 14th in the world. USA CO2 emission in per capita by 2010 was 8th in the world. Good job America.

And how do we get more data? we have to pay the scientists to do science work.


But science works in consensus, if a 97% of world scientists made the research and concluded that water is wet. 3% of reports where inconclusive, what do you think that means? water is most likely wet.

You are speaking as if you do not know what scientific research is. Of course they have to adjust the theory if the data suggests it, anything else would be cherry picking. I fail to see why this is wrong.
Global warming! !!!!
Co2 is a trace gas required gas for plant life to  synthesize carbohydrates .  What is wrong with you poor excuses for humans. Are you trying starve the population  of the world . With this scheme to tax anything & everything. Care to list wht dosen't contain carbon & wont be taxed?

So you admit the world is global?

Yes my biggest dresm is to starve the world. Take a chill pill dude, or I will starve you too.
Yes to top Carbon polluting we can tax it but its easier to pay the scientists directly to get the best and fast solutions to the problems we face.

80
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Astronomical Objects
« on: October 05, 2015, 08:08:47 AM »

How is it not? Look at the path of day over the Earth's surface.

It would look the same if the heliocentric model was true.

81
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about global warming and flat earth theory
« on: October 04, 2015, 11:30:24 AM »
Sorry I was wrong. USA CO2 emission per capita by 2014 was 14th in the world. USA CO2 emission in per capita by 2010 was 8th in the world. Good job America.

And how do we get more data? we have to pay the scientists to do science work.


But science works in consensus, if a 97% of world scientists made the research and concluded that water is wet. 3% of reports where inconclusive, what do you think that means? water is most likely wet.

You are speaking as if you do not know what scientific research is. Of course they have to adjust the theory if the data suggests it, anything else would be cherry picking. I fail to see why this is wrong.


82
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about global warming and flat earth theory
« on: October 04, 2015, 10:26:45 AM »

Feeling less than convinced that you were even taught how to read. Try again.

If you like science, how about an experiment? Past papers are available online. How about you look up a few science papers, and see how much is based on the scientific method, and how much is based on "Accept these 'facts'" or "Regurgitate these 'facts'"

sorry about that, English is not my native language.

Well yes of course you are going to be presented facts, but never without citing from other scientific papers.

83
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Astronomical Objects
« on: October 04, 2015, 10:22:16 AM »
On a disc, all the world faces the same direction. Why is this so hard to understand?

Its hard to understand because you provide no observations which supports your statement.


I said the Earth does not rotate around the Sun, which is obvious.

Why is this obvious?

Gotta say, I don't think you know what a dome (or a disc for that matter) is.

I know what dome and disc is. My question was quote: "Why is it obvious?"

84
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about global warming and flat earth theory
« on: October 04, 2015, 10:18:26 AM »
We agree on most things, but i think you perhaps miss read the statistics. USA is the 8th most polluting country per capita, i havent changed my argument but added facts. But that is not even relevant for the discussion.

Of course we have to fix the theory is it is wrong, what do you mean this is wrong?
How else would we find a more accurate theory?
Do you not believe in mainstream science?

Sorry a lot of questions but you didn't quite answer this last one, Do you believe earth is flat or spherical?

85
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« on: October 04, 2015, 10:04:48 AM »
1.Relative to us, earth.
But the FE is accelerating along with the rest of the stuff inside the universe... ???

Quote
2. No you don't understand. Its not the whole universe that's accelerating, but earth.
No, I don't think you understand.

Quote
3. Do you understand physics?
Yes.  Quite well.

Quote
accelerating for 4.5 billion years for about 9.8 m/s^2 will take you to 99.999999999999....% speed of light.
Like I said, we are infinitely far way from the speed of light.

Quote
this means objects in space must be shortened close to zero in length, since we can see the rest of the universe, we must conclude we are not traveling very close to light speed.
Except they are in the same frame of reference as us, so, no.

Quote
check the math, it works
 
I know the math works.  That's why I just did it for you.

So, the only way that can be correct was if the entire universe was accelerating with the earth in the exact same direction.

86
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Astronomical Objects
« on: October 04, 2015, 10:01:36 AM »
On a disc, all the world faces the same direction. Why is this so hard to understand?

Its hard to understand because you provide no observations which supports your statement.


I said the Earth does not rotate around the Sun, which is obvious.

Why is this obvious?

87
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!
« on: October 04, 2015, 09:46:12 AM »
FE Hypothesis:
The FE is accelerating.

Consequence:
Earth must be traveling at close to light speed if acceleration have been constant for billions of years. c = 3*10^8m/s Light Speed
Hmm, let's work this one out.  Let's say the FE has been accelerating at 9.81m/s^2 for 4.5 billion years.  How long would it take to reach the speed of light?

Some quick math in my head:
...speed of light...4.5 billion years...carry the 1...got it!
We are infinitely far away from the speed of light!  Whew, good thing the math worked out on that one!

Quote
Test:
1. Get a telescope.
2. Look at universe, different objects in space.
3. Is universe passing by at relative speed close to c?.
Uh, but you are in the universe.  I think you don't understand frames of reference.

Quote
during 100% of the tests with a total10 observations, universe was relatively stationary.
Relative to what, you?  Lolz.

1.Relative to us, earth.

2. No you don't understand. Its not the whole universe that's accelerating, but earth.

3. Do you understand physics? I'm sure you do since you are an engineer.
accelerating for 4.5 billion years for about 9.8 m/s^2 will take you to 99.999999999999....% speed of light. this means objects in space must be shortened close to zero in length, since we can see the rest of the universe, we must conclude we are not traveling very close to light speed.

check the math, it works:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/uniform_accel.htm

88
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about global warming and flat earth theory
« on: October 04, 2015, 09:31:01 AM »
Never have my physics, chemistry, thermodynamics or any science teachers presented facts before method. They have first presented the scientific method and then described what that indicates. They have all stressed how important the scientific method is, and why its such a powerful tool. Never have I met a scientist or science teacher who is not willing to discuss with an open mind. But if you mention flat earth, he will most likely laugh at you because that debate ended with invention of the telescope. I don't know where you are from but i'm guessing USA? Your science classroom isn't actually science when you teach intelligent design, just saying. and yes everyone can gain a doctorate regardless of what you believe, even Ken Ham has got one.

Never mind where I'm from. Go into a class, take a science test. Tell me how much is on what you call facts, and how much is on the way to think to reach conclusions. No matter what you claim, we're not taught the method you claim is so important, or claim we're taught: the emphasis is on telling us what to think, dissent crushed.

If you weren't taught the scientific method in science class I feel sorry for you and your school.
If there was a test about facts then it wouldn't be a real science test. More like a test of basic knowledge.

Science class in my school was to learn about the mindsetting of the method. We were never tested and required to know facts, they come naturally when the method is understood and applied to reading a theory. We were asked to analyse data and write scientific documents about the data, Mathematical calculations about the theory and so on. Facts were merely a result of further interest in the subject.

89
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Astronomical Objects
« on: October 04, 2015, 09:18:53 AM »
Yes! Why is it plausible to believe earth is flat when astronomical objects are round? I will not accept citings from the bible as facts.

Hurt the model a little more before you declare victory, ok?
I don't understand this question. The earth is a dome encompassing astromical objects. It is not the same as any of them: it exists below them as a disc, and around them, and it supports life unlike any of them. Why should it be similar?

Sorry if I was unclear. Its more a question to ask your self.
By accepting the Heliocentric worldview you have to accept earth is a planet. Because how likely is it that a flat disc is flying around the sun, when we don't observe any other flat discs orbiting the sun?

Let me try to make my answer clearer. The Earth is not a flat disc flying around the Sun, the Sun and all the planets are objects above the flat disc of the Earth. The Earth has next to nothing in common. It has life, for example. Heliocentrism is nonsense.

Earth have rocks, Mars, Venus, Mercury also have rocks. Earth has water, Mars, Enceladus and Europa has water. Earth has an atmosphere, Mars, Venus and Titan also have atmospheres. Earth has life, we haven't found extra terrestrial life yet but we haven't looked much either.

Look through a telescope. You will see objects revolving around the sun, not earth. Geocentrism therefore can not be correct.

Gonna stick with what I said before. If your argument is "they both have rocks" you have nothing. There's more than one kind of rock, gas: and you only get revolution around the Sun if you treat the Earth as round. The entire system is different when you do the honest thing and look at the consquences of a flat Earth. Everything is above the Earth and contained in the dome, not either side of a globe.

I know your mind is made. I cannot make you see, I can only tell you what to look for. You have to do the math. By that I recommend you buy a telescope and look at the planets. You will see that they are in orbit around our sun. Hell, even the planets have their own satellites just look at Jupiter. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong.

90
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Astronomical Objects
« on: October 04, 2015, 08:58:00 AM »
Yes! Why is it plausible to believe earth is flat when astronomical objects are round? I will not accept citings from the bible as facts.

Hurt the model a little more before you declare victory, ok?
I don't understand this question. The earth is a dome encompassing astromical objects. It is not the same as any of them: it exists below them as a disc, and around them, and it supports life unlike any of them. Why should it be similar?

Sorry if I was unclear. Its more a question to ask your self.
By accepting the Heliocentric worldview you have to accept earth is a planet. Because how likely is it that a flat disc is flying around the sun, when we don't observe any other flat discs orbiting the sun?

Let me try to make my answer clearer. The Earth is not a flat disc flying around the Sun, the Sun and all the planets are objects above the flat disc of the Earth. The Earth has next to nothing in common. It has life, for example. Heliocentrism is nonsense.

Earth have rocks, Mars, Venus, Mercury also have rocks. Earth has water, Mars, Enceladus and Europa has water. Earth has an atmosphere, Mars, Venus and Titan also have atmospheres. Earth has life, we haven't found extra terrestrial life yet but we haven't looked much either.

Look through a telescope. You will see objects revolving around the sun, not earth. Geocentrism therefore can not be correct.

I've never held a mercury rock.  Have you, or anyone you know of?  What makes you think you can know what something is made of by looking through a telescope?  Perhaps it is your arrogance?

No I don't think so, but this guy might have.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/31/mercury-meteorite-green-rock-morocco_n_2979678.html

Also light spectrum analysis tells us what objects are made of.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6