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 - Blue_Moon

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28
61
Flat Earth Debate / Re: casual conversation about space
« on: July 15, 2016, 04:12:58 PM »
As a fairly avid watcher of shows like NOVA and Vsauce, I can say that science is pretty awesome.  But it doesn't reach the conclusions that Flat Earthers like, so it must be corrupt and fraudulent.
Translates to you saying. "As an avid watcher of star trek and star wars, I can say that science is pretty awesome. But it doesn't reach the conclusions that flat Earther's like, so it must be corrupt and fraudulent."

Warp speed enterprises are probably good to watch for trekkies, but they don't form any true science, except for those that fantasise about it being true.

*puuuuuuffffffffffff*

Scepti, do you believe in magnetism?
Yes I do.

Really?  Why?  You can't see it; you can only see its effects.  It's just an invisible space force. 

62
Flat Earth Debate / Re: casual conversation about space
« on: July 15, 2016, 04:07:23 PM »
As a fairly avid watcher of shows like NOVA and Vsauce, I can say that science is pretty awesome.  But it doesn't reach the conclusions that Flat Earthers like, so it must be corrupt and fraudulent.
Translates to you saying. "As an avid watcher of star trek and star wars, I can say that science is pretty awesome. But it doesn't reach the conclusions that flat Earther's like, so it must be corrupt and fraudulent."

Warp speed enterprises are probably good to watch for trekkies, but they don't form any true science, except for those that fantasise about it being true.

*puuuuuuffffffffffff*

Scepti, do you believe in magnetism?

63
Flat Earth Debate / Re: casual conversation about space
« on: July 15, 2016, 03:53:00 PM »
As a fairly avid watcher of shows like NOVA and Vsauce, I can say that science is pretty awesome.  But it doesn't reach the conclusions that Flat Earthers like, so it must be corrupt and fraudulent. 

64
Science Lesson #7 

Shills work for less than 1 potato.

I work for exactly zero potatoes, so that makes sense.  If we don't get paid, are we still shills?

65
Flat Earth General / Re: A month on this website
« on: July 14, 2016, 07:12:27 PM »
Blue moon: I feel like an ignored child here.


Heh.  When you have arguments as solid and informed as mine, you can't expect everyone to keep up  ;D

66
Flat Earth General / Re: tropic of capricorn
« on: July 14, 2016, 06:22:40 PM »
:'( ::) ::) >:( ;) :'( :'( :-* :-[ :-[ :P :P 8) :o :o ::)

Thank you, Hoppy.  Now we know all the emojis work. 

67
Everybody!  Come watch the Anarchist deny any legitimacy of sociology, ignore attempts to reason, try to push his delusional worldview on everyone else, and then call us shills!  All provided in convenient "science" "lessons!"

68

69
Science lesson #4:   

Human beings have only 1 brain MAXIMUM --- if at all. 

CORROLARY:  Human beings do not have the ability to telepathically read the minds of other human beings.

You really need to brush up on your sociology. 

70
Flat Earth General / Re: Rare Events
« on: July 12, 2016, 02:26:59 PM »

I know the Earth is not a globe because the model is not cohesive. Even beyond heat and light, no curvature has ever been detected. The Bedford Level Experiment is only one example, you can find accounts of many similar observations on this forum, of things that should not have been visible if the world was round, and yet they are rejected only because the round earthers believe the world is round.
Discounting all space exploration, seismology, navigation, weather, astronomy, and the like?  Your argument boils down to "the earth looks flat, so it must be flat, and everything must be a lie."  News flash: The earth does look flat, but only because it is huge.  The BLE has gotten multiple conflicting results, and the only people still performing it are Flat Earth sympathizers with obvious agendas. 

71
Flat Earth General / Re: The Caloric Field and Heat
« on: July 12, 2016, 02:18:59 PM »
Heat is caused by the vibration of molecules: that is, velocity. It is a velocity in multiple directions, as objects with heat do not simply crawl away in a certain direction, so there must be an acceleration acting constantly on any object.
That is every molecule of an object is accelerating at any given moment. The house you're in, and its tremendous mass, are accelerating at every second of every minute of every hour of every day.

Where does the force and so energy required for this come from?

The interaction with a quantum field, which I have termed the caloric field, is the only explanation.
(Light is a very similar principle: it too is just vibration, like all waves).
Mass is just an interaction with a quantum field, why do so many believe it is impossible for anything else to be similar?

Not exactly.  As I understand it, heat comes from internal kinetic energy; that is, molecules vibrating more or less in place.  They are held in place by their bonds with other atoms.  There is no organization to the vibrations, so the atoms vibrate in all different directions, resulting in zero net momentum due to heat.  No external field is required, because the momentum cancels out. 

72
Flat Earth General / Re: Rare Events
« on: July 12, 2016, 02:09:27 PM »
Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Therein lies your problem,  the Bedford Level Experiment proved the Earth's Curvature,   In fact it was taught in schools as proof of curvature, up until satellite images became available.

The Definitive Bedford Level Experiment was done by Henry Yule Oldham. 

"Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[5][6] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[7] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available."

In any event,  an experiment which is subject to errors of method and interpretation,  is not  the same logically, as  crossing a continent,  you either crossed it or you didn't,  No room for systemic error or interpretation. 

As I said before,  Tiddles brain function seems to be impaired.  He keeps bringing up things long since dismissed by the rest of the flat earth community.

Why is it you only accept the experiment if it does not show a flat Earth? Where is the consistency?
As discussed, the path of the sun with multiple measurements at different times and locations along with measured distances prove a round earth.

If you really believe the earth is flat why do distances, particularly in the southern hemisphere, not plot correctly on a flat earth map, if it existed?

Ships going over the horizon show the earth is round.
I responded to you when you said that before.
Everything fades in the distance, ships are not special. It means nothing.
Nice try, but you know you are wrong and can show no evidence of distances fitting on a flat earth map.

Please add something substantive if you wish to continue this conversation,
Please supply details of a recent BLE and a verified flat earth map.  With those we can have a meaningful discussion.

Please supply details of a successful, recent trans-Antarctic crossing, as well as a map of the earth that you have created yourself, and the means to detect manufactured spatial distortions. The first two are only fair, as they are what you ask of me, and the last is required if I am to do what you ask.
I am not asking for you to produce a map but to provide one that must exist to show a flat earth.  Are you aware of incorrect distances that would show the earth not to be round?
How am I to provide a map without producing one? There are many flat earth maps, to determine which is accurate would require all the same stages as mapping out the earth myself. It is further complicated by the aforementioned manufactured distortions, which ensure the difficulty of getting an accurate picture.
The only distances we are told are those that are in line with the lie. I cannot refute propaganda with only that same propaganda.

So, you're saying you have nothing better than the projections of the globe, and the only reason you think those projections are wrong is because you think the earth is flat.  Why?  Everything about the globe is entirely cohesive, and nothing about Antarctica crossings or Bedford Level "Experiments" will change that. 

73
Science lesson #3:   

Describing the concurrent action of multiple individuals as if they were all 1 individual is lying, at best and completely-fucking-ignorant-and-damaging at its worst.

You call this "science," yet present no reason or evidence.  It's just opinion, and not very informed opinion at that. 

74
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Prove FE
« on: July 11, 2016, 09:29:06 PM »
Too bad you can't debate me.   :(

Because you can't hold a conversation. 

75
Flat Earth General / Re: Rare Events
« on: July 09, 2016, 05:45:58 PM »
You know what crosses Antarctica every 90 minutes?  Polar satellites.  Go outside sometime; you might see a few. 

76
Yeah right. If Apollo circumnavigated the Van Allen Radiation belt then Orion should be able to do so even easier with more sophisticated guidance systems.  Also it is very easy to harden electronics with shielding from EMP and radiation interference.
Frenat is correct.  The inclined trajectory used for the TLI was a handy trick for getting humans to the moon, but it's no good for Mars.  It would leave the spacecraft on an unsuitably inclined escape trajectory.  Therefore, they need to find better ways of protecting humans. 


77
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The USSR and the USA are not hiding anything
« on: July 09, 2016, 05:29:35 PM »
Science lesson #2:   

Human action is ONLY observable on an individual basis.
That's not science, and it makes no sense.  Are you saying that we can only describe groups by extrapolating from a single person, or that human perception of other people is unique to the observer? 

78
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moonlight
« on: July 09, 2016, 05:26:14 PM »
It would seem to me that IF the moon makes its own light, then lunar eclipses would not happen.

And, IF the Bible is to be taken literally, then the moon makes (or has) its own light, rather than reflects the sun's light, so that, if the Bible is literally true, lunar eclipses should not happen, especially not by calculations that presuppose the moon reflects the sun's light.

Lunar eclipses are caused when the moon passes through a more diffuse part of the caloric field (formed by the rotation of the Sun and Earth). The effect is external to the moon.

Then how are we able to predict lunar eclipses years in advance, and why do they only occur during full moons?  Like it or not, every aspect of eclipses can be explained self-consistently with the round-earth model. 

79
The Sun is a rock. The Earth formed a long time ago, as a ball, but it span so fast that it was flattened. Points near what you'd call the poles remained, and the one of those above us is what you'd call the Sun.
The caloric field (think: the Higgs field as applied to heat and light rather than mass) permeates everything, but there is a ball-shaped abscess where the Earth's rotation caused the intensity to decrease (simplified; be pushed out). the Sun exists at the vertex of the void, interacting with the more intense caloric field, and so giving off far greater light and heat than a normal object would lower down.

This is only a very simplified explanation, but I hope it helps give the picture.
And how fast was it spinning to become flattened?  How did it slow down?  If it was originally a ball due to gravity, why didn't it collapse back into one after being slowed down?  Are we only on one side?  If so, what's on the other? 

Bonus:
Why is there a seismic shadow in P-waves between 103 and 143 away from an earthquake, if the earth is flat? 


80
Flat Earth Debate / Re: 3D Airplane Windows and Odd Flights
« on: July 08, 2016, 07:01:59 PM »
I'm glad you're protecting your eyes with polarized glasses.
It was bright, but I wanted to look out the window.  Just so happens that I always keep polarized fishing sunglasses on my hat. 

81
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: water and gravity
« on: July 08, 2016, 05:01:24 PM »
Inertia is so elusive, nobody can explain it.

Inertia isn't elusive by any stretch of the imagination.  It takes energy to accelerate objects, and objects with more mass take more energy to accelerate than less massive objects.  Simple as that. 


82
^bot.
^bot bot bot

And this is what the thread has decayed into.  Time to lock it and move on. 

83
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The USSR and the USA are not hiding anything
« on: July 07, 2016, 06:33:58 PM »
What if "they" are NOT hiding anything? 
What if "they" are just keeping their mouths quiet? 
What if "they" are being black-mailed into keeping quiet? 
What if "they" are being coerced into lying? 


Why would both the USSR and the USA hide the fact that the earth is flat
Back up the tape and let us be a bit scientific, shall we? 

Science: 
The USSR is not a person. 
The USSA is not a person either. 
The USSR and the USA are personifications of SOMETHING that only exists in the minds of men. 
Beyond the imagination of men, the USSR and the USA do not exist. 

Brain: 
Use it.

By that logic, there are no countries, states, districts, or any other division of people. 

84
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: water and gravity
« on: July 07, 2016, 06:29:40 PM »

If it was possible to form a complete vacuum in a chamber, there would be no buoyancy in that chamber. There is no counter force to the density of an object if it is lifted up and made to fall. Everything falls the same speed showing its all about density and buoyancy.

Nope.  In a vacuum, or a reasonable facsimile of one, all objects, regardless of density, accelerate at the same rate due to gravity.  However, if you have two objects of the same density but different masses on a scale, the heavier one will still weigh more.  This means that gravity is exerting a greater force on the heavier one.  So why do they still accelerate at the same rate due to gravity, if the forces are different?  The reason is that inertia scales with mass at the same rate that gravity does. 

85
Larsinist, you seem like a bright enough person.  You're right, the Flat Earth model cannot explain the 24 hr days and nights in the arctic circles.  It also cannot explain satellites, seismology, meteorology, navigation, astronomy, and many other fields, besides outright denial.  Come back to the round side; it's more cohesive in every way. 

86
Flat Earth Debate / Re: 3D Airplane Windows and Odd Flights
« on: July 05, 2016, 06:31:11 PM »
Passanger, it would be pretty obvious if the windows were actually screens.  I've been on a few flights, and I've seen that polarized sunglasses still block out light reflected from lakes depending on lens angle, that sunlight can shine in and illuminate the cabin in shafts, and that I have to get closer to the window to have a wider view of the wings and ground.  Screens can't emulate any of those, but they behave the same way a car window does. 

87
Flat Earth General / Re: Why is the Flat Earth Theory right?
« on: July 05, 2016, 05:08:32 PM »
These observations check out, whereas when we look at round earth science we see these observations not fitting together.

Please elaborate.  Experts in the fields of aerospace, seismology, navigation, weather, astronomy, geodesy, and countless others all agree that the earth is a spheroid planet with a radius of 6,371 km, and for all of them, things would fall apart if this were not the case.  In fact, everything fits together so well that the only ones that disagree are a small group of conspiracy theorists, none of which are knowledgeable in any of these fields. 

88
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Top ten flat earth thinkers? [Currently Living]
« on: July 04, 2016, 06:15:22 AM »
1. Mohamed Yusuf
2. Bandar Al-Khaybari
3. My Grandfather
4. Some Guy on YouTube, forgot the name
5. Some other guy who thinks pi=4
6. Space Cowgirl
7. A brilliant Orang Utan I know personally
8. Don't underestimate Sceptimatic
9. Me, the creator of the Butterfly Theory
10. John Davis

This cracked me up, and also reminded me that an orangutan named Luna escaped from her cage yesterday at Busch Gardens. Do you know her?  :)

Gasp!  "Luna" means moon!  Coincidence?  I think NOT!!

89
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Should we not always see the sun
« on: June 30, 2016, 08:04:32 PM »

At least sketch out the basics.  I feel like you've thought it all up, but never bothered to visualize it.

I've visualised it, it just takes animation to demonstrate any details.


      .
________

The dot is the Sun, the line the Earth, viewed from the side.

That means nothing.  It's no different from FE. 

90
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Prove FE
« on: June 29, 2016, 08:13:49 PM »
Look out your window, it looks flat.
thats only if you look at it from a limited perspective. if you look at it from a bigger scale it would be round

Like a bay window?
What does that mean?

Large window with a big view. 

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28