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 6 ... 28
91
Do you think it was faked to prove shypaashe-se x?

That's funny.
Incorrect.

You don't think it was funny?  Fine, that's your subjective opinion, I suppose. 

92
Do you think it was faked to prove shypaashe-se x?

That's funny. 

93
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Should we not always see the sun
« on: June 29, 2016, 05:36:54 PM »
The reason we see the Sun just comes down to the properties of calorics. As the Earth rotates, its light is focused on different areas.

Yet another problem brilliantly solved by a long-obsolete scientific notion!
A modern take on an old notion, yes. I'm referring to the caloric field.

Fields cannot be produced by chemical reactions.  Heat and light can.  How is caloric not just a catch-all to explain away any opposition?

The field isn't produced by a chemical reaction. Heat and light are caused by interaction with the existing field. The caloric field is not a catch-all because it is defined plainly and specifically.
So is the field omnipresent?  How about you make a quick drawing demonstrating the path that sunlight takes through the caloric field as it sets?
You'd need an animation more than a drawing and I don't have the skills for that.
The field is everywhere, but less prominent in some places. When the Earth formed it was a ball: but as it rotated it grew flatter and flatter, as we would expect, until it became a disc. The sphere that it used to be is a ball in which the caloric field was 'repelled' from. At the top is a vertex where part of the original Earth remains as the Sun, casting a shadow of sorts. As it is far closer to the 'thicker' field, it is automatically brighter. The shape of the field shifts as the Earth rotates, causing various ripples, and so spreading it out in some directions, and condensing it in others.

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

94
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Should we not always see the sun
« on: June 29, 2016, 04:16:58 PM »
The reason we see the Sun just comes down to the properties of calorics. As the Earth rotates, its light is focused on different areas.

Yet another problem brilliantly solved by a long-obsolete scientific notion!
A modern take on an old notion, yes. I'm referring to the caloric field.

Fields cannot be produced by chemical reactions.  Heat and light can.  How is caloric not just a catch-all to explain away any opposition?

The field isn't produced by a chemical reaction. Heat and light are caused by interaction with the existing field. The caloric field is not a catch-all because it is defined plainly and specifically.
So is the field omnipresent?  How about you make a quick drawing demonstrating the path that sunlight takes through the caloric field as it sets?

95
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Should we not always see the sun
« on: June 29, 2016, 03:46:07 PM »
The reason we see the Sun just comes down to the properties of calorics. As the Earth rotates, its light is focused on different areas.

Yet another problem brilliantly solved by a long-obsolete scientific notion!
A modern take on an old notion, yes. I'm referring to the caloric field.

Fields cannot be produced by chemical reactions.  Heat and light can.  How is caloric not just a catch-all to explain away any opposition? 

96
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moonlight
« on: June 29, 2016, 03:41:37 PM »
Interesting read: http://ocw.usu.edu/physics/classical-mechanics/pdf_lectures/14.pdf
For a short time, mass can be created and annihilated. Quantum theory is weird.

For the other aspect: As I said, I am not qualified enough to discuss this right now.
It's not weird, it's impossible. It relies on the background assumptions being true, but if that is a natural consequence they cannot be.
I think you meant to say "I can not believe that this is possible". Otherwise you need to provide evidence.

I need to provide evidence something cannot come from nothing?

You need to provide evidence that "coming from nothing" is indeed the mechanism at play here according to mainstream scientific theory, and that your "theory" is more coherent. 

97
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Should we not always see the sun
« on: June 29, 2016, 03:37:26 PM »
The reason we see the Sun just comes down to the properties of calorics. As the Earth rotates, its light is focused on different areas.

Yet another problem brilliantly solved by a long-obsolete scientific notion!

98
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moonlight
« on: June 29, 2016, 02:23:41 PM »
Interesting read: http://ocw.usu.edu/physics/classical-mechanics/pdf_lectures/14.pdf
For a short time, mass can be created and annihilated. Quantum theory is weird.

For the other aspect: As I said, I am not qualified enough to discuss this right now.
It's not weird, it's impossible. It relies on the background assumptions being true, but if that is a natural consequence they cannot be.

Your "caloric" field is impossible.  Photons are emitted when electrons return to a relaxed state, and the emission spectrum is unique to that element.  Caloric creates countless problems, and solves absolutely nothing but your desire for attention.   

99
In the real world no spacecraft can arrive at a moving heavenly body (moon, planet, sun) with a hyperbolic excess velocity (LOL). The spacecraft is simply attracted by gravity of the heavenly body and will crash on the heavenly body ... or miss it ... or not find the heavenly body at all in space. Probably the latter.

Huh.  So a spacecraft follows a regular, predictable path when it orbits the earth, but as soon as it crosses into another SOI Kepler's laws break down and it falls directly toward the other body or gets completely disoriented?  Seems legit. 

100
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Infinite Plane Theory
« on: June 28, 2016, 08:19:54 PM »
They tend to agree that pictures taken from space are part of a conspiracy
so your saying that FE believers will say that NASA is lying just to support their theory?

They always do.  It's pretty pathetic that they always take the party line and never reason for themselves.
So in conclusion, FE believers will make up stuff to fit there theory.
Or misinterpret evidence, point fingers, or derail topics.  It really depends on the MO of the individual member. 

101
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Felix Baumgartner Pictures prove Flat Earth
« on: June 28, 2016, 08:14:08 PM »
Go on YouTube and search for'mythbusters u2'
The thumbnail for the video shows a flat horizon at 100,000 feet
Curvature is largely influenced by camera angle.  You'll have to find something a bit more substantial than a pilot cam to prove your point. 

102
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Best way to unproove the globe model
« on: June 28, 2016, 08:11:21 PM »
Havoc is right.  Centrifugal force only causes a reduction of .03 m/s2 at the equator. 

103
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Infinite Plane Theory
« on: June 28, 2016, 06:05:38 PM »
They tend to agree that pictures taken from space are part of a conspiracy
so your saying that FE believers will say that NASA is lying just to support their theory?

They always do.  It's pretty pathetic that they always take the party line and never reason for themselves. 

104
Spectrum of sonoluminescence:



Spectrum of star and blackbody:


105
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Should we not always see the sun
« on: June 26, 2016, 04:35:14 PM »
And on the days there aren't clouds?
Light does not travel forever.

That is not true. Light travels on forever, in all directions. Basic grade school stuff.
Basic brain washing.

You're implying that even in a vacuum, eventually all light will decay.  Now, according to the principles of time-dilation, photons don't experience time because they move at c.  A photon arrives at its destination at the same instant it starts, according to its own timescale.  Therefore, it cannot decay.  If the photon does not encounter anything, it will keep travelling forever. 

106
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Reliable model for the FET
« on: June 26, 2016, 04:23:32 PM »

107
The first is easy. Doesn't GR state that gravity is indeed a pseudo-force and not real?!
It's a pseudo-force, but it is a very real phenomenon.

Right you are.  John, I suggest you read this before you make bold, uninformed claims like "gravity is not real."

108
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Timezones?
« on: June 25, 2016, 04:24:14 PM »
Do you expect all the creatures of the universe to have the same requirements as creatures on earth?

That's no excuse to just make stuff up.  Living things still need nutrients they are able to metabolize.  The moon has none. 

109
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 9/11
« on: June 24, 2016, 03:23:21 PM »
You did it, Legba!  You got the first post on the page!  Congratulations! 

110
Flat Earth General / Re: Operation Moonwatch
« on: June 24, 2016, 03:20:25 PM »
It's not my thread you absolute fucking moron.

John certainly wasn't the one who brought up Operation Moonwatch.  He just moved it to a new thread because he thought it was a good point.  It's not, of course. 

111
Flat Earth General / Re: Operation Moonwatch
« on: June 24, 2016, 02:35:11 PM »
Derailing your own thread is a sure sign of defeat. 

112
Flat Earth General / Re: Operation Moonwatch
« on: June 24, 2016, 02:08:12 PM »
I'd also like to thank the thermosphere for being able to heat up rocks to white-hot despite being so thin, because that makes sense.  I'd especially like to thank certain of those polar-orbiting rocks for being heated up so much during certain parts of their "orbit" (over the flat earth) that they reach magnitude -8 and outshine everything but the moon and sun, but only for people in a 10 km wide swath, and only since 1997, with flares being predictable weeks in advance.

Did you really just write that?

LOL!!!

You fucking dick.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare#Iridium_flares
Most Iridium satellites are still controlled, so their flares can be predicted. The Iridium communication satellites have a peculiar shape with three polished door-sized antennas, 120° apart and at 40° angles with the main bus. The forward antenna faces the direction the satellite is travelling. Occasionally, an antenna reflects sunlight directly down at Earth, creating a predictable and quickly moving illuminated spot on the surface below of about 10 km (6.2 mi) diameter. To an observer this looks like a bright flash, or flare in the sky, with a duration of a few seconds.

113
Flat Earth General / Re: Operation Moonwatch
« on: June 24, 2016, 01:34:31 PM »
You know he's really on to something because the Illuminati is promoting it for him.

So here's Papa Legba's take on Operation Moonwatch as he told us over the last 2 years. Lots of information here!

Anyone wanting to know what these lights in the sky we're told are satellites etc. really are should look up 'Operation Moonwatch'.

Basically, NASA conned a bunch of amateur astronomers into tracking all the naturally-occurring NEO's for them, so they could later re-assign them as 'satellites' or what-have-you. It was part of the 'International Geophysical Year', 1957-58, another large part of which was Antarctic exploration. Interestingly, 'Sputnik' was launched (& was allegedly visible from the ground with the naked eye, lol!) in late 1957 & the Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959. Of course, after a few months of the dumb geeks gathering data, those gosh-darned Rooskies launched Sputnik, & good old NASA could tell everyone exactly when it could be viewed passing overhead... Interestingly, 'Sputnik' was launched (& was allegedly visible from the ground with the naked eye, lol!) in late 1957 & the Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959.

Can you see what they did there?

Like you could see an object the size of a beachball from 100 miles away!


Near-Earth-Objects, or NEO's have been known about for centuries; they used to call them 'wandering stars'. Now they call them 'satellites'. Plus, of course, if these 'satellites' etc. were just trackable NEOs it'd explain why they're visible from 100s of miles away too, as they're basically big lumps of rock that've been heated white-hot in the thermosphere... No need for holograms; just re-name things that've always been there, after getting a bunch of mugs to do the hard work of tracking their orbits for you in the first place...

Simplest & cheapest solution imaginable.

That's what most of the lights-in-the-sky we're told are satellites in fact are.


Here are some photos:


Funny how so many of these "natural" objects are in polar orbits and other useful orbits to put satellites into. 

I'd also like to thank the thermosphere for being able to heat up rocks to white-hot despite being so thin, because that makes sense.  I'd especially like to thank certain of those polar-orbiting rocks for being heated up so much during certain parts of their "orbit" (over the flat earth) that they reach magnitude -8 and outshine everything but the moon and sun, but only for people in a 10 km wide swath, and only since 1997, with flares being predictable weeks in advance. 

114
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why?
« on: June 24, 2016, 11:34:32 AM »

    I have supported my claim with facts, reason, citations, and common sense.
    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhhhh!!
    [inhale]
    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!

    Sigh...
    Whatever you say John. 
    Glad to see you bringing your normal level of reason and logic to the conversation as a counter-point. Like the child who cannot address an argument, you simply put your fingers in their ears, laugh, shit your pants, then claim triumph.[/list]

    Thank you for proving my point.  Where's the evidence, John?  Where's the common sense?  You can say you have mountains of evidence all you want, but that doesn't make it so.  In fact, your continued refusal to present evidence is a good sign that you've never taken stock of the evidence you say you have, and are just holding on to the idea of having it so you can wave it in other people's faces. 

    Prove me wrong, John.  Otherwise you'll only be proving me right. 

    115
    Hurricanes in the southern and northern hemispheres spin in opposite directions.
    I was under the impression that not every storm consistently displays this behavior.

    Right.  High pressure systems spin the opposite direction. 

    116
    To change my world view I would simply only need to see so called astronauts enter a rocket, like the one in this picture...

     where there are no means of them exiting the rocket before lift off.
    That's all I would need to see, physically.

    As an added bonus but not necessarily a stipulation, I would like to suit a so called astronaut up and have him/her sit inside a chamber whilst I observe the atmosphere being evacuated from it to its maximum.

    Either of those would make me change my entire stance on what this world is and space.
    Am I asking too much?

    You've never seen a shuttle getting ready to launch, have you?  About three hours beforehand, the astronauts board, and the entire process is broadcast.  The orbiter arm is still attached to allow for emergency egress, but you could see if they were walking across.
    On TV, yes.
    I've already stated my proof requirements.

    Well, I've seen the shuttle launch in real life, and I can assure you that the crew is in there.  I also know of a video series on Youtube that shows the shuttle launch in slow motiom from various angles.  In one of them the helmet of one of the crew members can be seen through the window. 

    117
    Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So I watched the SpaceX launch....
    « on: June 23, 2016, 09:25:52 PM »
    So I watched the SpaceX launch today and several thoughts crawled through the cobwebs. Flat earth would have us believe that those 2 companies that paid millions of dollars to build and launch their satellites into orbit are in on the hoax? They paid all that money to continue fooling all of us while they really built ground based communications that do the real work and not the fake boxes they had pretend launched into orbit? And SpaceX puts on these live webcasts to trick us into thinking they are putting things in orbit but are really using cgi to fake it?

    I'm just really confused on the why.

    Of course it's a hoax. Do you think it's hard for the government to find someone wiling to lie for literally tons of money?
    ???  What makes you think that the government had much of anything to do with the satellites or the launch?
    Oh good, you have knowledge of satellites. When does the government tell people they have put another satellite too close to their spy satellites. Before the launch, or after it flying too close to the gov't satellite?

    The locations of satellites are already known and publicly available.  Only the purposes are unknown.  The International Telecommunications Union handles placement of satellites. 

    118
    A better explanation for satellites and their motion.
    The best explanation for satellites is that they are fake. The materials they are supposedly made from would burn up in the supposed conditions that they are in. Since satellites are fake there is no need to make up fake orbits at fantastic speeds, or invent geostationary orbits. Don't waste your time on it. You could be learning something real.

    Then what are those little moving dots that I can see where satellites supposedly are?  Satellites don't burn because they're built to withstand heating from the sun, and the thermosphere is thin enough that it hardly transfers any heat, even though the temperatures of the individual particles are so high. 

    120
    Flat Earth General / Re: GPS | Navigation
    « on: June 23, 2016, 04:46:03 PM »
    How did you calculate that data?

    I got it from celestrak.com, but I could have used the ephemeris if I felt inclined to do so.

    Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 28