5671
Flat Earth Debate / Re: astounding easy to disprove flat earth
« on: August 27, 2016, 03:32:18 AM »
I'm still waiting for any flat head guy to disprove my points.
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.
5672
Flat Earth General / Re: Shills or Sincere
« on: August 27, 2016, 03:00:29 AM »
I personally get paid from my government. I do not even have to work, just visiting the flat earth forum and posting some "evidence" and I get paid like if I had a 8 to 5 job.
Additionally I get some bonus directly from NASA if I post more than 3 times a week. At the end of every quartal, I get myself some extras from satan himself.
If you want to join the system, write an email at
[email protected]
Additionally I get some bonus directly from NASA if I post more than 3 times a week. At the end of every quartal, I get myself some extras from satan himself.
If you want to join the system, write an email at
[email protected]
5673
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can someone explain to me how we can jog around a track if the track is flat?
« on: August 27, 2016, 02:54:28 AM »Can someone explain to me how we can jog around a track if the track is flat?
It just doesnt make sense.
But you can fly in a straight line, without changing heading, around the world in any direction. A track is round horizontally...
How could you make sure that there is not a very slight, unnoticable curve all the time?
Sorry mate, your argument does not work.
No but, it's only a very (like, VERY) specific curve that will let you travel around a flat earth and end up right where you started.
Same for round earth. Permanent course-corrections are needed.
5674
Flat Earth General / Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« on: August 26, 2016, 12:11:23 PM »
Are you saying you know what denpressure is so you know how to test it?
Can you enlighten me please? What is denpressure?
Is the act of Air Pressure creating weight by pressing down on an object. The density of an object determines how much air pressure affects how much force is transferred to the object to create weight. For instance a less dense object would be affected less and in return would weight less.
So shortly: It is bullshit
5675
Flat Earth Debate / Re: is there ANYONE willing to present ANY evidence of a flat earth??
« on: August 26, 2016, 12:05:37 PM »Pear Earth Science is funny.Quote5) Rivers such as the Nile would have to flow uphill
This, yes, this is the most retarded sentence I've ever read in my entire life!
Pear earth? Funny you lol.
Pancake earth sure is funny too
By the way; how much money do you earn with the retards that believe your shit? I mean honestly, if they are dumb enough to belive in a pancake earth, they possibly are also easy to fleece them.
5676
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can someone explain to me how we can jog around a track if the track is flat?
« on: August 26, 2016, 12:00:56 PM »Can someone explain to me how we can jog around a track if the track is flat?
It just doesnt make sense.
But you can fly in a straight line, without changing heading, around the world in any direction. A track is round horizontally...
How could you make sure that there is not a very slight, unnoticable curve all the time?
Sorry mate, your argument does not work.
5677
Flat Earth General / Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« on: August 26, 2016, 11:56:24 AM »It's so easy to disprove this bullshit. How could one even come to such a ridiculous idea of a "denpressure". Like wtf.Show me the video of you on that mountain with your wood and scales, as opposed to the very same wood and scales you used before you climbed it.
Just take some piece of wood and a scale and measure the same piece at ground level and on a 1000m high mountain. BUUUUUUM denpressure disproven.
You totally overestimate how much I care about some internet bullshit
5678
Flat Earth General / Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« on: August 26, 2016, 10:34:28 AM »
It's so easy to disprove this bullshit. How could one even come to such a ridiculous idea of a "denpressure". Like wtf.
Just take some piece of wood and a scale and measure the same piece at ground level and on a 1000m high mountain. BUUUUUUM denpressure disproven.
Just take some piece of wood and a scale and measure the same piece at ground level and on a 1000m high mountain. BUUUUUUM denpressure disproven.
5679
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the idea the earth accelerates upward
« on: August 26, 2016, 10:20:28 AM »Is this thread still about how we can't reach the speed of light? And people call me silly because I don't believe in dinosaurs. They simultaneously don't believe in relativity while also believing in it - and use it to hold up their untenable and silly view of a globe. All unbeknownst to themselves.
Another victory for flat earth!
Damn man, you got me again!
And this comes from the guy that recently said that rivers would have to flow upwards on a globe earth. LOL
5680
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GoPro: Experiment Results
« on: August 26, 2016, 10:16:33 AM »JRoweSkeptic, unlike many others, you actually got off your couch and did something.
Respect.
At some level of not being capable of understanding what you're doing, one better stays home as to not endanger other people.
5681
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the idea the earth accelerates upward
« on: August 26, 2016, 07:15:20 AM »
How do you need 8 pages to discuss this? I've read nothing but the first post and feel like it's enough.
Obviously it's wrong; one could not distinguish an upwards accleration from a gravitational field, but there are sooooo many other ways to show that the accleration thing is bullshit.
Again, how can you discuss this 8 pages long?
Obviously it's wrong; one could not distinguish an upwards accleration from a gravitational field, but there are sooooo many other ways to show that the accleration thing is bullshit.
Again, how can you discuss this 8 pages long?
5682
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the idea the earth accelerates upward
« on: August 26, 2016, 04:31:25 AM »
It has a lot to do with intelligence. Everyone with an IQ above room temperature and a normal education can easily disprove flat earth by researching for an afternoon.
A vast amount of stupidity is required to seriously believe in a flat earth.
A vast amount of stupidity is required to seriously believe in a flat earth.
5683
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GoPro: Experiment Results
« on: August 26, 2016, 04:28:39 AM »
No Jrowe, you're just too retarded to perform this experiment. Who had thought so?
5684
Flat Earth Debate / Re: is there ANYONE willing to present ANY evidence of a flat earth??
« on: August 26, 2016, 01:50:23 AM »He is discussing horizontal acceleration. Which would be evident everywhere but the equator on a globe because as John has noted " centrifugal forces are perpendicular to the axis - not the surface."
=> azp = (463.889 m/s)^2 / 6371000m <=> azp = 0.03378 m/s^2 vs gravity 9.81 m/s^2
Woah, the force is so strong with this one! Sure you could EASILY notice this amount of force. Even more, when considering that from the equator to the poles the force will get less and less strong...
Quote
5) Rivers such as the Nile would have to flow uphill
This, yes, this is the most retarded sentence I've ever read in my entire life!
5685
Flat Earth General / Re: Will a baby rocket in a vacuum help anyone?
« on: August 19, 2016, 12:29:56 AM »
Conservation of momentum
Nothing more to say or discuss in this thread.
Nothing more to say or discuss in this thread.
5686
Flat Earth General / Re: Trigonometry of the stars to create a map
« on: August 18, 2016, 03:00:42 PM »
Where can one find his maths?
John davis might be the most genius troll I ever saw.
John davis might be the most genius troll I ever saw.
5687
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the idea the earth accelerates upward
« on: August 18, 2016, 01:51:39 PM »REer's: If the world is a globe, and it spins, then why doesn't anyone float when they go to the North Pole or South Pole Since there would be practically no centripetal force?Fixed it for you
I am more on the side of retards.
5688
Flat Earth General / Re: Curvature challenge
« on: August 18, 2016, 09:37:18 AM »
He can send it to my paypal, that should be fine.
5689
Flat Earth General / Re: Curvature challenge
« on: August 18, 2016, 09:29:52 AM »
Easy
Look here
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67675.0
Especially points one, two and three.
Look here
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67675.0
Especially points one, two and three.
5690
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Only One
« on: August 15, 2016, 03:29:34 PM »
"No, it just doesn't make sense. It's like saying water can't flow somewhere that's dry: it can, when it flows there the place ceases to be dry. "
And you were the one blaming me I assumed the flow aether was like the flow of matter...hmmm...
"No, because your finger is still attached to you. "
Since the space where my finger is located would move it wouldnt be attatched no longer.
And you were the one blaming me I assumed the flow aether was like the flow of matter...hmmm...
"No, because your finger is still attached to you. "
Since the space where my finger is located would move it wouldnt be attatched no longer.
5691
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Only One
« on: August 15, 2016, 03:09:33 PM »"Thorugh small gaps between atoms, I guess."You say it doesnt make sense, I say it does make sense. We both cannot prove it since we can't test it.
It is a fundamentally contradictory notion to suppose that space needs space to flow to. It just doesn't make sense as a proposal.
"For example, you are either dead or alive."You're overcomplicating and overthinking things. Where you draw the line does not matter. Whether you're dead when theres no brain- or no heart activity is your choice. Draw the line and you have the 1 0 function.
And if you can define that clearly I'd love to hear it. Say, heartbeat stopped? That's a long-term value, it can be stopped and restarted, so you'd need a minimum time frame for a lack of a heartbeat, in which case the time a person dies and doesn't come back would have maybe a few seconds where they're not alive and can't be said to be dead.
"You're either human or you aren't"
Which evolution makes a meaningless statement. Where's your defined threshold?
"I could define x=1 if the atoms is helium and x=0 if the atom is not helium."
A helium ion? Which isotope? Plus this gets you close to the quantum level where nothing's clear cut.
Anyway, helium is not defined by isotopes and therefore neutrons but by having 2 protones.
No, because you've yet to demonstrate that low aether exists and yet to demonstrate that aether can flow.
"One could say your aether flows into nothing, just as your whole model diminishes into nothing"
No, because you've yet to demonstrate no space exists, and yet to demonstrate that space wouldn't begin to exist when some flows in. You seem to be expecting space to behave like matter, which doesn't make any sense.
You seem to be expecting aether to behave just like you need it to, which doesnt make any sense.
"Um, so your theory cannot be explained with diagrams but should work in real life. "No, its more like you're presenting a diagram of an eye and then you use it to explain our digestion.
Or you could even try to read what I actually said. You're expecting a diagram of internal organs to explain how the eye works.
"Its clearly visible, that between the aequators a flow of space/aether exists, therefore a DISTANCE is existant."I touched your achilles heel I guess.
YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN TOLD THAT THE DIAGRAM IS NOT STANDALONE. STOP MAKING ME REPEAT MYSELF.
"Since you'd argue that this might be an infintisimal small line: If one walks over the aequator, the flow of aether would immediatley kill him because it flows out of the ground"If you, lets say, touched the flow of space with your finger then some part of your finger would just flow away. Outch. Even worse than a rock!
Wouldn't kill you, that's ludicrous, space isn't a rock that shots out.
Good night
5692
Flat Earth Debate / Re: astounding easy to disprove flat earth
« on: August 15, 2016, 02:44:48 AM »
As I said, do not rely on my sources. If you don't believe them, go get a telescope and check it yourself. No need to assume things and talk about it, since you can verify it yourself.
@Jrowe I'm not interested in discussing your model. Also its not a flat earth model. You have 2 plates ontop of each other and no gap or angel inbetween them, meanwhile you can walk from one to the other therefore it's no flat earth model. I am NOT willing to discuss your model here, don't hijack this thread. Discuss it in your own. If you want to answer to this so you can prove it IS a flat earth, feel free to quote me but do it in your own thread. Thank you.
One more time for you:
--》NO DUAL EARTH HERE.《--
@Jrowe I'm not interested in discussing your model. Also its not a flat earth model. You have 2 plates ontop of each other and no gap or angel inbetween them, meanwhile you can walk from one to the other therefore it's no flat earth model. I am NOT willing to discuss your model here, don't hijack this thread. Discuss it in your own. If you want to answer to this so you can prove it IS a flat earth, feel free to quote me but do it in your own thread. Thank you.
One more time for you:
--》NO DUAL EARTH HERE.《--
5693
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Only One
« on: August 13, 2016, 02:06:07 PM »
Hi
@Origami: Thorugh small gaps between atoms, I guess.
Your Evidence for low or high concentration?
Uh, there are tons of 0 1 "functions". For example, you are either dead or alive. An element is either Helium or it isn't. You're either human or you aren't etc. pp.
I could define x=1 if the atoms is helium and x=0 if the atom is not helium. On the Y-Axis you could line up 100000 atoms and the functions value would always be either 1 or 0.
Some more things about your model, let me quickly post the diagram with added flows:
1. Its clearly visible, that between the aequators a flow of space/aether exists, therefore a DISTANCE is existant. Explain me, please.
2. Since you'd argue that this might be an infintisimal small line: If one walks over the aequator, the flow of aether would immediatley kill him because it flows out of the ground. Outch!
3. The funny thing is: You're trying to replicate a globe-model without using a globe so you use two plates and say there is no space in between at the equator etc. It's quite funny if you think about it, you're just using an existing model and abstracting it!
@Origami: Thorugh small gaps between atoms, I guess.
"How should one imagine "low" and "high" concentration of space? See, space is a classic 0 or 1 function. There either IS space, or there ISN'T space."
Evidence? I can't think of anything in reality that's a strict 0-or-1 function. Even existence gets murky at the quantum level.
Your Evidence for low or high concentration?
Uh, there are tons of 0 1 "functions". For example, you are either dead or alive. An element is either Helium or it isn't. You're either human or you aren't etc. pp.
I could define x=1 if the atoms is helium and x=0 if the atom is not helium. On the Y-Axis you could line up 100000 atoms and the functions value would always be either 1 or 0.
"It would implode into itself since everywhere is no space and space at the same time."Since youre aether flows from high to low concentration this means: Where NO space is, is no aether. Per defintion no aether is a lower concentration than "low concentration aether", and therefore your aether would flow there. One could say your aether flows into nothing, just as your whole model diminishes into nothing
That doesn't make sense in the slightest. If you shrink the scale to contain nothing then there'd be no space, but there'd also be no surroundings.
"Looking at your model, teleportation would be necessary. I mean, to get from one plate to the other, there is a distance in between. And, as is visible on your drawings, there is aether in between and therefore space."Um, so your theory cannot be explained with diagrams but should work in real life. Suspicious.
AGAIN, the drawings are not standalone. they work with the theory. There is no possible way to illustrate space being warped on a diagram meant to demonstrate a completely different issue. There is no distance in reality, by the theory explained. Please address the justification and theory, not an illustration I have repeatedly asked round earthers to not yank completely out of context.
"if space can flow into no space, there was actually space before because else the space hadn't been able to flow there. Right?"You assumed, there would be aether. You assumed, it would flow. You assumed, it would have different concentrations. You assumed its behaviour. So I think I may assume, since there IS aether, there may be NO aether.
You're the one who decided to talk about no space, I never mentioned it. I exclusively spoke of low concentrations, not a complete lack. You're the one that argued it must exist.
Some more things about your model, let me quickly post the diagram with added flows:
1. Its clearly visible, that between the aequators a flow of space/aether exists, therefore a DISTANCE is existant. Explain me, please.
2. Since you'd argue that this might be an infintisimal small line: If one walks over the aequator, the flow of aether would immediatley kill him because it flows out of the ground. Outch!
3. The funny thing is: You're trying to replicate a globe-model without using a globe so you use two plates and say there is no space in between at the equator etc. It's quite funny if you think about it, you're just using an existing model and abstracting it!
5694
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Only One
« on: August 13, 2016, 11:18:53 AM »"If all matter is stationary, how can various points recede compared to each other?
If aether flow doesn't have effect on mass, than how can it have effect on mass, creating the feeling of not falling down, holding things together, etc. ? Everything you can observe in real life."
Hi, I'm new to these forums. Can you explain what "aether" is? Can you describe repeatable experiments to test for this substance? Can you provide any mathematical equations and calculations to explain how this substance reacts to objects, gases, particles in your model and the universe? Are there any peer reviewed publications on this aether substance? Are there any publications what-so-ever?
Looking forward to hearing more about this magical substance.
Hi,
He defined aether = space, which so far would be fine since it's just another word for "space".
I quote
"we choose the word 'aether' to define space"
5695
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Only One
« on: August 13, 2016, 11:02:04 AM »
If space can flow into no space, there was actually space before because else the space hadn't been able to flow there. Right?
Or if the space could flow into no space because there was no space, then space could flow absolutley everywhere. Got it?
Or if the space could flow into no space because there was no space, then space could flow absolutley everywhere. Got it?
5696
Flat Earth General / Re: ERIC DUBAY SAYS.......
« on: August 13, 2016, 09:32:40 AM »Because they are fun to talk to (sometimes). When you come along, they all abandon the forum because even they know that your theory is rediculous.
This isn't true! You're blaming JRowe for something that is really the fault of angry globularists. Once you guys pile on a thread it gets boring real fast.
Hui, a flat earther! Pls answer in my thread "astounding easy to disprove flat earth" so we can debate my points.
5697
Flat Earth General / Re: iWitness - Air Pressure and Weight
« on: August 13, 2016, 08:45:32 AM »I am a genius. I'm a simplistic genius. I see things that many don't. I turn the complicated into the less complicated so that the normal every day person can get the chance to grasp stuff.
5698
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Only One
« on: August 13, 2016, 07:05:59 AM »
How should one imagine "low" and "high" concentration of space? See, space is a classic 0 or 1 function. There either IS space, or there ISN'T space. Theres nothing in between. For myself, I cannot even imagine how "no space" would look like.
I mean, look, it's more of a philosphical question. Since EVERYWHERE you could make the assumption that there is no space. Look at your computer. I'd say, in between two atoms or whatever you want to imagine, there is no space. Will say: They're touching each other. Now, there is no space and therefore no aether. So how comes, aether doesn't flow in there to create space? If you'd say that there is no space the aether could flow into, I'd argue that the points where no aether is/ low concentration, then there's no space too since you defined aether as space!
See, your model follows a flawed logic. It simply doesn't work. It would implode into itself since everywhere is no space and space at the same time.
Another point: Looking at your model, teleportation would be necessary. I mean, to get from one plate to the other, there is a distance in between. And, as is visible on your drawings, there is aether in between and therefore space. And space = distance, thus teleportation is needed.
I mean, look, it's more of a philosphical question. Since EVERYWHERE you could make the assumption that there is no space. Look at your computer. I'd say, in between two atoms or whatever you want to imagine, there is no space. Will say: They're touching each other. Now, there is no space and therefore no aether. So how comes, aether doesn't flow in there to create space? If you'd say that there is no space the aether could flow into, I'd argue that the points where no aether is/ low concentration, then there's no space too since you defined aether as space!
See, your model follows a flawed logic. It simply doesn't work. It would implode into itself since everywhere is no space and space at the same time.
Another point: Looking at your model, teleportation would be necessary. I mean, to get from one plate to the other, there is a distance in between. And, as is visible on your drawings, there is aether in between and therefore space. And space = distance, thus teleportation is needed.
5699
Flat Earth Debate / Re: astounding easy to disprove flat earth
« on: August 13, 2016, 02:29:13 AM »
Good morning
First of all: Please leave this thread to discuss the opening post and the flat earth theory. I'm neither interested in DET nor denpressure. Discuss those in their own threads if you like to do so.
You're being naive. I've particulary chosen points 1-3 because you can check them by yourself and there is no explanation for them on flat earth.
But hey- go check it yourself
Also, the mirage effect in the video is negligible because it's so small and just affects a tiny fraction of the whole image. It cannot explain, why about 3/4 of the boat or behind the horizon.
Another reason why this is so incredibly stupid: On a flat earth, you still had to look downwards to see the horizon if you'd climb a mountain, since the atmosphere isn't clear and you are not able to see to "the end of the world".
Anyway: If you imagine, the earth was a football with 20cm in diameter, Felix Baumgartner would have only gone 0.6mm from its surface. It's not that much, isn't it?
*This is obviously not as simple and easy as I've explained it. Since normally the whole sensor (eg 12 mpixel) catches light and compresses the information to a full hd (2mpixel) image, the image quality obviously is better with 12mp than with digital zoom since theres more information for the camera to use. But if the camera had a perfect sensor and perfect optics, you could zoom in until every pixel of the sensor equals one pixel of the full hd video. Just take this as a side note
First of all: Please leave this thread to discuss the opening post and the flat earth theory. I'm neither interested in DET nor denpressure. Discuss those in their own threads if you like to do so.
Quote
I'm new to this forum. The OP's relatively simple questions deserve answers from FE's in order to validate their claim. Is it likely that any reasonable and logical explanations/answers to the OP's questions would ever be answered or am I being naive?
You're being naive. I've particulary chosen points 1-3 because you can check them by yourself and there is no explanation for them on flat earth.
Quote
If you use DIGITAL zoom, instead of OPTICAL zoom, you will see this. Digital zoom just makes parts of a picture larger to see, but real optical zoom will change the view. As you can see on the video, there is optical zoom at first, and after optical zoom is at maximum, comes digital zoom and we can see a "close-up" of the ship. Try this with a very large telescope without digital zoom.This is wrong. If you have enough resolution on your sensor, whether you're using digital or optical zoom does not make any diffrent in this aspect. And as I said - if you do not belive me or this video, go check it yourself. If I'd buy a telescope and made a video, you'd say nasa paid me. So go check it yourself, don't ask others to do so.
Quote
As i mentioned before, this image was taken with digital zoom, after the optical zoom reached to it's maximum.Wrong again. If your sensor has, e.g. 12 megapixel, you can still zoom in with full hd resolution, since fullhd requiers just 2 megapixel. On a 12 Megapixel image you can still zoom in digitally 6x without losing information.* This will not randomly create any mirage effect.
Optical zoom can bring back objects hiding due to perpective. Just look at the opening images as the partial ship image appears from a tiny point. Beyond the optical zoom's ability, comes digital zoom, which just simply makes that part of the image larger to see, but does not apply any optical corrections on what you see.
So, if there was no mirage, you would be able to see part of the hull, but some part would be still hidden, because it is far far away.
But hey- go check it yourself
Also, the mirage effect in the video is negligible because it's so small and just affects a tiny fraction of the whole image. It cannot explain, why about 3/4 of the boat or behind the horizon.
Quote
Why do you see it at "eye level" (camera level)?This is among the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. You CANNOT judge from a picture wheter there is a horizon on eyelevel or not. You can just tilt a camera up orddownwards and the horizon appears to be on eye level....
Another reason why this is so incredibly stupid: On a flat earth, you still had to look downwards to see the horizon if you'd climb a mountain, since the atmosphere isn't clear and you are not able to see to "the end of the world".
Anyway: If you imagine, the earth was a football with 20cm in diameter, Felix Baumgartner would have only gone 0.6mm from its surface. It's not that much, isn't it?
*This is obviously not as simple and easy as I've explained it. Since normally the whole sensor (eg 12 mpixel) catches light and compresses the information to a full hd (2mpixel) image, the image quality obviously is better with 12mp than with digital zoom since theres more information for the camera to use. But if the camera had a perfect sensor and perfect optics, you could zoom in until every pixel of the sensor equals one pixel of the full hd video. Just take this as a side note
5700
Flat Earth General / Re: Conduct an experiment to prove that Earth is Flat
« on: August 13, 2016, 01:44:06 AM »I already tried it. Like I told Woody, I took a picture of my computer and then backed up to take another. When I backed up, both the picture on my computer, and the computer itself appeared smaller. Wonder of wonders.
Nice, thats a start
Using a computer screen is already a really good start in terms of curvature and form!
My personal experience so that you could improve your result: The crystals of the compterscreen thend to anti-distort the image so the effect cannot been seen that good!
Sounds strange, is a fact tho! It really works best, if you would use a printed picture of a globe and then take multiple pictures while backing up! Your mind will be blown! No zoom/cropping needed!
Just try it out and post the result here
I'm waiting.