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 - N30

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20
Flat Earth General / Re: Interesting looking line in the sky
« on: September 06, 2016, 02:52:19 AM »
"If you look at the frame holding the traffic signs the video begins with the line going to the right as it moves upwards away from the traffic sign frame." -

What does a line moving "upwards away" even mean...?

Flat Earth General / Re: Prove That Antarctica Is A Continent.
« on: September 06, 2016, 02:34:22 AM »
"Before mariners had a coordinate system, they developed tools which allowed then to travel in a straight line (east/west) and find a port-of-call. The simplest and earliest known navigational tool is the Latitude Hook. The Latitude Hook can be as simple as a stick broken to a specific length." -

Then, all one truly needs to navigate celestially is to look up and use their eyes.
Really all a compass would do, is make it infinitely easier.
Ultimately, this alone is sufficient for navigation.
Exactly what is the point of posting definitions?

Flat Earth General / Re: Prove That Antarctica Is A Continent.
« on: September 06, 2016, 02:06:18 AM »

"A compass becomes fairly useless within many hundreds of miles of the pole."

"OK I learn't a compass can be used if the appropriate corrections are applied but it  would not be used if celestial navigation is possible."

Well aren't we all learning. Exactly why is celestial navigation not possible with a compass, then?

Flat Earth General / Re: Interesting looking line in the sky
« on: September 06, 2016, 01:48:43 AM »
I am supposing that is early morning.  It is quite dark on the ground.
The video seems real but it could be a spoof by somebody who is familiar with the region who is filming this real event.
You can see at the beginning of the video the shadow is rotated slightly clockwise compared to at the end when it is slightly anticlockwise.  Presumably you could calculate how far away the mountain range using that change.  The shadow seems to be moving in the correct direction for it being a shadow where the sun is moving to the right in the northern hemisphere.  Sun goes right shadow moves left.

WOW! I cant believe what i'm seeing.
Actually the argument was that the line stayed vertical throughout the video!
Proving it is not capable of being the shadow of the sun!
So, Omegas first post proved my point, then he just crops and rotates the image to claim rotation??

Flat Earth General / Re: Project Blue Beam
« on: September 06, 2016, 12:58:30 AM »

Looks pretty much the same to me but, please, do go on about cognitive dissonance.

Flat Earth General / Re: Prove That Antarctica Is A Continent.
« on: September 06, 2016, 12:44:05 AM »
A compass becomes fairly useless within many hundreds of miles of the pole.
Why is that? Exactly where does this "magnetic anomaly" begin? You say ONE pole, is the south pole not the same?

Ok, so, experiment pitch for consideration from OP, as it seems to have Scepti's stamp of approval.

Set of sensitive scales
Decent-sized balloon
Compressed air (optional)

1. Ensure balloon is empty, and weigh.
2. Inflate balloon (ideally with compressed air, or with care: inhaling only to the mouth and exhaling) and weigh.
3. (Optional) If compressed air was not used, let air out of balloon directly onto scales, and place balloon down, noting down weight in case moisture/saliva was added.

Under the denpressure model, the inflated balloon ought to weigh less than the deflated balloon in step 1 and step 3 due to increased buoyancy.
Under the gravity model, the inflated balloon ought to weigh more than the deflated balloon, as the air inside it is caught and included.
If no change is detected, the experiment is inconclusive. It may simply be the scales weren't sensitive enough to detect the buoyancy or added weight.
That seems fair enough.


Here you are
I quoted you being OK with this experiment

It was conducted

You were proven wrong

Any comments?

I am supposing we are not going to see him here again.

One can only hope.

When did we stop talking about the experiment that disproves gravity,
And start kicking flat Earthers off their own website?
Kinda useless without em don't you think?
Exactly what were the weights when you did the experiment, Bill?

Do tell me you know the scientific method.
Of course I do!

Flat Earth General / Re: Please Explain What Earth Looks Like.
« on: September 05, 2016, 10:41:19 PM »
You could google this for yourself:

"The mean radius of Earth is 3,959 miles (6,371 kilometers).
However, Earth is not quite a sphere.
The planet's rotation causes it to bulge at the equator.
Earth's equatorial diameter is 7,926 miles (12,756 km),

This is why I believe in a Flat Earth. How did you calculate the mean? You obviously did it wrong.

Flat Earth General / Re: Project Blue Beam
« on: September 05, 2016, 09:00:23 PM »
I did not realize that the sun pauses for about 4 minutes a day, causing static shadows across the "globe".

Flat Earth General / Please Explain What Earth Looks Like.
« on: September 05, 2016, 07:53:53 PM »
Why is Earth officially defined as on oblate spheroid wider south of equatorial locations, making a pear shape.
As far as I have seen no photo from "space" shows this.
Keep in mind that mathematics cannot ignore such imperfections.
Ergo, all equations assuming Earth is a sphere must be re evaluated.

Unless Scientific American is lying, Earth is not even a perfect oblate spheroid.
Please explain why large errors and approximations are accepted as true for calculating the shape of our planet.

"Our globe, however, is not even a perfect oblate spheroid, because mass is distributed unevenly within the planet. The greater a concentration of mass is, the stronger its gravitational pull, "creating bumps around the globe,"

Above quote from -

Here is a website that specifically bashes flat Earthers, yet, assumes the Earth is a perfect sphere in its calculations.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« on: September 05, 2016, 07:26:03 PM »
Ever heard of atmoplanic lensing?

A Google search for "amoplanic lensing" turns up only one link, and it's to the Flat Earth forum.  Even the term "atmospheric lensing" doesn't seem to have any references that would apply to the apparent size of the Sun.  So please elaborate on how atmoplanic lensing makes the Sun maintain the same apparent size all day long.

Kindly explain (including the part where only the sun is affected by this effect)?

Were you using NASA servers to search google? Atmospheric Lensing is also temperature relative.

"Therefore, in addition to affecting significantly our view (image deformation, multiplication, etc.) of distant resolved Earth-sources, atmospheric lensing is also often responsible for the light amplification of distant unresolved objects located along straight and long roads or across flat countrysides."

Quoted from -

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'm a Glober AMA!
« on: September 05, 2016, 06:28:46 PM »
How do those fancy equations mean anything when our planet is not a sphere, thus cannot be calculated as such?
Or would I be wrong to state that an oblate spheroid with lower distortion is the same thing. (pear shaped)
Please solve your age old concrete evidence of the globular model with the updated model of globular Earth.
Exiting discoveries may be made!

In defense of Intikam, the original post said,"try to convince me" and his statement relates to that.
So I await the response of his challenge.

Flat Earth General / Re: Project Blue Beam
« on: September 05, 2016, 05:10:50 PM »
Check the very end of the video and one will see another white object poof into existence. Right next to the line.
Heck, I apologize about the cloud statement.
Even though that does prove it is a shadow as the differences in colors are minimal, and it does not move at all!
Clearly something is amiss.
Kindly explain how swamp gas or a magnetic anomaly created this illusion.

Flat Earth General / Re: Project Blue Beam
« on: September 05, 2016, 03:41:16 PM »
Much harder to see is not invisible.
Also, one side has a lot of clouds, the other has none whatsoever!
Think about it, this has to be a man made phenomenon.
Every natural explanation does not fit the circumstances.

Flat Earth General / Re: Project Blue Beam
« on: September 05, 2016, 10:47:24 AM »
Wow, ooh ahh, more photos from NASA minions.
Always trying to explain things they cannot with pictures that prove nothing.
Keeping the real truth shrouded in doubt; Post as many pictures as they can to cover it up and keep you guessing.
Ever wonder why they do not touch on the subject of the planes visually vanishing?

Until they can explain that, I am unconvinced.
Please note, Omega even tried to account the line anomaly to the shadow of the earth... during the day...

Flat Earth General / Re: Prove That Antarctica Is A Continent.
« on: September 05, 2016, 10:36:46 AM »
Please, enlighten me then, show me an instance where one magnetic polarity causes another magnet to spin.
Also are you ignoring my point about the equator?
So you mean to tell me Antarctica and the south pole are not connected? I don't believe another thread is required.
Tell me, how am I supposed to empirically prove that the earth has a magnetic pole in Antartica?
Teaching kids that compasses do not work across the equator was not something I learned in school.
Right now, if I tried to sail around the south pole to record a compass flipping, I would be arrested.
Unless I am mistaken, in all other instances of magnetism, movement of one pole should effect the other as well.
This is not the case with the geomagnetic coordinate of the poles.
Help me understand why this happens.

Flat Earth General / Re: Prove That Antarctica Is A Continent.
« on: September 05, 2016, 01:42:06 AM »

"Computer simulation of the Earth's field in a period of normal polarity between reversals. The lines represent magnetic field lines, blue when the field points towards the center and yellow when away. The rotation axis of the Earth is centered and vertical. The dense clusters of lines are within the Earth's core."

Image and quote from the following link -

Why does the equator, where the polarities meet, not have an affect on navigation?
As I look at this model, a compass should have issues discerning direction near the equator
Kindly explain why this is not the case.
In reality, everything I know about magnets goes against this.
None of the "scientific" information about the geomagnetism of Earth has any continuity.
Give this quote a thought and realize its utter malarky in regard to a geomagnetic globe model.

"If you were to take a compass and stand just over either the north or the south magnetic pole, you would see the compass spin freely. From the south pole, every direction is north and from the north pole, there is no north."

Quoted from

Equally confusing is this teachers guide. Why not simply tilt the compass?

Flat Earth General / Re: Prove That Antarctica Is A Continent.
« on: September 04, 2016, 11:55:02 PM »
I did not mean that a singular pole meant only one magnetic polarity.
Actually, if the north pole had both positive and negative polarities, our compasses would still point north.
Making the need for a south pole obsolete on a FE model.
Nevertheless, one must believe what they must.
Entertain whichever reality you choose.
Oh, and I only stated that the south pole shifts to make a point of how ludicrous the globe model has become.

Flat Earth General / Re: Project Blue Beam
« on: September 04, 2016, 11:36:11 PM »
Wow, show me a mountain range that can cast a shadow like that.
Actually, please, tell me more about how a shadow can make something vanish during the day.
Keep your eye on the planes in the video, and once they pass that that line they disappear.
Everything you about clockwise and counterclockwise makes no sense whatsoever.

Unless Im mistaken, that line went above and behind the viewers perspective.
Prove to me, even if a shadow from some mountain range "covered" the planes, how that line could appear naturally.

Flat Earth General / Re: Prove That Antarctica Is A Continent.
« on: September 04, 2016, 10:33:21 PM »
Well is it not true that there are different times around the globe, yet simultaneously?
And last I looked "midnight" relates to a time, corresponding to the cycles of day.
If one assumes they are on a globe when in reality they are on a plane,
Then ones concept of time zones would change.

There fore what I meant to say was a skewing of ones perception of location.

Having 24 hours of light in "Antarctica" is definitely possible on an flat model.
Actually it corresponds directly with the dates already specified for the globular model.
To put it simply, the sun is circling on a path around the known equator that is enlarging and shrinking in diameter.
So theres that.

Try to explain why the southern pole shifts more than the north. Or why they move at all.
Really, whats more confusing, is why it has had no effect on navigation.
Ultimately, if one chooses to ponder these questions, one realizes that a singular pole makes more sense.
Exactly why, if the poles are both magnetic, do compasses only point north?

Last I looked, magnets do not work like that.
If a compass is just a suspended magnetized metallic object then it should at some location, point to south.
Each pole is said to emit its own electromagnetic field, the north, a negative field, and the south is positive.
So there should be somewhere on Earth that a compass can point south.

Flat Earth General / Re: I'd like to talk about Earth as a Globe-Earther.
« on: September 04, 2016, 07:57:45 PM »
This reporter claims that we should not be able to see anything at all. So does every calculation of a globe.

Flat Earth General / Re: Prove That Antarctica Is A Continent.
« on: September 04, 2016, 07:36:58 PM »
"You ask "Exactly why does nobody know why the magnetic south pole shifts so much and the north does not?" Who says "nobody knows"? I don't, so what?
The fact is that the location of the south magnetic pole in 2007 was 64.497 S, 137.684 E. Where it wanders to is not my problem and certainly no evidence of a flat earth!" - Rabinoz

Well, I did not realize you blindly believe in things, just as you accuse those who believe in a flat Earth of doing.
As long as the pole does not wander over your house; I imagine it might be your problem then.
Keep in mind you state ALMOST, NEAR or CLOSE to the poles to prove your point, which I find invalid.
Examine a flat Earth map and one finds the locations stated would indeed receive light simultaneously.

Using "facts" about a pole that you cannot prove exists, or explain its functions, is illogical.
Please note, the poles DO NOT receive six months of darkness OR light.

"Certain astronomical myths die hard. One of these is that the entire Arctic region experiences six months of daylight and six months of darkness."
"This fallacy is repeated in innumerable geography textbooks, as well as travel articles and guides"

Above quoted text is taken from:

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ancient navigation methods
« on: September 04, 2016, 06:50:31 PM »
Where in the article I linked does it say they do not use Polaris in the southern hemisphere of Earth?
Actually there are statements arguing a proof of a flat Earth!
Keep in mind, on a flat Earth there is no need for longitude calculations.
Everything can be based around one singular magnetic pole.

Unless I am mistaken, Columbus had no idea what longitude was.
Please revise your argument into a valid one.

Here are some interesting quotes from the aforementioned link.

"There are two points in the sky that dont move, the Celestial Poles. These are the points in the sky that fall along the line of the earths axis of rotation. In the Northern Hemisphere, there is a star, Polaris, that falls almost exactly at that point. In the Southern Hemisphere, there is nothing to mark the southern celestial pole."

^(Does this not denote that there is no south pole?)

"Well assume Ive dropped you in the Northern Hemisphere. All the tools Im about the give you will work just as well in the Southern Hemisphere, they just have to be adjusted to account for the difficulty in finding the celestial pole."

^(Hmm I wonder why its so difficult...)

Quoted text taken from

Flat Earth General / Re: Prove That Antarctica Is A Continent.
« on: September 04, 2016, 04:56:42 PM »
Well, I hope you realize none of that actually proves Antarctica is the continent like we are led to believe.
As for "space" photos of it; I sit here and compare them to my paper map, none match it! Nor do they to each other.
Knowing people holding events near the coast, or taking a selfie there, does not prove it is surrounded by ocean.
Every bit of information I can find about Antarctica seems to be minimal and misleading.

Underlying problems in firmly held beliefs begs further examination of said beliefs.
Perhaps one should research flights there, all you get is a controlled Disneyland like loop ride on a boat or plane.

Never once are you allowed out of their control, like any other actual continent you can fly to.
Of course there is a circular island dubbed "Deception Island".

Flat Earth General / Re: Project Blue Beam
« on: September 04, 2016, 04:01:58 PM »
A quote- Omega, "the shadow of the Earth on the atmosphere or something else I can't readily think of."
What does that even mean during the day?
Oddly enough you ignore the point of that video, that planes disappeared behind nothing!
Lastly, stop calling people names Omega, its not scientific.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ancient navigation methods
« on: September 04, 2016, 03:42:07 PM »
Well, its called a latitude hook. It sounds like it needs the globe model but it does not.
Actually the concept of "latitude" becomes the only thing required to navigate on a flat Earth.
Knowing the the Earth is stationary aids navigation as well.
Explain why you think I am lying about this.

Unless I am mistaken, this is very simple math compared to a sextant.
Please take a look at the site below for more information.

Flat Earth General / Re: Project Blue Beam
« on: September 04, 2016, 03:16:17 PM »
Where exactly in your equation do you define the globe is wider at the south than the north.
Actually, what exactly do you define as a "polar circumference"? Is there not two poles?
Keeping balance in an equation means one must include all factors, so why not two "polar" circumferences?
Even wikipedia says Geodesy cant decide what Earth looks like.

Unless they are lying...
Please, no! Wikipedia cant lie!

Taken from "The Figure Of Earth" Wikipedia Page

"Modern geodesy tends to retain the ellipsoid of revolution and treat triaxiality and pear shape as a part of the geoid figure: they are represented by the spherical harmonic coefficients [(INSERT RIDICULOUS NUMBERS HERE)] respectively, corresponding to degree and order numbers 2.2 for the triaxiality and 3.0 for the pear shape."

I would have included the number in the parenthesis, but my computer did not recognize them...
Check it out for yourself, its under "Complicated Shapes" Yup, to make sure no one understands it but doesn't care.

<Compelling evidence of a pear shaped Earth.

Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earthers and Empiricism
« on: September 04, 2016, 02:55:44 PM »
Wow, please stop with the name calling Omega. It is not scientific, nor required.
As the definition implies analogies are imperfect.
Knowing the distance of our celestial bodies is not relative to the ability to predict their actions.
Exactly why do I need to know how far the sun is to know that it will rise, and it will fall.

Unless time stops, one cannot accurately measure the distance to the sun. All current equations conflict.
Please, most modern "science" is a hoax, definitions change constantly to fit their lies.

The International Astronomical Union voted in August 2012 to change the definition of the astronomical unit to a plain old number: 149,597,870,700 meters. The measurement is based on the speed of light, a fixed distance that has nothing to do with the sun's mass. A meter is defined as the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in 1 / 299,792,458 of a second.

Tim Sharp, Reference Editor

Flat Earth General / Re: Prove That Antarctica Is A Continent.
« on: September 04, 2016, 02:31:16 PM »
Well, you do realize the midnight sun is a time relative occurrence, easily explained by location skew.
Alaska's 24 hour periods of sun make sense on a flat earth model with expanding and shrinking solar rotation.
Keep dreaming if you think a trip to a station "NEAR" the pole, or a flight "ALMOST" to the pole will convince me.
Exactly why does nobody know why the magnetic south pole shifts so much and the north does not?

Unless there is evidence otherwise, nobody has privately flown over Antarctica since.
Please note in 1935 a flight was supposedly completed, yet it was government funded, thus it does not qualify.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ancient navigation methods
« on: September 04, 2016, 02:01:36 PM »
Wow, this is ridiculous.
All degrees of latitudes and longitudes are meaningless for they are only required on a globular map.
Knowing something exists purely from the preconception of what external stimuli have told you is illogical.
Exactly why is a sextant necessary on a flat Earth?

Using ones own eyes is enough for traveling great distances.
Providing one has intelligence enough to do so.

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20