61

Flat Earth General / Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

« on: October 11, 2017, 06:36:07 AM »

You umm, you DID see the disclaimer on that second image right?

Also there's no 'juggling' between too small to see and see them with the naked eye. If you know where to look you can see their light point in the sky. But without binoculars or a telescope you will not be able to make out details of them. That's it. That's how they can be both too small to see (in detail) and let you see them with the naked eye (point of light) for some of them.

62

Flat Earth Debate / Re: This is all a bit absurd.

« on: October 11, 2017, 06:31:31 AM »

You are ignoring this sockpuppet. Show me his sockpuppeted faggotry.

No ta!

You are also ignoring this sockpuppet. If I show you his sockpuppeted faggotry you will go into a coma as his faggy bitchslapping is so lame.

Okay!

Smart bit of kit, this ignore function.

Now, whilst we wait for the weaponised idiots to cease their bitchslapping, let us learn more about the connection between German rocket design and the Walter submarine turbine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060215104117/http://www.cue-dih.co.uk/aerospace/aeropdfs/htp_for_prop.pdf

Note that the Germans considered it to be the future of submarine propulsion and that it was in a high state of development by the end of WW2, yet it strangely disappeared forever afterwards.

I wonder why?

Interesting, but you're completely wrong on it 'disappearing forever' after WWII.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-test_peroxide :

"Propellant-grade hydrogen peroxide is being used on current military systems and is in numerous defense and aerospace research and development programs. Many privately funded rocket companies are using hydrogen peroxide, such as Armadillo Aerospace and Blue Origin, and some amateur groups have expressed interest in manufacturing their own peroxide, for their use and for sale in small quantities to others."

That also lists many items that used it for well after the end of WWII.

Once again, you've presented a half decent option for something that could provide the power needed, but it doesn't appear to fulfill the requirements laid out to be the replacement for nuclear that is needed. Not to mention what reason there could be to hide the fact this was being used, considering it carries dangers completely different from nuclear. Now either lay off the personal attacks like a grown up, or keep digging yourself a nice deep hole. As well if you're just going to ignore people for voicing something you don't agree with, why are you even on the debate forum?

63

Flat Earth Debate / Re: This is all a bit absurd.

« on: October 10, 2017, 10:29:20 PM »

So you ARE gay?

As well as a big mad lying dyslexic sockpuppet?

Your admission of defeat on this subject is accepted; further crying and bitchslapping is thus unnecessary.

Let's look at some people just like you, eh?

http://bolenreport.com/the-skeptics-who-are-they-what-are-they/

Yeah...

Not the nicest folk to spend time on, eh?

Only reply to this if you are autistic and gay.

You really need to calm down. I've said nothing of the sort you're claiming, and you're being quite childish. Please refrain from the personal attacks and attempt to state any sort of relevant point you might have clearly. Maybe them we can attempt to actually communicate and discuss something.

As a quick reminder to Jack and scepti, I'm quite curious about these H subs now being made. Seems to rather rule out that being the hidden fuel/power they've been claiming is nuclear doesn't it?

64

Flat Earth Debate / Re: This is all a bit absurd.

« on: October 10, 2017, 09:21:11 PM »

Your inability to read is noted, as is your obvious sockpuppetry.

Your insane self justification in the face of the most damning evidence against you, and frankly astonishing sense of unwarranted self importance, were taken into consideration when I came to the conclusion that IDGAF what you have to say about any technical or scientific matter whatsoever.

Only reply to this if you are Gay.

Huh? Self importance? What damning evidence against me? Please use the reply feature to ensure everyone can understand who you are talking to. You seem to be a bit aggressive this evening, maybe try coming back after calming down some? I was simply pointing out the discussion has been about what is in the subs that are stated to be run by nuclear power. Scepti was recently claiming it was Hydrogen cells and they were refilling while under way. JackBlack listed some reasons why that wouldn't really work. I see nothing by him claiming subs cannot run on Hydrogen cells. You appear to have fabricated that, although it's possible I've missed something.

BTW, you're right I'm quite happy this evening. Been a good day.

Gay: Lighthearted and carefree.

65

Flat Earth Debate / Re: This is all a bit absurd.

« on: October 10, 2017, 08:43:18 PM »

Are you talking about fuel cells, the sort of equipment found in hydrogen-powered cars?  We can talk about that, if it's what you mean.

Sort of, yeah.
Don't tell me.....you're and expert with that as well and know it all.

I'm not an expert, but I know a fair deal.
One thing which makes hydrogen fuel cells great and rather attractive as a energy storage medium is that you don't need to take the oxygen with you and can just get it from the air.
But that doesn't work in a sub. For a sub you need to take all the oxygen with you, or you run out of breathable air.

They also aren't that efficient. But assuming 100% efficiency, then for ever 2 molecules of hydrogen and 1 molecule of oxygen you get 1.23V and 4 electrons, or 7.883E-19 J.
So for one mol of oxygen and 2 mol of hydrogen, you get 474 kJ and that produces 2 mols of water, i.e. roughly 18 g of water and 18 g of hydrogen+oxygen.
If you have a reactor running at a mere 10 000 kW (you would need more to compensate for the losses in efficiency of the hydrogen fuel cell, and then more for the "reactor"), that means that every second you are consuming 18 * 10 000 / 474 = 380 g of fuel. In a day you would consume 32.8 tonnes. That is 3.6 tonnes of hydrogen and 29.2 tonnes of oxygen.
Yet you were acting as if the sub could only handle a few kg of nuclear fuel.

So where on the ship are these massive amounts of fuel meant to be stored? The 29.2 tonnes of oxygen works out to be roughly 29.2 kl. The 3.6 tonnes of hydrogen works out to be 51.4 kl.
The ship is only roughly 4 Ml in total (for the USS nautilus).

Then you need to put in the weight and size of the flow cell to generate that much power, which will likely be larger than the ship.
Assuming you managed to liquify it, to take up the least space possible, that

Large populations of givers in monetary terms, as well as scare tactics are very good starter points.
Sell easily available and virtually inexhaustible, almost environmentally safe energy, as the exact opposite.
Clever isn't it?

Nope. If it is easily available and virtually inexhaustible far too many people would be getting their hands on it and using it. Countries would use it to show off and show how much greater they are than other countries.

But perhaps the biggest issue is that you are yet to show this source of easily available and virtually inexhaustible energy.

Until you do, it isn't clever, it is pure stupidity.

Weaponised idiot JackBlack seems to think hydrogen fuel cells cannot be used to propel a submarine...

He is wrong:

http://www.industry.siemens.com/verticals/global/en/marine/submarines/pgd/pem_fuel_cell/pages/default.aspx

Here is the submarine these hydrogen fuel cells propel:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/

It will be noted that the hydrogen and oxygen fuel are stored in tanks located between the inner and outer pressure hulls.

So: everything that weaponised idiot JackBlack wrote was proved WRONG by a simple Google search.

Will one of you REtards make me a special 'defeater of JackBlack' badge now?

Or will you just attempt to shitpost his Fail away?

I simply cannot guess!

Care to point me to where he says a sub can't be powered by Hydrogen fuel cells? He's saying Hydrogen can't be a nuclear power replacement because of the space required, and that you can't be creating Hydrogen out in the middle of the ocean to replace what you're spending.

As an extra point to this though, if they've been using Hydrogen power instead of nuclear since the 60's, why are they bothering to make actual Hydrogen subs now?

66

Flat Earth General / Re: Flights in the Southern Hemisphere

« on: October 09, 2017, 02:18:55 PM »

Rabinoz the flight paths you posted also make sense if the earth was a disk. You guys say that we don't understand the globe, well you guys don't understand the disk. Notice how all the flights Rabinoz posted conviniently avoid Antarctica. Show me the flights over south pole if one exists. Your fucking flights only prove the flat earth.

How do either of those flight paths make sense on a flat Earth?

There's no flights over the pole, because there's no service between cities that it would make sense to go over the pole for.

67

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Real Flat Earth Map (Try this at home) ~

« on: October 09, 2017, 09:48:35 AM »

Why is the Sun the same size at sunset as it is at noon?

Since it never sets, but simply gets further away, we should detect a change In size.

You know, perspective?

The sun is smaller at sun rise & sun set time.

It initially shows up between clouds. It's the clouds that make the sun look "rise" or "set".
There is, again, a space between the sun & the horizon.
The sun little by little will show entire body when getting closer, coz the 'density' of the clouds will decrease.

No it isn't. The size of the sun doesn't change during the day. Plenty of videos that show this.

I can't actually tell what you're attempting to say here. The sun doesn't appear as a small circle and get bigger. As it rises it goes from a point, to a half circle, to a full circle. Clouds or no clouds.

68

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunrise sunset theory

« on: October 06, 2017, 08:26:19 AM »

Are we watching the same video?

<< Moved below for "correction" >>

...was that even a sentence? That's a different video.

Mr th3rm0m3t3r0, it is quite permissible in English to omit some words when the meaning is quite easily understood without them.
But to assist your comprehension I shall correct my omission!

Would you like to claim that the sun is not shining up onto the underside of the clouds in?

[youtube][/youtube]
Sun Beneath Clouds 4

OK, it's "a different video", so what. I do hope that even you will admit that it is the same earth and the same sun.

And from under the clouds, please explain the upward slanting shadow from Mount Rainier at sunrise:

I thought that your sun was at 5,000 km, not 5,000 metres!

These are by far my favorite kind of pictures. The sun is by FAR the best indicator that we can't be on a flat Earth, unless we've managed to completely misunderstand how light works. Because bendy light is the only way to explain these images on a flat Earth.

69

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Addressing problems raised in Q&A

« on: October 05, 2017, 11:56:59 AM »

I just want to comment briefly on 4. From my understanding the 'can't go faster than light' and 'accelerate infinitely without reaching c' are sort of two sides of the same coin. What happens as you go faster is time dilation. So you go faster and faster, and to anyone on the outside you're essentially slowing down. Here's the math I've seen for it.



I could be off on the time dilation bit, it's been a while since I worked with SR, but the rest is right. The other stuff Neil mentions still has relevance though.

70

Flat Earth General / Re: No prizes yet again for flat earthers

« on: October 05, 2017, 05:58:32 AM »

If we can put the peace prize to one side as this has been dealt with, and to be honest was not the focus of the thread, though your attempt to use Hitler as a means of supporting your argument was indeed one giant LOL. This discussion is more about the prizes awarded for scientific achievement. From reading your responses it appears you are very selective in what you believe as regards the validity of those achievements that have been awarded over the years. You also attempt to rubbish the whole process claiming it’s corrupt as money is involved. Everyone who works for a living does so for money.....is this corrupt?
The claims you make are levelled at those acievments, due to your beliefs, that you don’t like. Not liking something appears to be your yardstick for acceptability.
Here is a list of all the Nobel Physics prizes awarded;
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/
If you look through them you will see none have been awarded for any discoveries that relate to the earth being flat. Why is that? Or is it just another conspiracy?

You are misunderstanding me a little. Fair enough though as I talk a bit of shit now and then 

First off - Nobel prize. When you say those words you automatically think 'outstanding person who contributed to the betterment of mankind'

But we know that winners of Nobel prizes has some very shady people in it, some that leave you thinking WTF (I wont go into all the examples again but I think you get my drift)

I personally believe it is these people which have soiled what 'Nobel prize' means. Which means if I read somebody won a Nobel prize - I don't automatically think - Wow that person must be so smart thanks to people who have soiled Nobels reputation, I scrutinize and rather than accept the opinion of people who I believe have made grave errors of judgment in the past, I will make up my own mind and form my own opinion. This means that I can find the winner of one category quite undeserving and full of shit and another category to be spot on. I will no longer allow people who often have a PC agenda to tell me what to think

Gravitational waves were already theorised - it worked in the math. While discovering one may have been remarkable, I don't see how mankind has benefited from the confirmation of a theory there was already reasonable confidence in. I have yet to see a real world example of how we are better off or applications we can utilise.

I would think that discovering something brand new or something that can have real world applications to better us would be more worthy. Plenty of laureates over the years in that list are good choices. Really if we are going to give one for gravitational waves, it should be given to Einstein who theorised it but they don't award it posthumously.

In fact, for everything Einstein brought to the field of physics he only won it once

http://coll100ertexample.blogs.wm.edu/2014/11/05/einstein-and-the-nobel-prize/

And know-it-alls who decide who gets the prizes were baulking at his general relatively model....

Flat earthers wont ever be in that list because they don't bring anything coherent to study. But nothing stopping them from getting nominated right? I say we nominate John Davis for a Nobel prize. He would be a better nomination than Hitler at least. I also believe that having your nomination accepted should be an honour to be on the short list. The fact that we could nominate John Davis for a Nobel prize makes the esteem of Nobel a joke. (sorry john)

So yes, while the Nobel prize has some worthy winners, I believe it's reputation has been tainted with poor choices and political and or PC agendas and the fact that once granted, cant be revoked is a big problem. There are mass murderers (or facilitators of mass murderers) that will go to the grave credited with having won one of the worlds highest honours in the field of human rights. Yes. I think that's a problem

I need to pause you there for a moment. The Nobel isn't about 'benefiting mankind' or anything like that, at least in the realms of the scientific Nobel's. The ones for Chemistry, Physics, and arguably Medicine, are about advancements within that field not necessarily to benefit mankind.

Here is what Nobel had to say when he set it up. "The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. The prize for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical works by Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm; and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be a Scandinavian or not."

As you can see, the only one that really makes reference outside of a field of study, is also the only one I would call subjective to the world outside of it's field: The Nobel Peace Prize. Literature isn't paid all that much attention to, and medicine by it's very nature tends to be geared towards assisting humanity in some manner. But the Nobel is NOT about/for the 'outstanding person who contributed to the betterment of mankind' it is for the most outstanding contribution to the field of the Nobel prize. I would say giving direct proof of gravitational waves is a pretty big contribution to the field of physics. Scientists get crazy giddy when they get actual proof for a theory or hypothesis after all.

What it sounds to me is you have a bit of a higher ideal for these than they are necessarily striving for. The Peace Prize of course is a bit unique in that regard, as it in fact DOES reference something about bettering mankind, even if it's a bit oblique in saying it.

As a last interesting note, it appears the nominations for physics and such are about the same as those for the Peace Prize. https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/physics/

71

Flat Earth General / Re: No prizes yet again for flat earthers

« on: October 04, 2017, 10:14:54 PM »

About to turn in over here, but just wanted to say I've so far found one statement to the effect of "After the nomination, the committee no longer has anything to do with the Nobel prize" or essentially they chair feels it's not their responsibility to keep track of if someone who earned it keeps being worthy of it. One hand I can sort of understand, but on the other there's only five Nobel prizes a year. Think you could keep track of the winners a bit more ya? But I'ma see if I can find anything on the why I'm that regard tomorrow. Well, more than that anyway, as I'm rather curious.

72

Flat Earth General / Re: No prizes yet again for flat earthers

« on: October 04, 2017, 08:07:32 PM »

Well you sure took me to task.




But I rebut

So if the nomination for Adolf Hitler was never meant to be taken seriously' then how did it get that far? Does it not make a mockery of the process?

You would think you could judge the character of someone like Stalin before nominating him. He was responsible for tens of millions of deaths. Again, the fact that someone like him ended up getting nominated at all makes a mockery of prize.

As for Aung San Suu Kyi, so she won an election, insisted on non violent protest (don't we all), the military didn't want to play ball, house arrested her and that gets a peace prize in human rights. Your link says she...

Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, she opposed all use of violence and called on the military leaders to hand over power to a civilian government. The aim was to establish a democratic society in which the country's ethnic groups could cooperate in harmony.

Now that she is in the hot seat, she is comfortable for the military wiping out certain ethnic groups. She is guilty of the very thing she opposed that won her the prize. Why is she not being stripped of it? Thousands of people in her country and indeed over the world have endured far greater hardship and had less privilege than her and have no recognition. She was just a pretty face in a struggled region at the time they could use. Given she is just as callous as the people she fought against her continued title of the Nobel prize for human rights is a joke

Yasser Arafats version of 'peace in the middle east' amounted to wiping out Israel so there would be no more conflict to be had there. If Trump drops a nuke on North Korea and wipes them from existence can he score the peace prize for bringing 'peace' to the area?

I ask you to consider whether Barack Obama would have gotten the peace prize if he were white. My bet is he would not have even been considered. The fact is his administration has so far been among the worst (when it comes to residing over peace in the middle east) and it's a joke he still has it.

I believe in climate change and that we should invest in renewables. I personally don't believe Al Gore believes in it (and if he does, he simply doesn't care given his behaviour and his own personal carbon 'footprint') and simply used it as a vehicle to make money

A nomination can be made by a single person. Does that mean it will get anywhere? No, but I don't see how that makes any sort of mockery of the process.

I feel you must have read the link for Stalin, but as a refresher his first nomination came on the back of good feelings towards the Allies after victory in WWII. Not hard to understand. The second was, once again, just a few people hoping the nomination would in fact help push him towards peace. Not a terrible idea overall, not that it worked.

Many have called for Aung San Suu Kyi's award to be taken back. Why it hasn't, I can't speak on that matter because I don't know how that works. Scratch that, after a bit of digging it appears there bylaws actually state they can't be revoked. How strange. Would have to dig more into the history of that one to figure out why.

What was happening though at the time of Yasser's award? Once again, we cannot criticize the awarding of a peace nobel based on what they've done *after* it's been awarded. We have to judge only what they've done to that point. EDIT: I would note I'm actually not sure exactly what was going on at the time of his award at this time, but I DID find out in an unrelated article that one member of the committee resigned in protest when he got part of it.

Yes. I believe he would have considering the state of the US and world at that time. This is purely opinion though of course. Once again, the peace prize was awarded just 8 months into his administration, so the things that happened afterward cannot be considered, and for reasons I'm not sure on it looks like they can't be revoked.

You're free to believe that, but that doesn't change the fact he was very active in pushing for it, and the Climate Change Committee DID manage to push some good stuff for it. This seems to be a personal opinion that he shouldn't have gotten it rather than any fact or evidence based reasoning. Not sure it requires more discussion.

So to wrap up, there are many individuals capable of nominating someone for a Nobel Prize simply by their recommendation. Being nominated doesn't really mean anything considering less than 1% win it (2016 had record number of nominations at 376, with this year being the second highest of 316) especially considering it's a committee who will eventually be the deciding factor. For some reason not explained in the bylaws, a nobel cannot be revoked. I might go looking deeper later because I'm curious on why that is myself, but I don't have time for what could be a long search tonight. It's also rather disingenuous to criticize an awarded Nobel prize based on actions that happened AFTER it was awarded because of this.

73

Flat Earth General / Re: No prizes yet again for flat earthers

« on: October 04, 2017, 06:24:27 PM »

Tell me, what do YOU think of the Nobel peace prize winners I put up? Were they deserving? Come now, don't dodge the question

You can surely see my point hat the 'winners' aren't always worthy and the candidates like Hitler and Stalin??? I just shake my head. I don't know maybe you think they were worthy candidates. You cant see anything wrong with the process.

You also seem to think that the motivation of money would never corrupt a person. I envy your thinking but it does not reflect reality

Ah so what your saying is things YOU agree with are legitimate while things YOU don’t like are frauds and fakes and a waste of time.

I'm not the kind of person who is rusted on to any particular 'side' I call out BS when I see it and call out legitimacy when I see it too. This is the way everyone should be.

So, context on some of these things is important.

"Adolf Hitler was nominated once in 1939. Incredulous though it may seem today, the Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1939, by a member of the Swedish parliament, an E.G.C. Brandt. Apparently though, Brandt never intended the nomination to be taken seriously."

"As an ally of the United States and the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union fought to defeat the Nazis. And during the war years he was portrayed very positively in the Western press. Despite the millions of Soviet citizens who died during collectivization and purges, let alone the millions more who died as a result of poor management of the Soviet war effort, Stalin did lead the Soviet war effort which eventually beat the Nazis and freed Norway. That was enough for a nomination in 1945.

The story in 1948 is somewhat different. Stalin was nominated by a college professor in Prague at a time when the Soviets' contributions to the war effort were still warmly remembered and their ever-increasing power in states like Czechoslovakia made showings of respect for Stalin very prudent."

You have to remember neither of them were *always* mass killing enemies of the people, and nominating someone for a Nobel is a far cry from actually winning one.

Looks like there was good reason for Aung San Suu Kyi too at the time she got it. https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1991/kyi-facts.html

Not as much info for Yasser Arrafat, but I would imagine some similar reasoning to Aung, and he split it. https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1994/

Obama got it at the very start of his term. https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/obama-facts.html Their reasoning at the time seems pretty fair.

I can see why you feel Al Gore doesn't deserve shit if you don't believe in climate change, but once again their reasoning for it seems pretty solid, and he technically split it with the Climate Change Committee. https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-facts.html

So yeah, all in all the winners seem worthy (at the time they got it, can't be judged on future actions no one knows about) and Stalin and Hitler never won it, and were in fact a token to try and help promote peace, and a joke respectively. Do some fucking research next time please.

As for science, the nobel prizes in them are all about contributions to that field. So as someone NOT in said field, of course you're going to not think some of them are particularly good choices. Hell, I bet some of those IN the field say the same way. But to suggest money is a big motivator, you would have to present actual evidence, of which currently you've given none.

74

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunrise sunset theory

« on: October 04, 2017, 02:19:51 PM »

In what way does it not look flat to you?

In what way does it not look like a giant sphere to you?

As for things indicating it isn't flat:
The fact that you get a sharp "horizon" rather than it fading to a blur or seeing all the way to the edge.
The fact that the sun appears below the clouds, even though it would need to be significantly above the clouds for Earth to be flat.

Great response, interested to see the other sides view of these facts. I really do hope they try to explain it unlike usual

I too look forward to any sort of coherent explanation for sunset that doesn't require light to do things it's never been observed doing.

75

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunrise sunset theory

« on: October 04, 2017, 05:39:46 AM »

Local Time: October 03, 2017, 10:08:04 PM

Strange. Where do you live?

Why does it matter? Does the sun set differently in different parts of the world? Or were you meaning look outside right now when I can't see more than a few blocks anyway? Because if the latter that doesn't seem very productive for either discussion.

You (along with other flerfers) like to state to look outside to see the evidence of a flat Earth. I look outside and think about all those sunsets I watched growing up camping and think about how none of them are possible on a FE.

No, I was referring to the fact that no matter where you are, the Sun probably isn't setting at 10 PM.

Not sure what that has to do with looking outside making me think of FE impossible sunsets. O.o "Look outside" isn't very compelling evidence for a FE.

On the topic of awesome FE impossible sunsets though, enjoy this (although I suppose it could be sunrise too.)
[YouTube][/YouTube]

It has to do with the fact that you claim to have seen the Sun setting at 10 PM out your window. This to me indicates that you are a dishonest person.

Looks pretty flat from up there in that plane.

You really just pay attention to what you want to don't you? I never attempted to claim the sun was setting right at that moment, and if you inferred that I'm sorry. You offered up the idea to 'look out your window' as proof of a flat Earth, I offered up the setting sun being able to be seen from one's window as evidence it's not flat even when you do that. You're the one who assumed I was speaking about exactly that time (which for the record was not 10 PM for me).

Pretty sure this thread is about sunrise and sunset, so I'm not talking about the horizon there, but rather the sun BELOW the clouds. An illusion that is impossible upon a flat Earth, but readily explainable upon a round. Because, once again, you can't have a sunset/rise like we do every day, on a flat Earth.

76

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunrise sunset theory

« on: October 03, 2017, 10:28:32 PM »

Local Time: October 03, 2017, 10:08:04 PM

Strange. Where do you live?

Why does it matter? Does the sun set differently in different parts of the world? Or were you meaning look outside right now when I can't see more than a few blocks anyway? Because if the latter that doesn't seem very productive for either discussion.

You (along with other flerfers) like to state to look outside to see the evidence of a flat Earth. I look outside and think about all those sunsets I watched growing up camping and think about how none of them are possible on a FE.

No, I was referring to the fact that no matter where you are, the Sun probably isn't setting at 10 PM.

Not sure what that has to do with looking outside making me think of FE impossible sunsets. O.o "Look outside" isn't very compelling evidence for a FE.

On the topic of awesome FE impossible sunsets though, enjoy this (although I suppose it could be sunrise too.)
[YouTube][/YouTube]

77

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunrise sunset theory

« on: October 03, 2017, 10:12:28 PM »

I gave several facts supporting my claim that Earth is special.

No argument!

It is also flat.

Now, you have an argument. Justify "It is also flat" and we'jj take it from there.
That is not evidence of the earth being flat and I thought that whether the earth is flat or a spherical was the point of the whole discussion.

No other celestial bodies are. Therefore, why should we call Earth a planet? Why don't you address what I said rather than misdirecting?

You present sufficient evidence for the earth being flat first, then there won't be a problem.
We cannot "address what you said" until the shape and place of the earth are settled.

Look out your window.

That setting sun sure makes it look round to me.

Local Time: October 03, 2017, 10:08:04 PM

Strange. Where do you live?

Why does it matter? Does the sun set differently in different parts of the world? Or were you meaning look outside right now when I can't see more than a few blocks anyway? Because if the latter that doesn't seem very productive for either discussion.

You (along with other flerfers) like to state to look outside to see the evidence of a flat Earth. I look outside and think about all those sunsets I watched growing up camping and think about how none of them are possible on a FE.

78

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunrise sunset theory

« on: October 03, 2017, 10:07:06 PM »

I gave several facts supporting my claim that Earth is special.

No argument!

It is also flat.

Now, you have an argument. Justify "It is also flat" and we'jj take it from there.
That is not evidence of the earth being flat and I thought that whether the earth is flat or a spherical was the point of the whole discussion.

No other celestial bodies are. Therefore, why should we call Earth a planet? Why don't you address what I said rather than misdirecting?

You present sufficient evidence for the earth being flat first, then there won't be a problem.
We cannot "address what you said" until the shape and place of the earth are settled.

Look out your window.

That setting sun sure makes it look round to me.

79

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If the earth is flat, then why...

« on: October 03, 2017, 04:36:58 PM »

Where did I avoid any issues being discussed? Why would I be here if I had nothing to say?

How about repeatedly in this thread, where you have continually failed to address the OP and explain how this could possibly work with a FE.
How about in other threads, where you repeatedly pleaded ignorance to how a sharp horizon indicates Earth is flat?
How about in other threads, where you repeatedly claimed that refraction can explain it, yet failed to provide an explanation of how when asked?
How about in other thread, where you baselessly asserted that the great circle corresponds to the curve you should see as the horizon and continually avoided the issues that were raised in relation to that?

You seem to be here to just spout shit and stir people up.

Again, you seem to just be more interested in asserting your weird type of arrogance than actually countering anything.

No, I'm more interested in pointing out BS and explaining why it is BS.
I have repeatedly countered the crap FEers have brought up.
I even countered some things REers have brought up which were wrong.

Just because you don't accept something doesn't mean I'm wrong. You have to prove it, which most of the time you fail to do.

No, ffs, just no.  It's not on anyone else to prove something you said is false.  The burden is entirely on you to substantiate your statements with evidence.  I asked you earlier in the thread to provide math showing the type of refraction you would need isn't magic, but actually physically explainable.  As expected, you've come up with nothing. 

If I tell you the world is shaped like a cube, I can't then tell you that you have to prove me wrong if you don't accept it.  I need to offer the evidence that supports my claim.  God damn I hope you are lying about your science degree, and if you're not, I really really hope you aren't responsible for teaching science to anyone because you apparently have no clue about how anything works.

The burden of proof lies on the claimant. If I claim something and substantiate it, if you don't properly address what I've used to substantiate it, you can't have a proper argument.

Sorry but, where have you used anything beyond your own word to 'substantiate' something? If I say "Obama was behind 9/11, and it's obvious why because he wasn't in the WH" there is no impetus on you to refute it with anything more than 'No he wasn't, show us actual proof if you want to make that claim' at most. I could very well be wrong, but I don't remember seeing anything from you that would amount to substantial proof, like math or documented experiments. Just you saying "This is how it could/would work." At a minimum this is what it seems 'ItsRoundIPromise' is claiming, and I can't presently recall you offering anything better than your words and personal explanation for just about anything at present. If you've got it, would love to be proven wrong.

80

Flat Earth General / Re: The question no ones asking?

« on: October 03, 2017, 02:21:23 PM »

In general, refraction in the atmosphere causes light to bend down. This is opposite what is needed for the FE to explain sunset.

That's exactly what's needed to explain an FE sunset......

No? The light would bend in a way that causes the sun to appear higher in the sky, not lower. FE needs the light to bend 'up' in order to help cover the 20 degree gap. Light bending to make something appear higher in the sky than it is (going from a less dense medium to a more dense one for instance) doesn't help the sun set on a FE.

81

Flat Earth General / Re: The question no ones asking?

« on: October 03, 2017, 02:02:13 PM »

Also, I think you may be mistaken on that.

Mistaken how? I think you might have misread with his use of up/down. Your image shows exactly the issue though, the sun should appear higher in the sky due to refraction, not lower since the air gets denser as you get closer to Earth's surface.

I mean, this would happen on a flat or round Earth. Are you making this into an "existence of refraction" debate?

Ok, I'm lost. He said: "Because, as I have explained elsewhere repeatedly, the atmosphere, in general due to it being denser closer to the surface in general, results in light curving downwards, not upwards. FE needs this to be inverted and nearly constant. That is why it is magic." Was your post here:

Also, I think you may be mistaken on that.

Not in reply to that? If so, how is he mistaken? Your diagram shows exactly what the issue is with a FE sunset and refraction. Refraction will bend the light to make the sun appear higher in the sky than it is, because the air near the ground is more dense than that above it. Thus bending the light 'down' not up.

If it was not in reply to that part, then I apologize and request you please help correct my error in context and explain what you actually meant with the diagram.

82

Flat Earth Debate / Re: This is all a bit absurd.

« on: October 03, 2017, 12:32:05 PM »

You're the one making the positive claim, you must provide proof of this 'proven fact', it's not on him to show you are lying. Christopher Hitchens — 'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.'

you claim that they exist and that there is proof about it.

show us this proof.

You guys are morans...

Ask your fellow RE-tards.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/102307/norwegian-arrested-after-antarctic-voyage

This isn't proof of your claim at all. You claim "The Ice Wall of Antarctica and its surrounding waters are patrolled by teams from many different countries." This man wasn't arrested until getting basically back to Chile. Not to mention this is apparently his second trip. What does this prove other than the fact many countries are part of the Antarctica treaty, which is already known?

83

Flat Earth Debate / Re: This is all a bit absurd.

« on: October 03, 2017, 10:57:07 AM »

This post clearly demonstrates the limited thinking RE-tards have when formulating an argument.

Acknowledges the limits of sailing (i.e., most ports of call for ships within reasonable distance of the Ice Wall would be in locations already inhabited) yet argues for soldiers guarding the ENTIRE perimeter...

Nope, but it does demonstrate your shortcomings.

Yes, most ports close to your imaginary ice wall are inhabited. So what?
Ships also travel between these ports (and other ports)
What is to stop them from taking a detour and visiting the ice wall somewhere between them?

That is why the entire perimeter would need to be guarded.

Only a stupid RE-tard would insist on such a stupid route.

A sensible flat earther would not venture on such a long and stupid journey.

The Ice Wall would only need to be monitored in a select few areas, in a direct line of N and S between the Wall and ports of call in South America (Tierra Del Fuego) South Africa (Cape of Good Hope) and Australia, with a few dozen troops. There would be plenty of time to provide accurate tracking of any approaching vessel and intercept that vessel at any point of direct approach and a few miles to left or right of that approach.

simply bullshit from you.

show us even one evidence of that patrol unit you talking about.
only one person that can confirm that he was member of that patrol unit

The Ice Wall of Antarctica and its surrounding waters are patrolled by teams from many different countries.

Proven fact.

Whether you like it or not.

If you have evidence I am lying, provide it.

You're the one making the positive claim, you must provide proof of this 'proven fact', it's not on him to show you are lying. Christopher Hitchens — 'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.'

84

Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Flipper Theory General/Poll/Explanation

« on: October 03, 2017, 10:54:01 AM »

"Mountain of evidence" is all you roundies talk about. All of you clowns are like a hive-mind; all brainwashed by NASA. This "mountain of evidence" is easily debunkable. Ask ANYTHING and we will come up with a logical explanation to prove the flat earth flipper theory CORRECT. Read the bible, the earth is flat, so if you are a roundie, you are an atheist.

Sunsuck

Blue Marble photo from Apollo 17

You know these photos are all fake right? They know that it is impossible to take perfect centered photos from a satellite so they just computer generate hundreds of pictures to make it seem like we can. And lets not mention the number times that the "photos" show North America as half the size of the Earth.

How come there are no NASA images from above the arctic? Suspicious...

No they aren't "fake"...

Differences in photographic distance account for the size variation of continents.

I trust Google Earth... because I can go to every point on this planet that I've been to and zoom in and see where i've been.... and there are a few places I've been to....

With Google Earth I can recreate the left image (2007) .... I cannot recreate the right image (2012)...

I don't know where the pictures came from.... I know the illuminati picture claims they are both from Nasa, but.... I can't confirm that...

I recall someone describing how that image was taken. I'll see if I can find it, but from what I recall it had a lot to do with altitude, and maybe something with camera lens? Lemme see what I can some up with, or maybe if I can duplicate it on GE.

85

Flat Earth General / Re: The question no ones asking?

« on: October 03, 2017, 10:47:14 AM »

Also, I think you may be mistaken on that.

Mistaken how? I think you might have misread with his use of up/down. Your image shows exactly the issue though, the sun should appear higher in the sky due to refraction, not lower since the air gets denser as you get closer to Earth's surface.

86

Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Flipper Theory General/Poll/Explanation

« on: October 03, 2017, 09:14:15 AM »

"Mountain of evidence" is all you roundies talk about. All of you clowns are like a hive-mind; all brainwashed by NASA. This "mountain of evidence" is easily debunkable. Ask ANYTHING and we will come up with a logical explanation to prove the flat earth flipper theory CORRECT. Read the bible, the earth is flat, so if you are a roundie, you are an atheist.

Sunsuck

Blue Marble photo from Apollo 17

You know these photos are all fake right? They know that it is impossible to take perfect centered photos from a satellite so they just computer generate hundreds of pictures to make it seem like we can. And lets not mention the number times that the "photos" show North America as half the size of the Earth.

How come there are no NASA images from above the arctic? Suspicious...

No they aren't "fake"...

Differences in photographic distance account for the size variation of continents.

Just because you're in a different area in "orbit" doesn't mean you see certain continents twice as large. You're just making things up. Get straight or get out. Satellites don't exist because there is no orbit around a DISK.

Yes actually it does. Not understanding something doesn't make it not true. Also for the record:

Why is there such a big cloud in the way of North America? because NASA didn't want to edit in so much land mass into their computer software. Also that picture of the arctic isn't DIRECTLY above it. This is because the poles would get in the way. What about pictures of the antarctic? Show me a picture taken by NASA that shows the ice wall and II will believe NASA is truthful.

The hell, where's the second image.... http://www.gifex.com/images/0X0/2009-11-04-10830/Arctic-satellite-map.jpg Most Arctic imaging is done in reference to the ice shelves, so finding anything directly above isn't like.

Umm, why would images of the antarctic show the ice wall that doesn't exist? There's plenty of pictures of Antarctica floating about, but none are going to show your imaginary ice wall.

87

Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Flipper Theory General/Poll/Explanation

« on: October 03, 2017, 08:26:37 AM »

"Mountain of evidence" is all you roundies talk about. All of you clowns are like a hive-mind; all brainwashed by NASA. This "mountain of evidence" is easily debunkable. Ask ANYTHING and we will come up with a logical explanation to prove the flat earth flipper theory CORRECT. Read the bible, the earth is flat, so if you are a roundie, you are an atheist.

Sunsuck

Blue Marble photo from Apollo 17

You know these photos are all fake right? They know that it is impossible to take perfect centered photos from a satellite so they just computer generate hundreds of pictures to make it seem like we can. And lets not mention the number times that the "photos" show North America as half the size of the Earth.

How come there are no NASA images from above the arctic? Suspicious...

No they aren't "fake"...

Differences in photographic distance account for the size variation of continents.

Just because you're in a different area in "orbit" doesn't mean you see certain continents twice as large. You're just making things up. Get straight or get out. Satellites don't exist because there is no orbit around a DISK.

Yes actually it does. Not understanding something doesn't make it not true. Also for the record:

88

Flat Earth General / Re: The question no ones asking?

« on: October 02, 2017, 09:48:39 PM »

So this site is popular because anyone with a braincell on duty can see that nearly everything nasa and google allow you to see of space is clearly fake, and poorly done in most cases, like holy shit. but how do you go from ok, these images are fake, to the earth is flat? surely the question people should be asking, ok these images are fake, what is it really? getting caught up in the paradigm that its flat is no more productive then believing the shit nasa spews out. where are the real scientists? the people that actually give a damn about progression and arent just sold out for money.

The main observation is just that - any way I've ever observed the Earth, it appears flat.

So have you never observed sunsets/rises or moonsets/rises? Never used a telescope or similar to take a peek at the ISS out another satellite? Both easy examples of round Earth. Do you not get out much? Sorry if so, there's so much to see.

89

Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Flipper Theory General/Poll/Explanation

« on: October 02, 2017, 10:47:38 AM »

1) Why isn't humanity dead, having been around at the end of the last ice age, and thus around for a 'flip' event?
2) Why does the 'acceleration' of the Earth vary depending on where you are by a measurable amount?

I should also note if you are going to accept Relativity (which you must in order for acceleration to be indistinguishable from gravity) you also don't have to worry about going faster than the speed of light as a property therein. So this whole 'flip' idea isn't needed. There are other issues here, but let's have you field these ones first.

1) Some humans survived the great extinction, as I said, small animals and those that hid could survive such events.

2) Where did you get that the acceleration feels different at different parts of the Earth?

Why must I accept relativity in order for acceleration to work? And we can't go faster than the speed of light, only light can do that, and light is massless. Did you fail basic High School Physics?

1) Fine then, fair enough.

2) It doesn't feel different, it's just measurably different. As shown here: https://briankoberlein.com/wp-content/uploads/Earth_surfacegravity_lge.jpg

As NAZA suggests, you're accepting two fundamental principles of it. Do you just throw out what doesn't fit your model? Under relativity you will never actually achieve the speed of light. Where did I suggest otherwise? You don't need to flip, because the very thing that allows acceleration to reproduce gravity says you won't actually reach the speed of light under this model.

90

Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Flipper Theory General/Poll/Explanation

« on: October 02, 2017, 07:42:07 AM »

1) Why isn't humanity dead, having been around at the end of the last ice age, and thus around for a 'flip' event?
2) Why does the 'acceleration' of the Earth vary depending on where you are by a measurable amount?

I should also note if you are going to accept Relativity (which you must in order for acceleration to be indistinguishable from gravity) you also don't have to worry about going faster than the speed of light as a property therein. So this whole 'flip' idea isn't needed. There are other issues here, but let's have you field these ones first.