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 - Lamaface

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12
31
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Count to 50 before a mod posts!
« on: December 06, 2018, 02:26:35 PM »
Eight

32
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« on: December 06, 2018, 08:35:39 AM »
You are weird

My motive is simple: money. I need money to save my relative from cancer.

Therefore, I wrote some papers. But they are being rejected by "team Globe". I think, it is because they have satanic methodology of hatred. So, I am changing it. The world is not a brick wall. It can be changed.
Sorry to hear that. Hope she/he pulls through.

I think nobody here hates you dude. They just disagree with you and so do I. You should put away your adversity to anything that even remotely disagree with your vision on science and god and maybe you’ll start making money with those papers of yours.

Good luck.

33
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Count to 50 before a mod posts!
« on: December 06, 2018, 06:43:21 AM »
4

Agreed

34
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« on: December 06, 2018, 05:28:25 AM »
You are weird

35
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« on: December 05, 2018, 10:21:44 PM »
Made up things are not real, because they are made up. I would made up 100000 usd in my pocket, are they there?
So your god, which is made up, is not real, so theism isn't absolute truth.

See how this line of thinking goes?

You either need a justification for why these things are dismissed as not real, or your god gets dismissed as well.

In the end, you either have to accept pixels as absolute truth, or you don't have your god being absolute truth.

Which will it be?
We are talking not about my God, but about your pixies. Let us get done with pixies first.
They are man made, thus they do no exist. Do you copy?
We are talking not about our pixies but about your god. Let us get done with god first.
He is man made, thus he does not exist. Do you copy?

See what I did there? I can feel you’re close to an epiphany so hang in there.

36
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« on: December 05, 2018, 08:41:13 AM »
Now, where is your "ABSOLUTE TRUTH" again and why can't that include the Heliocentric Solar System?

it is irrefutable, that the reality exists- Absolute True.
Now what is your  "ABSOLUTE TRUTH"?
And you seem unable to say that "ABSOLUTE TRUTH" can't include the Heliocentric Solar System.
Imagine, that all genius on Earth and aliens on other planets will extremely intensively try to disprove the existence of God. The try will continue all the history of Universe. Suppose, the God has never became disproved.
Therefore, one concludes, that theism is the Absolute True.
Imagine, that all genius on Earth and aliens on other planets will extremely intensively try to disprove the possibility of a flat earth. The try will continue all the history of Universe. Suppose, the flat earth has never became disproved.
Therefore, one concludes, that globe earth is the Absolute True.

See what I did there?

37
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« on: December 05, 2018, 12:55:29 AM »
More like . . .

Thesist - I believe that a god exists.
Atheist - so what.
More like

Gnostic theist: I believe in a god and I claim he exists

Agnostic theist:I believe in a god but I don’t know if he exists

Gnostic atheist: I don’t believe in a god and I claim he doesn’t exist

Agnostic atheist: I don’t believe in a god but maybe he does exist ... I don’t really know.

38
Wednesday

39
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« on: December 04, 2018, 07:48:33 AM »
Again, “science” is not the end-result. It’s a methodology of progressive insight. A statement being false does not make that statement magically un-scientific
Science is quest for Knowledge. A falsehood is not part of Knowledge.
Depends on what you interpret as a falsehood ... and that is exactly where you and the rest of the replyers in this thread are in disagreement.

You apparently claim that anything that is proven to be incorrect is not science. That claim is simply not true and that has been explained to you multiple times already.

Also, you do realize you are discrediting yourself and anyone on this board with your claim, do you?



40
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« on: December 04, 2018, 01:34:48 AM »
Again, “science” is not the end-result. It’s a methodology of progressive insight. A statement being false does not make that statement magically un-scientific

41
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« on: December 01, 2018, 01:36:32 AM »
Your premise is wrong.

Science is a method, not the result ... whether that be trough confirming or falsifying.

42
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Count to 50 before a mod posts!
« on: November 30, 2018, 11:12:36 PM »
1
11?

Anyway

12

(Also, can I get a copy of the Turdinary?)

43
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: To Find PHEW with Easy Way
« on: November 30, 2018, 08:12:54 AM »
Can you please explain what you are trying to prove in your OP.
There is no information there.

By using (non flexible) tape and cylinder, you can find the real C/D, AKA Phew equals 3.17157
Please provide actual test results. It’s easy to find a cylinder and some tape.

44
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Count to 50 before a mod posts!
« on: November 30, 2018, 08:10:26 AM »
6

45
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to refute team "Globe"?
« on: November 30, 2018, 07:14:07 AM »
Science requires that something is potentially refutable, not that it is refutable.
You are talking as a sane person. Therefore you are not using Popper method. Your one is

Science is confirmable, until it is refuted. So, Theology is Science.
Theology doesn’t require a deity to be factual or scientist to believe in a god. It is nothing more or less than studying the content of a religion.

Your statement “theology is science” is correct. The statement “religion is science” would be wrong

46
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Count to 50 before a mod posts!
« on: November 29, 2018, 09:01:56 AM »
ONE

47
This is a debate board on the internet ... what did you expect? Of course there will be anger and trolling.

48
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Was Today's Modular Mars Landing Fake?
« on: November 28, 2018, 03:55:17 AM »
Whenever I read ASI, I’m out

49
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Was Today's Modular Mars Landing Fake?
« on: November 26, 2018, 10:26:44 PM »
Just wondering what FE believers think of this question.

Bear in mind that my son works at JPL NASA in Pasadena. :-)

History records that the NASA probe lost contact roughly 2 months ago. The images we see are actually from Wadi Rum in Jordan. To avoid international embarrassment and potential funding cuts for another failed Mars mission, it was decided to fake it instead. A lot of people at NASA though are oblivious to the real truth and are programming an identical made probe in Jordan with a time delay to add to the realism.

NASA has done a few cool successful missions, but landing on other worlds is not one of them. - Yet.
How did you acquire this knowledge my furry friend?

50
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: The Easiest Logics for a Sphere
« on: November 25, 2018, 01:02:26 AM »


And hey, it's slightly under 4.

That’s not how you measure something ... shame on you

51
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: November 24, 2018, 02:15:25 AM »
The first mid-term election for a first term president almost always goes to the other party.

It's comical how little you actually know about American politics.

Not since 1974 after Watergate,  I'm totally unsurprised about how ignorant you are about your own politics.
I could be wrong but I think you are wrong. Obama lost the senate in 2014

52
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What would it take to fake the ISS?
« on: November 23, 2018, 10:05:59 AM »
Also, I appreciate your effort in this thought experiment Jane. I hope the thread will not derail into lunacy.

53
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What would it take to fake the ISS?
« on: November 23, 2018, 10:05:17 AM »
Since the ISS can be zoomed in on by publicly available telescopes, the telescope industry would need to be “in” on it as well.
Was going to tackle the question of what would present the appearance that can be seen later, probably with just the shape of whatever craft it is, and potential aerodynamic issues, but you've piqued my curiosity. What do you imagine the telescope industry doing?
Good question!
Mediocre answer:

I guess each telescope would have to have some kind of complementary mirror system that can be used to project an image of the ISS into the viewing thingy. You can’t have a recording playing on loop for obvious reasons.

54
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What would it take to fake the ISS?
« on: November 23, 2018, 08:49:29 AM »
Since the ISS can be zoomed in on by publicly available telescopes, the telescope industry would need to be “in” on it as well.

55
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The distortion of science
« on: November 21, 2018, 05:10:47 AM »
Dis thread tho

56
wow another person said pi is wrong...  ;D

if you want Phew calculation whose result is CLOSED to Pi calculation result, here it is.

In 1/2 A which be rotated, we've got 23.947° as the sin position of balance: at its both sides, there are 07929 areas.
So the length of rotation is not half C, but 0.4089 C, i.e. 0.4089x6.34314=2.57462. So the half phew area times 2.57462 = 4.08279.

It's not precisely 2/3 of cilinder volume. It's a bit less than 2/3. Did you see the clue at the cutted video after green water filling??
She made the cilinder "looked full" by cutting the footage. Actually not really full.

PHEW has spoken. :')
I've never understood your problem with pi being an irrational number.  What's up with that?

"0.261 Test"
Nonsense

And you know it

I can claim pi is equal to 5,567 and call it Phil ... and calculate the volume of a globe with it.

The big difference is that the result would be catastrophically wrong.

57
Pi, Phew and Pho are all wrong.

The only one that is right is Phil.

58
Flat Earth General / Re: Newton and the apple, Zetetic style
« on: November 18, 2018, 03:43:12 AM »
"Instead of asking himself what caused the apple to fall to the ground, Sir Isaac Newton should have asked how it got up there in the first place! What else if not levitation enables a tree to grow upwards against the action of gravity?"

Viktor Schauberger
Newton was not a botanist. Neither am I but I know trees grow up to reach the sunlight and balance themselves using gravity.

59
Flat Earth General / Re: Newton and the apple, Zetetic style
« on: November 18, 2018, 02:58:39 AM »
A true zetetic flat earther would just claim the apple industry is in on the global conspiracy

60
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Flats for Spherical Area
« on: November 18, 2018, 02:47:39 AM »
Danang, you have to stop pretending you can make a 3D object from a 2D one without any level of distortion. That has been explained to you in several threads. Making new topics over and over again will not make it suddenly make it work.

You have been given several easy experiments to perform so instead of thinking start doing those.

Or you’re a troll ...

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12