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 - zork

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 110
31
Flat Earth General / Re: Looking for FE explanation of video
« on: February 19, 2019, 02:13:43 PM »
And when Neil deGrasse Tyson screams it's flat at 128.000 feet you throw some magic stuff on his clear statements that make him claim something entirely different.

 Don't misrepresent Tyson, he did not say it's flat.

This is to easy, when you throw all forms of intellectual integraty in the trashcan.......then everything is exactly how it should be on your globe.
Of course it is easy for you because you ignore everything else and concentrate on semantics of one sentence one person said. And demand that we must take it verbatim what he said. We don't have to. Tyson saying that people don't see curvature is not some absolute truth that means no one can see and that it is flat. It just means that just galncing at horizon you can't easily discern the curvature. If you use some devices to help you discern it then you can see. It is like with pilliard cue which is slightly curved but you don't see it just by looking at it. You must use something else or look at specific angle or along it to see the curve. So don't nitpick on the meaning of some dude words but address the real issue here which is - there is a curve if you use something to help to discern it and there is horizon drop which is also indication of curvature. Everything is like it should be on globe earth and nothing is like it should be on flat earth. Hell, you don't even know how things should look on flat earth. So I really don't understand what you are talking about here.

32
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity isn't constant
« on: February 19, 2019, 02:02:49 PM »
Then my previous post did answer the question:
Have I surveyed and found local or celestial source to account for every alleged variation of g on earth's surface?  NO, of course not. I don't believe it has been done by anyone else either or there would be no need for further gravimetry.
How did that answer the question about how did you determine that specifically something from above affects things and nothing else and how did you measure it? That is only you stating that you didn't measure anything.

33
Flat Earth General / Re: Looking for FE explanation of video
« on: February 19, 2019, 12:50:58 PM »
Please enlighten me why Neil deGrasse Tyson freely claims we DON'T SEE EARTH'S CURVE AT 128.000 FEET ?

While the likes of ''real earth believer'' claim it should be very visble at 128.000 feet.

What's the catch here ?
Neil does not "claim" absolute truth there. He says that we can't easily observe the curvature at that height. So if you just glance out of the window then you don't see the curvature. I guess the catch here is that you want to attribute the absolute truth claim to Neil. If he says something then it is so. Somehow Neil must be some absolute authority for us ins your mind. I wonder why.
And in same time why do you ignore the clear indication of curved surface which manifest itself with horizon drop. Horizon line does not drop below eye level on flat surface.
I disagree..and you know why ?
Because lots of people claim to have ''seen'' a slight curve from an airplane window, high mountain or tower. Heck i personally know people who claim to have seen a very tiny curve at the beach.

 Your disagreement is not really relevant here because you just disagree because you just don't want to agree and if we really start talking about curve at that altitude then we don't talk about curve which people see or think they see but about measurable curve. Like horizon being in middle of the camera and you draw a straight line along the horizon and you see that horizon is not straight. It is predictable and you can get yuor photo and use Walter Bislin app at http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat-Earth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth to put data in place and see if its prediction shows same curvature as on picture.
But then we are in stiuation when you just start denying that there is curve and you just have to make up something to explain it away. Becasue there can't be curve and if it is then it is not really curve but something else.

And you still  ignore the clear indication of curved surface which manifest itself with horizon drop. Horizon line does not drop below eye level on flat surface.

34
Flat Earth General / Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
« on: February 19, 2019, 12:41:03 PM »
Sungenis is christian apologetic and Bennet is speculative fiction writer. Good to know from who sandokhan gets his information.

35
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity isn't constant
« on: February 19, 2019, 12:34:51 PM »
I have made several attempts, through the years.  We measured the fall of balls in a vacuum cylinder. We also measured a feather's fall. The feather fell slightly slower, presumably because we could not afford a higher quality vacuum. Both results fell within our assumed margin of error of eachother and the accepted value of g.
That is not measuring celestial gravitation or whatever celestial thing. You just measured falling speed of objects and the effect of air drag. I am interested how did you determine that something above even has any effect on objects? How did you eliminate the effect from above from all other effects? How do you make out  difference from "effect from above" and everything else?

36
Flat Earth General / Re: Looking for FE explanation of video
« on: February 19, 2019, 02:12:25 AM »
Please enlighten me why Neil deGrasse Tyson freely claims we DON'T SEE EARTH'S CURVE AT 128.000 FEET ?

While the likes of ''real earth believer'' claim it should be very visble at 128.000 feet.

What's the catch here ?
Neil does not "claim" absolute truth there. He says that we can't easily observe the curvature at that height. So if you just glance out of the window then you don't see the curvature. I guess the catch here is that you want to attribute the absolute truth claim to Neil. If he says something then it is so. Somehow Neil must be some absolute authority for us ins your mind. I wonder why.
And in same time why do you ignore the clear indication of curved surface which manifest itself with horizon drop. Horizon line does not drop below eye level on flat surface.

37
Flat Earth General / Re: Jane's FE Compendium
« on: February 19, 2019, 02:02:40 AM »
 Ahh, you are backpeddaling now. You said "whatever makes you happy" and you taking me out to lunch would make me happy. Not me going to Florida. Don't think up more conditions, just take me out to lunch :)

38
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity isn't constant
« on: February 19, 2019, 01:59:45 AM »
Have I surveyed and found local or celestial source to account for every alleged variation of g on earth's surface?  NO, of course not. I don't believe it has been done by anyone else either or there would be no need for further gravimetry.
Question is not "Have you surveyed and found local or celestial source to account for every alleged variation of g on earth's surface". Question is - Have you measured it. Just one single measurement. And how did you measure and with what.

39
Flat Earth General / Re: Looking for FE explanation of video
« on: February 18, 2019, 02:18:56 PM »
Every bit of earth's surface curves away downwards from the observer equally in all possible directions.

 That is true. What also is true that you can on look at one direction and you have limited FOV.
Another thing what is also true is that on flat surface horizon line rises quite higher than on curved surface where it drops from eye level and which is clear indication of surface curving away from you in all directions in same way.

40
Flat Earth General / Re: Jane's FE Compendium
« on: February 18, 2019, 02:11:53 PM »
Can you take me to a lunch? That would make me happy tomorrow.

41
Flat Earth General / Re: Jane's FE Compendium
« on: February 18, 2019, 01:48:46 PM »
For now that is all here is so I can only make informed argument about speculations on FET.
Which is what composes FET. Seems a good tack to take if you ask me.
  I don't know if I should admire you or ... something else. But you are good and I am content with your answer. I just prefer actual knowledge to speculations.

42
Flat Earth General / Re: Jane's FE Compendium
« on: February 18, 2019, 01:42:26 PM »
 No. I acquire knowledge about speculations on topic.

43
Flat Earth General / Re: Jane's FE Compendium
« on: February 18, 2019, 01:12:04 PM »
Wouldn't it be then more appropriate to phrase it differently. Not "informed decision" but more like "form opinion" or "fortifying their biased view" or something like that.
I'm not saying informed decision, I'm saying informed argument. If you want to argue against FET, you need to have a clue what you're talking about, otherwise you just make us come across as brainwashed.
  Seems that I messed terms up and went wrong way. But still, in your case I can't make informed argument about FET because it requires knowledge about topic. Not knowledge about speculations on topic. For now that is all here is so I can only make informed argument about speculations on FET.

44
Flat Earth General / Re: Visualization of sunset/sunrise
« on: February 18, 2019, 01:00:21 PM »
Something like that https://imgur.com/8wOizrJ
Can anyone do better?

45
Flat Earth General / Re: Jane's FE Compendium
« on: February 18, 2019, 12:42:43 PM »
Wouldn't it be then more appropriate to phrase it differently. Not "informed decision" but more like "form opinion" or "fortifying their biased view" or something like that.

46
Flat Earth General / Re: Visualization of sunset/sunrise
« on: February 18, 2019, 12:39:35 PM »
 How is it not about FET? It is how things look like on flat earth. If FET is reality then it should be possible to draw how reality looks like. But if it is in general then maybe we should make drawing contest. Haven't anyone really tried to draw how do light/shadow areas look like at sunset/sunrise from side view on flat earth. Or they have they tried and are embarassed about results... it would be interesting to know.

47
Flat Earth General / Re: Jane's FE Compendium
« on: February 18, 2019, 12:07:56 PM »
The point of the compendium is to hopefully help people make more informed arguments.
I am not familiar with the topic but people make informed argument based on the knowledge, demonstrable and verifiable knowledge. Not on speculations.

48
Flat Earth General / Re: sun and energy project for FE scientists
« on: February 18, 2019, 11:59:40 AM »
You got it wrong. There is no physical or chemical processes or numbers and calculatons on flat earth. It just works, it moves as needed and there is enough energy on the sun so that it can warm us as it does. You should orient yourself from numbers to vague words.

49
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity isn't constant
« on: February 18, 2019, 09:34:03 AM »
 It is throwaway excuse. Gravity is too realistic and flat earth needs something more magical which you can apply in any position. And Ski just plays with words.

50
Flat Earth General / Re: Visualization of sunset/sunrise
« on: February 18, 2019, 09:31:20 AM »
 Never question moderators but I still wonder why it was moved to general when it is quite clear question about flat earth. How does sunset/sunrise look like from side view?

51
Flat Earth General / Visualization of sunset/sunrise
« on: February 18, 2019, 06:26:59 AM »
  Why can't any flat earther draw a picture on paper how sunset/sunrise looks like, illuminated and shadow areas when sun is at horizon and below it, so that it is in accordance to real world. Has anyone ever even tried to visualize it?

52
I don't understand the whole business of the proofs, debates and conspiracy theories. Why doesn't the Flat Earth Society just launch it's own satellite (honestly even a weather balloon would work) and decide once and for al about the shape of the Earth? I mean, why argue when you can use the most obvious solution to find out the truth?
To get you an estimate how much developing and launching satellite can cost - https://www.hooandja.ee/en/projekt/eestlased-kosmosesse-estcube-2

53
Flat Earth General / Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
« on: February 18, 2019, 01:04:08 AM »
You do not have the necessary mathematical understanding to quote from Zendri's paper.

 It really is not about mathematical understanding. Your walls of text are meaningless and your supposed understanding of mathematics also because when you believe flat earth then you by definition do not understand or just willfully ignore simple and basic trigonometry.

54
It seems you want physical evidence when you can clearly understand that atmosphere can be seen through which means it's impossible to physically show how that works.
In what time do you live? Middle ages? You still think that air is not physical because we can see and move through it? Of course we want you to put your claims in reality and have physical evidence because other people have already advanced technology and can see atoms through electron microscopes and stack them as they wish and build nanomaterials literally atom by atom. But you go by your eye and same time make claims about things you can't see or demonstrate. Why should anyone take you seriously or believe anything you say when you can't demonstrate anything and can't even predict effects of your gobbledygook.

55
i'm new to the community and i want to know the evidence for the flat earth before I fully join.
Its like with gods. There is nothing scientific, no verifiable scientific evidence whatsoever but everyone has their own personal evidence like some have their own personal gods.

56
No problem. I assume you have nothing left to say, right?
No. See you in the year (if I don't forget it) when I come to rub your nose in it that you still have nothing practical to show.
Ok, see you around, maybe.
Its two years for now and seems that I was right. Still nothing practical from you.

57

 Sure, I feel resistance but it has nothing to do with air pressure. Air is physical and it resists me when I move through it. More so when the area is big and object moves fast. It has nothing to do with air pressure increasing or decreasing. It is air resisting me moving through it. And it really depends the size of surface I have. If you put racquet with cover out so that it has big surface area then it is taken away by air resistance, not pressure. Air just pushes it away. But if you turn it sideways and it has more streamlined shape then it moves much better through air.
Of course it moves better through the air, just like a sleek sports car will as opposed to a bus.
You are missing the whole point because you refuse to grasp it, so I'll leave you to it.
  There is no point to miss. What anyone feels is air resistance. Not air pressure being created before you. You may believe it but you fail to demonstrate that and you fail with explaining too. And that is because all others fail to grasp it. There is nothing to grasp.

58
Flat Earth Debate / Re: This is all a bit absurd.
« on: October 04, 2017, 03:28:03 AM »
I am sure that you have room full of little pony unicorns. All hopping around and crapping rainbow colored chocolate cakes. But as I said, you are not here and its no use to talk about it.
Similar to how nuclear power gets told.
Not similar. Because there are other people who learn it, deal with this stuff, there are people who have experienced it, died from it, governments who have to deal with nuclear waste left over from nuclear energy plants but you just deny it. There are no similarities here.

If you see magician do tricks in front of you then you experience it and have some idea about it.
 So it is not the same as with nuclear power. You have only heard of it, have absolutely no knowledge what it is and no experience with it but you claim that its impossible.
If you have no clue how that magician does his/her tricks you are left with two options.
1. You can know it's a trick and try and find out how it's done.

2. You can be amazed by the magic of it and treat it as real and not a trick.

You fall into the second category.
  No, you fall into the second category. But instead of being amazed you are disappointed and treat the trick as magic. Your nuclear power is perfect example of it. You always call it magic but you don't even try to work out how it works.

No, you can't dispute it if you have absolutely no knowledge about it and have no experience with it. You don't have to accept it and you don't have to believe it but you can't dispute it.
Ok.
You tell me a story about seeing a ghostly man riding a bike. You tell me that you keep experiencing this on your walk in the woods with your adult art magazines  ;).
I dispute it which angers you, so I ask you to show me this ghost of a man on his bike.
Every day we go at the times you mention and every day we see nothing, or I see nothing and you shout, "there he is, can you see him."
I say no and carry on disputing.
Are you telling me that I have to take your word for it like you are doing with those that feed you this type of stuff, from ghosts to religion to magical energy and so on and so on?
Let me make it clear what I mean by "dispute". If you are disputing something then you must have some some experience and knowledge about thing you dispute. Disputing isn't just statements like "I don't believe", "its impossible", "it cannot work" and other statement without any explanations why it cannot work or why it is impossible and so on. In you example you don't dispute me, you just express your disbelief and ask evidence. You can't argue against me why I can't see ghost bike. Maybe you have some disability which prevents you seeing it. Maybe I have some disease which makes me see some objects differently from you. If you have no knowledge about what happens then you can't argue against it with any reasonable argument because you don't have any. You can only express your disbelief.

I have said that I don't care what you think or imagine about nuclear power. I asked quite concrete question - how you determine how much energy is packed inside something? Can you answer that or do you always must ramble about something else?
In terms of your nuclear power I have no clue how they determine how they get 25 years out of some pellets of uranium so called hard metal inside a rod that only uses 20% in that 25 years, apparently.
And in terms of any other object? Can you determine how much energy is in piece of wood? Piece of coal? Pack of C4? My point is that if you cannot determine how much energy is in any other objects then how can you determine that there is no such energy inside nuclear material as others say there is?

59

 No, car does not create great pressure in front. It has been verified. As seen from here http://www.gcdataconcepts.com/carairflow.html the pressure change around car is not really much.
If I give you a tennis racquet and tell you to swing it as hard as you can at the atmosphere in front of it, you'll do it fairly easily.

If I then place the racquet cover over it and tell you to do exactly the same thing, you will feet a massive difference in resistance on your hand, writ and arm.

Now go and drive down the road with that same tennis racquet at 50 mph and stick the racquet out of the side window, without the cover.
You'll hold it fairly comfortably with only marginal resistance to pressure.
Now stick it out with the cover on and see what happens. At best your wrist is going to be sore and at worst your Racquet is taken away from it by air pressure.

So don't tell me it's minimal when a car hits atmosphere, because there's more going on than just a sleek smokey push over.
  Sure, I feel resistance but it has nothing to do with air pressure. Air is physical and it resists me when I move through it. More so when the area is big and object moves fast. It has nothing to do with air pressure increasing or decreasing. It is air resisting me moving through it. And it really depends the size of surface I have. If you put racquet with cover out so that it has big surface area then it is taken away by air resistance, not pressure. Air just pushes it away. But if you turn it sideways and it has more streamlined shape then it moves much better through air.

60
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If the earth is flat, then why...
« on: October 04, 2017, 12:57:15 AM »
Earth:
a. Looks incredibly flat every way I've ever seen it.
  Weird statement. Do you live on the sea, or on some very big flat desert or steppe where you can't even see mountains. I for example always see some valleys and hills and never ever have seen incredibly flat earth. Even at the sea the surface starts curving down at horizon and things disappear behind it. No flatness anywhere.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 110