1

Flat Earth General / Re: A possible challenge to Flat Moon believers?

« on: October 03, 2013, 03:54:39 PM »

I have no opinion about whether or not the moon is flat, but I am intrigued by the possibility that the light it gives cannot warm anything, even under intense magnification. This refutes the idea that the moon is merely reflecting the sunlight. One of the earlier books has information about this.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA shutdown

« on: October 03, 2013, 03:51:31 PM »

What ISP is giving them a break on their subscription fees, while they 'suspend web site operations'?

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Can anyone point out the problems with these space videos?

« on: October 03, 2013, 03:49:45 PM »

That they train underwater is beside the point: some footage that is represented to be space footage is actually underwater footage. Indeed there is nothing to train for.

In a relatively weightless environment, a magnetic boot or something could easily allow the fellow to flex his ankles, and to stop flexing them. That's how I see it.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tunguska Explosion... Sandokhan Go... Destroys Refraction Excuse

« on: October 02, 2013, 08:23:34 PM »

If the illumination were a result of currents, whether of one kind or another (e.g., electrical, or, perhaps windborne particles), then perhaps the light from Tunguska doesn't indicate one way or the other whether the earth is flat. I look forward to the next post from sandokahn. It seems to me that if it were a simple matter of light, then it should have been visible in more directions. But note again that we don't then conclude that the earth is a sphere. Although, if the earth were flat, then a bright light should have been visible in all directions. Perhaps some of the illumination was due to a particulate interaction, while in other directions (mere) light was visible but not very much. It's beyond me in any case how an explosion could produce light for days. I vote particulate matter.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: Can anyone point out the problems with these space videos?

« on: October 02, 2013, 08:11:41 PM »

The video can easily be created in any sort of environment in which normal forces are suspended. (E.g., the man can do his pushups with his feet and ankles.) It's possible that there is an electrical way to suspend normal forces, and that to effect these kinds of scenes, this special environment is used. Maybe rotating discs with a current flowing through them? Other space scenes are created under water, as evidenced by the air bubbles we can find in them. (Chinese space scenes are especially sloppy in this regard.)

So the pushups themselves don't prove that there isn't space travel, but we know anyway that there isn't space travel. And a space scene inside a capsule of some kind can be created in a plane moving downward, or perhaps in some sort of special device that is able to cancel the normal forces that operate on bodies.

In other words. The video was made in some sort of zero g environment. Which is what space is supposed to be. So regardless if its in space or not there is nothing wrong with the video since it is in a n actual zero g environment.

Correct. Assuming they weren't using strings or something, which I don't believe.

6

Flat Earth General / Re: Can anyone point out the problems with these space videos?

« on: October 01, 2013, 05:04:49 PM »

The video can easily be created in any sort of environment in which normal forces are suspended. (E.g., the man can do his pushups with his feet and ankles.) It's possible that there is an electrical way to suspend normal forces, and that to effect these kinds of scenes, this special environment is used. Maybe rotating discs with a current flowing through them? Other space scenes are created under water, as evidenced by the air bubbles we can find in them. (Chinese space scenes are especially sloppy in this regard.)

So the pushups themselves don't prove that there isn't space travel, but we know anyway that there isn't space travel. And a space scene inside a capsule of some kind can be created in a plane moving downward, or perhaps in some sort of special device that is able to cancel the normal forces that operate on bodies.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tunguska Explosion... Sandokhan Go... Destroys Refraction Excuse

« on: October 01, 2013, 04:50:07 PM »

The fact that the glow persisted for days, IS DUE to influence of the telluric currents which were activated (received more energy) from Tesla's ball lightning.
...
What is actually light, and what is magnetism?

I think the longevity of the illumination experienced suggests something other than an explosion and continued burning. It suggests something electrical. If some sort of current is involved, it may be that the current flows more in one direction than another. This could also explain why the light was visible more in some directions than others.

Then wouldnt you expect the light show to be popularly interpreted as an auspicious sign for their emperor?

Not necessarily. It would depend a lot on how the emperors would spin the matter. And if the emperor said nothing, then a swift beheading would be the assumed punishment for speaking out.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tunguska Explosion... Sandokhan Go... Destroys Refraction Excuse

« on: October 01, 2013, 04:36:30 PM »

No eye witness report from Tokyo (2,000 miles east) or Beijing (1,000 miles south) although they are much closer to Tunguska than London (4,000 miles west).

The various Asian peoples lived in fear of their emperors and such, and would be loath to say anything out of the ordinary occurred. They had, at that time, very superstitious views of their emperors and the spirit world as they regarded it.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tunguska Explosion... Sandokhan Go... Destroys Refraction Excuse

« on: September 30, 2013, 03:57:38 PM »

Why is so much time being wasted on what the light was, that was being observed, the explosion or the aftermath or what-have-you? What difference does it make? Curvature would have blocked it out regardless.

The thermonuclear 'explosions', if fake, add value in that we know even less than we realize about explosions.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tunguska Explosion... Sandokhan Go... Destroys Refraction Excuse

« on: September 30, 2013, 03:50:46 PM »

Here are some examples of 15 megatons:

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Castle Bravo Thermonuclear Device 15 megatons

These explosions are probably fake, by the way. Fake photography, various tricks, images of the sun close-up, etc.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tunguska Explosion... Sandokhan Go... Destroys Refraction Excuse

« on: September 29, 2013, 01:37:35 PM »

The simple fact is, that light does bounce around in the upper atmosphere. Therefore skyglow proves the earth is a sphere.

I'm just kidding.

Skyglow. Proof that the earth is flat. Awesome.

Light bounces around all the time. Why, I can illuminate a lamp in one corner, and several corners later, I can read the London Times. In fact light bounces so much I don't even have to keep the lamp lit. I can just light it for a moment, and read all night.

12

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA SWAT TEAM

« on: September 26, 2013, 03:23:34 PM »

Could it be that there is no moon dust, given that nobody has successfully landed at the moon?

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Evidence.

« on: September 24, 2013, 06:25:30 PM »

When you are up in the air a kilometer or two, curvature ought to be evident. It isn't. So, the earth is flat. I enjoy flying, because it gives me a chance to verify that the earth is indeed flat.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: Virgin Galactic hoax update

« on: September 24, 2013, 06:24:29 PM »

Almost nobody needs to be involved in a cover-up, especially when most systems work from either perspective, and when certain data is imaginary to start with. And speaking of cover-ups, when will I be able to buy my first Poofie?

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Evidence.

« on: September 24, 2013, 06:11:53 PM »

I believe that a definitive proof is impossible. The problem is too large to compass by human means. No matter which way it is examined, there are theories and explanations available for apparent phenomena. However, I believe that if the earth were a spinning, whirling sphere, there would be differences that we would observe, compared to how things are. I don't buy the miracle of gravity. I am also confident that selling the people a bill of goods, or a pig in a poke, is business as usual for the image makers. Getting us into wars is notoriously premised on manufactured material. They are just better at it than we realize. Now, maybe some FE theorists believe that the matter can be proven. I don't think I can, but maybe they can.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Evidence.

« on: September 23, 2013, 04:49:57 PM »

Railroads are not planned with curvature in mind.

When you go up, you don't see curvature.

Round-earth theory requires the suspension of disbelief. It is a belief system, within which most workers don't really need the truth anyway. The system is gigantic enough that most things work even if not understood correctly.

17

Flat Earth General / Re: Virgin Galactic hoax update

« on: September 23, 2013, 04:45:10 PM »

There should be hotels on the moon by now. We should be mooning each other through telescopes.

How long has it been since the moon-er-notics got their small-screen debut?

Why isn't Playtex corp begging to outfit us all in special radiation-proof poofies? That's what they should call the line: "Poofies."

The delay is simply that they haven't figured out how to make the windows into television screens yet. It's probably hard to practice that concept.

18

Flat Earth General / Re: WHY is the earth flat?

« on: September 23, 2013, 04:37:34 PM »

I mentioned the big bang-o because round earthers like to believe that all the spinning and whirling they believe in is all connected with how everything got its start, and was subsequently formed. Mostly they consider evolution to be necessary after a big-bang, since within all that heat and vibration obviously there would be nothing like a carbon-based life form that needs a temperature from 0-50 C day to day. I suppose God could put some life forms down after the big-bango, though. The heat and vibration of the big bang would certainly occur, it is simply a fantasy that there would be none of that. It may not be vibration in the medium we are expecting or familiar with, but it is inevitable, and it would have created sympathetic vibration patterns which would thwart mixing.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: Virgin Galactic hoax update

« on: September 22, 2013, 06:58:11 PM »

People are willing to pay huge amounts of money to go to space.  If that is not a motivator, I don't know what is.

I don't see your point. Care to elaborate?

Space travel ought to be a cinch. Especially considering that the moon-er-nots got way up high in a wee tin box with barely enough room for a pack of ciggies to spare.

20

Flat Earth General / Re: WHY is the earth flat?

« on: September 22, 2013, 06:55:17 PM »

I'm with you that the Big Bang would have been unthinkably hot.  But being that hot, why wouldn't everything simply be gaseous?

I was thinking of that also. If everything became a gas, then in the vibration fields caused by the alleged bang, substances would have grouped together by kind, and we would just have blobs of this, and blobs of that. No mixing.

The big bang also assumes evolution, but evolution obviously is impossible, since there is no evidence for it. And please don't say 'the finch of the beak'. 

I also have to ask, what would have caused a disc?  Is gravity working in a specific direction rather than between any massive particle?  Is another force at work?

I don't believe in the big bang, so I don't need to explain how a disk formed out of the bang. But I suppose two things might have smashed together? If I really had to believe in the big bang, I might think of it that way.

21

Flat Earth General / Re: WHY is the earth flat?

« on: September 22, 2013, 09:17:06 AM »

Pyrolizard,

I'm not sure exactly why I think that. It just seems to me that the big bang would have been an extremely heat-oriented event, and surely everything would have been liquid. Then, with the much-ballyhoed gravity, surely every material would have separated out according to its specific weight or something. So all we would see is blobs of this material, blobs of that material, etc. No mixing, no layers. Also the intense noise of the event would surely have meant that materials would have continually sorted and re-sorted out, and been content only with their own kind, with which they would enjoy a sympathetic vibration.

22

Flat Earth General / Re: WHY is the earth flat?

« on: September 21, 2013, 06:41:14 PM »

The big bang would have made everything liquid, and everything would have sorted out according to atomic weight.

23

The Lounge / Re: The great Parsifal and PizzaPlanet road trip of 2013

« on: September 21, 2013, 06:32:37 PM »

I think it's encouraging to observe two intelligent young men touring the flat earth together.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: sandokahn: what about driving a car?

« on: September 19, 2013, 04:07:25 PM »

As soon as a car turned toward the east or west, it would suddenly accelerate, or be shoved backward.

In an airliner at cruising altitude, when a person gets out of their seat, what happens when they turn and head for either the front or the back of the plane?

Interesting question. The plane is moving slower than the earth is alleged to be spinning. Also I think a car, by virtue of traveling faster and having almost no resistance at the point of contact (well-greased axles), would withstand or evidence greater reaction. Also a person leans into their turn to head for the mercy seat.

That said, one could try having a well-machined toy on a plane. Good luck getting it on the plane these days, and I don't know what toy is made well-enough. But the proper sort of toy might be a good experiment on a plane. Changing its plane of potential movement to align with the plane should cause it to move. However, I suspect that Sandokahn has a better line of sight on whatever it is I'm getting at. I look forward to reading more about the Restoring Forces Paradox. Thank you.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof that the Earth is indeed flat

« on: September 18, 2013, 04:28:34 PM »

Rottingroom, I believe, posted a putative movie taken from the perspective of a booster rocket returning to earth. As the booster spun lazily along, the earth would appear to curve first one way, then another, as the camera clumsily processed the data, if indeed it's not entirely faked, which possibility I'm ignoring. It brings up the whole problem of cameras, and the fact that it really is just about impossible from any substantial altitude to be sure what we are seeing. We may need to look through a glass, and to take a picture we must consider a camera and how it will process data. We must also assume that light behaves in some special way owing to the presence of a dome over the earth.

26

Flat Earth Debate / sandokahn: what about driving a car?

« on: September 18, 2013, 04:25:50 PM »

Now that sandokahn has run rings around the others in connection with the behavior of different elements of air, I wonder if he could turn his great mind to another topic, however briefly:

Sandokahn, I am convinced that if the earth were a spinning (turning) and whirling (around the sun) sphere, driving would be impossible. As soon as a car turned toward the east or west, it would suddenly accelerate, or be shoved backward. Navigation would be all but impossible. The usual suspects say that gravity takes care of all potential problems, but my common sense tells me that the movement of the vehicle, and the looseness of the connection with the earth via the axles, would cause earth's putative movements to have unexpected effects on the vehicle.

If you are not interested in this theory, I shall quite understand.

You won the other debate, though. They'll never listen.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sceptimatics theory

« on: September 18, 2013, 04:18:16 PM »

I check this thread daily, and I am lost. Can you periodically post what the actual theory is, and where the debate is within the examination of the theory?

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE: Not science? or impossible to test?

« on: September 17, 2013, 04:46:23 PM »

Earth is very hard to get our arms around. Suppositions abound. Much work can be done even on the basis of many suppositions, so it doesn't matter for many applications whether it is a sphere or a pancake. (Mmmm, pancakes.) And many attempts are made to deceive the public about many things.

If the earth were a rotating, whirling sphere, driving a car would be impossible. Many things would behave differently. And curvature would be evident at low altitudes. The earth is blissfully flat. And that's true whether this is a troll site or not.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory

« on: September 16, 2013, 07:08:15 PM »

Since electricity is an important aspect of atmospheric behaviors, electricity can probably be used in some way to 'defeat' or override gravity.

30

Flat Earth General / Re: WHY is the earth flat?

« on: September 15, 2013, 06:21:59 PM »

What are the problems with the big bang?

Wouldn't it have been too loud? The bang itself would have been so loud that nothing could have formed.