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 - SSSavio

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
31
Flat Earth General / Re: The International Space Station
« on: July 19, 2010, 10:54:35 AM »
Well, if modern science can't manage to explain something as simple as a toy magnet, why should we put our blind faith into modern science being all that true or advanced like Markjo says it is?

I mean, if modern science is going to propose something absurd like "puller particles" there needs to be an explanation for how particles can pull.

In the 1600's Newton said magnitism was a force, and now it's "puller particles".

In the 1600's Newton said that gravity was a force, and now it's "puller particles".

Puller particles are the new magic wand waved over the mysterious and unexplainable.

Man, who cares how it works. We know it works and that's it. We dont exactly know how the gravity works but it exists and we have to take it into account anyway. We fly to the moon, because we know the earth is round. If the earth was not round we cannot go to the moon the way we did.

And this is the question: do you think we went to the moon or not? Be careful with your response.

UP

32
ITT: People not getting the point.
We got the point, it was retarded to begin with. You don't get the point that Ichi and anyone who believes him is an idiot.
Why has this thread been able to go along for weeks?

RE'ers continue to bump this thread even when no FE'ers post in it for days, therefore, I assume the topic is still live and people still have interest in it, so I post more examples of FE games.

I'm the only one interested in this topic, but not just because the games proves the flatness... but because is really funny.

33
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to Prove that Orbit is Maintained
« on: July 19, 2010, 08:19:28 AM »
The ISS doesn't land because it's not a physical object. It's a hologram.

iIs it an hologram that moves at 7689 m/s??

34
ITT: People not getting the point.
We got the point, it was retarded to begin with. You don't get the point that Ichi and anyone who believes him is an idiot.
Why has this thread been able to go along for weeks? Is the point of this forum to enrage people with blatant hypocrisy and disregard for others? I think that the mods should shut down this thread because it is dumb and says dumb things.

I just love videogames, especially retrogaming, and i m in love with zelda series, so i m just disappointed!!

35
Flat Earth General / Re: The International Space Station
« on: July 19, 2010, 02:23:35 AM »
Well, if modern science can't manage to explain something as simple as a toy magnet, why should we put our blind faith into modern science being all that true or advanced like Markjo says it is?

I mean, if modern science is going to propose something absurd like "puller particles" there needs to be an explanation for how particles can pull.

In the 1600's Newton said magnitism was a force, and now it's "puller particles".

In the 1600's Newton said that gravity was a force, and now it's "puller particles".

Puller particles are the new magic wand waved over the mysterious and unexplainable.

Man, who cares how it works. We know it works and that's it. We dont exactly know how the gravity works but it exists and we have to take it into account anyway. We fly to the moon, because we know the earth is round. If the earth was not round we cannot go to the moon the way we did.

And this is the question: do you think we went to the moon or not? Be careful with your response.

36
And then i see pics of DIG DUG!!! OH MY GOD! This thread is a joke.


37
Apparently no FEers actually finished the game, since after the credits the view pans very high as Link and Tetra sail towards the horizon, revealing obvious curvature.

Even with the lame idea of a game somehow being a better portrayal of reality than reality itself, you still lose.
If you actually made it to the credits, you would see the view is warped. Notice the clouds twist and distort and the camera view switches up to the sky to the The End message. In the very scene itself, all I see is flatness.

I was reading the previous pages... i hate myself... and all of a sudden, beng! a pic that shows that in the zelda game the world is round. So, the thread starts saying that the game reproduce a flat earth because in the game we always see the flat horizon. Than in the end, when the camera goes up enough, you see the world is round and you think, ok if the prove of the fe game is the fact that the horizon is always flat, then the picture in the end proves the world is round. But NOPE!! The pics always work in favour of the FEers!! Why the hell is this way of thinking so fucked up?? It just blow my mind, its OTRAGEOUS to common sense!

38
I hate to point this out, but those are planets - not earth.  Of course they are round.

I was waiting for this answer... but not from you!

Anyway...

See, earth is round.

How is your RE game relevant to the fact that FE games exist?

I've never seen FE games. This topic is otrageous to human intelligence.

39
I hate to point this out, but those are planets - not earth.  Of course they are round.

I was waiting for this answer... but not from you!

Anyway...

See, earth is round.

40
Wow, worst topic ever. If you make a videogame, the space you always move in and the perspective is so little that the surfaces have to be flat. Why the hell a programmer wants to work on a curved surface if the impression in the real life is that the terrain is flat. But if you take into account space game, you'll see the worlds are round.





41
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: James' Ideas on the Sun and Moon
« on: June 25, 2010, 12:49:07 AM »
LordDave, you sound disconcertingly nostalgic about nazi Germany. Thevoiceofreason, your inept arguments are in line with what would be expected of a young boy such as yourself, but since this discussion is plainly of the highest academic rigor I do not believe you are suited to it. Youths who spend too much time at the computer terminal tend to develop into pale, sickly and ill-adjusted men. Perhaps you should eschew the web completely and focus instead on sports, or your studies.

As for my own studies, I do not wish to divulge where I studied for any of my degrees, as this information would risk revealing my identity and whereabouts to the globularist public, which I cannot risk while my valuable research is under way. The books which I have produced are not yet ready for publication, or should I say, the world is not yet ready for their publication. Suffice to say my material is always of the highest quality.

You are pathetic.

42
Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA vs gravity
« on: June 25, 2010, 12:46:13 AM »
Or, fabricating data.

Ok, you are just wasting my time. FEs does not show data or experiments or formulas or proof. And you claim to us "fabricating data".
If you don't want your time wasted, you are free to leave at any time. As for the topic at hand, nice to see that you don't have any proof for this claim:

Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation.


I have proofs, but why i have to posted here. You are too stupid or too troolish to understand it. Anyway, here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Study something, if you want, or stay in your ignorance, but stop trolling.

43
Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA vs gravity
« on: June 24, 2010, 01:27:31 PM »
Or, fabricating data.

Ok, you are just wasting my time. FEs does not show data or experiments or formulas or proof. And you claim to us "fabricating data".

44
Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA vs gravity
« on: June 24, 2010, 12:28:15 AM »
Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation.

How?

Light path distortion you troll. Stop trolling.
wat?

Huge masses cause space distortion. In fact, if you look at the light path near the sun, is curved. But i know what are you telling now: prove it.
No, I will simply ask you to elaborate on the notion of curved light paths near the Sun. How does one measure a curvature in a light path?

http://www.1919eclipse.org/

I think this can satisfy roughly your request. If you wanna know more use google. This is only a simple experiment, that was confirmed by many others, more and more accurate.
Regarding your link, this has been popular a few years back:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=did-researchers-cook-data-from-first-general-relativity-test


"It has been claimed that Eddington's observations were of poor quality and he had unjustly discounted simultaneous observations at Sobral, Brazil which appeared closer to the Newtonian model[2]. The quality of the 1919 results was indeed poor compared to later observations, but was sufficient to persuade contemporary astronomers. The rejection of the results from the Brazil expedition was due to a defect in the telescopes used which, again, was completely accepted and well-understood by contemporary astronomers.[3]. The myth that Eddington's results were fraudulent is a modern invention."

Anyway, today more experiments have been done, confirming the theory.

45
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is causing...
« on: June 23, 2010, 07:49:19 AM »
I think you just made that up. You did not provide any evidence that these "magnetic rings" could exist, much less that they do. Hence the citation needed.

I think he is a leading theory inventor.

46
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Sun
« on: June 23, 2010, 07:43:01 AM »
They always tell me to try again later when I apply for an astronaut job :/

Do you have any cowboy experience?  They tend to look for at least five years of cowboy experience when they hire astronauts.

Who cares of being astronaut. To be an astronaut you have to be incredibly strong mentally and phisically, and very determined. It s not simple as drink a glass of water

47
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: James' Ideas on the Sun and Moon
« on: June 23, 2010, 07:40:31 AM »
James:

What kind of degree do you have, and with what focus? In what field are you a top scientist?

I think he does not have one. No degree. Because the hoax does not give degrees to FE believers.

48
Parsifal sorry, you look like a stupid troll. Or maybe you are a stupid troll. Why we have to prove that the sky always exist? And why we have to prove everything, while you dont prove anything till now. Prove that the sky was not there in 2000 BC. Logic make us thoughts that the sky was there many many years before that date. So, for one time, prove what you are saying.

Logic doesn't make us think anything about the physical world. Since none of us were around in 2000 BC, we have no reason to believe that the sky existed back then.

And the light is a radiation, so it has an angle. If you dont believe me, believe in your eyes:



Exactly where in this picture does light have an angle? I am intrigued by your claim.

How do you know none of us were around in 2000 BC? I'd say that's more likely than the sun being a projection since then.

What is this story of the projection now?? I just dont understand this bullshit! Projection of what on what and in what way?
he's saying that the sky didn't exist before the conspiracy. when the conspiracy came around, they built a gigantic screen way up in the air, which we now think is the sky. therefore the sun, moon, and stars are just an illusion controllable by this gigantic screen. Therefore sunlight doesn't come from the sun, which doesn't exist as we think it does.

LOLWUT? Are you kidding me? We are here talking about a giant canvas? and the sky is projected on it? This cannot be real.

And in what way this happen? I think there is a incredibly huge and complex machine that do so, and i just dont take in account how is it possible to put a giant canvas in the middle of nowhere!!

And what this can be related with the sentence:

"How do you know none of us were around in 2000 BC? I'd say that's more likely than the sun being a projection since then."

49
Parsifal sorry, you look like a stupid troll. Or maybe you are a stupid troll. Why we have to prove that the sky always exist? And why we have to prove everything, while you dont prove anything till now. Prove that the sky was not there in 2000 BC. Logic make us thoughts that the sky was there many many years before that date. So, for one time, prove what you are saying.

Logic doesn't make us think anything about the physical world. Since none of us were around in 2000 BC, we have no reason to believe that the sky existed back then.

And the light is a radiation, so it has an angle. If you dont believe me, believe in your eyes:



Exactly where in this picture does light have an angle? I am intrigued by your claim.

How do you know none of us were around in 2000 BC? I'd say that's more likely than the sun being a projection since then.

What is this story of the projection now?? I just dont understand this bullshit! Projection of what on what and in what way?

50
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that zetetics discard instruments they "don't like"?

As a matter of fact, I have on Bullhorn's advice eschewed both the sextant and the astrolabe, but fortunately I require neither in order to conduct my zetetic studies.

I know, you can just close your eyes and begin to wonder to run your zetetic experiments.

51
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: James' Ideas on the Sun and Moon
« on: June 23, 2010, 01:26:25 AM »
Yes I am indeed a top scientist, it is regrettable that the globularist status quo precludes me from achieving more potent dissemination. In response to whoever it was who asked, yes, I have a degree, I have books, and have made a number of cutting-edge discoveries. Of course, these have not been subjected to globularist peer-review due to the inherent spherical chauvanism of the academic elite. I also have at least 20 boxes of notes documenting my extensive scientific work.

Stop the nazi stuffs man. In topic, again. Can you present to us your degree, your books and your cutting edge discoveries? Not all of your stuffs, surely, two books and two cutting edge discoveries is enough. And no man, i dont wanna steal your works, no worry about it.

52
Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA vs gravity
« on: June 23, 2010, 01:17:47 AM »
Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation.

How?

Light path distortion you troll. Stop trolling.
wat?

Huge masses cause space distortion. In fact, if you look at the light path near the sun, is curved. But i know what are you telling now: prove it.
No, I will simply ask you to elaborate on the notion of curved light paths near the Sun. How does one measure a curvature in a light path?

http://www.1919eclipse.org/

I think this can satisfy roughly your request. If you wanna know more use google. This is only a simple experiment, that was confirmed by many others, more and more accurate.

53
Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA vs gravity
« on: June 22, 2010, 01:25:55 PM »
Things with mass have been demonstrated to cause gravitation.

How?

Light path distortion you troll. Stop trolling.
wat?

Huge masses cause space distortion. In fact, if you look at the light path near the sun, is curved. But i know what are you telling now: prove it.

54
Flat Earth General / Re: Validation of FES Facebook images.
« on: June 22, 2010, 11:01:54 AM »
Where is the giant turtle holding the flat earth on his back?

55
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ice wall still not explained.
« on: June 22, 2010, 10:56:03 AM »
The picture you posted is of the Ross ice shelf, which is at most 50 meters above the waterline.
Have you personally confirmed this?

Have you personally confirmed how much is tall  the ice wall? Dont you see by yourself how much nonsense are your sentences?

56
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: James' Ideas on the Sun and Moon
« on: June 22, 2010, 06:45:33 AM »
The only references to James in the article are as follows:

Quote
James McIntyre, a British-based moderator of a Flat Earth Society discussion website

Quote
James McIntyre
Flat-earther

And several quotes preceded by
Quote
Mr McIntyre
.

Not once does the article refer to James as a scientist of any sort, much less a "leading scientist".

Who cares about BBC. Can James prove his statement or not?

57
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ice wall still not explained.
« on: June 22, 2010, 06:44:09 AM »
He wasn't serious in the first place so why go through all this to prove a tard wrong?

I know that someone that claims he believes in FET cannot be serious, but everyone trolling in this fora, so i have to underline their methods.
Does wardog even claim he believes in FET?

Also, you have no basis to state that all FE believers are trolls. 

Really dunno, he reply to the topic in favour of FET theory, so i guess he believe in FET. I have no basis, but i have so much clues. And you are not one of the trolls here.
Fair enough, thank you.  I'm pretty sure he doesn't and was just trolling.

Ill admit the original post wasnt a troll per sea, but an attempt to see what kind of newb we were dealing with.  The other points I made were, and still are, valid.

I just re-read the post. What other point have you made?

None. He is just keep trolling.

58
A ray doesn't have an angle.



If you adjust your statement you may have more luck.

A ray has an angle when hitting the surface of the earth. Is it ok now?

59
Parsifal sorry, you look like a stupid troll. Or maybe you are a stupid troll. Why we have to prove that the sky always exist? And why we have to prove everything, while you dont prove anything till now. Prove that the sky was not there in 2000 BC. Logic make us thoughts that the sky was there many many years before that date. So, for one time, prove what you are saying.

Logic doesn't make us think anything about the physical world. Since none of us were around in 2000 BC, we have no reason to believe that the sky existed back then.

And the light is a radiation, so it has an angle. If you dont believe me, believe in your eyes:



Exactly where in this picture does light have an angle? I am intrigued by your claim.

Good trolling. Since we have not seen that the earth is infinite, the earth is not infinite. So the FE theory is crap.

60
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ice wall still not explained.
« on: June 22, 2010, 02:01:27 AM »
He wasn't serious in the first place so why go through all this to prove a tard wrong?

I know that someone that claims he believes in FET cannot be serious, but everyone trolling in this fora, so i have to underline their methods.
Does wardog even claim he believes in FET?

Also, you have no basis to state that all FE believers are trolls. 

Really dunno, he reply to the topic in favour of FET theory, so i guess he believe in FET. I have no basis, but i have so much clues. And you are not one of the trolls here.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8