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 - Canadark

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33
The Lounge / Re: Global Warming is a farce
« on: January 06, 2010, 05:55:42 PM »

I believe Antarctica is a distinct continent much as it is in RET. There is probably an ice wall or shelf beyond the known Earth, but I don't think anyone truthfully knows what's there.
Why hasnt anyone tried?

There is no satisfactory explanation for this offered by the flat guys.

Assuming a RE, and basing their navigation on the maps and instrumentation provided, nobody would travel beyond the known Earth. However, some FE'ers believe that references to a great continent beyond the known Earth (referred to as the Antichtone) exist in ancient mythology.

Many landmasses are discovered by accident. Given our ability to take pictures of Pluto's moon, it is absurd that you would suggest that there is some unknown continent or area on Earth that we don't know about. This isn't the 18th century anymore.

Flat Earth General / Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« on: January 06, 2010, 05:48:59 PM »
Since the end result is the same on both a flat and round earth, regardless of what it's attributed to, then for the purposes of this example it can be ignored.
If all you can do is pick holes with the way I drew the diagram rather than the meaning it conveys, then you are no better than someone like Parsitroll. I have yet to see you say anything concrete against the principle of the diagram.
No, it is not. You drew a FE with a straight light propagation. I never mentioned this option.

You're like the blind man who fell in the pit with the elephant and thought it was a snake when he touched its trunk.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A new Idea: flat earth in a sphere
« on: January 06, 2010, 03:27:01 PM »
I have an idea! Why don't you make in the center of the earth's movement a giant sun? And then make the earth more round, like a sphere like shape?

Well that's just impossible...  :P

Flat Earth General / Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« on: January 06, 2010, 03:14:36 PM »
Remark: The Earth is flat in all your "diagrams".


Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Shadow Differences
« on: January 06, 2010, 02:05:27 PM »
And what if the light doesn't hit the earth in parallel lines?

The next step would be to explain the deviations.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The coriolis effect
« on: January 05, 2010, 08:35:47 PM »
SO do any FEs have nay explanation to the Coriolis effect. Seeing as how you think we live on a flat earth, it doesn't really make sense does it?

Something about gears...
its about the rotation of the hemispheres of our earth (not specifically about the earth, but we're discussing the earth). Yaknow how when you flush a toilet in the northern hemisphere, the waters spirals to the right and in the southern hemisphere it spirals to the left. Thats due to the earths rotation (more complicated answer on Wikipedia). anyway im wondering how any FE can explain this without resorting to a spherical earth.

You read the Wikipedia article?  Didn't you see the part where it says that's an urban legend?

That's true. Toilets aren't influenced by the Coriolis effect. The pattern can best be seen in storms and weather patterns I believe.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Horizon - explain.
« on: January 05, 2010, 07:31:07 PM »
So it does! Now you only need to prove it.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The coriolis effect
« on: January 05, 2010, 06:40:37 PM »
SO do any FEs have nay explanation to the Coriolis effect. Seeing as how you think we live on a flat earth, it doesn't really make sense does it?

Something about gears...

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Scientific Review of FET
« on: January 05, 2010, 06:35:45 PM »
First problem, you are assuming the Earth is flat before you even begin experimenting, therefore, all your evidence must somehow try and point to this outcome nomatter how unrealistic and loony it is.

Try making the Earth shape an unknown variable, then experiment.

This is the Flat Earth Society... the hint is in the name...

So we must approach all data with the understanding that the Earth is flat and find some way of accommodating it into the theory?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Horizon - explain.
« on: January 05, 2010, 05:17:20 PM »
so, why is it I can't walk out to the lake here in chicago, look out over it and see the michigan (or any other for that matter) shoreline, and straight out to detriot or even as far as NYC on a perfectly clear day?

(Note: The correct answer has to do with a sphere)

They will argue that light bends downwards, without any scientific evidence to support it or regard for the fact that "down" is a relative term.

Flat Earth General / Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« on: January 05, 2010, 03:38:39 PM »
People do not rely on how EM waves propagate. They only rely on how EM waves are transmitted from one point to another and with one direction to another. Everything in the middle is a black-box. If you really had any contact with an engineering course, you might be familiar with this concept.

And if you'd taken grade seven geometry you'd know that two different dishes in two different locations receiving signals from one satellite would need to account for your mythological arc.

Flat Earth General / Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« on: January 05, 2010, 03:35:06 PM »
I posted this earlier, but everyone seemed to fly straight past it, so here it is again (abridged)

The Burden of Proof Argument is an entirely separate and irrelevant issue.

This is basically the "You can't fire me, I quit" tactic of arguing, and it frustrates people. The point of debate is to examine facts and opinions on both sides, and weigh them against each other - NOT for one side to simply present evidence to the other for approval.

In a nutshell, You are not the Keeper of the Truth - The world isn't flat by default until such time as you choose to declare it spherical.

You can argue the burden of proof all you like, but neither you nor I nor anyone on this site is the Grand High Terrestrial Geometry Master.

This is not a court. There is no judge or jury. You cannot win or lose to anyone.

So can we now stop arguing about the philosophy of debate (or at least start a new thread for it) and get back to the OP?

That's asking WAAAAY too much

Flat Earth General / Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« on: January 05, 2010, 09:06:13 AM »
Fuck you assholes. What does the conspiracy have to do with the propagation of electromagnetic waves in the atmolayer?

I'm saying the conspiracy is too big for its britches if its going to include everybody who ever worked in satellite research and development.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proofs of varying gravity
« on: January 05, 2010, 08:47:06 AM »
But then wouldn't the Earth crumple into a ball?

I can appreciate you don't want to read the entire mega-thread that is the gravity sticky to find out the that answer to your question is "no, not necessarily", but if you want to dig up the conversation again I would suggest at least skimming it for relevant nuggets you find particularly objectionable.


Flat Earth General / Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« on: January 05, 2010, 08:39:01 AM »
Maybe the signal does not propagate along a straight line.

Don't say that. You don't want the conspiracy to grow any bigger.

Flat Earth General / Re: Absolute Proof the Earth is Flat
« on: January 05, 2010, 08:38:07 AM »
I don't think Tom Bishop really believes the Earth is flat.

Flat Earth General / Re: does anyone have any credentials here???
« on: January 05, 2010, 08:30:50 AM »
What would our credentials prove exactly?

they might give this site a shred of credibility, instead of being known as the trolling lounge that it is.

More accurately, it wouldn't prove anything. Plenty of highly qualified people have been wrong you know.

Congrats on your Arts degree, commonly known the world round as the most useful degree on earth (and also for those dumb enough not to get into dentistry, law or medicine), and you got yours in history, how very exciting! I bet there are some top jobs in that field.  Read what you want, believe what you want too jerk off.

Well, if we're going to generalise, science degrees are for the most part taken by socially inept nerds who are often near illiterate by the time they graduate. Such people generally have no awareness about the world about them, and as most of them aren't geniuses with top degrees, but rather people who scrape through the program, they often have minimal practical knowledge. Finally, because the handful of good science graduates constantly push science forward at breakneck speed, most of the stuff you learn at college is out of date and totally useless within a few years.

Of course, we could just stop generalising and accept that different degree programs have different. I know planty of entirely useless engineering graduates, just as I know loads of unemployable history majors. The degree is usually less important than how well you do.

I would rather have a doctor with a medical degree than one without.

Flat Earth General / Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« on: January 05, 2010, 08:29:44 AM »
Being sceptical is claiming that something is not true.

It doesn't matter if I claim something is not true. In the ghosts example the skeptic is claiming that ghosts are not true. Yet the burden of proof is on the person who claims that ghosts exist.

The ghost example is misleading, because if ghosts *don't* exist then there are no ramifications (apart from people being branded "mistaken").  However there is still a buren on the sceptic to explain peoples' experiences using conversational science.

However, in order for NASA to fabricate space flights, there would have to be an enormous conspiracy.  That is why your claim has to be backed up.  I am convinced things are sent into space because I have seen satellites with my own eyes, and pictures by amateurs of the ISS and space-shuttle.

You cannot say "it didn't happen" without setting out how it could not happen (e.g. proving the conspiracy).  Unfortunately you have failed to do this.

A better analogy would be "Is HIV/AIDS real" (as opposed to ghosts) because the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it does exist, just like the consensus is that the Earth is round. If somebody says that HIV/AIDS is not real but that it is manufactured by the government and pharmaceutical companies in an elaborate money-making conspiracy, the burden of proof rests with those who are suggesting the conspiracy is real:

Person 1: "AIDS is a terrible disease that has killed millions around the world"
Person 2: "AIDS is not real"
Person 1: "The scientific consensus is that HIV/AIDS is real"
Person 2: "Yeah, the scientists are part of the conspiracy"
Person 1: "..."
Person 2: "What?"
Person 1: "Prove it; that the conspiracy is real""
Person 2: "No. I am the skeptic, therefore I don't have to prove anything"

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Magnetic poles wandering
« on: January 04, 2010, 05:43:02 PM »
You mean by having an extremely consistent "theory" that explains nearly all observed phenomena? Yeah I guess it does set the bar high.

If only such a "theory" existed.

The Round Earth.

Flat Earth General / Re: does anyone have any credentials here???
« on: January 04, 2010, 05:29:23 PM »
ive studied lots of science, literature, and philosophy besides flat earth stuff. but as an fe'er I can say your wrong. did einsten or gallileo actually journey to the ice wall?

Name anyone who has been to the Ice Wall. Just one name. What, you mean you haven't been yourself? Good heavens, you're no better than Einsten (sic) or Gallileo (sic). You, sir, are clearly a fraud and a sham.  :P

Scott of the Antarctic.

I just read the book Endurance and I thought maybe you were wrong. Turns out you are.

Here ya go:

Flat Earth General / Re: New Russian stunt
« on: January 04, 2010, 12:02:22 PM »

MOSCOW Russia's space agency chief said Wednesday a spacecraft may be dispatched to knock a large asteroid off course and reduce the chances of earth impact, even though U.S. scientists say such a scenario is unlikely."

The Conspiracy's greatest difficulty is always providing the illusion of PURPOSE.

This is Russia we're talking about chief.

From your link:
"Russian explorers have planted their country's flag on the seabed 4,200m (14,000ft) below the North Pole to further Moscow's claims to the Arctic."

You just brought up one of my favorite topics! Why is everyone scrambling for mineral rights to the N Pole but NOBODY is trying to make any claims on the, er, South Pole?

My point was that Russia is prone to doing outlandish things to get a rise out of other countries. Also remember these points:

1. Russia has much easier access to the Arctic than the Antarctic.

2. Oil reserves in the Arctic are very real, and will become more accessible if the ice caps do in fact recede.

3. Countries HAVE in fact been competing for land rights to Antarctica.

4. You cant drive a submarine under Antarctica.
so mayb russia's involvement in the conspiracy is a good thing. think about it. they have the oil up there they can use so pretending that the north is just a big block of ice is good fro them. they probably realize that if people knew that the mountains covered in ice were there itwould be bad for them because tehy would have to fight over claims. remember that mountains often contain minerals. i agree with all major points.

But the arctic is a big block of ice.

Flat Earth General / Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« on: January 04, 2010, 11:42:37 AM »
If the burden of proof of space travel is upon us, then you need to tell us what sort of evidence you require to satisfy your skepticism.  Personal testimony, video and photographs don't seem to be enough.  So, what will it take to convince you that manned space flight is real?

Falsifiable evidence you've collected your own self.

This isn't about space flight, this is about the conspiracy. You need to provide proof that there is a conspiracy.

Actually, I don't. In matters of debate the burden of proof is always on the claimant. When a skeptic doubts the claims, the burden of proof does not move to the skeptic. It remains on the claimant.

I could call NASA a fake, liar, or sham all I want with impunity. I'm the skeptic.

It's your burden to prove that NASA can do the amazing things that you say they can do. You're the one making the fantastic claims here. You're the claimant. The burden of proof is on you.


Flat Earth General / Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« on: January 03, 2010, 07:29:45 PM »
You skepticize if NASA actually has satellites in orbit, with which we provide video evidence to prove this, then you claim that the videos are faked. In this case, you are the claimant, so the burden of proof is on you.

Wrong. I can say that space travel hasn't happened all I want without impunity. Doubt is not a claim. Doubt and skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable are not claims.

The claim is that space travel has happened. The burden is on the claimants to prove their claims. The burden of proof is on you and no one else.

This isn't about space flight, this is about the conspiracy. You need to provide proof that there is a conspiracy.

Flat Earth General / Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« on: January 03, 2010, 07:03:53 PM »
Tom, why do you keep dragging up a burden of proof wiki entry that you wrote as if it's supposed to be authoritative?  Why don't you try this wiki entry instead?

The article agrees with me. The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic.

During a court case the burden of proof isn't on the defendant to prove that he didn't commit the crime. It's on the prosecutor to prove their claim that he did.

When two people have a debate on the existence of ghosts the burden of proof isn't on the person to prove that ghosts don't exist. It's on the person who claims that they do.

You're absolutely right.

This discussion is on the conspiracy theory which you claims exists. You are accusing space organizations from around the world of being part of this, now you must provide proof.

Provide us with indisputable evidence that every space mission has been part of an elaborate conspiracy to convince the world that the Earth is round, and we will agree that you are correct.

You addressed one space walk that the taikonauts did, but you have a lot more to do.  ;)

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Astronauts in zero gravity
« on: January 03, 2010, 04:04:51 PM »
Whether or not the recording was live or not is really irrelevant.  The fact is that I presented a 20 minute video, without a cut, showing 7 astronauts in a zero gravity environment as evidenced by the astronaut's necklace floating.

It's not the 60's anymore. NASA doesn't need to build sets in Vomit Comets to simulate weightlessness, like they had to do for the movie Apollo 13.

There's something called CGI now. Look into it. CGI can simulate weightlessness much longer than the several minutes you'd get in a Vomit Comet. Watch the movie "Space Cowboys" sometime. NASA acted as technical assistance to create the CGI weightless effects in the movie.

Tom, you don't get to say that the conspiracy is a reality because it COULD be possible. You are accusing NASA of being part of a global movement to convince the public that the world is flat, but the onus probandi is on YOU. Until then, how can we be expected to believe you.

Actually, the burden of proof is on you to prove that NASA can do all of the stuff they claim to do.

So until I personally orbit the Earth I must assume that the Round Earth is a conspiracy?

So until I personally go to England I must assume that it does not exist?

So until I personally drink antifreeze I must assume that it is not poisonous?

Flat Earth General / Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« on: January 03, 2010, 03:58:49 PM »
It's sort of funny how it is readily accepted that China's space program is fake, yet the rest are not, despite the fact that China's fake space program working with the other space programs on billion dollar space projects.

Once we have a fake space program working with other nations in space it sort of implicates the rest now, doesn't it?

But you've only addressed one video.

They've only had one manned space walk.

I assume by "they" you mean the Chinese given that there are videos of astronauts and cosmonauts doing spacewalks as well, not to mention that this was not China's first mission in outer space.

You've got a lot of work to do.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proofs of varying gravity
« on: January 03, 2010, 11:11:37 AM »
How about when I try to boil my eggs on a high mountain-top? They're always too soft boiled.

I personally say that the stars have a slight attracting field.

However, other FE proponents vehemently deny any alteration of g at higher altitudes.
I thought FE'ers didnt believe in gravity, and that stars were merely a 'backdrop' painted some precise distance from the Earth?
I read the FAQ some time ago.

Not all FET's reject gravity. See the gravity sticky.

But then wouldn't the Earth crumple into a ball?

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33