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 - flyingmonkey

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 24
Flat Earth General / Re: Mythbusters
« on: May 25, 2010, 09:25:42 AM »
Looks like it should to me.
Again this is one of the things people get wrong. There is no air on the moon. Light from the sun doesnt work the same way it does on the earth.


I'd love to know what program Bishop uses to change the levels of the atmosphere in pictures.

Getting rid of lens flare in space would look like using a solar lens on a telescope, which is what Bishop has proven.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Lets talk about the Tropic lines.
« on: May 25, 2010, 09:10:15 AM »
Atleast he can stop being a broken record now that he has some data.

Inb4 he comes up with some other bullshit excuse on why he cannot figure anything out.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: G force?
« on: May 25, 2010, 09:07:53 AM »
Pretty sure macro forces are called macro forces because they don't do shit on an experiment that is as general as the Cavendish one.

Maybe if they were measuring the speed and distances with micrometers and such you might have an argument.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Undoing the Spotlight theory.
« on: May 25, 2010, 08:42:17 AM »
If you become a friend of the flat earth society, Daniel gladly includes a 3D model of the earth. It even comes with a stand!

How can you have a 3D model of the flat earth, if you cannot even map it?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A view from Everest
« on: May 16, 2010, 01:26:39 AM »
All you see is a false horizon.  If the earth was curved, one could not put those photos together in a straight line.  The fact that even from Everest, one can clearly see in 360 degrees that the horizon forms a straight line should be the first clue to sensible people that the Earth is flat.

Simply put your finger on the horizon on your monitor and rotate the image left or right.  Your finger will still be touching the horizon.

The fact that nobody in this thread, except Space Tourist, knows that to form a complete 360 degree panorama, the horizon will be made flat so that images actually link together properly astounds me.

Especially when you are using that reasoning as evidence of a flat Earth.

Basically, this happens:

Take 360 panorama > curvature causes images to line up in an arc > use software to form images into 360 degree panorama > flat horizon 360 degree shot.

Take this example:

Exact same process, but reversed.

Image stitching software makes the horizon change depending on what product you are wanting from the software.

The entire entry needs to be removed.

question. how does a spotlight look like a weird polar coordinate graph thingie

I'll let a FEer try to answer that one.

Flat Earth Debate / Undoing the Spotlight theory.
« on: May 13, 2010, 08:02:50 PM »
Here's a diagram of an average Summers day over the Northern Hemisphere, note the area of shadow as darkness/night-time.

Okay, that looks fine and all for a spotlight - only problem is when you switch the Summer to the Southern Hemisphere where the dark region on that diagram would now be the light and vice versa.

Copied from a post I made in a different thread to get more attention to it's downfall.

Flat Earth General / Re: The Lie Theory
« on: May 13, 2010, 07:52:00 PM »
As I have already repeated ad nauseum and you choose to ignore, no they are not unique to RET because there are FE explanations for them

When you can give evidence that these alternates actually exist outside your head and provide quantifiable scientific data and experiments, we may take you seriously.

I could explain that people are different colours because some invisible person ran around and painted each race.
This has just as much evidence as any FE explanation of the Earth - that all you have is the results, from which you create a reason why, without evidence or experiments.

Try again.

One can see the whole day-lit part of the earth from the edge of the atmosphere. Much of the details are simply too tiny to make out.

No, one cannot make out the entire Daylight facing side.

Especially since on FE, the Suns shape would change DRAMATICALLY during each hemispheres summer months.

Here's a diagram of an average Summers day over the Northern Hemisphere, note the area of shadow as darkness/night-time.

Okay, that looks fine and all for a spotlight, except that during the Summer months of the Southern Hemisphere, the dark region on that diagram would now be the light and vice versa, how do you FEers explain that one?

You cannot.

It is remarkably easy to convince members of the public that they are in Space, as the Channel 4 documentary Space Cadets showed. I don't see why that kind of tomfoolery should convince me that the Earth is a giant ball.

lol Reality TV

How do you know they weren't actors and you were the one being fooled?

Seems that's probably the most probable answer with your current track record.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Submarine Navigation?
« on: May 13, 2010, 05:50:44 PM »
Wow that means I know two official members of the conspiracy! Two people the I would trust with my life are ex-submariners and they total had me fooled! Do you honestly deny that submarines can't operate underwater for extended periods of time. If so what would keep a submarine from being technologically possible besides not being able to navigate the flat earth?

How did your seaman friends know they were actually underwater? 

I imagine that I could build a large object and convince many many people that they were deep underwater by doing nothing more than changing air pressure and occasionally tilting the structure.

Are you saying if I took a simulator flight across countries, I would actually step out in the country I just flew to on the simulator?

Holy jesus, is this teleportation?

Flat Earth General / Re: Space Tourism
« on: May 13, 2010, 05:44:17 PM »
I'd love to know what lens on the camera they use that makes a semicircle of light turn into a curved ball.

The sun doesn't and cannot hit the surface of the flat plane and form a spotlight effect, so how do you explain the light pattern as seen in the video?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Under the clouds?
« on: May 13, 2010, 05:15:36 PM »
This should be a well ignored topic by the FErs.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« on: May 13, 2010, 05:13:39 PM »
Birds fly based on their internal electromagnetic compass, Not their advanced knowledge non-euclidean geometer. Evolution is not goal oriented, it takes what is there, and the better traits survive and have offspring. /thread

What are you talking about? Of course evolution is goal oriented. It aims at producing the most survivable species in a given context, as you basically just said!

But it doesn't go hurr lets make this guy here stand on two legs so he has free hands.

That would be a goal.

What happens is

Hurr, this guy is using his hands a lot, after a few thousand generations and mutations, their species leg muscles and bone structure might change so that his hands are completely free.

Not goal orientated.

You act like it.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Submarine Navigation?
« on: May 11, 2010, 01:19:40 AM »
Especially because you can use the sonar map to travel from anywhere to any point, and end up exactly in the right place.

It wouldn't work like that if the map assumed the wrong shape.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Debate on Antarctic - centred map.
« on: May 11, 2010, 01:16:40 AM »
and how did they find it? by using land surveying techniques aka planimeter + find the perimiter and draw it. these methods don't rely on a sphere, in fact you pretend the earth is flat, so we don't have a problem.
Next are you gonna say the conspiracy calculated land areas of every country, city, town, and ocean with GPS magic, and then changed them everywhere written to agree with a prediction of the surface integral that represents Round Earth?

Your method assumes Colorado is a perfect annular sector. I somehow doubt this is the case.

You're assuming it's not?

An example:
star? ?[stahr]  Show IPA ,noun, adjective, verb,starred, star?ring.
any of the heavenly bodies, except the moon, appearing as fixed luminous points in the sky at night.

Notice that there is nothing about atomic fusion or electron states. Yet, the release of energy from atomic fusion is precisely what makes it luminous...

If I said that nebula's and galaxies visible to the naked eye are stars, would I be correct or incorrect by that definition?

If I said Venus was a star, would I be correct or incorrect by that definition?

You just proved his point that you cannot take the dictionary as the be all and end all.

Or didn't you see that you just walked into your own trap with that last comment?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: South Celestial Pole?
« on: May 10, 2010, 01:49:51 AM »
Any evidence for such outlandish claims?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flat Earth moves upwards?
« on: May 09, 2010, 09:23:44 PM »
I'd imagine places like Beijing and New York to have quite the wobbly effect on FE.

Also, if FE is infinitely wide and finitely deep, this just makes it worse.

Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth: The Novel
« on: May 09, 2010, 09:21:19 PM »
Apparently the memory saving way of making maps flat on games makes them agree with FE.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: South Celestial Pole?
« on: May 09, 2010, 09:12:12 PM »
But for starters, why do everyone see the same star formations at the south celestial poles, and why does the entire sky appear to rotate around a single axis instead of around 3 or more separate points?

Each south celestial pole has identical stars around it, and you can only see at most one of them at a time - they're too far apart for anyone to see two or more simultaneously.

But wouldn't someone inbetween 2 of the SCP's be able to see that there are 3 points of rotation in the sky via the movement of the stars?

How do you explain how multiple celestial poles work? Gears?

How do gears cover the entire sky? We all know that adjoining gears will produce gaps between the teeth them before they touch each other.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why is this map never considered?
« on: May 09, 2010, 09:09:23 AM »
Now the FE'ers in the Northern Hemisphere get to see what it's like to see their entire half of the Earth fucked up.

See how it doesn't work?

Define harmful.
What dangers are you trying to protect us from?
The dangers of lunar light.

Sooo, nothing then?

It seems a bit conjectural to me to suggest that the only possible explanation is that the Earth is curved.

You must figure there's an alternate explanation?

Wonder why nobody has thought of it

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« on: May 06, 2010, 03:28:29 PM »
The Earth does not seem to be running out of biomass to recycle, why would the Moon?

The Earth is eating itself unlike the Moon, apparently.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Edge of the Earth
« on: May 06, 2010, 03:27:43 PM »
Welcome to FET

Expect it to be like that from here on in.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Travel According to a Flat-Earth-er?
« on: May 06, 2010, 03:26:38 PM »
Once you are at a high enough altitude to get out of the Earths EA shielding, space travel should be pretty easy.

Flat Earth General / Re: Guatemala
« on: May 06, 2010, 01:45:23 PM »
There, plenty of ways you can travel to Guatemala to do research, and also make the trips abundant of research aswel.

Where are you flying from?

This is a good one to answer.

You're one fails because you don't have to wear one at all depending on what science it is.

But every scientist must be an expert in science, which means that they have been taught, which is what he stated.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 24