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] 5 6 ... 24
91
Right, so when you people of FE can count past 2 with joining raindrops, I'll start to listen.

92
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions
« on: May 03, 2010, 09:30:23 PM »
How can a 12000mi ring hold in 80000mi of Earth?
When did I say it did?

The entire FE theory relies on it to do so - Except the Antarctica as a continent model, but then they cannot explain what holds the water in.

Quote
Do you not understand the basics behind why Antarctica cannot be the Ice wall?
I never said Antarctica as a whole was THE ice wall.

You seemed pretty certain that there was a Greater Ice Wall buried somewhere in the depths of Antarctica, which by the way, is a finite size.

I thought it was clear I meant the "Greater" ice wall, which is very tall indeed but much farther into Antarctica. Antarctica itself is the "Lesser" ice wall which is easily scalable.

AKA:

Quote
Antarctica is even bigger than I made you think in my first comment, it's actually a helluva lot larger than what I meant, it holds much more in it even though it's only relatively small in size, Somewhere deep inside Antarctica is a large unscalable mountain or wall of ice that nobody has found even though multiple explorers have crossed the entire continent and boats have circumnavigated it.

Doop.


Quote
Also, on average, the surface of Antarctica is fairly flat.
So?

Where's this Greater Ice Wall?

Quote
If you are going to troll, stop posting, take notes and learn from the people who do it best - or you'll look like a dumbass.
You're the one who fails at trolling. You don't even understand Flat Earth Theory itself.

I'm not trolling.
Also, You're the one adopting it, maybe you should look out for the holes.

Quote
How big do you think this infinite plane is if it manages to hide itself in a circle that is only 12000mi in circumference?
I do not subscribe to the infinite plane theory--but if there is an infinite plain, it would refer to Antarctica and beyond it. Nobody is trying to say that an infinite space can fit inside a finite space.

How does one go beyond Antarctica if Antarctica is such a small finite space?

Starting to get it now?

There is nothing beyond Antarctica, not a "Greater Ice Wall" or "Infinite Plane", because they cannot fit inside the finite space that is limited by Antarctica.

THERE IS NO ROOM. LOOK ELSEWHERE

You might as well say the Sahara desert is an infinite span of sand.

93
Flat Earth General / Re: Why I became a Flat Earther
« on: May 02, 2010, 10:05:46 PM »
I'm not the silly one, as you so helped prove in that other thread you posted in.

Also, I meant it as "Welcome" in a funny tone.
Expect to be at the end of things like that from here on in.

94
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions
« on: May 02, 2010, 10:03:53 PM »
I thought it was clear I meant the "Greater" ice wall, which is very tall indeed but much farther into Antarctica. Antarctica itself is the "Lesser" ice wall which is easily scalable.


That makes no sense at all.

How can a circle of a set circumference hold in something that is much larger than it?

How can a 12000mi ring hold in 80000mi of Earth?

Do you not understand the basics behind why Antarctica cannot be the Ice wall?


On another note:

How big do you think this infinite plane is if it manages to hide itself in a circle that is only 12000mi in circumference?


Also, on average, the surface of Antarctica is fairly flat.


If you are going to troll, stop posting, take notes and learn from the people who do it best - or you'll look like a dumbass.

95
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flight Times?
« on: May 02, 2010, 10:00:23 PM »
Quote
Flying eastbound, tail winds make it advantageous to fly a more southerly route even though it is longer. The great circle route is the same in either direction but is only used for the westbound, ORD-HKG flight, which would encounter substantial head winds if it flew the more southerly route.

It doesn't matter, any flight that has headwinds will fly via a great circle arc to it's destination.

This is what you cannot explain.

96
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: New Ice Wall Question
« on: May 02, 2010, 09:56:39 PM »
I don't see any reason to believe that water would necessarily slip through the ice if it was entirely ice from the bottom up.

Ever put ice in a glass of water and waited a while?


Water melts ice, especially salt water.

97
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Bendy light
« on: May 02, 2010, 09:55:31 PM »
It does, just not in the perfect way that is required for FE.

Moon via bendy light:


98
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flight Times?
« on: May 02, 2010, 09:44:41 PM »
Because it's observed that the distances are about 4x what the are compared to RE.

Time remains constant, distance increases, speed must also increase proportionally.

I thought even you would figure that.

You're neglecting the use of so-called "great circle flying". Take the flight paths of planes and apply them to a map of the Flat Earth, you'll see that often when they claim to be taking a giant curve they're taking a straight line of equivalent distance.

Actually, for the Southern Hemisphere, they are making it even longer.

You fucked up good time then.

Need a diagram?

I'm actually starting to believe you might be simple.
Hence, I asked you to draw the flight path from Sydney to Santiago.


Will do.



99
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions
« on: May 02, 2010, 09:43:14 PM »

Quote
How come there is no edge?
Read the FAQ. We cannot arrive at the edge, only the wall. The ice wall of Antarctica.


Wish people would stop using Antarctica as a scape goat, it is only ~12000 miles in circumference.
FE is ~78000 miles in circumference.

AKA, Antarctica is not the Ice Wall, get your head out of your ass.

Update the goddamn FAQ and your theory.

100
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Moon is not a flat disc.
« on: May 02, 2010, 09:34:28 PM »
3) For such a smart-alec, you sure don't know jack about the Universal Accelerator. That's like asking if my table will keep crumbs from falling onto my laptop.


Well, the Moon is floating above Earth, moving upwards at the same rate.

Why isn't the things from the Moon also moving at the same rate?

Is the Moon shooting us?

No.  Obviously the moon is excreting on us.  The "blood rain" is lunar urine and "mana" is lunar dung falling on us.

But how can they overcome the force of the UA if the Moon cannot?

Something smaller and lighter should be easily influenced by the force of the UA and stay up for longer.
How come the Moon doesn't fall on us if it's excretions are?

101
Flat Earth General / Re: Why I became a Flat Earther
« on: May 02, 2010, 09:32:30 PM »
All we need for you to do is hand in all your belongings and put on this straight jacket, and we will show you to one of our lovely padded rooms.

102
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flight Times?
« on: May 02, 2010, 09:17:12 PM »
Because it's observed that the distances are about 4x what the are compared to RE.

Time remains constant, distance increases, speed must also increase proportionally.

I thought even you would figure that.

You're neglecting the use of so-called "great circle flying". Take the flight paths of planes and apply them to a map of the Flat Earth, you'll see that often when they claim to be taking a giant curve they're taking a straight line of equivalent distance.

Actually, for the Southern Hemisphere, they are making it even longer.

You fucked up good time then.

Need a diagram?

I'm actually starting to believe you might be simple.


ED: Here you go



I: Shortest route (According to Flat Earth only)
II: Line of Latitude
III: Flight path (Shortest route according to Round Earth)

As we all know, this is why it works:




103
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« on: May 02, 2010, 09:12:48 PM »
I just think that James is far too simple to understand such ideas.

IHC?

104
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Moon is not a flat disc.
« on: May 02, 2010, 08:18:51 PM »
3) For such a smart-alec, you sure don't know jack about the Universal Accelerator. That's like asking if my table will keep crumbs from falling onto my laptop.


Well, the Moon is floating above Earth, moving upwards at the same rate.

Why isn't the things from the Moon also moving at the same rate?

Is the Moon shooting us?

105
Earth means soil or dirt.

Dirt is made of thousands of millions of round particles.

Earth is round.

106
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flight Times?
« on: April 29, 2010, 07:42:12 AM »
Good thing they have flight paths then




107
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flight Times?
« on: April 29, 2010, 07:39:30 AM »
Australia to South Africa

South Africa to South America

South America to New Zealand


You know where those are, right?

108
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antimoon?!?!?!
« on: April 29, 2010, 07:36:35 AM »
I get 404 error on your link.

109
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flight Times?
« on: April 29, 2010, 07:35:27 AM »
Because it's observed that the distances are about 4x what the are compared to RE.

Time remains constant, distance increases, speed must also increase proportionally.

I thought even you would figure that.

110
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« on: April 29, 2010, 07:30:13 AM »
Way to misunderstand my point you tard.

Take a read of the bible, see how you go with taking that literally too.


Go troll somewhere else.

111
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flight Times?
« on: April 29, 2010, 07:27:18 AM »
Planes don't have a wake that is flyable behind, it's a mess of turbulence.


As for the speeds, ofcourse they can obtain multiple speeds, but they are not, and are nowhere near, the speeds that is required for FET.

What speed is required for FET?


If I take the North pole at the center, atleast 4x the speeds they fly at currently.

112
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antimoon?!?!?!
« on: April 29, 2010, 07:22:33 AM »
5. The Antimoon can be shown to exist by the phenomenon of daytime Lunar eclipses. The globularist model requirse that the Sun be "behind" the Round Earth from the perspective of the observer, so that the Earth blocks the Sun's rays. This ought to preclude the two bodies being in the same hemisphere simultaneously, although empirical evidence demonstrates that they are. Therefore, another celestial body is blocking Lunar visibility from Earth during an eclipse.

Any pictures or links to back this up?
How come it's undetectable, even to scientists that have no place in the conspiracy that would have seen this phenomenon.

Daylight Lunar eclipses are well-documented, many have occured throughout history. The 19th Century geographer and astronomer Dr. McCulloch recorded two incidences, one in his own lifetime (in 1837) and one in 1717. The Daily Telegraph reported a daytime lunar eclipse on July 16th, 1870. They occur on a fairly regular basis.

So you have nothing except what you say.

No links or anything?

I tried searching the internet, I spent an hour looking for such events, the conspiracy must have covered them up.

Pretty poor definition of "well-documented" you have there.

113
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flight Times?
« on: April 29, 2010, 06:33:20 AM »


Look at how easily things can be edited out of pics now...it's scary.


But why would the little grandma taking a flight want to edit out the birds she sees?

Hell, she probably still uses film, how does one fix the negative?


People have the means to do this, but they lack the motive.
The only people with motive for this are the people in the conspiracy.
Just because photos can be edited, doesn't mean people wouldn't say things about the flock of 500 birds up the planes ass.

I've yet to see a commercial plane break the sound barrier, as would be required for Southern Hemisphere travel.

114
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flight Times?
« on: April 29, 2010, 05:21:01 AM »
Sadly, due to the ease and accessibility of modem photo-editing software, photo's aren't submittable as evidence.


And thus the conspiracy gets larger.

Everyone and their dog now edit out the birds in photos of planes flying.

115
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antimoon?!?!?!
« on: April 29, 2010, 04:29:07 AM »
5. The Antimoon can be shown to exist by the phenomenon of daytime Lunar eclipses. The globularist model requirse that the Sun be "behind" the Round Earth from the perspective of the observer, so that the Earth blocks the Sun's rays. This ought to preclude the two bodies being in the same hemisphere simultaneously, although empirical evidence demonstrates that they are. Therefore, another celestial body is blocking Lunar visibility from Earth during an eclipse.

Any pictures or links to back this up?
How come it's undetectable, even to scientists that have no place in the conspiracy that would have seen this phenomenon.

5b. Additionally, since it has been shown that the Moon shines by her own light, a lack of Sunlight would not prevent the Moon from being visible.

You haven't shown anything, it's just another theory of yours.

116
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions about the flat earth
« on: April 29, 2010, 04:25:16 AM »
Actually, I'm fairly sure that would have been the usual FE reply.

Hell, he did better than the FE'er before him.

117
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flight Times?
« on: April 29, 2010, 04:23:34 AM »
Planes don't have a wake that is flyable behind, it's a mess of turbulence.


As for the speeds, ofcourse they can obtain multiple speeds, but they are not, and are nowhere near, the speeds that is required for FET.

118
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« on: April 29, 2010, 04:19:16 AM »
Figure out why.

FE would create a horizon due to perspective, nothing from the sky would ever go underneath this horizon, they would shrink until they disappear.
The Sun and Moon do not change to sizes that would be observed due to a perspective horizon, they sink below the horizon.

Once you can come up with an appropriate reason that this is observed, I will be happy to even think FE has a leg to stand on.

This is a different argument entirely.  One can empirically observe that the moon sinks below the horizon so however it happens, we know it happens.

Obviously, I favor electromagnetic acceleration as the explanation for this phenomenon in FET.


I favor the much easier to prove and less holey "The Earth Curves downwards away from you" explanation.

Pray tell, how is that bendy light/EA equation/model coming along?
Does it have anything other than blatant "Lol it does this because it does"



Using the basic premise of EA, the moon would decelerate to it's peak position, then accelerate back down to the horizon.

Last time I checked, it has a constant speed.


Pics if needed.

119
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions about the flat earth
« on: April 28, 2010, 10:04:43 PM »
but I would like to see the flat earth people's evidence, to compare with round earth evidence. =) thanks

They have no evidence to compare, just different ways of explaining certain phenomena.

120
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Axes to FES: Part 1
« on: April 28, 2010, 09:38:40 PM »
I Think an REer said this would work on an infinite plane.


I think you missed some posts where we showed it wouldn't.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 24