61
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How thick is the "flat earth"?
« on: September 02, 2014, 10:06:19 AM »
Could be the 'wrong board;
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.
62
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Just prove it already, Flat Earthers
« on: September 02, 2014, 10:03:01 AM »This is getting really dumb. Just prove to us round earthers on why you think the world is flat, flat earthers.
And no jroa, don't post dumb shit about "negative and positive" crap, or Star Wars.
"If you can't prove it, it isn't real" is a saying of Greek philosophers
Mental
63
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How many stars?
« on: September 02, 2014, 09:56:22 AM »How many stars are there in the Flat Earth World?Therefore, Kepler's first law contradicts the accepted fact of current astronomy that the entire solar system moves toward the star Vega on a helical path.
"Because f*ck you, that's why."
64
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't we see more of the moon?
« on: September 02, 2014, 04:47:14 AM »Described on this webpage is an easy way to determine both the size if and distance to the moon. No fancy equipment necessary.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/05/22/how-big-and-how-far-is-the-moo/
It's going to be interesting to see how the flat earthers explain their way out of this little do-it-yourself demo. And particularly how jroa responds—as he seems to think that "perhaps" the moon could be flat.
Maybe like so...
What a weeny little Earth! Isn't it supposed to be 4x bigger than the Moon?
65
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is theoretically impossible?
« on: September 01, 2014, 09:13:24 AM »What makes you think there isn't space?Why would you think that there is some space out there,Are you suggesting it is all solid?
Could it be that, 'you're suggesting that it is all solid,,,
and to be honest to you., I really don't know...
What makes you think there is'.
66
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is theoretically impossible?
« on: September 01, 2014, 08:49:59 AM »Why would you think that there is some space out there,Are you suggesting it is all solid?
Could it be that, 'you're suggesting that it is all solid,,,
and to be honest to you., I really don't know...
67
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is theoretically impossible?
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:42:20 AM »
space travel,,,
Why would you think that there is some space out there,
Why would you think that there is some space out there,
68
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Please explain satellite tracking
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:37:05 AM »There is a difference between gravity and orbiting.Why do meteors move way faster than satellites?
There is a HUGE difference between satellites and meteors. Meteors move way faster, satellites move slower.
Is the excessive speed caused by gravity?
Could you please explain this in detail to us,
69
Flat Earth General / Re: The Science Delusion
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:23:00 AM »So what?
Why have you copy pastared this?
I only thought I'd share something, sorry
70
Flat Earth General / The Science Delusion
« on: August 31, 2014, 05:14:12 AM »
Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. (born 28 June 1942) is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books.
A former Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he studied natural sciences at Cambridge University, where he was a Scholar of Clare College, took a double first class honours degree and was awarded the University Botany Prize.
He then studied philosophy and history of science at Harvard University, where he was a Frank Knox Fellow, before returning to Cambridge, where he took a Ph.D. in biochemistry.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
A former Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he studied natural sciences at Cambridge University, where he was a Scholar of Clare College, took a double first class honours degree and was awarded the University Botany Prize.
He then studied philosophy and history of science at Harvard University, where he was a Frank Knox Fellow, before returning to Cambridge, where he took a Ph.D. in biochemistry.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
71
Flat Earth General / Re: This is all a joke right?
« on: August 28, 2014, 11:14:11 AM »The Earth Shape was a question maybe a few hundred years ago. You've lost. You are the insane minority that can't be taken seriously by anyone besides like-minded individuals. You've lost. You lost a long time ago, actually. Science has advanced in a million wags since then, and the flat earth hypothesis has been left by the wayside. This site is a testament to human gullibility. Don't believe everything you read on the internet, like our dear friend Sardokhan. Most of the members of this site are people who come here to gave a laugh at the willful ignorance of others. This website IS one big joke to everyone but a tiny cell of believers. There is no Round Earth theory, or round earth model, only the fact that the earth is round that is reflected in every aspect of the physical world. Sorry, not sorry.
And' he's preaching, without the slightest hesitation,
In other words, the vast majority of the world population nurtures a 100%, complete and absolute certainty about something they have never seen with their own eyes,
- and of course, this rock-solid belief is generally 'backed up' with zero technical knowledge.
I would say that this worries me much more than any 'eccentric mind' such as RE's expressing their opinions on these pages.
Most certainly and unquestionably Flat....
or maybe,, it's round it's spinning at 1,036 miles per hour' it has a molten iron core, tectonic plate's (like pieces of a giant jigsaw puzzle) An liquid sheet of fluid water,
and we floating in space around a monstrous, S'un.. at about 67,000 miles per hour.
Please say' this is not a religion,,, a religion to control.
72
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite television?
« on: August 23, 2014, 09:55:11 AM »As has been explained to you over and over again, there are cables running under the oceans connecting every continent. What do you not understand about this?We are discussing the reception of TV via satellite, please stick to the point. Please explain in detail how the dish on the side of a house receives TV. The angle of the dish shows signals received from a satellite.
Please gives details of any links you believe to be incorrect.
In its most common form, radio is used for the transmission of sounds (voice and music) and pictures (television). wifi'
The sounds and images are converted into electrical signals by a microphone (sounds) or video camera (images), amplified, and used to modulate a carrier wave that has been generated by an oscillator circuit in a transmitter.
The modulated carrier is also amplified, then applied to an antenna that converts the electrical signals to electromagnetic waves for radiation into space. Such waves radiate at the speed of light and are transmitted not only by line of sight but also by deflection from the ionosphere.
Could it be that an 'cryptonym is a secret name or code word that usually relates to a classified operation.
73
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite television?
« on: August 23, 2014, 09:42:06 AM »As has been explained to you over and over again, there are cables running under the oceans connecting every continent. What do you not understand about this?
There's no need to treat every body else on these forums as though we're 8-year-old kids jroa. The rest of us probably understand the science behind submarine fibre-optic cables better than you do, so your condescending tone makes you look rather silly.
At any rate, the question is not about us round earthers allegedly—according to you—not "understanding" how these cables work, but more to do with you not understanding how communications satellites work.
So far you've managed to evade supplying any theories of your own as to how—or if—communications satellites actually work. I'm getting the impression you don't even accept that they exist, despite volumes of empirical evidence supporting their existence. Even the simple fact that you're now reading what I typed here from 15,000km away.
How can you explain that Warburton in Western Australia (which is 1,300km from Perth) receives TV transmissions despite having no cable connection to Perth?(Warburton is the red dot.)
The answer? Ta daaaaa... Satellites. Who would've thunk it eh?
Could it be' Radio waves'
74
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photo's
« on: August 21, 2014, 04:37:56 AM »If images from the space shuttle can be faked, then why not fake pretend satellite photos?Why would anyone fake weather satellite information?
ps. You still have explain satellite tv operation in detail, including how live pictures are received from war zones.
Could it be, that we still call it' Cable television
75
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The indoctrination of flat earthers
« on: August 19, 2014, 06:03:34 AM »The "ice wall" is what RE'ers call Antarctica. This is because Robotham said there was a wall of ice around the Earth, and RE'ers like to pretend that everything Robotham said is believed by all of us.Oh!
You think that a man that lived 150 years ago is credible?
Have you ever heard of,, 'Sir Isaac Newton,,' and his books,....
"Principia Mathematica", still remains one of the most influential texts in recorded history. This was all completed before his 26th birthday. that's 300 years ago' so maybe,, you're just kidding.
76
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Really?
« on: August 18, 2014, 05:48:23 AM »
WWVB is a very interesting radio station. It has high transmitter power (50,000 watts), a very efficient antenna and an extremely low frequency (60,000 Hz). For comparison, a typical AM radio station broadcasts at a frequency of 1,000,000 Hz. The combination of high power and low frequency gives the radio waves from WWVB a lot of bounce, and this single station can therefore cover all of the continental United States plus much of Canada and Central America as well …
The coverage map looks like this:
So this single transmitter can be received well into the Pacific and Atlantic oceans as well as parts of Canada, Central America and even part of South America.
It would seem to me that it would only take maybe a dozen or so of such transmitters to cover the entire plant.
In fact, WWV can indeed cover the globe when propagation is good enough. Just like a GPS satellite, it constantly broadcasts the time, and it seems possible that one could use its signals in precisely the same way as one uses GPS to determine one's location, given several signals. There is a rub, though - WWV broadcasts in the high frequency part of the radio spectrum (1.8-30 MHZ is HF) which is subject to ever changing and anomalous propagation.
GPS operates in the gigahertz range, which is not subject to this kind of anomalous propagation. It is more or less strictly line of sight, perhaps bouncing off raindrops and snowflakes by by and large going in a straight line, unlike HF signals which bend when the encounter the ionosphere (or the giant crystalline orb inside the hollow earth in which we live which contains all of "space").
The coverage map looks like this:
So this single transmitter can be received well into the Pacific and Atlantic oceans as well as parts of Canada, Central America and even part of South America.
It would seem to me that it would only take maybe a dozen or so of such transmitters to cover the entire plant.
In fact, WWV can indeed cover the globe when propagation is good enough. Just like a GPS satellite, it constantly broadcasts the time, and it seems possible that one could use its signals in precisely the same way as one uses GPS to determine one's location, given several signals. There is a rub, though - WWV broadcasts in the high frequency part of the radio spectrum (1.8-30 MHZ is HF) which is subject to ever changing and anomalous propagation.
GPS operates in the gigahertz range, which is not subject to this kind of anomalous propagation. It is more or less strictly line of sight, perhaps bouncing off raindrops and snowflakes by by and large going in a straight line, unlike HF signals which bend when the encounter the ionosphere (or the giant crystalline orb inside the hollow earth in which we live which contains all of "space").
77
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What would prove RE?
« on: August 18, 2014, 04:47:33 AM »
Of course the fact the majority of the public won't for one single moment question the legitimacy of any of these, regardless of how artificial and digital some of them may appear, is a testament to the power that Science has over the human mind.
"ENOS THE CHIMP - first American to orbit Earth":
one vaccine for 200 diseases 101
78
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite television?
« on: August 17, 2014, 04:24:59 AM »There are no satellites, therefore everything is ground stations based. For example, the oceans, seas and deserts are full of towers that provide all these services. But you don't see them because they are invisible. The conspiracy has mastered invisibility.Or maybe they are like the Silence, once you turn around, you immediately forget about seeing it.
Maybe they do exist, in the space that exists between peoples' ears.
79
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is the theory of special relativity and the big bang falsifiable?
« on: August 14, 2014, 03:35:43 AM »
Could it be the' fourth dimension?
According to the science channel;
Is that there are many theories among scientists about how the universe is shaped. Part of the reason for this is that, 'space is extremely difficult for us to visualize.
The standard human experience of space can be described in terms of three dimensions: length, width and height.
All three of these dimensions can be easily engaged by humans:
You can walk down a road, zigzagging back and forth as you travel, and then you can climb a tree at the end of your journey.
Congratulations -- you have navigated all three dimensions of space. According to the laws of physics, however, real space needs at least four dimensions to be described accurately.
Cosmologists have determined that the primary four dimensions are length, width, depth and time -- a combination referred to as space-time.
According to string theory, there are actually even more dimensions than this: At least 10 dimensions must exist for the working equations to be considered valid.
According to the space-time model that helped us picture Einstein's theory of general relativity, the fourth dimension is commonly defined as time.
According to the science channel;
Is that there are many theories among scientists about how the universe is shaped. Part of the reason for this is that, 'space is extremely difficult for us to visualize.
The standard human experience of space can be described in terms of three dimensions: length, width and height.
All three of these dimensions can be easily engaged by humans:
You can walk down a road, zigzagging back and forth as you travel, and then you can climb a tree at the end of your journey.
Congratulations -- you have navigated all three dimensions of space. According to the laws of physics, however, real space needs at least four dimensions to be described accurately.
Cosmologists have determined that the primary four dimensions are length, width, depth and time -- a combination referred to as space-time.
According to string theory, there are actually even more dimensions than this: At least 10 dimensions must exist for the working equations to be considered valid.
According to the space-time model that helped us picture Einstein's theory of general relativity, the fourth dimension is commonly defined as time.
80
Flat Earth General / Re: A new believer.
« on: August 14, 2014, 03:17:23 AM »I wish you success on your flat earth. Just don't make too many kids.
We wish you every success on your' fake round world, Just don't make too many demons.
81
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why has no one ever explored the edge of the flat earth?
« on: August 12, 2014, 01:45:17 AM »
It's literally impossible to reach the so called' edge, for a human being,,
82
Flat Earth General / Re: Is Laura Dekker a liar, too?
« on: August 12, 2014, 01:33:34 AM »
Laura Dekker is a fraud - Reason why Guiness and WSSRC didn't accepted her "record"
84
Flat Earth General / Re: ISS in front of a daytime moon.
« on: August 11, 2014, 01:10:09 AM »
We took this Shot with a 'Canon 500D DSLR and a special astrophotography lens out at night.
85
Flat Earth General / Re: Indoctrination at its finest.
« on: August 06, 2014, 02:02:01 AM »Indeed, and Voltaire was a believer in a round earth, so I'm not sure where that leaves you...
I believe it was Voltaite who said something along the lines of, "as long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities."
In fact, here is a depiction of Voltaire from his own book cover (notice the globes):
(notice the globes) notice the mirror,
86
Flat Earth General / Ptolemy vs. Copernicus
« on: August 01, 2014, 03:12:12 AM »
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">The Fixed Earth
"Earth-centered," or "geocentric" VS "Sun-centered," or "heliocentric"
"Earth-centered," or "geocentric" VS "Sun-centered," or "heliocentric"
87
Flat Earth General / Re: Does anyone agree with the theories of this forum's most prolific flat earther?
« on: August 01, 2014, 01:48:23 AM »In the topic titled "About that Ice Dome", prolific contributor Sceptimatic made many statements that clarify and extend his ice dome theory. His ideas received little or no support from other flat earthers. I think it's important to know whether even flat earthers think Sceptimatic ideas are silly. Below is a partial list of statements my by Sceptimatic on that thread. If you are a flat earth supporter, please indicate which ones you think are probably true.
1) The earth is covered by an ice dome. don't know , I think its closed.
2) There is no such thing as outer space. nope
3) What we think are stars, planets, the Moon and other celestial objects are just reflections of things on or in the Earth. more like radiation of things
4) The Sun is inside the earth. Actually, there are two Suns - a dark one and a light one. The interaction between the two Suns causes the illusion of an eclipse. can't say
5) The law of Conservation of Momentum does not exist. its not a law
6) Inertia does not exist. it does exist but again not a law.
89
Flat Earth General / Re: About that Ice Dome
« on: July 31, 2014, 02:16:07 AM »
Highly educated or highly indoctrinated? Or neither, but just pretending, to enhance your online ego?
[/quote]
quote; from Umurweird
I'm sorry, I forgot this was a forum where going to school and actually reading books was frowned upon.
I'm sorry, I forgot this was a forum where going to church' and actually reading bibles' was frowned upon.
[/quote]
quote; from Umurweird
I'm sorry, I forgot this was a forum where going to church' and actually reading bibles' was frowned upon.