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 - macrohard

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
61
Announcements / Re: Interview with NewstalkFM
« on: September 25, 2014, 07:59:24 AM »
I enjoyed listening to that.  Your personal views are great and should be expressed here more often.

62
Flat Earth General / Re: You guys are in denial...PROOF indeed!
« on: September 25, 2014, 07:47:54 AM »
Hot damn I love this forum!

63
Flat Earth General / Re: You guys are in denial...PROOF indeed!
« on: September 24, 2014, 12:32:28 PM »
My IQ is over 90 and I agree with Rama.

64
When the orbital path of earth is viewed from the side from the outside, the earth moves from left to right half the year then right to left the other half.

This is why the sun's trajectory across the sky should also reverse direction.

Got it.

65
Flat Earth Debate / Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« on: September 23, 2014, 08:20:44 PM »
I recommend you guys lighten up on scepti.  Personal attacks are the worst way to win a debate.

He was intentionally lying to make a point.  By making a ludicrous claim he puts the validity of my claim in question; anyone can say anything on the internet and present it as fact.  While I assert that my story is true, it could very well be fabricated and that was scepti's intention.

One man's testimony doth not truth bring.

Your uncalled for attack will only likely prevent my counter argument, that millions of claims exist, from being addressed.

66
Flat Earth Debate / Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« on: September 23, 2014, 03:21:52 PM »
He admittedly made up those statements to satirize and discredit mine.  My point was that my story is not unique, and millions of eye witnesses still live today.

67
Flat Earth Debate / Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« on: September 23, 2014, 08:22:59 AM »
I acknowledge that my connections seem tenuous.  The problem for conspiracists is that I am not special.  There are tens of millions of people like me that either witnessed these events first hand or have close relations with others that have.

68
Flat Earth Debate / Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« on: September 22, 2014, 01:11:10 PM »
Sorry for going off topic, but on your site you claim that planes never hit the WTC towers and that nuclear bombs do not exist and were never used in Japan during WWII.

My ex-wife's grandmother is a survivor of Hiroshima.  70 years later her body is still pushing out shards of glass.  She clearly remembers the resulting iconic cloud, not to mention the complete and instant devastation.

My aunt and uncle were in NYC during 9/11.  They were never in any danger, but did see the second plane hit the tower with their own eyes (not via television).

There are millions of people living today that lost friends or family in those events.  These are both recent with plenty of eye witnesses.  It's not like we're debating the details of something two hundred years ago.  Eye witnesses are still living and breathing.

To say these things didn't happen is disrespectful, ignorant, and shameful.

Once again, sorry for going off topic.

69
Hot damn I love this forum!

70
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Get your head around this
« on: September 22, 2014, 09:19:28 AM »
That experiment (along with the Bedford level experiment) necessarily relies that light travels in a straight line.

Why does the acceleration of light suddenly become a non-factor for such important scientific experiments?

71
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Commercial Spaceflight
« on: September 20, 2014, 12:29:29 PM »
If it ever happens it will be an elaborate simulator.  The paying customers will never notice the difference, and further spread the RE gospel.

It's a win win for globularism.  More revenue and enhanced credibility.

Ever been on StarTours at Disneyland?  Like that but a thousand times more elaborate and believable.

I thought you were an RE'er?

I don't necessarily believe everything I say.

72
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Commercial Spaceflight
« on: September 19, 2014, 04:48:19 PM »
If it ever happens it will be an elaborate simulator.  The paying customers will never notice the difference, and further spread the RE gospel.

It's a win win for globularism.  More revenue and enhanced credibility.

Ever been on StarTours at Disneyland?  Like that but a thousand times more elaborate and believable.

73
Hot damn I love this forum!

74
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Open minds are welcomed, others should move on
« on: September 19, 2014, 11:14:12 AM »
I can't speak for everyone, but I want you Sceptimatic.  I want you.

75
Flat Earth Debate / Re: 2 serious challenges to FE
« on: September 18, 2014, 07:45:38 AM »
I thought aether starts with a.

76
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Please explain satellite tracking
« on: September 18, 2014, 07:44:00 AM »
An amateur not being able to explain a few lights does not disprove the explanation for the thousands he can account for.

77
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Open minds are welcomed, others should move on
« on: September 16, 2014, 12:16:04 PM »
If TFES were reddit this would make the front page.

78
Flat Earth Debate / Re: In search of evidence that Hubble is fake
« on: September 15, 2014, 11:51:23 AM »
Other people's drawn out squabbles over trivial matters is one of the reasons I enjoy this forum.

79
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the sun?
« on: September 11, 2014, 12:43:15 PM »
The sun is a mass of incandescent gas.

80
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Where is Tom Bishop?
« on: September 10, 2014, 12:29:36 PM »
I define best as whichever is more entertaining.  Therefore wherever Sceptimatic and Charles Bloomington go I shall follow.

81
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is space travel theoretically impossible?
« on: September 09, 2014, 12:11:05 PM »
UA gradually takes hold.  It's not all or nothing.  This is why you weigh slightly less on a tall mountain than on sea level.  At high elevation/altitude the UA takes more hold and lessens the effect of the earth accelerating against your feet.

So how high do you need to go?  The same distance you would for RE.  This is due to the equivalence principle that is at the very foundation of UA theory.

82
Let me save you some time by giving you a short summary in "clue" format:

Charles in the Conservatory with the torque-inducing string.

83
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration of The Earth
« on: September 09, 2014, 11:50:04 AM »
According to the wiki, the ice wall is believed to hold in the atmolayer.

Also, it's not just the earth that's accelerating.  The firmament and attached stars, sun, and moon move with it.

84
Flat Earth Debate / Re: sideways gravity
« on: September 09, 2014, 11:43:33 AM »
Sceptimatic once said that differences in air pressure is the true source of gravity, magnetism, and electromagnetism.

Anything is possible (except, of course, a round earth).

FE is supposed to be based on zetetic observation and empiricism.  However, the only observation that came out of that is "the earth is flat".  Everything else about physics and the universe was then made up, without logic nor science nor testing, in an attempt to explain a flat earth.  To me, all of this UA and EA and aether stuff goes entirely against zetetic principles.

I am looking out my window right now.  I do not see aether.  It must not exist.

85
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Reality
« on: September 08, 2014, 05:45:02 PM »
lol, people in different places in the southern hemiplane do not all see the same stars at the same time.  Perhaps you should do a little research before posting?

Oh dear jroa... your knowledge of astronomy has a few holes in it mate...

At the tropic of Capricorn (23.5ºS latitude) and all latitudes further south, you can see the constellation Crux—otherwise known as the Southern Cross—at any hour of the night all year around. The Southern Cross is circumpolar, that is, it's always above the horizon.

So yes; people in South Africa, Australia, and South America do see exactly the same stars.
Do you have any evidence to back this outlandish claim?

The evidence you seek is quite literally "look out your window".

86
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mountains casting shadows on clouds.
« on: September 08, 2014, 10:53:49 AM »
Perhaps you missed the part where I explained perspective and refraction to you, or you purposely ignored it.


I read it jroa, but subsequently ignored it.  Your understanding of both perspective and refraction have nothing whatsoever to do with the formation of the mountain's shadow.  It's physically (and optically) impossible to throw the shadow of an object in an upwards direction with any point source of light that's above the uppermost surface of the object—as the sun on your flat earth would have to be.

Try it with a flashlight (torch) and a basketball on your floor, and a couple of metres from a wall.

He's getting his terms mixed up.  Electromagnetic acceleration accounts for that phenomena.  You know, that cubed root equation?

Electromagnetic acceleration explains the sunset, sinking ship, and this mountain shadow.

For the record, I am an engineer and physicist and can assure you that the earth is round.  While I think many of the FE explanations are silly, I am mature enough to recognize possibilities from entirely different models of the universe.

If EA were real (it isnt) this mountain shadow is nothing unusual.  See my diagram on the previous page.

87
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mountains casting shadows on clouds.
« on: September 05, 2014, 12:11:26 PM »
Thank you for the IMG size tip.

88
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mountains casting shadows on clouds.
« on: September 05, 2014, 11:48:36 AM »


89
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A map
« on: August 19, 2014, 06:34:30 PM »
Australia and New Zealand.

New Zealand is the size of Australia and they are both very far away from everything else because it is hilariously inaccurate.

90
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Really?
« on: August 17, 2014, 04:27:41 PM »
I was referring to Satellite dishes for TV.  But even then I simplified the story.  You can get local channels in high def from traditional broadcasting towers.

You are also right about GPS, as location can be done with ground towers.  Cell phone towers are used for this purpose to triangulate a location when GPS is disabled or not present on that particular device.

In light of this I should do more research on why satellites are preferred to ground based transmission at lower frequency.  I suspect it is an economic issue, as a single satellite would have the coverage of hundreds of towers.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5