61
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Horizon?
« on: March 09, 2007, 01:51:46 PM »
After watching I am convinced the Earth is round.
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 Q&A / Horizon?
« on: March 09, 2007, 01:43:08 PM »
I can see a horizon out at see, explain. (I think this is an RE winner!)
63
The Lounge / Re: teh AIDS!!! 2!
« on: March 09, 2007, 01:42:03 PM »
I will burn their bodies then drink their spinal fluid!
64
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moon Light
« on: March 09, 2007, 01:41:08 PM »
Exactly, so why are u debating with me moron. 
66
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: SKY TV, COMMUNIATIONS, ETC.
« on: March 09, 2007, 01:38:29 PM »I dont believe everything. Thats just a single source that seems quite reliable to me. What about other people who have sent satellites into space?
What satellites? You keep asking about these satellites but it isn't getting into your thick-as-Tom's-skull that you HAVE JACK SHITS WORTH OF PROOF SHOWING THAT SATELLITES ARE GOING INTO SPACE.
Nothing backs up the statements in your questions. NOTHING.
Why is the sky green? Why are flamingos a dull brown? Why do elephants have 8 legs? Where do Jackelopes live?
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/100/?nc=1
Why would these people lie about sending something into space?
Why would I lie about the sky being green or elephants having 8 legs?
Exactly, thus you just wasted your own life replying to my stupid thread.
Or you wasted your life by completely missing the point and being an asshole.
Id waste my life to waste yours, why are u even debating with me as I am a retarddddddddd.
67
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: On Railroad Tracks (From Flat Earth News)
« on: March 09, 2007, 01:37:50 PM »Why do they reply to my stupid threads and not these!! ;
:D:D:
68
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moon Light
« on: March 09, 2007, 01:36:59 PM »
You think I care that you think the Earth is flat?
69
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: SKY TV, COMMUNIATIONS, ETC.
« on: March 09, 2007, 01:36:24 PM »I dont believe everything. Thats just a single source that seems quite reliable to me. What about other people who have sent satellites into space?
What satellites? You keep asking about these satellites but it isn't getting into your thick-as-Tom's-skull that you HAVE JACK SHITS WORTH OF PROOF SHOWING THAT SATELLITES ARE GOING INTO SPACE.
Nothing backs up the statements in your questions. NOTHING.
Why is the sky green? Why are flamingos a dull brown? Why do elephants have 8 legs? Where do Jackelopes live?
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/100/?nc=1
Why would these people lie about sending something into space?
Why would I lie about the sky being green or elephants having 8 legs?
Exactly, thus you just wasted your own life replying to my stupid thread.
70
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moon Light
« on: March 09, 2007, 01:34:50 PM »
The threads that dont fail you ignore, which is dull. So I create threads that do fail to at least get a response.
71
The Lounge / I steal from websites
« on: March 09, 2007, 01:34:01 PM »
This is a question that has been asked for many years, and there are some very intuitive, and some not-so-intuitive answers.
To start with... there's a horizon, meaning that the surface that one is observing from is not an infinite plane. On the clearest of days, the only restriction to one's range of sight is the horizon. There can be two explanations for this - one, that the Earth at some point just stops, as if you were looking off the edge of a table. The other is that the Earth is round. Hundreds of years ago, before the invention of the compass or sextant, precise navigation for ships was difficult, even with the stars. Ships that ventured past sight of land were often lost, and thus it was generally believed that the world simply *stopped* at the end of the horizon. With the invention of the compass, and improved map-making, people began to dare more, and with the return of Columbus from his trans-Atlantic voyage, the concept of the Earth as flat was shattered.
Further proof of the Earth being round came after the voyage of Columbus. When Newton discovered and measured the force of gravity, that number could then be tested anywhere the theory was known. Since the force of gravity is roughly the same everywhere on the globe, it could be surmised that the Earth must be spherical. If the Earth were not round, whole hemispheres would have different atmospheric pressure and significantly different sea levels. Also, pictures taken of the Earth in the last 50 years have proved absolutely conclusively that the Earth is round. These are just the arguments that don't require much physics knowledge to explain, there are others that are more technical, but I think that the simplest arguments are the best.
Answered by: Frank DiBonaventuro, B.S., Physics grad, The Citadel, Air Force officer
There are a multitude of methods in which any one can prove that the earth is a sphere. These are the most common.
You can launch a rocket to a high altitude and take pictures of the earth (which various government agencies and private groups have already done thousands of times in the past), but that isn't the most practical way. Pictures and videos taken by orbiting satellites and space stations are certainly the most definitive proof that the earth is a sphere.
But if you're not convinced, read on...
You can also observe, with binoculars, ships slowly 'sinking' below the horizon as it sails farther and farther out to the ocean, then watch them come back. They certainly didn't fall off the edge of the earth! You can also sail or fly around the world.
The Greeks discovered that the earth is round by observing lunar eclipses (i.e. when the earth blocks the sun from the moon, casting its round shadow on the moon's surface).
Another method is simultaneously measuring the length of the shadows cast by identical poles perpendicular to a flat surface that is tangential to the earth's radius at various, distant locations. If indeed the earth is round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another, which means that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to another. (recall the alternate-angles theorem from Geometry class) If the earth is flat, then the lengths of all the shadows should be identical when measured simultaneously, since all rays of sunlight that strike the earth are parallel. However, they are not identical, but in fact, varies in such a way that the angles indicate a spherical surface. (This was one of the earliest methods to determine the radius of the earth)
Also, keep in mind the 24 hour time zones. When it is noon in Hawaii, it is approximately midnight in the Middle East and vice versa. How can it be noon and midnight simultaneously? It is certainly impossible with a flat earth and a sun millions of times more massive.
If I were a billionaire and physically fit, then proving to you the earth is round would be no problem. I can just take you with me on the space shuttle and we'll watch with our own eyes the earth from the orbiting International Space Station.
I have heard from astronauts that there is no experience comparable as watching the earth from above.
To start with... there's a horizon, meaning that the surface that one is observing from is not an infinite plane. On the clearest of days, the only restriction to one's range of sight is the horizon. There can be two explanations for this - one, that the Earth at some point just stops, as if you were looking off the edge of a table. The other is that the Earth is round. Hundreds of years ago, before the invention of the compass or sextant, precise navigation for ships was difficult, even with the stars. Ships that ventured past sight of land were often lost, and thus it was generally believed that the world simply *stopped* at the end of the horizon. With the invention of the compass, and improved map-making, people began to dare more, and with the return of Columbus from his trans-Atlantic voyage, the concept of the Earth as flat was shattered.
Further proof of the Earth being round came after the voyage of Columbus. When Newton discovered and measured the force of gravity, that number could then be tested anywhere the theory was known. Since the force of gravity is roughly the same everywhere on the globe, it could be surmised that the Earth must be spherical. If the Earth were not round, whole hemispheres would have different atmospheric pressure and significantly different sea levels. Also, pictures taken of the Earth in the last 50 years have proved absolutely conclusively that the Earth is round. These are just the arguments that don't require much physics knowledge to explain, there are others that are more technical, but I think that the simplest arguments are the best.
Answered by: Frank DiBonaventuro, B.S., Physics grad, The Citadel, Air Force officer
There are a multitude of methods in which any one can prove that the earth is a sphere. These are the most common.
You can launch a rocket to a high altitude and take pictures of the earth (which various government agencies and private groups have already done thousands of times in the past), but that isn't the most practical way. Pictures and videos taken by orbiting satellites and space stations are certainly the most definitive proof that the earth is a sphere.
But if you're not convinced, read on...
You can also observe, with binoculars, ships slowly 'sinking' below the horizon as it sails farther and farther out to the ocean, then watch them come back. They certainly didn't fall off the edge of the earth! You can also sail or fly around the world.
The Greeks discovered that the earth is round by observing lunar eclipses (i.e. when the earth blocks the sun from the moon, casting its round shadow on the moon's surface).
Another method is simultaneously measuring the length of the shadows cast by identical poles perpendicular to a flat surface that is tangential to the earth's radius at various, distant locations. If indeed the earth is round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another, which means that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to another. (recall the alternate-angles theorem from Geometry class) If the earth is flat, then the lengths of all the shadows should be identical when measured simultaneously, since all rays of sunlight that strike the earth are parallel. However, they are not identical, but in fact, varies in such a way that the angles indicate a spherical surface. (This was one of the earliest methods to determine the radius of the earth)
Also, keep in mind the 24 hour time zones. When it is noon in Hawaii, it is approximately midnight in the Middle East and vice versa. How can it be noon and midnight simultaneously? It is certainly impossible with a flat earth and a sun millions of times more massive.
If I were a billionaire and physically fit, then proving to you the earth is round would be no problem. I can just take you with me on the space shuttle and we'll watch with our own eyes the earth from the orbiting International Space Station.
I have heard from astronauts that there is no experience comparable as watching the earth from above.
72
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: SKY TV, COMMUNIATIONS, ETC.
« on: March 09, 2007, 01:30:34 PM »I dont believe everything. Thats just a single source that seems quite reliable to me. What about other people who have sent satellites into space?
What satellites? You keep asking about these satellites but it isn't getting into your thick-as-Tom's-skull that you HAVE JACK SHITS WORTH OF PROOF SHOWING THAT SATELLITES ARE GOING INTO SPACE.
Nothing backs up the statements in your questions. NOTHING.
Why is the sky green? Why are flamingos a dull brown? Why do elephants have 8 legs? Where do Jackelopes live?
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/100/?nc=1
Why would these people lie about sending something into space?
73
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: SKY TV, COMMUNIATIONS, ETC.
« on: March 09, 2007, 01:26:05 PM »
I dont believe everything. Thats just a single source that seems quite reliable to me. What about other people who have sent satellites into space?
http://www.hobbyspace.com/SatBuilding/index.html#Student
http://www.hobbyspace.com/SatBuilding/index.html#Student
74
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: SKY TV, COMMUNIATIONS, ETC.
« on: March 09, 2007, 01:22:46 PM »How does my TV work without da satellite + communiations devices
For fixed services, communications satellites provide a technology complementary to that of fiber optic submarine communication cables. They are also used for mobile applications such as communications to ships and planes, for which application of other technologies, such as cable, are impractical or impossible.
Explain.
Another idiotic question asked by an idiot to stupid to understand the SEARCH function.
Radio waves can bounce off the atmosphere which allows them to act as though bouncing signals off of a satellite.
So what about the people who put the satellites into orbit? They on the conspiracy too? What about the dome of death?
What people putting what satellites into what orbit?
The TV people putting TV satellites into orbit! Dont forget GPS and the amateurs!
4 point location between radio towers for GPS and TV signals.
Why is it GPS rarely works in the middle of nowhere? Or Cell Phones?
Shadow object blocks usage
http://www.hobbyspace.com/SatBuilding/index.html
Explain the amateurs who send up satellites?
75
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: SKY TV, COMMUNIATIONS, ETC.
« on: March 09, 2007, 01:19:06 PM »How does my TV work without da satellite + communiations devices
For fixed services, communications satellites provide a technology complementary to that of fiber optic submarine communication cables. They are also used for mobile applications such as communications to ships and planes, for which application of other technologies, such as cable, are impractical or impossible.
Explain.
Another idiotic question asked by an idiot to stupid to understand the SEARCH function.
Radio waves can bounce off the atmosphere which allows them to act as though bouncing signals off of a satellite.
So what about the people who put the satellites into orbit? They on the conspiracy too? What about the dome of death?
What people putting what satellites into what orbit?
The TV people putting TV satellites into orbit! Dont forget GPS and the amateurs!
EDIT:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/Radio/index.html
http://www.hobbyspace.com/SatBuilding/index.html
76
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: SKY TV, COMMUNIATIONS, ETC.
« on: March 09, 2007, 01:15:25 PM »How does my TV work without da satellite + communiations devices
For fixed services, communications satellites provide a technology complementary to that of fiber optic submarine communication cables. They are also used for mobile applications such as communications to ships and planes, for which application of other technologies, such as cable, are impractical or impossible.
Explain.
Another idiotic question asked by an idiot to stupid to understand the SEARCH function.
Radio waves can bounce off the atmosphere which allows them to act as though bouncing signals off of a satellite.
So what about the people who put the satellites into orbit? They on the conspiracy too? What about the dome of death?
77
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: SKY TV, COMMUNIATIONS, ETC.
« on: March 09, 2007, 01:10:44 PM »
Seems to be the questions no-one can answer, they get ignored, so I ask again!
78
Flat Earth Q&A / SKY TV, COMMUNIATIONS, ETC.
« on: March 09, 2007, 01:08:37 PM »
How does my TV work without da satellite + communiations devices
For fixed services, communications satellites provide a technology complementary to that of fiber optic submarine communication cables. They are also used for mobile applications such as communications to ships and planes, for which application of other technologies, such as cable, are impractical or impossible.
Explain.
For fixed services, communications satellites provide a technology complementary to that of fiber optic submarine communication cables. They are also used for mobile applications such as communications to ships and planes, for which application of other technologies, such as cable, are impractical or impossible.
Explain.
79
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moon Light
« on: March 09, 2007, 01:00:35 PM »http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=moon%20eclipse&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi
Im pretty sure all those werent taken by NASA.
You have presented pictures of a phenomenon however you have failed to prove that that phenomenon is the cause of the Earth's shadow.
You have failed.
You have presented pictures of a phenomenon however you have failed to prove that that phenomenon is the cause of the shadow object,
You have failed.
1) I never presented pictures.
2) I never claimed that there was a shadow object
You, again, fail.
So what causes the shadow on the moon? Explain.
80
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moon Light
« on: March 09, 2007, 12:57:35 PM »http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=moon%20eclipse&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi
Im pretty sure all those werent taken by NASA.
You have presented pictures of a phenomenon however you have failed to prove that that phenomenon is the cause of the Earth's shadow.
You have failed.
You have presented pictures of a phenomenon however you have failed to prove that that phenomenon is the cause of the shadow object,
You have failed.
81
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: On Railroad Tracks (From Flat Earth News)
« on: March 09, 2007, 12:56:47 PM »
83
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moon Light
« on: March 09, 2007, 12:53:42 PM »
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=moon%20eclipse&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi
Im pretty sure all those werent taken by NASA.
Im pretty sure all those werent taken by NASA.
84
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How were Mountains formed
« on: March 09, 2007, 12:50:46 PM »Tom how does the earth push mountains upwards, and why arent there deep holes in the earth that are the result of the acceleration of the earth. And what of the underside? What does it look like, does the earth look like pufferfish?
Shadow object, dark magic.
85
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moon Light
« on: March 09, 2007, 12:49:28 PM »The FEers, the true ones, have tons of evidence and years of science and understanding to stand their ground, if any REer came on with viable evidence of their claim then maybe it would cause a good fight. Its just that most of the posters dont really know what they are talking about and it quickly turns into the usual round of bullshit
What about all the stuff FE cant explain? Such as the moons shadow, atmosphere escape, travelling times, GPS, etc.
Explain.
Shadow object? LOL, got proof?
86
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moon Light
« on: March 09, 2007, 12:48:06 PM »
Not my fault the forum quote thing doesnt take me to the bottom Its not how I type, its what I type.
Its not how I type, its what I type.
87
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moon Light
« on: March 09, 2007, 12:45:35 PM »When they went to moon they put light sensor on moon, on Earth light is sent to it and can measure the moons distance away. Explain.
Are we suppose to take your word for it? A word, I might add, that is virtually worthless on these forums?
Ye man, its worthless even though I have provided many threads that no FE has been able to answer.
You have provided many threads that are WORTHLESS.
Take this one for example, in the FE model NASA never went to the moon because going to the moon is impossible. And since that kind of information is seemingly impossible to get a hold of (the laser that measures the distance between Earth and the moon) your statement of it's existence is hereby officially considered BULL SHIT.
The fact that I would have to point this out to you is proof by itself of your repeated idiocy.
So the people who use it are in on the conspiracy? What about the people who made it? What about the people who went onto the moon? What about the people that designed the equipment that was used for the moon? What about the people who have died in space missions? What about the family members of the people who went to the moon? What about the ice guards, people who have seen the ice wall? What about the people who have travelled to the south pole, the people who have died to uncover the truth only to refute their evidence as bullshit?
What about all the stuff FE cant explain? Such as the moons shadow, atmosphere escape, travelling times, GPS, etc.
88
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moon Rocks
« on: March 09, 2007, 12:41:01 PM »
There are currently three sources of Moon rocks on Earth: 1) those collected by US Apollo missions; 2) samples returned by the Soviet Union Luna missions; and 3) rocks that were ejected naturally from the lunar surface by cratering events and subsequently fell to Earth as lunar meteorites.
In general, the rocks collected from the Moon are extremely old compared to rocks found on Earth, as measured by radiometric dating techniques. They range in age from about 3.16 billion years old for the basaltic samples drived from the lunar maria, up to about 4.5 billion years old for rocks derived from the highlands. Based on the age dating technique of "crater counting," the youngest basaltic eruptions are believed to have occurred about 1.2 billion years ago, but we do not possess samples of these lavas. In contrast, the oldest ages of rocks from the Earth are about 3.8 billion years old.
In some regards, the rocks possess characteristics very similar to rocks on Earth, particularly in their composition of oxygen isotopes. Nevertheless, in contrast to the Earth, large portions of the lunar crust appear to be composed of rocks with high concentrations of the mineral anorthite, the mare basalts have relatively high iron concentrations, some of the mare basalts have very high concentrations of titanium (in the form of ilmenite), and all rocks are depleted in volatile elements (such as potassium or sodium) and are completely lacking in water. Furthermore, a geochemical component called KREEP, which has high abundances of incompatible elements, has no equivalent on Earth. Among the new minerals found on the Moon was armalcolite, which is named for the three astronauts on the Apollo 11 mission: Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins.
Explain.
In general, the rocks collected from the Moon are extremely old compared to rocks found on Earth, as measured by radiometric dating techniques. They range in age from about 3.16 billion years old for the basaltic samples drived from the lunar maria, up to about 4.5 billion years old for rocks derived from the highlands. Based on the age dating technique of "crater counting," the youngest basaltic eruptions are believed to have occurred about 1.2 billion years ago, but we do not possess samples of these lavas. In contrast, the oldest ages of rocks from the Earth are about 3.8 billion years old.
In some regards, the rocks possess characteristics very similar to rocks on Earth, particularly in their composition of oxygen isotopes. Nevertheless, in contrast to the Earth, large portions of the lunar crust appear to be composed of rocks with high concentrations of the mineral anorthite, the mare basalts have relatively high iron concentrations, some of the mare basalts have very high concentrations of titanium (in the form of ilmenite), and all rocks are depleted in volatile elements (such as potassium or sodium) and are completely lacking in water. Furthermore, a geochemical component called KREEP, which has high abundances of incompatible elements, has no equivalent on Earth. Among the new minerals found on the Moon was armalcolite, which is named for the three astronauts on the Apollo 11 mission: Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins.
Explain.
89
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moon Light
« on: March 09, 2007, 12:38:12 PM »When they went to moon they put light sensor on moon, on Earth light is sent to it and can measure the moons distance away. Explain.
Are we suppose to take your word for it? A word, I might add, that is virtually worthless on these forums?
Ye man, its worthless even though I have provided many threads that no FE has been able to answer.
90
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Roald Amundsen
« on: March 09, 2007, 11:18:18 AM »Round earth believers think Roald Amundsen was the first one to reach the South Pole, we think he was the first to reach the North Pole (The middle of the Artic circle). Later when he went out on an expedition to reach the North Pole, we think he reached the "south Pole" (the edge off the world).
Explain how he got the poles mixed up, I dont know much about this guy but I assume he started close to the North Pole, I bet it didnt take him long to get to the Arctic circle, if he went to the wrong "island" it would have taken him much longer than expected, Im pretty sure he planned, not just set his plane towards North.
The headquarters lost contact with Amundsen right before he reached the edge, then he reported that he had put the ocean behind him. That concludes that he was pretty near the ice wall.
If there is such a thing.
Then 30mins later when the headquarters tried to contact he didn’t respond. So I agree, he could have crashed, but not very likely.
Why isnt it likely that he crashed? Surely this is the most likely thing that happened, even if the ice wall existed. He would have expected not to be faced with a giant wall in front of him, by the time he saw it he had crashed into it (or something).
Shouldn’t he have reported earlier if there was something wrong with the plane?
Engine blows up, crashes into floor within seconds.
So we can narrow it down to two possibilities, either his plane went down (in one way or another, maybe the ice wall guards got him or he got some trouble with the plane), the other possibility is that he flew over the edge. I would like some serious comments on this.
There are more, you stated yourself 3 reasons at the start of the thread.
Anyway, anyone can go to the North pole now, Amundsen would have left something there when he went, Im pretty sure its not there but at the South Pole??