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 - Dinosaur Neil

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 95
61
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why not look here?
« on: March 03, 2018, 09:13:23 AM »
Flat earthers often scrabble around looking for tiny tidbits of ‘evidence’ that they can conjure up into some kind of ‘proof’ to support their beliefs, though seldom if ever do they look here?

https://www.nature.com/nature/

Why not? Acording to Wikipedia;
Nature is a British multidisciplinary scientific journal, first published on 4 November 1869.It was ranked the world's most cited scientific journal by the Science Edition of the 2010 Journal Citation Reports and is ascribed an impact factor of 40.137 , making it one of the world's top academic journals. It is one of the few remaining academic journals that publishes original research across a wide range of scientific fields.......so why not use it?

If I were looking for some scientific back up it would be one of the first places I would look. One would imagine that someone wanting to know about the real nature of reality would spend a few bucks on a subscription to Nature rather than scooping up the drivel on Youtube, but each to his own.

Though having read some recent flat earth posts It reminds me of the old saying.. rubbish in....rubbish out!

I think it as at this point that realisation should dawn regarding how to distinguish someone who believes the earth is flat, and someone who posts on this forum saying they believe the earth is flat. For further cross-checking, you might need a billy goat gruff.

62
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Forum management is dying!
« on: March 03, 2018, 09:10:53 AM »
John Davis hasn't been here for a month. Can we upgrade his status to "Dead" now? Then if he comes back, we mark him as "Undead".
He should be got rid of, apart from shitposting about dinosaurs, all he did to run the forum was agree with people over things that needed to be sorted, say he'd do them, then not do them.

63
Flat Earth General / Re: The Guardian Accepts FET!
« on: March 03, 2018, 09:02:32 AM »
I did sponsor the guardian occasionally for some really good articles ( subjective of course), but boy o boy were they wrong during the BREXIT referendum.
As a matter of fact it took them months to realise the majority DID vote in favour of a BREXIT.... contrary to their convictions.
All the articles printed previously showed me how completely off their tin box reality was concerning this specific topic and the frustration among a large part of society.

I really believe some lessons won't be learned by the media.
That underneath a thin layer of supposedly accepted facts a huge... and i mean huge awareness shift is happening.
Just like with the totally improbable BREXIT it will confront them in the end....
Namely that a steadily growing chunk of society denies the official 9/11 coverage, the moonlandings and lastly the spinning wobbling speeding tilted globe.....

But till then misplaced redicule is their only remedy, untill they will find out half of the population no longer appreciates their 'neutral' and 'objective' reflections on the daily news and worldwide events.

Looks like the humour and irony went way over your head.

On Brexit the country I live in voted well in favour of remain, The city I live in voted 74% for remaining in the EU. What swung it was a large section of disadvantaged areas like North East England and Wales, which ironically has received more EU cash than most other areas of the UK.
But what the Hell Brexit has to do with the shape of the earth?

Nooo, it wasn't the disadvantaged people who voted for Brexit, it was the thick people. I mean seriously - Boris Johnson makes an implied promise of funding for the NHS, when he has absolutely no influence or control over any finances in the Department Of Health... and millions of people just believed it. But I have yet to see anyone in the media point out that the public were simpletons for thinking someone could promise something they have no say in. And they should point it out.
BTW Dutchy, Brexit doesn't have to be written in capitals, it's not an acronym.

64
Flat Earth General / Re: FE disproved by longitude
« on: March 03, 2018, 08:56:49 AM »
Actually, three explorers (Clark/Ross/Weddell) found themselves hours/miles off in reckoning during their voyages, more specifically, along the southernmost latitudes of their journeys.
Why was that?

And you do realise that on a round earth, it's harder to be precise in longitude the nearer you get to the poles, don't you? As well as the possibility that references they had were inaccurate as another poster suggests.
Yet Ross, Clark and Weddell managed to work out where they were and get where they were going in the end, something utterly impossible with longitude lines which diverge further with every mile southwards beyond the equator.

65
Flat Earth General / Re: FE disproved by longitude
« on: February 28, 2018, 01:54:38 PM »
You people carry on using you sextoys to determine longitude.  I will stay in the real world.  ::)

Sorry, are you under the impression that the OP is in any way disputable? It's not. Contribute or put a sock in it.

66
Flat Earth General / FE disproved by longitude
« on: February 27, 2018, 12:26:47 PM »
As if we really needed another bullet to the hole-riddled skull of FET, here's another one.

Navigation in longitude south of the equator by means of sextants and chronometers, as was used for a long period of time in the golden age of seafaring exploration, is totally unable to function on any flat earth maps because the calculations break down if longitude lines do not converge towards a point at 90 degrees south.
Yet amazingly, sailors were able to get to where they wanted to go.
I expect the FE'ers will blame wharpools, or "bendy time" or something.

67
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The existance of Wharpools
« on: February 25, 2018, 12:55:18 PM »

Also seriously, is wharpool going to be the new moonshramp?

No, when Jrowe was Tausami, they were called eyewalls.

68
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What you are told VS Personal experience
« on: January 22, 2018, 04:34:58 PM »
Plus if you don't specify apparent on this forum, some FE idiot will try to say you think the stars are only an inch apart or some other retarded outburst.

It's OK, you can say Jroa. You don't have to camouflage him as "some FE idiot".

69
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What you are told VS Personal experience
« on: January 22, 2018, 04:33:11 PM »
I wanted to verify my understanding of the Earth with my own experiment and not use input from other people. This post is not intended to change anybody's mind. Someone else can do this same experiment and make their own conclusions. I need to make a definition of "viewing size". I am defining viewing size as the apparent size of an object as seen. An object that does not change its size will have a smaller viewing size as it moves away and becomes distant.
My question is: "Do star constellations change their viewing size as they come from the horizon and pass over head?
I selected a pair stars that rose from the north east at 6:45PM. I looked at the stars through a cardboard tube. I could not see both stars at once because the tube was too long and narrow. I kept shortening the tube to the point where I could see both stars at once. I even rotated the tube to verify that it was round and gave consistent results.  At 8:45 PM the stars were higher in the sky but still just fit in my tube sight. At midnight when they were straight up I still got the same results. My conclusion is that that pair of stars kept their same viewing size throughout the night.

This is an argument that comes up a lot against FET. It crushes the model because it's not topologically possible for there to be two axes of celestial rotation and for the angular distance (which is the most correct term) between any two selected stars to remain constant when viewed from a flat earth. Flattening out the earth necessitates having to unfold the sky in order to keep the stars where they need to be seen, and it just doesn't fit easily observable evidence, such as you have provided.

70
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« on: January 22, 2018, 04:25:06 PM »
No they aren't.

Dr. Rhys Taylor, Cardiff University

https://briankoberlein.com/wp-content/uploads/system.jpg

This is the commonly accepted galactic model of the solar system: HELICES ON A CYLINDER.

The information in my messages is correct, as always.


Dr. Taylor:

The most basic notion that the planets trace helical paths through space is perfectly correct.

Can you read English?

You have just been shown to be in complete ignorance of the topic discussed in this thread.


A key one is that it approximates the system to a 2 body system, where the only objects considered are the sun and the planet.
This means it completely ignore the motion of the solar system relative to the galaxy.


You are making a fool out of yourself.

Any observation of the heliocentrical solar system CANNOT IGNORE the motion through the galaxy: here are the precise calculations of Sir Oliver Lodge:

They totally challenge and disprove the galactic orbit hypothesis for the heliocentrical solar system.

The conclusions reached by Lodge:

The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.



The precise calculations and orbital equations appear on page 146 of the journal.

On page 149, the precise data for the solar drift towards Vega, being applied for each planet of the solar system.





https://archive.org/stream/londonedinburg6351918lond#page/n3/mode/1up

The calculations performed by Sir Oliver Lodge are valid to this present day.

They totally challenge and disprove the galactic orbit hypothesis for the heliocentrical solar system.

The conclusions reached by Lodge:

The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.


Kepler's first law of motion is PURE FANTASY.

It applies to a PLANAR SYSTEM, which the solar system IS NOT.

The solar system undergoes A THREE DIMENSIONAL HELICAL PATH ON A CYLINDER, which cannot be described by an elliptical orbit.


Whoever faked/forged/falsified Kepler's Nova Astronomia had no idea that future generations would discover that the solar system is undergoing a galactic orbit.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670

Kepler published his first law of planetary motion based on the data gathered by Tycho
Brahe in 1609. The law states that planets orbit the sun in ellipses with the sun at one focus.

“Almost 400 years later, William H. Donohue undertook the task of translating
Kepler’s 1609 Astronomia Nova into the English New Astronomy (Donohue 1992)
when in the course of his work he redid many of Kepler’s calculations, he was
startled to find some fundamental inconsistencies with Kepler’s reporting of these
same calculations (Donohue 1988)."

“After detailed computational arguments Donahue concluded the results
reported by Kepler . . . were not at all based on Brahe’s observational data; rather
they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was elliptical.

Get it straight through your head: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS KEPLER'S FIRST ORBITAL LAW.

Kepler FAKED/FORGED/FALSIFIED the entire set of data.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776680#msg1776680



http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988JHA....19..217D

Kepler's fabricated figures, by W.H. Donohue

The scholar, William H. Donahue, said the evidence of Kepler's scientific fakery is contained in an elaborate chart he presented to support his theory.


Kepler's first "law" of orbital motion is totally FAKE!

The three dimensional helix which is the actual RE galactic orbit cannot be explained by Newton's law of attractive gravitation.

This means that Kepler's laws not showing the motion of the planets relative to the galaxy does not mean gravity is wrong.


How easy it is to prove you wrong again.




Since one leads to the other, and since Kepler's first law of orbital motion WAS FAKED to start with, then Newton's law of attractive gravitation is FAKE as well.


The supposed galactic orbit of the solar system, a helical path on a cylinder, cannot be described by a law of attractive gravitation, nor can it be defined in terms of an elliptical planar orbit for the planets.


The galactic orbit DEFIES modern science, as no astrophysicist can explain how the planets' helical orbits are confined to a cylinder, while AT THE SAME TIME NEWCOMB'S CONSTANT IS DEFIED AS WELL.



"Calculated precession rates over the last 100 years show increasing precession rates which produce a declining precession cycle period.

The precession rate goes up each year. The Astronomical Almanac gives a rate of 50.2564 (arc seconds) for the year 1900. In that year, the top astronomer in America, Simon Newcomb, used a constant of .000222 as the amount the precession rate will increase per year. The actual constant increase since that time is closer to .000330 (about 50 % higher than expected) and it is increasing exponentially (faster each year)."

"The fact of the matter is the gravity of the Sun and Moon have been very stable for
millions of years [according to the official theory of astrophysics] and there should be no reason in the lunisolar model for this significant upward trend in the wobble rate. If  anything it might be expected to slightly “decrease” under lunisolar theory as the Moon moves a fraction of an inch farther from Earth each year and as the Sun burns up a small fraction of its mass each year. But frankly these amounts are so negligible relative to the mass and scale involved that the precession rate should be noticeably stable year after year – if these masses are indeed the cause of the wobble. Lunisolar theorists not only need to find new inputs to the precession formula for the sake of accuracy, they need to offset these slight diminishments in gravitational forces and come up with larger effects in the opposite direction."

Newton's garbage law of attractive gravitation is DEFIED ON A MONUMENTAL COSMIC SCALE BY DARK FLOW AS WELL:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995

tl:dr

71
I'm not bothered what Danang says. I have his babble blocked from my view.
Funny about how little comment there is from FE'ers in this thread, isn't it?
What I find most hilarious is that Totallackey, Logick (seems to have lost all his logic lately) and to a lesser extent even John Davis and others seem prepared to fight to the death about Antarctica.

Then we have Sandokhan, JRoweSkeptic and Tom Bishop (all as flat as you can get) who quite accept the reality of a South Pole and Antarctica as an island continent.
See: Flat Earth General / Re: Longitude of the South Pole « Message by rabinoz on December 19, 2017, 08:08:27 AM »

There isn't a Flat Earth Theory but the seems to be a different Flat Earth Theory for almost every flat-earther.

Totallytacky is on the very bottom rung of FE'ers, along with people like Sceptimatic and Jrowe/Tausami. I have all of them blocked. John Davis isn't even bothering with a half-hearted pretence at being serious these days, and has given in to obvious trolling, probably out of boredom. Sandokhan is a nutcase, Tom Bishop an irrelevance. All their ideas are incompatible with each other. Apart from Sandokhan, they all know they're wrong. The problem for them is that they're just not good enough - there's no FE arguments left that haven't been utterly squashed. Davis makes a feeble effort to dazzle people with his non-euclidean garbage, which he is careful never to explain properly in case people spot flaws in it. When a flaw is spotted, he refuses to address posts about it, instead trying to distract with lame rubbish about dinosaurs.

72
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Dear conservatives,
« on: January 22, 2018, 12:28:12 PM »
Don't you think its time to merge Flat Earth Q&A and Flat Earth General?
If you really want to merge boards, then it would make much more sense to merge Q&A and Debate, seeing as the answers in Q&A invariably get debated.

[cowgirl]Yes, but that's because the nasty posterses won't stop debating, will they precious? Stupid fat posters! We told you they was tricksy, we told you they was false![/cowgirl]

73
Unfortunately, I already know what will be said:

"Antarctica is either big island or small continent near Ice Wall, and it doesn't prove that there is South pole there."
Same thing will Danang say for Arctic and North pole.

Aurora Australis won't help.
Midnight Sun in December/January won't help.
Flat Earth movement members will deny it again and again.
They are very selective about what they consider "evidence".
Only convenient things are accepted.

I'm not bothered what Danang says. I have his babble blocked from my view.
Funnay about how little comment there is from FE'ers in this thread, isn't it?

74
Flat Earth General / Re: Evidences Of The Flat Earth (On Going @142)
« on: January 22, 2018, 12:15:19 PM »
Look guys, we have lots of floors to mop you with. If you'd like, I can mop the floors with all of you.

Why don't you let your janitor do it?
I understood you work as programmer there.

I suspect he is the janitor.

75
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« on: January 22, 2018, 12:09:43 PM »
I find the lack of a CGI rendering of the flat earth model (depicting the complete path of the sun as it moves above the earth) to be absolute certain evidence of:

1) The model being a lie:

2) Rowbotham is wrong;

3) Everything John Davis says is wrong.

Run along now, peabrain.
Off topic.

Absolutely no substantive/meaningful content/contribution noted.

Please create your own thread the forum participants can ignore and quit relying on me (who created this popular thread) for attention.

I think you've just shown how thick you are. My post was a comment on how absence of a CGI model of anything is not proof one way or the other, and how if your argument is valid against a round earth, it would also be valid against a flat earth.
But I guess it's just too subtle for someone of your level to pick up.
I am not arguing for RE or FE in this thread.

This thread deals with heliocentricity.

Your continued posting in this thread now adds substantive weight to my claim you are merely seeking attention, unable to gain any by creating your own threads of substantive and meaningful content.

I am no longer going to aid your attentive seeking behavior.

I am only going to urge you to improve your skills in creating quality threads!

You're a complete and utter twat, aren't you? Time to block you. Goodbye.

76
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« on: January 21, 2018, 02:30:38 PM »
I find the lack of a CGI rendering of the flat earth model (depicting the complete path of the sun as it moves above the earth) to be absolute certain evidence of:

1) The model being a lie:

2) Rowbotham is wrong;

3) Everything John Davis says is wrong.

Run along now, peabrain.
Off topic.

Absolutely no substantive/meaningful content/contribution noted.

Please create your own thread the forum participants can ignore and quit relying on me (who created this popular thread) for attention.

I think you've just shown how thick you are. My post was a comment on how absence of a CGI model of anything is not proof one way or the other, and how if your argument is valid against a round earth, it would also be valid against a flat earth.
But I guess it's just too subtle for someone of your level to pick up.

77
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« on: January 21, 2018, 11:26:01 AM »
I find the lack of a CGI rendering of the heliocentric model (depicting the complete revolutionary movement of the Sun as it travels throughout the Milky Way) to be absolute certain evidence of:

1) The model being a lie:

2) Newton is wrong;

3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.

If humans can manufacture trash like this:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=0jHsq36_NTU

Then why can we not post the real deal, based on "real science?"

I find the lack of a CGI rendering of the flat earth model (depicting the complete path of the sun as it moves above the earth) to be absolute certain evidence of:

1) The model being a lie:

2) Rowbotham is wrong;

3) Everything John Davis says is wrong.

Run along now, peabrain.

78
Flat Earth General / Re: Evidences Of The Flat Earth (On Going @142)
« on: January 21, 2018, 11:15:18 AM »
What experimentation has Mr Davis done? You seem to quote books by others a lot.

But he keeps it fair by having 1940 as the cut off point for how recent his references are allowed to be. You'll note this thread refers back to 1908 in the OP.

79
Flat Earth General / Re: Evidences Of The Flat Earth (On Going @142)
« on: January 21, 2018, 11:12:53 AM »
Look guys, we have lots of floors to mop you with. If you'd like, I can mop the floors with all of you.

Please try and use me to mop the floor, and see how well that ends for you. Bring it on, ponce.

80

From my original post:

"Please note the topic of this thread is not up for debate.

This topic is for model presentation, critique, analysis, and support."

Are you capable of reading?

If you want to debate or discuss the topic please do so on the appropriate thread.

Thank you.

Oh, please. Do you think that you saying "this topic is not up for debate" brings in some sort of forum rule stopping people from debating it? Because I hate to tell you, but there's no such rule. You don't have a say in what other people post.
BTW, this thread is totally the appropriate one to debate it in. Sorry to stamp on your dreams.

81
Shopped.

Yes, because Photoshop can do that, can't it.  ::)

82
Flat Earth General / Re: Wardlaw's Thoughts on Electric Moon
« on: January 21, 2018, 10:57:54 AM »
David Wardlaw Scott, author of Terra Firma, has talked about how he feels the moon may indeed be 'electric.' This would provide serious attack against the idea of luna. Unfortunately, he doesn't delve into details.

Are there any flatists amongst us that believe in this? Can you give me a good argument towards an electric moon rather than than a bioluminescent or otherwise lit moon?

This would certainly tie in well with the legitimately proposed FE idea that the sun is a yellow lightbulb on some sort of stick.

83
Flat Earth General / Ice Maiden Expedition disproves flat earth (again)
« on: January 21, 2018, 10:56:36 AM »
See this:

http://exicemaiden.com/

Another mission that would have been impossible to pull off on the "conventional" flat earth model. Step forward, supporters of all north-at-the centre models, and explain how they managed to walk approximately 10,000 miles in 62 days.

84
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shape
« on: January 20, 2018, 05:59:29 AM »
What shape do you believe it to be? I happen to believe its an infinite plane.

So why is 90 degrees south marked as a sudden stopping point then, gutbucket?

85
Flat Earth General / Re: Has anyone else ever been outed at work?
« on: January 20, 2018, 05:47:36 AM »
As it turns out, nobody seemed to care or notice - or think I was nuts. This was likely due to my amazing quality code. I overheard one remark concerning Scientology which was likely in reference to myself, but since then nobody has seemed to care and it has not affected their view of my skills. Its a bit irrelevant now though as I got a late offer that I can't really refuse from another employer.

I'd say it's far more likely that there is a great deal of mockery behind your back, but your colleagues are polite enough to refrain from doing it to your flabby, pasty, wire-bearded face.
Plus, this post indicates that you have very little self-awareness.

86
He did not - he stopped the sun and moon.
Why was God so foolish as to stop the Moon as well? To help the Israelites only required stopping the sun to provide light.

If the Sun *and* the Moon were both motionless, that clearly points to the explanation that it was the Earth that stopped moving providing the appearance of both the Sun and Moon stopped in the sky.
The Earth being still and a globe would not stop the moon from apparently moving.

Yes it would. It wouldn't stop the moon from moving, but it would stop the moon from apparently moving, as you say.
If the earth's rotation were stopped, the motion of the moon would start going the other way, very very slowly. It takes 28 days to circle the earth.
It would change its face though, and that would be apparent movement. Are you suggesting the face of the moon changed during Joshua's time? Rotating and moving is not 'holding still.'

Change its face? Are you serious?  ;D
Good grief, that's given me the laugh of the day. Conclusive proof that you don't understand the first thing about how the moon moves in a round earth scenario.
A word of advice, John... before you start slagging off RET, it's probably best if you at least understand some of it.

87
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Dear conservatives,
« on: January 19, 2018, 01:01:55 PM »
The rules in Q&A are achieving nothing beyond forcing you to move 83% of threads out of the section, and of those that remain, hardly any get answers.

Are these some of the hard-hitting statistics you were referring to?

Also, thank you for your concern and endeavors to lighten our workload, Neal, but if you really want to help then perhaps you could stop generating work for us by following the forum's rules?

Why are you asking me about the statistics? As a moderator, you're expected to know what you're talking about before wading in and mouthing off. Go back and read the previous thread I made regarding the uselessness of Q&A before belching out your nonsense.
But then, what should we expect from someone who can't spell Neil? Let alone realise that I'm not the one breaking the rules in Q&A?

88
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Dear conservatives,
« on: January 19, 2018, 12:57:01 PM »
People who constantly complain about Q&A just want to shitpost there.

No, I complain about Q&A more than anyone else, but it's not because I want to shitpost there, it's because it's a redundant section that doesn't fulfil its brief half as well as General and Debate do.



Take a moment to digest that image and see if you can understand which path represents Q&A and which represents General/Debate.

89
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Dear conservatives,
« on: January 19, 2018, 12:52:45 PM »
They serve different purposes. If certain users would settle down and let it be used for that purpose, it'd be useful.
The flaw isn't with the sections being separate, it's with how people treat it.

If you think you can change that, you're deluded. The stupidly strict rules aren't acting as a deterrent. Your argument is like a police officer wailing, "Oh, if only criminals would stop committing crimes, then we wouldn't have to arrest anyone!"
Is the solution to that situation then to stop having laws???
The rules aren't particularly strict, if anything that's the problem. REers barely get a slap on the wrist and kick up a disproportionate fuss on the rare occasions they do.

Is the solution to stop having laws?
Yes, sometimes, in certain circumstances, or at least to modify them. I suggest reading up on the Prohibition era in the USA, and how well that worked out.

90
He did not - he stopped the sun and moon.
Why was God so foolish as to stop the Moon as well? To help the Israelites only required stopping the sun to provide light.

If the Sun *and* the Moon were both motionless, that clearly points to the explanation that it was the Earth that stopped moving providing the appearance of both the Sun and Moon stopped in the sky.
The Earth being still and a globe would not stop the moon from apparently moving.

Yes it would. It wouldn't stop the moon from moving, but it would stop the moon from apparently moving, as you say.
If the earth's rotation were stopped, the motion of the moon would start going the other way, very very slowly. It takes 28 days to circle the earth.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 95