A Challenge to All of the pretentious Rounders!

  • 160 Replies
  • 9640 Views
Re: A Challenge to All of the pretentious Rounders!
« Reply #150 on: September 30, 2016, 01:24:09 AM »
it would literally take around 20 minutes.. there's hundreds every night

a simple task so we can continue :)

and my questions are very basic, not nonsense, I'd appreciate you return the respect I'm now showing you

thanks

No need to talk about something i did'nt see and don't believe it is exist.

everyone, flat earthers included, agree that they are there, they just have different ideas as to what they are

you are the only person who says 'I don't believe there are moving lights in the sky'

all you need to do is look up, at night, for less than half an hour, and you'll see 1 or 2 in that time

they are 100% there, it's not something that CAN be denied..
..I just want to know what YOU think they are


that's like me saying there's no such things as sharks, I've never actually seen one except for on tv..
..do I have a reasonable argument?

no, because they exist

I'm NOT saying that if you see them you're admitting they're satellites
I just want you to look at one and tell me what you think it is

thanks

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 21190
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Re: A Challenge to All of the pretentious Rounders!
« Reply #151 on: September 30, 2016, 01:54:04 AM »
it would literally take around 20 minutes.. there's hundreds every night

a simple task so we can continue :)

and my questions are very basic, not nonsense, I'd appreciate you return the respect I'm now showing you

thanks

No need to talk about something i did'nt see and don't believe it is exist.

everyone, flat earthers included, agree that they are there, they just have different ideas as to what they are

you are the only person who says 'I don't believe there are moving lights in the sky'

all you need to do is look up, at night, for less than half an hour, and you'll see 1 or 2 in that time

they are 100% there, it's not something that CAN be denied..
..I just want to know what YOU think they are


that's like me saying there's no such things as sharks, I've never actually seen one except for on tv..
..do I have a reasonable argument?

no, because they exist

I'm NOT saying that if you see them you're admitting they're satellites
I just want you to look at one and tell me what you think it is

thanks

I work alone. I looked to the sky at night and didn't see anything except moon,  stars and moving stars. I don't care who see or who don't. Some of flathers actually are not flathers and i don't know and i don't care who are they and what they are depend on.

I didn't see that things that you said. As Arnold said that: Don't trust anybody.  8)
Ignore:
Coronal Gaydafi, boydster and mr juraII:A gang killing FE'rs
NotSoSkeptical
Platonius21
Solarwind (Amoranemix)
codebeta (papa legba)

Backstage of Covid-19 in Italian Parliament, Gates' bloody plan:


Re: A Challenge to All of the pretentious Rounders!
« Reply #152 on: September 30, 2016, 01:55:06 AM »
just as a side note - every 24th December, the ISS goes overhead (I'm in the UK), loads of parents tell the kids its Santa Claus on his sleigh

the ISS moves the same as a satellite in the sky, but much brighter (as it's much bigger)

again, you CAN claim they're NOT satellites or the ISS..
..but you simply CANNOT claim they're not there at all


I only want to know what you claim the 'moving stars' are?

Re: A Challenge to All of the pretentious Rounders!
« Reply #153 on: September 30, 2016, 01:57:46 AM »
it would literally take around 20 minutes.. there's hundreds every night

a simple task so we can continue :)

and my questions are very basic, not nonsense, I'd appreciate you return the respect I'm now showing you

thanks

No need to talk about something i did'nt see and don't believe it is exist.

everyone, flat earthers included, agree that they are there, they just have different ideas as to what they are

you are the only person who says 'I don't believe there are moving lights in the sky'

all you need to do is look up, at night, for less than half an hour, and you'll see 1 or 2 in that time

they are 100% there, it's not something that CAN be denied..
..I just want to know what YOU think they are


that's like me saying there's no such things as sharks, I've never actually seen one except for on tv..
..do I have a reasonable argument?

no, because they exist

I'm NOT saying that if you see them you're admitting they're satellites
I just want you to look at one and tell me what you think it is

thanks

I work alone. I looked to the sky at night and didn't see anything except moon,  stars and moving stars. I don't care who see or who don't. Some of flathers actually are not flathers and i don't know and i don't care who are they and what they are depend on.

I didn't see that things that you said. As Arnold said that: Don't trust anybody.  8)


moving stars?
that's what I'm asking!! You've told me you've NEVER seen them and don't believe they exist


can you please clear up what you mean by 'moving stars'

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 21190
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Re: A Challenge to All of the pretentious Rounders!
« Reply #154 on: September 30, 2016, 01:58:41 AM »
just as a side note - every 24th December, the ISS goes overhead (I'm in the UK), loads of parents tell the kids its Santa Claus on his sleigh

the ISS moves the same as a satellite in the sky, but much brighter (as it's much bigger)

again, you CAN claim they're NOT satellites or the ISS..
..but you simply CANNOT claim they're not there at all


I only want to know what you claim the 'moving stars' are?

ISS is not far away the world. Just a plane. So you can see it. If is it stay at the sky, you can't see it.
Ignore:
Coronal Gaydafi, boydster and mr juraII:A gang killing FE'rs
NotSoSkeptical
Platonius21
Solarwind (Amoranemix)
codebeta (papa legba)

Backstage of Covid-19 in Italian Parliament, Gates' bloody plan:


*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 21190
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Re: A Challenge to All of the pretentious Rounders!
« Reply #155 on: September 30, 2016, 04:16:07 AM »
it would literally take around 20 minutes.. there's hundreds every night

a simple task so we can continue :)

and my questions are very basic, not nonsense, I'd appreciate you return the respect I'm now showing you

thanks

No need to talk about something i did'nt see and don't believe it is exist.

everyone, flat earthers included, agree that they are there, they just have different ideas as to what they are

you are the only person who says 'I don't believe there are moving lights in the sky'

all you need to do is look up, at night, for less than half an hour, and you'll see 1 or 2 in that time

they are 100% there, it's not something that CAN be denied..
..I just want to know what YOU think they are


that's like me saying there's no such things as sharks, I've never actually seen one except for on tv..
..do I have a reasonable argument?

no, because they exist

I'm NOT saying that if you see them you're admitting they're satellites
I just want you to look at one and tell me what you think it is

thanks

I work alone. I looked to the sky at night and didn't see anything except moon,  stars and moving stars. I don't care who see or who don't. Some of flathers actually are not flathers and i don't know and i don't care who are they and what they are depend on.

I didn't see that things that you said. As Arnold said that: Don't trust anybody.  8)


moving stars?
that's what I'm asking!! You've told me you've NEVER seen them and don't believe they exist


can you please clear up what you mean by 'moving stars'

Moving stars= stars. Most of them are falling down stars.
Ignore:
Coronal Gaydafi, boydster and mr juraII:A gang killing FE'rs
NotSoSkeptical
Platonius21
Solarwind (Amoranemix)
codebeta (papa legba)

Backstage of Covid-19 in Italian Parliament, Gates' bloody plan:


Re: A Challenge to All of the pretentious Rounders!
« Reply #156 on: September 30, 2016, 09:39:54 AM »
well they don't fall, they simply move across the sky then disappear

but this still leads me back to my other questions..

If they're just 'falling stars':
1. how are we able to predict them with such accuracy?
2. why were there no reports of these 'slow moving' stars throughout history?
« Last Edit: September 30, 2016, 11:03:42 AM by johnnyorbital »

Re: A Challenge to All of the pretentious Rounders!
« Reply #157 on: September 30, 2016, 12:28:59 PM »
Intikam is just purposely denying they exist so he won't have to admit he's wrong. I've told him several times how to accurately see them, and never responds as to why he won't simply take my advice. I saw the ISS again last night for at least 5 minutes. This has been a really good week for me in my area.

Re: A Challenge to All of the pretentious Rounders!
« Reply #158 on: October 01, 2016, 10:08:24 AM »
ISS is not far away the world. Just a plane. So you can see it. If is it stay at the sky, you can't see it.

I tackled this proposal once on the other forum.  I took a look at some projected ISS transits over the United States, looking for one for which I could pick two observers with simultaneous and directly opposite observing locations.  I found one on March 6, 2016 that fit the bill: it had a maximum apparent elevation at 5:00:40am Spokane WA time, and 5:59:39am El Paso TX time.  Maximum elevation only 61 seconds apart, that's the best I could do for a simultaneous observation, and those observers in those two locations would have been looking pretty much directly at each other.  This is important, because it means the angles of elevation from each location can be used to calculate the elevation above ground of the object being observed.  Spokane and El Paso are 1237 miles apart, according to Google Maps "Distance Measure" tool.  (I understand that an FE supporter might challenge that distance as being tainted by RE math, and I'll come back to that.)  According to the ISS Astroviewer page (links at the bottom) an observer in Spokane will see the ISS rise to a maximum elevation of 14 above the horizon to the South East, while the El Paso observer will see it at 21 to the North West.  Taking for the moment a flat-earth model, we thus have an obtuse triangle with a side and two angles known, we can calculate the rest.  The angle formed at the vertex occupied by the object in the sky is 145.  The Law Of Sines allows us to calculate the line-of-sight distances to the object to each observer.  The Spokane leg of the triangle is 772.9 miles, and the El Paso leg is 521.7 miles.  From there, we can calculate the height above ground of the object using the Law of Sine again, for each observer's angle.  The result is 186.97 miles high.  This is far, far higher than any known aircraft has ever flown, or ever could fly.

Possible objections:
1) Maybe the elevations are wrong?  I think we can take the projected elevation angles as accurate (instead of going out and observing it ourselves) because if they were not it would be very easy to expose the error, and should have been done by now.  Amateur astronomers use these online resources without reporting massive errors, after all.
2) Maybe the distance from Spokane to El Paso is wrong?  Perhaps it is, I'll grant you that.  Let's say we call it 1 'ground unit' of unknown distance and do the math that way.  We end up with the object being at an elevation of 0.15 ground units.  Or put another way, Spokane and El Paso are 6.5 times as far apart as the object's elevation.  Commercial aircraft typically operate with a ceiling of 42,000 feet, or 8 miles.  The aircraft with the highest known operating ceiling ever, the American SR-71 spy plane, could fly as high as 85,000 feet, or 16 miles.  Even if my ground unit measurement is less than 1237 miles, it is not off by enough to bring those cities close enough (104 miles) for an SR-71 to appear at 14 from one and 21 from the other.
3) One minute difference in observation time is huge when the object is visible for only four minutes.  Seems like it is, yes.  However, the object sweeps across the sky in a fairly flat curve, especially as viewed from Spokane.  It rises from 10 to 14 and falls back to 10 during the transit.  Doing the math again with Spokane's lowest elevation still yields an elevation of 149.46 miles, far too high to be any airplane we know about.

Spokane: http://iss.astroviewer.net/observation.php?lon=-117.4260466&lat=47.6587802&name=Spokane
El Paso: http://iss.astroviewer.net/observation.php?lon=-106.4850217&lat=31.7618778&name=El%20Paso

*

chtwrone

  • 443
  • Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again
Re: A Challenge to All of the pretentious Rounders!
« Reply #159 on: October 01, 2016, 06:53:43 PM »
it would literally take around 20 minutes.. there's hundreds every night

a simple task so we can continue :)

and my questions are very basic, not nonsense, I'd appreciate you return the respect I'm now showing you

thanks

No need to talk about something i did'nt see and don't believe it is exist.

everyone, flat earthers included, agree that they are there, they just have different ideas as to what they are

you are the only person who says 'I don't believe there are moving lights in the sky'

all you need to do is look up, at night, for less than half an hour, and you'll see 1 or 2 in that time

they are 100% there, it's not something that CAN be denied..
..I just want to know what YOU think they are


that's like me saying there's no such things as sharks, I've never actually seen one except for on tv..
..do I have a reasonable argument?

no, because they exist

I'm NOT saying that if you see them you're admitting they're satellites
I just want you to look at one and tell me what you think it is

thanks

I work alone. I looked to the sky at night and didn't see anything except moon,  stars and moving stars. I don't care who see or who don't. Some of flathers actually are not flathers and i don't know and i don't care who are they and what they are depend on.

I didn't see that things that you said. As Arnold said that: Don't trust anybody.  8)


moving stars?
that's what I'm asking!! You've told me you've NEVER seen them and don't believe they exist


can you please clear up what you mean by 'moving stars'

Moving stars= stars. Most of them are falling down stars.

Do you even realize that NOBODY is remotely interested in your bullshit pseudo science explanations for 'this' and 'that'?  Aside from the fact that NOBODY can understand what you're even saying due to your abysmal english, the information that is able to be understood (just) is just too stupid to give any credibility to. You epitomize the statement 'Let's just make some shit up, and see who's stupid enough to believe it'.

You are COMPLETELY wasting your time on this website even trying to get anybody to understand or give credibility to what you have to say.

To sum up your overall contribution to the subject of round earth/flat earth debate, you are just ONE BIG EPIC FAIL.
Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again.

*

rabinoz

  • 25604
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: A Challenge to All of the pretentious Rounders!
« Reply #160 on: October 06, 2016, 03:53:50 PM »
A Challenge that waiting for accept the rounders have the conditions as follow:

1- graduated from a technical department of Universty
2- propose do the experiment which i recommend.
3- preferably not idiot or ignored by me.

Newton formula depends on the gravity. So i need an alternative power for gravity and recommend it as "sky pushing power".

I recommend that: "Earth isn't pulling us, sky is pushing us".  (Because almost everything push others) 8)

This is theorically like this but we don't need to comply to the theory, if we can not.
[/quote]

Me?
1- graduated from a technical department of Universty - Yes!
2- propose do the experiment which i recommend. - definitely NO!
3- preferably not idiot or ignored by me. - I hope I'm not an idiot like you!

Please Mr İntikam, explain any possible mechanism that could possibly make the sky and earth "push" anything.

You say that "Because almost everything push others"!
That is NOT true.
Electrostatic forces can attract (as well as "push").
Magnetic forces can attract (as well as "push").
The strong nuclear force attracts.
The weak nuclear force can be either attractive or repulsive.

So the whole basis for your challenge is completely unscientific and wrong!