Evidence that Sunsets are correctly described by RET

  • 32 Replies
  • 7761 Views
Re: Evidence that Sunsets are correctly described by RET
« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2010, 06:27:31 PM »
Would you doubt me if I claimed to have raw footage from a space shuttle in Andromeda?
I don't know. I'd have to see the attribution of the footage.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Evidence that Sunsets are correctly described by RET
« Reply #31 on: November 16, 2010, 10:32:26 PM »
Please reference: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/11/15/sunset-on-mars/.

Here we see from another planet how its sunset appears. Note that the disc of the Sun disappears below the horizon. So on a round planet, this is how a sunset looks, just like it does on Earth.

That is probably the least convincing video I have seen so far. Prove that it is not faked.
Phil Plait fully attributed the video. Do learn to read.

Irrelevant. Where did the video come from?
Can you read? "attributed" means the author tells you where he got the video. Read the article. Follow its links and their links.

It claims to be feed from a robot on mars. Prove that it is so.
What proof would you accept? You have a chain of attributions. Is there one you know to be false? Have you contacted the various authors?

It seems that Discover Magazine accepts the authenticity. Perhaps, you might take the concern up with them. If only FEers could get their scientific results published in such a magazine. If only ...

Discovery Magazine can be just as duped by the conspiracy as you are. You're really thick aren't you?
No problem. By invoking the Conspiracy, you lose the debate, bringing in a non-falsifiable point. See you next topic. Victory for RE!

Incorrect. If people are claiming to have feed from mars which is impossible to have, then they are clearly lying.

Would you doubt me if I claimed to have raw footage from a space shuttle in Andromeda?
Yes, I would.

According to RET physics (I'm just going to call this 'physics' from this point because of how certain I am that this is real physics), and the current technology of humans, it is not possible to achieve relative velocities fast enough to reach that kind of a distance in a human lifetime.  Current physics restricts us to a velocity of 3x10^8 m/s (I can prove this mathematically if you really want me to, this would work for your absurd flat earth as well), so it's not really possible. 

I can reject every single claim you make based on physics.  I'd actually like to see some of you flat earth people get a physics degree or try to debate a physicist on your idiotic claims.  Without any proof or mathematics to back up your claims, they are absolutely worthless.  Before you try to present your proof, you should make sure that your proof isn't actually just another claim made to try to support an absurd idea.  That's all that you've done here.  You've made a claim that the Earth is flat, and in order for it to work, you established more claims to support the idea, and none of these claims can be observed or proven.  Essentially, your claim can be rendered worthless by science.

?

Atom Man

  • 195
  • Watch out for that tree
Re: Evidence that Sunsets are correctly described by RET
« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2010, 06:09:12 AM »
I told you this was going to be a discussion about conspiricy, didn't I!
Urinal Etiquette is like Ghost Busting: Never Cross the Streams