now i am really confused

How can you call Mr. Newton a demon and a Christian at the same time?

This thread is all kinds of funny.

Quote from: Vindictus on September 21, 2010, 03:41:50 PM

You're so easy.

1. The flat earth theory spits on every scientist and great thinker you mentioned, with their theories and explanations.
2. The scientists and great thinkers you mentioned never questioned a round Earth. They provided evidence and working for models that would later be proven correct.

Irrelevant. They questioned the accepted knowledge of their day, something you are saying indicates weak-mindedness. How do you know that FET will not later be proven correct?

It will never have a Map worth anything. If fact their best shot has already missed that target by quite a large margin.

Quote from: Vindictus on September 21, 2010, 03:41:50 PM

You're so easy.

1. The flat earth theory spits on every scientist and great thinker you mentioned, with their theories and explanations.
2. The scientists and great thinkers you mentioned never questioned a round Earth. They provided evidence and working for models that would later be proven correct.

Irrelevant. They questioned the accepted knowledge of their day, something you are saying indicates weak-mindedness. How do you know that FET will not later be proven correct?

From memory, most of them just added to the knowledge of their time, or created an entirely new branch of Physics. You're right about Galileo, but he supported what he saw with a pretty little thing called 'empirical evidence'.

FET will never be proven correct, because (I love numbered arguments so much!)

1. It is not a unified theory. More of a 'most of us kinda believe the Earth is flat, some of us just believe it's not spherical, others think it's a finite infinite plane'.
2. It has nothing supporting it beyond terrible speculation, religious dogma and incorrect experiments.
3. It was believed once before, and then dropped for the Round Earth model, since everything tends to work with that model, even though it's somehow wrong.

How can you call Mr. Newton a demon and a Christian at the same time?

This thread is all kinds of funny.

It's typical for religious people to demonize by calling anyone against their ideology as being demons, child rapists, murderers ect. Look at Scientology religious people to see a perfect example. A typical religious behavior is what you are seeing here.

I'm amazed you guys can see so clearly into the future as to know that FET will never be proven correct. Can you please tell me what next week's winning lottery numbers will be?

I'm amazed you guys can see so clearly into the future as to know that FET will never be proven correct. Can you please tell me what next week's winning lottery numbers will be?

So long as you guys never provide real evidence, I think I can safely make that assertion.

And if these boards are indicative of anything, it's that there is no real evidence to be had.

However, if we all somehow have mistaken the shape of the Earth over the past 2,000 years, through many space flights from many different countries and through all the working models surrounding our round Earth, then I will have no issue what-so-ever accepting this new Flat Earth model. You can even rub it in my face, for what it's worth. Provided you have an abundant amount of working evidence explaining everything, of course.

So long as you guys never provide real evidence, I think I can safely make that assertion.

And if these boards are indicative of anything, it's that there is no real evidence to be had.

Ah, so this is all merely conjecture on your part? Do let me know when you have some substance to your claims, please.

Quote from: Vindictus on September 21, 2010, 09:54:20 PM

So long as you guys never provide real evidence, I think I can safely make that assertion.

And if these boards are indicative of anything, it's that there is no real evidence to be had.

Ah, so this is all merely conjecture on your part? Do let me know when you have some substance to your claims, please.

Oh Parsifal.

I would retort "You first", but then I would be feeding you more, wouldn't I?

I'm amazed you guys can see so clearly into the future as to know that FET will never be proven correct. 

FET was wrong when the ancient Greeks figured out that the earth is round and FET is still wrong today when much of our global infrastructure relies on the earth being round.  I don't see FET becoming any less wrong any time soon.

Can you please tell me what next week's winning lottery numbers will be?

2 6 18 34 42 58 59

FET was wrong

Please justify this statement.

Quote from: markjo on September 21, 2010, 10:25:09 PM

FET was wrong

Please justify this statement.

Lurk moar.

Quote from: markjo on September 21, 2010, 10:25:09 PM

FET was wrong

Please justify this statement.

Irrelevant.

Quote from: markjo on September 21, 2010, 10:25:09 PM

FET was wrong

Please justify this statement.

FE map failure, No FE navigable coordinate system accurate to within 1 sq meter in accordance to an FE map. No star map, can't explain arc minutes, and that list we discussed earlier .. Perhaps the fact you don't have "a formula" to state how light bends. ect..

Justified indeed sir.

can't explain arc minutes

wat

Quote from: TheJackel on September 21, 2010, 10:51:55 PM

can't explain arc minutes

wat

Google it.. Then think about that in terms of a 486 million sq mile FE according to the "FAQ" you like to reference so much .. Total Arc minutes of the sun from sunrise to sunset from any location on the FE map please. With coordinates as well please. And while your at it, Arc angles please. Cheers!

Google it.. Then think about that in terms of a 486 million sq mile FE according to the "FAQ" you like to reference so much .. Total Arc minutes of the sun from sunrise to sunset from any location on the FE map please. With coordinates as well please. And while your at it, Arc angles please. Cheers!

An arc minute is one-sixtieth of an arc degree. What is there to be explained?

Quote from: TheJackel on September 21, 2010, 11:08:36 PM

Google it.. Then think about that in terms of a 486 million sq mile FE according to the "FAQ" you like to reference so much .. Total Arc minutes of the sun from sunrise to sunset from any location on the FE map please. With coordinates as well please. And while your at it, Arc angles please. Cheers!

An arc minute is one-sixtieth of an arc degree. What is there to be explained?

how many arc mins does the FE sun take to make 1 complete horizontal orbit? And I want to know the coordinates of this orbit. Plus the angular position of the sun in the sky to any given coordinate location on the map at any given time so I can match it with my own position.. Re can do this pretty accurately can you?. I am curious if your FE can makes such prediction.

 

how many arc mins does the FE sun take to make 1 complete horizontal orbit?

Your question doesn't even make sense. An arc minute is not a unit of time.

Quote from: TheJackel on September 22, 2010, 01:19:32 AM

how many arc mins does the FE sun take to make 1 complete horizontal orbit?

Your question doesn't even make sense. An arc minute is not a unit of time.

actually it can be. It's not specifically, but the answer I am looking for here Parsifal is how many mins from sunrise to sunset does FE predicts for any given coordinate location on the map. the arc time in mins is the entire arc length of the sun's path from sunrise to sunset. The sun's size itself is 32 arc minutes on average. Knowing this you can actually do a time, speed and distance calculation in relation to the size of the Earth to see if it's even accurate. and I am curious to what FE predicts, but the other problem is you don't even have a coordinate system to determine my location in relation to the Sun on the FE map.   

actually it can be.

No it can't.

the answer I am looking for here Parsifal is how many mins from sunrise to sunset does FE predicts for any given coordinate location on the map.

"Sunrise to sunset" is not "1 complete horizontal orbit". Perhaps you should ask for what you mean?

Quote from: TheJackel on September 22, 2010, 02:50:53 AM

actually it can be.

No it can't.

Quote from: TheJackel on September 22, 2010, 02:50:53 AM

the answer I am looking for here Parsifal is how many mins from sunrise to sunset does FE predicts for any given coordinate location on the map.

"Sunrise to sunset" is not "1 complete horizontal orbit". Perhaps you should ask for what you mean?

It's not, but you can calculate it regardless.. Do pay attention.  And yes it can be.

It's not, but you can calculate it regardless.. Do pay attention.

What is "it"? Maybe it would be easier to pay attention to things you say if they made more sense.

And yes it can be.

Please define the arc minute as a unit of time, since I am unfamiliar with it as anything other than a unit of angular measure.

is trolling where you do stuff to annoy people like when i posted my first thread? but i dont think it annoys people, parsifal actually thrives

on this kind of stuff, but who doesnt lol, its pretty funny

dw, im trying really hard to increase readability

is english your second language parsifal?

because with all talk of flt earth and other nonsense it doent seem to me that you have really grasped it.

hello

i like trolling

on a more personal note parsifal, who is that thingy in your dp?

PARAGRAPH!!! ! ! ! ! !

is trolling where you do stuff to annoy people like when i posted my first thread? but i dont think it annoys people, parsifal actually thrives

on this kind of stuff, but who doesnt lol, its pretty funny

dw, im trying really hard to increase readability

is english your second language parsifal?

because with all talk of flt earth and other nonsense it doent seem to me that you have really grasped it.

hello

i like trolling

on a more personal note parsifal, who is that thingy in your dp?

PARAGRAPH!!! ! ! ! ! !

Please refrain from making low content posts in the upper fora.

The sun will appear tomorrow
If I step ahead on the rim of a cliff, I'll fall (or the Earth will catch up)
The FET will never be proved right

Quote from: Vindictus on September 21, 2010, 03:41:50 PM

You're so easy.

1. The flat earth theory spits on every scientist and great thinker you mentioned, with their theories and explanations.
2. The scientists and great thinkers you mentioned never questioned a round Earth. They provided evidence and working for models that would later be proven correct.

Irrelevant. They questioned the accepted knowledge of their day, something you are saying indicates weak-mindedness. How do you know that FET will not later be proven correct?

Correction: they questioned the accepted knowledge of their day and performed experiments. They gave solid reasons to change the accepted knowledge, and limited their changes to what could be demonstrated experimentally.

And I know that, whatever the accepted model will be in the future, it will be a step forward from what we have now and not, like FET, a huge step backwards with close to no prediction capacity at all.

Correction: they questioned the accepted knowledge of their day and performed experiments. They gave solid reasons to change the accepted knowledge, and limited their changes to what could be demonstrated experimentally.

Please describe how Einstein experimentally validated the first postulate of Special Relativity.

Quote from: trig on September 23, 2010, 06:55:24 AM

Correction: they questioned the accepted knowledge of their day and performed experiments. They gave solid reasons to change the accepted knowledge, and limited their changes to what could be demonstrated experimentally.

Please describe how Einstein experimentally validated the first postulate of Special Relativity.

Irrelevant. Do try to stay on topic.

Irrelevant. Do try to stay on topic.

It was perfectly relevant to the post I was responding to. Trig claimed that Einstein demonstrated experimentally his reasons for challenging accepted knowledge, and I simply asked him to substantiate that. I apologise if that is too difficult a concept for you, and advise that you may be better able to grasp the somewhat less technically oriented postings in the Random Musings subforum.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 23, 2010, 07:11:19 AM

Irrelevant. Do try to stay on topic.

It was perfectly relevant to the post I was responding to. Trig claimed that Einstein demonstrated experimentally his reasons for challenging accepted knowledge, and I simply asked him to substantiate that. I apologise if that is too difficult a concept for you, and advise that you may be better able to grasp the somewhat less technically oriented postings in the Random Musings subforum.

Again, irrelevant, but now with extra false. Trig made no such claim. I do hope you can stop lying soon.