Realistic Geocentrism

  • 34 Replies
  • 3529 Views
?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Realistic Geocentrism
« on: December 29, 2011, 02:45:16 PM »
RET suggests the Earth requires constant ammounts of finely tuned orbits and self regulating forces that ensure balls revolve as they should to keep the rest in order. This sort of fluff surely requires some sort of Omnipotent Creator to ever exist.

As RET cultists cannot prove God exists, they have just failed to explain why the massive energy required to power their RET orbits "have to exist".

FET suggests the Earth is imoble, and this world is Geocentric, with absolutely no requirement of outer source to keep it unmoving, as it doesn't move at all. It just rests ..... in the same place. Forever.

This is a very nihilistic approach, that doesn't require the existance of an Omnipotent Creator, just enough random useless mass, to coagulate into a flat disc, by whatever outer force helped it do so. This is much more realistic as it suggest the existance of normal beings, like the ones here on earth, instead of omnipotent ones which would be necessary to feed the RET models with constant orbit forces.

In the RET model it would be like throwing a rock into a lake, and expecting the ripples to appear forever, then coming back as soon as they hit obstacles, propagating forever, with no discernable reason, with no proof there is even a vacuum to help it maintain velocity that constantly, instead of slowing down because of drag. There is no explanation of source, other than Chinese Fireworks that make "Big Bang". Big bangers sound like retarded cowboys who have a gun fetish.

In the FET model it would be having mobile air fields, that generates winds. Kind of like air mills, that create winds that more or less constantly move over the lake, keeping it's waves more or less "in check".

This actually happens in real life, where lakes cannot have very high waves, as the air pressure from above them, keep the air in a very low balance. When waves rise very high in one place of the lake, they are slowed down by air above it, and pushed back down into the rest of the lake's water.

Why does only FET have the reasonable explanation by using a lake allegory, whilst RET requires an omnipotent deity, which no one can prove exists?

As much as I hate the cult of Atheism, apparently Atheism is the best proof for FET, and the best proof against RET of any sort.

I know this will offend the christians or theists, but personally I consider this as a ground breaking argument against RET, that supports the simplicity of FET. Geocentric FET, where the Earth is perfectly still, and the less density air fields or water outside it, are not perfectly still, of course.

Free discussion this time, don't feel obligated to prove me right or wrong, just use your examples if you have any.

I thank you.
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2011, 08:55:17 PM »
There is no need to prove anything. It's been settled. For centuries.
It's round...No really, it is. Sorry

Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2011, 09:43:53 PM »
Lol. RET doesn't need a god to keep things running. Conservation of energy and momentum are sufficient to keep stuff orbiting the sun.

Besides, doesn't FET also require celestial bodies to orbit as well?
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2011, 10:24:23 PM »
Besides, doesn't FET also require celestial bodies to orbit as well?

A few, but not nearly as many as RET.

Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2011, 10:27:27 PM »
Besides, doesn't FET also require celestial bodies to orbit as well?

A few, but not nearly as many as RET.
Really? Please then explain to us how the night sky filled with stars rotates overhead each night in FET. Thanks
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2011, 11:26:14 PM »
Besides, doesn't FET also require celestial bodies to orbit as well?

A few, but not nearly as many as RET.
Really? Please then explain to us how the night sky filled with stars rotates overhead each night in FET. Thanks

You're asking how stars move across the sky in FET?  I only ask, because it looks like you're wanting me to explain how the sky rotates above us. I dont think that leading RET people say that the heavens rotate (if even they would describe it as a rotation) anymore. Also, What does that have to do with our conversation line?

Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2011, 12:20:54 AM »
Besides, doesn't FET also require celestial bodies to orbit as well?

A few, but not nearly as many as RET.
Really? Please then explain to us how the night sky filled with stars rotates overhead each night in FET. Thanks

You're asking how stars move across the sky in FET?  I only ask, because it looks like you're wanting me to explain how the sky rotates above us. I dont think that leading RET people say that the heavens rotate (if even they would describe it as a rotation) anymore. Also, What does that have to do with our conversation line?
My oh my! Pongo is confused again. Let me try to explain this to you...

1) jraffield1 points out the FET needs at least one celestrial body to orbit about an imaginary point in the sky.
2) You, rather ignoring his point, state that there's not as many in FET as there are in RET. You offer no evidence or logic. It's like you believe that saying it makes it true.
3) I asked you to explain the motion of the stars in sky given your unsubstantiated claim above. I was quite clear that I was concerned with the problem "in FET". You deflect with a off-topic comment about RET. Regarding what this has to do with our "conversation line", I'd answer that I'm only pointing out how silly your claim was.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #7 on: December 30, 2011, 09:00:06 AM »
The point I keep getting hung up on, is that I've never seen a star make a rotation around anything, ever.  You seem to be posting like this is obvious.

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #8 on: December 30, 2011, 09:30:45 AM »
Quote
Quote from: Vatos_Locos_Forever on December 29, 2011, 08:55:17 PM

    There is no need to prove anything. It's been settled. For centuries.

Why are you here, then? What is it you're trying to prove.

That you don't have to prove something, since it has already "been proven"? By the people who proved it are dead, now. Their words mean less than dung.

If you are comfortable with devouring the dung of the deceased, who "may or may not" have proven something, you're in the wrong place.

This isn't "Geography Enthusiast Channel". Here we believe what we love to. And prove it ourselves. What the dead may or may not have done, is of little to absolutely no relevance here.

Again, if what you said were true, you wouldn't need to be here trying to reaffirm it's so called principles. Which were never proven in the first place. Which is why you're here, failing at supporting them.

Lol. RET doesn't need a god to keep things running. Conservation of energy and momentum are sufficient to keep stuff orbiting the sun.

Besides, doesn't FET also require celestial bodies to orbit as well?

That only works in a void, which you have failed to prove. In FET, air is in the upper layers of air. With resistance, and so forth. Why do you think rockets or satellites need a boost to give them momentum?

The flying satellites above the Flat Earth, prove RET impossible. Because even they require that boost from time to time, to counter the friction of the air there.

Just because I wear a mask, doesn't make the void around it. A mask doesn't make void around it. You can go in any place with breathable air, and put a mask on. But this doesn't prove there isn't breathable air outside that mask.

I believe there are giant mirrors, or clouds with liniar reflective properties in the sky, that simply reflect the imoble mass of stagnant stars.

When that reflective mass of mist or clouds moves in a constant way, it creates a constant moving illusion by projecting the very unmoving stars on the other side of that projection.

I asked this question in Yahoo Answers, awhile back. If there was a large mirror on the sky, reflecting everything there to the Earth, how could you know which is the real sky, and which one is just it's reflection?

No one had the reasonable answer. They couldn't prove that was "the real sky", and not just a mobile mirror reflecting it.

For all we know all stars could have been imobile above the Flat Earth. Only enough digital technology or mirroring properties, found a way to reflect it circularly, at a steady rythm, that gives the illusion of their moving about.

A comet or falling meteorite could prove what you see up is truly the "real sky", but most of those never fall down to the earth. They burn out in the sky above. Very few of those actually hit the earth. And when they do, it's rarely proven they landed exactly where they were seen falling towards.

That alone proves the sky itself could be a moving reflection of the true sky, which doesn't move.

I thank you.
Quote
Quote from: ClockTower on Today at 12:20:54 AM

    3) I asked you to explain the motion of the stars in sky given your unsubstantiated claim above. I was quite clear that I was concerned with the problem "in FET". You deflect with a off-topic comment about RET. Regarding what this has to do with our "conversation line", I'd answer that I'm only pointing out how silly your claim was.

Mobile mirrors, again. Mobile mirrors.

Again. Mobile mirrors. Again.

Mobile mirrors can create the illusion of motion. If someone moves a door, with a mirror on the outside of itself, you see your reflection moving away from itself, in front of you.

Again, a reflection moves along with the mirror projecting it.

Again, reflections can move. Even when their source of light does not.

Common sense proves that. And reflective properties have been discovered and used in many forms for longer than history cares to admit.

It could even be a hologram, projected on the sky. Maybe all the volcanoes on the earth, are being reflected by secret mirrors, in the direction of the sky, where a mobile mirror reflects them back to earth.

This is why the "sun" resembles burning volcanoes, because it's actually their live projection, back from the earth.

After all, radio waves are projected and reflected many times in the air, are they not? That's how they travel so far, they reflect off the air layers, and the ground itself.

Just because you're a lazy thinker, doesn't make the Flat Earth as lazy as you are. Whoever created the illusion of a moving sky, using mirrors above the Flat Earth, could have very well died for who knows how long.

But the illusion remains.

Only it broke over Norway, or Sweden ... I don't know where, a couple of years ago. I saw it on the news, and then even watched the videos of it online, on youtube.

A "galaxy" spinning then losing light gradually, then collapsing into darkness. It's illusion broke. Or the light source creating it's illusion, dissappeared.

Wether it was radioactive light or metals, that run out after a long time, who knows ? It extinguished itself on the sky, above Europe, somewhere in Scandinavia.

For all within visual range to see it on the night sky. A whole galaxy fading away, just like you turn off a light switch.

That is irrefutable evidence, even for you pathetic losers. Or wait ... did your RET worshiping media even let that go on the news, in your region of the Flat Earth?
« Last Edit: December 30, 2011, 09:41:24 AM by Silverdane »
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #9 on: December 30, 2011, 10:02:31 AM »
Eating the dung of the dead? Do you really talk like that? You love to believe huh? No you don't. You love to argue. You don't think the Earth is flat. Period. You just don't. This just fills your day. You're turn!  ;D
It's round...No really, it is. Sorry

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2011, 10:29:43 AM »
Vatos don't confuse silverdane for a real poster. There is a reason he makes his posts difficult to read: they aren't meant to be read.

Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2011, 10:51:24 AM »
Vatos don't confuse silverdane for a real poster. There is a reason he makes his posts difficult to read: they aren't meant to be read.

I know, but he's so much fun!
It's round...No really, it is. Sorry

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #12 on: December 30, 2011, 11:28:28 AM »
Eating the dung of the dead? Do you really talk like that? You love to believe huh? No you don't. You love to argue. You don't think the Earth is flat. Period. You just don't. This just fills your day. You're turn!  ;D


I believe the Earth is Flat. I use logic and reasoning, with geographical and visual arguments, that RET constantly chose to deny.

Idle thinking has no place here. Ruthless logic with cold arguments do.

Answer this question .... if you saw a flat piece of furniture, like a flat table, or a flat floor, or a flat field, or a flat lake, or a flat road, or a flat forest, would you attempt to prove they are spherical?

I can prove all of them are not flat, but spherical once seen through enough lenses, like that webcam in my city, that shows all the roads and houses distorted greatly by curvature. Even the horizon looks like a semicircle. If feeble magic tricks like lenses are all you have, along with your circular reasoning, you are clearly stricken ill with Dungeatery.
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #13 on: December 30, 2011, 12:50:25 PM »
Dungeatery! Awesome. I can make up words too. Flattablery. Sherelogically. Lineartunnelry. Silverdanemasturbatestoflatearthology! Your fun. Your turn. Go!
It's round...No really, it is. Sorry

Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #14 on: December 30, 2011, 12:52:25 PM »
And p.s. No you don't think the Earth is flat. You just don't. If you do. Prove it. Prove that you think that.
It's round...No really, it is. Sorry

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8829
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #15 on: December 30, 2011, 12:54:06 PM »
And p.s. No you don't think the Earth is flat. You just don't. If you do. Prove it. Prove that you think that.
My fallacy alarm is going off.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #16 on: December 30, 2011, 01:02:26 PM »
And p.s. No you don't think the Earth is flat. You just don't. If you do. Prove it. Prove that you think that.

Alright. I had a debate in highschool, with my teachers, asking them why they believe the earth isn't flat?

I'm the only one in my class who asked them that. And they refused to prove me wrong.

I also left highschool because of that. I accused them of false education, and lack of evidence.

Since I left highschool because they didn't prove FET is false, and still taught otherwise, this is perfect proof that I believe it.

Again, come here to my country, ask my teachers, and they will admit I did say the Earth is flat, and even argued with them in class because they said otherwise.

No RET believer would ever quit schoo, just to pretend they're a FET believer. No one does that.
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #17 on: December 30, 2011, 01:05:53 PM »
So you've proven that:
1) you're not educated.
2) you can say you believe the earth is flat.

Still see no proof that you actually think that the earth is flat. You're all about proof here. I'm not convinced. Make me believe that you believe.
It's round...No really, it is. Sorry

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8829
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #18 on: December 30, 2011, 01:07:12 PM »
So you've proven that:
1) you're not educated.
2) you can say you believe the earth is flat.

Still see no proof that you actually think that the earth is flat. You're all about proof here. I'm not convinced. Make me believe that you believe.
Make us you actually believe in RET. I'm not convinced.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #19 on: December 30, 2011, 01:08:07 PM »
And p.s. No you don't think the Earth is flat. You just don't. If you do. Prove it. Prove that you think that.
My fallacy alarm is going off.

I also didn't believe in Evolution, but I never argued with my biology teacher against it.

Believing in FET is why I left highschool, and even my teachers know FET is what I was debating with them, in class.

So my leaving highschool, after challenging teachers who suggested to me the earth is round, instead of flat, is my best proof that I'm a flat earther.

I'm actually glad this person asked that question, as my teachers can prove I am a Flat Earth believer.
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #20 on: December 30, 2011, 01:09:59 PM »
So you've proven that:
1) you're not educated.
2) you can say you believe the earth is flat.

Still see no proof that you actually think that the earth is flat. You're all about proof here. I'm not convinced. Make me believe that you believe.

Again, come to my country, speak to my teachers. Speak to my parents, and my family. They will all admit I've been fighting them for years in favour of FET.

They're all RET believers like yourself. So if you don't even take the word of RET believers, like my family, or my teachers who remember me suggesting FET in class against their RET dogma, who will you believe, moron?
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #21 on: December 30, 2011, 01:14:42 PM »
There are no "RET Believers". They're just called everybody. And you're still not presenting a very good case. I don't believe you believe. I need more. You're not a flat earther. Sorry. Just a bored high school drop out. If even thats true. I'll be digging while you figure out something new to say and type nine paragraphs. ;)
It's round...No really, it is. Sorry

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8829
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #22 on: December 30, 2011, 01:17:26 PM »
There are no "RET Believers". They're just called everybody. And you're still not presenting a very good case. I don't believe you believe. I need more. You're not a flat earther. Sorry. Just a bored high school drop out. If even thats true. I'll be digging while you figure out something new to say and type nine paragraphs. ;)
In that case, I'm not convinced you are everybody.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #23 on: December 30, 2011, 03:41:18 PM »
You seem obsessed with me. Almost as if you're trying to undo your humiliation, and the humiliation that every RET person has felt, here on this forum.

If you're suggesting the RET folk here are unintelligent, and somehow ... unable to support your RET claims, I would not attempt to contradict you.

There is no "day" to be called. You have failed in digging a tunnel that supports your RET model, and fully disproves the FET.

Therefore you and 99% of your fellow RET cultists above the Flat Earth, have been publicly humiliated.

I thank you.
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #24 on: December 30, 2011, 03:49:18 PM »
You're making all this up as you go along and I am impressed. Not convinced but impressed. Mommy has dinner ready for you. Get back when it's done. TTYL!
It's round...No really, it is. Sorry

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #25 on: December 30, 2011, 03:56:41 PM »
You're making all this up as you go along and I am impressed. Not convinced but impressed. Mommy has dinner ready for you. Get back when it's done. TTYL!

You have not been a worthy adversary. You're just an anonymous nobody, who doesn't really bring any arguments against FET.

Maybe you're just trying to get my attention, because you worship me? Aahhahahhahahaa, attention seeking whore is seeking attention.

You must think I'm some kind of celebrity to go to all these lengths to impress me.

Still, I shall not sign whatever book, with an autograph. Nor would I ever write books for the likes of you. You haven't proven yourself worthy to read my books.
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #26 on: December 30, 2011, 03:58:48 PM »
I'll get someone else to get you to sign it then give it to me. But I will get it. You are amazing!
It's round...No really, it is. Sorry

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #27 on: December 30, 2011, 04:01:29 PM »
Yes, yes you are my number one fan. But seriously, seek professional help there.

Unnatural obsession with intelligent individuals, even those as brilliant as myself, is still unhealthy for an anonimous like yourself.

Yet I am forced to admit. Weak minds such as your own, are truly drawn almost gravitationally to perfect minds, such as my own.

For this direct form of sincere flattery, I thank you.
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #28 on: December 30, 2011, 04:06:02 PM »
Your welcome! I'm sure you don't get this much attention normally so I know you like it. As you should. Probably touching your junk more with every post. Faker.
It's round...No really, it is. Sorry

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: Realistic Geocentrism
« Reply #29 on: December 30, 2011, 04:08:25 PM »
I'm actually discussing this with someone on my friend's list on youtube. They said they would feature any Flat Earth theory videos on her channel.

I told her I don't have any such videos. If anyone here does, here's your chance to have them featured. So yaaay !!!
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited