Sceptimatics theory

  • 1903 Replies
  • 251779 Views
?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1500 on: October 18, 2013, 07:22:12 PM »
Ach, what's the use?  I'm well aware of the mindset of the FE proponent by now.  The evidence for a RE is hilariously overwhelming.  Just because I cannot see the earth from space with my own eyes does not mean I should question that the whole thing might be a sham.
Then why waste any more of your time debating it?  For the life of me, I cannot figure out people with your mentality.  Go find something productive to do with your time.  Geez.

I could pose the very same question to you and anyone else that makes such a statement.

The honest answer is I arrived here upon having a discussion about the most ignorant people on the internet with some friends at university.  One of them told me about this site, and here I am.  Then, to make it even worse - I find that the proponents of FE theory on this website can't agree with one another on some of the most fundamental things required for a flat earth.  A good example would be the arrangement of the continents - the flat earth map.  It stumps every single one of you, because somehow (I wonder why), no matter what the proposition is for the arrangement of the continents, they do not match travel times we clearly observe - and that's just one example.

THEN, we have people who make up preposterous claims that are completely unsubstantiated and think they know better than the rest of the scientific world.  Light is a product of sound (for example)?  Are you fucking kidding me?  It's ignorance like this that draws me in to at least try and converse.

The level of ignorance on this site, whether it be willful or not, is utterly incredible.  I can't help but at least try to speak to you all - but that's not to say I am incapable of being frustrated by said ignorance from time to time. 

I guess it's like a perpetual, virtual spot that I keep trying to burst.  Anyway, you seemingly can't help but argue back - so I'm not quite sure what the big deal is.

I once had a thread going. But FE started making inane remarks, trolling and de-railing...to say nothing of pages and pages of off-topic unrelated "pasta." It has since been locked.

I suppose the reason it was locked was that the FE's were stumped and couldn't come up with any answers to my questions.

So I think I have learned my lesson, which is - Don't publish any Round Earth facts which are indisputable or your thread is going to be locked out by the FE administrators.

So I decided it might be easier and more fun - My thread got so hilarious that it got to be fun - And  to  just going to go back to the observation and occasional comments mode instead of trying to debate with the well known facts of life.

After all,  this is the Flat Earth Society's website and you have to abide by their rules which reflect their mentality as you have pointed out. (Distances, speed of light and radio waves are a few of the other examples. Also FE's seem to be a bit weak on photography....et cetera, et cetera and so forth.)

I will have to agree you with one of your points. :
 " I'm not quite sure what the big deal is." Haven't figured it out for myself yet either.  ???
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1501 on: October 18, 2013, 07:38:51 PM »
The shape of earth is no longer up for debate because it's been proven via observation to be an oblate spheroid. We've been to space and looked back at it.............end of discussion.

Um, ok, we should just shut down this website, delete all videos on YT about a FE now because YOU SAID SO.  LOL
 

I have often wondered if FE would really like to shut down this website because of all the "Nasty Round Earthers" who insist on making nasty remarks about FE ?
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

?

blnjms

  • 162
  • Just another RE'er
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1502 on: October 18, 2013, 08:30:58 PM »
Bln,
Wow. You put a LOT of faith in what others have told you, without actually seeing it for yourself from space.  I liken that to religion.  Not very smart, in my opinion.

This isn't religion I'm talking about. It's science. Others in the thread have explained already that the burden of proof favors RE. No one made it up; it was discovered. I'll take this "religion" any day over FE theories, which predate RE only because people didn't know what has since been discovered. I don't take this lightly. I'm as serious as anyone can be.

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1503 on: October 18, 2013, 09:27:46 PM »
Quote from: REphoenix on August 16, 2013, 08:59:35 AM
Fine. Let's move on. What about gravity? What is your replacement for it?

Quote from: Sceptimatic
Atmospheric pressure, that's all it is.
Naturally, you have to think of it with my theory. Thinking of it by using what you have been drilled into thinking, it will make no sense, because the unknown gravity force that keeps planets apart and the rotating earth in ship shape and the moon from falling onto it, is paramount to keep that alive and yet nobody questions this unknown force and why it does this amazing stuff through mass attracting mass.

Atmospheric pressure is your gravity. Everything on earth cannot work without it.

?

11cookeaw1

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1504 on: October 18, 2013, 10:51:07 PM »
Sceptimatic, if it's atmospheric pressure not gravity then why is the strength of the force pulling things down proportional to mass not surface area. Why don't hollow objects get pushed down with the same force as solid objects. Also, what happened in the Cavendish experiment? How can you consider yourself open minded when you simply ignore evidence against you? Why won't you perform any experiments to prove you're theories. Please list out all the evidence you have:

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1505 on: October 19, 2013, 04:28:00 AM »
Sceptimatic, if it's atmospheric pressure not gravity then why is the strength of the force pulling things down proportional to mass not surface area. Why don't hollow objects get pushed down with the same force as solid objects. Also, what happened in the Cavendish experiment? How can you consider yourself open minded when you simply ignore evidence against you? Why won't you perform any experiments to prove you're theories. Please list out all the evidence you have:
What are you talking about when you say the strength of force pulling things down?
Your mind and others are fixated on mass pulling objects to them without having the faintest idea why this should be so and cannot see the more simplistic answer and would rather go with a 15th century so called thinker who decided gravity does this and that, without having a clue why he even said it, because he (assuming he did say it) sure as hell knew nothing about space...and yet... even today, after all this time, we still don't know what gravity actually is, just what it does...supposedly.

You prefer to go along with this nonsense when atmospheric pressure and magnetism explains it all, perfectly well, except of course, space and yet, good old Newton knew about as much about so called space as he did about velcro fastening Nike trainers.

You prefer to hang on to this because the sensible looking boffin in a white coat with PHD, etc on his/her pocket, or books specifically given out that says, it is what it is, so learn it, even though it doesn't really make any sense.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1506 on: October 19, 2013, 04:37:17 AM »
Scepti, modern science does not believe in Newtonian gravity. We only use the equations because they work in this reference frame. Furthermore, Newton did not ever give an explanation for the cause of it. He basically said that it happens and the amount of gravitation was dependent on mass. None of this is false.

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1507 on: October 19, 2013, 05:31:25 AM »
I do not even believe it is worth arguing about sceptimatic's theory any more; the theory is so stupid that even hardcore FEr's won't support him/her. By continuing to engage with sceptimatic we are demeaning both ourselves and the less insane flat-earth theories, so if we let this thread die now, that would be great.

Flat-Earthers: This theory fails to account for several glaringly obvious physics issues, and you know it. Please tell these shitty FEr's such as EarthIsASpaceship and scepti to sharpen up their act, to make FET look less insane to us REr's.

Round-Earthers- Please let this thread die. It is stupid.

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1508 on: October 19, 2013, 06:16:20 AM »
I do not even believe it is worth arguing about sceptimatic's theory any more; the theory is so stupid that even hardcore FEr's won't support him/her. By continuing to engage with sceptimatic we are demeaning both ourselves and the less insane flat-earth theories, so if we let this thread die now, that would be great.

Flat-Earthers: This theory fails to account for several glaringly obvious physics issues, and you know it. Please tell these shitty FEr's such as EarthIsASpaceship and scepti to sharpen up their act, to make FET look less insane to us REr's.Round-Earthers- Please let this thread die. It is stupid.
You idiots keep responding to this thread so I think you need to sharpen up your act.  Whatever the hell THAT means!

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1509 on: October 19, 2013, 06:19:29 AM »
MANY people have seen koala bears...average people....people we know.  But how many have seen the Earth from space?  Big difference.

Humans lie more than you'd think.  It's sad to say but very few people can be trusted.  Even the closest of friends and lovers lie to each other.  We live in a world of illusion.
You just destroyed your own argument. Well done.
You fail to make the distinction between lying about something that doesn't affect your income and lying about something that does.  Use your brain.

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1510 on: October 19, 2013, 06:30:07 AM »
I could pose the very same question to you and anyone else that makes such a statement.

The honest answer is I arrived here upon having a discussion about the most ignorant people on the internet with some friends at university.  One of them told me about this site, and here I am.  Then, to make it even worse - I find that the proponents of FE theory on this website can't agree with one another on some of the most fundamental things required for a flat earth.  A good example would be the arrangement of the continents - the flat earth map.  It stumps every single one of you, because somehow (I wonder why), no matter what the proposition is for the arrangement of the continents, they do not match travel times we clearly observe - and that's just one example.

THEN, we have people who make up preposterous claims that are completely unsubstantiated and think they know better than the rest of the scientific world.  Light is a product of sound (for example)?  Are you fucking kidding me?  It's ignorance like this that draws me in to at least try and converse.

The level of ignorance on this site, whether it be willful or not, is utterly incredible.  I can't help but at least try to speak to you all - but that's not to say I am incapable of being frustrated by said ignorance from time to time. 

I guess it's like a perpetual, virtual spot that I keep trying to burst.  Anyway, you seemingly can't help but argue back - so I'm not quite sure what the big deal is.
No you couldn't pose the very same question to me because I am here to learn and develop the theory.  You and those like you, come here to make personal attacks.  Your mind is made up that this theory is bunk.  You are clearly not in the same state of mind that I was in when I came here and just wanted to dig deeper to see if it was even a likely theory.   It makes no sense to continue commenting at a website about something you don't agree with.  It accomplishes nothing.  You may think it does by way of trying to intimidate and discourage but you are wrong.  If we stop commenting, it simply means we are tired of your shit, tired of answering the same questions over and over.  We know what we are talking about.  Why don't you stick with your RE indoctrination websites and move along sheep....baaaaah
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 06:34:56 AM by EarthIsASpaceship »

?

REphoenix

  • 984
  • Round Earther
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1511 on: October 19, 2013, 06:58:32 AM »
MANY people have seen koala bears...average people....people we know.  But how many have seen the Earth from space?  Big difference.

Humans lie more than you'd think.  It's sad to say but very few people can be trusted.  Even the closest of friends and lovers lie to each other.  We live in a world of illusion.
You just destroyed your own argument. Well done.
You fail to make the distinction between lying about something that doesn't affect your income and lying about something that does.  Use your brain.
Maybe those people are being paid to pretend that they have seen koalas. Use your brain. It's obviously the koala conspiracy.
Anyone with a phoenix avatar is clearly amazing.

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1512 on: October 19, 2013, 07:17:14 AM »
I could pose the very same question to you and anyone else that makes such a statement.

The honest answer is I arrived here upon having a discussion about the most ignorant people on the internet with some friends at university.  One of them told me about this site, and here I am.  Then, to make it even worse - I find that the proponents of FE theory on this website can't agree with one another on some of the most fundamental things required for a flat earth.  A good example would be the arrangement of the continents - the flat earth map.  It stumps every single one of you, because somehow (I wonder why), no matter what the proposition is for the arrangement of the continents, they do not match travel times we clearly observe - and that's just one example.

THEN, we have people who make up preposterous claims that are completely unsubstantiated and think they know better than the rest of the scientific world.  Light is a product of sound (for example)?  Are you fucking kidding me?  It's ignorance like this that draws me in to at least try and converse.

The level of ignorance on this site, whether it be willful or not, is utterly incredible.  I can't help but at least try to speak to you all - but that's not to say I am incapable of being frustrated by said ignorance from time to time. 

I guess it's like a perpetual, virtual spot that I keep trying to burst.  Anyway, you seemingly can't help but argue back - so I'm not quite sure what the big deal is.
No you couldn't pose the very same question to me because I am here to learn and develop the theory.  You and those like you, come here to make personal attacks.  Your mind is made up that this theory is bunk.  You are clearly not in the same state of mind that I was in when I came here and just wanted to dig deeper to see if it was even a likely theory.   It makes no sense to continue commenting at a website about something you don't agree with.  It accomplishes nothing.  You may think it does by way of trying to intimidate and discourage but you are wrong.  If we stop commenting, it simply means we are tired of your shit, tired of answering the same questions over and over.  We know what we are talking about.  Why don't you stick with your RE indoctrination websites and move along sheep....baaaaah

I can't ask the same question yet you 'pointless' rant just proves the opposite, irony at it's best.

I came here to try and dissuade people from this nonsense and you're absolutely right, I did come here with my mind made up.  So what?  My mind has been made up for me due to the wealth of evidence that confirms the earth is round.  All this horseshit you speak of intimidation - it's laughable.  If I'm intimidating you then it must be because you don't like the fact all the evidence tells us the earth is round.

Also, it's pathetic that what a lot of this seems to be about is anti-conforming.  Good for you, you're not a 'sheep', just an ignorant moron instead.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1513 on: October 19, 2013, 07:36:59 AM »
Rabhimself, please watch the personal attacks in the upper fora.  Thanks.

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1514 on: October 19, 2013, 08:01:08 AM »
Rabhimself, please watch the personal attacks in the upper fora.  Thanks.

Guy calls me a sheep - gets f*** all said to him. 

I retaliate by calling him an ignorant moron - I get a warning.

Excellent.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 08:03:13 AM by jroa »

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1515 on: October 19, 2013, 08:05:13 AM »
This is a family friendly website.  Watch the F word.  I fixed it for you.

Also, this is not the place to dispute moderation. 

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1516 on: October 19, 2013, 08:16:25 AM »

Quote
No you couldn't pose the very same question to me because I am here to learn and develop the theory.  You and those like you, come here to make personal attacks.  Your mind is made up that this theory is bunk.  You are clearly not in the same state of mind that I was in when I came here and just wanted to dig deeper to see if it was even a likely theory.   It makes no sense to continue commenting at a website about something you don't agree with.  It accomplishes nothing.  You may think it does by way of trying to intimidate and discourage but you are wrong.  If we stop commenting, it simply means we are tired of your shit, tired of answering the same questions over and over.  We know what we are talking about.  Why don't you stick with your RE indoctrination websites and move along sheep....baaaaah

Flat earth isn't a theory. It doesn't fit the definition of a theory.

Scepti's crap certainly isn't a theory. It's a made up fantasy with absolutely zero credibility behind it.

You can't tell someone their mind is already made up when you yourself will reject anything science related because you claim it's just in doctrination, which is just a cover for the fact you're too ignorant to understand it.

People who are interested in science and physics are the furthest from being close minded because science and physics are all about breaking down barriers and learning new things every day. What you think is true today could be changed tomorrow. That is the beauty of science. It's no where near being indoctrination. Indoctrination is religion and politics.

You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1517 on: October 19, 2013, 08:17:23 AM »
Rabhimself, please watch the personal attacks in the upper fora.  Thanks.

Guy calls me a sheep - gets f*** all said to him. 

I retaliate by calling him an ignorant moron - I get a warning.


Excellent.
No, you need to read your comments before that.  There was a reason I called you a sheep.  Every single time I call a person a sheep or make a comment about their mental capacity, it is because THEY have made a personal attack against me first.  It's uncalled for and you deserve a little of your own medicine.

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1518 on: October 19, 2013, 08:20:09 AM »
You commenting on someone's mental capacity would be like Stephen Hawking commenting on someone's inability to walk.

The dumbest person in the room should probably just shut up.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1519 on: October 19, 2013, 08:23:55 AM »
Hey Um,
Why don't you grow up instead of continuing to cut people down.  I'm blocking you, tired of reading your garbage.

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1520 on: October 19, 2013, 08:31:39 AM »
Yeah I know, truth hurts.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1521 on: October 19, 2013, 08:35:31 AM »
Yeah I know, truth hurts.

Watch the low content posts in the upper fora.  Consider this a warning. 

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1522 on: October 19, 2013, 08:40:56 AM »
How about warning a FE'er about their low content post?
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1523 on: October 19, 2013, 08:49:22 AM »
How about warning a FE'er about their low content post?

This is not the place to dispute moderation.  However, I will let you know that I do warn and ban FE'ers. 

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1524 on: October 19, 2013, 08:53:49 AM »
This is a thread dedicated to an idea that stars in the sky are actually reflected light coming from crystals in the earth that no one can see.

Please explain how anything else can be considered low content in relation to that.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

?

11cookeaw1

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1525 on: October 19, 2013, 09:01:04 AM »
Sceptimatic, if it's atmospheric pressure not gravity then why is the strength of the force pulling things down proportional to mass not surface area. Why don't hollow objects get pushed down with the same force as solid objects. Also, what happened in the Cavendish experiment? How can you consider yourself open minded when you simply ignore evidence against you? Why won't you perform any experiments to prove you're theories. Please list out all the evidence you have:
What are you talking about when you say the strength of force pulling things down?
Your mind and others are fixated on mass pulling objects to them without having the faintest idea why this should be so and cannot see the more simplistic answer and would rather go with a 15th century so called thinker who decided gravity does this and that, without having a clue why he even said it, because he (assuming he did say it) sure as hell knew nothing about space...and yet... even today, after all this time, we still don't know what gravity actually is, just what it does...supposedly.

You prefer to go along with this nonsense when atmospheric pressure and magnetism explains it all, perfectly well, except of course, space and yet, good old Newton knew about as much about so called space as he did about velcro fastening Nike trainers.

You prefer to hang on to this because the sensible looking boffin in a white coat with PHD, etc on his/her pocket, or books specifically given out that says, it is what it is, so learn it, even though it doesn't really make any sense.
the strength of the force means the amount of force pushing/pulling an object down. People believe that gravity exists because of experiments which prove it's existence, unlike you who has absolulety no evidence whatsoever. Answer the rest of the post.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1526 on: October 19, 2013, 09:02:40 AM »
This is a thread dedicated to an idea that stars in the sky are actually reflected light coming from crystals in the earth that no one can see.

Please explain how anything else can be considered low content in relation to that.

What do you not understand about this not being the place to dispute moderation?  Send me a PM or make a thread in the S&G section if you want to cry about getting a warning. 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1527 on: October 19, 2013, 09:03:57 AM »
Sceptimatic, if it's atmospheric pressure not gravity then why is the strength of the force pulling things down proportional to mass not surface area. Why don't hollow objects get pushed down with the same force as solid objects. Also, what happened in the Cavendish experiment? How can you consider yourself open minded when you simply ignore evidence against you? Why won't you perform any experiments to prove you're theories. Please list out all the evidence you have:
What are you talking about when you say the strength of force pulling things down?
Your mind and others are fixated on mass pulling objects to them without having the faintest idea why this should be so and cannot see the more simplistic answer and would rather go with a 15th century so called thinker who decided gravity does this and that, without having a clue why he even said it, because he (assuming he did say it) sure as hell knew nothing about space...and yet... even today, after all this time, we still don't know what gravity actually is, just what it does...supposedly.

You prefer to go along with this nonsense when atmospheric pressure and magnetism explains it all, perfectly well, except of course, space and yet, good old Newton knew about as much about so called space as he did about velcro fastening Nike trainers.

You prefer to hang on to this because the sensible looking boffin in a white coat with PHD, etc on his/her pocket, or books specifically given out that says, it is what it is, so learn it, even though it doesn't really make any sense.
the strength of the force means the amount of force pushing/pulling an object down. People believe that gravity exists because of experiments which prove it's existence, unlike you who has absolulety no evidence whatsoever. Answer the rest of the post.
There are no experiments that prove gravity that cannot also prove it to be air pressure/ magnetism.

?

11cookeaw1

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1528 on: October 19, 2013, 09:07:54 AM »
Dropping objects in a near vaccum, little old cavendish experiment and gravitational lending and that's just off the top of my head.

Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #1529 on: October 19, 2013, 09:10:01 AM »
Sceptimatic, if it's atmospheric pressure not gravity then why is the strength of the force pulling things down proportional to mass not surface area. Why don't hollow objects get pushed down with the same force as solid objects. Also, what happened in the Cavendish experiment? How can you consider yourself open minded when you simply ignore evidence against you? Why won't you perform any experiments to prove you're theories. Please list out all the evidence you have:
What are you talking about when you say the strength of force pulling things down?
Your mind and others are fixated on mass pulling objects to them without having the faintest idea why this should be so and cannot see the more simplistic answer and would rather go with a 15th century so called thinker who decided gravity does this and that, without having a clue why he even said it, because he (assuming he did say it) sure as hell knew nothing about space...and yet... even today, after all this time, we still don't know what gravity actually is, just what it does...supposedly.

You prefer to go along with this nonsense when atmospheric pressure and magnetism explains it all, perfectly well, except of course, space and yet, good old Newton knew about as much about so called space as he did about velcro fastening Nike trainers.

You prefer to hang on to this because the sensible looking boffin in a white coat with PHD, etc on his/her pocket, or books specifically given out that says, it is what it is, so learn it, even though it doesn't really make any sense.
the strength of the force means the amount of force pushing/pulling an object down. People believe that gravity exists because of experiments which prove it's existence, unlike you who has absolulety no evidence whatsoever. Answer the rest of the post.
There are no experiments that prove gravity that cannot also prove it to be air pressure/ magnetism.

Let's go. Do the experiments and share the results. Anything else is a bunch of words