Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.

  • 69 Replies
  • 5047 Views
?

11cookeaw1

Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« on: October 22, 2013, 04:07:54 AM »
Sceptimatic, what do you think of the normal FE model, with UA. The Sun and moon being real objects 3000 miles aways. Do you think it's possible?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23351
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2013, 04:23:40 AM »
Sceptimatic, what do you think of the normal FE model, with UA. The Sun and moon being real objects 3000 miles aways. Do you think it's possible?
No, is the short answer.I do not follow that. That's not to say I am right and they are wrong. It just doesn't make any sense to me that's all.
In essence, I follow a sort of flat earth, that much, to me, is more correct. There's a few things about it, like the ice rim, which I accept, as to me, it is the frozen dome foundation. The densest part, just as a high building has stronger foundations and so on.

?

11cookeaw1

Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2013, 04:31:13 AM »
Have you ever debated with other Flat earthers before about your or their models?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23351
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2013, 04:41:30 AM »
Have you ever debated with other Flat earthers before about your or their models?
I think you can plainly see that the flat earth theorists have no time for my thoughts. Remember! I'm a nut case and a troll to many, but some flat earth theorists do converse with me and they get what I'm saying, which is good enough for me.


?

11cookeaw1

Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2013, 04:52:37 AM »
Why do you think their models are wrong?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23351
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2013, 05:07:13 AM »
Why do you think their models are wrong?
In essence I think their basic model is right, of how the earth is, in terms of the united nations flag. I don't mean it's an exact replica of it but the basic appearance is correct, in my view, with the added ice rim, of course.
I believe their sun in terms of size is also close to what it really is, but not in the way they say, as in, it being physically in the sky.
I don't need to go into why, as it's all documented as to why in other topics.
Their observations though, actually mimic what is really happening, as in, the sun is moving away from the observer and is sinking into the horizon due to distance to what our eyes can perceive, yet it's happening , not by the sun being physically in the sky but by the reflection off of the dome and its movement against the dome.

The UA, in my opinion, is as bad as gravity. It makes no logical sense at all.
My main aim is to destroy the indoctrinated science put into people's heads about a silly rotating globe, because when people actually take the time out to really go over it...it become apparent, just how utterly nonsensical it is, to the point of wanting to punch yourself in the face , 100 times whilst questioning why it took so long in your life to actually start to wake up.
And I'm being totally serious.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2013, 06:29:43 AM »
And I'm being totally serious.

Oh! Well then!  I should start taking your ideas seriously.  All this time I thought you were being silly.  Apologies.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

11cookeaw1

Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2013, 09:03:39 AM »
Well I was hoping to be able to see you debate with some othe flat earthers. That would be interesting to see.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5129
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2013, 09:12:17 AM »
Most of the FEers don't take the time to debate with him because we know the REers will valiantly try to do the impossible, which is convince scepti he is wrong.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

11cookeaw1

Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2013, 09:29:04 AM »
Most of the FEers don't take the time to debate with him because we know the REers will valiantly try to do the impossible, which is convince scepti he is wrong.
It's a shame, because it would make a great read.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39430
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2013, 09:59:57 AM »
Have you ever debated with other Flat earthers before about your or their models?
I think you can plainly see that the flat earth theorists have no time for my thoughts. Remember! I'm a nut case and a troll to many, but some flat earth theorists do converse with me and they get what I'm saying, which is good enough for me.
That's really a shame. In my opinion, this is exactly the kind of FE'er on FE'er debate that should be happening in the FE Believer's forum.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

11cookeaw1

Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2013, 10:10:41 AM »
Have you ever debated with other Flat earthers before about your or their models?
I think you can plainly see that the flat earth theorists have no time for my thoughts. Remember! I'm a nut case and a troll to many, but some flat earth theorists do converse with me and they get what I'm saying, which is good enough for me.
That's really a shame. In my opinion, this is exactly the kind of FE'er on FE'er debate that should be happening in the FE Believer's forum.
Do debates like that ever happen.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39430
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2013, 10:19:32 AM »
Have you ever debated with other Flat earthers before about your or their models?
I think you can plainly see that the flat earth theorists have no time for my thoughts. Remember! I'm a nut case and a troll to many, but some flat earth theorists do converse with me and they get what I'm saying, which is good enough for me.
That's really a shame. In my opinion, this is exactly the kind of FE'er on FE'er debate that should be happening in the FE Believer's forum.
Do debates like that ever happen.
Not that I can remember ever seeing, and I've been here for a while.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5129
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #13 on: October 22, 2013, 10:42:14 AM »
Most of the FEers don't take the time to debate with him because we know the REers will valiantly try to do the impossible, which is convince scepti he is wrong.
It's a shame, because it would make a great read.
They wouldn't look much different than any other scepti thread honestly.  It would be full of dome, incorrect ideas on pressure, and complete fabrications of light reflections sourced at the north pole (which is much further away than you think it is in his theory). His theory is like an untreated cancer, it just grows and grows and eventually that is all there is in the thread.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #14 on: October 22, 2013, 10:56:29 AM »
scepti, which FE map is the most correct one?
I think, therefore I am

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23351
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2013, 11:15:46 AM »
If I'd never have seen this site, I would not have been able to piece together what I have. Even though there's many things I don't agree with, there are quite a few things that I do agree with.
My goal is to try to find out the true nature of this earth, in it's entirety, which will never happen, but finding out about it, piece by piece as I go along, I hope to be able to fully draw it all out in portions, explaining as clearly as possible, why my theory is what it is.

My other goal is to totally destroy the indoctrinated rotating globe model that I had walloped into my head, only to later find out what an absolute pile of garbage is really is.
I say it time and time again about it not making any sense..but to be fair, it goes way beyond that. It's an insult to put this stuff into people's heads, it really is.

I've always questioned stuff, but at one time, it was only in a half hearted way and brushed under the carpet, until I started gaining the time to actually allow myself to think clearly.
The internet is full of truths, half truths and total misinformation and blatant lies, but one thing it's good for, is, it allows people to put into words what they think, so that a wider array of people can see what each other is thinking, such as this site.

I'd heard of flat earth, but basically, only used in a sort of derogatory term, by people who would try and put someone down for their thoughts, then say..." the way your going on, you'd think the earth was flat" , or words to that effect and never in a million years did I ever think I'd be focused on the very thing.

I did so, because I came across this forum and read a lot of stuff  and some of it really got me thinking, yet I came here with my mind focused on a geocentric universe, because I'd already binned the heliocentric one.
So there I was, viewing this forum and decided to ask questions and it spiralled from there and the more I got into it all, the more I realised that the basics need to be the actual basics to gain any understanding of what we are about, which meant starting from the grass roots, so to speak...so that's what I did.

It's led up to the point I'm at, which is by no means anything like concrete, but I believe it's certainly on the right path.
I am absolutely 1 trillion per cent sure of an ice dome.
I am absolutely 1 trillion per cent certain that the earth is not a solid globe, spinning or stationary.
I am absolutely 1 trillion per cent certain that what people believe is space, does not exist in that manner.

None of the above does not mean that I can prove it, I'm simply saying that I am absolutely stead fast in my belief of it. People can call it faith, arrogance, uneducated drivel or any other name. It bothers me, not.

I opened up my mind and I'm sure that others can...but before that can happen, you must first have a need to question your indoctrination,
I'm under no illusions whatsoever about flat earth overcoming the mainstream one. That will only happen if it's allowed to happen, which would require a whole new world of bull crap to keep everything ticking as it is.

Having one person or this full site realising that the earth is not a solid globe will not change a thing, except to change the amount of people that think alternatively to what they were brought up to think.

So there you go. I'm still fine tuning and I'm still open minded for a lot of things, EXCEPT a rotating globe in space with a nuclear sun, which I genuinely find insulting...not by you people...by the people who keep us like this...cocooned in a world of falseness.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23351
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2013, 11:30:20 AM »
scepti, which FE map is the most correct one?
The closest one is this one.





Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2013, 11:46:46 AM »
scepti, which FE map is the most correct one?
The closest one is this one.




So can you explain how the South Pole can get 24 hour sun during December?
I think, therefore I am

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23351
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2013, 11:56:29 AM »
scepti, which FE map is the most correct one?
The closest one is this one.




So can you explain how the South Pole can get 24 hour sun during December?
Which part?
It's a big circle of ice around the earth.

Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2013, 12:03:29 PM »
scepti, which FE map is the most correct one?
The closest one is this one.




So can you explain how the South Pole can get 24 hour sun during December?
Which part?
It's a big circle of ice around the earth.

Let's just say the nearest edge for argument sake.
I think, therefore I am

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23351
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2013, 12:08:47 PM »
scepti, which FE map is the most correct one?
The closest one is this one.




So can you explain how the South Pole can get 24 hour sun during December?
Which part?
It's a big circle of ice around the earth.

Let's just say the nearest edge for argument sake.
The nearest edge to what?

Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #21 on: October 22, 2013, 01:40:28 PM »
The Ocean. All of Antarctica is always in sun during the winter months.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #22 on: October 22, 2013, 01:43:51 PM »
The Ocean. All of Antarctica is always in sun during the winter months.

This statement is wrong in many ways.

Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #23 on: October 22, 2013, 03:41:42 PM »
There is no evidence that ALL of the outer edge of Antarctica gets 24 hours of sunlight at once.
EDIT *inner edge.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2013, 03:43:20 PM by EarthIsASpaceship »

Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #24 on: October 22, 2013, 06:49:25 PM »
The Ocean. All of Antarctica is always in sun during the winter months.

This statement is wrong in many ways.

Hyperbolic, perhaps, a bit North Hemisphere centric (They are Antarctica's Summer Months, after all), but not wrong. Antarctica, or the large majority of it, since there are some parts 'above' the antarctic circle, do experience long periods of 24 hour daylight during 'Winter,' just as the Arctic Circle experiences the same during 'Summer' months.

There is no evidence that ALL of the outer edge of Antarctica gets 24 hours of sunlight at once.
EDIT *inner edge.

There is plenty. Of course, you do dispute the evidence, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #25 on: October 22, 2013, 07:37:49 PM »
There is no evidence that ALL of the outer edge of Antarctica gets 24 hours of sunlight at once.
EDIT *inner edge.

having been there, and since I am also going to be working there for 6 months in a few years can at least attest that the vast majority of the antarctic coast next to new zealand and Australia is in sun 24 hours a day for a couple of weeks around christmas


?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5300
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #26 on: October 22, 2013, 07:56:09 PM »
scepti, which FE map is the most correct one?
The closest one is this one.




What is your opinion about objects south of the equator such as the size and shape of Australia and distances between South America and Australia on that map ?

Which do you think is the most accurate : The "North Polar (FE)Map" or the "Bipolar (FE) Map" ?
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 !

?

11cookeaw1

Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #27 on: October 22, 2013, 07:59:41 PM »
If I'd never have seen this site, I would not have been able to piece together what I have. Even though there's many things I don't agree with, there are quite a few things that I do agree with.
My goal is to try to find out the true nature of this earth, in it's entirety, which will never happen, but finding out about it, piece by piece as I go along, I hope to be able to fully draw it all out in portions, explaining as clearly as possible, why my theory is what it is.

My other goal is to totally destroy the indoctrinated rotating globe model that I had walloped into my head, only to later find out what an absolute pile of garbage is really is.
I say it time and time again about it not making any sense..but to be fair, it goes way beyond that. It's an insult to put this stuff into people's heads, it really is.

I've always questioned stuff, but at one time, it was only in a half hearted way and brushed under the carpet, until I started gaining the time to actually allow myself to think clearly.
The internet is full of truths, half truths and total misinformation and blatant lies, but one thing it's good for, is, it allows people to put into words what they think, so that a wider array of people can see what each other is thinking, such as this site.

I'd heard of flat earth, but basically, only used in a sort of derogatory term, by people who would try and put someone down for their thoughts, then say..." the way your going on, you'd think the earth was flat" , or words to that effect and never in a million years did I ever think I'd be focused on the very thing.

I did so, because I came across this forum and read a lot of stuff  and some of it really got me thinking, yet I came here with my mind focused on a geocentric universe, because I'd already binned the heliocentric one.
So there I was, viewing this forum and decided to ask questions and it spiralled from there and the more I got into it all, the more I realised that the basics need to be the actual basics to gain any understanding of what we are about, which meant starting from the grass roots, so to speak...so that's what I did.

It's led up to the point I'm at, which is by no means anything like concrete, but I believe it's certainly on the right path.
I am absolutely 1 trillion per cent sure of an ice dome.
I am absolutely 1 trillion per cent certain that the earth is not a solid globe, spinning or stationary.
I am absolutely 1 trillion per cent certain that what people believe is space, does not exist in that manner.

None of the above does not mean that I can prove it, I'm simply saying that I am absolutely stead fast in my belief of it. People can call it faith, arrogance, uneducated drivel or any other name. It bothers me, not.

I opened up my mind and I'm sure that others can...but before that can happen, you must first have a need to question your indoctrination,
I'm under no illusions whatsoever about flat earth overcoming the mainstream one. That will only happen if it's allowed to happen, which would require a whole new world of bull crap to keep everything ticking as it is.

Having one person or this full site realising that the earth is not a solid globe will not change a thing, except to change the amount of people that think alternatively to what they were brought up to think.

So there you go. I'm still fine tuning and I'm still open minded for a lot of things, EXCEPT a rotating globe in space with a nuclear sun, which I genuinely find insulting...not by you people...by the people who keep us like this...cocooned in a world of falseness.
Why are you so sure that your model is the correct one instead of a myriad of other possible ones when you have yet to carry out a single experiment to test your ideas. Scientists actually test their ideas. You don't. Can you present even the slightest bit of evidence for your model.

?

11cookeaw1

Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #28 on: October 22, 2013, 08:00:45 PM »
Most of the FEers don't take the time to debate with him because we know the REers will valiantly try to do the impossible, which is convince scepti he is wrong.
It's a shame, because it would make a great read.
They wouldn't look much different than any other scepti thread honestly.  It would be full of dome, incorrect ideas on pressure, and complete fabrications of light reflections sourced at the north pole (which is much further away than you think it is in his theory). His theory is like an untreated cancer, it just grows and grows and eventually that is all there is in the thread.
Though it would be funny because it would be the other FEs getting annoyed and realising how frustrating it is for us when they ignore our evidence.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23351
Re: Sceptimatic and the standard FE model.
« Reply #29 on: October 23, 2013, 04:43:20 AM »
There is no evidence that ALL of the outer edge of Antarctica gets 24 hours of sunlight at once.
EDIT *inner edge.

having been there, and since I am also going to be working there for 6 months in a few years can at least attest that the vast majority of the antarctic coast next to new zealand and Australia is in sun 24 hours a day for a couple of weeks around christmas
And this would presumably be when the so called sun is 5 million km closer to your earth, is this right?