Flying off the disc

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 28, 2013, 05:52:02 PM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 25, 2013, 09:42:11 PM

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60071.0.html
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59240.0.html

Okay just answer these two links. You haven't even responded yo these two yet.

These links, which I have posted many times but you yet to answer.

If you haven't gotten a satisfactory answer by now, then asking 50 more times probably won't help either.  My advice is to just let it go and call it a victory for RET.

Also, you've said before that having dust in space is impossible. Why exactly is that the case?

Scepti, are you running away? You've posted on other topics, perhaps you know you can't answer this.
So, are you going to answer or can I claim victory.

Probably because those threads are very boring.  Maybe if you tried to be more interesting, people would feel more compelled to answer your questions. 

Scepti, are you running away? You've posted on other topics, perhaps you know you can't answer this.
So, are you going to answer or can I claim victory.

Please don't take scepti seriously.
Look out your window.

(Added that last part in to avoid a low-content post argument; apparently it makes you immune.)

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 10, 2013, 04:03:03 AM

Scepti, are you running away? You've posted on other topics, perhaps you know you can't answer this.
So, are you going to answer or can I claim victory.

Please don't take scepti seriously.
Look out your window.

(Added that last part in to avoid a low-content post argument; apparently it makes you immune.)

Please refrain from posting low content posts in the upper fora.  Thanks.

Yep, I'm certain know, he can't answer those links. He's just ignoring them and hoping that I forget about them and he can go back to making up idiot theroies. It really is pathetic of him.

Yep, I'm certain know, he can't answer those links. He's just ignoring them and hoping that I forget about them and he can go back to making up idiot theroies. It really is pathetic of him.

What specifically would you like me to answer. Put it in to child like terms and I'll see what I can do.
Posting links up will gain no none compliance.

1.How do you explain the estov effect and 2. How do you explain the resulted shown which indicated the curvature of the earth was hiding part of a mountain.

1.How do you explain the estov effect and 2. How do you explain the resulted shown which indicated the curvature of the earth was hiding part of a mountain.

Can you show me some proof of this estov effect?

Can you show me the curvature of the earth that's hiding a mountain?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59240.msg1516831.html#msg1516831
And this
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59240.msg1521644.html#msg1521644
Are examples of experiments.
Also this http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59073.0
Note that the most distant mountains are snowy right down to the horizon, it was a warm day there and there is no visible snow on the nearby mountain, which means at minimum the top few thousand feet of the distant mountains aren't visible.

To demonstrate the effect, Eötvös constructed a balance with a horizontal axis, where, instead of pans, weights are attached to the end of the arms. When the balance is rotated the weight moving towards the west will become heavier, the one moving towards the east lighter and will deflect from its state of equilibrium. This proof of the earth’s rotation is perhaps of greater significance than Foucault’s pendulum experiment since it also works on the equator.

from http://www.aos.princeton.edu/WWWPUBLIC/gkv/history/persson_on_coriolis05.pdf
It was also observed int eh early 1900's whilst gravity measurements were being performed on moving ships. The readings of gravity where lower when travelling east and weaker when traveling west.

We already have a thread on the estov effect.  Why do you insist on derailing another thread when you could have just posted in the relevant thread?  If people quit posting in the relevant thread, it is because everyone got bored of that subject.  Please don't make other threads boring as well. 

We already have a thread on the estov effect.  Why do you insist on derailing another thread when you could have just posted in the relevant thread?  If people quit posting in the relevant thread, it is because everyone got bored of that subject.  Please don't make other threads boring as well.

It contradicts what you claim to believe, therefore it is off topic and boring.  Even though the last post prior to it was requesting clarification on the subject.  Yup, that's this site in a nutshell.

Quote from: jroa on November 12, 2013, 05:07:01 PM

We already have a thread on the estov effect.  Why do you insist on derailing another thread when you could have just posted in the relevant thread?  If people quit posting in the relevant thread, it is because everyone got bored of that subject.  Please don't make other threads boring as well.

It contradicts what you claim to believe, therefore it is off topic and boring.  Even though the last post prior to it was requesting clarification on the subject.  Yup, that's this site in a nutshell.

Then, why sh*t up two threads when one is already sh*t?  Please don't derail topics. 

Quote from: Pyrolizard on November 12, 2013, 08:05:08 PM

Quote from: jroa on November 12, 2013, 05:07:01 PM

We already have a thread on the estov effect.  Why do you insist on derailing another thread when you could have just posted in the relevant thread?  If people quit posting in the relevant thread, it is because everyone got bored of that subject.  Please don't make other threads boring as well.

It contradicts what you claim to believe, therefore it is off topic and boring.  Even though the last post prior to it was requesting clarification on the subject.  Yup, that's this site in a nutshell.

Then, why sh*t up two threads when one is already sh*t?  Please don't derail topics.

Because the immediately prior post was requesting clarification, and just posting a link is considered low content according to you all.  In all likelihood, without your post, the thread would have continued on as normal.  Scepti would have denied what was given out of turn, and we all would have called it par for the course.

Uh Sceptimatic, know I explained the links are you going to answer them or did you miss them?
Also, you said that it is impossible for there to be dust in space, why is this.

Uh Sceptimatic, know I explained the links are you going to answer them or did you miss them?
Also, you said that it is impossible for there to be dust in space, why is this.

Is dust heavier than helium?
The answer is no, correct?

Would you still like me to explain why there isn't any dust in space?

There is dust in space.

It's observable through a telescope.

There is dust in space.

It's observable through a telescope.

Let me explain what  a telescope is to you, because you appear to be on the understanding that you can see marvellously great distances with it, in terms of space.

A telescope is a large microscope. That's all it is. It allows you to see an object in more detail. It's an extension of your eye. Take a look at magnification levels and that should give you a clue as to how far you can see with one.
A hint.
Go and get a microscope and go and look at a speck of dust. What you will find, is, you will have to wind the microscope down a little to get a more detailed look.
There's only so far you can wind a telescope up to get a better look, so on that note, what you see, is actually in the SKY, in earth, not in space and if you use your common sense you should realise that your telescope will only ever partially resolve things in the sky.

Dust in space? you're having a laugh.

You are displaying your ignorance of science once more scepti.  You are so very attached to the idea that if it makes sense in your head it must be true.  The fact of the matter is that light travels until something absorbs it, until then, it can be reflected and deflected in various directions, but if it has an uninterrupted lane of 1,000,000,000,000,000kms, it will traverse the entire distance.  If a telescope is at the end of that lane, the light can be reflected in to the eye and we see it.  In this way, telescopes are not like microscopes.  I will now sit back and wait for you to tell me nothing can be as far away as I mentioned in my post.

You are displaying your ignorance of science once more scepti.  You are so very attached to the idea that if it makes sense in your head it must be true.  The fact of the matter is that light travels until something absorbs it, until then, it can be reflected and deflected in various directions, but if it has an uninterrupted lane of 1,000,000,000,000,000kms, it will traverse the entire distance.  If a telescope is at the end of that lane, the light can be reflected in to the eye and we see it.  In this way, telescopes are not like microscopes.  I will now sit back and wait for you to tell me nothing can be as far away as I mentioned in my post.

Common sense should tell you that you cannot see that far, but you accept it, so I'm not about to try and change that perception you have.
It's pretty scary that people believe all this stuff to be honest. I'm serious.

Let me ask you a question.

Have you ever went into a loft that has nothing in it, other than black under felt and lagging. If you have, you will notice that taking a light bulb up there, you get very little light from it, because, as you say, it's absorbed, or for want of better words, it has NOTHING to reflect off of, apart from it's own bulb and you.

Now you see the light in FRONT of your face and a little bit further forward from you but you don't get to see the full loft lit up.

Now go and stand that light at the far end of your loft and you come back to the other end and you will be in pitch black, but you will see that bulb lit and a little area around it, lit.

The reason for this, is because you are seeing that light, as it IS and the second it's turned off...you cease to see it.
Equate that to your distant stars and you will...or should, at least, observe two things and using common sense and logic, deduce that.
1. You are seeing a light, as IS.
2.The light must be close and small, as in, it must be X amount of scores of miles away and tiny compared to what the mainstream tell you it is.

Will you deduce this? not a chance. I know that...you know that, so I'm under no illusions about it.
What I will say, is. I know that what we are being told....is absolute hog wash.

Let me explain what  a telescope is to you

Just so you........this is where I stopped reading.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 13, 2013, 07:33:25 PM

Uh Sceptimatic, know I explained the links are you going to answer them or did you miss them?
Also, you said that it is impossible for there to be dust in space, why is this.

Is dust heavier than helium?
The answer is no, correct?

Would you still like me to explain why there isn't any dust in space?

Dust is denser then helium. Please explain. And ANSWER THE LINKS ALREADY.

Quote

Let me explain what  a telescope is to you

Just so you........this is where I stopped reading.

You can stop reading at any time. In fact, just stop reading anything I say. Your life will be much better for it, because you can simply go on believing in fairy tales.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 08:12:03 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 13, 2013, 07:33:25 PM

Uh Sceptimatic, know I explained the links are you going to answer them or did you miss them?
Also, you said that it is impossible for there to be dust in space, why is this.

Is dust heavier than helium?
The answer is no, correct?

Would you still like me to explain why there isn't any dust in space?

Dust is denser then helium. Please explain. And ANSWER THE LINKS ALREADY.

If dust in denser than helium, then the dust will be on the ground as it is. We see dust whipped up by winds, but it soon falls. It's because it denser than the molecules ABOVE it. So do you still need me to tell you why there is no dust in space?

You can have swirling mountain dust and all that stuff, but it isn't in space. So where did you see this dust at?

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2013, 09:25:15 AM

You are displaying your ignorance of science once more scepti.  You are so very attached to the idea that if it makes sense in your head it must be true.  The fact of the matter is that light travels until something absorbs it, until then, it can be reflected and deflected in various directions, but if it has an uninterrupted lane of 1,000,000,000,000,000kms, it will traverse the entire distance.  If a telescope is at the end of that lane, the light can be reflected in to the eye and we see it.  In this way, telescopes are not like microscopes.  I will now sit back and wait for you to tell me nothing can be as far away as I mentioned in my post.

Common sense should tell you that you cannot see that far, but you accept it, so I'm not about to try and change that perception you have.
It's pretty scary that people believe all this stuff to be honest. I'm serious.

Let me ask you a question.

Have you ever went into a loft that has nothing in it, other than black under felt and lagging. If you have, you will notice that taking a light bulb up there, you get very little light from it, because, as you say, it's absorbed, or for want of better words, it has NOTHING to reflect off of, apart from it's own bulb and you.

Now you see the light in FRONT of your face and a little bit further forward from you but you don't get to see the full loft lit up.

Now go and stand that light at the far end of your loft and you come back to the other end and you will be in pitch black, but you will see that bulb lit and a little area around it, lit.

The reason for this, is because you are seeing that light, as it IS and the second it's turned off...you cease to see it.
Equate that to your distant stars and you will...or should, at least, observe two things and using common sense and logic, deduce that.
1. You are seeing a light, as IS.
2.The light must be close and small, as in, it must be X amount of scores of miles away and tiny compared to what the mainstream tell you it is.

Will you deduce this? not a chance. I know that...you know that, so I'm under no illusions about it.
What I will say, is. I know that what we are being told....is absolute hog wash.

Have you actually done that experiment? The night sky looks dark except for the star we can see. If there is nothing to get in lights way it will get to it's destination.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 09:43:57 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2013, 09:25:15 AM

You are displaying your ignorance of science once more scepti.  You are so very attached to the idea that if it makes sense in your head it must be true.  The fact of the matter is that light travels until something absorbs it, until then, it can be reflected and deflected in various directions, but if it has an uninterrupted lane of 1,000,000,000,000,000kms, it will traverse the entire distance.  If a telescope is at the end of that lane, the light can be reflected in to the eye and we see it.  In this way, telescopes are not like microscopes.  I will now sit back and wait for you to tell me nothing can be as far away as I mentioned in my post.

Common sense should tell you that you cannot see that far, but you accept it, so I'm not about to try and change that perception you have.
It's pretty scary that people believe all this stuff to be honest. I'm serious.

Let me ask you a question.

Have you ever went into a loft that has nothing in it, other than black under felt and lagging. If you have, you will notice that taking a light bulb up there, you get very little light from it, because, as you say, it's absorbed, or for want of better words, it has NOTHING to reflect off of, apart from it's own bulb and you.

Now you see the light in FRONT of your face and a little bit further forward from you but you don't get to see the full loft lit up.

Now go and stand that light at the far end of your loft and you come back to the other end and you will be in pitch black, but you will see that bulb lit and a little area around it, lit.

The reason for this, is because you are seeing that light, as it IS and the second it's turned off...you cease to see it.
Equate that to your distant stars and you will...or should, at least, observe two things and using common sense and logic, deduce that.
1. You are seeing a light, as IS.
2.The light must be close and small, as in, it must be X amount of scores of miles away and tiny compared to what the mainstream tell you it is.

Will you deduce this? not a chance. I know that...you know that, so I'm under no illusions about it.
What I will say, is. I know that what we are being told....is absolute hog wash.

Have you actually done that experiment? The night sky looks dark except for the star we can see. If there is nothing to get in lights way it will get to it's destination.

The destination is your eye seeing the light at it's first point, which is it's first direct emittance, there is no travel, like you think.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 10:03:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 09:43:57 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2013, 09:25:15 AM

You are displaying your ignorance of science once more scepti.  You are so very attached to the idea that if it makes sense in your head it must be true.  The fact of the matter is that light travels until something absorbs it, until then, it can be reflected and deflected in various directions, but if it has an uninterrupted lane of 1,000,000,000,000,000kms, it will traverse the entire distance.  If a telescope is at the end of that lane, the light can be reflected in to the eye and we see it.  In this way, telescopes are not like microscopes.  I will now sit back and wait for you to tell me nothing can be as far away as I mentioned in my post.

Common sense should tell you that you cannot see that far, but you accept it, so I'm not about to try and change that perception you have.
It's pretty scary that people believe all this stuff to be honest. I'm serious.

Let me ask you a question.

Have you ever went into a loft that has nothing in it, other than black under felt and lagging. If you have, you will notice that taking a light bulb up there, you get very little light from it, because, as you say, it's absorbed, or for want of better words, it has NOTHING to reflect off of, apart from it's own bulb and you.

Now you see the light in FRONT of your face and a little bit further forward from you but you don't get to see the full loft lit up.

Now go and stand that light at the far end of your loft and you come back to the other end and you will be in pitch black, but you will see that bulb lit and a little area around it, lit.

The reason for this, is because you are seeing that light, as it IS and the second it's turned off...you cease to see it.
Equate that to your distant stars and you will...or should, at least, observe two things and using common sense and logic, deduce that.
1. You are seeing a light, as IS.
2.The light must be close and small, as in, it must be X amount of scores of miles away and tiny compared to what the mainstream tell you it is.

Will you deduce this? not a chance. I know that...you know that, so I'm under no illusions about it.
What I will say, is. I know that what we are being told....is absolute hog wash.

Have you actually done that experiment? The night sky looks dark except for the star we can see. If there is nothing to get in lights way it will get to it's destination.

The destination is your eye seeing the light at it's first point, which is it's first direct emittance, there is no travel, like you think.

The speed of ligh has been measured by experimentation. Ideas do not trump experiments. And WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER THE LINKS. I've already explained them at the top of this page.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 10:10:51 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 10:03:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 09:43:57 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2013, 09:25:15 AM

You are displaying your ignorance of science once more scepti.  You are so very attached to the idea that if it makes sense in your head it must be true.  The fact of the matter is that light travels until something absorbs it, until then, it can be reflected and deflected in various directions, but if it has an uninterrupted lane of 1,000,000,000,000,000kms, it will traverse the entire distance.  If a telescope is at the end of that lane, the light can be reflected in to the eye and we see it.  In this way, telescopes are not like microscopes.  I will now sit back and wait for you to tell me nothing can be as far away as I mentioned in my post.

Common sense should tell you that you cannot see that far, but you accept it, so I'm not about to try and change that perception you have.
It's pretty scary that people believe all this stuff to be honest. I'm serious.

Let me ask you a question.

Have you ever went into a loft that has nothing in it, other than black under felt and lagging. If you have, you will notice that taking a light bulb up there, you get very little light from it, because, as you say, it's absorbed, or for want of better words, it has NOTHING to reflect off of, apart from it's own bulb and you.

Now you see the light in FRONT of your face and a little bit further forward from you but you don't get to see the full loft lit up.

Now go and stand that light at the far end of your loft and you come back to the other end and you will be in pitch black, but you will see that bulb lit and a little area around it, lit.

The reason for this, is because you are seeing that light, as it IS and the second it's turned off...you cease to see it.
Equate that to your distant stars and you will...or should, at least, observe two things and using common sense and logic, deduce that.
1. You are seeing a light, as IS.
2.The light must be close and small, as in, it must be X amount of scores of miles away and tiny compared to what the mainstream tell you it is.

Will you deduce this? not a chance. I know that...you know that, so I'm under no illusions about it.
What I will say, is. I know that what we are being told....is absolute hog wash.

Have you actually done that experiment? The night sky looks dark except for the star we can see. If there is nothing to get in lights way it will get to it's destination.

The destination is your eye seeing the light at it's first point, which is it's first direct emittance, there is no travel, like you think.

The speed of ligh has been measured by experimentation. Ideas do not trump experiments. And WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER THE LINKS. I've already explained them at the top of this page.

What an absolute load of tosh.
The speed of light has never...and never will be measured, because it does NOT exist. It's a fallacy. It's just made up mumbo jumbo.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 15, 2013, 09:58:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2013, 08:12:03 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 13, 2013, 07:33:25 PM

Uh Sceptimatic, know I explained the links are you going to answer them or did you miss them?
Also, you said that it is impossible for there to be dust in space, why is this.

Is dust heavier than helium?
The answer is no, correct?

Would you still like me to explain why there isn't any dust in space?

Dust is denser then helium. Please explain. And ANSWER THE LINKS ALREADY.

If dust in denser than helium, then the dust will be on the ground as it is. We see dust whipped up by winds, but it soon falls. It's because it denser than the molecules ABOVE it. So do you still need me to tell you why there is no dust in space?

You can have swirling mountain dust and all that stuff, but it isn't in space. So where did you see this dust at?

Why does being denser then helium stop it from being in space how does helium stop the dust from being in space. For the dust to get to the ground it has to be accreted first, to do that it had to pass near the earth. Most of the dust is not near the Earth.