REs Please Explain

Sometimes you people surprise me, but not when it comes to maps.  RE'ers are like a broken record, saying the same things over and over.

I really think it's about time you gave up using the disparaging term "you people".  Don't you understand that you people accounts for 99.9999999999% of the human population?

It's usually more common for the majority to call the naysayers "you people".

And the reason the REs say the same things over and over is possibly because their theories are correct, and they have to continually and repeatedly counter the FE's incorrect theories (such as they are).
 

Quote from: alfa156melb on February 16, 2014, 04:21:10 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on February 16, 2014, 04:04:54 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 16, 2014, 02:03:02 PM

'Distance is variable'  Please explain.

Basically means according to the map me and Jroa posted that the closer you get to the center (The North) the bigger you get in physical size relative to the ground you are standing upon (The South), the farthest reaches of Earth is at Antarctica where the south pole is. If you look at my map above 10 degrees is 5% of 200 degrees.

So for example if I was at 200 degrees I would be 200% bigger then at 100 degrees so the World would appear to be 12,500 miles around instead of 25,000 miles, except that it wouldn't be because if I traveled to the south pole the 200% (maximum) would become 10% (minimum) and the average would be 100% between both of them. So mathematically size all works out if you know that each degree you travel from the North pole your relative size will decrease in relation to your longitude or latitude. Antarctica is the farthest point you can get south in the world but you can never get smaller then 10% without going to the other side. Antarctica is about 10% the size of the Earth in width which say's this is correct. North America would be 172 longitude by 154 degrees latitude which means you would add 74 degrees at an average of 163 degrees which would equal a 163% size boost so 74 degrees would be about 4,625 miles wide which would be pretty correct if you were measuring diagonally. Width should be 154% or about 94.5% of 2/3rds the diagonal which would be about 2884 miles. going from Coast to coast in diagonal direction this is also correct. Finally height should be about 28 degrees or about 1945 miles straight x 186% or about 3617 total miles. However I'm not sure if I'm completely accurate but I'm pretty close. Mapping this to a perfect sphere works very well which is why I think we are in a perfect sphere that is inside of a cube.

You're arguments get more wacko by the day.. do you pay someone to come u with them or is this your own work?

I commend your creativity!

It's usually my own unless I am specifically giving credit to other people. As for the distance I described I only described how to read the map I posted, I'm not speaking about changing size distance in real life in relation to the Earth even though I think it might be a possibility but I'm still faced with the fact that it does map to a "perfect" inner spheroid without any sort of apparent curve variation only being optical aside from slight land elevation shifts.

Well, ok then! 

Quote from: alfa156melb on February 16, 2014, 04:21:10 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on February 16, 2014, 04:04:54 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 16, 2014, 02:03:02 PM

'Distance is variable'  Please explain.

Basically means according to the map me and Jroa posted that the closer you get to the center (The North) the bigger you get in physical size relative to the ground you are standing upon (The South), the farthest reaches of Earth is at Antarctica where the south pole is. If you look at my map above 10 degrees is 5% of 200 degrees.

So for example if I was at 200 degrees I would be 200% bigger then at 100 degrees so the World would appear to be 12,500 miles around instead of 25,000 miles, except that it wouldn't be because if I traveled to the south pole the 200% (maximum) would become 10% (minimum) and the average would be 100% between both of them. So mathematically size all works out if you know that each degree you travel from the North pole your relative size will decrease in relation to your longitude or latitude. Antarctica is the farthest point you can get south in the world but you can never get smaller then 10% without going to the other side. Antarctica is about 10% the size of the Earth in width which say's this is correct. North America would be 172 longitude by 154 degrees latitude which means you would add 74 degrees at an average of 163 degrees which would equal a 163% size boost so 74 degrees would be about 4,625 miles wide which would be pretty correct if you were measuring diagonally. Width should be 154% or about 94.5% of 2/3rds the diagonal which would be about 2884 miles. going from Coast to coast in diagonal direction this is also correct. Finally height should be about 28 degrees or about 1945 miles straight x 186% or about 3617 total miles. However I'm not sure if I'm completely accurate but I'm pretty close. Mapping this to a perfect sphere works very well which is why I think we are in a perfect sphere that is inside of a cube.

You're arguments get more wacko by the day.. do you pay someone to come u with them or is this your own work?

I commend your creativity!

It's usually my own unless I am specifically giving credit to other people. As for the distance I described I only described how to read the map I posted, I'm not speaking about changing size distance in real life in relation to the Earth even though I think it might be a possibility but I'm still faced with the fact that it does map to a "perfect" inner spheroid without any sort of apparent curve variation only being optical aside from slight land elevation shifts.

Great although what you did was speak about changing size, and it was sort of implied that it was in real life, so maybe have a look at that - I can't stress this enough, words have meanings which are commonly accepted and so facilitate the transmission of thought, using them to mean other, secret, things is an exercise in futility. Also, in broader terms, no-one knows what you're on about

Quote from: Sculelos on February 16, 2014, 05:22:50 PM

Quote from: alfa156melb on February 16, 2014, 04:21:10 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on February 16, 2014, 04:04:54 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 16, 2014, 02:03:02 PM

'Distance is variable'  Please explain.

Basically means according to the map me and Jroa posted that the closer you get to the center (The North) the bigger you get in physical size relative to the ground you are standing upon (The South), the farthest reaches of Earth is at Antarctica where the south pole is. If you look at my map above 10 degrees is 5% of 200 degrees.

So for example if I was at 200 degrees I would be 200% bigger then at 100 degrees so the World would appear to be 12,500 miles around instead of 25,000 miles, except that it wouldn't be because if I traveled to the south pole the 200% (maximum) would become 10% (minimum) and the average would be 100% between both of them. So mathematically size all works out if you know that each degree you travel from the North pole your relative size will decrease in relation to your longitude or latitude. Antarctica is the farthest point you can get south in the world but you can never get smaller then 10% without going to the other side. Antarctica is about 10% the size of the Earth in width which say's this is correct. North America would be 172 longitude by 154 degrees latitude which means you would add 74 degrees at an average of 163 degrees which would equal a 163% size boost so 74 degrees would be about 4,625 miles wide which would be pretty correct if you were measuring diagonally. Width should be 154% or about 94.5% of 2/3rds the diagonal which would be about 2884 miles. going from Coast to coast in diagonal direction this is also correct. Finally height should be about 28 degrees or about 1945 miles straight x 186% or about 3617 total miles. However I'm not sure if I'm completely accurate but I'm pretty close. Mapping this to a perfect sphere works very well which is why I think we are in a perfect sphere that is inside of a cube.

You're arguments get more wacko by the day.. do you pay someone to come u with them or is this your own work?

I commend your creativity!

It's usually my own unless I am specifically giving credit to other people. As for the distance I described I only described how to read the map I posted, I'm not speaking about changing size distance in real life in relation to the Earth even though I think it might be a possibility but I'm still faced with the fact that it does map to a "perfect" inner spheroid without any sort of apparent curve variation only being optical aside from slight land elevation shifts.

Great although what you did was speak about changing size, and it was sort of implied that it was in real life, so maybe have a look at that - I can't stress this enough, words have meanings which are commonly accepted and so facilitate the transmission of thought, using them to mean other, secret, things is an exercise in futility. Also, in broader terms, no-one knows what you're on about

Changing size mechanics are not very well studied by me as of yet. Especially on Earth in fact I'm still studying the effects it's having on the Moon and Mars and it's very, very confusing. So trust me in the fact that I don't know what to make of it. I think the global Earth model is fairly accurate (the google Earth model) but I don't think they show a spheroid they show a perfect sphere and map Earth to that, if Earth is a perfect sphere that means we are inside of it and the land tilts the opposite way of what people commonly think as the Earth is concave, not convex.

What, Jroa, no response to my points re: a mercator map?

What, Jroa, no response to my points re: a mercator map?

What?  I responded to everyone of your posts.  If I did not give you a satisfactory answer, then I apologize.  Please ask your question again and I will try to answer it for you.  But, please don't pretend like I was ignoring you. 

How do you respond to the point that a Mercator map is not a FEmap, but is comparable to an orange peel laid out flat, which shows you the peel, but not the shape of the orange?

I think that the Earth can be projected onto any of many surfaces.  I don't see what your point is, however. 

The point is that your FE maps actually claim to be representative of the Earth's actual shape, when in fact, they are not. REers to use flat maps, but none of us pretend that that represents the true shape of the Earth. And why do we use flat maps? Well, primarily because you can write on them, and because you can fold them up and put them in a pocket. Using a globe that is large enough to write upon for navigational purposes would require quite a large one. Such large ones are made, but they are still impractical for writing on, just for the simple reason that writing accurately on any three dimensional surface is difficult. So it is far easier to transfer the surface of the globe to a flat, two dimensional surface.

However, the fact that we recognise that that the world is a sphere is clear by the fact that on world maps in the Mercator projection, Asia is often split in halves. You can find half of it to the West of California, and the other half to the East of Europe. This is done for two reasons. One is simply cultural vanity. Europeans and European Americans like to put themselves in the middle of the map. The Chinese still call their country Zhonguo, the Middle Kingdom, with a similar level of vanity, and they, incidentally, believed the world was flat up to the XVIII Century.

The second reason is, however, more practical. That is the fact that if you take a paper map that is designed in the above way and bend it around into a circle, you get Asia touching itself, which is what it actually does. So, on a Mercator map projection, recognising the world is round, you can circumnavigate the Earth at the Equator. This cannot be done on the bipolar map. The unipolar map presents yet other problems, previously spoken of, particularly when travelling South of the Equator.

Again, I suggest, that Flat Earth folks have a serious problem on their hands. One, they cannot present a map that all FEers agree with. Two, even when you get a map that some agree with, it is so invariably flawed that it cannot be taken seriously.  That is the fundamental problem. If you don't even have a valid map of the Earth, what have you got?

Again, I suggest, that Flat Earth folks have a serious problem on their hands. One, they cannot present a map that all FEers agree with. Two, even when you get a map that some agree with, it is so invariably flawed that it cannot be taken seriously.  That is the fundamental problem. If you don't even have a valid map of the Earth, what have you got?

Why is it that ALL round earthers agree absolutely on the global model—billions of them—whilst a few hundred flat earthers can't agree on even any one of a dozen flat earth models?

Surely the flat earthers would have a far, far better chance of successfully presenting their case for a flat earth if they could present the world with an agreed-upon model?
 
Why is there so much obvious division within the flat earth camp?
 

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on February 17, 2014, 05:40:29 PM

Again, I suggest, that Flat Earth folks have a serious problem on their hands. One, they cannot present a map that all FEers agree with. Two, even when you get a map that some agree with, it is so invariably flawed that it cannot be taken seriously.  That is the fundamental problem. If you don't even have a valid map of the Earth, what have you got?

Why is it that ALL round earthers agree absolutely on the global model—billions of them—whilst a few hundred flat earthers can't agree on even any one of a dozen flat earth models?

Surely the flat earthers would have a far, far better chance of successfully presenting their case for a flat earth if they could present the world with an agreed-upon model?
 
Why is there so much obvious division within the flat earth camp?

forget maps they cant even agree which forum to post on. Is it this one or the other one? If the society itself is split down the middle how can anyone take anything they say seriously.

Quote from: jtlondon83 on February 16, 2014, 05:34:48 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on February 16, 2014, 05:22:50 PM

Quote from: alfa156melb on February 16, 2014, 04:21:10 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on February 16, 2014, 04:04:54 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 16, 2014, 02:03:02 PM

'Distance is variable'  Please explain.

Basically means according to the map me and Jroa posted that the closer you get to the center (The North) the bigger you get in physical size relative to the ground you are standing upon (The South), the farthest reaches of Earth is at Antarctica where the south pole is. If you look at my map above 10 degrees is 5% of 200 degrees.

So for example if I was at 200 degrees I would be 200% bigger then at 100 degrees so the World would appear to be 12,500 miles around instead of 25,000 miles, except that it wouldn't be because if I traveled to the south pole the 200% (maximum) would become 10% (minimum) and the average would be 100% between both of them. So mathematically size all works out if you know that each degree you travel from the North pole your relative size will decrease in relation to your longitude or latitude. Antarctica is the farthest point you can get south in the world but you can never get smaller then 10% without going to the other side. Antarctica is about 10% the size of the Earth in width which say's this is correct. North America would be 172 longitude by 154 degrees latitude which means you would add 74 degrees at an average of 163 degrees which would equal a 163% size boost so 74 degrees would be about 4,625 miles wide which would be pretty correct if you were measuring diagonally. Width should be 154% or about 94.5% of 2/3rds the diagonal which would be about 2884 miles. going from Coast to coast in diagonal direction this is also correct. Finally height should be about 28 degrees or about 1945 miles straight x 186% or about 3617 total miles. However I'm not sure if I'm completely accurate but I'm pretty close. Mapping this to a perfect sphere works very well which is why I think we are in a perfect sphere that is inside of a cube.

You're arguments get more wacko by the day.. do you pay someone to come u with them or is this your own work?

I commend your creativity!

It's usually my own unless I am specifically giving credit to other people. As for the distance I described I only described how to read the map I posted, I'm not speaking about changing size distance in real life in relation to the Earth even though I think it might be a possibility but I'm still faced with the fact that it does map to a "perfect" inner spheroid without any sort of apparent curve variation only being optical aside from slight land elevation shifts.

Great although what you did was speak about changing size, and it was sort of implied that it was in real life, so maybe have a look at that - I can't stress this enough, words have meanings which are commonly accepted and so facilitate the transmission of thought, using them to mean other, secret, things is an exercise in futility. Also, in broader terms, no-one knows what you're on about

Changing size mechanics are not very well studied by me as of yet. Especially on Earth in fact I'm still studying the effects it's having on the Moon and Mars and it's very, very confusing. So trust me in the fact that I don't know what to make of it. I think the global Earth model is fairly accurate (the google Earth model) but I don't think they show a spheroid they show a perfect sphere and map Earth to that, if Earth is a perfect sphere that means we are inside of it and the land tilts the opposite way of what people commonly think as the Earth is concave, not convex.

So you are saying that your size changes now?

You're studying the effect of what exactly on the Moon and Mars?

Are you aware that none of what you've written there makes sense? It LITERALLY doesn't make sense - the most compelling arguments MAKE SENSE. Even if what you were saying was in any way accurate, which it isn't, then how do you expect to convey your message if you can't write in a way that makes sense? Every other accepted scientific discovery is couched in language which is a) meaningful and b) accurate - why can't you manage that?

A spheroid is not a thing, it's an adjective. You don't think that maps show a spherical Earth? Why? They are clearly based on that exact premise. What you think doesn't matter, it's what is that's important.

You think the global Earth map is accurate but you don't think the Earth is round, even though the accurate map is predicated on the fact that the Earth is round?

IF Earth is a perfect sphere THAT MEANS we are inside of it? Why does the one thing MEAN the other? IF the Earth is a perfect sphere (not sure why being 'perfect' is relevant, obviously it won't be - you've seen Mountains right?) that MEANS it's a perfect sphere - logically that's all that COULD mean. 'Mean' means that it a logical conclusion of the characteristics of the subject of the sentence to which it is applied. It doesn't MEAN anything other than that.

The Earth is not Convex, it is roughly spherical. If it was concave it would all be sloping upward and rising above us - IT ISN'T DOING THAT IS IT? I'm looking out my window now and the Earth is not all above me, it's below me - my house is resting on it, I stand on it regularly.

Quote from: Sculelos on February 16, 2014, 08:00:17 PM

Quote from: jtlondon83 on February 16, 2014, 05:34:48 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on February 16, 2014, 05:22:50 PM

Quote from: alfa156melb on February 16, 2014, 04:21:10 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on February 16, 2014, 04:04:54 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 16, 2014, 02:03:02 PM

'Distance is variable'  Please explain.

Basically means according to the map me and Jroa posted that the closer you get to the center (The North) the bigger you get in physical size relative to the ground you are standing upon (The South), the farthest reaches of Earth is at Antarctica where the south pole is. If you look at my map above 10 degrees is 5% of 200 degrees.

So for example if I was at 200 degrees I would be 200% bigger then at 100 degrees so the World would appear to be 12,500 miles around instead of 25,000 miles, except that it wouldn't be because if I traveled to the south pole the 200% (maximum) would become 10% (minimum) and the average would be 100% between both of them. So mathematically size all works out if you know that each degree you travel from the North pole your relative size will decrease in relation to your longitude or latitude. Antarctica is the farthest point you can get south in the world but you can never get smaller then 10% without going to the other side. Antarctica is about 10% the size of the Earth in width which say's this is correct. North America would be 172 longitude by 154 degrees latitude which means you would add 74 degrees at an average of 163 degrees which would equal a 163% size boost so 74 degrees would be about 4,625 miles wide which would be pretty correct if you were measuring diagonally. Width should be 154% or about 94.5% of 2/3rds the diagonal which would be about 2884 miles. going from Coast to coast in diagonal direction this is also correct. Finally height should be about 28 degrees or about 1945 miles straight x 186% or about 3617 total miles. However I'm not sure if I'm completely accurate but I'm pretty close. Mapping this to a perfect sphere works very well which is why I think we are in a perfect sphere that is inside of a cube.

You're arguments get more wacko by the day.. do you pay someone to come u with them or is this your own work?

I commend your creativity!

It's usually my own unless I am specifically giving credit to other people. As for the distance I described I only described how to read the map I posted, I'm not speaking about changing size distance in real life in relation to the Earth even though I think it might be a possibility but I'm still faced with the fact that it does map to a "perfect" inner spheroid without any sort of apparent curve variation only being optical aside from slight land elevation shifts.

Great although what you did was speak about changing size, and it was sort of implied that it was in real life, so maybe have a look at that - I can't stress this enough, words have meanings which are commonly accepted and so facilitate the transmission of thought, using them to mean other, secret, things is an exercise in futility. Also, in broader terms, no-one knows what you're on about

Changing size mechanics are not very well studied by me as of yet. Especially on Earth in fact I'm still studying the effects it's having on the Moon and Mars and it's very, very confusing. So trust me in the fact that I don't know what to make of it. I think the global Earth model is fairly accurate (the google Earth model) but I don't think they show a spheroid they show a perfect sphere and map Earth to that, if Earth is a perfect sphere that means we are inside of it and the land tilts the opposite way of what people commonly think as the Earth is concave, not convex.

So you are saying that your size changes now?

You're studying the effect of what exactly on the Moon and Mars?

Are you aware that none of what you've written there makes sense? It LITERALLY doesn't make sense - the most compelling arguments MAKE SENSE. Even if what you were saying was in any way accurate, which it isn't, then how do you expect to convey your message if you can't write in a way that makes sense? Every other accepted scientific discovery is couched in language which is a) meaningful and b) accurate - why can't you manage that?

A spheroid is not a thing, it's an adjective. You don't think that maps show a spherical Earth? Why? They are clearly based on that exact premise. What you think doesn't matter, it's what is that's important.

You think the global Earth map is accurate but you don't think the Earth is round, even though the accurate map is predicated on the fact that the Earth is round?

IF Earth is a perfect sphere THAT MEANS we are inside of it? Why does the one thing MEAN the other? IF the Earth is a perfect sphere (not sure why being 'perfect' is relevant, obviously it won't be - you've seen Mountains right?) that MEANS it's a perfect sphere - logically that's all that COULD mean. 'Mean' means that it a logical conclusion of the characteristics of the subject of the sentence to which it is applied. It doesn't MEAN anything other than that.

The Earth is not Convex, it is roughly spherical. If it was concave it would all be sloping upward and rising above us - IT ISN'T DOING THAT IS IT? I'm looking out my window now and the Earth is not all above me, it's below me - my house is resting on it, I stand on it regularly.

That, my Pommy friend.. Was a good rant! 

Keep 'em coming..

Actually, I believe that Sculelos does in fact believe that the Earth is round, just not in the same way you do. 

Actually, I believe that Sculelos does in fact believe that the Earth is round, just not in the same way you do.

It's true, he believes the earth is round.. and if there were any concept that i thought even more crackpot that you flat earthers, is someone who believes in Sculelos's weird ideas.

I notice the word 'believes' is widely used in this forum..  Wouldnt it be nice if people here, namely FEers, required actual evidence to support their coocky ideas.. then they'd know and would have to 'believe'.

Actually, I believe that Sculelos does in fact believe that the Earth is round, just not in the same way you do.

Actually, it's pretty apparent what he 'believes' because he says quite explicitly that we're living inside a 'concave' Earth (again, meaningless, if it's a sphere it's not 'concave' is it, it's spherical'). If you can't even find certainty on this matter, inspite of the words on this page that clearly set out the position, then what hope do you have in terms of grasping anything else?

alfa156melb - Thanks man, feels goooooooddddd...

So, in your weird view of physics, the inside of a sphere is not concave?  You are making yourself out to be a nut, jtlondon83. 

So, in your weird view of physics, the inside of a sphere is not concave?  You are making yourself out to be a nut, jtlondon83.

Again, nothing to do with physics, to do with words - Concave is not generally applied to the internal plane of a sphere as it is implied in the word SPHERE. It is normally a non-enclosed planar depression that is called 'concave'.

"Internal plane of a sphere" is a new one on me.  I am unaware of this New Math that you speak of.  Perhaps you can elaborate for us?

"Internal plane of a sphere" is a new one on me.  I am unaware of this New Math that you speak of.  Perhaps you can elaborate for us?

A plane is a contiguous surface.

Sculelos thinks we live within a spherical Earth, so it must be hollow and hence have an internal plane.

What is this New Math that you have spoken of?

What is this New Math that you have spoken of?

Well, since you are content on redefining geometric terms, I assumed that you had some radical new math that we have never heard of.  Do me a favor and look up the definition of a plane. 

"Internal plane of a sphere" is a new one on me.  I am unaware of this New Math that you speak of.  Perhaps you can elaborate for us?

Oh.........dear..........

This site really, badly needs a face slap emoticon...

Quote from: jtlondon83 on February 23, 2014, 12:38:14 AM

What is this New Math that you have spoken of?

Well, since you are content on redefining geometric terms, I assumed that you had some radical new math that we have never heard of.  Do me a favor and look up the definition of a plane.

Quite right, it should be 'surface' not 'plane'. The point stands. It's funny when you get pedantic about scientific terms even though you don't believe in the science that has codified these terms..

As ever, I notice that you haven't answered any of the main questions re the non-existence of a Flat Earth map that is in anyway accurate. Just to reiterate, we'll all happily agree with you if you provide us with worthwhile proofs - We're just up for accuracy, no agenda here..

Oh.........dear..........

This site really, badly needs a face slap emoticon...

Please keep the low content posts to a minimum.  Thanks.

Quote from: alfa156melb on February 23, 2014, 12:41:09 AM

Oh.........dear..........

This site really, badly needs a face slap emoticon...

Please keep the low content posts to a minimum.  Thanks.

Please keep the low content posts to a minimum.  Thanks.

Quote from: jroa on February 23, 2014, 12:40:48 AM

Quote from: jtlondon83 on February 23, 2014, 12:38:14 AM

What is this New Math that you have spoken of?

Well, since you are content on redefining geometric terms, I assumed that you had some radical new math that we have never heard of.  Do me a favor and look up the definition of a plane.

Quite right, it should be 'surface' not 'plane'. The point stands. It's funny when you get pedantic about scientific terms even though you don't believe in the science that has codified these terms..

As ever, I notice that you haven't answered any of the main questions re the non-existence of a Flat Earth map that is in anyway accurate. Just to reiterate, we'll all happily agree with you if you provide us with worthwhile proofs - We're just up for accuracy, no agenda here..

No agenda here... And that's the crux of the matter.. no one here or anywhere else could give two shits what the earth is..

We aregue that its a sphere because, well we live on it, we can measure it and all the science we haave thats based on it being round, that we RELY on, works.

Of you have nothing at all to say otherwise...

But if you could prove otherwise.. great! Still makes no difference to us, except that we'd happily argue that its flat or whatever..

Like religious nuts, its just a faith to you..  You have a book written by your Massiah Rowbotham, you all worship him and get very offended when we take the piss about it.. You believeeeeeeeee... without a shred of evidence and some of you actually quite the bible to support your position.  It seems to me to be nothing more than a weird ass cult dressed up a theory.

Its all very amusing I must say...


Edit: Wow - that was a cavalcade of spelling errors!    Sorry!

Quote from: jtlondon83 on February 23, 2014, 12:49:56 AM

Quote from: jroa on February 23, 2014, 12:40:48 AM

Quote from: jtlondon83 on February 23, 2014, 12:38:14 AM

What is this New Math that you have spoken of?

Well, since you are content on redefining geometric terms, I assumed that you had some radical new math that we have never heard of.  Do me a favor and look up the definition of a plane.

Quite right, it should be 'surface' not 'plane'. The point stands. It's funny when you get pedantic about scientific terms even though you don't believe in the science that has codified these terms..

As ever, I notice that you haven't answered any of the main questions re the non-existence of a Flat Earth map that is in anyway accurate. Just to reiterate, we'll all happily agree with you if you provide us with worthwhile proofs - We're just up for accuracy, no agenda here..

No agenda here... And that's the crux of the matter.. no one here or anywhere else could give two shits what the earth is..

We aregue that its a sphere because, well we live on it, we can measure it and all the science we haave thats based on it being round, that we RELY on, works.

Of you have nothing at all to say otherwise...

But if you could prove otherwise.. great! Still makes no difference to us, except that we'd happily argue that its flat or whatever..

Like religious nuts, its just a faith to you..  You have a book written by your Massiah Rowbotham, you all worship him and get very offended when we take the piss about it.. You believeeeeeeeee... without a shred of evidence and some of you actually quite the bible to support your position.  It seems to me to be nothing more than a weird ass cult dressed up a theory.

Its all very amusing I must say...

This is why it must just be a joke - the conspiracy theory with no motive is a step to far for me, no-one really believes the Earth is flat

Quote from: alfa156melb on February 15, 2014, 03:48:23 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 15, 2014, 07:35:33 AM

This video shows to what extent a country new to the space charade goes through to prove they are a technologically strong country.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">China's Space Walk Was FAKE (part 1)

HA!  That's gold

Communism.. it never ceases to amaze me.

Putting together a bunch of video clips together doesn't necessarily prove something fake... I mean I could go on all day about how NASA faked the moon landings, except they didn't also air bubbles can often seen escaping from space suits in space so I'm not really sure what your problem with that is?

China fakes all of their space missions.  Now go look at their nuclear bomb tests.  Go watch those videos.  They are also BS.  Now here's the part where everyone has to use their brain.  How is it that the world powers are letting China get away with all of this nonsense?  Now go look at the U.S. first H-bomb test.  It is fake as fuck.  Now welcome to the real world.  You need to use your brain and start looking at evidence.

The fact, the absolute fact in this world, is that the Jesuit order controls everything, and we are being lied to every single day of our lives.  And you need to care, because they now want to destroy the United States, which they completely control, and they will do.  We will be disarmed.  You can continue to not care about anything and watch tv if you want, it really doesn't matter.  At least accept the fact that we are ignorant as fuck, and we are being manipulated like there is no tomorrow.

Now go look at the U.S. first H-bomb test.  It is fake as fuck. 

Can you please cite references to support this?  What alleged empirical evidence led you to this viewpoint?  Or is it nothing more than your personal opinion?

Quote from: johnreynaga on June 16, 2014, 04:14:46 PM

Now go look at the U.S. first H-bomb test.  It is fake as fuck. 

Can you please cite references to support this?  What alleged empirical evidence led you to this viewpoint?  Or is it nothing more than your personal opinion?

Take a look at all the footage. No ordinary person who views it all will come to any other conclusion as to it full on, in your face, fakery.