star coordinate system in fet?

so... is it so that there is no working fe model?

It's settled.

Quote from: neimoka on February 24, 2015, 08:57:10 AM

so... is it so that there is no working fe model?

It's settled.

There is no working fe model for ANYTHING!

there is no complete model yet. there is no complete round earther model yet, you still struggle with such a basic part of your fantasy as gravity, and you have the benefit of discarding reality and a multi-billion dollar budget behind it. why do you expect us to do fantastically well when everything we're taught are round earther lies?

most of your question is bs of the highest order. stars rotate around the central pole. if you curl the flat earth and contract the outer wall so that it meets at the south pole in your model, you will get the same basic movements. the aetheric whirlpool explains this. the only possible thing you could take issue with is how stars may become visible when they cross over what you call the south pole, or go near it. i suspect this is to do with the rush of pure aether closer to the edge of the world. it may carry light also.

ausgeoff, i have no intention of derailing this thread with why i believe the world is flat. if you want to ask, start another thread. this is not the time or place to explain the origins or proof of aether. you asked for the flat earth explanation, i have provide.d moving the goalposts is a bad habit. try not to do it again.

there is no complete model yet. there is no complete round earther model yet, you still struggle with such a basic part of your fantasy as gravity, and you have the benefit of discarding reality and a multi-billion dollar budget behind it. why do you expect us to do fantastically well when everything we're taught are round earther lies?

most of your question is bs of the highest order. stars rotate around the central pole. if you curl the flat earth and contract the outer wall so that it meets at the south pole in your model, you will get the same basic movements. the aetheric whirlpool explains this. the only possible thing you could take issue with is how stars may become visible when they cross over what you call the south pole, or go near it. i suspect this is to do with the rush of pure aether closer to the edge of the world. it may carry light also.

ausgeoff, i have no intention of derailing this thread with why i believe the world is flat. if you want to ask, start another thread. this is not the time or place to explain the origins or proof of aether. you asked for the flat earth explanation, i have provide.d moving the goalposts is a bad habit. try not to do it again.

We don't struggle with gravity at all. There is a clear and concise equation that can predict gravity's effect every time with 100% accuracy. If you mean we aren't sure what it is, then sure.

But we also don't know what magnetism is, does that make it fake?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2015, 09:59:16 AM

there is no complete model yet. there is no complete round earther model yet, you still struggle with such a basic part of your fantasy as gravity, and you have the benefit of discarding reality and a multi-billion dollar budget behind it. why do you expect us to do fantastically well when everything we're taught are round earther lies?

most of your question is bs of the highest order. stars rotate around the central pole. if you curl the flat earth and contract the outer wall so that it meets at the south pole in your model, you will get the same basic movements. the aetheric whirlpool explains this. the only possible thing you could take issue with is how stars may become visible when they cross over what you call the south pole, or go near it. i suspect this is to do with the rush of pure aether closer to the edge of the world. it may carry light also.

ausgeoff, i have no intention of derailing this thread with why i believe the world is flat. if you want to ask, start another thread. this is not the time or place to explain the origins or proof of aether. you asked for the flat earth explanation, i have provide.d moving the goalposts is a bad habit. try not to do it again.

We don't struggle with gravity at all. There is a clear and concise equation that can predict gravity's effect every time with 100% accuracy. If you mean we aren't sure what it is, then sure.

But we also don't know what magnetism is, does that make it fake?

Touché... Science doesn't know it all, but has evidence of what it knows.

there is no complete model yet. there is no complete round earther model yet, you still struggle with such a basic part of your fantasy as gravity, and you have the benefit of discarding reality and a multi-billion dollar budget behind it. why do you expect us to do fantastically well when everything we're taught are round earther lies?

most of your question is bs of the highest order. stars rotate around the central pole. if you curl the flat earth and contract the outer wall so that it meets at the south pole in your model, you will get the same basic movements. the aetheric whirlpool explains this. the only possible thing you could take issue with is how stars may become visible when they cross over what you call the south pole, or go near it. i suspect this is to do with the rush of pure aether closer to the edge of the world. it may carry light also.

ausgeoff, i have no intention of derailing this thread with why i believe the world is flat. if you want to ask, start another thread. this is not the time or place to explain the origins or proof of aether. you asked for the flat earth explanation, i have provide.d moving the goalposts is a bad habit. try not to do it again.

There's a huge difference between not being able to explain a phenomena, and that phenomena being a direct contradiction to your model. The fact that gravity exists does not contradict our model. Whether we can explain it or not is irrelevant. However, the fact that stars circle around the south celestial pole in reality is a direct contradiction to your model. Therefore, you need to provide evidence  to whatever bullshit you need to explain it. If you have none, then your model is wrong.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2015, 09:59:16 AM

there is no complete model yet. there is no complete round earther model yet, you still struggle with such a basic part of your fantasy as gravity, and you have the benefit of discarding reality and a multi-billion dollar budget behind it. why do you expect us to do fantastically well when everything we're taught are round earther lies?

most of your question is bs of the highest order. stars rotate around the central pole. if you curl the flat earth and contract the outer wall so that it meets at the south pole in your model, you will get the same basic movements. the aetheric whirlpool explains this. the only possible thing you could take issue with is how stars may become visible when they cross over what you call the south pole, or go near it. i suspect this is to do with the rush of pure aether closer to the edge of the world. it may carry light also.

ausgeoff, i have no intention of derailing this thread with why i believe the world is flat. if you want to ask, start another thread. this is not the time or place to explain the origins or proof of aether. you asked for the flat earth explanation, i have provide.d moving the goalposts is a bad habit. try not to do it again.

There's a huge difference between not being able to explain a phenomena, and that phenomena being a direct contradiction to your model. The fact that gravity exists does not contradict our model. Whether we can explain it or not is irrelevant. However, the fact that stars circle around the south celestial pole in reality is a direct contradiction to your model. Therefore, you need to provide evidence  to whatever bullshit you need to explain it. If you have none, then your model is wrong.

are you incapable of reading? it is not a direct contradiction in any fucking way. your round earth model is symmetric. when it is unpeeled, rotation around the two poles can perfectly be described as rotation around the one. Rotate something around the outer edge of a circle, you'll just get another circle inside it, exactly as you would if you rotated around a point on a sphere.
think before you speak. i have proposed an explanation for the few odd behaviors remaining. pretending i haven't shows you're either illiterate or unable to deny the truth.

i'm not even going to ask you to think for yourself. i'd be satisfied if you just used thought at all.

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 24, 2015, 10:21:10 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2015, 09:59:16 AM

there is no complete model yet. there is no complete round earther model yet, you still struggle with such a basic part of your fantasy as gravity, and you have the benefit of discarding reality and a multi-billion dollar budget behind it. why do you expect us to do fantastically well when everything we're taught are round earther lies?

most of your question is bs of the highest order. stars rotate around the central pole. if you curl the flat earth and contract the outer wall so that it meets at the south pole in your model, you will get the same basic movements. the aetheric whirlpool explains this. the only possible thing you could take issue with is how stars may become visible when they cross over what you call the south pole, or go near it. i suspect this is to do with the rush of pure aether closer to the edge of the world. it may carry light also.

ausgeoff, i have no intention of derailing this thread with why i believe the world is flat. if you want to ask, start another thread. this is not the time or place to explain the origins or proof of aether. you asked for the flat earth explanation, i have provide.d moving the goalposts is a bad habit. try not to do it again.

There's a huge difference between not being able to explain a phenomena, and that phenomena being a direct contradiction to your model. The fact that gravity exists does not contradict our model. Whether we can explain it or not is irrelevant. However, the fact that stars circle around the south celestial pole in reality is a direct contradiction to your model. Therefore, you need to provide evidence  to whatever bullshit you need to explain it. If you have none, then your model is wrong.

are you incapable of reading? it is not a direct contradiction in any fucking way. your round earth model is symmetric. when it is unpeeled, rotation around the two poles can perfectly be described as rotation around the one. Rotate something around the outer edge of a circle, you'll just get another circle inside it, exactly as you would if you rotated around a point on a sphere.
think before you speak. i have proposed an explanation for the few odd behaviors remaining. pretending i haven't shows you're either illiterate or unable to deny the truth.

i'm not even going to ask you to think for yourself. i'd be satisfied if you just used thought at all.

It's kinda cute watching an idiot call other people idiots simply because those other people are so much smarter than the idiot that what they say is like magic.

Your posts make me giggle JRowe, I especially like how you say you have said something and wont provide proof you said it and act indignant towards us.

It's also really adorable how you constantly tell us to learn to read when you demonstrate a 6th grade understanding of grammar and an equivalent level of reading comprehension.

Honestly, I could just eat you right up.

there is no complete model yet. there is no complete round earther model yet, you still struggle with such a basic part of your fantasy as gravity, and you have the benefit of discarding reality and a multi-billion dollar budget behind it. why do you expect us to do fantastically well when everything we're taught are round earther lies?

most of your question is bs of the highest order. stars rotate around the central pole. if you curl the flat earth and contract the outer wall so that it meets at the south pole in your model, you will get the same basic movements. the aetheric whirlpool explains this. the only possible thing you could take issue with is how stars may become visible when they cross over what you call the south pole, or go near it. i suspect this is to do with the rush of pure aether closer to the edge of the world. it may carry light also.

ausgeoff, i have no intention of derailing this thread with why i believe the world is flat. if you want to ask, start another thread. this is not the time or place to explain the origins or proof of aether. you asked for the flat earth explanation, i have provide.d moving the goalposts is a bad habit. try not to do it again.

Please, there are plenty of threads about gravity and other subjects. I started this one to discuss celestial mechanics.

Research equipment worth billions of dollars is not necessary for observing and explaining the geometry of basic celestial mechanics, as they are observed over the earth whatever shape it might be; ancient people managed to produce a working re model before they invented paper. I'm not asking you to explain quantum tunneling theory, just the basic geometry & mechanics that we can observe with a naked eye.

Re: the bolded part: if you simply substitute the spherical earth with a flat one, the geometries do not work out the same, not even close; that is why I started this thread in the first place. If you hadn't yet realized that the mechanics do not work out the same over earths of different shape, I can only urge you to go out and start observing; that's actually very helpful for gaining understanding of the basic motions. And if there's a mythical substance, aether or such that by some mechanism makes it work out anyway I have not seen any detailed explanations of that phenomenon that have substance beyond speculation, so perhaps you could share.

Thus, especially as you begin with "there is no working model", your response is of the highest order bs. And ofc if your only purpose in posting is to be an asshole I'm sure there are threads in cn and angry ranting where you're welcome to express yourself.

your round earth model is symmetric. when it is unpeeled, rotation around the two poles can perfectly be described as rotation around the one. Rotate something around the outer edge of a circle, you'll just get another circle inside it, exactly as you would if you rotated around a point on a sphere.

Please explain using a visualization how your model can account for two celestial poles, one in the north, where stars circle around, and one in the south, where stars circle around.

Presently, you aren't explaining what I'm asking you to.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2015, 10:32:10 AM

your round earth model is symmetric. when it is unpeeled, rotation around the two poles can perfectly be described as rotation around the one. Rotate something around the outer edge of a circle, you'll just get another circle inside it, exactly as you would if you rotated around a point on a sphere.

Please explain using a visualization how your model can account for two celestial poles, one in the north, where stars circle around, and one in the south, where stars circle around.

Presently, you aren't explaining what I'm asking you to.

He had a pretty good one here...

stars rotate around the central pole. if you curl the flat earth and contract the outer wall so that it meets at the south pole in your model, you will get the same basic movements.

If you carefully do this so the result is close to a sphere, and do the same with the stars, then stretch the star sphere to great distance, you will get the same movements we actually see to a very high degree of fidelity.

That's all it takes. It's really pretty elegant, isn't it? This has the added benefit that distances from point to point on the surface of the Earth also match what they're measured to be.

This just in - flat earther admits flat earth is curled into a sphere!

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 24, 2015, 10:58:49 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2015, 10:32:10 AM

your round earth model is symmetric. when it is unpeeled, rotation around the two poles can perfectly be described as rotation around the one. Rotate something around the outer edge of a circle, you'll just get another circle inside it, exactly as you would if you rotated around a point on a sphere.

Please explain using a visualization how your model can account for two celestial poles, one in the north, where stars circle around, and one in the south, where stars circle around.

Presently, you aren't explaining what I'm asking you to.

He had a pretty good one here...

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2015, 09:59:16 AM

stars rotate around the central pole. if you curl the flat earth and contract the outer wall so that it meets at the south pole in your model, you will get the same basic movements.

If you carefully do this so the result is close to a sphere, and do the same with the stars, then stretch the star sphere to great distance, you will get the same movements we actually see to a very high degree of fidelity.

That's all it takes. It's really pretty elegant, isn't it? This has the added benefit that distances from point to point on the surface of the Earth also match what they're measured to be.

I just realized what he was saying thanks to you. And I can't stop laughing now. He's got to be a troll.

no, your round earth is what happens when you take the measurements and facts of the flat earth, and curl it into a ball. the flat earth is the truth, your fiction is the impossible lie. you're acting as though the movements we see would only happen on a round earth when that is obviously not the case.
try thinking.

try thinking.

We'll try thinking when you try pressing the shift key.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2015, 01:18:38 PM

try thinking.

We'll try thinking when you try pressing the shift key.

TRY THINKING

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on February 24, 2015, 01:21:00 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2015, 01:18:38 PM

try thinking.

We'll try thinking when you try pressing the shift key.

TRY THINKING

Could have been capslock.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on February 24, 2015, 01:21:00 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2015, 01:18:38 PM

try thinking.

We'll try thinking when you try pressing the shift key.

TRY THINKING

Very good. Now try pressing it only at the start of sentences and when typing a proper noun.

no, your round earth is what happens when you take the measurements and facts of the flat earth, and curl it into a ball. the flat earth is the truth, your fiction is the impossible lie. you're acting as though the movements we see would only happen on a round earth when that is obviously not the case.
try thinking.

Measured distances only work on a round earth.

no, your round earth is what happens when you take the measurements and facts of the flat earth, and curl it into a ball. the flat earth is the truth, your fiction is the impossible lie. you're acting as though the movements we see would only happen on a round earth when that is obviously not the case.
try thinking.

Oh.

Ok, then explain to me how on a flat earth a flight from Santiago Chile to Sydney could take only 14 hours and 10 minutes in a Boeing 747-400's cruising speed of 567 mph.

I eagerly await.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2015, 01:18:38 PM

no, your round earth is what happens when you take the measurements and facts of the flat earth, and curl it into a ball. the flat earth is the truth, your fiction is the impossible lie. you're acting as though the movements we see would only happen on a round earth when that is obviously not the case.
try thinking.

Oh.

Ok, then explain to me how on a flat earth a flight from Santiago Chile to Sydney could take only 14 hours and 10 minutes in a Boeing 747-400's cruising speed of 567 mph.

I eagerly await.

jet streams. dishonest flying.
do you ever think?

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 24, 2015, 03:23:46 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2015, 01:18:38 PM

no, your round earth is what happens when you take the measurements and facts of the flat earth, and curl it into a ball. the flat earth is the truth, your fiction is the impossible lie. you're acting as though the movements we see would only happen on a round earth when that is obviously not the case.
try thinking.

Oh.

Ok, then explain to me how on a flat earth a flight from Santiago Chile to Sydney could take only 14 hours and 10 minutes in a Boeing 747-400's cruising speed of 567 mph.

I eagerly await.

jet streams. dishonest flying.
do you ever think?

Do you? Explain why the same flight in reverse takes virtually the same amount of time. Do the jet streams move in whatever direction they are needed to move in?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 26, 2015, 10:02:42 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 24, 2015, 03:23:46 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2015, 01:18:38 PM

no, your round earth is what happens when you take the measurements and facts of the flat earth, and curl it into a ball. the flat earth is the truth, your fiction is the impossible lie. you're acting as though the movements we see would only happen on a round earth when that is obviously not the case.
try thinking.

Oh.

Ok, then explain to me how on a flat earth a flight from Santiago Chile to Sydney could take only 14 hours and 10 minutes in a Boeing 747-400's cruising speed of 567 mph.

I eagerly await.

jet streams. dishonest flying.
do you ever think?

Do you? Explain why the same flight in reverse takes virtually the same amount of time. Do the jet streams move in whatever direction they are needed to move in?

there's more than one. is that really the best you have?

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 26, 2015, 10:06:37 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 26, 2015, 10:02:42 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 24, 2015, 03:23:46 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2015, 01:18:38 PM

no, your round earth is what happens when you take the measurements and facts of the flat earth, and curl it into a ball. the flat earth is the truth, your fiction is the impossible lie. you're acting as though the movements we see would only happen on a round earth when that is obviously not the case.
try thinking.

Oh.

Ok, then explain to me how on a flat earth a flight from Santiago Chile to Sydney could take only 14 hours and 10 minutes in a Boeing 747-400's cruising speed of 567 mph.

I eagerly await.

jet streams. dishonest flying.
do you ever think?

Do you? Explain why the same flight in reverse takes virtually the same amount of time. Do the jet streams move in whatever direction they are needed to move in?

there's more than one. is that really the best you have?

More than one, both on the flight path between Sydney and Santiago? Heading in completely opposite directions?

Is that the best you have? Because if so, maybe you should hit that juice box and take a nap and let the adults talk.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 26, 2015, 10:09:07 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 26, 2015, 10:06:37 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 26, 2015, 10:02:42 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 24, 2015, 03:23:46 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2015, 01:18:38 PM

no, your round earth is what happens when you take the measurements and facts of the flat earth, and curl it into a ball. the flat earth is the truth, your fiction is the impossible lie. you're acting as though the movements we see would only happen on a round earth when that is obviously not the case.
try thinking.

Oh.

Ok, then explain to me how on a flat earth a flight from Santiago Chile to Sydney could take only 14 hours and 10 minutes in a Boeing 747-400's cruising speed of 567 mph.

I eagerly await.

jet streams. dishonest flying.
do you ever think?

Do you? Explain why the same flight in reverse takes virtually the same amount of time. Do the jet streams move in whatever direction they are needed to move in?

there's more than one. is that really the best you have?

More than one, both on the flight path between Sydney and Santiago? Heading in completely opposite directions?

Is that the best you have? Because if so, maybe you should hit that juice box and take a nap and let the adults talk.

i have thought more and answered in a thread dedicated to this topic, but your answer shows your refusal to think. you haven't offered an explanation, just crossed your fingers and hoped i wouldn't notice.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 26, 2015, 10:13:01 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 26, 2015, 10:09:07 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 26, 2015, 10:06:37 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 26, 2015, 10:02:42 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 24, 2015, 03:23:46 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2015, 01:18:38 PM

no, your round earth is what happens when you take the measurements and facts of the flat earth, and curl it into a ball. the flat earth is the truth, your fiction is the impossible lie. you're acting as though the movements we see would only happen on a round earth when that is obviously not the case.
try thinking.

Oh.

Ok, then explain to me how on a flat earth a flight from Santiago Chile to Sydney could take only 14 hours and 10 minutes in a Boeing 747-400's cruising speed of 567 mph.

I eagerly await.

jet streams. dishonest flying.
do you ever think?

Do you? Explain why the same flight in reverse takes virtually the same amount of time. Do the jet streams move in whatever direction they are needed to move in?

there's more than one. is that really the best you have?

More than one, both on the flight path between Sydney and Santiago? Heading in completely opposite directions?

Is that the best you have? Because if so, maybe you should hit that juice box and take a nap and let the adults talk.

i have thought more and answered in a thread dedicated to this topic, but your answer shows your refusal to think. you haven't offered an explanation, just crossed your fingers and hoped i wouldn't notice.

Your more thought out reasoning is that the distances are wrong and the conspiracy has to grow to include airplane manufacturers, pilots, flight stewardesses, airlines, air traffic controllers and every passenger ever that brought a phone with them that has the ability to track how fast they are moving, let alone the fact that the distance can be traveled by boat, and using their speed/time you can come up to the exact same distance. Unless the boat companies are in on it too!!?

Anyways, bring your blanky too, wouldn't want you to have those bad dreams during your nap, you know you wet your bed when you do.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 26, 2015, 10:18:41 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 26, 2015, 10:13:01 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 26, 2015, 10:09:07 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 26, 2015, 10:06:37 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 26, 2015, 10:02:42 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 24, 2015, 03:23:46 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2015, 01:18:38 PM

no, your round earth is what happens when you take the measurements and facts of the flat earth, and curl it into a ball. the flat earth is the truth, your fiction is the impossible lie. you're acting as though the movements we see would only happen on a round earth when that is obviously not the case.
try thinking.

Oh.

Ok, then explain to me how on a flat earth a flight from Santiago Chile to Sydney could take only 14 hours and 10 minutes in a Boeing 747-400's cruising speed of 567 mph.

I eagerly await.

jet streams. dishonest flying.
do you ever think?

Do you? Explain why the same flight in reverse takes virtually the same amount of time. Do the jet streams move in whatever direction they are needed to move in?

there's more than one. is that really the best you have?

More than one, both on the flight path between Sydney and Santiago? Heading in completely opposite directions?

Is that the best you have? Because if so, maybe you should hit that juice box and take a nap and let the adults talk.

i have thought more and answered in a thread dedicated to this topic, but your answer shows your refusal to think. you haven't offered an explanation, just crossed your fingers and hoped i wouldn't notice.

Your more thought out reasoning is that the distances are wrong and the conspiracy has to grow to include airplane manufacturers, pilots, flight stewardesses, airlines, air traffic controllers and every passenger ever that brought a phone with them that has the ability to track how fast they are moving, let alone the fact that the distance can be traveled by boat, and using their speed/time you can come up to the exact same distance. Unless the boat companies are in on it too!!?

Anyways, bring your blanky too, wouldn't want you to have those bad dreams during your nap, you know you wet your bed when you do.

aww, do you hate dealing with the fact people want money?
think for yourself. plus you even expect phone companies, who profess to rely on made up satellites, to be honest. do you use your brain? it's a simple matter to add in some false programming to mislead.
why do you think they tell you to keep your phones off on planes anyway? if it was seriously dangerous, why would terrorists go through all that effort to sneak on bombs when they just need an iphone? are you capable of individual thought, or do you just stick to the bs spoon-fed to you?

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 26, 2015, 10:27:11 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 26, 2015, 10:18:41 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 26, 2015, 10:13:01 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 26, 2015, 10:09:07 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 26, 2015, 10:06:37 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 26, 2015, 10:02:42 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 24, 2015, 03:23:46 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2015, 01:18:38 PM

no, your round earth is what happens when you take the measurements and facts of the flat earth, and curl it into a ball. the flat earth is the truth, your fiction is the impossible lie. you're acting as though the movements we see would only happen on a round earth when that is obviously not the case.
try thinking.

Oh.

Ok, then explain to me how on a flat earth a flight from Santiago Chile to Sydney could take only 14 hours and 10 minutes in a Boeing 747-400's cruising speed of 567 mph.

I eagerly await.

jet streams. dishonest flying.
do you ever think?

Do you? Explain why the same flight in reverse takes virtually the same amount of time. Do the jet streams move in whatever direction they are needed to move in?

there's more than one. is that really the best you have?

More than one, both on the flight path between Sydney and Santiago? Heading in completely opposite directions?

Is that the best you have? Because if so, maybe you should hit that juice box and take a nap and let the adults talk.

i have thought more and answered in a thread dedicated to this topic, but your answer shows your refusal to think. you haven't offered an explanation, just crossed your fingers and hoped i wouldn't notice.

Your more thought out reasoning is that the distances are wrong and the conspiracy has to grow to include airplane manufacturers, pilots, flight stewardesses, airlines, air traffic controllers and every passenger ever that brought a phone with them that has the ability to track how fast they are moving, let alone the fact that the distance can be traveled by boat, and using their speed/time you can come up to the exact same distance. Unless the boat companies are in on it too!!?

Anyways, bring your blanky too, wouldn't want you to have those bad dreams during your nap, you know you wet your bed when you do.

aww, do you hate dealing with the fact people want money?
think for yourself. plus you even expect phone companies, who profess to rely on made up satellites, to be honest. do you use your brain? it's a simple matter to add in some false programming to mislead.
why do you think they tell you to keep your phones off on planes anyway? if it was seriously dangerous, why would terrorists go through all that effort to sneak on bombs when they just need an iphone? are you capable of individual thought, or do you just stick to the bs spoon-fed to you?

Not really, I want money too. What I don't understand is why you seem to think that millions of people can be in on this and not spill it. For money even.

I do use my brain, you are the only person here bereft of using a brain here.

Who cares if the phone company is lying, is your car speedometer lying? Because you can make sure your phones workings are legit by cross verifying with that couldn't you?

They don't tell you to keep your phones off anymore on some flights, and more are moving that way. And it was because they were afraid the phone would interfere with the electronics of the plane, pretty straight forward really. The reason terrorists don't do that is because it was just an over abundance of caution for something that didn't actually effect the plane, hence why more and more flights are just letting you use your phone whenever.

I wonder when someone is going to come up with an idea of combining aether and spaceflight. If aether explains how something planar is observed as spherical then it must work otherwise too! Astronauts have observed and filmed a flat earth but it's just appearing as spherical. Dont' cite me if you start to believe anything I'm saying.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 26, 2015, 10:31:36 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 26, 2015, 10:27:11 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 26, 2015, 10:18:41 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 26, 2015, 10:13:01 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 26, 2015, 10:09:07 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 26, 2015, 10:06:37 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 26, 2015, 10:02:42 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 24, 2015, 03:23:46 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2015, 01:18:38 PM

no, your round earth is what happens when you take the measurements and facts of the flat earth, and curl it into a ball. the flat earth is the truth, your fiction is the impossible lie. you're acting as though the movements we see would only happen on a round earth when that is obviously not the case.
try thinking.

Oh.

Ok, then explain to me how on a flat earth a flight from Santiago Chile to Sydney could take only 14 hours and 10 minutes in a Boeing 747-400's cruising speed of 567 mph.

I eagerly await.

jet streams. dishonest flying.
do you ever think?

Do you? Explain why the same flight in reverse takes virtually the same amount of time. Do the jet streams move in whatever direction they are needed to move in?

there's more than one. is that really the best you have?

More than one, both on the flight path between Sydney and Santiago? Heading in completely opposite directions?

Is that the best you have? Because if so, maybe you should hit that juice box and take a nap and let the adults talk.

i have thought more and answered in a thread dedicated to this topic, but your answer shows your refusal to think. you haven't offered an explanation, just crossed your fingers and hoped i wouldn't notice.

Your more thought out reasoning is that the distances are wrong and the conspiracy has to grow to include airplane manufacturers, pilots, flight stewardesses, airlines, air traffic controllers and every passenger ever that brought a phone with them that has the ability to track how fast they are moving, let alone the fact that the distance can be traveled by boat, and using their speed/time you can come up to the exact same distance. Unless the boat companies are in on it too!!?

Anyways, bring your blanky too, wouldn't want you to have those bad dreams during your nap, you know you wet your bed when you do.

aww, do you hate dealing with the fact people want money?
think for yourself. plus you even expect phone companies, who profess to rely on made up satellites, to be honest. do you use your brain? it's a simple matter to add in some false programming to mislead.
why do you think they tell you to keep your phones off on planes anyway? if it was seriously dangerous, why would terrorists go through all that effort to sneak on bombs when they just need an iphone? are you capable of individual thought, or do you just stick to the bs spoon-fed to you?

Not really, I want money too. What I don't understand is why you seem to think that millions of people can be in on this and not spill it. For money even.

I do use my brain, you are the only person here bereft of using a brain here.

Who cares if the phone company is lying, is your car speedometer lying? Because you can make sure your phones workings are legit by cross verifying with that couldn't you?

They don't tell you to keep your phones off anymore on some flights, and more are moving that way. And it was because they were afraid the phone would interfere with the electronics of the plane, pretty straight forward really. The reason terrorists don't do that is because it was just an over abundance of caution for something that didn't actually effect the plane, hence why more and more flights are just letting you use your phone whenever.

you just keep believing that bs. think it's impossible for people to be paid or threatened into secrecy. there have been whistleblowers, just because you ignore than doesn't erase them from existence.
if you think your car speedometer measures the distance of a flight, there is no point in teaching you. land has similar measurements to what we are told, sea does not. land can be verified, sea relies on unreliable measurements, made more unreliable by round earth fantasy and waves. air relies entirely on the word of known liars and machines, and is likely affected by the aether anyway. something moving so fast, faster as you move away from the center of the plane, is going to alter flight speed.