What lies outside the ice wall?

Quote from: gpssjim on January 24, 2015, 02:49:16 PM

Dr. V (@Vauxhall), you have said that the Zaratan are in the area of Japan, are there other places they can be found?  How about inland, according to your description of the Zaratan, it seems to me they would very much like to hang out in Butahn.  How about Berkeley?

Also, how did the Zaratan react to the atomic bomb blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  Did the energy pulse and or psychic trauma of the Japanese people have an effect on them?

You seem very interested in the great turtles, which I think is great.

The Zaratan originates from the Arctic, so naturally I would think there are several Zaratans deep in Arctic waters. Thankfully, they can withstand extreme cold.


Of course, any sort of nuclear blast is going to disturb the highly sensitive Zaratans. I'm sure a few of them fled back to the Arctic after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although, I'm sure a few lingered in an attempt to calm the Japanese people affected by the great disaster. The Zaratan is a very gentle and loving species. It does not tolerate hateful thoughts or actions... this is why they have never been spotted near the United States. It is unknown why the Zaratan love the Japanese people so, but I'm sure many of them felt deeply saddened by the events of WW2 and wanted very much so to spread thoughts of joy and peace in a time of great sorrow.

If the zaratan does not tolerate hateful thoughts and actions, and therefore doesn't venture near the US, why the Japanese?
It's not as if they have never been hateful towards anyone. Read: Invasion of Manchuria, Rape of Nanjing, Bataan etc.
On a side note, how did you become privy to this sort of in-depth information on Zaratanus Incognitus?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 26, 2015, 02:21:23 AM

Really?  How do you know his state of mind at that moment?

I read his post... 

And that somehow tells the exact state of his mind at that incident?  Wow.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 26, 2015, 02:21:23 AM

Anyway, the research shows that placebos still work even when you know it is a placebo:

Other research shows the opposite.

I'm genuinely interested in this area - please link the studies.

Maybe you shouldn't pick and choose experiments that skew in your favor when there are others that do not.

The study provides strong evidence for my argument - if you want to counter it with your own evidence, then please do so.

This is basically what I have it like.

Meth is a terrible drug.

I've no idea what the top diagram means, so let's stick to the bottom.  How can the sun be setting in one location and rising in another?  How can it have been dark for 4 hours in one location and the sun be directly overhead in another?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 26, 2015, 12:56:32 PM

This is basically what I have it like.

Meth is a terrible drug.

I've no idea what the top diagram means, so let's stick to the bottom.  How can the sun be setting in one location and rising in another?  How can it have been dark for 4 hours in one location and the sun be directly overhead in another?

Because the sun would appear overhead in one location and appear to be setting in another distant location , that's how.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 26, 2015, 07:44:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 26, 2015, 12:56:32 PM

This is basically what I have it like.

Your model has a few big issues, here are some (but certainly not all) of them:

-The Sun and Moon are the same size in the sky, the Moon should appear smaller then the Sun in your model.
-It does not explain time zones, and I do a lot of international communication so don't try to tell me that time zones don't exist.
-There is no way that a light emitted from the center point on your model will bounce off the ice dome twice before hitting the ground because math, it would have to be emitted from somewhere other then the center.

You don't have a clue what the issue are. You are only saying it because you subscribe to your own indoctrinated model and have no mind to even think past that, so it's hardly likely you're going to understand what's going on.

Why don't you explain why the problems that I found with your model are not actually problems?  That makes no sense.  You don't even have any proof for your theory and the link in my forum signature is proof of the "indoctorinated model" in my forum signature.

Wait, Mike, was Scepti banned before you started here? If so I am sorry for the amount of stupid you are about to encounter.

Wait, Mike, was Scepti banned before you started here? If so I am sorry for the amount of stupid you are about to encounter.

No, Scepti was here when I started here.  I know what I am getting myself into.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on January 27, 2015, 08:09:02 AM

Wait, Mike, was Scepti banned before you started here? If so I am sorry for the amount of stupid you are about to encounter.

No, Scepti was here when I started here.  I know what I am getting myself into.

You're well aware of me in your starman name. Why did you not just carry that on?

Anyway it doesn't matter.
So what can't you understand about what I've just said earlier?

Quote from: gpssjim on January 24, 2015, 02:49:16 PM

Dr. V (@Vauxhall), you have said that the Zaratan are in the area of Japan, are there other places they can be found?  How about inland, according to your description of the Zaratan, it seems to me they would very much like to hang out in Butahn.  How about Berkeley?

Also, how did the Zaratan react to the atomic bomb blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  Did the energy pulse and or psychic trauma of the Japanese people have an effect on them?

You seem very interested in the great turtles, which I think is great.

The Zaratan originates from the Arctic, so naturally I would think there are several Zaratans deep in Arctic waters. Thankfully, they can withstand extreme cold.


Of course, any sort of nuclear blast is going to disturb the highly sensitive Zaratans. I'm sure a few of them fled back to the Arctic after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although, I'm sure a few lingered in an attempt to calm the Japanese people affected by the great disaster. The Zaratan is a very gentle and loving species. It does not tolerate hateful thoughts or actions... this is why they have never been spotted near the United States. It is unknown why the Zaratan love the Japanese people so, but I'm sure many of them felt deeply saddened by the events of WW2 and wanted very much so to spread thoughts of joy and peace in a time of great sorrow.

This is very troubling information, Vauxhall.  Have you heard of the the Tsar Bomb?  It's the largest nuclear bomb ever tested and it was detonated well above the Arctic Circle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

Quote from: Vauxhall on January 26, 2015, 09:57:29 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 26, 2015, 02:21:23 AM

Really?  How do you know his state of mind at that moment?

I read his post... 

And that somehow tells the exact state of his mind at that incident?  Wow.

Err, he says in the post that he didn't believe it would work. Maybe read it again?

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 27, 2015, 08:11:27 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on January 27, 2015, 08:09:02 AM

Wait, Mike, was Scepti banned before you started here? If so I am sorry for the amount of stupid you are about to encounter.

No, Scepti was here when I started here.  I know what I am getting myself into.

You're well aware of me in your starman name. Why did you not just carry that on?

Anyway it doesn't matter.
So what can't you understand about what I've just said earlier?

I might understand your model better if it made mathematical sense, but your explanation for the Sun and the Moon defies the inverse square law, relies on reflections working in an impossible way, fails to explain solar and lunar eclipses, fails to explain time zones, fails to explain seasons, fails to explain sunsets, fails to explain all other objects in the sky like stars and planets, and fails to explain many more things about which I could go on about for a long time.  On top of all this you have no mathematical or experimental proof for your model (at least none that you are willing to share) and you are also the only person on the (round) Earth that believes in your model of the universe.

Now do you understand why I think your model is absurd?  Don't try to tell me that math is a government fabrication again

I'm not trying to shit on Scepti's work, but I believe that my model is simpler (passes Occam's Razor test) and explains more about the nature of the flat Earth.

I'm not trying to shit on Scepti's work, but I believe that my model is simpler (passes Occam's Razor test) and explains more about the nature of the flat Earth.

But your model doesn't explain sunsets, why the Sun and Moon are not ellipses when they are near the horizon, other things in the sky, seasons, the motion of objects in the sky, lunar eclipses, tides, ships disapearing from the bottom as they get further away, and many more things about which I could go on for a while.  Heliocentricity explains all of this stuff and your model doesn't, I wonder why that is.

But your model doesn't explain sunsets, why the Sun and Moon are not ellipses when they are near the horizon, other things in the sky, seasons, the motion of objects in the sky, lunar eclipses, tides, ships disapearing from the bottom as they get further away, and many more things about which I could go on for a while.  Heliocentricity explains all of this stuff and your model doesn't, I wonder why that is.

The normal FE explanations for sunsets, eclipses, seasons, etc all apply to my model. This model is partially based on those answers. I don't see why they wouldn't apply. I think most of those examples you've given have been address numerous times, and each time you've conceded that our explanations are at least possible.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 27, 2015, 03:41:09 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 26, 2015, 12:56:32 PM

This is basically what I have it like.

Meth is a terrible drug.

I've no idea what the top diagram means, so let's stick to the bottom.  How can the sun be setting in one location and rising in another?  How can it have been dark for 4 hours in one location and the sun be directly overhead in another?

Because the sun would appear overhead in one location and appear to be setting in another distant location , that's how.

You've just repeated my question back to me as a statement - that's not answering it.

Your diagram just shows one sun in the sky, at one location travelling in one direction.  How, according to your diagram, can the sun be setting in England and rising in Australia at the same time?  It seems sunsets would be impossible on your world,  but having it dark in one country and midday sun in another is definitely out of the question.

How do you account for this?

I'm not trying to shit on Scepti's work, but I believe that my model is simpler (passes Occam's Razor test) and explains more about the nature of the flat Earth.
[image]

I think my main question would be just what aether is: somehow solid enough to keep in water/air, but enough drift to cause a whirlpool.
Also, if I'm reading that correctly, are the Sun and moon flat too?

This is basically what I have it like.

The above diagrams are really nothing more than grade-school kid's sketches, and don't represent the earth's solar system in any way, shape or form.  And they definitely fail at proving any alternative theory about our solar system LOL.

This is the spherical earth and the solar system represented far more accurately...




Until the flat earthers can provide a similarly detailed model of their alternative solar system for consideration, we must accept that the round earth model is absolutely correct, as it satisfies all the tenets of 21st-century astrophysics, and has remained the scientific status quo for the past century.

If any flat earther thinks they can mount a convincing case proving this round earth model doubtful, or totally inaccurate, I'd be interested in seeing it.  With decent diagrams of course.

Quote from: Vauxhall on January 27, 2015, 09:51:02 AM

I'm not trying to shit on Scepti's work, but I believe that my model is simpler (passes Occam's Razor test) and explains more about the nature of the flat Earth.
[image]

I think my main question would be just what aether is: somehow solid enough to keep in water/air, but enough drift to cause a whirlpool.

The aether is a substance that was created at the beginning of time, presumably before the big bang (or other event that jump-started the universe, evidence pending). It is of a state of matter unreachable by man. It, like gas, is very fluid, and is so spread out that not even London Dispersal Forces affect it. It retains energy indefinitely. It is also what warms the Earth and causes the lava under the crust. It is attracted to the vacuum that it itself creates, which creates a whirlpool above the Earth as the aether rushes upward. Even though it is like a gas, it is not. It is outside of the normal phases of matter. It's similar to dark matter in that there is very little evidence for it but it has to exist because it explains many fundamental mysteries. Einstein also supported aether.

Quote from: BiJane on January 27, 2015, 10:37:41 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on January 27, 2015, 09:51:02 AM

I'm not trying to shit on Scepti's work, but I believe that my model is simpler (passes Occam's Razor test) and explains more about the nature of the flat Earth.
[image]

I think my main question would be just what aether is: somehow solid enough to keep in water/air, but enough drift to cause a whirlpool.

The aether is a substance that was created at the beginning of time, presumably before the big bang (or other event that jump-started the universe, evidence pending). It is of a state of matter unreachable by man. It, like gas, is very fluid, and is so spread out that not even London Dispersal Forces affect it. It retains energy indefinitely. It is also what warms the Earth and causes the lava under the crust. It is attracted to the vacuum that it itself creates, which creates a whirlpool above the Earth as the aether rushes upward. Even though it is like a gas, it is not. It is outside of the normal phases of matter. It's similar to dark matter in that there is very little evidence for it but it has to exist because it explains many fundamental mysteries. Einstein also supported aether.

Citations needed.

I'm not trying to shit on Scepti's work, but I believe that my model is simpler (passes Occam's Razor test) and explains more about the nature of the flat Earth.

You may not be trying to shit on anything, but you have undoubtedly succeeded with this diagram.
It cannot be correct, because it cannot be made compatible with stellar rotation around two points with constant angular distance between stars.

because it cannot be made compatible with stellar rotation around two points with constant angular distance between stars.

It can and it does.

Quote from: BiJane on January 27, 2015, 10:37:41 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on January 27, 2015, 09:51:02 AM

I'm not trying to shit on Scepti's work, but I believe that my model is simpler (passes Occam's Razor test) and explains more about the nature of the flat Earth.
[image]

I think my main question would be just what aether is: somehow solid enough to keep in water/air, but enough drift to cause a whirlpool.

The aether is a substance that was created at the beginning of time, presumably before the big bang (or other event that jump-started the universe, evidence pending). It is of a state of matter unreachable by man. It, like gas, is very fluid, and is so spread out that not even London Dispersal Forces affect it. It retains energy indefinitely. It is also what warms the Earth and causes the lava under the crust. It is attracted to the vacuum that it itself creates, which creates a whirlpool above the Earth as the aether rushes upward. Even though it is like a gas, it is not. It is outside of the normal phases of matter. It's similar to dark matter in that there is very little evidence for it but it has to exist because it explains many fundamental mysteries. Einstein also supported aether.

On Einstein and the aether, he rejected the typical definition, using it solely to reconcile with his mentor Lorentz's love of the term. He explicitly denounced the model where it had substance, which you seem to be proposing. That's what I get from about a minute of research.

Your image seems to be using it as a stand-in for the ice wall. Would that be correct, or just an issue with the illustration? If it is, how can it hold in matter (water, air etc) while still being gas-like enough to let the Sun and moon move through it? The best explanation I can see would be to say it moves at a rate radically faster than the Earth, but then the Earth would be buffeted by the force it gives off.

The aether rushes upward, spilling from the bottom of the Earth, and creates a wall around the Earth that keeps everything in. The Sun and Moon are trapped in the aetheric whirlpool, which causes their rotation.

Also, do you really know what Einstein was thinking? If so, then perhaps you could expand on his theories and finally create a unified theory of everything. I'll be waiting.

The aether is a substance that was created at the beginning of time,You know this how? presumably before the big bang Why presumably? Why not after?(or other event that jump-started the universe, evidence pending). It is of a state of matter unreachable by man.Where does this info come from? It, like gas, is very fluid,Are there experiments demonstrating this, or is it just an assumption? and is so spread out that not even London Dispersal Forces affect it.Same as previous question It retains energy indefinitely What sort of energy?. It is also what warms the Earth Isn't that the sun? and doesn't that contradict your claim it retains energy indefinitely? and causes the lava under the crustBy what mechanism?. It is attracted to the vacuum that it itself creates,You know this how? which creates a whirlpool above the Earth What determines the direction of this whirlpool and where is the evidence for it?as the aether rushes upward. Even though it is like a gas, it is not. It is outside of the normal phases of matter. It's similar to dark matter in that there is very little evidence for it Incorrect. There is some evidence for dark matter, none for aether but it has to exist because it explains many fundamental mysteries Non-logic. By the same token, God has to exist because it explains many fundamental mysteries. Einstein also supported aether Of a totally different kind, and when no evidence of it could be found, he accepted that.

Some things needing attention. I highlighted them in red.

Quote from: Vauxhall on January 27, 2015, 10:57:13 AM

The aether is a substance that was created at the beginning of time,You know this how? presumably before the big bang Why presumably? Why not after?(or other event that jump-started the universe, evidence pending). It is of a state of matter unreachable by man.Where does this info come from? It, like gas, is very fluid,Are there experiments demonstrating this, or is it just an assumption? and is so spread out that not even London Dispersal Forces affect it.Same as previous question It retains energy indefinitely What sort of energy?. It is also what warms the Earth Isn't that the sun? and doesn't that contradict your claim it retains energy indefinitely? and causes the lava under the crustBy what mechanism?. It is attracted to the vacuum that it itself creates,You know this how? which creates a whirlpool above the Earth What determines the direction of this whirlpool and where is the evidence for it?as the aether rushes upward. Even though it is like a gas, it is not. It is outside of the normal phases of matter. It's similar to dark matter in that there is very little evidence for it Incorrect. There is some evidence for dark matter, none for aether but it has to exist because it explains many fundamental mysteries Non-logic. By the same token, God has to exist because it explains many fundamental mysteries. Einstein also supported aether Of a totally different kind, and when no evidence of it could be found, he accepted that.

Some things needing attention. I highlighted them in red.

Could you please rephrase your questions?

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 27, 2015, 11:09:59 AM

because it cannot be made compatible with stellar rotation around two points with constant angular distance between stars.

It can and it does.

I say it can't and it doesn't. If you want to be considered correct, you'll have to explain how. [Dons 3D glasses and gets popcorn. This should be good].

Quote from: Vauxhall on January 27, 2015, 11:12:01 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 27, 2015, 11:09:59 AM

because it cannot be made compatible with stellar rotation around two points with constant angular distance between stars.

It can and it does.

I say it can't and it doesn't. If you want to be considered correct, you'll have to explain how. [Dons 3D glasses and gets popcorn. This should be good].

I'm not following you. Could you please rephrase your questions in a more presentable format?

Thanks.

Aether = magic... or aether = God?

Which is it gonna be Vauxhall?

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 27, 2015, 11:25:00 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on January 27, 2015, 11:12:01 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 27, 2015, 11:09:59 AM

because it cannot be made compatible with stellar rotation around two points with constant angular distance between stars.

It can and it does.

I say it can't and it doesn't. If you want to be considered correct, you'll have to explain how. [Dons 3D glasses and gets popcorn. This should be good].

I'm not following you. Could you please rephrase your questions in a more presentable format?

Thanks.

This is embarrassing to watch... 

This is embarrassing to watch... 

So you refuse to make a coherent argument? Noted. Please don't waste my time next time.