Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?

Weren't you trying to prove the point to me in the first place? Couldn't you at least give me the name of the person who wrote it? Or at least the gist of their argument?

Okay, let me ask you a question. Which part of "sun moon" is so hard to type into the search field? And haven't I already made my point?

When have I acted like a jackass, Xargo?

You're doing it right now. If I'm not mistaken, you're the indirect author of the quote in my sig. Now, I doubt you're really a jackass, so stop acting like one.

And actually, I do in fact have a telescope, it's an Orion SkyQuest XT10 .

How on earth do you expect me to believe you, as you claim have the exact right tool to understand the fallacy of the FE theory, and still argue for the FE side? It means you're either a "devil's advocate" (I hate this expression) or a one hundred percent retard.

Oh, and what do you expect to prove with a picture (and a lie)?

Okay, let me ask you a question. Which part of "sun moon" is so hard to type into the search field? And haven't I already made my point?

Ok, let me get this straight, you say there's proof that what I said was wrong, yet you don't know who wrote it, when they wrote it, where they wrote it, or what they wrote. What makes you so sure they wrote it?

You're doing it right now. If I'm not mistaken, you're the indirect author of the quote in my sig. Now, I doubt you're really a jackass, so stop acting like one.

You're the only one who has ever said that, Xargo, as you were the one who made it up to put in your signature in the first place.

How on earth do you expect me to believe you, as you claim have the exact right tool to understand the fallacy of the FE theory, and still argue for the FE side? It means you're either a "devil's advocate" (I hate this expression) or a one hundred percent retard.

How would a telescope show the "fallacy" of the FE theory?

Oh, and what do you expect to prove with a picture (and a lie)?

I simply thought that, as the telescope's name was somewhat specific, it would be obvious that I had a certain scope in mind when I did the image search. Apparently not.

Ok, let me get this straight, you say there's proof that what I said was wrong, yet you don't know who wrote it, when they wrote it, where they wrote it, or what they wrote. What makes you so sure they wrote it?

Look, Geo, I've read it, and I'm so sorry for not saving every thread I've ever read in my sig. I don't intend to go through with searching the whole of this foum just to strengthen my point. You better believe it or disprove it (deja vu?). Oh, and for that matter, if you're lucky you might find some of the points on moon+sun in the thread that's already in my sig.[/quote]

You're the only one who has ever said that, Xargo, as you were the one who made it up to put in your signature in the first place.

I combined rephrased two of your posts in a thread a while ago. However - does it matter? You're still a jackass. And for that matter, does it matter whether I think you're a jackass or not? Drop it.

How would a telescope show the "fallacy" of the FE theory?

Um, the shape of other planets? Meteors? Satellites? Moon being round? Gravity? The sun being the center of the milky way? Hmm... I bet there are other things too, but those should do to keep you satisfied for the moment.

I simply thought that, as the telescope's name was somewhat specific, it would be obvious that I had a certain scope in mind when I did the image search. Apparently not.

Alright.

Tell me, Xargo, why did you mention a thread that you have no memory of having existed, to prove a point to me that you aren't actually trying to prove to me, and then tell me I have to go look it up for myself? What exactly are you trying to say here?

Um, the shape of other planets? Meteors? Satellites? Moon being round? Gravity? The sun being the center of the milky way? Hmm... I bet there are other things too, but those should do to keep you satisfied for the moment.

How are any of these things connected with Earth's shape?

Tell me, Xargo, why did you mention a thread that you have no memory of having existed

Where do you get these crazy ideas? I obviously have a memory of it. -_-

, to prove a point to me that you aren't actually trying to prove to me, and then tell me I have to go look it up for myself? What exactly are you trying to say here?

Well, Geo, that there is evidence of the moon and sun not being flat and that the evidence has been presented on this forum - im just not gonna waste hours of searching it through to post it here. If you want we can start another thread on the subject, you just go ahead.

How are any of these things connected with Earth's shape?

Well, most FE'ers claims that:

* the moon and sun is flat..
* that the sun is not the center of our solar system..
* other planets are flat..
* meteors doesn't exist..
* satellites does not exist..
* gravity doesn't exist (mass attraction, that is)

When these things are disproved of, does this not mean that there is something crazy about this theory? You still don't doubt it for one second? And, if it doesn't beats down the whole of the theory, it at least give you a taste of the credibility of the arguments presented to support it.

This with nothing but a telescope.

Well, most FE'ers claims that:


* that the sun is not the center of the milky way..

And RE'ers think it is?!? :shock:

I always get those wrong. Edited.

Well, Geo, that there is evidence of the moon and sun not being flat and that the evidence has been presented on this forum - im just not gonna waste hours of searching it through to post it here. If you want we can start another thread on the subject, you just go ahead.

I'm not talking about the sun and moon being round, Xargo, I am referring to this:

"The solar system does not revolve around the sun, as the sun revolves above Earth."


100% wrong.

Well, most FE'ers claims that:

* the moon and sun is flat..
* that the sun is not the center of our solar system..
* other planets are flat..
* meteors doesn't exist..
* satellites does not exist..
* gravity doesn't exist (mass attraction, that is)

Very few FE's claim that at all, actually.

I'm not talking about the sun and moon being round, Xargo, I am referring to this:

Quote

"The solar system does not revolve around the sun, as the sun revolves above Earth."
100% wrong.

If the sun is flat or rotates over the Earth, the solar system cannot rotate around the sun - which it does.

Quote

Well, most FE'ers claims that:

* the moon and sun is flat..
* that the sun is not the center of our solar system..
* other planets are flat..
* meteors doesn't exist..
* satellites does not exist..
* gravity doesn't exist (mass attraction, that is)

Very few FE's claim that at all, actually.

What, are you stupid or something? How long have you been here? lol.

* the moon and sun is flat.. - FAQ + Rowbothams book
* that the sun is not the center of our solar system.. - Logically if it orbits the earth ...
* other planets are flat.. It's been discussed numerous times. I think Unimportant was one of the other-flat-plants FE'ers.
* meteors doesn't exist.. I think Dogplatter claimed/claims this.
* satellites does not exist.. - "just lights in the sky" (hot topic)
* gravity doesn't exist (mass attraction, that is) - Hot topic. Gravity=Acceleration, right?

bump.

If the sun is flat or rotates over the Earth, the solar system cannot rotate around the sun - which it does.

I don't see why not. But it isn't relevant anyway, as I don't see any reason why the sun can't be spherical.

What, are you stupid or something? How long have you been here? lol.

* the moon and sun is flat.. - FAQ + Rowbothams book
* other planets are flat.. It's been discussed numerous times. I think Unimportant was one of the other-flat-plants FE'ers.
* meteors doesn't exist.. I think Dogplatter claimed/claims this.
* satellites does not exist.. - "just lights in the sky" (hot topic)
* gravity doesn't exist (mass attraction, that is) - Hot topic. Gravity=Acceleration, right?

*See above for the moon/sun discussion. As I said, I see no reason why the sun and moon must be flat.
*Dogplatter was one the FE's not included in 'most FE's don't say that, actually" statement.
*No one is saying that the lights we see in the sky don't exist, we're simply saying that they're not actually "satellites".
*Again, no one is saying that gravity doesn't exist, just that it doesn't exist on Earth.

* that the sun is not the center of our solar system.. - Logically if it orbits the earth ...

I didn't mean to leave this one in there.

I don't see why not. But it isn't relevant anyway, as I don't see any reason why the sun can't be spherical.

Great!

*See above for the moon/sun discussion. As I said, I see no reason why the sun and moon must be flat.

Already made my point on this one in the other thread.

*Dogplatter was one the FE's not included in 'most FE's don't say that, actually" statement.

He was an example, yup.

*No one is saying that the lights we see in the sky don't exist, we're simply saying that they're not actually "satellites".

They're satellites alright, as you can observe with a telescope.

*Again, no one is saying that gravity doesn't exist, just that it doesn't exist on Earth.

So now it gravity doesn't exist Earth. I thought it was as it keeps us from floating into space. Must have been wrong; Actually, I'm floating away from my computer right now!

Quote

* that the sun is not the center of our solar system.. - Logically if it orbits the earth ...

I didn't mean to leave this one in there.

Right?..

Geez Xargo, you go away for a little while and come back a little more bitter and much more impassioned about RE. Did you go to a plane..arium?

Geez Xargo, you go away for a little while and come back a little more bitter and much more impassioned about RE. Did you go to a plane..arium?

Hello to you too.

edit: Whoever you are lol.

What was the point in bumping this thread, Xargo? You apparently already agreed with me on half the points I made, and the others you simply misunderstood.

They're satellites alright, as you can observe with a telescope.

Actually, you can't. All you can see through a telescope is a small, bright light moving quickly across your field of view.

So now it gravity doesn't exist Earth. I thought it was as it keeps us from floating into space. Must have been wrong; Actually, I'm floating away from my computer right now!

Haven't we had this discussion before? The Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2. This produces the effects we feel as "gravity".

Right?..

So I did not respond to your reply to it.

Quote from: "Xargo"

They're satellites alright, as you can observe with a telescope.

Actually, you can't. All you can see through a telescope is a small, bright light moving quickly across your field of view.

What telescope did you said you have again? A pair of glasses? :?

Quote

So now it gravity doesn't exist Earth. I thought it was as it keeps us from floating into space. Must have been wrong; Actually, I'm floating away from my computer right now!

Haven't we had this discussion before? The Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2. This produces the effects we feel as "gravity".

Exactly my point, ffs.

I said I have a 10" Newtonian reflector. And I have viewed "satellites" on multiple occasions.

Exactly my point, ffs.

Why did you bring it up again then?

I said I have a 10" Newtonian reflector. And I have viewed "satellites" on multiple occasions.

They're satellites. I don't even think you have a telescope. No, really, since you're content on having wrong and not telling the truth (either you're doing it on purpose or you're an idiot), we have nothing more to discuss, jackass.

The possibility certainly exists that they are, in fact, satellites. However, my point is that this would be impossible to determine using a telescope, as you suggested.

They're satellites. I don't even think you have a telescope. No, really, since you're content on having wrong and not telling the truth (either you're doing it on purpose or you're an idiot), we have nothing more to discuss, jackass.

How do you know he is wrong? The only "evidence" you have against his arguments is a topic that you mysteriously lost. :lol:

Whenever you are losing a debate, just call the opposing side a Jackass and run away. :lol:

Quote from: "Xargo"

They're satellites. I don't even think you have a telescope. No, really, since you're content on having wrong and not telling the truth (either you're doing it on purpose or you're an idiot), we have nothing more to discuss, jackass.

How do you know he is wrong? The only "evidence" you have against his arguments is a topic that you mysteriously lost. :lol:

Whenever you are losing a debate, just call the opposing side a Jackass and run away. :lol:

I wonder if you have something intelligent to say, sometimes. Only... sometimes.

The possibility certainly exists that they are, in fact, satellites. However, my point is that this would be impossible to determine using a telescope, as you suggested.

Well, you can. So, you're wrong.

Care to provide any evidence of this? or are you just disagreeing with me on principal?

Care to provide any evidence of this? or are you just disagreeing with me on principal?

The evidence is looking through the telescope and using something that we RE'ers call Common Sense.

So you're just disagreeing with me on principal. Right.

You're really going to have to come up with something better than that if you want to prove to me, and thousands of astronomers the world over, that satellites are actually distinguishable through the lens of a telescope.

So you're just disagreeing with me on principal. Right.

I'm not really sure how you came to this conclusion... Seams really to be the other way around.

You're really going to have to come up with something better than that if you want to prove to me, and thousands of astronomers the world over, that satellites are actually distinguishable through the lens of a telescope.

Why? Looking through a telescope has worked fine so far.

I say this because your only argument against what I'm saying is "You can't be right, because you're wrong".
You have failed thus far to provide a single piece of evidence demonstrating that satellites are visible as anything more than fast moving specks of light through the lens of a telescope. You have even failed to provide any evidence that you yourself have ever even used a telescope, much less viewed satellites through one.

If you wish to say that every astronomer or anyone else who has ever used a telescope is wrong you must provide evidence beyond saying "You're wrong". Otherwise the statement is meaningless.

I say this because your only argument against what I'm saying is "You can't be right, because you're wrong".

Okay, it's like this: I say the sky is blue; you say the sky is green. What is there to discuss?

You have failed thus far to provide a single piece of evidence demonstrating that satellites are visible as anything more than fast moving specks of light through the lens of a telescope.

No, the evidence is still looking through a telescope. You can observe satellites and make out certain qualities of a satllite, such as antennas. If  you have an even better telescope, you could probably make out the entire satellite.

You have even failed to provide any evidence that you yourself have ever even used a telescope, much less viewed satellites through one.

Well this is not the topic, is it?

If you wish to say that every astronomer or anyone else who has ever used a telescope is wrong you must provide evidence beyond saying "You're wrong". Otherwise the statement is meaningless.

The sky is blue; Not green. You can observe satellites, that planets are round, that gravity exist, that the sun is the center of the solar system and meteors with a telescope, jackass. -_- This is not even discussable!

No, the evidence is still looking through a telescope. You can observe satellites and make out certain qualities of a satllite, such as antennas.

Really?  What kind of telescope allows that?  Do you have any evidence this is true?

Okay, it's like this: I say the sky is blue; you say the sky is green. What is there to discuss?

It's not at all like that. You're saying: Satellite exist, and you can see this with a telescope. I'm saying: satellites may or may not exist, but you cannot see this with a telescope. I'm not denying the possibility that they exist, I am simply saying that your method of proving this is wrong.

No, the evidence is still looking through a telescope. You can observe satellites and make out certain qualities of a satllite, such as antennas. If  you have an even better telescope, you could probably make out the entire satellite.

No Xargo, you can't even make out that level of detail on the International Space Station. The only telescopes powerful enough to see what you're describing are far too powerful to view satellites with in the first place.