HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

MORE BAD NEWS FOR THE RE.

The topic is "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum"! If you want to go on a fishing expedition make your own thread!
Remember to include the height and size of the Sun,  Moon, Mercury  and Jupiter.

Quote from: mak3m on September 07, 2019, 01:52:24 AM

Wow

I'm still letting this sink in...

So the purpose of the society doesnt really stand up

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/about-the-society

Its futile

Lol most shocking thing is it took me 2 weeks to realise 

Quote

ABOUT
The mission of the Flat Earth Society is to promote and initiate discussion of Flat Earth theory as well as archive Flat Earth literature. Our forums act as a venue to encourage free thinking and debate.

The Flat Earth Society mans the guns against oppression of thought and the Globularist lies of a new age. Standing with reason we offer a home to those wayward thinkers that march bravely on with REASON and TRUTH in recognizing the TRUE shape of the Earth - Flat.

Come join us in our forums and get started learning about the greatest lie ever told.

Free thinking as long you accept the "TRUTH in recognizing the TRUE shape of the Earth - Flat.".

Oh the irony of the last sentence from FES

At 1 minutes he shows the data according to, this lighthouse is 95 feet over the sea level, but that's not true, it's almost 128 feet. So i assume the rest is a failure and a proof of the round earth.

Why can't you use the quote function and why are you making it look like I wrote something I didn't? I never wrote, "So i assume the rest is a failure and a proof of the round earth."

Really?



The height is clearly specified in at 1:34 in the video, using the AUTORIDAD PORTUARIA DE MALAGA data, that is, THEIR OWN PRECISE LOCAL DATA, not google searches like you did.

What? 128 feet? 39 meters?

I gave you the link, that's what I found. I have seen elsewhere that the "focal height" is 95', which does not include the tower top. So maybe 100'.

Take a look at the lighthouse itself in the video, where are the 14 meters from the bottom of the lighthouse basement to the sea? Are you dreaming?

14 meters is the height of a four story building.

Please do not bother your viewers with BS data again.

Herein lies your problem, you have it all backwards. It's not what we can see, it's what we can't. On a flat earth, there shouldn't be a 'can't'. At 6 feet observer height, the author shows (at 4:54) that, according to is calculations, 24' is hidden yet 36.5' should be, so off by 12.5'.
Why is 24' hidden on a flat earth when no feet should be hidden?

So, in short:

- Globe Earth is incorrect by 12.5'
- Flat Earth is incorrect by 24'

Hmmm.

Faro de Torrox  is 26m above the ground and 39m above sea level. I assume the 39m is mean sea level, so it could vary with tides. Tides are not very dramatic in the Mediterranean though.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faro_de_Torrox

At 1 minutes he shows the data according to, this lighthouse is 95 feet over the sea level, but that's not true, it's almost 128 feet. So i assume the rest is a failure and a proof of the round earth.

Really?



The height is clearly specified in at 1:34 in the video, using the AUTORIDAD PORTUARIA DE MALAGA data, that is, THEIR OWN PRECISE LOCAL DATA, not google searches like you did.

What? 128 feet? 39 meters?

Take a look at the lighthouse itself in the video, where are the 14 meters from the bottom of the lighthouse basement to the sea? Are you dreaming?

14 meters is the height of a four story building.

Please do not bother your viewers with BS data again.

You don't really get it? Sea level, is NOT THE GROUND LEVEL.
Informations at 1:34 are correct, but they have nothing to do with sea level, there is just height of the tower and height of focal plane.
Now, i see that you're confused with height of focal plane.
This IS NOT the height of the tower above the seal level. This is height of the lamp above the mean water surface!
https://www.us-lighthouses.com/faq.php
http://www.terrypepper.com/lights/lists/focalheight.htm
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi3psWUtL7kAhVNsKQKHe2qDMEQjRx6BAgBEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikisource.org%2Fwiki%2F1911_Encyclop%25C3%25A6dia_Britannica%2FLighthouse&psig=AOvVaw20Z1aGpw582ik5-uSKSA9B&ust=1567935261262632

So, when he's comparing level above the sea of an observer with level above the water surface of the tower's lamp, then the results are like the rest of the results of flat earth experiments. Funny.

Gravity.

These are the upper forums, not the CN section.

Please EXPLAIN THE ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

You want a bulge of water. Fine.

How does a graviton emitted by the iron/nickel core interact with a graviton released by lake Ontario? How do they attract each other?

Are you telling your viewers to accept this preposterous hypothesis only based on magic?

This is what you are doing: "gravity".

What gravity? Attractive gravity?

Please explain the mechanism.

Gravity.

Why would the bottom of the cn tower be chosen by the camera to be removed and replaced by a wall of water.

No shit.

Go ahead and do your own research in camera photography to get the well-known answer: always, the bottom of an image disappears before everything else.

I am a photographer and there is nothing in the pantheon of photgraphy that states that the "bottom of an image disappears before everything else." You completely made that up.

Let me prove it.

Let us go to St. Catharines.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/

ROGERS CENTRE: SKY DOME clearly visible in the photograph; however IT PROVES THE FLAT EARTH THEORY DIRECTLY AND EXACTLY.

Height of Sky Dome: 86 meters, the building itself can be seen without any terrestrial refraction in the photograph, but we will include 10 meters, for the sake of the discussion; that is, the influence of the refraction will be some 10 meters...

Right, let's go there and do all that. The CN tower is 553 m tall. Sky dome, 86 m. I'd say that all about fits with this image you presented to conform to a globe earth:



According to your erroneous, the "bottom of an image disappears before everything else," camera magic, that would mean the rocks at the bottom of the image should 'disappear'. Why would the camera arbitrarily single out the skyline and cover it with 80 or so meters of water and simulate a curved earth? Explain the technical camera mechanics that would cause that to happen?

Sea level, is NOT THE GROUND LEVEL.

You think the author of the video didn't know the difference?

http://www.malaga.es/es/turismo/patrimonio/lis_cd-9652/faro-torrox-rincon-singular

23 meters in height (altura).

Now, what you are saying is that there is a 14 METER difference, the height of a four story building.



Care to point out where the 14 meters are in this photograph?

It looks more like 3 meters.





The author of the video is correct.

Gravity.

Fine.

Explain the mechanism desired for your spherical Earth.

How do two gravitons attract each other?

If you cannot explain, and babble all over again "gravity" then we are done here.

You are telling your readers that trillions of billions of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere by PURE MAGIC.

You are obviously UNABLE to offer any kind of an explanation.

Here you are mentioning all over the place "bulge of water".

How does water stay curved?

Have you lost your mind to come here and utter "gravity"?

What gravity? Attractive gravity?

Please explain the mechanism.


Why would the camera arbitrarily single out the skyline and cover it with 80 or so meters of water and simulate a curved earth? Explain the technical camera mechanics that would cause that to happen?

Cut out the BS.

The boulders on the beach are a few feet away.

THE DISTANCE IS EVERYTHING.

The bottom of the CN Tower is located at a 60 km distance.

https://www.distancecalculator.net/from-toronto-to-st-catharines

Of course that is where the bottom of the image will first disappear.

Not my invention.

Here is the proof.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/

ROGERS CENTRE: SKY DOME clearly visible in the photograph; however IT PROVES THE FLAT EARTH THEORY DIRECTLY AND EXACTLY.


Height of Sky Dome: 86 meters, the building itself can be seen without any terrestrial refraction in the photograph, but we will include 10 meters, for the sake of the discussion; that is, the influence of the refraction will be some 10 meters...


Two other photographs, taken right there, on the same beach:

http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/pirate-ship-5137.jpg
http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/mirage-across-the-lake-5112.jpg

The altitude of the photographer can be easily estimated to be at or around 10 meters (if we would ascend to some 20 meters, that would mean that we are on top of a five-story building; certainly not the case here, as we can see from the photographs themselves; I would estimate some 5 meters, but we will go to 10 meters).

On a round earth, taking refraction into account, and ascending to some 10 meters, it would still be impossible to see the rooftop of the Sky Dome.

In order to see the roof top of the Sky Dome, we would have to ascend to at least 20 meters, that is, on top of a five story building; as we can see from the photographs taken right there, we are right on the St. Catharines beach itself.

Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 60 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5

5 - 138

10 - 117.5


Now, the fact that the lower portion of a building/ship cannot be seen in some photographs is a result of the quality of the camera used:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)

Sea level, is NOT THE GROUND LEVEL.

You think the author of the video didn't know the difference?

http://www.malaga.es/es/turismo/patrimonio/lis_cd-9652/faro-torrox-rincon-singular

23 meters in height (altura).

Now, what you are saying is that there is a 14 METER difference, the height of a four story building.



Care to point out where the 14 meters are in this photograph?

It looks more like 3 meters.





The author of the video is correct.

Faro de Torrox  is 26m above the ground and 39m above sea level. I assume the 39m is mean sea level, so it could vary with tides. Tides are not very dramatic in the Mediterranean though.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faro_de_Torrox

Why is the bottom of the lighthouse hidden by at least 24 feet on a flat earth when it should be hidden by 0 feet?

Why is the bottom of the lighthouse hidden by at least 24 feet on a flat earth when it should be hidden by 0 feet?

You are trolling the upper forums.

You'd need a very powerful camera, perhaps one that needs to be invented yet, to capture the entire visual obstacle.

The video presents every aspect explicitly: no such features could be seen on a round earth.

It has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that gravitons does not form part of the accepted principle of gravity, its string theory.

Still ignoring the math I see.

Making up formula and then pretending it never happened is not trolling? Just checking I'm still new here

Gravity.

Fine.

Explain the mechanism desired for your spherical Earth.

How do two gravitons attract each other?

If you cannot explain, and babble all over again "gravity" then we are done here.

You are telling your readers that trillions of billions of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere by PURE MAGIC.

You are obviously UNABLE to offer any kind of an explanation.

Here you are mentioning all over the place "bulge of water".

How does water stay curved?

Have you lost your mind to come here and utter "gravity"?

What gravity? Attractive gravity?

Please explain the mechanism.

Not my invention.

Gravity (from Latin gravitas, meaning 'weight'), or gravitation, is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass or energy—including planets, stars, galaxies, and even light—are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another.

Why would the camera arbitrarily single out the skyline and cover it with 80 or so meters of water and simulate a curved earth? Explain the technical camera mechanics that would cause that to happen?

Cut out the BS.

The boulders on the beach are a few feet away.

THE DISTANCE IS EVERYTHING.

The bottom of the CN Tower is located at a 60 km distance.

https://www.distancecalculator.net/from-toronto-to-st-catharines

Of course that is where the bottom of the image will first disappear.

Not my invention.

Here is the proof.

Actually, here is the proof:



Please explain the mechanism. What is the mechanism in a camera that would magically put a wall of water in your image across and obscuring the bottom of the CN Tower and 95% of the Sky Dome? Why would the camera arbitrarily choose to do so and at the same time coincidently conform to a globe earth? What are the properties in a camera that would do that? Do explain. Otherwise, you just made this all up. And quite frankly, are lying to yourself and others.

Why is the bottom of the lighthouse hidden by at least 24 feet on a flat earth when it should be hidden by 0 feet?

You are trolling the upper forums.

You'd need a very powerful camera, perhaps one that needs to be invented yet, to capture the entire visual obstacle.

The video presents every aspect explicitly: no such features could be seen on a round earth.

So now I need a camera that hasn't been invented yet? Wow, talk about trolling.

Why would the power of the camera dictate whether I can see the bottom of an object versus the top of an object when the object is in the center of the frame? What mechanism in the camera is deciding this? What properties of a lens would cause this effect. Do explain because you are really just making up things now. And it's kind of sad.

Sea level, is NOT THE GROUND LEVEL.

You think the author of the video didn't know the difference?

http://www.malaga.es/es/turismo/patrimonio/lis_cd-9652/faro-torrox-rincon-singular

23 meters in height (altura).

Now, what you are saying is that there is a 14 METER difference, the height of a four story building.



Care to point out where the 14 meters are in this photograph?

It looks more like 3 meters.





The author of the video is correct.

23m is the height of the stone tower, upon which the lighthouse is built.

Sea level, is NOT THE GROUND LEVEL.

You think the author of the video didn't know the difference?

Apparently not!
39 metres = 127 feet 11.4 inch,  near enough to 128 feet!

Torrox Lighthouse

The Torrox lighthouse is a lighthouse that is located on the coast of the municipality of Torrox , Málaga , Andalucía , Spain .

History   
It was completed on May 1 , 1864 . Automatic, electrical operation, ignition by photoelectric cell. It has a height of 39 m above the sea and 26 m above the ground.

Gravity (from Latin gravitas, meaning 'weight'), or gravitation, is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass or energy—including planets, stars, galaxies, and even light—are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another.

In other words, pure magic.

You have any PROOF that there is such a thing as attractive gravity?

Take a look at yourself.

When asked to explain how water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere, you babble "gravity". Or the above-mentioned quote which explain nothing.

Are you actually claiming that everything is attracted to everything else?

Then, explain the mechanism.

Here is what you are saying:

put a wall of water in your image across

Again, I ask: have you lost your mind to assume that water stays curved as if by magic, and you come here to tell us that attractive gravity is a phenomenon, without ANY PROOFS AT ALL?

If you cannot explain how water stays curved on the surface of a sphere, there is nothing else to discuss here.

FE wins.


What mechanism in the camera is deciding this? What properties of a lens would cause this effect.

This would be well beyond the scope of this discussion.

That is why I told you to do your own research in this field if you are interested in findind more details.

I don't have to do any such thing once I have proven my point regarding the curvature.

YOU have to explain why we can see the rooftop of the Sky Dome where there should be none.

Here is the perfect illustration of my explanation so far (that the quality of the camera is involved):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)

Now, if you want/desire the TECHNICAL details as to why this happens, well then, you are on your own, that is, use your own time to research this topic; here, it is well beyond the scope of our discussion.

If you want ME to do this, you'd better pay me by the hour to do such an involved research in nonlinear optics.

 

39 metres = 127 feet 11.4 inch,  near enough to 128 feet!

The google searched figure is wrong.

That is why the author of the video clearly quoted the figure from the official source on the matter.

39 - 26 = 13 meters.

Please indicate where the 14 meters are in these photographs:







26 meters is the ENTIRE height, from sea level to the top of the lighthouse.

There are no 14 meters, the height of a four story building, between the base of the lighthouse and the sea.

Gravity (from Latin gravitas, meaning 'weight'), or gravitation, is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass or energy—including planets, stars, galaxies, and even light—are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another.

In other words, pure magic.

You have any PROOF that there is such a thing as attractive gravity?

Take a look at yourself.

When asked to explain how water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere, you babble "gravity". Or the above-mentioned quote which explain nothing.

Are you actually claiming that everything is attracted to everything else?

Then, explain the mechanism.

Here is what you are saying:

put a wall of water in your image across

Again, I ask: have you lost your mind to assume that water stays curved as if by magic, and you come here to tell us that attractive gravity is a phenomenon, without ANY PROOFS AT ALL?

If you cannot explain how water stays curved on the surface of a sphere, there is nothing else to discuss here.

FE wins.


What mechanism in the camera is deciding this? What properties of a lens would cause this effect.

This would be well beyond the scope of this discussion.

That is why I told you to do your own research in this field if you are interested in findind more details.

I don't have to do any such thing once I have proven my point regarding the curvature.

YOU have to explain why we can see the rooftop of the Sky Dome where there should be none.

Links to number of sources, including einstein and newton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Best of our understanding so far. As a scientist you know that physics is constantly striving to further this understanding,  and that fact does not refute it.

Could you link me to a similarly respected proof of evidences for your FE gravity and the "Sky Dome"

mak3m, you are trolling, again.

Your messages on this page belong to CN.

Go ahead and ask Newton, Einstein, or any other modern physicist to explain HOW attractive gravity works.

They won't be able to explain.

Here are the issues involved.

Can you explain to your readers how two gravitons attract each other? What is the mechanism of attraction?

You cannot, therefore those trillions of billions of liters of water are glued to an outer surface by pure magic.

Even pure magic cannot explain this horrendous hypothesis.

You cannot resort to general relativity: I can immediately point out how Einstein faked the 1919/1922 crucial solar eclipses data, show you the original Maxwell equations which are superluminal.

You claim that terrestrial gravity is attractive, yet you cannot explain the mechanism.

It is even worse than pure magic.

Please explain the physics to your readers.

What you are telling your readers is even worse than Aristotle's Credo Quia Absurdum Est (I believe because it is absurd).

The attractive gravity hypothesis is not even a credible fairy tale, it is even beyond the powers of pure magic to explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

It is though the exemplification of a fanatical and dogmatic agenda which goes even beyond what organized religion has to offer.

Do you want to use gravitons?

So, how do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

Let us examine the graviton problem. There are only two possible choices: either these gravitons were a one-time emission five billion years ago, or they are being emitted continuously by the iron/nickel core. In both cases the graviton must either consist of two kinds of particles, one which has an emissive vortex, the other one which has a receptive vortex, or a single particle with two ends consisting of an emissive vortex, while the other end has a receptive vortex.

In both cases we are dealing immediately with the defiance of the law of conservation of energy: how in the world can these vortices function after five billion years with no loss of energy?

Moreover, you have another huge problem: each object on the surface of the earth must connect to the gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core through strings of gravitons which fit neatly and totally to each and every graviton released by the object itself. How then can that object move freely on the surface of the sphere? Obviously the strings of gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core are not intelligent enough to know the random direction of movement of the object. Are you telling your readers that the strings of the object can slide freely from a static string of gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core, to another with no loss of energy, not to mention the very mechanism itself?

The gases in the atmosphere do not obey any kind of an attractive law of gravity.

The gravitons cannot be used to explain attractive gravity.

There is no such thing as general relativity, or spacetime continuum.


Please explain to your readers how attractive gravitation functions. If you cannot, then what you are telling yourself and to your readers is that gravity on a spherical earth is governed by pure magic.


Here is Newton himself:

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.


PRESSURE GRAVITY, according to Newton two objects are attracted to each other if they receive pressure from the outside.

Brilliant, isn't it?

39 metres = 127 feet 11.4 inch,  near enough to 128 feet!

26 meters is the ENTIRE height, from sea level to the top of the lighthouse.

There are no 14 meters, the height of a four story building, between the base of the lighthouse and the sea.

I haven't measured it myself, but I found the 39m from sea level in the wikipedia and another source.

The only official source I found is this one:
https://www.puertosdeandalucia.es/es/documentacion/arquitectura-y-patrimonio/item/518-faro-de-torrox

Descripción: Construido sobre una torre circulas de piedra de 23 metros sobre un edificio rectangular dedicado entre otros menesteres a vivienda y con un alcance de luz de 15 millas, servía para marcar el fondeadero que era muy utilizado por buques de diversos portes, utilizando para su iluminación aceite de oliva, parafina y petróleo, sucesivamente. Entre los años 1917-1922 se procede a su electrificación y se le acopla un destellador automático que se renovó en 1947. Con estas renovaciones su alcance se ha elevado a 20 millas náuticas. Dada su cercanía a esta población, también es conocido como faro de Nerja y en la actualidad se está acondicionando para albergar el Museo Marítimo de Torrox.

That translates as: constructed  over a round stone tower  of 23m over a rectangular building.

According to this official description the 23m is the height of the stone tower itself without the lighthouse lantern and without the rectangular building.

Why is the bottom of the lighthouse hidden by at least 24 feet on a flat earth when it should be hidden by 0 feet?

You are trolling the upper forums.

You'd need a very powerful camera, perhaps one that needs to be invented yet, to capture the entire visual obstacle.

The video presents every aspect explicitly: no such features could be seen on a round earth.

Using metabunk calculator:
https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
10.4 miles distance,
6 feet tall camera.

Gives us (really same results, but the interpretation):

With the refraction approximation* giving an effective radius of 7432.83 km (7432833.33 m)
Refracted Horizon = 5.21 km
Refracted Drop= 18.84 meters
Refracted Hidden= 8.93 meters
Refracted Horizon Dip = 0.040 Degrees, (0.0007 Radians)
Note: Not accurate for observations over water very close to the horizon (unless the temperature and vertical temperature gradient are accurate)

Geometric results (no refraction)
Geometric Horizon = 4.83 km
Geometric Drop = 21.99 meters
Geometric Hidden= 11.13 meters
Geometric Horizon Dip = 0.043 Degrees, (0.0008 Radians)

So, let's go to google earth, shall we?

I added a layer, first, 9m above the sea level:


Looks familiar?
Let's see the result on the youtube:


you can do very same without taking refraction into consideration (so his 11.4m - aka 36.5 feet). But it won't be much different.

Quote from: cikljamas on September 06, 2019, 05:00:02 AM

1. Jack, have you ever seen this :

Yes I have. And notice that you quoted the refutation of it?

Refutation of it? Well, i am really worried about your mental health.
This is not the refutation of anything else but your sanity : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201342#msg2201342

In the same way our questioner (from the following dialogue) can't reach Jesus, i can't reach you :

Dr. Clay Jones in his class on Why God Allows Evil entertainingly replays the dialogue from Luke 13 like this:

*Questioner:* Jesus, we have the problem of evil here, the great problem of the ages. People are being killed
What have you got to say?

*Jesus:* They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners, and unless you repent you’ll die too. Next?

*Questioner:* Whoa! Jesus, hold on for a minute here! This is the PROBLEM OF EVIL! The question of the ages! Philosophers have debated this forever! People are dying here Jesus! What have you got to say???

*Jesus:* They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners, and unless you repent you’ll die too. Next?

*Questioner:* No, Jesus, don’t you get it?!? Let me put it to you this way. You see, if God were all-loving, He would want to prevent evil. If God were all-powerful, He could prevent evil…

*Jesus:* They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners, and unless you repent you’ll die too. Next?

Jesus’ answer to the problem of evil is that all fallen, unregenerate sinners born in Adam are worthy of death. Whether we die by murder, accident, or disease isn’t anything more than we deserve. It is only by God’s grace that anyone is saved and it is only by God’s mercy that anyone is kept alive.

READ MORE : http://crossexamined.org/jesus-problem-evil/

ONE INTERESTING COMMENT :

 Lexington says:
December 26, 2017 at 6:42 pm

This sort of mad and babyish teaching is why so many are throwing Religion out with the bath water. I’m so great that Hitler and a newborn are equivalent. Nonsense. You shouldn’t have created anything and sat by your glorious lonesome if you have this attitude, My Lord Yahweh. If judgment day comes, I will tell him that to his face.

Why i can't reach you, Jack?

It seems that i can't reach Sandokhan, as well :

This is one truthful comment that i have received below one of my flat-earth videos (at the time when i was still a flat-earth believer) :
I took your message seriously and I went back and this time I thoroughly did my homework, utilizing topographic maps and even Spanish-language websites for hiking tours of Mallorca, to get the information I needed. This took me about 3 hours. :-)

I selected Puig Caragoler and Puig Roig since they were the same distance from the photographer, and had well-defined peaks, and found the distance between them. Studying the topography, I found that there was a saddle between them that is over 600 meters tall, is below the horizon in the original photo. Thus over 600 m is being obscured. I measured the heights of the two peaks in pixels, as well as the distance between them, and compared that to the actual heights of the peaks, and how tall they should be in pixels. I thus discovered how much of each mountain was hidden by curvature, and made this image:



I then went to spherical geometry and measured the distance to the horizon for an elevated observer, and subtracted that distance from the total distance to the mountains, and then used that to determine the expected amount of mountain that would theoretically be obscured, mathematically.

The photo shows 672 meters of mountains hidden. Pure spherical geometry (no refraction) predicts that 886 meters would be hidden. Not too bad! Of course refraction in the real world does exist, so that can account for us being able to see slightly further than we should be able to mathematically. Cheers! :-)?

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :


OBJECT LESSON?

ONLY A FOOL NEVER CHANGES HIS MIND!!!

5. Jon McIntyre - Truth Seeker says :
Hey Odiupicku I've got a couple of more flat earth tests I've done that seem to show curvature. I've got four videos up now that all seem to show curvature. I came at this debate from a completely neutral perspective and in truth I actually preferred to find that the earth was flat. That's because if it was and it could be proven the whole corrupt system running the world would collapse. To my disappointment I keep finding what appears to be curvature but the  truth is that is what I'm finding. I've actually got another test in the can and will be uploading that one soon as well. It is called "The Floating Levels Test" and it shows the surface of a lake to be convex or at least it clearly appears that way. Could you please mirror my new videos and give a link back to my channel. I ask you mostly because I believe that spreading truthful inquiry and experiments is valuable. I also feel that you have shown yourself to have the character to admit you are wrong and pursue the truth just like I did. Thanks for all of your work. I'll also let you know when my latest test is uploaded. Thanks!?

OBJECT LESSON?

ONLY A FOOL NEVER CHANGES HIS MIND!!!

Let me show you (Sandokhan) one another example (irrefutable proof in favor of sphericity of motionless earth) :





THIS IS ALL YOU NEED TO BE SURE THAT THE EARTH IS SPHERICALLY SHAPED :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2200711#msg2200711
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2200805#msg2200805

Sandokhan I dont think I am trolling you have asked the question to the moderators twice and I'm still here, simply asking you questions.

Making up math then running away from it is surely the greater troll.

You went to great length to try on mock me on simple trigonometry then failed to respond or run numbers through your made up theory.

It's easy to make it go away run the numbers or admit you were wrong

I did preface my reference that pointing out that work on gravity is obviously ongoing is not refutation.

I asked for the body of evidence for FE gravity or equivalent and the same for the sky dome.

mak3m, you are trolling, again.

Your messages on this page belong to CN.

Go ahead and ask Newton, Einstein, or any other modern physicist to explain HOW attractive gravity works.

They won't be able to explain.

Very bright! Asking dead people to proove something
Here you go - how gravity works according to the relativity:



Would say, besides, that nuclear plants are hoax?

39 metres = 127 feet 11.4 inch,  near enough to 128 feet!

I'll ignore your guesswork and post this!

Monuments and areas of tourist interestLighthouse of Torrox
Lighthouse of Torrox Avenida del Faro, Torrox, 29770.

Marine traffic Lighthouse is located on the coast of the municipality of Torrox. It was completed at May 1, 1864. It has automatic, electric ignition, photocell. It has a height of 39 m above the sea and 26 m above the ground.

So, almost 128 feet, as I said before!

And the video showed the temperature as 28°C but not the water temperature. See the average water temperature:

It's 23.4°.

You do know what happens with warm air over cool water?

Now stop your silly guesswork!

Now look the Lighthouse from 6 foot camera height:

You can see little below the base so there  seems more than the 25 feet could be hidden - what's the problem?

There is some contradictory info about the Torrox lighthouse. This document on historical lighthouses in the province of Malaga states 28.6m from the lamp to sea level at the time of construction (page 21)

https://de.scribd.com/document/152064767/Los-faros-de-la-provincia-de-Malaga-y-su-historia-pdf

Either way it's clear the lighthouse is higher than stated in the video.

It can't be 39 meters, the photographs from the beach show this very clearly: no 14 meter difference between the basement of the tower and the sea level.

The quote given by the author of the video is correct; the google searched figures of 39 meters are simply wrong.

Here is the proof:

http://static.visitacostadelsol.com/visitacostadelsol/subidas/imagenes/3/8/arc_4183_g.jpg

http://static.visitacostadelsol.com/visitacostadelsol/subidas/imagenes/2/8/arc_4182_g.jpg

No 14 meters difference in sight anywhere in the images.

Perhaps, at most, some 3 meters.


Of course there is some controversy over the Torrox Costa lighthouse.

We can differentiate between the correct and the erroneous claims by observing the actual photographs: no 14 meter difference between the basement and the sea level.

mak3m, you are trolling, again.

Your messages on this page belong to CN.

I hope you don't mind if I answer as well though I'm sure that mak3m can do better than I.

No, that's you whose "messages on this page belong to CN"! Iv've noticed that few Flat Earthers swallow your ides either - I wonder why ?

Go ahead and ask Newton, Einstein, or any other modern physicist to explain HOW attractive gravity works.

Newton is NOT a modern scientist! Stop posting inanity!

They won't be able to explain.

Incorrect! A modern physicist could explain Einstein's Theory of General quite well! Even I might be able to give a rough idea.

Here are the issues involved.
Can you explain to your readers how two gravitons attract each other? What is the mechanism of attraction?

No, gravitons are NOT the issue involved and so nobody has t "readers how two gravitons attract each other"!
No modern physicist would use a hypothesised particle like the graviton to explain gravitation.
And you seem to have no ideas as to the properties of even the hypothesised graviton so I'd advise you to steer clear of them or risk making yourself seem more foolish still!

But these gravitons are just one of your silly straw-man tactics!

Here are the issues involved.
You cannot, therefore those trillions of billions of liters of water are glued to an outer surface by pure magic.

Even pure magic cannot explain this horrendous hypothesis.

I don't need magic! Like it or not, something holds a one-kilogram mass down with a force of one kilogram and exactly the same force holds each kilogram of "those trillions of billions of liters of water" that are NOT "glued to an outer surface"

You cannot resort to general relativity: I can immediately point out how Einstein faked the 1919/1922 crucial solar eclipses data.

No, Einstein faked nothing, though Eddington might have been a bit "selective" in his observations.
But later observations of the same or similar type have verified General Relativity to a point where so far it cannot be faulted.

show you the original Maxwell equations which are superluminal.

So you say but you have no practical evidence of that!

You claim that terrestrial gravity is attractive, yet you cannot explain the mechanism.

Don't you dare to pretend to know what I claim! I do not "claim that terrestrial gravity is attractive"!
Even Newton never claimed that! He claimed that Gravitation behaved that way.
Even Einstein never claimed that! Einstein claimed that gravitation, both terrestrial and on an astronomical scale.

It is even worse than pure magic.

Please explain the physics to your readers.

Why should I?
I've done it before and you or the readers can read up on General Relativity for kiddies in: The Theory of Relativity Lesson for Kids.

But Einstein also said that Newtonian Gravitation is amazingly accurate for velocities small compared to the velocity of light and gravitational fields that are "not too strong".

What you are telling your readers is even worse than Aristotle's Credo Quia Absurdum Est (I believe because it is absurd).

Not in the slightest! It's not my problem if you cannot of will not even try to understand it!

The attractive gravity hypothesis is not even a credible fairy tale, it is even beyond the powers of pure magic to explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

If "the attractive gravity hypothesis is not even a credible fairy tale" it's just as well it is just one of your straw-man debating techniques then!
But modern does NOT claim any "attractive gravity hypothesis" - get THAT into your head!

Modern physics claims that gravitation is an inertial force very similar to centripetal force.

It is though the exemplification of a fanatical and dogmatic agenda which goes even beyond what organized religion has to offer.

Do you want to use gravitons?

No! Why do you ask? But what follows is not worth answering, so to shorten this reply I'll simply delete it!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
There is no such thing as general relativity, or spacetime continuum.

That's what you say but it is not what modern physics says.

Please explain to your readers how attractive gravitation functions. If you cannot, then what you are telling yourself and to your readers is that gravity on a spherical earth is governed by pure magic.

No, I will not! Why should I what I have already said that neither myself claim that gravitation is an attractive force.

Here is Newton himself:
5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.
PRESSURE GRAVITY, according to Newton two objects are attracted to each other if they receive pressure from the outside.

Brilliant, isn't it?

Possibly for a physicist who lived 300 years ago but it's simply an unsupported hypothesis and physics has advanced tremendously since then.

Please get up to date!

It can't be 39 meters, the photographs from the beach show this very clearly: no 14 meter difference between the basement of the tower and the sea level.

The quote given by the author of the video is correct; the google searched figures of 39 meters are simply wrong.

According to YOU but I quoted the Spanish site not just "Wikipedia", which did have the same information!
I'll believe the official Spanish sight over YOU any day!

We can differentiate between the correct and the erroneous claims by observing the actual photographs: no 14 meter difference between the basement and the sea level.

I do NOT trust your guesses from photographs. Sorry about that!
I've seen how you "proved" that the sun was 15 km (I think that's your figure) above the earth and 600 m in diameter!

Can you explain how trillions of billions of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

Again, the topic is about rockets.
Can you explain how either gas is magically trapped inside an open container, or how the gas magically accelerates without following firmly established laws of physics which demand it accelerates another objects (i.e. the rocket), or admit that rockets do work in a vacuum?

Refutation of it? Well, i am really worried about your mental health.

Worry about your own mental health. You are the one who seems to think "thrust" is a rational answer to a question asking about a second body.
Thrust is not a body.

You can't "reach" me, because I am not a moron and I realise that you are repeatedly avoiding the question.
You haven't even attempted to explain how the gas accelerates, which is the key issue.
Instead you just start with your magically accelerated gas to avoid the issue.

So again:
How does the gas accelerate? That is what you need to explain.
Again, we know the gas has mass. That means it needs a force to be applied to accelerate it.
No force, no acceleration, so you have your gas magically contained inside an open container.
So the only rational option is to have a force acting on the gas to accelerate it.
But then we also know forces come in pairs. If a force is acting on the gas then the gas must be applying a force to another object, and as we have been over, the only other object there is the rocket.
That means the rocket needs to be having a force applied as well.
But that means rockets DO work in a vacuum.

Notice how I am not discussing what happens after the gas accelerates? Instead it is that initial acceleration which is key, which you are ignoring.

So if you want to try and reach me, instead of just trolling, answer the question. How does the gas accelerate?