Mega Thread The Flat Earth Mega thread.

[darthbards]

(1) It's daytime and (2) stars are tiny anyway. The ratio of Earth's diameter to distance varies from 1/5 to 1/20 in the above videos. The next nearest star is 4 light years away, so the ratio of an average star diameter to distance is more like 1 to 100,000,000

And yes, Star Trek is fun to watch, but it's not scientifically accurate in depicting space travel

So the candle burning experiment would just be a waste of time then?

 

[cannot]

And yes, Star Trek is fun to watch, but it's not scientifically accurate in depicting space travel

the character piccard was based / inspired by the famous scientist explorer that;

said the earth was an upturned flat disk

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Just grabbing parts of people's responses.

Not you.

Cannot.

I getchya, I thought I made a booboo somewhere and revealed my true illuminati indoctrined flat-earth suppressing nature. Phew

 

[Werewolf]

So the candle burning experiment would just be a waste of time then?

No, but you can do the same experiment by holding a lamp close to your face. The background will darken

 

[CJApples87]

The candle burning analogy is a very good one. That's as good an analogy as I've seen for the lack of stars in those photos and makes perfect sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Watchyourwaite]

There's a thread about it on the science board.

Yeah you made it. Added nothing but supposition and have no actual understanding of.

How in the world does you making a thread on the science board act as evidence or anything???

 

[darthbards]

Yeah you made it. Added nothing but supposition and have no actual understanding of.

How in the world does you making a thread on the science board act as evidence or anything???

Lol,I didn't make up the evidence,it's scientific research being undertaken at the Max Planck institute,take it up with them.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Lol,I didn't make up the evidence,it's scientific research being undertaken at the Max Planck institute,take it up with them.

You didn't post any evidence. You made a lazy claim and backed it up with nothing.

You not understanding what they are talking about isn't some kind of evidence to support your conspiracy.

You countered a point calling you out, by saying a thread about it existed on the science forum. A thread you made half an hour before you reply saying it existed.

 

[darthbards]

You didn't post any evidence. You made a lazy claim and backed it up with nothing.

You not understanding what they are talking about isn't some kind of evidence to support your conspiracy.

You countered a point calling you out, by saying a thread about it existed on the science forum. A thread you made half an hour before you reply saying it existed.

So I thought about it last night and made a thread today. Your point? I mentioned yesterday in a post it was something we were discussing on Saturday night,over a glass of wine,and when mentioning it then I thought it would make a good thread.
Very interesting stuff and developments in my view.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

So I thought about it last night and made a thread today. Your point? I mentioned yesterday in a post it was something we were discussing on Saturday night,over a glass of wine,and when mentioning it then I thought it would make a good thread.
Very interesting stuff and developments in my view.

My obvious point is. You used stating that there was a thread about it on the science board, as some kind of authority play. Whereas in reality you had actually made a s**tstain thread on the science board, with no evidence, reasoning or anything.

So to use the fact that there was a thread on the science board about it as some kind of meaningful reply was pure fallacy.

 

[CJApples87]

Can we stop going off topic? Any chance of sticking to the topic of Flat Earth believers required to provide proof of its existence or being able disprove the existence of a round Earth?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[darthbards]

My obvious point is. You used stating that there was a thread about it on the science board, as some kind of authority play. Whereas in reality you had actually made a s**tstain thread on the science board, with no evidence, reasoning or anything.

So to use the fact that there was a thread on the science board about it as some kind of meaningful reply was pure fallacy.

You've lost me. If your not happy with flat black holes take it up with the Max Planck Institute.

 

[Reppie]

I found this image of Blue Marble 2015. I'm supposing this is no good? Why?

https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Blue-Marble-2015.png[/QUOTE
Thought it was pear shaped.
Doesn't look like a pear.
So which is it?
One simple photo would clear it up.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

You've lost me. If your not happy with flat black holes take it up with the Max Planck Institute.

Darth: Statement made.
Judd2Sewell: Statement questioned.
Derth: Statement justified by saying statement was consistent with a thread on the science forum.


Thread on science forum was created half an hour earlier by Darth. No legitimacy and purely an attempt to extinguish discussion with a play for authority.
No evidence, discussion, information. Nothing. Just a meaningless thread. But suddenly it is being used to justify a position that has no justification.

 

[darthbards]

Darth: Statement made.
Judd2Sewell: Statement questioned.
Derth: Statement justified by saying statement was consistent with a thread on the science forum.


Thread was created half an hour earlier by Darth. No legitimacy and purely an attempt to extinguish discussion with a play for authority.

Lol,someone else made the original statement,I just mentioned to Juddy about the flat black hole after he mentioned it being round.
Good timing I reckon,maybe further evidence I'm magic like gravity to go with my pork belly,fish,takeaway Chinese and duck evidence provided earlier

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Lol,someone else made the original statement,I just mentioned to Juddy about the flat black hole after he mentioned it being round.

Can you just stop lying for like three posts???

This is the actual conversation.

Umm...a fair bit of study being done that black holes are in fact flat. I posted something as such on this thread already.

that's nice

There's a thread about it on the science board.

 

[darthbards]

errr... you think willys-razor 'the simplest solution tends to be the best'

would refer to the world is flat and motionless (as science cannot disprove, in 2017)

or we are
.... going @ 1000 mph around its central axis
- traveling 67000 mph , circles around the sun
- spiraling 500000 mph around the milky way
- while the galaxy goes 670000000 mph thur the univers

and moving away from other galaxies faster than the speed of light?

I believe that the most natural shape in existence is the sphere – it is the shape that can be the most dense and most compact of all shapes.

This is evidenced by the fact all of the planets, suns, black holes and stars that have been discovered are all of a spherical nature. The theory of gravity lends to these observations and is in fact evidenced by them.

This quite simple rational is enough for me to come to the realisation/understanding that the earth is a sphere. It simply makes the most sense.

I have looked with my own eyes through a telescope at the Moon, Mars and Saturn. I have seen the Sun (though that’s not a good idea) – all of which appear to be perfect circles/spheres upon observation. Now are you telling me that all of these things are just perfectly placed discs that are facing the earth at the perfect angle to suggest they are spheres, when in fact they are discs? Or are they all spheres and earth is just the odd-one-out?

If there is a worldwide conspiracy to suppress the truth that the earth is flat then there would need to be a valid, believable reason as to why such a body would want this information suppressed. As yet, there has been literally nothing offered to explain why anyone would wish to suppress this information, let alone a plausible, viable and believable reason.

I don’t need any further reasoning to straight-up deny your flat earth theory – as you and your kind are yet to offer anything reasonable to explain why this would be the case.

You offer no explanations. Your only attempt at explanations to support your theory are to throw questions at us like the one in this post I’ve quoted.

That’s simply not good enough.

Looks like you accidentally missed these that proceeded mine lol
Might be why mine starts with ummm? Ever think of that at all

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

How come are there no stars?

Oh, good, now we get to the "man didn't land on the moon" questions as well.

 

[darthbards]

Oh, good, now we get to the "man didn't land on the moon" questions as well.

No one has said that here just you. If you bothered to continue reading you would have known the consensus was I'm going to carry out a burning of the candles experiment,and we will go from there.
Get with the program my friend

 

[Heisenberg_]

Jesus Christ not this pear shit again. Been explained countless times he didn't mean an actual pear just the bottom was slightly bigger in diameter then the top, but almost impossible to tell.

 

[Reppie]

Jesus Christ not this pear shit again. Been explained countless times he didn't mean an actual pear just the bottom was slightly bigger in diameter then the top, but almost impossible to tell.

Can you clarify what you mean by bottom.
I thought it was a spinning ball.
Only a flat plane would have a bottom.
Cheers.

 

[Reppie]

“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are
presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new
evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is
extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it
is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,
ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.”
― Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks

 

[Santoz]

Jesus Christ not this pear shit again. Been explained countless times he didn't mean an actual pear just the bottom was slightly bigger in diameter then the top, but almost impossible to tell.

The earth is slightly fatter around the equator than at the poles.

Something like when you're standing at the poles you're 11km nearer the centre of the earth than when at the equator.

Little known round earth fact, the the top of Mount Everest isn't the point on the earth's surface furthest from the middle of the earth; it's the third.

Chimborazo is a volcano in Ecuador that is only a few degrees below the equator that is the point on the Earth's surface furthest from the Earth's centre. The second furthest point is another peak near Chimborazo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimborazo

 

[Santoz]

“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are
presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new
evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is
extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it
is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,
ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.”
― Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks

You can see how this applies to flat earthers too?

Right?

 

[Heisenberg_]

Can you clarify what you mean by bottom.
I thought it was a spinning ball.
Only a flat plane would have a bottom.
Cheers.

No I'm not because it's been explained dozens of times