Mega Thread The Flat Earth Mega thread.

[cannot]

Are you writing in code? Maybe there is an error in your programming, because that was just a word salad.

Where have I complained about copy right infringement?

Just give an example that is backed by science and math, as you claimed.

im definitely not programmed

you are lazy

i will do as you command in good time

 

[Watchyourwaite]

im definitely not programmed

you are lazy

i will do as you command in good time

Good to know you admit we aren't in a simulation then.

Fine, I'll watch your stupid video that someone else made to spoon feed you.

 

[cannot]

Good to know you admit we aren't in a simulation then.

Fine, I'll watch your stupid video that someone else made to spoon feed you.

how the hell would i know

 

[Watchyourwaite]

how the hell would i know

Because you just said this.

im definitely not programmed

 

[cannot]

Because you just said this.

different use or sense of the word ...

programmed

i) by the jesuit / freemason / nwo types centuries of subtle and sometimes not subtle indoctrination (ie. the earth is a globe, yeah right, world wars are a good idea extra.)

ii) as opposed to, the simulation theory/s, matrix stuff, Bostrom', multi-dimensions(?)... where we are literally playing the sims of sort (ie. #darthbards thing, computer codes found in string theory, what you were sposed to debunk days ago)

 

[Watchyourwaite]

different use or sense of the word ...

programmed

i) by the jesuit / freemason / nwo types centuries of subtle and sometimes not subtle indoctrination (ie. the earth is a globe, yeah right, world wars are a good idea extra.)

ii) as opposed to, the simulation theory/s, matrix stuff, Bostrom', multi-dimensions(?)... where we are literally playing the sims of sort (ie. #darthbards thing, computer codes found in string theory, what you were sposed to debunk days ago)

What am I supposed to debunk?
I need to go and find this code in string theory, and then prove it isn't there?

What code has been found in string theory?

 

[darthbards]

did you know it was (recently) found the universe is apparently expanding faster than expected hence putting serious doubts on the jesuit big bang theory?

religious fanatic (jesuits) or nazis (nasa) are often the ones that come up with the mainstream scientific theories, nothing wrong with taking it with a grain of salt

The greatest weakness for many regarding the Big Bang theory is its ever changing nature. It appears a theory as far fetched as any except it has gathered mainstream acknowledgement despite the lack of any hard facts and its open ended theory.
A possible reason some cling onto such a theory is the fear science was in fact wrong,which is obviously the problem with fanatasism in anything.Thankfully there are some genuinely intelligent people out there moving away from such theories and trying to find real answers. At this point these theories are based around what we may know but don't understand,the same as the Big Bang in that regard,but appear to make more sense that warrant research. At least some are coming to the realisation the Big Bang theory could be as much a conspiracy as anything else.

 

[darth_timon]

A flat earth would fail the test of gravity. We know that the relationship between gravity and mass pulls objects into spherical shapes. If this didn't happen we'd have no sun, and therefore no life.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

[darthbards]

A flat earth would fail the test of gravity. We know that the relationship between gravity and mass pulls objects into spherical shapes. If this didn't happen we'd have no sun, and therefore no life.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

Again,gravity,like dark matter is yet to be proven. It's just another theory that uses assumptions to make the mathematics and goings on in a physical universe seem accurate.
There are a number of legitimate theories suggesting gravity does not exist.
This is only another example of how much further research needs to be undertaken to understand the universe we are living in and what is actually really going on.

 

[darth_timon]

Again,gravity,like dark matter is yet to be proven. It's just another theory that uses assumptions to make the mathematics and goings on in a physical universe seem accurate.
There are a number of legitimate theories suggesting gravity does not exist.
This is only another example of how much further research needs to be undertaken to understand the universe we are living in and what is actually really going on.

It's a theory based on evidence. On observations. It explains far more than other theories.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

[darthbards]

It's a theory based on evidence. On observations. It explains far more than other theories.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

I agree with what your saying but just because it has more evidence than other theories doesn't mean it exists until it is proven to exist. A lot of the evidence is also based around other theories that are yet th be proven. There is a big possibility we may have been barking up the wrong tree in regards to some of the theories that have been accepted as mainstream.
I don't agree with the flat earth theory in the form that has been currently put forward either,but this doesn't mean we have to automatically accept the earth is round in the form we have to this point been taught

 

[cannot]

The greatest weakness for many regarding the Big Bang theory is its ever changing nature. It appears a theory as far fetched as any except it has gathered mainstream acknowledgement despite the lack of any hard facts and its open ended theory..

may Jesuit theories such as the big bang gather mainstream acknowledgement for one reason or another

 

[cannot]

What am I supposed to debunk?

what did you reckon of the video

here are three typed out for you if you have not got around to it ->

From Anchorage, Alaska at an elevation of 102 feet, on clear days Mount McKinley can be seen with the naked eye from 130 miles away.

If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Mount McKinley’s 20,320 foot summit should be leaning back away from the observer and almost half covered by 9,220 feet of curved Earth. In reality, however, the entire mountain can be quite easily seen standing straight from base to summit.

In 1872 Capt. Gibson and crewmates, sailing the ship “Thomas Wood” from China to London, reported seeing the entirety of St. Helena Island on a clear day from 75 miles away. Factoring in their height during measurement on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, it was found the island should have been 3,650 feet below their line of sight.

October 16, 1854 the Times newspaper reported the Queen’s visit to Great Grimsby from Hull recording they were able to see the 300 foot tall dock tower from 70 miles away.

On a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, factoring their 10 foot elevation above the water and the tower’s 300 foot height, at 70 miles away the dock tower should have remained an entire 2,600 feet below the horizon.

edit: unsure about the 3rd one

 

[Watchyourwaite]

what did you reckon of the video

here are three typed out for you if you have not got around to it ->

Nearly done. It's a long video and I've taken a few breaks.

 

[cannot]

Nearly done. It's a long video and I've taken a few breaks.

that is acceptable

 

[darthbards]

may Jesuit theories such as the big bang gather mainstream acknowledgement for one reason or another

It does appear interesting that after Lemaitre came up with the original theory the other religion,that being science,has used the the theory for many years to try and disprove the existence of a creator.
Whilst it would seem plausible the universe began from some kind of creation,it seems unlikely it was created out of nothing.
I tend to question the theory not because of Lemaitre but because of the many flaws in the theory.
I would be interested though on your thoughts as to why you think the Jesuits started such a thing.

 

[katana]

It's a theory based on evidence. On observations. It explains far more than other theories.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

i think you're confusing evidence with phenomena. we can both agree that 'things fall down', if that is due to the attraction of the surface underneath us then the burden of proof ought to be on you to prove that.

 

[darth_timon]

I agree with what your saying but just because it has more evidence than other theories doesn't mean it exists until it is proven to exist. A lot of the evidence is also based around other theories that are yet th be proven. There is a big possibility we may have been barking up the wrong tree in regards to some of the theories that have been accepted as mainstream.
I don't agree with the flat earth theory in the form that has been currently put forward either,but this doesn't mean we have to automatically accept the earth is round in the form we have to this point been taught

But if theory A has considerably more evidence than theory B, based on decades of study, observations and research, should B even sit at the same table as A?

Science is based on theories, and the constant testing of those theories. The data from these tests points to the earth being a sphere.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

[darth_timon]

i think you're confusing evidence with phenomena. we can both agree that 'things fall down', if that is due to the attraction of the surface underneath us then the burden of proof ought to be on you to prove that.

Gravity and its effects are the best explanation for a number of theoretical models and gravity can be measured and tested. What alternative theory do you have for why things fall down?

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

[darthbards]

But if theory A has considerably more evidence than theory B, based on decades of study, observations and research, should B even sit at the same table as A?

Science is based on theories, and the constant testing of those theories. The data from these tests points to the earth being a sphere.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

Saying something is based on theories is a cop out. The theories are often based on other unproven theories anyway.
This is why most science is no different to any other kind of religion.
Don't you want facts to what is going on? Why should we give credit to one theory based on it being better than another? Shouldn't we be trying for proof,facts and answers?
The round earth theory based around the big bang theory is not stacking up,it never really has,and unproven gravity could easily be used as a reasoning for the theory being wrong,because it itself is only a theory,based on another theory.

 

[darth_timon]

Saying something is based on theories is a cop out. The theories are often based on other unproven theories anyway.
This is why most science is no different to any other kind of religion.
Don't you want facts to what is going on? Why should we give credit to one theory based on it being better than another? Shouldn't we be trying for proof,facts and answers?
The round earth theory based around the big bang theory is not stacking up,it never really has,and unproven gravity could easily be used as a reasoning for the theory being wrong,because it itself is only a theory,based on another theory.

It's not a cop out, because all of science is based on theory. However, theories can be tested, examined and explored to test their validity. Evidence can be discovered, experiments carried out to demonstrate details.

Gravity is a theory, but it is a theory that fits a lot of the facts. It is a fact that objects get hotter the denser they get. It is a fact that the denser an object gets, the stronger the object's pull gets. This is why rockets need to hit escape velocity to get into earth's orbit.

We know our sun is emitting tremendous levels of energy. We can measure how much energy the sun gives off, and we can theorise as to what it takes to produce that energy. Within our current understanding of physics, there are only a few means to produce what the sun produces.

So science is a process of trying to prove things, but always with the understanding that our knowledge is an evolving process.

Ultimately, we must apply Occam's Razor - the theory with the fewest mechanisms that fits the facts is the best one, and any theory with undefined mechanisms is discarded. The Flat Earth Theory is driven by undefined mechanisms.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Finished this morning. Very long and was very hard to put up with.


There is no maths or science backing him up, just a lack of understanding or misunderstanding of the maths and science.
Lots of the video has been things cannot has posted already.

An example is when he is trying to explain that we should not be able to see beams of light coming through clouds, if the sun is supposed to be so far away and so big. But this comes down to him having no idea that light travels like a wave.

No working is ever shown for the 'calculations' that they end up with. It's all supposition and ignorance of knowledge.

 

[cannot]

geez that was terrible

your supposed to say atmospheric refraction

 

[cannot]

It's a theory based on evidence. On observations. It explains far more than other theories.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

magik gravity

 

[darth_timon]

magik gravity

Do you have a better theory?

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk