North - South

[aljhoa]

There is a good story respecting a man who had been summoned to give evidence in a certain trial. He did not appear but a friend came in his stead. " Why," asked the Judge, " does Mr. Blank not appear? " " My Lord," replied the man, " I could give your Lordship a dozen reasons why he could not come." " Let us have them, then," said the Judge. " In the first place, my Lord, my friend is dead." " That will do," said his Lordship, " you can keep your eleven other reasons to yourself." So the Earth having been proved by experiment to have no curvature, and is declared by God to be "founded upon the seas and established upon the floods," that fact ought, as a matter of course, to be a sufficient reason why it is not a wandering Planet, and, therefore, that it would be as impossible for its shadow to cause an Eclipse of the Moon, as for that dead man to give evidence in a Court of Law.

Flat Earth Irrefutable Proof







Al

[cikljamas]

"They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses." -Marshall Hall
The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal along with the change in speed were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have a chance of mimicking reality." -Bernard Brauer

Now, pay attention to a passage from the book that had been released 110 years ago:

Again, the Earth, with a supposed diameter of 8,000 miles, is said to revolve round the Sun, with the velocity of about i,roo miles per minute; the Moon being reckoned to have a diameter of 2,200 miles, and to go round the Earth at the rate of 180 miles per minute, thus, according to calculation, the Eclipse of the Moon, by the shadow of the Earth passing it, should not take four minutes, whereas the usual time occupied by a Lunar Eclipse is generally about two hours, and it has been known to have been extended to four.

So, it seems that the adjustment for the speed of the Moon has been done sometime in the beginning of 20th century...How embarrassing!!!

How beautiful example of accuracy of the motion of the Stars (which corroborate the factuality of the fact that the rate of annual motion of the Stars IS A CONSTANT):

"Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth's surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy"


There is a good story respecting a man who had been summoned to give evidence in a certain trial. He did not appear but a friend came in his stead. " Why," asked the Judge, " does Mr. Blank not appear? " " My Lord," replied the man, " I could give your Lordship a dozen reasons why he could not come." " Let us have them, then," said the Judge. " In the first place, my Lord, my friend is dead." " That will do," said his Lordship, " you can keep your eleven other reasons to yourself." So the Earth having been proved by experiment to have no curvature, and is declared by God to be "founded upon the seas and established upon the floods," that fact ought, as a matter of course, to be a sufficient reason why it is not a wandering Planet, and, therefore, that it would be as impossible for its shadow to cause an Eclipse of the Moon, as for that dead man to give evidence in a Court of Law.

[Hrothgar]

refuted

This debate was over long time ago, but since i wanted to beat HC empty heads on their own ground (in mud waters) that is to say: in details, i have continued to present facts which undoubtedly prove simple and clear truth that The Earth is flat!

Allow me to present you two short youtube videos in which you can see two very simple and plausible FET proofs which no round earther can refute by rolling in heliocentric mud which comes out of his hollow head:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4Ei7ZZsVDM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQRp9KAOBHA

Rivers flow down hill, that means the water wasn't level thereby nullifying the test.
(try again on a swamp)

The moon doesn't fade out like you said it would do, it gets CHOPPED OFF!

Refuted

[Hrothgar]

[Ernst]

I guess you shouldn't discuss with the people here either, if you're not seeking out loonies for a discussion. But it seems you have plenty of time to respond to Cikljamas posts.

Correct, and I already wrote something about that as well. Does it bother you?

Anyway, I am done here, it is pointless to talk to someone who is 100% confident he is correct.

True, if you insist on being incorrect. You could also wonder why am I so confident, just as I did about your master. Apparently I am more eager to learn than you.
No problem though! We are all different and that is exactly how it is supposed to be.

=== why do I believe that? Because nature/God/whatever it is that you believe in would be extremely inefficient if it created 6 billion carbon copies. Such inefficiency you see nowhere around you in nature's creations, making it extremely unlikely that for us nature would have made an exception. ===



Ernst.

[cikljamas]

It is just that in THIS PARTICULAR CASE I am 100% confident that science is correct and that the Earth is spherical.

By saying what you just have said (after all irrefutable evidences that i have presented in this thread), you have just provided to us one more example of your extreme folly, now we all now (for sure) how extreme lunatic you are! Don't worry, we won't forget it, you don't have to provide to us no more examples of that kind, we are absolutely sure about the firmness of your insanity!

Max PlanckAnd indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls.

[Saros]

Again.... not true. Let me say it out loud for you:
SCIENCE CAN BE WRONG, AND OFTEN IS WRONG A NUMBER OF TIMES BEFORE THEY GET IT RIGHT.
....

Having this discussion with a non-religious lunatic would be more interesting for sure. But I am not going to seek out loonies for a discussion!

Take care, Saros!

Ernst.

I guess you shouldn't discuss with the people here either, if you're not seeking out loonies for a discussion. But it seems you have plenty of time to respond to Cikljamas posts. Anyway, I am done here, it is pointless to talk to someone who is 100% confident he is correct.

[Ernst]

I don't have so much time to argue with you. I just expected you to show a bit of skepticism in SOME of the scientific dogma, and you're not willing to admit that science can be sometimes wrong.

Again.... not true. Let me say it out loud for you:
SCIENCE CAN BE WRONG, AND OFTEN IS WRONG A NUMBER OF TIMES BEFORE THEY GET IT RIGHT.

Does that satisfy you? It is just that in THIS PARTICULAR CASE I am 100% confident that science is correct and that the Earth is spherical.

By the way, I see you have a lot of questions for the non-believers of science, if you really want to argue go check out The Wild Heretic | "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." and argue with the author.

He doesn't support flat Earth but Concave Earth instead.

You might want to try to convince him that the Earth is a round sphere and we live on its surface.

As if this jamas character isn't enough! No! I am not looking for a daytime job trying to convince complete morons of the obvious.

Try to argue with the guys on www.cluesforum.com, I would love to see that.

PLEASE!!!

In the meantime, let me just tell you that understanding an explanation of something doesn't mean that it is true.

Correct! But it does mean that you can form a well founded opinion about it. Both of you do not understand the meaning of the Foucault Pendulum nor do you grasp the Coriolis force, yet you do vent your opinion about it which is based on nothing (but misunderstanding).
Your master just added a post here to prove again that he has absolutely no clue of what the Foucault Pendulum does.

Virtually everyone understands in theory what science has proven, but that means absolutely nothing.

I strongly disagree. Almost no one understands modern science. Can you explain General Relativity for me? Can you explain the tunnelling effect? Can you explain the interference pattern caused by electrons in a double slit experiment?

You lack the basic ability to be skeptical about things you haven't experienced and can't possibly experience.

... Saros, poor soul, can you read?

Your analogies are inappropriate as all those things can be tested and verified by people, but you cannot experience the Earth being round in any way. You need to believe in that. Believing in something like that doesn't make you smart. That is dogma. It might be true, but it is still dogma.

... how many times do I have to repeat myself...

Mathematics and verbal rhetorics are not necessarily always equivalent to truth.

So yeah, I would love to see how you prove to wildheretic that he is completely wrong. The guy is not religious so you bull**** argument against Cikljamas won't be an excuse.

Having this discussion with a non-religious lunatic would be more interesting for sure. But I am not going to seek out loonies for a discussion!

Take care, Saros!

Ernst.

[cikljamas]

[cikljamas]

[TheoriaApophasis]

He doesn't support flat Earth but Concave Earth instead.

Oooooh, even better.


The earth is a giant SALAD BOWL

[Saros]

You are wrong! As I said numerous times, I have personally reviewed various experiments proving the rotation of the Earth. And as for its shape, read up a bit on map making.

Again wrong! But, the ease of the proof also depends largely on the knowledge and understanding of the observer. The proof can be very obvious, yet you lack the skills to understand it.

And wrong again! Why haven't the both of you come up with one plausible explanation if you have millions to choose from

We have gained knowledge since then, by doing experiments. We also have tools today that were unavailable in those days. Like computers. I can model 1000 coils in 1 day and choose the one that fits my application best. In Tesla's time that was unthinkable.

There must be millions of ancient believes that have proven to be nonsense. Example: The drinking of the urine of a mule would improve fertility, because a mule can not reproduce. This 'void of fertility' would attract fertility, just as cold attracts heat, + attracts -, etc.

Again, try making a map of Russia, or North America with all distances to scale.

For instance that we CAN actually make maps now. Those things are quite useful, don't you agree?

It is indeed very doubtfull if you would ever understand it. And it HAS been proven 100% numerous times. You just fail to understand this evidence.

Modern Science: If you loose 4 litres of blood, you will die.
Modern Science: If you run 5 amps DC through your body, you will die.
Modern Science: If you hold your breath for 10 minutes, you will die.
Modern Science: If you inhale pure H2S, you will die before you exhale.
Modern Science: You need legs to walk.
Modern Science: Chlorophyll makes most plants look green.
All these facts you must doubt, because modern science says so?
There is a difference between an open mind and a stupid one!

If you could understand the derivation of the coriolis force as I showed a few pages back, you would understand that there is absolutely no other option than a rotating system. The same goes for Foucault's Pendulum. If you could only understand it.

If modern science warns you that you are about to fall into a deep hole, ignore that because you can never trust authorities.
If modern science warns you that you should not go to an Ebola invested village, go there and find out what they were trying to hide!
If modern science tells that grass is green, cheer for everyone who says it is red.
But do not expect to be taken seriously.

Ernst.

I don't have so much time to argue with you. I just expected you to show a bit of skepticism in SOME of the scientific dogma, and you're not willing to admit that science can be sometimes wrong.

By the way, I see you have a lot of questions for the non-believers of science, if you really want to argue go check out The Wild Heretic | "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." and argue with the author.

He doesn't support flat Earth but Concave Earth instead.

You might want to try to convince him that the Earth is a round sphere and we live on its surface. Try to argue with the guys on www.cluesforum.com, I would love to see that.

In the meantime, let me just tell you that understanding an explanation of something doesn't mean that it is true.

Virtually everyone understands in theory what science has proven, but that means absolutely nothing.

You lack the basic ability to be skeptical about things you haven't experienced and can't possibly experience.

Your analogies are inappropriate as all those things can be tested and verified by people, but you cannot experience the Earth being round in any way. You need to believe in that. Believing in something like that doesn't make you smart. That is dogma. It might be true, but it is still dogma.

Mathematics and verbal rhetorics are not necessarily always equivalent to truth.

So yeah, I would love to see how you prove to wildheretic that he is completely wrong. The guy is not religious so you bull**** argument against Cikljamas won't be an excuse.

[TheoriaApophasis]

below you will find a picture of the most INSANE mad cow nonsense





enjoy the insanity

[cikljamas]

But do not expect to be taken seriously.
Ernst.

100 % cow plop, as usually...

you just aren't willing to contribute anything so you poopoo everything!

100 % cow plop, as usually....

Conclusive conclusion about garbage pendulum "argument":



From the above table it is seen that the temperature gradually decreases from the equator towards the pole, which would of necessity contract the substance of the pendulum, or starting it and cause it to vibrate more rapidly.

Besides the temperature of a given latitude the pressure and density of the air must be taken into account. In numbers 294 and 480 of the "Philosophical Transactions," Dr. Derham records a number of experiments with pendulums in the open air, and in the receiver of an air-pump, which he summarises as follows:--

"The arches of vibration in vacuo were larger than in the open air, or in the receiver before it was exhausted; the enlargement or diminution of the arches of vibration were constantly proportional to the quantity of air, or rarity, or density of it, which was left in the receiver of the air-pump. And as the vibrations were longer or shorter, so the time were accordingly; viz., two seconds in an hour when the vibrations were longest, and less and less as the air was re-admitted, and the vibrations shortened."

Thus it is evident that two distinct and tangible causes necessarily operate to produce variability in the oscillations of a pendulum at different latitudes, without having recourse to a flattening at the poles of an imaginary globe.

Firstly: The gradual diminution of temperature as the pendulum is carried from the equator to the polar region, tends to shorten its length, and thus to increase its number of vibrations per hour or day;

Secondly: As the polar centre is approached the air is colder, therefore denser, and therefore the "arches of vibration" shorter, and the times of oscillation less, or in other words the number of vibrations greater in a given period.

Thirdly:From the foregoing remarks and quotations it is obvious that the assumption of Sir Isaac Newton that the earth is an oblate spheroid, is not confirmed by experiments made with the pendulum.

Now, you can show us some NASA's pictures from "space", it is the only remaining RET "argument", as it has been the case from the very first moment of this thread...

Round heads, that's all you've got, and what you've got is simply and plainly NOTHING!

Pendulum "argument" is still in use in the 21th century, as main RET argument? Is it for real??? Dear reader, can you believe your eyes?
Dear RET empty head what you've got your senses for? To enjoy your own bull plops? So, just keep enjoy it, empty heads...

[Hrothgar]

My point made

I am not cheering for anyone. I see that you guys have nothing to offer to the discussion but mainstream science. You prefer to believe in already accepted models without questioning them which I find vapid.

Of course, Cikljamas might be wrong too, but at least he doesn't blindly believe in mainstream science. He might fanatically defend his own belief, well, you're doing absolutely the same. Everyone has the right to believe in whatever they want, especially when it comes to such things, I think it cannot be determined easily so one should remain skeptical.

As for the Moon and all the celestial phenomena there might be a million explanations, just use your imagination as the 'scientists' often do. You can construct a model of your own and if you had the authority to enforce it, it would be a credible model too. That is the difference.

People five centuries ago were not dumber, they were just as smart as modern day folks, but people in general believe in whatever they are told by the 'educated' ones, so there you go. They regurgitate the information they heard somewhere, don't really think for themselves.

As for the flat Earth idea, I think it is possible, after all this idea is as old as humanity, so it pisses me off when people ignore all possibilities just because they don't like them and prefer to believe in science authority figures to appear cool, well-informed and modern.

I would know for sure if it is flat or round if I see it with my own eyes from space. However, since it appears flat it is much more rational to take it as it is than invent all kinds of complex models. How the idea that the Earth is round actually helps our civilization in any way? What is so great about it? I would understand if it is 100% proven, but that is very doubtful. People are corrupt and they lie all the time, so why should I trust 'authorities'.

Now, about rotation, that is even harder to verify through observation, so I am skeptical about that too. It can be a variety of things, but not necessarily the Earth rotating.

I am perfectly fine with a non-rotating Earth and the universe being much smaller than currently thought. Foucault pendulum and Coriolis effect might be due to other reasons, the 'scientists' haven't looked for them though, since to them it is obvious as they are deeply indoctrinated. That is not how you make discoveries and find the truth.

you just aren't willing to contribute anything so you poopoo everything!

My argument was that he doesn't have a solid argument because he has no viable explanation for his numerous inconsistency's yet you think he might be right simply because modern evil non-bible types are here to bully him. Guess what the very notion of a round earth came into being 600 years earlier than Christianity! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth