 |
| 
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 2490 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2015 | 10 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2020 | Mar 2020 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Unbelievable.
Still hasn't answered the moon and daylight hours questions. What's with those crescent moons Stan? How are they created?
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Administrator | 25122 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jul 2017 | May 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Given that one popular scientific hypothesis in the field of cosmology suggests that we are all three-dimensional projections of a two-dimensional 'flat' plane there really doesn't seem a great deal of the word 'fantastic' left to claim...
| | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Captain | 829 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Nov 2015 | 9 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2016 | May 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| [iQuote ="Doom&Gloom Merchant"On the subject of moons.Surely in Stan's world, every moon would be a full moon as there'd be nothing to block out the sun's light? Unless the sun was underneath the disk, but how could it be, because there's always a part of the Earth in sunlight. Think about the crescents - what's causing that shadow? And if it isn't the Earth, then what is it?'"
The Sun and the Moon are no doubt their very own light source. Its almost laughable that we've been lead to believe that the Sun is 93.000.000 miles away with the moon supposedly being 238.855 miles away. Also another coincidence is that the Sun is 400 times larger than the Moon and 400 yes 400 times further away but they look exactly the same size in our skies under the beautiful molten firmament. They both travel East to West and you can easily tell with your own perceptions that they're both the same equal size and distance..You can see the Earth is flat, you can feel the Earth is stationary, but according to the Religious gospel of modern astronomy, you are wrong and a simpleton worthy of endless ridicule if you dare to believe your own eyes and experience.
With haughty arrogance the nearest hypnotized heliocentrist will then inform you that the Sun is 865,374 miles in diameter and 92,955,807 miles from the Earth, the Moon is 2,159 miles in diameter and 238,900 miles from Earth, and those just happen to be the EXACT diameters and distances necessary for a viewer from Earth to falsely perceive them as being the same size! So, you see, silly Flat-Earther, it is all an illusion and the apparent equanimity of our day and night luminaries in the sky results from mere coincidental parallax perspective! The Sun does not revolve around the Earth as it appears; rather the Earth spins 1,038 mph under your feet and revolves 67,108 mph around the Sun! The Moon does indeed revolve around the Earth, but not as it appears! Though it seems to move East to West just like the Sun and everything else in the heavens, the Moon actually spins West to East at 10.3 mph while orbiting Earth at 2,288 mph, which combined with the Earth’s 1,038mph spin and 67,108 mph orbit around the Sun coincidentally results in all motions perfectly cancelling out making the Moon seem to move across the heavens with similar path and similar speed as the Sun while always only showing us one side of its surface, and perpetually hiding its “dark side.”.
Heliocentrists’ astronomical figures always sound perfectly precise, but they have historically been notorious for regularly and drastically changing them to suit their various models. For instance, in his time Copernicus calculated the Sun’s distance from Earth to be 3,391,200 miles. The next century Johannes Kepler decided it was actually 12,376,800 miles away. Issac Newton once said, “It matters not whether we reckon it 28 or 54 million miles distant for either would do just as well!” How scientific!? Benjamin Martin calculated between 81 and 82 million miles, Thomas Dilworth claimed 93,726,900 miles, John Hind stated positively 95,298,260 miles, Benjamin Gould said more than 96 million miles, and Christian Mayer thought it was more than 104 million
The Sun’s light is golden, warm, drying, preservative and antiseptic, while the Moon’s light is silver, cool, damp, putrefying and septic. The Sun’s rays decrease the combustion of a bonfire, while the Moon’s rays increase combustion. In direct sunlight a thermometer will read higher than another thermometer placed in the shade, but in full, direct moonlight a thermometer will read lower than another placed in the shade. If the Sun’s light is collected in a large lens and thrown to a focus point it can create significant heat, while the Moon’s light collected similarly creates no heat. In the "Lancet Medical Journal,” from March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved the Moon's rays when concentrated can actually reduce the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.
So sunlight and moonlight clearly have altogether different properties, and furthermore the Moon itself cannot physically be both a spherical body and a reflector of the Sun’s light! Reflectors must be flat or concave for light rays to have any angle of incidence; If a reflector’s surface is convex then every ray of light points in a direct line with the radius perpendicular to the surface resulting in no reflection..Show me a mode of transport that has Spherical reflectors.
With regards to a crescent Moon, the Moons luminaries are cycled hence the Jewish calender revolves around the Moon. They can tell what stage of the Month it is by observing its characteristic. A perfect time luminary just as the scriptures say.
Depending where/when you are on Earth you can see the Moon at any 360 degrees of inclination. As usual, the "ballers" over-simplify this fact to try and prove their model, and they will show you two pictures: a picture of the Moon "right-side up" in the Northern hemi'sphere' and "upside down" in the Southern hemi'sphere,' then hastily conclude that this proves the Earth is a ball. See the following pictures and notice the inclination changing slightly each one. This is because the Moon slowly rotates like a wheel as it circles above us.
  
If the heliocentric model were true don't you think all these coincidences what we've been hypnotised with is too coincidental from a Big Bang point of view. To me our Earths got our creators fingerprint scattered all over it, and the Jesuit Freemasonic Rulers of the world have succeeded in hiding and indoctrinating this Heliocentric bull into every home worldwide, Thank God I'm AWAKE and i can see the TRUTH. You've just got to ask yourself why have NO Authentic dark side of the Moon photo's, have never been produced as evidence. You're being fooled Bigtime by NASA and The World of Science controlled by Secret Societies. As the saying goes All Roads Lead To Rome... So true..[/i
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 2236 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jan 2003 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Dec 2018 | Dec 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"[iHahahaha. The BBC, its on the News it must be true. Gee Whiz. Have you actually seen where ALL the specialised tourist stations are. They're ALL coastal, Antarctica isn't an Island period, and its a heavily guided tour and very restrictive as to what you can do. You haven't got the freedom to just go anywhere Nilly Willy. Heres my take on Antarctica and its locations which are all coastal which is dodgy.and so is the "Globe Theory's South Pole.. Why can you never go to the true "Global"geographical south Pole? Simple because there isn't one. They've made one up. Hahahaha, with a glass sphere. If there's a "south Pole".Why do ALL compasses point to the North Pole above and below the equator. Because there is NO South Pole [/i
[i
[size=150As Captain Cooks sailed a 60.000 mile voyage around Antarctica, this model proves how he circumnavigated it. He simply circumnavigated 60.000 miles which ties in perfect with the internal ice wall. Antarctica isn't an island period.[/i[/size'"
I'm not sure why you post everything in bold (Internet shouting). Do you think shouting expresses your PoV more effectively or are you just insecure?
Whilst I am quite happy to challenge the press, why would the BBC want to lie about such a thing?
Why would the British Antarctic Survey lie? https://www.bas.ac.uk
Your map has no basis in truth whatsoever and there is no demonstrable proof that you can provide to show it has. |
|
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"[iHahahaha. The BBC, its on the News it must be true. Gee Whiz. Have you actually seen where ALL the specialised tourist stations are. They're ALL coastal, Antarctica isn't an Island period, and its a heavily guided tour and very restrictive as to what you can do. You haven't got the freedom to just go anywhere Nilly Willy. Heres my take on Antarctica and its locations which are all coastal which is dodgy.and so is the "Globe Theory's South Pole.. Why can you never go to the true "Global"geographical south Pole? Simple because there isn't one. They've made one up. Hahahaha, with a glass sphere. If there's a "south Pole".Why do ALL compasses point to the North Pole above and below the equator. Because there is NO South Pole [/i
[i
[size=150As Captain Cooks sailed a 60.000 mile voyage around Antarctica, this model proves how he circumnavigated it. He simply circumnavigated 60.000 miles which ties in perfect with the internal ice wall. Antarctica isn't an island period.[/i[/size'"
I'm not sure why you post everything in bold (Internet shouting). Do you think shouting expresses your PoV more effectively or are you just insecure?
Whilst I am quite happy to challenge the press, why would the BBC want to lie about such a thing?
Why would the British Antarctic Survey lie? https://www.bas.ac.uk
Your map has no basis in truth whatsoever and there is no demonstrable proof that you can provide to show it has. | |
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Captain | 829 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Nov 2015 | 9 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2016 | May 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| [iQuote ="bandgeekmafia78"Genuine question Stan... why would a compass point towards the North Pole if the Earth is flat? How does a compass work at all on a Flat Earth? Does it just point towards the centre?'"
The North Pole is Centre of the Pond/Plain. The equator and both tropics still exist on the model. So no matter where you live whether it be Australia, Britain, China, or Timbuktu the compass needle always points to the Central North Pole Surely if we lived on a Ball with two poles, the needle would point to the hemispheric Pole you were nearest too.[/i.
| | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 5594 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jul 2003 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2023 | Aug 2021 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"[iThe North Pole is Centre of the Pond/Plain. The equator and both tropics still exist on the model. So no matter where you live whether it be Australia, Britain, China, or Timbuktu the compass needle always points to the Central North Pole Surely if we lived on a Ball with two poles, the needle would point to the hemispheric Pole you were nearest too.[/i.'"
You can't give an answer based on something with no evidence. A pond/Plain can't be proven because it doesn't exist. Plus magnetic fields are dipolar in nature, meaning they require a 'north' and 'south'.
Besides, if all this is known and factually testable why isn't it accepted by literally everyone else?
What's more likely, that the idea is dog sick or the whole scientific community, countries and planet are all covering it all up because they're trying to hide god. (You'd think an omnipotent creator could just say hello to bring the whole charade down, but I guess it's busy worrying about what gay fellas do with their dicks.)
It's pretty incredible that an adult can believe such make believe. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4649 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2010 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"
[iI'm not trying to prove the Earth is flat, it is flat. I'm proving that we don't live on a spinning ball. Try trusting your perceptions. I can instantly remember you showing me your Concorde pictures with a beautiful flat straight horizon from 50.000 feet. Curvature doesn't exist and this is what your perceptions tell you. Start trusting your God given senses. A spade is a spade. Forget, science, maths, logic. and hard work, blinking heck. Okay then show me the Maths, Science, logic and hard work that disproves a Geocentric Earth in your own words please.....As you highly proclaim.... Good luck...I'm awaiting....Tick Tock....
[/i'"
I could recount endless scientific evidence but you won't listen to any of it. So here's a simple one for you. Have you ever noticed that during the day it's light and during the night it's dark? And if it's light this side of the earth it's dark on the other? That's because the earth rotates on its axis, call it spinning if you want. If the earth was flat there would be no alternating night or day and it would be impossible to have day this side of the earth and night on the other side. If the earth is as you say flat, how come we have day and night? How come it can be dark one side and light the other? Do the Freemasons have so much power that they can turn the sun on and off? | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 3169 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Mar 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
It's getting like a Bedlam Freak Show! Where's my popcorn?
| | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 3169 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Mar 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"
At this stage, I now know that you have no answer for this. You still have to stick to your group delusion that the Earth is not a globe, though, and so you do, even though this simple question cannot be answered if the Earth really was flat.
'"
You mean there's more of them? S-WEET!  | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 2490 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2015 | 10 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2020 | Mar 2020 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="FLAT STANLEY" '"
Another copy and paste job. Well done Stan
ctrl+C, ctrl+V, easy | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 28357 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"The Sun and the Moon are no doubt their very own light source.'"
The Moon reflects sunlight. If it was a light source
a) it wouldn't have phases and
b) it wouldn't go dark when eclipsed.
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY" Its almost laughable that we've been lead to believe that the Sun is 93.000.000 miles away with the moon supposedly being 238.855 miles away.'"
"Laughable"? Why would a simple fact (or if you like, a claim of a certain distance) be "laughable?
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY" Also another coincidence is that the Sun is 400 times larger than the Moon and 400 yes 400 times further away but they look exactly the same size in our skies under the beautiful molten firmament. They both travel East to West and you can easily tell with your own perceptions that they're both the same equal size and distance..You can see the Earth is flat, you can feel the Earth is stationary, but according to the Religious gospel of modern astronomy, you are wrong and a simpleton worthy of endless ridicule if you dare to believe your own eyes and experience.
With haughty arrogance the nearest hypnotized heliocentrist will then inform you that the Sun is 865,374 miles in diameter and 92,955,807 miles from the Earth, the Moon is 2,159 miles in diameter and 238,900 miles from Earth, and those just happen to be the EXACT diameters and distances necessary for a viewer from Earth to falsely perceive them as being the same size! '"
Why do you constantly lie, Stan? The Moon sometimes appears larger than the Sun, and sometimes smaller. This is because it doesn't have a perfectly circular orbit. You must have hear of the so-called "Super-moon"? Did you look up and see it for yourself? You must have hear of annular eclipses. Or are they just more "CGI"?
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"[size=85Heliocentrists’ astronomical figures always sound perfectly precise, but they have historically been notorious for regularly and drastically changing them to suit their various models. For instance, in his time Copernicus calculated the Sun’s distance from Earth to be 3,391,200 miles. The next century Johannes Kepler decided it was actually 12,376,800 miles away. Issac Newton once said, “It matters not whether we reckon it 28 or 54 million miles distant for either would do just as well!” How scientific!? Benjamin Martin calculated between 81 and 82 million miles, Thomas Dilworth claimed 93,726,900 miles, John Hind stated positively 95,298,260 miles, Benjamin Gould said more than 96 million miles, and Christian Mayer thought it was more than 104 million
[/size'"
Astronomers as the centuries pass in improving their measurements shock
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"The Sun’s light is golden, '"
Nope. The Sun gives off a wide range of light, the vast majority being outside the visible light spectrum.
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"So sunlight and moonlight clearly have altogether different properties, '"
No, "moonlight" is just reflected sunlight.
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"and furthermore the Moon itself cannot physically be both a spherical body and a reflector of the Sun’s light! Reflectors must be flat or concave for light rays to have any angle of incidence; If a reflector’s surface is convex then every ray of light points in a direct line with the radius perpendicular to the surface resulting in no reflection..Show me a mode of transport that has Spherical reflectors. '"
Utter bilge. When you go to the rugby, Stan, are those convex rugby balls invisible, then? What about people's heads? Can't you see them either?
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"Depending where/when you are on Earth you can see the Moon at any 360 degrees of inclination.'"
This is a sentence that actually has no meaning.
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY" This is because the Moon slowly rotates like a wheel as it circles above us.'"
Er, nope, everyone on the planet knows it does no such thing. Including you.
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY" You've just got to ask yourself why have NO Authentic dark side of the Moon photo's, have never been produced as evidence.'"
That would be because there is no such thing, when the side of the Moon facing Earth isn't illuminated by the Sun, the far side IS illuminated by the Sun. Secondly, there are any number of images of the far side of the Moon, taken by numerous spacecraft. The sad fact is that there could be a billion, you would never accept a single one as real.
Now, Stan - WHY DOES THE MOON LOOK UPSIDE DOWN WHEN VIEWED FROM AUSTRALIA? | | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 28357 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"
No sane adult could possibly believe that ludicrous scribble.
On our planet, the approx distance from Sao Paulo, Brazil to Johannesburg, SA is 4578 Miles
(7367km)
Approximate travel time from Sao Paulo, Brazil to Johannesburg, South Africa is: 9 hrs, 30 mins
Oddly enough, that works out at around 480mph., a typical cruising speed for a large passenger jet.
But on your lunatic model, the distance looks to be, at a guess, at least double that. Or would be, if they flew in a straight line but as you've previously been at pains to explain, they actually fly along the curve of great circles, so it would be even longer. So how do they DO that on your planet, Stan? Do THEIR planes fly in excess of 1000mph?
And, WHY DOES THE MOON LOOK UPSIDE DOWN WHEN VIEWED FROM AUSTRALIA?
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4649 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2010 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="ryano"You mean there's more of them? S-WEET!
'"
Some moron called whothefeckisalice. Though it's probably Flat Stan's second account to try and back up his insane ramblings. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Captain | 829 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Nov 2015 | 9 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2016 | May 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| [iQuote ="King Street Cat"=#BF0000 I could recount endless scientific evidence but you won't listen to any of it. So here's a simple one for you. Have you ever noticed that during the day it's light and during the night it's dark? And if it's light this side of the earth it's dark on the other? That's because the earth rotates on its axis, call it spinning if you want. If the earth was flat there would be no alternating night or day and it would be impossible to have day this side of the earth and night on the other side. If the earth is as you say flat, how come we have day and night? How come it can be dark one side and light the other? Do the Freemasons have so much power that they can turn the sun on and off?'"
Hahahaha. Ignore my questions but i have to answer yours. Great tactics. You babble Science, Maths, Logic and hard work proves the heliocentric model, Hahaha please inform me. The clocks been ticking around 18 hours now. You must of collected a mountain of evidence, or on the other hand you can't find a single strand. I'd wager the latter.... See you presume and are programmed to think/believe the former but in reality, there's absolutely NO proof to justify the Heliocentric fantasy THEORY....
[/i
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4649 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2010 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
What did you do in your science lessons at school Stan? Did you not learn about the earth casting a spherical shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse? It's kind of a massive giveaway to the shape of the earth. A flat earth wouldn't cast a spherical shadow, I've even witnessed it with my own eyes and it was definitely spherical in shape. In fact if you look it up you can probably see when the next one is and see it for yourself, sometime in September I believe.
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Captain | 829 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Nov 2015 | 9 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2016 | May 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| [iQuote Ferocious Aardvark Wrote:
Why do you constantly lie, Stan? The Moon sometimes appears larger than the Sun, and sometimes smaller. This is because it doesn't have a perfectly circular orbit. You must have hear of the so-called "Super-moon"? Did you look up and see it for yourself? You must have hear of annular eclipses. Or are they just more "CGI"?
'" Sorry but i don't lie, I seek and follow truths. Many people think that modern astronomy’s ability to accurately predict lunar and solar eclipses is a result and proof positive of the heliocentric theory of the universe.=#BF0000 The fact of the matter however is that eclipses have been accurately predicted by cultures worldwide for thousands of years before the “heliocentric ball-Earth” was even a glimmer in Copernicus’ imagination.[u Ptolemy in the 1st century A.D. accurately predicted eclipses for six hundred years on the basis of a flat, stationary Earth with equal precision as anyone living today.[/u All the way back in 600 B.C. Thales accurately predicted an eclipse which ended the war between the Medes and Lydians. Eclipses happen regularly with precision in 18 year cycles, so regardless of geocentric or heliocentric, flat or globe Earth cosmologies, eclipses can be accurately calculated independent of such. Furthermore, If the Moon is a globular sphere, and it is simply a reflector of the Sun's light, then where is the "hot spot" reflection that would be present if it were indeed a sphere.
Supermoons prove a stationary plane. Rob Skiba with his compass filmed last years to which gave head scratching results for the Globeheads. Shadows appeared on the wrong side as you'd of expected on a Globe as Rob explains. [url=https://youtu.be/gZeCNy9SyhsSupermoon[/url
Quote Ferocious Aardvark Wrote: Now, Stan - WHY DOES THE MOON LOOK UPSIDE DOWN WHEN VIEWED FROM AUSTRALIA?'" How many times do you need telling about this Australia bullcrap.. This is what we experience on our plane. If you take a paper plate and blue-tack it to the ceiling and stand on one side of it and mark the top with your pen, if you go to the other side and look at it you will find your "top" marking on the bottom. So it is possible to apparently turn things upside down. just by changing the direction you look at them.
If we take the moon as an example and it is above the equator. On the Geocentric model the people inside the equator (the Northern Hemisphere) would see the Moon one way and those on the other side of the equator ( Southern Hemisphere ) would still see the same "face" of the Moon but it would appear to be upside down...It's really that simple. Isn't it.Get it now. Good lad....[/i
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Administrator | 25122 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jul 2017 | May 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
What I don't understand is why you are busting a nut trying to make these people understand.
I can't say that I've ever really looked at this question (not least because it's not something that I'm particularly interested in). But even if I did I wouldn't waste a great deal of energy on most of the people in this thread who likely wake up each morning with a chalk outline drawn around them.
If you are happy with your understanding of the concept - demonstrate your faith in it. The fact that you are quite literally p!ssing away your non-refundable existence on people who I wouldn't trust to put one leg infront of the other without screwing up suggests that you perhaps aren't as certain as you would like to be.
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Captain | 829 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Nov 2015 | 9 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2016 | May 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| [i Quote ="Mugwump"What I don't understand is why you are busting a nut trying to make these people understand.
I can't say that I've ever really looked at this question (not least because it's not something that I'm particularly interested in). But even if I did I wouldn't waste a great deal of energy on most of the people in this thread who likely wake up each morning with a chalk outline drawn around them.
If you are happy with your understanding of the concept - demonstrate your faith in it. The fact that you are quite literally p!ssing away your non-refundable existence on people who I wouldn't trust to put one leg infront of the other without screwing up suggests that you perhaps aren't as certain as you would like to be.'"
Fair comments, You're 100% right on the matter. To be honest i prefer not to talk about my beliefs and have voiced this umpteen times saying i don't wish to have a shape of the earth squabble, but i get drawn in by the same two posters everytime. Yes i may have a tendency to retaliate to which is my downfall admittedly. =#BF0000So from now on Can posters please refrain from the shape of the Earth debates from now on please. If you have a genuine inquiry or question feel free to private message me and i'll answer genuine questions.[/i | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 5594 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jul 2003 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2023 | Aug 2021 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
It used to be that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Facts don't seem to matter anymore. Perception is everything.
Mugwump used the phrase 'demonstrate your faith in it.' Faith by definition is strong belief without evidence. It seems to me that it does nobody any good to have faith in anything if using that definition. It's probably better to hold on to a reality that is shown to hold up to close examination no matter how uncomfortable it makes you.
Francis Collins, who was a leader in the human genome project showed exactly the mindset that people should adopt when thinking critically. He said, regarding his work:
'The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily want that to be so, as a bible-believing christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to deny that.'
The problem with discussion on such subjects as this thread is that those with 'alternate views' provide no evidence or flawed evidence. The burden of proof lies with the claimant. When someone points out problems with the evidence, rather than do what Francis Collins would do and rethink the evidence, they become snarky and personal. Then everyone gets snarky and personal and nothing is gained. One look at the weird science thread, which is just an advert for a single RLFans member under threat of deletion to those that may question anything, is a perfect example of how not to think critically while believing that you are.
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Administrator | 25122 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jul 2017 | May 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| I've largely given up trying to get people to understand because it is a waste of effort. It has to be through their own efforts or not at all and no amount of facts or arguments will get them to change their minds.
It's easy to prove this by asking them - before the debate begins - [i"What would it take for you to - at the very least - reconsider your position?"[/i
I've NEVER YET encountered anyone who has been prepared to provide [utestable criteria[/u in response to this question (usually you just get abuse - or meaningless responses such as [i"A lot more than you have provided"[/i. Which is odd given that they are implicitly claiming to only ever be persuaded by reason and facts.
The truth is people don't use facts to shape their understanding of how the world works. People use their understanding of how the world works to shape their facts.  | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Administrator | 25122 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jul 2017 | May 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="TheButcher"Mugwump used the phrase 'demonstrate your faith in it.' Faith by definition is strong belief without evidence. '"
You see here is a CLASSIC example of cherry picking the facts to suit your argument.
You have provided the ONE definition which is in accordance with YOUR beliefs and completely IGNORED every other defintion such as:
[i"confidence or trust in a person or thing:"[/i
What did I say about chalk outlines? | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 3169 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Mar 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| So it's agreed then - only Mugwump and Stan are allowed on to massage each other "intellectually". Enjoy! You deserve each other. and It was all getting a bit  anyway! | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 28357 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"..So from now on Can posters please refrain from the shape of the Earth debates from now on please'"
It's not compulsory to post replies, Stan. My aim is just to get you to THINK about it, so you can see where you are in error. It is very hard, as you refuse to consider alternatives, but I'm reasonably patient. If you can't handle the truth, then walk away.
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"... Ptolemy in the 1st century A.D. accurately predicted eclipses for six hundred years on the basis of a flat, stationary Earth with equal precision as anyone living today....regardless of geocentric or heliocentric, flat or globe Earth cosmologies, eclipses can be accurately calculated independent of such.'"
Whilst they could predict LUNAR eclipses with some degree of accuracy, they struggled with SOLAr eclipses, and to say that they could predict either with equal accuracy to modern astronomy is, simply put, completely wrong, so why make that claim up?
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY" Furthermore, If the Moon is a globular sphere, and it is simply a reflector of the Sun's light, then where is the "hot spot" reflection that would be present if it were indeed a sphere. '"
Any fool can see that the Moon is a globe by observing it nightly, in particular the shadows cast on the moon, and the terminator area. It only takes a second to consider a view like this (which you can do with your own eyes, binoculars or telescope) to KNOW that the Moon is a globe:
You could only think that it is not a globe, once you consider for a minute what you can see, if you were spectacularly stupid.
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"Supermoons prove a stationary plane.'"
Sorry but it is not legitimate to simply make such a bold "statement of fact" without explaining in what way they "prove" this. So-called supermoons (meaning the moon looks a bit bigger than at most other times) mean simply that. They occur at full moons when the Moon is at its closest approach to Earth, and occur because the orbit is not perfectly circular.
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"How many times do you need telling about this Australia bullcrap.. This is what we experience on our plane. If you take a paper plate and blue-tack it to the ceiling and stand on one side of it and mark the top with your pen, if you go to the other side and look at it you will find your "top" marking on the bottom. So it is possible to apparently turn things upside down. just by changing the direction you look at them.'"
The reason I have asked you this dozens of times is to make you THINK about it. But as I have already debunked your simplistic and frankly childish "explanation", you clearly refuse to think.
If you take a paper plate and blue-tack it to the ceiling and mark the top with your pen, you will have performed a miracle. Once you have blu-tacked it to the ceiling you obviously cannot mark the top. You'd need to remove it from the ceiling again, before you could mark the top.
What you are doing is repeating the same fundamental logical error that I already pointed out . Why?
What you seem to think is that by writing "TOP" on the bottom of the plate, this miraculously makes the point where you write "the top of the plate". It doesn't. Once the plate is blu-tacked to your ceiling, you can only ever see the BOTTOM of the plate! Writing "TOP" on it does not alter this simple and obvious fact, any more than writing "CAT" on a dog would make it a cat.
You should consider having a globe model of the moon suspended from your ceiling. Walk around that, and see what the effect is. It's exactly the same as if you hang a person from the ceiling, their "top" (head) will always look to be at the top. Their feet will always be at the bottom. Writing "TOP" on the soles of their shoes will not magically make them upside down.
You are failing to understand an extremely basic point. The effect seen from Australia would be that a hypothetical giant plate stuck to the "bottom" of the Moon as seen from the UK would to an Australian look to be stuck to the "top" of the Moon. That is the effect you need to explain. A "TOP becomes BOTTOM" effect. Like this Moon as viewed from Australia. From the UK, it's the "other way up". (You'll love this pic Stan since as luck would have it, it also shows the silhouette of the ISS)
This image, incidentally is by an amateur Australian astrophotographer, Dylan O'Donnell, who appears to have no known connection with NASA or any other space agency, but just enjoys taking photos and putting them in the public domain. You can see more of his work here: deography.com/
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"If we take the moon as an example and it is above the equator. On the Geocentric model the people inside the equator (the Northern Hemisphere) would see the Moon one way and those on the other side of the equator ( Southern Hemisphere ) would still see the same "face" of the Moon but it would appear to be upside down...It's really that simple. Isn't it.Get it now. Good lad....[/i'"
No Stan, you don't get it - not at all. I am trying to help, but you do need to think about it for a moment.
If the Earth is flat, and the moon is flat, then you have a huge problem. Imagine I am looking at the Moon as it is very low in the South. You say it is a flat plane. Yet I see it as a perfect circle. that must mean it was not parallel to the ground I stand on, it must be almost at right angles to the ground. Right? Otherwise, it wouldn't look perfectly round.
This here Moon is, from my perspective, in the direction of Australia. If it looks flat to me, than nobody from Australia will be able to see it at all, now will they? Because they would only be able to see the OTHER side of that flat disc.
The other simple debunk of a "flat Moon" model is that except if the Moon were directly above your head, it would NEVER look round, I would look increasingly oval the further away from it you walked. Just like that plate stuck to your ceiling.
I fact, if the Moon were a flat plate, then it would only ever appear totally round to one person on Earth, and that is the person directly opposite where the plate was facing. To everyone else, it would be an oval, and if they were so far away that the Moon was near the horizon, then it would be a very elongated thin oval.
The full moon never looks like an oval from any point on Earth, ever.
Now all I ask is you THINK about these things. If you do, you will inevitably see the hopeless fallacy of your "explanation" and that it cannot be squared with the facts as you actually observe them. |
|
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"..So from now on Can posters please refrain from the shape of the Earth debates from now on please'"
It's not compulsory to post replies, Stan. My aim is just to get you to THINK about it, so you can see where you are in error. It is very hard, as you refuse to consider alternatives, but I'm reasonably patient. If you can't handle the truth, then walk away.
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"... Ptolemy in the 1st century A.D. accurately predicted eclipses for six hundred years on the basis of a flat, stationary Earth with equal precision as anyone living today....regardless of geocentric or heliocentric, flat or globe Earth cosmologies, eclipses can be accurately calculated independent of such.'"
Whilst they could predict LUNAR eclipses with some degree of accuracy, they struggled with SOLAr eclipses, and to say that they could predict either with equal accuracy to modern astronomy is, simply put, completely wrong, so why make that claim up?
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY" Furthermore, If the Moon is a globular sphere, and it is simply a reflector of the Sun's light, then where is the "hot spot" reflection that would be present if it were indeed a sphere. '"
Any fool can see that the Moon is a globe by observing it nightly, in particular the shadows cast on the moon, and the terminator area. It only takes a second to consider a view like this (which you can do with your own eyes, binoculars or telescope) to KNOW that the Moon is a globe:
You could only think that it is not a globe, once you consider for a minute what you can see, if you were spectacularly stupid.
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"Supermoons prove a stationary plane.'"
Sorry but it is not legitimate to simply make such a bold "statement of fact" without explaining in what way they "prove" this. So-called supermoons (meaning the moon looks a bit bigger than at most other times) mean simply that. They occur at full moons when the Moon is at its closest approach to Earth, and occur because the orbit is not perfectly circular.
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"How many times do you need telling about this Australia bullcrap.. This is what we experience on our plane. If you take a paper plate and blue-tack it to the ceiling and stand on one side of it and mark the top with your pen, if you go to the other side and look at it you will find your "top" marking on the bottom. So it is possible to apparently turn things upside down. just by changing the direction you look at them.'"
The reason I have asked you this dozens of times is to make you THINK about it. But as I have already debunked your simplistic and frankly childish "explanation", you clearly refuse to think.
If you take a paper plate and blue-tack it to the ceiling and mark the top with your pen, you will have performed a miracle. Once you have blu-tacked it to the ceiling you obviously cannot mark the top. You'd need to remove it from the ceiling again, before you could mark the top.
What you are doing is repeating the same fundamental logical error that I already pointed out . Why?
What you seem to think is that by writing "TOP" on the bottom of the plate, this miraculously makes the point where you write "the top of the plate". It doesn't. Once the plate is blu-tacked to your ceiling, you can only ever see the BOTTOM of the plate! Writing "TOP" on it does not alter this simple and obvious fact, any more than writing "CAT" on a dog would make it a cat.
You should consider having a globe model of the moon suspended from your ceiling. Walk around that, and see what the effect is. It's exactly the same as if you hang a person from the ceiling, their "top" (head) will always look to be at the top. Their feet will always be at the bottom. Writing "TOP" on the soles of their shoes will not magically make them upside down.
You are failing to understand an extremely basic point. The effect seen from Australia would be that a hypothetical giant plate stuck to the "bottom" of the Moon as seen from the UK would to an Australian look to be stuck to the "top" of the Moon. That is the effect you need to explain. A "TOP becomes BOTTOM" effect. Like this Moon as viewed from Australia. From the UK, it's the "other way up". (You'll love this pic Stan since as luck would have it, it also shows the silhouette of the ISS)
This image, incidentally is by an amateur Australian astrophotographer, Dylan O'Donnell, who appears to have no known connection with NASA or any other space agency, but just enjoys taking photos and putting them in the public domain. You can see more of his work here: deography.com/
Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"If we take the moon as an example and it is above the equator. On the Geocentric model the people inside the equator (the Northern Hemisphere) would see the Moon one way and those on the other side of the equator ( Southern Hemisphere ) would still see the same "face" of the Moon but it would appear to be upside down...It's really that simple. Isn't it.Get it now. Good lad....[/i'"
No Stan, you don't get it - not at all. I am trying to help, but you do need to think about it for a moment.
If the Earth is flat, and the moon is flat, then you have a huge problem. Imagine I am looking at the Moon as it is very low in the South. You say it is a flat plane. Yet I see it as a perfect circle. that must mean it was not parallel to the ground I stand on, it must be almost at right angles to the ground. Right? Otherwise, it wouldn't look perfectly round.
This here Moon is, from my perspective, in the direction of Australia. If it looks flat to me, than nobody from Australia will be able to see it at all, now will they? Because they would only be able to see the OTHER side of that flat disc.
The other simple debunk of a "flat Moon" model is that except if the Moon were directly above your head, it would NEVER look round, I would look increasingly oval the further away from it you walked. Just like that plate stuck to your ceiling.
I fact, if the Moon were a flat plate, then it would only ever appear totally round to one person on Earth, and that is the person directly opposite where the plate was facing. To everyone else, it would be an oval, and if they were so far away that the Moon was near the horizon, then it would be a very elongated thin oval.
The full moon never looks like an oval from any point on Earth, ever.
Now all I ask is you THINK about these things. If you do, you will inevitably see the hopeless fallacy of your "explanation" and that it cannot be squared with the facts as you actually observe them. | |
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Moderator | 101530 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Sep 2002 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
Moderator
|
| Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"
How many times do you need telling about this Australia bullcrap.. This is what we experience on our plane. If you take a paper plate and blue-tack it to the ceiling and stand on one side of it and mark the top with your pen, if you go to the other side and look at it you will find your "top" marking on the bottom. So it is [upossible[/u to [uapparently[/u turn things upside down. just by changing the direction you look at them. '"
So, you're not totally convinced? Possible, apparently ... somewhat unconvincing. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Administrator | 25122 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jul 2017 | May 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
I think this thread has reached the end of its useful life.
| | | |
| |
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2025 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
|
|
anyway!
