Jump to content
  • Sign Up
Sign Up To Remove Ads! | Purchase An Ad Slot!


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

694 Excellent


About Anthem(0)

  • Rank
    Honorary Poster

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Anthem(0)

    Brain candy -we live in a simulation?

    It's interesting how the mainstream and their followers decry alternative cosmologies as heresy but seemingly have no problem suggesting reality is a 3D projection of 2-dimensional holographic information. If one is open to the possibility that reality is a holographic simulation then how does that same person justify defending establishment models which describe reality as anything but? I'm down with sim theory though. It's arguably the most sensible explanation for our existence. Most if not all of the puzzle pieces fit under the assumption.
  2. Anthem(0)

    Debunking Right wing rhetoric

    Granted, there was a good amount of blathering mixed in with the truths.
  3. 1. The fact that you're even asking this question underlines the problem. How can there NOT be irrefutable evidence of ground curvature and motion in the year 2018? This is beyond damning. But if it were proven then I'd accept it. Fat chance of that happening though else it would've been done at some point in the preceding centuries/millennia. 2. Few, if any, of the regulars in this thread are 100% sure about much of anything. The gist of flat earth is that the Heliocentric model falls squarely under the heading of pseudoscience. The surface of water is easily and repeatably empirically provable to be flat. The establishment model is broken and does not represent reality, the ground provably does not curve and move, and therefore alternatives need to be considered. That's the essence of FE. Don't make this about US being 100% certain that the earth is flat. That's a cheap, silly strawman and we're well beyond that. The problem the scientific community's inability to prove the core facets of the model it forces on everyone from early childhood as unassailable truth. Your questions are better directed at yourself as this thread is chock-full of irrefutable evidence that the ground does not curve into a ball of the defined dimensions or move. What have YOU done upon realizing you cannot remotely prove ball earth theory viable? Are YOU 100% sure the earth is a moving ball?
  4. Anthem(0)

    Debunking Right wing rhetoric

    Obvious bait thread. But there is much truth in the OP. Interesting dilemma.
  5. So then aircraft "travel straight" and must continuously manually arc downward to correct for earth curvature? Circular logic. We're talking about hypothetical satellites/ISS orbits contradicting demonstrable physics. Demonstrable physics say objects fall at the same rate whether dropped vertically or projected horizontally while still falling vertically. You don't even disagree with this so clearly you understand that vertical and horizontal are independent. Yet you claim otherwise and cite hypothetical satellite orbits as your evidence, despite these satellites being the precise point of contention. Textbook circular logic. Only if you assume that the ground is curved. Which also cannot be demonstrated to be true, as you well know. None of these mental gymnastics are necessary if the proofless assumption of ground curvature is removed and vertical down no longer stops at the same singular point from every direction. Even granting your assumption, both the vertical and horizontal have independent vectors at every point and the ISS would still fall 250 miles toward the center point (vertical vector) in 5 minutes. Basic mathematics. There's a reason orbits are generally modeled without the vertical vector component.
  6. Vertical and horizontal are obviously independent. A bullet shot horizontally from a gun hits the ground at the same speed as a bullet being dropped straight down from the same height, doesn't it? That isn't my concept, that is basic physics as taught in grade school. How are you disagreeing with this point and claiming that I don't understand the physics involved? There is never a point when the hypothetical ISS is moving horizontally without also falling vertically so I have no idea what you mean by "Initially the satellite is moving horizontally with no vertical (or downward) velocity." But whatever, there's no need to string this along. Does traveling straight mean "traveling straight" or "traveling in a downward arc parallel with the curvature of earth"? Either way you're in contradiction so I understand why you'd evade the question.
  7. The basic point of the article is that it's mathematically impossible for manmade objects to orbit as commonly described. Take the ISS. At its reported height, it would hit the ground in less than 5 minutes due to gravity. The downward gravity vector is independent of the horizontal vector. If we're to believe it's falling the same relative distance as it travels straight in that 5 minutes, therefore maintaining constant altitude, then you cannot simultaneously claim that airplanes don't have to manually compensate for the curvature while traveling straight. The contradiction is evident and you can't have it both ways. Does traveling straight mean "traveling straight" or "traveling in a downward arc parallel with the curvature of earth"?
  8. Anthem(0)

    If only Job was born a little later...

    That's a good one.
  9. Geodetic surveying doesn't measure ground curvature, it mathematically calculates curvature based on the assumption that the ground is curved. There is no curvature measuring taking place at any step in the process. You already know this and are just ***lling. Any possible argument one has against laser tests over 25 miles of water would apply 100-fold to geodetic surveying.
  10. "Countless" in the above context means "non-existent" or ZERO. And since one cannot count to ZERO, it can technically be argued the character is correct and there are "countless" round earth experiments. Bra-f***ing-vo. The single experiment is inexplicably "conducted in a sloppy way". No need to explain how it's sloppy, or how specifically the sloppiness affected the results. Merely declaring it to be sloppy will suffice.
  11. The download link is the pre-release version from the Globebusters a few days before the online version was up. The online version is the most up-to-date one. But 99% of the content is identical. First you complain that you want a downloadable version. One is provided and now you complain it's not the most up-to-date version. If you want the most current version then use the online one. It's hilarious though, you resorting to complaining about there being differences between v1.0 of a paper and v1.1 of the same paper. As if this is uncommon to have slight differences between different versions of the same paper.
  12. ***lls are gonna ***ll. It's cool. As everyone can see, the usual apologists have nothing to offer as far as counter-arguments to empirical testing. NOTHING. They insist the tests are flawed but can't be bothered to specify what the flaws are or how the flaws effected the tests. Nonetheless, they'll claim "I said what the flaws are", knowing the did no such thing. They can't be bothered to conduct their own testing correctly without these alleged, unnamed flaws. They can't reference any correctly-performed tests because apparently none exist. They won't even answer simple questions like "how is the laser hitting the target 25 miles away"? What can be learned from this?
  13. oh the irony. At least these characters have senses of humor. Once you realize they aren't being serious, they're actually pretty funny.
  14. Your post is still on the last page. Here it is: This is data from Ijssel, not Balaton. Don't try to switch it up now. Where is the curvature on the lake? How is the laser hitting the target 25 miles away? *still crickets*
  15. Of course it was theater. Every single aspect of politics is theater. It's ok to be entertained while attending the theater. But it's dangerous to lose context and forget that you're at a damn theater and none of it is actually real. It's all for show. Both sides, left and right. 100% of the time. They're in bed together, successfully hustling the theatergoers. My 2 cents.

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.