^^^ Stellar parallax is fucking bullshit, the measurements are smaller that the distortions caused by the atmosphere. This isn't fucking proof or evidence of anything but an intentional deception. You should really kill yourself for claiming ridiculous bullshit, the measurement is smaller than the margin of error you fucking cunt. You're full of shit you immature little cocksucker! You're all full of shit!
Aether is fucking bullshit, already proven to be bullshit a few times. That isn't fucking proof that the earth is flat. It's just a deception made by the reptilians to deceive us. I've provided 20 mountains of proof for gravity/stars/globe. |
|
|
|
@Astargath,
I've provided a mountain of proof and you can't prove fuck all. All you can do is scream science while failing to deliver and calling anybody who disagrees with your pseudoscience a liar.
Go hang yourself you dishonest cocksucker.
All I do is use the same criteria you apply to our mountain of proof. Remember? All the pictures/videos/experiments/tests for the past hundreds of years were dismissed by you for no reason, you kept saying that we can't trust any of it if we didn't do it ourselves and YET you believe those experiments/tests even though you haven't performed them yourself. USE THE SAME CRITERIA YOU LIAR! |
|
|
|
This thread has established the following requirements for Flat Earth theory to work:
- NASA is a hoax
- Gravity is a hoax
- Science is a hoax
- Antarctica is a hoax
- The universe is a hoax
- The Coriolis Effect is a hoax
- The education system is a hoax
- The sun, moon and stars are a hoax
- The north and south poles are a hoax
- All of rocketry and flight travel is a hoax
And you replace all of those beliefs with what?
Nothing.
- All pictures/videos and livestreams of earth from space are a hoax - History/math/physics books are a hoax - Millions and millions are part of the hoax Notbatman has been unable to prove the earth is flat unfortunately. When asked for proof he simply linked a few experiments that were supposed to be performed, however that's not consistent with his logic of not believing in anything if you haven't done it yourself. Therefore we can conclude that Notbatman is indeed a liar and a troll, we can close the thread now. |
|
|
|
I'm a shrink. And you need to repent from your unprofitable atheism and turn to The Living God - Jesus Christ, otherwise you're at risk loosing (that's losing ,you dumbass)your soul in eternal hellfire. Think about it. Bonus video as my gift to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MpFn3-GFOoYou are a shrink eh? Well brass monkeys are flying out my ass, bud. I got thru the first 10 seconds of your "educational" video and that was a chore. Oh, and learn the difference between "lose" (opposite of find) and "loose"( opposite of tight) ya fucking moron. Oh yes , I'll think about it alright... Excuse me now while I wait for your magic sky fairy to burn me in imaginary hell.... I don't even bother clicking on his links anymore, this guy is truly nuts. I think notbatman could be a troll, exemplar is definitely insane though. I don't understand why a god would need anyone to believe in him and 'repent'. Why is doing that better than being a good person all the time? So a murderer that repents goes to heaven. A person that was good all his life goes to hell for not believing in god. Yeah.. |
|
|
|
''But you, even though you have much better understanding about physics, won't be saved'' Well thankfully I don't believe god exists so I don't need to be saved, if god needs me to believe in him to be saved then he is still a moron.
That's part of the point. Satan tried to believe God out of existence but failed, so why would you think that you can? All you are doing is believing yourself out of existence.  Nonsensical statement. I can't chose what to believe in and what not. Just like you can't chose to believe in Allah or Zeus instead of your god. God wouldn't need to require people believing in him to save them, being a good person should be more than enough if a real god existed. Go ahead. Believe yourself a foot into the air. Now two feet. Pretty soon you won't need a car to drive. You can fly by believing you can, right? Attempting to believe God out of existence won't work. Believe yourself into levitation, first, just to show yourself that you have some believe-power. You don't understand, do you? I gave you an example, can you now switch and believe in Zeus, even if you tried, you wouldn't be able to do it. Why do you think I don't want god to exist? I want god to exist, I would want to go to heaven and live forever, unfortunately I cannot force myself to believe in that, even though it's a desirable outcome, I simply cannot believe in it because for me there is not enough evidence. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, definitely merit abuse, all of them only sending to 2 people, they should probably be tagged but I don't know if you get tagged for merit abuse usually.
|
|
|
|
There is only one reason why anybody believes any right thing about God. It's because His Holy Spirit gives them the ability to believe. Anybody who sees the machine we call nature, or the universe, knows that God exists. He doens't believe that God exists... although he might be attempting to delude himself into believing that God doesn't exist. Well seems like god is doing a terrible job, look at the above nutjobs, exemplar or notbatman, they believe in god and at the same time they think the earth is flat. That's what religion is all about, saving faulty people. God forgives mistakes, even big ones, when there is repentance. Those jokers might be saved, even though they have some misunderstanding about the ways physics works. They might be saved because they believe in God's salvation... Jesus... even though they have misunderstandings about other things. But you, even though you have much better understanding about physics, won't be saved, simply because you won't accept the only salvation that is real... Jesus salvation. But if you repent of this, even you can be saved. ''But you, even though you have much better understanding about physics, won't be saved'' Well thankfully I don't believe god exists so I don't need to be saved, if god needs me to believe in him to be saved then he is still a moron. That's part of the point. Satan tried to believe God out of existence but failed, so why would you think that you can? All you are doing is believing yourself out of existence. Nonsensical statement. I can't chose what to believe in and what not. Just like you can't chose to believe in Allah or Zeus instead of your god. God wouldn't need to require people believing in him to save them, being a good person should be more than enough if a real god existed. |
|
|
|
There is only one reason why anybody believes any right thing about God. It's because His Holy Spirit gives them the ability to believe. Anybody who sees the machine we call nature, or the universe, knows that God exists. He doens't believe that God exists... although he might be attempting to delude himself into believing that God doesn't exist. Well seems like god is doing a terrible job, look at the above nutjobs, exemplar or notbatman, they believe in god and at the same time they think the earth is flat. That's what religion is all about, saving faulty people. God forgives mistakes, even big ones, when there is repentance. Those jokers might be saved, even though they have some misunderstanding about the ways physics works. They might be saved because they believe in God's salvation... Jesus... even though they have misunderstandings about other things. But you, even though you have much better understanding about physics, won't be saved, simply because you won't accept the only salvation that is real... Jesus salvation. But if you repent of this, even you can be saved. ''But you, even though you have much better understanding about physics, won't be saved'' Well thankfully I don't believe god exists so I don't need to be saved, if god needs me to believe in him to be saved then he is still a moron. |
|
|
|
How is any of this luring people away from god when most people still believe in god as always? Christians know the earth isn't flat and it's not stopping them from believing in god, your logic is bad.
You can't see because you have been utterly confused by that jesuit sellout badecker. Check again facts in this great documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olbyJDou4qQ&tbonus pic:  Badecker's post above is a clear display of a typical jesuit tactics to discredit The Word of God and bring confusion to people which are honestly seeking The Truth. Statistics show that people are still deeply religious, everywhere, their strategy is clearly not working, how did they even got the power to do this when most people are religious people? 0 sense. |
|
|
|
There is only one reason why anybody believes any right thing about God. It's because His Holy Spirit gives them the ability to believe. Anybody who sees the machine we call nature, or the universe, knows that God exists. He doens't believe that God exists... although he might be attempting to delude himself into believing that God doesn't exist. Well seems like god is doing a terrible job, look at the above nutjobs, exemplar or notbatman, they believe in god and at the same time they think the earth is flat. |
|
|
|
So I guess, like, all of this is just bullshit to you, right?  Yes, this is bullcrap, also called monkeyman science or scientism. It is a lie. Watch documentaries scientism exposed part 1 and 2. George Lemaitre a jesuit priest sellout made the big bang and universe. God made the heaven and the earth.  @DelricoFabien Research Biblical earth! (flat earth plane realm covered with a firmament-dome). How is any of this luring people away from god when most people still believe in god as always? Christians know the earth isn't flat and it's not stopping them from believing in god, your logic is bad. |
|
|
|
...
''Special Relativity was the excuse they (the Jews) used to claim that M&M was not conclusive'' How do you know, were you there?
The Jews and all the hard-working men and women who perform oral pleasures for them currently use it (SR), as their excuse to claim the experiment (M&M) is inconclusive. ''This where Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment and its accounting for a rotational frame of reference comes in. D&P proved SR is not consistent with experiment while also proving the existence of a static aether. M&M, AF and TN all prove the Earth is motionless because D&P debunks SR.'' How do you know, were you there? Did you do it yourself?
The Jews and all the hard-working men and women who perform oral pleasures for them currently use the excuse that, The Sagnac Experiment doesn't take rotating frames of reference into account to claim it (TSE), is not conclusive. The Prunier & Dufour replication took rotating frames of reference into account and the results are conclusive; SR is not consistent with experiment. Did I do it myself? No we're arguing about established scientific experiments here! ''The keyword here is "theory" You mean this?:
''A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]''
If you change "A scientific theory is an explanation ..." to "A scientific theory is a possible explanation ..." then yes. ''No we're arguing about established scientific experiments here!'' You don't want to believe established science though, gravity and the fact that the earth is not flat was established long ago, scientifically. Do you really not see the flaw in your logic here or are you just being a dishonest liar as usual? |
|
|
|
^^^ Why don't you kill yourself instead of posting an article from an MSM disinfo site by a PhD who sucks Jewish dicks for a living? The article is full of typos, ad-hominem attacks like "claptrap" and non-sequitur arguments. He dishonestly framed Airy's Failure as an experiment that was out to prove/disprove the aether when, it was infact an experiment to prove the Earth was in motion. He framed the experiment as an aether test so he could assume the Earth's rotation thus make the false claim it disproved the aether. This cock smoker's spiel to debunk M&M rests on the assumption the Earth is in motion. He should have stuck to just the bullshit party line that SR proves no aether.
He then goes on to dishonestly claim the Sagnac effect doesn't prove the aether because of the rotating frame of reference (not compatible with SR). This is dishonest because Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment takes the rotating frame of reference into account and proves that SR is not consistent with experimental results.
Go hang youself you little bitch, because you clearly don't comprehend the garbage you're linking to and can't articulate any argument on your own.
''because Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment takes the rotating frame of reference into account and proves that SR is not consistent with experimental results.'' Prove it, how do you know it's consistent or that it was even performed, ever? I'm just going to let you flail spastically on this. Michelson's conclusions on the speed of light place the distance of the sun at 93 million miles away. Morely's basis is optics, which you don't believe in either, and the Michelson Morley experiment help to prove relativity.
You believe those things are wrong, so you can't use that experiment to prove your point.
You don't agree with Maxwell's equations, because they are reliant on the speed of light being what they are, so any conclusion from the Trouton Nobel experiment are inconclusive.
In order for light to be dragged by either aether or anything else, a gravitational field must be present. You don't believe in gravity, so there is no dragging of light. Sagnac's experiment is useless in your case.
And, I don't know anything about Prunier or Dufour, so I'm not going to give you an interpretation on the fly that may have some error you can exploit.
This guy proves that light does this under these circumstances! Thats proof that something else is going on! But, light doesn't act that way because of my unicorn science. Hmm...?
Michelson assumed the Sun was 93 millions miles away and tried to prove the Earth was in motion (like Airy), it wasn't any kind of conclusion based on experiment. Special Relativity was the excuse they (the Jews) used to claim that M&M was not conclusive; the conclusion reached by M&M was that it's consistent with a static aether and a motionless Earth. They (the Jews) claimed that M&M was consistent with both SR and a static aether thus making the claim of a static aether inconclusive. This where Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment and its accounting for a rotational frame of reference comes in. D&P proved SR is not consistent with experiment while also proving the existence of a static aether. M&M, AF and TN all prove the Earth is motionless because D&P debunks SR. Now we move on to an attempt to frame my beliefs with a strawman and discount established scientific experiments with a logical fallacy, this is where I tell you to rope yourself. Continuing on, you setup another strawman by making claims about my beliefs again. I agree with Maxwell's original equations, the quaternions available in the uncensored/unredacted version of his treatise on E&M. Now me move on to a giant turd you reached in and pulled out of your ass "a gravitational field must be present", gravity is an unproven theory. Finally, after pretending D&P doesn't exist you revert to a blithering idiot spouting nonsense about how you identify as a unicorn. So I guess, like, all of this is just bullshit to you, right?
[img]https:// ... /multiverse-theory.jpg[/img]
The keyword here is "theory". ''Special Relativity was the excuse they (the Jews) used to claim that M&M was not conclusive'' How do you know, were you there?''This where Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment and its accounting for a rotational frame of reference comes in. D&P proved SR is not consistent with experiment while also proving the existence of a static aether. M&M, AF and TN all prove the Earth is motionless because D&P debunks SR.'' How do you know, were you there? Did you do it yourself?''The keyword here is "theory" You mean this?: ''A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]'' |
|
|
|
^^^ Why don't you kill yourself instead of posting an article from an MSM disinfo site by a PhD who sucks Jewish dicks for a living? The article is full of typos, ad-hominem attacks like "claptrap" and non-sequitur arguments. He dishonestly framed Airy's Failure as an experiment that was out to prove/disprove the aether when, it was infact an experiment to prove the Earth was in motion. He framed the experiment as an aether test so he could assume the Earth's rotation thus make the false claim it disproved the aether. This cock smoker's spiel to debunk M&M rests on the assumption the Earth is in motion. He should have stuck to just the bullshit party line that SR proves no aether.
He then goes on to dishonestly claim the Sagnac effect doesn't prove the aether because of the rotating frame of reference (not compatible with SR). This is dishonest because Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment takes the rotating frame of reference into account and proves that SR is not consistent with experimental results.
Go hang youself you little bitch, because you clearly don't comprehend the garbage you're linking to and can't articulate any argument on your own.
''because Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment takes the rotating frame of reference into account and proves that SR is not consistent with experimental results.'' Prove it, how do you know it's consistent or that it was even performed, ever? |
|
|
|
You don't know the patient or anything about his history or the medical event under question. You don't know the medicine prescribed so you don't know what instructions should or should not have been given. You make assumptions that by 'salt' I mean table salt. Yet you, 'a doctor of 15 years', are perfectly happy go into a great deal of detail about the patient's status.
I've noticed that doctors seem to have ethical clearance to do whatever it takes to defend pharmaceutical products against any and all suggestion of potential problems. And many of them do. You are doing back-flips on this thread. I assume the fact you have stopped arguing about physiology means your Google searches finally confirmed that you are completely wrong. I never claimed to know anything about the patient, I never claimed to known anything about the medication prescribed, and I never defended any pharmaceutical product. All complete strawmen. The fact is you said low salt levels cause heart attacks. That is a blatant lie and finally Google seems to have confirmed that for you. At the very best you got trolled into defending doctors against bogus data I'll take that as a "No, I have no source or evidence for my completely made up statistic". Don't worry about it. It happens. Just means you lost the argument. Again. This is the problem with these people, even when they are completely wrong and absolute clear evidence is presented, even for the smallest mistakes, they wont EVER admit they were wrong. Tvbcof is just another dishonest liar pushing his own agenda, disgusting. |
|
|
|
The adage of the Jew crying out in pain as he strikes you keeps getting reinforced here; you're all selling science but I'm the only one actually delivering.
Gravity doesn't deliver, it's an unproven theory. The Cavendish Experiment doesn't deliver proof, electrostatic forces render it useless. Every argument against my scientific proof the Earth is motionless rests on Special Relativity's claim there is no aether however, Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment proves SR is not consistent with experimental results.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-flat-earthers-say-that-the-Michelson-Morley-experiment-Airys-failure-and-sagnac-prove-a-flat-stationary-earthYour ''experiments'' are easily debunked, watching youtube videos that tell you they proved the earth is flat is not proof. |
|
|
|
The five scientific experiments I offer as proof, 1. Aiy's Failure Experiment, DEBUNKED2. The Michelson & Morley Experiment, DEBUNKED3. The Trouton–Noble experiment, DEBUNKED4. The Sagnac Experiment, DEBUNKED5. Prunier & Dufour's replication of The Sagnac Experiment, Replicated a failed experiment.What about MILLIONS of SUCCESSFUL experiments the rest of the world offers as proof? I even gave you your wikipedia links for each failed experiment. If you've been doxed
Never been doxed. Signed up on this forum with my real name. Unlike you, I don't hide. Lie to yourself - not to us. Exactly, I can easily link more experiments proving the earth is a sphere or gravity exists. Why do you trust any of those experiments but not our experiments, notbatman? You didn't replicate any of them so... |
|
|
|
I didn't defend the article, I defended the facts. If any of the statements I made were not factual, please do enlighten me.
Then don't quote me when we are talking about the article that badecker posted because thats the debate, mate, maybe you should learn how to read. His point was that because they did not file some reports they have been lying for 30 years which is simply not true as shown above. He keeps saying there are no safety reports/tests which is again simply not true. https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/del-bigtree-vaccine-safety-complaints-hhs-responds/I don't know what your point is. Yes they did NOT file the required reports of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 but they have done all the required work to make sure vaccines are safe. But you clearly were not just referring to the article, you were also referring to the ruling that the government has been in violation of reporting laws FOR YEARS. Sorry, if you don't like me pointing out your disingenuous arguments, don't make them. ''reporting laws FOR YEARS'' Of specific reports. If they filed 100 reports but 2 of them weren't filed, would that mean they are faking the whole thing? Shit happens, the lawsuit was settled, wasn't it? Just because they didn't file those reports, it doesn't mean they didn't take cafe of the safety of the vaccines. Pointing out they didn't file those specific reports accomplishes nothing, what's the conclusion from that? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
