|
Before the BIG BANG the Earth was flat. Then about five hundred years ago some clowns who loved little children made a joke and told the kids they were living on a ball. The kids all laughed as they knew the clowns were just making fun.
As time went on the clowns came up with more jokes and told the kids their grandparents were monkeys, that a terrible giant lizard called a dinosaur laid an egg that hatched a chicken and about a magical force called gravity. The clowns then delivered the final punch line that spun the whole charade together, the father of all jokes, the BIG BANG!
Today the clowns are worshiped as gods, everybody takes their jokes seriously and the masses give them all their children to love.
|
|
|
|
Things you can do to prove the Earth is Round>
1. get in an airplane and fly West and keep flying west.
2. get in a Boat and sail away from the shore and watch the shore line and the mountains behind.
the shore line (beach) will disappear first but you will still be able to see the mountains. If the world was flat this would not happen.
3. Go to a tall mountain with a unobstructed view on a clear day. You can see the curve of the earth.
4. Go visit the International Space Station
1. North is at the center, South is the Antarctic ice ring and flying east or west will lead you in a circle like the Sun and Moon disks. 2. The shore goes out of view due to perspective and the limitations the eye/camera in your example. 3. Been there, done that; the horizon is a perfectly flat and level line that rises to eye/camera level no matter what the elevation. 4. You're joking right? Space is fake, there's no space, no satellites, no ball planets, no giant stars or galaxies, it's all a lie. Paintings and CGI, Hollywood movie magic, guys hanging from steel wires, vomit comets, underwater tanks, green screens and lots and lots of hairspray. Black Holes??? HAHAHAH FUCK OFF! |
|
|
|
TL;DR 1. Atomic theory is questionable, are there really atoms? 2. Wiki has some resources on the subject in question: Four-dimensionalismTed Sider and others have proposed that considering objects to extend across time as four-dimensional causal series of three-dimensional "time-slices" could solve the ship of Theseus problem because, in taking such an approach, each time-slice and all four dimensional objects remain numerically identical to themselves while allowing individual time-slices to differ from each other. The aforementioned river, therefore, comprises different three-dimensional time-slices of itself while remaining numerically identical to itself across time; one can never step into the same river-time-slice twice, but one can step into the same (four-dimensional) river twice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus Worm theorists believe that a persisting object is composed of the various temporal parts that it has. Thus, they believe that all persisting objects are four-dimensional "worms" that stretch across space-time, and that you are mistaken in believing that chairs, mountains, and people are simply three-dimensional.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdurantism
|
|
|
|
The tides...tell me how are the tides generated on a Flat Earth?
You are correct, but he did not ask for proof, he asked for a way to prove it through some sort of experiment. Also if the earth was flat, tides could be caused my many things, such as the gravitational pull of the moon, the rotation of the earth would still cause tides. Just something to think about. There's an established experiment that's been repeated and the results confirmed. The experiment involves two telescopes pointing at the same star. One telescope is filled with water to slow the speed of light. The result is that no adjustment to the angle of the "aquascope" is required to keep the target star in view and centered. This experiment was first performed by George Biddell Airy in 1871 and proves without a reasonable doubt that the Earth is stationary and motionless; the stars orbit above. So no, the Earth's rotation doesn't cause the tides; Earth doesn't rotate.
Reference: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Airy, G. B. (1871). "On the Supposed Alteration in the Amount of Astronomical Aberration of Light, Produced by the Passage of the Light through a Considerable Thickness of Refracting Medium" George Biddell Airy Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 1871 20, 35-39, published 1 January 1871 http://rspl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/20/130-138/35.full.pdfWhat is subject to reasonable doubt is your (false) interpretation of this experiment. The only thing the experiment shows is there is no aether drag. That's it. What others have argued is that it's proof of a *geocentric* Earth, not a flat one, although this interpretation is also flawed. So... 1) The experiment shows there is no aether drag (true). 2) The experiment, no matter how you spin it, says nothing about the shape of the earth. 3) One could make the (flawed) interpretation that the Earth is geocentric and that the aether doesn't move with respect to the earth. The problem with this interpretation is that it fails to explain stellar abberation. To explain stellar abberation in this case, every single star would need it's own unique formula for determining the amount of abberation we observe. ...Or, instead, we posit the earth isn't geocentric and that it moves, which then perfectly explains all observable stellar abberation. It's the simpler (and correct) explanation. The stars are in motion about the Earth and the fact that when the speed of their light is reduced no change in angle of the "aquascope" is required is hard proof. Aberration is the attempted game of semantics explanation proponents of the heliocentric spinning globe earth lie put forward. It's not some phenomenon that needs to be explained, it's their lame excuse for what's actually observed. |
|
|
|
The tides...tell me how are the tides generated on a Flat Earth?
You are correct, but he did not ask for proof, he asked for a way to prove it through some sort of experiment. Also if the earth was flat, tides could be caused my many things, such as the gravitational pull of the moon, the rotation of the earth would still cause tides. Just something to think about. There's an established experiment that's been repeated and the results confirmed. The experiment involves two telescopes pointing at the same star. One telescope is filled with water to slow the speed of light. The result is that no adjustment to the angle of the "aquascope" is required to keep the target star in view and centered. This experiment was first performed by George Biddell Airy in 1871 and proves without a reasonable doubt that the Earth is stationary and motionless; the stars orbit above. So no, the Earth's rotation doesn't cause the tides; Earth doesn't rotate.
Reference: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Airy, G. B. (1871). "On the Supposed Alteration in the Amount of Astronomical Aberration of Light, Produced by the Passage of the Light through a Considerable Thickness of Refracting Medium" George Biddell Airy Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 1871 20, 35-39, published 1 January 1871 http://rspl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/20/130-138/35.full.pdf |
|
|
|
Boston Globe will publish fake front page as part of tmws Ideas section, w fake headlines from a trump presidency https://t.co/T1x0XlAKMP— Hadas Gold (@Hadas_Gold) April 9, 2016 What's really interesting about that fake front page is that it can be interpreted in one of two ways: 1. A bunch of outraged or scared liberals subtly egging-on their fellow to visit even more trouble for Trump; 2. A bunch of plush-pots clutching their peals and throwing a well-heeled conniption fit. Throw the two together, and you get a picture of Boston-Globe-type liberals that are a lot like a certain kind of Tory. They not only castigate the interloper (Mr. Trump) as a wrecker, but they also subtly suggest that they'll run guard for and protect their "lower orders" if said lowers mix it up with the supporters of the interloper. (I have an odd clip in my mind, which features a Tory toff telling a room of soccer hooligans, "'Ave at 'em, boys! I and my peers will make it clear that you are doing so for Queen and Country") If only the image of TRUMP could help them sell more dead trees...  The last time I reached for a newspaper I was doing touch up work on my car. Printed news media, another one for the trash bin of history. |
|
|
|
The Lord's PrayerOriginal: Matthew 6:9-13
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father who art in Heaven hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.
13 Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
Current modified version: Matthew 6:9-13
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
Isaiah 11:6 Original text: "The lion shall lie down with the lamb"  Modified text: "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb"
An excellent piece of "residue" from /u/quantumfx311 on Reddit for Isaiah 11:6; P.T. Barnum had one act with a Lion, a Lamb and a few other cats for show. Here's the quote: ...
P.T. Barnum, the famous circus showman, loved to show visiting preachers his exhibit called "Happy Family", in which lions, tigers and panthers squatted around a lamb without any aggression. When Barnum was asked by the visiting preachers if the group ever had any trouble, he would say, "Apart from replenishing the lamb now and then, they get along very well together."
...
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Butters I like the PPC style hybrid PoW/PoS system, you get checkpoints and an additional layer of security.
|
|
|
|
|
For me the 1st change, JIFFY to JIF occurred in the late 1980's.
The 2nd change was more of a personal change but it's happened to others; a spray hose miraculously appeared on the kitchen sink one day in the early 1990's.
The rest of the changes, probably about 50 or so now that I've seen all either occurred or were brought to my attention starting in 2015.
|
|
|
|
No that's not the flat earth explanation for gravity, that's the controlled oppositions attempt at discrediting flat earth with a straw-man. Gravity is a fallacy invented to explain the orbits of the fake ball planets they claim are solid objects flying around in their fake vacuum space. None of the forces they attribute to gravity here on earth require gravity as an explanation for their cause.
OK, I'll bite. Explain the flat earth explanation for gravity. Why does the apple fall from the tree? I'll answer your question but first you have to explain why a helium balloon rises up into the sky when you let go of the string? Then you have to explain why the apple has to play by a different set of rules? Balloons rise in the atmosphere due to hydrostatic pressure (i.e. lighter fluids rise when immersed in heavier ones), but a balloon in space doesn't rise. Balloons released on Earth won't reach outer space because the force of lift will eventually reach equilibrium with the force of gravity. Hydrostatic pressure applies to fluids, but the density of interstellar gasses is so low in space that they behave like individual particles (which is why balloons won't rise in space). Apples are too dense and heavy to gain lift from hydrostatic pressure. So, apples fall when dropped because of gravity, and because they aren't buoyant in the atmosphere like balloons are. Balloons are subject to gravity, too, but this doesn't become as obvious until balloons reach an altitude at which the atmosphere is so thin that the lift generated from hydrostatic pressure is overcome by the force of gravity. In a vacuum affected by a gravitational field, a helium balloon would actually fall; this is because gravity still affects it, but hydrostatic pressure doesn't. It will stop rising when the density of the atmosphere reaches that of the helium in the balloon. We haven't even reached this mythical vacuum space you talk about before it stops that is if it hasn't already popped which is unlikely. Then you invoke the magical force of gravity but why? This unpoppable balloon has stopped rising due to the atmosphere it's displaced being the same density as the helium. Then you go on to mention the fantasy of interstellar space; this isn't even relevant. As for the apple it falls because it's denser than air and again you invoke the magical force of gravity for no reason. You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty yet your statements here show that you're an outright intellectual fraud. PSo, it's all density, eh? Here's a question for you then, and I'll even play by your rules: In simulated anti-gravitational environments, such as when an airplane dips at a given speed and angle such that everything is floating around (actually, they're just in free-fall) in an air-filled chamber -- you know, just like the videos you almost surely believe NASA creates to fool us into believing that astronauts are in outer space -- how do you explain that everything in the plane is *floating*? In other words, if both the air and all objects in the air-filled chamber are descending at the same speed relative to each other, why doesn't density separate the more-dense objects (like people) from the air in the chamber? The problem for you is that hydrostatic pressure decreases in weightless (NOT sparce) environments. If it didn't, then in the descending airplane that causes all things inside it to free-fall, all of the objects that are more dense than the air would fall to the floor of the plane, even in free-fall conditions. 1) Mass + gravity --> weight --> hydrostatic pressure --> balloons rise, apples fall 2).Mass + no gravity --> weightlessness --> no hydrostatic pressure --> balloons and apples behave similarly3) Density = mass/volume. That's it. Density is dependent upon mass, but is independent of weight which is integral to hydrostatic pressure. We can see this from free-fall airplanes in which all objects are weightless in their environment; it doesn't matter how much mass or density the objects have, they all have no weight. This gives us two scenarios to consider -- we see how objects behave in weightless environments (such as free-fall planes), and also in weighted environments (such as on Earth's surface). Does density explain both scenarios? No. What does? Gravity. By the way, the formula for weight is w=mg where m=mass and g=Freefall acceleration of gravity. In a freefall airplane, g=0, so w=0. So you're saying a helium balloon will float around in the middle of the vomit comet ("artificial zero-gravity" airplane ride) with the apple? To answer your question the force caused by the plane dropping counters the force due to the apples density thereby causing it to float. A balloon on the other hand should rise up faster than normal due to the additional force. Also, NASA does fake all their space walks in their fake space. You can see air bubbles rising, scuba tanks in the background and various items floating up in their "official" videos. It's not a matter of "belief" as you put it. Yes, an apple and a helium balloon will both float around in a vomit comet, or in an elevator freefalling at terminal velocity, etc. A helium balloon won't rise above other objects because all objects under these conditions are weightless. Density doesn't matter; objects are equally dense in both a vomit comet and on the ground. There is no force of density. But weight *is* equal to a force. This has nothing to do with bubbles. Not only are you wrong, you're completely Looney Toons and living in a total fantasy world.  EDIT: After viewing the behavior of a helium balloon in a moving vehicle, I see you're probably correct about the balloon losing its buoyancy in the vomit comet in the same way a bowling ball loses its depression. FYI though, you're still living in a complete fantasy world in regards to the remainder of you're misguided arguments in regards to your globalist prerogative. Then what's your formula for weight that 1) doesn't involve g, and that 2) works in a vomit comet, on the ground, and in any other environment? Answering that sounds like a whole lot work, can't say I feel motivated or have an immediate need for such a formula. |
|
|
|
you will not get any money back if you are whining on forums. it's your fault that you didn't make due dilligence before making the purchase.
take it as a lesson and move your ass forward.
That's bullshit, I was diligent in seeing that it was an actual company and that they could produce mining hardware. They had in-hand miners for sale on their website made with Bitfury chips. I checked to see if people got the product they ordered and that it worked ok and sure enough they were delivering miners. I was new to Bitcoin at the time and got fucking blindsided by their ponzi scheme. I wasn't a member of BCT at the time and had no clue the whole Bitcoin ecosystem was saturated with scumbags and pieces of shit. I thought I was just ordering computer hardware online like I've done many times in the past. In fact I had just made a successful per-order of a LED 120Hz projector from HK a few months earlier. |
|
|
|
|
So what does all this mean?
We can put to rest an idea about the nature of reality. The idea of a multiverse, the fact there's "residue" left after a change show's there's only one universe that's being modified.
If we borrow from Quantum Mechanics we've got the idea of a Universal Wave Function; essentially it's the current state of everything. This function is continuously evolving and changing as time passes.
The idea of a UWF leads to a "many worlds" interpretation of reality but this is misleading. These "many worlds" remain as coherent waveforms and never collapse into particles so are never "real".
In QM we have the effect of "tunneling" this I suspect is what is causing the Mandela Effect. Tunneling is being used to cause a change of state in the UWF.
I can't say the CREN LHC is capable of this trick, but they keep popping up in my researches... None of these changes fits Gods MO IMO.
|
|
|
|
Current date: 01 April 2016 Order date: 25 November 2013. Promised shipping date: 24 February 2014. Status: order not shipped. Refund: refused. These guys stole a lot of money from me.  make a chargeback !  Can't, bank transfer to an HSBC in HK via swift. Daniel ANDRONIC (BA CFO) and Alex SOVU (BA CEO) closed their account (#015-784242-838) when the very first delay was announced. don't buy with Bitcoin if you cannot chargeback this is a jungle and it seems the ones who are using BTC want that. Do not complain! You want a world without rules.  I ordered computer hardware, paid with USD and got told to fuck off when it came time to deliver. Your comment makes no fucking sense. |
|
|
|
That article was clearly written by a left-handed ape, why is phys.org engaging in Bitcoin FUD Mrpumperitis? i actually agree with most of the article. ( which part do you have a problem with..all of it?,lol ) I do hold BTC but as the halving gets nearer, for me the risk in holding BTC is getting higher. I was around at the first halving, i watched the dumps....the pump came around 6months ltr. So many people ready to dump when BTC hits $1k+, they dream of people buying fractions of BTC sats for hundreds of dollars,lol and miners getting less rewards makes me think we could see a repeat of last time. Another thing i notice a lot is when i speak to peeps and say , would you buy 0.5btc for $500 or 30eth for same price, they always choose the full coin with new potential. I also think when ETH switches to pos that could be the time BTC gets its next big pump, the halvining pump imo was priced in for the past 4-5months. Somebody who neither understands Bitcoin, Bitcoin mining or economics has written an article on said topics. Not only that, while discussing bitcoin mining he's tossed in ASIC but in reference to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission to add to the confusion. Their section on "Astronomy & Space" is proof positive that the ignorance of the of phys.org and our author go far beyond Bitcoin and economics. |
|
|
|
Yeah, obviously it's getting colder:  </irony>From 2001 to 2014 something that was pretty average until 2015, went up from 0.4 to 1 in 2016. What went up? Earth's Temperature? In Fahrenheit? There are no descriptions of what this graph is supposed to represent. It could be the amount of Apple Watches sold or... as you stated the amount of </irony>But I thought it would take 100 years for this to happen? Now it's just one year? Not true anymore? This means every year, according to this graph, this number will go up by 1. For the next 100 years!Planet Earth Venus? We better do something now to stop this inferno. How about more grant money to do more research saying how too late it is to do anything to reverse it. Oh! And more taxes of course. That should do it. EDIT: it will go by more than 1 every year. Who's smarty enough to do the math? I think it will be an infinite rise until Earth implodes under that heat...LOL that graph looks like the same open source code used in the p2pool GUI, that last spike is a glitch fools. |
|
|
|
That article was clearly written by a left-handed ape, why is phys.org engaging in Bitcoin FUD Mrpumperitis? |
|
|
|
|
Well it turns out the geniuses copied Blackcoin so any further discussion of ETH is moot at this point. I'll leave Anakin here to wallow in darkness with his misguided beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
