Flat Earth

[notbatman]

[...clip...]

Yay, voodoo physics.

WTF is "point source yellow?"

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_source#Light

You seem to have read the definition and still don't know the definition.

You're just being a total idiot now, a point source light is basically self explanatory; light emitted from a point. In the case of the Sun it's yellowish light.

[1715498050]

1715498050

[1715498050]

1715498050

[1715498050]

1715498050

[the joint]

[...clip...]

Yay, voodoo physics.

WTF is "point source yellow?"

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_source#Light

You seem to have read the definition and still don't know the definition.

You're just being a total idiot now, a point source light is basically self explanatory; light emitted from a point. In the case of the Sun it's yellowish light.

1) The sun isn't a point source of light.

2)  You could say light emanates from multiple points across the sun's surface, but it doesn't seem you were saying this given your lightbulb analogy.

3)  "Point source yellow" is phrased so strangely and reflects the fact you are trying to use fancy technical terminology to make it sound like your idea has some scientific merit when really it's just being used out of context.

[exemplaar]

earth not flat

Prove it.

Already been proven by multitudes of scientists over a period of several hundred or several thousand years. Now prove the earth is flat. Quit showing all the incomplete speculation you always do.

It hasn't been proven, you've got no proof we're living on a spinning ball. The horizon is perfectly flat and rises to eye-level no matter the altitude, it's pretty fucking obvious we're living on a flat plane when you examine the facts.

Nobody is trying to tell you what you can believe. But you can't change the facts of globular earth to flat earth just by believing it.

Further, Revelation 12:12 says:

Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them!

So, is God telling microbes in the sky to rejoice?

The point is, the heavens are gigantically larger than half of a 37,000 mile diameter dome covered earth portion that flat-earthers say is within the dome. Many of the "you who dwell in them" from the Revelation passage, may be dwelling on other planets. Flat-earth doesn't make any sense, with or without flat-earth "proof."

Let's put this in proper context.  Complete text of the rev.12:12 once again disprove your theory.

Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he know that he hath but a short time.

Anybody can quote some Bible passage without explaining what it means to them. You have said exactly nothing by way of explaining yourself.

When the great battle between Michael the archangel and Satan took place in the Heavens, Satan lost, and he and his were cast to the earth. All the inhabitants that are left in the Heavens are Michael and his good-angel armies... and whatever other beings might live on the distant planets.

This Bible passage says nothing about the earth being flat, or that there is some kind of a dome over it that is around 37,000 miles in diameter at the level of the earth. Rather, it suggests (as I stated previously) that the Heavens are large enough to hold beings on other planets... beings that have enough intelligence and emotion that they can rejoice.

What are you doing here in this forum? You can't even explain what you are talking about. Go out and play with the other kids.

For you i speak in riddles but i reveal secrets to them that are close and dear to me.

I gave you bonus hints, so you can figure this out in spirit. Read passage again or go playing with spinning ball earth.  

Oh and you forgot the saints.

Heb 12:1  Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us.

[vdotcash]

You aim a laser beam at a mirror 50 miles away over the ocean. You can never hit nor aim at the mirror because it is almost 4 times beyond the horizon (12.5 miles per horizon). To show that the earth is flat you must somehow perform this impossible laser test.

[BADecker]

earth not flat

Prove it.

Already been proven by multitudes of scientists over a period of several hundred or several thousand years. Now prove the earth is flat. Quit showing all the incomplete speculation you always do.

It hasn't been proven, you've got no proof we're living on a spinning ball. The horizon is perfectly flat and rises to eye-level no matter the altitude, it's pretty fucking obvious we're living on a flat plane when you examine the facts.

Nobody is trying to tell you what you can believe. But you can't change the facts of globular earth to flat earth just by believing it.

Further, Revelation 12:12 says:

Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them!

So, is God telling microbes in the sky to rejoice?

The point is, the heavens are gigantically larger than half of a 37,000 mile diameter dome covered earth portion that flat-earthers say is within the dome. Many of the "you who dwell in them" from the Revelation passage, may be dwelling on other planets. Flat-earth doesn't make any sense, with or without flat-earth "proof."

Let's put this in proper context.  Complete text of the rev.12:12 once again disprove your theory.

Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he know that he hath but a short time.

Anybody can quote some Bible passage without explaining what it means to them. You have said exactly nothing by way of explaining yourself.

When the great battle between Michael the archangel and Satan took place in the Heavens, Satan lost, and he and his were cast to the earth. All the inhabitants that are left in the Heavens are Michael and his good-angel armies... and whatever other beings might live on the distant planets.

This Bible passage says nothing about the earth being flat, or that there is some kind of a dome over it that is around 37,000 miles in diameter at the level of the earth. Rather, it suggests (as I stated previously) that the Heavens are large enough to hold beings on other planets... beings that have enough intelligence and emotion that they can rejoice.

What are you doing here in this forum? You can't even explain what you are talking about. Go out and play with the other kids.

For you i speak in riddles but i reveal secrets to them that are close and dear to me.

I gave you bonus hints, so you can figure this out in spirit. Read passage again or go playing with spinning ball earth.  

Oh and you forgot the saints.

Heb 12:1  Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us.

"Compass" applies to sphere as well as circle.   

[BADecker]

You aim a laser beam at a mirror 50 miles away over the ocean. You can never hit nor aim at the mirror because it is almost 4 times beyond the horizon (12.5 miles per horizon). To show that the earth is flat you must somehow perform this impossible laser test.

They'll tell you that it has to do with perspective. Somehow perspective makes a straight laser beam to be curved even though it appears to be straight for us. Thus it can't hit the mirror.

They have a nice idea, but little real science to back it up, yet.

[ðºÞæ]

The Drop/Rise is 0.6 for every 1 (km, mile, meter ......)
6300 = 0.6 on average or 10 equal steps to pole

Circumference of globe is 40000 km
Radius is 6300 + km
makes pole to Ecuador or Quint to Libreville  ~ 10000 km

[Buffer Overflow]

I can't make up my mind who's more deluded. Flat earth people or 6000 year old young earth people.

Gasp! Maybe there's a few oddballs out there that believe both at the same time!

 

[BADecker]

I can't make up my mind who's more deluded. Flat earth people or 6000 year old young earth people.

Gasp! Maybe there's a few oddballs out there that believe both at the same time!

 

It's the Big Bang people, and those that believe the universe is billions of years old, hands down, who are most deluded. They believe is things that even their founding scientists say are not factual.

[protokol]

I can't make up my mind who's more deluded. Flat earth people or 6000 year old young earth people.

Gasp! Maybe there's a few oddballs out there that believe both at the same time!

 

It's the Big Bang people, and those that believe the universe is billions of years old, hands down, who are most deluded. They believe is things that even their founding scientists say are not factual.

What's your view on Occam's Razor?

Just as an example, let's take your hypothesis that carbon 14 decayed at a faster rate in the past than it does today. That would explain a 6,000 year old Earth, right?

But without any evidence that this is the case, it's not a valid rebuttal of carbon dating, according to Occam's Razor. You're simply thinking of ways which validate your beliefs, with no supporting evidence.

I could just say "well that Jesus guy that was supposedly resurrected and walked out of the cave, he was just a look-alike who pretended to be the real Jesus, the real one never came back to life." The argument has just as much validity as the carbon dating rebuttal.

(I know C14 dating isn't accurate to billions of years, but it does provide compelling evidence against a 6,000 year old Earth.)

[Alanay]

Climb to mount Everest with a gun that can travel the circumference of the earth and shoot it in a straight line.

[BADecker]

I can't make up my mind who's more deluded. Flat earth people or 6000 year old young earth people.

Gasp! Maybe there's a few oddballs out there that believe both at the same time!

 

It's the Big Bang people, and those that believe the universe is billions of years old, hands down, who are most deluded. They believe is things that even their founding scientists say are not factual.

What's your view on Occam's Razor?

Just as an example, let's take your hypothesis that carbon 14 decayed at a faster rate in the past than it does today. That would explain a 6,000 year old Earth, right?

But without any evidence that this is the case, it's not a valid rebuttal of carbon dating, according to Occam's Razor. You're simply thinking of ways which validate your beliefs, with no supporting evidence.

I could just say "well that Jesus guy that was supposedly resurrected and walked out of the cave, he was just a look-alike who pretended to be the real Jesus, the real one never came back to life." The argument has just as much validity as the carbon dating rebuttal.

(I know C14 dating isn't accurate to billions of years, but it does provide compelling evidence against a 6,000 year old Earth.)

If there was absolutely not one atom of C-14 in the atmosphere prior to 5,000 years ago, 100% of our carbon dating that we interpret to be older than 5,000-year-old would be wrong. And much of our dating AFTER 5,000 years would be wrong, as well.

Nobody knows when C-14 came into being in the atmosphere. It's all guesswork.

[BADecker]

Climb to mount Everest with a gun that can travel the circumference of the earth and shoot it in a straight line.

If you want a gun to travel the circumference of the earth, you can do it a lot easier by locating it at the equator. What are you really trying to say?

[Gleb Gamow]

http://hoax.trendolizer.com/2016/07/nasa-jupiter-hoax---nasa-caught-faking-space-again.html



I'm not a flat-Earther, but I questioned the recent pics when they first came in, now confirmed. Odd!

[protokol]

I can't make up my mind who's more deluded. Flat earth people or 6000 year old young earth people.

Gasp! Maybe there's a few oddballs out there that believe both at the same time!

 

It's the Big Bang people, and those that believe the universe is billions of years old, hands down, who are most deluded. They believe is things that even their founding scientists say are not factual.

What's your view on Occam's Razor?

Just as an example, let's take your hypothesis that carbon 14 decayed at a faster rate in the past than it does today. That would explain a 6,000 year old Earth, right?

But without any evidence that this is the case, it's not a valid rebuttal of carbon dating, according to Occam's Razor. You're simply thinking of ways which validate your beliefs, with no supporting evidence.

I could just say "well that Jesus guy that was supposedly resurrected and walked out of the cave, he was just a look-alike who pretended to be the real Jesus, the real one never came back to life." The argument has just as much validity as the carbon dating rebuttal.

(I know C14 dating isn't accurate to billions of years, but it does provide compelling evidence against a 6,000 year old Earth.)

If there was absolutely not one atom of C-14 in the atmosphere prior to 5,000 years ago, 100% of our carbon dating that we interpret to be older than 5,000-year-old would be wrong. And much of our dating AFTER 5,000 years would be wrong, as well.

Nobody knows when C-14 came into being in the atmosphere. It's all guesswork.

If the resurrected Jesus was just a look-alike, 100% of the New Testament could be wrong.

And seeing as no talking snake has ever been recorded, much of the Old Testament could be wrong as well.

You understand how the concept of Occam's Razor works?

[protokol]

http://hoax.trendolizer.com/2016/07/nasa-jupiter-hoax---nasa-caught-faking-space-again.html



I'm not a flat-Earther, but I questioned the recent pics when they first came in, now confirmed. Odd!

Is there a non-conspiritard version of that, i.e. maybe a written article sourcing the photographs...

rather than a 25 minute YouTube video of a shouty man hosted by a dodgy looking fringe site throwing ads and sponsored content at me.

Not saying it's wrong, just that alarm bells are ringing.

[protokol]

Yeah I watched 10mins of that video, and that guy is, in my opinion, madder than a box of frogs.

I think it's fair to say I won't believe a single thing he says unless it's backed up by at least one textual source. He is a batshit mentalist.

Or maybe I'm part of the Owl freemason club, and this post is all just obfuscating the truth... WooOooooh.

[BADecker]

I can't make up my mind who's more deluded. Flat earth people or 6000 year old young earth people.

Gasp! Maybe there's a few oddballs out there that believe both at the same time!

 

It's the Big Bang people, and those that believe the universe is billions of years old, hands down, who are most deluded. They believe is things that even their founding scientists say are not factual.

What's your view on Occam's Razor?

Just as an example, let's take your hypothesis that carbon 14 decayed at a faster rate in the past than it does today. That would explain a 6,000 year old Earth, right?

But without any evidence that this is the case, it's not a valid rebuttal of carbon dating, according to Occam's Razor. You're simply thinking of ways which validate your beliefs, with no supporting evidence.

I could just say "well that Jesus guy that was supposedly resurrected and walked out of the cave, he was just a look-alike who pretended to be the real Jesus, the real one never came back to life." The argument has just as much validity as the carbon dating rebuttal.

(I know C14 dating isn't accurate to billions of years, but it does provide compelling evidence against a 6,000 year old Earth.)

If there was absolutely not one atom of C-14 in the atmosphere prior to 5,000 years ago, 100% of our carbon dating that we interpret to be older than 5,000-year-old would be wrong. And much of our dating AFTER 5,000 years would be wrong, as well.

Nobody knows when C-14 came into being in the atmosphere. It's all guesswork.

If the resurrected Jesus was just a look-alike, 100% of the New Testament could be wrong.

And seeing as no talking snake has ever been recorded, much of the Old Testament could be wrong as well.

You understand how the concept of Occam's Razor works?

No. I forgot. Because it is simply a piece of clever garbage to take your focus off whatever you are talking about.

The point is that the age of the universe is unknown scientifically.

[protokol]

If the resurrected Jesus was just a look-alike, 100% of the New Testament could be wrong.

And seeing as no talking snake has ever been recorded, much of the Old Testament could be wrong as well.

You understand how the concept of Occam's Razor works?

No. I forgot. Because it is simply a piece of clever garbage to take your focus off whatever you are talking about.

The point is that the age of the universe is unknown scientifically.

It is the exact opposite of "clever garbage to take your focus off whatever you're taking about". In fact it suggests we focus on what we do know, and avoid complicating problems by introducing additional unknown variables to explain them.

And yes, there is compelling evidence of the scientifically calculated age of the universe, look up the cosmic microwave background.

[impulse709]

http://hoax.trendolizer.com/2016/07/nasa-jupiter-hoax---nasa-caught-faking-space-again.html



I'm not a flat-Earther, but I questioned the recent pics when they first came in, now confirmed. Odd!

explained here https://m.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4sj1fr/whats_up_with_jupiter/            for those who cant be bothered to look. the aurora image was taken in UV spectrum and to show scale nasa put it on top of a photo taken in visible light spectrum  


read the caption at the bottom of this photo https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1613a/