Flat Earth

[notbatman]

Nobatman.  I have a question on the moon being a hologram.  Hope you don't mind the challenging question.

Moon light is colder than moon shade.  I'm sure you already know this.  There are many experiments online and I have actually done this myself.  Very fascinating.  

If the moon is a hologram how could that possibly work?  

The dome is a concave mirror and the celestial objects are projected off of the mirror.


3-D Mirascope

I still don't get how the hologram/projection could cause the temperature difference with the moon shade being warmer and the moon light being colder.  If it was a simple projection I would think temperature would be unaffected.  

Any theories on where the projection is coming from?  

Thanks for the 411.  I enjoy this thread you have made and have no idea how you have maintained for 3 years.  

I suspect the cooling phenomenon if it can be confirmed is much like LASER cooling, as for where it's from I'd theorize somewhere in the north polar region.

[1714103738]

1714103738

[joerogers8]

Nobatman.  I have a question on the moon being a hologram.  Hope you don't mind the challenging question.

Moon light is colder than moon shade.  I'm sure you already know this.  There are many experiments online and I have actually done this myself.  Very fascinating.  

If the moon is a hologram how could that possibly work?  

The dome is a concave mirror and the celestial objects are projected off of the mirror.


3-D Mirascope

I still don't get how the hologram/projection could cause the temperature difference with the moon shade being warmer and the moon light being colder.  If it was a simple projection I would think temperature would be unaffected.  

Any theories on where the projection is coming from?  

Thanks for the 411.  I enjoy this thread you have made and have no idea how you have maintained for 3 years.  

I suspect the cooling phenomenon if it can be confirmed is much like LASER cooling, as for where it's from I'd theorize somewhere in the north polar region.

Nice one.  Checking out laser cooling.  Thanks!

[notbatman]

^^^ I'm not sure the exact process involved with the Moon is listed there but it's something to start with in regards to optical cooling effects. They seem to be cooling small samples to extreme temperatures but certainly these efects can be expanded to cool a larger area to less extreme temperatures.

It would be nice if I didn't have to theorize about the nature of the Moon but, what I can say as fact is the Moon's surface is evenly lit and this is not consistent with a solid sphere illuminated by the Sun.

[notbatman]

NASA is going to pump Yellowstone full of water. They may not have our best interests in mind, in-fact I know they don't.

"Volcanic winter is a state where the lower atmosphere gets filled with ash and it effectively plunges the entire planet in shade, cooling down the Earth."

"... By drilling into the supervolcano to a depth of about 10 km, water can be forced into it at high pressures ...", "... it would cost NASA about $3.46 billion ..."

Source: IBT

[—]

Some refinements are made and adjusted. Still need to revisit turning directions.

As there is a continues connection-disconnection (as it turns) happening the sparks (like when electrical wires touch) ignite the hydrogen for Suns fire.



Hydrogen at a ratio of 2:1 burns (Hindenburg) at ratio of hydrogen to oxygen 1:8 it ignites violently. The real force however is of the resulting implosion which is much stronger. In the video the much stronger force is not viewable as it is in open environment. The videos show mini nukes in action. Nukes devastation comes from enormous vacuum created and the fire. In contained compartment like engine it easily pulls pistons up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RudCaJB_Xx4
or Wikipedia version
https://bit.ly/2A3ZdY3
Hands dont move no power only in closed space the resulting vacuum has real power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgbtdqurEY0



Compass showing north where current enters except between the poles where its not working.
Between poles needle just goes wacky



Once you know you are a soul and currently "occupy" the body your in, you know only physical existence ceases to exit.
Computers Ram is lost, Rom still has all the info and start anew.
Warning Graphic

[notbatman]

^^^ Notice he's careful to never post any evidence that might be debunked, just hit & run insults. What a massive faggot.

[sirazimuth]

....  I'm very interested in BADecker's view on this as I feel he could be somewhat genuine.

Well your buddy with the turkey leg and funny hat that you like to brown nose
apparently wants him to ...quote...“just fuck off and die already”....

[—]

Lets look at some facts:  
https://i.imgur.com/jvlcr8j.jpg
(A small distortion, as most Mercator maps. If ratio is not 2:1 its distorted, but for timezone it does not matter)


Better the real deal
24h day in flat earth land. Sun rising east Möbius strip moving right to left.

[BADecker]

Engineers don't calculate for Earth's curve ever because it doesn't exist. Go ask a railroad engineer about it, ask him why he never makes allowances for Earth's curvature? I'm not the one living in a fantasy world.

Why don't engineers generally need to calculate for the curvature of the earth? Because the curvature is on such a vast scale that it is unnecessary to take it into account. It appears not to exist. If the earth were a mere 100 miles in diameter, they would have to take it into account.

Engineers calculate for flat and straight. They do not calculate for something like a horizon curving up.

Make up your mind. Either the engineering calculation that works is wrong, or flat-earth curving up is wrong. The two sciences don't mix.

Formulate a complete FE science that works, stop combing it with standard science, and go back to school.

[BADecker]

^^^ Notice he's careful to never post any evidence that might be debunked, just hit & run insults. What a massive faggot.

^^^ Notice he's careful to always post evidence that can easily be debunked... blah, blah, blah.

[notbatman]

NASA is going to pump Yellowstone full of water. They may not have our best interests in mind, in-fact I know they don't.

"Volcanic winter is a state where the lower atmosphere gets filled with ash and it effectively plunges the entire planet in shade, cooling down the Earth."

"... By drilling into the supervolcano to a depth of about 10 km, water can be forced into it at high pressures ...", "... it would cost NASA about $3.46 billion ..."

Source: IBT

"I can't make this stuff up folks!" -- Alex Jones







I think they're going to use directed energy weapons to trigger an eruption, I believe they used the same energy buildup steam explosion trick (same effect as a microwaved exploding cup of water) on Mt. St. Helens to trigger that eruption. They destroyed evidence of a Titans remains and falsified evidence of volcanic geological activity.

The time for mass deception on Earth is clearly coming to an end and they know it; the countdown clock for doomsday may have started.

[notbatman]

Engineers don't calculate for Earth's curve ever because it doesn't exist. Go ask a railroad engineer about it, ask him why he never makes allowances for Earth's curvature? I'm not the one living in a fantasy world.

Why don't engineers generally need to calculate for the curvature of the earth? Because the curvature is on such a vast scale that it is unnecessary to take it into account. It appears not to exist. If the earth were a mere 100 miles in diameter, they would have to take it into account.

Engineers calculate for flat and straight. They do not calculate for something like a horizon curving up.

Make up your mind. Either the engineering calculation that works is wrong, or flat-earth curving up is wrong. The two sciences don't mix.

Formulate a complete FE science that works, stop combing it with standard science, and go back to school.

What, did the liqueur store run out of Everclear? The claim is 8" per mile squared and you say a railroad engineer can just ignore that?

[—]

Another take on the Palmer station summers day as the conveyor escalator moves through the day.  Noon is at "highest" part for "southern" part on the crazy steep roller coaster journey.



lets remember 1000% flatness into eternity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS-akcip240&feature=youtu.be

There is nothing more for now so i am done for a week or two.

[Astargath]

Another take on the Palmer station summers day as the conveyor escalator moves through the day.  Noon is at "highest" part for "southern" part on the crazy steep roller coaster journey.



lets remember 1000% flatness into eternity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS-akcip240&feature=youtu.be

There is nothing more for now so i am done for a week or two.

Dude, even notbatman said your posts are cringe, doesn't that tell you anything?

[notbatman]

Research Mt. St. Helens then ask yourself,



?

[BADecker]

Engineers don't calculate for Earth's curve ever because it doesn't exist. Go ask a railroad engineer about it, ask him why he never makes allowances for Earth's curvature? I'm not the one living in a fantasy world.

Why don't engineers generally need to calculate for the curvature of the earth? Because the curvature is on such a vast scale that it is unnecessary to take it into account. It appears not to exist. If the earth were a mere 100 miles in diameter, they would have to take it into account.

Engineers calculate for flat and straight. They do not calculate for something like a horizon curving up.

Make up your mind. Either the engineering calculation that works is wrong, or flat-earth curving up is wrong. The two sciences don't mix.

Formulate a complete FE science that works, stop combing it with standard science, and go back to school.

What, did the liqueur store run out of Everclear? The claim is 8" per mile squared and you say a railroad engineer can just ignore that?

This is engineer talk that doesn't reflect true math. Also, it is a rule of thumb. Consider:

It seems to be the only math which many flat-Earthers are willing to consider accurate. The Earth, they say, supposedly curves away at a rate of eight inches times the distance in miles squared. Which is true. Kind of. But not really.

The figure, which they say comes from NASA, or "science," actually comes from a very different source. Flat-Earthers, no matter where they got it themselves, owe it to none other than Samuel Birley Rowbotham, author of Zetetic Astronomy. He got it from the Encyclopedia Brittanica, where it is cited under the heading "Leveling." You'll find his lengthy quote (I doubt that he got permission to use it, by the way) starting on page 8 of the 1865 edition of his book.

The problem is that this is in the context of civil engineering, not mathematics, and it's just a rule of thumb employed by plane surveyors to compensate for the drop in a target of the same height as the surveyor's transit. It builds up inaccuracy as the distance increases for two reasons, the first being that it is not exact, and the second being that it is not based on the formula for a circle. It actually plots out to be a parabola.

But, you can calculate it out yourself, easily, using trig or calculus. Or are you going to say that math is off, so that you can't use trig or calc in this?

However, if the drop is 8 inches per mile, this means less than 3 thousandths of an inch bend in a 15-foot railroad rail. You couldn't even notice this, so who who cares? Certainly not railroad engineers (or the conductors, for that matter ). Rails expand and contract way more than this with seasonal temperature changes.

But if you are using 8 inches squared, you are using 64 inches, or 8 times the, above, 3 thousandths of an inch. Then the amount would be barely over 2 hundredths of an inch. Again, this is less than climate change contractions and expansions, and less than a 15-foot rail bends because of anomalies in railroad track roadbed.

In other words, railroad engineers have to take into account way more for hills and valleys. So, why would they want to even consider the curvature of the earth, which is automatically figured into the way the metal bends, naturally, because of the size of the earth, and the tiny amount of drop in curvature?

Keep on digging yourself into a hole that you can't get out of.

[joerogers8]

^^^ Notice he's careful to never post any evidence that might be debunked, just hit & run insults. What a massive faggot.

^^^ Notice he's careful to always post evidence that can easily be debunked... blah, blah, blah.

Right I have not see one shred of proof from any of these globers.  Just more and more bullshit.  These guys don't even put up a challenge.  At least the youtube globers are intelligent enough to add a bit of sophistry to the argument to make things interesting.  The funny thing about these BCT globers is they don't even understand their own science.  It's good to have 600 pages of them making complete asses of themselves helping your cause.  

These dumb fucks still think they see the giant water curve 3 miles off at sea LEVEL.  Doesn't even phase them that they don't see it curving from left to right but they watch a 70 ft high ship disappear 3 miles out.  Could you imagine that much curve in that short of distance?  This completely proves your dealing with morons (or brainwashing victims) that don't have simple logic skills.    Everyone reading this (millions of views) will all see this on display.  No matter how much they hoot and holler it's fairly obvious these guys have not a single clue and will ignore all evidence.  That's why it's important to keep questioning on the facts everyone knows concerning how our eyes work and how water works.   Keep exposing them. Keep them claiming they see the ship go over the horizon!  That one is simply classic.  The more they fight that one the more everyone sees them for what they are.  The more they blatantly lie and show intellectual dishonesty the more you and the movement wins.  

[joerogers8]

Engineers don't calculate for Earth's curve ever because it doesn't exist. Go ask a railroad engineer about it, ask him why he never makes allowances for Earth's curvature? I'm not the one living in a fantasy world.

Why don't engineers generally need to calculate for the curvature of the earth? Because the curvature is on such a vast scale that it is unnecessary to take it into account. It appears not to exist. If the earth were a mere 100 miles in diameter, they would have to take it into account.

Engineers calculate for flat and straight. They do not calculate for something like a horizon curving up.

Make up your mind. Either the engineering calculation that works is wrong, or flat-earth curving up is wrong. The two sciences don't mix.

Formulate a complete FE science that works, stop combing it with standard science, and go back to school.

What, did the liqueur store run out of Everclear? The claim is 8" per mile squared and you say a railroad engineer can just ignore that?

This is engineer talk that doesn't reflect true math. Also, it is a rule of thumb. Consider:

It seems to be the only math which many flat-Earthers are willing to consider accurate. The Earth, they say, supposedly curves away at a rate of eight inches times the distance in miles squared. Which is true. Kind of. But not really.

The figure, which they say comes from NASA, or "science," actually comes from a very different source. Flat-Earthers, no matter where they got it themselves, owe it to none other than Samuel Birley Rowbotham, author of Zetetic Astronomy. He got it from the Encyclopedia Brittanica, where it is cited under the heading "Leveling." You'll find his lengthy quote (I doubt that he got permission to use it, by the way) starting on page 8 of the 1865 edition of his book.

The problem is that this is in the context of civil engineering, not mathematics, and it's just a rule of thumb employed by plane surveyors to compensate for the drop in a target of the same height as the surveyor's transit. It builds up inaccuracy as the distance increases for two reasons, the first being that it is not exact, and the second being that it is not based on the formula for a circle. It actually plots out to be a parabola.

But, you can calculate it out yourself, easily, using trig or calculus. Or are you going to say that math is off, so that you can't use trig or calc in this?

However, if the drop is 8 inches per mile, this means less than 3 thousandths of an inch bend in a 15-foot railroad rail. You couldn't even notice this, so who who cares? Certainly not railroad engineers (or the conductors, for that matter ). Rails expand and contract way more than this with seasonal temperature changes.

But if you are using 8 inches squared, you are using 64 inches, or 8 times the, above, 3 thousandths of an inch. Then the amount would be barely over 2 hundredths of an inch. Again, this is less than climate change contractions and expansions, and less than a 15-foot rail bends because of anomalies in railroad track roadbed.

In other words, railroad engineers have to take into account way more for hills and valleys. So, why would they want to even consider the curvature of the earth, which is automatically figured into the way the metal bends, naturally, because of the size of the earth, and the tiny amount of drop in curvature?

Keep on digging yourself into a hole that you can't get out of.

But he notices the huge tanker disappear behind the water curve 3 miles out.  HAHA

Can't make this shit up.

[notbatman]

"And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter." -- Revelation 8:11, KJV

"Interpretations
Certain commentators have held that this "great star" represents one of several important figures in political or ecclesiastical history,[4] while other Bible dictionaries and commentaries view the term as a reference to a celestial being. A Dictionary of The Holy Bible states, "the star called Wormwood seems to denote a mighty prince, or power of the air, the instrument, in its fall."[5]" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormwood_(Bible)

"Rabbi Yitzchak Batzri, a Jerusalem-based Kabbalist, claimed the apocalyptic scenario was foretold in the Old Testament." -- https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1028552/Yellowstone-volcano-eruption-Bible-prophecy-end-of-the-world

"I can't make this stuff up folks!" -- Alex Jones

[BADecker]

Engineers don't calculate for Earth's curve ever because it doesn't exist. Go ask a railroad engineer about it, ask him why he never makes allowances for Earth's curvature? I'm not the one living in a fantasy world.

Why don't engineers generally need to calculate for the curvature of the earth? Because the curvature is on such a vast scale that it is unnecessary to take it into account. It appears not to exist. If the earth were a mere 100 miles in diameter, they would have to take it into account.

Engineers calculate for flat and straight. They do not calculate for something like a horizon curving up.

Make up your mind. Either the engineering calculation that works is wrong, or flat-earth curving up is wrong. The two sciences don't mix.

Formulate a complete FE science that works, stop combing it with standard science, and go back to school.

What, did the liqueur store run out of Everclear? The claim is 8" per mile squared and you say a railroad engineer can just ignore that?

This is engineer talk that doesn't reflect true math. Also, it is a rule of thumb. Consider:

It seems to be the only math which many flat-Earthers are willing to consider accurate. The Earth, they say, supposedly curves away at a rate of eight inches times the distance in miles squared. Which is true. Kind of. But not really.

The figure, which they say comes from NASA, or "science," actually comes from a very different source. Flat-Earthers, no matter where they got it themselves, owe it to none other than Samuel Birley Rowbotham, author of Zetetic Astronomy. He got it from the Encyclopedia Brittanica, where it is cited under the heading "Leveling." You'll find his lengthy quote (I doubt that he got permission to use it, by the way) starting on page 8 of the 1865 edition of his book.

The problem is that this is in the context of civil engineering, not mathematics, and it's just a rule of thumb employed by plane surveyors to compensate for the drop in a target of the same height as the surveyor's transit. It builds up inaccuracy as the distance increases for two reasons, the first being that it is not exact, and the second being that it is not based on the formula for a circle. It actually plots out to be a parabola.

But, you can calculate it out yourself, easily, using trig or calculus. Or are you going to say that math is off, so that you can't use trig or calc in this?

However, if the drop is 8 inches per mile, this means less than 3 thousandths of an inch bend in a 15-foot railroad rail. You couldn't even notice this, so who who cares? Certainly not railroad engineers (or the conductors, for that matter ). Rails expand and contract way more than this with seasonal temperature changes.

But if you are using 8 inches squared, you are using 64 inches, or 8 times the, above, 3 thousandths of an inch. Then the amount would be barely over 2 hundredths of an inch. Again, this is less than climate change contractions and expansions, and less than a 15-foot rail bends because of anomalies in railroad track roadbed.

In other words, railroad engineers have to take into account way more for hills and valleys. So, why would they want to even consider the curvature of the earth, which is automatically figured into the way the metal bends, naturally, because of the size of the earth, and the tiny amount of drop in curvature?

Keep on digging yourself into a hole that you can't get out of.

But he notices the huge tanker disappear behind the water curve 3 miles out.  HAHA

Can't make this shit up.

Right! Anomalies in all the things that the FE people say.