The Conspiracy Theory
Comments
-
Manc33 wrote:Show me an example of curved water lol. You can't have curved water.
A rain drop?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Chris Bass wrote:Manc33 wrote:Show me an example of curved water lol. You can't have curved water.
A rain drop?
a meniscus?
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
Manc only believes things he wants to believe. Mostly things that mean we're being lied to ALL the time.
This thread is going round in circles again and again. So naturally i'm going to contribute.
The flat earthers believe the earth is constantly accelerating, please show me an example of something that constantly accelerates.
How come nobody has seen the ice wall? How come nobody can even be bothered to fake a photo of the ice wall?0 -
Also, why would they need to lie about the earth being a ball to pretend to go into space? They could just as easily pretend to go into space and say the earth is flat...0
-
I never said they need to pretend Earth is flat in order to pretend to be going into space, they just do both.
They did however need Newton to back up Copernicus and then Einstein later on to back up Newton - all three are putting forward unproven theories.
Here's one that never gets answered - how can a vacuum stay connected to a non-vacuum and maintain itself as a vacuum, when you can only achieve that with a sealed unit?
How come space never becomes the atmosphere or the atmosphere never mixes with space?
It magically sticks there and just rotates perfectly with the Earth?
The only reason you'd think that is if you're always having to make stuff fit in with heliocentricity to make it check out properly.
Nothing is "floating" up there, all that happens is things get more dense in comparison to their surroundings the higher up they go. Thats why something can fall at over 700 MPH in the upper atmosphere but goes at less than 250 MPH nearer the Earth. It is an effect ONLY of the air getting thicker and this isn't nor does it need to be the object getting "attracted to the Earth" as per the Newtonian myth, that has been erroneously turned into a "law".
Nothing is being attracted because it doesn't need to be, gravity doesn't need to be introduced and there's no proof of it. Couple those two facts together, 1. that gravity isn't required and 2. that gravity isn't proven as a force and you can start to see it is pretty inappropriate actually to include something like this in science because it isn't scientific.
Small amounts of water can curve but you're showing me examples that are millions of times smaller in scale than the ocean. Probably because I said water can't be curved and 1cm can curve so I am "wrong" and you can have some sort of a mild laugh, even though you're deliberately ignoring that the ocean is what I am talking about, not a 1cm body of water.
Yes water can curve when you're talking about something with a 1cm diameter. Guess what happens when things get scaled up - it weighs more and the curve becomes flat. Show me curved water in a fish tank, the scale between a fish tank and a 1cm test tube, in comparison to the immense scale of the oceans, isn't that much, so show me something a bit bigger than a 1cm test tube with curved water and I would believe it.
Again you're accepting that the oceans can be curved because 1cm of water can be curved in a test tube. :shock: I think you don't really believe comparisons can be made between 1cm of water and billions and billions of cm of water?
This guy explains some great points about the glaring inconsistencies and dogmatic pitfalls of so-called "science" ...
http://vocaroo.com/i/s0JubftBQsz3
I think its hilarious that these hoity toity "academic" intellectual people are being shown what's what at long last, its high time, they have been showing off for decades with a bunch of rubbish, just so they can think they have answered something. When you ask them for proof of a theory, they have none, yet still think they are clever - we are never going to get back real science thinking this way. :roll:
Since when has a theory or postulation or musing been a cast iron fact?
I'm not the one believing in things for which there is no proof. :P0 -
Once again a big pile of baloney rooted in willful ignorance.Manc33 wrote:I never said they need to pretend Earth is flat in order to pretend to be going into space, they just do both.
They did however need Newton to back up Copernicus and then Einstein later on to back up Newton - all three are putting forward unproven theories.
Here's one that never gets answered - how can a vacuum stay connected to a non-vacuum and maintain itself as a vacuum, when you can only achieve that with a sealed unit?
How come space never becomes the atmosphere or the atmosphere never mixes with space?
It magically sticks there and just rotates perfectly with the Earth?
The only reason you'd think that is if you're always having to make stuff fit in with heliocentricity to make it check out properly.
Nothing is "floating" up there, all that happens is things get more dense in comparison to their surroundings the higher up they go. Thats why something can fall at over 700 MPH in the upper atmosphere but goes at less than 250 MPH nearer the Earth. It is an effect ONLY of the air getting thicker and this isn't nor does it need to be the object getting "attracted to the Earth" as per the Newtonian myth, that has been erroneously turned into a "law".
Nothing is being attracted because it doesn't need to be, gravity doesn't need to be introduced and there's no proof of it. Couple those two facts together, 1. that gravity isn't required and 2. that gravity isn't proven as a force and you can start to see it is pretty inappropriate actually to include something like this in science because it isn't scientific.
Small amounts of water can curve but you're showing me examples that are millions of times smaller in scale than the ocean. Probably because I said water can't be curved and 1cm can curve so I am "wrong" and you can have some sort of a mild laugh, even though you're deliberately ignoring that the ocean is what I am talking about, not a 1cm body of water.
Yes water can curve when you're talking about something with a 1cm diameter. Guess what happens when things get scaled up - it weighs more and the curve becomes flat. Show me curved water in a fish tank, the scale between a fish tank and a 1cm test tube, in comparison to the immense scale of the oceans, isn't that much, so show me something a bit bigger than a 1cm test tube with curved water and I would believe it.
Again you're accepting that the oceans can be curved because 1cm of water can be curved in a test tube. :shock: I think you don't really believe comparisons can be made between 1cm of water and billions and billions of cm of water?
This guy explains some great points about the glaring inconsistencies and dogmatic pitfalls of so-called "science" ...
http://vocaroo.com/i/s0JubftBQsz3
I think its hilarious that these hoity toity "academic" intellectual people are being shown what's what at long last, its high time, they have been showing off for decades with a bunch of rubbish, just so they can think they have answered something. When you ask them for proof of a theory, they have none, yet still think they are clever - we are never going to get back real science thinking this way. :roll:
Since when has a theory or postulation or musing been a cast iron fact?
I'm not the one believing in things for which there is no proof. :P
You're pointing out inconsistencies that don't exist and attempting to use the product of your complete failure to understand simple concepts as evidence that those who do understand it just made it up. It's a joke.
It is trivial to explain (and has been explained) where you are incorrect in all of the above. In most cases it's also pretty trivial to understand the correct interpretation...IF you're willing to listen. You are actually making a big effort to distort things, whether intentionally or not, so that it all sounds very complicated and controversial. It's not and it's not.
Ironically Manc's primary assertion is that we all think and do as we're told when he is in fact the ONE person here, demonstrating a spectacular inability to think for himself. It's exactly like any other religious zealot or cult member covering his ears and proclaiming the truth according to his brainwashing.
We will never agree with you or be convinced by you Manc, because you are talking utter drivel, your assertions make no sense and you refuse to engage in rational argument.
Instead you choose to intentionally misinterpret selected assertions of others and argue not with what they claim but with what you inaccurately attribute to them. You do not belong in any rational discussion since you have demonstrated that you are unwilling or unable to take part.
Manc,
You said you were going. You have not gone. Why?0 -
Misrepresenting? You mean like how my own question was misrepresented when I asked how can the oceans curve and get shown water in a 1cm test tube? :roll:
In other words you guys will say ANYTHING you can just on the off chance it could hint I might be wrong.
If you know I am asking about oceans - why am I being shown test tubes? Because you can't answer it thats why! Instead of saying "I don't know" I get some ridiculous answer that doesn't apply like with the images of Earth from space that don't exist.
Otherwise you would just say its the "Blah blah blah effect" and list a big steaming pile of algebra again, but that isn't a real world demonstration, it is a bunch of maths no one understands, so how can the average person know if the answer is in there, much easier to PROVE it and back it up by showing a working example, we can do all the paperwork after that. Its called science.
Something scaled down millions and millions of times is not then going to apply, is it. You can't exactly explain "water is curved in a test tube therefor it curves over thousands of miles" and this is quite obvious.
I'm not the one claiming water's own tension creates the oceans curve.
How is that scientific?
Thats was the answer I got.0 -
Manc33 wrote:I'm not the one claiming water's own tension creates the oceans curve.
How is that scientific?
Thats was the answer I got to how does the ocean curve lol.
What is wrong with you? This stuff is basic science - real science, not the garbage you're spouting. The stuff you post is so stupid that nobody here is even 100% sure if you're actually serious. That's how ridiculous it is.0 -
No point in trying to argue logically. Whether this is genuine or a joke, you'll never get anywhere. What I really don't understand is how people get sucked in. Remember that each time you respond, another £1 goes on the cost of the next jersey you buy.NorvernRob wrote:What is wrong with you? This stuff is basic science - real science, not the garbage you're spouting. The stuff you post is so stupid that nobody here is even 100% sure if you're actually serious. That's how ridiculous it is.0 -
Why does the effect inside a 1cm test tube then apply across thousands of miles of ocean, when the water tension is the reason the test tube water is curved?
If water tension is making the ocean curve, why is is making it curved in a convex way, instead of concave like in the test tube?
So none of it makes sense and no one has an answer, but rather than say that, you have to come up with something, anything.
You'd think there were images of Earth from space but there aren't, you can go one of two ways once you realize that, either pretend all the fake images are genuine because you just can't conceive that they might not be, or see it for what it is. I'd rather see things for what they are thanks and I like to be certain about something before mindlessly subscribing to it just because someone else taught it me, all without it ever being demonstrated. Thats called fooling people and with science, the way it is set up, it works. Think of how powerful a religious belief is then consider how powerful it must be when the follower thinks he is using science (which isn't, because it includes unproven theories along with all the true stuff and touts the unproven theories as absolutes).
What a coincidence then, that this concerns some of the most fundamental questions like gravity, heliocentricity and evolution. If you can show one example of one species turning into another (by showing the in-between examples) I would believe it immediately, but none of that exists so I won't believe it until it is shown to be the case, you can postulate and speculate all you want, I won't care because I can't care when all the answers are to fob you off.
Usually I get "Do you realize how hard it is for a fossil to even get formed" yep, which again makes it even stranger that we would only ever find the "completed species" of any given animal and never one single example of all the other examples that would be in far bigger abundance in this evolution model than the completed end result animals! There it is, there's nothing you can say to this.
They are digging a hole for themselves claiming species turn into another because there would be more proof of that taking place (because it takes hundreds of thousands more iterations) than there is of the completed animal.
If there's no proof of a species turning into another, anywhere, ever, why would I think there is just because some guy postulated that it could be possible?
I have always been consistent in wanting proof, I can't understand why you'd complain about that. Its not my fault if stuff hasn't got any answer to it, thats why I am interested in it in the first place, unanswered questions remaining unanswered, I am just as disheartened that I get no proper answers as you probably are about having to come up with something to fob me off with, like 1cm of water curving under its own tension, or paintings of Earth that are claimed to be real.0 -
It isn't the same effect, nobody said it is. The question you asked was:Manc33 wrote:Why does the effect inside a 1cm test tube then apply across thousands of miles of ocean, when the water tension is the reason the test tube water is curved?
The answers you got were:Manc33 wrote:Show me an example of curved water lol. You can't have curved water.
Everybody on here knows why the oceans follow the earth's curve. But only one person is trying to deny it.Capt Slog wrote:0 -
Step away from the keyboard, people. Go and talk to some goldfish. They spout less nonsense.0
-
I could have told you water curves in a test tube though, the context was why do the oceans curve and you know that. So again, no answer. The oceans just stick there because "everyone knows it".
I think there needs to be a brand new discipline in science, the study of why any answer to something (even a wrong and indemonstrable answer) is "better" than no answer - when it clearly isn't and is even having to throw science itself out of the window, in order to make it "work".0 -
Sorry that this is off-topic. I found this on the interweb. No idea why I want to post it here. But anyway...
How to troll people
It's very simple. People who deserve trolling are all around you. Stick to the etiquette and then look for vulnerable prey. Once you find it, you have two options: Try to use logic to explain to the other party the fallacy of their arguments and opinions, which is always pointless, or throw them off balance with an utterly preposterous and completely opposite stance to whatever they claim, even if you totally disagree with your own rebuttal.
Indeed, people hardly ever listen to others. They sometimes don't even listen to themselves, they just like the aural harmonics of their mouth spewing verbal diarrhea, or in the case of typing, the awesome sound of self-narration playing inside their heads, also known as the Unwarranted Self-Importance (USI) syndrome. Therefore, you being reasonable and polite in fact strengthens their opinions and perpetuates the problematic elements. Fighting head to head is a lost battle. But using anti-ballistic trolling always works.
For example, how do you argue with someone who claims the Earth is flat or that aliens are visiting us on a daily basis? Do you really think scientific evidence will work at this point? Think carefully. You can ignore them, but silence is acceptance, plus you won't really feel satisfied until you fire back. Trolling is your special weapon.0 -
How do you prove Earth is not flat?
You don't, because you can't prove a negative.
You start by looking again at the claim that it is round and proving that claim, which up to now isn't a proven thing. People just say stuff like "because it is" or "everyone knows it is" which isn't an answer.
The only reason anyone thinks it is round is because an American space agency that was set up in the 1950's by ex-Nazi's and takes in billions of dollars a year, tells them it is. This is the same same space agency that is not showing us any real images of the Earth from space, or any videos of the Earth turning in space. When they do show us anything like this, we know it isn't accurate because the cloud formations do not change over a 4-6 hour period, anywhere on the visible part of the "spinning" globe!
The onus of proof is on them claiming it is a ball. If it isn't provably a ball which it isn't then that only really leaves it being flat. Looking at the flat side of things, that has more demonstrable experiments to it than the round Earth does. I tend to believe whichever thing will have the most real world evidence as per the usual scientific method.
Kids think father Christmas comes down their chimney and delivers presents to them, they believe this because they were taught it and weren't old enough to question it. Now we have fully grown adults that are doing the same thing and claiming it is science because they cannot accept that they might not know the answer to something. Yes, you just have to accept that we cannot answer it yet when it isn't proven.
You can't just chop and change science on the fly like you lot are doing. I don't even think people here know what a pre-conceived notion is, or solid proof. You're happy to think a load of algebra you don't understand is the correct answer to something, probably because of how complicated it looks so it "must be right" lol.0 -
Manc33 wrote:
Here's one that never gets answered - how can a vacuum stay connected to a non-vacuum and maintain itself as a vacuum, when you can only achieve that with a sealed unit?
Wrong again.
It's possible to have air pressure at one point in a system and vacuum at the other, I've worked with such systems. The air pressure is very small I'll grant you, but it is there. Most people think that air/gas will just even out over the entire vessel, but this just isn't so, you get a gradient from the point that is doing the pumping outwards. The bigger the system, the more pressure differential you can have. Earth is no different.
You can see this quite clearly, you can even prove it with a packet of crisps. Take the sealed pack of crisps you purchased at sea level, up a mountain. As you get higher the air pressure is less, and the pack starts to blow up like a balloon. The pressure decreases the higher you go. Keep going higher and higher and you get to the point where there's no pressure at all because there's no air. We usually call this a vacuum.
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
Not if the laws of physics change depending on where you are in the universe.Capt Slog wrote:Wrong again.0 -
briantrumpet wrote:Not if the laws of physics change depending on where you are in the universe.
Ye cannae change the laws of physics: Scotty, Star Trek0 -
crispybug2 wrote:Just to quickly hark back to Manc's flat earth obsession (sorry, so sorry) but can't it quickly be disproved by the fact that a rainbow, if the earth WAS flat, would lay flat across the horizon rather than the arc shape it is which mimics the curvature of the earth........ Or is that too simplistic an answer?
...because your eyeball is curved stupid. The light to your eye is bending by 12% over a distance which make the horizon seem curved.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Aye, you might say that sonny, but there's someone on this thread who seems to live in a parallel universe where this apparently is not the case.orraloon wrote:briantrumpet wrote:Not if the laws of physics change depending on where you are in the universe.
Ye cannae change the laws of physics: Scotty, Star Trek0 -
I thought Krakotoa proved the round earth? You even agreed (somewhere many pages ago)?
By 1883, weather stations in scores of cities across the world were using barometers to track changes in atmospheric pressure. Six hours and 47 minutes after the Krakatoa explosion, a spike of air pressure was detected in Calcutta. By 8 hours, the pulse reached Mauritius in the west and Melbourne and Sydney in the east. By 12 hours, St. Petersburg noticed the pulse, followed by Vienna, Rome, Paris, Berlin, and Munich. By 18 hours the pulse had reached New York, Washington DC, and Toronto1. Amazingly, for as many as 5 days after the explosion, weather stations in 50 cities around the globe observed this unprecedented spike in pressure re-occuring like clockwork, approximately every 34 hours. That is roughly how long it takes sound to travel around the entire planet.
http://m.nautil.us/blog/the-sound-so-lo ... four-timeswww.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
ddraver wrote:That is awesome Chris! Stuff like that is why I studied science!
Yeah, i'm sure it won't convince certain people but it is undoubtedly interesting stuffwww.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Chris Bass wrote:I thought Krakotoa proved the round earth? You even agreed (somewhere many pages ago)?
It sounded quite interesting and would suggest a round Earth (that is, it would be real tough to explain a phenomenon like that on a flat Earth) but there wasn't enough to back it up (there was only that one thing), although only one thing has to be wrong with something for there to be something wrong, but you can't verify the reports 100% and can only trust it.
It would be a lot easier to show something physical as proof, like a statue at sea level viewed from a beach 20 miles away to see if the head is still visible - it always is, people have done this, they have filmed it. This shows that there isn't a curvature to the water. Then they try to explain that away by claiming the light bends aka refraction, but that only covers 12% of the distance from you to the statue.
Here's just a few examples:
- The Isle of Wight lighthouse in England is 180 feet high and can be seen up to 42 miles away, a distance at which modern astronomers say the light should fall 996 feet below your line of sight.
- The Cape L’Agulhas lighthouse in South Africa is 33 feet high, 238 feet above sea level, and can be seen for over 50 miles. If the world was a globe, this light would fall 1,400 feet below an observer’s line of sight.
- The Statue of Liberty in New York stands 326 feet above sea level and on a clear day can be seen as far as 60 miles away. If the Earth was a globe, that would put Lady Liberty at an impossible 2,074 feet below the horizon.
- The lighthouse at Port Said, Egypt, at an elevation of only 60 feet has been seen an astonishing 58 miles away, where, according to modern astronomy it should be 2,182 feet below the line of sight.
So there's four examples there is no answer to and we have to carry on saying the water is curved. Well, I won't say it, I will look at the above and say "Stone the crows" and realize it.Chris Bass wrote:By 1883, weather stations in scores of cities across the world were using barometers to track changes in atmospheric pressure. Six hours and 47 minutes after the Krakatoa explosion, a spike of air pressure was detected in Calcutta. By 8 hours, the pulse reached Mauritius in the west and Melbourne and Sydney in the east. By 12 hours, St. Petersburg noticed the pulse, followed by Vienna, Rome, Paris, Berlin, and Munich. By 18 hours the pulse had reached New York, Washington DC, and Toronto1. Amazingly, for as many as 5 days after the explosion, weather stations in 50 cities around the globe observed this unprecedented spike in pressure re-occuring like clockwork, approximately every 34 hours. That is roughly how long it takes sound to travel around the entire planet.
http://m.nautil.us/blog/the-sound-so-lo ... four-times
I will agree that this is the best answer in the entire thread, but it is a standalone example.
What about the above four points where the tops of statues and lighthouses shouldn't be visible?
Its not the light refracting, I mean if you take 12% off to correct the refraction and make all the tops of the statues/lighthouses 12% higher, it still wouldn't make the tops visible, because the refraction of 12% isn't enough to account for 100% of it. The supposed "curvature" still ends up winning over the 12% light refraction and the mass of curved water has to still get in the way.
You'd need "100% refraction" or something for that to work (still seeing the tops of the statues and lighthouses).
The claims above can all be verified by real life "live" observations anytime, it isn't a report from the 1800's (not that this means it is false, but that the real world observations have to take priority).
If I had the money I would be getting on sodding trains myself and making documentaries about it but I just don't know enough about it to do that.
The Bedford level experiment also shows the "curve" to be flat, over about a 6 mile distance. 8 inches x 6 miles x 6 miles = 288 inches, or 24 feet. So the barge 6 miles down the canal should be (taking 12% off for refraction) 21.12 feet below the observers view. You can grab a telescope and there it is.
The claim of refraction isn't viable so, what's the next excuse?! :P0 -
Or look at it another way, why can't you see new York from Africa? Not even with a telescope?
And all your points, why do they have a distance you can't see them from? Why would this happen with a flat earth? Why only 60 miles for the state of liberty? What makes it disappear?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
crispybug2 wrote:Just to quickly hark back to Manc's flat earth obsession (sorry, so sorry) but can't it quickly be disproved by the fact that a rainbow, if the earth WAS flat, would lay flat across the horizon rather than the arc shape it is which mimics the curvature of the earth........ Or is that too simplistic an answer?
...that's 'cos your eyeball is curved stupid.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Chris Bass wrote:Or look at it another way, why can't you see new York from Africa? Not even with a telescope?
The atmosphere is too thick.Chris Bass wrote:And all your points, why do they have a distance you can't see them from? Why would this happen with a flat earth? Why only 60 miles for the state of liberty? What makes it disappear?
Same answer.
This is why when people start looking into this stuff they keep looking into it, there's answers for nearly all of this stuff that gets asked straight away, otherwise there'd be nothing to look into. I suppose I am deemed crazy or whatever for looking into it but the only reason I do is because there's no logical answer.
Like with the images from space, if there were any real ones I wouldn't have risked looking silly asking for some. I knew already there were none before asking. I thought maybe with a few people on the case, one might turn up. I wish there were proper images and video's from space. I don't know what NASA is doing but I know what they are not doing and with all those billions, it is shocking to consider that we get more sense out of amateur astronomers looking at the night sky with their own telescopes, that's sort of a hint about what NASA really is. As people started to be able to view the night skies themselves they had to come up with something to "explore space" but its real aim seems to be to never tell us anything (except monotonous facts and measurements) and fake everything. Even conspiracy theorist talk show hosts leave the fake moon landing alone and are told hands off, I wonder why.0 -
Could you please tell me where the western end of the world is and where the eastern end is?0
