wolfy 12 Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 There is direct evidence, you just choose to dismiss it. Not because it's illogical, but simply because it disproves your theory. What direct evidence is there? You keep telling me there is, so what is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21627 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 You try them also. It might open your eyes. Okay, I've just dropped a tennis ball and a cutlery knife a distance of about 4 vertical metres. Two entirely different objects of different densities I'm sure you'll agree. Both hit the ground at the same time. This is piss easy even for you. Try it, report back, and explain the results in the context of your theory please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10857 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 What direct evidence is there? You keep telling me there is, so what is it? The visible curvature on the earth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10857 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 My negative wave spectrum does cover it. Once they converge the black overcomes the light, it gets absorbed. It's one circle of one spectrum cancelling out another circle of light by absorbing into it. Nobody will perceive the black spot because it reflects of nothing. It cannot reflect it will only absorb all colours it moves into. Your globe is 24,900 miles in circumference, so 4 people stood equally apart on half of that are not going to see the same shape of moon if you think about it. Your cement like moon is not going to light up like a beacon in the sky due to any light placed upon it, unless it was a luminous moon. Is it a luminous moon? because the supposed moon rock brought back doesn't light up like a beacon. It makes no sense at all for the moon to be lit up like it is in how we are told on a rotating globe of Earth. What is the source of light? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 Renton, on 03 Jul 2014 - 7:36 PM, said: Okay, I've just dropped a tennis ball and a cutlery knife a distance of about 4 vertical metres. Two entirely different objects of different densities I'm sure you'll agree. Both hit the ground at the same time. This is piss easy even for you. Try it, report back, and explain the results in the context of your theory please. 4 metres? You might as well have done it from 4 feet and saved yourself the trouble because they will obviously look to you like they hit the floor at the same time. Try a tennis ball and an iron ball of the same size- ish and drop them from a high tower of some description, then have someone with a video at the bottom, then you will see the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 The visible curvature on the earth... I see a flat and level horizon, so there's my direct evidence. So what now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44894 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Okay, I've just dropped a tennis ball and a cutlery knife a distance of about 4 vertical metres. Two entirely different objects of different densities I'm sure you'll agree. Both hit the ground at the same time. This is piss easy even for you. Try it, report back, and explain the results in the context of your theory please. I hope you were wearing safety goggles and a lab coat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 42458 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I hope you were wearing safety goggles and a lab coat.He could've smashed his stained glass, man. All for this nutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21627 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 4 metres? You might as well have done it from 4 feet and saved yourself the trouble because they will obviously look to you like they hit the floor at the same time. Try a tennis ball and an iron ball of the same size- ish and drop them from a high tower of some description, then have someone with a video at the bottom, then you will see the difference. 4 inches, 4 feet, 4 miles, makes no difference. Plenty of illustrative videos on you tube if you're still in doubt, or are 'they' in on it also? If you can show different then why don't you? You'd be the first person to disprove Newtonian physics, that would be quite sensational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10857 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I see a flat and level horizon, so there's my direct evidence. So what now? You go to the opticians. How do you explain the Foucault pendulum, if the Earth is not a rotating globe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21627 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 He could've smashed his stained glass, man. All for this nutter. I'm moving house soon so will be saying goodbye to my lovely stained glass window. Don't worry though, I won't bore you shitless with news of the move like certain people...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 You go to the opticians. How do you explain the Foucault pendulum, if the Earth is not a rotating globe? The Foucault pendulum does not prove a rotating globe at all. This gets used as proof and you know yourself it's nonsense and proves nothing. All it proves is that a pendulum moves around a circle as it swings. This is supposed to say that the Earth is rotating under it. The pendulum swing no matter how accurately it's set in straight motion, is going to veer off it's track as it displaces the air in front of it, so it's return swing will very slightly veer off course by a fraction. It will do this for as long as it swings, which proves absolutely nothing in either sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 If satellites existed we'd be able to tell for sure....Oh wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10857 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 The Foucault pendulum does not prove a rotating globe at all. This gets used as proof and you know yourself it's nonsense and proves nothing. All it proves is that a pendulum moves around a circle as it swings. This is supposed to say that the Earth is rotating under it. The pendulum swing no matter how accurately it's set in straight motion, is going to veer off it's track as it displaces the air in front of it, so it's return swing will very slightly veer off course by a fraction. It will do this for as long as it swings, which proves absolutely nothing in either sense. Fascinating that all Foucault pendulums displace air around them in a predictable way. Lets get to brass tacks, why would anyone make all of this up? What benefit is there to a round earth theory? Why fabricate centuries of mathematics, experiments, evidence and the technologies that are only possible from a round earth? or is one guy wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21627 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 And what evidence would it take for that guy to change his mind. No evidence at all I suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 Renton, on 03 Jul 2014 - 7:54 PM, said: 4 inches, 4 feet, 4 miles, makes no difference. Plenty of illustrative videos on you tube if you're still in doubt, or are 'they' in on it also? If you can show different then why don't you? You'd be the first person to disprove Newtonian physics, that would be quite sensational. Well, I shouldn't really have to show you this. Concentrate on the football and the cannon ball. Like you said, it does matter about the density or mass, so similar balls just different mass. Like I said. Gravity does not exist and atmospheric pressure is what we are told gravity is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYz_K3mwq6A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44894 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Have you got kids, wolfy? Cos you should definitely home school them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 Fascinating that all Foucault pendulums displace air around them in a predictable way. Lets get to brass tacks, why would anyone make all of this up? What benefit is there to a round earth theory? Why fabricate centuries of mathematics, experiments, evidence and the technologies that are only possible from a round earth? or is one guy wrong? I don't know the reasons as to why the globe model came about. It could be some kind of god worship or sun worship of those times, putting the sun as the centre with us merely feeding off it. Today it certainly benefits in many ways. I think you know my thoughts on that with so called satellites and expensuive so called space missions,etc, etc, etc. It also gives people a sense of knowing the full world with it being a supposed ball. Maybe we don't know the half of it, who really knows. I can only speculate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10857 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I don't know. I can only speculate. Would have been the right answer. There is no reason to conjure this ruse to refute the original geocentric flat earth theory, except to reflect the reality of the physical world. The conspiracy you describe would have to be so complex, so pervasive it would collapse in on itself. I'd love to meet you to try and winkle out the reasons for this delusion of yours. It's fascinating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 Have you got kids, wolfy? Cos you should definitely home school them. My way of thinking does not go down well in mainstream so I'm not going to tell people that this is the way to learn. They have to follow the indioctrinated way, because that's what they are judged on. They regurgiate what they are told to regurgitate over the course of a year and marked on it. It wouldn't be fair on my kid to have a question of "who was the first man on the moon" for him to write, " there is no real moon and no man has ever went." Unfortunately it's a case of kids being allowed to go with protocol and like religion, let them decide what's what later in life if they wish to do that. My thoughts are my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 Would have been the right answer. There is no reason to conjure this ruse to refute the original geocentric flat earth theory, except to reflect the reality of the physical world. The conspiracy you describe would have to be so complex, so pervasive it would collapse in on itself. I'd love to meet you to try and winkle out the reasons for this delusion of yours. It's fascinating. For us to hide something big would be extremely hard. I accept that. For those at the top to keep up a ruse is not so hard when you control all avenues of mainstream networks/media. All you're up against are whistleblowers that have to tell people about discrepancies in a trickle like fashion. How many people will believe that person, espcially if the media get a hold and publically humiliate that person as a disgruntled employee that was sacked for trying to (add in any crime) go aginst the system. That person then becomes a nut case, just like anyone who has a different thought process will be. Once you get the majority thinking the same, it's hard to change their minds or get them to even think alternately. People's mindsets are easily manipulated by the masses or by one gossip that has some status. A good story teller can captivate an audience. Once that audience is on side, no outsider will change that anytime soon, unless they can show why the good story teller was telling fictional stories to manipulate them. It's not an easy task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15531 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 It wouldn't be fair on my kid to have a question of "who was the first man on the moon" for him to write, " there is no real moon and no man has ever went." True, it wouldn't be fair for him to fail English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 There is no Toontastic. Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3894 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 If stars are reflections and as we know the pattern of stars and where they appear and when has been constant since records began. What are they reflections of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7083 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Please make it stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now