Discord ID: 469490581899575297

4,990 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev | Page 9/20 | Next

2018-08-09 12:33:05 UTC

42) In the ball-Earth model Antarctica is an ice continent which covers the bottom of the ball from 78 degrees South latitude to 90 and is therefore not more than 12,000 miles in circumference. Many early explorers including Captian Cook and James Clark Ross, however, in attempting Antarctic circumnavigation took 3 to 4 years and clocked 50-60,000 miles around. The British ship Challenger also made an indirect but complete circumnavigation of Antarctica traversing 69,000 miles. This is entirely inconsistent with the ball model.

2018-08-09 12:34:47 UTC

okay but there are actually races doing this with records like i had shown, there are more than one such race. some form Oz, some from Europe.

2018-08-09 12:35:31 UTC

@MR VLAK And kudo's for digging in and doing your own research dude. It's the only way you'll ever know.

2018-08-09 12:36:24 UTC

a sail boat averges 6-8miles per hour, that speaks to the 16k miles form Albany around Antarctica and back taking 102 days. If would take a sail boat 300 plus days if the size is more than 60k miles

2018-08-09 12:37:20 UTC

@MR VLAK They say a lot, they can say they are sailing around a ball all they like, proving it is a completely different story. All their routes can be plotted on the FE map. I

2018-08-09 12:37:39 UTC

the times woudl add up though

2018-08-09 12:37:45 UTC

@MR VLAK Yes and they took 3-4 years. Documented.

2018-08-09 12:37:46 UTC

would not

2018-08-09 12:38:34 UTC

3-4 years is still 3-4x how long it will take in todays yachts so it doesn't really add any merit

2018-08-09 12:40:16 UTC

69k miles @ 6mph = 11500hours, divided by 24hr a day = 479 days/ 365days =1.3 years

2018-08-09 12:40:45 UTC

that's conservatively

2018-08-09 12:41:08 UTC

vs 102 days on a GE

2018-08-09 12:41:30 UTC


2018-08-09 12:43:01 UTC

Good thing the stars have been the same year-on-year since the beginning of time. Otherwise nobody could possibly navigate by the stars if they kept changing all the time.

2018-08-09 12:47:34 UTC

Yeah I am also glad the rotation of the earth and its axis as we move through the universe together with our solar system and adjacent systems is constant

2018-08-09 12:48:00 UTC

@MR VLAK Which you can't prove..

2018-08-09 12:48:26 UTC

2018-08-09 12:49:54 UTC

the dopper effect. Light is waves, sound is waves.. easy to grasp

2018-08-09 12:50:07 UTC

Yeah radar only works on a flat plane.

2018-08-09 12:50:33 UTC

What does your article prove and how does it prove it?

2018-08-09 12:52:20 UTC

The Doppler Effect Proves A Flat Earth: Something To Think About Before I Stream This Saturday
Ignore X
The cute picture above gives a basic example of what the doppler effect is: as a sound approaches a stationary listener the pitch of the sound is higher. As the sound passes the observer and moves away, the pitch of the sound becomes lower. You've probably heard this if you have ever stood nearby an approaching train or ambulance.

Here is where it gets interesting: the doppler effect disproves the round earth. Think about it: the round earth (including the atmosphere) is supposedly spinning at 1000mph. The direction of rotation is from west to east. That means the atmosphere must be circulating with the earth from west to east. The speed of sound is 767mph. Remember: sound travels through a medium (in our case, air) and cannot travel where there is no material to move through. So the earth and you are each moving at the breakneck speed of 1000mph. Imagine you are standing facing west and someone half a mile away lights a firecracker. If the earth is really spinning at 1000mph, and sound only moves through the atmosphere at 767mph, you would NEVER be able to hear the sound of the firecracker exploding. The sound would never catch up with you. When you see a lightening strike in the west, you should never be able to hear thunder if the earth is round and spinning as spherists claim.

This shows that the earth really is Flat. I encourage you to put on your proverbial caps and think away. The earth is NOT round. I will be streaming live this Saturday at 8pm eastern time. My twitch channel is here, tune in and let me know what you come up with regarding the this "doppler dilemma". Or any other Flat earth question. When you open your mind, you will find that Planar Theory kicks ball belief every time...

2018-08-09 12:52:27 UTC

It explains how wave frequency changes depending on if a object moving to or away your viewing point.

2018-08-09 12:54:15 UTC

that extract of your is meaningless and assumes that everything contained in the earth atmosphere is not a closed system. Remember the fly in the car example?

2018-08-09 12:54:41 UTC

Doppler effect proves that the stars and we are moving through the universe.

2018-08-09 12:56:12 UTC

@MR VLAK It's stationary until you can prove otherwise. Your entire model is based on an unproven assumption.

2018-08-09 12:56:29 UTC

If FLat Earthers believe in the doppler effect, then they should believe that the starts are moving based on the same logic

2018-08-09 12:59:15 UTC

@MR VLAK You can only reason and deduce logically if you start from a proven base-foundation - which you don't have. So you may call it "logic" but it's not really that, because I can reverse engineer every single one of your claims back to it's root where every single one of them will fall apart.

2018-08-09 13:00:01 UTC

This is what building your foundation on a rock is all about.

2018-08-09 13:02:04 UTC

That's what's interesting about your logic. You start from a proven base and when it doesn't match your agenda you turn to another direction. I have shown it in our discussion multiple times.

2018-08-09 13:03:41 UTC

I have come to the conclusion you are in to deep and by accepting even the slightest possibility of anything else would be in too much of a conflict of your beliefs.

2018-08-09 13:03:54 UTC

@MR VLAK You have only linked articles that triggers your confirmation bias. You have not proved anything. Flat Earth is a huge field and there's lots of avenues that can be debated until the cows come home, but ultimately doesn't prove anything either way.

2018-08-09 13:04:37 UTC

If that is so why do you not accept that you can be right and wrong?

2018-08-09 13:04:38 UTC

Stick to what we can prove. You will not convince me logically I guarantee you that.

2018-08-09 13:06:10 UTC

@MR VLAK I know for a fact it's flat and stationary - all the science is there. All the logic is there. I'm not here trying to figure out what shape it is.

2018-08-09 13:08:48 UTC

Why would we be conditioned to believe a round earth?

2018-08-09 13:10:40 UTC

@MR VLAK Because you don't teach your slave gangs how to make guns and gunpowder. Smart people can't be controlled so easy.

2018-08-09 13:11:28 UTC

Being a product of the system makes you believe in the system too. People will even defend it.

2018-08-09 13:15:03 UTC

2018-08-09 13:15:34 UTC

Just to point out something, vlak has a good point though, you can't accept that you might be wrong, which is problematic... All the same rhetoric applies to you too DeeJay, you too could be taught incorrectly with regards to an agenda, and you too are essentially a product of a system that you believe in and even defend... The measure here is that you both are equal, so unless you don't accept the golden rule, and treat one another as equal, you will never get anywhere in terms of being able to reason.

2018-08-09 13:16:02 UTC

Flat earthers you just jump off the edge tbh

2018-08-09 13:16:27 UTC

2018-08-09 13:19:10 UTC

the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change.

Lol this applies to you equally too hey

2018-08-09 13:19:59 UTC

Gravity... Once you understand this, then everything else you understand will be questioned

2018-08-09 13:20:54 UTC

@Sheamus I don't agree with much of anything you said there. This is not about the art of the debate. This is about what we can prove. It's all about the science. Why is it then that only the flerfer has to prove his model and not the globulist? Why should I see the other party as an equal when right from the get-go I am not being treated as such? I have not seen ONE globe proof even worth considering.

2018-08-09 13:21:37 UTC

Brian Cox is a nothing but a pseudo-intellectual and a fraud.

2018-08-09 13:22:43 UTC


2018-08-09 13:23:41 UTC

That right there is your problem DeeJay.. You might not care, but the people that pay attention see you for what you are, any chance of reasoning is lost with you because you break the trust of the golden rule. You are literally dictating, not reasoning.

2018-08-09 13:23:56 UTC

its not the person I am showing you. I am showign you objects falling in a vacuum. Saying you dislike the person and therefor do not entertain it proves Shaemus' point

2018-08-09 13:24:17 UTC

He's a proven liar and has no credibility whatsoever.

2018-08-09 13:24:32 UTC

I will edit him out and his voice

2018-08-09 13:25:17 UTC

2018-08-09 13:26:09 UTC

2018-08-09 13:26:25 UTC

there no person I dont even know that you hate

2018-08-09 13:27:57 UTC

@MR VLAK So balls and feathers prove that balls and feathers can fall in a vacuum. Does it prove the vacuum exists? Nope.

2018-08-09 13:28:31 UTC

Gravity... Gravity exists

2018-08-09 13:28:51 UTC

Prove it.

2018-08-09 13:29:14 UTC

And tell me that was a perfect vacuum?

2018-08-09 13:29:20 UTC

Open your mind. I will sent you some DMT to restart the system

2018-08-09 13:29:51 UTC

I believed the lies for 44 years. I wasn't born a flerfer.

2018-08-09 13:31:25 UTC

Two objects of different densities falling at the same acceleration.. gravity..

2018-08-09 13:32:21 UTC

@MR VLAK That's likely the maximum speed something can fall through the Ether.

2018-08-09 13:33:13 UTC

why at the same acceleration if the densities are different? you said objects sort themselves by density

2018-08-09 13:34:08 UTC

Yes, they are sorting themselves because they are falling. When they reach the bottom they have sorted themselves. Your vacuum is not a perfect vacuum.

2018-08-09 13:34:37 UTC

You need to meet people half way DeeJay, you cannot expect to make no effort on your part and others to come to your mindset.. You can be just as wrong as anyone else is about anything. If you can't accept that, why should anyone else?

You can only claim to be better than anyone else, but the universe is designed to restore balance, this is why we have a golden rule, it's universally observed to solve any problem you have to balance things out evenly. Your claim is measured by your actions. The only problem that exists is that you think you are better than others, and until you solve that problem, you won't understand why people have a lack of interest to take you seriously and continue to accept the globe model, but will merely entertain your audience to let you show everyone else yourself how you think you are better than the rest of us, and i assure you many of us find it humorous. You really ought to think about that.

2018-08-09 13:34:41 UTC

You guys are just proving density.

2018-08-09 13:34:49 UTC


2018-08-09 13:38:19 UTC

a vacuum increases the effect of your density theory

2018-08-09 13:42:38 UTC

@Sheamus People can laugh all they want, it's just the mind trying to deal with the trauma. I don't think I'm better than others at all, I'm actually a pretty humble and quiet guy. How am I supposed to budge with proven science on my side? All I am being is factual and straight forward. The honest approach as opposed to the condescending one. Honestly who here actually watched the entire 200 proofs video?

2018-08-09 13:45:05 UTC

2018-08-09 13:45:05 UTC

@Deejay from Earth yes and they too haven proven science, rejecting and denying theirs is no different from them rejecting yours... This is why you need to reason, not dictate

2018-08-09 13:45:45 UTC

@Sheamus Where is this "proven science" my good sir?

2018-08-09 13:46:38 UTC

I tried, but I cannot get over the fact that most of those only work in a world without gravity which I unfortunately cannot accept does not exist.

2018-08-09 13:46:58 UTC

How about now?

2018-08-09 13:47:13 UTC

In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research

2018-08-09 13:47:45 UTC

gravity does not rely on magnetism...

2018-08-09 13:47:50 UTC

just btw

2018-08-09 13:47:55 UTC

What is it called when a scientific theory is taught as a scientifically proven fact?

2018-08-09 13:48:13 UTC


2018-08-09 13:49:29 UTC

i want to get to the magnetic gravity story...

2018-08-09 13:49:47 UTC

What is the difference between a theory and imagination?

2018-08-09 13:51:12 UTC

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge

2018-08-09 13:51:36 UTC

So when are you going to test it?

2018-08-09 13:52:24 UTC

Its been tested, I have given you three videos with the same results (repeated).

2018-08-09 13:52:54 UTC

anyhow I wan to come back to the FE understanding that gravity is magnetic

2018-08-09 13:53:02 UTC

Where was the results of your videos published?

2018-08-09 13:53:16 UTC

For peer-review?

2018-08-09 13:55:08 UTC

you can go do the research about whom verified it or go to any high school in the world where they will show you experiments that do the same

2018-08-09 13:55:25 UTC

lets get back to your magnetic gravity story... please

2018-08-09 13:55:34 UTC

What experiment can I do at home to verify the results for myself?

2018-08-09 13:56:10 UTC

You see, I keep posting proofs and you keep ignoring them at your own convenience.

2018-08-09 13:56:26 UTC

Four conclusive experiments performed by the top scientists of their day proved that the Sun, Moon and stars revolve around us, and that Earth is the fixed, motionless centre of the universe.

The Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Airy's Failure and Sagnac experiments scientifically proved Geocentrism and nearly crushed the dying Heliocentric theory until Mr. Einstein came through with his Special Relativity mathematical denial of the proven Aether and philosophically (not scientifically) banished the Aether from study ever since.

These studies and peer reviewed experiments are never covered in any university courses. These conclusive peer-reviewed and repeated scientific results are nowhere debated or denied, merely suppressed and ignored. The fact of the matter is that Geocentrism has been conclusively proven for over a century.

In 1913 Sagnac conducted an experiment to test the speed and constancy of light and proved the existence of the Aether (Disproves relativity) Therefore, The Michelson-Morley experiment, conducted using an interferometer clearly demonstrated that the Earth was motionless. The Michelson-Gale experiment detected the Aether/Firmament passing over the surface of the motionless Earth. Airy's Failure, demonstrated that it is the stars moving relative to a stationary Earth, and not the fast orbiting Earth moving relative to comparatively stationary stars.

2018-08-09 13:58:19 UTC

I ignore them like you ignore your misunderstanding of gravity

2018-08-09 13:58:21 UTC

See I give you peer-review and you post youtube videos about density.

2018-08-09 13:58:57 UTC

share the link then

2018-08-09 13:59:15 UTC

not some extract from a theorist blog

2018-08-09 14:01:45 UTC

They assume that the experiments have been correctly interpreted, and never go and look them up for themselves. The experiments say nothing about a flat Earth, and the original experimenters would be shocked to think that their work was being used in that way.

2018-08-09 14:02:12 UTC

share the actual experiments and conclusions for us both to read

2018-08-09 14:02:35 UTC

You have to go and verify if my peer reviewed articles are real. Your job now to go and look them up.

2018-08-09 14:03:04 UTC

okay your job is to find out what gravity is then, we will come back later and chat

2018-08-09 14:03:36 UTC

@MR VLAK Your words debunk or prove nothing.

2018-08-09 14:04:10 UTC

hint: gravity is not magnetism.

2018-08-09 14:04:51 UTC

Good. What is it then?

2018-08-09 14:05:04 UTC

we both have jobs to do, lets go do them

2018-08-09 14:15:48 UTC

Meet each other half way

2018-08-09 14:22:03 UTC

This is what the scientific method is for. Not the best method but it will work if we can decide on which experiments will prove what.

2018-08-09 14:25:01 UTC

Here's a curvature test that shouldn't be too hard to do - especially with the P900.

2018-08-09 14:25:12 UTC

62) Samuel Rowbotham’s experiments at the Old Bedford Level proved conclusively the canal’s water to be completely flat over a 6 mile stretch. First he stood in the canal with his telescope held 8 inches above the surface of the water, then his friend in a boat with a 5 foot tall flag sailed the 6 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference the 6 mile stretch of water should have comprised an arc exactly 6 feet high in the middle, so the entire boat and flag should have ultimately disappeared, when in fact the entire boat and flag remained visible at the same height for the entire journey.

2018-08-09 14:26:29 UTC

True. @Deejay from Earth you got anything for me against Einsteins Theories that proves luminiferous aether exists? I am still reading, but missing this

2018-08-09 14:28:01 UTC

@MR VLAK Einsteins's biggest problem his his lack of proof for any of his theories. He only patented some new kind of refrigeration unit afaik.

2018-08-09 14:29:05 UTC

Yeah okay but those other experiments you referenced doesn't prove luminiferous aether exists either

2018-08-09 14:29:42 UTC

They are only relevant is luminiferous aether is proven to exist

2018-08-09 14:30:09 UTC

Einstein had to completely discard the aether to make his models work.

2018-08-09 14:30:35 UTC

that is not important, I need a model that proves it does exist please

2018-08-09 14:31:39 UTC

@MR VLAK And I have to spoon-feed you why?

2018-08-09 14:32:05 UTC

fine I will be back later then

2018-08-09 14:32:32 UTC


2018-08-09 14:35:39 UTC

2018-08-09 14:36:34 UTC

2018-08-09 14:39:44 UTC

2018-08-09 14:39:57 UTC

2018-08-09 14:45:59 UTC

@MR VLAK @Sheamus I suggest a meet-up at the Vaal dam sometime. I'll bring the P900, we just need a six mile stretch of water and then you guys can see the flatness of water for yourself.

2018-08-09 14:47:16 UTC #FlatEarthMachine. WATCH TO THE END.

2018-08-09 14:47:51 UTC

@Deejay from Earth I will bring a boat and we do two experiments...

2018-08-09 14:50:24 UTC

Now what?

2018-08-09 14:52:52 UTC

ever heard of diffraction?

2018-08-09 14:53:13 UTC

Water always finds and maintains its own level - this is why this instrument exists.

2018-08-09 14:53:46 UTC

Laser are shit proofs because the beam diverges.

2018-08-09 14:53:49 UTC

uhm.. gravity

2018-08-09 14:54:45 UTC

It's called an airPLANE for a very good reason.

2018-08-09 14:55:03 UTC

I would believe the test if they took a measure ment at diffrent intervals. you cannot say that the laser was setup level and they hit the board on the other side first try, so any change after level setup will make the results false

2018-08-09 14:55:42 UTC

plane - (of a bird or an airborne object) soar without moving the wings; glide.

2018-08-09 14:56:39 UTC

he plays with the laser, hear what he says at 17min

2018-08-09 14:56:59 UTC

@MR VLAK On the spinning ball, when you level something with a spirit level, what is the frame of reference the spirit level uses? What are you leveling say the table TO? Where does the spirit-level get its frame of reference from?

2018-08-09 14:57:07 UTC

Bring a boat and measure at intervals like the experiment I shared

2018-08-09 14:57:49 UTC

you want me to say sea level right?

2018-08-09 14:58:16 UTC

Height above mean sea level. Height above mean sea level (AMSL) is the elevation (on the ground) or altitude (in the air) of an object, relative to the average sea level datum.

2018-08-09 14:58:25 UTC

mean is another word for average...

2018-08-09 15:02:54 UTC

@MR VLAK No I mean where is the original frame of reference physically located on the spinning ball? Sea-level is always parallel to the spirit-level. Because a ball contains no level anything. It's a ball with a center pivot point. How is a curved ocean level to a plane?

2018-08-09 15:03:14 UTC

2018-08-09 15:03:35 UTC


2018-08-09 15:03:49 UTC

plane - (of a bird or an airborne object) soar without moving the wings; glide.

2018-08-09 15:04:19 UTC

So I can now safely call the hand-planer a hand-bird - by your logic.

2018-08-09 15:05:17 UTC

words have multiple meanings, you spoke about a airPLANE... i gave you the reference

2018-08-09 15:06:45 UTC

Funny how you picked the last definition.

2018-08-09 15:07:15 UTC

yeah cause you spoke about a AIRplane

2018-08-09 15:09:53 UTC

So I checked out your experiments...

2018-08-09 15:10:03 UTC

the aether ones

2018-08-09 15:10:44 UTC


2018-08-09 15:14:50 UTC

I cannot come to a conclusion as there is no proof that aether exists and as such the fact that those experiments do not have a concise conclusion does not tell me the earth is not moving. If anything it could possibly be used to prove that Luminiferous aether does not exist or is not required for light to move through out the universe. All these possibilities could be right or wrong including the possibility that the earth is not moving. So sorry it did not help me πŸ˜”

2018-08-09 15:15:50 UTC

what is your views on Gravity? anything new?

2018-08-09 15:21:02 UTC Those experiments explained in more detail.

2018-08-09 15:22:02 UTC

@MR VLAK Nope. Not even I can disprove someone's imagination.

2018-08-09 15:28:24 UTC

@Deejay from Earth but you understand that gravity has nothing to do with magnetism now?

2018-08-09 15:29:23 UTC

@MR VLAK No I understand that Gravity doesn't exist but Magnetism does.

2018-08-09 15:31:32 UTC

its different from magnetism as that works on the different states of molecules (+/-)

2018-08-09 15:32:03 UTC

here is a experiment you can do

2018-08-09 15:34:20 UTC

Please explain the details of how this experiment works, what it proves and how I should replicate it. I don't understand what is happening there at all. Thanks.

2018-08-09 15:41:49 UTC

No worries. a ruler is hung from a ladder at its centre with two identical masses on either side to balance it. Two larger objects (masses) are placed evenly spaced from the masses on the ruler on opposite sides till it is not moving. Once a equilibrium is found one can move one of the large masses away and document the movement of the ruler. What is happening is that mass on the ruler is still closest to the large mass that did not move gets pulled towards it. The counter acting gravitational force on the opposite end was moved and weakened it such that the equilibrium is broken, this makes the ruler move.

2018-08-09 15:42:03 UTC

I hope I explained it sufficiently

2018-08-09 15:42:36 UTC

The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory.

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal".

Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, "the moon goes around the earth." If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.

2018-08-09 15:43:35 UTC

dude.. the closer the object is to a mass the more the force. It is exponetial

2018-08-09 15:44:13 UTC

@MR VLAK Are there any assumptions as to the alleged axial rotation in the gravitational theories?

2018-08-09 15:45:22 UTC

no. it does not explain or attempt to explain rotation of planets only orbiting of planets

2018-08-09 15:45:49 UTC

Furthermore, gravity theory suggests that the planets have been moving in orderly orbits for millions and millions of years, which wholly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

2018-08-09 15:46:00 UTC

Ever heard of the Law of Entropy?

2018-08-09 15:48:03 UTC

I hope we can get past the definitions of theories and laws in science. I am looking into your last comment, give me a moment I cant remember all the laws etc

2018-08-09 15:49:15 UTC

@MR VLAK And that experiment" together with your explanation really doesn't prove anything. If you balance and counter-balance things on a floppy tape-measure of course things will re-balance itself.

2018-08-09 15:50:33 UTC

Its not a floppy tape, its a wood ruler. The only thing that is moved is the large mass at one point that never touched the ruler

2018-08-09 15:51:13 UTC

So "The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. The total entropy can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium), or is undergoing a reversible process."

2018-08-09 15:53:26 UTC

how does this relate to the solar system in your opinion?

2018-08-09 15:54:52 UTC

187) The second law of thermodynamics, otherwise known as the law of entropy, along with the fundamental principles of friction/resistance determine the impossibility of Earth being a uniformly spinning ball. Over time, the spinning ball Earth would experience measurable amounts of drag constantly slowing the spin and lengthening the amount of hours per day. As not the slightest such change has ever been observed in all of recorded history it is absurd to assume the Earth has ever moved an inch.

2018-08-09 15:55:33 UTC

Law of entropy - everything degrades over time.

2018-08-09 15:56:32 UTC

you noted the lack of drag when objects fell in a vacuum right?

2018-08-09 15:58:25 UTC

Could you please refer me to the scientific journal where your WOOD ruler experiment was published for peer-review?

2018-08-09 16:00:05 UTC

@MR VLAK And where are you located btw? I'm up for going to the dam this coming weekend or the next if you would like? Who wants to join us?

2018-08-09 16:04:39 UTC

@Deejay from Earth I am in Kzn

2018-08-09 16:05:18 UTC

That's cool I'll drive through if you can suggest a six mile stretch of water anywhere nearby?

2018-08-09 16:07:21 UTC

@MR VLAK Oh it's much better to see the evidence for yourself, first hand. I don't mind the drive - I drive a lot anyways. What dams are there in KZN?

2018-08-09 16:09:09 UTC

i could not share all the sources as Discord has a text limit

2018-08-09 16:10:06 UTC

What dam is closest to you?

2018-08-09 16:10:09 UTC

i will check on google earth for 3-6km line of sight

2018-08-09 16:10:23 UTC


2018-08-09 16:17:36 UTC

Jozini seem the most sensible

2018-08-09 16:17:38 UTC

@MR VLAK Why has Cavendish never been repeated and why isn't there one of these alleged devices in every classroom?

2018-08-09 16:19:33 UTC

@MR VLAK Why isn't there a gyroscope to prove and experiment with the spin of the earth in every classroom?

2018-08-09 16:20:04 UTC

@MR VLAK Why isn't there even a basic telescope in every science classroom?

2018-08-09 16:20:40 UTC

because they can do it with a lader, ruler and a few masses

2018-08-09 16:21:03 UTC

And I am now done with you selectively answering my questions.

2018-08-09 16:21:05 UTC

Telescope and Gyroscope i cannot answer

2018-08-09 16:22:57 UTC

2018-08-09 16:24:34 UTC

Cavendish, H. 'Experiments to determine the Density of the Earth', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, (part II) 88 p.469-526 (21 June 1798), reprinted in Cavendish 1798

2018-08-09 16:24:59 UTC

No that is a book.

2018-08-09 16:25:37 UTC

what peer review happened in 17th century lets be honest

2018-08-09 16:26:12 UTC

How about the last 100 or so years ago? Repeated and published?

2018-08-09 16:28:39 UTC

I don't think scientists spend much time on items they learn in school and can repeat anytime they have a ladder, some string, ruler and weights. But I am speculating here

2018-08-09 16:29:15 UTC

Also your entire model is still based on the assumption that the earth rotates. That still hasen't changed, regardless of how many links you post. You are wasting time with BS Strawman arguments and vague irrelevant bullshit.

2018-08-09 16:31:27 UTC

no my model is based on the fact that masses are pulled to each other, this explains gravity and why solar objects orbit. Then gravity explains how water can be around a sphere

2018-08-09 16:32:16 UTC

Then demonstrate how gravity sticks around a ball WITH AN EXPERIMENT.

2018-08-09 16:32:18 UTC

proving the earth moves is irrelevant to me in proving the earth is a sphere

2018-08-09 16:33:27 UTC

Ah yes. Proving the base foundation which you need to make your model work is irrelevant. Right. Got that. Thanks.

2018-08-09 16:33:39 UTC

If I can make a ball with a mass large enough i would show you. I need to break the earth gravitational force first to show you

2018-08-09 16:34:32 UTC

Gravity does not require the earth to rotate... the experiment is no-rotating objects... get that, thanks

2018-08-09 16:34:36 UTC

Don't forget to make it spin at Mach 1.3

2018-08-09 16:37:36 UTC

Why doesn't the moon have little mini-moons orbiting it?

2018-08-09 16:40:49 UTC

@MR VLAK What is the correct curvature formula I should use to calculate how much curvature there should be?

2018-08-09 16:41:29 UTC

@MR VLAK Also how high do I have to be to see the curvature and what is the formula used to calculate it?

2018-08-09 16:42:06 UTC

@MR VLAK How does a vacuum exist to a non-vacuum while still maintaining the properties of a vacuum?

2018-08-09 16:42:59 UTC

@MR VLAK If an airplane pushes off the air to move forward, and a boat pushes off water, what does a rocket in space use?

2018-08-09 16:45:03 UTC

And if you say Gravity one more time without proving it I'm done.

2018-08-09 16:45:51 UTC

2018-08-09 16:46:12 UTC

2018-08-09 16:46:38 UTC

Nah dude I am done. For a man that started his conversations last night by saying you know the earth is flat and not moving based on your senses sure made me wonder about those senses when you said your use of drugs changed your way of thinking. Sure trust those senses hey... I proved my point a multitude of times already. Anyone that indulges you just needs to come read the last two days to save them a waste of time and effort. A man is but the product of his thoughts; what he thinks, he becomes. - Ghandi (I am sure you will like that one)

2018-08-09 16:49:09 UTC

@MR VLAK Lame-ass cop-out.

2018-08-09 16:49:14 UTC

Well, was good reading though, entertaining too lol

2018-08-09 16:49:37 UTC

Never trust a man who doesn't trust his own senses. ~Deejay from Earth

2018-08-09 16:50:07 UTC

I don't trust my senses, i know how prejudiced they are.

2018-08-09 16:50:18 UTC

Not aimed at you lol

2018-08-09 16:50:45 UTC

Still... It's relevant

2018-08-09 16:50:46 UTC

But the honesty is refreshing.

2018-08-09 16:51:15 UTC

I know. Like with that dolphin thing where adults see sex stuff and children see dolphins.

2018-08-09 16:55:37 UTC

Can I just state openly that yes I have done lots of drugs, I enjoyed it and I regret none of it.

2018-08-09 17:00:09 UTC

2018-08-09 17:13:37 UTC

So have i, but there is a problem if your argument hinges on the experiences gained through these drugs, because the experiences are entirely subjective because it's local to your own biology, and has no bearing on the objectivity of reality around you. Hence bad idea to use that as a means to help your argument, it ends up hurting your argument even more.

2018-08-09 17:14:54 UTC

I never even connected drugs and flat earth. I was talking about the spiritual things which is my main area of expertise if I can call it that.

2018-08-09 17:25:33 UTC

And flat earth is 100% scientific. I never claimed the earth was flat because it's in the Bible either.

2018-08-09 17:25:36 UTC

Yeah I'm just saying, because you are saying that you rely on your senses, and your senses are subjective, not objective. You cannot experience reality objectively without reasoning past your own subjectivity and prejudices, and if you can't agree on the golden rule, then you can't be objective, because you won't have any need to be objective, since your subjectivity is superior over another persons subjectivity. You really ought be more reasonable and less of a dictator, you don't fall far from the tree that the liberal commies are, they have the same problem with regards to subjectivity and objectivity.

2018-08-09 17:31:12 UTC

So I have to be nice and answer every question politely, while the globers can skip over questions and generally dictate the debate because why? Moral higher ground? Go have a look back at the last two days' conversations if you think I'm making it up.

2018-08-09 17:34:42 UTC

Nobody can answer my questions dude. That ends the debate in my favor right then and there surely? But no, they just go on and on and throw more strawmen at me. Pfft.

2018-08-09 17:44:05 UTC


2018-08-09 17:45:06 UTC

Lol i have been following it, as i have been following every other. You don't seem to realize that you cannot convince anyone of anything if you don't find common ground, hence meet half way.

What i observe is that people try to entertain your ideas, they watch some of your vids and they even look up some of the content, they are meeting you half way, but you just don't meet them, you expect them to go all the way and abandon reasoning to follow what you dictate is fact and true by your own measure, not by the golden rule everyone tries to meet.

Love your neighbor as your own self, do unto others as you would them do to you. And this is the thing, you don't fulfill that commandment, because it requires you to meet half way. When you think and claim you are better than others because they don't agree with you.

2018-08-09 17:45:31 UTC

@MR VLAK How was the alleged 1000mph axial rotation of the earth first measured and what instrument was used?

2018-08-09 17:47:10 UTC

@Sheamus Where is the common ground? It's flat and stationary or a spinning globe. There's literally no grey area here.

2018-08-09 17:48:47 UTC

Common ground is to accept that both models are potentially right and potentially wrong. The whole point of reasoning is for two people to come to the same conclusion... Dictating the conclusion is no different from the evil you claim to oppose.

2018-08-09 17:49:05 UTC

Deejay I stand by my statement! If FE had a leader or king you would be it!

2018-08-09 17:49:30 UTC

Best utilised channel ever

2018-08-09 17:49:36 UTC

@Shiver Thanks dude! πŸ˜‚

4,990 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev | Page 9/20 | Next