4 Points FE falls down on *Still waiting on a valid response*

  • 154 Replies
  • 26230 Views
These are just a few questions that I never had answered/disproved by a FE believer:

1) How come when mapping and surveying over a large distance, you have to factor in equations for the curvature of the earth otherwise the results are wrong?
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BZYOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=surveying+correction+for+earth+curvature&source=bl&ots=Uu8hstfHPs&sig=65MeeZSGZ6t4BYXPxWsH_moB3OU&hl=en&ei=AJwtStu5K5TQjAe0yOj1Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA42,M1
Page 42 onwards. Pretty simple explanation of the correction needed.

2) How is GPS possible on a flat earth? The idea of psudeolites is not possible due to the strength of the signals needed to cover the range would be ridiculously huge. We're talking Kilowatts. To then say that thousands of planes are carrying these generators is absurd due to the cost, and the fact that a planes flight path is not accurate enough to give sub-meter precision. Plus how come all these planes are not spotted? Where are the kept as they would have to refuel? And what the hell would the point be as this scheme would cost billions to maintain, if it was feasible, which is isn't.

3)No one has yet shown how AVHRR corner reflector data is falsified. The existence of this data proves the existence of satellites.
3ii) No one has yet shown how GVD is falsified. The existence of this data proves the existence of satellites.

4) How does the sun emit this hot light? It cannot be constantly emitting energy through fusion, as a key element for fusion in the sun is gravity due to it's mass, according to RET.
4ii) What the hell is cold light? How on earth do you have cold light? Light and electromagnetic waves of any frequency will heat surfaces that absorb them.
EDIT: Evidence:
1)Radiation causes burns
2)Microwaves can evaporate water.
3)VL lasers can burn/char paper

So anyone care to take a shot at answering/discussing how these points can be in a flat earth??

I'VE MOVED THIS TO DEBATE & DISCUSSION AS NO-ONE IN QUESTIONS & CLARIFICATION HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER/DEBATE THESE POINTS
And apparently, not a single FE believer can answer any one of these questions.
Game, set & match to the round earth
« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 08:00:22 AM by mazty88 »

Re: 4 Points FE falls down on
« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2009, 06:15:05 AM »
Not a single reply yet...

This is pretty much end of the line for FET.
If you can't scientifically refute or come up with some scientific theories to explain the above points, the FE is proven to be bull.
Simple as that.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: 4 Points FE falls down on
« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2009, 06:18:21 AM »
You're pretty arrogant to assume that not only have these things not yet been mentioned, but that you saying these things exist somehow constitutes the same amount of proof you constantly demand of us and that these things would be totally inexplicable in FE. Search.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: 4 Points FE falls down on
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2009, 07:32:55 AM »
You're pretty arrogant to assume that not only have these things not yet been mentioned, but that you saying these things exist somehow constitutes the same amount of proof you constantly demand of us and that these things would be totally inexplicable in FE. Search.
How do I posts on these topics already exist?
I've made threads on them before & this is simply a collaboration on evidence for a RE that the FE community has not been able to argue against/come up with counter-evidence for these topics. If you can't refute evidence for a RE, what does that mean?
I think you are the one who needs to use the search button.  :)

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: 4 Points FE falls down on
« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2009, 07:52:50 AM »
If you don't think that FE has answered any of these questions the button you need to master is the "page down" one.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: 4 Points FE falls down on
« Reply #5 on: June 20, 2009, 07:55:33 AM »
If you don't think that FE has answered any of these questions the button you need to master is the "page down" one.
Look up the threads which have these topics in instead of making an inane comment. Again, use the search button.
And if you are so certain these points have been successfully refuted before, please enlighten me to the compelling scientific advances that must have been made. 

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: 4 Points FE falls down on
« Reply #6 on: June 20, 2009, 08:04:03 AM »
I don't need to look them up, I've posted in most of them, and I can assure you we have. This is going round in circles as it so often does with pig-headed ignoramuses like you. Don't bother baiting me any more, I'm sick of you.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: 4 Points FE falls down on
« Reply #7 on: June 20, 2009, 08:33:32 AM »
I don't need to look them up, I've posted in most of them, and I can assure you we have. This is going round in circles as it so often does with pig-headed ignoramuses like you. Don't bother baiting me any more, I'm sick of you.

Bullshit. Here are the links, and at every point I proved the FE path of thought to be flawed and/or unscientific. You didn't even post in most of them:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29821.0  NO COMMENT BY YOU.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29782.200  NO COMMENT BY YOU.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29679.20 NO COMMENT BY YOU.

The GDV and AVHRR evidence has appeared in numerous threads, and not a single person has been able to refute what they show.

And nice "bail as I have no evidence to refute points in question" reply. Pathetic. Stop trolling.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2009, 06:58:02 PM by mazty88 »

?

Empathy

  • 57
  • The Doubter
Re: 4 Points FE falls down on
« Reply #8 on: June 20, 2009, 12:52:08 PM »
Victory for RE!
My reason is Infallible, therefore unable to be touched using logic.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: 4 Points FE falls down on
« Reply #9 on: June 20, 2009, 01:23:27 PM »
4) "Hot light" is light that has a large part of its spectral distribution in the infrared (IR) region. The skin has receptors that recognize IR radiation as heat. For example, if you stand close to a space heater or an open fire, you feel warm even though the surrounding air is not warmed. Therefore we can conclude that heat is being transfered by IR electromagnetic waves. On the other hand, if you go in a tanning booth, the ultraviolet light (UVA) triggers the production of melanin - the brown pigment that causes tanning. However, you don't feel being heated directly by this light. This would be an example of "cold light". In essence, whenever there is an IR component to the radiation, it is hot, and, in the opposite case, cold.

Re: 4 Points FE falls down on
« Reply #10 on: June 20, 2009, 03:17:51 PM »
Looks look you won that one mazty88, GD couldn't come back with anything.

I think your number of points that FE falls down on is out by several orders of magnitude though :)
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

Re: 4 Points FE falls down on
« Reply #11 on: June 20, 2009, 06:52:53 PM »
4) "Hot light" is light that has a large part of its spectral distribution in the infrared (IR) region. The skin has receptors that recognize IR radiation as heat. For example, if you stand close to a space heater or an open fire, you feel warm even though the surrounding air is not warmed. Therefore we can conclude that heat is being transferred by IR electromagnetic waves. On the other hand, if you go in a tanning booth, the ultraviolet light (UVA) triggers the production of melanin - the brown pigment that causes tanning. However, you don't feel being heated directly by this light. This would be an example of "cold light". In essence, whenever there is an IR component to the radiation, it is hot, and, in the opposite case, cold.
Which part of "Light and electromagnetic waves of ANY frequency will heat surfaces that absorb them", did you not understand?
IR does not equal heat, that is a common misconception. Therefore you cannot have cold light, as all EM radiation causes heat. It would be like claiming you can have a cold fire.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2009, 07:00:49 PM by mazty88 »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41362
Re: 4 Points FE falls down on
« Reply #12 on: June 20, 2009, 07:10:23 PM »
Which part of "Light and electromagnetic waves of ANY frequency will heat surfaces that absorb them", did you not understand?

The part where you supported that claim with evidence.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: 4 Points FE falls down on
« Reply #13 on: June 20, 2009, 07:24:03 PM »
Which part of "Light and electromagnetic waves of ANY frequency will heat surfaces that absorb them", did you not understand?

The part where you supported that claim with evidence.
It's general physics. Only 49% of the sun's heat is caused by IR.
Without having to reference anything, I can show it by simple known facts:
1)Radiation causes burns
2)Microwaves can evaporate water.
3)VL lasers can burn/char paper

If you want to learn more about the workings of this, look up Wien's Displacement Law and Black Bodies, though it is heavy stuff so don't expect a casual and easy read.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. If no refutals are presented in the next week, then FET is proven to be nothing but bull. You can't keep on grasping to a theory (FET) when it is unable to answer questions about evidence that supports another 'theory' (RET) which the scientific community claims to be fact.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2009, 07:55:19 PM by mazty88 »

Re: 4 Points FE falls down on *Countdown: 7 Days*
« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2009, 07:06:56 AM »
4) "Hot light" is light that has a large part of its spectral distribution in the infrared (IR) region. The skin has receptors that recognize IR radiation as heat. For example, if you stand close to a space heater or an open fire, you feel warm even though the surrounding air is not warmed. Therefore we can conclude that heat is being transferred by IR electromagnetic waves. On the other hand, if you go in a tanning booth, the ultraviolet light (UVA) triggers the production of melanin - the brown pigment that causes tanning. However, you don't feel being heated directly by this light. This would be an example of "cold light". In essence, whenever there is an IR component to the radiation, it is hot, and, in the opposite case, cold.
Which part of "Light and electromagnetic waves of ANY frequency will heat surfaces that absorb them", did you not understand?
IR does not equal heat, that is a common misconception. Therefore you cannot have cold light, as all EM radiation causes heat. It would be like claiming you can have a cold fire.

Which part of "Light and electromagnetic waves of ANY frequency will heat surfaces that absorb them", did you not understand?

The part where you supported that claim with evidence.
It's general physics. Only 49% of the sun's heat is caused by IR.
Without having to reference anything, I can show it by simple known facts:
1)Radiation causes burns
2)Microwaves can evaporate water.
3)VL lasers can burn/char paper

If you want to learn more about the workings of this, look up Wien's Displacement Law and Black Bodies, though it is heavy stuff so don't expect a casual and easy read.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. If no refutals are presented in the next week, then FET is proven to be nothing but bull. You can't keep on grasping to a theory (FET) when it is unable to answer questions about evidence that supports another 'theory' (RET) which the scientific community claims to be fact.

I just realized you're 11 years old. Also:


U R IT.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2009, 07:08:59 AM by mazty88 »

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: 4 Points FE falls down on *Countdown: 7 Days*
« Reply #15 on: June 21, 2009, 07:10:11 AM »
Is that kid in the picture you?

Re: 4 Points FE falls down on *Countdown: 7 Days*
« Reply #16 on: June 21, 2009, 07:12:58 AM »
Is that kid in the picture you?
Wow, you really are 'speshal'.
No it's obviously not, and why would it matter?
Plus, do you have any scientific rebuttals at all or more inane statements?
Learn some physics. Idiotic statements and personal attacks only show how little you understand of the world around you.
PS. Your troll post is still evident. I'll keep it as proof to the scientific arguments you use...
« Last Edit: June 21, 2009, 02:04:47 PM by mazty88 »

?

BOGWarrior89

  • 3793
  • We are as one.
Re: 4 Points FE falls down on *Countdown: 7 Days*
« Reply #17 on: June 21, 2009, 03:25:48 PM »
Hate to barge in on this, but it brings back fond memories of when TheEngineer already covered this topic countless times in the past.

Re: 4 Points FE falls down on *Countdown: 7 Days*
« Reply #18 on: June 21, 2009, 05:59:53 PM »
Hate to barge in on this, but it brings back fond memories of when TheEngineer already covered this topic countless times in the past.
Considering there are 4 topics, not just 1, which one did TheEngineer manage to rewrite the law of physics for?

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: 4 Points FE falls down on *Countdown: 6 Days*
« Reply #19 on: June 21, 2009, 06:00:36 PM »
Your avatar is one reason I hate you.

Re: 4 Points FE falls down on *Countdown: 6 Days*
« Reply #20 on: June 21, 2009, 06:05:50 PM »
Your avatar is one reason I hate you.
Please, stop with the inane comments.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: 4 Points FE falls down on *Countdown: 6 Days*
« Reply #21 on: June 21, 2009, 06:08:01 PM »
If you'd notice this picture, the comment does not correspond to the image. Extra points if you can tell why.

Re: 4 Points FE falls down on *Countdown: 6 Days*
« Reply #22 on: June 21, 2009, 06:10:35 PM »
If you'd notice this picture, the comment does not correspond to the image. Extra points if you can tell why.
Wow, you really are mentally deficient. The picture obviously isn't a picture of your comment you poor, mindless excuse of a human being.
Now either post something of relevance or go away & try to ignore that it's taken me just over 200 posts to prove your beloved theory utterly and undoubtedly wrong.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: 4 Points FE falls down on *Countdown: 6 Days*
« Reply #23 on: June 21, 2009, 06:48:46 PM »
I meant the comment on the picture itself, genius.

Re: 4 Points FE falls down on *Countdown: 6 Days*
« Reply #24 on: June 21, 2009, 06:52:21 PM »
I meant the comment on the picture itself, genius.
Every time you respond without making a valid scientific defence for FET, you just show how much of a failure FET really is.
Get back on topic or get out of this thread, the choice is yours.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2009, 07:01:41 PM by mazty88 »

?

BOGWarrior89

  • 3793
  • We are as one.
Re: 4 Points FE falls down on *Countdown: 7 Days*
« Reply #25 on: June 21, 2009, 07:01:03 PM »
Hate to barge in on this, but it brings back fond memories of when TheEngineer already covered this topic countless times in the past.
Considering there are 4 topics, not just 1, which one did TheEngineer manage to rewrite the law of physics for?

None of them.

Re: 4 Points FE falls down on *Countdown: 7 Days*
« Reply #26 on: June 21, 2009, 07:03:04 PM »
Hate to barge in on this, but it brings back fond memories of when TheEngineer already covered this topic countless times in the past.
Considering there are 4 topics, not just 1, which one did TheEngineer manage to rewrite the law of physics for?

None of them.
So then they all still stand as being valid rebuttals to FET then?
Sweet, glad I bought them back up again.

?

BOGWarrior89

  • 3793
  • We are as one.
Re: 4 Points FE falls down on *Countdown: 7 Days*
« Reply #27 on: June 21, 2009, 07:04:43 PM »
Hate to barge in on this, but it brings back fond memories of when TheEngineer already covered this topic countless times in the past.
Considering there are 4 topics, not just 1, which one did TheEngineer manage to rewrite the law of physics for?

None of them.
So then they all still stand as being valid rebuttals to FET then?
Sweet, glad I bought them back up again.

No.

Re: 4 Points FE falls down on *Countdown: 7 Days*
« Reply #28 on: June 21, 2009, 07:07:03 PM »
Hate to barge in on this, but it brings back fond memories of when TheEngineer already covered this topic countless times in the past.
Considering there are 4 topics, not just 1, which one did TheEngineer manage to rewrite the law of physics for?

None of them.
So then they all still stand as being valid rebuttals to FET then?
Sweet, glad I bought them back up again.

No.

That is such a compelling argument for FET.
Are any of you FE believers going to actually even try and attempt to come up with any rebuttal to the points I made or just pretend they have been made before, which they haven't?

?

BOGWarrior89

  • 3793
  • We are as one.
Re: 4 Points FE falls down on *Countdown: 7 Days*
« Reply #29 on: June 21, 2009, 07:18:42 PM »
Hate to barge in on this, but it brings back fond memories of when TheEngineer already covered this topic countless times in the past.
Considering there are 4 topics, not just 1, which one did TheEngineer manage to rewrite the law of physics for?

None of them.
So then they all still stand as being valid rebuttals to FET then?
Sweet, glad I bought them back up again.

No.

That is such a compelling argument for FET.
Are any of you FE believers going to actually even try and attempt to come up with any rebuttal to the points I made or just pretend they have been made before, which they haven't?

Your question specifically called upon user TheEngineer to "rewrite the laws of physics," something he did not do because he didn't have to.  It is not my fault you cannot word your questions correctly.

For more on TheEngineer and GPS (as it was his favorite subject, second perhaps to his amazement at how everyone thought him a douchebag), see the following threads:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11864.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28979.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25785.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14339.msg229835#msg229835
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17401.msg307949#msg307949
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=9382.0

So, as you can see, you really haven't brought up anything original.  Hey.  At least you can say you tried.