phart Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scotty CTA said: Not true. It is true, like a lot of folk on here you subcontract your thinking out to youtube videos. Dogma runs through you. Show me where in Pythagorean theory you're espousing is the variable of atmospheric refraction accounted for? It isn't at all even though it directly effects what is seen, all you have is someone assuming the earth is a circle (not even a sphere) and applying maths that everyone learned when they were 13. The whole premise is based on being able to draw straight lines, but you can't cause of refraction. When you see the sun setting it has actually already set, it's an optical illusion. Edited September 10, 2017 by phart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 Why are we posting videos with the guy out of Big Bang to discuss mathematics, and also why are they slagging off Euler, who's equations were voted the most elegant (along with Maxwell)? We citing films now? look everyone time travel is possible dont believe me watch this. got two separate sources here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 Both of those go completely against the temporal prime directive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 6 hours ago, Toepoke said: If the planet isn't spinning then where does the sun go at night? Never mind at night, I want to know where tae fuk it's been during the day recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 5 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said: Well it didn't, well not right away. Don't think it's dense to hope folk can just stay on 9/11 without going off on tangents about other "conspiracies" Why don't you just ignore awe the pish that Scotty CIA posts? It's not difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, phart said: Why are we posting videos with the guy out of Big Bang to discuss mathematics, and also why are they slagging off Euler, who's equations were voted the most elegant (along with Maxwell)? Anyone who can get that (and just that) into an equation is off the scale. Look at it! It is like E= MC^2 on acid. edit: "...called "the most remarkable formula in mathematics" by Richard P. Feynman..." Edited September 10, 2017 by thplinth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 4 hours ago, phart said: It is true, like a lot of folk on here you subcontract your thinking out to youtube videos. Dogma runs through you. Show me where in Pythagorean theory you're espousing is the variable of atmospheric refraction accounted for? It isn't at all even though it directly effects what is seen, all you have is someone assuming the earth is a circle (not even a sphere) and applying maths that everyone learned when they were 13. The whole premise is based on being able to draw straight lines, but you can't cause of refraction. When you see the sun setting it has actually already set, it's an optical illusion. I just want to know what the formula for the curvature of the earth is. If it isn't 8 inches times miles squared then tell me what it is. I want to know why we can see buildings that should be below the curvature of the earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 4 hours ago, phart said: Why are we posting videos with the guy out of Big Bang to discuss mathematics, and also why are they slagging off Euler, who's equations were voted the most elegant (along with Maxwell)? We citing films now? No, but the example still stands. Most folk who see that movie will believe that man landed on the moon because of the math problem that they 'solved'. You understand the theory, and you believe it to be true, but it doesn't and couldn't work in practicality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 6 hours ago, phart said: No point asking Scotty he doesn't know it well enough to explain it himself... I don't have to. I'm learning and answering my questions would be helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 14 minutes ago, thplinth said: Anyone who can get that (and just that) into an equation is off the scale. Look at it! It is like E= MC^2 on acid. edit: "...called "the most remarkable formula in mathematics" by Richard P. Feynman..." ...called "the most remarkable formula in mathematics" by Richard P. Feynmanfor its single uses of the notions of addition, multiplication, exponentiation, and equality, and the single uses of the important constants 0, 1, e, i and π.[36] In 1988, readers of the Mathematical Intelligencer voted it "the Most Beautiful Mathematical Formula Ever".[37] In total, Euler was responsible for three of the top five formulae in that poll.[37]. If you simply re-expressed that formula above so it was i = ? what would be the missing right hand side be? Any math(yeah no S) heads able to help? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 21 minutes ago, Orraloon said: Why don't you just ignore awe the pish that Scotty CIA posts? It's not difficult. Flat Earth brought up chem trails just 6 posts in (long before I even opened the thread) but it's me that folk remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 10 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said: Not sure of the relevance chemtrails, moon landings and weapononised weather have to do with having a proper investigation into what happened on 9/11 Here you go... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 5 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: You wouldnt get a horizon if itmwas flat you would see forever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 7 minutes ago, Kirk said: You wouldnt get a horizon if itmwas flat you would see forever Exactly Human eyes dont have enough resolution to see the curvature The existance of a horizon means it's not flat Wasting our breath though - when someone wont accept empirical evidence because they dont like the answers they cant be helped Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 12 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: "Observable proofs" without any explanation whatsoever. If the sun is that close how can it be midday in the north of Canada and the south of Chile simultaneously? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 12 hours ago, thplinth said: If you simply re-expressed that formula above so it was i = ? what would be the missing right hand side be? Any math(yeah no S) heads able to help? I'm not sure I'm understanding your question but i is the square root of -1. But you already know that, which is why I think I don't understand the question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 51 minutes ago, Toepoke said: "Observable proofs" without any explanation whatsoever. If the sun is that close how can it be midday in the north of Canada and the south of Chile simultaneously? "Not if Canada and Chile are a lot closer and a lot smaller than we have been led to believe..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 It's amazing to me that someone can question science so much, yet accept every word of a book that was written 1500+ years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northernscum Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 31 minutes ago, Parklife said: It's amazing to me that someone can question science so much, yet accept every word of a book that was written 1500+ years ago. Good old religion! It gives loads of folk false hope that when the inevitable happens, they won't end up as worm food like the rest of us! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 11 hours ago, Kirk said: You wouldnt get a horizon if itmwas flat you would see forever Our vision is limited. They have a vanishing point. 11 hours ago, Ally Bongo said: Exactly 11 hours ago, Ally Bongo said: Human eyes dont have enough resolution to see the curvature Our vision is strong enough to see buildings that should be below the curvature of an earth that is 25,000 miles in circumference (but phart rejects the '8 inches times miles squared' formula and won't offer an alternative). 11 hours ago, Ally Bongo said: The existance of a horizon means it's not flat No, it means that we can only see so far. 11 hours ago, Ally Bongo said: Wasting our breath though - when someone wont accept empirical evidence because they dont like the answers they cant be helped You are once referring to examples as empirical when they are in fact not. 3 hours ago, Parklife said: It's amazing to me that someone can question science so much, yet accept every word of a book that was written 1500+ years ago. I question 'pseudo' science and 'faux' science to see if it really is science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumnio Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 On 10/09/2017 at 0:57 PM, ParisInAKilt said: Didn't take long for the thread to turn to shit Dont bother saving the board Just read page 1 thinking this is the old TAMB back, then got to page 2 and usual god fiddler pish again. Completely ruins anything and everything. I think Scotty is in on it, lunatics like him discredit people looking into stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlueGaz Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: Our vision is limited. They have a vanishing point. Our eyes have the ability to see further than the horizon, but we can't, because there is a ..... horizon. Edited September 11, 2017 by BlueGaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 22 minutes ago, kumnio said: Just read page 1 thinking this is the old TAMB back, then got to page 2 and usual god fiddler pish again. Completely ruins anything and everything. I think Scotty is in on it, lunatics like him discredit people looking into stuff. It's a classic technique. But I don't think he is subtle enough to be very effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumnio Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 Scotty, if the earth is flat, how come flights don't just go in straight lines, why are flight paths curvy based on flying around a globe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.5eeaf0fbe501ba3c868c32fd77caef1f.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.