Does ScottyCTA Have A Weegie Accent? - Page 5 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Does ScottyCTA Have A Weegie Accent?


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

The bracketed statement tells a story.

You mean in that Scotty believes he's the teacher here?

Aye, I think that's obvious, although 'evangelist' is probably more accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

You mean in that Scotty believes he's the teacher here?

Aye, I think that's obvious, although 'evangelist' is probably more accurate.

No, more that he's asked me to tell the 'class'. We're on internet forum. Some of those school memories cut deep.

Edited by Eisegerwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Huddersfield said:

So, between the photo & that point, it should get smaller & smaller to the point it is too small to see...right?

I'd imagine that it'd appear to disappear from the bottom until it got too dark because of how far away it was.

2 hours ago, Dave78 said:

That seems to be central to all this. Can we crowdfund a trip to the ISS for you Scotty?

What I'm getting at is why isn't there undeniable proof of a spinning globe?

2 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

The bracketed statement tells a story.

You not answering says more.

If you're going to publicly post that you think I'm 'thick', then publicly posting your reasons why would only seem fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Toepoke said:

Man I guess YouTube has an answer for everything.

The point is that just because you see something with your own eyes, your conclusions can be skewed by your perspective.

The sun looked to be setting below the horizon but it was there all along in it's entirety once they zoomed in on it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

I'd imagine that it'd appear to disappear from the bottom until it got too dark because of how far away it was.

What I'm getting at is why isn't there undeniable proof of a spinning globe?

You not answering says more.

If you're going to publicly post that you think I'm 'thick', then publicly posting your reasons why would only seem fair.

I have no interest in watching the video,hence my lack of reply. I didn't say you were thick only that you appeared to be really really thick. You said you're not. Ok. O

Edited by Eisegerwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

I'd imagine that it'd appear to disappear from the bottom until it got too dark because of how far away it was.

 

 

So first, I assume that if you stick a telescope on it post-sunset, you'd be able to see it again?

But secondly, & the one gigantic flaw in your argument, why don't we observe it getting smaller? Not just at sunset, critical though that is, but at varying points in the day it really should change size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

The point is that just because you see something with your own eyes, your conclusions can be skewed by your perspective.

The sun looked to be setting below the horizon but it was there all along in it's entirety once they zoomed in on it.

 

But the sun does disappear, it gets dark once it's gone, and pretty quickly too. A star shrinking into the distance would always be visible in the sky.

Think about it, if the sun is only 3000 miles above us, that's roughly the distance from Glasgow to Toronto, so you could sketch out a square with the sun above each city. If it's midday in Glasgow on a flat earth then the sun should also appear fairly high in the sky from Toronto. But it doesn't, in fact at some points in the year it's still dark over there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Huddersfield said:

So first, I assume that if you stick a telescope on it post-sunset, you'd be able to see it again?

I don't think that you'd be able to see it due to darkness and atmospherics.

3 hours ago, Toepoke said:

But the sun does disappear, it gets dark once it's gone, and pretty quickly too. 

It only appears to disappear from our perspective as it takes it's light with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

I don't think that you'd be able to see it due to darkness and atmospherics.

It only appears to disappear from our perspective as it takes it's light with it.

You'll need to run the physics of that past me.

Even if the sun was able to vary its light, some quick trig indicates that from an altitude of 3000 miles it wouldn't appear close to the horizon on a flat earth until it's around 200,000 miles from where you're standing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

But you understand the point?

I would if it bore the slightest resemblance to what we see. The sun in that example only shines in one direction like a spotlight. If that was the case it would appear more ovular in the sky as it moved away from you. Also Australia only gets a couple of hours of daylight.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How also do you explain all those other millions of points of light in the sky? Points which, if as I suggested to you previously you photograph on a long exposure will all stay fixed relative to each other,  planets excepted, but will move in a circular motion around a fixed point (in point of fact, the North Pole). 

What are those points of light? Are they closer or more distant than the Sun? Bigger or smaller? And why do they behave in the sky as they do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

I don't think that you'd be able to see it due to darkness and atmospherics.

It only appears to disappear from our perspective as it takes it's light with it.

 

5 hours ago, Toepoke said:

You'll need to run the physics of that past me.

Even if the sun was able to vary its light, some quick trig indicates that from an altitude of 3000 miles it wouldn't appear close to the horizon on a flat earth until it's around 200,000 miles from where you're standing.

 

5 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Not my strength.

It just takes it with it when it travels.

 

Getting to the crux of the matter here, I guess chemistry,biology or any other of the sciences won't be your strong points either. Why would they be they're all devilish plots. Unfortunately for you these sciences that allow us drive to work , grow food, mend broken bodies and allow you to post the utter drivel that you do on here are the same sciences that allow us to know the less tangible aspects of our world and universe.

You and your fellow god botherers inabilty or refusal to understand or accept these sciences will never make them wrong.Only further scientific progress will change or modify them.

Since physics isn't your strong point I can assure you that to anyone with a basic grasp of the subject the stuff you are posting is laughably moronic nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

 

 

You and your fellow god botherers inabilty or refusal to understand or accept these sciences will never make them wrong.Only further scientific progress will change or modify them.

 

Please do not lump me in with that enemy of the cross.  Should've marked and avoided him a LONG time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2018 at 2:16 PM, Eisegerwind said:

Getting to the crux of the matter here, I guess chemistry,biology or any other of the sciences won't be your strong points either. Why would they be they're all devilish plots. Unfortunately for you these sciences that allow us drive to work , grow food, mend broken bodies and allow you to post the utter drivel that you do on here are the same sciences that allow us to know the less tangible aspects of our world and universe.

You and your fellow god botherers inabilty or refusal to understand or accept these sciences will never make them wrong.Only further scientific progress will change or modify them.

Since physics isn't your strong point I can assure you that to anyone with a basic grasp of the subject the stuff you are posting is laughably moronic nonsense.

:lol:

That's not how it works.

There's plenty of flat earthers whose honesty and knowledge of the sciences far exceed that of what is deceptively taught in the 'education' system.

I was just being honest about the level of MY sciences (as I'm not a leader in the movement).

I'm still learning and doing my best to answer.

(You continuingly confusing scientism with real science doesn't help either.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the hard of understanding I'll repeat,

Unfortunately for you these sciences that allow us drive to work , grow food, mend broken bodies and allow you to post the utter drivel that you do on here are the same sciences that allow us to know the less tangible aspects of our world and universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

:lol:

That's not how it works.

There's plenty of flat earthers whose honesty and knowledge of the sciences far exceed that of what is deceptively taught in the 'education' system.

I was just being honest about the level of MY sciences (as I'm not a leader in the movement).

I'm still learning and doing my best to answer.

(You continuingly confusing scientism with real science doesn't help either.)

If you’re admitting your knowledge is lacking here, surely that should include an an acknowledgment that you might be wrong. You’re not dealing with some really basic questions like why the sun doesn’t get bigger & smaller in the sky, what are all the other stars? How far away are they & why doesn’t the sun look like them before ‘disappearing’?

If you can’t answer these questions, are you prepared to accept you might, in fact, be very wrong on this issue?

Edited by Huddersfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, phart said:

Name 3 of the Flat Earther's " whose honesty and knowledge of the sciences far exceed that of what is deceptively taught in the 'education' system. ", please?

Eric Dubay and Rob Skiba (off the top of my head).

3 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

Unfortunately for you these sciences that allow us drive to work , grow food, mend broken bodies and allow you to post the utter drivel that you do on here are the same sciences that allow us to know the less tangible aspects of our world and universe.

No, they are used as cover for deception (when one obviously doesn't have anything to do with the other).

"We have a hydroponic garden, so man must have landed on the moon."

(Really? Really? Seriously?)

2 minutes ago, Huddersfield said:

If you’re admitting your knowledge is lacking here, surely that should include an an acknowledgment that you might be wrong. 

Your knowledge is lacking too, but unlike yourself, I've said from the beginning that I'm willing to be convinced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

Your knowledge is lacking too, but unlike yourself, I've said from the beginning that I'm willing to be convinced.

 

No, you just think it is because it doesn't fit with the pre-determined conclusion you are desperate to arrive at. I've asked you about several things on this & other threads...I can answer all these questions either by practical demonstration or basic maths...you haven't offered anything at all:

  • Why is the sun ALWAYS the same size when we see it?
  • Why does it appear at different elevations above the horizon throughout daytime?
  • What are the other stars...& why don't they, unlike the Sun, seem any bigger when observed using a telescope? (A subsidiary question though might be why, when you point a telescope at the stars can you see a hell of a lot more of them?)
  • Have you taken a long exposure photograph yet of the Pole Star? How do you explain the circular star trails?
  • How would you explain the totally different star trail you'd get from the southern hemisphere?
  • If it isn't 93 million miles away, how far away is it? How wide is it? Why does it always appear circular in the sky from every viewpoint?
  • Why can you not see the Pole Star, or the Plough from much below the equator?

 

 

Edited by Huddersfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christ Huddersfield, you're begining to annoy me more than Scotty. Why do you keep asking him this stuff.He has no idea of the answers to your questions.

He doesn't understand any science to even the most basic level.Lots of people don't it's no shame,science can be quite complicated.

The difference with Scotty to most people is that because he can't/ won't understand or accept it is that he and his god bothrings pals decided to make it all into a devilish plot and just make up shite as a substitute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...