Topic: Flat Earth - page 108. (Read 1095196 times)

You provided no photos, there should be thousands and thousands of photos of the dome, considering it's everywhere, what about a mini rocket? Anyone could have sent a mini rocket to touch the dome, of course this never happens.

^^^ Not an argument to anything you quoted.

I provided a photograph (halo), I provided physical evidence (meteorite), I provided proven physics (Coulom's Law), not to mention page 1 of the bible states in no uncertain terms that we're covered by a dome (firmament).

Scientific proof of "outer space": none. Scientific proof of "gravity": none. Scientific proof of "heavy balls in the sky": none. Scientific proof of "heliocentrism": none. Biblical proof of any of this crap: nope.

Fuck you and your lies!



Edit:
Oh, and about that ice wall just fucking type "Antarctic ice wall" into Google Images, you're so full of shit.

And yet we still can't photograph or videotape the dome or the ice wall, it's a shame because that would easily prove your claims, unfortunately seems like no one has thought of it (((((

The Defeat of Satan

And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. -- Revelation 20:7-10, ESV

Your theological arguments are as full of shit as your pseudoscientific lies. The Earth is a stationary plain.

Wow Flat Earth really is taking off!   . Never thought it would be such a prominent topic on bitcointalk forum.
But i agree. The earth is not what Main Stream claim it to be. The evidence, or lack thereof, is overwhelming to say the least.
Why do people fight so hard to protect a lie? Does it not excite you of the possibility that reality is a lot more that what youve been programmed to believe?
Or has your ego been bloated to such an extent over the years that to realize and admit that youve been deceived for this long would cause a mental meltdown of catastrophic proportions? ^^"

But not as much as liars who say the earth is flat, especially since there is nothing anywhere that can be shown to be flat:

Revelation 22:15:

Creating images of fake ball Earth is #2 on the list of things that pisses off God (10 commandments).

I suppose if xempy had posted that, there would definitely be no merit involved,
and I woulda most likely just threw shade at the fool....  

my home country dont exist in a ball

Shut up atheist, you are going to hell.

You're wasting your time giving batty that advice even though it's totally valid.
He'll be preaching his flat earth fatuity foolishness in this thread till its either locked (ain't happening)
or he dies or maybe he even takes his own advice and ropes himself.
So the thread will be approaching a thousand pages of this claptrap in a few months time I'd venture to guess...

pretty weird that we would find pieces of the dome when the dome was created by God, wasnt it?

Move on, you mean like go out and enjoy all the money I made mining Bitcoin back in 2014?

---

---

Awesome, I learned how to forge an katana sword and a roman temple starting with nothing but a sharped stick.

https://streamable.com/s/l89dc/tgqyqb

AAAAAAAAAAAH IT'S FAKE, ALL OF IT !!!!111

YOU ARE JUST A PAID SHILL, I CAN TELL IT'S ALL FAKE THANKS TO MY 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN VIDEO EDITING AND PHOTOGRAPHY, I'M ALSO AN EXPERT IN PHYSICS, SCIENCE, ASTRONOMY AND EVERYTHING THANKS TO MY YOUTUBE VIDEOS.

Notbatman, take the time to appreciate the beauty of the world we live on and move on from all the nonsense

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM2wtte1JRE

You entirely misuse angular size by neglecting angular shape. If angular size were applied as you said, angular shape would be that of a cat's eye slit.


But being able to see the sun often is. So, if you are going to make a claim, claim the whole thing. Not just part of your claim. Otherwise nobody will know what you are talking about, and they will try to explain what you said in different ways than you meant.



All I am using is refraction. FE perspective involves using refraction in non-standard ways. So, to answer anything you say, I have to assume FE angular refraction in everything. You can't simply jump backward and forward, into an out of, standard perspective and FE perspective and make any sense. Use one or the other.

Sagnac, Michelson Morley, and Airy automatically based all their experiments on their understanding of far distant star systems. They don't have to talk about it in their experiments to apply it automatically, right along with all the things of their experiments. Separating their experiments from the base of the star system knowledge they held, is like jumping back and forth between standard science and your understanding of FE science.

You are inventing a whole new skewed way of doing math, where "equal" only equals "equal" when you say it does, but not when you say it doesn't. The universe only works like that in the funny farm. Just ask your next door resident, Napoleon.

^^^ Not an argument to anything you quoted there.

Established science for hundreds of years is not an opinion, some idiots that feel unimportant and think they figured out a massive conspiracy might think that scientific evidence is a hoax but they themselves believe in things without doing them themselves, you for instance have done no experiments, sextant or any of the others you mention and yet you believe them to be true but when it comes to the experiments proving the earth is not flat you don't believe them, your brain doesn't work properly.

Still waiting for that video of the dome, I wonder when we will have enough technology to do that...

The reading taken from a caliper for example is not a matter of opinion, so fuck off with your bullshit.

---

---

No I'm not ignoring the point, I clearly defined the difference between apparent visual size and angular size in post #14537.



Day and night are not the result of atmospheric conditions.



1. You're completely ignoring refraction, the optical displacement caused is far too great by many orders of magnitude to be corrected by any minor adjustments.
2. None of the established experiments you listed made any assumptions and two of them don't even involve star light.

There will be no end to us arguing about whether the earth is round or flat because someone has their own opinions and thoughts. We should not debate things like this, because problems like this are only one solution, namely mutual respect for the opinions of other people.