d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Flat Earth Vs Globe Earth > Why Or Why Not?
Prev1101112131454Next
Closed New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 39,759
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Gold: 11,295.00
Jun 6 2016 02:41pm
Quote (MaliceMizer @ 6 Jun 2016 23:15)


first image, was a small meteorite in Russia [that story was filmed by multiple ppl from multiple angles] not "second sun" or w/e... nice try tho.

:rofl:

second image....

this is nowhere near "100miles" also u can see from that much less of a distance that the distance itself is blurry and slightly deformed...

theres no arguing with u stupid ppl ;p do some research on eye sight and how its affected by weather conditions etc... stop posting bullshit :rofl:
Member
Posts: 39,759
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Gold: 11,295.00
Jun 6 2016 02:42pm
Quote (card_sultan @ 6 Jun 2016 23:37)
You have no proof of anything, you cling to just mockery and fakery
Where is this proof of a ball you have faith in ? Where is this proof of gravity?
When things fall to the ground - it is not proof that some invisible force pulled it down, just proof that that item is heavier and more dense than the air.
If the Ball is real, you wouldn't need Nasa to show you curve, you could see it from at least mountain tops or from high altitude balloons
I suspect that in 20 years , you'll still be selling duped LLD jewels thinking you can pawn players if you only convince yourself of it.


mokery ofc,

how can someone take u seriously ;p u ignore all scientific evidence and just make up stuff :rofl:

why does it fall down then? how does it know where the ground is if gravity doesnt matter... in zero gravity theres no air and thing stay still or drift to an object thats heavier than them by the gravitational pull of that object... (u cant say gravity does not exist simply cos scientists themselves cant fully explain it, gravity is just a word that symbolism what forces of nature we've observed and tested to act the way they do) back to secondary school plz :rofl: btw from now on its $10/h to teach u!

lel what duped jwls...

i've never in my life had a jwl shop, one of ur delusions again buddy :wallbash:

and i dont play "down-syndrom" LLD duels... r u out of ur mind :rofl:

just check my profile and u ll see what chars i got...

This post was edited by luckspin on Jun 6 2016 02:51pm
Member
Posts: 63,097
Joined: Jan 11 2005
Gold: 9,765.00
Warn: 60%
Jun 6 2016 03:00pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Jun 6 2016 03:37pm)
actually he breaks down different observed movements of celestial bodies and applies them to a geocentric model, he doesn't get these movements from the heliocentric model at all, he gets them from observable movements of planets and stars that anyone with a telescope or even in some cases the naked eye can measure for themselves. He's taking the movements of planets and showing how those dont work in a geocentric model and do work in a heliocentric model, there is no false assumption. Please break down what specific assumptions you think are false and provide the time in the video those statements you're referencing are mentioned.


No he just applies Heliocentric theories and says that geocentric theories are incompatible, this doesn't prove that heliocentric theories are correct, just that they are completely different.

Member
Posts: 63,097
Joined: Jan 11 2005
Gold: 9,765.00
Warn: 60%
Jun 6 2016 03:07pm
Quote (luckspin @ Jun 6 2016 03:41pm)
first image, was a small meteorite in Russia [that story was filmed by multiple ppl from multiple angles] not "second sun" or w/e... nice try tho.

:rofl:

second image....

this is nowhere near "100miles" also u can see from that much less of a distance that the distance itself is blurry and slightly deformed...

theres no arguing with u stupid ppl ;p do some research on eye sight and how its affected by weather conditions etc... stop posting bullshit :rofl:


Meteor ? haha - why do you just make up stuff :rofl:

Plz stop posting, or I might die from laughing to much.
Member
Posts: 39,759
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Gold: 11,295.00
Jun 6 2016 03:18pm
Quote (card_sultan @ 7 Jun 2016 00:07)
Meteor ? haha - why do you just make up stuff :rofl:

Plz stop posting, or I might die from laughing to much.


ok i've confused it with the 2013 asteroid that was in Russia.

here is ur explanation: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2958409/Sun-two-three-Triple-sunrise-seen-Russia-amazing-optical-illusion-caused-tiny-snow-crystals.html
Member
Posts: 63,097
Joined: Jan 11 2005
Gold: 9,765.00
Warn: 60%
Jun 6 2016 03:32pm
Quote (luckspin @ Jun 6 2016 04:18pm)


Of course, because that date stamp on the photo says 2015 :rofl:

Keep playing LLD



This post was edited by card_sultan on Jun 6 2016 03:33pm
Member
Posts: 91,081
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,504.69
Jun 6 2016 03:50pm
Quote (card_sultan @ Jun 6 2016 03:00pm)
No he just applies Heliocentric theories and says that geocentric theories are incompatible, this doesn't prove that heliocentric theories are correct, just that they are completely different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGk3jW95bbA


DODGE

He is referencing specific movements of celestial bodies an showing how they would apply to BOTH heliocentric and geocentric models.

Ok lets make this more simple for you to refute. Take just mars for example. Take a look that the description he gives Mars path through our sky (which i hope we can both agree is factual based on observations a 3rd grader could do) and tell me how its being incorrectly applied to the geocentric model. You don't even have to take a look at the other half which is its application to the Heliocentric model.

Plz don't try to counter with "he's taking the "assumed correct" heliocentric model and applying it to the geocentric model", that's not what he's doing. He's taking simple observations of the movement of celestial bodies and applying that to both models. If anything you could incorrectly claim he's assuming the path of celestial bodies but that is observed by sceintists stretching back millennia to when neither the heliocentric model nor geocentric models existed, its stuff the Maya knew without even knowing what they were observing.

Please cite which portions of the video you are talking about with timestamps preferably, or you can admit at this point you're well over your head and/or wrong. Either is cool. countering with another video rather than refuting what i asked you to refute will be counted as a dodge and by proxy loss.
Member
Posts: 14,319
Joined: Jun 19 2010
Gold: 7,271.48
Jun 6 2016 04:24pm
Quote (card_sultan @ Jun 6 2016 03:32pm)
Of course, because that date stamp on the photo says 2015 :rofl:

Keep playing LLD

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/64/94/6f/64946f602aae177f7132ca5acfec3708.jpg



Doesn't change the fact it's a sundog, and altogether an un-noteworthy event. certainly not proof of your shadow object that only needs to exist to explain lunar eclipses in a FE model. And other than that need there is no evidence or reason to conclude such an body exists.
That's the definition of 'quackery science'.

This post was edited by remco6 on Jun 6 2016 04:25pm
Member
Posts: 39,759
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Gold: 11,295.00
Jun 6 2016 05:03pm
Quote (card_sultan @ 7 Jun 2016 00:32)
Of course, because that date stamp on the photo says 2015 :rofl:

Keep playing LLD

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/64/94/6f/64946f602aae177f7132ca5acfec3708.jpg


still rekt to the FLAT ground boi! :rofl:

btw u owe me $10 so far for ur childish questions.

Next comedy question please! :rofl:
Member
Posts: 63,097
Joined: Jan 11 2005
Gold: 9,765.00
Warn: 60%
Jun 6 2016 05:48pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Jun 6 2016 04:50pm)
DODGE

He is referencing specific movements of celestial bodies an showing how they would apply to BOTH heliocentric and geocentric models.

Ok lets make this more simple for you to refute. Take just mars for example. Take a look that the description he gives Mars path through our sky (which i hope we can both agree is factual based on observations a 3rd grader could do) and tell me how its being incorrectly applied to the geocentric model. You don't even have to take a look at the other half which is its application to the Heliocentric model.

Plz don't try to counter with "he's taking the "assumed correct" heliocentric model and applying it to the geocentric model", that's not what he's doing. He's taking simple observations of the movement of celestial bodies and applying that to both models. If anything you could incorrectly claim he's assuming the path of celestial bodies but that is observed by sceintists stretching back millennia to when neither the heliocentric model nor geocentric models existed, its stuff the Maya knew without even knowing what they were observing.

Please cite which portions of the video you are talking about with timestamps preferably, or you can admit at this point you're well over your head and/or wrong. Either is cool. countering with another video rather than refuting what i asked you to refute will be counted as a dodge and by proxy loss.


Obviously you know nothing of the geocentric model if you think he actually debunked geocentricity, he just assumes everything instead of actually showing even the most basic geocentric model, keep assuming.

Quote (luckspin @ Jun 6 2016 06:03pm)
still rekt to the FLAT ground boi! :rofl:

btw u owe me $10 so far for ur childish questions.

Next comedy question please! :rofl:




This post was edited by card_sultan on Jun 6 2016 05:51pm
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev1101112131454Next
Closed New Topic New Poll