Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

Flat Earth Convention!!!!!!!!!111


SSFB

Recommended Posts

Just now, jtssrx said:

It hasn’t and you’re a fucking idiot. It can’t be scientifically proven your fuck stick

Of course it can, it can be measured how much it will bend light near a star.  It MUST be used in calculations concerning our GPS system.  We can also measure it with separated atomic clocks.

Neal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NaturallyAspirated said:

Of course it can, it can be measured how much it will bend light near a star.  It MUST be used in calculations concerning our GPS system.  We can also measure it with separated atomic clocks.

Neal

YAWN.....

Light...MYTH...Stars...MYTH ......GPS is ground based....Atomic clocks are no different then a $5 timex from walmart

NEXT!!!!!!!1111111

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NaturallyAspirated said:

So throw out fossils and radiometric dating of rocks?  :dunno:

Neal

I dont put much faith in rock dating......but carbon dating things that used to be alive is accurate enough for estimates 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, f7ben said:

I dont put much faith in rock dating......but carbon dating things that used to be alive is accurate enough for estimates 

Carbon dating isn't very good for old samples, as it's halflife is far to quick.

Why do you lack faith in other forms of radiometric dating if carbon dating is okie dokie?

Neal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NaturallyAspirated said:

Carbon dating isn't very good for old samples, as it's halflife is far to quick.

Why do you lack faith in other forms of radiometric dating if carbon dating is okie dokie?

Neal

Organic material provides a much better picture no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, f7ben said:

Organic material provides a much better picture no?

Carbon dating is only applicable to 50,000 years or so, so while it is good for near term measurements, it cannot help with older samples.  

The same ideas are used for other isotopes/element pairs which have much longer half lives, thus are applicable to the range of dating.

Neal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NaturallyAspirated said:

Carbon dating is only applicable to 50,000 years or so, so while it is good for near term measurements, it cannot help with older samples.  

The same ideas are used for other isotopes/element pairs which have much longer half lives, thus are applicable to the range of dating.

Neal

Right....but if we dont have modern examples of the things we are trying to measure we are just guessing at the original concentration of radioactive isotopes. I will admit I am not well versed on this subject. Its been a long time since I did any significant reading 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, f7ben said:

Right....but if we dont have modern examples of the things we are trying to measure we are just guessing at the original concentration of radioactive isotopes. I will admit I am not well versed on this subject. Its been a long time since I did any significant reading 

We use modern rock to set the originating baseline for the ratios of elements trapped in rock when "new".  The same applies with carbon dating.  We use recently dead organic material to determine the starting point of the ratios.  

Neal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

We use modern rock to set the originating baseline for the ratios of elements trapped in rock when "new".  The same applies with carbon dating.  We use recently dead organic material to determine the starting point of the ratios.  

Neal

And that was the hang up .....the estimations of rock isotopes were not all that accurate and our methods were flawed there as I recall reading

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, f7ben said:

And that was the hang up .....the estimations of rock isotopes were not all that accurate and our methods were flawed there as I recall reading

Well I am not sure what examples you speak of, but the accuracy of samples can always be argued.  Is +/- 1,000,000 years accurate when making a measurement of 65,000,000 years? 

The processes are always being refined to narrow the +/- range of a given sample.

Neal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Well I am not sure what examples you speak of, but the accuracy of samples can always be argued.  Is +/- 1,000,000 years accurate when making a measurement of 65,000,000 years? 

The processes are always being refined to narrow the +/- range of a given sample.

Neal

I have no idea......its just something I recall developing as an opinion and I dont have a current basis for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jtssrx said:

Every celestial body is round how do you know.?? You me and every astronaut has never been to one of these planets. Every picture is cgi and every picture of Mars is a fucking faked fraud. 

If you believe all these places are what they say they are not one islike the planets we live on. So why cant the shape be different as well??? 

There is in fact scientific proof. You refuse to  acknowledge it the biggest being a lack of curvature and the fraud that is gravity

Every celestial body that we know of is round. Try to comprehend what is actually posted and not just what you want it to say. I have never seen another planet but I also have never seen Australia but I'm pretty fucking sure they both exist. You're gonna have to do alot better than using illogical arguments like that. Every picture of Mars is a faked fraud? :lol: Now who's not open minded? :lol:

Planets being in something other than an spherical shape is illogical. Objects that rotate around an axis and also revolve around another object tend towards a spherical shape, that's easily demonstrable. 

You've been proven wrong on the lack of curvature bullshit that you post but you keep using it like your Ace of Spades. :lol:

 

53 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

Goid god yourself. Stop being a fucking parrot. Gravity has never been and will never be proven because it cannot be recreated. 

 

You always spit this big game about how smart you are and how the government is so corrupt and blah blah blah blah blah but you sit back and believe some bullshit theory that cannot be proven give me a fucking break

Talking to yourself now? :lol::lol:

32 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Gravity has been scientifically proven, and demonstrated.  It can be calculated, measured and applied.  

Why do you say such outlandish things?

Gravity isn't "magical", it's scientific...

Neal

It appears magical though if you're completely ignorant to how things work. 

The Internet seems magical to plenty of people after all. 

24 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

Dinosaurs are a myth as well. 

GTFO :lol::lol::lol:

hqdefault.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

Dinosaurs are a myth as well. 

I've gotta hear this. Please explain to the class how exactly Dinosaurs are a myth. 

Are the fossils fake? Who created the fossils and for what purpose? Were they planted there by Satan? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SSFB said:

I've gotta hear this. Please explain to the class how exactly Dinosaurs are a myth. 

Are the fossils fake? Who created the fossils and for what purpose? Were they planted there by Satan? 

I already posted it in his other thread 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bussman said:

Most of the flat earth stuff I looked into was really kooky but I did fund some of actual scientific theories that are compelling enough everybody with an open mind should at least think about it. First thing is they don’t think the earth is “flat”. Basically the part of “earth” we live on is just the dome of what is a round or oval planet that we can’t access past Antarctica. 

The map they use is pretty cool too. Basically the North Pole is our center and Antarctica wraps around the bottom of our “world”. 

 

I’m not saying it’s real or not real, but some of you that ridicule it should ask yourself why you’re so certain our earth is “round”. Make up your own minds after pontificating everything you mentally can. :bc:  

Just stop it Brian :lol: 

8 hours ago, jtssrx said:

Dinosaurs are a myth as well. 

Chicago-Museums.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, XCR1250 said:

As I've said in the past, I have no idea how old the earth is, and no one else does either.

Sure, but you can admit that we do know how old the Earth isnt, 6,000 years, 2,000,000 years, 10 years, and that we can bracket the age of the Earth in terms of tens or even hundreds of millions of years, with respect to a 4.6 billion year age, right?

Neal

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...