2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAll you are doing is moving the goalpost, unable to answer the most basic questions, instead bringing up such ancient objections to rockets as if that was somehow real.
Awww, isn't that cute.
"A trajectory or flight path is the path that a moving object follows through space as a function of time."
That's from the very source you cite.
The very first sentence from the very source that you cite.
Further compounding your stupidity...
"In physics, the Coriolis force is an inertial force (also called a fictitious fo ...[text shortened]... very first sentence from the very source that you cite.
It's like taking candy from a baby.
Your fantasy world is so all encompassing and you are so fully brainwashed you will never get out of it.
A psychologist would have a ball with your delusional world. He would be unable to fix it but would have a great number of giggles getting them all out on paper.
You have some serious issues, delusions of grandeur where you simply throw out totally bogus opinions not even from yourself, deliberately mis-understanding the most basic physics as if only you have the real knowledge of the world while hundreds of thousands of real scientists are simply floundering in error.
Both Wolf and I are through with you, this is my last note, have a great delusional life.
Enjoy posting to yourself.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHClaims the earth is not spinning and then calls someone a 'moron'. The 'irony level' is off the chart today it seems. Comedy gold.
Earth is not spinning.
For someone's sake, please keep the concepts clear or read the Clif Notes so you don't look like such a moron.
I'm arguing from the standpoint IF the earth is spinning.
If the earth is spinning under both objects which leave it's surface, how is it possible that an object hovering over its lift off point doesn't see the groun ...[text shortened]... e opposite direction [b]COULD NEVER HAPPEN AT CURRENT AIRPLANE SPEED CAPACITY.
Do the math.[/b]
Originally posted by sonhouseMoving the goalpost?!
All you are doing is moving the goalpost, unable to answer the most basic questions, instead bringing up such ancient objections to rockets as if that was somehow real.
Your fantasy world is so all encompassing and you are so fully brainwashed you will never get out of it.
A psychologist would have a ball with your delusional world. He would be unable ...[text shortened]... ough with you, this is my last note, have a great delusional life.
Enjoy posting to yourself.
The challenges I put forth several months ago have still not been answered.
Every time I get you anywhere near the actual question... you peel off on some bizarre tangent or criticize an argument I haven't made.
I couldn't care any less what you consider to be my mental health, especially in light of your inability to focus or keep concepts straight.
You're simply an angry man with nothing but memories to support the demonstrably and patently false globe model.
Originally posted by sonhouseYou were through playing the game when you started: you had no intention of actually looking barefaced at the facts.
Which is why we are through playing his game.
That was evidenced from the beginning and at each post along the way.
You cannot answer the two questions satisfactorily--- except to your own mind.
You are well aware that every single image of the earth which NASA has produced is altered and otherwise not an exact representation.
You are also well aware that your fail safe "reason" we are able to see much further than we should be able to, looming, only applies under certain temperature and atmospheric conditions--- and certainly not all the time.
The fact remains, neither of you want to know the truth.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeAmong other lines found in the Bible, this is true...
'Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.' Matthew 4:8
Not wishing to give Freaky ammunition, but the above is only possible on a flat Earth....
literally-speaking, of course.
Whether or not the earth is flat or round is neither an indictment nor a confirmation of the Bible's legitimate authority.
Just because we're not perfect scientists doesn't make the Bible any more or less true.
It stands as the final authority on all things either way.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFor those though who take a literal understanding of the bible and view it as the word of God, they would surely have to hold the view that the earth was flat, in light of the passage I quoted?
Among other lines found in the Bible, this is true...
literally-speaking, of course.
Whether or not the earth is flat or round is neither an indictment nor a confirmation of the Bible's legitimate authority.
Just because we're not perfect scientists doesn't make the Bible any more or less true.
It stands as the final authority on all things either way.
Therefore to evidence that the Earth is not flat would discredit the literal authority of the bible.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are well aware that every single image of the earth which NASA has produced is altered and otherwise not an exact representation.
You were through playing the game when you started: you had no intention of actually looking barefaced at the facts.
That was evidenced from the beginning and at each post along the way.
You cannot answer the two questions satisfactorily--- except to your own mind.
You are well aware that every single image of the earth which NASA has produced is ...[text shortened]... ons--- and certainly not all the time.
The fact remains, neither of you want to know the truth.
I provided a link to animate for you to demonstrate this a few pages ago. You didn't reply, maybe you could try again?
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/24609260915_a840b027e5_o.jpg
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf the earth is not a spinning globe how come -
Moving the goalpost?!
The challenges I put forth several months ago have still not been answered.
Every time I get you anywhere near the actual question... you peel off on some bizarre tangent or criticize an argument I haven't made.
I couldn't care any less what you consider to be my mental health, especially in light of your inability to focus or keep ...[text shortened]... angry man with nothing but memories to support the demonstrably and patently false globe model.
1. The constellations are upside in the southern hemisphere and vice versa?
2. How can it be dark on one side of the planet and light on the other?
3. Water going down a plug hole goes in opposite directions depending whether you are north or south of the equator?
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe last time you posted it, the link went to a variety of images.
[b]You are well aware that every single image of the earth which NASA has produced is altered and otherwise not an exact representation.
I provided a link to animate for you to demonstrate this a few pages ago. You didn't reply, maybe you could try again?
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/24609260915_a840b027e5_o.jpg[/b]
This image is a partial shot of the earth, not the entire earth.
I won't bother going into this shot, as I have not argued against low orbiting objects--- although I wouldn't be surprised to find out the shot was doctored nonetheless.
Show a shot of the whole earth, and I will show you an altered image.
Originally posted by Proper Knob1. The constellations are upside in the southern hemisphere and vice versa?
If the earth is not a spinning globe how come -
1. The constellations are upside in the southern hemisphere and vice versa?
2. How can it be dark on one side of the planet and light on the other?
3. Water going down a plug hole goes in opposite directions depending whether you are north or south of the equator?
Works on a flat earth, too.
2. How can it be dark on one side of the planet and light on the other?
Sun is closer than previously taught.
3. Water going down a plug hole goes in opposite directions depending whether you are north or south of the equator?
That has been debunked several times.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeLiteral when literal intended.
For those though who take a literal understanding of the bible and view it as the word of God, they would surely have to hold the view that the earth was flat, in light of the passage I quoted?
Therefore to evidence that the Earth is not flat would discredit the literal authority of the bible.
Poetic when poetic intended.
Everything must be interpreted using isagogics.