I wasn't saying it doesn't exist, genius. I'm saying one can't go on his own to explore the place and that I don't blindly trust governments, or National Geographic, or NASA, or any of these things, like you seem to.

You don't get it... your so busy not trusting whomever, you're forgetting to trust your common sense.

Simply put, the "flat map" is perfectly fine... it's just one of the many projections possible. each have their advantage and disadvantage.  The "flat map" is disastrous for obvious reasons for Antartica. Point is, no matter which map you take, everything will line up perfectly as expected.

Here play with this, you might learn something.
Move your mouse over it, it'a cool

https://www.jasondavies.com/maps/transition/

Quote from: Disputaciones

I wasn't saying it doesn't exist, genius. I'm saying one can't go on his own to explore the place and that I don't blindly trust governments, or National Geographic, or NASA, or any of these things, like you seem to.

You don't get it... your so busy not trusting whomever, you're forgetting to trust your common sense.

Simply put, the "flat map" is perfectly fine... it's just one of the many projections possible. each have their advantage and disadvantage.  The "flat map" is disastrous for obvious reasons for Antartica. Point is, no matter which map you take, everything will line up perfectly as expected.

Here play with this, you might learn something.
Move your mouse over it, it'a cool

https://www.jasondavies.com/maps/transition/

Did you not read that I said you can't go on your own and explore the Antarctic? If you go there they will be supervising you all the time and you only have limited access.

I never implied the Antarctic doesn't exist. All I wanted to say was that I don't necessarily trust what THEY tell us are its dimensions, geography etc.  

And it was one of those "brave explorers" like admiral Byrd who said weird things about the Antarctic and left cryptic messages about it.

Quote from: Disputaciones

I never implied the Antarctic doesn't exist. All I wanted to say was that I don't necessarily trust what THEY tell us are its dimensions, geography etc.

Yeah I read that this above is the glue that holds your ridiculous illusion together... I understand that just fine.

That don't mean it's true.  there are in fact some areas where human activity is not allowed for scientific or environemental reasons (16 in all)

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/20/us/16-areas-restricted-under-antarctic-treaty.html

But the rest, knock yourself out!  Nothing is preventing you.

I stand corrected then. But I had already told you I'm not a flat earther. The most I did was lean in favor of it, but I was never convinced.

BRC, on the other hand, is a convinced flat earther, he doesn't even believe in satellites, or iridiums, so why don't you go after him too?

For those who believe in gravity just use this formula for a helium balloon and the earth and tell me the results:

Fa=Fb = g*(ma*mb)/r

g=9,8 m/s²
ma= mass of the earth (kg)
mb= mass of the helium ballon (kg)
r= distance between the two (m)

ps m = meters

So that means that the helium balloon is "attracted" to the ball earth as the ball Earth is "attracted" to the helium balloon.

Okay this is Newtonian physics(magic).

So the Helium balloon and the earth has the same Force of attraction. As can shown above. Now tell me, do you believe that a helium balloon can attract the earth upwards ?

No one responded to this ?  

The helium ballon rises because it's an extralight gas and it seeks to rise on top of the atmosphere the same way  oil rises on top of vinegar in a salad dressing. Same holds for helium: it goes up and rests on top of the atmosphere where it rightly belongs.

And yes, that means that an helium ballon on the moon won't float  because there is no atmosphere to rise on top of.



So yeah... pretty stupid

You corrected the G in another post?
So basicly, you're winging it as you go along it seems.

Nothing in what you wrote disproves anything but rather paint the image of someone talking about stuff he only scarcely understands.

Funny thing is, is that, to your question... Yes, The earth is in fact pulled upwards towards the helium ballon as there is no reason for it to be diffrent, it's math.  However, the earth does not alter it's course because the pull of the helium ballon is insignificant compared to countless other objects that interact with earth.   Your theoretical question is immature.  Why would the earth react to one specific balloon?

Quote from: Vandaler

You corrected the G in another post?
So basicly, you're winging it as you go along it seems.

Nothing in what you wrote disproves anything but rather paint the image of someone talking about stuff he only scarcely understands.

Funny thing is, is that, to your question... Yes, The earth is in fact pulled upwards towards the helium ballon as there is no reason for it to be diffrent, it's math.  However, the earth does not alter it's course because the pull of the helium ballon is insignificant compared to countless other objects that interact with earth.   Your theoretical question is immature.  Why would the earth react to one specific balloon?

Yes, The earth is in fact pulled upwards towards the helium ballon as there is no reason for it to be diffrent, it's math.

 

Thank you for proving my point. I'm engineer genius, I know physics, that is why when you see a g you write 9.8, I was trained to the exhaustion.
I was just rushing when writing down, and I didn't put the G otherwise I wouldn't do that mistake, and I corrected afterwards.

If the Earth moves the Bible is wrong genius.  

The arsonist has oddly shaped feet.

The Bible is wrong...

 

"Trads" laughable stock as I said.

The Bible is wrong when claiming that E is fixed in position.  The Bible was written by a man( or men) who are capable of being mistaken.

Roman Catholic Bible is not infallible like the book of Mormon claims to be.

It is the Sola Scriptura Lunatics  such as  Luther, Calvin, James, Bacon, DeVere etc who demand a dogmatic geo-eccenticism  

From the First Vatican Council (1870):

3. Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.

8. Now since the decree on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, profitably made by the Council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture.

9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM