Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Gulliver

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 124
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Meteors and Comets
« on: July 20, 2014, 09:38:54 PM »
wait wait wait. hold on! is sceptimatic actually saying empty space cannot exist?
I think that he's just babbling. I've read his post several times and have found several internal inconsistencies. Surely he knows TD requires the Ice Dome to radiate energy in all directions.

2
Flat Earth General / Re: A zetetic world.
« on: July 20, 2014, 12:21:23 PM »
Thork also sonfessed here that here's just a troll and does not believe in FET, at all.

Of course, Rowbotham proclaims that his conclusions are beyond all reproach. Yet in Chapter 3, he performs the cannon straigh-up experiment to absolutely prove that the Earth does not rotate, and forget the laws of momentum. He failed even in in zetetic world.

3
Ok. So can you tell me what kind of telescope can see an astronaut doing a space walk from 250 miles into space? I'm just wondering.

The Meade 12 Inch LX200-ACF should suffice.

To be more general you need about 250x optical magnification to resolve a human at a distance of 250kms. Maybe a bit less because of the space suit's bulk. A bit more if you want good detail.
I like the explanation here: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Meteors and Comets
« on: July 19, 2014, 01:13:30 PM »
But, I am giving flat Earth answers.  It is allowed in the flat Earth Q&A section.  Also, are you ready to admit that you mistakenly said conduction when you meant convection? 

How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.
I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?
Do tell us where I said conduction when I meant convection and how you determine that correcting my intentions is appropriate to this section.

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Meteors and Comets
« on: July 19, 2014, 02:25:22 AM »
Yes, convection can not occur in a vacuum.  However, he mentions a vacuum and then claims that I am talking about conduction.  Do you not see the error here?  He could man up and admit that he made a mistake.  However, the funny part is that he made his mistake while chastising me for not learning about thermodynamics.  Oh, the irony.
I did not make any such claim. If you think I made a mistake then please take your own advise and open a related thread in FED. Thanks.

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Meteors and Comets
« on: July 18, 2014, 11:08:56 PM »
So, you are saying that energy can be converted from one form to another.  Isn't that what I have been saying all along?
No. Again, please pay attention. An important part of physics is the matter-energy equivalence. I've linked to a good starting point. I suggest that until you understand this concept you refrain from posting. Your attempts are very poor. There are very interesting and important failures of FET that you're just not yet qualified to discuss.

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Meteors and Comets
« on: July 18, 2014, 10:47:47 PM »
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.
I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

Care to admit you were wrong now?
Again, what did I say that was wrong?

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Meteors and Comets
« on: July 18, 2014, 10:45:49 PM »
False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false?

Your statement "nothing loses heat" is false. Things lose heat, if you understand properly what is meant by "things".

Heat is not lost.  It can only be transferred or converted.
Heat can change to just matter. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Meteors and Comets
« on: July 18, 2014, 10:41:26 PM »
Again, what false statement did I make?

The one where you said that a vacuum has something to do with thermal conduction, when you meant convection.  It is ok.  Everybody messes up once in a while.  Most people, however, are man enough to admit when they messed up.
I seem don't seem any false statement. I guess you're just demonstrating that you can mess up badly and try to blame the error on someone else. How sad for you.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Meteors and Comets
« on: July 18, 2014, 10:23:51 PM »
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.
I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

I think you mean convection, not conduction.  But, who am I to say, since I didn't pay attention in TD classes?
Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction. I guess you didn't pay attention then.

I was hoping to have a real debate over the obvious failure of the UA in RET. I guess you're not qualified to carry the RET side. Oh well. If you ever do understand TD, please do let me know. Thanks.

From your own sorce:

Quote
Conduction can only take place within an object or material, or between two objects that are in direct or indirect contact with each other.

Yeah, I am pretty sure that you meant convection and now you are just trying to weasel out of your false statement.
What false statement?
Again, what false statement did I make?

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Meteors and Comets
« on: July 18, 2014, 10:19:06 PM »
The one where you replied, "False!"
You're confused. That reply of "False" came after your inquiry. Please pay attention.

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Meteors and Comets
« on: July 18, 2014, 10:17:59 PM »
False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

And when is this energy created or destroyed, since you claim that my statement is false?
While I don't need to show that energy is created to show that your statement is false: Nuclear fission creates energy.

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Meteors and Comets
« on: July 18, 2014, 10:14:58 PM »
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.
I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

I think you mean convection, not conduction.  But, who am I to say, since I didn't pay attention in TD classes?
Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction. I guess you didn't pay attention then.

I was hoping to have a real debate over the obvious failure of the UA in RET. I guess you're not qualified to carry the RET side. Oh well. If you ever do understand TD, please do let me know. Thanks.

From your own sorce:

Quote
Conduction can only take place within an object or material, or between two objects that are in direct or indirect contact with each other.

Yeah, I am pretty sure that you meant convection and now you are just trying to weasel out of your false statement.
What false statement?

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Meteors and Comets
« on: July 18, 2014, 10:10:00 PM »
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.

I thought you were an engineer jroa.

Yes.  Thermal energy needs to go someplace.  Do they beam it away or something?

What kind of engineer are you? Did you take any physics classes?

Yes, and thermodynamics classes.

Then it must be perfectly clear to how satellites can lose heat in space and why Scepti's completely closed system can't possibly lose heat.

Nothing "loses" heat.  Energy can not be created nor destroyed.
False! Non sequitur. One part of a system can lose (or gain) heat at the expense of another part or parts.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Meteors and Comets
« on: July 18, 2014, 10:04:21 PM »
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.
I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

I think you mean convection, not conduction.  But, who am I to say, since I didn't pay attention in TD classes?
Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction. I guess you didn't pay attention then.

I was hoping to have a real debate over the obvious failure of the UA in RET. I guess you're not qualified to carry the RET side. Oh well. If you ever do understand TD, please do let me know. Thanks.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Meteors and Comets
« on: July 18, 2014, 09:26:43 PM »
How do satellites get rid of all of the heat from the sun?  They are in a vacuum, after all.
I would guess that you mention the vacuum because you believe in error that all heat must be conducted away, never radiated. Did you pay attention in the TD classes?

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Meteors and Comets
« on: July 18, 2014, 07:18:04 PM »
A cooling system? There are plenty of examples of cooling systems. Most easily, we can talk about examples with computing. There are fans and liquid cooling systems and so on. In any case, all these cooling systems require some sort of vent.
Or a condenser.
You do understand that a condenser does not get rid of heat, right? The heat that the system wants to "shed" must go somewhere. I assume that FET abides by the Laws of Thermodynamics.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Meteors and Comets
« on: July 18, 2014, 05:39:13 PM »
Heat is simply a measure of stored energy.
Nope. For example, Heat is not a measure of stored energy of the stored potential energy of a 1 kg mass on a cliff 1 km high above the FE surface.

You do understand that FET embraces GR's mass-energy equivalence,, right? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How thick is the Earth?
« on: July 18, 2014, 11:19:22 AM »
between 2 to 3 miles - this is diggable using modern mining techniques. It should also provide a permanent way for astronauts and space vehicles  to enter outer space. A lot easier than firing rockets.
Under the Laws of Thermodynamics and GR, that's quite incredible. The FE would have to be unimaginably thick to prevent our feet from melting from the heat of the UA. Of course, we'll now hear special pleading that TD and GR don't apply to the FE and the UA for some convenient reasons.

Even conservative estimates of the energy needed for the UA to accelerate the FE for the next minute is much more than 101000 joules! Try standing just three miles over that for a while.

20
I'm erred ?My mistake.  You mean your retardation . The string  attached to the pivot point & bob is under tension. If there is fluctuation in momentum then there is compression taking place as recoil. Now I dont know what dumb ass school you went to or what tosser you had teaching you. The bobs travel is not swinging in a horizontal plane, its swinging in a circular Arc, No matter what you choice to make the diameter. Now I keep hearing the bullshit there's is no torque taking place at the pivot point. Which is untrue because its audible & recordable. so it exists. Now we move on to fall of Gravity. Which fluctuates according to altitude & location. Which will also have an effect on the bob & how it reacts to that fall of gravity. No different to water running down a slop to the end of its course.             
I had hoped that you might be able to realize your error.The bob moves in three dimensions--by observation. A circular arc can be described as motion in just two--by definition. Hence, you're wrong. Now please try to correct your mistake again. Thanks.

Oh, I never said that the bob swings in a horizontal plane.

Would you also be more concise. For example, "altitude and location" should just be "location".

Would you also review your understanding of simple physics. Being under tension is not the same as being under constant tension.

Oh, and would you please learn the use of the apostrophe. Reading your error-laced grammar just convinces me even more of your errors in logic, math, and physics.
No altitude & location. Altitude is taken at Sea level mid range. Its fluctuating tension. But you keep dancing to that one beat  tune pedantic & attending to that slicked down comb over, ya side winder.
PS let me know when you have something ground breaking intelligent to say dip shyt~~~~~~~ I wont be holding my breath.
So... you still don't see your error. How sad. Can you site one source that agrees that with you accurate location does not include altitude? Did you really think that someone takes two reading of a barometer to determine the "altitude" of the bob? Really? Did you ever spend time in a science lab with a pendulum? Did you use a barometer?

Yes, the tension in a pendulum's wire does fluctuate. Even using the obviously false UA, the bob experiences less "apparent" gravity higher from the surface. However, as I said, that variation is very minor. Given that you use a barometer to determine the bob's altitude, this variation is far too small for you to measure. Since you can't measure it, I have to wonder why you encourage me not to ignore.

Tell you what: Prove me wrong. Have a K-12 teacher from an accredited school system sign off on your measurement, with a barometer measuring the altitude included, showing relevant fluctuating tension. I'm also happy to shown to be wrong.


21
I'm erred ?My mistake.  You mean your retardation . The string  attached to the pivot point & bob is under tension. If there is fluctuation in momentum then there is compression taking place as recoil. Now I dont know what dumb ass school you went to or what tosser you had teaching you. The bobs travel is not swinging in a horizontal plane, its swinging in a circular Arc, No matter what you choice to make the diameter. Now I keep hearing the bullshit there's is no torque taking place at the pivot point. Which is untrue because its audible & recordable. so it exists. Now we move on to fall of Gravity. Which fluctuates according to altitude & location. Which will also have an effect on the bob & how it reacts to that fall of gravity. No different to water running down a slop to the end of its course.             
I had hoped that you might be able to realize your error.The bob moves in three dimensions--by observation. A circular arc can be described as motion in just two--by definition. Hence, you're wrong. Now please try to correct your mistake again. Thanks.

Oh, I never said that the bob swings in a horizontal plane.

Would you also be more concise. For example, "altitude and location" should just be "location".

Would you also review your understanding of simple physics. Being under tension is not the same as being under constant tension.

Oh, and would you please learn the use of the apostrophe. Reading your error-laced grammar just convinces me even more of your errors in logic, math, and physics.

22
You know I'm so sick of the false statements made in theses clips.  Foucault pendulum is free to move in any direction. No it doesn't. its movement is governed to circular arc.
Then I fear you're making yourself sick. The bob is constrained by the UA (or gravity) and the wire (cable, string, etc.) connecting it to its pivot point. Ignoring the very minor compression of the wire, the tip of the bob sweeps out the surface a section, roughly made by a plane parallel to the ground, of a sphere centered on the pivot point, most certainly NOT just a circular arc.
But it is travelling on a governed circular arc. Ignoring the very minor compression of the wire Why should that be ignored. If its part of the process ? I love the way you people pick & chose what suits your dogma. It amounts to fudging the findings & making false claims of the out come. How about you include the compression. Oh that's right ,that would mean there's a torque being developed at the pivot point & we cant have that can we. It would be  panic stations the worlds not spinning.   
Feel free to revise your claim under the very minor compression of the wire, which would mean the bob does not travel is a circular arc. I'll then correct your error again of failing to consider movement outside of a simple circular arc. The point is you've erred and really should fix your mistake.

23
You know I'm so sick of the false statements made in theses clips.  Foucault pendulum is free to move in any direction. No it doesn't. its movement is governed to circular arc.
Then I fear you're making yourself sick. The bob is constrained by the UA (or gravity) and the wire (cable, string, etc.) connecting it to its pivot point. Ignoring the very minor compression of the wire, the tip of the bob sweeps out the surface a section, roughly made by a plane parallel to the ground, of a sphere centered on the pivot point, most certainly NOT just a circular arc.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: WHY DO WE ALWAYS SEE THE SAME FACE OF THE MOON
« on: October 07, 2007, 10:40:57 PM »
I've read the FAQ, searched the forum, and asked several times (and variations) myself.  All I've heard is...thundering silence.

The FE model would seem to predict that we'd see pretty much any and all parts of the moon, save for a tiny area at the very top.  Furthermore, two observers at any modest distance apart should see different views of the moon at the same time.

Furthermore, if the moon is in fact between 35 and 10,000 miles above us (depending on with FE model you believe), we should very easily be able to determine it's distance through simple parallax.  Two observers, 2,000 miles apart, take a digital photo of the moon at the same time.  It's position against background stars should be wildly different between the two (not to mention the two seeing readily visibly different portions of the moon's surface.  (I realize that in FE theory stars aren't in the realm of light years away--but they are still farther than the moon depending on which theory you believe--even twice as far should be enough.)

If you can't explain such a rediculously simple observation and won't even try, we are left to assume that your model is wrong.
Your challenge is well-document, complete with a worked example, in Experiment #0003 in The RE Primer.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: simple gravity test disproves FE
« on: October 07, 2007, 10:03:29 PM »
Discover Magazine says that science doesn't know whether or not time exists.

Tom, if you had actually read that article--or had the intellectual integrity and honesty to represent it correctly--you would not have made such an unconscionably, wildly inaccurate assertion.

The article talks about how at the smallest time scales thought to exist--akin to a "Plank Scale" for time--it probably wouldn't look anything like what we think time is.  If you recall from your expert science education through Discover Magazine, at Plank Scales and beyond, it's not even clear that matter or space itself exists.  In quantum theory, existence itself may be furiously frothing and bubbling in and out of existence.  Everything is weird in quantum mechanics--and some scientists (Einstein among them) don't really trust it and think it's a bunch of mathematical conveniences.  Their biggest problem with it (including String theory)?  It too often doesn't make testable predictions.  Not all quantum theory of course.  A great deal of practical technology has resulted from quantum theory (your CPU even takes quantum tunneling into consideration), but definitely the very bleeding edge of theoretical quantum theory is "out there".  In my mind, string theory is nothing more than a religion.  A religion of Beautiful Math and nothing more.  Once it makes testable predictions, then I'll pay attention.

Anyway back to the article--it notes that in quantum mechanics, time is not a factor in equations, and the formulas work the same way whether time is running backward, forward, or not at all (which is another fancy way of repeating that time is not in the equations).

It goes on to talk about other things but these two concepts (or maybe just the headling and introduction) seem to be what you latched onto, twisted, and puked out.

If you want to make a mockery of your own beliefs, fine.  But I'll be goddamned if I sit by while you purposely misrepresent the honest, hard work of real scientists.
Hear! Hear!

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question...
« on: October 07, 2007, 10:02:28 PM »
Quote
Nah. Natural selection has long been proven to be part of evolution.

Then perhaps you should tell me, without invoking symbiosis, how some dogs have evolved into the weak little critters they are today, entirely incapable of surviving out in the wild.
That's a meaningless question. Why would I not be able to invoke symbiosis?
Quote
Quote
Nah. You miss the point. GR and QM solve problems and make predictions. The UA theory doesn't make predictions and doesn't match known, verified experimental results.

Sure it does. UA solves the problem of why the earth seems to accelerate into objects without invoking mysterious hypothetical undiscovered contradictory particles called gravitons. UA also falls in line with the accelerating universe.

If the stars and cosmos are detected to be accelerating, does it not follow that the earth is also accelerating?
No, the Earth is not a planet, is not a star. (I just love being able to use your own logic against you. Hehe.)
Quote
So, does a Flat-Earther want to describe why the Earth is accelerating upwards?

Over the years this tidbit has gotten lost, but I believe the reason is that according to theory there is an ocean beyond the firmament of the earth, of which the stars and celestial bodies swim. Historically, the FE universe consists of a transparent dome above the disk of the earth called the firmament. The firmament is also known as the eighth sphere in Poltomy's geocentric model. It is the vault of the heavens, a divider between here and there, made of a substance neither fluid nor solid.

Beyond the firmament exists a vast ocean called the quintessence, containing waters described as a luminiferous substance which pervades the universe. The stars and cosmos exist here, swimming and co-existing together in their fanciful swirls and dances, forever separate from earthly existence. The Quintessence ocean is dynamic, and generally has a density and equation of state that varies through time and space.

It through these perpetual waters that the bubble of the earth moves upwards via a form of buoyancy. The waters of the universe are endless, and so the earth continues to rise, tracked by a quintessence field which closely tracks the radiation density until matter-radiation equality.

[/quote]Anyone see any reason to accept this wild idea? I sure don't see one bit of experimental evidence to support any part of it. Fail.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A simple truth
« on: October 07, 2007, 07:58:50 PM »
yeah well taking quantum this semester so I am having to study a bit more
Ouch rough course. I remember missing a question on my undergraduate final, that I thought I aced. It was a word problem to determine whether spacecraft orbits were quantized. I worked the numbers and provided a value for the distance between allowed discrete orbits. I was wrong, according to the professor. I failed to consider that the value was less than could be detected. I wanted to argue about the philosophy involved in saying that because you can't measure something it doesn't exist, but ...

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: flat horizon means flat earth.....wrong!
« on: October 07, 2007, 07:31:05 PM »
Folks, I draw your attention to the amazing TomB. In one thread, he's claimed that the horizon does not appear curved and that it does. He's claimed that the Earth isn't finite in contrast to his fanciful theory that the Earth is an infinity plane.

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: flat horizon means flat earth.....wrong!
« on: October 07, 2007, 07:22:43 PM »
Quote
Sure, here you go. Using Gimp 2.0, I sampled the horizon, recording the horizontal and vertical displacement. The results demonstrate that the horizon is curved as RE predicts.
...
If the earth were a globe, curving downwards in all directions, then the horizon's curvature as seen from space would take the form of an arc of a circle. It doesn't.
...
Prove your claim.
I said "bull hokey", isn't that enough?!? Prove yours first! Oh and love you!
I just can't get enough of you! Hugs and kisses.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A simple truth
« on: October 07, 2007, 07:18:20 PM »
The question of Finite universe v Infinte universe is still in the realm of thoeretical physics, and the current view is that the univers has a finite area with a finite mass and finite energy. There is something beyond the edge our universe but we will never know what it is and we can never reach the edge of the universe because time will end before we reach that point. Einstein also believed that the universe was finite and that is why he believed in dark matter, after a while he decided that he was wrong and dark matter did not exist. It was only later when cosmologists were trying to calculate the amount of stuff in the universe did they conclude that dark matter must exist because the amounts they were getting without dark matter mixed in were way too low.
Hey cb! Good to see you posting again.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 124