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 - Locke

Pages: [1] 2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Romney is winning by a landslide
« on: February 05, 2013, 09:33:24 AM »

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA
« on: April 20, 2012, 06:47:36 PM »
The real questions we should be asking is why does it matter if congress knew. If this conspiracy is as total as you claim, the congress would have been in on it. I doubt NASA would just fake a lunar program without direction form Congress. I mean it's not like NASA scientists just chill in a completely government funded facility and do space craft/art projects and lie to the government which funds and provides oversight to it. Therefore, there is absolutely no logical reason for him to be murdered as the people he was reporting to should have been in on the conspiracy.

@AnonConda - Lol I agree with you I'm RE not FE

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: April 19, 2012, 09:31:08 PM »
Lol that is not true at all.

Have you performed a spectrum analysis of your microwave recently?

Have you?? Where the heck are you getting this information it is completely incorrect for a few reasons:
1st gamma rays have incredibly short wavelengths and are awful for cooking
2nd gamma rays are on the opposite side of the spectrum as microwaves so there is no chance a MICROWAVE can produce gamma waves
3rd Why the hell would they call it a microwave if it only produces gamma waves
4th Every site I looked at to confirm my argument concurs, nowhere could I find any article discussing normal microwave ovens creating gamma radiation.

And Sokarul is right. This is stupid.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: April 19, 2012, 07:32:57 PM »
Lol that is not true at all.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: April 19, 2012, 06:30:19 PM »
Lol good point. I wonder why they call it a MICROwave... not a GAMAwave

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA
« on: April 19, 2012, 05:56:22 PM »
Conspiracy theories resist traditional canons of proof because they  reduce highly complex phenomena to simple causes. This is ordinarily a  characteristic much admired in scientific theories, where it is referred to  as “parsimony. ” Conspiracy theories—particularly the systemic theories  and the superconspiracy theories discussed above—are nothing if not  parsimonious, for they attribute all of the world's evil to the activities  of a single plot, or set of plots.  Precisely because the claims are so sweeping, however, they ultimately  defeat any attempt at testing. Conspiracists' reasoning runs in the following way. Because the conspiracy is so powerful, it controls virtually  all of the channels through which information is disseminated—universities, media, and so forth. Further, the conspiracy desires at all costs  to conceal its activities, so it will use its control over knowledge production and dissemination to mislead those who seek to expose it. Hence  information that appears to put a conspiracy theory in doubt must have  been planted by the conspirators themselves in order to mislead.  The result is a closed system of ideas about a plot that is believed not  only to be responsible for creating a wide range of evils but also to be  so clever at covering its tracks that it can manufacture the evidence ad-  duced by skeptics. In the end, the theory becomes nonfalsifiable, be-  cause every attempt at falsification is dismissed as a ruse. Therefore, there is no way to disprove this idea. However, because we can't test it, neither can it be tested.

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA
« on: April 18, 2012, 09:41:31 PM »
I'm still not sure how this is relevant. I mean if NASA leads others or doesn't is neither hear nor there but unless you can prove they are leading a conspiracy it is pointless to argue how they are viewed by other agencies at least in the framework of a debate about a NASA conspiracy theory.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: April 18, 2012, 09:30:50 PM »
No not at all sorry I must not have explained myself well. I'm saying the fundamental principles of how nuclear bombs and nuclear reactor function is basically the same in that it relies on nuclear fission. A reactor could theoretically produce much more energy near a low yield bomb if all control rods were removed and there was  more fissile material but that has only happened at Chernobyl to my knowledge and that was more controlled. All I'm saying is that nuclear power plants work obviously otherwise France would have to have hidden power plants for 75% of its power and because they rely on the same principle atomic theory must be correct and nuclear weapons as well because they are fundamentally the same in design just one has a much smaller magnitude. While this is more a reason to believe the atomic model, I feel that due to the similarities and out ability to build power plants, I see no reason that we wouldn't build the bomb if it relies on the same tech of power plants that we currently use and has the potential to deter and maintain US hegemony.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: April 18, 2012, 09:12:58 PM »
Uh how does that apply at all. Where did I reference stoves? Are you referring to nuclear energy? And if so then it is you who misunderstands. Fission is common between both weapons and power sources (nuclear). The only difference is the power generators have control rods to prevent a massive chain reaction that would occur in the bomb. They both are bombarded to create a chain reaction. There is a big difference between a stove and a nuclear power plant just fyi.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: April 18, 2012, 08:52:13 PM »

Also, in terms of nuclear theory, the principles are the same. They both involve nuclear fission which is predicated of the atomic model being correct. Please point out what in my remarks is confusing to you and I will explain.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: April 18, 2012, 08:39:31 PM »
Do explain

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rocket Launch Video, no fish-eye lens
« on: April 18, 2012, 08:03:06 PM »
Wait doesn't this picture of the Earth from space prove you can have satellites in space? Isn't that inconsistent with Flat Earth theory?

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: April 18, 2012, 07:59:12 PM »
Building a nuclear weapon is fairly straightforward in it's design. You say it is impossible but that would mean nuclear theory is wrong but then explain Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. It seems highly unlikely that anyone would make such a big deal out of a fantasy and have fake radiation testing and such for a nuclear reactor that doesn't do anything except lie about nuclear theory. Also, why the heck is France building so many nuclear reactors and supp;y 50% of their total electricity when nuclear reactors don't work. I mean they have very similar principles to nuclear bombs

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA
« on: April 18, 2012, 07:28:52 PM »
That is irrelevant. Even if NASA is the lead agency every other space agency and astronomy/astrophysics lab would have to be in on the conspiracy. I find that hard to believe for a number of reasons:
1st - They are scientists whose job it is to seek the truth not fabricate elaborate hoaxes
2nd - They have nothing to gain at all other than trolling the flat earthers
3rd - There is no way that thousands of scientists at NASA, ESA, JAXA, Russian space agency, Chinese space agency, and   every observatory in the world would lie about this so completely and well. I mean there is bound to be a leak
4th - You still have no evidence to support that NASA is a lie except for Cat Earth Theory's remark that I already responded to

As you will soon find out they have no evidence to support the NASA hoax or spotlight sun and in the past have discarded so many of their tenets you can't even keep track of exactly what it is they claim to support. Basically they make stuff up without any models or proofs just to keep their theory consistent with observations. Not once have they proven any of these secondary claims though. And your right, NASA has no incentive to lie about the shape of the earth.

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA
« on: April 18, 2012, 06:50:49 PM »
By that logic I could disprove FEt right here. So, REt looks true. There might be a chance FEt is true. But because if I prove REt is true by ignoring the possibility of FEt, now, "the evidence" indicates the earth is round. And because the evidence supports it's round, FEt is clearly a hoax because I just proved the earth is round by ignoring evidence that is to the contrary (aka "proving" FEt  by ignoring NASA statements, actions and photographs and then saying because FEt is right, NASA is wrong). I used the same logic here as above and you can see how stupid it is.

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA
« on: April 18, 2012, 06:27:25 PM »
The evidence is that the earth is flat, so there must be a conspiracy!
I find this statement very funny that because the earth is flat NASA is a lie. If NASA isn't a lie then this whole site is wrong so you use very circular logic here. The earth doesn't appear flat if you look at NASA photographs so actually this answer makes no sense at all because "the evidence" from NASA actually proves the earth is round. To prove the earth is flat, you must first establish that NASA is a hoax. However, it doesn't work the other way around because the earth being flat is predicated of NASA being a hoax. So basically what I'm saying is that you are just making this accusation to keep your theory consistent, every time your theory is disproven you just tweak some variable to make it work again. And because you have to prove the earth is flat first, then you can't use that as an internal reason to prove NASA is wrong.

Flat Earth General / NASA
« on: April 18, 2012, 09:52:02 AM »
I'm just curious exactly what evidence you have that supports that NASA is a corrupt hoaxing organization that fakes videos just to mislead for no apparent reason. List out why they are corrupt/lie with specific valid arguments. Thanks

Flat Earth Q&A / Wouldn't UA not allow air resistance
« on: February 16, 2011, 05:00:22 PM »
Air resistance as I'm sure you all know is the resistance a falling object experiences while falling due to friction. However, if the earth were constantly accelerating there would be no air resistance because the earth would just come up to your feet. And because you aren't falling than the friction wouldn't apply.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Inconsistencies in FAQ
« on: February 16, 2011, 04:45:32 PM »
Also, let me ask you, do you have anyone with credentials that backs up your claim?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Inconsistencies in FAQ
« on: February 16, 2011, 04:40:05 PM »
Gravity is not outside their set. Neither is DE for that matter.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Inconsistencies in FAQ
« on: February 16, 2011, 04:37:59 PM »
That's a valid point. However, an appeal to authority is not always bad especially if the authority is unbaised and actually an authority. Also, even though they all studied similar fields, their fields specialize in things like gravity so they would understand it better than most FE-ers due to their extensive studying, training, and observations into the field.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How did the FE form
« on: February 16, 2011, 04:02:48 PM »
Yes it does. It's called gravity. Which FE doesn't believe in.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How did the FE form
« on: February 16, 2011, 03:35:42 PM »
So your saying that FE theory doesn't know how the planets formed?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Inconsistencies in FAQ
« on: February 16, 2011, 03:20:40 PM »
"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to remind you that humans have always known about it! Its first mathematical description as a 'universal' force was by Sir Isaac Newton in 1666. Newton's description remained unchanged until Albert Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity in 1915. Ninety years later, physicists, such as Edward Witten, Steven Hawkings, Brian Greene and Lee Smolin among others ..." So you're disagree with Newton, Einstein, Hawking, Greene, Written, Smolin, and Odewald (the author). I'd like to remind you that all these people have Ph.D.'s and are very distinguished. Yet you, who I'm assuming didn't get a degree of any kind in Physics, think you know more than them, and you state that they are all lying. Hum, who should I believe???

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Inconsistencies in FAQ
« on: February 16, 2011, 03:12:17 PM »
Well gravity works too, otherwise all scientists wouldn't agree with it. =

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Inconsistencies in FAQ
« on: February 16, 2011, 03:09:51 PM »
Okay I agree that revisions should be made and disregard my statement that if you change stuff it is untrue. However, you have yet to explain why you just throw out gravity, (a theory universally accepted by physicists) yet accept DE which is actually more controversial, and is much less understood than gravity.

Flat Earth Q&A / How did the FE form
« on: February 16, 2011, 03:06:42 PM »
If this is in the FAQ my apologies I must not have seen it. Anyways, I just want to know how FE and the sun and all the other planets above the FE formed and were attracted together if gravity is untrue. RE has a very well understood theory how round planetoids, asteroids, other celestial objects form together due to gravitational attraction. Therefore, I want to know how the FE and other celestial objects formed with no gravity.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Inconsistencies in FAQ
« on: February 16, 2011, 03:00:05 PM »
That's very true but it still doesn't allow you two throw out one of the four major laws of physics. You just can't get rid of gravity yet hold on to DE. I would very much like to know if there is any physicist-astronomer in the world with valid credentials like college education preferably Ph.D. who actually believes that gravity is a giant lie that is untrue. And I mean someone other than the one who came up with FE theory. All I want is just one other scientist.

Pages: [1] 2