1
Arts & Entertainment / So...Musical Preferences?
« on: January 31, 2007, 05:53:42 AM »
You should get new headphones :lol:
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.
2
Arts & Entertainment / So...Musical Preferences?
« on: January 31, 2007, 04:07:29 AM »Quote from: "beast"
People who think different genres of music require different degrees of musical talent are only showing their ignorance. I am sure that playing metal requires talent, just as I know that d n b and other forms of electronic music definitely require talent. In every field of human activity there are people who push the limits, and they put in the same effort and work just as hard as the people in at the top of other activities. If you don't think this is true, you'll never be on the top.
I don't know if you've ever been in a band or even tried making music
before, but I have, and what you just said is absolute rubbish.
Prove that electronic music requires the same degree of talent that metal does....
You shouldn't make pointless statements that have no factual basis whatsoever, if you can't back them up.
3
Arts & Entertainment / So...Musical Preferences?
« on: January 31, 2007, 03:48:18 AM »
:lol: strong bad
4
Arts & Entertainment / So...Musical Preferences?
« on: January 31, 2007, 03:27:08 AM »Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
This is pretty much all it is.
:lol: lol.... You don't event want to see how strongbad disses death metal
5
Arts & Entertainment / So...Musical Preferences?
« on: January 31, 2007, 03:22:32 AM »Quote from: "troubadour"
Talent? so you would consider bands such as metallica as talented? they are right down there on my list with hair bands. I'm pretty sure all metal requires is some singers with raspy grunty voices waxing on about hell and love in the same song, a boring 4 minute over-amped guitar solo, and suckers like you lapping it all up to stay alive.
OMG... You really are an idiot :shock:
Metallica are one of the most talented bands ever! Why you would even
choose to list them as a band without talent is beyond me.
You shouldn't boast about your ignorance :roll:
6
Arts & Entertainment / So...Musical Preferences?
« on: January 30, 2007, 02:20:26 PM »Quote
trance, dnb, house, experimental, etc
No offense, but I wouldn't even classify this shit as music
It's stuff some idiot DJ who had no ear for music whatsoever spent 2
minutes cooking up on his computer, so groups of teenagers all over the
world, who have no real appreciation for the music either can go wild
over it.
At least Metal Requires Talent, expresses emotion, Can be meaningful
It is an art form every sense of the word, which is more than what can
be said for that shit.
Sorry but I'm right... don't even try arguing with me.
7
Flat Earth Q&A / There are things known and things unknown
« on: January 30, 2007, 02:08:09 PM »
If you're talking about the band.... I can't stand them!
8
Flat Earth Q&A / So what about space?
« on: January 30, 2007, 02:05:25 PM »
:lol: You mean.... Is the fact that "Any two objects can't have exactly
the same coordinates and dimensions" a conspiracy? :lol:
lol.... No I don't think it is
the same coordinates and dimensions" a conspiracy? :lol:
lol.... No I don't think it is
9
Flat Earth Q&A / so why do ships disappear over the horizon?
« on: January 30, 2007, 01:40:50 PM »
Its more than I thought it would be...
In any case... this would be pointless because if from the shore the
furthest we can see out is 8km (at a guess - I dont feel like calc it, and
I remember it being something around this value) If I was looking out to
that same 8km point from the top of a 100m building, the change in
distance would be 30cm :lol: Or something stupid like that.
I should have seen this coming from the beginning of this argument :roll:
So I guess what the original argument should have been is:
Why can I see more from the top of a high point, when in the flat earth
model, the distance to the horizon is essentially the same as it would
be if I was looking out from the ground?
Yeah yeah I know... The path the light follows to a higher point, passes
through areas where the atmosphere is less dense.
In any case... this would be pointless because if from the shore the
furthest we can see out is 8km (at a guess - I dont feel like calc it, and
I remember it being something around this value) If I was looking out to
that same 8km point from the top of a 100m building, the change in
distance would be 30cm :lol: Or something stupid like that.
I should have seen this coming from the beginning of this argument :roll:
So I guess what the original argument should have been is:
Why can I see more from the top of a high point, when in the flat earth
model, the distance to the horizon is essentially the same as it would
be if I was looking out from the ground?
Yeah yeah I know... The path the light follows to a higher point, passes
through areas where the atmosphere is less dense.
10
Flat Earth Q&A / New Member- Hi!
« on: January 30, 2007, 09:04:04 AM »
No.... as I said, the sun behaves like a giant spotlight, circling directly
overhead the equator. So essentially you get the same effect.
overhead the equator. So essentially you get the same effect.
11
The Lounge / Hapkido and Zui Ba Xian Quan
« on: January 30, 2007, 09:00:07 AM »
The day one of these fighting styles becomes relevant to one of the
anime series I watch, I'll educate myself about them.
anime series I watch, I'll educate myself about them.
12
Flat Earth Q&A / New Member- Hi!
« on: January 30, 2007, 08:38:58 AM »
Something like that yes, but who is this "you" you keep refering to?
Also... to answer you Q about that picture, the sun acts like a giant spot
light, just so conveniently shaped, that it would cause exactly the same
light distribution to appear on a flat earth.
What exactly is this shape against a flat earth? Well.... that can't be
answered until FEers actually know how the continents are arranged on their disc.
Also... to answer you Q about that picture, the sun acts like a giant spot
light, just so conveniently shaped, that it would cause exactly the same
light distribution to appear on a flat earth.
What exactly is this shape against a flat earth? Well.... that can't be
answered until FEers actually know how the continents are arranged on their disc.
13
The Lounge / Get your nominations in....
« on: January 30, 2007, 08:31:12 AM »
Nobody like you and your fascist opinions. Go away.
14
Flat Earth Q&A / New Member- Hi!
« on: January 30, 2007, 08:21:22 AM »
Welcome... and well done on reading the FAQ, then actually posting
something sort of resembling science.
About half your questions though are answered in the FAQ.
It takes a bit of a paradigm shift to picture how someone could fly
East on a flat Earth and end up where they started, but it is possible,
if you just think about it, and it is explained well in the FAQ.
You... see if the earth were a flat disc, and the North Pole were the center
of this disc. Your compass still always points towards the North Pole. As
you travel East, your compass would need to make minor corrections for
where the North Pole is. As this happens, the direction of East shifts
slightly, causing you to travel in a large circle centered at the pole.
So, you could never reach the icewall by travelling East or West, you
could only ever reach it by travelling South, or SW or SE or SSE or SSSW
etc.
something sort of resembling science.
About half your questions though are answered in the FAQ.
It takes a bit of a paradigm shift to picture how someone could fly
East on a flat Earth and end up where they started, but it is possible,
if you just think about it, and it is explained well in the FAQ.
You... see if the earth were a flat disc, and the North Pole were the center
of this disc. Your compass still always points towards the North Pole. As
you travel East, your compass would need to make minor corrections for
where the North Pole is. As this happens, the direction of East shifts
slightly, causing you to travel in a large circle centered at the pole.
So, you could never reach the icewall by travelling East or West, you
could only ever reach it by travelling South, or SW or SE or SSE or SSSW
etc.
15
Flat Earth Q&A / Explain this phenomenon
« on: January 30, 2007, 08:07:27 AM »
Mod/Admin... I use them synonymously.
Maybe I shouldn't, but I do.
Maybe I shouldn't, but I do.
16
Flat Earth Q&A / Evidence of flat earth
« on: January 30, 2007, 08:01:04 AM »
I don't see him claiming it was scientific? Do you? He gave it as biblical
evidence, which holds water with some people, but apparantly not many
on this forum.
This logical leap makes no sense though, so I think it is this that
would discredit his logic.
I would agree with this statement to some extent. It's called entropy.
evidence, which holds water with some people, but apparantly not many
on this forum.
Quote
Something always has existed and will always exist --> That's why it has to be the origin and center of the universe
This logical leap makes no sense though, so I think it is this that
would discredit his logic.
Quote
Everything is chaos and temporary.
I would agree with this statement to some extent. It's called entropy.
17
Flat Earth Q&A / Explain this phenomenon
« on: January 30, 2007, 07:56:26 AM »
I think Daniel and DanTheMan are the same person.
Any mod care to compare IP addresses, just for interest sake?
Any mod care to compare IP addresses, just for interest sake?
18
The Lounge / Post an image of yourself!
« on: January 30, 2007, 04:47:40 AM »
Aaaaw Isn't that cute
19
Flat Earth Q&A / So, is the moon flat too?
« on: January 30, 2007, 04:46:04 AM »
lol :lol: No but seriously.... Gravitons are not the cornerstone of the
theory of gravitation. Besides as I've explained before gravity can work
fairly similarly on a flat earth as it can on a spherical one.
theory of gravitation. Besides as I've explained before gravity can work
fairly similarly on a flat earth as it can on a spherical one.
20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Some new (and old) questions about a flat earth...
« on: January 30, 2007, 04:41:52 AM »Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
I believe in the flat earth because it's a conclusion of my personal observations, experiments, and scientific proofs.
Liar :twisted: Show me one of your "scientific proofs" or if you have
posted one on the forum already... post a link
21
Flat Earth Q&A / The Razor
« on: January 30, 2007, 03:40:24 AM »
:lol: How many points do you have beast?
22
Flat Earth Q&A / so why do ships disappear over the horizon?
« on: January 30, 2007, 03:38:30 AM »
To be honest... if you want to accurately calculate that, I think line
integrals are the only way. The problem is, if you're going to account for
the minimal change in density, you might as well also take into
consideration that the path the light follows will not be straight, due to
refraction.
The easiest way to do this, would be to use the fact that the change in
density is miniscule over the height of a 30 story building. Because of this,
even if the entire path of the light from ship to building top were to pass
through the lowest possible density (density atop the building), this path
would still be longer than the other path from ship to observer on the shoreline.
integrals are the only way. The problem is, if you're going to account for
the minimal change in density, you might as well also take into
consideration that the path the light follows will not be straight, due to
refraction.
The easiest way to do this, would be to use the fact that the change in
density is miniscule over the height of a 30 story building. Because of this,
even if the entire path of the light from ship to building top were to pass
through the lowest possible density (density atop the building), this path
would still be longer than the other path from ship to observer on the shoreline.
23
Flat Earth Q&A / Debate Tommorow
« on: January 30, 2007, 03:16:01 AM »Quote from: "DanTheMan"
Humping CKJ's dead corpse
:evil: Leave my dead corpse alone you sick bastard!
24
Flat Earth Q&A / Explain this phenomenon
« on: January 30, 2007, 01:36:47 AM »Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
We've had users attempt to reproduce the effect from home with a long exposure time. The results were in favor of a flat earth.
They all lied.
I've traced the stars over the course of a few hours in both the Southern
and Northern hemisphere, so yes there are two Celestial Poles.
25
Flat Earth Q&A / Explain this phenomenon
« on: January 29, 2007, 04:09:31 PM »
It seems Evil Toothpaste beat me to it :twisted:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8414&highlight=north+celestial+pole
But all the same, I will expand on this, and give even further evidence
as to why any other explanation apart from a spherical earth, is simply
impossible.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8414&highlight=north+celestial+pole
But all the same, I will expand on this, and give even further evidence
as to why any other explanation apart from a spherical earth, is simply
impossible.
26
Flat Earth Q&A / Cavendish Experiment
« on: January 29, 2007, 04:00:50 PM »Quote
gravity acts towards the centre of mass
Well.... think about it this way. What if you had an infinite
slab of material.... where would that center be?
Calculus can show that such a force would be uniform over
the entire surface of the plane, and interestingly enough,
uniform to any height above the surface.
Trust me, I've had to do the equations, since I studied this
as an undergrad in my second year. It was a course on
electrostatics if you're interested.
Anyway... I know the FE model does not have an infinite surface,
but compared to the distance between us and the surface, or even
aeroplanes and the surface, we can effectively treat the earth
mathematically as an infinite plane. Someone posted a good link on
this once to a site that demonstrated the maths. I'll try find it for you.
27
Flat Earth Q&A / Explain this phenomenon
« on: January 29, 2007, 03:48:19 PM »
Actually Hara Taiki has made a VERY relevant point.
It is on this point alone that the entire flat earth theory
must crumble... It's dead easy to demonstrate too,
You just need to live in the Southern hemisphere, or
near the equator to verify this.
I will post a detailed explanation of this tomorrow after
Ive done some research on whats been said about this
here so far.
Note: I've left out the Northern hemisphere intentionally,
since Im sure FEers already have an explanation for this
effect above the North Celestial Pole.
It is on this point alone that the entire flat earth theory
must crumble... It's dead easy to demonstrate too,
You just need to live in the Southern hemisphere, or
near the equator to verify this.
I will post a detailed explanation of this tomorrow after
Ive done some research on whats been said about this
here so far.
Note: I've left out the Northern hemisphere intentionally,
since Im sure FEers already have an explanation for this
effect above the North Celestial Pole.
28
Flat Earth Q&A / Cavendish Experiment
« on: January 29, 2007, 03:40:19 PM »
Did I say 2D? I dont think so. That would just be ridiculous
(Notice I menioned thickness)
(Notice I menioned thickness)
29
Flat Earth Q&A / Cavendish Experiment
« on: January 29, 2007, 03:37:00 PM »Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Structural integrity. Everything would be pulled to the center of the flat earth, not the north pole.
Actually neither of you are right. If the earth were a plain, regardless of how thick it was, the resulting gravitational field would be in a direction
perp. to the plane, and constant everywhere (so long as you're far from
the edges).
FEers can all breathe a sigh of relief though because due to the effects of
the sides of the plane, this constant grav field would begin to drop off
above a certain altitude, and will start to resemble the gravitational field
of a sphere as our distance from the plane tends to infinity.
30
Flat Earth Q&A / so why do ships disappear over the horizon?
« on: January 29, 2007, 03:24:13 PM »
Well explained... 8-) I get what you're saying now.