1

The Lounge / Re: M-M-M-MONSTER FAIL!

« on: December 30, 2010, 06:00:10 PM »

Yes, from what I'm aware all art requires that you have intimate knowledge of the subject.

Don't be stupid, junior. Why does your avatar have an E and not a G then? 

2

The Lounge / Re: M-M-M-MONSTER FAIL!

« on: December 30, 2010, 05:28:55 PM »

I'm sorry but between just the two of us, that avatar is really ugly.  It clashes so horribly and the name above it does not help.  You should like srsly change it.

When you load something to the internet it isn't between 2 people. 
Pizza Planet has a great avatar and makes great ones too.  If we are talking of cheesy avatars then your's is near the top of the list.

Why is it great? I get the impression we're supposed to know who that old guy is, and the juxtaposition of him with a circuit board might mean something, but I haven't a clue what. Which is why it's a crap avatar. It's like someone trying to tell you something in a foreign language you can't understand. Whereas my avatar is understood by all. Also there's too much red in that guy's face, you can tone that down with Photoshop you know.

3

Flat Earth General / Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model

« on: December 30, 2010, 05:18:13 PM »

What would you expect to see if you were standing on a big sphere, guys? 

I would expect to see people slipping and falling off when I walked far enough in one direction.

And can you tell me why you'd expect to see that?

Because this expectancy fits reality. The expectancy that reality is consistent has another name: 'common sense'. Which you may have heard of. Sadly the term 'common sense' has been a misnomer ever since Round Earth Theory declared war upon it.

So you have an expectation based on your beliefs about the physical properties, but can you tell me what the big sphere looks like please? Don't look at the people sliding off under the power of some unexplained force, look at the sphere and describe what you see.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question for Flat Earth Believers

« on: December 30, 2010, 05:14:15 PM »

Do you agree with the statement that "man's capacity for imagination is infinite?"

Many people would agree with that statement.

But in reality, man's capacity for imaginiation may or may not be infinite. In this example "infinite" is an abstract term which means "to the capacity of understanding" and has no physical value.

Are you saying that your "infinite plane" has is an abstract term with no physical value?

What is the value of "infinite"?

I'll give you 50 quid.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bio-luminescent moon and conservation of energy

« on: December 30, 2010, 05:10:25 PM »

How do you know they're shrimp like bacteria? How do you know they're not more like spiders? Or lizardlike creatures? Or frogs? Or mushrooms with legs? Do you have one in a jar?
You won't answer this question.

I experienced a telepathic episode recently, in which I achieved mystical contact with several such beings.  This was how I became more aware of their form and nature, having previously merely deduced it from the ample empirical evidence.  In this manner I have learnt many secrets of the universe.  The secrets I have learnt through empirical study have been greater of quantity, but perhaps the secrets I have learnt through mystical experience have been more profound.

And you asked me not to refer to you as Mad James... bloody hell.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bio-luminescent moon and conservation of energy

« on: December 30, 2010, 11:06:08 AM »

I hate to side with the flattists here, but if you do a Google search for lunar dew  some stuff does come up that looks sound. Also, was my post up there invisible or what?

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bio-luminescent moon and conservation of energy

« on: December 30, 2010, 09:32:42 AM »

There is some evidence now that there is this "lunar dew" chelated with other molecules as well as possible ice in craters. This has been found by space probes though, so Peach should not be advocating it. Way to pick and choose.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bio-luminescent moon and conservation of energy

« on: December 30, 2010, 09:09:29 AM »

The Moon is incredibly dense; the only life on its surface are primitive shrimp-like bacteria who are not inclined towards human Reason.

How do you know they're shrimp like bacteria? How do you know they're not more like spiders? Or lizardlike creatures? Or frogs? Or mushrooms with legs? Do you have one in a jar?
You won't answer this question.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

« on: December 29, 2010, 04:47:20 PM »

I don't know what to say so I'll remind people that I posted an irrelevant video and throw some insults/ad hominems.

You do that, bro. Keep me updated.

I didn't actually post the link to the video

TROLL HARDER.

10

The Lounge / Re: @Brits

« on: December 29, 2010, 03:46:53 PM »

Is it an awareness campaign that your avatars are not nearly as good as you like to make out?

Was that a request? No need to be shy, I make avatars for friends and lovers alike.

If they're all as crap as your random ugly old man in front of a circuit board, I think I'll stick with my own satirical image, thanks.
To be fair, there are some even worse ones (James for example).

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question for Flat Earth Believers

« on: December 29, 2010, 03:39:50 PM »

I think infinite plane didn't strictly mean 'infinite', just that the Earth goes on for a great distance beyond antarctica.

This is correct.

Then someone does not understand the concept of infinity.

Now it can be understood why my request that Bishop not post in the other thread was not an ad hominem, but an act of mercy to the rest of us.

12

The Lounge / Re: @Brits

« on: December 29, 2010, 03:35:32 PM »

An awareness campaign then?

Very much so, yeah.

Is it an awareness campaign that your avatars are not nearly as good as you like to make out? Or that you are a pedant of the most extreme variety?

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

« on: December 29, 2010, 03:33:29 PM »

Parsifal, your "prove setting circles work" demand is no different to saying "prove cars work" or "prove x-ray machines work", or any other man made device.

Which can be very easily done.

I have already explained this, because the term "using setting circles" is a summary of:
I have set up my telescope with proper polar alignment, navigated from one known star to another known star by using right ascension and declination coordinates, and found that what the telescope ends up pointed at agrees in practice with what theory predicts it should. I have done this many times. So have thousands of others.

Excellent. You have finally made a claim. I guess you fell asleep while drawing the diagrams that will accompany your proof, which I eagerly await.

Edit: Oh, and you have yet to point out the relevancy of all this to distances measured on the Earth, of course. Since you've been rambling about setting circles for quite long now, I'm sure you're more than ready to do that.

Having provided a link to a video as well as a detailed description, a diagram would add no further value than if you asked for a diagram of "how to drive a car" for example. A visual guide and worded description are more useful.
Because you again don't seem to be able to make the mental leap to see how this is relevant to distances measured on the earth, I'm going to give you a clue and say look at the title of the thread. The clue is in the last two words. Don't strain your brain (though I suspect there's no danger of that, what with the "mental thermostat" you appear to have which cuts it off when neural activity gets too intense).

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

« on: December 29, 2010, 07:15:24 AM »

I am sure that you TD are well aware of the issue. Despite the over whelming scientific texts that explain theory and experimentation, we (REer's) cannot expect them to research and test FET.

I would say that most FEer's would not claim to be RE specialists but understand scientific principles. Since this is the FES, I would expect that FE members are FE specialists (as they claim). Therefore if FEer's are genuine in promoting FET (ha ha ha), they need to read scientific texts, constructivly critique and provide reasonable alternitive theory.

Does any out there really expect FES to promote FET?

You're right, Atom. It's not about trying to promote FET, or even about arguing a devil's advocate position for it in a sensible manner. The whole forum is about trying to have the last word in petty semantic arguments. Pizza Planet and Parsifal exemplify that principle in this thread. There have been so many things that have disproved FET now that there's no other argumental tack they can take. Sad.

15

Flat Earth General / Re: Why don't I have cancer?

« on: December 29, 2010, 04:34:42 AM »

Fact: I stand in the sun everyday.
Fact: I do not have skin cancer.

Ergo, the sun is perfectly harmless and the combined effects of sunlight will never harm me. (I would very much like to live in a world like this, it sounds nice)

You might have skin cancer. How do you know you don't? It's only noticeable when it grows to a certain size.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

« on: December 29, 2010, 04:31:14 AM »

Until a proper critique of my disproof is offered, it stands. Parsifal, your "prove setting circles work" demand is no different to saying "prove cars work" or "prove x-ray machines work", or any other man made device. I have explained to you that you can visit an astronomy club and they can show you the operation of such a device, proving it to work to your satisfaction. Since all you'll accept is first hand evidence and not anybody's word for it, refusal to investigate it yourself cannot be used as an argument for bendy light when the opportunities are there for you.

I would accept your word for it, if you would explain your method of verification. Thus far, you have failed to produce a satisfactory one.

I have already explained this, because the term "using setting circles" is a summary of:
I have set up my telescope with proper polar alignment, navigated from one known star to another known star by using right ascension and declination coordinates, and found that what the telescope ends up pointed at agrees in practice with what theory predicts it should. I have done this many times. So have thousands of others.
Method of verification explained. You will now accept my word for it.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: North or South

« on: December 29, 2010, 04:13:54 AM »

Lake Michigan and Huron aren't separate.
The Michigan Lake lobe also doesn't touch Lake Superior.

There's really no point in continuing the thread.

I agree. There's no point continuing it when people like Itchy don't get that a map where each pixel covers a distance of about 50 miles will have representational errors.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bio-luminescent moon and conservation of energy

« on: December 29, 2010, 04:11:52 AM »

The moon's distance changes. Sometimes it's closer and sometimes it's further. That's why it appears bigger at times. However, its average distance is the same as the sun.

Your source of this information, if you please?

Have you never seen the moon larger at times and smaller at times?

I was talking about its average distance being the same as that of the Sun. Address that, please.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

« on: December 29, 2010, 04:09:01 AM »

Another massive FE fail. I ask for scientific critique of my bendy light disproof, and I get a mixture of reality denial, sidetracking about who's insulted who, and not a single comment on my disproof.
Until a proper critique of my disproof is offered, it stands. Parsifal, your "prove setting circles work" demand is no different to saying "prove cars work" or "prove x-ray machines work", or any other man made device. I have explained to you that you can visit an astronomy club and they can show you the operation of such a device, proving it to work to your satisfaction. Since all you'll accept is first hand evidence and not anybody's word for it, refusal to investigate it yourself cannot be used as an argument for bendy light when the opportunities are there for you.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: North or South

« on: December 28, 2010, 10:04:37 PM »

Neither. Water is not checkered.

Yes it is, I looked out my window and verified this.

Brother Disarray, we could be on the verge of uncovering Bendy Water Theory! 

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

« on: December 28, 2010, 09:54:22 PM »

Why are you bothering with the diagram? Bendy light was just disproved. Again. Do try to keep up.

No such thing happened. You made a claim and you supported it with "It works, but you obviously wouldn't understand, since you don't know how it works". Not only is this circular, it also proves nothing. Also, "Do try to keep up." sounds awfully familiar... 

You aren't keeping up. It needs to be said. You don't seem to be able to understand what you're reading here, especially if you think I was supporting anything with the bit about Parsy not understanding (which was merely an aside about a post that indicated lack of understanding on his part - if he understood them he would not have made that argument as he did because he would have known it to be useless), and even more so if you think bendy light hasn't been disproved.
Tell you what, let's be scientific about this. I have presented my case as to why I think bendy light has been disproved. If you think my idea is wrong, please tell me exactly which parts you disagree with. Between what I've posted here and links provided to other threads, my whole disproof is pretty much laid out for you to examine. In true scientific style, I relish errors in my theory being critically examined.
What I do NOT want to hear is:
1."You're wrong" without specific reference to what part of my disproof is in error.
2."You don't understand bendy light" without enlightenment as to exactly what aspect of it I don't understand, and explanation accompanying that aspect to clarify it for me.
3. Any guff about setting circles not being valid. As has been shown, it only takes one comparative pair of star angular distance measurements to give the same reading to squash bendy light, it is not a case of "someday the setting circles might not work." See analogy about horses legs.
4. Nitpicking about grammar or phrasing or any of the usual ad hominems from Pizza Planet.
5. Parsitroll deliberately introducing new concepts without explaining he is doing so in an attempt to obfuscate.
6. Tom Bishop.

22

The Lounge / Re: M-M-M-MONSTER FAIL!

« on: December 28, 2010, 08:01:51 PM »

Despite the fervent desire of you both (and several others) to make this site about pointless personal bickering, do be good enough to take your romance to PM's. I'm tired of my inbox being spammed by reports your personal conflicts. Take a vacation if you need to.

We thought you was shit. We was right. 

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

« on: December 28, 2010, 07:55:21 PM »

Are you saying the land itself will look stretched out from above? 

Distances as seen from the ground itself will appear longer? 

Both?

Neither. Please read the diagram.

Why are you bothering with the diagram? Bendy light was just disproved. Again. Do try to keep up.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: North or South

« on: December 28, 2010, 07:53:53 PM »

Both maps in the OP are correct, depending on the time of year. Please refer to this thread for more detail.

Parsitroll is on top form in that thread. Really, we're talking Levee-class bullshit. Markjo and I are also excelling ourselves. Plus I get acknowledged as guru of the south-centred map.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

« on: December 28, 2010, 07:46:46 PM »

Thankyou for providing a mathematical proof to help back up the accuracy of setting circles in a theoretical context. Of course this was accidental - you don't actually understand how setting circles are used so you didn't realise how silly your example was.

Actually, you just missed the point of the analogy by taking it too literally. The point was that no matter how many times a prediction comes true, you can never be certain that it will always hold true -- in other words, you cannot know that the prediction is valid in general.

However, setting circles don't have to work every time in order to crush bendy light, they only need to work twice in order to put paid to your theory. The hundreds of thousands of times that professional and amateur astronomers in every country on earth have used them with consistent results is merely the heel of the boot grinding bendy light into the dust. In fact, even if they didn't work every time, they could still disprove bendy light. A 50% accuracy rate would be more than enough, because bendy light produces predictable results. If setting circles produced unpredictable results then that would be inconsistent with bendy light. But guess what? They have, so far, produced results entirely in keeping with conventional straight light.
One three legged horse is all it takes to crush the notion that all horses have four legs. One comparable pair of astrometric measurements is all it takes to crush the notion that light bends.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

« on: December 28, 2010, 06:17:18 PM »

By using them, of course. They gave me the result that it was predicted they should give me: therefore, they work.

I predict that a + b = 4. If I set a to 2 and b to 2, it gives me the result I predicted. Therefore, a + b is always equal to 4.

If you equate the setting circle to represent the mathematical function of addition in your example, then yes it will always give the answers predicted, just as adding numbers together will always give the answer that is the sum of those numbers.
However, if you predict a+b = 4 and set a to 1 and b to 7, then your prediction that a + b = 4 is incorrect. In other words, a and b cannot be variable outside their relation to each other, or the addition function will not work.
The equivalent with the setting circle is Star A (setting circle function) Star B = distance C. If A or B changes outside their relation to each other (in other words, change in position of one is not compensated for by change in position of the other, as with adding numbers) then the value of C will be different. Distance C is predicted to be variable under Bendy Light but not under normal light.
Going back to numbers, 1+3 and 2+2 both equal 4. To keep the answer as 4, both the other components of the equation have to change, not just one. If b changes, so must a.
Position of Star A (setting circle) Position of Star B works in exactly the same way.
Thankyou for providing a mathematical proof to help back up the accuracy of setting circles in a theoretical context. Of course this was accidental - you don't actually understand how setting circles are used so you didn't realise how silly your example was.

27

Flat Earth General / Re: who told you the earth was flat

« on: December 28, 2010, 04:09:06 PM »

I discovered it through rigorous scientific investigation.

...says the man who has no explanation for libration of the Moon and claims it looks flat through a telescope, does not emit heat despite being shown thermal images of it and says sailors aren't allowed to sleep on ship decks because of deadly moonlight rather than because of water and hypothermia.
You clearly use different versions of the words "rigorous" and "scientific" to the rest of us.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

« on: December 28, 2010, 04:00:06 PM »

I could easily show you a picture of my telescope.

Excellent. Proceed.

Pray tell, what else have I lied about?

For example, having browsed my post history, or remembering me from before.

Make a list.

Please make a diagram (to scale!) that presents all reasons as to why I would bother.

So you really want me to post a picture of my telescope? How would I prove it was mine and not one I nabbed from Teh Internest?
2. I had a flip through your post history a couple of days ago, not the entire thing of course but your most recent. There was a high proportion of grammatical nitpicking that jumped out at me. As to remembering you from before, the whole reason I commented is that right now, you are one of the most aggressive, nasty posters on the forum. Back then when I was last here, you didn't post in such an aggressive style, at least not aimed at me - if you had done, then I would have not found your current behaviour so striking. You are posting just like Parsec used to, but if anything he's quietened down the aggression since the summer. The change in style is what is noticeable, not your previous bland posts.
3. That response makes no sense. I therefore conclude you have no evidence I have lied about anything. I see no need to persuade you otherwise, just like it's up to the police to prove guilt, it's up to you to prove your accusation of falsehood.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

« on: December 28, 2010, 03:49:33 PM »

By using them, of course. They gave me the result that it was predicted they should give me: therefore, they work.

Oh, so now you own a telescope! Let's see it. Unless, of course, you've been lying yet again; which would be hardly surprising, wouldn't you agree?

I could easily show you a picture of my telescope. However, photographs are not accepted as evidence on this forum. It looks like this, though:


Pray tell, what else have I lied about? Make a list.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Explain why we can see artifical satellites from the ground with the naked eye

« on: December 28, 2010, 03:46:39 PM »

tl;dr*

Wow.

Please keep low content posting out of the upper fora.