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.
The Moon, we see it on a near daily basis. We are all aware of the hazards the Moon Demons pose to life on earth, but how can we avoid them? It's not like we can run away from the moon. I will compose a short list of basic moon safety tips. The Moon Demons will be defeated in no time at all!
Do you have any evidence to support your lack of Moon Worship?
Why do you need 3 monitors? One decently sized one is fine for me most of the time. Two is great and I have all the space I need. For me, the third would never be used and would just be taking up space. Although, I would figure out some way to utilize the space if I did have three.
My point is he could save 20 bucks on the ram, 40 bucks on the noctua, and then take a nice girl out to dinner. But excuse me for trying to save a guy some money.
One need not have official qualifications to be able to perform this level of math (though many here make it seem like it should be lol), but I find it handy to know what an appeal to authority is.
It's not an appeal to authority, it's elitism. We leave dentistry to the dentists, law to the lawyers, and physics to physicists. Laypeople have no place in making such ridiculous claims and acting as though they're capable of doing even rudimentary physics calculations. If this guy were really at all capable of grasping how physics works and wants to make some kind of breakthrough I suggest he fix that theory in crisis we call gravity.
Sorry, the refractive effect only occurs during transitions between substances with different refractive indices, or densities. The amount of atmosphere it must travel through is irrelevant; only the rate of change in atmospheric density applies here, because the amount of refraction depends only on that. If you understand what a gradient is as you mentioned, then you understand that this can be simplified so that you do not even need vector calculus.
The length of atmosphere is relevant. If a photon is displaced by an angle of 0.02 angles at one place, it will continue traveling on that 0.02 displacement for the duration of its journey, becoming more and more displaced from the original path with distance.
There is more atmosphere, yes, but since the rate of change of refractive index is lower, the rate at which the light changes direction will also be proportionally lower.
because the curve is too, erm, curvy for the altitude. dont get me wrong im a strait up round earther with a keen interest in the fes.
Are you suggesting that the planet would be impractically large? The radius of a flat earth disc would be massive compared to the radius of the round earth.
No, I'm suggesting that the curvature seen in that picture is probably a product of the lens, rather than the Earth.
The theory that all visible curvature on high altitude videos is due to lens distortion has been disproved. There's a thread on it. Read it.
right here your making yourself look stupid. the picture in question is blatently not a picture of reality
The moon cannot be seen across the disk to where you can see its side. It is only visible when it is over your present location. This is due to a combination of perspective and refraction. See Earth Not a Globe for additional information.
Every other known object large enough to be a planet is not flat. So how do you figure the earth is so special? God? Sounds like wishful thinking to me. An object the size of earth would not be capable of being a flat object.This is simple not the case. For example, look at many galaxies. Also, the earth is FAR larger than a simple planet. It is an infinite plane that creates a finite gravitational pull. Its not special, it follows the same laws the rest of the universe does.
Stoop living in the middle ages
Iconoclast, you seem to think that I'm trying to use Schuler tuning to prove roundness and roundness to prove Schuler tuning. You are quite incorrect - I'm trying to demonstrate that Schuler tuning is not really relevant to my original premise of how INS disproves FET.
In the grand scheme of things, no, it is not relevant at all. Thork thinks it is though; that is why he keeps asking you about it. I was speaking in the context of this particular debate. We've got a poor soul latched onto a straw man here, and its going to be an uphill battle. lol
Thork, what part of INS do you think TK doesn't understand? (for the record, I am just asking the question, no sarcasm intended..)
He won't answer properly, you know. I too am just as genuinely curious as to where he thinks I've gone wrong.
FET does not violate the speed of light.
Is my post about secret military tech invisible?
In the case of an infinite earth pushing up an infinite layer of atmosphere wouldn't that imply an infinite force behind it all ?
no he is saying how small it would be
As a man of reason, the only logical explanation is that satellites don't orbit they just launch up and come down somewhere. The shuttle just glides and lands never going more than a few hundred miles up.
Zeteticism for you is merely an excuse to ignore all contrary evidence.RE's finally have evidence? Where can i take a look?
How about the link up there ? That is the evidence we are talking about.
U mean da link w little dots or wut?
