1

The Lounge / Re: Post an image of yourself!

« on: July 29, 2007, 10:10:59 PM »

Creeeeepy......

2

The Lounge / Re: Ressurection of Now Gaming Thread

« on: July 29, 2007, 10:03:01 PM »

I thought it was retarded before I tried it out.... and then I did nothing but play it for like two weeks straight. All day, nonstop. It's the closest thing to digital crack I've found on a console so far.

3

The Lounge / Re: Ressurection of Now Gaming Thread

« on: July 29, 2007, 09:47:33 PM »

Eh, it's not for everyone. My brother can't stand it.

But then of course, he can't play it on easy, so I understand.

4

The Lounge / Re: Ressurection of Now Gaming Thread

« on: July 29, 2007, 09:23:03 PM »

For me it's probably Sweet Child of Mine, as far as the sound of the song as a whole goes....

But I /do/ love the rhythm section of Beast and the Harlot.... it tends to break me though.

EDIT: The other parts of the song, not the rhythm section.

5

The Lounge / Re: Ressurection of Now Gaming Thread

« on: July 29, 2007, 09:16:13 PM »

yeah... my PS2 has some issues too, mainly because it was new in 2001. :p

What's your favorite song to play in GH/GH2/GH2E:80E?

*note* just wanted to see what that bastard abbreviation would look like.

6

The Lounge / Re: Ressurection of Now Gaming Thread

« on: July 29, 2007, 09:09:21 PM »

Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80's

Spent 50 bucks on that game, only to find there were just 5 songs I knew...

And only 3 of those I liked.

I am still convinced that the only good things that came out of the 80's are myself, and Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

7

The Lounge / Re: Post an image of yourself!

« on: July 29, 2007, 12:16:15 PM »

Full size version of my avatar.

The hair was a short term thing, wanted to piss my boss off on my last day at work.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 29, 2007, 01:14:46 AM »

Aww...

I did my best, a fun debate for the first decent argument I put up I guess. Thanks for the patience and fun Goodcents, and thanks for the backup and fun Gulliver.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 28, 2007, 09:51:44 PM »

... I'm confused. Did we ever come to a conclusion one way or the other? :p

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 28, 2007, 03:15:09 PM »

The concepts I can work with....

the math makes me dizzy though. :p

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravitation and Acceleration. How to tell the difference.

« on: July 28, 2007, 01:01:59 AM »

Best I can tell... most everything is a joke here, and we're all the punchline.

But god help me... I love this place. I really do.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 27, 2007, 10:44:54 PM »

Let me try again, one point on one post.


Do you, MDCharlatan, understand that 2 different masses will be attracted to a larger mass at the same acceleration in a vacuum?

Yep.

OK, so then that proves that the amount the smaller object moves towards the larger object (by smaller I mean less massive, and larger I mean more massive) is not affected by the mass of the smaller object.  The 'small' ocean (small meaning less massive than the Moon) and the 'smaller' rope (smaller meaning less massive than the ocean) would both move towards the Moon, with different 'forces' but the same acceleration.


EDIT:  This is why I say observing a tilting or not tilting rope does not disprove either model.

I understand that much so far. (I know it sucks to educate me while it's being discussed)

But Gulliver is explaining a methodology by which the tilt, which would exist in both models, could be measured and used to infer which is the case.

(Note - That's me conceding to a crushing intellectual defeat, and passing the burden to a smarter man. :p)

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 27, 2007, 10:36:40 PM »

Let me try again, one point on one post.


Do you, MDCharlatan, understand that 2 different masses will be attracted to a larger mass at the same acceleration in a vacuum?

Yep.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 27, 2007, 10:24:15 PM »

What about the main part of my claim, that you shouldn't expect to observe the rope tilting in the FE?  I still think that stands, even if my explanations why were flawed.

You shouldn't expect the rope to move a measurable distance in the RE model, no... that is due to the properties of gravitation...

but on the FE model, the entire disc is being tilted to one side, and the concept of gravitation is a myth... No matter where the rope is on the FE, it should tilt a measurable degree, even if it's a  small one.

Just flame me if I am repeating something that's been debunked already, :p

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravitation and Acceleration. How to tell the difference.

« on: July 27, 2007, 10:19:07 PM »

I find it incredibly amusing that Narc did little more than completely ignore all the rules of the RE model and simply apply the FE model to a round earth... I'd be amused if it wasn't so ignorant compared to the people who actually consider both models and debate the topic.

I know, probably been said before...

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 27, 2007, 09:59:23 PM »

Perhaps I stated it wrong.  Let me try a different way.

The force required to move the Ocean in the RE should be the same in the FE.

But aren't the forces different by the laws of physics, with different sets of rules? The amount of force could be the exact same and it would /still/ interact differently with earth in an FE model and the earth in an RE model.

That or my understanding of the two sets of principles is flawed.. Which, I admit, is possible. :/

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 27, 2007, 09:24:36 PM »

Well... this thread just went above my head I think.. :/

That's what going to work gets me I guess.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 27, 2007, 03:15:42 PM »

I don't have a high school physics background.. :p

Skipped it, probably shouldn't have.....

(on break... back to work!)

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 27, 2007, 12:24:19 PM »

but the principles in play are different by their very nature when you compare the RE and the FE reasoning behind tides. We can clearly see in the RE model that the rope /doesn't/ move, but it's  due to the properties and rules of gravity.

I need to head to work, but I'll think it over... probably all day. :/

I'll throw something up when I get home.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 27, 2007, 12:16:29 PM »

But in the RE model the gravity of the earth comes into play, providing a barrier that the moon/rope interaction have to overcome for there to be a notable movement.

in the FE model, no such gravity exists, and I still believe that a tilt, even a small one, that could provide for the tides would be measurable through experiment.

I do apologize if you find me frustrating, I know that I am without all the science... but I'm pretty sure my logic is solid. (pretty sure..)

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 27, 2007, 12:06:30 PM »

I've said a few times.. I'm no scientists.. :/

Could you explain it to me in some layman's terms? I'd appreciate the added material as it would help me in the debate.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 27, 2007, 12:00:24 PM »

Now, in the RE model the mass of the Moon, the Earth, and <insert body of water here> are what causes the tides.

This proves that you don't know what I'm saying.  The mass of the body of water PULLS THE MOON, it does not PULL ITSELF.  The mass of the Moon and Earth part is correct.


That is, of course, unless you have a new theory of gravitation that's better than the current one?

Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects attract each other.*

The moon pulls on the body of water, even as the body of water pulls on the moon... I fail to see how that makes my argument faulty.. :/

* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation if you want to contest my source (I know people love to bash wiki here...)

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 27, 2007, 11:47:16 AM »

consider the difference in mass between the rope in the gym and the pacific ocean, or one of the great lakes if you'd like to use a smaller body of water.

The difference between the models is that gravity applies in RE, and is a product of the upward acceleration provided by the UA.. We can agree on this?

Now, in the RE model the mass of the Moon, the Earth, and <insert body of water here> are what causes the tides.

In the FE model it's the tilt of the planet in relation to the direction that the UA is pushing the earth.

Just a short review, partially for my own purposes. :p

NOW... you contest that the gravitational attraction cannot affect the rope in the same way that it does the larger mass of something like a large lake. This is due to the power of the Earth's gravity, the rope cannot be pulled enough for a noticeable difference.

I contest the same, BUT... in the FE model there is a tilt that makes the bodies of water move and cause tides, and larger bodies have more water to move and therefor a greater shift in ocean level at the shores. That is derived with thought to your experiment with the cups. But where there should be no noticeable (or perhaps even measurable) shift in the rope on the RE model, I am saying that there should be some measurable level of difference in the rope on an FE model. That is due to the fact that 'down' is changing over time. The mass of the rope has nothing to do with it in the FE model, where gravity doesn't exist, and it should be something that could be measured in a laboratory (or even a less structured) environment.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 27, 2007, 11:28:51 AM »

The same thing wouldn't be observed in RE, because the mass of a rope or a windchime is simply far too small for it to work with the moon in such a way. Given, if we had a rope with the mass of a lake and it was somehow freehanging... we would probably be able to see the same results that I propose in an FE model. You're comparing a mouse to a mountain, so to speak, and telling me that forces would work on each towards the same results :/

I really don't think you've been reading what I've posted so far.


Acceleration towards a body caused by gravitation does not care about the mass of the body being accelerated.  A feather and a bowling ball in a vacuum fall at the same speed, correct?

Keeping the above in mind, why would the rope not accelerate towards the Moon at the same rate as the water?

Yes... but the earth is /not/ a vacuum. The RE model explains that the earth has it's own gravitational pull, which is what keeps the smaller mass of the rope from shifting with the tides. The mass of the water is great enough to interact with the moon in such a way as to produce tides, but the mass of the rope isn't enough to defy the gravitational force of the earth itself.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 27, 2007, 11:21:39 AM »

The same thing wouldn't be observed in RE, because the mass of a rope or a windchime is simply far too small for it to work with the moon in such a way. Given, if we had a rope with the mass of a lake and it was somehow freehanging... we would probably be able to see the same results that I propose in an FE model. You're comparing a mouse to a mountain, so to speak, and telling me that forces would work on each towards the same results :/

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 27, 2007, 11:13:34 AM »

No, that's exactly why it supports neither model.  The ACCELERATION on the rope is the same as the ACCELERATION on the water.  The force is less, yes, but that is because it takes less force to accelerate a smaller mass the same amount.  Reread it and see if it makes more sense.

Take your two glasses of water from earlier and set them on a platter of some sort, now tape a piece of string to the bottom. Now tilt the entire platter 30 degrees to one side (might want to tape them to the platter too...) and note that the same results you saw earlier. HOWEVER, observe the affect on the string. Do you see what I'm trying to get at?

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 27, 2007, 10:54:41 AM »

You're missing the point again. You are looking at this under the assumption that the force applied by each model to produce tides is equal, and therefor must be in essence the same...

But it's not.

The RE Model states that the gravity of the moon is what is pulling on the large bodies of water, which causes a large tide in oceans and a very reduced tide in smaller bodies of water like a lake. This is due to the principles of gravity, which are based heavily around *mass* as I understand them. (Again, I know... I am no scientist.)

Now... with the FE model, mass should not, in any way, matter. The entire planet tilts to one side and the other, but the direction in which the planet travels and the UA maintaining that movement remain constant. That gives us the tides in your model. HOWEVER, were it to be true, there would be an equal shift in ocean levels AND lake levels. And it would expand to a free hanging body like a rope, which is hanging downward. NOT because of the rope's mass, it's not considered at all in this model because gravity doesn't exist as it does in the RE model. The concept of /down/ changes.

Gravitation does have a lot to do with mass, yes.  However the water's mass affects the Moon, not the water.  More mass in the water pulls the moon towards it (not by much, but it does).  The acceleration of the water still should be the same as the acceleration of the rope, the rope just won't pull the Moon as much as the water will.

... That's exactly why it support the RE model.. but I am trying to get you to apply it to the FE model for me. :/

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 27, 2007, 10:50:07 AM »

Now... with the FE model, mass should not, in any way, matter. The entire planet tilts to one side and the other, but the direction in which the planet travels and the UA maintaining that movement remain constant. That gives us the tides in your model. HOWEVER, were it to be true, there would be an equal shift in ocean levels AND lake levels. And it would expand to a free hanging body like a rope, which is hanging downward. NOT because of the rope's mass, it's not considered at all in this model because gravity doesn't exist as it does in the RE model. The concept of /down/ changes.

I disagree on this point.  Even if mass were not a factor, if this "tilting" was indeed what caused the tides, one would expect more water to be displaced from a body of water as large as an ocean than from one as relatively small as a large lake.  In fact, this particular aspect of the nature of tides seems to support the FE model.

To see this in action, fill an 8 ounce cup halfway with water, and a 32 ounce cup.  Mark the water line.  Tilt each cup exactly 30 degrees. Measure how much higher the water level is as a result of the tilting.  You should see that the "tide" is higher in the 32 ounce cup than in the 8 ounce cup.

Now.... Note that tilt in the experiment. If that tilt is what produces the tides, wouldn't I be able to measure it with a creative experiment? I could, for example, tie a string to a nail in my ceiling, and a pen to the other end of the string. Then all I would need to to do is either A: Take photographs (using a tripod) at hour intervals throughout the day and then compare then, or just use photoshop to make them opaque and overlap. There would be a discrepancy over an interval because of the same force that causes the tides. OR .. B: Place a piece of paper under the same pen, so it just touches the paper without resting on it. After a day of hanging there will be a dot on an RE model, or a small line on a FE model.

There are a few more things I could think up with a pendulum that could also demonstrate that tilt. I think it's a simple experiment that could easily prove the FE model's tilting right, or wrong, if you have an appropriate place to do it that wouldn't allow for outside sources on the string.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.

« on: July 27, 2007, 10:40:19 AM »

Don't take narc seriously.

You know... I've only been here for like 3 days, but I probably should have picked that up before now. :/

He /is/ damned amusing to watch though...

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further clarification with tides

« on: July 27, 2007, 10:30:26 AM »

You're missing the point again. You are looking at this under the assumption that the force applied by each model to produce tides is equal, and therefor must be in essence the same...

But it's not.

The RE Model states that the gravity of the moon is what is pulling on the large bodies of water, which causes a large tide in oceans and a very reduced tide in smaller bodies of water like a lake. This is due to the principles of gravity, which are based heavily around *mass* as I understand them. (Again, I know... I am no scientist.)

Now... with the FE model, mass should not, in any way, matter. The entire planet tilts to one side and the other, but the direction in which the planet travels and the UA maintaining that movement remain constant. That gives us the tides in your model. HOWEVER, were it to be true, there would be an equal shift in ocean levels AND lake levels. And it would expand to a free hanging body like a rope, which is hanging downward. NOT because of the rope's mass, it's not considered at all in this model because gravity doesn't exist as it does in the RE model. The concept of /down/ changes.