1

The Lounge / Re: buying a new mobile phone

« on: February 15, 2013, 09:16:45 AM »

I would have to say go with the Galaxy.  I switched over to an android device a couple of years ago and haven't looked back ever since.  Someone could pay me to use an iPhone, but that's the only way I would do it.

It's a slightly bigger device...ie a bit more cluncky.  The battery life isn't as good as the iPhone.  And the app market is not quit as good, but it's pretty damn close.

Not having to use iTunes should be enough selling point.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Undeniable Proof

« on: February 14, 2013, 12:29:06 PM »

On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.

Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.

The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.

Dear god, can't believe I missed this...

Pretty compelling evidence that Scepti is in fact a troll of epic proportions.  Literally no one on the internet is that stupid.  If someone is that stupid, the probably don't know how to join a forum, or really even feed themselves.

3

Flat Earth General / Re: False Flags

« on: February 14, 2013, 11:58:36 AM »

There are way too many false flaggers posting here. You can tell that a lot of people here intentionally post easily falsifiable and non-sensical claims as easy fodder for the RE-ers. That makes it very difficult to make any progress on finding the truth.

Yes, Tom Bishop's lunatic fringe physics, John Davis's claims that the earth is infinite and Tausami's fictional mystic gloop, sorry, I mean Aether. All good examples of what you're describing.

And lets not forget Sceptic's unending certainty that ALL math and science are made up and have no correlation to the real world.  Oh, or that if you don't understand it then it must be bullshit.

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Coriolis Effect

« on: February 07, 2013, 09:50:45 AM »

Ah thanks Ski.  Might want to think about putting that into the wiki link that Berstram was kind enough to post.  Thanks Berstram.

5

Flat Earth General / Coriolis Effect

« on: February 06, 2013, 05:53:51 PM »

I've searched the forums and the website and found nothing.  Is there something in the library that addresses this?  If so could someone be kind enough to point me towards it?

Thanks.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I'm a pilot and I have some queries.

« on: February 06, 2013, 05:45:50 PM »

I am interested in the theories put forward on this site but I have some questions. If the idea of a spherical world is in fact a NASA conspiracy then how come the Soviets showed the exact same findings during the space race and also confirmed the shape of the earth from first hand accounts and pictures. Does this mean the entire cold war was a hoax played out by NASA?

Another thing I'm having trouble with, I have previously flown around the world. I didn't meet any ice walls and witnessed the curvature of the earth first hand.

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks, Matthew.

How many opportunities have you had to look over the nose of your plane?

I'm an airline pilot myself...a real one, who won't make the claim that I have flows across the world heading...and fail to see the point in this question.

I look down the nose often.  At 37000 feet with the autopilot on, what the hell else am I going to be looking at.  Crap gets boring after a while.

7

Arts & Entertainment / Re: The Big Bang Theory (the show [obviously])

« on: February 06, 2013, 05:31:02 PM »

It's not the greatest comedy in the world but it keeps me entertained whilst cooking dinner.

I also love people saying "it's not funny" to a comedy which clearly makes people laugh. It just isn't your kind of humour.

Contrary to popular belief, some opinions have more weight than others. Some people think the holocaust was a real laugh riot. Some people get a real kick out of animal cruelty. Granted, those types aren't quite as deluded as those who like The Big Bang Theory, but they all have something in common; they all morbidly cling to a belief that is basically entirely indefensible, as far as traditional logic and reason are concerned.

Because of this post I am now on my way to Radioshack.  Why, poser, are you going to Radioshack, you might ask.  Because you have completely broken my hyperbole meter.  I'm kind of mad, actually.  I got this one from my father when I graduated college.

You must be new around here.

I'm almost as new as they come.  Should I hold off an getting a new hyperbometer?

You may want to turn it off for my posts. I discuss very serious topics that require very serious language.

lol I like you.  You got moxie. 

8

Arts & Entertainment / Re: The Big Bang Theory (the show [obviously])

« on: February 06, 2013, 05:25:57 PM »

It's not the greatest comedy in the world but it keeps me entertained whilst cooking dinner.

I also love people saying "it's not funny" to a comedy which clearly makes people laugh. It just isn't your kind of humour.

Contrary to popular belief, some opinions have more weight than others. Some people think the holocaust was a real laugh riot. Some people get a real kick out of animal cruelty. Granted, those types aren't quite as deluded as those who like The Big Bang Theory, but they all have something in common; they all morbidly cling to a belief that is basically entirely indefensible, as far as traditional logic and reason are concerned.

Because of this post I am now on my way to Radioshack.  Why, poser, are you going to Radioshack, you might ask.  Because you have completely broken my hyperbole meter.  I'm kind of mad, actually.  I got this one from my father when I graduated college.

You must be new around here.

I'm almost as new as they come.  Should I hold off an getting a new hyperbometer?

9

Flat Earth General / Re: Moon Hoax, Not

« on: February 06, 2013, 05:23:44 PM »

Poe's law applies to this thread so very much, it's actually kind of scary.

My, friend, this WHOLE website, is a prime example of Poe's Law.

Agreed.

I know this is kind of OT, but here goes anyway.

I joined here mainly because I just wasn't sure about this place.  At first I was like, damn these guys are dolts.  Then I started thinking about it and maybe I am the dolt.  Now I can almost wrap my head around this flat earth idea...as a thought experiment.  Maybe this is place asking the more esoteric question of "how do we know what we know."  Oh well, i guess time will tell for sure...who knows maybe these guys really do think the earth is flat.

10

Arts & Entertainment / Re: The Big Bang Theory (the show [obviously])

« on: February 06, 2013, 04:54:19 PM »

It's not the greatest comedy in the world but it keeps me entertained whilst cooking dinner.

I also love people saying "it's not funny" to a comedy which clearly makes people laugh. It just isn't your kind of humour.

Contrary to popular belief, some opinions have more weight than others. Some people think the holocaust was a real laugh riot. Some people get a real kick out of animal cruelty. Granted, those types aren't quite as deluded as those who like The Big Bang Theory, but they all have something in common; they all morbidly cling to a belief that is basically entirely indefensible, as far as traditional logic and reason are concerned.

Because of this post I am now on my way to Radioshack.  Why, poser, are you going to Radioshack, you might ask.  Because you have completely broken my hyperbole meter.  I'm kind of mad, actually.  I got this one from my father when I graduated college.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Moon Hoax, Not

« on: February 06, 2013, 04:50:43 PM »

Poe's law applies to this thread so very much, it's actually kind of scary.

My, friend, this WHOLE website, is a prime example of Poe's Law.

12

Flat Earth General / Re: How "satellites" works.

« on: February 06, 2013, 04:44:47 PM »

I repeat, scientists don't seek to PROVE a theory, they seek to DISPROVE a theory.

And that is exactly why you can't FORCE scientific principles into a mold in order to prove your hypothesis.  It either works or it doesn't.  Sceptimatic, you lack ANY understanding of the scientific method.  Instead of a testable, verifiable Scientific Method, you rely on the Sceptimatic Method which can be summed up like this...I think it is, therefore it is.  For you the mere IDEA of possible implies proof that it not only is possible, but IS.

The scientific method asks a question.  Makes an assumption and seeks to disprove that assumption.  If the physical properties of life, the universe, and everything don't allow for the assumption then the assumption is wrong.  Further more was it is decided that your assumption can not be disproved you allow your work to be reviewed by others and they can carry out their own experiments to disprove your assumptions.

Another problem you have that prevents you from being in involved in ANY serious discussion is your blatant refusal to accept proof simply because you don't understand it.  OR you simply claim that the proof is a lie.  That's personal incredulity.

I don't expect the idea of logical fallacies to mean anything to you for a couple of reasons.  1.  Your blatant disregard of them implies that you don't really acknowledge the idea of a fallacy in the first place (see above.  If I think it's possible, it must be).  You commit these logical fallacies in almost every post you make.

And 2, I have expect you to turn the idea of a fallacies around and imply it's just a construct used to limit those with an "open mind."

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Sir, I can no more discard reality than I could discard the notion that the sky is blue.

Which is an excellent subject matter.
The sky is blue and we cannot see stars and anything other than the moon and the Sun and maybe one or two other planets that come into view in certain circumstances.
Now, most times we don't see the moon, yet we always see the Sun when the sky is blue, because it agitates the matter in the atmosphere.

Going by that thought, why in the hell can people see anything on Earth from a supposed station in the blackness of space.
They look through a window and bang, there's an atmosphere blocking their way, just as it does ours from seeing much of space.
We cannot see the blackness of space, even though it should stand out from blue, so why do we see the blue oceans on Earth through a blue atmosphere.

Pathetic.

I am hesitant to continue this discussion with you, because I honestly can't tell if you are serious or a troll.

My optimistic faith in humanity pleads that the latter is the case, but my more emotional side and your post history point to the former.

Now, with that said to respond to your assertions, I'll simply present a couple of questions that may help you.

Why can you see more stars in the countryside than you can in the city?

Why can you, while standing outside out night discern detail in a well lit room while looking through a window while not being able to make out detail OUTSIDE while looking out into the night from inside a well lit room?

Why do the stars progressively become visible as day transitions to night? Further, why does it even get progressively darker when day turns to night?

Pathetic.

13

Flat Earth General / Re: How "satellites" works.

« on: February 06, 2013, 03:51:48 PM »

I repeat, scientists don't seek to PROVE a theory, they seek to DISPROVE a theory.

And that is exactly why you can't FORCE scientific principles into a mold in order to prove your hypothesis.  It either works or it doesn't.  Sceptimatic, you lack ANY understanding of the scientific method.  Instead of a testable, verifiable Scientific Method, you rely on the Sceptimatic Method which can be summed up like this...I think it is, therefore it is.  For you the mere IDEA of possible implies proof that it not only is possible, but IS.

The scientific method asks a question.  Makes an assumption and seeks to disprove that assumption.  If the physical properties of life, the universe, and everything don't allow for the assumption then the assumption is wrong.  Further more was it is decided that your assumption can not be disproved you allow your work to be reviewed by others and they can carry out their own experiments to disprove your assumptions.

Another problem you have that prevents you from being in involved in ANY serious discussion is your blatant refusal to accept proof simply because you don't understand it.  OR you simply claim that the proof is a lie.  That's personal incredulity.

I don't expect the idea of logical fallacies to mean anything to you for a couple of reasons.  1.  Your blatant disregard of them implies that you don't really acknowledge the idea of a fallacy in the first place (see above.  If I think it's possible, it must be).  You commit these logical fallacies in almost every post you make.

And 2, I have expect you to turn the idea of a fallacies around and imply it's just a construct used to limit those with an "open mind."

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Sir, I can no more discard reality than I could discard the notion that the sky is blue.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: How "satellites" works.

« on: February 06, 2013, 02:09:11 PM »

I repeat, scientists don't seek to PROVE a theory, they seek to DISPROVE a theory.

And that is exactly why you can't FORCE scientific principles into a mold in order to prove your hypothesis.  It either works or it doesn't.  Sceptimatic, you lack ANY understanding of the scientific method.  Instead of a testable, verifiable Scientific Method, you rely on the Sceptimatic Method which can be summed up like this...I think it is, therefore it is.  For you the mere IDEA of possible implies proof that it not only is possible, but IS.

The scientific method asks a question.  Makes an assumption and seeks to disprove that assumption.  If the physical properties of life, the universe, and everything don't allow for the assumption then the assumption is wrong.  Further more was it is decided that your assumption can not be disproved you allow your work to be reviewed by others and they can carry out their own experiments to disprove your assumptions.

Another problem you have that prevents you from being in involved in ANY serious discussion is your blatant refusal to accept proof simply because you don't understand it.  OR you simply claim that the proof is a lie.  That's personal incredulity.

I don't expect the idea of logical fallacies to mean anything to you for a couple of reasons.  1.  Your blatant disregard of them implies that you don't really acknowledge the idea of a fallacy in the first place (see above.  If I think it's possible, it must be).  You commit these logical fallacies in almost every post you make.

And 2, I have expect you to turn the idea of a fallacies around and imply it's just a construct used to limit those with an "open mind."

15

Arts & Entertainment / Re: The Big Bang Theory (the show [obviously])

« on: February 05, 2013, 08:31:06 PM »

What you don't understand is that the type of stand-up he's satirizing is in the same comedic style as shows like TBBT. They're like jokes from an assembly line.

Comedy doesn't have to be high brow, or subtle, or intelligent, or anything else really.    Sometimes banal, low brow comedy can be just as funny.  Humor is fairly subjective.  You may not think it's funny, but that doesn't mean other don't as well...or that those that do somehow lack culture, or smarts.

No kidding. Space Ghost knows all about banality.

lol, Then space ghost should be laughing his ass off at BBT, my friend.  Or not.  The beauty of comedy is how totally subjective it is.

16

Arts & Entertainment / Re: The Big Bang Theory (the show [obviously])

« on: February 05, 2013, 07:08:28 PM »

What you don't understand is that the type of stand-up he's satirizing is in the same comedic style as shows like TBBT. They're like jokes from an assembly line.

Comedy doesn't have to be high brow, or subtle, or intelligent, or anything else really.    Sometimes banal, low brow comedy can be just as funny.  Humor is fairly subjective.  You may not think it's funny, but that doesn't mean other don't as well...or that those that do somehow lack culture, or smarts.

17

Arts & Entertainment / Re: The Big Bang Theory (the show [obviously])

« on: February 05, 2013, 05:47:31 PM »

Basically, it's a show that feeds your brain the main stream science whilst making it funny at the same time.
By making all the 99& of the characters appear smart, then anything they feed into your mind, you will accept, whilst simply enjoying the canned laughter coupled with a silly line that wouldn't be remotely funny.

Kids love it, because kids like to learn whilst having fun and this caters for both. Unfortunately is it brainwashing or learning?
That's up to others to decide. You all know my stance.

It's really not though.  Science plays a part in the show so much as it needs to set the cast up as being socially awkward.  They are supposedly great in their fields, and so totally absorbed in their "science" that they don't know how to interact with people outside of their social group.  That's all the science does.  Nothing more.

Big Bang Theory teaches you as much science as Scrubs teaches you medicine.

18

Flat Earth General / Re: Is it photoshopped?

« on: February 05, 2013, 05:25:18 PM »

Um, error level analysis tells me it's a good, non shopped image.  I'm an amateur, though, so I could very well be wrong.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: How "satellites" works.

« on: February 05, 2013, 05:03:18 PM »

I don't get it, man.  Can you spell it out for me?  I can be kind of slow with science.    Is this explaining how satellites work, or why they wouldn't?  What's up?

20

Flat Earth General / Re: ok all you smart flat earthers.. answer me this

« on: March 31, 2010, 02:19:43 PM »

I don't know what else to tell you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/hurricane_cycle.shtml

As the warm sea heats the air above it, a current of very warm moist air rises up quickly, creating a centre of low pressure at the surface.

Read the other link. The BBC one is simplified to make it accessible to the masses. High temperatures don't instantly create low pressure zones.

Can't you just take a hint? Do your own research. I don't have the patience to explain why you're a retard right now.

Sorry guys but he is right.  I've seen barometers read 29.92" of mercury on days when the tem is 15C and I've seen it read 29.92" when the temp is 35C.

21

The Lounge / Numbers

« on: March 31, 2010, 02:14:48 PM »

Fractions and decimals are used in counting too.

Do enlighten us.

$3.50

Please try to give me this amount using dollar bills only!

LOL do you not believe in coins either?

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Circumnavigation?

« on: March 31, 2010, 12:46:51 PM »

Small point about circumnavigation and about methods of direction finding.  The compass is not the only tool used to maintain a heading or course.  There have been widely used OTHER methods where magnetic information is not needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system

True. Also VOR, DME and NDB for aircraft which use nothing but radio signals.

true...though DME does not provide course information

It can if you use two.  VERY VERY loosely.  you are thinking of some sort of triangulation which is going to require a known bearing.  All DME gives you is a distance from a station.  I could be 10 DME north or south or even above for that matter.

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is mars flat, too?

« on: March 31, 2010, 12:44:31 PM »

Negative ghostrider...All that test proves is that if you move off the chair you move towards the earth/the earth moves to you.
Your proof that the earth rushes up to meet you just as easily proofs that we fall back towards the earth.

You clearly failed at performing the experiment. The results do not show the earth is moving towards you, and that you're moving towards the earth.

Um wait.  Are you saying I failed at falling off a chair?  Even if somehow I managed to do it wrong (wtf?) i still don't see how the results would be anything other than me impacting the ground.  Thus the results of the test are going to be exactly the same as if I do it right or wrong.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Circumnavigation?

« on: March 31, 2010, 12:35:08 PM »

Small point about circumnavigation and about methods of direction finding.  The compass is not the only tool used to maintain a heading or course.  There have been widely used OTHER methods where magnetic information is not needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system

True. Also VOR, DME and NDB for aircraft which use nothing but radio signals.

true...though DME does not provide course information

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is mars flat, too?

« on: March 31, 2010, 12:34:14 PM »

I could just as easily ask you to show me proof of the universal acceleration nonsense.  Could you?

Here's a fool proof testing method.
1. Get a chair.
2. Stand on chair.
3. Jump off chair.
4. Observe the Earth accelerate towards you.

Not proof.  That shows results, with no explanation of why the results happen.  With your proof I could as easily make the claim that if proves that the air is so heavy it pushes us back to the earth. 

That test proves that the Earth accelerated towards you. Logically something must be causing that, and we call it "Dark Energy".

Negative ghostrider...All that test proves is that if you move off the chair you move towards the earth/the earth moves to you.  The test does Nothing to prove dark energy.  You INTERPRET the facts to be that dark energy exists.

Your proof that the earth rushes up to meet you just as easily proofs that we fall back towards the earth.

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is mars flat, too?

« on: March 31, 2010, 12:24:49 PM »

I could just as easily ask you to show me proof of the universal acceleration nonsense.  Could you?

Here's a fool proof testing method.
1. Get a chair.
2. Stand on chair.
3. Jump off chair.
4. Observe the Earth accelerate towards you.

Not proof.  That shows results, with no explanation of why the results happen.  With your proof I could as easily make the claim that if proves that the air is so heavy it pushes us back to the earth. 

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Circumnavigation?

« on: March 31, 2010, 12:21:43 PM »

Small point about circumnavigation and about methods of direction finding.  The compass is not the only tool used to maintain a heading or course.  There have been widely used OTHER methods where magnetic information is not needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is mars flat, too?

« on: March 31, 2010, 12:14:03 PM »

matter causes gravity.

First of all, I believe you mean "gravitation". And second, that's a pretty rash statement to be making. Do you have any evidence to support that outlandish claim.

There's no need to use the word "outlandish" every time someone claims something that is not in line with FET. You yourself just stated that Mars has gravitation. Saying that earth has it as well is not nearly outlandish enough to justify using those words to mock his claim.

That's like saying that since fish can breath underwater, so can humans. So either go into the deep end of the pool with several cinder blocks around your waist, or provide evidence for your claim that matter causes gravity (gravitation).

I could just as easily ask you to show me proof of the universal acceleration nonsense.  Could you?

29

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Christian anything.

« on: March 30, 2010, 10:29:23 PM »

What is your favorite vegetable?

Did Jesus own a yo-yo?

30

Flat Earth General / Re: ok all you smart flat earthers.. answer me this

« on: March 30, 2010, 10:28:09 PM »

Why does it only happen on the sea and not land?

It does.  Watch airplanes leaving a contrail.  As the airplane gets farther away from your position on the surface it appears to move closer to the horizon.  Granted some of this is due to perspective, though  ome simple trigonometry should be able to show you how far away the plane has to be in order for it to appear lower.  If you are in an airplane yourself the effect is even more noticeable.  

It isn't that simple to do trigonometry on an aircraft flying through the sky at over 30,000 feet and 600 kilometres per hour.

I was speaking more on a theoretical level.  Some things can be shown to happen with nothing more than a pen and paper.  Of course from me limited readings here thus far, the "Peekaboo Argument" is very much alive and well.  The argument being that if you can't see it, then it doesn't happen.

By the way, hello all.  Look forward to some interesting and maybe frustrating conversations in the future.