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.


Messages - Stray

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Do-it-yourself Experiment
« on: March 17, 2007, 09:36:17 PM »
"There's no such thing as a bad word. It's the bastard calling you the words you should worry about"
Courtecy of George Carlin

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice Wall Question
« on: March 17, 2007, 09:03:36 PM »
I'm red and squishy on the inside. I've checked. No Catholicism present therein.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Do-it-yourself Experiment
« on: March 17, 2007, 08:19:59 PM »
Purpose of experiment:
To determine if the coriolis effect substantiates a FE or a RE.

Theory:
Source 1

Method:
Followed Post1 of this thread

Results:
A wet shirt, table and floor, one banged up toe and a pendulum through my window (in a fit of pain) and one broken glass.

Conclusion:
Though the experiment was primarily qualitative, I learned some new things. It's a bad idea to balance glasses of water on yer head whilst acting like a scarecrow in a blizzard.

Sources:
1- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Suggesting a new theory [ Moved ]
« on: March 17, 2007, 07:55:10 PM »
One question:
Wormholes, theoretical as they are, are said to be microscopic. How does this mesh with the hypothesis?

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The tides
« on: March 17, 2007, 06:59:48 PM »
And I'd rather have acceptance and equality amoung people of all backgrounds. Besides who are you to say its immoral? Its all in the eye of the beholder.

Sorry, Stray, but I have a tendency of feeding the trolls to try and get some insight on how people think. :(
The arguments put forth by Franc shouldn't be taken seriously exactly because they are words of a person who does not think. So trying to figure people's thought processes out won't come to fruition with studying Franc (when he's like this). This isn't what Franc really thinks.

Sorry, Franc. I'll stop spoiling your fun now.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The tides
« on: March 17, 2007, 06:51:47 PM »
Ah FEIPS, don't take it seriously.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The tides
« on: March 17, 2007, 06:39:22 PM »
I, for one, am against the taking of all drugs (but am also against the War on Drugs, because of its enormous costs in freedom, resources and lives).
There we go. Making sense at last. Though we digress.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The tides
« on: March 17, 2007, 06:30:51 PM »
Anyone can see the Earth cannot be finite.
...When trippin' on acid.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The tides
« on: March 17, 2007, 06:19:31 PM »
Don't be ridiculous. An infinite plane cannot collapse, since it has as much gravity towards one side than another- both are infinite. Once again, physics 101...
An infinite plane (of mass) is not a physical concept, and so in that sense you're correct. Something non-existent cannot collapse in objective reality.

The Earth does not exist? Don't be silly.
Only two things are infinite. The Earth isn't one of them.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The tides
« on: March 17, 2007, 05:59:31 PM »
Don't be ridiculous. An infinite plane cannot collapse, since it has as much gravity towards one side than another- both are infinite. Once again, physics 101...
An infinite plane (of mass) is not a physical concept, and so in that sense you're correct. Something non-existent cannot collapse in objective reality.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: the ice wall and acceleration
« on: March 17, 2007, 05:52:36 PM »
So that explains it all.. They say so just to sell that pointless device and make money....
I wonder what it homes in on then, that accurately mimics our idea of how gravity works. Suggestions?

That particular device is actually measuring the median gravitation from the Earth, Sun, Moon, and Stars. This is why the device does not display a constant gravitational reading at different locations and altitudes.
I don't recall claiming otherwise. But thanks for putting things in perspective on the accuracy of the machine.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The tides
« on: March 17, 2007, 05:31:47 PM »
There is no up or down in the universe, Franc. It doesn't matter which direction mass expands from the center, the middle of the earth is the center of gravity. All the mass will be pulled towards the center (since the weight of it is too much to support it). The earth would crumple up to a ball. Or a sphere. A round earth. You see what I mean?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: the ice wall and acceleration
« on: March 17, 2007, 04:35:19 PM »
So they say.
http://www.mssu.edu/seg-vm/pict0665.html

Yes. So they (the scientific community) say. Would be hard to sell the Worden Gravity Meter if there weren't fluctuations.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity...
« on: March 17, 2007, 04:30:53 PM »
Explain a comprehensive model of the working solar system from a FE perspective.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The tides
« on: March 17, 2007, 04:24:23 PM »
Hmm, it would be nice to see some math to back that up.
In The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Barrow and Tipler make a rough calculation for the height a solid quartz mountain could reach under Earth's gravity before its base deformed plasticly: ~30km.

If these so-called calculations are correct, then why hasn't the supposed "Round Earth" imploded by now? Ridiculous. Is this the best Round Earthers can do?
So because you don't know the calculations behind it, it is rediculous... Alrighty then. And like Matrixfart says, the Earth isn't hollow, so before throwing in cool-sounding words like "implosion" maybe you should get familiar with what they actually mean. I wouldn't have responded this bluntly, but your lack of humility about your own ignorance merrits a blunt rebuttal.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Oceanic Trench
« on: March 17, 2007, 03:04:58 PM »
Yes, that's what I had in mind, thank youkasroa.

From how I understand this, for FE to be real, there must be one massive subduction zone around all of the great wall of ice, so that the continents can glide across the earth. Sort of like how the eye slides around between the eyelids. Is that the idea?

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Roald Amundsen
« on: March 17, 2007, 02:46:09 PM »
Roald Amundsen and his men did indeed reach the south pole. They were in a race against the UK's Robert Falcon Scott and his team. Scott's team relied on manpower to pull the sleds, and they died on the way back from the pole. Amundsen relied on dogsled, and they made it back.

For one explorer to get his destination wrong so utterly is very unrealistic. But for TWO teams to do the same exact mistake (Scott even used many different means of transport to get there) is ludicrous. Such blatant lack of an accurate knowledge of history and common sense is just amazing. By the way, this expedeition happened in 1911.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: the ice wall and acceleration
« on: March 17, 2007, 01:35:34 PM »
Except it isn't constant at all, but varies from place to place on earth. The accelleration isn't exactly 9.807m/s^2 everywhere on earth, or even constant independently of distance from earth. The farther away from earth you go, the less accelleration works on other bodies to earth and vice versa. All this is completely inconsistent with a pizza flying through the universe at a constant accelleration.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Oceanic Trench
« on: March 17, 2007, 01:21:58 PM »
Strange how these FE-devastating threads just seem to dwindle away without further addressing by those who support FE.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity...
« on: March 17, 2007, 01:12:18 PM »
Good question. And if the earth is a jet engine, how does our atmosphere stick to the earth instead of floating off at the ridges? Argh, there are too many holes. It's hard to pick one thing to argue about when even what you argue against presupposes a set of premises that are simply speculation. It's sort of like arguing over if ghost giraffes eat green or pink pixies.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The tides
« on: March 17, 2007, 01:00:07 PM »
What is the cause of the tides according to the FE theory?  And, please, explain in detail.

EDIT: Currently reading Rowbotham's views for the tidal cause.

EDIT: Finished reading it, to which Rowbotham is inconclusive in determining the cause.

The gravitation from the moon causes the tides in FE.

Uh oh spaghettios!!!
Uh oh spaghettios, indeed!
Maybe it would be of interest of FE enthusiasts to know that a flat earth would crumple together under its own weight. The theoretical maximum height for mountains on Earth is 90 000 Feet = 27.432 Metres. I say theoretical on account of that no mountain will likely get so tall. The reason for this threshold is that if the mountain gets taller, the rock at the base will heat up so much on account of the pressure that it will melt and then, naturally, the mountain gets shorter. A flat earth as supported in this forum is not compatible with this.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity...
« on: March 17, 2007, 12:43:51 PM »
Uhm.. but if the Earth is accelerating.... then so are we, at the same speed. Or is Earth a huge jet engine?

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: R.I.P. Antartica
« on: March 17, 2007, 12:40:53 PM »
They live in Antarctica, where the ice wall is.
Thought you said Anartica doesn't exist? And about the ice wall, how did they shoot the movie March of the Penguins. You would think they'd see the edge or something.
No no, you see, that charming bit of documentary was filmed at the edge of the semi-continent-wall thingie called Antarctic. It was too far out for people filming it to actually SEE the wall. Ah yes, the "theory" remains intact.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: moon light
« on: March 17, 2007, 12:33:17 PM »
I'd also like to see where the huge crators that riddle the surface of the moon are on Earth, as it is a mirror image. I'd also like to know how universities around the world can continue to measure the distance to the moon with lasers using the several mirrors that were placed on the moon in the Apollo missions. I guess every university is in on this Spherical Earth theory conspiracy too.

This is why we see the same face of the moon all the time:
http://starryskies.com/The_sky/events/lunar-2003/eclipse9.html

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity...
« on: March 17, 2007, 12:18:50 PM »
Anyone claiming to have an open, skeptical mind will look at the evidence and ask him/herself "what does the evidence suggest?". He or she will not ask "how can this fit with my view?".

Furthermore, I'd love to see the calculated proportional effects of wind resistence to air pressure. If Flat Earth propagators believe what Skyburn brings up in his opening post, then I have to roll my eyes (not at you, Skyburn). The single effect of everything falling is caused by airpressure? Why would the air pressure force everything down, as opposed to from every angle as it actually would if gravity was a myth? Why don't we increase in weight as the high pressures settle over our heads, or vice versa for low pressures? Why won't matter float when we put something in a vacuum chamber?

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain the horizon
« on: March 17, 2007, 11:57:18 AM »
Hello, I am a 3rd year physics student, and I'm here to put and end to this discussion...

The reason why earth looks round from up in the sky is as follows. I'm sure you all have seen that when you put a pencil halfway in a glass of water, it appears to be broken. This is because water is denser than air and light rays bend when the density of the medium changes. This is known as the Snell Law.
Have you ever seen on airplanes' info channels the outside temperature? It goes all the way down to a few degrees, because atmosphere gets colder as you ascend. Cold air is denser than hot air - this is actually why hot air balloons fly! So, when you are looking down from a plane to the surface of the earth, you're looking through the atmosphere that gets warmer (and therefore less dense) as you descend. This causes light rays from the earth to bend and makes the surface look curved - just like the pencil in the water getting broken. It's not a sharp break as in the pencil example but a smooth curve, because the temperature and so the density changes gradually, not suddenly.
This notion is very entertaining, but you haven't explained some important things:
-how severe is the refraction of light through air within reasonable temperature perimeters?
-what of high pressure/low pressure currents in the air? If what you say is true, and air refracts light so severely, then we should be able to see high pressure/low pressure currents clearly distort the horizon. Yet we don't.

This was one of the things that fooled our ancestors into believing earth is round.  The so called "fact" really shook the religious world because it was against what was believed so far. Then, when the scientists realized they were wrong, they just decided to play along with the whole scam because if they revealed their mistake, religion would get back its power and they would lose the eternal battle. Please, think about it, it's all out there, it's the biggest scam on earth's history!
Utterly rediculous.
1) Religion already has alot of power.
2) Such a scam can never be maintained. Science is self-correcting.  All scientific knowledge is constantly being tested and retested. If a hypothesis or a theory does not stand up to scrutiny now, or later, it will be discarded for a new one that fits better. The flat geocentric earth is one such hypothesis that was discarded in light of overwhelming evidence.

what makes you think that you're in any way better than a FISH? The similarity is even more obvious with you...
I didnt say it's exactly like them, I said its similar to that... Just google spherical abberation and you'll see.
Dont confront me without knowing any science! Gosh!
If we saw only how our eyes picked up light, everything would be upside-down and in individual "pictures". The brain compensates for the spherical abberation our eyes feed us. The brain is also capable of meshing together the individual signal transmissions from our nerve cells, so that we see everything in movement rather than in single "pictures".

Pages: [1]