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 - Oog the Caveman

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun/(Moon) Significantly Above the Horizon
« on: July 01, 2008, 09:17:19 PM »
Still wondering what the FE'rs thoughts on these concepts are. Any explanations yet?

-Oog, 1 year & 3 months later


2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tides
« on: April 25, 2007, 06:38:20 PM »
So now it uses energy?  Man, you RE'ers need to get your theories straight.  This contradicting stuff really doesn't help out your theory.

Gravitational waves are believed to be the result of coherent states of many gravitons, similar to your aforementioned electromagnetic wave/virtual photon explanation for magnetism (also coherent states).

How does an iron filing know to be attracted to a magnet?
By the exchange of virtual photons.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tides
« on: April 25, 2007, 06:29:53 PM »
So I ask again:  How does space know how and by how much, to distort in relation to it's position from an object with mass?

By the exchange of massless gravitons.

4
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: The Gaia Theory
« on: April 25, 2007, 08:21:10 AM »
Margulis also made a disappointingly infantile point dismissing Richard Dawkins' 'selfish gene' hypothesis. "Genes don't have selves, so how can they be selfish?" A grown woman shouldn't be making such moronic statements, much less a respected scientist.

Even though she was making a dumb rhetorical question, it is true that the phrase "selfish gene" doesn't accurately describe genetic behavior. There isn't really a good single word to describe the behavior, so Dawkins chose "selfish" as the closest match. In reality, the gene is selfish in the sense that it possess a quality/qualities that give it an advantage in the Darwinian selection process - thus propagating or promoting itself.

I think you could call it "the self-promoting gene" and still be about on the mark with Dawkins' theory.

5
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Experiments in Dexterity
« on: April 24, 2007, 01:07:56 PM »
I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject of ambidexterity, but from what little I understand, Left/Right preference is developed (not learned) at a very early age. What causes the preference is mostly a mystery. Recent assertions have been that the phenomenon of Left/Right handedness is not as simple as "having a preference" for one hand over another, but rather that one hand "leads" activities and the other "follows". Acting as a complementary pair, one hand supports the other.

As for the idea of training oneself to use one hand over the other, I am 99% sure this is possible for most people with some commitment. I'm a lefty, although there are a handful of things I feel more natural doing with my right hand (playing guitar, eating with utensils, controlling the mouse). However, when I was a kid, I noticed that when I played baseball my natural tendency was to throw and catch with my left hand. It was very strange trying to catch with my right hand, but I had to teach myself to do so anyway. After a period of about a month of practice catching right-handed (probably practicing once every two-three days for a couple hours), It felt natural. Learning to drive a stick shift was the same sort of experience... I really wanted to reach over myself and shift with my left hand, but I forced myself to shift right-handed as well. In this case, it also felt totally natural after about a month. So in my experience, it is possible to override the natural tendency of handedness.

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Where did my thread go?
« on: April 23, 2007, 06:43:32 PM »
With the shuttles and such, obviously NASA has some sort of rocket technology. Since NASA holds a monopoly on rocket patents they're able to send up whatever they want while preventing anyone from following in their tracks.

Sending up satellites (stratellites) for corporations would and is extremely profitable. Simply more they could add to the trillions of dollars they've leeched from the public. 

Rockets are profitable for publicly traded companies as well.

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Who are the FE'ers here?
« on: April 19, 2007, 09:56:15 AM »
I've seen some of you argue both sides. or at least argue points that make it hard to tell if you believe something, or are just arguing a possible point of it. It's kinda confusing.

Which of you actually believe the earth is flat?

The answer is: Most people are here just for the fun of arguing and throwing around theories. So grab a beer, sit down, relax, , and pick a side. The gettin's are good either way you wanna go, so hop to it!

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Powerlines in orbit
« on: April 18, 2007, 06:56:56 PM »
Heh Oog stopped talking about lenses he doesn't know about?  I was just starting to have fun pwning him too :(

Sorry friend, I just got back from work. I can't spend all day trolling this forum now can I?  :D

Anyway, before you have an aneurysm, calm down. Yes, I see your point about taking a specific portion of the flat earth's surface and using a fisheye lens to distort it into a spherical image. The problem is that the distortion generated through a fisheye lens is not enough to make up for the discrepancy in continent placement on a flat Earth. The flat Earth and the round Earth have very different landmass placements that would appear even when compared through a fisheye lens. Advanced software that can remove most of the fisheye effect from a fisheye lens could demonstrate this, although I have no access to such equipment/software.




9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Powerlines in orbit
« on: April 18, 2007, 11:11:10 AM »
Notice how not all of the Earth is visible Oog....now go slap yourself for posting after getting pwnd.

Honestly.... I have no idea what you are talking about. Here, I'll throw out some pictures to help clarify my point, since it seems too hard for you to understand without them.

You are in space, looking down upon a flat Earth as show by the FE maps (sorry, couldn't find the original map):


If you run this map through a fisheye filter:


There is minimal distortion, and all continents are visible if the whole of the earth is visible.

Now take a *rectangular* projection of the Earth as such:


And crop it into a square, and run it through a fisheye filter:


Wow, amazing how similar that is to the OP's picture of Earth. So what you are arguing is that the Earth is not in fact circular, as is claimed by the FE maps, but rather, it is a rectangle. I hope that makes more "cents" to you, CommonCents.




10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Powerlines in orbit
« on: April 18, 2007, 10:41:04 AM »
Why does something have to be square to be properly projected onto a hemisphere? 

You didn't say it was a flat map projected onto a hemisphere. You said it was a picture of Earth taken from space using a fisheye lens. If you took a picture of a flat, circular Earth from space with a fisheye lens, the distortion effect would be minimal, and all the continents would be visible. Only a square earth would properly distort into the picture you presented.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Powerlines in orbit
« on: April 18, 2007, 10:30:46 AM »
Um... you are proving yourself wrong by trying to argue this point. A fisheye lens works by taking a square image and distorting its edges into a spherical shape. Are you saying that the earth is shaped like a square instead of a circle? Because that's what would be necessary to generate your "fisheye image of Earth" from space.

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spotlight
« on: April 17, 2007, 04:59:05 PM »
I was only trying to demonstrate how a light source's magnitude diminishes with its angle relative to a surface. My analogy isn't accurate for the RE model at all, because the earth would need to be represented by an object like say, a golf ball, and the sun would need to be represented by something extremely large, such as... the Earth.

Since the Earth is a sphere in the RE model, what matters is the angle at which sunlight strikes our atmosphere. At sunrise or sunset, your position on the earth is approaching a 70-80 degree angle relative to the sun's light. At noon the sun's light is striking our atmosphere at a much lower inclination, I would estimate between 0-10 degrees depending on your position on the earth's surface. It is this relative angle that invokes the rule I mentioned earlier, that any light source's magnitude appears diminished when it strikes your position of observation at an angle.


13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spotlight
« on: April 17, 2007, 04:31:27 PM »
Then why does the sunset appear less intense at setting than at zenith?

The sun appears less intense at setting or rising because of its angle relative to the Earth. When the sun appears directly overhead at noon, its light is shining directly onto the earth. At sunset, the sun is casting its light at an angle onto the Earth's surface. A light that shines indirectly onto any surface will appear to have diminished magnitude to the observer.

A practical example of this is hold a lit lightbulb above a flat surface like a desk. Observe that the brightest position on the desk is directly underneath the lightbulb, and as you move away from that position, the light's magnitude decreases.

How can you explain this picture if the source of all our light is always coming from directly above? The source of illumination is clearly coming from the opposite side of the hill and it also lights up the bottoms of the clouds in the sky. This is not possible in the FE model, as the tops of the clouds would be brighter than the bottoms due to the light shining down on them.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun/(Moon) Significantly Above the Horizon
« on: April 16, 2007, 05:37:37 PM »
C'mon FE'rs! Don't give up, I'm sure you can come up with some fascinating explanations for the problems pointed out in this thread. We believe in you!

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please Respond Tom Bishop
« on: April 10, 2007, 12:38:21 AM »
That thread will never receive a response, because the information is factually sound. One cannot troll that which is well thought-out and throughly explained.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Distance to the Moon
« on: April 10, 2007, 12:30:23 AM »
How dare you bring mathematics onto this board. Rational thought, you blasphemer!

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A question to FE supporters
« on: April 05, 2007, 07:38:04 PM »
I'm wasting my time here because I find the reasons behind *why* you debate a flat Earth more interesting than actually debating whether the Earth is flat or not. That was, in essence, my whole reason for starting this thread.

The reason I'm sticking around is partially because I'm curious whether anyone here truly believes in a FE, partially because I'm trying to ascertain the motives behind people arguing for a FE when they clearly don't believe it, and partially because I've already learned a few new interesting things that I didn't know before.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A question to FE supporters
« on: April 05, 2007, 07:09:04 PM »
I agree 100% that arguing ad hominem is far, far easier than presenting a well-thought out argument. Yes, most people just run in face-first and throw their opinion at an idea like FE, with little to no thought/knowledge of what makes the Earth round. And it is amusing watching people flounder as they try to convince you of something they have no real knowledge of.

But the pretense of believing in a flat Earth is just that; a pretense. It might be a good way to try to start intellectual discussion, or it might just be a fun possibility to consider. The topic certainly has potential to produce serious thought. But there is only one reason to actually argue in favor of a vastly disproven idea!

And I've yet to be convinced anyone here actually believes FE through observation of empirical evidence :D

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A question to FE supporters
« on: April 05, 2007, 06:26:57 PM »
The unbelievers understandably don't get it.

What do you, as an unbeliever, base your fervent insistence that I am wrong on?  Let me recount some of the evidence for you:

1 You saw photos of a round earth from space;
2 You watched moon walks on TV;
3 Tom Brokaw told you the earth was round;
4 Your 4th grade science teacher told you the earth was round;

I could keep going but there's really no point because I'm right aren't I?

You rely on the same evidence to conclude that automobiles are frying the earth even if only at a rate less than 8% of the damage caused by volcanos and that man and ape share a common ancestor despite the ongoing search for the so-called "missing link."  You, who look to the skies for UFOs and proof of life on other planets you don't know exist, seem to be logging in to this site angrily accusing FEers of being ignorant, based on your education which you received from television, magazines, and low paid public officials.  What's absurd is the absolute fervor that so many of you REers defend your theories with.  What you are missing is that we FEers are the one's lauging at you.

You are proof that if I can generate enough government and media support that states the moon is made of green cheese, you can be made to believe it.  One day, I tell you Pluto is a planet, and you accept not only that it is, but that it even exists.  The next day, I tell you its a rock, and without batting an idea, you accept it. 

Here is the real poll you REers should be taking . . .

1. How many REers have ever seen the earth from space with your own eyes?

2. How many REers have actually circumnavigated the globe under your own control?

To anyone reading this who responds by saying, "I have," I say to you, well done.  If you have done one of these things and believe the earth is round, then you are enlightened. 

However, if you have not, and you are not sufficiently well trained in science and mathematics to question and prove the experiments used to supposedly prove the earth is round, then you are a lemming; a patsy who will believe what you are told without proof and without first hand knowledge.

If I drop a ball, it falls to the flat earth.  It doesn't roll in one direction or another.  Everything about this experiment suggests to me that the earth is flat.  If you are incapable of disproving this experiment SCIENTIFICALLY and CONCLUSIVELY yet you attack FEers on this site and call them names, they you need only to check your mirror to learn who the real hypocrites and who the real patsies are.

Scientists are supposed to be skeptics.  No truth exists in the absence of proof.  Otherwise, what you have is faith.  There is plenty of room in the world for faith.  Faith is important, and meaningful.  I have faith in God.  But if you want to talk science, then show me proof.  If I am incapable of understanding what you show me and yet accept it as proof, then I am a fool who confuses faith for fact.  Thus, to a true scientist, nothing can be absolute until he has beheld it with his own eyes. 

You REers like to viciously attack people you disagree with, having little more than an empty head and bitter words to back up your arguments.  The difference between me and you, is that I'm smart enough to know you are laughing at me and why.

Well, you're the first person to sound halfway serious about belief in FE in this thread. The dropping the ball example you make, however, makes me wonder how serious you are. If I drop a ball on a slope, and it rolls, does that prove the Earth is round? No. Nor does dropping a fall on a flat surface prove that the Earth is flat. If you really are being serious, how about responding to a serious debate topic. No-one else will, because most of the trolling potential has been juiced out of the thread.

And regarding the attacks people make on the belief of a FE: most of the people debating in support of a FE wouldn't be here if it weren't for some of the equally silly or baseless arguments RE supporters make. Admittedly, Most of the "RE supporters" here aren't walking in with scientific knowledge & examples, they are walking in with common knowledge and an attitude of "How the hell could you believe something like this". Their responses are predictable; rather than make the effort to arrange the evidence and provide a logical argument, simply insult or deride the alternate belief. It's easier.

What those "angry RE'rs" don't understand is that plenty of "FE believers" here are fishing just for that kind of response. These FE'rs get a rise out of the inevitably dumb or downright silly arguments the aforementioned RE'rs make, because the RE'rs are flustered/frustrated by the circular logic used. And most don't have the knowledge to point out factual errors. So the very act of trying to differentiate between a serious FE supporter and a trolling one becomes difficult.

But as I mentioned before, feel free to speak up in a serious argument if you truly believe in FE.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What proof exactly?
« on: April 05, 2007, 06:43:21 AM »
I keep hearing RE'ers say there are mountains of proof that the earth is round... So, what proof exactly? And dont post some secondhand photoshop picture. I mean actual proof.

Mountains are explained in modern science as a phenomenon of plate tectonics. Mountains are created as a result of the expansion of the Earth's crust. New crust is continuously being created as the Earth's plates are created by magma pushed out of geothermal trenches far underneath the ocean surface.

Mountains are actually created as a result of one plate slipping beneath another as it forces its way back into the mantle. At these plate boundaries, buckling occurs on the overlapping plate, and it is actually pushed upwards by the immense amount of force exerted by the two plates.

This could not occur in the FE model, because if the earth was flat, plate expansion would cause the Earth's plates to expand outwards from the "center", which in this case is the north pole. In a spherical (read: RE) model, all of the Earth's plates are constantly exhibiting forces on one another, causing many geological events such as earthquakes, creation of new volcanoes, and creation of mountain chains.

Tension will relieve itself in the easiest way possible, and this would hold true in the Earth's plates. In the FE model, mountains would either fail to exist entirely or be very very small as a result of the almost no tension between the plates; they could expand outwards with little to no resistance. In fact, unless FE theory posits an alternative to plate tectonics, the Earth's surface would be expanding outwards and would never stop. There would be no subduction of one plate under another, so the earth would expand infinitely. This would cause a serious problem for FE theory, because the Earth's circumference would continually expand and the Ice Wall would need to expand with it - I don't see any explanation of this in the FE texts.

Links:
Tectonic plates
Subduction
Orogeny

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun/(Moon) Significantly Above the Horizon
« on: April 03, 2007, 11:58:49 PM »
Something else to consider: at sunrise, clouds are clearly illuminated from the east, before the surface of the earth receives direct sunlight. This is because the sun is shining over the horizon at an indirect angle, as such:


A spotlight that was shining "down" onto the Earth, such as the one in the FE model, would actually cause the land to be illuminated before the clouds overhead, because spotlights create a cone of light that expands as it shines downwards. This is easily observed by standing near a spotlight in the street that is pointing straight down. The light would project a cone, like so:


Raise your hand directly above your head and it will be out of direct light, while your feet will be illuminated. This phenomenon does not occur on Earth. That is - a cloud is never outside of direct sunlight while the ground below is in direct sunlight.

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A question to FE supporters
« on: April 03, 2007, 08:06:31 PM »
Perhaps he believes in flat pancakes, not a flat Earth. Easy mistake to make.

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A question to FE supporters
« on: April 03, 2007, 01:07:02 PM »
Well, for someone who knows what to look for, it's easy to tell most of the "supporters" aren't actually supporting at all. If "FE supporters" really believed what they claim to believe, they wouldn't intentionally make logical errors in their reasoning. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole site was satirical - I find the "discussions" plenty amusing in their own right.

The only thing that's bothersome about the idea of FE is that someone might actually convince themselves to believe it. Wowzas.

24
Flat Earth Q&A / A question to FE supporters
« on: April 03, 2007, 12:01:23 PM »
After thumbing through countless topics and reading numerous ones in depth, I've come to have only one question for the posters on this site:

How many of you "Fe'ers" here actually believe what you are debating?

I've frequented a countless number of message boards in my life, and the patterns of *most* of the big posters here (those with 1000+ posts) who claim to support Flat Earth are typical of people who pursue the topic for entertainment.

What I mean by this is that the aforementioned posters intentionally exercise rigorous & masterful circular reasoning, straw man arguments, ad hoc hypotheses, baiting, and various other forms of (logically fallacious) rhetoric. Almost no objective debating occurs within the two most frequented subforums, but it certainly isn't because they are stupid people. Put simply, most of the big FE-supporting posters appear to be intentionally trolling.

As far as the topic of whether the Earth is actually flat or not, the evidence is simply monumental in the favor of a round Earth. Perhaps no other topic in the field of science is as easily proven as that of a round Earth; the Tectonic plate theory, the Theory of Relativity, the Laws of Universal Gravitation, and vast amounts of empirical data make FE/RE an impossibly debatable idea. So maybe the attraction to you FE-debaters out there is that this is the ultimate challenge - or perhaps you have other reasons. I would be interested to know your reasoning behind why you choose to debate this topic, so if it doesn't bother you to step out of character for a moment, please post in this thread. Otherwise, PM me or respond in the poll.

Pages: [1]