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 - TheEarthIsASphere.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23
1
The Lounge / Re: what's up lads
« on: August 17, 2018, 06:55:33 PM »
also just gotta say that i wish i could fuckin nuke my post history holy shit

i was a complete fucking faggot three years ago jesus

2
Technical Support / username change
« on: August 17, 2018, 06:50:30 PM »
could an administrator change my username, if possible; preferred username would be "ULTRA MEGA luddite" (without quotation marks or any alteration to capitalization, of course)

thanks

3
The Lounge / what's up lads
« on: August 17, 2018, 06:46:32 PM »
been a few years

i see that things have changed a bit; gotta say that i liked the old forum design better. this new one feels too streamlined. also don't give a shit about what shape the earth is anymore lol; i couldn't care less if it was a flat plane, an oblate spheroid, or a nice pair of fat fucking titties

how's everyone been doing

4
The Lounge / Re: Guess who's back?
« on: June 15, 2016, 09:17:12 AM »
What do you want to changed to?

TheEarthIsASphere, preferably. Thanks.

5
The Lounge / Re: Guess who's back?
« on: June 15, 2016, 12:03:22 AM »

6
The Lounge / Re: Guess who's back?
« on: June 15, 2016, 12:01:51 AM »
By the earth is round you mean it's a round flat circle right?

Nope. My username is shit and I plan on trying to get it changed to something sensible.

7
The Lounge / Guess who's back?
« on: June 14, 2016, 09:57:44 PM »
Hello!

8
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.

There is no proof of the existence of gravity, either.  I'm sure your magical force that not even all of your scientists even agree exists proves your point.  ::)

Not relevant to the thread. Stop derailing please.

You say that we can't prove this or that.  When we say that you can't either, you claim it is irrelevant.  Hypocrisy much?

This still isn't relevant to the thread jroa. Stop derailing.

What part of my posts were either irrelevant or derailing?  You love to accuse people of this or that without actually addressing the topic.  We do have a rule that says troublemakers will be banned.  Have you read the rules lately?

You decided to start talking about gravity and how "false" it is. This thread is about atmospheric refraction. That is derailing.

You also decided to call me a hypocrite and talk about something else when I pointed out that you were making off-topic posts. That is also derailing.

So please, stop derailing and keep the topic focused on refraction.

Was I the first person to mention gravity?  No?  You simply pick on us flat Earthers every chance you get and then pretend that we said things.

No, you were the first person to mention it: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=1746255;topic=65438.0;last_msg=1746290

Above that post, there are no mentions of gravity, and the thread was on-topic. Please, stop lying, and stop derailing.

9
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.

There is no proof of the existence of gravity, either.  I'm sure your magical force that not even all of your scientists even agree exists proves your point.  ::)

Not relevant to the thread. Stop derailing please.

You say that we can't prove this or that.  When we say that you can't either, you claim it is irrelevant.  Hypocrisy much?

This still isn't relevant to the thread jroa. Stop derailing.

What part of my posts were either irrelevant or derailing?  You love to accuse people of this or that without actually addressing the topic.  We do have a rule that says troublemakers will be banned.  Have you read the rules lately?

You decided to start talking about gravity and how "false" it is. This thread is about atmospheric refraction. That is derailing.

You also decided to call me a hypocrite and talk about something else when I pointed out that you were making off-topic posts. That is also derailing.

So please, stop derailing and keep the topic focused on refraction.

10
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.

There is no proof of the existence of gravity, either.  I'm sure your magical force that not even all of your scientists even agree exists proves your point.  ::)

Not relevant to the thread. Stop derailing please.

You say that we can't prove this or that.  When we say that you can't either, you claim it is irrelevant.  Hypocrisy much?

This still isn't relevant to the thread jroa. Stop derailing.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Equator Water Experiment
« on: January 07, 2016, 10:21:28 AM »
Quote
Funny "photos" too. 500,000,000+ frames per second! Can you sell me such a "camera", please?

Nowhere in either of those articles is it mentioned that you need a camera like that. All the supplies and equipment you need are easily purchasable. Unless you do perform the procedure yourself, you really aren't in a position to call the photos fake.

12
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.

There is no proof of the existence of gravity, either.  I'm sure your magical force that not even all of your scientists even agree exists proves your point.  ::)

Not relevant to the thread. Stop derailing please.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Equator Water Experiment
« on: January 07, 2016, 10:00:39 AM »
Well, if you don't believe Snopes, maybe your will believe the Penn State University College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.  They even explain how this trick is performed for stupid tourists and other ignorant people who believe anything they see on youtube.  Heck, they even explain how you can perform the illusion in your own home!

And yet you won't look through a telescope to see the ISS even though you can do it yourself?

Following a "space thingy" 'flying over' with 27,000 km/h @ 420 km with a telescope? :D

Have you ever tried to film a normal plane (which has about the same apparent velocity) using the highest zoom of your camera?

It can be done, and it has been done. There are plenty of pictures of the ISS taken by astronomers on Earth's surface. They look something like this:



Or this:



You can even make your own picture:

http://www.universetoday.com/93588/a-beginners-guide-to-photographing-the-international-space-station-iss/
http://soggyastronomer.com/how-to-photograph-the-international-space-station/

14
But what's the refractive index of aether?

There is no proof for the existence of aether. I'm sure it probably "magically" makes thinks refract more, just to help validate FE.

15
On the debate section of this forum, the horizon often pops up from longtime users, or new users, using it as a way to prove that the Earth is round. Most times, the best excuse that the Flat Earthers can offer is "refraction causes the light to bend downwards". While they aren't wrong in how refraction works, they're wrong in using it as an excuse for the horizon.

To start off, I'm going to explain what a Refractive Index is. A Refractive Index determines how fast light propagates through a medium, and how much it bends. The Refractive Index of any medium can be determined using the formula n = c / v, where c is the speed of light in vacuum, and v is the speed of light in said medium. How much light bends as it propagates through the medium is determined using the formula n1 sinθ1 = n2 sinθ2, as described by Snell's Law.

Finally, here's the kicker - the Refractive Index of air is only 1.000277-1.000293. Compare this to the Refractive Index of a vacuum, which, by definition, is 1. This means that the refraction actually caused by the Earth's atmosphere is not even close enough to a large enough value to cause significant refraction.

In conclusion, the Earth's atmosphere would not cause a horizon on a flat Earth. Unless you flat Earthers can come up with a valid proof for why a horizon would exist on a flat Earth, the horizon remains the ultimate disproof of a flat Earth.

16
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Disassemblers
« on: January 03, 2016, 08:13:32 PM »
Different compilers, different output assembly. A good example of this is the fact that short arrays in Visual C++ compile to IL that causes them to run slower than the same program in normal C++.

http://usingprogramming.com/post/2015/11/13/visual-c-bug-with-constant-arithmetic-loops

That was not my question. Different disassemblers apparently show different assembly for the same executable file (already compiled and working).

Apologies. It may just be the disassemblers themselves.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with a flat earth
« on: January 02, 2016, 01:10:01 PM »
Another to contemplate.Rocket hitting the flat earth dome: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
& give an explanation for its happening.

Look up "ejection charge."  Learn a bit about rocketry.  It's fun.
That's feasible . But 32km  = 104986.877 feet  They claim its was traveling at a 1 km a second at that point. 125,000ft is 38.1 km 135,000ft is 41.148km. Weather balloons never make it through that barrier. What makes you think a rocket would.?

Balloons have problems when they reach high altitudes because their volume needs to expand in order to maintain equilibrium with the decreasing external pressure.  As the external pressure decreases, the balloon's volume needs to increase, but eventually it just pops.
Tell me how a rocket is any different .Unless its a completely compacted solid object. How can it not  experience the same problem of expansion due to decreasing external pressure.  ?

A rocket does experience the forces of inside pressure versus outside pressure. The difference is that a rocket, unlike a ballon has structural reinforcement, while a balloon is usually just made of a thin, breakable material.

18
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: The Big Bang, how did it happened?
« on: December 26, 2015, 06:40:14 PM »
Here's a question for you even though we're talking about the Big Bang.

Where did the organic matter came from?

Chains of chemical reactions over time formed increasingly advanced compounds.

19
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: The Big Bang, how did it happened?
« on: December 26, 2015, 05:28:09 PM »
The universe appears to have an "edge" because light can only travel so far over 14 billion years. In reality the universe itself simply continues onwards. We don't know if there is an edge or not.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Water treatment, and such.
« on: December 24, 2015, 08:38:34 AM »
So what is the supposed benefit to ingesting fluoride?

You don't ingest it. It's absorbed by your tooth enamel, making it stronger in the process.

21
Then wait...

Without Gravity!
No work can convince the useful idiots for all the NASAl lies. They really believe that "conservation of momentum" actually beats the incredible gravitational forces in space.

That there are "gravity-free zones" in space, where one can "park" space thingies and somehow be outside of the realm of natural forces.

It's like a 15-year old still believing in Santa because he just wants it to be true and receive gifts.

Oh for gods sake, we've already had to explain to you how spacecraft work. Did you just forget about that stuff and go back to spewing more incoherent nonsense?

22
Are you guys really crying bc someone called you gay and stuff? Not even whores take it as hard as you do. lol

No, there's a thing called "moderation". It's what helps keep online communities from turning into festering likes of shit, and when the moderators don't do their job, then, places like this turn into a, well, festering pile of shit.

Maybe you should really learn how online communities function retard.

23
Regardless of how tides work on RET, how do they work in FE models per the OP?

In other words, "I can't explain it, so I will push it on you to do so."

Yes, but there is an explanation. I'm sure you're aware of how it works, or maybe not?

24
Quote
The Newtonian definition of a Force is: 'A push or pull on an object as a result of its interaction with another object'.
Mostly correct, yes.

Quote
So, if Object One is pushing or pulling on Object Two at the speed of 9,000 mph, there is no way that Object two can exceed that speed.
No shit smart stuff. Object two will be moving at the speed of object one, assuming that there are no other forces at play, like friction.

Quote
The maximum speed of a rocket is set by the maximum speed of its exhaust.
No. The exhaust is simply a side effect of the rocket fuel combusting. The rocket accelerates using the force created when the fuel combusts. Think of it like a series of many "mini-explosions" all going off at once. This is what creates the force that propels the rocket forward.

Quote
Thus, it can only accelerate UP TO its maximum speed & thereafter it can accelerate no more.
Again, no shit. Hence the word "maximum". I don't even know why you needed to include that there.

In short, your "statement" doesn't prove shit. At all.

25
It rubs my bullshit into its brain, or else it gets the hose again... It rubs my bullshit into its brain, or else it gets the hose again!

Sorry, Buffalo Bill, but as I am not confined to your skinning-pit, I have no need to defer to your psychotic brainwashing.

Now read this & STFU:

The Newtonian definition of a Force is: 'A push or pull on an object as a result of its interaction with another object'.

So, if Object One is pushing or pulling on Object Two at the speed of 9,000 mph, there is no way that Object two can exceed that speed.


The maximum speed of a rocket is set by the maximum speed of its exhaust.

Thus, it can only accelerate UP TO its maximum speed & thereafter it can accelerate no more.


Toodle-pip, John Wayne Gaylord!

I did read it dipshit. It proves nothing.

26
Quote

The Newtonian definition of a Force is: 'A push or pull on an object as a result of its interaction with another object'.

So, if Object One is pushing or pulling on Object Two at the speed of 9,000 mph, there is no way that Object two can exceed that speed.

The maximum speed of a rocket is set by the maximum speed of its exhaust.

Thus, it can only accelerate UP TO its maximum speed & thereafter it can accelerate no more.

This statement, if anything, proves that rockets do work in a vacuum. All that you're essentially saying is that the speed of a booster's exhaust determines how fast it moves, which isn't true. Maybe you should read what you write before you shit it out all over a thread.

Quote
I do not care what kind of Harry Potter mathe-magical mumbo-jumbo you hurl at me.
If you just throw your hands up at solid physics and yell "HURR DURR LALALALA IM NOT LISTENING DURR", then you've already lost.

Quote
I will just keep re-posting the above no matter what.
Have fun being banned for spamming a thread.

Finally, Papa, your presumption that rocket boosters don't work in space is based off an incorrect understanding of how they work in the first place. Rocket boosters do not accelerate themselves using the exhaust created. The accelerate themselves through the process of fuel combustion, which creates "mini-explosions" of a sort. The exhaust is simply a side effect of this combustion process.

27
Well, that was an impressive amount of bullshit from an impressive amount of bullshitter.

Now, for intelligent people & non-bullshitters/bullshit believers, here's the truth:

The Newtonian definition of a Force is: 'A push or pull on an object as a result of its interaction with another object'.

So, if Object One is pushing or pulling on Object Two at the speed of 9,000 mph, there is no way that Object two can exceed that speed.


It's as simple as that.

If you claim otherwise you are a Liar...

That, too, is a simple thing to see.

Toodle-pip, Bullshitter!

Oh, & p.s. LOL!!! at this bullshit too:

I have noticed, Legba, that you seem not to have reported me (or, if you have, admins have not yet deemed it important enough to notify me). When are you going to?

What a jackass.

It's absolutely hilarious to see you make completely baseless claims and call everyone liars and losers. Really - it's quite funny. You'd be much better off doing comedy at some run-down club than you would be trying to make yourself look smart here.

28
Uh, was this supposed to be a PM to frenat?

Oh, sorry; you just sounded exactly like him for a moment there...

Whereas with what you wrote below, you sound just like Conker:

The explosions created in the combustion chamber when the booster fuel pushes gases, like exhaust, out the back at incredibly high speeds. Other gases press against the top of the combustion chamber. This unbalanced force created by the combustion of fuel pushes the rocket upwards into space

But, as Conker sounds exactly like frenat anyway, we find ourselves right back where we started...

Oh, what Fun & Games!

Your point being? Or are you just trying to be an annoyance now?

29
LULZ!!!

Hi, frenat!

Your youtube channel is a hoot btw; thanks for the little playlist showing the subjects you're paid to Troll...

Very handy, that!

Plus, the fact that the only video you personally uploaded is of a man dressed as a fairy mincing around to gaylord music is Comedy Gold extra...

Fucking Weirdo!

Uh, was this supposed to be a PM to frenat?

30
Rockets don't push against the atmosphere The explosions created in the combustion chamber when the booster fuel pushes gases, like exhaust, out the back at incredibly high speeds. Other gases press against the top of the combustion chamber. This unbalanced force created by the combustion of fuel pushes the rocket upwards into space.

In fact, rockets work better in vacuum of space, as there is no air is there to slow them down due to friction.

Toodle-pip, professional liar, Papa Legboar!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23