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 - Sean O'Grady

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
1
The Lounge / Re: What is your middle name?
« on: October 15, 2008, 06:19:04 AM »

2
The Lounge / Re: My idea for a bypass of Adelaide
« on: October 15, 2008, 06:00:33 AM »
Wouldn't it be better just to flatten Adelaide and run a road right through it?

3
Finally there is vindication!!!

Quote
The image taken on Sept. 27, 2008 by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) shows a solar disk...

All we needed was better equipment:

Quote from: Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center
Right now we have the best instrumentation in history looking at the sun. There is a whole fleet of spacecraft devoted to solar physics--SOHO, Hinode, ACE, STEREO and others.

If somebody involved with NASA is willing and able to report this immense discovery in the news is it possible that the conspiracy hypothesis is wrong? What else could explain phenomena like photos of the earth? Could they just be odd optical illusions?

Source:
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center (2008, October 7). Spotless Sun: Blankest Year Of The Space Age. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081006184638.htm

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity
« on: October 03, 2008, 01:47:17 PM »
If every star, planet and moon is accelerating up all the time creating gravity. Then how does it do this? because surely the planet needs momentum to keep going up? what creats this momentum?

 :o

A couple of quick points...

acceleration = changing velocity
momentum = constant velocity

A simple way to phrase your question: what is the energy source for the earth's (et al) constant acceleration?

To expand on Althalus's answer, Dark Energy is the hypothetical source of energy of the earth's (et al) acceleration. It's name was chosen to draw parallels with Dark Energy.

Other proposed hypotheses include magic, god and quantum wierdness.

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions
« on: October 03, 2008, 01:35:02 PM »
More questions please :

What causes the solar eclipse? How phase of the moon?

My country had completed the astronautical mission recently, therefore is all rumours? ;D

Thanks again.

I think the main hypothesis for solar eclipses is there's a thing called a moon and it goes in front of the sun (I think that hypothesis is shared by both round earth and flat earth theories if memory serves).

For a lunar eclipse I think the  main hypothesis is that there's a mysterious shadow object (which I think should be could "Dark Object" in line with dark energy, dark matter and dark flow) that passes in front of the moon.

I'm not too sure about the phases of the moon. How good is your knowledge base? Do we have much leeway here? Would you believe that the phases of the moon are caused by the moon's cheese being eaten by many mice who swarm over here (and thereby block out it's light).

Which country is that? The one for this account or Abdul's or one of your other alts? In any case, the answer is your country is definitely full of lies.

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions
« on: October 03, 2008, 08:58:23 AM »
Call me. I'll give you your first research grant.

Can I have one now?

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Death Moments
« on: October 03, 2008, 08:29:02 AM »
I remember seeing a show ages ago and it had pilots that were undergoing high-g training (getting strapped into a centrifuge and spun around really fast) and they would often experience the same sensations that are common with near death experiences. Of course they weren't near death so it seems to me that any explanation of the phenomena would have to include these experinces too.


So I guess that would fit in with the hallucinations thing, unless of course Hell exists and he actually went there.

Don't forget the third option: he was telling a tall story.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligent Design IS scientific
« on: October 01, 2008, 11:01:10 AM »
(And even if they did, it proves it takes an intellegent designer to create a cell)

So let me get this straight: abiogenesis can only be proven if humans create a cell and if they are successful they prove it's wrong because it proves a creator.

The reason I brought up "Dark Energy" is to show that we as humans sometimes use a 'hypothetical force' as we explain the cosmos.  The ENTIRE point of this thread was to show that those who formulate ID may start with a premise (hypothetical force) that is debatable, but the PROCESS thereafter can still be considered as scientific as other theories that try to explain the cosmos and our existance.

No shit. But did you not notice the difference in the "process" that I pointed out? Science abounds in hypotheses: some confirmed, some unconfirmed and some failed. Dark Energy is an unconfirmed hypothesis that very well could fail. If you wish to put the ID hypothetical creator in with this category then be my guest, I would actually have more respect for you than any other ID proponent. Of course that means that ID would have a long way to confirm the hypothesis but at least it would be a lot more scientific.

10
I am never going to win this. :(

Oh well, at least I still keep my views.

The trick to "winning" is to fight over the definitions.

I define an act of self-interest as one where I directly gain from the event and a unselfish act as an act that doesn't directly benefit me or could directly harm me. Therefore acts can be unselfish and not based on self-interest.

11
I still believe in the general goodness of mankind. Or at least a select few individuals. ::)

Certainly but that's just because you're trying to promote the idea of "unselfish" acts to try and foster a more caring society as that's in your self interest... you selfish bastard.  ;)

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligent Design IS scientific
« on: October 01, 2008, 10:32:15 AM »
The fact that we, highly motivated intellegent beings, cannot create a living cell, even in a laboratory.

With your logic, christians having had 2000 years, should have proven god by now, or at least made him in a lab.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligent Design IS scientific
« on: October 01, 2008, 10:29:13 AM »
Abiogenesis really has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is correct.


But it's the failure of abiogenesis that gives ID much of it's credibility.


What creditibility?

By the way, abiogenesis != evolution != abiogenesis.

Also, dark energy != evolution != dark energy.

As for the first post, one of the main differences between Dark Energy and a hypothetical creator is that physicists are willing to try and find out whether they're right or wrong about dark energy and physicists know that dark energy is hypothetical. What ID proponent is willing to do that?

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sputnik
« on: October 01, 2008, 10:13:04 AM »
Simply stating that something happened doesn't mean it actually did.

Considering that sustained space flight is impossible it seems that this was faked (possibly with the use of a pseudollite).

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: An Important Question on "Gravity"
« on: October 01, 2008, 10:11:07 AM »
However this force actually varies from 9.4N to 9.81N depending on the point you are on the earth due to its shape.

You completely made that up.  To get to 9.4 due to elevation you would have to be at an elevation of 129km which is 15 times higher than mount everest.

Not to mention, he's using Newtons, which means he's either assuming that every object has a mass of exactly one kilogram, or he doesn't know the difference between force and acceleration.

I was going to point that out - it would make for some interesting projectile motion.

What are you talking about? The newtons here are merely used as a measure it doesnt mean I assume that everything is one kilogram, honestly do you even know what newtons are? Youre going to have to try harder than that! Its simple stuff: force = mass x acceleration and as the mass of the earth is constant and as you FEers say the acceleration is constant then this would result in a constant force, not the varying force of gravity we see.

So the mass that you're referring to is the earth's mass?

This just keeps getting mroe and more interesting.

How is a Newton defined? This should give you your answer.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: An Important Question on "Gravity"
« on: October 01, 2008, 09:53:04 AM »
Gravity can vary by about 1%.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1668872.stm

No, I also stated that some FEers believe the stars exert a slight gravitational pull.  They theorize that that's what causes readings to be different on different parts of the earth.

I'd be interested to hear how the stars can reach through the heavens and pluck out certain parts of the earth to recieve more or less gravitation. Divine intervention again?

I think he means to imply that every receives gravitation from the stars and that the closer you are to the stars (i.e. the higher up you are) the more you are affected (inverse square law or whatever that thingamajig is).

Just shooting off the hip but maybe the density of stars could also cause variations of the ammount of gravitation.

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Bendy light?
« on: October 01, 2008, 09:44:52 AM »
I actually think the Fox News article was slightly better than the Science Daily Article.

I don't really have any opinions on the matter but I love reading all the latest goss on Dark Matter/Dark Energy (not to mention Dark Flow now).

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: An Important Question on "Gravity"
« on: October 01, 2008, 02:55:40 AM »
However this force actually varies from 9.4N to 9.81N depending on the point you are on the earth due to its shape.

You completely made that up.  To get to 9.4 due to elevation you would have to be at an elevation of 129km which is 15 times higher than mount everest.

Not to mention, he's using Newtons, which means he's either assuming that every object has a mass of exactly one kilogram, or he doesn't know the difference between force and acceleration.

I was going to point that out - it would make for some interesting projectile motion.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions
« on: September 30, 2008, 10:33:42 AM »
Somebody else who is a proponent of Dark Energy would have to tell you. As far as I can tell it's just the name given to the unknown cause of the earth's acceleration intended to draw parallel with Dark Energy proposed by round earth physicists.

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions
« on: September 30, 2008, 10:12:47 AM »
I think the majority of flat earth theorists agree that the earth does not rotate. If it were rotating we would expect to see some sort of 'southern' acceleration of everything on the earth.

The cause of the earth's upwards acceleration is unknown though some people speculate that there is "Dark Energy".

I'm not too sure about the Ice Wall, somebody else will have to cover that for you.

21
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Bosnyian Pyramids
« on: September 29, 2008, 01:16:29 PM »
Even though Mr Kappa trolls around a bit, he's winning this one.

How so?

Is it the way he didn't explain why he was so willing to put his lot with experts that agree with it compared to experts that disagree with it?

The way he portrayed any conveniently disregarded any geologists natural explanations despite not knowing anything about geology or archeology himself?

The way he demonstrated that he couldn't tell whether something was natural or man-made through the photos that we both posted?

The way he tried to portray any criticism as hatred?

The way he failed to recognize a couple of photos of the supposed pyramid?

If that's a win then I don't mind losing.


I pointed out the pyramid picture you posted... Please re-read the thread.

Also... check the edit dates in the thread... I do no appreciate you altering the data posted hours after the fact.

Your a little baby... wah... wah...

The paper which you posted to attack the credibility of the Participants was from 2006....

There is a new roster as of 2008... New people... bigger professionals.




ZOMG! Pavers:


22
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Bosnyian Pyramids
« on: September 29, 2008, 01:14:28 PM »
Given your history in this thread, I don't imagine you'd be satisfied with my answers to your questions, even if they did answer them. You're doing a good job of being Tom Jr. in this thread though.

Reading through the sources and doing some research should help you out just fine.

Well those were more rhetorical questions but if you feel like answering them please go ahead. I don't think I've ever had a problem discussing things with you (not that I remember at least).

23
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Bosnyian Pyramids
« on: September 29, 2008, 10:33:06 AM »
Even though Mr Kappa trolls around a bit, he's winning this one.

How so?

Is it the way he didn't explain why he was so willing to put his lot with experts that agree with it compared to experts that disagree with it?

The way he portrayed any conveniently disregarded any geologists natural explanations despite not knowing anything about geology or archeology himself?

The way he demonstrated that he couldn't tell whether something was natural or man-made through the photos that we both posted?

The way he tried to portray any criticism as hatred?

The way he failed to recognize a couple of photos of the supposed pyramid?

If that's a win then I don't mind losing.

24
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Bosnyian Pyramids
« on: September 29, 2008, 09:40:34 AM »
ZOMG! Pavers:


25
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Bosnyian Pyramids
« on: September 29, 2008, 09:28:01 AM »
ZOMG! Pavers:


26
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Bosnyian Pyramids
« on: September 29, 2008, 09:22:42 AM »
ZOMG! Pavers:


27
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Bosnyian Pyramids
« on: September 29, 2008, 09:22:04 AM »
ZOMG! Pavers:


28
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Bosnyian Pyramids
« on: September 29, 2008, 09:21:33 AM »
ZOMG! Pavers:


29
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Bosnyian Pyramids
« on: September 29, 2008, 09:21:00 AM »
ZOMG! Pavers:


30
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Bosnyian Pyramids
« on: September 29, 2008, 09:19:58 AM »
ZOMG! Pavers:


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19