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 - gg1gamer

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Time zones
« on: April 17, 2018, 01:58:41 AM »
One hour per zone.
Some places (Eg North Korea) have a half hour time difference between time zones.

I think you're confused.  North Korea chose to have half an hour difference, just as Afghanistan has UTC + 4:30, iran UTC + 3:30, Myanmar + 6:30, Nepal + 5:45, ...

And almost all countries aren't actually in the timezone they should geographically be in.  Take for example Belgium, our capital is at Brussels is roughly located at 50.850N 4.350E.  24 timezones, 360 to divide meaning thus 15 per timezone.  so for GMT/UTC that's from -7.5E to 7.5E.  4.350E is inside that range.  Meaning technically Belgium should be in UTC.  But we are currently (with summer time) in UTC + 2.

What timezone a country is in is a political decision mostly based upon economic benefits.  Using but that's country is in that timezone as a scientific proof of anything is just ..., just no.

Flat Earth Q&A / Solar day vs sidereal day
« on: April 13, 2018, 02:39:58 PM »
How does any of the flat earth models explain the 4 minute difference between a solar and a sidereal (or star-)day? 

(If you want to know how it supposedly works in the mainstream model search for sidereal day. I've already asked the question with a full explanation on how it's supposed to work in the mainstream model.  I didn't get any answers tho.)

Technical Support / Re: Database error: report to an admin
« on: February 20, 2018, 02:32:15 PM »
That says something about most people, not a positive thing.

Flat Earth Q&A / Sidereal day vs solar day
« on: February 12, 2018, 06:23:29 AM »
Can someone explain the 4 minute difference between a sidereal day and a solar day in any of the flat earth models?

Thanks in advance  :D

Technical Support / Re: Database error: report to an admin
« on: February 12, 2018, 06:16:46 AM »
Yep, this seems to come up fairly often with more complex searches.
With respect, this isn't a complex search.  It's not even close to being complex. 

Sooo wait, you accept the existence of the magnetic north pole but not the magnetic south pole?  You know those 2 are pretty connected right? 

Also I don't see the Q in your post.

Flat Earth General / Re: Solar day vs star day
« on: January 31, 2018, 12:29:34 AM »
From the lack of replies for 2 days i'm presuming people did the experiments I described.  What were your results?

The date of the thread was January 6, 2018.

I bought food that night, when I got back I looked at that occurrence coincidently.

In case there is a Hawaiian friend of yours, please let he/she speak in this forum.
And you are absolutely, without a doubt, 100% certain that it couldn't have been anything else than a nuclear explosion?  Did you detect any nuclear fallout?  Did any earthquakes get measured at the place where you were? 

I didn't find the news about it till January 13 failed alarm. (if anyone found, please let me know) >>
You mean false alarm right?  Because the alarm definitely succeeded, everyone on hawaii got it.  But it was triggered by accident.  There were at no point any incoming nukes, they messed up somehow and everybody got an alarm.

At around 8 PM on January 6, 2018, I looked out the window to the east direction while my apartment window is due south. There was once in a while "shining" above the cloud.

I didn't find the news about it till January 13 failed alarm. (if anyone found, please let me know) >>

I'm confused, when did the alleged nuclear explosion you witnessed happen?

Could you maybe provide us with some more details?  Like coordinates preciser than just degrees?  Minutes would be nice, possibly even seconds if you've got real precise coords. 

Also which nuclear test?  The US has (at least according to it's government, and the former USSR) conducted a fair amount of nuclear test both on earth, under water, underground and even up in space (supposedly).

Thanks in advance  ;)

Flat Earth General / Solar day vs star day
« on: January 28, 2018, 11:05:48 AM »
It's been a while but recently I've picked up coding.  And quickly found out that time is one of the worst nightmares of programmers.  Did you know that a solar day and a star day (sidereal day) aren't the same length?  There is 4 minute difference (roughly). 

For those who don't know what the difference is:
Stand on a certain spot at night, look straight up.  If there is a star straight above your head start your clock.  Now wait till the next night go stand on the exact same spot and look up. When that same star is above your head, stop the clock.  You just timed one star day, and it'll have taken roughly 23 hours and 56 minutes.

Now do the same for the sun.  Obviously not at night but say when the sun is at its highest point.  Start your clock then, wait 24 hours and stop your clock when the sun is at its highest point again.  You just timed 1 solar day, it'll have taken roughly 24 hours. 

Now depending on whether it's summer or winter those 24 hours won't actually be 24 hours and 0 seconds.  There will be anything between a -30 and +30 second. This because of the speed the earth is traveling around the sun on its elliptical orbit according to mainstream science.  Let's ignore that smaller time difference in favour of its own topic one day.

So why is a solar and a star day not the same length explained from a FEers point of view?

Technical Support / Database error: report to an admin
« on: January 28, 2018, 10:54:42 AM »

Got this message after searching the following:
"solar day star day -eclipse -eclipses"

Via the normal searchthingy next to your profile-thingy.  Not the full search page. 

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: climate change
« on: April 22, 2017, 02:30:26 PM »
One factor of a changing climate no one talks about is our love affair of chopping down trees at a rate of 11+million PER DAY. Most which don't get replanted
But by all means, lets blame carbon

You, my dear sir, have no clue what you're talking about.

I stopped reading after the last phrase i quoted.  But let me explain you the following:

Trees are made of chains of C6H12O6.  Which if you set it afire it breaks down in H2O and some form of C or CO or CO2.

@Intikam didn't i say something about what you posted in my first post?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: basic christian morals
« on: April 01, 2017, 07:37:52 AM »
Tldr what would Jesus do?
Doesn't really help me, i never met the dude.  So how am i supposed to know what he'd do?

But seriously, the sermon on the mount is a good summary. Matthew 5 - 7.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: basic christian morals
« on: March 31, 2017, 05:05:12 PM »
Give all that you have to the poor.
So wait, you have to give ALL to the poor?  That would make you poor.  Meaning that you'd receive all from everyone else. Meaning that you can give all away to the poor, making you're poor again. Meaning that you'd receive all from everyone else. Meaning that you can give all away to the poor, making you're poor again. Meaning ...

Doesn't seem logical to me.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How high is your IQ?
« on: March 31, 2017, 05:00:46 PM »
Never taken an IQ test.  I'm just gonna go for <80. Cause reasons.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: lunar eclipse shadow
« on: March 31, 2017, 04:58:19 PM »
Hi, first off don't share your point of view right away.  People lose interest if you do this and will have already made up their mind on the quality of your arguments before you have given them.

I used to say the lunar eclipse was proof of a ball, because of the round shadow that we see on the moonbut someone pointed out to me something that may mean I can no longer say that......
That someone was very right.

so shadows are always larger than the original object
False, very false.  Take a spotlight the size of a car wheel, hold a tennis ball less than a meter from it.  Hold a paper sheet a few cm behind that.  Tell me, is the shadow larger or smaller?

so shadows are always larger than the original object so when we see the shadow going over the moon, is it not just the SIDE of the earth's shadow?
because even if the earth were a square and it was one of the SIDE'S that shadowed the moon, as the moon is a ball, the shadow would still have the same effect

like if you used a square to shadow a ball, we wouldn't perceive the shadow as a straight line, we would see it going 'around' the moons ball shaped surface in a round shape

I hope that makes sense anyway
Kinda makes a bit of sense, doesn't prove nor disproves FE nor RE.

I'm not saying it disproves the fact we live on a ball because there's ample evidence proving we do, but it does seem to mean I shouldn't be using the lunar eclipse as evidence?
Like i said this doesn't prove nor disproves anything. So no, you shouldn't be using this.  Use observations made from up in space, seismology, the lack of explanation of many things in any of the FE models, the sun, the lunar eclipse, ...

can a globe believer please discuss (not a flat earther, you guys are impossible)
So have you figured out what i believe?  If not look at my profile pic :)

Philosophy, Religion & Society / basic christian morals
« on: March 31, 2017, 04:47:37 PM »
So i was kinda raised catholic but no longer identify as catholic nor christian.  (it's complicated what i do identify as)  This however does not mean that i cannot agree with some of the basic morals of christians.  However i've noticed that i've gotten a bit rusty on that.  So could someone tell me a bit about basic christian morals?  And the christian ones, not the catholic ones.  (if you don't know the difference don't answer pls)

What i remember:
If an enemy hits you, turn your other cheek to him and forgive him.
Treat people like you want to be treated.
Do no harm?
And honistly that's all i can remember.
(someday i'm gonna look into the basic morals of other religions as well)

@gg1gamer: So what are you trying to tell us?

It's not like that's something new or unknown. What would you suggest to avoid such problems? Do you think there is a better system? Or are you just pointing out the obvious?
Anyway, correlation =/= causation, that's probably the most often made mistake, mostly by non-scientists though ;)
Hello, welcome to flat earth society, here we have people that doubt the existence of atomic bombs.  I made a nice little post for them explaining that shit to them and you know what they said?  I'm not interested in the facts. (might have been phrased differently).
What i've learned in my time here is that nothing is obvious to some people around here. 
So what i'm trying to tell: exactly what i've told.

What I learn from the OP is that an engineer is not a scientist. It's a completely different subculture.
Very true, but not related to this.  I was a scientist before i became an engineer.  Simplest way i can put it: scientists gather knowledge, engineers apply this knowledge.
Meaning that scientists are looking for evidence, proof.  Engineers aren't interested in this, it just has to work.

The problem is, you skipped the first step of the SM, observation. The other issue is current mainstream science and their religious beliefs system, materialism, and the creation of hypothesis without observation. They make grandiose claims, then try to make nature fit that paradigm. So maybe the real issue is, you see the contradiction, but don't truly understand why.

Case in point: paleontology. Paleontology is scientific-fiction, not science by the SM. Because it is so loose in interpretation, it can easily be used to support random spontaneous evolution, so it is accepted as real science.
Oh i skipped quite a few steps.  Yes observation is very important.  Too bad that we can't observe certain stuff without relying on other scientists to have done their job right.

"They make grandiose claims, then try to make nature fit that paradigm."
*cough*  "Even scientists have to make a living. So they search for sponsors to be able to do their research.  And those sponsors want to see results and not tomorrow, no no they want results yesterday.  So they force scientists to rush their research.  And scientist might hide some data that would contradict the outcome that would be favourable for the sponsor (fraud by the way)."*cough*

Hypothesis and theories are allowed to have something called a "scope" or "limits".
In the example of the first post; how can you define such a limit if you don't know about the existence of friction?

First of all an fyi: i'm a roundy and a 'scientist' myself (actually engineer but for this topic let's assume that that's the same as a scientist)

So i'd like to talk about the problems with the current scientific method.  Because there are problems, actually quite a lot of problems.

Let me first try to briefly but still completely explain the current scientific method.  I'd like to say: "right now we form a hypothesis, test it and conclude from that if something is true or false".  If i did i'd not be telling the truth.  I can't explain it this simple because reality isn't simple.  In order to write a good hypothesis you have to rely on other stuff, like other hypotheses and even on stuff that you don't even know about.  And once you wrote your hypothesis and tested it against reality you can either have a succes in which case you discovered something new or you have a failure.  This is where the fun begins.  What was wrong?  Your hypothesis? The hypothesis you relied upon?  Something you don't even know yet?
An example:  you're testing out the effects of gravity (or whatever you want to call it).  You write an hypothesis that says that heavier objects don't fall faster than lighter objects (in more scientific terms ofc).  You get onto a roof and simultaneously drop a feather and a kilogram of lead.  And surprise the lead hits the ground before the feather is even halfway there.  Now what went wrong?  You could think that your hypothesis was wrong, but we know that it isn't.  Seeing how you didn't really rely on any other hypotheses you now have no idea what went wrong.  Until years later someone introduces you to the concept airrecistance.  Now you know what you did wrong.  So with the same hypothesis of years ago you take 500 ml of Pb and 500 ml of Al, shape them identically and drop them again.  Even though the lead weighs significantly more you see both of them hitting the ground simultaneously.

Now this is actually only the tip of the iceberg of the problems of the current scientific method.  The thing is that we have some kind of eras in which certain hypotheses get relied upon.  And a drastic discovery is needed to move onto the next set of hypotheses.  An example: we moved from aristotle's physics to newtonian physics, to einstein's physics. 
Aristotle's thought that it was the purpose that objects had in them that made them act the way they did.  I don't think i need to explain newton and einstein. 

Also we have the problem of funding.  Even scientists have to make a living. So they search for sponsors to be able to do their research.  And those sponsors want to see results and not tomorrow, no no they want results yesterday.  So they force scientists to rush their research.  And scientist might hide some data that would contradict the outcome that would be favourable for the sponsor (fraud by the way).

These are just some of the problems i can think of from the top of my head.  Do you guys know any more problems?  Or do you guys think that some of these aren't really problems?

Note: what i said was in no way meant to discredit, abolish, ... any or all mainstream scientific knowledge that we have today.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: can a Flat Earth Believer explain this?
« on: March 28, 2017, 06:45:32 PM »
A few things i notice:

-The surface of the moon must be really hot when it's full moon at the southern hemisphere.
-The southern hemisphere only seems to have a full moon during the day, never during the night.
-That's an animation that works for both fall and spring, i'd like to see one for summer and one for winter. (key words: i'd like)
-There is something wrong with how light is behaving in this animation.  It shows a perfectly round circle, with well defined edges, being projected on the earth.  Yet the moon is being hit by the light as well.  So what is it?  Is the moon a spotlight or a ball that emits light?
-The moon seems the be traveling in exactly the same path every single time, meaning that you'd see the moon travel the same path in the sky every single day.  Anyone with eyes and a memory can tell you that that isn't the case in real life.
-No explanation for a super moon?
-Lunar eclipse?
-Solar eclipse?
-Wouldn't the people living underneath the moon's path always see a half-lit moon?

But i'm sure many FEers disagree with this explanation. 

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: climate change
« on: March 26, 2017, 02:41:06 PM »
I suspect once enough people starve to death the earth will take care of itself.
The earth will always take care of itself, people or no people.

there's massive environmental waste due to the transition.
2 examples..
If you switch all the lighting in your home to LED's, and toss all your incandescents and CFL's into the garbage, and let's be honest that's what most people do, where do all those lights end up? Multiply that by millions.
Flat screen TV's. What happened to all the old bulky CRT TV's everyone used to own? All the old projector flat screens? You can't give those 2 away. Multiply those by millions.
All this stuff ends up in landfills. It's just cheaper to throw it all away than actually do something with it or about it. And therein lies part of our collective problem.
And I'm just talking about the US.
It's the case for most first world countries, maybe not in the scandinavian countries but they are special.

To everyone who spoke about new technologies:
What do you guys think about nuclear fusion (= the opposite of what nuclear power plants do now)?  Instead of creating radioactive waste from uranium we'd be creating lithium from water, both not radioactive.  (i should prob mention that it does create some nuclear waste but it has a halflife of about a few hundred years, not millions like U and its waist).

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: climate change
« on: March 25, 2017, 06:02:36 PM »
Man-made. According to scientific consensus anyways.
Scientific consensus is that the climate is changing, not everyone agrees on why.  But yes most say that it's, at least partially, man-made.

But that's not as relevant as it would seem.
Well to find a solution to something you first have to identify the problem haven't you?  If climate change would be 100% manmade we'd have to look for the solution in our way of live.  If it would be 100% natural we'd have to do research into things to alter this.

What really matters is what do we want our climate to be at and can we get there? Or failing that how do we predict where it's going to be and how do we prepare for that.
In my opinion that's only a problem of funding.

I think we are certainly the icing on the cake of natural cycles. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that we cannot burn carbon based fuels laid down over millennia in the space of a couple of centuries without consequence, and that consequence is to make the climate like it was when that fuel was laid down. While a new equilibrium is established there will be a lot of unpredictable weather and an exaggeration of the climate patterns we have.
The main question is: will mankind survive this unpredictable climate before the new equilibrium.  And just as important: will mankind be able to live in this new equilibrium?

I'd rather not have to find out the hard way, i like it the way it is.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / climate change
« on: March 25, 2017, 03:34:00 PM »
So after being not so active for a few weeks let's start again with something that's controversial within mainstream science.

So climate change, let me first share my views on the matter.

I don't believe that climate change is 100% caused by mankind.  I also don't believe that it's a 100% natural phenomena.  I believe that because off all of the greenhouse gasses1 we're, at least, speeding global warming (and thus climate change) up.
Of course there is stuff that we can't control, like our distance to the sun, the pitch of the earth's axis (or whatever the FE alternative is), solar activity, ...

(1: greenhouse gasses include, but are not limited to, H2O, CO2, CH4 (natural gas), Freon (used in fridges, as aerosol propellants, ...), etc.)

I don't think that people are debating what the effects of climate change are so i'm not gonna mention it further here but if you'd like to debate it feel free to mention it down bellow. 

I'm gonna keep this short to not bore you guys but there is one last thing i'd like to ask.  If you think that global warming is a scam set up by the chinese or anything that remotely resembles a conspiracy pls make your own thread somewhere else.  I'd like to keep it to science in here.

So do you guys think that climate change is manmade or natural.  And do you think that other factors apart from greenhouse gases play a role in this?

The Lounge / Re: New Believer
« on: March 01, 2017, 05:23:48 PM »
welcome, always nice to see more people getting here to have some interesting conversations with.

The Lounge / Re: Call for all engineers
« on: February 26, 2017, 01:29:16 PM »
Though why do you ask?
Because i'm noisy, i mean curious.

The Lounge / Re: Call for all engineers
« on: February 25, 2017, 01:58:27 AM »
I should have known that some guys were going to come in here and troll around.  (I'm not confirming nor denying that i'm talking about a mod and the person he's talking with)

The Lounge / Call for all engineers
« on: February 24, 2017, 03:25:31 PM »
I was wondering who holds an engineering degree (or is an engineering student) in here?  For the record business engineers do not count.

I'll start:  I'm currently doing my first year of my engineering studies.  Halfway next year i'll have to chose 2 fields and from those 2 fields i'll have to chose 1 to master in at the beginning of my 4th year.   I'm thinking of choosing computer sciences and electromechanics.

So which flavour of engineer are you guys?

Flat Earth General / Re: How old is the earth?
« on: February 18, 2017, 03:40:33 PM »
I'm not the one obsessing over it, you are.
Ok it might have been a tad childish of me to accuse you of obsessing over something.

You put FE and RE in the poll options, not me
I'm giving people as much information as i can.  I believe that you can see that some of the options are plain ridiculous (i'm not talking about those with exact numbers in them).  Well, i think people should know which options came from which people, if you want i can change all of those 'by FEer' and 'by REer' to names.  But i personally don't find that info relevant.

To answer your question:

Because it moves.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19