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 - UpstartPixel

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
The Lounge / Re: Does jroa go in for scatological humor?
« on: October 09, 2016, 11:12:25 PM »
Well OK, that went nowhere. I apologize and you can trash this thread.
Worth a shot though :)

2
Well perhaps. But you can find such folks in many places, starting with your neighborhood coffee shop. This place attracts a certain genre of obsessives imho. A round earther who stays here has an agenda, and needs to push it, and won't give up until he/she has convinced someone - anyone! - that the earth is flat.

3
It always starts with "Do you guys really believe this stuff"? How many threads like that are there on these forums? That's innocuous enough, but then they can't take the answer. "What?" "Your kidding!"

At this point many folks fall by the wayside, content to just lurk or look elsewhere for their fix.
But the true anti-believer goes a step further, because an innate need has awakened, a compulsion to convert the heathen, to educate the savages, to eradicate the heretics!. And so the symptom of Compulsive Round Earth Syndrome (CoRES) present themselves. These are twofold:
1. An increasingly and obsessive aggressive attitude towards anyone espousing the FE view. Any such most must immediately be refuted.
2. An insistence on the round earth, whether or not based on science. The latter case is especially funny because it tends to be of the "but EVERYBODY knows..." type.

Any other notable symptoms?

4
I was actually thinking of the "islamaphobe" thing when I wrote that! All those right on liberal lefties calling Ayaan Hirsi Ali an islamaphobe for speaking against FGM makes me want to puke.
This should have nothing to do with left/right, and BTW although the practice is prevalent in many Muslim countries, it is not limited to those.
I presume those voices chiding her are mainly male?

5
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Numbers explained
« on: October 05, 2016, 09:55:34 AM »
This could be interesting.
Do you have a definition of "addition" that applies to all numbers?

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Are imaginary numbers real?
« on: October 05, 2016, 09:51:06 AM »
Oh no, stop confronting him with reality. You'll break his world apart :(

Heh, must have already happened, because I think I'm on his ignore list now. Do I get a medal or a candy bar or something?

Seriously, posers like Intikam irritate me. I have to believe that this site was built because some folks want to honestly develop the flat earth point of view. But when amateurs like Intikam suck up the air calling themselves flat earth scientists while not knowing basic math and physics, it puts that effort in a more than embarrassing light.

And besides, it's not even fun to debate rank stupidity :)

7
I don't understand what you mean, but I get the result. You must be a closet fascist.
Oh, and hooray for the German courts for throwing out that stupid slander suit Erdogan incited.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Are imaginary numbers real?
« on: October 05, 2016, 09:37:09 AM »

Oh no, stop confronting him with reality. You'll break his world apart :(

I can abide weird debate, but I draw the line at assertions or quotes that are so obviously wrong.
Also, it depends whether I woke up with a hangover, among other things :)

9
The Lounge / Re: Does jroa go in for scatological humor?
« on: October 05, 2016, 09:28:41 AM »
Who's there?

10
The Lounge / Does jroa go in for scatological humor?
« on: October 01, 2016, 01:45:05 PM »
I suspect he does.
Only one way to find out.
Anyone know any good fart jokes?

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: About this accelerating Flat Earth idea
« on: October 01, 2016, 01:34:23 PM »
Apologies if it has been covered.

Dark matter is invoked to explain the stability of (spiral) galaxies, which should be flying apart according to conventional gravity theory if they were composed only of the observed matter.

Dark energy is invoked to explain the observed increasing acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

The last phenomenon leads most folks to assume there will be no big crunch. Possible alternative: if we have mistaken/underestimated the mass of neutrinos, then their aggregate mass might be enough to slow and eventually reverse the expansion. Make of that what you will :)

12
I salute your seemingly endless gushings of intellectual innovation.

13
Seriously.  You might get enough flat earthers contributing.  The cost of living in Turkey is so much lower than it is in a real country that setting up a patreon account and appealing to first worlders might actually be feasible.

I'm on Initkam's ignore list.  So if the 3 people on this forum who haven't pissed him off are listening please suggest it.  I genuinely want to see what happens.

There ya go.

14
Announcements / Re: Hacked, Downtime today from 6am until 2pm.
« on: October 01, 2016, 11:22:43 AM »
Maybe you should get hacked more often. I mean, look at the interesting thread it generated.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Are imaginary numbers real?
« on: October 01, 2016, 11:03:00 AM »
mass should be negative if we are talking about antimatter.
Quote
The overwhelming consensus among physicists is that antimatter has positive mass and should be affected by gravity just like normal matter.
Taken from wikipedia.

Which one is got Nobel phsics award is Paul Dirac is a special one shown the mass can be negative or wikipedia which can writen by everybody shows mass isn't.

Sigh...once again you are just making stuff up. Antimatter is about charge, not about mass. A positron is an electron with positive charge, not negative mass. Read the speech to Dirac's Nobel prize here:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1933/press.html

"It now appeared that one of the solution systems required the existence of positive electrons having the same mass and charge as the known negative electrons."

You really need to learn about basic quantum theory. What kind of an engineer are you anyway?

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Federal lab (Maslak / Istanbul / Turkey)
« on: September 29, 2016, 01:37:00 PM »
Any progress on this?

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why would NASA be found by Nazi's?
« on: September 29, 2016, 01:35:23 PM »
The evidence mounts that jroa is a troll. It just does.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conclusive prove that the earth is not flat!
« on: September 29, 2016, 01:25:31 PM »

Because it's fake and gay. >:(

Gay? wtf

20
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-28/erdogan-adviser-says-turkey-should-consider-buying-deutsche-bank

Nice quote: "Turkey’s sovereign wealth fund is still in the works, but the critical problem at this stage is that while it is ‘sovereign,’ the key bit it lacks is the ‘wealth,’"

Just another example of the Turkish government's empty bluster and self delusion. If the West didn't need Incirlik, it could forget about Turkey altogether. The psychological unwillingness to recognize the Armenian genocide for what it was, the inability to solve the Kurdish question, the cynical attitude and use of the Syrian refugees as pawns in its political games, the opportunistic cozying up to the Russians to spite the West, the anti democratic crackdowns that have been going on for years, the increasing religious intolerance, the corruption at all levels of government, and on and on. This is another promising developing country turning itself into a basket case by its own collective incompetence.

It's only a matter of time before Erdogan starts having himself called "Great Leader". He has already wasted hundreds of millions of the people's wealth on building himself a palace with over 1'000 rooms.
http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/19/inside-erdogans-palace-the-500-million-mansion-turkeys-president-calls-home-6015161/

If not for the remittances of millions of foreign workers in Europe (hint: they couldn't find jobs at home), Turkey would probably already be half way to bankrupt. EU negotiations should be cut off and Turkey should be thrown out of NATO. Europe doesn't need this pita.

21
I don't get it. Who's the "dirty killer"? Obama, Hatch, Strada, Corker, Rosie O'Donnell?

22
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Are imaginary numbers real?
« on: September 28, 2016, 11:50:13 PM »
Aha, so by process you mean "define via an algorithm of a Turing machine"?

In that sense there is reason to doubt that reals are real.

23
The Lounge / Re: GOODBYE
« on: September 28, 2016, 11:43:45 PM »
Ward, I think you were a little hard on the beaver last night!

Heh, funniest thing you've written since I've been here. ;D

24
well then I stand corrected, because I did read the title of the forum and did not see "politics" there.

25
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Are imaginary numbers real?
« on: September 28, 2016, 04:10:40 AM »
Yes, only "ruler and compass". I don't really understand the rest of your post.

I just meant that since you said we can "only process rationals", showing how to construct a real number geometrically would refute that. But OK, we're wandering a bit into the weeds here. Ignore me :)

26
It's time to say good bye to un-scientific process of thought.

Well gosh, if you're convinced, then it's good enough for me. The flat earth idea is now officially dead.

But you don't really understand what they do at CERN, do you?

27
I applaud your dedication and effort, but I think I'll pass.

28
The Lounge / Re: GOODBYE
« on: September 28, 2016, 03:54:38 AM »
Man, the FEers among you are pretty hard on the guy. Maybe you think he was a troll. I think he was an honest wannabe.

29
Are these Middle Eastern political threads really appropriate to this forum?

30
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Are imaginary numbers real?
« on: September 27, 2016, 09:28:44 AM »
Not if you go the geometric route, it would seem to me. I can easily draw a square of side = 1, and then draw its diagonal.
Not all real numbers can be constructed that way.

By "that way" I assume you mean the classic "ruler and compass" construction, and that is true. But I meant to challenge your assertion that we can only process rationals by suggesting how to construct one.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6