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 - niceguybut

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Recent BBC cosmology-related shows
« on: March 09, 2010, 02:50:45 PM »
Seems the BBC has suddenly gone cosmology crazy.  Thought these might be of interest - not sure about their availability outside the UK though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00rf172/Wonders_of_the_Solar_System_Empire_of_the_Sun/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00rgg31/Horizon_20092010_Is_Everything_We_Know_About_The_Universe_Wrong/

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: New movie with FET in it
« on: July 14, 2009, 11:51:36 AM »
Tim Curry is in it, nice. I think I also heard Christopher Lee in there somewhere too.

Christopher Lee plays the voice of Death.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« on: April 29, 2009, 09:59:12 AM »
You know that people only live on the upwards-facing surface of the FE disc, right?  No-one lives on the 'underside'.

Well, that's the current hypothesis any way.

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« on: April 24, 2009, 09:47:55 AM »
I'm not going to have this argument again, I've far more important things to be worrying about.  But I will just say that I note you posted that last post on the .net site in a forum for which I for one have no posting rights - somewhat suspicious I should say.  As for the photos, they are not "well documented"; just because they are on Flickr doesn't mean that they are all geotagged (which would be done with GPS, and therefore would not be trustworthy any way) and height references given for example.  The videos are a joke: not only are they of poor resolution, but the shots most clearly showing waves lapping at the shore are very obviously taken from height.

That's my final word on the subject, I just wanted to point people in the direction of the argument (I refuse to call it a debate given some of the language and tactics you used) previously entered into, to save anyone the bother again, as it would get nowhere.

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« on: April 23, 2009, 02:14:26 PM »
Specifically referring to the issue of curvature looking towards Toronto: when he posts something apart from unverifiable photographs, unobtainable news stories, compressed-to-buggery videos, or just plain hearsay, then I'll give him a fair hearing. See my previous post for the last time I tried to do so without that, then you'll understand why I'm sceptical this time.

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« on: April 20, 2009, 03:09:54 PM »
Let's save ourselves this debate again: http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=684.30

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity, according to an FEer
« on: April 20, 2009, 03:05:46 PM »
The model currently accepted (why, we are still wondering) by FES can be proved to be wrong quite easily, if we just take into account the orbits of the Sun/Moon/Planets, above the flat earth.

That the earth is flat is very easy to show, the supporting theory is what makes the whole thing a joke in the eyes of the round earth proponents; once the correct model is accepted, there is no limit to what could be done...

Let us take as an example the western shoreline of Lake Ontario:

Oh god, not this rubbish again.

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why did google do it
« on: April 06, 2009, 08:15:41 AM »
Who the hell would pay 400 dollars for that. What are the added features?

Anyone not wanting to be sued by Google I imagine.  We've just had GE removed from all our computers at work for this very reason.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: .net
« on: April 02, 2009, 07:00:11 AM »
The Conspiracy paying for Flat Earth Research?


10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A few questions...
« on: April 01, 2009, 02:09:41 AM »
Yeah it just seems like dudes came up with these theories but can't be bothered coming up with any evidence to support them! Also when they make stuff up they don't check to see if what they made up is impossible! They'll say theres no solid evidence for certain events when there clearly is, its hilairious.

It's because they'll throw the burden of proof onto you as you made the claim in the first place.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A few questions...
« on: April 01, 2009, 02:03:40 AM »
4) Why is the force towards the Earth's surface weaker at the equator?
4. I've never seen any solid evidence that it is.

It took me 10 seconds to look this up. You're really not trying are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_gravity#Latitude

I think not actually trying is probably more likely...

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Tom Bishop
« on: April 01, 2009, 01:47:18 AM »
Hai guise, here's a secret, your IP address can reveal more about your location than just your city. Sometimes and ISP is completely dedicated to a business/campus/facility.


If you can't guess the rest you are an idiot.

My home IP apparently places me in Amsterdam, so I don't hold much stock in it since I'm clearly not in the Netherlands.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« on: March 31, 2009, 12:31:41 PM »
No air resistance when you step out of a plane?

Most first year or so physics text books homework problems will tell you to disregard air resistance to make the math a whole lot easier while still getting the point across.  If you want to do the math required to calculate the resistance due to the constantly changing air pressure and aerodynamic drag of a falling body, then by all means, have at it.

No thanks ;)

14
Flat Earth Debate / Fusion and the sun
« on: March 31, 2009, 12:28:59 PM »
I know there have been a few discussions on how nuclear fusion might happen at the sun, and thought this might be of interest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7972865.stm

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Who is the president of the FES?
« on: March 31, 2009, 12:06:22 PM »
What is the correlation between this site and the .net sitethough?  There are a couple of "fanatics" (their words) promoting FE theory over there, but apparently that has nothing to do with Daniel, and in fact they are pretty dismissive of this site.  In fact it has been suggested that I extent an invitation to the users of this site to wander back there and do more than contribute to the number game over there, so I am.

16
Any chance of a horizontal scale on that graph?  As far as a representation goes it looks plausible, now all we need is a reason for light to behave that way without us either scrapping or adding some major caveats to Snell's law...

17

I simply want to know why you believe the <word that represents the big thing that's under all of us> is a huge flat disc when you can't see it's a huge flat disc.

Well, strictly speaking, I do not believe in that, precisely for that reason. Since Samuel Rowbotham experimentally proved that the Earth is not a sphere (read just two pages: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm and http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm ), the idea of a huge flat disc seems the most compatible with what I see every day - that the Earth is flat.

Have you independently recreated that experiment?

No, I have not. Why?
How else are you supposed to know if it's true or not then?

Peer review. Rowbotham's experiments have already been peer reviewed numerous times over the last 150 years, all with the same result.

Have you seen Lady Blount's photographer's photograph of the experiment she performed?  If so, any chance you could provide a link to it or details of where you found it?  This is one of only two peer reviews you mention in your sig links.  If not, isn't taking as true reports of what has been alleged to have been seen just relying on third-hand information?

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Pre-Spaceflight Conspiracy?
« on: March 31, 2009, 11:17:58 AM »
I thought current opinion tended towards him just being a script embedded in this site.  But an actual physical being, eh?  Interesting.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Falling" towards the earth
« on: March 31, 2009, 11:09:37 AM »
Sorry Matrix but how you describe acceleration due to "gravity" has no logical reasoning. For the sake of the argument lets say g = +9.8 m/s^2 both at ground level and in the aircraft. How come g changes from 9.8 m/s^2 to 0 m/s^2 as soon as you step out?

An initial acceleration of of 9.8 m/s^2 to 0 m/s^2 at terminal velocity just seems far more logical. If a = 0 m/s^2 then you have 0 N force and would just float with the clouds since you will not be applying a force to displace the air.

v = u + at if u = 0 m/s and a = 0 m/s^2 then v = 0 m/s
and
F = ma if a = 0 m/s^2 then F = 0 N
Its using relativity. Lets say you are in a box with no windows. You take out an accelerometer. it says you are accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2. there is no way of knowing whether it is gravity or the box is accelerating to give you this reading. When you fall out of a plane and are in free fall lets say there is no air resistance. although it appears you are accelerating in the fourth dimension you are going in a constant speed.

No air resistance when you step out of a plane?

Also, should you decide to do that, and reach terminal velocity, you are not accelerating in the fourth dimension, as that would require us to be five-dimensional beings, and as far as I'm aware we only exist in four (layman here BTW, if we're in umpteen then no mockery required!).  You're accelerating in two, the velocity in the third (down) is constant, therefore it is also in the fourth, unless you're travelling faster through time than everyone else.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, I know there's something about doing so the faster you travel, but does that apply here?

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ships at sea
« on: March 31, 2009, 11:01:23 AM »
Also is it possible the ship came from somewhere with the tide out, as so, would appear to rise when approaching.

Eh? ???

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antarctica.
« on: March 31, 2009, 10:58:15 AM »
If there is an ice wall, then where are the south pole, the magnetic south pole and the southern pole of innaccesability located?

The magnetic south pole is located near the centre of the disk, in the Arctic Ocean near Canada.

The Geographic South Pole is located at the centre of the disk, on the opposite side to the Geographic North Pole.

The Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station is located directly beneath the South Celestial Pole to the south of Australia. This point holds no significance other than being beneath a South Celestial Pole.

In that case, would it not be better then if the FE folks made more use of the terms "hubward" and "rimward", rather than "north" and "south", as adjectives to describe geographic features on the surface of the disc?  What you're saying seems to describe them all as being "north"?

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Tom Bishop
« on: March 31, 2009, 07:34:18 AM »
I believe he has repeatedly posted that he reproduced and confirmed the experiments in ENaG, but perhaps that was before your arrival.

It's all very well him saying that, but has he posted his results?  If so I'll go do a search for them, but I don't recall having seen them previously or in searches I've done before.

23
Also, "an illusion did it" is a pretty lame excuse in the face of overwhelming evidence.

*cough*bendy light*cough*


24

Tom, do you know what peer review means?

Lady Blount was founder of the nutjob group that parroted Rowbothams manure all over the country through the ENAG Review rag. Clearly biased from the outset.

It's a good thing that she took pictures and had her accounts corroborated by third parties then.

I would call the "corroboration" extremely caveated, as Clifton stated that unless there was a reason for the light appearing to follow the curvature of a round earth, then he would conclude that the light and the earth were flat.  There are circumstances under which that happens, such as superior mirages as markjo mentioned.  Therefore I wouldn't call Clifton's opinion a ringing endorsement.

Quote
Quote
Who, and where can one read these reviews?

You can read them in my signature link.

So, two citations/peer reviews, one from a book reporting an extremely partial source (Lady Blount), and the other one man's opinion in a journal that was subsequently full of other opinions that it was all complete cods.

25
Guys, completely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but could you both learn to quote properly?  This is all very confusing to read!

Ta muchly!

26
Quote
Peer reviewed by whom ?  It can't be scientists because the've never heard of Rowbothem.

Earth Not a Globe was peer reviewed by multiple independent researchers at the time of its publication.

Who, and where can one read these reviews?

27
Really? How would it be obvious? Would they have badges that say "Former Conspiracy Employee of the Week"?

Sudden influx of people into new jobs in homeland security + sudden end of space agencies = suspicious.

I wouldn't have thought they'd do it suddenly if they were going to do it.  Perhaps it would start with a change of government policy, say to try and save expenditure that would be better spent on medical care, education, public transport, or other laudible public projects.  It is decided that NASA and the other space agencies do not provide value for money, so it is decided to gradually wind them up, cutting their budgets year on year until they are either subsumed into other departments or abolished completely.  There would be savings in salary costs, other overhead costs, selling off its assets, etc, which would all have to be done in stages so as to not flood the market and make it unviable.  There would have to be periods of retraining, and some employees transferred to other government departments, eg homeland security.

"Salami tactics" is a phrase I've seen used in other contexts (mainly to do with military tactics of gradual annexings), where things are done in "slices" so as to not arouse suspicion or provoke a reaction - each "slice" is in of itself not that big a deal, but the cumulative effect would have to be analysed over a long period of time in order to get the full picture of what was happening.

Contrary to popular belief, governments aren't quite that stupid.

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spotlight sun... explain more betterer
« on: March 25, 2009, 01:14:51 PM »

Well, let me help you then.  What about the FAQ's explanation do you not understand?

It offers no explanation for observed events. If the sun is a spotlight we either have permanant day, or a sun that blinks out in the middle of the sky.

In short its gobbledegook.

Hmm, I see your point.  I've never been satisfied that sunsets are due entirely to perspective.  I think the light is either bending due to some mechanism we've dubbed "electromagnetic acceleration" (not a popular theory here, as I'm sure you noticed) or appearing to bend, possibly due to the effect of the atmosphere.

Any further news on your "reverse refraction" hypothesis?

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Does it really matter?
« on: March 24, 2009, 06:22:10 AM »
I think for a lot of it you've answered your own question:

being different for the sake of being different

There are some true believers, but as far as I can tell, for the most part the argument is for argument's sake.

30
My pleasure - enjoy the threads and try not to be put off by derailing trolls too much!

"by derailing trolls" or "by the derailing trolls"?  Or both?  Meh.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5