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 - lomfs24

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Does Australia exist?
« on: June 24, 2006, 05:49:41 AM »
If Australia doesn't exist, where does United fly me for $614(USD) plus tax?

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Convince Me
« on: June 24, 2006, 05:34:22 AM »
I don't seriously believe the world is flat. I have been known to argue both sides. For me this site is a means to sharpen the debate skills. It is also an excercise in creative thinking as well as forcing myself and others to prove what we believe to be true without using data that is taken for granted.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / EXPLAIN THIS
« on: June 23, 2006, 08:52:38 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "lomfs24"
If I have a choice and I want to believe something I will pick personal experiences over what I read on a wiki or other website any day of the week.

The funny thing is that this is exactly the same sentiment that the FE'ers get riddiculed for all the time!
Touché

4
Flat Earth Q&A / EXPLAIN THIS
« on: June 23, 2006, 05:56:21 AM »
Yes, in the radio world 20 MHz is wildly inaccurate. "I was trying to talk to you but you didn't respond. I was only 20 MHz off, I don't get it" Yes, it is wildly inaccurate.
You are right, you didn't say AM couldn't be bounced. You said anything above AM couldn't be bounced. Which is just a sentence that means nothing. Therefore, wildly inaccurate.

I was agreeing with you that you were no less than 20 MHz off but clearly stated that freq's above 30 MHz could be bounced. Again, it was your wiki quote that placed the magic number.

As far as me "doing it all the time". If I have a choice and I want to believe something I will pick personal experiences over what I read on a wiki or other website any day of the week. And mathmatical models alway work in a perfect world but don't always work in the real world.

Why am I so angry? LOL Read your post a couple up and answer the same question. I am not angry I am simply pointing out where you are wrong. And instead of just saying "You are wrong" I gave you reasons why you were wrong.

5
Flat Earth Q&A / EXPLAIN THIS
« on: June 22, 2006, 09:30:21 PM »
You are wrong. There I just pointed out your error. LMFAO.

No, the reason I went to all that trouble is because you repeatedly made inaccurate statements while trying to prove some sort of point about radio. Because of the wildly inaccurate statements I am not sure what you are trying to prove.

First you said nothing above AM could be bounced. Then you said nothing above 10Mhz could be bounced. Then you posted some Wiki that proved you even further wrong. You have twisted my statements by saying that I said the threshold was 30MHz when I said nothing of the sort. In fact as you quoted I said that frequencies below 100 MHz are frequently bounced. I even specifically mentioned the 6 meter band that is bounced. It was your wiki quote that put the magic number of 30 MHz on it.

Now, please put it to rest so we can continue with out regularily scheduled posting. And don't try to tell me it was I who highjacked this thread. It was you who first said that AM couldn't be bounced with proves nothing here nor there for or against FE or RE.

Wow, such tempers on a stupid message board about the most ridiculous topic in the world.

6
Flat Earth Q&A / EXPLAIN THIS
« on: June 22, 2006, 04:32:37 PM »
Yes, I am going through all this because you were off by 20MHz or more. 20 MHz in the radio world is a huge chunk of bandwidth. You can get a lot of tons of channels out of a couple MHz.


Anyway, we can put all this mumbo jumbo to rest because in the FE model there is no atmosphere to bounce off so this is all a conspiracy. Right?

7
Flat Earth Q&A / EXPLAIN THIS
« on: June 22, 2006, 01:37:27 PM »
Awwww...now we are getting somewhere. The reason so many things on this type of site are argued is the ambiguity of peoples statements. One person makes a statement but means something entirely else. Or someone makes a blanket statement that is entirely false but is clear in their own mind. Think of it as an excercise in communications.

Now, you said that frequencies above 10 MHz couldn't be bounced. I pointed out that was false. You then posted a Wiki that also said it was false. I would also like to point out that wiki's are not always the best place for information to be obtained. For instance, your Wiki says that freqs above 30MHz are not returned. with VHF and UHF in parentheses. However, the 6 meter band is used in ham radio (50-54MHz) and is really only useful when skip opens up. But when the band opens up you can talk all over the US by bouncing off the atomsphere.

Thanks for bringing up the difference between AM radio stations and FM radio stations. And you are correct. You can hear AM stations a lot farther than you can FM. Here's why(and it's not because of ionosphere skip)
Reason #1
AM is amplitude modulation. If you want to know what that is wiki it. It's basically the way modulation is carried on the radio waves. AM radio will always carry farther than FM. FM is frequency modulation. I wish I could draw so I could show you but if you look it up on the net you will see the differences.
Reason #2.
Lower radio frequencies will always carry farther than higher ones. Think of a radio wave as, ...well... a wave. A higher frequency (more cycles a second) make smaller waves and as a result make a flatter traveling radio signal. Making the radio wave follow closer to a line of sight. A lower frequency (fewer cycles per second) makes a larger wave that is more easily bent. Since it will bend easier it will follow large scale terrain changes better. For instance Denver at 5200 feet trying to contact Houston which is very near sea level would be a large scale terrain change.

All that to get to this. AM radio is from 535kHz to 1605 kHz while FM radio is 88.0 MHz to 108.0 MHz. Therefore AM radio is a much lower frequency traveling farther without the need for skip. That's why you will hear AM radio 20,30,50 or even 100 miles farther than FM radio. You would not be actually hearing skip unless you heard an AM radio station 1500 to 2000 miles away. Canada for instance if you were in Arizona.

Again, Engineer, radio is not your stong suit, stay away from it.

8
Flat Earth Q&A / EXPLAIN THIS
« on: June 22, 2006, 10:10:54 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
I believe frequencies above 10 MHz can't be bounced of the ionosphere.
I believe you are wrong. All frequencies bounce off the ionosphere. However, different wave lengths bounce at different angles. Just like light moves through transparent materials at different angles, that's why we have rainbows. Therefore, higher frequencies don't bounce at an angle that gets back to the ground....under most circumstances. Occasionally you will hear a skip. Frequencies below 100 MHz are frequently bounced. Side band seems to skip better than AM or FM.... don't know why that is.

Perhaps because of the conspiracy.  :D

9
Flat Earth Q&A / OH NOES!!!!!!!!!!
« on: June 22, 2006, 08:11:47 AM »
No I didn't specifically invent Motorola. They have been doing radio a lot longer than I have been working on compters. However, some of the ideas that power computerized radios such as trunking, packet and cell phones were stolen from me.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / EXPLAIN THIS
« on: June 22, 2006, 08:09:07 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "lomfs24"
The best way to get a radio signal away from this is to point it up slightly and shoot over the top of it and bounce it off the ionosphere.

Anything with a frequency higher than AM can't be bounced off the ionosphere, as they are too energetic.


TheEngineer, obviously radio theory is not your strong suit. I respect a lot of what you are saying but you should leave radio theory alone.

You do realize that AM and FM refer to types of modulation rather than actual frequency location. I could run AM clear up into the Gigahertz's range. Wouldn't work very well but I could. On the flip side I can run FM as low as I want. Again, it doesn't work as well as AM in those ranges but it still works. We are not even going to get into upper and lower sideband.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / EXPLAIN THIS
« on: June 21, 2006, 08:48:43 PM »
Roses are red
Violets are blue
I am schizophrenic
And so am I.

12
Flat Earth Q&A / OH NOES!!!!!!!!!!
« on: June 21, 2006, 04:07:24 PM »
Oh yeah, well I invented computers. I thought it was a novel idea for a while, got bored with it. I knew it was going to take off so I didn't just scrap it. I started a privately held company with stock shares. I then created several other companies such as Apple (later MacIntosh), IBM, Microsoft, Bell, Intel etc... who each got shares of my original company. Each time one of those companies get's unmanagable I create a new start up company and spin off some stocks to them. These would be companies like Dell and Gateway.

I know, it's a conspiracy revealed but I own the entire computer industry and Mr. Gore wouldn't have had anything if it wasn't for me holding the purse strings.

13
Flat Earth Q&A / EXPLAIN THIS
« on: June 21, 2006, 03:59:21 PM »
There are a couple reasons why radio waves are bounced off the ionosphere.
1. Terrain. I am just using the US as an example here. But, unless you live on the top of the Rocky Mountains there is probably some terrain that is much higher than you between you and China. If you take that out to the rest of the world you might want to start somewhere in the Hymalia's (sp?) to get above the rest of the terrain in the world. So radio waves are bounced off the ionosphere in order to get over terrain.

2. Radio waves are in constant use around the world. Each time you use a cell phone, cordless phone, rc car, microwave, turn on an electric appliance, everytime a radio station is turned on, TV station turned on etc.... (the list is endless) it adds a little bit more to the radio clutter engulfing our earth. And the closer you get to centers of population, both in proximity and altitude (think dome around centers of population), the worse that radio clutter gets. To hear the radio clutter for yourself, turn your FM stereo to a frequency that does not have a local station on it and you will here a static hiss. This has a generic term of 'white noise' or static. The best way to get a radio signal away from this is to point it up slightly and shoot over the top of it and bounce it off the ionosphere.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / So guys....Is hell below the Earth?
« on: June 20, 2006, 05:23:36 PM »
Quote from: "god"
mahogany, with purple heart inlays
Sounds nice, no wonder you want green felt on the bottom of the earth so it doesn't scratch your desk.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / So guys....Is hell below the Earth?
« on: June 20, 2006, 05:13:50 PM »
Quote from: "god"
from what i gathered from the FAQ's here on this forum, the underside of the flat earth is comprised entirly of the green self adhesive felt thats on the bottoms of snowglobes.

this way god can put it on his desk and it won't scratch the finish. i'm sure god has a kick ass desk and he doesn't want to scratch it all up right?
You tell us god, what kind of desk do you have?  :D

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Which side?
« on: June 19, 2006, 09:49:45 PM »
Quote from: "MiniCooper"
Quote from: "lomfs24"
Locke brings up a very good point. Which side are we one? It is pretty difficult to prove that the earth is even flat. And nature is constantly trying to stop using energy. I don't remember the term, maybe atrophy? Anyway, wouldn't it be easier to say that we are actually on the bottom of the earth and that we are falling rather than to say we are on top and being pushed up by some magical DARK energy or DARK matter?


Falling would require some sort of gravitational pull from below which would mean a huge mass creating it.
 Doesn't that make as much sense as some magical DARK force pushing it up?

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Which side?
« on: June 19, 2006, 05:43:55 PM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote from: "lomfs24"
Locke brings up a very good point. Which side are we one? It is pretty difficult to prove that the earth is even flat. And nature is constantly trying to stop using energy. I don't remember the term, maybe atrophy? Anyway, wouldn't it be easier to say that we are actually on the bottom of the earth and that we are falling rather than to say we are on top and being pushed up by some magical DARK energy or DARK matter?

You realize falling and rising are exactly the same thing, right?


I wasn't aware of that. Falling is going down, rising is going up. Seems like two different scenarios.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Who's up for an ocean cruise?
« on: June 19, 2006, 04:18:10 PM »
The real test would be to get into your boat and travel straight south until you hit the wall. (Ice that is). Then get out of your boat, climb the wall and keep going due south until you fall off the wall, get shot or both.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Which side?
« on: June 19, 2006, 04:05:35 PM »
Locke brings up a very good point. Which side are we one? It is pretty difficult to prove that the earth is even flat. And nature is constantly trying to stop using energy. I don't remember the term, maybe atrophy? Anyway, wouldn't it be easier to say that we are actually on the bottom of the earth and that we are falling rather than to say we are on top and being pushed up by some magical DARK energy or DARK matter?

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Dark matter
« on: June 18, 2006, 08:06:51 AM »
Quote from: "Sepulchre"
UNCLE JIM BOB wrote:
Quote

What about Darth Energy.
In Question
-ujb


Ha  I greatly appreciated the humour in that post, thank you for that ujb, and serious lomfs...insults and personal insults really dont give anyone the impression that your points will be valid or even worth listening too.

[/quote]In all seriousness, in nearly every thread UJB has been in has degenerated into a mass of insults usually started by UJB. This very thread he opens with an off topic stupid comment that beggs someone to take a shot at him. The the thread winds down from there to the point that nothing gets answered.

In short, the sooner you can get UJB out of a thread the better the thread will be. Some people are simply a waste of air and space.

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Question for FE'ers only
« on: June 17, 2006, 10:47:17 AM »
Powerball at $100 Million, after taxes, spilt two ways? Would leave me with only ummmm about $25 Mill. I am not sure I could live on that.

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Quick Question
« on: June 17, 2006, 10:35:33 AM »
Quote from: "Luke_smith64"
If we have already found all the tectonic plates, and they all connect to form a sphere, how can you FE theory be correct?


A quick question deserves a quick answer.
A: Because it is.
 :D

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Question for FE'ers only
« on: June 17, 2006, 10:33:35 AM »
I could tell you next week's winning lotto numbers. One problem. I have already purchased those numbers. So even if I did tell you they won't be any good to you.

24
Flat Earth Q&A / New, with a few questions...
« on: June 17, 2006, 10:31:49 AM »
He said "nutjob"  :lol:

25
Flat Earth Q&A / sattelite anyone?
« on: June 17, 2006, 09:56:30 AM »
People, as a whole, did not know the earth was round 700 years ago. That's why explorers like Magellan, Christopher Columbus and others had such a hard time. While it's true that the Bible contains scriptures that say the earth is round you have to remember that 700 years ago the Bible was not a common book. It was written in Latin at that point and only church leaders knew how to read it. They told people what to believe. In fact, around that time the church repressed the people so much that you could be burned at the stake for even owning a Bible. It wasn't really until later around the time of King James that the Bible was translated so the common person could read it.

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Shattering of the ice wall
« on: June 17, 2006, 09:49:30 AM »
Sounds like you are a math buff. The Wiki site also lists the the volume of water in the Hoover Dam. Would you mind running those same mumbers on the Hoover Dam using concrete as your model rather than ice?

I am not saying your wrong, just interested.

27
Flat Earth Q&A / New, with a few questions...
« on: June 17, 2006, 09:37:20 AM »
How would the death of a civilian adhere people to NASA? Do you remember when it happened? What was the only thing in the news for months after it happened? The Challenger accident. It suddenly brought the space program to the forefront again. The space race was back on. News of another shuttle launch was coming so fast and furious that it was hardly making news. And surely not front page news. But when the Challenger blew up..... guess what was on the front page for a long time? You guessed it....NASA.

Rich people in space? No one has ever really been to space. Rich people are taken up to very high altitudes. So high that the air is thin and they can't breathe. So they are given space suits etc... and they believe they are in space but since they are not really astronauts they can't and don't know the difference.

There have been people willing to make the sacrifice you speak of. However, none of them are taken seriously. Take for instance the people who have created this very forum, are they taken seriously?

28
Flat Earth Q&A / sattelite anyone?
« on: June 17, 2006, 09:27:14 AM »
Quote from: "EnCrypto"

I understand the challenge in trying to scientifically defend something that has been scientifically proven to be false, I understand the exercise in trying to explain things differently, and for the most part you all do a very good job, but when you start saying "Conspiracy!" for most of your answers to people's questions, or "How do you know that? That's right, someone told you.", it doesn't seem very scientific, or logical or realistic, at all... especially when you refer to a 10 foot thick ice wall holding back ALL of Earth's water, that nobody has ever seen, so the only way you could say it exists is if "someone told you."


To me it's the challenge of trying to defend something that is known to be false. It's kind of like when you were in high school debate class and you were given a topic to defend even though you really didn't believe in the topic you were given.

I'll agree with you. I don't really like the posts that just say "It's part of the conspiracy" I usually try to explain how it fits into the conspiracy if I am going to use that angle.
As far as "someone told you that's the way it is". Well, that's the whole point to this excersise. 700 years ago you would have been told that the earth was flat, you would have been expected to believe it and if you didn't you quite possibly could have been burned at the stake. Today, you are told that the earth is flat and we are expected to believe it.

Touché on the "someone told you about the ice wall".  :wink:   But I don't think that most FE'rs would tell you that it's only 10 feet thick. I have heard 10 miles thick but I think that even that would be pretty thin for there to be expeditions to antarctica. On the picture of the FE model in one of the threads the ice wall looks pretty thick. As compared to known distances of other continents it appears that the ice wall could be hundreds of miles thick.

I tried to use doppler shift in radio theory to A) prove satellites and B) if satellites the earth is round. It actually went pretty well. No one could refute it except to say "Satellites don't exist" which pretty much tells me "You win".

As far as flying over the south pole. Since, in the FE model there is really no "south pole" the flight path could skim along part of the ice wall. That would of course suggest an incompotent pilot but none the less possible.

Think of it this way. What would happen if you were suddenly 700 years back in time and the people there wouldn't believe a photograph (because they had never seen one before) How would you expain to them the world was round? It's really an excersize in creative thinking. Unless you take the conspiracy route with out explaining how it fits in.

29
Flat Earth Q&A / New, with a few questions...
« on: June 17, 2006, 08:52:23 AM »
Quote from: "EnCrypto"
What about #4?

Prior to that only NASA personell were put into space. And we all know none of that ever happened. It was all a ploy. But now there was a teacher that wanted to go. They knew they couldn't actually go to space and bring them back. She also couldn't know of the flat earth since she was a teacher. So by blowing her up before she got to space was the easiest way to deal with a problem. They knew she wasn't coming back anyway so it didn't really make a difference where she was killed. Plus it made the sheople fall in love with the space program again and NASA could ask for more funding.

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Question for FE'ers only
« on: June 17, 2006, 08:31:33 AM »
Dwarfs and migets scare me, so do circus clowns.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4