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 - d00gz

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to Prove that Orbit is Maintained
« on: July 19, 2010, 09:07:00 AM »
iIs it an hologram that moves at 7689 m/s??

Yes. The hologram projectors are, of course, quite stationary on the Earth's surface.

I ask again, Proof?

Please stop feeding him T_T, this thread had potential. Everytime you ask him a question you are in fact stabbing this thread :(

Yeah, but Parsifail posting statements like that is boring. It's when he comes up with these ridiculous theories to "prove" them, that he's amusing.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to Prove that Orbit is Maintained
« on: July 19, 2010, 08:40:49 AM »
iIs it an hologram that moves at 7689 m/s??

Yes. The hologram projectors are, of course, quite stationary on the Earth's surface.

I ask again, Proof?

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to Prove that Orbit is Maintained
« on: July 19, 2010, 07:34:29 AM »
The ISS doesn't land because it's not a physical object. It's a hologram.

Proof?

4
Of course it's awesome. It's exactly in same level as FE only "evidence". Look out the window and what you see? Earth is flat so it must be flat.

How is even close?
It has quite same wording and has same amount on great points. Shortly:
1)Earth looks curved so it is spherical.
2)Earth looks flat so it is flat.

You even read the rest of my post, you'd notice how I pointed out that curved != spherical until the sixth definition.
And in fact, curved pointed towards disks and cylinders first.

Wait, aren't those FE things?
It seems to me that either way, whether you think it is flat, or you think it is curved, it suggests FE before it does SE.

If you are on an aircraft at 50,000 feet, you can look out the window and see the earth's curvature. You can then turn 90 degree's, and look out another window, and see the same curvature. Explain how the earth could be a cylinder, having made these observations?

5
What, physics as it is taught in schools all over the world?

Surely you don't believe what they teach you Steve? It's funny how, when it suits you, Einstein is correct, yet other times, he's wrong, and how the school systems are a valid educational reference when it suits you, unless they're teaching something that could be used to disprove FE.

You are a hypocrite of the highest degree.

6
Have you ever considered the possibility that Steve is right, and the RE'ers arguing against him are wrong? It's people like sillyrob here who go around claiming to have 'disproven' BLT, yet it's clear in this thread that he really didn't know his stuff. What I'm trying to say is, just becaue people like sillyrob shout loudly that they understand something or have disproven it, does not mean that they do or have. I don't even support Steve's BLT, yet the fact remains I've yet to see any argument put forward that disproves it, despite what vocal RE'ers like to claim.

I never said anything about him being right or wrong. I'm objecting to his troll posts in this thread. If he really is as intelligent as he occasionally appears, and you believe, them his posts in this thread are clearly spam. He's arguing for arguments sake.

But since you mention BLT, i've yet to see any evidence that this theory is true, other than FE'ers shouting that it is.

7

d00gz, your problem is that you automatically assume that RE'ers always know what they're talking about, and that FE'ers are always pedantic trolls. You have regularly accused me of the same thing, but the fact is that if someone asks a stupid question, then FE'ers are not obligated to match it with a stupid answer. At that point, it's everyone's job to point out why the question is stupid, FE'er and RE'er alike.

Whereas your problem is that you automatically assume RE'ers are stupid, and that you are significantly more intelligent. When an RE'er shows a discrepancy in FE, or proves flaws in it's logic, it's everyone's job to recognise the facts, and not troll the thread by posting nonsense. Although, that part relates more to Steve than you. Interesting how he seems to get away with a lot more spamming than other forum members, but i suppose that's not an argument for here, lest you ban me for speaking out of turn.

8
Ok Tom, you claim that the "Flat Earth" is going upwards at what we claim is the speed of gravity. We all know that gravitation pull is an attractive pull. So knowing this, why do water drops make the shape they do? If there is nothing pulling on them, why would they be wider at the bottom than they are at the top. According to you, they should be completely spherical until the Earth comes up at them. I want to know what your thoughts on this are.
No one has made the claim that the Flat Earth is going upwards at the "speed of gravity".

You know exactly the point that the OP is trying to make. Stop being pedantic and either address the question, or leave. Low content posting is not appropriate in this forum.
Its not pedantic at all.  If he doesn't even understand his own theory, or our theory, how can this misunderstanding be the premise for his argument? Further, his later point makes even less sense: that according to us they would be spherical.  He obviously has no idea what the flat earth theories he is attacking say.

Acceleration and Speed are two completely different things and its not pedantic to point that out in any way.  It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of physics by the OP - one that should be corrected.

If i post my interpretation of the OP's question in this thread, are you likely to address it properly, or be a pedantic troll about it, i.e. is it worth me bothering?

9
Ok Tom, you claim that the "Flat Earth" is going upwards at what we claim is the speed of gravity. We all know that gravitation pull is an attractive pull. So knowing this, why do water drops make the shape they do? If there is nothing pulling on them, why would they be wider at the bottom than they are at the top. According to you, they should be completely spherical until the Earth comes up at them. I want to know what your thoughts on this are.
No one has made the claim that the Flat Earth is going upwards at the "speed of gravity".

You know exactly the point that the OP is trying to make. Stop being pedantic and either address the question, or leave. Low content posting is not appropriate in this forum.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: White Nights prove FE?
« on: June 29, 2010, 06:45:38 AM »

Even here in Belarus, i can see the sunset in the north-west and then the edge of the sun light slowly goes to North as the night proceeds and then Sun rises at the north-east. Does it happen in the Southern Hemisphere?

Yes! How many times must you be told.

Only, obviously, in the south, the sun rises in the south east, and sets in the south west.

11
Ok Tom, you claim that the "Flat Earth" is going upwards at what we claim is the speed of gravity. We all know that gravitation pull is an attractive pull. So knowing this, why do water drops make the shape they do? If there is nothing pulling on them, why would they be wider at the bottom than they are at the top. According to you, they should be completely spherical until the Earth comes up at them. I want to know what your thoughts on this are.
Beyond the impossible mechanics of the UA, there is no very local difference between the predictions of UA and gravity in RE.

Except that the OP has just pointed one out.

And i'd be interested in hearing the FE reason for it.
With respect, the OP did not. The atmospheric drag that shapes raindrops, slows parachutes, and keeps maple tree seeds spiraling is equally predicted in FE and RE. In FE the accelerating FE pushes up on its “atmolayer” creating the required physics involved.


With respect, if it were "atmospheric drag" that caused this effect, surely the water drop would be wider at the top, not the bottom?
No. Why would you suggest that? In both cases the air is moving up relative to the drop.

Either you're a feeble troll, or you're really stupid.

Either way, i'm not going to argue with an idiot.

12
The Lounge / Re: Marijuana
« on: June 29, 2010, 05:45:36 AM »
Remember folks, marijuana kills and only someone who is a user and defending their habit will tell you otherwise.

I have never used marijuana, and don't intend to.

That's not the Zetetic way, if you want to join in the discussion properly, go out tonight, score some pot and get baked out your tree.

Come back tomorrow and let us know how it went.

13
Ok Tom, you claim that the "Flat Earth" is going upwards at what we claim is the speed of gravity. We all know that gravitation pull is an attractive pull. So knowing this, why do water drops make the shape they do? If there is nothing pulling on them, why would they be wider at the bottom than they are at the top. According to you, they should be completely spherical until the Earth comes up at them. I want to know what your thoughts on this are.
Beyond the impossible mechanics of the UA, there is no very local difference between the predictions of UA and gravity in RE.

Except that the OP has just pointed one out.

And i'd be interested in hearing the FE reason for it.
With respect, the OP did not. The atmospheric drag that shapes raindrops, slows parachutes, and keeps maple tree seeds spiraling is equally predicted in FE and RE. In FE the accelerating FE pushes up on its “atmolayer” creating the required physics involved.


With respect, if it were "atmospheric drag" that caused this effect, surely the water drop would be wider at the top, not the bottom?

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: White Nights prove FE?
« on: June 29, 2010, 05:20:50 AM »
1. Haven't seen any information about Polar Nights in the habitable areas of Southern Hemisphere.

2. You saying "sunlight strikes the ground at a shallower angle so that less energy per unit area is intercepted by the winter hemisphere", but it is me who intercepts energy from the Sun. And me myself not a shallow-angler for the Sun, in Winter i situated even better for this.

The one plausible reason for RE would be, that Sun shines through denser atmosphere level, and atmosphere absorbs some heat, that's why Sun is less worm in winter. But none of you said this.  But i don't know much about ability of atmoshpere to absorb heat, so i think the main reason why Sun is not that hot in Winter is that that Sun is just farther from the Observer.

No, i just told you the reason. It's the real reason. The one you've just made up is not.

And "the sun is not that hot in winter"

Do you think that the sun gets hotter or colder depending on the season, in the country where you live?

Oh dear.

15
Ok Tom, you claim that the "Flat Earth" is going upwards at what we claim is the speed of gravity. We all know that gravitation pull is an attractive pull. So knowing this, why do water drops make the shape they do? If there is nothing pulling on them, why would they be wider at the bottom than they are at the top. According to you, they should be completely spherical until the Earth comes up at them. I want to know what your thoughts on this are.
Beyond the impossible mechanics of the UA, there is no very local difference between the predictions of UA and gravity in RE.

Except that the OP has just pointed one out.

And i'd be interested in hearing the FE reason for it.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: White Nights prove FE?
« on: June 29, 2010, 04:45:45 AM »
What you dislike guys?

Questions are: 1) are there White Nights in Souther Hemisphere, same as we have in Northern one (they should be exactly same, according to RE).

2) Why Sun give less heat in Winter then in Summer, even though it's occupies same position in the Sky?



1. Yes, exactly the same.

2. "Winter is colder because the earth's axis is tilted. Winter occurs for the hemisphere which is tilted away from the Sun (the northern hemisphere in January, the southern in July). This has two main effects on the winter hemisphere. First, the Sun is above the horizon for fewer hours each day, so that hemisphere receives less heat from the sun. Also, sunlight strikes the ground at a shallower angle so that less energy per unit area is intercepted by the winter hemisphere. It is true that the earth is closest to the Sun in January. However, the distance from the earth to the Sun varies by only about 2% over a year. This causes a change of only 4% in the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth so this effect is not significant compared to the other two. "

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: White Nights prove FE?
« on: June 29, 2010, 02:29:39 AM »
Why you saying that temperature is the least important factor?

It is obvious that it is one of the important factors. And you didn't gave an answer to my example with the Sun 30o above the horizon.

Your username is apt.

The temperature in space, between the earth and the sun, is close to absolute zero. Yet you think the minor difference in distance between the 2 at different times of year is the defining factor in temperature inside the earth's atmosphere?

Stop trolling, surely you're not this stupid.

18
Not to point out the obvious to all you in the "too dense and opinionated to do research", but this thread has turned quite patheti-sad.  I did a quick check in the POH on my plane, and the windows are Lexan. Checked into a few airliners....Lexan and  polycarbonate, with reinforced housings seems to be the norm.  They sooooo do not use "glass" as the term is traditionally used.
Thank you EireEngineer for confirming what brother Pongo has been saying.

The windows are less rigid than glass, thus bend out, creating the curvature illusion.

He didn't say that, it's not true, and you can't prove that it is.

You lose.

Try harder next time.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Evidences that the Earth is, indeed flat!
« on: June 28, 2010, 07:28:14 AM »
Is the book called "How water behaves in an enclosed pipe?"

No but you referred to a hosepipe. I can only reply to what you provide.

1. I provided you with the title of a book.

2. I said apply the same logic. I did not say "It's the same thing"

It's usually the FE'ers that are this pathetic and pedantic about stuff like this.

Even if it is true that there is a 1000 mile stretch of Nile where the water level does not drop, it can still be easily explained.

Lets take a very simple example/experiment.

Lets say, you have a bath that looks like this:



The "floor" of the bath is flat. If not, incline yours at home, and check with a spirit level. Now, lets say, the drain, is where the river exits into the sea, and the top of the bath, where you might rest your head, is the source.

If you pour water continually down from the source, what will happen?

The water will continue to flow at an even rate, out the drain. But the bath is flat at the base, surely this must be impossible?!?!?! ARGH!!!

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Evidences that the Earth is, indeed flat!
« on: June 28, 2010, 07:17:11 AM »
That book will explain it.

I suspect not. The Nile is not an enclosed pipe.

Is the book called "How water behaves in an enclosed pipe?"

No.

Have you read the book?

No.

Got anything useful to add?

No?

Cheers.

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Evidences that the Earth is, indeed flat!
« on: June 28, 2010, 07:05:29 AM »
No-one ever studied any fluid mechanics then? No?

When you turn on a hose pipe, and hold the nozzle higher than the tap you have connected the hose pipe to, what happens? Water still comes out. Why?

Figure it out for yourself, then apply the same logic to the Nile. If it is true that it doesn't fall a foot in 1000 miles, it can still be easily explained.

Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics - Munson et al.

That book will explain it, I believe Amazon stock it.

22
It is quite common for manufacturing processes to have error tolerances of a few millimeters.

Not in the aerospace industry. 

Ask an industrial engineer.

Better yet, ask an aerospace engineer.  Unless you suspect that they may be in on the conspiracy.
Are you an aerospace engineer?
Are you?

A good friend of mine is. But he's not an idiot, therefore he thinks FE is nonsense.

So he'll tell you the truth, but being FE'ers, you won't like it, and will therefore proclaim him to be a liar.

23
Flat Earth General / Re: Airplane
« on: June 28, 2010, 06:08:36 AM »
In a few hours I'll ride a plane for the first time. I can't wait to look out the window and see for myself that there is no curvature. There has been a lot of discussion about whether curvature is visible from airplanes, and now I have a chance to finally see it for myself. I'm super excited.

You've led a pretty sheltered life, haven't you?

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Evidences that the Earth is, indeed flat!
« on: June 25, 2010, 01:01:24 AM »
I have watched land disappear below the horizon from a boat, so it stands to reason that an observer on land would have seen the boat i was on sink below the horizon.

You don't seem to have a very clear grasp of what reason is. The only reasonable conclusion one may draw from that is that the land actually did sink into the water.

So you think a reasonable explanation to what i witnessed, is that the land sank into the sea when we sailed away, then popped back up when we came back. And no-one on land noticed this?

If you think i don't have a very clear grasp of what reason is, it's plain you don't have a very clear grasp on reality and logic.

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Evidences that the Earth is, indeed flat!
« on: June 24, 2010, 06:52:22 AM »
You can observe, with binoculars, ships slowly 'sinking' below the horizon as it sails farther and farther out to the ocean, then watch them come back.

Please provide evidence that the ship which comes back is the same as the one that left.

Keep low content trolling out of the upper fora.

I have watched land disappear below the horizon from a boat, so it stands to reason that an observer on land would have seen the boat i was on sink below the horizon.

I came back on that same boat. Prove i didn't.

26
Here is something that everyone has seen many times.  A round-earth believer, or shape denier as I will call them from here on out, posts a pic from high altitude or makes the statement that in a plane you can see the curvature of the earth.  And indeed, the pictures of the shape deniers do look compelling.  However, it's all an optical illusion.

At ground level, if you look out the window of a plane every round-earth believer and every shape denier can agree that the earth looks flat.  However, at extreme altitudes, it appears that there is a curvature.  This is well documented and understood.  Now, a shape denier will point to this and ignorantly proclaim, "Ah hah!  We've got you!  Another win for RET!!!"  Seems like a solid claim on the surface, lets look deeper.

The traditional response to this is that they are seeing the outline of the sun's spotlight, and at very very high altitudes or close to dawn/dusk this is true.  However, some pictures are taken at noon, or at the center of the spotlight at altitudes that shouldn't show curvature.  So what's going on?

The real reason that the earth looks curved is due to air pressure.  In order to keep passengers and personnel comfortable, and alive, a plain must maintain a certain atmospheric pressure.  Once a plain gets so high, the pressure outside the fuselage is lower than it is on the inside.  This causes the windows to bow outwards and give objects in the distance a curved look.  As the horizon is the only thing viewable that spans the length of a window, and at a sufficiently far distance, it appears to be curved. 

This optical illusion has fooled many people the world over, but it will no longer deceive you!  The next time you are on an airliner and a kid points out the window claiming to see the curvature of the earth, you can educate him or her on what is really going on and hopefully open their eyes to truth of the shape of this flat earth.

thank you pongo

You're welcome.  The window-bowing effect is a well documented "phenomenon" and one of the more difficult indicators of a flat earth to argue. 

Where is it "well documented" outside of your head?

If you honestly believe you have accurately described why we see curvature out of aircraft windows at suitable altitude, i'm surprised the more serious FE'ers, the ones that actually believe, haven't outed you as a troll, or banned you. but then, they're just as confused as you i suppose.

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Stepping of chair experiment?
« on: June 17, 2010, 01:29:27 AM »
My point wasn't really if one could determine it or not, my point is that he didn't. He did not show any proof that he measured his acceleration while falling of a chair. Untill he does all I see is a number that was given by RE'ers with a formula that is based on a RE.

To be fair, Tom never claimed that he was measuring or calculating the 9.8m/s2 value when he steps off the chair.  He was only demonstrating his assertion that the earth accelerates up to meet the observer.

So is it apart  of the conspiracy that the maths behind g line up with the purported mass/size of the earth?

Gravity doesn't not affect FE. Only UA. The "maths" behind the theory of gravity are irrelevant.

Not really. The math behind gravity predicts things that UA doesn't.
UA is a derp theory. In that it says derp, the earth is moving up at g.
gravity on the other hand predicts the orbit of the moon, Earth, Coriolis effect, gravitational time dilation, black holes, planetary movement, asteroids, commits, meteors just to name a few

It also fails to predict a number of things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

That doesn't make it wrong, nor does it make the much less likely, unexplainable, unsupported and unproven "UA" correct.

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: James' Ideas on the Sun and Moon
« on: June 15, 2010, 09:44:21 AM »
Unless you can discredit the evidence it presents...

Surely the same rule applies for any RE evidence?

Please note, saying "It's clearly fake" does not count as discrediting.

So evidence being fake does not discredit it as evidence?

If you're gonna troll, at least be good at it.

How bout you don't make baseless accusations. If someone points out the fact that the "evidence" is false, would that not discredit it?

If it's a fact, and there is proof to support it, fair enough.

But simply saying "It's fake" is a different matter altogether. I think you missed the point of my first post. So either you're dumb, or you're a dumb troll.

Have a nice day.

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: James' Ideas on the Sun and Moon
« on: June 15, 2010, 09:17:43 AM »
Unless you can discredit the evidence it presents...

Surely the same rule applies for any RE evidence?

Please note, saying "It's clearly fake" does not count as discrediting.

So evidence being fake does not discredit it as evidence?

If you're gonna troll, at least be good at it.

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: James' Ideas on the Sun and Moon
« on: June 15, 2010, 08:25:00 AM »
Unless you can discredit the evidence it presents...

Surely the same rule applies for any RE evidence?

Please note, saying "It's clearly fake" does not count as discrediting.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21