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 - corleone

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Here you have the news:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/09/neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light.html

The paper explaining it all:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf

And here, in an hour and a half (16:00 european time) CERN will webcast a conferency explaining the facts:

http://webcast.cern.ch/


What do you think, people?

2
What happened with the original thread?

3
Tom's own Bedford Canal experiment is an experimental proof that the Earth is round.

"At the point chosen for all the experiments the river was a slow-flowing drainage canal running in uninterrupted straight line for a six-mile stretch to the north-east of the village of Welney. The most famous of the observations, and the one that was taught in schools until photographs of the Earth from space became available, involved a set of three poles fixed at equal height above water level along this length. As the surface of the water was assumed to be level, the discovery that the middle pole, when viewed carefully through a theodolite, was almost three feet higher than the poles at each end was finally accepted as a new proof that the surface of the earth was indeed curved."

Tom? are you hiding? We are higly interested in your point of view about this.

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof of curvature
« on: May 23, 2010, 11:49:03 AM »
Rowbotam (and Tom Bishop) says that the human eye can't see objects below one minute of arc. Thats just a LIE: Betelguese, a star from Orion, is clearly visible with naked eye and, surprise, it's only 0º 0' 0.044” "long". This was measured by Michelson over 90 years ago with an interferometer (like young experiment, roughly the same but the light source was a star). So the prespective effect is clearly a LIE since we can see stars with naked eye.

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Bendy light
« on: May 04, 2010, 02:34:58 PM »
Whether someone believes it or not has no relevance to it's validity as a theory.

I'm not talking about the validity of BL as a theory. I'm just curious about the amount of people that belives on BL. Why? curiosity itself.

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Bendy light
« on: May 04, 2010, 12:22:04 PM »
Whether anyone believes it is irrelevant.

Why is it so irrelevant? I found it quite interesting.

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Changes in the amount of daylight
« on: May 04, 2010, 12:16:56 PM »
Ok, gravity isn't so perfectly explained in RET. Any otherthing? So far 1 unexplained thing (re) VS thousands of unexplained things (fe).

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Moon is not a flat disc.
« on: May 03, 2010, 04:14:10 AM »
3) For such a smart-alec, you sure don't know jack about the Universal Accelerator. That's like asking if my table will keep crumbs from falling onto my laptop.


Well, the Moon is floating above Earth, moving upwards at the same rate.

Why isn't the things from the Moon also moving at the same rate?

Is the Moon shooting us?

When light shines on a metal surface at a certain wavelength, the surface emits a burst of electrons. When large enough lights do this on the surface of a large enough metal surface, they adopt the function of massice discs, the continuous stream of electrons keeps them aloft above the plate. This is known as the photoelectric effect, and it is what keeps the Sun and the Moon aloft. Since Moonblood and Manna do not shine, they are not suspended in this manner.

What light illuminates the moon?

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« on: April 30, 2010, 04:58:10 AM »

This is a flat disc, though, right?

 ;D ;D ;D Indeed it looks like a huge weather system with bio-luminiscent lifeforms to me  ;D ;D ;D

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antimoon?!?!?!
« on: April 30, 2010, 12:58:06 AM »
Wow, the link provides really nice photos. In RE it's fully explainable....

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FET evidence?
« on: April 29, 2010, 03:54:46 PM »
Our most canonical text, Earth Not a Globe, which is freely available online, is a book of easily repeatable experiments which prove the Earth is flat.

But without experiments to try for free, how do I know that you aren't just lying to people to sell a book?

When I say 'freely available', I mean what I say.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

Thanks for showing me the site, I read experiment 1... and I can't understand how 6 miles is supposed to make that much of a difference in a curve.... the curve in 6 miles would be very hard to measure... especially when water moves up and down due to tides. The telescope should move... like what? a millimeter lol

Actually, all these things are correctly caracterized by rowbotham. The thing that it's not is the measuring of refraction, wich completly destroys the experiment.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Moon is not a flat disc.
« on: April 29, 2010, 03:25:14 PM »
If you had one bright yellow cake, one cake which was partly white and partly red, and one cake which emitted no light, and somebody offered you a red piece of cake and a white piece of cake and asked you which cake they came from, which one would you choose?

Wow, you are taking the asummption that the piece of cake comes from one of the three cakes listed. Why can't the blood or mana come from the stars and/or other unknown sources? the idea of "Blood is red. Moon is seen red during an eclipse, therefore blood comes from moon" isn't very conclusive, specially when craters and sphere-like pattern is seen trough telescope. Is that all you have?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Moon is not a flat disc.
« on: April 29, 2010, 03:09:20 PM »
The Sun is not red or white. Manna/ambrosia is white, blood rain is red. The Moon, at different times, is both white and red.

Therefore it must come from the moon? Despite all the photos that clearly shows a sphere-like surface with thousands of craters? I think that it's more probable that the mana/blood comes from other celestial bodies. well, we have a look to the moon and we do see craters arranged in a sphere-distribution, right? Maybe the red shining is from other cause we don't yet know. Do you have any other reasoning to back this idea?

PD: excuse my english.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FET evidence?
« on: April 29, 2010, 02:55:43 PM »
Our most canonical text, Earth Not a Globe, which is freely available online, is a book of easily repeatable experiments which prove the Earth is flat.

The flag experiment in EnAG is the bedford level one. It can be explained trough atmospheric refraction, wich was wrongly measured by the author.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Moon is not a flat disc.
« on: April 29, 2010, 02:52:41 PM »
We can see the waste material periodically in blood rain, manna, etc.  It is clear that these are non-terrestial of origin and must come from the heavens via aether eddies.

It must be a defense mechanism due to its harmful effects on other life.

Why is so clear?? How do you know that they come from the moon?
All terrestrial sources have been ruled out.  As Sherlock Holmes would say, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

And how do you know that it comes from the moon and not, let's say, the sun??

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Moon is not a flat disc.
« on: April 29, 2010, 12:32:58 PM »
We can see the waste material periodically in blood rain, manna, etc.  It is clear that these are non-terrestial of origin and must come from the heavens via aether eddies.

It must be a defense mechanism due to its harmful effects on other life.

Why is so clear?? How do you know that they come from the moon?

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Moon is not a flat disc.
« on: April 29, 2010, 12:08:22 AM »
Indeed, that is clearly what is seen here.

Really? you see THAT picture and the first thing that you think is "bio-luminiscent lifeforms and weather systems" ?
When I see that picture its clear that a weather system is moving across the face of the sphere-like moon.  The light from the moon is clearly from life forms due to its harmful effects the fact that it expels bio-matter.
John, could you reword that last sentence so that it makes more sense, please?  Its kinda hard to follow.  Are you suggesting that the bio-luminescence generated by the bio-matter is harmful to the bio-matter itself?  Why would it evolve that way?  ???
Sorry, my fault.
"The light from the moon is clearly created by bio-matter.  This can be seen from its harmful effects and the fact that the moon expels waste material."

A defense mechanism.  Obviously it is not harmful to itself but to other life forms.

How do you know all these things?

Please, answer my other questions too. I'm higly interested.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Moon is not a flat disc.
« on: April 28, 2010, 02:58:01 PM »
Indeed, that is clearly what is seen here.

Really? you see THAT picture and the first thing that you think is "bio-luminiscent lifeforms and weather systems" ?
When I see that picture its clear that a weather system is moving across the face of the sphere-like moon.  The light from the moon is clearly from life forms due to its harmful effects the fact that it expels bio-matter.

Where do you see the weather system? I see only lots and lots of craters iluminated by a source of light. How do you know so "clearly" that the light from the moon is due to life forms?

how do you know that it's harmful? And don't pint me out to the royal navy warning, because every single day millions of people are exposed to moonlight and nothing happens. Where is your evidence?

how do you know that it expels bio-matter? And if you are going to tell me about bloodrains and that sort of things, prove me that those "things" come from the moon, please. How do you know?


19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Moon is not a flat disc.
« on: April 28, 2010, 01:57:08 PM »
Indeed, that is clearly what is seen here.

Really? you see THAT picture and the first thing that you think is "bio-luminiscent lifeforms and weather systems" ?

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antimoon?!?!?!
« on: April 28, 2010, 11:34:44 AM »
tonight is the night of the full Moon, the most dangerous night of the month, during which if I venture outside for any substantial period of time I am significantly more likely to be bitten by deranged animals or mugged, let alone exposing myself to the full force of the Moon's degenerative rays. I don't want to go mad, blind or any other number of things.

¿How many people do you know wich has gone blind or mad due to moonlight? ¿Do you know the millions of people that daily expose themselves to moonlight and nothing happens to them?

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Moon is not a flat disc.
« on: April 28, 2010, 04:45:58 AM »


This man is either part of the conspiracy, or the moon is not a flat disc.

Which is it?

 ;D ;D It looks like a huge weather system and bio-luminiscent lifeforms to me  ;D ;D

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antimoon?!?!?!
« on: April 28, 2010, 04:39:22 AM »
tonight is the night of the full Moon, the most dangerous night of the month, during which if I venture outside for any substantial period of time I am significantly more likely to be bitten by deranged animals or mugged, let alone exposing myself to the full force of the Moon's degenerative rays. I don't want to go mad, blind or any other number of things.

¿How many people do you know wich has gone blind or mad due to moonlight? ¿Do you know the millions of people that daily expose themselves to moonlight and nothing happens to them?

23
Flat Earth Q&A / ¿How can this be possible...
« on: April 27, 2010, 04:11:25 PM »
http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/

...if gravitation does not exists?

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« on: April 25, 2010, 05:02:58 AM »
You agree that no experiment will change anything about bendy light, no matter how perfect?

The fact that lasers work disproves bendy light, since the Q-factor of the laser cavity would not be high enough to sustain output if the light bent away from the optical axis during operation.

I could name several other experiments which I have performed as a laser physicist which disprove bendy light, but hey, what's the fun in that? I haven't followed a photon from the surface of the Sun to the surface of the Earth, so I can't say for certain what happens in between!

I know too tath lasers wouldn't even work, but you are right, where is the fun? it's funnier going to the lab and throwing the evidence to their faces rather than doing some math. ;D ;D

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Sun
« on: April 24, 2010, 01:29:13 AM »
Hey, Parsifal, what if I can disprove bendy light theory?

Then you can disprove bendy light theory. I'm really not sure what else you want me to say here.

Ok. Then, may you have a look in here and post your opinions about my experiment? (as I asked you earlyer via PM but you ignored me)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=37353.0

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« on: April 23, 2010, 11:41:12 AM »
BUMP

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Question for Tom Bishop
« on: April 23, 2010, 11:34:13 AM »
What articles are you concerned with?

Well, I'll answer. May you have a look at my "bedford level experiment" post, please?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38425.0

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Stellar Parallex
« on: April 23, 2010, 11:27:57 AM »
I'm starting to hate this silences. I have a couple of similar posts...

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Sun
« on: April 23, 2010, 11:26:12 AM »
Hey, Parsifal, what if I can disprove bendy light theory?

30
This is all about semantics. The meaning of 1+1=2 is the same here and at alpha centauri. "Raindrop" only means something here, inside the human mind. Maths are just perfect. Semantics and language not. We can trust 100% maths as long as we keep it far from philosophy, semantics and subjectiveness. This is pointless. The OP is just a misunderstanding of maths. Don't mix it with semantics. The concept of "raindrop" has nothing to see with maths.

(sorry about my english)

Pages: [1] 2 3