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 - randall_55

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth General / Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« on: December 19, 2011, 10:24:12 PM »
Google "Mythbusters mistakes". There are over 1,000,000 results. Hardly a reliable source ...

Google "Thork mistakes". There are over 750,000 results. Hardly a reliable source ...
(Really, go do it. Over 750,000. No exaggeration.)

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
« on: December 15, 2011, 10:00:18 AM »
What are the rules governing UA? Does UA come through the earth or around it?

UA does whatever makes explaining things for FE'ers easiest. What UA does is likely to drastically change depending on which phenomenon an FE'er is trying to explain.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
« on: December 14, 2011, 10:28:29 AM »
I do not think gravity varies all over earth.

So are you saying all the scientists who have measured an inverse correlation between measured gravity/UA and altitude within experimental error are lying to us? And all the scientists who have reviewed their work and confirmed it are lying to us as well? Are this people in on the conspiracy? Do they even know about the conspiracy?

The list of locations of where javelin throwing records have been set is no where near enough evidence to discredit variation in gravity/UA. There are so many more factors that contribute to athletic performance that have much more of an effect than local gravity.

Quote from: Thork
Were your bathroom scales calibrated for your country? No. Do aircraft take on more fuel when flying over areas of increased gravity (which means increased lift required which means more drag and hence more fuel)? No.

A persons weight fluctuates more than .5% over the course of a day, local calibration is not necessary for bathroom scales, the difference is too small. Airplanes carry enough fuel to take them to their destination, plus additional in case of emergencies. I don't know the details, but I am willing to bet that is is significantly more than an additional .5% of what it would take to get them to their destination. In addition, airplanes fly at higher altitudes, where gravity is less, requiring less fuel (according to your explanation).

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
« on: December 13, 2011, 09:09:48 PM »
Certain parts of the earth are created of less dense aether materials resulting in the UA passing through the earth and into the atmosphere, gaining velocity and pushing things up with more force as it goes. It affects things at the surface usually only over land. This is why the UA is measured less over land.

This does not explain the inverse relationship between altitude and measured gravity/US. Please address this hole in your theory.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
« on: December 13, 2011, 07:46:27 PM »
UA still requires the celestial bodies to exert a gravitational influence on the FE in order to explain tides and measured local variations in g.

Yes you are correct.

Thork, if gravity is magical and not real, please explain to us how tides work and why there are measured variations in gravity/UA based on altitude.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is this just a big elaborate trolling?
« on: December 01, 2011, 11:54:09 AM »
He's a troll.

Please do not attack us for our beliefs. If you wish to challenge our beliefs then you can do so within these fora. However name calling will only strengthen our cause.

But it will not strengthen your evidence, for which you have none.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Energy of the Sun
« on: December 01, 2011, 11:34:21 AM »
All the required elements for fusion are present in the quantities needed for sustained fusion reactions, the pressure and temperature are high enough that fusion is possible, and the byproducts that we observe are consistent with what a fusion reaction would generate...

Sounds like a solid theory to me.
Yes, a "solid" theory made by guessing.

However, at the moment FET doesn't even have an idea of what powers the sun.
Of course. We haven't been to the sun, and we don't do silly guessing.

Its not silly guessing. Its giving the most likely answer to a question based on heavy data collection. And it is extremely difficult to dispute that answer without saying "I haven't been there to see it happen". There are other ways of figuring things out, FYI. Its called science.

FE theory doesn't even have a "guess", much less a probable answer, and they will never have data to back it up.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is this just a big elaborate trolling?
« on: November 30, 2011, 06:15:15 PM »
Where would the end of the earth be?
The rim is guarded by penguin guards appointed by the Conspiracy (NASA)
Bahahaha. All of your answers made me laugh, but this one did probably the most.

Flat Earth General / Re: Just look out the window
« on: November 30, 2011, 05:37:09 PM »
I'm not even a FE'er...

But I can tell you that they have a ton of scientific arguments. They just like to counter "looks round to me" with "looks flat to me". RE'ers are the only ones who try to use the human eye as legitimate proof.

Are you kidding? FE'ers have zero proof whatsoever besides the "looks flat to me" argument. They also have a theory with tons of holes and no evidence to back it up.

Flat Earth General / Re: Just look out the window
« on: November 30, 2011, 04:13:00 PM »
No, El Cid is saying it's round because it looks round. Sadly, he cannot back this up any further.
Yep.  I can't back it up at all.  How incompetent I am, right?  Obviously I am wrong, because my only proof that the Earth is round is that it looks round.  So silly.
That's not even proof. If you have no other scientific evidence to back up your claims you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone. On a science based forum such as this, I'd say that's pretty incompetent.
Hmm, sounds a lot like FET... if you replace the word "round" with "flat" of course.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity/UA measured less at higher altitudes
« on: November 29, 2011, 06:27:20 PM »
There are some who suggest other theories of gravitational pull.  Gravity was not invoked in my personal post however.  You heard the word 'pull' and just threw the word gravity in there.
Is there an explanation as to how this "pull" occurs.

And I apologize for throwing gravity in there, I didn't realize that you were suggesting the force was due to something else. However, I don't see how other people could suggest it is gravity and use alternate theories of gravitational pull that have no data backing it up.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity/UA measured less at higher altitudes
« on: November 29, 2011, 06:19:12 PM »
So other celestial bodies have gravitational pull but the earth does not?

That's their story and they're sticking to it. If the Earth were a disk and possessed gravity, it would collapse to form a sphere. Even an infinite plane would not be stable if gravity is thrown into the mix. So, to avoid this unfortunate collapse of the Disk World, it is postulated the Earth does not possess gravity.

I don't see how they can use gravity from celestial bodies to explain the discrepancy. The currently accepted and used theory of gravity says that all matter has gravitational pull on other matter. Is there an alternate theory that has no data to back it up being used that says that only certain matter has gravitational pull?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Energy of the Sun
« on: November 29, 2011, 06:01:32 PM »
Is there an inconsistency with RE and a sun powered by nuclear fusion?
Yes, there is. RE science claims not to make blind assumptions, and yet it has been clearly stated that the nuclear fusion explanation is an assumption made to fit the data. Unless this is untrue (which, I'm sure you'll find, was my question in the first place), we've got a contradiction of sorts.

I wouldn't call it a blind assumption. I would call it the explanation for how the sun works based on all the data we have gathered so far. There was no assuming on any sorts. You are claiming RE initially and blindly assumed that the sun worked on nuclear fusion, and then found data supporting it. This is untrue. RE did not initially know how the sun worked, so we began collecting data on it. After enough data, a reasonable explanation based on the gathered data was the result: nuclear fusion.

FE'ers go into everything with the assumption that the earth is flat, and attempt to present data supporting it. This is the clear cut difference between real science and FE "science".

Real science will also change its theories when presented with enough conclusive data suggesting that something contradicting it is true. For example: a long time ago everyone believed the earth was flat. Eventually, there was enough scientific evidence that this was proven wrong and scientific theories changed to coincide with collected data, and to say the earth was round. Current FE "science" will not do this, for some reason. Probably because then people wouldn't have anything to argue about on this forum.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity/UA measured less at higher altitudes
« on: November 29, 2011, 05:21:08 PM »
So other celestial bodies have gravitational pull but the earth does not?

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity/UA measured less at higher altitudes
« on: November 29, 2011, 05:11:31 PM »
Just a question, how is the fact that either gravity/UA (depending on your stance) is measured as being slightly less at higher altitudes? It makes sense that being farther from the center of the earth gives less gravitational pull on a RE. But it doesn't make sense that UA would be accelerating less at a point further from the surface of an FE. Just wondering if there is an explanation for that in the FE theory.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Scientific observations of the Flat Earth
« on: November 29, 2011, 03:15:18 PM »
Here's a scientific observation for you: Look out your window.

What a worthless comment. You cannot tell the shape of a celestial object you are on by simply looking at it from the surface when it is 1.5 x 10^22 times as big as you are (assuming RE, however still insanely huge for FE, not sure if you FE'ers have agreed upon a volume of the earth for your theory yet, I'd be interested to see it, and the math behind it, once you guys do). Your statement neither proves nor disproves anything.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Tides?
« on: November 15, 2011, 11:37:24 AM »
Gravity gets so quickly dismissed on this forum by some members its unbelievable.
It has been commonly agreed by RE scientists that there exists no completely functional (see here) nor explained (see here for an example discussion) model of gravitation. If it doesn't work and is explained by magic, why would it not be dismissed?

I was not saying that RE'ers have a perfect model of gravitation, believe me I am fully aware of the current issues with the theory. I am not trying to and am not about to go there with FE'ers right now. My point and question was that if FE'ers dismiss gravity for every other argument (totally fine with me for sake of this argument), why is it not dismissed by FE'ers to explain tides? I still do not have an answer to that question.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Tides?
« on: November 14, 2011, 06:45:21 PM »
FAQ says:

A: The gravitational pull of the celestial bodies provides tidal effects. Others believe that there is an object called the Sub-moon that sits underneath the Earth. The moon causes the tides, and the Sub-moon balances out the effect.

So  gravity applies to water but nothing else? So many people on this forum say that gravity isn't real and that there's evidence against gravity. Is there and explanation for the inconsistencies? If we accept this explanation for tides, then we have to accept the RE'ers arguments that use gravity as an explanation for things. Gravity gets so quickly dismissed on this forum by some members its unbelievable.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 14, 2011, 05:46:54 PM »
After crossing Antarctica you end up in the South-centric iteration of the Earth. Crossing one of the poles again will bring you back to the North-centric iteration.

HAHAHA this actually made me laugh out loud. Funniest thing I have read today. Thanks for brightening my day :)

Flat Earth Q&A / Tides?
« on: November 14, 2011, 05:38:45 PM »
It is my understand that FE'ers don''t believe in gravity. How are tides explained without gravity?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Compass Won't Work According to FE theory
« on: October 28, 2011, 01:34:27 PM »
Yes you are correct in that the field lines would be substantially vertical at the perimeter.

However there is no way to orient a magnet on a flat earth that provides parallel field lines (by this I mean parallel to the earth's surface) along the majority of the surface of the earth, all pointing roughly north geographically, which is what is required for a compass to work.

If you propose that there is, I must not be correctly understanding what you are describing. If you could provide a drawing demonstrating a magnet that could produce parallel field lines along the majority of the surface of a flat earth, all pointing roughly north geographically, I would be interested to see it.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So, this is my first time here....
« on: October 26, 2011, 09:04:11 AM »
-After perusing through your website, I can only conclude that you guys deliberately lack scientific integrity with your methods, hypotheses, and explanations to support a flat earth model. You assume a priori that your hypothesis is correct (I quote: "if the Earth is in fact flat, then the space agencies must be lying when they say it isn't") , supported by very little evidence, and then craft wildly creative and convenient "theories" around it to explain the huge contradictions that it causes, which in turn are also supported by very little evidence because you failed to use the scientific method. You reject barrow-loads of empirical data which evidences the contrary on the basis of the belief that it's all from some huge conspiracy theory. You arrogantly reject research presented from the most widely respected academic institutions, because you believe you somehow know better than everyone there. You attempt to rewrite over 5 centuries of scientific progress which has used the scientific method and is so far consistent with everything we know.

This pretty much sums up exactly how I feel after learning about the flat earth society. I have never seen so much stubbornness in my life.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Compass Won't Work According to FE theory
« on: October 26, 2011, 08:39:13 AM »
"The magnetic south pole is near the geographic north pole, while the magnetic north pole is on the underside of the Earth."
^^ Taken from your FAQ section.

FE's magnetic north pole is not below the Earth's centre.

Where is it located then? I will redraw the diagram for you if you tell me where the magnetic poles of a flat earth are.

I am yet to see a magnetic model of a FE that explains how my compass is working right now. I have tried to think of possibilities on my own, and cannot come up with any way this is possible without resorting to a RE model.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Compass Won't Work According to FE theory
« on: October 26, 2011, 07:47:22 AM »
No it would not, a compass does not point diagonally down towards the north pole on a RE. It's simple magnetics. The magnetic needle in a compass orients itself along the path of least magnetic reluctance (parallel to the magnetic field, along the magnetic field lines). At the equator of a RE, this is perfectly parallel to the surface (not diagonally down). Along the rest of the earth, it is so close to parallel to the surface, a human cannot notice the difference. Very near the poles of a RE (where the field lines begin to become perpendicular to the surface of the earth) you will begin to notice the compass needle attempt to become vertical. If you look at the diagram, it makes perfect sense.

I drew the field lines on the FE diagram for you:
I even made the magnet from the diagram shorter for you, which actually only helps the FE theory.

You can clearly see how a compass needle should be trying to orient itself vertically on the FE model along the magnetic field line (path of least reluctance).

Anyone on this forum with a proper understanding of magnetics can verify that this is correct.

Flat Earth Q&A / A Compass Won't Work According to FE theory
« on: October 26, 2011, 07:32:48 AM »
Q: "How can a compass work on a Flat Earth?"

A: In the dark energy model, the magnetic field is generated in the same fashion as the RE ( The magnetic south pole is near the geographic north pole, while the magnetic north pole is on the underside of the Earth. The ice wall is not the south pole, but acts as it, as it is the furthest from the center of the earth that you can follow the magnetic field. The field is vertical in this area, accounting for the aurora australis.

^^Found in FAQ section

One problem with this is that a compass does not simply point towards the magnetic south pole of the earth. The magnetic needle in the compass attempts to orient itself along the magnetic field lines produced by the earth's magnetic field. On a round earth, these field lines are very close to parallel to the surface along almost the entire surface of the earth, which is why compasses work on our round earth. ( The only place they fail is very close to the magnetic north and magnetic south poles. At these points, the magnetic needle will attempt to orient itself vertically due to the field lines entering/exiting the earth's crust. The field lines are not drawn in the diagram in the FAQ section, but the field lines of a bar magnet (just like the one proposed in this FAQ) are well known. The field lines on a flat earth would be vertical across the entire surface of the earth, with the exception of possibly a very small area near the magnetic south pole (geographic north). So according to the FE model, my compass should be attempting to orient itself vertically (essentially, not working) almost everywhere on the earth's surface (definitely everywhere where people live). This clearly does not happen (personally verified).

I was just wondering if any FE'ers had a plausible explanation as to why my compass is pointing north right now.

Pages: [1]