### 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 - macrohard

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: ask me about round earth fact
« on: March 30, 2015, 01:01:02 PM »
I did, but the neighbors told me to pipe down and go back inside.

2
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: How I can personally communicate with gravity (proof for RE) CHECKMATE, JROWE
« on: March 30, 2015, 12:56:03 PM »
That was very quick.  It appears that your understanding and communication with gravity is increasing at an exponential rate.

This is only a rough calculation, but based on your progression from earth gravity to sun gravity (factoring in the distance obviously), you should be able to communicate with the milky way galaxy within 3 years and the entire observable universe within 61 years.

If you are still alive by then (hopefully) you'll have achieved perfect omniscience.

Niiiiiiice.

3
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: About the speeding
« on: February 19, 2015, 11:44:22 PM »
I'm an engineer, and this is the first thread I have ever agreed with the FE stance.

Overcoming gravity is no different than overcoming UA.*

There are literally thousands of ways to prove RE or disprove FE.  Why would you possibly pick this as your debate topic?

*For non-orbital velocities

4
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Does the Earth Rotate?
« on: February 18, 2015, 12:35:46 PM »
Your body only feels acceleration, not velocity.  An observer on the earth experiences no angular or tangential acceleration.

For circular motion the acceleration is towards the point of rotation.  This is why a FE cannot be rotating, and we would feel an effect perpendicular to gravity.

For RE the rotational acceleration is perfectly aligned with gravity.

5
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: circumpolar stars
« on: February 18, 2015, 12:20:18 PM »
The moon actually looks upside down in the southern hemisphere.

6
##### Flat Earth General / Re: What makes FE sound?
« on: February 17, 2015, 04:37:33 PM »
What makes the flat earth hypothesis even less sound is the simple fact that not one of the earth's 6 million scientists accept that the earth is anything other than spherical.
Jroa's right, you do need a new shtick. That "6 million scientists" line is getting pretty stale.

Please don't confuse me for jroa.

7
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: circumpolar stars
« on: February 17, 2015, 12:41:14 PM »
Planets can also be seen in the southern hemisphere.  When I look through a telescope at Jupiter it looks like Jupiter.  When I look at Saturn it is clearly Saturn.  They are most definitely not stars and not planes.

How is it that the same planet moves one direction when I'm in the United States, but in the opposite direction while I'm visiting Australia?

8
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Southern (so called) hemisphere.
« on: February 17, 2015, 12:11:09 PM »
Can somebody fill me in as to why ratio of land mass matters?

9
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: circumpolar stars
« on: February 17, 2015, 09:23:31 AM »
Geoff,

You wouldn't happen to have a Go Pro would you?  If so, there is a setting for it to take an image every few seconds, thereby condensing several hours into mere minutes.

Normally it's used to show off something like an extended off road or skiing trip, but I think it would be a great way to demonstrate the motion of the stars.

Set up a tripod and aim it south and wham bam.  The reason I ask you is that you're one of the few on this site living down under.

10
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is your price?
« on: February 17, 2015, 07:41:50 AM »
I agree of everything!

As you agree with everything sceptimatic has said here, maybe you'd like to answer a couple of questions for me...

Are you of the opinion that the earth is possibly flat, or probably spherical?  And of the 6,000,000 scientists estimated to be in the world, can you please name six who accept that the earth is flat rather than spherical?

You bring this up every single thread.  Cut it out.  FE clearly rejects science so having scientists that support it is irrelevant.  There is an extreme amount of evidence supporting RE.  Repeatedly bringing up the "we outnumber you" argument makes us look bad.

11
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: circumpolar stars
« on: February 17, 2015, 07:38:20 AM »
how hard would it seriously be to get a plane to fly in a circle? fake stars ahoy.

Every star in the southern hemisphere is a plane flying in a circle.  Thank you for clarifying.  It all makes sense now.

12
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air Density
« on: February 16, 2015, 09:39:37 PM »
I like how he bolded the word weight, considering that weight by definition is a function of gravity.

13
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I don't understand why?
« on: February 16, 2015, 05:25:20 PM »
I perceive the earth as round.  No, it doesn't look round when I look out my window.  But I have witnessed stars rotate about the sky.  When I visited Australia I made note of the different set of stars rotating in an opposite direction.  I have seen with my own eyes several Foucault pendulums, most recently the California Academy of sciences two weeks ago during a vacation to San Francisco.  I have lived on a boat for two weeks without land in site, surrounded by 360 degrees of pristine and clear horizon.  I saw the land rise up from the endless blue on the journey back to shore (not appearing out of a haze).  I have seen planets and galaxies through telescopes large and small.  I have enjoyed the benefits of GPS and predictions from the weather channel.  I have personally struggled aiming a satellite dish on the roof of a house boat while the people down below scream at me as the signal strength changes with my every movement.  I have spent hundreds of hours conversing with my grandfather who proudly worked on Apollo 11 as an engineering manager.  I myself went into engineering as a result of his inspiration.

The earth seems pretty flat to me.  I do not feel this way because of indoctrination.  The shape of the earth, beauty of the universe, and marvel of technology were developed over many years of humble personal observation.

I prefer to form my perceptions by getting out and experiencing the world.  Simply looking out my window just isn't enough for me.

14
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Funniest stuff conspiracy theorists believe
« on: February 16, 2015, 04:23:25 PM »
I was expecting something along the lines of armed wall guards, alien technology, or brain wash pills.

Was disappointed.  A man's death isn't funny.

15
##### Flat Earth General / Re: why we know the earth is flat
« on: February 16, 2015, 12:24:49 PM »
Take a circle of any size.  If you zoom in on the edge, with enough magnification, it will appear as a straight line.  Is it actually straight?  No.  Does it look straight?  Yes.

Also, there is no force pushing objects from the big bang.  Space itself is expanding, and all the galaxies and stars and planets move with it.  Furthermore, there is no single point from which objects are moving away from.  The big bang does not have a discernable origin since everything in the observable universe originated within it.

PS: even if there were a force pushing planets around, the vacuum of space has negligible resistance such that local gravity prevails and coalesces matter into (roughly) spherical shapes.

PSS: I am a believer of government conspiracies... just not one that can be readily disproven by millions of amateur astronomers, physicists, and engineers.

16
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Low Density Black Holes
« on: February 04, 2015, 08:33:37 PM »
Today I learned that a black hole can theoretically be less dense than air.

True radius is proportional to the cubed root of mass.  Mass increases by a factor of 8 while the radius doubles in order to maintain density.

However, Schwarzschild radius grows proportional to mass!

This means for any arbitrary non-zero density there exists a mass such that the Schwarzschild radius is equal to the physical radius: a black hole.

Edit: apparently the wiki article on Schwarzschild Radius talks about the same thing but says it better:
"If you assume that the Schwarzschild radius is the outer edge of the black hole (note that this assumption is in contrast to the typical assumption that a black hole is a singularity, and therefore has zero radial extent). Under this assumption, the average density of a supermassive black hole can be less than the density of water.

The Schwarzschild radius of a body is proportional to its mass and therefore to its volume, assuming that the body has a constant mass-density.[7] In contrast, the physical radius of the body is proportional to the cube root of its volume. Therefore, as the body accumulates matter at normal density (in this example, 103 kg/m3, the density of water), its Schwarzschild radius will increase more quickly than its physical radius. When a body of this density has grown to around 136 million (1.36 × 108) M☉, its physical radius would be smaller than its Schwarzschild radius, and thus it would form a supermassive black hole."

17
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Do flat earthers believe that man will ever launch a rocket into space?
« on: February 02, 2015, 12:16:57 PM »
It's literally like asking a person to lift themselves off the ground using their own hands to grab their own feet. It's not going to happen.

It's more like the recoil of a gun.

The gun moves because something was ejected from it.  The rocket moves because burned fuel is ejected from it.  That is the action to the reaction.

18
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: February 02, 2015, 11:54:51 AM »
Perhaps we should stop using the terms "right" and "left" when talking about two dimensional motion dependent on perspective.

How about the terms "clockwise" and "counter clockwise" with respect to the north pole?

19
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dinosaurs -- yet another hoax?
« on: February 02, 2015, 11:46:28 AM »
Dinosaurs became extinct millions of years ago.
That depends on who you ask.  Some say that dinosaurs are still among us today.

Rar.

I was waiting for dinosaur Neil to respond.  It was worth it.

20
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: What lies outside the ice wall?
« on: January 22, 2015, 12:14:39 AM »
According to Vauxy, the zaratan lies outside the wall.  Do not confuse this with the fact Vauxy lies inside the wall.

21
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: January 20, 2015, 09:29:20 PM »
I doubt the motive is financial.  The cost of orchestrating and maintaining this grand lie would far exceed any tax revenue diverted to space organizations.  The government has a history of grossly exceeding budget for even the simplest of projects (it can be argued of course that these cost overruns for mundane stuff is intentional and diverted to subsidize such a conspiracy).

I prefer to think that the grand round earth conspiracy is benevolent.  Perhaps we are being protected.  What is really out there may be too frightening or difficult to understand, and the dissemination of such knowledge would cause widespread panic and a deterioration of civilized society.

Will somebody please address my conspiracy theory theory?  I think "for our own good" is more logical and believable than the typical assertions of money or power.

22
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Are lunar eclipses caused by temperature, pressure, smog or pollen?
« on: January 20, 2015, 09:17:18 PM »
According to you, there is no anti-moon.

You did say atmoplanic conditions could account for the reddening.  Now you acknowledge that it is not the cause of lunar eclipses.

So, jroa, what IS your best guess what causes lunar eclipses?  If you do not know, simply say "I do not know.". That is a respectable answer that none can fault you.  But please, I beg you, no more rhetorical deflecting question s/non-answers.

"I honestly do not know.  None of the current proposed theories resonate with me.  I'm still going through a retrospective process while awaiting for new theories to be developed."

One could hope...

23
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why doesn't the earth rip apart?
« on: January 20, 2015, 01:08:15 PM »
I assume your claim is that the acceleration all across earth is in fact uniform at all locations and elevations.

That is my claim, yes. That is the claim of UA.

These measurements you speak of... how were they taken exactly? What instruments were used? When were the measurements taken?

Taken with a gravimeter, and done periodically by many people and agencies across the world.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter

According to that they are so sensitive that it can detect the change in gravity as snow is shoveled off the roof above the sensor.

Of course, I have not used or even seen one in person, so perhaps these are fictional devices or the output is fabricated.

24
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why doesn't the earth rip apart?
« on: January 20, 2015, 12:58:56 PM »
On the other hand, the FE hypotheses of "universal acceleration" has the summit of Mt Everest accelerating "upwards" at a different rate of acceleration to the Sahara Desert.  This is obviously a physical impossibility, and would mean that the Indian sub-continent would break away from the African continent in seconds.

Where did you come up with this hogwash?  I'm asking because it's blatantly wrong.

Please clarify what, specifically, is wrong.  A catch all "its wing" doesn't leave much for debate.

The differences in acceleration is measurable.  Now obviously none of us here on this forum took the measurements ourselves.  Perhaps this is another layer of the conspiracy.

IF the accelerations were different, the earth would change typography very rapidly (see a few posts above for calculations).

I assume your claim is that the acceleration all across earth is in fact uniform at all locations and elevations.

25
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: How can gravity not be real?
« on: January 20, 2015, 12:54:39 PM »
If the earth disc was infinite in all directions, the mathematics of gravity would be mostly consistent.  The center of mass would always be below the observer.

As crazy as it sounds, it still is more logical than UA.

26
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Are lunar eclipses caused by temperature, pressure, smog or pollen?
« on: January 20, 2015, 12:46:37 PM »
Quote
I did not, however, claim that pollen or dust or what ever caused an eclipse.  You people will grasp at any tiny little piece of straw that you can find.  It is actually pathetic.

First, you questioned the existence of lunar eclipse.  Next, you said atmoplanic conditions account for the reddening.  You then went on to clarify what atmoplanic conditions consists of:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62432.msg1647291#msg1647291

27
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why doesn't the earth rip apart?
« on: January 20, 2015, 12:37:36 PM »
If I get a rock out of the creek in my back yard, and then walk to the top of the nearest peak, will the rock fall apart because of the differential gravity?  No?  Well then, perhaps your theory is flawed.

This "example" isn't the least bit related to the question at hand.  If you're going to build a straw man, at least try to make it resemble a man.

28
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: What would be the point
« on: January 15, 2015, 12:16:13 PM »
The conspiracy is not financially motivated.  It cannot be.  The cost of silencing millions far exceeds tax revenue allocated to round earth dependent programs.

The conspiracy is not power motivated.  The shape of the planet does not influence my daily life, nor to my allegiances to any entity.

The conspiracy is not motivated by saving face.  Far more respect would be won by proving other round earth believing nations wrong.

The only plausible reason for the conspiracy is benevolence.  They are hiding the truth for our own best interests, possibly to protect us.  Perhaps there are grave dangers beyond the wall.  Revealing the truth would cause global unrest and chaos.

29
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The spotlight sun concept wouldn't work.
« on: January 15, 2015, 11:48:16 AM »
Even if you accepted a spotlight, the more problematic issue is that rimward (southern) areas would experience far less time in the light, and the intensity would be less as well.

Imagine flat earth with diameter D, and a spotlight traveling along the equator.  In order for a location on the equator to have a 12 hour day and 12 hour night, the spotlight would have to be larger than 1/2D.  If this were the case, locations near the north pole would always be in the spotlight and all locations south of the equator would have days less than 12 hours.

This is basic geometry.

Observations show that during December days are longer in the south than in the north, a physical impossibility if the sun moved in a circular pattern above a flat earth.

30
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Measurement of the Astronomical Unit
« on: January 13, 2015, 03:56:50 PM »
There are almost a million and a half posts on this forum. We've discussed this in the past many times. Why don't you do a search?

I did. This is what I found: You, Mr Bishop, failing to mount any objection to the argument other than to claim the measurements never took place. Jroa and Pongo stating "there are complex maths which explain that it works on a flat earth" but when asked, refusing to clue us in to what those maths are.
And several other threads where Guv and others attempt to get FE'ers to address this and nobody responds.

It sounds like you found your answer then. There are complex maths involved, but it is above your head, and so it would be a waste of time to try and explain it to you.

The previously undetermined Bishop Constant has now been verified to be 455.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5