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.

Topics - Thermal Detonator

Pages: [1] 2
Flat Earth General / Davis to present data sources, please.
« on: December 13, 2010, 06:04:24 PM »
I personally drink a glass of water and baking soda during each day of the full moon as I have noticed increased acidity in my stomach during these times and have noted the large number of increased hospital visits during lunar events for stomach ailments.

I expect John Davis to present his data on increased hospital visits for stomach ailments. If the fancy takes me, I may collect data on this topic from my own hospital and see how it compares.
Or is he talking about his own hospital visits?

Flat Earth General / Here's some money - what will you do?
« on: May 15, 2010, 01:03:41 PM »
The flat guys frequently cite lack of funds as a reason they are unable to do things.
So I want to ask - if someone had a few million for you to spend on contributions to flat earth research, what exactly would you do with it? I want precise proposals.

Flat Earth General / Mapping on the cheap - spotlight method
« on: May 15, 2010, 03:51:30 AM »
Many flat guys claim the Sun produces a spotlight circle of light on the earth as it floats around.
Many flat guys bang on about how they can't make an accurate map of the world because they don't have the cash for it.

Well here's how you can utilise the first idea to help with the second... of course this will only work IF the sun really is a spotlight  ;)

What you need to do is collect data on times of sunrise and sunset for different places around the world at the same moment in time. For example, you pick a date and time - say, 8th September at 5.00pm GMT - and you find sunrise and sunset times that correspond with that moment. For example, at 5.00pm GMT the sun may be rising in Tokyo and setting in Berlin.
Get as many different locations as you can. Then draw a circle on a piece of paper and plot the points on the edges to represent sunset and sunrise. You can tell where on the circle to put the points because the latitude of the location tells you how far up or down you need to put the point. Sunrises go on the eastern edge and sunsets on the western edge. Do this for multiple times and dates, get enough points and presto! You have a rough map of the world.

Flat Earth Q&A / Levee to explain radiometric dating
« on: May 12, 2010, 01:43:56 PM »
Levee claims that the Earth is no more than 1000 years old. I wish Levee to come and explain in this thread why radiometric dating disagrees with this and is able to show that some things are many times older than that. I have to set up a seperate thread for this because most of his spouting of this bullsh*t belief is in a section closed to dissenters.

Flat Earth Q&A / Debate on Antarctic - centred map.
« on: May 09, 2010, 06:51:26 AM »
I think flat earthers never entertain the possibility that Antarctica is in the centre, like this. Please debate.  >:(

Suggestions & Concerns / Latest mod abuse: James
« on: April 25, 2010, 02:39:21 PM »
Why is Mad James giving low content post warnings when someone merely asks what the evidence for an explanation given in the FAQ is? (Concerning the Earth's magnetic field and aurora).
People ask for evidence of FE ideas all the time in this forum, it's in no way low content.

Here's the post concerned:
Q: "How can a compass work on a Flat Earth?"

A: The magnetic field is generated in the same fashion as with the RE (Diagram). Thus, the magnetic south pole is near the geographic north pole, just like on the RE.  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.[/faq]

Where is your evidence to back this up?

Flat Earth Debate / Proof the Moon is not a flat disc.
« on: April 25, 2010, 02:13:47 PM »
The concept of lunar libration proves that the Moon is not a flat metal disc, as some flat guys believe. When confronted with images showing this effect, the standard flat response is to say "that's an animated computer representation, not a real photo".
Well here's some photos showing the effect, taken by me from my back garden. I am of course still aware that the flat guys don't accept photos as evidence of anything, however now they can no longer say the only thing we show of libration is a computer animation.

These images show the Moon taken firstly on 29th January this year, and secondly on 24th April this year. The red arrow shows the position of the crater Endymion.
Note how much closer this crater is to the edge of the Moon in the first picture than it is in the second. This is because the second picture depicts the Moon tlited southwards, so we get a better view of its northern side.
These pictures were taken with exactly the same camera, from the same location, and are at the same magnification. Resolution of the image is roughly 40km per pixel (these have been blown up 200% to make it easier to see though.)

Flat Earth Q&A / More reasons the Wilmore Model is crap
« on: April 24, 2010, 10:49:37 AM »
In the Wilmore model of the flat earth (the one with Antarctica as a distinct continent) the sun travels from right to left across the disc. It then has to quickly zoom back again to the right side once it reaches the left edge. How the hell does it do this given that the sun can be observed to always move at a nearly constant speed? Also how does it illuminate some parts of the left side and the right side simultaneously whilst leaving some bits inbetween in darkness?
I request an advocate of this model come forth and explain these shortcomings, otherwise we can conclude the model is wrong.

Flat Earth Q&A / Davis to explain Forteana
« on: April 12, 2010, 05:11:24 PM »
John Davis says RET has shoddy explanations for Forteana. He will now tell us in this thread why FET has better explanations. Go.

Flat Earth Debate / Trig's experiment
« on: April 08, 2010, 06:02:11 AM »
Just to show that I do the experiments and not just talk about them, I have just measured the direction where the Sun rose. It was 98o, which was 8 degrees South of what I expected. The difference between magnetic and true North for my location (4oN, 75oW) is about 5oW, and the time of the measurement (7:40 am) gives us a small error (about 1o). Also, the date when the measurement was done gives us another small error (about 2o), and the quality of the compass used gives us an additional 5o of error, giving us about 10o of expected maximum error.

By contrast, the measurement, for my location, should have been about 45o (that is a NE direction) for the Flat Earth model (as much as it is defined) to be validated.

I assert that there is no explanation for this on a flat earth. What do the flat guys have to say on this topic?

Suggestions & Concerns / John Davis is drunk with power
« on: April 03, 2010, 06:08:49 AM »
I am of the opinion that he locks threads unnecessarily, and that he tells people off for reporting posts, claiming it is "memberating" when in fact it's an action that members are perfectly within their rights to do.

Flat Earth Debate / Itchy's plant torture experiments
« on: March 04, 2010, 10:28:01 AM »
Since he posts deliberately in a thread where critics cannot respond, I wish to bring discussion of Ichimanga Gizz regarding the "harmful" effects of moonlight into the public arena.
Things Itchy should have made clear in his thread:
1. The schedule of exposure to various lighting types, including descriptions of what he used for lighting.
2. Temperatures.
3. Length of experiment times
4. Methods of ensuring a control.
5. Methods of excluding other harmful effects from the study.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / How would you feel...
« on: February 21, 2010, 08:17:13 AM »
How would you feel if you discovered someone you work with used to torture animals for fun? I discovered this about one of my colleagues and it sickens me.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / A Question for Parsec
« on: February 12, 2010, 03:45:51 PM »
Consider every possible committee from some number of people n and enumerating every pair of committees. Now assign each pair of committees to one of two groups, and find the smallest and largest n that will guarantee that there are four committees in which all pairs fall in the same group and all the people belong to an even number of committees.

You must express your answers in numerical form.
Get to work, Screaming Skull.  ;)

Flat Earth General / Hey, James!
« on: February 01, 2010, 12:55:26 PM »

You can say it's a lie all you want, but this is a picture of the Moon, taken by me last night from my back garden, in infrared wavelengths, proving the Moon does indeed shine light beyond the visible spectrum.

Flat Earth Debate / Computer simulation experiment
« on: January 31, 2010, 05:32:53 PM »
I had an idea to see how much a plane would have to deviate in order to reach the edge of the earth in the various flat earth models. Unfortunately I can't do this in real life, so I'm going to try it in flight simulator.
Assuming the flat earther's assertion that compass readings gradually lead you round in a curve is correct, then flight simulator, for all that it uses a round earth model, should duplicate exactly the same navigational conditions that would exist in the real world if it were flat with curved directions.
I will attempt to do this first with the standard Ice Wall model, then with the Wilmore model, and see if I can find any problems that would be noticeable to a pilot.
If anybody has any suggestions about this (I said suggestions, not abuse) then please suggest them here.

Flat Earth Q&A / Thermal Detonator's Antarctic Sun Thread
« on: January 31, 2010, 04:56:55 PM »
I would like an answer from the flat guys as to why during the Antarctic summer the sun appears to describe a complete circle around the horizon without setting, as this is incompatible with any known model of a flat earth. In the Ice Wall model the sun cannot pass behind you, and in the Wilmore model the speed of the sun would need to vary as it crossed the sky.

Suggestions & Concerns / Requests not to post
« on: January 31, 2010, 06:43:20 AM »
I have been told by a moderator of these forums that I should not post in a thread, even though I what I posted was directly pertinent to the topic. I do not think that is fair.

Flat Earth General / Flat Earth Maps are rubbish. Discuss.
« on: January 19, 2010, 05:20:13 PM »
This is especially aimed at Wilmore's map which shows Antarctica as a seperate continent. The regular FE map with Antarctica as a rim can be discounted because it is unable to show how the Sun can traverse all the way round the horizon during Antarctic midsummer.

The Lounge / The word "Burglarizing"
« on: January 14, 2010, 01:50:38 PM »
Burglarizing is not a proper word.

Suggestions & Concerns / Locking Threads
« on: January 07, 2010, 03:56:17 PM »
We need this thread so I can address this issue: now regular posters can no longer lock their own threads, I think the moderators should respect the wishes of those who ask for their threads to be locked. Rather than, as Wilmore did, post a snippy comment in the thread.
I'd like to point out that not only did Wilmore ignore and indeed flaunt himself against my request by personally posting a criticism, but back when I could lock my threads every single time I locked a thread a moderator immediately went and posted in it.
I'm certain if a flat guy asked a mod to lock a thread their request would be granted.

Flat Earth General / Proof of geostationary satellites
« on: January 01, 2010, 07:59:03 AM »
The flat guys believe that there are no geostationary satellites. Instead, they think signals from these are broadcast from hovering aircraft at high altitude. There is a simple way to disprove this.
The maximum altitude a balloon can reach is approximately 50km. Geostationary satellites orbit at a height of 36,000km.
Consider two houses with satellite TV dishes a couple of hundred miles apart. Both have to point directly at the object broadcasting the signal. If the signal comes from a satellite, the angles of the two dishes would be very similar. If the signal comes from a balloon or other much lower altitude object, the angles of the dishes would be greatly different to each other.
I think Sky TV engineers would notice when setting up the dishes, wouldn't you?

Suggestions & Concerns / Treatment of "RE FAQ"
« on: December 27, 2009, 06:52:00 PM »
I have posted an updated version of the flat earth FAQ twice today. The first time it was in the Q&A section, which I felt was appropriate as it was questions and answers. This was deleted after approximately two hours or less, with no reason given. I suspect the motive was that one of the moderators was uncomfortable with how thoroughly it knifed FET.

I then posted it in the FE Info Repository. Again, I felt this was an appropriate section as it was basically providing information about the current state of FET. To quote Lord Wilmore:
This forum is for the storing of information only.
I therefore feel it had a valid case for being there. The text I posted pointed out many of the glaring problems with FET. The flat guys may not like having these problems pointed out to them, nevertheless, they cannot dispute that these problems do exist when trying to describe the world in a FE context. The post has now been moved to Complete Nonsense, which I think is unfair given the reasons outlined above.
The FES do themselves no favours in hiding the weaknesses of their theory - even Rowbottom was keen to have problems in his ideas pointed out to him, that he might try to solve them. The attitude of the forum moderators is if something confronts FET in a way that they can't immediately squash, then sweep it under the carpet and pretend it doesn't exist.

Flat Earth Debate / Critique of the Flat Earth FAQ
« on: December 27, 2009, 01:38:37 PM »
Q: "Why do you guys believe the Earth is flat?"

A:  They think it looks that way up close, even though a massive sphere would look the same. Samuel Rowbotham et al. performed a variety of experiments over a period of several years that show it must be flat, however when these were repeated by others they showed the earth was not flat at all.  They are all explained in his book, along with a lot of other gross inaccuracies and misunderstandings of basic physics and optics.

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

Circumference: 24,900 miles
Diameter: approx 7926 miles at the equator.
The flat earthers believe different figures but are unable to explain where their numbers come from.
In John Davis's model, the Earth is an infinite plane and is 9000 kilometers deep. He has no evidence for there being anything beyond Antarctica and the 9000 km number is just a random number plucked out of nowhere.

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

Now there's a can of worms. We'll start with the Sun:
Flat earthers have no explanation for how it generates its light and heat that is consistent with observation. They have no explanation that makes sense for its composition. They believe the Sun is at an arbitrary distance of 3000 miles up, but no evidence on why this distance is more viable than any other. Some believe it is a flat disc, even though it appears circular no matter where it's viewed from (there is no explanation for this). In the model of flat earth that has Antarctica round the rim, there is no explanation of how one sees the sun circle right round the horizon during the summer. In the flat earth model with Antarctica as a distinct continent, the path of the sun's illumination accounts for that but makes no sense from other parts of the world.

As for the Moon: They have no explanation for how it generates light that is consistent with observation. Some believe it is self luminous even though lunar eclipses disprove this. Some believe it is a flat disc even though observing its libration disproves this. Some believe it is covered with migrating luminous critters that scuttle back and forth to explain the phases, even though close observation of the moon through a telescope disproves this, as there are isolated lit patches that dwindle without moving anywhere (mountain peaks). Other FE'ers think the phases are due to weather patterns, despite the moon having virtually no atmosphere and no weather pattern anywhere ever being observed to be that predictable. There is no FE explanation of how someone watching the moon rise sees the same side of it as someone in another part of the world watching it set.

They think other planets are tiny and have no real explanation of what controls their movements.

Q: "Please explain sunrises/sunsets."

A: They can't explain them in any manner that fits with what is observed.

Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A: Annoyingly for the FE'ers, satellites won't work on a flat earth so they have had to make up alternative explanations for where the signals come from. This is basically broadcast towers and invisible high altitude stationary aircraft. Nobody has ever seen these aircraft, even though there'd have to be hundreds of them hovering in the sky. See the section on the Conspiracy.

Q: "Do you have a map?"

A: Not one that works. It is impossible to produce a map of a flat earth without distorting some of the continents to shapes we know they do not have. Furthermore, the RE map is known to be correct as it can be used to predict viewing locations of solar eclipses with 100% accuracy. The RE map is incompatible with a Flat Earth: therefore any FE map has to be incorrect, and by extension, the earth cannot be flat.

The two most common maps advertised by the FES are one with Antarctica as a big ring round the edge, which is incompatible with both the measured distance round Antarctica and flight times between places in the southern hemisphere. The other has Antarctica as a seperate continent but that map is incompatible with how people navigate across such places as the Pacific Ocean.
Note there is no reason ever given with the first map why Antarctica is a ring round the edge and the North pole in the centre rather than vice versa.

Q: "Exactly what shape is the Earth if it's flat? Square or circle?"

A: Since the FE'ers claim nobody has any knowledge of an accurate map layout and that nobody knows exactly where the edge is, the flat earth could be a prism of any shape - hexagonal, square, triangular etc.

Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"

A: They claim there is an ice wall of an arbitrary height of 150 feet keeping it in. Nobody has ever seen this wall so the height figure is purely made up. There is no evidence of its existence.

Q: "Wouldn't the atmosphere be diffused into space?"

A: Yes.

Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses?"

A: A celestial body, known as the antimoon, supposedly passes between the sun and moon. This projects a shadow upon the moon. However there is no evidence that this object exists other than the shadow, which is exactly what one would expect to see if the earth was round. The antimoon is completely undetectable the rest of the time. It is not clear how the antimoon "knows" when it needs to pop out and cast a shadow exactly when RE orbital theory predicts the earth would be between the sun and moon. One can only speculate it reads astronomy magazines.

Q: "How come the travel time by air from South America to New Zealand, via the polar route, is SHORTER than the travel time going North first and then South again?"

A: The FE explanation is that "airline pilots are guided by their GPS. Remember that satellites don't exist. The replacement data given from pseudolites deliberately throwing distorting all the paths to make it the flights take different times. The curvature of these paths can add or subtract great distances without the overall turning being obvious to someone traveling it."
This is wrong for the following reasons:

1. Airline pilots are guided by more than just GPS, and for most of aviation history GPS wasn't even invented. They still managed to navigate great circle routes pretty well without it.

2. Claiming GPS is fed false data leads to the Bilocation Paradox, where a GPS unit being used by someone in the air would be showing a different location to a GPS unit being used by someone on the ground who can confirm their location is correct. Despite the fact that the GPS units would be receiving the same signals. No FE explanation to the Bilocation Paradox has ever been suggested.

3. Pilots would likely notice the sun being in the wrong place as they turned.

Q: "When traveling in a straight direction, you will always reach the same point on the globe from where you started. How can this happen if the world is flat?"

A: It can't.

Q: "If you go directly south won't you eventually fall off the edge of the Earth?"

A: Yes, you will. In order to get round this very obvious hole in their theory, FE'ers come up with a variety of excuses, among which are: "Nobody has ever been to Antarctica", "The Ice Wall is guarded and anybody who tries to fly over it is shot down and killed", "The weather eventually gets so harsh that people are forced to turn back". Despite these convincing claims, the FE'ers have no explanation for where on the disc the location of the south polar bases actually is, or why nobody has ever managed to go further south than 90 degrees.

Q: "NASA and other world space agencies have pictures of the Earth from space, and in those pictures the Earth is clearly a globe; in this day and age, hasn't it been proven beyond any doubt that the Earth is round?"

A: Yes, but because this would be the final nail in the flat earth coffin, the FE'ers claim that every single image and piece of data from every space program in the world has been faked. This involves a massive conspiracy, who are also the ones operating fake satellite aircraft. It doesn't take a genius to work out that this conspiracy would have to involve hundreds if not thousands of people.

Q: "What is the motive behind this Conspiracy?"

A: The FE'rs say it is to make money by keeping the cash given to them to make a space program. However, this is flimsy because not only do you have the cost of building all the very real space shuttles, rockets and so on that can actually be launched (and their support infrastructure), you'd also have to be paying everyone in on the truth a great deal to keep quiet about it. Given the huge sums that could be gained from leaking the story to the press multiplied by the number of people who would have to be conspiracy members, it's easy to see that it would cost more money to keep the conspiracy going undercover than it would to run a real space program.

Q: "No one could possibly pull off such a conspiracy successfully."

A: Damn right.

Q: "Why has this site not been shut down by the government?"

A: Because the government are not really running a conspiracy.

Q: "Are there any other holes in FET that they cannot explain?"

A: They have no valid explanation for why there appear to be two celestial poles moving in sync with each other. They have no explanation for why some rocks from the moon are completely different to terrestrial rocks. They have no valid explanation for why ships appear to gradually sink down over the horizon.

Q: "Don't they use bendy light for that?"

A: Bendy light has never been independently detected. It is only assumed when using the earth's surface as a component of the measuring system and making the assumption that that surface is completely flat. All observations of light using controlled and known variables indicate it travels in a straight path. There are no experiments or observations of light using controlled and known variables that indicate any degree of bending. A good equivalent example would be saying something was ten inches long by measuring it with a ruler on which you had drawn the inch markings by guesswork.

Flat Earth General / Disproving RET - a challenge
« on: December 02, 2009, 01:16:55 PM »
Several flat guys have stated that Round Earth Theory has been disproved. When I asked for an example of an observation that FET explains but RET doesn't, none were forthcoming.
Therefore, I challenge anyone to give me an example of this kind. Without it, it is impossible to demonstrate that FET would be superior to RET - the best you could get was equality of likelihood. And without disproving RET, you cannot prove FET.
NOTE: Rowbotham's experiments cannot be cited as when repeated by others they gave opposite results, therefore they are of null value to either side of the argument.

Flat Earth Debate / Itchy's moonlight study.
« on: November 09, 2009, 01:24:15 PM »
Ichimaru Gin has posted a study of the effects of moonlight on organisms in a section where only FE believers can respond, so I'm responding here instead:
1. The rattlesnake study didn't even use real moonlight.
2. There need to be control studies comparing the lighting patterns of moonlight against a similar lighting pattern of light from a non-moon source. Without this, no conclusions can be drawn about the properties of moonlight, merely about organism's reactions to any light of a certain intensity and periodicity.

Flat Earth Q&A / Stellar and Lunar perspective
« on: October 25, 2009, 03:57:22 AM »
If the stars are close to us, on some sort of dome over a flat earth, how come their positions relative to each other are not subject to perspective effects when viewed from different locations? And given that the Moon is round and not flat, how come we can always see the same side of it if it's only 3000 miles away? If it's that close, we'd see different parts when viewed simultaneously from different countries.

Flat Earth Q&A / Please sticky this - disproof of bendy light
« on: October 16, 2009, 06:13:10 PM »
I am so sick and tired of people (mostly Parsifal) constantly denying that bendy light has been disproved by observational evidence, that I feel this thread should be stickied so that every time bendy light is brought up, they can be pointed to it without me needing to explain the whole thing again and again until my fingers bleed from typing.

That is the thread in which myself and Senoctar demonstrate that bendy light conflicts with observed effects. Go read it.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Occam's Razor
« on: October 01, 2009, 03:52:16 PM »
Many people on the forum try to use Occam's Razor as a demonstration that the earth is round, which is silly as Occam's Razor has no logical basis, merely a basis of probability and possibility, which proves nothing.
However - I have been trying to think of occasions where Occam's Razor has been shown not to be valid and I can't think of any. Has anyone got any examples?

Flat Earth General / 91 S
« on: September 29, 2009, 05:55:07 PM »
People have travelled to the latitude of the South Pole, 90o South. How come nobody has then continued even one degree further to 91o? Given the amount of people working down at the pole and who have visited it, you'd think at least one person would have noticed you could keep going a little further south... unless of course you reach Teh ICE Walls and notice the edge just stops after that.

Pages: [1] 2