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 - midgard

Pages: [1] 2
The Lounge / Frank, Henry and the Blib Machine
« on: February 18, 2009, 07:46:25 AM »
A person needs to have 4 Blibs each day to survive. A Blib Machine operated by one person can make 20 Blibs/day. A Blib machine lasts 10 days and costs 60 Blibs to get a new one. Frank owns a Blib machine and is approached by Henry who doesn't own one. Henry says he will operate Frank's Blib machine if Frank will allow him to keep some Blibs at the end of each day. What do you think would be a fair ammount of Blibs for Henry to keep each day? If you were Frank how many Blibs would you let Henry keep at the end of each day?

Technology, Science & Alt Science / A few selective pressures removed
« on: February 16, 2009, 05:00:17 AM »
It appears that modern technology (or should that be prosperity) has made it possible for some births to occur that wouldn't have otherwise. As such we have changed this part of our species' environment and therefore the selective pressure associated with it. With this, could a future where natural births are virtually impossible occur?

My personal thoughts are this is a possibility but I don't think it's very likely as I don't think this is a very large selective pressure to begin with.

Also, as the perineum can split without an incision I'm not sure whether episiotomies should be included in this - I have included though as maybe one of the possibilities would be a tougher perineum that wouldn't split naturally and as such future childbirths may be impossible without an episiotomy (in Holles Street Maternity Hospital virtually all asian mothers require an episiotomy).

Flat Earth Q&A / Why?
« on: September 26, 2008, 09:13:29 AM »
Why did people wake me from my slumber?

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Cloning Jesus from stale bread
« on: February 19, 2007, 10:23:01 AM »
Recently I was talking to my girlfriend about Catholicism and I discovered that when a Catholic partakes in Mass and has the bread and wine they actually believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ (bloody canibals).

Does this mean that if I go to Mass and take the bread and wine, keep it in my mouth until I get home and then spit it out that I can extract Jesus's DNA from it???

The Lounge / Can Somebody help me find a source
« on: February 19, 2007, 04:11:34 AM »
...scientific evidence came from a study by MENSA that found that of 43 studies into the relationship, 4 found no relationship and 39 found the inverse relationship.  So there is significant evidence that shows that people who believe in God are less intelligent than those who don't.

I've been trying to track down the source of this "fact" and so far all I can find is a bunch of websites quoting Dawkins in The God Delusion:

Quote from: "[url=
a webpage[/url]"][Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine, 2002, reviewed all studies taken of religion and IQ. He concluded:]

"Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one's intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold "beliefs" of any kind."

--"The God Delusion" by Prof. Richard Dawkins, p102-103

Interestingly enough when I've been doing a search for things such as "Paul Bell" & MENSA I keep coming back to that passage on various websites but can't acutally find any extracts from the original article. In fact I can't even find the "MENSA Magazine" that is mentioned. I've found The MENSA Research Journal but that can't be it because for the three issues of 2002 (Winter 2002, Sprin 2002, and Fall 2002) there is not article that is written by Paul Bell.

I'm not trying to get into a debate about the statement (I believe there is an inverse correlationship between education and intelligence and religious belief). I just want to read the actual article so I know exactly what it says.


Flat Earth Q&A / one for the rounders v2
« on: February 07, 2007, 07:53:26 AM »

To fairly and completely objectively prove once and for all that the earth is flat and not some stupid, magical "round" world.

As you can see in the below "photo"(1) of the round earth if the earth is in fact round and a magical force called "gravity" pulls everything towards the centre of the earth then the magical force can be tested.

All you have to do is level some giant protractors with each other and hang a bit of fishing line with a weight on the end to the centre of the protractors. If the earth is round then gravity should pull the fishing line towards the centre of the earth instead of the bottom of the protractor (as shown in diagram 1 where the red line represents the fishing line). As the earth is flat the fishing line will cross the bottom of the protractor (as shown in diagram 2).

Diagram 1:

Diagram 2:

NOTE: Diagrams are not to scale.

With this in mind I went to MacGiant's and bought 2 protractors, both with radius of 2 metres. I also bought a laser, some cigarettes, a fishing line and weights and a friend (though he insisted on me calling him an assistant).

We set up one protractor at the Dun Laoghaire peer, we used the fishing line to determine where we should put the bottom of the protractor. Then we attached the laser and positioned it in a way that the laser was pointing at Howth Head. I then travelled to the tip of Howth Head (9km away, see Diagram 3), located the laser beam and set up the protractor so that it was aligned with the laser beam(2) coming from the other protractor. After the protractor was aligned with the one on Dun Laoghaire peer I attached the fishing line and weight to the centre of the protractor. The line crossed over the bottom of the protractor(3) instead of being angled more towards the Dun Laoghaire peer.

Diagram 3:

RESULTS: Given the circumference of the earth, the size of the protractors and the distance between the protractors the fishing line on the Howth Head protractor should have crossed the circumference 2-3mm from the absolute bottom (towards the Dun Laoghaire peer). Given that the fishing line crossed the circumference at the absolute bottom(3) it is evident that the magical force known as "gravity" doesn't exist and that the earth is flat.

(1)It should also be clear from the photo provided of a round earth that all photos of a round earth are in fact faked.

(2)Using smoke from the cigarettes to see precisely where the laser beam was going.

(3)This is taking into account adjustments made because of a slight, imperceptable(4) breeze that was heading towards the Dun Laoghaire peer.

(4)The breeze was completely impossible to feel but it was obviously there as the fishing line was angling towards Dun Laoghaire peer.

EDIT: Changed asterixes to numbers.

The Lounge / Simple IQ test.
« on: February 05, 2007, 02:50:50 AM »
You'll have to forgive me for posting a question that is highly ambiguous (made so because of poor definition and all the variables).

Still, I always like this as a simple IQ test.

I went with a ton of bricks.

Of course, because it's such an ambiguous question I figured there'd be a fair bit of room open for debate.

The Lounge / 2000 years later on...
« on: February 01, 2007, 07:07:01 AM »
Do you think anybody I've mentioned stands a chance of having a religious following 2000 years from now?

Flat Earth Q&A / Flat Earthers and the Conspiracy
« on: January 25, 2007, 05:16:56 AM »
Just wanted to know how many flat earthers believe:
  • The governments of the world are behind the conspiracy.
  • The conspiracy has infiltrated the governments of the world but the they are unaware of its existence.
If you have a strong leaning towards one more than the other do you accept that the other could be correct?

Also, feel free to post here about your personal speculations on the conspiracy such as when it began, who has been involved, what motives they have, who is a part of the conspiracy, etc, etc.

The Lounge / Get your nominations in....
« on: January 25, 2007, 03:27:21 AM »
I've decided that I'm going to run a couple of polls for the forum so I would like people to nominate who they want in the polls, the categories are...
  • Most Annoying
  • Most Entertaining
  • Dumbest
  • Smartest
  • Best Avatar
  • Best Quote
  • Best Thread
Only the top four nominees will make it to a poll.  Nominations must be in by next Friday at noon GMT. You cannot nominate yourself and you don't have to nominate in all categories. The polls will run on a limited number of days yet to be determined. If you don't feel like posting your nominations in public feel free to PM me. Once nominations are in they cannot be changed. All nominations for Best Avatar, Quote and Thread will count towards a person even if the nominations are for different avatars, quotes and threads. The final nominees will be revealed in the polls.

[PMs rx'd = 0]

Winners of the polls will each receive... nothing! But no doubt will be proud in the knowledge that have won the poll - yippee.


Here's my nominations:

Most Annoying, The Engineer
While not personally annoying he seems to make it onto enough hate lists to warrant a run in the polls so I'll give him a shot at this prized... prize.

Most Entertaining, -
I can't really decide on one. There's a couple that really stand out but it wouldn't be fair on the others to pick one above the rest.

Dumbest, daniel_is_not_flat
Somehow manages to take stupid to a new level.

Smartest, -
You know the saying, "takes one to know one".

Best Avatar, MasterChief2219
Doesn't matter which one, they are consistantly good.

Best Quote, daniel_is_not_flat
it's intended to mock FE , MORON
Talking about DiegoDraw's My Trip to the Ice Wall thread - still cracks me up.

Best Thread, DiegoDraw
For My Trip to the Ice Wall.


The Lounge / World War II
« on: January 24, 2007, 02:56:31 AM »
I was once told something and I just wanted to find out if it's true...

When you respond please say what country you're from and how you answered.


The Lounge / My suggestion for time management...
« on: January 23, 2007, 09:54:22 AM »
Okay there's gonna be one statement here I'm not to sure about but I'll run with it and see how I go...

When your employees are getting further and further behind on their workload it is more effective to give them more responsibility and more work than it is to bring in another employee. Here's why:

An employee with the weight of the world on his shoulders will be operating in a slower time stream than the rest of the world. To have the mass of the earth compacted down to the size of his shoulders would create a lot of gravity, as the gravity would be higher than the rest of the world the time would be slower for the employee.

Therefore if you want your employees to accomplish more in "less" time put the weight of the world on their shoulders.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Global Warming to sort itself out
« on: January 19, 2007, 03:36:55 AM »
DISCLAIMER: Okay, seeing as global warming is a serious topic I know there's going to be people out there who will be offended by this.  I would like it noted that this not meant in anyway to be offensive and am pleading ignorance of the ins and outs of global warming as my defence.

Here's my thoughts about global warming: who cares.

The way I see it at the moment we have hot summers that require air con and cold winters that require heaters.

If the average temperatures of the earth continue to rise then we can rest assured that we will no longer need heaters in winter - thus half the problem will be gone and the temperature will cool down again.*

*Cars, planes, ships, factories, power plants, etc. do not exist and therefore do not affect the earth's climate in any way, shape or form.

The Lounge / I've gotta go...
« on: January 18, 2007, 11:00:59 AM »
I've gotta leave now but I'm leaving Tex here to watch you while I'm gone. Behave...

Flat Earth Q&A / one for the rounders
« on: January 18, 2007, 05:58:23 AM »
Could a Round Earther please explain to me how the observations made in Samuel Rowbotham's 9th experiment could be correct if the world is round?

Experiment 9 basically makes the observation that during a ferry trip from Dun Laoghaire to Holyhead it is possible at halfway to see the Poolbeg Light in Dublin turn around and also see the South Stack in Holyhead.

The height given by Rowbotham in the experiment for South Stack is only 44 feet when it should actually be 91 feet as it is on a cliff:

Also the passenger deck height of the ferries is 14 metres above water level.

Note that even with these increased heights it should not be possible to see both the lighthouses from a single point in the journey. However, according to [Removedl] and [Removed] it does happen.

The Lounge / It goes without saying....
« on: January 12, 2007, 06:05:09 AM »

The Lounge / Ireland and Cocaine
« on: January 10, 2007, 04:13:38 AM »
This was on the news last night...

An ongoing research project into the detection of illicit drug use has shown that of a sample of bank notes in current circulation in the greater Dublin area - 5, 10, 20 and 50 denominations - 100% of them showed contamination with cocaine.

62% of notes were contaminated with levels of cocaine at concentrations greater than 2 nanograms/note, with 5% of the notes showing levels greater than 100 times higher, indicating suspected direct use of the note in either drug dealing or drug inhalation. The highest amounts of cocaine residues were found on 20 and 50 bank notes, as compared to 5 and 10. The remainder of the notes which showed only ultra-trace quantities of cocaine was most probably the result of contact with other contaminated notes, which could have occurred within bank counting machines or from other contaminated surfaces.

Of course the study was conducted by the Dublin City University so I'm thinking if they got their sample of notes from students this could explain the high results.

The Lounge / Mine is the only vote that counts.
« on: January 09, 2007, 05:00:08 AM »
Let's take a vote on that:

I vote in favour.

It doesn't matter what other people vote (even if they were to vote in favour) as mine is the only vote that counts.

Therefore, mine is the only vote that counts.

The Lounge / d's & t's
« on: January 09, 2007, 03:12:18 AM »
I know this is going to sound crazy but I swear that sometimes my d's are replaced with t's! Has anybody else noticed this or am I just getting worse at typing?

I know it sounds crazy but it's a big mistake to make when typing (coz they're using different fingers). Also, I've noticed it is a common "mistake" that occurs on this forum. Would it be possible to set up a program that occasionally replaces a random d with a random t?


The Lounge / Online Resources
« on: January 05, 2007, 08:17:57 AM »
Does anybody know some good sites I can download some free games for my mobile?

The Lounge / Classification of Members
« on: January 05, 2007, 06:25:55 AM »
I'm just curious as to what classifications people would come up for people posting on the forum.

For example you could just keep it as simple as:
Flat Earther.
Round Earther.

Or you could make as many classifications as you like. Also define the classifications (so in the above example would you define a Flat Earther as somebody who believes in Flat Earth or also people who just argue for it) and give some examples.

Flat Earth Q&A / The Round Earther and the Biologist
« on: January 03, 2007, 04:19:35 AM »
I'm sure most Round Earthers will scoff at this little "play" of mine and say that they don't do that at all. This is exactly what you are doing with the Conspiracy, you just don't realise it.

BIOLOGIST: There are upwards of 100 million undiscovered species on the earth.


BIOLOGIST: Well I can't prove it, but we speculate on the numbers based on how many species are turning up and how well explored the earth is.

ROUND EARTHER: But that's just speculation! Name just one undiscovered species! What's it look like? How many legs does it have? Draw me a picture of this "imaginary" animal!

BIOLOGIST: How am I supposed to draw something we haven't discovered yet?

ROUND EARTHER: Exactly! You can't because it doesn't exist!!! You have no PROOF!

BIOLOGIST: So what you're saying is that despite the evidence that there are 17,000 species discovered every year and the vast areas of the earth (especially the ocean) that haven't been extensively explored there are no undiscovered animals until they are discovered?

ROUND EARTHER: Exactly! If you can't prove it exists, it doesn't exist!

I'm sure that any Round Earther can see that the above "Round Earther" is being ridiculous. The biologist doesn't have proof of undiscovered species but he has reason to speculate that there still are undiscovered species.

The reason why Flat Earthers believe there must be a Conspiracy is because we believe that the Earth is flat. I'm sure most Round Earthers would agree that if the Earth is flat then there must be a Conspiracy - how else would you explain all the proofs that the Earth is round? Now here's where the problem arises: Round Earthers believe they can disprove the conspiracy because of lack of proof for the Conspiracy. They also believe that by pointing out how unlikely the Conspiracy is that it will count as proof against it. They seek to disprove the flatness of the Earth by disproving the Conspiracy. Unfortunately things don't work this way, if an animal hasn't been discovered it still exists.  Just because an animal seems unlikely doesn't mean that it can't exist - just look at the platypus. While you don't realise it, the honest truth is that it is impossible to disprove the Conspiracy. Even if the Conspiracy required 3.5 Billion people in the world to work it, it would still be possible (though extremely unlikely). Ask yourself this: could a flat earth exist as we know the earth today without a conspiracy? The answer is no.

The only way to disprove the conspiracy is to first rid a Flat Earther of his belief that the Earth is flat.

This is because Flat Earth beliefs in a conspiracy stem from belief that the earth is flat.[/color]

Flat Earth Q&A / Midgard's Answers to Mr. The Man 40K
« on: January 02, 2007, 05:35:37 AM »
Quote from: "Mr. The Man 40K"
1. the ice wall. It seems to me like you have been playing a few to many video games. Why is there an ice wall perfectly around our perfect circle shaped Flat Earth?

Because as the water from the oceans flowed over the edge of the earth it froze and formed a wall of ice. This probably happened billions and billions of years before there was a shred of life on this planet.

At least I didn't say: How the hell should I know the Ice Wall's motivations you poo-poo-head???

Quote from: "Mr. The Man 40K"
2. What formed the wall?

See above.

Quote from: "Mr. The Man 40K"
3. What formed the Flat Earth?

The Flat Earth is nothing but a bit of spit from a giant. As the spit starting accelerating downwards it began to pick up dust, this dust formed the land we live on. We are nothing but "microscopic" bacteria.

The real question you should be asking is what caused the giant to spit in the first place?

Quote from: "Mr. The Man 40K"
4.There is already perfectly logical answers for how the Round Earth was formed, but none for the Flat Earth?

I'm not actually sure what the question is here. I choose to answer: Why isn't there any explanation of how the Flat Earth was formed?

There is no explanation as we do not have the resources to investigate the origins of the earth. However, this does not mean we cannot speculate and postulate theories such as the one above.

Quote from: "Mr. The Man 40K"
5. Also to challenge the guard idea, you say on the wall they could see for 15 miles around. Well is this wall not located deep in Antarctica? If I'm not mistaken, the vision in Antarctica isn't that far due to the weather and not exactly flat terrain. So a lot more people would be needed to guard the thing.

Only going off the theory that there are any Ice Wall Guards at all. As I have said I have been to the Ice Wall and have not witnessed any people around. The whole conspiracy is built on keeping people away through deception. The fact that you have no intention of going down to the Ice Wall and the fact that you don't believe me when I say I've been to the Ice Wall demonstrates that they don't need Ice Wall Guards.

Quote from: "Mr. The Man 40K"
6. Plus a towering wall would probably be able to be seen from quite aways around.

It's only 150ft tall. It can be seen from a fair distance but not from any inhabited land.

Quote from: "Mr. The Man 40K"
7.Another thing about the whole conspiracy. A lot more people would be involved. ALL the world leaders, explorers, pilots, cartographers, the list goes on and on. It would seem kinda crazy that a fourth of the world is hiding something.

World leaders? None of them - they are deceived just as you are.
Explorers, Cartographers, Pilots - probably lots of them. Not necessarily all of them.

It is extremely crazy that there are so many people (I'm curious as to how you came up with a quarter) hiding something from the rest of the world; this does not make it false.

Quote from: "Mr. The Man 40K"
8. Also, the way humans are, is that we crave power. We are power hungry and greedy, not all of us, but most of us are, unfortunately. What does that have to do with th Flat World theory? Well all these people would be just craving to tell others, they want to feel the power of being superior. They could not hold in their secret forever. I don't understand how many could be involved either, I've looked at quite a few of the possibilities, but none of them work.

Hopefully they won't hold their secrets forever. However they obviously have to this day and it is only by strong action that we can bring about the truth.

Print out papers and go stand on your corner handing them out. The Earth must learn the truth!

Quote from: "Mr. The Man 40K"
9.If we stood on a flat grassland, why don't we see on forever? Is this another optical illusion, a very easy explanation to most things, or is there another reason for that?

Perspective. Eventually things reach "zero-angle" where they can't be seen anymore.

Quote from: "Mr. The Man 40K"
9. (again) Also, we have seen the space shuttle go up into space, with our very own eyes, many times. We see satellites go through the night sky all the time, and we can even use telescopes to see the other spheric planets. What makes ours so different?

It is flat. That's the biggest difference I can see immediately. Also, it has life. I'm sure there's loads of other things that make our planet so different but I'm not going to list them as I fail to see the point of this question.

The Lounge / Happy Holidays
« on: December 22, 2006, 05:19:42 AM »
I'm now off for the holidays. I'll be back in a while. When I come back I will be posting the results of the experiments I conduct over the holidays.

The Lounge / Some Ideas I've Had
« on: December 22, 2006, 03:20:28 AM »
Here's a few ideas I've had from time to time. I just wanted to know if anybody else has independantly thought of these ideas.

1. Winking Sunglasses. My brother wears sunglasses and he's also one to wink alot. A problem arises when he tries to do both at once, he either ends up looking like he's got a nervous twitch in his neck or has to raise his sunglasses (ruining the effect). My solution was winking sunglasses. That's about as far as I got, I'd have no idea how one would go about making them or who (besides my brother) would want a pair.

2. Postage Stamp vending machines. It annoys me no end when you have to post something and you've run out of stamps. There's phone credit vending machines and the like around the place why don't they have postage stamp vending machines? They could put them next to post boxes to make it really convenient.

3. Piss Guards for parents of little boys. Like a sneeze guard at a buffet but works in the opposite direction. Used when changing diapers.

4. Electronic mail forwarding for backpackers. Unfortunately this one has been done and the way it has been done is better than the idea I had and is set up extremely efficiently and would be a hell of a lot cheaper than I could provide the service for (I was actually going to set this up as a minor business for out of work hours until I researched "possible" competition). Basically the idea was to get clients to forward mail to your address, you scan in the mail to your computer and email them the scans.

They're fairly obvious and basic ideas (and the only one I was almost proud of was the last one) so I'm curious as to how many people have thought of similar things by themselves already.

« on: December 21, 2006, 06:05:46 AM »
I know this has been done a million times but I decided I want a crack at answering it.

Quote from: "Laurie"
When i go onto Google Earth, I can see my house in good detail. How can this work without satellites? Everything in Google earth is correct, the roads, my friend's houses, my tennis club, my school... according to your maps, they would be in different places.

The images of Google Earth are taken from stratellites and aircraft and overlayed onto a 3D model of the earth. Google is under the impression that they receive satellite photos but they are actually stratellite photos. To learn more about Google Earth images go here. You'll see that the photos come from various sources and are sometimes as old as 3 years.

Anytime you see high detail on the map, zoom right in until there is only 1 copyright visible and this is the company responsible for the photo. Look up the company (so far everyone I've seen has it's own website) and you'll see the photo came from a plane.


Is a photo taken by Sanborn.

For the second part of the question the distortion isn't apparent in the cities as they use the vast spaces of ocean and barren lands to cause the distortion.

Flat Earth Q&A / CHAPTER IX. Cause of Sunrise and Sunset.
« on: December 20, 2006, 09:38:29 AM »
Quote from: "FAQ"
Q: Explain fully the optical illusion causing sunrises and sunsets.

As I saw this in the FAQ I figured I would get it straight out of Rowbotham's book for the people too lazy to follow the link.




ALTHOUGH the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective. A flock of birds, when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend is it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears lower or nearer to the horizon than the last, although they are at the same actual altitude above the earth immediately beneath them. When a balloon sails away from an observer, without increasing or decreasing its altitude, it appears to gradually approach the horizon. In a long row of lamps, the second--supposing the observer to stand at the beginning of the series---will appear lower than the first; the third lower than the .second; and so on to the end of the row; the farthest away always appearing the lowest, although each one has the same altitude; and if such a straight line of lamps could be continued far enough, the lights would at length descend, apparently, to the horizon, or to a level with the eye of the observer, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 63.

Let A, B, represent the altitude throughout of a long row of lamps, standing on the horizontal ground E, D; and C, H, the line of sight of an observer at C. The ordinary principles of perspective will cause an apparent rising of the ground E, D, to the eye-line C, H, meeting it at H; and an apparent descent of each subsequent lamp, from A, to H, towards the same eye-line, also meeting at H. The point H, is the horizon, or the true "vanishing point," at which the last visible lamp, although it has really the altitude D, B, will disappear.

Bearing in mind the above phenomena it will easily be seen how the sun, although always above and parallel to the earth's surface, must appear to ascend from the morning horizon to the noonday or meridian position; and thence to descend to the evening horizon.

In the diagram, fig. 64, let the line E, D, represent the surface of the earth; H, H, the morning and evening horizon; and A, S, B, a portion of the true path of the sun.

An observer at 0, looking to the east, will first see the sun in the morning, not at A, its true position, but in its apparent position, H, just emerging from the "vanishing point," or the morning horizon. At nine o'clock, the sun will have the apparent position, 1, gradually appearing to ascend the line H, 1, S; the point S, being the meridian or noonday position. From S, the sun will be seen to gradually descend the line S, 2, H, until he reaches the horizon, H, and entering the "vanishing point," disappears, to an observer in England, in the west, beyond the continent of North America, as in the morning he is seen to rise from the direction of Northern Asia. An excellent illustration of this "rising" and "setting" of the sun may be seen in a long tunnel, as shown in diagram, fig. 65.

The top of the tunnel, 1, 2, and, the bottom, 3, 4, although really equi-distant throughout the whole length, would, to an observer in the centre, C, appear to approach each other, and converge at the points, H, H; and a lamp, or light of any kind, brought in, and carried along the top, close to the upper surface 1, 2, would, when really going along the line, 1, S, 2, appear to ascend the inclined plane H, S, to the centre, S, and after passing the centre, to descend the plane S, H; and if the tunnel were sufficiently long, the phenomena of sunrise and of sunset would be perfectly imitated. A very striking illustration of the convergence of the top and bottom, as well as the sides, of a long tunnel, has been observed in that of Mont Cenis. M. de Porville, when in the centre of the tunnel, noticed that the entrance had apparently become so small that the daylight beyond it seemed like a bright star.
Quote from: "Morning Advertiser, September 16th, 1871."
Before us, at an apparently prodigious distance, we beheld a small star at the entrance of the gallery. Its vivid light contrasted strangely with the red glare of the lamps. Its brightness increased as the horses dashed on the way. In a short time its proportions were more clearly defined, and its volume increased. The illusion was quickly dispelled as we got over some kilometres. This soft white light is the extremity of the gallery.

We have seen that "sunrise" and "sunset" are phenomena dependent entirely upon the fact that horizontal lines, parallel to each other, appear to approach or converge in the distance. The surface of the earth being horizontal, and the line of sight of the observer and the sun's path being over and parallel with it, the rising and setting of the moving sun over the immovable earth are simply phenomena arising necessarily from the laws of perspective.

Flat Earth Q&A / One "Unanswered" Question Answered
« on: December 20, 2006, 04:14:24 AM »
There seems to be some confusion with Round Earthers that there is a problem with the magnetic poles in Flat Earth Theory. No doubt this confusion is increased by the FAQ section on unanswered questions.

Quote from: "FAQ"

Q: Explain magnetism is there is no South pole.

It is impossible to answer that quesiton as it is loaded. The question makes the assumption that Flat Earth has no South Pole: this is false. It is true that while the North Pole is located in the same location as it is on Round Earth, the South Pole is not located anwhere along the Ice Wall (or "Antarctica"). The South Pole is located on the underside of the earth, the surface of the earth is only affected by one of the poles.

I know Round Earthers have problems visualising things so here is a picture to give you a rough idea:

The paper does not represent the entire Flat Earth, merely the top/surface of it. There is no way of knowing what the underside of Flat Earth looks like or how "deep" it is. Here's a "cutaway" of Flat Earth I did myself showing the affect and a "conical" underside:

The Lounge / Richard Dawkins in Ireland
« on: December 19, 2006, 07:51:45 AM »
For those of you that like Richard Dawkins, here he is in Ireland.


The first one is one the Late Late Show and is painful (and yet amusing) to watch. I think the funniest part is at the end when the person debating for the existence of God thinks he's made a point when he says something along the lines of:

"You state that there's a strong possibility of extra terrastrial life, that's based on faith and yet you're calling us deluded."

The funny thing is that most of the crowd cheer as if he actually did make a point.

The second is the Panel - haven't seen it yet.

Pages: [1] 2