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 - Pyrochimp

Pages: [1]
The Lounge / Recycling not as good as we thought
« on: May 14, 2007, 07:35:03 PM »

Flat Earth Q&A / Been a few months since I was here...
« on: May 07, 2007, 02:15:30 PM »
and I doubt I'll stay, but I saw this on a webcomic today and thought it was relevent.

Flat Earth Q&A / How's the FE magnetic field work?
« on: March 18, 2007, 11:54:51 AM »
On magnets, one side of the object is North and the other is South.  On the round Earth, this works fine.  However on the flat Earth, the inside of the object is North, with South covering the entire perimeter.  How?  Magnets don't have North at the center with South on the edge all around the magnet.

Edit: the FAQ again again again again again, I see how Erasmus proposed it could work.  So there's an unknown number of thin magnetic bars under the Earth that haven't ripped the Earth apart?  Sweet.

The Lounge / Gimme something intranets-related to do!
« on: March 13, 2007, 08:55:00 PM »
I need something to do.  A free game site, a free MMO that's not Runescape, really anything free that's entertaining.

(And not that!  Smartasses.)

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Hey, you know, just sayin'
« on: March 13, 2007, 04:56:20 PM »
The Earth is round.  No, I can't prove it.  Thanks for your time.

Like, you know how there's a room full of people during supposed space flight missions doing mission control?  Well, the way I see it, the only possible explanations for them are that 1. The space flight is being faked, in REAL TIME, for days or even weeks straight (ridiculously unlikely) or 2. They're in on the conspiracy and just pretending to do mission control.  Doesn't this add quite a few people to the conspiracy?

Here's what I'm talking about, in case you don't know:

Flat Earth Q&A / The Equivalence Principle and all its fun
« on: March 09, 2007, 03:05:30 PM »
The equivalence principle gets talked about a lot here.  Basically, from what I can gather from the internet, it says that acceleration and gravitation are locally indistinguishable, which makes perfect sense.  However, FEers add something else to it that I haven't been able to find; they say that the equivalence principle makes it so that all objects that are being accelerated also generate their own gravitational field due to that acceleration, which makes objects gravitate in a different direction then the vector the object is accelerating in.  For example, in the Cavendish experiment (which shows gravity between two objects in a different direction besides "down", which is all most people ever experience), it's claimed that either 1. spacetime is bending and causing that gravitation (RE explanation), or 2. since the objects are accelerating, they're generating their own gravitational field, which makes the objects gravitate (FE explanation). 

I've been unable to find a reference to this anywhere, and I've read about 10 Google pages of explanations on the equivalence principle so far.  Can I have a link to something that shows that accelerating objects actually create a gravitational field?  I thought I understood the equivalence principle, but I guess not.  (Keep in mind I'm not claiming this is wrong right off the bat, I just want a source on this since I've been unable to find anything that claims accelerating objects create literal gravitational fields)

The Lounge / Is Tom Bishop for reals? (serious)
« on: March 08, 2007, 05:55:32 PM »
Could Tom Bishop be a REer just doing a clever impersonation of a highly stubborn FEer as a joke?  Think about it.  He has that annoying but slightly funny avatar with the comb-foreward, he claims to have done dozens of experiments that prove the Earth is flat but we never hear about what they are or see proof he's done them, and he uses lots of large smart-sounding words (for example "literature" instead of "books") while his posts generally lack actual proof for FE and usually have large flaws.  I honestly think there's a good chance Tom Bishop could just be a gag by a REer who wants to mess around with a site that thinks the Earth is flat.

Flat Earth Q&A / What are these phenomena that RE can't explain?
« on: March 04, 2007, 09:47:46 AM »
FEers always talk about these things that are unexplained by RE, but I can't think of any.  What are they?  Keep in mind this does NOT include things that aren't fully explained in both theories, such as gravity.  Gravity exists, we don't totally understand it, but we can show that it exists regardless of the shape of the Earth, so it's not relevent here.  I only want things that don't have an explanation with RE but supposedly do have an explanation with FE.

Flat Earth Q&A / It all comes back to the conspiracy
« on: February 26, 2007, 03:54:21 PM »
Disclaimer:  This post is not intended in any way to prove or disprove any theories on the shape of the Earth.  Do not read this post if you are pregnant, have back problems, or have a heart condition.

Let's consider the flat Earth theory.  To your average person, directly observing the flatness or roundness of the Earth is impossible.  The curvature of the Earth, if there is one, is impossible to tell at a human scale simply by seeing it with your own eyes.  However, there's several who claim to have seen the Earth as round, and even done things deemed impossible on a flat Earth, such as orbiting/circling above the Earth without applying a constant upward force with the space ship they're in, which would be required if universal acceleration existed, but quite possible on the round Earth model.  These people are all from government agencies dedicated to exploring space, namely NASA.  This presents a problem though.

If the Earth were indeed flat, then the first time a human went into space/tried to go into space and observed the Earth, one of two things would happen.  One, they would either say "Hay guys, it's flat, we were wrong", or two, they would lie about it and tell us that the Earth is round.  Therefore, since it's universally accepted that the Earth is round besides several people on this site, then the space exploration agencies must be lieing about the shape of the Earth if it's indeed flat.  This lie would have to be very well kept, and any person that's been to space would have to be paid so that they don't tell us the true shape of the Earth.  A conspiracy, if you will.

All conspiracies, which can be considered a conspiracy, have an inherent problem with them.  They create a closed loop of logic.  One can ask, "How come people haven't discovered the conspiracy?", and the conspiracy believer can simply say "The conspirators prevent people from discovering it".  If someone asks "Why is there evidence showing the conspiracy is wrong?", then the conspiracy believer can just say "The conspirators placed that evidence to dupe the public".  Therefore, conspiracies are impossible to disprove, since there's supposedly a powerful entity that can make it appear that the conspiracy is untrue in any circumstance.

Now, we've decided that if the Earth is flat, then there must be a conspiracy preventing people from knowing the Earth is flat.  Also, if there is a conspiracy, it's impossible to disprove, as that's the nature of a conspiracy.  However, just how plausible is a conspiracy of this magnitude?  This would require the complete cooperation of several people (using "several" lightly) in each space exploration organization, including all astronauts.  Ask yourself this very honestly:  What are the chances that every space exploration organization in the world is cooperating to make people believe the Earth is round, completely staging all rocket launches and other space exploration, when it's really flat according to the FE theory?

I, for one, think it's dumb, ludicrous, malarky, impossible, and pure bull feces.  However, I can't disprove it.  Nobody can, it's a conspiracy.  So really, it comes down to what YOU think is plausible.  You can live on your flat Earth, in full belief that at least hundreds of people are in on a worldwide conspiracy to keep the public thinking the Earth is round and that there's never been any meaningful human presence in space, or you can live in what most consider the real world, and believe that space exploration agencies are indeed exploring space for the sake of scientific advancement, and not to absorb the taxpayers' money.

Flat Earth Q&A / The Horizon
« on: February 18, 2007, 02:27:48 PM »
No, this isn't about wether it's flat or curved.  This is about why there's a horizon at all.  If the atmosphere is preventing us from seeing any farther then the horizon, why is the horizon a clearly defined line?  Assuming the composition of the atmosphere is roughly the same over a large area, shouldn't the horizon gradually "blend" with the sky?  Things would gradually get dimmer as they were farther away if the atmosphere was the reason we can't see beyond the horizon, however far away it may be, and yet objects far away are just as visible as objects close-up (aside from obviously being smaller).

Edit:  Here's an example.  Most of us have probably been in fog.  Say, you wake up one morning, and you can only see 25 feet in front of you (for ease of comparison with the oft-quoted number of 25 miles until the atmosphere "gets in the way too much").  If you've ever seen someone walk towards you out of the fog, you know that they slowly "fade" into vision.  If they're 12.5 feet away, it stands to reason that they'd be half as visible, right?  Then why do things 12.5 miles away on our Earth not appear half as visible?

Flat Earth Q&A / Total Lunar Eclipse on March 3rd
« on: February 13, 2007, 03:58:43 PM »
On Saturday, March 3rd, there'll be a total lunar eclipse visible throughout most of the Earth.  People living in Europe, Africa, and West Asia will be able to see the eclipse at nighttime, when all the stars are visible as well (which is important later on).  People in the Americas, Centra/East Asia, and Australia might have parts, if not all, of the total lunar eclipse occur while some of the sun's rays are peeking out behind the horison, when the stars may be difficult or impossible to see, though it will also look pretty cool.

Why's this important?  Let me back up a bit.  The FAQ states that the Sun and Moon are approximately 3000 miles above the Earth, and the stars are just above them, at approximately 3100 miles above the Earth.  Now, a lunar eclipse is when

Round Earth: The shadow of the Earth prevents sunlight from reaching the moon, causing part or all of it to seem to "dissapear"
Flat Earth: The shadow object (the FE reason for eclipses, an unseen object the approximate size of the moon in the sky) passes directly in front of the moon, causing part or all of it to seem to "dissapear"

Since the shadow object has to be in front of the moon to "cover it up", and the FAQ states that the stars are farther away from the Earth then the moon, the only logical order of objects in the sky is Earth - Shadow object - Moon/Sun - Stars.  I'll draw a diagram in MSPaint (not in any way to scale!)

This presents a problem, as shown in my highly artistic drawing (sarcasm).  The shadow object would ALSO cover up starlight as it passed between the Earth and the stars.  As any amateur astronomer will tell you, stars don't have a habit of dissapearing behind an unknown object the approximate size of the moon.  However, since those astronomers could just be paid by the government to say so, you can witness for yourself if stars do or don't dissapear behind the shadow object directly before or after lunar eclipses, since we know exactly where it is during those times and those times only; causing the eclipse, in front of the moon/sun!  On the night of March 3rd, I want REers and FEers alike to watch the eclipse - not only because it's cool, but also to stay around AFTER the total eclipse portion is over*.  If stars close to the moon and in the path of the shadow object/Earth's supposed trajectory begin dissapearing soon after the total eclipse is over, then the FE theory is correct about lunar eclipses, and the RE theory has an unexplainable phenomena on its hands.  However, if the stars in the path of the shadow object/Earth's shadow don't dissapear, then the RE theory explains lunar eclipses just fine and the FE theory is impossible, as the shadow object would cover up the stars.  Mark your calenders for the night of March 3rd, and we'll observe this shadow object covering/not covering the stars firsthand!

*(You can watch the area in front of the moon where the shadow object would be for as long as you're willing to commit time to, though an hour should be plenty to find out if the shadow object obstructs the view of stars.)

Edit: (changed wording to be clearer in some areas)

Flat Earth Q&A / Did all the mods just dissapear?
« on: February 13, 2007, 01:15:36 PM »
Seriously, every topic is covered in tubgirl.  I know you can't be here 24/7 but this is getting out of hand.

Flat Earth Q&A / Stars?
« on: February 13, 2007, 10:55:01 AM »
This isn't meant to really argue against FE or anything, I'm just curious.  How are stars explained in the FE model?  What are they, how far away are they, what are they made of, etcetera.  I couldn't find an answer with a search, since practically every other topic had the word 'star' or 'stars' in it.

Flat Earth Q&A / Who was making money before NASA?
« on: February 10, 2007, 07:03:16 PM »
I read the Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium and the FAQ, and I couldn't find an answer to this.  According to the whole FE thing, NASA and all the other space exploration associations are taking tax dollars by keeping the public thinking the Earth is round.  However, who was making money before space exploration?  And if nobody was making money off convincing everyone the Earth was round before space exploration, then what WAS the motive?  The only one I can find that would apply before space exploration got popular was "display of power", and formulating and upholding a worldwide (hah! a pun) conspiracy just to make yourself feel important is......odd.  To put it nicely.

Flat Earth Q&A / Reproducable Experiment Proving Gravity
« on: February 09, 2007, 03:38:18 PM »

That shows how, by using a torsion balance, you can essentially "cancel out" the massive gravity (or acceleration or whatever you may believe) from the Earth and see the effects of gravity from two given objects alone.  Which is interesting, because under the FE theory, objects don't have gravity, correct?  The disk of the Earth is supposedly constantly accelerating upward, and other matter doesn't create its own pull.

(Forgive me if this has been posted before and for some reason it's wrong, but do explain why it's wrong if so)

Flat Earth Q&A / Alright, so then why is RE wrong?
« on: February 08, 2007, 07:07:44 PM »
I read the FAQ, I lurked around the forums for a few days.  I still haven't caught on to why a round Earth is necessarily wrong.  Sure, a flat Earth works, I'll play along, but why does a round Earth not work?  And I don't mean one random guy doing an experiment; I mean something from a credible scientist or university, something that's airtight, maybe something that I could reproduce with relative ease, that proves the Earth is flat and definately not round.

Edit:  Yes, I realize that it's a big government conspiracy etc. and they would make sure the scientist/university doesn't reveal their astounding flat Earth findings.  Still, is there any reason why a round Earth doesn't work?

Pages: [1]