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 - Anderson

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Q&A / What Have The Governments Got to hide?
« on: April 11, 2006, 08:20:04 PM »
Quote from: "Seizure"
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Quote from: "Seizure"
Although this is true, tin foil also reflects radio waves. Meaning that if you wear one around your head, the waves will bounce back without affecting you.


Certain frequencies are reflected, yes. But other frequencies are also amplified.

I have a basic grasp of radio waves, you do not. Since I have never formulated any complicated equations or theories there is no need for you to believe any of them.

No, all frequencies are reflected. If you want see for your self, simply get some tinfoil and wrap it around a wireless internet card. I can assure you that no matter what frequency you choose for your router to use, a single kb of information will never get to that card.

Also, I was referring to your equations and theories in the FAQ. Which also leads me to ask you, have you ever tested and/or tried to prove those theories and equations your self?


It doesn't reflect, it acts like a Faraday cage. So all the electrical activity stays on the outside of the tinfoil hat, and doesn't pass through your head.

Now I'm not actually saying there is any particularly good reason to wear a tinfoil hat, but that would be how I suppose it would work.

2
Flat Earth Q&A / End of "breathing" zone?
« on: April 09, 2006, 01:01:31 PM »
Quote
Well FE already defies Occam's Razor...


Stupid Occam  :x

3
Flat Earth Q&A / End of "breathing" zone?
« on: April 09, 2006, 08:27:30 AM »
Or wait, no, no, That IS where wind comes from. It makes perfect sense.

4
Flat Earth Q&A / End of "breathing" zone?
« on: April 09, 2006, 08:25:10 AM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Quote from: "Anderson"

P.S.
Goddamnit, now I'm thinking like you bastards.


It happens to me too sometimes.

Quote from: "Anderson"


Are you complaining that a theory presented on The Flat Earth Society board, makes no sense?

C'mon man.

And seriously if there is no vacuum it explains a lot of things about how there can be no gravity but the Earth still has air on it, or the air doesn't fall over the side.
[/list]


True, they could just say that space is not a vacuum. Of course I imagine there would be some way to disprove that...*waits for Erasmus to arrive*


Well the one problem I could see, is that you could no longer assume the Earth was accelerating upwards, as there would be a lot of wind to give it away.

5
Flat Earth Q&A / End of "breathing" zone?
« on: April 08, 2006, 07:37:10 PM »
Quote from: "Believer"
Quote
UNLESS! there is no such thing as the vacuum of space. Maybe there is air evenly spread throughout the entire universe.


And I'm a banana wielding a melon coloured poncho.


Are you complaining that a theory presented on The Flat Earth Society board, makes no sense?

C'mon man.

And seriously if there is no vacuum it explains a lot of things about how there can be no gravity but the Earth still has air on it, or the air doesn't fall over the side.
[/list]

6
Flat Earth Q&A / End of "breathing" zone?
« on: April 08, 2006, 02:54:09 PM »
So yah, there would be a point outside "the cup" where you couldn't breathe.

UNLESS! there is no such thing as the vacuum of space. Maybe there is air evenly spread throughout the entire universe.

7
Flat Earth Q&A / End of "breathing" zone?
« on: April 08, 2006, 02:52:22 PM »
I guess it would just be like a big cup of air that

    that doesn't come out the top by the upward acceleration of the Earth.
    Doesn't fall out the bottom because of the ground
    And doesn't go out the sides, because of the ice wall.


P.S.
Goddamnit, now I'm thinking like you bastards.

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Where is the edge of the earth?
« on: April 08, 2006, 01:52:59 PM »
What I love is that that picture is really obviously cgi.

Especially when you could easily just google up "glacier pictures" and find a good real photo of something that looks like an ice wall.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: GM/r^2
« on: April 08, 2006, 01:28:18 PM »
Quote from: "Dancing Gnats"
Quote
Considering its cumalative (GM/r^2 and all that) yes.


Give me the simplicity of the Bible any day. When a theory needs to be justified by formulae beyond the reach of the layman, maybe that theory is a little more complex than the truth usually is. That's not to say that those flat-earthers who are more versed in physics than I am shouldn't use physics to prove our position, but at least our position is also proved by the simplicity of plain truth. A round earth will always need complex pseudo-science to try to explain away the impossible.


Layman's terms:
Everything has gravity.
There is more of the Earth than anything else, so the Earth has more gravity than anything else.

Think about it, the Earth is really big. Seriously, think about it, it is huge. It doesn't matter if you are a REer or a FEer, you can understand that.

It's actually at the so huge you can not fully comprehend it point.

Now gravity in and of itself is a very weak force, so you can not really notice it in everyday objects without special equipment, but it can be measured.

But the cumulative effect of the Earth's mass (which is astronomically huge), means that its gravity is very strong. And that is why we can notice it.
Quote

Quote
Urm same reason balloons float maybe? Y'know, being less dense


Is skin and bone really less dense than water? Just asking. Even if it is, that won't convince me that gravity can prevent that vast volume of water from falling off a round earth.


The reason you float is because your lungs are full of air.

That is why a several hundred ton steel ship can float, because it is hollow inside.

10
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Concave Hollow Earth
« on: April 07, 2006, 10:59:56 PM »
Here is an idea similar to the flat Earth theory, and just as plausable.*

Concave Hollow Earth







*And by "just as plausable," I mean "gets fileted by Occam's Razor."

11
From classes that I've taken, you can not just use statistics to imply causality, you have to perform a repeatable experiment that shows that A actually causes B.

Statistics can be used as the basis for performing an experiment though.
So that data could then be the impetus to perform an experiment to see if sleep does cause sickness.

Something like having groups of people randomly assigned to groups, where they are made to sleep very specific lengths of time, and then seeing if anything happens to them health wise.

This can then be used to see if A actually causes B.

As opposed to

B causes A (people who are sickly, sleep longer)

Or there is a third factor, C, which causes both A and B. (People with stressful jobs are more tired, and thus sleep longer, and suffer from more stress induced sickness.)

There is an example of this that was presented in a course I took:

The crime rate increases with increased sales of ice cream.

This would imply that Ice cream is the cause of increased crime. The real cause being that in summer months, people buy more ice cream, and that crime also increases in the summer.

Pages: [1]