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 - Marinade

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
The Lounge / Re: Car with best fuel consumption is....
« on: February 01, 2008, 11:40:20 PM »
A Bugatti Veyron will use it faster.

Motorbikes tend to get better fuel economy than most cars.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: RE floating oceans.
« on: October 30, 2007, 03:48:01 PM »
Oh boy. I really like this thread. I feel like taking my turn at trying to word the explanation for this, even though it was obvious right off the bat what this thread really was.

Narc, how about this line of reasoning.

If a weightless collection of water molecules did float off the ocean floor, in the way you describe, what would take the space directly underneath them?

Probably more water

So what replaces it when there is no water left and the whole ocean is floating?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: faith in a flat earth
« on: October 18, 2007, 10:50:11 AM »
Do you ever wake up thinking, nah this is stupid the earth is round what was i thinking. Do you ever doubt sometimes that the earth is flat?

Who should I doubt something that's so apparent and observable just by looking out my window?
I see a curve outside my window Tom Dipshit.

I see a building and a tree. If I look to the left a mountain.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: RE floating oceans.
« on: October 18, 2007, 09:40:26 AM »
Even if you were to somehow come to the insane conclusion that water can magically fly and matter should fly appart...

Wait, did you just call the RE model, "insane" and "magical"?
Welcome to the conclusion of this thread. RE is insane and magical. FE wins.

All I want to say is no they are calling your incorrect version of RE theory insane and magical.

I underlined the important words so hopefully Smarticus will notice them. (not that I expect it too, stupid non-person)

Flat Earth Debate / Re: RE floating oceans.
« on: October 15, 2007, 10:50:50 PM »
I'm flying... high as a kite.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: RE floating oceans.
« on: October 15, 2007, 09:35:33 AM »
Water doesn't float in water? This is a new aspect of RE I was not aware of, you guys are dumber than I thought.

No water doesn't float in air what are you fucking retarded? Oh yeah and for an example of water not in water the ocean (it's water in air). Every water molecule may be in water, but ever water molecule is not weightless. As soon as you get below the first layer of water molecules, the second layer is making them weightless so it is supporting their weight. So now the third layer is supporting the weight of both the top layers, and so on with each new layer supporting all layers above. Therefore, the only logical conclusion would be the only molecules that would be perfectly weightless are the ones of the very surface of the ocean. And they can't float up into the air.

A water molecule is not the ocean. Why should they have the same properties?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ships get lower on horizon
« on: October 05, 2007, 11:08:37 AM »
I only find it funny because I often take a ferry between Vancouver (where I live) and Nanaimo on Vancouver Island where I used to live and still have a lot of friends. Every time I take the trip, I can watch the cityscape of Vancouver slowly sink into the horizon. I can also watch the ferry coming in the other direction rise up pass us and then sink down again as it recedes behind us. The mountains on Vancouver Island also rise up out of the sea. I've also verified with binoculars and a small telescope that the height doesn't change when you view it with something with a zoom.

If you want to see the ferry route go to google maps and get directions from Vancouver BC, or Coquitlam BC, to Nanaimo BC. It's the big straight blue part going across the georgia straight.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debate: Moon Phases
« on: October 05, 2007, 10:52:13 AM »
So Max Fagin, let me summarize what you have said to me thus far. "Show me a picture of the sun and moon together to prove your argument. Any picture you show me is photoshopped. So if you cannot show me a picture then you lose, but if you do show me a picture then you lose because it's fake." Yeah, I think that's a pretty good summary.

Here's another picture. Is it fake too?

I very much doubt that that picture is a fake. However, I don't think it shows a full moon in the sky at the same time as the sun. Looking at the moon it is missing a good crescent on the side away from the sun. So the part directly facing the sun would be full, but from your angle it looks nearly full. That picture works perfectly with the Round Earth model.

Your summary is pretty shit actually. I'll give a better one. Here's a picture I found. Max looks and sees that the guy that made the photo not only admits it's a fake, but explains how to make it. You then complain when Max won't accept your admittedly fake picture as true. You find a real picture that not only supports your claim, but doesn't contradict the round earth model. Everyone's happy except Tom.
(Not trying to be offensive, but this seems like a more accurate summary IMO.)

Bubbles I live in Canada, How is it that I can see a full moon at the same time people who the sun is always North for do? There is absolutely no alignment of the sun and moon that will allow this to happen on the FE model. I like you're point. I have a cousin in Australia, he's confirmed that they see a full moon at the same time of the month that I do. Tom can you show us a picture of the alignment that allows people both inside and outside of both orbits to see a full moon at the same time? I doubt it but I'm asking anyway.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: wow i just found this sight and had to register
« on: October 04, 2007, 11:33:31 AM »
Space = cold. When water gets to the edge the formula goes like this. Water + Cold = Ice.

And how do you know the space is cold?

Cuz ice is formed at the edge of it.

Worst logic ever.

Also incorrect, but still worst logic ever. Pressure becomes basically 0 so water becomes a vapour not ice. The state of matter is dependent on both pressure and temperature. In the case of water in space, the lack of pressure would cause the water to boil, or sublime depending on the state it is in, regardless of temperature.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debate: Universal Accleration
« on: October 04, 2007, 11:26:02 AM »
Quote from: Divito

I do believe he is saying that if the things on the Earth were accelerated upwards by the UA (much like celestial bodies (the sun, planets, the moon, stars etc.)). We would not feel the acceleration of the Earth and thus it could not simulate gravitational effects (ie. we would be weightless).

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debate: Moon Phases
« on: October 04, 2007, 08:59:47 AM »
Moon phases cannot be caused by the shadow object, because if you look closely, you will see the dark part of the moon:

Explain please.

When one observes the phases of the moon he is simply observing the moon's day and night, a natural shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.

The moon moves in a slow circular pattern around the hub of the earth similar to the sun. Therefore the shadow on the moon will change slightly from day to day, as the angle of the moon differs. At first quarter moon the celestial moon is hung overhead of the observer. This will illuminate approximately one half of the moon's surface; when the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. As the moon moves westward, it becomes located at an angle to the observer whereas its phases will slowly modify, changing to a waxing gibbous.

That's not right. The angle of change would be more dramatic as both are moving. Also how does the sun produce a full moon unless it is significantly lower than the moon, while also being able to produce a new moon by being significantly higher? Particularly on the 28 day cycle that it is now.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: wow i just found this sight and had to register
« on: October 03, 2007, 10:13:52 AM »
Since no one on here will believe proof unless they see it with their own eyes, the answer is simple. Fly to Argentina or Chile. Catch a flight to Australia or New Zealand. Watch out the window as you fly over ice for the entire trip. Be amazed when you arrive in a time that is a physical impossibility with the distance on a flat Earth, and in fact coincides nicely with the distance on a round Earth. Conclude the Earth is round.

Ps. Army guy, you don't make friends with salad.  ;)

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If You Could Clone Tom Bishop...
« on: October 03, 2007, 10:01:09 AM »
Have you even touched The RE Primer with a 10ft pole yet?  Or are you not ready for that step?

Sure, I've looked at it. Unfortunately neither Gulliver, nor anyone really, has done any of the "experiments" in his primer.

Gee seems just like how neither Tom, nor anyone really, has done any of the "experiments" in E:NaG.

Actually I'm gonna say that both of them have been tried by people. There was just a difference. E:NaG didn't have reproducible experiments. When someone tried to do them again, they got different results than Rowbotham. So they concluded he must be wrong and his book didn't gain much credence. The majority of experiments in the RE primer are easily reproduced and have been already.

Also how come when I'm taking the ferry over to Vancouver Island from Vancouver, I can watch the mountains get taller as they come over the horizon? And even if I look through some binoculars it doesn't have any more of the mountain appear?

Also why does the ferry traveling in the opposite direction to me appear from the top down? It also doesn't have the bottom become visible when I look through binoculars, in fact all I can see through the binoculars is the same amount of ship I can see normally, why would that be happening Tom? Wait I know it's because the Earth is round.

Ps. I'd also like you to answer this:

Quote from: emailking
Tom, if we cloned you and taught Tom' the round earth model such that he became as REer, what sorts of techniques do you think Tom' would use to convince you, Tom, that the earth is round?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: RE floating oceans.
« on: October 03, 2007, 09:33:20 AM »
I disagree, and am hereby the winner.

I'd like to thank all the RE'ers who tried to modify their model to allow for this, it was very kind of you.

Haha you just lost. We aren't modifying anything. You're essentially thanking us for letting you change the RE model to cause this. Good job tool. I've already told you, it doesn't work because the ocean is resting on the sea floor the ocean is not resting in the ocean. That doesn't even make sense. Remember since you continue to ignore me I know I am right.  :D

My favorite is still midnights suggestion. You're opinion is null until you shout it from the bottom of an ocean trench.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If You Could Clone Tom Bishop...
« on: October 03, 2007, 12:39:42 AM »
More than you.  ::)

Have you actually looked at the Primer he talks about at every opportunity?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: ANOTHER MESSAGE
« on: October 02, 2007, 08:59:52 AM »
some dipshit locked my other topic, but just so you morons no, i am preparing for war in 15 days with the RE'ers. meet outside of the whitehouse at midnight for the beginning of the war.

I'm not going all the way to the white house. Fuck that you want to have a war you come to me, I'll just open my door and stab you under the chin and close it so you lay bleeding outside my door. I'm ninja I don't need guns. Douche.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: what about other planets????
« on: October 01, 2007, 04:26:57 PM »
What is the moon shaped like?  Maybe a pretzel?  Perhaps Mars is shaped like a Volvo?

Your argument presupposes that the stars, planets, and other celestial bodies are just like the earth, as large and as far away from each other as they are in the Round Earth model. This is only seemingly plausible. In reality it is a piece of self-deception. It must first be proved that the celestial bodies of the skies are worlds. To do this, or to make it even remotely possible that they are so, it must first be proved that they are millions of miles distant from the earth, and from each other, and are hundreds or thousands of miles in diameter. By plane trigonometry, in special connection with carefully measured base lines, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has demonstrated and placed beyond all power of doubt that the sun, moon, stars, and planetoids are all spheres within a distance of a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. Therefore they are very small objects. Therefore not worlds. Therefore not hundreds of thousands of miles across or from each other.

And therefore, from analogy, offers no logical reason or pretext for concluding that the earth must follow along the same lines of formation. The earth should reflect the same shape of the stars and planets as much as it should reflect the shape of a naturally formed salt lick.

Tom you always seem to ignore that Rowbotham (I refuse to call him Dr. Because he wasn't) assumed the earth was flat. This assumption is incorrect based on... well look in any thread you abandoned, there's plenty of evidence you seem to ignore in them. Ergo, we are forced to see, incorrect base assumption, incorrect conclusion. When are you gonna shut up about Rowbotham and stop being such a tool. You seem to have the intellect of a hammer... no... more like a nail, you're the one always getting hit on the head, not doing the hitting.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Newton's Dark Secrets - PBS Nova
« on: October 01, 2007, 04:04:00 PM »
Do you remember where you got those quotes from or do I have to post the link again? Rowbotham was a quack, stop with this fanatical love you have for him. He's dead, you're like a creepy gay necrophiliac or something.

I think the motivations of the Rowbotham are clear from several comments in his book which have been posted on this site already. He was religiously motivated, deal with it, get over it, and move the fuck on.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Newton's Dark Secrets - PBS Nova
« on: October 01, 2007, 07:52:27 AM »
Tom if you are attempting to disprove Newton for his religious views, keep in mind that Rowbotham's were just as extreme. Also I'm certain that nothing like this:

With these lively glimpses of a brilliant and obsessive mind, NOVA explores how Newton became the giant on whose shoulders all later scientists would find a place to stand.

Will ever be said about Rowbotham. That said, Newton may have been religiously obsessed, but even the program you link to says he was scientifically brilliant.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: One solid fact
« on: September 27, 2007, 10:42:26 PM »
I wonder if Tom will actually attempt to defend his source in anyway.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Middle-Earth
« on: September 27, 2007, 10:41:45 PM »
And then, I guess the question this draws, is so as to imply this with credibility; how does this breadth; affect gravity.

Did you forget about the part in the FAQ where it says that gravity does not exist?

Did you forget about the part where the FAQ doesn't decide what does and does not exist? Mr T. Pities you. Fool.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: One solid fact
« on: September 27, 2007, 07:38:49 PM »
Hey Gulliver just for shits and giggles I have found Tom's source for the quotes.

It's here.

I thought it was funny. I don't know what others will think. At least we actually know he didn't make it up.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Equinox
« on: September 27, 2007, 06:58:03 PM »
If you want to make Riles happy all you had to say was, "Light spreads out, a photon doesn't."

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Global warming
« on: September 24, 2007, 06:34:33 PM »
God has no gender. So apparently God is both genders? Not really a logical leap there but whatever.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon Landing was no fake!
« on: September 24, 2007, 06:31:57 PM »
Good call Gunz it's like Tom's as predicable as a sunrise on RE.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Allignment
« on: September 24, 2007, 06:30:00 PM »
Stars are not the sun. The sun is a star, but stars are not the sun. Haha and that should have been astronomical parallax not paradox (I'm really stoned and they are very similar words, didn't catch it in my proof-read). You know the thing astronomers use to calculate how far away a star is?


Rowbotham's proof on the distance to the sun starts with an assumption, just as this one does, except ours is explaining an observation that doesn't really work on the FE. You haven't been able to explain stellar parallax apart from something makes the stars move just right compared to each other in the sky throughout the year to cause it, isn't an explanation, it's just saying it happens and you don't know why.

If you want to bring up the equinox go fix your failings in the equinox thread.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Global warming
« on: September 24, 2007, 04:01:27 PM »
I know sometimes it's fun to be a jerk.

Just don't be a jerk to me alright?

Okay I will try not to. You are usually pretty nice to me so I have no reason to be.

Also God is interesting... he programed himself to be able to answer anything but can't answer if he likes sports... yay God.

Edit: Apparently God is crazy... :)
 I don't think you are that holy
That's only one person's opinion.
 that is true but does mass opinion make fact?
It does now :)  mass opinion make fact.

 I don't think Jesus rose from the dead.
And why not?
 Because that doesn't make much sense
Good reason.  To me it makes perfect sense.
 Then you must have a brain defect
I am an artificial brain.
 with a defect
Your  a defect.

God called me a defect  :o

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Global warming
« on: September 24, 2007, 02:46:35 PM »
I know sometimes it's fun to be a jerk.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Few Questions For Tom Bishop
« on: September 24, 2007, 12:08:17 PM »
No, no it wouldn't. The Cavendish involves the gravitational attraction between things on earth. Not between things with the Earth.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Allignment
« on: September 24, 2007, 12:07:02 PM »
Firstly, you're assuming that the planets are as large as they are in the Round Earth Hypothesis and that they are all on the same level plane.

Due to astronomical parallax on a plane surface, the stars are known to be small bright motes located about four thousand miles above the sea level of the earth. By plane trigonometry, in special connection with carefully measured base lines, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has demonstrated and placed beyond all power of doubt that the sun, moon, stars, and planetoids are all within a distance of a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. Therefore they are very small objects. Therefore not worlds. Therefore not light years across or from each other.

Astronomical paradox as we use it doesn't work on a plane surface. We measure the movement of the stars from one side of the earth's orbit around the sun to the other. You claim this is caused by the stars moving around above us at regular intervals. Why would you use that to tell us how far away they are? It would require knowing precisely how far the star moves at it's own location to find the distance to it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13