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 - Guns N. Roses

Pages: [1] 2
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Perspective?
« on: November 28, 2007, 06:23:08 PM »
It all due to the Anti-Moon.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Excelerashon
« on: November 22, 2007, 08:23:53 AM »
So when we are 1 m/s from light speed we...?

3
If one of us were rich enough to go and measure all the dimensions of Africa. Wouldn't that settle the whole debate?

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Excelerashon
« on: November 21, 2007, 08:47:01 AM »
So we aren't actually accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, we just feel like it right?



This is making more sense now.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Excelerashon
« on: November 20, 2007, 06:59:01 PM »
As an equation I'm sure that makes sense (I trust you because I've seen that equation before). But how does that apply physically. The graph  of the velocity should be exponential but with that equation it has an asymptote right at y=the speed of light, right? Then the derivative, the acceleration, is not 9.8 m/s^2 but is decreasing. What am I missing.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Excelerashon
« on: November 20, 2007, 06:49:59 PM »
I'm not up on all my physics, but since we are accelerating at a constant speed won't we eventually serpass the speed of light?

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravitational Pull
« on: November 20, 2007, 06:48:19 PM »
It is impossible to reach the speed of light.

NO SHIT SHERLOCK?!

That's what I am trying to point out: using gravitational acceleration to account for gravity can't be done!

a = 9m/s per second (9m/sē)

c = 2.99792485 * 10^8 m/s

So I'm going to calculate how long it takes to reach lightspeed using gravitational acceleration:

2.99792485 * 10^8 / 9 = 33310273.11 seconds = 9253 hours = 385.5 years

If gravity was produced by gravitational acceleration, we'd approach lightspeed within a year. Seeing that earth has been around longer than that, it's impossible. Even if you take in the fact that reaching lightspeed is an impossibility, parts CAN approach the speed of light. I have observed and studied the effects electrons reaching c, and it's madness.
Your equations are wrong.  Also, no electron has ever reached c.  Saying otherwise is madness.

Madness!? This! Is! SPARTA!!!

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Atmosphere
« on: November 20, 2007, 03:08:41 PM »
What about gradients don't you understand?

Looking horizontally means the value of obstruction increases as the distance increases.
Looking diagonally means that the value of obstruction increases only as far as you're looking horizontally. The vanishing point and the clearer atmosphere above then play a role.
Looking vertically means that the value of obstruction is decreasing as the distance increases.

Looking Vertically means the value of obstruction increases at a slower rate as the distance increases. No? Maybe Im M!sunderstanding you.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« on: November 20, 2007, 02:38:23 PM »
Do anti people on anti earth have anti tides?

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravitational Pull
« on: November 20, 2007, 02:33:45 PM »
Shouldn't they be "sucking" each other in?

11
Flat Earth Debate / Gravitational Pull
« on: November 20, 2007, 02:12:51 PM »
So I was reading the new FAQ when I saw

Introduction:



Q: Why does gravitational pull decrease as my height increases?

A: Because you are closer to the stars, which do have a gravitational pull.


So I was wondering, why is this so. When you look up at the sky they are tiny compared to the sun and moon but only about 3% farther away.  So they are obviously very small but THEY'RE GRAVITATIONAL PULL FROM 5000 KILOMETERS CAN MAKE A NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE!?! Assuming they are so dense, why don't they affect each other?

12
Flat Earth Debate / Atmosphere
« on: November 19, 2007, 06:33:58 PM »
Now in RE I can l only see approx 3 miles to the horizon because of the curvature of the earth. Now according to Fe, It is the atmosphere. If I am understanding this correctly it is because the dust particles in the air and other atoms reflect or obscure the light. Is this right?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Exploding Sun
« on: May 16, 2007, 06:49:41 PM »
Yeah, but the gravitation isn't strong enough to hold it together.

14
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Missing Velocity Paradox
« on: May 03, 2007, 05:58:51 AM »
Yes I understand what you said about the mean value theorem, but thinking in a physical sense it doesn't make any. What I'm wondering is if (remember this is a distance function) you can have no velocity at a point. Or if you can skip from -1 to 1 without going through anything between.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How dost thou
« on: May 03, 2007, 05:55:39 AM »
But then there would be gaint unexplained darknesses over large areas of land

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How dost thou
« on: May 02, 2007, 06:12:56 PM »
You can't say that they are a conspiracy, so what do FE'ers think they are??

17
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Missing Velocity Paradox
« on: May 02, 2007, 06:11:42 PM »
Im NOT disproving calculus, Im wondering what the  value would be at (positive, not negative) 3. A caclulator doesn't get everything right when it comes to this stuff. It just picks 0 for that spot.

18
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Missing Velocity Paradox
« on: May 02, 2007, 05:11:02 PM »
Thats because it is a calculator.

http://members.aol.com/organichem/my_pages/absvalder.html

lim(h->0) of (|x+h|-|x|)/h  is the function to find the derivative at x

lim(h->0) of (|0+h|-|0|)/h

     =|h|/h

Split it into two limits

lim(h->0+) of h/h=1

lim(h->0-) of -h/h=-1

There fore the limit doesn't exist at the point of an absolute value.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How dost thou
« on: May 02, 2007, 04:59:13 PM »
But sunspots have been observed since Galileo. You don't even need  a giant telescope to see them, you can do it in you own house!

20
Flat Earth Debate / How dost thou
« on: May 02, 2007, 02:07:41 PM »
...explain sunspots?

21
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Missing Velocity Paradox
« on: May 02, 2007, 02:05:39 PM »
Exactly, but I need to know what the velocity is AT 3.

22
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Missing Velocity Paradox
« on: May 02, 2007, 01:45:56 PM »
How can the derivative always be negative one? From 0 to 3 it is one, from 3 to 6 it is negative one, but what is it AT 3? S(t) is not just a strait line

23
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Missing Velocity Paradox
« on: May 02, 2007, 06:27:41 AM »
Then what IS the velocity at 3?

24
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Missing Velocity Paradox
« on: May 02, 2007, 06:26:49 AM »
sorry, i mean s(t)=-|x-3|+3

25
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Missing Velocity Paradox
« on: May 01, 2007, 07:23:15 PM »
Ok its not actually a paradox but here goes,

Lets say we have a distance function s(t)=-|t+3|

The derivative at 3 is undefined at 3 because it is an absolute value

The interval is from 0 to 6. By the mean value theorem some point c has to have a derivative of 0.

Therefore the velocity at 3 is 0, which seems logical, but that means the derivative at 3 is 0 which it isnt!

What do you think?

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Are all astronaughts/cosmonaughts liars?
« on: April 13, 2007, 07:22:27 PM »
It is very sad and true. Thats why the cute lil doggy died. They couldn't pay him off.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earth=YES Flat Earth=NO
« on: April 13, 2007, 07:20:09 PM »
Kinda off topic, but you can only see 2-3 miles. If you wanted you could easily find it out if you knew the radius.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« on: April 13, 2007, 07:18:04 PM »
It was photoshoped

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Please Help Me
« on: April 13, 2007, 07:13:48 PM »
Tom, are you high?

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Please Help Me
« on: April 13, 2007, 06:19:53 AM »
I Never Knew That EMOS Capitalized Each And Every Unnecessary Word.

Pages: [1] 2