### 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 - Optimus Prime

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29
1
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's Razor
« on: December 26, 2009, 09:29:01 AM »
You don't experience the earth being spherical with your senses.

You do when you watch the sun set below the horizon.

Or when I tune in someone in China on my Ham Radio. I guess that is using a piece of equipment - but the radio is no more man-made than windows and framing really - just using ears, eyes, and hands.

2
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's Razor
« on: December 25, 2009, 05:04:11 PM »

3
##### Flat Earth General / Re: When, why, and how long have you been a FE'er
« on: December 24, 2009, 11:08:06 AM »
You guys, lost to Tom Bishop here this time, and may be again and again. What makeing you deny that river that flows in you!?

He explained very well. And this funky diagram shows that Earth has no motion. Which is cant be applied with RE.

seriously. a parabola is not a diagonal line.

Seriously, ball travels from point A to point B. And if to draw a line between them it will be diagonal, taking in account straight horizon line.

Seriously, drawing a line from the start point to the end point is not the same thing as tracing the path that the ball actually takes.

EXPERIMENT 8 -> lolz

4
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: It's passed :'(
« on: December 24, 2009, 10:29:01 AM »
Yeah well laugh it all up while you can guys... but if this gets rectified, and gets signed into law - which it probably will - then you can bet we are in for rough times ahead.

This is not about Europe or Canada who have had similar systems in place... this is about a bill, loaded down with garbage, that is just setup for phail. End of story.

There is no 'Bawwww' about it. Simply put, the strain on our economy from businesses fleeing our shores to setup in a more profitable location alone is going to be a massive hit.

If you actually stop and think about the repercussions, rather than just show the love for Obama or whatever it is that makes you love the idea of this health care bill. It is really incredible that they have just pushed through a bill that the Supreme Court Justices are pointing out have direct violations of our constitution in it.

Sorry, but it is going to blow up sometime next year with lawsuits, etc. over the illegality of many different 'little changes' added on to the bill that just make me ill. It is hard to believe our governemnt has actually been bought out this badly they would pass a bill with flat out illegal content!!

Not to mention the fact they are by law supposed to be holding a committee for the rectification of the bill before handing it to the president (for those of you unfamiliar with the process) and they are trying to get around that!! It's friggin sick! There has been so much underhanded handling of this bill it is incredible!

Damn - I am not looking forward to this.

Take care,
- Optimus

5
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Theory is Officially Woo
« on: December 24, 2009, 10:10:36 AM »
I don't see any perspective here (near the horizon), just a rotating stars, unencumbered by the horizon.

It's because flat earthers are able to look at a photo like that, yet still pretend the earth is flat, that makes me think it's simply a form of scizophrenia, a despirate need to feel dark forces are conspiring to fool us all.

You're pretending that that picture in motion is a proof of Round Earth? How come?

You're pretending that they're using that picture in motion as sole proof of a Round Earth, rather than just commenting on the issue of perspective? How Come?

6
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Best Test
« on: December 24, 2009, 02:02:16 AM »
Damn! I have a whole new respect for Dino... I'm in!

There's one problem though... Planes, Chicks, Booze, and Bets...

There will still be nothing but finger pointing and arguments in the end.

FARM THEM!!!

Take care,
- Optimus

7
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Magnetic Flow (Simplified)
« on: December 24, 2009, 02:00:14 AM »
Dammit - that's a much simpler picture than what I cobbled together. ROFL

Oh and Hello back!     [EDIT: Dioptimus Drime may drivel at will. The REAL Optimus Prime has spoken. lolz]

I havent been able to enjoy a reallllly good drink for eons because of my soopid epilepsy... have an extra for me.

I still have some fun stuffs for this I've already started on that I will throw up here after the holidays. For now I am all about shooting the breeze, over-eating, opening presents, and watching my nephew try to drive around on snow for the first time in his life   - assuming we get the promised snowfall tomorrow.

Take care,
- Optimus

8
##### Flat Earth General / Re: When, why, and how long have you been a FE'er
« on: December 24, 2009, 01:38:59 AM »
You guys, lost to Tom Bishop here this time, and may be again and again. What makeing you deny that river that flows in you!?

He explained very well. And this funky diagram shows that Earth has no motion. Which is cant be applied with RE.

seriously. a parabola is not a diagonal line.

Seriously, ball travels from point A to point B. And if to draw a line between them it will be diagonal, taking in account straight horizon line.

9
##### Arts & Entertainment / Re: Best arcade game?
« on: December 24, 2009, 01:28:00 AM »
TEMPEST!

10
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Theory is Officially Woo
« on: December 24, 2009, 12:12:14 AM »
You know what? Telling people to read Earth Not a Globe is the dumbest thing you could possibly do.

Why?

Because in a nutshell, you don't even have to read beyond the first chapter:
"ZETETIC AND THEORETIC DEFINED AND COMPARED"

This very specifically describes the Zetetic method and philosophy. It also points out in a multitude of ways how 'theories' are not acceptable when compared to 'experiment', or 'observation', etc.

The heel here is that 'Parallax' himself describes the following:
"Let the method of simple inquiry--the "Zetetic" process be exclusively adopted--experiments tried and facts collected--not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind, but of every kind and form bearing on the subject, before a conclusion is drawn, or a conviction affirmed."

Yet by the end of the chapter he states:
"If, to ascertain the true figure and condition of the earth, we adopt the "Zetetic" process, which truly is the only one sufficiently reliable, we shall find that instead of its being a globe--one of an infinite number of worlds moving on axes and in an orbit round the sun, it is the directly contrary--a Plane, without diurnal or progressive motion, and unaccompanied by anything in the firmament analogous to itself; or, in other words, that it is the only known material world."

He makes a declarative statement of theory, claiming that the only end result of the Zetetic process *SHALL* be that the Earth is flat and the only known material world.

In a nut shell, the entire book is full of contradictory anecdotes (so far - I am only half way through it. OMG it is like eating my spinach as a kid) and shoddy math.

Which is another *fact* that is quite predominant throughout ENaG: The math that 'Parallax' proclaims to be all powerful and enlightening, he skews and uses in such vagaries as to be almost laughable in a few places so far.

All this from someone that makes such astounding philosophical claims?

To top it all off, Tom constantly referring to this book is really enjoyable as he himself disputes the Zetetic method by not entertaining other ideas and possibilities just for starters... and picks and chooses what he likes or dismisses from it the rest of the time.

Whatever. I now deem ENaG completely and utterly PHAIL. I will finish it because I started it, and promised myself I would for the sake of the FE forums, but I say now that this book although interesting from a certain standpoint is just one man's viewpoint and philosophy, NOT some sort of scientific authority. Zetetic, Theoretic, Psychotic, or  otherwise.

Take care,
- Optimus

11
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligently designed star constellations
« on: December 23, 2009, 11:07:35 PM »
Good thing they didn't exist.

That's always been my biggest head-shaker... if Dinosaurs never existed, then what the hell are all the bones from? lolz

C-me!
- Optimus

12
##### The Lounge / Re: Have a good christmas everyone
« on: December 23, 2009, 11:03:38 PM »
Merry Christmas CG. Have a safe trip and see you when you get back.

Thanks for restraining yourself also.

Take care!
- Optimus

13
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligently designed star constellations
« on: December 23, 2009, 09:28:53 PM »
Also, every earth year he gets upset and throws rocks at us, explaining annual meteor showers.
This.

14
##### Arts & Entertainment / Re: Good FREE Music
« on: December 23, 2009, 01:30:05 PM »
I love this site:
http://ccmixter.org

Off the top of my head, if you like kind of goth techno stoofs check out DJSociopath: http://ccmixter.org/people/djsociopath/uploads
I highly recommend the tune 'GONE' - one of my favs to use on video clips and such.

The entire website is just people that like to make / play music. It's all free. It's all no copyright stoof. Tons of great stuff, Tons of stuff that will make you want to cry and wonder why that person ever thought they could make music too... but overall there is a ton of stuff on there that is really great.

Take care,
- Optimus

15
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gods
« on: December 23, 2009, 12:22:53 PM »
God didn't speak to people in Arabic. He spoke in Hebrew and some Arabian merchant in the seventh century decided it would be a good idea to translate the Old Testament into Arabic and unite the Beduin tribes in a strong empire under the excuse they are fullfilling God's will.

Thank you. That is what I was looking for, especially the part in bold because that is what I thought, but I didn't want to go blabbing without any kind of peer information on this topic.

Therefore my original comment still stands because it is not just the 'King James' version of the bible, but even those that have supposedly directly translated from the Hebrew texts (How do I know? I don't - I can only take the word of those who can translate. So if it's a lie then it is. Pick your potion) There is still a pluralistic nature to god's commentary in a few spots in the bible inferring that he is either not the only god, but is stressing the people treat him as singular; or at the very least is not alone in some fashion. What that is I surely cannot say, but it raises questions in my opinion.

Take care,
- Optimus

16
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gods
« on: December 23, 2009, 12:05:51 PM »
Quote

What exactly does that have to do with god using the same terminologies? Are you inferring that god is specifically Arabian? I ask in all seriousness I am not trying to be coy here. If it is supposed to be a literal translation - then I do not see the correlation. If it is officially admitted that it is entirely speculative interpretation... then I can see the similarities as god is viewed as the 'king of kings'.

Thank you,
- Optimus

Yes I am saying God when he is speaking to Arab he will use their language, when he speak to Israel's ppl he will use their language, when he talks to Hindu he will speak their language. Naturally when we want to guide or warn someone we will use the language they understand. I am not saying he is Arabian or English or Israeli...etc As for the translation of God's words some translators take benefits of that and they try to change God's words and what he meant. The base is that Almighty God only says "Godly Words" or "Godly Actions" if you found ungodly words be sure it's not originally the word of God. Like some words used in the Bible we feel ashamed to let our wife or daughters to even read them for example the sexy language in Ezekiel and the disgusting command to Ezekiel and many more.

So what does any of that have to do with confirming whether or not the bible is *written* from an Arabian perspective or not? That was my question as I am not a biblical scholar - did god speak to those who wrote the bible in Arabic? Or I guess I should ask, were the people who wrote the bible Arabian, and therefore would have written down god's word in such a pluralistic fashion?

Thank you,
- Optimus

17
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What do FE'ers think of dinosaurs?
« on: December 23, 2009, 12:38:53 AM »
What about the petrified remains of Homo Sapiens that have been found that did exist in the same timeframe as dinosaurs? Even if it was during the extreme wane of them, it is now widely accepted that there was a brief period where we co-existed for a time.

Goodnight all!
- Optimus

18
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Proof of Curvature in real world situations.
« on: December 23, 2009, 12:27:21 AM »
But they would have to know about the conspiracy to plan to be in on it, and then it wouldn't be a very good conspiracy would it? Do you honestly think that NASA contacts every engineering company of every large bridge ever built?
As I have said many times, chalking up more and more to the conspiracy makes it increasingly less likely.

Don't you see? NASA is not the center of the conspiracy, it is a worldwide conspiracy involving many governments, etc. They WOULD know about the conspiracy and it just further proves the agenda according to the FET. You kidding? A mile long bridge? Of course they would be in on it.. something that massive being built by government agencies.

Just saying. There's your argument. Any FE'ers have an actual scientific one they'd like to argue? Or did I pretty much cover it?

Take care,
- Optimus

19
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Weird Math
« on: December 22, 2009, 11:33:49 PM »
reimen zeta function ftw?

$\zeta(-1) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} n = \frac{-1}{12}$

OMG - please no - don't take me back there. Nightmares of the worst kind.

You are now my sworn enemy. Ok maybe not, BUT I never want to see this again. EVAHR! Thank god I even passed.
EDIT: Besides - this isn't weird math - it is painstaking designed to melt brains of those of us that struggle to keep up in class! Regulahrizashun of my behind!

20
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Proof of Curvature in real world situations.
« on: December 22, 2009, 08:43:00 PM »
Well, since I couldn't sleep - I thought I'd check in here... boy - I hate to tell you, but this one will be thrown out so fast it'll make your head swim.

Although I realize what you say is entirely 'on the level' as it were - the problem is that seeing as how any bridge is built by pylons, and is physically connected to each side of landmass at whatever level they so choose to a degree - you will never be able to prove they did not just 'do it' to once again include themselves in the conspiracy by just adjusting their bridge so it 'fits the mold' like all the other conspiratorial objects of the Round Earf Ebil!

Take care,
- Optimus

21
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Frostee's Computer Build Thread
« on: December 22, 2009, 06:58:51 PM »
At the speeds we are clocking these days it doesn't even matter unless you are using your machine for crunching. It is all a matter of preference, and I have been using AMD since the DX-2 66 series came out. I've built machines as a build tech starting at the 66MHz days using Intel, Cyrix, AMD, SRS, etc. everything went to Intel after a while, then it went to AMD after they hit the 133MHz 5x86 mark, then it flooded back to Intel for a while, then back to AMD when the k6-2 and 3D-Now came on the scene and resolved some heat issues...

It's nothing but a bunch of squabbling about preferences.

Personally, I will take a screaming system for cheaper any day... which almost always means AMD. I've never regretted it so far and don't think I'll change anytime soon.

You like Intel for all the hooch reasons? More power too ya. It's all good so why start shit over pretty?

Take care,
- Optimus

22
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Undecided if shape of the earth can be proven
« on: December 22, 2009, 06:33:20 PM »
levees new FAQ will make ur eyes open very wide alright - in astonishment, amazement, and overall incredulity at the amount of fantastic research someone put into a theory so horrific in possibility.

I consider myself pretty open minded and willing to entertain about anything... at least for a good read or debate, but limiting our known history to 500 years?!

By comparison this site's FET wins. And that is saying something.

Sorry... back to the amazing super level and such.

23
##### Arts & Entertainment / Re: 2010 will be a good year
« on: December 22, 2009, 05:59:39 PM »
Quote
2010 will be a good year

I have my doubts.

Wait.. oh hi Tom

24
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Magnetic Flow (Simplified)
« on: December 22, 2009, 05:41:31 PM »
Oh lord - do you really want to be that bored to oblivion? Ok - no problemo... it'll be a bit, but I'll have a not-so-brief brush-over of what geomagnetic field observations are, how they are observed, and some resources for you to look at. I'll make sure to look over my resources and ensure at least one of 'em is a non-government individual. A lot of them are either university guys or industrial gone private.

For now, to be brief and have something to ponder think of it this way... you have molten rock with some ferrous materials in it. It's just a floatin there waiting to cool. Since there is nothing else to do, all the particles in the molten material that are magnetic start to line up with the ambient magnetic field. The substance finally cools and sets into rock, ore, pyroclastic leftovers of whatever kind... and you end up with an absolute indicator of the N/S alignment of the magnetic field of the earth when that sample was created.

So, take that a step further - you go to several sites (heck, three will do) along a general N/S track on any given land mass. You look at the orientation of the deposits at each site. You draw your line 'down' the map. Now everyone tends to agree that we at least know the general shape of most continents... and if not, then pick an island.

Here is where the problem comes in... when you draw your line, the North and South orientation would end up going from North to an arbitrary spot at an angle to the rim of the Flat Earth, rather than 'straight down' to the familiar 'Polar' South depending on where you are on the Flat Earth and how far South you are as it will be more and more exaggerated as the geomagnetic data would show increasing rotation discrepancies around the circumference of the plane the closer you get to the rim - or the farther you get from the center.

Hopefully, that made a bit more sense with a bit more detail. I'll work on the data stoofs tomorrow. Just realized I gotta hit it. Gotta go get tomatoed by my class tomorrow and Thursday.

Take care,
- Hap

25
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Magnetic Flow (Simplified)
« on: December 22, 2009, 05:13:09 PM »
I refuse to go through hours of collecting links and research together until SOMEBODY comes up with something better than 'the burdeon of proof is on ewe' - that cop out is older than the FES.

Come on, not one person?

Don't make me declare Win. I'll do it! I schwear!!!

26
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Magnetic Flow (Simplified)
« on: December 22, 2009, 05:03:09 PM »
because they are and you don't have accurate data for mineral deposits.

This is a very unfashionable reply for you... where is all the data to back up this claim? Links, or a mile long post proving your statement?

Sorry to disappoint you, but especially iron ore and volcanic flows have been used for many years to track the record of earths magnetic fields, and changes in it.

In any given state or position of the poles, one fact (*as in supported by data*) remains - you can chart the layout of North to South along any given landmass as rocks or deposits will nearly always form in parallel with the ambient magnetic field.

I've yet to find any geologist or geographical data that argues with that point.

That being the case - Flat Earth cannot possibly work without some strange form of physics, because its magnetic field, would be so askew from what we physically observe - it simply doesn't add up.

Take care,
- Optimus

27
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Magnetic Flow (Simplified)
« on: December 22, 2009, 04:38:25 PM »
Agreed, however you must also realize that you are simply nitpicking - and you are going outside the bounds necessary for this debate: (*SIMPLIFIED*) - the magnetic field and the relation of it and the deposits that react to it within the earth are what's in question.

I've already made several generous attempts to look at various possibilities of the Flat Earth's magnetic field using Center North, and Rim South, Under South, and a Proposed single point South. The closest I could get using one of the modelers on campus was using the Rim as a "South" It still tends to radiate in a more 'spoked' effect compared to a Globe or Sphere.

Therefore in a nutshell - why aren't the vast majority of deposits such as ores, etc. that are affected by the earths magnetic field, found to be in more of a 'spoked wheel' configuration as measured throughout the earth?

28
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Magnetic Flow (Simplified)
« on: December 22, 2009, 04:00:47 PM »
How can a field have a spherical shape?!
I didn't say that - I said that it "reflects" a spheroid shape... as in the evidence found from deposits, etc. in the earth - that have been affected by the Earths magnetic field - indicate that the Earth must be a sphere in order for the deposits to "line up" with said field.

Is that a little better?

29
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Magnetic Flow (Simplified)
« on: December 22, 2009, 01:02:54 PM »
Ok so - I let this one lie for a while to give people plenty of time to take a stab at it. Bump time.

How 'bout it FET? Can we get an explanation for the Earth's magnetic field that is clearly shown within its geological makeup to reflect that of a spheroid shape?

Anyone?

Thanks,
- Optimus

30
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gods
« on: December 22, 2009, 12:51:17 PM »
Well if you know the original language of the book then it's not a problem. I am an Arabian and in the Arabic Language, a King or a great man when he talks he says: "We" or "Us"...etc Arab use that when referring to great king and not to a group of people.

What exactly does that have to do with god using the same terminologies? Are you inferring that god is specifically Arabian? I ask in all seriousness I am not trying to be coy here. If it is supposed to be a literal translation - then I do not see the correlation. If it is officially admitted that it is entirely speculative interpretation... then I can see the similarities as god is viewed as the 'king of kings'.

Thank you,
- Optimus

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29