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 - Edtharan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23
The point of the exercise is to learn something about yourself from an impossible situation. It's not to outmaneuver the obvious mechanisms in place for the scenario. There will always be loop holes and alternatives for scenarios in real life, but when confronting your choices in moments of absolutism, it reveals a fundamental part of who you are.
Then what these people are, are people who will do everything in their power to avoid absolutism.  ;)

This is a big problem I have with many psychology and philosophy tests/scenarios. They try to put you in situations that are unrealistic.

There is a saying: If you abandon reality, then anything is possible.

So, by positing impossible scenarios, you are not actually examining anything about the person, but only how they respond to an impossible scenario.

What I find interesting is that most people's reaction to such questions is to rebel. What this means is that people are smart enough to know that such a situation is impossible (or extremely unlikely) and that if that situation were real, they would have no time to think coherently about it.

There are so many more variable that would be in play in a real situation that these simplified situations just don't actually reveal anything about what a person would really do in that situation.

"What do you mean that in the RE theory we can't trust our eyes?"

I mean the following:

(1) I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.

(2) the RE guys explain that it is but an illusion and the Earth is actually round. I see it flat, but the Earth is round. What I see is some kind of illusion, because of ... blah blah blah. So, my eyes are deceiving me. I should not trust my eyes when I see that the Earth is flat.

(3) This is the first and very fundamental step for accepting the RE theory. Either you trust your eyes - and the Earth is flat, or you do not - and the Earth is not flat. Thus, without admitting that your senses are deceiving you (and, therefore, giving away your right and freedom of making your own conclusions), you can not accept the RE theory.

(4) What's truly funny is that AFTER you admitted that your you should not trust your EYES, the RE guys are showing you PICTURES, PHOTOS, MOVIES etc. supporting their theory. But you are already not supposed to believe your eyes. You know that your eyes deceive you and you accepted it as an axiom, otherwise you would not become a RE-er. What if all those pictures are also some kind of illusion? Why you should believe them?

"that makes objects look as if they "disappear" over the horizon,"
If I am not mistaken, they call it "refraction" and, in RE theory, use for explanation why we see the Sun rising earlier and setting later than it should do according to the calculations of the RE theory, for explanations of distortions of the Sun, the Moon etc. If the RE theory is using that, why it is forbidden for the FET?

Let's be positive and do not use double standards. Either you believe your senses or not. If RET can use the refraction and atmospheric distortions to explain something, then the FET can do that, too.  That seems fair.

However, for me that seems a bit too far away. I am not a specialist in atmospheric optics. Besides, I am not going to give away my freedom and right of making my own conclusion. I believe my eyes. I see that the Earth is flat. Therefore, it is flat.
It is actually very easy to prove that one can not trust their senses at face value. Just take any optical illusion (there are now illusions for other senses too, not just vision).

So it is absolutely proven that we can not just trust our senses.

This also means that if we look out our window and see that the Earth looks flat, we can not trust that wither.

The only conclusion is, is that we can not just do a simple examination and trust that the results are what we think they look like.

But as you tried to say, what can we do about it? How can we resolve this dilemma?

It is easy. It is only superficial examinations that lead us to mistake illusion for reality. When we examin these situations more carefully, we can show that what we think we are seeing is really an illusion.

take for example this illusion: (if you don't want to just click on a link, you can search for the Cafe wall illusion on wikipeida).

At first glance, you would say that the lines are slopped (narrower at one end and thicker at the other).

But, if you go beyond just superficial examination, you can actually determine that the lines are actually straight. It is a simple matter of holding a ruler up to the screen and checking the lines. And you can check that the rule is really straight by using simple geometry: A straight line is the shortest path between two points (so two pins and a piece of string stretched between them would enable you to check the ruler's straightness).

Actually, this is why, in science, that the method used to acquire the data is so important (actually more important then the data itself). Because in science, it is always assumed that the data could be wrong, but if the procedure is given, then this can be checked without encountering illusionary data. If the procedure can be show to be valid, then the results of that procedure can be trusted.

As it has been shown, superficial examination, as a procedure, is flawed. Therefore we can not rely on a flawed method to supply us with the data we need. So just looking out your window and not seeing obvious curvature to the Earth is just superficial examination and therefore is flawed and not admissible as evidence (for either side).

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Fictitious Forces
« on: March 24, 2009, 08:03:48 AM »
Can you see your fingers if you hide them under a table? No.
Does this mean that they will cease to exist just because you can't see them? No.

Fingers have been observed, and the existence of fingers are easily peer reviewed.

The existence of "gravitons" have never been observed, detected, peer reviewed, or suggested by anything beyond idle hypothesis. That puts them squarely in the realm of the paranormal and pseudo-science.

At least some people claim to see ghosts. No one claims to see gravitons.

Tom, please learn the difference between "see" and "observe".  It's subtle, but significant.  Sub-atomic particles are generally indirectly observed as opposed to directly seen.  No one has ever seen an up quark, but through careful observation physicists know that they exist.

And no one has "observed" a graviton. Did you manage to think up a point other than to derail?
Ahh, but can you see the wind? You can see the effects of the Wind, but you can not directly see the wind can you.

There are certain behaviours that wind exhibits, and this allows us to learn about what wind is and that it really does exist. This is exactly the same with subatomic particles. We can not directly see them, but we can see effects caused by them, and upon close examination of these effects we can learn something about what they really are.

Accepting that your kite is held up by wind, and accepting that forces are exchanged by particles is no different in principal. We can not directly see either, but we can see the effects and upon close examination of these effects we can tell certain things about them.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Pre-Spaceflight Conspiracy?
« on: March 24, 2009, 07:55:26 AM »
So, then, who spread the RET prior to the launch of Sputnik I (10/04/57)?  How could humanity, at large, completely misunderstand the nature of the world around them?

Man has always misunderstood the nature of the world around him.

Less than 400 years ago everyone believed in the existence of witches.

Only 60 years ago most doctors supported smoking.

What makes you think that those 'great minds' were any less wrong about the shape of the earth?

BUt Tom, people used to believe the Earth was flat...  ;D

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Australia to South America
« on: March 24, 2009, 07:51:55 AM »
Even so, the distance along the Antarctic Circle in FE theory would far exceed the same distance in RE theory.

The layout and distance to the continents in FE is hypothetical. To come to any sort of conclusion you'd need a contrasting flight that went the long way around.
Only because FEers refuse to even attempt to make a concrete representation. It is not hard and you can do it with some glue, wire (and wire cutters) and a few hours of research on the net (or by phone if you prefer) on flight times of international flights (search these forums for the procedure for this as I have posted this - several times - before).

It might take you an afternoon to do this. In fact, Tom, in the amount of time you would have spent replying to the various threads on this forum you could have done this and got a definitive result for the distances, and it would take less effort to do so.

But no, you seem to not want to put the effort in to something that might actually confirm FET (but also runs the risk that you might discover the FET is impossible - which is the real reason that I think you don't want to try this experiment).

So Tom. I don't expect a response from you because hopefully you are actually doing an experiment.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: research help
« on: March 24, 2009, 07:46:17 AM »
You know, if you can't be more specific but only say "there is" and "they are" and "I know" then it's going to be proven fact that you don't know anything about these books content and about authors who have written these.

If you want to know specific details about the content of a book you should take the effort to read it. I'm not your parent. I don't read bedtime stories.
Quoted for irony... It's wonderful Tom that you admit these FE books are bedtime stories. I'm sure if they had any valuable research, like how low pressure generates the tides, you'd already presented it here.
And in another thread Tom is stateing that he should not have to read any link us REers post and that we should provide a summery.

So which is it Tom, hypocrisy, or will you either provide a summery of your books or read the RE links?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Faq problems
« on: March 24, 2009, 07:39:19 AM »
You're productive, but pathetic. You actually argued against his copypasta?

Here's the original source:

Spoilsport.  You don't let me have any fun do you?
I agree with you here WardoggKC130FE. We really arn't here in a serious environment, so I am not up in front of a lot of politicians or business moguls. I have no illusions about how others might or might not take what I posted. I knew that what you posted was just copy pasted from something.

As far as I am concerned, it really doesn't matter to me if you really do agree or not. What I see this as is an opportunity to test my knowledge of all sorts of science (being FE/RE or GW) and to engage in a mental exercise.

Because of these reasons, I don't mind responding to these, as long as the discussion remains civil (but I don't mind a bit of friendly banter occasionally) and uses rational and logical arguments.

If I do happen to help educate someone (or even learn something myself) that is jut a bonus.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: constelations
« on: March 24, 2009, 07:33:08 AM »
It is also a fact that Tom's favourite book in his compilation (EnaG) actually, in the very first experiment in the book, actually disproves a Flat Earth.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ok guys.
« on: March 24, 2009, 07:29:55 AM »
I didn't want to get wet, either. Anything other than a canal would be unlikely to be flat, so I didn't bother with that one at all.
Well here in Australia, we have salt lakes. These are locations that occasionally get covered by water (Lake Eyre is currently covered by water). The water in these lakes eventually evaporates as there is no outlet to the sea, and so are extremely flat, and dry locations. This would be a perfect location for you to try your experiments on, and have a holiday as well.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Faq problems
« on: March 21, 2009, 11:02:53 PM »
More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, ?there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth?s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth?s climate.? (Go to for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
I did a quick sample of these scientists, but none of them seemed to be climate scientists (and many weren't actually scientists, just that they had university qualifications - and one was in biblical studies, hardly anything to do with climate studies). Here is a question: Would you let a physicist, even though he is a doctor, do brain surgery on you?

What you have to know is that in science there is a lot of specialisation. A scientist can know a lot about their respective fields, but have little to do with others. It is why a Physicist and a Physician do not do each other's jobs.

Yes, it is a petition, with what looks like a lot of names, but when you actually look at the numbers of scientists that actually exist, this number is not all that significant.

If I had more time I would do more research into the people involved (but I don't have the time to do so). However, several issues crop up. In the website's rules they state that:

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.
But in my brief perusal of names, very few of them actually full filled this criteria. They did have "formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher" but many of them were nothing to do with climate analysis (ranging from biblical studies to psychology to modelling of boundary conditions between microscopic materials, etc). So they seem to ahve violated their claim already, this casts a big shadow of doubt over their claims and the validity of the petition as a representation of the actual people involved and with the knowledge to dispute claims of global warming.

Sure, it doesn't invalidate what they are trying to do, nor is it claiming that it is a fake petition. Also, a petition does not mean that there is scientific evidence against GW. Just hat these signatories signed that petition for personal reasons. remember, science works by disproof, so that if any of these 30,000 people had any actual proof that GW was not working, they could completely break the claims that it is occuring.

The very fact that these 30,000 people have stated that this, and yet have not been able to provide any proof against GW, shows that either they are not actually qualified to talk about global warming, or that the data does not exist.

Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01?C, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
Actually you are wrong here. Satellite data does show a warming of the Troposphere. This claim by GW deniers has shown to be in error. It has to do with the way you measure it, the angle through the atmosphere you measure it by. What the data that the GW deniers use was an incorrect measurement. They were effectively measuring the wrong part of the atmosphere, and so got incorrect results.

Even the GW deniers that presented this data have acknowledge that the data was in error. So this is not good evidence against GW, even the GW deniers say that.

All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers? expectations, modelers resort to ?flux adjustments? that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says ?climate modelers have been ?cheating? for so long it?s almost become respectable.?
However, those models are calibrated against the historical data. The only way the can test these models is to input historical data at one point, run the simulation and then check to see if the model matches the historical data at the new point.

If you knew anything about the modelling that goes on, you would see why your claim here is just plain wrong. They do use historical data, it is the only data that we have (as time travel has not been invented) by which to test their models.

Also, there are a few modellers that ahve been "cheating" but this is an extremely small minority and are not even considered by the main stream climate modellers. This is the same with GW deniers, there are extreme ends of the spectrum where they ahve been using such large adjustments to their models in an attempt to disprove GW. So the question remains, should we only consider these outlier modellers, or should we used modellers that actually do the right thing and are considered accurate by their peers?

Now the really scary thing is, that the predictions of some of these extremists are actually occuring. Certain rates of warming, certain events and such that were not predicted by the more moderate modellers to occur until much later are occuring now. Many of these extreme modellers did not predict them occuring until a little later. Global Warming does seem to be occurring, based on actual data being gathered today, faster than virtually all modellers are predicting.

Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC?s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: ?The Earth?s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.?
And this shows your true colours. You used the term "Alarmist".

You are labeling people who use the IPPC (which I haven't by the way) as alarmists. Guess what, the IPPC is actually conservative and has been shown not to be as severe as what is actually occuring. In the last section I mentioned that events that were predicted to occur much later are occuring now, well the IPPC reports were the ones that stated that these would not occur until later (or in some cases should not occur unless we were already in a catastrophic cascade towards global warming).

Yes, the atmosphere is chaotic, and this is why you need special qualifications to understand the modelling properly (and why practically all the people is looked at on the petition were not really qualified to state that GW is occuring or not.

Chaotic systems are not random. Chaotic systems are systems that have a lot of internal interactions.

Take for example this simple system:

In this, the motions of the two pendulums influences each other. But, because they influence each other, the first pendulum influences the second, but then the second influences the first and the first influences the second again, and again in a feed back loop.

Unless you know exactly the initial conditions of the pendulums and every single influence they encounter, then you can never precisely predict the motion of the pendulums.

However, short term predictions are possible, because the errors don't have time to accumulate. You can also make long term predictions about the pendulums (like that friction will slow them down if no new force acts on them and they will eventually stop). What is very hard is the medium term predictions of a certain resolution (in what position will the second pendulum be in 30 seconds time?)

This is the way it is with the climate. We can make fairly accurate predictions about the climate a week or so in advance. We find it difficult to make medium term predictions about the climate (from 1 week to 5 years), but the longer term predictions are easier because all the variations due to errors can be averaged out.

Global Warming deniers play on this. They keep trying to make the climate modellers make these medium term predictions. An often heard question is" "why can't the climate modellers tell me whether it will be a worm of cold winter next year?" the answer is: They are not trying to model whether next years winter will be cold or warm, but they are trying to model what the next few decades to centuries are going to be like.

Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the ?climatic optimum,? was even warmer and marked ?a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,? observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. ?There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.?
Have a read of Jarrad Diamond's: Collapse - Why societies choose to fail or survive ( ). True, one aspect he does consider is climate change, but this is not necessarily human induced climate change (but does also include it). He talks about the Viking settlement of Greenland and how their assumption that a more advanced and adaptable society could survive climate changes (ps: they didn't).

Yes, there will be locations that have increased productivity. That has never been denied by GW, in fact it is often stated that some places will see an improvement. But, GW also states that you don't look at things in isolation. Yes, some places will improve, but what about the rest of the world. Greenland might be a good place to live, by we can't shove a lot of people there or it won't be such a good place to live.

This is a common tactic by GW deniers. they will point to a place and say: "Well wont they ahve it good there, this means that the world will be better off".

No. No it doesn't mean any such thing. It is such an obvious false claim that I am surprised that any actually falls for it.

Think about the Sahara desert. Why is this place a desert? It is because the atmospheric conditions, like temperature, prevent much water from falling there. Now, if Greenland were to become hospitable, what does this mean? It means that the temperature will have had to go up. So, southern Europe is just north of the Sahara and due to atmospheric conditions, it is not too bad. In places it can be a bit dry, but on the whole it is not too bad. If you were to warm up this area, then the atmospheric conditions that created the Sahara would then begin to extend into southern Europe. There are hundreds of millions of people living there. Greenland at best might be able to support a couple of million more. There is a massive difference in the impact to 100 million as compared to a couple of million.

So no!. Emphatically NO. this is a rally scary situation you are advocating. It will not be that we can survive in a warmer world because new places will open up for farming. It is because so much more land will be devastated by the warming that these new areas will not be able to cope with the amount of people displaced by this warming.

And this is not even considering the logistical nightmare of having to evacuate the millions o people and construct new cities and towns and such. If you think today's economic system is bad, what will it be like when whole cities are demolished and all those people no longer have work!  :o

You are calling people who accept GW as alarmists. the situation you paint here is far more alarming that any GW has painted. You sir (or madam) are the alarmist!  :o

Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990?s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.
No, it has been shown that reducing CO2 emission can actually be a benefit to an economy. It create hundreds of new sectors for employment depending on the methods used.

For instance, if we decide to go roof top solar system and micro generators, then we need people to manufacture them, people to install them, people to maintain them.

You might have a few hundred people working in a coal fired power plant (although more would have been needed to build it). This kind of rooftop solar system would require many more people to operate it. You are looking at tens of thousands of new jobs.

But lets look at historical trends. Every time a new energy source is developed, even if it displaces an existing one and its infrastructure, there has been a massive jump in both quality of life and economic power.

There is no evidence that moving from CO2 heavy practices to CO2 clean practices would actually hinder the economy and all evidence showing that it would improve it.

All you seem to be doing is regurgitating propaganda that you ahve heard, you have not appeared to have done any research or education to understand what is actually going on or at stake in the debate between GW and its deniers. You are even using "data' that the GW deniers say is incorrect.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Scientology
« on: March 21, 2009, 09:50:46 PM »
How I define a cult or religion is whether it is internally focused, or externally focused.

Take Scientology for example, this is an internally focused group. They actively try to exclude contact with outside influences and even have internally secretive grouping (the Theaten levels). I would therefore consider it a cult.

Now take Christianity. Mostly this is fairly open and encourages people to interact even with non Christians. However, Catholicism is quite close to a cult as it is less willing to deal with outsiders (there is variation and there are Catholics that are quite open, but there are other that are quite closed). Actually if you look at the Papacy, it is just over the edge into cult. They are very closed to outsiders and do not encourage much interaction outside the echelons of the Catholic church.

So the distinction I use is quite simple, but in practice, because these groups are not homogeneous, it is more complex.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Faq problems
« on: March 21, 2009, 09:24:13 PM »
Or it could be the earth is just naturally cycling though a "warmer" time.  Which there is evidence against.  IE all the facts I posted about this last winter.  It will be interesting to see the winter coming up. I am not speaking of just England btw.  America had its coldest winter as well.
Thanks, a more civilised response.

Yes, climate change implies instability in the systems.

Think of a swing. A swing with only a small amount of energy does not have much variation between each end of the swing. But a swing with mire energy has a much greater variation between the ends of the swing.

This is a similar effect as to what is occuring in the climate systems. Variation in climatic conditions are driven by energy (heat). Take for example Hurricanes. The energy of a hurricane is determined by the amount of evaporation that occurs. Evaporation occurs when the surface water heat up (yes this is warming). However if the surface water is warm, but the air is already very humid, then not much evaporation will occur.

If however enough evaporation occurs, then this will cause the air to heat up and rise, but then as it rises it will cool and the water in it will condense. When water changes state (form liquid to gas for example), it either take or releases a lot of energy. However, this energy does not ahve to be in the form of a temperature increase (although it can). Usually, what occurs is it increases the wind speed.

This is what creates the winds of a hurricane.

No, about Europe's cold winter. There is a current called the North Atlantic Current (NAC). This current is warmed by the tropic and moves northwards. As it moves north wards, it eventually cools around Europe. This releases a lot of warmth into the atmosphere and even a lot of humidity (btw, this is why England is so warm compared to other European countries on the same latitude and also why it has a lot of wet weather).

As this NAC cools, it cools more than the surrounding water, and also as it has evaporated some of its water it's salt content (and hence density) increases and it sinks. It is the sinking of this cold salty water that draws more water from the tropics.

However, if the climate systems around Northern Europe are warmer, then there will be more humidity in the atmosphere, and not onyl that, the NAC will not cool as much. So this warmer, less salty water will not sink as quickly (or at all), and the NAC will slow down (or stop). If this occurs, then there will not be this warm NAC bringing warmth to England and Northern Europe and they will experience much colder conditions.

This was predicted decades ago by climate scientists (who believed that global Warming would occur), and guess what, you have posted confirmation of this effect, so you post didn't deny anything about global warming, but directly showed the effects of GW are really happening.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stars and Gravity
« on: March 21, 2009, 09:09:46 PM »
So Tom, there is now a force (in FET) of attraction between Mass. You know, in RET, we call this gravity.

Where did I say that it's an attraction of mass which exists in the heavens? It could just as well be an attraction of charges, an already known attracting phenomenon.

There's no reason to consider the unknown when the known already exists.
In all known forces, there is both an attractive and repulsive force. So if there is an attraction, then it can not be one of these other force.

Now, I know you are not directly arguing for a new force (that just happens to exactly behave the way gravity does), but you are proposing one.

Actually, in other threads you ahve stated that there is a force that attracts mass that exists. You ahve used this to explain why the force of gravity gets smaller the further you are from the Earth. Direct measurements of the rate of fall of an object (in a gravimeter) show a distinct difference in rate of fall when the experiment is performed at sea level as compared to on top of a high mountain (I have posted the data before, so go search for it).

So, unless there is some force working as an attractive force between mass, then FET has no possible explanation for it, as this works on all types of matter regardless of the effect the other forces have with them. And, as you have, yourself, proposed that this attractive force exists that works on the mass of an object, then you ahve to accept hat you really have proposed that an attractive force exists between mass.

So either you ahve no idea what you are talking about, suffer form extreme amnesia, or are a hypocrite.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Faq problems
« on: March 21, 2009, 09:01:53 PM »
Fact 1.  One of the coldest winters in the past 20 years just happened this year.
Fact 2.  During the October '08 meeting in London about global warming London had its earliest October snowfall in a large amount of time.
Fact 3.  March '09 The cold and weather are so bad up north, global warming scientists are running out of food because their supply plane can't get off the ground. 
Fact 4. Fuckheads like you suck Al Gore's dick and award him for this kind of stupid shit.  Congratulations.
Actually I diagree with Al Gore a lot about Global Warming. Yay you for being so intelligent and attempting a Ad Hominin.

Actually if all you can muster is an insult to me (and frankly I am secure enough in my sexuality not to actually be offended by that attempt - but it makes me wonder why then you might feel that such a thing is insulting), then you won't really convince anyone of your beliefs, and any mature person would see through that.

Now, let me address your points:

1) my freezer is cold, does this mean that my heater will not work? or that the temperature of my house is below 0oc?

No, not at all. What you are doing here is making the most fundamental mistake about the climate: Simple that all places are exactly like where you are now (or a specific location). For instance, although in England has had the coldest winter in 20 years, Australia has had heat waves not seen for over 100 years (and getting close to 200 years - which the records we have don't go back past that). So a 20 year cold is not that big a deal when compared to 100 or 200 years now (that is only 10% to 20% of the situation we have here).

2) The name "Global Warming" is a media name of it. It is not actually what it is called. It is a bit like a nick name, a sound bite, to get peoples attention. What it really is, is: Climate Change due to Increase Energy in the Global Climate Systems.

Now, which is easier to say: Global Warming, or Climate Change due to Increase Energy in the Global Climate Systems. Alos which is an easier acronym to write: GW, or CCdtIEitGCL. Can you see why the media uses Global Warming?

And really, is it called GLOBAL Warming, not England only warming.

3) Yes, all these are fact, but non of them actually dispute the facts I presented.

If you are not going to actually dispute the fact I presented, which if they are true then the only conclusion is that Global Warming is occuring, then you really have no argument against global warming. If you have no argument against Global Warming, then why do you not think it is occuring, is it simple psychological denial? or is it some deeper psychosis?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Your flat earth idea is not a THEORY...
« on: March 21, 2009, 08:20:43 PM »
No.  What I'm saying is that he claims that he could make out the overall shape of Antarctica from his helicopter, which casts a great deal of doubt on everything else he claims.

Avftually if you look and read the post, this is not at all what was siad:

it is definately a continent, not a wall. it looks somewhat like a sting ray and not a ring.
Hmm, this is certainly just trying to state that it is a continent and at no point was it said that it was because they saw the entirety of it.

Reading this it is simply stating that it is a continent and that the continent looks like a sting ray and there is no mention of first hand experience of seeing it directly as that shape.

i flew from its "tail" to the ross ice shelf, right over the middle.
As this is the next sentence, then this is simply re-enforcing the previous sentences as they then are the lead up to allow someone to understand the rout that was flown. IFlupy just use the term "Tail", you would not have known what was being discussed, so this clearly proves that lupy was not stating that they saw the whoel continent, but was using them as a descriptive tool to allow you to know which rout was taken.

You are making a strawman to attempt to disprove this post. You are not actually contributing to FET, but are actually harming it. Are you one of these people working form the inside in an attempt to disprove FET? If so, I would ask you to stop, as I would much prefer to debate with a real FEer.

Gravity is not a force. It cannot, therefore, counteract any other force. See:
Only according to FET. I was stating what is known and accepted in RET.

Are you opening the door to a debate where I can say that because in RET the Earth is not Flat, then FET states that it it is round? Are you, Robosteve, if you are, then I ask that any true FEer stop you from doing that because it is only harming their position.

I would much prefer to debate against a real FEer rather than one who is trying to discredit FET form the inside.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites
« on: March 21, 2009, 08:01:58 PM »
You can find projectors capable of such a feat on the free market. You just need to know where to look.
That's just what I need for a sky show, where can I get one. Could you provide a link for me?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stars and Gravity
« on: March 21, 2009, 07:59:28 PM »
Obviously there is some sort of attracting phenomenon which affects the stars and planets.
So Tom, there is now a force (in FET) of attraction between Mass. You know, in RET, we call this gravity. It doesn't matter if we know the ultimate cause of it, all that is necessary is that we can uniquely identify that such a force between mass exists. Thank you for you confirmation.

Now, if these objects have a force of attraction, and they are also accelerated by the UA (or whatever), then why does the Earth not ahve this same force between mass. If it does have this force, then the amount of force that would be generated from the directly observable surface of the Earth would cause it to collapse into a sphere.

That is the real problem with any force of attraction between Mass and FET, as soon as you introduce any force of attraction between mass, you end up with a spherical (ie Round) Earth.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: constelations
« on: March 21, 2009, 07:53:09 PM »
Every single scientist ever to live since the enlightenment has lied to us about every single detail of astronomy for no discernible reason

Why would they need to lie then they could just be wrong?

Astronomy is a science of observation and interpretation. There is no controlled experimentation in astronomy.  The astronomer cannot go out and put the hypothesis to the test as biologists and chemists can do. Astronomers must be content with the fact that he can do no more than observe and speculate.
Oh so very wrong Tom.

A Controlled experiment is one in which a Control situation is used. This is a situation by which other situations can be judged and tested for validity.

These exist all over astronomy, so there is controlled experiments in astronomy.

Tom, you are absolutely wrong.

For instance:
Determining the composition of a Star

All stars, when their light is passed through a diffraction grating, show dark lines at very specific location in the resulting spectrum that is shown.

There is a distinct similarity between certain types of stars as classified by brightness and colour, although there are some small differences.

When you heat up an element (eg sodium in a sodium lamp), it emits light in very specific frequencies that when passed through a spectrometer will show up as bright lines.

When you pass white light through a gas of an element (eg hydrogen) then, it will show distinct dark lines in very specific frequencies (which precisely match the bright lines when you heat the element).

This is a controlled experiment for Astronomy. The controls are the last two experiments (heating a substance and the passing light through a gas of the substance).

Now, if the lines in the stars match the lines produced in the controls, then we can determine what the gasses that the light form the star has to pass through, as we know from experiments that light passing through a gas will absorb light in very specific frequencies.

This is a controlled experiment to determine the make up of the gasses surrounding a star.

We can then later check again these spectral lines for stars we have checked in the past, this will allow us to confirm whether or not the star's spectral lines are due to something transient, or something permanent. We can also check from different location and times to determine if the spectral lines are due to our location or not.

I can tell you such experiment like these are carried out millions of times every year. Every school astronomy course will do these. Every one with a telescope and a diffraction grating can do this. It is not hard, it is not expensive, and it doesn't take long to do.

These are controlled experiments in astronomy and they are by far not the only ones.

Tom, you are wrong. Stop making strawmen, as doing so you are violating Zetetic principals and are weakening the position of any real FEer.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Day and Night again
« on: March 21, 2009, 07:33:07 PM »
That's just like you REers, to claim there's evidence and then tell us to go read it for ourselves instead of posting it.  ::)
This double standard is only the defence of the Negative campaigners. That is people who wish to bring down FET from the inside. Are you one such person, or are you willing to give the data that use REers are asking for?

There has been tones of data provided by the REers (lurkmoar and use the search function) to support RET. I guess because we aren't there to read it out loud to you, you are unwilling to read it, even if it is posted on this forum.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ok guys.
« on: March 21, 2009, 07:28:33 PM »
The experiments themselves are all in EnaG, but I have not bothered to publish my own findings, as they're pretty much identical to those in EnaG.
But as has been shown (even by me) the experiments in EnaG actually pr4oive that the Earth is round. So, what you are saying is that you agree that the Earth is round...  ???

All what this shows is that the Sun is a spotlight above earth.
No it doesn't. At best, all you can say that is it does not determine if the Sun is a spot light or the Earth is round. If such photos give unequivocal proof of it being a spot light, then why don't you just come out and show us why?

I agree, taken at a superficial level, it is open to interpretation, but once you actually analyse it it will reveal the truth.

All I ask is for you to show us your reasoning, based on the contents of the photo, why you think the only conclusion is that the sun is a spot light. Remember, for it only possible for it to be a spot light, you have to eliminate all other possibilities, including that what you are seeing is an illusion.

IF you can show us that, then you can claim it is obviously a spot light. Until then, either stop claiming that the photo is such proof (as by doing so you are only damaging FET and so other FEers should be stopping you), or actually admit yourself to be someone who is working to actively destroy FET.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: distance to stars
« on: March 21, 2009, 07:15:18 PM »
basic geometry is a conspiracy as well.

Actually, what about Zetetic principals? Do you ahve any proof, or is that just an assumption? As most of the FEers here seem to be Zetetics, this is a valid question that any Zetetic FEers should ask of this.

Remember, FEers, you also need to be on guard against people using a negative campaign against you. If someone pretends to be a FEer and uses bad arguments, then this actually weakens your position. This means it is always in your own best interests to ask questions about any statements that supposedly supports a FE, not just question those statements that are against a FE.

Actually (this is for Tom mainly), this is a very good argument why even FEers should provide evidence of their claims, because if you don't, then it means that it becomes very easy to conduct a negative campaign against FET.

There are many who supposedly support RET, but they have (either through ignorance or through a deliberate negative campaign) made incorrect claims about RET. Many of the FEers see this as proof against RET, but it is not, it is only proof against the mistake.

So, to avoid such things occuring for FET, it is essential that you also provide evidence for your claims as it the only way to really detect a negative campaign.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE and Gravity
« on: March 21, 2009, 06:47:59 PM »
Only problem is, that geavity does not depend on intellectual life content or shape or anything exept mass and density. the earth has mass and density in both models, so why is there no gravity on FE?

Not only does the earth have mass, so does all other matter. A "force" of attraction exists between all masses, something FE'ers both deny (when attempting to exaplain how FE "gravity" works) and use (when attempting to explain variations in "gravity")
Not only that, there are direct experiments that show that matter has an attractive force between it. I am not talking about the Cavendish experiment, but on Gravimeters. These devices use various ways to measure such effects (and because they are not all of the same design, this eliminates that it might be something to do with the design and not mass).

The simples one repeatedly raises and drops a mirror in a vacuum and bounces a laser off it to measure its height. They are accurate enough to measure changes in the strength of the gravitational field of 0.1 nanometre/second2. So you can put an object above the Gravimeter and see how much the strength of the force on the Gravimeters is reduced, and then place it below the Gravimeters to see how much the force increase on the Gravimeters

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof that our planet is round.
« on: March 21, 2009, 06:35:56 PM »

I know that most of the people here are only playing devils advocate, and that even some who genuinely FEers will never give up their beliefs. However, I am not hoping to "Covert" them. I post on here because I see it as a good mental exercise (which is a bit like the members who are playing devils advocate).

Many people like to challenge themselves with brain teasers and such. That is all I see this site as, a brain teaser. It gives a good way for me to challenge what I accept as true and test my knowledge of these subjects (yes, I know that many of the FEers say that the REers just accept things as true because they are told that they are true, well I prove them wrong by my very existence on this site  ;D).

I consider people who can disagree with me as genuinely valuable.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Faq problems
« on: March 21, 2009, 06:29:51 PM »
Global warming is a fraud and has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.,2933,509735,00.html
Three facts about global warming:

1) CO2 absorbs and then re-emits infra-red radiation, but not all the infra-red radiation is absorbed by the CO2.

2) Sunlight falling onto the surface of the Earth, although initially in the visible light range re-emits it as infra-red.

3) If the amount of energy entering a system remains constant, but the amount leaving the system is reduced, then the amount of energy that is in the system will increase.

Now, if we put these facts together then the only conclusion is that Global Warming is real, humans are a major cause, and it is happening right now.

Do you dispute any of these facts?

Fact one states that infra-red energy that tries to leave the Earth's atmospheric and oceanic systems will be intercepted and approximately half of what is absorbed by the CO2 will be re-emitted back to the Earth. However there is still a lot that does pass through without being absorbed by the CO2

It also means that for a give amount of CO2 and sunlight entering the Earth's systems will reach an equilibrium.

Fact 2 is just describing why energy can easily pass through the CO2 and then not as easily pass back out.

Fact 3 when combined with Fact 1 means that if you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere then less infra-red radiation will pass through and this means that more will be re-emitted back toward Earth.

As infra-red radiation produces heat, then this means that the Earth will heat up. That is Global Warming.

Fact one, is not as easy to test, but it can be done. Fill a chamber with air and shine an infra-red light through it will transmit a certain amount of the radiation, which can be detected by an infra-red detector. Fill the same chamber with CO2 and less infra-red radiation will transmitted.

Fact 2 can be really easily checked. Stick something out in the sun, doe sit heat up? If you use an infra-red detector does it show an increase in infra-red radiation given off from the object after being out in the sun?

Fact 3 is just the conclusion of the first pats, and is based on the conservation of energy.

So, do you ahve a problem with any of these 3 facts. If you do not ahve a problem with these facts, then the only conclusion is that Global Warming is real and is not a hoax.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flight time thought experiment.
« on: March 20, 2009, 02:39:40 AM »
Steve, do you realize that your "multiple, bidirectional jet stream" theory almost makes your EA theory seem plausible.
It is so easily testable. ALl you need to do is release balloons filled with hydrogen and track their progress. If you see them moving at near supersonic speeds, then we can conclude that Robo Steve is correct, if not, then we can conclude that he is just making stuff up so he doesn't have to face the truth that the Earth really is Round.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: evolution
« on: March 20, 2009, 02:35:44 AM »
Raist believes God jizzed in Mary's bubble bath. I do not understand how someone who appears to have a relatively strong grip on reality can commit such philosophical suicide.

My firm belief is he just stuck the head in and blew his load, and you know this. There is no need to make such outlandish claims.

(actually the virgin birth is just a result of 'original sin" being added in by the catholics. Since I am not a catholic fucktard I don't really believe in the virgin birth considering she was traveling to pay taxes with a man. She obviously would have been married to him, and he obviously would be fucking her. To assume anything else at this time period is ridiculous so obviously done by the catholics.
Mary and Joseph were supposed to be married. Part of the marriage custom (still continued today) is of consummating the marriage. Yes, this means they have to have had sex for them to be married. Therefore, Mary can not have been a virgin according to all custom at that time. To claim that she was is to reject the very religion and principals that the New Testament was based on.

3) I am aware of what happens in H-bomb tests. The reaction lasts for a fraction of a second and then all hell breaks loose. Why aren't all of the stars in the sky exploding simultaneously?
This is onyl a problem for FET, not RET.

According to RET the Stars and the Sun are truly massive. This mass creates an attractive force on all the particles. This force is larger than the force of the force caused by the Fusion reactions. This means that the greater force of Gravity overwhelms the force of the fusion explosions and hold the star together.

Now, there is a really good reason that stars don't (usually) blow themselves up. This is because as gravity bulls the gas cloud that forms the star together the fusion reaction will start to occur and create pressure to push the star outwards. However, when this occurs, the force needed to create the fusion reaction weaken and the fusion reaction stops.

This allows the star to one again contract under gravity which in turn increases the force needed to create the fusion reactions and then the fusion reaction starts up again.

It also means that stars are on the edge of bursting, but will not (except in certain circumstances) blow themselves apart. It is a dynamic balance between the pressures needed to cause fusion and the pressures caused by the fusion explosion. However, as the core material of the star is fused into the heavier elements, the pressures need to cause the fusion reaction increases. This means that when fusion does occur it will fuse more material and therefore release more energy.

If a star fuses most of its core's matter into carbon, then the energy released in the fusion process can be enough to blow the outer material off in a massive burst of energy released by the fusion. This is what we call a Nova, or if it is a really big explosion: a Super Nova.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Your flat earth idea is not a THEORY...
« on: March 20, 2009, 02:15:37 AM »
No, the premise that the Earth is flat in NOT based on sound Zetetic principles. Even those principles require an inquiry that quickly results in the falsification of FET. Zetetic principles require you to inquire as to how things work, without our challenges. Again, science doesn't seek proof of its theories, only evidence.

No, it's definitely based on sound zetetic principles.

 Like what? Care to bring some examples out? As far as I know the only sound reason you are based at is "look out the window".
The experiments in Earth Not a Globe prove that the Earth is flat on solidly zetetic principles.  We don't claim the view out our window as absolute proof that the Earth is flat, although it is some pretty compelling evidence that given a lack of other evidence would surely point things in that direction by default.
Actually, no. EnaG violates the Zetetic principals but rejecting logic, making assumptions and ignoring evidence. Rowbotham does this in his very first experiment.

He ignores the evidence that the Bedford levels is actually sloped (and even includes the data that shows this -but then ignores it - in EnaG).

He then uses incorrect geometric principals (as he does not include the geometry to account for slope if any exists - and as geometry is a branch of mathematics which is a branch of logic, he had to use incorrect logic to do this).

He proceeds with the experiment and calculations with the assumption that the water is flat without testing it or trying to account for any slope if there is one.

So, this very experiment shows that Rowbotham is not using the Zetetic Principals in his investigations in EnaG.

Zetetic principals require you to examine all the evidence and, not make any assumptions and then apply correct logic to reach the conclusion.

I have posted these several times now, so you can do a search to find more information on these investigations into EnaG.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23