### 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 - Thevoiceofreason

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 57
1
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Answer me this
« on: May 11, 2012, 10:40:51 AM »
What would happen if i flew an airplane in a straight line due east. A straight line meaning a 180 degree horizontal  line.

would travel around the circumference of the earth and end up in the same place i started? if not why?

If you started heading East with no course corrections, you would eventually reach a point which no one has ever been.

Also, there are only a very few places you can start from on a RE globe and end where you started while always heading East.

really? I can only think of two points

2
##### The Lounge / Re: Get to Know ClockTower
« on: May 11, 2012, 10:18:20 AM »
I thought he was dead.

3
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is there a night at the pole?
« on: August 01, 2011, 10:02:54 PM »
What? If the Earth was a disk, there would be no south pole.
And to answer your question, yes.

4
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Yet another experiment proves the earth is not spinning!
« on: July 28, 2011, 10:51:12 PM »
The speed of sound is 768mph
The speed of the earth at my location is approx. 779mph (RE Model)

Set Up:
I utilized a speaker system sending a 1khz tone at a magnitude that could be heard by a second person standing 20 feet away.
This person stood at 0deg 15deg 30deg etc. etc on through 360deg of my location with a recorder.
If the earth were spinning, there would be a location that couldn't possibly pick up the sound.

The proof:  The sound was heard equally from each of the 24 (15degree of separations) on through the complete circle.  A simple computer analysis of wave length showed minute differences in wavelength when the recordings were analyzed.

>no inclusion of reference frames
2/10
That would be true, if the air wasn't a medium for sound, and the air didn't go along with the speed of the Earth. But, because of that whole reference frame thing, on the frame of the surface of the earth, at that moment both the earth and the air are traveling with the same velocity. If they weren't we'd experience constant 700mph winds, as the air would be static and the earth moving. Troll harder

5
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth you can't possibly be serious?
« on: July 28, 2011, 10:45:36 PM »
double posting things like that is not a good idea.

Furthermore, read up on how acceleration under modern physics works. And matter cannot travel at c, because it is massive, it would therefore contain an infinite amount of kinetic energy, and no such thing has ever been found to exist, or theorized. You are wrong, gravity has very little to do with light on a fundamental level. The particle for light is the photon, for gravity, it is either some sort of graviton, or simply the geometry of space-time.

As a fellow RE'er you only set us up for failure and ridicule by those senior members of the forum with extensive knowledge of physics and math

I didn't say gravity had a lot to do with light I said it had a lot to do with how matter behaves, namely how it affects the acceleration of matter.

I am setting myself up to failure and ridicule by senior members who have extensive knowledge of physics and math that believe the earth is flat? LMFAO thanks for the laugh.

Sigh. Perhaps you should read their first posts on the board before you start assuming who people are. Go on...go to their profiles. Even if they did all believe the earth to be flat (hint, they don't) that doesn't change their knowledge of mechanics and relativity, something you seem to be lacking judging by your posts. If you're actually a physics major, you'll admit your mistakes and move on to another thread.

6
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Universal Acceleration doesn't make sense.
« on: July 28, 2011, 10:42:24 PM »
Let me get this straight
>Physics Major
>Incorrectly/doesn't apply relativity
>Complains about credentials not being recognized

Why must this thread go on? You were dead wrong about the acceleration thing, its even worse that you gave credentials. I'll give you mine: Caltech Math Major. Does that mean what I say about functions has priority over anyone else? NOPE.

Anyways, back on topic, Why is it so hard to figure out how g was measured? It would happen the exact same way. Equivalency.jpg

7
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth you can't possibly be serious?
« on: July 28, 2011, 10:29:31 PM »
double posting things like that is not a good idea.

Furthermore, read up on how acceleration under modern physics works. And matter cannot travel at c, because it is massive, it would therefore contain an infinite amount of kinetic energy, and no such thing has ever been found to exist, or theorized. You are wrong, gravity has very little to do with light on a fundamental level. The particle for light is the photon, for gravity, it is either some sort of graviton, or simply the geometry of space-time.

As a fellow RE'er you only set us up for failure and ridicule by those senior members of the forum with extensive knowledge of physics and math

8
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Universal Acceleration doesn't make sense.
« on: July 28, 2011, 10:19:05 PM »
I am going to assume FE nuts believe the earth is ~10,000 years old.

10,000 years = 315,569,259,747s

a = 9.8 m/s

a = delta t / v

9.8m/s = 315,569,259,747s / v

v = 3.09 x 10^12 m/s (Speed of light can go F*uck itself, it's all propaganda man CONSPIRACY physics!)

distance traveled = 9.25 x 10^23 m = 1.03 x 10^8 light years.

Ever been in an elevator? Ever driven in a car? Ever lifted off in an airplane? The force you experience is directly proportional to the acceleration vector. So if the speed limit didn't exist and it didn't take more than an infinite amount of energy to reach c than we would still be vaporized. And if we were traveling 10,315 times the speed of light, well light wouldn't be able to reach us or interact with any matter on earth. It be pitch black. There goes bendy light. And who would have known every time you leave the ground you are actually traveling faster that light!

not to mention G is still no where explain. That's the universal gravitational constant.

problem? Maths no make sense to u?
Parsifal teaches physics thread?

*sigh* learn to relativity. Noone said that it had to accelerate at g with respect to the aether or whatever they call it.

9
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Heliocentrism is unscientific
« on: July 28, 2011, 10:08:26 PM »
When I was more active on here, you guys had the whole celestial gears thing. Well what turns that?
That's an easy one
http://z0r.de/1863 that looks promising.
Thork, 1998 called, they want their prank back

10
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Explain
« on: July 28, 2011, 04:08:00 PM »
Some needs to make a newfriend friendly and RE'er guide to TFES, so they come in better equipped.
Some things to know:
-The FAQ predates Windows Vista
-There is no real society, this is just a forum, so there's no formal education in flat earth SCIENCE
-As such, there are many different models of the flat earth
-The number of devils advocates greatly outnumber the number of believers
Most importantly
-LURKMORE we have a search function

11
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Found this suggestion for the FAQ
« on: July 28, 2011, 04:00:28 PM »
>not even at 10 posts and already has 10th longest post
Sure is summer in here (jk<3)
The FAQ is so outdated that its not even funny.
There are many different theories on the SCIENCE of flat earth. (By SCIENCE I mean fanfic-level sci-fy)
the FAQ is just one of them, and there are probably 5 people on this earth that believe in it.

The problem with this particular religion is that none of the theories stand up to scrutiny, so the only way they can even pretend to debate the merits of it is to have an out of date FAQ.

If they actually posted facts that they cant dismiss as (its out of date, their are better theories) then each of their proofs or theories/philosophies (im going to use that one, newguy) would be rapidly shown to be false, and there would be no debate.

The pattern on this forum is:
find one person that disagrees with 1 aspect of spaceflight, gravity, etc
Treat that persons view as gospel.
Think of something in your mind that sounds like it could work (similar to discussing whether superman could beat batman)
Post your idea as gospel.
Discount the science.

Obviously I am leaving out the main tactic of derailing any thread that asks difficult questions.
You've probably learned by now, that Wikipedia's list of logical fallacies is the FEH debate handbook, right?

12
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Heliocentrism is unscientific
« on: July 28, 2011, 03:57:41 PM »
>inertia is magic
No english word or phrase properly expresses my response to this, so I will try another language:
エピックフェイル!
Why must all of your posts be about you not understanding science? Do you have any contradictory evidence to the idea that inertia is true? Also I'd like to hear your explanation for the movement of the night sky. Many FE'ers use celestial gears as an explanation, but when you ask them whats moving them, the argument becomes homunculur, unless you invoke inertia

Nobody understands inertia. Not even Feynman.

What you meant to write was, "I don't understand inertia"

@ Singularity,
When I was more active on here, you guys had the whole celestial gears thing. Well what turns that?
And do you honestly agree with 3world on the whole inertia thing?

13
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Does anyone here actually believe the FE theory?
« on: July 27, 2011, 11:03:12 PM »
And so it begins.

I'm 99% sure that 99% of the FE'ers here are devil's advocates

14
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Found this suggestion for the FAQ
« on: July 27, 2011, 10:59:50 PM »
>not even at 10 posts and already has 10th longest post
Sure is summer in here (jk<3)
The FAQ is so outdated that its not even funny.
There are many different theories on the SCIENCE of flat earth. (By SCIENCE I mean fanfic-level sci-fy)
the FAQ is just one of them, and there are probably 5 people on this earth that believe in it.

15
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: John Titor
« on: July 27, 2011, 10:54:02 PM »
>John Titor
Are you a Steins;Gate fan perhaps?

16
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Heliocentrism is unscientific
« on: July 27, 2011, 10:53:10 PM »
>inertia is magic
No english word or phrase properly expresses my response to this, so I will try another language:
エピックフェイル!
Why must all of your posts be about you not understanding science? Do you have any contradictory evidence to the idea that inertia is true? Also I'd like to hear your explanation for the movement of the night sky. Many FE'ers use celestial gears as an explanation, but when you ask them whats moving them, the argument becomes homunculur, unless you invoke inertia

17
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: NASA Conspiracy= fake
« on: July 27, 2011, 10:45:14 PM »
So flat earth beleiver say that NASA is hiding the fact that the earth is flat, there is support as to why this is a fallacy and a fabrication to make you believe their lie; supposedly all of the worlds space programs are in cahoots to support the lie that earth is round to gain funding to use for ulterior  purposes,  however most of the definitive evidence of the earth being spherical came during the cold war when the USSR and the United States were in a long running nuclear standoff, why would the USA's enemy the USSR support the lie, and strengthen their enemies morale for money? in the future?why not demoralize the US's armies and the US's people and win the Cold War through pure distrust of the government by the people? No that would not seem logical however a see through conspiracy like this would be expected form a *COUGH* cult like you whose base is founded upon experimental and theoretical sciences however my point will be avoided and whot down by more Theoretical sciences and so will continue the vicious cycle, hence my point is moot

The Conspiracy runs through every facet of your life. It is impossible to spend any money without a great percentage of it ending up in the Conspiracies hands. They have many known and unknown outlets which cover racketeering, money laundering, embezzlement, protection and of course murder for hire. They also front many "legitimate" businesses in order to prevent suspicion.

What if I place 1 US cent in your hand?

18
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: NASA Conspiracy= fake
« on: July 27, 2011, 10:42:30 PM »
sorry i let a friend use this account... he just used it to be silly
Did you let you're friend name the account as well?

19
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Creation of the earth in FET
« on: July 27, 2011, 10:40:06 PM »
The sad thing is, he might actually think he's the first, or even hundredth person to ask this.
Can a mod lock this, and write READ THE FAQ?

20
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: An inconsistency in round earth theory
« on: July 25, 2011, 11:45:20 PM »
>Implying that the south pole is pointed directly at the Sun, when its only pointed 23.5 degrees
>Implying that the duration of sunlight effects heat the most, when its actually the density of rays
>mfw

I don't have a NOPE large enough to respond to this. Over the next four weeks, I will post a letter of the word "nope", along with reasons of why you are wrong. Here is the first one:
N

The tilt of the earth is 23.5 degrees, so you couldn't reasonably say that the pole is pointed towards the sun.

Here's the second one:
O

21
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Creation of the earth in FET
« on: July 25, 2011, 11:36:01 PM »
Have you read the FAQ?

22
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: NASA Conspiracy= fake
« on: July 25, 2011, 11:35:09 PM »
So flat earth beleiver say that NASA is hiding the fact that the earth is flat

No we don't. We say that NASA is faking space travel.

Classic Bishop.

Responds with his own FEH ideas. OP, FYI, there are tons of different theories regarding the SCIENCE behind flat earth, and many of them involve NASA lying to us about the earth being flat

23
##### Arts & Entertainment / Re: Gurren Lagann Ending
« on: April 07, 2011, 02:27:58 AM »
TL;dr version

Last few episodes of Gurren Lagann:

My response: /(T-T) goodnight sweet princess

24
##### Arts & Entertainment / Gurren Lagann Ending
« on: April 07, 2011, 02:25:40 AM »
<If by some misfortune you haven't seen this gem, then go watch it instead of reading a spoiler ridden post.>

------------[if you want you can skip to the ]----------------------------------------->

As for me, I just joined the rest of modern society and finished it a couple days ago. It was absolutely my favoritism anime, that was until the last 5 minutes. After watching Simon and Nia get married I should have just turned the screen off, but I stuck through to the bitter end. Now I could get over Kamina's death, it was clear that he never really died, and the characters had plenty of time to grieve for him and turn it into a positive (Older Simon was like him in a lot of ways). After all, they gave us a new character that would be come just as close to the main character: Nia. And despite the annoying voice acting (I watch dubbed anime, because I'm a huge tool), and the inane child like characteristics, she grew on me.

She wasn't at all my favorite character throughout the show, and for most of it I could have cared less about her relationship with Simon (I hate romance 99% of the time in TV). But when Simon proposed, I could sorta feel the love in it, because it was an emotional rebirth for Simon after Kamina died. And when it turned out she was a double agent (lol SALT), the show got me on the edge of my seat, and was pleasantly surprised to see that it could turn out ok in the end. I had felt that Simon had really become a man like Kamina was.

[crucial part of my post/ rant of butthurt]------------------------------------>

The last 6 through the penultimate episodes were awesome to say the least. Nia had represented the goodness and love of humanity, and her becoming a death angel caused much despair. And the idea that somehow the power of love she had attained as a human combined with Simon's fighting spirit would transcend time and space to bring her back made me want to weep manly tears of joy. And I greatly liked the way they treated Viral, who after the timeskip was becoming one of my favorite characters.

The last episode was more epic than I could have ever hoped for, desperately in her time of need Simon did the impossible. And to make it more epic, instead of becoming a rescued damsel, she had become one with the rest of the team. It was the duality between her being an innocent creature of love and a being of evil and hatred that made her return a thing of beauty. They turned hopelessness into bliss.

But then Gainex decided that they needed a tragic ending. They used a diablo ex machina, to make her disappear forever, then Simon let it go, and became a drifter for the rest of his life. Oh, and they made president douchebag Rossiu team leader for life. Yoko's end was ok at best. The only truly good personal end was Viral, who got to continue being a soldier. Perhaps why this end felt like such an FU from the writers, is because they made you love a character, only for them to disappear forever literally or figuratively. It would've been bitter sweet if they had combined as she had promised before.

But this really didn't happen, as Simon clearly went back to being his old self, unchanged by her. They could have given at least some hint that she'd be waiting for him in the afterlife as that's they way it felt with Kamina (god and souls exists in this anime), but it seems that her entire existence was erased. Now I didn't need an episode devoted to the idea that they'd be together forever like the ending of LOST (they stopped just short of showing Jacks A-team unpack their luggage at the pearly gates) But this sort of meant that he failed to return her to normal, as he promised. To me this was just despair. And I kinda nolonger feel motivated by the anime's whole do the impossible theme.

I am I crazy? or did the ending leave a pain in any of your hearts?

25
##### Arts & Entertainment / Re: Trapped in the Closet
« on: April 07, 2011, 01:26:08 AM »
Its serious, as soap-opera's are. It may be cheesy as hell, but R Kelly is never the less serious. I remember hearing things of the same genre on the radio as a young kid.

26
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Digging problem
« on: March 28, 2011, 08:56:13 AM »
Voice of Reason I don't respond to babbling read my post above yours. And if you are over 25 years of age and you never heard about 10 percent brain usage, it means that you never attended school.

I'm 27. Pretty sure I heard it and pretty sure the only time it ever came up in school was when a student mentioned it and the AP bio teacher said it was a myth. That was a nine years ago. If you were ever taught this myth in school then you had awful teachers. (And can you please make up your mind also. Is this a fact you believe in or not. Some of your posts claim this is a definite fact. Others you say it is a myth).

No Joshua I think we use at least 50 percent of our brain, that's what I think. I was just trying to show you guys how ridiculous the science is when they came up with this 10 percent outlandish claim. Infinite earth wins, science sucks. lol

No, popular science sucks, aka what the public believes is science. Real science doesn't believe those things. Straw-man, your argument is invalid.

Also, you shouldn't say science is wrong when you can't realize the validity of Gauss' Law

27
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Water Droplets Theory
« on: March 28, 2011, 08:52:01 AM »
Is anyone other than me not shocked that a thread about raindrops has made it to 13 pages?

Nope.

This happened before, remember?
Some FE'er was trying to claim that because 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 raindrop, the laws of math and science are invalid

28
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Water Droplets Theory
« on: March 22, 2011, 04:33:08 AM »
Say what you will.

What does stand and is undeniable, is, in certain situations 1 and 1 is 1

This is not about the semantics of mathematical ideas,

it is, about the validity of such models.

Please learn what a mathematical operation is. Where'd you get the idea that combining meant the operation of addition among real scalars?

29
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Proof that pi=4
« on: March 17, 2011, 09:27:18 PM »
Wouldn't the center just be a smaller version of the original? Divided into two blacks and two reds?
Yes, hence the:
ITT: JoshuaZ asks you what colour this is:
But that, obviously, is not one point.

Does there have to be one?

30
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Electric Universe Theory (help)
« on: March 17, 2011, 08:36:59 PM »
what in the hell is this and there websites... they seem convincing but i need others opinions (not really convinced xD) but they have solid theory's
Just no. This seems to be another case of someone who doesn't understand a theory trying to present a counter theory, when the person should have goggled their questions, instead of pretending like they're the only ones to have ever found a hole in the theory.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 57