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 - vhu9644

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is an icewall necessary
« on: August 28, 2011, 03:41:50 PM »
i remember reading somewhere it is to keep all the stuff in, but idk

it could be debated among FE though

2
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: May 31, 2011, 03:30:07 AM »
i dont think some of the people here understand what is a fictitious force

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The movement of the Sun.
« on: May 23, 2011, 04:18:18 PM »
i dont think any scientist of RE has stated gravity works with gravitons...

perhaps you are thinking of star trek?

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Evolution
« on: May 19, 2011, 06:11:59 PM »
well, you cant argue well with someone who doesnt know about the topic.

evolution has tonnes of evidence, from dna to embryotic to vestigial structures

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bin Laden is dead!
« on: May 19, 2011, 06:05:20 PM »
do you have evidence we do not have a unrigged representative democracy?

i don't know much about politics yet, so i don't know

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Empirical evidence for moon shrimp
« on: May 19, 2011, 06:03:37 PM »
whats wrong with reasearching tardigrades?

7
Ohm's Law kids... V=IR

To get the same current capacity as a standard AC source (~120V) you would need to produce a 120VDC source. Since DC does not work with transformers this severely limits your options.
this.
my understanding was the entire reason we us AC is it is much easier to up or lower the voltage. this way you can send it through power lines at high voltage then lower it back down when it gets where it needs to be. granted I could be wrong but that is my basic understanding of the subject.
yea, and also i remember seeing that generators are more easily made for ac, not dc as well

but inverters are a pain in the ass to build. (built one, tested it on my dad's occilascope)
rectifiers are soooooooooo much easier

8
Flat Earth General / Re: Dark Energy
« on: May 16, 2011, 11:19:52 PM »
Where does the DE come from?

Where does gravity come from?
same place mass comes from

9
Flat Earth General / Re: hey guys
« on: May 16, 2011, 11:17:21 PM »
The centre of the universe is what is known as "the Cold Jerusalem", a.k.a., the Arctic or North Pole, wherein a vast, icy tidal ocean surrounds a central frozen isle.  Polaris, the North Star, marks the centre of the universe.  It is around this point that the movements of the Heavens occur.
Except when you are south of the equator - then the centre of the universe is the Antarctic, or South Pole, wherein lies a vast frozen wasteland.  Polarissima Australis, marks the centre of the universe.  It is around this point that the movements of the Heavens occur.

Berny
I mean really - did you just state that Cold Jerusalem is part of Canada?
yeah, parts of FET areis confusing. 

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Non-Euclidean FE
« on: May 16, 2011, 01:02:19 AM »
another one i have heard is that the space is curved around the flat object

11
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: There are too many angry noobs.
« on: May 12, 2011, 11:15:19 PM »
About 90% of them are alts.

Stop revealing my secrets.
hey, are you still thinking of making big ben?

on the more serious note.  some noobs need to calm down too, but it would be nice if we welcomed them instead of monotonously telling them to lurk moar

12
The Lounge / Re: M-M-M-MONSTER FAIL!
« on: May 12, 2011, 09:09:26 PM »
do you know how much the property value on one of the 6 corners is. i'm looking for a new place of residence.

not as bad a john hand.  he is like the new NE

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« on: May 12, 2011, 06:03:05 PM »
thanks

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The reason for the seasons
« on: May 12, 2011, 06:00:52 PM »
well, if everything is moving at exactly the same speed, and in the same direction, then no, how would there be? but if there is a difference in veliocity, then yes, there will be a colour shift.

however, this then raises the question of how all these different objects of different size and mass are being accelerated at the same speed and rate of acceleration as each other, despite the driving force being universal.

but the color shift depends on the reletive velocity to the observer.

for the second question, i dont think FE'ers have an answer.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Magnetic poles?
« on: May 12, 2011, 05:58:10 PM »
I see you're confused; I never claimed to be a scientist, not once. I am an analytical chemist by trade, and that is not a scientist, so I hope that's cleared that up for you. Also, I have not defined acceleration anywhere, perhaps you're mixing me up with someone else. And finally, I didn't suggest that a scientist hadn't thought of the halbach array, as they clearly have, my point was that a modern physicist, someone who studies earths magnetism as part of their position, would surely have noticed that the earthís magnetic field was comprised of a special arrangement of permanent magnets that augments the magnetic field on one side of the array while cancelling the field to the rear? that nature had somehow managed to arrange in exactly the fashion as required to get around the FE hypothesis on magnetic poles, and that the idea wasnít just one produced by a random internet forum user?

I hope you're suitably enlightened.

a globe's magnetic field shape is different from the disc's.  i dont really see why a scientist would investigate a flat earth magnetic field

turning is a change in velocity

you cannot be seriously proposing this as true, if you are, then I implore you to read some good modern physics books. turning is a change in direction, velocity, or, directional momentum, doesn't change
and to add to this, velocity changing is acceleration

16
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: There are too many angry noobs.
« on: May 11, 2011, 11:08:48 PM »
how to decrease the angry noob population?

update the FAQ
answer their questions without insulting them on their noobiness (or try to keep it to a minimum)
don't constantly make fun of them, and only do so on really really big fails
tell them why to lurk moar, or link

17
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Ichi & James Must Go
« on: May 11, 2011, 11:04:31 PM »
guys, be a little bit nicer to john hand.  and john hand, relax, you dont have to go all serious. 

john hand, you are biting too, and you are making PP treat you this way.

and the rest of you, he is new and we should treat him with some respect.  we were all new to this forums at one point.  give him some time, 254 posts is not enough time for him to know enough.


on this note however, john hand, if you want people to stop "pissing" at you, show some respect too


18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Inconsistencies with the FE Sun
« on: May 11, 2011, 10:59:30 PM »
another problem is the minimum viewing angle for the sun, which is (as i read) 7 degrees, yet the sun "sets"

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Easy way to prove the earth is indeed flat
« on: May 11, 2011, 10:58:03 PM »
I don't quite follow, but to continue your logic, if a person was scaled down equivalently, they would find just as many flat expanses on the surface of the scaled down earth as they would do in 1:1 scale, given the incredibly huge difference in size between us and the earth, no?
he is just stating that he has heard the earth itself, if scaled to a billard ball, would be just as smooth, due to the hieght of all the topographical features

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« on: May 11, 2011, 10:54:50 PM »
Quote
He talks about the time, magnitude and duration of lunar eclipses, but not their path.

Wait, where did I say anything on the first page about the path of the eclipse being predictable? I said that the pattern of when it would occur was predictable.

You're the one who brought up the prediction of the eclipse's path, seemingly out of your own petard.

Quote
To show that it's possible in a FE system.  Is that really an unreasonable request?

Yes, it is an unreasonable request. Do I need to draw a bird in the sky to convey the idea that birds exist? Do I need to draw a picture of a witch to convey the idea that people once believed in the existence of witches?

Your imagination is good enough to visualize simple ideas.

1. then how do they predict the location of the eclipse?  there is a reason they can tell you where one sees the solar eclipse and only a partial eclipse...
2. we have enough imagination, but a diagram would be nice, so we can see how it moves, the path, and what it seems to follow, if any, and we can draw some connection between other parts of the system

21
The Lounge / Re: M-M-M-MONSTER FAIL!
« on: May 11, 2011, 10:52:18 PM »
heavy elements cannot be made on earth, that is a fact, simply because we cannot contain the reaction in any container, it would just react with it, so it must be held in a suspended state, which we cannot do as we can't control gravity, but stars can do quite well given the zero gravity atmosphere. this is the Holy grail of physics, and could potentially be the earths energy solution, but we just can't do it, and the only way it can be done is through enormous pressure, the kind only known to exist in massive stars
i think elements 95-118 disagree you that they cannot me made on earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_element

lrn2 know what your are talking about analytical chemist

lol, have you even read your own link? do you actually know what heavy elements are? Elements heavier than iron (up to and including bismuth) are created in the star's core by neutron capture. The heavier elements (up to and including uranium) are created in the heavy energy flux of supernovae. try and avoid 'Synthetic' in the topic so we're on the same page.

read here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

and here; http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=345

and here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

try again.

john hand is like hte NE of facts....

really annoying how i have to explain this twice

22
Flat Earth General / Re: The Periodic Table of elements
« on: May 11, 2011, 10:50:00 PM »
heavy elements cannot be made on earth, that is a fact, simply because we cannot contain the reaction in any container, it would just react with it, so it must be held in a suspended state, which we cannot do as we can't control gravity, but stars can do quite well given the zero gravity atmosphere. this is the Holy grail of physics, and could potentially be the earths energy solution, but we just can't do it, and the only way it can be done is through enormous pressure, the kind only known to exist in massive stars
i think elements 95-118 disagree you that they cannot me made on earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_element

lrn2 know what your are talking about analytical chemist

lol, have you even read your own link? do you actually know what heavy elements are? Elements heavier than iron (up to and including bismuth) are created in the star's core by neutron capture. The heavier elements (up to and including uranium) are created in the heavy energy flux of supernovae. try and avoid 'Synthetic' in the topic so we're on the same page.

read here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

and here; http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=345

and here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

try again.

lrn2 read the link well enough

if you actually read it, you will find that we have actually made the elements ourselves.  element 118 does not occur naturally on earth, it was made
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2006/10/5635.ars

i know what heavy elements are, and yes, i agree that they are made in stars, but,
made in stars != made only in stars

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The reason for the seasons
« on: May 11, 2011, 10:46:41 PM »
At the speeds you're proposing the Earth is travelling, any increase of decrease in acceleration would produce shift in the visible spectrum for all other objects. This is not present, therefore this can't be happening.
if the sun is accelerating upwards at the same rate, it is not accelerating upwards reletive to you, and hence, light shouldn't have redshift right?

it is all relative to the observer, am i wrong?

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Magnetic poles?
« on: May 11, 2011, 10:44:32 PM »
I was an analytical chemist from 1992 to 2007 when I swithced to software consultancy, Ali is a qualified vet with his own practice, and I couldn't care less whether you accept that or not, it matters nothing to me. However, I fail to see what this has to do with the context of your post? I canít read it very well, it makes no sense and you donít seem to be saying anything. Please re-read and formulate a coherent and relevant reply, but please don't suggest nature didn't make the earth or I will ignore you going forward.

i believe the earth was made by nature, but you need to get your facts straight about the FET (which should be called hypothesis in some parts)

it does you no good to state incorrect "facts"

i also dont care if you claim you are a real scientist, but when you get the definition of acceleration wrong, that doesnt help with your claim much.

and also, becuase you could not understand my post,
You stated a real scientist would have thought about a halbach array.
i agreed with you stating that of course, or else we would not know about halbach arrays.

if i have misinterpreted your post, please reform ir to a more easily understandable post, becuase you dont seem to have a much more coherent post than mine

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Wegener
« on: May 11, 2011, 10:36:45 PM »
we aren't talking about all the rocks in the universe, just the ones in the metaphor
The rocks in the metaphor were "rocks". Are you claiming that a rock in the universe is something else but a rock? Considering the amount of meaningful content in your previous posts, you probably do. Anyway, two rocks fitting together are not evidence of anything. As for eight rocks, let's see.

Two rocks fit together, therefore they once were one rock.
Two rocks composed of two smaller rocks each (four rocks) fit together, therefore they once were one rock.
Two rocks composed of the aforementioned rocks (eight rocks) fit together, therefore they once were one rock.
Eight rocks fitting together are in no way more evidence than two of them. In fact, they're the exact same situation, and since the amount of variations of how we can try to fit the rocks together rises exponentially, the probability of you finding a matching combination is raised as well. Thus, it can be concluded that it's actually a lesser or equal (assuming it's quantifiable) form of evidence to that provided by two rocks.
Of course, the only numbers that will make logical sense in this case are 0 and 0.

EDIT: In case this explanation does not satisfy you, here's a simpler one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

You epitomise stupid, or pedantic. I will explain it to you in simple to understand terms. When I say we aren't talking about all the rocks in the universe, just the ones in the metaphor, weíre referring to quantity, ie, the 8 rocks in the metaphor we are discussing. There was no comparison of these rocks to any other rocks nor was there a suggestion that they were not rocks. See, a metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable. In this case, the rocks represented the continents. Do you see?

I hope this clears things up and makes you look and feel suitably stupid as seems to be your prerogative


did you read the correlation does not imply causation?

also, we have agreed that it is safe to assume they once were one rock.  no?

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity, or the lack of it.
« on: May 11, 2011, 10:32:06 PM »
I am not sure... but just to be on the safe side,

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FLAT EARTH!!!

Really? By avoiding answering the questions? Doesn't the shallowness of the victory, in an argument over semantics, make it remarkably hollow? None of the questions over gravity have been answered. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how a body that you claim measures 678584013 cubic kilometres could possess no mass, make no dent in the space/time fabric and possess no gravity?
in FE theory, gravity is not a property of matter

27
Flat Earth General / Re: The Periodic Table of elements
« on: May 11, 2011, 12:17:56 AM »
heavy elements cannot be made on earth, that is a fact, simply because we cannot contain the reaction in any container, it would just react with it, so it must be held in a suspended state, which we cannot do as we can't control gravity, but stars can do quite well given the zero gravity atmosphere. this is the Holy grail of physics, and could potentially be the earths energy solution, but we just can't do it, and the only way it can be done is through enormous pressure, the kind only known to exist in massive stars
i think elements 95-118 disagree you that they cannot me made on earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_element

lrn2 know what your are talking about analytical chemist

28
Flat Earth General / Re: The Periodic Table of elements
« on: May 10, 2011, 11:41:07 PM »
you just need enough energy to make those.  even we can make higher elements ourselves, just it requires energy.

FE doesnt seem to have a plausible explanation, but it is entirely possible in FE, becuase FE doesnt reject physics.
heavy elements occur naturally becuase of stars, but it doesnt mean they have to occur becuase of stars

29
The Lounge / Re: M-M-M-MONSTER FAIL!
« on: May 10, 2011, 11:36:46 PM »
turning is a change in velocity

you cannot be seriously proposing this as true, if you are, then I implore you to read some good modern physics books. turning is a change in direction, velocity, or, directional momentum, doesn't change

Does it make you sad vhu when you see fellow RE'ers making a mockery of RET?

I think about that a lot. This must be the only place on the internet where the idiots are the ones who believe that the earth is round.

If there is gravity where do compasses point to?
lol

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The reason for the seasons
« on: May 10, 2011, 08:45:42 PM »
I know exactly what it means, Iím an analytical chemist. Empirical evidence can be extremely subjective, ie, Jamesí dreams are called empirical evidence of moon shrimp, when in fact they are empirical evidence of a dream he had about moon shrimp, nothing else, so please put your assertion into context. How is Empirical evidence more exact than evidence?
have i stated emirical evidence was more exact than evidence?

if that was what you interpreted, i meant, empirical evidence is a way to say what kind of evidence.
i meant the term "empirical evidence" is more exact than using "evidence"

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31