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 - oscpaz00

Pages: [1]
1
Except for the fact that we are right.  There are two algorithms or mechanical explanations for any function.

And algorithm has nothing to do with how a model gives predictions. An algorithm is a way to solve a problem. A function or equation is also completely different. Yes, you have post some examples or sorting, but they are not functions!! The function is, for each value x of the set, s(x) = p, where P is the position. All your sort functions give the same P to the same x, so they're the same function. The way you solve it is irrelevant.

Also, PizzaPlanet example about x^2 and x^4 is ridiculous. They only have the same values for 0,1 and -1, not for the entire domain of the function. The equation that describes a planet movement is f(t) = c, being c a coordinate (respect to the sun, for example) and t the moment of time. If two functions predict the same values for c with the same values for t, then they're the same function. With Newton's and Einstein's theories, they predict very close values, but NOT THE SAME. Einstein's equations are more accurate, then his theory is more correct or more accurate. But they're not the same theory because they don't predict the same exact values!!!

2
Good point. FE'ers don't believe in experiments or tests made by other people, but they also don't do any, so they can never be disproven. If the rest of the people were like them, we'd still live in caves, with no progress at all.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravitation: What is this? I don't even...
« on: August 03, 2010, 03:20:44 AM »
Hey guys, I have a little question.

I understood that the Earth in your model is accelerated by some mysterious dark matter or some shit like that with 9.8m/s▓, which you claim to be the reason we feel acceleration on earth. Why aren't the humans accelerated by this dark matter stuff too? and what about the sun, moon, planets, are they accelerated? if yes, why not the humans? if not, how do they keep the distance to earth equal?

Just wondering

cheers
Things near the surface of the earth are blocked from acceleration by the earth.  I believe in the past a bowshock effect has been talked about.


Then, if the sun and moon are over the Earth, how does this UA affect them? Or it affects things over us, but not us?

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE Wiki Critique: F&M/Foucault Pendulum
« on: August 03, 2010, 03:07:01 AM »
I've been conducting some experiments of my own on pendulums.  I have slowly come to the conclusion that the flat earth actually rotates as it accelerates up at 32 feet per second squared.  Rotating with it are all the celestial objects you in the sky.  This causes a pendulum to appear as if its moving when in fact it sways in one spot while the earth rotates beneath it.

And that number, "32 feet", where does it come from? Can you show us some mathematical calculations, please? And that 32 feet is at the equator? at the Ice Wall? At the tropics?

You may easily test yourself by dropping an object from known heights and measuring the rate of acceleration due to UA.

┐?? what? I 'm asking you how you have obtained the rotation speed of earht, not the acceleration of UA. Also, if Earth is rotating at 32 feet in North America, that speed in Argentina must be higher... So how is it that people living ther don't fall against the south? If you put a ball over a rotating disc, the ball moves to the border and finally falls. Even if the rotation speed is low. Then, if Earth is rotating, if you put a ball over a flat surface, if must move towards the south. That doesn't happen.

I've been conducting some experiments of my own on pendulums.  I have slowly come to the conclusion that the flat earth actually rotates as it accelerates up at 32 feet per second squared.  Rotating with it are all the celestial objects you in the sky.  This causes a pendulum to appear as if its moving when in fact it sways in one spot while the earth rotates beneath it.
Please publish your experimental design and results then. Or could it be just like most FEers you make up stories and call them experiments?

You might also note the FPs sweep out their paths in the opposite direction south of the Equator. So your conclusion about the FE rotating would be invalid.

My experiments have only been conducted thus far in North America, and as such, are in no state to be published yet.

So, you have a theory that explains something only in one point, and we have another that explains it in evary point over earth, and we must believe yours? Absurd. Other people have tested the foucault pendulum in the south hemisphere.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: Why RE will never win here
« on: August 03, 2010, 02:55:44 AM »
Most major religions are were flat earth religions.

Fixed.
That would depend on how literally you take their ancient texts.
We are talking within the context of the history of man.  There used to be more religions than there are now. The majority of those are flat earth religions.

Yeah, and most of thos religions believe that the sun and moon are gods. They didn't know anything. But when mankind began to progress with the scientist method, these "beliefs" where discarded, and flat earth theories abandoned. But you can continue believing that earth is flat, without any proof. As I can believe that the Sun is a god and you cannot prove it isn't, can't you?

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE Wiki Critique: Cosmos/The Planets.
« on: August 03, 2010, 02:50:04 AM »
Lmao, answering "pretty small" to "how small is pretty small" shows that Tom does not care about the details; it just looks small so it's small. I guess no object under 30 minutes of arc in the sky could ever be very big. Because, I mean, the size of an object is absolutely related to its angular diameter, not relatively related or anything. Even if it's light years away, it has to look big to be big  ::)

Yeah. Then, according to Bishop, when I look at a plane in the sky, I can conclude that planes reduce their sizes when flying. What evidence I have? Observation: I see the plane small, so it is small.

Ridiculous.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE Wiki Critique: F&M/Foucault Pendulum
« on: August 03, 2010, 02:44:40 AM »
I've been conducting some experiments of my own on pendulums.  I have slowly come to the conclusion that the flat earth actually rotates as it accelerates up at 32 feet per second squared.  Rotating with it are all the celestial objects you in the sky.  This causes a pendulum to appear as if its moving when in fact it sways in one spot while the earth rotates beneath it.

And that number, "32 feet", where does it come from? Can you show us some mathematical calculations, please? And that 32 feet is at the equator? at the Ice Wall? At the tropics?

8
Different models that explain the same? I think that is not true.

Let's see: there's an equation that, given a time t, gives you the coordinates of the moon respect to Earth. There cannot exist more than one model that gives the correct results. Why? Because if you have two equations, from two models (f(t) and g(t)), if the two are correct, they must predict the same result for each value of t (and be the correct result). Then, f(t) = g(t), and the two equations are the same, so the model is the same. If equations are not equal, because the models differ, one equation will be more accurate. That is the correct (or more correct) theory. That happened with Newton's gravity vs. General Relativity. The models are different, and the equations. But GR's predictions are more accurate than Newton's (Mercury), so it is more correct. Bring us a model or an equation that can predict the positions of the sun, moon, earth for any given moment, and then we'll se if it is more accurate.

And about the fear for death... Man, we're in the 21th century! "radical shift brings death". A more radical shift than relativity of time? A more radical shift than Quantum Mechanics? And I don't remember reading anything about Einstein, or Planck or Dirac or Heisenberg being burned alive, or hanged, or executed. Their theories were accepted because their predictions matched the experiments. If your theory is right, then show us a prediction more accurate that those based on the round earth model, and we'll test it.

and please, stop asking for evidence when you have never presented any. Do you want us to prove that aether doesn't move with the Earth? First you'll have to show us evidence that aether exists, don't you? Then I could claim that the spirit of a dragon is rotating with the earth, and if you don't believe it, show me evidence. Absurd.

9
It is possible that the Earth appears curved at higher concentrations of aether due to its effects on electromagnetic radiation.
Do you have any evidence of the existence of said aether in light of the evidence to the contrary by M-M? Do you have any evidence of higher concentrations at these altitudes? Do you have any evidence of the effects on electromagnetic radiation? Or are you just speculating, again?
M-M had a null result and is concerning luminferous aether. 

Aether by definition has a higher concentration in space. 

The effects on electromagnetic radiation can be seen by simply viewing the sun or watching a ship fall below the horizon, if the conditions are correct.
Yes, M-M demonstrated that no aether affects light.
Definitions are not evidence or proof.
You incorrectly assume that the only cause of the observed effects are those you claim. Your evidence does not support your conclusion.
M-M did no such thing.  Back up your claim that it did.

Its self evident by definition. If tis defined as what occupies supposed vacuum space, then clearly it is what it is.

I made no such assumption.  Do you have any reason to claim my evidence doesn't support my conclusion?  It clearly does.


Prove that aether exists. I'll give you a brief lesson in science history: Aether was an "invention", or an assumption made by the scientists to explain the speed of light. Maxwell equations predict the speed of light. But, when you say that something has an speed, you must say your reference system. So, they assumed the aether was something with no movement at all, the absolute reference system, the speed of light is 300000 km/s respect to the aether, but, of course, it must be different respect objects moving through the aether. Michelson and Morley tried to prove it, and they failed. They found that light moves exactly at 'c' in every direction! so its speed is not relative to the aether. So, if we can't see the aether, and it cannot affect us, and the theories work exactly without it, the we discard its existence. Why? because it was an human invention to explain something! If it is not necessary anymore, it is discarded.

So, if you believe in the aether, must have a proof that it exists. If you don't it is like I say that there are an spirit of a dragon around the world, but nobody can see it, feel it, or be aware of its existence! If a theory is not falsifiable, it is not a theory.

The scientist theories that are based upon, or concludes, a round Earth, had contributed enormously to the progress of the human kind. For example, the computers you FE'ers are using, were constructed using that theories, and that scientist method. What have you done to contribute to human progress? Does your model explain more accurately, or explains at all, everything round earth model does? No, it doesn't. Then, your model is useless.

10
Flat Earth General / Re: Why RE will never win here
« on: August 02, 2010, 01:03:34 AM »
As a Flat Earth Believer I can only say that the Truth always has and will prevail.With all due respect to RE's.

Yes, it will. That's why almost everyone believes in the TRUE round Earth. The RE model predicts with incredible accuracy every phenomena we can observe: seasons, tides, moon phases, day duration, travel distances, etc... Your theory can't help you to go from Italy to Brasil; your theory doesn't predict anything. So, according to you, Earth is flat because you say so, you have no proof, no evidence.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Moon does not appear flat
« on: July 26, 2010, 11:36:07 PM »
It's simplier than that. You FE'ers look at the moon every night, take a photo of it, and then, when you have 28, compare it. We do not see exactly the same portion of the moon every day. Moon's and Earth's movements lets us see the 60% of the moon's surface rather than the 50% most people thinks we see. Pseudointellect profile image shows it perfectly. And the only explanation for us to see such changes in the moon appearance, is that the moon is an sphere. If it were a disc, we always must see the same. We do not, so the moon is not a disc. Come on, look at it, people!

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GPS and UTM coordinates
« on: July 23, 2010, 05:02:25 AM »
On May 26, 2010 in the NationStates.net forum. Here is the post: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=52866&start=25. Bad memory, perhaps? This is good, Tom!! You do not support your own beliefs!! Then we must suppose you said that to get out of the problem, then you forgot it... Now you are confronted with you own assumptions. If towers are not in the Ice Wall, as you claimed, you lied. If they're there, due to bendy light, its waves cannot affect us. You support bendy light, so it would mean you are wrong or lying... Either way, you're lying!

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GPS and UTM coordinates
« on: July 23, 2010, 04:35:47 AM »
Speaking about GPS... Bishop claims that GPS towers are in the Ice Wall, transmiting like they were satellites... And now that I como to think about that... how can these transmitions (electromagnetic) reach Europe, for example, if light bends up?

You contradict yourselves, guys.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to Prove that Orbit is Maintained
« on: July 23, 2010, 04:33:21 AM »
You've made a point. FE'ers aren't scientists nor people interested in science or truth. When a person want really to know the truth, is ready to accept that, if evidence indicates the contrary to his/her ideas (ideas, not beliefs!), then this person change its vision of world.

Einstein did that when confronted with Quantum Mechanics. He never liked the Copenhague Interpretation, but he never denied the reality of the theory, because the experiments proved it. the same has happened hundreds of times in science history. We have and idea, and, if the idea doesn't match reality, we change the idea. FE'ers are the opposite: they have and idea (well, a belief), and if the idea doesn't match reality, they deny reality or say that it is incorrect. If Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Planck and the every other scientist were like them, we'd still be in Medieval Age, not writing on a computer over the internet.

The difference between a FE'er and a scientist (or almos every people in the world) is this:
I wake up around 9:00 - 10:00 every day.
I wake up some day. I think it is around ten in the morning, as usually. The clock shows 09:46 (it has no AM nor PM). I stand up and look at the window. Everything is dark and lights are turned on everywhere. I look at the sky and I see only darkness. What do I think?
-If I am me (or almost anyone): It's not 09:46 in the morning, it's 9:46 at night. For some reason, I overslept the entire day.
-IfI am a FE'er: I always wake up before 10:00 AM, so it's morning, not night. Someone or something must have covered the sun, or destroyed it. If I go out and people tell me that indeed it is night, they are lying (perhaps part of the conspiration or something like that).

This is what I've seen in almost every post in the forums.

15
Flat Earth General / Re: Why RE will never win here
« on: July 23, 2010, 12:59:25 AM »
Yes, and when you do, if you are right, then it comes out. The Chuch in the Medieval Age was the teaching institution, it was a powerful brainwasher, and some of the things they teached people was that Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Even as powerful and intimidating Church was, a few people, observing the world, came to the conclusion that Earth was round and not the center of the universe. They wer punished, prosecuted, their books forbidden... but they were right, and people accepted it. If you FE'ers were right, you could provide proof, you would be able to prove that theories based in a round earth are not accurate, and that the predictions of your model are closer with what we can observe and experiment. But you didn't, and that's whay nobody believes you. Because you haven't provide with a single proof more than "look at the window, what do you see?".

People are not so reticent to accept new things: Relativity was a revolution, wasn't it? Time is not absolute! But people accepted it because the predictions of the theory were in accordance what the experiments, while the old Newton mechanic was not when speed was close to the speed of light. And Quantum Mechanics? It was even worse! we cannot measure perfectly the speed and position of particles!! Incredible! But people accepted it, because it was in accordance with experiments, and the theory made predictions that were confirmed later.

If your theory of a flat earth were right, people would accept it. But reality is that no one has seen that Ice Wall, or soldiers guarding it. Reality is that travels from south america to south africa don't take as longer as they should according to your maps. Reality is that, when looking at the sun, its path across the sky doesn't match the predictions your theory make. Reality is that people has gone to the south pole, has been around the world in all directions, and they never reported anything about "Ice walls" or the end of the world. Sorry.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Stars?
« on: July 23, 2010, 12:12:25 AM »
You want me to show you how the stars that chileans see are the same that New Zealanders do? Call them. Or look for a map of the south hemisphere sky at night. There's plenty on internet. If you think they're fake, how is that no one in Chile or New Zealand has said anything about it? If I look at a map of the stars at night, and then, when I look, I don't see them, I would accuse tha map to being wrong. This hasn't happened, so it must be right.

And please, stop asking for evidence of our theories before you post any evidence of yours! We have provided proof, experiments, observations... You have provided NOTHING! So, post evidence, evidence collected by you, not from theories that assumes or concludes RE! You can't, can you?

I'll tell you something about how people abandoned the idea of an flat Earth that is the center of the universe:

There was a model of Cosmos. In the model, Earth was flat, and the sun moon travelled over the world from east to west, and under the world from west to east, as every other planet did. Take into account that nobody thought that the sun travelled in circles over Earth. They saw the sun disappear  under the world, so that's what they believed. Your claim that your FET only asks people to believe what they see is FALSE, because people see the sun going under the world, not going away!

Well, then, one day, Galileo looks at the sky with a telescope and what he sees doesn't match with the models predictions. So, the model must be wrong and it is abandoned.


Your FET has even more defects than the old FET. Your model cannot predict what we see, you cannot prove any of your assumptions and theories. What your model predicts don't match with what we observe, so IT MUST BE WRONG!

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Stars?
« on: July 22, 2010, 06:02:10 AM »
You are impossible. Absolutely impossible. I could tell you: "provide evidence that light bends when travelling distances over 10 km". I have evidence: LASER. It is used, for instance, to measure distance longer than 10 km. The laser is projected in a line against the destination, and, impacting perpendicular to any object, goes back to the source. That way we can measure distances very accurately (the radar works like this, advanced weapons like intelligent bombs work based on this!!). Now, if light bends, it must impact with a diferent angle, and would never reach the source of the laser!! Now, prove you to me that light bends instead of telling me that this is false!

And, even lights bends, the light from a star in the middle pacific must bend much more before reaching Chile than the light from the Polar Star!!!!! So, if chileans can't see the Polar star, then they cannot see the stars over middle pacific as well!! Or perhaps light bends less after 20000 km?

Your arguments don't make sense at all!! You are telling me that chileans cannot see the Polar star due to great distance, and then you tell me that they can see stars over middle pacific, which are more distant!!!

Please, be serious, or call another FE'er that can reply with arguments.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Stars?
« on: July 22, 2010, 05:43:10 AM »
Oh, I don't know!! If you go to Chile, yo cannot see the Polar Star, don't you? But you can see stars that New zealanders do. So, if your Earth model is right, should predict this. I've showed you that it does not, because if your model were right, chileans looking at the sky should see the Polar Star, because they see stars over the middle pacific, and, according to your map, the North Pole is closer to them in straight line.

Also, about "anisotropic light". It is very interesting that you take Optic Science and say, with no criteria "this is right, this is not". You are telling us that optic is right about Birefringence, and then you speak about "Bendy light", something that contradicts the basic premise in optic science, the rectilinear propagation of light. If this is wrong, then ALL optic is wrong! So don't pick random principles or science theories that are all based in, or conclude that, Earth is round.

And you hadn't explained yet the slower movement of stars near the south pole. How is this possible in your model?

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Stars?
« on: July 22, 2010, 05:30:17 AM »
You make no sense at all. According to you, mexicans and chileans don't see the same stars because they are far too apart; but chileans and new zealanders, that are much more distant, do see the same stars? You aren't serious. And when proven wrong, your solution is to invent something new, like anisothropic propagation of light? Please, if you can't do better, your theory is lost. You say that stars are near Earth, over it, at a similar distance than sun or the moon. And you tell me that stars in the middle pacific can be seen at the same time in New Zealand and Mexico because this does not indicate distance towards the stars?

And even is this were true. Any star located over the middle pacific that can be seen from Chile and New Zealand, must be seen from Mexico, cause according to your map, Mexico would be located closed to the vertical over which the star is. So the distance to it must be shorter, making it visible. This doesn't happen, so your model don't describe our world.

Also, I posted another question in the other post.

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Stars?
« on: July 22, 2010, 05:06:38 AM »
┐Sorry? I am not talking about the stars disappearing in he horizon when you travel south. I am saying that people in Chile and New Zealand can see the same stars, at the same time (yes, in Chile they see them over the west horizon, and in New Zealand they see them over the east horizon, but at the same time). So, you are telling me tha in Chile cannot see stars that mexicans see, but can see stars that are seen in New Zealand, which, according to your Flat Earth map, are much more distant! How can this be possible?

Also, according to your wiki explanations, stars move like the sun and moon do. In the north pole, we see the Polar Star fixed. Stars near it move, but only a bit. As we go far from the Polar Star, stars move in wider circles (and faster, as all stars move at the same angular velocity). Then, when in the south hemisphere, stars near south must move faster than stars near north... But this doesn't happen!! As we look towards south, the circles in which stars move decrease, so their movement seems slower. ┐How can this be possible, according to you? And if you try to tell me that not all stars move at the same angular velocity, try again, because Ptolomeo called it "sphere of fixed stars" for a good reason: stars always are fixed respect the others. And even not accepting this, if stars near the south pole were slower than those near the equator, they could not be seen by the entire south hemisphere in one night, like it happens.

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Stars?
« on: July 22, 2010, 04:42:19 AM »
Another question, people:

When we look at the sky at night, we see stars, don't we? As we move to the south, the stars near over the North Pole disappears, and some new appears over the south. When we are in the "south hemisphere", we see stars we don't see in the north one, and also, we don't see other we see in the north. Well, you could explain this by saying that, as you travel, some stars disappears due to fading out (cause distance to them grows) and the others appear due to fading in. OK. Then, with you flat earth map, tell me: How is it possible for people in Australia and South America (which in your map ar at opposite sides) to see the same stars, while in the north pole (which is between them) people see others? Please, answer me with a good explanation (if you can).

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to Prove that the Earth Rotates
« on: July 21, 2010, 11:19:31 PM »
Very good, pseudointellect. But they'll say (if they answer) "this is incorrect", or that they cannot afford to lauch a projectile, or, even better, "bendy trayectories".

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please explain Sunset dynamics
« on: July 21, 2010, 04:28:51 AM »
"explained"? It is not explained at all. You say "it's an optical effect" and nothing more. How that optical effect works? Diagrams? proof? Evidence? I could state that the Earth is round but appears flat due to "optical effects", too, if I don't say anything more, and then all your theory would become nothing. Please, be a bit serious. Even when the Sun, according to you, over a place 10000 miles away from me, if it is 3000 miles in altitude, I should see it at an angle of arctg(3000/10000) = 16║ over the surface! Are you saying that atmosphere distortes de position of the Sun in more than 16║?? Wow. Do you have any proof of this?

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please explain Sunset dynamics
« on: July 21, 2010, 03:44:40 AM »
Very intelligent post. With arguments like that, FET will soon acepted by everyone. Can you answer, or contradict, the questions explained in the post?

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please explain Sunset dynamics
« on: July 21, 2010, 12:34:56 AM »
You are wasting your time, sorry. They will not answer you, because they have no answer. You have staten facts obsevable by anyone. If you had tell simply: "Sunset is imposible with your model", they would have answered: "No, it isn't". But you stated facts, observations and proofs that their "theory" is not correct, so they'll ignore this.

26
Johannes, you're incredible. So Newton's laws are wrong because they didn't predict the exact movement of Mercury around the sun... But, then Mercury orbits the sun? How is this? I thought that the Sun were 3000 miles over Earth... To disprove Newton's theory you are using data provided by telescopes, astronomers and other scientists that believe the sun is larger than Earth and that that Earth is a globe! All your information comes from the sources of REs, is based in our observations and theories. You have no observations, no proofs of anything! Your map, for example... where have you take the data to make it? From the data of OUR SATELLITES, that things that, according to you, don't exist!! Do you want to prove gravity? Go to an observatory, look for yourselt at Jupiter, or Saturn... See their satellites orbiting them. What makes then orbit? If you do not do so, if you never look at the sky with anything more than your eyes, it's your problem. You tell us to prove gravity... well, I have evidence. What evidence do you have on the existence of UA? Tell me, answer me with more than "it isn't", "that's illogic" or things like that. For once, only for once, prove something!

If your theories are so good, predict me something with them. Tell me: when will happen the next solar eclipse in Spain? And please, show me your method, don't search the internet about the information that provides General Relativity or Newton's laws. If your theories don't explain anything, don't predict anything, and ours do, then our theories are better and more correct (not perfect).

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to Prove that Orbit is Maintained
« on: July 20, 2010, 02:31:28 AM »
All of them are, of course, part of the conspiracy. It's obvious they lie. Only Johannes and few other privileged people know and tell the truth.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA vs gravity
« on: July 20, 2010, 12:57:19 AM »
Hi everyone.

First of all, sorry if I make some mistakes writing, I'm spanish and my english isn't perfect.
Second... It was very hard to me to believe that this site isn't a great joke. Flat Earth? Surrounded by an 'Ice Wall'?

Well, on the subject... You FE'rs say that Earth is constantly accelerating upwards, so, to us, the effect is exactly as with gravity. Well, okay. Then appears the question: why don't we crash into the sun and moon? Ah, okay, the moon, the sun and the other planets are being accelerated in the same way by that misterious "force". Then, if I jump, the Earth will catch me again, and it is as I have fallen into Earth, no?

Well, my question: Why don't this misterious force that affects everything, pushing it upwards, push me also, accelerating me so I'll never fall again? Oh, I know... this "force" only affects everything... that is no over Earth, isn't it?

Please, people, seriously you don't know what a science theory is, don't you? A science theory is a construction that:
1-explains something that has been observed, and,
2-can predict something that can be proved right or false.


You don't have a theory that explains things and predicts observations. You say what is convenient to your beliefs according to what is being discussed. Science doesn't work like that, people.

Pages: [1]