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 - Ali

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The reason for the seasons
« on: May 11, 2011, 06:46:59 AM »
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.

2
Flat Earth General / Re: The Periodic Table of elements
« on: May 11, 2011, 02:59:16 AM »

Quote from: The fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Green
...before one measures the electron's position there is no sense asking where it is. It does not have a definite position. The probability wave encodes that the electron, when examined suitably, will be found here or there and that truly is all that can be said about its position. Period. The electron has a definite position in the usual intuitive sense only at the moment we 'look' at it - at the moment we measure its position - identifying its location with certainty. But before (or after) we do that all it has are potential positions described by a probability wave that, like any wave, is subject to interference effects. It's not that the electron has a position and that we don't know that position before we do our measurement. Rather the electron simply does not have a definate position before the measurement is taken."
That's psychobabble for "We say there are electrons, you will believe us, but you have no hope of ever being able to find out what it is, how it works or to prove us wrong. "



An electron captured using a quantum microscope in 2008.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity, or the lack of it.
« on: May 11, 2011, 01:28:40 AM »
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?

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« on: May 11, 2011, 01:14:06 AM »
ZOMGFFSWTF!!!111!! James is RIGHT:



I have observed it and experienced it twice, no less, so it's repeatable as well! By FE logic, that's empirical evidence right there!

5
Yeah, good point, why should any of us even think to consider and investigate the world around us with an open and inquisitive mind; after all, there's Minecraft to play!

Investigate the world, by all means. But deliberately decide to be obtuse and fly in the face of incontrovertible evidence because you don't like it, and decide that anything to the contrary of your minority view is a "conspiracy"? Should have stuck with Minecraft.

6
UA.

Please read our FAQ.

You still haven't answered about the lack of event horizon or redshift despite constantly mentioning special relativity whenever your speed assumptions are called into question. It's not in the FAQ.

Please stop spamming every thread you find and attempting to derail them.


Answer the question. It's directly relevant, unless you can't, of course.

7
I do not believe in gravity.

Hold on tight to something!!!

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity, or the lack of it.
« on: May 10, 2011, 12:10:49 PM »
now for EG
gravity doesnt use energy becuase gravity is a static force.  it does not change the total kinetic and potential energy, and hence does no work (in the case of falling apples.

Doesn't this seem like a bit of circular reasoning though? When you are calculating the potential energy for an apple hanging on a tree, you are using gravity as part of this calculation. It seems to be a bit misleading to say that gravity does not change the kinetic and potential energy, when gravity is a part of how you calculate it in the first place.

so we are a fixed point in the universe and it is moving in relation to us? really?..

When did I ever state this?  ???

I said that the universe is accelerating in a direction. You ask what direction. I say, "The up relative to us."


Why are different galaxies and stars moving in varying directions and not all linear? What is the causal force of this linear acceleration and why, given that we were approaching the speed of light after 354 days and have no been doing so for 4.99999999 billion years, is there not a gigantic event horizon following the observable universe and all objects close to it exhibiting redshift?

9
UA.

Please read our FAQ.

You still haven't answered about the lack of event horizon or redshift despite constantly mentioning special relativity whenever your speed assumptions are called into question. It's not in the FAQ.

10
Flat Earth General / Re: Are Round Earthers Internet Trolls?
« on: May 10, 2011, 10:26:19 AM »
Sounds like this entire board. With one or.....er, one exception, none of the FE'ers seem capable for maintaining a sensible debate.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« on: May 10, 2011, 10:11:05 AM »
Warn away John, but at least have the decency to try and answer my questions on UA, time dilation and the apparent lack of redshift and an event horizon, not to mention the absurdity of the moon and sun being able to circle (not orbit) a non gravitational body. Or even how that body doesn't possess gravity when it's 30,000 km across and 9,000km deep and very obviously possesses mass.

These have nothing to do with this thread.

Hence:

Quote
Do it in the threads the questions were asked in by all means

I see you have nothing to offer bar semantics again.

12
Flat Earth General / Re: The Periodic Table of elements
« on: May 10, 2011, 09:37:08 AM »
But such a sun would tear the Earth apart. If you accept the age of the sun as 4.5billion years, and that it contained enough fuel to get to this point, at least, it must be incredibly dense. I've said it on another thread, but if it were that dense and only 32 miles across, it would have the gravitational pull of a neutron star. Put it close to the surface of the Earth and it would rip it apart.

13
Flat Earth General / Re: The Periodic Table of elements
« on: May 10, 2011, 08:23:46 AM »
You, alone, accept the RE size and distance of the sun, yes? How can light hit a flat disc and not illuminate the entire surface? Carry on, this theory is at least interesting.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« on: May 10, 2011, 08:19:56 AM »
Warn away John, but at least have the decency to try and answer my questions on UA, time dilation and the apparent lack of redshift and an event horizon, not to mention the absurdity of the moon and sun being able to circle (not orbit) a non gravitational body. Or even how that body doesn't possess gravity when it's 30,000 km across and 9,000km deep and very obviously possesses mass. Do it in the threads the questions were asked in by all means, before they were derailed by your cohorts who keep trying to wrap arguments up in ridiculous nitpicking. You seem to be the only one here with any genuine knowledge and the only one prepared to at least try and answer them. As for derailing the thread, didn't that happen on page 1?

15
Flat Earth General / Re: The Periodic Table of elements
« on: May 10, 2011, 08:17:00 AM »
Then how is it being focussed without light spill into the dark regions?

16
Flat Earth General / Re: The Periodic Table of elements
« on: May 10, 2011, 08:12:47 AM »
If it's a similar size to RE, ie approximately 1.4 million km in diameter and 149 million km away, it can't behave in the way the FE theory states. It would be impossible for it to focus light the way stated and it would constantly provide light to the entire disc. You can't have it both ways. You also can't use orbits as a reason as the entire globe would spend 12 hours in darkness simultaneously, not to mention that you have to have gravity present in both bodies, which removes UA from the equation, and I'd have thought that had already been debunked with the lack of any redshift and event horizon visible for all the bodies currently undergoing the extreme time dilation that would have to be present to avoid breaching the speed of light rule.
I understand I'm throwing a lot at you, as you clearly only know about the Cambridge model, but as I post more in the upcoming weeks (or if you search my work here) it should paint a clearer picture (somewhat;  I stay intentionally vague at times to avoid compromising my upcoming publications.)

All bodies with mass exert a gravitational pull (duh, right?)  There isn't some imaginary god hand pushing the universe around at 9.81m/s/s

We cannot accurately depict the local bodies in our system motions;  this is due to the effects of the space medium.  We can however, depict their apparent locations;  For mathematical simplicity, there is an assumption that they are stationary, but this is simply a placeholder until we can gather more data.  

As we all know, the space medium affects light;  in my work, its much more pronounced compared to straight relativity.  The space medium affects light based off of two cycles;  the first is a large cycle that occurs roughly once per year (in the strict sense of the word, not based off a calendar per se).  There is also a lesser cycle that roughly cycles about once per day.  These cycles in the space medium (caused by forces interacting with the plane and creating an effect analogous in many ways to eddies)  affect light by altering its apparent path;  this is the cause of the sun setting, the apparent curvature seen at GREAT heights above the earth, the cycling of the heavens in the northern and southern hemisphere and several other phenomenae including ships sinking (as there is empty space even at sea level).  The most important variables one needs to take into account when calculating this apparent displacement is ones rimdistance and altitude as well as the current state the light is travelling in both cycles.


There is math and data to back this up, but like I said, I keep some cards closer to my chest than others.

The gravitational pull of the infinite earth is finite as well.  This can be modeled easily using Gauss's Law or a relativistic equivalent.


THere is a flaw in using light being "bent" or refracted to focal points though, the edge of such a region would experience the sun's light breaking up into the full spectrum and there would be separation of gamma, x-ray, light and radiowaves emitted which would be detectable. You can't purely theorise about visible light, if that were correct, you have to consider the complete EM spectrum and why there is no obvious effect at the periphery.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« on: May 10, 2011, 08:08:37 AM »
Feel free. We've shot gigantic hole sin your theory which no-one will answer so there doesn't seem much point in having a forum with a Q&A or Debate section because no regulars seem capable of either, just a bunch of semantic arguing and "use the search function" posts.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« on: May 10, 2011, 06:42:38 AM »
Would you prefer "Magnetosaurus"?

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity, or the lack of it.
« on: May 10, 2011, 05:15:15 AM »
Search "event horizon" in relation to your much favoured UA/Special Relativity combination. Two results come up. One is irrelevant to my point, the other is mine. The point goes unanswered because nobody here seems capable of answering it, yet it debunks your UA and time dilation theories. Not that I expect your next reply to be anything other than insulting, elitist and full of semantic arguments with no reference to the question. As trolls go, you really are terrible at this.

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity, or the lack of it.
« on: May 10, 2011, 04:07:11 AM »
Another typical tactic from the board regulars. I have asked plenty of questions in numerous threads that go unanswered. They go unanswered because you simply can't.

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Magnetic poles?
« on: May 10, 2011, 03:57:48 AM »
The proven distance of the sun is 149million km to it's 1.4million  diameter. For it to be 32 miles across, it could only be at a height of 330 miles or it would appear 1/10 the size it does.

22
I very much doubt that Jesus' DNA was purely from Mary, or even from Mary and a "generic" male strain, otherwise we are at a loss to explain his powers.  Jesus had mutant DNA which gave him the powers of levitation and alchemical rays, for which he is so famous.

Awesome. Was he a dinosaur?

IMO, Jesus was just a peace loving philosopher, much like Muhammad ibn ĎAbdull?h, Confucius, Lao Tze or Siddh?rtha Gautama. Their deification (often against teachings, especially in the latter three cases) came much later.

23
Flat Earth General / Re: The Periodic Table of elements
« on: May 10, 2011, 03:31:37 AM »
If it's a similar size to RE, ie approximately 1.4 million km in diameter and 149 million km away, it can't behave in the way the FE theory states. It would be impossible for it to focus light the way stated and it would constantly provide light to the entire disc. You can't have it both ways. You also can't use orbits as a reason as the entire globe would spend 12 hours in darkness simultaneously, not to mention that you have to have gravity present in both bodies, which removes UA from the equation, and I'd have thought that had already been debunked with the lack of any redshift and event horizon visible for all the bodies currently undergoing the extreme time dilation that would have to be present to avoid breaching the speed of light rule.

The only way the FE theory can stay together is to completely ignore modern physics. Any acceptance of any of it unravels the entire theory.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« on: May 10, 2011, 03:25:45 AM »
Feel free. You're entirely incapable of answering legitimate questions anyway. I take it you tend to ban people when they come across gigantic holes in your argument? See "magnetospehere", "solar wind", "event horizon" and "redshift" in your search facility.

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Magnetic poles?
« on: May 10, 2011, 03:24:05 AM »
You need two poles for magnetic fields to operate. According to FE, one of those poles is off towards the rim and the magnetic field lines would be completely scewed (not to mention impossible). I could also mention the fact that the magnetic fields are what protect us from solar winds and prevent our atmosphere being wiped out, yet the FE model places the sun INSIDE the atmosphere. Can you imagine the effect a 32 mile diameter perpetual atomic explosion would have on all life on Earth? And let's not go the shrimp argument, because no-one here is 4 years old.
Where have I stated there was only one pole?  Where have I said the sun was inside the atmoplane?  Where does a FE say the poles are "Off towards the rim"?

More semantics? Answer the question as to how the poles could be arranged as you're suggesting. I don't care if an FE says where the poles are, we KNOW where they are. Currently the south pole, and it is a single point, not the entire rim, is off the coast of Antarctica. The FE model puts that point just inside the rim no matter whether you consider Antarctica as a continent or a wall. The north pole is somewhere near the centre of the disc. So, how can that be explained, a completely skewed magnetic field?

And the FAQ states the sun is 9000 feet above the disc. The atmosphere ends at 3.2million feet (1000km). The Magnetosphere has a minimum shield of 70,000km. I think you'll find that the FE theory places the sun well within either. Which means that it should have destroyed the Earth's surface long ago.
Of course its a single point.  Clearly its not a rim.  A rudimentary knowledge of magnets should be the first hint to that...

As I've said countless times, the south pole is at the North Pole, and the north pole is directly below the south pole.  Exactly like a re.  When this shifts, the apparent north pole moves, as does the apparent south pole.

Of course, if you want to get into fractal geographic theorem, its even simpler than that.  In infinite frames, the south pole is below the North Pole;  below the south pole is the north pole;  in infinite parallel frames, the opposite is true;  the South Pole, in these frames at the center of the disk, is above the north pole which is above the south pole.  The collapse of this is identical to the magnetic field seen in the observable world.

I'm not arguing semantics at all.  You simple don't seem to be understanding the theory.  If you could be more useful in helping me pinpoint your confusion, I'd be happy to try to help you understand.  Or if you could voice your objections to the theory more pointedly concerning configurations I've mentioned that would also be of help.

I don't have to because what you've stated isn't possible. Firstly, you can't explain the pole found off the coast of Antarctica, secondly, your model fails to fit with the magnetic field lines we know to connect the north pole with the point off Anatarctica, the true south pole, and lastly, feel free to run your pole distances through these equations:

http://instruct.tri-c.edu/fgram/web/mdipole.htm

And you'll find they fail to correlate with the Earth's measurable magnetic field strength and extension into the magnetosphere. Your theory also fails to explain the severe warping of the magnetosphere due to solar wind from a sun OUTWITH the magnetosphere, not with in it as the distances provided would have us think.

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Magnetic poles?
« on: May 10, 2011, 03:17:49 AM »
That partially clears that up. Except it would look far smaller if it were only 32 miles diameter and 3000 miles away (for the proportions to work, it would only be 300 miles)! As would the moon. They'd be tiny little specs of light.

As for solar wind:

Quote
The solar wind is a stream of charged particles ejected from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 10 and 100 keV. The stream of particles varies in temperature and speed over time.

You can't not have a solar wind if you have a star. And that's before you consideration all the forms of radiation that would decimate life on Earth. Oh, and the gravitational pull of a sun that's only 32 miles across yet has contained enough fuel to prevent it's implosion  over 4.5 billion years. It's only slightly larger than the average neutron star so would have very similar gravitational pull, enough to literally tear the surface of the planet apart and suck it in.

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity, or the lack of it.
« on: May 10, 2011, 03:06:29 AM »
Velocity changes but speed doesn't. Can we rename this board "Flat Earth Semantics Society" as no-one seems capable of actually answering questions in the Q&A section.

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity, or the lack of it.
« on: May 10, 2011, 02:32:03 AM »
I've provided more than enough debunking for today. Your UA theory is nonsense as you there is obviously no event horizon or redshift present behind any of the bodies supposedly experiencing time dilation; you can't explain how special relativity can apply when you have already stated that other celestial bodies in the solar system possess gravity, and special relativity only applies in the absence of gravity; you can't answer the magnetic pole question; you can't explain how a disc can have gravity in the absence of UA and, if it does, why the gravity isn't weaker at the rim; you can't give any reasonable reason why NASA would lie; you can't explain tectonic plate movement bar that it's a conspiracy and, therefore, can't exist; you can't explain why the moon very obviously isn't 32 miles across because simple technology and maths prove it's not; you can't explain why any body, sun or moon, would circle over a disc with no gravity and not just shoot off into space; you can't explain why a star, only 9000 feet above the earth and 32 miles across cant be seen in any photoraph taken above 9000 feet; you can't explain why we're all not dead from solar radiation and our atmosphere shot into space by having a star inside said atmosphere....your theory is so full of holes its massively more vapid than it is substance.



Look, if you want to address the points I make, go ahead.  Otherwise, don't bother responding to me.  It's low-content posting.  Obviously I'm not going to take the bait and answer every little concern you pose here.  It's not worth my time when the search function will answer all of your questions easily. 

I haven't seen you debunk anything.

I'll take that as, "I can't answer any of that so please use the search function because I can't remember what idiotic made up answers we came up with". Thought so. Your ability to debate spelling mistakes, semantics and typos is legendary, your ability to comprehend the science you claim to understand is appalling.

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Magnetic poles?
« on: May 10, 2011, 02:29:24 AM »
You need two poles for magnetic fields to operate. According to FE, one of those poles is off towards the rim and the magnetic field lines would be completely scewed (not to mention impossible). I could also mention the fact that the magnetic fields are what protect us from solar winds and prevent our atmosphere being wiped out, yet the FE model places the sun INSIDE the atmosphere. Can you imagine the effect a 32 mile diameter perpetual atomic explosion would have on all life on Earth? And let's not go the shrimp argument, because no-one here is 4 years old.
Where have I stated there was only one pole?  Where have I said the sun was inside the atmoplane?  Where does a FE say the poles are "Off towards the rim"?

More semantics? Answer the question as to how the poles could be arranged as you're suggesting. I don't care if an FE says where the poles are, we KNOW where they are. Currently the south pole, and it is a single point, not the entire rim, is off the coast of Antarctica. The FE model puts that point just inside the rim no matter whether you consider Antarctica as a continent or a wall. The north pole is somewhere near the centre of the disc. So, how can that be explained, a completely skewed magnetic field?

And the FAQ states the sun is 9000 feet above the disc. The atmosphere ends at 3.2million feet (1000km). The Magnetosphere has a minimum shield of 70,000km. I think you'll find that the FE theory places the sun well within either. Which means that it should have destroyed the Earth's surface long ago.

30
Flat Earth General / Re: The Periodic Table of elements
« on: May 10, 2011, 02:00:37 AM »
It's bold because it's stated as fact and it's thoughtless because you neglected to consider the first hydrogen atoms or elements created in labs.

Stars in the flat earth model work the same as they do in the round earth model.

I hope this satiates your sordid curiosity.

So, the sun is the same in both models, bar the 9,999,968 mile diameter discrepancy?

And the sun formed around 4.5 billion years and has been constantly fuelled since that point with a likely additional lifetime of 5 billion years beyond this point (if it's not destroyed when our galaxy collides with Andromeda in 3 billion years). To be compatible with your model, the sun must be incredibly dense to contain enough fuel even for the 4.5 billion years it has survived, without burning out and collapsing, for. Yet this incredibly dense nuclear reaction, as dense as most post supernova neutron stars, hovers by an invisible force over the Earth's surface at a height of only 9,000 feet and doesn't, somehow, rip the planet to shreds in seconds? To put this into perspective, to be that dense, and that small, it's gravity would be likely to approach 2 x 10^12 m/s/s with an escape velocity of 100,000 km/s...1/3 the speed of light and far, far above your UA that's pulling us all to Earth? So why does the Earth still exist. In your model, the Erath would have been destroyed by the Sun's gravity in mere milliseconds.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8