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 - Ulrichomega

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Reasons behind the RE theory
« on: March 07, 2009, 05:50:52 PM »
OK, let's try this.  I have a pair of sticks... no wait.  I might push one a little too deep... wait.

Explain exactly how I'm going to... Never mind.  The sticks can be on any length, as long as the part exterior to the ground is the same.  Great.  So, I have two sticks, we'll say they're exactly 24 inches high.

Now, what formula will prove the round shape of the earth, given that they are 100 yards apart on the football field?


Hmmm... Well, I may not be the best here at Trig, and I really don't know the specifics of the experiment, but I'll give it a try.

I believe that the formula would be tan-1(24/length of the shadow) would give you the angle to the Sun. Then some more simple trig should give you the distance to the Sun.

This is assuming that the length of the shadow has been measured exactly to many decimal places, no variances in the ground (perfectly, perfectly flat), that the sticks have been placed exactly perpendicular to the ground, that the length of the shadow was measured at exactly the same time, etc. In other words, both sides will perform the experiment (or, more likely, not), and both sides will claim victory.

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Venus phases
« on: March 06, 2009, 08:18:48 AM »
That creationists aren't exactly the people one would want arguing in a scientific area.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof that our planet is round.
« on: March 06, 2009, 08:14:33 AM »
You cannot travel in a "perfectly straight line" in either theory - otherwise, it would not be circumnavigation.

Semantics. We both realize that he means that one can travel forward (without turning in either direction) on a RE and eventually come back to one's starting point.

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Yet another question topic
« on: March 05, 2009, 07:26:49 PM »
*sigh*

Even though I firmly believe in RET, post like these appall me.


I will provide "their" answers to you questions. Evaluate them as you will:

Other "planets" are planets, the Earth is not a planet.
Virgin Galactic has recieved funding from NASA, therefore they are automatically evil and part of the conspiracy.
The Sun is not actually getting further away from the Earth, but from your position, which makes it appear smaller. The fact that the Sun actually appears to make a "circle" overhead as it travels from one point on the horizon to another is handwaved away as air distortion. The fact that it doesn't get smaller, and only passes under the horizon is handwaved, also, as distortion. Why you cannot see it when it is far away, again, is air distortion.
Weather is predicted by many stratilites, basically blimps way up there that serve the same purpose.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: here is a question.
« on: March 05, 2009, 07:02:29 PM »
What keeps the clouds up is the air that is being pushed by the Earth.

6
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Future Civilization
« on: March 04, 2009, 07:12:18 PM »
Note: I have not watched the video, my computer is almost dead right now.

I must disagree with the conjecture that the movement from a Type 0 to a Type 1 is the hardest due to nuclear weapons. I believe that we are largely past that point right now (the imminent threat of nuclear annihilation). However, one never knows what to expect, so anything is possible. I was under the impression, however, that a Type 1 civilization was much more than a new world order. A type 1 is a civilization that can harness all of a planet's resources. Every last drop, or the equivalent. This means that simply having a nation spanning the globe would still only have us at a Type 0. I am not quite clear on how much energy a Type 1 produces (I believe that is one of the defining points), but a type 2 would be, for example, a Dyson Sphere. The step between those two, I believe, will be much harder than going from here to harvesting every last drop of Earth energy.

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Venus phases
« on: March 04, 2009, 06:55:22 PM »
It is true that a Venus would appear like that if it was orbiting the Sun in an FE model.

However, what makes it orbit? I am, admittedly, unfamiliar with the more recent concepts of FET, but last time I checked (a couple years back), gravity was non-existent. So what is it that keeps Venus in orbit around the Sun again?

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: here is a question.
« on: March 04, 2009, 05:05:46 PM »
It depends on how steep the curve is as to how the shoreline would appear.  There could also be other factors that could explain why the coastlines aren't near vertical.  And I would certainly say that the oceans are "higher" in the middle than at the edges.  I will admit that convex oceans do pose significant problems.

Fair enough. As long as you admit there are problems with the theory I can somewhat respect that. However, the problems are so glaring that you lose points for defending it.

As for being "higher" in the middle, surely this would be detectable by simply measurement? The Ocean would probably be so high (in the Pacific) that it would be above most of the atmosphere.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: here is a question.
« on: March 04, 2009, 03:27:19 PM »
@ OP: I wouldn't bother expecting a response, either in this thread or any others. Back in my heyday there were many, many similar threads, a couple with actual math, that attempted to say the same thing. All were given the same response (the one that had been called into question).


@ EnigmaZV: So. by that logic, the oceans should be much "higher" in the middle than at the edges. Should this not be testable with simple measurements? It also makes no sense. To appear convex, the Pacific Ocean would have to have near vertical sides at the shore to maintain the same amount of "curvature" over its entire surface.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Venus phases
« on: March 04, 2009, 03:17:10 PM »
Because sometimes the Sun is a spotlight, and other times it is a sphere pushing light in all directions. Sometimes it is both at the same time.



As for a more serious answer: Tom will answer that it is orbiting the Sun, hence why it appears like that.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: possibility...
« on: March 04, 2009, 03:12:07 PM »
Stop being an asshole Proleg.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tectonic Plates
« on: March 03, 2009, 06:13:12 PM »
You're using the wrong projection. The FE map has the north pole at the center, and the south pole at the edge, and is, ironically, round (as in, a circle, not meaning spherical). Therefore, the only difference would be that the plate would be larger.

However, since you seem to be somewhat intelligent, I am going to assume that you knew this, and were talking about something else. Would you mind expounding upon you statement?

13
The Lounge / Re: Anyone?
« on: March 03, 2009, 06:08:54 PM »
Well I love you back in a manly heterosexual kind of way, not that there's anything wrong with the alternative.


Hey Roundy! You're a mod now! Congrats!

14
The Lounge / Re: Anyone?
« on: March 03, 2009, 03:09:21 PM »
Hey all!


So, you have a noob problem? Need me to get the flamethrower?

I'll probably be around a fair amount more, and I tend to focus on the forums where they used to congregate (it makes the cluster bombs more effective when they're all grouped up like that).




Why does Dann (the only Dann, so there's no confusion) love me?

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: possibility...
« on: March 03, 2009, 09:01:29 AM »
I prefer to think that there are some people out there that truly are that out of touch with reality.

Oh, and NTheGreat, your avatar is one of my favorite images in the history of Space (right next to the Ultra Deep Field).

16
The Lounge / Re: Red Dwarf
« on: March 03, 2009, 08:58:38 AM »
How can noone have seen Red Dwarf? It is perhaps one of the greatest examples of "Better than it sounds" in the history of the known universe!

17
The Lounge / Re: Anyone?
« on: March 03, 2009, 08:54:35 AM »
WooHoo!




On another topic entirely, I have far too few posts compared to everyone else now. And Gayer has just gone off the charts.


EDIT: Is Ski a new FE-er, an old one with a new name, or a clever troll/purposely infuriating person?

EDIT2: And Anteater7171, though he seems to be more of a troll.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: DIY: Sun and Moon do not get smaller
« on: March 03, 2009, 08:49:45 AM »
Read your posts before you post!


From that I could say that you said the Sun is blue! Then this entire thread would degenerate into semantics faster than, well, any other thread here!



Anyway... Yeah, same old tripe.

19
The Lounge / Re: Anyone?
« on: March 03, 2009, 08:43:05 AM »
Ah, and so you were not (registered 2008).


You missed a wacky fun party.




Oh, are there any new FE-ers around? That's all I really need to know.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: DIY: Sun and Moon do not get smaller
« on: March 03, 2009, 08:33:19 AM »
I remember in the old days, this test was being "done". No-one responded then either.

In other news, this is my first post here since '07.

21
The Lounge / Re: Anyone?
« on: March 03, 2009, 08:31:53 AM »
Can't say I do.

Come-on. You were there. At the party. We all got drunk and toppled that statue.

Good times.

22
The Lounge / Re: Anyone?
« on: March 03, 2009, 08:31:14 AM »
Everything! Up is down. Right is left. Old-tired-cliches-are-being-used-in-this-very-post-!


On the other hand, I had forgotten how infuriating The Engineer is.

23
The Lounge / Re: Anyone?
« on: March 03, 2009, 08:24:59 AM »
Yeah, the good ol' days.

So what's changed? It's been, gosh, since 2007. I was beginning to miss Tom and decided to mosy on back here for a bit. My other forums were getting boring.

24
The Lounge / Re: Anyone?
« on: March 03, 2009, 08:19:56 AM »
Yay!

25
The Lounge / Anyone?
« on: March 03, 2009, 08:13:50 AM »
Anyone remember me? Anyone at all?

26
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Guarding Icewall
« on: November 01, 2007, 01:02:39 PM »
Virgin porn.

It's Not-Tom's favorite.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Finally!!!!
« on: November 01, 2007, 12:59:37 PM »
They aren't?

But i agree, they need to look through other threads first.

We should have a rule thing where you have to read at least ten threads before you can post.

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: leaked NASA footage
« on: October 25, 2007, 12:55:02 PM »
That was pretty cool.

And no, no cookie for you.

29
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: October 18, 2007, 07:37:19 PM »
Why are we argueing with Tom again?
I'm being called Tom now? ah how the many have missed the point of the Tom reference.


I may make stupid comments but mine have a point if you'd stop simply looking at the sarcasm.

I, uh, was talking about 17.

30
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: October 17, 2007, 01:09:58 PM »
Why are we argueing with Tom again?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23