### 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.

### Topics - narcberry

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
91
##### Flat Earth Q&A / World: thank a veteran
« on: April 09, 2008, 10:07:33 PM »
A United States of America veteran for preserving your freedoms.

92
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / God vs the Bigbang
« on: April 05, 2008, 09:42:33 PM »
God vs the Bigbang
Assuming it all comes down to God vs the Bigbang, and all other possibilities are nonexistent, God wins. And here's how I arrive at that conclusion.

The Bigbang vs A Bigbang
First and foremost understand that the Bigbang is either a one-time event, or a cyclic event occurring over and over. Take a look at a singular Bigbang scenario. If we call the point in time that it exploded T0, T0 has an immediate future of matter expanding. But what of T0's past? Was the singularity sitting for a literal eternity waiting to explode? No, there was a mechanism that caused this explosion. Hawking proposed that a singularity of sufficient mass would explode. So going off that, previous to T0 the singularity was gathering mass.

If there was a Bigbang, all the matter in the universe was gathering into a singularity and at the point that all the matter in the universe was gathered, it exploded. Well this must be cyclic when considering this timeline. If there were a singular Bigbang, than matter was collecting for an infinite period of time. The problem is with that infinity. After an infinite amount of time and objects accelerating towards each other, a specific infinity was reached in the time line and all objects finally met. This contradicts itself. If matter can collect for an infinite amount of time, it will continue to collect for an infinite amount of time.

If there was a Bigbang, it was not the first. Matter collected, exploded, expanded, and recollected.

Over and over and over and over and over...
This cycle had to happen over and over and over. If there was any Bigbang, there were infinite Bigbangs. This is where it gets fun. Since there were an infinite number of these Bigbangs, and possible scenario that could arise from a Bigbang did arise from one. If it had anything greater than a 0% chance, it MUST'VE happened.

This means if there were any possibility of any scenario stemming from a Bigbang that would prevent the next Bigbang from occurring, it would've happened, this cycle would be broken. And not only broken for all future Bigbangs, but that the Bigbang starting the whole paradoxical mess couldn't have happened. Why? Because the infinite Bigbangs prior would've had a broken link in their cycle as well.

So if there was a Bigbang, it was not the first, rather a cycle and no possible event could have any possibility of occurring if it prevented the next Bigbang from occurring.

One such event
In the void of space, there is nothing; which explodes. At the outer rim a massive star explodes, and the outer rim of that explosion a less massive massive star explodes, ... , at the outer rim of that explosion a single photon is emitted. It never returns and does not collect for the next Bigbang.

This event may seem insignificant, but over an infinite timeline of inifnite Bigbangs and infinite occurances of this exact scenario with every single bit of matter, minus a photon, behaving just as it did this time, adds up to an infinite amount of energy (and matter) loss from the BigBang cycle.

It ends
If the singularity does not explode until it has the exact mass contained in the universe, how can it explode if it is infinitely short of such a finite quantity? The only answer is infinite matter. (This is outside the scope of Hawkings SCIFI, and leads into the idea of infinite Bigbangs happening at any given moment across the universe. But this is a scenario that does not exist in this post.)

Nothing goes on forever
Without intelligent intervention, nothing can go on forever.

From today forward: Our universe continues to expand. The atomic fuel of our universe burns dry. Simple elements no longer exist and neither do the heaviest ones. With time, all matter radiates its heat away and slowly decays to led. Eventually we are left with a universe consisting of a core of energy-less led and a very large outer-rim of expanding energy. Matter and energy never meet again.

There must be intelligent intervention into this process, otherwise this hopeless state would have occurred in the most distant of pasts.

93
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Where's muffs?
« on: April 05, 2008, 07:12:53 PM »
you tell me

94
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Narcs game, a lesson learned
« on: April 05, 2008, 06:55:13 PM »
.

95
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Narc's game (try 1)
« on: April 05, 2008, 06:38:07 PM »
How the game is played:
Make a post entitled, "Narc's game..."

You win if it makes it to page 5 without any replies or being locked.

96
##### Flat Earth Debate / Because google earth says so!!!
« on: April 04, 2008, 08:53:56 PM »
As official spokesman of the flat earth society I hereby declare...

Google earth is retarded. And I don't use the term retarded lightly.
Take a look at the south pole...

Shouldn't the southernmost edge of that map represent 1 type of terrain since it is an exact point, the south pole?

How is the RE south pole water, ice and rocky mountains all at once?

Those sure are some fancy flying satellites you guys got there.

97
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Designer always greater than the creation?
« on: March 29, 2008, 10:56:09 PM »
Honest question...
In regards to the existence of God and Intelligent design I offer a question:

Do we have any evidence of an object being created by something less complex than itself?

Complexity is pretty subjective so this conversation probably wont go anywhere, but still.

Edit:
By greater I generally thought more complex, "can A create a B such that B is both greater than A and create a C that is greater than B?"

98
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Engy is gay
« on: March 29, 2008, 09:34:49 PM »
If not engy, than whoever locked:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17191.0

lame...

99
##### Flat Earth Debate / Snowfall: An Irrefuteable Proof.
« on: March 29, 2008, 09:13:17 PM »
Let us consider the greatest difference between FE and RE.
FE proposes the earth to be flat.
RE proposes the earth to be round.

So if you were to draw a line normal to the earths surface, the distance between two such lines would grow, assuming they are not the same line, the further the lines got from the surface if the earth is round. If the earth is flat, all lines normal to her surface would be parallel.

This is where snowfall comes in. If the earth is round, as snow falls antinormal to earth, the snow should become denser and denser the longer it falls. This means that snow densities should be inversely-proportional to the altitude of the surface of earth. Since the rockies have much more snow than a city at sea level, like L.A., we can logically deduce the earth to be flat.

100
##### The Lounge / Narcberry, may he rest in peace
« on: November 13, 2007, 11:28:34 AM »
I'm leaving before Engy bans me. Bye guys.

101
##### Flat Earth Debate / Surface tension breaks RE model predictions.
« on: November 13, 2007, 08:14:53 AM »
Water has a critical property of surface tension. Without it, most life could not survive. It is a unique property due to the polarity of the water molecule.

Most RE'ers don't even realize the implications of their model. They believe the earth is, for the most part, spherical. It rotates around its poles at high speeds. This motion creates a constant gyroscopic force on each molecule of earth. This means since the earth started to spin billions of years ago, the molecules of earth have been under constant gyroscopic acceleration. For bound molecules found in most of the solids of earth, this has little consequence. But for the free fluid molecules, this has a huge significance.

The RE oceans (yes, I know these have disproved RE before), consist of molecules that are in fluid states (liquid and gas) for thousands of years at a time. This time period allows them to build up enough spin under these constant gyroscopic forces so as to negate any of its polar properties. This is much like an electron giving an atom a polarity, but it changes so quickly that its polarity is effectively nullified.

The consequences of the RE model are huge. It means that only recently melted water will exhibit traits of polarity and also surface tension. Molecules that have not been frozen recently (the majority of water on earth) will have no polarity.

RE'ers have known about this for some time. This one fact not only breaks their entire model, but demonstrates the amount of understanding some scientists must have about their model. This is also evidence of the conspiracy. Any observant scientist must come to this same conclusion. This therefore is conclusive that many scientists are keeping their mouths shut for various reasons. But hopefully, for not much longer!

102
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Why do you fear religion?
« on: November 02, 2007, 10:02:56 AM »
Those who do not believe in religion are burdened by the responsibility to have others accept their nonbelief. That doesn't seem like true confidence in their belief.

How does popularity comfort you? Has history taught you nothing? Popularity should frighten you, not comfort you.

103
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Why are RE'ers so dumb?
« on: November 01, 2007, 03:03:38 PM »
Seriously? WTF

104
##### Flat Earth Debate / That red X means the mods are here. ----------------------->
« on: October 29, 2007, 12:14:02 PM »
So be careful.

105
##### The Lounge / Sticky: To the females of these boards.
« on: October 22, 2007, 03:55:30 PM »
To the females of these boards,

I will only waste my time with you this once. Please do not waste your energy responding to any critical thinking threads. If you feel strongly about anything said here, please let your spouse calm you down and make an official response. He will make your argument much clearer and you will be grateful he spared you the embarassment of responding yourself.

As a warning, these threads contain a lot of science, math and logical debate. Cognitive reasoning is a skill you should probably possess before participating in any of the conversations had here. Feel free to use this time to decorate something, like a cake. Remember your time is precious, don't waste it on things you cannot understand.

Remember, your participation here encourages other women to participate in things that are reserved for the "thinking" gender. You set a bad example. We have officially set aside a set of 'playground' forums where you may feel free to dabble in online society.

The Flat Earth Society.

106
##### Flat Earth Debate / Gyroscopic Oceans.
« on: October 22, 2007, 12:30:53 PM »
Due to tidal forces, the oceans of earth have a net mass rotation around the earths pole. This motion creates gyroscopic forces stabalizing earth. This is important in order to keep the earth in constant alignment within the UA and helps the flat earth stay perpendicular to it's acceleration. It would be unfortunate if the earth were to tilt too far and we were unable to stay founded on our home.

But what of a round earth? How do round-earthers account for an earth that continues to turn despite such forces? Doesn't this break their fragile model?

107
##### Flat Earth Q&A / @Trekky
« on: October 22, 2007, 11:11:31 AM »

108
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Thoughts on Dog
« on: October 15, 2007, 08:02:46 AM »
"There is no dog condemning people, everyone is dogs."

----

"At the same time, dog is, is this sort of placeholder name for those parts of our experience of the world which are somehow transcendent, somehow sublime."

----

"I have no idea what dog is. Yet I have an experience that dog is; there is something very real about this presence known as dog. Although i have no idea how to define dog, to see dog as a person or a thing, I can't seem to do it. It's kind of like asking a human being to explain what dog is, is similar to asking a fish to explain the water in which the fish swims."

----

"Dog is the superposition of all the spirit of all things."

109
##### The Lounge / I'm on hold
« on: September 28, 2007, 08:06:02 AM »
You can only post in here if you are on hold.

110
##### Flat Earth Q&A / As the Official Ruler of these boards
« on: September 27, 2007, 03:46:10 PM »
I hereby maintain a list of posters that need to repent, and mend their awful ways:

(In no particular order)
Dogplatter, I still don't have access to the official fe boards, and I am the official spokesman!!
Daedelus, you are accused of having no opinion other than, "you guys are noobs and midnight is cool." (actual quote)
Sokarul, learn some physics!!!
Gulliver, stop having terminal cancer.

Failure to mend your ways may pend the possible procurement of punishment.

111
##### Flat Earth Q&A / It has finally begun.
« on: September 24, 2007, 02:45:12 PM »
I am currently enjoying the first cup of hot cocoa of the 2007-2008 winter.

Also, the world is flat.

112
##### The Lounge / Family Guy...
« on: September 24, 2007, 01:08:04 PM »
begins to suck with the debut of their Star Wars episode. Thanks for the previous seasons guys.

113
##### Flat Earth Debate / Rifling
« on: September 20, 2007, 09:48:26 PM »
As a round is separated from its jacket in smoke and fire, it passes through the rifling of a weapon. This spin of the round acts as a mini gyroscope. The radial arm of the spin is many orders of magnitude smaller than that of the earths. How does the earths not overpower that of the round and send it off-course?

Because the earth is not spinning.

Another Victory for FE

114
##### Flat Earth Debate / I see circles!!!
« on: September 20, 2007, 07:53:08 AM »
Planets appearing as circles, maybe spheres
Galaxies as circles
Everything up there I see as circles.

To believe in the RE model is to believe there are some optical properties of space we cannot explain, which causes things to appear circular.

From Death Valley, this is what the naked eye observes as our galaxy:

But wait, I thought it was a flat spiral galaxy?

Or perhaps the world is flat and celestial objects are actually as proposed by our model.

115
##### Flat Earth Q&A / DING DING DING
« on: September 19, 2007, 04:00:37 PM »
Time to go home

116
##### Flat Earth Debate / RE floating oceans.
« on: September 18, 2007, 07:59:53 AM »
Let us consider the RE model, and please no giggling.

Their oceans. Consider a molecule of water anywhere in the ocean.

How much does this water molecule weigh?
How much volume does this water molecule displace?

What then is its buoyancy force?

Go ahead, figure it out... okay be lazy and I'll explain it. Every molecule in the ocean is perfectly buoyant. That is to say the buoyancy force is exactly opposite to the gravity force on it. This means the oceans are free from gravity.

Perplexed? Of course you are, you have never seen our oceans floating around our world like giant liquid clouds. They fill their container, starting from the lowest possible point. This can only be if the container is pushed into them. The earth MUST be accelerating into our oceans to prevent them from floating away.

Another victory for FE!!!

117
##### Flat Earth Debate / More RE nonsense
« on: September 17, 2007, 02:43:05 PM »
How much higher can you jump during high tide? I know the NBA plays tricks on us by scheduling games during high tide.

118
##### Flat Earth Debate / Southern Hemisphere is BIG
« on: September 17, 2007, 11:48:37 AM »
It is the common cry of an RE'er. Why doesn't it take so long to sail in the southern hemisphere?

It does. In an experimental journey from Peru to the Tuamotu Islands, sailors Thor Heyerdahl, Erik Hesselberg, Bengt Danielsson, Knut Haugland, Torstein Raaby, and Herman Watzinger showed the 4,300 mile journey to take over 100 days!!!

119
##### Flat Earth Debate / Magical RE north pole
« on: September 17, 2007, 08:53:19 AM »
Introduction

A major difference between RE and FE is the alignment of our magnetic poles. RE has two points, FE has a point and a rim.

So on a round earth, your south pole on a magnet will point to the earths north pole.

This leads to something that is easily overlooked about FE. Because the south pole is a circle on a flat earth, there are many places a compass is attracted to. If you are standing on the earths north pole there is an equal pull from the south pole of the earth in every direction. However, as you move away from the north pole, you get more points on the south pole in the opposite direction. This means that if you add up all the points of the south pole rim and their vectors, you will have a vector that goes through the north pole. These many many south pole points are much more than one north pole point.

So on a flat earth, your north pole on a magnet will point to the earths north pole. (Even though it is really pointing to the net vectors of the south pole rim)

Experiment
Things you will need:
Kitchen sink (it can stay in your kitchen)
Bowl
Rectangular magnet, labeled for north and south

Fill the sink with water.
Place the magnet in the bowl.
Place the bowl in the sink, so that it will float.

Conclusions
If the north pole of the magnet points north, the earth is flat.
If the south pole of the magnet points north, the earth is round.

120
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Waste your time here
« on: September 17, 2007, 08:23:24 AM »
No not here, here.

Worst essays evar.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7