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 - Unimportant

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 41
31
Flat Earth Q&A / Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« on: October 17, 2006, 07:22:27 AM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Ok,there is no heat transfer in space, so how does the heat from the sun manage to reach us?

That would be radiation, and a source of energy. Some of that energy becomes heat once it hits our atmosphere.

Quote
And if water does not turn into ice at absolute 0 in space, then how do you explain comets?

How could ice be immune to heat loss? In a heated environement at that?

Comets are heated? By what? Certainly not friction...

32
Flat Earth Q&A / The arc of a released object
« on: October 17, 2006, 07:18:01 AM »
Quote
This force, inertia, he hadn't had a specific name for. Newton called it ctrifugal force, but it's just inertia.

There you go!

As for the experiment, how exactly would it be observable? Would it be measured as a displacement from "straight down"? And if so, how are you measuring "straight down"?

The logistics of this type of experiment are bothersome.

33
Flat Earth Q&A / A Quick Question About Logic
« on: October 17, 2006, 07:14:50 AM »
Quote from: "holybrain"
Because of the icewall guards.

That's probably not explicit enough an explanation for phaseshifter. He's not too good at filling in the gaps, so I'll try to spell it out a little bit better.

You would get shot because an ice wall guard would depress the trigger of his projectile weapon while pointing it in your direction, causing the firing mechanism to ignite a charge, which propels a small projectile called a "bullet" with sufficient kinetic energy to reach your body and breach the skin, resuling in damage of internal organs and likely the eventual cessation of heart function, which will in turn cut the oxygen flow to the brain and ultimately result in death.

34
Flat Earth Q&A / Burden of Proof
« on: October 17, 2006, 07:07:39 AM »
This thread is over. No one can argue with Beast's post.

35
Flat Earth Q&A / Apologies, and further debunking of the Ice Wall
« on: October 16, 2006, 08:51:32 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
His point was that if there is an absolute 0 temperature area that's close enough to your earth to affect the ice wall on it's edge, then that earth would be frozen to the point where even bacteria could not exist. A planet cannot be surrounded by an area in absolute 0 and support life at the same time. So if FE'S beleive the ice wall is kept frozen due to absolute 0 around the edges of the world, then their theory denies it's own existence.

You're right, but not for the reasons you guessed.

Outer space could be - and is - very near absolute zero. The reason why it would not behave as you explained is that heat transfer requires mass, and the void of space doesn't have any. If you have a vacuum at absolute zero - though I'm not sure how you would measure that, but whatever - and you shot water into it, the water won't freeze, because there is no mass to transfer the heat in the water to.

Of course, like I said, for the same reason you can't say that is what is keeping the ice wall frozen. You can, however, say that one entire side of the ice wall is immune to heat loss, which would help substantially.

But yeah, the void of space being absolute zero wouldn't freeze the earth.

36
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Greater thoughts...
« on: October 16, 2006, 07:27:54 PM »
Quote from: "Mad_Aussie"
Its a disk that shoots upwards at a uniform accelleration, as does everything else around it, and theres no other possible explanation for it.

It almost gets boring saying "the exact same thing is true of RE gravity" over and over. Almost.

There's no possible explanation for why mass attracts other mass to which it has no physical connection, but it does.

As for the "section on a larger sphere" idea, it's been proposed before, along with a lot of other gravity-based flat earth models. I myself proposed something that looked like a flat disc sitting on a very long narrow cylindrical pole (extending out under the north pole) and connected to a significant mass a million miles away (or something). Like I said, there's been bunched of these, and they're all fine, but not FE canon. We like the acceleration model, so that's what we talk about.

37
Flat Earth Q&A / About this "Ice Wall"
« on: October 16, 2006, 07:20:43 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote
new NT full-body variable-density aramid exosuit w/ IR recycling, dynamic optical cammo.


Where can I get one of those?

And how do I apply for ice guard wall position? I'll just pretend to be one of them and take pics to share with everyone.

Well by making that post you just blew any chance you ever had as being selected to guard the wall. Good job.

38
Flat Earth Q&A / My First Topic
« on: October 16, 2006, 07:16:29 PM »
I don't live in England, and so it would be very costly for me to do so.

As far as I know, no one on this forum has conducted any large scale experiments to add to the validity of either side.

39
Flat Earth Q&A / A Quick Question About Logic
« on: October 16, 2006, 07:14:36 PM »
It is possible for anyone to go to the ice wall in the same way it is possible for anyone to rob Fort Knox, or possible for anyone to punch the pope in the stomach.

It's risky, you're likely to get shot, and for most people the reward does not warrant the liklihood of punishment.

40
Flat Earth Q&A / TIDES!
« on: October 16, 2006, 07:11:22 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
It still doesn't make sense. If the "wobbles" are due to earthquakes, why is the tide regulary while earthquakes happen at chaotic frequencies?

The earthquakes don't happen at chaotic frequencies; they happen at very regular frequencies.

Note that the FAQ made a point of saying very minor earthquakes. These happen daily, at such a frequency so as to stimulate the tides, and are undetected otherwise. Much larger earthquakes happen at irregular intervals. These are the ones you hear about, and so are the ones you associate with the term "earthquakes". We aren't talking about the big ones, we are talking about the small ones you don't hear about.

Those are the ones that cause the tides, and those are the ones that happen regularly. The FAQ was actually pretty good about making this distinction.

41
Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity Question
« on: October 16, 2006, 07:06:48 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
This is the paradox of the"moving upwards" thing that I keep wondring about. People beleive in it even though they can throw objects up themselves and see them come back down. But I'm not even sure if they will understand the concept tha tan object that accelerates in the same direction as an other below it at greater speed would never come back down.

Everyone understands that scenario. It is also irrelevent. When you throw the baseball, it ceases to accelerate. Thus, it is not accelerating, and the earth below it - which is accelerating - will catch up with it.

That you fail to understand this damages the credibility of your arguments.

42
Flat Earth Q&A / Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
« on: October 16, 2006, 06:56:11 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Where's YOUR evidence that satellite imagry is done by planes?

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&t=h&om=1&z=18&ll=48.857734,10.204968&spn=0.001835,0.004989

Unless space bugs are attacking our satellites, in which case we've got bigger problems.

43
Flat Earth Q&A / DirecTV (not spam)
« on: October 16, 2006, 04:05:32 PM »
Quote from: "Mad_Aussie"
except for the fact that there isnt thousands of radio transmitters all over the place.

Yes there are...
Quote
Not enough to transmit the amount of data you're talking about.

What do you mean? In the RE model your satellites are - you guessed it - big radio transmitters. Data volume is not an issue here.
Quote
Dishes can be programmed now?

More that the reciever box is programmed to interpret the signal coming from said dish.
Quote
You could determine the strenght of the signal, but there is no way for the receiver box to determine the exact angle and implacement of the dish simply from the signal itself.

The strength of the signal would be directly related to the placement and positioning of the dish. It wouldn't need to be exact.

Quote
As for the dishes being uneeded and there simply so that people will feel better. Take your dish of the roof and try watching satellite TV. For some reason, it will stop working, even though the dish is unecessary, weird huh?

I didn't say the entire dish assembly was unnecessary, only that the parabolic reflector portion is for show. The actual reciever portion of the dish assembly is still used like any other radio antenna on a car or cell phone.

44
Flat Earth Q&A / Water Drainage and the Equator.
« on: October 16, 2006, 03:56:26 PM »
It's a bit disheartening to see someone who claims to have a degree in Electrical Engineering and still doesn't seem to get it.

45
Flat Earth Q&A / Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
« on: October 16, 2006, 03:52:06 PM »
I've noticed phaseshifter doesn't understand much.

46
Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity Question
« on: October 15, 2006, 04:12:41 PM »
Yeah, it's one of those.

47
Flat Earth Q&A / DirecTV (not spam)
« on: October 15, 2006, 04:07:56 PM »
Quote from: "Mad_Aussie"
I can indeed prove that the reciever in my dish has no physical means of transmitting, and only recieving.

Thanks for the useless tidbit. I never said your dish transmits anything.

Quote
Not only that, the dish itself has NO OTHER reading equipment on it,

The angle and positioning of the dish could be determined from the signal and interpreted by your reciever box. The physical waveform of the signal will look different depending on the orientation of the dish. Most of the serious electronics would be located in your reciever box.

Quote
Its totally illogical to think your dish is programmed to know where its pointed, when its pointed.

Nope.

Quote
Also, on a perfectly flat earth you would still have many line of sight problems. Unless you want to deny the existance of mountains, hills, tall buildings, trees, etc. Towers arent all that tall by the way.

Which is why we have more than one tower. Like I said, your "satellite" tv would work anywhere a cell phone works, and it's not like line of sight is any less of any issue on the round earth than it is the flat one.

48
Flat Earth Q&A / Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
« on: October 13, 2006, 01:51:29 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
And how do you know that by the way?

Because the earth is flat, and my GPS says it is round. Therefor, the GPS must be lying.

Quote
Quote
As for misleading the pilots with it, that wouldn't be nearly as difficult as you make it out to be


Then please explain it to me.

Change some distances, make some curved lines appear straight, that sort of thing.

Quote
Quote
On a round earth that's true, the Global Positioning System relies on satellites. On the flat earth it doesn't.


Why? Explain.

You are a silly person. If the earth is flat, a tall radio tower will have a direct LOS to pretty much anywhere on earth. That's why you don't need satellites.

Quote
Quote
24 is an arbitrary number

You could probably do it with 23. I'm pretty sure the absolute minimum would be somewhere around six,
 How do you know?

Because I'm pretty good at thinking spatially. Also, I passed 8th grade geometry, so I know what a sphere looks like.

Quote
Quote
This assertion simply doesn't make sense at all

Please explain how it is flawed.

You say that positioning equipment on the ground is incapable of achieving the same precision of something in the air. This is wrong. Thus, your assertion doesn't make sense.

Quote
Quote
When, pray tell, was the last time the US launched a tactical nuke?

What does that have to do with anything? You think they don't have nukes now? And that they would guide them through radio signals if they launch?
Also note that I said tactical nukes OR missiles (intercontinental balistic missiles if I must be more precise) but it seems you missed it so I'm repeating it here.

Well now you're just flat out lying.
Quote
lso, it means that the united states launched tactical nukes and missiles pretty much blindly

"And" and "Or" are very different words. You said and, meaning both. As a result, what you said was wrong. Again.

49
Flat Earth Q&A / I know you guys must get this all the time but...
« on: October 13, 2006, 12:47:24 PM »
Would you vote for someone who believed the earth was flat?

50
Flat Earth Q&A / Why a Flat Earth?
« on: October 13, 2006, 12:34:55 PM »
What makes you think they are satellite photos? I don't think they are...

51
Flat Earth Q&A / Why a Flat Earth?
« on: October 13, 2006, 12:17:09 PM »
If they say the earth is round, then yeah, they obviously are.

52
Flat Earth Q&A / I know you guys must get this all the time but...
« on: October 13, 2006, 11:39:50 AM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Also, the money they get from taxes is already theirs to spend. Saying that they are putting it in a space program (whether it's true or not) still does not make them any more than they had. You don't need a space program to divert money, education, military and health are all available.

Well duh, the conspiracy leeches from them too. Sure, it's true, they could make up any old excuse to take the money from, but it wouldn't fly with the citizenry to say "Hey guys, we're going to tax an extra 50 billion this year for our conspiracy". They've gotta come up with some reason, and what's more glamorous than "TO THE MOON, BANG ZOOM!"? A fake space program serves a dual purpose; a reason to tax the nation more, and another angle to come at the whole "trick everyone into thinking the earth is round."

Quote
And whose pockets are you saying the money goes in?

Conspirators. This should have been obvious.

53
Flat Earth Q&A / DirecTV (not spam)
« on: October 13, 2006, 11:35:44 AM »
And I know (bold is fun!) that the mechanisms I have described in this thread are plausible, which makes my assertion that my antenna system is logical, true.

54
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
« on: October 13, 2006, 11:31:02 AM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
I'm sure everyone realises that it would be incredibly difficult to have every single GPS in the world tampered with to show false information, while at the same time not causing the pilots to fly randomly towards a mountain, AND having such temperings be undetectable.

You're a bit confused. There is no tampering; the GPS devices are designed and built with the FE system in mind.
As for misleading the pilots with it, that wouldn't be nearly as difficult as you make it out to be.

Quote
How can any flatworlder speak about a GPS? GPS is global positioning  through satellites.

On a round earth that's true, the Global Positioning System relies on satellites. On the flat earth it doesn't.

Quote
GPS requires no less than 24 satellites, and there would be no way for it to work through any other means.

Again, on a round earth you are (sorta) right. 24 is an arbitrary number. You could probably do it with 23. I'm pretty sure the absolute minimum would be somewhere around six, but it doesn't really matter. You're still thinking of GPS on a round earth, which the flat earth is, coincidentally, not.

[quot]Wether the earth is flat or round, that level of real time precision in positionning could not be done by any instruments restricted to remain on the ground.[/quote]
This assertion simply doesn't make sense at all.

Quote
Of course, it also means that Satellite T.V, does not exist either.

No, it just means that the term "satellite TV" is a misnomer. Your "satellite TV" dish on your roof is just a fancy looking radio antenna, recieving your high def channels from a broadcasting tower somewhere on the surface of the earth.

Quote
what's the homloguous term for globe here?

Disc.

Quote
Also, it means that the united states launched tactical nukes and missiles pretty much blindly (as they could not use satellite targeting which does not exist), but luckily for the rest of the world, they managed to hit their intended targets somehow.

When, pray tell, was the last time the US launched a tactical nuke?

Quote
That is all.

Cool!

55
Flat Earth Q&A / I know you guys must get this all the time but...
« on: October 13, 2006, 11:21:35 AM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Space programs cost money, they do not make any.

The money they get every year comes from the gouvernment. Giving money to yourself does not create any net gain.

It does if you don't spend it.

Where does government money come from? Taxes. They want you to think they get X dollars from taxes, and they spend X dollars on the space program, which is no gain. What they really do is get X dollars from taxes, and place X dollars directly into their pocket. Thus, money is made.

56
Flat Earth Q&A / I know you guys must get this all the time but...
« on: October 13, 2006, 11:19:45 AM »
Quote from: "soggycrouton"
The longer you ignore the problem of the conspiracy and try and dismiss people who discuss it, the more of a douchebag you look like.

Actually, you're incorrect. All of the worthwhile members of this forum have grown to realize that the conspiracy discussion is useless, tired, and boring. The only people who want to keep discussing it are the REers who are incapable of coming up with any more creative and interesting criticisms of the FE model.

The conspiracy isn't a flaw in the FE model.

Also, you're making yourself look really juvenile with the insults.

57
Flat Earth Q&A / DirecTV (not spam)
« on: October 13, 2006, 11:12:48 AM »
Quote from: "golphs"
2x a year I have to jump up on the roof and jolt the dish a little bit to get it pointed the right way to pick up the signal.  The logical reason for this would be to say, "tilting of the earth on it's axis".   It's just easier, you know.

What you mean to say is "One logical reasion for this would be tilting of the earth on it's axis."

There are obviously others. For example, the programming of the dish is written in such a way to make you do that. Also perfectly logical.

Quote
DANGIT! I KNOW WHEN IM BEING PATRONISED!

The alien argument is a "logical" one.

Really, though, we just want you guys to stop talking about the conspiracy - especially the motive business - like it matters. It doesn't, at all. There could be billions of possible motives, and even ones that are so out there and unlikely - like my alien motive - are still possible, and still valid.

The conspiracy motive question is so old, so tired, and so useless. Just get over it.

58
Flat Earth Q&A / You guys get a lot of spam
« on: October 13, 2006, 06:27:50 AM »
I just checked, there is a random code prompt. That will only stop some of the bots, though, and not the (semi)human spammers. Email verification would probably go a lot further towards detering them, though.

59
Flat Earth Q&A / DirecTV (not spam)
« on: October 13, 2006, 06:22:41 AM »
Quote from: "Enraged Youth"
"You don't have any proof of this. "

I don't see you bringing up anything to the contrary. In fact, me existing kinda disproves most of your entire theory. Except for the government conspiracy stuff, which I'll address now:

I don't need to. I'm proposing a model by which you could recieve "satellite TV" without the existence of satellites. I'm not trying to prove it is the case in real life, I am trying to prove it is a valid model. If you don't think my model is valid, the disproof is up to you.

Quote
"Duh, that's what they want you to think. "

Pulling that phrase blah blah blah

Tongue in cheek. For most people the "duh" would give it away.

Quote
Ach, anyway, back on topic.

...he says as he proceeds further and further off topic...

Quote
People in the higher-up scheme of things are thinking ahead about decisions they make about the world all the time - it's called conscience.

Which is why my aliens theory works so well. I propose that aliens told the government that, if they tell the world that the earth is flat, they will blow up our planet. No "higher up" would dare risk that, no matter how greedy he is.

So anyways, back to the subject. Someone argue with me about signal processing or something.

60
Flat Earth Q&A / Wtf, u guys are loll
« on: October 13, 2006, 06:16:04 AM »
What exactly are you expecting to hear?

Some FE proponents believe that the sun and the moon experience gravity, which would account for the relativistic effects you mentioned.

If you subscribe to an FE model that is entirely without gravity, then there is - and this is important - some other explanation.

You didn't come up with the theories you're referencing yourself; you're not that smart. Neither is anyone on this forum, and yet you're expecting us to derive a comparable theory based on a different model.

Here's your response:
There is no gravity. If the experiment you referenced implies that light travels in a non-linear path when passing in close proximity to the moon, then I assert there is some explanation for this phenomenon that does not have to do with gravity. There IS an explanation for this phenomenon, we just haven't figured it out yet.

Until you're smart enough to have derived the theories on relativity on your own, you can't expect us to be smart enough to do comparable work.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 41