### 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 - andrews

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
31
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Atmoplane
« on: July 30, 2007, 06:43:44 PM »
Dogplatter, Gulliver and co make some good points about the impossibility of the atmoplane/layer/sphere not flying off into space in this thread.  How do you counter their arguments?

32
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Atmoplane
« on: July 30, 2007, 06:43:08 PM »
It could contain this infinite amount of mass but the infinite amount of mass wouldn't do anything because it would require an infinite amount of energy to move. With energy prices these days, who could afford that?

Something that isn't a someone and doesn't have to pay for anything.  Infinite earth idea is dumb.

Darn! I knew I forgot something! **add's a dash of sarcasm**

33
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: North vs. South
« on: July 30, 2007, 06:38:45 PM »
(7637/126)*360 = 21,820 miles

Simple as that.

Wow Gin, that's a terrible calculation there. You forgot that this isn't a straight line we're talking about, but a curve.  A curve is always longer than a straight line. You'll need to compute arcs of a circle if you wish to correctly find the figure. In your equation you will need to include pi - the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle.

On the notion of curves and straight lines and "going straight", please see my thread:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=15758.0

I would like some FE'ERS to respond...

34
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I read all the FAQ, I Searched the Forums and one question has not been aske
« on: July 30, 2007, 06:36:38 PM »
You must have seen all the debate & discussion about the force of gravity being non-existent! Foolishness...
Yea, the force of gravity doesn't exist at any speed!

I'm saying that the Newtonian theory of gravity is accurate at slow speeds, and that this theory includes the force of gravity, so considering the force of gravity makes sense at slow speeds.

Is there something wrong with this? (Perhaps there is still a contradiction with the whole "force acting at a distance" business, but I don't know.)

For most of my purposes, and those of our geologist friend (in a different thread), using the concept of the force of gravity is fine.

35
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Distance to the Moon
« on: July 30, 2007, 12:59:00 AM »
Narc's Law:

As a flat earth discussion grows longer, the probability of Vietnam being mentioned approaches one.

36
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Atmoplane
« on: July 30, 2007, 12:47:27 AM »
The earth cannot be infinite.
Why not, exactly?

If the Earth had been infinite in size it would have had infinite mass and it would have taken an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it.
If the universe could be infinite in size than it could contain infinite energy and an infinite mass such as the earth.

It could contain this infinite amount of mass but the infinite amount of mass wouldn't do anything because it would require an infinite amount of energy to move. With energy prices these days, who could afford that?

37
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: North vs. South
« on: July 30, 2007, 12:42:49 AM »
Quote

There's nothing incorrect about those calculations. The calculations are absolutely correct. The  remarks in that previous thread stem from an inability of the reader to calculate the circumference of the earth based on a difference of longitude. It's simple math, really. The earth - flat or round - will have a circumference of 360o at every latitude. If we know what the quoted distance is between the Cape of Good Hope and Melbourne we can compute that difference of 126o longitude between the two locations into 360o and come up with a figure for the circumference.

Simple as that.

Please explain what you mean by a circumference of 360o. Degrees is a unit which has no physical length...

38
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I read all the FAQ, I Searched the Forums and one question has not been aske
« on: July 30, 2007, 12:38:35 AM »
Science in my eyes have proven this fact manytimes over.

That is the problem. Science was founded by Satanists to turn people from God. If you need proof the Earth is flat read the Bible!

The Bible is a Book written by man... Science is also created by man... One says one the other say another... Which is more ture?

A book that has had its stories torn apart by laws of science of facts...

Or a Method(science) that is believe to be part of conspiracy by only a handful of people around the world?

Its hard to say...

But try not to use a religious view point on my question as I did not mention a single world about God or the Bible in the questioning... I asked about Viewes and Theories based of FE'er on a RE Theorem so only correct answer will be one Based on theory....

A string wouldn't be good because strings are always under the presence of gravity and would bend down, so even on a flat Earth, it would touch. Hence you can't prove anything. (I think that the curves they match are called catenary's.)

I think a laser beam would work well.

dont get me wrong I unerstand your retore(sp?) on that but in FE theory from my understanding There is no such thing as gravity and there for the string would not be affected by that concept. And Since the Law of Acceleration and Realativity...

Since the Disc would be moving at 1g the string would to so it would not sag in the middle since an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.... And the Froce of an object on an independent object  would cause the independent object to obntain the same accerlation as the orginal object unless acted upon by an outside force...

If the disc were accelerating upwards but the string were not accelerating upwards, then the string would sag in the middle. Why wouldn't it? (They do all the time; look at telephone wires...)

Quote
Dogplatter

I read your respones it seems to be in respons to someone elses post... I did not see any mention of the Earth Surface Curve Theory or the views towards the experiement I suggested :-D
[/quote]

39
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I read all the FAQ, I Searched the Forums and one question has not been aske
« on: July 30, 2007, 12:30:43 AM »
gravity doesn't exist at fast speeds?

You must have seen all the debate & discussion about the force of gravity being non-existent! Foolishness...

40
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I read all the FAQ, I Searched the Forums and one question has not been aske
« on: July 29, 2007, 07:25:31 PM »
A string wouldn't be good because strings are always under the presence of gravity and would bend down, so even on a flat Earth, it would touch. Hence you can't prove anything. (I think that the curves they match are called catenary's.)

I think a laser beam would work well.

Opps, I meant gravitation hahaha...

Gravity exists  (at slow speeds)...

41
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I read all the FAQ, I Searched the Forums and one question has not been aske
« on: July 29, 2007, 07:24:45 PM »
A string wouldn't be good because strings are always under the presence of gravity and would bend down, so even on a flat Earth, it would touch. Hence you can't prove anything. (I think that the curves they match are called catenary's.)

I think a laser beam would work well.

42
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« on: July 28, 2007, 08:09:32 PM »
Narc, the gravitation between the two substances is weak compared to the water's attraction to the cup (water tension, van der waal forces, and centripetal forces.  That is why you cannot observe t ides at such a scale.  For the FE experiment, the cup did not produce two high tides that are well observant on earth.

Except I did observe tides at that scale... but only for FE, which is interesting.
Accelerating a cup of water upwards does not create tides.  If done right the water would not even move left or right.

I did my experiment as prescribed, and there were tides in the FE earth, and not in the RE earth.

Did your hand shake? Or are you a surgeon?

I hope you're never my surgeon...

43
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tides: an RE/FE Experiment.
« on: July 28, 2007, 08:06:29 PM »
First of all, Are you doing it in an environ with no gravity already effecting it? No.

Second, did you calculate the formula positioning them at the same distance? No

third, you neglect the sun's effect on tides.

fourth, is the cup a sphere? no.

fifth, would the distance the water moves be measurable to the mere eye? Of course not. The tides move a few feet. Shrink it down to that size and provide the following criterion, and we're talking a few nanometers AT MOST.

I guess simple experiments will be lost on someone.

I guess simple proportions will be lost on someone.

44
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The RE sun, bombs, and you!
« on: July 28, 2007, 08:01:17 PM »
Well i am a trained geologist. A classic way of measuring the size of a mountain involves a very sensative pendulem that measures the gravitational attraction of the mountain. Mountains are big enough to exert a measurable force on a well made pendulem, not that you'd feel it or see it without magnification but it does happen. I've seen as much evidence for the existance of gravity as i have for air, which i've also never seen.

You're seeing evidence for gravitation, not gravity.  They are two different things.

A) With small speeds, Newton's theory of gravity is CORRECT. Newton's theory of gravity contains a force called GRAVITY or the GRAVITATIONAL FORCE. There is nothing wrong with using the word GRAVITY.1
B) At high speeds, Newton's theory of gravity is WRONG. There IS no force of gravity because it would create contradictions. Then we cannot use the word "gravity" (pertaining to the force of gravity).

If our geologist friend here is measuring how large mountains are (which aren't very big, and aren't moving very fast), he is certainly able to use Newton's theory of gravitation, in which there exists a force called (gasp!) gravity!

1: By correct I mean agrees with experimental evidence to any detectable precision.

45
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Some unanswered questions concerning Flat Earth theory
« on: July 28, 2007, 07:46:54 PM »
There is that, but its mainly that there's only about 3 people here who both regularly post AND believe the Earth is flat.

I've only seen 2 of them...

46
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery
« on: July 28, 2007, 07:43:57 PM »
The Commies had artillery too. We wouldn't have wanted that to spread. Damn pinko Howitzers.

You know, I think that artillery can be very useful in wartime -- if you can shoot it accurately.

47
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Distance to the Moon
« on: July 28, 2007, 12:25:08 PM »
If the moon were that far away, it wouldn't have provided the VC with the necessary light to make so many succesful raids on our forts. They had like 1 tank and won a war. What were we doing?

What's with this Vietnam spam in every post you make? Are you an automaton?

It's like Godwin's law, but with Vietnam.

48
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: July 27, 2007, 04:45:54 PM »
Quote from: Skeptical ATM
If it was ... not powerful enough to cause the destruction ... without being nuclear, I think it was probably a nuclear weapon.
Ah, duh.

However, it was powerful enough to cause the destruction which it did.  It was dropped.  It exploded near the ground causing a rather small blast area, and fires ensued which burned a much larger area.  What do you not understand?

The radiation part. Unless they had nuclear power plants in Hiroshima which blew up in the "small" blast.

49
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery
« on: July 27, 2007, 01:44:47 PM »
Artillery is so 6 pages ago. Get with the now.

I'm pretty sure that half of the last page or two is about artillery, as well as the subject. Artillery rocks man! Now, where do we aim? ...

50
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery
« on: July 27, 2007, 01:41:40 PM »
Containment with regard to the domino theory. So we actually won.

Would the containment have worked better if you used artillery?

It makes me think of the SAM sites financed by the Chinese that we werent allowed to destroy. I hate Vietnam.

Detente evolved DURING vietnam. It was Nixon.

Did Nixon support the use of artillery?

Basically anyone at top level government that placed these silly restrictions on our boys are to blame for the loss of vietnam.

Would this article be talking about artillery and curvature if there was no Vietnam war and there was no Korean war?

51
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery
« on: July 27, 2007, 01:37:52 PM »
Detente evolved DURING vietnam. It was Nixon.

Did Nixon support the use of artillery?

52
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery
« on: July 27, 2007, 01:37:07 PM »
Containment with regard to the domino theory. So we actually won.

Would the containment have worked better if you used artillery?

53
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery
« on: July 27, 2007, 12:30:43 PM »
We won vietnam

Did you use artillery? How did you calculate where to aim?

54
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery
« on: July 27, 2007, 12:27:24 PM »
Why would they need to determine Earth's curvature.  They should be concentrating on wind resistance, air pressure, and humdiity (which does affect air pressure).  These three variables along with others would produce greater margins of error compared to curvature.

Their artillery became consistently more accurate after taking into account of (what they thought was) the Earth's curvature. I am saying that this is evidence that the Earth has non-zero curvature.

Obviously wind resistance and air pressure affects the trajectory as well, but the point is, again, that the artillery became more consistent while only changing the calculations involving curvature. In science this is standard evidence.

That's because they were following topographical 2-D maps instead of curved maps, which would allow them no need for curvature correction.

Okay, so after they stopped using 2-D maps, and started using curved "maps", it became consistently more accurate. This means that the Earth is curved.

55
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: July 26, 2007, 07:10:10 PM »
i didnt say i dont believe, that if you put radioactive material together it doesnt heat up. but as you say it does it in an instant. so what burns in the so called atomic bomb explosion movies forever? with any high explosives you actually see nothing, maybe some sort of flash, but not seconds and seconds of expanding and burning material.

look at this, it is fuel burning, it is the continously burning mushroom cloud. except it already ignited at the bottom:

The bomb itself isn't burning in the mushroom cloud. It is probably something in the atmosphere (it could be oxygen or hydrogen gas igniting). Does someone want to be more precise about this?

56
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: July 26, 2007, 02:53:07 AM »
Quote from: Matrixfart
Per definition elements are composed of only one kind of atom. Ever looked at the table of elements?

There are only four irreducuble elements:  Earth, Water, Air, and Fire (from heaviest to lightest).  The multiplicity you refer to is a result of combinations of these four.  Wood, for example, floats on water in spite of the fact that earth is heavier than water because wood contains a great deal of fire hidden within it.  I do not in anyway way endorse Taoism (a demonic religion) but merely point out that Fu Hsi knew this fact thousands of years ago as recorded in I Ching.  (He lived long before Lao Tze invented Taoism anyway.)

As far as aether goes,

Einstein's re;ativity theory was invented in the first place to explain Michelson and Morley's 1881 experiment which was set to determine the speed of the Earth, and the result was zero reguardless of a non-existent substance which the Earth was falsely said to travel through.

Michelson and Einstein correctly rejected the incorect notions which classical physics held about aether.  The thing which the classical physics of the pagan Greeks and their muslim students called aether and which the muslims' papist scholastic students called quintessence, or an alleged fifth element is a fairy tale which idea modern physics is correct in rejecting.  However, Planck's and Einstein's physics are centuries behind the times.  The Orthodox Christian Fathers of the Church unanimously rejected the concept of a fifth element.  In truth, there exist only four basic elements:  Earth, water, air, and fire.   Where Einstein is wrong is a matter of definition AND understanding.  The Orthodox Fathers of the Church such as Saint Basil in the Hexameron equate aether with fire.  They are one and the same.  Classical physics holds them to be different, but this was not the science of the earlier sages such as Thales of Miletus, for example.

Classical physics partly twists and misunderstands aether.  However, by teaching that aether does not exist, the followers of Michelson and Einstein are alienated from ancient works of science and further prevented from understanding them due to the rigidity of their faith (and misunderstnading)that aether does not exist at all.  Certain of the ancients (especially the ancient and eastern Christians and the most ancient pagans) understood aether as something very simlar to fire.  This obviously has nothing to do with what an allegedly heliocentric Earth travels through and is therefore unnecessary to the subject of heliocentrism.

You're much nuttier than all the other FE'ers. More, even (gasp!) than Narcberry!

57
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: For theEngineer
« on: July 25, 2007, 02:40:01 PM »
I've read A Brief History of Time as well as The Elegant Universe.  I find theoretical physics quite fascinating, so I do quite a bit of further reading on the subject.

But anyway, that's why I said it was not from within the black hole, as the particle is released from outside the event horizon.

I started reading math books before I got to The Elegant Universe. It might come back in a roundabout way someday when I decide to read more physics. Until then, I'm learning algebra

While the particle is released from outside the event horizon, can it still give information about the inside?

58
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: For theEngineer
« on: July 25, 2007, 02:17:06 PM »
Hawking Radiation originates from quantum fluctuations.  These fluctuations 'borrow' energy from the universe and spawn a particle/anti particle pair.  Normally, this pair would quickly annihilate each other, retuning the energy to the universe, thus preserving conservation of energy.  However, when these pairs pop into existence straddling the event horizon, one will be unable to escape, and the other will not be able to annihilate and return its energy.  For conservation of energy to remain, the particle that escapes must become a 'real' particle, thus it has positive energy, and the particle that is trapped in the black hole must have negative energy.  This negative energy thus reduces the total energy of the black hole.  The particle that escapes would appear to have been emitted by the black hole as the black hole lost energy.  Now, this particle carries with it information entangled in its own state as to the state of the other particle that fell into the black hole.  If the 'real' particle was an 'up', then we can assume the anti particle was a 'down' state.

Interesting.

What kind of reading do you do into this stuff? The only thing I read on physics was fluffy pop-science stuff (IE. A Brief History of Time). Although I'm taking a GR course in the winter, which will talk a lot about the geometry of black holes/the universe.

59
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space, and possible proof.
« on: July 25, 2007, 01:53:07 PM »
I'm not sure that the big bang still has "force" behind it, so I don't think that it can cause the universe to accelerate. It could (and is) still expand, but it would be decelerating.

IMO, some of the new theories are just different ways that scientists try to fit the data in, because they don't "feel" very good to me. (IE string theory, dark energy, etc.) I hope that some time from now, they'll come to a nice, pretty theory which explains much more, just like Newton did with his gravity (it explained almost everything in astronomy known to them, and was fairly simple for the time).

And so what do you say to the quote that it is accelerating? There is nothing in space to slow the expansion other than gravitation which doesn't seem to be doing much.

In order to accelerate, a force must be present. The only force present (that physicists are sure of) is gravity, so in theory it should be decelerating. Of course this is using the classical model of the universe, and the data is suggesting that this model cannot be applied to the entire universe.

Physicists are suggesting things like dark matter and dark energy (although they don't know what exactly it could be) which somehow causes the universe to accelerate (in the expansion direction).

60
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Engineer
« on: July 25, 2007, 01:48:03 PM »
Stephen Hawking does....

True, upon reading about it, he does think so. The information is useless though and more so, it's pure speculation.

Yup, and I think this is the best we can do at this stage. But if one of the leading experts suspect that something is possible, it's hard to argue that it is impossible.