61

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Distance to the Moon

« on: July 25, 2007, 01:40:08 PM »

I love math...

The Earth is round.

62

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space, and possible proof.

« on: July 25, 2007, 01:32:21 PM »

The Wiki? Hmm, probably that then.

In all honesty it may simply be that the force of the big bang has still got the power to accelerate more than graivity can pull it back. We don't know yet.

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).

63

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space, and possible proof.

« on: July 25, 2007, 01:27:37 PM »

It's best if you not take this site too seriously.

It's much more fun that way.

64

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space, and possible proof.

« on: July 25, 2007, 01:26:32 PM »

Wikipedia.

Then it can't be true.

j/k

65

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Engineer

« on: July 25, 2007, 01:20:29 PM »

Ah...the circle is complete, the town crier chimes in...
Sorry Divito, I don't agree with your statement regarding TheEngineer's assumption. The reason: the same as when people like you nit pick other's posts on this forum using word games, spell checkers and grammar rules. There doesn't need to be any substance or evidence to an argument/debate on this forum...something I learned quickly after reading several threads...

... unless someone knows a theory by which something can come out from within the event horizon

Stephen Hawking does....

66

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Engineer

« on: July 25, 2007, 06:29:24 AM »

From what I understand from your previous post, you are saying that what I say is not true. (I'm talking about how physicists now believe that black holes may be able to send information from within the event horizon.)

Yes, I am saying this is not true.

July 21, 2004:

It was therefore not unreasonable to suppose that it could carry information out of the black hole.  This explains how a black hole can form, and then give out the information about what is inside it, while remaining topologically trivial.

Stephen Hawkings thinks otherwise. See
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/hawkingdublin.txt
for the full text. Comment?

Please read this. I am stating that Stephen Hawking is stating that information can be given out from inside the event horizon. There is a link to the page where he says this.

67

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Engineer

« on: July 25, 2007, 03:48:55 AM »

It's not you I'm worried about TheEngineer does the cute little thing of putting words in my mouth and then getting me all angry about it and stuff.

(I'm talking about how physicists now believe that black holes may be able to send information from within the event horizon.)
...
I think what he is talking about is Hawking Radiation

So...what words did I put in your mouth?

That I stated that Hawkings Radiation allows us to see inside black holes.

He also disagrees with many experts in their respective fields...

What experts did I disagree with?
Stephen Hawking

68

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which way is up again?

« on: July 24, 2007, 06:33:26 PM »

My up is different from you guys though.

Narc's up is kinda weird. Like, if you're on RE, down in Australia, up is towards the North Pole, so you fall off of the Earth. I swear that's not the same up as mine.

69

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: For theEngineer

« on: July 24, 2007, 06:05:26 PM »

Don't worry about it.  I was just pointing out that you did, in fact, state that you were talking about Hawking Radiation.

It's not you I'm worried about TheEngineer does the cute little thing of putting words in my mouth and then getting me all angry about it and stuff. He also disagrees with many experts in their respective fields...

70

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Engineer

« on: July 24, 2007, 05:57:05 PM »

I am by no means an expert in this area, but a professor of mine, who does happen to be an expert in the area, tells me that it is possible for black holes to send information. I think[.b] what he is talking about is Hawking Radiation, which somebody commented on above in this thread.

Just to clarify for the slower among us (sharkzf6).  Maybe you should read through the posts again...

I think that my professor, who is an expert in the area, was talking about Hawking Radiation. The fact that I am not an expert is irrelevant here: none of you have given any inclination that you are experts in the area, and I have a verycredible source for my proposition. Of course nobody can give any evidence against the possibility (not claim) that I am making...

71

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery

« on: July 24, 2007, 01:55:24 PM »

Actually right, but don't worry, we don't take you seriously so there's no need to get upset.

Who's this directed to?

If it's me, I'm not really upset, and I don't mind the debate at all.

72

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery

« on: July 24, 2007, 01:51:32 PM »

Our goal in Vietnam was "containment." We were supposed to hold back the communist "menace" and prevent them from expanding their borders. After the tet offensive in the late1960s, the Americans effectively gave up--demoralized because they could not find the enemy while the enemy had complete mobility and could attack wherever, whenever. In the mid seventies, South Vietnam had fallen with Saigon. This meant containment had failed. We had failed even, in a less abstract sense, to save innocent villagers and civilians. Vietnam was a total loss, every way you look at it. Political chauvanism and jingoism have turned it into a "victory" (since every "patriotic" American knows we don't lose wars),  but anyone with half a brain knows what it really is.

And you're wrong about the people of Iraq.What they see is an international entity siezing control of their lives. They see a foreign government literally keeping the peace. They want their OWN freedom, not some ethereal one we promise them. To paraphrase Hugo Chavez--what democracy is imposed on another with guns and bombs? Where they had no rallying point before, sectarians on BOTH sides can easily blame the Americans, and thus fight against us AND each other. We're no one's saviors in Iraq. We've caused more death and violence and civil strife . Remember--"Alta sedent civilis vulnera dextrae"--Deep are the wounds that civil strife inflicts (Lucan). We've gutted their society, and in doing so, traumatized their people. Each person we kill makes their entire family our enemies. We cannot defeat the hydra, nor can we even see this enemy. We were doomed the moment we planned a conventional operation and failed to gain the support of the people.

You're wrong.

He must be, because he isn't agreeing with you.

Please start a new thread in the appropriate section! I want FE'ers to comment on my proposition !!!!

73

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: For theEngineer

« on: July 24, 2007, 01:50:35 PM »

Hawking Radiation does not arise from within the event horizon as you stated.

*puts on Divito cap*
Why are you saying he/she stated this?! I don't see any statements made by this individual making this claim.   

Unfortunately it was stated.

sharkzf6Fails = sharkzf6Fails + 1;

I won't believe it until I see it in a quote box.

Seriously, I didn't say it!

74

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Some unanswered questions concerning Flat Earth theory

« on: July 24, 2007, 11:47:01 AM »

I doubt that.

... and that's why it's alive and kicking.

It's actually trying to bite me, because we've cut off its arms and legs with a really cool sword while riding our coconut horse.

75

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery

« on: July 24, 2007, 11:41:20 AM »

I wonder how much of that civilian death was caused by long range artillery?

Not much: the government told the military that the Earth was round, so their calculations are off, and they can't seem to hit anything.

76

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery

« on: July 24, 2007, 09:45:17 AM »

well, with a topic titled "artillery," what do you expect?

The title could have been better ("Artillery on FE"), but I did post it under Debate & Discussion.

77

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery

« on: July 24, 2007, 09:06:24 AM »

I'm glad to see that no FE'ers will try to refute my evidence against FE.

Now let's argue about the war in Iraq...

78

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery

« on: July 24, 2007, 08:00:39 AM »

Doesn't use it? Artillery is still one of the best harassment tools on the battlefield and at sea. True, missiles are far more surgical, but they cost a buttload verses an artillery shell.

And, yes, the curvature causes the error in meters but that can make a big difference in the effectiveness of a shot.

Meters would make a huge difference if you're shooting a submarine which is on the order of tens of meters. And I suspect that from 50 miles, the error would be more than a meter, but I am not sure of this.

79

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: For theEngineer

« on: July 24, 2007, 07:56:41 AM »

Isn't it Stephen Hawking with no 's' at the end? 


It's not a hard name to avoid butchering after all.
[\quote]
You're right. Brainfart.

And you did say it came from the event horizon.  Just read what TheEngineer quoted from you...

I said that physicists (and not engineers ) say that it may be possible to see within the event horizon. I didn't say what (because I don't know) could allow this.

Apart from this confusion and meaningless argument, I would like to know what Engineer thinks of what Stephen Hawking says.

80

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery

« on: July 24, 2007, 06:21:00 AM »

You mean when they blast that stealth boat? That was cool...

Yeah, I thought it was pretty funny when they decided to do it "the old fashioned way". I can't remember how that film ended.

81

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery

« on: July 24, 2007, 06:04:55 AM »

Of course, nowadays arcing artillery isn't used as much in bmbardment, we have all these air strikes and missiles to play with...

The British still use it... (James Bond, I think The World is Not Enough)

82

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: For theEngineer

« on: July 24, 2007, 05:37:15 AM »

Hawking Radiation does not arise from within the event horizon as you stated.

I'm sorry, but your posts are incredibly short and lack way too much information.

I didn't make any statements about the origin of Hawkings Radiation; I don't know anything about it! But Hawkings does, and he seems to think that you are wrong, and he is smarter than you, and knows a whole lot of stuff, and he explained why he thought he was right.

Why are you saying that what Stephen Hawkings says is wrong?

83

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery

« on: July 24, 2007, 05:34:43 AM »

I'm probably wrong, don't worry about disproving me. However, Even at 50 milers, I doubt te curvature would be great enough to put you out by more than a few metres. Now, in todays military, there'd be something qrong if you were out by a metre, so I guess thats the reason for taking curvature into account at 26 miles.

I don't know any exact numbers, so you might be right (or in the ballpark), but I hope you're not!

84

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery

« on: July 24, 2007, 05:34:08 AM »

This is from memory, but I do think it was 26 nautical miles. I'll try to verify that asap. I have to get into my storage shed and get my books.

Come on, go quicker!!!

85

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Engineer

« on: July 23, 2007, 07:23:33 PM »

From what I understand from your previous post, you are saying that what I say is not true. (I'm talking about how physicists now believe that black holes may be able to send information from within the event horizon.)

Yes, I am saying this is not true.

July 21, 2004:

It was therefore not
unreasonable to suppose that it could carry information out of the
black hole.  This explains how a black hole can form, and then give
out the information about what is inside it, while remaining
topologically trivial.

Stephen Hawkings thinks otherwise. See
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/hawkingdublin.txt
for the full text. Comment?

86

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Global Warning Causes Falling Sea Levels

« on: July 23, 2007, 07:14:34 PM »

Fuck, what's with the anti intellectuals on this forum?  The post that Hara Taiki and Raist lacked the attention span to read was less than 500 words.  That's not an essay, and if you can't concentrate for the 90 seconds it takes to read that post, what the fuck are you doing discussing an issue like global warming?

(Adds Jack Nicholson's voice) I'm concerned about a poster, who thinks it's wise to come to the internet, with full explanations. Because on this forum, you don't add merit to your argument, you get a back-whipping for being too wordy.

87

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: For theEngineer

« on: July 23, 2007, 05:24:19 PM »

Hawking Radiations makes it so that small particles are created from the almost-particles (non-scientific word for simplification) inside the black hole, because of some bits and pieces of particles being spawned strattling the event horizon. This is not by any means READABLE, though, as Hawking Radiation really has no way of being proven other than obvious logic. Nevertheless, it's still not possible to directly view a black hole, even if they do exist.

~D-Draw

So it is not possible to observe Hakings Radiation?

88

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery

« on: July 23, 2007, 04:38:00 PM »

26 miles seems reasonable enough as a cutoff. From some locations, you can see 26 miles, and we all know that the Earth looks flat!

Thanks to you guys for adding your input from first-hand (okay second-hand) experience.

89

Flat Earth Q&A / Engineer

« on: July 23, 2007, 04:35:50 PM »

Engineer,
From what I understand from your previous post, you are saying that what I say is not true. (I'm talking about how physicists now believe that black holes may be able to send information from within the event horizon.) Do you believe that black holes cannot give off any information?

I am by no means an expert in this area, but a professor of mine, who does happen to be an expert in the area, tells me that it is possible for black holes to send information. I think what he is talking about is Hawking Radiation, which somebody commented on above in this thread.

What's your opinion? (I feel like the reply that you gave above was vague.)

90

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: For theEngineer

« on: July 23, 2007, 04:31:42 PM »

Let's see.

0 red
0 green
0 blue


(0,0,0) = black!

Although this is a good way to think about it...