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 - NTheGreat

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 34
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Comets
« on: September 08, 2011, 06:18:25 AM »
So how does a calculation for two bodies explain a comet going around the sun as it passes by earth? We are already up to 3 bodies again.

Why do we need to include the Earth? Just looking at the Sun and the comet predicts it's motion fine. Why add other apparently irrelevant variables into the mix?

This is also a bit off from my original point. the round Earth model has theories that explain and predict the path of comets, even if it doesn't yet have laws that explain perfectly the motion of 3 or more interacting bodies. the flat Earth model still has no kid of explanation of comets whatsoever.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Comets
« on: September 07, 2011, 02:58:13 PM »
I have a similar question, but it's not so much the when than it is the what. We've got a fairly good theory of what comets are in RE; hunks of ice that come in close enough to the sun to start evaporating. They fit nicely in the RE model without the need to include any extra forces of effects in our theories.

In the FE model however, that's not the case. When the heavens are a disc of objects a few thousand miles above our heads, I can't see how comets can be included without adding in yet another otherwise undetectable FE phenomena.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Zeteticism Proves Earth Rotation
« on: September 06, 2011, 06:23:16 AM »

Then I will fix your list. I thought you were just listing axioms of each theory.

Flat Earth Theory axioms:
1) The Entirety of the Earth exists on a plane
2) There is some mysterious connection between the heavens and Earth (remember gravity doesn't exist)

Round Earth Theory axioms:
1) Gravity exists (a spherical Earth is a result of this)
2) The Earth rotates

You might want to add to the FE list that there is some force causing the heavens to rotate above us.

You will inevitably find that the FE model relies of a far larger number of things than the RE model. I also dislike the word 'axiom'. It kind of gives the wrong impression to me. I think that 'assumption' would be far better, but that may just be me.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Creation of flat earth
« on: August 29, 2011, 03:49:25 PM »
Do you think that we can have more evidences to support this theory?

Hypothesis, not theory. You shouldn't just present an idea and start claiming it's a full blown theory.

And this hardly seems like good science. Picking out a conclusion then searching for evidence that supports it isn't wonderfully sound.

The fact that the land moved has no issue in knowing if dinosaurs were able to build/use boats. As such, considering all the evidences we have today, it's more safe to claim that dinosaurs could use boats than to claim the opposite. Just a matter of evidences.

What evidence? All I've seen so far is a few birds who have built their nest on things in the water. Extrapolating backwards to ocean-worthy vessels seems a bit of a leap.

This iceberg looks like a pretty good natural boat in my opinion. Even if the bears cannot build boats, they obviously use "boats".

I fail to see why bears could, and dinosaurs could not.

But the bear didn't build a boat. I also doubt it's using it to cross the Atlantic. No other creature we know of apart from ourselves builds boats and uses them to cross oceans.

Personally I'm not even sure there was any sea ice around at that time.

If you examine my post carefully you'll see that "perhaps" was not alone.  You were telling us about some American fossils; please continue with your reasoning that this idea therefore discounts dinosaur migration by water.

Are you asking me to provide an absence of evidence that dinosaurs migrated by water?

I'm not sure why I should think that some dinosaurs migrated by water. No other creature we know of apart from ourselves builds boats and uses them to cross oceans. Why I should then believe that a large number of them did? Perhaps they did, but then again, perhaps a lot of other things.

I understand that you have to sometimes say 'what if...' and 'perhaps...' to make conclusions about what happened at times like this. The problem is 'Dinosaurs came from Europa' explains why certain dinosaurs are on multiple continents just as well as 'Only certain species sailed across the ocean'  does.

Perhaps dinosaurs originated in the Americas and some species never mastered the trans-ocean migration technique.

Perhaps they did. Perhaps they didn't. Perhaps all the dinosaurs came from Europa and only landed in certain areas. Perhaps all the oceans turned into delicious puff pastry for a few years, and the dinosaurs walked across. "Perhaps" alone doesn't really get us anywhere.

The ship in those photos looks no more than a kilometer or two away.  If the earth is round and the curvature is that prominent at so short a distance, that would imply an earth that is less than 1,000km in radius.

Judging by the map included in the album, the ship was 9 kilometers away as it was pulling into the port.

You are not a rigorous scientist and theorist.

If a science writer, technical editor and palaeozoologist (affiliated with the University of Portsmouth, UK), who mostly works on Cretaceous dinosaurs and pterosaurs, tells you that there is a possibility that dinosaurs were intelligent, would you accept to consider this possibility just for one second in your life?

A single species of dinosaur might have been more intelligent than other dinosaurs. Considering the fossils of Troodon have only been found in North America, I still seeing no reason to think that dinosaurs made boats and sailed across the world's oceans in them

Either they did build floating nests, like birds, or they went through the north pole, center of the earth, and used natural boats.

There still seems to be an assumption that birds build boats. There's one image of a bird sitting in a nest in the middle of a body of water. To me it just looks like the bird as built it's nest around a partially submerged branch, as there's quite a thick chunk of wood behind the bird and to the right. There's also a video at the start of the thread, but the bird hasn't built a nest that floats. It's built a nest on a man-made board that floats.

As for using icebergs, I thought the climate was considered too warm around that time to form much in the way of sea ice.

A problem I have is there's basically nothing that suggests dinosaurs built boats. All I'm seeing is people picking out instances where something that isn't a dinosaur but has likely evolved from one has built a nest around something in the water and are then saying this shows dinosaurs could have built boats that cross the ocean.

Come to think of it, there's still been no explanation as to why we find fish fossils on land...

I myself don't think it's reasonable to assume anything.  I see this as an interesting alternative theory to plate tectonics and nothing more.

Hypothesis, not theory. I don't think it's quite reached that level yet.

Birds are intelligent, and we also know that many dinosaurs had socializing skills, even the T-Rex cared for his progeniture

Some birds prove to be good at certain task, but this doesn't mean all birds are intelligent. I also don't see why some birds being intelligent means dinosaurs were intelligent. if this means that dinosaurs were intelligent, then were the creatures they evolved from also intelligent? What about whatever those creatures evolved from?

A lot of creatures care for their young. I'm not sure how this suggests high intelligence. Attraction towards one's young just seems like something that would have evolved to help protect a creatures genetic offspring.

Birds can build nests, and use them as boats

A far greater number of birds build nests that can't be used as boats. I also question if birds even use nests as boats. The image of a bird in a nest in the middle of a body of water may just be a bird who has built a nest around a branch or rock sticking out of the water.

Dinosaurs had appendices and powerful mouths to fashion more solid and large nests

A lot of creatures have powerful appendages. This doesn't mean they build boats.

It is reasonable to assume that dinosaurs were able to build boats just like birds do without any appendices

Under your criteria, it's reasonable to assume that most birds and mammals are able to build boats. Yet they don't. Why should dinosaurs be any different?

Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that the reason fossils are spread across continents is because dinosaurs were intelligent enough to make boats, and your evidence that dinosaurs were intelligent enough to make boats is that they are found on separate continents?

is there some other piece of evidence for intelligent dinos I'm missing out on here?

Looking at this image and assuming continental drift didn't happen as expected and dinosaurs had boats. It seems odd that they wouldn't use them to sail a little way down the coast (or indeed just walk down the coast) in order to expand out even through they were prepared to sail thousands and thousands of miles across the ocean to do so.

Flat Earth General / Re: The sun is a ball
« on: August 25, 2011, 09:57:15 AM »
I remember the whole idea of the atmosphere making things appear larger than they really were. I tried looking at a ruler through a block of water, but it didn't appear any larger.

Whether dinosaurs are intelligent is rather irrelevant. Considering that you find bone fragments in dinosaur coprolites, it hardly seems like they were careful eaters. There's no reason to think they carefully picked apart fish when they are quite happy to wolf down everything else, bones and all.

Flat Earth General / Re: The sun is a ball
« on: August 25, 2011, 06:46:28 AM »
The conspiracy has it's own host of problems, but it seems we won't be discussing them in this thread. Regardless, the conspiracy is not lying about the shape of the Sun. People can and have observed the Sun rotating like a sphere.

I suppose the only issue then is why this causes a problem in a FE model. The main one that springs to mind for me is that it would get in the way of an inferior planet when it's transiting the Sun.


I assure you I have eaten and digested many fish while leaving their skeletons intact.  In fact, I am rather amazed that you have not managed to do so yourself.

I'm sure that you can dissect a cooked fish in such a way that you don't damage it's bone structure, but I doubt that a dinosaur would have such dexterity. Considering that you find bone fragments in coprolites, it hardly seems like they were careful eaters.

Personally I doubt that the fish fossils you find on land were eaten millions of years before being dropped off by dinosaurs ago simply because I don't think it's possible to eat and digest a fish while leaving the skeleton intact.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« on: August 22, 2011, 03:21:50 PM »
Why are you all worrying about tides?

The flow there is tidal.

I can find nothing that suggests Rowbotham made sure all the locks were closed. I also wonder whether they could have all been safely closed for long enough to allow the immense length of water to fully level out. If there are records of Rowbotham making sure that the water was still before performing the experiment, it would help if you pointed them out so we can clear this issue with the experiment. Otherwise, we have no reason to think the water in these canals matches the overall shape of the Earth.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« on: August 22, 2011, 01:20:29 PM »
It's more I don't follow how knowing when slack water occurred explains why the canal becomes level. I would expect it to vary along it's length at all times, especially as the Great Ouse produces tidal bores rather than going up and down along it's whole length smoothly with the tide.

There's not much point in looking up the tide tables anyway, as Rowbotham neglected to mention the time he performed any of his experiments. The closest we have is 'about three o'clock in the afternoon of a summer's day', which is hard to match up to any one time. The fact he hasn't mentioned anything about the tides in his experiments makes me think he didn't take them into account when performing them.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« on: August 22, 2011, 04:36:31 AM »
Digging up the old tide tables will tell you the one and the observations made will tell you the other.

I'm not sure I follow.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« on: August 21, 2011, 05:42:51 PM »
What is not to understand about slack water?

How it results in 10km of water matching that of the overall shape of the planet, and whether Rowbotham made his observation during it, I think.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« on: August 21, 2011, 01:37:16 PM »

I don't profess to know the ins and outs of the various constructs of old drainage cuts.  Could it be that they are to hold excess water until it can be released with less damage.  Maybe the Old Bedford Level was not very efficient, hence the need for the New Bedford Level.   :)

Maybe the old tide tables could still be found by a determined researcher.

There probably is a lot of water being held back, being let out, or flowing back up the river in the area. The area where Rowbotham made his observations is probably too far up to be affected heavily by the tides, but I see no reason why we should assume that the water there is level with the general shape of the earth. It's hardly standing water.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« on: August 21, 2011, 06:00:55 AM »
The flow there is tidal.  At slack water, I guess it is near flat.

Eh, is it? I always assumed it was a flowing body of water, hence the various sluices, weirs and locks along it.

Regardless, water flowing in and out of it won't make it much flatter. We also don't know the state of the tide when these level observations were taken, so they aren't much use.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« on: August 20, 2011, 06:55:51 PM »
Personally I 've never understood why the flat earthers seem content to assume the Bedford level follows the surface of the planet. It's a flowing body of water, after all. Why assume it matches the surface of the Earth?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« on: June 17, 2009, 09:44:08 AM »
you should see nothing under 5.56 meters. In the zoom taken at nighttime we can see EVERYTHING, even the light from the small island in front of Toronto; and in the original (without zoom) photo in daytime, we can see every detail with no curvature whatsoever.

Are you saying that that's no lights on the island more than 6 meters above the surface of the water? I can't even tell that the lights are those of the island, but so be it.

Port Credit - Toronto, 14.5 km, 4 meters curvature, absolutely nonexistent, there isn't one centimeter/one inch of curvature over this distance:

I wouldn't say the image is of a sufficient resolution to determine individual centimetres. As I haven't seen what the coast of Toronto looks like right down to the water's edge, I can's say if that's the whole of the coast, although it seems unlikely that it would be made of what looks like tree tops.

3 Tesla also has a good point, one of the earlier questions of the topic has been overlooked.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« on: June 17, 2009, 09:16:13 AM »
Oh, so now the video is rejected because it's "too long" and you don't have the attention span. What a terrible excuse to shut your eyes from confrontation and go on believing your tarnished belief system.

The evidence is there for all to see. Not one area has been contradicted.

It's more the fact I don't have the time. My life's kind of busy right now, so I can't really sit down for several hours wading through the videos. If you want me to refute points, give me points. Don't give me hours of video. The first ten or so minutes of the video I saw could have been summarised as 'We don't think people could have got though the radiation belts'. If the rest of the video's going to be as terse as this, it might as well be summarised as a handful of points. I'm not going to organise your evidence for you.

Look up James Val Allen's work. It's apparent that you don't know even the very basics of your model or the work which founds it. I'm not in the business of providing remedial education. Look up the works which describe the Van Allen belts for yourself and then provide your evidence which demonstrates it to be incorrect. You can learn more at your public library.

Why? Is his work the absolute truth on the matter?

Lethal doses of radiation on the Apollo craft would do a little more than "damage complex electronic equipment".
Radiation passes through solids. Pleas watch the video and go over the sources. Thick lead shielding is necessary to block radiation.

I'm not sure you understand what the radiation in a solar flare and in the belts consists of. It's not the kind you need 3 feet of lead shielding for.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« on: June 17, 2009, 07:56:48 AM »
If we go inland, 2 kilometers, we will ascend to about 170 meters; in order to see the complete details, we must ascend further to 237 meters.

A few quick calculations show that the height of the hill of water at 170 meters a couple of kilometres back from Grimsby is about 3 meters. You should easily be able to see 2-4 storey buildings over that.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 34