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 6 ... 34
91
Flat Earth Debate / Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« on: June 17, 2009, 04:51:09 AM »
Quote
Oh right, you can't refute the evidence because there's "too much of it". What a load. If you were truly interested in defending your beliefs you would address the points in the video and rebut them with evidence of your own.

Right. I'm not going to sit around for hours searching through the video to find this valid evidence. If you want to make a point, don't hide it in hours of nonsense.


Quote
Van Allen says they would. You know him, right? He's another of your "pillars of science".
Quote
See Van Allen's work.
Quote
Please see Van Allen's work for details. Do you own research. If you already knew the basics of your own model you wouldn't be asking these amateur questions and would know where to look.

Where does he make these claims? And what makes his word absolute truth? The fact he discovered them doesn't mean he knows the belts like the back of his hand.


Quote
Please look up the concept of Solar Flares. They are very powerful and very destructive.

I can't see why they would cause such a problem with sufficient shielding between the astronauts and the source. They are only really damaging to the complex electronic equipment we have in modern satellites.


Quote
Yes, I am sure their nylon Velcro beds and food stuffs are all very effective at blocking deadly radiation

Considering the radiation is mainly particles, I imagine they are quite effective.


Quote
You could go on, but you won't because you've realized that you cannot present contradicting evidence. You have no contradicting evidence what-so-ever to present.

Please don't twist my words. If you want me to analyse it, shorten it into something someone would be bothered to analyse.

92
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the Sun hold together?
« on: June 17, 2009, 04:23:27 AM »
I do wonder what regulates the rate at which the Sun generates energy. I'm assuming that the method the Sun uses to generate energy is combining the quarks and anti-quarks, but I can't see what would keep them reacting so slowly for thousands, perhaps millions or even billions of years.

Besides, isn't there a constant stream of particles flowing from the Sun to Earth? Wouldn't that have a rather explosive effect when anti-particles from this stream enter the atmosphere?

93
Flat Earth Debate / Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« on: June 16, 2009, 03:02:57 PM »
Quote
Much of the evidence is far beyond your ability to contradict. I understand. In a whirlwind of NASA's inconsistency and delusion, it's virtually impossible to stand up for them.

The problem is there's too much drivel surrounding the evidence. There's no way I could carefully refute every point the videos bring up, simply because the amount of text would be a whole topic in itself, and by the time I had created it all the topic would have moved on. In essence, the shear size of the videos is defence against counter-evidence.

I'll analyse the first couple of minutes of one of these videos:

  • Starts with solar particle events. Some figures are quoted, 130 rem and 70 rem. Where do these figures come from? They're essentially meaningless. Who says the astronauts are exposed to this, and who says this will be the effect?
  • Talking about an unprotected astronauts passing through space, and the Van Allen belts. Talking about the radiation levels rising and varying, but no actual figures.
  • More talking about belts. Still no figures. Who said NASA did Starfish prime?
  • Apparently there little agreement on the size of the belts, yet only two sources are quoted. They also said the belts vary a while back anyway, so why should the figures match?
  • Talking about flares. No evidence that such things are deadly to astronauts.
  • Saying that the hull of the craft was not thick enough to protect the astronauts, yet they seem to neglect to mention all the other stuff being carried in the capsule which could act as a shield.

I could go on, but it would take too long.


Quote
Stars are not lab experiments. When you play with elements in the lab you are not playing with the stars. You may come to the hypothesis that because helium have a red spectrometry, that the red spectrometry of the stars may also be indicative of helium. But that it a hypothesis. There is no test to come to the truth of the matter.

So what has to be done to determine when you have 'the truth'? Why is a result collected in the lab considered the truth and one collected from the sky not? Is is simply the fact that you can perform more experiments on the one in the lab?

94
Flat Earth Debate / Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« on: June 16, 2009, 01:49:59 PM »
NTheGreat, please.

What Tom has taught us all here is that one needs only to state one's position as though it were accepted fact, and then the magic rules of "Nya-nya-nya-nya-nyaaaaa-nyaaa" apply.

I'm just seeing how far I can go. Just stating my position as fact doesn't feel very substantial for me, I'll rather weave around and see what confusing structure Tom cooks up.


Quote
Please watch the video. it goes into how Astronauts made broadcasts of seeing features on the moon (the sea of tranquility) at times when NASA pinpointed their location as directly behind the moon.

In time. Although most of what I've seen so far is drivel.


Quote
Nothing more can be done than the observation of stars, and nothing more has been done. No experimental evidence has been conducted to come to the truth of the matter.

So what, hypothetically, is needed to allow us to examine the stars with the scientific method, from your point of view? What's the difference between performing spectrometry on a sample inches away from you in a lab and a sample hundreds of light years away? Is there a certain distance when it stops being scientific?


Quote
Watch the video in is entirety. Plenty of evidence is given to support each and every hypothesis. When you have a contradiction to that evidence we can proceed in discourse.

Again, huge videos, all I've seen so far is nonsense.

95
Flat Earth Debate / Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« on: June 16, 2009, 01:29:14 PM »
Statements are only valid when demonstrated. I have demonstrated that there is evidence which contradicts space testimony, and you have not formed a contradiction to that evidence. You have provided no evidence that anything NASA says is true. The need for evidence is, as always, denied.

Evidence does not imply absolute truth. I'm very sceptical about most of the evidence you provide anyway. For example, one thing that caught my eye:
Quote
(such as Apollo 13 astronauts saying that they could see a beautiful lunar landscape when NASA said that they were on the dark side of the moon)
'The dark side of the Moon' is a misnomer. Trying to pass it off as evidence that NASA is lying is daft. We can't argue your points if this is all they consist of.


Quote
- Astronomy does not use the scientific method (which you accused us of neglecting).

What do you feel needs to be done to make observing stars follow your scientific method?


Quote
I've only provided a couple videos here so as not to overwhelm you. When you form a contradiction to the evidence we can proceed. Until then it is declared that you have none.

I got about 5 minutes into one of the videos, and from what I've seen it consists of 'There's dangerous stuff in space, so we can't go through it'. Might as well say you can't walk through a zoo.



96
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the Sun hold together?
« on: June 16, 2009, 05:42:32 AM »
Quote
I really don't see why anything needs to be "held together" by gravity. The Sun isn't made of cake, it's not just going to crumble and fall apart at the slightest provokation, just like buildings, people, trees and everything else which isn't held together by gravity.

The problem is that unlike buildings, people, trees and everything else which isn't held together by gravity, the Sun is both:
  • Of a temperature of several thousands of degrees while being made of some kind of fluid, given it's rapidly changing surface, and
  • Constantly spewing out vast quantities of energy in every direction with forces normally associated with nuclear weapons, even with the FE model's small Sun.

Under these conditions, the things that hold together things such as buildings, people, and trees tend to not hold. Thus we want to know what it is that is holding it together.

97
Flat Earth Debate / Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« on: June 16, 2009, 05:30:41 AM »
See that? Astronomy fails right where the "test with an experiment" part comes in. Newton never did any experiments to prove his hypothesis of gravity as a force. Copernicus never did any experimentation to prove his hypothesis of the earth is revolving around the sun. No experimentation is ever attempted. The need for it is denied entirely.

So why is watching the heavens not an experiment? You can control the time and place you watch from and thus the position of everything when you start, so lack of control is hardly a problem.


Quote
The steps in Astronomy are just Observe -> Interpret, just like any religion or pseudoscience.

Isn't this what the Zetetic method is all about? You observe the local area being flat, and interpret that as meaning the entire planet is the flat.


Quote
You don't see a reason to dismiss a made up hypothesis without evidence what-so-ever to back it up?

Distant galaxies having higher than expected red-shift is not evidence?


Quote
For example, it's believed that water is a molecule made from H20. Two hydrogens and one oxygen. To test this we can use the electrolysis of water to come to the absolute truth of the matter. Electricity separates the elements into sealed of flasks. One element comes out twice as much as the other.

If there is any question such as "maybe it's not really oxygen", the hypothesis can be put to the test (important!) by conducting an experiment like lighting it on fire, mixing it with another element, or airing into a sealed container with an insect. The experimenter can try all sorts of different things to come to the truth of the matter. If there's another question it can always be put to the test to see if the hypothesis has merit. Whatever the question might be, it can be put to the test. Each and every variable can be controlled and modified for whatever the experiment is testing. In the end, after many successive hypothesis' and experimental trials, the experimenter can come to the concrete conclusion that the oxygen in water is the same oxygen known elsewhere.

But you still can't say with absolute certainty that it is oxygen. Simply observing something that behaves like oxygen doesn't mean that it is oxygen. Don't jump onto the assumption that if something behaves similar to one thing, it must be that thing.

98
Flat Earth Debate / Re: About the "believer", not the "theories"...
« on: June 15, 2009, 05:24:05 PM »
Quote
Absolutely not. Observing something and then making up an explanation, observing some more, and then making up some more, can never constitute true science.

So taking observations, forming a hypothesis based off of them, and then testing that hypothesis with more observations is not science? It's all well and good calling things like dark energy made up, but unless you can propose a better hypothesis to take it's place, I see little reason to dismiss it.


Quote
All of that is observation of a stellar event. All we can tell from his observation was that light bends in the presence of the sun. Nowhere is the bending of space-time suggested or demonstrated.

It's an observation. Not an experiment. Why light behaves in the presence of the sun is a complete mystery. There is no way for Eddington to tell why light bends in the presence of the sun. Gravitons, fairies, bending-space, who can say?

You could say something similar for any kind of scientific experiment. You can't tell exactly what is happening, you can only observe it's effects. This doesn't make it stop being science.

99
Quote
Actually, we claim The Conspiracy doesn't have super-advanced technology. RE'ers are the ones who claime they can put robots on Mars and land on the moon.

What exactly is 'super-advanced' about the things NASA and other space agencies do? Sure it's impressive, but there's nothing that that's beyond the realm of feasibility.

Besides, the conspiracy that takes it's place in the FE model requires more impressive technological feats. Projectors to put the image of the ISS in the sky, fleets of pesudolites/stratellites, complex systems to mimic GPS and methods to make the space shuttle fly off to some distant base and back again at breakneck speeds.

100
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why have a space program?
« on: June 13, 2009, 05:47:53 AM »
Quote
I don't think Branson's beard makes him a satanist, as I've already made plainly clear. I believe Branson is a satanist because he is the CEO of Virgin Group

What we are looking for is a reason as to why being a CEO of such a company makes someone a satanist. All we can see are stars in their logos, which to me seems more of a design choice than a hint at some deranged cult.

101
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« on: June 12, 2009, 08:35:38 AM »
A little point I'll like to bring up.

A strong orange yellow light became visible in the north and northeast...

Quote
At 1:45 the whole sky, N. and N.-E., was a delicate salmon pink

Quote
It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime . . . the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow.

There's various lights coming from different directions and of different colours. Are you suggesting that they all are the same source?

102
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« on: June 12, 2009, 08:07:00 AM »
Quote
The curvature between Grimsby and Toronto is 55 meters. In order to see the following details from Grimsby, you would have to ascend to 200 meters there in that city, no such geographical point references exists, at most 45-50 meters...

Suppose you were to just ascend to 120 meters. How high would the hill of water appear to be from there?

103
Quote
It says right there that Newton created his science in an attempt to prove the existence of God.

But nothing about showing the bible should be taken literately.


Quote
The fact that his "laws" fail to predict anything in the universe and have been replaced with convoluted models based on fiction and unknowns says a lot.

His laws predict the Moon will orbit the Earth, and it seems to be doing that. They predict that if you kick a ball, it will go flying off in whatever direction you kicked it, and that seems to happen.

104
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« on: June 09, 2009, 08:05:04 AM »
Quote
To see those details, you need to ascend to 237 meters, inland, or to 200 meters in Grimsby, no such point of reference there.

How high is this hill of water again?

105
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« on: June 09, 2009, 07:19:04 AM »
Quote
<photo of Grimsby>

LOTS OF YELLING

I'm not sure what you're saying. The photo of Grimsby probably was taken from the Escarpment. I can't see anything suggesting that the photo of Toronto was taken from the same place. All the caption says is 'As seen from Beamer Falls Conservation Area', nothing about the Escarpment.


Quote
Here are the photographers on the BEACH ITSELF:

Why is the large cliff behind them highlighted? I can't see anything that suggests that that is the exact place from which they took the photos, and besides, it hardly looks like they are right down by the water's edge there.

106
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« on: June 09, 2009, 06:53:15 AM »
Quote
Taken on the Cap Gris Nez beach, 34 km distance, the full view of the White Cliffs Dover.

I can't see anything that suggests the image was taken from the beach of Cap Gris Nez, especially considering Cap Gris Nez consists of a rocky outcrop over 30 meters high.


Quote
Let us now visit Beamer Falls Conservation Area.

The area's a good 120 meters above the surface of the lake.

107
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« on: June 09, 2009, 06:10:28 AM »
A small observation about the CN tower images. In This image There is only a small section of lake that you can see above the breakwater, no thicker than the breakwater itself. In This image however, the visible lake is many times thicker than the breakwater at the bottom. This suggests the second image was taken at a higher altitude than the first.

108
Quote
It's a good thing it wasn't then. The references are right there in the text.

But he would have cherry-picked only the sources and sections that supported him, and may have made a few additions to portray himself in a better light.

109
Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Star-trails"
« on: June 06, 2009, 02:59:55 PM »
Quote
What makes you think that there would be gaps or voids anywhere? The sky is filled with stars wherever you look. There are likely layers of bodies which fill every square inch of the night sky.

It's probably because circular gears do not tessellate.

110
Quote
There are many more positive reviews of Rowbotham's lectures than there are negative.

See this page: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za67.htm

The overwhelming number of positive reviews on that page puts the matter to rest. All you can give me are complaints of Rowbotham not lecturing past midnight and something about lacking a sinking ship mechanism, which we know is already explained in Earth Not a Globe.

I'm rather unwilling to trust a list of sources that has been created by Parallax himself.


Quote
Whose belief? Yours?

I belive it is mentioned in Flat Earth: the history of an infamous idea

111
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE/RE
« on: June 06, 2009, 01:12:00 PM »
Quote
Modern theory massively disagrees with Rowbotham on a number of crucial issues. You won't find any mention of Universal Acceleration in ENaG, because we ARE sceptical when questioning 150 year old FE literature, just like all other literature.

It's things like this. FEers go around calling it a 'theory', yet it can't predict anything beyond the observations used to create it in the first place.

112
And the following are a few quotes about Parallax's lectures. I'm sure these speak for themselves as well.

"Blackburn Standard reported that Parallax ran away from a subsequent meeting when he could not explain why the hulls of ships disappeared before their masts when sailing out to sea. The audience 'assuaged their disappointment by concluding that the lecturer had slipped off the edge of his ice disc, and he would not be seen again until he popped up on the opposite side.'" -- pg 45-46 of Flat Earth: the history of an infamous idea

"When Parallax had hit a snag in his flimsy defence, rather than admit defeat, which would be the gentlemanly thing to do, he simply snatched up his hat and stalked out of the venue." -- pg 57 of Flat Earth: the history of an infamous idea

"Breeze claimed that he had bailed out of experiments on the convexity of water at the river Yare, and refused to speak at the local hall unless the audience bought tickets for the event." -- Somewhere in the Parallax section of Flat Earth: the history of an infamous idea, I didn't make a note of the page.


There's also some belief that some media reports were edited to portray him in a more positive light.

113
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE/RE
« on: June 05, 2009, 03:17:56 PM »
I don't know, a fair number of FEers take the Earth being flat as an absolute truth, which is pretty religious in my view.

114
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The FE as a model.
« on: June 05, 2009, 12:39:14 PM »
Quote
All experiments in the literature have been replicated many times, peer reviewed and verified, over the last 150 years. Please consult the books.

Unfortunately all these experiments were done by people where are no longer here. Most people here, aside from you, have been unable to replicate this, so the RE model works better for us in that regard.


Quote
Actually since it's impossible for the North Star to appear at that latitude, it does make the FE model better.

why? If both models are unable to make the prediction, why is the FE model suddenly better? And again, and as other posters have said, this observation has never been replicated.


Quote
Gravitons aren't a "force." Upwards acceleration, maybe that's a force or constant. Gravitons are tiny sub atomic particles which tell bodies which direction to move in through space. Ridiculous.

And dark energy might as well be tiny sub atomic particles which tell bodies which direction to accelerate through space. Ridiculous.

The two are essentially equivalent. You can't say one's sensible and the other isn't.


Quote
Actually NASA being a sham does make the FE model better, because NASA's media is the sole and only 'evidence' an RE'er has at his disposal.

What does NASA matter here? NASA's truthfulness has little to do with which model predicts stuff better.


Quote
FE is the simplest model.

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

Are you suggesting that NASA doesn't launch rockets? And again, I don't care for NASA's truthfulness here. I'm looking for the best model to predict stuff.


Quote
When I walk off the edge of a three foot drop off and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton particles emanating from the earth which allows them to accelerate my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?

I could just replace 'gravitons' with 'dark energy' and 'the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me' with 'I've been pulled down to the Earth', and it would be just as effective as your point. The two are essentially equivalent, so there's little reason to try suggesting one is better than the other.


Quote
Oh yeah? When does RE say the next daytime lunar eclipse will occur?

When the next Lunar eclipse occurs, December the 21st of 2010. Assuming you don't count partial and penumbral eclipses, of course.

115
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Global efficiency - how to improve it?
« on: June 05, 2009, 04:26:08 AM »
I wouldn't expect too many more. The RE model works so well for everything we already have, even if all things using the model are supposedly in error.

116
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Cirque du Soleil to join the conspiracy?
« on: June 05, 2009, 04:23:33 AM »
Quote
Stuff about being on some drug induced trip for two weeks.

Perhaps this is what happens, perhaps. Or he could possibly go up into space, that seems just as likely. The only real reason to think he doesn't is if you assume a FE in the first place, which is a rather foolish stance when looking at evidence for or against a FE.

117
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with your model.
« on: June 04, 2009, 05:57:23 PM »
Sure it is. All experience and experiment tells us that the earth exists as a plane and no other shape. Sounds pretty absolute to me.

'experience and experiment' does not make it an absolute truth. Before 1964, experience and experiment suggested that the fundamental particles in an atom were protons, neutrons and electrons. That didn't make it an absolute truth.

118
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with your model.
« on: June 04, 2009, 04:36:17 PM »
Quote
Doesn't matter if I can explain it or not, it is still flat.

This is a point of view I distressingly see far too much in this place. You believe it is flat. The evidence you have suggests it's flat. Not 'It is flat', it's not an absolute truth.

119
Flat Earth General / Re: proof of a conspiracy
« on: June 04, 2009, 06:30:42 AM »
the creation of a false mars surface would allow NASA to take as many pictures or videos of the staged surface as they wanted, using a rover that did not have to withstand space.

I'm not asking you to admit that they did create them, only that you admit that it would be easier than actual photos. I can agree with something while believing in it
[/quote]

I still think it's not going to be easier to make a mock up. There's such a huge amount to mock up, and the difficulty of ensuring all these mocked up pieces come together to form a globe. Besides, it's not just a map in visible light that was collected. There's the Thermal Emission Spectrometer data, which is an even greater amount than the map data.

I'm also not sure what you mean by a need to 'withstand space'. Space is hardly a dangerous place, from the rover's point of view.

120
Flat Earth General / Re: proof of a conspiracy
« on: June 03, 2009, 09:32:11 AM »
Quote
It is easier to fake images of mars than to actually take pictures of it.

I'm wondering if you appreciate the shear volume of data these things return. I had a quick poke around on the NASA site, and I found the data available for the Mars Global Surveyor. There's nearly 100 gigabytes of the stuff. I can't imagine anyone faking that much data and keeping it all consistent.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 34