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 - dyno

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 18
31
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinite Infiniteness!
« on: July 07, 2009, 11:40:35 PM »
Quote
Except that in the diagram, the South American continent is further away from the sun than the artic circle and will necessesarily be in permanent darkness.

Not permanent darkness, no.

When the sun is in the Northern Hemisphere the days in the south are short and the days in the north are long.

When the sun is in the Southern Hemisphere the days in the north are short and the days in the south are long.
well you have better change the diagram because as it stands it means light travels further depending on the season

32
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: About space travel.
« on: July 07, 2009, 11:23:02 PM »
I think that FE'ers need to get together and agree how the UA works.  That would be significant progress.

We know how it works. The earth accelerates upwards.

It's actually the RE'ers who need to figure out how "gravitons" work.
Can you describe that "mechanical action"?

Known or unknown? Which one is it? You seem confused yourself.
Mechanical action occurs as a result of the earth's upwards movement. We are pinned to the earth because the earth is accelerating upwards and we are not.

Quote
What is the mechanism? How does it work?

The mechanism which pushes the earth is unknown.

Quote
Why wouldn't it be possible for a spacecraft to be "levitated by electric or magnetic interaction"?

A spacecraft is neither a sun or a star.

33
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinite Infiniteness!
« on: July 07, 2009, 11:16:23 PM »
So when the Sun is further away in the southern hemisphere winter daytime than it is in the northern hemisphere summer nighttime, its light can still reach everywhere? Interesting.

When the sun is in its Southern Solstice its light still touches much of the Northern Hemisphere. It's only the Arctic Circle which stays in perpetual darkness for six months out of he year.
Except that in the diagram, the South American continent is further away from the sun than the artic circle and will necessesarily be in permanent darkness.

34
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinite Infiniteness!
« on: July 07, 2009, 10:46:14 PM »
Quote
With the above diagram, the most northerly point in the lower orbit would necessitate constant darkness through the whole winter for all of the northern hemisphere not just the pole because that point is further south than the summer orbit's most southerly point.

No it wouldn't.
So when the Sun is further away in the southern hemisphere winter daytime than it is in the northern hemisphere summer nighttime, its light can still reach everywhere? Interesting.

35
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinite Infiniteness!
« on: July 07, 2009, 10:17:30 PM »
With the above diagram, the most northerly point in the lower orbit would necessitate constant darkness through the whole winter for all of the northern hemisphere not just the pole because that point is further south than the summer orbit's most southerly point.
Back to the drawing(literally) board?

36
Ok...Ice isn't exactly ground but you can circumvent the Conspiracy by perfomring this simple experiment yourself...

Quote
102. Practical Applications, Measuring the Curvature of the Earth - Set the laser on a tripod a short distance above the ice on a large frozen lake. Collimate and aim the beam horizontally over the ice with the aid of an accurate bubble level. Several kilometers away set up a telescope to intercept the laser beam. Because of the curvature of the earth, the height of the telescope above the ice will be greater than that of the laser. By measuring the difference in height between the laser and the telescope, the size of the earth can be calculated. If there is no ice, try it using boats on a day when the water is mirror calm.

From:  101 Laser Experiments

Seems simple enough, and could be done so as to preclude any hanky-panky from "them".  How would an FE'er explain the resultant data confirming a globular earth?

Thanks - Jer.

We already have several water convexity experiments. They demonstrate that the earth is flat. See the literature in my signature link.
Except that they don't.
Sinking ship experiment results herehttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.0

TB, you gotta stop spreading the untruths

37
Flat Earth Q&A / Zetecism
« on: July 07, 2009, 10:04:38 PM »
For this ideology my understanding is that you don't respect anything you can't observe with your own senses. Dogplatter has previously stated that much research into photoelectric suspension has been performed. It all appears to be conjecture without evidence. DP states that string theory, gravitons etc are "crap" made up to explain the unknown. While I agree they are made up to explain the unknown, I don't agree they are crap. What alternatives are there? While we are aware that there are limitations in our understanding and gaps in our knowledge, should we not attempt to fill them to the best of our ability?

Anyway, how do zetectics explain light or heat or properties such as mass and temperature without using information they can't observe. I don't believe anyone here has observed first hand the increased vibration of atoms with the application of heat.

Where do you draw the line?

38
Flat Earth General / Re: Why do you think the Earth is round?
« on: July 07, 2009, 09:54:15 PM »
because when you watch a ship with a tall mast sail into the horizon, the hull disappears first. eventually, just the tip of the mast is showing. How else can this be possible?

You cab read about it in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, a link to which can be found in my signature.
Don't listen to TB on this point. Already refuted here http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.0

39
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FET is creationism, nothing more.
« on: July 07, 2009, 06:15:03 AM »
Yes it does. Can't he access them himself?
I'm fairly confident I'd receive a lot of tl;dr replies if I posted a swathe of content.

40
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FET is creationism, nothing more.
« on: July 07, 2009, 02:12:43 AM »
im listing articles in published scientific journals for peer review.
you can access any of them and have a read about red shift. you wanted evidence, there you go.

it would violate copyright laws to paste the contents here and i need my access intact.

41
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« on: July 07, 2009, 02:10:24 AM »
If the antenna is omnidirectional and composed of a solid metallic surface it obviously cannot tell which angle a photon is hitting it from.

what do you think defines omnidirectional? as i already said, by your logic, a parabolic satellite dish is omnidirectional.
you don't really understand do you?

42
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« on: July 07, 2009, 02:08:52 AM »
Levee: since there is no curve across 80 miles of the lake, please explain this photo of ~ 11 miles from my earlier post.


at elevation we can see the interface of the hull and ocean surface and the water behind the ship.


at 2m above sea level reference, we can't see the hull/water interface.

please explain

43
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FET is creationism, nothing more.
« on: July 06, 2009, 05:18:13 AM »
I haven't invested enough in this thread to care whether you believe it or not.  That "everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale" is a well-established and very basic principle of modern cosmology based on our observation of the red shift of distant stars.

No it is not. Many scientists disagree over many things. Are you so arrogant as to assume that you know the opinion of every scientist on the planet?

Thought not.

You have not brought one signle piece of evidence of the so called "red shift".
   HI imaging the low red-shift cosmic web
New Astronomy Reviews, Volume 48, Issues 11-12, December 2004, Pages 1271-1274
Robert Braun

The MAGIC telescope project for gamma ray astronomy in the 15 to 300 GeV energy range
Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements, Volume 48, Issues 1-3, May 1996, Pages 494-496
E. Lorenz

The low-frequency array (LOFAR): opening a new window on the universe
Planetary and Space Science, Volume 52, Issue 15, December 2004, Pages 1343-1349
N.E. Kassim, T.J.W. Lazio, P.S. Ray, P.C. Crane, B.C. Hicks, K.P. Stewart, A.S. Cohen, W.M. Lane

Gamma-Ray Astronomy
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 397-432
J. Gregory Stacy, W. Thomas Vestrand

Low-temperature detectors in X-ray astronomy
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, Volume 520, Issues 1-3, 11 March 2004, Pages 354-358
F. Scott Porter

Radio Astronomy, Planetary
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 687-712
Samuel Gulkis, Imke de Pater

Millimeter Astronomy
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 853-871
Jeffrey G. Mangum





44
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: One-on-One Debates
« on: July 05, 2009, 06:39:45 AM »
Do you have the ability to only include posts from a certain area towards a post count? I've seen it implemented in other forums.
You can also rely on other members reporting those spamming and mods can decide. It all requires a little more effort than I've seen to date but certainly not insurmountable.

45
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: One-on-One Debates
« on: July 05, 2009, 06:27:15 AM »
Quote
This could confine the spammers to a newbie area while still allowing long standing members to participate if they wish.

No it would confine the debates to those who have successfully spammed enough to gain a high post count.

I think anyone trying to spam, lets say 100 posts, on order to reach the limit would find themselves banned well before they made it into the longer term threads.

46
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: One-on-One Debates
« on: July 05, 2009, 05:36:07 AM »
LW: I like the idea of boundaries for debates. People can always make a thread in discussion otherwise.

Something else. Can you create a section which requires X amount of membership time and Y number of posts under your belt? This could confine the spammers to a newbie area while still allowing long standing members to participate if they wish.

47
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: One-on-One Debates
« on: July 05, 2009, 05:11:13 AM »
Guys, this is a public forum, and we can't dictate who does or doesn't reply to a given thread. The solution is to address the individual you wish to debate with, and respond only to his posts (and vice versa).


Besides, this seems like an attempt to create debates where you argue the man not the point, and such debates are of no real value.
This is a poorly moderated public forum. Examine some well run forums where moderators take their responsibility seriously. Off-topic posts in most forums I frequent are swiftly censored. This tends not to happen often as the posters learn quickly.
This forum is also unique in my experience as being a forum where moderators themselves are among the most frequent thread derailers.

48
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« on: July 05, 2009, 05:06:11 AM »
So you don't believe satellite dishes are directional? They are pieces of metal.

Bellini-Tosi antennas aren't satellite dishes.
I didn't say they were. You said
..what is it that you don't understand about directional antennas? Why are you ignoring information julianmartin posted about gain and signal strength? It seems analogous to sticking your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala i can't hear you".

If the antenna exists as a piece of metal, it's obviously not "directional".

Your only qualification was that it was made of metal. Would you like to clarify your position?

49
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« on: July 05, 2009, 03:15:34 AM »
..what is it that you don't understand about directional antennas? Why are you ignoring information julianmartin posted about gain and signal strength? It seems analogous to sticking your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala i can't hear you".

If the antenna exists as a piece of metal, it's obviously not "directional".
So you don't believe satellite dishes are directional? They are pieces of metal.

50
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« on: July 05, 2009, 03:11:00 AM »
Quote
This is, indeed, a very nice piece of Round Earth evidence which FET is, at present, unable to refute.

Refute what? It hasn't been demonstrated that the photons were coming from one and only one direction and angle, or the path those photons took to hit the metal surface of that omnidirectional antenna.

..what is it that you don't understand about directional antennas? Why are you ignoring information julianmartin posted about gain and signal strength? It seems analogous to sticking your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala i can't hear you".

51
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FET is creationism, nothing more.
« on: July 05, 2009, 03:07:11 AM »
"everything is moving away from earth"
is a little bit of a flat earth view on universal (meaning the universe) expansion. (Big Bang Theory)

The earth is not the centre of anything.
Just because the earth is not the centre, doesn't mean big bang theory (expansion etc) doesn't say everything is "moving" away from it.

Though, again, its silly to use induction to apply the observed facts of our small area to the rest of the universe.  Really, a logical and mathematical flaw.

everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale. local galactic clusters will remain bound but outside these groups, the rest will keep moving. well with current theory anyway. lots of isolated islands

52
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: One-on-One Debates
« on: July 05, 2009, 02:47:51 AM »
i think the real point of derailing threads is to move the focus of the thread away from the FE theory losing ground.

53
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plate Techtonics
« on: July 03, 2009, 06:44:14 PM »
As  Joeval has already mentioned, Hawaii illustrates plate tectonics excellently. The magma plume which has formed the Hawaiian islands has had a prolonged existance, such that the crust moving over it leaves evidence of its movement by the various islands formed and subsea mounts.

What is your opinion on this Dogplatter?

Sorry, but Hawaii has nothing at all to do with plate tectonics.
Why do you say that?
It conforms just as plate tectonics would suggest.
http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ozsvath/Assignments/PlateTectonics.htm

edit: I may be wrong. My understanding was obviously rudimentary. Seems like it's still in the air.
http://www.mantleplumes.org/HawaiiBend.html

54
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plate Techtonics
« on: July 03, 2009, 05:31:35 AM »
As  Joeval has already mentioned, Hawaii illustrates plate tectonics excellently. The magma plume which has formed the Hawaiian islands has had a prolonged existance, such that the crust moving over it leaves evidence of its movement by the various islands formed and subsea mounts.

What is your opinion on this Dogplatter?

55
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« on: July 02, 2009, 04:18:05 AM »
see

this is the same as

from a different angle

56
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« on: July 02, 2009, 04:14:55 AM »
I believe that many of those shots of Toronto seem like compelling evidence for a FE were it not for the lack of resolution. You just can't tell if the shoreline is hidden or not. Are we actually seeing the land behind it?
The main city near me, Perth, is built on a river. The buildings are all elevated by 4-6metres above the water line. It doesn't really look that way though from a distance.

The images I have posted show quite clearly a distinct water line with resolvable objects like huts and houses behind them.

57
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Crescent Venus
« on: July 01, 2009, 06:41:53 AM »
Won't the UA affect Venus in that type of orbit? Changing altitude will expose it to a variable magnitude of acceleration

No, Dark Energy provides a source of constant upward acceleration equivalent to 9.8 m s-2. This is independent of the velocity of the objects it affects.

So every journey "down" it is subject to acceleration from the UA and the Sun in a similar direction, then on the upward journey, subject to acceleration due to the Sun and UA in opposing directions.
There should be velocity differences in the inbound and outbound travel.

58
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Crescent Venus
« on: July 01, 2009, 06:36:12 AM »
Won't the UA affect Venus in that type of orbit? Changing altitude will expose it to a variable magnitude of acceleration

59
Flat Earth Q&A / Paging Dogplatter, please comment
« on: July 01, 2009, 06:31:33 AM »
after reading
Well this kind of experiment has already been repeatedly performed by zetetic scientists over the last 150 years and has been a mainstay of Flat Earth evidence. The fact that you're proposing it shows how ill-read you are on our movement's history and many of our key claims.

As an aside: it is my view that nobody needs to take this absurd "bendly light" notion seriously, it has been invented by devil's advocates and is completely surplus to requirement, it does not any better explain observable evidence than the existing alternatives as far as I can see.

Can you please comment on
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.0

I'd like an opinion from a "true believer"

60
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« on: July 01, 2009, 06:29:39 AM »
Paging Dogplatter.
Can you comment on the results in the OP?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 18