1

Flat Earth General / Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"

« on: March 10, 2011, 03:33:55 PM »

OMG Tom Bishop's still here! How cute!

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Hello and thank you for the laughs!

« on: September 11, 2008, 10:15:56 AM »

How do you know Dogplatter isn't just a passionate FE'er?

I might believe he was if he hadn't posted even half of the shit he has...

- penguins being genetically engineered by the Conspiracy to feed the ice wall guards
- dinosaurs with boats
- the Conspiracy training birds to come and attack him
- NASA and the space agencies are all part of a satanic cult because they all have stars in their logos (read his "scrapbook" again)

Also, we started a thread on TNFES discussing his avatar which we noticed flashed a few seemingly random images every minute or so. When we brought it up over here, he denied that his avatar did any such thing. When we went back to check on the thread at the new site, it had disappeared. At the very least, he's a lying asshole.

I feel compelled to dig up an old post, so you can add airlines to the Satanic Cult, and that the design of an airplanes steering wheel is actually based upon a satanic pitchfork. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.msg356507#msg356507 . There's a few posts after that which are entertaining.

3

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: The Double-Slit Experiment: The "Fuck You" of Quantum Mechanics

« on: August 29, 2008, 02:31:37 PM »

Are you saying you subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation, or are you just noting what is known so far?

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Farewell all!

« on: August 25, 2008, 02:40:12 PM »

*chuckles* Indeed. I recall having noted that point before myself. 

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Farewell all!

« on: August 25, 2008, 02:36:26 PM »

Make sure you always remember attackhoe.

Ye gods! How could I forget Saddam Hussein in my post!?!

And yes, I remember you all, Peach, Raist, and Roundy. Farewell. I may drop in every now and then, but it'll be rare.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Farewell all!

« on: August 25, 2008, 11:58:44 AM »

Hey all, I haven't been on in...ages, and I thought I'd make a formal goodbye here, seeing how much time I spent here at one time. At any rate, I'm afraid I won't be going on here anymore, and I wanted to give some farewells to those I was most fond of debating with. I'd especially like to note to Dogplatter, TheEngineer, and Username for being excellent debaters on the other side of the fence, whether playing Devi's advocate, or actually believing in FE. Of course, no farewell would be complete without mentioning the ever-present and ever-humorous Tom Bishop, of whom I shall always remember. So, have fun debating, and it was great debating with and against you all!

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is My Friend A Conspirator?

« on: June 19, 2008, 11:49:47 AM »

LOL! I didn't read that part the first time...

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shuttle crashs

« on: June 19, 2008, 11:38:54 AM »

As someone who has flown a small bit myself, I would agree with Ski here, despite my own opinions regarding RE/FE. I most definitely would use all the space given to me in an airstrip, so merely saying that some shuttle landings have taken over 10,000 means little. However, finding a case where in an emergency, where they opened all stops, and went over 10,000 would mean a good deal.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is My Friend A Conspirator?

« on: June 18, 2008, 11:24:19 AM »

Oh, so this is your work? 

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is My Friend A Conspirator?

« on: June 18, 2008, 10:56:00 AM »

Thank you, Veritas, for your rampant necromancy, and thank you, goldstein, for being a sock puppet.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Open Letter to "levee"

« on: June 08, 2008, 07:42:20 PM »

Out of plain curiosity, why not PM? Or, if you wished to  inform us of this place as well, just remove the references to levee, and PM him as well.

12

The Lounge / Re: Flat Earth: The Musical

« on: May 21, 2008, 12:53:00 PM »

You don't get to update this.  Go to hell.

Kill that infidel, Saddam.

13

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: May 21, 2008, 11:38:37 AM »

Yes there is but its not the sole reason they are moving towards eachother, like you asked.

You said there was no force. So why does the top ball roll down the hill?

It's a perceived force. In actuality, its just a tendency, because of the curvature of spacetime, so meh.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The all-new conspiracy theory!

« on: May 16, 2008, 11:35:07 AM »

I've heard that argument before, and I dispute for the following reasons.

1. Whether or not jetstreams could do it, they're not observed in that area. There are no siginificant jet streams in the Southern hemisphere.

2 & 3. If that was so, we would see significant time/distance/speed problems, as I think we can agree that with jetstream or no, if a plane like this breaks the sound barrier, it would be destroyed. Therefore, our maximum speed is Mach 1, and that simply is not possible.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How fast do A340's fly

« on: May 16, 2008, 11:28:59 AM »

I'd like to know how you calculated the FE distance...

Look at the post I mentioned, and make your own which you think better models the FE.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How fast do A340's fly

« on: May 16, 2008, 11:21:07 AM »

Cruising speed -- Mach 0.82-0.83. In metric terms, 248.9 m/s or 896 km per hour. All of these are rough calculations and not precise in the least. Now, in that all new conspiracy thread, since no FE'er would do it, I calculated the distances, roughly midway in there. I did all of this a while ago, take a look in the middle of that thread, its long, but its worth it, and humorous with Tom in it...

Vc and Vh are completely different things. And both will vary with altitude, loading, etc. It'd be hard to give a Vh speed without knowing the conditions of the flight.

That's the given optimal cruising speed by the manufacturers of the plane. That's not referring to a particular flight, its referring to the cruising speed of an airplane. Its designed for optimal flight time and fuel consumption, and is the cruising speed they should reach during cruising altitude...

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How fast do A340's fly

« on: May 16, 2008, 11:19:32 AM »

2222.48 m.p.h.? Approx. Mach 2.99. Do I win some kind of prize?

Sounds about right. Sounds like the results I got in my other thread. So, yeah, I may note than the A340 is not designed for supersonic travel, and would break under the strain of such travel.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How fast do A340's fly

« on: May 16, 2008, 11:17:43 AM »

Here's the distances I calculated. You went conservatively, actually...

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.msg354191#msg354191

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How fast do A340's fly

« on: May 16, 2008, 11:13:50 AM »

Oh, woops, I just glanced at the title lol and went straight to wiki...

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The all-new conspiracy theory!

« on: May 16, 2008, 11:02:12 AM »

No, not really, it would be a mistake to think that. Most of the serious FE'er treat him as a joke, and pretend to look to him as authority for a laugh. Really, just step back a moment, read his posts, and you'll see he's excellent comic relief.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How fast do A340's fly

« on: May 16, 2008, 10:59:35 AM »

Cruising speed -- Mach 0.82-0.83. In metric terms, 248.9 m/s or 896 km per hour. All of these are rough calculations and not precise in the least. Now, in that all new conspiracy thread, since no FE'er would do it, I calculated the distances, roughly midway in there. I did all of this a while ago, take a look in the middle of that thread, its long, but its worth it, and humorous with Tom in it...

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The all-new conspiracy theory!

« on: May 16, 2008, 10:49:44 AM »

Larf, there are only a few reasonable FE'ers who post alot here, and Tom is not one of them. If you want reasonable discussion with a FE'er, try Username, Dogplatter, and maybe some of the more recent guys(I haven't yet seen enough of Ski and eht_ehsan to make a judgment on them)

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of Satellites

« on: May 15, 2008, 05:55:41 PM »

Allow me to propose a simple solution which answers all our doubts. We find two people at two different locations, and ask them to keep time with the atomic clock(the online one). At precisely the right second, they attempt to measure the approximate angle of a satellite which is visible to both of them(we can check an online thing to find out when). Then, using the data, we calculate the approximate distance from a plane. Then, using the distance, we can calculate at what speed they are travelling, and I think we can agree that if they are travelling faster than the speed of sound, it is impossible for it to be a stratellite, and must be a satellite.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The all-new conspiracy theory!

« on: May 15, 2008, 05:47:11 PM »

In essence, if you ask the binomial expansion of consistency shown that the cosine, length, and then we can conclude that the angle of the rise in that area is 180 degrees, which is impossible, because it means that the sun during the above The Samoa spot. However, if you look at that Reciprical and take into account the nature of the Handels-left rule, then we can go through the calculation that the sun rotates at 66.426,228 (3.sf) meters per second, if that is the case, then sonicbooms consistently produce, we certainly hear that the I tell that the figures are far!

Anyone who thought he actually meant this nonsense, is an idiot.

We may be on opposite sides of this issue, but on this point I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Some people dont think they are omniscient and try to analyse a post before taking it as bullshit. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Is asking for an explanation such a bad thing?

Don't be silly. There are fifteen inconsistencies in his ridiculous speech, and just because someone is or claims to be on your side of an issue does not mean you should agree with and support any nonsense they say or do.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The all-new conspiracy theory!

« on: May 15, 2008, 01:34:03 PM »

Huh. This is interesting. Look at his first post.

I'm going to break THE NEWS TO YOU NOW, YOUR ALL INSANE WHAT IS YOUR DEFECT?!! Clearly the earth is nice and round, like a peach.
I am a well cultured boy from a background of religious beleivers, rumor has it, that the world was made by god, why would he build it like a monopoly board? Surley he would be far more satisfied with a smooth round product, similar to a tennis ball given to a little boy!! As we all know, god had a long flowing beard, it was so lucious, that it was the envy of many men, i ask you this, if god needed to cut and shape his fine beard, and the world was flat, surely when he whips out his gillete fusion for a sesh, his beardy fur clippings would sprinkle all over the earth? That doesn't happen, so in conclusion you are all ridiculous.
Lots of love,
Burger nips

Little bit of a turnaround in personality, eh?

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The all-new conspiracy theory!

« on: May 15, 2008, 01:26:44 PM »

1. Reciprocal is a more complex, too complex if you ask me, for of finding the reverse of an equation, it is done by factorising the coefficients within a formula, then multiplying out and dividing by the common factor in reference to the previouslt identified coefficient series.
2. Handel's left rule states, that light rays coming from the sun, or any other stars, cannot be refracted in certain ways, depending on the speed of rotation, the left hand element is somewhat irrelevant.
3. The reason for this speed being calculated, is due to the derivation of first finding the reciprocal, then substituting values into the equation having made a correlation between the suns ray exposure and its refraction, then you come out with the figure previously quoted.

Aah, this is so much fun.

1. Oh, is that so? And what equation is this? And do you mean the reciprocal rule(which isn't so bad), or the multiplicative inverse(which is without doubt, the most complex mathematical concept devised to man)?

2. And you just made this one up on the spot, eh? And what precisely does it have to do with your left hand, since all these "hand rules" have a basis in what you can check with a hand. Like the right hand rules for EM.

3. Oh, this is so much fun. And tell me, what is refraction caused by? Light. Tell me the behavior of light. That's right, it doesn't have anything to do with rotation, it travels just the same. You can spin the light source all you like, the refraction through an atmosphere behaves just the same.

4. How the hell did sound travel through space?

Now get off this thread before Engy comes around.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The all-new conspiracy theory!

« on: May 15, 2008, 01:22:51 PM »

No, narcberry is a prankster and a troll, some would categorize him as an evil clown, but I think he is:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/impostor.htm

Really, he just pretends to be anyone to amuse himself...including an FE'er. Or this could be Saddam.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The all-new conspiracy theory!

« on: May 15, 2008, 01:16:23 PM »

Essentially if you apply a binomial expansion using the congruency shown by the cosine of the lengths, then we can draw the conclusion that the angle of elevation will be in the region of 180 degrees, which is impossible as this means the sun would remain over the same point. However if you look at the reciprical and take into account the nature of Handels left hand rule, then we can deviate through calculus that the sun spins at 66426.228(3.s.f) meters per second, if this was the case, then it would be constantly be producing sonicbooms, which surely we would hear, i reckon your figures are way off!!!

Narcberry, is that you?

This IS narberry. Handel is a composer, not a mathematician, and any fool who knows how sound works would not tell you that a spinning object in space can produce sonicbooms. Furthermore, use something called your common sense. How, how in the world, can the distance of one object to another affect the rotational velocity of said spherical object? Anyone who falls for this deserves a whack.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Parallax and the Moon?

« on: May 15, 2008, 12:06:56 PM »

Bumped for new answers from new people, and perhaps some old ones as well.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The all-new conspiracy theory!

« on: May 15, 2008, 12:01:42 PM »

Oh no? What about the extremely entertaining parallax argument I made before. Go dig it up, its somewhere around, and no-one answered it...

And still, no-one has an argument for my point. Allow me to put a seed of doubt in your heads. If the distance was longer, and airports only load up just enough fuel for the journey(ironically, to save fuel due to weight), and the distance is up to 5 times longer, how on Earth do planes make it? And about your argument about times being based on experience rather than actual distance, how is it that a plane with a cruising speed of less Mach 1 is able to either travel further than the distance time ratio would allow on a FE, or break the speed of sound without anybody noticing?