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 - fshy94

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 51
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Aether
« on: May 06, 2008, 02:15:01 PM »
This is a fair point. The BoP is not on us, it is on Username, and he has not demonstrated its existence. He may claim that he can't, but the fact remains...

The Lounge / Re: Flat Earth: The Musical
« on: May 06, 2008, 01:58:43 PM »
To celebrate Eric's return, we should make him appear back from the dead here too!

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Aether
« on: May 06, 2008, 10:33:09 AM »
I concur with username. Any fool would take a bit of slang over not having the slightest clue about what you're talking about...

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: May 04, 2008, 04:12:37 PM »

Narcberry's a fake, don't bother with him...

And I think that's it, missed anybody? There was another, but I don't remember the name and he doesn't show up anymore...

The Lounge / Re: Flat Earth: The Musical
« on: May 04, 2008, 04:09:56 PM »
ROFLMAO...I was wondering why Raa was robotical all the time...

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE Models
« on: May 04, 2008, 02:26:46 PM »
I was too far in shock at your return to tell you this, Eric, but...

I hope that this thread will end up as a Q&A for each model, so each model can attempt to explain itself with some level of consistency. I've borrowed liberally from a lot of places, from around the forums. I plan on expanding this later.

What that means is that this is an area for Questions and Clarification(eh ehm...the board title)...and if you have a question, ask it, and if you have something you don't like, you debate it by creating a thread in the D&D section, and make a post here with a link to that thread, so on...basically, don't debate here. Right here, the definition of debate goes by "That idea is stupid" mentality. Anything with the "how do you reconcile", "What explanation do you have for" or "Why doesn't this evidence disprove" beginning is fine, but your last post is a fine example of what I will consider debate in this thread.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: May 03, 2008, 07:47:44 PM »
Look my friend...there's only 5 FE'ers on this site, and you've only met 1 or 2 of them, Tom, and Username...the others are pranksters or just debaters.

So, I take it you dislike relativity? If you think Newtonian physics over-rules relativity, why is there a limit at 3*10^9 m/s?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Navigation
« on: May 03, 2008, 01:03:34 PM »
And here.

It's a lot to read, but I disproved it conclusively, and it was hilarious how Tom starting postulating 2000 MPH jetstreams, and Dogplatter went on saying how all the airlines are Satanic conspiracies.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Navigation
« on: May 03, 2008, 12:32:58 PM »
Go ahead and do it, Tom...

No actually, it is impossible to accelerate to that, no matter what, because you'd need continuously more time with a finite energy source... At any rate, there is a severe problem...where the heck is all this energy coming from? And why can't we borrow it?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE Models
« on: May 03, 2008, 12:17:16 PM »
the truth: he won't address them because he CANNOT answer those HUGE flaws, and is too cowardly to admit it!

his favorite tactic is to blame them on "the conspiracy"...

Wat? You're back?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE Models
« on: May 02, 2008, 11:49:40 AM »
Oh bump-de-la-la...and hey, Username, why don't you ever address some of the questions I had for your theory, I think it would help, and as I said before, if you object to a question, tell me why and I'll fix it...

Flat Earth Debate / Re: More round-earth nonsense
« on: May 02, 2008, 11:48:36 AM »
All right, who's pretending to be Gulliver? C'mon, out with the names.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Schrödinger's earth
« on: May 02, 2008, 11:45:19 AM »
No. Half the cats are dead and half of them are alive. None of them are in-between... :D

This of course, assumes the "perfect" micro to macroscopic quantum communicator, which some theories forbid.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: More round-earth nonsense
« on: May 01, 2008, 05:55:42 PM »
Erm...he just did...

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon Radar Bounce
« on: May 01, 2008, 01:20:01 PM »
What proof that it doesn't bounce off the moon exists? ???

There doesn't need to be any.  The onus is on you to prove that it's possible, not on us to prove that it's not.
Done. your turn ::)

When did you dod that, and if you say to look at your links it just rpoves you are an idiot.
Did you just win a spelling bee? :D.

The irony. Also note that Kill-9 is engaging in the traditional "derail the topic to save face" maneuver.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon Radar Bounce
« on: May 01, 2008, 12:25:38 PM »
My side of the argument is that "those technological breakthroughs are impossible." Your response is "prove that those breakthroughs of technology don't exist." That type of argument is non sequitur. The burden of proof lies with the claimant to prove that these breakthrough technologies exist.

If I claim that a rock sits on my desk is the burden of proof on you to prove that the rock does not exist, or is the burden of proof on me to demonstrate that it does exist?

Much as I hate agreeing with Tom, he's right. However, if Kill-9 has the proof, which does exist, he should stop beating around the bush and go get it... point them out and show the blasted links.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: More round-earth nonsense
« on: May 01, 2008, 11:06:43 AM »
The velocity is affected. Re-read your physics books. Oh, and the Earth stays perfectly still? Had no idea about that...

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Schrödinger's earth
« on: May 01, 2008, 11:04:00 AM »
No. Under quantum theory, if there is a possibility of direct observation, then the quantum state collapses. There does not actually need to be an observer. There are many theories to explain this behavior, such as decoherence theory, and so on, but what is certain is that an observer does not need to exist for the collapse to occur, there just has to be the possibility of observation.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: gravity
« on: April 29, 2008, 08:10:41 PM »

I don't believe it's been proven that the stars are made of matter. I believe it's much more likely that the stars are concentrated motes of energy.

I find this about as amusing as Tom Bishop's assertion that he can't see photons...


Flat Earth Debate / Re: two facts I'd like an REer to answer for
« on: April 27, 2008, 09:37:50 AM »
*Crys* What the hell does it take to get people to actually look something up before they start strutting about declaring that they know everything about the subject...and failing miserably?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE Models
« on: April 26, 2008, 04:34:15 PM »
Wait a minute though, Username. He can't not believe in mass because his explanation for the Coriolis effect is due to gravitation from the stars...

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
« on: April 24, 2008, 11:18:00 AM »
Bull. But to be honest, she'll never get much achievement in that national spotlight. This country isn't that bad, thank goodness.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: so I'm on my way to Proxima Centauri.
« on: April 24, 2008, 11:16:17 AM »
I'd go with something like inertial illusion, as its not precisely optical.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: coriolis effect?
« on: April 24, 2008, 11:14:27 AM »
Coriolis effect does not require a rotation. All you need is a non-inertial frame of reference to be treated as an inertial. There are other ways to make a frame of reference non-inertial. Acceleration and gravity can do the trick. In particular, frame dragging does the trick rather nicely. It will have the same symptoms as the Coriolis effect due to rotation, only it will die down as you move away from the body.

With that in mind, I propose the following FE model to account for Coriolis effect.
1) The Earth is a nearly flat disk.
2) The Earth rotates around its center, with axis of rotation perpendicular to its surface.
3) A Klemperer Rosette of black holes rotates around the Earth in the same plane as Earth's surface, but in opposite direction.
4) Gravitational pull of the disk counters the horizontal pull of the black holes and centrifugal force due to rotation.*
5) Rotation produces Coriolis effect near North pole.
6) Frame dragging produces opposing Coriolis effect, strongest near the edge.
7) The two effects cancel near Equator.

* Yes, centrifugal force is a real force in any non-inertial frame of reference, same as Coriolis forces.

Deviation between this effect and effect on a surface of rotating sphere would deviate only in high order terms, requiring fine measurement to differentiate between the two. Such experiment would not be possible to perform by general public, and Government's findings are kept secret.

Now if somebody can explain why I still can see the sun after it sets if I quickly get to the top of a high building, that would be wonderful.

First, let me congratulate you on an intelligent first post, a rarity nowadays. However, there is an issue I see with your FE model of Coriolis, and that is that the direction of the Coriolis effect would be wrong, with objects tending up or down. While this is an astonishingly excellent explanation of gravitational variance, it also has the minor issue in that most FE models, in order to account for daily star variation and so on, have decided the Earth does not spin on that've got to make sure your models fit together, or come up with a different idea for those. And again, the actual noticed Coriolis effect, as seen in parabolic turntables, would disagree with your model.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: To Debaters for FE
« on: April 22, 2008, 12:17:20 PM »
OK, so a modified one, since the only reference we have is the one written.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: To Debaters for FE
« on: April 22, 2008, 11:10:32 AM »
Erm...say what? You believe in see-saw tilting and "cold light"?

You mean a modified one, or what?

Besides, you're an Re'er...

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE Models
« on: April 22, 2008, 11:01:20 AM »
Actually, Dogplatter, to go on, I'd like to ask you how a parabolic turntable succumbs to the same faults as a toilet myth, as there is no external force of the water. Take a look at the wiki page, at , and go see the Visualization section.

I'm also looking for all FE'ers answers to the moon/planets being flat or round.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 51