### 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 - lindelof

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
1
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: RE predict these:
« on: August 12, 2008, 05:53:28 PM »
I keep hearing about RE's predictive capabilities. I sure would like to see that. Please predict any one of these things.
1) If I let a drop of water fall into the Pacific Ocean exactly halfway between the centers of L.A. and Honolulu, where will it be in exactly 3 months?
2) If I boil water at four corners (where the US states Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona meet) when will the steam fall back to the earth as rain? Where will it fall?
3) When SagDEG collides with the Milky Way, will anything collide with the earth?
4) When will we encounter intelligent life?
5) Will there be a big crunch? If so, when?

(1) It's won't be.  The water drop will not longer exist.  A better question would be "where will the water molecules that made up the drop be in exactly 3 months".
(2) It will fall at various times in various places.
(3) Probably not.
(4) No one knows.
(5) Under current accepted cosmological theories, no.

2
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: In 1969, buttoning your clothes made them airtight.
« on: August 12, 2008, 05:43:10 PM »
hun?  You think spacesuits were like one layer or something?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/space-suit3.htm

3
##### The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 11, 2008, 10:45:49 PM »

00 = 1

DISCUSS THIS CONTRADICTION IN THE WORLD OF MATH!

Anything to the zero is one.  By definition.  The way that you define powers is recursively,

x^0 = 1

x^(n+1) = (x^n) * x.

0^0 = 1 is pretty weird, though.

Also, it does make sense, when x is veeeeery close to zero, x^x is close to 1.

.00001^.00001 = 0.999884877

4
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: another shot
« on: August 10, 2008, 11:34:06 AM »
Look out your window.

Yes.  While the flat appearance does not contradict RE, I do suppose that it suggests that the Earth is flat, falling under

(1) There is a certain amount of evidence that indicates that the Earth is flat (the stuff in Tom's sig.).

However, no one has answered my question.

5
##### Flat Earth Q&A / another shot
« on: August 09, 2008, 05:18:22 PM »
Well, I tried to post this before but as I wrote it up somewhat badly no one really answered my question.  So I'll try again.

Everyone here should agree on this:

(1) There is a certain amount of evidence that indicates that the Earth is flat (the stuff in Tom's sig.).
(2) There is a certain amount of evidence that indicates that the Earth is round (pictures from spaces, surveys, gravimetry, behavior of stars in the Southern Hemisphere, flight times...)

Now, there are seem to be two main views espoused on this site,

(FE) The evidence that indicates a Flat Earth is, on the whole, correct.  The evidence that points towards a Round Earth is the result of error, fraudulence or misinterpretation.
(RE) The evidence that indicates a Round Earth is, on the whole, correct.  The evidence that points towards a Flat Earth is the result of error, fraudulence or misinterpretation.

Given the above, my question to the Fe's out there is:

Starting from an agnostic stance, why should we reject the evidence that points to RE and accept the evidence that points to FE?

By "agnostic stance" I mean not assuming FE.

6
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravitation
« on: August 09, 2008, 05:04:57 PM »
but different parts of the Earth don't attract each other because that would cause it to collapse in on itself.

The gravitational tug produced by terrestrial objects is, of course, very well observed.  It's called Gravimetry.

7
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: continental drifting
« on: August 07, 2008, 06:02:12 PM »

Well, they could have carried baby brachiosaurus's on their boats....

A reasonable hypothesis.  Alternatively, perhaps a clutch of eggs.

The internet says that they're eggs where about 1 foot by 10 inches, so that would certainly work.

8
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: continental drifting
« on: August 07, 2008, 03:42:02 PM »
There are a couple of recent dicoveries of small dinosaurs who are thought to have had opposable thumbs or at least an opposable grip.  These also seem to have had larger brains than some of the heavier dinosaurs.
And they built the boats, that can hold the brachiosaurus with their 40 tons + (300 kg for about 40 days) 12 tons food.

I still have my doubts...

Well, they could have carried baby brachiosaurus's on their boats....

9
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: continental drifting
« on: August 07, 2008, 01:55:42 PM »
look at skull cavities
no way to  gain motor skills, they can't hold or grab things
look at their appendages

Look, this is very simple.
You are only seeing the skull cavities/appendages of certain species of Dinosaurs, those species whose remains were preserved.  It is entirely possible that there were other species of Dinosaurs that had different looking skull cavities/appendages whose remains were not preserved.  With the knowledge available it is unreasonable to dogmatically assert that there were never any Dinosaurs with big skull cavities or appendages well suited to tool use.

10
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: continental drifting
« on: August 07, 2008, 12:22:45 AM »

They wouldn't have had to "go missing", because the fossil record consistently indicates a distribution of plants and animals which suggests intelligence on the part of at least one species, if not many.

When I said that intelligent dinosaurs are missing, I meant that we don't have Dinosaur cities/tools/cars/blimps.

11
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: continental drifting
« on: August 06, 2008, 06:07:55 PM »
Oh, it is so very good to see this topic back up.

Also, Dinosaurs were around for 160 million years.  An intelligent species of Dinosaurs would only need a few thousand years to completely change the distribution of plants and animals.  They wouldn't have had to be around all that long.  A single species that lasted for, say, a million years could easily go missing in the fossil record.

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/michael.magee/awwls/00/wls143.html

12
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which way is up again?
« on: August 05, 2008, 02:22:22 PM »

1: Bob's right hand is on his right.
2: Ted's right hand is to his right.
3: If they were facing different directions, their hands would be in different directions.
4: As their hands are both on their right they are facing the same way.

This argument can be used on any pair of people, therefore all people are facing the same direction.

Q.E.D.

13
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: continental drifting
« on: August 05, 2008, 12:57:23 PM »

Also explain the freshwater crocodile, found in both Brazil and South Africa. They coudn't have swum that whole way.

When the Dinosaurs went across the Atlantic, they took their crocodiles with them.

14
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: continental drifting
« on: August 05, 2008, 12:52:47 PM »
And also explain plant fossil evidence, and plants obviously can't make boats.

What, you're just going to discount the whole idea of intelligent plants just like that?

15
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: continental drifting
« on: August 05, 2008, 12:46:21 PM »
Dinosaurs used boats.  Duh.

16
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: You see a curve? Proof of FE!
« on: August 05, 2008, 12:37:02 PM »
Many people have claimed to see a curvature of the earth from tall towers or from aircraft. Well the RE model is clear, such a curve is not observable at these low altitudes. What then are people seeing?

Indeed, one cannot see any curvature from such a low altitude, but you can from 60,000 feet. What was I seeing?

Atmospheric refraction/suns spotlight on the Earth.

17
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: You see a curve? Proof of FE!
« on: August 05, 2008, 12:35:28 PM »

Atmospheric refraction

Light doesn't really travel in straight lines on a large scale all that much in Fe.

18
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: You see a curve? Proof of FE!
« on: August 05, 2008, 12:43:51 AM »
The FE model demonstrates that the accelerating earth would act as a visible block from light reflected of the earth at far distances. Because of this, the viewable horizon of FE is much closer than that of FE. FE actually predicts a visible curve (the visible area being a disk and appearing curved) at much lower altitudes.

So when you are seeing a curve to the earth at such low altitudes, you are actually witnessing proof of the earth's flatness and it's acceleration upwards!

Someone has to argue this the next time some noob says they've seen the curvature of the Earth from a 5,000 feet.

19
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The RE horizon.
« on: June 17, 2008, 10:28:02 AM »
I remember when his posts were funny

I think he's just hit-or-miss.  The thread about up was pretty hilarious.  Pity it got locked so fast.

20
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« on: June 15, 2008, 01:35:32 PM »
True.  But the Fe's (at least as far as I can tell) don't seem to have any good reason for dismissing it other than it contradicts the evidence they like.

Exactly.  Direct observational evidence that can be experimentally verified by anybody.

Evidence shouldn't be weighted heavier because it is more accessible.  And plenty of the RE evidence is accessible (lunar eclipses, star behavior in the Southern Hemisphere).

21
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« on: June 15, 2008, 01:26:50 PM »
True.  But the Fe's (at least as far as I can tell) don't seem to have any good reason for dismissing it other than it contradicts the evidence they like.

22
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« on: June 15, 2008, 01:03:58 PM »
No, just zetetic science.

No, it's circular.  It's dismissing the evidence that the earth is not flat on the grounds that the earth is flat.

No, it's dismissing evidence that the earth is not flat on the grounds of prior evidence that the earth is flat.  Nothing circular about it at all.

Hum.  Actually, it's not really circular, as they aren't using the existence of a conspiracy to argue that the Earth is flat.  They're just being fallacious.  I think.  When forming a judgment you have to weigh all the evidence that you have, you can't just dismiss a huge amount to evidence because it disagrees with other evidence.

23
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The RE horizon.
« on: June 15, 2008, 11:23:30 AM »

Man, your science sucks.

Narc's trying to be funny.

24
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« on: June 15, 2008, 11:21:36 AM »
No, just zetetic science.

No, it's circular.  It's dismissing the evidence that the earth is not flat on the grounds that the earth is flat.

25
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / hollow earth?
« on: June 14, 2008, 01:04:47 PM »

26
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Wait a tick!
« on: June 14, 2008, 01:01:23 PM »
In GoldsteinEarth (GE) the moon is made of sows ears, and the stars are penny sweets. The earth is a hollow kinder egg. Prove me wrong.

I fully support this theory.

27
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« on: June 14, 2008, 01:00:05 PM »
lived, the idiots amoung us don't get phd's in astrophysics.

Have more education does not make you smarter, but only the smart people get that far.  When you get a phd you don't suddenly become smarter, but only people of above average intelligence get phd's.

28
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The RE horizon.
« on: June 14, 2008, 11:20:54 AM »
I wouldn't mind these threads if they were actually funny.

Seconded.

29
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« on: June 14, 2008, 11:19:15 AM »

What about Ted Kaczynski?  You need to hang out with more Phd's if you don't think any of them are downright stupid.

Kaczynski was many things.  Stupid was not one of them.

If you can make over \$200k as a rig pig, or with many other tradesman, how smart could one really be to hole up on campus and spend your days "teaching" undergrads (basically the equivalent of feeding slop to cattle) for about \$100k?

Did you know that people can be motivated by things other than money???

Most of the good mathematicians of this century could have made a shit load of money if they had been lawyers or something, but they didn't because they didn't give a crap about the cash.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060106062005/http://www.math.columbia.edu/~lipyan/CrafoordPrize.pdf

30
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: I challenge FE
« on: June 13, 2008, 04:03:50 PM »
Was it tides? Thinking about it now I can't actually remember, but the fact remains they do have a "slight gravitational pull" don't they? So does it involve gravitons then?

And it explains why gravity decreases as you go up.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14