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 - MadDogX

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 18
61
The Lounge / Re: Post an image of yourself!
« on: October 09, 2008, 08:04:44 AM »
Awesome - is that the show with the nukes?

Yeah.  I loved it.  But they cancelled it.   :'(

Jericho rocked, although it did seem like they weren't planning the story ahead too far. It was noticable that they were making a lot of it up as they went along. Weren't the fans trying to "lobby" for a third season? It worked for season 2....

62
The Lounge / Re: And you think Palin is stupid.
« on: October 09, 2008, 07:53:38 AM »
America's patriotism brings me back to the 1930s and Italy.

It's not patriotism. America truly is the puppet master of world affairs. The vast majority of foreign leaders are at America's beck and call. America is the controller. America says what goes and who does what. It's a superpower beyond all comprehension. After World War II only America's economy stood strong from the aftermath, and so it received investments from all stratas of the world, ballooning its economy and government to the most powerful and influential entity on earth today.

When it's talked about how America is the best, it really and truly is the most powerful nation on earth. If the countries of the earth all allied and went to war against America's military it's a coin flip who would win.

There is no escaping America. America influences nearly every country at every level: economically, militaristically, and politically. It's not a joke. It's not "patriotism". It's simple fact. The US is a superpower which outweighs any other country in military might by a factor of over a hundred to one.

America is a superpower which doesn't even need to invade a country to destroy it. It can be bankrupted and ruined financially with a stroke of a pen. There is only one government who's say has any meaning or sway. That government is the United States of America.

Wow, Tom, this is some silly shit!  Do you really believe the crap in bold?  You do realize that within six months, China could field an army of nearly 1,000,000 men?  That India has nearly twice as many nuclear weapons as either the US or Russia, or that a platoon of Israeli soldiers could likely defeat 5 or 6 platoons of American forces?  Do you realize that there are more Blackwater, Inc. mercenaries on the ground in Iraq than there are American Troops?

If we can bankrupt a country with the stroke of a pen, why did we need to invade Iraq after years of economic sanctions?  Why did they not simply collapse under the weight of US power?  Why is Osama bin Laden moderating this message board instead of dead?  Oh, that's right, because we trained him, financed him, and employ him as a black ops agent.

I wish that would fit in a sig. Epic truth is epic.

63
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Moons craters
« on: October 09, 2008, 07:11:37 AM »
Since the sun and moon are approximately the same size (and presumably about the same mass), and have very similar orbits above the FE, it seems that they would have collided with each other long ago (say about the time of any given solar eclipse when they would be very close to each other).

The problems with a hyper-massive Sun and Moon do seem to provide more problems than they solve.

Unless you "explain" it with FETs good ol' Selective Gravitation TM.

64
The Lounge / Re: TASTE good
« on: October 09, 2008, 06:30:48 AM »
So hilarious, I forgot to laugh.

You mean like it was too hilarious to fit into a signed integer so it turned negatively funny?

65
The Lounge / Re: TASTE good
« on: October 09, 2008, 06:10:41 AM »
Design a cake that looks like a flat Earth.

Then put it on a plate of dark energy and watch it accelerate upwards at 9.8ms2.

Nah the Dark Energy is the base. It could be some really dark stuff saturated with caffeine. (Dark energy, get it? ;D Man, I'm fucking hilarious....)

66
Flat Earth Debate / Re: space travel
« on: October 09, 2008, 06:05:20 AM »
(yadda yadda)

Here's a thought experiment for you:

Imagine you were to send a space shuttle into space with a nuclear bomb strapped to its rear end. Let's assume for the moment, that the shuttle were robust enough not to be destroyed by the blast. Question: what do you think would happen to the shuttle if they were to detonate the bomb in the vacuum of space?

67
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Moons craters
« on: October 09, 2008, 04:25:56 AM »
Is the moon a neutron star?

We can't rule it out.


Oh I'm sure we can.

The speed with which a hyperdense object such as a neutron star would gravitate to the earth (or more likely vice versa) would be frightening.

The rules must be different in FE, otherwise the sun and moon would have collided with the Earth long ago. Even FE'ers admit that both exert some kind of gravitational force, so there must be something stopping them from gravitationally interacting with the Earth.

68
The Lounge / Re: Punk Style
« on: October 09, 2008, 04:21:42 AM »
There's a song called Punk?

69
The Lounge / Re: TASTE good
« on: October 09, 2008, 04:11:32 AM »
Design a cake that looks like a flat Earth.

71
The Lounge / Re: And you think Palin is stupid.
« on: October 09, 2008, 12:42:31 AM »
Okay. For a moment there, I thought you might be someone I actually knew.

I think you'd know if you knew Osama Bin Laden.

Most likely.  ;)

But I know that you are RoboSteve, which is where my train of thought actually began.

72
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moon Clarification
« on: October 09, 2008, 12:23:18 AM »
You are right. If it were flat it'd be an ellipse. Well, that's a point I didn't think about.
But if that's the case, and the moon is round and i was on a flat earth, wouldn't i be able to see more of moon than just the 59%?

That point has been raised before. In theory, we should be able to see a different part of the moon when it is on the horizon because (according to FET) we would be viewing it from a very different angle than when we are underneath it.

73
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Moons craters
« on: October 09, 2008, 12:12:42 AM »
Granted. Still, considering that Neutron stars are very very small compared to other stars, how tiny would they be in FET? According to Tom, the stars are not far-away suns, but "something else" much smaller and closer. The FE sun is already impossibly small compared to RE, so the stars themselves must logically be a lot smaller still.

Are you implying that conventional theories on the formation, lifetime and "working" of stars can be scaled down to the proportions required by FET?

No, I'm implying that if you took a few billion gigatons of neutrons and rolled them up into a ball, they would not just disappear.

Fair enough.

74
The Lounge / Re: And you think Palin is stupid.
« on: October 09, 2008, 12:09:23 AM »
@Osama: I know this is kind of beside the topic, but when did you move from South Africa to Australia?

Moved from South Africa to England in July '98, and then to Australia in July '99. With my family, of course, as I was only ten years old when we moved here.

Okay. For a moment there, I thought you might be someone I actually knew.

75
The Lounge / Re: And you think Palin is stupid.
« on: October 08, 2008, 11:57:13 PM »
@Osama: I know this is kind of beside the topic, but when did you move from South Africa to Australia?

76
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Moons craters
« on: October 08, 2008, 11:42:36 PM »
But a good zeteticist would not accept their existence until they have been observed. Anything else would be evil conventional science.

I didn't say they existed. I said they can exist.

Granted. Still, considering that Neutron stars are very very small compared to other stars, how tiny would they be in FET? According to Tom, the stars are not far-away suns, but "something else" much smaller and closer. The FE sun is already impossibly small compared to RE, so the stars themselves must logically be a lot smaller still.

Are you implying that conventional theories on the formation, lifetime and "working" of stars can be scaled down to the proportions required by FET?

77
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Moons craters
« on: October 08, 2008, 11:35:48 PM »
Lack of the materials necessary.  A neutron star is the remnant of a star that has already collapsed into a supernova because of that lack of fuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

Just because they don't exist doesn't mean that they can't. There is no physical law preventing neutron stars from existing in FET.

But a good zeteticist would not accept their existence until they have been observed. Anything else would be evil conventional science.

78
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Solar flares
« on: October 08, 2008, 11:28:12 PM »
And you discovered this, how?

I didn't discover it. It's a hypothesis. Come up with a better one, if you think you can.

I never said I could, and I see no reason to try as I believe the sun to be ~1 AU away from us. My question arose because your hypothesis sounded more like a statement of fact.

79
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Moons craters
« on: October 08, 2008, 11:24:44 PM »
he was aying that nuclear fusion will occur at such a density as the one described.
this might not end well for the moon. a cataclismic nuclear fusion eruption would occur... i guess

i dont know enough about the subject

So why don't neutron stars undergo nuclear fusion?

Neutron stars cannot exist in FE anyway. What's the point of your question?

80
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Solar flares
« on: October 08, 2008, 11:21:31 PM »
sorry for being vauge, had to post and run...

so heres the situation:
a solar flare occurs on the surface of the sun, spewing hot radioactive solar energy in all directions.
We see the event from earth, no satalites needed.
we then can estimate the time that it takes for the energy to hit earth, judgeing by differences in radiation and other forms of stuff that the energy leaves behind.

so, does Fe hold that this enrgy moves much slower? (RET says that it moves at about 1/3 the speed of light)
this is because the distance from the FE sun to the FE is shorter than that of FET.

The energy is slowed down signiifcantly as it travels through the exosphere.

And you discovered this, how?

82
The Lounge / Re: The Thread Of Dreams
« on: October 07, 2008, 11:55:42 PM »
A recurring theme in my dreams is that several places that lie very far apart are somehow connected. Somehow I manage to blend the layouts of several different houses and flats (apartments for the americans) into a single meta-house that I can walk around in. I tried to draw it once, but it's pretty much impossible.

Other than that I often dream about books I am reading or stuff that's on my mind. I have actually had a dream involving FE discussion (yes, seriously) but I can't remember how exactly it took place.

83
the speed of FE is 9.8m/s/s
No. The rate of change in the speed of FE is 9.8m/s^2

Lol, same thing.

9.8 m/s/s = 9.8 m/s2

I believe Ski's "no" was directed at the word "speed". 9,8m/sē is not a speed.

84
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why conspiracy?
« on: October 07, 2008, 07:39:26 AM »
Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.

My point still stands though.

Your point is based on the assumption that the conspiracy is financially motivated. Since that theory has turned out to be rather weak, you might want to look for a different motive.

85
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why conspiracy?
« on: October 07, 2008, 07:34:38 AM »
Many of these companies might not even exist. You have no way of knowing.

 ::)

If that's the strongest argument up your sleeve, you might aswell give up now. I'm pretty sure you're an intelligent person, so I don't think I need to explain why that argument makes no sense.

86
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why conspiracy?
« on: October 07, 2008, 07:21:11 AM »
By definition, contract work means that they are paying other companies to work for them. So, what? They are just pretending to pay these companies? I assume that their employees only pretend to expect a salary every month.

87
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why conspiracy?
« on: October 07, 2008, 06:39:19 AM »
Considering that they actually do spend hundreds of millions on materials and contract work, I totally agree with goldstein. It is highly unlikely that the cost/benefit ratio of such a huge conspiracy would be worthwhile.
And you actually know this how?

Do you think NASA gets materials and contract work for free?

88
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why conspiracy?
« on: October 07, 2008, 06:34:54 AM »
Considering that they actually do spend hundreds of millions on materials and contract work, I totally agree with goldstein. It is highly unlikely that the cost/benefit ratio of such a huge conspiracy would be worthwhile.

89
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why conspiracy?
« on: October 07, 2008, 06:17:54 AM »
As stated in the FAQ, the motivation behind the alleged conspiracy is not known. But since FE'ers are "convinced" that the Earth is flat, the motivation is not really relevant to them. Without the conspiracy, the Earth would have been proven round, therefore the conspiracy must exist.

90
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'm curious... where does the shuttle go?
« on: October 07, 2008, 06:14:55 AM »
Ambiguity really isn't tolerated here, is it? Sure, if we were talking about a cylinder with a finite radius and infinite height, it would be an infinite cylinder. Next time I'll make myself more clear.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 18