31
The Lounge / Re: Post an image of yourself!
« on: September 15, 2012, 02:57:22 AM »
Tune in to TFES fora for more hot noob on noob action!
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.
32
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Its all flat! The whole universe!
« on: November 11, 2011, 01:46:24 PM »I fail to see how the Moon being made of rock causes any difficulty for FET.
Because then they have to admit that we actually traveled to the moon in the first place.
Lunar landings are not inconsistent with FET.
So a spacecraft leaving a spherical Earth which then uses gravity to go into orbit around a spherical moon that also orbits the Earth fits perfectly with the idea that gravity doesn't exist, the Earth is flat, and such?
That's not what I said.
33
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: China
« on: November 11, 2011, 01:45:37 PM »There's no FE map because any FE map would show contradictions with the observed distances that we know and can verify.
I believe the lack of first hand verification of said distances has been discussed previously.
34
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Its all flat! The whole universe!
« on: November 08, 2011, 01:10:55 PM »I fail to see how the Moon being made of rock causes any difficulty for FET.
Because then they have to admit that we actually traveled to the moon in the first place.
Lunar landings are not inconsistent with FET.
35
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: China
« on: November 08, 2011, 01:03:23 PM »
To my knowledge there are no verified maps of the FE disc due to the lack of independent high altitude photography combined with professional independent cartographic analysis.
36
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Its all flat! The whole universe!
« on: November 05, 2011, 03:19:07 AM »
I fail to see how the Moon being made of rock causes any difficulty for FET.
37
The Lounge / Re: Post an image of yourself!
« on: November 05, 2011, 03:16:30 AM »Teh affair between Thork and I is over.
So you have room for a new affair now?
38
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The FIRST, simple (and maybe nonexplained!!) objecton to FET
« on: November 04, 2011, 03:29:00 PM »
As with many other questions, FET provides multiple possibilities which should be scientifically investigated to determine which is preferable. I personally don't like the idea of the infinite flat earth, and much prefer a finite earth disc model, although it is entirely possible that the Universe itself tapers to the boundary of the FE disc beyond what we know as Antarctica and as such the geometry of space-time itself would become a feature in the answer... we'll never know without serious, independent scientific study and analysis.
39
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: China
« on: November 04, 2011, 03:18:35 PM »Of course if you travel east or west you follow a circle on the flat earth map and you reach the same point. But assume travelling north-south (i.e. following a ray in the disk representing FE)...for example you want to reach Italy from southern africa pointing south...you are telling that it is not possible?
Of course it is possible to reach Italy from southern Africa, in both RET and FET.
40
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Why Relativity is False
« on: November 04, 2011, 03:05:58 PM »But I ask you to consider a heated bar, glowing white hot as he begins to run: What color will it be as he enters the barn? According to the running it may be yellow hot as he enters and red hot as he leaves. From the reference frame of the barn door, the bar will be red hot at one end and yellow at the other. This violates the consequence of the heat equation earlier mentioned, a physical law. Thus The Principle of Relativity is contradicted. By this Gedankenexperiment we conclude that relativity is false.
A thermal emitter generates a Planckian spectrum of radiation, each frequency of which will be fractionally shifted in the usual way by the Doppler effect, which is frame-dependent. I fail to see how this violates relativity.
41
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Things yet to be explained(Properly) by FET.
« on: November 04, 2011, 02:46:44 PM »Hello,
I would add another thing which as far as I know is not explained (sorry if I am wrong, but I am new here, I have read the FAQ and I didn't find an answer):
if a plane flies starting from north pole in the south direction (in the Flat Earth map this means: following a ray of the disk), what happens when it reachs the boundary of the disk??
In the round earth it would eventually come back to the starting point...what in the flat earth?
thanks!!
A perfectly reasonable question - the problems begin when you try to determine that you are flying radially outwards across the disc, and are not being subtly deflected off-course as you go. The magnetic field of the FE, the positions of stars, the Sun and the Moon, inertial guidance systems and dead reckoning all have potential weaknesses which could lead the pilot and/or instrumentation astray.
42
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Things yet to be explained(Properly) by FET.
« on: November 04, 2011, 02:43:51 PM »Add another item to the ever expanding list of things FET cannot explain. The precession of gyroscopes and pendulums that vary their behavior at different latitudes.
This could be the result of the differential coupling of the angular momentum of the UA as a function of latitude, just as the FE disc does not shield out the UA evenly across the surface of the FE disc (hence the variation of local g with latitude).
43
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: January 25, 2011, 01:14:01 PM »
Actually, while we're on the subject of gravitational misconceptions, a brief aside for discussion:
Let's assume you are the only sentient proton in the Universe: would you ever be able to cross the event horizon of a black hole?
Let's assume you are the only sentient proton in the Universe: would you ever be able to cross the event horizon of a black hole?
44
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: January 25, 2011, 01:06:57 PM »So, the main point is that gravity is a false force because Einstein proved it. You neglect to realize that when Einstein created his relativity theory he also created a part of it that gravity works for, SPECIAL RELATIVITY, the forces we observe, such as gravity, do not work in all reference frames, hence relativity, but in the reference frame that anyone on earth, or any planet for that matter, would have gravity as a force. You are making the assumption that correlation implies causation for gravity not being a force and you are misinterpreting Einstein's findings. Einstein wrote entire scientific journals specifically devoted to explaining that gravity is a force that is so powerful in the reference frames it exists in that it not only curves matter and light, it curves TIME. You should really read up on what Modern Physics actually is before making statements about relativity.
Was that a reply to someone? I don't think anyone worth their salt on these fora is unaware of the concept of gravitational time dilation.
45
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: January 13, 2011, 02:11:34 PM »gravity travels at the speed of light
Do you have any evidence for this outlandish claim?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006FoPh...36.1244K
46
The Lounge / Re: M-M-M-MONSTER FAIL!
« on: January 10, 2011, 12:53:39 PM »He made a criticism - an educated one - of the man's work. It doesn't matter what other people think. I think every Saw film past 2 is a heap of shit, but everybody seems to like them; am I an idiot for this?
No.
47
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Its all flat! The whole universe!
« on: January 10, 2011, 12:40:11 PM »We have further work to do on the standard model of course, science is an ever increasingly accurate series of approximations and will probably never 'finish', this does not mean the well established cornerstones of our model are false.
But nor does it mean we should rest the full weight of our foundations upon them - better to keep an open mind and explore all possibilities than find you were chasing your tail the whole time.
Evolution is 'full of holes', i.e. gaps in our understanding, but these are missing pages in a library of knowledge and by no means invalidate the theory. The same is true for cosmology and astrophysics.
Comparing the theory of evolution to cosmology is pretty shaky ground - evolution can be observed happening in the lab if you have a species that breeds quickly enough (fruit flies or bacteria, for instance), whereas cosmology happens over such vast distances and time scales that we are essentially grappling with a single datum. Our interpretation of intergalactic distances and the passage of time is entirely axiomatic and not based on any independent experiment - not to say it's wrong, but you can't assume it's been 'proven'.
We know the universe is finite in size because we know it is expanding, approx 13.7 billion years old, and we have evidence of the big bang that completely matches the theoretical prediction (see image in my signature). We know without a doubt that at some point the universe was at some point very small, and very hot. Saying 'weeeell you dont know that for sure cos u cant see it' is just pedantic pettiness and the same logic that creationists use against evolution.
It's not pedantic at all - the geometry of the Universe is what defines whether it is finite or infinite, and to what degree. You could have a flat Universe which stretches to infinity in all directions, and open Universe in which you recede faster from your start point the further you go, or a closed Universe where you could eventually come back to your start point. The expansion of the Universe and its geometry may be linked, or may not be, especially since we can't see the whole lot but only the 'visible' Universe. You are incorrect, I am afraid, when you say we know anything "without a doubt".
I am aware of the theory but it is just one fanciful explanation of an unexplained phenomena, far from proven, and far from accepted by the scientific community. I suggest you brush up on the scientific method before you believe everything you read.
Hypocrisy, Exhibit A:
...science is an ever increasingly accurate series of approximations and will probably never 'finish'...
...We know without a doubt...
People in glass houses, fenterb...
48
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: January 10, 2011, 12:24:19 PM »49
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: January 09, 2011, 02:43:54 PM »how does gravity violate the universal speed limit, and how is it not a force? sorry i just need clarification
mainly becuase gravity is one of the 4 forces, and we, to my knowledge, do not have evidence that gravity can be done faster than the speed of light, and also, if it is a force, then it has no mass right? and hence it has no speed barrier, becuase the speed of light is infinite energy only when an object has mass, or else, how does light travel at the speed of light?
i feel ominous about asking this, as i feel i will be rediculed... oh well
It's an interesting point that gravity does in fact couple to itself - this seems bizarre, but let me explain.
hahahaidiots is correct in that gravity travels at the speed of light, or more accurately that changes in the curvature of spacetime propagate at the speed of light; deformations to spacetime do have a positive energy density though, and so they do generate their own gravitational field - in other words, gravity generates its own gravity. This self-coupling is quite bizarre and prompted speculation of a spin-2 'gravitino' that mediates interactions between gravitons. Since the graviton has never even been observed, however, this is all extremely questionable - we need a lot more research into gravity and the nature of spacetime before we can start to answer these questions with any degree of certainty.
50
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: January 09, 2011, 02:37:49 PM »
Nuclear weapons do exist. Fact.
51
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: August 14, 2010, 04:31:22 PM »I hope that was intended to be a bad joke.
It's the best I could do on short notice
52
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: August 14, 2010, 02:43:14 PM »There's nothing quite like violently defending a principle you don't believe in using arguments you can barely bring yourself to write, while mocking them for clinging to beliefs which are actually very similar to your own. Once you go past a certain level of hypocrisy and deliberate ignorance, it just doesn't seem wrong any more.
PS - the Earth is flat.
Besides, hanging out with a bunch of irreverent dissemblers refreshes my soul.
Fact.
Please stay on topic.
I think you're underestimating the gravity of my post.
53
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: August 14, 2010, 02:19:28 PM »There's nothing quite like violently defending a principle you don't believe in using arguments you can barely bring yourself to write, while mocking them for clinging to beliefs which are actually very similar to your own. Once you go past a certain level of hypocrisy and deliberate ignorance, it just doesn't seem wrong any more.
PS - the Earth is flat.
Besides, hanging out with a bunch of irreverent dissemblers refreshes my soul.
Fact.
54
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: August 14, 2010, 01:54:25 PM »
There's nothing quite like violently defending a principle you don't believe in using arguments you can barely bring yourself to write, while mocking them for clinging to beliefs which are actually very similar to your own. Once you go past a certain level of hypocrisy and deliberate ignorance, it just doesn't seem wrong any more.
PS - the Earth is flat.
PS - the Earth is flat.
55
Arts & Entertainment / Re: The Great War of TFES: The Untold Story (being told)
« on: May 24, 2010, 02:20:40 PM »
The only thing I'm ruining is your mum
56
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: May 24, 2010, 02:19:34 PM »
Nukes are real, mmkay?
57
Arts & Entertainment / Re: The Great War of TFES: The Untold Story (being told)
« on: May 23, 2010, 02:29:31 PM »
All hail our mighty leader, Gayer!
58
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Error in Newton's Laws of Motion
« on: May 17, 2010, 01:54:45 PM »f=ma
This equation is invalid.
"wrong at relativistic speeds"
Not if you suitably define mass and acceleration...
59
The Lounge / Re: Post an image of yourself!
« on: May 16, 2010, 07:54:59 AM »
Is she even legal yet?
60
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The appearance of Gravity
« on: May 16, 2010, 07:54:21 AM »As soon as your body evolves enough to detect variations in gravity of .01 m/s2, I look forward to your measurements.
3", right? Oh, did you want his other measurements. My bad.