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 - Jingle Jangle

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
61
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Measure a Ladder
« on: October 01, 2013, 12:41:04 PM »
h can just approach 0 in calc.  It never can actually arrive at the exact figure... The formula does not exist.  zero is nothingness.

Zero may exist, however, zero never goes into another number.  In calc many numbers can be used... I know this... 

Once again, zero never goes into another number.  Come on buddy, it is simple enough...

The idea that zero does not go into another number being simple....is obvious. The POINT is that what this MEANS observationally (which is what we are concerned about...it is the purpose of FE) is NOT simple. It is conceptually challenging, which is why I was asking you to think about the paradox. One does not understand this paradox just by understanding that 1/0 is an undefined quantity. It is an overly simplistic understanding of a much richer idea.

Address that idea. Then we learn.

In the past, I experienced all the variations of logic and understanding which tag along with the formula for calc.  However, the explanations leave many gaping holes, many glaring discrepancies.

Untold numbers confess the story of calc, talking about his dark side and the warnings he received about his formula, speaking about how the formula cannot exist yet does.

They will eventually know (along with every soul) that calc just leads to the downfall of simple mathematical logic.

Hats off to trig though.  Hats off...

62
I submitted testimonials from Everik tribal members.  They described it looking as a column of light brighter than the sun.

No deception there. 

Why alter the subject with more testimonials?  I validated that the event occurred and that a great deal of energy and light was released in the form of fire and heat. 

A 30 million degree ball of fire causes gravel and rock to burn white hot like magnesium... All that power lingered in the skies and radiated outward.  This situation only transpires on a flat earth, where no curvature obstructions exist.

63
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Measure a Ladder
« on: October 01, 2013, 12:13:47 PM »
h can just approach 0 in calc.  It never can actually arrive at the exact figure... The formula does not exist.  zero is nothingness.

Zero may exist, however, zero never goes into another number.  In calc many numbers can be used... I know this... 

Once again, zero never goes into another number.  Come on buddy, it is simple enough...

64
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ENaG Chapter XIV: "Deflection of Falling Bodies"
« on: October 01, 2013, 11:34:16 AM »
I said he wants to acknowledge... I did not say I want to acknowledge... 

In RE the air moves around at 1000 mph with the earth's rotation... However, his experiment contradicts this principle... Free moving air should also lag behind the earth's rotation causing great erosive winds.

I was just stating FE possesses air currents as well, which cause things dropped from that height to alter direction.

65
In order to claim that curvature would have blocked the light coming to London you need to know where the source of the light first. If the source of the light was actually above the observers like for example in the case of aurora then there is no point bringing in curvature. The phenomena could happen on round earth as well. But if you have some evidence that show the light source was in Tunguska, then you can argue that the earth is flat.

picture
Talking about the aurora borealis, which stems from the solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere, presents such a terrible, awful example...  The sun is a much larger object than the particular body which caused the event.  The event occurred in only one area, and the light spread outwards.  light only, not particles like solar flares.

You are trying to change the subject from the event to the aurora borealis where you just say, "see, it has lights."

Instead of focusing on a sun with a greater distance from earth (seen by everyone in FE and RE theory alike) be realistic and focus on the explosion that occurred at 7 km.  That should not have been seen.  Neither should the light from the area have been seen.

Auroras are unrelated.

The Aurora and this event are so unrelated and different that your comparison makes no sense.  Please note the different colors of an aurora borealis, please note the wave like shapes.  Also notice, how an aurora never gets as bright as that.

Once again, solar particles, which hit a large area from solar flares, and impact areas with temperatures totaling millions of degrees stand completely different from each other.  The sun, being seen by everyone, can emit particles that affect large areas.  That scenario just poses a big DUH...  Tunguska was just one localized event within the earth's atmosphere and close to the ground.

Provide just one shred of evidence that an impact from an object and solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere are the same scenario. 

The explosion came from just one area...  Solar particles bombard many different portions of the atmosphere at the same time...
Jingle, if you read my post carefully with a cool head you should know that, as RR pointed out to you as well, I didn't say that the glow had been caused by aurora. Actually I have never claimed I knew what caused the glow. Read again my post. It is actually a challenge for you (the bold ones). And also read what I said to SM:

Even testimonies from eye witnesses who live close to the blast centre only reported what happened during the blast. They didn't mention any strange phenomena during the nights following the blast.
But if you have some credible evidence that show the light source was in Tunguska several days after the blast, then you can argue that the earth is flat. Until then, your words alone mean nothing.

the light source came from Tunguska. 

I submitted several websites which prove that tunguska was incredibly hot with light in all directions.  Moscow saw a great deal of light to the point where a magnesium flash was not used... 

That is all I have to say...  You are just angry, because those were actual testimonies from people...  Real people...

66
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Measure a Ladder
« on: October 01, 2013, 11:24:53 AM »
0 never goes into 1...  its not a concrete figure divided infinitely...

67
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ENaG Chapter XIV: "Deflection of Falling Bodies"
« on: October 01, 2013, 09:59:22 AM »
Earth Not A Globe, Chapter XIV: "Deflection of Falling Bodies"

The author makes a fuss about the lack of substantial Easterly deflection in these experiments, and about the presence of a substantial Southerly deflection, asserting that this proves the earth to have no rotational motion. But, if the earth had no rotational motion, why is there such a substantial Southerly deflection of the falling objects?

Here's the theory behind the original experiments: an object suspended at rest is moving with the earth at whatever the rotational speed is at that point on the earth; a point some distance directly below the object is moving at a slightly lower speed, due to the smaller radius of it's circle; when the suspended object is released, it retains it's slightly greater rotational speed, and falls slightly ahead (to the East) of the point directly below it. If that doesn't make sense, look into the conservation of angular momentum, it's how ballet dancers spin faster by pulling their arms in close to their bodies.

The problem I see with this is that it only covers one component of the object's motion, and the lesser one at that. There is not much difference between the speed of two points 100 feet (or even 1000 feet) apart vertically on the earth's surface, so the horizontal, East/West difference between point of release and point of impact is going to be very small.

However, as we move away from the equator there is another influence on falling objects that becomes apparent: centripetal force. As the earth rotates, everything on it's surface is subject to an acceleration towards the axis of rotation proportional to it's distance from the axis. When an object is in free fall, this force is removed, so the falling object tends to move away from the axis of rotation (like a stone from a sling, but not as dramatic!). In the Northern hemisphere, where all these experiments were conducted, that tendency is to the South, hence all the falling bodies landing to the South of their release point.

While these experiments do not provide complete proof that earth is a globe, they do provide proof that the earth is at least rotating (which, of course, the author ignores completely). If these experiments were also conducted in the Southern hemisphere, and at various latitudes in both hemispheres, then the data collected could be used to prove (or, potentially, disprove) a spherical earth.

This sounds like the easily debunked Foucault pendulum experiment. The movements were caused by an expansion and contraction of materials due to changing surface temperature.  This effect always occurs even in thermostats, where two dissimilar metals side by side contract and expand to trigger cooling or heating.

In addition, if objects within the influence of the earth's rotation and gravity occasionally lag behind without ground contact, then an airplane would possess a large speed advantage going against the direction of rotation.  Also, a cannon ball launched directly in the air would not come straight down, it would come at an angle. 

Know the incredibly long air time... 

Know that you want to acknowledge that air travels around the planet with the earth at the exact same speed, then deny all of that for this object...

You state that these experiments demonstrate how objects fall behind from the motion of the earth.  However, you contradict yourself by denying how a free-flying plane at 30,000 plus feet does not pick up speed dramatically in flights. An object at 1000 feet does not eclipse an object at 30,000 feet.  There should be a more dramatic effect... period...

Once again, you cannot accept how things unattached to the earth lag behind from rotation and then deny the existence of flights which stay aloft for hours with no speed gains.

Air turbulence and wind current variation just as well cause alterations in position of falling objects on a FE.

68
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Measure a Ladder
« on: October 01, 2013, 09:42:00 AM »
website explaining concepts of gravity according to RE theory

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GeneralRelativity2.htm

69
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Measure a Ladder
« on: October 01, 2013, 09:40:48 AM »
gravity is nebulous because it cannot be seen... It is amorphous with no concrete form.  People rely on the principle out of just deep faith and attempt to apply formulas to its existence like calculus.

Technically, in calculus you determine how many times a zero can go into a one.  You divide 1 by 0.  In the real world, this equation does not exist.  It only lies in fictional imaginations.  No one can debate the weird nature of calculus, it cannot be truly infinite and at the same time cannot be truly reasonable.

In the orbit of planets, scientists speculate that a planet during its orbit around the sun moves not in a circle but in a straight line...  This concept of general relativity and alternative physics states that planets move through curved space, so the straight line taken by a planet becomes orbital momentum.

Hopefully, this reply explains everything.

70
Why is so much time being wasted on what the light was, that was being observed, the explosion or the aftermath or what-have-you? What difference does it make? Curvature would have blocked it out regardless.

The thermonuclear 'explosions', if fake, add value in that we know even less than we realize about explosions.

In order to claim that curvature would have blocked the light coming to London you need to know where the source of the light first. If the source of the light was actually above the observers like for example in the case of aurora then there is no point bringing in curvature. The phenomena could happen on round earth as well. But if you have some evidence that show the light source was in Tunguska, then you can argue that the earth is flat.



Talking about the aurora borealis, which stems from the solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere, presents such a terrible, awful example...  The sun is a much larger object than the particular body which caused the event.  The event occurred in only one area, and the light spread outwards.  light only, not particles like solar flares.

You are trying to change the subject from the event to the aurora borealis where you just say, "see, it has lights."

Instead of focusing on a sun with a greater distance from earth (seen by everyone in FE and RE theory alike) be realistic and focus on the explosion that occurred at 7 km.  That should not have been seen.  Neither should the light from the area have been seen.

Auroras are unrelated.

The Aurora and this event are so unrelated and different that your comparison makes no sense.  Please note the different colors of an aurora borealis, please note the wave like shapes.  Also notice, how an aurora never gets as bright as that.

Once again, solar particles, which hit a large area from solar flares, and impact areas with temperatures totaling millions of degrees stand completely different from each other.  The sun, being seen by everyone, can emit particles that affect large areas.  That scenario just poses a big DUH...  Tunguska was just one localized event within the earth's atmosphere and close to the ground.

Provide just one shred of evidence that an impact from an object and solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere are the same scenario. 

The explosion came from just one area...  Solar particles bombard many different portions of the atmosphere at the same time...

No, unfortunately this is not the case. Whereas solar particles are are incident on the Earth's magnetic field in many different locations, the field lines channel the particles to specific regions where aurora happens. The aurora is not particles, it is the energy dissipated from the particles' interaction with air molecules. The light is the relevant focus here.

"Once again, solar particles, which hit a large area from solar flares, and impact areas with temperatures totaling millions of degrees stand completely different from each other."

Aurora can be localized phenomena, but do not need to be. It depend on the Earth's magnetosphere and the interaction of it with particles from the Sun. It is a very complicated, non-linear, process. The mathematics needed to solve the recombination of the field lines (which can transport the particles) is insane. The plasma physics equations needed to understand the particle interactions is a nightmare.

I would suggest that none of us (FE or RE) are fluent enough in these topics to be able to make any claims about what it IS and IS NOT with respect to aurora. I know enough about these topics to be able to communicate how incredibly complicated they are.

An aurora borealis occurs when solar particles interact with the earth's magnetic field.  I know this.

However, the light generated from interactions from solar particles, and the light from an impact event possess no similarity. 

No matter how many different ways one kneads the dough.  It still does not bake...

The sun lies in the open to everyone.  Its rays and flares touch all directions.

This 7 km altitude event touched a large region, it could not have been visible on FE.  In addition, the event lacked UV light and radiation.  No solar radiation = no similarity. 

Solar flares cause cancer, this type of light does not cause cancer.

In addition, the spectra of an aurora hold different characteristics.

71
Why is so much time being wasted on what the light was, that was being observed, the explosion or the aftermath or what-have-you? What difference does it make? Curvature would have blocked it out regardless.

The thermonuclear 'explosions', if fake, add value in that we know even less than we realize about explosions.

In order to claim that curvature would have blocked the light coming to London you need to know where the source of the light first. If the source of the light was actually above the observers like for example in the case of aurora then there is no point bringing in curvature. The phenomena could happen on round earth as well. But if you have some evidence that show the light source was in Tunguska, then you can argue that the earth is flat.



Talking about the aurora borealis, which stems from the solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere, presents such a terrible, awful example...  The sun is a much larger object than the particular body which caused the event.  The event occurred in only one area, and the light spread outwards.  light only, not particles like solar flares.

You are trying to change the subject from the event to the aurora borealis where you just say, "see, it has lights."

Instead of focusing on a sun with a greater distance from earth (seen by everyone in FE and RE theory alike) be realistic and focus on the explosion that occurred at 7 km.  That should not have been seen.  Neither should the light from the area have been seen.

Auroras are unrelated.

The Aurora and this event are so unrelated and different that your comparison makes no sense.  Please note the different colors of an aurora borealis, please note the wave like shapes.  Also notice, how an aurora never gets as bright as that.

Once again, solar particles, which hit a large area from solar flares, and impact areas with temperatures totaling millions of degrees stand completely different from each other.  The sun, being seen by everyone, can emit particles that affect large areas.  That scenario just poses a big DUH...  Tunguska was just one localized event within the earth's atmosphere and close to the ground.

Provide just one shred of evidence that an impact from an object and solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere are the same scenario. 

The explosion came from just one area...  Solar particles bombard many different portions of the atmosphere at the same time...

72
Exactly, Aliens prove the existence of a flat earth anyway

In Sumerian, AL means God.  Many languages share this title like Akkadian, Ilu, Il, El...

En in Sumerian and other related tongues means King.

So, more proof of a flat earth based on ancient words and religion.

Ancient Beings = God Kings From Heaven...  Extraterrestrials were actually angels on a mission... 

Lets not veer to far off though...  Seriously...

73
Just in case the web page goes down...  These colors were observed at these points

London = pinkish hue
Scotland = white light
Germany = green light
Moscow, Russia = bright light where a camera's magnesium flash was not necessary for pictures.

More proof that reflective dust fails to give sufficient power for the magnitude of what was witnessed.

That website also says that this was an alien spaceship and there was an giant alien there.

So the earth is flat because some alien landed in Tunguska :)

Lets not veer to far from the subject.  Who knows?  Could have been an arbiter of destruction from beyond.  However, refraction does not explain these large distances where things are visible like that.

Refraction gives a piss poor argument.  The image of a refraction/mirage always comes incredibly, obviously blurry,  and never adds to the height of an image more than 1/12 th of the original position.

74
Just in case the web page goes down...  These colors were observed at these points

London = pinkish hue
Scotland = white light
Germany = green light
Moscow, Russia = bright light where a camera's magnesium flash was not necessary for pictures.

More proof that reflective dust fails to give sufficient power for the magnitude of what was witnessed.

That website also says that this was an alien spaceship and there was an giant alien there.

That's just advanced, detailed eye witness accounts.  People report what they see...

However, I talked about the radiated light, the light from the explosion... That is pretty much it. 

The area was so hot, and creatures ran from the area covered in thick scabs.  So pretty much, I cannot say anymore. 

No more statements and evidence can be given.

75
Just in case the web page goes down...  These colors were observed at these points

London = pinkish hue
Scotland = white light
Germany = green light
Moscow, Russia = bright light where a camera's magnesium flash was not necessary for pictures.

More proof that reflective dust fails to give sufficient power for the magnitude of what was witnessed.

76
The true cause of all the light is emissions from the area.

This source of light must have been very powerful that its light could be seen thousand of miles away. Please provide some credible third party evidence.

http://www.slemen.com/tunguska.html

Check out the fifth paragraph.  This website poses another example.

77
All of these stand as credible sources with sufficient citation.

the link here says that it was 30 million degrees fahrenheit, it backs up my info...

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r05/

this link defines the temperature of the sun.

http://www.space.com/17137-how-hot-is-the-sun.html

The true cause of all the light is emissions from the area.  No amount of reflective dust can explain the amount of light throughout Europe. 

The moon reflects the sun's light and you can barely even read a paper on a full moon.  How much smaller would a comet trail be, very much smaller.

They were reading papers at midnight with this event.

Know that this event caused much mystery and confusion.

78
Naturally, a cascade of particles and debris falling down to the surface occurred as well...

You haven't answered my question again. That powerful hotter than sun source of light was hovering above Tunguska for days, right? YES or NO. Don't make repeat my question again.

I answered the question.  You are just being blind...

79
Penetrating light radiated in every direction.  Hover does not present an appropriate word...  Levitating light never ever gives a warm, fuzzy feeling of reliability.

Even with sky glow, the light stems from an original source.  This accumulated light pollution leads to the perception of a glowing skyline.  Its kind of like a hologram with crossing laser beams in mist.  Enough of that and a solid mass of light travels in all directions.

Same thing with this event.  The light had a source. 

With 30 million degrees Fahrenheit, the light would take several days to dissipate fully.  Please know that the sun only burns at 10 million degrees Fahrenheit on the surface, 27 million in the core...

This information stands as the accepted info for RE'ers.  I present it for a parallel of simplicity.

http://www.space.com/17137-how-hot-is-the-sun.html
Light must have source and this phenomena was observed for several night. So are you saying that there was a powerful source of light, so powerful that its light can be seen up to England, somewhere above Tunguska for days? Or are you saying that there is some kind of light which can exist without any source above Europe for days?

She was hot... The bitch was so searing hot... It lasted for days yo...  30 million degrees Fahrenheit, hotter than the core of the sun...

So that powerful source of light, hotter than sun even, was hovering above Tunguska for days, right? Are you not using this argument to prove the earth is flat?

Technically it exploded at 7km (approx. 22,966 feet) in the air.  Still this altitude, according to calculations, leaves much obstruction room from curvature according to RE. 

Visibility of the light only happened due to a FE scenario.

I didn't ask what had happened during the blast. Don't dodge my question. This phenomena was observed for several nights. I repeat my question again. That powerful hotter than sun source of light was hovering above Tunguska for days, right?

The object did not hover above the area.  It felled many stadia of trees at the impact zone... 

In addition, the most accepted theories still remain tenuous and unclear.  The light emitted from the area (everyone poses incorrect ideas) proves everything though.

80
Naturally, a cascade of particles and debris falling down to the surface occurred as well...

81
Penetrating light radiated in every direction.  Hover does not present an appropriate word...  Levitating light never ever gives a warm, fuzzy feeling of reliability.

Even with sky glow, the light stems from an original source.  This accumulated light pollution leads to the perception of a glowing skyline.  Its kind of like a hologram with crossing laser beams in mist.  Enough of that and a solid mass of light travels in all directions.

Same thing with this event.  The light had a source. 

With 30 million degrees Fahrenheit, the light would take several days to dissipate fully.  Please know that the sun only burns at 10 million degrees Fahrenheit on the surface, 27 million in the core...

This information stands as the accepted info for RE'ers.  I present it for a parallel of simplicity.

http://www.space.com/17137-how-hot-is-the-sun.html
Light must have source and this phenomena was observed for several night. So are you saying that there was a powerful source of light, so powerful that its light can be seen up to England, somewhere above Tunguska for days? Or are you saying that there is some kind of light which can exist without any source above Europe for days?

She was hot... The bitch was so searing hot... It lasted for days yo...  30 million degrees Fahrenheit, hotter than the core of the sun...

So that powerful source of light, hotter than sun even, was hovering above Tunguska for days, right? Are you not using this argument to prove the earth is flat?

Technically it exploded at 7km (approx. 22,966 feet) in the air.  Still this altitude, according to calculations, leaves much obstruction room from curvature according to RE. 

Visibility of the light only happened due to a FE scenario.

82
Penetrating light radiated in every direction.  Hover does not present an appropriate word...  Levitating light never ever gives a warm, fuzzy feeling of reliability.

Even with sky glow, the light stems from an original source.  This accumulated light pollution leads to the perception of a glowing skyline.  Its kind of like a hologram with crossing laser beams in mist.  Enough of that and a solid mass of light travels in all directions.

Same thing with this event.  The light had a source. 

With 30 million degrees Fahrenheit, the light would take several days to dissipate fully.  Please know that the sun only burns at 10 million degrees Fahrenheit on the surface, 27 million in the core...

This information stands as the accepted info for RE'ers.  I present it for a parallel of simplicity.

http://www.space.com/17137-how-hot-is-the-sun.html
Light must have source and this phenomena was observed for several night. So are you saying that there was a powerful source of light, so powerful that its light can be seen up to England, somewhere above Tunguska for days? Or are you saying that there is some kind of light which can exist without any source above Europe for days?

She was hot... The bitch was so searing hot... It lasted for days yo...  30 million degrees Fahrenheit, hotter than the core of the sun...

83
Here is a relevant article.  The effects lasted so long...

http://www.qsl.net/w5www/tunguska.html

Very interesting article. I think it sounds like it would have been an amazing event to witness but I don't see why this event makes you think that the earth is flat without a shadow of doubt. This was an event the was felt and witnessed by apparently millions and nobody has drawn the same conclusions about the earth being flat except for you guys cause you are looking for it. My argument is very simple. It was an extraordinary event and some extraordinary things resulted from it. Whatever those are is simply unknown and isn't backed by facts for RE or FE.

Its like taking an LED light (small), and putting it on a foam Nerf ball. 

Measure out 90 plus degrees from the point where the light is.

Notice how the light fails to reach the point 90 degrees ahead of the LED light on the sphere.

Apply this to the real world.

Know the Earth Is Flat....

84
Penetrating light radiated in every direction.  Hover does not present an appropriate word...  Levitating light never ever gives a warm, fuzzy feeling of reliability.

Even with sky glow, the light stems from an original source.  This accumulated light pollution leads to the perception of a glowing skyline.  Its kind of like a hologram with crossing laser beams in mist.  Enough of that and a solid mass of light travels in all directions.

Same thing with this event.  The light had a source. 

With 30 million degrees Fahrenheit, the light would take several days to dissipate fully.  Please know that the sun only burns at 10 million degrees Fahrenheit on the surface, 27 million in the core...

This information stands as the accepted info for RE'ers.  I present it for a parallel of simplicity.

http://www.space.com/17137-how-hot-is-the-sun.html

85
Since the temperature of the fireball was estimated to be 30 million degrees Fahrenheit (LeMaire 1980), one can easily see that the fireball stood as the sole cause of all the light seen...

87
Here is a relevant article.  The effects lasted so long...

http://www.qsl.net/w5www/tunguska.html

88
Back to topic.

jroa, do you have any credible testimony of people who have witnessed a blast that lasted for days?

I said one blast... I said the light lasted after the blast came.

I think you are going through syntax errors... You need to update your program a taste...

89
The meteor theory never ever stood that solid before.  When did everything just change?  They always speculate about the age of the earth and guess continually.

Think about all the crocs out there.  Scientists say they go back to the era of the dinosaurs.

What about Loch Ness???  Some old type of dinosaur?

All these contradictions start to pile up on you guys don't they.

90
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE: Not science? or impossible to test?
« on: September 30, 2013, 01:18:56 PM »
What do you mean?  I am still on point completely by saying that it presents a horrifically bad example.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10