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 - brathearon

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
31
Flat Earth General / Re: More konspirasee?
« on: March 24, 2010, 09:24:59 AM »
So are you saying that as I watch a plane take off and get smaller and smaller as it gets farther away from me, I can't say that's perspective? I don't understand what you're saying.

Obviously if we know what it looks like up close, we know its size while in the air.

But what about something like the sun, which no one has seen up close? 30 miles in diameter? 300? 3,000? 30,000? Who's to say?

Quote
What if one bacteria creates a submarine and travels away from the cuttlefish, takes photos for the other bacterium to see, then comes back to show them.

That would depend how trustworthy the bacteria in the submarine is.

Has it been shown that the bacteria is faking its missions in a studio?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is falsifying records and deleting archival data?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is silencing critics and whistle blowers?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is going around giving fake moon rocks to heads of states?

If so, then the bacteria can't really be considered a reliable source.

most of the answers to those questions are assumed.

Also, the bacteria can look at other bodies and see that they are round too, and have similar materials found on their object of choice, be it a submarine or a cuttlefish.  They dont have reason to believe that the object they are on is different.  

However our situation is quite different from this, and i dont find it a good example.  For example, there are bacteria on other objects.

32
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Tides
« on: March 22, 2010, 09:55:31 PM »
The first point Tom raises clearly has to do with the shape of the Earth.  In one model the shape is much different due to its nature.  We are talking about fundamentally different shapes for every single "object" in existence, including space and space medium itself.

Not really.  Regardless of the mechanism, gravity/gravitation is proportional to mass.  An object just needs enough mass to generate enough of a gravitational field to cause it to become more or less round.

Remember relativity is non-euclidean.

relativity attempts to answer "why", or rather, it was a "why" before the experiment confirmed that "moving clocks run slow".  It (the "why") may still be disproven, but the fact of the matter of the effects of movement, and their predictability remain.

33
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Evidence
« on: March 22, 2010, 09:49:58 PM »
That's because the general public wouldn't know what to do with most of the data that NASA collects from its space missions.  NASA releases most of their data to the scientific community, who would know what to do with it.  I don't understand why you see that as a problem.

So NASA is releasing its data to some sort of secret scientific community now?  ???

Last I checked most major research universities and facilities operated in the open.


and even the major research universities and facilities didnt care for the excess/redundant materials  :).  It was only demanded because of conspiracy theories.  Most of the videos they show could have easily just been put as a single photo, finished. The rest of the research they do in space is widely known to the public, like my link above.

34
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Tides
« on: March 22, 2010, 01:04:04 PM »
Quote
We do have just one model of the round earth.

So is the earth holding us to its surface with gravitons or bendy space?

Is the compass needle attracted by magnetic photons or a newtonian field?

Is it dark matter which holds together the galaxies?

the basic observation of shapes is never disputed though.

the difference is, everyone knows what works, and how to predict it.  But the "why" is disputed.

35
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Does the flat earth rotate?
« on: March 22, 2010, 12:59:19 PM »
i think most of the books they ask you to read are free.

36
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Evidence
« on: March 22, 2010, 12:35:56 PM »
There is probably a reason for that.  Did they say that we are not releasing to the public because they are trying to hide something?  Most of it probably didnt contain much information at all.  It is like filming a movie.  You cut out 99% of what you film (im exaggerating i dont know the real number, but it may be close to what NASA had to cut off because they also tapped ALL activity, and not just activity they "prepared" for viewing).  Especially if you run it nonstop.

Did they supply a reason at all?  Did anyone ask why?  And if they didnt respond, did anyone consider that they did not think that it is an important question to waste their time answering?

A while back there was a freedom of information act filed against NASA to give up the two metric tons telemetry tapes which were supposedly collected. After much hair pulling NASA conceded and claimed that they were lost.

well, when they cut it off, they probably deleted it, which makes perfect sense.  In retrospect, instead of filming the entire trip, they could just stick with photos only.  After all, who would care if they had hours of filming a rock.  A picture would do the same thing, and i can see it for endless hours.

37
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Evidence
« on: March 22, 2010, 12:20:22 PM »
NASA is unaware about the shape of the earth?

As a fake space exploration organization which is in it for the money, NASA would have no interest in conducting actual research.

*sigh*  There you go again.  All of those fake NASA scientists needing to come up with fake data to pass on to real scientists who don't know the shape of the earth either.  ::)

Despite  popular belief, NASA actually releases relatively little data to the public from any of its space missions.For example, NASA never released the two metric tons of telemetry tapes they claim was collected from the moon's surface.

The photos are there. But the scientific data is not.

There is probably a reason for that.  Did they say that we are not releasing to the public because they are trying to hide something?  Most of it probably didnt contain much information at all.  It is like filming a movie.  You cut out 99% of what you film (im exaggerating i dont know the real number, but it may be close to what NASA had to cut off because they also tapped ALL activity, and not just activity they "prepared" for viewing).  Especially if you run it nonstop.

Did they supply a reason at all?  Did anyone ask why?  And if they didnt respond, did anyone consider that they did not think that it is an important question to waste their time answering?

38
Flat Earth General / Re: Why disregard photos from NASA?
« on: March 22, 2010, 12:10:41 PM »
i like how in one of the videos the "wire" is somehow holding the object up clearly off its center of mass, but holding it as if its floating.  Its like using a wire to hold a stick up from the edge and hoping it will be horizontal off the floor.

39
Flat Earth General / Re: FET is based on ill-understanding of itself
« on: March 22, 2010, 11:59:35 AM »
Quote
Sometimes I only hang around for the lolz.

wait, you mean you DONT!?  :(

40
Flat Earth General / Re: Has anyone been converted?
« on: March 22, 2010, 11:26:47 AM »
I used to be a RE'er.  I think the main reason I changed is due to the knowledgeable members of this site.  I like to think of this site as a fire of wisdom, without which I would be subject the conformity and logical resonated ideas of society. But I'm not here to judge, I respect both flat and round earthers.
lol, great sarcasm  :)

I'm not being sarcastic.

Unfortunately, he isnt the only person to believe people who are knowledgeable because they are knowledgeable.  (seemingly of course  :))

41
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Evidence
« on: March 22, 2010, 09:22:40 AM »
Then why do you reject any and all of NASA's evidence of the earth being round?

There is evidence of NASA being distrustworthy. There is no evidence of NASA being trustworthy.

we pay nasa for research that is impossible to do on earth.  Such as long protein crystal growths that is only possible in space. 

http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/msad/pcg/

I send what i need done, it gets done (as if it was done from zero gravity space).  How is that not trustworthy?

42
Flat Earth General / Re: Has anyone been converted?
« on: March 21, 2010, 02:58:32 AM »
im not 100% convinced that people are being truthful about being converted.

43
So NASA posts guards on the ice wall?

Sounds like a easy job!  Where do i sign up? =)

44
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Society
« on: March 17, 2010, 02:08:54 PM »
Quote
Anyway, I do agree that Occham's Razor favors the RE'ers strongly

Actually, it doesn't.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Occams+Razor

those explanations dont proove that its a simpler explanation, its just worded to seem that way

Quote
What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?

thats a matter of opinion.  To me, my eyes are not deceiving me, the sky clearly looks curved, as does the pathway the sun takes.  It makes more sense to me, an object in a steady state, spinning, than an object constantly with a source still unidentified.

Quote
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

Whats more believable, a space agency that was pressured to go into space, actually went into space using technology they were already trying to develop, or they started this global conspiracy that nobody dares question, and that they have endless cash, able to silence/discredit everyone that may speak out against it?  Also, that they use this conspiracy money to do experiments impossible on earth.  For example, our lab needed a protein crystal, but it can only be made in large quantities in 0 gravity.  How did nasa do this week long growth (of a HUGE crystal mind you) on earth?  I think its more believeable that they used their conspiracy money to grow it on some also unkown method, not to mention all of the other research they do.  Does any other country have a reason to put effort into going into space?  I think the simpler explanation is that countries havent been even trying to pointlessly get into space, than failing to do so.

Quote
When I walk off the edge of a chair and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton particles emanating from the earth which allows them to accelerate my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?

I dont know about you, but when i fall off a chair, i sorta feel like im falling down.  It doesnt seem very plausable to me that whatever is making the earth accelerate mindlessly upward, NEVER adds angular momentum to the entire system.  Its pretty much impossible.  To me, the simplest explanation would be that, like the other planets made of similar materials that we can see, are subject to a force that is inversly proportional to the distance between them, but directly proportional to the masses of them.  This behavior is observed, and we see no real reason why the same materials found in space dont behave similarly on earth.

Quote
What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?

The force of gravity>centripetal acceleration.  It seems simpler to me that the radius of the earth (as theorized) is huge enough, to make this force negligible.  Like Kepler, i also find that the solar system is much easier to explain if we assume the sun is centered.  In fact, he found his observations/data to fit perfectly once he fit it to that model.  It doesnt get simpler than that.  I dont exactly see how the lighting of the planet and observations of sunrises and sunsets is "simpler" in the FE model.

Quote
What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, galactic civilizations, black holes, novas and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light exactly they appear to be?

im not exactly sure anyone believes that there is life out there.  Even if there is, if you mathematically theorize it from the clay pot theory origin of life (i forget what its called) its too far away that even close to light speed, you wont find them.  I think its also simpler to believe, that how the stars/planets seem to "move with me" when i move, explains just how far away and vast this universe is.  And to be able to see that, they must also be huge.  I believe thats the simpler explanation.

45
Flat Earth General / Re: Answer these
« on: March 17, 2010, 09:43:21 AM »
look up the flat earth society on wikipedia, you should find your answer to #2 =)

46
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Society
« on: March 17, 2010, 09:34:19 AM »
Because it is clearly visible that it is in fact round.

I looked out my window, looks flat to me.


i looked out my window to, i noticed the sky meets the horizon below my center of vision when i look directly forward, rather than the middle where it should be if it were flat.  I also notice the sun rises and sets, not shrinking/growing like it should.

47
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Light bends up, right?
« on: March 16, 2010, 01:01:35 PM »
even so, we can observe the spectral lines from space to tell what they are made of.

No, we can observe spectral lines to tell what wavelengths of light are coming from objects in space.

And it just so happens that their densities match up with the materials they are made of  (that is, you dont see any ridiculous values like metal being the density of air at ice temperatures).

If you assume RET, that is. Who would have thought that making an assumption would lead to conclusions that work well with that assumption?

And it also just so happens that the sun's fusion reactions also match with the RE values of gravity and quantum tunneling.

There's no evidence to suggest that nuclear fusion occurs inside the Sun.

Also, the speeds and sizes of the sun and planets also conveniently match up with the RE forms of gravity.

You've got that backwards. RET was derived from observations of the planets assuming a RE model; consequently, it agrees with their properties according to RET.

That is, if i "assume" the earth has gravity, use that value for G, and apply it to the entire solar system, it all works out within my error.

Pray tell, how exactly does one derive the value of G by assuming the Earth has gravity, without reference to any astronomical bodies?


im not good with quoting, but here goes.  Spectral lines are unique to the atoms that make it.  No photons exist without their atomic source.  Whether they come from pair annihilation, or energy level transitions, the energy can, and will match up.  Energy does not come out of nowhere, and atoms do not emit light of forbidden transitions.

The next few quotes go together, dunno why you needed to separate them =(.  Anyway, so i know i have a mass, and i know that the earth has a mass.  I know F=ma, so i know what force is pulling me downward.  Since im telling you im going with assumptions, and that these assumptions are supposed to match with motions of planets in space, im going to assume all objects close to the surface of the earth, accelerate toward it's center at g (which is roughly true).  I find out my mass, by any perferred method, then this should match up with the amount of force the earth is experiencing toward me, or else i break one of newton's laws =).  

So since the force is similar to electromagnetism, and gets reduced in density, we can see that it has a 1/r2 dependence.  The force must also be mass dependent, since F=ma, and a=g, and all objects accelerate at a rate of g.  So we have GM/r2=g.  Now we need to know the radius of the earth http://www.karlscalculus.org/measureearth.html.  So now we only have two unknowns, G and M.  Unfortunately, this is where the biggest error will probably come in, where your going to have to approximate the density of the planet based on its composition.  How do i know what the composition is?   Well, we know the surface easily, and the inside is obtained from lava.  Also, some radioactive decay may be visible, but i'd have to do research on that.  

From there, you should be ready to test it with the other planets, and believe me, if your off even a little, you may be ok with one planet's orbit/behavior, but you will NOT be accurate at all with all of them.

48
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Light bends up, right?
« on: March 16, 2010, 12:20:14 PM »
there is that, and the meteors and such that fall.

There's no evidence to suggest that the meteorites we find on the ground come from space.

even so, we can observe the spectral lines from space to tell what they are made of.  And it just so happens that their densities match up with the materials they are made of  (that is, you dont see any ridiculous values like metal being the density of air at ice temperatures).  And it also just so happens that the sun's fusion reactions also match with the RE values of gravity and quantum tunneling.  Also, the speeds and sizes of the sun and planets also conveniently match up with the RE forms of gravity.  That is, if i "assume" the earth has gravity, use that value for G, and apply it to the entire solar system, it all works out within my error. 

you probably cant see ALL of the planets, but the ones you can see match.

49
Flat Earth General / Re: Basic question, not covered in FAQ
« on: March 16, 2010, 12:03:33 PM »
images can be distorted.  The only way to convince people of RE, is to have an inexpensive, quick, and easy experiment everyone can do.  Although if such and experiment existed, an alternative explanation would be given, and then you would need a new experiment.

50
Remember that the air around you is also accelerating at 9.8ms-2

i read this thinking you said inverse milliseconds

51
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Light bends up, right?
« on: March 16, 2010, 11:52:18 AM »
Becuase you seem to fail at comprehending it.

Not at all. In fact, the principle, if not the practice, is extremely straightforward.

there is that, and the meteors and such that fall.

52
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Light bends up, right?
« on: March 15, 2010, 03:10:18 AM »
why even need a source for the earth accelerating upward if newton's first law may not be valid?

Because Newton's first law of motion is generally accepted to be valid, and we have no reason to believe that it is not.

except, if you do believe its valid, then how does anyone explain the apparent gravitational behavior of everything in space?  Especially when so many of the materials there can also be found on earth?

53
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Light bends up, right?
« on: March 14, 2010, 08:09:44 AM »
why even need a source for the earth accelerating upward if newton's first law may not be valid?

54
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Light bends up, right?
« on: March 12, 2010, 09:28:35 PM »
Its been proven to a point where it is accepted as much as most things we deem "real".  Which i realize does not COMPLETELY proove it, as nothing can be.  It would be like saying that i put books in a box, do i know that the books dont disappear while they are inside and reappear when i open it again?  how do i know that someone doesnt secretly take them, and put them back before i open it again every time?  How do i know that something im looking at is really there?  There are circumstances that can make things that i know and see as real, to be actually false, but it is rare/unlikely that it is.

Im not completely saying that newton's law cant be false, im saying its unlikely that it is, especially for macroscopic objects.

Then you agree that any conclusion which relies on it is based on the assumption that it is true.

you realize, that that means that everything that you say, everything that exists (including this discussion about assumptions) are ALL assumptions.

Except, this is not how people define things in this day and age.  Things with an incredibly high amount of certainty are taken to be true.

55
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Light bends up, right?
« on: March 12, 2010, 09:59:41 AM »
its not a theorum, its a law that almost everyone has tested personally many, many times.  If it wasnt true, then there would be no need to explain the source of the constant upward acceleration that the FErs talk about in their model.

Nothing you've said changes the fact that nobody has proven Newton's first law of motion to be true.

Its been proven to a point where it is accepted as much as most things we deem "real".  Which i realize does not COMPLETELY proove it, as nothing can be.  It would be like saying that i put books in a box, do i know that the books dont disappear while they are inside and reappear when i open it again?  how do i know that someone doesnt secretly take them, and put them back before i open it again every time?  How do i know that something im looking at is really there?  There are circumstances that can make things that i know and see as real, to be actually false, but it is rare/unlikely that it is.

Im not completely saying that newton's law cant be false, im saying its unlikely that it is, especially for macroscopic objects.

56
Hello, and what university did you attend?
None. I attended a liberal arts college. Although I did summer research at UIC.
Also, hi! How are you?

I am very good! How are you? Theory of Relativity claims you would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to light speeds, well guess what! With this magical dark fairy energy, you now have an infinite amount of energy available! So here we were trying to discover warp speeds when we're already in what, Gigawarp 5?

:]


you just explained how the earth never actually reaches the speed of light in the FE model.  In your equations above, you use the non relativistic equations when dealing with high speeds, and then apply the theory of relativity to them.  If you applied the equations of relativity from the beginning, you will see that the earth never reaches the speed of light in any reference frame (In any model  :))


i cant recall offhand the right equations, but i know it involves gamma, and you have to use the equations for momentum in your caclulations.

57
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Light bends up, right?
« on: March 12, 2010, 09:47:36 AM »
im not sure why you wouldn't take newton's first law as true.  Most of the time, when you claim it as false, THAT becomes the assumption.  Not saying people havent assumed that newton's first law wasnt true before, just saying that believing it to be true doesnt necessarily make it an assumption.  its like "assuming" 2+2=4.  You could bend the rules by assuming something false, like 2+j=3, and see where you go with it. (j being (-1)^0.5)

How does one's argument relying on an unproven theorem being true not qualify as making an assumption?

its not a theorum, its a law that almost everyone has tested personally many, many times.  If it wasnt true, then there would be no need to explain the source of the constant upward acceleration that the FErs talk about in their model. 

58
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Light bends up, right?
« on: March 12, 2010, 09:29:48 AM »
im not sure why you wouldn't take newton's first law as true.  Most of the time, when you claim it as false, THAT becomes the assumption.  Not saying people havent assumed that newton's first law wasnt true before, just saying that believing it to be true doesnt necessarily make it an assumption.  its like "assuming" 2+2=4.  You could bend the rules by assuming something false, like 2+j=3, and see where you go with it. (j being (-1)^0.5)

59
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof of flat earth theory
« on: March 12, 2010, 09:24:31 AM »
On your map we would've A) flown over Europe and much of Asia and the pilots would have to be in on the conspiracy or B) flown a northern route around everything that would've taken MUCH longer than 13 hours.


Prove it. Stop making baseless claims which are grounded in nothing more than your assumptions.
A typical plane goes 500-550 MPH.
This is an assumption.

Or, ya know, an established fact conformable by any number of sources.

Wanna play THAT game?

i dont think you realize that you are arguing with an REer =).

Anyway, your sources are supposedly ALL from the conspiracy =).  It would take some very precise instruments to measure a plane on ground.  You may get a ballpark answer, ill try it when i get the chance, but seeing angle changes with my eyes, i can tell you my error is going to be around 50%. (being generous)

i guess supalovah has a better idea.  Although im not familiar with how a radar gun would do with something that far (for example, will you be able to aim the gun correctly fast enough? :) ).  You might need something a little more expensive.

60
Flat Earth General / Re: How many of you have physics degrees?
« on: March 12, 2010, 09:00:39 AM »
this site wouldnt be active if the FErs didnt have a great deal of education behind their backs

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6