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 - Canadark

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33
Flat Earth Debate / Re: New Idea on Sunrise/Sunsets
« on: January 03, 2010, 11:03:26 AM »
Stay on topic people. This is the Debate board; I want the discussion to stay on the issue of sunrises and sunsets.

The talk has turned to analogies for bendy light to highlight its uselessness, and the bendy light theory is relevant to sunrises and sunsets.
It. Is. On. Topic.  ::)

The topic is sunrises and sunsets. Inane babble about the toothfairy is not 'on-topic'. Disputing moderation within a thread is against the site rules, and you know that. I won't warn you about this again.

I think he was trying to say that bendy light is mythological, in that it gives us an explanation for a phenomenon but does not have scientific support. Just like a child might explain the quarter under his pillow as evidence of the tooth fairy.

I'm not trying to argue against your authority but I think this has some relevance in a topic on light.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Astronauts in zero gravity
« on: January 03, 2010, 09:33:59 AM »
Whether or not the recording was live or not is really irrelevant.  The fact is that I presented a 20 minute video, without a cut, showing 7 astronauts in a zero gravity environment as evidenced by the astronaut's necklace floating.

It's not the 60's anymore. NASA doesn't need to build sets in Vomit Comets to simulate weightlessness, like they had to do for the movie Apollo 13.

There's something called CGI now. Look into it. CGI can simulate weightlessness much longer than the several minutes you'd get in a Vomit Comet. Watch the movie "Space Cowboys" sometime. NASA acted as technical assistance to create the CGI weightless effects in the movie.

Tom, you don't get to say that the conspiracy is a reality because it COULD be possible. You are accusing NASA of being part of a global movement to convince the public that the world is flat, but the onus probandi is on YOU. Until then, how can we be expected to believe you.

Flat Earth General / Re: New Russian stunt
« on: January 03, 2010, 09:30:00 AM »
I was thinking to post about this. I have one problem. How are they supposed to deflect an asteroid?

They're not GOING to. The Russians are just trying to get a rise out of this.

Flat Earth General / Re: New Russian stunt
« on: January 02, 2010, 09:29:34 AM »

MOSCOW Russia's space agency chief said Wednesday a spacecraft may be dispatched to knock a large asteroid off course and reduce the chances of earth impact, even though U.S. scientists say such a scenario is unlikely."

The Conspiracy's greatest difficulty is always providing the illusion of PURPOSE.

This is Russia we're talking about chief.

From your link:
"Russian explorers have planted their country's flag on the seabed 4,200m (14,000ft) below the North Pole to further Moscow's claims to the Arctic."

You just brought up one of my favorite topics! Why is everyone scrambling for mineral rights to the N Pole but NOBODY is trying to make any claims on the, er, South Pole?

My point was that Russia is prone to doing outlandish things to get a rise out of other countries. Also remember these points:

1. Russia has much easier access to the Arctic than the Antarctic.

2. Oil reserves in the Arctic are very real, and will become more accessible if the ice caps do in fact recede.

3. Countries HAVE in fact been competing for land rights to Antarctica.

4. You cant drive a submarine under Antarctica.

Flat Earth General / Re: Absolute Proof the Earth is Flat
« on: January 02, 2010, 09:19:29 AM »
Some of us talked about that article when you first posted it.  First of all, the author pulls a lot of random stuff out of his ass.  For example:

[Important moderators] have been spotted on hacked private forums, where they were boasting about their hoax.

What?  No, they haven't.

Apparently, the 'Flat-Earthers' who created the site were really Trolls who planned to attract Round-earthers, and confound them with silly arguments.

Uh, no.  This site was founded by one man, and it doesn't seem like the author has any idea who he is.

Trolls being unmasked are a cause for scandal.

The reason why everyone feigns to take the question of trolling so seriously is, of course, because accusations of trolling offer endless opportunities for trolling about trolling. This thread for example, is typical: everyone claims to be the only sincere defender of Flat/Round Earth Theory, and accuses everyone else of being a Troll."

I'm not going to pretend that I could make any sense of that.

Also, as I pointed out earlier, there's a big difference between a devil's advocate and a troll.  Trolls are disruptive in nature, more concerned with getting a negative reaction from others than the debate itself.  Very few of us are like that.

Just curious, what does the "8/30 never forget" thing refer to?

Flat Earth General / Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« on: January 02, 2010, 09:16:01 AM »
It's sort of funny how it is readily accepted that China's space program is fake, yet the rest are not, despite the fact that China's fake space program working with the other space programs on billion dollar space projects.

Once we have a fake space program working with other nations in space it sort of implicates the rest now, doesn't it?

But you've only addressed one video.

Flat Earth General / Re: A message to all FE debators.
« on: December 30, 2009, 07:55:45 PM »
My God, you're right!  Well...this is embarrassing...kind of undercuts every time I told a noob to read the FAQ.  Although, I could have sworn that there used to be a brief explanation of the sinking ship effect there.

Actually the FAQ instructs the viewer to read Earth Not a Globe, which does provide insight on that particular subject. Ergo, "Read the FAQ" is still a  valid response.

ENaG is not the FAQ.

Well, obviously, but I think his point is that someone who truly reads the FAQ should do what it suggests and read ENaG.  Although, I doubt that many people here have read it.

Then why bother having a FAQ if you need to go to ENaG for the answers?  Besides, ENaG only provides one FE model.  The FAQ acknowledges that there are several alternate FE models. 

Different FE models are used to validate different criticisms of FET, even though they contradict each other.

Flat Earth General / Re: satellites
« on: December 30, 2009, 07:53:26 PM »
In any case, even if this guy did see something in his scope get a little brighter at the exact moment NASA claimed they were doing something that could generate such an effect, doesn't that just show that whatever object stands in for the ISS is capable of imitating other ISS-based activity as well?  Why are we even surprised by this?

You are inventing evidence to support Flat Earth Theory.

Flat Earth General / Re: New Russian stunt
« on: December 30, 2009, 07:50:55 PM »

MOSCOW Russia's space agency chief said Wednesday a spacecraft may be dispatched to knock a large asteroid off course and reduce the chances of earth impact, even though U.S. scientists say such a scenario is unlikely."

The Conspiracy's greatest difficulty is always providing the illusion of PURPOSE.

This is Russia we're talking about chief.

Similarly, there is no direct evidence for UA without also making untestable assumptions.

No untestable assumptions? How about throwing a ball up into the air and watching how fast the earth catches up with it! Don't you think this would be a good lesson for 7 year old's about the laws of nature? Or would you prefer to start with space-time curvature and see what their take-away lesson from that is?

There is no provability of UA. The only reason that UA was invented was because when somebody pointed out that gravity would cause a flat plane to crunch up into a ball, the flat guys needed an alternative explanation for why we stick to the ground.
Gravity explains, among other things, why we stick to the ground, why the planets move as they do, why celestial objects are the shape they are, how the tides work, how satellites function, how unmanned spacecraft trajectories are plotted, and more.
Of these six things I mention, how many does UA explain? One. And even then it doesn't have any ability to be distinguished from gravity, which is why it's an untestable assumption. Its existence is totally reliant on an unproven factor, which is the earth being flat. Until RET is proved false (see "RET Challenge" thread) then FET cannot be proved true. Until the earth is proven flat, then UA is resting on top of an untestable assumption.
You could try to argue that RET has not been proved true. However, as long as every physical phenomenon is explainable in RET (NOT the case with FET) then it has superiority as a scientific theory and should be taught as the preferred model.
Try switching your brain on before shooting your mouth off.

I agree that I prefer teaching the kids Weighty Object Theory over UA. In fact, I am more of a proponent of WOT than UA. So I'll meet you halfway and say we start out teaching the children WOT.


We might as well teach spontaneous generation as well.

Flat Earth General / Re: HI! Nice to meet you guys!
« on: December 30, 2009, 07:43:18 PM »
In the 1930's America there was even an entire city founded upon the belief in a Flat Earth. Flat Earth Theory was taught in schools as fact.

How did that work out for them?  Oh, that's right.  It didn't.

What city is that?

What school is that?

Flat Earth General / Re: N.A.S.A. at it again
« on: December 30, 2009, 07:38:10 PM »

You two guys are both pretty intelligent, so this question surprises me. 

That would not be nearly as surprising as if anyone with the scientific and educational credentials you claim to have actually believed in this FET nonsense.  For someone with your claimed educational credentials and scientific expertise to actually believe the earth is flat, you would have to be literally insane!

I have authored a very convincing rebuttal of the theory (theory is key word) of gravity. If there is a round earth then why don't people in Australia just go FLYING off?! Gravity? No one hasd explained any gravity to me.

Even if you drop a rock: of course it falls to the ground. Because we are on the topside of the earth! Otherwise if we were on the bottomside the rock would go flying off into space. Just as you cant stand on your cieling you can't stand on thebottomside of the flat earth!

You're an idiot.

Quoted for emphasis.

You remind me of the bimbo in seventh grade who couldn't understand how the Nile flows northward.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proofs of varying gravity
« on: December 30, 2009, 10:38:32 AM »
Not at all. There is no force of gravity in relativity.
Sure there is, in the same way centrifugal force is a real force. Yes, it is an artifact of using certain frames of reference, but in those frames of reference it is a very real force.
And the theories make different predictions. They do not reconcile. Why are the REers here using such an archaic theory, one they know to be wrong?
They do make different predictions, but those predictions are very close together in most situations, and the force predicted by the Newtonian model is much easier to calculate, so there is nothing wrong with using the Newtonian model in the realm where it gives good predictions.

So REer's prefer models which are "easier to calculate". I agree with this. REer's look for convenient models. They are are biased toward the idea that truth is convenient.

Shouldnt the truth also be true?

So the more complex model is the true one, inconsistencies notwithstanding?

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA update: more ridiculousness
« on: December 30, 2009, 09:29:06 AM »
Moon bases and mass evacuation plans are not necessary. Our earth is just fine right now. NASA doesn't do its work just to be cool. "Oh look at these cool moon bases we just spend 100 billion dollars what?"

NASA's mission is as much to make scientific discoveries through aeronautics research as it is to explore space. Plus, our governments are much more concerned with international affairs, geopolitics, and the economy. Those issues are much, much, much, much more important in the average person's mind than "oh no what if we need to evacuate the planet right now?" And so therefore the amount of funding provided to NASA for its research is insignificant compared to the amount of money being invested in the economy, military, and such.

Ah but thjere would be many scientific discoveries made if nasa really could land a man on the moon. Think if they establised a moon base! They could discover many things about outter space living could they not?

Context does not imply causation.

Flat Earth General / Re: How NASA FAKED the moon landings!
« on: December 30, 2009, 09:25:42 AM »
I agree that NASA faked the moon landings, but not to hide the truth that the world is flat. They did it in order to win the space race. There is no possible way that NASA could have planned and executed everything needed in order to make it to the moon in only 7 years.

If we could make it to the moon in only 7 years without any of the technology before-hand, we surely would have made it to Mars by now, and it's been over 40 years.

You are in danger of falling into the same trap as the Flat Earthers. We didn't land on the moon just once, and the scale of a conspiracy involving over a dozen astronauts and countless scientists, engineers, and government officials would have been impossible to cover up.

You are right that it would have been impossible to develop all of the technology for Apollo 11 in seven years, but much of the technology was already decades old by the 1960's.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How was the Flat Earth created?
« on: December 23, 2009, 01:42:39 PM »
The Bible does not say the Earth is flat and anybody who thinks it does needs to give it a second look.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: This Accelerating Earth...
« on: December 23, 2009, 01:36:18 PM »
True. If FE is to have the slightest shred of credibility, you have to postulate a vast world-wide conspiracy anyways, which is already extremely improbable. But I like to think of the FE vs. RE debate here as a game (which it essentially is, since more-or-less-nobody actually believes that the Earth is flat, although many here have adopted that pose). The goal of this game, for the round-Earthers, is to prove, using only experiments they have personally conducted or observations that they have personally made, that the FE model is impossible. The goal of the game for the flat-Earthers, is to produce a model convincing enough that the round-Earthers can't reach their goal, and to expose the logical fallacies and errors of math, physics, and so on in the arguments of the round-Earthers. Postulating a huge globe-spanning conspiracy puts the two sides on more equal footing, since it's much harder (but still possible!) to prove that the Earth is round using experiments and observations that you can personally perform.

Of course, the round-Earthers have a huge advantage in this game, but then there are also a great many idiots who adopt the round-Earth position, who make many flawed arguments, so the flat-Earthers have many opportunities to score points.

I agree. This whole website is a game to me - sort of a mind trick. Proving the world is round is a lot harder than it would seem at first and it really exercises the muscle between your ears.

The people on this website who say the Earth is flat are either insane, uninformed, or lying. We know this to be true because flat earth theory is riddled with contradictions and lacking in any substantial evidence. "Just look outside your window"... Ha!

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airlines
« on: December 23, 2009, 01:27:44 PM »
You know why? You are trying to project a spherical image onto a flat plane. It will always look wrong, nomatter how hard you try to improve it, because you cannot just stretch and skew images to your fancy.

So, if something CAN'T be done in any way - then it must be wrong and misleading.
So, they better try no to think that earth is a globe, and create a map where there would not be any hint or guess for it's roundness.
Create a phlat earth map using aircraft that would be formed from rectangular pieces, cut the edge to make it whole rectangular and we will see the true shape of the continents and their layout.

I've read this twice now and I am honestly not sure what it is you are trying to say.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airlines
« on: December 17, 2009, 10:48:02 PM »
With the internet and blogs, you should be able to find someone complaining about their flight being twice as long as they were quoted... The absence of thousands of lawsuits with the airlines is strong proof that these estimates are at least somewhat accurate.

Well what was provided are still only flight estimates. There's no telling what kind of delays will be experienced.


Flat Earth Q&A / Re: This Accelerating Earth...
« on: December 17, 2009, 08:09:20 PM »

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airlines
« on: December 17, 2009, 07:59:40 PM »
Those figures are from flight calculators, not testimonials.

No Tom, those are flight schedules.  There's a difference.

Notice that some of those "schedules" say that a flight will take 35 1/2 hours!!

All of those flights I've looked at so far have layovers.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The appearance of Gravity
« on: December 17, 2009, 07:48:49 PM »
yes, it does. Because, if gravity changes, it's not a phenomenon according to your own definition.

The force of gravity, like magnetism, changes depending on the factors playing into it. As I recall from 10th grade earth science, gravity is determined by the masses of the two objects and the distance between them (don't remember the exact formula).

Likewise, magnetism can depend on the strength of the magnet (i.e. what material it is made about, how much power it is being charged with). This is why some magnets are used to lift cars, while others are safe for children to play with.  :)

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airlines
« on: December 17, 2009, 07:42:12 PM »
Those figures are from flight calculators, not testimonials.
So they are in on the conspiracy too? I'm pretty sure people would complain consistently if their flight was NEVER on time.

While I can't comment on Qantas, I've taken four flights with Aerolineas Argentinas. Their flights were pretty much on time in each situation.

EDIT: That was just to reiterate. I don't want this post to go down the conspiracy path if Tom picks up on it.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: This Accelerating Earth...
« on: December 17, 2009, 07:32:09 PM »
Hello. New to the FES.

I was wondering, given that the Flat Earth is constantly moving "upwards" why doesn't it slam into birds and airplanes and other airborne things NOT constantly moving upwards?  ???

It does, and anybody who says otherwise is clearly in on the conspiracy.[/sarcasm]

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How would the UA explain this?
« on: December 17, 2009, 07:30:58 PM »
Yeah, but the FEers get to force us to assume that all the other inconsistencies of FE don't exist when discussing a single one.

That's probably a big part of how they convince themselves they actually have an explanation.

How 'bout that...

I wish my profs were so merciful. I guess academia has a different approach to reaching conclusions, one in which inherent contradictions have no place.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airlines
« on: December 17, 2009, 07:28:17 PM »
Those figures are from flight calculators, not testimonials.

I've flown with Aerolineas Argentinas from Miami to EZE Buenos Aires as well as from EZE Buenos Aires to Montevideo. Their calculators (like those of all airlines) are accurate give or take a half hour or so.

Also, they use Airbus A340's which have a range of 14,000km, making a direct flight West from Sydney to Buenos Aires impossible.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airlines
« on: December 17, 2009, 07:18:46 PM »
Where are the testimonials for those flight times?

Sydney to Buenos Aires: 16 hours 35 minutes

Buenos Aires to Johannesburg: 15 hours 45 minutes

Joahannesberg to Sydney: 15 hours 25 minutes.

The Sydney to Buenos Aires flight cannot go west, the plane would run out of fuel long before it makes it.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How would the UA explain this?
« on: December 17, 2009, 07:08:54 PM »
Heavier objects do fall faster on earth than light ones, but it's not because of gravity. Gravitational acceleration remains constant for all objects but air resistance causes objects that are more dense to fall faster. To exemplify this drop a piece of paper and a book. The book will fall faster.

My understanding of physics doesn't go much further than this, but under the flat earth model "gravity" is caused by the upward acceleration of the Earth. The fact that time slows down when objects accelerate notwithstanding, we can imagine this system in the context of a giant floating sphere filled with air in a zero gravity environment (bear with me as I try to wrap my head around this).

If in this giant sphere somebody started spinning a water bottle that is not full, would it not continue to spin the same way as a bottle roughly the same weight that is full?

If I accelerated a surface (imagine a table, symbolizing the Earth) towards the bottles would it have any effect?

Somebody needs to explain to me how gravity works. if I'm wrong here I'm not surprised, but if I'm right the entire FET of gravity is debunked.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Water does not behave like this on planet Earth. Rain droplets are not spheres, they are shaped like, well, rain drops. The Flat Earth Theory suggests that if I accelerated a flat surface towards these water droplets they would change shape. Are we going to now hear the Flat Earthers suggest that water droplets are in on the conspiracy as well?

The water bottle would spin in the same way full or empty if it spins about an axis of symmetry (through the top and out the bottom) as the mass distribution would be the same about the axis of rotation (neglecting obviously that the water at the top where the bottle narrows would be distributed differently). 
Being that spinning about a non axis of symmetry would get hairy as the water would not be a rigid body in a slightly empty bottle I would imagine the motions would be quite different. As far as in an air filled sphere the bottle would transfer some of its momentum to particles of air.

The raindrops are shaped due to atmospheric drag, which FE would claim is a result of the air, driven by the earth, rushing past the water drop and flattening the front edge that is passing through the gas.  If there were no atmosphere the drop would be perfectly spherical as that is the state of lowest energy.  Though for small drops the shape is actually almost a perfect sphere.  The larger the drop the faster it falls and the flatter the bottom, until eventually the drop is sheared by the force of the air.  If you have access to even a second story window that you can pour a cup of water out quickly, you can try it and watch how the large "drop" will turn into a thin sheet in a mushroom or parachute shape.

Though through all of this, Earth still is spherical.

But in the absence of gravity the Flat Earth cannot have an atmosphere. It would slide off and dissipate.

Flat Earth General / Re: the ISS seen from Earth
« on: December 17, 2009, 07:02:49 PM »
Yes, we know. Andrea Barns is a fictional character.

But Leo Ferrari et all aren't.

Why would you claim a video as an FE resource if it is essentially mocking you?

Ferrari gives some good points on Eratosthenes.

This is like citing Spinal Tap as a source of good insight on the trends of modern rock music.

Flat Earth General / Re: Conspiracy, what conspiracy?
« on: December 17, 2009, 02:54:34 PM »
LiceFarm, are you willing to say that Levee's FAQ has scientific merit?

It has just as much merit as the official FAQ if not more for reasons I have explained.

Amen to that.

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33