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 - Lorddave

Pages: 1 ... 470 471 [472] 473 474 475
14131
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Evidence
« on: March 20, 2010, 05:46:20 PM »
Fuck!
What the hell is wrong with me lately?

You came here trying to prove your falsehoods.

Here's what I've found to be false....

1. The horizon doesn't curve.
2. Objects that should be below the horizon can be seen in certain conditions when they shouldn't be if the Earth was curved.

So far that's all I've found to be false.

There's still the matter of satellites and communications required by them, the apparent lowering of objects (like the sun) as they move farther out and go below the horizon, pictures of the Earth in orbit.  Pictures of the Earth from the moon.  Picture of the Earth from Mars.  Not to mention any and all research on Antarctica.

14132
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone here prove that the Earth is flat???
« on: March 20, 2010, 05:41:18 PM »
He's right, I'm being a moron.

Why did I think the horizon was curved?  Ugh... this is pathetic.

14133
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Evidence
« on: March 20, 2010, 05:39:01 PM »
Fuck!
What the hell is wrong with me lately?

So if the horizon is straight when standing on the Earth, then the only thing RE has is the fact that things go below the horizon.

14134
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone here prove that the Earth is flat???
« on: March 20, 2010, 04:17:54 PM »
This isn't the 'Flat Ford Mondeo Society' or the 'Flat Sycamore Society'. It's the Flat Earth Society. The existence of trees, houses or ice-cram vans doesn't change the fact that the Earth appears generally flat.

I know, we're splitting hairs simply because you're telling us to look out our windows.

If I were to look out from the beach to the Ocean, it would appear as though the ocean was smooth and the horizon curved slightly.

14135
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Evidence
« on: March 20, 2010, 04:14:08 PM »
The quality of the evidence is poor in and of itself. The fact that the Earth is Flat is the reason it's poor, not the standard by which I judge it to be poor.

But you're judging the evidence based on a preconceived conclusion.  You must remove your preconceptions and judge the evidence on its own merits.


It sounds like you're the one with preconceptions - I do no such thing.

Oh no?

Alright then, let's start from the beginning.

For the sake of this post, let's assume that what you see is accurate in the sense of what light is hitting your eyes.  Not necessarily accurate in that optical illusions can't happen.

So...
When looking at the horizon of the ocean with a setting sun we see a bright, circular object being slowly hidden by a slightly curved horizon.

Are we in agreement so far?

14136
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Need a Bendy Light Specialist
« on: March 20, 2010, 04:11:38 PM »
Some FE'ers don't support bendy light.  There was even a recent attempt to have references to bendy light removed from the FAQ.

How do these people explain visual curvature at the horizon?

Some claim that it's an effect of perspective.  Read Earth Not a Globe for the full explanation.

....

So perspective = Factual whole?
Ok....

14137
Flat Earth General / Re: More konspirasee?
« on: March 20, 2010, 03:30:41 PM »
Of course it matters if it looks round. If it goddamn looks round, then it has to be fricken round. Bendy light doesn't cause the earth to 'appear' to wrap around on itself.

But the fact that our everyday observation of the Earth shows it to be flat doesn't matter at all?  That old ugly RE double standard rears its head again.



I'm confused as well.

Do you mean that the ground looks flat when looking towards the horizon because I gotta say, without anything in the way, it looks curved.
The sky even looks like a dome to me, though that may just be my imagination.

And if you go high into the sky, the Earth looks like a circle.  But it's a circle in which parts of it are not visible. 

14138
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Terminator of the Moon
« on: March 20, 2010, 02:14:51 PM »
We all know that the moon is round. It is the earth that is flat.

The problem is that a round Moon blows a hole in flat earth theory because it means the Moon has to be very far away in order to explain how the Moon's face looks the same when viewed simultaneously from different locations on Earth. This then destroys the flat earth theories on how the Moon appears to rise and set, because if it were so far away it would be visible all the time. When you bring in the phases and light from the Sun falling on the Moon, the whole flat earth Sun-Moon system starts to crumble.
So you see, the shape of the Moon is fairly fundamental to FET.

Bendy light

Then why does the old bedford level experiment show what it does?

14139
Flat Earth General / Re: I saw the ISS two nights ago.
« on: March 20, 2010, 02:12:28 PM »
By the way, never seen the full picture of the rotating Earth in response to the Sun, Moon, other planets and stars.

Another thing is, why Sun, Moon and stars are all moving in the same dircton in the sky? Here we should notice, that moon is moving faster then the Earth, but rotating exactly with the same rate as the Earth(unless this we wouldn't see the "dark side" of the moon).

What is more intersting is that all those objects are moving with the same speed. Of course, rotation of Earth can be implemented to explain this phenomenum. But from the other side, how could sun and moon have same speed and same general direction in response to the Earth in RE ? Too much of a coinsidence.
FE can explain this more easily - if to say that Northern Pole is a center around which all objects are moving.

The dark side of the moon can easily be explained by synchronous rotation due to tidal locking. The Moon is in synchronous rotation about the Earth. In fact, most major moons in the solar system have synchronous rotation due to tidal locking. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_rotation) Both of Mars' moons -- this assuming the FEers believe that Mars do exist --, Phobos and Deimos, is tidally locked to Mars and therefore only shows one face of it at the same time.

The Sun is not moving.

Same general direction; occurs because the Earth is rotating exactly the same direction every day.

The reflected light comes because the Moon is not exactly above the equator. It is inclined by about 5 degrees. Any amateur astronomer can verify this easily with a telescope and a slight understanding of astro-geometry.

That's cool everything.
But now I can't understand, if moon is always one side to the Earth, then Earth must be one sided to the Moon too. If not, then i think something wrong in the whole theory. Take into the considiration Earth's turn rate, Moon's turn rate, Earth's night and day change, geographical locations where moon is visible and so on.

Moreover that tidal locking theory is also not really fully examined, Scientists really don't know about let's say half of the bodies in the solar system whether they are tidal locked or not.

In other words - give us the numbers RE. Moon's turn rate, earth turn rate, their speeds and directions of moving and a PICTURE or video of how it is work! Why there is no video anywhere?

No videos?

14140
Yes, I do have a streak of arrogance. 

I agree.

And your not nearly as deep as you think you are.

Probably, but that's my little lie to myself.  I'm sure you have one as well, whatever it may be. 

I also like to think I know the meaning of life.  A lie or not, it makes me feel good and isn't that all life is about?

14141
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Need a Bendy Light Specialist
« on: March 20, 2010, 01:43:03 PM »
Some FE'ers don't support bendy light.  There was even a recent attempt to have references to bendy light removed from the FAQ.

How do these people explain visual curvature at the horizon?

They keep quiet and pretend to forget about the thread in which they have to explain it.

So I should spam their inbox?

14142
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Need a Bendy Light Specialist
« on: March 20, 2010, 12:41:28 PM »
Some FE'ers don't support bendy light.  There was even a recent attempt to have references to bendy light removed from the FAQ.

How do these people explain visual curvature at the horizon?
Bendy light.

So the people who don't support bendy light explain the visual curvature at the horizon with bendy light?

14143
So people that do good things for an eternal reward are no worse than someone that does it for instant gratification?

I'd say they're better only in that they are more patient.  But in the end, your motivation is the sole factor in morality isn't it?

We can all say murder is immoral but I doubt many would say that murdering someone who was about to kill you was immoral.

Or for a more topic related example:
What if you do good deeds, donate millions to children in need, preach love and tolerance, all for the sole purpose of being put into a position of power and trust?  Does that makes you a good person or a bad one?

For me, my motivation makes me an egotistical person looking for recognition as well as someone who get's easily frustrated.  However, I am unwilling to cause harm for that recognition. (Ie. I won't create a problem so I can solve it)
On the flip side, there is never any guarantee that I will get recognition for helping and I have found myself helping people who I dislike.  It's rare for me to refuse to help anyone when I have the ability to help and I seem to want the attention but then play modesty and try to avoid it.
What does that say about me I wonder?

14144
Announcements / Re: And now we're in Spain's largest newspaper!
« on: March 20, 2010, 12:06:18 PM »
Oh I'm sure you'll find online articles in major news papers on more or less any subject.
I know a guy who works for "Ripley's  Believe It or Not!" and he finds some really crazy stuff in legitimate news.  My question is...
Was it published in hard copy?

14145
Flat Earth General / Re: NAsA TV
« on: March 20, 2010, 11:40:42 AM »
Oh and I do want to comment on a few things...

Governments do lie.  But so do people.  And since a government is nothing but a large group of people, you should ask yourself why people lie?  Why do you tell your GF/Wife/BF/Husband/whatever they look good when they don't?  Why do you tell your children they're doing fine when they really aren't?
Sure, sometimes it's to hide something that would be personally damaging.  Sometimes it's to hide something that would be worse than the lie (like if you said to your wife that the dress makes her look fat, she may get angry).  Or you tell them a lie because the truth would cause a very bad reaction.  In the case of children, it might depress them and cause them to give up.  In the case of the population, there could be wide spread panic.

Let's take a look at how sentient Non-Earth life would be viewed.
First, it would contradict religion or at least contradict it to many people.  It never SAYS there aren't aliens but it never says there are either.
Secondly, people would be afraid.  Afraid that we'd be invaded or they would carry some disease that we'd all die from or some other horrible consequence.
Third, it would alter many perceptions about the world.  Not being the most important species in the universe can be damaging to people in the same way that going from the top of your class in High School to "just some guy" in college can be damaging to some.
Fourth, trust in everything would diminish.  If you couldn't trust that there weren't aliens, what can you trust?  Nations would become more isolated.  People would become more isolated.  Those who are weird or may seem... alien, would be seen as such and might be killed in a mob.

All speculation mind you, but mob mentality is real and it is not something I wish to ever see.

As for the N1H1, it was a pandemic.  But isn't the seasonal flu a pandemic ever year?  And less people died from the N1H1 than the seasonal flu.  Not to mention that the media, whose job it is to make you read their stories, could take something any biologist says and make it sound worse than it is.  Context is the key.  This is one of the reasons why speech writers get paid lots of money: they are able to write speeches that leave little for the media to screw with.

14146
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Need a Bendy Light Specialist
« on: March 20, 2010, 11:30:37 AM »
Some FE'ers don't support bendy light.  There was even a recent attempt to have references to bendy light removed from the FAQ.

How do these people explain visual curvature at the horizon?

14147
The Lounge / Re: CNN Succeeds at a headline, fails at a story. Again.
« on: March 20, 2010, 11:29:36 AM »
Meh, I'm not surprised.
I do read CNN instead of Fox for reasons I'm not even sure of exactly.
What I do know is that, politicians, media personalities, and journalists all want to keep their job.  How do they do that?  By giving people what they want.

Politicians give people things to yell at and make promises they couldn't possibly keep.  Like when a presidential candidate says "I will lower taxes".  He can't, not by himself.  He'll need congress to write the bill that lowers taxes THEN he can sign it into law.  But people don't seem to know that.
They also get people fired up.  A negative emotion gives a larger, more powerful and more noticeable response.  People will read a story they have a strong negative feeling about and will keep reading up on it.  Positive stories like "Doctor gives child burnt with acid free surgery" get the initial "aww, that's so kind of him" then they forget about it.  But a story like "Child burned with Acid" get's people angry, riled up, and they watch as much as they can, not easily forgetting the story.

So the media personalities, the journalists, and the politicians give us what we keep coming back for: Controversy.

It's also why celebrity gossip is more popular than biographies of normal people.

14148
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone here prove that the Earth is flat???
« on: March 20, 2010, 11:20:06 AM »
Easy.  Take a look outside your window.  Seems pretty flat to me.

I don't know.  I've got a lot of houses, hills, trees, fences, roads, cars, and people outside my window.  I wouldn't call it flat at all.  I'd call it bumpy.

14149
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Need a Bendy Light Specialist
« on: March 20, 2010, 11:18:46 AM »
Bendy Light is incompatible with the Bedford Levels experiment because bendy light makes the flat earth look round while the Bedford Levels experiment proved that the earth looks flat.

Which is why I'm confused how a Flat Earther can use that experiment as evidence as well as support bendy light.
Is there any explanation?

14150
Flat Earth General / Re: More konspirasee?
« on: March 20, 2010, 11:16:34 AM »
In a flat Earth, would not the whole planet be visible once you reached a specific angle?

Bendy light theory only suggests that directly vertical light doesn't bend and all light from the Earth bends perpendicular to the plane of the Earth while all light from space bends towards the plane of the Earth. (still waiting on the confirmation that this line of reasoning is an accurate interpretation of my readings.)

So then at what point does light stop bending or start bending the other way?
Where is the cylindrical atmosphere that we should be able to see?
Why can't we see more of the Earth's Surface?  That looks to be no more than 50 miles.

14151
Flat Earth General / Re: NAsA TV
« on: March 20, 2010, 11:12:05 AM »
Having read this thread it seems that even pictures from independent students of MIT isn't enough and there are no independent people except those who can't afford to sent a rocket into orbit.

Thus, if no one who isn't "part of the conspiracy" can prove the Flat Earthers wrong, how can they ever be wrong?

And would they ever go into a rocket into space if given the chance?

14152
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Need a Bendy Light Specialist
« on: March 20, 2010, 10:51:24 AM »
After reading about the Bedford Level experiment I have a question:
If light always bends upwards on the Earth, why was he able to see the sheet?  According to Bendy Light Hypothesis I mean.

14153
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Comets and Meteor Showers
« on: March 20, 2010, 09:32:33 AM »
Saw the link.

Ok, the god thing.  Yeah that would explain it.  But it's kinda cheating isn't it?  It's the ultimate answer to really any question: God did it.

I refuse to believe that a god would give us a mind to use then ask us not to use it.
Cheating? An explanation is an explanation. Somehow I think if I made it overly complex you would possibly reject it because it's overly complex just as you seem to have rejected the simple explanation because you seem to imply it's overly simple. That's a shame because the complexity or simplicity of an explanation should not make it any more or less valid. Did someone say that a god is asking you not to use your mind? I'm not sure why you bring that up. Is that a straw man argument perhaps? The claim of the explanation is that God made the Earth and ecosystem on it. What brings you to this statement about the usage of a mind?
It just seems too easy, ya know?  "Everything exists because God made it so". 
The rationality of what you are saying is lacking. The simplicity or complexity of an explanation should not make it any more or less valid.
I'm not saying it's an invalid explanation.  I'm saying that, in my experience the Universe doesn't work that way.  Things happen because of the interaction of very simple particles in very complex ways.  To say that it just "appeared" by the hand of God is contradictory to everything ever observed.  Not saying it could happen, just saying that if it did, that would make us nothing more than a culture of Bacteria in a Petri Dish sitting in God's lab.  And even then it would seem odd since you'd expect the laws of the universe to function in the same ways as whatever laws were used to make it.

I suppose my point is:
If the Universe can be created almost instantaneously, we should be able to reproduce it.... eventually.  But until we do, or we see something like it happen, it's just a vague explanation for something we don't understand.


The mind comment is because there is a significant amount of evidence to say the Ecosystem did not spontaneously appear.
Why would a god ask us not to use our minds if a god made the ecosystem? It seems to me that a god would ask us to use our minds carefully in the event that things appear differently from the reality of the situation. You should bring up your "significant amount" of alleged evidence one by one, so they can each be examined for their validity.
But the Bible tells us it was magically put into existence.
Is it automatically magic because the Bible doesn't always give you enough detail for complete understanding of how something occurred?
[/quote]
Of course.
What is magic but the application or witness of science without understanding.

God could make it look like it took millions of years, but why would he allow us to think on our own and put in evidence that discredited the story of him instantly(well, 6 days but you get the idea) creating everything when the truth is that he did?
Why wouldn't he? We need to examine this alleged evidence. Does God have to be the one who makes the alleged evidence against near spontaneous (6 days if we're going by the Biblical account) creation of the Earth and ecosystem. Can man not be responsible for either fabricating evidence or misinterpreting things as evidence of a particular conclusion?
[/quote]
He can and often is.  Thus, we must be very cautious of trusting anything written in a book without any way to back it up.  The historical data in the Bible can be verified though archeology and other references.  The more mystical things, like the Adam and Eve story, can't.  Not unless we figure out how to travel though time or find an alien species that has had space travel much longer than 10,000 years and has been observing our development.

It is more of a philosophical discussion I admit but does make the God answer weaker.  Unless we're misinterpreting how long a "Day" is.
The idea that God created the ecosystem near spontaneously (6 days if we're going by the Biblical account) or that he created other things has not been made more or less valid by your words.
[/quote]

Not it hasn't.  But it never could.
I'm reminded of a myth perpetrated by the religious community and the ignorant.  It says that NASA, when trying to calculate the position of the Earth some 10,000 years ago, would always come up with the wrong answer.  Try as they might they could not get their numbers to match until one scientist remembered how the God made the Earth stop  for a single day (hours at various points in history all adding up to 24), as said in the Bible.  That accounted for the NASA error.
Now this myth is impossible not because it couldn't have happened, but because it's impossible for us to know it did.  We calculate our past position based on current data.  If we're moving around the sun at speed X and that speed hasn't changed, then we would simply put a negative value for time and calculate distance traveled.  There is no way for us to know if the numbers are accurate or not since we have no way to knowing exactly where the Earth was on any given day 10,000 years ago.  Not to the accuracy of a day anyway.  Star Charts of old give us a good indication of where the Earth was relatively but even that is more of a rough guideline.

14154
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Light bends up, right?
« on: March 20, 2010, 09:16:01 AM »
So gravity doesn't warp space-time?


Mass warps space-time which gravity is the resultant of that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there two schools of thought to that?
I know mass has gravity and between the two space-time is warped but if I'm not mistaken some the Standard Model of particles predicts the existence of elementary particles that cause mass (the Higgs Boson) and some theories suggest that gravity could also be a particle (Gavitons).

To me it's a matter of which comes first: Mass that warps space-time which causes Gravity or Gravity by itself, which warps space-time.
I suppose we'll find out if we ever manage to find the Higgs Boson.

14155
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If the earth is constantly travelling upwards....
« on: March 20, 2010, 09:11:53 AM »
Why can't it just have a constant speed? It does not need to accelerate.

If I'm right it's because when you drop something, it accelerates at 9.8m/s^2 on the Earth.  If the Earth (universe?) traveled upwards at a constant speed there wouldn't be any acceleration downwards (since there's no Gravity on the Earth) and everything would be in Free fall.

14156
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If the earth is constantly travelling upwards....
« on: March 20, 2010, 09:10:25 AM »
Wait...
So from a non-accelerated point of view, the Earth's acceleration would appear to slow?  I know we, on the accelerated object would appear to be moving very slowly within the accelerated object, but I don't think the object itself would appear slow.  Not to the outside observer.

It would appear to move very fast. The acceleration would appear to slow. Acceleration is change in speed. Our change in speed would appear to lessen from an outside point of view.

That's just weird...

Still, from our frame of reference the acceleration would be constant thus it has to have a constant and increasing amount of energy being produced would it not?

14157
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If the earth is constantly travelling upwards....
« on: March 20, 2010, 12:41:28 AM »
Wait...
So from a non-accelerated point of view, the Earth's acceleration would appear to slow?  I know we, on the accelerated object would appear to be moving very slowly within the accelerated object, but I don't think the object itself would appear slow.  Not to the outside observer.

14158
Flat Earth General / Re: Back to basics
« on: March 20, 2010, 12:32:24 AM »
Damn, what the hell was I thinking?

You're all right, I am being dumb tonight.  Best to get some sleep so I can think clearly.

14159
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Comets and Meteor Showers
« on: March 19, 2010, 09:13:53 PM »
Saw the link.

Ok, the god thing.  Yeah that would explain it.  But it's kinda cheating isn't it?  It's the ultimate answer to really any question: God did it.

I refuse to believe that a god would give us a mind to use then ask us not to use it.
Cheating? An explanation is an explanation. Somehow I think if I made it overly complex you would possibly reject it because it's overly complex just as you seem to have rejected the simple explanation because you seem to imply it's overly simple. That's a shame because the complexity or simplicity of an explanation should not make it any more or less valid. Did someone say that a god is asking you not to use your mind? I'm not sure why you bring that up. Is that a straw man argument perhaps? The claim of the explanation is that God made the Earth and ecosystem on it. What brings you to this statement about the usage of a mind?
It just seems too easy, ya know?  "Everything exists because God made it so". 

The mind comment is because there is a significant amount of evidence to say the Ecosystem did not spontaneously appear.  But the Bible tells us it was magically put into existence.  God could make it look like it took millions of years, but why would he allow us to think on our own and put in evidence that discredited the story of him instantly(well, 6 days but you get the idea) creating everything when the truth is that he did? It is more of a philosophical discussion I admit but does make the God answer weaker.  Unless we're misinterpreting how long a "Day" is.

14160
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Comets and Meteor Showers
« on: March 19, 2010, 08:33:50 PM »
Saw the link.

Ok, the god thing.  Yeah that would explain it.  But it's kinda cheating isn't it?  It's the ultimate answer to really any question: God did it.

I refuse to believe that a god would give us a mind to use then ask us not to use it.

Pages: 1 ... 470 471 [472] 473 474 475