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 - Ellipsis

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16
61
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Foucault Pendulum...
« on: May 29, 2010, 02:11:24 AM »
Heh, my university has one of these.
It's enclosed in a glass cylinder.
No wires there.
 ::)

Yet again, the best FE explanation is "it's all a conspiracy."

62
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
« on: May 27, 2010, 01:35:23 PM »
Not a single FEer is going to try and justify this field line problem?

63
Flat Earth General / Re: I can't believe this place really exists
« on: May 27, 2010, 01:31:03 PM »
To the OP...

REers
-People who argue a point honestly.

"FEers"
-Devil's advocates.
-Trolls.

Actual FEers
-A handful of conspiracy theorist loonies.

64
Flat Earth General / Re: New Scientist Weighs In...
« on: May 26, 2010, 06:14:24 AM »
They'd claim the hole isn't straight down and is actually a long curve coming up on another part of the flat Earth.  When you point out that you could see visually to the other side, they'd say you just proved wacky bendy light  Their crazy justification has become far too predictable.

65
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Scientific Review of FET
« on: May 24, 2010, 12:08:34 PM »
Besides, with atmospheric lensing it actually is possible to see a full lunar eclipse when the sun's out, though you have to be standing on a geographic pole, and both bodies are on completely opposite sides of the sky.

66
Flat Earth General / Re: To all Flat Earthers.
« on: May 24, 2010, 09:03:48 AM »
According to Roundy:
"All that would prove is that the Earth appears round from high altitudes."

67
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Holding Atmosphere in Place.
« on: May 24, 2010, 05:48:59 AM »
Why don't the tropics and Antarctica "balance out" if its natural for Low and High Pressure systems to equalize? Weren't we just told that the Atmospheric Lip Hypothesis couldn't work since the atmosphere would just "balance out"?



They're mostly stuck with what the have thanks to receiving less intense sunlight, though differing air pressures do come up and fuel our weather system.  Regions like the actual antarctic don't have an effectively endless volume well of gases to dip into when spaces need filling, as your model requires.

68
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof of curvature
« on: May 23, 2010, 09:50:41 AM »
Relevant:



Quote from:
The superior mirage can...cause objects actually located below the horizon to appear above it (remember the setting-sun example), a condition called looming. The superior mirage can also cause objects appear to be taller than they actually are, called towering...

Saying "it doesn't match with the math for a perfectly spherical planet so the Earth can't be at all round" does a fine job at demonstrating total ignorance of contributing variables.  Problems caused by the atmosphere are just the tip of the iceberg.

69
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Holding Atmosphere in Place.
« on: May 23, 2010, 09:39:29 AM »
 They're mostly stuck with what the have thanks to receiving less intense sunlight, though differing air pressures do come up and fuel our weather system.  Regions like the actual antarctic don't have an effectively endless volume well of gases to dip into when spaces need filling, as your model requires.

Edit:

Still has yet to answer my question:
Do less dense fluids rise above more dense fluids or not?

70
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof of curvature
« on: May 23, 2010, 07:37:18 AM »
Try Lurking.

Try providing evidence.

71
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Holding Atmosphere in Place.
« on: May 23, 2010, 07:33:57 AM »
Notice all your examples involve constrained volume.  Once you stop constraining it, see what happens?  See how that cold air from the freezer falls to your feet, and the hot air from that stove rushes up to your face?  They're teaching thermodynamics in most high schools now.  This shouldn't be hard to figure out.   :-\

Does air rush in, or out?

Both.

72
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof of curvature
« on: May 23, 2010, 04:24:44 AM »
...a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship.

No it can't.

73
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Holding Atmosphere in Place.
« on: May 23, 2010, 04:20:44 AM »
I don't see how it could force the "hot air" out, if there is no "out".

I only use "out" in the sense of being farther away from the central hot zone (the circular path of the sun).

As an atom of atmosphere moves away from the sun it will move slower and slower until it stops in its tracks.

No.  You know what's causing it to move slower?  Collision with other molecules.  The energy doesn't just vanish; it gets transfered.  This is why there is only exponential SLOWING and never a total "stop."  If you're arguing for a natural absolute zero, I'm going to need some evidence.


In this hypothetical system where volume is essentially infinite, a downward force is continually applied, and a continual energy source is given at a point, would a cyclical exchange of the gas not take place due to the change in pressure thanks to heating?  Yes or no?

Are you trying to argue that colder (less energetic) air doesn't fall, or that hotter (more energetic) air doesn't rise?

74
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Photoelectric Suspension
« on: May 23, 2010, 02:34:12 AM »
Ah, alright. Sorry for making that assumption.

What is holding the sun/moon up, then?  The attractive force of mass and the repelling force of space reached a kind of equilibrium or something?

75
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Photoelectric Suspension
« on: May 23, 2010, 12:57:55 AM »


Finally found what James means with "massice."

Massice is a term which denotes something being the subject of charge repulsion. A massice disc is a disc which is of like charge to a base object which it is in a repulsive relation to.

When Alpha decay occurs, for example, the ejected helium nucleus is a massice object in relation to the main nucleus. In that case, it is a massice particle, not a massice disc (obviously). The relation between the Alpha particle and the other nucleus is electrostatic force, so the smaller "repulsed" object can be described as being massice.

Considering "massice" isn't actually a word, I'm willing to wager James first started using it after misinterpreting this post, which seems to have simply had a single misspelling of "massive."

...I believe that at some point in time the sun and moon were in fact massice disks of metal that were on top of the earths crust...

James's current theory appears to be a spin-off that makes even less sense.

76
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof of curvature
« on: May 23, 2010, 12:03:10 AM »
If your problem is simply "human limitation" as it applies to the cells in our eyes, you're selling ingenuity short.  Telescopes aren't in on the conspiracy.  If the object is bright enough, we can see it.  This is more difficult from sea level and within cities because of atmospheric scattering and light pollution, which is generally why major telescopes are built in high places and rural areas (or are put into geosynchronous orbit).   ::)  Judging by your citation's contesting of what the term "vanishing point" actually means, I have to agree that you don't appear to understand the concept of it continuing into infinity.

77
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof of curvature
« on: May 22, 2010, 11:44:41 PM »
We can see any distance away, and we can always increase that distance ad infinitum.
You seem to be nitpicking at a strawman of your own creation with this "infinitely-distant object" business.

78
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof of curvature
« on: May 22, 2010, 10:38:56 PM »
Which is exactly why the "perspective effect" argument for perceived falling over the horizon isn't used by anyone with as much as half a brain.

79
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Holding Atmosphere in Place.
« on: May 22, 2010, 10:36:12 PM »
Tom Bishop doesn't seem to get where pressure comes in regarding his own idea.  If we scale to presume the Earth as a very large slab with the sun making tiny circles around its center, then the sun is what's mainly putting energy into this system, meaning the "atmolayer" would have the most heat around that central region where the sun traces its inexplicable circles.  Since volume isn't an issue, and a force is causing the gases to try and come as near to the Earth as they can, this hot zone in the center would quickly ascend and expand out across this big flat slab, forcing the cold air in beneath it.





Because the hotter, more highly pressurized gases (edit: this is to say they would be more highly pressurized if volume were finite) aren't bound by volume yet still affected by the downward force, they would continually spill out over the top and force the colder gases in beneath them.  This would be observed in the southern hemisphere (-plane?): at high altitudes we should see an extreme current of hot air going directly south, away from the center of the sun's path, out over the ice wall and onto godknowswhere.  At lower altitudes, like the ground we're standing on, we should observe cold winds rushing north.

There's what we can predict using your hypothesis.  Since we observe no such thing, your hypothesis must be wrong.

80
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Photoelectric Suspension
« on: May 22, 2010, 10:03:29 PM »
Simply measure the redshift of the heavens.  It is clear that the entirety of heavens are expanding away from us.

Are you trying to use the expansion of space to explain why the sun and moon are held above the Earth?  If so, I'll gladly bite.  According to FET, the sun and moon are only 3000 miles from the Earth.  If there's enough repulsive force in the space between the Earth and those bodies to keep them at such a level above the accelerating Earth of 9.8m/s^2, then why isn't there a repulsive force of 9.8m/s^2 between New York and Alaska?  They're that far apart; why aren't they flying away from each other?

81
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof of curvature
« on: May 22, 2010, 08:41:03 PM »
Whenever curvature is shown, FEers say it's the lens.
Whenever things seem to drop over the horizon, it's "bendy light" or silence.

Curvature has been shown, but excuses will always be made.

82
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Photoelectric Suspension
« on: May 22, 2010, 06:07:54 PM »
You've yet to explain anything about it being a substitute for the gravitational force, what you observed to come up with it, how it affects masses differently, or phenomena it can explain and predict--and you expect me to just take it at face value?  Get real.

83
If one of your premises is wrong, your conclusion can also be wrong, regardless of how logical it is.

Would you disagree?

Presuming the premise "Earth is flat" doesn't make one illogical, but it does make one wrong.

84
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Photoelectric Suspension
« on: May 22, 2010, 04:07:21 PM »
Gonna need some units here.   ::)
Edit: also, mass isn't anywhere in that equation, so you've already invalidated your earlier idea of the accelerative force differing between masses.

85
Being logical doesn't mean being right, because you can presume any logical premise you want even if it has nothing to do with reality.

Premise 1: Gold is valuable.
Premise 2: I become rich by attaining many things of value.
Premise 3: I crap gold.
Conclusion: I can easily become rich by crapping enough gold.

Being logically sound can still have no bearing in reality, since I don't actually crap gold.  This is the FE mistake, in that "the Earth is flat" is always a presumed premise and never a conclusion, so it being wrong means the conclusion doesn't hold in reality.

86
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Photoelectric Suspension
« on: May 22, 2010, 03:57:44 PM »
Why do you stop accelerating in an elevator moving upwards when you jump?

That analogy sucks.

According to UA I should be able to let go of a ball and it remain stationary in the air.  UA is affecting it too, right?  No?  Well why not?  If UA affects the sun and moon, why not the ball?

Edit: well you've edited your post making this point moot, but it's idiotic nonetheless.  You're still making baseless claims about something you can't measure the effects of.

87
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Photoelectric Suspension
« on: May 22, 2010, 03:41:11 PM »
The whole universe is accelerating forward at approximately 32 ft/s^2. What is so hard to understand about this????

Obviously not the whole universe, otherwise we would be accelerating at that rate as well, making our velocity zero relative to the Earth...making us weightless.  Why doesn't universal acceleration directly affect us?

88
The Lounge / Re: M-M-M-MONSTER FAIL!
« on: May 22, 2010, 01:51:32 PM »
Was there even an ancient Greece to begin with? Certainly not, if we examine closely and carefully the proofs provided by the new chronology scientists; if just take into account that the eruption which destroyed Pompeii took place at least after 1700 AD...


89
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof of curvature
« on: May 22, 2010, 01:42:59 PM »
FEers seem to get off on ignoring variables.  It appears to be some kind of fetish.

90
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof of curvature
« on: May 22, 2010, 03:17:34 AM »
"It makes absolutely no sense in my model, but it doesn't make sense in yours either...if we presume a completely perfect sphere and leave out numerous variables.  I am therefor right by default, even though I offer no explanation whatsoever."  lolvee

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16