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 - FETlolcakes

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Absolute Proof the Earth Rotates
« on: March 23, 2014, 10:43:59 PM »

The pendulum swings in a straight plane, and we know there is no force available to make the pendulum rotate (no magnets, remember!), then it must be the earth that spins underneath it.

Firstly, it's interesting (well, not really LOL) that some flat earthers think that somehow, a magnetic force acting in the plane of the swing arc can induce any force perpendicular to that swing arc.  It shows a surprising lack of understanding of both the principles and purpose (in this scenario) of magnetism, and the principles of force and motion.

Secondly, a few flat earthers can't seem to comprehend that it's the building rotating under the pendulum, and not the pendulum "rotating" above the floor of the building.  Mental block?

And I'm just as guilty as others here, but how on earth(!) did we spend so much time talking about magnets—when in fact they have nothing to do with the principle of the Foucault pendulum?   ;D

Yea it's unbelievable. I, like you no doubt, have moments where I think this forum is one giant piss-take, because surely people can't be this ignorant/thick-headed.

Absolutely right about the affect of magnets, or complete lack thereof, on the pendulums rotation. I can see perhaps the quote from me was poorly worded, as I seem to suggest that magnets could affect the pendulum in the way FE's suggest. I should have said there is no longer any possible excuse for its rotation now that magnets are out of the question.

So far, this just about sums up the FE's argument about the Foucault pendulum: It's not rotating because it goes against my (flat) world view.

FE's love circular logic- seemingly, it's the only logic they adhere to in the first place.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Absolute Proof the Earth Rotates
« on: March 23, 2014, 08:01:32 PM »
What does any of this have to do with pendulums? I can honestly say, I've never seen a mod so active in derailing thread after thread with non-sequitors. It appears to be your M.O., jroa.

I believe before the derailment about electromagnets, psychology and laser/radio/radar moon bounces, RE's were attempting to explain that pendulums can be made without electromagents and that they all show, depending on their latitude, mathematically predictable rotations, which should rule out any errors in the setup.

Do you FE's have any coherent response to this? How is it pendulums can be shown to have mathematically predictable rotations at different latitudes? For the sake of clarity, let us just take the examples shown by pendulums that do not use any electromagnets.

The pendulum swings in a straight plane, and we know there is no force available to make the pendulum rotate (no magnets, remember!), then it must be the earth that spins underneath it.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Absolute Proof the Earth Rotates
« on: March 21, 2014, 04:15:02 AM »
Well you did say you had absolute proof. So prove it and tell me exactly what is happening. I'll help you out.

I want to know what the pendulum is attached to and how it's attached and the relevance of why it is attached this way.
I also need to know if it's just the table and building turning under the pendulum and not the pendulum itself.

Explain these and it could go along way into your absolute proof claims. Let's see!

So let me get this straight: you have no idea how a pendulum works or what its rotation relative to the earth means, yet you want to 'rip this nonsense to pieces'?

Close minded doesn't even begin to describe you. Irony doesn't even begin to describe it.

Please, scepti, simply take the info in wikipedia, read it, and tell us all, as well as the scientific community, how it's all wrong. That way, there can no arguments over 'moved goalposts'.

We look forward to your groundbreaking acumen, scepti.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Absolute Proof the Earth Rotates
« on: March 20, 2014, 11:49:05 PM »
So, they use electromagnets to make the pendulum swing continuously?  Couldn't these electromagnets also make it rotate ever so lightly?

Um... for what purpose? Let me guess: to perpetuate the lie that the earth is a sphere that rotates? Yep, makes perfect sense.

And your explanation for the pendulums that do not use electromagnets but also demonstrate the rotation of the earth is...? There are literally thousands of such examples, yet they all seem to rotate relative to the earth.

Try it for yourself and make your own pendulum. No electromagnets required.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Denpressure finally defined!
« on: March 18, 2014, 07:52:27 PM »
Does the amount of atmospheric pressure affect the rate of fall of an object? If not, why not?

Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth documentary
« on: March 17, 2014, 12:01:30 AM »
If you can refract light by all sorts of other means. Why are you so sure gravity cant possible have an effect on light. When the atmosphere consists of gases of differing atomic weight .The same atoms that can block & are  capable of refracting light.
Does gravity affect atoms?

Gravity affects atoms the same way it affects all other matter. Every atom creates its own gravitational field which attracts all other matter in the universe. If you put a lot of atoms together, like in a planet or a star, all of the little gravitational fields add together, creating a much stronger pull.

If you could hold an atom in your hand and drop it, it would fall to the ground, just like a book or a brick. In fact, if you could remove all the air from a room and drop an atom in a vacuum, it would fall to the ground at exactly the same rate as a book or a brick would. After all, a book or a brick is nothing more than a collection of atoms.


Steve Gagnon, Science Education Specialist       

No one is talking about refraction. This bozo in the mocku- err, no, sorry- documentary is saying that gravity bends light, hence the curvature of the earth seen from space photographs- not to mention, he uses it to explain the sinking ship affect.

Please understand that it takes an immensely strong gravitational field to affect light in such a manner. The earth with its relatively tiny mass cannot affect light and certainly not in the way this pseudo-intellectual says it does.

If Einstein knew people were using his theory of general relativity to attempt to a prove a flat earth, he'd be doing cartwheels in his grave.

Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth documentary
« on: March 16, 2014, 11:44:00 PM »
I'm curious now as to the position you FE's take on photographs from space.

Are they legitimate as this moron in the doco states and that the curve seen is due to 'bendy light' (LMAO here we go again), or are they, in fact, doctored?

Seems you FE's can't even agree on a single point of your defunct, debunked and rebuked 'model'... except perhaps that is is flat.


How is that possible according to denpressure where things fall purely because of air pressure? I've asked you this before.

Notice how he completely ignores responding to the actual scientific concepts in the videos (because he doesn't know how to—in all likelihood because he can't figure out the high-school science involved LOL) but instead relies simply on attempting to derail the thrust of Starman's comment.  His response is what skeptic's call "weasel words".

I'm still waiting for him to introduce his hypothesis about "denpressure" to explain all of this stuff, but he seems to have forgotten all about denpressure, and also never got around to explaining exactly how two totally dissimilar entities could combine spontaneously into a single entity; one entity being mass per unit volume, and the other being  force per unit area.

What units are used to measure denpressure sceptimatic?  And is denpressure a scalar or a vector quantity?

Answers please.  We need to know, if for no other reason that your denial of the existence of gravity.

LOL exactly.

If you are feeling particularly masochistic, perhaps have a peruse through scepti's 96 page topic that went precisely nowhere. I think scepti even deleted half his (contradictory) posts before the end.

This thread, as with any thread related to any of scepti's half-baked, bullshit hypotheses, will go around and around with scepti actively avoiding hypothesis-destroying questions and resorting to pathetic, nonsensical responses.

Have fun, Geoff ! >

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Differential heating on a flat earth.
« on: March 15, 2014, 06:36:11 PM »

I know anyone who believes the above diagram is deprived of intelligence, knowledge of physics/math/science/astronomy and critical thinking, but how embarrassing for them anyway.

Question: What is the shape of the sun? If it is a sphere shining 3000km above a flat earth, why does it not light the entire world at once? You claim it has a 'spotlight' affect; can you explain this mechanism? Why does it propagate light like this?

How does this model explain sunsets? Every scenario/hypothesis I play through my mind makes no sense. Why is it the sun and the moon are not able to be seen at all times by an observer, regardless of their location? If the sun is a spotlight, why can't people in the shadow still see it as it moves away from them?

I'd love to see someone attempt a working model that accounts for observable phenomena and not just one at a time. The wiki explains nothing.

Would make for a good laugh, anyway.

Take a very close look at this video. I know you are going to say it's fake. You claimed "no air pressure =no weight" the feather and balls did "NOT FLOAT" as you implied. It fell because of gravity. I know you are going to say well it was not a perfect vacuum. It was 4.3E-3mbr of it if you look at the gauge. If you convert that to pressure it is 0.0000623662272239 psi.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
The movement of that feather at 4:18 looks very odd.

Yea, must be a conspiracy. Feathers aren't real  ::)  ::)

Seriously though Scepti, this thread, like all your others, has descended into a pathetic pile of steaming crap. The questions keep piling up at the same rate as your contradictions... and this is your own goddamed theory.

Leading on from starman, once more you cannot explain how the feather and steel ball fall at the same rate in an evacuated chamber where the gaseous pressure is approaching zero ie. its very, very low. How is that possible according to denpressure where things fall purely because of air pressure? I've asked you this before.

Nothing you've said in attempted response to these kinds of questions makes one iota of sense. Please rectify that right now.

I don't know how to tell you this, but bettering the world is apparently the last item on Sceptimatic's “to do” list. The following text regards my complaints of recent days against Sceptimatic and his subtle but petulant attempts to undermine serious institutional and economic analyses and replace them with a diverting soap opera of intransigent, bilious conspiracies. He's unhappy that people like me want to make plans and carry them out. Such cavils notwithstanding, he's the secret player behind the present, debauched political scene. Sceptimatic must be brought out from behind the curtain before it's too late, before his acolytes create a mass psychology of fear about an imminent terrorist threat.

If we let Sceptimatic put increased disruptive powers in the hands of rabid ratbags, who's going to protect us? The government? Our parents? Superman? Probably none of the above. That's why it's important to maximize our individual potential for effectiveness and success in combatting Sceptimatic. He intends to create a new social class. Foul-mouthed madmen, grungy deviants, and self-righteous pedants will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their winged monkeys.

There are arguments that have made respectable people out of boeotians like Sceptimatic. Surprisingly, the courts and our elected officials are way ahead of Sceptimatic in embracing this simple fact. I suppose we could get him to shut up by portraying diabolic shirkers as dolts. Obviously, that Sceptimatic-esque scheme is akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water. Let me propose instead that we get people to see through the hollowness, the sham, the silliness of Sceptimatic's dour convictions. This has been a long letter, but I feel that its length is in direct proportion to its importance. Why? Because I indisputably avouch that Sceptimatic should take personal responsibility for his actions.

....notice how this automatically generated complaint letter is actually more coherent than anything scepti posts? Yea, me too.

PS- Apologies to all my RE'ers who actually did read this.

The Lounge / Re: Is this real?
« on: March 06, 2014, 06:40:08 AM »
Yes, it's real.

And yes, the internet is a very scary place.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sceptimatics theory
« on: August 17, 2013, 10:40:24 PM »
If you want to believe an artificial vacuum is 99.9% perfect, then go ahead. The fact is, it's not perfect, which means it still holds matter in an expanded state and in a light state.

I'm not at all surprised by this response of course. Instead of being pedantic about your definition of a perfect vacuum, let me instead ask another question: What would happen to the feather and steel ball if they were put into a perfect artificial vacuum?

In a chamber without evacuation, we will see the ball drop and the feather follow it and land a little bit later due to air friction acting on the less dense/lighter feather.
Evacuate most of the air and you also evacuate most of the friction that stopped that feather from falling as fast, so dropping both in that environment in the short distance it happens, will allow the feather to drop, almost effortlessly through the minute amount of friction that is left inside of the chamber.

You are forgetting something here scepti: the rate of fall. The feather and ball still accelerate downwards toward the earth at 9.8m/s/s which is, um, the accepted gravitational pull on the surface of the earth. Yet, you assert that gravity doesn't exist and that it all comes from air pressure. So my question becomes why is the rate of fall for any object in a vacuum on the earth's surface still the accepted 9.8m/s/s when the vacuum chamber has a gaseous pressure approaching zero?

If I understand what you are trying to assert with your theory, the rate of fall toward the earth in a not-quite-perfect-vacuum should be very, very slow because the gaseous pressure isn't absolute zero but still enough to act for the 'air pressure' to push the objects toward the earth. If that isn't correct, could you explain why please?

All the ball and feather experiment proves, is that air pressure is responsible for what we are told is gravity but the weight/mass of any object is used to con people into believing gravity is responsible for that weight, when it's simply made up of more compact elements that become heavier that the air they displace due to this.

You continue to use the terms mass and weight interchangeably. You borrow from the theory of gravity to disprove gravity itself...

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problem with supported FE map
« on: August 16, 2013, 08:59:44 PM »
I subscribe to the ROUND, flat Earth map with Antarctica around the perimeter.

Why has no one ever seen this ice wall?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sceptimatics theory
« on: August 16, 2013, 08:59:11 PM »
You were asked this on your other thread scepti but never answered it adequately, so I'll ask it again:

Why would a feather and a steel ball in a vacuum chamber fall at the same rate (vastly different densities) or fall at all (ie. no air) if you assert that gravity doesn't exist and that it is all just 'air pressure'?

The artificially created vacuum is at least 99.9% perfect, so please don't attempt to explain it by saying that it isn't a perfect vacuum.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problem with supported FE map
« on: August 15, 2013, 11:05:51 PM »
I suppose you have to appreciate the ingenuity of FE's on this one - after all, how can RE's criticise/disprove/discredit/tear down an unseen, undrawn and (seemingly) an unknowable geography of a flat earth? It means they can always fall back on endless excuses when their crude maps are torn down eg. our map is not yet finalised, so your objections aren't valid  ::)

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rowbotham seems like a pretty dumb guy
« on: August 14, 2013, 12:53:02 AM »
It should be of no surprise to anyone that the FES relies on centuries-old science which was, as was axiomatically the case with Galileo, dictated by a tyrannical church whom could have you imprisoned should one be able to contradict their doctrines (Flat-earth, creationism, geocentrism etc).

The facts are that a FE has been no less refuted and disproved than geocentrism has. The FES has to ignore over a century of developing science and its observations, instead relying on crude, erroneous, centuries-old models and global conspiracies. This very sub-forum is proof how lacking the FET is - hundreds of threads with pertinent questions as yet still remained unanswered - and countless more that FE's derailed with non-sequitars.

It speaks volumes that the FES puts stock in Rowbotham who the OP shows to be in serious error on numerous occasions.

The FES reminds me of religion: now matter how many times you show their arguments and theories to be in error, there is seemingly an infinite replenishment of their stance as anything can be rectified... usually with magic ::)

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Acceleration instead of Gravity
« on: August 13, 2013, 12:19:11 AM »
My friend, I would suggest you start reading this thread, starting at the beginning, before you attempt to jump into the middle of a conversation you don't understand the context of.

I have indeed read this thread from the OP and understand the context of your posts. That notwithstanding, you still do not understand what gravity is yet you still dismiss it out of hand.

I thought I made it clear that I dismiss it because it cannot be explained on a FE!  What on earth is wrong with that?

What are you talking about? I already stated 'what's wrong with that': You believe in a FE, thus gravity must be dismissed despite the fact that gravity is a mathematically predictable force which explains what we observe from black holes, the motion of the planets, orbits etc. rendering UA completely unnecessary.

You throw the predictable, consistent and mathematically verifiable force of gravity out because it doesn't agree with a FE in favour of an unexplained, unknown UA... once again, if you cannot see what is wrong with this, you are beyond help.

You do realize, don't you, that UA explains falling to earth without any reference to attraction between massive bodies?

Yet it does not explain the observed motion of the planets and their satellites, does it? Once again, gravity accounts for both #1 and #2, yet UA has no explanation for #2 but you still favour the latter. Odd, no?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Acceleration instead of Gravity
« on: August 12, 2013, 10:07:45 PM »
Here is the difference.
Definition of gravity #1: That which causes an apple to fall to the ground
Definition of gravity #2: That which maintains the stars in orbit

The fact that they are both called "gravity" does not, by itself, prove that they are one and the same thing.  If they were the same thing, then all the Celestial objects would come crashing down to earth, just like the apple.  That is why "the Earth isn't affected by the attractive force akin to gravity" (#2) in answer to your query.

The fact that you think those observed phenomenon describe two different forces simply shows you do not understand how gravity actually works.

I would suggest you start reading, starting with the general theory of relativity, before you attempt to dismiss a phenomenon you don't even understand.

I completely disregard gravity.  UA explains gravity #1 just as good as anything else does.  Gravity #2 doesn't explain anything - it would cause the stars to fall from the sky if it were true.  EDIT: if it were the same force as gravity #1.

Despite the provable fact that gravity works and that mathematical predictions can be made from it (no assumptions about a RE necessary) really just shows that you dismiss it simply because it cannot be explained on a FE. If you can't see what is wrong with that, you are beyond help.

When I walk off the edge of a chair and go into static free-fall I observe the earth rising up towards me. This is direct evidence of an upward accelerating earth.

Well done, Tom, you just explained what gravity actually is: an attraction between two bodies with mass. So yes, when you walk off the edge of your chair, both yourself and the earth attract each other. Of course, the earth has a much greater mass than you do so your affect on the earth is infinitesimal, but nonetheless it is still there.

This is direct evidence of an upward accelerating earth

What utter nonsense, it isn't 'direct evidence' of any such thing.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Weightlessness" and faked video evidence
« on: August 10, 2013, 04:25:13 AM »
How can you tell it was done under water?

Because he is working backwards from his conclusion that the earth is flat and therefore all photos/videos of spacewalks/spacecrafts are the work of fakery, CGI and a global conspiracy.

I mean, when you think about it, it just makes sense, doesn't it?  ::)

Nothing in that video indicates to me that it was filmed in a water tank. The astronaut seems to require little impulse to move further away from the camera as he hardly moves his limbs at all, yet I'm supposed to believe he is swimming or some invisible string is dragging him out?

Such a shame FE's ignore occam's razor.

Flat Earth General / Re: Organizing Positive Evidence
« on: August 09, 2013, 06:14:21 AM »
There are over a million posts on this website.

Indeed, but that says absolutely nothing about the actual content of said posts and whether they add up to anything remotely approaching substantive.

From all my reading on this site, I'm positively shocked when two FE's agree on a particular point and it's not uncommon to see FE's make things up as they go along, often creating more questions with the laughable answers they give.

There are none so blind, as those who do not wish to see.


Let me ask: Is there even a unified FET yet? Attempting to take the high ground in the discussion when the FES has no scientific backing and flies in the face of everything known about the universe/physics and which relies on a massive worldwide conspiracy is simply ridiculous.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]