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 - EnragedPenguin

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 27
Flat Earth Q&A / Proof of Gravity and the Cavendish Experiment
« on: January 06, 2007, 07:13:40 AM »
Quote from: "Max Fagin"

I wasn't saying that.  I realize that demonstrating the existence of gravity does not prove the Earth to be spherical.  What it does do however is put to rest one of the major claims of the FE'ers who believe that things fall due to an "upward" acceleration of the Earth.

I would say all it does is show that the two spheres you're using are gravitationally attracted. I see no reason to infer that Earth must have a gravitational field simply because two spheres of iron do. Just as I see no reason to infer that just because Magnetite is magnetically attractive, the same must be true for Granite, or Flint.
The Earth is not those two iron spheres, and thus shouldn't be expected to share the same properties.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / I am God
« on: January 06, 2007, 06:52:03 AM »
Quote from: "Xargo"
I'm not defining the word, I'm defining the "object" behind it. One flower isn't identical to another flower just because you would use the same word when you speak of them.

Calling a rock a flower does not make it a flower. You've just redefined the word 'rock'.
You've redefined the word God to indicate a set that includes you, and are now claiming to be God. But you aren't. You're still a rock, you're just calling yourself a flower.

Flat Earth Q&A / 9.8m/
« on: January 05, 2007, 02:46:25 PM »
Quote from: "NinjaMidgetOwnsU"
Sorry...internet time warp.   I thought I was posting on the Flat Earth Society forum and I seem to remember you trying to prove the Flat Earth theory, which is all about questioning that the earth is round.

No one here has ever used the laws of physics to try and disprove the round Earth theory, we've only used them to show how a flat Earth is plausible.

Flat Earth Q&A / Geography question
« on: January 05, 2007, 02:42:51 PM »
Quote from: "MeatMonkey"
Now, If I were to depart from Argentina in a South westerly direction, if I were living on a Flat Earth I would eventually hit the Ice wall, correct?

Nope. On the flat earth model, going west means you're going in a big curve. If you go in a south westerly direction, you're not going in a straight line, thus you will not run into the ice wall.

Flat Earth Q&A / Earth's acceleration
« on: January 05, 2007, 10:44:10 AM »
Quote from: "NinjaMidgetOwnsU"

What Mr. Engineer is trying to say is "you're playing in my imaginary little world so you have to go by my rules or I'll give you a really bad indian burn and tell mommy"

No, I think he was trying to say exactly what he said-Newtonian mechanics do not work in relativistic situations (i.e,. when moving at velocities approaching c.)

Flat Earth Q&A / Earth's acceleration
« on: January 05, 2007, 10:39:23 AM »
Quote from: "Namfuak"
My point still stands.  If we went up at any constant rate of acceleration, we would hit the speed of light or stop accelerating. In fact if we aren't, that would mean that when Earth stopped accelerating at the speed of light, we would go weightless, or when it reached and surpassed the speed of light, who knows what would happen? (I think we all just lose our ability to see, but that is just me)

Erasmus explains it rather well here.

Even if we weren't crushed flat for some reason (I'm a freshman in high school so if there is some obvious physics reason for this I won't mind hearing it, but it doesn't matter anyway),

The obvious physics reason for this is that the human body is capable of withstanding an acceleration of 1g.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / I am God
« on: January 05, 2007, 09:34:25 AM »
Quote from: "Xargo"
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
All it means is that I've changed the meaning of the word "genius" to something completely different than its previous meaning.

... Yes.

So like I said, it's pointless. What you're saying is "I'm God and you can't prove I'm not because I define the word "god" to mean anything I want it to."
Whatever. I'm a genius. Yay me.

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity exists, and its not the earth going up
« on: January 03, 2007, 02:51:49 PM »
You mean tides? Tides aren't caused by Earth's gravity in either model.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / I am God
« on: January 03, 2007, 02:50:05 PM »
Quote from: "Xargo"

Why? Does that ruin the concept?

It doesn't ruin it, it just makes it kind of pointless. For example: from this moment forth I define a "Genius" as someone having "EnragedPenguin" for their username on an internet forum. According to my new, better definition, I am now a genius. Sadly, this does not mean I am:
    *Someone who has exceptional intellectual ability and originality.
    *Someone who is dazzlingly skilled in any field.
    *Someone with exceptional creative ability.
    *A person with distinguished mental prowess.
    *A foremost intellect.

All it means is that I've changed the meaning of the word "genius" to something completely different than its previous meaning.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / I am God
« on: January 03, 2007, 01:05:59 PM »
What's the point in having a concept of God if you're going to say God is everything?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I've read the FAQ
« on: December 30, 2006, 07:31:18 PM »
Quote from: "Explain Electric"
And you are idiots. I'm just stating a fact.

Ad hominem attacks are ridiculous and childish. If you ask someone a question, and then call them an idiot, don't be surprised if they don't answer.

I actually am, you will find, very intelligent, not pretentious, and I know a lot about varied areas of physics.

And you are doing a fantabulous job of demonstrating this.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I've read the FAQ
« on: December 30, 2006, 07:08:52 PM »
Quote from: "Explain Electric"
I know that Black Holes are existent because in order for the universe to function they must exist.

Why's that? If you don't mind my asking.

P.S. People would be a lot nicer and be more willing to answer your questions if you'd stop calling them idiots.

Flat Earth Q&A / Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?
« on: December 30, 2006, 02:08:28 PM »
Quote from: "Xargo"
You're suggesting that a gigantic hand threw the Earth into motion?..

Come now, Xargo, that wouldn't do any good. The Earth would stop accelerating as soon as it left the hand. No, I'm not suggesting anything so radical. I'm merely implying that there are forces in the universe other than gravity, and that when one of these forces is applied to something, that something will accelerate.

Flat Earth Q&A / Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?
« on: December 30, 2006, 02:03:16 PM »
Quote from: "Xargo"
Earth isn't driven by gasoline. Nor any sort of the machinery inside a car.

I was playing catch the other day. The ball would go from not moving in my hand, to moving real fast through the air. How could this be? There weren't any massive bodies in front of me then either...

Flat Earth Q&A / Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?
« on: December 30, 2006, 01:59:31 PM »
Quote from: "yop69g"
It can't be accelerating upwards for no reason. Something must be attracting it : gravity. There is no other reason.

Hmm, so how did I go from 0 to 60m/h when I was driving the other day? I'm pretty certain there weren't any massive bodies in front of me...

The Lounge / Merry Christmas
« on: December 27, 2006, 05:26:36 PM »
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Although I understand that the PS3 is about as big.  It at least doesn't look like a giant VCR.

Well, at least the Xbox doesn't look like Spiderman's printer :mrgreen: . No but seriously, the PS3 is pretty awesome.

Flat Earth Q&A / Happy Holidays!
« on: December 25, 2006, 01:34:07 PM »
Happy holidays everyone! Go easy on the Eggnog.

P.S The logo looks quite festive indeed!

Flat Earth Q&A / Satellites?
« on: December 21, 2006, 06:18:41 AM »
Quote from: "pronpic"
Theoretically, if the mass could hold itself together, you'd have an infinite mass. But no matter can withstand that, at a certain point it starts to break down and lose atomic cohesion. This due to matter degeneracy (the article I linked before), which explains the several stages of matter breaking down under the stresses of incredible density and mass.

I've already shown this to be false with a simple thought experiment. In case you missed it, I'll post it again.
Pretend you hop into a rocket ship and go blasting away from me at some relativistic speed, say .9c. From your frame of reference, you can say that I'm the one moving away from you at .9c, correct? So using your theory, which one of us collapses? Do we both collapse? Will you collapse from the frame of reference of your rocket ship, to whom your mass is still your rest mass? How is it possible for you to be dead in one frame of reference, and not in another (assuming you die when you collapse)?

I'm sorry pronpic, but I don't think mass expansion works the way you seem to think it works.

Flat Earth Q&A / Satellites?
« on: December 20, 2006, 01:52:32 PM »
Quote from: "coddy"
I think he is refering to Einstein's equation which tells you the size of an object relative to its speed. You will indeed find that your size will decrease with speed, and at the speed of light you will have "null mass".

Length contracts, but mass increases. At the speed of light you would have infinite mass.

Flat Earth Q&A / Satellites?
« on: December 20, 2006, 09:36:34 AM »
Quote from: "pronpic"
Did you actually read the PDF? It uses the term "null mass" several times.

No, unfortunately I was not able to read the PDF, as doing so requires a paid subscription to the site.
I have, however, done a bit of searching. And I am unable to find a definition of the term anywhere.
And I guess not believing in black holes is yet another convenient part of the FE argument?

For the life of me I can't find where that article talks about mass collapsing as it approaches c.
Let's say you blast away from me in a rocket ship moving near the speed of light. That means from your frame of reference, I'm moving away from you at nearly the speed of light. Which one of us collapses? Do we both collapse? Will either of appear to collapse from a frame of reference where we aren't moving near c?

Quote from: "Username"
Does anyone have the link from where you asked this on the physics forum?

Flat Earth Q&A / Satellites?
« on: December 19, 2006, 02:34:21 PM »
Quote from: "pronpic"

That article never once mentions the term "null mass."
A mass collapsing when approaching c would disagree with you there.

A mass doesn't collapse when it approaches c. After all, whether or not the mass is travelling near c is relative. It can't collapse to you and not collapse to me.
When I say "actual velocity", I mean the velocity as observed from the reference frame of the mass in question.

The mass will measure its velocity differently depending on what it's measuring its velocity relative to. There is no such thing as "actual velocity."

Flat Earth Q&A / Satellites?
« on: December 18, 2006, 04:34:46 PM »
Once the mass has expanded past its breaking point, it becomes a null mass, and implodes.

What is the breaking point of mass? What is a null mass? Why do you keep making stuff up?

Also, with increasing mass, comes a need for an increase in the energy required to propel such a mass at constant acceleration.

Aha! the first intelligent thing you've said yet.
That's why Earth's acceleration decreases from any frame of reference where it is traveling near c.

The Wiki entry for Inertia might be a little hard to understand for someone like yourself, so I'll instead link to the Inertial compensator article, which presents fictitious ways to counter the very real and very damaging effects of inertia at high speeds (aka G-force).

Did you even read the article before linking it? Did you happen to catch this part?
However the enormous G-forces so generated would be sufficient to crush many things on board

This article is talking about accelerating at more than 1 g.

The velocity experienced by a mass, as opposed to what appears to be experienced from the reference frame of an observer (observed velocity).

A mass doesn't experience velocity. There's no such thing as "actual velocity." "Observed velocity" is redundant, since all velocity is "observed velocity."

Flat Earth Q&A / Satellites?
« on: December 17, 2006, 06:48:27 PM »
Quote from: "pronpic"
What you're doing is saying that any force which results in an acceleration of any kind is equal to any other force which results in acceleration.

Aside from the fact that what you just said doesn't make much sense, it's not at all what he's saying. He's saying the acceleration resulting from any force is equivalent. There is no difference locally between being in a gravitational field and being on a platform that is accelerating upwards.

You mean APART from the crushing inertia, and mass expansion of traveling at high speed?

From the reference frame of anything accelerating along with Earth, there is no mass expansion. And what exactly is "crushing inertia?"

Particularly, pay attention to the difference between actual velocity and observed velocity in different frames of reference, as well as the many destructive characteristics of a mass approaching anywhere the speed of light.

I know you don't want to be our tutor, but I'm a little curious,  what is "actual velocity"? As I don't think I've ever heard of it. And what are the destructive characteristics of a mass approaching c? As I haven't heard of them either.

Do also note that there are other frames of reference than Earth.

And in these frames of reference, Earth's acceleration will appear to decrease asymptotically as it approaches c. Fortunately for us here on Earth, Earth never approaches c, therefore its rate of acceleration will never change (unless the "Dark Energy" runs out.)

Flat Earth Q&A / The Sun and Moon
« on: December 06, 2006, 02:41:02 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"

I think it's pretty much implied when smeone asks for an explanation, that the explanation make sense.

I agree.

Flat Earth Q&A / The Sun and Moon
« on: December 05, 2006, 01:54:48 PM »
a better way would explain to me how clouds are percieved.

As visible masses of condensed water droplets suspended way up in the air?

Quote from: "Seriously"
This does not constitute a formal proof of the FE Hypothesis. It assumes the hypothesis is correct and attempts to explain the sunrise.

I apologize. I was under the impression that an explanation is exactly what Jazzlizard was asking for. You know, cuz' he put " Any explanations?" at the end of his post, and not "Any formal proofs?"

The Lounge / Do you want the terrorists to win?
« on: December 04, 2006, 07:53:34 PM »
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Haha, I owned beast! 98% baby!

Tie! I got 98% as well.

Flat Earth Q&A / The Sun and Moon
« on: December 04, 2006, 07:46:53 PM »
Here's a link to Rowbotham's explanation.
I would suggest reading through the entire book (and the FAQ) before attempting to argue against the theory. That will give you a better understanding of how the model works.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: rebuttle to "rebuttle to its a conspiracy"
« on: December 04, 2006, 07:31:04 PM »
Quote from: "dantheman40k"
But we know for a fact that the universe does exist.

Yep, and its existence is completely independant of the fact that I can't think of a reason why it exists.

Quote from: "Xargo"
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Axelgear, posting this many arguments all at once is never a good idea. Most people don't even have time to read through them all, let alone answer them.

You would rather see a new thread for each argument?

No, I was suggesting that he only post three or four at a time. Then wait for those to be answered, and post few more.
That makes life easier on everyone.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please explain the horizon
« on: December 04, 2006, 09:31:17 AM »
Quote from: "aristus"
An observer whose eyes are 1.6m above sea level can see (roughly) 4.5km before objects disappear behind what can only be a curvature of the surface in between. This observed curvature is (again, roughly) constant in every direction you look. North, South, East, West. You can confirm this yourself easily.

From what I can tell, your argument here is essentially the old "why does a ships hull disappear before the mast."
A couple of explanations have been proposed on this forum, although you'll have to look for the threads. You also might want to read Samuel Rowbotham's explanation, from his book Earth: Not a globe.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 27