### 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.

### Topics - El Cid

Pages: [1]
1
##### The Lounge / Changing
« on: October 19, 2012, 11:35:26 PM »
I'm going to change my name to Prawn now.

2
##### Flat Earth Debate / Special Relativity
« on: December 09, 2011, 08:53:51 PM »
There has been a lot of talk of Special Relativity, so I'm just going to clear some things up so no one can BS it.

There is a coordinate system K with coordinates x, y, z and a time coordinate t.
There is a coordinate system K', moving at velocity v in the x direction relative to K, with coordinates x', y', z', and a time coordinate t'.
c is the speed of light.

These are the equations:

Where this is the Lorentz Factor:

So just multiply them together.  I don't know why they put it like that.  Just imagine the Lorentz factor, with the part in the original equation on the top instead of just 1.

The denominator in the Lorentz factor is extremely close to 1 when v is nowhere near c, so you just divide by very near to 1 and the rate of time and distance is not affected greatly, but as we reach the speed of light, as the Earth will after a lot of time, but it cannot reach or pass the speed of light.  Time will slow down, which will decrease your relative speed, and distance will grow in the direction you're moving.  This will avoid breaking the "cosmic speed limit" of the speed of light.

Relative to ...what?  To something, Earth will be moving faster and faster, until time necessarily slows and direction grows, but the speed relative to, um, that same thing, will be decreased.  If you go outside of the Earth to whatever the Earth is relative to, then the Earth will no longer be accelerating much, it will just be approaching asymptotically the speed of light, or it will get closer and closer to the speed of light, without reaching it.  Which is awesome.

This is bad, but just look at the left half.  The x-axis is speed, and the y-axis is the slowing of time or growing of distance.  Take your pick.

Time will slow down until it is, essentialy, not moving.  It will be lowered every second it constantly accelerates, and time will get slower and slower and never go on, simply be very nearly frozen for all eternity.  This would have happened a long time ago, and the year 2011 would never have began.  I have determined that it will take 30,559,883.588 seconds to accelerate to this speed, which is 353 days, 16 hours, 51 minutes, and 23.588 seconds.

Of course, time will have slowed down, so we won't be quite at that point yet, so, quite awesomely, this will probably happen after about a year.

But I've been alive for much more than a year, and the point is, time won't even go on, even slowly beyond all imagination, if it's accelerating at an entirely constant rate.  To us, theoretically, the moment will pass without our noticing, but the problem is, the moment won't pass.  Time will have, essentially, ended.

So, in other words, the end of time will come in one year.

3
##### Flat Earth Debate / Axial Precession
« on: December 08, 2011, 09:54:27 PM »
This first part is based in RET.

Precessional movement of the Earth. The Earth rotates (white arrows) once a day about its axis of rotation (red). This axis itself rotates slowly (white circle), completing a rotation in approximately 26,000 years.

This causes the pole stars to change slowly over time, as the "plane" of the sky changes relative to the Earth.

The famous star Polaris is a pole star that is about one degree from the North Pole.  However, at about 3000 BC, Thuban was the north pole star.

This has been observed.  The Pharoah Khufu in ancient Egypt built the largest of the Pyramids of Giza, known as the Pyramid of Giza.  He based the construction of it on Thuban, then known as "Alpha Draconis," the brightest star in the constellation Draco, the serpent.  Khufu expected that when he died, he would join not only with the Sun, but with Thuban as well, maintaining order in the celestial realm, just as he had on Earth.

(sources:  http://fuliginouspalaver.tripod.com/comingtolight/id16.html, http://starryskies.com/The_sky/constellations/draco.html)

According to FET this won't happen, because there is no axis at all.  If we were to imagine a line through the North Pole, perpendicular to the flat Earth, it would never move.  The celestial sphere would never move either and the pole star would never change.  However, it does and it affected the Pharoah.

4
##### Flat Earth General / CubeSat
« on: December 07, 2011, 03:30:23 PM »
Before you do anything, read the link below and learn exactly what CubeSat is, and why it contradicts FET.  It's easy to see, I think.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=citizen-satellites

5
##### Flat Earth Debate / Distances cannot be reconciled.
« on: December 05, 2011, 04:33:36 PM »
The "ultimate challenge" for FE is that the map is ludicrous.  People have constantly been asking, "FE, provide a map that keeps measured distances true."

They forget, of course, that this is impossible.  This is the shape of Africa, as we have measured between cities and edges:

I think we can change this to a concave shape, but those are the only two things I can think of without resorting to something completely convoluted.  It is impossible to make this flat and keep distances true.

6
##### Flat Earth Debate / Galaxies
« on: December 02, 2011, 10:28:31 PM »
I don't know how to ask this, so I'll just pose a few simple questions:

Does the flat Earth revolve around the center of the Milky Way still, with a sun and moon above it going around as well?
If so, does the entire galaxy and, indeed, the universe, accelerate with the Earth?
If so, relative to what?  That is simply meaningless and will result in Earth having no gravity, considering Machian relativity.
Why isn't gravity on celestial bodies the normal gravity plus Earth's gravity on one side, and normal minus Earth's on the other?
How was the flat Earth formed, and without gravity, no less?
Is there an entire other universe on the other side of the Earth, along with the sub-moon?
If not, what IS there?  Does the universe end at that point?

7
##### Flat Earth Debate / Disproof of Bendy Light
« on: December 02, 2011, 09:00:15 PM »
Last one was somewhat complicated and easy to dismiss, so I've developed a more straightforward proof that I've realized.

Bendy light requires that what we perceive as a right angle is not quite a right angle.

The observer thinks the right angle is really not a right angle - but it is.

Therefore, all the angles we have ever seen are wrong.

Needless to say, a building like the Burj Khalifa would never stand.  In fact, I can't imagine much of any building that would stand, even a simple lean-to, if the lean is completely off.  For any modern building, I'd say we'd have to be exactly right, or it would fall.

Therefore, we are exactly right, and light doesn't bend to make us wrong (otherwise all the buildings would collapse).

Therefore, bendy light is impossible.

Q.E.D.

8
##### Flat Earth General / Just look out the window
« on: November 29, 2011, 10:37:34 PM »
If you look out the window, you will see, quite likely, if you live in the suburbs like me, houses and trees and such.  But if you're in a vacation home or something, and when you look out, you can see the horizon, then congrats!  You proved that there is a horizon.  On a flat Earth, objects far away would simply get smaller and never disappear under the horizon.  Horizon only exists because light goes straight and can't curve along with the Earth.

There's your proof of a round Earth.  Want to know if the Earth is round?  Just look out the window.

9
##### Flat Earth Debate / Musings on "Bendy Light"
« on: November 28, 2011, 09:56:03 PM »
When I think of bending light, I think of something like this.

So now we are presented with a theory that light always bends, and at a curve, too.  So I think we can define "Bendy Light" as a light beam, through some magical force or field of some kind or another, that is constantly, at every moment that it moves through space, curving slightly downward.  If it starts out going up, it will slow, and finally make a turn towards the ground, making a curve that I am told resembles a graph of y=x^1.5.

This way, when a beam of light reaches a ship and (assuming it got there safely) reflects off, it goes towards an observer, bending constantly downward.  So therefore, even if the Earth is flat, at a certain distance, the light will eventually hit the ground and no longer be visible, a phenomenon we call the horizon.

To name the first problem that comes to mind:  light reflects.  We cannot deny this, as it reflected off the ship in the first place, it reflects off of tables and books and food, which is what allows us to see those things.  Light reflects, and when a light beam curves downward, it eventually hits the hard, flat ground.  But, you see, then it reflects off of the ground, especially if it's a ship and the light hits water which is well-known for being reflective.  What happens then?  Well, it bounces off at an opposite angle, and presumably curves downward again.  Remember, all light all around the world does this, so we should be able to see, in front of us, at all times, a faint shadow of the entire world and everything that's been bending to the ground and reflecting, then bending back again and reflecting again, over and over, dancing to the four corners of the Earth, albeit weakened from many reflections.

The problem with this - and I'm as disappointed about this as you - is that we don't see a faint mirage of everything everywhere all the time.  So this can't be true.

Besides that, it's unclear how far this field of bending extends.  It seems to me that, when debating about otherwordly images, FE'ers assume the normal properties of light, so does this mean that the field doesn't extend into space?  Does it pervade throughout the whole universe, or is it just some freaky effect of the Earth itself (being abnormally flat, as it is)?  We don't even know what's under the flat Earth.

Also, if it does only go through Earth, how far?  Does it always exist beyond the atmosphere, or is it below the atmosphere, near the southern circumference of the Earth (the Antarctic expeditions being fake and all)?

Finally, it's unclear whether the "Bendy Light" affects the light of the sun, moon, planets, and stars.  If so, does it only begin to bend when entering the Earth's atmosphere?

10
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Reality Tunnel
« on: November 16, 2011, 04:10:59 PM »
Reality tunnel is a term coined by Timothy Leary and popularised by Robert Anton Wilson.
The theory states that, with a subconscious set of mental "filters" formed from their beliefs and experiences, every individual interprets this same world differently, hence "Truth is in the eye of the beholder".

This is not necessarily meant to imply that there is no objective truth; rather that our access to it is mediated through our senses, experience, conditioning, prior beliefs, and other non-objective factors. The individual world each person occupies is said to be their reality tunnel. The term can also apply to groups of people united by beliefs.

A parallel can be seen in the psychological concept of confirmation bias—our tendency to notice and assign significance to observations that confirm our beliefs, while filtering out or rationalizing away observations that do not fit with our prior beliefs and expectations. This helps to explain why reality tunnels are usually transparent to their inhabitants. While it seems most people take their beliefs to correspond to the "one true objective reality," Robert Anton Wilson emphasizes that each person's reality tunnel is their own artistic creation, whether they realize it or not.

It is believed that through various techniques one can break down old reality tunnels and impose new reality tunnels by removing old filters and replacing them with new ones, new perspectives on reality—at will. This is achieved through various processes of deprogramming using neuro-linguistic programming, cybernetics, hypnosis, biofeedback devices, meditation, controlled use of hallucinogens, and forcibly acting out other reality tunnels. Thus, it is believed one's reality tunnel can be widened to take full advantage of human potential and experience reality on more positive levels. Robert Anton Wilson's Prometheus Rising is (among other things) a guidebook to the exploration of various reality tunnels.

11
##### Flat Earth Debate / How to make the so-called "Flat Earth Theory" an actual scientific theory.
« on: November 02, 2011, 05:04:36 PM »
Firstly, I'd like to explain the difference between a hypothesis, theory, and law.

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

The Flat Earth Theory is not a theory; in fact, it is not even a hypothesis.  A hypothesis and a theory must be testable.  Science is more than just a word meaning "physics, biology, chemistry, and other things I learned in school about that type of thing."

Science is a study of the natural world, but it is not simply guessing.  It is not religion, or philosophy.  It is something different.

The philosophy of science is that you have to be able to prove it.  If it's not provable, it's not science.  This is what science is.  Science is anything that can be proven.

In their attempt to prove things, scientists devise experiments.  This word is also perhaps more than you think.  An experiment is set up in a way such that a hypothesis can be proven.

Here is an example of an experiment.  You want to figure out whether eating at McDonald's every day will make you fat.  Your hypothesis:  "Eating at McDonald's every day will eventually make you get fat."

So, in order to test your hypothesis, you create a simple experiment:  you will have two people.  You will tell one of them to eat at McDonald's every day, and you will tell the other not to.  Wait for a while, and eventually you will see:  the first person will begin to get fat.  The other will not.  This proves your hypothesis true.

But what if the second person gets fat too?  This will prove that people just always get fat, and therefore you can discard the hypothesis.  Of course, you have to make sure that both people have about the same metabolism, about the same health to begin with; otherwise, who knows?  Maybe that was the reason that one got fat and the other didn't.

In order for something to be a theory, there must be a method to either prove or disprove it.  Currently, FET is not even very well-organized and developed enough to be sure whether something does prove or disprove it.  So then, my first step in my guide to you on how to make FET a theory, is as follows:

1.  Organize the thoughts of FET, into one, or possibly several, definite models, with clear explanations and mathematics on the theory's properties.  Explain how phenomena such as bendy light come into effect.  Publish your theory in a scientific journal, or somewhere else where it will get attention.

Then:

2.  Devise possible experiments to prove or disprove the theory.

Now, I should warn you.  You seem to be on this path already:  you change your model to fit the measurements.

If you do this so much that no measurement will ever be able to disprove FET, then it is automatically no longer a theory.  A theory must be testable.

Assuming you make your theory such that it is testable, I give you a final commandment:

3.  Explain why your theory explains the universe better than the current model, and show that it is more accurate.  Show the benefits to be had to adopt this theory.

12
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Under the Earth - Discussion
« on: October 28, 2011, 08:32:34 PM »
This is a discussion about what is underground, according to the Flat Earth Theory.

Here are some references I found on the FAQ to things under the ground:

"Q: 'What is underneath the Earth?'

A: This is unknown. Most FE proponents believe that it is generally composed of rocks. Please note that in Hinduism, the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle."

So, we're noting this, but not accepting it, apparently.

"Rocks" could mean molten rock, and there certainly are volcanoes on Earth, but the plural form of this seems to suggest multiple rocks, which is meaningless in the concept of magma.  There is no experimental proof or even a reason for making such a claim.

"Q: 'Exactly what shape is the Earth if it is flat? Square or circle?'

A: Circle, like in the UN logo. However, the earth is NOT 2D; it is in the shape of a cylinder."

This is the only mention of this.  No experimental proof is given.

"Q: 'How do volcanic eruptions happen?'

A: The Earth is thick enough to have a core of molten lava. Once there is too much of it in too confined a space, it finds its way out, just like the water will come out of a full bottle if you squeeze it too hard."

This implies that there is a core.  Core is generally meant to mean "center," (the core of an apple, the core of one's body) which implies that perhaps there is another side to the Earth?  It also implies that somehow, lava is either added, into a finite space, so that it can be squeezed out, or that this space is compressed.  It also implies that there is no solid core, like in the Round Earth Theory, but simply lava all the way through to an alleged other side.

I also searched "under the earth" in quotes across the whole forum.  I found things such as "We don't know.  Neither does RET," "There are four elephants and a turtle," "Dark energy," "The sun moves under the Earth," and (mostly) there seems to be a general consensus that there is another side.

What does experimental science tell us?  Well, we can only deduce things based on properties of seismic waves and such.

The following passage is from this URL:  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/12/981211083655.htm

Confirming a long-held scientific notion, a Northwestern University seismologist and a colleague at the French Atomic Energy Commission have provided the first direct evidence that -- inside a liquid core -- the very center of the Earth is solid.

The long sought finding, which had been hinted at but never proven, came from analysis of seismic waves generated by the June 1996 earthquake in Indonesia and recorded at a large-array seismic network spread across France. The finding will be presented Thursday at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco and will appear in the Dec. 15 issue of Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

For decades, seismologists have used seismic waves as a sort of probe of the Earth's insides. They look at how the waves created by an earthquake at the surface of the Earth reverberate through the interior before being detected on the other side.

"The general picture of the Earth at the turn of the last century was that it had a rocky mantle floating on a liquid core of molten iron," says Emile A. Okal, professor of geological sciences at Northwestern and an author of the new study. The fluidity of the iron explained the existence of the Earth's magnetic field, he said.

But geophysicists also assumed that at some great depth, the pressure would be so high that even at temperatures of thousands of degrees the iron would freeze solid. In the 1930s, seismologists did find a "discontinuity" in the velocity of waves propagated through the center of the Earth, suggesting some sort of stratification of the core.

The problem, for 60 years now, is that those waves never carried the signature of a solid.

"A solid has a very distinctive mechanical property, which is that it can sustain two different kinds of waves," Okal said. "It can transmit a wave that oscillates in the direction of travel, sort of a pulsing compression-and-relaxation, and it can transmit a wave that vibrates perpendicular to the direction of travel, like a guitar string."

A liquid can propagate only the first type of wave, which corresponds to a change of volume and pressure, as it propagates, he said. "The second type requires memory of a shape for its restoring force, and a liquid has no shape."

Only the first type of wave, characteristic of liquids, had ever been observed coming from the Earth's core.

Okal and his colleague in France, Yves Cansi, used an eight-station French seismic network to study the Indonesian earthquake, and for the first time detected the telltale second vibration.

"The 1996 Flores Sea earthquake, which was a big earthquake at about 600 kilometers depth, was perfect in geometry for recording in France," Okal said. "If you want to sample the deepest part of the Earth, you need a big, deep earthquake," he said. "And they are rare." A deep earthquake gives rise to cleaner signals, he said.

Improvements in instrumentation over the last 15 years were crucial to the new finding, Okal said, as were computer capabilities, developed in France, to extract signals from noise.

Okal's expectations for the significance of the finding are, well, down to earth.

"We look at the interior of the Earth because we would like to know what is below us," Okal said. "But this may turn out to be interesting to the field of materials science because it indicates that under tremendous pressures, iron is behaving in a different way," he said. "Understanding how the qualities of materials are affected under extremely high pressures -- millions of times the atmospheric pressure -- might be applicable for different materials at not-so-heavy pressures."

The research was supported by the National Science Foundation.

The data is, of course, based on the assumption of a round Earth, and therefore, measurements are accounted for in this manner.  Therefore, if the Earth were flat, we would have to justify this, which is impossible.  According to RET, the Earth is round and the core is round; to convert this, with the correct distances from points on the surface to points on the edge of the core, we would need a flat Earth and a flat core.  This will, unfortunately, affect the seismic waves, because it is now at a different angle.  You cannot have a flat core and an angled core that will reflect seismic waves in exactly the same way it does in a RET. Therefore, it is completely impossible to explain this using FET.

13
##### Flat Earth General / Comment on the alleged conspiracy
« on: October 28, 2011, 05:16:29 PM »
I offer this hypothesis, humbly in the name of the FET.

Now, even if NASA is lying and telling us that the Earth is spherical (even though it's flat), couldn't it still be possible, by the flat Earth model, to go to the moon anyway (seeing as it is allegedly spherical)?

In fact, what if we actually did go to the moon, and the only thing they're lying about is the shape?

"But why would they do that?" you may ask.

Well, this goes better with my other conspiracy theory, about how the three superstates are ruled from behind the scenes by a secret society.  They give an excuse to waste tons of money on things like space programs, and nuclear weapons, to avoid increasing the quality of life.

They lie about the shape of the Earth to stop us from thinking to hard, to have our view of the world completely shattered, and perhaps *gasp* think!

That is all.

Pages: [1]