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 - El Cid

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Bit Of Logic For You To Ponder.
« on: October 29, 2011, 08:46:10 PM »
In science we can only say that things are more or less likely. There is no "proof" of the kind you are looking for.

Hume says that we cannot even say if something is more or less likely.  If somebody flips a coin from out of your view, and gets heads, and heads again, and heads again, and heads again, then don't you start to suspect that maybe it's a weird coin with two heads?  But you cannot prove this; in fact, you can't say whether it's more likely.  Even if the coin is flipped a million times, only getting heads, it still could entirely be possible that it is a freak coincidence.  If you get tails, then you know immediately that it was.  Even probabilites are rendered meaningless by induction.

But this is not science, which is why I suggest that we assume the universe to be objective, and subscribe to the philosophy of Occam's razor, so that we don't have to worry about "maybe this, maybe that" because we will assume the simplest to be true.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« on: October 29, 2011, 08:14:33 PM »
Still, FET has not produced a clear explanation of exactly what does go on down there.  Unless you do so, you cannot compare the results that could be expected by RET and FET, and your claims can never be validated to be true for certain.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Bit Of Logic For You To Ponder.
« on: October 29, 2011, 07:54:39 PM »
There is a possibility of anything.

For example, we could be alien monkeys with forty-two eyeballs and seventeen brains and eight hearts, hooked up to a machine that gives our nervous system inputs and uses the outputs to give us the illusion of this world.

Let us not talk about possibilities.  Let's assume the universe is objective, and subscribe to the philosophy of Occam's razor; such speculation is meaningless.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: October 29, 2011, 07:38:01 PM »
What?  Why not?

If a plane is going at a hundred miles per hour (and in Australia it looks distorted by a factor of three) and you go three hundred miles in one hour, I think somebody's going to notice, even if they can't see the difference.
You've got it backwards. Seeing the difference is the only thing that happens, and only from sufficient distances. Mechanics != optics.
I don't understand!  What I'm saying is, people have clocks, and one hour is noticeably different from three hours.  Sure, bendy light tells them, "Nope, three hundred miles, not one hundred (as it really is due to Earth's flatness)."  But their plane scheduler, and their pilot, etc., (believing there to be three hundred miles as well) will say, "We have three hundred miles to go.  We are currently going at one hundred miles per hour, so we expect to get there within three hours."

Twenty minutes later (a third of an hour), the pilot will realize that they've gone a full hundred miles!  But the whole time they've been watching, and they've never exceeded one hundred miles per hoour!  By this standard, they would have had to be going three hundred miles per hour!  But the pilot checks the reports, nope, one hundred the whole time!  As this trend continues (because, you know, the world's flat), he will notice it more and more.  He'll think, "Well, I guess there's something wrong with the equipment.  I must be going at three hundred miles per hour."  Surely he'll anounce to the passengers, "Well, we seem to be having some strange technical disruptions, and it seems that we're going at three hundred miles per hour, not one hundred.  We will be there much sooner than expected."  This goes against the pilot's intuition, though, because three hundred miles per hour is ridiculously fast.  The pilot will likely make a report to whoever's in charge about this.

You may say, "Well, they are in denial, to avoid changing their whole world view."  Well sure, but there are flights over Australia every day!  Surely the director or whatever will continually have the equipment looked at, but there will be no problems (because the real problem is bendy light).  Eventually they'll start to wonder.  Besides, "flat Earth" never occurs to them; that is patently ridiculous.  They have flights over Antarctica all the time.  They won't have a reason to deny this, because they don't think it will cause a scientific upheaval; they just think it's so weird and seemingly unexplainable, but never ceasing to show itself.

Also!  Crops in Australian outback!  You never explained that!

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« on: October 29, 2011, 07:21:41 PM »
You say that no globularist would invent anisotropy to explain seismic behaviour, yet they do exactly that. And they introduce it because the data would not fit their globular model any other way.

Evidence for this statement?

Very clever; however, this does nothing for your position. You need to explain why seismic anisotropy would not exist, i.e. why the factors that purportedly cause changes in wavelength direction (cracks in rock, etc.) would in fact not cause it. You would also need to show that when seismic anisotropy is not taken into account, the data would decisively reject a round earth model in active favor of a flat earth hypothesis. It is not enough to simply claim that seismic anisotropy is fake and link to a definition to establish a flat- earth as the superior model
I like this.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: October 29, 2011, 03:02:15 PM »
The problem is, the distances themselves have to change as well, not just our perception of the distances.
What?  Why not?

If a plane is going at a hundred miles per hour (and in Australia it looks distorted by a factor of three) and you go three hundred miles in one hour, I think somebody's going to notice, even if they can't see the difference.

Also, crops in Australian outback!

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: October 29, 2011, 01:26:01 PM »
The problem is, the distances themselves have to change as well, not just our perception of the distances.  Otherwise, large farms in the Australian outback, for example, could not produce nearly as many crops.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« on: October 29, 2011, 01:19:22 PM »
What is under the Earth? Monsters. Never go under the Earth. Plenty of roundies have been eaten already do you want to be the next one?
But there has to be something else, a layer of rock, or something.  I say this because if I dig into the dirt I don't immediately pierce through to "another side."  There has to be something.

Besides, what of volcanoes, Earth's magnetic field, plate tectonics?  There are a million objections.  Your answer does not explain anything.  Also, how do you know?  Or are you just making it up?  I assume you have seen a documented case of a roundie being eaten by monsters.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Compass Won't Work According to FE theory
« on: October 29, 2011, 12:42:28 PM »
Herndon. I will fix my typo in the last post.
I still have no idea where this argument is.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« on: October 29, 2011, 12:39:50 PM »
Perhaps we could find the data for these measurements.  They've likely been published.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Compass Won't Work According to FE theory
« on: October 29, 2011, 12:22:46 PM »
I am well familiar with both dynamos and convection. I did not come about my convictions by happenstance. I am telling you that Herdon has fairly well destroyed the theory of mantle convection. There is no hope for it on your globe. It is highly interesting reading, if you care to find it.
Is it Herdon or Herndon?  I can't find any reference to either on this forum besides right here, and I can't seem to find anything on Google.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« on: October 29, 2011, 12:12:39 PM »
So, if a globularist had to introduce anisotropic material to make seismic wave behaviour fit a globe, it would be unscientific?
Surely you admit that there are very few people who are in on the conspiracy!  Most people accept that the Earth is a globe unquestioningly.  If somebody found data that showed that the Earth was flat, they would have never thought about it before, and would say "OMG!  The Earth is flat!"  It would cause a scientific upheaval, as they wondered about whether there could possibly be alternate explanations, or whether the Earth really and truly was flat.

It would make all the news, to be sure.

Flat Earth General / Re: RErs ... earn $10,000
« on: October 29, 2011, 11:57:55 AM »
Like in George Orwell's timeless classic, "1984."

They use doublethink - the simultaneous holding of two contradictory beliefs - to prevent Thought Crime, anything that was against the Party.  Thought Crime was punishable by death.

Here is how Winston Smith described doublethink in the novel:

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.'

A horrifying dystopia where the poor stay poor and those in power stay in power forever.  It's a classic.  I recommend it to everyone.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Just to clear things up
« on: October 29, 2011, 11:32:59 AM »
Cool copypasta, bro.

Believe it or not we are all aware of that there is a theory of gravity.
But I thought FET maintained gravity?  Only that it doesn't affect Earth?

If not, then how do you explain tides?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« on: October 29, 2011, 11:30:55 AM »
We could just assume the presence of anisotropic material like globularism does to squeeze the data into their model.
I looked up the word "anisotropic," and I find that it means "treating different directions differently."  To the contrary!  I can assure you that any RE'er will always treat every direction the same.  However, FET argues that, the further south you go, the more bendy light gets (not explained how this affects distance and not just perception of distance).  FET is anisotropic, but any RE'er will tell you that every direction is the same.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Compass Won't Work According to FE theory
« on: October 29, 2011, 10:50:39 AM »
I cannot believe how many baseless assumptions you just made, but we'll hit a few.

First, we don't know exactly what is in the earth's core whether it be flat or a globe. Really, we have no clue.
Second, I haven't seen any convection currents in a bar magnet, but perhaps you have. Clearly, a convective dynamo is not required to produce a magnetic field.
Third, Herndon convincingly shows how convection is impossible in a globe's mantle and core -- except perhaps in the very small region of a molten inner-core at the very center of a globe. Wholly insufficient to cause any "dynamo" effect as posited by mainstream science.
First, we aren't completely sure, but it is not accurate at all to say that we have no clue.  Seismic waves can't go through a solid core, so using measurements from these, we can tell that there is something solid down there, and that it is, predictably, a sphere.

Second, there are no convection currents in a bar magnet, because it is made of magnetic material whose atoms are aligned easily.  This is not the same for the Earth.  Here is an explanation of convection:

As magma falls to the core of the Earth, it is heated up (because it's hotter down there).  You may have heard that "heat rises."  This is because heat is the speed of particles.  When they're faster, they sort of push outwards and begin to take up more space, making the magma less dense (because density is how packed together something is; if the same amount of mass is in more space, it is less dense).  We know that buoyancy (what makes things float) is caused when something less dense is in something more dense.  Wood is less dense than water, so it floats.  Really small rocks, like in Monty Python, will never float, despite being light, because things only float if they're less dense.  So when the magma becomes less dense, it rises.  Then it cools, and falls again, repeating the cycle.

The magnetic field is caused because the outer core is molten iron (inner core is solid, which is what I've been talking about) which is highly conductive to electricity.  Electric fields also create magnetic fields.  Magnetic fields resist the motion of the fluid, which is why convectional currents are needed to keep it going.

The rotation of the Earth causes a north-south alignment of the field.

Third, let me see this?  Convection is completely possible in the mantle; so long as it's fluid, it will be affected by convectional currents, just like water in a pot on a heat source.

Hence, heat rises.  I don't see how this couldn't happen in the mantle; in fact, I don't think the outer core is wide enough for this to occur en masse, like you suggest.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Compass Won't Work According to FE theory
« on: October 28, 2011, 09:21:59 PM »
Don't wait for an FE'er to explain it, they're just making it up anyway.

Here's mine:

Magnetism is basically the spin that an electron has.  Each atom can be aligned one way or another, but they will always point in one direction or the other.  You can't cut a magnet in half and get one north pole and one south pole.

This is possible.  The red dot is the Magnetic North Pole, and the white line is Magnetic South.  However, this is highly unlikely to exist.  There is no explanation for this.  In RET, magnetic fields are caused by convectional currents in the mantle, but there is no such justification for FET; in fact, it's unclear what's underground anyway (see:  Simply saying "there are convectional currents" is impossible, because they would all have to be aligned towards the Magnetic North Pole, which can't work, because it relies on buoyancy, and the direction being faced up; here it would have to be faced sideways.  See:

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Just to clear things up
« on: October 28, 2011, 08:42:59 PM »
Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

 F is the force between the masses,
 G is the gravitational constant,
 m1 is the first mass,
 m2 is the second mass, and
 r is the distance between the masses

Assuming SI units, F is measured in newtons (N), m1 and m2 in kilograms (kg), r in meters (m), and the constant G is approximately equal to 6.67410^−11 N m2 kg^−2.

It's not sucking and it's not pulling.  It's simply attraction.  Force means how much they move.  Newtons is a unit of weight, and this is how we can determine the force gravity is pulling on an object.  Therefore, it is a unit of force.  Kilograms is mass, newtons is weight, pounds are weight.  Hence, you get things like, "A pressure of x pounds per square inch."  The pounds (unit of weight) is how much force is being applied to every square inch.  There, you get a pressure lesson too.

This is Newton's law of course; Einstein changed up the rules a bit.

Edit:  I felt like I should add this.  Yes!  Energy too.  That was Einstein, again.  Remember E = mc^2, where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light.  This creates effects such as high energy causing gravity.  In General Relativity, gravity is the warping of spacetime.  This causes things to go faster (through space), and since time and space are a continuum, time will also be distorted (more as we approach the speed of light).  Energy can warp spacetime as well.  You could, hypothetically, shoot a laser with huge amounts of energy and warp spacetime in that direction.  When approaching the laser, you would begin to get "carried away" in the "current" and time would slow down as well.  This is a gravitational wave.

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:

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.

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.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: a flat earth?
« on: October 27, 2011, 04:01:12 PM »
I highly approve of this "the Earth is accelerating" theory.  I think I will agree with this theory too.
In fact, I think I'll make my own version of the flat Earth theory that I like better, and is completely infallible.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: a flat earth?
« on: October 27, 2011, 03:55:07 PM »
I highly approve of this "the Earth is accelerating" theory.  I think I will agree with this theory too.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]