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 [2] 3 4 5
31
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof of Bendy Light
« on: December 09, 2011, 07:49:59 PM »
The image bends with it?  What do you mean by that?  Light produces the image to begin with.

32
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 09, 2011, 03:27:15 PM »
You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth.

Incorrect.
You should really probably read the first post of this thread.  This thread is supposed to be about CubeSat, a satellite that orbits the Earth.  Did you not know that?

In FE, it is not the Earth that the satellite is orbiting (see your fellow REer jraffield1's post for clarification).  Do you understand that?
So orbit IS possible.  It's just caused by magic, not gravity.  Why didn't you just say so?  Why has everyone always said that orbit is impossible?  Why didn't you, when you first saw the thread, said, "Orbit is possible, but it's caused by magic, not gravity."

34
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 09, 2011, 03:23:24 PM »
You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth.

Incorrect.
You should really probably read the first post of this thread.  This thread is supposed to be about CubeSat, a satellite that orbits the Earth.  Did you not know that?

35
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 08, 2011, 10:15:37 PM »
the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?

Incredibly HUGE fail.

In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space.
Original quote, let's not forget.

Let me jazz it up a bit:

the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?

Incredibly HUGE fail.

In physics, when discussing orbit around the Earth, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space.
Remarkable how easy it was to fix that, wasn't it?  Certainly, I wouldn't have noticed this distinction unless I was looking for something ridiculous to argue about.


I will ask you once again:  How can CubeSat orbit the Earth?

36
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 08, 2011, 09:57:56 PM »
Of course, but the point is, that doesn't explain the orbit of CubeSat.

Irrelevant.
Oh, the irony.

Okay, so we've settled that you're completely right as always; so how does CubeSat orbit the Earth?

37
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.

38
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 08, 2011, 09:14:37 PM »
No.  If you'll notice, the claim was made that in physics, orbit is defined as a gravitationally curved path.  Please note that the atom (and the electrons that orbit it) is indeed a part of physics.  We have now successfully defended the notion that other types of orbit than ones caused by gravity exist in physics.  So the point was moot.  Obviously if anybody was attempting distraction in the preceding exchange, it was the person who falsely claimed that all orbits are caused by gravity.
No.  Orbit can exist in other ways, true, but not over Earth.  These are atomic forces, and do not apply.  Hence, "unless you suggest the Earth is an atom."  By the way, atoms are spheres (or close, at least).

Your point simply makes no sense in the context.

Sure it does.  It shows that orbit can refer to a curved path not caused by gravity, the very antithesis of the point of the post quoted.
Of course, but the point is, that doesn't explain the orbit of CubeSat.

39
If there was any certainty in this count, it would have more than one significant figure.
I'd like to add that this is a summary for people interested in the cosmos, not a scientific paper.  Also, what zarg said.
I'm not the FAQ/Tom Bishop. For more information on my theory, visit
http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Aetheric_Wind_Model
Argumentum ad verbosium is a logical fallacy.  Also, the link is broken, but I saw it before.  Also, I learned that logical fallacy from you.  Thanks.

40
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 08, 2011, 08:59:36 PM »
No.  If you'll notice, the claim was made that in physics, orbit is defined as a gravitationally curved path.  Please note that the atom (and the electrons that orbit it) is indeed a part of physics.  We have now successfully defended the notion that other types of orbit than ones caused by gravity exist in physics.  So the point was moot.  Obviously if anybody was attempting distraction in the preceding exchange, it was the person who falsely claimed that all orbits are caused by gravity.
No.  Orbit can exist in other ways, true, but not over Earth.  These are atomic forces, and do not apply.  Hence, "unless you suggest the Earth is an atom."  By the way, atoms are spheres (or close, at least).

Your point simply makes no sense in the context.

41
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

42
Why do we have to have answers for everything? We're not disreputable astronomers who sit in their closets hypothesizing all day. Our answers are based on evidence, not hypothesis.
And now, I give you a little tune that I find quite funny:

Twinkle, twinkle, little star,
I don't wonder what you are.
For by spectroscopic ken,
I know that you are hydrogen.

(Yes, I do know what spectroscopic ken is.  I'll explain if you want.  Or you can just Google it.)



Zarg's post is brilliant.  Also, how can you explain that the stars one sees at night is different from different parts of the world?

43
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances cannot be reconciled.
« on: December 07, 2011, 03:00:11 PM »
How hard is it to understand that the distances are wrong in RET?
Pretty hard, seeing as no one has ever claimed that before.  Just something vague about not using Euclidean geometry.

Anyway...does anyone like this map?


44
It's possible that we're following two completely different trains of thought. I fail to see why it would be different between RET and FET. If you'd explain better, I might understand. Why would stars, to fit in the night sky, be smaller than they look?
Denial.  You know that it's true.  Anywho, stars are billions of miles wide.

45
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Just a quickie thought
« on: December 06, 2011, 07:36:12 PM »
Ha, how ironic.  See my signature, specifically, the last line.

46
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: December 06, 2011, 07:33:49 PM »

It is an ad Hominem if the entirety of the argument is an insult.

No, it's an ad hominem if the basis of the argument rests on an insult.
For god's sake, read this and then shut up about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem

Semantics. That's what I meant.
"Entirety" and "basis" mean very different things.  And the answer is, if it's the basis.  Even if there's something else involved, it's still a fallacy if the basis is an insult.

47
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: December 06, 2011, 06:02:52 PM »
In the face of indisputable evidence that NASA is a fraud and the Apollo missions were faked the only response mustered is "you're trolling" and "lol."

RE'ers are in denial. It is sad to the extreme that they cannot come to terms with the fact that their authorities lying to them. Instead of beginning to seek, they bury their heads in ignorance and dogma, believing only what they are told to believe.

I understand that it is difficult to accept that everything you know about space science is a lie, but the evidence is just overwhelming: NASA is a fraud.

But I do think the authorities are lying.  NASA wasn't faked, that wasn't the point.  It was to use up production without increasing the quality of living.  The same with nuclear weapons, and anti-communist/anti-terrorist escapades, et cetera.  However, there is one thing that it is impossible to deny:  the Earth is round.

48
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.

49
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Musings on "Bendy Light"
« on: December 05, 2011, 01:52:55 PM »
We go into a room, completely dark, completely straight.
Welp, you're pretty unlikely to see the ship from there - that's for sure.

We would never notice bendy light, because
there is no light in the room, so we see no light, bendy or not. So?

Put a freaking light in the room.  What's wrong with you?

50
That's why I mentioned "measurement instruments".

Are you so blinded by a conspiracy that you don't even read posts?

The plane is visiting the coast of Antarctica, making some figure eights for a while, and then heading back home. There is nothing it would see in FET that it wouldn't see in RET.
Well, you would probably notice if you were going around the entire edge of the world.  This is significantly bigger than RE predicts Antarctica will be.  If this were so, circles around Antarctica would either take quite a bit longer, or they'd go much faster and the g-force would be noticeable, if not fatal, especially since the conditions are not that great to begin with.  Plus, you'd notice that mountains aren't zipping past you at supersonic speeds.  Not to mention, at that altitude, wouldn't they notice an ice wall, if there were one?

51
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof of Bendy Light
« on: December 05, 2011, 01:43:36 PM »
I made a mistake.



See my point?  Oh, and light doesn't affect our perceptions of angles?  Remember, we only see things with light.  We need light to perceive.

52
Flat Earth General / Re: What about pictures?
« on: December 03, 2011, 11:02:44 PM »
Tom Bishop, I love you.

53
Okay, so it turns out, there aren't many flights over Antarctica, but there are sightseeing trips.

54
Flat Earth General / Re: Comment on the alleged conspiracy
« on: December 03, 2011, 10:28:30 PM »
Calling someone an angry noob is a sure sign that you're an angry noob.  No offense. 

That doesn't make sense in an way, shape, or form.

Also,

Is Google Earth.
So you ARE saying that city lights are part of the conspiracy.

Gotcha.

55
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: December 03, 2011, 05:22:05 PM »
I think an interesting point that I pointed out earlier but was ignored is that the people of the Rennaisance began to suspect the Earth was a sphere when they started noticing slight distortions if they tried to draw out a 2-D map, especially, for example, when Vasco de Gama went all the way around Africa and mapped it.  Even during the Middle Ages, the upper class and well-educated knew that the Earth was round (so records show).  The most compelling evidence was the round shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse, which you've failed to explain.

This is the most ridiculous post in the sequence. I can't imagine why you posted it twice in an attempt to get it answered. Do you have any evidence at all of for your baseless assertion in the first sentence? Any citation of reputable source?
I assure you, I didn't just make it up!  The only source I could find was in Dutch, after searching Wikipedia:

Klaus Anselm Vogel, "Sphaera terrae - das mittelalterliche Bild der Erde und die kosmographische Revolution," PhD dissertation Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, 1995, p. 19.

Or you can go here:

http://www.universe-galaxies-stars.com/Flat_Earth.html

At one point it says,

"A recent study of medieval concepts of the sphericity of the Earth noted that "since the eighth century, no cosmographer worthy of note has called into question the sphericity of the Earth." Of course it was probably not the few noted intellectuals who defined public opinion. It is difficult to tell what the wider population may have thought of the shape of the Earth - if they considered the question at all. It may have been as irrelevant to them as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is to most of our contemporaries."


I don't think that website made it up either, and I don't think Wikipedia is pretending that the Dutch thing says that when it doesn't.  Can anyone read Dutch?

56
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: December 03, 2011, 04:34:53 PM »
I think an interesting point that I pointed out earlier but was ignored is that the people of the Rennaisance began to suspect the Earth was a sphere when they started noticing slight distortions if they tried to draw out a 2-D map, especially, for example, when Vasco de Gama went all the way around Africa and mapped it.  Even during the Middle Ages, the upper class and well-educated knew that the Earth was round (so records show).  The most compelling evidence was the round shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse, which you've failed to explain.

57
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof of Bendy Light
« on: December 03, 2011, 04:14:41 PM »
Last one was somewhat complicated and easy to dismiss

Nobody has been able to dismiss it. The two people who really had a go both dissolved into (a) pretending not to understand what the simple disproof meant, and (b) posting misleading mathematical examples that were in fact false, but which they hoped would remain unchallenged due to their complexity, then pretended they didn't understand my rebuttals.
I know, I meant it was easy to deny without proof.

58
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?

59
Flat Earth General / Re: Comment on the alleged conspiracy
« on: December 02, 2011, 10:01:51 PM »
Aaaaanywho...such speculation on terms is pointless, because it's really not perfectly any of these things, although it's pretty accurate.  If you have a 12-inch globe, the tallest mountain in the world will be about the thickness of a sheet of paper.  But we get it.  It's wider at the equator.  So let's not quabble about terminology.  And you still haven't answered to this.

In what way is this unilluminated?
You tell me.  You're the one who says the astronauts can't see that part, only the sunlit part.  Not only that, but they can see stars on the covered spot.  Are city lights at night not real?  Is that part of the conspiracy too?  Now, think carefully now:  you seem to advocate that there is no conspiracy.

Plus, night and day are both semicircles, separated by the diameter, or a line of longtitude.

60
Then organize a flight across Antarctica.  This is probably one of the biggest longshots of FE - that Antarctica doesn't even exist.  There are, literally, flights over Antarctica every day, to get from Argentina to New Zealand, or from South Africa to Australia.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5