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 - DragonXero

Pages: [1] 2 3
Flat Earth Debate / Some interesting pictures...
« on: September 15, 2007, 06:12:32 PM »
So, I guess this guy's in on the conspiracy too:

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Alabama changes Pi
« on: August 20, 2007, 08:56:52 PM »

Yeah Tom, those silly Russians cordoning off Chernobyl because of the low radiation level still left over.  When will they ever learn of their stupidity?!  By the way, no one's saying that radioactive materials *create* radiation.  They simply *release* radiation, and plenty of it.  The Russian guy who recently died of radiation poisoning didn't exactly have a 1oz chunk of plutonium in his belly.
There are actually remedies out there in the case of nuclear fallout.  As an example, there's a type of iodine used to keep even tiny amounts of radioactive iodine from getting into your thyroid and giving you cancer.  But hey, we're all gonna die someday, and I smoke, so bring it on bitches.

But the government would rather devote that money to the military. Heck we could just have our military fling radioactive waste as a weapon. Problem solved. (for us)
What, you mean like depleted uranium shells?  Sounds like a great id- shit!  You better call up Bush and tell him you don't appreciate your ideas being stolen dude.  Yeah.  Depleted uranium.  Still radioactive, but extremely dense and great for blasting through walls.  It's being used.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: The Wheel
« on: August 20, 2007, 08:43:46 PM »
Been away for a while so I missed all the nice responses.  I want to make it clear that I in no way meant that the process was guided.  While I believe it may be, that was not what I was saying.  I was merely stating that evolution is the process by which we *can* become better.  The ultimate end of this process is reaching toward the ultimate creature walking the planet. 
Yes, there are evolutionary dead-ends.  Look at Florida or Georgia.  Plenty of examples there.  In general, though, evolution tends to eliminate the weaker of the species and leaves the better.  Evolution tends not to favor the lesser.  At worst I'd say evolution tends toward the mediocre.  The maximum alterations needed to make a creature fully adapted to its environment.  You let some rabbits loose in a mostly white area, eventually the white mutant freaks end up being the dominant rabbit because they don't get eaten quite so quickly.
Basically, the way I see it, evolution is the process by which species adapt to become the best of their environment.  Not necessarily the ultimate animal, but I wouldn't rule that out either.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Wave Crests And Sunsets - UNANSWERED
« on: August 20, 2007, 03:59:40 PM »
1. Been in an Airplane. 
2. Horizon got lower.
3. ???
4. Profit!

Joan is a human

Joan needs to eat to survive.

Therefore all humans need to eat to survive.

Fallacious?  Yes.  False?  No.
Fallacy != False.  It just means UNRELIABLE.

Quote from: "Curious"
Quote from: "Jie"
Quote from: "Curious"

Isn't he the guy that invented those cookies?

Nah, I think they just named the cookies after him... they were invented by elves.

Haldir maybe, but I can't see Legolas or Elrond baking.

Yeah, but you know Legolas could deck you out in the best fashions.

And maybe Sam and Frodo... "Friends" my ass.

The Lounge / Sugar
« on: December 05, 2006, 02:09:14 AM »
Last I checked, apples were pretty readily available.
And most people can get their hands on sugarcane and sugarbeets.  These are natural foods.

And cigarettes are not food.  Cannabis is rarely used as a food.  Sometimes as a spice, but you don't see many people making herb salads these days.  Though, if I ever go to Amsterdam, I'm gettin' one.

Really?  You know of some naturally occuring foods I can get drunk off of?  I do, but then there's the buying the yeast and the waiting for freaking ever for it to ferment properly...  It's not naturally occuring in foods.  It IS a natural chemical reaction that can happen TO foods, but sugar doesn't need a process.  It's just there.

Caffeine exists in coffee, chocolate and tea (among many other things).
I've never had to present an ID to buy coffee, chocolate or tea.

Dopamine is produced naturally in the human body.  No external source is needed.  But if you want to talk about addictions, there's one.  Why would someone be happy?  Dopamine levels are high.  They create a pleasurable sensation when the body is prepared for happiness.

By your theory, we should really be regulating sex.

... Never mind.  Stupid government and their idiotic laws.

When it comes down to it, yes we need to cut back on the sugar supply in this country.  No we shouldn't do it by depriving people of their liberties further.
Your argument is "should we", not "could it happen".  Should alcohol be available only to those over 21?  Apparently those at 18 are responsible enough to fire a weapon in the most hellish places on earth, but they're not responsible enough for liquor?  On the flip side, a 16 year old is considered mature enough to drive a car?

Sugar, be it natural or not, is a needed thing.  When science has come up with a true sugar replacement that tastes exactly like sugar without that nasty aftertaste?  I'll think about it.  As it is, the newest invention (Splenda/Sucralose) is slightly less nasty tasting than Nutra-sweet.

As for replacing anything else?  Ever had an olestra chip?  Yeah, me too.  Not doing that again.
Worst. Gas. Ever.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Hell
« on: December 05, 2006, 01:53:10 AM »
You really think slaves would be treated poorly?

Ask Paris Hilton how her dog's doing.

We have spas for pets.

Also, I really, really hope UJB was a joke.

Flat Earth Q&A / South Pole?
« on: December 05, 2006, 01:41:13 AM »
Might I mention that a great many things have in fact not been found, often when people were looking for them, but even more often when not?

But usually people who believe in these things, or worse, argue that they *know* they're real are often considered "fringe" at best.

Nessie, UFOs, Bigfoot, Chupacabra, a pop star marriage that doesn't end in divorce shortly afterwards...

Of course there are photos, but these are all blurry (or digitally altered in the case of pop star marriages, just ask the WWN) and their being proof of anything is conjecture at best.  They start at a conclusion and work backwards.  "See?  This is a mannish-looking creature that walks on two feet and appears to be covered in fur.  It's bigfoot."  "These lights in the sky move around faster than any plane known to exist.  It's a flying saucer".

No, it's a UFO.  UFO doesn't mean Alien spacecraft.  A plane could be a UFO.

Flat Earth Q&A / its over
« on: December 05, 2006, 01:34:01 AM »
Ah, alrighty, thanks.
I was just a little confused, because you mainly verified most of my assumptions (though some were a bit off).

Anyway, regarding the manual piloting: I do understand that most modern planes fly using very sophisticated technology, but what about older biplanes?  I know there are lots of people who like to fly those...

Flat Earth Q&A / My proof for this week
« on: December 05, 2006, 01:25:26 AM »
Thanks. :D  I'm working on my shots, and eventually hope to save up enough for a nice Canon EOS 10mp DSLR.

We're talkin' around $2K here for just the body, basic lenses and memory card.  Another few hundred for the bigass telescopic lens I want, not to mention several hundreds more for other lenses.

In short: Not happening anytime soon.

But this little canon P&S is nice enough for now. :)

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Hutchinson Effect
« on: December 05, 2006, 01:16:43 AM »
There were two stargates on Earth.  One in Giza and the other under the antarctic.
The stargate they used to destroy a star was one they found on another planet.  They come by the frequently, what with travelling through them and all.  It was probably one on a worthless planet that the Daedalus picked up.
One stargate was lost due to replicators.  The SG-1 crew was all aboard the Asgard ship and beamed the US gate up, dialed the Alpha site (if I remember correctly) and then dialed the russian gate when all was said and done.
As for how they powered it?  Naquadah generator, manual dialing.

I still am not sure which gate is which.  I think the one they're using now is the Giza gate on loan from Russia, but I'm not certain.

The Lounge / Sugar
« on: December 05, 2006, 12:36:11 AM »
Quote from: "Sara H B Ranson"
Does the committee seriously believe pure sugar should be available for purchase in one kilo (two pound) bags, without a heavy dose of regulation and tax?

Other essential needs include Dopamine and Ethyl Alcohol, neither of which can be purchased by ten years olds without restriction.  Children can make their own (I don't mean with junior chemistry kits).

Most chemicals - of which Sucrose is one - should be available for purchase by adults, but no one seriously suggests hiding Caffeine, Cannabis or Diamorphine in breakfast cereal, or their copious sale in pure form without warning and/or to children.

I feel a little sick when I see fat nurses stub out a cigarette and then complain about the long term prescription of Diamorphine.

Do these chemicals you mention occur in large doses inside natural foods?  Fallacy alert!

Flat Earth Q&A / My proof for this week
« on: December 04, 2006, 11:48:40 PM »
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Quote from: "DragonXero"
Doesn't look disc-shaped to me.  Looks like the top is a half-circle and the bottom is roughly oblong.

I've given FE'rs a few reasonable doubts, including the idea that vision may be distorted at a distance through atmospheric reasons.  This is explained the same way.  Atmospheric distortions.

For that matter, why does the sun appear red there?
And why do some of my sunset photos show the sun to be a mushroom cloud?  Is the sun a nuclear explosion just on the horizon?  Should I be worried about the fallout?

Wait, I guess sorta and yes should be the answers to that.  Since the sun is a nuclear reaction and I should be worried about radiation from it.  SPF 25,000 baby!

Right on all counts! Do you take a lot of sunset photos? Any showing the green flash? Any cool ones you want to post?

Whenever I go to the coast I try to take several sunset photos.  Few of them turn out how I want them to, but I've got several up on deviantart.  I also have a couple of decent moon photos (taken at 12x and 48x respectively.  It is REALLY hard to get a good picture of the moon from earth without a damn nice camera)

Sunset 4 Note the still very clean and sharp images all the way to the horizon regarding the reflections of the sun on the waves.
There are plenty of other photos, including more sunsets, but these ones showed the sun and I kinda like 'em.  One of my favorites is without the sun, but it's insanely colorful.[/code]

Flat Earth Q&A / As the Ships Come Sailing In...
« on: December 04, 2006, 11:37:54 PM »
Thinking more clearly, I had already learned a lot of that stuff.  Though I still wonder about certain aspects of light.  I know waves and particles act differently, but it seems to me that the same effect we use on long-range satellites (slingshotting, basically) should work on ilght.  In that case, I would expect any measurment of distance gained from light that's been bent by gravity should need to be slightly adjusted for this alteration of speed...  
And forgive me if I'm wrong, but hasn't light been observed to have the properties of both waves and particles?

Also, to explain my notions of electromagnetic fields and such, I was under the impression that it was thought that gravity was electromagnetic like light, gamma radiation and satellite signals (which apparently don't exist. Tee hee.)

Of course, I'm pretty sure that all has to do with attempts to create a unified field theory.  I say we should stick with curing AIDS and VR similar to the Matrix, without the dying etc.

Flat Earth Q&A / its over
« on: December 04, 2006, 11:20:19 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "DragonXero"
Engineer, forgive me if these are completely incorrect assumptions, but aren't most commercial pilots highly trained and experienced?

Yes, they are.

Sorry, a little unclear.  "Yes they are" to which part?  The "completely incorrect assumptions" or the question about training and experience?

Flat Earth Q&A / If earth is flat...
« on: December 03, 2006, 06:33:54 PM »
Photorealistic renders of Earth, and likely even the imagined flat earth image are all derived from photographs and satellite pictures.  You need the texture, that's  good place to get it.

Flat Earth Q&A / its over
« on: December 03, 2006, 12:36:39 AM »
Engineer, forgive me if these are completely incorrect assumptions, but aren't most commercial pilots highly trained and experienced?  Don't you have to have a long history of non-commercial flights before they let you sit in that comfy cockpit with your charddonay and soothing tour-guide voice?  It is my understanding that a majority of commerical pilots are, at the least, overqualified.  A lot of them are retired Air Force/Army/Navy pilots, am I correct?
If these are close to the truth, then wouldn't you have necessarily flown in flight paths according to specific geographical coordinates with little help from a navicom?  I can't imagine a private pilot in training being assigned to a high -tech plane with no thought put toward teaching him or her to navigate without computers.
Anyway, I always understood that commercial pilots weren't there to fly the plane.  They're there to make sure that if the plane can't fly itself, they can.

Flat Earth Q&A / I don't now who is more pathetic....
« on: December 02, 2006, 05:36:26 PM »
I post mainly to try to come up with something easy, observable and hard to explain away.  When that doesn't work, I move on to the next idea.  It's all about practicing your ability.  I'm starting to see that certain things have to be accepted to allow the debate to continue.  By barring government photography, you open the discussion to purely empirical or mathematical data rather than relying on the easy proof.
Imagine, if you will, always having to go into a debate with little or no knowledge about the subject.  You'd get your ass handed to you if the other person had lots of facts and figures.  This way we can't use easy references to prove anything, unless someone's done some calculations already.  It forces the arguers to be more creative and original.

You know how you increase/decrease light's speed?  Optics.
Specifically, fiberoptic cable.  Fiberoptic cable has been used to "slow" and "speed up" lightwaves, though only observationally.  Basically, there have been experiments in which a single pulse of light was stopped, as well as experiments in which a lightwave ended up exiting the optical cable before it was seen to be put in.
Now, this isn't your average physics.  I don't claim to fully understand half of how this works, but apparently there's some quantum physics in the mix here.  Apparently, the light ended up causing another pulse at the end to be created and one to go backwards and cancel out the original pulse.
Though, from the graphic I've seen, it seems a bit off.  The animation I saw showed the backwards-moving pulse at a different frequency, yet it still cancelled out the original pulse.  I always thought two different frequencies couldn't cancel each other out.  But I could easily be wrong here.

Flat Earth Q&A / Accellerating Earth
« on: December 02, 2006, 05:14:53 PM »
Hrm, how about geological motion?  It's pretty easy to see how the earth was once comprised of pretty much one single mass of land  The continents just seem to fit.  I noticed that as a kid before anyone even mentioned plate tectonics and continental drift to me.

Wouldn't that much weight moving from one part of the earth to another alter the earth's balance, even slightly?

Flat Earth Q&A / The theory of "cold light" ?
« on: November 29, 2006, 08:32:09 PM »
And seeing as how the moon's apparent color is much more bluish than reddish, I can accept that.  Though you guys better at least accept that the moon is at least not a *light* per-se, but perhaps glowing brightly.  Similar to bioluminescence.

Not to mention, the sun's rays are more than just visible light.  UV and IR light comes in as well.  It's the UV light that gives you cancer and burns your skin, and I would assume it's the IR that really does all the warming.
Stupid assumption?  Probably.  But I'm not offering anything scientific, just what I see and trying to explain what I know.

Flat Earth Q&A / Just want to make this clear ...
« on: November 29, 2006, 08:27:48 PM »
Roughly is correct.  More of a flattened sphere really, squished a little because of its rotation.  Though I doubt you could even tell from space photography without really sensitive instruments.

The moon is a little lopsided too, from the pull of the earth.

We've got a bunch of lopsided balls in this universe.  Is it any surprise that there are some people a little lopsided in their ideas about it?
And no, the people who believe the earth is round yet argue that it's flat aren't lopsided.  They're just enjoying the ability to question accepted facts and reason for something that they believe false.

Flat Earth Q&A / Please explain the horizon
« on: November 29, 2006, 08:14:33 PM »
Getting tired of repeating the tabletop explaination?  I'll reiterate as best I can.

Your visual limit is radial, that is to say, the limit you can see is in any direction.  X miles straight forward, X miles at 1 degree from straight forward, X miles at 20 degrees from straight forward and so on.

What does this mean?  You see X miles in any direction, and if you line up X mile lines as you move your bearing from right to left, you begin to form a circle.  The edge of that circle would not appear as a straight line unless it were extremely far away.  It would still have a curve to it, but it would be less noticable.

This observable curve at the horizon is generally seen on water, but the same could go for any plain, flat area.  Becayse the curve of the earth isn't an extreme one, you can't just tell from mountains on either side of your horizon that there is a real curve, so we can only observe the edge of a circle or a curved horizon.  Either model allows for this.

Though admittedly, the FE theory certainly creates optics questions.

Flat Earth Q&A / Besides the FAQ..
« on: November 29, 2006, 08:05:17 PM »
Q: Explain the Coriolis force?

It's a good question, though I really wish people would stop citing toilets and sinks as examples of that phenomenon.

In fact, it doesn't even happen with TORNADOES.  It only happens with large weather patterns, most noticably hurricanes.  Hurricanes in the southern hemisphere turn one way, hurricanes in the northern turn the other.
But sinks don't depend on the coriolis force.  They depend on the initial direction of the water, however slight it may be.  Most toilets have slightly angled water jet things that turn the water in a specific direction.  The toilet and sink manufacturers are in on the conspiracy, covering it up by making their products drain in a certain direction when they're sold to different parts of the world!

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Solar Eclipses seen from different parts of the world?
« on: November 29, 2006, 07:52:32 PM »
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
That would explain a Solar eclipse, but not a Lunar.

I think their explanation for both lunar eclipses and phases is that some parts of the earth are very reflective of sunlight (e.g. the ice wall, oceans, seas, and the polar cap) and some are not (e.g. forests) and as the moon passes over more and less reflective regions, more or less of it is lit.

And of course, the explaination for solar eclipses is very close to the RE cosmology version.  The moon passes between our view and the sun.

My problem with that is that the current model would be wrong.  The distance between the sun and the moon would have to be much greater, because when the eclipse happens, many people only see a partial one.  When you see examples from outside of earth of what this looks like, it shows the moon's shadow displayed as a very soft shadow on the earth except the very center where it's quite dark.

So, the current assumed model is off by a bit.  The moon is closer to the earth than the sun, has to be.  And obviously smaller to accomodate the difference in distance.  Let's evolve the theory a bit.  When something's wrong, adjust it!

Flat Earth Q&A / As the Ships Come Sailing In...
« on: November 27, 2006, 11:58:53 PM »
I was clumsily attempting to describe the behavior of light's motion in relation to a body like earth.  Are you saying that light would fall off at the same distance on both models (gravity and accelerating body pushing everything at 1g)?  I always thought that light was "bent" by gravity because of the electromagnetic force.  I know that a gun fired on either model would end up with the bullet landing in the same place, but I didn't think light had the same properties.

Aside from the fact that it's moving at the speed of light, I thought it was also different from other particles. I mean, for one thing, it actually goes at the speed of light, continues to move at that speed (why?) and rather than stopping when it meets something of equal mass, deflects and goes in another direction at the same speed, apparently unaffected by friction.

Though I've heard of expierments where light was slowed by a huge factor, so I guess I know jack about light.

Flat Earth Q&A / My proof for this week
« on: November 27, 2006, 11:49:42 PM »
Doesn't look disc-shaped to me.  Looks like the top is a half-circle and the bottom is roughly oblong.

I've given FE'rs a few reasonable doubts, including the idea that vision may be distorted at a distance through atmospheric reasons.  This is explained the same way.  Atmospheric distortions.

For that matter, why does the sun appear red there?
And why do some of my sunset photos show the sun to be a mushroom cloud?  Is the sun a nuclear explosion just on the horizon?  Should I be worried about the fallout?

Wait, I guess sorta and yes should be the answers to that.  Since the sun is a nuclear reaction and I should be worried about radiation from it.  SPF 25,000 baby!

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: OH, yet another question concerning the FAQ
« on: November 27, 2006, 11:45:38 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
From the FAQ:
Each functions as a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light."

So yes, in FE, the moon generates it's own light.

Quote from: "The FAQ also"

Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"

(Possible A) The moon isn't a spotlight; it glows with light from the sun, reflected off the Earth. Different parts of the Earth are more reflective than others (the seas, the polar cap, the ice wall, for example). Sometimes, the position of the sun (which is a spotlight) means that only very low-reflective or non-reflective parts of the Earth's surface are illuminated, so the moon is abnormally dark. This could potentially explain lunar phases as well.

The flat Earth theory, like the round Earth theory, is a work in progress. We sometimes propose more than one explanation for certain phenomena.

Re isn't in progress, as no one is currently engaged in the process of demonstrating that the earth is a sphere, and there is only one explanation for moonlight.

In any case, that doesn't make any sense, if the sun alone is a spotlight and the moon isn't, how does a disc shaped sun manages to illuminate the moon completely, seeing as it's a spherical object level with it?

That's explained right after it says the moon isn't a spotlight!  The moon is illuminated by light reflected off the earth.

Which is not so reflective in places.

Perfectly circular places.

Pages: [1] 2 3