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 - macrohard

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
31
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth is flat and I'm an idiot
« on: January 12, 2015, 05:53:38 PM »
The religious argument is moot, considering that 99.999% of Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddists, or other accept that the Earth is round.

For someone with an "IQ over 180" I'd think you'd refrain from using an argumentum ad populum as your primary rebuttal. 

::)

The 180 IQ line is an inside joke, originating from this very forum.

Anyhow my argumentum ad populum wasn't meant as an attempt to prove round earth.  I was simply trying to stop the stream of off topic replies, as FE and religion are mutually exclusive.  One, or both, or neither could be true; the existence or nonexistence of one does not prove the other.

32
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth is flat and I'm an idiot
« on: January 12, 2015, 05:33:13 PM »
The religious argument is moot, considering that 99.999% of Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddists, or other accept that the Earth is round.

33
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Death of FET, next steps.
« on: January 12, 2015, 04:49:09 PM »
There is no explanation how stars simultaneously rotate around the South Pole.

Have you observed this outlandish rotation for yourself?

LMAO.  Wut?  Calling the southern rotation outlandish is in itself outlandish.  To dismiss the daily experiences of a billion people in the southern hemisphere is laughable.

34
Shopped.  I can tell by the pixels.

35
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: January 11, 2015, 04:30:54 PM »
Disclaimer: I am a professional engineer, atheist, and round-earth enthusiast.

I strongly believe the global flood and the story of Noah is based partly on fact.  Due to earth crust displacement, a melting of the arctics and dramatic floods could occur.  Did only one family survive and save thousands of species on an arc?  Unlikely.  But such a devastating event would lead to word of mouth stories over hundreds of generations that eventually developed into modern religious fairy tales.

Most stories have some truth, regardless of how far fetched they seem.  The point is to keep an open mind and respect the beliefs of others.

36
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« on: January 09, 2015, 02:03:02 PM »
If gravity can pull in light (black hole) why doesn't it fall from the roof to the ground?

The reason is because Earth's gravity pulls at 9.8 m/s2 and light goes 800,000,000 m/s, soms basic trigonometry would reveal that light does drop, but by an absolutely tiny amount.

300,000,000* lights a constant though, gravity should effect it regardless of speed, by that logic it would always be dark because light would whizz past us and away from us, look at a candle, the fire is pointing upwards, not being dragged down...

That's like saying that a bullet should drop to the ground imediately after it leaves the gun's barel because it's effected by gravity.  A bullet fired falls just as fast as a bullet dropped, however the fired bullet has already gone s long distance before it hits the ground.  In the time that it takes an object to fall a few feet from rest light can travel around Earth (assuming it's round) many times.  Basic trigenometry will tell you exactly how much the light will drop as it travels, try it.

Candle flames are not made of light, they are made of burning gasses that are so hot they emit light.  The reason that it rises is because the gas is low density due to the heat and it cools off and stops glowing shortly after being released.  The light emitted from the flame hits your eye making you see the glowing flame.  The flame is not made of light.

A bullet will still hit the ground. The flame still has a mass?

Imagine you drop an object and measure how far it has fallen 0.001 seconds later, that's how far a beam of light will fall in the trip between a lightbulb in your house and your eye.  That's not very significant.  As for the flame having mass, a candle gets shorter as it burns, where do you think that mass goes?

Try .00000001 seconds (over 10 feet).

Light would fall about .0000000055 inches over an entire mile.

37
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Meteors
« on: January 08, 2015, 09:16:14 PM »
Most of the time the box contains the best solutions.

38
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Problem-Solved?
« on: January 05, 2015, 11:50:21 PM »
Jroa derails another otherwise insightful and creative thread....

I think it's pretty cool that RE folks seem to come up with the math to make FE theories more concrete, only to be thrashed and dismissed.

Reminds me when I postulated a possible motivation behind the Great Conspiracy that many REs could buy in to, only to be met with "nope it's financial."

39
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: December 31, 2014, 04:31:00 PM »
I love this forum!

40
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Map, Please?
« on: December 25, 2014, 08:57:21 PM »
Wavy longitude and latitude lines.  Interesting.
It's: http://www.emapsworld.com/world-north-pole-lambert-azimuthal-equal-area-projection-map.html

When I flew to Australia from my home in the United States I do not recall flying over Alaska.

41
Flat Earth Debate / Re: About that shadow object
« on: December 22, 2014, 02:16:00 PM »
I just explained that a solar eclipse is simply when the moon gets in between the sun and the observer.  What else would you like of me to say?
What is a lunar eclipse in FET?

He answered this already:

Lunar eclipses as we know them do not exist.  The darkening and reddening we observe is explained by pollen and smog conditions which are unique and predictable hundreds of years in advance.

Case closed!

42
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: December 21, 2014, 05:35:31 PM »
Alpha2Omega, do you really believe that the tropic of cancer is at the halfway between Equator and North Pole?



You see what i mean now?

I love this forum!

43
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Measure the FE distance to the sun.
« on: December 10, 2014, 11:54:54 AM »
Position the straw until its shadow looks like a perfect ring (rather than an ellipse or line).

The angle of the straw is equal to the angle of the sun.

Longer and thinner the straw, the more accurate.

44
Electromagnetic acceleration accounts for the sunset phenomenon.  It also adequately explains the Brocken spectre.

It doesn't explain why the apparent size stays the same, but that's another story.

45
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Measure the FE distance to the sun.
« on: December 10, 2014, 11:26:30 AM »
I want to emphasize that the straw method (see A2Os post) is the best way to do this.  Do not look at the sun directly.

46
Flat Earth Debate / Re: About that shadow object
« on: December 10, 2014, 11:22:02 AM »
My biggest issue with the SO is that it never obstructs any starts.  It only applies to the moon.

Moreover, when the SO blocks the moon, the portions of the moon behind the SO can still be seen with sensitive enough equipment.

Zetetic observation leads me to believe that one of the following must be true:
1) The SO is a thin, polarized screen that transmits starlight (earthly reflections?) while at the same time blocking 99.9% of light from the moon.
2) The SO doesn't exist.

47
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Ice Wall Guardians and the conspiracy
« on: December 09, 2014, 11:37:49 PM »
We are currently raising money for another expedition.  Would you like to contribute?

I strongly suggest canceling your expedition.  There is a 100% chance of death for everyone involved.  Whether it's armed guards or absolute zero temperature, one way or the other the edge will get you.

48
iWitness just disproved blenders. Believe it or not if you put water in a blender and turn it on, nothing happens.

Best post 2014.  Seeing as it's near the end of the year this is quite a feat.  Kudos.

49
Flat Earth Debate / Re: All these constants...
« on: December 06, 2014, 01:46:27 PM »
Put on a snow coat.  Walk outside at night.  Look straight up.  Are the stars moving clockwise centered around a point directly overheard?  Are you having trouble finding the big dipper?

Congratulations you have determined where you are.

50
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's say you are a young aerospace engineer
« on: December 03, 2014, 04:59:52 PM »
Cue the chirping crickets. Once again, flat earthers are stumped as shown by their disappearing act.

I'm starting to think that everything about contemporary science stumps the flat earthers.

    ;D    ;D    ;D

lol, you are a great debater.  Oh, wait, no you are not.  You are really pretty boring, and seem to just type things in the hopes of maybe sounding like you know what you are talking about.  Would you please stop?

Low content posts are not allowed in the upper fora.

51
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's say you are a young aerospace engineer
« on: December 02, 2014, 08:36:13 PM »
I have been an aerospace engineer for 9 years.  I work for a publicly traded fortune 500 company.  I am still waiting to be let in on the secret.

If it ever happens I'll let you guys know (crosses fingers).


52
I'd like to add to the second point.  It seems that occam's razer favors round earth.

While "earth is stationary and flat" seems simpler than "earth is oblate spheroid hurling through space" on the surface, the amount of unexplained and unobserved assumptions for flat earth add to to something extremely complex.  Universal acceleration, aether, bending light... all these things make FE very challenging to justify even within its own frame.

The round earth sounds complex on the surface, but the deeper you dig the simpler it becomes.

53
Flat Earth Debate / Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« on: October 07, 2014, 12:49:06 PM »
(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

54
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is wrong in this Picture ?
« on: October 07, 2014, 12:46:25 PM »
1.  No.  Gravity decreases the further away from the earth you travel.

2. Yes. Mostly.  Light from the sun bounces and scatters off the moon.  A very very very small portion of the moon's light is from the sun bouncing off the earth, to the moon, and back to the earth.

I'm not too clear on your follow-up question in part two. Sorry.

55
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: International Space Station
« on: October 07, 2014, 12:39:55 PM »
The reason astronauts are not thrown against the far wall of the ISS is because the string (gravity) is also attached to them.  They are falling towards the earth at the same rate that the station is.

Analogies are fine to explain some things but should not be taken too literally.

Next question!

56
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity / Acceleration
« on: October 07, 2014, 12:28:43 PM »
Actually objects in free fall feel no force. This helps us to understand that gravity isn't a force.

Incorrect.  Please see my previous post, above.

Nothing irritates me more than RE people who do not understand RE physics making misleading statements.

Thermometer is correct, BTW, when saying acceleration can be observed and measured without knowing velocity.  (In fact, acceleration is easier to measure than velocity.)

57
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity / Acceleration
« on: October 07, 2014, 12:19:08 PM »
Gravity is simply the tendency of any two bodies of mass to be naturally attracted to each other.  This attraction applies a force to both bodies that is proportional to the product of the masses.

Assume one body is the earth.  The falling object is the other body.  Double the mass of the falling object and the force also doubles.

The reason everything falls at the same rate is that acceleration is also proportional to mass (F=ma). Since both the mass and the force were doubled, acceleration is constant.

The rate of falling is therefore only dependent on the mass of the first object (earth) and the distance (elevation).

Simple enough explanation for you, I hope.

On a side note, I don't know why FE came up with universal acceleration, seeing as the acceleration of falling bodies is measurably different at various altitude.  If falling were caused by the earth moving up, the earth would rip apart.

A simpler solution is that gravity does exist, but the earth is an infinite plane of finite thickness which is why its gravity is vertical.

58
This topic derailed fast.  The size of the moon doesn't mean squat when your "model" applies one dimensional east/west logic to a two dimensional orbit.

59
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antarctica questions
« on: October 01, 2014, 07:42:21 AM »
PXXXXXXXN is a strange last name.  How do you pronounce that?  Also, I an as well a 14 year old with a Bugatti.

Source: my IQ is over 180

60
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy theories
« on: September 29, 2014, 04:50:19 PM »
I doubt the motive is financial.  The cost of orchestrating and maintaining this grand lie would far exceed any tax revenue diverted to space organizations.  The government has a history of grossly exceeding budget for even the simplest of projects (it can be argued of course that these cost overruns for mundane stuff is intentional and diverted to subsidize such a conspiracy).

I prefer to think that the grand round earth conspiracy is benevolent.  Perhaps we are being protected.  What is really out there may be too frightening or difficult to understand, and the dissemination of such knowledge would cause widespread panic and a deterioration of civilized society.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5