Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Socialism
« Last post by Benjamin Franklin on Today at 01:21:22 PM »
ITT: No actual discussion of socialism.

Fuck, I'd love to have a debate or national conversation about socialism. However, as evidenced in this thread, we can't even get most people to give a coherent definition of what socialism is. I'd suspect the massive amount of anti-socialist and anti-communist propaganda the United States shit out during the Cold War (and is still getting shit out by some of our fine media conglomerates) is to blame for the intentional and pervasive misinformation.

I mean, come on, there's no way you can argue in good faith when you literally think that the theories of socialism are
socialism means that you take things from other people and give it to others, and we will kill anyone who thinks differently or could potentially think differently.

If we can't argue in good faith or understand the topic, how the fuck can we rationally analyze the topic?
Flat Earth General / Re: Former Intelligence Officer
« Last post by Bullwinkle on Today at 01:07:42 PM »

Once a community is formed and love is created for the idea and the other people, it becomes self-generating, the tribe expands because people find things in the tribe they like unrelated to the basic idea and purpose. People go to church for the community and the emotional link who don't think or care about the dogma, and there are such FEs.

And here you are comfortably entrenched in the community.
The Lounge / Re: Werepenguin XIII- The unholy number players thread
« Last post by Junker on Today at 01:05:40 PM »

[I cancel a duck vote]

Jane - 2
Duck - 1
The Lounge / Re: Werepenguin XIII- The unholy number players thread
« Last post by boydster on Today at 01:02:30 PM »
[I vote to lynch the narrator]
I would say that the burden of proof rests upon the one making the claim.

So the burden of proof to prove curved is upon those making the claim that it's curved. And the burden of proof for flat rests upon those making that claim.

That's why  hands-on or eyes-on research is so important.

There are a number of things either side can do to prove to themselves if nobody else - things like a water level from altitude, measuring mountain heights with theodolites, measuring gravity, etc.

It's not particularly productive of either side to try and assume a winning stance by simply putting off the burden of proof to the other side.
We each bare the burden of proof for the specific arguments we're making.
Since very few major universities teach that the Earth is flat
Very few?!?  :o

Indeed. I don't know of many. Do you?
For a Muslim to go to heaven they must murder?

No, they must not to. But they must have brain.

Too bad for you, then.
[I vote to lynch the narrator]

Say that one more time...

Umm, I don't believe there is any water in these funnel wishing wells. A wishing well is something you throw money into when you make a wish, maybe it has water, maybe it hasn't.
The funnel wishing wells into which you roll coins would not have water in the funnel because that would slow down the coins and ruin the show.
You're right, my apologies.  I didn't watch the video, I assumed it was some kind of whirlpool.
See? You dismissed my argument without even watching the video, and as a result, gave an absolutely absurd and useless reply. "The water, he says." Another perfect case in point why you're a low quality information source.
(as mentioned it isn't really an orbit at all because of the constantly diminishing radius)
Do you really believe that? Are you not aware of the fact that the constantly diminishing radius is *only* because of the loss of energy?
Do you really believe that the radius would continue to shrink if there was no loss of energy?
Watch this video and you can see that when energy is added, the radius increases. It stands to reason that with no loss in energy, the radius would not change.
You're seriously confused if you think there's no loss of energy in these examples.

This still is not an example of an orbit due to an inverse square field
As best as I can tell, it's a matter of simple math to see that the outward force experienced by the coin is equal to g/x^2 -- which is square inverse.
But if you think I'm wrong about that, then please show me.
The fact that you see this as analogous to Newtonian orbits kind of destroys any credibility you might have had.
Well I think the cows are still out on that one.
Check out this paper: it turns out I'm not the first one to see this analogue:
If it turns out that the angle of the surface is such that it produces on the coin a force equal to (or very close to) g/x^2, then I'm quite right to see this as analogous to Newtonian orbits.
But I'm so glad you pointed this out because if it turns out that the force on the coin is analogous Newtonion orbits, then we will know you never had the credibility you thought.
As for the rest of your post, you have a lot of reading up to do on math and physics before we can continue this conversation,
We both might, my friend. You're digging yourself in deeper every post you make.
your ignorance is kind of astounding.
Again, thank you for saying that. Sometimes I wonder about it myself. But I think you and I make good company in that regard in this instance.
I cannot believe you're not acknowledging that the coin's radius is reducing because of loss of energy.
Totally astounding.
I suggest enrolling in a community college and taking some introductory calculus and physics classes
Wouldn't I need a HS diploma or a GED to do that? I haven't got either of those.
because I don't have time to provide you an education.
I constantly wonder why you're always whining about your lack of time. Did anybody make you read my post? Did anyone make you respond to my thread? Nobody.
What you do with your time is entirely your choice. Unless you're a paid actor hired to come here and support flat earth, which, come to think of it, would explain why you make so many embarrassingly obvious blunders and yet you're so persistent.
Why go on complaining to others about the choices you make for yourself?
You also come across as a passive aggressive tool, so I think I'll bid you a fond adieu.
It's so nice of you to introduce yourself. I feel like I already know you.

It sure looks to me like Newtonian orbits can work, and that the vortex funnel is a fine way to demonstrate it.

Flat Earth General / Re: practicing zetetic
« Last post by jimster on Today at 12:27:58 PM »

I was discussing where the sun appeared to be from the reference point of earth, precisely because I did not want to argue about what is moving.

My point was that whether dome or RE, an simplistic observation of the sun looks not like it swings around in a circle above me, but that it disappears underneath and loops back over me.

I am not charting the relative or absolute positions, I am saying that zetetic conclusion, whether flat or round earth, from my point of view is that the earth went below one edge and came up on the other edge. I used that word rather than horizon to avoid the FE/RE implications.

One can start with 0,0,0 anywhere, but some places are more useful than others. We can also do projections and math to study parts of a system in a useful manner. The solar system is traveling as a unit, but we can ignore that and call the sun 0,0,0 and stationary for the purposes of studying the subsystem. We can call the your location on the earth 0,0,0 and stationary and get the apparent motion of astronomical bodies. The apparent motion, relation to the sun motion, and actual motion are all useful for different things.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10