Cape Kennedy

  • 70 Replies
  • 7605 Views
Re: Cape Kennedy
« Reply #60 on: October 28, 2008, 08:01:33 PM »
So, where did they get:

Lasers in the 1940s
The computer power to run them to display holographic images

They didn't need to have the computer power necessary; once the installations were in place, it would be a much simpler task to add the computers later. Also, do you really believe that the government doesn't have access to technology far beyond what the general public does?

Oh, no, I only "assumed" to know what a magnetic accelerator is, was I right? Yes. Can it be used to make a ship only look like it's going over the horizon short of sinking it. No.

I gave proof of why a ship looks like it does going over a curved horizon, why won't you reciprocate? Are you in doubt too? Or, are you presumptuous to think that if I only look at the pseudoscience I'll be convinced and mend my ways?

Now, about that Bendy Light thing...

Search for "Electromagnetic Accelerator".

In all actuality, if this forum simply evaporated (does flat earth theory support that?) tonight I would simply find another. Left wing conspiracy websites and forums are "a dime a dozen".

Don't tell me, you're one of those right-wing nutjobs? No wonder you seem to think you're better than everybody else. Also, I moved your thread because it's more appropriate here. I've told you twice before, you aren't the first person to come in here making unsubstantiated claims and thinking they know better than everybody else on this forum. You were asking questions about FET, nothing more, and if you thought this thread was about to spark some kind of debate that hadn't been gone over hundreds of times already, you can take another guess.

I'll make this short, for now. I have an Amateur Radio net to run.

If by right wing nutcase you mean somebody who doesn't want big government to confiscate my rights, liberty and ability to defend myself, guilty as charged.

Once again you exhibit a pretentious attitude. You tell me what I intended a thread to be. You moved a debate thread to the wrong forum because you knew it was lower traffic. Also because you obviously lost said debate. If you think I'm wrong, put it back and we'll continue. Or, leave it where it is, I could care less.

My claims are not unsubstantiated, they don't agree with your claims, that's all. They are also backed up by pure observation. Yours are backed up by hearsay, pseudoscience and conspiracy theory.

Sorry, but there it is, point blank.

Hasta...



History IS funny, because many of the people that died needed killin'.

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Cape Kennedy
« Reply #61 on: October 29, 2008, 12:49:57 AM »
On the topic of the electromagnetic accelerator, it's all well and good as a possible explanation for bendy light... but that doesn't change the fact that bendy light itself is inconsistent with the very foundations of FET.

I'll try to put it as simply as possible:

- It is possible to observe the roundness of Earth. (sinking ship effect)
- FET explains observations of roundness with bendy light.
- Bendy light also nullifies observations of flatness.
- FET is based on the observation of a flat Earth.
- Therefore bendy light invalidates FET.

I believe we can consider FET to have been successfully disproved by its own advocates. Bravo!
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Cape Kennedy
« Reply #62 on: October 29, 2008, 01:01:32 AM »
On the topic of the electromagnetic accelerator, it's all well and good as a possible explanation for bendy light... but that doesn't change the fact that bendy light itself is inconsistent with the very foundations of FET.

I'll try to put it as simply as possible:

- It is possible to observe the roundness of Earth. (sinking ship effect)
- FET explains observations of roundness with bendy light.
- Bendy light also nullifies observations of flatness.
- FET is based on the observation of a flat Earth.
- Therefore bendy light invalidates FET.

I believe we can consider FET to have been successfully disproved by its own advocates. Bravo!

No, bendy light is a derivative of the original FET. We do not yet know which is correct. I saw the need for a modification to FET, and came up with the bendy light hypothesis. It may be wrong, but you can't say that the scientists who came up with the idea of the luminiferous aether disproved the existence of light.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Cape Kennedy
« Reply #63 on: October 29, 2008, 01:15:55 AM »
On the topic of the electromagnetic accelerator, it's all well and good as a possible explanation for bendy light... but that doesn't change the fact that bendy light itself is inconsistent with the very foundations of FET.

I'll try to put it as simply as possible:

- It is possible to observe the roundness of Earth. (sinking ship effect)
- FET explains observations of roundness with bendy light.
- Bendy light also nullifies observations of flatness.
- FET is based on the observation of a flat Earth.
- Therefore bendy light invalidates FET.

I believe we can consider FET to have been successfully disproved by its own advocates. Bravo!

No, bendy light is a derivative of the original FET. We do not yet know which is correct. I saw the need for a modification to FET, and came up with the bendy light hypothesis. It may be wrong, but you can't say that the scientists who came up with the idea of the luminiferous aether disproved the existence of light.

So if bendy light is merely a derivative theory, what observational basis does that theory have? Obviously it can't be "the Earth looks flat", because bendy light negates that observation. It would appear that your new derivative theory is entirely beyond human experience. I guess the new basis for Bendy Light FET is "We'd like to believe that the Earth is flat."
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Cape Kennedy
« Reply #64 on: October 29, 2008, 01:17:07 AM »
So if bendy light is merely a derivative theory, what observational basis does that theory have? Obviously it can't be "the Earth looks flat", because bendy light negates that observation. It would appear that your new derivative theory is entirely beyond human experience. I guess the new basis for Bendy Light FET is "We'd like to believe that the Earth is flat."

While we're dismissing theories that started out without any observational evidence, let's discount Special Relativity, shall we?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Cape Kennedy
« Reply #65 on: October 29, 2008, 01:22:02 AM »
So if bendy light is merely a derivative theory, what observational basis does that theory have? Obviously it can't be "the Earth looks flat", because bendy light negates that observation. It would appear that your new derivative theory is entirely beyond human experience. I guess the new basis for Bendy Light FET is "We'd like to believe that the Earth is flat."

Before you continue to use my own logic to disprove FET, let's change the subject shall we?

Fixed that for you.

Sorry, but I don't give much of a shit about SR, GR or anything else at the moment. The topic at hand is FET, since we are in the FET forums after all. I've provided a logical argument as to why bendy light is incompatible with FET. You seem unable or unwilling to refute it.
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Cape Kennedy
« Reply #66 on: October 29, 2008, 08:05:14 AM »
They didn't need to have the computer power necessary; once the installations were in place, it would be a much simpler task to add the computers later. Also, do you really believe that the government doesn't have access to technology far beyond what the general public does?

Sure they do, but the government doesn't design or manufacture any of these devices, contractors do.  Trust me they are not smart enough.  Development for a laser began at Bell Labs in 1957.  The first working Laser was demonstrated in 1960 at Hughes Research Laboratories.  They were not contracted to the government to invent the laser at the time.

As for more advanced technology, the government does have access to much more powerful lasers than the general public, but again, they do not make them, and the technology is the same as what we have.

Re: Cape Kennedy
« Reply #67 on: October 29, 2008, 02:50:28 PM »
Quote
While we're dismissing theories that started out without any observational evidence, let's discount Special Relativity, shall we?

When did we start dismissing hypothesis without any observational evidence? We dismiss the electromagnetic accelerator as observational evidence suggests it's incorrect under a FE model, and the planet being round is a simpler model in round earth theory.

Re: Cape Kennedy
« Reply #68 on: October 30, 2008, 09:13:57 PM »
The thread worked well, you've admitted that shuttles launched and have had to invent yet more science and technologies to deal with this revelation, Occam's Razor folks, Occam's Razor.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41249
Re: Cape Kennedy
« Reply #69 on: October 31, 2008, 05:18:41 AM »
Quote
While we're dismissing theories that started out without any observational evidence, let's discount Special Relativity, shall we?

When did we start accepting hypothesis without any observational evidence? We dismiss the electromagnetic accelerator as observational evidence suggests it's incorrect under a FE model, and the planet being round is a simpler model in round earth theory.

Fixed that for you.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Cape Kennedy
« Reply #70 on: November 06, 2008, 07:27:24 PM »
Quote
Search for "Electromagnetic Accelerator".
I know what an Electromagnetic Accelerator is, I have built one, and it does not bend light.

In fact, most households have one (although they are getting rarer as the technology that uses them is getting replaced by LCDs), they are the principal behind Cathode Ray Tubes (known as CRTs, Computer Monitors and Televisions).

The CRT uses an "Electron Gun" (a source that emits electrons), and then uses electrical and magnetic forces to accelerate and steer the Electrons (this is the Electromagnetic Accelerator) towards one end of the Tube. In CRT displays, like TVs, the front of the Tube is coated with a material that glows when it has an excess electrons. Although most CRTs are grounded as insulated from the front of the screen, there is however an accumulation of electrons on the screen and this can be detected by the static electricity you can feel on the front of the screen of any CRT.

However, the Electromagnetic Accelerator that I built was a series of electromagnets used in sequence to accelerate a piece of metal (essentially a very simple and pathetically weak coil gun  ;D ) over a few centimetres (about 10 cm).

Quote
NASA projects holograms into the atmoplane. They don't need to be very high resolution; they just need to be sufficient to keep people from wondering where the shuttle went.
Actually, knowing about holograms would help you here. First of all, Holograms are projected by passing light through them. That is, you have to be able to see the film that the hologram is printed on to see the hologram. So for this to work, you would need the Hologram projectors in orbit.

Quote
They actively monitor the weather, and switch off or dim the holograms as clouds pass by.
But clouds can be local. So although a cloud is blocking my view of the "shuttle", my friend 10 or so kilometres away would not have their view blocked.

For this to work, there would need to be a projector every few kilometres coving the entire world.

Have you confirmed these projectors exist!?  Have you actually seen one!?

No.

It's wrong.

Prove it.
Actually we should have the same requirements of each. If we need to prove it, so do you or we have to dismiss this entire line of reasoning, from both sides, as pointless.

However, burden of proof is always upon the person making the original claim. As you made the original claim that these projectors exist, the burden of proof is upon you. This is well established debating practice, and not something I made up.

Quote
Or a computer programmer who created an AI that could be installed onto various computers around the world to monitor the holographic projectors, and was subsequently executed to prevent him going public with the information. See: Alan Turing.
As a computer programmer, and one interested in AI, the use of AI in this circumstance would be the wrong method. A computer AI could not repair damaged physical components without help from humans (it might be able to tell them what went wrong, but it could not fix it. Also, over time the image projector would degrade (if it is a hologram or other optically based system it would fade over time). Also, as new "spacecraft" are being developed, the images in the system would need to be updated to match the profiles of these new craft which could not be done without the input of humans.

So even in a best case scenario, this could not be completely driven by an AI.

The programmer would have had to establish a reputation for their work, and this would ahve given them some fame in the AI community (or why else would the governments chosen him/her to program the AI if they didn't know if the programmer could do it?). The death of such a person would not go unrecorded. Also, for a project that large, there would have to be a team of programmers which would number in the hundreds. These people would have had to base their work on others that came before them. So not only would the governments have to assassinate the actual programmers, but also the people they based their work on.

This would easily be several hundreds of people assassinated, if not thousands. This would also have to be done before any of them leaked this information, so would have to take place over a short period of time. This would not go unnoticed or unrecorded.
Everyday household experimentation.