Vomits in disgust

  • 149 Replies
  • 32649 Views
?

Beerdude26

Vomits in disgust
« Reply #60 on: August 07, 2006, 10:21:16 AM »
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
Seriously, for the love of all that is holy, each of these questions has been asked a million times, and I refuse to answer them again
k could you give us a link to a FAQ or something so we won't bother you

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Vomits in disgust
« Reply #61 on: August 08, 2006, 01:18:02 PM »
Top of the threads in general.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
Vomits in disgust
« Reply #62 on: August 08, 2006, 11:02:54 PM »
Quote from: "Beerdude26"
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
Seriously, for the love of all that is holy, each of these questions has been asked a million times, and I refuse to answer them again
k could you give us a link to a FAQ or something so we won't bother you


See up there, just below the FES "Banner".... See the "button" on the left that says "Profile"? Good. Now go Two (2) "buttons" to the right of that. That "button" says "FAQ"! If you (left) "click" it once with your "mouse", your "internet" "browser" should take you to the "FAQ" "Webpage".  :D  :D  :D

Vomits in disgust
« Reply #63 on: August 09, 2006, 12:06:23 AM »
I'm gonna point out exactly how a plane flies:
the engines provide the power to move horizontally, and the wings create the lift. not by pushing air downwards though.

the wing has a curve, such that the distance air travels over the top of the wing is greater than the distance travelled by air under the wing.

because the distance at the top of the wing is bigger, the air travels faster, thus creating a lower pressure at the top of the wing.

the higher pressure below the wing is what pushes the plane up.

anyway:
the prescence of dark matter does not explain why the Earth accelerates upwards.

ElFroggo did explain gravity.
in the prescence of matter, space-time distorts
let's take the earth for example. the earth is a big mass, which creates a big distortion in space-time. if you place an object near the earth, the object will slip into this distortion.
the mechanism of gravity is the space distortion in the prescence of matter.

the flat earth model makes no sense. prove that the earth is accelerating.
once you've done that, tell us why it is accelerating, and prove that.

if the world was actually flat, there would be no reason why anybody would want to make others believe the world is round.

again, if the world was really flat, prove it.

it's your claim that the NASA photos are faked, so prove that aswell.
he computer genius guy

?

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
Vomits in disgust
« Reply #64 on: August 09, 2006, 07:10:06 PM »
Quote from: "An_Atheist"
I'm gonna point out exactly how a plane flies:
the engines provide the power to move horizontally, and the wings create the lift. not by pushing air downwards though.

the wing has a curve, such that the distance air travels over the top of the wing is greater than the distance travelled by air under the wing.

because the distance at the top of the wing is bigger, the air travels faster, thus creating a lower pressure at the top of the wing.

the higher pressure below the wing is what pushes the plane up.


Actually, it's both the curve in the wing splitting the air to create higher pressure on the bottom and the wing pushing down on the air. Newton's third law of motion "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". The wings push down on the air, the air pushes up on the wings.

Quote
Prove that the earth is accelerating.


Things fall to the ground when I drop them.

Quote
Tell us why it is accelerating


Because some force is acting on it..

Quote
it's your claim that the NASA photos are faked, so prove that aswell.


The photos show a round earth, so if the earth is flat they must be faked.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Vomits in disgust
« Reply #65 on: August 09, 2006, 09:36:23 PM »
Quote from: "An_Atheist"

the wing has a curve, such that the distance air travels over the top of the wing is greater than the distance travelled by air under the wing.

Common explanation, but wrong.  The whole longer path thing is lacking, and for the sake of simplicity, is still taught.
Quote

anyway:
the prescence of dark matter does not explain why the Earth accelerates upwards.

Dark energy, not dark matter.  If it can explain the accelerating expansion of the universe in the RE, why not the acceleration of the FE?
Quote

ElFroggo did explain gravity.
in the prescence of matter, space-time distorts
let's take the earth for example. the earth is a big mass, which creates a big distortion in space-time. if you place an object near the earth, the object will slip into this distortion.
the mechanism of gravity is the space distortion in the prescence of matter.

No, he did not explain what gravity is, he explained what gravity does.  I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to understand.  I asked for the mechanism that causes the attraction of matter and warps spacetime.  
Quote


the flat earth model makes no sense. prove that the earth is accelerating.
once you've done that, tell us why it is accelerating, and prove that.

When I drop something, the earth rushes up to it.  Dark energy is causing the acceleration.
Quote

if the world was actually flat, there would be no reason why anybody would want to make others believe the world is round.


So you say.
Quote

it's your claim that the NASA photos are faked, so prove that aswell.

Prove they are real.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Vomits in disgust
« Reply #66 on: August 09, 2006, 09:38:31 PM »
Quote

No, he did not explain what gravity is, he explained what gravity does. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to understand. I asked for the mechanism that causes the attraction of matter and warps spacetime.

I must say, I still find this extremely funny when you try to make people explain something that noone has even the foggiest idea about.
he man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

Advocatus Diaboli

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Vomits in disgust
« Reply #67 on: August 09, 2006, 09:42:27 PM »
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
Quote

No, he did not explain what gravity is, he explained what gravity does. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to understand. I asked for the mechanism that causes the attraction of matter and warps spacetime.

I must say, I still find this extremely funny when you try to make people explain something that noone has even the foggiest idea about.

That's the whole point of asking it.  RE'ers claim the RE theory can explain all and that it's explanations are much simpler than those of the FE.  However, not one RE'er can explain what gravity is - a basic requirement of the RE theory.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Vomits in disgust
« Reply #68 on: August 09, 2006, 09:46:36 PM »
I understand the logic behind you questioning... I just find it funny.
he man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

Advocatus Diaboli

Vomits in disgust
« Reply #69 on: August 10, 2006, 12:34:32 AM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "An_Atheist"
I'm gonna point out exactly how a plane flies:
the engines provide the power to move horizontally, and the wings create the lift. not by pushing air downwards though.

the wing has a curve, such that the distance air travels over the top of the wing is greater than the distance travelled by air under the wing.

because the distance at the top of the wing is bigger, the air travels faster, thus creating a lower pressure at the top of the wing.

the higher pressure below the wing is what pushes the plane up.


Actually, it's both the curve in the wing splitting the air to create higher pressure on the bottom and the wing pushing down on the air. Newton's third law of motion "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". The wings push down on the air, the air pushes up on the wings.
technically yes, but there would be no reaction without the air first pushing on the wing.

Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote
Prove that the earth is accelerating.


Things fall to the ground when I drop them.
yes they do. what does that mean? that means things fall to the ground when you drop them. it doesn't mean the earth is accelerating upwards.

let me rephrase my question. prove that YOUR MODEL of the earth accelerating applies, while Einstein's General Relativity does not

Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote
Tell us why it is accelerating


Because some force is acting on it..
what force?
what is actually generating that force?
okay dark energy. how does that work?
can you prove it exists?

Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote
it's your claim that the NASA photos are faked, so prove that aswell.


The photos show a round earth, so if the earth is flat they must be faked.
well then you'll have to prove that the earth is flat in order to prove that the photos are fake.
can you prove that the world is flat?
he computer genius guy

?

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
Vomits in disgust
« Reply #70 on: August 10, 2006, 06:36:55 AM »
Quote from: "An_Atheist"
technically yes, but there would be no reaction without the air first pushing on the wing.


That doesn't make sense.

Quote
yes they do. what does that mean? that means things fall to the ground when you drop them.


That's exactly what it means. So either they are accelerating towards the earth, or the earth is accelerating towards them.

Quote
let me rephrase my question. prove that YOUR MODEL of the earth accelerating applies, while Einstein's General Relativity does not.


Well if the earth is flat, and it has a gravitational pull, then we would be pulled toward the north pole (center of mass, remember?). Obviously this doesn't happen, so the earth isn't generating a gravitational field (bending spacetime.)

Quote

okay dark energy. how does that work?
can you prove it exists?


Only if the earth really is accelerating. If the earth is accelerating then something must be causing it to accelerate. We call it dark energy for want of a better name.

Quote
well then you'll have to prove that the earth is flat in order to prove that the photos are fake.
can you prove that the world is flat?


Nope.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

Vomits in disgust
« Reply #71 on: August 10, 2006, 06:56:12 AM »
Quote from: \"TheEngineer\"
Quote from: \"CrimsonKing\"
Quote

No, he did not explain what gravity is, he explained what gravity does. I don\'t understand why this is such a hard concept to understand. I asked for the mechanism that causes the attraction of matter and warps spacetime.

I must say, I still find this extremely funny when you try to make people explain something that noone has even the foggiest idea about.

That\'s the whole point of asking it.  RE\'ers claim the RE theory can explain all and that it\'s explanations are much simpler than those of the FE.  However, not one RE\'er can explain what gravity is - a basic requirement of the RE theory.

That\'s funny, you are asking for the complete answer to this universes\' biggest mysteries, while you can\'t explain a thing with your FE theory. A question like that from our side would be asking how your universe formed to the present day, and what is precisely causing things to form unnaturally, with matimatical AND testable proof. You can\'t even explain the horizon! Or the curve of the horizon! Let alone why the sun and the moon are following the same orbit (around what?), exactly over the equator (the equator in the FE theory does not make sense why it is there), and create the illusion of day and night. You always call things illusions, but you can never explain how those illusions work! Is it because the light is bending? If so, what is causing it to bend? What is causing the cause to bend to exist?

By the way, we CAN perfectly explain the cause of gravity, but they are simply not proven yet. Therefore they are not represented as the thruth (yet).

Vomits in disgust
« Reply #72 on: August 10, 2006, 07:17:44 AM »
If the Earth is in a constant state of acceleration surely we would come to a point where we encounter light speed. Travelling at 1g is accelerating and is therefore not a constant. Velocity is a constant eg, travelling at 100 kph.
~9.8 metres/sec/sec = acceleration = increase in the change in the rate of velocity.
By this assumption we will soon be overtaking the light emitted from the sun!

?

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
Vomits in disgust
« Reply #73 on: August 10, 2006, 08:20:54 AM »
Quote from: "Pogmothoin"
If the Earth is in a constant state of acceleration surely we would come to a point where we encounter light speed. Travelling at 1g is accelerating and is therefore not a constant. Velocity is a constant eg, travelling at 100 kph.
~9.8 metres/sec/sec = acceleration = increase in the change in the rate of velocity.
By this assumption we will soon be overtaking the light emitted from the sun!


http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3152
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Vomits in disgust
« Reply #74 on: August 10, 2006, 09:22:59 AM »
Quote from: "Pogmothoin"

By this assumption we will soon be overtaking the light emitted from the sun!

You could make that assumption, but you would be wrong.  The speed of light is a constant, therefore, is always the same no matter the frame of reference.  We would not be catching up to the sun's light.
Quote
By the way, we CAN perfectly explain the cause of gravity, but they are simply not proven yet. Therefore they are not represented as the thruth (yet).

Can't be proven huh?  Thanks for making my point for me.
Quote
A question like that from our side would be asking how your universe formed to the present day, and what is precisely causing things to form unnaturally, with matimatical AND testable proof. You can\'t even explain the horizon! Or the curve of the horizon! Let alone why the sun and the moon are following the same orbit (around what?), exactly over the equator (the equator in the FE theory does not make sense why it is there), and create the illusion of day and night.

Or I could have asked your side questions like: why are there accretion disc jets, why the baryon asymetry in the universe, or the neutrino mass problem.  Or you could just realize that the RE has unanswered questions just like the FE.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Vomits in disgust
« Reply #75 on: August 10, 2006, 09:31:09 AM »
Quote from: "An_Atheist"
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "An_Atheist"
I'm gonna point out exactly how a plane flies:
the engines provide the power to move horizontally, and the wings create the lift. not by pushing air downwards though.

the wing has a curve, such that the distance air travels over the top of the wing is greater than the distance travelled by air under the wing.

because the distance at the top of the wing is bigger, the air travels faster, thus creating a lower pressure at the top of the wing.

the higher pressure below the wing is what pushes the plane up.


Actually, it's both the curve in the wing splitting the air to create higher pressure on the bottom and the wing pushing down on the air. Newton's third law of motion "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". The wings push down on the air, the air pushes up on the wings.
technically yes, but there would be no reaction without the air first pushing on the wing.

The creation of a low pressure vector field above the surface of the wing is due to the fluid's contact with a solid surface and the consequent 'turning' of the flow.  It has nothing to do with the top surface being longer than the bottom.  A barn door will generate lift.  Areobatic planes and some figther jets have a symetrical airfoil cross-section and by the 'top is longer' theory, would not be able to fly.  There is no reason for the split air molecules to know it's position relative to the other one and no way for it to increase it's velocity over the top surface of the wing to 'catch up' to it's partner.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Vomits in disgust
« Reply #76 on: August 10, 2006, 10:39:03 AM »
Quote
You could make that assumption, but you would be wrong.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: How ironic.

Quote
Quote
By the way, we CAN perfectly explain the cause of gravity, but they are simply not proven yet. Therefore they are not represented as the thruth (yet).

Can\'t be proven huh?  Thanks for making my point for me.

You have countless of highly improbably assumtions that you can not, in any way, prove. And yours are about the simplest of natural occurences and phenomenon, those things that we can perfectly describe, prove and predict. Our model is 100% accurate in the things it can explain. Though there are weird extraterrestrial phenomenon that we have not proven the theory of yet. For some extreme cases there is not even a theory yet. You fail to realise the difference between a theory and a model.

Quote
Quote
A question like that from our side would be asking how your universe formed to the present day, and what is precisely causing things to form unnaturally, with matimatical AND testable proof. You can\'t even explain the horizon! Or the curve of the horizon! Let alone why the sun and the moon are following the same orbit (around what?), exactly over the equator (the equator in the FE theory does not make sense why it is there), and create the illusion of day and night.

Or I could have asked your side questions like: why are there accretion disc jets, why the baryon asymetry in the universe, or the neutrino mass problem.  Or you could just realize that the RE has unanswered questions just like the FE.

Nr1 That is no answer to my questions OR my point.
Nr2 You seem to fail in seeing the significance of that that can not be explained. Explaining the true cause of gravity is way more scientific question and asks WAY deeper knowledge to begin with. You can think of a theory (full of assumptions) that could possibly or partly explain the horizon, for example, that in no way is supportable by science or even common sense.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Vomits in disgust
« Reply #77 on: August 10, 2006, 03:57:23 PM »
Quote from: "The Brick"

You have countless of highly improbably assumtions that you can not, in any way, prove. And yours are about the simplest of natural occurences and phenomenon, those things that we can perfectly describe, prove and predict. Our model is 100% accurate in the things it can explain. Though there are weird extraterrestrial phenomenon that we have not proven the theory of yet. For some extreme cases there is not even a theory yet. You fail to realise the difference between a theory and a model.


Hardly. Essentially all of FE theory is compatible with the observable universe. FE explanations may have corresponding RE explanations, but that doesn't constitute disproof.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Vomits in disgust
« Reply #78 on: August 10, 2006, 05:28:55 PM »
Quote from: "The Brick"
Quote
You could make that assumption, but you would be wrong.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: How ironic.

I fail to see the irony.

Your sentence structure is horrible.  As is your grammar.  Please post more coherently so that people can understand what you are saying.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

RenaissanceMan

Vomits in disgust
« Reply #79 on: August 10, 2006, 09:05:20 PM »
You guys crack me up.

But really... don't you just want to beat up 'The Engineer'? He totally ignores legit questions and only focuses on the ones with tiny errors or misconceptions... like the airplane wing lift thing.

It is in fact true that a major component of lift is the downward thrust induced by the airflow over the wing, rather than the low pressure area above the wing.

It's also irrelevant... this effect only starts to have majority effect on very fast airfoils, slow airfoils like gliders and the wright brothers plane play it differently.

Ask him a better question... like why is the measured distances between cities at the latitude of Sydney, Australia 2.5 times farther under the Flat Earth model than on the real world?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Vomits in disgust
« Reply #80 on: August 10, 2006, 09:13:39 PM »
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"

But really... don't you just want to beat up 'The Engineer'?

That's not very nice...
Quote
He totally ignores legit questions and only focuses on the ones with tiny errors or misconceptions... like the airplane wing lift thing.

Just trying to broaden your understanding of the world around you.
Quote

It is in fact true that a major component of lift is the downward thrust induced by the airflow over the wing, rather than the low pressure area above the wing.

The low pressure area is responsible for lift.  The way it is created is what the  discussion is about.
Quote

It's also irrelevant... this effect only starts to have majority effect on very fast airfoils, slow airfoils like gliders and the wright brothers plane play it differently.

The laws of physics change depending on your velocity?
Quote

Ask him a better question... like why is the measured distances between cities at the latitude of Sydney, Australia 2.5 times farther under the Flat Earth model than on the real world?

We covered this already, remember?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
Vomits in disgust
« Reply #81 on: August 10, 2006, 09:21:13 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"

But really... don't you just want to beat up 'The Engineer'?

That's not very nice...
Quote
He totally ignores legit questions and only focuses on the ones with tiny errors or misconceptions... like the airplane wing lift thing.

Just trying to broaden your understanding of the world around you.
Quote

It is in fact true that a major component of lift is the downward thrust induced by the airflow over the wing, rather than the low pressure area above the wing.

The low pressure area is responsible for lift.  The way it is created is what the  discussion is about.
Quote

It's also irrelevant... this effect only starts to have majority effect on very fast airfoils, slow airfoils like gliders and the wright brothers plane play it differently.

The laws of physics change depending on your velocity?
Quote

Ask him a better question... like why is the measured distances between cities at the latitude of Sydney, Australia 2.5 times farther under the Flat Earth model than on the real world?

We covered this already, remember?


I'm not sure the dispute was ever settled....
As an Australian resident, I can assure you that my continent in no way resembles the "Australia" represented on the FE map.

Vomits in disgust
« Reply #82 on: August 10, 2006, 09:54:27 PM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "An_Atheist"
technically yes, but there would be no reaction without the air first pushing on the wing.


That doesn't make sense.
you just don't understand it.

Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote
yes they do. what does that mean? that means things fall to the ground when you drop them.


That's exactly what it means. So either they are accelerating towards the earth, or the earth is accelerating towards them.
they are accelerating towards the ground. the reason is that the earth has mass, therefore gravity. Einstein's General Relativity explains gravity.
the earth is a sphere too.

Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote
let me rephrase my question. prove that YOUR MODEL of the earth accelerating applies, while Einstein's General Relativity does not.


Well if the earth is flat, and it has a gravitational pull, then we would be pulled toward the north pole (center of mass, remember?). Obviously this doesn't happen, so the earth isn't generating a gravitational field (bending spacetime.)
that would only be if the world was flat, which it isn't.

Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote
okay dark energy. how does that work?
can you prove it exists?


Only if the earth really is accelerating. If the earth is accelerating then something must be causing it to accelerate. We call it dark energy for want of a better name.
if the earth really is accelerating upwards, and is flat. which mind you, is not the case, nor have you bothered to prove it.

Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote
well then you'll have to prove that the earth is flat in order to prove that the photos are fake.
can you prove that the world is flat?
Nope.
thank you for your honesty.

so you can't prove the world is flat, or that Nasa faked their photos, and yet your theories rely on the Earth being flat.
he computer genius guy

?

RenaissanceMan

Vomits in disgust
« Reply #83 on: August 10, 2006, 10:00:51 PM »
We did not fully cover the blazing differences in actual vs Flat Earth distances at the latitude of Sydney, Australia because you and Erasmus ran around in circles throwing up smokescreens and obvious bull.

And you're right... it's not very nice (My first comment back there) but it's fair. Answer questions honestly and you won't have that effect on people.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Vomits in disgust
« Reply #84 on: August 10, 2006, 11:07:25 PM »
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"

Answer questions honestly and you won't have that effect on people.

Tell me, what part of my explanation of the generation of lift was a lie?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

RenaissanceMan

Vomits in disgust
« Reply #85 on: August 10, 2006, 11:12:07 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"

Answer questions honestly and you won't have that effect on people.

Tell me, what part of my explanation of the generation of lift was a lie?


You crack me up. I specifically didn't mention the lift thing. You have no frame of reference to use the word 'lie'.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Vomits in disgust
« Reply #86 on: August 10, 2006, 11:23:07 PM »
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"

Answer questions honestly and you won't have that effect on people.

Tell me, what part of my explanation of the generation of lift was a lie?


You crack me up. I specifically didn't mention the lift thing. You have no frame of reference to use the word 'lie'.

When have I ever not been honest on this forum?  Show me one example of a blatant lie that I have told.  You say that I have an effect on people because I don't answer questions honestly.  Show me.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Vomits in disgust
« Reply #87 on: August 10, 2006, 11:57:42 PM »
Engineer is one of the people I respect as being extremely scientific and methodical with his posts, in the time I have been here I have seen no lies, blatant or otherwise
he man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

Advocatus Diaboli

Vomits in disgust
« Reply #88 on: August 11, 2006, 12:02:45 AM »
Hold on hold on, extremely scientific? One example would suffice.

And you obviously haven\'t noticed how he always dodges or ignores the relevant questions. But yeah, he never lies.

Vomits in disgust
« Reply #89 on: August 11, 2006, 12:04:11 AM »
He dodges the same questions that I do, the nondescript and ambiguous ones.
he man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

Advocatus Diaboli