681
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Scope of Conspiracy Seems Implausible
« on: November 14, 2015, 09:26:20 PM »Cosmic ray devices! Well thanks for clearing that up, Perfect sense.
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.
Cosmic ray devices! Well thanks for clearing that up, Perfect sense.
682
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Scope of Conspiracy Seems Implausible
« on: November 12, 2015, 09:56:35 PM »I was reminded of this thread the other night walking the dog out in the country watching satellites. Since comming here i try to see things from a FE perspective as challenge to my usual standpoint but I couldn't make this work.
If as somepeople here believe, there are no satellites then what are the tiny star like objects I see after dark, crawling across the sky? They make no noise, they are higher than any cloud, as the night draws on they disappear. If NASA was faking it with little drones then they would be visible from commercial airliners and would have to have a base, people to opperate them, false sites that identify them and tell me what they were or where they will be, nope I can't fathom it, any help?
683
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How Clouds Once Again Prove Flat-Earth Theory
« on: November 12, 2015, 09:23:18 PM »Nothing Pongo, Orbi?
684
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Red Cup of War
« on: November 11, 2015, 08:50:05 PM »Perhaps as Starbucks was named after the Quaker first mate in Moby Dick, and Quakers don't do Christmas as it's based on pagan festivals, the whole thing is about religious schism.
685
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about energy
« on: November 11, 2015, 08:32:23 AM »So what is happening then Charmy?
686
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about energy
« on: November 10, 2015, 10:10:07 PM »Mass, If the flat earth had enough to create gravity when it formed it would have pulled itself into a ball, which incidentally I believe it did.
687
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: lolwut/fe43.2 Ban
« on: November 09, 2015, 09:16:50 PM »I'm not a programer so forgive me if this unatainably stupid but is there a way that a function can be added that you click against somebodies name and their posts do not show up at all for you, as I would press it without hesitation for this person alone.
688
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: lolwut/fe43.2 Ban
« on: November 07, 2015, 08:55:20 PM »I too aggree with all of this.
689
Flat Earth Theory / Re: If the earth really flat, then what is on the edge of it?
« on: November 05, 2015, 09:35:21 PM »
Dave Lee Roth did!
Although he lost alot of friends there.
Although he lost alot of friends there.
690
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is the position of Polaris proof for a flat earth?
« on: November 02, 2015, 04:52:28 PM »
Second, They are my questions and not yours. Are you so arrogant that your so called answer should end my questions?
Quite frankly, yes!
The question being, is the position of Polaris proof of a flat earth? Absolutely not as three people have explained, but you can't work out what we are saying so you keep asking the same question, I am overcome with weariness.
691
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is the position of Polaris proof for a flat earth?
« on: November 02, 2015, 12:35:09 PM »
As usual with you people the question you originally ask is answered (comprehensibly and quite brilliantly in this case) so you start shifting goalposts and looking shifty, I suppose I will be called a shill soon, shame.
692
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is the position of Polaris proof for a flat earth?
« on: November 02, 2015, 12:07:32 PM »If you mean have I worked it all out for myself, then god no.
If you mean have I been a night sky watcher for 30 odd years and has everything been where it is supposed to be then yes.
Now!Did you get my point. (above)
693
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is the position of Polaris proof for a flat earth?
« on: November 02, 2015, 10:34:37 AM »
Visualize it this way;
Imagine you have a circular field, 2 miles in diameter with a hedge round it, one end of the field is the gate, to the right over the hedge there is a storm on the horizon, to the left over the hedge there are some trees and behind you there is a shed with a basketball and a traffic cone in it. You have a trained ant. (bear with me here)
Take the cone and put it in the centre of the field to represent the sun, take the ball (the earth) and walk to the gate, put your ant at the 45 degree point, i.e. half way up from the horizontal plane and the top of the ball, looking towards the gate and tell it to stay put, but tell it also that north, is the top of the ball.
It is mid-day and imagine we are on the equator, so the sun is directly overhead, this represents Polaris.
Ask the ant what he sees when he looks at the southern sky, he will see the gate with the hedge spreading out both ways, looking to the west, because he is on a ball and north is at the top he will see the hedge & part of the incoming storm and to the east he will be able to see some of the trees, now ask him what he sees when he looks north, he will see the sun. He will not be able to see the cone in the centre of the field because we are emulating night.
Now take the ball and walk round the edge of the field, always keeping the ant towards the hedge, until you are at the shed, ask it the same questions, looking south he will now see the shed, the storm is now reversed and is to the east with the trees now to the west, when he looks north however the sun (Polaris) hasn’t moved, at any time on its trip around the cone, looking south his view will change but looking north the sun/Polaris stays in the same position. Simple.
To be true, the perspective is a little out in the above example. Because we have set the distance of the circle at 2 miles one AU equals 1 mile, therefore the distance to Polaris/sun is 92 million AU instead of the 25 million Au it should be, however the ball should probably be about 3mm diameter and the ant a bacteria, but do you get my point?
Imagine you have a circular field, 2 miles in diameter with a hedge round it, one end of the field is the gate, to the right over the hedge there is a storm on the horizon, to the left over the hedge there are some trees and behind you there is a shed with a basketball and a traffic cone in it. You have a trained ant. (bear with me here)
Take the cone and put it in the centre of the field to represent the sun, take the ball (the earth) and walk to the gate, put your ant at the 45 degree point, i.e. half way up from the horizontal plane and the top of the ball, looking towards the gate and tell it to stay put, but tell it also that north, is the top of the ball.
It is mid-day and imagine we are on the equator, so the sun is directly overhead, this represents Polaris.
Ask the ant what he sees when he looks at the southern sky, he will see the gate with the hedge spreading out both ways, looking to the west, because he is on a ball and north is at the top he will see the hedge & part of the incoming storm and to the east he will be able to see some of the trees, now ask him what he sees when he looks north, he will see the sun. He will not be able to see the cone in the centre of the field because we are emulating night.
Now take the ball and walk round the edge of the field, always keeping the ant towards the hedge, until you are at the shed, ask it the same questions, looking south he will now see the shed, the storm is now reversed and is to the east with the trees now to the west, when he looks north however the sun (Polaris) hasn’t moved, at any time on its trip around the cone, looking south his view will change but looking north the sun/Polaris stays in the same position. Simple.
To be true, the perspective is a little out in the above example. Because we have set the distance of the circle at 2 miles one AU equals 1 mile, therefore the distance to Polaris/sun is 92 million AU instead of the 25 million Au it should be, however the ball should probably be about 3mm diameter and the ant a bacteria, but do you get my point?
694
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is the position of Polaris proof for a flat earth?
« on: November 01, 2015, 10:28:29 PM »Hmm.. You do.
In the plane that runs say from the sun through the earth and beyond you get what is called the processionary, So if you go out now and look to the East you will probably see the seven sisters (pleiades) rising, then taurus with the big red star Aldebaran and then later orion, these you don't see in summer, all through the year the stars that inhabit the same part of the sky where the sun & moon rise and fall, change, but above the plane less so, think about it.
695
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is the position of Polaris proof for a flat earth?
« on: November 01, 2015, 09:04:06 PM »Because it's directly above the plane in which you are moving, imagine the planets including us revolving around the sun, whilst an imaginary line running through the equator would point to the opposite part of the universe at 6 monthly intervals (giving us the different constellations at these times) another line from the south pole through the north, given the distances (thousands of trillions of miles) would to those in the northern hemisphere look relatively the same, if you look at the star charts, those constellations closest to polaris rotate around it during the year but many (the plough, Cassiopeia) remain visible, the further away are only available at certain times for the reasons above, this can be verified by observation through the year.
696
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is the position of Polaris proof for a flat earth?
« on: November 01, 2015, 05:18:56 PM »
No, Polaris is 390 (ish) light years away, the tilt of the earth always points in its direction on its trip around the sun (giving us our seasons), as 1 light year is the equivilent to 5.88 Trillion miles the 180 million miles diameter circle is virtually nothing in comparison.
697
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: lolwut/fe43.2 Ban
« on: October 31, 2015, 04:45:59 PM »
About time.
698
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Aliens
« on: October 30, 2015, 03:45:00 PM »If the Copernican principle is true, that we are not in any way special, then there should be other life, but considering the age of the universe (15 odd billion) set against the apparent projected age (20 Trillion years) and taking in to account the likelihood of life generating intelligence (1 in 10 million) on habitable planets (8-60 billion/galaxy) at the rate that intelligence is likely to develop (?), plus the probability of that intelligence not blowing itself to bits before it gets its act together (practically zero) and the fact that SETI has found very little evidence, add in the unimaginable distances between just anywhere and the fact that said intelligence just might want to curl up by the fire (poison pond/freezing rocks) and read a book rather than gad about the frozen depths of space, I have come to this conclusion.
It’s a little too early for there to be many if any around, if they are there then they are undoubtedly so far away as to be un reachable or contactable, keep looking but leave it to our cyber enhanced progeny (in the unlikely circumstance we don’t destroy ourselves) to go and kill them.
699
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBTQIAA
« on: October 30, 2015, 08:33:07 AM »
4. Incest is illegal. Where do you hill-billies get the idea it isn't? Also you still can't join the LGBTQIAA as they won't represent you.
In the UK it is still illegal, and this quote probably gets to the nub of the question, turning on others who have rights you don't, obviously your sister isn't too choosy and you can't get anyone to hold your hand and say it's fine. All the other odious reasoning is a smoke screen.
There is in most people an inherent negative response, inbuilt by evolution to screwing relatives as it is bad for the species.
700
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Improving forum moderation practices
« on: October 29, 2015, 10:34:23 PM »I agree with the good Dr and hollo.
It has been said that you want to treat everyone like adults, fine, but they should at least try to behave like one, when the whole point of someones posts are to shit things up then getting them to curb it is beneficial.
I don't complain about the racist shit, but it does make the site less of an attraction, if I had come across this site now, as opposed to when I did, i don't think I would have hung around as long as I have.