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 - Clyde Frog

Pages: < Back  1 ... 7 8 [9]
161
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Cyberpunk 2077 E3
« on: June 11, 2019, 10:48:31 PM »
I'm excited about this game. I know this thread isn't about Gears 5, but I'm looking forward to that too, especially after seeing the Terminator crossover.

162
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Theory gravity
« on: April 28, 2019, 09:03:37 PM »
A UA flat Earth is never ever going to reach c. That's what spherical seems to be implying.

And yes, things can accelerate indefinitely without requiring infinite energy, if that acceleration is due to an inherent property of nature. See the current accelerating expansion of the universe for an example.

Also, we ARE moving at a huge percentage of c from literally an infinite number of reference frames. And since there is no preferred frame, you can't pretend the one we currently are sitting on the surface of is something all that special.

As for this "stream of particles," I think the "U" in "UA" might account for that.

There are myriad issues with UA. But relativistic effects, exceeding c, and getting bombarded with particles from above are not really among them.

163
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Theory gravity
« on: April 28, 2019, 01:24:31 AM »
Yes, that is crazy, doesn't work, it will reach a critical impossible speed.

Well I, for one, am excited to hear what "critical impossible speed" you think would be reached. It can't be c, because you know, relativity, and how any massive object in its own reference frame is always precisely 0% of the way to c, so I'm really interested to see what this impossible speed is.

164
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Fossil Fuels
« on: March 13, 2019, 11:35:16 PM »
When people say oil is not a renewable resource, they're not claiming that it is impossible for nature to create more oil. They're simply pointing out that waiting millions of years for nature to do so is unrealistic on a human timescale.

That, coupled with the fact that the rate we are using it is much faster than the rate at which new oil is being created.

165
Not that there is really a good time to get caught for solicitation, BUT the timing on this is certainly not ideal for Robert Kraft. He had just recently been named for the Genesis Prize, and I don't think they have presented it yet.

It was remarkably stupid. His car got pulled over after leaving the place the first time, he got ID'd by the cops, and he still went back the very next day?!! On a day when he also needed to be in KC for a game that was kind of a big deal??

WTF Bob? You could have just gotten one of them high-class escorts.

166
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Fossil Fuels
« on: March 02, 2019, 02:58:05 PM »
I have seen a number of theories in flat earth state that there were no dinosaurs.
I doubt you'll find anyone who believes that here, and in my 9 years of FE advocacy I've never encountered anything like this.

It might be a good idea to ask your question to whoever said it in the first place.

What's your theory on the dinosaur extinction?

Wouldn't both the meteor and volcanic therories be a bit hard to explain in a flat earth scenario?

If you are asking why something that was alive 65 million years ago is not alive today, I'd recommend looking into average lifespans of literally every known creature because you seem to be mistaken about how long things live. If you are instead suggesting that modern birds are not evolutionary descendants of dinosaurs, I would ask for your evidence that flies in the face of the current scientific consensus because otherwise, I believe you are mistaken. And if you are suggesting that the only reason a species can die out is because of meteors and/or volcanoes, again I submit that I think you are mistaken.

167
This might be nit-picky, but I think "solar system" is probably a poor phrase as it implies a heliocentric model. Perhaps replacing "solar system" with "universe" or something to that effect would be a little more clear?

168
If you are allowing the RE model, there are billions of potentially habitable planets for life forms that we understand biologically.

Exactly,
So where are all these alien cultures?


To quote Douglas Adams...
Quote
Space is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.

169
That's just dishonest. There is everything reason to assume extraterrestrial life. Because in the single planet we have studied the most, it is abundant. Sample size = 1. Or < 10 if you want to really say we have done the best we can on other nearby moons/planets (but even that is a tough sell). If you are allowing the RE model, there are billions of potentially habitable planets for life forms that we understand biologically. There's no reason to assume there is NOT extraterrestrial life based on an absence of current evidence.

170
The simple answer is that extraterrestrial life just doesn't exist, and fortunately there is no scientific evidence to counter that answer, so case closed.

That's not case closed, though. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There's a lot of universe to explore still.

Given the speed information can travel, and our unique window we have to look through, it's a bit more challenging than finding the proverbial needle in the haystack, but it seems worthwhile to me to keep looking.

Do I think flying saucers frequent Earth though? I find that pretty unlikely.

171
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 17, 2017, 02:24:35 AM »
I'm convinced that historians will look back on this time as our country's absurd period.

I hope we are that fortunate. It's a slow motion train wreck. The longer it persists in this fashion, the more "absurd" becomes a term to hope for, versus alternatives like "unmitigated, self-inflicted disaster" or what-have-you.

172
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 16, 2017, 11:45:05 PM »
I'm blown away with the accelerating pace of scandalous news surrounding the current administration. WTF. We were dealt a shit hand this election cycle. The corruption has gone too far. Neither the douchebag nor the turd sandwich was interested in "draining the swamp" or fixing things for those of us actually working for a living. FML. Trump is an embarrassment to us all though. He can't even play the game.

173
Suggestions & Concerns / CN Mobile Formatting
« on: May 16, 2017, 11:15:19 PM »
Ok so I'm uber-noob here and maybe this has been discussed. If so, tell me to shut up.

Complete Nonsense is hard to read and navigate on a 5" mobile screen. Is there any way to keep the festive snow, but make it a little easier to use on a small screen like the rest of the fora?

174
Flat Earth Community / Re: Inconsistencies in FE theory
« on: May 16, 2017, 07:36:26 PM »
Quoting from a mobile is a bit of a challenge to break out as well as you have done. If you are on a mobile, I commend you. But to imply you are not here to discuss the topic of the thread because you are interested in picking apart a later post, while standing behind your skillful quoting abilities is... well... notable.

I don't feel my definition of "well" is unorthodox. Given the success of explaininging Mercury's orbit and predicting black holes, plus that whole gravitational lensing phenomenon, to say GR has performed well seems to be more of an observation than an opinion.

Do the new generation of FEers have a game plan to put those linked-to anomalies into a coherent theory to challenge mainstream science? Is such a challenge already formulated and publicly viewable? If so, I'm interested to see it.

175
Flat Earth Community / Re: Inconsistencies in FE theory
« on: May 16, 2017, 11:34:23 AM »
You pointed out some anomalies on Wikipedia.
No, I pointed out some anomalies in GR.

Plus, relativity does a lot of explaining beyond classical mechanics. Why would you claim it doesn't?
I made no such claim. All I said is it breaks down once you start looking past classical mechanics. It makes some accurate predictions and some extremely inaccurate predictions.

Does the theory need to be perfect on intergalactic scales before you accept it on planetary scales?
No, but we already know it's inaccurate on planetary scales, so your questions is a bit of a waste of time.

And if so, does FE present a viable alternative in your estimation?
Reading comprehension, gentlemen, please!

I didn't come here to discuss UA. You made false claims about the round Earth model and its predictive capabilities, I set you straight. If you want to discuss a different subject, start a new thread and someone might take you up on it.

You provided a link to a webpage. One where other people who are not you listed a few anomalies. Then those people linked to other outside webpages from primary and secondary sources that actually point out, in detail, the anomalies.

*slow clap*

The thread is about inconsistencies in FE theory. Reading comprehension, indeed.

You keep saying claasical mechanics like you know what it means, but your words betray you. Relativity does pretty well with physics beyond classical.

So are you ready to discuss the topic of the thread?

176
Flat Earth Community / Re: Inconsistencies in FE theory
« on: May 16, 2017, 03:30:05 AM »
And UA explains all that?
I didn't come here to discuss UA. You made false claims about the round Earth model and its predictive capabilities, I set you straight. If you want to discuss a different subject, start a new thread and someone might take you up on it.

You pointed out some anomalies on Wikipedia. Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. Plus, relativity does a lot of explaining beyond classical mechanics. Why would you claim it doesn't? Does the theory need to be perfect on intergalactic scales before you accept it on planetary scales? And if so, does FE present a viable alternative in your estimation?

177
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Lensing
« on: May 16, 2017, 02:02:58 AM »
I'd have to start making cold guesses, but off the top of my head I would throw out strange effects on space due to UA as a primary safe space for crafting an explanation. Perhaps the dome, accelerating through space, has reached the point where it is warping space in such a way that it would cause ripples which distort light enough to show a lensing effect? But then, I can think of other issues that UA introduces much more local than our view of the stars that would need to be worked out.

"God made it that way to test our faith" could also be a reason. You know, like fossils. Hard to refute, if also hard to accept.

In a non-Euclidean model, all bets are off because space would be all bendy anyway. Which, come to think of it, reminds me that bendy light has all sorts of strange properties and could be a prime candidate for an explanation.

I'm just spitballing though. Frankly, I think Relativity has shown a lot of predictive power over the years and a FE model would be hard pressed to explain all of the successes that Relativity has been able to shed light on, and then go further and demonstrate further predictive power in its own right.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 7 8 [9]