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 - WellRoundedIndividual

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is every other planet round?
« on: Today at 01:46:07 AM »
A shadow moon is a poor explanation for causing the lunar eclipse. Now this is literally an ad hoc explanation. It's a great theory that can never be proven false or true, due to the fact the FE Wiki says it cannot be seen. Lol ok...

Yes, this is literally what he says:

"In all the images I took today - there were over 400 in total - the curve of the horizon shows the same, while the straight edges stay straight.

The curve matches both the simulated curve from Walter Bislin's website and the expected pixel difference between the centre of the curve and the edge (~4).
Rory, Thursday at 4:01 PM #39"

So, Tom Bishop is a liar.

Oh it is very likely that they were able to determine the failure. Its rather simple, actually. When attending college for engineering, you take a course on failure analysis. You are able to determine with some probability the mode of failure on all sorts of stuff. As long as you know the material of the objects at hand, and you are intelligent enough to look up the properties of said material in an engineering handbook, such as Young's modulus. You can then analyze which object failed first based on material properties, dimensions of the object, and inspecting the failure site (the point on the object where it tore, etc). Probable cause of failure means that the sequence of events that lead to the failure are not completely certain so there are more than just one mitigating factor that led to the failure and therefore the most likely of the culprits is therefore determined to be the cause of failure.

Please refrain from talking about failure analysis if you don't understand the principles behind it.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth proof - comments?
« on: March 14, 2019, 07:15:31 PM »
Has anyone taken a look at the data on this website?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Virgin Galactic
« on: March 14, 2019, 02:59:38 PM »
People like Branson are visionaries. Real life does not happen according to people's predictions. Sometimes it serves simply as a catalyst to create something new or something improved.  Star Trek predicted cell phones in the 60s - the first brick cell phone for public use was what...late 80s, early 90s? Some things do not always come to fruition either. The genius Tesla was working on wireless energy - that never happened. (Insert the start of government conspiracy theories here, please lol).


I'm still unconvinced, too, that there is much to gain from sending people into space. Doing so was demonstrating political power and supposed scientific prowess originally. There are desirable results from faking space travel, though.

Is there much to gain from sitting here debating endlessly the possibilities of a round earth vs a flat earth? Is there anything to gain from any exploration?

Here is what we have achieved through space travel.

The idea of rockets and rocket propulsion has been around for a long time.

This isnt too greatly detailed, but I tried to find something that wasnt part of the NASA website in case anyone freaked out.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mount Everest?
« on: March 13, 2019, 07:34:50 PM »
@WellRoundedIndividual: Is the article called "Electromagnetic Propulsion"?

No. It is thus:

QED, yes, I agree. I wasn't to keen on it, because it was just a word salad with no mathematical proof showing the derivation of the equation.

Just read up on Ray Kurzweil and the Law of Accelerating Returns. Advances in technology are on exponential curve. There is one particular graph showing the advances in computing power. Just looking at that alone shows that we are more than capable of getting a rocket into space. You hold a cellphone that is more powerful than a laptop from 5 years ago. And you think we can't figure out how to get a rocket into space? We have had geniuses like Nikola Tesla invent radio (shut up, Marconi lovers), AC electricity, bladeless turbines, the Tesla coils used in power transmission transformers. And you want to doubt our ability for rocket flight?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The effect FE has on me
« on: March 13, 2019, 12:47:19 AM »
You can calculate GS, aka ground speed, using the time it takes to pass between two landmarks with a known distance. Since, at least in the US, the grids on which country roads are laid out are in one square mile increments, you could technically use that as a landmark, assuming the surveyor and road workers paved the road properly.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)
« on: March 12, 2019, 11:04:11 PM »
I would like this claim verified that QED has a PhD and is a physicist. Where is the evidence?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The effect FE has on me
« on: March 12, 2019, 11:02:14 PM »
Are you implying that planes don't actually fly that fast and therefore further implying that flight distances with the known flight times therefore equate to shorter flight distances?

I can personally say that I have calculated the top speed of different airplanes based on fuel combustion and engine power, thrust, aerodynamics, etc. Its was a great course in college. Those calculations match what is actually flown to a certain degree.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mount Everest?
« on: March 12, 2019, 10:58:22 PM »
Research the Wiki on electromagnetic acceleration and the resultant equation which contains the honorary Bishop constant which is yet to be defined. It is completely unsatisfactory in its explanation, but it is a proposal of sorts.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The ole' shadow of a mountain...
« on: March 12, 2019, 10:55:40 PM »
There was a previous topic that discussed this at length. I will try to find it and link it. But it came down to a disagreement (again) as to whether reflected light off of objects could reflect enough light to cast a shadow. My point was that to cast a shadow the reflection has to be specular. It cannot be diffuse. Although, the FEer (I dont remember who) correctly stated that snow can reflect visible and UV light at close to 90%, he failed to understand that it scatters the light and therefore is not bright enough to cast a focused light and therefore a resultant shadow from a mountain on to a cloud.

So are we going to deny that Virgin Galactic Unity went up 51 or so miles? That's 83%.

They most likely took their content down because the FE community ostracized them for being in the documentary and probably are calling them shills for the RE.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Gravity
« on: March 11, 2019, 10:09:56 PM »
I stand with Tomfoolery's assessment of zeteticism. Scientists did not just say, "oh a flat earth is absurd, I propose a round earth theory. Let's go around making experiments that prove the earth is round." Literally, quite the opposite. Lots of ancient cultures and even biblical truthers believed the earth was flat well before anyone first proposed that the earth was round. Greek literature specifically supports the fact that they used direct observation of positions of the stars and lunar phases and eclipses to propose the spherical earth theory. So is that not zeteticism?

Lunar phases are proof the moon does not produce it's own light. Whether you subscribe to the RE model or what is stated here in the FE wiki.

It's the same principle of taking the angle of the shadow cast by the sun down a well. 2 wells can be explained by both RE and FE. 3 wells can only be explained with RE.

QED, you are simply coming up with ad hoc and post hoc explanations where there is no explanation needed for the moon emitting or not emitting light.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >