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: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16  Next >
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: May 01, 2019, 11:42:06 PM »
I didnt cry at all. Because I havent seen it yet.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 01, 2019, 07:37:36 PM »
I got a kick out of this article.

Specifically: "IT WAS MY BABY!"


"In a tense standoff with Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, a combative Barr insisted..."

What a shit show...

False equivalency, Tom. Using CAD for perspective compared to what we see in the real world? I don't think so.

 But, but, but what about anticrepuscular rays????

How does the light bend one way and then the other next? OBVIOUSLY, it has nothing to do with the distance to the sun, and all about perspective. You can't change the laws of physics to bend light one way and then the next just by looking the other way.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who created god?
« on: April 30, 2019, 07:03:41 PM »
Why do you disagree or agree with something that is obviously outside of both of our area's of expertise? Who gives a shit? We are merely discussing theological theories using logical progressions of thought experiments.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who created god?
« on: April 30, 2019, 06:35:54 PM »
I agree that there are some possible and plausible posited theories that argue against the truth of the first statement. But there has been no physical manifestation, as we know it, that has refuted this statement (falsified). Some argue that on the quantum level, that the first premise is falsified - but I side with Craig in stating that even virtual particles are coming from something.

But back to the logical side of it. If you look at the statement that if things have always existed - then they must have existed infinitely. How can you distinguish one point in infinity from another point infinity? It would take you an infinite amount of time to get from Infinite point B to Infinite point C (fuck point A, lol). So therefore, logically, the universe has not always existed, and therefore something outside the bounds of time and space must have created the universe (space and time). And therefore there must exist something that lives outside of time and space - whatever label you want to put on it.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who created god?
« on: April 30, 2019, 03:40:02 PM »
Free will is a separate discussion from the existence of God. It is a misunderstanding of the concept of God. God exists outside of time and space - see previous comment. We exist in time. God does not "foresee." He sees all at the same time, because he exists outside of time.

Your argument against free will suffers from the Modal fallacy.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who created god?
« on: April 30, 2019, 01:56:46 PM »
You should research the Kalam Argument and the Argument from Contingency. There have been hundreds of philosophers who have debated this very topic. Much more in depth than what is being discussed here.

Basically, the Kalam argument pairs with the Argument from Contingency, in that the Kalam argument states that the universe cannot just have always existed. This would imply an infinitely old universe, which is logically impossible because the first premise which should be logically accepted by all sane people states that all things have a cause. Therefore if all things have a cause there are steps to which that cause happened. In an infinitely old universe, each step is infinite and can never be reached. So, the universe is not infinitely old. Now with the contingency argument, if something exists, there must exist something outside of the other thing that allowed the other thing to exist. The universe exists (space and time), therefore there must be something that exists outside of space and time that allowed the universe to exist.

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki: Keyworth quote source needed
« on: April 30, 2019, 11:12:34 AM »
Here is the original story, from which many sources do not quote from and extremely misuse.

"Beggs was convinced that a successful shuttle would build congressional and public support for the space station. He pressured his managers to make the shuttle a viable commercial rocket system as quickly as possible by vastly expanding its schedule. And he arranged to make a personal pitch to the President--with neither the knowledge nor the approval of Meese or Keyworth.

By the end of the meeting, the President was favorably disposed. And by the end of the year, Beggs was informed that $150 million was included in the fiscal 1985 budget for a space station. In his unpublished memoirs, Beggs' deputy, Hans Mark, wrote that Beggs "would be remembered . . . as one of the NASA administrators who had succeeded in persuading a President to do something brand new." But among Administration conservatives, Beggs would be remembered as the man who had humiliated them on the space station. That lingering bitterness would have dramatic consequences for both the shuttle program and for Beggs.

"Of all the organizations that I have dealt with . . . I have only seen one that lied. It was NASA," science adviser Keyworth says today. "The reason they lie, of course, is because they are wrapped up in a higher calling. In their eyes these are white lies. They tell lies in order to do what has to be done. Because in the end the result will be for the betterment of the public. So they are not lying from evil. But, nevertheless, they are lying."

AN OLD-LINE REPUBLICAN, BEGGS considered people like Keyworth and other hard-line Administration conservatives "right-wing nuts" who had no influence with the President. It was a crucial mistake."

It was pulled from these sources:

Adapted from "Prescription for Disaster: From the Glory of Apollo to the Betrayal of the Shuttle," by Joseph J. Trento with reporting and editing by Susan B. Trento. To be published in February by Crown Publishers Inc. Copyright 1987 by Joseph J. Trento.

So , this isn't about a conspiracy on actual space travel or covering up the true shape of the earth. Its about them trying to fund the space station by lying about their build schedule.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity
« on: April 29, 2019, 03:28:14 AM »
I would just like to point out that "heavy" objects don't necessarily sink. Buoyancy is not directly coupled to the weight of an object. It is directly related to density and volume. Not exactly the same thing.

For instance, I don't float well. Why? I have very little body fat. But I don't weigh much. There are extremely fat people who float very well compared to me. So you're reasoning that heavy objects sink and lighter ones float is incorrect.


Based on all that I have seen you say about refraction, I would conclude that you would have us believe that refraction is chaotic and therefore unpredictable. If that is the case, how can you say that refraction did not affect Rowbotham's experiments??? Either there is a standard application of refraction or there is not. Either Rowbotham and Oldham's experiments were subject to chaotic optical effects or they were not. Without knowing the atmospheric conditions (other than "oh it looks hazy" or "it sure is hot out here"), we can not say that refraction did or did not affect either of the experiments. Therefore it puts both experiments on equal assumption grounds. And by the way, Oldham's experiment did not show results as shown in the 2nd diagram of Rowbotham's. He pointed his telescope at the Denver Bridge and measured the height of the flag in between the two. He did not sight off of the first to see if the last dipped below.

And also, you would have to know the atmospheric conditions on each point in the diagram. They could all be different!

UPDATE: Please read this on Looming and other atmospheric refraction mirages:

So, Rowbotham's experiment experienced looming. Oldham's experiment had sinking refraction.

Please make a point. Simply saying that the sinking ship effect is a blanket response to any optical observations is just...wrong.

Are you saying that Rowbotham and Blount accounted for refraction and that Oldham did not? How can you even make that statement when you and your wiki have no evidence of this - at least towards Oldham. You don't even go into his results.

The wiki specifically states thus:

"Rowbotham says that the sinking ship effect is most likely to occur when the weather is not calm and the observations are conducted over hectic ocean environments. In more landlocked areas such as lakes, canals, and ocean inlets, and under calm conditions, the effect often does not occur."

Which is precisely why Rowbotham chose the Bedford River to do his experiment. You cannot claim that refraction had a hand in Oldham's results and not in Rowbotham's, when Rowbotham specifically used that location to avoid having his results affected by refraction. Ridiculous. You cant have it both ways. Dishonest.

Flat Earth Community / Henry Yule Oldham - Bedford Level Experiment
« on: April 26, 2019, 11:42:19 AM »
I can find nothing in the search engine here on this website that references Oldham. Interesting to note, since he proved the curvature of the earth at the Bedford River.

"In 1901 Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[6][7] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[8] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available.[9][10]"

Anyone care to comment on the truth of said event?

In the TFES Wiki, there is a brief comment that states Oldham conducted the experiment, but left out any of this results or how he conducted it. (Seems a bit dishonest to do so).

"In 1901 Henry Yule Oldham, a geography reader at King's College, Cambridge, conducted the definitive experiment described above."

Which seems to be either copied at the other Flat Earth website or this one is a copy of their Wiki:

"In 1901 Henry Yule Oldham, a geography reader at King's College, Cambridge, conducted the definitive experiment described in Method, above."

I have searched quite a bit through Google and found no refutations of his experiment.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations
« on: April 25, 2019, 06:15:20 PM »
So that would possibly mean that there is a) a useless general solution or b) a useful specific solution.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Facial Recognition At Airports
« on: April 25, 2019, 03:28:37 PM »
I don't think its necessarily that the technology exists and that it is being used. But more of the potential of what it can be used for. Facebook for example is a horrible example of invasion of privacy, profiting off of personal information, etc. Thats not cool in my book. It could get more nefarious than that and probably already is.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Ice wall picture (I hope this is correct)
« on: April 25, 2019, 03:20:52 PM »
Peter, do you want to address the subglacial lakes that have been found using aerial and satellite radio echo sounding? Specifically, how their locations could be misconstrued and placed on a continent that is not strung out around the entire circumference of the earth, but rather that they are on a continent on the south pole? So far, I have knocked on the FE door and no one seems to be home. Everyone wants to play semantics games over something that has no bearing on reality.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Facial Recognition At Airports
« on: April 24, 2019, 05:10:47 PM »
Good point.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Facial Recognition At Airports
« on: April 24, 2019, 02:38:49 PM »
Yes, I saw the same thing. No one gives a crap anymore, unfortunately. It is weird how things have changed dramatically in the past few years. Everyone here in the US (that was sensible) was up in arms against the Patriot Act and all the unwarranted tapping of cellphones, etc. Cheered when Edward Snowden broke the news on NSA spying. Cheered when we were able to stop the one internet act several years ago.

Now, its the complete opposite. What the fuck happened?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The three-body problem wiki article
« on: April 24, 2019, 02:36:20 PM »
QED admits no where in any of the responses in this post that he took a cursory glance at the articles.  That is an outright blatant lie, Tom. The only thing he states is that it took him 15 minutes to find the documents.  He did not state that he took 15 minutes to read all of them. WOW.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Ice wall picture (I hope this is correct)
« on: April 24, 2019, 01:16:37 PM »
Interesting, I have never heard of the Piri Reis map. I will have to do some more research. Thanks.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16  Next >