Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

Rothbard

 Supporter
  • Content count

    2,444
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Rothbard last won the day on June 10 2016

Rothbard had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,623 Excellent

About Rothbard

  • Rank
    Forum Veteran
  1. @grav I actually made a dumb video based on your Archie Bunker video you shared.
  2. That's awesome! It's because women have two points they bend from in the spine.
  3. I don't mean to discount anything you're saying,and we both agree that the Foucault Pendulum is not proof of a rotating earth, but I disagree with the idea that the Foucault Pendulum has anything to do with other than it's what happens when you swing a pendulum from a ball-and-socket joint (or a Charron ring) as the ball-and-socket joint encourages a circular motion. Foucault Pendulums often go the wrong direction, go too slow, or go too fast regardless of eclipses. I got in a debate with a globe believer yesterday about this who said that Foucault Pendulums aren't constructed with a ball-and-socket joint. Then I found this interesting gem: "To prevent the oscillation taking an elliptical path, the thread upon which the pendulum bob is suspended impinges on a Charron ring during each oscillation. The plane of the oscillation is detected with high accuracy by projecting the shadow of the thread onto a protractor scale. The rotation of the plane can thus be identified in a very short period of time. For longer periods of observation, the gradual damping of the oscillation can be compensated for by means of an electro-magnetic boost that can be adjusted to an arbitrary value." https://www.amazon.com/3B-Scientific-U8403000-115-Foucault-Pendulum/dp/B005M02UME/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1493163451&sr=8-11&keywords=foucault+pendulum Turns out that the Charron ring is used in all of the Foucault Pendulums that aren't using a ball-and-socket joint: https://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a8727063/Science/SoFi/korrekturen.html "introduce a Charron ring; this is the large brass ring our pendulum strikes near the end of each swing" http://www.cecs.cl/pendulo/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=62&lang=en "The stabilization system consists of a metal ring in the upper part of the pendulum, known as the Charron Ring. In its oscillation movement, the cable comes into contact with the inside of the ring. This forces the pendulum to always move on one plane, preventing elliptical oscillation produced by disturbances, such as air currents or vibrations of the building. However, since the cable comes briefly into contact with the Charron Ring in each period, the oscillation plane no longer oscillates in relation to the ground during that period. In consequence, the rotation of the oscillation plane “slows down” and a complete turn takes slightly longer than expected." http://www3.sympatico.ca/surfin.dude/creative/clocks/carleton/hafner_foucault.html "A rubber O-ring was added to the armature to act as a cushion when touching at the extreme end of swing and because it acted as a Charron Ring. A Charron Ring frictionally damps out any sideways motion at the extreme end of swing where the sideways component of motion is greatest (and the back and forth motion is zero) thus minimizing the tendency of a Foucault Pendulum to develop an elliptical swing." http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980QJRAS..21..108M Here's a very interesting paper that finally recommends using a an electro-magnetic push instead of the Charron ring. "Leon Foucault built his first pendulum to demonstrate the turning of the Earth in the basement of a building, using a roughly two meter long fiber. He also soon recognized the problem arising from the intrinsic precession of a spherical pendulum caused by unwanted ellipsoidal motion. Imperfections in the suspension or initial conditions of the pendulum generally cause this to quickly grow to the point that the precession due to the Earth’s turning is overwhelmed. The pendulum can come to precess in either sense (clockwise or counterclockwise) at almost any rate, or indeed even cease all precession. These practical problems are mitigated in pendula of great length, and so most are constructed to have lengths of tens of meters, starting with the celebrated 67 m long device built by Foucault in Paris in 1851." https://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.1829.pdf The Charron ring, ball-and-socket joint, "a metal annular disk," and electro-magnetic pushes are used to make the Foucault Pendulum work properly.
  4. Let's see if our resident NASA shills show up for this one, "But the Bible says we live on a twirling ball zooming through space at 2 million mph, duh." We've actually shared snippets of this before (I've included in several videos) but Geoshifter includes more of the absolutely laughable "satellite" footage - and he's just fun to listen to.
  5. Could it be? Could the everyman's man Joe Rogan be a female-to-male transgender? Seems ridiculous until you compare him to other body building female-to-male trannies like this one - http://www.outsmartmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/xS057468443-300-610x350.jpg.pagespeed.ic.sGnNt_1CGd.jpg and http://mail.instinctmagazine.com/sites/instinctmagazine.com/files/styles/large/public/images/blog_posts/Karim Shah/2016/02/09/CMC2016_Wildcard_Benjamin_ohne_Logo_800x462.jpg.jpg?itok=EME7HEvO Here's the one from Survivor who admitted to being a transgender - http://www.onenewspage.com/video/20170414/7281357/Transgender-Survivor-Contestant-Outed-on-TV.htm
  6. Here's one more Bill Nye clip for you from the show (ODD TV):
  7. Bill Nye has a Netflix series called, "Bill Nye Saves the World." If you don't think that's a direct attack on Christianity than you're an idiot. This diabolical s*** is frightening to say the least. Do I need to mention that they're dancing under the globe ... hmmm.
  8. Spy Blimp Spotted! LOL - And why does the NSA need blimps again? https://theintercept.com/2017/04/24/nsa-blimp-spied-in-the-united-states/
  9. Cody's Lab put out a stupid video about how to measure the curvature. I was going to debunk it today but it's rainy. ODD beat me to it.
  10. Daniel Pratt is always a lot of fun.
  11. The whole launch is pretty funny but this rocket flame is hilarious!
  12. Another good one - this one of Mt. Rainier at allegedly 149 miles away. That's pretty far but @Flat or Globe just sent me a photograph he took today of a mountain at 130 miles distance. Definitely a possibility.
  13. I was talking to Dave J on YouTube (channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtPbQK89Duxovwr-JPahElw) and he pointed out a couple of photographs that he has taken in support of the argument that the moon is nothing but a light. Maybe you remember Dave J from LOP or GLP. I find the argument interesting and have learned to not discount Dave J who has been right on so many subjects. The first picture is what Dave J says is the source of the moon. This is what he wrote: "Take it from the "MoonLoon" aka "Cletus" himself, you are correct in your determination that yes as it turns out the "moon" has and always will be just a Light, NO more and no less. I have been abused on youtube for years because of this topic. Needless to say the truth always come out at some point so full steam ahead for sure. I go further in fact to show that with a Light it by my observation is "projected" from a source in the Ceiling and or Firmament. That picture of the source taken by me in 2013 can be found here." https://postimg.cc/image/uh8xdruml/ The second picture is of a star seemingly appearing through the "shaded" side of the moon. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fH7BjIzXWOg/hqdefault.jpg Here's a picture from YouTuber Koop Stoop who was making the same argument: https://ibb.co/eUsw1Q I'm just sharing these with everyone because I thought they were fascinating.
  14. What better way to start Orwell than with a quote from Orwell: http://alexpeak.com/twr/hdykteir/ SOMEWHERE or other—I think it is in the preface to Saint Joan—Bernard Shaw remarks that we are more gullible and superstitious today than we were in the Middle Ages, and as an example of modern credulity he cites the widespread belief that the earth is round. The average man, says Shaw, can advance not a single reason for thinking that the earth is round. He merely swallows this theory because there is something about it that appeals to the twentieth-century mentality. Now, Shaw is exaggerating, but there is something in what he says, and the question is worth following up, for the sake of the light it throws on modern knowledge. Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me. As for the Flat Earth theory, I believe I could refute it. If you stand by the seashore on a clear day, you can see the masts and funnels of invisible ships passing along the horizons. This phenomenon can only be explained by assuming that the earth’s surface is curved. But it does not follow that the earth is spherical. Imagine another theory called the Oval Earth theory, which claims that the earth is shaped like an egg. What can I say against it? Against the Oval Earth man, the first card I can play is the analogy of the sun and moon. The Oval Earth man promptly answers that I don’t know, by my own observation, that those bodies are spherical. I only know that they are round, and they may perfectly well be flat discs. I have no answer to that one. Besides, he goes on, what reason have I for thinking that the earth must be the same shape as the sun and moon? I can’t answer that one either. My second card is the earth’s shadow: when cast on the moon during eclipses, it appears to be the shadow of a round object. But how do I know, demands the Oval Earth man, that eclipses of the moon are caused by the shadow of the earth? The answer is that I don’t know, but have taken this piece of information blindly from newspaper articles and science booklets. Defeated in the minor exchanges, I now play my queen of trumps: the opinion of the experts. The Astronomer Royal, who ought to know, tells me that the earth is round. The Oval Earth man covers the queen with his king. Have I tested the Astronomer Royal’s statement, and would I even know a way of testing it? Here I bring out my ace. Yes, I do know one test. The astronomers can foretell eclipses, and this suggests that their opinions about the solar system are pretty sound. I am therefore justified in accepting their say-so about the shape of the earth. If the Oval Earth man answers—what I believe is true—that the ancient Egyptians, who thought the sun goes round the earth, could also predict eclipses, then bang goes my ace. I have only one card left: navigation. People can sail ships round the world, and reach the places they aim at, by calculations which assume that the earth is spherical. I believe that finishes the Oval Earth man, though even then he may possibly have some kind of counter. It will be seen that my reasons for thinking that the earth is round are rather precarious ones. Yet this is an exceptionally elementary piece of information. On most other questions I should have to fall back on the expert much earlier, and would be less able to test his pronouncements. And much the greater part of our knowledge is at this level. It does not rest on reasoning or on experiment, but on authority. And how can it be otherwise, when the range of knowledge is so vast that the expert himself is an ignoramous as soon as he strays away from his own speciality? Most people, if asked to prove that the earth is round, would not even bother to produce the rather weak arguments I have outlined above. They would start off by saying that ‘everyone knows’ the earth to be round, and if pressed further, would become angry. In a way Shaw is right. This is a credulous age, and the burden of knowledge which we now have to carry is partly responsible.