Posted May 27, 2016, 2:02 PM UTC
I had one of those guys following me around for a while. Always commenting on super old and irrelevant comments and PMing me random conspiratard shit. Makes me wonder if they even know how Reddit works or if they are just mentally unstable.
"I'm beating The System!"
(Nah, you're just bein' weird as hell, bud.)
I could never tell what his goal was, he was sure doing a bad job at trying to convince me that he wasn't just crazy.
I kinda want one to keep talking to me just to see what kind of dialogue I can get into with them.
It'd be less a dialogue and more like a monologue glued to a soliloquy.
I am very good at using words to make people talk! It'd be neat having a conspiracy theorist buddy.
They are shitty trolls that look like they were written by a child. I wish I still had the last pm that was sent but I reported the jackass cause I was tired of all the random messages and it disappeared from my inbox.
Report: other.
I can't tell if this guy is stalking me or he just has a crush on me.
- Ignoring the alleged curvature of Earth, if you drop a bullet and shoot a bullet parallel to Earths surface at same time, which bullet will hit the Earth first?
"Alleged curvature" heehee
That really tells you all you need to know.
Hey man, I'm smarter than you because I consider fake things to be as plausible as real things.
What is that even trying to get at?
Edit: No seriously.. I'd like to know.
He's saying the Earth is flat
OK, I walked face first into that one.
I should have said "What logic is he using here?"
I'm sure the answer is going to be "none."
Yep, just like every other flat earther
I've never seen able to run my hands over the sweet sweet curves of the earth in a sensual way....therefore...it's not real.
I say we start a kickstarter to shoot these people into space on the first commercial space flights.
Of course, I would need to go with them to.....document....their reactions....and in no way shape or form use it as an excuse to raise money to shoot my fat ass into space.
I'm feeling a bad case of round-earth skepticism coming on...
I'm kind of curious to the answer to his question. Is the curve of the Earth so minuscule on the range a bullet deals with that the difference is negligible, or would there the dropped bullet hit the ground a small bit earlier?
Let's math it out a bit, shall we? For the purposes of the example, we'll use a reference height of two meters; imagine that's an especially tall guy firing a rifle. We know that the time it takes for the bullet to hit the ground is the same regardless of its horizontal velocity component. The time it takes for the dropped bullet to hit the ground is simple kinematics:
d = .5 * a * t^2
Solving for t:
t = sqrt(2d / a)
And subbing:
t = sqrt(2 * 2 / 9.8) = .64s
Now, let's figure out what horizontal distance the fired bullet will travel in that time. Muzzle velocities vary widely, so I'm going to arbitrarily pick something pretty fast - .223. Muzzle velocities still vary a lot by load, but they all hover around 1000 m/s, so I'm going to use that because it's a nice round number. Figuring out the distance is pretty simple:
d = .64s * 1000m/s = 640m or about .4 miles
Some trial-and-error with a horizon calculator indicates that the curvature of the earth at that distance would be about an inch, or about a 1% increase in vertical distance traveled by the fired bullet. Obviously the time it takes to hit the ground isn't directly proportional to distance, but I'm going to use that as a rough estimate because I don't feel like taking this into differential equation territory - so let's just say that tha drop time for the fired bullet would be .64 * 1.01 or .648s.
Conclusion: Yes, there's a difference at the scales we're talking about, and yes, it's pretty negligible.
Not accounted for:
Since the freefall time depends on the square root of the height, you could use the binomial approximation to get a closer estimate: 0.64 * 1.005 = 0.643 (or 0.64 if you care about sig figs)
The Mythbusters did it
I was going to say I had no idea, but then I got curious, and played around with this. The short answer is: at 1000 feet per second and about a 2 second drop, there's no real noticeable effect.
With a powerful bullet or shell, and shooting upwards rather than straight ahead, there would actually be a few feet of difference between a round and flat earth.
All this assuming no air resistance of course. Here's a fun discussion involving snipers, the Coriolis effect, and leprechauns.
[deleted]
One of the marks of a person with very little understanding of a topic is latching onto and repeatedly using terms they obviously don't really understand.
With this guy it was "Lagrange Point". First off, he seems to think there's just one and he keeps using it in the weird singular without referencing which one he was talking about (I suppose he's talking about L1, or thinks he is).
Additionally I love his really odd idea that somehow you'd need to be burning fuel the whole time you're in space, apparently he believes even orbiting would require a continuous burn. The Apollo rockets didn't carry enough fuel to fire their jets for the entire duration of their mission, therefore the mission must be fake.
It's amazing what a tiny bit of information mixed with a lot of hubris and a crapton of lies and misinformation can do to a person's brain.
Huge upvotes for this, one of the most common things I see (and hear). It's mind-boggling how someone can grab onto a phrase or term and have no conception of the actual meaning of the concept embodied therein... aaaargh!!!!
EnoughNoLibsSpam huh? Figures. ROFL.
If you look at his profile, he's a mod of subs that support the theory that Dzokhar Tsarnaev is innocent.
Says all you need to know
Well, being the highly paid NASA shill that I am, our retilian overlords demand I point out one small fact. Most of these idiots believe the space program is a sham in an attempt to defraud the 'Merkan' taxpayer. Well, the U.S. budget for 2015 was a little over 3.1 trillion dollars... think about that. And how much was spent on NASA and space exploration and maintenance of ongoing programs? About 15 billion or in other words less than 1/2 of one cent of every tax dollar. Boy, what a ripoff...
Without the space program we would not live in the amazing world we do, so have some fucking gratitude doofus.
I like how these people consider themselves to be smarter than the soviet space agency and KGB, who never once questioned the authenticity of the moon landings. They can fool superpowers but now me, i am the toppest mind!
They were in on together it because Jews globalists or some shit, obviously!
[removed]
Who on fucking earth do you expect to be reaching to with that diatribe? Seriously.. That was god damned unreadable.
[removed]
SB277 removes a parents right to opt-out of the vaccine schedule
Parents don't have the right to opt out of vaccinating their children for any reason. Parents are guardians over their children, which means they have a moral, ethical, and legal responsibility to act within the best interests of their children. While that still leaves a ton of room to make decisions for the child without issues, the benefits of vaccination to their children and others their children come in contact with are so great and well known, proper guardianship demands they vaccinate their them.
As far as I'm concerned, barring a medical condition that otherwise prevents vaccination, refusing to vaccinate them is a form of child abuse, especially if they catch a terrible disease that's easily prevented via a 2 second prick.
[removed]
If we were to compare the evidence for vaccination against your hilariously inept screen shots, it would be like comparing the size of the Sun to a gnat.
I hope you don't have children. If you do, I hope the state intervenes and has your children immunized. That's far better than letting them get measles or whooping cough under your pathetic care.
[removed]
So should parents be allowed to starve their children to death if they have a religious objection to feeding them?
The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.
Mises.org
Of-fucking-course
[deleted]
"How can you believe that man walked on the moon when there are hundreds of youtube videos about how it never happened."
if youtube isn't a reliable source, then where would you go to prove that men walked on the moon?
Maybe the moon?
Photos taken on the moon, NASA records on the subject of the moon landing, years of research based on the data collected on the moon, ect. Or you could literally fire a laser at the moon, and see it reflected back at you by the reflectors left on the moon by the Apollo astronauts.
Maybe photos and videos taken on the moon, first hand accounts from the astronauts who walked there, photos of the landing sites taken by the LRO, decades' worth of analysis of the rock and soil samples that were brought back, and the laser reflectors that were left on the moon, which can be detected from Earth.
But I guess all that is less reliable than a YouTube video made by a guy who doesn't know how rockets work.