The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: brutsi on February 25, 2009, 11:23:15 PM
-
How old is the conspiracy ???
-
The conspiracy as we know it today (devised once the truth was actually discovered) is at least sixty years old. Personally, I believe the Nazis pioneered it and the US incorporated the system with the info and assistance of Wernher von Braun and others. It is conceivable that it could even date as far back as the twenties.
-
Ok, so that means newton wasnt a part of the conpiracy he was just plain wrong? does this mean that the greeks were also just wrong? what about the vikings of scandinavia they also thought/knew that the earth was round that wasnt a conspiracy either? :o
-
What can I say? People back then believed stupid things. Hell, people nowadays still do.
-
Was the catholich church then an early part of the conspiracy perhaps or does the governments of today have nothing to do with the catholics?
-
The Catholic Church and world governments have little to nothing to do with the conspiracy.
-
Ok, so that means newton wasnt a part of the conpiracy he was just plain wrong? does this mean that the greeks were also just wrong? what about the vikings of scandinavia they also thought/knew that the earth was round that wasnt a conspiracy either? :o
Newton was wrong. That's why Einstein's theories displaced his. The Greeks were wrong. They didn't even know that the Americas existed.
And all the Vikings did was a bit of sailing; I'm not sure why you brought them into it.
-
And all the Vikings did was a bit of sailing; I'm not sure why you brought them into it.
The vikings concluded that the earth was round becuase of the ship in the horizon.
-
The conspiracy as we know it today (devised once the truth was actually discovered) is at least sixty years old. Personally, I believe the Nazis pioneered it and the US incorporated the system with the info and assistance of Wernher von Braun and others. It is conceivable that it could even date as far back as the twenties.
Bavarian Globe Makers Guild
lrn2feconspiracytheory
-
Ok, so that means newton wasnt a part of the conpiracy he was just plain wrong? does this mean that the greeks were also just wrong? what about the vikings of scandinavia they also thought/knew that the earth was round that wasnt a conspiracy either? :o
Newton was wrong incomplete. That's why Einstein's theories displaced his. The Greeks were wrong knowledge of the world was incomplete. They didn't even know that the Americas existed.
And all the Vikings did was a bit of sailing; I'm not sure why you brought them into it.
Fixed that for you. He probably brought up the vikings because they landed in North America about 500 years before Columbus did. Some say that the Chinese landed in North America even earlier than that.
-
Ok, so that means newton wasnt a part of the conpiracy he was just plain wrong? does this mean that the greeks were also just wrong? what about the vikings of scandinavia they also thought/knew that the earth was round that wasnt a conspiracy either? :o
Newton was wrong incomplete. That's why Einstein's theories displaced his. The Greeks were wrong knowledge of the world was incomplete. They didn't even know that the Americas existed.
And all the Vikings did was a bit of sailing; I'm not sure why you brought them into it.
Fixed that for you. He probably brought up the vikings because they landed in North America about 500 years before Columbus did. Some say that the Chinese landed in North America even earlier than that.
no no no, i brought up the vikings becuase they knew/believed that the earth was round, there are however only few documentation of this as the vikings didnt have a strong tradition in writing things down, mostly everything was told from mouth to mouth in the old school way.
-
Newton was wrong incomplete. That's why Einstein's theories displaced his.
Fixed that for you. He probably brought up the vikings because they landed in North America about 500 years before Columbus did. Some say that the Chinese landed in North America even earlier than that.
Newton's theories were not 'incomplete'. By curent standards, they were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the universe works. Einstein didn't fill in Newton's blanks. He created a completely new theory based on a fundamentally different concept of hwo the universe works. Newton believed in an instanteous force of attraction between objects of mass, which is contrary to the very basis of relativity (which is why Einstein had such a problem with the idea of 'entanglement' in quantum physics). And yes, I suppose the Greeks' knowledge was incomplete, in that they didn't really have a 'RET' at all.
As for the Vikings crossing the atlantic, this is (as you know) totally compatible with FET. Now, as he has said, that wasn't his reasoning. In response to the ship/horizon question, I simply advise that he searches, as there have been many discussions on the matter.
-
Newton's theories were not 'incomplete'. By curent standards, they were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the universe works. Einstein didn't fill in Newton's blanks. He created a completely new theory based on a fundamentally different concept of hwo the universe works. Newton believed in an instanteous force of attraction between objects of mass, which is contrary to the very basis of relativity (which is why Einstein had such a problem with the idea of 'entanglement' in quantum physics).
Newton's theories are in the limiting cases of small velocities and small mass close enough for almost all practical purposes. We can design airplanes and other complicated devices without regard to relativity issues. We can even predict planetary orbits without regard to relativity and get very good approximations. Newton's laws are good enough that we can send probes to other planets simply based off of that (but FErs will likely think that's part of the conspiracy too) Saying that Newton was wrong is at best misleading.
I'm a bit puzzled by the claim that this conspiracy was started so late. In particular, I'm curious as to how all the major naval navigation in WWII and WWI was done if the major militaries were not part of the conspiracy. If there is a conspiracy it needs to be much larger and much more wideranging.
-
The conspiracy is basically a knee-jerk reaction to the space age. Ever since the world space agencies have been able to send up satellites and take pictures of the earth, all the flat earthers were like "oh crap, how are we going to keep existing now?" So they invented a fictional story that is now known as the conspiracy theory.
Every since FE invented the conspiracy theory, they can now answer 90% of all questions on this forum with the reply "It's part of the conspiracy".
So that's about the only important thing you need to know.
-
i am fully aware of the ship/horizon debate on this forum and i just stated that the vikings used this to conclude that the earth was round.
-
Don't you think that a conspiracy this huge, would be revealed at some point? I mean, what proof do you have that there is a conspiracy anyways? Oh, and while we are at it: Why would the government try to trick us anyways? What are their motives? Personal gain? Well, I don't see how profit fits into this whole theory.
Remember Lincoln's words:
You can decieve some people all the time.
You can decieve all people, for some time.
But you can never deceive all people, all the time.
-
Newton's theories were not 'incomplete'. By curent standards, they were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the universe works. Einstein didn't fill in Newton's blanks. He created a completely new theory based on a fundamentally different concept of hwo the universe works. Newton believed in an instanteous force of attraction between objects of mass, which is contrary to the very basis of relativity (which is why Einstein had such a problem with the idea of 'entanglement' in quantum physics).
Newton's theories are in the limiting cases of small velocities and small mass close enough for almost all practical purposes.
In other words, it has predictive power, but has no relation to truth. Correct? I've seen this line spouted over and over by RE'ers, and I have always won the ensuing debate. It is not misleading to say he was wrong, because his theory on how the universe works bears no relation to how the universe actually works. Predictive power does not imply truth.
Even if you're a RE'er, you have to accept that Newton's theories are totally incompatible with Einstein's. If Einstein was right, then Newton was wrong, end of story.
-
Newton's theories were not 'incomplete'. By curent standards, they were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the universe works. Einstein didn't fill in Newton's blanks. He created a completely new theory based on a fundamentally different concept of hwo the universe works. Newton believed in an instanteous force of attraction between objects of mass, which is contrary to the very basis of relativity (which is why Einstein had such a problem with the idea of 'entanglement' in quantum physics).
Newton's theories are in the limiting cases of small velocities and small mass close enough for almost all practical purposes.
In other words, it has predictive power, but has no relation to truth. Correct? I've seen this line spouted over and over by RE'ers, and I have always won the ensuing debate. It is not misleading to say he was wrong, because his theory on how the universe works bears no relation to how the universe actually works. Predictive power does not imply truth.
Even if you're a RE'er, you have to accept that Newton's theories are totally incompatible with Einstein's. If Einstein was right, then Newton was wrong, end of story.
What makes you think that Einstein's theories have any more to do with the way that the universe works than Newton's? Relativity is just a mathematical model that has better predictive powers than Newton's model.
-
Well, I must say that I debated whether or not to put the word 'supposedly' in place of actually, but decided it was unnecessary for the purpose of this discussion. If you want my opinion, Einstein's theories are probably off the truth by a stretch, and I think that even outside FET, this will become accepted in time. Indeed, many are already asking questions of Special Relativity as a result of new perspectives with regard to quantum theory.
-
Well, I must say that I debated whether or not to put the word 'supposedly' in place of actually, but decided it was unnecessary for the purpose of this discussion. If you want my opinion, Einstein's theories are probably off the truth by a stretch, and I think that even outside FET, this will become accepted in time. Indeed, many are already asking questions of Special Relativity as a result of new perspectives with regard to quantum theory.
Personally, I'm not sure if it will ever be possible to truly know how the universe works at the fundamentally large or small extremes. The best we will ever be able to do is just come up with better models.
-
Newton's theories were not 'incomplete'. By curent standards, they were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the universe works. Einstein didn't fill in Newton's blanks. He created a completely new theory based on a fundamentally different concept of hwo the universe works. Newton believed in an instanteous force of attraction between objects of mass, which is contrary to the very basis of relativity (which is why Einstein had such a problem with the idea of 'entanglement' in quantum physics).
Newton's theories are in the limiting cases of small velocities and small mass close enough for almost all practical purposes.
In other words, it has predictive power, but has no relation to truth. Correct? I've seen this line spouted over and over by RE'ers, and I have always won the ensuing debate. It is not misleading to say he was wrong, because his theory on how the universe works bears no relation to how the universe actually works. Predictive power does not imply truth.
Even if you're a RE'er, you have to accept that Newton's theories are totally incompatible with Einstein's. If Einstein was right, then Newton was wrong, end of story.
This is a poor understanding of how science works. Science never cares about truth. It only cares about predictive power.
Moreover, theories like Newton's are related to "truth"(assuming there is a truth in any meaningful sense) in that they are approximations of that truth. Thus, Newtonian physics is closer to truth than Aristotelian physics. SR and GR is closer still, but isn't quite right.
-
I've got a question that pertains to the conspiracy:
Is there any proof to the existance to the conspiracy?
If so: Post it here please.
If not: Why not?
-
I've got a question that pertains to the conspiracy:
Is there any proof to the existance to the conspiracy?
If so: Post it here please.
If not: Why not?
I'm sure they have "proof" Reyo. But our definition of proof and theirs differs.
-
What can I say? People back then believed stupid things. Hell, people nowadays still do.
Like the one about how the Earth is flat & there's a forum about it with idiots in it that try to tell you the Earth is flat?
-
This is a poor understanding of how science works. Science never cares about truth. It only cares about predictive power.
Moreover, theories like Newton's are related to "truth"(assuming there is a truth in any meaningful sense) in that they are approximations of that truth. Thus, Newtonian physics is closer to truth than Aristotelian physics. SR and GR is closer still, but isn't quite right.
Well, I am interested in truth. This is why I support FET.
-
This is a poor understanding of how science works. Science never cares about truth. It only cares about predictive power.
Moreover, theories like Newton's are related to "truth"(assuming there is a truth in any meaningful sense) in that they are approximations of that truth. Thus, Newtonian physics is closer to truth than Aristotelian physics. SR and GR is closer still, but isn't quite right.
Well, I am interested in truth. This is why I support FET.
So you support the FET becuase it got overwhelming evidence for it?
-
This is a poor understanding of how science works. Science never cares about truth. It only cares about predictive power.
Moreover, theories like Newton's are related to "truth"(assuming there is a truth in any meaningful sense) in that they are approximations of that truth. Thus, Newtonian physics is closer to truth than Aristotelian physics. SR and GR is closer still, but isn't quite right.
Well, I am interested in truth. This is why I support FET.
So you support the FET becuase it got overwhelming evidence for it?
Uh, sorry? I meant what I said, and no more than I said.
-
This is a poor understanding of how science works. Science never cares about truth. It only cares about predictive power.
Moreover, theories like Newton's are related to "truth"(assuming there is a truth in any meaningful sense) in that they are approximations of that truth. Thus, Newtonian physics is closer to truth than Aristotelian physics. SR and GR is closer still, but isn't quite right.
Well, I am interested in truth. This is why I support FET.
So you support the FET becuase it got overwhelming evidence for it?
Uh, sorry? I meant what I said, and no more than I said.
Yes, you claim that FET is truth. Why?
-
Yes, you claim that FET is truth. Why?
I know English isn't your first language, but at least give reading comprehension an honest try.
-
Yes, you claim that FET is truth. Why?
What I was saying is that I am less concerned with predictive power than the truth, because the former does not necessarily signify the latter. FET is concerned with truth, whereas RET has a fixation with predictive power. FET explains the world as I experience it.
-
"As you experience it"
So you are saying, that you just sort of "feel" that the Earth is flat?
And by the way: You are not answering the questions. Is there a undeniable proof, that the Earth is flat?
-
Yes, you claim that FET is truth. Why?
What I was saying is that I am less concerned with predictive power than the truth, because the former does not necessarily signify the latter. FET is concerned with truth, whereas RET has a fixation with predictive power. FET explains the world as I experience it.
If by "truth" you mean "deliberately misinterpreting what you see in order to support your unworkable model", then yes, FET is all about the truth. ::)
-
"As you experience it"
So you are saying, that you just sort of "feel" that the Earth is flat?
Look out your window. My senses tell me it is flat.
And by the way: You are not answering the questions. Is there a undeniable proof, that the Earth is flat?
There is no undeniable proof of anything.
-
"As you experience it"
So you are saying, that you just sort of "feel" that the Earth is flat?
Look out your window. My senses tell me it is flat.
What does looking out my window have to do with the shape of the earth?
(http://i44.tinypic.com/5b8iz6.jpg)
-
"As you experience it"
So you are saying, that you just sort of "feel" that the Earth is flat?
Look out your window. My senses tell me it is flat.
What does looking out my window have to do with the shape of the earth?
(http://i44.tinypic.com/5b8iz6.jpg)
I see a stop sign, an apartment building and a telephone pole...that OBVIOUSLY makes the Earth flat ::)
-
Yes, you claim that FET is truth. Why?
What I was saying is that I am less concerned with predictive power than the truth, because the former does not necessarily signify the latter. FET is concerned with truth, whereas RET has a fixation with predictive power. FET explains the world as I experience it.
LOL WUT?
There is no undeniable proof of anything.
This statement means nothing, and as I've made clear before, is self contradictory.
Proofs exist within a set of axioms. Within those axioms the proofs are valid.
-
My thoughts exactly!