The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Dioptimus Drime on November 13, 2006, 03:58:01 PM

Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on November 13, 2006, 03:58:01 PM
The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium

Okay. There has been way too many threads asking about the same damned question, and too many people saying that the governments can't pull together a conspiracy as such, and what not. This will conclusively prove that it is entirely plausible, profitable and, hopefully, probable. Expect me to reference this any time you ask a stupid question about the conspiracy again.


First Topic:
How Can They Afford the Conspiracy?


Bribes
Let's look at this liberally (keep in mind these are probably near maximized estimates). Who actually kneeds to know?

Who DOES Need to Know:
NASA -- Okay, so the top three (at most) need to know, we'll say. These are the guys who actually are controlling the conspiracy, and maybe some of the profit is divided amongst them, but they don't need to be bribed to shut their mouths, and thus have no leverage amongst the others. If we say about three other people in NASA know about it, who are helping with image editing, video editing, and general coverage, but working closely with the top three.

RASA -- The Russians are just about equal if not more active in space exploration as the US, so we'll say these guys have six people helping out with the conspiracy as well. As a matter of fact, tag one more on, just because I'm generous. That leaves us with thirteen people.

China -- Yes, in 2003, China became the third country to independently send a manned spaceship into outer space. However, their space program isn't all that big. As a (very) liberal estimate, we'll say they need about three people. But why don't we tag on one more just to make sure I'm not cheating. That leaves us with seventeen people from the space exploration crews that need to know.

GPS Manufacturers -- I'm going to say they only need one person for this job. There's not really much to do. Machines make most of the chips, and I doubt all of the bosses of the companies need to even bother. They just need to have one guy saying, "Yup, that's right." This guy could even be one of the NASA or RASA members, honestly, but I'm being nice. This rings up to a comprehensive total of eighteen people.

Public Relations People -- NASA or RASA conspirators could fill this role, too, but again, generosity has the better of me, and I'm going to say that the conspiracy hires people to do this, too, since the guys in the space exploration teams are filled with a bunch of pale, pimply white guys, and therefore aren't good at convincing people of the truth. We'll say they need a couple of these guys, bringing the total up to a whopping twenty people.

People Who Have "Been In Space" -- Yes, they need astronauts saying, "Hey! I was up there!" But they're barely part of the conspiracy, they're just people who have a little bit of leverage, and therefore need a bit of bribing. We'll count them as half-people for this count, since they don't really count as conspirators. So, if we have somewhere around fifty people that have "been in space," that means that it counts for about twenty-five conspirators, therefore bringing our total to forty-five which is not as large as is commonly described.

Ice Wall Guards -- These guys don't need to be paid in full, either, as they're only guarding an ice wall. I believe that it was Erasmus who pulled some mathematics on this one, and showed that not that many people were needed to guard the ice wall. As they don't really have any leverage on the conspiracy, they won't count for this part (I'll go back to it later), since this is mostly about who needs to be paid to shut their mouths.


Who Does NOT Need To Know:

PotUS -- Why would the president need to know? All he knows is that he's giving money to what he thinks is a space exploration team, and then he sees exactly what everyone in the world sees on TV. He doesn't ever need to suspect a damned thing.

Members of Space Teams -- They see exactly what we see as well, but they're sitting on the ground looking at it "Live." That doesn't mean that they know that the people are actually in space, but they can make a really convincing argument towards it, perhaps.

Conclusive Mathematics:

Basically, I'm going to assume that every single person on my list wants to get paid so that they won't talk about the conspiracy. They're going to want a lot of it, too, most likely. Probably enough so that they won't have to work for the rest of their lives? Well, how's about something like one million dollars per year, plus one million in advance. That's far better than most jobs can fetch, and all they have to do is shut up. Minus the top five or so, since they are the runners of the organization.
That brings us to 40 x 1,000,000. Forty million dollars plus forty million every year? Sure, it's plenty of cash, but NASA receives so much more money than that from just governmental funds, and while I don't know much about Russian space teams, I'm sure they do, too. They can easily pay for this, and the undernoted requirements for money, without even breaking a sweat; in fact, they'll be probably pulling a profit, just from the government giving them cash.


Maintenance:

There doesn't need to be all that much maintenance, besides damage control. The space exploration programs have maintenance funds from their respective governments, so they're all self-sufficient without having to spend excess money on maintaining the conspiracy (seeing as all the cash they're not spending on research can be spent on the conspiracy).
The only reason extra money might need to be poured into the conspiracy would be for damage control. If we say that this would cost somewhere around five million per year, that still only leaves us with forty-five million per year.

*UPDATED*
Ice Wall Guarding:

If you would take note of Erasmus's calculations as far as guards go:

Quote from: Erasmus
Supposing for a moment that the government does guard it solely by posting men on it, these men are 150 in the air. From that hight they can see at least 15 miles in every relevant direction (this of course is calculating using the RE model... on a FE they might see farther). Thus you can cover the whole wall with just 78,225/30 = 2608 men.

You can decrease it further by giving them snowmobiles and having them ride between waypoints. If they can ride 10 mph and still keep an eye on things, then in one hour one sixth the previous number -- or 652 men -- can cover the wall in an hour. In fact, doing this gives them better coverage, since this way their 15-mile-radius field of vision doesn't have any holes.

Now take the terrain into account -- much of the Ice Wall is probably unapproachable except by air -- and you can trim down the numbers even further.

Strategically locate some helicopter pads (on the wall or floating) and you can have heavy armament on the scene in thirty minutes. Assuming an Apache helicopter can fly 150 mph, in that time they could fly 75 miles, so we would need to place pads every 150 miles, requiring 521 pads. Obviously, if you don't insist on thirty-minute response time, you can do with fewer. Don't forget that the watchmen can see 15 miles away from the wall, so thirty minutes should be more than enough to intercept any boat that tries to approach, snap pictures, and sail to safety.

Of course, this is all assuming that the only means our governments have of detecting trespassers is by looking with their eyes. We're neglecting radar and high-altitude spyplanes, probably with infrared cameras.

We're also neglecting intelligence. Anybody who wants to travel to the ice wall has to leave from someplace, and these someplaces can be watched by agents as well. There aren't too many good places to set on on such a journey from. Then, such expeditions would also have to be planned, and agents could get words about them before they even start. Once they've started, agents could monitor radio transmissions. If they can discover tresspassers a thousand miles away instead of only fifteen, then maybe they don't need so big a force as you say.


Now, I'm going to take this, and say that we need about one-thousand men guarding the wall, again with two shifts each, if we include cameras, infrared, radar, intelligence, and all that good stuff. This is more than I stated previously, but bear in mind that I had been very generous with the amount those men had been paid. Now, seeing as the men practically have no influence (all they do is guard an ice wall; it's not like it's probable they have a lot of friends at all, let alone ones in high places), they don't necessarily need a very grand rate of pay. Therefore I'm dropping my previous estimate to a simple one-hundred thousand dollars per person. That still leaves us with the same amount of two-million dollars to pay for every guard in the wall forces.


CONSPIRACY MONEY TOTAL = $47,000,000 USD (Forty-Million U.S. Dollars)


Second Topic:
How Does The Conspiracy Benefit?

This is not easily answered, but I've taken some insight into this and made some estimates on how the conspiracy could be making money:

Government Paychecks:
It's very possible that the conspiracy runs by just sucking money out of the government that they are underneath. Seeing as the head honchos in those governments don't have to know about the conspiracy, it'd be pretty easy to take money from the government. Also, even if the leaders DID know, it's tax money that's going into the space exploration research, so really, they'd still be pulling profit. Basically, if you chose to believe this option, the leaders of the conspiracy are taking tax money and getting filthy stinking rich off of it. Sounds like a motive to me.  

Display of Power:
Some people are control freaks. Maybe they get a rush from showing that they can change everyone's mind about the true shape of the Earth.

Embarrassment:
So, the government messed up at a really bad time to mess up, and they've been pooling all of the already-angry tax-payers' money into research that eventually led to a less-than-exciting discovery: The Earth is flat. Everyone was wrong. Millions (probably billions) of dollars of money that didn't really belong to them had been basically tossed down the drain for research of the round Earth, when, in fact it was flat. So, instead of angering people and possibly even sparking a revolt of some sort, they made up some stuff. And you know how lies tend to roll and get bigger and bigger until they're inescapable? I'd say a worldwide conspiracy is that concept...to the max.

Recruitment/Faithfulness:
Similar to the one above. Maybe the future-conspirators were ashamed that they hadn't reached out to space yet, and they felt that the people were getting hasty and impatient with them, so they decided to say they did it, and qualm the welling resentment of them, so they could ACTUALLY send people into space on a later date, without a bunch of morons knocking on their doorstep asking when they would be done with their space ship. Unfortunately, they later realized that they were wrong the whole time, and therefore had to uphold the conspiracy, lest they be accused of lying, and therefore reverting the resentment to its original state.


Third Topic:
What If Someone Squeals?

"Yes," you say, "but what happens when someone leaks the information?"

Why You WOULD Leak Conspiracy Information:

Fame:
You officially proved that the Earth is actually flat. You'll be in history books for ages!

Money:
Interviews with every news station and every magazine ever. You'll be a huge celebrity, and as such, you'll probably be making a fair amount of cash...at least for a little while.

Peace of Mind:
It's probably tough to keep that stuff in your head without leaking some of it out every once in a while. It'd be a lot on your conscience.

Why You Would NOT Leak Conspiracy Information:

Fame:
Some people don't like being in the spotlight all that much. Paparazzi can get annoying, and even though attention may appear to be entertaining, it can get old pretty fast.

Money:
You no longer get the big fat paychecks from the conspirators. After all of the press wears out, and starts ignoring you again--meaning no more cash from interviews--you'll probably have to start working again.

Peace of Mind:
You just screwed over all of your friends, just because you wanted a few minutes of fame and a lot of cash. Congratulations.

Insanity:
If you don't have enough proof, you won't be revered as a revolutionary, you'll be revered as Patient #3562 at the local mental hospital.

Death:
While a most likely uncommon side-effect, NASA could easily kill you and say, "He died in a space shuttle accident, I swear." Honestly, by the way it seems on TV, those things are so unstable, no one would ever EVER doubt that someone died while in space due to some random accident (add a bunch of jargon and you've got an incredibly convincing reason for death).


Topic Four:
Conclusive Notes:

As you can see, the conspiracy is not only logical, but it's, in its own way, actually quite plausible. With all of these concepts in your face, it's hard to refute AT LEAST the possibility of a conspiracy covering up the shape of the Earth. If anyone wants to rebuttal, though, I gladly welcome it (in fact, I'm probably missing a lot of stuff--but hey, I'm only one guy), and I'll add more to this compendium (hence why it's a compendium).


SO STOP MAKING CONSPIRACY THREADS!!



~D-Draw
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: 7string on November 13, 2006, 06:53:02 PM
Here's where this organization is going to fail. We are approaching a generation where it will cost about $1,000,000 for any average joe (millionaire) to go into space. Go into space yourself before you call astronauts bribed liars and try to disprove science. Actually, no FE'ers are scientists nor have any of them graduated from an Ivy League school. The engineer said "Well I'm an engineer, does that count?" - no, no it certainly does not because ur-anus is flatter than the earth is, even if you had a bubblebutt.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on November 13, 2006, 07:01:10 PM
Quote from: "7string"
Here's where this organization is going to fail. We are approaching a generation where it will cost about $1,000,000 for any average joe (millionaire) to go into space. Go into space yourself before you call astronauts bribed liars and try to disprove science. Actually, no FE'ers are scientists nor have any of them graduated from an Ivy League school. The engineer said "Well I'm an engineer, does that count?" - no, no it certainly does not because ur-anus is flatter than the earth is, even if you had a bubblebutt.

I don't know what average joe has $1,000,000. In any case, you're being incredibly ignorant. Just because I'm not educated as a scientist (yet), doesn't mean that my theories are completely irrelevant. You have to be one of the most narrowminded persons I've ever met, and I've been surfing this board for a while.

~D-Draw
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Nomad on November 13, 2006, 07:54:49 PM
This should be stickied D:
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Max Fagin on November 13, 2006, 09:14:24 PM
You are wrong about the number of people who would have to be in on the cospiracy.

You really think that 40 people could take fake the thousands of images that come from in from Hubble, the Mars Rovers, Cassini, Mars Global surveyor and all the weather satelites of Earth evey day?

You really think that 40 people could have created all the photographs from the apollo programs, in the days before image rendering software?

There are hundreds of other tasks which you have completelly ignored:  Flying the "aircraft" to fake satelite sightings, maintaining the radio transmissions to mimic the signals from satelites etc.

Your estimates are off by a factor of at least a thousand.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: The Dragon Reborn on November 13, 2006, 10:39:16 PM
Five hundred men to guard your "ice wall?" Do you think the world is, like, a hundred miles in its circumfrence, or something? Or would you plan on having one man to guard several hundred kilometers of land at a time?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: mjk on November 13, 2006, 11:06:01 PM
Quote from: "The Dragon Reborn"
Five hundred men to guard your "ice wall?" Do you think the world is, like, a hundred miles in its circumfrence, or something? Or would you plan on having one man to guard several hundred kilometers of land at a time?


obviously you havent found Erasmus's thread about guarding the ice wall either.  he based it on gaurds patrolling on snowmobiles from spaced out stations.  it made sense.  i'll have a browse for it in a tick and see if can link you guys.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 13, 2006, 11:24:48 PM
Ok,  here (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=22714#22714) is the link for Erasmus' calculations.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: phaseshifter on November 13, 2006, 11:44:15 PM
Right, pulling arbitrary numbers out of your ass is totally going to convince everyone.

If their goal is to make money they could just, you know, not spend any money into faking pictures and videos, not bribe anyone, not pay any ice guards, and not give a million dollar a year to people who still don't have to keep their mouth shut when they get the money. If I got a million bucks a year to avoid talking about something that big, how would they ever know it was me who talked? and why not just tell everyone on my death bed?

Another thing, you should check some basic economics, because giving that much money away every year would put so much of it in circulation that the U.S. dollar wouldn't be worth shit. (seriously, shit is worth something to some people, but that money actually costs something to print so it would be worth less than nothing)
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 14, 2006, 12:00:45 AM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"


Another thing, you should check some basic economics, because giving that much money away every year would put so much of it in circulation that the U.S. dollar wouldn't be worth shit. (seriously, shit is worth something to some people, but that money actually costs something to print so it would be worth less than nothing)



The US puts 200 million dollars A DAY into the war in Iraq.  If that has not devalued the dollar how will keeping a few thousand guards and equipment at the ready do it?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Earthisacube on November 14, 2006, 12:18:59 AM
George Bush believes the earth is flat and so does his administration. That is why Cheney shot that lawyer. They are taking down the Round Earthers one at a time.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: phaseshifter on November 14, 2006, 12:31:53 AM
There's an idiot that thinks the U.S. dollar hasn't dropped since the war started. Sure hope he doesn't live there, because  I sure noticed, and I don't.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 14, 2006, 06:50:11 AM
Really?  Because where I live, my food costs the same, my car was still the same price, airline tickets are cheaper, gas is cheaper; I get either the same amount or more for the same price today than I did yesterday or last week.  Where do you live?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Joseph Bloom on November 14, 2006, 10:51:55 AM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Really?  Because where I live, my food costs the same, my car was still the same price, airline tickets are cheaper, gas is cheaper; I get either the same amount or more for the same price today than I did yesterday or last week.  Where do you live?


phaseshifter



Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 408
Location: Canada
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Jveritas8 on November 14, 2006, 11:26:14 AM
I just don't understand the point of certain things then.

http://www.spacedaily.com/images/hubble-ultradeep-desk-800.jpg

Why was that picture faked? What is the point?

What was the point of NASA claiming that they lost contact with Voyager 2? Why have they said they've discovered 40 new moons of Jupiter in the past two decades?

Why did they release a fake story about a new storm seen on Saturn?

Why make up stuff about the location of the Pioneer satellites? Why fake a picture of the earth from billions of miles away?

Why did they make up the fact that they just sent the New Horizons mission to Pluto? What is their motivation for continually telling the public of the launching of fake satellites?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Masterchef on November 14, 2006, 11:41:53 AM
Quote from: "Jveritas8"
I just don't understand the point of certain things then.

http://www.spacedaily.com/images/hubble-ultradeep-desk-800.jpg

Why was that picture faked? What is the point?

What was the point of NASA claiming that they lost contact with Voyager 2? Why have they said they've discovered 40 new moons of Jupiter in the past two decades?

Why did they release a fake story about a new storm seen on Saturn?

Why make up stuff about the location of the Pioneer satellites? Why fake a picture of the earth from billions of miles away?

Why did they make up the fact that they just sent the New Horizons mission to Pluto? What is their motivation for continually telling the public of the launching of fake satellites?

Don't you listen? NASA is doing all that because it is going to make them rich and powerful.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: GUN on November 14, 2006, 12:21:54 PM
Quote
Why did they make up the fact that they just sent the New Horizons mission to Pluto? What is their motivation for continually telling the public of the launching of fake satellites?


Bingo

Wouldn't it be simpler to say "We have decided to focus our resources on things besides space exploration" instead of spending billions on a rocket/sattelite/research?

The whole thing on bribes is pretty much pure bullcrap. Diego, how the hell do you know who the "top" people are, and how many they are? Also - RASA? You idiot, 'NASA' stands for North American Space Association. So 'RASA' is.......Russian American Space Association?
Also, if this RE theory is cooked up by the US government, why would Russians want to keep their secrets? Surly it would be in their interests to cause pandemonium for their number one enemy by pointing out the US goverment's lies.
And don't say they were working together - because then it would be a few more then the forty people you mentioned in on this.

Quote
Embarrassment:
So, the government messed up at a really bad time to mess up, and they've been pooling all of the already-angry tax-payers' money into research that eventually led to a less-than-exciting discovery: The Earth is flat. Everyone was wrong. Millions (probably billions) of dollars of money that didn't really belong to them had been basically tossed down the drain for research of the round Earth, when, in fact it was flat. So, instead of angering people and possibly even sparking a revolt of some sort, they made up some stuff. And you know how lies tend to roll and get bigger and bigger until they're inescapable? I'd say a worldwide conspiracy is that concept...to the max.


So FE'ers don't want to tell people the truth, they want to start a world wide panic?
Fucking terrorists.
But wait.......

Quote
Money:
You no longer get the big fat paychecks from the conspirators. After all of the press wears out, and starts ignoring you again--meaning no more cash from interviews--you'll probably have to start working again.


So in the middle of this revolt, things will suddenly settle down and you will have to get a job?

Quote
Government Paychecks:
It's very possible that the conspiracy runs by just sucking money out of the government that they are underneath. Seeing as the head honchos in those governments don't have to know about the conspiracy, it'd be pretty easy to take money from the government. Also, even if the leaders DID know, it's tax money that's going into the space exploration research, so really, they'd still be pulling profit. Basically, if you chose to believe this option, the leaders of the conspiracy are taking tax money and getting filthy stinking rich off of it. Sounds like a motive to me.


Hold on a sec - only 3 people at NASA are supposed to know about this. So what about all of the other thousands of workers? If they believe that space exploration is real, then they are expecting to do research. So wouldn't they question the fact that they don't see any of their budget, and that the 3 top people are suddenly billions richer (yes, NASA's budget is in the billions)?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 14, 2006, 12:24:12 PM
Quote from: "GUN"
You idiot, 'NASA' stands for North American Space Association.

You should watch who you call an idiot.  NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: phaseshifter on November 14, 2006, 12:28:05 PM
Quote
So FE'ers don't want to tell people the truth, they want to start a world wide panic?
Fucking terrorists.
But wait.......


That part is hillarious :)
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Jveritas8 on November 14, 2006, 12:31:27 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "GUN"
You idiot, 'NASA' stands for North American Space Association.

You should watch who you call an idiot.  NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration.


Hehe :lol:

He got the S right :)
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 14, 2006, 12:32:17 PM
It was probably pure luck...
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Jveritas8 on November 14, 2006, 12:33:17 PM
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
Quote from: "Jveritas8"
I just don't understand the point of certain things then.

http://www.spacedaily.com/images/hubble-ultradeep-desk-800.jpg

Why was that picture faked? What is the point?

What was the point of NASA claiming that they lost contact with Voyager 2? Why have they said they've discovered 40 new moons of Jupiter in the past two decades?

Why did they release a fake story about a new storm seen on Saturn?

Why make up stuff about the location of the Pioneer satellites? Why fake a picture of the earth from billions of miles away?

Why did they make up the fact that they just sent the New Horizons mission to Pluto? What is their motivation for continually telling the public of the launching of fake satellites?

Don't you listen? NASA is doing all that because it is going to make them rich and powerful.


I understand why money for fake satellites give them money.

I just don't understand what they would gain by releasing fake stories about the discoveries of storms on the surfaces of planets, or the discoveries of new satellites around planets. I don't see how it makes them money.

Futile argument though, so forget it 8-)
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: GUN on November 14, 2006, 12:34:45 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "GUN"
You idiot, 'NASA' stands for North American Space Association.

You should watch who you call an idiot.  NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration.


Touché.

I knew I should have double checked that. I have always called it the North American Space Association, and no one has ever corrected me.  :?



Another thing I thought of - you say that the leaders of this conspiracy are getting fat paychecks from the "funding".
But I thought that this "funding" went towards paying for the advanced digital imaging equipment and computers used to fake space exploration.

So which is it?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Masterchef on November 14, 2006, 12:55:14 PM
Quote from: "GUN"
Another thing I thought of - you say that the leaders of this conspiracy are getting fat paychecks from the "funding".
But I thought that this "funding" went towards paying for the advanced digital imaging equipment and computers used to fake space exploration.

So which is it?

Neither. All of the money goes towards faking the existance of an entire continent.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: wuttttttttup on November 14, 2006, 12:57:36 PM
this is the sorriest most pathetic attempt i have seen yet from an FEer at trying to argue anything.  not only has the argument neglected the thousands (if not millions) of other people who would have to cover up the conspiracy, it has further convinced me that all FEers are seriously unable to think properly (although this is just one FEers argument, all the other FEers agree with it or don't bother pointing out its stupidity and futility at convincing anyone of anything, so they too are guilty).  wouldn't all the governments of the world have to be in on the conpsiracy too?  isn't that right there like 3945349523457 more poeple?  and what about all scientists everywhere, another 2304982305823.  and everyone who has flown around the world, another 23o4782304823o4iu.  if my caculations are correct, thats 2w043982p3o34u2oi345093485-34295 more conspiracy cover-uppers than you have pointed out.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Masterchef on November 14, 2006, 12:59:42 PM
Quote from: "wuttttttttup"
...if my caculations are correct...

Something tells me they aren't.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: wuttttttttup on November 14, 2006, 01:03:05 PM
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
Quote from: "wuttttttttup"
...if my caculations are correct...

Something tells me they aren't.


well i used the google calculator to get them, so if they're wrong, it's because they are a part of the conspiracy or something...fuck it..
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 14, 2006, 01:08:20 PM
Quote from: "wuttttttttup"
this is the sorriest most pathetic attempt i have seen yet from an FEer at trying to argue anything.

You have not been talking to any.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: wuttttttttup on November 14, 2006, 01:11:50 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "wuttttttttup"
this is the sorriest most pathetic attempt i have seen yet from an FEer at trying to argue anything.

You have not been talking to any.


LOL well if thats the case i guess we all agree that I'm right: the earth is in deed round.

(how do you think arguing (pathetically) for FE and then saying "well i'm really a REer at heart" makes you look?  to me, it seems pathetic.  but who cares, i'm right, thanks for conceding.)
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 14, 2006, 01:59:02 PM
Who said I wasn't one?  I simply stated that the person you were talking to (Masterchief) is not a FE'er.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: wuttttttttup on November 14, 2006, 02:05:31 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Who said I wasn't one?  I simply stated that the person you were talking to (Masterchief) is not a FE'er.


what the shit.  quit being so misleading and ambiguous.  if you agree w/ me that the earth is round, then leave me alone.  if you don't, continue debating me, but get better.  thank you
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Joseph Bloom on November 14, 2006, 02:14:48 PM
Wutup, read my signiture. It will all become clear.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: wuttttttttup on November 14, 2006, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: "Joseph Bloom"
Wutup, read my signiture. It will all become clear.


LOL
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: The Dragon Reborn on November 14, 2006, 02:46:07 PM
Quote
obviously you havent found Erasmus's thread about guarding the ice wall either.  he based it on gaurds patrolling on snowmobiles from spaced out stations.  it made sense.  i'll have a browse for it in a tick and see if can link you guys.


No, I read it. It's simply absurd. There's still hundreds and hundreds of miles of land for each man. And snowmobiles? You don't drive snowmobiles on a wall of ice!
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 14, 2006, 02:47:41 PM
Quote from: "The Dragon Reborn"

No, I read it. It's simply absurd. There's still hundreds and hundreds of miles of land for each man. And snowmobiles? You don't drive snowmobiles on a wall of ice!

You can't drive a snowmobile on land covered in snow?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Masterchef on November 14, 2006, 02:53:11 PM
Quote from: "The Dragon Reborn"
No, I read it. It's simply absurd. There's still hundreds and hundreds of miles of land for each man. And snowmobiles? You don't drive snowmobiles on a wall of ice!

I use mine on a frozen lake.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: The Dragon Reborn on November 14, 2006, 02:57:45 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "The Dragon Reborn"

No, I read it. It's simply absurd. There's still hundreds and hundreds of miles of land for each man. And snowmobiles? You don't drive snowmobiles on a wall of ice!

You can't drive a snowmobile on land covered in snow?


If there were an ice wall, it wouldn't be flat. It would be jagged.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 14, 2006, 03:01:29 PM
They guard the wall and probably don't drive on it very often, for fear of sliding off the earth.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: The Dragon Reborn on November 14, 2006, 03:04:59 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
They guard the wall and probably don't drive on it very often, for fear of sliding off the earth.


Speaking of mad ravings, how thick is this wall? Must be a kicker if it holds back the ocean.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 14, 2006, 03:07:52 PM
First off, the ice wall is on land.  I would assume the land has some good thickness to it.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: The Dragon Reborn on November 14, 2006, 03:28:41 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
First off, the ice wall is on land.  I would assume the land has some good thickness to it.


I was under the impression your ice wall was what held back the oceans.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on November 14, 2006, 05:29:13 PM
Just updated some stuff on the wall guards. Egineer: Thanks for finding that post. I couldn't seem to find it.

I haven't seen any really big debunking arguments, but I'll address some of the minor ones, too, a bit later.

~D-Draw
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: phaseshifter on November 14, 2006, 05:53:36 PM
Quote from: "wuttttttttup"
Quote from: "Joseph Bloom"
Wutup, read my signiture. It will all become clear.


LOL


That seems like fun, let me buy a monthly subscription :)
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on November 14, 2006, 05:59:40 PM
Engineer! You have a fanclub of n00bs! Congratulations!


.../jealousy.


~D-Draw
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: phaseshifter on November 14, 2006, 08:19:17 PM
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
Engineer! You have a fanclub of n00bs! Congratulations!


.../jealousy.


~D-Draw


What's a n00b?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: GeoGuy on November 14, 2006, 08:24:45 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
What's a n00b?


In this case, a n00b refers to anyone who thinks they've beaten TheEngineer in a debate, and put a slanderous remark about him in their signature (which is a violation of forum rules, by the way).
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: phaseshifter on November 14, 2006, 11:13:09 PM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
What's a n00b?


In this case, a n00b refers to anyone who thinks they've beaten TheEngineer in a debate, and put a slanderous remark about him in their signature (which is a violation of forum rules, by the way).


If mods violate the rules why shuold  I respect them?
I guess there are a lot of n00bs then.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 14, 2006, 11:14:37 PM
Which rules do the mods violate?  Which mods do it?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Joseph Bloom on November 15, 2006, 12:18:14 AM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
What's a n00b?


In this case, a n00b refers to anyone who thinks they've beaten TheEngineer in a debate, and put a slanderous remark about him in their signature (which is a violation of forum rules, by the way).



How is it violating rules to call The Engineer a douchebag? You might as well ban me for saying the sky is blue.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 15, 2006, 12:19:59 AM
It's so nice to have admirers on the site...
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 15, 2006, 12:21:25 AM
Quote from: "Joseph Bloom"

_________________
The Engineer is a douchebag.

As is GeoGuy.

Geo, welcome to the club.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: GeoGuy on November 15, 2006, 05:54:18 AM
Quote from: "Joseph Bloom"

How is it violating rules to call The Engineer a douchebag? You might as well ban me for saying the sky is blue.


From the terms and conditions you agreed to when you registered on the site:

Quote
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: beast on November 15, 2006, 05:59:57 AM
edit: my bad.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"
What's a n00b?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N00b

Interestingly one of the definitions of a n00b is "Not knowing what a noob is."
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Joseph Bloom on November 15, 2006, 06:28:28 AM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "Joseph Bloom"

How is it violating rules to call The Engineer a douchebag? You might as well ban me for saying the sky is blue.


From the terms and conditions you agreed to when you registered on the site:

Quote
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws


Fine, I'll change it. Jesus.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: beast on November 15, 2006, 06:40:32 AM
I really don't think that's necessary.  I've never seen those rules enforced on words like 'douchebag' - I would even argue that 'douche bag' is not hateful and certainly it would be hilarious if somebody argued that it was slanderous.  While I disagree with the statement, I think you should only change it if you want to change it - not because people tell you to.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: phaseshifter on November 15, 2006, 11:07:53 AM
Quote
abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws


This is pretty much what we see on the forums all the time :)
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on November 16, 2006, 07:43:59 PM
Whatever, guys. Let's get things back on-topic. I have yet to see any real evidence on why this stuff doesn't make sense. Irrationality does not apply as an argument in debate, seeing as (1) there are a LOT of irrational people in this world, and (2) rationality is based on a personal set of beliefs, and I doubt that the case of rationality can be solidly...rationalized. :P

~D-Draw
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: rr332211 on November 18, 2006, 11:14:52 AM
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
Whatever, guys. Let's get things back on-topic. I have yet to see any real evidence on why this stuff doesn't make sense. Irrationality does not apply as an argument in debate, seeing as (1) there are a LOT of irrational people in this world, and (2) rationality is based on a personal set of beliefs, and I doubt that the case of rationality can be solidly...rationalized. :P

~D-Draw
I really hope you're joking.  You're ignoring all the posts that have valid questions/concerns.  Do not ignore this one.

So, let me get this all straight...

There's a really thick ice wall, but it's guarded.  And you somehow know it exists, but you don't know anything about how the wall is guarded.  I know, let's guess!  Then we'll believe our guesses!  Yeah, that'll work!

How the hell would there be an ice wall just kind of THERE in the first place?  The planet being round makes a lot more sense in that regard.  Also, why wasn't this ice wall written about in detail before the government decided to guard it?  Wouldn't the ice wall melt due to the lower air pressure?

WHY is the Earth flat?  How did it form like that?  Doesn't it make a lot more sense that a bunch of celestial objects were drifting this way and that, collided, and started building up into chunks, drifted around until they got sucked into the gravity of a star, so a few of these SPHERICAL chunks were rotating around a sun?

Doesn't that make a whole lot more sense than these objects somehow forming a FLAT surface and have ICE WALLS all at the same height that keep the water and atmosphere in...even though they're on LAND?  (And don't even exist, but this is being hypothetical.)  How does an ice wall even keep an atmosphere in?

Why is it so hard for you people to believe that the Earth is spherical?  All of the forces keeping things the way they are on the Earth are explained with sense to it, instead of just making guesses and believing them because they have a small probability.  Gravity makes perfect sense, and all the numbers fit.

Oh yeah, and for all of you people that believe in a round Earth, and argue a flat Earth, please just go have fun now.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 18, 2006, 12:22:53 PM
Quote from: "rr332211"
Gravity makes perfect sense, and all the numbers fit.


Uh, oh, you said the magic phrase.  

Gravity makes perfect sense?  Can you explain what gravity is?  I would like to know how this magical 'force' works.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Joseph Bloom on November 18, 2006, 12:24:03 PM
Prove UA.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: rr332211 on November 18, 2006, 12:55:54 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "rr332211"
Gravity makes perfect sense, and all the numbers fit.


Uh, oh, you said the magic phrase.  

Gravity makes perfect sense?  Can you explain what gravity is?  I would like to know how this magical 'force' works.
Uh oh, someone needs a diaper.

Why is every one of your posts "define blah" or "can you explain what blah is"?  Look it fucking up.  And it's not magical.  It's just the way things are.  Gravity is that force that will crush you when I drop a brick on your head from space.

EDIT:  Picture coming soon.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: rr332211 on November 18, 2006, 01:06:29 PM
Here's the picture, as promised!!!!!!!
(http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/129/untitledxk5.png)
By the way, it also proves the earth is round, not flat.  Everybody makes mistakes!

EDIT: Had a typo in the picture.  FIXED!!!!
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 18, 2006, 01:11:48 PM
Quote from: "rr332211"
Gravity is that force that will crush you when I drop a brick on your head from space.

The brick will 'crush' me, not gravity.  If gravity is not magical, why can't you tell me how it works?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: phaseshifter on November 18, 2006, 01:37:41 PM
How many times have people explained gravity to engineer already?
This is like an obsession.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: GeoGuy on November 18, 2006, 01:38:47 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
How many times have people explained gravity to engineer already?


Lots of people have explained it to him. But as of yet not a single person has answerd his question.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: phaseshifter on November 18, 2006, 01:45:32 PM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
How many times have people explained gravity to engineer already?


Lots of people have explained it to him. But as of yet not a single person has answerd his question.


Yes they did, he wanted to know how it works and it was explained to him.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: GeoGuy on November 18, 2006, 01:46:34 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Yes they did, he wanted to know how it works and it was explained to him.


No, they explained to him what its effects are, they didn't explain how it works.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: rr332211 on November 18, 2006, 01:53:00 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "rr332211"
Gravity is that force that will crush you when I drop a brick on your head from space.

The brick will 'crush' me, not gravity.  If gravity is not magical, why can't you tell me how it works?
What do you mean by that?  Give a more specific question.

Even if you don't believe in gravity, I'll put the same spotlight on you.  How do things fall?  That's all it is.  It's what causes things to fall.

When the planets came close to the sun, but were a bit off, the Sun had enough mass that the planets "slipped", and the sun keeps the planets "falling"...but they're far away enough that they are stuck in orbit.

That's the best I can do.  But, a round Earth has MUCH MUCH MUCH more evidence than a flat Earth ever will.  It's not like people were always born thinking the Earth is round.  It got enough evidence that it seemed much more plausible than a flat Earth, which caused normal people to actually believe in it.

What I want to know is WHY you would even believe in a flat Earth instead of simply accepting the truth.  I bet it's just to "break away" from everyone else, to give yourselves a false sense of purpose.  Just STOP!  Why would you believe there's a GUARDED FUCKING ICE WALL that's BEEN GUARDED EVER SINCE HUMANS FIRST CAME ABOUT, and that CELESTIAL BODIES WILL ORBIT THINGS IN COMPLETELY MESSED UP PATTERNS?  It's explained PERFECTLY, and your idea is to explain it in a way that doesn't work even 25%, and argue that it's true.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: GeoGuy on November 18, 2006, 01:55:43 PM
Quote from: "rr332211"


Even if you don't believe in gravity, I'll put the same spotlight on you.  How do things fall?


Things don't fall, Earth accelerates up to them.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Stapler117 on November 18, 2006, 02:18:48 PM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "rr332211"


Even if you don't believe in gravity, I'll put the same spotlight on you.  How do things fall?


Things don't fall, Earth accelerates up to them.


So... why is the earth accelerating? And, with the earth moving upward at 1g, why aren't our legs crushed each time we jump in the air?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 18, 2006, 02:21:31 PM
Quote from: "Stapler117"
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "rr332211"


Even if you don't believe in gravity, I'll put the same spotlight on you.  How do things fall?


Things don't fall, Earth accelerates up to them.


So... why is the earth accelerating? And, with the earth moving upward at 1g, why aren't our legs crushed each time we jump in the air?

The mechanism the causes the acceleration is still unknown.  Why would your legs get crushed?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: GeoGuy on November 18, 2006, 02:22:44 PM
Quote from: "Stapler117"


So... why is the earth accelerating?


Well that's the question, isn't it? Why do you accelerate towards Earth in the RE model?

Quote
why aren't our legs crushed each time we jump in the air?


Why aren't your legs crushed when you jump on a RE?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Stapler117 on November 18, 2006, 02:28:08 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "Stapler117"
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "rr332211"


Even if you don't believe in gravity, I'll put the same spotlight on you.  How do things fall?


Things don't fall, Earth accelerates up to them.


So... why is the earth accelerating? And, with the earth moving upward at 1g, why aren't our legs crushed each time we jump in the air?

The mechanism the causes the acceleration is still unknown.  Why would your legs get crushed?


Of course the mechanism is unknown. Because it doesn't exist. And heres a better quesion. Why wouldn't your legs get crushed? Its moving at 1g towards your legs, what the hell do you think is going to happen? How about you go stand on a hydrolic platform that can accelerate upwards at 1g (in theory) and then jump. Yea, it will fucking suck. Assuming of course that you are even able to jump on such a fast moving device.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 18, 2006, 02:31:28 PM
Quote from: "Stapler117"

Of course the mechanism is unknown.

Well, what is the mechanism that causes gravity?  
Quote
Why wouldn't your legs get crushed? Its moving at 1g towards your legs, what the hell do you think is going to happen? How about you go stand on a hydrolic platform that can accelerate upwards at 1g (in theory) and then jump. Yea, it will fucking suck.

So when you jump upwards on the RE, you are accelerating towards the ground at 1g.  How many broken legs have you had?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Stapler117 on November 18, 2006, 02:40:50 PM
1 broken leg, but that was because I got drunk and jumped off a roof. Well anyway, to answer your question about gravity, there are giant fans in space that push us down at 1g. Just like the flat, accelerating earth has rocket engines under it to boost it upward at 1g. So I guess both of our theories are plausible. I rest my case. Hey, you wanna go with me to the magical ice wall sometime?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 18, 2006, 02:59:57 PM
What do the giant fans push that holds us down?  There is no air in space...
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: rr332211 on November 18, 2006, 03:37:39 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "Stapler117"

Of course the mechanism is unknown.

Well, what is the mechanism that causes gravity?

All mass attracts other mass.  Earth has a lot of mass, and we don't, so we get attracted to Earth more than Earth is attracted to us.
Quote

Quote
Why wouldn't your legs get crushed? Its moving at 1g towards your legs, what the hell do you think is going to happen? How about you go stand on a hydrolic platform that can accelerate upwards at 1g (in theory) and then jump. Yea, it will fucking suck.

So when you jump upwards on the RE, you are accelerating towards the ground at 1g.  How many broken legs have you had?
Think about it.  Your ideas are so geocentric...so you're saying Earth moves upwards at us, yet other SPHERICAL planets are completely different "somehow", but "gravity doesn't exist".  They don't move upwards, yet they all have different amounts of Gs?  You're retarded.  Why would our planet be so different?  And if we moved upwards, yet other things followed, they'd have to have the same amount of Gs, using your assumptions about the world.  But, that's wrong.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: mbrooksay on November 18, 2006, 03:52:20 PM
People.  Are.  Sofa king Wee todd id.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: GeoGuy on November 18, 2006, 05:39:41 PM
Quote from: "rr332211"

All mass attracts other mass.  Earth has a lot of mass, and we don't, so we get attracted to Earth more than Earth is attracted to us.


As I said, saying "Mass attracts mass" is describing the properties of gravity. What Engineer's asking you is why mass attracts mass.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: rr332211 on November 18, 2006, 06:19:57 PM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "rr332211"

All mass attracts other mass.  Earth has a lot of mass, and we don't, so we get attracted to Earth more than Earth is attracted to us.


As I said, saying "Mass attracts mass" is describing the properties of gravity. What Engineer's asking you is why mass attracts mass.
I can't.  But I can pretty much disprove the Earth moving up thing.  When you jump, the "gravity" in the flat Earth model would be so fast that if you jump once, then jump again in 3 seconds, you'll fall faster the second time.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: GeoGuy on November 18, 2006, 06:22:50 PM
Quote from: "rr332211"
I can't.  But I can pretty much disprove the Earth moving up thing.  When you jump, the "gravity" in the flat Earth model would be so fast that if you jump once, then jump again in 3 seconds, you'll fall faster the second time.


No, that wouldn't happen at all actually. Earth is not just moving upwards, it's accelerating upwards.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: rr332211 on November 18, 2006, 06:27:05 PM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "rr332211"
I can't.  But I can pretty much disprove the Earth moving up thing.  When you jump, the "gravity" in the flat Earth model would be so fast that if you jump once, then jump again in 3 seconds, you'll fall faster the second time.


No, that wouldn't happen at all actually. Earth is not just moving upwards, it's accelerating upwards.
Exactly my point.  Take the difference between 2^2 and 3^2, and 3^2 and 4^2, for example.  4 and 9, 9 and 16...5 and 7.  Different numbers.  You'd fall faster as time goes by.  But that doesn't happen.  Earth accelerating upwards hypothesis = WRONG.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: GeoGuy on November 18, 2006, 06:35:55 PM
Quote from: "rr332211"
Exactly my point.


When standing on the ground my velocity relative to Earth never changes, it's always om/s.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: rr332211 on November 18, 2006, 06:43:36 PM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "rr332211"
Exactly my point.


When standing on the ground my velocity relative to Earth never changes, it's always om/s.
I'm talking about jumping, smartass.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: GeoGuy on November 18, 2006, 06:47:43 PM
Quote from: "rr332211"
I'm talking about jumping, smartass.


I know, it's just that what you're saying makes no sense. How can I possibly start jumping at different speeds if I am always moving the same speed at the start of each jump?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: rr332211 on November 18, 2006, 06:50:36 PM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "rr332211"
I'm talking about jumping, smartass.


I know, it's just that what you're saying makes no sense. How can I possibly start jumping at different speeds if I am always moving the same speed at the start of each jump?
Basically, what I'm saying is "gravity" increases with time, if the velocity increases with time.  Therefore, you can't jump as high/you fall faster as time goes on.  Also, the force would probably crush you.  And the whole entire planet.  Oh wait, sorry, it's already "flat".  Well, it'd get flatter, mountains would disappear, and water would crush through the Earth.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: GeoGuy on November 18, 2006, 06:53:50 PM
Quote from: "rr332211"
Basically, what I'm saying is "gravity" increases with time, if the velocity increases with time.


And bascially what I'm saying is that Earth's velocity relative to objects on its surface doesn't increase over time.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: rr332211 on November 18, 2006, 06:58:35 PM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "rr332211"
Basically, what I'm saying is "gravity" increases with time, if the velocity increases with time.


And bascially what I'm saying is that Earth's velocity relative to objects on its surface doesn't increase over time.
Yeah, on the surface.  When you jump, you become susceptible to the full effects of the Earth's velocity.  And the effects drastically increase with time.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 18, 2006, 06:59:34 PM
But when you jumped, you were moving at the same speed as the earth.  So no matter when you jump, your acceleration is always 1g.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: GeoGuy on November 18, 2006, 07:01:42 PM
Quote from: "rr332211"
Yeah, on the surface.  When you jump, you become susceptible to the full effects of the Earth's velocity.  And the effects drastically increase with time.


Yeah, the longer I fall the faster I go. That's what happens when something accelerates towards Earth's surface.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: rr332211 on November 18, 2006, 07:03:56 PM
(http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/3345/untitledrn0.png)
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: EnragedPenguin on November 18, 2006, 07:14:29 PM
Rr332211, gravity has nothing to do with how fast Earth is moving, it all depends on Earth's acceleration. If you jump up into the air, the gap between you and the ground will close at an increasing rate of 9.8m/s^2. Every time you jump. No matter how many times you jump.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: rr332211 on November 18, 2006, 07:36:05 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Rr332211, gravity has nothing to do with how fast Earth is moving, it all depends on Earth's acceleration. If you jump up into the air, the gap between you and the ground will close at an increasing rate of 9.8m/s^2. Every time you jump. No matter how many times you jump.
Wait, sorry, you're right.  I'm retarded, and was completely screwing something up.

Still doesn't explain gravity on other celestial bodies...such as the moon.  Because humans HAVE been on the moon.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: phaseshifter on November 18, 2006, 09:04:25 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Rr332211, gravity has nothing to do with how fast Earth is moving, it all depends on Earth's acceleration. If you jump up into the air, the gap between you and the ground will close at an increasing rate of 9.8m/s^2. Every time you jump. No matter how many times you jump.


Actually it does.

If the earth wasn't spinning, the pull of gravity on us would be a bit higher, mostly at the equator.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: mbrooksay on November 18, 2006, 09:06:33 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Rr332211, gravity has nothing to do with how fast Earth is moving, it all depends on Earth's acceleration. If you jump up into the air, the gap between you and the ground will close at an increasing rate of 9.8m/s^2. Every time you jump. No matter how many times you jump.

Such a shame that a human brain was wasted on an individual such as yourself.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: GeoGuy on November 18, 2006, 09:08:03 PM
Why?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: rr332211 on November 18, 2006, 09:38:12 PM
who what where why how when
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 19, 2006, 04:25:53 AM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Rr332211, gravity has nothing to do with how fast Earth is moving, it all depends on Earth's acceleration. If you jump up into the air, the gap between you and the ground will close at an increasing rate of 9.8m/s^2. Every time you jump. No matter how many times you jump.


Actually it does.

If the earth wasn't spinning, the pull of gravity on us would be a bit higher, mostly at the equator.

Like he said, it depends on the acceleration.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on November 19, 2006, 10:59:36 AM
Quote from: "rr332211"
Wait, sorry, you're right.  I'm retarded, and was completely screwing something up.

Still doesn't explain gravity on other celestial bodies...such as the moon.  Because humans HAVE been on the moon.

Yup, and humans have been to Tattooine, and Hoth; oh! And don't forget Middle Earth! That looked real, didn't it? Damned real.


~D-Draw
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Joseph Bloom on November 19, 2006, 11:09:33 AM
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
Quote from: "rr332211"
Wait, sorry, you're right.  I'm retarded, and was completely screwing something up.

Still doesn't explain gravity on other celestial bodies...such as the moon.  Because humans HAVE been on the moon.

Yup, and humans have been to Tattooine, and Hoth; oh! And don't forget Middle Earth! That looked real, didn't it? Damned real.


~D-Draw


We *know* those places are not real penguinface. Stop being a dick and go have sex with your mom.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on November 20, 2006, 02:05:07 PM
Quote from: "Joseph Bloom"
We *know* those places are not real penguinface. Stop being a dick and go have sex with your mom.

Yeah, well with your logic, seeing as apparently it's simply impossible to edit video and photos, those places MUST have been real. I mean, the movie pretended they were real, so theoretically, they would be.

By the way, the insults really weren't entirely necessary...douche...


<_<

~D-DRaw
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Joseph Bloom on November 21, 2006, 02:59:25 AM
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
Quote from: "Joseph Bloom"
We *know* those places are not real penguinface. Stop being a dick and go have sex with your mom.

Yeah, well with your logic, seeing as apparently it's simply impossible to edit video and photos, those places MUST have been real. I mean, the movie pretended they were real, so theoretically, they would be.


~D-DRaw


Noone said that we cant edit videos. But what I am saying is we are not standing on Hoth right now, or Middle Earth.

FYI you can see where LOTR was filmed, its in New Zeland.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: squealpiggy on December 20, 2006, 05:15:23 AM
There is a fundamental flaw in the whole of FE reasoning in that it is assumed that RE is an entirely contemporary phenomenon, and most compelling evidence comes from space exploration.  Mathematically speaking all observable data points towards the earth being round, and this has been an accepted fact in navigation for centuries.  I would agree that the time between Galileo's observations and calculations and today is but a blink of the eye when compared to the entire existence of humankind (and indeed of the Earth, even the reduced-age earth of Flat Earth theory) however the amount of exploration and the evolution of methods of travel has increased exponentially since astro-navigational techniques have been used, and the theories used in navigation have seldom been proven wrong.

One doesn't need photographs from space to prove the roundness of the earth, one only needs to travel and to have a basic knowledge of navigation.

The trouble with FE thoery is that some of the explanations are more absurd and unlikely than the phenomenon they purport to explain.  For example the "Ice Wall" guards theory is absolutely bizarre.  Regardless of their pay, one of these guards could make a large sum of money from selling the story and go and live in the carribean.  Even if their pay dwarfs the money they could make with a couple of photos of the ice wall, they at least wouldn't have to live in Antarctica.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Jutsu on December 27, 2006, 02:00:17 AM
You people are ignorant, stupid, retards.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: dantheman40k on December 27, 2006, 02:18:37 AM
Quote from: "ItsFuckingRound"
You people are ignorant, stupid, retards.


Who, the FEers or REers? Because that could apply to many of the people here FE or RE.
Title: Please post the Ice Wall Guardians in the Mexican Frontier
Post by: trig on December 27, 2006, 07:14:10 AM
Just think about this:

If those 650 men can guard the whole Ice Wall for 40 million dollars per year, they might even accept a lower wage to guard just a single frontier in a milder climate: the Mexican-American border. They would even be able to see their families every now and then, and would relieve Uncle Sam from a multi BILLION dollar wall construction project and a lot more than 40 million dollars payed anually to the current guards.

Since they are so efficient and a measly international frontier is so much smaller than the Wall, maybe you could spare half of them to guard the frontiers of Colombia, my country, effectively eliminating the biggest cocaine export operation in the world. You could also reduce significantly the hundreds of millions of dollars that Uncle Sam gives us to try to stop the cocaine shipments.

Just one question: do they also grow and prepare their own food? Construct their own houses? Dispose of their own waste? Operate their own water processing plants? (sorry, those were four last questions).
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on December 27, 2006, 05:15:04 PM
^Seeing as it's possible that the guards have no connection to the government at all...Plus, the whole border thing is a really, really stupid controversy anyways. Fucking Republicans...

Quote from: "Joseph Bloom"
Noone said that we cant edit videos. But what I am saying is we are not standing on Hoth right now, or Middle Earth.

FYI you can see where LOTR was filmed, its in New Zeland.

So? Twilight Zone did a pretty good job at making it look like some astronauts were on some sort of crazy, alien planet, and that was in the late '50s to early '60s. All they did was find a stretch of desert that looked untreaded (on Earth) and said it was an alien planet.

By the way, IT'S A COOKBOOK! :o


~D-Draw
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: dantheman40k on December 28, 2006, 05:39:08 AM
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
^Seeing as it's possible that the guards have no connection to the government at all...Plus, the whole border thing is a really, really stupid controversy anyways. Fucking Republicans...

Quote from: "Joseph Bloom"
Noone said that we cant edit videos. But what I am saying is we are not standing on Hoth right now, or Middle Earth.

FYI you can see where LOTR was filmed, its in New Zeland.

So? Twilight Zone did a pretty good job at making it look like some astronauts were on some sort of crazy, alien planet, and that was in the late '50s to early '60s. All they did was find a stretch of desert that looked untreaded (on Earth) and said it was an alien planet.

By the way, IT'S A COOKBOOK! :o


~D-Draw


I think Joseph was trying to say that the earth is real not fiction. We know this because we are standing on it right now.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: BumholeX on December 28, 2006, 05:44:47 AM
Quote
GPS Manufacturers -- I'm going to say they only need one person for this job. There's not really much to do. Machines make most of the chips, and I doubt all of the bosses of the companies need to even bother. They just need to have one guy saying, "Yup, that's right." This guy could even be one of the NASA or RASA members, honestly, but I'm being nice. This rings up to a comprehensive total of eighteen people.


that's not being nice. that's just absurd. ONE PERSON TO KNOW THIS DEADLY GOVERNMENTAL SECRET. its just the most insane thing i have ever come across. ONE PERSON. ONE PERSON to control all the GPS companies and keep down this big lie, pretending satellites are orbiting the earth, with no questions asked.
i cannot articulate how moronic these calculations/this theory is...
I GIVE UP. YOU PEOPLE ARE A LOST CAUSE.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: midgard on December 28, 2006, 05:52:23 AM
Quote from: "BumholeX"
I GIVE UP.


Really?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: BumholeX on December 28, 2006, 05:53:52 AM
yeah, im not postin anymore. you ppl are a lost cause.
endofstory.
goodbye
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on December 28, 2006, 06:03:56 PM
Quote from: "dantheman40k"
I think Joseph was trying to say that the earth is real not fiction. We know this because we are standing on it right now.


Right, but that doesn't mean that we know what shape it is. I really don't see where this is strengthening your argument.

~D-Draw
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on December 28, 2006, 06:05:32 PM
Quote from: "BumholeX"
that's not being nice. that's just absurd. ONE PERSON TO KNOW THIS DEADLY GOVERNMENTAL SECRET. its just the most insane thing i have ever come across. ONE PERSON. ONE PERSON to control all the GPS companies and keep down this big lie, pretending satellites are orbiting the earth, with no questions asked.
i cannot articulate how moronic these calculations/this theory is...
I GIVE UP. YOU PEOPLE ARE A LOST CAUSE.

Put it this way. Who actually goes into the production line and says, "Hmm...This GPS doesn't look right?" I doubt anyone does. It's all computerized. You just need someone to come and check how the computer's doing it.

~D-Draw
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: dantheman40k on December 29, 2006, 04:00:25 AM
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
Quote from: "dantheman40k"
I think Joseph was trying to say that the earth is real not fiction. We know this because we are standing on it right now.


Right, but that doesn't mean that we know what shape it is. I really don't see where this is strengthening your argument.

~D-Draw


We know wat shape it is, a sphere.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Yeah, sure... on December 29, 2006, 05:20:19 AM
Quote from: "dantheman40k"
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
Quote from: "dantheman40k"
I think Joseph was trying to say that the earth is real not fiction. We know this because we are standing on it right now.


Right, but that doesn't mean that we know what shape it is. I really don't see where this is strengthening your argument.

~D-Draw


We know wat shape it is, a sphere.


That's an important point, have to say. Every few threads someone says things like
"We can't be sure. *blaaaaa* *pseudo-philosophical and pseudo-psychological gibberish.*"
or something like
"It's just a mind-game. *oversestimates everything* *admire some FE'ers* They are trying to make people think about *whatever*. *some more blind worship*".

But, and no read very carefully, that's not true. There's nothing to discuss or think about. The fact ist that the earth is a globe. And that can't be changed - whatever people say in a bosh forum.

And that is the reason why I don't take anything here serious - but hey, it's still a bit fun.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Astantia on December 29, 2006, 12:01:26 PM
Think about it though.  Would they really need to guard the ice wall?

How many people want to go to Antarctica?  also, I think (a while back) we were talking about the possibility of the Earth's magnetic field fumbling with the explorer's equipment, making it seem that you were walking south, when in fact you were not.

Okay, so even if someone makes it to the ice wall, it would be difficult at best to return.  So, when you get home, nobody believes you.

There's really nothing you can do about it either.  I don't think we'd need to guard the ice wall, just keep enough 'legitimate' science pushed down every kid's throat so that they forget that they ever wanted to go to the South Pole.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on December 30, 2006, 03:05:39 PM
Quote from: "dantheman40k"
We know wat shape it is, a sphere.


Okay, now you're just being a dick. That's not even helping your side of the debate at all.





Quote from: "Yeah, sure..."
That's an important point, have to say. Every few threads someone says things like
"We can't be sure. *blaaaaa* *pseudo-philosophical and pseudo-psychological gibberish.*"
or something like
"It's just a mind-game. *oversestimates everything* *admire some FE'ers* They are trying to make people think about *whatever*. *some more blind worship*".

But, and no read very carefully, that's not true. There's nothing to discuss or think about. The fact ist that the earth is a globe. And that can't be changed - whatever people say in a bosh forum.

And that is the reason why I don't take anything here serious - but hey, it's still a bit fun.


That's a really stupid argument. Like...really...really stupid. Don't mean to be offensive or anything, but you're trying to disprove a zetetic theory by claiming that no evidence matters since we already know what shape it is. Run out of counter-arguments much?

~D-Draw
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Yeah, sure... on December 30, 2006, 04:15:09 PM
No, the point is: If the earh is a globe it can't be flat. And the earth is a globe. If you want to doubt that, you need something that shows that it isn't. Explanations how it could be another shape are worth n o t h i n g.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: GeoGuy on December 30, 2006, 04:18:57 PM
What about explanations that show that it can't be spherical?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Yeah, sure... on December 30, 2006, 04:24:58 PM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
What about explanations that show that it can't be spherical?


Would be great as well, but that wouldn't show that it's flat. Just that it isn't a sphere. And there should be evidence, not just 'Perhaps it could maybe...'.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: GeoGuy on December 30, 2006, 04:31:10 PM
Quote from: "Yeah, sure..."

Would be great as well

Try Samuel Rowbotham's Earth not a Globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm).
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on December 30, 2006, 06:02:45 PM
Quote from: "Yeah, sure..."
No, the point is: If the earh is a globe it can't be flat. And the earth is a globe. If you want to doubt that, you need something that shows that it isn't. Explanations how it could be another shape are worth n o t h i n g.

I disagree. There are plenty of doubts on either side of the argument. The Round Earth Theory, however, relies on a completely biased argument, running on theories that have just been assumed to be correct for hundreds of years without re-tests. The Flat Earth Theory relies more on a zetetic outlook, discarding all previous assumptions and testing results with an unbiased objectivism.


~D-Draw
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Explain Electric on December 30, 2006, 06:21:30 PM
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Honestly, by the way it seems on TV, those things are so unstable, no one would ever EVER doubt that someone died while in space due to some random accident (add a bunch of jargon and you've got an incredibly convincing reason for death).


The way it seems on TV- TV which is controlled by the nasty, nasty government. You trust them on this I take it?

 (add a bunch of jargon and you've got an incredibly convincing reason for death)-  Just because you do not understand something so complex as the varying degrees of danger involved with space travel, you can't write it off as 'a bunch of jargon'.

You are actually making me physically sick due to your rather overwhwlming ignorance. Please stop hindering the development of the intellectual world.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on December 30, 2006, 06:54:02 PM
Quote from: "Explain Electric"
The way it seems on TV- TV which is controlled by the nasty, nasty government. You trust them on this I take it?

Who ever said that anyone involved with the conspiracy has ever touched a television in their life? Or is it that you just prefer to come off as a pretentious douche.

Quote
(add a bunch of jargon and you've got an incredibly convincing reason for death)-  Just because you do not understand something so complex as the varying degrees of danger involved with space travel, you can't write it off as 'a bunch of jargon'.

I don't know if you know what jargon means. Any sort of esoteric phrase can be considered jargon if the general populous has a hard time comprehending it. Professional jargon is jargon, regardless of who understands it and who doesn't. Nevertheless, I understand the danger involved with space travel, and I also understand that this is absolutely why we don't do it. ;)


Quote
You are actually making me physically sick due to your rather overwhwlming ignorance. Please stop hindering the development of the intellectual world.

You're so conceitedly arrogant, I almost felt like smiling, but I decided to refrain, because it would waste valuble time and energy that I could devote to developing my own theories (which truthfully aren't as different as you think), rather than presuming that everything everybody has ever told me is correct without further study.

~D-Draw
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Xargo on December 31, 2006, 04:11:50 AM
Congratulations for the most ridiculous but- still-serious thread in a long time.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: daniel_is_not_flat on January 23, 2007, 08:19:53 AM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Rr332211, gravity has nothing to do with how fast Earth is moving, it all depends on Earth's acceleration. If you jump up into the air, the gap between you and the ground will close at an increasing rate of 9.8m/s^2. Every time you jump. No matter how many times you jump.


ROFL
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Masterchef on January 23, 2007, 08:21:04 AM
Quote from: "daniel_is_not_flat"
ROFL

Do you disagree?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: daniel_is_not_flat on January 23, 2007, 08:24:01 AM
Quote from: Masterchief2219
Quote from: "daniel_is_not_flat"

Quote from: "daniel_is_not_flat"
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Rr332211, gravity has nothing to do with how fast Earth is moving, it all depends on Earth's acceleration. If you jump up into the air, the gap between you and the ground will close at an increasing rate of 9.8m/s^2. Every time you jump. No matter how many times you jump.

ROFL

Do you disagree?


no, i have finally found the universal truth and i started to laugh uncontrollably.

i just wish you could see it too man.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Grigori Rasputin on February 06, 2007, 10:52:41 PM
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"

How Does The Conspiracy Benefit?

This is not easily answered, but I've taken some insight into this and made some estimates on how the conspiracy could be making money:

Government Paychecks:
It's very possible that the conspiracy runs by just sucking money out of the government that they are underneath. Seeing as the head honchos in those governments don't have to know about the conspiracy, it'd be pretty easy to take money from the government. Also, even if the leaders DID know, it's tax money that's going into the space exploration research, so really, they'd still be pulling profit. Basically, if you chose to believe this option, the leaders of the conspiracy are taking tax money and getting filthy stinking rich off of it. Sounds like a motive to me.  

So, are the current and past "top three" of NASA stinking rich? How about their russian and chinese counterparts? How they could cover up for decades that they are stinking rich, and at the same time enjoy the benefits? Secret holiday oasis for them and their families in the heavily guarded Antarctica?

Quote

Display of Power:
Some people are control freaks. Maybe they get a rush from showing that they can change everyone's mind about the true shape of the Earth.

Showing to who? To the couple of dozen other ppl that are in it too? Must be a real rush.

Quote

Embarrassment:
So, the government messed up at a really bad time to mess up, and they've been pooling all of the already-angry tax-payers' money into research that eventually led to a less-than-exciting discovery: The Earth is flat. Everyone was wrong. Millions (probably billions) of dollars of money that didn't really belong to them had been basically tossed down the drain for research of the round Earth, when, in fact it was flat. So, instead of angering people and possibly even sparking a revolt of some sort, they made up some stuff. And you know how lies tend to roll and get bigger and bigger until they're inescapable? I'd say a worldwide conspiracy is that concept...to the max.

They suddenly found out that Earth is actually flat, and thought "this is a less-than-exciting discovery"? Rrright... how many scientists would cover up a finding that would basically guarantee a Nobel prize and pretty much change the world forever?

Quote

Recruitment/Faithfulness:
Similar to the one above. Maybe the future-conspirators were ashamed that they hadn't reached out to space yet, and they felt that the people were getting hasty and impatient with them, so they decided to say they did it, and qualm the welling resentment of them, so they could ACTUALLY send people into space on a later date, without a bunch of morons knocking on their doorstep asking when they would be done with their space ship.

This part is actually plausible, but it applies to RE as well.

Quote

Unfortunately, they later realized that they were wrong the whole time, and therefore had to uphold the conspiracy, lest they be accused of lying, and therefore reverting the resentment to its original state.

That's actually just a repeat of the "Embarrassment" reasoning...

Quote

As you can see, the conspiracy is not only logical, but it's, in its own way, actually quite plausible. With all of these concepts in your face, it's hard to refute AT LEAST the possibility of a conspiracy covering up the shape of the Earth.


Actually, with these concepts it's not hard at all to refute the possibility of a conspiracy of this type. The motives alone would be sub-par even for a b-movie. No wonder there hasn't been a movie about the FE conspiracy; it's too ridiculous even for Hollywood. :lol:
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Ticky on February 07, 2007, 12:51:49 PM
Educated guessing, totally conclusive. I'm convinced.

--Ticky
sarcasm is my friend, we live together...
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on February 07, 2007, 11:08:39 PM
Quote from: "Grigori Rasputin"
So, are the current and past "top three" of NASA stinking rich? How about their russian and chinese counterparts? How they could cover up for decades that they are stinking rich, and at the same time enjoy the benefits? Secret holiday oasis for them and their families in the heavily guarded Antarctica?

Yup. And I guess they're just good about not spending their money all in one place.


Quote
Showing to who? To the couple of dozen other ppl that are in it too? Must be a real rush.

Themselves. There are plenty of psychological theories which tell that control of anything leads to pleasure (even bowels...Freud is kind of a weirdo), even if it's completely unimportant. How about controlling the entire world population? It's like anal-retentiveness on crack, for God's sake.



Quote
They suddenly found out that Earth is actually flat, and thought "this is a less-than-exciting discovery"? Rrright... how many scientists would cover up a finding that would basically guarantee a Nobel prize and pretty much change the world forever?

Plenty, seeing as they wouldn't get the prize because they were so hard-set on the fact that the Earth was round. Not to mention never did I say it was just one of these motives. Actually, if this motive is one of them, it's probably combined with all the others.



Quote
That's actually just a repeat of the "Embarrassment" reasoning...


Basically.


Quote
Actually, with these concepts it's not hard at all to refute the possibility of a conspiracy of this type. The motives alone would be sub-par even for a b-movie. No wonder there hasn't been a movie about the FE conspiracy; it's too ridiculous even for Hollywood. :lol:


What does the entertainment-value of a theory have to do with its validity? :?

~D-Draw
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Wardenlolol on February 07, 2007, 11:49:44 PM
uh, I'm a round earther through and through, and as much as I disagree with FE theory, don't try and 'ruin' it with false information. No one knows what causes gravity. The closest theory is  curvature of space, but even then its not very concrete yet. Sum it up? no one knows
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Grigori Rasputin on February 08, 2007, 12:25:29 AM
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
I guess they're just good about not spending their money all in one place.

:lol:

Hmm... I have a billion dollars, but I must appear to have only a normal income of a NASA executive... hey, I got it, I'll just make sure I won't buy my next Ferrari from the same town I bought my Lamborghini from. Brilliant! :D

Quote

What does the entertainment-value of a theory have to do with its validity? :?


Nothing. Just tried to point out how ridiculous your claims sound to anyone who has a clue.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: BOGWarrior89 on February 08, 2007, 12:34:57 AM
Quote from: "Grigori Rasputin"

Quote

What does the entertainment-value of a theory have to do with its validity? :?


Nothing. Just tried to point out how ridiculous your claims sound to anyone who has a clue.


Logic doesn't judge based on ridiculousness.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ULTIMA-W on February 08, 2007, 08:07:37 AM
No offense but this is by far the dumbest thing I have ever seen. When you are making a conspiracy theory (bubuubu the world is flat) you need real, solid evidence to prove the common ideology wrong. You guys have none of that though.

 So let me get this straight... the world is flat, the government knows about it. The Earth is the center of the universe and the sun is directly on top of it, only thousands of miles away? Where is the proof? Where is the proof that decades of research and discovery by NASA and other countries space programs, scientists and astronomers around the world are all wrong? Do you have any answer besides "oh its all fake LOLZ".

 The government is spending billions of dollars to keep this thing a secret because.... they're embarrassed about being wrong? Are you kidding? And what... every single nation in the world felt the same way and decided to band together to form an alliance to keep the world from knowing the awful truth that the world is flat? If they can come together for such a trivial, stupid cause like that then why do we have wars? Oh wait let me guess, just for show huh? I'd love to see one of you guys go to the house of a widow or parent of someone who died in Iraq and tell them "your loved one died in a fake war to cover up the fact that the world is flat." Seems whoever brainstormed this piece of **** decided to toss logic to the wind.

 My grandmother is in the Army, her and her fiance sailed around the world 3 years ago. So... I guess she is lying, and at some point armed guards made them turn around and go back the other way? How much is she getting paid now to keep her mouth shut? How many people have to be working on this thing, patrolling the seas, skies and land at all time making sure an entire continent of ice around the entire world is never seen? Also, if the sun is centered above us, why do the seasons change? If it's always in one spot, why would winter and summer happen? Why does nightfall come? Why not a full moon every single night? Where are the facts backing all of this up?

 About this huge wall of ice surrounding the world... even if our governments worldwide formed some sort of alliance (we'll call it Icewall Defense Initiative Of The Sovereignty ... or IDIOTS for short) how far back to the IDIOTS go? Do you have solid proof of these IDIOTS existing in the past? Exactly when did the IDIOTS come about? Was Nostradamus one of the IDIOTS? How did past civilizations have the technology to be IDIOTS? How did the IDIOTS prevent any sort of proof of this ice wall fro ever coming out? Furthermore why would the IDIOTS even be so obsessed about it? Our current office administration has admitted to being wrong about Iraq and WMD. Why would these IDIOTS be so uptight over the globe? Do the IDIOTS have a website? Who is the top member of the IDIOTS?

 We who believe the Earth is round have loads of evidence and proof to back us up. If you are trying to convince people otherwise you need strong facts and strong evidence and you have neither. Is this a joke site or something? You're worse than all of the 9/11 nutjobs, but hey, at least they try to get scholars and qualified people on their side.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Rick_James on February 08, 2007, 01:36:20 PM
Quote from: "ULTIMA-W"
When you are making a conspiracy theory  you need real, solid evidence to prove the common ideology wrong. You guys have none of that though.



 :shock:
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ULTIMA-W on February 08, 2007, 05:25:12 PM
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "ULTIMA-W"
When you are making a conspiracy theory  you need real, solid evidence to prove the common ideology wrong. You guys have none of that though.



 :shock:


 Instead of just posting a smily or a link to your "FAQ" filled with excuses, where is some scientific evidence? Got any pics of this ice wall besides random pics of ice in Antarctica? Got any pics of this army of guards in action on the 150ft high wall? Any credible astronomers publish articles agreeing with you? ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER  :lol:

 bububuub read the faq  :cry:
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Rick_James on February 08, 2007, 05:57:25 PM
How did you get "Read the FAQ" out of " :shock: "?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ULTIMA-W on February 08, 2007, 06:15:01 PM
Why ask me a question if you're just going to delete the answer?  :lol:
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Rick_James on February 08, 2007, 06:16:09 PM
Quote from: "ULTIMA-W"
Why ask me a question if you're just going to delete the answer?  :lol:


What makes you think I'd delete the answer? (providing it wasn't inappropriate or offensive [as stated in the forum rules])
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on February 08, 2007, 06:18:20 PM
For your information, I wasn't trying to "prove" the conspiracy with this thread. Obviously, that would be impossible to do with the information given. HOWEVER, what I WAS trying to to was to prove the PLAUSIBILITY of a conspiracy. I've shown that the idea of a conspiracy hiding the flat Earth is POSSIBLE, not TRUE.


~D-Draw
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: persona on February 16, 2007, 02:41:35 PM
Hi. I just found this site and I'm curious as to why you believe what you do. I haven't read the entire thread (that would take hours), but I do have one question: If money is a factor in the conspiracy, if the people who are in charge of the conspiracy have so much power that they can remove money from the government without anyone noticing (as is stated above), why do they need to go to the trouble of creating a conspiracy? Why not let everyone know the world is flat and still take money without their noticing? It's not as though the world being round is a distraction, since everyone takes it for granted.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Marcis on February 17, 2007, 02:28:43 AM
Just a few things I was curious about.

You say that the after the ice wall is space ie a vacuum?

When ice is placed in a vacuum it undergoes a change known as 'outgassing'. All materials, solid or liquid, have a small vapour pressure, and their outgassing becomes important when the vacuum pressure falls below this vapour pressure. Solids and liquids sublime into gasses.

So the wall would need atmosphere on the other side to keep from being boiled away very very quickly.

This leaves the necessity for the ice wall to almost nothing. Besides the fact that the Guards would never be able to survive for extended amounts of time on the top of the wall due to nil/low atmospheric.

You ask for a definition of gravity

Mass curves space-time. This curvature pulls more mass into it. Imagine a ball rolling on the inside of a bowl. If you get the speed and angle right the ball will 'orbit' inside the bowl. If something does not orbit, it falls to the bottom of the bowl.

You assume a moving mass going at 1g would act like gravity.

If there was no gravity, then by rights, the movement of the plane at 1g would mean everything on the plane would be moving at that same speed. Meaning? There would be no gravity sensation.

The only way to achieve 'gravity' in your scenario is to have a constant acceleration. That in itself would mean that we would be gaining speed at 10m/s/s. If I took into account the biblical 6000 years of the universe we would be moving at approximately 688746240000000m/s by now and growing. Plus the rest of the universe would have to be moving at that exact speed to make up for that.

The money that could be gained from the conspiracy

Your assumptions of the manpower are naive at best. What about every astrologer on the planet? What about every University with a Physics Professor in it? What about the adventure junkies in their boats going around the world. How do you explain their seeming ability to move from one side of the plane to the other in a shorter span than is available by your theory?

I would place the conspiracy at the level of the hundreds of thousands of people required to pull something of this scale off.

Who created the plane and its 'spot-light' for a sun and moon and made them have real effects on the plane?

Why make a moon that isnt there yet have its gravity affect the tides somehow? That just adds to the complexity.


Look people, conspiracy's aside, we need to look at one fact.

Occam's/Ockham's Razor

"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."

The need for all of the extra touches required to pull this off makes it a very complex engine.

Hence its probability is very low, to the point of being infinitesmally improbable.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on February 17, 2007, 06:47:19 AM
Quote from: "Marcis"

So the wall would need atmosphere on the other side to keep from being boiled away very very quickly.

Then I guess it's a good thing it's made of rock.
Quote

You ask for a definition of gravity

No, we ask for the cause, the mechanism, for gravity.
Quote

You assume a moving mass going at 1g would act like gravity.

If there was no gravity, then by rights, the movement of the plane at 1g would mean everything on the plane would be moving at that same speed.

Nice to see you know what 1g is.
Quote
Meaning? There would be no gravity sensation.

The only way to achieve 'gravity' in your scenario is to have a constant acceleration. That in itself would mean that we would be gaining speed at 10m/s/s.

That's why we say the earth is accelerating at 1g.
Quote
If I took into account the biblical 6000 years of the universe we would be moving at approximately 688746240000000m/s by now and growing.

What?  That's faster then light.  That's not even possible.  You should read up on this thing called Relativity.
Quote

"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."

All things are not equal, so Occam's Razor does not apply.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Marcis on February 17, 2007, 12:40:48 PM
Quote
Quote
If I took into account the biblical 6000 years of the universe we would be moving at approximately 688746240000000m/s by now and growing.

What?  That's faster then light.  That's not even possible.  You should read up on this thing called Relativity.


The impossibility of it was what I was trying to show.

The constant acceleration would fail at the speed of light as nothing can provide enough power to cross the infinite plane required.

Remembering that Relativity is tied directly into our Theory of Gravity, I assumed you ignored it and went for the big numbers.

Just exactly what parts of Einsteinian Science are you using and ignoring?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 17, 2007, 12:44:42 PM
Quote
The constant acceleration would fail at the speed of light as nothing can provide enough power to cross the infinite plane required.


Nope. The accelerating earth will continue to approach the speed of light without reaching it. Take a few basic Physics courses at your local community college before posting here again.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Marcis on February 17, 2007, 01:14:16 PM
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Quote
The constant acceleration would fail at the speed of light as nothing can provide enough power to cross the infinite plane required.


Nope. The accelerating earth will continue to approach the speed of light without reaching it. Take a few basic Physics courses at your local community college before posting here again.


Lol!

To continue 'accelerating' your need to go faster is prevalent. The speed of light isn't a moving scale that you can never reach, its a constant that cannot be reached because of the massive amounts of energy required.

Besides, we have already figured that Relativity cannot exist because Gravity doesnt, so crossing the speed of light threshold shouldn't be a problem.

(Add edit)

Speed of light = 299,792,458m/s
Acceleration needed = 9.8m/s/s

So every second it needs to move 9.8m faster than the previous second. Why dont you go take a few lessons before making assumptions (http://cad-comic.com/comic.php?d=20030306)?
(B.Phy, UTAS)
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: READfukkingFAQ on February 17, 2007, 01:16:23 PM
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Quote
The constant acceleration would fail at the speed of light as nothing can provide enough power to cross the infinite plane required.


Nope. The accelerating earth will continue to approach the speed of light without reaching it. Take a few basic Physics courses at your local community college before posting here again.


Basic physics classes teach nothing about flat earth theories, sorry.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: BOGWarrior89 on February 17, 2007, 01:44:18 PM
Quote from: "Marcis"
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Quote
The constant acceleration would fail at the speed of light as nothing can provide enough power to cross the infinite plane required.


Nope. The accelerating earth will continue to approach the speed of light without reaching it. Take a few basic Physics courses at your local community college before posting here again.


Lol!

To continue 'accelerating' your need to go faster is prevalent. The speed of light isn't a moving scale that you can never reach, its a constant that cannot be reached because of the massive amounts of energy required.

Besides, we have already figured that Relativity cannot exist because Gravity doesnt, so crossing the speed of light threshold shouldn't be a problem.

(Add edit)

Speed of light = 299,792,458m/s
Acceleration needed = 9.8m/s/s

So every second it needs to move 9.8m faster than the previous second. Why dont you go take a few lessons before making assumptions (http://cad-comic.com/comic.php?d=20030306)?
(B.Phy, UTAS)


OMFG You idiots seriously need to stop using Galilean velocity transformations near the speed of light.  Use Lorentz like the rest of us.
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Marcis on February 17, 2007, 02:07:34 PM
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"
Quote from: "Marcis"
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Quote
The constant acceleration would fail at the speed of light as nothing can provide enough power to cross the infinite plane required.


Nope. The accelerating earth will continue to approach the speed of light without reaching it. Take a few basic Physics courses at your local community college before posting here again.


Lol!

To continue 'accelerating' your need to go faster is prevalent. The speed of light isn't a moving scale that you can never reach, its a constant that cannot be reached because of the massive amounts of energy required.

Besides, we have already figured that Relativity cannot exist because Gravity doesnt, so crossing the speed of light threshold shouldn't be a problem.

(Add edit)

Speed of light = 299,792,458m/s
Acceleration needed = 9.8m/s/s

So every second it needs to move 9.8m faster than the previous second. Why dont you go take a few lessons before making assumptions (http://cad-comic.com/comic.php?d=20030306)?
(B.Phy, UTAS)


OMFG You idiots seriously need to stop using Galilean velocity transformations near the speed of light.  Use Lorentz like the rest of us.


Quote
Matter becomes more massive as it accelerates, and at the speed of light, an object would have infinite mass.
To accelerate an object of non-zero rest mass to c would require infinite time with any finite acceleration, or infinite acceleration for a finite amount of time
Either way, such acceleration requires infinite energy. Going beyond the speed of light in a homogeneous space would hence require more than infinite energy, which is not a sensible notion.


Remind me again where I am using Galilean Transformations again?
Title: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: BOGWarrior89 on February 17, 2007, 02:09:58 PM
Quote from: "Marcis"
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"
Quote from: "Marcis"
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Quote
The constant acceleration would fail at the speed of light as nothing can provide enough power to cross the infinite plane required.


Nope. The accelerating earth will continue to approach the speed of light without reaching it. Take a few basic Physics courses at your local community college before posting here again.


Lol!

To continue 'accelerating' your need to go faster is prevalent. The speed of light isn't a moving scale that you can never reach, its a constant that cannot be reached because of the massive amounts of energy required.

Besides, we have already figured that Relativity cannot exist because Gravity doesnt, so crossing the speed of light threshold shouldn't be a problem.

(Add edit)

Speed of light = 299,792,458m/s
Acceleration needed = 9.8m/s/s

So every second it needs to move 9.8m faster than the previous second. Why dont you go take a few lessons before making assumptions (http://cad-comic.com/comic.php?d=20030306)?
(B.Phy, UTAS)


OMFG You idiots seriously need to stop using Galilean velocity transformations near the speed of light.  Use Lorentz like the rest of us.


Quote
Matter becomes more massive as it accelerates, and at the speed of light, an object would have infinite mass.
To accelerate an object of non-zero rest mass to c would require infinite time with any finite acceleration, or infinite acceleration for a finite amount of time
Either way, such acceleration requires infinite energy. Going beyond the speed of light in a homogeneous space would hence require more than infinite energy, which is not a sensible notion.


Remind me again where I am using Galilean Transformations again?


When you said "V' = V + u".  Here, allow me to highlight it for you:
Quote from: "I"
You ... need to stop using Galilean velocity transformations near the speed of light.  Use Lorentz like the rest of us.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: narcberry on March 23, 2007, 03:15:09 PM
please sticky before it is lost forever.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Curiosity on March 24, 2007, 03:12:11 PM
I don't know if this has been brought up before in this post, but have any flat-earthers been bribed by the government?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: tylerthedruid on March 25, 2007, 05:58:14 AM
Here's where this organization is going to fail. We are approaching a generation where it will cost about $1,000,000 for any average joe (millionaire) to go into space. Go into space yourself before you call astronauts bribed liars and try to disprove science. Actually, no FE'ers are scientists nor have any of them graduated from an Ivy League school. The engineer said "Well I'm an engineer, does that count?" - no, no it certainly does not because ur-anus is flatter than the earth is, even if you had a bubblebutt.

I'm no FE'er, but I will attest to the fact that Ivy league schools don't have good science curriculums. Theirs are about Par with public universities. M1T, Frank Olin's, etc are good Science schools - NOT Ivy League
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: RAmenBrother on March 26, 2007, 01:01:33 PM
This thread is sorta dissolving here.

About the actual conspiracy theory...

Why is there this gigantic conspiracy in the first place? And I don't mean about motives for covering up the truth: that part has been examined. What I'd like to know is how the overwhelming majority of the populace has come to believe in a round earth, if this assumption is blatantly false?

I mean, in a flat world, where does the reference to a ROUND world come from? If a flat world were the reality, why has nearly every person in the first world embraced the image of a round world? Obviously, if the data pointed to a flat world, a round world theory wouldn't gain a real foothold, and the roles would be reversed, with several dozen people running a forum promoting the existence of a round world.

Also, nobody seems to take into account the credibility of that Voliva character, who blatantly used slave-grade labour to benefit his Zion Industries.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: RAmenBrother on March 26, 2007, 01:21:00 PM
Nicely put, Yakov  ;)
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 31, 2007, 03:02:08 PM
I don't understand the controversy.  NASA spending billions of dollars to try and trick everyone about the shape of the Earth seems very plausible to me.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Flat Earth Master Mint on March 31, 2007, 03:10:41 PM
Then I guess it's a good thing it's made of rock.
IT'S A WALL MADE OF ICE. Ice is as much rock as water is.

Edit: Oh good god, that was posted last month.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Rick_James on April 01, 2007, 07:33:44 PM
I suppose you think your "Antarctica" is made entirely of ice as well?  :o
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Mr. Ireland on April 02, 2007, 08:44:24 AM
I suppose you think your "Antarctica" is made entirely of ice as well?  :o

I hope it isn't.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: djbarratt on April 11, 2007, 09:12:17 AM
i was chosen from accross thousands in scotland to go to space school. i've met many astonauts from america, china and russia and have seen their personal photos of earth that they took.  there are hundreds of these pictures for every single mission. could anyone really spend time faking hundreds of photos every time theres a flight.  also, the people that i have met who have been into space are very nice people and would not live their whole lives a fake.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 11, 2007, 10:12:46 AM
Quote
also, the people that i have met who have been into space are very nice people and would not live their whole lives a fake.

I'm sure that Hitler was a nice fellow deep down inside.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: narcberry on April 11, 2007, 10:21:07 AM
i was chosen from accross thousands in scotland to go to space school. i've met many astonauts from america, china and russia and have seen their personal photos of earth that they took.  there are hundreds of these pictures for every single mission. could anyone really spend time faking hundreds of photos every time theres a flight.  also, the people that i have met who have been into space are very nice people and would not live their whole lives a fake.

Yes it is possible, and actually a small task for the government. Many CIA operatives are considere, "normal people" too.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 14, 2007, 01:37:17 PM
i was chosen from accross thousands in scotland to go to space school. i've met many astonauts from america, china and russia and have seen their personal photos of earth that they took.  there are hundreds of these pictures for every single mission. could anyone really spend time faking hundreds of photos every time theres a flight.  also, the people that i have met who have been into space are very nice people and would not live their whole lives a fake.

They are bribed liars.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ∂G/∂x on April 15, 2007, 05:42:11 PM
Oh dear, Tom. Godwin's law triumphs again, and this thread must be declared closed.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Rick_James on April 15, 2007, 05:58:32 PM
Why would this thread be declared closed?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on April 26, 2007, 12:33:16 AM
*sigh*

Circumnavigation is possible on the FE.

Quote
I'm also curious. To Flat Earthers, what is the westernmost continent in the world?
There is no such thing.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Midnight on April 26, 2007, 05:18:21 AM
Diego, this thread is fucking stupid. I applaud your deductive reasoning and ham-fisted attempts at an epiphany, but you fail, hardocore.  ::)
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: trig on April 27, 2007, 01:08:43 PM
To be a conspiracy theorist you have to be lazy, very poor or very bad with mathematics.

All you have to do to see for yourself whether the "hovering sun and moon" hypothesis holds any water is to buy a telescope with equatorial mounting and check for yourself whether the sun, moon, planets and stars describe almost perfect circles in the sky as the day and night go by or not.

If you have to add every owner of a $200 dollar telescope to your list of conspirators, you are not talking 40 people to bribe. You are talking millions!
And bribing millions of astronomers at a million a piece costs more than the whole GDP of the United States and Europe together!

Please put me in contact with the proper conspiracists, since I am still waiting for my million dollar bribe.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 27, 2007, 01:12:04 PM
Right here, buddy!  Thanks for helping us validate the roundness of the earth (LOL).  Your check for one million dollars is in the mail. ;D
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 27, 2007, 01:14:15 PM
The stars of the night sky do scroll by in a circular fashion.  ::)
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: I am not Tom Bishop but I can't prove it on April 27, 2007, 01:17:48 PM
The stars of the night sky do scroll by in a circular fashion.  ::)

Tom, what makes the stars in the sky scroll in a circular fashion?  Can you perhaps quote from that book?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 27, 2007, 01:18:14 PM
How about the sun, moon, and planets? ;D
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Stonicus on April 27, 2007, 01:21:37 PM
Only 1 person in the GPS industry knows of the conspiracy?  He writes all the software and designs all of the electronics?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: I am not Tom Bishop but I can't prove it on April 27, 2007, 01:22:08 PM
How about the sun, moon, and planets? ;D

My guess is they are at a different "level."  The stars must be pegged on a revolving ceiling or something.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 27, 2007, 01:23:27 PM
Oh, of course!   ::)
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: trig on April 27, 2007, 05:28:06 PM
The stars of the night sky do scroll by in a circular fashion.  ::)
Every model of a flat earth and a hovering sun fails to explain the apparent circular motion of the stars that you acknowledge. You cannot have it both ways: either you deny this "circular fashion" or you present a model of a flat earth that predicts this result. If you can show a model where this circular fashion and the apparent position of Polaris (the North Star) can be predicted for different latitudes, you just have to publish it and wait for your Nobel Prize. Your problem is one of laziness, of looking too much into the books about the Cosmos and not enough into the Cosmos itself.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Joe_Grim on June 22, 2007, 11:29:08 AM
Quote
also, the people that i have met who have been into space are very nice people and would not live their whole lives a fake.

I'm sure that Hitler was a nice fellow deep down inside.


Wow. Holy shit. You just compared the morals of men and women risking their lives (often dying) to expand the boundaries of human knowledge to Hitler.

You can go right to Hell, sir.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: demiurge on June 26, 2007, 03:45:35 AM
(http://i12.tinypic.com/4uudpgx.jpg)

I realize that there is virtually no way to convince the FE (otherwise science already would have) but in the interest of improving your "model" here is a definite issue.

Presumably, flat earthers believe that the atmosphere is higher than 150 feet from the surface of the world, after all, we can climb tall buildings and still breathe!  However given the constant acceleration of the earth, everything on it would slowly drift away from the north pole and then off the edge of the disc.  With walls 150 feet high, this will happen trivially fast - the air will float off first, and then everything else that isn't nailed down will be making a slow but inevitable movement off the disc due to evaporation (which happens in all materials).

This will actually eventually happen even if the walls are thousands upon thousands of miles high - even a bowl shape will not preserve the materials indefinitely, however with walls as short as posited by the FEers, this will cause the edge of the disc to be a howling void, and unless the atmosphere of the planet is constantly replenished (which opens up an entire set of issues itself), or the entire universe is full of earth's atmosphere, (which would have its own set of issues to explain), then the earth would already be completely depleted of breathable air (and just about everything else save for bare rock).

Now before you say that the air is accelerating too - what would the mechanism for that be?  The air is clearly affected by "gravity" just as we are, and since we aren't accelerating at the same speed as the earth upwards, then the air isn't either.  Next, you can test this result in your kitchen: put some water on a plate and hold it on your hand (vertically) while spinning around.  The water won't accelerate at the same rate as the plate, and splash all over.  Our atmosphere will operate the same way.  The plate's lip has to be pretty high for it to keep all the water in place - pretty much it has to be a bowl, which will exhibit the same issue but keep the water where it is.  But the earth is flat with only an almost imperceptible lip (150 feet is literally impercievable compared to the size of the earth), and the atmosphere is at least 25,000 feet tall (since thousands upon thousands of people have flown that high, and climbed mountains that high).  Clearly the atmosphere would have all spilled over the edges of the "plate" that is the flat earth if it's accelerating at a constant rate.

(Now if the earth is a flat plane that is infinite in all directions, that exhibits its own set of issues)

I'm pretty curious as to what the explanation for this is.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Mr. Ireland on June 26, 2007, 06:23:06 AM
The FE has a 50 000ft ice wall to hold in things like the atmosphere (well, that's the best explanation so far at least).


Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: demiurge on June 26, 2007, 06:57:19 AM
A 60,000 foot wall would be visible from everywhere on earth.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Mr. Ireland on June 26, 2007, 07:53:08 AM
Unless something like an atmosphere prevented you from seeing it.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: demiurge on June 26, 2007, 08:14:04 AM
You are talking about a wall more than twice as tall as the largest mountain on earth - and that particular mountain range is visible for thousands of miles around it.  Not even the atmosphere would be able to block site to such a giant construct, especially as it will be reflecting an enormous amount of sunlight.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Mr. Ireland on June 26, 2007, 08:15:42 AM
So it'd look like a big shiney thing.  Anyway, no one knows how far out this wall would be on a FE.  It could be 50 000 miles out for all we know.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: demiurge on June 26, 2007, 08:30:29 AM
Given that the circumference of a FE is very important for determining how far out the government conspiracy agents have to be posted, I'd say that's a very important factor indeed.

Joking aside, the wall can't be too far out, otherwise there'd be a vast, twilight land out past antarctica (which doesn't make sense given the angle of sunlight in antarctica) where sunlight couldn't reach.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Mr. Ireland on June 26, 2007, 08:35:10 AM
Given that the circumference of a FE is very important for determining how far out the government conspiracy agents have to be posted, I'd say that's a very important factor indeed.

They only have to be at the starting of the ring, if people don't make it past that, then they wont make it any further.

Joking aside, the wall can't be too far out, otherwise there'd be a vast, twilight land out past antarctica (which doesn't make sense given the angle of sunlight in antarctica) where sunlight couldn't reach.

You're losing me here...
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: demiurge on June 26, 2007, 08:47:52 AM
Well, clearly Antarctica was explored before the conspiracy was able to set up towers and snowmobiles, since it was explored by Ross and others (if you want to trust that Antarctica even exists and is not a massive conspiracy set up to make people not visit the edge of the world!), and no one has reported back saying that Antarctica is anything but identical to the antipode of the north pole in the way it's lit and whatnot.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 26, 2007, 09:46:51 AM
I disagree.  The conspiracy has guarded the Ice Wall for hundreds of years.  At least that's what Tom says.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Mr. Ireland on June 26, 2007, 10:23:39 AM
doggplatter also believes the conspiracy has been around for hundreds of years, although I can't be sure on his stance with the guarding of the ice wall.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: MDCharlatan on July 26, 2007, 05:19:23 PM
Hey Guys.. I've been reading the forum for the past few days and decided to sign up... I was wondering about something and I'm hoping that the FE'ers can provide me some sort of explanation about it.. This thought came to me at about page 5 of this thread, but I didn't want to have my first post be mostly quotes..  ???

So... the earth is flat, and is a disc-shaped structure that is moving 'upward' at a speed that allows for the velocity of the movement to supply what we refer to as gravity. At the same time  every other celestial body, or the universe in general if you will, is ascending at this same rate...  Is the velocity of this flat earth constant? And if so how does it remain constant when material forces are applied to it. I understand that most burn up in the atmosphere, but meteorites /do/ get through on occasion and over the course of the earth's history (I know the FE model presents a shorter one but I have yet to find the number) it should very slowly pick away at the upward momentum. Other celestial bodies are, according to your model, allowed to be spherical. And many are much... much larger or without Atmo, or both. I am assuming the same applies to them.

So is there an explanation behind the /constant/ upward movement?

-= NOTE =-
I am new to the forum, and by no means a scientist. If there is somewhere else I should have posted this please just point me in the right direction.
I'm looking forward to discussions.  :P
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Gulliver on July 26, 2007, 05:43:35 PM
Hey Guys.. I've been reading the forum for the past few days and decided to sign up... I was wondering about something and I'm hoping that the FE'ers can provide me some sort of explanation about it.. This thought came to me at about page 5 of this thread, but I didn't want to have my first post be mostly quotes..  ???

So... the earth is flat, and is a disc-shaped structure that is moving 'upward' at a speed that allows for the velocity of the movement to supply what we refer to as gravity. At the same time  every other celestial body, or the universe in general if you will, is ascending at this same rate...  Is the velocity of this flat earth constant? And if so how does it remain constant when material forces are applied to it. I understand that most burn up in the atmosphere, but meteorites /do/ get through on occasion and over the course of the earth's history (I know the FE model presents a shorter one but I have yet to find the number) it should very slowly pick away at the upward momentum. Other celestial bodies are, according to your model, allowed to be spherical. And many are much... much larger or without Atmo, or both. I am assuming the same applies to them.

So is there an explanation behind the /constant/ upward movement?

-= NOTE =-
I am new to the forum, and by no means a scientist. If there is somewhere else I should have posted this please just point me in the right direction.
I'm looking forward to discussions.  :P
First, you need to review some basic physics. The FEers claim, without evidence, that the FE is accelerating, not moving, at a constant rate. The acceleration provides the replacement for gravity.

Second, you should know after lurking for a few days that there are two important documents to review: the FE FAQ and the RE Primer. Please make sure that you've read and understood both.

Third, welcome.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 26, 2007, 06:08:06 PM
Yes, please read through the entire RE Primer before posting again.  And make sure to take notes, just so you don't get jeered again by Gulliver for possibly bringing something else up that's covered there.

The FAQ, of course, is relatively easy to swallow (though somewhat inaccurate and very incomplete; it's kind of a "jumping-off" point).
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: MDCharlatan on July 26, 2007, 07:17:41 PM
I read through the FAQ, but I wasn't aware that the Primer was something I had to download. I just finished it. I noted something amusing in it too...

FE standard evasion algorithm:
1.   If first response, then respond "Read the FAQ".

The FAQ is a bit to handle at times, it's hard to keep up with all the side-barring without going over it a couple times. :/

Their method of explaining gravity makes more sense now that I give it more thought.. I'm going to have to find a thread on tides that's current and pose another question that's eating at me. :p
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Gulliver on July 26, 2007, 07:22:20 PM
I read through the FAQ, but I wasn't aware that the Primer was something I had to download. I just finished it. I noted something amusing in it too...

FE standard evasion algorithm:
1.   If first response, then respond "Read the FAQ".

The FAQ is a bit to handle at times, it's hard to keep up with all the side-barring without going over it a couple times. :/

Their method of explaining gravity makes more sense now that I give it more thought.. I'm going to have to find a thread on tides that's current and pose another question that's eating at me. :p
We're grateful for the review. Again, welcome. I look forward to your question.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on July 26, 2007, 10:50:58 PM
Second, you should know after lurking for a few days that there is one important document to review: the FE FAQ. Please make sure that you've read and understood it.
Fixed it.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: MDCharlatan on July 26, 2007, 10:59:28 PM
Second, you should know after lurking for a few days that there is one important document to review: the FE FAQ. Please make sure that you've read and understood it.
Fixed it.

I'll be sure to give it yet another read. :p

Thanks.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: burt on August 25, 2007, 01:37:09 PM
"The acceleration provides the replacement for gravity"

and how does this acceleration keep things on the ground?

what accelerates the "flat earth"?

off the point: that quote is semantically orouborus, it eats its own tail, because in reativity acceleration and gravity are synonymus, the basis of it appears logically sound and it fits observation, therefore the relativity model appears a good model for predicting how things are.

 space appears curved cus matter and energy are equivelent- they aren't seperate entitys - one is denser i.e condensed. and because matter, synonymous with condesed energy, appears attractive at all directions in space-time(4 dimensional; 3 space; 1 time) making it "curve". that is called gravity. the fact relativity fits observation more so than other models, i rate it more probable than the flat earth theory of acceleration.

my opinion of gravity: it is not a "force" it is how matter, condensed energy, behaves because of the interaction of the 4 dimensions we find ourselves in.

p.s people who accuse me of being, or claim to be, a round earther are deluded, because the current model states explicitly that it is spherical, not just round.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Midnight on August 25, 2007, 07:35:57 AM
Unless something like an atmosphere prevented you from seeing it.

Or mental illness...
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Lorcan on August 25, 2007, 07:37:27 PM
I just now read the first page, and haven't read the 9 that follow it. So this is in response to the first post.

So wild speculation constitutes conclusive proof, these days?

You can speculate on anything you want to, cook up a conspiracy about anything you feel strongly about, it doesn't give it any more truth or basis in fact. It remains mere speculation. There comes a point where evidence is required. Yes, evidence for a conspiracy. There is no logical flaw in expecting such, as any other conspiracy at least has the conspiracy theorists finding what they presume to be evidence of said conspiracy.

Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 12, 2007, 01:24:38 PM
The whole point was not to provide evidence of the conspiracy, but to prove it is possible.  I don't think he really proved it, but there you go.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: theearthisbanannashaped on October 13, 2007, 11:59:39 PM
I agree.  But how do we even know that this is even reality?  Maybe the government has us all of us hooked to a machine filling our heads up with this stupid idea of "Earth".  I read this article in a science journal, I think it was "Weekly World News" that stated "CONSPIRACY!  The Government of the planet known as 'Philanx' has billions of people hooked up into a machine that makes every one a retard!", which proves that there is no such thing as reality.............. The End
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Torn Bishop on October 14, 2007, 12:06:29 AM
I agree.  But how do we even know that this is even reality?  Maybe the government has us all of us hooked to a machine filling our heads up with this stupid idea of "Earth".  I read this article in a science journal, I think it was "Weekly World News" that stated "CONSPIRACY!  The Government of the planet known as 'Philanx' has billions of people hooked up into a machine that makes every one a retard!", which proves that there is no such thing as reality.............. The End
Welcome to the FES boards, we don't have any cigars left so smoke this red candle that has "TNT" written on it instead.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 14, 2007, 12:10:50 AM
I                                              a m
                       
a retard!               .............. The End
That's what I got out of your post!
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: theearthisbanannashaped on October 14, 2007, 12:26:13 AM
Sorry, I don't smoke.       But seriously to the point, why don't you RE REtards think the government couldn't cover up the conspiracy?  They control the media -> the media tells you what to believe -> and BOOM! we have a round earth.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Torn Bishop on October 14, 2007, 12:27:00 AM
I                                              a m
                       
a retard!               .............. The End
That's what I got out of your post!
Roundyfilter™ FTW!
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: theearthisbanannashaped on October 14, 2007, 12:29:36 AM
???
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Torn Bishop on October 14, 2007, 12:41:56 AM
???
;D
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: theearthisbanannashaped on October 14, 2007, 12:47:28 AM
 :-*
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: theearthisbanannashaped on October 14, 2007, 01:16:04 AM
How the Earth really looks...


(http://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner.NICHEDESKTOP01\My Documents\My Pictures\Concave_hollow_Earth)
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: theearthisbanannashaped on October 14, 2007, 01:16:52 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Concave_hollow_Earth.jpeg)
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: theearthisbanannashaped on October 14, 2007, 07:22:08 AM
 ;D
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 14, 2007, 09:17:48 AM
I agree.  Very interesting.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: theearthisbanannashaped on October 14, 2007, 12:49:02 PM
Thank you Saddam.  At least there's someone sensible here.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Brennan on October 15, 2007, 09:47:40 AM
Good reason to believe the Earth's Governments would not be able to keep a secret?

Monica Lewinsky.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on October 15, 2007, 11:04:38 AM
Good reason to believe the US gov't can keep a secret:

The F-117.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Conspiracy Mastermind on October 16, 2007, 02:32:51 PM
The Conspiracy is absurd. The world governments can't work together, the evidence is on your television every day. The governments themselves barely function, the only reason for this conspiracy is to disqualify all the mountains of evidence against a flat earth and for a round earth so the theory would last more than ten seconds when scrutinized. Why make people think the Earth is round? It would cost masses of money and would reak no benefits.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: theearthisbanannashaped on October 17, 2007, 03:40:44 PM
No they can work together.  They just decided to stage wars inside of a film studio from 1910-2007, just to throw everyone off.  For money...  It's a conspiracy...
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: furrykef on October 31, 2007, 02:09:16 AM
Quote from: rr332211
Gravity makes perfect sense, and all the numbers fit.

Uh, oh, you said the magic phrase. 

Gravity makes perfect sense?  Can you explain what gravity is?  I would like to know how this magical 'force' works.

These are very old posts, but I'll answer them anyway. No, nobody fully understands how gravity really works. This is, however, not any worse than your state of affairs where your FE is accelerating upwards. What would cause the acceleration? Nobody knows that either. You might as well ask why electrons float around the atom, or why magnets attract and repel each other. It's just how stuff works. The forces may be understood, but their causes will probably forever be a mystery. That's still far fewer mysteries than FE theory presents, I think.

Anyway, my point is: why do you need to know where gravity comes from in the first place, especially if it doesn't bother you that you don't know where the FE's upward acceleration comes from?

- Kef
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on October 31, 2007, 02:37:39 AM
That's the point:  You get to have a bunch of magical, unexplained mechanisms, so why can't the FE?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 31, 2007, 08:47:25 AM
Ouch.  We got told.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: theearthisbanannashaped on October 31, 2007, 09:30:37 AM
How do magnets work?  Is one magnet constantly accelerating towards the other?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Gabe on October 31, 2007, 01:30:19 PM
Quote from: phaseshifter

Another thing, you should check some basic economics, because giving that much money away every year would put so much of it in circulation that the U.S. dollar wouldn't be worth shit. (seriously, shit is worth something to some people, but that money actually costs something to print so it would be worth less than nothing)


The US puts 200 million dollars A DAY into the war in Iraq.  If that has not devalued the dollar how will keeping a few thousand guards and equipment at the ready do it?

You know this is the first war where we take money from tomorrow right?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: theearthisbanannashaped on October 31, 2007, 03:04:58 PM
Vietnam.  We're still paying for that.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 31, 2007, 11:25:20 PM
How do magnets work?  Is one magnet constantly accelerating towards the other?
lol?  ???
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: theearthisbanannashaped on November 01, 2007, 08:55:00 PM
I am laughing out loud my friend.  But in the end, isn't the world just, round?







If no one got that, than I slap all of you anti-Dante's...
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on November 23, 2007, 06:29:21 PM
Quote from: rr332211
Gravity is that force that will crush you when I drop a brick on your head from space.
The brick will 'crush' me, not gravity.  If gravity is not magical, why can't you tell me how it works?

"Gravity" is simply a word to describe several seemingly different observations of nature.  The latest and most reliable models to predict it is Einstein's, although Newton's works fine with reasonable masses.

Gravity is also defined as one of the four fundamental "forces" of nature.  You seem to ridicule people who define gravity as a force.  So what is a force?  How do forces work?  In fact, what is energy?  How does energy work?  What is space?  What is time?  How do they work?

Btw, how is it that the brick crushes you?  You can observe a sequence of events (brick lands on your head, head is crushed), but you cannot observe the causal relation between the brick landing on your head and your head being crushed (Hume).  So why don't you explain what causality is, what it's made of, how it works, why it appears to exist, etc without invoking magic... 




I can only speak from personal knowledge about Netwon's model, so I will use it as an analogy to explain why FE model is inferior.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation:  F = Gm1m2/r^2.  Right there you've just explained in incredible accuracy not only how things fall and why they fall the way they do, you've also explained why the observed acceleration of Earth is exactly what it is (something FE doesn't seem to do), you've also explained why the planets are relatively spherical, why the planets seem to orbit in elliptical paths, you've explained how much velocity an object needs to escape planet Earth (yes, I know many of you guys don't believe this is possible, but still), you've explained what sort of gravitational attractions between two objects 100 meters away need to be accounted for if you're measuring some motion between them to an absurd degree of accuracy, and on and on.

That's Newton, which I hear has been dethroned recently, yet it is still an amazingly eloquent, accurate and USEFUL model.  INCREDIBLY USEFUL.

Exactly how is the flat Earth model useful in anywhere near the same degree as even Newton?





That's the point:  You get to have a bunch of magical, unexplained mechanisms, so why can't the FE?

Why is RE better?  Because it explains more with less arbitrary additions.  You have a bunch LESS "magical, unexplained mechanisms" in RE then FE or at least in RE there is an uncanny degree of USEFULNESS and accurate and USEFUL predictions.  In fact, the way things seem to be going, (assuming we can get a unified theory), RE will only need FOUR "magical, unexplained mechanisms."


It may be that It Rests On Infinite Turtles.  However, our models that predict a spherical earth are so much more useful and integrated than these FE models.  The goal is to make a model that requires the least amount of arbitrary additions and that makes the most accurate predictions.  RE models continually march towards simplicity and accuracy in predictions.

Because science is only concerned with models, there is no reason to debate which model is TRUE- only which is the most useful, integrated, simple and accurate in predictions.

It appears that even Newton RE wins in those categories. 
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: eric bloedow on November 23, 2007, 08:21:44 PM
try telling the families of the soldiers who DIED in those wars that they were fake!

on several other threads i referred to "occam's razor":
"The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience" often paraphrased as "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler."
that's how Einstein phrased it.

the FE model can't even explain sunrise and sunset without adding several unknown elements!
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Jack on November 23, 2007, 08:22:46 PM
try telling the families of the soldiers who DIED in those wars that they were fake!
Yeah, they died in the World War 2 movie.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 23, 2007, 09:35:31 PM
"Gravity" is simply a word to describe several seemingly different observations of nature. 
Gravity specifically refers to Newton's version of the phenomenon. 

Quote
The latest and most reliable models to predict it is Einstein's,
Gravity and General Relativity are mutually exclusive.

Quote
although Newton's works fine with reasonable masses.
That's one of the major problems:  It only works on objects with mass.  Everything else is left out.

Quote
You seem to ridicule people who define gravity as a force.
That's because gravity is a pseudo force.  It doesn't actually exist as a force.

Quote
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation:  F = Gm1m2/r^2.  Right there you've just explained in incredible accuracy not only how things fall and why they fall the way they do
But it is fundamentally flawed.  It only affects objects with mass and violates Special Relativity.  Plus, it claims there is some sort of force.

Quote
you've also explained why the observed acceleration of Earth is exactly what it is (something FE doesn't seem to do)
The FE has a way to calculate the observed acceleration using simple phyisics.  The RE and Newton's formula had to be 'fudged' to provide the correct answer.

Quote
That's Newton, which I hear has been dethroned recently, yet it is still an amazingly eloquent, accurate and USEFUL model.  INCREDIBLY USEFUL.
And fundamentally flawed.

Quote
RE models continually march towards simplicity and accuracy in predictions.
Quite the contrary, the RE continually marches towards complication and irrationality.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Jack on November 24, 2007, 01:35:52 AM
"Gravity" is simply a word to describe several seemingly different observations of nature.
What about it?

The latest and most reliable models to predict it is Einstein's, although Newton's works fine with reasonable masses.
What about objects with no mass?


Gravity is also defined as one of the four fundamental "forces" of nature.
It's four fundamental interactions.

Gravitation is a more correct term than gravity. "Gravity" is the general term used to describe the phenomenon.

  You seem to ridicule people who define gravity as a force.  So what is a force?  How do forces work?  In fact, what is energy?  How does energy work?  What is space?  What is time?  How do they work?
A force is an influence. A force causes objects to accelerate. Energy is the capacity to do work. Energy permits objects to do work. Space is a three-dimensional quantity. Time is a measurement of events. Space and time allows events to occur; together, they become a four-dimensional continuum.

Now, explain what causes the force of gravity, how does it attract mass, and where does it come from.

Btw, how is it that the brick crushes you?  You can observe a sequence of events (brick lands on your head, head is crushed), but you cannot observe the causal relation between the brick landing on your head and your head being crushed (Hume).  So why don't you explain what causality is, what it's made of, how it works, why it appears to exist, etc without invoking magic... 
Causality is a relation; you can't explain how does a relation work and why does it exist, but what is it. Gravity is a phenomenon; therefore, you have to explain what, how, where, when, where, and why does it work.

I can only speak from personal knowledge about Netwon's model, so I will use it as an analogy to explain why FE model is inferior.
Do you even know that Newton was uncomfortable of what causes the force of gravity? Although he did not pretend that he knew how gravity works, he made no hypothesis to the thesis. Also, Newton thought that gravity should have a finite speed, but he fear that having such property would destroy all the agreements behind his theories and equations.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation:  F = Gm1m2/r^2.  Right there you've just explained in incredible accuracy not only how things fall and why they fall the way they do, you've also explained why the observed acceleration of Earth is exactly what it is (something FE doesn't seem to do), you've also explained why the planets are relatively spherical, why the planets seem to orbit in elliptical paths, you've explained how much velocity an object needs to escape planet Earth (yes, I know many of you guys don't believe this is possible, but still), you've explained what sort of gravitational attractions between two objects 100 meters away need to be accounted for if you're measuring some motion between them to an absurd degree of accuracy, and on and on.
Now, explain to me how do you put all those explanations for an object with no mass.

That's Newton, which I hear has been dethroned recently, yet it is still an amazingly eloquent, accurate and USEFUL model.  INCREDIBLY USEFUL.
Right, useful only in inertial reference frames.

Exactly how is the flat Earth model useful in anywhere near the same degree as even Newton?
You don't use the flat Earth to explain science. You use science to explain the flat Earth.

Why is RE better?  Because it explains more with less arbitrary additions.  You have a bunch LESS "magical, unexplained mechanisms" in RE then FE or at least in RE there is an uncanny degree of USEFULNESS and accurate and USEFUL predictions.  In fact, the way things seem to be going, (assuming we can get a unified theory), RE will only need FOUR "magical, unexplained mechanisms."
It's all about plausibility.

It may be that It Rests On Infinite Turtles.  However, our models that predict a spherical earth are so much more useful and integrated than these FE models.  The goal is to make a model that requires the least amount of arbitrary additions and that makes the most accurate predictions.  RE models continually march towards simplicity and accuracy in predictions.
Right, but not 100%.

Because science is only concerned with models, there is no reason to debate which model is TRUE- only which is the most useful, integrated, simple and accurate in predictions.
And?

It appears that even Newton RE wins in those categories. 
It appears that Newton loses in a non-inertial frame of reference.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on November 24, 2007, 05:58:24 AM
For the love of God... did you even comprehend the POINT of my post?  :headdesks:

"Gravity" is simply a word to describe several seemingly different observations of nature.
What about it?

It's a word used by laymen to describe some repeatedly observed events.

Quote
The latest and most reliable models to predict it is Einstein's, although Newton's works fine with reasonable masses.
What about objects with no mass?

:headdesks:  This is what I mean, you failed to comprehend the purpose of my post...


Quote
Gravity is also defined as one of the four fundamental "forces" of nature.
It's four fundamental interactions.

The words "interactions" and "forces" are interchangeable in this context.  That is why you often hear the phrase "four fundemental forces."  Lets not play semantics so we look intelligent, eh?

Quote
Gravitation is a more correct term than gravity. "Gravity" is the general term used to describe the phenomenon.

When laymen use the term "gravity" they mean "that which causes bodies to fall."  Newton's model integrates falling with orbital motion.  That alone makes it better than (most) FE.  Yes, gravitation is the more correct term, but only if you're wanting to split hairs.  When the people you debate say the word gravity, I know they mean gravitation, you know they mean gravitation, Santa Clause knows they mean gravitation, which brings up the question of why you even brought the distinction up?  Self aggrandization maybe?

Quote
  You seem to ridicule people who define gravity as a force.  So what is a force?  How do forces work?  In fact, what is energy?  How does energy work?  What is space?  What is time?  How do they work?
A force is an influence.

What is an influence?  What CAUSES influence?  By what MECHANISM does influence occur?

Quote
A force causes objects to accelerate.

What is acceleration?  By what mechanism do bodies accelerate?  Force?  But what causes forces?  By what mechanism do forces opperate?

Quote
Energy is the capacity to do work. Energy permits objects to do work.

What is work?  By what mechanism does Energy permit objects to do work?

Quote
Space is a three-dimensional quantity.

This is a horrible definition.  Why should space only be three-dimensional?  What IS a dimension?  By what mechanisms do dimensions occur/exist?  What distinguishes one dimension from another?  How could one tell if space is three dimensional, four dimensional, or fifty-dimensional if one can only see in three dimensions? (Abbot)

Quote
Time is a measurement of events.

A measurement of events?  Wow.  This is even worse than your space definition. 

NONE of your definitions are ANY better than the ones these people have used for gravity.  They have no explanation.  They are simply observations.

Quote
Space and time allows events to occur; together, they become a four-dimensional continuum.

By what mechanism does space and time allow events to occur?  Ever read Kant?  By what mechanism does spacetime become a four-dimensional continuum, when higher dimensional continuums work as well? 

(some string theory models may be able to answer your jabs at RE's, however- the WHY and by what mechanisms- and one in particular seems to actually be testable- the E8 "theory of everything," although I wouldn't get my hopes up)

Quote
Now, explain what causes the force of gravity, how does it attract mass, and where does it come from.

First of all, you did no better in your definitions... however, that was kind of the point... anyway...  (No matter how sure of yourself you want to appear, you eventually WILL come to simply saying something is an observation whose mechanism is unknown.  The difference is most FE models will have many more, while RE models have only a few ==> RE is superior)

Gravity in Newton's model is simply an observation of nature.  No one knows where it comes from, anymore than anyone knows where the strong nuclear force [again, force is commonly used interchangeably with interaction in this case, so I am useing that convention in spite] came from.  Just like positive charges attract negative charges, gravity attracts mass in Newton's model.  It is simply fundemental => but completely modeled to astounding accuracy mathematically.

The REASON Newton is superior is because his model does more than simply state it's existence- he integrates it into a model that has predictive abilities that go far beyond simply watching objects fall.  FE on the other hand (the majority of the models I have seen), must incorporate two completely different modes to explain falling objects and orbital motion.

Now, Einstein's model explains it a lot better, but I'm not discussing that model, because that was never the point of my response (something you seem to have missed).



Quote
Btw, how is it that the brick crushes you?  You can observe a sequence of events (brick lands on your head, head is crushed), but you cannot observe the causal relation between the brick landing on your head and your head being crushed (Hume).  So why don't you explain what causality is, what it's made of, how it works, why it appears to exist, etc without invoking magic... 
Causality is a relation; you can't explain how does a relation work and why does it exist, but what is it. Gravity is a phenomenon; therefore, you have to explain what, how, where, when, where, and why does it work.

First of all, science does not explain WHY something works.  Second, IS causality a fact?  Is it something that occurs?  Does one event cause another?  If the answer to any of that is "yes," then by definition causality is a phenomenon and by your reasoning must be explianed in terms of "what, how, where, when, where, and why."

Third, gravity in the sense of Newton's model is none of these things: "An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses."  Gravity is simply a model showing a relation between one body of nature and another.


Quote
I can only speak from personal knowledge about Netwon's model, so I will use it as an analogy to explain why FE model is inferior.
Do you even know that Newton was uncomfortable of what causes the force of gravity? Although he did not pretend that he knew how gravity works, he made no hypothesis to the thesis. Also, Newton thought that gravity should have a finite speed, but he fear that having such property would destroy all the agreements behind his theories and equations.

Did you know Einstein was uncomfortable with his own work in quantum mechanics?  What's your point here?  Newton certainly didn't know WHY IT EXISTED- but he knew his model had uncanny accuracy in predictions.

"Gravity" (this time in the laymen sense) is simply something that is observed.  Newton's model of gravity is superior because it incorporates several seemingly unrelated occurances into one mathematical framework.  This is the entire point of theoretical physics- and once again in Newton's case, his model was extremely useful and accurate.



Quote
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation:  F = Gm1m2/r^2.  Right there you've just explained in incredible accuracy not only how things fall and why they fall the way they do, you've also explained why the observed acceleration of Earth is exactly what it is (something FE doesn't seem to do), you've also explained why the planets are relatively spherical, why the planets seem to orbit in elliptical paths, you've explained how much velocity an object needs to escape planet Earth (yes, I know many of you guys don't believe this is possible, but still), you've explained what sort of gravitational attractions between two objects 100 meters away need to be accounted for if you're measuring some motion between them to an absurd degree of accuracy, and on and on.
Now, explain to me how do you put all those explanations for an object with no mass.

This response completely (yet again) misses the entire point.  OBVIOUSLY Newton's model, which has been DETHRONED BY EINSTEIN'S MODEL (and was mentioned in my first post in this thread, incidently), is not going to explain everything- DUH- that's why it has been relagated to uses that do not require a terribly great deal of precision.

Why don't you exlpain in one mathematical formula how the FE model explains why objects fall and why the sun rotates in a circle above the surfase?  If you don't mind, one that I can plug the numbers in and test (and see that the same mathematical forumal that predicts in detail how objects fall and also predicts in detail how the sun moves accross the sky).

Quote
That's Newton, which I hear has been dethroned recently, yet it is still an amazingly eloquent, accurate and USEFUL model.  INCREDIBLY USEFUL.
Right, useful only in inertial reference frames.

Yes, so much so that it is still used today in civil engineeing, astronomy (when great precision is not needed), etc etc.

Quote
Exactly how is the flat Earth model useful in anywhere near the same degree as even Newton?
You don't use the flat Earth to explain science. You use science to explain the flat Earth.

You seem to not be understanding what I post.  Newton makes predictions that are tested in the heavenly bodies, on Earth, every non-extreme inertial reference frame.  You don't make a model to match particulars- you observe particulars, then make a model that predicts both the particulars and the generals.  Newton's model does this.  How does FE model?

You've got the scientific method exactly backwards here.  You don't start with the final conclusion and then try to explain it, adjusting your model until it matches the final conclusion (ala creationism).  You observe something and make PREDICTIONS that you test (please note, that although the world has been observed to be more or less spherical [which of course is propaganda] the model still predicts large spherical bodies [center of mass, gravitation], becaues your model precludes the possibility of seeng the flat Earth, you CANNOT SAY "use science to explain the flat Earth" becaues in YOUR model YOU CANNOT EVER SEE IT because the conspiracy will stop you...).  You can NEVER know for sure if the final conclusion is correct (which is why you cannot start with the flat Earth and then try to explain it)- you can only know that the final conclusion your model predicts consistantly matches your tested predictions.

So, what (mathematically described) predicitons does FE make?  Newton's model makes MANY predictions and they all are correct to a high degree.  But even more important, Newton's model is simple and eloquent- this is the entire point of theoretical physics- to explain the most occurances with the simplest mathematical model.  Newton will defeat most FE models here- and it isn't even the current RE model.

Quote
Why is RE better?  Because it explains more with less arbitrary additions.  You have a bunch LESS "magical, unexplained mechanisms" in RE then FE or at least in RE there is an uncanny degree of USEFULNESS and accurate and USEFUL predictions.  In fact, the way things seem to be going, (assuming we can get a unified theory), RE will only need FOUR "magical, unexplained mechanisms."
It's all about plausibility.

Plausibility?  Please explain.  This seems to be embarrasingly weak.  Science is not about plausibility, it is about mathematical models, prediction and testing.  Is it plausible that one can "travel into the future" simply by changing one's acceleration or location for a spell and then returning home?  No, sounds like science ficiton- yet it is observed reality, predicted by Einstein's model.  Not very plausible at all.  But correct. (please pay special attention to the fact that I use the quotation marks there...I have a feeling someone might make a misunderstanding about what I was saying and then go to ridiculous lengths to disprove something that has nothing to do with what I'm saying... like the force vs interactoin thing.)

Quote
It may be that It Rests On Infinite Turtles.  However, our models that predict a spherical earth are so much more useful and integrated than these FE models.  The goal is to make a model that requires the least amount of arbitrary additions and that makes the most accurate predictions.  RE models continually march towards simplicity and accuracy in predictions.
Right, but not 100%.

Science can NEVER be 100% correct.  I'm just not understanding the fuss here.  We use the model that is the simplest yet most predictive, until a better one arrives.  We, as scientsts, do not make claims (or should not) about absolute reality- we can only say that x has a very high probability of being more correct than y.

Quote
Because science is only concerned with models, there is no reason to debate which model is TRUE- only which is the most useful, integrated, simple and accurate in predictions.
And?

If you have to ask...

Quote
It appears that even Newton RE wins in those categories. 
It appears that Newton loses in a non-inertial frame of reference.

Hopefully I don't have to respond to this, as it should be apparent now what my purpose for posting this was...
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Loard Z on November 24, 2007, 05:59:56 AM
tl;dr
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: divito the truthist on November 24, 2007, 06:04:33 AM
This turtle guy is funny. When he loses an argument or is shown to be incorrect, he just brings in questions to side-step the issue.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Loard Z on November 24, 2007, 06:06:01 AM
I'm sure. But I'm not really in the mood to read essays this afternoon.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on November 24, 2007, 06:07:06 AM
This turtle guy is funny. When he loses an argument or is shown to be incorrect, he just brings in questions to side-step the issue.

Ad hominom.  Please show where I have lost an argument.  Do ANY of you understand what my point was?

Let me ask you this:  How does science work?

I seriously doubt you even know... in fact I am willing to bet that most of you who just dump all over Newton can't even tell me what a derivative is...  As I stated, Newton is not the most accurate model (neither are most FE models... in fact, Newton destroys them in terms of prediction and accuracy= they don't even MAKE predicitons)!  -  but that was never the point-The point was UTILITY! (specifically how RE models explain more with less)

EDIT- I'll spell it out for you since you seem to lack reading comprehension skills

TheEngineer was ridiculing a RE for mentioning gravity, and demanding ridiculous information about it.  I then did the exact same thing with causality, and then preceeded to again do the same thing with Jack and his definitions.  That was the point of the questions.


Now, please note that no one has challenged that Newton's mathematical formula is relatively accurate in predicting orbital motion and falling objects.  The only challenge was in regards to the fact that Einstein's model is superior, something I already mentioned... which clearly indicates that the responders have entrely missed the point!

Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: divito the truthist on November 24, 2007, 06:17:29 AM
Ad hominem*

Please show where I have lost an argument.

I could just copy paste their entire responses to your "questions" or misunderstandings. I'd just re-read the thread if I were you.

Let me ask you this:  How does science work?

Not sure what type of smart-ass answer you're looking for, but science doesn't "work." Science basically means knowledge.

If perhaps you're referring to the studying of the social or natural sciences, and the invocation of the scientific method, then there's obviously that. Either way, it comes down to majority opinion regarding subjective and valued aspects of reproducible events.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on November 24, 2007, 06:49:25 AM

I could just copy paste their entire responses to your "questions" or misunderstandings. I'd just re-read the thread if I were you.


You could, but then you wouldn't be demonstrating that you what you say is true.  The only way to do that would be to specifically point out each "misunderstanding" and then explain why I am shown to be wrong.

The fact that Jack brought up the question of how massless objects are affected by gravity demonstrates that he missed the point too.  So if you want to go ahead and point out particulars, I don't mind eating humble pie if I really did miss something...

Quote
Let me ask you this:  How does science work?

Not sure what type of smart-ass answer you're looking for, but science doesn't "work." Science basically means knowledge.

If perhaps you're referring to the studying of the social or natural sciences, and the invocation of the scientific method, then there's obviously that. Either way, it comes down to majority opinion regarding subjective and valued aspects of reproducible events.

Science does not mean knowledge, but that's not relavent.

Science is based upon modeling physical events.  No model is actually true in the philosophical sense of the term.  The model that is preferred is that which makes more predictions yet has a higher degree of simplicity. 

The entire point of my science comments were that in order to accept most FE models you must abandon a model that makes more accurate predictions yet is more integrated- which is exactly contrary to the scientific method (which involves accepting the more integrated model, given identical prediction ability)
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 24, 2007, 08:01:39 AM
Do ANY of you understand what my point was?
I sure didn't see any point.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: eric bloedow on November 24, 2007, 08:29:14 AM
Science works like this:

observe a phenomenon
come up with a theory for the phenomenon
TEST the theory by conducting experiments
revise or reject the theory based on the RESULTS of those experiments
repeat

FErs do NOT do this: they make up theories but NEVER test them!

now if someone shot a small rocket into the air and it HIT the "shadow object" i would believe in it. but simply saying "it MUST exist" over and over is NOT science; that's religious CULT preaching!

oh, yes, "Peer review" is SUPPOSED to mean someone else did the SAME experiment and got the SAME result. "cold fusion" FAILED peer review because NOBODY else got the same result!
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: tommo on November 24, 2007, 08:52:49 AM
try telling the families of the soldiers who DIED in those wars that they were fake!
Yeah, they died in the World War 2 movie.

hang on a min , u think ww2 didn't happen ?!?!?!??!?!

was this dude being serious ? please tell me he wasn't
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 24, 2007, 10:09:18 AM
Science works like this:

observe a phenomenon
come up with a theory for the phenomenon
TEST the theory by conducting experiments
revise or reject the theory based on the RESULTS of those experiments
repeat
You mean like this:

RE:
Observe a phenomenon.
Derive a mathematical model that describes said phenomenon.
Test model.
If it doesn't fit observations, just fudge the numbers so it does.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: divito the truthist on November 24, 2007, 10:26:06 AM
Science does not mean knowledge, but that's not relavent.

science

"1.   a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"
"2.   systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."
"4.   systematized knowledge in general."
"5.   knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study."
"6.   a particular branch of knowledge."


The entire point of my science comments were that in order to accept most FE models you must abandon a model that makes more accurate predictions yet is more integrated- which is exactly contrary to the scientific method (which involves accepting the more integrated model, given identical prediction ability)

That is an assumption many people make. FE doesn't necessarily involve abandoning the method of prediction; it merely requires different phenomena or explanations for the observations we encounter. Simply because a lot of FE work is in a type of infancy, and that the accuracy and simplification isn't quite there, doesn't mean that it can't be obtained in the future.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: SparteX on November 24, 2007, 10:44:55 AM
inconsistant number of ice wall guards. 6 months ago you said there were 600 of them.

also why do they have 15 mile long field of vision if the "atmosphere" causes the horizon to vanish after 3 miles
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: divito the truthist on November 24, 2007, 10:47:42 AM
also why do they have 15 mile long field of vision if the "atmosphere" causes the horizon to vanish after 3 miles

I think there was this thing called technology, but I'm not too sure.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on November 24, 2007, 11:14:26 AM
Science does not mean knowledge, but that's not relavent.

science

"1.   a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"

Quick question:  Is "KNOWLEDGE" equivalent to "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws?"

NO!  The phrase "a branch of knowledge or ..." is superfluous in that definition.  It's not even needed in the definition, unless you want to gain some additional (unneeded) clarification.  If "knowledge" is equivalent to "a branch of knowledge" then by the transitive property of mathematics PHILOSOPHY is equivalent to science.

According to divto the truthist, philosophy and science are the same thing.

You can't just highlight ONE or a few words in a definition and claim that the definition means those one or few words (unless of course the definition is one word...)

Quote
The entire point of my science comments were that in order to accept most FE models you must abandon a model that makes more accurate predictions yet is more integrated- which is exactly contrary to the scientific method (which involves accepting the more integrated model, given identical prediction ability)

That is an assumption many people make. FE doesn't necessarily involve abandoning the method of prediction; it merely requires different phenomena or explanations for the observations we encounter. Simply because a lot of FE work is in a type of infancy, and that the accuracy and simplification isn't quite there, doesn't mean that it can't be obtained in the future.

FE has been around for longer than RE.  But even so, remember, it isn't just PREDICTIONS- it's INTEGRATION and SIMPLICITY.  At this point, FE is woefully inferior.  If it turns out some day that it becomes the better model, and the conspiracy is shown to be true, who in their right mind wouldn't drop mainstream physics in a heartbeat for it?  But as you said, in it's "infancy" is simply doesn't cut it.  Perhaps some day it will.  In the mean time, I will be studying the model that is much more useful (although perhaps for entertainment purposes and thought experiments I'll study the currently inferior one as well).

Do ANY of you understand what my point was?
I sure didn't see any point.

Point 1.) It is hypocritical to ridicule relatively uneducated members because they can't explain the mechanism by which gravity works BECAUES:

a- there are many observations that cannot be explained, yet they are described (strong, weak interaction, electromagnetism, etc)

b- the "explanation" that gravity is merely the curvature of space due to mass or acceleration only pushes the question back one step further: by what mechanism does MASS curve space or even exist? 

Point 2.) NO scientific model is TRUE in the philosophical sense.

Point 3.) The scientific model that accurately makes predictions while being the most integrated into one mathematical theory is the most logical.  Predictions include UTILITY.  FE generally is not integrated in nearly the same degree that our other models are, including Newton's and Einsteins.

sub point 3- even Newton's model is more accurate than most FE, and certainly more useful.  And even the FE models that pervert Einstein's are probably junk because Einstein's model unifies Newton's universal law of gravitation with special relativity (in the limiting case of weak gravitational fields and slow speed Einstein's model you can derive Newton's law).  Further, Einstein's model, with it's space curvature and conservation of the center of motion of the center of gravity, seems to agree that if particles are in open space they will clump together in... a sphere-ish shape- just like the models it incorporates in special conditions.  If large masses with no other actions on them tend to form spherical shapes even in Einstein's model, what's to stop Earth from doing that in its infancy?  The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: divito the truthist on November 24, 2007, 11:21:32 AM
According to divto the truthist, philosophy and science are the same thing.

Really? Where did I say that?

You can't just highlight ONE or a few words in a definition and claim that the definition means those one or few words (unless of course the definition is one word...)

Do you know what the word basically means? Did you happen to miss definition #4?

FE has been around for longer than RE.  But even so, remember, it isn't just PREDICTIONS- it's INTEGRATION and SIMPLICITY.  At this point, FE is woefully inferior.  If it turns out some day that it becomes the better model, and the conspiracy is shown to be true, who in their right mind wouldn't drop mainstream physics in a heartbeat for it?  But as you said, in it's "infancy" is simply doesn't cut it.  Perhaps some day it will.  In the mean time, I will be studying the model that is much more useful (although perhaps for entertainment purposes and thought experiments I'll study the currently inferior one as well).

No one argues that it's currently inferior. But that also takes into account the assumptions people place in the fallacies they invoke.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on November 24, 2007, 11:41:56 AM
According to divto the truthist, philosophy and science are the same thing.

Really? Where did I say that?

Are you familiar with the transitive property of mathematics?

If a = b, and b = c, then a = c ?

Well, you implied that the word "knowledge" is equivalent to the bold phrase in your definition "a branch of knowledge," and that that was a definition of science.  What I am trying to tell you is that the two are not equivalent.  Science is a subset of knowledge, but knowledge is not a subset of science.  Philosophy is also a subset of knowledge.  Thus, if you claim that science is knowledge (the word "is" is mathematically understood as "equal"), which you did, then you are, through the transitive property, claiming that science is philosophy.

If science = knowledge, and philosophy = knowledge, then science = philosophy.

HOWEVER, if we want to get philosophical, in the philosophical definition of the word knowledge (well, the Aristotelean), science CANNOT be knowledge because science can NEVER by absolutely true- unless all things about the universe can be known. (the philosophical Aristotelean knowledge, in most schools of thought, can only be knowledge if it is true- otherwise it is generally classified as belief)

Quote
You can't just highlight ONE or a few words in a definition and claim that the definition means those one or few words (unless of course the definition is one word...)
Do you know what the word basically means? Did you happen to miss definition #4?

Definition four without the addition of " knowledge gained by systematic study" is not a definition of science.  Again, you can't just highlight one or a few words of the definition- and you can't have "basically" definitions if you want actual definitions, because philosophy ALSO "basically" means knowledge, as does astrology (knowledge of astrological bs)

But what the hell is the point of this? This is exactly what I wanted to avoid! (semantic bs) When I asked the question, I was wanting to know if you realized what scientists actually do, not whether you could type science into the search option of dictionary.com. (the point being about how models work and why certain models are preferred over others)

Quote
FE has been around for longer than RE.  But even so, remember, it isn't just PREDICTIONS- it's INTEGRATION and SIMPLICITY.  At this point, FE is woefully inferior.  If it turns out some day that it becomes the better model, and the conspiracy is shown to be true, who in their right mind wouldn't drop mainstream physics in a heartbeat for it?  But as you said, in it's "infancy" is simply doesn't cut it.  Perhaps some day it will.  In the mean time, I will be studying the model that is much more useful (although perhaps for entertainment purposes and thought experiments I'll study the currently inferior one as well).

No one argues that it's currently inferior. But that also takes into account the assumptions people place in the fallacies they invoke.

Please elaborate.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: SparteX on November 24, 2007, 11:43:48 AM
also why do they have 15 mile long field of vision if the "atmosphere" causes the horizon to vanish after 3 miles

I think there was this thing called technology, but I'm not too sure.
If the atmosphere stops them seeing farther than 3 miles which is (in RE) curvature of the earth but same effect. How could technology allow them to see through it?

name this technology.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: divito the truthist on November 24, 2007, 12:02:51 PM
...radar for one.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: SparteX on November 24, 2007, 12:08:29 PM
Powered by what? radar is extremely power consuming. Powering the entire 78,000 circumferance of earth would take an unrealisitic amount of power. you'd need a nuclear fusion plant or something. or lots of power plants, which would not go un noticed.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: divito the truthist on November 24, 2007, 12:17:48 PM
which would not go un noticed.

 ::)
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: SparteX on November 24, 2007, 12:44:47 PM
which would not go un noticed.

 ::)
Avoided answering as usual

Also a pipeline supplying power as was once suggested is impossible as that would also be easily spotted. And it takes a huge force of man power to perform such a feat. It was be noticed and information would leak.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: divito the truthist on November 24, 2007, 12:52:02 PM
Avoided answering as usual

Didn't avoid anything. The rolling of the eyes was the indication of your illogical assumption that someone would notice such a thing. You know, the very opposite of a planned conspiracy.

Also a pipeline supplying power as was once suggested is impossible as that would also be easily spotted. And it takes a huge force of man power to perform such a feat. It was be noticed and information would leak.

Which probabilistically rules out a pipeline, good work.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: SparteX on November 24, 2007, 01:00:10 PM
Avoided answering as usual

Didn't avoid anything. The rolling of the eyes was the indication of your illogical assumption that someone would notice such a thing. You know, the very opposite of a planned conspiracy.

Also a pipeline supplying power as was once suggested is impossible as that would also be easily spotted. And it takes a huge force of man power to perform such a feat. It was be noticed and information would leak.

Which probabilistically rules out a pipeline, good work.
So no pipe line. and no way of getting fuel to a power plants all the way around 78,000 miles of antarctica without it being noticed. solar arrays powerful enough power that much equipment and accomedation would be huge and visible from space (which you just proved possible by saying orbiting FE is possbile) Wind isn't an option as it wouldn't generate enough power, plus transporting such devices there would not go un noticed.

not making much sense this guard theory.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: divito the truthist on November 24, 2007, 01:03:40 PM
So no pipe line. and no way of getting fuel to a power plants all the way around 78,000 miles of antarctica without it being noticed. solar arrays powerful enough power that much equipment and accomedation would be huge and visible from space (which you just proved possible by saying orbiting FE is possbile) Wind isn't an option as it wouldn't generate enough power, plus transporting such devices there would not go un noticed.

not making much sense this guard theory.

Visible from space...who are the ones orbiting the Earth? What are they using?

You seem to like the word unnoticed. I'd like to know on what assumptions you're basing such arguments.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: SparteX on November 24, 2007, 01:06:23 PM
So no pipe line. and no way of getting fuel to a power plants all the way around 78,000 miles of antarctica without it being noticed. solar arrays powerful enough power that much equipment and accomedation would be huge and visible from space (which you just proved possible by saying orbiting FE is possbile) Wind isn't an option as it wouldn't generate enough power, plus transporting such devices there would not go un noticed.

not making much sense this guard theory.

Visible from space...who are the ones orbiting the Earth? What are they using?

You seem to like the word unnoticed. I'd like to know on what assumptions you're basing such arguments.
Satelling monitoring. governmental and civilian. You clearly made it possible to orbit FE. and since satellites such as the international space station can clearly visible from the ground, satellite monitoring is realistic and possible.

Also, all those docking forms saying things like "3000 wind turbines to antarctica" would raise eyebrows
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: divito the truthist on November 24, 2007, 01:11:48 PM
Satelling monitoring. governmental and civilian. You clearly made it possible to orbit FE. and since satellites such as the international space station can clearly visible from the ground, satellite monitoring is realistic and possible.

I said it was possible to orbit the FE, yes. However, not in the traditional sense.

I also said satellites exist. I never said they were used. You'd have to constantly eject mass to stay situated above the Earth.

Also, all those docking forms saying things like "3000 wind turbines to antarctica" would raise eyebrows

Really? Compared to the scientific research and such is going on there, who would raise their eyebrows?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: SparteX on November 24, 2007, 01:22:22 PM
Satelling monitoring. governmental and civilian. You clearly made it possible to orbit FE. and since satellites such as the international space station can clearly visible from the ground, satellite monitoring is realistic and possible.

I said it was possible to orbit the FE, yes. However, not in the traditional sense.

I also said satellites exist. I never said they were used. You'd have to constantly eject mass to stay situated above the Earth.

Also, all those docking forms saying things like "3000 wind turbines to antarctica" would raise eyebrows

Really? Compared to the scientific research and such is going on there, who would raise their eyebrows?
The civilian companies running the ships. all experiments in the antarctic are civilian operations.

scientific operations are the norm every now and then. Seeing wind turbines being shipped there is most definately not.

So you mean to say they have satellites lying around on the floor. cause that makes sense.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: tommo on November 24, 2007, 02:06:08 PM
try telling the families of the soldiers who DIED in those wars that they were fake!
Yeah, they died in the World War 2 movie.

hang on a min , u think ww2 didn't happen ?!?!?!??!?!

was this dude serious ? please tell me he wasn't
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: divito the truthist on November 24, 2007, 02:49:19 PM
Are you familiar with the transitive property of mathematics?

Yes, and it doesn't apply since you're omitting an aspect of my statement.

Well, you implied that the word "knowledge" is equivalent to the bold phrase in your definition "a branch of knowledge,"

No, please read what I said again and try to suggest I'm implying a direct equivalency.

What I am trying to tell you is that the two are not equivalent.

Very good! 

Thus, if you claim that science is knowledge (the word "is" is mathematically understood as "equal"), which you did

Yes, and you missed an important word as well.

Out of all that, no direct quote and a misuse of the transitive property.

Definition four without the addition of " knowledge gained by systematic study" is not a definition of science.  Again, you can't just highlight one or a few words of the definition- and you can't have "basically" definitions if you want actual definitions, because philosophy ALSO "basically" means knowledge, as does astrology (knowledge of astrological bs)

I'm not gonna debate every meaning of every word with you. You're clearly smart enough to read definitions and know how to apply them. Philosophy is not equivalent to science and knowledge, stop being silly.

Please elaborate.

People assume; they invoke fallacies to support this "knowledge" or "truth." Appealing to authority, appealing to majority, fallacy of composition, argument ad populum. Depending on their involvement, probably many more.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Jack on November 24, 2007, 05:21:05 PM
For the love of God... did you even comprehend the POINT of my post?  :headdesks:
I don't see any point in your post.

It's a word used by laymen to describe some repeatedly observed events.
Some repeatedly observed events of what?


:headdesks:  This is what I mean, you failed to comprehend the purpose of my post...
And your purpose was...?



The words "interactions" and "forces" are interchangeable in this context.  That is why you often hear the phrase "four fundemental forces."  Lets not play semantics so we look intelligent, eh?
Eh, we use "interactions" because there's no such thing as gravitational "force".


When laymen use the term "gravity" they mean "that which causes bodies to fall."  Newton's model integrates falling with orbital motion.  That alone makes it better than (most) FE. 
What mechanism makes gravity to cause things fall? How does gravity cause things to fall?

Yes, gravitation is the more correct term, but only if you're wanting to split hairs.  When the people you debate say the word gravity, I know they mean gravitation, you know they mean gravitation, Santa Clause knows they mean gravitation, which brings up the question of why you even brought the distinction up?  Self aggrandization maybe?
Because I want accuracy. I don't want fallacies.

What is an influence?  What CAUSES influence?  By what MECHANISM does influence occur?
An influence is a force. When I push a block, I apply influence (or force) to the block to make it move.

What is acceleration?  By what mechanism do bodies accelerate?  Force?  But what causes forces?  By what mechanism do forces opperate?
Acceleration is the rate of change in velocity. Bodies accelerate when force is applied. Force is caused by an external agent.

What causes the external agent? Well, what causes you to push a block?

What is work?  By what mechanism does Energy permit objects to do work?
Ever heard of a dictionary?

This is a horrible definition.  Why should space only be three-dimensional?  What IS a dimension?  By what mechanisms do dimensions occur/exist?  What distinguishes one dimension from another?  How could one tell if space is three dimensional, four dimensional, or fifty-dimensional if one can only see in three dimensions? (Abbot)
Space = Length, width, and height. Hence, space is three-dimension.

A measurement of events?  Wow.  This is even worse than your space definition.
A measurement of sequence of events. I thought your brain would be spinning fast enough to notice it... 

NONE of your definitions are ANY better than the ones these people have used for gravity.  They have no explanation.  They are simply observations.
Observation of what?

By what mechanism does space and time allow events to occur?  Ever read Kant?  By what mechanism does spacetime become a four-dimensional continuum, when higher dimensional continuums work as well? 
Why does an explosion occur? Space and time allow that to happen. Time cannot be separated from space because it depends on an object's velocity relative to the speed of light.

 
First of all, you did no better in your definitions...
It must feel so good to be so denial.

Gravity in Newton's model is simply an observation of nature. 
Nature of what?


No one knows where it comes from
Therefore its existence is fallacy.

anymore than anyone knows where the strong nuclear force [again, force is commonly used interchangeably with interaction in this case, so I am useing that convention in spite] came from.
Right, which is why "interaction" is more accurate than "force".

gravity attracts mass in Newton's model.  It is simply fundemental => but completely modeled to astounding accuracy mathematically.
Again, how does gravity attracts mass? Actually, you still haven't answered this:

Quote
Now, explain what causes the force of gravity, how does it attract mass, and where does it come from.

The REASON Newton is superior is because his model does more than simply state it's existence- he integrates it into a model that has predictive abilities that go far beyond simply watching objects fall.
And?

First of all, science does not explain WHY something works.
Really? It explains why I am typing right now.

Third, gravity in the sense of Newton's model is none of these things: "An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses."
Uh, gravity, in Newtonian sense, is all of these things.

Gravity is simply a model showing a relation between one body of nature and another.
A model of what?

Did you know Einstein was uncomfortable with his own work in quantum mechanics?  What's your point here?
My point was that Newton already knew his theories had many fallacies.

Newton certainly didn't know WHY IT EXISTED- but he knew his model had uncanny accuracy in predictions.
Right, fundamentally flawed accuracies.

"Gravity" (this time in the laymen sense) is simply something that is observed.
Really? Have you taken a picture of gravity?

  Newton's model of gravity is superior because it incorporates several seemingly unrelated occurances into one mathematical framework.  This is the entire point of theoretical physics- and once again in Newton's case, his model was extremely useful and accurate.
I don't see any usefulness of his model other than pulling "forces" out of his ass to explain events.

Quote
My pen falls. I'll explain it: there's force of gravity pulling it down! I'm being thrown outwards in a car. I'll explain it: there are centrifugal forces pushing me out!

OBVIOUSLY Newton's model, which has been DETHRONED BY EINSTEIN'S MODEL (and was mentioned in my first post in this thread, incidently), is not going to explain everything- DUH- that's why it has been relagated to uses that do not require a terribly great deal of precision.
Then why did you even use his model (or his formula) when you should be using Einstein's instead? I guess you love fallacies...

Why don't you exlpain in one mathematical formula how the FE model explains why objects fall and why the sun rotates in a circle above the surfase?  If you don't mind, one that I can plug the numbers in and test (and see that the same mathematical forumal that predicts in detail how objects fall and also predicts in detail how the sun moves accross the sky).
Who says I believe in a flat Earth?

Quote
Right, useful only in inertial reference frames.

Yes, so much so that it is still used today in civil engineeing, astronomy (when great precision is not needed), etc etc.
Really? I'm pretty sure most of the events happening in this universe are undergoing acceleration.

Great precision is not needed? No wonder why NASA fails all the time...


Newton makes predictions that are tested in the heavenly bodies, on Earth, every non-extreme inertial reference frame.
What is "non-extreme inertial reference frame"?

  You don't make a model to match particulars- you observe particulars, then make a model that predicts both the particulars and the generals.  Newton's model does this.  How does FE model?
According to Tom, what is the shape of the ground? Flat.

You've got the scientific method exactly backwards here.  You don't start with the final conclusion and then try to explain it, adjusting your model until it matches the final conclusion (ala creationism).
When did I say science starts with a conclusion?

You observe something and make PREDICTIONS that you test (please note, that although the world has been observed to be more or less spherical [which of course is propaganda] the model still predicts large spherical bodies [center of mass, gravitation], becaues your model precludes the possibility of seeng the flat Earth, you CANNOT SAY "use science to explain the flat Earth" becaues in YOUR model YOU CANNOT EVER SEE IT because the conspiracy will stop you...).  You can NEVER know for sure if the final conclusion is correct (which is why you cannot start with the flat Earth and then try to explain it)- you can only know that the final conclusion your model predicts consistantly matches your tested predictions.
Internets just couldn't get any weirder...

Newton's model makes many predictions and they all are correct to a high degree.
:o

But even more important, Newton's model is simple and eloquent- this is the entire point of theoretical physics- to explain the most occurances with the simplest mathematical model.  Newton will defeat most FE models here- and it isn't even the current RE model.
What about it?


Plausibility?  Please explain.  This seems to be embarrasingly weak.  Science is not about plausibility, it is about mathematical models, prediction and testing.
If science is not about plausibility, it would be bsing and not holding the truth.

Is it plausible that one can "travel into the future" simply by changing one's acceleration or location for a spell and then returning home?  No, sounds like science ficiton- yet it is observed reality, predicted by Einstein's model.
Speed of light is science fiction?

  Not very plausible at all.  But correct.
Speed of light is plausible and correct.

Science can NEVER be 100% correct.  I'm just not understanding the fuss here.
Yes, and?

We use the model that is the simplest yet most predictive, until a better one arrives.
General relativity has arrived. So, can you stop using Newton?


We, as scientsts, do not make claims (or should not) about absolute reality- we can only say that x has a very high probability of being more correct than y.
I might be wrong but, are you saying you're a scientist?


Because science is only concerned with models, there is no reason to debate which model is TRUE- only which is the most useful, integrated, simple and accurate in predictions.
...Which is why I've been saying that Newton's theory is useless and we should be using Einstein's instead.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: eric bloedow on November 24, 2007, 05:57:26 PM
i've known of people who thought the "holocaust" was fake before, but that's the first time i've encountered someone who thought the ENTIRE war was fake!

ok, who was the first person to drop objects off a tower and notice that they fell at the same speed? i forgot his name.

obviously, when you drop something and it falls, SOME force is pulling it down. Newton named it gravity, and worked out his formula.

FErs say that actually the earth is moving up (the UA theory), which fails to explain the fact that objects dropped from high altitude fall slower.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 24, 2007, 06:03:08 PM
FErs say that actually the earth is moving up (the UA theory), which fails to explain the fact that objects dropped from high altitude fall slower.
What?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Jack on November 24, 2007, 06:04:51 PM
i've known of people who thought the "holocaust" was fake before, but that's the first time i've encountered someone who thought the ENTIRE war was fake!
Both were faked in the same movie: 'World war II" by John Timmer.

ok, who was the first person to drop objects off a tower and notice that they fell at the same speed? i forgot his name.
Galileo, I think.


obviously, when you drop something and it falls, SOME force is pulling it down. Newton named it gravity, and worked out his formula.
When things fall, they experience weightlessness. If the force of gravity is gone so easily, how could it be a force?

FErs say that actually the earth is moving up (the UA theory), which fails to explain the fact that objects dropped from high altitude fall slower.
Wait, what?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: eric bloedow on November 24, 2007, 06:35:37 PM
ever hear of "microgravity"? according to NASA, it is the tiny gravity pull caused by the spaceship's mass pulling on things in and around the ship!

and do you think the fighting going on in IRAQ right NOW is totally fake?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 24, 2007, 06:43:58 PM
ever hear of "microgravity"? according to NASA, it is the tiny gravity pull caused by the spaceship's mass pulling on things in and around the ship!
No, microgravity means nothing of the kind.

Quote
and do you think the fighting going on in IRAQ right NOW is totally fake?
What?  Do you have ADHD or something?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Jack on November 24, 2007, 07:15:28 PM
ever hear of "microgravity"? according to NASA, it is the tiny gravity pull caused by the spaceship's mass pulling on things in and around the ship!
NASA puts a person inside a rocket and it accelerates at 9.8m/s2 in deep space, far from sources of gravity. The person holds a ball and lets it go. Now, what happens to the ball?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: eric bloedow on November 24, 2007, 08:38:05 PM
it falls toward the rocket!
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Jack on November 24, 2007, 08:48:07 PM
Right, and since this experiment was performed under no gravity, gravity equals to acceleration. Hence, the "force" of gravity does not exist.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: tommo on November 25, 2007, 04:07:57 AM
Quote
and do you think the fighting going on in IRAQ right NOW is totally fake?
What?  Do you have ADHD or something?

so that's totally unrealistic but ww2 being fake isnt ?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 25, 2007, 07:01:00 AM
What's unrealistic?  Eric being on topic?  I agree.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: eric bloedow on November 25, 2007, 08:52:12 AM
i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!

i still haven't heard ANY answer for this question: just HOW would this "consipracy" TAKE control without the people it's supposedly infuencing NOTICING it was taking over?!

this thread reminds me of an old movie: Capricorn One.
in this movie, NASA makes a partially fake mars landing; that is, an unmanned ship landed on mars and they faked the video of the astronauts walking around from a place on earth.
but the ship burned up on re-entry into earth's atmosphere!
so the astronauts stole an airplane and fled; and after a crash, continued on foot. one of them succeeded in getting back to civilian land, and went on to EXPOSE the fake!

and FErs claim that ALL space travel; the apollo moon landings, all space shuttle missions, all photos made by NASA, the ISS, are ALL fake?!
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: tommo on November 25, 2007, 09:07:45 AM
What's unrealistic?  Eric being on topic?  I agree.

well your comment on his iraq being fake was

"What?  Do you have ADHD or something?"

which i interpreted as u saying that a fake war in iraq is a unrealistic idea
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 25, 2007, 09:18:31 AM
i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!
Except that is not what microgravity is.  Which you claimed it was.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 25, 2007, 09:18:59 AM
"What?  Do you have ADHD or something?"

which i interpreted as u saying that a fake war in iraq is a unrealistic idea
Read for comprehension next time.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: SparteX on November 25, 2007, 10:10:05 AM
Did i just correctly read somebody say that both world wars were faked?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: tommo on November 25, 2007, 10:12:29 AM
Did i just correctly read somebody say that both world wars were faked?

just ww2 apparently
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: SparteX on November 25, 2007, 10:13:47 AM
So most of the male sex on the planet was wiped out for what purpose?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: tommo on November 25, 2007, 10:14:54 AM
So most of the male sex on the planet was wiped out for what purpose?

a "film"
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: SparteX on November 25, 2007, 10:16:52 AM
kickass film except it was 5 years long and killed everyone who would be able to watch it.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on November 25, 2007, 12:20:21 PM
Two parts:

For the love of God... did you even comprehend the POINT of my post?  :headdesks:
I don't see any point in your post.

I explained it a couple of posts ago.

Quote
It's a word used by laymen to describe some repeatedly observed events.
Some repeatedly observed events of what?

Objects falling at a consistently observed acceleration, for one.



Quote
:headdesks:  This is what I mean, you failed to comprehend the purpose of my post...
And your purpose was...?

Explained it a couple of posts ago.



Quote
The words "interactions" and "forces" are interchangeable in this context.  That is why you often hear the phrase "four fundemental forces."  Lets not play semantics so we look intelligent, eh?
Eh, we use "interactions" because there's no such thing as gravitational "force".

Something that could cause a change in acceleration?  The curve in geometric spacetime does exactly that.  Force is another made up word to describe certain observations.


Quote
When laymen use the term "gravity" they mean "that which causes bodies to fall."  Newton's model integrates falling with orbital motion.  That alone makes it better than (most) FE. 
What mechanism makes gravity to cause things fall? How does gravity cause things to fall?

Ok, this particular question is irrelevant to my point, but I suppose you won't shut up about it until I answer it.

The mechanism that causes objects to fall is (likely) nothing but the geometrical curve of space.  Like in Newton's first law, objects remain in the motion they are until acted upon by some force, however, moving in an infinite straight line is no longer an option because massive bodies distort the space in which the object is moving.  Thus, the mechanism that causes bodies to fall is simply them following the path of space-time (which happens to be curved toward large masses).  This is at present the best model we have, and the explanation is certainly imprecise, but surely you get the point.  Mass bends space and space "tells" mass how to move.



Quote
What is an influence?  What CAUSES influence?  By what MECHANISM does influence occur?
An influence is a force. When I push a block, I apply influence (or force) to the block to make it move.

First you defined a force as an influence, then you defined an influence as a force.  Nice circular reasoning there.  You have failed to define a force and you have failed to define the mechanism in which forces (or influences) operate. 




Quote
What is acceleration?  By what mechanism do bodies accelerate?  Force?  But what causes forces?  By what mechanism do forces opperate?
Acceleration is the rate of change in velocity. Bodies accelerate when force is applied. Force is caused by an external agent.


Bodies do NOT necessarily accelerate when a force is applied.  Have you heard of a coefficient of static friction?  This is where you have a frictional force opposing some other force with zero relative motion ==> zero acceleration.


Quote
What causes the external agent? Well, what causes you to push a block?

Hmm, did I first ask you this?  Because that was what I was trying to do...

Quote
What is work?  By what mechanism does Energy permit objects to do work?
Ever heard of a dictionary?

You didn't answer the question of what mechanism does energy permit objects to do work. 

Quote
This is a horrible definition.  Why should space only be three-dimensional?  What IS a dimension?  By what mechanisms do dimensions occur/exist?  What distinguishes one dimension from another?  How could one tell if space is three dimensional, four dimensional, or fifty-dimensional if one can only see in three dimensions? (Abbot)
Space = Length, width, and height. Hence, space is three-dimension.

Space is better defined as that medium in which events happen, but even that isn't such a good definition.



Quote
A measurement of events?  Wow.  This is even worse than your space definition.
A measurement of sequence of events. I thought your brain would be spinning fast enough to notice it... 

Time is more than that.  It can be considered a scaler quantity, it can be treated as a geometrical dimension.  To call it just the measurement of sequence of events is to invoke the linear time of Newton, which presumably you do not believe to be accurate.  Further, in some string theory models and some interpretations of quantum mechanics, time can be considered to have distinct inseparable units (like quanta).  If it is divided into units, it must BE something- more than just something we measure events by.


Quote
NONE of your definitions are ANY better than the ones these people have used for gravity.  They have no explanation.  They are simply observations.
Observation of what?

Humans observe objects falling at a constant acceleration (neglecting air resistance and terminal velocity).

 Humans then make up something that causes this and call it gravity.  Therefore, gravity becomes that which causes objects to fall.  The mechanism cannot be known at that point. Later, humans discover that their mathematical model that describes gravity also describes other types of motion with the same precision and accuracy.  Then the meaning of gravity must be modified to include this, so it is defined as a force (since it could cause an acceleration [because orbital bodies are accelerating, just like falling bodies]) and it just so happens that orbital motion can be described as a special case of falling motion using the same model.  Everything is fine- except Mercury's orbit.  Then a new model that describes it as the curvature of spacetime is adopted, and this model allows for the (former) anomaly of Mercury's orbit, etc.




Quote
By what mechanism does space and time allow events to occur?  Ever read Kant?  By what mechanism does spacetime become a four-dimensional continuum, when higher dimensional continua work as well? 
Why does an explosion occur? Space and time allow that to happen.

That does not explain why it occurs, it just explains that any event requires both a location in space and time.

Quote
Time cannot be separated from space because it depends on an object's velocity relative to the speed of light.

So what exactly is spacetime then?  By what mechanism does light travel at c?  And of course, by what mechanism does spacetime affect the motion of objects? (what CAUSES this: you can say that mass bends spacetime, and spacetime directs which direction matter should go, but what mechanism causes this?)

 
Quote
First of all, you did no better in your definitions...
It must feel so good to be so denial.

You haven't.  You haven't defined the following to the degree that you demand those that you guys have been haggling about gravity:

Force (pathetically you first defined force as an influence, and then when I asked what an influence was you defined it as a force)

You haven't defined the mechanism in which spacetime allows events to occur

Your definition of space was "height, width, depth" which is just lazy:

mathematical definition of space: any set of points that satisfy a set of postulates of some kind

Now, you managed to ignore the following, so I'll ask it again, or you can simply continue to ignore it, but since you demand this level of scrutiny from others, I would expect you can do it yourself:

"Why should space only be three-dimensional?  What IS a dimension?  By what mechanisms do dimensions occur/exist?  What distinguishes one dimension from another?  How could one tell if space is three dimensional, four dimensional, or fifty-dimensional if one can only see in three dimensions? (Abbot)"





Quote
Gravity in Newton's model is simply an observation of nature. 
Nature of what?

What?  Gravity in Newton's model is a word to describe some hypothetical thing that causes bodies to fall and orbit, etc.


Quote
No one knows where it comes from
Therefore its existence is fallacy.

Therefore the existence of the entire universe is fallacy.  Nice.

Quote
anymore than anyone knows where the strong nuclear force [again, force is commonly used interchangeably with interaction in this case, so I am useing that convention in spite] came from.
Right, which is why "interaction" is more accurate than "force".

Which is dodging the point.

Quote
gravity attracts mass in Newton's model.  It is simply fundemental => but completely modeled to astounding accuracy mathematically.
Again, how does gravity attracts mass?

I did above, but I was trying not to leave Newton's model because the point was that ultimately there are simply constants of the universe that cannot be explained, they can only be described.

Quote
Actually, you still haven't answered this:

Quote
Now, explain what causes the force of gravity, how does it attract mass, and where does it come from.

It was never my aim to answer that.  Newton's model cannot answer that.  My point is that every model must rely on things that cannot be explained, only described.

Quote
The REASON Newton is superior is because his model does more than simply state it's existence- he integrates it into a model that has predictive abilities that go far beyond simply watching objects fall.
And?

Most FE models cannot do that.  That's pretty much it on that subject.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on November 25, 2007, 12:23:01 PM

Quote
First of all, science does not explain WHY something works.
Really? It explains why I am typing right now.

No it does not, because science cannot describe causality, because no one can.  Science can make observations that follow from other observations and then infer that one caused the other, but science cannot know.  If we make the assumption that even a caused even b, then in that model science can explain that be occurred because a occurred.  But even so, eventually you will reach an infinite regression of causes, something science cannot address.

Quote
Third, gravity in the sense of Newton's model is none of these things: "An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses."
Uh, gravity, in Newtonian sense, is all of these things.

Occurrence:  an occurrence requires a point in space and time.  Gravity in Newton's model is simply that which causes certain types of acceleration. It is made up, therefore it does not exist in space or time and so it is not an occurrence.

Circumstance (an incident or occurrence [discussed above], a condition, detail, part, or attribute, with respect to time, place, manner,agent, etc):  Gravity in Newton's model is just something that causes a particular kind of acceleration- it is defined as a force because it causes acceleration, but as shown earlier (by you), a force is not something that can easily be defined either.  A force is not a circumstance.  A force occurs, but it is not an occurrence.

Fact that is perceptible by the sense:  Gravity has no shape, color, sound, smell, texture, etc in Newtons model.


Gravity is NOT a phenomenon in Newton's model.

Quote
Gravity is simply a model showing a relation between one body of nature and another.
A model of what?

A model of a particular kind of motion.  A particular kind of motion is observed and then described mathematically.  This mathematical model is then applied to similar types of motion and is found to be very accurate.

Quote
Did you know Einstein was uncomfortable with his own work in quantum mechanics?  What's your point here?
My point was that Newton already knew his theories had many fallacies.

Not that many, just several assumption he had to make (for example his failure to define time in some adequate way).  As far as it's explanatory power however, how could Newton know of them before certain inconsistent observations were made later on?


Quote
Newton certainly didn't know WHY IT EXISTED- but he knew his model had uncanny accuracy in predictions.
Right, fundamentally flawed accuracies.

Relativity also has a very interesting fundamental flaw- it cannot be unified with quantum mechanics (at this point).  Every model has fundamental flaws- because all are ultimately based on what we can observe in some way.

Quote
"Gravity" (this time in the laymen sense) is simply something that is observed.
Really? Have you taken a picture of gravity?

Certainly by this point I've made it clear what I believe gravity is in Newton's model- nothing but a mathematical construct that happens to describe certain types of occurrences.

Quote
  Newton's model of gravity is superior because it incorporates several seemingly unrelated occurances into one mathematical framework.  This is the entire point of theoretical physics- and once again in Newton's case, his model was extremely useful and accurate.
I don't see any usefulness of his model other than pulling "forces" out of his ass to explain events.

You've done it!  You've hit upon the point I've been trying to make this whole time! Every scientific model does something like that.  This is the point I am trying to make.  EVERY model pulls something out of thin air. 

It just so happens that some match observation better than others.



Quote
Quote
My pen falls. I'll explain it: there's force of gravity pulling it down! I'm being thrown outwards in a car. I'll explain it: there are centrifugal forces pushing me out!

A force in Newton's model is described as that which causes an acceleration.  So within Newton's model that would be correct.

Interestingly, you've hit my point again.  Every model does something similar.  It hypothesizes something that cannot be verified to exist, but which if allowed to exist within the model matches what we observe.

Quote
OBVIOUSLY Newton's model, which has been DETHRONED BY EINSTEIN'S MODEL (and was mentioned in my first post in this thread, incidently), is not going to explain everything- DUH- that's why it has been relagated to uses that do not require a terribly great deal of precision.
Then why did you even use his model (or his formula) when you should be using Einstein's instead? I guess you love fallacies...

Read the two bold parts above.  The reason I used it is because every model pulls things out of thin air.  That is exactly what theoretical physics does- it pulls shit out of thin air that happen to predict what is observed.

Quote
Why don't you exlpain in one mathematical formula how the FE model explains why objects fall and why the sun rotates in a circle above the surfase?  If you don't mind, one that I can plug the numbers in and test (and see that the same mathematical forumal that predicts in detail how objects fall and also predicts in detail how the sun moves accross the sky).
Who says I believe in a flat Earth?

It doesn't matter if you do or not, but presumably you would have some FE model we could use?

Quote
Right, useful only in inertial reference frames.

Quote
Yes, so much so that it is still used today in civil engineeing, astronomy (when great precision is not needed), etc etc.
Really? I'm pretty sure most of the events happening in this universe are undergoing acceleration.

Newton's laws can be derived from Einstein's and act as a specific limiting circumstance in Einstein's model.

Quote
Great precision is not needed? No wonder why NASA fails all the time...

The word "great" is relative there.  You can use Newton's laws and the other non-relativity classical understandings of nature in engineering (statics, for example), and other things like that.  When something involves very high velocities and more extreme circumstances (like rocket launches) you must use Einstein's model)


Quote
Newton makes predictions that are tested in the heavenly bodies, on Earth, every non-extreme inertial reference frame.
What is "non-extreme inertial reference frame"?

When everything that is being examined is under relatively the same conditions.  When the accelerations of objects are very close enough to where the effects of relativity are negligible.  It was not meant to be used as a technical term.

Quote
  You don't make a model to match particulars- you observe particulars, then make a model that predicts both the particulars and the generals.  Newton's model does this.  How does FE model?
According to Tom, what is the shape of the ground? Flat.

Quote
You've got the scientific method exactly backwards here.  You don't start with the final conclusion and then try to explain it, adjusting your model until it matches the final conclusion (ala creationism).
When did I say science starts with a conclusion?

Unfortunately for Tom, standing on a large enough sphere, a tangent plane is indistinguishable from standing on a flat plane.  This reminds me of the derivative concept in calculus.  If you draw a tangent line onto a curve in cartesian coordinates, and then "zoom in" closer and closer, the closer you get, the closer the tangent line approaches the actual curve itself.  If you go small enough, the straight tangent line and the curve become indistinguishable.

So, to put it more succinctly, Tom cannot know that the world is flat just by standing on it and looking.  Therefore, "using science to explain why the world is flat" is starting from a conclusion.


With the explanation above the following should make sense now.

Quote
You observe something and make PREDICTIONS that you test (please note, that although the world has been observed to be more or less spherical [which of course is propaganda] the model still predicts large spherical bodies [center of mass, gravitation], because your model precludes the possibility of seeing the flat Earth, you CANNOT SAY "use science to explain the flat Earth" because in YOUR model YOU CANNOT EVER SEE IT because the conspiracy will stop you...).  You can NEVER know for sure if the final conclusion is correct (which is why you cannot start with the flat Earth and then try to explain it)- you can only know that the final conclusion your model predicts consistently matches your tested predictions.
Internets just couldn't get any weirder...



Quote
Newton's model makes many predictions and they all are correct to a high degree.
:o

Hopefully you can now see where I'm trying to go with this.

Quote
But even more important, Newton's model is simple and eloquent- this is the entire point of theoretical physics- to explain the most occurances with the simplest mathematical model.  Newton will defeat most FE models here- and it isn't even the current RE model.
What about it?

Hopefully you can now see where I'm trying to go with this.

Quote
Plausibility?  Please explain.  This seems to be embarrasingly weak.  Science is not about plausibility, it is about mathematical models, prediction and testing.
If science is not about plausibility, it would be bsing and not holding the truth.

Science is about "bsing" to a rigorous degree of accuracy (however, certain rules are followed in this bsing).  If you want truth, study philosophy.

Quote
Is it plausible that one can "travel into the future" simply by changing one's acceleration or location for a spell and then returning home?  No, sounds like science ficiton- yet it is observed reality, predicted by Einstein's model.
Speed of light is science fiction?

It would sound that way to someone not in the know.  So... by what mechanism does light always travel at c in a vacuum?

Quote
  Not very plausible at all.  But correct.
Speed of light is plausible and correct.

If it was plausible then the consequences of relativity would be intuitive.  They are not, unless you are educated in the theory itself.

Quote
Science can NEVER be 100% correct.  I'm just not understanding the fuss here.
Yes, and?

Again, hopefully you can now see where I'm trying to go with this.

Quote
We use the model that is the simplest yet most predictive, until a better one arrives.
General relativity has arrived. So, can you stop using Newton?

That was never the point.  But hell, general relativity is not perfect.  It has issues with the very very small, so we need yet another model.  See?


Quote
We, as scientsts, do not make claims (or should not) about absolute reality- we can only say that x has a very high probability of being more correct than y.
I might be wrong but, are you saying you're a scientist?

No, that was not what I was saying.  I was using the term very loosely, in the "those who use the scientific method" sense, but being a student studying towards a science degree... well, does holding a science degree make you a scientist?  Then next summer I'll have one (although a pissant associates).

Want to try to actually respond to the point there?  I've gone back and emboldened it for you:

"(scientists) do not make claims (or should not) about absolute reality- (they) can only say that x has a very high probability of being more correct than y."



Quote
Because science is only concerned with models, there is no reason to debate which model is TRUE- only which is the most useful, integrated, simple and accurate in predictions.
...Which is why I've been saying that Newton's theory is useless and we should be using Einstein's instead.

I don't use Newton's, that wasn't my point (although Newton's can be used as a subset of Einstein's under the right conditions to make the math easier- again, they can be derived from Einstein's)
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Jack on November 25, 2007, 04:30:38 PM
Good, so we finally agree Newton's model is trash and the force of gravity does not exist. That is the main point of my posts, but I guess it must took you thousands of words to comprehend it...
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Jack on November 25, 2007, 04:54:14 PM
i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!
So the ship suddenly exerts a gravity pull now? Sounds like magic to me.

I said the effects of gravity can be manifested simply by loading a man in a rocket accelerating at 9.8m/s2, far away from sources of gravity. Hence, gravity = acceleration.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Gabe on November 25, 2007, 06:34:30 PM
Hence, gravity = acceleration.
Would that not be 'gravitation' = acceleration?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Jack on November 25, 2007, 06:51:33 PM
Well, apparently some people are not used to or do not understand the term "gravitation", so I just use the term "gravity" instead. However, gravitation is the better term.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 25, 2007, 10:23:53 PM
I don't see how the GPS *companies* could have any bearing on the conspiracy. Whether or not someone claims this or that unit is good or not... doesn't effect how the mechanism works.

A GPS receiver is nothing more than a modified cell phone receiver. It just receives signals at a different frequency from various sources. It either works... or it doesn't regardless of who says it does.

Also, the only way you could get anything like a GPS receiver to work on a global scale as they do is to have multiple signal origins throughout the sky. The only way to have consistent signal sources at a reasonable altitude is to use satellites in a geo-sync orbit.

And, no you can't use weather balloons or other buoyant / flying aircraft because your signal point of origin would be constantly changing and you would therefore not have a point of reference for the receiver. Just another signal from a random point in space. It won't work.

I've discussed something similar in the Moon Bounce post.

KB0RQB clear. 
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 25, 2007, 10:29:44 PM
And, no you can't use weather balloons or other buoyant / flying aircraft because your signal point of origin would be constantly changing 
And this doesn't happen with satellites?

Quote
KB0RQB clear.
What are you supposed to be, some sort of trucker?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 25, 2007, 11:33:11 PM
And, no you can't use weather balloons or other buoyant / flying aircraft because your signal point of origin would be constantly changing 
And this doesn't happen with satellites?
Not the same way no. Balloons and aircraft are either at the whim of weather or constrained by fuel requirements respectively.
Although satellites constantly communicate position, they have a pre-set orbit that can be assumed for calculations. In the end: a satellite has a known trajectory, known path, and therefore known signal origin. A balloon cannot have a known path (beyond perhaps a vague knowledge of the weather pattern that day), the only thing that can be obtained is perhaps rate of ascent and ceiling.

No matter how you slice it, you can't get a patterned flight path, continuously from any source other than an orbit based object for any reasonable length of time. Nice try though.
Quote
KB0RQB clear.
What are you supposed to be, some sort of trucker?

If only you knew. Sorry, but 11 meters (Citizens Band, or CB for those of you wishing to lash out at ham radio and have no clue what it is beyond "breaker breaker good buddy") is reserved for public use by anyone with a "CB" radio. Much like the newer "FRS" radios that the FCC freed up a VHF/UHF band for public use.

KB0RQB is my licensed call sign that allows me to operate on a variety of bands (or frequency [sorry.. free-qwen-see] ranges)
It was merely a footnote to point out that some people have personal experience with things like this - not just theory.

I enjoyed your puns, but you are still trumped.

[Edited for formatting]

Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 26, 2007, 07:28:21 AM
No matter how you slice it, you can't get a patterned flight path, continuously from any source other than an orbit based object for any reasonable length of time. Nice try though.
Wow, it's amazing that planes don't crash all the time.  Especially since they apparently can't know their position.  Hell, I'm amazed that I don't end up in a different state when I fly, not being able to know where I am, and all...

Quote
Quote
KB0RQB clear.
What are you supposed to be, some sort of trucker?
If only you knew.
I only ask 'cause in your first two posts you were pretending to be Optimus Prime.  Which almost got you banned, by the way.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 26, 2007, 10:06:47 AM
This is in reply to TheEngineer: (Too many quotes get to buried after a while.. just MHO)

Well last reference first: Why would I get banned for presenting myself as a fictitious character I'm fond of? There are plenty of people in here that do it off and on all the time... Plus, what does that have to do with anything?

Anyway back to the main point with aircraft and position.

Yet again, you are stripping the main ingredient of my comment *reasonable length of time*.
Of course you can get the position of anything with a transmitter or beacon.

Problem is, unless you have unlimited refueling going on, with planes such as say.. the SR-71 that can achieve super high altitudes.. and run them in reasonably tight circles (I'd say that part is doable.. the circles bit).. you're looking at a bum theory.

No matter what the resources, from how many governments - you're never going to continuously refuel dozens of aircraft for well... years! It doesn't work. I'm sorry but it just doesn't work out that way.

It may not sound like too big a deal at first but stop and think about that... refueling about 1000lbs of fuel every 2 to 3 hours - 24 hours a day - 365 days per year.

That's like 2,920,000lbs of fuel for *one* aircraft per year bare minimum. I'm being conservative on fuel and burn time. From some of your posts - I can tell that you know this.

---

Also, you are still losing the line of sight on the satellites. Although a near-orbit aircraft might get close to doing the same job. You would still notice a drop in performance in valleys, rough terrain, canyons, etc where there is no line of sight aside from directly overhead (more or less).

In the end, there is no other explanation than an orbital system for GPS to work. I dn't care if you believe in FE or RE... the point is that for a radio transmission, in the GHz range to reach a receiver in the manner in which current GPS technology works. Satellites (or some similar orbital device you wish to choose) are the only explanation.

Before you say it could work on a lower frequency.. no it can't. That's another post, but it has to do with bounce and latency. It won't work for pinpoint locations.


Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: tommo on November 26, 2007, 10:27:10 AM
i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!
So the ship suddenly exerts a gravity pull now? Sounds like magic to me.

i havnt read the other posts because i couldn't be assed , but all masses are attracted to each other by gravity
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 26, 2007, 11:15:16 AM
i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!
So the ship suddenly exerts a gravity pull now? Sounds like magic to me.

i havnt read the other posts because i couldn't be assed , but all masses are attracted to each other by gravity
*Sigh*  What about objects without mass?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 26, 2007, 11:25:10 AM
Well, massless objects are also affected by (and affect) space time.. are you referring to particles such as the graviton?

Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 26, 2007, 12:08:20 PM
i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!
So the ship suddenly exerts a gravity pull now? Sounds like magic to me.

i havnt read the other posts because i couldn't be assed , but all masses are attracted to each other by gravity
*Sigh*  What about objects without mass?
What about them? That statement does not exclude those from attraction...
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on November 26, 2007, 12:19:40 PM
i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!
So the ship suddenly exerts a gravity pull now? Sounds like magic to me.

i havnt read the other posts because i couldn't be assed , but all masses are attracted to each other by gravity
*Sigh*  What about objects without mass?
What about them? That statement does not exclude those from attraction...

Why not? Shouldn't it? Isn't mass what makes them attract, according to gravity?

~D-Draw
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 26, 2007, 12:53:47 PM
i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!
So the ship suddenly exerts a gravity pull now? Sounds like magic to me.

i havnt read the other posts because i couldn't be assed , but all masses are attracted to each other by gravity
*Sigh*  What about objects without mass?
What about them? That statement does not exclude those from attraction...

Why not? Shouldn't it? Isn't mass what makes them attract, according to gravity?

~D-Draw

Mass is something that bends spacetime. The curvature of spacetime creates the effect of gravity. There are other causes for the warping of spacetime.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 26, 2007, 03:37:25 PM
Well, massless objects are also affected by (and affect) space time.. are you referring to particles such as the graviton?
Specifically, I am referring to light.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 26, 2007, 03:38:21 PM
What about them? That statement does not exclude those from attraction...
What about massless objects attracting each other due to 'gravity'?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Jack on November 26, 2007, 04:07:24 PM
i havnt read the other posts because i couldn't be assed , but all masses are attracted to each other by gravity
...And without mass you get no gravity. I, however, can get gravity simply by energy and momentum. Or, in the rocket case, acceleration.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: skol on November 27, 2007, 02:15:05 AM
So the US government are the ones trying to tell people that the earth is round, when the theory that it is round has exsisted since before America did.

Oh and all those seasoned and extreamly experienced sailors who sailed around (note the use or the word aROUND and not across) the world hundreds of years ago just happened to miss this er "ice wall" of yours?

Or were they in on the yet to be established conspiracy too?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: divito the truthist on November 27, 2007, 04:14:35 AM
Oh and all those seasoned and extreamly experienced sailors who sailed around (note the use or the word aROUND and not across) the world hundreds of years ago just happened to miss this er "ice wall" of yours?

I noticed the word. Do you know the definitions of said word?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Gabe on November 27, 2007, 04:52:34 AM
What about them? That statement does not exclude those from attraction...
What about massless objects attracting each other due to 'gravity'?
That seems a bit off topic...
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: eric bloedow on November 27, 2007, 06:50:55 AM
you can also get "gravity" by SPINNING part of a spaceship around! ever seen 2001?

and there is no such thing as a "massless object". or are you saying the "shadow object" is actually some sort of HOLOGRAM?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 27, 2007, 06:52:31 AM
and there is no such thing as a "massless object".
Photons.  Gluons.  Bosons.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: eric bloedow on November 27, 2007, 07:02:07 AM
those are single particles, not "objects".
and scientists are still argueing about whether photons have mass or not, and the existence of bosons is still not fully proven!
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 27, 2007, 07:27:17 AM
those are single particles, not "objects".
Since when is a particle not an object?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on November 27, 2007, 07:39:24 AM
those are single particles, not "objects".
Since when is a particle not an object?

Since eric rewrote science
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: John Davis on November 27, 2007, 09:43:35 AM
If you didn't want to be vague, you shouldn't have used the word object.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Jack on November 27, 2007, 10:06:43 AM
you can also get "gravity" by SPINNING part of a spaceship around! ever seen 2001?
That's centrifugal force, which is also another fictitious force arising in a non-inertial reference frame.

and there is no such thing as a "massless object". or are you saying the "shadow object" is actually some sort of HOLOGRAM?
Massless particles.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on November 27, 2007, 02:54:04 PM
Good, so we finally agree Newton's model is trash and the force of gravity does not exist. That is the main point of my posts, but I guess it must took you thousands of words to comprehend it...

No, not quite.  You can't think of it in terms of right and wrong- only in utility and predictability with respect to a particular level of observational ability.  The "force" of gravity may very well still exist even if Newton's description of it is flawed.

Further, since curvatures in space-time cause accelerations (as objects move through them), and since the Newtonian concept of force is defined as something that could cause an acceleration, one would still not necessarily be wrong in saying "the force of gravity."  Further, in special relativity the definition Force = the derivative of momentum with respect to time, F = dp/dt still holds, so, because gravitation causes changes in momentum with respect to time, once again you could say "the force of gravity" (but I am told that this time momentum must be defined differently- instead of mass times velocity, p = mv,
 it is p = mv/[(1 -v2)/c2](1/2)  Some math wrangling changes this into a "four-force," which replaces the Newtonian concept.  Not sure if GR gravity is defined in some way like this though, but even so, if we use Newton's definition of a force, Einstein's "gravity" still can be called "the force of gravity"- albeit with an * ...


Also, I absolutely disagree that Newton's model is trash.  It is still extremely useful for every day calculations and simple physics, and is easier mathematically.

Finally, since Einstein's model cannot be unified with quantum mechanics as is, it can be considered "trash" as well, if you want to hold it to a similar standard.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Jack on November 27, 2007, 07:12:07 PM
No, not quite.  You can't think of it in terms of right and wrong- only in utility and predictability with respect to a particular level of observational ability.
When did I said Newton's theory is wrong? I said his theory is horribly flawed, mainly because of his definition of gravity as a mysterious force.

The "force" of gravity may very well still exist even if Newton's description of it is flawed.
I don't mind if you like to believe something that doesn't exist.

Further, since curvatures in space-time cause accelerations (as objects move through them), and since the Newtonian concept of force is defined as something that could cause an acceleration, one would still not necessarily be wrong in saying "the force of gravity."
Right, which is why Newton's force of gravity is flawed since its proportional only to inertial mass.

Further, in special relativity the definition Force = the derivative of momentum with respect to time, F = dp/dt still holds, so, because gravitation causes changes in momentum with respect to time, once again you could say "the force of gravity" (but I am told that this time momentum must be defined differently- instead of mass times velocity, p = mv,
 it is p = mv/[(1 -v2)/c2](1/2)  Some math wrangling changes this into a "four-force," which replaces the Newtonian concept.
What, so you're now trying to mix things up to suit your position?

Although causes changes in momentum (or anything: acceleration, velocity, mass, etc) with respect to time, gravitation is not a force. The word "cause" is not "is". And F = dp/dt is not even the force of gravity, in terms of Newtonian mechanics. Gravitation, in Newtonian definition, is "action at a distance", basically that formula you put before.

Not sure if GR gravity is defined in some way like this though, but even so, if we use Newton's definition of a force, Einstein's "gravity" still can be called "the force of gravity"- albeit with an * ...
Uh, Einstein defines gravity as the curvature of space-time, not a force. Again, can we be consistent with correct information?

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/7bc993595aa80fab36f8fa91f027fd28.png)is not (http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/a0e352ec4c36fe245d8e8f12aefae9b1.png).

Also, I absolutely disagree that Newton's model is trash.  It is still extremely useful for every day calculations and simple physics, and is easier mathematically.
Like I said, Newton's model only works on inertial frames; inertial frames don't apply in the real world.

Finally, since Einstein's model cannot be unified with quantum mechanics as is, it can be considered "trash" as well, if you want to hold it to a similar standard.
You might as well say "since quantum mechanics cannot be unified with relativity as is, it can be considered 'trash' as well." It's all about wording.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Loard Z on November 27, 2007, 08:21:47 PM
it seems like every thread just ends up being a debate about relativity.

It's getting old.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: eric bloedow on November 27, 2007, 08:25:59 PM
well, UA vs Einstein is an important point in the FE vs. RE debate.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Loard Z on November 27, 2007, 08:29:30 PM
not really, considering FE'ers understand Einstein better than RE'ers.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 27, 2007, 09:58:48 PM
LOL!! So since you're I don't know.. for arguments sake let's say Green, ALL Green understand said widget better than Blue? hahahahaha!

Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: John Davis on November 27, 2007, 11:48:03 PM
No, not quite.  You can't think of it in terms of right and wrong- only in utility and predictability with respect to a particular level of observational ability.
That entirely depends on your goal.  If your goal isn't in the applied sciences (at least in the short term), then this isn't true at all.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: eric bloedow on November 28, 2007, 07:49:20 AM
ALL FErs reject einstien COMPLETELY, because ALL gravitation-related experiments have PROVEN him right and PROVEN UA wrong!

oh, and maybe photons DO have mass, as shown by the "solar wind", which means they are NOT "massless"! that's what i meant when i said "massless object" was a contradiction!
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 28, 2007, 07:51:11 AM
oh, and maybe photons DO have mass, as shown by the "solar wind", which means they are NOT "massless"! that's what i meant when i said "massless object" was a contradiction!
Photons do not have mass.  They carry momentum.  Are you ever going to do a little research before you type?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: eric bloedow on November 28, 2007, 07:55:47 AM
YOU should do some research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

notice it says: momentum is the PRODUCT of MASS and VELOCITY.
momentum=mass*velocity.

therefore, a object with zero mass would have zero momentum!
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 28, 2007, 10:57:43 AM
Momentum for a massless object is defined as:
p=E/c
where E is the object's energy and c is the speed of light.


Perhaps I should have specified for you to do some correct research.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on November 28, 2007, 12:33:25 PM
No, not quite.  You can't think of it in terms of right and wrong- only in utility and predictability with respect to a particular level of observational ability.
When did I said Newton's theory is wrong? I said his theory is horribly flawed, mainly because of his definition of gravity as a mysterious force.

I was responding to you saying Newton's model was trash.

Quote
The "force" of gravity may very well still exist even if Newton's description of it is flawed.
I don't mind if you like to believe something that doesn't exist.

I don't believe in it as Newton describes it.  Did I say that I believed in it?

Quote
Further, since curvatures in space-time cause accelerations (as objects move through them), and since the Newtonian concept of force is defined as something that could cause an acceleration, one would still not necessarily be wrong in saying "the force of gravity."
Right, which is why Newton's force of gravity is flawed since its proportional only to inertial mass.

But you can still say "force" so long as by force you do not mean mass * acceleration.  It is a wording game.

Quote
Further, in special relativity the definition Force = the derivative of momentum with respect to time, F = dp/dt still holds, so, because gravitation causes changes in momentum with respect to time, once again you could say "the force of gravity" (but I am told that this time momentum must be defined differently- instead of mass times velocity, p = mv,
 it is p = mv/[(1 -v2)/c2](1/2)  Some math wrangling changes this into a "four-force," which replaces the Newtonian concept.
What, so you're now trying to mix things up to suit your position?

No, I am saying that Newton wasn't scrapped with Einstein, it was modified and exists as a limiting circumstance withing relativity.

Quote
Although causes changes in momentum (or anything: acceleration, velocity, mass, etc) with respect to time, gravitation is not a force. The word "cause" is not "is". And F = dp/dt is not even the force of gravity, in terms of Newtonian mechanics. Gravitation, in Newtonian definition, is "action at a distance", basically that formula you put before.

Not sure if GR gravity is defined in some way like this though, but even so, if we use Newton's definition of a force, Einstein's "gravity" still can be called "the force of gravity"- albeit with an * ...
Uh, Einstein defines gravity as the curvature of space-time, not a force. Again, can we be consistent with correct information?

It is a matter of what you mean by the words you use.  We cannot see the curvature of space-time, we can only see that the mathematical model that includes this also matches reality very accurately.


Quote
Also, I absolutely disagree that Newton's model is trash.  It is still extremely useful for every day calculations and simple physics, and is easier mathematically.
Like I said, Newton's model only works on inertial frames; inertial frames don't apply in the real world.

The effects of GR are often neglible enough to where Newton's model works perfectly fine.

Quote
Finally, since Einstein's model cannot be unified with quantum mechanics as is, it can be considered "trash" as well, if you want to hold it to a similar standard.
You might as well say "since quantum mechanics cannot be unified with relativity as is, it can be considered 'trash' as well." It's all about wording.

No, what we can say is that GR is not a complete theory and will be a subset of a larger more encompassing one, and QM is not a complete theory and will be a subset of a larger more encompassing one, but some definitions and ways of understanding both will probably have to be changed... just like what happened with Newton's model.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote from: username
That entirely depends on your goal.  If your goal isn't in the applied sciences (at least in the short term), then this isn't true at all.

Yes, you are correct.  If we are doing theoretical physics that Newton's model is pretty much useless.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: eric
YOU should do some research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

notice it says: momentum is the PRODUCT of MASS and VELOCITY.
momentum=mass*velocity.

therefore, a object with zero mass would have zero momentum!

Actually in GR momentum has a different definition.

A good way to see the relation is this:

pc = (E2 - m02 c4)1/2  also, for extreme relative velocities (where E is much much greater than m0 c2 ) you have the relationship of    pc ~ E  ==> you can see where mass can be zero and the object will still have momentum.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

not really, considering FE'ers understand Einstein better than RE'ers.

One doesn't have to look long to find the logical fallacy of generalization...  Now say what you just said in light of the fact that the vast majority of the people who understand Einstein better than anyone (research phsysicist, physics professors, you know, those with physics PhD's and Masters), including Einstein, were/are RE'res... lol
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Jack on November 28, 2007, 01:06:12 PM
I was responding to you saying Newton's model was trash.
And how does that have to do with "right and wrong"?

I don't believe in it as Newton describes it.  Did I say that I believed in it?
Then don't say it exists.

But you can still say "force" so long as by force you do not mean mass * acceleration.  It is a wording game.
It's not a wording game; it's equivalence. f = ma = m(vf-vi)/t = dp/dt.

No, I am saying that Newton wasn't scrapped with Einstein, it was modified and exists as a limiting circumstance withing relativity.
Right, so we will just use Einstein from now on.

It is a matter of what you mean by the words you use.  We cannot see the curvature of space-time, we can only see that the mathematical model that includes this also matches reality very accurately.
Which is why I've been saying that Einstein is way more accurate than Newton. Therefore, we shall use Einstein instead.

Quote
Like I said, Newton's model only works on inertial frames; inertial frames don't apply in the real world.
The effects of GR are often neglible enough to where Newton's model works perfectly fine.
...Except GR works in all frames and Newton only works in inertial frames. In other words, in GR laws of physics are the same in all frames.

No, what we can say is that GR is not a complete theory and will be a subset of a larger more encompassing one, and QM is not a complete theory and will be a subset of a larger more encompassing one, but some definitions and ways of understanding both will probably have to be changed... just like what happened with Newton's model.
Right, which is still a wording game.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Loard Z on November 28, 2007, 01:18:34 PM
LOL!! So since you're I don't know.. for arguments sake let's say Green, ALL Green understand said widget better than Blue? hahahahaha!



wtf did that mean?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: eric bloedow on November 28, 2007, 01:34:24 PM
energy is NOT the same thing as momentum! does HEAT have momentum?

oh, and E=Mc2
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on November 28, 2007, 01:34:45 PM
Momentum for a massless object is defined as:
p=E/c
where E is the object's energy and c is the speed of light.


Perhaps I should have specified for you to do some correct research.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Loard Z on November 28, 2007, 01:38:05 PM
energy is NOT the same thing as momentum! does HEAT have momentum?

oh, and E=Mc2

I hate you and your capitals. And, your poor science and deductive reasoning.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Jack on November 28, 2007, 03:26:18 PM
YOU should do some research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

notice it says: momentum is the PRODUCT of MASS and VELOCITY.
momentum=mass*velocity.

therefore, a object with zero mass would have zero momentum!

...Except in that same wikipedia page there's this:
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/48f8677cc71abebebb4542c7302f07ad.png)
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Loard Z on November 28, 2007, 03:46:59 PM
photons have mass anyway.

Just no rest mass.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: eric bloedow on November 29, 2007, 05:59:48 PM
i still haven't heard an answer to my earlier question: HOW would this "conspiracy" TAKE control in the FIRST PLACE without anyone noticing?

anyone heard of the "space race"? that was a COMPETITION to get into space before the russians. anyone think all of that was totally fake?

they launched rockets and an AIRCRAFT CARRIER picked up the capsules afterward. so every single member of the carrier crew would have to be in on it...
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Loard Z on December 01, 2007, 08:37:27 PM
yeah it was a fake.

The space companies wanted to gain a stronghold over the conspiracy.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Jack on December 01, 2007, 08:40:01 PM
i still haven't heard an answer to my earlier question: HOW would this "conspiracy" TAKE control in the FIRST PLACE without anyone noticing?
The conspiracy is multi-polar, well-developed, and well-organized. How can you argue against that?

anyone heard of the "space race"? that was a COMPETITION to get into space before the russians. anyone think all of that was totally fake?
I don't see any problem with them being fake.

they launched rockets and an AIRCRAFT CARRIER picked up the capsules afterward. so every single member of the carrier crew would have to be in on it...
They used aircraft carriers to protect the ice wall instead.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 02, 2007, 12:32:30 PM
anyone heard of the "space race"? that was a COMPETITION to get into space before the russians. anyone think all of that was totally fake?
I don't see any problem with them being fake.
Didn't we spend millions more than we could have to rush the development of the shuttles? That was just my impression, but I'll look for a source when I have time.  :-\
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 02, 2007, 01:27:21 PM
ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles' posts exhaust me.  He's going to have to be more concise if he's going to win any arguments as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: eric bloedow on December 02, 2007, 01:27:41 PM
how could they GET developed and organized without anyone noticing?

for example, the conspiracy supposedly includes every single airplane pilot: how did they convince them all to join? all it would take is ONE pilot to refuse their offer or to record their threats and their secret would be totally ruined!
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 02, 2007, 01:29:14 PM
GET
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Loard Z on December 03, 2007, 05:49:40 AM
ONE
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: divito the truthist on December 03, 2007, 06:24:44 AM
Didn't we spend millions more than we could have to rush the development of the shuttles?

Point?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 03, 2007, 06:37:58 AM
Didn't we spend millions more than we could have to rush the development of the shuttles?

Point?
For people driven by money, that sounds rather illogical. Waiting longer would save them money, the primary motivation for the conspiracy. I doubt that a delayed space race would compromise them.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: cpt_bthimes on December 10, 2007, 09:23:17 AM
Really?  Because where I live, my food costs the same, my car was still the same price, airline tickets are cheaper, gas is cheaper; I get either the same amount or more for the same price today than I did yesterday or last week.  Where do you live?

that only lasts as long as it is perceived to.  which has two effects: foreign investment in us national debt, as well as domestic economic investment via debt and equity instruments.

once the faith is gone, all that evaporates.  and history is very clear, that when you generate money supply just by printing more of it, meanwhile racking up debt, it is effectively a globally-funded national pyramid scheme that will eventually collapse.  it may be soon, it may be a generation from now.  just like the dot-com boom, your observation of and hubris over same or cheaper prices, is nothing more than a bubble of emotionally supported artificial perceptions, which are not supported by the fundamentals.

comparing the cost of things before and after the war is meaningless.  unless the policies, actions, and deep-rooted systemic problems of the both the legislative and executive branches (not to mention the federal reserve corporation) change drastically, the devaluation will come, and you will not be able to fail to notice.  whether it is a crash of magnitude never before seen in human history, or a generations-long synergistic spiraling of debt, default, corruption, collapse of national stature and world influence...this is what we are setting ourselves up for.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on December 10, 2007, 10:09:43 AM
whether it is a crash of magnitude never before seen in human history, or a generations-long synergistic spiraling of debt, default, corruption, collapse of national stature and world influence...this is what we are setting ourselves up for.
I agree.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: jackcarr on August 04, 2008, 08:11:29 AM
I think there's a lot of easier ways for NASA big wigs to make money...
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Round Earth Society on August 09, 2008, 05:52:29 AM
You're just picking numbers out of your ass for a start.

"ER lets say two people need to know here, then five here, so really only seven people need to know about it"

That's not the least of your logical flaws, but it's an easy start.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 09, 2008, 08:41:56 AM
Not quite, old boy.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Galileo the Great on August 10, 2008, 07:14:48 PM
I'm just surprised in this age of the X-Prize (http://space.xprize.org/), more companies haven't shown up to battle Virgin Galactic (http://www.virgingalactic.com) for fake fame and fortune. Of the few private organizations in the fake space race... I wonder who decides which ones get to be successful and when any particular company has a setback or new step towards success and how they manage this across international borders and organizational types.

I wonder how much the people who own companies that own private communications satellites get paid to pretend their systems are in orbit. Hmmm... I wonder who came up with a successful model of RE gravity that could be applied to FE physics when launching these systems. Does anyone have a FE specific science book? I'd love to see some of the real calculations that weapons manufacturers use when building accurate weapons systems to fire projectiles across a flat earth and not a fake round one.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 11, 2008, 05:57:07 PM
The entire of the cost analysis is done with totally arbitrary numbers.  I mean it doesn't take much to poke it full of holes.  Here's one as an example:  488 people have been into space, not 50. 
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: factsrfun on August 15, 2008, 11:50:13 AM
Quote from: rr332211

Even if you don't believe in gravity, I'll put the same spotlight on you.  How do things fall?

Things don't fall, Earth accelerates up to them.

Just wondering if everyone really thinks this way?
How about you lift up a motorcycle engine and a shoe 10 ft. in the air and drop them...does the earth accelerate into them at the same time?

I will answer for you, no.

Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2008, 11:56:12 AM
Just wondering if everyone really thinks this way?
How about you lift up a motorcycle engine and a shoe 10 ft. in the air and drop them...does the earth accelerate into them at the same time?
Yes, it does.  Air resistance would hamper one, however.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: factsrfun on August 15, 2008, 12:01:08 PM
Just wondering if everyone really thinks this way?
How about you lift up a motorcycle engine and a shoe 10 ft. in the air and drop them...does the earth accelerate into them at the same time?
Yes, it does.  Air resistance would hamper one, however.

can you calculate what you describe as air resistance then please? We'll assume that the motorcycle engine weights 75 pounds and the shoe is 1.5 pounds.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2008, 12:11:16 PM
I would need a lot more information than that.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: factsrfun on August 15, 2008, 12:20:51 PM
like how far above sea level its at? ehe
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2008, 12:22:32 PM
No, like shape and size.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: factsrfun on August 15, 2008, 12:30:30 PM
No, like shape and size.

you could assume that stuff, even say they are both box shaped. Engine is 14"x24"x10" and shoe is 9"x3"x3"
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2008, 12:38:00 PM
Fd=.5*rho*V^2*Cd*A

All other factors being the same, the drag force is dependent on area.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: factsrfun on August 15, 2008, 12:50:22 PM
so "*A" is referring to accel. of the earth? not objects?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2008, 12:52:15 PM
No, A is area.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: apollo11 on August 19, 2008, 06:01:05 PM

People Who Have "Been In Space" -- Yes, they need astronauts saying, "Hey! I was up there!" But they're barely part of the conspiracy, they're just people who have a little bit of leverage, and therefore need a bit of bribing. We'll count them as half-people for this count, since they don't really count as conspirators. So, if we have somewhere around fifty people that have "been in space," that means that it counts for about twenty-five conspirators, therefore bringing our total to forty-five which is not as large as is commonly described.


This just might be the biggest hole in this conspiracy argument. 

Over 450 people have "been" to space, yet the number somehow comes out to 50?

And I can't say I understand why they only count as half people.  Whether or not you believe they have actually been to space, it's obvious that they go somewhere.  They would have to be more involved in the whole ordeal than just about anyone else.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 19, 2008, 06:37:03 PM
Not all astronauts would need to be bribed, probably.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: apollo11 on August 19, 2008, 07:01:32 PM
Not all astronauts would need to be bribed, probably.

They most certainly would.  They're kind of an important piece of the conspiracy puzzle.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 20, 2008, 06:15:06 AM
Not all astronauts would need to be bribed, probably.

oh right they just put them in a box and shake it a bit and say, hey, you're in space!  and they tie fishing line to their ankles and dangle them in the air to trick them into thinking they are weightless.  Or does a wizard come and cast the weightlessness spell on the muggle astronauts and trick them?

Muggium, thinkis inspaceium! 
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 20, 2008, 08:39:19 AM
Not all astronauts would need to be bribed, probably.

oh right they just put them in a box and shake it a bit and say, hey, you're in space!  and they tie fishing line to their ankles and dangle them in the air to trick them into thinking they are weightless.  Or does a wizard come and cast the weightlessness spell on the muggle astronauts and trick them?

Muggium, thinkis inspaceium! 

Kind of, but it would be a little more sophisticated and hi-tech than that.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 20, 2008, 10:37:36 AM
Not all astronauts would need to be bribed, probably.

oh right they just put them in a box and shake it a bit and say, hey, you're in space!  and they tie fishing line to their ankles and dangle them in the air to trick them into thinking they are weightless.  Or does a wizard come and cast the weightlessness spell on the muggle astronauts and trick them?

Muggium, thinkis inspaceium! 

Kind of, but it would be a little more sophisticated and hi-tech than that.

LOL!

And how do they fake microgravity? 
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Funderballz@hotmail.com on September 01, 2008, 07:21:45 PM
if this conspiracy was so inbeded into the governement that they were willing to spend millions of pounds to cover it up, and kill people, why would they let this site stay alive? And let you FE'rs live? Surely you would've been killed by now?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 01, 2008, 07:28:58 PM
if this conspiracy was so inbeded into the governement that they were willing to spend millions of pounds to cover it up, and kill people, why would they let this site stay alive? And let you FE'rs live? Surely you would've been killed by now?

This is covered in the FAQ.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Funderballz@hotmail.com on September 01, 2008, 07:32:32 PM
no it isn't.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 01, 2008, 07:34:47 PM
It sure is.  I noticed it while looking at the FAQ yesterday.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Funderballz@hotmail.com on September 01, 2008, 07:39:11 PM
it says that shutting down this site would be proof of the existence of the flat world. But, killing anyone who went near the edge of the planet would be too. People would find out. If they were willing to put some much money into bribing people, they could easily secure the funds to shut down this website, delete all history of it, and silence anyone who remembered anything on it.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 01, 2008, 07:48:30 PM
it says that shutting down this site would be proof of the existence of the flat world. But, killing anyone who went near the edge of the planet would be too. People would find out. If they were willing to put some much money into bribing people, they could easily secure the funds to shut down this website, delete all history of it, and silence anyone who remembered anything on it.

I lose sleep at night worrying that just such a thing might happen some day.  But in the name of honest scientific inquiry I bravely soldier on.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Funderballz@hotmail.com on September 01, 2008, 07:52:19 PM
I honestly don't know if you are being sarcastic, just out of curiocity, are you?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 01, 2008, 07:53:13 PM
A little.  I get worked up when people challenge my beliefs.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Funderballz@hotmail.com on September 01, 2008, 07:55:53 PM
do you never challenge anyone's beliefs? I don't believe it is right to force your views on anyone else, but I believe healthy debate is perfectly reasonable and important to furthering society.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 01, 2008, 07:58:31 PM
I agree.  That's why this site exists.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Funderballz@hotmail.com on September 01, 2008, 08:00:04 PM
then why is nearly all questions/debate met with 'look at the FAQ' or a heavy dose of sarcasm. Do you really fear for your life for your beliefs? Have you know anyone who shares your beliefs in the planet suddenly disapear?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 01, 2008, 08:02:14 PM
I feel I've answered your questions adequately.  The fact is the government sees us as a bunch of crackpots so why shut it down?  Further, nearly everybody who comes here sees us as a bunch of crackpots so what should worry them about our existence?  If anything this website helps them out, because people like you are positive that if such a conspiracy existed then this website wouldn't.

Further, it's not technically the government who runs the Conspiracy.  It's NASA and the other world's space programs.  They are duping the government to get their hands on their funding.  How else would a Conspiracy such as this be profitable?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Funderballz@hotmail.com on September 01, 2008, 08:09:51 PM
ok ok, I hear what you are saying and understand. With such knowledge and belief that you have, do you not want to know more? I know that the world is round, and that if you go far enough east on the map, you'll magicaly appear on the west. You believe that the world is flat, and if you go far enough east on the map . . . what? Do you not want to know more about our world rather then just NOT believe what people tell you. If I was you, I would be an explorer, or at very least, someone with enough evidence to get some kind of a bribe out of NASA haha!
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 01, 2008, 08:20:15 PM
ok ok, I hear what you are saying and understand. With such knowledge and belief that you have, do you not want to know more? I know that the world is round, and that if you go far enough east on the map, you'll magicaly appear on the west. You believe that the world is flat, and if you go far enough east on the map . . . what? Do you not want to know more about our world rather then just NOT believe what people tell you. If I was you, I would be an explorer, or at very least, someone with enough evidence to get some kind of a bribe out of NASA haha!

Please read the FAQ.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Funderballz@hotmail.com on September 01, 2008, 08:22:01 PM
I have, which part are you refering it?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 01, 2008, 08:22:45 PM
The part that addresses the question you just asked.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Funderballz@hotmail.com on September 01, 2008, 08:25:46 PM
I was talking about the personal section, about you. Why are you not more of an activist on this topic? If I suddenly found proof and believed proof that there is no such thing as noise, tomorrow, I would be straight out there trying to make money from it, or understand it better.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 01, 2008, 08:31:09 PM
I was talking about the personal section, about you. Why are you not more of an activist on this topic? If I suddenly found proof and believed proof that there is no such thing as noise, tomorrow, I would be straight out there trying to make money from it, or understand it better.

I confess I don't entirely understand this post, but the fact is that I really don't care whether other people choose to believe it or not.  I know better than to think I can overturn a lifetime of dogma.  It's like trying to convince a Christian that there's no rational reason to believe that Jesus wasn't the son of God.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Funderballz@hotmail.com on September 01, 2008, 08:32:33 PM
you raise a valid point, but I regularly do try to convince Christians that Jesus was not the son of God.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 01, 2008, 08:33:51 PM
I love to argue about it, but I know better than to think that it'll end up meaning anything.  ;D
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Atheist Antagonist on September 01, 2008, 10:50:26 PM
Rr332211, gravity has nothing to do with how fast Earth is moving, it all depends on Earth's acceleration. If you jump up into the air, the gap between you and the ground will close at an increasing rate of 9.8m/s^2. Every time you jump. No matter how many times you jump.

Let me simplify the physics for you with a simple example. Let's say you're in a car. The car is still. Now it starts moving. You feel a slight force pushing your head back against the headrest. It accelerates a bit. The force gets stronger. Let's skip forward a bit. Say it's a sports car or you're on a highway. You're moving really fast. Rediculously fast. There must be a rocket strapped to the back of the car. You're having a really hard time pulling your head forward. The skin on your face is stretching backward.

This is due to the car's acceleration. Objects resist acceleration. It's what they do. That's the whole reason for momentum and g-forces during high-speed motion, which is what I'm talking about. Therefore, on an upwardly accelerating surface, not only would falling speeds be affected by the constantly increasing speed, but all other effects of the g-forces would also change. The g-force would eventually become so strong that human bodies would be crushed by it. Have you felt yourself and everything around you getting heavier as time progresses? Thank you.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: durnsy on September 12, 2008, 08:16:45 AM

Who DOES Need to Know:
NASA -- Okay, so the top three (at most) need to know, we'll say. These are the guys who actually are controlling the conspiracy, and maybe some of the profit is divided amongst them, but they don't need to be bribed to shut their mouths, and thus have no leverage amongst the others. If we say about three other people in NASA know about it, who are helping with image editing, video editing, and general coverage, but working closely with the top three.
RASA -- The Russians are just about equal if not more active in space exploration as the US, so we'll say these guys have six people helping out with the conspiracy as well. As a matter of fact, tag one more on, just because I'm generous. That leaves us with thirteen people.
China -- Yes, in 2003, China became the third country to independently send a manned spaceship into outer space. However, their space program isn't all that big. As a (very) liberal estimate, we'll say they need about three people. But why don't we tag on one more just to make sure I'm not cheating. That leaves us with seventeen people from the space exploration crews that need to know.

GPS Manufacturers -- I'm going to say they only need one person for this job. There's not really much to do. Machines make most of the chips, and I doubt all of the bosses of the companies need to even bother. They just need to have one guy saying, "Yup, that's right." This guy could even be one of the NASA or RASA members, honestly, but I'm being nice. This rings up to a comprehensive total of eighteen people.

Public Relations People -- NASA or RASA conspirators could fill this role, too, but again, generosity has the better of me, and I'm going to say that the conspiracy hires people to do this, too, since the guys in the space exploration teams are filled with a bunch of pale, pimply white guys, and therefore aren't good at convincing people of the truth. We'll say they need a couple of these guys, bringing the total up to a whopping twenty people.

People Who Have "Been In Space" -- Yes, they need astronauts saying, "Hey! I was up there!" But they're barely part of the conspiracy, they're just people who have a little bit of leverage, and therefore need a bit of bribing. We'll count them as half-people for this count, since they don't really count as conspirators. So, if we have somewhere around fifty people that have "been in space," that means that it counts for about twenty-five conspirators, therefore bringing our total to forty-five which is not as large as is commonly described.

Who Does NOT Need To Know:

PotUS -- Why would the president need to know? All he knows is that he's giving money to what he thinks is a space exploration team, and then he sees exactly what everyone in the world sees on TV. He doesn't ever need to suspect a damned thing.

Members of Space Teams -- They see exactly what we see as well, but they're sitting on the ground looking at it "Live." That doesn't mean that they know that the people are actually in space, but they can make a really convincing argument towards it, perhaps.

Conclusive Mathematics:

Basically, I'm going to assume that every single person on my list wants to get paid so that they won't talk about the conspiracy. They're going to want a lot of it, too, most likely. Probably enough so that they won't have to work for the rest of their lives? Well, how's about something like one million dollars per year, plus one million in advance. That's far better than most jobs can fetch, and all they have to do is shut up. Minus the top five or so, since they are the runners of the organization.
That brings us to 40 x 1,000,000. Forty million dollars plus forty million every year? Sure, it's plenty of cash, but NASA receives so much more money than that from just governmental funds, and while I don't know much about Russian space teams, I'm sure they do, too. They can easily pay for this, and the undernoted requirements for money, without even breaking a sweat; in fact, they'll be probably pulling a profit, just from the government giving them cash.


Maintenance:

There doesn't need to be all that much maintenance, besides damage control. The space exploration programs have maintenance funds from their respective governments, so they're all self-sufficient without having to spend excess money on maintaining the conspiracy (seeing as all the cash they're not spending on research can be spent on the conspiracy).
The only reason extra money might need to be poured into the conspiracy would be for damage control. If we say that this would cost somewhere around five million per year, that still only leaves us with forty-five million per year.

*UPDATED*
Ice Wall Guarding:


Now, I'm going to take this, and say that we need about one-thousand men guarding the wall, again with two shifts each....
Ok... sounds Good 2000 at 100000 a year thats what 200million + the 45 original 245million
but how about the FAQ's introduction to this
Quote
Q: "How come the travel time by air from South America to New Zealand, via the polar route, is SHORTER than the travel time going North first and then South again?"

A: (Presumed answer: The airline pilots are misled by their GPS, or are deliberately conspiring to make it appear that the flights take different times)
the FAA says there are 612,000 pilots.... lets assume [extrordinarily generous assumption] only half are allowed to fly over international waters thats still 306000.... That is 10 Shea Stadiums worth of conspirators.... ok screw that number most probably have small planes lets reduce it even further....HALF AGAIN.. ok so we are clear I'm going to assume that the entire population of airline pilots lives in the US and that only one in every 4 pilots has license to cross international borders... is this true? by no stretch of the imagination, but hey, im being generous.. it still adds 153000 people... EVEN if they were not actively conspiring they would notice that land masses don't line up with their GPS...so unless they were complete Morons... so I'll drop 1000 of them as morons... thats another 152000 but let's assume that they don't get the fat check the big-wigs get, they get an extra 100k a year like the soldiers, let's see *quackulations*  ok my quackulator says it tuns out to 15.2 BILLION....WOW... this is kinda big budget here that's not even including the original 245 million... but that only inflates it to 15.4..... How do you explain that?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: durnsy on September 12, 2008, 08:35:38 AM
This was posted under reasons for the conspiracy
The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Embarrassment:
So, the government messed up at a really bad time to mess up, and they've been pooling all of the already-angry tax-payers' money into research that eventually led to a less-than-exciting discovery: The Earth is flat. Everyone was wrong. Millions (probably billions) of dollars of money that didn't really belong to them had been basically tossed down the drain for research of the round Earth, when, in fact it was flat. So, instead of angering people and possibly even sparking a revolt of some sort, they made up some stuff. And you know how lies tend to roll and get bigger and bigger until they're inescapable? I'd say a worldwide conspiracy is that concept...to the max.

Are you kidding me?  if they discovered the earth was flat that would be REMARKABLE... yes i used caps, it would literally VOID every single physics book beyond the third grade level there would need to be a Re-thinking of all of our accepted theories,  People have thought the earth was round since um..I don't feel like wikipedia-ing it, but I think Aristotle..(NO not columbus... in fact 1491 was the year a globe became standard for the spanish Navy)  so they they wouldn't have come back from space and said "Well.. it's flat"  there would have been a "Holy shit what the fuck!, start re-writing all our research for this shit"  and how would that re-search be wasted? it was all tested, it would just lead to different conclusions, so it wouldn't cost that much... it would actually make a ton of money for physics professors.  Plus, during the space Race Russia was trying to embarass us, so when the first man in space (russian) went up wouldn't he have come back and said something along the lines of "Poor quality capitalism...still think earth is round like ball"
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 12, 2008, 08:56:47 AM
That was just one theory.  They probably just want money.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: jargo on September 12, 2008, 09:39:44 AM
I wolud like to know what proof does Dioptimus Drime have on this conspiracy. I mean he has listed motives but not a single proof. I could say that Dioptimus Drime probably likes money and I know that you can make lot of money on dealing drugs so have I proved that Dioptimus Drime is a drug dealer?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: durnsy on September 12, 2008, 09:48:19 AM
That was just one theory.  They probably just want money.
O, I know im not saying I destroyed the whole argument.... just that piece is so very counter intuitive. I do try to not be that guy who just says he is right, but if you think about it... it's possible, but if you think about it beyond face level it would have to be so far reaching that almost literally the only people not involved would be the ones fighting it.


Just a few things about the conspiracy I still don't get I am open to any responses to these, & i will respond to the sensible ones.

Basically the same problem I have with all conspiracies is that after the public knows the face of it, it becomes too hard to maintain, just a couple examples.

how do they make the money?.... b/c NASA loses money year after year.   and I don't see how collecting taxes for things that don't actually happen does anything but pool money.

What do janitors at NASA do all day?  Having a nothing job is cool, I know (i used to be a pot dealer in college) but it will drive you nuts if you actually just don't do anything. So what about the computer programmers, the lunchroom workers, the physicians, pool cleaners, mechanics, engineers, basically all the people who maintain the equipment that NASA says goes or went into space. And if they don't exist why hasn't anyone noticed it? I mean Orlando is kind of a big place, but I think if you lived there and had never met anyone who had known anyone who had a low-level job there... something would be up...

 so the head of NASA needs to know this.... how many heads have there been? what did they tell their wives, their hookers, their ex-girlfreinds, jilted secretaries? people love hate more than money so anyone who is mad at the current administration could easily come forward, and show how they've been lying at the cost of their bribe.   how many times have they been drunk?  are any of them old enough to be senile? The stuff in your head comes out voluntarily no matter how hard you try to keep it a secret.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Eddy Baby on September 14, 2008, 02:00:13 PM

humans have been to Hoth!That looked real, didn't it? Damned real.


~D-Draw

lololololol.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: BoC on January 01, 2009, 10:11:44 AM
If the Earth is flat, then why do you see the sail of a ship before the ship?

/Theory debunked.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 01, 2009, 10:18:33 AM
If the Earth is flat, then why do you see the sail of a ship before the ship?

/Theory debunked.

Read Earth Not a Globe.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: BoC on January 01, 2009, 10:21:28 AM
If the Earth is flat, then why do you see the sail of a ship before the ship?

/Theory debunked.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

I'm not paying money to read a book of lies.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 01, 2009, 10:23:22 AM
I'm not paying money to read a book of lies.

It's available in full online.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: BoC on January 01, 2009, 10:30:11 AM
I'm not paying money to read a book of lies.

It's available in full online.

Regardless, telling me to read a book isn't a very good argument. 

Just tell me why.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Cheryl Wiesbaden on January 01, 2009, 10:33:20 AM
The answers are there for you to find them. If you truly wished to learn, you would seek them out for yourself.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: markjo on January 01, 2009, 11:32:46 AM
The answers are there for you to find them. If you truly wished to learn, you would seek them out for yourself.

And if you knew anything about optics, you would know that Rowbotham's answers are wrong.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Cheryl Wiesbaden on January 01, 2009, 11:34:23 AM
The answers are there for you to find them. If you truly wished to learn, you would seek them out for yourself.

And if you knew anything about optics, you would know that Rowbotham's answers are wrong.
Is there anything that you are not an expert on? ::)
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: markjo on January 01, 2009, 11:49:21 AM
The answers are there for you to find them. If you truly wished to learn, you would seek them out for yourself.

And if you knew anything about optics, you would know that Rowbotham's answers are wrong.
Is there anything that you are not an expert on? ::)
You don't need to be an expert to know that Rowbotham was wrong.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 01, 2009, 11:59:21 AM
Quote
You don't need to be an expert to know that Rowbotham was wrong.

Where did you prove that Rowbotham was wrong?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: markjo on January 01, 2009, 12:36:06 PM
Quote
You don't need to be an expert to know that Rowbotham was wrong.

Where did you prove that Rowbotham was wrong?

Well, for one thing, even Roundy admits that Rowbotham was wrong about the moon being self luminous.

Let's see.  Rowbotham's explanations of the sinking ship phenomenon and sun sets as perspective effects do not obey even the most basic optical properties.

Rowbotham was also wrong when he said that an object tossed into the air loses all horizontal motion when it reaches the apex of it's trajectory.

The easier question would probably be where did you prove Rowbotham right?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 01, 2009, 01:23:40 PM
Quote
Well, for one thing, even Roundy admits that Rowbotham was wrong about the moon being self luminous.

Let's see.  Rowbotham's explanations of the sinking ship phenomenon and sun sets as perspective effects do not obey even the most basic optical properties.

Rowbotham was also wrong when he said that an object tossed into the air loses all horizontal motion when it reaches the apex of it's trajectory.

So how do you know that Rowbotham is wrong if you didn't bother to prove or test anything?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: markjo on January 01, 2009, 07:14:50 PM
Quote
Well, for one thing, even Roundy admits that Rowbotham was wrong about the moon being self luminous.

Let's see.  Rowbotham's explanations of the sinking ship phenomenon and sun sets as perspective effects do not obey even the most basic optical properties.

Rowbotham was also wrong when he said that an object tossed into the air loses all horizontal motion when it reaches the apex of it's trajectory.

So how do you know that Rowbotham is wrong if you didn't bother to prove or test anything?

So how do you know that Rowbotham is right if none of his experiments work right?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Edtharan on January 01, 2009, 09:29:05 PM
The answers are there for you to find them. If you truly wished to learn, you would seek them out for yourself.

And if you knew anything about optics, you would know that Rowbotham's answers are wrong.
Is there anything that you are not an expert on? ::)
He is not even claiming to be an expert.

You are trying to use a Logical Fallacy called an Ah Hominin.

It is the basics that disprove Rowbotham, you know the stuff you learn in high school and actually do the experiments yourself that confirm these basic principals.

Sure, they are the basics now, but I will give it to Rowbotham that they might not have been as widely known or tested at the time of writing of EnaG and so he can be forgiven for not knowing them. But this is no excuse now days. These basics are so well tested, and that it is trivial to test them for yourself (ie: go look at a high school textbook for the experiments and do them yourself).

So you don't need to be an expert to disprove Rowbotham, you just have to have gone to high school.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Perfect Circle on January 01, 2009, 09:53:15 PM
Quote
Well, for one thing, even Roundy admits that Rowbotham was wrong about the moon being self luminous.

Let's see.  Rowbotham's explanations of the sinking ship phenomenon and sun sets as perspective effects do not obey even the most basic optical properties.

Rowbotham was also wrong when he said that an object tossed into the air loses all horizontal motion when it reaches the apex of it's trajectory.

So how do you know that Rowbotham is wrong if you didn't bother to prove or test anything?
Why should we prove a negative? Where's all the evidence that Rowbotham and Lady Blount are right, instead of Wallace, Oldham, and the others that have performed the experiment?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2009, 06:20:16 AM
Quote
So how do you know that Rowbotham is right if none of his experiments work right?

Please answer the question: How do you know that Rowbotham was wrong if you have not proven or demonstrated him to be wrong?

Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2009, 06:30:55 AM
Quote
Why should we prove a negative? Where's all the evidence that Rowbotham and Lady Blount are right, instead of Wallace, Oldham, and the others that have performed the experiment?

They've already presented their evidence.

How about you guys present some?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: markjo on January 02, 2009, 10:00:35 AM
Quote
So how do you know that Rowbotham is right if none of his experiments work right?

Please answer the question: How do you know that Rowbotham was wrong if you have not proven or demonstrated him to be wrong?

I have personally witnessed the sun setting below the horizon.  My personal observation did not match Rowbotham's explanation.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Johannes on January 02, 2009, 11:57:07 AM
Why not?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: markjo on January 02, 2009, 12:54:30 PM
Why not?

Rowbotham said that the sun should recede into the background and fade away.  That is not what I witnessed.  I distinctly saw the sun dip below the horizon.  I even have pictures if you'd like to see.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2009, 04:19:05 PM
Quote
Rowbotham said that the sun should recede into the background and fade away.

No he didn't.

Please answer the question: How do you know that Rowbotham was wrong if you have not proven or demonstrated him to be wrong?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Perfect Circle on January 02, 2009, 06:01:06 PM
Quote
Rowbotham said that the sun should recede into the background and fade away.

No he didn't.

Please answer the question: How do you know that Rowbotham was wrong if you have not proven or demonstrated him to be wrong?

We don't have to prove a negative. Where's your evidence that he was right? And you must also prove that only he was right, instead of the others that performed the experiment and came to different conclusions.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2009, 06:05:19 PM
Quote
We don't have to prove a negative.

The not what Markjo said. He knows that Rowbotham is wrong.

I'm simply asking how he knows that Rowbotham is wrong if he never did any tests or trials to prove that he was wrong.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: markjo on January 02, 2009, 07:35:28 PM
Quote
Rowbotham said that the sun should recede into the background and fade away.

No he didn't.

Please answer the question: How do you know that Rowbotham was wrong if you have not proven or demonstrated him to be wrong?

Quote from: Paralax
In the diagram, fig. 64, let the line E, D, represent the surface of the earth; H, H, the morning and evening horizon; and A, S, B, a portion of the true path of the sun. An observer at 0, looking to the east, will first see the sun in the morning, not at A, its true position, but in its apparent position, H, just emerging from the "vanishing point," or the morning horizon. At nine o'clock, the sun will have the apparent position, 1, gradually appearing to ascend the line H, 1, S; the point S, being the meridian or noonday position. From S, the sun will be seen to gradually descend the line S, 2, H, until he reaches the horizon, H, and entering the "vanishing point," disappears, to an observer in England, in the west, beyond the continent of North America, as in the morning he is seen to rise from the direction of Northern Asia.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig64.jpg)

This is not what I observed when I saw the sun set.  The path that the sun took when it set was much steeper than what Rowbotham describes.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Eddy Baby on January 11, 2009, 11:20:31 AM
I've stood at a point near my house in the Midlands in England and watched the sun set from there. It appeared to set exactly as it usually does, yet the next highest point in that direction is somewhere in North-Western Europe, at least 300 miles away. I don't really know what effect this would have on Rowbotham's theory, but would it still hold up to that?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2009, 04:08:21 AM
Quote
This is not what I observed when I saw the sun set.  The path that the sun took when it set was much steeper than what Rowbotham describes.

Really? What kind of steepness does Rowbotham describe for the sun's setting?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: markjo on January 15, 2009, 08:09:20 AM
Quote
This is not what I observed when I saw the sun set.  The path that the sun took when it set was much steeper than what Rowbotham describes.

Really? What kind of steepness does Rowbotham describe for the sun's setting?

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig64.jpg)

Doesn't look very steep to me.  At least not as steep as I personally witnessed.  Depending on your latitude and the season, the sun's path looks something closer to this:
(http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/planetarium/sunpath.gif)
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 16, 2009, 02:10:34 AM
Quote
Doesn't look very steep to me.  At least not as steep as I personally witnessed.
 

George Davey's illustrations are severely out of scale in ENAG, if you hadn't noticed. In that image the sun looks like it's about a few feet above the person.

Different bodies recede into the horizon at different inclinations, as everyone knows. A flock of birds will disappear into the horizon at a different inclination than a jet airplane. As the body gets higher it will approach the horizon at a different angle.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on January 16, 2009, 05:30:02 AM
everything that travels towards the horizon gets smaller and smaller, in addition, its angular velocity slows down.  Neither of these is true for the sun.  Also, do you have any idea how far away the sun would have to be from an observer in order to appear to touch the horizon if the earth was flat?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: markjo on January 16, 2009, 06:08:04 AM
Quote
Doesn't look very steep to me.  At least not as steep as I personally witnessed.
 

George Davey's illustrations are severely out of scale in ENAG, if you hadn't noticed. In that image the sun looks like it's about a few feet above the person.

Different bodies recede into the horizon at different inclinations, as everyone knows. A flock of birds will disappear into the horizon at a different inclination than a jet airplane. As the body gets higher it will approach the horizon at a different angle.

You are still missing (or evading) the point Tom.  The observed path of the sun as it sets is an arc downwards, not an incline.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 16, 2009, 06:29:34 AM
Quote
everything that travels towards the horizon gets smaller and smaller

The sun maintaining its diameter as it recedes is discussed in a dedicated chapter of Earth Not a Globe.

Quote
its angular velocity slows down

I'm of the opinion that the sun is at such a height that its perspective lines into the earth from the observer's point of view is nearly 45 degrees, meaning that its velocity is relatively slow and constant.

Quote
Also, do you have any idea how far away the sun would have to be from an observer in order to appear to touch the horizon if the earth was flat?

It has been established in Earth Not a Globe that the vanishing point to perspective lines are not infinitely far away, but a finite distance away from the observer.

Quote
You are still missing (or evading) the point Tom.  The observed path of the sun as it sets is an arc downwards, not an incline.

Really? How can you tell that the sun is arcing downwards rather than setting on an incline?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on January 16, 2009, 08:14:59 AM
Quote
everything that travels towards the horizon gets smaller and smaller

The sun maintaining its diameter as it recedes is discussed in a dedicated chapter of Earth Not a Globe.

He never provides any experimental data for this, only an assumption that this is what is happening to the sun.

I'm of the opinion that the sun is at such a height that its perspective lines into the earth from the observer's point of view is nearly 45 degrees, meaning that its velocity is relatively slow and constant.

So the vanishing point is exactly 3100 miles away  ???
Again an assumption with no experimental data.

It has been established in Earth Not a Globe that the vanishing point to perspective lines are not infinitely far away, but a finite distance away from the observer.

How did he establish that?

Let me give an example of this.  Lets say it is the December solstice. An observer in south America directly on the tropic of Capricorn watches the sun pass by directly overhead at exactly 15 degrees per hour.

Lets take Flat earth numbers and assume the earth is flat for this.  At noon, the sun is exactly 3100 miles above the observers head.  Another observer, who is exactly 9000 miles north of the first observer (somewhere in Canada).  Is observing the same sun.

With the Pythagorean theorem, we calculate his distance from the sun assuming the earth is flat.

3100^2 + 9000^2 = c^2

When we solve, unless I made a typo, the second observer is 10397.11 miles away from the sun.  More than 3 times the distance than the first observer.  Of course relative to both observers the sun is traveling at the same linear velocity.  However, the angular velocity should be much smaller for the second observer since he is so much further away.  This is not the case, from every location on earth, the sun travels almost exactly 15 degrees across the sky.  Not to mention that at noon the sun is 3100 miles above the first observers, but at 5:00 p.m. it will be further away on a flat earth, and therefore should have a different angular velocity.  Still not the case.

I believe this is a huge hole in FE.

Rowbatham does not explain this with any of his experiments.  He also does not explain the equinox observations either.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25336.0

The fact of the matter is, there is still observational evidence present that indicates the earth is not flat.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: lolcool on January 22, 2009, 09:33:12 AM
I wonder how you would explain this away, but I work for Cogent Communications, and I have access to one of the thirteen internet root nameservers. We are often asked to completly destory hack/virus sites.

You claim the goverment does not shut down the website because it would prove your theory correct.

It is perfectly possible to shut down a site and make it look like the owner shut it or the web server hosting it failed/crashed/virus/was destroyed. I and others have performed such operations on sites which organize crime. We do it this way to reduce possibilitys of fan sites made after the main site is taken down.

Also, we have access to over 99% (99.756% if I remember) of the worlds ISP (as we have connection to the other 12 root nameservers) and as we have permission to see their records, we can find out almost anyones address by monitering the ISP which they use. CC has helped Police and other powers to apprehand criminals thousends of times this way.

So my point is, we can crash your site in any number of ways and make no-one the wiser, theres a recorded 127 ways which we have used to crash a site, the most common is just destroying it there and then. You think people will think that FE is real just because your unprotected website goes down? We can just phone up your hosting company and order them to take you down and spill some crap about you violated TOS.

But we havn't, none of the 13 Companys have being asked to monitor your website (we monitor many sites which are anti-goverment). Nobody cares about this bunch of lies. I wont even give you my reasons on how wrong you are because:

1) You just say im arragont and stupid if you cant answer a question which proves you wrong
2) You ignore me because I prove you wrong
3) You make up some crap ass theory with NO evidence, only your own ideas and refuse to believe anything else.

( and before you go "oh, well we know how you will take us down and it will make us stronger", do you think you will become headline news? No news company, not even a small town newspaper would talk to you, they would be a laughing stock. )

P.S The earth is a triangle, caveman bribed by bigger caveman built gaint lasers to cut it. Sorry.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 22, 2009, 12:36:17 PM
I wonder how you would explain this away, but I work for Cogent Communications, and I have access to one of the thirteen internet root nameservers. We are often asked to completly destory hack/virus sites.

You claim the goverment does not shut down the website because it would prove your theory correct.

It is perfectly possible to shut down a site and make it look like the owner shut it or the web server hosting it failed/crashed/virus/was destroyed. I and others have performed such operations on sites which organize crime. We do it this way to reduce possibilitys of fan sites made after the main site is taken down.

Also, we have access to over 99% (99.756% if I remember) of the worlds ISP (as we have connection to the other 12 root nameservers) and as we have permission to see their records, we can find out almost anyones address by monitering the ISP which they use. CC has helped Police and other powers to apprehand criminals thousends of times this way.

So my point is, we can crash your site in any number of ways and make no-one the wiser, theres a recorded 127 ways which we have used to crash a site, the most common is just destroying it there and then. You think people will think that FE is real just because your unprotected website goes down? We can just phone up your hosting company and order them to take you down and spill some crap about you violated TOS.

But we havn't, none of the 13 Companys have being asked to monitor your website (we monitor many sites which are anti-goverment). Nobody cares about this bunch of lies. I wont even give you my reasons on how wrong you are because:

1) You just say im arragont and stupid if you cant answer a question which proves you wrong
2) You ignore me because I prove you wrong
3) You make up some crap ass theory with NO evidence, only your own ideas and refuse to believe anything else.

( and before you go "oh, well we know how you will take us down and it will make us stronger", do you think you will become headline news? No news company, not even a small town newspaper would talk to you, they would be a laughing stock. )

P.S The earth is a triangle, caveman bribed by bigger caveman built gaint lasers to cut it. Sorry.

First of all, relax a little.  This site is mostly for fun.  I certainly don't think that you're retarded.  In fact, for a first post that was very intelligent and reasonable.  Welcome to FES.

To address your points, I highly doubt that the conspiracy would involve a private company like yours just to take care of us.  As you said, certainly you can just make something up about violating the terms of service or whatever.  And that might fool the hosting company.  But it wouldn't fool a computer professional like yourself, would it?  You'd know if we really had violated the law or done something to warrant being shut down.  I obviously don't know a lot about your company, but I'm sure that they have to follow the law, at least on paper.  And there is simply no legal reason to take us down.

The conspiracy is not an official U.S. government initiative, it is simply some corrupt government employees.  Again, I don't pretend to know about your protocol, but I highly doubt that your superiors would drop everything and obey orders if someone comes in and says, "Hey, I'm from NASA.  I need you to shut down a website called The Flat Earth Society, for national security reasons."
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: svenanders on January 22, 2009, 02:13:46 PM
Hi Saddam!

How is your neck?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 23, 2009, 01:10:30 PM
My neck is just fine, seeing how it never actually entered a noose, but don't go off topic.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: WTF? on January 28, 2009, 02:04:38 PM
Quote from: Grigori Rasputin
So, are the current and past "top three" of NASA stinking rich? How about their russian and chinese counterparts? How they could cover up for decades that they are stinking rich, and at the same time enjoy the benefits? Secret holiday oasis for them and their families in the heavily guarded Antarctica?
Yup. And I guess they're just good about not spending their money all in one place.
(sorry that was a quote from dioptimus drime, p7 of this thread)
Problem. Russia was communist in the space race. Therefore the government would have noticed they had vast amounts of wealth. Therefore the Russian government must be involved too. That's a lot more people.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Psychevore on February 03, 2009, 07:54:03 AM
So, the Ice Wall.

Wouldn't Global Warming be disastrous? All the water would run off

And if it was high enough to indefinitely hold all the water coming off of it, we'd all drown. (I hope you realize this is impossible, because no ice wall would ever be able to hold up all the water it creates)

That's some serious shit people. You make me scared.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Proleg on February 03, 2009, 08:42:03 AM
The Ice Wall is a mountain range covered in ice. Global Warming would not have too much of an effect on it.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Psychevore on February 03, 2009, 09:59:05 AM
The Ice Wall is a mountain range covered in ice. Global Warming would not have too much of an effect on it.

So why is it an ice wall?

And if it's just a wall, why don't you fly over it?

You'll be shot? With all this live streaming on the internet nowadays I'm sure somebody with too much money and a high on pissing people off would try something
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Legacyof22 on April 19, 2009, 12:25:07 AM
Boolean Algebra, my latest obsession

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28393.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28393.0)

a<*<*<*<*...

You have created a parodox than leaves us no chance for escape from the middle. Neither truth of falseness touch you're theory. I'll be back later to disect your dfacts in boolean terms
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Parsifal on April 19, 2009, 12:26:44 AM
Boolean Algebra, my latest obsession

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28393.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28393.0)

a<*<*<*<*...

You have created a parodox than leaves us no chance for escape from the middle. Neither truth of falseness touch you're theory. I'll be back later to disect your dfacts in boolean terms

Quit spamming this in random threads. You've made a thread on the subject, that shall suffice.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: simpson3883 on April 20, 2009, 02:10:19 AM
Please explain what the point of such a conspiracy would be
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Parsifal on April 20, 2009, 03:07:08 AM
Please explain what the point of such a conspiracy would be

Read the fucking FAQ.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Hisharu on June 12, 2009, 06:50:06 PM
I have one small question, completely unrelated to Physics or science of the Ice Wall. If this "Conspiracy" (note the capital C) has such power and influence over so many parts of the U.S. Government, why has this site not been shut down yet?  They have armed guards and (in some threads) assassins willing to kill in order to hide the truth from the public, but the largest website filled with mathematical proof and ideas as to this theory they're trying to protect somehow remains intact? Let me quickly back up my argument.

ICANN (pronounced /aɪk?n/, eye-can) is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Headquartered in Marina Del Rey, California, United States, ICANN is a non-profit corporation that was created on September 18, 1998 in order to oversee a number of Internet-related tasks previously performed directly on behalf of the U.S. government by other organizations, notably the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).
ICANN's tasks include responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) top-level domain name system management, and root server system management functions.
In many ways, ICANN still reports and functions with the US Government.

The idea that the government has guards posted all along a wall (and somehow managed to keep EVERY SINGLE PERSON to keep quiet) but won't shut down a webpage is beyond ludicrous, and anyone who says this ran out of ideas.
The idea that shutting down this webpage would seem suspicious is very silly, as tons of webpages disappear every month due to not renuing their domain name in time and having it bought by someone else who simply hasn't posted up a page yet, causing a 404 error if anyone attempts to go to that domain name.  This exact incident occured to a fan made Zelda site I went to a few years ago. The domain name expired, it was bought by someone else (something anyone could easily do for $15 a year) who then never actually used it. Those with Optimum Online providers will recognize the classic
"We did not find results for: www.gogsgssbg.com. Try the suggestions below or type a new query above"
message for webpages with this symptom.

Please refrain from responding to my post by informing me of mistakes I might have made in my preemptive explanations.  Please respond with an idea as to why the webpage still exists despite this superpowerful and influential and expensive Conspiracy in the works, that isn't answered by one of my posts above. I invite anyone to this challenge, and will be happy to counter any logical arguments raised. Please, no cocky responses or obnoxiousness- this is simply an intelligent discussion.  However, if none can counter, I will assume the FES has finally thrown the white flag.

Thank you.

-Nick Miceli
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Hisharu on June 13, 2009, 01:19:48 PM
Also wanted to add another point:

I don't wish to sound creepy or threatening, but I was able to find the person who registered this website, their home address, and their phone number. Unless I am mistaken, it is a Mr. Davis who lives in Tennessee. I don't wish to divulge any more than that.

I know only an average amount about computers, but I have learned enough information to determine that this domain was purchased through godaddy.com , that it expires on 11-Mar-10, and of course the personal information of the man who owns this webpage. With all the tools available to those who run this conspiracy, U.S. Government associated or not, do you really think this webpage would be safe? I found at least 5 threads this morning that talk about the Conspiracy performing assassinations, this very thread mentions armed gunman all along an ice wall who have surely killed to keep this secret safe- if you were even CLOSE to being right, do you really think that this webpage would be fine? Do you realize how easy it would be to quietly shut down this webpage? It would certainly be easy to bribe or kill Mr. Davis, but I'm not even saying that! Between all the power and technology mentioned, the ability to hack, or shut down this webpage for some common reason is beyond abundant. The reason it has been up since at LEAST 11-Mar-08 is because nobody cares. And why would nobody care? Because there is nobody to care. There is no Conspiracy.  Thats the only conclusion I can make, and I'm still waiting on a counter argument.

Thank you again for your time,

Nick
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 13, 2009, 02:54:30 PM
I don't wish to sound creepy or threatening, but I was able to find the person who registered this website, their home address, and their phone number. Unless I am mistaken, it is a Mr. Davis who lives in Tennessee. I don't wish to divulge any more than that.

You are mistaken.  John Davis is Username, and he doesn't own this site, he owns the .net site.  The owner of this website is Daniel, who's British.  Neither he nor Username is at all reluctant about going into the public eye.  Daniel is in the process of making the FES become a real-life organization, and Username gave an interview to the BBC.

As for the rest of your post, why would the conspiracy bother shutting down this site?  We're hardly a threat to them.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: caelan96 on August 14, 2009, 10:37:53 PM

People Who Have "Been In Space" -- Yes, they need astronauts saying, "Hey! I was up there!" But they're barely part of the conspiracy, they're just people who have a little bit of leverage, and therefore need a bit of bribing. We'll count them as half-people for this count, since they don't really count as conspirators. So, if we have somewhere around fifty people that have "been in space," that means that it counts for about twenty-five conspirators, therefore bringing our total to forty-five which is not as large as is commonly described.


More than 500 people have been into Earth orbit (or claim to have been anyway) so your calculations are really quite wrong.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 15, 2009, 07:38:04 AM
How many of them have been high enough to observe whether or not the Earth is flat?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on August 15, 2009, 04:16:13 PM
Also wanted to add another point:

I don't wish to sound creepy or threatening, but I was able to find the person who registered this website, their home address, and their phone number. Unless I am mistaken, it is a Mr. Davis who lives in Tennessee. I don't wish to divulge any more than that.

I know only an average amount about computers, but I have learned enough information to determine that this domain was purchased through godaddy.com , that it expires on 11-Mar-10, and of course the personal information of the man who owns this webpage. With all the tools available to those who run this conspiracy, U.S. Government associated or not, do you really think this webpage would be safe? I found at least 5 threads this morning that talk about the Conspiracy performing assassinations, this very thread mentions armed gunman all along an ice wall who have surely killed to keep this secret safe- if you were even CLOSE to being right, do you really think that this webpage would be fine? Do you realize how easy it would be to quietly shut down this webpage? It would certainly be easy to bribe or kill Mr. Davis, but I'm not even saying that! Between all the power and technology mentioned, the ability to hack, or shut down this webpage for some common reason is beyond abundant. The reason it has been up since at LEAST 11-Mar-08 is because nobody cares. And why would nobody care? Because there is nobody to care. There is no Conspiracy.  Thats the only conclusion I can make, and I'm still waiting on a counter argument.

Thank you again for your time,

Nick
Have you ever tried to shut down a website? It's not as easy as you think kid.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Mrs. Peach on August 15, 2009, 05:01:46 PM
Hisharu needs to explain his motives, Hmmm?  The interest shown in Usernames's location added to his denial of the conspiracy might point to some low-level conspiracy operative earning his stripes.  And you look suspicious too, WoM!
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Nomad on August 15, 2009, 05:40:20 PM
I don't wish to sound creepy or threatening, but I was able to find the person who registered this website, their home address, and their phone number. Unless I am mistaken, it is a Mr. Davis who lives in Tennessee. I don't wish to divulge any more than that.

Domain WHOIS info only has what the domain was registered.  It does not reflect phone number or address changes, not to mention owner changes unless it is actually updated.  And I can guarantee you that Daniel does not live in Tennessee anymore.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Mrs. Peach on August 15, 2009, 05:59:09 PM
I think the guy is referring to the .net website.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on August 15, 2009, 06:01:28 PM
Hisharu needs to explain his motives, Hmmm?  The interest shown in Usernames's location added to his denial of the conspiracy might point to some low-level conspiracy operative earning his stripes.  And you look suspicious too, WoM!
Wait, what?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Mrs. Peach on August 15, 2009, 06:04:22 PM
Just seeing if you were awake and functioning. 
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on August 15, 2009, 06:05:03 PM
Just seeing if you were awake and functioning. 
Good, I thought my cover had been blown. That would have been really embarrassing.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 15, 2009, 06:11:04 PM
Username lives in Tennessee, he's said so a few times. I think Daniel lives in the UK. 
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Nomad on August 15, 2009, 06:17:58 PM
I didn't realize username owned .net.  However, Daniel does live in the UK, but previously lived in the US.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 15, 2009, 06:23:30 PM
Sometimes I think Username is Daniel!
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 15, 2009, 07:11:59 PM
The post you're quoting came from months ago.  I highly doubt that he's still around.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Nomad on August 15, 2009, 08:35:44 PM
Better late then never.  Plus, Kingman started it.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: OptimusPrime on August 19, 2009, 10:43:58 PM
Quote from: Dioptimus Prime
The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium

Conclusive...hmm...let's see, shall we?  (And yes, I realize this was posted in 2006, but as it is linked from the FAQ, it deserves to be thoroughly picked apart, if possible.)

Quote
Okay. There has been way too many threads asking about the same damned question, and too many people saying that the governments can't pull together a conspiracy as such, and what not. This will conclusively prove that it is entirely plausible, profitable and, hopefully, probable. Expect me to reference this any time you ask a stupid question about the conspiracy again.

Careful how you use the words "conclusively prove."  Also, be careful...this is science, right?  There ARE no stupid questions.  (Arguably, there is no conclusive proof for anything either.)

Quote
First Topic:
How Can They Afford the Conspiracy?

Good question.  Let's see what you say.


Quote
Bribes
Let's look at this liberally (keep in mind these are probably near maximized estimates).

Ah, but you'd actually have to be in on the conspiracy yourself to know whether or not these are "maximized."  In any case, "probably near maximized estimates"?????  What the heck does THAT mean?  Careful you don't trip over your own doublespeak!

Quote
Who DOES Need to Know:
NASA -- Okay, so the top three (at most) need to know, we'll say. These are the guys who actually are controlling the conspiracy, and maybe some of the profit is divided amongst them, but they don't need to be bribed to shut their mouths, and thus have no leverage amongst the others. If we say about three other people in NASA know about it, who are helping with image editing, video editing, and general coverage, but working closely with the top three.

THREE???  Sigh...  Have you ever worked in a group of three for any period of time?  I've never known a group of three (other than the Stooges) who didn't eventually turn on one another, especially when the stakes are high.  Almost inevitably, two gang up and force the third out in order to maximize their cut.  

Also, this word "leverage"...  With apologies to Mandy Patinkin, I do not think this word means what you think it means.

But let's say you're right, and three people run the show and three others help out with all the doctored footage and photos.  That's a staff of six people who are in on the whole joke.  

Do you happen to know how many people it takes to create a single episode of the show "Family Guy"??  One twenty-two minute episode takes FIVE HUNDRED people to produce.  It takes a crew of roughly fifteen people to run your live local nightly newscast (2 anchors, 1 weatherman, 2 to 3 camera operators, 1 producer, 1 person switching cameras, 1 person running the Chyron, 1 person running the audio mixer, 1 person running master control, 1 person running tapes/archived footage, 2 or 3 live reporters, 1 person running the live cam, 1 person running the satellite uplink...and this is assuming that the anchors actually write their own copy and operate their own teleprompters, and also excludes station management.)  Are you really expecting me to believe that a crew of SIX PEOPLE faked the whole lunar landing???  Really???  And out of those six people, how many do you think actually have the artistic talent to make the pictures and video believable??

I mean, have you even looked at the credits of any ILM movie?  (And do you know how impossible it is for most movie productions with the tightest security to keep ONE SINGLE LEAK from occurring?  Almost never works.)

You're going to have to up the ante by several thousand people, and that's just at one time.  Since the inception of NASA, people have been born and people have died.  NASA employees have died, hardly any of them fabulously wealthy, and not a single one of them has had a single pang of guilt, not one deathbed confession.   But if your number of SIX is truly accurate, then it is not only likely, but imperative, that the old six have either died or retired, necessitating a new six.  

Quote
RASA -- The Russians are just about equal if not more active in space exploration as the US, so we'll say these guys have six people helping out with the conspiracy as well. As a matter of fact, tag one more on, just because I'm generous. That leaves us with thirteen people.

Who are RASA?  I googled them, and all I could find were the Roosevelt Academy Student Association, a 1990's band, a mythical goddess, a Krishna concept, a town in Croatia, a record label, a place in Malaysia, and a Gundam character.  I don't mean to be picky here, but it really helps your credibility if you actually know the names of the entities you're talking about.  So far, though, astute info hasn't really been your strong point.  

But whatever.  You generously give them a maximum of seven people, for a grand total now of thirteen people.  Bear in mind, it took 33 directors to craft the Star Wars films.  But I guess if one of the people were willing to run audio AND props, they could pull it off, right?

Quote
China -- Yes, in 2003, China became the third country to independently send a manned spaceship into outer space. However, their space program isn't all that big. As a (very) liberal estimate, we'll say they need about three people. But why don't we tag on one more just to make sure I'm not cheating. That leaves us with seventeen people from the space exploration crews that need to know.

Y'know, I'd almost buy your number with China, because those people CAN keep secrets.  But seriously, three??  You do realize that there 1.3 billion people in China, right?  With your "very liberal estimate" of three people running the conspiracy in China, that would mean the assistant director would have to simultaneously run the cameras, monitor the sound board, operate the boom mic, run master control AND hold the cue cards, right?

Quote
GPS Manufacturers -- I'm going to say they only need one person for this job. There's not really much to do. Machines make most of the chips, and I doubt all of the bosses of the companies need to even bother. They just need to have one guy saying, "Yup, that's right." This guy could even be one of the NASA or RASA members, honestly, but I'm being nice. This rings up to a comprehensive total of eighteen people.

The heck??  ONE???  So what happens if that one guy dies?  The GPS companies would be seriously screwed.  For someone who has written such a comprehensive and conclusive piece, you sure don't seem to have much sense about how a business would actually RUN.  At this point, I'm starting to wonder if you're familiar with much more than the cold block walls of your mother's basement!  But surely even the one guy has to have a secretary, right?

Quote
Public Relations People -- NASA or RASA conspirators could fill this role, too, but again, generosity has the better of me, and I'm going to say that the conspiracy hires people to do this, too, since the guys in the space exploration teams are filled with a bunch of pale, pimply white guys, and therefore aren't good at convincing people of the truth. We'll say they need a couple of these guys, bringing the total up to a whopping twenty people.

Again with RASA...what does Croatia have to do with this?  

Space exploration teams full of pale, pimply white guys...  jeez, I wonder how Joseph Acaba would feel about that?  (He's Puerto Rican, in case you didn't know.)  Or Mike Adams, James Adamson, Andrew Allen, Michael Anderson (a black guy), or even Neil Armstrong would feel?  None of them are pale, and they appeared--at the time--to have great complexions.  (I didn't even get through the A's!)

But that aside...have you ever worked with a PR agency?  What am I saying...of course you haven't.  You don't just work with TWO people.  You've got your speechwriters, make-up advisors, damage control specialists, spokespeople, assistants... the list goes on.  And even if you're right, you're still only at 20 people.  Slightly more than work on your local nightly newscast.

Quote
People Who Have "Been In Space" -- Yes, they need astronauts saying, "Hey! I was up there!" But they're barely part of the conspiracy, they're just people who have a little bit of leverage, and therefore need a bit of bribing. We'll count them as half-people for this count, since they don't really count as conspirators. So, if we have somewhere around fifty people that have "been in space," that means that it counts for about twenty-five conspirators, therefore bringing our total to forty-five which is not as large as is commonly described.

Barely part of the conspiracy?  What... were they drugged and fooled into believing they actually did go to space???  (Suddenly I wish I hadn't asked that question.)  Half-people?  If anyone knows whether or not they went to space, IT IS THEM!  They have the most to hide!  I could possibly concede that a file clerk at NASA might not know the goings-on, but these guys--if what you say is true--all know they did not go to space.  

By the way, your count is WAY the heck off.  Fifty people my ass...there are 510 people who have "been in space."  And these people are being run by six people.  Do you realize what a logistical management nightmare that is???  And do you know the statistical probability that out of 510 people, NOT ONE OF THEM HAS GONE OFF THE SCRIPT??

Quote
Ice Wall Guards -- These guys don't need to be paid in full, either, as they're only guarding an ice wall. I believe that it was Erasmus who pulled some mathematics on this one, and showed that not that many people were needed to guard the ice wall. As they don't really have any leverage on the conspiracy, they won't count for this part (I'll go back to it later), since this is mostly about who needs to be paid to shut their mouths.

Here's where you went off into Whackoville (population: you) and fully lost me.  

First, you're trying to tell me a guy who is guarding a FUCKING ICE WALL at the EDGE OF THE WORLD, who constantly battles frostbite, sinus issues, the fact that his pee freezes mid-stream, crippling loneliness, complete seclusion from the world, and absolutely no poontang whatsoever DOESN'T NEED TO BE PAID IN FULL????

I suppose you could argue that they're stationed so remotely that no one would ever see them, but seriously, none of them ever came back to society?  And nobody has ever been sent to the mainland to get new recruits when Ice Guard Number 22 keels over from frostbite to the testicles?

So yes, let's disregard these (fictional) ice wall guardians for now.

That means your figure is now 45.  That's not even enough to pull off a production of "The Toxic Avenger" on Broadway, much less pull the wool over everyone in the world's eyes.  At best, the production values would be something like "Manos The Hands of Fate."

Not so conclusive thus far, I'm afraid.

Quote
Who Does NOT Need To Know:

PotUS -- Why would the president need to know? All he knows is that he's giving money to what he thinks is a space exploration team, and then he sees exactly what everyone in the world sees on TV. He doesn't ever need to suspect a damned thing.

I suppose I could agree here.  I guess it depends on which PotUS you're talking about.  It's a non-issue though...doesn't really bolster your argument at all.

Quote
Members of Space Teams -- They see exactly what we see as well, but they're sitting on the ground looking at it "Live." That doesn't mean that they know that the people are actually in space, but they can make a really convincing argument towards it, perhaps.

What the hell is a "Space Team"??  Are you referring to Mission Control?  The problem is that they don't just "see it."  They also feel it when the rockets take off.  (This is certainly also witnessed by anyone with eyes in the vicinity.)  And there's really no reason to believe they're NOT up there, unless you believe that they're simply shooting rockets off into nothingness.  I mean, they certainly don't often fall back to Earth anywhere, and those space shuttles do have an annoying tendency of coming back.  (Though I grant that they don't always come back in one piece.)  

The problem is that in order to believe this, you have to also believe that NASA has equipment that functions as commanded 100 percent of the time.  And come on...any of us who watched the Challenger explode in the third grade know THAT isn't the case.  You'd have to assume that all of the monitors in Mission Control are running pre-recorded tape of something.  If it's video...well, if you've ever worked with video at all, you know that it fails and fails OFTEN.  Watch your nightly newscast and see how many mistakes you notice over the next month.  To believe that Mission Control was duped is to believe that NO tape EVER failed in the entire history of launches.  It assumes that nobody accidentally stuck an episode of Full House in, that no machine ever ate the tape during play, that nothing ever got accidentally looped, that the wrong launch wasn't ever mislabelled, etc etc... That simply doesn't happen in the world of television production.

And that's only ONE problem that could happen.

So you can't discount Mission Control.  Some of them would have to know also.

By my count there are literally a thousand people by now who are in on the charade.  None of them told.  

Have you ever tried to keep a secret by telling it to a thousand people?  How about 100?  How about just five?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: OptimusPrime on August 19, 2009, 10:44:46 PM
Quote
Conclusive Mathematics:

Basically, I'm going to assume that every single person on my list wants to get paid so that they won't talk about the conspiracy. They're going to want a lot of it, too, most likely. Probably enough so that they won't have to work for the rest of their lives? Well, how's about something like one million dollars per year, plus one million in advance. That's far better than most jobs can fetch, and all they have to do is shut up. Minus the top five or so, since they are the runners of the organization.

The runners?  Coming from someone so "conclusive," I really expected someone a tad bit more erudite, if not a master of basic grammar.

Actually a million dollars isn't very much anymore.  It's not even enough to keep you rich these days.  Nice job aping Dr. Evil, though. 

Quote
That brings us to 40 x 1,000,000.

Actually, it doesn't.  Your last count was 45.  At least be consistent!  (And don't forget, the half-persons, whatever they are.) 

Quote
Forty million dollars plus forty million every year? Sure, it's plenty of cash, but NASA receives so much more money than that from just governmental funds, and while I don't know much about Russian space teams, I'm sure they do, too. They can easily pay for this, and the undernoted requirements for money, without even breaking a sweat; in fact, they'll be probably pulling a profit, just from the government giving them cash.

You don't know much about Russian space teams...nor anything else, if your rant is to be believed as genuine. 

You're forgetting about NASA's astronomical (pun intended) overhead.  Whether or not you believe the rockets they shoot up actually go and stay in space, you have to concede that they ACTUALLY BUILD THEM.  That costs what we like to refer to in the real world as MONEY.  Lots and lots of it, frankly.  And since some of you don't believe that it's possible to actually orbit Earth, you have to assume that these rockets and shuttles that are getting shot into the sky are either ending up as space junk or crashing down around the heads of the Ice Wall guards.  (That would mean there were actually 28 DIFFERENT Columbia shuttles.)  That's a lot of hardware to build and shoot to shit, especially for a group that's all about makin' that fat cheddar!

And don't forget, there's Space Camp!  And research centers, museums, etc.

But seriously though, have you ever visited a NASA facility?  I have!  I have!  They employ an epic shit-ton of people.  Everyone from astronauts down to the filing clerks. 

So essentially what you're telling me is that in order for these BIG THREE people in NASA to make obscene amounts of money, they have to blow up a ton of rockets, blow a bunch of money on fake props, hire thousands of people (who, by the way, are NOT making minimum wage) to look legit, and somehow still turn a profit?  REALLY????  In what universe does this kind of scheme actually work?

How about this more likely scenario:  (Bear with me...I've borrowed some of this from cracked.com in interest of full disclosure.  Other parts I've outright plagiarized, but they make my point.)

First, how much would it take for you to keep your mouth shut?

Let's just assume that since 1959, NOT ONE PERSON has talked.  Out of the thousands who know.  Hell, out of the 500 odd astronauts, nobody talked, not even when drunk, not even during sex, not even to their priest, not even on their deathbed.

There are still a TON of people who could've blown the whole lid off this, but because someone wrote them a check, they kept it to themselves.  That includes folks like you, honest researchers who want to know the truth and who have dedicated their lives to science.  It includes countless numbers of scientists.  (Remember, if you're going with the PR angle, you have to have "expert witnesses" espousing your case!  Some scientists and authors would have to be paid and paid mightily!)

Every astronaut, all of mission control, not just here, but in every single country that has achieved space flight.  They have not only lied to us, but also to each other and to their very own families.

And every science textbook writer is going to have to be on the payroll too.  And that means that someone in the departments of education will have to know.  That takes us out of NASA and into the Federal Government (which is notoriously BAD at keeping ANYTHING a secret.)

Also reporters and scientific journalists who were honestly seeking the truth have been paid enough to walk away from the story of a lifetime, a chance to blow the lid off the conspiracy. Paid enough to refuse a sure Pulitzer and a lifetime of fame and riches as one of history's greatest heroes. And paid in such a way that no other reporters would notice and get jealous or ask questions. These people do tend to be the curious type, you know.

We're getting a nice sized payroll here.

Let's not forget, you have to have the TV networks in the tank.  After all, these people are experts in the field of imagery, and if the government or a government agency like NASA passes something fraudulent off, they stand to profit more from EXPOSING it than simply being complicit.  Many a TV news man's career has been made by bringing down the rich and powerful.

But wait, there's more. Because there are hundreds of thousands of scientists and experts that are constantly evaluating these sorts of things looking for flaws. Approximately zero of them say the moon landings were fake, aside from a crackpot/head here or there.

The conspiracy guys' explanation?

You guessed it. They were paid to stay silent. Hey, why not? Probably half a million people there, but, you know. Since we've got the checkbook out anyway...

Also, think of all of the friends and family of these paid conspirators, who suddenly see all this mysterious wealth...

You've got some hypothetical astronaut who was about to go public saying that all flights are staged, suddenly coming into Powerball-sized wealth and abandoning his moral conviction at the same time... his wife never let it slip? His kids didn't object? All his jealous colleagues who noticed the sudden new cars and new home and elaborate vacations, nobody asked questions? Nobody made an anonymous call to the IRS, just out of spite? All the bank employees who noticed thousands of mysterious deposits, all of which have to be reported to the IRS, that didn't leave a trail?

I mean, we're up to a sizeable portion of the US population here. Odds are you've passed some of these people on the street.  Odds are you ARE one of these people or have met them.

Today.

And keep in mind, this can't be chump change. Even in a world where every structural engineering desk jockey is okay with mass delusion, they're still not going to risk jail and career ruin and walk away from a huge book deal for ten grand. Oh, no, it's got to be millions, per person, just to make it worth it. Even a dedicated conspirator would need to know he or she was set for life.

Let's say they wrote 500,000 checks (hell, you've got more than 300,000 people on the NASA payroll alone, and they'd be the first ones to speak out). Say the average payout was ten million (barely enough to live rich the rest of your life, but let's just say). So that's 500,000 times ten million which is...

...Five TRILLION dollars.

That's about half of the value of all goods and services produced in the United States last year. Therefore the NASA conspiracy was, in terms of payroll, the single largest employer in the history of the world.

Quote
Maintenance:

There doesn't need to be all that much maintenance, besides damage control. The space exploration programs have maintenance funds from their respective governments, so they're all self-sufficient without having to spend excess money on maintaining the conspiracy (seeing as all the cash they're not spending on research can be spent on the conspiracy).
The only reason extra money might need to be poured into the conspiracy would be for damage control. If we say that this would cost somewhere around five million per year, that still only leaves us with forty-five million per year.

Huh?  Maintenance costs would be through the roof!  Again, overhead alone...NASA employs 300,000 if you include all the contractors... plus building rockets that aren't going anywhere?  Jeez, it's not like the BIG THREE are just sitting in the Bahamas drawing a check.  With that, and the cost of keeping the conspiracy quiet, the Big Three would be LOSING MONEY LEFT AND RIGHT.

Quote
*UPDATED*
Ice Wall Guarding:

Now, I'm going to take this, and say that we need about one-thousand men guarding the wall, again with two shifts each, if we include cameras, infrared, radar, intelligence, and all that good stuff. This is more than I stated previously, but bear in mind that I had been very generous with the amount those men had been paid. Now, seeing as the men practically have no influence (all they do is guard an ice wall; it's not like it's probable they have a lot of friends at all, let alone ones in high places), they don't necessarily need a very grand rate of pay. Therefore I'm dropping my previous estimate to a simple one-hundred thousand dollars per person. That still leaves us with the same amount of two-million dollars to pay for every guard in the wall forces.

I'm going to for the moment dismiss Erasmus' quote (rightly) as the ravings of a lunatic.

So what exactly do these guards work for, if not pay.  Do they just enjoy seeing if their tongues will stick to flagpoles? 

Fuck, why not just have a bunch of robots?  (Damn...wish I hadn't said that.)

And you're telling me that in the entire history of the world, no Ice Wall guard has gotten fed up, said "fuck it," and bad-assed his way back to land to tell everybody what was going on?

Quote
CONSPIRACY MONEY TOTAL = $47,000,000 USD (Forty-Million U.S. Dollars)

No.  Moron.  Would you please take an Econ 101 class?  Or at very least, get a real job?  I understand if you don't know much about money and management if all you've ever done is telemarketing from your parents' basement, but please...get a realistic perspective!

Quote
Second Topic:
How Does The Conspiracy Benefit?

This is not easily answered, but I've taken some insight into this and made some estimates on how the conspiracy could be making money:

Government Paychecks:
It's very possible that the conspiracy runs by just sucking money out of the government that they are underneath. Seeing as the head honchos in those governments don't have to know about the conspiracy, it'd be pretty easy to take money from the government. Also, even if the leaders DID know, it's tax money that's going into the space exploration research, so really, they'd still be pulling profit. Basically, if you chose to believe this option, the leaders of the conspiracy are taking tax money and getting filthy stinking rich off of it. Sounds like a motive to me.

Have YOU ever tried to take money from the government?  Seriously.  Try cheating the IRS out of $20K and see if they notice.  And see above for why NASA nor the Big Three would be making profit.

Quote
Display of Power:
Some people are control freaks. Maybe they get a rush from showing that they can change everyone's mind about the true shape of the Earth.

Well I'll be dipped in shit and rolled in bread crumbs!  You've figured this whole thing out!  Apparently NASA is run by Criss Angel.  How will we dominate the people?  Oh wait, I know!  We'll fuck up their concept of geography!

Maybe you get a rush from being RETARDED.

No, really.  You actually think three people, all of whom are apparently Andy Kaufman, are seriously paying out BILLIONS of dollars, employing over a quarter of a million people, launching rockets into outer space ALL FOR A MINDFUCK???

Quote
Embarrassment:
So, the government messed up at a really bad time to mess up, and they've been pooling all of the already-angry tax-payers' money into research that eventually led to a less-than-exciting discovery: The Earth is flat. Everyone was wrong. Millions (probably billions) of dollars of money that didn't really belong to them had been basically tossed down the drain for research of the round Earth, when, in fact it was flat. So, instead of angering people and possibly even sparking a revolt of some sort, they made up some stuff. And you know how lies tend to roll and get bigger and bigger until they're inescapable? I'd say a worldwide conspiracy is that concept...to the max.

So they'd spend millions upon millions of dollars to keep propagating the same mistake?

Hellfire, talk about brittle egos!  You're telling me that some of the finest scientific minds in the world would just say "oops" and make the world look the other way, stifling millenia of potential scientific progress and discoveries, all because they're embarrassed that they were wrong about something?

If science worked that way, we'd never get anywhere.  Hell, we'd still be sacrificing virgins to the volcano gods.  And we're into our second and third generations of this, right?  I know my generation enjoys pointing and laughing at our parents' fuckups.  I'm pretty sure we'd do that for flat earth too.  "I can't BELIEVE you thought the Earth was round, Dad!"

Quote
Recruitment/Faithfulness:
Similar to the one above. Maybe the future-conspirators were ashamed that they hadn't reached out to space yet, and they felt that the people were getting hasty and impatient with them, so they decided to say they did it, and qualm the welling resentment of them, so they could ACTUALLY send people into space on a later date, without a bunch of morons knocking on their doorstep asking when they would be done with their space ship. Unfortunately, they later realized that they were wrong the whole time, and therefore had to uphold the conspiracy, lest they be accused of lying, and therefore reverting the resentment to its original state.

Maybe?  I thought this was supposed to be conclusive.

Couldn't really comprehend the rest of this.  I'm sure you said something...just not sure what.  I gather you think that the first space launch was faked because they didn't want to look like assholes by not actually doing it.  And now they keep on faking it, because they faked it once, and are now stuck in an endless loop of fake.  Still, it seems like an awfully STUPID thing to spend BILLIONS on.

Quote
Third Topic:
What If Someone Squeals?

"Yes," you say, "but what happens when someone leaks the information?"

Why You WOULD Leak Conspiracy Information:

Fame:
You officially proved that the Earth is actually flat. You'll be in history books for ages!

Money:
Interviews with every news station and every magazine ever. You'll be a huge celebrity, and as such, you'll probably be making a fair amount of cash...at least for a little while.

Peace of Mind:
It's probably tough to keep that stuff in your head without leaking some of it out every once in a while. It'd be a lot on your conscience.

If you had posted only this, I'd buy you a beer and tell you what a good man you are.  I'd even let you date my sister.

Quote
Why You Would NOT Leak Conspiracy Information:

Fame:
Some people don't like being in the spotlight all that much. Paparazzi can get annoying, and even though attention may appear to be entertaining, it can get old pretty fast.

Uhhhhh....

I'm thinking that having all that MONEY would be very much helpful in overcoming stage fright.  After all, money buys a compound, guards, and plenty of friends.  (Isn't that how it works for the Big Three?)

Quote
Money:
You no longer get the big fat paychecks from the conspirators. After all of the press wears out, and starts ignoring you again--meaning no more cash from interviews--you'll probably have to start working again.

But you'll START getting big fat paychecks from every media outlet in the world, to say nothing of speaking engagements, academic appointments, and grants for everything you want from now on.  One could make the argument that someone who conclusively proved a flat earth would make MORE by squealing than by keeping their mouth shut.

Quote
Peace of Mind:
You just screwed over all of your friends, just because you wanted a few minutes of fame and a lot of cash. Congratulations.

As opposed to screwing all the world and scientific progress by keeping your mouth shut???  Seriously, if I could prove FE beyond the shadow of a doubt, or if I could prove the space program was bollocks, I would feel it my obligation to tell as many people as possible.  Isn't that how you guys feel?  Isn't that why you have this site?


Quote
Insanity:
If you don't have enough proof, you won't be revered as a revolutionary, you'll be revered as Patient #3562 at the local mental hospital.

Death:
While a most likely uncommon side-effect, NASA could easily kill you and say, "He died in a space shuttle accident, I swear." Honestly, by the way it seems on TV, those things are so unstable, no one would ever EVER doubt that someone died while in space due to some random accident (add a bunch of jargon and you've got an incredibly convincing reason for death).

Ahhhh, I was waiting for the old "they'll just off you if you squeal" line.  Because it's so easy to do that to everyone who jumps out of line.  To say nothing of appeasing all of their husbands, wives, children, parents, etc. 

Besides, if they were going to kill people for publishing the truth, and you guys really have it right...well?  (And yes, I've read your obnoxiously inept and insufficient FAQ.  All I know is this...if you even had it half right, you wouldn't be here, no matter how much they think you're a crackpot.

Quote
Topic Four:
Conclusive Notes:

As you can see, the conspiracy is not only logical, but it's, in its own way, actually quite plausible. With all of these concepts in your face, it's hard to refute AT LEAST the possibility of a conspiracy covering up the shape of the Earth. If anyone wants to rebuttal, though, I gladly welcome it (in fact, I'm probably missing a lot of stuff--but hey, I'm only one guy), and I'll add more to this compendium (hence why it's a compendium).

(1.) NOT conclusive.

(2.) NOT logical, as shown above.

(3.) NOT plausible, again as shown above.

(4.) Concepts are in my face, but retarded.

(5.) EASY to refute.

(6.) POSSIBLE, but infinitely unlikely.

(7.) Consider yourself rebutted.

Quote
SO STOP MAKING CONSPIRACY THREADS!!

No you!
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: frostee on August 20, 2009, 02:42:57 AM
That is truly one of the most tl;dr posts i have ever seen
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: OptimusPrime on August 20, 2009, 05:33:17 AM
Hah...I agree.

But it made much more sense than the OP.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on August 20, 2009, 10:12:06 AM
Hah...I agree.

But it made much more sense than the OP.
The OP stopped coming to this site a while ago
Last Active:     October 06, 2008, 12:50:42 PM

So, don't expect an answer soon, unless some other FE'er feels like dealing with your tl;dr.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: OptimusPrime on August 20, 2009, 02:08:58 PM
Hah...I agree.

But it made much more sense than the OP.
The OP stopped coming to this site a while ago
Last Active:     October 06, 2008, 12:50:42 PM

So, don't expect an answer soon, unless some other FE'er feels like dealing with your tl;dr.

Oh, I'm quite sure they'll ignore it just as they do every other set of facts that effectively topples their tower of BS.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: zork on August 21, 2009, 02:30:11 AM
Hah...I agree.

But it made much more sense than the OP.
The OP stopped coming to this site a while ago
Last Active:     October 06, 2008, 12:50:42 PM

So, don't expect an answer soon, unless some other FE'er feels like dealing with your tl;dr.

Oh, I'm quite sure they'll ignore it just as they do every other set of facts that effectively topples their tower of BS.
  Either they ignore or they try come up with another absurd excuses or start attacking you personally. But I must credit you for your long post. There are good points to where other people can refer sometimes when the conspiracy theme comes up in another thread.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ShnitzelKiller on August 21, 2009, 11:23:32 PM
GPS manufacturers? You know, the military uses those things seriously. If they show fake maps of the earth, they would sort of notice.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on August 21, 2009, 11:25:56 PM
GPS manufacturers? You know, the military uses those things seriously. If they show fake maps of the earth, they would sort of notice.
The military knows all and sees all?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Hisharu on August 27, 2009, 09:54:11 PM
Sorry, I am still here. I over wrote on my last post. When push comes to shove, everyone in this forum knows that there is no way a conspiracy of the size it has said to be could possibly exist. With the number of people required to be in it, its impossible for not one person to have brought back evidence, causing it to crumble. Not to mention that not one thread has a reasonable explanation for what gain such a conspiracy would have.

I really should resist posting this because I know people will ignore the real argument above and continue bickering about this- but I'm right-
Yes it is easy to shut down a website: http://www.osamaforpresident.com/
They could do that with this website and just NOT put a message saying it was shutdown for national security reasons and nobody would know the difference.

When someone can explain 1)what gain a country who just added another digit to its national debt clock would gain from a conspiracy that has been proven to cost obscene amounts of money ( 2)not to mention a country that shows you what every dollar is being spent on- how they could cover these millions of dollars still escapes me) and 3) how they have thousands of guards along an ice wall shooting people down and thousands of people in the military, government, and every GPS corporation (there are many privately owned ones, people!) and none have broken down and said something, then I'll give up.
There is no explanation. I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time =)
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: ShnitzelKiller on September 01, 2009, 11:03:51 PM
Quote from: GUN
Another thing I thought of - you say that the leaders of this conspiracy are getting fat paychecks from the "funding".
But I thought that this "funding" went towards paying for the advanced digital imaging equipment and computers used to fake space exploration.

So which is it?
Neither. All of the money goes towards faking the existance of an entire continent.

What continent is this?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 02, 2009, 05:52:24 AM
Quote from: GUN
Another thing I thought of - you say that the leaders of this conspiracy are getting fat paychecks from the "funding".
But I thought that this "funding" went towards paying for the advanced digital imaging equipment and computers used to fake space exploration.

So which is it?
Neither. All of the money goes towards faking the existance of an entire continent.

What continent is this?

Australia, but he meant it as a joke.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: notdeadyet on November 03, 2009, 05:47:42 PM
I thought he was talking about Antartica.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: notdeadyet on November 03, 2009, 05:59:21 PM
What about that whole thing of Earth accelerating upwards. That means we wouldn't be going by 1g, so the pressure would eventually kill us. The acceleration means a short hop would hurt a lot. How fast are we accelerating, and how fast are we currently going now? If you are a RE, then we are moving at about 1,000 kilometers per second, if you only count the galaxy, but there is no acceleration or deceleration, so that doesn't matter. 
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Eddy Baby on November 04, 2009, 01:27:05 PM
What about that whole thing of Earth accelerating upwards. That means we wouldn't be going by 1g, so the pressure would eventually kill us. The acceleration means a short hop would hurt a lot. How fast are we accelerating, and how fast are we currently going now? If you are a RE, then we are moving at about 1,000 kilometers per second, if you only count the galaxy, but there is no acceleration or deceleration, so that doesn't matter. 

What's your problem?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: sry4mnknd on December 16, 2009, 03:45:22 PM
didnt sir richard branson just make a 200,000 dollar space flight possible? yes, i believe he did. thats quite cheap compared to how much it DID cost. so, what now FE'ers? how would he fake that? make projection screen windows? its all taking place in some laboratory? where does it end? why even try to convince yourselves of this? whats the point? what do you have to gain from thinking the earth is flat?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: markjo on December 16, 2009, 07:03:24 PM
didnt sir richard branson just make a 200,000 dollar space flight possible? yes, i believe he did.

Not yet, he didn't.  Virgin Galactic has taken plenty of reservations but so far has made exactly zero space flights.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Haruu on March 08, 2010, 02:54:47 PM
I am new, and neither FE, nor RE.... I'm just open minded.

As for gravity being an attraction of masses i have a simple question:

A photon has nearly no mass, being a photon. When it passes by an object, close enough, the path changes.  The more massive the object, and the closer the pass, the more the path of the photon Scinco-magically shifts.  Generally this is accepted as following Newton's law of universal gravity, as well as Einstein's theory of space being curved.

Now me being a scientist at heart, I have suspended all beliefs except for this factor, which i myself have actually measured.  So I know that this *does* happen, and thus far the force is attributed as gravitational attraction, like teenagers with parents out of town.  The more people that show up, the more bodily attraction.

Ok so a very small mass, traveling through air, off the ground, magically alters its path based off the "mass" of the object it is passing near.

The RE's call this gravity, and have shown based off their religion, that it does work.

So I ask FE's to break it down how mass (outside the earth since it doesnt attract, instead auto magically accelerate by way of possibly a flying seaturtle, with 4 (used to be a fifth) elephant with the world on their back flying upwards) affects other masses, like photons.

BTW I use magic, and religion to describe "hard science" since from an outsiders POV none of it makes sense.  It isnt to offend, but to give each side as equal treatment as i can.

Also I would like to say, at least noone is talking string theroy..... i can stay open minded about alot of things, but thats not one of em.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: markjo on March 09, 2010, 12:56:15 PM
A photon has nearly no mass, being a photon.

Fixed that for you.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Haruu on March 10, 2010, 08:22:07 AM
A photon has nearly no mass, being a photon.

Fixed that for you.

Actually here is a link for you to read:
http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

But That aside, once you get past the elementary physics stage, you find out that that photons have mass, just on the super sub atomic scale, which is generally zero... photon are massless and masses at the same time, look up some Graduate level quantum dynamics please.

I bet you also think of 1/0 as #NA or undefined instead of the correct ?.  I am talking exactly, you you are generalizing off of Physics 101.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Catchpa on April 30, 2010, 12:17:29 PM
I suggest this thread gets taken out from the FAQ, and thoroughly reviewed and most likely replaced for the garbage it is. I don't even think any FE'er believe this is even remotely acccurate.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Death-T on April 30, 2010, 03:39:59 PM
1,000 guards..... for the entire "Ice Wall"............. /sign/ Just..... no. And 47 million? Complete garbarge.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Catchpa on April 30, 2010, 03:52:52 PM
1,000 guards..... for the entire "Ice Wall"............. /sign/ Just..... no. And 47 million? Complete garbarge.

About the 1.000 guards thing, it's actually lower but stated in a different thread(He links to it in the FAQ).

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2620.msg22714#msg22714

He is saying the wall is guarded by 652 men, but cutting it down further when taking into account: apache helicopters, radars, spy-planes and time it takes to get there.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Death-T on April 30, 2010, 04:04:02 PM
He is saying the wall is guarded by 652 men, but cutting it down further when taking into account: apache helicopters, radars, spy-planes and time it takes to get there.

That blows his orignal estimate straight out of the water. - A single Apche Helicopter would cost around 15 mil. right off the bat.... and don't get me started on radar installations.

Not to mention that these installions would be open to third-party discovery.... it would be utterly impossible to gaurd the "Ice Wall" to the degree needed for not a single third-party to get a picture of them or what is beyond it.

Gotta love those tin-hatters!
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Catchpa on May 04, 2010, 03:22:13 PM
For christ sake, move this piece of shit out of the god damn FAQ.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 04, 2010, 03:49:51 PM
For christ sake, move this piece of shit out of the god damn FAQ.

Lol, yeah, I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree.  No active member even endorses the theory of the Ice Wall guards, anyway.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: markjo on May 04, 2010, 04:07:16 PM
He is saying the wall is guarded by 652 men, but cutting it down further when taking into account: apache helicopters, radars, spy-planes and time it takes to get there.

That blows his orignal estimate straight out of the water. - A single Apche Helicopter would cost around 15 mil. right off the bat.... and don't get me started on radar installations.

Not to mention the maintenance and support personnel required to keep it running. 
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: RoundEarthGuy on October 22, 2010, 01:22:25 PM
The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium

Okay. There has been way too many threads asking about the same damned question, and too many people saying that the governments can't pull together a conspiracy as such, and what not. This will conclusively prove that it is entirely plausible, profitable and, hopefully, probable. Expect me to reference this any time you ask a stupid question about the conspiracy again.


Maybe, maybe not.

Quote


First Topic:
How Can They Afford the Conspiracy?


Bribes
Let's look at this liberally (keep in mind these are probably near maximized estimates). Who actually kneeds to know?


Basically everybody.

Quote

Who DOES Need to Know:
NASA -- Okay, so the top three (at most) need to know, we'll say. These are the guys who actually are controlling the conspiracy, and maybe some of the profit is divided amongst them, but they don't need to be bribed to shut their mouths, and thus have no leverage amongst the others. If we say about three other people in NASA know about it, who are helping with image editing, video editing, and general coverage, but working closely with the top three.


No, more than that.  The scientists and engineers would either have to know or would have to somehow be left out.  Either fail:

If they're in on it, then the conspiracy becomes far too large to try and keep a secret.  I have a hard enough time trying to tell a secret to one person and not having it leak; telling it to thousands of people would be a secret that's practically impossible to keep.

If they aren't, then that defeats the entire purpose of the conspiracy.  The funding that according to the conspiracy theory the higher ups don't actually spend on a spaceship but instead for themselves would be needed to make a space ship.  They can't simply make a model one because the scientists and engineers believe that they're making an actual one and would demand actual materials and such.  Therefore, the conspirators would end up having to give all the materials needed to build a space ship, so they actually build one, and therefore don't have any money left, and the purpose of the conspiracy is nullified.

Quote

RASA -- The Russians are just about equal if not more active in space exploration as the US, so we'll say these guys have six people helping out with the conspiracy as well. As a matter of fact, tag one more on, just because I'm generous. That leaves us with thirteen people.


Why would the US and USSR help eachother out?

Quote

China -- Yes, in 2003, China became the third country to independently send a manned spaceship into outer space. However, their space program isn't all that big. As a (very) liberal estimate, we'll say they need about three people. But why don't we tag on one more just to make sure I'm not cheating. That leaves us with seventeen people from the space exploration crews that need to know.


BS; once again, the scientists and engineers would have to know.

Quote

GPS Manufacturers -- I'm going to say they only need one person for this job. There's not really much to do. Machines make most of the chips, and I doubt all of the bosses of the companies need to even bother. They just need to have one guy saying, "Yup, that's right." This guy could even be one of the NASA or RASA members, honestly, but I'm being nice. This rings up to a comprehensive total of eighteen people.


BS.  I'm pretty sure that GPS manufacturing companies don't work like that.  The manufacturers won't all take their GPSs to one guy and ask for approval.

Quote

Public Relations People -- NASA or RASA conspirators could fill this role, too, but again, generosity has the better of me, and I'm going to say that the conspiracy hires people to do this, too, since the guys in the space exploration teams are filled with a bunch of pale, pimply white guys, and therefore aren't good at convincing people of the truth. We'll say they need a couple of these guys, bringing the total up to a whopping twenty people.


This part is perhaps semi reasonable.

Quote

People Who Have "Been In Space" -- Yes, they need astronauts saying, "Hey! I was up there!" But they're barely part of the conspiracy, they're just people who have a little bit of leverage, and therefore need a bit of bribing. We'll count them as half-people for this count, since they don't really count as conspirators. So, if we have somewhere around fifty people that have "been in space," that means that it counts for about twenty-five conspirators, therefore bringing our total to forty-five which is not as large as is commonly described.


Bribe them with how much?  I doubt that anything under 1 million would work; not even 1 million would work, maybe 1 billion per astronaut.  Therefore, why aren't those astronauts billionaires with their bribe money?  

Quote
Ice Wall Guards -- These guys don't need to be paid in full, either, as they're only guarding an ice wall. I believe that it was Erasmus who pulled some mathematics on this one, and showed that not that many people were needed to guard the ice wall. As they don't really have any leverage on the conspiracy, they won't count for this part (I'll go back to it later), since this is mostly about who needs to be paid to shut their mouths.


How would they hire these people?




Also, you didn't include MIT in this conspiracy.  MIT helped develop the rockets.  Were they also in on it?  MIT is available to the public as in they accept students that are good enough to get in and apply for it.  How could they keep a secret with a huge amount of students?

Quote


Who Does NOT Need To Know:

PotUS -- Why would the president need to know? All he knows is that he's giving money to what he thinks is a space exploration team, and then he sees exactly what everyone in the world sees on TV. He doesn't ever need to suspect a damned thing.


Then who's in charge of the conspiracy?  What about when those people die?  Also, Kennedy is the one who pretty much started the space program; therefore, without him the conspiracy wouldn't have any monetary gain, so was he in on it?  But the president wouldn't have to know according to you!

Quote

Members of Space Teams -- They see exactly what we see as well, but they're sitting on the ground looking at it "Live." That doesn't mean that they know that the people are actually in space, but they can make a really convincing argument towards it, perhaps.


Except that they'd have to be provided with convincing and working equipment that would work for a space mission, which basically means that the conspirators would end up spending as much money to cover it up as they'd apparently gain from it, therefore resulting in zero profit, or even a loss due to the bribes.

Quote

Conclusive Mathematics:

Basically, I'm going to assume that every single person on my list wants to get paid so that they won't talk about the conspiracy. They're going to want a lot of it, too, most likely. Probably enough so that they won't have to work for the rest of their lives? Well, how's about something like one million dollars per year, plus one million in advance. That's far better than most jobs can fetch, and all they have to do is shut up. Minus the top five or so, since they are the runners of the organization.
That brings us to 40 x 1,000,000. Forty million dollars plus forty million every year? Sure, it's plenty of cash, but NASA receives so much more money than that from just governmental funds, and while I don't know much about Russian space teams, I'm sure they do, too. They can easily pay for this, and the undernoted requirements for money, without even breaking a sweat; in fact, they'll be probably pulling a profit, just from the government giving them cash.


Then why aren't those astronauts millionares?

Quote


Maintenance:

There doesn't need to be all that much maintenance, besides damage control. The space exploration programs have maintenance funds from their respective governments, so they're all self-sufficient without having to spend excess money on maintaining the conspiracy (seeing as all the cash they're not spending on research can be spent on the conspiracy).
The only reason extra money might need to be poured into the conspiracy would be for damage control. If we say that this would cost somewhere around five million per year, that still only leaves us with forty-five million per year.


What about funding for the actual spaceship materials?

Quote

*UPDATED*
Ice Wall Guarding:

If you would take note of Erasmus's calculations as far as guards go:

Quote from: Erasmus
Supposing for a moment that the government does guard it solely by posting men on it, these men are 150 in the air. From that hight they can see at least 15 miles in every relevant direction (this of course is calculating using the RE model... on a FE they might see farther). Thus you can cover the whole wall with just 78,225/30 = 2608 men.

You can decrease it further by giving them snowmobiles and having them ride between waypoints. If they can ride 10 mph and still keep an eye on things, then in one hour one sixth the previous number -- or 652 men -- can cover the wall in an hour. In fact, doing this gives them better coverage, since this way their 15-mile-radius field of vision doesn't have any holes.

Now take the terrain into account -- much of the Ice Wall is probably unapproachable except by air -- and you can trim down the numbers even further.

Strategically locate some helicopter pads (on the wall or floating) and you can have heavy armament on the scene in thirty minutes. Assuming an Apache helicopter can fly 150 mph, in that time they could fly 75 miles, so we would need to place pads every 150 miles, requiring 521 pads. Obviously, if you don't insist on thirty-minute response time, you can do with fewer. Don't forget that the watchmen can see 15 miles away from the wall, so thirty minutes should be more than enough to intercept any boat that tries to approach, snap pictures, and sail to safety.

Of course, this is all assuming that the only means our governments have of detecting trespassers is by looking with their eyes. We're neglecting radar and high-altitude spyplanes, probably with infrared cameras.

We're also neglecting intelligence. Anybody who wants to travel to the ice wall has to leave from someplace, and these someplaces can be watched by agents as well. There aren't too many good places to set on on such a journey from. Then, such expeditions would also have to be planned, and agents could get words about them before they even start. Once they've started, agents could monitor radio transmissions. If they can discover tresspassers a thousand miles away instead of only fifteen, then maybe they don't need so big a force as you say.

Now, I'm going to take this, and say that we need about one-thousand men guarding the wall, again with two shifts each, if we include cameras, infrared, radar, intelligence, and all that good stuff. This is more than I stated previously, but bear in mind that I had been very generous with the amount those men had been paid. Now, seeing as the men practically have no influence (all they do is guard an ice wall; it's not like it's probable they have a lot of friends at all, let alone ones in high places), they don't necessarily need a very grand rate of pay. Therefore I'm dropping my previous estimate to a simple one-hundred thousand dollars per person. That still leaves us with the same amount of two-million dollars to pay for every guard in the wall forces.


You do realize that those calculations involve things that wouldn't apply to a FE, right?

Quote
CONSPIRACY MONEY TOTAL = $47,000,000 USD (Forty-Million U.S. Dollars)


Actually, the price is the price that it would have been PLUS about 47 million dollars, aka they lose 47 million dollars.







Responded to that part.  There are also 3 VERY, VERY, VERY MAJOR flaws in the conspiracy theory that practically destroy it:

1. How would the conspirators know about the "true" shape of the Earth when Gallieo, Einstein, Stephen Hawkings and modern day PHD level scientists don't?  They'd have to know before the launching of satellites for this conspiracy would work, but HOW?

2.  What about historic explorers that circumnavigated the globe and scientists and proved that the world is round?  This would predate the space program or any common knowledge that such a thing was even possible, so that would mean that this conspiracy theory would have started way before there was any need to have it.  There would be no gain for a 15th century king to fool his subjects into believing certain things about the shape of the Earth, and said king would not know and likely not care about a space program 500 years from his time.

3. Where is the proof or any hint of evidence that this conspiracy theory exists?  Even if it were plausible, that doesn't mean that it's there.  It's also plausible that this site could contain viruses, but so far it doesn't.  Proof of plausibility (which there isn't) is not equivalent to proof of existence.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: the flying russian on October 28, 2010, 12:08:23 PM
One of my biggest problems with the idea of a conspiracy is that it was created after a hole was discovered in FET... it was not created based on gathered evidence which pointed towards a conspiracy...  The more you add to it, the more you realize how far'fetched and pointless it really is.  Humans naturally seek truth, a conspiracy of this size simply cannot happen.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Hessy on October 29, 2010, 09:31:03 AM
Don't you think someone would notice ~~$15.7 million going to the top three NASA guys that should've gone to the actual space program?  That means not only would those three need to be involved (as well as countless others, really) but the people who do their finances.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: General Disarray on October 29, 2010, 10:15:17 AM
Don't you think someone would notice ~~$15.7 million going to the top three NASA guys that should've gone to the actual space program?  That means not only would those three need to be involved (as well as countless others, really) but the people who do their finances.

Since no one can show that a conspiracy would not cost more than an actual space program, this is a moot point.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 29, 2010, 03:17:13 PM
Don't you think someone would notice ~~$15.7 million going to the top three NASA guys that should've gone to the actual space program?  That means not only would those three need to be involved (as well as countless others, really) but the people who do their finances.

Since no one can show that a conspiracy would not cost more than an actual space program, this is a moot point.

So it costs more to pretend to go into space than to actually go into space?  ???
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: wecl0me12 on October 29, 2010, 03:31:50 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name
548 astronauts, 548,000,000 USD/year, and many more scientists. Now with space tourism, that is going to increase much more. a real spaceflight, is a 1 time cost of $1.7 billion.  (source:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#1 )
in just 4 years, a real spaceflight would cost less.

$548 million is just for the astronauts, faking Australia, guarding the ice wall, sky mirrors, programs to fake images, etc. all cost money.

so yes, it does cost more to fake a space flight than to actually have one.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Ski on October 29, 2010, 03:46:32 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name
548 astronauts, 548,000,000 USD/year, and many more scientists. Now with space tourism, that is going to increase much more. a real spaceflight, is a 1 time cost of $1.7 billion.  

I'm not sure how you arrived at your figure of a million a year. Seems arbitrary.


Quote
$548 million is just for the astronauts, faking Australia, guarding the ice wall, sky mirrors, programs to fake images, etc. all cost money.

I don't think you'll find anyone who believes conspirators do anything on your list other than "programs to fake images".
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: wecl0me12 on October 29, 2010, 04:13:10 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name
548 astronauts, 548,000,000 USD/year, and many more scientists. Now with space tourism, that is going to increase much more. a real spaceflight, is a 1 time cost of $1.7 billion.  

I'm not sure how you arrived at your figure of a million a year. Seems arbitrary.


Quote
$548 million is just for the astronauts, faking Australia, guarding the ice wall, sky mirrors, programs to fake images, etc. all cost money.

I don't think you'll find anyone who believes conspirators do anything on your list other than "programs to fake images".

1. OP: Basically, I'm going to assume that every single person on my list wants to get paid so that they won't talk about the conspiracy. They're going to want a lot of it, too, most likely. Probably enough so that they won't have to work for the rest of their lives? Well, how's about something like one million dollars per year, plus one million in advance. That's far better than most jobs can fetch, and all they have to do is shut up. Minus the top five or so, since they are the runners of the organization.

2.
ice wall guards
FAQ:

Q: "Why has no one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"

A: Only those connected to the Conspiracy have access to heights from which the shape of the Earth can be discerned.  Also, nobody has been to the edge of the Earth and lived; conditions on the Ice Wall get increasingly treacherous the further you get out, and navigation methods become unreliable that far south.  It is also possible that the Conspiracy is guarding the edge to prevent people from getting too close to the truth.

sky mirrors:
Feature: Lighting of the Earth
Evidence: Midnight Sun- around the NH winter solstice, antarctica gets 24 hours of light
Source: http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/antarctica/page.html
Explanation in RET: the Earth is tilted 23.5 degrees, so antarctica being south-most, points to the sun always
Why FET isnotdoinitrite: take two opposite points on antartica on the FET map. take the points on that diameter. how could the all the points near the circumference see light, but not all of the points on the diameter?
Yet again, you have linked to a website that agrees with you but that doesn't actually prove anything. And yet again, there are several theories of how this might be integrated into FET, including my Sky Mirror hypothesis and Wilmore's alternative FE map.

australia:
Australia is a lie perpetuated by the conspiracy. It is in fact part of Africa.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Ski on October 29, 2010, 04:34:32 PM
1. OP: Basically, I'm going to assume that every single person on my list wants to get paid so that they won't talk about the conspiracy. They're going to want a lot of it, too, most likely. Probably enough so that they won't have to work for the rest of their lives? Well, how's about something like one million dollars per year, plus one million in advance. That's far better than most jobs can fetch, and all they have to do is shut up. Minus the top five or so, since they are the runners of the organization.

Since we're all assuming, I'm going to assume if I give you one or two million dollars in exchange for your integrity and promise you more to come, I can later keep you silent by threatening you and/or your family.


Quote
2.
ice wall guards
FAQ:

Q: "Why has no one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"

A: ...  It is also possible that the Conspiracy is guarding the edge to prevent people from getting too close to the truth.

Also from the FAQ: "But even so there's no reason to assume the Ice Wall is guarded"


Sky mirrors (atleast as you are postulating) and Australia not existing are laughable and untenable beliefs held by noone on the forum.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: markjo on October 29, 2010, 04:39:37 PM
So it costs more to pretend to go into space than to actually go into space?  ??? 

Well, there are all those outer space sets that you have to build.  Camera crews, lighting, etc.  Have you seen the budgets of modern scifi movies lately?  Who says that CGI is making movies less expensive to make?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: General Disarray on October 29, 2010, 05:26:27 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name
548 astronauts, 548,000,000 USD/year, and many more scientists. Now with space tourism, that is going to increase much more. a real spaceflight, is a 1 time cost of $1.7 billion.  (source:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#1 )
in just 4 years, a real spaceflight would cost less.

$548 million is just for the astronauts, faking Australia, guarding the ice wall, sky mirrors, programs to fake images, etc. all cost money.

so yes, it does cost more to fake a space flight than to actually have one.

Not to mention the costs of actually doing the observable day-to-day operations that we can observe NASA doing, along with actually launching fake spaceships all the time.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: General Disarray on October 29, 2010, 05:28:38 PM
Sky mirrors (atleast as you are postulating) and Australia not existing are laughable and untenable beliefs held by noone on the forum.


Perhaps you should tell that to the people on the forum who have repeatedly claimed those things.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: RoundEarthGuy on October 29, 2010, 05:58:16 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name
548 astronauts, 548,000,000 USD/year, and many more scientists. Now with space tourism, that is going to increase much more. a real spaceflight, is a 1 time cost of $1.7 billion.  (source:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#1 )
in just 4 years, a real spaceflight would cost less.

$548 million is just for the astronauts, faking Australia, guarding the ice wall, sky mirrors, programs to fake images, etc. all cost money.

so yes, it does cost more to fake a space flight than to actually have one.

Not to mention the costs of actually doing the observable day-to-day operations that we can observe NASA doing, along with actually launching fake spaceships all the time.

An even bigger problem that mounts on top of that is the engineers and scientists making the "fake spaceships".  If they're not in on the conspiracy, they'll think that they're supposed to make real ones and thus will demand real materials and funding to actually build a spaceship, not a plastic one.  Therefore, the conspirators would have to spend money on that, aka they'd have to buy the materials needed to build a REAL spaceship...to build a fake one.  Therefore, the entire point of the conspiracy would be moot.

If the scientists and engineers are in on it, then that's several thousand more people they'd have to bribe.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: General Disarray on October 29, 2010, 06:02:37 PM
There's also the scientists creating plausible fake data which is supposed to come from satellite telescopes and space stations and feeding it to the "real" scientists.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 29, 2010, 09:10:25 PM
Sky mirrors (atleast as you are postulating) and Australia not existing are laughable and untenable beliefs held by noone on the forum.


Perhaps you should tell that to the people on the forum who have repeatedly claimed those things.

What, you mean the trolls?  That has been said to them many times, but direct confrontations have never stopped trolling on this site before, and I doubt they're going to now.  There's only one way to kill a troll, and the only person who has the power to make it happen is the person who's currently feeding the troll.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: General Disarray on October 29, 2010, 10:41:26 PM
Sky mirrors (atleast as you are postulating) and Australia not existing are laughable and untenable beliefs held by noone on the forum.


Perhaps you should tell that to the people on the forum who have repeatedly claimed those things.

What, you mean the trolls?  That has been said to them many times, but direct confrontations have never stopped trolling on this site before, and I doubt they're going to now.  There's only one way to kill a troll, and the only person who has the power to make it happen is the person who's currently feeding the troll.

Moderators could help, but they choose to allow (some might say encourage) such behavior.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: John Davis on November 04, 2010, 06:53:34 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name
548 astronauts, 548,000,000 USD/year, and many more scientists. Now with space tourism, that is going to increase much more. a real spaceflight, is a 1 time cost of $1.7 billion.  

I'm not sure how you arrived at your figure of a million a year. Seems arbitrary.


Quote
$548 million is just for the astronauts, faking Australia, guarding the ice wall, sky mirrors, programs to fake images, etc. all cost money.

I don't think you'll find anyone who believes conspirators do anything on your list other than "programs to fake images".

1. OP: Basically, I'm going to assume that every single person on my list wants to get paid so that they won't talk about the conspiracy. They're going to want a lot of it, too, most likely. Probably enough so that they won't have to work for the rest of their lives? Well, how's about something like one million dollars per year, plus one million in advance. That's far better than most jobs can fetch, and all they have to do is shut up. Minus the top five or so, since they are the runners of the organization.

Or hows about "we'll kill your family in front of you and torture you until death if you talk; if you don't you'll live comfortably."

You seem to think that if there is a conspiracy they are hiring on Monster.com.  Those that would be in the conspiracy are there because they either want to be or have no option.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: markjo on November 04, 2010, 07:16:24 PM
Or hows about "we'll kill your family in front of you and torture you until death if you talk; if you don't you'll live comfortably."

Do you have any evidence to support this statement or is it just speculation?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Hessy on November 05, 2010, 09:54:24 AM
To think that everyone in on the Conspiracy, whether threatened or bribed, would stay silent about the manner is ignorant.  No half-decent conspiracy covering up the true shape of the Earth would rely on threatened and bribed people to hold their lies together.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: wecl0me12 on November 05, 2010, 02:32:48 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name
548 astronauts, 548,000,000 USD/year, and many more scientists. Now with space tourism, that is going to increase much more. a real spaceflight, is a 1 time cost of $1.7 billion.  

I'm not sure how you arrived at your figure of a million a year. Seems arbitrary.


Quote
$548 million is just for the astronauts, faking Australia, guarding the ice wall, sky mirrors, programs to fake images, etc. all cost money.

I don't think you'll find anyone who believes conspirators do anything on your list other than "programs to fake images".

1. OP: Basically, I'm going to assume that every single person on my list wants to get paid so that they won't talk about the conspiracy. They're going to want a lot of it, too, most likely. Probably enough so that they won't have to work for the rest of their lives? Well, how's about something like one million dollars per year, plus one million in advance. That's far better than most jobs can fetch, and all they have to do is shut up. Minus the top five or so, since they are the runners of the organization.

Or hows about "we'll kill your family in front of you and torture you until death if you talk; if you don't you'll live comfortably."

You seem to think that if there is a conspiracy they are hiring on Monster.com.  Those that would be in the conspiracy are there because they either want to be or have no option.
so there are five hundred astronauts all being threatened? they would all rebel.
Also, in Thomas Baron's case, the police ruled it as a suicide, why not a murder? if he really was murdered, the police's investigations would reveal this.
Unless the police and detectives are also in the conspiracy. The police have guns, and at least some would kill the top conspirators for threatening them.
You also have to prove that the conspiracy threatens people.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Death-T on November 06, 2010, 09:00:58 AM
Don't you think someone would notice ~~$15.7 million going to the top three NASA guys that should've gone to the actual space program?  That means not only would those three need to be involved (as well as countless others, really) but the people who do their finances.

Since no one can show that a conspiracy would not cost more than an actual space program, this is a moot point.

So it costs more to pretend to go into space than to actually go into space?  ???

Depends on the context. If you mean to aid the conspiracy - yes. If you to take into account that almost everything you would need to actually go in space is still needed to fake it. Hell, it would even cost more considering you need to keep the 'truth' under wraps through the usage of intimidation, bribes, and other expenses. Not to mention the outrageous amounts of money they would need to hand out to make sure not a single one of their workers is actually willing to prove the existance of the conspiracy by providing proof. 
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: spindac on November 07, 2010, 11:53:19 AM
Why can't I find any mention of the Ariane Rocket or of the European Space Agency on this Forum...

Are the Governments of 10 European Countries, and the civilian companies that have payloads launched by Ariane, in the Conspiracy too ??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_%28rocket_family%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Space_Agency

Or are these companies being lied to, that they have functioning satellites in orbit ....

Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Erland on November 20, 2010, 01:18:01 PM
Ok, I don't have the energy to read the entire 25-pages tread. I just wonder:

The conspiracy couldn't work if not most people believed that the earth is round. How did most people come to believe that?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Hessy on November 22, 2010, 09:31:15 AM
Ok, I don't have the energy to read the entire 25-pages tread. I just wonder:

The conspiracy couldn't work if not most people believed that the earth is round. How did most people come to believe that?

I imagine all the facts and repeatable observations in RET convinced most people that the Earth is round.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: John Davis on November 23, 2010, 10:18:32 AM
Ok, I don't have the energy to read the entire 25-pages tread. I just wonder:

The conspiracy couldn't work if not most people believed that the earth is round. How did most people come to believe that?

I imagine all the facts and repeatable observations in RET convinced most people that the Earth is round.
This is likely part of the issue.  The RE model is quite robust in its predictive abilities.  However, prediction does not imply truth, as can be evidence time and time again even within science and the foundations of science.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Hessy on November 29, 2010, 10:03:07 AM
Ok, I don't have the energy to read the entire 25-pages tread. I just wonder:

The conspiracy couldn't work if not most people believed that the earth is round. How did most people come to believe that?

I imagine all the facts and repeatable observations in RET convinced most people that the Earth is round.
This is likely part of the issue.  The RE model is quite robust in its predictive abilities.  However, prediction does not imply truth, as can be evidence time and time again even within science and the foundations of science.
Of course not.  But most people are surely more likely to follow a theory which they can recreate themselves, and ultimately reproduce the same results as everyone else.  Hence RET's mass following.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: markjo on November 29, 2010, 01:26:24 PM
The RE model is quite robust in its predictive abilities.  However, prediction does not imply truth, as can be evidence time and time again even within science and the foundations of science.

However, accurate predictions are usually a pretty good sign that you're on the right track.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Demouse on March 08, 2011, 03:01:47 PM
Quote from: rr332211
Gravity makes perfect sense, and all the numbers fit.

Uh, oh, you said the magic phrase.  

Gravity makes perfect sense?  Can you explain what gravity is?  I would like to know how this magical 'force' works.

I cannot into quantum phisics.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: markjo on March 08, 2011, 07:04:57 PM
Quote from: rr332211
Gravity makes perfect sense, and all the numbers fit.

Uh, oh, you said the magic phrase.  

Gravity makes perfect sense?  Can you explain what gravity is?  I would like to know how this magical 'force' works.

I cannot into quantum phisics.

Please do not bump a thread unless you have something productive to add to the discussion.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: hoppy on March 10, 2011, 06:17:08 PM
Quote from: rr332211
Gravity makes perfect sense, and all the numbers fit.

Uh, oh, you said the magic phrase.  

Gravity makes perfect sense?  Can you explain what gravity is?  I would like to know how this magical 'force' works.

I cannot into quantum phisics.

Please do not bump a thread unless you have something productive to add to the discussion.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 10, 2011, 07:48:45 PM
Quote from: rr332211
Gravity makes perfect sense, and all the numbers fit.

Uh, oh, you said the magic phrase.  

Gravity makes perfect sense?  Can you explain what gravity is?  I would like to know how this magical 'force' works.

I cannot into quantum phisics.

Please do not bump a thread unless you have something productive to add to the discussion.

hoppy, consider this a warning.  Any more shenanigans and it's a ban.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: hoppy on March 11, 2011, 07:25:34 AM
Quote from: rr332211
Gravity makes perfect sense, and all the numbers fit.

Uh, oh, you said the magic phrase.  

Gravity makes perfect sense?  Can you explain what gravity is?  I would like to know how this magical 'force' works.

I cannot into quantum phisics.

Please do not bump a thread unless you have something productive to add to the discussion.

hoppy, consider this a warning.  Any more shenanigans and it's a ban.
  Please do not threaten me.. I plan to post startling new evidence within the next 2 weeks. It will be conclusive evidence for either RE or FE. Hopefully the ban will be over by then.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Kryyon on June 24, 2011, 06:49:15 AM
I was reading the first post of this topic and I could not believe what I read...

You seriously think the top 3 people of NASA can just steal those millions? There is a reason they get a lot of money from the US Government, because they spend it! Millions go to the salaries of engineers, the costs of materials, fuel etc. How would they fake that?

I am currently studying to become an aerospace engineer, and I can tell you that there is no way that all the engineers and scientists from NASA can be fooled by computer simulated images made by 6 (!!!) people. Sure the general public can be fooled by them, there are enough idiots on this earth (Google: Creationism), but to think that every scientist on the earth is either in on the conspiracy or unaware of the fact that the earth is flat is preposterous. You don't seriously think that do you?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Tausami on June 24, 2011, 07:59:59 AM
What's with all the newbs necroing recently?  They seem to actually be lurking!

Also, stick him with the others.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Hessy on June 24, 2011, 10:10:03 AM
Please do not bump a thread unless you have something productive to add to the discussion.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: frostee on June 25, 2011, 01:48:08 AM
I think most, both RE and FE believers find this thread kind of ridiculous. The conspiracy definitely requires more conspirators than what is listed in the OP.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 25, 2011, 09:45:58 AM
I think most, both RE and FE believers find this thread kind of ridiculous. The conspiracy definitely requires more conspirators than what is listed in the OP.

I agree.  And a lot of his reasoning is faulty, too, like with his list of reasons why you wouldn't leak the conspiracy.  The guy who proves that the Earth is flat is suddenly going to need to start working again?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Syntax on July 08, 2011, 04:57:39 AM
Quote from: Stapler117
So... why is the earth accelerating? And, with the earth moving upward at 1g, why aren't our legs crushed each time we jump in the air?
An accelerating disc with acceleration 1g would simulate gravity pretty neatly(If there was no original gravity). Your mass adopts to the previous speeds, so you would always feel the same kind of force of 9.8N towards the disc.
Relativity theory.

Quote from: rr332211
All mass attracts other mass.  Earth has a lot of mass, and we don't, so we get attracted to Earth more than Earth is attracted to us.
actually we are attracted with the same force F = -F (Newton's 3rd law: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."). But as the Newton second law states that Force = mass*acceleration.
We get that Earth's mass*acceleration = Person's mass*acceleration, which means that if person has much lower mass, he must have much bigger acceleration to balance the equation.



Quote from: TheEngineer
Uh, oh, you said the magic phrase. 
Gravity makes perfect sense?  Can you explain what gravity is?  I would like to know how this magical 'force' works.
No one has yet understood why mass creates gravity, but we sure know that it does. You do know that gravitational force is not a constant right? It differs by the location on the earth, being biggest at the poles, and lowest at the equator.
The reason is rotating earth. While poles have low centrifugal force, the equator has much bigger centrifugal force, which tries to throw the mass into the space, thus balancing the force of gravity slightly.
It's not a big difference, the earth rotates slowly compared to its size, but it's measurable. The other reason is that the earth is not perfect globe. It's slightly thicker at the equator because of the centrifugal force. Which means objects are farther
from the center of the earth, having slightly lower gravity. (Again very small amounts).

None of the previous are explainable by the flat earth, unless you start to add some mysterious forces to it. Dark energy? We know nothing about it, not even half, what's know about gravity, and you use it in your theories so boldly.
Shame on you for doubting in gravity for minor unidentified properties.


PS The ice guardians are bullshit without even thinking about it. You forget, that whole conspiracy would need another huge amount of people to make the infrastructure work.
Unless your ice guardians are actually eating snow and living in the igloos and their vehicles work on seal fat, they would need a big amount of supplies all the time. And... what the hell are they going to do if you approach the huge ice wall anyway?  You can see it from miles away. You have absolutely no freaking evidence about any part of your theory.

GPS and one person to tell that "everything is just fine"... that just made me facepalm myself.





Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: John Davis on July 08, 2011, 09:34:55 AM
The RE model is quite robust in its predictive abilities.  However, prediction does not imply truth, as can be evidence time and time again even within science and the foundations of science.

However, accurate predictions are usually a pretty good sign that you're on the right track.
What do you base this on?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Hessy on July 08, 2011, 01:08:40 PM
The RE model is quite robust in its predictive abilities.  However, prediction does not imply truth, as can be evidence time and time again even within science and the foundations of science.

However, accurate predictions are usually a pretty good sign that you're on the right track.
What do you base this on?

I predict that when I press the power button on my computer, the computer will turn it.  I think power buttons turn things on.  10/10 times, it turns on when I press the button.

Upon further investigation, I found that the power buttons turn things on.

Lo!  My hypothesis was confirmed by my accurate predictions!
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 08, 2011, 03:01:52 PM
The RE model is quite robust in its predictive abilities.  However, prediction does not imply truth, as can be evidence time and time again even within science and the foundations of science.

However, accurate predictions are usually a pretty good sign that you're on the right track.
What do you base this on?

I predict that when I press the power button on my computer, the computer will turn it.  I think power buttons turn things on.  10/10 times, it turns on when I press the button.

Upon further investigation, I found that the power buttons turn things on.

Lo!  My hypothesis was confirmed by my accurate predictions!

Nice non sequitur.  I guess you don't have a real answer to John's question, then?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: markjo on July 08, 2011, 04:19:41 PM
The RE model is quite robust in its predictive abilities.  However, prediction does not imply truth, as can be evidence time and time again even within science and the foundations of science.

However, accurate predictions are usually a pretty good sign that you're on the right track.
What do you base this on?
Empirical observations. 

I predict that when I press the power button on my computer, the computer will turn it.  I think power buttons turn things on.  10/10 times, it turns on when I press the button.
You've never had a power supply fail, have you?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Hessy on July 08, 2011, 09:04:53 PM
A bit semantic, but no.  I haven't (yet...).
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: John Davis on July 09, 2011, 12:43:42 AM
The RE model is quite robust in its predictive abilities.  However, prediction does not imply truth, as can be evidence time and time again even within science and the foundations of science.

However, accurate predictions are usually a pretty good sign that you're on the right track.
What do you base this on?
Empirical observations. 

I predict that when I press the power button on my computer, the computer will turn it.  I think power buttons turn things on.  10/10 times, it turns on when I press the button.
You've never had a power supply fail, have you?
My point was that the only gauge for "the right direction" you use is an increase in predictive power which may not necessarily be tied to an increase in the inherent truth in the model being represented.  For example, Relativity is more accurate than Newtons work.  This does not mean Relativity is by nature "more true" than Newtons work - that remains to be seen.  It could be just as wrong or even more wrong. 

A more obvious example would be in the case of spontaneous generation.  Before people believed salamanders came from nowhere (supposedly for this example.)  Later, they realized they can predict that when a fire is lit they will come out of the fire, supposedly generated from it.  Clearly this is not the case and neither of these are more true than the other.  They are both equally wrong despite improved predictive power.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Hessy on July 09, 2011, 10:57:03 AM
Quote from: Markjo
However, accurate predictions are usually a pretty good sign that you're on the right track.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: John Davis on July 09, 2011, 08:35:42 PM
Quote from: Markjo
However, accurate predictions are usually a pretty good sign that you're on the right track.
A statement with basis by nature.  There is no way for one to know they are "on the right track" towards truth simply due to predictive ability.  Only that they are on the right track to create models that predict better.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: John Davis on September 28, 2011, 05:57:51 PM
Stickied.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 03, 2011, 08:34:53 AM
So 40 people earning 1,000,000 $ each each year for keeping their mouth closed?

Only 40? Only 1,000,000 $ each?

What a completely unzetetic claim! (and so preposterous it is really funny).
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: math on October 03, 2011, 06:43:29 PM
By the way new kid on the block , here's the way it is yes this site is true, yes people have been brainwashed with space pics they can never verify are paintings as they will never, for those who are saying millionaires will be going in space, top elite, and only going as token trips to maintain facade as we are growing, they will be  signing confidentiality wavers , as well ,if so, there will be a massive war that will destroy any nations capability to go to space as an excuse and distraction from the truth it is coming,  during the interim of this apacolyptic war, it accomplishes 2 things, eugenics depopulation a massive distraction after the fait accompli the earth is a ball mass brainwash of 500 years, simply by proving Newton with NASA pics , yes more than 40 people are probably involved but they all have tickets to the underground when the shiznit will hit. No, there will be no mass space flights high enough to see a curve or the finiteness of a sphere, it is an infinite flat plate in constant expansion with other geothermal pockets of earthlike sections of life axcross the infinitely expanding ice sheet between the hot and cold (above) dmensions,  the earth is simply a section of the firmament everything else on this site is very close and on point there will be more briefings, feel free to visit "theNASAchannel on youtube to hear other tricks we have done at NASA to fool the public. I am a chief graphics artist who worked for them and I am now disclosing . Area 51 is a huge graphics department with many sound studio rooms ie "the Jupiter  room" where we have a massive marble rock you know of as jupiter , and we film and shoot it from varying angles when we need to .  The roman empire is alive and well in the word empiricism and in the names of the planets. The image of the earth the one they always show (shadowline across the north of africa taken from the moon missions) is the image of the beast the militaries are all working to patrol the antarctic the last white rung on the Un flag is the beginning of a 360 degree ice wall known as the south pole which stretches around our little earth with the geomagnetic sun rotating on the path of the rungs of the UN flag, in 1984 I believe a south pole science photographer who was only allowed or kept in the main provision and supply points noted the french navy raked a australian  fishing trawler called the "southern raider" with heavy machine gun caliber bullet holes until it sank what was so sensitive at the cusp of antarctica to sink a 173 foot long fishing trawler called the southern raider by the french ? All the navies are patrolling there working togtehr but they are simply following orders, you see this all works because of need to know compartmentalisation of positions in multinational /scientific military industrial complexes.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 04, 2011, 11:50:30 AM
Cut the crap, will you? You're making yourself ridiculous.

And please make some paragraphs if you want to be read.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Tausami on October 05, 2011, 05:52:42 PM
So 40 people earning 1,000,000 $ each each year for keeping their mouth closed?

Only 40? Only 1,000,000 $ each?

What a completely unzetetic claim! (and so preposterous it is really funny).

Do you think you're the first person to say that in this thread?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 05, 2011, 05:59:35 PM
I maintain that this is a silly thread, and ought to be locked and replaced with more reasonable speculations on the conspiracy.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: James Gray on October 06, 2011, 04:28:01 AM
What of people that claim to sail around the world, travel around it ectra how do they fit into this conspircy?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 07, 2011, 12:28:56 AM
So 40 people earning 1,000,000 $ each each year for keeping their mouth closed?

Only 40? Only 1,000,000 $ each?

What a completely unzetetic claim! (and so preposterous it is really funny).

Do you think you're the first person to say that in this thread?

And I will continue to ask this question until I get a plausible answer.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: hoppy on October 10, 2011, 04:04:59 PM
So 40 people earning 1,000,000 $ each each year for keeping their mouth closed?

Only 40? Only 1,000,000 $ each?

What a completely unzetetic claim! (and so preposterous it is really funny).

Do you think you're the first person to say that in this thread?

And I will continue to ask this question until I get a plausible answer.
Where is the question?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: hoppy on October 10, 2011, 04:20:02 PM
It doesn't make sense that the conspiracy only is only stealing money from space programs. As someone else has pointed out they could easily steal that much money through other lies, such as research programs or whatever.
 The truth is the conspiracy so humongous and the space programs are only small part of the total. If you look at the conspiracy in that way, it may make more sense.
 
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 12, 2011, 03:32:21 PM
I am looking for a more plausible conspiracy theory. The 40 people just don't make sense.

For instance, over 500 astronauts have flown into space (see http://www.spacefacts.de/). are they all part of the conspiracy?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: hoppy on October 13, 2011, 10:37:52 AM
The conspiracy is so big you won't believe it.

     http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_about/conspiracy
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 13, 2011, 10:49:10 AM
I am looking for a more plausible conspiracy theory. The 40 people just don't make sense.

For instance, over 500 astronauts have flown into space (see http://www.spacefacts.de/). are they all part of the conspiracy?
It's not to difficult to deceive/ buy out/ brainwash 500 people, is it? Come on, you can do better than that.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 13, 2011, 04:42:50 PM
It's not to difficult to deceive/ buy out/ brainwash 500 people, is it? Come on, you can do better than that.

Yeah, really? You have any experience/knowledge of that?

And I was merely giving one example.

Here's another one: how many astrophysicists are there in the world? Somewhere around 10.000. So how does the conspiracy deals with all of them?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 14, 2011, 03:20:18 AM
It's not to difficult to deceive/ buy out/ brainwash 500 people, is it? Come on, you can do better than that.

Yeah, really? You have any experience/knowledge of that?

And I was merely giving one example.

Here's another one: how many astrophysicists are there in the world? Somewhere around 10.000. So how does the conspiracy deals with all of them?
They all think the Earth is round. They don't have to deal with them.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 14, 2011, 04:13:40 AM
They think that the Earth is round, that Antarctica is just a continent because they have scientific evidence.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 14, 2011, 05:26:09 AM
They think that the Earth is round, that Antarctica is just a continent because they have scientific evidence.
Their "evidence" is based on Round Earth theories, and is thus inaccurate.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 14, 2011, 06:29:59 AM
Antartica not being a continent and having icewalls still has to be proved.

Noting I've seen so far shows the beginning of the shadow of a hint of an element of proof.

The only reasoning I've seen so far is: The Earth is flat, therefore there is an icewall which prevents the water from spilling therefore we cannot accept any evidence saying that Antarctica is a continent without an icewall.

Just asumptions, not evidence.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: hoppy on November 03, 2011, 09:03:24 PM
Skull and Bones. Link has a couple of videos about skull and bones for those interested. Remember "don't tase me bro" the guy got tased after asking Kerry about skull and bones. It is one of the videos on the bottom of CNN window.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 04, 2011, 02:21:32 AM
Skull and Bones part of the conspiracy? How many more people in the conspiracy?
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: hoppy on November 04, 2011, 06:21:29 PM
Skull and Bones part of the conspiracy? How many more people in the conspiracy?
Sorry I forgot the link.

                   http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/skull.and.bones.html
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: EmperorZhark on November 05, 2011, 04:54:22 PM
That's not really an answer.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: wea111 on June 13, 2012, 06:47:31 AM
50 people in space? Try 334. And why the hell would the people who have actually been in space count as 1/2? Any smart person would count the people who could hide a photo or memory card which is near undeniable evidence as a minimum of a 2.

So using your estimate of what they are worth then the amount paid in total has gone up by 6 times using my slightly more realistic version then you have got 24 times your estimate being spent per year just from them.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 13, 2012, 09:27:51 AM
Yes, it's a dumb thread.  I think the plan is to replace it with a section from the Wiki once we finish it.
Title: Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Post by: CK on June 21, 2012, 06:09:17 AM
Please could you all get your facts correct:-

For The United States of America:-

NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration

For The Russian Federation:-

The Russian Federal Space Agency
(Федеральное космическое агентство России), commonly called Roscosmos (Роскосмос)

It is abbreviated as FKA (ФКА) and RKA (РКА), is the government agency responsible for the Russian space science program and general aerospace research.

It was previously the Russian Aviation and Space Agency
(Российское авиационно-космическое агентство)