### Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

### Messages - sandokhan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 240
1
##### Flat Earth Believers / Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory
« on: June 17, 2024, 09:01:25 AM »
NEW WEIGHT FORMULA: W = VΔ, WHERE Δ = 9.86 x d (d = density) -  9 DEXTROROTATORY SUBQUARKS AND 1.36sc DENSITY OF CONNECTING LINES V

The weight of the proton is given by its quarks and bosons (gluons). The bosons form the connecting strings/lines between the quarks. If a charm quark is forced to absorb more aether than usual, it will become heavier than the proton itself.

Before 1964, the weight of an object is given as mg, where m = V x D (atomic level). After 1964, the weight of the object is mg/3, where m = V x D1 (quark level), D1 = 3D. After 1996 (when the subquark was detected at Fermilab), the formula becomes: W = V x D2, where D2 = 9.86D.

https://hal.science/jpa-00221894/document

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0207078

http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf

https://www.quantamagazine.org/inside-the-proton-the-most-complicated-thing-imaginable-20221019/

The more energetically you interact with a proton — and, remember, that high energy corresponds to short wavelengths, short distances, and short timescales — the denser this sea of internal particles appears to be.

http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/news.html

https://alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/

E5 (ether level 5) is the Hydrogen atom. The weight formula before 1964 uses this kind of atomic density. W = mg, where m = V x D (D, density at the atom level)

E2 (ether level 2) is the quark level of the Hydrogen atom. The weight formula after 1964 should have immediately reflected this new information: W = mg/3, where m = V x D1 (D1 = 3D), D1 is the density at the quark level.

E1 (ether level 1) is the subquark level of the Hydrogen atom. The weight formula after 1996 should have been modified again, for the final form: W = V x D2 where D2 = 9.86D, D2 is the density at the subquark level.

The weight of an object registers the nine dextrorotatory subquarks (gravitons/electrons) which absorb aether, and the density of the connecting lines of bosons.

Why 9.86 and not 9.81?

http://www.aetherometry.com/Aetherometry_Intro/pratt_aether_grav.php#g3

Riemann zeta function sound waves are the strong nuclear force:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2195233#msg2195233

2
##### Flat Earth Believers / Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory
« on: June 17, 2024, 12:41:21 AM »
NEW WEIGHT FORMULA: W = VΔ, WHERE Δ = 9.86 x d (d = density) -  9 DEXTROROTATORY SUBQUARKS AND 1.36sc DENSITY OF CONNECTING LINES IV

As soon as the quarks had been discovered theoretically (1964) and experimentally (1967-1973), the density formula should have been changed at once. It is beyond belief and beyond understanding that not one of the physicists at that time had thought to himself: protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, that means that the density formula must change as well by a factor of 3.

This is from the chemistry and physics textbooks:

The density of an object is the mass of the object compared to its volume. The equation for density is: Density = mass/volume or D = m/v. Each substance has its own characteristic density because of the size, mass, and arrangement of its atoms or molecules.

The density of elements in the periodic table is a measure of the number of atoms and their mass when they occupy a certain volume of space.

And if that "arrangement" of atoms is modified, should not the density formula  be changed as well? Protons and neutrons consist of quarks, electrons are made up of preons.

W = mg = V x D x g in 1963

W = mg = V x D1 x g/3 where D1 = 3D in 1964 (1967-1973)

The remaining factor of g/3 = 3.28666 should have immediately reminded the physicists that quarks themselves are also made up of three smaller physical entities and that the connecting strings account for the decimal part (0.28666 or the 0.86 factor in 9.86).

https://s3.cern.ch/inspire-prod-files-a/aa970ec5a8af27957be078433de12f1c

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=44254

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0301034

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207120

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1278981#msg1278981 (subquarks and preons)

The g formula has nothing to do with "attractive" gravity, it is simply a description of the DENSITY at the quantum level (nine subquarks and 0.86 factor).

W = VΔ, WHERE Δ = 9.86 x d (d = density)

The g "force" in aviation is due to the greater quantity of aether being absorbed by the gravitons (electrons) or dextrorotatory vortices which of course will increase the weight. Let us remember that using the appropriate voltage for a capacitor can either increase or decrease its weight (the Biefeld-Brown effect).

3
##### Flat Earth Believers / Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory
« on: June 14, 2024, 02:00:42 PM »
THE SUN SHALL RISE FROM THE WEST: WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN?

"And in those days the sun shall be seen and he shall journey in the evening †on the extremity of the great chariot† in the west]
And shall shine more brightly than accords with the order of light."

This quote from the Book of Enoch is not included in all editions.

https://sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe083.htm

Thus far, the sun rising from the west meant that its orbit will reach beyond the Tropic for 75 days (636 meters diameter, 1.5 km/yr westward precessional shift), and then it will return for an astronomical reset (another 75 days, total of 150 days).

The above quote, however, implies much more. It says that the entire unit comprised of six gates will rotate as well, together with the Sun, in a westward direction.

Here is the current situation:

Distance on the Piri Reis map between the tropics: 6,105.6 kilometers (angle of 54.97°, radius of 6,363.63 km). We rotate the two Tropics for an angle of 23.5 degrees: sun rises from beyond the first dome, next to Japan, it sets in Antarctica and then at once rises again.

Alloted interval for solar precession: 508.8 km

When the Sun will reach the outer limit of its orbit, the entire six gates unit (together with the Sun) will rotate most likely at a rate of 30 km/day (same as now, one gate has 1,017.6 km, with 30 windows one for each day) in a westward direction, to the left: it will reach the North Pole, then travel further to the west until the six gates unit will attain a 23.5 degree with the horizontal diameter, like this:

6,105.6 km - 54,97° - 180 days
2,618.05 km - 23,57° - 77 days
1,272.6 km -11,458° - 37,5 days
Circumference: 39,983.866 km
39,983.866 / 4 = 9,995.9666 km

At a rate of 30 km/day, the remaining magnitude of the arc of the circle to the North Pole measures 1,272.6 kilometers (37.5 days).

Then, the concept of the sun rising from the west will have a more complete meaning.

It is said that before the cosmic conflagrations, there was only one season, spring: this means that the tropics and equator had a totally horizontal position, and then the entire six gates unit moved/rotated for an angle of 23.5 degrees.

4
##### Flat Earth Believers / Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory
« on: June 14, 2024, 10:24:43 AM »

The Weyl-Ivanov formula can be derived using only our knowledge of the concept of the density of subquarks.

W = VΔ, WHERE Δ = 9.86 x d (d = density) -  9 DEXTROROTATORY SUBQUARKS AND 1.36sc DENSITY OF CONNECTING LINES

For the antigravitational effects to be seen, we need to first fill the FA-MI boson interval, and then create the force necessary to either have the laevorotatory subquarks emit 5.34x9.86 times as much aether as before, or supply the 5.34x9.86 density number of subquarks from the telluric currents. That is, we need to increase the density of the laevorotatory subquarks: first we activate the FA-MI boson interval from an inertial state, then once we reach this barrier, supply the necessary L-subquarks (antigravitons) from an outside source.

FA-MI interval

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.htm

But in the three thicker wires of the atom there is a very slight difference. The seven bubbles no longer fit exactly under one another, as it were, if one looks along or through the wire endwise; in 100 "spirillae of the lowest order" there ought to be just 700 bubbles; so there are in the seven thinner, coloured wires, but in the three thicker wires there are 704. So the increase is at present 1 in 175. And the same curious little increase holds good in the relation of the different orders of spirillae, In the thinner wires exactly 7 spirillae of one order make 1 of the next higher order, so that 700 "b"s make exactly 100 "a"s and so on; but in the thicker wires 704 "b"s go to 100 '"a"s. and the same curious proportion all through.

Those extra bosons represent the FA-MI interval (the SI-DO interval is already activated). They only become active and start the antigravitational phenomenon (activated laevorotatory subquark or dextrorotatory subquark) if the barrier is reached.

That barrier has been described as the density of ether or the permeability constant:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150424214535/http://bourabai.narod.ru/gorbatz/ether-e.pdf

The value of k can be derived experimentally, using capacitors.

Here is the Weyl-Ivanov formula:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047 (page 10)

On page 6 an even more generalized formula is derived, where gz = G^1/2 x V.

At the Honda Institute, an equivalent formula was obtained using mkgs units:

http://www.ovaltech.ca/pdfss/Possibility_of_Strong_Coupling_Between_Electricity_and_Gravitation.pdf

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/musha/Musha.pdf

Then, at gz = 2.86g the first results should be seen, as exemplified here:

Full antigravitational effects would be obtained at gz = 5.34g = 5.34x9.86.

The voltage can be calculated using Avogadro's number (kg - g - mole - Na - positron/volt conversions).

It is to be noted that positive electricity (bosons) flow through positrons (antigravitons) and not electrons (gravitons). Negative electricity (gravity) flows through electrons/gravitons.

Dextrorotatory subquarks can increase the weight of an object only if they pass through that object itself: the 5.34g density of subquarks forms a ball lightning torus/sphere around the object.

One amp is defined as 6.28 x 10^18 electrons per second.
1 volt is an EMF of 6.24 X 10^18 electrons.
The atomic mass unit (amu or simply u) is the 1/12 of the mass of a 12C atom. Avogadro's number (NA=6.022×10^23) is the number of atoms contained in 12 g of 12C.
To obtain the mass of 2 moles of water, we simply the number of moles by molar mass: 2 moles X [2(1) + 16]g/mole = 36 g. Note that to get the molar mass of a compound, we simply add up the masses of the individual atoms, so the molar mass of water is 18 g/mole.
https://www.chem21labs.com/labfiles/berea_gl09_lab.pdf
Avogadro's number, number of units in one mole of any substance (defined as its molecular weight in grams), equal to 6.02214076 × 10^23. The units may be electrons, atoms, ions, or molecules, depending on the nature of the substance and the character of the reaction (if any).
https://research.chalmers.se/publication/528592/file/528592_Fulltext.pdf
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4234/why-is-the-relationship-between-atomic-number-and-density-not-linear
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_density
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0176
The atomic mass unit (amu or simply u) is the 1/12 of the mass of a 12C atom. Avogadro's number (NA=6.022×10^23) is the number of atoms contained in 12 g of 12C.
Another property of Avogadro’s number is that the mass of one mole of a substance is equal to that substance’s molecular weight.
The mass of an atom is determined by the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. It is usually expressed in atomic mass units (amu).
The atomic number density (N; atoms/cm3) is the number of atoms of a given type per unit volume (V; cm3) of the material.
helium - 2 pro 2 neu 2 ele = 18 + 18 + 2x18 where 2 Lsub and 1 Dsub in arrangement of three subqk
The atomic weight of a helium atom (4.002) is approximately four times that of an individual hydrogen atom (1.007), but since gaseous hydrogen is a diatomic molecule containing two hydrogen atoms (H2), helium gas is only twice as heavy as hydrogen gas.
The value of the mass number of hydrogen is 1, while the mass number of the helium is 4. Considering the mass number, the helium is four times heavier than that of the hydrogen element.
A helium atom is two times heavier than a hydrogen molecule.

5
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: nCoV public service announcement. (IMPORTANT)
« on: June 07, 2024, 06:10:49 AM »
There is only one vaccine which would have worked against Sars: BCG with bacteriophages specific for M. avium. Or solithromycin (a fourth generation macrolide; clarithromycin is third generation), which amazingly was not approved at the time of the pandemic.

All of the vaccines used in Covid-19 were Astrazeneca, not cmRNA, with mutant proteins as a result.

The beta-gamma hybrid (betacorona, M. avium in reality, manifests in mammals, gammacorona in birds, another M. avium variant) has appeared in July of 2023, in Pakistan. It is this pathogenic agent which is now appearing in the news. Omicron, or Mers-Cov-2, does not have its prion domain activated (unlike Delta). Any and all virulence of the pathogenic agent comes from the activation of the prion domain.

Why then does Sars have so many bacterial epitopes?

Out of nine sites, seven sites showed molecular similarity with 54 antigenic determinants found in twelve pathogenic bacterial species (Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Mycobacterium leprae, Bacillus anthracis, Borrelia burgdorferi, Clostridium perfringens, Clostridium tetani, Helicobacter Pylori, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, Vibrio cholera and Yersinia pestis), two malarial parasites (Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium knowlesi) and influenza virus A.

Most of the bacterial antigens that displayed molecular similarity with antigenic sites in SARS-CoV-2 RBD (receptor binding domain) were toxins and virulent factors. Antigens from Mycobacterium that showed similarity were mainly involved in modulating host cell immune response and ensuring persistence and survival of pathogen in host cells.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0171298521000395

Sars-Cov-2 also features epitopes from M. bovis, Nipah, and other pathogens.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7423587/

BlastP analysis showed high homology of the SARS-CoV-2 envelope protein with 12 consecutive amino acids of the protein LytR C, which is a consensus protein unique to Mycobacteria.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8577642/

However, the knowledge that heat shock protein (HSP)65 is the main antigen of Mycobacterium bovis BCG prompted us to verify whether sequence similarity existed between HSP65 and SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) and nuclear (N) proteins that could support an antigen-driven immune protection of BCG vaccine. The results of the in silico investigation showed an extensive sequence similarity of HSP65 with both the viral proteins, especially SARS-CoV-2 S, that also involved the regions comprising immunodominant epitopes.

6
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: June 04, 2024, 01:16:06 AM »
Jackblack is an obsessive autist who will argue with anyone he thinks is wrong about something.

Back in 2012 there was a DDoS attack on this forum. I sense that within that group there was someone with that kind of personality, that is where the troubles which had started in 2016 sprang from.

I told you that if you let jb/rab roam free in the upper boards you will no longer have a forum here (back in 2019). And that's exactly what happened. Instead of becoming a beacon of light during the crucial period 2020-2022, the FE forum lost stats heavily. I told you that there would be consequences for not intervening and relegate those two to the lower forums. Had I been a mod back in 2016, I would have recognized immediately the patterns of the alts and would have gotten rid of them at once.

for 29silhoutte

Ask scg to send you a copy of the message, at your own peril.

I said nothing since once I realized that candlejack=jackblack, I could no longer post in those threads anything at all.

for anne

Rab could have lived several more years in good health had he not posted here on this forum. I tried to tell the mods here to have him post in the lower forums only, to spare his remaining faculties which were consumed heavily in those debates, but no one listened to me.

7
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: June 03, 2024, 10:14:54 AM »
There is no way that I am going to post anything like that here.

8
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: June 03, 2024, 09:42:27 AM »
I will not post the message here. It is scg's call, if she says it's ok, then she can post it in this thread.

Mark my words, 29silhoutte (by the way, you and I were debating the Piri Reis map years ago, how is it that you have forgotten all this), you'll vomit if you read that thing.

Again, candlejack is admitting to having created multiple accounts way before, I think rockseverywhere is one of them. And on November 16, 2016, he had created also the jackblack user. On that very day, he was debating the Coriolis effect using the same arguments he'd be using later on as jackblack. Using the same fisking style. The same expressions. Why would a pervert anime weirdo defend the Coriolis effect for nine pages in a row?

9
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: June 03, 2024, 09:04:16 AM »
This is no joking matter.

I urge all admin and mods to go the Quarantine section and read the message which had been posted by candlejack, it starts like this:

Quote
Hi. Some of you probably know me, but most do not. I was active on this forum a couple of months ago (maybe even a year) and now returned. I am an RE'er and wanted to do the "coming out". It's important for me because it lets some steam off.

You will be horrified. Now, he might have written that as something to mock the FES with. But we have to go by those words.

Additionally, by his own admission, he had a different account here. Multiple alts. And one of those alts, as we have seen here, is jackblack (account created on November 16, 2016, the very day candlejack was arguing the Coriolis effect and was using the very same arguments which would be used later by jackblack).

10
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: June 03, 2024, 08:36:54 AM »
Of course I believe that the number jb alts exceeds by the population of the planet by several orders of magnitude.  The logic checks out.

So you agree with this:

Quote
Also, Candlejack was a pedo. He left because I wouldn't let him post about his sexual attraction to children.

As I wrote to scg, there is a network here which has been protecting jackblack/candlejack at all costs and any lengths. Now we understand what has been going on this forum.

11
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: June 03, 2024, 08:25:15 AM »
My research indicates the increase in jack alts is exponential.  We could be into the quadrillions by now.

Do you agree with this?

Quote
Also, Candlejack was a pedo. He left because I wouldn't let him post about his sexual attraction to children.

If yes, you are part of the same network.

If no, then all of us here have had to debate a psychopath for the past eight years on this forum.

You think this is a joke? As a mod you should really be concerned.

Why would a pervert anime weirdo defend the Coriolis effect for nine pages, using the same arguments as jackblack? The quotes given here are more than sufficient to realize that jackblack is an alt of candlejack.

12
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: June 03, 2024, 03:01:51 AM »
We don't even know how many more alts had been created right at that time. Perhaps he was mocking the FES with those pedo claims, we don't know.

What I know for sure is that jackblack/jackschitt are alts for candlejack. Had we known who we were dealing with, we would have never entered any kind of a debate with this individual here. It was the job of the admin/mods to tell us what was happening. And the obvious clues were right there, in plain view, for all to see. Again, a pervert anime weirdo was arguing the Coriolis effect for nine pages in a row?

13
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: June 03, 2024, 12:57:56 AM »

This

Quote
Also, Candlejack was a pedo. He left because I wouldn't let him post about his sexual attraction to children.

You, I, and everyone else here on this forum have been debating candlejack's alt for the past eight years and nobody (and they knew very well what was going on) told us about it.

A pervert who suddenly can argue about the Coriolis and Sagnac effects, just like we have seen in the above quotes from 2016. That's him right there. Somebody was on the sidelines laughing his/her belly off, while we were debating candlejack's alt.

14
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: June 03, 2024, 12:29:46 AM »

You know very well what is going on. Ever since 2016, we have been debating an illegal alt of candlejack and nobody told us about it. To play the inspector Clouseau of forum admin/mods is not an explanation. That is why I have posted so many clues and proofs, so that no one can say "well, we just didn't know".

Why in the world would a pervert anime weirdo all of a sudden develop a love affair with the Coriolis effect? Take a look at the date of the above messages, November 16, 2016, the very day the jackblack account was created. And someone has the nerve to tell me those alts are not the very same? I have struck a deep nerve here, an unbelievable cover up, where this candlejack/jackblack has been protected at all costs, they went to any possible  lengths to allow him to post under the cover of an alt.

How does this work? A pervert posting so many messages in the Coriolis effect thread, using the same arguments like jackblack?

PS We don't know who Legba was, but his messages pale in comparison to what has happened here for the past 8 years.

15
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: June 02, 2024, 03:06:19 PM »
More proof that they are one and the same.

1. As I said, celestial gears only match observations because they are made up ad hoc. The fact that they match observations doesn't prove anything. What other aspects do they match? I mean, just because they match multiple observations doesn't mean it's not ad hoc.
Also, science started as "ad hoc", true, but all scientists have to prove their claims. And you don't prove them by looking at supposed "effects", but by directly observing the claimed object.
3. It's you who doesn't know what ad hoc means. It's known that the reason for a certain phenomena is the Coriolis effect and that stars are far away. You say that the Coriolis effect isn't the cause, the celestial gears are. Because you're said that it won't work because the stars are too far away, you just in time insert the assumption (that's what ad hoc means) that they are close to us, to fit your crumbling hypothesis.
4. I don't even know what your point is. There is a tiny, microscopic portion of belief in a fact, and because of it you want us to think about alternatives to the said fact?
Instead of such rambling just do your job and prove that celestial gears are real. I'm still waiting.

A pervert anime weirdo answering in such a manner in the Coriolis thread? Does it make any sense at all? And if it doesn't, this piece of evidence couldn't have been missed.

Here is more of this stuff:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68423.30

1. No, I gave a pretty clear example of what's not proof, but what's a hypothesis. 'Nuff said.
2. They don't. You just send a signal and measure how much time it takes to get back. As simple as that. There are literally no assumptions required. No space travel, no nothing.
And to say that light doesn't travel in straight lines is just an outright lie, nothing else.
"owned"

Someone surely did not do his/her job to make a very basic inference about the identity of these two alts.

16
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: June 02, 2024, 02:50:57 PM »
That's the thing, that you did know. What you have offered as an excuse (70 jacks and the sort) does not stand scrutiny. The similarities between the two users, one an alt of the other, were in plain sight. What you chose not to tell us is the candlejack business. Two accounts which were created just four days apart. Same manner of fisking, not to mention the similar phrases which had been used. How is it possible that you did not observe these things? I repeat, had we known that we were dealing with candlejack's alt, no one would have paid attention to this user.

By the way, why would a pervert anime weirdo develop, all of a sudden, such a marvelous interest in the Coriolis and Sagnac effects, using the same arguments as jackblack? You mean that didn't strike you as odd?

You had a very simple choice: to tell us about the candlejack issue or not. And you chose not to inform us.

17
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: June 02, 2024, 12:22:55 PM »
This is the OP from rockseverywhere:

Quote
I aim to educate people but actively trying to destroy beliefs goes against my morals.

He used the candlejack account to show us what kind of morals he was talking about, and had created a second alt, jackblack, to actively destroy the beliefs that go against his morals.

Yes, everyone is responsbile for getting into a debate, that is not what we are talking about here. We, the FE, were never informed as to what was going on, that information about candlejack was kept deliberately and intentionally away from us. This is the crux of the matter. You think that any of us would have debated jackblack, even for a second, had we known that he was an alt of candlejack?

I am very good in discovering patterns, as you might well know by now, I see deeper and further in those messages of candlejack than you do, and I am telling you that the involvement of both jackblack and candlejack in the same threads (Coriolis and Sagnac among others), their accounts having been created just four days apart, and the language used by both in the responses lead me very quickly to see what is going on. We, the FE, never had the opportunity to make a judgement based on the entire set of facts. And you held that entire set of facts and never had divulged to us.

This is jackblack right here, in action:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68423.msg1838045#msg1838045

He used that account, candlejack, for his morals and did not push the gas pedal to the maximum; to destroy those who oppose his morals, he used the jackblack account exclusively.

Jackblack was banned for six months by John Davis on the trans issue. Then, you pleaded with John to remove that ban, and he did.

18
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: June 01, 2024, 11:59:40 PM »
And we are supposed to ignore this?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68423.msg1838045#msg1838045

And that a third alt, jackschitt, was praising jackblack almost every other message?

Any sensible person would have called himself joeblack, in order not to attract attention to himself just four days after candlejack was creating the controversy on this board. And would have declared from the very start, "I'm not candlejack, in case you are wondering why we are both defending the Coriolis and Sagnac effects with similar arguments".

You had us debate with candlejack's alt, this is what I'm talking about, while we had no idea of what was going on. Moreover, you have been protecting jackblack for all this time ("simply ignore him", "that's debate", pleading with Davis to remove the six month ban). It's one thing to have done this as a personal whim, to simply annoy the FE, quite another knowing what we know now.

Again, access the link above: if we remove the name candlejack, who would you associate that type of fisking and responses with? It's not even a contest.

19
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: June 01, 2024, 03:52:12 PM »
You had access to the mod forum BEFORE you were an admin? I don't remember you as a mod here. But you knew what candlejack was about, and as I said before, you couldn't have been as unaware (I am using a nice word) as you'd like us to know about the incredible similarities between jackblack/candlejack in their messages. You knew firsthand we were dealing with a psychopath, but you withheld this information from us. You think anyone here would have debated anything with him had we known the truth? You made a judgement yourself, based on IPs and the 70 jacks, and not on the direct and palpable evidence, the very messages which had been posted. But we never had the chance to make such a judgment ourselves, it is now, 8 years later, that I am uncovering these facts.

20
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: June 01, 2024, 03:37:57 PM »
candlejack is not banned! He left on his own because I moved his pedo thread to quarantine.

Also, it is not my fault you don't know about candlejack. He posted for a short time, and then he left. Hundreds of accts post for a short time and then leave.

And you never had the thought that by withholding such a vital piece of information from us, you'd do great harm to the FE and to the FES? We were just a handful of true FE believers at that point in time, it would have taken perhaps two minutes to mail us something like this: "jackblack might be an alt for candlejack, so be very careful as to who you are debating. Here is the email candlejack sent to me". It would have made a huge difference, none of the FE would have ever discussed anything at all with him, and it would have saved the FES a great deal of trouble. But you withheld this information from us. Were you like laughing on the sidelines knowing full well we were debating with a full blown psychopath? Your only excuse would be that someone else higher than you put you up to this. Especially given the flimsy "evidence" you have presented to us as being crucial to you to not ban the alt in the first place. Why would you do something like this to the FES and to us especially? You should have let us be the judges of the matter, by having us informed of what was going on, but you didn't.

21
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: May 31, 2024, 12:08:25 AM »
It is your opinion that those two jacks might be two different persons, other users (including me) see it very much differently. The most important clue is their participation in the Coriolis/Sagnac threads, at the same time. You have allowed terrible verbal violence to be perpetrated against the FE/FES, something no one else would have permitted to have taken place at all. Imagine the surprise when, one day, you'll find out that these two were one and the same user.

22
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: May 30, 2024, 07:43:39 AM »
If it is the case and it’s doubtful because of the differing times they posted as Wise said, then just block him. Nobody has to engage him, we choose to if we want to have our posts ripped up, misquoted, and we want to contest his dubious world view.

Things like IPs and time zones are easy to fake/fabricate. Someone within this kind of network can easily post using any IP.

Take a look at the fisking, the Coriolis/Sagnac debates these two have entered and posted in, and where they had used the very same arguments, the manner of expression. No doubt they are one and the same.

What I am saying is this: had we known who this is, there is no way anyone here would have entered a debate with candlejack (with or without blocking him).

23
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: May 30, 2024, 07:37:53 AM »
Nobody gives a shit.

You should.

Quote
Also, Candlejack was a pedo. He left because I wouldn't let him post about his sexual attraction to children.

jackblack is candlejack, this is who we have been debating here all of this time. Now you understand?

Quote
The people you are accusing of being JackBlack's alts haven't posted here in years.

What is this? Of course they haven't posted here in years. The original account, candlejack, was no longer allowed to function. That's no argument at all.

Quote
Posting in a similar style, in this case fisking and being anti FE, is not enough evidence to prove an account is an alt.

But it certainly is, since we have nothing else to go by (you can't use IPs or time zones, since these aspects can be faked easily). And what do you know? They both use the very same words and expressions.

Quote
It doesn't matter how close their registration dates are, either.

But it does. Those registrations dates were FOUR DAYS APART, not four years. That's a huge clue right there.

Quote
Almost everyone debating FE vs RE will get into a Coriolis discussion. I've lost count of the RE noobs who think water goes down the drain in the opposite direction on either side of the equator. I think they also debate Sagnac effects because that is part of your theory.

You see, scg, you must know something about these effects in order to infer very quickly that the arguments used by both candlejack and jackblack were the same, and require a certain amount of study. To get in a Coriolis effect discussion in casual way is one thing, to bring arguments to the table is quite a different undertaking.

So you see scg, based on what you have just told me here, there is very reason to believe they are one and the same. Now, put yourself in our shoes and think that we have debated with this psychopath here all of this time, not knowing a thing about candlejack.

24
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: May 30, 2024, 07:18:20 AM »
What if you are wrong? On what do you base your judgement that they are two different persons?

Take a look at this fisking and manner of expression:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68423.msg1838045#msg1838045

They both use the same words. They both argue the Coriolis and Sagnac effects using THE SAME KIND OF ARGUMENTS.

How is it that they are not the same?

You think that any of us here would have entered a debate with this psychopath, jackblack/candlejack, if the admin had done their job and had deleted the alt?

We were forced to debate since this is something you wouldn't know/appreciate, since you have never ever entered a single RE/FE debate. And had I known who I was dealing with, there's no way I would have addressed a single word to someone like candlejack.

scg, please examine the evidence carefully. For your own peace of mind. These accounts were created four days apart. They both use the fisking style which includes vitriolic attacks on the FES. They both argue the Coriolis and Sagnac effects, not to mention other fields of physics/astronomy, using the very same arguments. What are chances of that? Your initial argument (and it was so silly) that there are 70 or so users using jack within their username falls to the ground: the accounts were created just four days apart, not four years apart.

25
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: May 30, 2024, 06:49:24 AM »
The same old admins we've had for years (except me) were admins in 2016. They weren't even visiting the forum anymore. Even if they were, it is not against the rules to post in a similar style as someone else. Fisking was made popular on blogs, there's even a wiki article about who it is named after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk

Anyway, even if you are correct and they are the same person, I'm not going to ban someone today for having an undetected alt many years ago. It just doesn't make any sense, and wouldn't do any good.

They are one and the same. So we, all of us, were practically forced to debate with this lunatic all of this time; furthermore he was an alt, using an illegal account.

Yes, we have debated all of this time with candlejack. The bloody fisking is the very same, they both use the very same words, manner of expression, they both attack FET on every count, they both posted in the Coriolis and Sagnac threads, and their accounts had been created just four days apart. It doesn't get any more obvious than this.

Had I (all of us of course) known who I was dealing with, with a dangerous psychopath, an alt of candlejack, I would have never entered debate with someone like this. It was the job of the admin to have us informed as to what was going on.

26
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: May 30, 2024, 06:08:01 AM »
Whoever was the admin at that time, it would require a level of monumental stupidity not to notice jackblack/candlejack were one and the same user. It would take a gross amount of incompetence not to notice they used the same fisking, the same words/expressions, liked the Coriolis/Sagnac effects, and that the accounts had been created just four days apart.

So, whosoever was admin back in 2016, did it willfully and intentionally. He/she misled all of us, and allowed an alt to post.

We, all of us, were forced to debate with a very dangerous psychopath, not knowing that he was an alt for candlejack.

I don't think that the admin at that time will ever even acknowledge the terrible harm done to the FES. And yet, he/she did it intentionally, knowing full well that those two users were one and the same.

27
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: May 29, 2024, 09:34:57 PM »

The assumptions for God is that he exists, and that he possesses the required properties.
No. If he didn't possess "the required properties", he wouldn't be the God. Pretty simple.
Though again, as will be pointed out, existence is never a meaningful assumption in scientific contexts, what matters is the properties of said object. If said properties are reasonable, then it's taken to exist, because that is the evidence for its existence.
Quote
And it doesn't require gravity being stronger, I pointed out your flaw with that before
No, you didn't. I'm all ears.

Also, don't write that much. I'm not gonna read all that.
I'm just gonna say this - we don't see any celestial gears, we have tons of far simpler, less physics-o explanations, thank you.

Quote
The whole idea of 'consequence that we know of,' doesn't make sense. Any idea has logical consequences. I could say I've got a star in my cupboard, if we take that assumption then there are consequences (eg: I probably wouldn't have a cupboard, or for that matter a house or planet, for long).
Except you don't visualize consequences after making a claim, you make a claim to explain not consequences, but "phenomenas". It is, as I said, nothing more but an awful hypothesis treating about a cause of a well-known, well-presented situation. And there's literally no proof for that hypothesis.
I mean, are you high, or something? You literally say that X is true, because according to X, a phenomena Y is a supposed result of X. Like, whaaaat?

Quote
Under DET, for example, the idea of aether flowing immediately gives the consequence that objects in said flow will move from a stationary reference point.
Fiction, fiction, fiction, fiction, fiction, fiction...

Quote
What are you talking about? The whole reason celestial gears were brought up is because they're used to explain an observation.
Even though there's no proof to back them up, contrary to Coriolis pseudo force.

Quote
That is, we observe what is said to be consequences of them.

And? It really doesn't matter what you believe unless you have evidence.

Quote
Show stars are too far away, wouldn't have the mass to have such an effect (as you've sought to do: so plainly you think they can be falsified), find stars which don't follow the pattern. Show that there's no way to distribute the stars in the southern hemisphere. Show that they in fact don't explain observations.
Well, it's all basic knowledge, but FE'ers refuse to grasp it. Because it would hurt their views.

Quote
Scientists have done the job under RET, things are very different under FET.
And? I don't see how that's a problem. The detailed measuring process done today does not require the "assumption" that the Earth is round at all.

Quote
Also, burden of proof isn't relevant in this context, I'm not making a positive claim beyond the fact we don't know the distance to the stars under FET.
It is. Maybe you don't make any claim (I don't know why do you play a devil's advocate, must be really boring and wasteful to argue about such thing), but some FE'er might.

Quote
If you know something, then you believe it. If you believe something, you don't necessarily know it. This is just silly.
This is silly because you assume that if you know something, you believe it. That's what's silly. If you know something, you know something. God, do I really have to explain this? Belief involves some uncertainty, knowledge is the opposite. You do sound like a flat Earther.

Quote
I'm just giving the answers FEers give to the questions
Welp, then don't bother with my thread, stop playing devil's advocate, go hang out with some friends if you have any, pretty simple. I want to argue with you. If you're unable to do that, then bye!

Quote
What matters is whether celestial gears answer the OP's question.
We're hitting stupidity levels that shouldn't even be possible.
"X is true, because according to X, a phenomena Y is a supposed result of X"
"Wow, so much truth, wow, evidence!"

The thread is the Coriolis effect. And you are telling everyone here, at all costs, that's not the same user? Can't be. They are using the same fisking style, they are interested in the Sagnac/Coriolis, they use the same words, the accounts were created just four days apart. Those two are the same user, 100%.

28
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: May 29, 2024, 01:53:34 PM »
I was told that there are some 70 users with "jack" included in their names. Believe it or not, this was the response.

But these accounts were created just four days apart.

Same fisking style/same manner of expression:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68423.msg1838045#msg1838045

They are the same user.

29
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: May 29, 2024, 01:27:39 PM »
Two separate accounts were created in just four days. Both users utilize the same fisking style, argue for the Sagnac and the Coriolis effects, use the same words and phrases, and fiercely attack FET.

Same identical style of fisking, same arguments (jackblack/candlejack):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68423.msg1838045#msg1838045

Same words used by both users here:

Quote
Strawman.
Not a big surprise considering you're an FE'er, a person unable of not using logical fallacies.

Is this it? Is it the end of FE?
JRowe was convulsed and spouted meaningless excuses.

1. No, I gave a pretty clear example of what's not proof, but what's a hypothesis. 'Nuff said.
2. They don't. You just send a signal and measure how much time it takes to get back. As simple as that. There are literally no assumptions required. No space travel, no nothing.

None of the other 70 or so users who include jack in their names (except the third alt, jackschitt) use this fisking style, like the Sagnac/Coriolis effects, and use the same words as jb.

Plainly they are one and the same.

A third alt was also used, jackschitt. Take a look at this:

Quote
Oh and he has done research out of everyone on here I think JackBlack has refuted the most of your nonsense and provided countless calculations and bits of evidence to go with it. So if anyone has done enough to know what he is talking about, it's him

30
##### The Lounge / Re: jackblack/candlejack?
« on: May 28, 2024, 02:03:28 PM »