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 - odvetnik_irsic

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why do you FE-ers claim the horizon is flat?
« on: March 31, 2016, 05:06:00 AM »
Wouldn't the horizon also be curved if the Earth was flat? Imagine if you were at the flat Earth somewhere near the middle, and suddenly rose up to 100 km (could be less, doesn't matter). The curvature would still be there because the edge of the flat Earth is curved and thus it would create the view of a curved horizon, the only problem being that you would see the entire flat Earth if you could be able to see so far.

Edit: Also do you believe these proofs? Just wondering because it seems like complete nonsense.
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html

The answer is simple; these conspiritards think the earth "looks" flat so then it must be so; that is coupled with their paranoia and distrust of authority (plus a lack of proper technical education), which leads to a belief in all things conspiratorial; i.e. the Flat Earth Conspiracy.  No evidence will ever be accepted by them since they will claim it is contaminated. 

2
There has so far not been one reasonable explanation for how Geodetic Surveyors have been functioning unwittingly as part of this grand conspiracy.  They always fail to provide any proof of this conspiracy in the form of confidential documents, leaked information, or even a credible witness or whistle blower.  Nothing.  There isn't one piece of documentation or testimony that is usable as evidence, well, since there isn't any.  This is so obviously a sophisticated co-intel hoax...poor fools.

3
We can be certain that FE'ers cannot objectively prove the distance of the sun and moon, which can be tested independently.  They assert that the sun is approximately 6,000 miles away (frankly it could be 6,000 16,000 or 60,000 miles; it's irrelevant) but cannot come up with the proof.  Listen people, they CANNOT measure and prove their own assertions but instead cite the workings of a proven charlatan from 1800's.  I am still waiting for one FE'er to rebut and provide proof that the sun is only X miles away.  This is but one piece of evidence that the entire FE model is false...people, this FE nonsense is a hoax.  Can't believe people fall for this stuff. 

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Congratulations FEers; you messed up BIG TIME.
« on: March 30, 2016, 02:53:11 AM »
Useful video although any FE'er will argue with the points and say that it's impossible and that the earth is flat.  They don't understand relative velocity, inertia and gravity.  It's futile to expect any sort of rational debate as they will negate everything you present and will not accept any real evidence. 

5
Hi Guys :)
I’ve heard a reason for the Government and every other authority who could possibly see the Earth
is lying to us as an excuse for a big cash grab concerning space exploration.

I wonder why this is necessary. From when we first started to fly, people would have turned their eyes
to the Moon and stars, and wondered what was out there.
A Government might fund some research and exploration to fly as high as possible to see what we find.

So why is there a conspiracy?
We are the same curious creatures, so if something prevented us from travelling as far as we could,
why wouldn’t we work on that (and tell the people)?
There is certainly military advantage for a Nation to gain as high a view point of Earth as possible,
so there’s still every reason for a Space Race between Nations.
If we were racing to the Moon, and found that we couldn’t, why wouldn’t the competing Nation call out the “winner” as a fraud if the USA was lying.

These questions would all be the same regardless of the people at the top thinking the Earth was flat or round to begin with.
As I have posted elsewhere there are two basic conspiracy camps and for sake of argument I refer to them as "high conspiracy" and "low conspiracy". A high conspirator would tell you that the round earth is required by the cabal that is keeping humanity misled about reality so that the elite can continue to stay in power and suppress the masses. This cabal operates as described in George Orwell's 1984.

My view, as a low conspiracist, is different. We can think of this as a conspiracy of dunces with the egos and intellectual investment reinforcing the heliocentric theory. With regards to NASA, and other government agencies, they operate as MI6 (or the NSA in the United States) for the good of the populace. Churchill said it so well "The truth is so precious that it must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies." MI6 operated without officially existing, or even being acknowledged, for over 90 years through multiple governments and parties of all stripes. Why is does the government protect this secret? The answer is simple: to protect the populace. Why is protection required?  There are two answers. The first answer is a very simple on. The agencies prevent people as well as valuable equipment from falling off the edge. The second answer is that the flat earth mechanism is very delicate. Tampering with the machismo through exploration, or other unauthorized, missions into the celestial sphere could interfere with this delicate mechanism. It is possible that man-made interference could disrupt the flat earth mechanism and end life as we know it. I believe that the climate change we are undergoing is due to alteration or tampering with the movement of key celestial bodies or possible the interference in the rotation of the ethereal whirlpool.

A banking "cabal" or a military "cabal" per se, yes it's quite possible. What ISN'T possible is a 500 year conspiracy that spans a huge number of industries, involving 100,000's of individuals, and across every country on this planet.  And you want to tell me that our biggest pariahs wouldn't want to leak this story? There still have not been any credible scientists that have become whistle blowers...and how come no secret documents were never leaked...not by ANYONE, EVER! This is pure insanity.  You cannot compare the "Manhattan Project" which was a secret wartime project to something that is many times orders of magnitude more complex and larger...not to mention the time scale involved here.  Get real.
There ARE leaks my friend. There are people pointing this out and one only needs search on the Google tool to see such. MI6 was secret and NOT admitted to by the various incarnations of Her (or His) Majesties governments for over 90 years. This includes various heads of Government from the Liberal, Tory and Labour Parties. So we have one example of a conspiracy being covered up. A conspiracy I might add that was in place for the protection of the populace.

What leaks regarding the FET!? By whom!? Of course there are other leaks regarding conspiracies but NOTHING regarding the flat earth because the only "conspiracy" is the fact that it's a hoax. Do you not ever wonder why there are no individuals with credibility involved with this nonsense? Have you not noticed how the leaders of this movement are a bunch of clowns? Let's face it, there isn't any expert industry insider that has blown the whistle on this so-called conspiracy. If it's so obvious then it should/would already be proven by at least a handful of people with credibility. There isn't anyone...not one. Quite pathetic.

6
I do! I looked out across my local Walmart parking lot and it was completely flat...because its so big it should have a curve...so the earth must be flat.

I'm certain your question was rhetorical. Of course there is no evidence. This is all one big hoax.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Breaking news: Satellites do exist !!!
« on: March 29, 2016, 12:57:30 AM »
This is an old thread but since nobody tried to clear it up, why not?

First of all, I'm not a "flat earther"... on the other hand I'm not a "round earther" either. Fact is, I don't know what to believe at this point. All I know for sure is that something is seriously amiss and people are caching on to it fast. I can't give you a definitive answer on WHERE satellite dishes are getting all of their signals from... but I'm fairly certain it's not from satellites. Rather than write a novel about it, watch this:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

In a nutshell, the thermosphere (the area of the atmosphere where satellites supposedly orbit) is between 600c=2000c... hot enough to melt virtually every single piece of a satellite. No satellite in orbit could exist in there thermosphere. Not one. This is a scientific fact, not an opinion.

Why is it so hard to get a "satellite" signal in the middle of a place like Northern Nevada or Montana (which is hundreds of miles away from the closest tower)? Why would a signal coming STRAIGHT from a satellite be crystal clear in say L.A. but be not existent in ONLY places hundreds of miles away from the nearest towers?

Why is a "Satellite Phone" just a regular cell phone with a BIG ass antenna on it?

As far as WHERE the signal is coming from? Here are a few theories:

Blimps, like the ones used for "Google Loon". http://www.google.com/loon/ are used in some remote areas to boost signals.

Maybe satellites are receiving signals bounced off the inside of the dome or maybe there are transmitters built into the dome itself?

At any rate, ALL of the signals ARE of course coming from land based towers. Where some of the signal boosters are located... varies.

So there are a few "theories". Now at least someone gave one. Can I prove these theories to be true? Nope. But what I can prove is that satellites will melt like wax in the blast furnace known as the thermosphere...

For more information about why satellites sure as hell don't exist, check out this link:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=satellites+don%27t+exist

I couldn't go on and on giving explanations on why satellites DON'T exist, it's much harder to prove they DO exist.

Ah yes, you are "clearly" not a FE'er. Sure. Uh, hey buddy, what "dome" are you talking about anyhow?! The one covering the flat earth maybe? Before you spout such drivel try disproving the existence of satellites instead of conjecturing about subject matter (astrophysics) which you clearly have no clue about.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is this that i have photographed?
« on: March 28, 2016, 01:34:22 PM »
"The heavens tell of the glory of God the wonders of His Earth declare the firmament"

I must hold myself back at your inane and foolishly formed assumptions.  What difference does it make to the existence of God if the world is round, square, elliptical, or round?  Having faith in God has NOTHING to do with the world being flat or round.  You make an extremely odd connection between the necessity of the world being flat and your faith in God although they are mutually exclusive.  It seems that you contend to understand God, which you know is not possible and you should know better than making presuppositions about God's universal design.  Your argument is twisted an ill-conceived. 

Your apparent faith has clouded your judgement and led you to a highly biased conclusion.  Now you spend the rest of your days trying to cram a square into a circular hole just so that your world view will remain in harmony. How very "scientific" of you.
I must say I am beginning to understand why "trolling" exists (I only learned the word here and then search its meaning). Not that my post was a troll (or what one calls a post made by a troll). Your response, as most responses from hello-centrists are full of vituperation and anger at anyone who would well dare to challenge cherish beliefs.

My point was simply this- the post above (or writings or what ever they are called) uses the existence of the the firmament to question the flat earth theory.  I give not one whit, scientifically, whether it was put in place by God Almighty, Zeus, Auhra Mazda (Google term if you wish- but I have stood before the ancient temple fire once upon a time) or by Biffo the Bear in a pink suit. I actually possess a telescope and can (and do) view the firmament on occasion. The existence of the firmament neither proves, nor disproves, the theory of the flat earth.

The firmament exists, that is all I can say.

I do find it interesting that most Helio-centrists believe not in subordination (you should search "Subordination by Dr. Samuel Johnson) and encourage everyone to "go their own way... or be all you can be... or cut your own path" yet when confronted with someone who actually does takes up arms against the mores and thinking of the masses they are aghast with indignation.

I would also urge you to be more careful in your word choice and meanings. You put to mind the story told by Dr. Johnson:

"Dr. Johnson, you smell!" At which Johnson replied something like, "Incorrect, Madam, you smell me, and I stink!"

No sir, your verbal masturbation is getting tiresome.  Again, you are terribly patronizing and as usual you have provided no proof of anything, which I would construe as quite pathetic since in your life-long pursuit of your flat earth you cannot present one lousy piece of evidence that can be tested and proven.  Bravo.  IF you own a telescope it must not work.  Try pointing it at the moon one of these days and take a close look at it during one of the moon's phases and you "should" clearly see that it is not "self-illuminated."
Oh Dear, You MUST be an American, there can be no doubt of this. I have not conversed with so  many Americans since my unit did going maneuvers with a American Amoured Scouting unit in Germany whilst I was in the military. I admit they were most jolly and genial at least at first, but the foul language that spewed forth was monstrous to behold. In addition I have never seen men so prone to fight over the smallest point of discussion nor so eager to bully people. One lesson I learned is to not give a "Yank" as we called them more than a dram of liquor or a fight of some type would soon erupt.

It does strike me that you appear to be losing your temper because someone is defending the Flat Earth Theory on a Flat Earth Forum. Although I became certain during my time with those jAmericans that they had little concept of irony, I suspect that  even you, should see a bit of irony in this situation. You remind me of a house guest who complained to my mother about the water pressure in the W.C. Her response (to my Father not to the guest) was "well if they don't like the water pressure they should jolly well go home."

Regarding evidence and proofs I would suggest that you click (as they say) on my profile and then (it turns out that one can do this) read through all my posts. You will quickly see that I am not a "dodger" (an American colloquialism, apparently, that I learned from a round earth friend I made on this fair forum). I provide explanations and theory for phenomena.

I would also point out that although it may appear I am omni-present... I confess to not being so. I do feel like a rabbit in a race of hounds, many round earthers visit this site but few flat earth's. So it is up to a small few of us to answer these reqest and respond to many queries- some of which are repetitive and some, well down right silly, such as pointing to the existence of the firmament as proof of a round earth, as if late earth theorists don't acknowledge the existence of the firmament.

To close I really do not understand, given the apparent quick tempered and aggressive nature of Americans the United States has not erupted into Civil War once again. Of course given the fact that you are close to electing a fascist who has promised riot if not elected we may all well see it break out in the very near future, which will surprise me  none at all.

Since you claim to be such a quick-witted intellectual (you are not; just a petulant fraud), you might want to brush up on your history and learn about the crown's role in subverting the Union during the American Civil War...well then.  And don't forget that the vast majority of lunatics in your movement are Americans, so you are in fantastic company...I am not angry but irritated with you constant obfuscation of facts and inane references.  You are intellectually dishonest as are all the other FE leaders.  You spout an irresponsible philosophy, which is wasting people's resources and embroiling them in a pointless and pathetic debate.  This FE nonsense is purely and simply a HOAX that is propagated by government interests.  Now there's your conspiracy on a silver platter.  YOUR idiotic theories are WHY the real truth movement is losing credibility.  But somehow I think you must know this, Mr. Ex-Military.  You know that you are spouting drivel. Shame on you for muddying the waters of legitimate research. 

9
Here we go again...diversion and obfuscation, half-truths, avoidance, etc.. Classic FE debate methods.  Geodetic Surveying does in fact PROVE a curved earth.  End of story. Enjoy...
The poster cikljamas destroys this geodetic argument being made on the thread below
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66107.0#.Vvk1Z8ec9FI

I don't know what you're talking about ol' chap.  He didn't even come close.  Before you even try to claim Geodetic Surveying is somehow "flawed," you need to explain how countless of Geodetic Surveyors over all our continents somehow coordinated their conspiracy and which continues to be kept a secret.  I assume there is a Round Earth Conspiracy 101 course that every surveyor takes?  Come now, you can't be so insane...Or?

You don't have to be part of a conspiracy in order to be wrong, especially when your teachers were roundies.

I have yet to hear about one educator, scientist or credible industry professional claim the world is flat.  Unlike other credible conspiracy movements, the FE folks can't seem to provide one credible insider. Any secret government documents proving anything? Nope? What does the FE movement actually have?  All I can see is that it's led by the most pathetic bunch of YouTube "researchers"...is there anyone that you can point to that is an authority in anything? 

10
Hi Guys :)
I’ve heard a reason for the Government and every other authority who could possibly see the Earth
is lying to us as an excuse for a big cash grab concerning space exploration.

I wonder why this is necessary. From when we first started to fly, people would have turned their eyes
to the Moon and stars, and wondered what was out there.
A Government might fund some research and exploration to fly as high as possible to see what we find.

So why is there a conspiracy?
We are the same curious creatures, so if something prevented us from travelling as far as we could,
why wouldn’t we work on that (and tell the people)?
There is certainly military advantage for a Nation to gain as high a view point of Earth as possible,
so there’s still every reason for a Space Race between Nations.
If we were racing to the Moon, and found that we couldn’t, why wouldn’t the competing Nation call out the “winner” as a fraud if the USA was lying.

These questions would all be the same regardless of the people at the top thinking the Earth was flat or round to begin with.
As I have posted elsewhere there are two basic conspiracy camps and for sake of argument I refer to them as "high conspiracy" and "low conspiracy". A high conspirator would tell you that the round earth is required by the cabal that is keeping humanity misled about reality so that the elite can continue to stay in power and suppress the masses. This cabal operates as described in George Orwell's 1984.

My view, as a low conspiracist, is different. We can think of this as a conspiracy of dunces with the egos and intellectual investment reinforcing the heliocentric theory. With regards to NASA, and other government agencies, they operate as MI6 (or the NSA in the United States) for the good of the populace. Churchill said it so well "The truth is so precious that it must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies." MI6 operated without officially existing, or even being acknowledged, for over 90 years through multiple governments and parties of all stripes. Why is does the government protect this secret? The answer is simple: to protect the populace. Why is protection required?  There are two answers. The first answer is a very simple on. The agencies prevent people as well as valuable equipment from falling off the edge. The second answer is that the flat earth mechanism is very delicate. Tampering with the machismo through exploration, or other unauthorized, missions into the celestial sphere could interfere with this delicate mechanism. It is possible that man-made interference could disrupt the flat earth mechanism and end life as we know it. I believe that the climate change we are undergoing is due to alteration or tampering with the movement of key celestial bodies or possible the interference in the rotation of the ethereal whirlpool.

A banking "cabal" or a military "cabal" per se, yes it's quite possible. What ISN'T possible is a 500 year conspiracy that spans a huge number of industries, involving 100,000's of individuals, and across every country on this planet.  And you want to tell me that our biggest pariahs wouldn't want to leak this story? There still have not been any credible scientists that have become whistle blowers...and how come no secret documents were never leaked...not by ANYONE, EVER! This is pure insanity.  You cannot compare the "Manhattan Project" which was a secret wartime project to something that is many times orders of magnitude more complex and larger...not to mention the time scale involved here.  Get real.

11
This first issue for the FE-tards is for them to actually measure and scientifically confirm the distances and exact dimensions of the sun and moon respectively.  Of course when I have asked this question probably no less than 20 times I have never received a reply. A sun/moon with a relatively tiny diameter and short distance from the earth would/should be quite easy to do.  There is ample equipment to test these hypotheses yet of course there is no proof to support their inane theories.  They can't clearly explain why a sun cannot be viewable or at least measurable (using sophisticated equipment) from any point on the planet 24 hours a day.  Surely they would "know" the exact trajectory of the disk...and IF the sun is a disk, then how come it does not appear as an oval for people not directly underneath it.  Hmm, simple questions yet all you get are insanely confusing and contrived explanations. 

12
Crickets "still" chirping...

13
Here we go again...diversion and obfuscation, half-truths, avoidance, etc.. Classic FE debate methods.  Geodetic Surveying does in fact PROVE a curved earth.  End of story. Enjoy...
The poster cikljamas destroys this geodetic argument being made on the thread below
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66107.0#.Vvk1Z8ec9FI

I don't know what you're talking about ol' chap.  He didn't even come close.  Before you even try to claim Geodetic Surveying is somehow "flawed," you need to explain how countless of Geodetic Surveyors over all our continents somehow coordinated their conspiracy and which continues to be kept a secret.  I assume there is a Round Earth Conspiracy 101 course that every surveyor takes?  Come now, you can't be so insane...Or?

14
Here we go again...diversion and obfuscation, half-truths, avoidance, etc.. Classic FE debate methods.  Geodetic Surveying does in fact PROVE a curved earth.  End of story. Enjoy...

15
What's hilarious is that even the FE movement has all sorts of crazy factions with hilarious theories.  Even they can't get along and there isn't a general set of assumptions that they can all agree upon even though none of them even comprehend the science behind their conclusions.  They love to cite ridiculous disinfo from the Web though...I realize the question to this forum topic is rhetorical since there really isn't anything legitimate that these nuts have come up with.  I'm still waiting to see a legitimate whistleblower from the scientific community to blow this wide open...as IF.  So much disinfo out there...this FE stuff is one big hoax; a well crafted deception to pull in goofballs and waste their time on this drivel.  I see that the best of humanity has to offer spends their time researching this nonsense...

16
I cannot comprehend why a debate needs to even go on. It seems that the FE'ers will never concede regardless of the evidence.  Needless to say Geodetic Surveying clearly and quickly proves that the earth is round. This is based on everyday experience from professionals in the field and which is based on over 300 years of geodetic surveying being conducted independently by countless surveyors over the centuries.  Clearly a debate with FE'ers has become so utterly preposterous that I question their sanity. 

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

All fake. Shills, in on the conspiracy. Or just stupid and getting their measurements wrong. Or equipment is rigged. Or Aether.

Yes indeed; all of the geodetic surveyors were all masons educated by Jesuits and given misaligned surveying equipment.  hahaha... and this is the kind of logic we're dealing with?  And these are people that reside among us and are allowed to procreate, vote and own guns!  The horror!

17
Thousands upon thousands of photos from space including video footage and the FE conspiritards say it's all fake.  It's not. Now we await for visual proof of a flat earth by dimwitted FE "investigators"...at which point the rest of us will simply say that it's faked, discredited and for certain Photo-shopped.  No, there is nor there ever will be proof of any kind that there is a flat earth since it's round.  End of story.

18
As preposterous as a flat earth concept is, a conspiracy that can be kept hidden is even more convoluted.  My answer is: Absolutely Nothing. There is no clear answer as to why there even is a conspiracy, who benefits, and why "they" would benefit.  People who fall for this stuff are gullible and seeking simple answers while blaming amorphous "illuminati" or "free masons" for this so-called conspiracy.  After spending some time looking into this (purely out of fascination) I truly believe that this is a psy-op being propagated by government agencies to bleed people's energy and discredit legitimate truth movements.  This FE nonsense is deliberately being pushed out to muddy up the waters of real investigation and to divert attention away from real conspiracies.  You could even argue that NASA is participating willingly in this game by dropping tidbits of questionable footage only to be picked up by overzealous conspiracy nuts who aren't wise enough to see they've been had.  Just look at the losers and quasi pseudo investigators that head this community...what a pathetic bunch. 

19
Well, in this group we determined that most FE'ers are illiterate...now that's a great start to a vigorous "debate."  After spending 3 weeks reading FE nonsense I haven't seen anything worth even jokingly considering. 

20
I cannot comprehend why a debate needs to even go on. It seems that the FE'ers will never concede regardless of the evidence.  Needless to say Geodetic Surveying clearly and quickly proves that the earth is round. This is based on everyday experience from professionals in the field and which is based on over 300 years of geodetic surveying being conducted independently by countless surveyors over the centuries.  Clearly a debate with FE'ers has become so utterly preposterous that I question their sanity. 

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">


21
Pretty much nothing...obfuscating, avoiding, diverting, contriving, just about everything FE'ers claim.  But if all else fails just say that "aether" did it!
I personally gather from the OP that the question was intended to be addressed by those supporting the flat earth model, and with the desired result being the presentation of scientifically verifiable data. I'm all for RE, but I've been poking around this forum for a few days waiting for exactly what this post is seeking to bring out of the flat earth society. Your post does nothing to progress the debate in a constructive manner. The flat earth criticism is plenty bountiful around here but it is not always necessary such as in this case. So leave the answering of the initial question to the adience it was addressed to and take what you will, disregard what you will, but I'd personally like to see what kind of information this can reveal for the FE argument and it's legitimacy as a plausible case.

Obvious sarcasm due to the fact that after spending a couple of weeks reading a whole host of theories I could not see anything but nonsense.  Nothing is reasonably explained and as far as I can see the FET model has been easily disproven.  I would for once like to see proof, not theory.  With a lack of evidence (and I am very certain none ever will be produced) a fruitful debate is futile.  Enjoy.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is this that i have photographed?
« on: March 23, 2016, 02:48:30 PM »
"The heavens tell of the glory of God the wonders of His Earth declare the firmament"

I must hold myself back at your inane and foolishly formed assumptions.  What difference does it make to the existence of God if the world is round, square, elliptical, or round?  Having faith in God has NOTHING to do with the world being flat or round.  You make an extremely odd connection between the necessity of the world being flat and your faith in God although they are mutually exclusive.  It seems that you contend to understand God, which you know is not possible and you should know better than making presuppositions about God's universal design.  Your argument is twisted an ill-conceived. 

Your apparent faith has clouded your judgement and led you to a highly biased conclusion.  Now you spend the rest of your days trying to cram a square into a circular hole just so that your world view will remain in harmony. How very "scientific" of you.
I must say I am beginning to understand why "trolling" exists (I only learned the word here and then search its meaning). Not that my post was a troll (or what one calls a post made by a troll). Your response, as most responses from hello-centrists are full of vituperation and anger at anyone who would well dare to challenge cherish beliefs.

My point was simply this- the post above (or writings or what ever they are called) uses the existence of the the firmament to question the flat earth theory.  I give not one whit, scientifically, whether it was put in place by God Almighty, Zeus, Auhra Mazda (Google term if you wish- but I have stood before the ancient temple fire once upon a time) or by Biffo the Bear in a pink suit. I actually possess a telescope and can (and do) view the firmament on occasion. The existence of the firmament neither proves, nor disproves, the theory of the flat earth.

The firmament exists, that is all I can say.

I do find it interesting that most Helio-centrists believe not in subordination (you should search "Subordination by Dr. Samuel Johnson) and encourage everyone to "go their own way... or be all you can be... or cut your own path" yet when confronted with someone who actually does takes up arms against the mores and thinking of the masses they are aghast with indignation.

I would also urge you to be more careful in your word choice and meanings. You put to mind the story told by Dr. Johnson:

"Dr. Johnson, you smell!" At which Johnson replied something like, "Incorrect, Madam, you smell me, and I stink!"

No sir, your verbal masturbation is getting tiresome.  Again, you are terribly patronizing and as usual you have provided no proof of anything, which I would construe as quite pathetic since in your life-long pursuit of your flat earth you cannot present one lousy piece of evidence that can be tested and proven.  Bravo.  IF you own a telescope it must not work.  Try pointing it at the moon one of these days and take a close look at it during one of the moon's phases and you "should" clearly see that it is not "self-illuminated."

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
« on: March 23, 2016, 08:15:26 AM »
John's getting topological. I offer my best wishes to anyone trying to understand it in any detail, I loathe topology.
That being said, he is actually kind of right. According to the Theory of Relativity, space is more accurately modelled by Riemannian geometry, which describes a non-Euclidean space. A few of the traits transfer: for example, as is pretty well known an object moving at high speeds may seem to contract in length. Distances do get manipulated.

The gist of John's model seems to be that the Earth is locally flat, but can be modelled as round: as is demonstrated by the distances he references. The Earth itself is flat: it's space that can be thought of as curved.

Curvature, strictly speaking, is defined by the eigenvalues of the second fundamental form (the tangent plane, the space of all derivations) which is defined under Riemannian geometry. Derivations are defined pretty generally, but offhand I can't think of any reason it wouldn't theoretically be possible to define a manifold with derivatives that have zero eigenvalues and yet meet in the way John describes, if we're working generally. 
That being said, I am very far from an expert at topology, which is what a full understanding of Riemannian geometry requires. It might be possible that the existing traits of the manifold require the existence of a derivative that causes curvature. I doubt I can say any more, without more knowledge both of his model and of topology.

He's right as far as modelling space as non-Euclidean goes, though I can't say much more as to the accuracy of the rest. If you want to know about group structure, I'm your girl. This stuff, good luck.
Thank you!

John, you really seem like a nice guy.
Thank you!
Quote
  But really I have to tell you that I don't know where you come up with your theories.
Well, this theory can be directly found by looking at the Equivalence principle and Newton's Three Laws and of course by loosening some of Euclids postulates.

Quote
You seem to have a fetish with NASA and I am afraid that all of your focus on trying to prove the earth is flat is skewing your senses.
My dislike of NASAs practices actually came about after my flat earth belief. I honestly just disagree with what they are doing, and am passionate about it. And I'm not alone - the dangers of much of what I'm being talked about have been discussed in publication.

Quote
  You have to honestly keep in mind that so much of what you and your colleagues are trying to prove is just way off. 
Of course. This is why I'm trying to make flat earth theory better. I can't blame them for being wrong, but I can show them how far I've gotten in examining the flat earth.

Quote
Unfortunately too much of what you're claiming is simply contrived and without much merit because it is easily falsified.
If it is easily falsified, I'm sure someone would have falsified it by now.

Quote
The entire premise of your flat earth model is flawed and cannot be proven.
Nothing can be proven. I assume you mean it can't be falsified? I thought you just said its easily falsified. Now I'm confused!

Quote
  For example you claim in some statements that ISS is fake and space is also fake (or at least some of your compatriots)
You can hardly discredit my model because it contradicts some other model unrelated to it. It would be like me saying that being a democrat is wrong because republicans tend to drink more coffee. What other people say about the ISS and space is of no relevance to my work, other than its going to be super-ceded by my work.


Quote
and then you make claims that satellites do exist but now they operate according to theoretical principles that have no bearing on reality.
I had thought Newton's 3 Laws of Motion had quite a bit bearing on reality. If we accept Newton's 3 laws, and we accept that gravity is a pseudoforce, as we have ample evidence for, we must accept that in inertial FoR the ISS is travelling a straight line.

An object in a state of motion will stay in that state of motion unless acted upon by a force.

Quote
I could just as easily state that we live in Middle Earth and that everything we see in the sky is only a projection.  How could you prove me wrong?  Some people actually believe in this stuff and you might think they're crazy but in reality your theories and others like theirs really are cut from the same cloth.  Just keep that in mind.
Someone asked me recently on facebook about the projection idea. I don't think it holds, mainly we can falsify it using lasers. A great book on this is Ignorance: A Case for Skepticism.

Quote
While you're at it, please try explaining the phenomenon of Venus transiting the sun, e.g. directly between earth and the sun.  We know Venus exists and have observed it for thousands of years.  It is a planet that is well documented and yet it periodically transits the sun.  I would appreciate a reasonable explanation.
Venus travels a straight line between the earth and the sun. This causes the phenomenon in question.

They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
Ooh, interesting one. Can I ask about the behaviour in the southern hemiplane? How would distances work? Are they similar to those as modelled by the typical NP-centred single circle, or are there distortions?
Distances are equivalent to what you would expect.  Its closest to an elliptic geometry.

They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
What does that mean?  Is it flat or not?
It means its flat and has no edge, but has a finite area. Space does not behave as if we were to draw triangles in the sand. Namely, if an object travels long enough along the plane of earth it will eventually get back to where it started.

That is quite a philosophical assumption, which you well know cannot be tested or known, only assumed. How can you conclude this to be the case if you do not have a testable model? How would you propose you validate this? 
It can be directed inferred from the assumption of Newton's Laws and that gravity is a pseudoforce.

Since we know they are in an inertial frame of reference we know they are not accelerating. This means, recall from physics, that they are travelling a straight line at a constant speed (or alternately are "still".) We see them end up at the same location they started at periodically. This justifies empirically us loosening our parallel postulate.

This is empirical evidence to support choosing the axiom that Euclid's postulates are incorrect (which are just another set of philosophical assumptions, mind you.)

I have to say this explanation has me thinking. I have heard the motion of a satellite orbiting the Earth described as the satellite travelling in a straight line through curved space, assuming gravity being explained as a curvature of space. I suppose one could argue that the surface of the Earth is a flat plane following the curvature of gravity, forming the equivalent of a sphere.

Of course most flat Earthers don't believe in gravity, so this will never go anywhere.
Exactly. This proves the Earth is stationary, has gravity, is flat, and gives good reason to suspect there is no conspiracy. It also brings with it all empirical evidence that is supporting relativity and conventional cosmologies.

Firmament is revealed to be a fixed "coordinate system" that is revealed through inertial frames of reference. Aether gives us a mechanic by which space is bent and through which waves can propagate.

The issue with flat earthers not believing in gravity will hopefully die down over a year or two once they "#TESTIT". They will then be left with the UA model or mine. Buoyancy just won't hold. Neither will magnetism or other ad hocs. The only one that will last the test of time are those that reveal gravity to be a pseudo-force.

In addition, this highlights issues with our understanding of method and its role in society. Two off the top of my head:

Dialogues that do not pigeon-hole discussion to what is "reasonable" within the dialogue have more paths to discover "revolutionary" material.

This can be seen because we could have reached relativity from two directions; By assuming the Earth is flat we can directly derive relativity through use of Newton's 3 Laws of Motion.  With round, it also comes to existence. With everything else being equal this means it is more likely we would have discovered it sooner if we had allowed the flat earth into serious dialogue.

The mathematical layer of theory is not directly translatable to the explanatory / natural language layer of science.

This is to say that even if we have the description mathematically of a phenomena, we have infinite ways to express and understand this in natural language. This was known by Rowbotham among others. Multiple mutually exclusive world-views can be supported through use of identical sets of empirical and mathematical evidence.

An axiomatic choice having been made to prefer inertial frames of reference (or a particular subset of them) in one. In the other no such preference has been made - we have loosened our axioms a bit and find a view where it is flat and round depending on frame of reference.

Rowbotham was a fraud...a charlatan.  And you take the word of this individual over the words of 100,000's of scientists that study a huge amount of converging topics. 
As a matter of fact, the "among others" include Hume and Popper. You can also find discussions on this in philosophy of science and philosophy of mathematical foundations.

Quote

Let's just boil it down to one point; please provide proof/verifiable evidence that the sun/moon are 1) at the distances you claim they are from the earth,
They are the same distance as the round earth model. Are you sure you still want proof?

Quote
2) measure the size and mass of the sun/moon,
Again the same.

Quote
3) offer proof that the moon is indeed self-illuminating (incontrovertible proof of course),
Proof has no place in science. We aren't in the Dark Ages, we've been Illuminated.
Quote
4) proof of the trajectories of both and that they should be measurable at all times of the day by sophisticated equipment. 

There you go. Instead of these ridiculous debates about fringe topics, go straight to the point. 
Again proof has no place in science. You ask for the impossible.


John, although your view is a really interesting one, and kudos for that! Sadly there's a problem in that view. even though it would stand, theoretically if the observations of the details involved in space-time curvature weren't the way they were.

The problem is that space itself isn't actually that curved. The space component of space-time in gen-rel doesn't really alter that much. weirdly enough it's the time component that expresses large curvature in the worldline geodesics of events in minkowski space. That is that they (the time vectors) are the prominent components effecting the metric tensor in expressing the variance in coordinate systems.

time is curved. not space (that much). I'll let that sink in for a minute...
I am familiar with the model and interpretation. However, to say that these bodies are not travelling straight lines is to also say gravity is not a pseudo-force. This is something Relativity cannot live without. Unless you can

Quote
We can measure the curvature of space. We can see that it's pretty flat, even in the presence of large masses. We can see, for instance how light trajectories (space) bends around the sun by observing the displacement of a star, viewable in an eclipse, opposed to the lights trajectory when unaffected by mass. Space curvature can be (and is) measured, and it really doesn't bend that much. The same conclusion was come to by relativistic calculations before observations like this were taken to assess the validity of the predictions by the way.
To quote Einstein - "Damn the experiment, the theory is right." What we are measuring and assuming as "The curvature of space" could be any number of other phenomena. Gravitational Lensing, for example, could be any number of other things caused by the body it is being lensed by. 

Quote
On the same basic relativistic calculations, time is essentially the component that expresses curvature in minkowski space, applicable to inertially straight Newtonian vectors that appear radially curved in space-time. -> " class="bbc_link" target="_blank"> - Notice which axis has curvature. More specifically, the principle of equivalence states that it is due to the acceleration of the non inertial reference frame of the observer, accelerating away from the center of mass that creates the impression of downward acceleration of inertial objects through time.


http://s23.postimg.org/wx3n8uvhl/principleequiv.jpg

This same principle creates the relativistic impression of inertial vectors with orthogonal trajectories appear to radially orbit through time. It isn't so much that gravitational attraction causes masses to attract, but that, masses "expand" radially outward such the the centers of masses end up traveling towards each other (principle of equivalence), where the orthogonal vectors 'curve' via the acceleration of the relative reference frames in a manner that causes inertial vectors in space to trace a radially circular motion through time. It's much more complicated than this, regarding which mass is larger and the radius of M given the radius of m creates various space-time trajectories and so forth...

It's really long to go in to to be honest and extremely dense. Lectures 5 and 6 (linked below) go in to it in much more detail. If you take the concept described therein and apply it to the mass of the sun and calculate the effect on space-time in the vicinity, it expresses what I've described here. (The same for Earth and the Moon e.t.c.) Where it is a function of the time component that expresses curvature. Really weird, yeah. And hard to get your head round. The point being though is that we're very definite on what's curved and what isn't. Space isn't what's curved, rendering the idea that earth could be a flat plane in curved space incorrect i'm afraid. Space really doesn't curve that much. The only time it does to any prominent degree is when the radius of M is getting very close to the Schwarzschild radius. (M = GM over C^2). At and below the Schwarzschild radius everything falls apart. Space becomes time, time becomes space and also becomes infinitely curved, and time both reaches infinity and both become the Schwarzschild radius and the singularity at the same time depending on reference frames yada yada yada. Basically! The only time space curves such that a closed surface is reached (as in your postulation) - everything melts. You're basically describing a black hole. The Schwarzschild radius of Earth is proximately 1 centimeter. Unless you're arguing that the earth is 2 cm in diameter and inside the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole(!) It sadly doesn't stand. Keep trying though, you've got the best ideas in the pro FE camp on here by far.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank"> <- Ger Rel lecture 5
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank"> <- Gen Rel lecture 6

If you're interested in exploring this idea further, please do research as much as you can on Gen Rel, and, hopefully, eventually, Read Gravitation! -> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gravitation-Physics-Series-Charles-Misner/dp/0716703440
I am actually quite educated in the matter. I will continue to review your post though tonight when time allows and reply in full, though I doubt its going to show me anything new, especially after glancing over it.

John, John, John...you just said that you can easily disprove the middle earth model using lasers?  Really?  You mean the same lasers that have proven the distance of the moon from the earth?  Or are you talking about some "black box" Flat Earth lasers that you produce in your basement?  The moon's distance has been measured already using both lasers AND radar technology and you want to deny this?  Yet you cannot use this "technology" to prove that your sun and moon are at the specific distances you so claim?  Come now...

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is this that i have photographed?
« on: March 23, 2016, 08:04:19 AM »
"The heavens tell of the glory of God the wonders of His Earth declare the firmament"

I must hold myself back at your inane and foolishly formed assumptions.  What difference does it make to the existence of God if the world is round, square, elliptical, or round?  Having faith in God has NOTHING to do with the world being flat or round.  You make an extremely odd connection between the necessity of the world being flat and your faith in God although they are mutually exclusive.  It seems that you contend to understand God, which you know is not possible and you should know better than making presuppositions about God's universal design.  Your argument is twisted an ill-conceived. 

Your apparent faith has clouded your judgement and led you to a highly biased conclusion.  Now you spend the rest of your days trying to cram a square into a circular hole just so that your world view will remain in harmony. How very "scientific" of you. 


25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: is aether a perfect excuse to say nothing?
« on: March 23, 2016, 07:50:26 AM »
It appears that you have not taken time to sufficiently study the flat earth theory. It as postulated by Timaeus that aether's density varied in direct proportion to the distance from the earth's plane. Aether at the sea level is of almost negligible concentration but none the less exists and is referred to as quintessence.

Thus testing aether theoris at planar altitudes will yield little in results.

Ok then; what INCONTROVERTIBLE evidence can the FET model offer?  This means it would be easily measured, tested, and verified while standing up to scrutiny.  There is not one argument that I have seen thus far regarding the FET that has not been quite easily refuted or simply torn apart.  I do not care about any postulations of yours; I care only about proof. 

While you make claims that space, satellites, rocketry programs, GPS communication, the ISS, etc., it is absolutely hilarious hearing you and your ilk try to deny all of this.  Your belief in a flat earth can only be defined as a faith-based pursuit.  There is no science behind your conclusions since none of your theories are provable. 


26
LOL!!!

Funny how you all keep scratting away at the subject of where I'm employed, isn't it?

It's also funny how you keep saying my claims re. the technical problems with Branson's SpaceShit are all wrong, yet have not even attempted to refute a single one of them...

That is because you cannot; because they are all valid.

It is a Joke.

Anyhoo, Fraud-Denialists & hucksters, I won't be posting on this lame thread any more; I've been digging into the finances of Virgin Galactic a little more & the results are far too lulzy to waste here.

Toodle-pip!

Let me guess, you live in a cabin somewhere deep in the woods...

FACT: IF "flat earth deluded schizophrenics" conclude that the earth is indeed flat there has never (nor will there ever be) conclusive and verifiable proof to support your claim

That just about does it.  Your paranoid views obviously cloud your judgement.  You view the dominant forces in society as universally corrupt and hence reject anything that is produced. I suggest you either finally come up with a working model for your theories and let them be objectively tested and verified.  Otherwise you might want to give up on this paranoid theory because it's probably ruined your life. 

It's not that it outright reject a "flat earth" model; it's just that there has not been one half-reasonable argument to convince me.  Sad to say that clinging to this belief is borderline insane and not productive. 

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
« on: March 23, 2016, 07:15:44 AM »
They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
Ooh, interesting one. Can I ask about the behaviour in the southern hemiplane? How would distances work? Are they similar to those as modelled by the typical NP-centred single circle, or are there distortions?
Distances are equivalent to what you would expect.  Its closest to an elliptic geometry.

They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.
What does that mean?  Is it flat or not?
It means its flat and has no edge, but has a finite area. Space does not behave as if we were to draw triangles in the sand. Namely, if an object travels long enough along the plane of earth it will eventually get back to where it started.

That is quite a philosophical assumption, which you well know cannot be tested or known, only assumed. How can you conclude this to be the case if you do not have a testable model? How would you propose you validate this? 

28
If the FET model is coherent then it must WORK when tested.  If they make ridiculous claims about near distances of the sun and moon, then it should stand up to thorough testing.  Therefore their explanations always end up being convoluted.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and so far I have seen none...

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is this that i have photographed?
« on: March 23, 2016, 12:13:45 AM »
Sure it is, it's just the "firmament" that's about a few thousand miles away...hidden behind lot's and lot's of "aether." Welcome to the circus...

30
The first two are answered in the FAQ, more or less. The Sun at least is explicitly mentioned. The moon's trickier, but most models seem to have it at a similar altitude.
FEers generally don't use advanced scientific tools, whether for reason of budget, time or laziness. It doesn't really matter, that discussion's getting ahead of yourself anyway. Let's wait until they have an even theoretically possible model before we demand they go out taking advanced measurements.

A lot of FET develops from the supposition that the Earth is flat. As a hypothesis, this is fair enough: to come up with a testable hypothesis you need to spot consequences of what you're supposing. The distance to the Sun is one such thing.
As for why they think the Earth is flat, the reasons vary. Some don't believe curvature's been detected, some have religious reasons, some think FET's simpler...

Being able to defining the parameters of the their flat earth Sun & Moon is sine qua non to their argument.  IF they cannot provide such basic proof then there is not even a reason to debate further.  Such a claim should be quite easy to prove by any number of methods so the oneness is on the FE'ers to produce it.  How can one make such a specific claim and then be unable to defend it?  IF the sun and moon were so obviously as close as they were how is something that should be so self-evident be so convoluted? 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9