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.


Topics - Conspiracy Mastermind

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Question
« on: April 02, 2008, 01:37:16 PM »
I have just changed my name, however it does not appear
<---------------Here. Is it just delayed, or do I need to do something to get it to work?

2
Flat Earth Debate / Photoelectric Suspension Theory Revisited.
« on: February 06, 2008, 05:26:26 AM »
Ok:
Quote
To be able to get the gist of this writing, you will have to understand the basic principles of the daul wave-particle theory of EMR (electromagnetic radiation).

Basically, it is understood and accepted by most physicists, Round or flat earthers that if something acts as a wave then it also has a quantum particle equivalent.  This can account from visible light all the way to gravity (although this is currently undiscovered; quantum physicists suggest that there is such thing and a gravity wave and therefore there has to be a particle of "gravity" which they have called the graviton).

The particle equivilent of any wave in the electro magnetic spectrum is called the photon.  This has no mass because it is only theoretical and is only a way of describing the way in which the EMR behaves, however, it is made up of pure energy (although you could work out the quantum weight of the photon by rearranging Einstein's equation of relativity e=mc<sup>2</sup>) and to work out the energy of one single photon we can use the equation e=hf (e being energy, h being Plancks constant - 6.626068 10<sup>-34</sup> m<sup>2</sup> kg<sup>-1</sup> - and f being the frequency of the wave equivalent of the photon).  Therefore, the energy contained within each photon depends on the frequency of the wave.  Therefore radiowaves (which have the lowest frequency) have the least amount of energy per photon and Gamma rays (which have the highest frequency) have the most.

So onto the easy part which you guys can understand!

When a photon hits a metal, if it has enough energy, it "kicks" out an electron and therefore positively ionising it.  However for low frequency EMR the photon may not contain enough energy to "kick" out the electron.  For most metals the minimum amount of energy required is that of ultraviolet however the energy required varys from metal to metal and in some cases only the high frequency end of visible light is needed.


What I am proposing is that this is how the sun and moon are kept above the earth. I believe that at some point in time the sun and moon were in fact massice disks of metal that were on top of the earths crust and underneath the earths crust is the molten metal core.  We all know that opposites attract and similars repel. In order for this to workI have to take into account a piece of Round earth science; behind all background radiation is that of the big bang.  This I propose is coming from the UA beneath us. This radiation is all of the wavelengths of the EMS but of course only the correct wavelengths have the right frequencies to take part in the photo-electric effect.  This radiation would ionise the metal in the core and that of the sun and moon above the crust with the same charge therefore repelling each other and forcing the sun and moon upwards and stopping them from falling due to the constant acceleration of the UA.

My theory for their rotation is that the concentration of EMR must fluctuate in a reguluar way, changing the amount of charge forced up on it and therefore weakening/strengthening  the repulsion of the discs therefore allowing them to move in a regular pattern.

Ok, personally I think this is a load of crap. The photoelectric effect is ok, nothing wrong with that principle, it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I believe the problem lies with the idea of using the Photoelectic effect to explain what keeps the sun and moon up.

Firstly: Formation
The sun and moon originated on the surface of the Earth (how did they form?), and the aquisition of charge is due to movement of electrons. I.e. electrons were emmitted from both the core and the sun and moon, creating a mutual positive charge that repels them.

Any electrons emmitted by the core would have been absorbed by the surrounding rock, giving the Earth a negative charge. If the sun and moon also lost electrons, then they would have been attracted to the negative earth, as well as repelled by the positive core. Since the core is deep within the earth, it's electrostatic effect would be severely weakened by the earth, which is negative.
Plus, since the radiation "came from below the earth", wouldn't the electrons be emmitted into the earth's crust?

I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but how much electric repulsion is needed to keep two 32-mile diameter objects over 3,000 miles up? Not to mention their mass, which I don't think has been stated. But wouldn't such an electric field be detectable on Earth's surface? Plus, how would a charged earth affect the principle of grounding electric charges?

Also, what would stop the sun and moon from moving sideways away from the positive core and towards the edge?

I suppose the main problem is there are too many unanswered questions, and there's no mathematical model for how it would work.

3
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Tom Bishop = Bot??
« on: February 01, 2008, 11:41:34 AM »
The evidence seems to be mounting, but let's for once PROVE something. So, how do we go about it? And if he is, we need to know why he is broken. Perhaps one of those paradoxes actually got to him?

4
Flat Earth Debate / Sun and Moon
« on: February 01, 2008, 03:17:07 AM »
I'm sure this question has been posed before, as have they all, and never answered. However, this may give Tom chance to see if he is fully functional. After he gets repaired.
According to Tom, the sun and moon orbit each other around a common centre above the hub of the Earth. Now, if they orbit each other it would stand to reason they would have to be on opposite sides of the Flat Earth, in order to keep them from colliding or flying off on a wierd path. Now, if they are on opposite sides of the Earth then it would stand to reason it is impossible for someone to see the moon during the day, not to mention within the same quarter of the sky as the sun, as I have done this morning, and do so frequently.

Now Tom, flex those perl-scripted muscles and give me a long explanation as to why I saw what I saw this morning. Preferably without resorting to stupid principles like "perspective" and refraction.

5
Flat Earth Debate / The Conspiracy
« on: December 06, 2007, 03:27:04 AM »
There is a conspiracy, however it is a conspiracy of people whom have spent so much time and effort persuing an untrue hypothesis that they try to create evidence. That's right, EnAG and other such literature is part of a large conspiracy to make people believe the Earth is flat when it is actually round. The reasons for this conspiracy are partly explained above but mostly unknown, most likely money.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Rowbotham And The Zetetic Method
« on: October 31, 2007, 12:44:53 PM »
Ok, Tom, deabte this here.

You say Rowbotham did not follow the scientific method, but the zetetic one.
In the Zetetic method, there are no hypotheses or assumptions made. Only evidence is gathered. However, the evidence is without context. Let us assume Rowbotham's experiments in the Zetetic method.

Rowbotham asks the question: Is the Earth flat or round?
He makes no assumptions or hypotheses, and goes to the old bedford to carry out experiments.
He gets his "results", which show the surface of standing water is flat.
This does not lead to one single answer, "The Earth is flat", but many. For example, one could say "The Earth is round, however is large enough so that the curvature over a distance of, say, under 50 miles, is unnoticable."
or "The surface of standing water does not follow the curvature of the earth to the same degree/at all."
One could say "The particular examples of standing water I have used are flat, and exist as flat on a round earth."

However, he does something more along the lines of this:
Rowbotham asks the question, "Is the Earth flat or round."
He goes to the old bedford, saying that if the Earth is round, and of diameter 6000 miles or so, there must be so much curvature over such a distance. This is a hypothesis.
He also says that if the earth is flat, there will be no curvature. This is a hypothesis.
He gathers his "Evidence", however he now has a context with this evidence. His evidence "shows" the earth cannot have the curvature associated with 3,000 mile or so radius."

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Je suis Francais!
« on: October 23, 2007, 03:26:56 PM »
Oui, I cannot keep an identity for more zan duex minutes, it is juzt zo much fun! Je m'appelle Monsieur Tom Bishope, J'habite (My french, eet iz atroshus, so I vill speak in ze english.) I live in Paris, and am a long lost relative of ze Bishop family.

8
Right, the seasons as explained in FE, as seen in the FAQ, seems to have a problem. If I am right, the sun starts in winter in a large orbit, then through spring it spirals in, in summer the sun is in a small orbit around the north pole, then the sun spirals out through the autumn and back to it's orginal orbit in winter.
There are several problems with this theory.

1) Seasons:

As you can see, the theory for seasons in FE predicts (for someone positioned between the winter and summer orbital paths) solstices in Spring and Autumn (Times when the sun appears highest in the sky), they are both when the sun is highest in the sky. For someone positioned half way between the two paths, they would see two days where the sun is lowest in the sky.
We only see one summer solstice, in the summer. Also, people at different lattitude would see the sun appear highest in the sky on different days, which does not happen. These facts are easily explained in the RE model:

As can be seen, in RE the summer and winter solstices occur on the same day for all latitudes.

2) Orbital speed:
The further the sun is from the centre; i.e. in winter, the further it has to travel around the circumfrence of the orbit. However, it would have to travel that longer distance in the same 24-hour time period, so it would have to travel faster. Similarly, it would have to travel slower through it's smaller orbit.
This is the opposite to what the laws of gravitation state, the closer something is to the centre of it's orbit (the source of gravitation), the stronger the gravitation force and the object (the sun) would have to travel faster to stop falling in, and it would have to travel slower further away to stop flying away into space.

3) The Orbital Path itself
How exactly can something orbit in a spiral that goes out and in over and over? If it spirals in then it would crash into the source of gravitation, if it spiralled out then it would continue to spiral out. There is nothing to change it's path over and over.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Earth Not Not A Globe
« on: October 19, 2007, 03:22:07 AM »
Hello, this topic is regarding "Earth Not A Globe" and similar texts used as "evidence" for FE theory. (Thought I'd put the title there to grab the attention of the FE'ers. ;))

Now, I have been looking at Earth Not A Globe, and it just so happens to be part of a site called:
SACRED TEXTS

Now, am I correct in assuming that there is at least a teeny weeny twinge of religious bias here? Also, you may wish to read this[/i]. These epxeriments seem not to be as concrete as you FE'ers would like.

10
Flat Earth Debate / The Earth Goes Around The Sun
« on: October 16, 2007, 09:16:11 AM »
If you have a telescope, which I assume you have your Majesty, since you make these claims, then begin studying and photographing venus. You will see it goes through phases like the moon, this can only happen in a heliocentric model, not in a geocentric model. And if you're going to put this down to your magical "Shadow object." please explain exactly what this is and how it moves like it does. Also care to explain the unusual paths of the planets, which do not go around the earth in orbits.

And WHAT ARE THEY ORBITING? In order for them to orbit, there must be a mass for them to orbit and gravity must exist.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / ALL YOUNG IMPRESSIONABLE MINDS PLEASE READ THIS FIRST!!!
« on: October 13, 2007, 03:50:36 PM »
If you have just appeared on this site and are young, have an impressionable mind and do not know much science then I implore you to LEAVE THIS SITE and never return in order to avoid your brain being filled with false BS that will forever haunt and humiliate you until the day you die.

If you feel you must read this site because of your curiosity, then remember these three things at all times:
1. The Earth is ROUND.
2. There is no conspiracy, that's just PARANOIA.
3. Don't take the "evidence" for flat earth at face value. It's all word-of-mouth worthless jibberish.

And remember, there are NO LEPRECHAUNS, they only live in Ireland, as far as you know ;)

Pages: [1]