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 - muggsybogues1

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Debate / Gravity
« on: September 06, 2013, 06:58:26 AM »
Here's a major challenge for the Cult of Gravity:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/high-gravitational-constant/

For 200 years, they've been trying to figure out how to measure something that doesn't exist.

2
Flat Earth General / Space and the Cold War
« on: July 26, 2013, 05:21:01 AM »
I'm wondering if it's possible that the US government and the USSR had no idea that their respective space programs were faking their results.

Think of it: both sides were under pressure to go to outer space. The Soviets may have first realized that it was not possible or that they could not do it. However, a big competition was going on and a lot of heated political rhetoric was putting pressure on them to do so. So instead they devoted their energies to creating a convincing display of their space prowess. This was no trivial thing to do at the time, and what they produced had to convince their own government and the world that they had actually done it. If it came out that they faked the whole thing, or even if it was implausible, the world would laugh at the USSR; and they would lose their funding, their jobs, be exiled to Siberia or possibly even be executed.

Who knows how NASA came around to the same idea. Did they know that the Soviets faked their first orbit? Did they realize that they couldn't go to space, so they had to do the next best thing? Either way, the Soviets getting out their convincing footage put great pressure on them to make a production of their own that was similarly convincing to restore some credibility to the United States (and thereby retain their funding). Imagine how crestfallen they must have been when Kennedy made the announcement that after their "successful" orbit that the United States would go to the moon.

I'm sure the Soviet space program breathed a sigh of relief when the US was the first to "document" a moon landing and the world bought it, as it relieved them of the pressure of trying to convincingly simulate humans in the lunar environment. To this day, I wonder if the governments with "space capability" even know what their space programs are doing.

3
Flat Earth Debate / A Sphere is Not Required
« on: July 24, 2013, 11:40:16 AM »
No need for the moon to be a sphere for the lunar cycle.


4
Flat Earth Q&A / Is Round Earth Doctrine Ancestor Worship?
« on: July 15, 2013, 09:02:45 AM »
The principles of Round Earth Doctrine including Gravity and celestial bodies outside of the dome seem to amount to no less than ancestor worship in many ways. The Round Earth Indoctrinated are content and even threatened by the possibility that their parents (and their representatives: school teachers) could be wrong. While I commend them for their respect of the tradition of their elders, I am similarly disappointed that they completely lack a respect for truth by disregarding observable facts and any evidence that conflicts or is inconsistent with their doctrine. A society or a culture in the modern age that cannot bring itself to sever ties with the past with stagnate technologically and eventually destroy itself.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« on: July 08, 2013, 12:10:16 PM »
I performed an experiment that should put to death any idea that the Sun is a consistent 93 million miles away:

Cut a hole in a piece of cardboard (mine was about the size of a quarter)
Orient your cardboard toward the location of the Sun for each time of the day
Trace an outline of the size of the Sun at dawn, 10:00, noon, 2:00, and sunset

My findings: the Sun is actually bigger and closer at noon overhead than it is at either previous times. The Sun is smaller and skinnier at dawn and sunset in perfect accordance with the laws of perspective and the flat earth model of the spotlight sun.

Try it yourself.

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Explain This
« on: July 02, 2013, 12:45:10 PM »
For all you RE-indoctrinated who like to bring up and make fun of "bendy-light", try explaining this with your flawed model.


7
Flat Earth General / Thought Experiments
« on: April 09, 2013, 06:06:30 AM »
"Given the structure of the experiment, it may or may not be possible to actually perform it, and, in the case that it is possible for it to be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question. The common goal of a thought experiment is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question."

It's growing rather tiresome when thought experiments are used to prop up the Round Earth Doctrine. There are continuous illogical posts that basically follow the same pattern.

  a) Assume Earth is round
  b) If Earth is round, then x and y will be the case
  c) If x and y were the case, then the Earth will be round
  d) QED

Example (a):
One can easily prove using inertial navigation systems that the Earth is round. Simply choose a heading along the equator and follow it. If you come back to the same point, then you know that the Earth is round.

But no one has any intention of performing this experiment. They have not the gear or the desire to fly all the way around the world. But they say "if" you did you would get the results that would confirm our original hypothesis.

Example(b):
One can easily prove that there is no ice wall. Simply go across Antarctica from Chile to Australia. When you do so, you will plainly see that the Earth is round.

This is one of the most ludicrous arguments I have seen. Who is actually going to attempt this? It's certainly no proof of the initial hypothesis.

8
Flat Earth General / ME Theory
« on: April 02, 2013, 09:35:42 AM »
It would seem that some of the RE-defenders on here would do better to rename themselves ME (Massive Earth) defenders. They keep talking about how the arc is so big that it is impossible to notice. By this, the globe would have to be about 250 times larger than they currently state. Unfortunately, this still does not fit within their model of the universe. You would still have the ice wall and have the Sun rotating overhead.

So, any RE-ers willing to convert to ME? It explains the discrepancies a lot better, and you can still keep your Round Earth.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Problems with Parallax
« on: March 28, 2013, 09:43:15 AM »
It's been stated many times that you can measure star/planet/space station/comet distance by taking measurements from one side of Earth's orbit to the other. So answer the following questions:

1) How can you tell when we are exactly on the other side of the Sun?
2) Is the orbit of the Earth perfectly circular (I thought most planets travelled elliptically)
3) How do you properly measure when other planets/stars/space stations/comets are on their own solar or galactic orbits?

10
Flat Earth General / Hubble Telescope
« on: March 21, 2013, 01:08:50 PM »
Since there are no satellites, I suppose the "Hubble telescope pictures" are simply pictures from terrestrial telescopes with additional photoshopped images? It's so convenient that NASA owns a telescope that can get pictures that no other people on earth can see.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Sun Speed
« on: March 06, 2013, 11:47:03 AM »
How fast is the sun orbiting above us? Can anyone calculate that?

12
Quote from: Genesis 11
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

By heaven, they were obviously talking of the canopy overhead.

13
Flat Earth Q&A / When we get to the Great Ice Wall
« on: February 14, 2013, 08:25:04 AM »
What will we find there? Is it scalable? Is it possible to scale the canopy?

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Shooting Star
« on: February 14, 2013, 06:31:30 AM »
I was sitting on my back porch this morning, and a shooting star blazed across the sky. Are there any explanations for this phenomenon?

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Questions on "Antarctica"
« on: February 12, 2013, 10:56:09 AM »
Why do the REs presume that Antarctica should somehow be like the North Pole despite the following contradictions:

  • It is colder in Antarctica
  • You cannot take submarines under it
  • There are no fossils in the ice

16
Flat Earth General / False Flags
« on: February 11, 2013, 12:39:14 PM »
There are way too many false flaggers posting here. You can tell that a lot of people here intentionally post easily falsifiable and non-sensical claims as easy fodder for the RE-ers. That makes it very difficult to make any progress on finding the truth.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Cult of Gravity
« on: January 15, 2013, 05:52:58 AM »
I would recommend that in addition to the RE label, we should add a term called the "Cult of Gravity". Here are my reasons:

1. Many of the RE camp continually use the nonsense of gravity to try to refute the Flat Earth.
2. Using "gravity" as an argument, they come up will all sorts of ridiculous models of the universe, arguing that the Earth goes around the sun and other planets as well.
3. Using "gravity", they often confuse many FE. Furthermore, they embolden the RE that their arguments are correct.
4. Gravity has never been proven--a theory or myth created by scientists. Who knows if they had ambition or simply delirious fantasies.
5. Force based on acceleration can be proved, and can be reproduced by a 5-year-old in the backyard with a bucket of water.
6. Cults believe certain things despite all evidences to the contrary, and they build energy off of others who do the same.
7. Cults are often adamant about their incomprehensible views and observe that all others are "unenlightened" and foolish.
8. Cults rely on rhetoric and intimidation to enforce concepts that are otherwise unnatural.
9. Cult members (despite their objections to the contrary) are rarely enlightened individuals, and are more often sheep who follow a concept mindlessly.

Perhaps there are others, but these are those that are obvious to me.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Traveling the Great Ice Wall
« on: January 11, 2013, 01:21:53 PM »
Here's an article by someone who went "across" the mythical continent of Antarctica:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/travel/gallery/felicity-aston-solo-antarctica/index.html

Notice the circular route that taken around the base of the Great Ice Wall.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Historical Proof of the Impossibility of Round Earth
« on: January 11, 2013, 07:15:08 AM »
According to the RE models, the earth performs a dizzying dance, spinning and twirling around the sun as the moon goes around it and the apparent difference between night and day take place as the sun goes around it. This non-intuitive view, however, is made even more difficult in Joshua 10:13 which states:

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

So, if the FE theory is assumed to be true, not only was the earth simply stopped on its axis--the moon was also held in its place. This, of course, means that they would have to be "held" in place by some mystical force (I'm assuming the RE-ers will say "God") if you believe in the dark inverse energy known as gravity. Otherwise, the moon would go crashing into the earth followed by the Earth crashing into the Sun. So after being held in place for "almost" 24 hours, the spinning had to be started again and the wobble restored and both Earth and the moon "thrown" at the property to restore the earth to normal. Were it not so, cataclysmic changes would take place, which would have certainly been recorded.

Is it not simpler (and infinitely more intuitive) to explain using the FE model of the sun and moon being fixed in the canopy and the canopy simply stopping for a brief period of time? Presumably this periodically takes place throughout history on some unknown timescale.

Pages: [1]