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 - dyno

Pages: [1]
US President Obama cut the funding to NASA and took the axe to the new rocket and manned moon mission programs.

Why didn't the Conspiracy do something to prevent their funding being cut?

How is the conspiracy going to continue to fund itself? Will they be making staff cuts? Disgruntled former employees might go public.

The invitation of public sector companies to participate in the space programs and launch commercial flights will open up whole new avenues of leaked secrets for the Conspiracy. Won't all those commercial companies do some research and then announce that it's all been fake?


Flat Earth Q&A / Why does the disc version of the Sun rotate?
« on: July 18, 2009, 05:29:33 PM »
How does the planar metallic disc version of the Sun explain the apparent rotation?

I'm aware the movie supplied comes from NASA.
If you dismiss the above as fabrication I have the ability to record a timelapse movie of the sun through a telescope with a filter.

Flat Earth Q&A / Flat Earth experiments
« on: July 12, 2009, 04:22:24 AM »
What experiments have been performed? I've never seen anything posted here.

Use the search function. I know for a fact that a number of the FE'ers on this site have performed experiments pertaining to FET.

I've done a search and looked through the FE information repository. I can't find evidence that any FE believer has performed any experiment. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me. The link if you can otherwise the topic and I'll search for it myself.

Flat Earth Q&A / Zetecism
« on: July 07, 2009, 10:04:38 PM »
For this ideology my understanding is that you don't respect anything you can't observe with your own senses. Dogplatter has previously stated that much research into photoelectric suspension has been performed. It all appears to be conjecture without evidence. DP states that string theory, gravitons etc are "crap" made up to explain the unknown. While I agree they are made up to explain the unknown, I don't agree they are crap. What alternatives are there? While we are aware that there are limitations in our understanding and gaps in our knowledge, should we not attempt to fill them to the best of our ability?

Anyway, how do zetectics explain light or heat or properties such as mass and temperature without using information they can't observe. I don't believe anyone here has observed first hand the increased vibration of atoms with the application of heat.

Where do you draw the line?

Flat Earth Q&A / Paging Dogplatter, please comment
« on: July 01, 2009, 06:31:33 AM »
after reading
Well this kind of experiment has already been repeatedly performed by zetetic scientists over the last 150 years and has been a mainstay of Flat Earth evidence. The fact that you're proposing it shows how ill-read you are on our movement's history and many of our key claims.

As an aside: it is my view that nobody needs to take this absurd "bendly light" notion seriously, it has been invented by devil's advocates and is completely surplus to requirement, it does not any better explain observable evidence than the existing alternatives as far as I can see.

Can you please comment on

I'd like an opinion from a "true believer"

Well I've got some free time for the next month. I still have my telescope and camera. I also have access to a D80 which has 10MP instead of 6 like my D70s.

Well, any FE's like to suggest an optical test? Any more view across bodies of water. I'm aware some FEs were concerned shots across the ocean aren't the same as shots across a like. I can do lakes though.
What about stars, planets, the moon? The Sun? I have a solar filter so I can image the Sun directly.

Some FEr could image an extraterrestrial body and we could compare images.

Any celestial body must be visible from Perth, Western Australia. I'm not driving to Darwin to try and see Polaris.

Anyone like to get the ball rolling?

Flat Earth Debate / Education for levee
« on: June 12, 2009, 05:50:30 PM »
levee, I believe you have indicated you have a tertiary education so you should be able to access electronic resources. There is a good article I think would benefit you regarding the Sun.

The solar interior
Physics Reports, Volume 230, Issues 2-4, August 1993, Pages 57-235
S. Turck-Chi?ze, W. D?ppen, E. Fossat, J. Provost, E. Schatzman, D. Vignaud

I didn't want to continue arguing with you in the moonbounce post about the sun. You mentioned the pressure in the Sun was between 1/10 and 1/1000th that of Earth(sea level i assume). Now where did you get this from?
Estimates I've read place it at 340 billion times Earth's.
200 billion

For some information on photography, check out

Flat Earth Debate / Photoelectric Suspension Theory
« on: June 08, 2009, 06:15:29 PM »
I probably shouldn't have posted my original in the IR so I'll continue the discussion in this threa.

Quote from: dyno on June 07, 2009, 04:40:15 AM
In order to keep the Sun and Moon ionized they require a continuous source of energy. If they were metal they would rapidly neutralize the electron field again.
There should be an electron flux between the sun moon and earth. Is there some evidence to support this existence?

What evidence supports the theory that at some point in history the sun and moon were massive metal discs? What observation led to that conclusion?
What wavelengths participate in the PES mechanism? We have the ability to replicate the EM spectrum and thus it should be possible to test the PES idea.
So the Sun, Moon and the Earth currently have a charge and this charge is maintained by the UA? What evidence is there for the flux that must be present to keep the sun and moon charged?

Chronological dating methods for the cosmos are not invalidated by the accelerated radioactive decay observed in recent literature. There is no evidence to support such a notion.

Stating that because quantum gravity doesn?t exist in FE theory and therefore RE theorem using gravitation is invalid is a logical fallacy.

Calling PES a theory is too generous. There is no evidence to support any of the notions and the idea itself is made to support a flat earth. A scientific theory should be made to describe observations and predict behaviour. This does nothing to aid understanding.

PES can be observed, the standard demonstration that almost all kids are shown at A-level when learning about the photoelectric effect is that when two strips of gold leaf are exposed to a UV light they repel each other. It also takes a considerable amount of time for them to regain electrons from passing atoms and stop repelling one another.

  Why would there be an electron flux between the sun, moon and the earth?  The metals are constantly being maintained in their ionised state by cosmic radiation. They are not gaining or losing large amounts of (net) charge.

The sun and moon still are massive metal discs. The observation that the sun and the moon have not yet crashed into the earth is a pretty good indicator that they must be suspended up there.  The observation that like charges repel led to this suitable conclusion.

The work function of the metals that the sun and the moon are constituted of would itself tell you what wavelengths participate in maintaining the ionised state of the discs.  I suggest that it is very likely to be an alloy of low electron affinity metals such as K, Li and Ce along with other elements with higher electron affinities such as C, Si and metals such as Ni and Ir requiring higher energy photons to be ionised.

The evidence to support the invalidation of cosmochronology is that radioactive decay of unstable elements can be and has been accelerated - thus yielding it unreliable as a dating mechanism.

The quantum equivalent of gravity has not been proven to exist yet.  Therefore "quantum gravity" only theoretically exists... so it would be logical to assume that in a flat earth it simply does not exist... as gravity is (as yet) unprovable.

Ionising the objects ejects the electrons into the space around them. There is thus a charge potential between the 3 bodies. The Earth is not ionised so there would be a flux from the sun and moon to earth. So the emitted light is also provided by cosmic radiation?
What about the lunar cycles? The dark section of the moon can still be imaged with long exposures which invalidates an opaque shadow object. What causes the sun to continuously provide light and the moon not to?

The observation that the sun and moon have not crashed into the Earth is explained perfectly well by globular physics.

Evidence to support the invalidation of cosmochronology would be observation or evidence of naturally occurring accelerated decay outside the lab. Quantum gravity will never be proven, only supported more thoroughly by evidence. Anyway, another logical fallacy. The invalidation of quantum gravity would result in many revisions of current physics, a Flat Earth would not be supported.

Evidence against something is not the same as evidence for something.

How do the various transmitters compensate for bendy light since it affects all EM radiation.

Since the path of waves is not deflected in a linear fashion towers would have to be situated quite close together.

How do single units supply sufficient coverage to wide areas with the inherent losses associated with beam deflection?

I have a solar filter for my telescope allowing me to shoot images of the sun.

To disprove the Sun projection theory and receding Sun theory I propose taking telescopic images of the Sun as it sets over the horizon. I can shoot images at high speed through my D70s with the normal 70mm lens. I can also image horizon shots with my 300mm lens without damaging it.

This will show a setting sun through a telescope remains a full sized disc as it sets below the horizon.

Any input?

Flat Earth Debate / Username + Dogplatter
« on: August 19, 2008, 12:32:24 AM »
What are your opinions on the latest "bendy light" theory with the bedford experiment disproof.

What are your opinions on the latest FE map and problematical daylight distributions maps.

You two have been very quiet of late

Flat Earth Debate / Sinking Ship experiment Results
« on: August 16, 2008, 08:37:03 PM »
Time of day ~10am Western Australia Time (GMT+8)?
Temp ~ 19celcius
Ground height ~ 1.5 metres including the beach and scope.
Elevation ~ I guess around 4m maybe 6
edit: Target is Rottnest Island from Scarborough Beach. Closest point ~18000m
Ships are unknown

Equipment setup

Showing the elevated roadway

Tanker at ground

Tanker at elevation

Lighthouse at ground

Lighthouse at elevation

Wind generator at ground

Wind generator at elevation


Comms tower at ground

Comms tower at elevation

Ship 2 at ground

Ship 2 at elevation

Please discuss. I'd be interested in people's opinions.

Ski, I'd like to hear from you in particular.

I have some more shots of the same things as well. I took enough images to make a stitched mosaic of the island as well i think.
Oh and all the images are available in 3008x2000 pixel RAW format as well if you want them. I don't know where I can upload them though.

cropped image of ships taken with the D70s at 70mm. I didn't have my 300mm lens so it was this then up to the telescope

cropped image of the island

Flat Earth Debate / Long period comets
« on: June 24, 2008, 09:07:26 PM »
For a finite flat Earth, what is the mechanism behind long period comets? Such as Halley's comet which has a period of 75 years. Surely it's path around a FE sun takes it beyond the influence of the UA? Ditto with even longer period comets.

Flat Earth Debate / Colonisation beyond Ice Wall
« on: June 16, 2008, 10:02:34 PM »
With the burgeoning human population, increasing cost of feeding the world population and decreasing mineral resource deposits, consider the following

Why are mineral poor countries not claiming territory beyond the ice wall for resources and space? In the freezing conditions out there on an infinite plane, there are obviously no problems with waste disposal. You can make continent sized depots for waste dumping with no consequences for your territory.

Nuclear power can provide more than enough energy for warmth and lighting in the frigid conditions.

Countries will run out of land and resources at some point. Why isn't China, which has 1 quarter of the worlds population and is rapidly running out of land to house them and grow food to feed them forging ahead into the frozen lands?

In Canada, Alaska and Russia, mining operations with fully populated towns operate round the year in artic conditions.
Mineral ores are transported from South America to China. Australia to Japan. Food is transported worldwide.
The distance from Australia, South America and Africa to the Ice Wall would not be greater than the distances already traversed.

At some point in the future, mankind will exploit this area. If it exists.
Why haven't they already? Countries go to war with each other. It's unreasonable to think they would still agree to keep this secret between them

I've seen numerous posts stating that we and the Earth are under constant acceleration.

Do you say this due to
1) The Earth's motion around the Sun?
2) The Earth and Solar System's motion around the Milky Way's galactic core?
3) The Milky Way's own motion in the local group etc?

If none of the above, what do you mean?

4) FE UA theory?

Flat Earth Debate / Sinking Ship experiment - input welcome
« on: May 26, 2008, 10:14:34 PM »
I remember Cpt BThime or whatever his name was presented some evidence that was not accepted by FE's for the sinking ship effect.

I have access to a 6inch Schmidt-Cassegrain and an 8-inch Newtonian Reflector. I also have a Nikon D70s with a 300mm zoom lens. I live in a coastal area with a busy port and could take images of ships on the horizon using both telescopes and the refracting zoom lens.

What variables would FE's like to see controlled for such an experiment?

Would the use of the above said telescopes and lens be acceptable for the experiment?

Updated shot of the moon from the scope

Flat Earth Debate / Time Dilation and constant acceleration
« on: May 01, 2008, 10:21:44 PM »
Even though reaching the speed of light is impossible, after an eternity of constant acceleration shouldn't the Earth have achieved a velocity such that time dilation would mean the universe would be in a cold dead state?

The FE under constant acceleration should have achieved relativistic velocities right?

Flat Earth Debate / Satellites in the solar/lunar plane
« on: April 15, 2008, 09:27:43 PM »
I've had a flick through the search function but couldn't see an answer.

The FAQ states that sustained spaceflight is impossible due to orbit being impossible. Why couldn't a satellite attain a height equal to that of the sun or moon and stay there? Satellites wouldn't need to orbit, they would just remain inside the influence of the sun/moon/UA.

Flat Earth Q&A / Question for Infinite Flat Earth + oasis of life
« on: March 28, 2008, 12:04:54 AM »
Why is our region the only region on the infinite plane with a sun and life? Is it not feasible or likely that what we consider our entire planet is just one of an infinite number of islands of warmth and light?

Consider an infinite plane. The odds that whatever caused the sun and moon and life to begin happened only once are so remote to be unbelievable. More than a FE anyway I mean.
Is this considered in FE theory?

Flat Earth Debate / New Scientist - Dark energy + mas on space time
« on: March 27, 2008, 08:32:41 PM »
Has anyone read the New Scientist article on a theory about the high mass regions of space time? The theory is along the lines that because we as observers reside in a high mass(relatively) region of the universe that we perceive the acceleration of the universe differently to an observer sitting in empty space.
Effectively it means that the missing 70% of the universe we had assumed was in the form of dark energy no longer needs to exist. The acceleration of the universe when observed with the above theory as actually a deceleration and we no longer need to hunt for the missing parts of the universe.

What effect would this have on FE theory of dark energy/gravitation/ universal accelerator/ FE Sun, moon + shadow object?

Flat Earth Debate / another star/nebula topic
« on: February 14, 2008, 08:56:08 PM »
For stellar events than can be witnessed by anyone fortunate enough to own a moderately powerful telescope, how do FE's explain the evolution of planetary nebulae? or the expanding shells of supernovae?

these are events which must be witnessed over years or decades but are visible to the non-NASA public.

another question with the dust mote theory. how can these microscopic motes be enlarged with telescope when a grain of sand 50m away is as insignificant as a grain of sand 50miles away through a telescope? such a small object wouldn't magnified with such details unless it was much closer

Flat Earth Debate / Global warming - hypothetical future and the Ice Wall
« on: January 08, 2008, 09:58:53 PM »
Scientists predict that the Arctic circle could be free of ice within the century.

If Antarctica lost it's ice as well. What would be the FE position on the ice wall? Is the FE position that the ice wall is permanent? If the ice sheets melted and receded(as they are actually doing) and eventually the ice was gone in summer, what would you say?

This cannot be tested as I'm certain we shall all be dead by the time the South Pole gets this warm. I'm mean death by old age.

Flat Earth Debate / Moutain/horizen round Earth proof
« on: December 20, 2007, 08:54:23 PM »
If you were to get on a boat from Hawaii and travel out, you should reach a point at which the ground/water interface is no longer visible, even with magnification. You will still be able to see the mountain peaks though above the horizen. A RE allows for this.
What is the FE explanation?

Pages: [1]