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 - Timeisup

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth General / The Parallels
« on: November 05, 2020, 01:08:40 AM »
Has anyone noticed how the methods, tactics and ways of thinking employed by Trump and other conspiracy driven groups are remarkably similar to those used by flat earth believers:
Disregard of scientific data
Propensity to make up alternative facts
Abandonment of the truth if it conflicts with a particular  agenda
Distortion of facts to suit beliefs
Putting forward wild unsupported claims
Squashing any dissenting voices
Derail any discussion that may reveal the actual truth.

People might find flat earth belief harmless, but it’s  mind set and methods are a thin edge of a wedge than can lead to potentially dangerous destabilising situations. The growth of groups like QAnon where fantastical core beliefs are the norm, such as alleging that a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotting against US President Donald Trump. This is not too different from the belief that all space travel is a hoax. Once people are prone to believing one conspiracy they are well primed to believe in any old conspiracy.

The bottom line is beliefs that reject science and the truth and use an anti science agenda  along with alternative facts moves society to a position that makes it ripe for exploitation by despotic leaders such as Trump.

This is why we need to defend science and the truth, failure to do so will see the world slip into a despotic situation where the truth is determined by the ruling despot.

Flat Earth General / Where exactly is it?
« on: July 18, 2020, 02:13:15 AM »
Many if not all flat earth believers claim to be free thinkers basing their beliefs on what they have worked out for themselves combined with new information they receive which they then use to modify and adjust their beliefs. I’ve often asked the question where this information comes from, what is it’s source. Never have I received a satisfactory reply, all that’s ever been offered is ‘it’s out there’, yes but exactly out where?

If we look at the world of science across all the disciplines the output is truly enormous yet none of it is flat earth based. If we take just one area astronomy, none of its output would agree with any flat earth claim, if anything the world of astronomy is one branch of science where both 100% of its findings and output is opposed to everything a flat earther would believe. The question here is if a flat earther wants to find out about the cosmos, from a flat earth perspective where do they get their information from? They obviously can’t use any mainstream sources as none of what they would find would fit their own beliefs, how therefore do they form their beliefs with no information?

It was said by a senior member of this forum that there were such a thing as flat earth astronomers. I’ve searched the Internet, as I assumed they would have a web presence, and to date have drawn a blank. No where can I find any information relating to flat earth astronomy. Is such a notion therefore a non sequitur? If so how can any flat earther comment on anything related to the cosmos? In this situation the only resource they have are themselves and other flat earthers. The fact that none of them have the resources to probe the cosmos other than the most simple optics, how can anything they come up with be anymore than speculation?

When is comes to astronomy how can flat earthers have any opinion on a subject when they have no sources of information on which they can reliably base anything when 100% of all available scientific information Is counter to what they believe?

The question is where exactly do flat earthers get their information from?

Flat Earth General / Free Thinking Flat Earth Style.
« on: July 14, 2020, 02:31:51 AM »
Flat earthers often proclaim the ace they have up their sleeves that sets them apart from the rest of the herd is the ability to think freely.

Other than thinking that the earth is flat, what are other examples of ‘flat earth free thinking’ and what was the thought process that was gone through to establish or crystallise that ‘flat earth free thinking truth’?

Flat Earth Debate / A burning question?
« on: July 04, 2020, 04:04:38 AM »
The burning questions are:

 What  process makes the 32 mile diameter flat earth sun burn and emit energy?

What process has kept this tiny, 32 mile in diameter, sun burning for over 4.5 billion years?

Flat Earth General / Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« on: June 29, 2020, 02:16:00 AM »
Several users on this forum, one in particular, Sandokhan, uses a great amount of ‘data’ that masquerades as science. Rather than trying to deal with all the various terms he miss uses invents, for this thread we pick just one term he constantly misuses: subquarks.

The person in question uses this term over and over in his posts as though these things are actually real.

So what is a subquark? Who and where were they discovered?

Firstly sudquarks, or preons have NEVER been discovered. The only place they could have been discovered is either at CERN or some other large scale particle accelerator. To date no discovery of a subquark has ever been made.

Preons or subqurks were just and are just hypothetical and have never been detected by any experiment and remain just an idea that became popular 30 years ago and has since fallen out of favour among those who work in the field of exotic sub atomic particles. Do a search on subquarks and most of the papers on the subject will have been produced in the 1980s. CERN and what has been discovered about the sub atomic world science has put paid to the idea of a subquark existing.

CERN regularly puts out press releases like this one when new particles may have been discovered:

CERN or any other high energy facility has never discovered subquarks, they are not, as far as we currently know real, anyone who imagines they are real are wrong as no hard evidence currently exists in that no experiment ever carried out points to their existance.

Why people like Sandokhan constantly use them in his elaborate pseudoscience posts as though they are real just illustrates how far of the mark and pseudoscientific all his posts are.

Let’s be clear subquarks, as far as is know do NOT exist, have never been detected by any experiment ever carried out. Using them as though they exist in any argument at a stroke renders that argument null and void.

Wikipedia gives a list of all known and theorised particles

Preons were suggested as subparticles of quarks and leptons, but modern collider experiments have all but ruled out their existence.

Science currently says preons or subquarks do not exist, so why does Sandokhan keep refering to them as though they do?

Flat Earth General / The mystery of belief in the Aether
« on: June 22, 2020, 09:15:17 AM »
Flat earth followers cling to many outdated and discarded beliefs, the aether being one of them.

Since the advent of spaceflight, the establishment of a human presence in orbit, and with ever more detailed observations of space, that are done on a daily basis, no observation or experiment has ever been done that has suggested that the makeup of interplanetary space is nothing more than a hard vacuum containing a very low density of particles, mainly a mixture of Hydrogen and Helium. In other words, there is no such thing as the aether. Even experiments carried out in the late 1800's to establish its presence drew a blank.

Since no flat earther has ever been into space, has the ability to study or observe its actual makeup, or has conducted an experiment that proves the existence of the aether any continued belief is nothing more than clutching on to an outdated and discredited idea.

The question is, as there is no evidence what is the flat earth belief in an aether based on?

Flat Earth General / Where is their experimental data?
« on: June 10, 2020, 12:26:16 AM »
A study of the early history of science reveals hundreds if not thousands of mainly gentlemen scientists working away on specific areas or research carrying out detailed experiments that often led to groundbreaking discoveries. Experimentalist often led the way for theorists, possibly the best example that I know of is the relationship between king of the experimentalist, Michael Faraday and Einstein’s hero Maxwell. Between the two of them it can be argued that their discoveries paved the way for the 20th century. What they discovered was backed by hard data derived through painstaking and often dangerous experiments. Faraday is known to have picked shards of glass out of his own eyes after an experiment to liquify Chlorine went wrong! Knowledge does and did not come easy it was derived through hard work and constant cross checking to ensure the validity of the data.

Heike Kamerlingh Onnes The discoverer of superconductivity let his experiment, a current running through supercooled mercury, to run for over a year before he was totally convinced that superconductivity actually existed. This was mainly to do with the fact that he was expecting the resistance of supercooled Conductors to become infinite at these low temperatures rather than the total opposite and drop of a cliff to zero. Knowledge based on hard experimental data.

Our accumulated knowledge is based on the solid work of generations of scientists whose discoveries have helped to create the modern world with all its various technologies. Compare that to the people who call themselves Flat Earth Scientists! Where is the data from their painstaking experiments that they base their beliefs and claims on? Does it in fact exist or do their claims just rely on a blind belief coupled with a lack of understanding of the science they continually critique.

The question is where is all the painstaking research and experimental results that have been carried out by these flat earth scientists that they use to justify their claims?

Flat Earth General / The earths rotation.
« on: June 02, 2020, 12:56:30 AM »
Here is a great and very novel time lapse showing the earths rotation.
Please discuss.

This is a great experiment open for any individual to do with the right kit. The problem, how on earth can flat earth believers explain this other than sitting on the sidelines crying fake.

Flat Earth General / 2024.....what then?
« on: May 29, 2020, 03:34:15 PM »
It’s looking like we will witness in 4K or possibly 8K, footage of the next moon landing in 2024 or more likely 2025. I would imagine one of the many money shots will be the earth shot from the moon, just hanging there in space in all its roundness. Given the camera technology available even now the picture quality promises to be amazing. One can imagine the fanfare and scrutiny that will accompany such an event, with every detail recorded, dissected and then presented to a pretty eager public. The question that begs to be asked is; where will it leave the flat earth society and its members? Will such an event bring the shutters down once and for all on flat earth belief OR will there be some way out for flat earth belief to carry on?  what do people think will happen?

Technology, Science & Alt Science / It could be of interest
« on: March 07, 2020, 01:37:08 PM »
I get the impression that some users of this forum are interested in science. Could I recommend this fantastic and informative podcast produced by the BBC chaired by Melvin Bragg, a writer and presenter.
The concept is Bragg invites a panel of experts on a particular subject and they spend an hour or so discussing the subject to a fair degree. All the episodes come with a comprehensive reading list. The most recent one is on Paul Dirac.

Flat Earth General / Just What Do They Believe?
« on: March 03, 2020, 12:27:57 AM »
Spend time on this forum and you will soon realise that there is no consistency in what flat earth believers believe. It’s more a free for all. This is possibly why answers from flat earth believers are hard to come by. They may have a belief about some aspect of the world but have no real evidence to back it up and as a result struggle to form a compelling argument.

Is this the main reason they would rather scrutinise conventional main stream science than their own beliefs?

The question is why is there so much disagreement among flat earthers about the main principles of flat earth belief?

For example the flat earth wiki, a production of the other flat earth group, gives a diameter of the moon as 32 miles. Ask some flat earthers on this forum and they won’t agree with that figure.

The other question is why don’t they agree with the flat earth wiki?

Flat Earth General / Information request
« on: February 29, 2020, 11:08:23 AM »
I have just started a debate with John Davis and was doing some background research, and I got  this from an interview he did in 2016 :

I’m just finishing up my book on the flat earth and it should be available by the end of the year. In it rather than attempting to change people’s minds through an account piece by piece of my model, I instead focus more on aspects that will lead one to find their own view of the world.

John mentioned he was finishing a book in 2016. I’ve been looking for a copy of the book with no success. Could someone provide a link so that I could either download or purchase it.

Flat Earth General / Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« on: January 08, 2020, 12:04:40 AM »
This topic for discussion was prompted by Curiouser and Curiouser, one of the moderators. The background is important but I will be as brief as possible. Please be mindful this is a serious question and could lead to a fruitful discussion.
It has emerged that Curiouser and Curiouser was employed for a number of years on various projects all to do with the manufacture of systems for satellites. Which you may find strange as many of the flat earth representatives here apparently deny their very existence. He stated he values properly constructed and well presented arguments that use logic. In a discussion I had with him he posted a link to a previous post he made. In this post Curiouser and Curiouser along with others admonished a forum visitor for his/her inability to consider the ‘flat earth infinite plane’  and the ‘flat earth ice wall’ through a properly constructed thought experiment.
In this discussion, if you care to read it, more or less gives  the background to the question.

The question, which I think is an interesting one, so here goes.

Thought experiments have been employed since the time of the birth of philosophy. Experiments such as Newton’s bucket, Heisenberg’s gamma-ray microscope, Einstein’s elevator, Leibniz’s mill, Parfit’s people who split like amoebas, and Thomson’s violinist have all been written about extensively as being useful in the development of scientific thought.
The question is can a flat earth thought experiment such as the ‘infinite plane’ have any logical or scientific validity? In all honesty I’m not sure, which is why I have asked the question.
My immediate thought is that such experiments would due to their initial starting premise fall under the reductio ad absurdum heading and be governed by the law of Law of noncontradiction and as such be null and void. I also thought that such an experiment would exist outside the recognised taxonomy of thought experiments but after thinking about it I’m now not sure. The question is, what do you think?

Flat Earth General / Diary Dates
« on: January 02, 2020, 05:31:10 AM »
For those that are interested in skywatching and near cosmic events here are a few dates for your diary for 2020.

What is interesting is how all these events can be predicted, including locations from which the events can be seen, to the second if the earth is not a spinning globe and the solar system is not as defined by conventional science. Just think about it.

Flat Earth Debate / Curvature
« on: December 26, 2019, 02:44:44 AM »
I was out yesterday, as it was such a beautiful day, taking pictures of our local wildlife. On my way home I stopped and took this shot of the Forth Bridges from a place called Longnidry Bents which gives a pretty good if distant view of the bridges. The atmosphere was pretty hazy and the light was going rapidly. I took this shot using a Sony A7R3 with a Sigma 150-600 mm lens mounted on a tripod. All I have done to the image is removed the noise using Topaz Noise AI and clicked the 'auto' button in Lightroom which boosted the contrast a bit opened up the shadows and crushed the blacks a bit. I added a bit of clarity just to crispen it up.

I was standing in a position 31.5km from the bridges and it's clear to see that most if not all of the bottom part of the iconic rail bridge is clearly hidden from sight.

I've included links to the original colour and a b@w conversion as well as a screen grab from google showing the location.

This is something any honest flat earth believer can do to see the truth. Take a camera find a good long stretch of open water and take a photo with no preconceived ideas of what you may discover. Look at your image and like the one I took ask yourself the question. Why is the bottom part of the bridge missing from view?

The truth is out there if you really want to look for it.

Flat Earth Debate / All About maps
« on: December 20, 2019, 06:56:11 AM »
I have read on this forum that some flat earth believers doubt the validity of our current maps. I personally find that extraordinary for a number of reasons, just one being a web-based app that makes use of satellite-derived data to produce very accurate mapping information for almost anywhere on the globe. It's the Photographers Ephemeris.

The Ephemeris allows one to plan landscape shoots, sunrises, sunsets, moonrises, moonsets all to a great degree of accuracy both by time and by the appearance of the terrain. This uses a relatively new feature Geodetics. The thing is, thousands of photographers use this app worldwide if there were some problems with the way it maps then it would have been highlighted years ago.

What the Ephemeris displays are an exact digital representation of the real world. If that's the case then both the mapping data and terrain information used must be correct. Again if this is the case how can there be a place for an alternative flat earth map? While it also predicts accurately the positions of the moon and sun this also must throw doubt on any flat earth belief regarding either body. The sun and moon move according to established principles in a way as discovered by conventional science. If conventional science were wrong then applications such as the Ephemeris would not work as all the data used has been derived from science that Flat Earth believers refute. If there is no possibility of a flat earth map, then there is no possibility of a flat earth.

Flat Earth Debate / The Bishop Challenge
« on: December 14, 2019, 04:06:18 AM »
Tom Bishop in another discussion laid down this challenge:

Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on and I'll be happy to rip you a new one.

The rule will be that when you change topics,
you lose.  ;)

I accept the challenge and ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (aprox)
I chose this as the FE belief about the moon is a rather easy one to check unlike the existence of Dark Energy which no member of this site has the means to study or ratify.
I also ask him why the simple moon bounce experiment that any keen radio ham can carry out gives a bounce time of 2.5 seconds? That would mean according to you, Tom Bishop, radio waves travel at 1931KM/sec rather than the globally accepted figure of 299,750KM/sec. Quite a difference. I wonder how Tom Bishop accounts for this. According to the rules as set by Tom Bishop himself the topic can not be changed.
I cant wait to see his reply laid out according to the scientific method.

Flat Earth General / Important Question About The Sun
« on: December 04, 2019, 06:05:38 AM »
A couple of weeks ago one of the members on this Forum, Mr. Sandhokhan made a claim about the nature of the sun, claiming it was a 600-meter diameter disc. He said:-

As for the 32-mile diameter Sun, you better sit down.
It is actually some 600 meters in diameter, in the shape of a disk:

The question I am asking about his extraordinary claim is should he be believed?
Being a scientist, or so he claims, will he provide the research data that can be scrutinized and will he also present some real evidence? Or will he just keep complaining about real scientists and going on about the Sagnac effect and subquarks?
We will have to wait and see what happens.

Pages: [1]