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 - jtelroy

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth General / Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)
« on: March 25, 2010, 09:49:09 AM »
For a theory to be truly scientific, it must be tested to see if it is false (true tests attempt to falsify the thoery rather then prove it.

Robowtham actually followed this correctly for RET, even if his math was flawed (he over-estimated the curvature of the earth, as RET says the curve of the earth is far less then the curve he clearly showed did not exist).

So I will be converted to FET if FE'ers make a valiant effort to disprove their own theory with various tests and fail to do so.

Likewise us RE'ers should make valiant efforts to disprove our own theory, and if we fail to do so, that brings us one step closer to showing the truth of our theory.

Flat Earth Q&A / A Flaw with the EA
« on: March 25, 2010, 09:26:20 AM »
Well, in order to this to be a flaw, we have to nail down what the EA accelerates.  Here's what I've been led to believe:

The EA causes both the Flat Earth and the Stars above us to move upward at a speed fast enough to simulate gravity.

If this is true,  Wouldn't we also be accelerated by the EA meaning that we would be moving up at the same speed meaning we would perceive no gravity.

If that's not true, what's making the stars move upward?

And furthermore why do the stars have to be so close to the flat earth?  Would it really affect FET is the stars were millions of light-years away?

Flat Earth Q&A / Theories
« on: March 25, 2010, 09:21:36 AM »
If we use Gould's definiton of a theory, it is an explanation and interpretation of observable data.  A Fact is simply observable data.

So with this definition FET is a valid theory, sort of.

The problem is that it discounts many facts by calling them fake or illusions.

Fact:  We can see that the Earth has an apparent curvature with the way thing disappear over the horizon.
Response:  Illusion.

Fact:  We can see the curvature of the Earth in photos taken from space.
Response: Faked

This makes me hesitant to call FET a good theory.  It is not an interpretation and explanation of all observable facts in that is explanations and interpretations are simply discrediting facts.


Flat Earth General / According to FET, we will all die very soon.
« on: March 18, 2010, 11:01:33 AM »
Global Warming.

It is going to melt the ice wall, causing our water and atmosphere to be uncontained causing us to die horrible deaths.

Flat Earth General / A Demand For Equal Treatment
« on: March 11, 2010, 05:51:03 PM »
Going by the definition of "theory" which PZ Meyers used when he was discounting the book Godless by Ann Coulter, he gave the following explanation of a theory:

The issue is not whether there is evidence that supports evolution theory, but whether there is evidence that is explained by evolution theory, since theories are explanations for data.

So lets apply this to FET.  Is there evidence explained by FET? Yes.

On the same token, is there evidence explained by RET?  Yes.

So all I ask in debates is that they are given equal ground, as many FE'ers seem to make arguments based on the outright assumption that RET has been proven to be completely incorrect.

Yes, this is the Flat Earth Society, but FET has yet to be concretely proven (I presented a critique which discredited EnaG whose central argument went unchallenged even by Tom Bishop).  This means that RET is as legitimate as theory as FET, and should be considered as such.

Flat Earth Debate / Electromagnetic Accelerator Disproven
« on: March 11, 2010, 12:25:20 AM »
Earlier, I developed a new alternative theory which is a superior explanation for both gravity and the occurence of bendy light.

Here is the theory:

Imagine a piece of metal between two magnets which have the ability to fluctuate in their strength.  The metal will continuously move between the two magnets.

Now habe the metal become flat earth and the magnets two supermassive black holes with fluctuating masses, and thus gravitational pulls.

NOTE: I know Bishop seems to get stuck on the Quantum Field Theory explanation for gravity, the Graviton. the final undiscovered particle of that theory discounting the higgs boson.  For Tom's sake, we will be using the more classical explanation of gravity, in that it is a result of mass.

Also Note:  Flat Earth is meant to signify the Flat Earth Assembly, including the Earth itself, the atmosphere, and the sky mirror.d

Flat Earth is trapped between the gravitational pull of these two bodies.  It is constantly going upwards towards one (whichever one is more massive in particular instant).  The "top" always points towards the more massive black hole as a result of physics, but the flips occur so quickly (and occur at the same time as the change of gravity) that they are unnoticeable.

Gravity is a combination of the pull of whichever black hole is the lesser in an instant, and the upward movement of flat earth.

Stars are actally reflections of our own light on the sky mirror.

Bendy light is actually a result of the black holes bending the light.

This theory, here to be referred to as BH-FET, is supported by Bishops post about Occam's razor.

Which is the simpler explanation:

That the flat earth is moving upward because of a theoretical unobserved mass whose effects are wholly unexplainable by modern physics,

Or that it is moving upward as a result of observable phenomena acting as physics, a field of research which is often PEER REVIEWED, says is legitimate?

Thus Bishop has shown his support for the nonexistence of the EA, and for the superiority of BH-FET

Flat Earth Q&A / Is Flat Earth the center of the Universe?
« on: February 25, 2010, 05:00:36 PM »
One of the things I hear many FE'ers argue is the "original" theories are the ones that are correct, and time has in some way or another caused us to stray and distrust these ideals.

Well, how about the theory that the Earth is the center of the universe?  And the accompanying theory that all celestial bodies are affixed in gigantic glass spheres which spin about our Earth?  Why are these oft forgotten and discarded theories not mentioned alongside FET?

Flat Earth General / Alternate FETs?
« on: February 25, 2010, 12:28:21 PM »
If FET is true, many assumption of modern science would have to be edited or completely disregarded to fir that.

FET has a great many theories which accomplish this editing or disregarding.

However, I have seen no concrete proof or experimentation to validate these theories.

This is one of the reasons that I went on to develop a branch of FET that I call SF-FET, which contests that flight is possible even if the Earth where Flat and constantly moving upward.

So, I think that more alternate FET theories such as SF-FET should be developed and proposed.

Since no concrete proof has yet been provided for theories such as Bendy Light, the Universal Accelerator, or really any of the tenets, this leads me to believe that they cannot be the only way to rationalize a Flat Earth.

So in this thread, I invite everyone to propose subsets of FET.

Keeping with the tradition FET, these theories do not need to have any experimental validation.  The only need to fit your observations, and only your observations.

Perhaps if more alternate theories such as SF-FET are developed, we can get closer to a true FET.

Flat Earth Q&A / Sextants?
« on: February 25, 2010, 09:48:22 AM »
It's a larg misconception that Christopher Columbus was trying to prove the Earth was round.  To be accurate, at his time RET was already the widely accepted theory.  The evidence of this is the usage of sextants for nautical navigation.

Sextants work by measuring the altitude of a celestial object above the horizon, as well as the angle formed by the line of sight to the object from the viewer.  This information is then used in conjunction with a navigation chart to determine the position.

This process was done assuming RET, and I think it would be very difficult for it to work under FET. 

The sextant measures the altitude of the object relative to the horizon (not the sextant itself), and is often used to determine the altitude of the sun at noon, as this determines one's latitude.

Also, I don't believe the calculations would work as well as they have if the geography of the Earth differed as greatly from printed nautical maps and charts as FET says it does.

So how does FET explain working sextants?

The way FET theory is laid out, the government as a whole cannot be involved in the conspiracy, only the space exploration branch.

This is because the primary funding for the conspiracy (as I have heard) is the government giving money to programs like Nasa who tell the government that they are going to use it for space exploration, but then stuff it in their pockets. 

If the conspiracy was run by the government as whole, then it would have no motive, because it wouldn't bring any extra revenue.  The government gets most of its funding from taxes, and those would not change if the world was known to be flat or not.  In other words, if the government was running the show, it would be using the conspiracy as an excuse to sneakily give itself its own money.

So that's my question:  is the government as a whole involved in the conspiracy, and if so, how is it benefiting them?

Note:  for the sake of argument, we will stick to only FET and RET theories.  SF-FET already answers this question.

Flat Earth General / Sustained Spaceflight is possible under FET
« on: February 15, 2010, 06:24:56 PM »
After reviewing the basics of FET (but discounting the majority of the theories simply because they have not yet been confirmed)  I realized that sustained spaceflight is possible with a constantly upward moving flat earth.  The spacecrafts would simply require constant upward thrust, which could be possible (although conspiracy may have concealed the existence of this technology).  "Orbits" would follow a similar path to the sun and the moon.
  Obviously this would change the Conspiracy significantly, however this is not a problem because so little is known about the conspiracy it can be anything.  

I believe the conspiracy developed like this:

Earth was believed to be round until the first unmanned object with a camera is sent into space.  The true thrust capabilities of the craft is concealed, as it is not yet confirmed.  It is able to briefly take pictures of Flat Earth before it is destroyed (as it was designed to orbit Round Earth, not fly above Flat Earth)

These findings are reported to government heads, and the failure is covered up.

The decision is made: the public should not be informed of this revelation until the laws of science in general have been edited to conform to these new findings.

It is soon also discovered that the original craft has the ability to maintain a constant distance between itself and Flat Earth, achieving something similar to a Round Earth orbit.

All spacecraft are designed with a concealed vertical thruster to allow them to travel straight upwards above flat earth.

Manned missions into space occur, but the pictures taken during them are faked in order to not shock the world population.

Moon landings are achieved, but they photos are edited to resemble what would the moon was normally percieved to look like.

I believe this Conspiracy to be more likely for several reasons:

1.It has a clear purpose: to not shock the public with the revelation that the Earth is flat until science has been sufficiently re-written to accomodate that.
2.  It is not so grand in scheme, as the majority of spaceflights are now legitimate.  This makes the conspiracy much easier to manage
3.Because it is not so grand, it is much less costly to those involved.

Furthermore, since FET's explanatory theories have not been confirmed, when the truth is revealed the scientists working behind the Conspiracy's veil will reveal exactly which theories were correct and which were not (and alternative explanations for the theories that are not.)

Flat Earth Q&A / Circular Star Movement?
« on: January 28, 2010, 12:29:04 PM »
It is easily provable that the stars are moving in the night sky.

This is done by taking a time-lapse photo of a starry night sky for an extended period of time.  When a time lapse photo is taken, any moving light within the photo appear as streaks, and when one is taken of the sky, the stars make the tell-tale streaks.

I'm just wondering how FET explains this.

RET theory says the stars are stationary and the Earth is rotating, giving the stars the appearance of movement.

What does FET theory say?  Does the Flat Earth spin?  Are the stars spinning?


Flat Earth Debate / A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« on: January 18, 2010, 09:17:14 PM »
I just began reading this, and hope that I didn't post it too soon. 

However, I noticed that the author made one grievous in the assumptions his experiments are based on.

First, his calculation of the curvature of the Earth.  He calculates curvature under the assumption that RET theory stated the Earth is perfect geometric sphere.

It is not.

In reality, RET contests that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, with relatively no curvature at the poles and the greatest possible curvature at the equator. 

Because of this, RET would not effect an Earth with a constant curvature of the one he calculated.  As a result, the experiments were not designed around accurately curvature assumptions, and therefore have inaccurate results.

Also, the book was published in the late 1800's, meaning that the scientific equipment available to the author were most-likely sub-standard, although this is only an assumption and I have no means of proving it.

Flat Earth General / Non-Government Space Exploration
« on: January 15, 2010, 09:46:03 AM »
There are two private engineering companies which produce space exploration technologies.

SpaceX has designed the Falcon 9 launch vehicle and the Dragon spacecraft it launches.

Likewise Orbital Sciences Corporation has designed the Taurus II launch vehicle and the unmanned Cygnus spacecraft.

How does the conspiracy deal with these two companies?  Are they secretly under the pay of the government?

Okay, while I think a lot of the science behind FET is odd, I find it plausible, discounting anything that the "Conspiracy" tenet says should be discounted.

Light travels in bendy, depending on the orientation at which it is emitted from the source?

Alright, needs some more explanation on why "vertical" light bends and "non-vertical" doesn't, and how from any particular source this light knows what is "vertical" and what isn't, but yeah.  I can go with that.

The Earth is large flat disc surrounded by a large ice wall, and any curvature we've seen is an illusion caused by the aforementioned bendy light?  Yeah, I can go with that.

And it is traveling upward causing somethign reminiscent of Gravity?  Sure.  I can go with that.

But what I can't go with?

The conspiracy, from my interpretation, is what all of FET relies on.  Yes, all the science is plausible, but only if you've already assumed that the conspiracy is true.

And this is what bothers me.  A Conspiracy theory is not science.  A conspiracy theory by nature can never be consequently proven or disproven, making any Conspiracy theory a wishy washy thing.

Sure you can argue that 9/11 was staged by the government, but you can also argue that it wasn't.  And no matter how much the "It wasn't staged by the government" folks try with their arguments and evidence to convince the "It was staged by the government" group, the latter group will always be able to find some small piece of evidence, which through coincidence or misinterpretation will always be able to be championed as undeniable proof of the conspiracy.

The same goes for the Space Travel conspiracy theory.  No matter how much evidence RE'ers find that support that we have gone into space at some point or another, FE'ers will always find a piece of evidence that they can champion as their undeniable proof, regardless of its validity.

And the real problem?

FET relies on the conspiracy theory to be plausible.

Light *could* travel in that bendy fashion, but if we've gone into space, we would know that it wouldn't, because we would see the location of the Sun, and all the planets orbiting around it, and we could use various experiments to measure the way light travels.

The Earth *could* be a large disk moving up through space, but if we've gone into space we would know that it isn't, because we have taken pictures that would show that it isn't.

So there's my problem.

The science of FET relies on something that is not science to be plausible.

And as a scientist, I just can't consign to that.

So now, FE'ers, I invite you to convince me of your theory.

Do any of you have a way to explain this theory based on pure scientific fact that does not rely on a conspiracy to be plausible?

Or any other explanation that effectively removes the theories need for this conspiracy?  (I don't know what that would be, but if any of you have any idea, you're welcome to try.)

Flat Earth General / The Alaska Homepage?
« on: January 12, 2010, 08:17:55 PM »

Does this have any relation to the actual flat earth society?

And why is it a sub-page of a website about Alaska?

Flat Earth Q&A / Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« on: January 10, 2010, 05:09:19 PM »
I believe the pervailing explanation for the illusion of gravity is that the Earth Disc is traveling upwards at a high rate right? 

Well upon reading this article from Claude Johnson (or from interviews with him I should say)

He says the stars are about as far away from us as San Francisco is to Boston.

Why haven't we hit them yet?  Or are they moving up up too?

And if the illusion of gravity is being caused by us moving up, why do I not feel any pressure on my shoulders or head?  In other words, why do I feel as if I am being pulled to the Earth rather than pushed to it?

Flat Earth Q&A / A Truthful Question.
« on: January 09, 2010, 11:44:08 PM »
Note that this unrelated to my trolling, but if you want to bring that in here feel free.

I truly have traveled all the way around the world on an East/West axis.  Having claimed that, how would you FE'ers go about disproving this.  What is your explanation for "Around the World" flights?

The Lounge / Site R Transmission Interception
« on: January 09, 2010, 11:08:11 PM »
This is an exact quote from my livejournal.  If you wish to know more about the Hand of Omega conspiracy, please go there:

"The Truth has been tracking Site R for activity for quite some time since Site R was set up in late 2007.

The transcript of the last one we intercepted is as follows:

"Site R is fully operational, we should have reached R'yleh within the month."

Upon research we discovered that R'yleh is an ancient submerged city in which the Great Old One Cthulhu waits to rise again so that he can destroy humanity.

We hear at the Truth are now scrambling to discover how Cthulhu plays into the Hand of Omega's plans to reverse the complification of the universe, and how to prevent it."

Flat Earth Q&A / A Comprehensive List of Evidence?
« on: January 09, 2010, 02:50:37 PM »
I've read through nearly all of this forum but I was able to find no listings of any sort of evidence, source citation, research, experimentation and the results, or verified experiences.

So, while I delve through this forum for the second time, would anyone be so willing as to present any of those things I have requested?  Any help from you FErs to shed some light on this theory would be greatly appreciated.

Pages: [1]