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.

Messages - Tom Foolery

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Flat Earth General / Re: What's the deal with REers here?
« on: July 06, 2019, 12:59:02 AM »
This thread brings up a couple thought provoking topics.

Someone asked what FEr's would talk about if no REr's came here. Just look in the FE Believers section, it looks like they wouldn't talk about much. Some of them post long monologues there but I suspect even those would dwindle down if there was no REr's against which to make arguments.

But back to the more direct question, why do round earther's bother showing up and interacting --  this is naturally a question I asked myself many times.

For me personally, it started when a friend said to me "Hey the earth is flat! Gravity does not exist!" of course I was like "Of course it's not flat, of course gravity exists."

Then I realized I had no direct evidence to prove him incorrect.

So I wanted to check into it more. Being an inquisitive person, I asked him more questions.
He had no answers, but referred me to Mark Sargent, so I watched hundreds of hours of mark sargent videos over several months, trying to find answers. He didn't seem to have a lot of answers and teaches the idea that everything we see in the sky is just a 3D projection such as the sun, moon, planets, and stars.

So I began trying to learn as much as I could bout FE and meta-FE (i.e. what the belief was and how seriously the believers believed it themselves.)

I also began trying different experiments.
I performed the cavendish experiment, and found there to be an attractive force between lead weights which was not magnetic and not electric. It was in the ballpark for gravity.

I also got a theodolite (like what surveyors use) and measured some mountains and found that the height of a mountain drops off non-linearly with distance -- my measurements came out quite close to 8 inches per mile squared, which is a good approximation for the generally accepted shape of the generally spherical earth theory.

I continue to perform experiments and learn as much as I can about the topic.

At the same time, I care about people and it makes me sad if they are believing a lie and shutting out their friends because their friends don't also believe the earth is flat.

In fact my friend who introduced me to flat earth was very unhappy with me when I showed him how I'd measured the height of a distant mountain with a theodolite and got a reading that fit the globe earth theory.

So I come here to help potential flat earther's see that there are problems with the theory to prevent them from falling hook line and sinker, and to also help flat earther's see that there's problems so they aren't so fanatic and maybe work them back to a better understanding of observable reality.

At this point, I'm finding that the majority of the evidence points to  globe earth, and that flat earth claims are mostly incoherent.

I've also found that a lot of the highly experienced flat earthers seem afraid of the truth, afraid that if they look at all the evidence they may have to abandon their theory.

And look. If you'd measured the height of a distant mountain with a real surveyor's theodolite, and it agreed with your world-shape-view, wouldn't you want to tell people who believed it was a different shape?

And look at it the other way - if someone measured and found the world to be a shape different than you believed, wouldn't you want to know?

I sure would want to know if I was wrong!

I couldn't care less what shape the world is. As long as I correctly know what shape it is.

If my measurements show it to be flat, I'll be the happiest flat earther there is. If they show it to be a globe, again, I'll be the happiest glober there is.

But for now, I'm still on the search for the single very best evidence of a flat earth I can find! So far I have not found even one good one!

Wow. Just wow.
Whoever thinks rockets cannot propel in space needs to do a couple experiments.

1: Stand on a wagon and throw a 60 pound bag of sand out the back as hard as you can, and see how it makes the wagon move.

Do you really think it's the bag of sand pushing against the air that accelerates you? Then try the same thing with a plastic sack full of air the same size as the sand bag.

2: If you think gasses don't have mass? Then get some 0.3 mil painter's drop cloth plastic and tape it up to make a 6 foot wide by 20 foot long plastic sack. Then fill it with air and tape it shut and have your friend "throw" it at  you as hard as he can. You will see that even gasses have masses.

So why wouldn't equal and opposite reaction work in space?

Saying things like the OP did in their title makes out flat earth movement look like it's made entirely of a complete and total lack of knowledge of reality.

Please, do some experiments. Like Dr. Bishop says, we have a higher standard than this sort of sillyness! Be zetetic! Experiment! Learn! Know!

ok bedtime.

Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Experiments
« on: July 05, 2019, 01:37:13 AM »
I think that's a great idea. I'm for whatever turns out to be true so I'm not afraid to experiment.

I'm pretty good at setting up experiments but the problem is flat earth believers don't like my experiments or their results.

So maybe some flat earthers might be so generous as to suggest some experiments I could set up to prove the flat earth.

I am on a quest to find the very best evidence for a flat earth.
So far I've come up dry. 

Flat Earth General / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: July 05, 2019, 01:33:41 AM »
Nope. We did not see it at all. If you have so show it.
OK well I'm on a dreadfully slow cellular internet connection from the northernmost state of the United States of America (Alaska!!!) so I'm not really able to check out my youtube videos to find the best ones, but here's one and you can find more by viewing my channel:

And tell us whose are accepted your so called attractive force.
It was a fellow flat earther on some other forum site but I don't remember who it was.
The only known attractive force about it is magnetic force
Ok my friend, you obviously don't know much about physics. There is another attractive force called electrostatic attraction. It's different than magnetic force.
and it means your so called experiment is a hoax.
Well my friend, I'm not sure what to say. Having personally performed the Cavendish experiment, and clearly seen a non-magnetic and non-electrostatic attractive force between the weights, I'm not inclined to accept your assessment of my experiment as a haox.

At least not when you don't even know about electrostatic forces and have never even tried to do the experiment yourself.

But I wish you all the best of your pursuit of knowledge - but please try doing some experiments before you try to tell me my experiment is a hoax when you've never even tried it!

Hey Dr. Bishop - was that you that agreed that there is *some* attractive force between terrestrial masses? or any other flat earther's who agree to this? I'm not asking you to call it gravity, only to agree that experimental evidence does seem to show an attractive force.


Flat Earth General / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: July 05, 2019, 01:09:35 AM »
It says directly that the results can differ by over ten times their expected uncertainties.

This reminds me of a question I asked you before Tom, and I really would love to hear the answer to this if you might be so generous.

By way of background, as I understand it, you have noted that the various measurements of gravity vary by 0.05% (i.e. 500 part per million) and are therefore invalid.

By way of comparison, imagine you stepped on your bathroom scale and your daily weight reading varied by 0.05% (1/8th of a pound if you're 250 pounds) - some days the scale reads 250.5 and other days it reads 250.6 -- are you going to rule it out because of the huge variation?

Or let's say your doctor measures your blood pressure and it changes by 0.05% between readings, are you going to say he's not measuring it accurately?

But back to my question - you say that a variation in measurements of 500 parts per million is such a huge variation that they are all invalid.

This is my very simple question to you -- the one you seem unwilling thus far to answer:

How small would the variation need to be in order for you to consider it valid? 50 parts per million? 5 parts per million? 1 part per trillion trillion?

Or if all the measurements agreed to 1 part per trillion trillion would you still say there is too much error, and ask them to agree to within 1 part in a trillion trillion trillion?

Please tell me just how much variation you would allow while not ruling out the measurement due to the variation.


Flat Earth General / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: July 04, 2019, 02:31:32 AM »
If 'gravity' is not real, why does the Cavendish experiment work then, showing 'gravity' between masses?
A while ago I did the cavendish experiment and shared the video of it so anybody could try it, and some flat earthers agreed that there must be some attractive force between my masses but that it just wasn't gravity.

I was very careful to eliminate magnetic and electric field influence and even through my experiment was done on a super small budget, it showed an acceleration sort of in the ballpark of the official figures.

All I can say is I'm sure there's some sort of attractive force between masses other than electric and magnetic.

If someone's telling you there's not, they haven't done the experiment and you shouldn't be listening to them.

This is a very advanced question for a flat earther.

When you observe the sun (or the moon), you can see that the apparent angular movement is always the same. It is about 15 degrees per hour. It means, the position of the sun and the moon changes by 15 degrees per hour.

How can that be possible on a flat earth?

In the sphere model it is trivial: The earth rotated once full (360 degrees) in 24 hours (i.e. a day). That makes 15 degrees per hour. Simple.

But how can it work on a flat earth?

That is a great question, I too would like to know the answer to it.
We know that when (for example) an airplane flies overhead, it appears to move fast but then appears slows down exponentially as the distance increases.

What possible geometry would allow the sun to have an apparent angular movement so close to 15 degrees per hour regardless of it's position?

And look, I realize it's not exactly 15 degrees per hour, OK? but it's close, and the important thing is if it were orbiting above a flat earth the apparent angular motion would vary *drastically* outside of 15 degrees per hour depending on its position in relation to the observer.

What possible flat-earth geometry would even come close to allowing an apparent sun motion of 14-16 degrees per hour at all times for all observers in all locations?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« on: July 04, 2019, 02:02:34 AM »
hey guys thanks for all the great ideas! I didn't have time to read through all 4 pages of them but I tried to skim some of them.

I've been just very busy and the cellular internet is not all that great here.
But at least I still got to see some fireworks! There are fishing boats all around the boat I'm in.
Some of them sent up a few fireworks. Others sent up emergency flares and announced on the radio that they were doing a training exercise ha ha ha! (It's national Independence Day in USA!)

One of you asked if I could see the stars -- unfortunately, I haven't seen much of the stars. The sky is never dark this time of year at this location, so you just might see a couple of the very brightest stars at best. And it's foggy or cloudy a lot of nights too.

As to your question about the horizon, the horizon seems to be very close. However, ships in the distance vanish bottom end first.

Flat Earth Debate / To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)
« on: June 27, 2019, 05:27:36 AM »

I know it's been a while since I've posted here but I've just been very busy.

I recently went on a voyage by ship from Washington to Alaska.

It was over 2500 miles long (about 4000km) and it took nearly a couple weeks.

I gotta say, the earth sure doesn't seem flat when you are navigating on long journeys.

(And yes I drove the boat some of the way when Captain and first mate needed a break!)

The weather has been lovely, and it never gets dark this time of year - you get a nice sunset which then turns into a nice sunrise - no night here!

Sorry to those of you who think Alaska and the north is around the outside of the flat earth - the days are just way too long here!

Anyway I'm supposed to be flying home soon (In a week or so?) - are there any particular things I should check for on the way home?

I have the theodolite app for starters. I'm also thinking of videoing ocean and land masses moving below the plane to check GPS/groundspeed to see if they match up or not.

(Of course there's only a small chance I get a window seat.)

Anyway, let me know any ideas I can do to help show the shape of the earth.

I'll try to check back here before taking to the air and see what I can learn!

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Size of the Sun
« on: April 06, 2019, 09:59:13 PM »
Flat earthers claim that the Sun is circling above the Earth, so if this was the case, we should see the angular size of the sun significantly increase. And, it should be very small when it's setting and rising, but if you use a solar filter, measure the size of it at noon and at the sets/rises, you would see that the Sun remains a constant size. There are many videos about this on YouTube. So how can this be?

They show pictures of how headlights produce a bigger glare circle on a camera if they are further from the camera, and say that is proof that things look larger if they are farther, and that this effect perfectly matches the missing perspective shrinkage.

Of course in the picture they use to prove it, the headlights are aiming more at the camera when in the distance so naturally they have more glare than the closer ones which are not aiming at the camera.

Or they show an old black and white photo where all the street lights look many times their size because of lens flare or diaphragm fringing.

But yeah, it's patently absurd because the angular size of the sun as seen from anywhere on earth is so constant.
And if the sun were 3000 miles up etc., the angular size would change linearly with distance, while atmospheric magnifying effects would not be linear due to the different densities of air as the sun got farther: Overhead, it would be going through very little dense air. but at sunset, when it was 10,000 miles away (depending on observer location and time of year) it would be going through much much more dense air.

A non-linear effect generally doesn't cancel out a linear effect.

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the earth flat? Final Solution!
« on: March 30, 2019, 11:27:45 PM »
I have a proposition for a test, can anyone send a hot air ballon straight up with a camera or something or maybe someone.
If you do it by yourself then we'll respect your findings if they are convincing.

Actually, I've been thinking about sending up a high altitude balloon with a camera. I'm pretty good at building things. I've sent up balloons before with nothing but half a pound of salt as a payload.

But since balloon flights are so hectic it might make more sense to make a little glider that glides real smooth with the camera. The balloon would just take up the glider, let it go, then the glider could glide smoothly along providing much better video.

As to the camera, I propose a thin carbon fiber rod bent in a U shape with a tight string is fastened across the ends so it is in front of the camera so a guaranteed straight reference line is in view at horizon level so even if the camera has some introduced pin cushion effect the taught string will still be a straight line that is outside the camera and can be compared to the horizon.

Would that be convincing either way?

Or does a live human have to go up? Because that takes a whole lot more helium.

Tom Foolery, you surpassed even  JackBlack and rabinos. Bravo, I knock hooves of emotion.
Wow thanks... I think...
My subtitles don't work, so please tell me what you think about this.
Ahh, is that like the old pickup line "Hey I lost my phone number, could I have yours?"

Heavenly Breeze,

I watched your video for you.

First of all, I might not be the best person to answer your questions.

I already did an experiment that proved gravity:

I've also spent plenty of time on a merry go around, like this one:

I can personally confirm for you that I have observed what appears to be gravity, and I have personally experienced the kind of centrifugal force which would cause a globe earth to be oblate.

You can also fill a water balloon with water and hang it on a string with a motor to get it spinning and see if it takes on a generally oblate shape.

I did watch the video, and the guy is totally confused, claiming that if the earth is really an oblate spheroid, then things would fall crosswise if you dropped them.

What he doesn't realize about round earth theory is that the local gravity for any given location causes a level local to that area, and a line perpendicular to level is not even supposed to always go through the center of the earth.

So look, I've observed gravity. I've observed centrifugal force.

The guy in the video has never done the gravity experiment. Probably never been on a merry go around. It would not make sense for me, who has done the gravity experiment, to believe that guy who's never done the gravity experiment.

Would you take advice about using a computer from somebody who'd never seen one in their life and obviously knew nothing about them?

"Hey Dad, can you help me adjust my email settings on my ipad?"
"Sure can, just let me rinse off the onions."

This also raises an interesting question, as to whether an orbit would be possible with a relation ship of the inverse of the 4th power.

It would not matter what inverse power of r the force decreased with, a stable orbit would be possible. It would not even have to decrease as a power of r, it could be any well-behaved decreasing function of r

Sweeet! so magnets on ice might be a rather interesting orbital experiment since we could have two objects of different mass orbiting eachother as a rather interesting visual aide.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Navigation tools disprove flat earth
« on: March 26, 2019, 12:36:00 AM »
I just do not think it is ever appropriate to be 100% certain of anything,
I agree, that's why I had originally phrased it as "About 100%...": Where I come from, we use the word "About" like "Approximately"  or "Nearly."
If I'd meant a full 100%, I'd have said "Exactly 100%" or "At least 100%."
in case I ever encounter one in real life.
That's how I got into it, met one in real life. This is perfect training. This is exactly what they are like in real life.
I know from experience that socratic dialogue focused on epistemology is the most effective way to deconvert people from cults and extreme religious fundamentalism, by instilling a shadow of doubt to the believer regarding the justification for belief, by respectfully demonstrating that 100% certainty is never warranted, you force them to re evaluate the core reasons why they believe
That is the *exact* reason flat earthers exist. The entire process is exactly as you described it. There is no proof for a flat earth, but that's not what brings about the belief: It is done by installing a shadow of doubt in NASA and all scientists and everything they were taught, until they evaluate their core reasons for believing in a round earth and they realize that it's just a faith and not a science because they don't know how to measure it so they abandon believing in round earth -- only to then believe in a flat earth.

Mark Sargent, a prominent youtube flat earther, says in his video:

"It's not that I can prove a flat earth in a court of law, but I can create so much reasonable doubt in the globe model that you have nowhere else to turn, but the flat earth model"
(Flat Earth Q&A Emails 114 Mark Sargent, 4:35)

He has literally published hundreds of hours of video simply creating doubt in all things that the 99% of people use as an authority on believing that the earth spherical.

So I really don't know if your approach is going to help because they've already been through it once to get to flat earth, and I think it inoculates them against the approach.
... i haven't been able to establish a dialogue with one yet.
You won't establish a dialogue with one. I've been trying.
Only the inexperienced ones -- the ones that don't really know the arguments -- will engage you. The experienced ones already know they will come up short on reason.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Navigation tools disprove flat earth
« on: March 25, 2019, 01:30:57 PM »
Yeah, and not to mention how is it possible that the same stars are seen from anywhere around the ice ring, and yet none of them can be seen from the center?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Navigation tools disprove flat earth
« on: March 25, 2019, 11:55:34 AM »
have to say though, 100.00000% certainty? doesn't sound either scientific nor reasonable. if your belief is not falsifiable it is suspicious.
Well, I said "About 100.00000% certain." That leaves room for falsifiability.

So far I did the Cavendish experiment, and measured a force surprisingly like gravity between lead weights.
I used a water level to check the horizon and it doesn't rise to eyel level of the observer -- not even at 50 ft AMSL!
And at observer=2kft, entire snow-capped mountain ranges are below the horizon.
I've used a theodolite to measure the height of mountains at different distances and they drop down more greatly with distance than perspective allows - to the tune of about 8 inches per mile squared.
I was first mate for most of a 2000 mile journey by boat to Alaska.
I've personally gone to the beach, and looked out over 20 miles of water and seen just the tops of the sky scrapers sticking up out of the water. I hiked up a 50ft hill, then I could see most of the sky scrapers, but not the hill they were standing on.

I also went on flight radar24 or whatever it was and watched and tracked 6 flights which form a full circle around the southern hemisphere. Their claimed distances matched their claimed speeds, and remember, jets have a certain safe flying speed - they cannot go over or under a certain maximum and minimum at altitude -- and because the passengers know how long these flights actually take, the airlines can't lie about the durations.

I found that the 6 flights formed a ring roughly 6500 mile diameter circle.
But the flight from Singapore to Newark 18 hours long and 9500 miles.

You can't fly a 9500 mile straight line inside a 6500 diameter mile circle!

I've been diligently seeking out the best evidence of a flat earth, I've watched probably a hundred hours of mark sargent and jarenism videos and interacted with all the best flat earther's I can find to interact with.
The best evidence so far I've found for a flat earth is "When you go to the beach, the ocean looks flat." Unfortunately, it'd look flat from AMSL=6ft on the NASA globe too.

Plus numerous problems with even the basic claims of flat earth:
During sunset on the longest day in Australia, the sun is actually closer to Alaska which is in the middle of darkest winter.
And the sun is nearly 10,000 miles away when it sets, and is visible in Australia, but they say the sun is only visible for a few hundred miles through the lower air.
During sunset on the equinox at the equator, the sun is nearly West, but FE requires it to be about 40 degrees north of west.
Australia spans about 3 hours worth of sun's movement. On a disk, that makes it 4000 miles long. And yet planes fly it in 5 hours, and cars drive it in 41 hours: are all those flights breaking the sound barrier? All the cars going a hundred miles an hour *average*?
And so far I haven't got any answer about how the sun can appear to set below observer eyelevel when it's a few thousand miles up.
Nor have I got any answer as to how it can be blindingly bright for 12 hours then be completely obscured in just a few minutes: That doesn't line up with it just fading away in too many miles of fog.
Nor do I know how it is possible on a flat earth for the sun to vanish bottom edge first as if it's sliding behind something.
And the sun is 400,000 times brighter than the moon. Shouldn't the moon set much higher in the sky since it's lessor light is not as bright? But no, they set on the same horizon.

I have asked all these questions (Except the one about the moon setting earlier) and got no answers to the problems.

So with my personal first hand experience and observations that actually confirm a curve near 8 inches per mile squared for the first 500 miles, and all the unanswered problems with the core FE claims, I don't think my confidence level of about 100% is that out of place.

Could it change? Sure. I don't care what shape the earth is. If someone can convince me it's flat, then have at it!
But I've already measured the curve, I've measured gravity, and there's some huge problems with FET (Flat Earth Theory) which all have to be overcome before we begin to make any progress.

Do you really think that sounds unreasonable?

Considering all things, what would you say my confidence level should be in the earth not being flat? I hadn't even said that I had confidence in it being a globe, just that it wasn't flat.
(I will tell you now that I am also rather confident that it is probably even generally spherical   ;D)

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Mountains on the Moon
« on: March 25, 2019, 10:55:15 AM »
Tom Foolery, this is FE Q&A. If you want to provide FE A's to FE Q's, all is good. Your last paragraph belongs in FE Debate. ;)
Thanks & Fixed!

Flat Earth General / Re: Pete Svarrior and MCToon friendly chat
« on: March 25, 2019, 10:22:36 AM »
You realise you're talking to a REer right?
You're one of those users who's just generally arrogant, insists they knew better, will go on massive rants about what happened on another site, decides it's everyone else's fault, and is just generally obnoxious.
Not guilty, your honor!  ;D
I replied in detail in AR (same subject line) since it's straying from topic here just a tad..

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Navigation tools disprove flat earth
« on: March 25, 2019, 09:46:05 AM »
non flat earthers - i'm looking at what you post and I can't help but notice you are not doing very well.
We gotta take what we can get. If we start a topic with a concise effective approach, the flat earther's mostly won't even engage it because they can see right off they are wrong.
So all that leaves is marginal mishmash on round-earth arguments that are difficult to sustain because those are the only ones an experienced flat earther will engage.
... It works, i usually do it to deconvert creationists, a hobby of mine.
yay I'm a 6-day young earth creationist and I have a hobby of deconverting big bangers. Doesn't usually work, they are the most religious people I know. ;D
(But I'm about 100.00000% certain that the earth isn't flat...)
flat earthers - you are promoting what you consider is the truth
That's only true for the inexperienced ones.
There are 3 kinds of flat earthers:
a: Honest inexperienced ones.
b: Former flat earthers.
c: Experienced flat earthers.

They give the same bogus answers to newcombers after having been shown the invalidity.
Many are not honestly trying to promote what they believe to be true.

They present maps, are shown they are impossible, and continue to present them, and refuse to even explain how they personally came to believe their map is accurate.
so, flat earthers and non flat earthers, please consider what you are trying to achieve here.
My goal is to find and demonstrate the truth to myself and anybody else who is interested in finding out.

Thanks Jack, all very interesting!

I was thinking electrical charges.

I'll be thinking about that.

Using a static charge would be tricky because static electricity has a tendency to dissipate in an erratic manner.

However I definitely have high voltage supplies so I could provide a constant  high voltage to the orbiting bodies.

In fact, maybe a weight hanging on a 50 foot long super thin wire so the gravitational centering was minimal, then use electrostatic attraction to have it orbit another weight.
Might even be able to do a two body orbit because the lower weight could even be sliding on ice cubes or an air hockey table or something, just maybe.

Electrostatic force is significant. When I was doing Cavendish, I disconnected the grounding wires between my fixed and hanging weights and did a couple control tests to see how electrostatic attraction and electrostatic repulsion affected it. The results were real nice.
I think we probably could come up with a jig to orbit with eletrostatic attractive forces.

These are the electrostatic tests I did below:

Attracting, then repelling:

Had another thought, there are stars that you can see out above the south pole if you are in the southern hemisphere which are not visible to those on the northern hemisphere.

Just think about it: In the middle of winter when it's dark all night in Antarctica, someone out on the ice ring could look south and see the most south star Sigma Octantis.
At that same moment, somebody all the way on the far side of the flat earth disk at the ice ring could also look south and see Sigma Octantis.

And yet us poor lousy northerners can't see it?!

How is it possible that people all the way around the edge can see the same stars, and yet the northerners in the center can't see those same stars?

If people all around the ring can see something, the people in the middle should also be able to see it.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Mountains on the Moon
« on: March 25, 2019, 08:44:48 AM »
I have heard many flat earth folks claim that you cannot see mountains more than a couple of hundred miles away because air is not truly transparent.  If this were the only reason, then why can I clearly see mountains on the surface of the moon if it's 3000 miles away as you claim?

Yes, they do claim that you can't see more than a few hundred miles through the air, but only if that sight path is down low, like looking at a mountain or the setting sun, because the air is more dense and has more water dissolved in it down low, because it's warmer.

So if the mountain was 500 miles straight above you, only a small portion of that sight path is through the dense air, the rest is through very thin air.

Flat Earth General / Re: Pete Svarrior and MCToon friendly chat
« on: March 25, 2019, 08:33:19 AM »
I do the Cavendish experiment and get gravity like results.
Oh, you're one if those users. Gotcha.
Yes, I'm one of those users who does real experiments, who follows the truth where ever it leads, and whatever it is. Bummer aint it?   ;D
When's your ban up so you can go back there?

Flat Earth General / Re: Pete Svarrior and MCToon friendly chat
« on: March 24, 2019, 10:10:26 PM »
Again, that's not the Pete I know. If someone makes too many convincing arguments, they get canned, thus enhancing the echo chamber.
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you came here from the other site where you got banned temporarily or permanently.
All expenses paid 2 week vacation, to be specific.
Mm hmm. Why am I not surprised?
Beats me.
You'r welcome to go read my appeal in S&C there. Nobody ever showed me where I broke a single *written* rule. After like 250 posts with not a single warning I politely questioned the validity of the "Bishop experiment" and within 24 hours all my threads were moved to CN and I had two warnings -- all within 24 hours -- and nobody told me what rules I broke or when/where.
When pressed for a rule I broke, Pete just said "off topic posting." But  he refused to show me a single instance of where I'd posted off topic. I was trying hard to follow the rules.
He also bluffed, telling me that I was somebody's alt, and was putting on some act and so on. Later he admitted in AR that he had no evidence that I wasn't just genuinely the most obtuse person on our flat Earth.

But what makes me obtuse?
I guess that's what he calls it when I do the Cavendish experiment and get gravity like results. I point out terrible flaws in flat earth theory, like the sun, Australia, and Alaska. And I point out absurd claims in the wiki.

But look. Their rules clearly state that specific forums are debate clubs and as such we're supposed to use our debating skills to poke holes in theories even if we don't hold to the view for which we are arguing. So I really cannot see how me poking holes in flat earth theories could possibly be against the rules. And besides, it's so much fun.

As best as I can tell, flat earther's are generally very confident and as a result they invite anyone to poke holes in their theory since they believe it's bullet proof.

But when someone actually starts to poke too many holes, some flat earthers start to get rather worried and start trumping up charges  ;D

I later found out that others had received very similar treatment - unsurprisingly when they challenged the Bishop Experiment as well.

Hopefully that will help you understand why I said that the Pete in this interview didn't sound like the Pete I know.

The Lounge / Re: Iíve had it.
« on: March 24, 2019, 07:29:07 PM »
You guys have been feeding me lies and not listening to my truths. Every time I come up with an idea I get bullied. I think I might move to the 24/7 discord if I donít keep getting harassed. I want to learn here, but all that happens is bullying. Iíve strayed from this forum as of recently cause no one takes me seriously, my first theory of the flat sun was instantly shut down and I cried. I get bullied at school for spending my time here and you guys donít even care. Please just take me in, I love it here :(
So sorry my friend, I will admit that flat earth is sort of a wilderness for brave people.
Because there's lots of evidence against it and no decent evidence for it, the only people who believe it aren't very well learned or aren't very smart.
So yeah, you sort of need to be brave and patient and expect a lot of strange people to say a lot of strange things.
But hang in there, I am working tirelessly to find the truth and present it to everybody.

Am I understanding correctly that two magnets with one's north pointing at the other's south will have an inverse square force to distance relationship while if they are pointing one north up and the other north down and parallel, the relationship will be the inverse of the 4th power?
The individual poles will have an inverse square relationship, however the overall force will be complex, but can be approximated as 1/x4. I haven't checked for all cases, but this holds for 2 axially aligned magnets (i.e. their poles pointing towards each other), and for 2 radially aligned magnets (i.e. their poles both pointing up and down, with them at the same height).

I'm pretty sure that because they are dipoles they will always hold to the 1/x4 relationship as an approximation.

You're right again Jack Black!

I taped a small magnet to a small digital scale and used another magnet and measured the force to distance relationship.

I tried axial and radial orientation, as well as thin ring magnets and thick (4 thin ones stacked) - 4 tests.
Attraction and repulsion seemed to be the same (but naturally opposite) for any given magnet thickness and orientation.

I then put my measured results for one of the tests into a spreadsheet and graphed it along side a predicted force of 209.7152grams/inches^4 and it came out surprisingly close considering my crude method of measuring force and distance.

So having ruled out magnet to magnet attraction as functioning by the square inverse relationship, what would work by it? a magnet to steel ball force?

This also raises an interesting question, as to whether an orbit would be possible with a relation ship of the inverse of the 4th power.

If that works, then surely an orbit to the inverse square force would work also?

Frankly, I should have tested steel against magnet but my setup was a pain to use I wasn't really thinking I guess. But I could set it up again easy enough.

Flat Earth General / Re: Pete Svarrior and MCToon friendly chat
« on: March 24, 2019, 05:10:22 PM »
Again, that's not the Pete I know. If someone makes too many convincing arguments, they get canned, thus enhancing the echo chamber.
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you came here from the other site where you got banned temporarily or permanently.
All expenses paid 2 week vacation, to be specific.

A monopole works in a similar way to an electric charge. They produce a magnetic field that is inversely proportional to the distance squared. Two north monopoles repel each other with a force inversely proportional to the distance squared and a north and south monopole would attract each other with a force inversely proportional to the distance squared.


So I've been thinking and doing a little more reading (but not much LOL).
Am I understanding correctly that two magnets with one's north pointing at the other's south will have an inverse square force to distance relationship while if they are pointing one north up and the other north down and parallel, the relationship will be the inverse of the 4th power?

If that is the case, could we have the magnets oriented such that they were pointing north to south axially aligned, but have them orbiting in double tidal lock mode, so we have the square inverse relationship again?

of course that would preclude a 3 body orbit. But if it allowed two masses to orbit eachother with a square inverse force relationship it would be very interesting.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Navigation tools disprove flat earth
« on: March 24, 2019, 08:36:28 AM »
I've never circumnavigated, but I did navigate on a journey by boat of nearly 2500 miles.

I've also performed the Cavendish experiment and detected something suspiciously like gravity between terrestrial masses.

I've also performed the water level and the horizon does not rise to eyelevel.

And I've sighted the height of distant mountains with a theodolite and they do seem to be lower than expected and quite similar to what 8 inches per mile squared suggests for a curved earth.

So OP may actually be right.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seeking Danang's best proof of the dome
« on: March 23, 2019, 07:36:03 PM »
Dear experienced flat earthers,
Can you see the dilemma I'm in having been introduced to flat earth mere months ago when there are so many flat earthers strongly making claims like a dome and using completely shoddy evidence?
It is quite clear that entirely unproved claims are touted as well proved based on extremely faulty reasoning, maybe even complete lack of reason.
How would I or any new flat earther  correctly tell the difference between a valid honest flat-earth-proved-claim and a claim that's as bunk as those 3 given above as proofs of a dome?

This is further complicated by the fact that I personally performed the cavendish experiment, and it showed what appeared to be gravity.
Do you know how many times I've heard that terrestrial-terrestrial gravity doesn't exist?
I did the water level test at 50ft and 2240ft. The horizon does *not* rise to eyelevel at either level -- not even close, but do you know how many times I've heard that it does?
I pointed a theodolite at a 2 mile high mountain that's 87 miles away from me. It measured very close to 4810 feet too low after compensating for terrestrial atmospheric refraction. (Globe predicts 5046 missing feet, so I got an error of 236ft, or a 2% error - not bad using a vintage theodolite from 87 miles away.)
Do you know how many times I've heard that mountains appear too high on the horizon for the earth to be curved at 8 inches per mile squared?
I went to the beach and looked at a city across 20 miles of water. At around observer=15ft, I could start to see the tops of the sky scrapers. Had to get 50ft up to see whole sky scrapers -- and they are all on a hill.
Do you know how many times I've heard that you can see the beach across 20 miles of water? Not even close. Not even at observer=50 AMSL. (Above Mean(average) Sea Level)

I've asked for the best proofs of a flat earth and the best so far I've heard is "if you go to the beach and look out, it looks flat." Of course that doesn't disprove a globe either because if you do the math, even on a globe it would look flat.

Then there's major discrepancies - like the sun rising and setting not even close to where it should on a flat earth, and even the fact that it rises and sets as if it's sliding behind the horizon, and nobody can explain to me how that is even possible on a flat earth. 

Can you see why any thinking person in my situation would have a very difficult time with accepting that the earth is flat?

I'm seriously trying to give it a fair shake. I  honestly don't care what shape the earth is, whatever shape it is will be great and I'll look for ways to work that for the benefit of mankind.
But so many things disprove flat and nothing proves it as best as I can tell.

Am I just misguided or is flat earth really only a thing for people who can't honestly look at reality and perform measurements?

If I'm the type of person who really tries to find the truth, is flat earth something that just isn't gong to pan out?

It would make my friend so extremely happy if you could convince me the earth is flat. I'm trying to give it every chance. But it's obviously a rough road.

Thank you kindly for your advice.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5