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 - Vanyel

Pages: [1]
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Shadow government
« on: May 18, 2019, 01:57:10 PM »
Let's talk holding companies and venture capital. There are conglomerates out there that make nothing themselves and whose sole purpose to to own stock in other companies, and it is those companies that produce the front-of-house products that the general population gets to see and use. You never get to see or hear about any of those companies, they are the man behind the curtain, but they often have a significant say in the runnings of the companies you do hear about. Most of the time if you object to a business decision on the part of the company, then the CEO of that company is not the one to blame. Real life isn't like a movie where the CEO walks into the board room and has total control, they are at the mercy of their investors and are very limited in what they would be permitted to do, and might be made to act a certain way in the interests of those shareholders. The people with the power are the ones a layer behind the company you think you're buying from.

Corporations are the most powerful entities in the modern world. By lobbying alone they have more say in the creation of rules and laws than the average person on the street, and so those laws are created not to reflect the public interest, but the interest of those companies. What does it say when you cannot even be sure who it is that was in charge of the funding? It isn't the company, it is the company that holds the reins of the one in the public eye. Laws are made at the whim of those in the shadows, acting through shells and stock to lobby and create. The government controls nothing, it is a tool, people manipulated to do as others wish. Supposedly it is the voters but in truth it is not, it is the shadows.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Proof #2
« on: May 18, 2019, 01:48:05 PM »
Does FET change less than mainstream science?

3
Flat Earth General / Re: is the earth really flat
« on: April 15, 2019, 05:27:44 AM »
Can someone give me proof that the earth is flat my friend doesn't believe

It is easier to break the atom than to destroy the prejudice. If he doesn't believe so you can not change him. Do not deal to change him, it will be just a waste of time in your side.
If people did not change their minds under new information then we would never have moved on. Early man did not believe any of what we said, they burned people at the stake if they claimed to be able to speak to others a long distance away, or to fly, or create fire, and you cannot get any greater prejudice than that. As time moved on however that prejudice gave way and we have phones and planes and matches. All people change. If they go through the same experience as you then they will believe as you, if you can only give them that experience. It is easier for you to change our minds than it is for us to change yours, because you have already gone from being one of us to being one of you. How did that happen and how can another experience it?

4
To anyone that believes the FE model, what convinced you it is correct?

God.
How?

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / The observer effect of morality
« on: April 15, 2019, 05:22:55 AM »
The trolley problem is the single most popular example of a morality thought experiment. If a trolley was going along and it would run over four people, and you were by a lever that if you pulled it the trolley would be diverted onto a path containing one person, almost everyone would view it as a moral obligation to pull that lever and change the outcome from four people to two. By contrast, if the trolley was going down a single path and was going to run over four people, and you were on a bridge over the trolley and your one option was to push someone off that bridge to slow the trolley enough that it could stop in time, though the outcome would again go from four deaths to one, doing so is no longer viewed as a clear-cut moral obligation. Most people would not do so as it would involve taking an active role in killing that one person as opposed to the more passive pulling of a lever.
This has been studied in the field of human morality. Some use it to point out the evolutionary advantage of the psychopath, the kind of person that would not struggle to make the decision to save four rather than one even if they needed to be the one who killed, but this is not all that is examined. Why is the first situation viewed as morally better than the second? Is it just because we do not like to have blood on our hands? What is the moral difference between the two? The answer is that it brings in an uninvolved figure. There are consequences to our actions that are not as directly measured. In the first case the two trolley paths are equivalent end results, but in the second there is an additional weight to the pushing of the person off the bridge. If that is the moral answer then it is accepted that at any point, it is morally acceptable for anyone to die for the sake of a situation in which they have no stake and no involvement and no interest, and the person responsible should be praised. The result is not four lives against one but rather four lives against one life plus a subsequent climate of fear that will affect millions if not billions. Three lives are substantially smaller.

This brings up the next question. What if there were no other consequences to the second action, if it did once more come down to something as simple as four lives against one with nothing more? This is not a realistic situation, but neither is the trolley problem. If there was a way to ensure you would never be captured or found and that no one would know you or anyone was responsible for the pushing of the person of the bridge, if it was just considered an accident by all involved and there were no other consequences or attitudes affected by the act, would it then become morally acceptable? If the situation no longer has any consequences, if it is once more just a measure of four lives against one, does it simplify to the first case? Can the morality of an action depend on whether or not one is observed doing it?

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Orlando shooting, thoughts?
« on: April 15, 2019, 04:38:33 AM »
3-D printed guns are illegal. It has never been about the right to keep and bear arms, it is about the right of lobbiers to sell them to you.

7
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Why are they different?
« on: April 15, 2019, 04:35:03 AM »
I'm not even sure what curl is, that's just what happens when I click the button.

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: flat earth question
« on: April 15, 2019, 04:33:42 AM »
If the earth is flat and we don't live in a heliocentric model than how does Halley's Comet come back every 75 years  ???

We saw it for once and never will see again. You can define all celestial bodies as Halley  which not defined yet.

So in 1705 when Edmund Halley predicted that a comet(that would later be named Halley's Comet) had passed by several times before and predicted that it would return in 1758 and even what direction it would return from, he was just really amazingly lucky that a entirely new comet just happened to pass by from his predicted direction in his predicted timeframe?

Nope. events like this happen continuously, and all you have to do is say, "Halley is back" when you see one of "shooting stars". Nobody can prove or disprove you, but people will belive you since your name is NASA.
Is it the case that a shooting star can be found on any day and if so could you identify one for the next week, or is there something instead unique about being able to know when one will appear and for how long and to not be wrong?

There are some periods you can observe hundreds of shooting stars in a night. We call it as meteor shower. If you research so you can find out it, I just don't remember which time it was. I remember a time like something about winter, but I've no idea about which day it was.

Okay. I want to give you an example.

Perseid Meteor shower happens at August in every year. Globularist science defines it as 109P/Swift-Tuttle comet. How is it possible same comet visits earth in once a year. This is just a lie, like whole others.
Meteor showers and comets are not the same thing. Comets do not fall to Earth.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bible verses proving Flat Earth?
« on: April 15, 2019, 04:32:57 AM »
Matthew 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."
That is Jesus, in the Bible.
By your reasoning, why not just assume Jesus himself was a parable, rather than a real person? Why assume it is talking about things (such as what Jesus did and said) on a physical level?
If you don't want that, why assume it applies to anything in the Bible other than what Jesus says?
Who says that I do? The Bible is meant to be a lesson on how to live your life, not a painstaking account of history or science, anyone that says it describes anything outside that is seeing what they want to. Though hearing, they do not understand. They look for what it is they want to read one way or another but there is no such claim anywhere in the Bible. The Bible is a lesson. The Bible describes a role model. It does not need to serve as anything more than that, to your soul it does not matter what the shape of the Earth is. Render under Caesar what is Caesar's and let the Bible have focus on its own field. Whether Jesus walked the world in flesh and blood or only as a spiritual example caused by divine inspiration has no bearing on the quality of the lessons God teaches.

Hebrews 8:1-6 Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

10
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Why are they different?
« on: April 14, 2019, 04:56:34 PM »
No filename. I'll try reconfiguring my set-up, there's too much stuff out there for me to not keep a layer of protection up but I just wanted to bring up the issue as something weird.

11
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Why are they different?
« on: April 14, 2019, 04:43:30 PM »
The exact error I get is:

The requested resource could not be loaded. libcurl returned the error:
couldn't open file ""

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bible verses proving Flat Earth?
« on: April 14, 2019, 04:41:41 PM »
Matthew 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

The Bible was not meant to speak to us of the way things are on a physical level but rather on a spiritual, anyone who uses the Bible to tell us things about anything physical is a deceiver. We do not hear and we do not understand when the truth is spoken to us so it must be given by another direction so that we can comprehend the spirit of what is said.

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: flat earth question
« on: April 14, 2019, 04:35:37 PM »
If the earth is flat and we don't live in a heliocentric model than how does Halley's Comet come back every 75 years  ???

We saw it for once and never will see again. You can define all celestial bodies as Halley  which not defined yet.

So in 1705 when Edmund Halley predicted that a comet(that would later be named Halley's Comet) had passed by several times before and predicted that it would return in 1758 and even what direction it would return from, he was just really amazingly lucky that a entirely new comet just happened to pass by from his predicted direction in his predicted timeframe?

Nope. events like this happen continuously, and all you have to do is say, "Halley is back" when you see one of "shooting stars". Nobody can prove or disprove you, but people will belive you since your name is NASA.
Is it the case that a shooting star can be found on any day and if so could you identify one for the next week, or is there something instead unique about being able to know when one will appear and for how long and to not be wrong?

14
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Why are they different?
« on: April 14, 2019, 04:11:34 PM »
If I click 'post' for anything from a topic to a reply in a lower forum, I just get taken to a "can't connect" page. I'd understand if this was universal and would put it down to my connection, but for some reason posting works just fine in the other forums above it. There's something special about how posts work in the lower forums.

15
Suggestions & Concerns / Why are they different?
« on: April 11, 2019, 07:48:31 AM »
Is there anything that would make it possible to post in General, Q&A and Debate but for the site to wig out if I try to post in PR&S, CN, AR, Science, Lounge etc?

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Creationism
« on: April 11, 2019, 07:44:20 AM »
Creationism does not always need to invoke a God, just something able to ensure at least one self-aware being would believe they inhabited this universe. There is no reason to think that the laws we are used to, such as those of cause and effect, would apply if there is another realm that caused this one. It could also be argued that before the creation of the universe then the physical laws that rule in it, such as those that state something cannot come from nothing, would also not exist so that there would be nothing to prevent something coming from nothing. When we talk about creation then absolutely nothing that we know need apply before then. There would have to be a first cause, but that does not mean singular creator. It might do, or it might mean another universe which needed and had no first causes.

17
Flat Earth General / Re: 1 Question
« on: April 06, 2019, 10:55:36 AM »
One mass should exert an equal and opposite force on any mass that exerts a gravitational force upon it. Gravity must exert a force if it is to cause any acceleration, but the cause of that force does not allow any reaction. A mass might have a gravitational effect on another, but is it both opposite and equal? The force exerted by an object depends on its own mass and size, how great the gravitational pull exerted will be, while for another object the force it exerts is based again on its own mass and size, so two independent forces are exerted and there is nothing to make them equal, nor is there anything to make them opposite as gravity is exerted in all directions at once. When you place a feather on a table and place a cube of lead on that same table, the downwards force exerted by them each is vastly different so the reaction force, so conventional understanding goes, must also be different. The reaction force however comes from the constant surface of the table, even if you move them to one another's positions there is nothing to change what force is exerted by the table except for the downwards force attributed to gravity acting upon these two objects. The contact force then might be equal and be opposite, but is the gravitational force connecting those two? When there is no contact what acts to balance the forces?

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stars
« on: April 04, 2019, 06:21:43 PM »
Sometimes questions are dangerous to ask because the answers, if found, would too radically shift understanding. If the Earth was flat then this might be one such question. A round Earth has no glitch at this point. A flat earth struggles to justify two points existing with significance as well as counter rotation, even being able to say what does happen runs into the problem of why it would happen at all, it is like a cheetah chasing a hare from behind only for it to instead simultaneously run up and bite off its head. You cannot have both at once. Cheetahs being called the fastest land mammal is a misunderstanding of how they function, they are incredibly fast but only for short bursts, they can chase after something when it gets close and catch it but they have no real endurance. Humans were the species that evolved for that, we can walk after even prey as big as a mammoth and just never stop walking and it will tire out and stop running so that we can catch up.

19
Flat Earth General / 1 Question
« on: April 04, 2019, 06:11:39 PM »
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. For gravitation to be a force there would need to be a reaction equal in magnitude exerted by all affected mass. The theory of gravity needs a rethink.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: What about the moon?
« on: March 28, 2019, 04:27:53 PM »
Distant objects appear smaller when further away.
When viewing as a sufficient lens, an increased distance will make something seem larger whereas growing closer will make it appear to shrink.

21
Flat Earth General / Re: New to flat earthers. A question
« on: March 28, 2019, 04:26:30 PM »
It is likely that many things are a simulation of a higher order computer, the laws of the universe as observed only allow for so much to occur. The answer to many inconsistencies could be that they are not the actual rules of the universe, and they are merely a simulation meant to observe other scenarios. If this is the case then we should act as though we are not in a simulation, or else all this will be for nothing. It is a flawed system if components are capable of seeing what they're part of, it does ruin the test, but we are also intelligent enough to see what our purpose is and do it anyway.
Inconsistencies are not consistent with an artificial simulation. How do you account for this?
Inconsistencies can only exist in an artificial environment, the natural would be smooth and designed to be natural, there would be flow and each part would align with every other. Only an artificial environment, that is to say a simulation, could have any inconsistency as it would be programmed piece by piece, there would be borders or parameters that were not aligned or accounted for and glitches resulting from situations not foreseen. Only God can make a perfect system. Inconsistencies align only with an unnatural environment, that is to say a simulation. Whether we are dreamers or entities of data is uncertain.

22
Flat Earth General / What about the moon?
« on: March 27, 2019, 09:10:48 AM »
The moon has a diameter of 3474km. How does it appear so small in the sky over a flat earth?

23
The idea of many worlds being adjacent to each other on a much larger single surface is an intriguing one, reducing the universe to just one single entity, each one a brief pocket of warmth in the endless cold. It does have a certain familiarity with the modern concept of space. I can see a worry regarding to the mass required for gravity to be as comparatively weak as it is, but perhaps the ball is hollow or composed of lighter masses further down to try and make that more even, that would be one of the largest problems I can think of. Otherwise I suppose that the easiest response to your objection raised is simply that there is no such thing as the sun. I'm just now rereading and I see that you did mention the ice ball as hollow, so that does address my earlier criticism, the variation of gravity with altitude may also be of interest to you as the distance from the radius is not changing with a similar proportion to how it would on a smaller ball, so I suppose you would need to deny that it does so or use some other principle flat earthers use in general, I couldn't say what, but it does seem to defeat the purpose of this particular formulation. is it literally an ice ball and the melted areas are special, or is the ice frozen atop a hollow ball of earth, or is ice just a catch-all term for everything frozen?

24
What does GOAT mean?

25
Flat Earth General / Re: New to flat earthers. A question
« on: March 27, 2019, 08:50:54 AM »
It is likely that many things are a simulation of a higher order computer, the laws of the universe as observed only allow for so much to occur. The answer to many inconsistencies could be that they are not the actual rules of the universe, and they are merely a simulation meant to observe other scenarios. If this is the case then we should act as though we are not in a simulation, or else all this will be for nothing. It is a flawed system if components are capable of seeing what they're part of, it does ruin the test, but we are also intelligent enough to see what our purpose is and do it anyway.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Space travel cannot be faked
« on: March 27, 2019, 08:41:39 AM »
I am aware that flat earthers believe that space travel is a vast conspiracy put on by NASA and other agencies and governments, but there is too much that supports the idea. There are satellites and the ISS that can be seen from Earth, there are livestreams and videos and pictures, and of course there are the people. There are astronauts and cosmonauts and even ordinary people, from space tourists to those taken by aliens, who continually profess and swear to the fact that they were in space. Many of these people are not aligned, and particularly the latter group are wholly independent of the government so what reason would they have to lie? The simple existence of UFOs which many people can attest to and have personal, zetetic experience of makes it clear that space travel does in fact exist because how else could they make it to our world from other planets? The evidence for space travel is simply too vast and overwhelming, and the evidence for a conspiracy far too thin and lacking. Nothing could ever persuade all these people to lie so often and for so long and never let anything slip. The government agencies are not the only ones who have been to space, and many countries with terrible relationships nevertheless agree that they have achieved some degree of space travel. Mankind must have been to space, and because of this the images we have from space, universally a round earth, must be accurate.

Pages: [1]