1

Flat Earth Debate / 96% Rubbish

« on: April 18, 2016, 11:33:22 AM »

This is what the Helio-centrist model requires one to believe in order to make the theory work. We must envisage that 96% of the universe is comprised of matter that has never been seen, never captured and never analyzed. Yet the Helio-centrist question aether for which we have ample evidence in the rotation of the bodies in the celestial sphere including Luna and the Sun.

2

Flat Earth Believers / Kant, Bounded Space and the Flat Earth

« on: April 09, 2016, 06:52:27 AM »

This thread  summarizes my thinking and I "post it herefor comments, edits and discussion amongst my Flat Earth Colleagues. 

I will begin by quoting Kant who states that we can intuit nothing but through our own senses and because of this our “knowing” is secondary, not primary, and thus “we can know nothing of things themselves” but only our “sense of these things”. For example we cannot “know” light, only the optical perception of light (secondary) or the use of measuring devices (secondary, or more properly tertiary, since we cannot “know” the measuring device directly”).

Here is what Kant says on the matter:
“The certainty of all geometrical propositions and the possibility of their a priori construction, is grounded in this a priori necessity of space. Were this representation of space a concept acquired a posteriori, and derived from outer experience in general, the first principles of mathematical determination would be nothing but perceptions. They would therefore all share in the contingent character of perception that there should be only one straight line between two points would not be necessary, but only what experience always teaches. What is derived from experience... is obtained through induction. We should therefore only be able to say that, so far as hitherto observed, no space has been found which has more than three dimensions.

Take, for instance, the proposition, “Two straight lines cannot enclose a space, and with them alone no figure is possible”, and try to derive it from the concept of straight lines and of the number two. Or take the proposition, “Given three straight lines, a figure is possible”, and try, in like manner, to derive it from the concepts involved. All your labor is vain; and you find that you are constrained to have recourse to intuition, as is always done in geometry.... If the object (the triangle) were something in itself, apart from any relation to you, the subject, how could you say that what necessarily exist in you as subjective conditions for the construction of a triangle, must of necessity belong to the triangle itself?  “

Take Kant’s statement as not referring to a sphere, but referring to the surface of the Terrestrial Plane. The Terrestrial plane, not allowing for mountains and valleys, mathematically is a 2-dimensional space, and points on it only need 2 coordinates

To help see the difference, consider a straight line between London and New York. In the round earth model that straight line goes through the Earth. But if we're only have only the flat Terrestrial Earth is considering the surface of the Earth, that line doesn't exist.  In a Round earth the straight line (shortest distance between the two points) on the surface lies along the great circle. Now consider drawing the lines from both New York and London to, say, Cape Town, to make a triangle. But those lines don't exist in a Non Euclidian surface we are considering: you can only draw lines on the surface of the Earth. The angles of the triangle drawn on the surface of the Earth (in non Euclidian model) add up to more than 180 degrees. Thus in a surface that is non-Euclidian if I head 100 miles in one direction, turn 90 degree head another 100 miles, turn 90 degree and go 100 miles and do this yet one more time for 100 miles I do NOT end up at the same place. The earth is flat where-ever I look yet and however I map it, and however I measure it is flat, yet it is not flat in a Euclidian  sense.

I now offer up a important concept in the form of a quote from one of my favorite mathemeticians whom I discovered whilst roaming the dusty stacks of my University’s marvelous and three hundred year old library:

“If we can show that the denial of a proposition does not contradict the consequences of certain other propositions, we have then found a criterion of the logical independence of the proposition in question. In other words, the logical independence of this Euclidean axiom [the Parallel Postulate] of the other axioms would be proved if it could be proven that a geometry free of contradictions could be erected which differed from Euclidean geometry in the fact, and only in the fact, that in the place of the parallel axiom there stood its negation.

That is just what Gauss, Lobachevski, and Bolyai established: the possibility of erecting such a noncontradictory geometry which is different from the Euclidean.What is important to us here is this: The results of modern axiomatics are a completely clear and compelling corroboration of Kant's and Fries's assertion of the limits of logic in the field of mathematical knowledge, and they are conclusive proof of the doctrine of the "synthetic" character of the mathematical axioms. For it is proved that the negation of one axiom can lead to no contradiction even when the other axioms are introduced... And this was just the criterion that Kant had already specified for the synthetic character of a judgment: the uncontradictory character of its negation.

The scientist who says, "The only way to explain this is to show you the math," either doesn't want to explain the question, and so is brushing you off, or he cannot explain the question. If he doesn't want to explain the question, either he cannot because he doesn't actually understand it, or he is a Positivist who doesn't think that it needs to be or can ever be explained. Either way, if he seems annoyed, rude, or hostile, one's suspicions are reasonable aroused.”
Sir Leonard Nelson, "Philosophy and Axiomatics," 1927 Cambridge Press

I would like you do to the following experiment:
Walk 5 meters straight ahead and the stop.
Turn to your left, exactly 90 Degree.
Walk in the direction you just chose for 5 meters.
Then please stop and once more turn left another 90 degrees.
Thence, once more, walk once more 5 meters.
You will then turn left and the next time you walk 5 meters you will have ended whence you began.

You thus ended where you began…or did you?  This is strictly a conclusion you arrived at empirically. There is no “theoretical” reasoning required. You just completed my experiment and we (you and I) merely observed the results. Yet just because you experienced it does not mean that what you, and I, observed is scientifically based. In matter of fact the small experiment we just engaged in (you as both subject and observer and yours truly as an observer) proves nothing. The fact is precise measurements would prove that our little grand experiment would show that you did NOT arrive precisely at the same spot.

The archaics (rightly) observed a plane, say a table, as the archetype of flat object and then observed that the Terrestrial Plane (surface of the Earth) was also flat. Both the table and the Terrestrial plan are two-dimensional, but Einstein noted flatness and curviness apparently make sense in any number of dimensions.

Lets set the the above aside for a moment just as we might set aside stewed figs as we prepare a nice pudding. We will use this concept in just a moment but it is important to set that out first.

So lets now turn to what is flat. Helio-centrists say that the “Universe” and space outside Earth is supposed to be flat. I don’t disagree with them, or agree, because whatever exists outside the firmament is “unknowable”. Flat Earth Theorists asking what is outside the firmament  question is akin to to asking a Rounder “What existed before the Big bang”? But none the less helio-centrists posit the universe is as “flat as a pancake”.

Now to be fair they do not say that this (fictional) "Spacetime" is flat, but apply this only to space, that exists only RIGHT now. Not in the future, but NOW (and according to these muddled thinkers) and in the past (the "past" associated with the "now").We must get that helio concept RIGHT- for a helio Space (the nowverse) and space time, are two DIFFERING things.

But a hello-centrist will say that Einstein's theory does not allow for “space” to be flat because this energy , and all this matter (in the unknowable and fictional helio-model) curves spacetime (note I do not agree with this but bear with me).  And they might say “well without the curve of space time we are all just flying around because gravity (Helio-majik bye the way) keeps us in place.”

But now we get to the nub of this knot whereby the helio-centrists and a few of us (and advanced) Flat Earth Theorists do agree. When they, the helio-centrists speak of the universe (which I posit is unobservable since we cannot see past the firmament) they are speaking of a gigantic universe and we (Flat Earth Theorists) speak of the Terrestrial Plane we are referring to a smaller one, much smaller, and I mean this mathematically speaking in this context. Please hold onto to this thought because we will refer back to this concept soon enough.

Now please carefully note that I have never posited NASA as a fraud organization doing nothing. They are doing something, just not what it appears or what they are telling us. They are scientific, but like MI6, or the YANK's NSA they surround the truth with a body guard of lies. With that aside NASA completed an experiment called Gravity Probe B which took a direct measure measurement of the area immediately surrounding earth and they found that space, despites bumps and ridges… flat. Not spacetime, mind you, but space, the “Nowverse”.

Now, if the Flat Earth terrestrial plane has three coordinates (left, right and up) we must assume (mathematically, not empirically, you will note) that we could increase those coordinates to any value as large as we might wish them to be in a mathematical equation. Thus if I wanted to travel (mathematically) a billion billion miles what would stop me (theoretically)? But now we will mix both the empirical and theoretical. We “know” (empirically) this is not true; that I cannot go upwards 600 Billion Billion Billion Billion to infinity miles.  Why is this? Well mathematically there must be a theoretical boundary that keeps me from doing so (theoretically) that then matches empircally what we “know” (with all its Kantian limitations). Please note that I am referring to the flat earth here- but if one were misled into believing the helio-centric model one would understand that the same  thought process would apply.

Thus, even though the misled heliocentrists think “space” is infinite, it does not mean that one could go on mathematically in their model “Forever”.  This galactic space (for lack of a better term) is bounded mathematically. Remember my little bowl of stewed figs we set aside in the fourth paragraph regarding flatness? We will now use it. Einstein noted flatness and curviness apparently make sense in any number of dimensions. What applies (mathematically) to Einstein’s “space” applies to the Terrestrial plane as well. Note I have never said Einstein was “Wrong” about the nature of the physical universe outside the firmament, I have simply said we cannot “know” it nor can we know the physical laws that are postulated cannot apply since we cannot observe anything past the firmament.

In the helio-centric model one could fly out into “space”, by  taking the time and speed variables to almost infinitely large numbers (theoretically) and finally  one would arrive back at the same place. This is because the Space (not spacetime) is flat as a pancake, in their model, and that is because it is bounded and a person so traveling would finally “appear” in the same spot that they started.

It is now important to know that we have established that the “now verse” (meaning here and now) of Einstein’s model allows for this. No time, only space, and again I am speaking mathematically. Now let us apply the same model to the Terrestrial Plane. But wait, a helio might argue,  “Einstein’s universe is so huge, and at such a grand scale, that it allows for the boundary and an apparent “curved universe” to appear flat... Yet the you admit the Terrestrial Plane is small, much much smaller than our (Helio-model of the) universe so your thinking is wrong.”

And the helio making this argument would be correct.

But NOW I take you back to Kant’s observation. If we now adjust the “Boundary” of the non Euclidian space to a very LARGE number (much larger than is needed for the “theoretical universe of Einstein) for the Flat Earth we would see the same phenomena as the helio-centrist posit for the “universe” and the gigantic size of the plane (in this case the Terrestrial Plane) is no longer needed.

You will recall that I started (at least in the thread above)  with quotes proving that our empirical observations are just that. That we cannot “know” anything directly and that thus, our conclusions about the universe or in this case the Terrestrial Plane are the intersection of our empirical observations (secondary) and our theories (many using math) that confirm them or help us "intuit" reality (in the Kantian definition). One might argue “this makes no sense” but that argument of "sense" is of no consequence as we have seen from Kant. Rather the conclusion of the non-euclidean bounded terrestrial plane is mathematically possible and  can be made to tie with our empirical observations which is "we can arrive in near the same spot" if we take flight in one direction.

You might object that not all helio-centrists believe that Einsteins’s version of universe is finite and thus this model applied to the flat earth is therefore not correct. But theoretically someone (mathematically) can show that that hello-model of the space universe (the now verse) is finite, or infinite, depending on the boundary value. Such is true with a bounded terrestrial plane. Einstein, when he first developed his theory said the universe was finite based on his philosophy, not science. That is important to note! He used RELIGION, or at least a mystically based intuition to derive at the finite universe or now verse.

Here is something for the hello-centrists and their  ilk to think upon when they discuss all their supposed  observations of distant galaxies and starts (which I disagree with):

Let us assume that the firmament (as I posit) does not exist. And let us posit the Earth is a spinning ball in a solar system that is but an almost infinite number of solar systems in a galaxy that is but one in an almost infinite number of galaxies. But if that is true the light from a portion of the observable universe the helio-centrists are recording is 10-15 billions of years old, since according to their own theory the universe is at least that old. But according to the theory of space time it is not part of the “Now verse” since it is billions of years old it does not “exists” in our current “now verse” of space time and can tell us NOTHING (since it is not part of our NOW Verse but only of a past universe) about anything. The best we could say is that “Billions of years ago this or that happened with these laws” but nothing else.  I wish Round Earth theorists would consider this and other problems with their model and observations

Of course the helio-model is poppy cock. The Firmament is dense aether with either objects caught in it from the ever accelerating Terrestrial Plane and Celestial Sphere, or place there. And the terrestrial plane is bounded non Euclidian Space.  Einstein was a dreamy mystic.

Respectfully Submitted By Sir Richard this 9th Day of April in the Year of our Lord 2016

3

Flat Earth Debate / The Earth is Flat just as the hello-centrists say the universe is Flat

« on: April 06, 2016, 02:07:59 PM »

After an invigorating, and most relaxing, week at my humble cottage in the Hebrides, where thankfully there is little mobile reception, and, unthankfully no wifi available, I am once again at repose in the second most beautiful spot on Earth that being, of course the enclave of Cornwall (the Hebrides by far out pacing any other place on this lovely flat earth in terms of beauty and a place for reflection). Cornwall is, of course, the most beneficit of places, with a rather warm clime due to the Gulf Stream and it countryside dotted plants that will take root here but refuse to take root elsewhere in the Isles. If you visit our fair Isle and do not visit Cornwall you will have missed the Jewel in the Crownof Her Majesty's Empire!

Now back to our fair forum and the topic at hand : I cannot understand, for the life of me, why anyone would believe the Earth is a spinning globe when all our common senses and experiences tell us that is is indeed flat. In addition there is a vast amount of scientific data that shows that the flat earth theory is the only tenable one.

Case in point is this: I came upon this article in the journal Scientific American Magazine (available now through the Google Application for free it seems) that demonstrates that the Helio-centrists believe the Universe flat. Yet they cannot believe that the Earth is flat. Odd thinking, I dare say. This same non-euclidean geometry explains why the satellites track such strange paths relative to the terrestrial plane (since the terrestrial plane is non Euclidian and the Celestial is Euclidean).

Thus we have universal acceleration, the aether holding and moving the objects in the Celestial Sphere (including satellites), the firmament being the densest portion (and most exterior) of aether providing a protective shell for our fair earth. The earth is flat just as the Helio-centrists state the Universe is flat.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/degrees-of-freedom/httpblogsscientificamericancomdegrees-of-freedom20110725what-do-you-mean-the-universe-is-flat-part-i/

4

Flat Earth Debate / Fermi Proves the Flat Earth Theory

« on: March 30, 2016, 03:06:24 PM »

The Helio- Centric model, with its billions of galaxies and trillions of planets was theoretically challenged by a simple question asked  by a very famous helio centrist. This question actually strikes right at the heart of the "helio" argument of millions of galaxies and billions of planets and the chance that some would be inhabited. Drakes calculation shows that we would expect millions of inhabited planets with a vast number on planets that are, according to this theory, millions or billions of years older than ours.

But the profound question from Fermi put "lie" to this billions of planets, of which several million we would expect to be inhabited (some, according to the helio-centrist that are 2-3 billion years older than our own and would have very very advanced civilizations, or so these calculations would show).

Here is Fermis' simple yet penetrating question "Where is everybody?"

If the universe was billions of years old, with billions of planet, a very small percentage of which would be inhabited, with a smaller percentage developing civilization, and then being a billion years more advanced than us,-would have already been contacted us (This according to Drakes calculation- through the use of self replicating mechanical robotic beings). But we have not been contacted. Yet we should have, In fact when we first awoke into intelligence Drakes calculations say that we should have faced robotic mechanisms from an advanced civilization.
But we see no evidence for this.
Therefore there ARE no other inhabited planets. But since Drakes equations argues that IF there were billions of planets there would be millions of civilizations, many millions of years older than ours, and since there are not, the "where is everybody?" question can be simply answered "They are nowhere." Therefore number of other planets must be ZERO as must be star systems like Sol. Otherwise "everybody" would be visible to us right now.
Thus Fermi's paradox proves the flat earth theory- we are unique and alone.

5

Flat Earth General / Well this is a very very fine evening for us FE Theorists on this fair forum.

« on: March 30, 2016, 01:16:13 PM »

For the last three weeks or so much of the FE side of the debate, and "Q&A" have been answered by the trio of Mr. Davis, Mr./Mrs./Ms./Father/Mother Superior JROA and myself. Thank fully some brethren who also adhere to the Flat Earth Theory are again visiting this fair site and bolstering our number. This is a most wonderful occurrence and I am heartily cheered by this. For a fair portion of the last month the hello-centrist out ranked the Flat Earth Theorist as ten is in proportion to one.

6

Flat Earth General / A model for Flat Earth Conspiracy Thinking

« on: March 24, 2016, 08:29:17 AM »

Introduction
During recent exchanges I have been accused of believing in some grand conspiracy involving everything from the Illuminati, to Free Masonry, tracing all the way back to Plato distorting the works of many archaics (including Aristotle). I do not hold to this belief but I certainly understand why I might be accused of this.


The risk I take with this effort is the accusation of dealing in generalizations, which is actually not a risk since I do gladly admit to it. 

Thesis & Purpose
I posit that Flat Earth Theorists can be grouped into two main camps regarding the "conspiracy" that must exist, in some form, in flat earth theory. I think that this generalization will assist those who currently believe in a hello-centric model (but whom I pray will see the truth of the flat earth theory) in their understanding of how flat earth theorist may think . Perhaps, also, it will also have the affect of causing my fellow theorists to consider their view of the "conspiracy".

Caveat
I will again note that this is a generalization and will NOT necessarily reflect the thinking of an individual flat earth theorist. Secondly the observations are based on my own extensive readings (via books) over the years and my most recent (and informative) forays onto the web through the Google application.

An analogy
As a member of a dissenting Church I will take a risk and use an analogy involving the Church of England (COE). Most are aware there are at least (yes there are other) two major divisions within the COE- "High Church" and "Low Church".

For those not aware "Low church" denotes the church's simplicity in the manner of services, and "high church" denotes an emphasis on more complex rituals and eschatology.

Hypothesis
I submit there are main two camps of conspiracists in the Flat Earth Theorists groups. Although there there are many distinct variations in conspiracy there are in essence two groups of Flat Earth Theorists- "Low" and "High" Conspiracists". I submit that the thinking of flat earth theorists via the conspiracy affects their views of the flat earth. I also submit that hello-centrist make (sometimes unwarranted) assumptions about the type and depth of conspiracy thinking amongst their opponents during idea exchanges.

Low Conspiracists
The "low conspiracists" (like yours truly) do not hold to an over - arching multi century conspiracy with a central guiding force. One may, instead think of it as a "Conspiracy of Dunces". In this model the errors and political conniving over the years have multiplied to create the hello-centric view. Much like the "old fashioned QWERTY keyboard"  hello-centric thinking is so ingrained in science, and there has been so much "sunk costs" of intellectual activity that it is an immovable force. The pre-supposition of the helio-centric model (by which I mean that every experiment and phenomena is explained through the lenses of the world must be a spinning ball) reinforces this "Fact" and the belief in such continues to reinforce this belief in a continuous feedback loop. Additionally plain human nature of jealousy of idea and position also contribute to this loop.

For example Newton's ideas were suppressed (well on 75% of them) and his ideas on aether and force twisted not through some gigantic central plot, but through  jealousy of position, and pride. In regard to Newton's "true ideas"  one must look to the actions Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz ,George Berkeley, and Ernest Mach to name a few. Newton's original work did not agree with their models exactly so they worked (for their own reasons, none more nefarious other than being self serving) to change and distort his ideas and to, ultimately suppress his works.

NASA, ESA, Roscosmos and other agencies are not engaged in a "take over the world and suppress the people" conspiracy. Rather their approach, and mode, is much like MI6 (and in the US like the NSA) in that their secrecy is part of an effort to protect the citizenry from dangerous events and acts. As society and technology have developed these agencies have developed to protect us from ourselves. What is the danger? One easy to articulate is that of falling off the edge. But a more frightening issue may be at stake. Flat Earth Theorists realize how subtle and elegant are the mechanism of the terrestrial plane and the celestial sphere. Tinkering with this mechanism (which may have already occurred) could result in a disaster to this marvelous mechanism and the death of all life as we know it. It may well be that global warming is due to some interference by man in the celestial sphere for example.

High Conspiracists
Where as High Conspiracists believe (and again I generalize realizing that there are many variations of this group exist) that there is an over-arching conspiracy to protect the power of the ultimate ruling class. This conspiracy can involve "shadow groups that stretch back to the Greek Archaics, the move of the Papal Capitol to Avignon, and also tie in with grand banking conspiracies that pull the strings on other puppets including representative governments, the United Nations, the Banking Systems and the use of the educational and science institutions to "brain wash" the masses into acceptance of this false reality, one aspect of which is the reinforcement of the hello-centric theory. The hello-centric theory is important because it displaces God with an arbitrary and man made system of ethics. This key feature allows the "ruling elite" to reinforce the belief that "what ever man desires to do is right" and thus when the strings are pulled by the elite ,say using representative government ( which is owned lock, stock and barrel by the elite), the elite can say "But you the electorate decided this and what man decides is right since we are not governed by some mythical God that exists in a flat earth reality"

Summary

The low model involves a "conspiracy of dunces" and a series of minor and small conspiracies that have hidden the truth due to massive intellectual and ego investment in the hello-centric model. In addition, as society has expanded, and technology has matured, governments, in order to protect their populace, have developed mechanisms to protect them from wandering off the edge of the earth, or more frighteningly, from interfering with what is a very complex and subtle flat earth mechanism (perhaps ending the system and killing all life).

Whereas  we see in the high model that:
*There is a conspiracy by the "Same" ruling elite (and the progeny) over centuries
*The aim is similar to that created by Orwell in "1984"
*The conspiracy reaches into many institutions, and in fact, these institutions (banking, educational, research etc) are crucial to the propagation of the power of the ruling elite
* As society has grown more complex the required mechanisms of the conspiracy have grown with it
* The Flat Earth Theory and repression of such for a Helio-Centric conspiracy is but one aspect of this "Grand Conspiracy" but none the less important to its ends, since it makes way for an atheistic culture that says "what man decides is correct"and this allows the ruling elite, through the manipulation (or down right owning) of the democratic process, to make decisions without regard to an external, eternal ethos that could check their power.
*This does NOT mean that everyone (or even a small minority) of hello-centrists are part of the conspiracy- in fact the beauty of the conspiracy is that it is invisible to virtually all but a few. One can think of hello-centrists as 'useful idiots" to coin a phrase used by Vladimir Lenin.

As I wrote I am a "low conspiracist".

It is my hope that this will help both helio- centrists and flat earth theorists.

Respectfully submitted to this forum on this 24th Day of March in the Year of Our Lord 2016

7

Flat Earth Debate / A question for Flat Earth Theorists

« on: March 22, 2016, 06:05:16 AM »

I was perusing my notes from Simplicus' famous commentary on Aristotle's  "Physica Auscultation" last eve and was struck by this passage whereby Aristotle quotes Achelaus on the subject of the shape of the earth:

"Non ego , quod ad solis aspectum definito tempore sollicite in omni loco . Ex quo potest accipi quod observatio est pronus in terram , ut dicitur. Sed altius a terra concava concavum utiliora ut Sol in medio ponere observari tempora diversa".

My translation:
"The setting of the the sun appears at specific moment of time to do differs depending on the place of the observer . From this it can be understood that the observance of the differences in the sun setting and rising, so that it is said can tbe explained by the earth being not flat but concavity causing these observations of changes in the time sun setting and rising."

Aristotle's following commentary seems to give his support to a concave earth (a plane but tending towards a central concavity).

I am interested in the thinking of Flat Theorist's regarding the earth being concave to some degree.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Polling Results- Why Respondents visit and write on the forum

« on: March 22, 2016, 04:47:14 AM »

The poll I self commissioned yester-week has now closed and the results are shown below.

There were a number of comments written in the "replies" to the poll  or what I term "write in" poll responses. I have included such in the poll results which I find of no small import to this poll and study.

The validity of the poll can certainly be questioned since the poll had 24 participants and I cannot know for certainty how many visitors this fair forum has on a weekly basis. In addition I cannot know for certain whether those responding to the poll are being truthful in the reasons given for writing and visiting the forum. In addition it must be noted that this poll was open for one week in March 2016 and thus may not be representative the responses that might be given during a longer period of time, or a differing time of the year. Finally the poll allowed only one response, whilst it is possible, given the vagaries of human nature, that there is more than one reason why a person may visit the forum. None the less I will provide analysis and commentary below even given the limitations noted above.

Below is the data from the poll. Afterwards I will provide a feeble attempt at analysis of those who post and why.

Here are the results
It is great fun and I get great joy in" trolling" the helio-centric theorists There were no respondents who provided this answer.

It is great fun and I get great joy in "trolling" the flat earth theorists Three (3) responders out of 24 provided this answer (or ~ 12%)

I am searching for knowledge and I hope to learn something new regarding the universe. Six (6) responders out of 24 provided this answer (or 25%)

I am earnestly trying to convince the deluded and misguided helio-centric theorists One (1) responder out of 24 provided this answer (or~1%)

I am earnestly trying to convince the deluded and misguided flat earth theorists Eight ( 8 ) responders out of 24 provided this answer (33%)

I don't really care about convincing anyone I use the forum to practice my debating skills Six (6) (or 25%) of responders wrote this, or a similar response. in their comments and indicated that they had not voted in the poll since this choice was not available.

I want to be, on the  occasion of visiting this forum, male genitalia. One (1) responder wrote this in their comments and indicated they they had not voted in the poll since this choice was not available.

Analysis
Despite the limitations of the poll, as discussed above, I shall now proceed to use the above data to derive conclusions.

Flat Earth Theorists are not interested in antagonizing non flat  theory believers (0% responded in this way). We can safely say that his forum is not being used as an intellectual "trap" to fool otherwise unsuspecting people into a debate for the entertainment value of such a debate.

A small number of Helio-Centrists (12%) view the forum as a place to antagonize flat earth theorists and use the poll only for this purpose. Such a purpose is known as "Trolling" in the vernacular meaning that one's posting and replies are intended simply to evoke a negative reaction and emotion in the person that one engages with in a debate or exchange.

A very small number of Flat Earth Theorists harbour the belief that by posting on this forum they can convince those visiting the forum of the validity of the Flat Earth theory (1 responder or 4% responded in this manner). Thus we can safely say that the forum is not viewed as a recruiting method to turn visitors into Flat Earth Theorists. We may deduce that most Flat Earth Theorist think that being convinced of the Flat Earth Theory occurs in some other setting.

A sizable minority of responders responded that this forum is a place whereby they hope to learn something new about the universe (6 responders or 24%). The poll was not designed to determine the percentage of these responders who are Flat Earth Theorists, Helio-Centrists, or agnostic about such. But it is apparent, given this poll result that the forum is viewed as a place to exchange ideas and to learn from one's fellow beings.

A larger minority (8 responders out of 24 or 33%) are Helio-Centric Theorists who believe the forum can be used to argue the Flat Earth Theorists out of their positions and convince them of the Helio-Centric Model.

A sizable minority (6 responders or 24%) give not a whit whether they learn anything new or not, could care less about what the opposition believes, excepting the fact that it provides a fair place to improve the debating skills of the responder.

Finally, one poor soul, probably in need of a visit to a mental institution, responded that he/she thought the forum was a place whereby they could become, for a brief moment, male genitalia. Thus the forum does attract those people who may be prone to Freudian sexual fantasies that perhaps originate, as Freud hypothesized, during the trauma of birth.

In summary most forum visitors do not believe that they can change anyone's mind on the subject (especially those who hold to the theory of the Flat Earth). From the responder's view point the forum is a most useful to try to exchange ideas, to learn about the universe or improving one's debating skills or perhaps, to convince a Flat Earth Theorist about the errors of ones ways.

Respectfully submitted to the Forum the 22 Day of March in the Year of Our Lord 2016

Sir Richard

Note edited to correct the sentence "A larger minority (8 responders out of 24 or 33%) are Helio-Centric Theorists..." which was written incorrectly.

9

Technical Support / RESOLVED: Technical Help Please- not directly related to the debate

« on: March 21, 2016, 12:42:59 PM »

I have now scanned photos from my recent air trip from my Scanner (new) to my computer with assistance from my daughter. I bid her good night and then clicked on the button that says "attachments and other options".
 
The site then directed me to a "browse" button. Well it then took me about 20 minutes to determine what I must do next but I soon realized that I  simply had to scroll down and then "click" on the file where-by the  scans of my photographs had been saved.  I believe what I have written  thus far this is the correct procedure to allow viewing of photographs.

However when I went to "upload" my photographs onto this fair site (or at least my message) I was then directed to a differing web site that requires me to provide my email and a password This makes no sense to me and I think that this is one of these fraudulent websites my daughter warned me about that, in the end, will ask me for a credit card, or my bank account number and separate me from my money.

I have two photos I would like show this forum both of which were taken from my recent trip on British Airways. One of the photos clearly shows the moon in phase which demonstrate what Turkish contributor has hypothesized and that could simply not happen if the earth orbited the sun
The second clearly shows a flat horizon and thus is proof the earth is flat.

I also tried to capture the Sun as we flew eastwards at high-speed towards it but the glare washed out the photographs.

Could anyone help me with this? If you are a moderator I would be happy to send you the photographs via my personal email which could be placed, as a reply, from one who knows how to upload these photographs, under my "short trip" thread.

Thank you for your patience.

Richard

10

Flat Earth Debate / A poll to test my (still private) theory about why people use this forum

« on: March 18, 2016, 07:16:44 AM »

I am putting this poll up to test my still "private theory" of why users enroll, post and read this forum. I give you my sincere and hearty thanks for participating in this small experiment.

11

Flat Earth Debate / A short trip and confirmation

« on: March 18, 2016, 04:43:51 AM »

Finding Cornwall the most benevolent, and scenic, place On this fair disc I rarely have pause to  travel, other than to London for the occasional research foray to the Imperial Museum or British Library. However This week as I near three score and ten I have the most pleasurable reason to travel to Paris to visit my heir, and brand new grandson.

  Being forced to choose between three Devils; the Chunnel (Dear God in Heaven), the Ferry (I am prone to sea sickness), or that of flight; I chose the latter. Flight appealed to me since I could use the opportunity, barring foul weather, to make observations to further the discussions on this fair board. It has been some time since I flew British Airways (the idea of flying one of those dreadful discount airlines or Heaven help me Air France was never a choice) and I am certain it is still the finest airWay in The world but it's service has declined ever since the Name change from Imperial Airlines, to BOAC, to its present moniker.

Whilst in flight I, with my handy pair of binoculars procured from
Prismatics by my father, proceeded to observe the Horizon and the sun. I will attach photographs once I have them back from the developer and can scan them in using my new Hewlitt Packard printer- scanner which was a gift from my daughter and installed by her (and she will more likely be the best candidate to scan such).

First the sun changed size as we flew eastward from London towards the new early morning sun. It appeared larger as we flew eastwards which indicates that it is closer than imagined by the round earth theorists. 

Second in carefully observing the horizon there was virtually no bend or curve that could not be explained by the refractory effect of aether as predicted by Newton.

Third distant objects (in this case being the coast of France) arose into view as one from the midst (meaning in a short time) as also predicted by the refraction of light by aether.

Finally, although the earth is not as flat as a pancake (owing to ridges and valleys) it is none the less flat and my careful observation proved this. All of these observations point to a flat disc of an earth not a round spinning globe. Further more the phase of the moon was clearly visible which it could not have been, as shown by our new Turkish contributor, were the Sun, Earth and Moon configured as the round earthers wouldst have us believe.

So with this trip (my first out of Britain in almost 40 years) I accomplished two important tasks.

First I was able to see my grandson with my eyes and second I was able to confirm, through careful high altitude observation that my studies of the last 30 years are indeed correct. The earth is flat and the sun is indeed just over 32 miles in diameter moving about it appointed track in the celestial sphere.

12

Flat Earth Debate / My Journey

« on: March 15, 2016, 05:30:37 AM »

My journey to the Flat Earth

Our human frailty displays most itself vituperatively when we are confronted with ideas that contradict those closely beliefs that we have invested our lives in. This frailty is on display daily at the Flat Earth Society Forum as helio-centrists storm and rant at those who dare challenge mainstream academia. One question that seem to be asked over and over is “how can you believe such (expletive deleted)?” Although I am certain that this question is merely rhetorical for most I am going to attempt to answer it for the minority who are sincerely interested in how one makes the journey form helio-centrist ( a “helio”) to a flat earther (a “FE”). Perhaps this will assist those who earnestly desire to break off the shackles of ignorance and see the world as it truly is!

   Based on what is admittedly a small sample size of comments I have inferred that most “helios” (as I will refer to those who think the earth orbits the sun) believe that Flat Earthers (Fes) are uneducated and ignorant. This indeed may be true- since I have no way of really knowing the bonafides of those FEs on the board, or elsewhere, (other than those who have published their views and their true identities). I want to make it clear that educated, and uneducated, people can be wrong headed or geniuses in equal proportion. Bill Gates is an uneducated (formally) genius who dropped out of Harvard. So education is no guarantor of either genius or stupidity; to be clear.

   My maternal grandfather, born in Wales, was a mining engineer, having passed his technical licensure (including a surveyor’s license) just after the Great War. Whilst working in a mine he developed, and patented, an improved method for sorting coal at the tipple and subsequently founded a company that manufactured such improved equipment. Because of this my mother grew up in much improved circumstances. But although the family's new found wealth improved their conditions they remained stolidly middle class.

    My mother, an early beneficiary of the 1944 Educational Act, was one of the first females to attend her public school (public school is the opposite of what is meant in North America) under a quota system established at this school, and others. My father’s father was a Civil Engineer who worked for a large construction company, which, amongst other things, built some of the last great shipyards in Glasgow. My parent’s marriage, and her family’s relative wealth, established the financial wherewithal to send my siblings (and me) to public school. Thus I was fortunate enough to attend a public school- and although interested in literature and the law, being a child of my father was sent from public school, after graduation, to matriculate for  engineering degree at the University of Strathclyde.

   There I took the normal curriculum for technical studies including organic and inorganic chemistry, calculus, physics (including electricity and magnetism courses), mechanics, basic electrical engineering course, thermo-dynamics, structures, soils, surveying (including learning how to “shoot Polaris” at night for bearings), and other courses. I also loaded up on history and literature for my electives as much as I could- for this was my real love. Once out  of university (having graduated) I worked for a while with a large energy company but my heart was not in engineering. Thus I returned to school and completed the course requirements in humanities to allowed me to take the BPTC and and from there I completed my pupilage to become a Barrister. I am old enough so that Latin and logic were still required at the public school I attended and this helped me immensely during my preparation for admission to the Bar Council. In fact I would say that my private reading and public school education made all this very easy when compared to the difficult course work required to earn my engineering degree.
   
       During my course of studies at University I took no greater joy than spending hours of my free time amongst the stacks at the Library. Second only to girls this was my passion.  I would roam the dusty stacks in my spare time (between studies) reading and browsing books- especially those from the 17th and 18th century (and those written in Latin). My University, although not amongst the oldest in Great Britain, is still ancient by most measures. I found my self fascinated by obscure works written by the Scholastics and I soon realized that their world view was completely antithetical to those of the modern world (this modern world being 1964 ).  One incident that occurred the summer of 1964 is burned in my memory. I was in my maternal Grandfather’s study sitting in a leather arm chair discussing the ideas of the philosopher and lexicographer, Samuel Johnson, one afternoon. I can still remember the sun light streaming through the old fashioned wooden blinds of the windows and lighting up the dust particles in a warm glow. My Grandfather (Great Papa to me) gave me a quizzical look and said, right out of the blue, “You do KNOW that the earth is NOT a globe, Richard?”

   I actually had no response to that unprovoked question other than thinking “well the old gentleman is in his dotage and his brain has finally untracked itself”. But he rummaged amongst the stacks of books littering his desk, and the floor beside it, and handed me a well worn green leather bound book with the title “The Earth is Not a Globe”. “Here”, he said, pushing it towards me, “read this and think upon what it says and it will place your engineering studies in an entire new light.”

   I wish I could say that I read it immediately- but being young and foolish I did not. It lingered on my bookshelf for a number of years- until one day after I had been accepted to the bar, about a year after my grandfather’s death. I had been thinking about the old man and saw the book sitting in a nook in my study and I begin reading it. It aligned perfectly with ideas that had been swimming in my head, just out of sight, doubts and other interpretation of the phenomena and engineering principles I had studied in school.

Although my professional life was becoming ever busier, I begin studying the matter at night and on the weekends- bringing out my old texts from university days to compare the two. I found myself taking long weekend trips to London to read books, long since forgotten by the present day, written by the scholastics as well as summaries of the great Greek Natural Philosophers. The more I read the more I became convinced that the helio-centric theory became predominate not because of science but because of politics and religious prejudice. It was a tool to further the power and careers of those that backed it. No more and no less. That does not make those who backed Copernicus evil only human. It became evident that the more I studied the pre- Copernicus theories the more I became convinced that those theories were correct.

   I started a helio-centrist- but I became, through study and keeping an open mind, and guarding against my own prejudice, have ended as flat earth theorist.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Proof that Sir Isaac Newton was co-opted

« on: March 12, 2016, 03:58:00 PM »

Here are excerpts from paper buried by the Royal Society
It is true without lying, certain and most true. That which is Below is like that which is Above and that which is Above is like that which is Below to do the miracles of the Only Thing. And as all things have been and arose from One by the mediation of One, so all things have their birth from this One Thing by adaptation. The Sun is its father; the Moon its mother; the Wind hath carried it in its belly; the Earth is its nurse. The father of all perfection in the whole world is here. Its force or power is entire if it be converted into Earth. Separate the Earth from the Fire, the subtle from the gross, sweetly with great industry. It ascends from the Earth to the Heavens and again it descends to the Earth and receives the force of things superior and inferior. By this means you shall have the glory of the whole world and thereby all obscurity shall fly from you. Its force is above all force, for it vanquishes every subtle thing and penetrates every solid thing. So was the world created. From this are and do come admirable adaptations, whereof the process is here in this. Hence am I called Hermes Trismegistus, having the three parts of the philosophy of the whole world. That which I have said of the operation of the Sun is accomplished and ended.  "Translation of the Emerald Tablet"- From Papers stored by the Royal Society deemed to "controversial" to be published

In plain language- Newton REFUTES the heliocentric theory rather showing the "interdependence" of the Sun, Moon and Earth- and speaks of the wind above and below (this being the aether in the celestial sphere and the quintessence of the terrestrial plane. Thus we see that Newton did not originally intend to support the heliocentric model- but rather simply to explain the physics of the terrestrial plane.

14

Flat Earth Debate / 10 Proofs Beyond Refutation That the Earth is Flat and Why ISS is a HOAX

« on: March 11, 2016, 01:04:19 PM »

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

15

Flat Earth Debate / The Coriolis Effect is real... but not for the reasons the "rounders" think

« on: March 11, 2016, 07:48:03 AM »

"Round ers" fail to realize that they start their explanations with a pre-supposition "the earth is round" and therefore their usually false conclusions are due to their faulty pre-supposition.
The Coriolis Effect is measured and is real. But the phenomena has nothing to do with the ridiculously high velocity of a spinning globe. Rather it is the affect of the aether (or more precisely the terrestrial quintessence) the presence of which was foreshadowed in the writings Aristotle.

The Coriolis Effect is a phenomena that is attributed to a "rotation" of a spherical planet for which there is scant real evidence. There is a much simpler explanation to this "Coriolis" affect than a hypothetical planetary rotation.  And that is the aforementioned  presence of quintessence on the terrestrial plane.

We know that Isaac Newton, in his "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (the Principia)", based all the motions of objects (terrestrial and celestial) on their passage through an invisible, but none the less real, substance scientists call aether. Dr. Rubio Spurlowne, renowned philosopher and alchemist said "aether is no less real, and no less invisible, than wind."

"The most translucent of elements is called by the name of aether (or ether)" Plato quoted the Greek philosopher Timaeus.

As mentioned Aristotle did not incorporate aether into his learned four elements theory but he did recognize that the first element, located in the "nether" regions (meaning celestial), moved in a circular motion and had characteristics "differing from those of terrestrial elements".

Thus he described what we now know of as aether. Later scientists added to Aristotle's four elements being that of aether which was " neither hot, nor cold, nor wet, or dry."

The argument that generated much controversy amongst the scholastic school was whether aether was differentiated in substance and characteristic from quintessence. It was noted in careful experiments, using the proboscis of mated Ceylonese giant dragon flies, that quintessence was similar in characteristics to aether, yet little of it existed in the terrestrial spheres. By comparing the weight of mated Ceylonese giant dragon fly proboscis to that of normal unmated English dragon flies (but south of the equator) it was shown that slight variations in the drift of the two samples, in a close to absolute vacuum, varied in an inverse proportion to their weight. This is the opposite of what would be expected using Aristotle's dictum that "a body in motion desires to stay in motion." This difference (in drift) could only be explained by a difference in some other substance that was identical in characteristic to aether. This experiment confirmed the existence of aether, which is identical to quintessence (although in far larger density in the celestial realm) which had been posited by the natural philosopher Lullius.

Aether then is the same substance as quintessence (or has the same properties) but occurs in much higher concentrations in terrestrial vs celestial spheres. None the less the affects are the same in both but lessened in the terrestrial plane.  Quintessence moves, like aether, only in a circular formation but relative only to the celestial plane. As sound travels through water so light travels through quintessence in the terrestrial plan, or as does any other object in the celestial sphere.

We know that like aether, quintessence also moves in circular motions relative to the celestial plan. Thus the parsimonious explanation of the Coriolis Effect is the affect of the circular motion of quintessence on objects moving at great speed in the terrestrial plane. In the celestial sphere, where aether (think of aether as concentrated quintessence) the affect is much much greater- hence the circular movement of the sun and moon and the moving celestial objects such as comets.