The Conspiracy

There is a conspiracy, however it is a conspiracy of people whom have spent so much time and effort persuing an untrue hypothesis that they try to create evidence. That's right, EnAG and other such literature is part of a large conspiracy to make people believe the Earth is flat when it is actually round. The reasons for this conspiracy are partly explained above but mostly unknown, most likely money.

Epic failure.

The Conspiracy is not fake. You have my word on that. Now, believe me without asking any further questions.

Yes, and this proves that a conspiracy to hide the true shape of the earth is very implausable to hold together.

i've said this before, but i'll say it one more time: it's impossibly unlikely for a conspiracy to TAKE control without anyone noticing the changes partway through the process!

still doing the horrendously annoying capitals, I see, Eric.

i've said this before, but i'll say it one more time: it's impossibly unlikely for a conspiracy to TAKE control without anyone noticing the changes partway through the process!

Why would you capitalize "take"? That has no real use in any way.

i use capitals because they are more convienient than bold or italicized or underlined.

of course you idiots have to talk about that and totally ignore my point, as usual.
reminds me of that old joke:

where is the library at?
don't end a sentence with a proposition.
ok, where is the library at, asshole?

let me put it this way:
before the CON. takeover all the important people are saying the world is flat.
after the CON. takeover the exact same important people are suddenly saying the earth is round!
don't you think the other 99% would wonder why they all changed their "tune"?

i use capitals because they are more convienient than bold or italicized or underlined.

of course you idiots have to talk about that and totally ignore my point, as usual.
reminds me of that old joke:

where is the library at?
don't end a sentence with a proposition.
ok, where is the library at, asshole?

let me put it this way:
before the CON. takeover all the important people are saying the world is flat.
after the CON. takeover the exact same important people are suddenly saying the earth is round!
don't you think the other 99% would wonder why they all changed their "tune"?

No. That's not how the Conspiracy works.

It's quite simple, really. Before the age of the space race, since the time of Aristotile (350 B.C.), man has mistakenly believed that the earth was a globe based on nothing more than the observation of sinking ships and the idea that since the moon and planets are round, the earth must also be round.

Since everyone already believed that the earth was round in the 1950's, NASA simply tailored its space race hoax to the Round Earth model for believability. In reality, man has never been to space.

Unbeknown to NASA, we live on a vast infinite plane of unknown depth and unknown diameter.

oh, so people are being tricked into believing the truth?!

earth IS round. that is a FACT, not a belief! YOUR FE theory is a pathetically wrong belief!
you are just plain crazy, tom, hopelessly nuts!

perhaps you should personally go to NASA and tell the astronauts to their faces that they never actually went into space. they would die laughing!

i KNOW the earth is round! i have NOT been TRICKED! i believe NASA is telling the absolute truth, and always has been!

i dare you to go to antarctica yourself!

earth IS round. that is a FACT, not a belief! YOUR FE theory is a pathetically wrong belief!
you are just plain crazy, tom, hopelessly nuts!

If the shape of the earth is such a fact and not a belief, as you say, how can you demonstrate it for us?

How could any one of us prove the shape of the earth from our back yard?

I am willing to conduct any reasonable experiment you put fourth. How can we create an experiment which suggests that the earth is a whirling globe?

I am willing to conduct any reasonable experiment you put fourth. How can we create an experiment which suggests that the earth is a whirling globe?

See, if by assuming the Earth is a whirling globe, you can predict the motions and positions of the stars, planets, moon and sun.

i use capitals because they are more convienient than bold or italicized or underlined.

of course you idiots have to talk about that and totally ignore my point, as usual.
reminds me of that old joke:

where is the library at?
don't end a sentence with a proposition.
ok, where is the library at, asshole?

let me put it this way:
before the CON. takeover all the important people are saying the world is flat.
after the CON. takeover the exact same important people are suddenly saying the earth is round!
don't you think the other 99% would wonder why they all changed their "tune"?

I understand what you are doing, I don't understand why you are doing it. The words you capitalize are simply words in the sentence, they don't need emphasized.

And ending a sentence with a PROPOSITION would be, "I like horses, wanna see a movie later?"

Quote from: eric bloedow on December 08, 2007, 02:10:43 PM

i use capitals because they are more convienient than bold or italicized or underlined.

of course you idiots have to talk about that and totally ignore my point, as usual.
reminds me of that old joke:

where is the library at?
don't end a sentence with a proposition.
ok, where is the library at, asshole?

let me put it this way:
before the CON. takeover all the important people are saying the world is flat.
after the CON. takeover the exact same important people are suddenly saying the earth is round!
don't you think the other 99% would wonder why they all changed their "tune"?

No. That's not how the Conspiracy works.

It's quite simple, really. Before the age of the space race, since the time of Aristotile (350 B.C.), man has mistakenly believed that the earth was a globe based on nothing more than the observation of sinking ships and the idea that since the moon and planets are round, the earth must also be round.

Since everyone already believed that the earth was round in the 1950's, NASA simply tailored its space race hoax to the Round Earth model for believability. In reality, man has never been to space.

Unbeknown to NASA, we live on a vast infinite plane of unknown depth and unknown diameter.

That doesn't make sense. Why have NASA trick people into believing something they already know?

Unbeknown to NASA, we live on a vast infinite plane of unknown depth and unknown diameter.

How is the diameter unknown if its infinite?

Also, we know the depth:



to an infinite slab of density , obtaining


where A is the area of the "pillbox," G is the gravitational constant, and h is the thickness of the slab. Therefore, the gravitational acceleration is given by


Either way, a < 2*pi*G*D*t for an infinite plane with thickness t

Plug in 2500 kg/m^3 for D,  9.81m/s/s for a and we find a minimum 9000 km for the thickness, t.

How is the diameter unknown if its infinite?

Often we might hear "infinite earth" from Flat Earth proponents as an analogy for what exists past the ice wall; a stretch of land incomprehensible by human standards. But the Flat Earth does not necessary need to be physically infinite in order to contain the atmosphere - just very big.

In order for barometric pressure to rise and fall, an element of heat must be present. Heat creates pressure. A lack of heat results in a drop in pressure. These two elements are tightly correlated in modern physics.

In our local area the heat of the day comes from the sun, moving and swashing around wind currents from areas of low pressures to areas of high pressures with its heat. The coldness of the Antarctic tundra keeps the pressure low. Beyond the known world, where the rays of the sun do not reach, the tundra of ice and snow lays in perpetual darkness. If one could move away from the Ice Wall into the uncharted tundra the surrounding temperatures would drop lower and lower until it nears absolute zero. Defining the exact length of the gradient would take some looking into, but at a significant distance past the edge of the Ice Wall temperatures will drop to a point where barometric pressure nears the zero mark. At this point, whether it be thousands or millions of miles from the edge of Antarctic rim, the world can end without the atmosphere leaking into space.

The atmosphere exists as a lip on the surface of the earth, held in by vast gradients of declining pressure.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2007, 02:26:28 PM

Unbeknown to NASA, we live on a vast infinite plane of unknown depth and unknown diameter.

How is the diameter unknown if its infinite?

Also, we know the depth:



to an infinite slab of density , obtaining


where A is the area of the "pillbox," G is the gravitational constant, and h is the thickness of the slab. Therefore, the gravitational acceleration is given by


Either way, a < 2*pi*G*D*t for an infinite plane with thickness t

Plug in 2500 kg/m^3 for D,  9.81m/s/s for a and we find a minimum 9000 km for the thickness, t.

That would work if gravitation was caused by mass, but it's caused by acceleration......

See, if by assuming the Earth is a whirling globe, you can predict the motions and positions of the stars, planets, moon and sun.

Predictability is meaningless. Ptolemy could predict the motions of the sun and planets in his geocentric model, after all.

The ancients could predict the motions of the planets with stunning accuracy. The fact that the sun or stars pass by overhead at one rotation per twenty four hours says nothing about the true magnitude of the earth or the nature of the universe. All models of the earth or cosmos are entirely interpretational, consciously artificial and to designed to match observations, not to be considered as evidence. The same observations could fit any number of stellar or cosmic models of the universe.

How does a prediction of a sun passing by overhead once every twenty forur hours prove that the earth is a globe?

That doesn't make sense. Why have NASA trick people into believing something they already know?

NASA's Cold War motivation was to win the space race and create the illusion of the military domination of space. An ICBM is 95% identical to a Saturn Rocket.

The sun's movement in the sky constantly repeats. Perhaps motions of stars and celestial bodies that has not been witnessed before would convince you? 

Predictability is meaningless. Ptolemy could predict the motions of the sun and planets in his geocentric model, after all.

You are wrong.  Ptolemy could approximate the motions of the sun and planets, but his model (unlike Heliocentrism) made errors that were detectable to the naked eye.

Ptolemy's model was, like all models, an approximation; but it was an rather crude approximation, which was the chief factor in it's demise.

The ancients could predict the motions of the planets with stunning accuracy.

Again you are wrong.  The ancients did astonishingly well given the tools available to them, but they were unable to achieve the predictive accuracy of modern models (Heliocentrism, and RE)

How does a prediction of a sun passing by overhead once every twenty forum hours prove that the earth is a globe?

It doesn't, anymore than it proves that the Earth is flat.  But . . . by making the assumption that the Earth (along with the other celestial bodies) are globes in orbit about the sun, we find that we are able to explain their motions and positions with greater accuracy then in many cases can be measured.  That is not the case with FE.

That is all science (Or Zeteticism) is.  The fitting of models to observation.  RE fit's astronomical observation.  FE does not.

Despite your claims, FE has not provided a model whereby planetary motions and positions can be predicted.  You have provided a model whereby an isolated observation may be accounted for, but you are unable to extract predictive power from this model.

Quote from: Username on December 08, 2007, 03:34:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2007, 02:26:28 PM

Unbeknown to NASA, we live on a vast infinite plane of unknown depth and unknown diameter.

How is the diameter unknown if its infinite?

Also, we know the depth:



to an infinite slab of density , obtaining


where A is the area of the "pillbox," G is the gravitational constant, and h is the thickness of the slab. Therefore, the gravitational acceleration is given by


Either way, a < 2*pi*G*D*t for an infinite plane with thickness t

Plug in 2500 kg/m^3 for D,  9.81m/s/s for a and we find a minimum 9000 km for the thickness, t.

That would work if gravitation was caused by mass, but it's caused by acceleration......

Gravitation is indistinguishable from acceleration.  And so you said: "That would work if gravitation was caused by mass, but it's caused by gravitation......"

Maybe you were referring to how this is based of Newtonian physics.

There is a relativistic version of the equation also which is a bit more complex and doesn't really add much to the conversation.  I linked a paper discussing it in a previous post.

Quote from: Raist on December 08, 2007, 03:53:52 PM

Quote from: Username on December 08, 2007, 03:34:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2007, 02:26:28 PM

Unbeknown to NASA, we live on a vast infinite plane of unknown depth and unknown diameter.

How is the diameter unknown if its infinite?

Also, we know the depth:



to an infinite slab of density , obtaining


where A is the area of the "pillbox," G is the gravitational constant, and h is the thickness of the slab. Therefore, the gravitational acceleration is given by


Either way, a < 2*pi*G*D*t for an infinite plane with thickness t

Plug in 2500 kg/m^3 for D,  9.81m/s/s for a and we find a minimum 9000 km for the thickness, t.

That would work if gravitation was caused by mass, but it's caused by acceleration......

Gravitation is indistinguishable from acceleration.  And so you said: "That would work if gravitation was caused by mass, but it's caused by gravitation......"

Maybe you were referring to how this is based of Newtonian physics.

There is a relativistic version of the equation also which is a bit more complex and doesn't really add much to the conversation.  I linked a paper discussing it in a previous post.

No, i mean this formula would work if G was caused by mass distorting space. Instead the Earth is hurtling through space, causing us to feel it's acceleration. Its gravity is independent of its mass. Therefore density cannot be found.

It doesn't, anymore than it proves that the Earth is flat.  But . . . by making the assumption that the Earth (along with the other celestial bodies) are globes in orbit about the sun, we find that we are able to explain their motions and positions with greater accuracy then in many cases can be measured.  That is not the case with FE.

That is all science (Or Zeteticism) is.  The fitting of models to observation.  RE fit's astronomical observation.  FE does not.

Despite your claims, FE has not provided a model whereby planetary motions and positions can be predicted.  You have provided a model whereby an isolated observation may be accounted for, but you are unable to extract predictive power from this model.

If you're inquiring about the retrograde motion of the planets; that's a simple one. The planets move around the sun while the sun moves around the hub of the earth. Retrograde motions arise from the combined motions of the planets and the sun as seen by an observer on earth.

Now that that's out of the way, how is the Flat Earth model not as predictive as the Round Earth model? And how does the predictability of stellar events prove the mechanism of that event?

If you're inquiring about the retrograde motion of the planets; that's a simple one. The planets move around the sun while the sun moves around the hub of the earth. Retrograde motions arise from the combined motions of the planets and the sun as seen by an observer on earth.

Now that that's out of the way, how is the Flat Earth model not as predictive as the Round Earth model? And how does the predictability of stellar events prove the mechanism of that event?

That is not what we observe eg

http://www.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astronomy/retrograd.html

Now how do you explain the discrepancies (asked several times lately)  and what causes and allows these orbits?

(Dont say Gravitation remember the Earth doesn't "do" gravity)

Now how do you explain the discrepancies (asked several times lately)  and what causes and allows these orbits?

I've already explained more than enough. The planets are revolving around the sun, which is itself revolving around the hub of the earth. That causes the retrograde motion of the planets as seen by observers on earth.

As for what allows the planets to orbit around the sun? The Columb force fits perfectly here. The Columb law states that the electrostatic force between two charged bodies is proportional to the product of the amount of charge on the bodies divided by the square of the distance between them, just as the increasingly discredited theory of gravity. If the bodies are oppositely charged, one positive and one negative they are attracted toward one another; if the bodies are similarly charged, both positive or both negative, the force between them is repulsive.

Increasingly discredited theory of gravity?

What evidence exists that discredits gravitation as a real effect?  It is easily observed in the laboratory. 

In fact, Username has come up with a beautiful FE model that explains the downward 9.81 m/s^2 acceleration on earth using only universal gravitation and not the mysterious Universal Acceleration.

The planets are revolving around the sun, which is itself revolving around the hub of the earth.

LOL.

Increasingly discredited theory of gravity?

What evidence exists that discredits gravitation as a real effect?  It is easily observed in the laboratory. 

Tom is talking about the discredited Newtonian gravitation, which is equivalent to the electric force derived from the same inverse square law (or "action-at-a-distance").
F = Gm1m2
         r²

F = Kq1q2
         r²

Of course, there is plenty of evidence that discredits Newton's theory of gravity, but what evidence suggests that the planets are kept in their orbits by the electric force rather than gravitation (space-time curvature)?  Gravitation seems far more likely considering the large masses of the planets, sun, and moon.

Also, I am curious of others' opinions on Username's FE model, which has no need for UA.  It was derived using Newtonian gravity, but it should still work using General Relativity.

Of course, there is plenty of evidence that discredits Newton's theory of gravity, but what evidence suggests that the planets are kept in their orbits by the electric force rather than gravitation (space-time curvature)? 

Tom was merely saying the explanation of Newtonian gravitation on orbit is equivalent to the explanation of Coulomb's law on electric charges. Hence, he said that Coulomb's law works in the same fashion on planets.

Also, I am curious of others' opinions on Username's FE model, which has no need for UA.  It was derived using Newtonian gravity, but it should still work using General Relativity.

In fact, Username has come up with a beautiful FE model that explains the downward 9.81 m/s^2 acceleration on earth using only universal gravitation and not the mysterious Universal Acceleration.

Thank you, and yeah I'm fairly interested myself.

No, i mean this formula would work if G was caused by mass distorting space. Instead the Earth is hurtling through space, causing us to feel it's acceleration. Its gravity is independent of its mass. Therefore density cannot be found.

Sorry, I understand what you meant now.  It actually clicked when I was eating lunch and then I came and saw this post.

Yeah, it is based on a different model and not the UA model.