Additions to the FAQ

Since the FAQ is widely considered to be outdated by current standards, some users have previously suggested the FES administration to update it. Unfortunately, the administration has delayed the update for months, and I, as one of its representatives, sincerely apologize for that matter. I decided to create this thread for users to discuss about the FAQ and make any necessary additions to it. The answers should be brief, straightforward and easy to understand, as the FAQ is, after all, merely a starting point for newcomers.

I'll start off with the following revision:

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

Circumference: 78,225 miles

Diameter: 24,900 miles

Keep in mind that these figures are for the size of the known Earth. The size of the Earth as a whole is unknown.

The following topics should either be included or briefly expanded:

Electromagnetic Acceleration
Plate Tectonics/Continental Drift
Retrogate Motion
Meteoroids
Coriolis Effect
Age of the Earth
Neutrinos
Solar Flares
Zeteticism
Google Earth

There are more topics, but these are what I could think of so far.

I think that the conspiracy should also be mentioned.

I think that any theories which have been demonstrably and easily disproved should be omitted from the FAQ. For this reason I think Electromagnetic Acceleration should not be included, until such time as John Davis pitches his aetheric eddy theory which supposedly explains it, and which can then be included in the FAQ.

Excellent thank you Jack. Some things do not come up as often as you think, so I am wondering how you will answer some questions. Example, retrograde motion. How would you answer that?
Personally I would go to the work of Ptolemy and produce something of his like this and merge it with celestial gears and the Flammarion woodcut.

A search on this site for 'Ptolemy retrograde' however, only yielded 10 posts suggesting that is not the way other FErs go about answering this. It also suggests I have never been asked before.

Age of earth? 4.5 Billion years? Why does FE need any difference? I think most FErs go with the KISS theory when possible. Same for plate tectonics. Does a flat earth mean continents don't move? Why? I fear this one takes us towards colonial dinosaurs, which nice as they are, isn't a wonderful way to start.

I don't have a clue why neutrinos prove earth round or flat. I can't even imagine the question. I would like to see what you say about that, but fear it is not a FAQ. Also I know particle physics isn't my forte. I think that one may be inviting a world of pain as follow up questions are not going to be easy for FErs to answer on that.

Please can you guys involve Tom Bishop as well. He does more in the upper fora than anyone else. He knows what gets asked. He has set answers for all the common stuff.
 

The strawman about Coriolis should be removed, that's a regular source of threads.

Thork, the age of the Earth is a nice thing to have because most people are assuming that TFES is a nutcase Christian site.

The strawman about Coriolis should be removed, that's a regular source of threads.

I agree.

But contrary to what was stated before, I think both Electromagnetic Acceleration and Aetheric Eddification should be included, as neither one has truthfully been disproved.

Other concepts I'd add to the list:

Bioluminescent Moon
Celestial Gears
EnglshGentleman's answer to the flight times in the southern hemisphere question.
The Bedford Level Experiments

The Conspiracy section also needs to be retooled.

Quote from: General Disarray on July 29, 2011, 08:06:10 AM

The strawman about Coriolis should be removed, that's a regular source of threads.

I agree.

But contrary to what was stated before, I think both Electromagnetic Acceleration and Aetheric Eddification should be included, as neither one has truthfully been disproved.

Other concepts I'd add to the list:

Bioluminescent Moon
Celestial Gears
EnglshGentleman's answer to the flight times in the southern hemisphere question.
The Bedford Level Experiments

The Conspiracy section also needs to be retooled.

With all due respect, anyone who thinks* EA has not been disproved has either not read the posts on the forum disproving it, or doesnt understand them, in which case message me personally and I will be more than happy to outline in step by step detail how it does not fit known observations.

There is no consensus on what Celestial Gears are, how they work, or how the gaps in the sky they would leave are filled. Mentioning them in the FAQ will just lead to even more questions about them than you get now. I suggest leaving them out until some sort of agreement is reached about their nature.

*acknowledges these are not necessarily the same people who claim it has not been disproved.

Well, I've seen the posts on this forum that appear to contradict it, but as far as disproof, it hasn't happened, any more than (in RE Theory) the rate of expansion of the universe has disproved gravity.

Aetheric Eddification should be included, as neither one has truthfully been disproved.

How can we disprove something that no one knows anything about?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 29, 2011, 12:22:43 PM

Aetheric Eddification should be included, as neither one has truthfully been disproved.

How can we disprove something that no one knows anything about?

Aetheric Eddififaction should be included in the FAQ once John Davis has told us how it works and what it is. Until he does that it is not a theory, its just two words which explain nothing more than "a wizard did it".

Quote from: General Disarray on July 29, 2011, 12:53:33 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 29, 2011, 12:22:43 PM

Aetheric Eddification should be included, as neither one has truthfully been disproved.

How can we disprove something that no one knows anything about?

Aetheric Eddififaction should be included in the FAQ once John Davis has told us how it works and what it is. Until he does that it is not a theory, its just two words which explain nothing more than "a wizard did it".

It has been explained many times.  If you're still that unclear on what it is, perhaps the new FAQ will shed some new light for you.  But the important thing is it's a topic that comes up often on the forums, and thus one that I think should be included in the FAQ, as is EAT.  Whether or not you think it's valid is irrelevant, as you don't think anything we say is valid.

That's why we have a questions forum, and why we have a debate forum.

Shouldn't the faq focus on answering frequently asked questions? It's not supposed to explain every theory ever proposed. IMO, it only needs to answer a few very basic questions, and it should emphasize that debate of FE and alternative science are the foundations of the forum - challenging what you think you know, and why you think you know it.  (I wonder how many angry noobs ever thought about why they think the earth is round before coming here)

Shouldn't the faq focus on answering frequently asked questions? It's not supposed to explain every theory ever proposed. IMO, it only needs to answer a few very basic questions

Noob question: How does {x} happen?
answer: Aetheric Edification.
Noob question: What's aetheric edification?

Of course, by explaining aetheric edification in the FAQ, you eliminate the need for the first question to be asked in the first place (not that it won't be anyway, but it's nice having it to point to when they do).

I do agree, on reflection, that explaining the specifics of every individual model (which I had kind of envisioned) is probably a bit much for an FAQ.  But there's a lot that needs to be removed, and a lot that should be added.

and it should emphasize that debate of FE and alternative science are the foundations of the forum - challenging what you think you know, and why you think you know it.  (I wonder how many angry noobs ever thought about why they think the earth is round before coming here)

I think this is an excellent, front page worthy idea.

There is no consensus on what Celestial Gears are, how they work, or how the gaps in the sky they would leave are filled. Mentioning them in the FAQ will just lead to even more questions about them than you get now. I suggest leaving them out until some sort of agreement is reached about their nature.

*acknowledges these are not necessarily the same people who claim it has not been disproved.

I don't want a celestial gears argument in S&C but maybe we should explore this in another thread. Notice top left of that woodcut.


Those gears are not unique to that picture.

They do not work like traditional gears. They are a wheel in the middle of a wheel, known as an Ophan. And the system of gearing is classed as an Ophanim.

Once you know that you can search Google for yourself because this system is not unique to FES. It has been documented for centuries. Below is an Ophanim painted by Dante


However having things like that in an FAQ will bring out discussions like this. If you saw anything new above, it makes the inclusion worth it.

oh wow, i didn't notice those gearings in the first pic. i take it they were done by different artists? How cool is that, i'm hooked. ooops, sorry, wrong thread for that question.

Well it all links in to FE. The gears revolve around the Empyrean which is the place that heaven meets the universe, and that is directly above the axis mundi (centre of the earth), the north pole in FET which is convenient as that is what we observe the stars revolve around.
Its all classic FET but interesting none the less.

Notice the axis mundi on earth at the bottom. Earth being flat and the orbits of the sun and moon match FETs theory.
This is what Dante painted above, looking up.
Its what you would see as you look up at the north pole. They include angels but where else would you expect angels to be? Oh and if you have trouble searching for ophanim, look for galgallim. Same thing.

Inb4 a thread on moon angels.

Aristotle proposed that there must be 47 or 55 movers or gears. This accounted for planets, comets etc.

The ophanim depicted therein, Thork, are a class of angels.  The observer is looking past the heavens to "heaven" in the woodcut.

The ophanim depicted therein, Thork, are a class of angels.  The observer is looking past the heavens to "heaven" in the woodcut.

I am aware of this. They are the wheels and appear also on Gods chariot in numerous depictions. Wheel shaped angels. They are just below cherubim and seraphim in the order of things and cherubs ride them about the place. Very high up angels, that happen to look like wheels sometimes called thrones.
However Flammarion amongst others attributed them to celestial gearing. I always leave out the God stuff where I can.


Do I win a biscuit?

Do you have a citation for this?

Do you have a citation for this?

Of course.

One of the elements of the cosmic machinery bears a strong resemblance to traditional pictorial representations of the "wheel in the middle of a wheel" described in the visions of the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel.

Full details are in Camille Flammarion's 1888 book L'atmosphère: météorologie populaire ("The Atmosphere: Popular Meteorology")

i don't mind adding the God bit...

Ezekiel 10 v6-17

i don't mind adding the God bit...

Ezekiel 10 v6-17

Oh, bible lurker, nice. Yeah wheel angels. Who knew?

Erm, no - you should of seen the dust covering this book!

Would be great to eliminate the conspiracy theory, with no proof, this just questions our theory,

also two that have been disproven,  the  "spotlight sun" and the flock of seagull sun sets,
need to be removed.

Thanks Jack for truly caring about this movement and giving us credibility.

Would be great to eliminate the conspiracy theory, with no proof, this just questions our theory,

also two that have been disproven,  the  "spotlight sun" and the flock of seagull sun sets,
need to be removed.

Thanks Jack for truly caring about this movement and giving us credibility.

That is the second time you have written that nonsense today.

There will be no eliminating of the conspiracy unless you want to go back to "the bible said so". NASA is to blame, they are evil.

Well, I think he (or she) has a point. All that conspiracy stuff in the faq just makes the nooblets focus on the conspiracy and not even bother with the debate. (I'm not advocating its removal or anything, angry noobs are fun)

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammarion_engraving

One of the elements of the cosmic machinery bears a strong resemblance to traditional pictorial representations of the "wheel in the middle of a wheel" described in the visions of the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel.

Full details are in Camille Flammarion's 1888 book L'atmosphère: météorologie populaire ("The Atmosphere: Popular Meteorology")

That is simply a description of the engraving. There is no basis to say, "However Flammarion amongst others attributed them to celestial gearing." based on the writings of Camille Flammarion. Flammarion was not a flat earth advocate, and the woodcut simply illustrates the account of a midevil monk who reached the point where sky and earth met.

Well, I think he (or she) has a point. All that conspiracy stuff in the faq just makes the nooblets focus on the conspiracy and not even bother with the debate. (I'm not advocating its removal or anything, angry noobs are fun)

Its just what do you replace it with? Otherwise you are 2 questions from

"So what about pictures from NASA" - They are faked
"Why would they do that?" - Errrr, ok last one out turn off the lights.

Without putting too fine a point on it modern FErs like Voliva and Dowie claimed round earth was a conspiracy to discredit the bible. Shenton and Johnson claimed Conspiracy by NASA et al. Daniel did the same.
Its Daniel's site, I personally feel that more aligned to my thinking (being an atheist) and any doubts I have had, have been washed away by James' and Tom Bishop's vehement hatred of NASA. I'm convinced. Why aren't you?

Quote from: Thork on July 29, 2011, 03:54:37 PM

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammarion_engraving

One of the elements of the cosmic machinery bears a strong resemblance to traditional pictorial representations of the "wheel in the middle of a wheel" described in the visions of the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel.

Full details are in Camille Flammarion's 1888 book L'atmosphère: météorologie populaire ("The Atmosphere: Popular Meteorology")

That is simply a description of the engraving. There is no basis to say, "However Flammarion amongst others attributed them to celestial gearing." based on the writings of Camille Flammarion. Flammarion was not a flat earth advocate, and the woodcut simply illustrates the account of a midevil monk who reached the point where sky and earth met.

I'm not sure I care enough to argue about it with you an FEr and in S&C. Celestial gearing is not something I came up with. Its been at FES far longer than me. As has that woodcut picture been trotted out for that purpose since before my arrival, even by Daniel. I just happen to have found that part of FET interesting and have many sources that all link together explaining it. It is the best explanation I have seen by some margin and the method I subscribe to.
If you have a better explanation for stars turning in opposite directions in the north and south hemispheres please feel free to put it forward. You never know. You may be able to persuade me I am wrong.

Like I said, I'm not advocating the removal of the conspiracy from the faq. I like angry noobs... but if you want them to be a little more serious about the forum, perhaps the conspiracy section should be cleaned up a bit and made less prominent. The conspiracy discussions tend to take over, and they don't go anywhere. Having all that in the faq doesn't seem to satisfy the noobs, anyway.