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 - PickYerPoison

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Accelerator experiments
« on: February 09, 2021, 04:51:00 AM »
I'm not really interested in proving or disproving the existence of the UA here. That discussion has been had a lot already on this forum, and on the wiki. What I'm interested in is something the wiki, and this forum, are lacking on - the nature of the UA, and what ways that nature could be better investigated and determined. The wiki offers two theories, but doesn't provide reasoning behind why they were hypothesized, or how we could figure out which of them is correct (or if there might be additional theories about what the UA is).

You can do the experiment I outlined in my previous reply to investigate whether or not UA maintains the same value in different parts of the Earth. I’m interested in knowing why you think this experiment does not reveal something about the nature of UA.

It doesn't tell me what gravity is made of either!

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Accelerator experiments
« on: February 08, 2021, 05:46:17 PM »
I'm not really interested in proving or disproving the existence of the UA here. That discussion has been had a lot already on this forum, and on the wiki. What I'm interested in is something the wiki, and this forum, are lacking on - the nature of the UA, and what ways that nature could be better investigated and determined. The wiki offers two theories, but doesn't provide reasoning behind why they were hypothesized, or how we could figure out which of them is correct (or if there might be additional theories about what the UA is).

3
Flat Earth Theory / Universal Accelerator experiments
« on: February 08, 2021, 01:54:39 AM »
The wiki says that "As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct." and then points to the Dark Energy and Davis Plane theories. I was wondering, what experiments or research could we do to try and better understand the Universal Accelerator? Obviously we can't just dig all the way down until we break through, I don't think there's enough grant money in the world for something like that, but what else could be done?

(I'm just wondering if anyone has any hypothetical ideas, I'm not neceessarily looking for anyone to come up with an experiment someone like me could actually do - if your experiment would need the Hadron Collider or something then that's still fine! The wiki implies they might be kind of expensive anyway, and if it was something I could do, someone would've already done it already.)

4
GPS does not record distance, it provides an accurate location.  What are you trying to prove that is not known?

You can measure your distance from point A to point B if you know those locations though? The question is partially "do these accurately match".

5
Hello. I'm planning (or thinking about planning, at least) an experiment based on latitudes. The plan is to have two sailing trips done at "opposite" latitudes and measure the distance traveled. One will be done north of the equator and one south. However, to ensure authenticity, I have some questions I wanted to run by the forum first.

First, the latitude circles used. My thinking is that it shouldn't actually matter what they are, as long as they are supposed to be similar in distance on a round earth model. I will be trying to make them as close as possible, but it's all dependent on what's workable. In the event of a conflict, I plan to err on the side of having a northern circle that's closer to the equator than the southern circle. My thinking on this is that on a round earth, this would result in the southern circle taking less distance, but on a flat earth it will result in the northern circle taking less distance.

Second, measurements. I'll have the distance traveled by each ship recorded using both GPS and other methods (recording propeller rotations, etc). Both measurements will be recorded, since I want to compare them. I'm not entirely sure how distance would be recorded without GPS, but I'm sure any experienced sailor will be familiar with some methods for it, and I'll talk it over with them before okaying things.

Third, navigation. I am okay with the boats using GPS if they are more comfortable with that, but I will be requesting that a compass also be used and the bearing to north recorded at regular intervals. I'm not sure what GPS might be able to do to skew this experiment, but there's probably something, and I'm confident this will provide a good "safety check" to confirm if the route has them double back or any other funny business.

Fourth, crew. I have very little sailing experience and definitely don't have the money or time to make these voyages myself, so I'll have to hire people to do them for me. I'll do my best not to hire from potentially compromised sources, but I know that's not a guarantee tampering won't occur. Is this enough of a concern to invalidate any potential findings? (of either viewpoint)

There may also be additional things I haven't considered. Can you guys think of any, and if possible, how to compensate or negate them?

6
Flat Earth Community / Who is at the top of the Conspiracy?
« on: October 30, 2018, 02:20:13 AM »
I have been reading about the conspiracy on the wiki (the faking of space travel), and I'm curious to what leaders it might extend to. For example, is Trump in on it? What about Putin? Elon Musk? Or is it a more low-level thing? Or are the real culprits in the shadows?

7
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Wiki and Forum Order on Home Page
« on: February 08, 2018, 06:41:02 PM »
Do we want a site that is used as a wiki and no one ever visits the forums?

If we had to pick, a wiki OR a forum, which would we pick? A wiki isn't much fun. We don't all contribute to that daily.

The forum is the point of the site. You can read FE theories anywhere online. People come here specifically because they can interact with flat earthers. Its our only selling point. So why would you hide the forum further down the list of things to see than the wiki? If the wiki hits search terms and drives traffic (its purpose and exactly what it does), and that traffic winds up on the forum ... that's the same as putting your best products in the front of the shop window. If we encourage people to read the wiki and they never post ... so what? That's like a tree falling in a forest. I don't really care if it made a sound or not.

The question is whether the forum link and the wiki link should be swapped on the home page. That's, like, less than an inch of movement. Nothing's being hidden. What kind of nonsense fatalism are you pulling out of your ass here?

Also, that "tree falling in a forest" makes no sense in this context. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

8
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Wiki and Forum Order on Home Page
« on: February 08, 2018, 06:26:39 PM »
So it protects the forum from spam. Then surely you are admitting the forum is the most important part and the wiki is just there to support it.

You understand why the tank stands in front of the healer, right?

9
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Wiki and Forum Order on Home Page
« on: February 08, 2018, 06:21:27 PM »
Why do we want wiki visitors? What does a wiki visitor contribute?

I think it's more about what they don't contribute, which are questions like these:

hi guys I'm doing a project on the flat earth vs. round earth i was wondering if anyone could give me or refer me to a list of evidence proving the earth is flat. Thanks!

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The moon
« on: February 07, 2018, 07:05:25 PM »
This is a good time to point out that Tom doesn't actually believe the bit about needing to prove that geometry works at large scales. This is a series of posts from a previous thread, also about the moon:

What you have posted is a desperate attempt to claim that euclidean geometry doesn't apply to the universe.
That doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't the angles line up? They would line up in a small scale model of the sun and moon and observer, so why not a larger scale model with the sun 93 million miles away?
Does geometry stop working when things are 93 million miles away?
...
The author of this link is just talking pseudoscience to explain the effect. If there are two balls with arrows on them pointing at each other, and those balls get further and further away in the distance, is there ever a point in Ecludian Geometry where the arrows are not pointing at each other?

Clearly not!

We will need to see something more rigerous of this effect to say otherwise, something more tangible than the ridiculous "oh when you look out at the universe it's like looking through a fisheye lens" that author gives. The explanation is clearly against Ecludian Geometry, and provides no supporting evidence whatsoever.

So straight lines aren't straight when long distances are involved?  ???

You can't have it both ways, Tom.

It's very disappointing to see that Tom has not replied to this even though it was posted four days ago. I understand he is a busy man, but it becomes difficult to trust his writings when he declines to comment on his changing viewpoints.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to get to the other side?
« on: February 06, 2018, 07:37:01 PM »
It doesn't - air traffic doesn't even fly over the so-called "south pole", which is actually the edge of the world.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gyroscopes
« on: February 06, 2018, 04:45:49 PM »
This is the same effect as the Foucault pendulum (I think, someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Tom Bishop explains it on the wiki by invoking the "gravitation" of stars many light-years away. Whether you choose to believe him or not is up to you.

The stars are not light years away in FET.

JohnAdams1145, can you please stop trying to explain FET to newcomers? Your own understanding of it is extremely rudimentary and, in many places, outright incorrect. You are not helping anyone by spreading your misconceptions.

I don't suppose either of you could answer the question as long as you're here?

13
Flat Earth Theory / Age of the Earth
« on: January 31, 2018, 02:32:26 PM »
I tried checking the wiki but couldn't find an answer there. How old is the Earth? Also, were dinosaurs real?

e: looking at this later, it might come off as sarcastic, particularly the tacked-on bit about the dinosaurs. I didn't mean it that way, I'm sorry!

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Observation of the ISS
« on: January 30, 2018, 07:52:50 PM »
The other night I saw a notification by our local news station that the international space station would be passing overhead and would be visible between 6:56pm and 6:59 pm. It was a bright yellow dot that passed overhead at a very fast speed.

From a flat earth perspective, what else would this be if it's not the ISS?

It was more likely particle debris or some kind of atmospheric interference. ISS would be too far away to see even if it WAS there.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« on: January 22, 2018, 05:32:40 PM »
Upon first glance it looks like the planets adopt a vortex model to me.

Which would mean it is not using Newtonian mechanics.

Verify for yourself.

Maybe do more than just take a glance.

Further, even if we were able to find an animation that met your demands, how would you check its accuracy?
I have friends.

How about you?

Was this really necessary? It was a valid and neutrally-phrased question.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« on: January 21, 2018, 08:06:59 PM »
What if they're lying about the math? Wouldn't you need to learn the math and build the model yourself for it to prove anything to you?
I can get the math checked and can be taught by several acquaintances to examine it in detail for my own verification.
Why not have them make it for you instead, then? If they have the necessary qualifications and would be willing to help, just ask them. This is a terrible place to ask - you've basically guaranteed your request will never be completed by demanding the FET forum to make it for you.

Or, per the Zetetic Method, build every possible model and prove that only the Flat Earth model works...
Please, I think you should review things prior to typing "Zetetic Method," again...
Zetetic Method Zetetic Method Zetetic Method

It forbids you from starting from a fixed point with something in mind to prove/disprove, so you can't ask for a model of the round earth solar system with intent to disprove it. Which is what you're doing! For the sake of fairness, per the Zetetic Method, you need to ask for every possible model of the solar system and prove/disprove each one to determine which is correct. After all, even if you disprove RET models (somehow), that doesn't make FET models correct. So you'd have to get an equivalent FET model under all the same restrictions. You might as well do that in parallel - you probably have more willing Flat Earthers available to help you than Round Earthers.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« on: January 21, 2018, 05:49:53 PM »
Let me get this straight - if someone presented you with a "complete" model, you would subscribe to RET? Why is that your sticking point? What if they're lying about the math? Wouldn't you need to learn the math and build the model yourself for it to prove anything to you?

Or, per the Zetetic Method, build every possible model and prove that only the Flat Earth model works...

18
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Redesign to the Library
« on: January 19, 2018, 06:37:32 PM »
It seems that these days Flat Earthers are creating videos rather than writing literature. Should videos of interest included in the library?

I think that's a very good idea - there's a lot of stuff out there, on YouTube and other sites. I also think the paragraph summary is a great idea.

Maybe there's some way videos could be organized by what aspects of FET they support or discuss? I've found that most FET videos focus on a particular topic and examine it in detail.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« on: January 17, 2018, 07:40:37 PM »
Actually, your quote says that NASA averages about 1,600 New Technology Reports a year. A New Technology Report is just that, a report of a new technology

See the following quote from NASA's technology transfer website for its employees and contractors:

Quote
If in your work you solve some kind of a technical problem or find a new way of doing things that is somehow better, that is reportable as an NTR. Any improvement—no matter how big or small—should be reported in an NTR.

Generally, a new technology is any invention, discovery, improvement, or innovation—whether or not patentable – which includes, but is not limited to, new processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter, and improvements to, or new applications of, existing processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. New technologies also include new computer programs, and improvements to, or new applications of, existing computer programs.

That means that the number 1,600 includes not just actual new technologies, such as e.g. launch methods, but also:
  • improvements to existing technology (for example, a slightly better battery)
  • new applications of existing technology (for example, using solar panel technology made for satellites on electric cars)
  • improved processes (for example, streamlining the process for a factory floor to request new equipment)
  • new processes (for example, creating a way for one group further down an assembly line to communicate with a group in front of them if they notice errors coming down the line)
  • improvements to existing manufacturing methods (for example, cost-saving on an engine casing by using leftovers from another part of the process to avoid waste)
  • new manufacturing methods (for example,
    creating a new robotic assembly line for a new set of parts)
  • improvements to existing materials (for example, creating a slightly different mix of metal that costs less but is equally strong)
  • new applications of existing materials (for example, using the above to build an old chassis)
  • new computer programs (for example, the GUI for compositing panoramic images taken by a new camera)
  • improvements to old computer programs (for example, updating an old program to eliminate memory leaks)
  • new applications of computer programs (for example, adapting code for new hardware)

But that's not all. If any NASA contractor or partner comes up with any of those, it also counts! That's important, because it means that people who aren't even on NASA'S payroll can contribute to that number of 1,600. And that's fine, because NASA isn't taking credit for the entire creation itself, but rather saying "here's something we helped to create or otherwise enabled the creation of".

e: This is getting off topic. If you would like to respond, please create a new thread about it.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« on: January 17, 2018, 06:55:00 PM »
Look at page ii on this 2013 NASA Socio-Economic Impacts Report --

Quote
Spurs Innovation and Business Growth

- 1,600 new technologies reported in 2012
- 2,200 tech transfer transactions in 2012
- $1M annually per spinoff (median, based on small study)

I'm sure if you look for the same report put out in different years you will find similar numbers.

Quote
NASA has made its technologies available to thousands of entrepreneurs and firms, helping to develop and improve a wide variety of products and services. NASA programs and partnerships generate new technologies, documented in New Technology Reports (NTRs). NASA averages 1,600 NTRs each year.

1,600 refers to the number of commercial applications of the technology it develops, not the actual number of unique technologies developed by NASA alone. If NASA designed a better solar panel it might talk to a company and create usages for it, for example. NASA is not involved in the creation of the end products, but they are responsible for their being possible and for getting the technology to industry innovators. That's what they're referring to.

Pages: [1] 2  Next >