6121

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

« on: June 13, 2018, 09:10:38 AM »

Soundly, the author of the Lake Pontcharitrain images, has been debunked here as well, using his own video of another "curving" scene. He is apparently just cherry picking images:

VID

I'm going to quote one of the comments from that video;

"Not sure if your trying to be a retard or actually are one but Soundlys video is clearly stating that the time laps was to show people how the temperature of the water and atmosphere alter refraction .

Everyone knows (well i thought everyone did)that when the temperature of the water and atmosphere above it change so does the refraction effect , the lights are not physically moving the time is passing at an increase speed aka TIME LAPS VIDEO the lights move up or down in the refraction zone due to the difference in water temp and atmosphere temp .

So I have no idea why you uploaded a video showing the effects of refraction and claiming that Soundly was showing earth curve? You really really need to get a brain or at least listen to the first 30 seconds of the original video where Soundly states what he is doing "

I believe that argument is "Your video is dumb because it's just showing refraction"?

6122

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 13, 2018, 07:34:38 AM »

Wild Heretic, the man who gave us

"Is the moon an optical illusion"

http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-moon-an-optical-illusion/

And claims that "The Sun is an artificial sulfur lamp which has a light side and a dark side. At the moment I theorize that the dark side could be the moon"

http://www.wildheretic.com/how-is-there-night-and-day/



Tom. Come on. You can find "evidence" to back up any crazy assertion out there on the internet somewhere. Mad people used to shout on street corners, now they write blogs or post on YouTube.

Regardless of what you think about his concave earth theory, The Wild Heretic is quoting a third party source for the bending light experiment. Therefore your assassination attempt fails.

6123

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 13, 2018, 07:31:37 AM »

I did provide the evidence. See the Wild Heretic's Bendy Light page. There is the evidence right there.

Evidence of what, Tom?  Not that light curves "upward."

The guy in your video "evidence" interprets the results of earth's concavity. The guy in your video argues that because light is randomly "bendy" we can't be sure where anything is. Is that your take on this so-called evidence? Then go in and edit the "Horizon is Always at Eye-Level" page right now, if you're convinced. You put more thought into examining my horizon observation than the results reported by Wild Heretic. Why is that, Tom?

If you're gong to claim to be empirical, you can't find things "interesting" that support your preferred conclusions and reserve critical thought for those that challenge it.

The Wild Heretic does provide evidence for the concept of light bending. Now the task is to provide something that is either contradictory or supportive.

I am still not a EAT supporter, but that doesn't mean that there is zero evidence that light bends.

Per the horizon and eye level, I don't mind making some kind of edit that the matter may be ambiguous to determine.

Ball's in your court. If this is convincing evidence as you are claiming, refute Rowbotham. "Bendy light" is nullifies the validity of his observations. Do that and I"ll know you're serious.

It may or may not affect the interpretation of his observations. If true, it does seem variable with terrestrial light. It seems that we don't know enough about it yet.

As a note, Rowbotham is the father of the Concave Earth Theory. His work inspired different movements. Rowbotham states in his book that the flat earth conclusion is his interpretation and encouraged the reader to make his or her own investigation and his or her own conclusions. The progenitors of the concave earth movement regularly quoted his experiments as evidence against convexity. We can see too far. The water convexity experiments are also experiments that can be interpreted to mean that the earth is concave. The book is called Earth Not a Globe, not The Earth is Flat.

6124

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

« on: June 13, 2018, 06:23:45 AM »

Soundly, the author of the Lake Pontcharitrain images, has been debunked here as well, using his own video of another "curving" scene. He is apparently just cherry picking images:

6125

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 13, 2018, 06:02:50 AM »

I had actually discarded the Electromagnetic Accelerator theory on the same grounds of lack of evidence long ago. However, the Wild Heretic society has published evidence that light is bending upwards, and more things suggesting that too on their website. Trawling the comments section of the bendy light page, accounts are given that this a known phenomenon in surveying and that surveyors are taught to adjust for the error.

Prove it.
Document it.
Cite it.
Test it.
You're an empiricist. Don't swallow something just because it tickles your ears.

Oh, and if you've concluded it's been demonstrated, then abandon your "axiom" that the horizon is always at eye-level, because as argued in the other topic thread, it's incompatible with "bendy light."

I did provide the evidence. See the Wild Heretic's Bendy Light page. There is the evidence right there. If you want to contradict it, you need to provide a compelling argument. Not "oh, there must be experimental error." That is an argument without evidence, and which will be discarded without evidence. If you can't contradict it, show that the guy is a liar or something. The ball is in your court.

6126

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 13, 2018, 05:34:12 AM »

Yes. That is the way things work.

Read the first page of the Electromagnetic Accelerator thread. An assertion was made in the first post. Experimental evidence was provided in the third post. The experimenter saw the same phenomenon multiple times. No contradictory evidence was provided, only a claim without evidence that there was error in the experiment. This followup was made without evidence, and so that followup is discarded without evidence. The ball is in your court.

I had actually discarded the Electromagnetic Accelerator theory on the same grounds of lack of evidence long ago. However, the Wild Heretic society has published evidence that light is bending upwards, and more things suggesting that too on their website. Trawling the comments section of the bendy light page, accounts are given that this a known phenomenon in surveying and that surveyors are taught to adjust for the error.

6127

Flat Earth Media / Re: flatTube

« on: June 13, 2018, 05:13:34 AM »

Phase I should have been done already. This is a quick thing to do. Merge a few boards, some renaming. We just have to come to some descision.

Are we waiting for a decision or more discussion? I thought it came to a conclusion.

6128

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 13, 2018, 05:03:16 AM »

I thank you for providing an explanation of your rationalization. Your link claims that "an object further away appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon." This is a provably false statement. Allow me to explain

The problem with that logic is that a plane in the distance will appear to be moving much slower because its angle relative to you moves slower. If you were to speed up the plane to such a degree that it turns your head at the same rate as a closer and slower object, the way your turn your head would be exactly the same. It's just because the process is so slowed down with such a far away object, human perception doesn't notice differential in angular change. If you take two different videos of a plane in a the distance and a car in the nearby road (both shot with identical lenses and the camera set up perpendicular to the path of the object) you could speed/slow on down to fit the other's path exactly. I could provide you with the formula for angular change with respect to velocity and distance. but I'm a bit too lazy to figure it out. The point is that the differential of that equation with respect to distance (velocity as a constant) would not approach 0 at infinity.

That is just math. That math represents a model with certain axioms. Those axioms need to be proven true before you can use them.

If we change the axioms, we change the math. See: Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always

Let me sum up my understanding of our conversation so far. I stated my evidence that the sun moving at constant angular velocity indicates we are living on a round earth. You stated it was due to an effect that an object will move at a more constant angular velocity the further away it is. I stated that this is false, provided both practical examples of proof and a mathematical method of proof. You stated that it's "just math" and I'm using "certain axioms," and you posted a link stating that because 20 degrees centigrade is not twice as hot as 10 degrees centigrade, then a yard does not equal 3 feet (one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard). I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I cannot believe you are genuinely interested in the truth. You are merely trying to win an argument by any means. If you don't say something to convince me that you are interested in knowing whether the earth is round or flat, I cannot continue this. Sorry.

You need to prove that the perspective lines recede for infinity. Math that assumes certain axioms does not cut it. The math of the Ancient Greeks also assumes that perfect circles exist. However, as we now have strong evidence in QM that the universe is quantized, it is impossible for a perfect circle to exist. The Ancient Greeks believed in a perfect continuous universe without any evidence at all.

So, prove it.

If you cannot provide evidence for the concept then we are obligated to discard it without evidence. You may not like that, but that's how things work around here. We are empiricists. We have higher standards than you do. An ancient hypothetical model of the universe that amounts to little more than a thought experiment is insufficient as evidence.

Where is your evidence for this infinity nonsense?

6129

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 12, 2018, 11:36:17 PM »

I thank you for providing an explanation of your rationalization. Your link claims that "an object further away appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon." This is a provably false statement. Allow me to explain

The problem with that logic is that a plane in the distance will appear to be moving much slower because its angle relative to you moves slower. If you were to speed up the plane to such a degree that it turns your head at the same rate as a closer and slower object, the way your turn your head would be exactly the same. It's just because the process is so slowed down with such a far away object, human perception doesn't notice differential in angular change. If you take two different videos of a plane in a the distance and a car in the nearby road (both shot with identical lenses and the camera set up perpendicular to the path of the object) you could speed/slow on down to fit the other's path exactly. I could provide you with the formula for angular change with respect to velocity and distance. but I'm a bit too lazy to figure it out. The point is that the differential of that equation with respect to distance (velocity as a constant) would not approach 0 at infinity.

That is just math. That math represents a model with certain axioms. Those axioms need to be proven true before you can use them.

If we change the axioms, we change the math. See: Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always

6130

Flat Earth Media / Re: flatTube

« on: June 12, 2018, 09:38:15 PM »

This is how I envision the grand plan:

Phase I: Self Sustaining Debates

At the moment we continue on with the plan in the Suggestions Forum on changing around the society to get away from the bad "debate the experts" theme, and also create the Flat Earth Projects and Community forums where we can discuss and work on projects.

Phase II: Attract YouTube Community

Now that the debates can take care of themselves, one of our first projects in the Flat Earth Projects/Community forum will be to attract the YouTube community with a Flat Earth Tube. Create a sub domain and give ftp access to thork, me, and whoever else wants to be admins of that project. Maintenance and upkeep can be handled by us. I am willing to work on this, and I am guessing that others in the community are willing to help as well. We can take a roll count of interest and start on this phase once we have the appropriate forums.

Once we have the tube website up, which clearly advertises itself as an open platform for all Flat Earth ideas, we invite authors of the YouTube community, like GlobeBusters, to contribute to the Wiki and forum and expand on their ideas. The authors have an interest in the upkeep and display of their ideas, since their content is advertised here.

Phase III: Seek to join forces with the other Flat Earth Society as well

This one would be more controversial; but at some point in the future we should also consider extending an olive branch of peace to the other Flat Earth website and offer a link exchange. We will link to some of their projects on our site, and they can link to our projects. There are certain things that we excel in, and there are certain things that they excel in. There are things that we just don't have time to do, and things that they don't have time to do. For example, they have a better Library, and we have a better Wiki. I want their Library, and they probably have an interest in our Wiki. An innocent cross-link exchange of such things would be beneficial for both websites. We can discuss stripping out direct links to the forum on those pages to make the offer agreeable (we don't have a direct link to the forum on our Wiki anyway). Hopefully with this kind of starting cooperation we can eventually cross-link more and more projects until we are one again.

If all of the above is successful, perhaps by this time next year we will have made good progress towards a single, powerful, Flat Earth Society.

6131

Flat Earth Media / Re: flatTube

« on: June 12, 2018, 07:01:49 PM »

They are still dragging our name through the mud, regardless of whether we ignore it. We should seek to get better integrated with the YouTube community.

Our own tube site where we embed videos from the FE community seems like a good way to go. We can put a disclaimer that the content is from the Flat Earth community. Problem solved. The videos can say whatever they want. We can also make a form or method for people to submit their own video links.

There will be bad science, sure, but that's what the disclaimer is for, and it gives the bad science exposure to develop.

I generally think that this website (the whole Flat Earth Society) should be an open platform for FE ideas and discussion, rather than something that sows division.

6132

Flat Earth Media / Re: flatTube

« on: June 12, 2018, 05:45:40 AM »

Posters on the other site have recommended the Celebrate Truth channel. I took a look at one of their videos and the quality seemed to be pretty good.

6133

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Social Justice Anti-Holocaust Denial Hypocrisy

« on: June 11, 2018, 05:53:45 PM »

I tend to dislike people who have moral outrage over Holocause denialism. They regularly call for laws to limit freedom of speech, and regularly call for prosecution of anyone who dares to question the official story on grounds of 'hate speech'. In a number of European countries there are laws that will send you to prison if you question any part of the story of the Holocaust.

The leading groups are themselves denying what happened during the Holocaust:

From the Holocaust Remembrance Alliance:

Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion

The present definition is an expression of the awareness that Holocaust denial and distortion have to be challenged and denounced nationally and internationally and need examination at a global level.  IHRA hereby adopts the following legally non-binding working definition as its working tool.

Holocaust denial is discourse and propaganda that deny the historical reality and the extent of the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis and their accomplices during World War II, known as the Holocaust or the Shoah. Holocaust denial refers specifically to any attempt to claim that the Holocaust/Shoah did not take place.

From the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:

WHAT IS HOLOCAUST DENIAL?
 
The Holocaust is one of the best documented events in history. “Holocaust denial” describes attempts to negate the established facts of the Nazi genocide of European Jewry. Common denial assertions are: that the murder of six million Jews during World War II never occurred; that the Nazis had no official policy or intention to exterminate the Jews; and that the poison gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp never existed.

However, it is wildly known that the actual number of deaths were 6 million Jews, plus 11 million others:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/27/holocaust-non-jewish-victims_n_6555604.html

the Nazis targeted many other groups: for their race, beliefs or what they did.

Historians estimate the total number of deaths to be 11 million, with the victims encompassing gay people, priests, gypsies, people with mental or physical disabilities, communists, trade unionists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, anarchists, Poles and other Slavic peoples, and resistance fighters.

The Holocaust Victims page on Wikipedia portrays Jews as a minority of the Holocaust victims: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims

Victims   Killed
Jews   5-6 million
Poles   1.8–3 million
Soviet Slavs   6 million
Soviet POWs   2.8–3.3 million
Serbs   300,000–600,000   
Disabled   270,000
Romani   130,000–500,000   
Freemasons   80,000–200,000
Slovenes   20,000–25,000
Homosexuals   5,000–15,000
Jehovah's Witnesses   1,250–5,000
Spanish Republicans   7,000

Hypocrytes. Why don't they give a crap about other races? If you explore the pages  of the leading groups it is 99% about the Holocaust and Jews, with perhaps a very brief one sentence mention of "and other races" buried in the material.

6134

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How to Prove Satellite Images are Real

« on: June 11, 2018, 03:32:06 PM »

Exactly. Why not? It probably wouldn't cost that much or be that difficult to employ and army of computer programmers to fake these constantly beamed down images of earth so that they match the cloud and contrail and volcano activity that you can see over your own head.

And just because it makes no logical sense to do that - I mean, why keep telling us they're sending up new satellites if all that means is more and more work for themselves? - there's no reason why it can't be true.

NASA has to keep sending up "satellites" in order to keep justifying their budget and keep their conspiracy alive.  those rockets are not going to space, they are re-supply ration deliveries headed to the soldiers guarding the ice wall.

Follow the money...

NASA's federal budget doesn't fully represent the $200 Billion a year satellite industry. There is another motive.

6135

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 11, 2018, 09:06:45 AM »

Get out of here with your definitions BS. The Ancient Greeks did not study infinite perspective lines, or have any way to know what they did in the distance. The Ancient Greeks could not see or test it for themselves.

Per your "bachelor" example; a more appropriate comparison is to try to determine whether a mysterious man behind the door is married or unmarried. Such a thing is impossible, and applying a label on him without appropriate evidence is fallacious.

That is the idea behind these "the sun would never set" comments. If you are claiming that it is impossible for something to set because of your perspective model then you need to prove your perspective model.

Who is claiming that the sun can never set because of their perspective model?

Everyone is. "The sun can never set on a Flat Earth" is one of the arguments we get all the time.

6136

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 11, 2018, 08:50:20 AM »

So in answer to my question, you would want 'proof' that all bachelors in the 'real world' are not married?

The Ancient Greeks are making conclusions for things that they cannot see or test for themselves. It is impossible to come up with axioms or conclusions for something that cannot be tested.

Why? Euclid defines parallel lines as those which maintain the same distance from one another. This is just like the definition of ‘bachelor’

Where did Euclid prove that the perspective lines receded into infinity?

Where did Elucid prove that the perspective lines would never meet?

Where did Elucid prove his ideas about perspective at all?

Your argument of he "defined" this or that or that his conclusions are based on "rigorous argumentation" and that "evidence is not necessary" is bunk. Evidence is necessary.

The Ancient Greek depiction of perspective has perspective lines which approach each other for infinity.

And again, challenging you here on precisely which Ancient Greek text states that 'perspective lines approach each other for infinity'. Should be easy enough.

That is the idea behind these "the sun would never set" comments. If you are claiming that it is impossible for something to set because of your perspective model then you need to prove your perspective model.

No evidence? Then your theory is disregarded as the universal truth that must be disproved.

No evidence? Then any other theory is as equally valid.

Where is the evidence?

6137

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 11, 2018, 08:38:45 AM »

After Kudlow's comments, Trump added to his string of criticisms against Canada in a series of tweets on Sunday night.

"Fair Trade is now to be called Fool Trade if it is not Reciprocal," he tweeted. "According to a Canada release, they make almost 100 Billion Dollars in Trade with U.S. (guess they were bragging and got caught!). Minimum is 17B. Tax Dairy from us at 270%. Then Justin acts hurt when called out!"

He also asked why he should allow countries to amass "Massive Trade Surpluses, as they have for decades, while our Farmers, Workers & Taxpayers have such a big and unfair price to pay? Not fair to the PEOPLE of America!"

He cited "a $800 Billion Trade Deficit" for the U.S., a number he's touted several times.

Trump says the U.S. "protects Europe" and "pays close to the entire cost of NATO."

The president concluded his tweetstorm by saying, "Sorry, we cannot let our friends, or enemies, take advantage of us on Trade anymore. We must put the American worker first!"

All of this sounds pretty reasonable to me.

6138

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 11, 2018, 08:16:30 AM »

Asking people to do experiments over infinite distances is also a diversionary tactic. But I see above you admit you have done no experiments yourself. This is a Religion, Rowbotham is your prophet whose writings cannot be questioned, anything which shows them to be bunk must be wrong.

If you read Earth Not a Globe you will find that Rowbotham does experiment with objects in the distance to come up with his explanation of perspective. Rowbotham explains his perspective here, here and here.

We see that Rowbotham does perform observations and trials on distant objects to come up with his explanations and conclusions accordingly.

So basically your argument is an appeal to authority, something routinely said to be a fallacy on here.
And, worse, your "authority" is someone whose ideas have not been taken seriously by science and who has been rightly been mostly forgotten by history.
His "experiments" are him just saying "this is what I saw" and then doing a little drawing. Laughable.
What experiments have YOU done? You're an empiricist, right? Why are you taking Rowbotham's word for it?

The consistent angular speed and size of the sun can be explained by a globe earth. There is no flat earth explanation for the angular velocity, and the only way to explain the size is to make up some "atmospheric magnification" effect which by amazing coincidence exactly counteracts the increasing distance of the sun and only works on the sun. It's rationalisation.

Rowbotham's perspective model is bunk. If your flat earth sun makes tighter circles in the northern hemisphere summer and bigger ones in the southern hemisphere summer as outlined in the Wiki then it would mean the sun "sets" at a much closer distance in the northern hemisphere than in the southern one. Makes no sense at all. Unless you are going to go with a bi-polar model in which case I have no idea how your sun moves. I doubt you do either.

You have no evidence for your own perspective model.

That makes anything you have to say about how things "should" work as being without merit.

Rowbotham's interpretation is as good as any other. In fact, I see that he attempts to study the matter while the Ancient Greeks did not make any attempt at all.

You believe in the Ancient Greek theory without evidence.

Euclid's theory is based on rigorous argumentation from five core assumptions, plus definitions. He defines parallel lines as lines which are always the same distance from one another. If Rowbotham found lines that did meet one another, then by definition they couldn't have been parallel lines.

I gave the example earlier of 'bachelor'. This by definition is an unmarried man. Would you ask me for 'proof' or 'evidence' that all bachelors that have been and ever will be are unmarried? Is that your point?

"He defined" is not proof of how things occur and appear in the real world. We need evidence.

Your example of the definition of bachelor is not valid in this matter, and pretty childish.

6139

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 11, 2018, 08:09:13 AM »

Details of these experiments being repeated recently to prove them please.

The evidence is right there in Earth Not a Globe. Various trials from the book were reproduced in various Flat Earth books and literature after Rowbotham. Read the Flat Earth authors who published after Rowbotham. It all builds onto his original work with their own studies.

Details of the Ancient Greek experiments please.

6140

Flat Earth Media / Re: flatTube

« on: June 11, 2018, 07:33:59 AM »

There are way too many Flat Earth videos -- hundreds of them -- to go through them one by one and create tags. My suggestion is to do massive YouTube scrapes of Flat Earth videos and video titles/descriptions from the big authors rather than doing it on a video by video basis.

Here is the scraping method, that I sent to you via PM when we were talking about it: https://www.shivarweb.com/4277/scrape-export-video-information-youtube/

If we scrape the titles and descriptions with the video links then we won't have to create tags. The title and description already has the key words of "Coriolis Effect" or whatever the topic may be.

I think we can add tags to further categorize them if we wish, but I feel that this is more optional if we make the tiles and descriptions searchable. I like your #FEIntroduction tag, as this provides a tag by a reviewer that is probably not in the title or description. However, when looking at various videos I did not really feel like I could provide much more than what was already in the title and descriptions. These people are already making their videos with the appropriate descriptions and titles for YouTube searches. We should use them.

The scraper tool also captures the YouTube tags people are applying to the video as well.

For this venture I think we should scrape the videos of the following authors:

Globe Busters - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXIovaBdnA4UHdd-TZ-MqRg/videos

Jeranism - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCS_FY5mR4g22L_E9t1D_ExQ/videos

P-Brane - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7pHE0PsVBBGIyAShyyUCqQ/videos

The Flat Earth Podcast - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSxKBShys3kLEZJqJPS0WAg/videos

Those are my favorite channels.

But also, we should consider the authors in this thread on the other site: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66306.0