1681

Flat Earth Media / Re: flatTube

« on: June 07, 2018, 02:47:53 PM »

#proFE
#FEinthenews
#madmikehuges
#steamrocket

1682

Flat Earth Media / Re: flatTube

« on: June 07, 2018, 02:46:22 PM »

#proFE
#FEtheory
#marksargant
#FEintroduction

1683

Flat Earth Media / flatTube

« on: June 07, 2018, 02:44:11 PM »

A flat earth video gallery on the site is something that has been muted on and off for some time. Due to the implementation time I don't see it happening any time soon.

The idea being we can create the best flat earth video gallery resource on the internet with all the best videos to watch in one place.

However, there is no point building such a thing if we don't use it. To that end I thought I'd start a thread in here, for people to put the best videos.

These should be videos that clearly describe flat earth theories.
That are well made (unless the content is so groundbreaking, production quality is irrelevant).
The videos can be pro or anti-FE, but they must be notable for their quality or importance. A video with deGrasse Tyson may not be very insightful (his observations are usually very facile, he caters for the lowest common denominator), but he is a prominent figure. 
They can be mainstream news clips. Or public figures with pro/anti FE messages.

Feel free to embed with a timestamp to the relevant part, if part of a longer video to start the play at say 4 minutes 15 seconds in.

The hope is that if we end up with a lot of great videos, they can be tagged and searchable and then we can embed directly from youtube in order no one loses any ad revenue, views etc and we aren't stealing content. Only hosting embedded content so more people can enjoy the original and bringing more people interested in the topic to the best content.

Tagging would be very much appreciated so we know what the content is about and we can make it filterable later.

Suggested tags for videos.

#proFE or #antiFE for every video

Relevance
#FEinthenews
#FEcelebrity
#FEtheory

Topic
#universalacceleartion
#flighttimes
#corilolis

We aren't interested in just mainstream RE. It has to be as part of a rebuttal to FE. Videos on just coriolis would be pointless in a flat earth video library.
Add appropriate tags as necessary but try to stick to pro/anti, relevance and topic so we can make filters. We'd also look at views and date made later for popular vids or trending or latest options.

Lets see. If this thread becomes a good resource, we can look to put together a proper library. If not, we knew not to waste our time.

1684

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Peirce Quincuncial Projection

« on: June 05, 2018, 09:39:13 PM »

For a first go, its a very good one.

Ignore this ...

A bit more research and investigation, I reckon, if you want to be taken seriously.

Focus on this ...

but props for you for actually trying to create a flat earth map

1685

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Peirce Quincuncial Projection

« on: June 05, 2018, 08:23:33 PM »

Well I like it. I'm not going to give you any bitcoin, but I enjoyed the video.

It isn't a projection I have seriously considered before because of the New Zealand issue you show. However I hadn't realised redrawing to make London the centre (something I'm not going to complain about at all, if there is a God, he's likely to have put his favourite people in the middle), would fix many of these issues.

As flat earth maps go, this is as good as any.

1686

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Witcher 3 - Contains spoilers

« on: June 05, 2018, 02:50:31 PM »

The real question of this thread is how Thork will solve his own very apparent daddy issues.

I don't have an daddy issues.  My father has been dead for almost 20 years. That's a lot of time to sort any 'issues'.

1687

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Witcher 3 - Contains spoilers

« on: June 05, 2018, 11:00:16 AM »

Thork - if you raised a child as if she were your own, you'd want to bang her? Fucking gross, dude. Geralt has been Ciri's parent since she was a wee little thing.

Also, there is at least one elf prostitute somewhere but I don't remember where (I banged her). But Yen is the best, did you at least get the stuffed unicorn sex scene? Or did you mess that up too because you're dumb and impatient?

I had unicorn sex. It was because I didn't commit to either and wanted both I ended up with nothing. You can see the cut scene I got ...



Now by about 2:15 I thought I'd won the game. 45 seconds later I realised the game probably needed a little more respect and that a quicksave reload wasn't going to save this. I'd have to start over ... which wasn't going to happen.


And Geralt didn't bring up Ciri ... that's nonsense. Vesemir is the guy that spent all the time with her. Geralt was always out killing monsters and doing quests. He's only 'daddy' because Yennifer put that idea into her head because she wanted to play happy families and both sorcerers and witchers are infertile.

Geralt should have run off with Ciri. She is always cock blocking him. I was under the impression she wanted me for herself ... and I was fine with that.

1688

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Time Dilation?

« on: June 04, 2018, 06:50:57 PM »

Again, you would expect no time dilation. And being as the aforementioned experiment is "an embarrassment to science", I don't see why I'd have to make any effort to shoehorn our theories to fit those numbers.

For us if the distance is the same, the altitude is the same, the flight time is the same, cruising speeds are the same, then the dilation is the same. No maths needed, both sides of the equation balance ... difference = 0.

given your parameters, i would agree, the difference would be zero (between the two planes).  but it wasnt.  meaning velocities were different, and the only explanation was that going east vs west and accounting for the spin of the earth.   

So Baby Thork...this is awkward...but do you just realize you proved the Earth is a rotating sphere 

You seem to very conveniently miss the part where I've quoted 3 times for you ... and now a 4th

The upshot is that the “data” presented by Hafele and Keating are an embarrassment for science.

You've proved sod all, apart from the fact you have trouble reading.

1689

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: New 'Blue Marble'

« on: June 04, 2018, 05:56:53 PM »

Who is an expert on what things look like in space? You ask a dozen astronauts what stars look like in space and you get a dozen different answers.

Some say you can't see any stars, some say you see far more stars than you could on earth, some say its a 'velvet effect of stars', some say you can see stars all the time, some say you can see stars only looking away from the sun, some say the zodiac stars are brighter ... they make it up. So how am I supposed to know what things look like in space? I only have conflicting views to go on (all of which are lies).

Below is a video with astronauts giving accounts of what space looks like. In the same video is a man telling you what models look like and how to tell them from machines.



Enjoy.

1690

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Time Dilation?

« on: June 04, 2018, 05:52:41 PM »

Again, you would expect no time dilation. And being as the aforementioned experiment is "an embarrassment to science", I don't see why I'd have to make any effort to shoehorn our theories to fit those numbers.

For us if the distance is the same, the altitude is the same, the flight time is the same, cruising speeds are the same, then the dilation is the same. No maths needed, both sides of the equation balance ... difference = 0.

1691

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: New 'Blue Marble'

« on: June 04, 2018, 12:09:29 PM »

What does "looks real" even mean?
I mean, clearly my old 8-bit Spectrum games didn't exactly look photo-realistic.
Since ILM got going films like Jurassic Park do "look real" but aren't.
Whether something "looks real" is highly subjective

Do you actually have any solid evidence to show that these images/videos are Photoshop or computer generated?
Or is it more "the earth is flat so it can't be real so it isn't"?

Even if the earth was round, those images are not real. They look utterly drawn and not photographed.

1692

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: New 'Blue Marble'

« on: June 04, 2018, 11:08:09 AM »

You can't honestly think that either of these images is real. Do they look real to you? Do you turn off any critical thinking ability when you see the word NASA?

Even this looks more realistic

1693

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Time Dilation?

« on: June 03, 2018, 08:07:02 PM »

They got the results they wanted to prove the earth is a ball. To hell with the method. When you criticise that as a scientist, you are stoned walled by those adhering to conventional wisdom.

Thork, neither experiment had anything to do with proving the earth was a ball.

No, they were calculated on the ASSUMPTION the earth was a ball.

why would they, in the 1960s we had known the world was a globe for nearly 2000 years!  the point of the experiment was to prove experimentally Einstein's time dilation equation, which they nailed by the way.

I hardly think ... and I quote ... "The upshot is that the “data” presented by Hafele and Keating are an embarrassment for science" is an example of them 'nailing it'.

The second experiment had nothing to do with fixing any errors, it occured on the 25th anniversary of the original test and they wanted to see if they could improve upon the accuracy of testing, which they did.

The 2nd experiment was a tribute to the first, done in just the same way with all the same errors. It also contains junk data.

The time dilation equation is quite simple, so maybe if you dont agree with the math used by these experiments and/or the flight paths you could use your flat earth map to draw to flight paths, one going west and one going east and do the math to show the alternate flights as you proposed could provide the same results?

Do what maths?

The earth is flat, the times are the same.

Or do you want me to do the maths based on the globular nonsense and bad data from Hafele and Keating to get the same bad answers?

1694

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100% undebunkable

« on: June 03, 2018, 08:01:21 PM »

Why would the air have to "decelerate to a full stop" when moving north or south?

It would have to change velocity to match the spin speed at whatever circumference. That is a change of momentum. You need to add energy into a system to achieve that ... Newton's 1st law of motion.

You said "to a full stop" but now you talk of a change in velocity. Which is it?

Is this difficult for you?

The earth spins at 1037mph at the equator. 10 degrees off the equator it has slowed to 1021mph.

Below is a nice little list for you.

  0 degrees: 1,037.5646 mph (1,669.8 km/h)
10 degrees: 1,021.7837 mph (1,644.4 km/h)
20 degrees: 974.9747 mph (1,569.1 km/h)
30 degrees: 898.54154 mph (1,446.1 km/h)
40 degrees: 794.80665 mph (1,279.1 km/h)
50 degrees: 666.92197 mph (1,073.3 km/h)
60 degrees: 518.7732 mph (834.9 km/h)
70 degrees: 354.86177 mph (571.1 km/h)
80 degrees: 180.16804 mph (289.95 km/h)
90 degrees: 0 mph (0 km/h)

Because you seem unable to understand the simplest things I say, below is a childrens guide, complete with a little formula so you can work it out yourself.

https://www.thoughtco.com/speed-of-the-earth-1435093

As you can see, the velocity changes as you move towards and away from the equator and if you get to the poles, .... a full stop.

1695

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: New 'Blue Marble'

« on: June 03, 2018, 05:14:58 PM »

The relative position of the two bodies is always the same in the shot. Does that clarification help?

No, it is not. You've quoted one picture, AS11-44-6642, but there's also frames 6547-64, 6601-05, and 6633-6643, as well as 5439 - 5442 on magazine 37. All different.

However, they will all have Earth close to the lunar horizon, because they are all 'Earthrise' photos. The ones where Earth was seen significantly above the horizon are just 'Earth' photos.

I think we can agree that NASA has spent a lot of time and effort concocting the perfect earth rise photo over the years. I think photo manipulation is the cheaper and easier option (Occam's razor), but hell, you can believe tales of heroes and adventures to the moon if you like.

1696

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Time Dilation?

« on: June 03, 2018, 05:06:03 PM »

well first off, i am sorry that i didnt go down the path that you liked that you had a pre-made repost ready to go and required some additional thought.  But my post was very clear, you are the one that decided to try and interpret what i was going to maybe ask.  i was just looking for confirmation that yes, FET agreed.

Fine, FET agrees. Most people find one word answers very unrewarding, but I didn't realise I was talking to a machine that doesn't know how to use a search function. Either you wish to converse or you wish to find out information. If you want information, use the search function. Its all there and stop wasting my time. 

As for the experiment, i understand how time dilation works.  the original experiment and subsequent re-do in the 1990s showed there was indeed a velocity difference between the two flights.  one went east, the other west.   if the earth wasnt spinning, how would you account for the significant difference between the two??!   

but your last line is what i was kind of expecting, the whole thing was faked.  how about the experiment in the 1990s then to replicate it?  they provided real time tracking of the two airplanes throughout the entire trip to show speed and distance covered.  they also repeated it and used multiple clocks.  Same result.  the earth is a sphere that rotates, thus the velocity difference between two planes.

It is hard to take such a small sample set seriously. I leave you with a quote from a review of the experiment by Dr Kelly.

It seems that every time I evaluate one of the experiments said to confirm SRT or GRT either the data or the interpretations are poor. Hafele-Keating is no different. You might ask: “Aren’t all important experiments confirmed by others?” Actually, this is seldom the case—of my 320 publications, only one was repeated by others in any detail (see Wills and Borchardt, 1993 vs. Turner and others, 2008). Except for some refinement, the results were essentially the same. To go to the trouble of redoing an experiment, one must be a highly motivated skeptic. Being the second Einstein is not enough. The skeptics I referenced remain unpublished in ranking journals and they probably could not get funds to redo the experiment in any case. Apparently, slip-shod work in favor of relativity has a ready market among believers; those opposed present only a minor inconvenience to the conventional wisdom.

The upshot is that the “data” presented by Hafele and Keating are an embarrassment for science. If they actually had obtained data that supported Einstein’s idea that clocks are slowed simply by increases in velocity, the UD approach still would be necessary to provide a physical explanation. We would have to consider the microcosm (the cesium beam clock) and the macrocosm through which it travels. A hint for the necessity of this is found in the International System (SI) definition of a second as “the duration of 9,192,631,770 cycles of microwave light absorbed or emitted by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133 atoms in their ground state undisturbed by external fields (italics mine).” At minimum, cesium beam clocks have to be heavily shielded from magnetic effects—the Hafele clocks were triple shielded. The general appellation “external fields” is a bow to the possibility that there may be other fields to consider. Of course, there are all manner of particles in the Earth’s atmosphere and in the etherosphere (TSW, p. 202). How these would affect the clocks physically was and is still not well known. Clocks on the ground show less variability than the mobile clocks used on the planes, so the macrocosm evidently played an important part in the erratic results. A proper analysis would require an exploration of such effects.

By the way, I also re-read your explanation for the apparent stellar-shift (viz a viz the Eddington eclipse experiment) as being due to refraction in the ‘etherosphere’ and is not evidence for a gravity well or curved space-time around the sun. Such an elegant and simple explanation. Thank you.

You are welcome Bill. You might want to read Moody (2009), which is a similar analysis of the data that Eddington claimed to be the first experimental proof of GRT, catapulting Einstein into the limelight in 1919.

They got the results they wanted to prove the earth is a ball. To hell with the method. When you criticise that as a scientist, you are stoned walled by those adhering to conventional wisdom.

1697

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Debate Club: Non-Technical Forums Execution

« on: June 03, 2018, 04:45:02 PM »

So, how is this coming along? I've had no internet for a week, I was kind of hoping to see new boards on my return or at least a finalised agreement on what the future holds.

There is basically one person who can execute this at the moment. I doubt it’ll happen anytime soon.

We need a decision and an execution plan before we can add it to that one person's workflow though. It can't be added until we know what to add.

1698

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100% undebunkable

« on: June 03, 2018, 04:42:27 PM »

Why would the air have to "decelerate to a full stop" when moving north or south?

It would have to change velocity to match the spin speed at whatever circumference. That is a change of momentum. You need to add energy into a system to achieve that ... Newton's 1st law of motion.

...but why would it need to stop? And where would it stop?

At the North or South Pole, you'd have to be at velocity zero, with respect to earth's spin. So the speed varies from a max of 1040mph to a min of 0 in order for the air to keep up with the surface of the earth as it spins.

Do you believe that there are planets in our solar system?  if so, we can observe that those planets are spinning and that their rotations are not slowing.  why is the earth different, they all have atmospheres as well, many more substantial than our own?   For example you can measure the rotational speed of Jupiter by measuring how often the red spot takes to make a revolution, etc.

Sure, there are planets. The earth is not a planet. Planet comes from the Greek meaning wandering star.

Why is the earth special? Well that is a 'what is the meaning of life' type question. There is no hard answer. But the earth is definitely special.

It is the only place in the whole universe we have observed complex life. It is unlike the little whirling balls in the sky. Why do none of those have life? Of the billions and billions of planets out there, not a radio signal, not a visit from anyone, absolute silence. One might hypothesise that a flat earth with a protective firmament is a prerequisite for life. And that's why earth is special and the only place we find life.

1699

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: New 'Blue Marble'

« on: June 03, 2018, 04:37:54 PM »

When I'm convinced neither shot was taken from above the moon, why is the onus on me to show they are both taken from the same place on the moon?

Because you explicitly said the Moon was "in the same place" in each...

The relative position of the two bodies is always the same in the shot. Does that clarification help?

1700

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Time Dilation?

« on: June 03, 2018, 04:31:22 PM »

Interesting again that you confuse basic physics terms...why would my follow up question relate to General Relativity when i specifically said FET didnt beleive that and my question was on General Relativity.  Do you know the difference between these?

Again? Have I conversed with you before? And it is not me confusing anything. You have 22 posts. How do I know what you are thinking? You said you had follow up questions. Most people go from special relativity (the building block for Universal Acceleration) straight to gravity (the counter to UA), the idea being to try to show orbital mechanics to be correct and there for earth must have formed into a ball under its own weight and be round.

My question for the FE experts relates to the Hafele-Keating experiment conducted back in early 70s/late 60s if i recall correctly.  They did an experiment to verify Einsteins prediction of time dilation using atomic clocks.  One plane flew west around the world, the other flew east around the world.  Both went around twice if i recall.  The experiment was to compare the time difference of the clocks on those planes versus the control clocks left on the ground.  both flew at the same height roughly so time change relative to gravitational potential is negligible.  The plane travelling east had a greater overall velocity (travelling with rotation of the earth) compared to one going west.

The results of this test matched up nearly perfect as predicted by Einstein's calculations, within 2% of the expected result if i recall correctly.

now the ONLY way for that to happen is the world is rotating.  if we were on a flat earth, the two should be the same relative time, they did not. 

this experiment has been conducted again since then with even more precise clocks, once in the mid 1990s using multiple clocks and the difference from predicted by formulas was even closer.

what would be the FET explanation for this?

Why does the earth need to spin? Only a distance needs to be travelled. If I get in a rocket and travel faster than light away from a clock, the theory is the clock goes backwards. If I am under the speed of light but still fast, the clock slows. If I accelerate towards the clock it speeds up. Where is the necessity for spin? They happened to make a cock and bull story about going around the globe, but a circle around the equator of a flat earth would achieve the same thing. It is about motion through time and space, not spinning balls.