1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 10, 2015, 08:36:46 PM »

I am unaware of their being a single world class Physicist or Astrophysicist who believes that the Earth is flat. I am not aware of there even being any average Physicists or Astrophysicists who do.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of stars in FET

« on: April 10, 2015, 06:45:12 PM »

Can you post this on a separate thread, it's not relevant to what I asked.

fuck off then. Waste my fucking time.

I can see the love and compassion that your religion has instilled in you. It's heart warming to feel it.

Because you never bothered to read the post, follow the links and find out what Deism is. Deism - A force of nature created the universe and it doesn't give a shit about you.

You had a very comprehensive answer. You could have asked anything from it. You lost the opportunity. You have the theory, you can't even be bothered to read it to critique it.

You are right, I did just skim though it, apologies. I mostly saw some stuff about religion and a rant about atheism. I didn't think it was relevant. I see there was a little bit about stars. Something about them being on movers.

I still don't see how this answers the problem.

The centre of rotation of the circumpolar stars is always either due North or due South. The angle of elevation of their centres of rotation changes as you move from North to South. When you are at the North pole the centre of rotation of the Northern circumpolar stars is overhead, at the equator it has dropped to the horizon. The centre of rotation of the Southern circumpolar stars is directly overhead at the South pole and drops to the horizon at the equator. There is a symmetry.

If there were two sets of stars on two different movers above a flat Earth then sure one set could have a centre of rotation above the North pole. However, the centre of rotation of the other set would be at a particular point on the rim of the disc. It wouldn't be due South at any point on the Earth. You would have to give me some idea how high above the Earth they are in order for me to assess at what angle of elevation the centres of rotation would be at different locations. I also need to know what the distance from the North pole to the ice rim is on your model.

I think that's what your post was trying to say anyway. If I am wrong perhaps you can clarify.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of stars in FET

« on: April 10, 2015, 06:28:34 PM »

Ok, let me ask a simple question. How far above the Earth do you believe the stars to be? Do you believe they are all in the same plane or are they distributed throughout a 3 dimensional space?

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of stars in FET

« on: April 10, 2015, 06:22:24 PM »

Can you post this on a separate thread, it's not relevant to what I asked.

fuck off then. Waste my fucking time.

I can see the love and compassion that your religion has instilled in you. It's heart warming to feel it.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of stars in FET

« on: April 10, 2015, 06:21:06 PM »

Can you post this on a separate thread, it's not relevant to what I asked.

fuck off then. Waste my fucking time.

Moderator, can I assume this will incur a warning? I've already had one for far less.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of stars in FET

« on: April 10, 2015, 06:20:03 PM »

Can anyone give an account of the circumpolar stars that doesn't include anything pseudo-scientific and which sticks well established ideas about geometry and optics.

I will say this again because you do have to hammer things home for flat Earth proponents.

I am not suggesting that a flat Earth is impossible. I am suggesting that if the Earth was flat then what would see would be very different.

I cannot see how you could have two sets have circumpolar stars above a flat plane if you are making reasonable assumptions about optics and geometry. Even allowing for some peculiar processes this is very hard to account for.

At any point on the equator it possible on a clear night to see both sets of circumpolar stars. If the Earth is a disc how is possible to be anywhere on a circle somewhere between the Arctic and Antarctica and see two sets of circumpolar stars. One set always due North on the horizon and the other set due South on the horizon.

Surely you can admit that this is a problem for flat Earth theory. Can anyone have the integrity to at least admit that this is a big problem?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of stars in FET

« on: April 10, 2015, 06:04:57 PM »

I recently sent a pm to someone explaining basic flat earth theory starting with cosmology. What you choose to do with that is up to you.

Cosmology. How do the stars and planets work? Seems like a sensible question. Its a question that leads to the ultimate truth about earth and its creation.

I like to start to explain this with Aristotle because he is the first person in history to discover the truth and from it ... deduce the one true faith. In his book metaphysics he explain how the heavens move. And he's very close. He describes the heavens as having either 47 or 55 movers. And an unmoved mover or prime mover that you can equate to God (that equate to God is vital). And look how odd that is. He believes in monotheism - in 350BC! When all around him are worshipping rivers and the sun and the god of war etc. The reason he has 47 or 55 is because he calculates there should be 55 but can only account for 47. That's likely because he didn't know about Neptune, Ceres, Pluto, Uranus etc because telescopes weren't that good. His books are fascinating. The stars are on two movers.

It always makes me laugh when noobs point this image out to me as proof the earth is round. Its the opposite. It proves Aristotle is right. The sun is on a mover, the moon, comets, each planet on its own mover, the moons of Jupiter share a mover. Imagine them to be like giant invisible cogs in the sky and as each one turns the others move with it and so you get the perfect and predictable movement of the heavens. We call them 'celestial gears'.

When we map out the heavens in a flat earth way with the earth at the centre you get a shape like this.

And people protest, how does that work with gears? ...  Did you ever have a spirograph as a kid? That uses cogs to draw shapes? What shapes did you get?
https://lmddgtfy.net/?q=spirograph%20!gi
That's how the heavens interact. Like giant discs and the planets are situated on a part of each disk that move as a consequence of each other, and back to the unmoved mover. Give me a spirograph kit with 55 of the right shaped cogs and I'll draw the heavens for you. We often get criticised our flat earth cosmology can't work mathematically. the fact you can map it using gears proves the maths and physics is spot on. We can model the heavens. Its a ridiculous accusation we can't. Its RET that doesn't model properly.

Lets use more history to cross check this theory.
You'll see the image below a lot but few understand its meaning. Its a marker. Every true flat earther for hundreds of years recognises the imagery immediately. The Flammarion woodcut.

It is based on what is now a myth ... we can't or haven't been able to prove it is real.

This legend includes the story of three monks (Theophilus, Sergius, and Hyginus) who "wished to discover the point where the sky and the earth touch"[8] (in Latin: ubi cœlum terræ se conjungit).[9] After recounting the legend[10] he remarks that "the preceding monks hoped to go to heaven without leaving the earth, to find 'the place where the sky and the earth touch,' and open the mysterious gateway which separates this world from the other. Such is the cosmographical notion of the universe; it is always the terrestrial valley crowned by the canopy of the heavens."

In the legend of St. Macarius, the monks do not in fact find the place where earth and sky touch. In Les mondes imaginaires Flammarion recounts another story:

So its the 6th century and a monk pulls back the curtain of the sky to see the workings of the heavens. You can see the gears top left. Only they aren't gears. That is a very special symbol. It is an orphanim.
They appear everywhere. They are described by Christianity as a lower order of angel like cherubs but they are in wheel form. This is Christianity trying to equate the forces in the heavens to its own theology.
Sick of posting large pictures ... click here
They are the wheels on God's chariot in this depiction.

Lets go to a different bit of history. Isaac Newton. A sworn enemy of the flat earth society. Did you know he was a Deist?. His work let him to become one. Deism is founded on the belief that the universe is set in motion by a creator. Not a creator that gives a shit about people praying or individuals. Just that a creator created the earth and heavens and that is all. And one of the pillars is a believe in a clockwork universe.
Newton could see the heavens moving and the mathematics behind it and new it was all determined. Where the sun will be in 4 hours time, where Jupiter will appear in the sky in 40 years etc etc. He believed the exact same thing as Aristotle all those years earlier. That a creator set the heavens in motion. Nothing else. No constant praying or holy wars or thou shalt not kill or any of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Architect_of_the_Universe
Look at other Deists. Benjamin Franklin, Boyle who discovered the gas constants, Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, Neil Armstrong, Stephen Hawking, freemasons, the illuminati ... all of the enemies of the flat earth society. The people in power. Those that would know. And do you know what is odd? If you poll our society which religion always comes out as number 2 on the list behinds the hoards of atheists?
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=666.0
Deism. An odd choice, no? For what is supposed to be a defunct religion that no one knows about. We share the same religion as the most powerful men in history and the illuminati, because that is where the truth leads. Its confirmation that we know we are right. We know what our enemies know.

Both Newton and Aristotle were tasked with the same job. Hide the truth, prove the earth to be round. Galileo the same. Galileo actually recanted. But his job was to destroy the catholic church ... also enemies of the illuminati. And he tried to do that by discrediting the texts the same way Aristotle did. There is a very interesting artefact. Its a big fuck you to the population of people's on earth. the middle finger of modernity.. Galileo's middle finger in a glass jar. The middle finger has always meant the same thing. the Romans used it. It is the symbol of the phallus. The big fuck you. Examine the word modernity.

As a historical category, modernity refers to a period marked by a questioning or rejection of tradition; the prioritization of individualism, freedom and formal equality; faith in inevitable social, scientific and technological progress and human perfectibility; rationalization and professionalization; a movement from feudalism (or agrarianism) toward capitalism and the market economy; industrialization, urbanization and secularization; the development of the nation-state and its constituent institutions (e.g. representative democracy, public education, modern bureaucracy) and forms of surveillance (Foucault 1995, 170–77).

Its a message from the elite. The capitalists, those that run the stock exchange, the Rothchilds and Rockefellas of this world today. You can't have the truth. You are to serve us and look to us as God. We rule and you obey.

I was gutted when I saw Mark Sergant's video 'hiding god' as the final in his series. He was so close and then missed. The whole point of the conspiracy is to remove you from God. If you knew how the earth worked, how special it is and its place in the centre of the universe you would see what God is. God is the force, the energy, the thing that created the universe. Not a man with a beard or fairy that grants wishes or a pschyopath that instructs one nation to go to war with another. To understand God and why they hide him you must understand the purpose of religion.

Religion is a blue print for civilisation. All religions share common themes. There is law. Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal. In Islam they have sharia law. All religious books do. Its a way to keep order. To make people think they are being watched when no one is around and prevent crime. Remember there were no forensics until recently. All religions have praying, songs, worship, kneeling or bowing. Ways of brain washing you into constantly making you think about them (attending church, 5 am prayers whatever) and surrendering to a higher power. They also have a human or organisation between you and God. the pope and Vatican, religious leaders, divine right kings. Religion is used so you obey leaders and follow order.
Religion also provides other things. A reason to make men die for you. Crusades, Jihads etc. It is the elite making you look to them.

New Atheism is a new religion. It is belief based. They believe there is no God. And I find the likes of Richard Dawkins very amusing. He is setting out to disprove God. He wishes to know all the science and hopes it will kill belief in God. But mathematics is god's language. Its the way everything is described. Let there be light has some truth. God did say that. He described it in his own language and it was so. If Richard Dawkins ever discovered how something can be from nothing, the forces that created the universe, do you know what he'd have to call that thing? God. Richard Dawkins can only disprove God by discovering God. The irony is delicious.

Atheism is designed to remove you from organised religion. An illuminati goal for hundreds of years. They don't want your money going there. They want it. Money is power. Atheism is designed to make you feel small and insignificant. you are on one of trillions of planets orbiting trillions of stars on a tiny spec of dust and you are meaningless. Its a horrible religion. It takes hope from the downtrodden, comfort from the bereaved, strength from the sick, justice from those who have been wronged. Its the only religion that takes everything from you and offers nothing in return. If a 5 year old child is dying of cancer and asks "will I see mummy again?" all religions are designed to comfort her ... you will see her in heaven. Atheism tells her she's worm food.

So why the movement to atheism now? Its about replacing God. you are told by shills like Edward Snowden that the state sees everything you do. Tracks your every move, listens to your every phone call, monitors your social media, reads all your e-mails. They claim to be all seeing ... like God. Its actually bollocks. Have you tried using Siri? that dumb thing can't even find me a McDonalds. How is it going to decipher a conversation on a phone. You think the NSA have better technology than Apple, Microsoft, Intel? With hundreds of billions in R&D budget? you think they have better voice recognition from that paltry 'black budget' of theirs? I see things like "They'd need quantum computers to crack encryption so they must have quantum computers". No they don't The NSA out techs Intel when that is all Intel do? Bollocks. They have secret weapons no one knows about that can read thoughts or fly at hypersonic speeds? That one government budget is used to out tech the entire private sector? Its rubbish.

You posted we don't believe in conspiracies. Most conspiracies are made up to get you thinking they see everything. Know everything, and you need to obey. The truth is government never out does the private sector. Its why they buy weapons from private firms like Lockheed and computers and servers from Cisco. Tech hasn't really moved on since the 60's. Processors got smaller. Everything else is just small improvements. The entire car industry makes slightly better engines with all that R&D. Few real drugs have been discovered by pharma since the 60s. All the best ones like anti-biotics, steroids, major vaccines have been around for decades. there is no amazing tech. Its hyped to make you think you are helpless against an all powerful state. If Snowden had really been a whistle blower, the news would not have been allowed to report his work. Its orchestrated. The press is controlled. Its about you thinking they are God. As its always been. And that is why they hide the reality of the universe from you. To control you. That's the reason for the conspiracy. Its not complicated. And before you say "but we see things like the SR-71 after they are commissioned ... you think that's a leap? It has jet engines (been around since the late 40's), they stuck cones on the front to compress the air (Like a turbo on a car from the 70's), and could now contain the heat using better alloys thanks to the private sector. But it just made a plane a bit faster and a bit higher. Its not like believing they decrypt 30 billion e-mails a day and decipher several million phone calls. 

So Aurora ... nope ... NASA lies and hype. Roswell Aliens with secret technology. Don't be silly. They'd love you to think they have that. HARP ... literally studies the make up of the atmosphere.

So back to FET. FET is beautiful and everything matches. You can seamlessly explain one thing from another to another. Its the reason for everything, its the only thing that matters. That's the truth they hide. And mathematics and science are the answer. They are the tools we can use to prove we are right. We need only speak the language of God to reveal Him (it). From fibbonachi sequences to explain the petals on a plant, the ratios of bones in our hand and the shape of a snails shell, to the movement of the heavens, to probabilities, chaos, and ultimately how something came from noting.

We don't use conjecture. I saw the video about the ISS for example saying how there where perms and it looks like its done in a studio etc etc. That won't convince the public. We use maths and physics.

The International Space Station has a stable orbit within the middle of the thermosphere, between 320 and 380 kilometres

Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation. Temperatures are highly dependent on solar activity, and can rise to 2,000 °C (3,630 °F).

Melting Points of Various Metals
Celsius (c)
Copper 1083
Steel 1371

Now I have something the public can use. The ISS with its delicate little solar panels flies about in a level of the atmosphere at 2000 degrees C when the melting point of steel is just 1300 degrees. And Astronauts get out and casually use metal screwdrivers in their little cotton NASA suits on space walks in the very place where incoming meteors vaporise in seconds at the very same speeds as the ISS flies (22,000mph) and NASA itself claims to use heat shields on returning spacecraft. Now who looks dumb? Us claiming its green screen cos it looks shady or people who swallow that ISS horseshit about it orbiting in the thermosphere?

Anyway, I've been all over the place. I don't actually specialise in cosmology. My areas of expertise are 'space tourism' and the history of the flat earth society. But basic FET cosmology seems a sensible place to start.

Oh, I forgot. I haven't told you what shape the earth is yet. Its not a disk, lol. Its more of a splat. We just use the disk as it makes a nice little logo. I have a map but the reasoning is more long winded than this basic outline of cosmology. We use ocean currents etc to determine the shape. But its finite and has an edge. I'll save it for another day.

And everything is finite. the atoms in the universe, the number of grains of sand on a beach, the distance to the furthest star in millimetres, the probability of anything. There is no infinite. It is not a number. Nothing in the universe is infinite. Its really not a word in God's vocabulary - he is infinity. Ergo the earth isn't infinite. We see infinite in nature absolutely no where. The earth must have an edge. Whenever a scientist uses the word infinite, he is evoking God. "there must have been infinite heat and pressure at the big bang". nope. It didn't happen. "Our maths fails as we get back to the big bang". Yes because it didn't happen. "There could be an infinite number of universes and ours is one that just happened to work" awful atheist you are small and insignificant argument ... nature/god doesn't do infinite.

I'm not trying to convince you to being Deist by the way. Deists don't preach. There isn't much to preach. But globular science leads people to atheism and the same way, being a flat earther inevitably leads to Deism.  I used to be an atheist myself (I have a degree in aerospace engineering and used to do aerodynamics on wings for aircraft, then I became a pilot, and now I work in IT and program in many languages). I was always going to become atheist (christened a Catholic). But I finally settled on Deism. The religion of those I despise. I love irony. 

So know you have a flavour of FET. We have archives on any subject you like. Geology, meteorology, all kinds of earth sciences. you just got a crash course. I hope it makes sense. I suspect I missed out too much to really prove the points I was making but I can reply with more if you need it.

Can you post this on a separate thread, it's not relevant to what I asked.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 10, 2015, 06:01:26 PM »

I want to draw this thread back to what was originally asked.

Is there any evidence that downward acceleration on the Earth is due to the Earth accelerating upwards rather than gravity pulling things down?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of stars in FET

« on: April 10, 2015, 05:47:00 PM »

Let me say this again...

It is just about conceivable within modern science that the Earth is a giant plane accelerating upwards at a constant rate of 9.8 ms^-2. However, what we would see would be totally different. I am not precluding the possibility of a flat Earth within the bounds of science. Therefore, to say I am asking you to argue for a flat Earth assuming a round Earth to be true is a false statement.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of stars in FET

« on: April 10, 2015, 05:43:54 PM »

I am asking something that would be not be considered strange in any other context I can think of. Give an account of something that sticks to the basic things that are well established about geometry, optics and physics. I don't even need to assume gravity to prove the Earth is round. Just reasonable assumptions about geometry and optics. Things like: when an object moves away from you it looks smaller. There is no other context in the world in which even that would be considered a questionable and unreasonable assumption.

If you can't do this doesn't it indicate that there is something far wrong with what you believe?

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of stars in FET

« on: April 10, 2015, 05:35:21 PM »

Now, can anyone give an account of the circumpolar stars that does not involve anything pseudo-scientific?

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of stars in FET

« on: April 10, 2015, 05:34:47 PM »

Sighs... I shall repeat what I already said....

It was understood long before modern science that the Earth was round. Round Earth Theory is not premised on modern science and round Earth belief was not some sort of axiom of modern science from which all else was deduced. It is just about conceivable within science that we could be on a giant flat plane accelerating upwards at 9.8 ms-2. It's just that what we would observe would be totally different.

What I am asking is perfectly reasonable and would not be considered a strange request in any other debate. That fact that it is considered almost cheating in a flat Earth debate indicates the you can only believe the Earth is flat if you are out of step with pretty much the whole of humanity and believe things that cannot be substantiated by science.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 10, 2015, 05:32:14 PM »

What was that rumble I just heard? Oh, I think it was Einstein turning in his grave.

I don't think he would appreciate his name being associated with pseudo-scientific nonsense. The only thing Eistein's aether has in common with flat Earth aether is its name. Even if I disagreed with something Einstein said that wouldn't be tantamount to me calling him a liar.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of stars in FET

« on: April 10, 2015, 05:23:59 PM »

Now, can anyone give an account of the circumpolar stars that does not involve anything pseudo-scientific?

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of stars in FET

« on: April 10, 2015, 05:23:37 PM »

@herewegoround

I'd like to play chess with you. But I want to set the board up with a few restrictions first.



I'm white, its your move.

That's a completely spurious comparison. All I am asking is that we are all playing by the same rules. The same rules the whole of the human race would expect to play by. What is so strange about that? Doesn't it suggest to you that there is something far wrong with flat Earth belief that you can't do that?


I am setting up a challenge, why are you all being so childish about it?

Also, moderator, can I assume that Dr David Thork's post will be sent to angry ranting or complete nonsense?

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of stars in FET

« on: April 10, 2015, 05:17:13 PM »

Now, can anyone give an account of the circumpolar stars that does not involve anything pseudo-scientific.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of stars in FET

« on: April 10, 2015, 05:13:50 PM »

It was understood long before modern science that the Earth was round. Round Earth Theory is not premised on modern science and round Earth belief was not some sort of axiom of modern science from which all else was deduced. It is just about conceivable within science that we could be on a giant flat plane accelerating upwards at 9.8 ms^-2. It's just that what we would observe would be totally different.

What I am asking is perfectly reasonable and would not be considered a strange request in any other debate. That fact that it is considered almost cheating in a flat Earth debate indicates the you can only believe the Earth is flat if you are out of step with pretty much the whole of humanity and believe things that cannot be substantiated by science.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 10, 2015, 04:58:14 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory

This has nothing to do with a mysterious force which can do anything you want it do. The same word used in two different contexts, that's about all it is.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 10, 2015, 04:46:07 PM »

to pull from the wiki "The phenomenon we observe everyday when falling is currently substantiated in modern physics by what is called "The Equivalence Principle".

This principle in physics states that in a relative frame of reference, it is not possible to locally discern whether the frame is accelerating upwards, or if the object inside the frame is affected by gravity. "

The wiki states this, but then how on earth(=3) can FE proponents say that Universal Acceleration exists if by very nature we cannot discern whether it's gravity or Acceleration? am i to believe that FE theory proponents never performed any experiments to see if gravity exists? it is very possible to see gravitational effects of objects smaller than the earth.

are there any experiments at all that have been completed by FE proponents?

It is true that gravity and acceleration are physically equivalent, it was Einstein who first realised this. This lead to his theory of General Relativity. What's amusing about this is that it's premised on the notion that velocity is relative. There is no physical definition of absolute zero velocity, zero acceleration has a physical meaning. That's why when you are on a train moving at a constant speed it feels like you aren't moving. If it speeds up or slows down you feel it. One of the arguments I've head so many time from flat Earth proponents is that if the Earth was moving through space we should feel it. This is premised on the idea that there is an absolute rest frame which can be physically defined. They want it both ways.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of stars in FET

« on: April 10, 2015, 03:51:52 PM »

Can I ask any round Earth proponents not to reply to any comments that don't lie within the specifications I made. I know it sounds cheeky but if you start responding to irrelevant points the thread will very quickly be derailed and become clogged up with pointless arguments that don't go anywhere.

This is a thread about the circumpolar stars and explanations that stick to what is scientifically viable and geometrically possible. If you want to start a thread about this in which you welcome talk about pseudo scientific nonsense like aetheric whirlpools then feel free.

If we start responding to comments like the one jroa just made it they will do to this thread what they did to the other thread.