61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm a RE'r and have some questions!

« on: January 22, 2020, 11:35:29 PM »

Picking a reference frame isn’t just picking a certain area in space, you are selecting an area of time as well, so when you select a frame that includes the earth, assuming initial velocity could possibly be 0, is limited by c. You can’t just reset the frame every instance of time. The idea of a “universal” just means from the beginning of time (the Big Bang presumably marks this instance, haven’t studied that in particular, not confident enough to argue over it), all matter has either gained or lost energy. The amount of energy mass has determines how close it is to experiencing no passage of time. I’m stressing this idea, because what UA proposes is that the mass of the earth breaks through that zero point, where mass would experience zero time passage, which is not possible. However in some sort of whack idea I had, why isn’t there a theory that the earth works like spinning a bucket of water, that acceleration instead of being linear is rather centripetal? I’d still disagree, but I think that would atleast keep speeds consistent.

edit: forgot to thank you for the links, I appreciate it. Perhaps more research could be done by flat earthers to find out what positions people hold that must must be corrupted, and how are these positions corrupted. Either they are in on it or they are fooled somehow by the governments to think their job is X when really its Y. Like my buddy who traveled a far distance in the southern hemisphere, where did he really travel to? How did they fool him and his ship? etc. i think that info is lacking and if it were there, there would be a more full and convincing explanation of how FET works.

62

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm a RE'r and have some questions!

« on: January 22, 2020, 02:43:23 PM »

Implicitly insulting each other aside, it would almost be less effort to just link something useful at this point than it would to come up with something clever to say back to me that would make me look silly. I've read the wiki and all I've found is info of how we faked the moon landing (which I could make another thread about ). Since the wiki is the only source of truth and it doesn't seem to have it, I have come to the forums to ask you, Pete, the pro.

As far as the physics go, there's not much to argue about if we can't agree on some facts and principles. Do you want math? What do you want in that regard?

Whether you or I or both of us are the rude or ill-informed one(s), I guess let the rest of the forum decide. I don't have to be open to being convinced, all I need is to respect the opinions of others, and I suppose my ability to do so is being tested, so I apologize if I've faltered.

63

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm a RE'r and have some questions!

« on: January 22, 2020, 06:45:52 AM »

I see the argument now. Valid, yes. Sound, no. Define "unverifiable". Define "obvious truth".

Many FEr's don't understand logical reasoning at all, so at least the wiki had a valid argument. I hear often, "water always finds its level" as a proof. That would look like this:

P1: Water always finds it's level
P2: water on the earth is level
C: the earth is not round

It's not only not sound, the premises have nothing to do with the conclusion and that makes it an invalid argument. I'm not calling out Pete or this forum in general, just the people I've interacted with and witnessed previously.

I'll give Pete or whoever else a chance to respond, but I really want to discuss why millions of people are very quiet about the flat earth, including my own friends, who would know what shape the earth is. Pete said read the wikis, I read the wikis, and I honestly want to hear a rhetorically sound statement from Pete himself with the snark on the side. I guess he won't because he wished me a fantastic day and dipped.

64

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm a RE'r and have some questions!

« on: January 22, 2020, 12:28:21 AM »

You're kinda rude

edit: I did some digging today around the forums and the wiki and couldn't find information pertaining to precisely what I am talking about, in regards to how many people would have to be in on the conspiracy, and the unlikelihood of being able to keep a lid on it.

Also, Pete, I've been thinking... have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger affect?

If you don't mind, I'd like links to where I can find info about the topic above.

65

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm a RE'r and have some questions!

« on: January 21, 2020, 05:12:37 PM »

Well, Pete, if I believe that I am right, then a side effect is that I believe my view is superior to your view. You mirror this behavior in your own language. Do you believe there's even a slight possibility that you could be wrong yourself? I always leave a sliver of doubt in my own beliefs. Who's to say we don't live in the matrix, or there is a true multi-god system that rules over us, or whatever else alter-reality people have chosen for themselves that are unlikely. My point is just because you believe it vehemently doesn't make it true.

I have nothing more to say, other than you are incorrect in regards to your physics and your critique of what I've said. I think the conversation can end there, as either you are wrong or I am wrong, and I don't believe I'm wrong. A flat earth simply cannot store the amount of energy we would have by now, it breaks the known laws of physics.

You haven't addressed the main point of conjecture I have of FET. How come nobody has blown the whistle from the inside? Is everybody either stupid or evil (or both)? There are so many jobs and roles people have that would rely on a globe earth. To name a few, ANY aircraft pilot, navy officer (like my friend), any aerospace engineer (including myself), satellite operator, any member of government, and the list goes on to include millions of people. Furthermore, how is there a multi-billion dollar space industry if there's nothing to do in space and the entire industry is wrapped in conspiracy? It's not just Aldrin and Armstrong lying about the moon landing, this would take an unimaginable amount of effort.

66

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm a RE'r and have some questions!

« on: January 21, 2020, 03:05:08 AM »

Hey man, I come in good faith, pipe it down. I never said what you put in quotes, however I have implied that I am well rooted in believing in a round earth and am willing to hear what you have to say about what I think. Instead of sharing what you thought, you shared how you felt but I'd really like to see what kind of logic we can collectively produce.

Concerning the UA theory: I have read the wiki and I did say I would go into detail. Now that you've asked me in a bombastic way that I go into detail, I will. The problem with UA is that it considers that the earth is implicitly bound by relativism, rather than explicitly. You're only framing earth, when you need to frame the entire universe. Also, the speed of light is less of a speed limit and more of an energy threshold limit. light moves that fast, but not much else. the fastest alpha particle we've ever captured was moving at 99.99% of c, but nothing with or without mass can move faster. The earth would have to exist in a separate frame from the universe and abide by different laws that allow it to accelerate. Your question "relative to what?" by the way, the answer is this: the frame of the universe. Within the universe's inertial frame, nothing can move as fast as we would supposedly be moving. You can't just frame anything you want if the things in your frame are interacting with things outside your frame.


If you were determined to still disagree with the above statement, the only explanation you would have is that earth is bound by different laws than the ether around it, and I have heard this explanation from flat earthers before and wouldn't be surprised if you said that. Then we'd have pin holes in the fabric of the dome and everything would be implicit to the dome by design. That's a different conversation and I don't think that's what you're saying.

As an aside, I will match your belligerence and you can decide how nice this conversation is or you can ban me, but I'd rather not be banned.

67

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How deep is the earth?

« on: January 19, 2020, 09:02:57 PM »

There's a few very deep things on earth. The deepest ocean trench is 5 miles deep, so that eliminates number 1. The deepest hole in the ground is 7 miles deep. The main evidence of a super deep earth is the existance of a magnetic field. The amount of iron alloy this requires would mean the earth has to be super massive (toward the 4000 mile figure) in order to have such a magnetic field.

68

Flat Earth Theory / I'm a RE'r and have some questions!

« on: January 19, 2020, 08:21:53 PM »

Hello!

I'm a Mechanical Engineer and was inspired by another engineer on the forums to post here. I'd like to state first that I respect anyone's beliefs and do not mean to offend, I only want an honest and fair discussion so that I can understand FE arguments and also FE people. Secondly, I'm a christian, and I know FE and a lot of other non-FE Christians take the bible historically literally, but I do not. I'd prefer not to argue that as your choice to take the bible literally is your choice, not mine.

I've selected a couple of the many topics I've found intriguing in regards to FET.


Gravity... Is it real? is it just Acceleration? or is it Magnitism? I'm open to discuss any other theory other than gravity, but I'll preface with what I think of other theories.

The acceleration theory: Whoever wrote the UA theory page, really butchered the Lorentz equation and doesn't understand Einstein's relativity as it relates to the energy required to reach the speeds we would be traveling by now. For reference, however old you think the earth is, multiply the years by 1.03 and that's how many times the speed of light we are traveling now. I can go into more detail regarding the authors mistakes on that wiki if a member would like me to, but I'd rather stick to the big picture here. FE'rs either believe that the universe is the way I see it where planets and stars revolve around each other or it is just an image on the fabric of the dome. In the first case, our flat world would have to be bound by different physics than worlds around us. Earth would have to be a special exception to the rules that bind the rest of the universe. If you had a high powered telescope (I had the pleasure of using one a few years back at an observatory in Texas) You'd be able to see distant planets travelling around distant stars because of gravity, obviously not acceleration. Gravity explains why planets and rocks don't fly off into space, but sometimes things do, and gravity explains that also. Saturn has rings, and meteorites hit other planets often, thank God for a thick atmosphere to protect us from that horror. In the latter theory, why would God create an environment in which we can observe things that seem one way but aren't that way in reality? I believe God could make FE a reality because God is all powerful, but God is also all good, and it's not in his character to lie en mass to people like that when, being all knowing, must've known that eventually people would be able to observe his creation the way we can now and draw conclusions (i.e. gravity exists) that aren't actually accurate. God doesn't need to do this because he's all powerful and can make the universe work in whichever manner he sees fit.

Magnetism theory: This is actually how I talk to kids about gravity. it makes a lot of sense because gravity and magnetism use the same equation with different constants. The two equations use an inverse square law, so that means as you move away linearly, the force attracting you decreases by a square. In a way, gravity is magnetism, but gravity interacts the same with all matter that has mass. There is also energy, that isn't affected by gravity as it has no mass. There are some theories out there that remain unproven that the expanse of our universe is caused by some sort of dark matter that has he opposite reaction than regular matter has to gravity: it is repelled. But this theory is not proven accurate at this time. So whenever FE'rs say gravity isn't real because look, magnetism, I get confused by what point they are trying to make. I'd like to hear some discussion on this theory in particular.

Another topic: This is non-scientific, but more related to statistics. The structure of the FE theory is based on this idea that the government is lying to us. I don't trust the government as much as the next guy, but I'd like to logically break this down. I work in the aerospace industry, and a lot of what I do has to do with altimeters and directional control for the F35 fighter aircraft. I can't discuss my work because security clearance stuff, but the things that I work on in the plane depend on calculations made under the assumption the earth is round. If the earth were actually not round, then the plane would not behave the way that it does. Along with 20 thousand others who work on the same aircraft, and with millions of other people that work in aerospace building rockets, satellites, high altitude spacecraft, etc., all these people including myself are either fools or are in on the conspiracy, and I know for sure it's not the latter for myself. Furthermore, this group of people would have to include the navy. I have a friend who is a naval officer who recently was on a training tour from New Zealand to Chile and it took him 12 days to get there on a rather slow boat (nuclear submarine), and on the FE model, this would have taken months to cover what looks like 25,000 to 30,000 miles. Please explain how it's possible that this many people are either fools and have failed to figure out the government is bamboozling everyone, or are nefarious and are part of the cult government that propagates the globe earth lies, and NOBODY in these critical areas aforementioned have blown their whistle on it. It doesn't seem like a sort of common unspoken knowledge among the elite, like the Clintons are corrupt, or Mrs. Obama is a man. I think it's preposterous to believe that all people in the world (FE are a small minority of the populous and are excluded from this statement) including brilliant engineers, scientists, navy officers, and thousands of other FE/RE relevant positions are either very stupid and foolish and stubborn, or they are so evil and spineless that they allow this conspiracy to continue. The reason I make this last point is becuase if I were a FE'r and heard this perspective, I'd like to believe that I myself didn't have that large of an ego that I believed that I were: much more noble than the general population in my quest for truth, despite the adversity, and also, much more intelligent than the collective society that even the brightest people couldn't figure out the truth and overcome the government lies, that the earth is flat.

Thank you for reading this if you actually did read. In my field of work, many "scientific" people find FE theory among many other groups of people, like young earth people, conspiracy theorists in general, and also religion in general to be stupid and a waste of time to try and argue with people like that, however I find this to be the wrong approach. This leads to a mass group of people being confused about reality, which I believe you, FE reader, are. This isn't my noble crusade, but rather my obligation to God to have discussions like this to spread truth and understanding. One of Gods commandments is to not take his name in vein, and I interpret this to mean, don't make God look bad. I think FE theory makes God look bad, because scientific communities will associate FE with God and my religion and damage God's image. Most of people my breed have no time to do this kind of thing, but I figured I'd maybe use my engineering mind to good work and talk with the good people of the FE society. I hope you feel compelled to discuss some things with me instead of thinking this is stupid and a waste of time, because that would make you no different than my colleges, bless their hearts.

There are so many other things I want to talk about, like balloon rockets, the centripetal force of earth spin and rotation, satellite television, the mechanics of the sun/moon, and why we can't observe the curve on the surface but this post is already faaaarr too long. If you'd like to discuss other stuff, maybe let's make another thread.