Recent Posts

1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion on Flat Earth
« Last post by Roundy on Today at 11:24:23 AM »

I agree. But that isn't the mainstream thought process. That dictates that our existence is a mere coincidence, as statistically impossible as it would be, and there is no real explanation for the sudden appearance of life and the universe.
I didn't say that ^. I just don't know how to do the quotes thingy


Yes but because of the unfathomable number of planets in our universe it's is statistically likely that life would occur

Not if the laws governing the universe themselves weren't fine-tuned on several fronts to allow for the existence of life.


To be fair, this assumes life can't exist in another configuration of physics.

Well, sure, but it's a pretty safe bet that (for just one example) if our atoms couldn't hold together because the strong nuclear force was slightly off from where it is, life wouldn't be possible.

Quote
Or that a universe wouldn't stabalize on its own.

"Stabilize?" You mean that if life hadn't been possible the universe would have, like, fixed itself so that life would have been possible? Can you explain this better?
2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Motivation of the Conspiracy?
« Last post by Pete Svarrior on Today at 07:57:27 AM »
QED, stop derailing threads. Splitting Conspiracy discussion into a separate subject.
3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion on Flat Earth
« Last post by Lord Dave on Today at 06:05:49 AM »

I agree. But that isn't the mainstream thought process. That dictates that our existence is a mere coincidence, as statistically impossible as it would be, and there is no real explanation for the sudden appearance of life and the universe.
I didn't say that ^. I just don't know how to do the quotes thingy


Yes but because of the unfathomable number of planets in our universe it's is statistically likely that life would occur

Not if the laws governing the universe themselves weren't fine-tuned on several fronts to allow for the existence of life.


To be fair, this assumes life can't exist in another configuration of physics.  Or that a universe wouldn't stabalize on its own.
4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion on Flat Earth
« Last post by Roundy on Today at 05:35:13 AM »

I agree. But that isn't the mainstream thought process. That dictates that our existence is a mere coincidence, as statistically impossible as it would be, and there is no real explanation for the sudden appearance of life and the universe.
I didn't say that ^. I just don't know how to do the quotes thingy


Yes but because of the unfathomable number of planets in our universe it's is statistically likely that life would occur

Not if the laws governing the universe themselves weren't fine-tuned on several fronts to allow for the existence of life.
5
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Last post by QED on Today at 03:38:27 AM »
The starting point of my post was your false reference to special relativity. You're borrowing a concept of general relativity and as an advice to understand your concept you refer to special relativity...
No, I'm not. Whether or not UA can be locally distinguished from RET-style gravity and whether or not the Earth should exceed the speed of light under UA are two separate arguments, with two separate answers, directed at two distinct individuals. Trying to treat them as one is extremely unproductive of you.

I think this is very important to point out: they are indeed separate claims in the FE model, by necessity.

In fairness, however, I do see how hexagon coupled them. General Relativity is commensurate with Special Relativity (in the RET). What I mean is that Einstein developed special relativity and then extended it (generalized it) years later into general relativity. Separated, they do not make sense in RET, and it is precise to treat them identically in RET arguments. The answers will always be the same, if the correct limits are taken.

Is this useful? Please let me know, and I will adjust.
6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Motivation of the Conspiracy?
« Last post by Bad Puppy on Today at 03:00:23 AM »
It's not just that a powerful organization lied.  It's about the world as you knew it being a lie.  If you don't think that would fundamentally change your life, than I'd say you're lucky.  Perhaps that's why real flat earth believers (not just the trolls on the forums) are so quick to dismiss any evidence of a round planet.

Pick anything you strongly believe in and replace flat earth belief with that.  Imagine a devout christian, he spends his whole life in the service of God and the bible only to find that it was in fact written by the devil for some nefarious purpose.  I think his life would fundamentally change.

Although, I'm sure flat earth believers are happy to be living in our round world as our conspirators have given them efficient flight around the world, GPS, Star Trek, pi that doesn't equal "something closer to 4", a known distance from New York to Paris (3161 nautical miles), and most conveniently a map of the earth (something that doesn't exist on a flat earth).

Thank you very much for this feedback. So if I am hearing you correctly (and please do correct me if wrong), then the issue is that your reality as you know it is a lie, fed to you by liars. Is this right?

I think I can see how that would result in you not caring so much about the motivation behind the lie, but rather the fact that you are being lied to in the first place. Jez, I would be pissed if I thought that was happening. So I am sorry that you are in that situation.

If I may ask a follow up question: what initially led you to think your reality was a lie?

I hope I am not overstepping or making you feel uncomfortable. If so, then I apologize a million times. I truly find this conversation helpful.

You may have misunderstood me.  I forgot to quote curious26 when they said "I don't think my life would change dramatically if I knew the powerful organizations lied, would yours?"

Personally, I don't believe I'm being lied to.  Nor do I believe the world is flat.  Though, I could only imagine the world that flat earthers must believe they're in.  I can't understand what the motivation behind the conspiracy would really be?  A round earth has been around for over 500 years.

The space travel conspiracy also seems like complete BS.  NASA isn't the only space agency in the world, so where's Russia in the conspiracy?  Where's China?

No apologies necessary, QED. :)
7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Motivation of the Conspiracy?
« Last post by QED on Today at 02:27:16 AM »
It's not just that a powerful organization lied.  It's about the world as you knew it being a lie.  If you don't think that would fundamentally change your life, than I'd say you're lucky.  Perhaps that's why real flat earth believers (not just the trolls on the forums) are so quick to dismiss any evidence of a round planet.

Pick anything you strongly believe in and replace flat earth belief with that.  Imagine a devout christian, he spends his whole life in the service of God and the bible only to find that it was in fact written by the devil for some nefarious purpose.  I think his life would fundamentally change.

Although, I'm sure flat earth believers are happy to be living in our round world as our conspirators have given them efficient flight around the world, GPS, Star Trek, pi that doesn't equal "something closer to 4", a known distance from New York to Paris (3161 nautical miles), and most conveniently a map of the earth (something that doesn't exist on a flat earth).

Thank you very much for this feedback. So if I am hearing you correctly (and please do correct me if wrong), then the issue is that your reality as you know it is a lie, fed to you by liars. Is this right?

I think I can see how that would result in you not caring so much about the motivation behind the lie, but rather the fact that you are being lied to in the first place. Jez, I would be pissed if I thought that was happening. So I am sorry that you are in that situation.

If I may ask a follow up question: what initially led you to think your reality was a lie?

I hope I am not overstepping or making you feel uncomfortable. If so, then I apologize a million times. I truly find this conversation helpful.
8
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Observing The Sun
« Last post by QED on Today at 02:20:38 AM »
3. The sun follows a straight line from sunrise in the East across the sky, to sunset in the West.
This observation cannot be correct under your model of choice. Congratulations, you have taken the first step on your long journey of dismantling the globularist agenda!

I most certainly agree with you Pete! And to add to the discussion I would like to contribute that the Sun follows a path called the ecliptic, in RET at least :). This is not a straight line at all, but when projected across the sky can sometimes appear this way, depending on your reference.
9
What a fascinating topic! I have family who has traveled to Antarctica on holiday (it is rather close to New Zealand)! They never observed an ice wall, and they traveled sufficient distance where they would have struck it. Do we know how far one has to travel through Antarctica before the ice wall is found?
10
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Force of Gravity Real or Fake?
« Last post by QED on Today at 02:12:38 AM »
When physicists define a force, what they are really doing is making a statement about energy. I know that sounds strange, but hear me out!

A "force" in physics is a gradient of a potential field. There is a connection between a potential field and energy. Hence, it is convenient to speak about this using forces.

However, if you are a particle physicist, then you have a different approach, because you can measure specific gauge bosons which transmit forces. So in this regime you would say that forces are transmitted by particles exchanging these bosons. Then the forces play out in a intuitively tractable dynamic fashion.

Which view is ultimately correct? That is hard to say. Both describe reality very well in certain regimes. I do not know of any description which has predictive power and abandons the idea of forces.