Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jack44556677

Pages: < Back  1 ... 9 10 [11] 12  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geology on a flat earth
« on: October 04, 2020, 06:11:18 PM »
Just because you can't predict something, it doesn't mean you can't figure out the cause.

This is true.  However it doesn't change the unscientific nature of the speculation of tectonic plates nor its complete uselessness to humanity as a "theory".

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for Flat Earthers
« on: October 04, 2020, 05:02:11 AM »
Still, I don't know whether the earth is flat or not

You and everybody else!  There is only one way to determine the shape of the earth, and the data hasn't even been collected yet (let alone rigorously and repeatedly validated and verified). No one has any idea what the shape of the entire world is - they lack the verified and verifiable data to make such a determination.

which I have no answer for because they're right I don't understand how gravity works lol!

You're in good company! Absolutely no one does! (except perhaps people that know gravity, beyond a natural law, is fiction)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why? To What End???
« on: October 04, 2020, 04:46:57 AM »
Aren't you're statements that the recognition of the space travel conspiracy is evidence based, that space travel do not have adequate evidence, and that as per one of your previous posts astronsuts are actors... examples of confirmation bias or being biased towards a direction that supports a specific belief, i.e. flat earth?

Valid question, and one that is difficult to be certain of the answer. Bias is pernicious and pervasive, and despite best efforts - it seems unavoidable for all human beings.  The best we can possibly do is recognize the bias when it rears its ugly head, and it is frequently the case that we miss it.

Personally I have no bias towards a belief of a flat earth.  I have neither belief, nor bias towards that perspective.  I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is.

I find the evidence for "space hoax" very compelling, and I cannot be sure it is not simply my bias making it appear that way.  (Attempted, anyhow) Rationally critical and objective evaluation of the available evidence speaks for itself, in my view.

than what direct scientific evidence do you have that all of the supposed pictures taken from space by astronauts or satellites are fake

There are many analyses of the footage that exists, trivially demonstrating fraud.  I recommend the wiki here quite highly.  Perhaps the most damning and conclusive evidence is the fact that the entire concept of "outer space" is a violation of several obvious and steadfast natural laws.  As outer space does not exist, there can be no footage from there.

If your answer is something like go look at these youtube videos or those pictures are obviously fake... than that's not really direct evidence

Exactly! There is no direct evidence for space whatsoever - it's ONLY on TV!

than that would mean your belief that space travel is a conspiracy and your belief that round earth is a conspiracy (without any direct scientific evidence) is unwelcome.

Completely correct, however my evidence and scientifically based perspectives are not beliefs!  You may consider them suspicions, if you must.  Ultimately, belief is supported by faith and knowledge is supported by science/fact.  The science and facts are clear, and it is only the television giving you trouble.


Polaris, the current North star, cannot be seen in the southern hemisphere.

Yes, it can - but not very far into it, depending on weather conditions and date/time viewed.

Also, what does "hemisphere" even mean if the Earth is not a globe?

When speaking with the locals/heathens, it is efficacious to use their language!  That depends greatly on the true shape of the world, which is not known.  Many imagine that the southern hemisphere is, in actuality, a ring around the outer edge of the world surrounding the north pole.


1. Well you really took that tip about not going to for anything more seriously than I anticipated.  The moon face, which is always the same facing us, rotates like a record over the course of 27 days.  Why do you think it doesn't?  The visible orientation of the moon does vary by location, exactly like the moon you paste on your ceiling and walk around.

2. The moon is always round, yes.  It does not make the moon spherical, this is a logical error.  No, it does not make sense on a spherical earth, we ought to be able to see significant amounts more than the 50 or so we do - and the face should vary (if for no other reason than reflection off of a spherical reflector).

3. That's true, many flat earth researchers think the moon is much more close than the presumptive model.  If that is true, then the optical effect of appearing circular is even more mysterious.

4. There is no proof of the earth's shape in the sky.  I cannot stress that enough.

5.  See link above.  The point is that the same stars are visible in both "hemispheres" including polaris depending on location etc.

6.  There CAN'T be? You sound awfully sure... What is seen is often not what is.  It doesn't have relevance to the shape of the earth, and - as I said - the most compelling conceptualization assuming a flat plane earth (a speculation) involves a transparent dome.  It is certainly not the only way to potentially explain the phenomenon, and there is almost never an instance where there is ONLY one potential explanation.  It is most often just a failure of imagination when you think things like that.

Flat Earth Media / Re: How High Do You Have To Be To See The Curvature?
« on: October 02, 2020, 07:04:34 PM »
Wow, I feel a bit like urkel.  Did I do that?

... but I/we can see things BEYOND the horizon. How could we do that, if it's at the limit of our vision?

Having read this whole thread, I am still not certain if this is (as pete concludes) a troll or not.  It certainly did spawn a tremendous amount of much ado about nothing - however that happens naturally!  It is not unclear that I meant beyond the horizon AT the horizon, and yet - I still find this question valid - but perhaps I'm getting punkd :(

Anyhow, I already gave the answer - just the reverse of it.  The line of sight that I described when explaining why you see farther at altitude, is the same line of sight to the distant tall object (just in reverse)!  I will draw a diagram if you still require clarification.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why? To What End???
« on: September 30, 2020, 11:54:12 PM »
Oh, he's no saint.  But he's no al-capone either.  They put him in prison for a year longer than capone, and got him on the same scam.  He was a pastor for god's sake, and was prepared to pay what the irs made up he owed by donations by his church goers.

Most likely you haven't heard the real story.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geology on a flat earth
« on: September 30, 2020, 11:15:53 PM »
Hey Jack, what kinds of science do you like/trust?

Most all of it I like, except the demonic stuff - of which there are terrifying amounts.  I don't "trust" science exactly, but I recognize that of all the means of knowledge at our disposal, the scientific method is the best.  Sure the half life on facts is always in play, and all scientific knowledge is doomed to be laughable to subsequent generations - but it's the best we have.  Science is only what rigorously adheres to the scientific method (and colloquially, the body of knowledge that that method produces).  Much of what is taught as science isn't because it cannot and does not adhere to the scientific method.  One of the greatest things about science is it requires no trust, and is in fact hindered by it.  Science has (provisional) proof by experiment instead.

To tell you the truth, I do like a good story - so even the fiction I enjoy / have enjoyed (astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics, climatology/planetology, sociology, history, etc.).  The most egregious flaw of earth "science" is it is taught as fact to children when it is anything but.  It is speculation at best, and it should be presented that way.

Plate tectonic theory explains earthquakes very well if you understand a lot of earths history and no where all the boundaries are, and where they used to be.

It purports to explain, but it is the validation I find lacking and the interpretation of evidence highly biased.  It is also useless. It doesn't explain the earthquakes, because if it did and we truly understood how they happened we would be able to predict them.  I know we have made progress with predicting aftershocks, but the position, size, and frequency are total mystery.  They do not only happen on fault lines, nor on "old fault lines" - though I suppose one could always claim that there MUST have been a fault there because of their bias. Circular logic at its purest.  Geology is simply rife with circular logic - the geologic column is a good example.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is the Sun?
« on: September 30, 2020, 06:12:57 AM »
Do you have specific evidence of this hoax and conspiracy or evidence space doesn't exist?

Yes.  For the hoax, I thought this did a good job :

As for space not existing, things don't exist until they are adequately proven they do.  The only evidence for space is on tv.  In real life, nature does not allow vacuum to persist.  The ancients galvanized this in the phrase "nequaquam vacuum". It is a truism and perhaps a truth as well (as it applies across subjects in a way it ought not).

The second law of thermodynamics and fundamental gas law are both violated by the mere concept of the "infinite sky vacuum" above our heads.  It is some of the most mind numbingly stupid mythology mankind has ever concocted, and that takes some serious doing!

If you want to discuss a massive global conspiracy

Lol, no thanks!  There is none to my knowledge, not massive (in terms of "perpetrators" anyhow) and certainly not global!  The wiki I linked to explains the nature of the conspiracy, and why it isn't what you think i think it is.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geology on a flat earth
« on: September 30, 2020, 05:34:29 AM »
The evidence is there, but if you want to close your eyes to it, be my guest.

I'm saying it is not, not that it is there and I am ignoring it.  Are you familiar with carl sagan? Outrageous claims require outrageous evidence - lay it on me bro (or sis)!

You can't just deny hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, carried out by un-biased scientists, from institutions all over the world, that are heavily scrutinised within the scientific community, just because it doesn't fit within your world view.

Sure I can! It's easy.  Peer review is a farce, as is the laughable concept of un-biased scientists.  Geologists aren't even scientists... Science is only what adheres to the scientific method, and largely geology does not qualify.

Science is humanity's greatest achievement, and your denial of it in favour of some archaic man-made religion is embarrassing

I love science, and mostly loathe religion.  You would be surprised at the lack of uniformity between flat earth researchers!

There is absolute heaps of evidence for the movement of tectonic plates. It is absolutely the cause of earthquakes.

Then why do earthquakes happen anywhere and not only on the fault lines?  The entire "theory" is junk. It has no support except in the classroom.  It's also entirely useless.  As einstein said, scientific theories must be judged by the biblical maxim - from their fruits shall they be judged.  Tectonic "theory" bares no fruit.

This can only occur on an Earth where the crust moves.

That's a stretch, but i don't have any reason to doubt that the "crust" moves.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why? To What End???
« on: September 30, 2020, 05:17:27 AM »
To be honest, I deduced, for a long period, that evolution and big bang theorems were the method the LORD God used in creation. In that, by 6 days bieng millions of years each "day".

Wowee zowee kablowee.  Do you know kent hovind? He's not perfect, but I think he might be able to help you.

Every time flat earthers use this rebuttal

It's just an explanation, not a rebuttal.

First of all if the moon was above us on a flat plane, and the sky was rotating above us we would see the moon rotate over the course of the night,

Yep, that's right. (don't go to, or trust anything on It does not rotate fully in one day the way the rest of the stars do, but that may be because of its own rotation.

Secondly, everyone on Earth sees the same face.

Yes, exactly like the picture of the moon I suggested one could put on their ceiling to understand what is occurring.

Try hanging a ball up on the ceiling of your room and looking at it from different sides of the room. You're never going to see the same face.

Also correct! This is a problem for the presumptive view, not the one we are discussing.  We always see the same face (minor "libration" aside) and so the moon is most likely not spherical.  Like you said, if we are on a ball, and the moon is a ball, we should see different faces from different locations - but we don't.

Otherwise it would look like an oval, which never happens.

It could be convex (concave facing us), or there could be things in the way affecting the light.  We have very little certainty what we are looking through and how it affects the distant objects.

People don't see the same constellations in the north hemisphere as they do in the Southern hemisphere.

They see some of the same ones, they just don't see ALL the same constellations, or the same stars.  The north star can be seem in the southern hemisphere (what do you think that means for the constellations?).

How could stars be moving two different directions at once.

Why do you think they couldn't?  There could be 2 rotating star spirals above us.  The most compelling interpretation I have seen involves a transparent dome.  However, it is important to remember that it is fundamentally stupid and unscientific to look up in the sky to study the shape of the ground.  It's LITERALLY the opposite direction of what you hope to understand.  The lights above us have no bearing on or relevance to the shape of the earth.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for Flat Earthers
« on: September 30, 2020, 04:38:54 AM »
What lead to believing that the world is flat instead of round?

Personally I don't believe that the world is flat.  If you believe the earth is round, or flat, or dodecahedron you don't have knowledge/fact, you have faith.  Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.  Far too many people believe when they ought to know. 

Many flat earth researchers consider themselves to be skeptical of a globe, or further - globe deniers.  Generally, both aforementioned groups accept/recognize that we do not have enough verified and verifiable data to determine the shape of the entire world.

What lead you to have such distrust towards organizations like the government?

Historical and contemporary study of their actions.  The MIC is not your friend, and people should have listened to eisenhower (checkout his farewell address) and jefferson.

How has being a flat earther affected your life?

It is important to understand that "flat earther" is a derogatory that virtually none self-ascribe to themselves.  Flat earther is intentionally conflated with stupid, primitive, denialist, anti-science, anti-intellectual, regressionist etc.  Flat earth researchers have wildly different approaches, views, and ideas.  There is no such thing as a "flat earther" nor a set of criteria that works to describe them.  The term is not for description, it's for slander.

That said, I'll answer the question that you should have asked : "How have your alternative views on the shape of the world affected your life?"

They have sparked a renewed interest in science, and the scientific method.  Its also put me in a slightly difficult spot, as i wish to have discussions about this "verboten" subject with many others but recognize that most people are simply not ready to critically evaluate their views (on this subject and scores of others).

Flat Earth Community / Re: Pre-NASA space conspiracy
« on: September 30, 2020, 12:45:00 AM »
Good question, I hope someone chimes in who is more knowledgable.

My thoughts drift to jules verne and hg wells.  There was significant and wildly popular (and advertised / popularized) "globe earth" and "space" propoganda coming from these writers - and I love hg wells men in the moon to this day.  Windowblinds which are painted with a gravity insulating material, and used to selectively open towards the sun rocketing the craft away from the earth towards which the blinds were closed - fabulous!

This continues into houdin/melies, the creation of hollywood, and the techniques and technology involved to fake space into the future.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geology on a flat earth
« on: September 29, 2020, 04:07:29 AM »
The point of the thread was to talk about observations that are undeniable.

Right, of which many of your "observations" are not a part.  That was the point.  Cores from the MAR and the like are not proof of pole reversals, that's stupid.

There is also no good evidence for tectonic plates, nor the causes of volcanism or earthquakes.  It's all junk.  Not only are they not undeniable, most are not supportable.

These observations need to be able to fit within an Earth model, and I was challenging the ability for the flat earth model to support it.

I see.  Firstly, there is no flat earth model in the scientific sense.  As models are not a part of the scientific method, and are greatly responsible for the predicament we find ourselves in - they will not be helping us to dig our way out.

Most flat earth researchers I am aware of are collecting data that refutes the globe model, and working on historical and scientific analysis.

Secondly, the observations you are talking about have interpretive bias baked in.  For example, measuring non uniform (random) magnetic orientation in ferromagnetic rock cores near the underwater lava flows and declaring the poles reverse...

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a flat Earth Jean Meeus?
« on: September 29, 2020, 12:00:29 AM »
You're not actually answering anything I said. That's strawmanning and cherrypicking at its finest.

I DO like that it's at its finest at least! Could you clarify with an example? I'd like to avoid doing both of those things!

The scientific method is about making conjectures, deriving predictions, and verifying these predictions.

No, it isn't.  Deriving (novel) predictions is a nice fringe benefit of the scientific method sometimes, but the only verifying of conjecture (hypothesis) in the scientific method is by experiment. Novel predictions also have significant use in marketing. Relativity is, perhaps, the quintessential modern example.

What gives you predictions you can verify, if not a model?

Data.  You extrapolate from data.  We are maybe skating the semantic line here, depending on the definition of "model".  Often you collect raw data, formalize/generalize that data by mathematical description, and then sometimes analysis of that mathematical description suggests something novel.  Models are in no way required to provide novel predictions, and most often do not.  If you consider the mathematical description above to be a "model", then ok - models are often used for predictions.  If you consider the totality of the scientists knowledge and conception of the world, also brought to bare, as the "model" - then models are always used for prediction.  Aren't semantics fun?  THOSE semantics aside, hypothesis is prediction - and the only thing required to guess is a mind (you don't even really need data or observation of any kind).

It gives very good and accurate predictions. Can you prove otherwise?

Its giving good and accurate predictions is not proof of its actual consistency with manifest objective reality - this is the logical error. It establishes it as useful, not correct. Only experiment can provisionally provide that.

Along with the good and accurate predictions, all models produce incorrect and inaccurate predictions.  Even if there were no known/measured inconsistencies between model and observation - something that no model in the history of science has ever achieved - this still would not establish anything beyond the usefulness of the model in the limited/finite contexts in which it is evaluated/used.  To prove that your conceptions are consistent with manifest objective reality, as opposed to merely being useful, requires experiment (and even then, it's provisional).

No, they are performing the job they are hired for.  They are not "out of control" as much as they are "under control".

The origin of the police in the US is straightforward and unambiguous.  They are private security and militia for the owners. They in no way work for your protection or "the stability of society" (what a moron you'd have to be to swallow that!), nor was there some golden era in which they did (there were pockets, at times).

Stricter laws and enforcement equals more people in prison.  The "deterrent" concept is completely bs with no support whatsoever.  More finable offenses means more revenue, and to a large extent the "butlers in blue" are only meter maids with guns working for the insurance syndicate today.  It's all very sad, but easy to understand.

In regards to running people over - Pete's comments are right.  Learn about the silver shirts, learn about the connection to the other/later "SS" - really dark stuff.  The slaves do not matter at all to the slavers beyond the job they are required to do, and will often be put in prison to be forced to do if they do not comply.

It's important to remember that police are failures, societally, economically, and educationally speaking.  They couldn't get any better job, and had no prospects, so thought a shot at a pension might be a good option.  The stupidest, most aggressive, least capable end up as cops.  And they have a LOT to be angry about, in their own lives and in society at large.  That anger is fostered and encouraged a variety of ways, and the "pigs" have no idea what role they play.  They're still taught they "keep the peace", "hold society together from anarchy", and are "heroes".  They are also taught that there lives are constantly in danger and they are in a hurry to get to pension station, so shoot first and sleep well.  Factor in the thugs (criminals. effectively) that they hire to "fight fire with fire" / "fight junkyard dogs, with junkyard dogs), the ones on the take (most of them, traditionally - see serpico for more info), and the disillusioned and almost universally maligned (also very stupid, poor/alternative-less/desperate) former military service men that already feel alienated and animosity towards general citizens for not "supporting our troops" and respecting them as "heroes" instead of the brainwashed murdering puppets they obviously are.  He's the universal soldier and he really is to blame.  Soldiers and police come from the same candidate pool (the poor with no options/alternatives), and they end up in a "club" together pitted against the citizenry where they can still play with guns, kill people, and relive the "glory days of battle" no doubt.  Heroism and boys with toys.  They are the impoverished, given the tiniest bit of authority which you can be well assured the majority will abuse - see the stanford prison experiment for more info.

There is too much bad to say about them, frankly. I've only paid lip service to a handful of the systemic and designed problems that the police cause and represent. They have never been there when I needed them and have only ever been a negative influence my life and the lives of most all others.  The chances of them being there when you need them, or having adequate response time, are very low and the role they serve is not, and has never been in my lifetime anyhow, your protection.

They are not a part of our society, they are a militant arm of the slavers and that was their original purpose too.  You can learn a thing or two from history, and from paying attention today.

Abolishing the police and prisons will help immensely. but the greedy ignorant slavers don't want that to happen.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a flat Earth Jean Meeus?
« on: September 27, 2020, 09:28:56 PM »
"these properties accurately represent the properties of the reality. "

Wrong.  This is a logical error.  The model can be (and historically always is) completely wrong, and still be useful enough to last for centuries and beyond.  It is self-delusion/bias which the scientific method is designed to avoid.  Models are not a part of the scientific method.  Reality is not contained within them - it's out here!

"you prove that the Earth has (at least some of) the properties of an oblate spheroid."

More delusion.  There is only one way to prove the shape of things in reality.  Comparison with models isn't it.

"That was my question: is there a model based on a flat Earth that gives equally good results?"

Of course not.  The presumptive model you are discussing took millennia and is still incorrect and incomplete today (as it always has been).  It should be expected to take significant time to build models to replace it once discarded as the garbage it is.  It is not something that many flat earth researchers are working on because models were a big part of how we got into this mess and they will not be helping us to dig our way out.  Experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal, all else is poetry and imagination.  The scientific method has no "model" or "compare with model" step.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why? To What End???
« on: September 27, 2020, 09:17:15 PM »

"Regarding your statement that belief of any kind is completely unwelcome in knowledge/fact, especially scientific... would this apply to someone whom believes in a space travel conspiracy? This would also be faith and not knowledge/science, correct?"

That is a good, and tricky question.  The recognition of the space travel conspiracy (hoaxing of "space" writ large) is evidence based, but still somewhat interpretive. It may be arguable that based on the available evidence that it is still more of a speculation than a "fact" - however with no positive evidence / proof of the possible existence of such a place as "space" (a violation of many natural laws) or space travel I would be equally justified in making the identical argument.

The presumptive, and mandated, perspective that space and space travel are real do not have adequate evidence that is even as compelling as the fraudulent footage that can trivially demonstrate the hoax. Factor in the scientific evidence that "space" cannot exist in the reality we have studied without violating many natural laws and I'd say the certainty on this "proto-fact" is very high.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is the Sun?
« on: September 27, 2020, 08:59:15 PM »

I will check it out.  I expect it to be more unvalidated/unvalidatable fiction like most all space ANYTHING.  Do you have any reason to suspect it is actually real? I have a lot of reason to expect it to be hoax.

You are not paying attention if you think this has something to do with the AMERICAN education system.  It has everything to do with the "education" system - I completely agree. I also see idiocracy as somewhat prophetic, even if it is one of the worst things judge has ever made.


"If you think the radar is bouncing off something else, please explain what that is, and why we can put spacecraft into orbit around the planet?"

We can't. It's all fraud and hoax.  However, that isn't to say it is impossible that "orbit" is somewhat real, just not at all like we've been told.  There is, somewhat unequivocally, no "outer space" of any kind in any case. Nequaquam vacuum.

The radar likely bounces off the "ionosphere" / ceiling.  Looking back, I can't believe I fell for the ionosphere - what a crock of absolute bull.

"Telling us what it contains tells us a lot about it's function"

Not really, but even if it did - spectroscopy doesn't tell us what it contains.

"Spectrometry isn't meaningless"

Of course not! Who said that?

"it's one piece of evidence that fits in with a million others that tell us what the sun is and how it works"

Nonsense, it is the major piece of "evidence" and there is no great tapestry composed of other observations.  Whenever anyone says "there's so much evidence - millions" you can be well assured it's bs.  The solar "theories" (most all of astronomy, and other paper-mache "theories" like evolution) are intended to present a unified/consistent facade, but that's all it is.  Behind it, is mythology and speculation presented erroneously as "scientific" fact from childhood.

"From nuclear fission to quantum mechanics to Relativity and Newtons laws and chemistry and all the disciples of science that study the nature of the universe."

You might be surprised how much of that list is non-real / misunderstood / incorrect.  The myth of scientism is grand.

"If science gas got it all wrong, how are we using it to make all those things?"

Please don't misunderstand. I love science. I always have, and have a lot of knowledge about its history as well.  I have loved philosophy since I was a child.  Science is great, and leads to actionable knowledge to, ideally, the benefit of all mankind.  Pseudoscience doesn't do that, and there is a tremendous amount of religion/mythology masquerading as science today, and that makes me very sad (and angry).  You can discern the difference, but you have to learn how first! It is all a failure of education, and the secular religion of scientism. 

As is the case with all pressure waves, acceleration (and deceleration) is instantaneous when negotiating different media.

The instant the light wave enters water, for example, it instantaneously decelerates, and when it exits the water it instantaneously accelerates.  Does that help?

Pages: < Back  1 ... 9 10 [11] 12  Next >