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 - Elyn95

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
1
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Line
« on: April 02, 2021, 07:03:36 PM »
This is going to be the greatest global reveal of FE. Thank you MBS.
Do you think anyone will pay attention?

2
If your claims to accuracy are correct, then it is still entirely possible to predict satellite position with a FE model. The satellites can be circling in the firmament and recieving signals in just the same way that they are with a RE model. I don't see the issue.

3
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Why do posts get locked?
« on: April 01, 2021, 07:43:22 PM »
As to repeating a discussion that has already been had, surley this is the point?
No. If your question is one covered by the FAQ, then what you should do is read the FAQ. Otherwise, people searching for the answer may not be able to find the needle in the haystack of repeated questions.

Isn't it possible to revive some old discussions with new ideas?
If you have new ideas, by all means, post them. Your question was not one of those.

Sorry,  I didn't mean I had new ideas, I meant I had questions that people who have some new ideas might have insight to. If we restrict ourselves to archived discussions, then how to we ever bring new light to old topics?

4
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Why do posts get locked?
« on: March 30, 2021, 08:59:39 PM »
Sorry for not seeing this post earlier before posting to the other thread. I forgot to click 'notify me of replies'. My bad.

As to repeating a discussion that has already been had, surley this is the point? The last significant thread I can see on interesting theories on what lies beyond the ice wall was posted in 2017. Isn't it possible to revive some old discussions with new ideas? Doesn't it become a bit stale otherwise?

5
And since we're here and on that topic anyway, do you know why my question about "beyond the icewall" got locked before it could get any replies?

6
Interesting, so I recently joined both, not sure which one I should be on. How would you describe the views as diverging?
I'm afraid I can't answer these questions fairly. Two major points of contention that immediately come to mind are gravity (upward-accelerating Earth vs "objects simply fall, it is their natural property"), and whether or not there is an end to the Earth ("unknown" vs. "no, it goes on forever").

That's interesting, especially the last point you made there as that is something I've been wondering about. Which camp do the folks on here tend to fall into? The "unknown" or the "no, it goes on forever"?

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy
« on: March 30, 2021, 08:17:58 PM »
That quote has everything to do with it. Since you can't prove that NASA is exploring the solar system it's basically a trust issue.

Ron Paul's argument is that the government is already a disreputable conspiracy which lies through its teeth. We could characterize RE space travel as a claim based on the words of liars who work against the people's interests. RE is massively based on accepting the words of known liars as fact and accepting authority.

That's great and all, but has nothing to do with what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that FE is heavily dependent on a Space Conspiracy. FE, conspiracy exists = Dismiss all evidence from space travel/exploration. FE, if conspiracy does not exist, all evidence from space travel/exploration definitively shows a Globe earth.

No where have I said the space conspiracy exists or not. Bottomline, you, FE, absolutely can't trust NASA or any of the space agencies/companies around the world right out of the gate. And absolutely have to have the Space Conspiracy. I don't know how many other ways of stating it.

I guess a question would be, contrary to my thinking, do you think FE can not believe in a Space Conspiracy?

Nope. It's a terminology issue. What you call belief in a conspiracy I call a skepticism of the words of liars.

A belief in a "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theorist" implies that the government is otherwise good and honest, except for a wayward theory that they are lying about something.

If the government is a group of liars who are prolifically dishonest, then the matter more of basic skepticism against those who lie to us. We don't call the Jews who distrusted Nazi Germany "conspiracy theorists" because we know that Nazi Germany lied a lot and did a lot of bad things against their people's interests.

Who calls the Jews who distrusted Nazi Germany conspiracy theorists? No one.

So, you are stuck with proving that the government should be trusted by default if you want to prove your perception of the matter.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I guess maybe you should change the wiki from "There is a Space Travel Conspiracy" to something like, There is Space Travel skepticism if you're hung up on me using the terminology that you yourself use.

I'm not even remotely arguing whether there is a space conspiracy or not. I'm simply asking you the question, do you think FE can not believe in a Space Conspiracy?

I think there's another aspect to this that you're missing. A global conspiracy does not require a vast number of willing participants, only a select number need know the full extent, and feed snippets of information to those who work beneath them. For example: within Nasa even, it is perfectly possible to emply hundreds of technicians who simply operate within the mathematical parameters handed down to them and never see the active results of their work with their own eyes. Consider a multinational company like Amazon: do you think the employees have the faintest idea of what Jeff Bezos is planning, just because they work at Amazon? Do we look at the amazon delivery driver and berate them for being part of an abusive multinational? No, we strive to improve their working conditions and to empower them. In the same way, we should try to empower all those who think that they are working for an honest employer but who are really working for a corrupt one. Like Nasa.

8
Suggestions & Concerns / Why do posts get locked?
« on: March 30, 2021, 06:42:58 PM »
I recently posted a question about the Ice Wall, but it got locked really quickly. Does anyone know why that was? It seemed like people were replying to it. Did I do something wrong?

9
Interesting, so I recently joined both, not sure which one I should be on. How would you describe the views as diverging?

10
Flat Earth Community / Beyond the Ice Wall
« on: March 13, 2021, 04:08:07 PM »
Hypothetical question for you all. What do you think is beyond the ice wall? How far does it stretch? I know we can't know for certain, but I like to imagine.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: coriolis effect...
« on: March 13, 2021, 04:06:37 PM »

Quote
Well that's great. But when you're confronted with a massive problem with one model and a completely coherent other model, wouldn't a good scientist conclude that maybe the coherent one was the more credible?

Not if you observed massive problems with the first model. RET has so many other observal problems that simply outweigh the supposed problem of the coriolis effect if FET.

What are the massive problems with RET?

The Bedford canal experiment seems like a good place to start... Although this is going to pull us into another and well-discussed thread. Happy to go it again if needed!

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: coriolis effect...
« on: March 11, 2021, 09:25:15 PM »

Quote
Well that's great. But when you're confronted with a massive problem with one model and a completely coherent other model, wouldn't a good scientist conclude that maybe the coherent one was the more credible?

Not if you observed massive problems with the first model. RET has so many other observal problems that simply outweigh the supposed problem of the coriolis effect if FET. 


13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: coriolis effect...
« on: March 10, 2021, 10:39:29 PM »
Quote

Well...ok. So historic data shows you that the wind blows anti clockwise around low pressure systems in the northern hemisphere, and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. Which is exactly what you’d expect if the earth was round and rotating. And all you have to offer is some vague statement about the sun, with no explanation of the exact mechanism at work, or why the direction reverses at the equator. Aren’t you just a tiny bit doubtful? Doesn’t looking at the animated synoptic chart, with all the wind arrows dutifully following the weather systems exactly as Buys Ballot predicts, make you a little bit curious as to whether your flat model might be a little off the mark?

As an aside, you seem to be using the end quote code in both your quote statements, which is why they aren’t working. Lose the / in the first one and you’ll be good to go.

The direction could reverse at the equator becuase the temperature could be different on eitehr side of the equator which would cause a difference in pressure along the line of the equator. My main thought is that the corialis effect does not need to be the only explantion for the current weather patterns. It is simply the effect that fits with a GE model.

I am doubtful, which is why I'm always seeking out new answers.

Thanks for the tip on the quotes! Hopefully they worked this time!    :)

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I have questions.
« on: March 10, 2021, 09:58:37 PM »
I really think you should break these questions down. Which one would you like answered first? Perhaps the answer wwill lead you to other areas of discussion, but there are really too many questions here to address in a coherent manner.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I Would Love To Have A Nice Open Discussion
« on: March 10, 2021, 09:56:41 PM »
So your experience in two instances indicates a global accuracy?

But in answer to your question, we could very well make that a thought experiment: Imagine that Australia is the size you suggest it is, imagine that all the land projected onto a GE is projected onto a FE. It is perfectly possible to do this without any land-mass distortion. The distances would need to be adjusted for the oceans, but these are notoriously difficult to measure, especially in the South Pacific Ocean, where most of the adjustments would need to be made.

Food for thought.


Your claim of exaggerartion already takes the starting point of GE being "correct". This is the fundamental problem underlying much of the FE/GE debates. GE take the assumption that their model is correct and use unobserved data to back their argument. FE start from bottom up, they observe, measure, and then draw conclusions. Instead of saying the land massess in the FE model are exaggerated, why not say that land massess in the GE model are understated?

Because the land masses have been surveyed countless times, and their sizes have been known for a long time. The area of Australia according to RET is 7,656,127 square kilometers. Does FET have a counter offer? When I drove from Perth to Darwin, and Cairns to Melbourne, all advertised distances were spot on.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: coriolis effect...
« on: March 10, 2021, 09:14:05 PM »

[/quote]

So it's back to my earlier question, and the examples I linked to. Given that there is a clear relationship between the isobars on a synoptic chart and the local wind, how would you go about predicting the wind using your flat earth model if I gave you the synoptic chart and a lat/long for a particular location?
[/quote]

By using historic data. Previous weather patterns and thermal movement and surface pressure can all be used to predict future patterns (and improve upon the dataset already in existence). Curvature of the earth need have no bearing on it.

18
Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth
« on: March 09, 2021, 10:13:38 PM »

[/quote]

I have read the wiki. What are these articles you are referring to? I couldn't find them.

[/quote]

https://wiki.tfes.org/Antarctica



Why can't the South Pole exist?
[/quote]

In a monopole model (the model I personally give most credence to) the south pole does not exist. But yes, if you subscribe to the bi-polar models then you can have two poles, but I see that model as being rather more problematic.



19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: coriolis effect...
« on: March 09, 2021, 09:32:36 PM »
Quote
Regardless of your view on the shape of the earth, any study of isobars and wind reveals a clear relationship, and this relationship reverses at the equator - so something is clearly going on at the equator. What then, on a flat earth, is the significance of the equator, and why do weather systems rotate in opposite directions on different sides of it?

If the equator is the hottest line drawn across the earth, (caused the by sun's orbit or geothermal activity) then on either side of that individual weather patterns would be likely to develop. The rotation may be simply down to prevailing winds.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I Would Love To Have A Nice Open Discussion
« on: March 09, 2021, 09:20:10 PM »

[/quote]

Correct. If you do the math, you'll find that the total surface area of a flat earth is 2.46 times that of the round earth. Not only are land masses exaggerated, but the oceans are even worse. I have yet to see that point adequately addressed.
[/quote]

Your claim of exaggerartion already takes the starting point of GE being "correct". This is the fundamental problem underlying much of the FE/GE debates. GE take the assumption that their model is correct and use unobserved data to back their argument. FE start from bottom up, they observe, measure, and then draw conclusions. Instead of saying the land massess in the FE model are exaggerated, why not say that land massess in the GE model are understated?

Pages: [1] 2  Next >