8201

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The CIA

« on: February 11, 2017, 03:27:16 PM »

People will believe whatever they want to believe, even if there is no actual evidence. Look at all of the different religions, or what is going on in the world right now and in the past. It doesn't take many to manipulate the masses.

I'm pretty sure those religions and theorists go to lengths to collect evidence for their positions. Look at the Shroud of Turin that the Vatican keeps. There is much more than words.

It is your job as a skeptic to weigh and consider evidence for your own self.

8202

Flat Earth Community / Re: This wiki entry though......

« on: February 10, 2017, 11:31:59 PM »

Why would a space agency hold pieces of its lunar lander together with tape?

Why wouldn't it?

Because there are better materials to hold together a six billion dollar space ship which goes to the hostile environment of the moon.

Seriously, tape?

8203

Flat Earth Community / Re: This wiki entry though......

« on: February 10, 2017, 10:09:45 PM »

Why would a space agency hold pieces of its lunar lander together with tape?

8204

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The CIA

« on: February 10, 2017, 12:06:56 AM »

The CIA would be creating competing conspiracy theories to distract from something like the truth about the JFK shooting. They probably wouldn't have an interest in creating theories outside of their scope, such as "Richard Branson is really Satan".

You would need to show how the shape of the earth falls under the scope of the CIA.

The CIA didn't originally create the flat earth conspiracy, what I am suggesting is that they brought it back to draw attention away from other conspiracies. As well as to make people believe that conspiracies are illogical so they don't buy into any other conspiracy.

So who are the people arguing in favor of Flat Earth Theory? CIA spies?

If the conspiracy within a conspiracy is true then yes, haha. There are articles suggesting agents posted or may even created forums dedicated to the flat earth much like this one to spread the "theory". I would not think they are still posting, because their mission is complete. A decent amount of people have bought into it and defend it, so there is no need for them to anymore.

How could a theory be defended and bought into if there is nothing to defend and buy into?

8205

Flat Earth Community / Re: Today is the 31st anniversary of the Challenger Disaster...

« on: February 10, 2017, 12:03:55 AM »

Prop malfunction.

8206

Flat Earth Community / Re: Testing Flattards Part 2 - Cool Hard Logic

« on: February 10, 2017, 12:00:44 AM »

The author of that video is using the 1800's Flat Earth model that was created before the South Pole was discovered. After the South Pole was discovered and more of the world was explored the Flat Earth model was updated with this information to include two poles and two celestial systems. The model is described in "The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions" by Zetetes (1918). A pdf may be found in our library.

8207

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The CIA

« on: February 09, 2017, 08:03:27 PM »

The CIA would be creating competing conspiracy theories to distract from something like the truth about the JFK shooting. They probably wouldn't have an interest in creating theories outside of their scope, such as "Richard Branson is really Satan".

You would need to show how the shape of the earth falls under the scope of the CIA.

The CIA didn't originally create the flat earth conspiracy, what I am suggesting is that they brought it back to draw attention away from other conspiracies. As well as to make people believe that conspiracies are illogical so they don't buy into any other conspiracy.

So who are the people arguing in favor of Flat Earth Theory? CIA spies?

8208

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The CIA

« on: February 09, 2017, 07:39:26 PM »

The CIA would be creating competing conspiracy theories to distract from something like the truth about the JFK shooting. They probably wouldn't have an interest in creating theories outside of their scope, such as "Richard Branson is really Satan".

You would need to show how the shape of the earth falls under the scope of the CIA.

8209

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Shadow Object Explanation of a Lunar Eclipse is Impossible!

« on: January 25, 2017, 03:38:18 AM »

Just an ides.

If you put that "shadow object" almost on or very close to the surface of the moon, you might get a shadow about the size of the "shadow object."

But if the sun is a spot light and just shines down on the earth , how is the sun going to shine on the moon ?

Seems as if one flat earth idea cancels out the other.

Looks like the moonshrimp idea was better. LOL.

Here's an idea: Read the Wiki, because it says that the sun shines light in all directions. The duration of light is  limited by perspective and opacity of the atmosphere.

Sun shines in all directions ? What happened to the spotlight ?

The light creates a spot of light upon the earth, a spotlight. The sun isn't a literal spotlight.

8210

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items

« on: January 23, 2017, 10:34:25 PM »

Well, if the reader has been paying attention, medical science does say that garlic reverses cancer. The university medical studies say that garlic kills cancer. The pharmaceutical industry neglects to move forward with it because garlic can't be patented.

8211

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes

« on: January 14, 2017, 05:11:00 PM »

that a very poor description of how spectral analysis works.  there are three kinds of spectra: continuous, emission, and absorption.  astronomers study the photosphere of the sun using absorption spectra.  an absorption spectrum is produced when light emitted by hot, dense material passes through a cooler, less dense medium before being broken up by a prism.  when it passes through the cooler medium, some wavelengths of the light are 'absorbed' by atoms the medium; these wavelengths will be 'missing' from the spectrum produced by the prism.  which wavelengths are absorbed depends only on the chemical composition of the medium.

in other words, astronomers are interested in the missing wavelengths, not the continuous spectrum of colors.

You're talking nonsense. With three primary colors red, blue, and yellow, mixing red and blue makes magenta. You can call magenta a combination of red and blue or you can call it an absence of yellow.

8212

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes

« on: January 13, 2017, 05:42:39 PM »

Although you can't put the planets or stars physically in the lab you can carry out experiments on them. Most experiments are observations carried out in a controlled way.

Observations are not experiments. They are observations. The very purpose of experimentation is to reveal the truth behind an observation. To experiment is to isolate, prepare, and manipulate things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence. It is entirely different than a mere observation.

Take this example (which I have some part experience with from my school and university days)

1. "Burn" samples of different known elements or compounds. Observe the spectra of the light given off by each (the strength of the light given off at different wave lengths, this can be visible and non visible spectrum). This gives a fingerprint for light emitted by each element (based on certain absorption and emission lines at certain wave lengths). Actually this fingerprint can now be determined theoretically by quantum mechanics!
2. Burn an unknown substance and analyse the spectrum of the light and use the known light fingerprints to determine the composition of the substance.
3. You can double check the results of 2 by using other chemical methods to analyse the compound - this confirms or disproves the veracity of method 2
4. You can detect and analyse the spectrum of light from a star using a powerful telescope and use method 2 to determine the composition of the star. It's true that as not in a lab, 4 needs greater thought. For example the star moving in relation to the earth and light travelling through the atmosphere can effect results so you need to also understand how that effect influences what you see. This can be checked by other experiments.

We have no idea what exotic substances the star may be made of. We need an experiment, not a jump to a conclusion.

Thomas Winship speaks about Spectrum Analysis in his book Zetetic Cosmogony:

https://archive.org/stream/zeteticcosmogon00recgoog#page/n20/mode/2up

SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

is relied upon as proving this. A prism is placed in position
so as to intercept the sun's rays, and the colours seen through
this instrument, red, orange, yellow, blue, are said to be the
result of the various metals contained in the sun in a state of
fusion, emitting their several colours in the combined sun-
light, which total light is decomposed into its component
colours by the prism.

With the object of testing the conclusions arrived at by
the learned relative to spectrum analysis, several experiments
were made by the writer. The light of the sun on a clear
day, about noon, seen through the prism disclosed the various
colours that can be seen through this instrument. On a hazy
day before sunset the colours seen were the same but very
faint. Light from a lighthouse and a star seen through the
prism, showed the colours to be the same, the colour from
the light of the star being much less brilliant than that from
the lighthouse. Light from a parafine street lamp gave the
same result as light from a star or the sun, only much fainter.
Then the electric light was tried. A large street lamp of
great power and several others of less power gave the same
result as the sun, star, lighthouse, and street lamp, but in
various degrees of brilliancy according to the power of the
light. Even a candle gave a very faint yellow-blue tinge, so
slight that it had to be looked at for some time before any-
thing but blue was apparent.

If, therefore, it be argued that spectrum analysis proves
that the sun is made of the same metals as we find in the
earth, and that, therefore, the earth is a product of evolution
then it is equally clear that the electric light and the glass
shade of the lamp which encases it are really composed of
iron and various other metals in a state of fusion, constituting
indeed, a globe of glowing vapour, and not glass, carbon,
etc, at all. It is also as reasonable to conclude that the
paraffine lamp and the candle are composed of metals in a
state of fusion and that there is in reality no paraffine, no
glass, no tallow, and no wick. That is to say, known facts be
thrown aside, common sense stultified, and reason
dethroned in order to bolster up the unprovable assumptions
of modern science relative to the doctrine of evolution
as applied to the earth and the heavenly bodies.

8213

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes

« on: January 05, 2017, 10:32:21 AM »

I had accidentally edited your post instead of creating a new one. I restored your comment.

I don't think I said that observation was the only thing astronomers did, just that the observation was a big part.
During the 20th century, the field of professional astronomy split into observational and theoretical branches. Observational astronomy is focused on acquiring data from observations of astronomical objects, which is then analyzed using basic principles of physics. Theoretical astronomy is oriented toward the development of computer or analytical models to describe astronomical objects and phenomena. The two fields complement each other, with theoretical astronomy seeking to explain the observational results and observations being used to confirm theoretical results.

Astronomers were certainly not putting the universe under controlled conditions when coming up with their theories. Chemists can put their subject matter under controlled experimentation to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomers cannot. That is why Chemistry is a science and why Astronomy is not.

It is said that Astronomy is an "observing science," but an observing science is not really a science at all. We need actual experiments that demonstrate theories to be true. Otherwise they are just stories, no different than the stories African tribes have for the nature of the stars above them.

8214

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes

« on: January 05, 2017, 02:57:26 AM »

From the above diagram you can see how many scientific processes work. In astronomy the large part of the work is observation and documenting those observations.

Without experiments on the universe to tell us whether the underlying theories are true, you are just observing and interpreting. Astronomy is not a real science. Anyone can look at something and imagine up an explanation. The practice is a disgrace and really no better than Astrology.

8215

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes

« on: January 03, 2017, 05:46:24 PM »

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45714.35

then made a load of excuses for how the sun and moon etc etc work.

Rowbotham's explanations for the sun and moon are based on direct empirical observation. Rowbotham does not guess at what he cannot observe. For example, Rowotham freely admits that he cannot guess at what causes the sun to move in its particular North-South patterns throughout the year because to guess without evidence - to hypothesize - is against the Zetetic Philosophy. Empirical evidence is required for all explanations

TB the book is all opinion after chapter 2 not fact :/ but when you believe something strongly you see what you want to see

Rowbotham presents two kinds of evidence in Earth Not a Globe. He presents experimental evidence and he presents empirical evidence. His water-convexity tests are experimental in nature while the rest of his work beyond Chapter 2 is empirical in nature.

For example; Rowbotham notes that deep coal mines tend to get hotter with depth. The deepest mines in Britain have steam pouring out of them constantly; as it gets hot enough for the air to condense. It is not possible to go into the mines without heavy protective gear and masks.

From this Rowbotham concludes, empirically, that the earth gets hotter with depth, as the weight of the earth causes compression and heat. Rowbotham further concludes that at some deeper depth the compression must be so great that rock liquefies; into a substance akin to the fiery magma which has been seen to erupt from volcanoes. Hence, the earth must be riding atop a great ocean of liquid magma, and there must be great quantities of liquid rock beneath us; an unprecedented notion for Rowbotham's time.

this is what i wanted to discuss before with you i found the first champter very intresting but he makes many presumtions after that.

Rowbotham backs up his conclusions about the workings of the world with empirical evidence, not mere presumption.

8216

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes

« on: January 03, 2017, 05:26:17 PM »

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45469.0

Huh, what has modern science ever done for us? Apart from the aqueduct. And sanitation. And the roads. And irrigation... medicine... education... polio vaccinations... lasers... microchips... aircraft... the internet... funny how all that stuff works flawlessly... except when it proves the Earth is a sphere and then suddenly "nooo, thats a NASA microchip <hushed voice>you can't trust it...</hushed voice>".

Some of those things may have been developed using Zetetic methodology without the person aware that they were using it.

8217

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes

« on: January 03, 2017, 05:23:08 PM »

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=40016.30

The Scientific Method says that one must hypothesize first and then create an experiment around that hypothesis.

The Zetetic Method says that one must experiment first, letting the results speak for themselves.

Medical chemists certainly use the Zetetic Method for creating drugs. See the Folding at Home project. The project goes through a rapid series of different configurations to see what works and what does not.

Experiment first, conclude after. That's how the truth is found.

When you hypothesize first and create an experiment around that hypothesis your experiment is fallacious because you are deliberately proving whatever you are trying to prove. Finding the absolute truth of the matter has nothing to do with the Scientific Method. With the Scientific Method you are attempting to prove your idea true.

8218

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items

« on: December 31, 2016, 03:57:23 AM »

There are countless types of of flowers and grasses and barks in the world, but Hippocrates happened to tell people to cure their cancer with something that actually does cure cancer in animal studies. The evidence it there, it is strong and plentiful, and to ignore it is plain denial.

8219

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items

« on: December 31, 2016, 03:47:16 AM »

People were saying that garlic cured cancer long before those animal studies. The Ancient Greek physician Hippocrates recommended his patients to eat large amounts of crushed garlic to cure their cancer.

What is the likelihood that this cancer marvel totally does not work on humans, but that it happens to cure cancer in mice?

I am clearly talking to a brick wall here.

8220

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items

« on: December 31, 2016, 02:21:46 AM »

Is your narrative now that garlic happens to cure cancer in mice, and only mice, but all the human people who claim that garlic has helped their cancers are liars? Come on now. That is just incredulous.