5221

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: August 30, 2018, 10:04:12 PM »

Here are high resolution versions of the Skunk Bay scenes. The distant island is at times visible and invisible.

Skunk Bay Timelapses

9/7/12 - On this day there was a mixture of sunken and visible effects

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyLzdQFU3Og

9/6/12 - On this day the peninsula was sunken throughout most of the day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze3mzJGTjrI

9/1/12 - On this day the peninsula was visible throughout most of the day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTMIMDyp-OQ

This is direct evidence that the sinking ship effect changes over time, and is not caused by the curvature of the earth.

Seeing now how the sinking ship effect works, what evidence is there showing that the Turning Torso shots is actually of curvature of the earth? As there is evidence that the effect is variable, the internet pictures of obscured bodies are insufficient. The first video above from 9/7/12 is high resolution, and shows that the sinking ship effect can cause the body to appear right next to the water's surface, as if it were obscured. At other times the body is not obscured.

You guys showed us pictures of water with various refraction effects on the surface. Proof? Not at all. The collected evidence shows that these effects are known phenomena and should be expected. The fact that the phenomena changes over time shows that it is not because of the curvature of the earth.

5222

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: August 30, 2018, 09:48:07 PM »

It is neither a "magic wand," or a frivolous excuse. There are timelapse videos of the sinking ship effect, which shows directly that the sinking ship effect phenomenon changes over time. There are also tell-tale signs that there is refraction on the water when the sinking ship effect does occur.

If you could demonstrate that refraction can cause a body to "jump over" a curve or object, that would strengthen the Round Earth case and such an explanation would be permissible. You guys shout and cry that excuse all the time, even here with the turning torso to make up for the inaccuracy of the earth curve calculator. But we have never seen a body jump over another body.  The only examples we have is where refraction affects the scene in between the observer and the observed body. Constantly asserting that "refraction did it!" to save you, without ever demonstrating that refraction even can do what you purport it to do, is the "magic wand."

It's a matter of evidence vs non-evidence. The fact is that there is evidence of the variable sinking ship effect due to refraction, and none of the Round Earth refraction that lifts bodies from behind curves.

Watch this video from Jeran. He analyzes a ship that sinks into the water as it recedes from the observer.



The same sort of mirroring effects as displayed on the ship that Jeran looks at are seen in the Turning Torso video.

At the 4:02 mark from the Turning Torso video when the author zooms in and pans around, we see a ship with the same sort of effects shown in the Jeran video:



Closeup:



Refraction is affecting that body of water.

5223

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Value of the Bishop Constant

« on: August 30, 2018, 12:23:19 AM »

I believe it may have been Parsifal who came up with the equation? I didn't work on it, and do not know if the value is static or variable. I would assume that it is static, however.

5224

Flat Earth Investigations / Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator

« on: August 30, 2018, 12:03:55 AM »

A recent Globebusters episode had some discussion of the Universal Accelerator as held by the Flat Earth Society. They look at a PBS video which states that it was Albert Einstein who came up with the idea of an upwardly accelerating earth. We have made mention of this in the past, but here is a video. Watch the following video at the 3h4m16s mark for 15 minutes. Here is the video at that timestamp:



The video states that Einstein argued that the only way Newton's gravity makes sense is if the earth were flat and accelerating upwards. There are too many coincidences with Newton's gravity, Einstein says. Einstein ended up adapting his upwardly accelerating earth theory to the Round Earth model by making space bend, another way to make the earth accelerate, giving us General Relativity as we know it today.

5225

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: August 29, 2018, 11:32:10 PM »

Lets us review what we know about the sinking effect from some recent threads.

1. Watch the video that HorstFue posted in the "Why I'm a Flat Earther—37 Must-See Experiments" thread. He posts a supplement to Experiment 1 of that video in which the author did further filming at that location and sometimes saw the opposite coast in full view, and sometimes saw it hidden.

The story goes on with this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPouevRkB_o

That's at least strong evidence, that there is refraction, grossly varying with weather conditions, especially close above water surfaces.
I'm not claiming FET or RET wins. What's presented can be explained in both models, depending on the value of refraction.
But no one ever measured refraction close to water surfaces.

This is a very good one. Thanks for posting.

I invite anyone reading to watch all the way until the end. The scene changes over time, obscuring or revealing the distant objects. Sometimes bodies are viewable on the opposite shore, and sometimes they are hidden. When things are hidden near the horizon the background and area near the water is much more messy. When the refraction changes and things "below the horizon" are now viewable as if the earth were flat, in contradiction to RET, the images near the water are much clearer. At the end of the video the author leaves with the message asking which one is refraction -- the messy one, or the clearer one. Does refraction make the scene messier, or does refraction make the scene clearer?

That, combined with Experiment #2 in the first video, which is performed in a fridged environment over ice is, to me, very suggestive.

The scene changes over time, sometimes showing the opposite coast in its entirety, and sometimes showing it sunken. Notice that when the sinking effect occurs, that the background objects are squished into the surface.

2. Now lets look at the timelapse from Skunkbayweather. Recall this post:

Regarding refraction, take a look at Experiment 34 in this video for a few minutes at the 1:44:58 mark and listen to the narrator. There is a timelapse of what happens over the water's surface. I've embedded it with the time spot:

https://youtu.be/ipDfJwkmkj8?t=1h44m58s

...

Narration from the segment:

The atmosphere can cause distant objects to stretch, to compress, to mirror, and to be obscured by a false horizon line. You can see it all. Unfortunately, what you don't see is see objects arcing over curvature due to refraction. Unfortunately, dishonest globe propagandists use distortion as proof of curvature when clearly it is not.

I have repeated this demand on many occasions to the globe faithful: Produce one video of an object geometrically hidden behind a hill, which then arcs over a hill only to refraction. To date, not one globe supporter has produced the arcing over the hill proof and the flat earth proofs keep rolling in.

He is right. "Refraction" is used as a magic wand to explain whatever you want to explain. In the particular case of this thread it is being asserted that an image of the island is projected by a mirage over one hundred feet into the air to peek above the horizon without any noticeable distortion of its features in order to explain a Round Earth.

Let us look at what happens in these timelapse videos:





The general Round Earther Explanation: "The peninsula was below the horizon, and then it was projected up into the air above it!" "Refraction effect!"

This would be the usual remark. However, this does not hold. Look at where the horizon/water line is located the revealed version:



In the revealed version the horizon is behind the island... If the peninsula were below the curve of the earth in the first image, and then refraction projected the peninsula into the air, to peek over the real horizon in the second image (and all without distortion of landmass features, as odd as that sounds), we would just be seeing the peninsula peeking above the horizon line. It is clear, at least to me from the full motion video and the images above, that the phenomenon of refraction is nothing more than distortion in front of the peninsula.

We can watch more time-lapse videos, if you wish, to see whether these concepts hold as bodies are revealed and hidden.

We can clearly see that when this effect occurs, squishing and widening occurrs. Compare this sunken version to the revealed version above:



The Skunkbayweather camera didn't move at all in the timelapse. The peninsula didn't move. This sinking effect caused bodies to become squished and widened when it obscured the coast.

3. Finally, Let us look at the sunken Twisting Torso tower images:



The tower is getting wider as the images progress.

Since the levels of the cubes are lined up, then the towers must be in proportion to one another. There is no way to line up those levels without putting the towers in proportion to one another. The fact that the tower squishes and widens, like the scenes squish in examples 1 and 2 when the sinking effect occurs, suggests that this is the same effect.

5226

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is God possible?

« on: August 29, 2018, 09:27:01 PM »

What would you call an alien that doesn't have a planet, and lives in a nebula that is outside of our time and space?

Look at the definition of "extra-terrestrial."

ex·tra·ter·res·tri·al
adjective

    1.
    of or from outside the earth or its atmosphere.
    "searches for extraterrestrial intelligence"

God is literally an ET. That doesn't imply anything bad or immoral, but that's exactly what he is described as.

5227

Flat Earth Media / Re: Globebusters FEIC 2018 Canada Presentation

« on: August 29, 2018, 02:55:36 PM »

The presentation gets a little into everything. It was the "Flat Earth 101" presentation at the convention. Globebusters basically summarize the contents of their shows over the last year. They talk about various experiments suggesting a Flat Earth, refraction, gravity, atronomy, and much more.

I don't have anything specific to comment on, but I found the presentation to be a good "Flat Earth 101" overview and summary of their shows.

5228

Flat Earth Community / Re: YouTube now censoring and demoting Flat Earth videos

« on: August 29, 2018, 02:00:39 AM »

While we should initially "seed" the platform with links to good content, the purpose of such a platform should be geared for anyone to submit videos or articles, just like this forum is open for anyone to post. Submitted videos, podcasts, or other contents get upvoted based on a "thumbs up" rating system. When we go to the site we see the top rated and newest videos, with a more categorized list of channels or topics on the menu. Eventually and ideally, those video authors should be the ones posting their own videos, not us.

If there is someone advocating violence, there is a "report to moderator" button near the video. What is the difference between someone advocating for violence on the forum or in a video? Nothing. It is just a different content format.

Who cares if some of the content is of poor quality? That's what disclaimers are for. Some of these content creators are new to FET, will get some things wrong, but they tend to get better over time. It's not like we are censoring people here on the forum when they may be occasionally incorrect about something.

While the quality may be questionable at times, these content creators have proven that they can suck in the audience. What we want is for our audience to get interested enough in the subject to go on a 6 hour Flat Earth video-watching bender. The bounce rate is probably quite high with our current website format, and we know from the giant YouTube Flat Earth reprisal that the video format is a proven way to suck them in.

As I imagine this, it would look something like the following:

Main Page - automatically display a selection of trending, top, and newly submitted content.

In the side menu we have the following sections:

Flat Earth 101/Top Videos - basically a section with top videos designed to suck the audience in. New users generally start here
Channels - A listing of the Flat Earth channels -- If the users want to view a listing of videos from a user or group they can navigate to their page to see their videos or contents.
Categories - Basically a list of topics that redirects to a search link. "Sinking Ship," "Perspective," etc. For users to research a particular topic.
Search - Allows the user to search freely
Submit Content - Allows the user to submit content

In the top menu we have the other main website links.

5229

Flat Earth Media / Re: Flat Earth Perspective and Horizon Explained

« on: August 28, 2018, 11:15:50 PM »

For the record, in the past on the forums we have looked at the following video by p-Brane, which describes perspective in a similar way. p-Brane mainly focuses on the sunset. Runtime: 8 Minutes.

5230

Flat Earth Media / Finite Perspective and the Horizon Explained

« on: August 28, 2018, 11:11:02 PM »

I recently came across a video by StinkyCASH which, more or less, describes perspective and its finite nature.

Perspective is an oft-used reasoning FE'ers give when explaining why the sun sets or, sometimes, the sinking ship effect.

Runtime: 15 minutes.



The other branch of thought with does not use the perspective explanation is the Electromagnetic Accelerator theory.

5231

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: August 28, 2018, 08:43:57 PM »

I took a schematic of the turning torso and determined how high each of the cube sections were.



I then applied the results to the collage with the multiple views. The figures in red is the scale, as determined by the above image. The figures in blue at the bottom is the amount hidden by the Round Earth model. The only one which is close to matching is the first one, to the far left.



What is the explanation? Refraction hovering the tower into the air? Since there is only one which appears to line up, we may as well say that none of them line up.

All we know is that there is a phenomenon that is occurring which obscures or reveals buildings, and that whatever it is, it does not match the Round Earth calculator.

There are numerous accounts of bodies being sometimes obscured, and sometimes visible. In other threads we have seen timelapse scenes, in which bodies are obscured or revealed over time. If bodies are obscured or revealed over time, and if this phenomenon changes, then we cannot say that is due to the "curvature" of the earth.

The argument that "the delta" on this particular scene is closer to the Round Earth model is, in my opinion, not a strong enough argument, considering that these scenes of obscured bodies change over time, sometimes showing more or much less of bodies, in contradiction to the Round Earth Theory. The sinking ship is already a known variable in our literature, and has  been a known phenomenon for hundreds of years.

Pointing at a half-sunken body and proclaiming that the earth is round, and that any error is because of a refraction effect because you must be correct, is quite insufficient in the face of the many observations showing that this phenomenon changes over time. Samuel Birley Rowbotham documents a number of observations where the bodies are sometimes visible or sometime entirely invisible. That alone discounts this effect as a demonstration of curvature.

5232

Flat Earth Theory / Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator

« on: August 28, 2018, 02:45:41 AM »

On reading through the FAQ and the Universal Accelerator pages I have come to realize that we are seemingly haphazardly proposing that the earth is accelerating upwards without really explaining why. We should provide background to this deduction process.

In my view, the earth is accelerating upwards simply because that is what we observe it to be doing.

Consider the following:

Experiment 1: Step up onto a chair and step off of its edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully. If you pay attention closely, you will observe that the earth accelerates upwards to meet your feet.

Experiment 2: Now find a ball and raise it into the air with your hand and let it go into free-fall. As it does this this you should simultaneously feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet. This tells us that we are being pushed to be in the frame of reference of the earth, as the earth runs into the ball.

While the "graviton puller particles" and "bendy space" versions of gravity in Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity provide equivalent explanations to the results of the above experiments, those things are are completely undiscovered, and so, are decidedly less empirical. We can see that the earth moves upwards, while we have to imagine that there are hypothetical undiscovered puller particles or odd properties to space.

We can imagine many explanations for the phenomenon of gravity, but they will be completely hypothetical and frivolous. None are as strong as something we can directly observe and experience.

Per the question of where the energy for comes from; since it is beneath the earth and inaccessible that is a question easily left as unknown. While we can directly see and experience the mechanical action of the earth's upward movement, we are ignorant of the energy source below. The phenomenon of "gravity" is as equally deficient in its explanation for where all of the energy comes from for matter to pull matter, and that usually gets glossed over.

Furthermore, and as another point, in order for "gravity" to exist, entirely new and untestable physics must be created for that construct. The phenomenon of pushing is well established and long known to science. After all, the phenomenon of push can occur with existing physics, whereas pulling particles or bendy space requires new physics. This favors the concept of upwards acceleration.

5233

Flat Earth Community / Re: YouTube now censoring and demoting Flat Earth videos

« on: August 27, 2018, 10:45:41 PM »

It's not a competition. The audience for this is actually unlimited. There is no limited audience that must be shared between them and us. The fact is that those YouTube content creators inspire the curiosity of the public moreso than our forum posts ever could.

Are we profiting from having more traffic? I haven't seen an increase in my bank account from this. What benefit is it to me for those channels to die off and for us to receive more traffic? This is entirely non-profit. There are no "competitors". It would more benefit us to bring those channels on board and adopt them into the website.

If this website eventually evolved into a tube or news aggregator, with links and graphics to the latest Flat Earth articles and videos, it would greatly benefit the movement and the society. It would help us generate a movement. The forums and debates should actually be a secondary focus, for those people who want to discuss and look into the matter further. The public face of the society needs to inspire and inform. I would rather have a page filled with the latest videos and articles than a news page that is updated once or twice a year.

5234

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Additions to the Library

« on: August 27, 2018, 07:07:47 PM »

One Hundred Proofs That The Earth is Not a Globe
by William Carpenter

https://archive.org/details/OneHundredProofsThatTheEarthIsNotAGlobeWilliamCarpenter1885

I understand that we already have a copy of the proofs on the Wiki. This version is the full version of the book and has commentary associated with them, along with some historical insight from the author.

Edit: It is also stated that this is the fifth edition. It is possible that the content of these proofs are different than the version we have.

5235

Flat Earth Community / YouTube now censoring and demoting Flat Earth videos

« on: August 27, 2018, 05:04:57 PM »

It appears that many people of the wider FE community are complaining that YouTube is demoting Flat Earth videos. YouTube admitted that they were planning on demoting such videos, and a spokeswoman specifically calls out Flat Earth as something to censor in this video.

On the most recent Flat Earth Podcast there was discussion about halting the "Research Flat Earth" slogan, since when you search for Flat Earth you get the Flat Earth Society, which they characterize as "full of trolls," and YouTube, which now promotes anti-FE videos. The prospects for the growth of the movement is dismal if Flat Earth is being censored.

This is important. Flat Earth was given its fair assesment in 2015, the first time in hundreds of years, and it exploded into a movement of flat earthers that is still growing. Flat earthers grew to thousands, and the subject is reaching millions of people, because no one had ever seen the evidence from that side before 2015. In 2018, it has now grown and become such a big thing that even mainstream media and the government are attempting to to stop it with censorship, ridicule and education.

Since we rank highly for Flat Earth, I believe that it is increasingly becoming our obligation to come up with some kind of scheme that promotes videos and contents of the wider Flat Earth community. We have discussed a sort of video content site in the past; which still seems like a good idea. Another idea is a Digg-like rating system, where users may submit content that gets upvoted. The old Digg had one option: You have the option to either "Digg" it, or do nothing. This type of scheme would protect from the trolls.

The current admins do not have the time to work on such a venture, and my suggestion would be to create a subdomain and give access to myself and others who would like to work on it. There are plenty of tube and rating-system type content manager systems to base this on.

What is the best way to handle the censorship of YouTube?

5236

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is God possible?

« on: August 27, 2018, 07:28:07 AM »

That is the most atheist version of God I have ever encountered. 'God can only be aliens with technology'.

Most religions describe God as an alien with powers beyond comprehension. God is not of this earth. He created the earth. Therefore He is an alien by literal definition.

Your version also takes away all the things that a God is supposed to do. An initial creator. Someone with a plan for all of us.

Why can't an alien have a plan for you?

It might be easiest, for example, to imagine God as the universe itself, not a separate entity. You could never become "more powerful than the universe" because this inherently makes no sense, and the universe is the most powerful thing we can conceive of, therefore the universe itself could very well be God. There could be some kind of unimaginably powerful being that exists outside or above the universe, but this no longer matters because it's just an argument about metaphysics at that point.

What is the reasoning for it being impossible to be more powerful than the universe you live in? It is certainly possible on a video game server to be powerful enough with the admin commands to bring the entire server down, or for a nuclear weapon to obliterate the building it exists in.

5237

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Is God possible?

« on: August 26, 2018, 06:12:14 PM »

For a good while in my life I did not believe that the idea of a supernatural God was even possible. However, I have since come to the conclusion that God is possible.

This conclusion was sparked from the following: Is it possible for an alien civilization to be as technologically advanced as to seem to have the powers of a God?

My answer is yes. The television series Star Trek, for example, portrays a universe with civilizations in stages of various technological developments. There are civilizations who have not yet reached the stars, there are civilizations who explore the stars, and then there are civilizations so far advanced that they can appear to manipulate matter with a thought.

If you believe that the portrayal of the Star Trek universe is possible, and that we are on a range of technological prowess which will culminate with us having God-like abilities, then the conclusion must be that God is possible.

5238

Flat Earth Projects / Re: A frequently asked question: Does the rotundity of other planets clash with FET?

« on: August 26, 2018, 05:13:15 PM »

I like the idea of the geocentric explanation in the Wiki. We may be unable able to solve whether the planets are revolving around the sun or not. I have some doubts that my last link with the Dance of the Planets animation, where Mercury and Venus dance closely around the sun, following and shifting to either side of it, is even accurate myself, considering that there are reports of people observing Venus throughout the night.

There is some contradicting information that is preventing me from coming to a conclusion.

To the current answer in the FAQ:

"Planets (from Ancient Greek ἀστὴρ πλανήτης [astēr planētēs, "wandering star"], or just πλανήτης [planḗtēs, "wanderer"]) are orbiting astronomical objects. The Earth is not a planet by definition, as it sits at the center of our solar system above which the planets and the Sun revolve. The earths uniqueness, fundamental differences and centrality makes any comparison to other nearby celestial bodies insufficient - Like comparing basketballs to the court on which they bounce."

On reading this again, to the newcomer it may still sound like the earth is just a flat disk in the middle of the traditional Round Earth solar system, with large round planets around it. That is what they believe the case to be when coming in and reading the FAQ, after all. I believe this is what boydster was hinting at earlier. We may consider making it more clear what the fundamental differences are.

I imagine the response to this may be "That's ridiculous! Why is the earth flat, but the other planets around it are not? How is it so different that comparison is insufficient? It makes more sense that the Earth is round like the round planets around it."

5239

Flat Earth Projects / Re: A frequently asked question: Does the rotundity of other planets clash with FET?

« on: August 26, 2018, 04:00:35 PM »

I noticed that the Planets page was deleted entirely, and the retrograde explanatory illustration and descriptions were lost.

The explanation was included underneath an image in the FAQ. The other illustration was more misleading than helpful, and should be eliminated. The question practically never comes up anyway, so it doesn't need more than a sidenote.

What do you feel was misleading about it? The text below the illustration seemed to provide the disclaimer that it is not what occurs over a single day. The diagram does better illustrate why the planets retrograde with the circling-the-sun explanation, than with the looping mars image alone.

Here is the current page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Retrograde_Motion_of_the_Planets

How can it be improved?

I have a slight issue with Tom's answer, in that the planets do not orbit the sun in FET. They are part of the celestial gearing (each is on one of Aristotle's 49 movers - cogs) and actually also circle the earth, albeit in a Spirograph type pattern. They definitely do not follow the sun. The sun licks around the earth once a day. Venus will be in the same part of the sky for weeks.

http://losmundosdebrana.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/cassini_apparent.jpg

Please also note from ENaG

The Zetetic Sun, moon, planets and stars are all only a few hundred miles above the surface of the earth.

Ergo the sun is small, but planets and stars must be very small.

In essence planets are stars in FET. They aren't on the two major movers, moving with all the others (North and South Hemisphere), but each one is on its own gearing. They are special, they have all kinds of unique reverence, but they are the wandering stars and little more.

This is interesting. I don't mind if a geocentric explanation is included. What do you make of the following page, which shows an animation of the planets moving in the sky with the sun. Scroll down to the Dance of the Planets animation:

http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/movements.htm

From this, it seems to portray that Mercury and Venus follow closely to the sun tend to wobble to either side of it as it moves. Admittedly, the other planets do not seem to have such a stark visual relationship with the sun.

5240

Flat Earth Media / Re: The Earth Plane

« on: August 26, 2018, 05:47:16 AM »

Hmm... I wonder why, when observing the stars, they didn't realize that the reason the stars do not change their positions is because they are light years away! The are too far away for us to notice their movements. If the stars and constellations were in or even slightly near our galaxy, then yes they should, and would, change.

I think the book might be referencing the Precession of the Equinoxes problem.



The stars should be moving over time. The precession is slow. 25,920 yrs = 360° rotation. Divide that up, and the axis of the earth moves at one degree per 72 years in respect to the stars, or 1/4th of a degree every 18 years. Yet the North Star is in the same place it was 72 and 18 years ago. The North Star has not been documented to move, despite the theory that the star configurations were different eons ago. Ancient monuments that were built to point directly at the North Star are, in fact, still lined up with the North Star.