1

Flat Earth Community / Re: Death of Mike Hughes

« on: March 01, 2020, 04:32:52 PM »

The man was building a rocket. In his garage. That kinda spells disaster. However, he by all accounts he wasn't even a flat earther, he just slapped the sticker on the side and tried to get donations from flat earthers.

Parallex, I posted a link earlier which related to an interview in which he categorically made his ultimate intentions to prove a flat earth about as clear as it is possible to be. Certainly, by his own account, he most certainly became a FET, publically at least.

It's sad that he died, but the man knew the risks, and if he was told otherwise, do you think he would have listened?

It's an absolute tragedy that he was actually allowed to proceed with a launch. Although, I'm quite satisfied in his OWN mind, he thought he knew enough about rockets to be safe. Clearly he was deluded and the fact he "didn't believe in science" should have set alarm bells ringing with everybody - not least the authorities, but his family, friends and FET community.

If he'd set up his rocket in upstate NY, he would have had every 911 service trying to stop him, even section him. In the desert (where he was presumably in largely clear airspace), he had nobody. Just a TV crew who MUST have known this was a suicidal and frankly ridiculous stunt.

I stand by my original post: anyone that knew Mike had a duty of care to TRY to stop him. Hell, in the end, even calling the police advising them somebody was about to (unintentionally) die, might have brought about a better outcome. Nobody did. Why?

His death remains a tragedy which, in my opinion was avoidable.

If Mike had had better counsel (and esp the tacit and vocal support from those who genuinely believed he was able to further their cause) and had someone had the courage to call BS and contact the authorities prior to his launch to advise them of a potential (unwitting) suicide, AND more protection in law (forbidding someone jettisoning themselves to an inevitable death in the desert), he might well have survived.

If he'd tried to jump the grand canyon on a bike, he'd have been refused. How on earth was he allowed to do this?

Yes it was entirely his decision, but some laws exist to protect people from themselves.

Again, RIP Mike Hughes.

2

Flat Earth Community / Re: Death of Mike Hughes

« on: February 25, 2020, 04:07:38 PM »

But as I said in my OP, ultimately, it was his call, and his responsibility. Perhaps if he had had better guidance from friends, colleagues, FET's - and even the film company, he MIGHT still be here.

Do you genuinely think that someone brave/crazy enough to build a steam powered rocket and strap himself into it would have listened had someone said "Um, you know fella, that might be a bit dangerous...". I'd be amazed if no-one pointed out to him the potential folly of doing what he did, I'm sure plenty of people did. And he must have known he was taking risks. Ultimately, he's a grown up. If he wanted to do crazy things like this then no-one was going to stop him.

Yes. I agree. As I said quite pointedly. But the ridiculousness of his secondary aim - to photograph a flat earth - was in my opinion a potential conflict of interests for the crazed cultists who believe such nonsense. Were they intentionally or unintentionally "egging him on"?

I'm simply asking that rhetorical question. I propose that many/most FETs would NOT have attempted to dissuade him from risking a high chance of death because it served their agenda for him attempt to get their so-called "proof".

I also propose, that any selfless FET would/should have seen the extreme risk of his actions, and visibly pulled their support from his actions (e.g. Pete Svarrior et al) But they didn't. Nobody "officially" appeared to dissuade him.

And that's the essence of my particular beef.

If FET had publically stated that they do not condone reckless acts such as this, then maybe they could have retained a shred of integrity. But they (and many others) let him carry on regardless.

Do you not think FETs pulling their official/tacit sanctioning of this tragedy would have been the least they could have done.

I think the FET organisation very much should have categorically called this a very bad idea. Maybe this might have made him reconsider. Maybe not. But at least FET humanity might have taken a moral higher ground.

3

Flat Earth Community / Re: Death of Mike Hughes

« on: February 25, 2020, 07:56:29 AM »

I'm going to ignore OP's inability to write a forum post with any substance, his inability to contain his "erth rund!" shitposting, or to even find the right board for his thread. The subject is important enough to make an exception, and the serious slanderous allegations within the OP deserve some exploration.

Wow, I see you haven't become any less aggressive and hysterical Pete Svarrior. Just to pick you up on a few points:

1) it's quite clear that whether or not his interests in home made rocketry initial stretched to FET, by the time he died, they most definitely did:  "He envisions the launch as just one step toward eventually getting himself into space, at which point he plans to take a photograph "to prove once and for all this Earth is flat," he told his interviewer" (source www.npr.org).

2) following point 1), I regarded this misadventure part of an ongoing FET investigation/experiment - thus, I posted it in "investigations".

3) Slander? Oh dear. It is clearly beyond your education to realise the difference between slander (oral defamation) and libel (written word) - which is what I presume you meant? Except that you're wrong about that too. It's an inappropriate use of the term in this instance.

Additionally, what I wrote would never be found to be slanderous since claiming defamation for FET's would be legally dismissed for want of evidence that a flat earth exists. This is a legal argument you would lose - after the judge had stopped sniggering.

Going back to my OP, and given that Mike Hughes patently developed a secondary aim of proving a flat earth,   I genuinely think that any FET's that knew him and had an opportunity to advise him had a duty of care to warn him that his ill-advised (FAA UNAPPROVED) "rocket" launches carried an extremely high chance of death - and given he had advertised FET by plastering "FLAT EARTH" over the side of his "rocket" to cause personal injury to himself and obvious damage to the reputation of flat earthers (assuming that's even possible - see above legal info) I suggest there was a duty of care.

To be blunt, if the whole preposterous FET movement didn't make such absurd claims which offered Hughes the perfect opportunity (as he saw it) to combine his conflicted interests in aeronautical engineering with disproving heliocentric physics, perhaps he might not have aimed to get as high as seeing the curve demands and therefore might have tempered his aims.

But as I said in my OP, ultimately, it was his call, and his responsibility. Perhaps if he had had better guidance from friends, colleagues, FET's - and even the film company, he MIGHT still be here.

4

Flat Earth Community / Death of Mike Hughes

« on: February 23, 2020, 12:12:13 PM »

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mike-hughes-death-rocket-launch-crash-mad-daredevil-flat-earth-video-a9353091.html

I find it genuinely baffling that nobody from the FET community didn't strongly counsel and/or advise Mike Hughes to NOT fly a home made rocket to his death.

I get that ultimately, it was his decision, I get that had he gained sufficient altitude, he would have disproved his own beliefs but seriously, did nobody within the FET community advise against him risking his life in such a foolhardy and ultimately counter-productive (for FET) scheme.

Despite the disagreements between heliocentrists and deluded FET fantasists, the death of someone in the vain pursuit of exposing their own indoctrinated nonsense should remain forever on the conscience of those who urged him on. Many heliocentric astronauts and cosmonauts have died in the pursuit of REAL science - on the ground, during launch, descent from orbit etc. These deaths were not a joke. They were really people who were trying to better mankind's understanding of all manner of problems. Way beyond some nonsense FET. Likewise Mike Hughes' tragic death. The tragic difference here is that he was duped into a ridiculous and unnecessary proof of something that is already beyond requiring any further evidence.

Effectively, he was duped by FET (theory and theorists) into recklessly risking his life. A risk that was too high.

For shame on you all.

RIP Mike Hughes

5

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: August 05, 2018, 12:41:39 PM »

India set a record for the most satellite launches on one mission a year or so ago.

Are you suggesting we were in the middle of the Cold War "a year or so ago"? Seems strange to me, given that the Soviet Union hasn't been around for a while.

Of course, this is also entirely irrelevant to your original assertion that they weren't on either side of the Iron Curtain. And even if you pursued the historically correct (if intellectually dishonest) approach of arguing that they weren't formally in the Eastern Bloc, you'd still have to deny that the first Indian launches were performed by Soviet craft.

What does this have to do with the functionality of satellites on flat Earth? I'd still like to see how gps works on flat Earth. This argument seems like a rather pointless one, your literally arguing over who launched satellites, which apparently don't exist. The original question was on the functionality of satellites and is like to hear a flat Earth opinion on that.

if the GPS "satellites" are actually high altitude planes...how does it work any different than the RE explanation?

Hi Round eyes,

Before now, I've setup my telescope to track the ISS (and various satellites) and seen them with my own eyes. Because the ISS is so big (108m wide) compared to TV broadcasting satellites only a few metres, the details are easily visible (1). This video shows very nicely how I was able to see of the ISS as it passed over brightly, then faded and disappeared over NNE while still maybe 40->30degs above the horizon (moving into the penumbra and umbra respectively) as its orbital path would predict (even thought I had to move quite quickly as the telescope panned!!). In terms of the distance of this object from earth, not only is it possible to estimate this from the apparent size given the magnification, but far more accurately, readily available equipment can measure the distance to within cm by the use doppler from the observing point on earth (2).

My question is this: if I invited you over to view the ISS through my 16" Dobonian reflector and you saw the detail of the ISS like this video (my scope is even clearer), AND be able to demonstrably measure it's distance with doppler radio measured instantaneously from a Tx/Rx attached to the scope, would you

a) agree the ISS exists and appears to look like what we are told it looks like? If not, what would be your interpretation of what you see?
b) That, given the relative known positions of the sun and ISS, its fade and disappearance are consistent with the exact mathematical predictions of its orbit (moving from its day->night)?
c) Assuming a measured doppler distance of 900,000 feet (about 290 miles), that it is not an aircraft? (The lack of air pressure at that altitude would make the lift from an aerofoil almost zero)
d) That you therefore conclude the force trying to drag it back to earth must be being opposed in another way (i.e. not aerodynamic lift) in order for it to remain up there for any length of time?
e) Where is that force being generated from?

As per my tags, I'm interested in the debate, and would be very interested in your interpretation of the these observations.

Thanks in advance for your reply. 

1)

2) http://www.zarya.info/Tracking/Doppler.php (an example of how readily available equipment can be used to track and measure the orbits and distances of satellites).

6

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is FET Dangerous?

« on: August 05, 2018, 11:05:13 AM »

Seems pretty dangerous for Mad Mike Hughes and his steam rocket.

Both RET and FET have produced people strapping themselves into rockets.

Indeed. Space travel still remains very dangerous. The difference between "Mad Mike Hughes" and professional astronauts being the latter have enormous teams of very clever scientists & engineers paying attention to every last possible detail to mitigate risk. I believe "Mad Mike Hughes" just jumped on the FE bandwagon purely as a way to raise money. I think he duped the movement.

7

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is FET Dangerous?

« on: August 03, 2018, 06:55:44 PM »

Even a man who was watched ascending in a balloon to 128,000 feet with clear curvature filmed by several cameras is disputed by FET. This was funded by a soft-drink company. Not a govement, not an agency, not a party with a conflict of interest or a confirmation bias - just a record-breaker did it purely for that reason. The many cameras also showed a spherical earth. The Baumgartner also saw the curve. But this would be disputed as "lens aberration" and "lies" respectively. And that's my point in a nutshell.

And if you were to actually watch those FE, they show how some scenes taken from inside the craft show a much flatter horizon when looking out and other scenes show a curved horizon. Whether the usage of fish-eye lenses was deliberate or not, you are misrepresenting the issue. Since you brought this up, and neglected to mention this, that just shows you to be an untrustworthy individual, only seeking to make your case and "win" your argument.

I can confirm I have watched the available footage from the world record jump and seen hundreds of photos. Regardless of the camera or its position, there is always a curve: "much flatter" = still curved. On some images, the curve is more pronounced than others and that would be expected given how much of the foreground vs background is in shot, the lens used and depth of field.

I find it incredible that you label me "untrustworthy" on the basis that I "neglected to mention" this, when in all honesty, I thought the differences in the horizon were quite obviously explained by the above optical phenomena.
I thought the idea of a forum was to debate? The FES forum's home mission statement states: "This is the home of the world-famous Flat Earth Society, a place for free thinkers and the intellectual exchange of ideas."?

I cannot see how your post in any way supports that aim. It's just an attack on someone who doesn't share the same opinion as you do.

Is it not possible to simply discuss the science without personal attacks? Please?

8

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is FET Dangerous?

« on: August 03, 2018, 04:55:48 PM »

I don't see that it is dangerous at all.

Being someone who lives life according believing in the round earth theory, I don't see any harm in a community of people trying to prove otherwise.

It doesn't really affect anything in my life, or their own, members of their family etc. if they believe the Earth is flat (for the sake of this point, I am not saying that it is or is not flat), just like it doesn't really affect them if I believe the Earth is round.

When this does become a problem is when you get idiots who seem to think it is right to abuse others, either physically or mentally, because their view of something that is relatively trivial, differs from their own.

(I firmly believe that the stuff I have said above should also adhere to religion, country of birth, colour of skin, age, etc.)

As another user has put, there have been "studies" into other topics, like vaccinations, that were completely untrue but pushed nonetheless. Believing in these is dangerous as these can actually have an affect on a person's health, and worse than that the affect is on someone else's life because they are too young to be able to make their own informed choice.



In a nutshell, no, not dangerous. Even if it turns out that I am wrong and things like GPS and mobile phone satellites are faked and actually work through someway on Earth, then it still does not make a difference to my life. They still work, just not in the way I am told they work

I think my concern about FET being dangerous is cherry picking which mathematics are acceptable and which are not. For example, is it be acceptable (or safe) to dispute the mathematics of the sub-c Newtonian theory of gravitation and circular motion yet accept the mathematics of a sub-c amusement park ride exhibiting the same motion is true? This is surely a paradox: a person who designs a safe amusement park ride surely cannot also believe in FET - or how could he/she actually believe in their own calculations? The mathematics predict the same outcomes!

On a more philosophical level, challenging established scientific theory is healthy, important and inherently safe - as theories can be hypothesied, tested, repeated (or not) and accepted or refuted. The problem with FET is that there is only a hypoetheis. There is no repeatable, achievable experiement to accept or refute. Why? Because like all conspiracy theory, any evidence disputing accepted science is simply rubbished as fabricated, conspitorial and more paradoxically - proof of the conspiracy!

Even a man who was watched ascending in a balloon to 128,000 feet with clear curvature filmed by several cameras is disputed by FET. This was funded by a soft-drink company. Not a govement, not an agency, not a party with a conflict of interest or a confirmation bias - just a record-breaker did it purely for that reason. The many cameras also showed a spherical earth. The Baumgartner also saw the curve. But this would be disputed as "lens aberration" and "lies" respectively. And that's my point in a nutshell.

Thus the danger of FET? Any evidence or repeatable proof offered to contradict FET is simply labelled "conspiracy", "lies", "faulty measurement" etc. or weak alternate and non-provable theory (e.g. observable GPS satellites being "high altitude planes - possible solar powered"), with no counter-evidence to prove the theory.

Hypotheses, like "fairies at the bottom of the garden", without testable and repeatable evidence, that vehemently refute tesable and repeatable evidence, risk underminging human scientific endeavour on many so levels.

9

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is FET Dangerous?

« on: August 01, 2018, 05:25:01 PM »

@JRowe..... Shhhhhhhhhh.

10

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: July 31, 2018, 03:28:20 PM »

In addition to this valid question, returning to the OP, why would governments/luminati/whoever around the world continue with this conspiracy? In whose interest is it? Clearly you believe the round earth is a conspiracy so what is your opinion as to why this is happening and what do the creators of this conspiracy gain from it?

It is worth questioning the why... because if a GPS-like service (but not reliant on orbiting satellites) was in use, why convince the wider public that satellites are needed to make it function?  Why not simply describe this technology as is? The only rationale could be that this technology proves the earth to be flat so it had to be hidden behind a technology using a system reliant on a round-earth. 

Seems unlikely to me, but I suppose that's the nature of conspiracies.

Sound logic. I can't see why the countries that operate GNSS (US, Russia, China), if indeed they don't use orbiting satellites, why don't just say they are using lower altitude flying machines "possible solar powered" as ROUND EYES hypothesises.

I'm very interested in why FET believers think that the flat earth is being hidden behind the supposed myth of the RE?
It's a really important question in the debate because as much as we can argue about science and maths, in any conspiracy on this scale, there surely needs to be a self-serving motive?

So who would benefit from masking a flat earth from mainsteam science and society and why would they do it?

THanks for any replies.

11

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is FET Dangerous?

« on: July 31, 2018, 03:17:42 PM »

Why precisely should I giev any respect to a sanctimonious, patronising, arrogant, dishonest poster?

Because the rules require you to do so, so long as you're posting in the upper fora, or at least to refrain from personal attacks. Pretty please and thank you.

I have most certainly not posted anthing deliberately sanctimonious, patronising arrogant and in particular, I find Jrowe calling me dishonest particularly offensive. I accept that I might be wrong about things, but at NO point have I been deliberately dishonest.

And this is exactly why it is so difficult to engage in meaningful discussion here - because after 1 or two posts - that ^ is the supreme judgement and conclusion of someone with whom I was trying to have a serious discussion. Hopefully there will be others who want to actually discuss issues without getting sweary and spitting their dummy.

I appreciate the backup from Mod Pete. Thanks.

12

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On disrespectful posting

« on: July 30, 2018, 10:42:53 AM »

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, and is more concern than suggestion, but i wanted to say it because it's one of those topics that ruined the other site for me.

Why precisely should I give any respect to a sanctimonious, patronising, arrogant, dishonest poster?

Because the rules require you to do so, so long as you're posting in the upper fora, or at least to refrain from personal attacks. Pretty please and thank you.

i wouldn't consider much of what i said particularly disrespectful, save of course for the bit you quoted though i'd argue by then it was earned, but there's a certain imbalance there. Disrespect is measured by more than just word choice; personal attacks and descriptors can be a fine line. When someone baits to get a reaction, and succeed, the fault is at least partially on their shoulders too. if someone knowingly lies and misrepresents, and then caps it all off by not responding but rather complaining that you dared react to their condescension, that's more disrespectful as any f-bomb or snippy reaction.

Your last response to me on the "is FET dangerous" thread was very rude and totally disrespectful.

I really did want to respond to you on pretty much evey point only for you to subequently spit the dummy by posting "What the actual fuck are you talking about"

By the sounds of your previous experiences (as above), you would surely realise that that sort of response instantly inflames things and puts up a wall in a sensible discussion. I was never rude to you.

(I was actually trying - albeit ineloquently I admit - to discuss the use of mathematics as a universal model as opposed to discounting the same Newtonian proofs which guide circular motion (in cars/planes and planetary motion etc). Yes reading it back, it wasn't my clearest post, but in no way warranted that reply.

Why is it not possible to debate this subject without people getting so obviously angry?

I am happy to carry on the thread if you are.

13

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is FET Dangerous?

« on: July 29, 2018, 07:24:43 AM »

1) "I like how the RE perspective is to just look at it from their own closed view of the world"

I think if you thought a little bit harder before posting this somewhat petulant statement, you might appreciate that its hypocrisy. What perspective would you expect any person with a counter opinion to present with? Their own. Just as you look at things through your own perspectives - whatever they might be.

Instead of divorcing that sentence from its context, look at the very next line.

With all due respect, this is palpable nonsense. When scientific princples are taught, they are always related back to the first princples from which they originated.

That is simply not true. How old were you before you even heard the name, say, Cavendish? How many years before that were you told to believe in orbits?
Look how many people know tidbits like E=mc² or the speed of light as a limit, but couldn't tell you what those letters stand for or why the speed of light is a limit; look how many noobs come in insisting UA's impossible because it'd lead to exceeding the speed of light. Look at how every science textbook and classroom is based on memorizing statements, not deriving them. What did you spend more time studying, the scientific method and how and why it works, or statements you wouldn't know how to derive? One of those is far more important, one of those should underpin everything you've learned.
I still remember when I was younger and bothered with religious debates, and one of the discussions I had was with a young earther, where I tried to use radiometric dating... and I got schooled, because class hadn't bothered with any of the crucial details of how it is we know it works. No mention of calibration curves, tree rings for shorter-term dating, how we know the relative amounts of various elements. We were just told that it's constant. Zero explanation for where that knowledge comes from, we're just expected to believe it.

It's a fundamental problem with the education system, and that's speaking as someone that grew up in the US and UK so I got a taste of both. So much of it is focused around being expected to memorise facts without understanding them.

Now lets consider as most FE believers do, that all our known mathematics are wrong. (Because this is the only way, that a RE model could be fundamentally discounted. If a FE believer doesn't discount our known mathematics, then there is an insurmountable paradox: no believer in a FE model can also believe in modern mathematics.

Utter rubbish. Instead of whinging that FEers dare disagree with you, try to respond to the actual discussion.
This is anotehr crucial problem. You are raised believing that observations and theory may as well be the same thing, that if we see something and RET has an answer, there is no possible way anything else could also explain it.

This would mean that driving a car, or flying in a plane (which we can demonstably do - there are even FE pilots on here) can no longer be explained by our current mathematical models. If this is the case, then it is demonstrably up to the FE community to propose a new explanation. It's not sufficient to simply call modern science a "cult" or a "conspiracy". If you're right, then simply prove it. I will always listen to alternate theory - it's (ironically for FE) one of the central tenets of science - the offering of a counter theory and a proof by observable calculation. Why, for example, can't a FE (like Mad Mike Hughes in the US), go up to altitude or indeed travel to "underneath" the FE and prove the theory - or indeed conclude they are mistaken? Consider, the physical laws of circular motion, if the flat earth theory is correct, there would be utterly inexplicable problems explaing why someone living in northern Sweden experiences the exact same graviational forces as say, my living in Australia. In a FE theory, I should be being torn apart.... but I'm not. Now a single observation like that proves nothing, but if you apply a particular theory, then it should work for all applications - and our current mathematics, in my opinion, do.

What the actual fuck are you talking about?

Your point "You are taught what people believe, not how it was developed, not why it is believed..." should surely be challenging the ancient architects of modern day science - because if they were wrong, then everything is wrong.(*)

(*it should be noted that scientific theories are sometimes adapted not because they are necessarily wrong, but are not right in all circumstances - classically Newton's laws of motion at sub-light speed which do not work at speeds approaching light speed (as per Einsteins relativity).
[/b]

Congrats, you just refuted your whole bs line of reasoning.

So please explain why, having proposed a FE theory, has nobody made any tangible attempts to prove it as opposed to simply refuting the SE model

A) We do.
B) Performed experiments don't cease existing or stop counting as evidence, if another model accounts for them better then it should be preferred.
C) As you pointed out, there is no consensus, what exactly would be the point of doing an experiment that a lot of us wouldn't expect to see anything odd with? I've been pitching an experiment a while, I just lack the resources to do it (and it wouldn't count for anything given anything I provide that dares be contrary to RET would be rejected out of hand), and it wouldn't mean anything to other FEers.

Why so rude? Why so nasty and obnxious? No call for the tone of your reply whatsoever. I presume you read my tags? Disgraceful attitude and reported to mods.

14

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: July 29, 2018, 07:15:40 AM »

very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered). 

airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent.  remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy.  nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"

Do you have details of the design and operation?

Yes, of course, all design plans and calcs are readily available on the internet, you know how open source these guys are... Geez, come on.

Have you looked at gps.gov? Anything you have a problem with?  Calculations have to be open source for receiver designers.  There must be Chinese and Russian aircraft flying over the US if you are correct.

It was very obvious I was replying to the design of the aircraft, but the GPS system, but I think you know that.  I believe all agencies and countries are involved in this plot, same as all space travel, moon, Mars, etc

Why should GPS be a plot? Receivers give the location of the transmitters.

Do you understand satellite TV? Geosynchronous orbits.

As in my other posts elsewhere, I am not talking "stationary" satellites.  Im only referring to gps/iridium orbiting type satellites.

And please don't try and belittle people with stupid posts asking if I understand satellite TV.

The operation of GPS systems is well documented, proven and understood. 

If you think there is some other way then provide some evidence. It must be a conspiracy is not evidence, just your thoughts.

In addition to this valid question, returning to the OP, why would governments/luminati/whoever around the world continue with this conspiracy? In whose interest is it? Clearly you believe the round earth is a conspiracy so what is your opinion as to why this is happening and what do the creators of this conspiracy gain from it?

15

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: July 28, 2018, 12:02:01 PM »

very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered). 

airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent.  remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy.  nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"

I'm not sure what your point is here? Are you able to offer an answer to the questions of my OP?
Do you believe that the GPS system exists and works as we are told? And do you use it, say, in your car?

16

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is FET Dangerous?

« on: July 28, 2018, 11:54:03 AM »

1) "I like how the RE perspective is to just look at it from their own closed view of the world"

2) "If FET is true, it is not dangerous....Mainstream science has become a cult...."

3) "You are taught what people believe, not how it was developed, not why it is believed..."

4) "It doesn't tell people to gout out and hurt each other, it doesn't tell people to start risking their lives or doing anything close."

5) "And that's what sums it up, really. The danger is not FET, the danger is cults."

6) "FET tells us to think for ourselves, not to blindly follow, and it is blindly following that has gotten the world into the mess it now is."

Hi Jrowe. I picked out a few of your points which are worth discussion.

1) "I like how the RE perspective is to just look at it from their own closed view of the world"

I think if you thought a little bit harder before posting this somewhat petulant statement, you might appreciate that its hypocrisy. What perspective would you expect any person with a counter opinion to present with? Their own. Just as you look at things through your own perspectives - whatever they might be.

2) "If FET is true, it is not dangerous....Mainstream science has become a cult....".

Yes absolutely. if FET IS true, then it couldn't possibly be dangerous. It would be reality.

3) "You are taught what people believe, not how it was developed, not why it is believed...".

With all due respect, this is palpable nonsense. When scientific princples are taught, they are always related back to the first princples from which they originated. There are numerous examples - Pythagoras, Gallileo, Newton, Keppler as the tip of the iceberg. Yet FE believers, contradict the work of these great minds but offer nothing in return to explain the very obvious contradictions.

The very first lessons in mathematics that (presumably) any of us attended, would have been based around simple goemetry and how it was that something as (we now perceive) simple as a triangle had so many important ramifications in so many disciplines.

Now lets consider as most FE believers do, that all our known mathematics are wrong. (Because this is the only way, that a RE model could be fundamentally discounted. If a FE believer doesn't discount our known mathematics, then there is an insurmountable paradox: no believer in a FE model can also believe in modern mathematics.

This would mean that driving a car, or flying in a plane (which we can demonstably do - there are even FE pilots on here) can no longer be explained by our current mathematical models. If this is the case, then it is demonstrably up to the FE community to propose a new explanation. It's not sufficient to simply call modern science a "cult" or a "conspiracy". If you're right, then simply prove it. I will always listen to alternate theory - it's (ironically for FE) one of the central tenets of science - the offering of a counter theory and a proof by observable calculation. Why, for example, can't a FE (like Mad Mike Hughes in the US), go up to altitude or indeed travel to "underneath" the FE and prove the theory - or indeed conclude they are mistaken? Consider, the physical laws of circular motion, if the flat earth theory is correct, there would be utterly inexplicable problems explaing why someone living in northern Sweden experiences the exact same graviational forces as say, my living in Australia. In a FE theory, I should be being torn apart.... but I'm not. Now a single observation like that proves nothing, but if you apply a particular theory, then it should work for all applications - and our current mathematics, in my opinion, do.

So do you believe the scientists I listed above (and many more) simply got it all wrong? Or were they the start of the conspiracy? Pythagoras, Gallileo and Newton existed well before the US and NASA did - and predicted what is held in the mainstream to be the status quo - so why does FE continue to denigrate NASA (and accuse it of lying with faked pictures from space etc) and worldwide modern science?

Surely FEs would be targetting the very "founding fathers" of mathematics and their mathematical descriptions of the physical world?

Your point "You are taught what people believe, not how it was developed, not why it is believed..." should surely be challenging the ancient architects of modern day science - because if they were wrong, then everything is wrong.(*)

(*it should be noted that scientific theories are sometimes adapted not because they are necessarily wrong, but are not right in all circumstances - classically Newton's laws of motion at sub-light speed which do not work at speeds approaching light speed (as per Einsteins relativity).

4) "And that's what sums it up, really. The danger is not FET, the danger is cults."

Why is SE/modern science a cult, and FE not a cult?

5) "FET tells us to think for ourselves, not to blindly follow, and it is blindly following that has gotten the world into the mess it now is."

As said above, I absolutely agree thinking for ourselves and challenging the status quo is appropriate and (ironically for FE), is the basis for theuniversal approach to modern science.
So please explain why, having proposed a FE theory, has nobody made any tangible attempts to prove it as opposed to simply refuting the SE model? It seems "mad" mike Hughes is the only guy trying.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a19587128/self-taught-rocket-scientist-blasts-off/

Any open-minded scientist would listen to opposing theory - and that is why I am here.

Unfortuntaely, FET offers no such tangible proof. Instead, the whole movement relies on using memes and conspiracy theory to spread misinformation.

If FET is correct, it will be proveable - and as yet, no mathematical theory (or para-mathematical theory for that matter) has ever been offered.

Why?

17

Flat Earth Community / Re: RE believers - why are you here?

« on: July 28, 2018, 10:47:48 AM »

For me, having become aware that this was a thing, it was initially curiosity about how anyone could possibly believe this sort of thing. Found this place, followed some of the threads with interest/exasperation. In the end I signed up. I think there's a principle that things like this should not be left unchallenged.

Yes - this. Well put sir.

18

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: July 28, 2018, 10:18:40 AM »

Glad you agree. When I explained in other topic I'm a flat earther pilot and GPS is approved as primary means of navigation and planes land in between mountains night and day, in fact last year we had 4,000,000,000 commercial passengers with zero deaths. Another flat earther was not impressed and did not believe what I said basically.

This is unsurprising, since if you accept that GPS works and as a pilot, you will have studied how it works, and therefore the sorts of errors all pilots need to be aware of:
I'm also a pilot and you would know that pilots in training initially navigate with maps and compasses and that the effect of weather can knock you off course considerably and quickly. Now consider the more usual situation of following a GPS (GNSS) signal which is linked to the autopilot. There are multiple factors which affect the accuracy of GNSS:

1) The ephemeris data (the actual "beamed" position of the satellite) can be up to 2 hours old meaning the the radio transmissions are not coming from where the satellite "says" it is. (Positional errors up to 3m)
2) Clock drift - satellite clock drift errors muck up the calculations of the receiver (can cause positional errors up to 3m)
3) Receiver interference (from other broadcasting stations) - errors of 1.5m
4) Ionospheric errors - (similar to light bending through water, water vapour in the ionosphere bends the radio signals). This can cause errors up to 10m

There are more but the point is, not only is GPS not 100% accurate (although agreed it is accurate enough to fly from one airport to another without too many problems), these satellites must be orbiting for the system to work.

4) ...why would any person, body, government or other, try to hard to maintain the theory of a spherical earth and for what purpose would they do this?

Not just any person. I think you underestimate the size of the conspirary.

I did say "person, body, government or other" - but of more interest would be the other part of the question "for what purpose would they do this"? Do you have a theory as to why this is the case?

How high are these planes? How fast do they move? It seems like these are testable questions.

Everyone can find out position of gps planes now because it is sent out every gps radio signal. Called the "Almanac".

Simple copy of current Almanac here.

How? Round Earth says satellites, Flat Earth says I don't know. But there are 31 sources in total.

From the accuracy (one can derive an extremely accurate timebase from just a few gps signals alone, to precision of 15nanoseconds from UTC easily), it follows that the published positions of the sources themselves must be extremely accurate AND be very predictable

"I don't know" is unacceptable from a pilot who uses the GPS system. You cannot just cherry pick the bits of science that work for you; this is analogous to someone disputing aerodynamics but still flies by following those same rules - without at least having a cogent alternate theory -which you admit you don't. It's also interesting to note that, as a pilot who presumably does accept the mathematics which takes his plane up into the air and back down again, that the very same mathematics also proves a spherical earth. Again - you cannot cherry pick. It's not surprising your FE colleague got a little suprised by your acceptance of the GPS system. I would too if I believed in a FE.

You simply cannot pick and choose the mathematics that you agree with and that with which you don't.

very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered). 

airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent.  remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy.  nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"

I'm not sure what your point is here? Are you able to offer an answer to the questions of my OP?
Do you believe that the GPS system exists and works as we are told? And do you use it, say, in your car?

(Also FYI, GPS is operated by the US Air Force strategic command. It is not run by NASA).

19

Flat Earth Community / Global Positioning System

« on: July 27, 2018, 03:43:31 PM »

The GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) can pinpoint the location of your car (with it's coordinates) within a couple of metres. Wherever you are in the world.

Are proponents of the flat earth theory able to reliably use or indeed believe this system is truthfully reporting their position on the earth?

If you are a flat earth proponent, I'd like to respectfully ask:

1) Do you think this system is simply a fabrication/elaborate ploy engineered by the US and various collaborative governments to dupe people into believing in a spherical earth model?
2) Do you believe the Chinese Beidou GPS satellite based navigation system is also a fabrication/elaborate ploy to dupe the chinese into believing in a spherical earth model?
3) Anyone, anywhere in the world can lie under the stars, and watch various satellites cross the sky at predicable times and in predictable ways. Are these visible objects placed there by governments as a distraction to further make people believe in a spherical earth model?

4) In consideration of the above questions, and if, indeed, the earth if flat, why would any person, body, government or other, try to hard to maintain the theory of a spherical earth and for what purpose would they do this?

Thank you for your replies.