61
Flat Earth Theory / Re: No gravity on Earth
« on: January 11, 2015, 10:32:41 PM »
- because: magic
Actually, because math.
This may help: http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light
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.
- because: magic
You must be confused. I regularly post links to published scientific articles replete with data. I point to USGS gravity readings. Heck, Tom Bishop claimed this month the the KSU article on modeling gravity discrepancies had data but no hypothesis.4) You, again, fail to provide data to support your conclusions. How many times to we have to point out that failure?
Hello, pot, this is kettle.
I've never seen any data from you, just obtuse nay-saying and handwaving references to "accepted" physics. Just because you follow Neil Tyson on twitter and skimmed A Brief History of Time doesn't make you an expert on relativity and gravity.
I'm happy to debate relativity and gravity with you without expecting your being an expert on the
4) You, again, fail to provide data to support your conclusions. How many times to we have to point out that failure?
You should give certain people permission to post on your ENaG board, or it will turn into a cluster fuck like the regular forum boards.
I wouldn't mind writing about those things. We should make further organizational threads to determine exactly what chapters and content we're going to tackle. The chapter format should also be refined. We can't just go into this in the dark. There should be a very organizationized game plan so that everything fits together.
When we begin writing it would be helpful for me to post a quick outline of the chapter and the forum helps me refine my ideas and subjects to talk about. I would be happy to help anyone else with their chapters.
Anyway, bringing the thread back, in this society, we know a lot of things that is not in any book anywhere. Stuff that is at least interesting. We know all kinds of things from our own research.
Personally I'm pretty good on the life of Rowbotham (Tom Bishop likely knows more however), celestial gears, the clockwork universe, deism and Ptolemy as a chapter and certainly my speciality, I'm also pretty well versed in Voliva, Dowie and the Zionist cult. I'm not too bad on Lady Blount but could learn more. I'd also venture I would be the person to ask about space tourism and its various motives and inherent flaws. Maps and projection I can do, but it bores me to tears.
Other flat earthers will be good on other subjects. Tom again is an expert in the moon men hoax of 1969. I'm sure we can make an excellent new book, without having to rehash ENaG. We would have enough content without just explaining his book.
You are saying you believe something. How can you believe something if you don't know it's true? Did a trusted fairy tell you to believe? Did it involve clapping your hands?So just how do you know that "aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc"?
I didn't say I knew. I clearly said that I believe AWT supports that conclusion. If you're going to continue putting things in my mouth, I'm going to have to insist that you buy me dinner first.
Oh and to quote you again:... but I do believe that in the disc model with AWT, as you near the edge, aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc.
So just how do you know that "aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc"?
Ask why it has not been repeated anywhere. Because it proves a round earth.I don't live near Bedford? If you have unlimited resources, feel free.What is the problem with repeating the experiment?It isn't my fault if the content extends beyond your cognitive capacity.Then I invite you to reproduce it yourself, replete with zetetic accuracy. I refer you to our thread critiquing the hell out of EnaG. R didn't even understand momentum. Failure is the only thing I see in EnaG.Daniel is an idiot. He can't even post a T-shirt to someone, let alone conduct a scientific experiment or that nature. As for citations there is much documentation in ENaG. Feel free to read it some time.How is Bedford Level verifiable? Daniel tried and failed, and he's the leader of the society. How would any experiment prove something true? What citations do you have to back up your claims that those experiments were objective?What verifiable objective experiment consistently suggest that the earth is flat?The Bedford Level experiments. Twice proved earth was flat, once gave an inconclusive result due to fraudulent wager activities by round earthers.
Special pleading is well defined and you're doing it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading While AWT never claimed that it affects ALL flight instrument to make a transpolar flight seem like it's on a RET, you now plead that it does--without any evidence but your pleading. Fermi had experimental evidence in hand before hypothesis. You have AWT in had then try to argue that it fits the real world evidence. You can't even tell me if the aether is even atomic in nature.So you need to use special pleading AND ignorance to deal with just one of the pieces of VOE the disproves FET. How sad. I particularly like your resorting to "aethic" flow, something never measured yet you claim produces the same effect as a RE. No one is going to take that seriously.
I "resort" to aetheric flow just as other physicists "resort" to hypothetical particles and substances when their expectations do not match observations. Fermi guessed that neutrons had to exist in the nuclei of atoms to explain how they worked. Pauli "resorted" to saying Neutrinos must exist because they explained observed results. At the time, the scientific community said these ideas had no basis in reality. They were "pleading." Of course, years later, neutrons and neutrinos were detected. Aether explains much of what we experience here on the flat earth, so if we are pleading when we discuss those effects, it is only in the sense that Fermi and Pauli were.
So you need to use special pleading AND ignorance to deal with just one of the pieces of VOE the disproves FET. How sad. I particularly like your resorting to "aethic" flow, something never measured yet you claim produces the same effect as a RE. No one is going to take that seriously.
Well, not all of us think there's an ice wall. I personally don't.Please do tell us why you don't "think" there's an ice wall--in a thread on that topic. For this Ice Wall thread, perhaps you'll consider the OP's question please. We've provided VOE of what's beyond the Ice Wall, the RE.
I see the sun move across the sky from different locations at different times, that's proof.Proof please, with measurements.Conculsion please.The earth is flat.
Proof: look at the earth with your eyes.
Measurements: See Euclid's Elements.
Proof please, with measurements.Conculsion please.The earth is flat.
Sigh... Okay to help you with that... I challenge you to provide any verifiable, objective evidence that the earth is flat. We've provided many pieces of verifiable, object evidence that the earth is round, including the navigation by polar route around the earth. See: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/fastest-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-by-aeroplane. So there is a "beyond the Ice Wall". FET fails again.As expected you cannot prove the earth is not round.All available, as you know. Google Earth will give you distances, please tell us any that are incorrect.Look up distances between various places, list any you disagree with. The only way they will work is on a sphere.
It would help to know the distance from Cape Town to the Ice Wall.
Please provide data.
We're done.
Expecting someone to prove a negative? I believe the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is.
As expected you cannot prove the earth is not round.All available, as you know. Google Earth will give you distances, please tell us any that are incorrect.Look up distances between various places, list any you disagree with. The only way they will work is on a sphere.
It would help to know the distance from Cape Town to the Ice Wall.
Please provide data.
We're done.
You evaded the question. What if? For what it's worth, I do think there are satellites above the earth, as I've observed them. I don't think they are at the altitudes reported, however.GPS satellites orbit the earth, 24 give full coverage.GPS satellites orbit the round earth.
What if those three satellite gps beacons were high altitude dirigibles, or antennas installed at military bases? Would GPS work then?
Yes, the wiki was supposed to be a community project. But, while I appreciate the contributions that have been made, no significant content has been added since I wrote it. This is because it is a community project that lacks direction. A decision that we are writing a modern edition of Earth Not a Globe and a official rule that we should somewhat focus our debates to contribute towards that, provides the direction we need.
...
Adding a simple explanatory paragraph to the existing ENAG chapters doesn't really further Flat Earth Theory. But rewriting it as a community and exploring new discussions does. That is far more exciting.
No point in getting new council members. The council will disband (which we should probably vote to approve, now that I think of it. Not that we have any say in the matter) as part of the reunification deal. Besides, the constitution allows as few as three (3) members at a time. Tom, Secret User, and myself is perfectly adequate between now and reunification.
As I said in the ZC board, I'm totally in favor of having a board or two dedicated to this. I do, however, feel that regular discussion should continue. At least FEG should continue normally.