81

Flat Earth Community / Re: Play a Hypothetical With Me.

« on: October 19, 2015, 03:14:06 PM »

I realize that I'm going to be either ignored as a looney toon, or called horrible names and insulted by someone with bunchy underpants, but aren't hypotheticals an important piece to science?

Boy, if I could call my shots like that when I play pool, I could make a TON of money.

Look friend- I said at the outset that I wasn't making a point for one side or another, I was merely trying to get a feel for some theories. In my previous posting, which (I put in the wrong forum,) one of your compadres gave me a wonderfully sound, logical, interesting answer which prompted me to want to know more.

Then you show up with almost nothing to add, except heaping accusations and negativity on me. This community you belong to really should be annoyed by the presentation you make towards people who ask questions and want information. Your over-the top defensiveness really makes you guys look gooney as a whole, and you're literally doing more to combat the FE theory than any round-earther who comes in here.

Kudos.

82

Flat Earth Community / Re: Play a Hypothetical With Me.

« on: October 16, 2015, 04:07:39 PM »

Thanks! - But in the finite model, wouldn't that indicate an ever-expanding disc? As the water melts off of and gets pulled out by the UA and refrozen, wouldn't there be some sort of measurable expansion? What about replication? Couldn't rising temperatures have an effect on the 'new' layer of ice? If so, how long before that disc consists of extremely wide, very shallow oceans?
Rising water levels (ultimately over time) would almost have to negate the possibility of an finite model?
For the finite model to work, you'd have to see water levels rise as ice melts, then fall again to levels below their original state when the water from a breached portion of the wall gets pulled out and refrozen.

I'm spitballing. 

Also, can you point me in the direction of someplace where I can learn more about the various models of 'flat' that we could be dealing with? I didn't realize there was a discrepancy.

83

Flat Earth Community / Play a Hypothetical With Me.

« on: October 16, 2015, 03:42:03 PM »

This could sound absolutely absurd, but bear with me.
I'm not making an argument for one side or another here, this is just a question. 

I was on a popular news site which had an article about global climate change and polar ice melt.

A thought occurred and I had to get in here to see what your take would be.
Suppose.....that there really is an ice wall surrounding the outside edge of the earth. Suppose Antarctica is not a single continent as the globular model would have you believe, but spread over the edge of a disc-shaped earth.

What happens if global climate change kicks into high gear, or at the very least continues at its current rate and all that ice melts? Observable science is seeing massive chunks of ice being broken off and melting at an alarming rate.
What happens when part of the ice wall becomes thin enough to be breached by the weight of entire oceans behind it?

Alternative question for those of you who might be quick to dismiss global climate change as a hoax:

Hypothesize what would happen if the wall were not there to begin with, or what would happen if we artificially removed a chunk of it.

I realize that I'm going to be either ignored as a looney toon, or called horrible names and insulted by someone with bunchy underpants, but aren't hypothticals an important piece to science?

84

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: October 13, 2015, 01:29:26 PM »

If the Earth isn't a globe, how do you explain the picture in the bottom of this blogpost?

If it's not curvature, and the camera has no extended FOV settings applied, then what explains this?


Firstly, the Flat Earth idea does NOT mean a Square Earth. Try taking a circle, a dinner plate for example, look at the edge...what shape is it? It's curved!!

The image you present could either be a ball or a disc......?

Ok, so that at least rules out the "eternal plains" model of Flat Earth.

However, this picture is taken above the east coast of England at 24 km. If the Earth was a disc, I would have to be pretty close to the edge to get this sort of curvature, and according to Flat Earth, England is pretty close to the center of the so-called disc. If you would be able to see this much curvature from 24 km (almost 3 degrees), that would mean that the Earth would have a radius of a little less than 2000km, which isn't even close to the truth even according to Flat Earth models.

"The horizon is flat!" - "No, here's curvature" - "Oh, but it's because it's a disc" - "No, that would be mathematically incorrect" - "Oh, but it's something to do with perception" - "Yes, but that doesn't even fix your plothole with this particular picture" - "Oh, but that's because <insert new excuse here>".

Truth is, you're so set on your misguided beliefs that you will come up with any excuse or unsound mathematical or scientific fact to support an idea that's so firmly nailed to your very existence, that you reject to accept the one and only proven truth: The Earth is a globe.

I'm seeing more reliance on proof of concept science and math as gospel, giving a lot of weight to possibility, simply because it supports a theory.

A lot of the cited experiments and scientific theory seem to work well in a lab or on a smaller scale. Quick research though, finds that a lot of the relied upon experimentation to support a flat-earth theory have been flawed in execution, or disproved through repetition. (ie: Bedford-level experiement)

I very much like the idea that there's something we don't know, and that there's a possibility of some grand secret- that's why I'm here. But scope of the claims being made, the cherry-picking of data, and the refusal to cite real-world or large-scale application of these supporting scientific theories has been incredibly disappointing.

Some of the FE's make strong points, but as soon as they're pushed, you're called a troll, a shill, and a screwball.

85

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari-8

« on: October 13, 2015, 01:05:07 PM »

I don't think its at all trolling to want more information on these cosmic ray devices.

Give me more. You told me how they work, which is fine. I liked that. But you told me that three times. You gave me that 'how'
Now I want to know the 'where' 'who' 'why' and the 'what'

Your links and explanations are showing excellent proof of concept. I want proof of application beyond theory.

Stop dodging the simplest of questions, and ramming what you hope I don't bother to read down my throat every time I try to pin down a response out of you.

I'm absolutely not trolling. I'm fishing for answers to inquiries that would support the science you claim is legitimate. You don't get to cry 'foul' when you don't like my questions, that isn't how this works.

I came in here as a skeptic of the flat earth idea. If you continue to get butt-hurt because I want simple answers to simple questions instead of a massive volume of reiterated proof of concept, you're not doing a damn thing to further your cause.

What are these devices? - You answered.
How do they work?- You answered.

As soon as I try to parlay these answers of yours into a real world explanation, you get your hackles up and I'm a troll.

You know what? Skip it. Forget these little questions of mine. If you're so obsessed with not answering them, like it or not....you have anyway.

86

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari-8

« on: October 12, 2015, 09:39:57 PM »

This kind of trolling would be expected on the other forum... but not here.

Three times I asked simple questions, requesting simple answers and have gotten nothing in return but copy-pasta.

This is not trolling, this is consternation. I clearly tell you I am not of a scientific mind, and ask you to explain things to me in a more elementary fashion, which- if you're as good as they say you are, shouldn't be a problem. Yet, instead of simple answers to my questions, you copy/paste things over and over again.

Who is trolling whom?

You make claims, and post 'proof.' I ask for clarification, and get called a troll.
You ignore questions and are hailed as 'the best in the business.'

I think I see what goes on here.

Thanks.

87

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari-8

« on: October 12, 2015, 12:58:00 PM »

Okay. Copy-pasta aside, I'll ask you for a third time.

Simply put- answer me these questions. I know how you'll answer some of them, but...again, humor me.

1. Are cosmic ray devices responsible for holding satellites in orbit?

2. Are cosmic ray devices responsible for holding clouds suspended above the earth, since you claim that clouds are too heavy to be held aloft by updrafts as is claimed by conventional science? (That cloud mass is measured collectively)

2a: Is precipitation a result of a charge difference in droplets?

3. What are the operating capacities of these cosmic ray devices? ie: if they're what are controlling cloud suspension, how many of them are supposedly necessary to facilitate an extremely overcast/cloudy day in the area of a small city?

3a. Rough estimate, how many of these devices do you believe are in deployment worldwide? Flat or round, the surface of the earth is fairly sprawling. Could a single device in New Mexico control cloud cover in India?

4. Who is responsible for the manufacture, placement, management, and maintenance of said devices?


I have more, but the answers to these questions will determine the course of questioning from here out.

Thank you.

88

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari-8

« on: October 10, 2015, 12:13:20 PM »

Answer me this without a dissertation and 38 links back to your own forum. Use plain English and don't go off on a tangent...

You must be new around here... Sandokhan/levee offers the very best proofs in the business and you will get all of them, every time, regardless how loosely related they may be.

There's a saying in the IT world- "If you can't explain it to the simplest of users, you have no idea what you're talking about."

89

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari-8

« on: October 09, 2015, 02:20:23 PM »

Answer me this without a dissertation and 38 links back to your own forum. Use plain English and don't go off on a tangent, and make an attempt at doing it without the 'you haven't done your homework' snark. It makes you look defensive.

True or False: You are asserting that a cloud is one entity which is too heavy, based on the weight of water- to float in the sky on its own, and needs to be held aloft with a cosmic ray device.



 

 

90

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari-8

« on: October 09, 2015, 11:35:20 AM »

You continue to talk about electricity or static suspending millions of pounds of water in the air in the form of clouds.

Legitimate if you're talking about the suspension of the cumulative weight. Science though, doesn't work that way. Rather the scientific principals of gravity and buoyancy apply to each water droplet- millions of which could be required to form a single raindrop. (more on these in a moment) In effect, the universal scientific principals at work are not being applied to a million pound cloud, but to a very lightweight droplet individually, a gazillion times over.

Think about a helium balloon, if you want to raise the scale for the sake of simplicity. A single balloon weighs a negligible amount. Fill it with buoyant gas, and it will rise. Fill a billion of them with the same gas, and they will all rise into the air, but if you weigh the cumulative formation, I'll bet it's a little heavier than one balloon is.
-According to your arguments though, since the balloon formation now weighs several hundred pounds, there is no reason that it should be able to float into the sky without artificial means. This isn't the defiance of gravity as you claim, but merely circumventing it for a time...and only for a time, since at one point, the balloons will come back to the earth.

What static electricity is causing the steam to rise from your coffee cup in the morning, or from your shower head? Water vapor is buoyant. Your theory of electro-static-bifeld-brown refutes not only gravity, but buoyancy. You'd essentially have to claim that anything that floats on water is doing so artificially as well.

I am also seeing in your links plenty of talk about suspending the water vapor in cloud form, but it seems to leave out how and why precipitation occurs. If this principal you mention is responsible for artificially hoisting satellites and clouds into the air, why do the satellites not come crashing to the ground every time it rains? Is this biefeld-brown effect selective in what matter it chooses to hold up? How come everything lighter than a million-pound cloud or fifty ton satellite doesn't simply keep going if I throw it into the air?

You claim that an artificial source of levitation is the source of things being kept aloft simply because Tesla was able to perform a few experiments. I can keep a ball bearing aloft with a few well-placed magnets, but nobody is claiming that magnetism is at work in keeping American Airways aloft.

I'm not a scientifically minded individual- so, without the gazillions of regurgitated links, answer me this question very simply before we can continue:

What is causing the biefeld-brown effect on earth which you claim is keeping clouds and satellites aloft?- Which you so confidently claim negates the video provided by OP?

91

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari-8

« on: October 08, 2015, 06:25:34 PM »

WHAT IS NOT SAID ABOUT THE SATELLITES

A TESLA FREE RADIANT ENERGY TYPE IS SO SMALL THAT CAN BE CAMOUFLAGED EASILY

Hold up a minute.

This whole thing has no tangible proof or reliable verification to distinguish it from mere theory because "It can be camouflaged easily.?"

 

92

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari-8

« on: October 08, 2015, 03:54:39 PM »

It is very easy to debunk the fake "Earth" from space photographs.

Just call (the Japan space agency) them and ask: according to which law of gravity did you launch into space this satellite? according to which law of gravity does it orbit the Earth, as the Earth itself supposedly orbits the Sun?

They will answer: of course, according to Newton's law of universal gravitation.


This is how we can see and easily deduce the entire faked sequence of events.

Satellites orbit at a much lower altitude than we are told, and they all use Nikola Tesla's Cosmic Ray Device and the Biefeld-Brown effect to stay in orbit.


We only have to take into consideration the Allais effect, to see and to prove that the entire satellite mission, as reported in the video, is completely fake.

I'm really new here- can you humor me and cite proof of all this?

93

Flat Earth Theory / Re: EVIDENCE

« on: October 08, 2015, 02:58:58 PM »

Hi everyone, please tell me if I'm wrong on this point:

the only 'real' evidence that the Earth is a ball comes from NASA, and other affiliated space/meteorological agencies.

In order to prove that the Earth is a ball, is there any non-agency, non-government funded scientific or exploratory research that can, without any doubt, SHOW the spherical Earth. I think that in order to weigh up the evidence we need more than just what NASA and the like have to say.

Any thoughts?

NASA, as well as other space/meteorological agencies throughout the world. There are a multitude of nationalities with hundreds of satellites in orbit around the earth. If there were a deep conspiracy to keep the shape of the earth hidden, you'd have to consider a geopolitical alliance at the 'tops' of these agencies, possibly at the governmental level, that simply isn't possible.

Not only that, but there are various other experiments and documentations done by grounded scientists that can account for the curvature of the earth, experiments reaching back centuries.

The argument of "I can't see its round so it ain't round" is watery at best.

94

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari-8

« on: October 08, 2015, 01:10:48 PM »

If indeed NASA is behind hiding the flat earth, then they're going to have to have some very long tentacles in order to get the Japanese on board too, broadening the scope of their conspiracy, which as is my usual main point- makes it harder to hide. The larger the conspiracy gets, the less a chance it has of being hidden and kept. 

I'm really excited to see what sort of rebuttal the answers you were given get from people here.

I already know in advance that nobody is going to look at that and say "Holy crap, they're right" because we're never looking to be proven wrong, only have our opinions validated, even if we need to grasp at the tiniest of straws.

I WILL say this- faked or not, that's cool as hell to watch.

95

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Scope of Conspiracy Seems Implausible

« on: October 08, 2015, 11:38:23 AM »

First of all, I noticed your comment that the "so-called ice ring" is guarded by "all the Navies of the world." I hadn't heard this before. But the general "flat earth" comment is that the guards are from NASA. I haven't seen any comments as to who guarded it before NASA ?

Apologies if this is inaccurate, but the chap that I ran into on another web site made this claim. It was really my first exposure to this whole 'world.' It was his commentary that drove me here, since when I asked him to clarify or explain.....he vanished, forcing me to look...well....here.

96

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Scope of Conspiracy Seems Implausible

« on: October 08, 2015, 11:36:13 AM »

rayjet- if it WERE only a thousand or so people....maybe.
But earlier in this post thread, there was mention made of an entire century of history being edited and rewritten. Our forays into space haven't been going on for that long. Conspiracy theorists will be happy to tell you that this goes back to way before you and I time.

But looking at the 'control' aspect...that could one possibly hope to gain from something like this? What are the political and social aspects of control that could be levied against the masses with this particular piece of information? The information alone doesn't carry much of a payout.

Now lets discount history and the idea that centuries might have had their history rewritten, that conspirators were the ones that wrote the bible....etc.

Lets instead look to the future. Privatized space flight. A quick online search will yield literally dozens of companies from all over the world with their hands in that particular gain, either for commercial or tourism purposes. How can these companies be allowed to operate if they're threatening whomever is behind this- assuming they have such a powerful grip on our perceptions? Why wasn't Felix Baumgartner killed in a freak auto accident?

Lets pick further and go back to NASA.

....How can they be behind it when Russia has also sent humans into space? You'd have to tell me that the Russian and US Governments are in bed with each other on this one. These two countries couldn't agree on the color of the sky- if only for the sake of arguing it, and this has been the case long before space flight was a thing.

NASA doesn't have a monopoly on national space flight- and the concept is starting to become a plaything for the super-wealthy. It would seem to me if someone was really behind the curtain and trying to control what we know about the shape of the earth, they'd be awfully puckered in the butt right now, and more efforts would be taken to ground 'us.'

97

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Scope of Conspiracy Seems Implausible

« on: October 06, 2015, 10:02:44 PM »

I've also followed a bunch of the links you provided, and I've come to another conclusion.
Since the burden of proof is on your shoulders as challengers of the accepted and generally universal concept of an earth that is an oblate spheroid, you have to discount ALL photographs from either side of the argument.

Since one of the main points you continue to make is that all photos depicting a globular earth are doctored, in the interest of solid scientific method, you also need to assume that all photographs of that support a flat earth are also doctored, or you're cherry-picking arguments to suit your own needs.

You simply cannot refute any and all photos from one side of the argument, dismissing them as faked, while openly embracing ones that support another side just because they lend credence to your own ideas.

"All of your proof is doctored. All of my proof is good."

I will admit that I am completely in the camp of the spherical earth. I don't believe for a second that the earth is flat, although I've never shied away from a debate, and often relish the chance to be proven wrong so I can learn something.
But going back to my original points, I can't accept the FE model of the earth because it relies too heavily on a complete divergence from human nature.

98

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Scope of Conspiracy Seems Implausible

« on: October 06, 2015, 09:53:08 PM »

Again, looking past the science- because your science says one thing, and other science says another, you can't have a flat earth without a conspiracy.

You can't have a conspiracy this old, and this big, in the face of blossoming technologies and human awareness.

If the scientific data can't kill the flat earth theory, the political one absolutely does.

You're asserting that entire centuries of history have been rewritten, altered, and forged to protect a secret. Centuries encompassing major leaps in technological, scientific, and social enlightenment, an assertion I can't get behind.

I ask how a secret this big can be kept, and you tell me it's because its part of a bigger secret, and that doesn't compute.

You mention suppressed scientific data. Okay. Maybe. Maybe people are having their careers threatened for rubbing against the grain. Keep in mind though that certain elements of the scientific community at some point got behind the idea of Eugenics- so rubbing against the grain isn't always a great idea. Not only that, but you tell me that elements of the scientific community are members of a conspiracy to hide 'truth' for some reason, that they could be beholden to a secret society that dictates what is taught.

What's to say though, that these suppressed papers and studies aren't part of a conspiracy of their own, that the authors weren't beholden to people somewhere else?

Going back to the human aspect of this thing, you're still putting your faith into a systematic lie that is way too big to have succeeded. You're talking about the need for hundreds of thousands of people over the course of documented history keeping their mouths shut, even in the face of political upheaval, war, and technological advancements.

Exactly how big do you think this conspiracy is? Who is behind it? What is their motivation? What tactics do they use to prevent discovery in the age where I can unlock my car doors via satellite from 100 miles away with my cell phone?

99

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Scope of Conspiracy Seems Implausible

« on: October 05, 2015, 11:45:46 PM »

Thank you for that.

I'm also finding now that the ice wall that is supposed to encircle the disk that is earth is supposed to be guarded by the various Navies of the world? If so, that broadens the group of people on the inside of this particular conspiracy. Over the course of just a few decades, you're adding tens of thousands of military personnel to the mix. More chance to leakage of information, more chance of the entire thing being exposed.

The geopolitical implications of this vast conspiracy are unfathomable. You're talking about a level of cooperation that simply cannot exist- and proof of this claim can be obtained by even the most rudimentary study of history and its conflicts.

Again, I am not a student of science. I'm questioning the FE theory based on what the entire thing requires to operate- Human cooperation.

Across Religion
Across political boundaries.
Across social structures
Across political climate change.
Across time.

A secret between two or three or a hundred people for a year or two is easily kept.
Thousands of people over the course of hundreds of years? I can't believe that is even possible.

100

Flat Earth Theory / Scope of Conspiracy Seems Implausible

« on: October 05, 2015, 07:08:54 PM »

Good day. This is my first post, and I came here because I ran into a flat-earther (what do you call yourselves?) in another corner of the web. He claimed to have a truth that the rest of us didn't, and when I asked him a few questions, he vanished. He truly was not a great representative of your community. So, I came here to ask my question in the hopes that I can get a legitimate answer for what I think is the biggest piece of the puzzle.

Apologies if this is covered somewhere else- I did a cursory check before I posted this. If it is, please feel free to redirect me.

Let's say that the science you're citing holds water. I cannot debate any of that, as I am not well versed in science. I was a history teacher- which is where my question derives from.

If I am reading this right, The entire theory hinges on a global conspiracy. The world's governments have known your truth for centuries, yet it is kept from us. The 'why' is much less relevant than the 'how.'

Human nature has demonstrated itself to be fickle and unreliable any number of times. Entire generations have been devastated by wars started over minor political, religious, and social ideologies. Governments of many global powers have been toppled time and again by coups and revolutions. (Russian, French, American Revolutions to name a few) With the ebb and flow of governmental control, how do you think it is possible for such a conspiracy to have been protected from the masses for so long? How is it possible that an overthrown government which has caused much malice with its populace- able to convince an incoming power to keep such a secret?

The mere scope of the conspiracy alone seems implausible. Far too much seems to rely on far too many people for there to have not been (by now) some sort of massive leak- a major player in the global community coming forth to decree that everything we know is wrong.

In the age where we are starting to turn an eye to privatized space flights, why would these companies not be shut down immediately by governments for fear of exposure of such a secret? Instead of having them killed off, private companies seeking to go to space for commercial or tourist purposes are flourishing.

It is for THIS reason that I remain skeptical of the idea that the earth is a flat plane. There might be others- again if I were of a scientific mind- but I am not, so I focus on what I know, and I know that throughout the course of history millions of people have been killed simply for the name by which they call God...yet there is a global political conspiracy to hide the shape of the very planet these problems exist on?

I just have yet to be convinced.

Thank you.