Show Posts

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.

Topics - WellRoundedIndividual

Pages: [1]
Arts & Entertainment / Pica Eating Disorder
« on: May 16, 2019, 12:20:42 PM »
As I was looking around for an interesting fact to post on my board at work, I found this guy.

He ate an entire Cessna airplane over the course of 2 years. WTF

Flat Earth Theory / Celestial Gravitation
« on: May 03, 2019, 02:04:11 PM »
In the wiki, it states from

"In the FE universe, gravitation (not gravity) exists in other celestial bodies. The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth.

Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull"


"Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.

This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity"."

and from

"Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane."

First, you acknowledge that CG is only part of some flat earth models. Yet, in UA, you imply its existence as a certainty. I think this is due to the known gravimetric anomalies that exist on earth (both FE and RE acknowledge this). However, it is shown that even though some anomalies exist due to high altitudes (which could be explained by CG), there are also anomalies that are dependent on rock density (which is how some mineral deposits are tracked and found). This is not explainable by UA or CG - in UA all objects on the surface of the Earth are accelerating at the same speed - so CG only accounting for altitude based anomalies cannot provide a full explanation of UA "gravity." Something else must exist. No matter what you can say about anomalies existing and going against the theory of RE gravity, you still cannot explain it by simply using UA and CG. Earth must either have its own CG, or gravity must exist.

Yet, contradictory to what you state elsewhere (that anomalies and CG exist), you also state: "Gravity appears to behave as if the earth is accelerating upwards, that there is no gravity gradient, and there are no other gravitating sources around us."

My premise is this: if other bodies of mass have CG, then earth has CG. Anomalies exist that cannot be explained by CG and UA alone. All of your above statements are contradictory or false.

Flat Earth Community / Henry Yule Oldham - Bedford Level Experiment
« on: April 26, 2019, 11:42:19 AM »
I can find nothing in the search engine here on this website that references Oldham. Interesting to note, since he proved the curvature of the earth at the Bedford River.

"In 1901 Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[6][7] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[8] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available.[9][10]"

Anyone care to comment on the truth of said event?

In the TFES Wiki, there is a brief comment that states Oldham conducted the experiment, but left out any of this results or how he conducted it. (Seems a bit dishonest to do so).

"In 1901 Henry Yule Oldham, a geography reader at King's College, Cambridge, conducted the definitive experiment described above."

Which seems to be either copied at the other Flat Earth website or this one is a copy of their Wiki:

"In 1901 Henry Yule Oldham, a geography reader at King's College, Cambridge, conducted the definitive experiment described in Method, above."

I have searched quite a bit through Google and found no refutations of his experiment.

Flat Earth Community / Koreshan Community and the Hollow Earth
« on: April 05, 2019, 11:52:14 AM »
Has anyone here done any reading on the Koreshan Community of the late 1800s? I find this particular account to be of interest.

"Previous experiments with the Illinois Drainage Canal in Chicago and on the shore of Lake Michigan encouraged Morrow to devise a method of measuring the curvature of the earth exemplified by the surface of a large body of water.

A straight, 4-mile, north-south beach near Naples provided a site for an ambitious experiment. He designed four "rectilineators" each precisely 12 feet long and perfectly square and level.

Teed commissioned the Pullman Railroad Car Company to build the mahogany and brass contraptions. One has survived is on display at the Koreshan State Park.

On the beach, Morrow bolted his rectilineators together and positioned them with a plumb bob and spirit level to furnish a reference.

Surveying data was computed each quarter-mile and compared to the water level of the Gulf of Mexico in caissons that dampened wave action.

If the beach were on the inside of a ball, the survey live would tend up. If the earth were round, the line would tend down.

The survey line tended down which inadvertently allowed Morrow to compute the correct circumference of the earth at 25,000 miles.

However, when Morrow corrected "human errors" in reading water levels in the caissons, he proved to his and Teed's satisfaction that we did, indeed, live inside a ball."

Does anyone have any other resources on these experiments? Any thoughts on what went wrong, and why it showed the earth was round? What were the corrections that were made to show the earth was concave?

Flat Earth Investigations / Eratosthenes Experiment Duplicated
« on: March 21, 2019, 04:50:14 PM »'_measurement_of_the_circumference_of_Earth

Found this interesting little duplication of Eratosthenes experiment.  It was done with a 3rd city. 

Would anyone like to critique this or debunk it?

Here is another website with schools that have uploaded their measurements. A map shows plenty of schools on the same longitude, and therefore we could take that data and compare doing geometry the predicted angles for FE vs RE.

Flat Earth Theory / Aether
« on: March 05, 2019, 12:54:31 PM »
Found this interesting little tidbit.

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.[17]

So, may it be that the existence of ether is simply a misunderstanding of frame of reference?

Flat Earth Theory / Atmolayer - Wiki
« on: February 26, 2019, 08:41:01 PM »
Wiki on Atmolayer states:

"The Dark Energy Field is a vector field. It has a gradient that is smallest at the interaction of the atmosphere and the field, called the boundary layer. The DEF interacts with the magnetic field of the earth at this boundary layer. These vectors produce a force vector that is orthogonal to the other vectors in four dimensional space. This force vector is always normal to the boundary layer, thus providing a type of forced containment for the atmosphere.
- TheEngineer"

Who is the TheEngineer? What are his sources for the above quoted statement?

Flat Earth Theory / The Antarctic Ice Wall
« on: February 26, 2019, 07:24:44 PM »
Doing some light reading through the Wiki, I came across this in the section about the Ice Wall.

"and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness. Some hold that the tundra of ice and snow stretches forever eternally."

First, perhaps this is more of a suggestion for improvement - where are the citations for reference? Where did the quote for "human ingress" being barred come from, and where is the evidence that supports this? It just seems a bit matter of fact, and doesn't allow me to further investigate the claim.  Sure, I could spend a bit of time googling the quote hoping to find its source., but I would expect (just as any good research paper does) is to cite the source in a footnote/bibliography with a numerical reference. Anywho, cheerio.

Flat Earth Community / Flat Earth in other cultures
« on: January 13, 2019, 02:31:42 AM »
Are there any cultures in modern society that subscribe to a flat earth among the entire population? If so, what is the history of that belief? (Just curious, I like history and learning about other cultures).

Flat Earth Community / Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« on: January 11, 2019, 06:43:00 PM »
So, I tried to use the search function to find anyone talking about the former secretary of the Zetetic Society, Henry Ossipoff Wolfson. Apparently, he wrote a expose on Rowbotham positing that he was a snake oil salesman, in short. He claimed that Rowbotham went by the name of Dr. Samuel Birley, and that Rowbotham was merely using the Flat Earth theory as a cover to hoodwink people.  Is there any truth to this story being true, and is there any truth to the claims of Mr. Wolfson (if said story is true)?

Pages: [1]