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.


Messages - Tintagel

Pages: < Back  1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23  Next >
401
Science & Alternative Science / Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« on: January 04, 2014, 07:30:22 PM »
One more question, for my fellow members.  I've always been agnostic, and more recently a resigned atheist, but this line of thinking troubles me because of how closely it skirts the edges of religion.

I don't think the architect ever interferes. I think that we're a closed system.  I just think there has to be something outside it.

Is this a sort of 'theism' on my part?  I'm having some trouble with that question. 

Sorry for triple-posting.

402
Science & Alternative Science / Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« on: January 04, 2014, 07:13:40 PM »
And to be clear - my hypothesis is not that we are an electronic or computer simulation.  The earth seems physical, I seem physical, and everything around me seems physical, so when I break my version of the simulation hypothesis down to constituent parts, I have to include the apparent physical reality of things.  I use the term "simulation" because it's similar to the more popular simulation hypothesis that made some headlines a couple of years ago, and because of its similarity to the Descartes "brain in a vat" thing, but I don't think I am a brain in a vat, because I cannot see it.

I cannot deny the physical nature of reality because I can experience it.   Perhaps "engineered" is a better term than "simulation" in this regard. 

We live on a planar petri dish.

403
Science & Alternative Science / Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« on: January 04, 2014, 07:04:23 PM »
That would really just depend on your idea of concrete evidence. Some argue that arbitrary physical constraints, such as Planck lengths, are evidence of a simulation. That being said, the issue of whether the universe is a simulation is philosophical, not scientific, and therefore evidence probably doesn't exist in any true sense of the word. Simulation theories are not scientific and therefore should be regarded more as a religious preference, not one based in a scientific endeavor or based on pseudo-scientific evidence. Such philosophies deal with the "whys" of the universe and not the "hows" which is what science attempts to explain. We may know how an electron is negative, but a scientist wouldn't ask why is it negative, because in all actuality it isn't a relevant thing to ask when dealing in a scientific pursuit of knowledge.

I seem to recall a group of scientists developing an experiment that they hoped would "breach" the simulation... and perhaps we already have.  Bizarre experimental results like those from the "two-slit" experiment make perfect sense if viewed from the perspective of "let's see how this software works"

Of course, we use terms like 'software' and 'computers' as if they would apply to the architects of earth.  Everything we know of reality could be a mere shadow of the truth.  Concepts like four-dimensional spacetime (or even the ten dimensional space of M theory) and general relativity could well be laughably silly notions outside of our ethereal universe. 

We are someone else's flatland.

404
Arts & Entertainment / Re: FES Book Club
« on: January 04, 2014, 12:44:59 AM »
I'm finally getting around to reading The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan.  I've finished The Eye of the World and The Great Hunt, and I'm working on The Dragon Reborn now.  Really enjoying it thus far.

405
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
« on: January 03, 2014, 08:56:11 PM »
Hi again Tausumi,

do you mean on a VxV/r principle that as the radius increases the V increases to maintain kinetic energy?

Something like that, but that runs contrary to the conservation of angular momentum that we see elsewhere in physics.  I believe there is an additional force at play here.  In the past I've called it an aetheric whirlpool, and some have postulated an additional set of celestial gears to account for this effect, allowing the sun to spin faster when the radius of its orbit is longer, and slower as the radius gets shorter.

I'm now in the celestial gears camp, myself - I've been an aether advocate in the past, and I don't discount its existence entirely, but the more study I do the more it becomes clear that the gears must exist.

406
Science & Alternative Science / My Simulation Hypothesis
« on: January 03, 2014, 04:21:45 PM »
Quote
"Everything intuited or perceived in space and time, and therefore all objects of a possible experience, are nothing but phenomenal appearances, that is, mere representations [and] have no independent, self-subsistent existence apart from our thoughts."

-Immanuel Kant

I'm coming out, FES. 

This is a post I've thought about writing for a long time, but I haven't because it isn't strictly zetetic.  I've been reluctant to speak out because I needed to be sure of my own mind.  But it's a new year, and it's time to start the discussion.

The earth is flat.  I know that as surely as I know my own name  Observations support this.  I can see it as clearly as the colour of the sky.  Down is down, the horizon is actually the vanishing point, and we exist in a closed system distinct from all other celestial bodies.  Our earth is flat.

The earth is stationary.  It does not rotate or move in any way relative to perceived space around us.  We see evidence of this because objects farther from the hub do not exhibit effects of centripetal force.  Universal acceleration could account for the force we perceive as gravity, but my instincts say that this force is something still undefined.  All our interpretations may be wrong.

The earth is infinite, but not (in my opinion) in the way some infinite plane theorists think.  More on this later.

Some observations can also support a spherical earth.  The southern sky, lunar phases, eclipses, have been used to support a spherical earth.  This interpretation is wrong.

What follows is hypothesis.

Our earth is flat because it was engineered that way.  It was designed for us.  It's our puzzle.  I am of the belief that we live inside a simulation.

The simulation becomes more advanced as we solve the puzzles before us.  Our predecessors believed that the earth was flat because all observations supported that conclusion.  They still do. 

The simulation began to introduce subtleties that seemed to contradict their findings.  The spherical, geocentric model was widely accepted because all observations seemed to support that conclusion.  They still do. 

The heliocentric model arose because the simulation evolves.  It becomes more complex as our model of the universe becomes more complex.   We're being tested.

Those first observations, of a flat and stationary earth, were correct.  The remain valid today, we're simply being fed more complex data, possibly to see what we'll do with it.  The "curved shadow" on the moon during an eclipse.  The retrograde motion of planets.  The inscrutability of quantum mechanics.  The seemingly arbitrary limitations placed on physics such as the speed of light and the conservation of angular momentum.  All of these things are, to me, clear indication that we're being tested by an overseer.  I do not know its purpose.

Our earth is an infinite plane around which phenomenological evidence of various "truths" manifest.  In this model, Antarctica is a discrete continent and there is no ice wall.  Rather than expanding off into an infinite ocean, however, the infinite plane of our earth simply loops back onto itself.  You can never reach the edge because no edge exists.  Our earth seems physical.  Based upon observation and intuition alone, I do not believe it is an electronic or computerized simulation.

Or, our earth is a finite plane resolved to a disc, but the spatial dimensions around the southern hemidisc are bent to a greater extend than near the hub, perhaps by aether / UA.

We experience bending light.  The curvature of light is the same as the curvature of earth in the spherical model.  Those of us who support a spherical model believe the earth is round because light sometimes makes it look round.  This ambiguity, as well as the ambiguity between gravity and UA, is deliberate. 

I do not know who the overseers of this simulation are.  I do not know the bounds or rules.  But everywhere I look I see evidence of its reality.

I'm posting this in S&AS because it is not strictly a flat-earth hypothesis. 

There you go.  My confession.

407
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: January 02, 2014, 04:40:51 AM »
Hi all,

my first contribution here.  I have spent some time in recent weeks reviewing the discussion put forward by Rowbotham in his book and to date I have not found any flaws.  I should add that I don't fully understand the vertical gun experiments yet.  I feel honour bound to inform readers of this contribution that I have been fully exposed to the traditional education system and hold a science degree with a physics major, an engineering degree with a mining major and an MBA.  I am a consulting mining engineer and company director.

If I accept Rowbothams view that the earth is stationary i.e. not accelerating ad infinitum, then one explanation of gravity which I find compelling is that it is in fact an electromagnetic effect.  One piece of supporting evidence for this is that microgravity has been demonstrated in an intense magnetic field.  I recently watched a video demonstration of this effect which starred a nylon nut, a spider and an ant.  If I can find the link again I will post it.

Until my reading of Rowbotham's book, I was being drawn to the models provided by the adherents of the "electric universe" model.  Applying concepts about the nature of electromagnetics to the flat earth model may prove instructive.

I am delighted to see the return of FE thinking.  I smile each time I look at Port Philip Bay in Victoria Australia.

Welcome to the FES forums.  :)  I'd like to see the video in question.  Stationary earth with gravity models exist, but I believe most of the folks who hold this theory also subscribe to the notion that the earth in an infinite plane, since the direction of "gravity" is always down and not toward the centre of the disc. 

I find the infinite plane model interesting and don't completely discount it, as it solves some problems that the disc model presents.  However, in order for aetheric lensing / electromagnetic acceleration to bend light sufficiently to create the southern sky, in my opinion, a disc is necessary, so I tend to lean toward it, with a universal accelerator accounting for gravitational effects.

408
Announcements / Re: New logo!
« on: January 01, 2014, 05:04:31 PM »
Hey kids! It occurs to me that some (Tintagel) are interested in using the logo for their own creations. This is perfectly fine, but the larger logo on the first page is a horrible version with no anti-aliasing. So, for your convenience, I fixed it up a bit in case anyone wants to use it:

Okay! That would be all!

Thanks Blanko :)

409
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Zetetic Council
« on: December 31, 2013, 02:54:49 PM »
Yeah, I agree. I don't see a reason for secrecy.

Coming from Secret User, somehow I doubt the verisimilitude of this statement. ;)

410
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Zetetic Council
« on: December 30, 2013, 06:26:33 PM »
Tintagel, I believe Saddam was poking fun at the old forum's "council" members.

I see, and that makes sense, but now the council members have farcical titles in their Personal Text and I'm concerned it makes us look less serious.  Some of us are perhaps less serious, but I'm not, and I don't think the public image of the council should be either.  Just my (admittedly moody and bitchy) opinion.

411
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Zetetic Council
« on: December 30, 2013, 06:14:05 PM »
To begin with, I suggest that you all give yourselves pompous titles in your personal texts.  Something like "Noble Member of the Zetetic Council," "Most Exalted Member of the Zetetic Council," or in Thork's case, "Terrible Member of the Zetetic Council."  It should get you into the right mindset to run this society.

I have to say, and admittedly I'm a moody bitch today so take this with a grain of salt, but doesn't this make the zetetic council look like a joke?  Is it a joke?  I had been under the impression that it isn't. 

412
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset at the Falklands
« on: December 30, 2013, 04:22:11 PM »
Rowbotham was also incorrect, in my opinion, about the altitude of the sun and moon.  Mathematically, his numbers don't jive - but that doesn't mean that the fundamental truth of the matter, that the earth is flat, is untrue.  I'll make note of sunrise/sunset times locally, however.  I'm at about 36 degree N latitude.

413
Flat Earth Projects / Re: The Pollâ„¢
« on: December 30, 2013, 04:15:54 PM »
Congrats to the newly elected council members.

414
Flat Earth Community / Electromagnetic Accelerator
« on: December 26, 2013, 04:58:35 PM »
Was doing some research this morning in relation to light in FET when I remembered this formula existing in our wiki on this page: http://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator



I searched the old forums for where this simple formula came from, but all I could find was a thread where Euclid derived the following equation for how light from polaris bends moving rimwards from the north pole: 

Quote
Success!  I have derived an equation for the path of light from the north star in the north south direction that exhibits the above assumptions.

y(x) = h - x Cot[r/h] - (x^2 (3 h - 2 r Cot[r/h] - r Tan[Pi/2 (1 - r/R)]))/r^2 - (x^3 (-2 h + r Cot[r/h] + r Tan[Pi/2 (1 - r/R)]))/r^3

y is the height of the light beam as a function of x, the distance from the north pole.  h is the height of the Sun.  r is distance of a ground observer of the light beam from the north pole.  R is the distance from the equator to the north pole.

This is a cubic equation.  Further degrees of polynomials could be used up to an infinite Taylor series, but they would require more unknown parameters.  Perhaps a theory for cause of bendy light could provide values for these unknown parameters.  Quadratic and lower polynomials are unable to satisfy the assumptions.

The thread goes on for a while, but ends with Parsifal:

Quote
I have recently come to the realisation that for any function y = f(x) that models the curvature of light, its derivative function f'(x) must be an injective function. Otherwise, the action of Dark Energy on rays of light at a particular gradient will be ambiguous. Euclid's equation does not fit with this requirement, as its derivative function is a quadratic whose value therefore approaches positive infinity as x approaches either positive or negative infinity.

I enjoy maths, so I'd like to continue the discussion here.  Parsifal, was any more work done beyond this, and how does that thread relate to the EA equation that is found in the Wiki?

415
All the planets revolving around the sun is materially different than all the planets and the sun revolving around the Earth. Maybe I am misinterpreting what you mean by heliocentric.

I'm referring to the neo-tychonic geocentric model, which has been shown to be equivilent to the copernican model: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.7129.pdf

This is  fascinating.  Tycho Brahe's geo-heliocentric model is bizarrely fantastic.  Thanks for sharing, Tausami

416
I know basically nothing of any of this, as I've never been associated with any faith that had a rigid schedule of prayer.  I was raised baptist (which is honestly just racism and homophobia with a bible), so I've always been a few drinks shy of atheism at the core.

I am interested, though, as I find these sorts of ritualistic faiths fascinating.

417
"Looking out your window" proves nothing about the Earth's shape and does not have its own physics.

Of course it does.  Observation is the basis of all science, zeteticism doubly so. 

418
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What Religion are you?
« on: December 24, 2013, 09:09:37 PM »
Why choose faith over facts, logic and reason?

You realize you are asking someone who literally believes a God would create everyone with profound flaws and then choose some of the most illiterate and warlike among them to be "The Chosen People". If you can believe that, you can literally believe anything.

My question was one of genuine curiosity.  I don't need to belittle anyone's beliefs (and/or ethnicity) regardless of what I think the truth is. 

419
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What Religion are you?
« on: December 24, 2013, 02:36:20 PM »
Rotting, as re: evidence for the existence of God, respectable or otherwise, well, honestly, I'm not sure there IS an answer to that which you would accept. Some things I can prove. Is the Earth round? Look @ a picture or observe mathematical proofs. But is God real? @ best I can give you probabilities. You still have a faith leap to take. If you're not inclined to do that, then nothing I or any theist says will ever be enough for you. And, unlike a Christian or a Muslim, I don't believe in Hell. & I'm not fond of judging what non-Jews have or have not been taught about the Deity. So, your belief or lack thereof is beyond my competance to evaluate. I know that none of this helps much. I'm sorry. About the multiple posts, do forgive. 2 were length problems, & 2 were different subjects. I'll be more careful in future.

There isn't a mathematical proof that the earth is round, that's silly, and one cannot prove the non-existence of god.  I'd ask you why you DO believe, though.  What have you experienced that convinced you so that a god exists, while my experience has led me to the opposite conclusion.

420
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Gateway Musicians
« on: December 24, 2013, 12:57:20 PM »
Led Zeppelin.  Physical Graffiti.

Also, The Who.  Quadrophenia.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23  Next >