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 - AllAroundTheWorld

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
Science & Alternative Science / NASA and China sitting in a tree...
« on: June 10, 2021, 02:10:43 PM »
...on Mars.

I thought this was interesting. So I guess now NASA are faking images of other countries' craft I guess to keep the whole "spaceflight is a thing" ruse going?

Flat Earth Community / On the Notion of Flat Earth Belief Growth
« on: April 11, 2021, 06:56:05 AM »
So Pete and me have crossed swords a few times on the idea that FE belief is growing to the point where it’s a significant percentage of people who believe in FE. Don’t get me wrong, you guys are certainly more known than you were 10 years ago and there’s certainly some evidence which shows it has got some traction in certain areas. Although there’s also evidence that some people simply pretend to believe in a flat earth online for the lolz.

Anyway, so scimandan spent a few hours on Omegle fishing for flat earthers and found not a one. Not the most scientific approach maybe, but make of this what you will. If FE belief was as prevalent as some on here claim then surely by chance you’d find some believers this way.

[EDIT: Link removed - let's not boost engagement for this creep. ~pete]

Science & Alternative Science / And Then There Were Five
« on: April 08, 2021, 06:09:22 AM »

Evidence building for a fifth force of nature although it all sounds a bit complicated and I’m not sure how it changes or refines our understanding of reality

Flat Earth Investigations / VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing
« on: April 07, 2021, 03:12:29 PM »
I think this is the right place for this.
As per the title. Interesting video of a few guys who work in the VFX industry watching footage from the moon landings and commenting on how authentic it looks.

Few points of interest, they comment on the length of some of the shots which they say would have been incredibly difficult to do in miniature or slow mo. The way the dust moves doesn't make sense in an atmosphere where you'd get turbulence.
The reflections in the visors would have been problematic - you'd expect to see lights or of the camera.
They compare it to the film 2001 which would have been state of the art VFX of the time and note how different it looks and how clear the effects are in it are.

I thought it was interesting because most of the "moon landing is fake" arguments which focus on how the footage is fake come from people with no expertise in the field.

Flat Earth Community / Fly You To The Moon
« on: March 03, 2021, 07:25:47 AM »
Not entirely sure this is the right section for this, but I’m filing it under “recent events which affect the community.”

A billionaire is looking for volunteers for a moon mission:

This would be a good opportunity for someone with an empirical bent to put all this round earth nonsense to bed once and for all. Any takers?

Suggestions & Concerns / Suggestion
« on: January 14, 2021, 09:54:48 AM »
So I tell you what annoys me about this place. Well, one thing...  ;D
When you make a post it returns you to the index of the board you're posting in, not the thread you just posted in.
Now maybe this is just me and I know there's a preview option but after I've posted I generally like to read it back through to check it.
So...personally I'd prefer it if after you've posted it went to the thread you've posted in.
But maybe everyone else checks before they post in which case...fine. It's not the most important thing.
Just my 2 cents.

Flat Earth Theory / Lake Minnewanka
« on: September 19, 2020, 06:53:54 PM »
I hope this is the right place for this.
Thought this was a good video.
Well, the first few minutes are good where he explains the set up. The rest is literally just him moving the camera up and down at the edge of a lake. I can’t believe how much footage he’s included. But anyway...

He did the “math” beforehand and the results look to match what you’d expect on a globe.

Any thoughts?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Biblical Literalism & Flat Earth
« on: June 17, 2020, 07:46:14 AM »
Wasn't quite sure where to put this but this seemed like the right place.
So some FE beliefs are based on a literal interpretation of certain Bible verses, notably:

Isaiah 40:22
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

Rowbotham was clearly motivated in this way, in a later chapter of ENaG he rails against science and how it leads people away from God.
The issue with this verse is that if you look down at a globe you will see a circle. And there are other issues like this verse:

Revelation 7:1
"After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on earth or sea or against any tree."

4 corners implies a square, circles famously don't have corners. But then there's this verse which I was reminded of last night:

Psalm 113:3
"From the rising of the sun to the place where it sets, the name of the LORD is to be praised."

The ancient FE belief would have been that the earth was flat and that the sun goes up and over it across the sky during the day and under it at night.
So day would be day everywhere, night would be night everywhere. If you knew nothing about the world or science then you might well conclude that.
And the above verse does appear to support that.

As soon as quick long distance travel became possible thought it was quickly realised that day and night do occur at different times at different places.
And neither the globe or modern FE model claims that the sun literally rises or sets.

TL;DR - Biblical literalism gets you in a mess, and the reason for that is that the Bible is not intended to reveal scientific truths to us.
It's intended to tell us about our creator and our purpose, not the mechanics of how the universe hangs together.

Flat Earth Theory / EA vs Moon Tilt Illusion
« on: May 19, 2020, 10:35:22 AM »
So this page outlines the theory of EA

which states that

All light curves upwards over very long distances

But then there's a section about the Moon Tilt Illusion

The Electromagnetic Accelerator is able to make unique predictions and predict phenomena that the Round Earth Theory does not. If the Sun is illuminating the Moon under straight line geometry, such as in RET, then it would be expected that the illuminated portion of the Moon will always point at the Sun, much like how when shining a flashlight at a ball the illuminated portion of the ball will always appear to point at the flashlight to observers positioned around the ball. It is natural and expected that the illuminated portion of a body will appear to point at its light source, like an arrow will point at its destination in space. Because the light paths are warped due to Electromagnetic Acceleration, however, the illuminated portion of the Moon will often be seen to point away from the Sun.

And there's this diagram:

Two things I don't understand about this.
1) This illusion is, as the name suggests, an illusion. You can stretch out a straight line between the moon and sun to show that there is indeed a straight line running perpendicular to the terminator on the moon which points at the sun. It doesn't look like it is but that's why it's called an illusion.
2) In that diagram the light is bending downwards. So how is EA relevant here?

Flat Earth Theory / Eötvös Effect
« on: March 24, 2020, 05:38:07 PM »
I saw this rather good video about the Eötvös Effect:

I thought I'd have a look to see if your Wiki has any thoughts on this matter and found this page

Which says:

It is found that a gravimeter is a low-frequency seismometer, and that the theory of gravimetry is based on a theoretical assessment of the background noise in the subseismic band. The patterns of the tides and other phenomena can be pulled out of the background noise, and are assumed to be due to "gravity".

In connection with the above, The Eötvös Effect is an effect which adds or subtracts anthropogenic and microseismic noises to the gravimeter when a vessel moves eastwards or westwards. Although the cause of the noise is unknown, the noise may be related to the stars, tides, or even the upper flow of the 'great ocean conveyor belt', all of which make regular westwards motions across the earth. A vessel going against this noise would pick up greater noise than a vessel which goes with the noise.

Due to the nature of the gravimeter, it is suggested that this effect seen in the gravimeter should be better classified under a category of seismology.

Honestly, this seems like complete word salad to me. I really have no idea what you're trying to say.
My point is, the explanation in RE is clear. You're either travelling with or against the spin of the earth, that affects the centrifugal force experienced by an object and thus the object's weight.
Wouldn't you say that the empirical observations better fit that model than a FE one where there is no real explanation?

Suggestions & Concerns / Notifications
« on: November 06, 2019, 09:19:20 AM »
Maybe this place already does this and I just don't know how to see it, but on other forums I've posted on there's a "Notifications" bit where you can see when people have quoted your posts.
It would be useful if this place did that, if it doesn't. I wouldn't want to miss any of Pete's sick burns in reply to my posts ;)

Flat Earth Community / Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« on: July 21, 2019, 06:45:12 PM »
Lots of coverage of the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing. This caught my eye and wondered if there were any FE thoughts

What I thought interesting about this it’s a team in the UK who were tracking a Russian craft in orbit around the moon and listening in to the Apollo 11 astronauts.

This is a team independent of NASA and the Russian space agency and verifying the work of both.

Any thoughts?

Suggestions & Concerns / FE2FE Debate Section
« on: July 01, 2019, 12:03:06 PM »
There is a notable lack of debate on here between FE people - debate about contrasting models, attempts to move towards a unified FE model.
I would have thought that should be part of what this site is about.
I tried to generate some with this thread on a topic I know is a matter of debate between FE people:

But got very little response. There was a thread about how RE people could behave to encourage more FE on FE debate, in that thread a separate suggestion came up that a dedicated forum on here for FE people would help encourage such debate without RE people spoiling those threads. As it was felt not to be an appropriate thread for that discussion I thought I'd start one in here, as it's a suggestion.

The suggestion, in short, is a separate section of the forum be created for FE people to debate between themselves the competing models and attempt to move towards consensus.
My suggestion is that section be visible by everyone but only selected people be allowed to post. By "selected people" I mostly mean FE believers, but selected RE people may be allowed access too if they post within the spirit of that section.


Flat Earth Theory / One Pole or Two?
« on: June 26, 2019, 01:39:24 PM »
The most common FE model is of the North Pole in the centre of a disc, the continents spread out around it and an ice ring around the outside surrounded by a wall. I believe this ice ring is Antarctica, it is not generally thought of as a continent. This is the model outlined here:

The seasons are explained in this model with the sun circling the north pole and the radius of that circle changing throughout the year. In the northern "hemisphere" summer the sun circles closer to the North Pole - that fits with observations of the 24 hour sun circling the pole in the Arctic summer and the northern hemisphere is getting more direct sunlight. In the southern "hemisphere" summer the sun circles further from the north pole, from that distance the north pole can't "see" the sun, hence the perpetual darkness. And the south then gets more of the direct sunlight.

The problems with this are claims of Antarctica having been crossed, there is claimed to be a permanent scientific base at the South Pole and there are videos which claim to show 24 hour sun circling the south pole in the southern summer much the same way as it circles the north pole in the northern summer. The stars in the south are said to rotate around a southern hub and there's claimed to be a sailing race around Antarctica

Given the evidence for a southern continent, an alternative model with two Poles has been suggested and the Wiki references this here:

This does resolve the above issues but then creates a problem with the path of the sun - the way it is said to move in the monopole model no longer works.

There is an emphasis in the FE community on empirical evidence and people making their own observations. Given the difficulty of doing this in this area - we can't all explore the pole or poles - how do we arrive at consensus? Some questions which may help discussion:

1) Which model do you favour?
2) How did you arrive at that conclusion?
3) If you favour the monopole model what do you make about the claims about a southern continent and the alleged observations from it?
4) If you favour the bi-polar model, how does the path of the sun change in a way which matches observations?

Flat Earth Community / ISS Open For Business
« on: June 07, 2019, 03:11:09 PM »

Nasa is to allow tourists to visit the International Space Station from 2020.
The US space agency said it would open the orbiting station to tourism and other business ventures.
There will be up to two short private astronaut missions per year, said Robyn Gatens, the deputy director of the ISS.

I imagine it'll cost millions so out of the reach of the average Joe, but maybe some crowd-funding effort could be made in the FE Community, it's the ultimate chance for one of you to make personal observations.

Suggestions & Concerns / Appealing Bans
« on: May 21, 2019, 10:01:19 AM »
Is there any way one can appeal a ban without creating an alt?

I found during a recent period of time on the naughty step that one can't PM anyone or post anywhere - not even in the lower fora or S&C - while banned.
So is there any way that someone could appeal other than creating an alt which I can't imagine you want to encourage?
If there isn't, shouldn't there be?

Interestingly, it looked to me like you can report a post while banned and vote in polls.
Not sure if that's as intended but thought I'd mention it in case you want to look into it.

Suggestions & Concerns / FEM
« on: April 08, 2019, 11:19:00 AM »
Flat Earth Media is a reasonable idea for a part of this site but, IMO it is poorly executed.

"The purpose of this board is to create a community-driven repository of media relating to the Flat Earth Society or Flat Earth Theory."


Please note that this board is generally not intended for in-depth discussion of the materials linked. If you'd like to engage in more than a brief exchange, please create a thread in the appropriate board

Hmm.'s in a section of the forum called "Flat Earth Discussion Boards"
You see how that could confuse a stupid person? I can't see the point in a section of the forum where things can be posted but not debated, it doesn't make sense to have to create an effectively duplicate thread in another section for that discussion.

Also, at the moment some discussion of the video is allowed but some gets moved to AR when it isn't either A or R, it's just discussion.
The moderation around this is not consistent.

I think the FEM section is fine but discussion about the videos posted should be allowed. If the video is deemed to be of sufficient quality/usefulness to be thought worthy of adding to a library/repository of FEM then that should be done but that repository should be elsewhere. I'd have thought the Wiki would be a more appropriate place than any of the forums.

At the moment there is no way of distinguishing FEM from any of the other fora yet it's said to be for a different purpose. A lot of people are finding this confusing. I believe my suggestion would help.


Flat Earth Investigations / Satellite Dishes
« on: March 26, 2019, 01:47:47 AM »
I'm in India right now on a work trip and I noticed that the satellite dishes point noticeably up more than they do in the UK.
On a previous work trip to Sri Lanka I noticed the angle was even more pronounced there, they almost point straight up.
This makes sense if the dishes are all pointing at geostationary satellites above the equator. The nearer the equator you are the steeper the angle would need to be.
Just wondering if between us as we have members all round the globe (haha, lol, sorry Pete) on here, we could take measurements and see which model they fit best.
Would this show anything? I guess the FE claim could be the dishes are all pointing at different things.

Just thought I'd raise this as a possible line of investigation.

Suggestions & Concerns / Consistency
« on: February 04, 2019, 09:59:22 AM »
So, this post:

All y’all have fallen for Tom’s trolling again. His argument is the logical equivalent of saying we don’t know the exact value of pi and that it’s an embarrassing failure of mathematics. Technically true, (apart from the failure bit, it’s an irrational number, by definition the exact value can’t be known), but the value is known more than well enough for all practical purposes.
A model of the solar system doesn’t have to be perfect to be useful. The models we have are good enough to make predictions which are then bourne out by observations. I’d like to see Tom use the Saros cycles and flat earth map and model to tell us when and, more importantly exactly where future solar eclipses will be viewable from. The models we have of the globe earth and the solar system seem to be doing that rather well.

Was deemed worthy of a warning. A final warning, no less. Because:

If you want to call people trolls, do so in AR. Rule 1. If you can't figure out how not to attack others, well, we'll help you out.

When I asked why this was worthy of a warning when Pete and Tom have both called other posters liars or accused them of dishonesty/deception in the upper fora the reply was:

You've answered your own question. If someone's lying, it's only sensible to point it out to others, and to warn them against that individual. Dismissing someone's logic as "trolling" is a cheap cop-out, and you will avoid it in the upper. One way or another ;)

I'm not understanding the difference here. Lying and Trolling are similar in that there has to be intent. It is my opinion that Tom was trolling in that thread, but I may be wrong. Pete has often opined that people are lying and he has often been wrong - I know this because I have been the target of those accusations on several occasions and I haven't been lying. Only I know whether I was because only I know my intent.

And if there is a difference, why in this thread:

Is Pete allowed to say:

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this thread is nothing short of a cheap troll. I'm going to lock it now.

And he then locks the thread thus giving me no further right of reply.

Neither thread is in AR.
Why is Pete allowed to accuse me of trolling in one thread and then warn me for opining that Tom is trolling in another?

Flat Earth Investigations / Flat Earth Map
« on: January 04, 2019, 12:36:29 PM »
As there is no flat earth map I thought I'd have a go at making one
I had a look on Google Maps and used that as my source for distances between places.
Obviously if you don't accept those distances as accurate then that's going to be a problem from the start but given that Google Maps is used by millions of people to get around you'd think we'd know about it if their maps were wrong.

I took some US Cities - I used mainland US partly because it's continental so we get away from complexities about measuring distances across oceans. I picked them fairly arbitrarily but I wanted them far apart as this is where we should see most difference between a flat earth and a globe.

I started with Seattle. Final image is at the bottom of this post.

The distance between Seattle to New York is 2405 Miles
So I drew a black circle diameter 2405 pixels. Seattle is the centre. New York must be somewhere on that circle.

New York to Dallas is 1368 miles. I picked an arbitrary point on the circle surrounding Seattle - to the right of the circle as New York is due East of Seattle. I called that point New York and drew a red circle 1368 pixels around that point.
So Dallas must be somewhere on that red circle.

Seattle to Dallas is 1684 miles so I drew another blue circle around Seattle of diameter 1684 pixels. Dallas must be somewhere on that blue circle

So, Dallas must be on the intersection between the red and blue circles.
There are 2 possibilities as the circles intersect in 2 places. Dallas is south of both New York and Seattle though so I've picked the lower one and called that Dallas.

So now we know where Seattle, New York and Dallas are in relation to one another.
I've marked the cities with rough X's and labelled them.
Now what happens if we add a 4th city?

I picked Minneapolis as it is fairly central to the above 3 cities.
The distance from Minneapolis to
New York is 1020 miles
Seattle is 1384 miles
Dallas is 1389 miles.

So I've drawn green circles with the corresponding number of pixels around those 3 cities.
Minneapolis must be somewhere on each of those green circles so it must be at the intersection of them.

The problem is the three green circles don't all intersect at any point. So either:
1) The distances on Google Maps are wrong
2) I have made an error somewhere in my reasoning or method
3) The earth isn't flat.

Are there any other possibilities?

Pages: [1] 2  Next >