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

62

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No gravity on Earth

« on: January 10, 2015, 09:05:50 PM »

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.

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.

I'm happy to debate relativity and gravity with you without expecting your being an expert on the

Oblique references to scientific journals are what I'm referring to as "handwaving."  It's not hard to get published in a journal.  Think for yourself. 

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/25/journal-accepts-paper-requesting-removal-from-mailing-list

63

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No gravity on Earth

« on: January 10, 2015, 04:12:12 AM »

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.

64

Flat Earth Community / Re: Annotated ENAG

« on: January 09, 2015, 01:53:27 AM »

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 don't know if that's necessary, but perhaps we could give some extra members the ability to moderate just that section, so it's more heavily moderated.  Add a big underlined flashy sticky topic with clear guidelines, and a disclaimer saying THIS FORUM IS HEAVILY MODERATED, NO WHINING IF YOUR POST IS MOVED or something.

Of course, now that I've typed this I realize that my idea may result in Thork being granted some sort of power, and that just feels wrong.

65

Flat Earth Community / Re: Annotated ENAG

« on: January 07, 2015, 03:41:28 PM »

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.

I'm still in favor of an entire forum devoted to the project, and then consolidate all relevant threads there and begin the organizational process.

66

Flat Earth Community / Re: Annotated ENAG

« on: January 07, 2015, 02:42:28 AM »

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.

I think Thork's expertise on celestial gears and the Ptolemaic cosmology would certainly make for a lovely essay in its own right.  Tausami's aetheric wind theory also deserves some time.  I certainly dabble, as I don't discount any particular flavor of FET outright, but I personally subscribe to an infinite plane, so I'd be happy to write an essay on that.  Tom's NASA / Conspiracy expertise is invaluable.

I'd also love to write about Lady Blount, to be honest, as she fascinates me. 

67

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Beyond the Ice Wall

« on: January 06, 2015, 06:57:51 PM »

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.

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?

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.

You are misunderstanding my statement.  I am not using the absolute-faith form of believe (i.e. "I believe in angels").  I'm using the "as far as I know," form.  I'm not an expert on AWT, but as far as I know, that's what it says.  I could be wrong.  If I know something, I will say so.  I do know, for example, that you're being obtuse to the point of impossibility, as I've seen direct evidence of it, and there's little point in continuing this conversation if the precise definition and implication of each word I use in a post is going to be called into question.

68

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Beyond the Ice Wall

« on: January 06, 2015, 05:56:16 PM »

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.

69

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is this website a strange form of satire?

« on: January 06, 2015, 05:53:29 PM »

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.

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?

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.

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.

It isn't my fault if the content extends beyond your cognitive capacity.

What is the problem with repeating the experiment?

I don't live near Bedford? If you have unlimited resources, feel free.

Ask why it has not been repeated anywhere.  Because it proves a round earth.

The Bedford Level experiment has certainly been repeated, both at Bedford and in other places, such as the Old Illinois Drainage Canal.  Really, it doesn't take much research to find these things.

70

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Beyond the Ice Wall

« on: January 06, 2015, 03:58:23 PM »

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.

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.

You may ought to speak to Tausami, as he's the resident aetheric wind theorist here.  I'm just relaying things as I understand them, but I do believe that in the disc model with AWT, as you near the edge,  aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc.

71

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Beyond the Ice Wall

« on: January 06, 2015, 03:37:59 PM »

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.

72

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Beyond the Ice Wall

« on: January 06, 2015, 02:21:04 PM »

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.

Please leave thread moderation to the mods, if you don't mind.  I mentioned it in passing because there *are* threads about it, and there are certain obtuse RE'ers here that would see me stating I didn't think there was an ice wall in one thread, while actively participating in an ice wall debate on another, and would call it out as hypocrisy.  Moreover, I felt that it would enrich the OP's experience to know that the ice wall hypothesis is just one of the many "flavors" of the model.  This is a discussion forum, not a lecture hall.

Back to the point, your VOE doesn't prove a spherical earth, as a transpolar circumnavigation is still possible on a flat earth - and yes, even on the ice wall model, in theory, though I'd need to see the actual route flown to verify.  An aircraft pilot would follow the lines of force, which are curved at the outer rim in the ice wall model by aetheric flow.  This would lead the plane to ultimately turn and fly north again relative to the disc, most likely without the pilot's noticing at all, since all the instruments would indicate otherwise.

Just because I don't subscribe to a particular model doesn't mean it doesn't work.

73

Flat Earth Community / Re: No flights over the north or south pole at the moment?

« on: January 05, 2015, 11:33:56 PM »

Conculsion please.

The earth is flat.

Proof please, with measurements.

Proof: look at the earth with your eyes.
Measurements: See Euclid's Elements.

I see the sun move across the sky from different locations at different times, that's proof.

That is the second time you've brought up time zones.  Once again, none of us claim that time zones don't exist.

Or perhaps you're talking about the change of the sun's path as the seasons change?  Yes, that is addressed in FET as well.  No one denies that happens, and I'm not sure why you continue to insist that it's proof the earth is a sphere.

74

Flat Earth Community / Re: No flights over the north or south pole at the moment?

« on: January 05, 2015, 10:05:48 PM »

Conculsion please.

The earth is flat.

Proof please, with measurements.

Proof: look at the earth with your eyes.
Measurements: See Euclid's Elements.

75

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Beyond the Ice Wall

« on: January 05, 2015, 09:43:42 PM »

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.

All available, as you know.  Google Earth will give you distances, please tell us any that are incorrect.

We're done.

As expected you cannot prove the earth is not round.

Expecting someone to prove a negative?  I believe the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is.

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.

Well, not all of us think there's an ice wall.  I personally don't. 

Captain Mullins also performed a circumnaviation the conventional way.  The route left from JFK airport in New York, passed through New Dehli, then Tokyo, and then arrived back in New York at JFK.  That trip had a total flight time of 25 minutes, 53 seconds. 

The polar circumnavigation, on the other hand, took over twice as long, with a flight time of 54 hours, 7 minutes, 12 seconds.  Now, I realize that the first trip was entirely in the northern hemisphere, and so dealt with shorter distances on both the flat and spherical models, but I wonder what the record for an equatorial circumnavigation by air is, if one exists, and if it's comparable with the polar one, as it should be on a sphere.  Ideally, one that crosses the intersection of the Prime Meridian (and 180th meridian) and the Equator on both sides of the globe.  Hm.  I'll have a look and see if I can find one.

76

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Beyond the Ice Wall

« on: January 04, 2015, 07:24:54 PM »

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.

All available, as you know.  Google Earth will give you distances, please tell us any that are incorrect.

We're done.

As expected you cannot prove the earth is not round.

Expecting someone to prove a negative?  I believe the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is.

77

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strong Evidence for Round Earth

« on: January 04, 2015, 07:23:50 PM »

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?

GPS satellites orbit the earth, 24 give full coverage.

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.

78

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal

« on: January 04, 2015, 05:30:24 PM »

Yes.

79

Flat Earth Community / Re: Annotated ENAG

« on: January 04, 2015, 05:27:37 PM »

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.

I agree with most of this... but I'm sort of getting stuck on re-writing ENaG My goal wasn't to re-write, but to add to the work.  I'm not talking about a single explanatory paragraph or even a few, I'm talking about expanding upon the ideas present and working in new theories such as aetheric wind.

To this end, perhaps "Expanded Edition" is a better descriptor than  "Annotated."  I believe the work should be preserved as it is the foundation of our society, but there is certainly room for lots of additional knowledge.

Although having said that, it's already a pretty lengthy tome, so perhaps Earth Not a Globe Volume 2 is something we can put together?  Since the first is in the public domain, we could publish a pretty attractive two-volume set.

80

Flat Earth Community / Re: Focusing conversation on an Annonated Earth Not a Globe

« on: January 04, 2015, 05:22:48 PM »

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.

I'd be in favor of creating (or re-naming) one of the fora to devote to this project.  Tom's right, it's huge, and it's one of the reasons every time I start to work on it I get a little overwhelmed.  Happy to see this getting some attention again, as I think it could be quite a wonderful project for us.