The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: mannyvz17 on December 09, 2014, 01:36:06 AM
-
What is the purpose the for the world's government to tell us that the world is round and hide the "knowledge" that the world is flat? What advantage is their in keeping this information from us?
Bonus question: Why do you believe the earth is flat? What made you believe this?
-
What is the purpose the for the world's government to tell us that the world is round and hide the "knowledge" that the world is flat? What advantage is their in keeping this information from us?
Bonus question: Why do you believe the earth is flat? What made you believe this?
The government is lying about space travel, and to maintain the lie they have to claim the Earth to be round.
For more information, please see: http://wiki.tfes.org/Conspiracy
-
What is the purpose the for the world's government to tell us that the world is round and hide the "knowledge" that the world is flat? What advantage is their in keeping this information from us?
Bonus question: Why do you believe the earth is flat? What made you believe this?
The government is lying about space travel, and to maintain the lie they have to claim the Earth to be round.
For more information, please see: http://wiki.tfes.org/Conspiracy
You didn't answer my question. I'm asking what is the benefit of the government withholding this information from us?
-
If you can control what people think, you control the people.
-
What is the purpose the for the world's government to tell us that the world is round and hide the "knowledge" that the world is flat? What advantage is their in keeping this information from us?
Bonus question: Why do you believe the earth is flat? What made you believe this?
The government is lying about space travel, and to maintain the lie they have to claim the Earth to be round.
For more information, please see: http://wiki.tfes.org/Conspiracy
You didn't answer my question. I'm asking what is the benefit of the government withholding this information from us?
If the government admitted that they lied about space travel and that the Earth was actually flat... what do you think would happen?
-
But why lie about the Earth being flat in the first place?
-
If you can control what people think, you control the people.
I've heard this before and I can understand this logic of thinking when it comes to other conspiracy theories, but with this it just doesn't make sense. Why lie about the earth being flat? And don't say to " cover up blah blah blah about spar travel." I want to know why you think the government lied about the earth being flat in the first place? Why can't they say the earth is flat and still make up stuff about space travel?
-
They didn't lie about the shape of the Earth. They honestly believe the Earth is round.
They lied about space travel.
-
If the government is lying about space travel, then why are they spending so much money on spy satellites?
-
They didn't lie about the shape of the Earth. They honestly believe the Earth is round.
They lied about space travel.
So you really think all the scientists in the world are wrong and a few people in a fringe society are right? You'll probably respond with something like " well Newton believed in alchemy." The thing is though that science is constantly adapting. Things get proven and disproven constantly. If there were any evidence that the Earth was flat scientists would report it because they have no attachment to the idea of the Earth being round, but simply to gain knowledge.
-
Perhaps they don't report these findings for fear of being ridiculed by their peers or loosing their jobs? If you spend a lifetime being educated and building up your academic standings, would you not think twice if you discovered proof that everything you learned/taught and your entire life work is wrong?
-
Perhaps they don't report these findings for fear of being ridiculed by their peers or loosing their jobs? If you spend a lifetime being educated and building up your academic standings, would you not think twice if you discovered proof that everything you learned/taught and your entire life work is wrong?
Scientists challenge established theories all the time. It's how science continues to grow and evolve. Without this science would become become like a religion and never change. If there was any credible evidence a scientist would report it.
-
Scientists may have also be threatened to keep their information secret, or simply feared a reprisal from the conspiracy if they went public. It could also be that some of them did find evidence, and were then eliminated.
It is also a possibility that if a scientist did actually find information about the Earth being flat, they were simply paid to keep their mouths shut. Scientists will say anything for the right amount of money. They are people, just like you and I.
-
Scientists challenge established theories all the time. It's how science continues to grow and evolve. Without this science would become become like a religion and never change.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this sentence. That's exactly what modern science has become: religious dogma. Many scientists are scared of coming out of the scientific closet in fear of tarnishing their reputations.
Most Round Earth science is self-proving in how it's set up, so many scientists go their whole lives without finding the truth about the shape of the Earth. It's also worth noting that there are not many scientists who devote their careers to just studying the shape of the Earth because it is already so widely accepted to be round.
-
Perhaps they don't report these findings for fear of being ridiculed by their peers or loosing their jobs? If you spend a lifetime being educated and building up your academic standings, would you not think twice if you discovered proof that everything you learned/taught and your entire life work is wrong?
Do you mean like when Newton kept quite when he discovered that everything that he learned about gravity was wrong? Or when Einstein kept quiet when he discovered that Newton was wrong? Why do you keep insisting that scientists are all about keeping the status quo when science makes its greatest advances by blowing the status quo out of the water?
-
Perhaps they don't report these findings for fear of being ridiculed by their peers or loosing their jobs? If you spend a lifetime being educated and building up your academic standings, would you not think twice if you discovered proof that everything you learned/taught and your entire life work is wrong?
Do you mean like when Newton kept quite when he discovered that everything that he learned about gravity was wrong? Or when Einstein kept quiet when he discovered that Newton was wrong? Why do you keep insisting that scientists are all about keeping the status quo when science makes its greatest advances by blowing the status quo out of the water?
Isaac Newton is like science's Jesus. He did not actually exist.
-
Perhaps they don't report these findings for fear of being ridiculed by their peers or loosing their jobs? If you spend a lifetime being educated and building up your academic standings, would you not think twice if you discovered proof that everything you learned/taught and your entire life work is wrong?
Do you mean like when Newton kept quite when he discovered that everything that he learned about gravity was wrong? Or when Einstein kept quiet when he discovered that Newton was wrong? Why do you keep insisting that scientists are all about keeping the status quo when science makes its greatest advances by blowing the status quo out of the water?
Isaac Newton is like science's Jesus. He did not actually exist.
cutting insight as usual.
-
Perhaps they don't report these findings for fear of being ridiculed by their peers or loosing their jobs? If you spend a lifetime being educated and building up your academic standings, would you not think twice if you discovered proof that everything you learned/taught and your entire life work is wrong?
Do you mean like when Newton kept quite when he discovered that everything that he learned about gravity was wrong? Or when Einstein kept quiet when he discovered that Newton was wrong? Why do you keep insisting that scientists are all about keeping the status quo when science makes its greatest advances by blowing the status quo out of the water?
Isaac Newton is like science's Jesus. He did not actually exist.
Welcome to a minefield, Vauxy. Religion is a touchy subject in a lot of places.
Do you mean that as there was no Issac Newton or that he was wrong?
-
There was no Isaac Newton. That's what I mean.
-
Scientists do see things that support a Flat Earth all the time. They just call it an "interesting phenomenon" and proceed to make things up to explain it, such as atmospheric ducting or ionospheric reflection.
Look at Over the Horizon Radar. The Flat Earth explanation is that the waves are simply proceeding in a straight line, bouncing off their target, and returning. The Round Earth explanation is an elaborate explanation that the waves are bouncing off of a layer of the atmosphere and the ground, sometimes several times, hitting a body below the horizon, and that the wave somehow retraces its path, bouncing through between the atmosphere and the earth and returning to the receiver around the curvature of the earth, appearing as a discernible image, all without being obliterated by scatter along the way.
-
Scientists do see things that support a Flat Earth all the time. They just call it an "interesting phenomenon" and proceed to make things up to explain it, such as atmospheric ducting or ionospheric reflection.
Look at Over the Horizon Radar. The Flat Earth explanation is that the waves are simply proceeding in a straight line, bouncing off their target, and returning. The Round Earth explanation is an elaborate explanation that the waves are bouncing off of a layer of the atmosphere and the ground, sometimes several times, hitting a body, and that the wave somehow retraces its path, bouncing through the atmosphere and returning to the receiver around the curvature of the earth, all without being obliterated by scatter along the way.
Please share your math to support your implication. How do you figure that scattering would obliterate such a signal? OTH can be readily understood here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar)
-
Scientists do see things that support a Flat Earth all the time. They just call it an "interesting phenomenon" and proceed to make things up to explain it, such as atmospheric ducting or ionospheric reflection.
Look at Over the Horizon Radar. The Flat Earth explanation is that the waves are simply proceeding in a straight line, bouncing off their target, and returning. The Round Earth explanation is an elaborate explanation that the waves are bouncing off of a layer of the atmosphere and the ground, sometimes several times, hitting a body, and that the wave somehow retraces its path, bouncing through the atmosphere and returning to the receiver around the curvature of the earth, all without being obliterated by scatter along the way.
Please share your math to support your implication. How do you figure that scattering would obliterate such a signal? OTH can be readily understood here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar)
Light and photons scatter when it is reflecting off of an irregular surface, such as off of a foggy mirror. The atmosphere is hardly regular, therefore extreme scattering will occur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_scattering
Light scattering is a form of scattering in which light is the form of propagating energy which is scattered. Light scattering can be thought of as the deflection of a ray from a straight path, for example by irregularities in the propagation medium, particles, or in the interface between two media. Deviations from the law of reflection due to irregularities on a surface are also usually considered to be a form of scattering. When these irregularities are considered to be random and dense enough that their individual effects average out, this kind of scattered reflection is commonly referred to as diffuse reflection.
-
... returning to the receiver around the curvature of the earth, all without being obliterated by scatter along the way.
Please share your math to support your implication. How do you figure that scattering would obliterate such a signal? OTH can be readily understood here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar)
Light and photons scatter when it is reflecting off of an irregular surface, such as off of a foggy mirror. The atmosphere is hardly regular, therefore extreme scattering will occur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_scattering
Light scattering is a form of scattering in which light is the form of propagating energy which is scattered. Light scattering can be thought of as the deflection of a ray from a straight path, for example by irregularities in the propagation medium, particles, or in the interface between two media. Deviations from the law of reflection due to irregularities on a surface are also usually considered to be a form of scattering. When these irregularities are considered to be random and dense enough that their individual effects average out, this kind of scattered reflection is commonly referred to as diffuse reflection.
As I expected, you can't produce the math to support your outlandish claim. So your point on the topic fails. There's no reason to believe you when you claim that scientists "proceed to make things up".
-
Scientists do see things that support a Flat Earth all the time. They just call it an "interesting phenomenon" and proceed to make things up to explain it, such as atmospheric ducting or ionospheric reflection
??? Are you saying that the atmospheric refraction and ionospheric reflection are not real phenomena? As I recall, FET (mis)uses these same "made up" explanations all the time.
-
As I expected, you can't produce the math to support your outlandish claim. So your point on the topic fails. There's no reason to believe you when you claim that scientists "proceed to make things up".
I provided an example where photons are scattered off a surface beyond recognition. The same scattering effect which occurs when light bounces off fog. This experience is universal. It is actually you who needs to provide math showing that the photons could bounce off the atmosphere, bounce off a body, then bounce off the atmosphere again and arrive intact. That is the extraordinary claim. The claim that light scatters when bouncing off fog, or a foggy mirror, is the simple base reality experienced by all that you must work off of to explain how your mysterious mechanism works.
Do not ask us to "prove that it can't happen". That is a negative claim. The burden is on you to provide proof of the positive, that it can happen.
-
As I expected, you can't produce the math to support your outlandish claim. So your point on the topic fails. There's no reason to believe you when you claim that scientists "proceed to make things up".
I provided an example where photons are scattered off a surface beyond recognition. The same scattering effect which occurs when light bounces off fog. This experience is universal. It is actually you who needs to provide math showing that the photons could bounce off the atmosphere, bounce off a body, then bounce off the atmosphere again and arrive intact. That is the extraordinary claim. The claim that light scatters when bouncing off fog, or a foggy mirror, is the simple base reality experienced by all that you must work off of to explain how your mysterious mechanism works.
Do not ask us to "prove that it can't happen". That is a negative claim. The burden is on you to provide proof of the positive, that it can happen.
Radio waves do not bounce off of the air particles in the ionosphere. They bounce off of an EM field. So your rebuttal is not only incorrect but inaccurate.
-
As I expected, you can't produce the math to support your outlandish claim. So your point on the topic fails. There's no reason to believe you when you claim that scientists "proceed to make things up".
I provided an example where photons are scattered off a surface beyond recognition. The same scattering effect which occurs when light bounces off fog. This experience is universal. It is actually you who needs to provide math showing that the photons could bounce off the atmosphere, bounce off a body, then bounce off the atmosphere again and arrive intact. That is the extraordinary claim. The claim that light scatters when bouncing off fog, or a foggy mirror, is the simple base reality experienced by all that you must work off of to explain how your mysterious mechanism works.
Do not ask us to "prove that it can't happen". That is a negative claim. The burden is on you to provide proof of the positive, that it can happen.
You made the outlandish yet-unsupported positive claim that scientists "proceed to make things up". I've made no claims. The burden, as usual, is yours. Good luck with that. Oh, and an example, especially one as faulty as Rama Set points out, does not substantiate a generalization.
-
As I expected, you can't produce the math to support your outlandish claim. So your point on the topic fails. There's no reason to believe you when you claim that scientists "proceed to make things up".
I provided an example where photons are scattered off a surface beyond recognition. The same scattering effect which occurs when light bounces off fog. This experience is universal. It is actually you who needs to provide math showing that the photons could bounce off the atmosphere, bounce off a body, then bounce off the atmosphere again and arrive intact. That is the extraordinary claim. The claim that light scatters when bouncing off fog, or a foggy mirror, is the simple base reality experienced by all that you must work off of to explain how your mysterious mechanism works.
Do not ask us to "prove that it can't happen". That is a negative claim. The burden is on you to provide proof of the positive, that it can happen.
Radio waves do not bounce off of the air particles in the ionosphere. They bounce off of an EM field. So your rebuttal is not only incorrect but inaccurate.
Actually, the current theory is that the photons bounce off of the charged particles of the ionosphere. How do photons "bounce off an EM field" rather than the charged particles as the currently theory states? You will need to clarify your position a little more.
You made the outlandish yet-unsupported positive claim that scientists "proceed to make things up". I've made no claims. The burden, as usual, is yours. Good luck with that. Oh, and an example, especially one as faulty as Rama Set points out, does not substantiate a generalization.
Unless they're getting their information from the word of God, every theory in science was made up by someone.
-
Unless they're getting their information from the word of God, every theory in science was made up by someone.
You're being dishonest about your implication. Still, we're waiting on the math to show that your outlandish claim has any credibility.
The Round Earth explanation is an elaborate explanation that the waves are bouncing off of a layer of the atmosphere and the ground, sometimes several times, hitting a body below the horizon, and that the wave somehow retraces its path, bouncing through between the atmosphere and the earth and returning to the receiver around the curvature of the earth, appearing as a discernible image, all without being obliterated by scatter along the way.
-
Unless they're getting their information from the word of God, every theory in science was made up by someone.
You're being dishonest about your implication. Still, we're waiting on the math to show that your outlandish claim has any credibility.
The Round Earth explanation is an elaborate explanation that the waves are bouncing off of a layer of the atmosphere and the ground, sometimes several times, hitting a body below the horizon, and that the wave somehow retraces its path, bouncing through between the atmosphere and the earth and returning to the receiver around the curvature of the earth, appearing as a discernible image, all without being obliterated by scatter along the way.
My claim establishes credibility through a priori knowledge that the atmosphere scatters light. The challenge is to you to show that it does not.
-
Unless they're getting their information from the word of God, every theory in science was made up by someone.
You're being dishonest about your implication. Still, we're waiting on the math to show that your outlandish claim has any credibility.
The Round Earth explanation is an elaborate explanation that the waves are bouncing off of a layer of the atmosphere and the ground, sometimes several times, hitting a body below the horizon, and that the wave somehow retraces its path, bouncing through between the atmosphere and the earth and returning to the receiver around the curvature of the earth, appearing as a discernible image, all without being obliterated by scatter along the way.
My claim has credibility through a priori knowledge that the atmosphere scatters light. The challenge is to you to show that it does not.
Nope. You made the outlandish positive claim that the atmosphere scatters the radar signal enough to obliterate it. You must substantiate your outlandish claim.
-
Nope. You made the outlandish positive claim that the atmosphere scatters the radar signal enough to obliterate it. You must substantiate your outlandish claim.
I am sorry, but the idea that the atmosphere can reflect radar images over the horizon, and that the propagation of a radar beam ludicrously bounces along the ground, explaining why the earth appears flat when truthfully round, is not a priori knowledge. That is something which must be proven and demonstrated, not assumed.
(http://www.eol.ucar.edu/rsf/AP96/images/slides/duct_diagram_small.gif)
-
Nope. You made the outlandish positive claim that the atmosphere scatters the radar signal enough to obliterate it. You must substantiate your outlandish claim.
I am sorry, but the idea that the atmosphere can reflect radar images over the horizon, and that the propagation of a radar beam ludicrously bounces along the ground, explaining why the earth appears flat when truthfully round, is not a priori knowledge.
There is a tremendous amount of editorializing going on here which should be ignored. Sky waves do not make the Earth appear flat. They make it appear that the radio wave propagates towards the sky, reflects of the negative charge of the free electrons, and continue along a predictable course slightly attenuated.
That is something which must be proven and demonstrated, not assumed.
It is a well known and documented phenomenon Tom. Your penchant for ostriching in the face of common occurrences does not make your objection credible. The Wikipedia page has a substantial list of technical and historical documents concerning radio wave propagation, especially ionospheric bounces.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_propagation
Also feel free to speak with Googleotomy at the other site as he is a HAM radio operator who could provide your highly valued first hand account.
-
I don't see any evidence in that link that the beams are actually bouncing off of the atmosphere, only claims that it happens. Where is the evidence that this is the case?
I thought Round Earth Theory had mountains of evidence and studies behind it? Surely, then, someone has done the necessary research and have published papers demonstrating this phenomena. Keep doing your research. Come back to us when you have something better.
-
I don't see any evidence in that link that the beams are actually bouncing off of the atmosphere, only claims that it happens. Where is the evidence that this is the case?
I thought Round Earth Theory had mountains of evidence and studies behind it? Surely, then, someone has done the necessary research and have published papers demonstrating this phenomena. Keep doing your research. Come back to us when you have something better.
Holy crap you read all the books in that list? You smart. Did you talk to Googleotomy? Like I said, he has first hand experience with sky waves. You love first hand evidence right?
Tell you what. Come back when you have done your homework properly. Sticking your head in the sand is no way to learn about the world.
Why would I bore you with links to papers like this:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=372018
Or
http://www.loran.org/Meetings/Meeting2003/Session5/LeRouxILA32Final.pdf
Or
http://www.eurasip.org/Proceedings/Eusipco/Eusipco2006/papers/1568982302.pdf
Or this old one
http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/20/jresv20n5p627_A1b.pdf
Or a newer one that deals with elevation angles of transmission
http://www.argreenhouse.com/society/TaCom/papers98/09_02c.pdf
Here is a look at sky wave transmitting a nearly 90 degrees to the ground, but that would not interest you
http://www.qsl.net/wb5ude/nvis
I bet you wouldn't buy a data bank of sky wave measurements at this link either:
http://www.itu.int/pub/R-OP-R.68
Anyway, sorry information is so scarce.
-
You are apparently just posing random articles without any knowledge of their contents. None of those papers are trying to prove that the long distances are because the beams are bouncing off of the atmosphere, as opposed to any other explanation. There is no challenge to the underlying assumption.
The link that mentions 90 degrees actually says that the antennas in use can radiate signals up to 90 degrees. You seem to not be reading any of this. Shameful. I expect better from you in future posts.
-
You are apparently just posing random articles without any knowledge of their contents. None of those papers are trying to prove that the long distances are because the beams are bouncing off of the atmosphere, as opposed to any other explanation. There is no challenge to the underlying assumption.
The link that mentions 90 degrees actually says that the antennas in use radiate signals up to 90 degrees. You seem to not be reading any of this. Shameful. I expect better from you in future posts.
So when they talk about elevation angles what do you think they are talking about? What is implied by sending a radio signal up in to the sky and receiving it again on the ground? Have you yet contacted the HAM radio operator on the other site for his Zetetic evidence?
The point of my post was that there is quite clearly a mountain of refereeed scientific papers available at the click of a mouse that you have not gone through and not an allegation of the practice not matching the theory to be found... Except from you... And you have not researched the topic. You seem to think that because there is no evident paper with the abstract, "Using Super Precise MethodsTM, it can be shown that Radiowaves bounce off of the ionosphere because of the field created by free electrons." that none of these papers say anything substantial about the topics.
Your patronizing tone is completely undone by the fact that you are simply denying the hundreds of thousands of examples that completely agree with theory because it is inconvenient to your worldview but you will accept the shaky reasoning and lack of experimentation by Rowbotham because it is convenient to your world view. You who has cited links to travel advertising as scientific evidence. Epistemologically you are less sophisticated than most grade schoolers.
So shame away. It means nothing coming from you. You are just funny.
-
So when they talk about elevation angles what do you think they are talking about?
You will need to quote something specific. I find very few references to elevations or angles in your links.
What is implied by sending a radio signal up in to the sky and receiving it again on the ground?
You tell me. The antennas which broadcast AM and Ham frequencies that can go over the horizon usually look like this:
(http://www.hi-techtowers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Picture321.png) (http://8424net.webs.com/Ham_Radio_Antenna.jpg)
Have you yet contacted the HAM radio operator on the other site for his Zetetic evidence?
Why would I go to the other forum to have someone Google for things that don't exist when I have you right here on this forum to do that?
The point of my post was that there is quite clearly a mountain of refereeed scientific papers available at the click of a mouse that you have not gone through and not an allegation of the practice not matching the theory to be found... Except from you... And you have not researched the topic. You seem to think that because there is no evident paper with the abstract, "Using Super Precise MethodsTM, it can be shown that Radiowaves bounce off of the ionosphere because of the field created by free electrons." that none of these papers say anything substantial about the topics.
Your patronizing tone is completely undone by the fact that you are simply denying the hundreds of thousands of examples that completely agree with theory because it is inconvenient to your worldview but you will accept the shaky reasoning and lack of experimentation by Rowbotham because it is convenient to your world view. You who has cited links to travel advertising as scientific evidence. Epistemologically you are less sophisticated than most grade schoolers.
So shame away. It means nothing coming from you. You are just funny.
What hundreds of thousands of examples? You have not shown us one, nor have you explained why it favors your model.
-
So when they talk about elevation angles what do you think they are talking about?
You will need to quote something specific. I find very few references to elevations or angles in your links.
Oh so you saw them. Can you answer the question then?
What is implied by sending a radio signal up in to the sky and receiving it again on the ground?
You tell me.
That radio signals bounce off of the ionosphere.
The antennas which broadcast AM and Ham frequencies that can go over the horizon usually look like this:
Super.
Have you yet contacted the HAM radio operator on the other site for his Zetetic evidence?
Why would I go to the other forum to have someone Google for things that don't exist when I have you right here on this forum to do that?
Why would ask anyone for any evidence at all if you plan on being completely disingenuous.
The point of my post was that there is quite clearly a mountain of refereeed scientific papers available at the click of a mouse that you have not gone through and not an allegation of the practice not matching the theory to be found... Except from you... And you have not researched the topic. You seem to think that because there is no evident paper with the abstract, "Using Super Precise MethodsTM, it can be shown that Radiowaves bounce off of the ionosphere because of the field created by free electrons." that none of these papers say anything substantial about the topics.
Your patronizing tone is completely undone by the fact that you are simply denying the hundreds of thousands of examples that completely agree with theory because it is inconvenient to your worldview but you will accept the shaky reasoning and lack of experimentation by Rowbotham because it is convenient to your world view. You who has cited links to travel advertising as scientific evidence. Epistemologically you are less sophisticated than most grade schoolers.
So shame away. It means nothing coming from you. You are just funny.
What hundreds of thousands of examples? You have not shown us one, nor have you explained why it favors your model.
Well there was a link to an entire database of sky wave data but why would you count that as evidence? This is much more entertaining.