The Flat Earth Society
The Flat Earth Society => Suggestions & Concerns => Topic started by: sandokhan on January 06, 2016, 08:09:13 PM
-
We're perfectly happy to make changes to the FAQ. All you need to do is write them up and put them on S&C for public approval. Once you have the members' support for your changes, I'll gladly introduce them for you.
No other member is going to support to do the right thing: delete the entire faq and start all over again using the correct FET.
As things stand right now, the most that can be done is to add another subsection here:
http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki
That is, after Frequently Asked Questions, another (new) section:
Advanced Flat Earth Theory (Flat Earth Ether Physics)
Either give me the power to edit ONLY that section (that is, I will add certain links which deal with terrestrial gravity, ether physics, and much more), or we will do it one special topic at a time right here.
-
I'll support whatever Sandokhan puts in the FAQ.
-
I mean this in the nicest way possible, Sandokhan, but I think that the FAQ is best served as a light introduction to some common questions people have that also serves as a pamphlet-like education on the topic. Your research on flat-earth theory is generally layered in waves and waves of links that come gushing at the reading like a waterfall. The topics come with little or no discernible flow that leaves the reader droning in half-concluded thoughts and advanced concepts not properly addressed.
I fear that giving you the power to directly change the FAQ will turn the document into a full-fledged, novel-sized, book of labyrinthine structure that will confuse the fact seeker more than help them.
-
For the record, I share Pongo's concern, hence my clear request that any changes be written up and approved by our members prior to being introduced. I would be very reluctant to take blanket statements like Lord Dave's into account.
-
Your FAQ has gotten you nowhere so far.
Just take a look at the questions about the ham radio distance to the moon measurements: it took five minutes to debunk the entire faq.
Now, my advanced flat earth thread is, by far, the most successful thread ever posted on any FE boards: almost 250,000 views.
I will have power ONLY in the subsection that presents the ether physics part.
I know very well how to sell an idea relating to FET, don't you worry about that.
In fact, if I only post one single link to the 14 page AFET, it will make a lot of difference.
Certainly your faq cannot answer the major questions: gravity, radio waves, venus angular size, gyroscopes, precession, and much more.
-
I know very well how to sell an idea relating to FET, don't you worry about that.
We will let the people be the judges of that. Write up your proposed FAQ. If they "buy" it, they'll support it. This is a simple concept.
-
Fine, I will write up a one page faq (most important questions) and post it here.
Then, you will create a new section (advanced flat earth theory): it will be featured there, right after the faq section.
We will let the people be the judges of that.
The people have already judged a long time ago: my AFET answers all the questions immediately, and has been tested fully in direct debates.
-
Fine, I will write up a one page faq (most important questions) and post it here.
Then, you will create a new section (advanced flat earth theory): it will be featured there, right after the faq section.
Sounds good, provided that that section will be subject to the same approval process.
We will let the people be the judges of that.
The people have already judged a long time ago: my AFET answers all the questions immediately, and has been tested fully in direct debates.
Then this will merely be a formality. If you're correct, you'll receive overwhelming support and everything will happen without a hitch.
-
Just don't forget the purpose of an FAQ. It is to stop every person who comes here asking "why do you think the earth is flat?", "what evidence do you have?", "Coriolis, ha!".
It is not meant to answer anything that anyone could possibly think of. Otherwise what will they post as their first introductory question on the forum? You also shouldn't need a PhD in physics to understand the answers. TFES should be as accessible to a 12 y/o high school kid as it is to a bored aerodynamicist on his lunch break.
Think, what type of question won't get a response from anyone because we are all so bored of it, we couldn't be bothered to answer it.
If you want to make unbunkable detailed explantions, that is what the wiki is for. The point of the FAQ is not to shut down debate. Just bridge the gap where debate would likely stall or to give people a flavour of FET so they can ask something more interesting. It is designed to encourage debate, not shut it down ... this is a forum after all. If you want to make advanced bullet-proof commentaries, that has to go in the wiki as the wiki is a reference for us to lean on during debate. The FAQ serves merely as an intro to the forums.
-
Nothing complicated, perhaps one link (or at most two links) per subject (some of them, of course, to this very site): people want direct proofs very fast, they don't have time to waste on things which don't work.
DIRECT FLAT EARTH PROOFS:
Tunguska Event Data: no curvature across 5,200 km
Lake Ontario file: no curvature across 55 km
Strait of Gibraltar (video/phot): no curvature across 13 km
English Channel: no curvature across 34 km
Lake Michigan: no curvature across 128 km
PHYSICS OF THE GEOCENTRIC PLANETARY/STELLAR SYSTEM:
Faint Young Sun Paradox
Distance to the Sun/Ham Radio Measurements Debunked
Gas Cloud Formation Paradox
Helium Flash/Triple Alpha Process Paradox
Jupiter's IR Anomalous Radiation & Angular Momentum of the Sun Paradoxes
Comets' Tail Paradox
Electric Comet Theory
Star Trails
Venus Angular Size
ETHER PHYSICS:
Ether Drift Proofs
Allais Effect Proofs and Applications
Double Forces of Attractive Gravitation Paradox
Lamoreaux Effect
DePalma Effect
Kozyrev Effect
Biefeld-Brown Effect
Restoring Forces Paradox
Geocentric Coriolis Force
Clouds Weight and Trajectories Paradoxes
Sirius Meridian Transit Points Data
Extended Schroetter Effect
SOLAR PRECESSION EXPLAINED:
Gauss' Easter Formula Applied to the Axial Precession Paradox
Archaeomagnetic Dating of the Artifacts at Pompeii
FLAT EARTH ETHER QUANTUM DYNAMICS:
Subquark Structure of the Atom
J.C. Maxwell Original Set of Ether Equations
Beam Neutrinos Explained
Ring Laser Gyroscopes Explained
-
What reader questions are you addressing with this litany of proofs?
Also, I don't think that any links should be to other flat earth society message boards (or vice-versa). It's very difficult to maintain and endorse a document that you don't have direct control over.
-
These topics seem like they're better suited as individual articles for the Wiki, not the FAQ itself.
-
Also, I don't think that any links should be to other flat earth society message boards.
A possible merger might be in the works: no problem then.
If not, I will do the following: I will put up a single link to the other website, just mention these subjects, and let the reader follow up (if they are interested).
Remember, that as things stand right now, you have NOTHING going for you over here (just like the other website): no answers whatsoever when it comes to radio waves, terrestrial gravity, beam neutrinos, and much more. Using your solar orbits maps, it becomes impossible to explain the solar precession (1.5 km per year westward shift).
These topics seem like they're better suited as individual articles for the Wiki, not the FAQ itself.
Fine, but there is a problem: they are all related to ether physics and not to the UAFE theory; that is, they belong in the same category.
There is no need to concern yourselves now with this: I am in no hurry to make any changes to your faq, just some simple suggestions.
-
For the record, I share Pongo's concern, hence my clear request that any changes be written up and approved by our members prior to being introduced. I would be very reluctant to take blanket statements like Lord Dave's into account.
I sure as hell wouldn't take my statement into account. I haven't been to the upper forums in many months. (Maybe a year?)
Nothing complicated, perhaps one link (or at most two links) per subject (some of them, of course, to this very site): people want direct proofs very fast, they don't have time to waste on things which don't work.
....
Where are the questions?
-
If you want to attract new readers, to be at the forefront of FET, you are going to have to change the wiki/faq completely (a carbon copy of the other wiki/faq).
The wiki/faq is supposed to answer questions, not baffle the reader.
A simple question was asked:
How do you explain the measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon by laser beam measurements by astronomical observatories and by the amateur radio operators in their "Moon Bounce" operations of "bouncing" radio signals off the Moon ?
Within the context of UAFE, you cannot answer this question at all.
A radio wave is an ether wave which travels/propagates through aether; the very definition of a radio wave involves at once ether physics; yet, no mention is made of this fact in any flat earth wiki/faq.
-
Nothing complicated, perhaps one link (or at most two links) per subject (some of them, of course, to this very site): people want direct proofs very fast, they don't have time to waste on things which don't work.
Looks very good.
How to strike a balance between the objective of communicating concepts requiring the capacity for abstract thinking and the objective to reach those that don't have it?
-
This is just my opinion, for what it is worth, but the faq should contain very few links. It should present a common question, a short summary that explains the flat Earth side, and maybe an illustration or two. I think it would be a bad idea if the faq simply contained links to threads, even if the thread does cover the subject of the question. You might as well just have the faq say, "Use the search function" if you expect them to read through ten pages of a thread to get the answer to their question.
-
My initial offer was to let me write the short summary; they declined.
Then, my suggestion was to at least include a single link to my AFET, the only flat earth theory that answers the most important questions.
People do not want to read about Earth is not a Globe, or countless historical references, or the obsession with the UA: they want results, proofs, exactly what the wiki/faq is missing now.
-
If you want to attract new readers, to be at the forefront of FET, you are going to have to change the wiki/faq completely (a carbon copy of the other wiki/faq).
The wiki/faq is supposed to answer questions, not baffle the reader.
A simple question was asked:
How do you explain the measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon by laser beam measurements by astronomical observatories and by the amateur radio operators in their "Moon Bounce" operations of "bouncing" radio signals off the Moon ?
Within the context of UAFE, you cannot answer this question at all.
A radio wave is an ether wave which travels/propagates through aether; the very definition of a radio wave involves at once ether physics; yet, no mention is made of this fact in any flat earth wiki/faq.
That is not a simple question.
Probably not even frequently asked.
You seem to want to create an index of all possible questions with corresponding answers. Which is fine. But it isn't an FAQ then.
-
A subsection at the end of the FAQ wouldn't go amiss. Just a final section called 'Alternative Models' or 'Further Reading,' where links to the outlines of models can be give. It doesn't interfere with the main running of the FAQ, but it acknowledges that there are other models not necessarily in line with the above. That way curious readers can still look at alternatives that don't match exactly what's outlined in the wiki.
One thing to avoid would be the kind of monopolizing that takes place on other forums, like Dubay's. "This model and only this model is correct." This site is better than most, but there's still a clearly favored model.
-
My initial offer was to let me write the short summary; they declined.
Who, when, where? Are you sure you're not talking about Daniel's site? The Wiki here (and originally the revival of Daniel's wiki, before it was snagged away from me) is my pet project, so when you say "they", you pretty much have to mean me.
You're absolutely welcome to a wiki page describing your own model, as long as it's clearly described as an alternative to the Society's model, championed primarily by you, and not the mainstream view.
Then, my suggestion was to at least include a single link to my AFET, the only flat earth theory that answers the most important questions.
Which people don't want, because you'd be linking to an external site, and specifically a site that we're somewhat at odds with. If you want to migrate your sources here (or, as above, create a Wiki page for them), that's no problem.
The only reason I'm asking that any proposed rewrites to the FAQ should be accepted by the majority is that the FAQ is supposed to be largely representative of what the Society at large believes. Currently, it is my impression that most FE'ers here disagree with you. A popular vote would be a very simple way to confirm or dismiss that concern. You continuously talking about what "people" want, however, changes nothing.
-
There is only one correct FE model: the one that works, that answers any and all questions.
Why would the FES believe in a model which can be debunked at once using very simple arguments: ham radio measurements. ring laser gyroscopes, axial precession, venus angular size and much more?
You see, presumably you and your colleagues opened this site to achieve/accomplish something different (not referring to a better moderation, or a different look).
You want to be the best, to be at the very forefront of FE research.
My AFET has received over 245000 views so far: a sure sign it works, people are interested.
If you want this site to achieve the same success, you must change things: imagine having one day more viewers and users than the other site.
The fastest way to do this is to change the FAQ by removing the stuff that does not work, that has been shown to be false in countless threads over the past 8 years.
-
Sandokhan, at this point you're just saying the same thing over and over. It's great that you think your model is the best, but, quite frankly, most people disagree with you. Until that changes (and I'm giving you a very fair chance to prove that it has), replacing the FAQ with your theory is a no-go.
And no, you repeating once more that your theory is better than the one in FAQ won't change my mind, either.
-
Further to the above, your "my thread has views, therefore it's good" argument is completely moot. Your thread is simply very old, so of course it accrued views over time. However, even if we assumed that views directly imply endorsement, you're simply far behind the FES FAQ.
If you look at the top viewed threads on the old site, you will find that there are two copies of the FAQ (outdated compared to ours, containing far fewer answers) - one with 432706 views, and one with 410200. Even if we assume that these can't be summed up, your thread doesn't even come close in the view count.
Finally, our much younger version of the FAQ accrued 121824 views over 2 years (~60,000/year), compared to your 245079 over 6.5 years (~37,700/year). The numbers really don't speak in your favour.
-
The official faq has received that many views because each and every newcomer must read it.
It is only being read once.
It has never changed for the past eight years.
My AFET always includes new material, the information that viewers want to read.
It is located in least known section of the entire forum, yet it attracts the most new viewers by far.
Rest assured that had my AFET been required reading for each visitor, the number of views would exceed now at least one million.
I repeat, if you want this forum to go beyond what any other FE website has tried so far, you are going to have to do things differently.
-
The official faq has received that many views because each and every newcomer must read it.
Not ours, no. We don't auto-redirect people to the FAQ.
I repeat, if you want this forum to go beyond what any other FE website has tried so far, you are going to have to do things differently.
And I also repeat:
And no, you repeating once more that your theory is better than the one in FAQ won't change my mind, either.
Write up your FAQ like you said you would, post it in a thread, and have people approve or disapprove in a vote. It's really that simple.
-
You still don't get it.
The faq that you support does not answer any of the most important questions re: FET.
Why do I have to save the day for both these websites each and every time questions like the gravitational anomalies, beam neutrinos, radio wave measurements, radar, orbital equations, and much more, come up?
It is bizarre, to say the least, to have to rely on TWO ROUND EARTH CONCEPTS, relativity and dark energy, to explain the UA.
Can you explain the ham radio distance to the moon measurements thread?
You cannot.
But I can.
Without the ether physics, you have very little going for you.
Let me remind you of another basic fact: in your unipolar map, the sun's orbit is bounded between the two tropics. Since the sun does undergo a westward shift of 1.5 km per day, and since the distance between the two tropics is some 6000 km, it means that after 4000 years the sun will exceed its present day boundaries.
If my AFET is not up to your standards, then, by all means, do come up with an improved version of FET using ether.
-
If my AFET is not up to your standards, then, by all means, do come up with an improved version of FET using ether.
I didn't say that. I said that the community should decide. Once you've written up your FAQ and the people accepted it, it'll be put up on the Wiki with no delay.
-
If my AFET is not up to your standards, then, by all means, do come up with an improved version of FET using ether.
I didn't say that. I said that the community should decide. Once you've written up your FAQ and the people accepted it, it'll be put up on the Wiki with no delay.
Perhaps a good test will be a draft FAQ, and then the community shares what they understood from it: Sandokhan can say if they're accurate. One of the most important functions of an FAQ is to inform clearly and, no offense intended to Sandokhan, but when I look at his posts it's often incredibly hard to work out what's going on.
That could just be the unavoidable effect of advanced science, but in that case it's possible an FAQ format wouldn't be feasible.
-
All I would say is don't lose sight of what an FAQ is for.
It is bait. It isn't supposed to be the de facto answer to everything. We want people to ask questions. We want them to engage with us. A flawed FAQ is a good thing. As counter-intuitive as it sounds, you don't want to answer every question. You want people to find faults, to question. To engage. A perfect FAQ is death. People get answers and leave.
The point of an FAQ is it is a starting point. The reason they find a flaw and question it. Engage with members of the forum and realise it isn't insanity. There are smart people here. People you want to find out more about, their motives, their beliefs. The FAQ is a hook. It needs to be imperfect. It is imperfect by design. A newbie needs to find an obvious flaw and post. Only then is it an opportunity to interact. Don't build an impenetrable field. FES is strong because people can be a part if it. Not because it is inaccessible.
-
245,000 views and no one still believes in your model.
Doesn't that make you pause and ask why?
-
245,000 views and no one still believes in your model.
Doesn't that make you pause and ask why?
On that other site there are over 500 bots 'reading' articles as I type. Views for posts on that site mean absolutely nothing. They just become a function of time. It is an old thread, it has a lot of views.