Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jack44556677

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Searching for Flat Earth Model Information
« on: January 13, 2021, 06:23:48 PM »

There is no flat earth model, not in a scientific sense of the word.  There are many potential and proposed ideas for a model, but that is it. I highly recommend the wiki here for a general overview of some of the ideas/concepts around.

Models are a big part of what got us into this mess, and they will not be helping us to dig our way out.  Most flat earth researchers devote their time to more meaningful/useful endaevours than playing with models.

That said, your list of questions is good and you should attempt to answer them for the presumptive model you are playing apologist for!  If done earnestly, it should be enlightening.

Here are the honest answers below, though they have nothing to do with the shape of the earth and are correct regardless of the conceptions thereof.

1. What is the diameter of the Earth?

No one has any idea.  For the earth to have a diameter at all, it must be circular in some fashion.  The basic shape of the world is not known, or measured.  Many people have CALCULATED this believed "diameter" but no one has ever measured or confirmed it in any way.

2. What height above the Earth is the Sun at?

No one has any idea.  You would ALSO need to measure this, but no method has been devised to do so (though there are some that BELIEVE they can through mere calculation with no validation).  Parallax does not work for the lights in the sky (and most all distant objects).

3. At what radius dose the Sun rotate around? (I.e. how far is the Sun rotational path from the center of the earth?)

It is suspected that it moves in an oscillating but mostly circular (possibly many ellipses, like a spiro-graph) path that is roughly the size of the equator.  It varies in height/distance as well as radius over the year, but the average/center/median would seem to be, essentially, the equator.  The distance from the center of the earth (if such a thing exists - humanity has no idea) to the center of the sun (if such a thing exists) is completely unknown and a wildly fanciful question. It has the same answer as 2.

3. What’s the diameter of the Sun?

No one has any idea.  We (humanity) don't know the composition, mechanism, distance, size, exact shape, or nature of the sun.  We teach children we do, but we lie to those poor children - early and often.

4. What height above the Earth is the Moon at?

Also unknown, it would have to be measured first.  Contrary to popular opinion, and massive television advertising to the contrary, nothing like that has ever happened in reality.

5. At what radius dose the Moon rotate around?

It is also thought to be similar to the suns's, albeit with a slightly different speed around the track. 

6. What’s the diameter of the Moon?

See question 3 and replace "sun" with "moon".  The lights in the sky are a complete mystery to us, and rather than convey that honestly to ourselves and children - we decided to lie about it rather than appear uninformed and ignorant. "We don't know" is the honest answer to most questions, and you rarely hear it in the classroom.  "Best guess" religious mythology is inserted in its place and disingenuously and erroneously presented as "science fact".

Flat earth research is largely about identifying, critically evaluating, and ultimately excising belief from knowledge.  Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.  Much of what we were taught, especially as small children, was untrue and much more was religious/philosophical dogma being passed off under the guise of science to children.  This subject is about the following 3 questions, in my view :

1.  What do you know (with certainty)?
2.  How do you know what you know (and how do you derive that certainty)?
3.  How do you share what you know (and that certainty) with others?

If you critically evaluate the questions you BELIEVE you know the answers to (because of conditioning through rote under the guise of education from childhood), you will find that you do not "know" these things with any certainty - and no one in the world does, they merely parrot them as they are required to, to matriculate.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Are Flat Earther's Afraid of Aliens?
« on: January 09, 2021, 07:08:19 AM »

I suppose I deserved that for invoking the pop-psy fiction of "projection" - in jest I should add.  However, I don't think this one applies to me - do you have an example or is this just one of your go-to derogatories for any "flat earthers"?

We'll be glad to listen to your flat earth theories

The royal we?

I wasn't being ironic.  Things that directly contradict "truths you hold to be self evident", like the sphericity of the world, are extremely pretty wild/alien.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Motivation to believe in flat earth?
« on: January 08, 2021, 04:50:38 PM »

Well, this is the absolute opposite of my base believe. For me the earth is neither unique nor special, it's just special for us because we live there.
I think with such a different base believe it's no surprise to come to different conclustions.

Belief is unwelcome (and across purposes) in knowledge/fact, most of all scientific.  You are, of course, permitted to believe any fantasy you like - but the science is clear and undeniable; the earth is the only place like it and there is ONLY data attesting to this fact.  There are weak statistical arguments that there may be other objects with similar size, but we have no idea what they are / how far away they are / or if they have anything in common with the earth (nor will we in the conceivable future).  The belief you profess is most likely not your own (not organic), it was taught to you and many others through conditioning through rote under the guise of education.  The anti-intellectual/anti-science worship of aliens and sci-fi is required in the religion of scientism.

I fully agree with this opinion.

Then why do you feel it is an opinion? It is a contemporarily and historically demonstrable fact.

Even knowing, that my way of thinking can lead me to a wrong direction sometimes, it's the only one I personally  can rely on.

Yes, and often what we are taught to know is wrong.  This is also an obvious contemporarily and historically demonstrable fact.

I read a lot about experiments related to flat water level.

Cool.  However you should be aware that there is no experiment that has anything to do with the shape of the world.  Experiment is not used in any way to determine the shape of physical objects in reality.  People who talk (and are taught) about experiment this way, don't even know the proper definition - let alone other fundamentals of the scientific method.

This experiments are claimed by both (RE'er and FE'er) to proof their position.

Experiment has a rigorous and inflexible definition.  It is scientific technical vernacular, and you are using it incorrectly (as were the people you encountered who claimed their mere measurements/observations were experiments).  I agree that pointing to these measurements as proof of the shape of the entire world is deluded and indefensible.

Explanation is based on optical effects

It simply MUST be, otherwise it contradicts their religious worldviews.  That presumptive/default/apologist "explaination" is one of the reasons that globe believers don't critically evaluate their beliefs, or conduct science to get to the bottom of the issue.  They just stick their fingers in their ears and repeat the holy prayer mantra of "refraction" to keep the "bad data" at bay.

However, the natural law of water's surface always being flat at rest easily empirically proves that water does not and (due to its fundamental properties) cannot curve in the sustained convex manner that the globe requires.  The belief that the water does curve (because it simply MUST in the minds of the devout) the way the globe model requires has never been confirmed/measured in empirical science even once in all of human history.  It's not science, it's merely speculation as it always was.  The natural law is inarguable, has stood unchallenged for centuries in hydrostatics, and can be demonstrated by anyone at any time.  The belief in "curv-a-level" and bendy water are just religious dogmas misrepresented as "scientific fact" to children.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Are Flat Earther's Afraid of Aliens?
« on: January 06, 2021, 09:23:17 PM »
I think some flat earthers are more afraid of "alien" ideas than extraterrestrials themselves.

You may be projecting?

The flat earth researchers ARE the ones evaluating/conceiving the "alien" ideas, and the presumptive model proponents aren't even allowed to earnestly evaluate anything that challenges their dogmas.  "Where are the published journal articles?", "Where are the double blind nsf funded trials?" they cry - oblivious that their learned questions are disearnest and the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you".

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Motivation to believe in flat earth?
« on: January 06, 2021, 02:41:30 PM »
Hey there! Welcome!

I asked myself, what would be if my highest believe is that the place where I live must be unique and special. Then I probably would not care if everything can be explained, I would acknowledge that we cannot understand everything.

Regardless of the shape of the world, both things are obviously true and must be accepted by the knowledgable/learned.  The earth is indeed unique and special, as is the life that is only found there. We also all must acknowledge that we cannot understand everything (and furthermore, many of the things we currently "understand" are incorrect).

Most discussions I see is about the model - but maybe that's not the most important thing?

It almost certainly is not! There is no alternative model to discuss or evaluate, nor would that be an important thing to begin with.

Does the model convince you? Or is it anything else?

The only model is the presumptive one (the globe model), there are no others - though there are more than a few conceptions (embryonic / fledgling models if you wish) out there to peruse and consider.

Personally, I do not know what shape the entire world is but I have concluded it (most likely) is not and cannot be spherical.  The most straightforward reason is that water's surface at rest (under natural conditions, and of non minuscule surface area) is always flat, level, and horizontal.  It never curves in the sustained convex manner the globe model requires, nor has anyone ever measured it to. Furthermore, whenever water's surface at rest IS measured, it is always flat, level, and horizontal.

The posit that the earth is spherical is little more than an unvalidated assumption over 2 millennia old.  That is the reason no one knows who determined the world was spherical, when, or how (and the names they do know - like eratosthenes and columbus - are wrong). It's because it never occurred.  It was simply taught as fact, erroneously and disingenuously, to children for millennia.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earthers - a few words?
« on: January 03, 2021, 09:43:30 AM »

what precisely were you taught about the setting sun or stars as evidence for RE

The optical illusion known as "setting".

The first "proof" I was ever offered was the setting of boats, the sun, and stars. 

It was explained that because the objects disappear from the bottom up, the earth must be curved and that curve must be blocking our view.  Was that not the way you were (initially) taught? How about yourself?

and what precisely made you come to the conclusion that it was bunk?

First was simple logical evaluation.  The statement is flawed and based on circular logic.  I see "insert whatever here" therefore the world is spherical / The world is spherical because I see "insert whatever here".

Second was more rigorous evaluation of the claim (and unvalidated assumptions thereof).

Does the curve get in the way? How can we tell that? Has anyone ever verified that, and if so - how did they do it? Could there be other known reasons why the object merely APPEARS to disappear from the bottom up that do not involve a "hill" being in the way?

I asked questions like these, and did research which yielded surprising results!  No globe proofs withstand much critical scrutiny, which in and of itself is interesting.  The RE proponent knows in their heart that this is because the world is much too large to measure or take pictures of, but their undue certainty is derived from faith - not proof or evidence.  Most people go their whole lives without ever seriously critically evaluating these things, and it is little wonder they are unprepared to defend the globe adequately or prevent themselves being swept up in alternative belief-based/religious worldviews.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How the Earth Moves (Round Earther)
« on: December 27, 2020, 12:12:22 AM »
Hello! My name is Jake, and I am currently working on my PhD in Physics at Purdue University.

Welcome! You sound like you could be ideal to join the discussion and study this subject.

I have [most] always viewed Flat Earthers as ignorant ... [but] perhaps they are just misinformed and/or confused.

That's progress, albeit tiny, in the right direction! Next step, actually considering and objectively evaluating some of these claims in earnest, accepting/recognizing they may well be possibilities and you may well be wrong currently.  I'm sure I don't have to extoll to a physics phd the benefits of devotion to objectivity and the eschewing of bias whenever possible.  Part of that is testing wild (even stupid, to a layman) things, don't you agree?

That being said, it’s understandable that there will be people who question things.

We call those people many names, one of which is scientist.

I respect everyone who has that drive to learn and seek truth.

Earnestly and with the intention to share, yes; I agree.

I would like to cover something interesting I heard when listening to a Flat Earth livestream.

Livestreams. Ooo boy. Fair enough, however you must realize that the views you heard may not be held by anyone here.  The wiki here is an excellent place to begin getting a taste of the multitude of various views and ideas there are out there.

Flat earth research is a slightly different animal/subject than you're formally trained for.  It has no colleges, no textbooks (yet, anyhow), no popes or deans. Flat earth researchers are mostly unaffiliated individuals with, often, wildly differing approaches, views, and conclusions on the subject. Autodidacticism is not optional, and strong independent research skills are required - which sadly, few have.  You, I suspect - ought to have them in some abundance, at least the research ability.

I'm quite interested to hear your perspectives, seeing as gravitation (as taught and understood by the vast majority) is often erroneously seen as a "logical" reason the earth couldn't possibly be any other shape than the one they learned as children.  Even if the earth was a sphere because gravity is real, or (were it true) because nature prefers spheres; The earth (like all physical objects) can only be determined to be spherical one way, and it isn't through persuasive argument (gum flapping) while sitting around. It's by rigorous and repeated measurement alone.

As I am writing my thesis on gravitation, I thought I might answer this question for you all in a way anyone can understand!

Cool.  There is a big difference between knowing something extremely well and being able to share it with others, especially uninitiated/novices.  I'm not sure how many people here are struggling with the concept of reference frames, but I know it is a lot.

Please note, I am going to do my best to explain this while relating to the beliefs of a Flat Earther and will omit as much math as I can.

Like most subjects, belief is across purposes.  Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.  The "best" researchers in this subject seek to know, and many - like myself (and possibly you as well?) also seek to identify and eliminate belief (a major source for bias) whenever possible.

One thing that the Flat Earthers agree on

"Flat earther" is more or less a derogatory that very few self-ascribe to.  There is no consensus, or uniformity.  There are even some who speculate that the world IS spherical, but much larger than we assume - as well as those that conclude (and sometimes measure!) the earth to be an inverted sphere that we live on the inside surface of.  There is virtually nothing that every one of the individual researchers agree on, even with only minor majority, except perhaps that our conceptions of the worlds shape are or, at least, may be wrong.

Many flat earth researchers speculate that the planets are also flat, but this is due to rationalization/cognitive dissonance of remnant astronomical/cosmological mythology they haven't totally identified and excised (hopefully yet!).  Many more speculate/deduce/conclude that there are no planets at all the way we and hollywood conceive and depict them.

Going on this same line of thought, we know that black holes exist because of the picture we have taken of one!

Ever wonder why that picture was so hyped? Do you know/ have a sense of how much it costs to hype a "picture" like that across the media channels in such a ubiquitous way?  You, the curious scientist, may feel - of course that is front page news! But the rest of us, very much don't.  Why was it so important to show these people this "picture"?  Also, this is not the first "picture" touted of a black hole that made the rounds in a major way through the media outlets.  There is no solid evidence that black holes do or can exist.  I side with einstein on this one, and a select few other things.

then it must also be possible that there must be

Cool phrasing. It sounds like a provisional but is an absolute in disguise! It's possible that there must be - that's tasty rhetoric.

We can (and have) actually physically see that light can be manipulated by gravity.

No, this is a mistake/lie that they teach us.  There is no experimental validation (scientific support) of that statement whatsoever. Experimentally, light's path can only be altered by direct interaction with matter.  You may argue pedantically and irrelevantly for diffraction, but please do not unless you feel you must.

This attraction must therefore be due to the object at the center of the galaxy.

Incorrect.  What you have there is merely a speculative hypothesis (at best), which now needs experimental validation or refutation.  This is, fundamentally, why astronomy is largely pseudoscience mythology and not science.  It (largely) cannot and does not adhere to the scientific method, and ergo is not a part of science.

We believe this to be a supermassive black hole

Correct!  But don't you know that belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific?  Why are you believing in things, and why are small children (most who will never be astronomers) being taught these beliefs as "facts" under the guise of science when they are not?

I tried my best to explain this in a way Flat Earthers could understand, sorry if some things seem confusing, it’s difficult to explain these things without math.

You'll be more effective if you answer questions you are asked, address/respond to content found here (not a random podcast with some people claiming - or you have mistaken - to speak for "flat earthers"), or pipe in to an existing conversation with a clarification / your perspective if you think it edifying and/or clarifying.

There is much I wish to discuss with you, on the other hand - but like you on the other side of the keyboard I simply do not know where to begin.  Talk of gravitational lensing and black holes being a hoax is fun, and important, but somewhat tangential to the discussion at hand.  At the end of the day it is a research challenge.  Can you validate the existence of either of those things scientifically/experimentally, and can anyone? The answer to both questions is no, but you may not have put the research hours in to determine that adequately for yourself yet.

I think any discussion about science should start out with some agreement on functional definition of terms for the purposes of the discussion.  I find that the working definitions for science, scientific method, hypothesis, and experiment are at the core of science and discussion thereof.  I have found that most people, including many scientists, have incorrect or broken (not working) definitions and so I think we should start here - assuming you are interested in discussing this topic!

What are your (personal/working) definitions for the following words? I will include my, working/functional, definitions.

Science : That which adheres rigorously to the scientific method (with the caveat of natural law which is established solely through rigorous and repeated measurement), and colloquially to the body of knowledge which that method produces.

Scientific Method : (has many fringes, but the bones are)
1. Observe a phenomenon.
2. Hypothesize a cause for the observed phenomenon.
3. Experimentally validate, invalidate, or neither (when it really borks) the hypothesis.

Hypothesis : (There are MANY more criteria here for a VALID hypothesis, but this is the core)

A speculation on the cause of an observed phenomenon and the expected influence of manipulating that cause on the observed phenomenon for the sole purpose of being experimentally validated/refuted (ideally).

Experiment :

A procedure which validates or invalidates a hypothesis by establishing a causal link (ideally) between a hypothesized cause/IV/Independent Variable that you manipulate and the hypothesized effect/DV/Dependent Variable that you only monitor.

I have found that with the correct working definitions you can begin to discern science from pseudoscience (including the belief mentioned above) masquerading as it.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Anime?
« on: December 26, 2020, 06:15:21 PM »
I cannot second made in abyss enough.  It's great; a bitter allegorical pill coated in a thin anime trope facade.  The only trouble is it is unfinished, and the second season is still a long way off (suffering for years now).

I also enjoyed soul eater for various reasons - probably chiefly because I watched dbz as a kid.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earthers - a few words?
« on: December 25, 2020, 03:44:43 AM »
At the start of the podcast, me and my co-host were not convinced

Not convinced of what? What was the podcast about if not the views of flat earth researchers?

but I was wondering if anyone in here could tell me why they believe the earth is flat and how you began your journey as a flat earther?

I can't speak for anyone but myself - however this subject/topic, like most all of them, is hindered by belief.

Many flat earth researchers make a critical distinction between belief and knowledge.  The earnest ones that I have encountered accept and recognize that no one has the verified and verifiable data to determine the shape of the entire world.  As such, many consider themselves (as I do) to be globe skeptics or globe deniers.  We have evidence that the earth is not spherical, and cannot be, but we do not know the shape of the entire thing.

We (most) ALL start with the indoctrinated belief, a dogma, that the world is round.  The belief is that the world is round (spherical), and it is millennia old.

Ideally, if one is endeavoring to research objectively AND successful, once you become a flat earth researcher your days of believing the world is round, flat, or any other shape are over.  Sadly, this is often not the case and many waft helplessly (understandably) from one belief to another with habitual/characteristic zealotry and fervence.

I began noodling this topic casually after learning about the scourge of scientism.  I began more diligent research when I discovered that the proof I was taught (as a child) was bunk (setting sun/boat/stars illusion).

Most all of the "proofs" that exist, and have ever existed, supporting the globe belief/posit are only effective at (and likely designed for) fooling children. They don't bare critical scrutiny, and it is not coincidence we do not hear or talk about them except for in that classroom as children.

I read up on The Bedford Level Experiment, and the society itself and if I'm being honest, I don't think it matters if the Earth was flat or not

That is the way most people feel! Because the shape of the world is inconsequential to everyday (i.e. terrestrial) life (including science), it is very easy to feel that it simply doesn't matter.

However, it might be more consequential to everyday life if, for one hypothetical instance of many, there was more land than we have been told there is...  Don't you agree?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: December 17, 2020, 02:56:11 PM »

Thank you for your responses! I owe you all responses in kind - that will be forthcoming - but I thought this response to the OP ought come first.


I just need some way to categorize people! :)

You really don't, and you reduce/dehumanize them attempting to do so.  If you MUST put the people into stifling little boxes, at least try your best to make them fit.

I propose GEP (globe earth proponent) and GED/GES (globe earth denier / globe earth skeptic) or perhaps REP and RED/RES.

We should all humbly admit our own bias

It is harder than simply "admitting", sadly.  First you must make the implicit explicit, then evaluate it objectively (ALSO no small feat), THEN you have the chance to possibly "humbly admit" your recognized (the tricky bit) bias.

We should earnestly and diligently try to find our own biases and help each other to point out the ones we inevitably miss!  There is no shame in recogizing our subjective nature and great harm in denying it.  We ought to be able to point out/criticize one anothers biases and offer thanks for the service.

Speaking of common ground, we all need to back up our claims.

And just like that, a long meandering tangential thread returns to its central topic! The burden of proof falls on the claimant.  We all need to defend, explain, and support our positions - however citing published journal articles (nor any other particular source) is not required to do that.

I never avoid supplying sources / validation for obfuscation.  If I know of a good source that can help explain more adequately than the detail I include - I am most happy to include it.  In any case, strong independent research skills are vital and required in this subject (in truth, they are vital for all subjects and shamefully neglected by most)

There are many approaches to think about the shape of the Earth.

Endless, yes. But that's only in THINKING about the shape of the earth.  Actually determining it only has the one way - rigorous and repeated measurement (of the world, not the sky or any other damned thing that is NOT the world)!

It's counter-productive for anyone to call someone else's approach a red herring.

Not when it is!  When the line of thinking/inquiry IS in fact red herring - letting others know is extremely productive - if only in saving time from being wasted.

it looks like possibly 10-20% of Americans might believe the moon landings were faked.

I suspect it is somewhere around 30.  In england and other "friendly" european nations, the percentage is higher - around or above 50.

The Conspiracy: Thomas Baron
Statistically speaking, coincidences are inevitable. That's why a single coincidence is not strong evidence.

The longer you live the better you will likely learn/internalize that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.  In any case, the thomas baron "incident" is not a sole example demonstrating "fishy" things surrounding apollo.

There are statistical methods to answer whether a pattern of events is coincidental or meaningful.

Your bias rears its ugly head.  There are methods to ESTIMATE - not answer nor determine.

In any case, statistically or otherwise, there is no reason to conclude the thomas baron incident is "merely coincidence".  You can argue that it is merely suspicious, and not "proof" of anything in particular - but when the independent oversight's family is murdered and all copies of the exhaustive and recently completed scathingly critical report mysteriously vanish - it is hardly a wild leap to conclude/deduce/speculate that something is very rotten in denmark.

The Conspiracy: Mars Rat

But you do not know it is a rat.

Sure, in the same way that you do not KNOW that it is a picture from mars.

It is plain to see, however - which is why this is, perhaps, the quintessential example.  There is maybe no better worshack/litmus for the "space madness" than this picture.

Any child or otherwise unindoctrinated/unconditioned/uninfluenced person will tell you it is a rat in that photo.  "Double blind", that is a rat.  I agree that does not certainly make it a rat, but this highlights the problems with pictures as evidence more than anything else.

ONLY the "educated"/conditioned interpret the photo in an unnatural/corrupted manner - required as a dogma of their faith.  No dissent, discussion, or further investigation is permissible.  It's a rock... It simply has to be... Otherwise - "houston, we have a problem".

When rocks look like other things, they still look like rocks. Paradoilla is defensible in the case of the picture of the lizard (due to its natural camouflage to blend in with rocks), but not with the rat.

Societal Opression

If I've only learned one thing here, it's that we as a society have not been welcoming enough to FET.

One of the first things we learn as young children is the lie that our primitive ancestors thought the world was flat and were afraid to fall off the edge if they sailed too far.  We are conditioned to mock and deride anyone who questions our modern "advanced wisdom" of the shape of the earth (or most anything else) from a shamefully tender age.  This is not coincidence, and is the reason there is the opposite of "welcoming" and consideration/evaluation for this subject.

Mark said, "no scientific journal or phd student would risk their livlehood researching [FET]". This couldn't be farther from the truth!

I hope that you are right and there are those with the bravery and conviction to risk all for the benefit of mankind - however my experience with reality (including academia) has been distinctly less grandiose.  People generally do what the money tells them to because they are too poor to object.

If there was a technically feasible experiment that could challenge the theory the earth is a globe, someone would conduct it.

There are many such observations (NOT experiments, as we have discussed) that can and have been made in the past.  I will leave the puzzle of why they are not replicated to you.  Personally, I think discovery happens wherever you look thoroughly, and it is through philosophy/creation myth that we influence where/how to look and the bounds on what can be hoped to be found.  The reason the research groups don't take a chance on measuring the shape of the world rigorously (which would almost certainly garner them some attention!), is because their creation myth/philosophy/world view informs them there is no need to.

But the bottom line is, you cannot claim that academia is acting oppressively against FET without evidence.

The evidence is in every primary school in the world.  As I explained, it is one of the first things all students learn.

since the 1st amendment (apologies if you aren't American) protects the freedom of speech.

Does it though? (he asks, knowingly)

Would anyone mind sharing instances that this happened to you?

I can direct you to many threads containing demonstration/examples of common/typical responses to flat earth research.  Dissent is not tolerated, and many people froth at the mouth as a result of their conditioning to that effect through rote under the guise of education.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the round earth hoax?
« on: November 29, 2020, 04:13:05 PM »
No "global" hoax or conspiracy is required for humanity to be stupid and wrong as it always is.

The assumption that the earth was spherical was first posited by someone that sat on their ass (while diddling their boy slaves, undoubtedly) and made it up over 2000 years ago.  It shouldn't cause any shock that they were wrong (or at least easily/likely could be), and only minor shock at the fact that prior to nasa et al (if you believe everything you see on tv) that the assumption had never been validated by anyone, ever.

There is still a lot of (indoctrination towards) ancient greek worship about (and the pedophilia they so adored...). It is the foundation of fraternities and many other "traditions" and is generally rife within "academia".  One can't help but wonder what else about the world might be different if they had spent less time fondling, admiring, and worshipping each others balls thousands of years ago (and things they imagined resembled them with no adequate reasons or reasoning)

Perhaps we were too busy venerating/idolizing instead of scrutinizing.  One of the MANY flaws of the modernists is they stupidly think that there is no reason to study the past.  The foundations of science are back there, and what egregious flaw (that we have grandfathered in, due to greek ball worship and other things) is inevitably there will only be found through rigorous scrutiny/critical evaluation.

The existence of a hoax, or not, is irrelevant to the shape of the earth, and to determining it with certainty.  Discussion of conspiracy and hoax, although entertaining at times, is red herring and distraction from the real topic at hand.

Speaking of which, back to the OP's question.

IF there were a conspiracy to hide the true shape of their world from "average citizens/employees/peasants" it would likely be for the purposes of warfare and domination.

For example, we know now that the american continent was well known by the aristocracy in europe for centuries (if not millennia) before columbus, was likely the source of the copper from the bronze age, and was on many of their maps.

It was very important to them to lie to their slaves/employees/citizens/peasants to stop them from leaving to try and have a better lot in life (or at least the possibility for one).

In war, there are really only two things - topography and subterfuge, and bad maps tick both boxes in a major way.

What if there were somewhere better to go? Just hypothetically of course ;)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 24, 2020, 03:36:21 PM »

I suppose there are many things that "we can never replicate or validate." Does that make everything we cannot replicate and validate invalid?

Not by itself, no.  However the default position is best one of skepticism.  Until something is adequately proven (for, to, and by yourself), you should continue to remember that it is speculation at best.

Virtually all of the things in the "journal of irreproducible results" are fiction.  If it can't be demonstrated (and/or replicated), it is most likely fiction.

I know of the case about a "moon rock" given to an ambassador (I think Denmark) that turned out to be petrified wood, or something like that

That (or something very much like it) did happen, yes. If you want to believe in sci-fi fantasy, it is easy enough to ignore all of reality to do so. Ignoring a few "outliers" like this hardly proves a challenge to the devout.

And I get there is certainly not an easy way to validate the provenance, but I wouldn't say we don't have "evidence" for said provenance

There is no way to validate it short of returning to the moon, repeatedly and independently.

There is no evidence of "space" writ large except for what we see on tv, and a few terrestrially composed "rocks" at least some of which are petrified wood.

It's just that some believe that evidence is part of the conspiracy. Which is, of course, debatable unto itself.

Some people choose to trust the untrustworthy government against all reason, history, and common sense.  It is those gullible and deluded people that choose to believe what is shown on the tv is reality.  We have a lot of evidence of the fraud/hoax, and certainly the petrified wood is a small part of that, but the real trouble is that people believe ("know" without validation/verification).  They believe instead of know.

And I have yet to come across anything that stands out as something that can't be explained.

And you are most unlikely to.  Do you know what cognitive dissonance is? There is a lot of confusion out there on what it is, so even if you do - your definition/understanding may not be correct... Cognitive dissonance essentially assures that you will always find the "proper explanation" even when one doesn't exist.  It's easy to "debunk" and not in any way objective analysis or competent/objective investigation.

If you have a juicy, favorite compilation, incident, whathaveyou, pass it along. I always like reviewing those.

Ugh, I feel the opposite way.  The most quintessential demonstration of the hoax is the rat on mars, which you should check out if you have not seen.  You are required to interpret the picture as "pareidolia", but objectively evaluated - it is in no way a rock.

What government agency hasn't?

Exactly! The MIC is not your friend, and lies routinely.  They are not to be trusted.

I know of no natural law that states "space" does not and cannot exist. What natural law are you referring to?

The law is ancient. It is often phrased "nequaquam vacuum" and roughly translates to "nature abhors a vacuum".

Many natural laws are violated by the fantasy/mythology of the "infinite sky vacuum of outer space" above our heads.  Chief among them, are the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the natural behavior of gas (gas law).

The water wringing is just as likely, if not more so, actual water wringing and not CGI.

I might agree with you, if the footage didn't look so fake and nothing remotely like it has ever been done in decades of the vomit comet...

Just because something could be convincingly replicated in a computer generated manner doesn't mean it was.

True, and vice versa!

There's no evidence that it wasn't a guy wringing water in a zero G environment inside the ISS.

Except that water wrung in "zero g" doesn't look like that (see vomit comet) and whatever we see as the iss in the sky is much too large (visible with the naked eye), most likely not inhabited/inhabitable, and certainly not weightless.

As for sklylab, there are many clips that exceed the durational limitations of the Vomit Comet type simulations

Not to my knowledge.  In any case, quality splicing is feasible - especially retroactively and some weightlessness is not faked using the vomit comet.  The "amazing"/hollywood-esque footage of free floating arial somersaults and the like are all short and most likely vomit comet.

Evidence of such is crucial, none to be found here.

Except of course for all the evidence, which is essentially solely the footage itself (and analysis thereof) - the only "evidence" of space writ large.

I don't really get this.

That's because you need the "evidence" and without it you have to recognize/accept that the assumption the earth is spherical is still unvalidated today - as it always was.

So for FET to remain viable it must discount all of the engineering, data, images, videos, launches, probes, landings, etc., as fakery and that would require a conspiracy.

Not really.  The shape of the world has nothing to do with a conspiracy or lack thereof.

I'm not saying the entirety of FET, but I have yet to come across any NASA-believing FET proponents. So it does seem that FET is heavily reliant upon the conspiracy.

They certainly exist.  However, when you begin to objectively evaluate the "space program"/"space age"/"cold war" you find profound hoax and fraud - it is only the earnest, objective, and critical evaluation that is lacking in most "common" people.  The conspiracy of nasa, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the shape of the world - nor determining it with certainty.

The abject (and foolish/gullible/credulous) appeal to authority required to consider the nasa footage evidence of anything is profound and unacceptable to any earnest researcher.  This is a discussion about science, and nasa footage isn't science.  Science must also be repeatable, which is another reason nothing is scientific about "space".

This is incorrect, they did test spacesuits with humans in a vacuum and in one instance almost killed a guy:

Interesting! Perhaps that's why they stopped!  If this were in any way real, there would be several manned tests in as powerful a vacuum as we could muster before field use.  We don't do that, and never have.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 23, 2020, 04:04:13 PM »

I live in Calgary where we can see the mountains that start 40 miles away (as the crow flies) as clear as a bell.

Yes. Because of the density gradient in the air, the angle you look through it alters/determines how far you can see.  Of course you can see objects beyond the horizon, but not behind it!  The horizon also exists on land, even when there are mountains in the distance. The horizon in that case is what the bottom of the mountain is compressed/obscured into.


Jack, I don’t mean to be rude and hope you won’t be offended

Excellent, I feel the same way! Rudeness is mostly about lack of courtesy/empathy.  In this case, the courtesy you are lacking is in properly understanding before criticizing and recommending diminutive remedial action/"coursework" of your enlightened choosing. 

I do not wish for you to misunderstand my tone, which is intended to be playful and somewhat scathingly sarcastic.  I am very difficult to offend, and encourage others (and myself) to speak their hearts and minds freely without censure.  I encourage the ruthless/vicious attack of all thoughts and though I do not condone ad hominem, I am most functionally impervious to it (as we all should be).

but air pollution where you live must be appalling.

Though air "quality" (composition, density, refractive index etc.) has everything to do with what we are discussing, you seem to be misunderstanding.  The reason we can't see beyond the few miles is to do with the air itself (and the intensity of the distant light source of course), and requires no added help from man made particulate/pollution.  When I say we can't see more than a few miles under normal weather conditions, I am talking about specifically towards the horizon - looking through the densest air.

Furthermore, at night I can watch the moon and stars setting on the horizon, and how far away are these? A few miles?

This is a very interesting, and highly relevant unanswered question!  One of the reasons I mentioned the 200 mile maximum vision limit (this includes aid / magnification), is to help dispel the common misconception, fostered and encouraged through the pseudoscience mythology of astronomy, that we can (and ought) to be able to see forever.  We can't. Through the thinnest air on the surface of the earth, the farthest you can see is around 200 miles.

This does strongly suggest, if not prove, that the lights in the sky are far closer than we have assumed (due to the mythology of astronomy erroneously/disingenuously presented to us as science since childhood), however there is less and less air straight above us to interact/obstruct and we have no idea what the initial/source brightnesses are. 

Light attenuates without any matter in the way.  This is because light is a pressure wave.  Light doesn't travel forever, much to the chagrin of the high priests of astronomy that fancy themselves scientists.

Sorry to be blunt.

You spoke your heart and mind earnestly and to me that IS effective communication (or at least a necessary prerequisite).  No apologies necessary, though if you earnestly wish to avoid being rude (a worthy goal) you should try to make sure you fully understand what you are criticizing first before doing so and suggest courses of action / "coursework" earnestly (not for rhetorical ad hominem).


The 200 mile visibility is pretty much consistent with what you'd expect on a round Earth.

This is a different figure than distance to the horizon, but hope springs eternal! In any case, "begging the question" / circular logic is a crummy way to investigate anything.  The general format goes like this, and is to be identified and discarded/avoided wherever you see it : If the earth is round, I expect to see "something". I see "something", therefore the earth is round.  This is circular logic, and is shamefully embarrassing to scientists and children alike!

There could also be refraction effects that cause the light to track with the surface of the Earth for a few miles making it appear you can see even further.

Not for you, no.  Your faith REQUIRES you to believe (and profess, disearnestly, that you KNOW) that refraction is the reason we see too far.  It is a dogma of your faith, and no dissent is permitted.  The more objective (scientific) of us can indulge and pursue alternative explanations - but not you and the rest of the "educated" - no.  For you, there is merely the repeated mantra of "refraction" to keep the bad/inconvenient data at bay.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 20, 2020, 05:19:50 PM »

I meant an observer standing on the ground, not lying on the ground, sees just a few miles?

Yes.  That is, laterally towards the horizon through the densest air you can typically only see a few miles.

The top of everest is still the ground though!  I just think it is very interesting, and misunderstood by so many, that from the highest point on earth, under the best visibility conditions possible, you can only see a couple hundred miles (laterally, towards the horizon).  That is the max, though at sea level (the min) it's only a few miles directly through the densest air.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 20, 2020, 10:21:00 AM »

Theoretical max, around 200 miles from the top of everest under perfect visibility.

At sea level (where the air is densest) it is typically only a few miles, but it varies with weather.

If you are understanding me, then you also understand why the maximum distance you can see varies depending on the matter you are looking through.  We may need to discuss this more, because optics are tricky (smoke and mirrors) and there is more than one optical phenomenon/principle at play.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 20, 2020, 01:10:42 AM »

So the limit of our vision is variable depending upon altitude.


There are two main reasons for that.  One is the angular resolution limits of the human eye, and the other is the "standard"/"normal" density gradient within our air.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 19, 2020, 03:12:38 PM »

Thank you for explaining that to everyone!  Most people don't understand why the horizon doesn't curve at any altitude (regardless of conception of the shape of the world), and is always a 360 deg circle surrounding you.

So, we ARE seeing curvature.

Sort of. The horizon is an optical illusion, and the edge of nothing but our vision.  Assuming mostly uniform weather / air conditions in our viewing "bubble"/sphere, the maximum distance we can see laterally is fixed/static and linear.

The "curve" (of the hula hoop of visible area, NOT the horizon or physical earth/water), also an optical illusion - but mostly indiscernible as you describe correctly, is because of this fixed and linear "seeing distance limit" (dependent on limitations of our eyes / processing, and weather).

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon wax and wane direction
« on: November 19, 2020, 02:56:09 PM »
I also recommend reading through the entire wiki (at least breifly)!  It provides a great sampling of the concepts and ideas about.

My answer to your question is here

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 18, 2020, 07:10:02 PM »
Gee it took a while, but I think I am finally caught up!

First, my (very late) response to james38's thread outline / summation post.


Of course, they aren't published science, but that doesn't mean we can't personally apply the scientific method in how we analyze them!

Videos cannot be subjected to the scientific method, only objective manifest reality can.  We can analyze, infer, estimate, sometimes even measure and arguably establish natural law (which is scientific, but not a part of the scientific method) But we can't experiment (or replicate in this case), which is required by the scientific method.

we are going to start sharing videos with each other?

Not me! Videos are poor evidence, but can be helpful at times.

Yeah, tv sucks. I don't even have cable.

It certainly does. It could be used for such good - perhaps one day.

So since we all agree that the whole thing hinges on NASA, let's get into it.

You may agree, but it is only because you have no doubt realized that, without nasa's "evidence", there exists no validation for the assumption of the sphericity of the world in all of human history.  It has merely been perpetually inferred and calculated.  Even if it were THEIR validation, it can never be ours and we can never replicate or validate any of it - this is not, and cannot be, science.  Surely demonstrating and determining the actual shape of the world shouldn't require abject appeal to authority (faith), right?

All this talk of nasa, fraud, and footage is red herring / tangential.  The existence or non-existence of any fraud is inconsequential to the shape of the earth and to ascertaining it with certainty.

1. Moon Rocks (just me so far)

I find, in my analysis, that the "moonrocks" are decidedly not from the moon nor do we have any evidence for their provenance.  In my view they were likely manufactured by the same untrustworthy source(s) they came from, but it is not impossible they come from the same actual location on earth, and are an odd sort of rock (we would expect it to be from a remote / deep / difficult to access location if this were the case).

2. "Bubbles and Harnesses"? (MarkAntony and Stack)

There are lots of compilations and footage analyses that exist showing both of these.  One astronot almost drowned on a "spacewalk".

3. Switching Views (MarkAntony)

Nasa has repeatedly violated the wonton trust that it originally had through hubris and nationalistic pride.  Nothing but rigorous and repeated independent oversight and replication of their "feats" will ever suffice.

4. Vacuum of Space (MarkAntony)

The natural laws we have established on earth are the best evidence that "space" does not and cannot exist.  The space suit rigidity concept is interesting, but there are many flaws about the suits to discuss.  The math is trivial, however I enjoy considering this example : A regulation basketball is inflated to 7.5 a 8.5 psi and is rock hard in air (15psi at sea level).  In a vacuum, there would be even less stress pushing against the pressure inside the ball and it would be even harder / more rigid.

5. The Conspiracy (MarkAntony and jack44556677)

The existence of a conspiracy has not been proven or disproven, simple as that.

Perhaps, in any case - it is irrelevant to the shape of the world.

6. Water Wringing Video and pre-CGI clips (Iceman2020 and Stack)

As markantony explained, the water wringing is likely pure cgi and prior to cgi a variety of techniques were used.  The skylab footage is likely a large converted airplane belly - but there are other ways to achieve the footage.

7. Antarctica (Mark Antony and jack44556677)

Also red herring and not relevant to the shape of the world.

8. Just some discussion

Rather, since the entire theory depends on the NASA conspiracy

Utterly incorrect. The shape of the earth, and its measurement, has nothing to do with any conspiracy or lack thereof.

And as we can see, that alone is a HUGE topic!

It's a distraction and a red herring.

since the NASA conspiracy does not logically depend on FET.

Nor vice versa, correct.

I don't anymore feel the need to contest the physics of FET at all in this thread.

Though contesting is rarely a good way to learn anything new, it is precisely the physics that we ought to be discussing.  It applies to both the shape of the world and the fantasy of "outer space".


Even if you take NASA and their “fake photos” out of the equation, there is still enough evidence to support the globe model

There damn well better be! Right?!


FET researchers are working hard to develop an alternate theory to describe our observations of reality based on the flat earth mode

Not really, no.  Models got us into this mess, and they won't be helping us to dig our way back out.  There is no flat earth model, nor is anyone out there looking to make observations consistent with it.  Zetetic (and actual/real) science is conducted in a different way than that.

FET would become more than just fun reading. It becomes an actual logical possibility.

I assure you, it is! Nasa has nothing to do with it, nor are they involved in the earnest analysis/evaluation of flat earth research products that, many of which, demonstrate the presumptive model is not consistent with observation.

I think we can both agree that you are merely explaining your version of how these videos could have been created but not providing any hard evidence that these videos are fake. [in your response to mark antony]

Explaining his analysis of the evidence is every bit as "hard", if not harder, as the evidence that these videos are real (which is none but abject appeal to authority, over the protests of the senses and natural law, mandated since childhood by conditioning through rote under the guise of education)

Argument 1: The pressures inside a spacesuit would be unrealistically high and render the spacesuit too rigid to be able to move. Although they eventually claimed to have hinges in the suit, this was only after the Apollo Era.

There are said to be MANY problems with the space suits.  The fact that they don't (and didn't) test them with human beings in them under vacuum is very telling.  The fact that the latest spacex ones were designed by a hollywood costume designer is equally telling - they were always costumes.

Argument 2: To avoid "the bends", NASA must have pumped hyperoxia-level amounts of oxygen into the astronaut's blood. Also, none of this was taken into account during the Apollo missions.

Apollo (and mercury before them) was breathing the straight 100% O2 with caution to the wind and very much 0 f*cks.  The "right stuff" people are cowboys - space monkeys and stick jockeys; they do stupid and reckless things by profession.  Yet more than one of them have felt, uncharacteristically for the profession AND the era, they had to publicly denounce the ability and competency of the apollo program.  It looked a bit too risky, even to hardened adrenaline addicted professional daredevils...

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: PLASMA MOON SCIENTIST 1965
« on: November 18, 2020, 01:01:46 AM »
Most excellent!

I am also very interested in learning more about this guy and his research, but sadly I don't think I have anything to contribute.

to say "that is the nature of science" without even have considered the data, is quite disingenuous.

Rejection/discarding without evaluation is the height of ignorance.  This is a common mistake encouraged through the myth of progress - it reminds me of indiana jones "top men, top men".

I hope one of us finds something.  He was a long way from dundee in that interview - if we could figure out what school (and colleagues) he was working with in australia/tasmania, that would seem to be the next step.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6  Next >