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 - Pete Svarrior

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 266  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE maps and Tectonic Plates
« on: April 01, 2020, 03:42:57 AM »
Pangaea is an urban myth?

"The Flat Earth's crust is made up of huge slabs called plates, which fit together like a jigsaw puzzle."
Continents and tectonic plates are not one and the same. The question, specifically, asserted that South America and Africa "can be put one aside the other fitting like a jigsaw puzzle". This is not the case.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is Flat Earth a Movement or a Theory?
« on: April 01, 2020, 03:27:59 AM »
In other shocking news, the communist party is not the same as communism.

Flat Earth is not "referred to" as a movement or theory. There exists a movement and a theory which refer to Flat Earth. You're trying too hard to "gotcha" us, and it's not working out.

So are a number of other endeavours, none of which seem to find a lack of acceptance from the FE community.
That's a nice unqualified assertion you've made there. It happens to be completely false.

I trust your question of "why are space photos hard to verify?" has been answered to your satisfaction, given you had no objections that actually pertained to my point. I will ask once more, politely for now, that you stop wasting everyone's time.

Zetetic Council members
Don't use terms you don't understand. It's a bad look for you. If you want to say Tom, just say Tom. And probably direct your question to him instead of being vague.

But, at the same time, guilty of posting or leveraging photos / images / etc.. from the internet to support and help back the Flat Earth theory.
Anyone who does that is being silly, regardless of which tribe they happen to support. I'm not sure what else I could do to help you on that front.

Please explain, either here or there, why you think it is "hard" to verify them...
Because going to space as a private citizen is hard.

Tumeni, you've been here a while. These entry-level questions are an obvious attempt at obstruction from you. Crawl back into your cave and let others have a discussion.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Half-Life: Alyx. Thoughts?
« on: March 30, 2020, 11:40:23 AM »
Welp, I did predict I would postpone this. It's a shame I didn't predict the meme plague being the cause, or I could have made a tidy fortune.

FE'ers do claim photos from the moon and from space are false
This part.

The argument is not that all claim images are false, but rather that they're not particularly trustworthy due to their unverifiable nature. Further to that, they are rarely conclusive either way even if we ignored their other problems.

The main problem with photographic evidence is not that it's some spooky conspiracy, but that it's simply a waste of everyone's time.

Our FAQ currently seems to be doing a poor job of explaining this (it over-focuses on how easy it would be to manipulate a photo, rather than how hard it would be to verify one), so I appreciate we may not have helped the confusion. I'll try to adjust the wording later today.

Given that the core FE community is fairly reluctant to share their personal information, I doubt you'll find your challenge met here. You might have better luck asking around the Twitter fringes, but I suspect you'll simply find many people who claim to have PhD's, without much will to back their position up.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Opposite sides viewing the same planet.
« on: March 30, 2020, 11:25:06 AM »
Unfortunately, your assumptions for FET are not very representative of any current model.

On the flip side, on-line content showing pictures of Earth from space or pictures on the moon are immediately deemed from FE'ers as fake with a conspiracy theory behind it, but no real proof.
This statement is false.

I would strongly recommend that you familiarise yourself with the movement before you choose to comment on it. Just airing your assumptions and imagination is unlikely to gather much attention.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE maps and Tectonic Plates
« on: March 22, 2020, 08:06:45 PM »
For example, what are the maps such that South America and Africa can be put one aside the other fitting like a jigsaw puzzle?
Notably, this should never be the case, and is not the case in RET. You're asking us if there are any maps which conform to an urban myth, and the answer should be "no".

Also, this is not what FEI is for.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice wall
« on: March 18, 2020, 04:23:34 PM »
But the flat earth suggests that equal amounts of sunlight reaches the earth
It doesn't.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain meteors
« on: March 10, 2020, 04:44:44 PM »
FE explanation: ?
Replace "Earth's SOI" with "the area [partially] shielded from UA by the Earth"

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Library not on https
« on: March 10, 2020, 04:29:29 PM »
HTTPS is only useful for protection against malicious third parties, as well as for a small boost to user privacy.
While you are obviously correct here, the third party scenario is a decent rationale to move to HTTPS. I do agree that the benefits wouldn't be massive, and that it could/should be treated as low-priority, but it's an improvement nonetheless.

Plus, you know I love to butter Google up.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain meteors
« on: March 10, 2020, 12:07:40 AM »
Is it another one of my assumptions that FET totally rejects gravity as a force?
Without getting too bogged down on terminology and gravity/gravitation, yes. Modern FET uses a combination of UA and gravitation as a proposed explanation for gravity.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain meteors
« on: March 09, 2020, 03:43:34 PM »
In RE, these objects are orbiting the sun (that is where the speed comes from)
Not necessarily.

What could cause such a lateral speed in the FE/UA model?
Much like everything else in the system, the asteroid belt (which you've implied in your previous sentence) appears to orbit the Solar System's centre of gravity. Note that there is no requirement for that centre of gravity to be a celestial object. It could, and usually is, a product of multiple gravitational forces.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain meteors
« on: March 09, 2020, 03:06:31 PM »
However, RE has gravity and this explains the shallow entry trajectory, while I have yet to hear a convincing theory for how space debris would always enter at a shallow angle on a FE. Maybe sometimes, but all the time? Wouldn't the randomness of direction of the particles in space make the entry angle random?
It seems to me that your understanding of the shallow entry trajectory on RE is flawed. It is not the case that all meteoroids enter RE's atmosphere at a shallow angle. Indeed, their angle of incidence is largely "random", as you describe. What seems to confuse you is that the overwhelming majority of meteors (meteoroids that get heated to incandescence and are thus seen as "falling stars") and meteorites (debris that did not fully disintegrate during atmospheric entry) enter the atmosphere at a shallow angle.

In short, the causal link in your mind is reversed. You are able to observe these bodies because they have entered at a shallow angle, and thus were able to lose enough kinetic energy to not fully disintegrate on descent, thus becoming easily observable. This is not to imply that it's unusual for meteoroids to approach the RE atmosphere at a harsh angle. They just won't be around for particularly long if they do.

is space debris also accelerating upwards ontop a pillow of dark energy, such that a grain of sand wouldn't split the earth in two as the earth collides with it?
Yes, Universal Acceleration is universal. Unless the body in question is shielded from it by a sufficiently massive celestial body, it is affected by UA.

How would the shooting star phenomena work?
Pretty much the same way this phenomenon occurs under RET. It's still unclear why you think there would be a significant difference between the two models here.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain meteors
« on: March 08, 2020, 11:51:55 AM »
I assume the FE community would generally agree that the firmament is some finite distance above the earth and everything is locally contained.
That assumption is false. Firmament FE'ers are hard to find, and when you do find them, they're usually the type of person that thinks everyone on the Internet is an FBI agent trying to deceive them. Exceptions obviously exist, but you'll find it difficult to find one.

Regardless, if there is a firmament, then shooting stars and rocks from "space" would have to be local, or inside the dome.
Granted, and I agree that the consequences of that would be tricky.

I think maybe your critique of my post is you think I'm saying we can predict all or most the shooting stars on an average night. We can't do that.
Fair enough. You said "everything" was local and predictable (without explaining why you think so), and I disagree with both of these claims - most "things" are neither local nor predictable. Now that you've clarified and it appears that you agree with me, I'll chalk that down to a misunderstanding.

I'm confused why you're confused... I said "non-vertical".
That's the confusing part. You seem to imply that, under FET, there should be no component velocity other than the vertical. You asked why there is a non-vertical motion occurring, and your phrasing seems to imply that you're seeing a conflict or contradiction there. What you didn't clarify, and I cannot even begin to guess, is why you would think that this motion would be exclusively vertical under FET.

To put things simply: you asked why X is not happening, but you didn't explain why X would ever be considered as even remotely plausible by your opposition.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain meteors
« on: March 06, 2020, 11:26:44 AM »
When I first got here I was told that these were pieces of the firmament/dome
That's surprising to me. The firmament is not all that popular among FE'ers, and I don't think there are many firmament FE'ers who'd think that the dome is crumbling away.

@OP: A meteor is a meteoroid that's been heated to the point of incandescence as it entered the Earth's atmolayer. I'll save you the pedantry on meteoroids/meteors/meteorites, since it's clear enough what you mean even if you're mixing them up.

However, there is a much bigger problem with your query. It is unclear why you think objects in space would have no component velocities other than downward relative to the Earth, and you did not explain why you think they would.

Your premise that "everything from moon to stars is local and predictable" is incorrect, both on the "local" (some celestial bodies are local, others are not) and "predictable" (what does that even mean in this context?)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 266  Next >