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 - WellRoundedIndividual

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 16  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Total Eclipse July 02 2019
« on: May 16, 2019, 12:19:46 PM »
Because its a different projection? If I made it a different shape of a map, I would get a different plot of the path.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Total Eclipse July 02 2019
« on: May 16, 2019, 11:27:08 AM »
Thats besides the point. Its not a map of a flat earth! Therefore you cannot claim anything about it being true for a flat earth - just because you like the paths to be in perfect arcs, does not make an argument true for the earth being flat.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Total Eclipse July 02 2019
« on: May 16, 2019, 11:20:23 AM »
That is not a flat earth map. That is a representation of the earth on a map that only shows "...the earth north of the south temperate zone."

And as also shown by Stack, Oppolzer created a second map representing the earth south of the south temperate zone.  Both are merely projections. Give it up, Tom. You and the Wiki entry are presenting a falsehood of someone else's work.

Also, the text that the Wiki cites that cites Oppolzer believes the earth is round. Just read the rest of the text. Oppolzer was not a flat earther. His map is not a map of a flat earth. It is a projection of a section of a round earth.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: May 15, 2019, 02:51:55 AM »
Wouldn't you go nuts? I mean jeez...look at the man.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: May 14, 2019, 06:23:20 PM »
Maybe it should be a suppository instead.

Most flat earth theories state that the zetetic observations arrive at the conclusion that the sun is 32 miles in diameter and revolves at an altitude of 3000 miles above the earth - even though this is merely a regurgitation of Rowbotham, and not zetetic observation.  When placed against the real zetetic observation, and the observation and belief of ancient thinkers - which is that the sun sinks below the surface of the earth, one must come up with the ad hoc explanation that the true size of the sun is obscured by some mystical physics of the atmoplane, bendy light, and perspective. I am not sure how everyone does not see this as ad hoc. 

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: May 13, 2019, 07:47:18 PM »
If you really think about it this whole show has been shit from the beginning. They cleverly disguised out in the open what they were going to do with each character. (i.e. "everyone keeps telling me how my father went mad and burnt everyone). But with some good writing in the beginning and relying on the books for most of its material, us watchers clung to the hope that the characters wouldn't do what we saw the writers doing. And then we get pissed off for having wasted half of our lives watching the show turn out exactly how it was "telescoped" all the way from the beginning.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: May 07, 2019, 03:53:49 PM »
Definitely, agree she will go Stark raving mad and try to burn certain people.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« on: May 07, 2019, 11:34:14 AM »
Its almost as though the show writers are trying to get everyone to think she will become like her father the mad king. Huh, novel. As if, they haven't mentioned the mad king every single episode ever and him burning everyone. And thrown it in Dany's face literally anytime anyone has the moment to mention it. And the fact that people always end up like their parents.

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki: Keyworth quote source needed
« on: May 06, 2019, 11:23:03 AM »
Nothing in that quote quantifies the amount of what they is a lie. Nothing in that quote specifically refers to them lying about space travel. Stop making stuff up, Tom.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Celestial Gravitation
« on: May 04, 2019, 11:24:53 PM »
Whether or not you believe in CG and UA, the wiki is better now. Thank you, Tom for updating it. You may proceed to argue over whether you understand a gravimeter or not.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Celestial Gravitation
« on: May 03, 2019, 06:38:30 PM »
Which is why I bring up this point. Your theory is contradictory. See my OP.

In the wiki, it states from

"In the FE universe, gravitation (not gravity) exists in other celestial bodies. The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth.

Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull"

This is in UA! Are you now saying that UA is false? Which is it? Is there CG? Is there variations in gravity?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Celestial Gravitation
« on: May 03, 2019, 06:30:00 PM »
It appears your WIKI is false, as well, since you are denying the existence gravity anomalies, yet attempt to explain these anomalies that exist with CG. So which is it? I am not here to conduct experiments.  This forum is Flat Earth Theory not Flat Earth Investigations. I am refuting your claims in your theory.

YOUR WIKI literally claims that gravity varies by altitude due to CG. And now you are denying that this exists!

YOUR WIKI literally claims in one spot that celestial gravitation exists - moon and stars.  Yet I quoted in my OP that YOUR WIKI states that "there are no other sources of gravitation." YOUR WIKI is contradicting itself. If there are no other sources of gravitation, then CG does not exist! If CG does not exist, how does FE explain gravity anomalies!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Celestial Gravitation
« on: May 03, 2019, 05:23:44 PM »
I dont have to reference any experiment. RE and FE theory already agrees on this! It is stated in your Wiki that as elevation changes "gravity" changes due to CG! You (FE community as a whole - not any specific individual) therefore believe gravity anomalies exist due to altitude. Ridiculous.

Or is this a cover your ass kind of case? "Oh, we may not actually believe in CG, but just in case RE is correct and that gravity anomalies exist, lets come up with a reason in FE world as to why they exist."  Why don't you produce an experiment that shows that CG exists? Since FE is making the claim!

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Magnetic Field
« on: May 03, 2019, 02:25:20 PM »
Hey, been a while. Unfortunately, our machine shop is so backed up they haven't gotten to my "government work." I am not sure if I should push more or just give it to someone outside the shop. I don't really know anyone though that has machining capabilities. Hopefully, you give me the benefit of the doubt here and believe the truth of my statements.

Flat Earth Theory / Celestial Gravitation
« on: May 03, 2019, 02:04:11 PM »
In the wiki, it states from

"In the FE universe, gravitation (not gravity) exists in other celestial bodies. The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth.

Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull"


"Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.

This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity"."

and from

"Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane."

First, you acknowledge that CG is only part of some flat earth models. Yet, in UA, you imply its existence as a certainty. I think this is due to the known gravimetric anomalies that exist on earth (both FE and RE acknowledge this). However, it is shown that even though some anomalies exist due to high altitudes (which could be explained by CG), there are also anomalies that are dependent on rock density (which is how some mineral deposits are tracked and found). This is not explainable by UA or CG - in UA all objects on the surface of the Earth are accelerating at the same speed - so CG only accounting for altitude based anomalies cannot provide a full explanation of UA "gravity." Something else must exist. No matter what you can say about anomalies existing and going against the theory of RE gravity, you still cannot explain it by simply using UA and CG. Earth must either have its own CG, or gravity must exist.

Yet, contradictory to what you state elsewhere (that anomalies and CG exist), you also state: "Gravity appears to behave as if the earth is accelerating upwards, that there is no gravity gradient, and there are no other gravitating sources around us."

My premise is this: if other bodies of mass have CG, then earth has CG. Anomalies exist that cannot be explained by CG and UA alone. All of your above statements are contradictory or false.

I am not sure that adding any of that will help. I personally have read the "read before posting," but I am not sure the people who consistently post crap in the wrong places are really going to take heed to any of the forum rules. There will always be moronic high schoolers or people of that maturity level posting crap where it does not belong.

However, in the sake of clarity, repetition, and the like - it would probably be helpful to have the rules or purpose of each forum posted in one area, and possibly a link to that condensed section posted in each forum. A single source of information that is concise and clear is better than multiple, in my opinion.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: May 02, 2019, 04:41:35 PM »
And the whole Infinity series was 91, 92, and 93. Doink.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Quick question...
« on: May 02, 2019, 01:56:40 PM »
There are also multiple explanations for this, as well. Some in the FE community hold to the idea of the existence of the aether. Use this as a search term here on the forums and you will find plenty of discussion on this.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity
« on: May 02, 2019, 01:55:27 PM »
I mean, conceptually, if you accepted the premise of UA, a flat earth, and celestial gravitation, it would make sense that as you get closer to a celestial object that it may have some sort of gravitational pull on you. I mean, I think even FE accepts that the moon has some effect on the tide, correct? But if this was correct, then gravity anomaly differences would be consistent across all altitudes and locations (x,y or lat and long) - meaning the higher you go the bigger the effect, no matter what mountain you are on. However, this has been demonstrated to be false. It is not consistent. And is in fact due to multiple factors. Read up on the Bouguer anomaly and how rock density also effects the gravity anomaly.

So while we may conceded that there is some sort of celestial gravitation (given that we see this with the moon), it is also dependent on features within the terrain - and therefore is further evidence for a spherical earth having gravity. UA would not be able to explain this (aka it cant have trouble pushing through denser rock, if it is pushing the entire flat earth at the same time).

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 16  Next >