Recent Posts

1
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Thoughts on this online document.
« Last post by Bastian Baasch on Today at 10:35:08 PM »
I've found this   https://imgur.com/a/PblIlgX   document online. Spoke to a friend and they said it's nothing. Just interested if I'm reading too much into it.

Well for starters, how about telling us what you think about it? Do you think this is proof that the Antarctic bases are faked because it says "NASA" and "Top Secret" on it?

Second, how do we know the document wasn't faked, for all we know, someone could've just found an old typewriter, typed it out, and wrote over it with pen "Top Secret."

Third, what exactly is the context? We know it's about funding some equipment and stuff but what is the media group for? Was there some kind of planned expedition? Who is Walter? And what were the NASA operations that on the document were said to be submitted on a later application?

Overall, rather weak effort to put more stuff under the umbrella of the Conspiracy and a rather weak OP.
2
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Eratosthenes Experiment Duplicated
« Last post by George Jetson on Today at 10:17:47 PM »


When FE technology gets advanced enough to verify the distances between these locations (there's not too much water so shouldn't be that hard), they'll find that the elevation of the sun measured at all three places points to two different locations in the sky. And the difference is immediately obvious. The reason is because the Earth is not flat.

In other words your argument is a circular one that requires the assumption that the RE map is correct which is precisely what is at question.
3
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« Last post by manicminer on Today at 09:58:04 PM »
Quote
They don't know what flat earth models are

It seems the same applies to flat Earthers as well given how many different models there seem to be and the wide variations among them!
4
Well on other threads you claim the Earth is flat, so since you are going up against a model that has been proven to be true for over 400 years, you need to present evidence to disprove mainstream science.

I had a project on gravity and it's effect on orbits, so I guess I understand orbital mechanics at a beginner's level.

Kepler's Second Law states the closer an object gets to the perihelion of orbit, the faster it'll accelerate, causing it to have the most kinetic energy, and least potential kinetic energy. More eccentric orbits cause it to accelerate more.

Oh yes, elliptic orbits have negative energy, it makes sense.

Elliptic orbits are the only ones with negative energy since it's a periodic orbit.

And I'm sure you know the type of orbit where it exceeds enough velocity to escape the gravitational field of an object, one of 2 orbits with positive energy.

Find me the quote where I say that. I’ll wait.

So the conservation law used to derive Keplers second law is conservation of angular momentum. I asked this question because it is difficult to find in a google search :)

The correct answer is circular orbits, which are bound orbits with ZERO energy.

Non-bound orbits make hyperbolas, with the Sun at the focus.

This has been fun, but I think we’re done here, unless you can produce that quote.
No, elliptical orbits also have negative energy, since they are a periodic orbit orbiting around the foci.

Too lazy to find a quote, but on other threads, your response always assumes you are a flat earther.

Not all elliptical orbits do. Ellipses with a particular eccentricity, making them a circle, have zero energy. Circles are ellipses where both foci occupy the same location.

You’re also too lazy to learn, apparently.
5
Flat Earth Media / Re: How Einstein Made the Earth Move
« Last post by manicminer on Today at 09:47:36 PM »
For example Tom, Einstein was originally very much against the idea that the Universe is expanding even though his equation predicted it.  He inserted the famous extra term to make his expanding model stand still.  Then Hubble observed through redshift of galaxies that the Universe was indeed expanding and invited Einstein over to the Mt Wilson Obsy to see the evidence for himself.  Einstein called his mistake 'the worst blunder of my career' Thus modern cosmology was born.

Sometimes observation confirms theory to be correct. Other times it confirms theory to be wrong.  To give Einstein credit, at least he quite willing to accept his original belief was wrong.
6
I don't understand what is so significant about this that many flat earthers are now claiming that "NASA is coming out to the truf!" when it's really not a surprise because the atmosphere is a pressure gradient.
7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Lord Dave on Today at 08:34:35 PM »
https://bbc.in/2JCbKJf

And so the meme-conspiracy dies

Yeah, not a shocker either.  Trump is not the kind of person you wanna have a conspiracy with.


Also: Trump is gonna ride the "I told you so!" Wave all the way to reelection.  Its a guarentee now.
8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Pete Svarrior on Today at 08:06:37 PM »
https://bbc.in/2JCbKJf

And so the meme-conspiracy dies
9
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« Last post by JRowe on Today at 07:11:59 PM »
You say that today's scientists don't want to knock down pillars. I remember about 20 years ago when the first findings came out that the redshift of the most distant objects in the universe was far higher than we expected. It meant the universe's expansion was actually accelerating. That might not sound like a pillar was knocked down, but this was so radical a finding that it suggested the existence of something like a fifth force of nature. Around the same time, the measurements of galactic rotations suggested there was also more mass than we could see in the universe. These two ideas, together, meant that 96% of the universe was made of something we'd never knew existed. Think about that! We thought we had it all pretty much worked out, and then all of a sudden we find out we've missed 96% of everything! Because of those two pieces of evidence, a bunch of other teams jumped in and tried to replicate and disprove the findings, but it turned out to be supported every time. The physics community was split about what it all meant, but most now agree that we've indeed been missing nearly everything in the universe. It might not seem like a big deal to people outside of physics, but that was a monumental pillar that was knocked down, and it didn't topple easily.
You are literally proving my point. They didn't go back and question their preconceptions, they leapt ahead and decided to append a massive new field rather than reconsider, and are still tweaking and adjusting that new field today to get it to work. Dark energy, especially dark matter, was one of the surefire death knells of RET's credibility. Rather than consider maybe the issue was with, say, how they took observations and what they accounted for, they instead decided to suppose invisible masses that should have been detected long since even with just the few properties applied to it as is (and never went back to reconsider what had previously been determined in light of it), and a mysterious force that they can't even explain how it does what they need it to do. They didn't knock down a pillar, they just added more and more to the top of it no matter how precariously it swayed. Absolutely no existing knowledge altered, it wasn't like they took the conclusion that their understanding of redshift was flawed say, they just kept things working the same way just with a new variable on play; questions were answered with unforeseen responses. The tradition stayed in place.



Quote
You have to do the same thing. You have to show impeccable evidence and say it doesn't fit with what we understand of the world today. The three-pole experiment would be perfect. I don't understand why anyone on this forum doesn't just do that experiment and do it perfectly. It would create a major question for any scientist to answer. You think a scientist who sees something like that, and who sees that the experiment was done without error, wouldn't want to know what the heck was going on? They'd go nuts trying to find something you did wrong. And if you did nothing wrong, they'd go nuts trying to understand exactly what is going on. It would be a joy to witness.

I know you think any scientist would just dismiss your experiment because they can't think outside of the global Earth model, but you're not basing that on actually talking to any scientists. You're basing that on an assumption that you must be right, so anyone with expertise who doesn't think you're right must either be essentially brainwashed or dishonest.
There is no such thing as impeccable evidence. And seriously, think about what you are saying. You aren't finding any actual experiment of an FE model, you're relying solely on your preconceptions of what that would be and going no further. We live on a flat Earth. All readings and experiments have already been performed on a flat Earth. The number of actually accessible experiments with the slightest bearing on anything, particularly that are remotely doable for a typical person, is beyond minimal and the rest have already been shoehorned into RET. You won't get a brand new discovery, all you'd get is a better explanation, but that's not good enough because the scientific establishment is built on tradition, better=older/familiar rather than logical or reducing assumptions. It's all about toppling the existing theory, not about actual comparison, new experiments rather than seeing how well the ones already done tie in.
And you're just assuming I haven't talked to scientists, you're very wrong on that. I'm speaking from experience. They won't even entertain anything too 'outlandish,' there are enough papers to go through that there's no point in picking apart an experiment they already believe to be wrong. Besides, if they already think the claim is wrong then they'll just assume the paper's lying. They won't tear their hair out, they'll shrug it off.

You're acting as though what we're talking about is akin to some discovered oddity in G-Type stars or whatever. It isn't. Science has layers, a pillar that it is verboten to question, and layers out from that. Only the outermost get particularly dealt with, and the closer you get the more controversial anything would be. Beyond a certain point you're assumed wrong and nothing can change that.

Quote
So get out there and do it! Don't make your next post something about how it's fruitless. Say "Okay, I'm going to make this happen!" Do the experiment perfectly so nobody can poke holes in it, document the heck out of every step, and make it happen. Document the setup on this forum and I'll do whatever I can to help. 30 days from now you could have world-changing results in your pocket!
Again, there's no point in performing an experiment when the results would not be what you're claiming. Stop being so bloody performative. Best case scenario, even if the Earth worked the way you were saying, even if it got any interest, and even if that interest was people trusting the paper's and documentation's word, the end result would be a few murmurs, a new discovery of dark temperature inversions or whatever, and a year from now they'll be heralding it as further proof of RET. If you don't want people to post about how dealing with academia is fruitless then fix your institutions, until then it needs to be called out.
Honestly, fixing the flaws in it is to me more important than FET. People will come to FET one way or another once there's a decent system that doesn't rely on tradition as value.



Quote
I say scientists go where the evidence leads and are more knowledgeable about the evidence that refutes a flat Earth than non-scientists are.
This is nonsense. They don't know what flat earth models are, how could they possibly have any conception of what it would take to refute one?
This is the problem.
10
Flat Earth Media / Re: How Einstein Made the Earth Move
« Last post by sandokhan on Today at 05:50:29 PM »
Sungenis and Bennett published a classic work, Galileo Was Wrong, a 1000+ page book. In that book, and also in the video, mention is made of the Michelson-Gale experiment (1925).

All of the geocentrists do not understand or fail to acknowledge that they have no argument whatsoever against either MGX or the ring laser gyroscopes experiments, since the RE will claim that the formula used in these experiments is the SAGNAC EFFECT phase difference (exactly as Michelson and Gale did back in 1925). Once this claim is made, there is nothing else the geocentrists (or the FE) can do but accept defeat. Unless the geocentrists (including Sungenis and Bennett) and all of the FE make use of my global/generalized SAGNAC EFFECT formula, the RE will always have the upper hand: no seismic waves or Earth-line arguments is going to help them argue the very clear results measured/registered with the ring laser gyroscopes. The RE claim that these RLGs are measuring the SAGNAC EFFECT, thus they are measuring ROTATION.

Here is the correct global SAGNAC EFFECT formula:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351

What Michelson did is to SUBSTITUTE the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for the SAGNAC EFFECT formula: a light interferometer can register/record BOTH these effects.