Recent Posts

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion on Flat Earth
« Last post by Lord Dave on August 19, 2018, 07:57:18 PM »
Well, sure, but it's a pretty safe bet that (for just one example) if our atoms couldn't hold together because the strong nuclear force was slightly off from where it is, life wouldn't be possible.
Sure.  Life as we know it.  But that doesn't mean other patterns couldn't emerge.  Other forces binding sub-atomic particles together or perhaps those particles simply creating their own patterns.  I mean, how did anything form just because protons and neutrons could form?  How did they even decide to form in that configuration anyway?  And where did Electrons come in?

These are the very questions the various fundamental forces are supposed to explain. They wouldn't be able to exist without these laws being just right. If the strong nuclear force is just a tiny bit weaker, subatomic particles are just floating around, sure there may be some order to it but there's no chance for anything we would define as life. 

No disagreement there.  The whole universe would be different so nothing would be "what we would define as..."But I still wonder why these rules exist and not others.  Far as I know, no one knows that answer. 

Or that a universe wouldn't stabalize on its own.
"Stabilize?" You mean that if life hadn't been possible the universe would have, like, fixed itself so that life would have been possible? Can you explain this better?
Not "fixed" itself, more like calmed down and found some kind of order.  Like if the strong nuclear force didn't exist, all those sub-atomic particles would still exist, floating around.  Eventually something would happen to make them slow down, possibly condense using other forces.  But the hot soupy mess of creation would become relatively stable somehow.  Different rules, sure, but stable rules.  And where there's rules, there's patterns.  And where there's patterns, life is possible.  Not guarnteed, but possible.

Pure speculation. This isn't science. If the strong nuclear force was too weak things would never calm down to the point where subatomic particles could suddenly bind together because the mechanism for it simply wouldn't be there. Saying "but something else might possibly happen..." well sure, I suppose, and there might be a God too, and you have to remember that we're talking about just one fundamental aspect of the universe that was fine-tuned for life, you'd have to say the same logic would apply to all the other things too, and it seems illogical to think that the universe would "right" itself no matter what was getting in the way of life. And if you believe the universe is so hell-bent on life existing, well, you are attributing a will on the part of the universe itself favoring the existence of life, and I am perfectly fine with accepting such a willful entity as God.
It absolutely is pure speculation and not science because this is philosophy, religion, and society section, not science. :P
But seriously, it's less "the universe is hell bent on making life" but rather "Life just happens when order exists".  It's not what we define as life, nor does it have to be complex, but as long as it replicates, takes in nutrients, spits out waste, etc.... it's life.
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Motivation of the Conspiracy?
« Last post by Rushy on August 19, 2018, 07:36:15 PM »
No one in the government is actively lying about the Earth's shape (as far as we know). They genuinely believe it to be round. The lie is the act of having advanced space travel capabilities. Back in the late 1940s, the 50s and the 60s, governments were just beginning to understand the properties of mass propaganda and how it can shape the reality of their people.

The USSR always existed on the fundamental idea that they were working towards some glorious, super-industrial future that never came to fruition. What better motivation than to tell their people and their enemies, that they have sent man-made objects into space? Amazing, finally their glorious technological future will come to pass! Except it didn't. They never sent anything into space. They lied to their own people. However, the West couldn't just sit idly by because their own people believed the lie too. "Look at the USSR!" they said, "they're so advanced!" The West couldn't allow such a thought to start purveying their own populace. Something had to be done.

The West couldn't simply say the USSR is lying. The USSR would continue to lie and people would start to ask "well why aren't we sending things to space?" Therefore it was decided that the West would lie as well. "Look, we've sent stuff too!" Then it became a big game of who can con their own people into the biggest lie. It became a game of "let's get Kubrick to televise our lies on national television". The USSR couldn't compete with Hollywood. They lost the lying game.

The Earth not being round is just a part of the big lie, it's not even an intentional lie. If the US thought the Earth was flat when it faked the moon landing, the Earth would appear flat in the movie. It's just an artistic backdrop picture. Space travel still is, and will continue to be, a silly lie, which is why NASA will fade into irrelevance, why SpaceX only exists because of government contracts, and why every company who ever uttered the phrase "space tourism" is doomed to failure. Eventually the government, and schools, will tell us all that there's nothing interesting in space, don't bother thinking about it, and they'll hope faking the moon landing is no big deal when it's declassified in a century or so.
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ice Wall
« Last post by timterroo on August 19, 2018, 07:34:08 PM »
I’ve been trying to familiarize myself with the Flat Earth Theory. I read the bit on the wiki about he Ice Wall, but I must say that it did not completely convince me.

One of the things I’m trying to understand is:

According to the theory and the maps, if I am walking along the coast of Antarctica and want to go around it, depending on which direction I’m going the sea would either be on my left and the landmass on my right (and I would be slowly making left turns) or the sea would be on my right and the landmass on my left (and I would slowly be making right turns).

However, practically speaking, when the sea is on my right I am slowly making turns left, and so on.

How would this be explained?

On another topic; what would be considered viable evidence the Earth is spherical?

The big question about the Ice Wall, and I believe also the "Elephant in the room", is what happens when you get to the edge of the ice wall? I have not found in the wiki's here anything that addresses this question. In fact, the wiki seems to deny that anyone has been to antarctica.

Beyond the 150 foot Ice Wall is anyone's guess. How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness. Some hold that the tundra of ice and snow stretches forever eternally.

Plenty of scientists, military, and civilians have been to antarctica. There is a small village established where some people live year-round. I have an uncle who has been to antarctica. Is it fair to say that explorers have been far enough inland to have made it as far as the edge? Or, are we just going to assume nobody has gone to the edge, and nobody ever will, so FET isn't concerned with it?
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Motivation of the Conspiracy?
« Last post by Bad Puppy on August 19, 2018, 05:58:26 PM »
I didn't think the thread needed to be split.  A simple "don't derail the thread...let's get back on point" would have probably sufficed.  Do you split every thread that wavers slightly off topic just once?

For those reading wondering, the thread started here:
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion on Flat Earth
« Last post by Rushy on August 19, 2018, 05:35:50 PM »
If we define life as simply a set of conditions that occur in the right order, then really any objects in any given amount of universes could produce life. Even cosmic gasses, if they were to collide in space in just the right order, could produce a consciousness more vast than the human mind.

However, life in our universe is not this way, or at least the life we are familiar with is not. It's not a lightning flash of super-intelligence, it's self-replicating and evolving, with different tiers of consciousness. That does require a more specific universe. The idea that another universe could contain it is irrelevant, since as far as we know, only one universe exists, and it only has one law, that energy must be conserved. All other universal qualities stem from this one law, and anything that obeys it is theoretically allowed. The idea that our universe, specifically, could exist in some other configuration, is complete nonsense, because this means that the one law is not in some other universe; that is, the claim is that some other universe doesn't conserve energy. Since a universe that can't conserve energy would always, well, explode, then it cannot exist. Therefore, ours is the only kind of universe that exists. There can be 'parallel universes' in which different quantum probabilities resulted in different outcomes on a large scale, but overall, the qualities of our universe can't really be any different than they are without creating a universe that contradicts itself.
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion on Flat Earth
« Last post by Rama Set on August 19, 2018, 05:14:26 PM »
The universe is not in an optimal condition for life. There are in fact better possible conditions. It’s also less and less obvious a universe capable of supporting life is a unique configuration.
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Video Plugin for the Wiki
« Last post by Pete Svarrior on August 19, 2018, 05:08:01 PM »
I've installed VideoEmbed as per your suggestion, with a slight modification to make it use instead of This shouldn't affect operation so the instructions at should all be fine.

You can see it in action on my user page.

Please use these sparingly - multiple embedded videos on any given page will significantly increase load times, especially on mobile. And, of course, since online content is volatile, some of our links may break over time.

It may be a good idea to start hosting any videos we strongly rely on locally within the Wiki, at least where copyright allows.
On the Day of Resurrection, God will remove the mountains and you will see the earth a leveled plain, you will not see therein any crookedness or any curve, and those who mocked will be enveloped by what they used to ridicule.  Furthermore, the stars will fall from heaven to the earth, for they said they are giant luminous spheres of plasma.  And so the stars fell from heaven as a fig tree casts her untimely figs, when she is shaken by a mighty wind - for on that Day, the heaven will shake.  And the heavens will be rolled as a scroll, for God made the heaven a protected ceiling, but they from its signs are turning away.  For indeed they found their people astray.  So they hastened to follow in their footsteps.  And there had already strayed before them most of the former peoples, and God had already sent among them warners.  But when their messengers came to them with clear proofs, they merely rejoiced in what they had of knowledge, but they were enveloped by what they used to ridicule.

For these verses and far more from the Qur'an, Gospel, and the Torah, go to:
Subhaanallah Indeeedd.

The descriptions in these versus were written by philosophers in a time prior to the technology era where we have ways to explore the phenomenon that we experience with our senses. Much of what you read should be taken with a grain of salt and not as literal fact.
Venus will reach its greatest elongation East two days from now, on Friday 17th.

Ideal chance for Morgile's photographer in Saginaw to grab another shot...

No sign yet that he did. Any other empiricists out there who went planet-spotting that night? Too cloudy round my way.
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Motivation of the Conspiracy?
« Last post by QED on August 19, 2018, 02:57:39 PM »
QED, stop derailing threads. Splitting Conspiracy discussion into a separate subject.

Thank you for the warning, this is helpful to me. So, would it be appropriate to begin a new thread for my follow up question, or should I just PM him about it?

Thanks in advance for your help and guidance!