*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10027
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
AATW, you are saying the same thing over and over. We've already heard it, and we've already disagreed. Please avoid posting content which does not contribute to the thread. Warned.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Baby Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 2228
  • I am Baby Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
You've made under 200 posts in the upper forums in 5 years. You've made 300 in the religious section.

Your friend, rushy, told me to get lost one year ago: he said something to the effect, "pick up your things, get out, and never come back".
Why don't you know how to quote properly? Ok, so what of the other 4 years? And by the way, I don't think the majority of us want you to leave. All contribution is welcome. I just fear you will not enjoy the proposal we are making. It won't be conducive to your style of posting. But you haven't actually replied to the topic at hand. Do you have any valid objections to us changing the format, and if so what are they? This is important and I'll come back to it later in this post.

Where would we be?

Once I came on board, everything changed for the FES (2007-present, especially the period 2009-2014). If FET is so popular now on youtube, it is because I contributed more than anybody else in the debates, for the first time providing the answers everyone was looking for, and much more than that. I never used ENaG or any other classic FE material, I started anew. I was the only one able to explain the beam neutrinos, ring laser gyroscopes, seismic waves, Eotvos effect. Without my input, the FES would find itself at the level where it was in 2006, a mere curiosity, debates which went nowhere.
This is both delusional and incorrect. I don't believe you are providing the answers people want. I would back that with media requests. Over the years, it is people like Tom Bishop, myself, john Davis and Pete (pizzaplanet) who are asked to do media engagements. I don't remember you ever being asked to take your ideas to the public at large.

Where is your original material? Everything you post is copy pasta.

My global natural logarithm formula:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1910773#msg1910773

The hidden structure of the zeros of the zeta function:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1855591#msg1855591 (18 parts)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2006274#msg2006274 (5 parts)

The first correct explanation for long distance projectiles on a flat earth:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2029817#msg2029817 (2 parts)

The flat earth terrestrial gravity hydrodynamic equation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2033009#msg2033009 (8 parts)

The difference between the Sagnac and the Coriolis effect registered by interferometers:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2024700#msg2024700 (10 parts)

The first correct quantum atomic model of the ether atom, the crucial observation that the second string in the Whittaker potential waves is the gravitational wave (dextrorotatory spin):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2006274#msg2006274

TUNGUSKA event linked to FET:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1676400#msg1676400 (6 parts)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1995026#msg1995026 (2 parts)

No other FE had ever thought to link the Tunguska explosion to the fact that it becomes the most direct proof of the flatness of the Earth's surface. But I did.

And much more.
And those original ideas are all copy pasta from other people's efforts, often wrongly applied. That's not an attack on your posting, it is what it is. I don't care what you post, I only encourage you to do so. And that's important. Again I'll come back to that later in the post.

I brought to the FES undreamed of levels of rigor, graduate level mathematics and physics, striking proofs, correct explanations for each FE phenomenon, A-Z.
No, you didn't. You contributed ... you didn't reinvent the wheel.

You don't debate. It doesn't matter what I reply, you won't read it. You'll just paste the next paragraph of something you don't understand under my post. Then the next. That isn't a debate.

My "long posts" always receive the most views.

That is what readers want to see.
This is the part I want to pick you up on. This is a forum. Not a personal blog. Views is not a metric I care deeply about. I care more about other metrics such as 'replies'. How many people did you engage in debate? How many people did you get talking about FET? How many people saw your post and were inspired to create an account and join in. I actually look at metrics like Top 10 topic starters (which my accounts over the years before I close them are usually near the top). I look at how many people joined in your debate.
Here is a post of mine from 2010.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42558.0
Note it spawned 55,000 views in under a year (if that is important to you), but drew 21 pages of debate. Not me posting. OTHER PEOPLE wanting to discuss it. And original idea that drew people to join in. That's what we want on the forums. This isn't Blogger. We want people contributing and breathing life into the forums. We crave interaction, not attention.

They seek to be challenged, they want more than just plain information, they are looking for energy, power, spirituality, you have to establish a relationship based on trust with them.
No ... they want to be entertained. TFES is a free time leisure activity.

What does that even mean? You ripped it out of context.

My viewers know that I always provide the very best explanations, proofs, bibliographical references. Always. No ripping out of context.
Your viewers? You don't run a successful website. Again I question the validity of having a post bumped to the top of a board for 8 years in a section called "Believer" named "Advanced Flat Earth Theory". That to me, is clickbait. Congrats, you created some clickbait. Hardly anyone has replied and I don't see people spawing new threads to discuss the content.

If the Earth was moving upwards, this fact would be registered not only by the GPS satellites, but by every RING LASER GYROSCOPE interferometer in the world. It is a fact that this does not happen.

Those interferometers do not even register the 30 km/s orbital speed, or the rotational speed.

Your assertions have just been refuted.


The Sagnac effect is for a ROTATING round earth and the discrepancy between a transmission out to the satellite that is moving a long way (bigger circle) and the transmission back to a rotating earth (smaller circle) giving rise to different speeds.
You've misapplied the Sagnac effect. It doesn't matter. I've no interest in shooting down your FE ideas. One might call that an own goal.

That is why the readers do not read your messages (perhaps only marginally) and come by the hundreds of thousands to read mine.
First, I know when to let a thread die. When people no longer want to participate. When they have participated and exhausted the concepts and wish to spend their time on something else. Second readers do read my messages. I know this because they reply to them ... often in large numbers.

The Sagnac effect registers TRANSLATIONAL/LINEAR/UNIFORM MOTION. Please convince yourself:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2023979#msg2023979
Don't be facetious.

If I opened a thread in a part of the forum no one else had access to and was able to keep bumping it for 8 years? I suspect it would rack up thousands of views by virtue of the traffic on the forum and nothing to do with the content I put inside it.

There are plenty of other threads which have been "bumped" over the years: they get nowhere the numbers of views that my messages receive. My AFET is not required reading. It is not "post a picture of yourself" or "now playing". Just 18 pages. A formidable achievement to get over 400,000 views.
I'm pretty sure we discussed click bait already.

That is what the readers want to see, to read.
I wonder what your bounce rate is? Being as no one is discussing the content.  There's a metric I'd like to know.

You mean this?

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1183.0

Is this supposed to be a joke?

That thread has 102 PAGES.

My AFET has just 18 pages.

You do the math.
I did the math. Your post brought joy to one person. You were the only person who participated. That's not a forum metric I'm interested in. That's a vanity project.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1196.0

26 PAGES.

My AFET does not get bumped by having other users post new messages. The readers come to get the best information possible on FET on a voluntary basis.

By far, the most successful thread in the history of any FE forum.
Bumping, clickbait, bounce rates, you linking it repeatedly all over the internet on other sites ... yeah, we covered this.

If you did open a thread, presenting your views on FET, you'd find very fast how difficult it is to keep the readers' interest alive for your messages, even for a period of time measured in months. It is an art to have them come back again and again, to give them what they really want.
You must think I've never used this forum before. I've been posting for the better part of a decade. I've made over 40,000 posts all in, on my various accounts between the two sites.

Make no mistake about it: the readers, RE and FE, want to be challenged with lengthy messages, with plenty of information, with the correct explanations.
No, they want a debate. You know, multiple people exchanging ideas. That is what a forum is for. THIS ISN'T YOUR PERSONAL BLOG!
« Last Edit: May 19, 2018, 01:00:39 PM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1