*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7741
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
I like where this is going - I'd certainly be on board with altering the homepage to change the tone slightly. The board structure will probably require some more discussion to make sure we get it right rather than just plunge into another suboptimal solution, but it could definitely happen!
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4762
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
These are some current thoughts based on what we have been discussing:

Front page Forum section blurb

"Welcome to the Society, free thinker! This is a place to chat, share your research, and participate in Flat Earth projects."

Top Level Forums (Based on Thork's suggestions on the previous page)

Flat Earth Investigations - Examine Round Earth proofs and debunk the latest Round Earth propaganda. A place to explore the possibility of a Flat Earth.

Flat Earth Media - Discuss external content such as earth shape videos, blogs, books, and news articles.

That's it.

All of the words used in the descriptions should be carefully thought out to give the visitors the impression that they will be the investigators to explore such possibility of a Flat Earth. We are not the experts who they must debate against.

Current threads in Q & A, Debate, and General would be be combined into Flat Earth Investigations. We don't really need more than one main forum to keep track of. It is annoying checking three forums every day. Thork's third forum idea, "a place to talk about Flat Earth Theory," would naturally take place in the Flat Earth Investigations forum (I added a second sentence to the description: "A place to explore the possibility of a Flat Earth").

Flat Earth Information Repository can be renamed into Flat Earth Media (so one can casually refer to it as "the media forum")

Any Flat Earth forums beyond that should be for community projects and such.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 01:04:48 AM by Tom Bishop »

You could just change ZC into Flat Earth Community and carry on from there.

I'm not sure there is much of a downside. I'd be nervous if we were suggesting removing any chance of debating FErs, but moving those 3 forums to one and narrowing its impact ... if all the debates still end up in there, we know it didn't work but lost nothing.

I clicked a link today, that referred to the other forum and whilst there (I haven't visited in years, am just not curious), but I scanned through their S&C to see what issues they faced.

They have 3 issues as I see it.
First, the majority of the complaints come from FErs. But prominently 3 FErs. 3 FErs who tend to post nonsensical posts that as a fluent English speaker versed in FET, I still find hard to follow and understand. I'm glad we don't have the Bullhorn/Sandokhan weirdness posters. Everyone here uses plain English.
They complain about hostility in the upper forums to a much greater extent than we do. They have more of the clocktower (remember him?) problem with long term RErs jumping on every single post forever and ever. Some racking up 20,000 posts+
They suffer tyranny issues, mainly brought about by Davis having free reign over an ever absent Daniel. Unfairness seems to still be a huge problem over there, as does lethargy and the general like it or lump it attitude.

So really the only main problem we share in common is the under siege FErs in the upper fora, and of course the only thing we really have in common is the same debate structure of the forums. So I'm all for this, even as a trial.

But we've had the input of 3 people. Before we even think of finalising the changes, we need to go to the rest of the community and ask for objections and potential concerns with such an idea. Do they think we'll kill traffic, ruin the reasons they come here, destroy what the society is supposed to be about? I mean Tom said we have a problem where we are seen as the experts on FET and the people to challenge and ask. Well, we kind of are, and its the reason the press ask us things and not random youtubers.

I'd be interested in the views of longer term users of the site ... particularly those who use the upper forums. I care less about what new people think and not so much about those that never venture from CN or AR because to be honest, they likely wouldn't even notice and this isn't their problem. But Rushy, Junker, Parsifal, Dither etc.
We should beat Thork with mops.

*

Offline Parsifal

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4919
  • A couple of bums
    • View Profile
I'd be interested in the views of longer term users of the site ... particularly those who use the upper forums. I care less about what new people think and not so much about those that never venture from CN or AR because to be honest, they likely wouldn't even notice and this isn't their problem. But Rushy, Junker, Parsifal, Dither etc.

I've always said my main concern is providing a reliable platform for debate to happen rather than being overly invested in how the debate happens. I haven't posted much in the upper fora in years and I'm happy to let the people who do post there decide this.

Now, if you ever have some suggestions for how to better architect our hosting setup for reliability, then I'll be a more active participant in the discussion.
I guess because I have a degree in Engineering I assumed it would be easy to understand.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4762
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
People like foil. I know that you mean Thork. But what if the foil was just carefully crafted provocative messages presented to the user in some form.

Imagine if they clicked on Flat Earth Forums and above the table of contents page which lists the forums there was a big header message at the top:

"NASA says that everything is known about the world and you are stupid to be here. What do you have to say about that?"

or

"Is a Flat Earth strictly and physically impossible? Explore with us!"

Not in those exact words, perhaps. But I am sure you get the idea. Messages such as the above reinforces that this place is about you vs. the authority or you vs. nature.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 02:16:57 AM by Tom Bishop »

Now, if you ever have some suggestions for how to better architect our hosting setup for reliability, then I'll be a more active participant in the discussion.
I don't even know how many digits in an IP address so ...

but thanks for playing along as though I might actually have a useful suggestion on that front.  :)

Not in those exact words, perhaps. But I am sure you get the idea. Messages such as the above reinforces that this place is about you vs. the authority or you vs. nature.
I'm onboard, Tom. But we need more people onboard with such a proposal. For you, Pete and I to make such a sweeping change would be ... well unfair on everyone else who uses the site. We need more input.

I think we used to have a message of sorts like that. Something like "teach the controversy". Maybe adapting a bit for a new slogan "Challenge what you're told", or "Thought, not Taught" or something?
« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 02:14:18 AM by Baby Thork »
We should beat Thork with mops.

I'd be interested in the views of longer term users of the site ... particularly those who use the upper forums.

i'm not totally sure how what i'm going to say fits into the schema y'all are tinkering with, but i'll toss in my two cents.

like many folks here, i started as a lurker and transitioned to angry noob.  i wasn't the angriest noob, but i was definitely in the "omg how could someone believe a different thing than me" camp.  after a month or so of arguing with tom, i made a p funny angry rant and thought i'd bail.  then some kind user sent me a pm saying something to the effect of "dude don't be so srs bsns.  there's more fun to be had with the society than arguing with tom."  so i came back determined to relax and have some fun arguments and maybe make some internet friends.  i've definitely lost my temper a few times since then; but all-in-all, this is one of my favorite little corners of the internet, and i'm glad i took that user's advice.

so i guess what i'm saying is that whatever system you decide to implement, i think part of the culture should change, too.  i think part of your goal should be to make the people who come here see that if you're willing to chill out just a little, then you can have some really fun discussions and debates about all kinds of shit.  this is something i know thork has preached for a long time, and i agree with it.

i really dunno how to be more specific than that.  i just feel like somehow replicating the experience i had would get more long term users.  i have two sort-of-suggestions: 1) i think the way you respond to noobs has to change a bit to be less aggressive and more inviting.  most of the time that's still not going to work, and most folks who come here to rage at fet just aren't salvageable anyway.  some are, though, and we should maximize the chance to disarm their "omg different thing" response.

2) maybe try to "advertise" the lower fora more.  like "come for the flat earth debates and stay to argue about politics and sports and thork's computer and why russia is our ally."  that sort of mentality.
shitposting leftists are never alone

maybe try to "advertise" the lower fora more.  like "come for the flat earth debates and stay to argue about politics and sports and thork's computer and why russia is our ally."  that sort of mentality.
Well I have the slogan for that one sorted. - The Flat Earth Society.  Come for the flat earth, stay for the society.  ;)
We should beat Thork with mops.

I'd be interested in the views of longer term users of the site ... particularly those who use the upper forums.
I've been dabbling in and out of the upper fora for a while, and I don't have much new to add, but I think Tom Bishop has the best approach here.

It may be a side-effect of the split, or just time wearing down the Flat Earth advocates, but it used to be that those that "got it" would be willing to advocate for a Flat Earth. I haven't seen a new voice, at least on this forum, enter the Flat Earth side in a while and there's only so many times people can handle the same discussions and questions from Round Earth advocates who refuse to lurk moar. Also, when did we quit having "lurk moar" as an acceptable response?
You don't think I'm going to post here sober, do you?  ???

I have embraced my Benny Franko side. I'm sleazy.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4762
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Thank you for your opinions.

So far it appears that we want to get away from the current "debate the experts" theme. We can keep that topic open to objectors, but I believe there will be consensus we want to get away from that. I don't like that idea, and it appears that the few FE'ers who post here do not like that idea, and so why force us into that position?

I would also like to continue hearing what others in the community has to say about this, especially long time members. Please post your opinion. I do like the recommendation that we should also encourage users to post in the lower forums as well.

I would like to continue discussing execution. The ideas of pitting the user against authority, or against nature, are interesting. As is the concept of a debate club. These should be our goals.

I am thinking about Thork's concerns that the forums will just end up being a debate forum against FE'ers anyway. This is possible. Someone who wants to challenge FET will post threads challenging every aspect. This brings me back to the original debate club idea. All of our discussion forums should be debate clubs, and explicitly stated as such. Maybe when the user clicks on the forums link on the main page there is a message at the top, clear and center, over the forum table of contents listings, which clearly describes what this is.

"Welcome to the Debate Club

The top level Flat Earth Discussion Forums are a Debate Club. As in any debate club, the goal is to exercise your ability in debate to poke holes in arguments and expose weaknesses, even if you do not believe in that position yourself. Keep in mind that this is a friendly debate. Post in the Flat Earth Debate Club and join the fun!"

A simple explanation, a simple concept, but with great effect. Maybe we can place similar messages at several levels into the forums to make it very clear. Now, when an angry RE'er posts threads with content claims that "this is impossible" or "they wouldn't lie to us," it is literally then the entire forum's goal to knock it down. The effect is that the debates are self sustaining. The RE'ers are not waiting for the FE'er experts to appear. In fact, there is no specific group of "RE'ers" at all in this concept.

We are not preventing people from putting out their criticisms or opinions, like how the Eric Dubey forum disallows non-FE thought. People can still express whatever it is they want to express. We are just attempting to create a more self sustaining discussion.

Those who post in favor of Flat Earth will get opposition to whatever thoughts they express anyway, debate club or not. This concept enures that people posting in favor of Round Earth will get the same treatment. It creates better debates and solves the problem seen in many threads over the last several years being poorly attended to because of lack of FE'ers.

We might also want to rethink the implicit concepts the forum and website promotes of certain people being "FE'ers" and other people being "RE'ers" entirely. We need to thoroughly reinforce that this isn't about "you vs. us" at all.

More thought needs to go into what we want to name our main discussion forums, and how many of them we need. Perhaps there can be more than one main discussion forum, since one massive forum may prove to be unwieldy. I am not entirely sure how we should partition them out. I would like to see other ideas on this as well.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 06:55:30 PM by Tom Bishop »

Some things to consider.

We don't want people asking "why aren't you saving up to go to the ice-wall", "why aren't you remapping Australia", "why don't you go into space" ... the stupid 'TFES has unlimited budget and should therefore be researching this'. Personally I feel we should be more like we curate and maintain FE history and become custodians for that part of world history. Not researchers and scientists looking for new ways to prove the earth is flat. Then efforts can be directed at collecting and maintaining a great FE library of resources which can be built up over time. In effect we're still the experts, but more in the way a historian is an expert than a scientist.

Debates need two sides. We'll have to make some effort to draw contrarians and anti-authoritarians to field the non mainstream side of debates. This may cause teething issues as anti-authoritarians are unlikely to want to observe things like forum rules.

We need to stay true to our demographic. People who are drawn to TFES tend to be above average intelligence, interested in science and technology, of a libertarian bent and are mostly introverts. We don't want to be swamped with people we don't like. Rabid SJWs, idiots that obsess over celebrity culture, barely literate individuals who struggle articulating themselves or 4chan children that think swatting and phone pranking are the new black. Its not that we don't want to be inclusive, but no one wants to read a 4th thread on Kim Kardashian's new shoes by someone who calls everyone Bae. This isn't Tumblr.

To that end, the upper fora ... the ones people initially use ... need to remain technical, not social forums.
We should beat Thork with mops.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7653
  • Boom
    • View Profile
I’d be happy with almost any of the changes being presented here, even if just for the sake of shaking things up a bit and differentiating us more from the other site.

I don’t enjoy the upper fora anymore. For a very long time I’ve been the only one actively moderating, and that has absolutely killed any interest I have in participating. I just don’t have the patience for retarded RErs. But now that Pete is on board, I hope that will change. And changing things up may also help with that.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 02:13:58 AM by junker »
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4762
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
I see a potential solution to Junker's problem in this as well. If people were actually attempting to debate both sides, people would naturally shout down any low quality posts when they appear in threads and ask that they create better arguments. That would be an easy win. The net result is social pressure for that user to make better quality posts. Then junker is less needed to meticulously scan every thread.

Also, I feel that many of the "You guys are so dumb," "prove it to me," etc., posts are because of the "we are the experts who know that the earth is flat, debate us" theme.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 05:35:57 PM by Tom Bishop »

I'm not sure you'll get better posts out of culture and expectation. You are an articulate man who likes to state his viewpoint. You'll always post like that because you want to and because you can. We can't turn a "flat earthers are gay" type poster into someone with interesting things to say. They didn't come here to be interesting.


Anyway, we've haven't had a single word of opposition to the proposal ... so i guess we should move on to drafting the new layout. Any thoughts as to the names of the new forums, what they are for and how we push some together and create new ones or rename old ones?

For brevity and in the interest of actually getting something done, I'd suggest only the technical flat earth forums are looked at, forget S&C, the social forums or the nonsense forums. Let's start with a lump of iron suggestion and then start hammering it into shape. - maybe this warrants a thread of its own. This one served its purpose.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 04:07:38 PM by Baby Thork »
We should beat Thork with mops.

Also ... I wonder ...

If we change from trying to prove modern FE (a thankless and frankly pointless task) to being more custodians of FET and its history, will the upper forums become more light-hearted? Its an important question because it sets the tone.

Example ... If someone asks (and they will) 'what is on the other side of the earth', the answer is we don't know. There is no FE source material I can use for that. Now that I don't have to reach for the most likely explanation for a science point of view which will be met with angry responses, can I just reply 'Morlocks?' before explaining we haven't any source material for that? Can I bring people in on the joke without them feeling I'm poking fun at them? Its not that I want the upper forums to be a joke and for us to be a parody site. Quite the opposite. But I think with some humour a lot of the confrontation would go away. Its hard to be aggressive to someone who is both giving you answers and pulling your leg at the same time. If someone asks "what about time zones in Australia" and I reply that Australia doesn't exist and reference Shenton's article "australia not down under" article, I've both given them some useful FE material and had fun with them. Its then not you vs me. Its us discovering FET and having more of a laugh whilst doing it.

Done right we could make this place more fun to visit when you first get here, much less srs business and those who share the jokes and want to be part of the community stay. It would be very different to the constant and frankly tiring battleground the upper forums are. We can still have fun posting FE proofs and puzzling people whilst they work out what is going on, but we don't have to staunchly defend sunset times to the point of stubborn refusal which is the point people get pissed off at us.

FET is now pretty mainstream. There is enough evidence of flat earthers out there ... you can watch them on youtube ... so do we need to be a defender of FET? Or can we just tell you everything you need to know and have a laugh sharing that with you. Very different to what we've done before and what the other site does. Then let them soak up the pain over there, and hopefully we'll just attract the people with a genuine curiosity as opposed to those with an axe to grind.

It will repel die hard FErs, but honestly the likes of sandokhan or brotherhood of the dome ... no one enjoys their wall of nonsensical text and failure to actually respond to questions. They basically shitpost and copy/paste from religious sources. Its not enjoyable content.

We could then gear the FAQ to be more fun, and the wiki to be more of a resource of traditional answers. IE we think the earth could be flat, explore that with us, but it isn't a deal breaker if we don't agree and we can see the funny side of some of this stuff so we aren't like the other site with a broom up our arses.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 04:40:02 PM by Baby Thork »
We should beat Thork with mops.

It will repel die hard FErs, but honestly the likes of sandokhan or brotherhood of the dome ... no one enjoys their wall of nonsensical text and failure to actually respond to questions. They basically shitpost and copy/paste from religious sources. Its not enjoyable content.

You and your pals wouldn't be here today without me.

There are countless threads here where you (you meaning the FE defending FET right here on this forum) are unable to answer very simple questions: it seems like you are up shit creek on a daily basis.

A wall of text might pertain to very specific bibliographical references.

Only someone who has published enough ORIGINAL material (math, physics and much more) can copy & paste the best references.

You think you can debate FET with me?

It takes less than 5 seconds to debunk the UA.

As a final proof that it is movement of the receiver which is significant--not whether that movement is in a curved or straight line path--a test was run using the highly precise differential carrier phase solution. The reference site was stationary on the earth and assumed to properly apply the Sagnac effect. However, at the remote site the antenna was moved up and down 32 centimeters (at Los Angeles) over an eight second interval. The result of the height movement was that the remote receiver followed a straight line path with respect to the center of the earth.

The Sagnac effect was still applied at the remote receiver. The result was solved for position that simply moved up and down in height the 32 centimeters with rms residuals which were unchanged (i.e. a few millimeters). If a straight line path did not need the Sagnac adjustment to the ranges the rms residuals should have increased to multiple meters. This shows again that it is any motion--not just circular motion which causes the Sagnac effect.

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/ION58PROCEEDINGS.pdf

(Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS, R. Wang/R. Hatch)

ANY UPWARD movement of the Earth would be registered/recorded immediately by the GPS satellites using the Sagnac effect.

What do you think would happen if you were to open your own thread (here or elsewhere) on FET and keep it online for eight years in a row?

There are threads which have hundreds of pages and thousands of messages: my AFET has only some 18 pages, yet it has received over 400,000 views (and it is not required reading). You might want to ask those readers if they agree with your assessments listed above.


*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7653
  • Boom
    • View Profile
It will repel die hard FErs, but honestly the likes of sandokhan or brotherhood of the dome ... no one enjoys their wall of nonsensical text and failure to actually respond to questions. They basically shitpost and copy/paste from religious sources. Its not enjoyable content.

You and your pals wouldn't be here today without me.

There are countless threads here where you (you meaning the FE defending FET right here on this forum) are unable to answer very simple questions: it seems like you are up shit creek on a daily basis.

A wall of text might pertain to very specific bibliographical references.

Only someone who has published enough ORIGINAL material (math, physics and much more) can copy & paste the best references.

You think you can debate FET with me?

It takes less than 5 seconds to debunk the UA.

As a final proof that it is movement of the receiver which is significant--not whether that movement is in a curved or straight line path--a test was run using the highly precise differential carrier phase solution. The reference site was stationary on the earth and assumed to properly apply the Sagnac effect. However, at the remote site the antenna was moved up and down 32 centimeters (at Los Angeles) over an eight second interval. The result of the height movement was that the remote receiver followed a straight line path with respect to the center of the earth.

The Sagnac effect was still applied at the remote receiver. The result was solved for position that simply moved up and down in height the 32 centimeters with rms residuals which were unchanged (i.e. a few millimeters). If a straight line path did not need the Sagnac adjustment to the ranges the rms residuals should have increased to multiple meters. This shows again that it is any motion--not just circular motion which causes the Sagnac effect.

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/ION58PROCEEDINGS.pdf

(Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS, R. Wang/R. Hatch)

ANY UPWARD movement of the Earth would be registered/recorded immediately by the GPS satellites using the Sagnac effect.

What do you think would happen if you were to open your own thread (here or elsewhere) on FET and keep it online for eight years in a row?

There are threads which have hundreds of pages and thousands of messages: my AFET has only some 18 pages, yet it has received over 400,000 views (and it is not required reading). You might want to ask those readers if they agree with your assessments listed above.

Sandokhan, ignore Thork. You are as welcome here as anyone else. But yes, your incredibly long posts are not conducive to swaying new forum members, as they likely aren’t read in their entirety due to the sheer verbosity and length. There is undoubtedly a wealth of knowledge contained in the posts, but the goal here is to make them more palatable to the layperson as well as new users.

I certainly hope you don’t see any of this as an attack on you by us, that isn’t the intention. I also hold you in different regard as intikam/BotD, as he is far too emotional and polar. You are typically consistent throughout all your posts and that is helpful. Just remember we are on the same team, so don’t let nuance get in the way of productivity, and don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 08:43:49 PM by junker »
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

You and your pals wouldn't be here today without me.
Where would we be? You've made under 200 posts in the upper forums in 5 years. You've made 300 in the religious section. Averaging 1 post a fortnight in the upper forums is hardly keeping the forum afloat.

There are countless threads here where you (you meaning the FE defending FET right here on this forum) are unable to answer very simple questions: it seems like you are up shit creek on a daily basis.
On a daily basis, you aren't here helping out.

A wall of text might pertain to very specific bibliographical references.

Only someone who has published enough ORIGINAL material (math, physics and much more) can copy & paste the best references.
??? What? Where is your original material? Everything you post is copy pasta.

You think you can debate FET with me?
No. 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. You make no effort to connect to me as an individual, you make no effort explain anything. 

It takes less than 5 seconds to debunk the UA.
Well it does if ctrl+c/cntl+v is your method, sure.

As a final proof that it is movement of the receiver which is significant--not whether that movement is in a curved or straight line path--a test was run using the highly precise differential carrier phase solution. The reference site was stationary on the earth and assumed to properly apply the Sagnac effect. However, at the remote site the antenna was moved up and down 32 centimeters (at Los Angeles) over an eight second interval. The result of the height movement was that the remote receiver followed a straight line path with respect to the center of the earth.

The Sagnac effect was still applied at the remote receiver. The result was solved for position that simply moved up and down in height the 32 centimeters with rms residuals which were unchanged (i.e. a few millimeters). If a straight line path did not need the Sagnac adjustment to the ranges the rms residuals should have increased to multiple meters. This shows again that it is any motion--not just circular motion which causes the Sagnac effect.
And it begins. What does that even mean? You ripped it out of context. You haven't even reworded it. And then you posted it
here https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69708.msg1882711#msg1882711
and here http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6227&start=45
and on Daniel's site etc.

That's not a debate. That is you picking a topic (UA) and then copy pasting an unrelated alternative explanation again and again. You didn't do the maths. You didn't even reword it ... you never do. You don't explain anything because you don't understand it. So you just post it and leave the reader to interpret it. And if there are any comebacks ... you just post the next paragraph.

ANY UPWARD movement of the Earth would be registered/recorded immediately by the GPS satellites using the Sagnac effect.
You'll find we don't subscribe to GPS satellites around here. A repurposed Loran system using ground based receivers is perfectly capable of delivering location data. Besides, what you are posting has nothing to do with that. 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. The satellite has more lateral movement giving rise to the error. If GPS was in place over a FIXED (non-rotating) flat earth, the earth and GPS satellites have to accelerate at the same speeds upwards... so no Sagnac effect. This is what I mean by you posting things you don't understand.

What do you think would happen if you were to open your own thread (here or elsewhere) on FET and keep it online for eight years in a row?
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 threads which have hundreds of pages and thousands of messages: my AFET has only some 18 pages, yet it has received over 400,000 views (and it is not required reading). You might want to ask those readers if they agree with your assessments listed above.
Maybe we should ask the 400,000 viewers on this site why they read "ask a jew anything" in just 3 short years? Or "ask Rushy about bitcoins" gathering more posts per day than your special bumped post of 8 years?


As Junker says, you are free to post here. But I don't think where we are going with a new format is going to please you. I picked you out as an FE purist, and I think most of us are done with that.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2018, 03:59:39 AM by Baby Thork »
We should beat Thork with mops.

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".

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.

That is why the readers do not read your messages (perhaps only marginally) and come by the hundreds of thousands to read mine.

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

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2023979#msg2023979


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.

That is what the readers want to see, to read.


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.


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.


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.


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.

« Last Edit: May 19, 2018, 07:40:42 AM by sandokhan »

I see a potential solution to Junker's problem in this as well. If people were actually attempting to debate both sides, people would naturally shout down any low quality posts when they appear in threads and ask that they create better arguments. That would be an easy win. The net result is social pressure for that user to make better quality posts. Then junker is less needed to meticulously scan every thread.

Also, I feel that many of the "You guys are so dumb," "prove it to me," etc., posts are because of the "we are the experts who know that the earth is flat, debate us" theme.
To need good debate you need
1) An interesting topic - well, we certainly have that
2) People who have differing opinions - we have that too. You lament sometimes how outnumbered you are but you're not really, there are round earthers like me signing up but there are plenty of FE posters here, it's just that most of them don't post in the upper fora.

If the reason for that is that the same debates happen over and over again, the same threads getting started then part of that is because the FAQ and Wiki aren't comprehensive. Thork mentions "what is on the other side" and the answer "we don't know". It's not a very satisfying answer, but it's an answer. So stick it in the FAQ. Might not stop people posting that, but at least you can point them at the FAQ, heck someone like me could do it to save you the bother. I'm quite happy to point new posters in the right direction about things like that if there's a direction to point them in.

But another reason that the same topics come up over and over is that you are not willing to concede any ground on any topic. A recent example is horizon dip. Now let's not get into that debate here, but you've been shown 4 different ways to demonstrate horizon dip, you refuse to accept any of them and you refuse to do any experimenting yourself so it becomes a frustrating conversation. There has to be some honesty in debates and that involves conceding some ground when shown to be wrong. The way progress has been made in science is by doing experiments and when the results show current models are wrong changing those models. Just blindly accepting any experiment which appears to show a result you believe in and dismissing or calling fake experiments which show the reverse isn't honest, it's just stubbornly sticking to dogma and doesn't make for interesting debate. How about thinking about why horizon dip might occur on a flat earth (hint, jelly beans!) and how your model might need to change to account for that. Rather than saying there is no flat earth map, that you don't know if there's one pole or two and so on, how about some discussions about how you would go about determining these things? If your model evolves then debate about it can evolve, if it doesn't then you're going to get the same discussions over and over.

Absolutely agree with Thork's comment about the upper fora being more light hearted. I said that some time ago and got shouted down. And fine, it's your place, you guys make it what you want it to be, but a bit of humour is no bad thing IMO.

Round Earthers who sign up to tell you that "earth is round, ur gay", just ban them and let the grown ups get on with discussing things.
"This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement" - Tom Bishop