Mega Thread The Flat Earth Mega thread.

[darthbards]

we were all enjoying the discussion before the extremist had to take things too far

John McEnroe and all

Yes,and I'd be very interested to now find out after discovering this magnificent Big Bang,from 4% knowledge of the particles in our universe,how we couldn't find the poor neglected Olinguito,on actual earth. (And I have no intention of linking Olinguito,if someone doesn't know this little fella,just Google him). How people are so sure we have any idea what is going on,is ego based nonsense.

From what I can gather,he was to high,up in a tree,and there were clouds there. He sounds like a little magical cloud fairy I suppose.

Human knowledge and perception,does not cut it. When science develops better AI leading to SI,we will be closer to the answers we desire. The Earth will be flat,as will the whole universe we are perceiving ourselves to be apart of.
No point getting angry about it.
I still do think 30% round is possible,and more than fair. Fingers crossed,I'm not overly fussed what shape people think the earth is.

 

[darth_timon]

Discussions around the big bang and the number of known particles are Red Herrings in the case of discussing whether the earth is flat. If the aim is to show that our current scientific understanding of the universe is incomplete, then this is hardly news. However, this doesn't mean we should reject wholesale what we have learned on the basis that some of it *might* be flawed. Nor does it mean that a fringe idea like flat earth will automatically supplant the conventional explanation for the nature of the earth. That in itself is quite an arrogant declaration.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

[cannot]

i personally think 62% the earth is flat

 

[darthbards]

Discussions around the big bang and the number of known particles are Red Herrings in the case of discussing whether the earth is flat. If the aim is to show that our current scientific understanding of the universe is incomplete, then this is hardly news. However, this doesn't mean we should reject wholesale what we have learned on the basis that some of it *might* be flawed. Nor does it mean that a fringe idea like flat earth will automatically supplant the conventional explanation for the nature of the earth. That in itself is quite an arrogant declaration.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

Who's rejecting it? Even I'm saying 30% chance. We just need better distribution of funding,and more broad ranging study in schools,outside the spinning,hurtling big ball from the magic big bang.

You can still have a round ball blog,just like there are flat earth blogs and websites.

I wouldn't say 4% should be considered a red herring. Humans need to realise our lack of understanding and intelligence,its important. Just like our little friend the Olinguito is important,just like religion is very important to those that dig it.

 

[cannot]

Wow. So once again you evade the question and take pot shots at me instead. Is argument ad hominen your go-to policy when you can't respond to a point raised?

I will make it again for you. Instead of casting vague ideas that the conspiracy to conceal the world's true nature might exist for reasons beyond our understanding (which is really just your way of admitting you can't actually answer the point), maybe the simplest answer is the right one - namely that there is no answer because there is no conspiracy. You can't think of a valid answer so you try to rubbish the question.

the people that run the powerful institution historically, who are also known for harassing astronomers, big bang theories and inquisitions

worship 'the devil' (the elite, top branches) and have corrupted society

instead of validating the earth is of course flat, made by god, and you are a very very special thing

rather the pear earth spins five directions simultaneously the universe goes forever, and u are less than a grain of sand, in a spec of time

so you might as well watch the kardasians, buy another cheesburger and vote liberal


i was intending you write you a nice long essay style reply (ive already answered this with a crappy verison 40 odd pages back), yet the fundamentalist took the jam out of my donut hence you will need to criticize my above dot points

What do you think science is? It's the process of observing and theorising and studying. If 'globeheads' are choosing to believe the evidence, as opposed to flimsy unsupported quasi-religious ideas, then it's not hypocrisy, but common sense.

There are a number of ways in which flat earth nonsense has already been comprehensively debunked. https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-t...14-ways-the-flat-earth-theory-is-false.t7148/

https://www.distract101.com/2017/01/flat-earth-theory-debunked-complete-guide/

stopped doing metabunk after he debunked 9/11 by steeping on a pepsi can

https://aplanetruth.info/

comprehensive proof the earth is flat and still ?!

 

[darth_timon]

Who's rejecting it? Even I'm saying 30% chance. We just need better distribution of funding,and more broad ranging study in schools,outside the spinning,hurtling big ball from the magic big bang.

You can still have a round ball blog,just like there are flat earth blogs and websites.

I wouldn't say 4% should be considered a red herring. Humans need to realise our lack of understanding and intelligence,its important. Just like our little friend the Olinguito is important,just like religion is very important to those that dig it.

You're basing your 30% chance on.... What? The reason science teaches the earth is a globe is because the evidence points that way. Why should resources be unnecessarily diverted to support a theory that relies heavily on pseudo-science and quasi-religious arguments? I have no problem with religious ideas around a flat earth being taught in RE lessons, but as a scientific theory FE is completely full of holes.

Point 1: if gravity isn't actually a thing, what is the driving force behind the sun's power?

Point 2: I have heard of the idea that the earth is moving upwards and this gives us the impression of gravity. What is the means of propulsion? What are the reactants, the reaction rates?

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

[darthbards]

You're basing your 30% chance on.... What? The reason science teaches the earth is a globe is because the evidence points that way. Why should resources be unnecessarily diverted to support a theory that relies heavily on pseudo-science and quasi-religious arguments? I have no problem with religious ideas around a flat earth being taught in RE lessons, but as a scientific theory FE is completely full of holes.

Point 1: if gravity isn't actually a thing, what is the driving force behind the sun's power?

Point 2: I have heard of the idea that the earth is moving upwards and this gives us the impression of gravity. What is the means of propulsion? What are the reactants, the reaction rates?

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

We know gravity is not a thing,it's magic and when I was a child magic was cool.

Universal Acceleration as been mentioned and explained numerous times,the threads 90 pages long. Have you read it? It's my belief you havnt undertaken any courses or study involving FE theory at all. But your curious,that's why your here.
It's also why we see a bit of anger on this thread,sometimes out of control rage. It's because your sub conscious knows the earth is flat,everything is. You can't escape it.

What happened to your blog army you linked this thread to with words attached like danger,under attack and threatened?
You even mentioned some of us by name if I recall correctly.

 

[Reppie]

 

[Total Power]

The UA affects only the FE directly. Let's be clear the UA affects the FE and then the FE affects the objects (people, oceans, atmosphere) when contact is made. The FE has absolutely no gravitational attraction to anything above it. The UA does not accelerate the Sun, Moon, planets, asteroids, meteors, rockets, satellites, moons, comets, stars, nebulaes, galaxies, or groups. which is a load of ****ing bullshit because we'd have crashed into the sun/moon/stars/nebulae/ planets by now.

Here is a good explanation:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5524.0
If the earth were accelerating at a constant rate, and you were not, this is what it would look like:

1. The earth would appear to move at an accelerating rate away from you. This acceleration would appear to decrease as the earth approaches the speed of light relative to you.
2. The earth would appear to be getting flatter in the direction it is accelerating.
3. The people on earth would appear to age slower from your point of view. Clocks would appear to move slower and slower.
4. Light reaching you from the earth would appear red-shifted, assuming the earth is moving away from you. Everything would look reddish, and then eventually infrared.




LOL.

So it's not actually universal, because it doesn't effect everything in the universe, and the sun and moon are held up by magic.

Right, as long as that's cleared up. If the sun, moon, planets, and stars aren't affected at all by the UA, why do they remain a relatively constant distance above us?

 

[Gralin]

I honestly don't get it, has nobody looked out the window of a plane on a clear day and noticed the curve?
How do people believe there is a conspiracy to hide the true nature of the shape of the planet, what is to be gained from it?

 

[cannot]

I honestly don't get it, has nobody looked out the window of a plane on a clear day and noticed the curve?
How do people believe there is a conspiracy to hide the true nature of the shape of the planet, what is to be gained from it?

its flat from a plane window

even most the globeheads now accept this

 

[Lebbo73]

No and why have so many posters not ever read the rules of this board!



Takes less than 30 seconds but so many ignore it while complaining after the fact that they have done nothing wrong, with a most likely " I never knew " type response.

These rules slide in under the TLDR scenario. The whole country is over regulated.

 

[Chism]

These rules slide in under the TLDR scenario. The whole country is over regulated.

Pretty easy if you do not like it to visit other forums that discuss it, but then it is no fun i suppose because it does not involve flirting with any rules and risking breaking them.

No one really likes forums that are not moderated and have rules for each board and i wonder why that is? Hmmmm!

 

[Total Power]

its flat from a plane window

even most the globeheads now accept this

Taken in real time, from Space station, also his go-pro cam (not a fish eye lens before you play that card)

 

[darthbards]

I honestly don't get it, has nobody looked out the window of a plane on a clear day and noticed the curve?
How do people believe there is a conspiracy to hide the true nature of the shape of the planet, what is to be gained from it?

We did the eyes looking out the window thing on about page one.
And your eyes aren't that cool,ask a hawk or eagle. Humans have poor eyesight and poor perception,we aren't as bright as our egos are telling us. If we weren't so stupid,the poor Olinguito would have received far greater recognition on our flat planet,and MH370 wouldn't be lost.

SI is the key here,I believe we are capable of this. 95% chance I'd say.

The what is to be gained question has been answered 50 times. No one is sure. Have you studied FE theory at all?

 

[darthbards]

The UA affects only the FE directly. Let's be clear the UA affects the FE and then the FE affects the objects (people, oceans, atmosphere) when contact is made. The FE has absolutely no gravitational attraction to anything above it. The UA does not accelerate the Sun, Moon, planets, asteroids, meteors, rockets, satellites, moons, comets, stars, nebulaes, galaxies, or groups. which is a load of ******* bullshit because we'd have crashed into the sun/moon/stars/nebulae/ planets by now.

Here is a good explanation:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5524.0
If the earth were accelerating at a constant rate, and you were not, this is what it would look like:

1. The earth would appear to move at an accelerating rate away from you. This acceleration would appear to decrease as the earth approaches the speed of light relative to you.
2. The earth would appear to be getting flatter in the direction it is accelerating.
3. The people on earth would appear to age slower from your point of view. Clocks would appear to move slower and slower.
4. Light reaching you from the earth would appear red-shifted, assuming the earth is moving away from you. Everything would look reddish, and then eventually infrared.




LOL.

So it's not actually universal, because it doesn't effect everything in the universe, and the sun and moon are held up by magic.

Right, as long as that's cleared up. If the sun, moon, planets, and stars aren't affected at all by the UA, why do they remain a relatively constant distance above us?

You can't mix and match theories. How is the earth going to crash into anything when it not accelerating at all,the UA is.
And what do the planets have to do with it,their outside the atmolayer?And why are you talking about an atmosphere at all in discussion about FE theory,it's an atmolayer. The Atmolayer compromises the Tropolayer,Stratolayer,Mesolayer and Ionolayer. It's basic FE 101.
Atmosphere is a ball earth word,this is why our education system needs a complete overhaul.

 

[grumbleguts]

You can't mix and match theories. How is the earth going to crash into anything when it not accelerating at all,the UA is.

What? Of course the earth is accelerating, it is constantly changing direction around the sun. THAT's what accelerating means.

 

[darthbards]

What? Of course the earth is accelerating, it is constantly changing direction around the sun. THAT's what accelerating means.

You haven't studied FE theory either. The sun is rotating around the earth.
You don't have to agree with the theory,but if your going to comment you should at least study it.
It's obviously a completely different model to big ball earth from the big magical bang.

 

[Hawk Dork]

Taken in real time, from Space station, also his go-pro cam (not a fish eye lens before you play that card)

Most likely Redbull is in on the round earth scam

 

[Total Power]

You can't mix and match theories. How is the earth going to crash into anything when it not accelerating at all,the UA is.
And what do the planets have to do with it,their outside the atmolayer?And why are you talking about an atmosphere at all in discussion about FE theory,it's an atmolayer. The Atmolayer compromises the Tropolayer,Stratolayer,Mesolayer and Ionolayer. It's basic FE 101.
Atmosphere is a ball earth word,this is why our education system needs a complete overhaul.

If the sun, moon, planets, and stars aren't affected at all by the UA, why do they remain a relatively constant distance above us? FE model UA means everything is being pushed at the bottom of the disk. So, all the celestial bodies, including Earth, are being accelerated upward, right? What's pushing them? Or, are they just accelerating because.. it just is?

How is it that they all tend to accelerate, but we do not tend to accelerate?

UA is a bogus theory and even many FEers refute it

 

[darthbards]

If the sun, moon, planets, and stars aren't affected at all by the UA, why do they remain a relatively constant distance above us? FE model UA means everything is being pushed at the bottom of the disk. So, all the celestial bodies, including Earth, are being accelerated upward, right? What's pushing them? Or, are they just accelerating because.. it just is?

How is it that they all tend to accelerate, but we do not tend to accelerate?

UA is a bogus theory and even many FEers refute it

You really need to study special relativity (SR) it's complex,but just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong.

The celestial bodies also don't operate as one. They operate in what is known as a cluster system,each cluster controlled by what is known as the hierarchical system.

You seem very interested because you've been on the thread a while. I'll find out when a course is available and let you know when and where to enrol.

 

[Total Power]

You really need to study special relativity (SR) it's complex,but just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong.

The celestial bodies also don't operate as one. They operate in what is known as a cluster system,each cluster controlled by what is known as the hierarchical system.

You seem very interested because you've been on the thread a while. I'll find out when a course is available and let you know when and where to enrol.

I am not interested in pseudo science really, you havent answered my question. I do not for one minute accept that gravity is caused by "Universal Acceleration", but even Einstein's Special Relativity would limit the velocity to "c".

The earth would actualy appear to earth bound observers to be continually accelerating at 9.8m/s2, but on earth its impossible to know our velocity....
To the ones who believe in FEH, light would still travel at 299,792,458 m/s, but to an observer in an "inertial reference frame" (that is someone not accelerating) the velocity of earth would appear to approach the speed of light asymptotically.

two objects of a specific mass will feel the same attrection towards each other regardless of the point of plane they are in. In this way, all points on earth are equally attracted to all other points on earth there the earth is a sphere. You can observe the shape of any planet, moon, sun , its all a giant ball. Cause gravitation is universal.

A flat earth also has the problem of the gravitational vector. That is, the direction of the pull of gravity is parallel anywhere on the earth, which is impossible - you can't have gravity that only goes up and down. I am not sure whether you understand gravity properly if at all.

Someon travelling at 90% the speed of light will be 50% heavier and as such need exponentially more energy to propel you even faster. At low speeds you can expend reasonable amounts off energy to gain considerable amounts of speed. At really high speeds this changes. if someone accelerates from 95% to 96% the bloke will need tremendous amounts of energy to achieve this and to reach the speed of light you need infinite energy. This is not possible. And why the flat earth acceleration model cant work.

At 90% speed of light time will slow down by half and time will stand still for the object traveling at light speed. By now we should be getting younger, as we are traveling faster than light.

And before you come up with the infinite plane argument i would say that it will collapse into a black hole. Its not possible to have an ifninite plane

Here is a very good argument

If all celestial objects in the solar system are accelerating in the same direction and rate as the Earth, then they would all be static objects in our night sky but they're not. We can clearly see Mars and Venus with the most rudimentary telescopes (some of us can see them with the naked eye) and both planets can be tracked in real-time moving in our celestial plane. Both planets also appear in different positions at different times of the year.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67688.0

 

[darth_timon]

We know gravity is not a thing,it's magic and when I was a child magic was cool.

Universal Acceleration as been mentioned and explained numerous times,the threads 90 pages long. Have you read it? It's my belief you havnt undertaken any courses or study involving FE theory at all. But your curious,that's why your here.
It's also why we see a bit of anger on this thread,sometimes out of control rage. It's because your sub conscious knows the earth is flat,everything is. You can't escape it.

What happened to your blog army you linked this thread to with words attached like danger,under attack and threatened?
You even mentioned some of us by name if I recall correctly.

You're right - the thread is 90 pages long. I don't have the time to go through it all. If you have the answers regarding the means of propulsion for the flat earth's upward motion through space, then surely it's not too much of a hardship to provide it?

I'm also curious as to your consistent use of logical fallacies. You denied the use of the Red Herring fallacy earlier but by trying to imply we cannot understand the shape or form of our world because we don't yet know the details of every particle in existence (and where do you get your 4% figure from by the way?), you are being deliberately misleading. I would submit you are being evasive, and passive-aggressive, in making such arguments, so I would urge you to heed your own advice about anger and drop the rhetoric.

To further the Red Herring analogy, it's like saying we can't issue medicine because we don't understand every aspect of the brain. It's the most vague connection to the subject but doesn't actually address the subject.

I already pointed out to you your Strawman fallacy regarding 'the blog army'. I never issued a call to arms. I merely reproduced one part of our conversation. You have obviously ignored this, purposefully, which to be highlights dishonesty on your part.

Perhaps we should make this interesting. A one-on-one discussion, five posts each, a more formal debate, as it were, right here on Big Footy, or if you prefer, somewhere like debate.org?

 

[darth_timon]

the people that run the powerful institution historically, who are also known for harassing astronomers, big bang theories and inquisitions

worship 'the devil' (the elite, top branches) and have corrupted society

instead of validating the earth is of course flat, made by god, and you are a very very special thing

rather the pear earth spins five directions simultaneously the universe goes forever, and u are less than a grain of sand, in a spec of time

so you might as well watch the kardasians, buy another cheesburger and vote liberal

Right, so basically, what you're saying is, ignore the hundreds of years of study and evidence. I find it ironic that you speak of powerful institutions harassing people - the Church famously did this when observation threatened long-held religious notions about the universe. You want flat earth theory to be true, to lend meaning to your existence - I don't see why a rotating globe suddenly means God doesn't exist - it means (if you believe that sort of thing) that God put the earth together in a different manner.

And lack of faith in God doesn't mean life is viewed as a meaningless thing. If we are a chance arrangement of matter and biology and geology, then it means we are rare, and therefore special, and we should cherish every moment of our existence, instead of squabbling over which faith should be considered supreme.

i was intending you write you a nice long essay style reply (ive already answered this with a crappy verison 40 odd pages back), yet the fundamentalist took the jam out of my donut hence you will need to criticize my above dot points

I extend the same invitation to you that I extended to Darthbards - a 1 on 1 debate, right here, on the validity of FE theory. You game?

 

[Total Power]

Right, so basically, what you're saying is, ignore the hundreds of years of study and evidence. I find it ironic that you speak of powerful institutions harassing people - the Church famously did this when observation threatened long-held religious notions about the universe. You want flat earth theory to be true, to lend meaning to your existence - I don't see why a rotating globe suddenly means God doesn't exist - it means (if you believe that sort of thing) that God put the earth together in a different manner.

And lack of faith in God doesn't mean life is viewed as a meaningless thing. If we are a chance arrangement of matter and biology and geology, then it means we are rare, and therefore special, and we should cherish every moment of our existence, instead of squabbling over which faith should be considered supreme.



I extend the same invitation to you that I extended to Darthbards - a 1 on 1 debate, right here, on the validity of FE theory. You game?

But but but but 4% of the universe known to man! so lets ignore what we know and lets build a totally bullshit hypothesis based on fantasies and pseudo science. Where is this bloody ice wall in the Atlantic and the Pacific? i fly LA-Sydney route quite often, i am yet to fall out earth.

What we observed so far is a hoax and the simulation hypothesis despite being in its infancy is used more often than that. Oh a scientist proposed a hologram hypothesis LOL lets all jump on that, but a scientist propose something "i dont like" , lets discard it.