Flat Earth

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Flat Earth

Post by larsenb »

Shawn Henry wrote: November 29th, 2022, 12:17 pm
larsenb wrote: November 28th, 2022, 3:57 pm Care to discuss what I've just posted? A real discussion? Come on, SH, surprise me.
I love discussing these things. I would have responded to your previous comment, but I don't remember your previous Michaelson-Morley comments or what thread that was. That being said, I got a B in physics, so just know that I acknowledge my low status when it comes to physics.

I don't know that there would have to be a medium for light to travel through. I don't even know whether scientists agree on their being an ether. Obviously, any experiment on earth has an atmosphere for a medium, even vacuums are not perfect vacuums.

If I remember correctly, it is said that light emitted from a train traveling 200 mph is not faster than light emitted from a stationary position. So, if light is being slowed down, what is doing it if not a medium.

I don't remember to what degree their equipment measured. It would have to be well below 1/10th of 1%, because the MilkyWay is traveling at 230 kps and light is 300,000 kps.

Anyway, I'm smart enough to know not to rely on my own understanding of physics. What I try to do is find those who claim they know on both sides and listen to their explanations. I'm a pretty good judge of what side is winning a debate, or so I think.
Ah, good. A discussion.

Scientists agree that light propagation is not enabled by a medium such as ether. The reason why, is because unlike waves in water, for instance, where the energy is carried by the water, light is energy in and of itself (electro-magnetic). It doesn’t need a carrier.

Now, light does slow down in various translucent media, such as air and water, but this is because of the scattering effect of the light due to the molecules/atoms it encounters in the transport medium. I.e., the wave front of the light slows down, but the internal path of the individual photons in the media remains at C, to my understanding.

In the Michael-Morley experiments and subsequent follow-up experiments they found no difference in the speed of light beamed in the direction of the earths orbit vs the light beamed perpendicular to it. It makes no difference whether you do the experiment stationary, from a moving train, or a combination of both.

Now the air-medium the light is traveling through will slow the light wave-front velocity, but the slow down will be the same regardless of the vector of the light, because the medium is the same. Therefore you will see no velocity differential between the orthogonal light beams.

So, who’s winning the debate?

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Shawn Henry »

larsenb wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 4:22 pm So, who’s winning the debate?
Since we are both so inconsequential in the big picture, let's just assume we are both winners by virtue of the fact that we are both learning to communicate maturely. How does that sound?

Medium or no medium, it is still hard to see why a light coming off the front of spaceship traveling at .5 C wouldn't travel at 1.5 C. It seems like a very convenient position to take for a people who have the sophisticated equipment to measure minute differences in the speed of light, but who do not. The simplest explanation is that we measure no difference because there isn't one rather than the much more improbable explanation that light has a magic barrier to its speed.

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Allison »

Niemand wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 2:58 am
Allison wrote: December 1st, 2022, 6:07 pm
Niemand wrote: December 1st, 2022, 6:01 pm
Allison wrote: December 1st, 2022, 5:29 pm

What flat earth theory, exactly?

Isn’t it remarkable though, that in any given location, the position of stars has been predictable for millennia, in spite of the claim that the spinning earth ball supposedly chases the spiraling sun while circling around it, all at astronomical speeds and distances? Oh, and the moon ball also stays in hot pursuit of the earth, while only showing us the same side. Everything is in commotion, they say, while nothing changes.
60% of the Moon's surface is visible due to libration, so there is an extra 10% which can be seen beyond the expected 50%. It is not uncommon for objects in the solar system to be tidally locked.

The position of stars changes regularly. At high latitudes such as where I live, the constellations move appreciably with the seasons, as do the Sun and the Moon. The planets move all the time (hence the etymology of their name which means wandering star). There are also slower shifts in general star patterns that we can discern from archaeo-astronomy etc.
all at astronomical speeds and distances?
It's a given that in astronomy things would be "astronomical".

What I am saying is that their movements and positions are and always have been predictable.
People four thousand years ago wouldn't be aware of some of the miniscule changes between then and now. Some of them aren't noticeable by casual observers.

Other than the Moon and Sun, most are only predictable with the most intense observation over the period of months, years and decades and cloudless skies. Even with the Sun and Moon it took a very long time to nail down when eclipses would happen and they scared primitive peoples when they took them by surprise.

The third brightest object, Venus was considered to be TWO separate bodies by many ancient observers – the Morning and Evening stars.
Why would there be minuscule differences over thousands of years with a ball spinning 1000 mph while corkscrewing at 66,600 mph around and in hot pursuit of a sun shooting through space at 550,000 mph, while the whole galaxy is traveling at 2,237,000 mph through space?

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Flat Earth

Post by larsenb »

Shawn Henry wrote: November 29th, 2022, 1:34 pm
Allison wrote: November 28th, 2022, 10:44 pm This comes to mind:
Great find Allison. This is a must watch video.

For all our ballers who don't have the intellectual honesty to look at the other side of a debate, here is a recap.

1. 39% of scientific studies can't be reproduced.
2. only 20-25% of drug studies are reproduceable.
3. 11% of cancer studies are reproduceable.
4. More than 70% of scientists have tried and failed to reproduce an experiment, including physicists and chemists.
5. More than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.
6. 40% of scientists admit that fraud is a factor contributing to irreproducible research.
7. A 2012 study showed that 43% of retractions were due to fraud.
1. But how representative is their sample size, etc., of all science?
2.-3. The greed/hidden agenda factor playing a powerful role; also see 1., above.
4-5. See 1., above
6. Agreeing that fraud may play a role contributing to irreproducible research, is an obvious conclusion to make.
7. Retractions indicate science is doing its job.

Science as a method is neutral when it comes to making value judgements. The real worry is that fraud in science may be increasing. You will notice that most of Corbett's examples have to do with drugs and vaccines, etc.; those areas of investigation that are apt to be heavily influenced by greed or some hidden and perhaps political agenda. He also notes the problem with sample size, as wells the false science rampant in the fields of psychology/sociology, etc., not so much in hard sciences.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Flat Earth

Post by larsenb »

Shawn Henry wrote: November 28th, 2022, 1:30 pm
larsenb wrote: November 27th, 2022, 10:44 pm
h_p wrote: November 27th, 2022, 9:07 pm I think the only thing that really gets proven in these debates is that pretty much everything we believe or even claim we know without a doubt is actually just taken on faith.
Nope. There is massive evidence for a global earth.
Yep, and there's massive evidence that vaccines are all safe and effective, but who paid for that evidence. The same who have paid for all scientific evidence.

You will never be able to provide a good argument as to why all science is corruptible except for the science that you hold close to your heart. You can say all you want that your science has immunity, but I know better.
There are many scientific studies out now regarding the unsafety of the mRNA vaccines. At the same time, there are many, many, many scientific studies out now regarding the efficacy and safety of various sequenced multi-drug therapies. Was it "the same" who paid for this evidence??

You get yourself trapped by your blanket generalities.

I think I've replied this post previously. But I'll basically say it again: Almost any human endeavor is corruptible, including the science I've been involved in. So what is your point again?
Last edited by larsenb on December 2nd, 2022, 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Flat Earth

Post by larsenb »

Shawn Henry wrote: November 29th, 2022, 1:35 pm
larsenb wrote: November 28th, 2022, 4:15 pm Your particularly irksome statement was: "Every branch of science is political science or money science.".

I demonstrated that this is simply not true. The simple fact is that most science has nothing to do with making the funders rich or to enhance a political agenda.

Could some "they" with enough power and money corrupt all scientific endeavors? Probably not. They would be up against the integrity of the majority of those people engaged in doing science, the number of which is considerable.

You're wedded to a very negative general view of science, which simply doesn't wash. And much of the corruption you do describe, and rightly so, is how the science is interpreted by the mangers involved in the money making or who are pushing political agendas.
Allison's video is a complete rebuttal to everything you just said.
Hardly. See my comment on this video.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Flat Earth

Post by larsenb »

NeveR wrote: November 29th, 2022, 10:03 pm

Are you referring to the alleged device that was allegedly put on the surface of the moon in order to bounce a laser back to earth? Because it's been pointed out that you can bounce a laser off the surface of the moon without any such device.

But I do think we need to separate the question of flat earth from the question of whether we went to the moon. They might be connected in that a flat earth obviously precludes space travel, but being skeptical of the flat earth claim does not automatically mean acceptance of the claim we went to the moon.

Plus I notice no one yet answered my question above --

Do we have a coherent model for a universe involving a flat earth that can be compared with the model for a globe earth?
I have yet to see it, nor one that has predictive power.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Flat Earth

Post by larsenb »

Shawn Henry wrote: November 30th, 2022, 1:52 pm
gradles21 wrote: November 30th, 2022, 1:41 pm I'm impressed that you were able to fit at least four logical fallacies into these two short paragraphs.
That's true, but I'm cutting him some slack. I remember my first time thinking these things through and it was hard to shed all my preconceived biases.

I wish there was a well-organized source to go to for videos so that we could simply say, hey watch this. Of course, I don't think they've watched the ones that have been posted.
gradles21 and Shawn, help me. Can you enumerate the logical fallacies you see

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Flat Earth

Post by larsenb »

Shawn Henry wrote: December 1st, 2022, 4:33 pm
Allison wrote: December 1st, 2022, 3:13 pm Do you now understand that there is no one “Flat Earth Theory,” no “Flat Earth Model?” Haven’t we been saying that? Recognizing an obvious lack of curvature is not a declaration of having all other answers, nor should it be required, in order to observe the fallacy of a Spinning and Cavorting Ball Model.
Haven't they all said to us for 5 or 6 years now that we can't say anything against their model unless we have a model to replace it with. What a logical fallacy and a bunch of nonsense. Testing what has been put forth is the essence of science. What does pointing out holes in a model have to do with a replacement model, nothing. It's like desiging an artificial heart that kills people, but insisting you have to keep using it until a better one is invented.
5-6 years sounds about right. That when this 'idea' really started getting traction among a certain group of people. I'm still wondering what's on the underside of the flat earth, and why people can't travel to the edge and peer over it.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Flat Earth

Post by larsenb »

FrankOne wrote: December 1st, 2022, 6:21 pm
Allison wrote: December 1st, 2022, 3:13 pm

Do you now understand that there is no one “Flat Earth Theory,” no “Flat Earth Model?” Haven’t we been saying that? Recognizing an obvious lack of curvature is not a declaration of having all other answers, nor should it be required, in order to observe the fallacy of a Spinning and Cavorting Ball Model.
thanks for the clarification.

so, it's a theory that has many obvious conflicts which appear to disprove it but we should disregard those conflicts and accept this theory that is actually quite broken, fragmented and incoherent. There isn't a full working model because there is no way to reconcile all the disparities.

As I have said in off-forum conversations, It would be wise to study out the science of those experiments which seemingly prove the earth is flat and examine them to see if there is another phenomena occurring which gives the appearance of proving this. I don't know if the earth is flat or spherical, and neither do you.
More a hypothesis than a theory.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Flat Earth

Post by larsenb »

Shawn Henry wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 4:49 pm
larsenb wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 4:22 pm So, who’s winning the debate?
Since we are both so inconsequential in the big picture, let's just assume we are both winners by virtue of the fact that we are both learning to communicate maturely. How does that sound?

Medium or no medium, it is still hard to see why a light coming off the front of spaceship traveling at .5 C wouldn't travel at 1.5 C. It seems like a very convenient position to take for a people who have the sophisticated equipment to measure minute differences in the speed of light, but who do not. The simplest explanation is that we measure no difference because there isn't one rather than the much more improbable explanation that light has a magic barrier to its speed.
In terms of mature communication on these posts, I could agree with that.

Well, the Michaelson-Morley experiment showed just that: "we measure no difference because thee isn't one" . It's called experimental science.

Bringing up the so-called speed of light barrier is a different issue, but has tons of experimental data to support it.

Does that mean the information exchange between two points is limited by this barrier? I don't think so, mainly because of the experiments done with quantum entanglement phenomena.

Pseudonym
captain of 100
Posts: 288

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Pseudonym »

NeveR wrote: November 29th, 2022, 10:03 pm
Pseudonym wrote: November 29th, 2022, 2:38 pm I am a scientist that worked for a few years with government agencies (mostly military) on deep space projects. I was involved in certain classified laser projects that involved items placed on the moon during maned lunar landings as well as other laser projects that were conducted during maned voyages going to and from the moon.

I believe in agency and the right for someone to believe whatever they will. I choose to believe that we have the capability to land on the moon and that it was done. I also believe space exploration to be a viable science and that Hubble and Webb projects are providing a wealth of valid and true information. And that from our efforts we will learn a lot more about our universe (including Dark Matter and Dark Energy) and perhaps even about G-d our creator than was ever known previously by any intelligence living on our planet earth.
Are you referring to the alleged device that was allegedly put on the surface of the moon in order to bounce a laser back to earth? Because it's been pointed out that you can bounce a laser off the surface of the moon without any such device.

........
Not if you intend to maintain all the properties of the laser and have it return to the same place that the laser originated.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Flat Earth

Post by BeNotDeceived »

Pseudonym wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 12:06 am Not if you intend to maintain all the properties of the laser and have it return to the same place that the laser originated.
You are like totally correct. 8-)

Sure a radar will receive reflections from the moon, it will be a tiny fraction of the transmitted energy. How tiny?

Radars typical Tx power is 1 Megawatt, and have an MDS of -103 dBm.

What is that as a percentage?

A Lasers columnar energy works much better for long distances, but require a mirror surface to return a a few percent of the transmitted energy. Anyone know the typical percentage of transmitted power received back?

Minimum Discernible Signal. :lol:

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13997

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Niemand »

Allison wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 5:08 pm
Niemand wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 2:58 am
Allison wrote: December 1st, 2022, 6:07 pm
Niemand wrote: December 1st, 2022, 6:01 pm

60% of the Moon's surface is visible due to libration, so there is an extra 10% which can be seen beyond the expected 50%. It is not uncommon for objects in the solar system to be tidally locked.

The position of stars changes regularly. At high latitudes such as where I live, the constellations move appreciably with the seasons, as do the Sun and the Moon. The planets move all the time (hence the etymology of their name which means wandering star). There are also slower shifts in general star patterns that we can discern from archaeo-astronomy etc.



It's a given that in astronomy things would be "astronomical".

What I am saying is that their movements and positions are and always have been predictable.
People four thousand years ago wouldn't be aware of some of the miniscule changes between then and now. Some of them aren't noticeable by casual observers.

Other than the Moon and Sun, most are only predictable with the most intense observation over the period of months, years and decades and cloudless skies. Even with the Sun and Moon it took a very long time to nail down when eclipses would happen and they scared primitive peoples when they took them by surprise.

The third brightest object, Venus was considered to be TWO separate bodies by many ancient observers – the Morning and Evening stars.
Why would there be minuscule differences over thousands of years with a ball spinning 1000 mph while corkscrewing at 66,600 mph around and in hot pursuit of a sun shooting through space at 550,000 mph, while the whole galaxy is traveling at 2,237,000 mph through space?
For the simple reason that space is BIG.

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Flat Earth

Post by BroJones »

2 eclipses How in Flat Earth.jpg
2 eclipses How in Flat Earth.jpg (152.69 KiB) Viewed 314 times
I see that my question in another (concurrent) thread on this topic has gone Unanswered, sigh.

So I repeat my question here using a screen copy.

Note that my question is based on DATA including personal Observations of both solar and lunar (blood moon) eclipses.

User avatar
Pazooka
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5222
Location: FEMA District 8

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Pazooka »

Niemand wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 5:23 am
Allison wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 5:08 pm
Niemand wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 2:58 am
Allison wrote: December 1st, 2022, 6:07 pm


What I am saying is that their movements and positions are and always have been predictable.
People four thousand years ago wouldn't be aware of some of the miniscule changes between then and now. Some of them aren't noticeable by casual observers.

Other than the Moon and Sun, most are only predictable with the most intense observation over the period of months, years and decades and cloudless skies. Even with the Sun and Moon it took a very long time to nail down when eclipses would happen and they scared primitive peoples when they took them by surprise.

The third brightest object, Venus was considered to be TWO separate bodies by many ancient observers – the Morning and Evening stars.
Why would there be minuscule differences over thousands of years with a ball spinning 1000 mph while corkscrewing at 66,600 mph around and in hot pursuit of a sun shooting through space at 550,000 mph, while the whole galaxy is traveling at 2,237,000 mph through space?
For the simple reason that space is BIG.
How can scale make up for the pole star not having shifted hardly at all in ALL of recorded history even though we’re said to be moving in those several various ways? It seems to be firmly grounded (pun intended) in relational position.

Does the religion of science depends on scales so large they cannot be questioned, because the human mind cannot grasp them?...”without parts or passions” comes to mind. Not to say that there are not any genuine mysteries.
Last edited by Pazooka on December 3rd, 2022, 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Subcomandante
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4410

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Subcomandante »

Pazooka wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 8:45 am
Niemand wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 5:23 am
Allison wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 5:08 pm
Niemand wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 2:58 am

People four thousand years ago wouldn't be aware of some of the miniscule changes between then and now. Some of them aren't noticeable by casual observers.

Other than the Moon and Sun, most are only predictable with the most intense observation over the period of months, years and decades and cloudless skies. Even with the Sun and Moon it took a very long time to nail down when eclipses would happen and they scared primitive peoples when they took them by surprise.

The third brightest object, Venus was considered to be TWO separate bodies by many ancient observers – the Morning and Evening stars.
Why would there be minuscule differences over thousands of years with a ball spinning 1000 mph while corkscrewing at 66,600 mph around and in hot pursuit of a sun shooting through space at 550,000 mph, while the whole galaxy is traveling at 2,237,000 mph through space?
For the simple reason that space is BIG.
How can scale make up for the pole star not having shifted hardly at all in ALL of recorded history even though we’re said to be moving in those several various ways? It seems to be firmly grounded (pun intended) in relational position.
Because the star Polaris is NOT firmly grounded. The Egyptians had a different North Star, the star called Thuban in the Draco constellation.

Not only that, it is IMPOSSIBLE to see Polaris if you are anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere. On a flat earth, Polaris would be visible from anywhere on Earth including Antarctica.

The Flat Earth Theory is easily debunked a thousand different ways. We are not in the Bronze Age folks.

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13997

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Niemand »

Pazooka wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 8:45 am
Niemand wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 5:23 am
Allison wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 5:08 pm
Niemand wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 2:58 am

People four thousand years ago wouldn't be aware of some of the miniscule changes between then and now. Some of them aren't noticeable by casual observers.

Other than the Moon and Sun, most are only predictable with the most intense observation over the period of months, years and decades and cloudless skies. Even with the Sun and Moon it took a very long time to nail down when eclipses would happen and they scared primitive peoples when they took them by surprise.

The third brightest object, Venus was considered to be TWO separate bodies by many ancient observers – the Morning and Evening stars.
Why would there be minuscule differences over thousands of years with a ball spinning 1000 mph while corkscrewing at 66,600 mph around and in hot pursuit of a sun shooting through space at 550,000 mph, while the whole galaxy is traveling at 2,237,000 mph through space?
For the simple reason that space is BIG.
How can scale make up for the pole star not having shifted hardly at all in ALL of recorded history even though we’re said to be moving in those several various ways? It seems to be firmly grounded (pun intended) in relational position.

Does the religion of science depends on scales so large they cannot be questioned, because the human mind cannot grasp them?...”without parts or passions” comes to mind. Not to say that there are not any genuine mysteries.
The pole star has shifted. There used to be a different pole star within human history. Other stars have appeared or exploded within human observation (post-modern age).

Pseudonym
captain of 100
Posts: 288

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Pseudonym »

I worked for the government (defense department) when I finished college (joint degree in math and physics). I am convinced that our government is chuck full of conspiracies. By definition, if two or more individuals are involved in something (anything) that they do not intend to be generally known – that something is a conspiracy. If someone (or organization) has a competitor – of necessity, there will be things that they will not want their competitor to have unfettered access to. The fact that there are classified projects is absolute proof that there are government conspiracies – lots of them. Many of these classified projects (conspiracies) involved elected officials (including the president or just about anyone involved in any of the many close door committees).

I would also make some observations about technology in society. With extremely rare exceptions, the experts in advanced and cutting-edge technology are also involved in management (oversite) or the editorialization of such technological projects. Those that aspire to control the purse strings, manage people or publish interesting epitaphs seldom find the rigors involved in technological advancements fascinating and fun. In short, most of the people heading up companies, governments or organizations that in any way deal with sophisticated technology know that much about what they and those under them are doing. This makes extremely fertile ground for planting seeds of foolish, unrealistic and unfounded conspiracies. And yet, it is not uncommon, especially for our government, to enjoy and somewhat encourage foolish, unrealistic and unfounded conspiracies to flourish because such can provide cover and misdirection for their pet conspiracies.

I have learned from experience that it does not matter how foolish nor destructive it may be to adhere to certain conspiracies – it is often not a matter of logic as it is ego to perpetuate inaccuracies – even if or when someone thinks or believes otherwise.

There is a quaint saying about various possibilities of conspiracies. “Follow the Money!” There are always exceptions, and it does seem to me that “POWER” is a favorite exception for money. In general, if someone is increasing their assess to money or power – especially outside of or in excess of their personal abilities, I am somewhat convinced that they are the example of all that is bad or can be bad involving conspiracies – even if there is some possible benefit or something that should be made known.

User avatar
Subcomandante
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4410

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Subcomandante »

Pseudonym wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 10:53 am I worked for the government (defense department) when I finished college (joint degree in math and physics). I am convinced that our government is chuck full of conspiracies. By definition, if two or more individuals are involved in something (anything) that they do not intend to be generally known – that something is a conspiracy. If someone (or organization) has a competitor – of necessity, there will be things that they will not want their competitor to have unfettered access to. The fact that there are classified projects is absolute proof that there are government conspiracies – lots of them. Many of these classified projects (conspiracies) involved elected officials (including the president or just about anyone involved in any of the many close door committees).

I would also make some observations about technology in society. With extremely rare exceptions, the experts in advanced and cutting-edge technology are also involved in management (oversite) or the editorialization of such technological projects. Those that aspire to control the purse strings, manage people or publish interesting epitaphs seldom find the rigors involved in technological advancements fascinating and fun. In short, most of the people heading up companies, governments or organizations that in any way deal with sophisticated technology know that much about what they and those under them are doing. This makes extremely fertile ground for planting seeds of foolish, unrealistic and unfounded conspiracies. And yet, it is not uncommon, especially for our government, to enjoy and somewhat encourage foolish, unrealistic and unfounded conspiracies to flourish because such can provide cover and misdirection for their pet conspiracies.

I have learned from experience that it does not matter how foolish nor destructive it may be to adhere to certain conspiracies – it is often not a matter of logic as it is ego to perpetuate inaccuracies – even if or when someone thinks or believes otherwise.

There is a quaint saying about various possibilities of conspiracies. “Follow the Money!” There are always exceptions, and it does seem to me that “POWER” is a favorite exception for money. In general, if someone is increasing their assess to money or power – especially outside of or in excess of their personal abilities, I am somewhat convinced that they are the example of all that is bad or can be bad involving conspiracies – even if there is some possible benefit or something that should be made known.
Yep. Something that needs to be mentioned in this forum, that because I don't follow the pet conspiracies that are often mentioned here does not mean that I am part and parcel part of the conspiracy. There ARE conspiracies out there, and the Book of Mormon mentions them. But oftentimes they are NOT the pet conspiracies shown by many here.

User avatar
Pazooka
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5222
Location: FEMA District 8

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Pazooka »

Niemand wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 10:09 am
Pazooka wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 8:45 am
Niemand wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 5:23 am
Allison wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 5:08 pm

Why would there be minuscule differences over thousands of years with a ball spinning 1000 mph while corkscrewing at 66,600 mph around and in hot pursuit of a sun shooting through space at 550,000 mph, while the whole galaxy is traveling at 2,237,000 mph through space?
For the simple reason that space is BIG.
How can scale make up for the pole star not having shifted hardly at all in ALL of recorded history even though we’re said to be moving in those several various ways? It seems to be firmly grounded (pun intended) in relational position.

Does the religion of science depends on scales so large they cannot be questioned, because the human mind cannot grasp them?...”without parts or passions” comes to mind. Not to say that there are not any genuine mysteries.
The pole star has shifted. There used to be a different pole star within human history. Other stars have appeared or exploded within human observation (post-modern age).
Think about it, though. The pole star has not shifted in your lifetime. Yet we supposedly are spiraling around another point in space, billions and billions of whatevers away. That would have to impact relative position of the pole star, no matter how many MORE billions and billions of whatevers it is away. It’s magic.

User avatar
Subcomandante
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4410

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Subcomandante »

Pazooka wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 12:45 pm
Niemand wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 10:09 am
Pazooka wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 8:45 am
Niemand wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 5:23 am

For the simple reason that space is BIG.
How can scale make up for the pole star not having shifted hardly at all in ALL of recorded history even though we’re said to be moving in those several various ways? It seems to be firmly grounded (pun intended) in relational position.

Does the religion of science depends on scales so large they cannot be questioned, because the human mind cannot grasp them?...”without parts or passions” comes to mind. Not to say that there are not any genuine mysteries.
The pole star has shifted. There used to be a different pole star within human history. Other stars have appeared or exploded within human observation (post-modern age).
Think about it, though. The pole star has not shifted in your lifetime. Yet we supposedly are spiraling around another point in space, billions and billions of whatevers away. That would have to impact relative position of the pole star, no matter how many MORE billions and billions of whatevers it is away. It’s magic.
Relativity.
Attachments
Relativity.png
Relativity.png (310.59 KiB) Viewed 212 times

User avatar
h_p
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2811

Re: Flat Earth

Post by h_p »

Pazooka wrote: December 3rd, 2022, 12:45 pm Think about it, though. The pole star has not shifted in your lifetime. Yet we supposedly are spiraling around another point in space, billions and billions of whatevers away. That would have to impact relative position of the pole star, no matter how many MORE billions and billions of whatevers it is away. It’s magic.
The question is not about how much the earth is moving, but how much it's moving relative to Polaris. That's not something you'll be able to figure out just by thinking about it. It has to be measured.

Bronco73idi
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3623

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Bronco73idi »


User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Shawn Henry »

Have you all really thought the North Star through?

Are you really going to maintain that an explosion resulted in one dominant star in the sky that all other stars rotate around in perfect circles?

On top of that, do you really think there was a star before that one that was in the same spot and all the stars then just happened to rotate perfectly around that one as well?

Post Reply