I think we all know flat earth is a glowie psyop. This kind of thing just confirms it for me.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (81)
sorted by:
The largest difference between (1) and (2) is that all of physics and all experiments support the second. There is no physical theory and no experimental support for the first.
In order for (1) to be true, it would require every experiment (millions? billions?) that supports the entirety of Newtonian physics (which is where we get most of our non-electrical engineering as well) having been incorrectly done, or purposefully fraudulent.
In order for (2) to be true, all that is required is that one short video clip that shows somebody launching a camera into space and "hitting the dome" to have been either incorrectly interpreted, or fraudulently done.
Wrong. But we only believe such things due to conditioning through rote under the guise of education from childhood. I sincerely invite you to learn a lot more about physics and earnest flat earth research on the community I created specifically for it!
Correct. The shape of the world (regardless of what it is) is not, and cannot be, a scientific theory of any kind!
Incorrect. Join us, and ask away, disagree - anything you want as long as you are earnest!
Not at all! I am a fan of newton and know a LOT about him. Join us! Discuss! Maybe even learn, and teach!
The world, who's shape we are discussing, is down here! Launching cameras isn't the way we measure any physical object with certainty! Join us!
This is an assumption that fraudulent education extends all the way through. Education is very fraudulent. You will get no argument from me. In fact I have written hundreds of pages on that very topic. However, it isn't all a fraud. The best lies are based on truth.
I know a fair bit about physics. I'm not sure why you would assume I don't. In fact I have degrees in it. Most of my arguments against flat earth are based on experiments I have personally done. I do not trust physics to be true. In fact I know that it is not. However, it isn't all untrue. Within the scope in which it is applied correctly, it has millions of experiments in support of it. Any theory must include all of those experimental results. There is no flat earth theory that does. I have spent a lot of time engaged in that discussion. I have heard the arguments. Every time I offer an argument in return it is based on physics. All I hear is crickets in response. The most common one being "your education is a fraud."
I agree it is fraudulent in that it is full of unproven dogma, but it still has experimental verification of many things. Therefore if I offer experimental evidence that gets crickets in response every single time (such as Foucault's pendulum experiments) then I have every reason to believe that it is FE'ers that are being swindled, not me who demands that all experimental results be taken into account.
I am always in earnest. But FE'ers are not. Answer how Foucault's pendulum works other than by being on a spinning sphere and then I will join the discussion.
I have lived on the ocean (or near to it) almost my whole life. I have seen countless ships go over the horizon. Every single piece of evidence I have seen put out by FE'ers I have shown with math how the curvature of the planet shows that that is exactly what is expected to be seen.
I get no such work or respect from FE'ers.
I appreciate you believe what you believe, but the evidence does not support the theory. Until someone who has actually studied enough physics to have a mathematical discussion with me steps up to the plate, I am done with that engagement. I have seen your evidence, and it never stands up to debate.
I completely agree! A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down (though this analogy makes a LOT less sense when you recognize that medicine AND sugar are both poison...).
Because of what you said! As I explained, you couldn't be more wrong - and newton was not a scientist. In any case, we can always stand to learn a little more (vice versa as well - perhaps you have much more to teach me than I you, and I relish such opportunity!)! Come discuss it with me!
You are only making me want to discuss and evaluate your research more thoroughly. Please! I'm already sold, come discuss and share it further in depth if you are at all interested!
Of course not! Who said it was?
Incorrect. No experiments of any kind ever could. Please ask me how I know this and how I can prove it. But let's do it on the other community so it can benefit others more readily (ideally) now and in the future! You won't regret it!
Agreed! I think you will find we agree about most things!
There is no flat (nor round, or any other shape) earth theory at all!
My condolences. I mourn your (largely) wasted time and effort, as I mourn my own!
Now hear my research findings! If you are at all interested, that is. Argument and debate are for fools. Rational discourse and study for the learned!
The "FE" you have experience with is a heavily funded/advertised psyop. Come discuss it with an earnest flat earth researcher, and hopefully others will join in as well. We are students and intellectuals. That said, our education is largely fraud - but that isn't unique to this era, and is ubiquitous throughout all known human history,
Agreed. Agents of the psyop, profiteers, and the useful idiots that repeat the stupid things they are told.
Me as well brother, or sister!
Then you have integrity, and I now beg you to join me and explore this topic further. I assure you it is well worth the effort.
That's the psyop. I don't know any flat earthers and there are none on my community. We are flat earth researchers. There is a huge difference, which I hope to share with you.
Ok, but you won't like it and aren't ready to understand or evaluate/accept the answer. The deflections of pendulums, gyroscopes, and interferometers are caused by the swirling motion of aether, an ultrafine "gaseous" fluid media which pervades all available space. I told you you wouldn't like it!
You are very lucky!
As have I.
This is incorrect. But it isn't relevant. Let's take our time and start slow shall we? You may be interested to take a look at (get a head start on) the content that is already on the community, as many of my views (as well as discussions with those of an antithetical perspective I've already conducted) are already there in some depth!
They aren't real, fren. It's a psyop. I am real, respectful and earnest!
I endeavor to believe nothing, and to excise belief whenever I find it. Belief is the enemy of knowledge (especially scientific), and to objective study of any kind (it's called bias).
I have no scientific theory, nor is one possible/applicable for the shape of anything.
Fair enough. I am gifted in mathematics and many other things, but it really doesn't have any relevance to this subject. Understanding why will take little more than time and interest on your part. Mathematics is merely a language used for description. When speaking (rational discourse), I prefer english.
You presume much, though I do expect that you have at least seen some of my evidence. I am an independent researcher, and my research approach and findings are my own. My specific focus is on science and the history thereof. I have come to many interesting conclusions, which you may well never have encountered before.
Debate is base pageantry for sycophantic fools. I prefer rational discourse, and earnest study. Perhaps you may agree?
Please join us. It seems you belong there, and will benefit greatly from the experience (all earnest students do). I recommend beginning by reading my AMA (stickied top thread) but you may engage any way you wish!
These are the same words. If you are applying differences to them, they are not inherent within their definitions.
Never assume such a thing about me. I am a seeker of Truth. I have no beliefs (as they are defined in the vernacular).
I have no problems with aether. The Michelson Morley experiment showed only that on earth, there was no discernable difference in the speed of light with respect to the earths orbit around the sun. It showed nothing about "the medium" or "the aether" or "the substrate" or whatever you want to call it. At best it may have shown that the universe is not a "grid." I have been debating this with physicists for decades (and they always agree). That we teach there is no aether, and then go around calling it "spacetime" or "quantum foam" or "higgs field" etc. is the greatest fraud. I knew that long before I was awakened to the larger fraud.
Nevertheless, these "deflections" as you call it don't account for how they are exactly what one would expect based on latitude, and they change with latitude exactly as one would expect on a spinning sphere. You can create a sphere, spin it, put a device on it to measure that effect, and come up with the same results you get on Earth, at specific latitudes.
I suggest bias is not a bad thing at all, in fact it is both inevitable (we have our own perspectives) and an essential part of the debate process (rational discussion, whatever you want to call it). There is nothing wrong with "bias". The problem only comes in when someone believes their bias is truth. Nevertheless, I appreciate this statement, and I am sufficiently enticed to see what you have to say.
Both are necessary for me, but I can translate one from the other if I am motivated to do so.
Fair enough. I grouped you with my past experiences. That was inappropriate. I apologize.
I really think you don't understand what this word means. Perhaps you are basing your definition on some past bad experiences?
You will notice that reason and discussion are both fundamental part of those definitions. You say "reasoned discussion", I say "debate", or "present an argument" I'm fairly certain we mean the same thing.
I looked at all your posts in this thread. I can find no link to what "community" you have created for your discussion. I am willing to take a look, if I know where to look.
Very disingenous repsonse.......
Generalized maybe, disingenuous... How?
There are millions of experiments that support us living on a spinning globe. I have personally done hundreds if not thousands of them.
There aren't any experiments that support flat earth that stand up to the debate process. Every single one is full of errors. I keep asking for evidence given in earnest (i.e. not already decided, but offered up for debate) and no one ever gives me any. FE'ers are so sure and so defensive they never want to engage in debate. They only want confirmation bias.
Go it....you are right and they are wrong.....
I am complaining that I have met every argument with a response based on evidence, and I get no reciprocation.
Within the sphere of debate, your statement is correct. That is not definitive, but within that scope, yes.
Granted, my responses are based on actual experiments, which in the realm of physics requires an understanding of math, and that is not a strong point for anyone I have engaged with that believes the earth is flat.