Support NeoGAF

[zeomax]

In fact there are quotes suggesting Einstein developed relativity because he was bothered the Michaelson Morley experiment showed a stationary earth

Why? Just why do every flatearther bring up this experiment?
The Michelson–Morley experiment was an attempt to detect the existence of the luminiferous aether, a supposed medium permeating space that was thought to be the carrier of light waves. It was not an experiment to find out if the earth is moving or stationary!

 

[MetalAlien]

This is one of the worst things humans have ever done... not counting genocide of course.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Why? Just why do every flatearther bring up this experiment?
The Michelson–Morley experiment was an attempt to detect the existence of the luminiferous aether, a supposed medium permeating space that was thought to be the carrier of light waves. It was not an experiment to find out if the earth is moving or stationary!

it was the ether's effect as the earth moved that was to be detected. The conclusion from the finding without other inferences, was that the earth was motionless.

Hear it from physicists

"The data [of Michelson-Morley] were almost unbelievable...There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest."- Physicist, Bernard Jaffe

"Thus, failure [of Michelson-Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be 'at rest'...It was therefore the 'preferred' frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?"- Physicist, Adolph Baker

"...The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and the ether...Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it."- Physicist, James Coleman

"The Michelson-Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves - light waves, electromagnetic waves - could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero."- Historian, Lincoln Barnett

"What happened when the experiment was done in 1887? There was never, never, in any orientation at any time of year, any shift in the interference pattern; none; no shift; no fringe shift; nothing. What's the implication? Here was an experiment that was done to measure the speed of the earth's motion through the ether. This was an experiment that was ten times more sensitive than it needed to be. It could have detected speeds as low as two miles a second instead of the known 2mps that the earth as in its orbital motion around the sun. It didn't detect it. What's the conclusion from the Michelson-Morley experiment? The implications is that the earth is not moving..."- Physicist, Richard Wolfson

"...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked...that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result."- Physicist, Albert Einstein

"So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true...one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest."- Physicist, Stephen Hawking

Quotes from

Quotes in Favor of Geocentrism

The following are quotes I've copied from Robert Sungenis' documentary Journey to the Center of the Universe . I don't know how accurate the...

quotesandreferences.blogspot.com

Also it seems the michelson morley experiment influenced the creation of relativity

But when I was a student, I saw that experiments of this kind had already been made, in particular by your compatriot, Michelson. He proved that one does not notice anything on earth that it moves, but that everything takes place on earth as if the earth is in a state of rest-Notes on einstein speech prior to producing relativity
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0908/0908.1545.pdf

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

No I'm not implying shit.

The gleason map has issues with proportions still which is why many flat earthers say it is only an approximation.

Still it is not so well known that the maps in school have distorted europe north america and asia to be significantly bigger and south america and africa to be significantly smaller.

commonly used map



real world proportions correct map


It is well known that under the real world proportions with real world meters africa is gigantic

All those projections distort some kind of dimension. Since the world is round, you cannot make a flat map without distorting something or something else.

Wiki has a good page explaining some of the commonly used projections and what they depict acurately and what they not.

Some projections are good because they allow precise navigation across the meridians, other are good for coastal navigation... at the end of the day since the planet is round all flat projections fuck up something or something else.

List of map projections - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[zeomax]

it was the ether's effect as the earth moved that was to be detected. The conclusion from the finding without other inferences, was that the earth was motionless.

Hear it from physicists










Quotes from

Quotes in Favor of Geocentrism

The following are quotes I've copied from Robert Sungenis' documentary Journey to the Center of the Universe . I don't know how accurate the...

quotesandreferences.blogspot.com

Also it seems the michelson morley experiment influenced the creation of relativity

The experiment proved that there is no ether and the light waves does not need a carrier medium like for example the sound waves do. IT DOES NOT PROVED THAT THE EARTH IS MOTIONLESS!!
It's even exactly the opposite. The movement of the earth is needed for this experiment.
But the experiment failed that means the earth is not moving! NO!! That means there is no ether and not that the earth is motionless.

 

[Jayjayhd34]

This is one of the worst things humans have ever done... not counting genocide of course.

Its pretty low on scale when considering there groups like FES trying brain wash other people in disregarding nearly all major scientific breakthroughs...................

All those projections distort some kind of dimension. Since the world is round, you cannot make a flat map without distorting something or something else.

Wiki has a good page explaining some of the commonly used projections and what they depict acurately and what they not.

Some projections are good because they allow precise navigation across the meridians, other are good for coastal navigation... at the end of the day since the planet is round all flat projections fuck up something or something else.

List of map projections - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Imagine taking plane ride to Australia in there version of world. It's like none these people travelled before.

 

[MetalAlien]

Its pretty low on scale when considering there groups like FES trying brain wash other people in disregarding nearly all major scientific breakthroughs...................

When they are finished there be no escaping it... One guy gets to decide what the sky looks like for the whole planet?

 

[Jayjayhd34]

When they are finished there be no escaping it... One guy gets to decide what the sky looks like for the whole planet?

He doesn't get to decide he's being allowed to it.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

The experiment proved that there is no ether and the light waves does not need a carrier medium like for example the sound waves do. IT DOES NOT PROVED THAT THE EARTH IS MOTIONLESS!!
It's even exactly the opposite. The movement of the earth is needed for this experiment.
But the experiment failed that means the earth is not moving! NO!! That means there is no ether and not that the earth is motionless.

I'll take the physicists words over yours.

There were two alternatives there was no ether or the earth didn't move.

"The Michelson-Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves - light waves, electromagnetic waves - could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero."- Historian, Lincoln Barnett

Scientists were at a conundrum given the heavy amount of evidence that existed for the ether. Only after relativity, which seems to have been developed in part to solve the problem, did scientists give a breath of relief.

As einstein and hawking clearly indicate even under relativity the earth can also be viewed as motionless, validly.

Yet there are many who claim relativity is contested and the ether is true.

I too think that the ether is likely true. A mediumless wave is nonsense. Right now quantum physicists seem to have merely renamed the ether to the quantum vacuum, a bubblying sea of virtual particles.

 

[MetalAlien]

He doesn't get to decide he's being allowed to it.

Nobody asked my permission.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

All those projections distort some kind of dimension. Since the world is round, you cannot make a flat map without distorting something or something else.

Wiki has a good page explaining some of the commonly used projections and what they depict acurately and what they not.

Some projections are good because they allow precise navigation across the meridians, other are good for coastal navigation... at the end of the day since the planet is round all flat projections fuck up something or something else.

I would assume the flat earthers would say the distortions are actually occuring on the globe representation as they take the earth to be flat.

 

[zeomax]

I'll take the physicists words over yours.

There were two alternatives there was no ether or the earth didn't move.


Scientists were at a conundrum given the heavy amount of evidence that existed for the ether. Only after relativity, which seems to have been developed in part to solve the problem, did scientists give a breath of relief.

As einstein and hawking clearly indicate even under relativity the earth can also be viewed as motionless, validly.

Yet there are many who claim relativity is contested and the ether is true.

I too think that the ether is likely true. A mediumless wave is nonsense. Right now quantum physicists seem to have merely renamed the ether to the quantum vacuum, a bubblying sea of virtual particles.

Ah yes the famous out of context Einstein quote


Flat-Earthers quoted Einstein’s statement out of context to give the appearance that he gave credence to the notion that Earth is stationary. In reality, Einstein never said the Earth is stationary.
The quote came from his Kyoto address “How I created the theory of relativity,” December 14, 1922.

While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson’s experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson’s null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun.

The boldfaced part was taken and widely circulated in flat-Earthers and geocentrists circles. While the words did come from Einstein, they no longer have any resemblance to what Einstein had in mind. The omission of the second part of the sentence “though the Earth is revolving around the Sun” is particularly damning.
What Einstein meant by the “optical experiment” is the Michelson-Morley experiment. Before his Theory of Relativity, scientists hypothesized the Aether theory to explain why light can propagate through space unlike other types of waves which require a medium.
The Michelson-Morley experiment cannot confirm the existence of Aether. They cannot find the difference of light speed traveling at an angle, even though the Earth is in motion. This is what Einstein had in mind.

Quote Mined Einstein Statement

In 1922, Albert Einstein gave the speech “How I Created the Theory of Relativity” at Kyoto University. Flat-Earthers took a sentence fragment from his speech and quoted him out of conte…

flatearth.ws

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Ah yes the famous Einstein quote


Flat-Earthers quoted Einstein’s statement out of context to give the appearance that he gave credence to the notion that Earth is stationary. In reality, Einstein never said the Earth is stationary.
The quote came from his Kyoto address “How I created the theory of relativity,” December 14, 1922.

The boldfaced part was taken and widely circulated in flat-Earthers and geocentrists circles. While the words did come from Einstein, they no longer have any resemblance to what Einstein had in mind. The omission of the second part of the sentence “though the Earth is revolving around the Sun” is particularly damning.
What Einstein meant by the “optical experiment” is the Michelson-Morley experiment. Before his Theory of Relativity, scientists hypothesized the Aether theory to explain why light can propagate through space unlike other types of waves which require a medium.
The Michelson-Morley experiment cannot confirm the existence of Aether. They cannot find the difference of light speed traveling at an angle, even though the Earth is in motion. This is what Einstein had in mind.

Quote Mined Einstein Statement

In 1922, Albert Einstein gave the speech “How I Created the Theory of Relativity” at Kyoto University. Flat-Earthers took a sentence fragment from his speech and quoted him out of conte…

flatearth.ws

Doesn't matter both Einstein and Hawking and many other physicists have commented that relativity means that either the earth or the sun can move, and either can be stationary too. The idea that the earth moves and not the sun, is as equally valid as the opposite, the only preference for one or the other is on philosophical grounds not scientific grounds.

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless Earth' This would mean that we use a system of reference rigidly fixed to the Earth in which all stars are performing a rotational motion with the same angular velocity around the Earth's axis...one has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right. What point of view is chosen is a matter of expediency."- Physicist, Max Born

“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, “the Sun is at rest and the Earth moves,” or “the Sun moves and the Earth is at rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
-Einstein

 

[zeomax]

And another out of context quote.

The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, “the Sun is at rest and the Earth moves,” or “the Sun moves and the Earth is at rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.

What? You mean that Albert Einstein was saying that geocentrism was just as likely to be true as heliocentrism? No, that’s not what he’s saying at all. Let’s look at the quote in its fuller context:

Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? If this can be done, our troubles will be over. We shall then be able to apply the laws of nature to any CS. The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, “the Sun is at rest and the Earth moves,” or “the Sun moves and the Earth is at rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS . . . Could we build a real relativistic physics valid in all CS; a physics in which there would be no place for absolute, but only for relative motion? This is indeed possible! . . . Our new idea is simple: to build a physics valid for all CS (Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, The Scientific Book Club and Company Ltd, p.224).

Einstein’s comments apply only to a physics that is valid “in all [coordinate systems]”, only in situations in which “there would be no place for absolute, but only for relative motion”. But do the geocentrists hold this? Of course not. They insist that there is exactly one absolute coordinate system, with the earth motionless at the center of the entire universe. This is the Great Inconsistency which lies at the heart of the new geocentrism—they both appeal to and vehemently reject general relativity, which of course is intellectually dishonest.

Context Anyone? The (Literally) Incredible Geocentrists Strike Again

Debunking geocentrism, the idea that the entire universe revolves around a motionless Earth.

www.geocentrismdebunked.org

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

And another out of context quote.



What? You mean that Albert Einstein was saying that geocentrism was just as likely to be true as heliocentrism? No, that’s not what he’s saying at all. Let’s look at the quote in its fuller context:



Einstein’s comments apply only to a physics that is valid “in all [coordinate systems]”, only in situations in which “there would be no place for absolute, but only for relative motion”. But do the geocentrists hold this? Of course not. They insist that there is exactly one absolute coordinate system, with the earth motionless at the center of the entire universe. This is the Great Inconsistency which lies at the heart of the new geocentrism—they both appeal to and vehemently reject general relativity, which of course is intellectually dishonest.

Context Anyone? The (Literally) Incredible Geocentrists Strike Again

Debunking geocentrism, the idea that the entire universe revolves around a motionless Earth.

www.geocentrismdebunked.org

The geocentrists hold that relativity is false, though and einstein is wrong.


But even without geocentrists, listen to hawking himself. He obviously knows more of physics than some random debunking arm chair journalist.

"So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true...one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest."- Physicist, Stephen Hawking

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Its pretty low on scale when considering there groups like FES trying brain wash other people in disregarding nearly all major scientific breakthroughs...................


Imagine taking plane ride to Australia in there version of world. It's like none these people travelled before.

some of them atually claimed that flights from australia to south america were impossible and the airlines were engaged in some sort of conspiracy... that bullshit was getting too big even for the flat earth community (imagine!) and now they're claiming supernatural winds that somehow only happen on airplane altitudes and are undetectable but definitely do exist make those flights possible.

 

[zeomax]

But even without geocentrists, listen to hawking himself. He obviously knows more of physics than some random debunking arm chair journalist.

"So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true...one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest."- Physicist, Stephen Hawking

Yay another out of context quote

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

some of them atually claimed that flights from australia to south america were impossible and the airlines were engaged in some sort of conspiracy... that bullshit was getting too big even for the flat earth community (imagine!) and now they're claiming supernatural winds that somehow only happen on airplane altitudes and are undetectable but definitely do exist make those flights possible.

The greater the difference in air temperature, the faster the jet stream, which can reach speeds of up to 250 mph (402 kph) or greater, but average about 110 mph (177 kph). Both the Northern and Southern hemispheres have jet streams, although the jet streams in the north are more forceful. -livescience

What they claim is that there are 200+Mph jetstreams in the south and this adds to the planes speed as they ride it. Though I don't buy that.

Another thing they argue is that it doesn't make sense for the wind to move faster than the earth in the direction of the earth's rotation, why can the wind move ahead of the earth itself, rotate faster. Though there probably is a reasonable explanation for that.

the upper atmosphere at heights of 200–300 km is on average rotating 1.3 times faster than the Earth[100m/s]

1966SSRv....6..248K Page 248

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Yay another out of context quote

no context will change the sentence, the sentence is clear as day.

Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true

This model seemed natural because we don't feel the earth under our feet moving (except in earthquakes or moments of passion). Ptolemy's model of the cosmos was adopted by the Catholic Church and held as official doctrine for fourteen hundred years. It was not until 1543 that an alternative model was put forward by Copernicus. So which is real? Although it is not uncommon for people to say Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe. The real advantage of the Copernican system is that the mathematics is much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.

Again not even the entire paragraph removes the strong meaning and implications of the sentence.

Yeah surely later somewhere he says that'd mean we are special or there might be a god so he doesn't believe it. But those are opinions and philosophical views, he clearly states the truth in the sentence.

No amount of context is going to change that.

 

[zeomax]

Ok i will try to explain as simple as possible what he was saying or what Einstein was saying.

Let say you are going to calculate the the orbit of a planet around the sun. For this you need a fixed point from where you are going to calculate it. In other words the point of view from which you are looking at this planet.. For the calculation it is not relevant if this point of view is the earth (earth stationary everything else moves) or the point of view is the sun (sun stationary everything else moves).
You can even choose a tatal different point, for example Jupiter. For the calculation of the orbit it's not important from which point you are doing the math.

Basically 4+2=6 is the same as 2+4=6

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

What they claim is that there are 200+Mph jetstreams in the south and this adds to the planes speed as they ride it. Though I don't buy that.

Another thing they argue is that it doesn't make sense for the wind to move faster than the earth in the direction of the earth's rotation, why can the wind move ahead of the earth itself, rotate faster. Though there probably is a reasonable explanation for that.

Assuming you are not some troll , measuring winds in the upper atmosphere is trivial. We're talking high school science fair bro.

The fact they're not doing it and reporting results should sound your alarm bells.

Just like none of these goons is taking a ship and circunnavegating Anctartica to prove their point.

And you know why they don't? because this is not about actually proposing a model on how the earth looks like. It's about mental health, clicks and youtube income and bible thumping science negationism.

And while those mythical wind currents explain air travel, they still have the problem of ship travel because SPOILER ALERT we have ships shoveling cargo all around the world.

The flath earth loons consistently refuse to acquire hard data because they are very well aware they'd be dead in the water if they did.

Two thousand + years ago the greeks figured this shit out looking at shadows on the ground and here we are. But at least they aren't attempting to shovel their shit into textbooks like last time like they did with intelligent design, I guess the judicial spanking they got is still being felt.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Assuming you are not some troll , measuring winds in the upper atmosphere is trivial. We're talking high school science fair bro.

The fact they're not doing it and reporting results should sound your alarm bells.

Just like none of these goons is taking a ship and circunnavegating Anctartica to prove their point.

And you know why they don't? because this is not about actually proposing a model on how the earth looks like. It's about mental health, clicks and youtube income and bible thumping science negationism.

And while those mythical wind currents explain air travel, they still have the problem of ship travel because SPOILER ALERT we have ships shoveling cargo all around the world.

The flath earth loons consistently refuse to acquire hard data because they are very well aware they'd be dead in the water if they did.

Two thousand + years ago the greeks figured this shit out looking at shadows on the ground and here we are. But at least they aren't attempting to shovel their shit into textbooks like last time like they did with intelligent design, I guess the judicial spanking they got is still being felt.

They put a video with wind speed information from a weather site on wind speeds, and claimed the planes fly at certain heights with such speeds.

The weather site they used had many projections including a gleason one. After they commented, the gleason projection was removed. Not sure if it is back up.

Again I don't buy the flat earthers claim.

I mean we have stuff like starlink. They can claim that's balloons, planes or drones, but that will be difficult to believe once we have a global network. Also all the astronomers, etc would have to be mislead, and all scientists would have to be wrong. It is not tenable to hold flat earth position

That said geocentrism holds more weight.

This interview is pretty good.

http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Debate-Palm-v-Sungenis-on-Geocentrism.pdf

Geocentrism might be wrong, but it is still curious that it is compatible with relativity, and most physicists say it is not disproven by current physics. Just that the universe revolving around the earth sounds ridiculous, even if it is possible and valid within currently known physics.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

They put a video with wind speed information from a weather site on wind speeds, and claimed the planes fly at certain heights with such speeds.

If they're talking about the australian reading, that was during a cyclone.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

If they're talking about the australian reading, that was during a cyclone.

I think they're talking about the jetstream

The strongest jet streams are the polar jets, at 9–12 km (30,000–39,000 ft) above sea level, and the higher altitude and somewhat weaker subtropical jets at 10–16 km (33,000–52,000 ft). The Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere each have a polar jet and a subtropical jet....

The wind speeds are greatest where temperature differences between air masses are greatest, and often exceed 92 km/h (50 kn; 57 mph).[19] Speeds of 400 km/h (220 kn; 250 mph) have been measured.[22] ...

The location of the jet stream is extremely important for aviation. Commercial use of the jet stream began on 18 November 1952, when Pan Am flew from Tokyo to Honolulu at an altitude of 7,600 metres (24,900 ft). It cut the trip time by over one-third, from 18 to 11.5 hours.[31] Not only does it cut time off the flight, it also nets fuel savings for the airline industry.[32][33] Within North America, the time needed to fly east across the continent can be decreased by about 30 minutes if an airplane can fly with the jet stream, or increased by more than that amount if it must fly west against it.

-wikipedia

Though I don't know if it is true that there are jet streams between australia and south america.

Here's a timestamp to an earth wind speed map where one of these guys talks about the jetstream speeds in the southern hemisphere

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

 

[Tesseract]

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

I think they're talking about the jetstream



Though I don't know if it is true that there are jet streams between australia and south america.

Here's a timestamp to an earth wind speed map where one of these guys talks about the jetstream speeds in the southern hemisphere

According to the standard flat earth map they like to peddle, the distance between southern american airports is 3 to 4 times the distance between la and tokyo. Currently a flight to tokyo from la using tailwingds lasts about 12 hours. You can do the math. But again, they can use weather ballons to prove the existence of this super powerful jetstreams. They haven't.

 

[Jayjayhd34]

According to the standard flat earth map they like to peddle, the distance between southern american airports is 3 to 4 times the distance between la and tokyo. Currently a flight to tokyo from la using tailwingds lasts about 12 hours. You can do the math. But again, they can use weather ballons to prove the existence of this super powerful jetstreams. They haven't.

How is that even possible when shrink countries and and condense everything on there supposed flat earth model ?

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

How is that even possible when shrink countries and and condense everything on there supposed flat earth model ?

Their model shrinks the distances for the northern hemisphere while massively increasing them for the southern hemisphere.

 

[Rentahamster]

under relativity geocentrism is equally valid.

In fact there are quotes suggesting Einstein developed relativity because he was bothered the Michaelson Morley experiment showed a stationary earth. So you needed relative frames, and heliocentrism or geocentrism are equally valid under that framework

What?

What does geocentrism have to do with

 

[Rentahamster]

Just that the universe revolving around the earth sounds ridiculous, even if it is possible and valid within currently known physics.

Because that is ridiculous. In a heliocentric model with the application of gravity, the planets revolve around the sun in an orbit, and moons revolve around planets in their orbits, because that's how gravity works. In a geocentric model you need to introduce epicycles to explain the retrograde motion of planets. While you can probably get to Newton's Law of Gravitation from there, taking a step further into General Relativity is probably a nightmare. Like Hawking said in that quote, the math is a mess.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

According to the standard flat earth map they like to peddle, the distance between southern american airports is 3 to 4 times the distance between la and tokyo. Currently a flight to tokyo from la using tailwingds lasts about 12 hours. You can do the math. But again, they can use weather ballons to prove the existence of this super powerful jetstreams. They haven't.

Some of them say flights from australia to south america go through the northern hemisphere, and that is one of the reasons they're not tracked by satellite or anything through the ocean.

I imagine they believe the flight to australia passes near california. The nondirect actual flights pass through north america, so I imagine they believe a similar route near north america might work too. Ignore the image claim that there is no direct flight there are, not common, but there are, what might be according to them is that it goes through northern hemisphere and jetstreams.




This is another video on a similar long range flight that they also claim takes a flat earth like route


But as I said flat earth seems less credible than geocentrism. In geocentrism the earth is a sphere but it is the center of the universe.

Not that I believe in geocentrism, just playing devil's advocate. As even the fact that it is not disproven, and is possible interpretation of the data makes it interesting. Especially now that the new geocentric models have eliminated the epicycles and are very simplistic, so even occam's can't be used to dismiss them.

What?

What does geocentrism have to do with

"...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked...that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result."- Physicist, Albert Einstein

"The Michelson-Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves - light waves, electromagnetic waves - could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero."- Historian, Lincoln Barnett

Scientists were in a conundrum for a quarter of a century, to abandon ether or to abandon copernian, Einstein worked hard in this atmosphere and solved this great problem taking them out of the predicament, and became famous for it. The earth could move, only it could not be detected. Either the earth or the sun could move.

But even after taking the ether out of the equation, he brought it back with general relativity later. The inertial frame free of gravitational forces that special relativity relied on did not exist anywhere in the universe.

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.-einstein

Because that is ridiculous. In a heliocentric model with the application of gravity, the planets revolve around the sun in an orbit, and moons revolve around planets in their orbits, because that's how gravity works. In a geocentric model you need to introduce epicycles to explain the retrograde motion of planets. While you can probably get to Newton's Law of Gravitation from there, taking a step further into General Relativity is probably a nightmare. Like Hawking said in that quote, the math is a mess.

Epicycles are no longer necessary in the current model. The neo-tychonic model, has the planets and the stars orbiting around the sun which then orbits around the earth. A simpler than heliocentric spiral movement around the earth produces all the effects attributed as proof of heliocentrism.

 

[Rentahamster]

lawl

 

[lifa-cobex]

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

Joe talked about The Shining Moon Landing conspiracy theory today

 

[Arkam]

Joe talked about The Shining Moon Landing conspiracy theory today

For minute I didnt think they were going to talk about the Elephant in the room, 2001 A Space Odyssey!!! When they started talking about Kubrick.... then special effects and didnt say 2001 (from 1968!) I was confused. But at least they did finally come around to it. Cuz that the (conspiracy) theory that Kubrick faked the moon landing has some merit. As we know what he could do at the time (2001), we know teh uS government lies a lot and they are cozy with hollywood.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Joe talked about The Shining Moon Landing conspiracy theory today

While the distance to the moon varies over time, I think the quantity used in the movie was the actual distance travelled during apollo 11.

Some sources say it was 237 others 240, but that could be due to rounding

Apollo 11 traveled about 237,000 miles to the moon in about 103 hours. Apollo 12 made the same trip in about 123 hours. What is the difference in the rates of travel of the two spacecraft round to the nearest whole number? | Socratic

The difference in rates of speed is "379 mi/h". The rate of speed is determined by dividing the distance traveled by the time it takes to travel that distance. The equation is r=d/t, where r is the rate of speed, d is the distance, and t is the time. Apollo 11 d="237000 mi" t="103 h"...

socratic.org

 

[Nymphae]

 

[RustyWalker]

Hi everyone,
I was researching the context for a quote used by geocentrists and flerthers when I came across this thread. I have a Youtube series dedicated to providing the full context and showing how dishonestly these are being used.
Feel free to stop by.

 

[GeorgPrime]

If the earth is flat right.....would all the water not just pour off the edge?

Where does it go you maniacs

Gravity lets it flow overhead on the underside

 

[Ailynn]

If the earth is flat right.....would all the water not just pour off the edge?

Where does it go you maniacs

Nah, see...we're all just livin' in God's kiddie pool. That Antarctic wall around the edge is holding in all the water for us to splash about in.

 

[RJMacready73]

Is this where all the fucking lunatics who like games hang out?

 

[LisaMariaMartin]

Some of them say flights from australia to south america go through the northern hemisphere, and that is one of the reasons they're not tracked by satellite or anything through the ocean.

I imagine they believe the flight to australia passes near california. The nondirect actual flights pass through north america, so I imagine they believe a similar route near north america might work too. Ignore the image claim that there is no direct flight there are, not common, but there are, what might be according to them is that it goes through northern hemisphere and jetstreams.




This is another video on a similar long range flight that they also claim takes a flat earth like route


But as I said flat earth seems less credible than geocentrism. In geocentrism the earth is a sphere but it is the center of the universe.

Not that I believe in geocentrism, just playing devil's advocate. As even the fact that it is not disproven, and is possible interpretation of the data makes it interesting. Especially now that the new geocentric models have eliminated the epicycles and are very simplistic, so even occam's can't be used to dismiss them.





Scientists were in a conundrum for a quarter of a century, to abandon ether or to abandon copernian, Einstein worked hard in this atmosphere and solved this great problem taking them out of the predicament, and became famous for it. The earth could move, only it could not be detected. Either the earth or the sun could move.

But even after taking the ether out of the equation, he brought it back with general relativity later. The inertial frame free of gravitational forces that special relativity relied on did not exist anywhere in the universe.



Epicycles are no longer necessary in the current model. The neo-tychonic model, has the planets and the stars orbiting around the sun which then orbits around the earth. A simpler than heliocentric spiral movement around the earth produces all the effects attributed as proof of heliocentrism.

Man, I gotta give credits to those retards. They really pour their hearts into it.

 

[RustyWalker]

Except, of course, they're plotting the global flight plans .. on a flat projection, not the actual globe. On an actual globe, flights follow Great Circle routes, unless they're making stops in between for passengers or fuel. The flat earth map they use is a different sort of projection, where distances through, to, or from the center are accurate, but none of the others are.
Leaving them with the unenviable task of explaining the times it takes to fly around the southern hemisphere from continent to continent come nowhere close to the implicit geometry of the claim (the radius of the "known world" would be from the North Pole to Antarctica, which they think is a magic wall nobody can go to or they'll be chased off by armed penguins trained by Nasa!.
Meaning the edge of the map they use is over 100000 km, which is patently ridiculous.

 

[Down With Yoga Pants!]

This is just a hypothetical...

What if the U.S. government, with the acquiescence of a compliant, activist Supreme Court acting outside the Constitution as usual, managed to pass a law strictly outlawing the denial of the U.S. moon landings? And what if violations of this law were punishable with long prison sentences, with some of those sentences actually being handed out to violators?

If this were to occur, would any of you who firmly believe the moon landings took place begin to question that narrative? In other words, would such a blatant, tyrannical disregard for free speech on the part of the gatekeepers of the narrative sow seeds of doubt in your mind?

 

[RustyWalker]

It's a non sequitur to assume that a clampdown on conspiracy theory promotion must mean that the conspiracy might be true.
An alternative explanation is that the leadership suddenly wake up and say, "Screw it! We don't have to stand for these idiotic claims that our achievements never happened. If they want to carry on denying it, they can move to Iran!"

 

[Down With Yoga Pants!]

On the contrary, it's quite logical to assume that a clampdown on free speech, investigation, and historical revisionism is evidence the conspiracy might possibly be true. And why? Because the truth stands on its own. It doesn't need protection. Only lies need protection. That's why censorship is always the last refuge of those who are opposed to transparency. People who have the truth on their side don't care whether you believe it or not, but people who stand upon a lie are adamant about having narrative control because they fear the truth might be exposed. After all, anyone who is willing to kidnap a person and put them in a cage for not believing and/or denying a certain narrative is also capable of lying about that narrative. Honest, moral people don't engage in that type of behavior, but liars do.

Any "truth" that fears investigation is likely not the truth.

 

[RustyWalker]

That's false. There's always been a subset of people who'll deny anything, and sometimes the harm they do justifies telling them to shut up or face the consequences, which is typically social stigmatism.
There is no logical reason why someone can not face more severe consequences for spreading malicious and hateful rumours, or denials that cause harm to others.
Anti-vaxxers, for instance, cause real-world harm. If someone was persuaded by an anti-vaxxer not to vaccinate a child who then died of a preventable disease, that anti-vaxxer is culpable to some extent in that death. Should they be sued? Should they be prosecuted? Should other anti-vaxxers be metaphorically gagged from media sharing sites?
The right to free speech is not the right to exemption from the consequences that result from that speech. The right to free speech also does not supersede my right to tell you to **** off.

 

[Down With Yoga Pants!]

People have the fundamental right to deny anything they want. And yes, you have the right to insult and mock them in return. But that's where your rights end. There is no such thing as a right to kidnap and imprison people for not accepting your worldview. If you want to believe in manned moon landings, or that loading your autistic kids up with poisonous Big Pharma Franken-vaccines will protect them from harm, that is your right as well. But there is no such thing as having a right to use violence to impose that worldview on others.

Regardless, the point still stands. Anyone who is willing to kidnap a person and put them in a cage for not believing and/or denying a certain narrative is also capable of lying about that narrative. This in turn justifies the disbelief in the narrative in the first place.

 

[RustyWalker]

"People have the fundamental right to deny anything they want. "
No, they don't. There's no such fundamental right. They have the fundamental right to freedom of speech, but as I said above, that does not entail freedom from consequences if that speech leads inexorably to real-world harm.
You have not provided any *logical* reason against imprisoning anyone for promoting conspiracies. All you've said is, "But muh rights." All your rights are synthetic. You only have them for as long as society decides that there's a benefit to individuals having those rights.
All you've done is present a series of Ipse Dixit statements about how you think the world ought to be.
So what?
The world according to how I think it ought to be, happens to coincide for the most part, but your entire argument is simply proof by assertion alone, and an appeal to social constructs.