The Flat Earth Experience

This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 3 weeks ago by Proclaimer.

Viewing 20 posts - 241 through 260 (of 6,414 total)

←1 2 3…121314…319 320 321 →

Author
Posts
April 30, 2018 at 10:05 am#822889
mikeboll64
Blocked
Okay, so now to the really good part. How did they get rid of Michelson’s empirical evidence that the earth was stationary?
But the die‐hard Copernicans of that day were not about to accept the prima facie results of
Michelson’s experiment. They knew the catastrophic scientific, cultural, and religious
implications if it was experimentally shown that Earth is fixed in space. In a word, the
whole world would have been turned upside down, literally and figuratively.
Pressured to provide a “scientific” answer to the world, they searched for a way to make it
appear that the first light beam did, indeed, provide six‐sixths of the retarded speed
required for an Earth moving around the sun. To do so they thought up an ingenious (but
devious) explanation. As noted above, they claimed the Earth’s movement around the sun
contracted the metal enclosure in which the first light beam traveled.
If the length of the housing is contracted, then the first light beam does not need to travel as
far as when the housing is not contracted.
You following here? To get rid of the scientific evidence, they proposed that the metal machine itself “shrunk” while moving in the direction of the light!
In effect, if someone said to them, “You claim the Earth is moving but you admit you cannot
detect that movement by any experiment,” they would retort, “Well, we can’t detect it
because every time we try to do so, the length of the experimental apparatus shrinks just
enough to conceal the movement, which makes it impossible to measure the Earth’s
movement.”
What kind of BS is that? 🙂
Since they insist the Earth is moving around the sun yet cannot detect it moving,
nevertheless, they needed some physical and mathematical way of accounting for it, since
there is obviously a difference between motion and non‐motion. So length contraction
became their convenient scapegoat. This is the essence of the Special Relativity theory that
Einstein invented in 1905. It was invented solely to answer Michelson’s experiment. As
Einstein himself said:

“…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.”
Did you catch that? Einstein said that ALL attempts to confirm the assumed movement of the earth ended in negative results, ie: they all showed the earth to be motionless. AND these scientific results that showed the earth to be motionless were met with the invention of the idea that mechanical things just up and shrink to hide the motion of the earth, and Einstein’s theory that all movement is relative.
Noted physicist Charles Lane Poor of
Columbia University reiterated the problem:
“The Michelson‐Morley experiment forms the basis of the relativity theory:
Einstein calls it decisive…if it should develop that there is a measurable ether‐drift,
then the entire fabric of the relativity theory would collapse like a house of
cards.”
Well how can they detect the ether if every time they do, they just say something shrunk and therefore it wasn’t really the ether we detected? And do you notice that if they admitted the ether had already been detected by Michelson’s experiment, Einstein’s most famous theory would “collapse like a house of cards”. Such are the lies and deceptions upon which scientism is built.
Every interferometer experiment performed from
Michelson in 1881 to Joos in 1930—which is 50 years of the same results from a dozen
different experimenters—detected one‐sixth to one‐tenth. Einstein was so bothered by this
fact that he hired what can be called a ‘scientific hit man,’ Robert Shankland, to seek to
discredit the experiments, especially the most comprehensive interferometer experiments
performed by Dayton Miller between 1908 and 1921.
But at this point in time (the 1910s and 1920s) the world was only too happy to accept
Einstein’s theories and reject anyone who challenged them. After all, Einstein was the
Earth‐Mover. He made the Earth move around the sun and thus saved mankind from
having to admit that popular science had misled the world for the 500 years prior.
Nobody likes to look like a smacked ass – least of all scientists who were in the process of gaining a large cult following of sheep who worshipped at their feet.
Einstein himself admits that the only reason he invented Special
Relativity was due to Michelson’s discovery. He writes in 1922:
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.
By all means then, let’s not admit empirical results into the equation. 🙂
That Einstein believes the Earth is moving, but has no proof for it is noted in his
statement…
“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.”
So we can’t detect this alleged motion of the earth, nonetheless we assert that it is revolving around the sun? Is that “science”, Nick? Einstein went on to say in 1938,
The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus
would then be quite meaningless. Either 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 coordinate systems.
I’ve never been too fond of that Schrödinger’s cat kind of philosophical mumble-jumbo. The cat in the box is either alive or dead – it can’t be both. Either the earth moves, or it is fixed and stationary – like the Bible clearly says, and like every experiment designed to show it’s movement has confirmed. It’s not a matter of where you’re looking at it. It either spins 1000+ miles per hour at the equator, while orbiting the sun at 66,600 thousand miles per hour, while hurtling through space along with the sun at 600,000 miles per hour… or it doesn’t.
Airy’s Failure and Michelson-Morley were not the only scientific experiments that proved a motionless earth. There was also the Sagnac experiment that did the same thing. You can check out all three on this video…

The bottom line is that there has NEVER been an experiment that showed the earth in motion, while there have been many different ones showing the earth at rest.

April 30, 2018 at 10:31 am#822892
mikeboll64
Blocked
Phew! Glad that’s done. But I really felt it was necessary for you guys to have the actual background. So to recap:
1. The entire world knew the earth was flat and motionless with the sun, moon and stars moving around them as lights in the sky. They accepted this for many thousands of years.
2. Allegedly, in the 2nd century BC, Eratosthenes claimed the earth was curved because shadows in different wells were different. Ball earthers often bring him up as their first line of defense, but even their hero, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, admits what everyone knows… the same results could occur on a flat earth.
3. In 1543, Copernicus publishes his mathematical formula by which the observed motions of the heavenly luminaries could be caused by orbits around the sun. He didn’t offer any empirical evidence, just another way of looking at motions that were already accurately accounted for by the luminaries circling over a flat earth in appointed circuits.
4. The Ptolemy/Copernicus debate was still ongoing, but the tide was shifting towards the Copernican model… not because of evidence, but because of philosophical worldviews. The modern scientists were beginning to enjoy their status as high priests to the ignorant masses. They had a Pharisees complex going on, and by killing God and the Bible, they could assure themselves a god status of their own. So, being moved along by their desire to become the new gods to whom people looked up and paid homage, they bent over backwards to destroy or twist any piece of evidence that aligned with the Bible.
5. Isaac Newton invented the never-been-verified notion of “gravity”, as an attempt to explain how the heavenly bodies in the Copernican model could remain in their constant motions through the years.
6. The 19th century brought about scientists who devised ways the motion of the earth could actually be tested. Those tests all showed the earth to be motionless. The sun-worshipping heliocentrists quashed those results with imaginary things like shrinking mechanical devices and relativity… but they couldn’t honestly refute them.
7. And that brings us up to the 1970’s and NASA.
Okay, history presentation is over.
April 30, 2018 at 11:00 am#822895
mikeboll64
Blocked
Nick: Hi Mike,
Tell us about ANTARCTICA.

I was hoping you could tell me about it, since you’re the one who believes it is a frozen continent. First question: Am I allowed to go there and explore wherever I wish on my own?
April 30, 2018 at 11:39 am#822896
NickHassan
Participant
Hi Mike,
So you have not seen the ICE WALL and cannot give us any details about it?
Why should we pay any attention to your theories about it?
You promised to teach us about ANTARCTICA.?

April 30, 2018 at 11:44 am#822897
mikeboll64
Blocked
Gene: MIKE…. I will stand behind the mathematics I used from the outside of the circle as well as the math they used from the inside of it.
Okay, but you’ll stand alone. Can you really not understand that you’re formula of 2 feet for every mile just ends up making a long downhill slant, and never a circle?
Here’s the formula from one of those earth curvature calculator sites I posted yesterday…

Explanation:
The Earth’s radius (r) is 6371 km or 3959 miles, based on numbers from Wikipedia,
which gives a circumference (c)of c = 2 * π * r = 40 030 km
We wish to find the height (h) which is the drop in curvature over the distance (d)
Using the circumference we find that 1 kilometer has the angle
360° / 40 030 km = 0.009°. The angle (a) is then a = 0.009° * distance (d)
The derived formula h = r * (1 - cos a) is accurate for any distance (d)
Gene, on what basis do you deny the math that all of these sites and university-trained mathematicians use to figure out curvature on any ball? Just pride? Remember that these guys think the earth is a ball, and have explained the math behind measuring that curvature. They’re not flat earther sites, since we don’t think there’s any curvature to be measured. We just use their formulas to prove that the earth isn’t curved like they say. One of the sites I posted yesterday was Metabunk, run by a guy T8 has already posted a flat earth debunking video from. Do you really think that guy would have a fake calculator on his site just to make flat earthers look good? Come on, man, think it out.
Gene: And again, you haven’t produced a single proof of “any” conspiracy theory nor any reason for it at all…
Actually I just did today. Read my last few posts, and you’ll see that experimental evidence shows a motionless earth. You’ll also see the mental gymnastics and deceptions the mainstream scientists had to do to make sure nobody thinks the earth is specially created by God.
Gene: To think men have not been to out space and to the moon back, and there is a big picture and movie cover up, for reasons no one knows, is pure foolishness.
Oh my. Are you saying you believe men have walked on the moon? I didn’t think people like you still existed. Okay, shall we talk about that? Let’s start with a mental exercise: In 1961, Kennedy said he wanted to put men on the moon by the end of the decade. A mere 8 years later, Neil Armstrong was the first man to step on the moon. They accomplished this in a space craft with less computing power than the first Nintendo video game console, and landed in a total vacuum environment where temperatures ranged from 250F above to 250F below zero… in this piece of crap made from construction paper, aluminum foil, gold mylar, scotch tape, and curtain rods!

Then we did it perfectly another 5 times in the span of 3 years. But in the 50 years since the Apollo missions, we haven’t been back, and no other nation has sent a person there. How realistic is the story sounding so far? Because there’s much, much more to it than that.
April 30, 2018 at 12:01 pm#822900
mikeboll64
Blocked
Nick: So you have not seen the ICE WALL and cannot give us any details about it?
Both I and T8 have already showed you photos of it. Besides that, what would you like me to tell you? I haven’t been there. What details can you give me about it? For example, can you show me that it curves around in a “circle” and forms a continent?
Nick: Why should we pay any attention to your theories about it?
You promised to teach us about ANTARCTICA.?
My theories so far have had to do with the Bible teaching a stationary earth with luminaries circling over it on appointed circuits, and about how the moon can’t possibly eclipse from the bottom up, and how we can’t possibly have a full moon in the daytime if the sun is what’s lighting the moon. The only claims I’ve made about Antarctica is that regular people are not allowed to go there on their own and explore wherever they want to. And I surely didn’t promise to teach anybody anything about it.
I think I know what happened, Nick. Amidst all this verifiable evidence I have begun to produce, you have latched on to something you know I couldn’t possibly “show you” – because you think it can keep me from taking your ball away. So let me say it straight… no, I can’t actually “show you” a huge ice wall surrounding the earth any more than I could actually “show you” Antarctica as a continent.
Can you show me Antarctica as a continent?
April 30, 2018 at 12:02 pm#822901
mikeboll64
Blocked
Gene: Nor have you disproved that a ship going straight out from a person does not sink over the horizion in porporition to that math.
Here – invest 40 seconds of research…
April 30, 2018 at 12:12 pm#822902
NickHassan
Participant
Hi Mike,
One little photo with no measurements shown?
What you offered is something huge that goes around the flat earth.

We are not going to accept such a con job.

April 30, 2018 at 12:26 pm#822903
AndrewAD
Participant
Mike,
It’s been several years ago that I looked into geocentric theories and it talked about the experiments you’ve brought up along with a debunking of Einstein,though they didn’t hold to a flat earth theory many of the things you’ve brought up are the same in that they don’t believe the earth is spinning.
I’ve also watched some of the moon landing conspiracy documentaries and read some about it,but it’s been years ago. And I still wonder about it, as to weather we really had the technology to do it then or do we now? I remember reading somewhere that the US gave the USSR a bunch of grain in exchange for keeping the moon landing hoax hushed up, since they had some bad harvests. Do you know anything about that? Since we were in the space race with them at the time people always ask why they didn’t expose it as a hoax if they knew it was.

April 30, 2018 at 3:39 pm#822905
GeneBalthrop
Participant
Mike …When did i say i deny their math, it’s the same as mine, except i used a “tangent” line off the surface of the earth, to work the pythagoream theorem from, they used a radious line to prove it , both work as anyone wth any good math backround will attest to. Your commits on my math used, tells me your mathematics lack understanding or you could easely see they both give the same results, the only difference is they used a different diameter then me, no big deal the math yield the same results.
While your at it why not give us one “good” reason for any conspiracy about our moon mission , the wheat deal thing dosen’t flym and all the other mission we have deployed over the past 46 or so years, AND THE THOUSAND OF STATLITE IMAGERY SENT TO EARTH EVER DAY, FROM OUTER SPACE. Are all the hundreds of business who send up satellites doing it to further those conspiracy theories you seem to believe ?
Don’t you believe Jesus when he said that knowledge would increase, or do you think it’s fake knowledge ? Come on Mike admit the truth and move on to something that counts. Trying to tie up time on worthless persuits like flat earth thories is simply a waste of energy and time.
Peace and love to you and yours. …..gene
May 1, 2018 at 5:40 am#822915
GeneBalthrop
Participant
Mike, i just heard on the news that two seperate billionaire hope to be taking passengers for a ride by the e n d of the year, so you can have your apsolute proof perhaps by the end of this year. Perhaps you can figure out how they will also produce the same or different conspiracy therioies as you believe all the rest have. Don’t mean to sound pessimistic or belittling Mike, but come on!.
Peace and love to you and yours. …….gene
May 1, 2018 at 10:16 am#822918
Proclaimer
Participant
Yeah, time really flies, huh? I’ve been very blessed to have a straight A student who doesn’t get into any of the many kinds of trouble I got into as a teenager. I pray it stays that way. I’ve been very open with him about my many mistakes, and how my biggest one was turning away from God at a young age. He knows that God is real and that big bang evolution is a laughable sham. He’s not 100% with me on the flat earth yet, but says it’s because they haven’t taught him anything about cosmology in school, and so he doesn’t even fully understand the claims and motions in the heliocentric model enough to know whether they’re right or wrong. And I think it’s fantastic that he isn’t just some blind believer of anything Daddy says. We spent years talking about the evolution model he was learning in school, and he put me to the test with some very good questions about the things I was claiming. Iron sharpens iron, and he is a great sharpener. 🙂 He’s doing the same with flat earth, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. I could be wrong, after all.
Mike, that is awesome. You sound like a great dad. I too realise that you have to let your kids be free to discover for themselves. I teach them about God and I know that eventually they will be taught a bunch of lies about their origins, but I hope that they will weather that storm and I feel confident that as long as they have truth inside them and do not throw away logic, they will get through this world of deception.
On a similar note, I feel that belief in a Flat Earth could taint all this with regard to your son. If you are wrong about the Flat Earth, then that opens up his mind that his dad could well be wrong about God, the Trinity, and Evolution too. Of course it would be hoped he would be smart enough to sort the wheat from the tares in that scenario. Of course, if you are correct about the Flat Earth, then well done, you stood up in the face of great adversity. But I don’t believe the latter has much chance of being true as you have probably worked out by now. But as always, I remain open to all truth no matter how preposterous something appears to be at first. If the Flat Earth is true, I am likely to know about it once this discussion is through. Well that is what I think anyway.
Testing all things takes time however, and testing the Math you have posted and the site links that work out the horizon etc would take a lot of time for me to work through how it works and be able to expose any flaws. For now, I focus on the easy stuff from my perspective such as the existence of the frozen continent which I feel has ample evidence of its existence, despite never being there of flying over it myself. Be patient with me please. Good things take time right? 🙂
May 1, 2018 at 10:31 am#822919
Proclaimer
Participant
@nickhassan
Hi Mike,
This ICE WALL surrounding the earth is unstable and come crashing down?
Curiouser and curiouser.
To be fair, ice breaks off yes, but new ice is formed. But that does beg the question as to where the new ice is coming from. Perhaps just precipitation in the same manner as believing in new ice formation from the continent point of view. But then, the elites also believe in Global Warming which could lead to the barrier melting. Why would they believe that if it is an idea that would expose their other lie of the globe Earth?
May 1, 2018 at 10:57 am#822921
Proclaimer
Participant
Dig4truth is registered
If you watched the first video I posted about how I came to look into the flat earth, you’ll remember I sent a funny clip to a friend, who then suggested I read an ebook. Well that friend has signed up for this forum under the name Dig4truth, and is awaiting your approval. Please be so kind as to expedite this matter, so he can help me beat up on Nick. 🙂 Actually, he’s not as convinced as I am, and it could backfire on me. But I vouch for him. He and I were brothers in arms against the evolutionist horde on that other forum.
Done. Welcome Dig4truth. But here’s the thing, it puzzles me why he needed approval. The registration system linked in the site bypasses that and it is usually bots that end up landing in the Approval section because they know the path to the normal registration page. This site gets absolutely hammered by spam registrations, so I have bypassed the normal registration link with my own link to the registration that works without approval. But Good to know now, I guess there is still a way that some real people are finding the normal registration process. There must be a link somewhere I need to change. I wonder if Dig4truth could tell me exactly how he found the Registration page he did?
Further, it won’t backfire if the truth wins out right?
May 1, 2018 at 11:06 am#822922
Proclaimer
Participant
@nickhassan
Hi Mike,
This ICE WALL that surrounds the earth must be a remarkable structure.
Just show it and you may gain more believers.
lol. Honestly, are you even capable of having a decent conversation. Are you like this with people in your life too? Or maybe you are just not up to debating because it is above your ability? We all know though that you are likely aware there is an actual ice wall in Antarctica. No point in questioning that, rather if you want to question something that is really up for debate, that would be the well accepted idea that Antarctica as a continent. Hard to believe you were once a moderator here. lol. You are entertaining though, but all fun aside, you should be concerned that you may depart this world in your current state. So little time for all of us to get serious about God and being children of the light who love one another and the truth and who obey the second commandment as if it were a command made by God himself.
May 1, 2018 at 11:11 am#822923
NickHassan
Participant
Hi T8,
All we have seen so far is one view of a cliff of ice or the side of an iceberg.
This thing apparently goes around the edge of earth.
Thanks anyway.

May 1, 2018 at 11:11 am#822924
Proclaimer
Participant

Do you think that photos of the ice wall in Antarctica are fake? If not, then move on and debate something that is actually up for debate.
May 1, 2018 at 11:17 am#822925
NickHassan
Participant
Hi T8,
Ok 2 photos.
But what is the flat land on top?
How thick is this wall and how long?
May 1, 2018 at 11:35 am#822926
NickHassan
Participant
Hi T8,
Have you not seen icebergs as big as what you showed?
Are you not the one who called this whole idea PREPOSTEROUS?
May 1, 2018 at 11:37 am#822927
Proclaimer
Participant
@mikeboll64
If visibly observing objects in the distance that would be impossible to see on a ball earth really does kill the heliocentric model, Antarctica isn’t going to save it – even if it is a continent. If any of the hundreds of other points I’m about to bring up truly and utterly refute the very possibility of the heliocentric model, then Antarctica becomes an interesting discussion, but a moot point.
Mike, the Antarctica is the easiest one to debate because of its myriad of evidence and it is not a side issue IMO because if it is a continent, then the Flat Earth model falls out the window. Here’s the thing, it is way easier to believe that Antarctica exists as a continent, than believe the evidence that certain eclipses and moon phases are impossible in the heliocentric model. The latter can easily be misconstrued by the average person. But while I’m on this subject, I do have a question regarding your point about seeing objects like my photo that are supposedly meant to be over the curve, thus not possible to be seen from distance.
I would like to start with boats coming into view or away from the observer when approaching the horizon. The point about it not going over the curve as much as it going out of view seems a fair one to me. Of course that doesn’t prove that it will eventually go over the curve. What happens when the boat disappears when viewed through binoculars? You would have to say that it is out of view of the binoculars right. So the remedy is to have a more powerful pair of binoculars or a capable telescope. So let’s say we did that and again it disappeared and so again we looked through an even more powerful lense. Let’s say we kept doing this or let’s just say we have a device that was capable of viewing say a distance further than the distance between Alaska and New Zealand of which there is only sea thus a clear line of sight between the two. The inescapable conclusion is you would not only see the boat land at the coast of Alaska from New Zealand, but you would see Alaska right. Surely this is a test that many could do. You only need a boat, a very powerful telescope, and away you go. But no one has demonstrated this or demonstrated something similar to this. Yes my photo shows a mountain 300+ km away, but that could be very possible given the size of the globe Earth, but what about Alaska. That would do it for me if I could demonstrate that or if scientists demonstrated it and it was not debunked as a hoax. For the average person, they are just going to believe that you can see tall mountains 300 km away, but they certainly will not believe that you can see a different continent.
Okay, so let’s say your rebuttal is that distant objects disappear on a Flat Earth because of atmospheric distortion, i.e., the light will eventually scatter or something at great distance meaning you cannot receive light between New Zealand and Alaska. So then why is it that if the boat is still there once you produce a powerful lense, then what of the sun? When that appears to go below the horizon, then why can’t we just pull out a telescope and see the sun again? Oh wait, you will blind yourself. Surely this can be done in such a way as to not hurt your eyes. Or why not do it with the moon as you can view that through a telescope right. This is something I can do for myself and am in a perfect situation to do it. Although, I have to admit that I have only ever seen the moon ascend from the horizon, but the experiment could still be done. The telescope would show the moon before just viewing the same scene with the naked eye.
So here is a question Mike.
If I go to the coast and the sun or moon is going down below the horizon, if I then pull out my telescope, I should be able to see the sun / moon again after it has disappeared right?
Author
Posts