Current Events > Are flat earthers the dumbest sort of people?

(+) Yeah! (+)

The Eternal Flame posted...

FlashOfLight posted...

There is a justification, but it's lengthy and no one believes it anyway. When I was able to have time to discuss it on the board I did so, though, and in detail.

I don't understand. Do you think you know more about gravity and orbits than physicists?

I would personally be willing to read this supposed lengthy explanation.

Even though pretty much every bit of evidence denies geocentrism, and we have quite a few technologies based in related fields (e.g. the geocentric model would not be valid under Newtonian gravity, the basis for Einstein's relativity IIRC, which itself is the basis for GPS and accounting for relativistic time lag to keep the clocks above and on Earth synced up).

Would be worth a laugh.
---

KeyBlade999 posted...

The Eternal Flame posted...

FlashOfLight posted...

There is a justification, but it's lengthy and no one believes it anyway. When I was able to have time to discuss it on the board I did so, though, and in detail.

I don't understand. Do you think you know more about gravity and orbits than physicists?

I would personally be willing to read this supposed lengthy explanation.

Even though pretty much every bit of evidence denies geocentrism, and we have quite a few technologies based in related fields (e.g. the geocentric model would not be valid under Newtonian gravity, the basis for Einstein's relativity IIRC, which itself is the basis for GPS and accounting for relativistic time lag to keep the clocks above and on Earth synced up).

Would be worth a laugh.

Spoilers: It all boils down to conspiracy theories. NASA faked the moonlanding (and all other space missions) to make people love Jesus less. Freemasons are controlling everything behind the scenes. If you try to get technical he will post lengthy quotes from Wikipedia or other reputable sources that are barely (or not) relevant, and he will tell you that mathematics can be used to show anything. So a lot of hand-waving, deflection and conspiracy theories. But he really is good at what he does, I'll give you that.
---

KeyBlade999 posted...

The Eternal Flame posted...

FlashOfLight posted...

There is a justification, but it's lengthy and no one believes it anyway. When I was able to have time to discuss it on the board I did so, though, and in detail.

I don't understand. Do you think you know more about gravity and orbits than physicists?

I would personally be willing to read this supposed lengthy explanation.

Even though pretty much every bit of evidence denies geocentrism, and we have quite a few technologies based in related fields (e.g. the geocentric model would not be valid under Newtonian gravity, the basis for Einstein's relativity IIRC, which itself is the basis for GPS and accounting for relativistic time lag to keep the clocks above and on Earth synced up).

Would be worth a laugh.

gps is a government secret, every "gps device" sends location data underground to the mole people for them to process and send back to the NSA
---

SIGH

Little kids that are just fresh off their deeding sessions off of the MLP thread pretending to know what actual facts are.

AHEM, TheEternalFlame, if you want to get a smidget of what the issue is, instead of hearing it from people who will tell you what to think about what I supposedly either know or don't know from my detractors in this thread, I'll give you a little friendly bite, ok?

I assume you know who Lawrence Krauss is? Well here is what HE had to say about a little problem recently found in astronomy -

https://www.edge.org/conversation/lawrence_m_krauss-the-energy-of-empty-space-that-isnt-zero

That is, we live in one universe, so we're a sample of one. With a sample of one, you have what is called a large sample variance. And maybe this just means we're lucky, that we just happen to live in a universe where the number's smaller than you'd predict. But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.

The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is imply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. And of course as a theorist I'm certainly hoping it's the latter, because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it's wrong there's still work left for the rest of us.

Ok? So before you begin to believe people who have no clue about what they are talking about, learn what the information of ACTUAL evidence is before you run into self-appointed geniuses who think they're so clever by getting their giggles off of someone who they think is just a moron who is out to make people laugh.
---

I mean, we are the center of the observable universe, so that's true. Center of the universe as a whole - provided there is one beyond the particle horizon - is just up in the air and it's entirely impossible to tell with our current technology. >_>
---

What was #56?
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

I thought they were just trolls until I saw Joe Rogan talking to Eddie Bravo

You ever hear Shaq talk about it on that show he's on with Barkley? Shaq gets defensive about it. He really believes that Flat Earth crap. I think Durant had a change of mind recently, or maybe he's just saying what people want to hear because he might've gotten tired of people making fun of him.
---

calling a whole group of people dumb is against tos

enjoy
---

FlashOfLight posted...

I assume you know who Lawrence Krauss is?

Ah yes, here's another typical tactic from you. You post a small quote from a very long talk completely out of context (very nice article btw, good read). Usually this someone is very famous and respected, so your opponents would have to assume he's correct. I mean you wouldn't believe he's correct anyway, earlier in that talk he mentioned how evolution is an observed fact (which IIRC you don't believe, right?).

But let's examine your quote, and put it into the proper context. So he gathered a bunch of reputable scientists for some discussion sessions:

I wanted to have a series of sessions where we would, each of us, try and speak somewhat provocatively about what each person was thinking about, what the key issues are, and then have a lot of open time for discussion.

So in these comments, he's not actually saying "the Earth has to be the center of the universe!" that you bolded, but rather:

The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is imply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales.

Because (and we've been over this), if all of science were wrong, we wouldn't have been able to make nearly the same amount of predictions using physics that we have.

It's this sort of selective editing that makes me wonder if you're actually convinced or just dishonest.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Ah yes, here's another typical tactic from you. You post a small quote from a very long talk completely out of context (very nice article btw, good read). Usually this someone is very famous and respected, so your opponents would have to assume he's correct. I mean you wouldn't believe he's correct anyway, earlier in that talk he mentioned how evolution is an observed fact (which IIRC you don't believe, right?).

Except it was completely in context, unless you don't know what the subject matter at hand is.

In short, you don't want it to be real, because you're a biased hypocrite, that's why. Information is only relevant when YOU want it to be relevant, so you accuse me in this case, of OH OH planting the information as if it automatically agrees with my point, while somehow "conveniently" dismissing and distorting the rest of the article's content, right?

I don't conceal, switch, or hide information, since in fact that is one of the very critiques I get by people constantly saying that I put walls of text up when dealing with these things. The reason I put up walls of text, is so that nitpickers like you don't come along and say "Aha! See, he concealed the information!"

No, sorry, I already know I am on the defense going in, and everyone else has their minds made up. Lawrence Krauss hates people like me, and that's not unknown, what is unknown to people is that people like Lawrence Krauss are confronted with plain evidence and information and they pretend it doesn't exist, and by their own admission they are the ones that have to deflect.
---

scar the 1 posted...

if all of science were wrong, we wouldn't have been able to make nearly the same amount of predictions using physics that we have.

Just saying, but you never really refuted this point, Flash.

For whatever reason, science as non-geocentrists have explained it works.

Yet geocentrism isn't even possible under the most basic assumptions of gravity, e.g. Newtonian gravity. Not to mention how wrong relativity must be as a result, which in turn would REALLY corrupt GPS as an example.

So what's the explanation for this?
---

scar the 1 posted...

So in these comments, he's not actually saying "the Earth has to be the center of the universe!" that you bolded, but rather:

He wouldn't. That's a given, the bolded part I put in there is for THIS audience to see where the issue is being referred to and tackled on, and the relevant evidence regarding that.

It's this sort of selective editing that makes me wonder if you're actually convinced or just dishonest.

I'm not the one who's dishonest, the ones that are dishonest are the ones that pretend that all current knowledge is a given and absolute fact, when, as you just read by the article from Lawrence Krauss, his own words, not mine, stated how if the findings are as what they appear to be - then all of science may be wrong.

Or did I make up that part?

I'd bold it again for you, but you might accuse me of manipulation.
---

FlashOfLight posted...

In short, you don't want it to be real, because you're a biased hypocrite, that's why.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/08/300609595/why-physicists-are-in-a-film-promoting-an-earth-centered-universe

None of this sits well with Krauss, who is well-known for his writings and lectures. He tweeted early Tuesday: "For all who asked: Some clips of me apparently were mined for movie on geocentricism. So stupid does disservice to word nonsense. Ignore it."

In a post later in Slate.com's Future Tense blog, titled "I Have No Idea How I Ended Up In That Stupid Geocentrism Documentary," the physicist elaborates:

The notion that anyone in the 21st century could take seriously the notion that the sun orbits the Earth, or that the Earth is the center of the universe, is almost unbelievable. I say almost, because one of the trials and tribulations of being a scientist with some element of popular celebrity is that I get bombarded regularly by all sorts of claims, and have become painfully aware that ideas as old as the notion that the Earth is flat never seem to die out completely.

You're taking a small part of a Krauss quote, interpreting it literally (although he quite clearly did not mean to make the point that Earth is in the center of the universe), and using it as some sort of argument. And it is quite typical of you. Or is it that you're just completely unable to pick up on the tone of a conversation?
---

KeyBlade999 posted...

Just saying, but you never really refuted this point, Flash.

For whatever reason, science as non-geocentrists have explained it works.

Yet geocentrism isn't even possible under the most basic assumptions of gravity, e.g. Newtonian gravity. Not to mention how wrong relativity must be as a result, which in turn would REALLY corrupt GPS as an example.

So what's the explanation for this?

Well as I said I'm not here to go into useless lengthy explanations that I have already literally gone over a dozen times on this same board to many of the same people, all to be met with the same tired and cliched responses of I must be either a troll, a joke, a moron, or whatever it is that suits their fancy.

The short answer is that the models can work exactly the same, and they are admitted to, with just some points of contention - which they contend are at odds with how the universe or the earth must work.

As I explained at other times, the theories of relativity were added in precisely when the scientific hierarchy at the time were met with the problem of a negative result with experiments that were carried out under the assumption that the Earth was indeed moving around the Sun, so when they got met with the negative result, it was then that they proposed and fully formalized Einstein's theory to counter the dilemma.

The other system instead proposes an absolute point of location - an absolute reference point. That is, there is an absolute North that can be determined, there is a West and there is an East, and there is an actual South.

Under the other model, however, all points on the compass are only ever arbitrary and temporary, since according to it, the universe itself is in perpetual motion, with all of its stars, clusters, and gas nebula.

Again, I'm not going to go on a baby sitting thread and host this thread about these issues, I did that in the past and it got nowhere, so there's no point, and it is only met with ridicule anyway.
---

FlashOfLight posted...

KeyBlade999 posted...

Just saying, but you never really refuted this point, Flash.

For whatever reason, science as non-geocentrists have explained it works.

Yet geocentrism isn't even possible under the most basic assumptions of gravity, e.g. Newtonian gravity. Not to mention how wrong relativity must be as a result, which in turn would REALLY corrupt GPS as an example.

So what's the explanation for this?

Well as I said I'm not here to go into useless lengthy explanations that I have already literally gone over a dozen times on this same board to many of the same people, all to be met with the same tired and cliched responses of I must be either a troll, a joke, a moron, or whatever it is that suits their fancy.

The short answer is that the models can work exactly the same, and they are admitted to, with just some points of contention - which they contend are at odds with how the universe or the earth must work.

As I explained at other times, the theories of relativity were added in precisely when the scientific hierarchy at the time were met with the problem of a negative result with experiments that were carried out under the assumption that the Earth was indeed moving around the Sun, so when they got met with the negative result, it was then that they proposed and fully formalized Einstein's theory to counter the dilemma.

The other system instead proposes an absolute point of location - an absolute reference point. That is, there is an absolute North that can be determined, there is a West and there is an East, and there is an actual South.

Under the other model, however, all points on the compass are only ever arbitrary and temporary, since according to it, the universe itself is in perpetual motion, with all of its stars, clusters, and gas nebula.

Again, I'm not going to go on a baby sitting thread and host this thread about these issues, I did that in the past and it got nowhere, so there's no point, and it is only met with ridicule anyway.

For fucks sake
---

FlashOfLight posted...

As I explained at other times, the theories of relativity were added in precisely when the scientific hierarchy at the time were met with the problem of a negative result with experiments that were carried out under the assumption that the Earth was indeed moving around the Sun, so when they got met with the negative result, it was then that they proposed and fully formalized Einstein's theory to counter the dilemma.

"Hey guys, looks like this theory isn't 100% correct, let's try and figure out what is missing"

"They said it's not 100% correct, that means they've been lying to us the entire time!!!"
---

scar the 1 posted...

In a post later in Slate.com's Future Tense blog, titled "I Have No Idea How I Ended Up In That Stupid Geocentrism Documentary," the physicist elaborates:

And I never at any time cited Lawrence Krauss being quoted in Robert Sungenis' film

The citation I put up and the interview done in the movie are two different things.

You're taking a small part of a Krauss quote, interpreting it literally (although he quite clearly did not mean to make the point that Earth is in the center of the universe), and using it as some sort of argument. And it is quite typical of you. Or is it that you're just completely unable to pick up on the tone of a conversation?

Again, I already know he believes no such thing. You are not able to separate the issue and content of where you can turn to refer to the information of what science is currently finding, and it is that that is relevant here, not whether or not Krauss believes it.

Of course I can pick out the tone of the conversation, at no point do I expect them to acknowledge any of it as a belief they hold themselves.
---

Banana_Mana posted...

For fucks sake

Oh here we go, pattern number 506 on cue.
---

scar the 1 posted...

"Hey guys, looks like this theory isn't 100% correct, let's try and figure out what is missing"

"Look guys, this theory we have now totally exposes that we have been perpetrating a fraudulent model when we knew better to the contrary, let's be stubborn and pretend that this lines up with our false model even so, lest we look stupid in front of the masses."

"They said it's not 100% correct, that means they've been lying to us the entire time!!!"

"They find it's not 100% correct, so they won't admit they're ever wrong because it might lead to acknowledging a certain part of Middle Eastern history and events as truth."
---

FlashOfLight posted...

And I never at any time cited Lawrence Krauss being quoted in Robert Sungenis' film

The citation I put up and the interview done in the movie are two different things.

That's a good point. The citation you put up is the one circulating around the web, so I assumed it was the same as in Sungenis's film. In any case, Rick DeLano (a co-producer) brings it up when interviewed about the film:
http://www.popsci.com/article/science/how-conspiracy-theorist-duped-worlds-biggest-physicists
So you can understand my conflation.

FlashOfLight posted...

Again, I already know he believes no such thing. You are not able to separate the issue and content of where you can turn to refer to the information of what science is currently finding, and it is that that is relevant here, not whether or not Krauss believes it.

And no one is saying that science found Earth to be the center of the universe, either. But feel free and quote the studies that Krauss were referring to. :)
---

scar the 1 posted...

That's a good point. The citation you put up is the one circulating around the web, so I assumed it was the same as in Sungenis's film. In any case, Rick DeLano (a co-producer) brings it up when interviewed about the film:
http://www.popsci.com/article/science/how-conspiracy-theorist-duped-worlds-biggest-physicists
So you can understand my conflation.

It's all right, I expect it to happen, so I should clear some things up too, just in case, but first this part real quick...

""Both Cosmos and The Principle came out of our work on Thor," he told me."

Interesting, who would've have guessed?

Anyway, back to the point I wanted to clarify. I never cite or refer to anyone as having the same beliefs I do, that is why if anyone ever pays attention, I never cite or use cliched sources from "creationism" or "geocentrism", since as far as I know, in the case of Robert Sungenis, "his" geocentrism does not agree with "my" geocentrism. In that he still likewise believes that the Sun is indeed 93 million plus miles away, and still 800,000 miles plus in diameter.

So I take it to assume that even Robert Sungenis would scoff at me and call me as much of a fool as anyone else who already has done so.

All information I present are my own arguments, they are not borrowed from anyone else. Though at some times, they may indeed coincide and have the same beliefs or information, but everything that I put up is directly from me, and no one else.

And no one is saying that science found Earth to be the center of the universe, either. But feel free and quote the studies that Krauss were referring to. :)

They wouldn't even if they did, the same way that when dino blood vessels were found in "ancient" fossils, they still didn't admit they were wrong about the age of the Earth and just came back with the pathetic concoction that it was a miracle that they survived for so long.
---

FlashOfLight posted...

They wouldn't even if they did, the same way that when dino blood vessels were found in "ancient" fossils, they still didn't admit they were wrong about the age of the Earth and just came back with the pathetic concoction that it was a miracle that they survived for so long.

So no one is actually saying science found this. Not Krauss, not the people who did the study.
---

scar the 1 posted...

So no one is actually saying science found this. Not Krauss, not the people who did the study.

I know that, but it points to it, it is evidence for it, which they refuse to admit or acknowledge, just as they have the evidence of the dino tissue being preserved and they attribute it instead to an inherent ability within blood to survive for millions of years, instead of the obvious conclusion had they been honest and genuine, which is that the tissue is fresh and not 10,000 + years old aka millions of years plus old.
---

FlashOfLight posted...

I know that, but it points to it, it is evidence for it

Says who?
---

Scar, just another tidbit for you regarding information. On this same site, I had people take issue with me years ago now already when I said in regards to the issue of Noah, that after the worldwide flood, that the creatures migrated to what is today's Australia and New Zealand, via dry land that was still present while the waters were still receding, and that after they fully receded, they became isolated.

Now, at the time, when I was ridiculed for stating such a thing, this following tidbit of information which was just recently discovered was unknown to that same audience -

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/scientists-say-they-ve-discovered-hidden-continent-under-new-zealand-n722796

The proposed recognition of the continent of Zealandia does not represent the discovery of a new land mass. Rather, the paper argues that the geological evidence suggests the land mass should be classified not as a collection of islands and fragments but as a bona fide continent.

Zealandia is believed to have broken away from Australia about 80 million years ago and sunk beneath the sea as part of the break-up of the super-continent Gondwanaland.

Ok? So to that last part there, of course they're going to say 80 million years ago, and not 4,400, but once again, the point is, unless it is lost, that the evidence and information is the same, it's just that as in the case of dino tissue, they attribute it to millions of years ago, instead of the recent past, but the information remains the same, both things exist, and are present.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Says who?

Well my voice obviously doesn't count.
---

FlashOfLight posted...

Well my voice obviously doesn't count.

Not really, no.

FlashOfLight posted...

Leaving GameFAQs in 5 days, thank you for the memories <3 https://www.scribd.com/document/340746101/Arguments

BTW, I'll be sad to see you go. But leaving GameFAQs is good for everyone.
---

Scar, another tidbit, with the massive amount of information I also included to the audiences here, I stated along with it, that there has never been any millions of years of sediment deposits on the Earth, and that everything that we state can be backed up and proven in real time, and in the case of what is called "layers" they are formed constantly and repeatedly due to massive catastrophic floods which can be seen on the Earth frequently. I stated, that the fabricated numbers are due to a fundamental lack of understanding of the most basic processes that take place on the Earth routinely, and because the Earth is both not uniform, and likewise it is a world where water is dominant.

So I say that we can indeed back up everything we say, and that it can be witnessed in real time, not millions of years.

So where is the evidence for massive catastrophic flooding being responsible for the upheaval of millions of tonnes of dirt, rocks, and stone constantly?

All around you, as in the case of the recent floods in Peru, this is actual footage, not concocted fabricated animations from a studio -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH2yMbStGd0

Just Peru?

New Zealand, 2017 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHdl7kt5LcE

Jamaica, 2017 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljtkE53ls9k

Saudi Arabia, 2017 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM9aVjz4x-A

Iran, 2017 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P55Nk5WqQM

Okay? But once again, there is "no evidence", and when plain evidence is presented that debunks the millions of years garbage myth, the "professional debunkers" and actual experts in science, just come back with "Um, no... you don't understand..." aka "That's NOT what you think it is".

No matter the excuse, it's a pick and choose of what constitutes as evidence, it's flat out denial and refusal to be corrected. Plain and simple.
---

scar the 1 posted...

BTW, I'll be sad to see you go. But leaving GameFAQs is good for everyone.

Sorry about that :{
---

FlashOfLight posted...

Scar, another tidbit, with the massive amount of information I also included to the audiences here, I stated along with it, that there has never been any millions of years of sediment deposits on the Earth

Well I don't really know why you're addressing me with this. I've never talked with you about the age of Earth. I consider this a deflection.
---

where it's not trolling it's probably more of a mental health issue
---

I saw a Joe Rogan podcast where they discussed a group that I dn't know what to call them, or if their beliefs are connected to any others, but according to them dinosaurs are fake, and their fossils are planted by sinister paleontologists

Anisoptera posted...

The main concern with having a foreskin is cleanliness which is easily dealt with by proper hygiene and the proper use of condoms.

You have to use condoms to not get dick cheese? Well fuck me I'm glad I'm circumcised. I didn't give a fuck until now.
---

Tag so I can absorb all of Flash's posts for later
---

I'm proud of the direction this topic is taking.

Keep it up guys. This might just be my first 500 topic!
---

rodu_jr posted...

I saw a Joe Rogan podcast where they discussed a group that I dn't know what to call them, or if their beliefs are connected to any others, but according to them dinosaurs are fake, and their fossils are planted by sinister paleontologists

Yeah, that is also part of the beliefs among the flat earth community.
---

N1NJAREB0RN posted...

I'm proud of the direction this topic is taking.

Keep it up guys. This might just be my first 500 topic!

Ah, my days of baby sitting threads are over. That's why I told people in the past to use me while they had me around if they had any questions or wanted to know anything further about my beliefs as it relates to these topics.
---

need a mod to confirm that its ok to flame a whole group of people
---

ModLogic posted...

need a mod to confirm that its ok to flame a whole group of people

I got modded just last night for a falsely "perceived" comment against a certain group, which wasn't even the case, but when paranoia runs amok the victim that gets it is the nearest one close by who gets the blame.
---

@FlashOfLight

lmao you are literally insane. the world is not thousands of years old

QuantumScript posted...

@FlashOfLight

lmao you are literally insane. the world is not thousands of years old

We'll see who's insane, and whose words stand.
---

QuantumScript posted...

@FlashOfLight

lmao you are literally insane. the world is not thousands of years old

I mean, it kinda is.

Thousands of thousands of thousands. >_>
---

FlashOfLight posted...

QuantumScript posted...

@FlashOfLight

lmao you are literally insane. the world is not thousands of years old

We'll see who's insane, and whose words stand.

sorry to spoil this for you man, but jesus was just a regular dude. none of the earth's religions is true, and your weird interpretation of Genesis is demonstrably false. live your life, it's the only one you get.
---

meingott posted...

sorry to spoil this for you man, but jesus was just a regular dude. none of the earth's religions is true, and your weird interpretation of Genesis is demonstrably false. live your life, it's the only one you get.

Jesus Christ has never failed me once. He's the hardcore, straight up in your face, real deal.
---

Don't mock my faith in "world turtle". He carries us on his back through this whacky universe.

https://goo.gl/images/JbtS7J
---

FlashOfLight posted...

meingott posted...

sorry to spoil this for you man, but jesus was just a regular dude. none of the earth's religions is true, and your weird interpretation of Genesis is demonstrably false. live your life, it's the only one you get.

Jesus Christ has never failed me once. He's the hardcore, straight up in your face, real deal.

Except your standard of proof for saying something like this is literally just "good feelings." Literally no miracles of any kind, nothing supernatural. Just apologetics and feelings.
---

FlashOfLight posted...

Jesus Christ has never failed me once. He's the hardcore, straight up in your face, real deal.

And another piece of the puzzle falls into place.
---

Hmmm
---

magellan must be spinning in his grave. to think there are flat earthers in 2017.
---

lilORANG posted...

do flat earthers actually believe the earth is flat or are they just looking for attention? Seems like a fairly modern fad. I have to think it's just really dedicated trolls.

@Feline_Heart does it as a joke.
---