Comment on New forum by Wild Heretic.
Hello Physicsgeek (PG). Nice to see my second upset poster on this blog, but thank you for keeping it civil. I’ll break up your posts in segments to quickly reply to them. It’s a pain I know as it can get hard to read (I’ll put your part in italics if that is ok), but you gave a jolly good shot across the bow and so I guess I politely respond in kind.
“And yet you don’t address the central problem, which is that your hypothesis is scientifically invalid.
You even call it “concave Earth theory,” which is intellectually dishonest, because this is an invalid hypothesis and not a theory.”
I disagree with this on the premise that there are four pieces of evidence for the Earth being concave, with two of them being nearly slam dunks. An example of a hypothesis would be the special hypothesis of relativity which has never been observed, or heliocentric hypothesis which has no supporting evidence whatsoever… I tell a lie, there is foucault’s pendulum, which turns out to be actually evidence for the turbulent aether once George Airy’s experiment is taken into account. You are probably new here PG and so haven’t read about it I guess. Most of it is here:
and a bit also here, mostly at the end:
Third: If you claim that our vision “does not tell us the truth,” then the only logical conclusion of that argument is that we cannot detect anything about the world by any means at all, for anyone could just claim that any particular method “does not tell us the truth” with no evidence whatsoever until everyone on Earth thought that they could not sense anything with any accuracy. Congratulations, you have just made an argumentum ad absurdum.
No. It seems that at short distances visible light is accurate enough, but at long distances it is very inaccurate. That is obvious though isn’t it? I actually looked into the flat earth seriously because optics shows us that the world must be flat. A lake is a flat plane obviously, at least it looks that way to the naked eye. You can get a clinometer and look across the top of a series of objects of same length for several miles and see the tops of each object with a telescope as Rowbowthan has already demonstrated. The problem is this is impossible as the flags should dip downwards on a convex earth, or upwards on a concave one. If the Earth isn’t flat, then visible light must bend.
Optics can’t tell us the correct shape of the Earth, because of the 5 experiments already mentioned here.
They aren’t the only ones and I don’t think their results are in dispute as the standard excuse is refraction.
If you have no understanding of basic science and yet attempt to rewrite said science, then calling your post a pile of horse manure is not, in fact, an insult. If I had wanted to insult you, I would have called you a howling ignoramus and a laughable cultist toady (since basic research has found that your beliefs are indicative of a cultist of a charmingly insane fellow called Cyrus Teed).
After reading Cellular Cosmonogy, I have an incredible respect for Teed and Morrow. Yes, Teed made some grand assumptions which even deviated away from his initial vision. I think he was wrong on a lot of things about the inner workings of the concave Earth; but at least he actually carried out one of the most thorough experiments I have ever read about. The arguments against his experiment are either slanderous (PG), false (Skeptic magazine), or made up opinion (Simanek). I mean Teed HAS to be wrong as the establishment has literally nowhere else to go. Shame.
By telling you right here and now that you are attempting to publish garbage, I am not insulting you, but doing you a favor. If you attempt to publish this claptrap anywhere other than the Internet, you will quite literally be laughed out of the international scientific community. I feel that it is kinder to nip this sort of thing in the bud so that you can fix your arguments now before you experience professional ridicule and loss of credibility.
I don’t mind ridicule. I accept constructive criticism, new ideas or info. I’ve revised three articles already. If I see something which contradicts what I say, I will retract and revise, or just state something like, “but this evidence seems to show otherwise and needs investigating further.” I am only “one man and his laptop” after all, or as my wife affectionately calls me “one knob and his laptop”.
I didn’t know there was a “science community”. Can I join this cult or do I have to believe, or not believe, in certain things first? 😉
1. McNair was apparently a confirmed phony. This took some research, but that paper was definitely faked. Also, he apparently conveniently forgot the Coriolis effect.
Doubt it; but if you show your research on the paper being fraudulent my opinion may change. Mcnair isn’t the important one anyway. His conclusions disagreed with a concave Earth, and I htink his air current hypothesis perfectly reasonable. It’s the “other experiment” that is the deciding factor so to speak.
2. A magazine called “Flying Saucers: The Magazine of Space Conquest” is not a valid source. You should know this. I expected better.
I agree with you. Morrow also mentions it and it is his reference to the experiment in the future which is interesting. That’s is why I came to the conclusion of “maybe”. I think that is reasonable, don’t you?
3. “””Morrow and Teed were highly religious folk who were not the sort of people to deliberately lie or mislead.”””
This, right here, is a lie. Religious people lie regularly–damn it, the last Pope tried to cover up thousands of pedophile priests. Here, in fact is a list of lying fundamentalists:
Any and all high-ranking Scientologists
Kent Hovind (in fact, this man is in jail for tax evasion)
Jerry Falwell (I am including deceaed people here)
95% or more of the priests in El Salvador
Pope Boniface the Eighth
The Ayatollah Khomeni
Mullah Muhammad Omar
Yes, I agree with you. But after reading Cellular Cosmonogy, the only “crime” I could accuse Teed of is that he was out to prove his own beliefs and so would be willing to believe what others have told him. Perhaps others lied to him about the “other experiment”. His own experiment was incredibly meticulous and overseen by Corpernicans who were doing everything in their power to find fault with it. He knew what he was up against. A very brave if not slightly foolhardy man, but definitely not a religious figure of the establishment (just the opposite in fact). The thoroughness of his experiment reflects on his character most highly.
I view the above list of religious “leaders” you have thoughtfully provided as largely establishment figures, especially the Vatican. This is a huge topic and a very long one. Perhaps another article in the far future. My initial premise is that the Jesuits are to blame for a lot of this, but we are venturing into conspiratorial grounds. Another time perhaps.
This is just the list from the top of my head. Furthermore, the man you call as a respectable witness, Ulysses Morrow, was a member of a cult led by a man named Cyrus Teed, which stipulated belief in a Dyson Sphere-like-Earth. If you go into an experiment expecting a particular outcome, then your results are suspect–and if, on top of that, you “forget” to account for something major like the Coriolis effect, you are being intellectually dishonest. So yes, he was lying.
Ah yes, the infamous Coriolis Effect. You probably have already mentioned this in a future reply to one of my above points above about there being no evidence for the heliocentric hypothesis. The Coriolis Effect is explained well enough here I think.
As well as this great article from Miles Mathis:
Your second example is a publicity stunt with a highly suspect device performed by a number of extremely religious cultists, with no actual scientific involvement, and therefore invalid as an example.
I disagree. This experiment was very valid as it was over seen and inspected by their adversaries and signed off by multiple people. This experiment was so thorough (especially for 1897) and the ramifications so vast, it should be right up with one of the leading experiments of all time. But that is only my opinion and I respect that you differ on this.
“””The only fault with this experiment is that it is over 100 years old and has never been publicly repeated”””
This alone makes it invalid. Repeatability is paramount in science.
I agree. That is why I couldn’t give 100%. The more disturbing question is why wasn’t this experiment repeated? Ridiculing the result is not scientific. Men of science would want to know once and for all what the true shape of the Earth was; after all, it is very fundamental to a lot of the sciences and their philosophical off-springs such as astronomy.
So why wasn’t it repeated? Perhaps because it would end many careers and a philosophy so useful to the establishment (my opinion).
Your next point is an unintelligible mess of rehashed 19th-century experiments, which are always suspect due to their basis in a cut-throat age of publishing before verification (which is anathema to science, but try telling that to that nitwit Richard Owen).
I view the 19th century as the age of enlightenment and freedom in a lot of respects, especially in the arena of science and engineering. Today everyone seems to be owned… except of course bloggers on the internet 😉
On your fourth point: here you actually admit that you might be wrong, which is the only scientific thing that I have seen you do so far. Of course, you reference more 19th-century studies, which doesn’t bode well for your credibility, but I will give you points for admitting that your arguments are unsound.
I agree. I tried to find more modern sources and only found a couple. But I think their findings about height and altitude isn’t in dispute. Those facts are already well-known.
Your conclusion: Your subjectively determined “probabilities” are laughable and have no basis in objective fact. You engage in intellectually dishonest practices such as cherry-picking and using invalid sources, and you apparently have never seen a picture taken from space, or ever actually looked at the horizon in, say, Kansas. Your arguments are unsound, and require major reformulation.
I disagree. Ah yes, those pesky pictures from “space”. Here is a starter for ten:
There is much more on youtube and the best collection is on cluesforum.info.
I strongly suggest that you start from scratch, remove any sources produces by Cyrus Teed cultists and writers of UFO conspiracy magazines, and actually try some experiments yourself with professional equipment.
No to the first bit, but yes to the second. I am thinking just on those lines. In the mid-to-long term future I will be doing more practical endeavors and less blogging. We will see.
Thanks for being civil and PG, take your time reading through the articles on this blog. There is a lot there but it should answer most of your questions.
Yours respectfully back,
Wild Heretic Also Commented
I like alternative theories to gravity because I don’t believe in the official narrative. The question is if any of these theories is true or not? I don’t know. At the moment I am sticking with gravity coming from the sun. What that is, I don’t know.
“As another separate thing, I know that gravity is a pull and not a push because of tops; tops can’t spin with their sides as close to the ground as they get without these sides being pushed directly to the ground if gravity is a push. ”
I don’t think wobble matters either way. It’s the angular momentum keeping the top up, isn’t it?
Gary, you have to sign up and then I will approve you. After approval, you can reply to posts or start threads.
Don’t know, but very interesting all the same. Possibly a large meteor burning through the glass. It looked far too short for it to be a reflection on a cloud from something on the ground, unless it was a ground explosion. Wouldn’t we see the light from the ground explosion on the horizon first though?
Recent Comments by Wild Heretic
Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
One possibility (look under “planets”): http://www.wildheretic.com/what-are-the-astronomical-bodies/
Personally, I much prefer the other idea that retrograde motion is caused by speed variation/planet tilt. The idea in my CET is that the sun is the outermost body near the center of the cavity and spins the slowest. The rest are inside the sun’s orbit a little bit closer to the center of the cavity. Sometimes when a planet gets too close to the sun/moon it is attracted/repelled to or from that body (or maybe other planets as well) which slows the planet down, or speeds it up. Something like that.
It has been a while since I looked at Jupiter in Stellarium and got latitude readings at the equator over 5 years, so my mind isn’t fresh on the above theory. I have yet to get the longitude data for Jupiter for example and compare it to the sun’s position.
It isn’t something I am concentrating on right now.
There is glass in the sky
Very difficult question. I don’t know. I assume the creator(s) of this biosphere. What then is the purpose of this biosphere?
The glass could be needed to add extra pressure to keep the flood waters below the earth, and/or to block out some of the harsh sunlight radiation. It seems to be a key component to the biosphere.
Why hide the concave earth?
Monsters Inc is older than this article I think, so I would say they got it from the source, which is Monroe’s books.
Space machines do not orbit the Earth
When you are at Davos, you can ask them.
There are satellites up there IMO, just their deployment is not as we are told. Why? Because they are using heliocentric theory as a cover. Why? I’ll leave you to figure that one out.
Space machines do not orbit the Earth
I personally think the moon is reflected light from the back of the Sun. The negative cooling effects come from the “positive” charge of the Sun which is pushing the moon around Sun.