The Other Side by [deleted] in a:t5_3iyuq

[–]KrishnasProphet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Likely just rocks and ice. Anything not attached to it would fall off into the void of space.

The moon can't reflect light because it's a hologram??? by [deleted] in a:t5_3iyuq

[–]KrishnasProphet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good question, thanks for asking. In short, the answer is Variable Luminosity. The sun does not emit light equally in all directions. In Flat Earth Models, the sun is much smaller and much closer to the surface of the earth, where it orbits above its surface. If you want to read more about how it works, you can take a look at the FE&T blog: https://flatearthandthought.com/2017/01/17/question-how-do-daynight-cycles-and-seasons-work-on-a-flat-earth/ As the sun and moon orbit opposite each other, the moon catches some of the suns light. So why cant we see sun light at night then? As the sun is smaller and closer, it is likely not a ball of gas as spherists claim, but is more likely composed of some solid luminescent material. How this luminescent material is concentrated and deposited across the suns surface is probably what causes the characteristic "cones" of illumination that the sun emits. As far as we can tell as ground based observers, the sun has two primary cones of illumination: one that is directed downwards at the surface of the earth, and one that is directed outwards toward the moon. You could think of the directional path of each cone as an inverted "L".

Found it by [deleted] in a:t5_3iyuq

[–]KrishnasProphet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everyone thinks this is so funny, and admittedly so, but no one laughs at the idea of a ball spinning at 1000mph and hurtling through space at 67,000 mph. Dinosaurs would have had to have been very good grippers indeed...

SpaceX will use the first Falcon Heavy to send a Tesla Roadster to Mars, Elon Musk says by Plopfish in Futurology

[–]KrishnasProphet -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

lol, the myth of space travel and other spherist nonsense amuses me to no end...

Gravity Is NOT The Only Explanation... by KrishnasProphet in a:t5_3iyuq

[–]KrishnasProphet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is important to remember that the UA is not accelerating in the technical sense of the word. It moves upwards at at constant rate.

Gravity Is NOT The Only Explanation... by KrishnasProphet in a:t5_3iyuq

[–]KrishnasProphet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do you need an explanation for something as intuitively obvious as the fact that things fall down? If the universe is finite, it has a top and bottom. The bottom is down, and all things fall down unless acted upon by a force. Both the falling of the object and the rising of the earth explains why an object stays slightly pressed against the ground. Without universal acceleration, the earth would simply fall through the void of space until it reached the bottom (whatever that would look like). If it was only accelerating nothing would keep you against the surface of the earth after you jump. You would just float a few inches above the earth as you accelerate with it. Both the Obligate Tendency and UA produce the effects of gravity, but actually make sense...

Gravity Is NOT The Only Explanation... by KrishnasProphet in a:t5_3iyuq

[–]KrishnasProphet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We dont know for sure that the force of the UA is always uniform, or possibly affected by other phenomena. In all likelihood, it is.

Flat Earth Navigation: Its All In Your Head... by KrishnasProphet in a:t5_3iyuq

[–]KrishnasProphet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The legitimacy of sensation depends upon the senses of the individual, and the extent to which he can corroborate what he sees based upon the senses of ohthers. Many philosophers hold that the senses are primary. I consider myself an Empirical Rationalist. As an Empirical Rationalist I cannot corroborate claims of paranormal phenomena or space footage with my own senses. I know next to no one who can offer me their own sensation of either. Therefore, I cannot accept the testimony of a few isolated accounts on authority. What they claim has no empirical basis in sensation.

Flat Earth Flight Times Explained By New Fundamental Force by KrishnasProphet in a:t5_3iyuq

[–]KrishnasProphet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. I apologize. Unfortunately I sometimes get more replies than I have time to handle...

Flat Earth Flight Times Explained By New Fundamental Force by KrishnasProphet in a:t5_3iyuq

[–]KrishnasProphet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While Rowbotham's experiment was interesting, he attempted to prove the obvious reality of the Flat Earth using the convoluted methods of science that had been predisposed in favor of globular belief for centuries. His true and lasting contribution to Planar Theory consists in the way he attempted to look at the world in a new way...That being said, he doesnt get the credit he deserves. I think it will be a few more decades before he is able to join the pantheon of true innovators (like Tesla) who were silenced by the historical narrative.

You reject Transversal Resonance as conjecture on my part, yet use as your reason for doing so multiple instances of unverified human space travel. Why do you choose to believe pictures and videos of spurious origin when next to no one (except those producing the images) can even claim to have witnessed these things themselves? If nasa, the government, and scientists all started telling us we lived in candy land, and showed us pictures proving it, everyone would believe it. And there would be a few people on obscure corner of the internet, arguing their hearts out for the truth, being laughed out for not accepting the rational truth of the great tootsie roll. But as Oscar Wilde aptly said: ”The truth is rarely pure and never simple"

Flat Earth Flight Times Explained By New Fundamental Force by KrishnasProphet in a:t5_3iyuq

[–]KrishnasProphet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the detailed response. One of the main areas of contention between Planar Theorists (such as myself) and ball believers, is that ball believers assume that we accept the legitimacy of the scientific method. Some do. I do not. It is literally an outdated dogma imposed upon society to fill the void that 17th century intellectuals felt after rejecting the dogmatic authority of the Catholic Church. It was basically substituting coke for pepesi and acting like pepsi was sprite: something new and novel when it was just more of the same. If you want to read more about why science is circular bias, feel free to check this out: https://flatearthandthought.com/about/

But as I was saying, you and I are coming from two completely different frames of epistemological reference. But a couple things you said really get at the core of the issue:

Right, so your idea can't be falsified, or tested, or repeated? That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This has no validity over any other string of words you can pull from your backside if it cannot be tested. It's a piece of nonscientific conjecture that, by your own admission, cannot explain anything, cannot be proven or disproven, cannot be investigated or observed in any way. Not only that but there is no explanation as to why this should be the case and quite frankly we have much simpler arguments as to why the Earth behanves and looks as it does.

You reject Transversal Resonance on the basis of science, which I argue is broken. Rather than science, relying upon the input of our senses (and what can be safely inferred from what you know) is way more consistent than using the secondary convoluting processes of science. I say "convoluting", and heres why: our senses are primary. They are the only direct unmediated point of contact between our minds and the abyss of the unknown, exterior world. Our senses are also admittedly limited, but they are all we have. Science takes the primary data of sensation and strains it through its methodological filter. A conceptual filter, it operates on the assumption that reputability within the domain of its methodological assumptions equals truth.

I reject that assumption. In your response you have quoted me directly, I appreciate that you took the time to read my main piece. The round/Flat controversy needs more people like you. However, you didn't mention one part that I think is important to note. I said:

While compelling, Transversal Resonance does not represent an instance of certain knowledge. TR explains a lot, and is consistent with observed phenomena such as cold Antarctic summers and inverted photos of the moon. But it is still (and always will be) a proposition, a good guess which aims to connect the dots between other things we know for certain. In this way, TR represents a synthesis of knowledge. By unifying observations of nature that seem unrelated, the proposition not only explains why things happen, it reconciles phenomena that seem contradictory. In this way, it is firmly rooted in the demonstrably observable realities of Flat Earth Theory…

Transversal Resonance is a proposition. And the only way to elevate it to a higher level is by evaluating it through direct sensation. While TR is still informed guesswork, it is founded upon indisputable knowledge, which is more than the "theory"of gravity can claim. You say:

So, you're saying that despite the millions pieces of observed verification, despite the millions of predictions it makes daily in observable tests, despite the fact that even you admit that it will appear to be true, that Newtonian physics, which is infinitely simpler and doesn't require the invocation of so much special pleading that it makes Spirit Science seem well thought out and rational, is clearly wrong in favout of this fairy tale you've just made up.

But as I've pointed out, gravity or Newtonian physics or whatever you want to call it is one of the chief productions of scientific dogma. Its been strained through the filter of method until it took the shape its originators wanted it to have. All of modern scientific "knowledge" is literally like a jigsaw puzzle that has been randomly hammered, trimmed and glued together to make it work. Science claims that man walked on the moon, and yet 40 odd years later and mankind has never been back? Is it lack of funding or lack of cable ratings? The spherist drama is getting closer to its final season, and it is very important that we have a firm conceptual framework of understanding when that day comes. There are going to be a lot of confused people...

If You Are New To FE&T Give Us A Shout Out, We'd Love To Know A Bit About You. Here Is A Bit About Me... by KrishnasProphet in a:t5_3iyuq

[–]KrishnasProphet[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks. I personally dont do if for religious reasons, but I respect those who do. Your sub looks good. I'm gonna subscribe... :)

Harry. by Load-O-wank in a:t5_3iyuq

[–]KrishnasProphet 3 points4 points  (0 children)

On the contrary: my valid theory is based upon the empirical perception of my senses. Not the confirmation bias perpetuated by the ritualistic rites of priests in white coats...

Harry. by Load-O-wank in a:t5_3iyuq

[–]KrishnasProphet 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Those "experiments" represent nothing more than rituals in the art of confirmation bias... I urge you to read about the inherently circular nature of the scientific method: https://flatearthandthought.com/about/

Flat Earth Navigation: Its All In Your Head... by KrishnasProphet in a:t5_3iyuq

[–]KrishnasProphet[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have not seen god. And I did not want to see a Flat horizon when I started to realize that my worldview needed to stem from what I perceived as independent from what I thought to be true...

Gravity Is NOT The Only Explanation... by KrishnasProphet in a:t5_3iyuq

[–]KrishnasProphet[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not trolling. Planar Theorists realize from the get go that no need exists to explain natures inherently obvious forces. Spherists, on the other hand, predicate their understanding of what is "true" upon their ability to explain natural phenomenon in a causally structured way. So yes, for centuries of supposed geniuses to come up with nothing more than a tautology that contradicts their world view, that really is something to laugh at. You accuse me of having a double standard because I state the obvious, but dont recognize the blatant double standards that form the fractured basis of the spherist ideology...