Are "flat-earthers" an actual thing?

Lol at Libs for thinking that their on a globe, while there homes do not curve, loool kikiki. You're turn Libs!

I'll have you think about this for one moment, to challenge your sense of logic and reason beyond your wildest imagination:

1) Have you ever thought that if you walked around the circumference of a circle with no guide markings you would think you are going on forever on a straight path instead?

2) Have you ever thought that if you walked around an actual straight line with no guide markings too you could in fact think you are going on in circles forever instead?

The circle that you thought the earth was is interchangeable with the straight line you could also think of it as! Cut the circle open and there you have a straight line with opposite ends that actually has an end!

But the problem is the universe is far greater than the earth. In mathematics, a circle which has infinite radius like the size of the universe is just approximated as a straight line, unfortunately. From of the point of view of the infinite universe which is straight, the circle of the earth is like child's play or illusion, an afterthought and absolutely dwarfed. It's small change. But the point of view of the universe (straight) is also infinitely more true than that of the earth (circle) since it's infinitely bigger and more substantial and so comes the conclusion that flat-earthers are theoretically very correct to say that the earth is approximately flat.

Humans only know the earth isn't approximated as flat due to advances in science and measuring techniques/instruments but since these 'advancements' are not when it comes to measuring the radius of the infinite universe with perfect accuracy then said 'advancements' and its measuring instruments cannot be said to be inerrant enough to guarantee that the measurement of the earth is actually circular. The instrument needs to be able to measure infinity with great precision in order to be trusted to measure a finite circle like earth's accurately but unfortunately it can't and so theory reigns supreme and practical findings are all illusion of measurement.

Hope this helps. it's kinda technical and philosophical but.........you get the point....

Exactly you nailed the point right! Life is about a series of falsifying and forfeiting again and again in cycles, just like how you falsify me now and I falsify the earlier guy. Ever heard of the theory of falsifiability in science?! Exactly! Science is about the eternal constant falsification of theory after theory so that newer and better theories keep forming with no end. The end is at infinity on the space-time scale where the infinitely impossibly perfect theory exist but can never be achieved. What can be achieved is the never ending process of falsifying and falsifying eternally. This eternal process is the perfection of science in and of itself per se.

People once said that it's impossible for human beings to be harmed (if at all) by wireless radiofrequency radiation and electronics, but according to the theory of falsifiability in science, that has been falsified for at least 100 years (beginning 1930). For every positive theory, there is an anti-theory that falsifies it. They are both true according to different assumptions and measurement criteria. For a theory to be sharpened eternally, you need to sharpen the assumptions and measurement criteria eternally too.

I didn't falsify your argument. I just pointed out that the basis of your argument undermines your claims

You don't need to build a "perfect theory" to describe reality - all you need to do is build a theory that describes reality more accurately than the previous one. You're welcome to assume that the earth is flat, but whenever you try to apply that assumption to reality and make prediction about physical phenomena (e.g. what happens if you shoot a rocket up really high? why do the sun and stars move like that? Why does weather happen? how do seismic waves travel through the earth? how close to a radio tower do I have to be to pick up its signal?), you'll be demonstrably wrong

Well actually the basis of all arguments always undermine their respective claims to some small or large degree. You can't completely eliminate the undermining but you can try to minimize it selectively depending on the nature of the moral dilemma you are faced with? It's okay to cherry pick and be selectively bias because that's the default behavior of Mother Nature and her processes.

Yes we do agree that we can't achieve a perfect theory except at infinity or eternity so all we can do is keep biting away at all the weaknesses and inconsistencies and push for a more perfect theory than the previous one. This is assuming politicians and economists don't get involved in the scientific process as is normally the case since the 20th century, thus corrupting science and tainting it with unscientific affiliations and associations who want to control science. The science surrounding the harm of COVID vaccine and wireless radiofrequency radiation (emitted by radio towers and mobile phones and virtually every electronics on earth) on human health is an example of scientific corruption by politics and business.

Reality is all an illusion. You think the earth is spherical or circle but that's only an illusion to you. The earth is no more than a negligible point mass that's not even big enough to be considered a sphere or circle if seen from another galaxy and so that's why it's considered a point mass like that. That's also true for the observer in that galaxy to say it's a point mass and not circle/sphere. To the extent that you found your reality to be true such as the earth is circle or spherical that's still illusion all the same. You are situated on earth and you measure the earth in a certain manner. The guy in a distant galaxy looking over at earth is situated in his galaxy and measuring the earth in another way. Both ways are true to respective persons hence relative hence illusion.

Did you know the radio towers, seismic instruments, weather services and rocket physics are all illusions as well precisely because these are built upon the (still illusory) assumption that the earth is spherical/circle. That these tools and measuring devices worked is because they were obviously made to work with a spherical/circle earth duh!

Did you know I can make the flat earth theory equally true by precisely building and making (programming) instruments and measuring devices such as radio towers, weather instruments, rocket physics to be consistent with and work with flat earth dynamics?!

So don't go coming to me and say that my assumptions are demonstrably false if they can be overturned in a jiffy by turning back the clock to perhaps 1890 and ensuring scientists and engineers present a different (flat earth) pitch of reality to governments and ruling entities, thus enticing them to accept it as true (still illusory) and from there be given enough financial sponsorship to entrench the flat earth measurement in all spheres of human life and existence.

You will still be able to receive a signal on your mobile phone or FM radio antenna using a flat earth model as long as there are instruments or measuring devices specificially calibrated to work with such models!

I'm a radio engineer myself but I love philosophy and studying and dissecting the illusion of reality. I do that better it seems than any human being on earth, even Albert Einstein.

Can you explain how the RF emitted by the sources you mentioned interacts with matter in a way that is harmful to human health? From what I can tell, if you stood directly on top of a 50kW radio tower transmitter while it was active, the only things you'd experience would be a) heat as the bonds in those molecules stretch and spin, or b) electron spin flips, if you happened to be carrying an immense electromagnet in your pocket. Is that correct? I'm not sure how a radio photon can carry enough energy to affect an electron in any way that is not directly due to heat or spin flipping. I'm eager to hear a radio engineer's take on this, since my understanding of EM radiation is mostly confined to laser devices

But please stick to standard physics paradigms when explaining it unless you're prepared to teach me your new physics from scratch

Please do! I am curious to see how you manage to get a satellite into orbit or predict the movement of air currents without modeling the earth as a sphere. You seem confident so I figure you'll manage just fine

Look I have a contract which states that I'm not supposed to tell you about the deadly, not to say harmful, effects of anthropogenic RF from 1Hz-300Ghz but I will still do anyway as I'm inspired by Wikileaks and Fancy bears to promote the truth and nothing but the truth.

Lots of people have got no clue that anthropogenic RF electromagnetic fields are actually very harmful due to its invisible and insidiously (quietly) accumulating death nature. Radio engineers and big tech don't want such information to go public otherwise we couldn't sell you RF tech duh! You need to applaud me after this for going against my corporation's wishes and possibly spoil their profiteering business model.

Okay first you are right that there is a harmful heating effect known as 'thermal' and also a quantum spin effect known as 'non-thermal'. Sadly, RF corporations and big tech only want you to know about the 1st one and hides the 2nd more deadly one! You may think the thermal effect should be the deadly one but why should it be when you would surely feel and perceive the heating and escape away from the antenna, right? The non-thermal effect is the more deadly one for being mostly imperceptible (too microscopic or nano-scopic) to the human sense except for a select group of human beings who suffer from electro-hypersensitivity who can feel these spatio-temporal micro/nano flux fields. I know some of them personally too, spoken to them and they are authentic people for real. 15% of the US population suffers from EHS in 2023 today and it's only increasing what with 5G and now 6G coming up.

Okay so basically, the quantum spin effects of RF pulsed and modulated fields affects the spatio-temporal recombination of reactive oxygen species (ROS) molecules thus distorting the homeostatic equilibrium of the body and displaces it towards illness and ill health. This displacement is the first step to all diseases mental/psychiatric and physical such as cancers, diabetes, obesity, depression, anxiety, you name it, everything. See paper here for more details

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Effects of electromagnetic fields exposure on the antioxidant defense system

Technological devices have become essential components of daily life. However, their deleterious effects on the body, particularly on the nervous system, are well known. Electromagnetic fields (EMF) have various chemical effe...

Open link

safehelpsyou.org

Electrosensitivity recognized as a disability by the Access Board

blogmeister

The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) is the Federal agency devoted to the accessibility for people with disabilities. As stated in the Background for its Fi…

Open link

defendershield.com

FCC Loses Landmark Court Case Showing 5G and Wireless Radiation Standards Fail to Adequately Protect the Public, Children from EMF Radiation – Aug 2021 : DefenderShield

Daniel T. DeBaun: Engineer, Author & Telecommunications Executive

U.S. Court of Appeals rules FCC failed to consult evidence for their outdated wireless EMF radiation exposure safety standards.

Open link

The standard physics paradigm that explains the quantum spin effect of electromagnetic fields 1Hz to 300Ghz is that such fields changes the spin direction or moments of reactive oxygen species molecules that have been oxidized in a biochemical chain reaction in the human body and prevents them from recombining properly again later. This loss of inefficiency in the biochemical signaling process would be the harmful quantum spin effect caused by anthropogenic 1Hz to 300Ghz and leads to oxidative stress as the number of oxygen reactive species uncombined just grows and pollutes the body and immune system. This will lead to downstream issues like cancer and whatever but it starts at the quantum level first.

Please keep this information secret to yourself so as not to affect public order!

I think this can be done.

I for one don't believe the flat-earthers thought the earth could be completely flat like a straight linear line, but it can be slightly curved or oblong instead as Mother Nature never has perfectly straight segments, there's always a curvature somewhere regardless of whether a complete circle or not. If there a curvature somewhere, then it can still be modelled as part of a perfect sphere/circle without being a completely sphere/circle! Then you can still apply the same paradigm already in place today with very little adjustments.

It's also all about relative motion in space and time. It's also the motion that we want circular, not so much the object being circular per se. If you can't get a circle/sphere to move like a circle around an axis then you can get part of a circle/sphere to move in a circle/sphere as well. The laws of physics such as gravity and gravitational motion, momentum and acceleration hence time will all work the same way and have the same effects as long as the part of the circle/sphere moves in a circle/sphere.

Lastly do not ever forget the power of finite element modeling and its differential equations. The earth may be modeled like a sphere or circle but that's only in textbooks. The reality is that the earth is ITERATED by software systems and its differential equations as a series of non-circle curves that looks almost flat in some parts joined together to form a hemisphere rather than a sphere. Run the software through a few actual experimental tests of the real scenario on the ground and find the chinks and adjust the algorithm to put in correction factors for non-circle-like parts of the earth and you get a better model. It's possible.

I'm going to skip over the electro-sensitive stuff unless you have a real source to back that claim up

If flipping the spin of an electron can cause buildup of ROS, then we should easily be able to detect ROS buildup in patients after they get MRIs, right?

If MRIs generated significant amounts ROS, don't you think it would have been obvious to the authors of this paper who were using MRIs to study ROS? Maybe MRIs don't use the correct wavelength of radiation? Although as far as I'm aware, MRI radiation is both far more intense than communication RF and well within the harmful range you cite, so they should cause very clear ROS generation. Are there any papers that demonstrate high levels of ROS in people who get a lot of MRIs or live near comm towers?

Another thought - why isn't RF used to generate ROS in experiments? Normally researchers have to resort to chemical means to produce ROS in their model systems, but it sounds like that's not necessary

I would like to say that I appreciate you posting an actual peer-reviewed source. I'll flip through the Kivrak 2017 paper. That review has quite a long list of citations, so it'll take a while to see what they all claim, but my initial impression is that effects of radiation on ROS are pretty minimal. None of the papers seem to mention a robust physical model for how RF generates ROS or flips electron spin, which is a shame because that would be super interesting. It would also be extremely relevant to medical science - imagine building a MRI machine that didn't need to be supercooled! If you have a paper that specifically demonstrates generation of ROS in vitro by exposure of compounds to RF and demonstrates that the generation of those ROS is nontransient enough to change the rate of a specific reaction, I'd love to see it. I'd also like to point out that most organisms have robust oxidation management systems since oxidation is the cornerstone of metabolism. Overall I am not too worried. After all, this is a running forum, and we know that aerobic activity generates a huge amount of ROS!

It's time to get back to the main topic:

Standing bodies of water always find their level.

The horizon rises to eye level no matter the elevation.

Water sticking to a 1,000 MPH spinning ball is not repeatable nor observable and fails the scientific method.

Antarctica encircles the entire Earth and serves as the shoreline for our oceans.

We live underneath an inpenetrable dome as depicted in the Book of Genesis

No man has ever walked on the Moon, period.

NASA lies.

There are no upside down objects on our flat plane (buildings, people, airplanes, trees, etc.)

The Earth is flat, stationary and created by the Almighty God.

Every Flat Earther used to be a glober until they took the time to dissect the lifetime of indoctrination.

Research Flat Earth.

Once you go flat, you will never go back.

Yes, your mom started flat-backing and never went back.

My experiences with weapon systems and time on ships have proven to my satisfaction, the earth is round or round enough.

The whole problem here is that people are disagreeing about what direction "down" is. See, all "down" means is what direction does gravity go. If a giant Jupiter size planet suddenly appeared above our heads, down would be that way.

From general relativity, we know gravity is not actually a force, but a complex curvature in the shape of reality itself. A thing being affected by gravity is not actually accelerating, from its own perspective. Instead, space-time is conspiring to move it toward something else. On the one hand, it's moving in a straight line, but on the other hand, reality itself bends the straight line so that from another point of view it's not a straight line. That's why astronauts float around "weightless" in orbit, seeming to go nowhere.

So we have a sort of dual reality going on. On the one hand, certain pictures make the Earth look round. But on the other hand, everything on Earth is there because of gravity, so maybe it's not the Earth itself that is round, just the space-time Earth is in. Sort of like looking at a normal thing in a concave mirror.

Just look how much space and time is devoted to this discussion, and it still goes round and round, never stops.

Since some time in 1950s, it was determined the shortest distance from North Dakota to any or most cities, then Soviet Union, over Arctic Ocean. Do you disagree?

You're thinking about it all wrong. It's not the distance that matters, it's how much energy it takes to get there. Downhill is always faster, and gravity (i.e. the curvature of space-time) tells you which way is down. All material shape is an illusion distorting the simple flow of energy.

Gravity makes you click that button to reply. Gravity makes you scroll down the thread.

So if there is a 'flat earth' which way is up? Are we just floating through space... one side always 'up'? How are you even defining that?

Could you draw what you imagine earth to look like relative to the other planets and stars?

Actually I have it on Aus settings so I have to scroll up to go down. Thanks for your theory.

I researched flat earth, and found a number of fundamental flaws in your "main topic" that fall flat, failing to "debunk" the globe. Here is what I found, point by point:

On earth, surveyers define "level" as a geodesic curved surface with a constant force of gravity and air pressure and distance from the center of the globe. In geodesy, "mean sea level (MSL)" is modeled as a "vertical datum" -- a curved coordinate surface that forms a sphere with the radius of the globe earth. Locally, for small bodies of water, the curve is imperceptible and looks flat to the naked eye. But globally, it is a small part of the curved surface of a much larger sphere.

It is easily observed that the horizon does not rise to eye level no matter the elevation. Al-Biruni observed and measured negative dip angles to the horizon more than 1000 years ago from rather modest elevations. Photos from planes and balloons (often taken by flat-earthers to show "flatness" from left-to-right when the curvature is front-to-back) always show the horizon below the center of the picture, whenever the camera is aimed horizontally level, and not pointed downwards to compensate for the negative dip angle.

1,000 MPH is not a measure of spin, but of speed. The earth spins with an angular velocity of once per day (about 0.0006944... RPM or 1 RPD). The demonstration of water sticking to a ball can be repeated with a water-soaked tennis ball spinning once per day. It may drip or evaporate, but it will not fly off due to spinning.

Globe earthers have taken satellite images of Antarctica on the inside of Australia, and the southern tips of Africa and South America, not the other way around. Flat earthers have no images of an Antarctic ice-wall surrounding the earth. Flat earthers cannot even produce a flat earth map that is not known to distort the southern hemisphere. Time-lapse videos exist showing the 24-hour day of sunlight at Antarctica during the winter months, something impossible on a flat-earth walled by an icy Antarctica. Similarly, the sun predictably and observably (requires two observers) shines on two out of three of Australia, Africa, and South America, at the same time -- again impossible on a flat-earth.

No flat earther has ever detected an inpenetrable dome. The Book of Genesis was written by a group of men without the benefit of the next 2000+ years of knowledge and observations.

We have lots of video and photo evidence of men on the moon, including footprints.

Flat-earthers cannot accurately determine who is lying to them.

On a globe-earth, objects are not upside down, because down, an effect determined by the earth's gravitional pull, at every point on the earth's surface, is always pointing towards the gravitational center of the globe earth.

The earth is flat locally, but it is a globe globally. Stationary depends on your local frame of reference. The "Almighty God" created spherical planets and stars easily observed by globe earthers. Night pictures with long exposures from northern and southern hemispheres clearly "prove" a spinning globe-earth as predicted. Amazing images of the night sky at the celestial equator shows rotation of the stars around Polaris in the north, and Polaris Australis (Sigma Octantis) in the south -- something flat-earthers cannot begin to explain.

Flat-earthers believe learning and indoctrination are the same thing. This demonstrates a lack of genuine understanding, and an incapacity for self-learning, and a vulnerability to believe whatever they are told is "true", with no capacity to use their knowledge and skills to cross-check.

Research globe-earth, and come back to observable reality.