Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Challenger

CT Directory "fun facts"

31 posts in this topic

So I was reading the new Flat Earth entry in COP's CT Directory, and I thought I should provide one for Ball Earth. Not comprehensive, but it's just a brief intro. Enjoy.

The Ball Earth Conspiracy Theory

The Ball Earth theory is a fairly recent cosmological belief which states that the world is a sphere that spins on its axis, approximately 1,000 miles per hour at the equator. This necessarily includes the belief that the atmosphere is stuck to the surface, since otherwise there would be unidirectional winds of about 1,000 miles per hour at the equator and decreasing speeds at other latitudes. The tendency of objects and water to stick to the surface of the sphere is explained by "gravity" (from the verb "to gravitate", which means to move), a force that can be observed and described but not explained. It is alleged that "space-time" is both the cause and result of gravity.

This spinning ball is also in orbit around the sun, which hurtles through space at incredible speed, though there is no fixed reference point by which such speed can be accurately measured. The movement of the earth was allegedly based on a claimed "null result" of the Michelson-Morely experiment, but the result actually showed that the earth does not move at all. Einstein's relativity theory was then developed to explain the "null result" of the experiment as being due to the bending of "space-time". Tesla, however, scoffed at the notion of the void of space being bendable.

This fairly new belief is part of the larger cosmological theory known as the Big Bang, which is circularly argued to be dependent upon gravitational forces that were created when the alleged singularity went "bang". This, of course, was never observed, and scientists frequently encounter observations that require the theory to be endlessly adjusted, in opposition to the scientific method of abandoning a theory that doesn't match observed data. Thus it is unfalsifiable, meaning unscientific.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the general rule for a conspiracy theory to be an actual conspiracy theory that it not be mainstream understanding? i got no problem with what you said. Just wondering on the definition is all.

:eatingpopcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ukshep said:

Isn't the general rule for a conspiracy theory to be an actual conspiracy theory that it not be mainstream understanding? i got no problem with what you said. Just wondering on the definition is all.

:eatingpopcorn:

A conspiracy is any time people conspire together to plot something, and it is often done by the mainstream. For example, the official 9/11 story is that Arabs conspired to blow up the Twin Towers, but this theory itself is likely the result of the government conspiring to betray the American people into accepting the Patriot Act and constant war against undefined enemies. In the same way, the Big Bang theory can be considered conspiracy since it is clung to in spite of many qualified scientists rejecting it in favor of Electric Universe or Plasma cosmology (look up "cosmologystatement"). And as part of the Big Bang, the ball earth model would qualify as conspiracy as well, as it is not nearly as scientifically proven as we are told. Granted, BE predates Big Bang, but the many ways in which BE seems to defy actual observation puts it on questionable scientific grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Challenger said:

A conspiracy is any time people conspire together to plot something, and it is often done by the mainstream. For example, the official 9/11 story is that Arabs conspired to blow up the Twin Towers, but this theory itself is likely the result of the government conspiring to betray the American people into accepting the Patriot Act and constant war against undefined enemies. In the same way, the Big Bang theory can be considered conspiracy since it is clung to in spite of many qualified scientists rejecting it in favor of Electric Universe or Plasma cosmology (look up "cosmologystatement"). And as part of the Big Bang, the ball earth model would qualify as conspiracy as well, as it is not nearly as scientifically proven as we are told. Granted, BE predates Big Bang, but the many ways in which BE seems to defy actual observation puts it on questionable scientific grounds.

Yes but it leads to the flat earth theory in response. Ball earth is the current understanding of things and thus accepted by the masses and thus not a theory but portrayed as fact.

The way i see it. It cannot be classed as a conspiracy theory if it is widely accepted as fact by the majority. Because at that point it stops being a conspiracy theory and becomes a fact. For instance lets use 9/11 if it could be proven 100% that the government orchestrated it and it was a demolition job and not planes then it would cease to be a conspiracy theory and thus become a fact. For something like 9/11 i would leave it up but add a note it was proven fact! but in the case of things taken as fact by the majority, before my time or yours and promoted via mainstream thinking as the truth. they just don't classify as a conspiracy theory! But they do tend to have polar opposites which do. Ball earth (current mainstream understanding) = Flat Earth (opposite, and non mainstream understanding)

Hmm nice debate we have here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ukshep said:

Yes but it leads to the flat earth theory in response. Ball earth is the current understanding of things and thus accepted by the masses and thus not a theory but portrayed as fact.

The way i see it. It cannot be classed as a conspiracy theory if it is widely accepted as fact by the majority. Because at that point it stops being a conspiracy theory and becomes a fact. For instance lets use 9/11 if it could be proven 100% that the government orchestrated it and it was a demolition job and not planes then it would cease to be a conspiracy theory and thus become a fact. For something like 9/11 i would leave it up but add a note it was proven fact! but in the case of things taken as fact by the majority, and promoted via mainstream thinking as the truth. they just don't classify as a conspiracy theory! But they do tend to have polar opposites which do. Ball earth (current mainstream understanding) = Flat Earth (opposite, and non mainstream understanding)

Hmm nice debate we have here!

It all depends on how you define CT then. Is it simply that people conspired to do something, or is it limited to an unpopular idea? I'm using the more generic definition. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as "a belief that an unpleasant event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people". This is a bit more specific, but still not limited to minority views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please define "recent". What timeline are you using?

It is widely accepted that the circumference of the earth was calculated in BC, no matter who is thought to have done it first. In BC times we also had the tilt of the earth calculated and distances to sun and moon, a leap day, and the first map of the known world using meridians and parallels. It is also widely accepted that in "educated" circles there was never a debate about the shape of the earth. Most "educated" people stopped thinking of a flat earth around 350BC.

The average person in any time on earth has no care for the shape of the earth, they are too busy trying to survive and feed their families.

1 hour ago, Challenger said:

This fairly new belief is part of the larger cosmological theory known as the Big Bang, which is circularly argued to be dependent upon gravitational forces that were created when the alleged singularity went "bang". This, of course, was never observed, and scientists frequently encounter observations that require the theory to be endlessly adjusted, in opposition to the scientific method of abandoning a theory that doesn't match observed data.

The flip side of this is Creation, which, of course, nobody witnessed either. Theories get adjusted. This is the point of a theory, it is not set in stone.

If we as people had not built upon these theories, we would not have achieved the things we have. But, of course, you have to believe we made advancements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ukshep said:

Isn't the general rule for a conspiracy theory to be an actual conspiracy theory that it not be mainstream understanding? i got no problem with what you said. Just wondering on the definition is all.

:eatingpopcorn:

The mainstream somehow made everyone believe "theories" were "facts", I think she's trying to clarify everyone's misunderstandings of our current belief systems that are widely accepted.  People think the Big Bang, Evolution, Relativity, etc., are all "facts" but they aren't, only theories that haven't been 100% proven, since they can't prove them 100% they just lead everyone to think they are instead.  Happened to work.... now when you try to correct people's misunderstandings, you come off as an asshole to them lol.

We were all born flat Earthers, the Royals' indoctrination program worldwide thru their indoctrination facilities called schools turned everyone into sphere Earthers thru repetition & many cartoon pictures, haha.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, puffyjedi said:

Please define "recent". What timeline are you using?

It is widely accepted that the circumference of the earth was calculated in BC, no matter who is thought to have done it first. In BC times we also had the tilt of the earth calculated and distances to sun and moon, a leap day, and the first map of the known world using meridians and parallels. It is also widely accepted that in "educated" circles there was never a debate about the shape of the earth. Most "educated" people stopped thinking of a flat earth around 350BC.

The average person in any time on earth has no care for the shape of the earth, they are too busy trying to survive and feed their families.

The flip side of this is Creation, which, of course, nobody witnessed either. Theories get adjusted. This is the point of a theory, it is not set in stone.

If we as people had not built upon these theories, we would not have achieved the things we have. But, of course, you have to believe we made advancements.

This is really just a spoof, to make the point that the mainstream opinion of FE is not as airtight and logical as it seems. My whole motivation for writing it was to show the bias of the quoted article. I'm not interested in repeating the whole NASA thread here, really.

But as for theories that are adjusted, a theory can't be called scientific unless it can be falsified. So a theory that is confronted with facts that don't fit should be discarded, not adjusted. If there's no clear line between adjustment and falsification, then anything can be called scientific, and the word loses all meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JibbyJedi said:

The mainstream somehow made everyone believe "theories" were "facts", I think she's trying to clarify everyone's misunderstandings of our current belief systems that are widely accepted.  People think the Big Bang, Evolution, Relativity, etc., are all "facts" but they aren't, only theories that haven't been 100% proven, since they can't prove them 100% they just lead everyone to think they are instead.  Happened to work.... now when you try to correct people's misunderstandings, you come off as an asshole to them lol.

We were all born flat Earthers, the Royals' indoctrination program worldwide thru their indoctrination facilities called schools turned everyone into sphere Earthers thru repetition & many cartoon pictures, haha.

Oh i agree fully but they are still not conspiracy theories. Maybe we need a new name for such mainstream theories without 100% proof? Sheeple Theories? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Challenger said:

 This, of course, was never observed, and scientists frequently encounter observations that require the theory to be endlessly adjusted, in opposition to the scientific method of abandoning a theory that doesn't match observed data. Thus it is unfalsifiable, meaning unscientific.

I think this thread should focus on these sentences? The  conspiracy part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, puffyjedi said:

Please define "recent". What timeline are you using?

It is widely accepted that the circumference of the earth was calculated in BC, no matter who is thought to have done it first. In BC times we also had the tilt of the earth calculated and distances to sun and moon, a leap day, and the first map of the known world using meridians and parallels. It is also widely accepted that in "educated" circles there was never a debate about the shape of the earth. Most "educated" people stopped thinking of a flat earth around 350BC.

The average person in any time on earth has no care for the shape of the earth, they are too busy trying to survive and feed their families.

The flip side of this is Creation, which, of course, nobody witnessed either. Theories get adjusted. This is the point of a theory, it is not set in stone.

If we as people had not built upon these theories, we would not have achieved the things we have. But, of course, you have to believe we made advancements.

It's also widely accepted to eat & drink extremely toxic poison, be completely mindless, watch lots of idiot box TV shows, insult everyone who has a different opinion than yours, and do whatever the TV tells you to do..... does that make any of them right, or correct?   "Widely accepted" to me means "I want no part of it", lol, like the saying goes.... "A person is smart.... people are stupid."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Flat said:

I think this thread should focus on these sentences? The  conspiracy part.

Possibly. Most people don't know the debate that rages among physicists about the line between observable and purely theoretical physics. Even Tesla saw Einstein's theories as having crossed that line in his lifetime. Math has replaced experimentation, and math by itself tends to invent things that aren't necessarily real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.