Is Eric Dubay controlled opposition?

c-level truth wrote:

Earthtoed wrote:

c-level truth wrote:what do you think about the water bottle experiments disproving downward acceleration and also the Diomedes islands time differences, which are a big problem for globe and AE alike?

True science is in perennial revision. Until a theory can truly be adopted, I think it is best to use what we currently know. We know things fall down due to relative density. Gravity and upside down and sideways buildings are complete nonsense. The map of the Earth is somewhat in question, but the basic view is pretty close to the old standard Gleason's model.

Thanks for your reply what exactly do you mean by relative density density and how do you know that this is the reason that things fall? What are your thoughts on the cessation of falling/rising of a stone & bubble in a bottle of water while the bottle is in freefall?

Also, what do you think about the Diomedes islands being 2 miles apart, 4/5 hours time difference, according to the gleason map

Relative density means the density surrounding the object. A ball filled with air will fall through the air because it is denser than the surrounding environment it is in. Then it will hit the water and stay on the surface because the water is denser. A solid (denser) golf ball will sink to the bottom of a lake because it has greater density. Not more complicated than that.

I am not all that familiar with the Gleasons map other than its disk-shape and approximate mileages. Viewing the sun's seasonal path totally accounts for time periods such as winter solstice. However, time has been manipulated like many other aspects of nature.

As far as your point on relative density, if thats the case, why doesn't the denser object move left or right or even up into the less dense substance in those directions? why does the dense object (a stone) in the bottle of water cease 'falling' (and the bubble cease rising) while the bottle is in freefall?

Do you believe that a dropped water bottle accelerates to the ground when you let it go? And if so, how come the water does not displace, as it does when you accelerate the bottle in any other direction?

The reference frame being in constant upward motion explains these repeatable observations perfectly.

The stationary earth belief system ignores them completely or handwave dismisses them, with "relative density". (the cessation of buoyancy and density in freefall absolutely destroys stationary earth belief)

Would love to hear from Eric on this. The thread title is "Is Eric controlled opposition" and I think his willingness or not, to engage fully on these questions is key to coming to a conclusion on that.

c-level truth wrote:As far as your point on relative density, if thats the case, why doesn't the denser object move left or right or even up into the less dense substance in those directions? why does the dense object (a stone) in the bottle of water cease 'falling' (and the bubble cease rising) while the bottle is in freefall?

Do you believe that a dropped water bottle accelerates to the ground when you let it go? And if so, how come the water does not displace, as it does when you accelerate the bottle in any other direction?

The reference frame being in constant upward motion explains these repeatable observations perfectly.

The stationary earth belief system ignores them completely or handwave dismisses them, with "relative density". (the cessation of buoyancy and density in freefall absolutely destroys stationary earth belief)

Would love to hear from Eric on this. The thread title is "Is Eric controlled opposition" and I think his willingness or not, to engage fully on these questions is key to coming to a conclusion on that.

Actually, I'd like to see the administration remove this thread. Anybody who questions Eric's authenticity is either slightly stupid or controlled opposition. Eric is clearly a top-notch truther.

I will revert to Eric's own statement in interviews that he wants to be held to the fire, assumed a shill and challenged on his information. I take him at face value on that and have done so respectfully.

You sir, on the other hand have just outed yourself. congratulations.

c-level truth wrote:I will revert to Eric's own statement in interviews that he wants to be held to the fire, assumed a shill and challenged on his information. I take him at face value on that and have done so respectfully.

You sir, on the other hand have just outed yourself. congratulations.  

"Why" neither proves nor disproves anything.  Birds sing.  Why they sing? I can guess they do because they're happy? Does the answer to that question make the statement, "birds sing" untrue? No, there is proof that they sing.  The same thing goes for a stationary Earth.  One thing I have learned about people that are not genuine, like some of the factions of Flat Earth, they will focus on wild theories about about outer lands, downward bias, and various other unprovable details. Instead, Eric has stuck to the facts that are provable, testable and repeatable. He is held Flat Earth together by doing this while others are tossing nonsense around and racing off to Antarctica on a trip that is clearly a trap.

It shows how solid Eric really is if the worst shill proof is a shill complaining that Eric didn't answer his "why" question.

DC wrote:

c-level truth wrote:I will revert to Eric's own statement in interviews that he wants to be held to the fire, assumed a shill and challenged on his information. I take him at face value on that and have done so respectfully.

You sir, on the other hand have just outed yourself. congratulations.  

"Why" neither proves nor disproves anything.  Birds sing.  Why they sing? I can guess they do because they're happy? Does the answer to that question make the statement, "birds sing" untrue? No, there is proof that they sing.  The same thing goes for a stationary Earth.  One thing I have learned about people that are not genuine, like some of the factions of Flat Earth, they will focus on wild theories about about outer lands, downward bias, and various other unprovable details. Instead, Eric has stuck to the facts that are provable, testable and repeatable. He is held Flat Earth together by doing this while others are tossing nonsense around and racing off to Antarctica on a trip that is clearly a trap.

It shows how solid Eric really is if the worst shill proof is a shill complaining that Eric didn't answer his "why" question.

Absolutely agree 100%!!!

DC wrote:

c-level truth wrote:I will revert to Eric's own statement in interviews that he wants to be held to the fire, assumed a shill and challenged on his information. I take him at face value on that and have done so respectfully.

You sir, on the other hand have just outed yourself. congratulations.  

"Why" neither proves nor disproves anything.  Birds sing.  Why they sing? I can guess they do because they're happy? Does the answer to that question make the statement, "birds sing" untrue? No, there is proof that they sing.  The same thing goes for a stationary Earth.  One thing I have learned about people that are not genuine, like some of the factions of Flat Earth, they will focus on wild theories about about outer lands, downward bias, and various other unprovable details. Instead, Eric has stuck to the facts that are provable, testable and repeatable. He is held Flat Earth together by doing this while others are tossing nonsense around and racing off to Antarctica on a trip that is clearly a trap.

It shows how solid Eric really is if the worst shill proof is a shill complaining that Eric didn't answer his "why" question.

Wow, no offence but I find the comparison with a bird ridiculous . Unlike a bird, inanimate matter does not choose what it does. It does not move or do anything of its own volition. what happens to inanimate matter is entirely governed by forces acting on it so the bird comparison is indeed ridiculous. The stationary earth contradictions I have already mentioned - ie the non displacement of water while the vessel holding it is supposedly accelerating (your claim), the cessation of buoyancy and density during freefall - these key points have gone completely ignored here.    

In the meantime I have to say I think Eric's latest video on transcending the soul trap, is 100% A1, as I mentioned already I think this topic  is way more important that the shape and characteristics of this physical place where we all temporarily and very briefly reside. So I genuinely do not feel he is a shill but perhaps is too bought into and too far down the road of the stationary earth belief. Maybe he is controlled opposition and genuinely doesn't know it.

i think a mutually respectful conversation on this is possible but Earthtoad has started with the mud slinging and you have joined him so voided any possibility of that. I dont think either of you are willing to look at the facts objectively. (FYI I dont support any model or theories about other lands etc or what the world is in its entirety. The honest person knows they dont know.)

I would love to hear from Eric on this matter

DC: "Eric has stuck to the facts that are provable, testable and repeatable."

The water vessel experiment and what happens to air bubbles and objects in the water and the water itself, is a tangible testable provable predictable and repeatable experiment. So far Eric has not addressed the effects that are demonstrated here.

DC: "It shows how solid Eric really is if the worst shill proof is a shill complaining that Eric didn't answer his "why" question."

To be clear, the question of "why" is entirely relevant.  Because as I said, inanimate matter (Water, the object in the bottle) does not act of its own volition. So asking "Why" it does what it does (or more accurately "what" is causing these effects) is of paramount importance.

"I would love to hear from Eric on this matter"
Here you go...
https://odysee.com/@EricDubay:c/Is-the-Flat-Earth-Stationary-or-Constantly-Rising-Upwards-:9

DC wrote:"I would love to hear from Eric on this matter"
Here you go...
https://odysee.com/@EricDubay:c/Is-the-Flat-Earth-Stationary-or-Constantly-Rising-Upwards-:9

Yeah thats the one I mentioned earlier, where he asks why we dont crash into the stars and a lot of other v questionable and disappointing stuff (eg that infinite space above would be required) and where he doesnt address the cessation of buoyancy and density in freefall or the non displacement of water in an accelerating vessel, exactly the stuff as I said, I would like to hear directly from him on. The stuff I would like to hold feet to the fire on, as Eric himself has requested.

DC, yourself and earthtoed have demonstrated the same cultish mentality as the globers - completely ignoring facts that dont correlate with your belief, while at the same time being belligerent towards myself for simply asking the questions.

Hence why I would like to hear from Eric or anyone who is willing and capable to actually address the questions and interact in a respectful manner, as I have.

Why dont you explain to us exactly what you believe and provide options for us to validate your claim?

Eric Dubay is only human with a budget much less than the ones available to the institutions that made the globe theory contemporary.
Of all my professors, teachers, and mentors Eric is the only one who has ever shown another side of the globe theory. He helped by educating us with many books written by other authors that contradict the commercially popular globe theory. He wrote 200 proofs which I believe put him on the map and is why we all collect here to learn more.

What dont you tell us what your theory is and how this relates to globe or flat earth. There is a lot of content here already, how does what you bring add ANY MORE than what has been published on this website?

Can you think of an experiment that we can all do that helps explain what you are trying to bring forward?

You are not "challenging" my position or holding my feet to the fire whatsoever, but just acting as if I haven't already answered your question which I have. This video explains exactly why "upward rising Earth" is an unfalsifiable, unverifiable assumption that ignores experiments and experience of a stationary Earth in favor of assumptions that it is constantly moving (just like the globe model). The fact of the matter is that dropping a water bottle with a cork in it, or watching a helium balloon go forward in a moving car, are NOT demonstrations of the Earth constantly rising upwards. You must make 4 unproven wild assumptions to assert this:

Assumption #1 - The Constantly Upwards Rising Earth: Their first assumption, in order to answer the question of directional vector, going against all common sense, our everyday experience, and countless scientific experiments proving earth to be completely motionless, they make the grand assumption that Earth is constantly rising upwards 9.8 meters per second

Assumption #2 - Infinite Empty Space Above the Rising Earth: In order to have a world that constantly rises upwards forever, they are now forced to make a second assumption which is that there exists an infinite expanse of empty space above our Flat Earth for the constantly rising world to rise into

Assumption #3 - Atmosphere and Objects Within Rise Perfectly Along with Rising Earth: Next they are forced to assume that the entire atmosphere is somehow fixed like glue to rise perfectly along with the upward rising Earth, because otherwise, the upward rising Earth would constantly be crashing up into the bottoms of birds, planes, helicopters and everything else in flight above the forever upwards rising Earth

Assumption #4 - The Sun, Moon, and Stars Also Constantly Rise Upwards: Finally, they are forced to assume that the Sun, Moon, and stars are also all constantly rising 9.8 meters per second somehow fixed along with the rising atmosphere, otherwise of course the upward rising Earth would crash into them as well

So, rather than accept the order of density layering on Earth to simply be as it is, "upward rising Earthers" prefer to ignore their common sense, everyday experience and countless scientific experiments proving a stationary Earth, in order to make assumption, upon assumption, upon assumption, upon assumption, 4-fold in an attempt to answer their inquiry. Since "upward rising Earthers" claim the Earth, the luminaries, the atmosphere and everything in it are all constantly rising together, there is no way for an experimenter to actually step outside this reference frame to confirm or deny their supposition.

Thanks for your reply. In hindsight I would have preferred to post my points on a thread dedicated to the topic rather than a thread that is by definition questioning your integrity, which is conducive to confrontational tones and stances or at least the perception of same.

You have a strict policy on creating new threads which I understand so I thought (possibly mistakenly) that this might be the most appropriate thread. I doubt you feel it worthwhile, but I think it would be a good thing to have a dedicated thread on the topic. This is your forum so I'll leave that to you to decide.

The Assumptions you listed are a reiteration of what you said on the video; I am not making any such assumptions.

"Assumption #1 - The Constantly Upwards Rising Earth: Their first assumption, in order to answer the question of directional vector, going against all common sense, our everyday experience, and countless scientific experiments proving earth to be completely motionless, they make the grand assumption that Earth is constantly rising upwards 9.8 meters per second"


My Response:
Our everyday experience includes the pressure we feel on our feet, our body weight that we feel, the level displacement of water on the earth, density layers in the atmosphere, "1G" (motion) registered on an accelerometer at rest on the ground, the non displacement of water in a dropped vessel, the cessation of buoyancy and density in freefall  - all of these provable, testable, repeatable phenomena are consistent with upward motion and are contradicted by the claim of downward acceleration (which stationary earth requires).  I never claimed 9.8 s/s and in fact that glober measurement is a visual measurement not a physical one and fails to account for the motion of both factors (the dropped object AND the motion of the reference frame - ie the ground) Additionally, it fails to explain why an actual accelerometer registers no motion while in freefall

"Assumption #2 - Infinite Empty Space Above the Rising Earth: In order to have a world that constantly rises upwards forever, they are now forced to make a second assumption which is that there exists an infinite expanse of empty space above our Flat Earth for the constantly rising world to rise into"

My response:
As I mentioned in my first post (and which you have also agreed with here) - we cant leave the reference frame to check this and I have made no such claim of infinite space. Here s what I said in that post:

"We cannot exit the reference frame to check if we are hurtling in infinite upward motion, are we on a giant arc, which to us seems like constant upward motion, or if it rises and then drops or stops periodically giving us catastrophes, mud floods and resets. No such claims are made here."

The main point is that  infinite upward space is not required or claimed, in order for the upward motion to be registered and proven from our perspective, within the reference frame

"Assumption #3 - Atmosphere and Objects Within Rise Perfectly Along with Rising Earth: Next they are forced to assume that the entire atmosphere is somehow fixed like glue to rise perfectly along with the upward rising Earth, because otherwise, the upward rising Earth would constantly be crashing up into the bottoms of birds, planes, helicopters and everything else in flight above the forever upwards rising Earth"

&

"Assumption #4 - The Sun, Moon, and Stars Also Constantly Rise Upwards: Finally, they are forced to assume that the Sun, Moon, and stars are also all constantly rising 9.8 meters per second somehow fixed along with the rising atmosphere, otherwise of course the upward rising Earth would crash into them as well"

My Response:
I can equally say that your claim of the atmosphere being separate from the earth is an assumption. And that your claim of downward acceleration at 9.8/s/s (which you share with globe believers) is categorically disproven. The fact is neither of us know what this place is in its entirety.


For me, its not about claiming upward motion and a model associated with that, but that downward acceleration is disproven and we can also repeatably demonstrate phenomena that prove  constant upward motion, from our perspective, within the reference frame. This in no way obligates me to provide a model. (I dont claim a model, but those who DO are indeed duty bound to explain and prove all aspects of their model). Like we both agree, we cannot exit the reference to check these things.    

Can you address these questions directly, in detail:

1 - Does the stationary earth model that you believe, hold that dropped objects accelerate downwards?
2 - If this is the case, can you explain  why water does not displace in a dropped (accelerating) bottle but it does displace when the vessel is accelerated in any other vector? What are the special circumstances that make water in the dropped vessel behave differently than when accelerated in other vectors?
3 - if buoyancy and density are their own causes, how come they cease while the water bottle is in freefall (the stone ceases to drop / the air bubble ceases to rise)?
4 - If downward acceleration is indeed disproven (which it is, by the above demonstrations) then what actually causes things to fall "down"?
5 - Under the stationary earth model, Why is "1G" (ie motion, upward pressure) registered on an accelerometer at rest on the ground?

Lastly, (For info) I consider the term "Upward rising earther" to be as derogatory as "Flat Earth" and "Flat Earther" its just another loaded term, rhetoric, used to discredit those not in agreement. (Not claiming at all that you are doing this maliciously, just drawing attention to the use of loaded terms)

In my opinion, We should never used these terms.. its like someone who is suspicious of government corruption labelling themselves as a far right conspiracy theorist.

As I've stressed already, I'm here for productive, mutually respectful discussion and that is all. Everything above is said in that vain. Thanks

You stated ….. “and we can also repeatably demonstrate phenomena that prove  constant upward motion, from our perspective, within the reference frame.

How exactly ?? What is that experiment?


You are adding very little to this conversation.

“Like we both agree, we cannot exit the reference to check these things.    “

How do you continue to prove this if as you stated  we cannot exit the reference to check these things ?

Zzzap wrote:"How exactly ?? What is that experiment?"

Really????? did you read my post? Several experiments are mentioned.

Zzzap wrote:"How do you continue to prove this if as you stated  we cannot exit the reference to check these things ?"

By way of the experiments I already mentioned, without obligation to prove the entirety of the reference frame.

In the same way that bodies of water being level, can be proven, without obligation to prove the entirety of the reference frame - which you fully agree with, right??

Zzzap wrote:"You are adding very little to this conversation."

I'm adding very little???? All you've done is add a ridiculously oversized gif which will probably crash the thread if quoted too many times you shoudl change that

Do you have a link for those experiments?  

 I’m sure there are many videos of it correct?

Maybe you can upload a video of you performing the experiment?

Zzzap wrote:Do you have a link for those experiments?  

 I’m sure there are many videos of it correct?

No need you can easily do them yourself.

Get a bottle of water, drop a stone in it. drop the bottle. move and accelerate it in various vectors

sit down and stand up. notice your 'weight'

get an accelerometer. Place it on the ground. Pick it up. Drop it. see what it shows.

as you are obviously trolling at this point and, like some of your fellow posters, in no way interested in actual physical reality and only interested in cultishly maintaining you belief, this is my last response to you.

Hopefully Eric will come back on my questions, so far he is the only poster to put a single bit of effort or decency into his response.

I’m sorry you can’t explain your position easily. I truly don't understand how that experiment proves anything.  Shame you can’t easily provide links of the experiment. 

I’m sorry that you won’t enlighten me.  Your experiment proves nothing at all, and I don’t understand how you arrived at the conclusion ?

Maybe some one with more patience will explain exactly what your experiment is trying to prove?

ok then one last try :-)

IN stationary model, what is making things 'fall'?

Relative Density Disequilibrium right? so why does that phenomena cease in the water vessel during freefall? Its check and check mate for downward acceleration. You cant escape it.

To be fair, I can fully understand taking the position because we've felt our weight all our lives and it seems counter intuitive but you have to get past your cognitive dissonance and accept the practical science.

So now its time for you to explain these contradictions in your stationary model. Enough repeating facts that you've already been told :-)

Love this song:

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

the effects can be predicted, tested, repeated, proven. thats how I know it is actually happening. the stone ceases to go downwards. The bubble ceases to go upwards. Are you denying this?

the exact same happens in any vector when pressure & motion are taking place.

So yes, occams razor is correct here.

You do understand you have failed to show an example of the experiment and how you have controlled the forces on the stone.

When I performed the experiment, the stone falls at the same speed as the glass bottle.   It never leaves the floor of the glass container.  The exact opposite of what you viewed.

Zzzap wrote:When I performed the experiment, the stone falls at the same speed as the glass bottle.   It never leaves the floor of the glass container.  The exact opposite of what you viewed.

thats because you did it wrong