The Flat Earth "Theory"

Two days ago, after the gematriputzes trotted out there Reverse Ordinal numbering system, for research purposes I clicked on Nadiculous's link to Chucky's post on the subject of Flat Earth stuff.


To my shock their spreadsheet has 'properties' of the magic numbers attached. These properties include where they are in the Fibonacci Series and the triangular number series. I spent a brief time wondering if they have been reading this blog and just started to include that. I never saw it before. It doesn't matter, because they immediately used a typical gimmick to twist the reality of the number sequences. Both Fibonacci and Triangular sequences are predefined and not subject to change. So of course they changed the rule. One of the properties of 223 is shown to be between 144 and 233.


1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,233


So I guess either 144 or 233 is close enough. Both sequences increase geometrically and you get some pretty fucking hugific (real word) numbers pretty quickly. Combine the lameness of comparing 223 to either 144 or 233 with the limited number of sequence numbers they ever use, i.e. four digits, and it's only going to make the look stupider. If that's possible. So any regrets about my use of those sequences in my rebuttal to their misuse of ordinal as a word was momentary.


My research was specific to seeing what they had to say about Kyrie Irving's Flat Earth quote. I was expecting a contradiction in regards to the dates and numbers posted about the moon and Earth after Eugene Cernan died. Did they use anything in the Irving post that indicated the Earthbwas flat? The Cernan post had things like distance between Earth and Moon, which would require admitting the Earth is not flat.


Not anything really. But there is a screenshot in Chucky's blog that shows the gematrification* of "Flat Earth Theory".


Here we go again. Through some sciency sounding words about that sound good, but aren't accurate.


A theory is a result if an examination of scientific facts and how they relate to each other. At best you have a hypothesis. Most sources call it what it us, the Flat Earth Myth. You don't have a theory without a shred of scientific evidence to support it. Nobody can call the way lampreys spontaneously generate from radioactive decay of avocados a theory. We'd be up to our armpits in theories just on the topic of belly button lint if any wild claim was allowed to be called a theory.


Please keep misusing scientific terminology. You show your ignorance every time.