3021

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Mods on this forum are biased and rubbish

« on: June 06, 2018, 11:01:28 AM »

I can not take his posts, move them to angry ranting just for the purpose of insulting him.

Nobody does that. Posts get moved out of the upper if they don't belong to the upper. The purpose is to keep the boards compliant with the rules.

I have no problems with moderators doing there job, and cleaning up threads, removing posts if they do not go along with the forum rules and style.

Good. You're making progress.

But to comment all removed posts with insulting remarks, is an abuse of the role as moderator.

Abuse? Goodness gracious. Nobody's forcing you to read stuff in AR. Also, not a single one of your posts has been removed.

My proposal, should you choose to accept it, is that we restrict your access to Angry Ranting. You're clearly too sensitive for it, and you lack the restraint to stop viewing things which upset you. We could help you out with that one.

3022

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Mods on this forum are biased and rubbish

« on: June 06, 2018, 10:57:25 AM »

See my post here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9867.msg154653#msg154653

I have, and after reading a few pages of junker's recent posts, I responded as follows: Junker hardly ever posts in the upper. I've addressed the one recent case that you've been whinging about.

If you have other cases you want to present, do so. I can't really address you being under the impression that something's happening if you can't demonstrate that it does indeed happen.

3023

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 06, 2018, 05:32:26 AM »

There are light-skinned black people.  I feel like there are two separate issues at play. On the one hand, calling someone an ape, who has pretty strong features of a sub-Saharan African is not cool. The other issue is that there is no good definition as to what constitutes a “race” and those definitions have been politically malleable for as long as they have existed. So in an America with any sense of justice, it would be just as bad to say Trump looks like an orangutan as saying Valerie’s Jarrett looks like a half ape, because are just petty attempts at making someone seem like “less than”.

This is the most convincing analysis so far, from my perspective. Vastly preferable to the alternative of "one is racist and the other is not because DUH obviously have they are"

3024

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: June 06, 2018, 05:24:38 AM »

Plus if you think of the sun as having a "top" and a "bottom" point... both with light rays that are pointing downwards then being pushed/pulled upwards... then the top of the sun would disappear before the bottom of the sun right?

Wrong. And, again, the Sun does not project light rays in a single direction.

And the problem given above: if you were on a mountain, you should be able to look down at the earth after sun set and see the sun appear between you and the earth. If some paths of light curve down and then back up in to the sky, then an observer would "see" some of those upward travelling light rays that didn't end up touching the earth. I understand the distances involved are huge and the maths is just a guess, but if this were the case, there would at least ONE photo of at least one spot of light from the sun appearing BELOW the horizon?

This is an absurd suggestion, which, again, seems to assume that sunlight is somehow comparable to an array of lasers. The *actual* effects of light curving upwards in this fashion is that you'll expect sunset to occur later as your elevation increases - which is hardly a "problem" - and that you will still see some sunlight after the Sun has apparently dipped below the horizon in its entirety - again, hardly controversial.

3025

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 05, 2018, 05:47:33 PM »

Pop quiz, hotshot.

Sorry, I'm not gonna entertain that.

I think I've seen you say that the earth sits on an infinite plane?

I hope not. It's not my position, and as junker pointed out, infinite plane models usually propose GR-style gravitation.

3026

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 05, 2018, 03:43:09 PM »

The starting point of my post was your false reference to special relativity. You're borrowing a concept of general relativity and as an advice to understand your concept you refer to special relativity...

No, I'm not. Whether or not UA can be locally distinguished from RET-style gravity and whether or not the Earth should exceed the speed of light under UA are two separate arguments, with two separate answers, directed at two distinct individuals. Trying to treat them as one is extremely unproductive of you.

3027

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Mods on this forum are biased and rubbish

« on: June 05, 2018, 02:57:27 PM »

Beside that I'm still waiting for you pointing out some non-low content posts in the list of Junker's posts to convince me that the moderation on this forum is fair and neutral.

What list of posts? Junker hardly ever posts in the upper. I've addressed the one recent case that you've been whinging about.

I still have the impression

I can't help you with your impressions.

3028

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Mods on this forum are biased and rubbish

« on: June 05, 2018, 11:57:16 AM »

Then I can only repeat my heartfelt recommendation to find a place that suits you better. Unfortunately, your ad hominems will live in AR. If you can't handle being insulted, you'll just have to deal with not insulting people around here.

3029

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 05, 2018, 10:58:46 AM »

[lots of rambling]

But gravitational fields are not homogeneous, they are gradient fields, therefor the acceleration is not constant and the equivalence principle is not valid within an entire gravitational field.               

Isn't it just fantastic that we're not considering just an acceleration, then? It would be preferable if, in the future, you could try to stay on topic.

3030

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Mods on this forum are biased and rubbish

« on: June 05, 2018, 10:54:13 AM »

Usually threads or posts with meta-discussions about the concept of flat earth as such, perception of flat earth/earthers, mindset of flat-earthers and so on are removed from the standard forums. E.g. yesterday you moved a whole thread to angry ranting, even though no one was either angry or ranting.

You're trying to conflate "removing" something with "moving" it. Isn't that a bit silly? As far as I can tell, the discussion is still going on.

In the upper fora, we discuss ideas, not individuals. If you want to discuss individuals or talk about who you think is and isn't relevant, that takes place in the "anything goes" boards.

Or take the post where Junker called me a moron afterwards, I was just explaining that in the scientific community your whole idea and movement  is neither taken serious nor of any relevance. This is just a description from inside the scientific community. Why is this moved to angry ranting, its just a description of the status quo?

It doesn't matter whether your insults and ad hominems are mainstream. You're more than welcome to continue them in the appropriate board.

For me this looks like, you don't apprecheate this kind of discussion.

So what? We still allow for it to continue, practically unrestricted. If anything, moving these threads out of the "clean" boards remkces restrictions.

So, I ask again. Who's stopping you from continuing your discussions? It certainly isn't us.

3031

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Mods on this forum are biased and rubbish

« on: June 05, 2018, 08:23:10 AM »

I fully agree, but the problem is, you're in general not allowed to formulate this or discuss about this.

Who's stopping you?

3032

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 04, 2018, 08:33:46 PM »

So ...how long do you reckon Earth has been doing this?

Long enough for you to make your next statement. However, before you do so, make sure you familiarise yourself with basic Special Relativity, most importantly the Lorentz transformation.

3033

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 04, 2018, 07:14:28 PM »

So, after 1 second, Earth was moving at 19.6m/s, after two at 29.4m/s, after three at 39.2m/s, etc. ... ?

Relative to something that was stationary relative to the Earth at the minus first second, and which is not accelerating relative to an external observer (the same observer as the one observing the Earth as accelerating upwards), yes.

3034

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 04, 2018, 06:36:51 PM »

Thanks for the back and forth Pete, its always fun to discuss physics with people. [...]

That's fair. Agree to disagree it is.

3035

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 04, 2018, 06:28:04 PM »

first bold item - of course you are standing on a scale, its earth, and the forces are transferred.

No, I assure you that the sum of all other celestial bodies is not resting on the Earth's surface.

equivalence principle just says constant 1G accelleration is indistinguishable from 1G of gravity force for an observer that cannot see the outside world.

That is all I'm saying.

it does not have anything to do with changing forces.

By that logic, a simple act of jumping would break the Equivalence Principle. This is not the case.

that last paragraph was not as greatly worded as i had written in my head, let me know if you get what i am saying.

I can see what you're saying, but it is you who's conflating the terms. The variation is not in the physical acceleration of the Earth - it is in the acceleration you (or your measurement instrument of choice) will perceive while on (or close to) the Earth.

3036

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 04, 2018, 05:39:27 PM »

first, you say mass - you mean weight.

No, I do not. The scale you're standing on does not provide an output in Newtons. Sure, it does achieve it by simply dividing the measured force by a constant, but it nonetheless attempts to measure mass.

Using your example on RET, a good one for our discussion by the way, my weight (again due to gravity as defined by newton/einstein) on the scale would reduce when you cuddled me and tried to lift me up...but YOUR weight would increase by the same amount mine did (if you were also standing on a scale).  this is all well described by gravitational forces.

Correct, but irrelevant. I'm not standing on the scale, and neither is celestial gravitation.

well then my acceleration has not been decreased and therefore my weight hasnt been impacted.  This is because acceleration is the square of velocity, not a force.

This directly contravenes the equivalence principle.

Does this explain the conflict in UA more clearly?

No. I can see that you're missing something, but you're too busy trying to explain why you think you're right for it to be particularly clear.

I think this may be your mistake: You assume that if an object falling towards a mountain top is accelerating downwards more slowly than the same object at sea level, then the mountaintop itself is also accelerating upwards more slowly. This is simply not the case. If we use the Earth as the frame of reference, there are two forces here - one downward one, which will be identical in both cases, and one upward one (celestial gravitation), which will be greater at high altitudes.

Moving back to an external frame of reference: it is not the case that the Earth is accelerating upwards more slowly in these places. The object in question is also accelerating upwards (at a greatly reduced rate) due to celestial gravitation. Therein lies the difference.

3037

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Mods on this forum are biased and rubbish

« on: June 04, 2018, 04:55:05 PM »

All I'd do if I ruled the world [...] is be a bit more lenient in the upper fora and try and achieve a bit more consistency in modding decisions regardless of the poster. That's it. Hardly flipping anything on its anywhere.

That's a brand new approach from you, and one that's much less unreasonable than your previous one. Now, it's possible that nobody on the FE side of the fence quite understood what you were saying, but the general understanding seemed to be that you wanted us to do more in order to appease the totally-and-completely-justified RE whine brigade.

Which they aren't

But Hexagon's are. Try to follow the chain of replies.

So you think, Junker is always the victim that is only provoked to be insulting or low contend posting?   

No. We're talking about one specific thread.

3038

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Mods on this forum are biased and rubbish

« on: June 04, 2018, 03:00:22 PM »

For the second one you gave a warning

I did no such thing. I politely asked the user not to target me personally. I would generally avoid moderating someone if I'm directly involved in the discussion - I'd ask someone else to have a look. In this specific case, I haven't done that either - it doesn't warrant moderator action at all.

That said, there still is a difference, and one I highlighted more than once. In the event where one individual is provoked by another and fails to step back in time, it is the provoker who should be penalised, not the victim.

3039

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: June 04, 2018, 02:55:37 PM »

Do you really mean Mass?

I didn't say mass. I said "measured mass". A scale infers your mass from the force acting upon it - assumed to be weight. The moment you introduce additional forces, the measurement changes. It is, of course, no longer a true mass, since the assumptions are no longer met.

Lifting someone up will not alter their mass. The mass of a person on earth or somewhere else with a difference force acting upon them will be the same.

I'm glad we agree.

You are referring to weight surely?

Not strictly, no. I'm referring to the product of weight, my additional force, and the way in which the scale will process it to output a measurement of mass.

3040

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Mods on this forum are biased and rubbish

« on: June 04, 2018, 02:48:41 PM »

Nothing radical is being suggested here. What is the point of this section of every suggestion is going to be met with "well, this is how it is, if you don't like it you can get lost".

It's not every suggestion. If your suggestions are like "the designated board for insults and angry shouting should no longer have insults" then yes, that's flipping an aspect of this forum on its head.

Similarly, your proposal for how we handle low-quality RE posters was that we work super extra hard to appease them and give them everything they want. It's not gonna happen, because currently we're pushing in the precise opposite direction. You seemed less-than-ecstatic about it, but you at least acknowledged that we'll do what we want to do.

Hexagon over here is of the opinion that we have no right to have AR in its current format. I genuinely can't muster any response other than "Well, we do have the right." I can see that he's taking it very seriously and personally, but I can offer no advice other than stepping back from the source of his frustrations.