41

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Republican Health Care Bill

« on: September 01, 2017, 02:28:16 PM »

We are at a point where the only reasonable way for the government to rein in the rampant corruption in the medical industry is to join most of the rest of the civilized world and give its people universal healthcare.

"But Roundy, governments are so more corrupt than private companies so we'd only have higher medical costs and less services!"

That's not what has been demonstrated in all of the other wealthy industrialized nations of the world (flat or round).  Their governments are able to outperform us in total life expectancy and infant mortality for significantly less per capita expenditures.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Eh, yes and no.  Most of those countries have very different laws and social norms.
Like lawsuits.  Super common in the US, less so elsewhere so malpractice insurance isn't as bad, if at all.


Also, the companies have deals with drug makers.
And they also usually have fewer doctors.


Finally: America is 'Me First' and does not like thinking every American is worth helping.

One of the benefits of having a single payer system is collective bargaining power with pharmaceutical manufacturers.  It's no great secret that Medicare gets a better deal than a small regional health insurance.  Many of the lifestyle factors associated with total healthy life expectancy can be directly influenced by access to routine primary care which lowers the effects of malpractice claims.  Most malpractice claims boil down to informed consent and whether communication between provider and patient was accurately recorded.  In most cases, gross negligence is too hard to prove and documentation errors are used in lieu as evidence of "not meeting the accepted standards of care."  Infant mortality is the real tell tale factor that we should look at.  For a nation that doesn't have any wars on our soil, you would think that we would perform better than this.  50% higher than Canada & UK, 2-3x higher than many other European countries and just barely better than Slovakia.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE model evidence

« on: September 01, 2017, 02:11:36 PM »

Tom,

How was distance measured for the Bishop experiment?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

It was measured with Google Earth. Is there something wrong with using your Round Earth distances to show that the predicted Round Earth curvature is incorrect?

They look photoshopped to me. I've never seen the horizon break at such a sharp angle before. Please provide details of the camera used, the date and time of the photo, the elevation of the camera, the distance to the horizon measured with a mechanical measurement device and the ambient air temperature along the entire line of sight.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

The sources of the picture are provided in that thread. The panorama shows that the photograph was taken from a rock near sea level at the water's edge.

I am so glad to hear you say that you used google earth to measure distance for your experiment as google earth uses Lat/long to calculate distance.

Please provide proof that your distance measurements are consistent on both a flat earth and round earth.  You either invalidate distance for your own experiment or validate it for the geology proof in the Airline data thread.  I'm ok with either.

Honestly, I thought you would have seen this coming.  You're usually more careful than this.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: September 01, 2017, 02:05:52 PM »

No Tom,

In transportation distance matters as well.  Mileage is needed to ensure you don't run out of fuel and die.  Using the round earth coordinates to traverse both halves of the world or in your model both hemiplanes has yet to cause a large number of flights or ships to suddenly run out of fuel mid trip.

The miles of cabling that run under the ocean to connect the continents and create "the internet" had to be physically made and laid.  As did all of the continental cabling that connects California to New York, Paris to Krakow etc.  These are physical lengths of cabling that had to be manufactured and placed along carefully measured routes that just so happen, in your opinion, to match up perfectly with the Lat/long coordinates.

Tom, despite you best efforts to claim otherwise length (distance) really does matter to all industries and empires.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Where is the evidence that the cables were carefully measured and they did not simply bring along massive spools?

Why are you assuming that the distance needs to be enormous? Are you assuming the monopole map and model?

Because of the market forces subjected to manufacturing/transportation/telecommunication.  Raw materials must be procured from one party, shipped by another, manufactured by another, shipped again and installed/sold by yet another.  Every step in the supply chain has to know costs in order to generate revenue and turn a profit.  Both the unipolar and bipolar map models have wild distortions when compared to the RE model and so far those discrepancies do not show up in the supply chain.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: September 01, 2017, 12:24:31 PM »

Why do I need to show you a map of the earth? What is wrong with the exact continental dimensions and distances being unknown?

Navigation, governance and commerce all break down if we don't actually know how far things are from each other.  It may seem trivial until you realize that international commerce relies on knowing exactly how far raw materials and finished goods have to travel before you purchase them on Amazon or at Walmart or whatever other physical/online store you use.  Your basic internet access only works because some poor schmuck dragged a specific length of fiber optic cable across the ocean to connect the land masses.  How else did you think that you could mildly irritate people in every time zone simultaneously?

In a modern world ruled by profit margin, knowing exact costs is king.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

All that is known is how long the transportation takes. In Round Earth coordinate devices the distance is computed based on Round Earth coordinate geometry.

No Tom,

In transportation distance matters as well.  Mileage is needed to ensure you don't run out of fuel and die.  Using the round earth coordinates to traverse both halves of the world or in your model both hemiplanes has yet to cause a large number of flights or ships to suddenly run out of fuel mid trip.

The miles of cabling that run under the ocean to connect the continents and create "the internet" had to be physically made and laid.  As did all of the continental cabling that connects California to New York, Paris to Krakow etc.  These are physical lengths of cabling that had to be manufactured and placed along carefully measured routes that just so happen, in your opinion, to match up perfectly with the Lat/long coordinates.

Tom, despite you best efforts to claim otherwise length (distance) really does matter to all industries and empires.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

45

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Republican Health Care Bill

« on: September 01, 2017, 11:56:59 AM »

We are at a point where the only reasonable way for the government to rein in the rampant corruption in the medical industry is to join most of the rest of the civilized world and give its people universal healthcare.

"But Roundy, governments are so more corrupt than private companies so we'd only have higher medical costs and less services!"

That's not what has been demonstrated in all of the other wealthy industrialized nations of the world (flat or round).  Their governments are able to outperform us in total life expectancy and infant mortality for significantly less per capita expenditures.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: September 01, 2017, 05:00:43 AM »

Why do I need to show you a map of the earth? What is wrong with the exact continental dimensions and distances being unknown?

Navigation, governance and commerce all break down if we don't actually know how far things are from each other.  It may seem trivial until you realize that international commerce relies on knowing exactly how far raw materials and finished goods have to travel before you purchase them on Amazon or at Walmart or whatever other physical/online store you use.  Your basic internet access only works because some poor schmuck dragged a specific length of fiber optic cable across the ocean to connect the land masses.  How else did you think that you could mildly irritate people in every time zone simultaneously?

In a modern world ruled by profit margin, knowing exact costs is king.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

47

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Republican Health Care Bill

« on: September 01, 2017, 04:49:17 AM »

I've been wondering lately. 

As we all know, one of the major reasons for ever increasing insurance premiums is the spiraling costs of health care in general.  Pharmaceutical companies, equipment manufacturers, etc. are being accused of getting fat off of the misery of others.

What do you suppose would happen if the profit motivation was removed by making the all players in the health care industry non-profit organizations?  Yes, that would make them all tax exempt, but it would also take away the incentive to milk the industry for all it's worth.

I'm sure that there are plenty of good reasons that it wouldn't work, but does anyone think that it might be at least a germ of a workable idea?

Not necessarily.  Non-profits are able to generate higher earnings annually than their expenditures (profit) they just aren't allowed to pay the excess to shareholders.  It's easy enough to siphon off the excess in consulting fees, building expansions, capital improvements etc.  None of those expenditures have to also go to a non-profit.  It's rather important to remember that state colleges and most all teaching hospitals are "non-profit" but they sure do collect a lot of revenue.

Thank you,

Critical Thinker

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE model evidence

« on: September 01, 2017, 02:54:33 AM »

Why is there no photographic evidence of the Bishop Experiment?   Seems sketchy to me or as the kids like to say... "pictures or it didn't happen".

There is photographic evidence. You can see the Santa Cruz beach from Monterey with the naked eye. Someone posted naked eye pictures from a previous thread on the matter:

The point behind the picture I linked is that the beaches are easily seen on the opposite coast. It is a lighter colored line against the dark blue ocean. I never said that it was a picture of Santa Cruz. It is not carelessness or any mistake on my part. The sentence I wrote clearly says that it's an example of easily seen beaches on the opposite coast.

Here is my picture again:



Here is the picture of Santa Cruz posted earlier in this thread:



It might not pop out at you right away, but the pixels just above the water's surface in the Santa Cruz picture are lighter than the dark hills above it. If you look closely there is a light tan line in there, it is not dark on dark.

If you were looking at the whole scene in person starting from the closer coastline (the first image) and followed it into the distance to Santa Cruz (the second image), it would be easier to follow the light line of the beach.

Please provide evidence that the pictures are what you claim.

They look photoshopped to me. I've never seen the horizon break at such a sharp angle before. Please provide details of the camera used, the date and time of the photo, the elevation of the camera, the distance to the horizon measured with a mechanical measurement device and the ambient air temperature along the entire line of sight.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: September 01, 2017, 02:49:04 AM »

Tom and FE community.

Unless there is a way to demonstrate that all forms of flight speed have margins of error greater than 200% in the southern hemiplane

Why are you basing your argument on a map and model of the earth that is used for visualization purposes only and which no one has claimed to put work into creating?

Because it's the only one you've supplied us with on this whole forum and in the wiki. Please let us know which flat earth map we're supposed to use.

You're dodging the real topic again in typical fashion and attempting to derail the discussion from the truth of the matter.

The deviations in quadrilateral must be explained either by a non flat earth or a dramatic margin of error in speed measurement for only some of the earthwhich isn't there.

That leaves us with only one logical conclusion. It is mathematically impossible for the earth to be flat.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE model evidence

« on: August 31, 2017, 09:29:09 PM »

Tom,

How was distance measured for the Bishop experiment?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about tides/gravity

« on: August 31, 2017, 02:50:30 PM »

Wow!  Pi=4?  Not even 3?  That's impressive.   There is a man who needs to wrap a tape measure around a coke can and see what it says!

he's in a league of his own.
The abridged version is here: http://milesmathis.com/pi3.html
The unabridged version contains even weirder stuff, but is longer than the old testament, and not nearly as funny.

Oh boy!  That's hilarious.  So he's subdividing the tangent and cotangent into smaller and smaller chunks - then boldly asserts that "If we take this process to its limit, we take our path to the path of the arc AC."...which isn't true.  Then, a few paragraphs down, he says "Some will say this is just doing the calculus wrong, but I claim that history has done the calculus wrong, not me."

Ah - OK then.

But why not measure the circumference of a circle with a tape measure...just to be on the safe side?...and if the answer is anywhere between (say) 3.9 and 4.1 times the diameter, go ahead and publish...but if the answer is anywhere between 3.0 and 3.2 - you should probably go back and double-check your math!

So getting back to Cavendish... anyone else willing to chime in? Junker?

(Fetching popcorn now...)

I find it interesting that exacting standards of experimental control are demanded of any RE evidence, but the FE evidence is assumed as true without any experimental control and often without any actual experiments.  I believe that this is sufficient evidence of dual standards, but I would prefer to take further samplings of the arguments for FE before coming to a conclusion.  Is there a FE experiment with physical measurements demonstrating that gravity doesn't exist?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE model evidence

« on: August 31, 2017, 02:42:38 PM »

Bottom line is that this is not solid evidence EITHER WAY.

Then why do you guys constantly bring it up?

I don't...I NEVER use Rowbotham, Wallace, Oldham, Stratton, Blount or Morrow results as proof or disproof of FET/RET.

You, however, constantly bring it up...so it's necessary to repeatedly point out that (at best) this is bad science and should be ignored.

We know that refraction and the effects of tides and water flow in the canal could each have had an effect on the results.  I actually believe that Stratton was the only experiment that came close to scientific rigor - and he said that the result was in favor of Round Earth...but because this is a seriously screwed up mess - I'm more than happy to say that ALL of the results (Rowbotham's included) cannot be accepted as evidence either way.

On my recent vacation in the UK, we actually drove through Mepal and over a bridge that spans the Old Bedford River (which is where all of these things happened).    We didn't have time to stop - but as we crossed the bridge, I have to say that this is an amazingly long, straight, flat stretch of water - and I could see it curved away from us with the naked eye from the height of the bridge.

But that's not science either.

So when you bring the Rowbotham experiment up AGAIN (as I'm quite sure you will) - you can expect me to AGAIN point out that it's not a scientifically valid experiment - and it was not confirmed through subsequent efforts to duplicate the results.

So far as I can find on the Wiki, it is the only type of experiment that involves any measurement that specifically concludes that the earth is flat.  The Kansas experiment does not conclude that the entire earth is flat, only Kansas.  That one is easy to explain through topography.

By the way.  Tom, in the Bishop experiment, how did you physically measure the distance between your two points?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circumnavigation of Earth through poles

« on: August 31, 2017, 02:36:31 PM »

Please note the decidedly curved lines representing longitude in your dual pole model.  That shape is incongruent with the actual shape of a bar magnet.  At the peak of the arc, you would expect and equal pull from both poles at a tangent to the magnet causing it to wobble in an arc.

There is an area beyond the north pole in your model that is further from the south pole than the north pole.  Even a slight distance into that zone should still see a reversing of the magnetic compass at which point the south end of the bar magnet no longer points south.

Please explain.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

The only way you would know that the compass does not point South is by following it South, following the curve, eventually reaching the South Pole.

So, just to clarify, your position is that the compass would 1 reverse directions upon crossing the north pole and 2 take the pilot on a long sideways arc around to the south pole without ever wavering near the peak of the arc?



3:10 shows a pendulum effect on a compass when it is at the peak of a lateral arc as you have drawn on your dual pole model.  Here the compass is being equally influenced by both the north and south poles of the magnet without being located directly over it.  The magnetic fields in a RE model are never lateral to the compass, but they are in the FE model.  Why is this phenomenon not routinely seen along the FE Equatorial regions?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Old video footage of space

« on: August 31, 2017, 02:12:10 PM »

more fakery

That does not apply to the questions that I raised about the video footage from Sky Lab in 1974.  Wires would have become tangled during the maneuvers in the video from 1:18-1:43.  This still does not provide evidence that the Sky Lab video was faked.

Thank you,

Critical Thinker

I agree - but it's not a slam-dunk.   Our uber-skeptics might say that NASA spent all the money that was supposed to go into launching guys into space in inventing clever CGI techniques that were decades ahead of their time.

I *KNOW* for 100% sure that's not true - Jim Blinn (who did the actual CGI graphics for NASA missions like Voyager where no actual footage of the spacecraft was possible) is a friend of mine - he invented many of the techniques used today in CGI.  He'd have been in on the secret for sure - and he's definitely not someone who is able to keep a secret!

I can't prove that though.

Honestly - if the FE'ers want to claim a conspiracy - that's fine with me.  There are plenty of better ways to debunk their nonsense.

That's why I supplied video examples of cutting edge 1974 CGI technology in my very first post.  It's also why I chose a Sky Lab video instead of a more recent one.  Photo real CGI did not exist in 1974.  Even in 2013 with the Ender's Game example, the bodies don't make it past the Uncanny Valley.  You can see other examples of today's CGI failing to pass the uncanny valley in most modern action movies, especially Marvel.  When they cut out the entire actor and replace him/her with a CGI stunt double it's relatively easy to spot.  The acrobatics filmed on Sky Lab would not be possible to fake in 1974.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 31, 2017, 02:02:32 PM »

Thank you 3DGeek for another summary.

Tom and FE community.

Unless there is a way to demonstrate that all forms of flight speed have margins of error greater than 200% in the southern hemiplane relative to the northern hemiplane then we can proceed with the following thought experiment to come to the truth of the matter.

If time and distance can be measured by flat earth compatible systems of measurement then speed can be measured by flat earth compatible systems of measurement.  If a new system of speed measurement is calibrated using flat earth systems of measuring both time and distance then it is a flat earth compatible system of measuring speed.  At this point the speed measurement device is now verified as valid on a flat plane regardless of what units of measurement it uses as input or output.  If the newly minted flat earth compatible system of measuring speed is used on a series of flights between 4 distant cities on both hemiplanes it's data, regardless of units of measurement, can be used to solve for an unknown distance on a flat plane due to the verification of its ability to measure speed on a flat plane using known methods.  If the distances plotted on a flat piece of paper do not result in a mathematically sound quadrilateral it is geometrically impossible for the earth to be flat.

We have provided evidence that when measured on a metered track 2 different methods of tracking flight speed were within an acceptable margin of error for any flight.  1 of the 2 methods of measuring flight speed exceeds the acceptable margin of error only during maneuvers that are physically impossible for an airliner to make.  This means that both systems of tracking flight speed are verified as accurate on a flat plane for the experiment in question.  Additionally, both systems of speed measurement produce data that is within an acceptable margin of error with respect to each other in all flight tests.

It is therefor mathematically impossible for the earth to be a continuous flat plane.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance debate based on poll results

« on: August 31, 2017, 12:33:44 PM »

Hey FE'ers

Can anyone provide me with the distance between the following cities, according to the proposed FE map:

1. Johannesburg to Perth
2. Johannesburg to Frankfurt

Thank you and much appreciated!!!

This will be difficult to get a consensus on from this forum.  According to other threads that I've read through Tom states that no detailed map of the flat earth including distances exists, Junker claims that a map does exist but doesn't specifically state if it has a distance scale.

Thank you,

CriticalThikner

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about tides/gravity

« on: August 31, 2017, 12:26:08 PM »

I read through it.[...]

you sir are one dedicated motherf thank you.
But I still want Tom's explanation. He's always whining on the quality of the evidence presented... when it's his turn, I'm entitled to do the same.

I would agree completely with your right to point out flaws in his evidence.  I am running into very much the same thing asking about a different experiment.  The text cited as proof lacks actual controls, it just assumes that it got everything right.  Tom, please explain why your evidence for the FE model doesn't need rigor?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about tides/gravity

« on: August 31, 2017, 12:37:15 AM »

How do you explain the Cavendishb experiment, then? EDIT, link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

please either explain it in your own words, or at least quote the relevant parts of the linked document. I'm not going to wade for an hour through the ramblings of a graphomaniac. (I'm not discarding it a priori only because he's a crank convinced that pi equals 4. It's just that I have a life)

I read through it.  It is a lot of assumptions followed by conclusions.  There is no actual construction, observation or measurement before the calculations.  There is not any actual measured data, just assumed data based on the author's feelings from looking at photos of the experiments.  In not one place could I find description of how the author built his own version of the apparatus matching the Cavendish experiment to the greatest degree of accuracy and then took more highly accurate measurements from his own experiment to compare against the observed data from the original.  He guestimated everything and then concluded exactly what he believed before he started.  He could have saved me a lot of reading if he had just said "nuh-uh" and left it at that.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Cartography and a flat earth

« on: August 31, 2017, 12:18:43 AM »

Interestingly enough, GPS calculates speed through the Doppler shift effect when triangulating location.  A ping from 3 different locations are sent out at regular intervals and the shift in relation to those 3 points is used to calculate speed.

Unless someone wants to deny the existence of electromagnetic wave structure, then both GPS and Radar measure the same physics phenomenon and are both tested using metered tracks and stopwatches.

If that is how speeds are calculated, then that means that the GPS speed test is invalid in regards to this discussion about the shape of the earth since there is no Round Earth lat/lon speed test to compare it to in order to determine whether the Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system is correct.

Expressed and calculated are two very different words Tom.  Relative position from triangulation via doppler effect is a valid method on a flat plane.  3 radar guns pointed at an object from 3 different angles will accomplish the same thing.  Absolute position doesn't matter.  Change in relative position between 2 metered times as triangulated using the bounce back of waved electromagnetic signals is consistent with the FE constraints.

And let's not forget it is calibration tested against a flat metered track and mechanical time piece.

I'm not letting you off that easy Tom.  Play with the words all you like but the doppler shift can't be explained away.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Cartography and a flat earth

« on: August 31, 2017, 12:10:56 AM »

Can you link us to the full article? The last time we had a GPS accuracy article we saw that the authors tested a variety of different GPS devices which all showed different speed results, with an error range of over 20%, and then picked out the result closest to the result they wanted and declared that GPS was incredibly accurate, only differing from the real speed by 2%.

The article in question was looking at people on a bicycle going around a track.  That is not even close to the use of GPS in aviation, maritime and even cars.  Straight from the horse's mouth, GPS and WAAS "gives position accuracy of better than 3 m, 95 percent of the time".   

http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/waas.html


Any discussion of GPS accuracy of 3 meters not being good enough is just lazy and ridiculous.   Why don't you just try and help settle this without your silly arguments?

This article "Accuracy of non-differential GPS for the determination of speed over ground" is also about people going around a track. Why should we not trust that one but trust this one?

Can you link us to the full article? The last time we had a GPS accuracy article we saw that the authors tested a variety of different GPS devices which all showed different speed results, with an error range of over 20%, and then picked out the result closest to the result they wanted and declared that GPS was incredibly accurate, only differing from the real speed by 2%.

Irrelevant.

GPS speed accuracy on a single human over extremely short distance while making pinpoint turns does not apply to vehicular motion.  Unless you're claiming that a Boeing 747 is capable of making a 90 degree turn under 3 feet in radius.  The 20% you are hanging your hat on was instantaneous very rapid acceleration after making a turn as they state in the article.  Those physics simply can't apply to commercial airlines.

The ball is in your court again Tom.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

This study we are talking about is about people on a track, with humans playing sports, like the other one was. Here is the link again of the one mentioned on the previous page. What are you talking about.   

You said a 20% error.  Here is the exact wording of the article.

The speed determined by the GPS receiver was within 0.2 ms−1 of the true speed measured for 45% of the values with a further 19% lying within 0.4 ms−1 (n=5060)

Do you know what an Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) experiment is?  They take two groups and assess the differences between both groups to see if there is a statistical difference of the mean values for both groups.  Group A is measured with GPS.  Group B is measured with a mechanical measurement.  All 5060 samples are separated by group and the 2 bell curves are compared.  If 2 standard deviations from the mean fall under both overlapping bell curves, then there is not statistical difference in the two groups.  This is higher level statistical analysis that most undergraduates wouldn't see so it's ok if you're not familiar with this methodology.

Please point out the 20% margin of error that you were speaking about in this experiment.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker