Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Pete Svarrior

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 350  Next >
My question is why can't RE belief be saved by "well, it might be ..."
It can, and it regularly is. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here.

Is it the case that RE has to be complete, consistent, and flawless, while FE can have inconsistencies and not correlate to observations
It is not. Now, you just need to convince your compatriots that this goes both ways.

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment
« on: May 18, 2024, 06:27:31 PM »
Well, firstly I'd note that there is no FE authority. The basis of this being chosen as the experiment was FE YouTubers agreeing that this observation would be problematic for FE.
Yeah, I'm just suggesting that that's a critical flaw in the decision-making process, without claiming to be an authority myself. They'll run their experiment, they'll reach their conclusion (we both agree what it will be), and... what happens then?

The grifters on YouTube continue grifting - ceasing was never an option. Earnest FE'ers continue being FE'ers - after all, the experiment doesn't attempt to address anything meaningful. RE'ers are gonna strut around like pigeons and repeatedly proclaim victory (unchanged from the norm). So... what are we dropping $60k+ on here, exactly? And where is it coming from?

Right now, this has all the markings of an attempt at embezzlement. That is why I'm against it. Otherwise, I don't care what the YT crowd do - they don't affect real FE'ers in any way.

There's some stuff on the Wiki with light shining through a glass dome but I don't think that would actually explain this.
People get confused by the glass dome, I get that. As a visualisation, it has the same problem as trying to use a massively scaled-down ball to demonstrate gravity. The scaled-down FE model makes adjustments (replacing the atmolayer with a glass dome) to make it visually equivalent to the real efects of EA combined with internal reflection.

Of course, I'm entirely guessing as to what your objection might be here - but that's usually what it is.

That said - a small side point of objection here: that particular aspect of the model has a lot of tractions with groups other than ours, even ones that think we're FBI shills or whatever. Even comes up among the Twitter anti-vax deep-south crazies. The claim that they spoke to multiple FE'ers and nobody pointed this out to them is extremely suspicious to me.

I vaguely agree it won't achieve anything - my gut feel is the YouTubers who are conceding that this would be an issue for (their version of) FE would not actually concede the point if they made the observations, because cognitive dissonance.
Or because they're grifters with a financial incentive.

Mind you, the same goes for the RE'ers.

FTFE, the only participant so far, previously had some of his accounts blocked after some nasties porn-bombed him during a livestream. He immediately started crying for donations, explaining that he's disabled and that if the revenue from his online persona runs dry, he'd be left without a means to live. He's probably stuck with his "stupidity bad, i am very smart" schtick for the rest of his life.

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment
« on: May 17, 2024, 10:16:29 PM »
Yeah, I know, there's probably a deeper underlying issue here. Why wouldn't I trust these upstanding people, especially after they publicly disclosed their financial incentives? It just doesn't make sense.

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment
« on: May 17, 2024, 09:52:58 PM »
Oh, and for the sake of clarity: it's also very telling that the only people the YouTube channel refers to as potential FE'ers to be involved are known grifters with a financial incentive. Let's be blunt: this is a scam on both sides, and we should all be better than giving them any time out of our days.

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment
« on: May 17, 2024, 09:48:34 PM »
I saw an interview the bloke behind this did with FTFE.
Ah, truly a duo of titans then. A guy whose entire livelihood relies on insisting that the Earth is round and calling his detractors idiots validated this other guy. Yes, quite, indubitably.

You watch too much YouTube. Seriously.

The aim is to send one globe earther and one flat earther to Antarctica to observe the 24 hour sun - which would be an issue for the monopole model.
It wouldn't, though. It's only an issue for the YouTubers' understanding of FE. It's an extremely low bar to set, and one that can be met without wasting a ton of donation money. Like, yeah, those guys are gonna see the Sun for an entire day, and it's gonna accomplish nothing.

Now, what would be interesting is to see how much money they embezzle out of the scheme 👀

Any thoughts on this? Would any of you have liked to be invited or would be interested in going?
I wouldn't go (entirely pointless, we already know the outcome), but I would love to offer independent scrutiny of their finances. I am openly sceptical, perhaps verging on hostile, so if they can open their books to me and get an admission that I saw no irregularities, that would surely boost their credibility. Well, within the limitations of how much credibility a faux-experiment with a predetermined outcome can have.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Covid-19 vaccine two shots
« on: May 12, 2024, 02:22:36 PM »
wtf I want a free portion of fries >o<

As I mentioned to Tom, the desktop model setup in the YouTube video is highly inaccurate because A) the Earth's atmosphere is being represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and B) the local spotlight Sun is represented as being very large in scale (almost 1:1 scale using a flashlight) to the diameter of the flat earth plane.
And what about these factors, in your opinion, makes the depiction "highly inaccurate"? Please highlight a specific contradiction with what's observed under FET. So far, you have suggested that a scaled-down model of FET that makes reasonable adjustments for the consequences of scaling down would be "like" someone creating a scaled-down model of RET that fails to make the same adjustments. At face value, your argument disproves itself - it proposes the same things as the problem and as the solution.

So, I am offering you a chance to fix the errors in your argumentation. It's possible that you have a point there somewhere, but that you've obfuscated it with your inadequate presentation.

Do not simply repeat your incomplete argument - I've read it the first time. Instead, fill the gaps and make yourself clear.

The two are alike in that both would use highly inaccurate model setup's as a claimed "acceptable" model scheme.
What makes you believe the FE representation would be "highly inaccurate"? What discrepancies from FE have you observed in Tom's proposed representation? Please be specific - statements like "it's wrong because it's inaccurate" are not very helpful here.

In terms of other specific aspects of FET vs. RET it's difficult to know what to use as a basis for comparison, since there is no unifying FE model.
Ah, right...

Please let me remind you that the FET subforum is not intended for newcomers with no understanding of the model. If you're not ready to post here yet, please exercise some self-restraint and let the rest of us discuss in peace.

Your statement seems kind of ridiculous. Using a desktop solid glass magnifying dome as an acceptable model scheme to show how light behaves upon the flat Earth's surface would be like someone launching a desktop model rocket in their backyard and explaining that to be an acceptable model scheme to show how a rocket engine behaves in the vacuum of space.
In what way, exactly, would the two be alike? Please detail the necessary aspects of both RET and FET to underline your argument.

Relative to earth.
That seems rather impossible under the RE model, and if it were true, it would directly conflict with your proposed outcome.

On FE, I don't see how your experiment accounts for EA.

If Sigma Octantis does not move at the night time
Relative to what?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Covid-19 vaccine two shots
« on: April 06, 2024, 11:30:54 AM »
I point out, for instance, the smallpox vaccine, of which I heard of no one claiming it is "safe and effective," while at the same time claiming to have subsequently and successfully contracting the disease against which they were inocculated.
But that doesn't contradict the definition at all. Our immune system is called, well, the "immune system", but I'm sure you've been ill before - so clearly it's not actually immune to everything ever. It's a spectrum, not a binary. You can be more or less resistant to certain diseases. Vaccines bring that resistance up, to varying extents.

And, yeah, different diseases are different. Different vaccines are different. If your argument is that the COVID vaccine is not as good/bad as the smallpox vaccine, meh, sure.

But, to me, that "all or nothing" approach just doesn't work. Should we abandon safety features in cars, just because they fail to prevent all traffic accident deaths? Should we get rid of lifeguards at beaches and swimming pools? After all, people still drown when they're around.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Covid-19 vaccine two shots
« on: April 05, 2024, 03:44:47 PM »
I see the issue has relegated to the necessity of redefining the word vaccine.
Yes, exactly - the anti-vaxxers decided to provide their own, new definition of what a "vaccine" is, and then tried to convince others to adopt it. It worked with some, but not with most.

I just happen to think it's unproductive.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Covid-19 vaccine two shots
« on: April 04, 2024, 09:28:44 AM »
You cannot vaccinate against respiratory illness. It is a fool's errand.
Sure you can. The flu vaccine is effective, as is the COVID-19 vaccine. It significantly reduces the likelihood of an individual contracting the disease, reduces the severity of the symptoms if they do, and limits exposure of the wider population. You shouldn't have to have one (I'm not a fan of forcing people to do stuff in general), but I don't think the fearmongering is helpful either.

The only way I can think of to argue otherwise would be to present this as a binary - either the vaccine entirely eradicates a disease, with no traces of it ever found again, or it doesn't. But that's very reductive and kinda pointless.

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Wiki Spam
« on: March 24, 2024, 07:13:08 PM »
I didn't see any obviously suspicious changes when I diffed a vanilla MediaWiki with our current code, but that didn't cover all the extensions we've added, so there's a chance there's something somewhere in there.
Yeah, I'm not seeing anything obvious, either. I have no access to access logs for the wiki (or, well, any access logs really) - if you don't mind granting me those I'd be keen to snoop around.

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Wiki Spam
« on: March 24, 2024, 03:12:23 PM »
When I looked at the change your account made, the diff just changed the vandalism to different vandalism.
Ooh, that is very interesting. It definitely didn't look that way when I made the edit, but I only checked it once while still logged in.

The Southern Hemisphere page wasn't listed in Tom's original list of vandalised pages, so it's not at all clear whether there was any original vandalism to persist in the cache.
Makes sense. If both Tom and I ended up in a similar scenario (noticed vandalism, made edits, and those edits turned into more vandalism), it almost makes me wonder if someone made changes to our MediaWiki code. I'll poke around a little this evening.

I found our theme calls deprecated functions and I don't know to what extent it's been customised.
Last time the theme broke, we "temporarily" grabbed another one from the shelf and made a few changes to the CSS to tweak it to our brand; and then it stayed like that for years. I suspect we'll want to do that again, rather than try and fix the current ancient hodgepodge.

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Wiki Spam
« on: March 24, 2024, 11:19:32 AM »
your and Pete's accounts
Are you certain about that? I manually reverted the vandalism, but I saw no evidence of my account making any malicious edits.

Also, it's worth keeping in mind that just reverting the database is likely not to be very effective on MediaWiki. It's at least plausible that some of the vandalism persisted in its cache, and that making an edit restored it.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: February 19, 2024, 08:29:03 PM »
Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.
Hmm. I dunno about this. To me, one of them (Trump, to avoid ambiguity) has bad intentions, while the other one is "just" in bad health*. We definitely agree that neither is ideal. But, to me, it seems like our options are a comparably healthy person who's actively malicious, and one person who might end up handing power over to another milquetoast Democrat if things get bad enough.

* - if we even accept that narrative to begin with. I honestly don't know if he's any worse than Trump on that front. Recall the hysteria around Trump's health when he was president - and the counter-argument in which his health was declared to be Truly Presidential™ by his doctor.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 350  Next >