21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth

« on: May 14, 2023, 02:40:44 AM »

Yeah, right... Plenty of people in the mainstream don't say that. It's not like everyone in the mainstream agrees with that, you know? But I don't think the powers that be care about those disagreements as long as people aren't figuring out the truth.

Plenty of people in the mainstream do say it though. To believed in modern gravity you have to believe that something meta-physical is happening.

This author of the type of mass media book you can find in a library repeats it:

https://qr.ae/pyhDGQ





This popular science video by Vertasium with over 10 million views explains at the 9:57 mark how you can be accelerating upwards without changing your spatial coordinates with the General Relativity equations:

https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?t=597

@9:57

"But if I'm accelerating up and so is everyone else around the world and presumably the whole surface of the Earth, then shouldn't the whole earth be expanding?

No. It is possible for you to be accelerating even though your spatial coordinates are not changing. I will show you one equation from General Relativity...

(equation)

...so in curved space-time you have to accelerate just to stand still."

It also appears in this book about how math relates to the universe:

One to Nine: The Inner Life of Numbers
By Andrew Hodges

https://books.google.com/books?id=UCuwrtBax7AC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Earth's mass curves the geometry of space-time in such a way that the Earth's surface is always accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/sec^2 and so presses on your feet. Weight doesn't exist, but the Earth's electromagnetic forces push harder on fat boys than on slim. This sounds crazy, but it is no crazier than the fact that if you steam straight ahead on a sphere you will end up back where you started. Such things are made possible by curvature."

Andrew Hodges is a mathematician:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Hodges




A physics student, Berry, once made us a brief paper about what he learned in physics class, showing the math on how the surface of the earth in the globe model of gravity is actually accelerating upwards.

https://www.docdroid.net/AbDLJgt/earths-surface-accelerates-upwards-pdf

That's not what I'm talking about. Those questions are besides the point and they are for Eric or people who are advocates for so-called RDD, not me. But he doesn't care, he's a yoga instructor and a "FE/Veganism guru".

But then again, you don't care about the Ether either, which is why you have to talk about RDD instead?

I watched the video and Dubey only questions things like why the stars don't hit the earth, while you appear to be questioning the power source for what is pushing up the earth. If someone is an avid experimentalist like Max Plank and believes that all we really know is what has been subjected to experimentation then those concerns are immaterial to the demonstrated facts.

Max Plank is known for remarking that "Experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is poetry, imagination."

Experimentation is all we really know of the workings of the world, and this form of empirical inquiry is what marked the Scientific Revolution and the Scientific Method. Lesser forms of knowledge are often deemed to be pseudoscience. Experimentation shows the empirical truth of nature. The physical gravity experiments as verified by multiple laboratories have demonstrated in multiple ways that the earth is accelerating upwards. Everything else, and all other explanations, must follow behind this physical reality.

In the case of the Round Earth gravity, it must follow behind the empirical reality of experimentation, hence the need for illusions and processes in unseen dimensions to cause the physical earth to accelerate upwards.

22

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 13, 2023, 10:30:51 PM »

It is more the jury rejecting the main claim of rape in a rape case and usage of watered down language like "sexual abuse" for  why it's a win for Trump and why this is more likely to be dropped on appeal.

It would help the rape narrative much more if the claimant's claim of rape was actually vindicated by a court. Instead you have to trust that the next court will vindicate vague undefined ideas of sexual abuse in lieu of a rape conviction and also support ridiculous sums of money for Trump's statements that she was lying.

The next court will have to overlook the numerous red flags like being an Apprentice fan, fantasizing about sex with Trump, that she didn't scream during the event, that she didn't report the rape to authorities, and that she continued shopping at the store afterwards, and agree with the previous court on its determinations.

You guys have one excuse after another for red flags and have a specific narrative that a separate court composed of different people will have to agree with. The situation is too imperfect for your narrative and too many justifications are needed. It is clearly not open and shut. This is why this is unlikely to go anywhere.

23

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 13, 2023, 09:50:51 PM »

You guys want sexual abuse to have the same definition as sexual assault.

I can't speak for anyone else but I don't want that. What the hell are you even talking about?
I'll just repeat the quote above:

"The jury had been instructed that a person is liable for sexual abuse when they subject another person to sexual contact without consent."

The jury were asked if the victim had proved, by a preponderance of evidence, that she had been sexually abused.
They said yes.

All you've done since is flail around talking about "activist juries" or getting into definitions about sexual abuse or sexual assault as if any of that matters.

The definition of "sexual contact" under the umbrella of "sexual abuse" does matter. According to this New York law firm they are saying that sexual contact online or on the phone counts as sexual abuse:

https://soloffandzervanos.com/new-york-city-sexual-abuse/

"Sexual abuse takes many forms and can include:
...
- Sexual contact online or on the phone"

This lawyer says that sexual abuse could include sexual acts other than touching:

https://www.fuchsberg.com/sexual-abuse-lawyer

"Sexual abuse in New York is defined as making sexual contact with another person without that person’s consent. Sexual contact refers to a perpetrator touching the other person’s intimate or sexual body parts for sexual gratification, including molestation or a sexual act."

This one says that sexual contact could be sexual harassment.

https://www.ubersexualassaultlawyer.com/lyft-sexual-assault-lawyers/

"Unwanted sexual contact can include sexual harassment"

Very vague.

The only important thing here is that the jury believe Trump sexually abused the victim and that she was injured as a result of his conduct. My question is why you're OK with this. Why do you think only liberals should regard this behaviour as abhorrent? Why are you so desperate to defend and support a man who behaved this way? It's bizarre, frankly.

Considering that the jury thinks that Trump's October 2022 post on Truth Social and his other remarks are deserving of millions of dollars, it is clear that they would be more likely to be foot-loose with what "sexual abuse" and "sexual contact" might mean.

This was supposed to be a rape case and the jury rejected her primary claim. It appears more to be you squirming to paint the picture you want it to paint. If Trump was convicted of forcible sexual assault, it would be more clear on what they are referring to instead of everything worded in such a way to leave it up to the imagination. There are more specific charges for people who commit aggravated sexual assault than the umbrella "sexual abuse". This is why this isn't going anywhere.

24

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 13, 2023, 08:40:54 PM »

The claimant claimed that he forcibly raped her in a dressing room. The jury tossed this claim and says that he sexually abused her and aren't sure about her being forcibly touched.

Did you miss the instruction that if they ticked yes to Q2 then they could skip question 3? Because 2 implies 3. So no, they didn’t just ignore that question because they weren’t sure, they ignored it because having ticked “Yes” to 2 that question was redundant as they’d already implicitly answered it.

It may be that they were following instructions as written and it is a fault of vague terminology of whoever wrote this document. But 2 does not imply 3. There are different legal definitions between Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse.

https://myhealth.alberta.ca/Alberta/Pages/sexual-abuse-or-assault.aspx





You guys want sexual abuse to have the same definition as sexual assault.

New York has the same definitions. See this page from a New York lawfirm:

https://soloffandzervanos.com/new-york-city-sexual-abuse/

"we generally use the term sexual abuse to describe what happens when a person in a position of power or authority over a person sexually assaults them in any way."

"Sexual abuse takes many forms and can include:

- Any sexual contact between the abuser and victim
- A victim being forced to watch pornography or sex acts
- Victims being exposed to sexual touching
- Sexual contact online or on the phone"

It is a more vague term which can even mean "sexual contact over the phone" and not necessarily touching, and primarily refers to people in positions of power.

The jury disagrees with you. They clearly believed her account, she had 2 corroborating witnesses - 3 if you include Trump himself who has admitted grabbing women by the pussy and walking into Miss Teen USA dressing rooms while naked teenagers were in there.

If they believed her account they would have convicted Trump of rape. They did not.

25

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 13, 2023, 07:31:32 PM »

I would suggest that you try reading the document. It wasn't "sexual assault", it was "sexual abuse", whatever that means.

It means this

"The jury had been instructed that a person is liable for sexual abuse when they subject another person to sexual contact without consent.
Under New York law, “sexual contact” means “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either party.”

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/09/politics/e-jean-carroll-trump-lawsuit-battery-defamation-verdict/index.html

So he didn't stick his cock in her. So it wasn't rape. This continues to not be the resounding victory for or vindication of Trump you are trying to present it as. The fact that the best you can do is say "Aha! It wasn't sexual assault, it was sexual abuse!" is indication of that. I used the former term as that's what we'd call it in the UK.

Whatever they are saying Trump did, it does not corroborate what the claimant claimed in this rape case. The claimant claimed that he forcibly raped her in a dressing room. The jury tossed this claim and says that he sexually abused her and aren't sure about her being forcibly touched.



Looks like the jury is questioning and rejecting her version of the story to me. The jury did not convict Trump of rape or forcibly touching her. Somehow she was "sexually abused". She has failed to substantiate her story and this verdict isn't as substantial as you believe it is, as it in not a clear conviction of either rape or sexual assault and there is still an appeals process.

This is a big L for the narrative that she was raped or sexually assaulted. As usual, liberals are choosing to distort the truth to live in a fantasy narrative that this is a clear-cut decision.

26

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 13, 2023, 05:46:43 PM »

It is apparent that liberals are willing to make up any lie to fit their narrative. For years they had been claiming that Trump was talking about neo-nazis in his "very fine people on both sides" comment. People on this forum also parroted this claim, and Biden just recently referenced this. Only 40 seconds after Trump made that comment he clarified in the same speech that he was not talking about neo-nazis. There were more than neo-nazis at that event protesting against the removal of monuments.

https://twitter.com/CarpeDonktum/status/1656521967602741248

27

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 13, 2023, 03:55:08 PM »

Ms. Carrol had claimed that she was forcefully raped in a dressing room, and the court rejected this claim.

Instead they said she had been sexually abused in the dressing room.

A dressing room, a location, a method of abuse, or even decade of occurrence, is not mentioned at all. And if that is what was meant, it apparently happened without being forcibly touched. The court did not charge Trump with forcibly touching her. So, it is not rape or sexual assault.

Carrol did claim that she was forcibly touched and raped. Her claims were rejected.

28

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 13, 2023, 03:41:07 PM »

Ah yes, a rape victim so imperfect, with so many red flags and contradictions, that a court rejected her claim of rape.

Or, back in the real world, the jury believed her but decided that while what occurred was sexual assault it wasn’t rape. That isn’t the resounding victory for Trump or damning criticism of the victim you seem to want to believe.

I would suggest that you try reading the document. It wasn't "sexual assault", it was "sexual abuse", whatever that means. They checked yes on "Mr. Trump sexually abused Ms. Carrol?".

Most telling is that the two counts he was not charged with are "Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll?" and "Mr. Trump forcibly touched Ms. Carroll?". Apparently the court thinks that whatever sexual abuse means, it was not rape and did not involve being forcibly touched.

So, you are incorrect. You did not understand the words. It was not "sexual assault".

Ms. Carrol had claimed that she was forcefully raped in a dressing room, and the court rejected this claim.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth

« on: May 13, 2023, 12:20:47 PM »

Gravity: A Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton he clearly says that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time

Right. And he also references the moon landing as having happened. And says:
"The equator is an example of a great circle on the globe"
He also says that "Einstein's idea explained Galileo's result that all objects fall at the same rate", so that contradicts the notion that this is some great mystery for physics.

“the ground is accelerating upwards!” Yes! Yes, yes, yes! The ground is accelerating upwards!!!

The bit you bolded is, in the original article, a link to one of his YouTube videos. In the video he talks about astronauts in the ISS orbiting the earth.
At the end of that video he talks about how the earth is round and the upwards acceleration doesn't mean the earth is expanding. He then links to another of his videos where he explains that. To be honest I'm not sure I understood the other video but it's something to do with it accelerating through spacetime and not space. I think.

Anyway, the point is neither of these articles are advocating a Flat Earth.

It seems that you have wasted your time with a poor effort at deflection. I did not claim that they were advocating a Flat Earth. It was posted to show what the RE belief on gravity is.

A ball Earth pushing upwards in all directions means an expanding non-expanding ball, which is self-evidently nonsensical. An oxymoron. I don't care if some of these retards invoke Spacetime, The Mathemagical Medium to explain that. REAL physics uses space and time as measures, because that's what they are. They're NOT a physical medium.

One of those quotes says "the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory.". It's not "knocking you off", it's stopping you from continuing to freefall. However you will experience that as a push because you already have your freefalling momentum. To say that it's "knocking you off" or that the "the ground is accelerating upwards" is ridiculous.

Ridiculous as it may be, this is the current belief in gravity for the Round Earth model. The current model is that the earth is accelerating upwards through curved space to cause the Equivalence Principle effects.

Of course, he doesn't care about the physics or the cause of gravity, he only cares about singing Kumbaya. But he's right about the assumptions that rocketship-earthers have to make, isn't he?

Eric Dubey's density theory for gravity doesn't explain the laboratory equivalence principle experiments at all.

How would density make things weightless while in freefall?

Why would bodies of different masses and different inertial resistances to movement fall at the same rate?

Why would light behave as if the ceiling of a room was accelerating upwards with the doppler effect?

There are physical experiments which tell us that the physical earth is accelerating upwards. One must accept it or imagine a scenario to simulate it. He does not attempt to answer these questions and denies physical reality. Asking why the stars don't hit the earth is a question of deflection which does not erase the experimental evidence, and does not attempt answer the query. This is why the density gravity theory is currently poor.

30

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 13, 2023, 11:28:40 AM »

You're never going to find the "perfect" rape victim whose every action seems entirely sound and natural from a detached perspective. A determined skeptic will always be able to find at least something that seems odd about their behavior, whether it be them laughing about it, joking about it, going out with friends shortly afterwards, going on a date shortly afterwards, and so on. Everyone processes that kind of experience differently.

Ah yes, a rape victim so imperfect, with so many red flags and contradictions, that a court rejected her claim of rape.

31

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 12, 2023, 04:48:10 PM »

What rape victim doesn't fantasize about their rapist?

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth

« on: May 12, 2023, 03:13:42 AM »

No, the current model is not that the Earth is pushing you upwards - the current model is that the Earth is preventing you from falling through it and this results in the illusion that it's pushing you upwards. Even mainstream people get that wrong or don't explain it correctly.

So if different mainstream sources are getting it wrong, how do you know which is the correct explanation?

In Gravity: A Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton he clearly says that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time:

In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

It's not too hard to find the same description elsewhere, such as in this MIT class:

https://lenhoang.wordpress.com/2015/11/

Step by step, I got the students to almost figure out by themselves the most brilliant thoughts of Galileo, Newton and Einstein. The climax was when I repeatedly asked them: “If gravity is not a force — which is what Einstein claimed — why do apples fall?” It took them a while. They proposed different ideas. Mostly wrong. But that’s okay. Einstein himself got mostly wrong ideas. But, slowly, they got warmer. And warmer. Until, all of sudden, one student said half convincingly: “the ground is accelerating upwards!” Yes! Yes, yes, yes! The ground is accelerating upwards!!!

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth

« on: May 11, 2023, 02:29:49 AM »

Read the post above mine. Markjo wants to talk about the version with the ball falling to the ground now:

Putting aside the different mechanisms for a moment, which has the better direct physical evidence: a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing up to meet the ball?  From my frame of reference, the ball falling to the ground makes more sense.

I also said to put aside the mechanism.  I just asked whether a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing upwards has better direct evidence.  Sure, from the ball's frame of reference the earth rushing upwards makes sense.  However, from your frame of reference (the same one as the earth), the ball falling to the ground is what you would observe.

I think you mean to argue by Occam's Razor or something. Even limited to solely that with no further investigation, there should be at least as much evidence that you are being pushed upwards than there is that the ball is pulled downwards. While you drop the ball you feel a pressure of the Earth pushing against your feet.

The ball falling towards the earth may be  the simplest explanation based on what you were told as a child, and sure, I'll give you that one. That falling phenomenon is so dear that most people refuse to believe that modern gravity is anything but that. There is never any coherent argument here in favor of the earth pushing us upwards through curved space as the cause of gravity, despite that this is the current model.

This notion is so absurd that no one here ever tries arguing it directly. The best we get are absurdist arguments like "You can't tell for certain that the evidence is not REALLY an illusion from an unseen DIMENSION"... which is basically what the "Equivalence Principle" is: an attempt to put an absurd argument about illusions and processes in unseen dimensions on the same level of direct physical evidence.

34

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 10, 2023, 04:03:39 PM »

It's looking more like an activist court or judge was making the case more about things that happened in the present than the actual rape.

Dude. Take a breath.
If Trump had been completely exonerated you'd be championing it as a proof of the vindication of an innocent man.
He's lost 8 out of 10 counts and it's an "activist court or judge".
Maybe it's time to consider that Trump might not be the messiah and may in fact be a very naughty boy.

Did you bother to read those points you are championing? They don't work towards the rapist narrative. Seven of them are clearly talking about things that took place in the present, such as things that were published in 2022. It's debatable on whether the one about sexual abuse is talking about the present or past.

The main point in contention on the rape claim was rape, not the seven points of defamation and injury to reputation. The jury has decided that Trump is absolved of the rape accusations. They listened to her department store rape story and tossed it. If the jury isn't believing her on her primary claim of rape and aren't trusting the words that are coming out of her mouth, it is difficult to believe that these rape claims or 'sexual abuse' claims are going anywhere.

By association there is a good chance the defamation charges will be dropped too, considering that the jury rejected her rape claim and the sheer ridiculousness of 'defamation' when claiming that someone is lying about the rape allegation against you.

35

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 10, 2023, 12:10:08 AM »

The sexual abuse checkbox looks like could be talking about something in the present, such as Trump calling her undesirable and someone he wouldn't associate with sexually.

Yes, that must be it. Because calling someone unattractive is totally considered sexual abuse under the law and definitely something you can sue and win millions for.

No millions were awarded for that sexual abuse item. The document Markjo posted above lists out how much is awarded for which item. The items she was awarded millions for was whether she was injured as result of a October 2022 publication and his conduct.

36

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 09, 2023, 11:38:55 PM »

From that document apparently the jury believes that Trump did not rape her, but they believe that he sexually abused her.

Other other items in that list appear to be talking about things that happened in the present, such as Trump defaming her. The sexual abuse checkbox looks like could be talking about something in the present, such as Trump calling her undesirable and someone he wouldn't associate with sexually.

It's looking more like an activist court or judge was making the case more about things that happened in the present than the actual rape.

37

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 09, 2023, 07:51:10 PM »

The verdict needs to be uniform here. Something like "We believe the part where Trump slapped you on the rear end, but not the part where he penetrated and raped you" is ridiculous, as it suggests that the jury is questioning her story and primary claim. This isn't going anywhere.

38

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 09, 2023, 07:36:16 PM »

So the jury rejects the claim about being raped, but the jury thinks Trump sexually abused her in a different way that was not claimed? How does that work?

This is a win for Trump. This secondary verdict will be appealed and squashed then that will be it for this case.

39

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 09, 2023, 07:24:02 PM »

There are lots of reasons why many women don't immediately report rape or other sexual harassment or abuse, especially when committed by powerful people.

Yes, and one of those reasons is that they are lying headcases who admit in court that they love the tv shows that the powerful people who rape them go on to star in.

Maybe and maybe not.  That's for the jury to decide.

Looks like the jury has decided:

https://twitter.com/TheInsiderPaper/status/1656013691781824513?s=20

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth

« on: May 08, 2023, 06:48:01 PM »

Read the post above mine. Markjo wants to talk about the version with the ball falling to the ground now:

Putting aside the different mechanisms for a moment, which has the better direct physical evidence: a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing up to meet the ball?  From my frame of reference, the ball falling to the ground makes more sense.