781

Flat Earth Community / Re: Assessing "Kings Dethroned" by Gerrard Hickson

« on: June 22, 2022, 10:17:45 AM »

Chapters 1 & 2

After describing triangulation, as used by surveyors and on which the author is particularly keen, he introduces the astronomers Hipparchus of Nicaea, Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria, Nicolas Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei. As astronomers, their opinions and theories formed the standard views of astronomy in their times and Copernicus and Kepler especially laid the foundations of modern astronomy, but the author believes they all made a fundamental mistake: beginning at Hipparchus they all held that “the heavenly bodies (the stars) are infinitely distant.” (page 3)

The author never says where this saying is recorded; he only insists it was Hipparchus’s conviction and that the others accepted it at face value. We can’t check Hipparchus’s own writings, they’re lost; we mostly know them from Ptolemy. So, if Ptolemy, author of the standard text on geocentric astronomy used for 1400 years (the famous Almagest), built his theory of the universe while accepting this, you’d expect to find it in his writings, but you’d be disappointed – the Almagest doesn’t mention it. In fact, Ptolemy claims the stars are just beyond the orbit of Saturn, 20,000 earth radii from Earth (from Ptolemy’s Planetary Hypotheses, Hamm, 2011, p202).

I find it amusing that you fail to point to a direct reference to Ptolemy when laying claim as to what he believed, instead relying on the hearsay of others "to speak the truth," "you can trust us, this is what Ptolemy believed."

Nah, doesn't fly.

Yet when Hickson claims a direct quote of Hipparchus (i.e., "the heavenly bodies are infinitely distant," you offer nothing more than a statement a direct quote of Hipparchus or his work would be impossible, because we cannot check Hipparchus' writings.

You know you do not have access to them.

That's all.

Spare us the rest of the writing as it is rendered totally useless by this demonstration of your bias.

This demonstration indicates an inability to assess the printed material on a toothpaste tube, let alone a written work by a scientist.

I do beg your pardon, how remiss of me.

Therefore, the greatest distance of Saturn, which is adjacent to the sphere of the fixed stars, is 19,865 earth radii, and its least distance is 14,187 earth radii.
…
If all the diameters subtended the same apparent angle at their mean distances, the ratio of one diameter to another would equal the ratio of their distances, because the ratio of the circumferences of circles, as well as of similar arcs, one to another, is equal to the ratio of their radii. In the measure in which the diameter of the Sun is 1,210, the diameter of the Moon is 48; the diameter of Mercury 115 the diameter of Venus 622½; the diameter of Mars 5,040; the diameter of Jupiter 11,504; and the diameter of Saturn 17,026. The diameter of the first magnitude stars in this measure, assuming that their (sphere) is adjacent to the furthest distance of Saturn, is 19,865, or about 20,000; and the amount is surely not less than 20,000. But the diameters do not subtend equal angles, for the diameter of the Moon subtends an angle 1 1/3 times that of the Sun, and the diameters of the planets subtend angles smaller than the Sun in the ratios mentioned. It is clear that in the measure where the diameter of the Sun is 1,210, the diameter of the Moon is 64 because it is 1⅓ times 48; the diameter of Mercury is 8 because it is about 1/15 of 115; the diameter of Venus is 62 which is about of 622½; the diameter of Mars is 252 which is 1/20 of 5,040; the diameter of Jupiter is 959 which is about 1/12 of 11,504; the diameter of Saturn is 946 which is about 1/18 of 17,026; the diameters of the first magnitude stars is 1,000 which is 1/20 of 20,000, and they are certainly not smaller.

Planetary Hypotheses Book 1, part 2 by Claudius Ptolemy

https://pdfcoffee.com/download/goldstein-the-arabic-version-of-ptolemyx27s-planetary-hypotheses-2-pdf-free.html

Now perhaps you know of where Hickson gets his quotation, with a direct citation or reference? In turn, I find it slightly amusing Kings Dethroned is accepted as the trustworthy work of a scientist.

Yeah, I am wondering how you claim that something cannot be adjacent to the infinite.

Finite is adjacent to infinite.

So, Ptolemy made no claim resembling your analysis.

782

Flat Earth Community / Re: Assessing "Kings Dethroned" by Gerrard Hickson

« on: June 21, 2022, 02:34:28 PM »

Chapters 1 & 2

After describing triangulation, as used by surveyors and on which the author is particularly keen, he introduces the astronomers Hipparchus of Nicaea, Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria, Nicolas Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei. As astronomers, their opinions and theories formed the standard views of astronomy in their times and Copernicus and Kepler especially laid the foundations of modern astronomy, but the author believes they all made a fundamental mistake: beginning at Hipparchus they all held that “the heavenly bodies (the stars) are infinitely distant.” (page 3)

The author never says where this saying is recorded; he only insists it was Hipparchus’s conviction and that the others accepted it at face value. We can’t check Hipparchus’s own writings, they’re lost; we mostly know them from Ptolemy. So, if Ptolemy, author of the standard text on geocentric astronomy used for 1400 years (the famous Almagest), built his theory of the universe while accepting this, you’d expect to find it in his writings, but you’d be disappointed – the Almagest doesn’t mention it. In fact, Ptolemy claims the stars are just beyond the orbit of Saturn, 20,000 earth radii from Earth (from Ptolemy’s Planetary Hypotheses, Hamm, 2011, p202).

I find it amusing that you fail to point to a direct reference to Ptolemy when laying claim as to what he believed, instead relying on the hearsay of others "to speak the truth," "you can trust us, this is what Ptolemy believed."

Nah, doesn't fly.

Yet when Hickson claims a direct quote of Hipparchus (i.e., "the heavenly bodies are infinitely distant," you offer nothing more than a statement a direct quote of Hipparchus or his work would be impossible, because we cannot check Hipparchus' writings.

You know you do not have access to them.

That's all.

Spare us the rest of the writing as it is rendered totally useless by this demonstration of your bias.

This demonstration indicates an inability to assess the printed material on a toothpaste tube, let alone a written work by a scientist.

783

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 21, 2022, 02:14:03 PM »

The United States is not a "representative democracy."

Source?  The US Government disagrees with you.

I do not care what the piece of toilet paper website crap you presented has written on it.

The United States is a constitutional republic.

That is the official form of government within the United States.

I know you and the other revolutionary Marxists are pushing very hard, with your gaslighting, and even to the point of unleashing biological weapons on the populace, killing some of your own, to get your way (and you will) but not yet and not without an even more heavy cost.

The SCOTUS does not write laws, they determine the constitutionality of written law and the acts of governmental agencies/institutions. The decision of Roe v Wade was not law.

He never said they did.

No, he wrote they did.

Again, your selective use and neglect of inference is apparent for all to see.

784

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 21, 2022, 11:42:47 AM »

I certainly think they should. They are elected by "the people". What's the point in having a representative democracy if the government doesn't make laws which represent what "the people" want.

The United States is not a "representative democracy."

But I'd suggest a government should try and represent and make laws which reflect the majority viewpoint.

Do you really believe that? Or are you just stating that because it is your opinion that a majority of people worship Molech?

That viewpoint may change over time which is why we have regular elections, if the government aren't doing things the majority like then next time out they'll get voted out and a different lot can have a go.

Chuckle.

(This is where the UK FPTP system is particularly poor, we always end up with a government which only a minority voted for. Last time out the Tories got 43.6% of the vote and ended up with a huge majority) I didn't get my way, no one gave me a fair shake.

FTFY.

Meanwhile, SC justices are not elected, because they're supposed to be above the electorate's random whims.

This seems like a particularly poor system, they're placed by the incumbent president and are there till they die, right? So a president who happens to be in when a certain number of them die can back the SCOTUS with people who reflect his (or her!) own views and they're there till they die, or become incapacitated, no matter how public opinion shifts in the meantime.

Chuckle.

The SCOTUS does not write laws, they determine the constitutionality of written law and the acts of governmental agencies/institutions. The decision of Roe v Wade was not law.

If the US Congress attempted to pass a bill legalizing abortion, everyone would see precisely how the people of the US felt about abortion. It wouldn't survive any initial discussion, let alone committee.

Imagine the people coming to live in a neighborhood (let alone country) of your making...they'd all be dead in a week.

But, that is the goal of run o' the mill Malthusians such as you and others here.

You worship Margaret Sanger and cheer for eugenics and ethnocide, just as she did.

785

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies

« on: April 06, 2022, 10:19:54 AM »

"Oh my god! Teachers cannot talk about their sex lives to children!"

REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

786

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: April 06, 2022, 05:33:06 AM »

A voice so strong, you cannot help but listen.

787

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBT School Teachers

« on: April 05, 2022, 03:19:10 PM »

... therefore children will instantly become gay if they hear about same-sex partnerships in school.

Who said kids will become gay if they talk to gay people?

My kids will just beat the hell out of a faggot if the faggot chooses to make it a topic of conversation out in public.

788

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBT School Teachers

« on: April 05, 2022, 02:37:26 PM »

I can call to mind a number of occasions when my teachers stepped out from the standard curriculum to, you know, actually TEACH us something. Did me no harm.

Considering that you are here arguing in favor of sexual orientation and gender identity LGBTQ education for K-3, I question that.

Tumeni and AATW advocate starting with the wee little kids as early as possible.

789

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBT School Teachers

« on: April 04, 2022, 04:53:35 PM »

The blog at study.com is nothing to rely on regarding the legality of such discussions and job responsibilities.

Someone will bring an EEOC complaint in the US or a lawsuit regarding sexual harassment regarding this entire situation and probably soon.

I agree, but Tom cited it as a source so I wanted to point out that his own source paints a more nuanced picture than he would like.

That source that you are nutpicking.

Tell us all how it negates the ethics clauses in the language concerning personal life information sharing in the multiple contracts that Tom also provided.

790

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBT School Teachers

« on: April 04, 2022, 04:42:04 PM »

I do not need to ask myself anything at all.

If you have an issue with a male teacher telling a pupil that they have a husband, but don't have an issue with them telling the pupil they have a wife then I'd suggest it's you who has the problem. You may have grown up in a world where men couldn't marry men - my parents grew up in a world where it was actively illegal. But that's not the world we live in now.

Isn't this common sense? I wouldn't expect a teacher to be discussing the details of their sex life or marriage issues with kids, but just mentioning they have a husband is hardly going to start a discussion with a 6 year old about gay sex. What problem are we actually solving here?

If frogs had wings, then Clyde wouldn't be bumping his ass on the ground while moderating elsewhere either, but the issue here is not about what problems you may think I have or the problems that I KNOW you have.

The issue is about the legality of discussing things relative to sexuality with children pre-K through 3rd grade.

You are for it.

I am not.

End of story.

791

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBT School Teachers

« on: April 04, 2022, 02:37:35 PM »

The blog at study.com is nothing to rely on regarding the legality of such discussions and job responsibilities.

Someone will bring an EEOC complaint in the US or a lawsuit regarding sexual harassment regarding this entire situation and probably soon.

792

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBT School Teachers

« on: April 04, 2022, 02:31:16 PM »

What does the statement "Do not discuss your personal life with students," mean if it does not mean exactly what it states?

Well, it's open to interpretation isn't it? What do you regard as "personal life"?
One of the pieces of guidance Tom posted said something about not mentioning a hard divorce. And sure, that is quite personal.
But the fact that you're married - if someone asks you that are you seriously saying you're reticent to answer because it's personal? It's a pretty basic piece of information.

You need to ask yourself honestly - do you have an issue with a male teacher telling pupils they're married...or does it only become an issue for you if they're married to a man?

I do not need to ask myself anything at all.

Anyone wasting their time and my money not performing the job for which they are hired, within all designated guidelines and parameters, should be dismissed.

I don't give a shit what the topic is.

793

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBT School Teachers

« on: April 04, 2022, 02:27:34 PM »

What does the statement "Do not discuss your personal life with students," mean if it does not mean exactly what it states?

When does a remark, or example become a discussion?  By any definition of the several I have just read, a teacher mentioning something about themselves would not constitute a discussion. A discussion requires parties to exchange ideas about the topic.

True, but discussions commence with the uttering of a remark by one party.

I fail to understand why a remark concerning one's personal sexual orientation is necessary in a public education institution.

794

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: April 04, 2022, 02:25:05 PM »

You accept the evidence, I do not, for the reasons I presented.

What reasons were those? I don't remember seeing any.

This is obviously a statement regarding your memory, rather than my reasons.

At least I don't remember seeing any evidence to support your reasons if you had any to begin with.

The evidence is right outside my window.

Apparently, you just dismiss evidence for "reasons"? I hope you never get selected for a jury trial.

And apparently you just accept press releases as evidence.

795

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: April 04, 2022, 11:15:25 AM »

A more positive spin on the concept is simply that it's people supporting laws, policies, or agendas that they feel benefit or protect those of the group or class of people which they identify with or belong to. Politicians of both parties have for decades made explicit calls for the support of members of various groups or classes, insisting that their election will be the best outcome for people of that group or class in particular. It's hardly a phenomenon unique to Democrats.

You think that's positive, uh?

796

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBT School Teachers

« on: April 04, 2022, 11:13:00 AM »

If it's already in all of the ethics, code of conduct literature, why this new law?

Because none of this stuff means what the homophobic bigots want to pretend it means.
None of them have ever had a problem with a teacher mentioning their spouse. But suddenly when the spouse is the same sex as the teacher they need to protect little Johnny from knowing about this perversion. Although obviously it’s them who has the problem, not little Johnny. Kids don’t have this sort of bigotry, they learn it. Hopefully these sorts of attitudes will die out with the bigots.

What does the statement "Do not discuss your personal life with students," mean if it does not mean exactly what it states?

797

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBT School Teachers

« on: April 03, 2022, 10:12:09 AM »

So the answer is no, you don't really understand what he was saying there since you can't use your own words to describe it.

He was pointing out your first-grade teacher wasn't talking to you about issues relating to his/her private life outside of the school and if they were, they were unjustified in doing so.

I understood perfectly well what the message was.

You don't.

Bye.

798

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: April 02, 2022, 04:16:45 PM »

You seem awfully unhappy over rejection.

Nobody is "unhappy", we merely disagree with you, and are more persistent than you are comfortable with.

Persistent in answering for others is what you mean, right?

Or was this a prepared statement that you are following?

799

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: April 02, 2022, 11:35:25 AM »

This thread is about photographs?

The video is a timelapse of individual frames, yes. So it could be regarded as such.

The original broadcast was a live stream, as far as I can gather.

Correct. Action80 would rather argue semantics than actually read what I said. It was a broadcast but they may as well be called “photographs” because it was every 5 minutes. Or call it footage. I don’t care.

Again:
All the POSSIBLE evidence that could exist for space travel and a globe… DOES exist. It doesn’t get much better than what we have: literal photographs, videos, jobs, engineering etc.

You have already decided that no evidence will make you happy, because all the possible evidence does in fact exist.

You accept the evidence, I do not, for the reasons I presented.

You seem awfully unhappy over rejection.

Hopefully, you can move on in your life.

800

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBT School Teachers

« on: April 02, 2022, 06:26:13 AM »

I didn't ask you to quote what he said, I asked what you thought he meant.

Copying what someone else wrote is no replacement for actually answering a question. Try and use your own words.

He was pointing out your first-grade teacher wasn't talking to you about issues relating to his/her private life outside of the school and if they were, they were unjustified in doing so.

You got that, from this?  "Yes, I don't doubt you that your first grade teacher taught you all about your body."

It's pretty clear you are just paraphrasing what was discussed earlier in the conversation, as none of what you just said was mentioned in the quote above.  Try telling me what that quite means without copying bits of the conversation before it.

Yeah, that is what I got from it.

Try to learn to read using inference and stop quoting the goddamn post and use your own words rather than quoting, since those are the rules you like.

What's sick is you advocating for sex education in schools for pre-k through third grade students.

Maybe you should just go ahead and change your screen name to Aqualung and get it over with.

As a matter of fact, just dole out #1, #2, etc, to the lot of you.

You might think it's sick for a lesbian teacher to mention she's married, but I don't.  Just like it's not sick for a straight teacher to mention she's married.  Nothing wrong with either of those. People get married, do you think children shouldn't know this?

If you think one is sick, that's your problem.  Teaching children to be homophobic is sick.

Hyperbole is your best friend, I see.

Coming from you, that's pretty ironic.

Irony does not negate truthfulness.