21

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Physicist Brian Cox on Universal Acceleration

« on: June 01, 2025, 09:34:19 PM »

Frankly, the wiki gets this bass ackwards. It also mentions a fictitious "vibrating gravity theory" – where did that derp come from?

That is expressly described in the Wiki. The gravimeter is a seismometer which is detecting "gravity waves". Immediately prior to the Corrections for Latitude section there is the section Gravity Wave Theory

Gravity Wave Theory

A study titled Seafloor Compliance Observed by Long-Period Pressure and Displacement Measurement uses gravimeters to study the gravity of the ocean. On p.2, para.4 its authors call the gravimeter a long-period seismometer.

  “ We have collected vertical compliance data using a gravimeter (long-period seismometer) and a differential pressure gauge ”

On the same page we read about the theory behind the measurements:



We see that the theory behind the measurements involve the theories of "Gravity Waves" and "Infragravity Waves". Wikipedia describes them as:

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

“ In fluid dynamics, gravity waves are waves generated in a fluid medium or at the interface between two media when the force of gravity or buoyancy tries to restore equilibrium. An example of such an interface is that between the atmosphere and the ocean, which gives rise to wind waves.

A gravity wave results when fluid is displaced from a position of equilibrium. The restoration of the fluid to equilibrium will produce a movement of the fluid back and forth, called a wave orbit.[1] Gravity waves on an air–sea interface of the ocean are called surface gravity waves or surface waves, while gravity waves that are within the body of the water (such as between parts of different densities) are called internal waves. Wind-generated waves on the water surface are examples of gravity waves, as are tsunamis and ocean tides. ”

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

“ Infragravity waves are surface gravity waves with frequencies lower than the wind waves – consisting of both wind sea and swell – thus corresponding with the part of the wave spectrum lower than the frequencies directly generated by forcing through the wind.

Infragravity waves are ocean surface gravity waves generated by ocean waves of shorter periods. The amplitude of infragravity waves is most relevant in shallow water, in particular along coastlines hit by high amplitude and long period wind waves and ocean swells. Wind waves and ocean swells are shorter, with typical dominant periods of 1 to 25 s. In contrast, the dominant period of infragravity waves is typically 80 to 300 s,[1] which is close to the typical periods of tsunamis, with which they share similar propagation properties including very fast celerities in deep water. This distinguishes infragravity waves from normal oceanic gravity waves, which are created by wind acting on the surface of the sea, and are slower than the generating wind. ”

Essentially, the "Gravity Waves" are slight motions and vibrations picked up by the gravimeter (seismometer). A chart is provided, showing the frequencies that the winds and tides appear in:



In line with the previous seismometer section, the tides appear on the low frequency bands.

This isn't the direct measurement of gravity that you want this to be. The unit of measurement is hertz (hz). These are tiny vibrations, hence the many references that gravimeters are seismometers and that seismometers can detect gravity.

22

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 28, 2025, 04:47:50 PM »

Russia is mobilizing and attacking areas beyond the breakaway regions to take out military assets, supply lines, or related infrastructure its opponent relies on such as power stations. They are only attempting to occupy it in the imaginations of leftists.

If Russia wanted Kiev to be a hole in the ground, it would be a hole in the ground, even with non-nuclear munitions. There are missiles which have no defense. Instead, Russia has been treating Ukraine with kiddie gloves. Putin knows that the government which took over Ukraine in 2004/2005 by force was an illegitimate CIA-backed coup. Prior to that Ukraine was a close ally of Russia, even entrusted for a time with nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union.

What has been happening is an elaborate war game between super powers. Ukraine is the victim, and its people never wanted its illegitimate government or to be involved in any of this  However, as valiantly as Russia has tried to contain the damage in the face of innumerable dirty tricks like staging military assets in empty schools for propaganda purposes, it may be too late and this may soon go too far. Trump told us that he is going to end the war and has finally released his plan.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14752757/Trump-seriously-considering-lifting-restrictions-Ukraine-fight-Russia-declaring-Putin-absolutely-crazy.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490



Trump is clearly not doing it to give Ukraine advantage, given his recent criticism of Zelensky and Ukraine. Once Ukraine starts launching long range missiles into Russia, that's it. The kiddie gloves will come off and Ukraine will be a wasteland.

23

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 27, 2025, 06:05:30 PM »

If Russia wanted Ukraine it would have had it in the early stages of the war. Russia wants to be ethical about it and so it is only taking the breakaway regions. It's not a coincidence that its current territories are the areas which wanted to break away.

24

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 25, 2025, 01:31:47 PM »

So, what do the MAGA crowd think if Trump's FEMA denying aid to North Carolina?

You know, the shit he said Biden did...

Considering that there were notable articles that Biden's FEMA spent hundreds of millions supporting illegal immigrants in the same year they were having relief shortages, that is rich to accuse Trump's FEMA of not having money for disaster relief. In this article Biden's FEMA response is not to deny the accusations but to claim that it still had enough money for disaster relief purposes, as if they could predict the future and know how much is needed.

However, this claim about Trump's FEMA denying funds appears to be false. FEMA has rejected the 100% proposals because they give a sizable portion and expect the state to pay the rest.

https://twitter.com/AndySpecht/status/1926010842744520948

From the Politifact article linked above:

If Your Time is short

Federal Emergency Management Agency did reject a request from North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein.
 
Stein asked for FEMA to continue paying for 100% of certain recovery costs.
 
FEMA rejected that request, but will continue paying for 90% of those costs.

Another quote from the article states:

In a statement to PolitiFact NC, FEMA’s press office said that the agency normally covers 75% of the cost — but will continue paying for 90% of debris removal.

The norm is to pay 75%, and it is a special exception that they are paying 90%.

25

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Physicist Brian Cox on Universal Acceleration

« on: May 25, 2025, 12:53:33 PM »

Some of the absolute gravimeter articles you posted actually reference corrections. See this:

https://www.sirgas.org/fileadmin/docs/Boletines/Bol24/45_Guaimaraes_et_al_2019_Absolute_gravimetry_SouthAmerica.pdf

Measurements 2010 - Today

The A-10 nº 032

- The process is controlled by a computer that corrects the
luni-solar attraction, the effect of rotation of the Earth,
the ocean load and the barometric pressure, providing a
final “g” value;
- The final value of absolute gravity is an adjustment of all
observations in the different sets, after corrections.

The "effect of the rotation of the Earth" is the difference of g you are referring to between the equator and poles, which is allegedly due to the earth's rotation. The above section is saying that there is a built-in correction. Since a correction is needed to account for it in the final end product data, it tells us that the gravimeter is not detecting this.

26

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Physicist Brian Cox on Universal Acceleration

« on: May 25, 2025, 10:48:03 AM »

The Wiki covers that. See the section Corrections for Latitude. There are absolute gravimeters examples where a formula is applied with values for the latitude variations between the equator and poles.

Corrections for Latitude

It is asserted that gravimetry has shown trends at different latitudes, and so this is validation of the idea that it is really measuring "gravity". We find that this assertion is unfounded.

From a university course on gravity surveying we read:

http://www.geol-amu.org/notes/m10-1-4.htm

“ Recall that, if the Earth were an homogeneous ellipsoid, the value of gravity at the surface would be given by:

g = g0 (1 + k1 sin2 ϕ – k2 sin2 2ϕ)

The objective of gravity surveys is to look for deviations from this reference value. ”

If the objective of gravity surveys is merely to look for deviations from a round earth reference model with the vibrating gravity theory, then the final computed number in meters per second squared would becomes meaningless for the purpose of discussion. Any modifications to the reference values are constructed on an entirely theoretical basis.

The above page tells us that there is a theoretical model and that the goal of gravity surveys is to modify that model. Further down we see, among the list of corrections to be made, the latitude correction:

“ Latitude correction: The earth's poles are closer to the centre of the equator than is the equator. However, there is more mass under the equator and there is an opposing centrifugal acceleration at the equator. The net effect is that gravity is greater at the poles than the equator.

For values relative to a base station, gravity increases as you move north, so subtract 0.811 sin(2a) mGal/km as you move north from the base station. (where a is latitude). ”

We read that we are subtracting or adding values to the reference model and the data to make the corrections for latitude, which is very different than using the data to determine the latitude. The claim that the final number is meaningful as evidence to showcase any particular point may be fallacious.

Note: The reference 'for values relative to a base station' may imply that this is referring to a relative gravimeter.

United Nations University

On p.9 of Seismic Activity, Gravity, and Magnetic Measurements by LaGeo as part of the United Nations University Geothermal Training Program we read:

“ 3.6 Reduction of data

Gravimeters do not give direct measurements of gravity; rather, a meter reading is taken which is then multiplied by an instrumental calibration factor to produce a value of observed gravity (known as gobs). The correction process is known as gravity data reduction or reduction to the geoid. The various corrections that can be applied are the following. ”

The section goes on to list a number of corrections, including corrections for latitude and elevation, which is not data contained in the measurement readings:

“ Latitude correction (gn) - Correction subtracted from gobs that accounts for earth's elliptical shape and rotation. The gravity value that would be observed if the earth were a perfect (no geologic or topographic complexities) rotating ellipsoid is referred to as the normal gravity.

gn = 978031.85 * (1.0 + 0.005278895 sin 2 (lat) + 0.000023462 sin4(lat)) (mGal) (4)

where lat is latitude  ”

  “ Free-air corrected gravity (gfa) - The free-air correction accounts for gravity variations caused by elevation differences in the observation locations ”

These are artificial corrections which are added or subtracted to the data and reference model. If the earth were really elliptical or rotating, and if the devices were really measuring gravity in full, then these artificial corrections would not be necessary. It is seen that the devices are seismometers and that these corrections are artificially added into the data as modifications.

Absolute Gravimeter Corrections

A common response to some of the references above is to declare that even though the sources do not specify, the sources must solely be talking about relative gravimeters, and that absolute gravimeters are completely different devices which measures gravity in full. Yet, despite this argument we see that even absolute gravimeters determine local gravity through a model involving the gravitational acceleration of the equator and poles.

Terrain-aided navigation with an atomic gravimeter

Introduction

"The purpose of the paper is to provide a solution for surface or sub-surface navigation by Terrain Matching using an absolute gravimeter."

On the third page:

III. A METHOD TO MAP THE GRAVITY ANOMALY WITH THE ATOMIC GRAVIMETER



Elsewhere it describes that "Φ is the longitude and λ the latitude. g(Φ, λ) is the modulus of the local gravity acceleration vector"

To determine the local gravity acceleration the device invokes a model involving an equation using gravitational acceleration at the equator and poles with the latitude, and the results are then added to the gravity anomaly (Last line: g(Φ, λ) [Local gravity] = g0(λ)[standard gravity accounting for latitude gravity gradient] + ga(Φ, λ) [gravity anomaly]) We see similar equations (sin 2 lat) as in the previous latitude corrections. Why should this be necessary to involve the gravitational accelerations of the equator and poles to determine the local gravity? If an absolute gravimeter is measuring gravity in full then it should measure gravity in full.

Mobile Atom Interferometer

Similarly, we read the following about latitude corrections for a precision free-fall device:

Gravity surveys using a mobile atom interferometer

Introduction

“ atomic gravimeters rely on matter-wave interferometry with a freely falling atomic cloud ”

~

Latitude and terrain correction

“ We correct the gravity values collected in the Berkeley Hills for latitude variations using the WGS84 ellipsoidal gravity formula (38) to create latitude-corrected gravity anomalies. ”

~

References and notes for (38)

“ 38. Department of Defense World Geodetic System 1984: Its definition and relationships with local geodetic systems (NIMA Technical Report 8350.2, 3rd ed., National Imagery and Mapping Agency, Washington, DC, USA, 1997). ”

We again see a precision free-fall gravimeter which is corrected for latitude.

WGS84 Ellipsoidal Gravity Formula

On p.13 of a paper titled Invited Review Article: Measurements of the Newtonian constant of gravitation, G we see a summary of the WGS84 ellipsoidal gravity formula:

“ The local acceleration is a sum of the centrifugal acceleration and the gravitational acceleration. At the equator, the local acceleration is reduced by the centrifugal acceleration. This effect is exacerbated by the fact that the figure of the Earth is in response to the centrifugal acceleration an oblate spheroid. Hence the polar radius is smaller than the equatorial radius, increasing the gravitational part of the local acceleration towards the pole. A model describing this normal gravity g0 approximately, the so-called reference ellipsoid, is WGS8497,

and Φ denotes the latitude. This formula describes the theoretical local acceleration on an equipotential surface at mean sea level. It includes both gravitational and centrifugal potentials. ”

This is a very similar equation to the absolute gravimeter local gravity equation given in a section previous to this [8](sin 2 lat).

The text around this p.13 quote also strongly indicates that the WGS84 equation for the gravity variations was determined based on the weight change experiments conducted at different latitudes and which affects pendulums and scales. From the sentence immediately prior to the above quote:

“In 1672, Jean Richer noticed on a trip to French Guiana that the oscillation frequency of a seconds pendulum depends on the geographical latitude ”

We hence see that the gravimeters, including absolute gravimeters, are adjusting the output for local gravity based on a latitudinal formula that was determined by a different experiment (Note: This is a determination which may be flawed in interpretation; see Weight Variation by Latitude). Once again, if the absolute gravimeter is measuring gravity in full, why should equations involving gravity's latitudinal differences of the equator and poles be necessary to determine local gravity?

Absolute gravimeter end product data employ latitude correction formulas, which gives the supposed difference between the equator and the poles. These are values which were derived from a different experiment.

An absolute gravimeter is absolute because the falling object is disconnected from the earth. It allows the vibrations affecting the mirror in the device to be studied with greater accuracy because there is an independent object to compare it to. See this section from the Wiki page:

Absolute Gravimeter Description

From Geophysics From Terrestrial Time‐Variable Gravity Measurements we read about a device that does involve a falling object. The interest is in the tiny noises that affect the mirror in the device while the body is in free fall and disconnected from the Earth:

  “ In an absolute gravimeter, a test laser beam bounces off the free‐falling body before being reflected back to the interferometer, where the test beam interferes with a reference one. While the dropped mass is completely isolated from the Earth's vibrations during its fall, anthropogenic and natural microseismic noises continuously modify the position of the reference mirror of the interferometer. Even in the absence of an earthquake, the displacements of the Earth's surface are persistent and location and season dependent, reaching up to a few micrometers close to the coast (Kedar et al., 2008), while one should measure the free‐fall distance at the 1 nm precision level in order to achieve a precision on gravity of 10 nm/s^2. In the first white‐light gravimeter, the measurements of gravity were corrected by using the records from a 1 s period seismometer. Early in the 1980s, Rinker (1983) developed the so‐called Super Spring, that is, a modified seismometer providing an inertial reference system at periods shorter than about 1 min—the suspended mass of a seismometer provides an inertial reference frame, independent from the motions of the Earth, at periods shorter than the resonance frequency (Aki & Richards, 2002). The challenge consisted in producing a suspension device of which the free period is about 1 min, that is, longer than the periods ranging 5–20 s, where microseism is the strongest. ”

27

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Physicist Brian Cox on Universal Acceleration

« on: May 24, 2025, 03:22:57 PM »

TL/DR: measured acceleration values of between 9.829 m/s² (Thule, northern Greenland) and 9.772 m/s² (Quito, Ecuador) are documented: these are 0.3% larger and 0.29% smaller than the aforementioned 9.8 metres/second². Acceleration is generally larger nearer the poles, smaller nearer the equator.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276278343_Absolute_gravity_measurements_in_South_Africa#pf6
https://library.arcticportal.org/2513/1/A20130416.pdf
https://www.sirgas.org/fileadmin/docs/Boletines/Bol24/45_Guaimaraes_et_al_2019_Absolute_gravimetry_SouthAmerica.pdf
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA099017.pdf
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2000GL012438
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350145419_Twelve_Years_of_High_Frequency_Absolute_Gravity_Measurements_at_the_UK%27s_Space_Geodesy_Facility_Systematic_Signals_and_Comparison_with_SLR_Heights/fulltext/609da3ca299bf147699628f2/Twelve-Years-of-High-Frequency-Absolute-Gravity-Measurements-at-the-UKs-Space-Geodesy-Facility-Systematic-Signals-and-Comparison-with-SLR-Heights.pdf
https://geodaesie.info/images/zfv/133-jahrgang-2008/downloads/zfv_2008_3_Timmen_et-al.pdf
https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/217/2/1141/5304614
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232822567_Absolute_gravity_values_in_Norway
https://www.academia.edu/4418215/Absolute_gravity_measurements_in_India_and_Antarctica
https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/89119479/PHD_JEMNI_1_.pdf

Acceleration also varies within countries. Within the US, documented acceleration figures vary from 9.788 (Texas) to 9.805 (Missouri) to 9.819 m/s² (Alaska).  Norway ranges from 9.818 (Stavanger) to 9.827 m/s² (Honningsvåg). Antarctica records values of 9.826 (twice) and 9.825m/s².

This is talking about gravimeters. We have a page on this here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

Considering that there are seismometers which have a "gravimeter mode" and there are quotes that a gravimeter is really a seismometer, it's clear that there is something wrong with your interpretation on how this device is measuring gravity. There are also maps showing that the gravitational anomalies across the earth are associated with the seismic zones, further questioning what this device is actually measuring.

28

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Physicist Brian Cox on Universal Acceleration

« on: May 24, 2025, 03:13:31 PM »

Einstein already figured that out.  That you don't understand it isn't surprising, a lot RE physicists have trouble understanding it too.  It's been said that if you think you understand relativity, then you don't understand relativity.

It is correct that a lot of physicists say that they don't understand general relativity, and this thread shows why. It's based on "We know that the earth is round, so it HAS to be this way" and proceeds to creatively theorize elaborate metaphysics of an earth which is exploding apart from itself interdimensionally to explain the acceleration effects.

It's confusing why these mechanisms are being proposed because it is not science, it's a band-aid. When assessed on the topic of the earth's shape we further understand the intricacies of general relativity and the necessity for this.

GR is one of the most thoroughly tested theories ever, starting with the precession of Mercury's orbit and astronomical observations of gravitational lensing.  The apparent upward acceleration of the earth's surface is merely a consequence of an otherwise stationary round earth moving through the time element of curved space-time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

In that link all of the terrestrial tests are the equivalence principle tests that the earth is accelerating upwards.

The astronomical observations such as starlight bending and mercury are indirect inferences. For example:

- Is the only way to explain the observation of light bending bend towards the sun is if the earth is exploding apart from itself in another dimension? Please connect the dots there.
- Is the only way to account for an issue in the precession of Mercury is if the earth is exploding apart from itself in another dimension? Please connect the dots.

There is not a direct connection to the underlying mechanism proposed. It is possible to create different theories of gravity where light bends towards the Sun.

In 1957 Physicist Robert Dicke complained about the shoddy state of General Relativity as compared to other fields:

“ Dicke’s thinking about his change of direction of research is illustrated by these quotes from his 1957 Chapel Hill paper, The Experimental Basis of Einstein’s Theory (Dicke 1957a, p. 5):

"It is unfortunate to note that the situation with respect to the experimental checks of general relativity theory is not much better than it was a few years after the theory was discovered – say in 1920. This is in striking contrast to the situation with respect to quantum theory, where we have literally thousands of experimental checks.
...
Professor Wheeler has already discussed the three famous checks of general relativity; this is really very flimsy evidence on which to hang a theory.
...
It is a great challenge to the experimental physicist to try to improve this situation; to try to devise new experiments and refine old ones to give new checks on the theory. We have been accustomed to thinking that gravity can play no role in laboratory-scale experiments; that the gradients are too small, and that all gravitational effects are equivalent to a change of frame of reference. Recently I have been changing my views about this."

In the second of these quotes Dicke was referring to Wheeler’s summary comments on the classical three tests of general relativity: the orbit of the planet Mercury, the gravitational deflection of light passing near the Sun, and the gravitational redshift of light from stars. ”

Quantum Theory had thousands of checks. General Relativity only had a few, and its state has hardly improved today in comparison. It is 2025 and you are still citing Mercury and light bending as your proof.

Beyond that, there has been disagreement these few proofs even work. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Precession_of_Mercury%27s_Orbit

29

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 21, 2025, 10:28:00 AM »

Trump is correct in both his choice of terminology

Nope. He said "stage 9".
Twice.
The word "stage" doesn't even appear on the web page you linked to. Whoopsie!

It's a cancer grading system, which means it can be called a stage. Minimal research would have saved you the effort of being wrong again:

https://www.google.com/search?q=cancer+%22gleason+stage%22+-biden

In this google link we can see cancer researchers remarking "Gleason stage 3" and other references.

30

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 21, 2025, 09:49:24 AM »

So you agree that Trump’s comments are indefensible and are reduced to changing the subject and a weak attempt at whataboutism.

Actually I see that Trump immediately sent out press releases expressing condolences, public statements that it's very sad, while you haven't done anything except essentially "Biden has prostate cancer <link>", while alleging Trump's lack of public sympathy. You could have expressed at least a little sympathy or condolences in your initial public responses, but did not. I am pointing out your hypocrisy and your arbitrary "rules for thee but not for me" attitude.

And do you agree that his repeated use of the phrase “stage 9” demonstrates his own cognitive decline?

I don't see any cognitive decline. The Gleason system is a grading system specific to prostate cancer which ranks cancers at different levels.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/22087-gleason-score



Joe Biden has a Gleason Score of 9, so Trump is correct in both his choice of terminology and the number Joe Biden is at on the scale. You are critically wrong due to making blind assumptions without research, as usual.

31

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 20, 2025, 10:59:27 PM »

He does briefly say it's "sad" but any normal human would have leant more heavily on that than all the other stuff he's rambling on about.

Then why haven't you expressed your sympathies or sadness like a normal person would do in the two posts you've made about this now?

32

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 18, 2025, 02:16:13 PM »

The difference is that CEOs and celebrities aren't public servants. It absolutely matters if people are spending money on the president's businesses to try and curry favor with him.

Wrong. When you pay a business for a product or service you get something in return. It is a stretch to say that a business owner owes something more to someone who already bought a good or a service from him.

In contrast to owning and operating a business, politicians regularly solicit and receive millions of dollars through donations. Politician like Obama were asking for large sums of money from donators, even in his last term. Why should we believe that a business owner is more likely to be corrupt than a politician who is handed a wad of cash by a corporation for vague reasons through donation companies?

What you believe should happen is also irrelevant to the fact that Trump's voters knew that he would be running his businesses once elected, especially when he was elected for his second term. Trump made that very clear, and people supported him for it, especially in light of the malicious prosecution against Trump and his companies. The voters wanted this. That is called democracy, and supersedes your small leftist complaint.

We were doing just fine with the expectation that the president should not be making money on the side before Trump came along, and we'll continue to do just fine by taking the next step of codifying it into law.

Laws which are codified through Congress are the result of democracy and representative democracy. Congress votes on the matter, and people vote for congress members. In this case, the people have already voted on this.

The fact that businesses have existed long before the creation of the country and neither the founders of the United States, its many congresses, or its courts up to present have had an issue with this also shows that you are on the losing side of this and do not have a supportable argument. You would be better off with a list of examples of corruption which have harmed the country through this mechanism, rather than handwaving a potential one in contrived scenarios where people owe strangers favors from unsolicited money and without agreement that a favor is owed.

33

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 17, 2025, 01:28:47 PM »

I just see a bung of random clips without context. "If I said that, that's quid pro quo", said what? Quid pro quo requires a pro quo. I don't see that Trump has offered anything in return.

I also don't see that there is a history of presidents rejecting gifts. The gifts given to presidents go to the National Archives, which is where the plane is going. So I am not sure what you guys are whining about, exactly.

That's from the june 28 debate.


"Joe could be a convicted felon with all of the things that he’s done. He’s done horrible things. All of the death caused at the border, telling the Ukrainian people that, we’re going to want a billion dollars or you change the prosecutor. Otherwise, you’re not getting a billion dollars. If I ever said that, that’s quid pro quo. That – we’re not going to do anything. We’re not going to give you a billion dollars unless you change your prosecutor having to do with his son. This man is a criminal."

Yes, what Joe biden did is close to quid pro quo because it is a political act in exchange for a financial favor. But more accurately it's closer to blackmail and corruption because it was money they were already supposed to get, which he was threatening to withhold unless they fired the prosecutor, which would coincidentally benefit his son.

I don't see how this relates to the plane situation, however.

Also, Obama is well known for having rejected gifts.

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/01/politics/barack-obama-michelle-obama-gifts

But Obama, like any other federal employee, is legally barred from accepting any of it outright.

This was in 2015.

It says that he can't accept it "outright", by which they mean "personally." Read the rest of that section for context. In the previous paragraph in the same section and topic it says that the Obama Presidency did accept the gifts:

"In the Obamas’ case, most of the items have been dispensed to the National Archives, while a few, including wine and perishables, are handled by the Secret Service."

The Obama Presidency accepted the gifts, even if they didn't get put on display and were not particularly paraded. This affirms that the norm is for the US President to accept the gifts, and that they ultimately go to the National Archives. It is actually inappropriate and rude to tell a King or Queen that you don't want the gift that they made efforts to prepare for you.

34

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 17, 2025, 12:05:10 PM »

I just see a bunch of random clips without context. "If I said that, that's quid pro quo", said what? Quid pro quo requires a pro quo. I don't see that Trump has offered anything in return.

I also don't see that there is a history of presidents rejecting gifts. The gifts given to presidents go to the National Archives and Records Administration, which is where the plane is going. Considering that this is how it has worked in the past, I am not sure what you guys are whining about.

35

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 16, 2025, 04:25:26 PM »

Not according to the domestic and foreign emoluments clauses in the Constitution.  Why do you think that Trump went through the motions of (partially) divesting himself from the Trump Organization for his first term?  This time around he isn't even pretending.

Actually, in this case, he is following US protocols. See this gift to the Obama daughters. The Obamas could not personally keep the items and they were later turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration, the same federal agency Trump is turning the plane over to.

https://www.invaluable.com/blog/most-extravagant-gifts/?srsltid=AfmBOor2izZKBc6aurp0YChaqfJTRqKwmezVct7_B9HqkS5MfAk6g2hw

In 2014, just before his passing, the late Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, King of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at the time, showered then president Obama with gifts. Among the swag was a white gold watch estimated at over $60,000, a jewelry set for First Lady estimated at over $500,000, and jewelry sets worth an estimated $80,000 for the First Daughters, Sasha and Malia Obama. In all, Abdullah presented the Obama family with gifts worth an estimated $1.3 million. While the exchange caused a minor political controversy at the time, many people didn’t realize that the Obama family could not actually keep any of the items. While the gifts were accepted in order to avoid a cultural snafu, per US protocol they must later be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration to avoid any potential conflicts of interest.

The Trump Library is part of the same federal agency:

https://www.trumplibrary.gov - "The Trump Presidential Library is part of the Presidential Libraries system administered by the National Archives and Records Administration, a federal agency."

The only minor clarification I see in any of this is that the President can use the items on official business, but cannot personally keep the items after he leaves office. That's is like saying that if a CEO of a company is given a ceremonial and historic baseball glove by an organization, that he can keep the item at the office and show it off on official company business, but can't keep it personally.

And how would you know if it did or did not?  Are you privy to every conversation and thought Trump has?

No, and I don't particularly care. That is your side's job to bring a case.

Oh it's a ceremonial $400m plane. OK, champ. Nothing to see here then.

Correct. If the Obama daughters were given $400m of jewelry it would also be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration. The value of the item is not in the recipient's control.

36

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 15, 2025, 07:35:44 PM »

If Trump is using his status as POTUS to further his personal financial interests, then that is absolutely a conflict of interest because he is supposed to be putting the interests of America before his own.

That's not the issue in conflict of interest. Conflict of interest issues deal with workplace ethics and responsibilities. It doesn't matter if a bank is giving bigger loans to CEOs. It doesn't matter if celebrities are using their celebrity to get last minute tables at high profile restaurants. The issue arises when that CEO or celebrity utilizes their workplace to give favor to that entity. As long as they are not doing that then they are free to receive benefits and make as much money as they want, and so is Trump.

Trump is in a position to return favors, you are not.   That’s why he’s getting lavish gifts from shady governments and big corporations while you get screwed by footing the bill to upgrade then decommission an Air Force One that probably will never be used as Air Force One.   Pray tell, why decommission it when it would make far more sense for it to serve future presidents?   Trump is trying to cut wasteful spending, isn’t he?  Maybe DOGE should take a look at this deal.

Your argument assumes that every gift received by Trump as president comes with an expectation of future favors, but this view oversimplifies the dynamics of gift-giving in diplomacy and politics. Gifts from foreign governments or corporations are often ceremonial, a norm in international relations, with a long history. If there is evidence that a gift directly influenced policy decisions to benefit a specific entity or government, then that would indeed warrant scrutiny. However, the mere receipt of gifts does not automatically imply corruption or a quid pro quo arrangement.

37

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Physicist Brian Cox on Universal Acceleration

« on: May 14, 2025, 05:53:10 PM »

This statement from someone who postulates Electromagnetic Acceleration and even has a mathematical, as yet, undefined constant named for him is beyond comical.

Your response perfectly illustrates the deflection tactic I predicted at the outset of this thread. Instead of addressing the core argument, you attempt to dismiss the discussion by referencing unrelated topics. This does nothing to defend your position that the Earth is continually exploding apart from itself through speculative mechanisms like space-time curvature.

Instead of providing evidence or a coherent defense of the Round Earth model's reliance on metaphysical constructs like curved space-time, you attempt to derail the discussion by mocking unrelated ideas. This is a textbook example of an ad hominem fallacy. If you believe the Round Earth explanation of gravity is superior, demonstrate it with evidence and logical reasoning, not deflection.

You have provided no evidence or logical argument to support the claim that the Earth is accelerating upward through curved space-time. Instead, you resort to dismissive remarks. This lack of engagement suggests that even you recognize the intractability of the Round Earth explanation, which requires increasingly convoluted abstractions to justify its claims. If the Round Earth model were as robust as you imply, why not defend it directly?

I'm curious about the bizarre physics that would be needed to uniformly accelerate the flat earth and all of the celestial objects.

You should probably first focus on the problem with the official model that the earth is exploding apart from itself in an unseen dimension, and that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through spacetime. Where is the evidence for this? Your reference texts give the acceleration phenomena proofs that the earth is accelerating upwards as proof enough that this is happening, which is insufficient considering that there is another more direct interpretation.

38

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Physicist Brian Cox on Universal Acceleration

« on: May 14, 2025, 05:42:58 PM »

Things do not "fall" to the ground. The so-called "falling" is nothing more than the result of the Earth accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s², as evidenced by direct observations and experiments.

Then why do your cherry-picked quotes not say that then. Literally the first one you quote says:

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

And:

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.

Once again you've quoted something which doesn't even say what you're trying to pretend it says.

The quotes I provided support the understanding that the surface of the Earth exhibits effects consistent with upward acceleration. While you continue to come up with an argument in favor of "space-time," the observable phenomena, gravitational redshift, time dilation, and weightlessness, are consistent with upward motion. The distinction between "mechanical" upward acceleration and the "space-time curvature" explanation hinges on interpretation, but the physical effects remain identical. My interpretation is based on direct observations rather than metaphysical constructs.

And in your model why doesn't the acceleration mean the earth is now going faster than the speed of light? Don't worry, bro, special relativity has you covered:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Why_doesn.27t_the_Earth.27s_velocity_reach_the_speed_of_light.3F

Cherry picking again. You dismiss Special Relativity as some "abstract explanation" when it suits you, you accept and use it to explain other things when it suits you.

Actually that section is addressing a believer in SR who believes that there is a speed of light limit. They are incorrect about what SR says. Special Relativity's limit on the speed of light is well-understood, and the explanation provided in the TFES Wiki shows why constant acceleration does not violate this principle. The velocity asymptotically approaches the speed of light due to relativistic effects, meaning it never exceeds it.

Your accusation of cherry-picking is unfounded. Whether Special Relativity is real, or whether it is entirely false and there is no light speed limit, what matters is that the observed phenomena for gravity align with upward acceleration.

It's so intellectually dishonest. And once again you conflate "I don't understand this" with "this can't be true". The rest of your post is a box set of your arguments from incredulity.

The argument is not based on incredulity but on the simplicity and directness of the evidence. The Flat Earth model accepts the observed upward acceleration without invoking unseen dimensions or speculative theories like space-time curvature. The incredulity lies in the need for such convoluted frameworks when the phenomena can be explained more intuitively.

39

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 14, 2025, 02:37:20 PM »

What do you think the Trump Organization’s luxury golf course in Qatar is supposed to be, if nothing less than a conflict of interest?   
https://apnews.com/article/trump-qatar-deal-conflicts-saudi-arabia-emoluments-7379bee2e307d39bd43b534a05ae3207

BTW, you didn’t say how long the plane would be used as Air Force One before it would be decommissioned.  Could the upgrades even be completed before the end of his term?  Do you really think that any savvy businessman would consider a reasonable return on investment for all of the required upgrades?

That's a licensing deal. The article says that he is licensing the name to a Saudi firm who is building in Quatar. If Trump is receiving money from any of these parties, it is irrelevant. It's not a conflict of interest because there has been no proof that this has affected Trump's decisions in the workplace, or that there has been a clash of personal and professional interests. There are just accusations that their could be a clash.

Again, if you or anyone wants to give me money I would just say thanks and be on my way about it. It's not a given that I am going to owe or give you anything back. In fact, any money you give me will be going into a deep dark hole, never to be heard of again. It's probably not a good idea to send me money if you are expecting anything in return.

If you do think that a debt is inherently owed from random gifts, then I challenge you to send me a gift card of any amount and see if the debt is returned.

40

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 14, 2025, 02:27:03 PM »

Tom. Hey! I'm not in a cult! Stop saying that MAGA is a cult!
Also Tom...

Why would he keep it when it can be a main feature of a major tourist destination dedicated to the Trump Presidency and further immortalize him?

All Hail Our Supreme Leader, May His Name Live On Forever!! #notacult

The US Government immortalizes all of its presidents. Every child is provided books praising them all. Trump will be remembered 500 years from now and beyond. The US President is essentially a king, and so it is only right that his name is remembered among the names of kings.

No, that's a bill to allow him to build one without having to follow state or local laws.  It says nothing about actually doing it.

So essentially... It's a concept of a plan.  He can't even be bothered to follow local building laws.  And even if it passes, no obligation to build it there.

Actually the location of Florida is not a coincidence. The Republican party is clearing the way because they intend to build there.

Yeah... You should read the PDF.  They have 36 million in expenses.  So their net profit is -3 million

It doesn't cost $36 million a year to maintain a museum for a President who left office in 1989. This is a reflection of having a lot of other money in their pocket to spend on improvements. The same PDF says on page 16 that they have investments of over 300 million



The revenue of 33.3 million shows that the museum is capable of making millions.

1. He ordered a new plane in 2018.  Now you're saying he didn't have to?
2. So millions in revenue per year while the next president has to spend hundreds of millions on another plane.
3. The Regan Library had a profit of -3 million a year.  Trump is more hated than Regan.  He won't get nearly as many visitors or donations.  So... How would it make money?  Show me the math.

1. He doesn't have a new plane. If it's going to be ready in 2027, the 2028 president can use it.
2. See above, if there is a plane ordered then the money is already spent.
3. I doubt the liberals are flocking to Republican Ronald Reagan's library. So the people who hate Trump are irrelevant to the potential revenue of the Trump library.