Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I saw an interview the bloke behind this did with FTFE.Ah, truly a duo of titans then. A guy whose entire livelihood relies on insisting that the Earth is round and calling his detractors idiots validated this other guy. Yes, quite, indubitably.
The aim is to send one globe earther and one flat earther to Antarctica to observe the 24 hour sun - which would be an issue for the monopole model.It wouldn't, though. It's only an issue for the YouTubers' understanding of FE. It's an extremely low bar to set, and one that can be met without wasting a ton of donation money. Like, yeah, those guys are gonna see the Sun for an entire day, and it's gonna accomplish nothing.
Any thoughts on this? Would any of you have liked to be invited or would be interested in going?I wouldn't go (entirely pointless, we already know the outcome), but I would love to offer independent scrutiny of their finances. I am openly sceptical, perhaps verging on hostile, so if they can open their books to me and get an admission that I saw no irregularities, that would surely boost their credibility. Well, within the limitations of how much credibility a faux-experiment with a predetermined outcome can have.
As I mentioned to Tom, the desktop model setup in the YouTube video is highly inaccurate because A) the Earth's atmosphere is being represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and B) the local spotlight Sun is represented as being very large in scale (almost 1:1 scale using a flashlight) to the diameter of the flat earth plane.And what about these factors, in your opinion, makes the depiction "highly inaccurate"? Please highlight a specific contradiction with what's observed under FET. So far, you have suggested that a scaled-down model of FET that makes reasonable adjustments for the consequences of scaling down would be "like" someone creating a scaled-down model of RET that fails to make the same adjustments. At face value, your argument disproves itself - it proposes the same things as the problem and as the solution.
The two are alike in that both would use highly inaccurate model setup's as a claimed "acceptable" model scheme.What makes you believe the FE representation would be "highly inaccurate"? What discrepancies from FE have you observed in Tom's proposed representation? Please be specific - statements like "it's wrong because it's inaccurate" are not very helpful here.
In terms of other specific aspects of FET vs. RET it's difficult to know what to use as a basis for comparison, since there is no unifying FE model.Ah, right...
Your statement seems kind of ridiculous. Using a desktop solid glass magnifying dome as an acceptable model scheme to show how light behaves upon the flat Earth's surface would be like someone launching a desktop model rocket in their backyard and explaining that to be an acceptable model scheme to show how a rocket engine behaves in the vacuum of space.In what way, exactly, would the two be alike? Please detail the necessary aspects of both RET and FET to underline your argument.
Relative to earth.That seems rather impossible under the RE model, and if it were true, it would directly conflict with your proposed outcome.
If Sigma Octantis does not move at the night timeRelative to what?
I point out, for instance, the smallpox vaccine, of which I heard of no one claiming it is "safe and effective," while at the same time claiming to have subsequently and successfully contracting the disease against which they were inocculated.But that doesn't contradict the definition at all. Our immune system is called, well, the "immune system", but I'm sure you've been ill before - so clearly it's not actually immune to everything ever. It's a spectrum, not a binary. You can be more or less resistant to certain diseases. Vaccines bring that resistance up, to varying extents.
I see the issue has relegated to the necessity of redefining the word vaccine.Yes, exactly - the anti-vaxxers decided to provide their own, new definition of what a "vaccine" is, and then tried to convince others to adopt it. It worked with some, but not with most.
You cannot vaccinate against respiratory illness. It is a fool's errand.Sure you can. The flu vaccine is effective, as is the COVID-19 vaccine. It significantly reduces the likelihood of an individual contracting the disease, reduces the severity of the symptoms if they do, and limits exposure of the wider population. You shouldn't have to have one (I'm not a fan of forcing people to do stuff in general), but I don't think the fearmongering is helpful either.
I didn't see any obviously suspicious changes when I diffed a vanilla MediaWiki with our current code, but that didn't cover all the extensions we've added, so there's a chance there's something somewhere in there.Yeah, I'm not seeing anything obvious, either. I have no access to access logs for the wiki (or, well, any access logs really) - if you don't mind granting me those I'd be keen to snoop around.
When I looked at the change your account made, the diff just changed the vandalism to different vandalism.Ooh, that is very interesting. It definitely didn't look that way when I made the edit, but I only checked it once while still logged in.
The Southern Hemisphere page wasn't listed in Tom's original list of vandalised pages, so it's not at all clear whether there was any original vandalism to persist in the cache.Makes sense. If both Tom and I ended up in a similar scenario (noticed vandalism, made edits, and those edits turned into more vandalism), it almost makes me wonder if someone made changes to our MediaWiki code. I'll poke around a little this evening.
I found our theme calls deprecated functions and I don't know to what extent it's been customised.Last time the theme broke, we "temporarily" grabbed another one from the shelf and made a few changes to the CSS to tweak it to our brand; and then it stayed like that for years. I suspect we'll want to do that again, rather than try and fix the current ancient hodgepodge.
your and Pete's accountsAre you certain about that? I manually reverted the vandalism, but I saw no evidence of my account making any malicious edits.
Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.Hmm. I dunno about this. To me, one of them (Trump, to avoid ambiguity) has bad intentions, while the other one is "just" in bad health*. We definitely agree that neither is ideal. But, to me, it seems like our options are a comparably healthy person who's actively malicious, and one person who might end up handing power over to another milquetoast Democrat if things get bad enough.
I was talking to a mate about this yesterday and we both agreed we’d both probably vote for Trump if we were in the US. I can’t stand him, but he is at least compus mentus.This really surprises me. I'm no fan of Jo Biden, but to say that Trump is compos mentis1 seems off. Many of the things he's said, especially during his presidency when his publicity was at its highest, strongly suggested that his grasp on reality was tenuous at best. Are you sure that you're comparing the two fairly, rather than falling for the trap of hearing Biden say silly things more recently?
I was under the impression you lived in Europe enjoying the peace and stability that Russia's defense of the continent brings.That surprises me, and suggests that you might be stuck in a spiral of irrational hatred. You seem to act as if I was obliged to hold every view you find distasteful. Let's try and set you straight:
But truthfully, there's nothing that would ever change the perceptions of a flat earther. They dismiss any form of evidence that doesn't agree with their beliefs.There's that apparent hatred again. This conversation really boils down to:
https://imgur.com/a/iTSW0uuNice. I still don't understand why you couldn't have recalled any details from a document you've supposedly read, or why you were so extremely defensive about it, but perhaps it has something to do with your visceral hatred of FE'ers, and your conviction that proving your points is unnecessary when talking to The Inferiors.