141

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?

« on: January 05, 2022, 05:20:16 PM »

I don't think I understand the question. In what way is there no agreed map of the earth?
By "map" here, I don't mean a flat piece of paper. I mean it in the more general sense that the earth has been mapped - we know the size and shapes of land masses and the distances between places.
In what way do you think any of that is in dispute? We have a whole global transport system and technologies like GPS which rely on this being the case.

I'm pretty sure I know what you meant, but just to make it clear:  GPS itself (the satellite system) does not rely on any exiting maps.  It does rely on the know circular orbits of the transmitting satellites which will only happen with a globe earth.  Given the satellite ID and transmission time received from 4 satellites the receiver computes  the globe based latitude, longitude and altitude of the receiver (irrespective of any map), which when plugged into a map (all conveniently done in the various map apps on one's phone these days) will show your position (within 30 ft or so).  The map in your phone is based on the globe model and GPS verifies it to be correct.  e.g. if I am standing on the edge of San Francisco bay and ask my phone "were am I" it correctly shows me at the edge of the bay.

142

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?

« on: January 01, 2022, 03:16:07 AM »

DISCLAIMER:. I advocate a South Pole centered Flat Earth that spins once a day, wobbles once a year, is covered by a dome shaped atmosphere that tilts towards a small solar system at about 30deg, and magnets are what holds everything together.

What you are doing is the opposite of critical thinking.  You have a model that for some reason you want to match reality so you are trying to fit observations into it.  But it doesn't work.  If instead you simply ask what do our observations tell us about the earth, the answer is unmistakably that it is a sphere.  What leads you to "advocate" something else?

143

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?

« on: December 31, 2021, 04:31:10 PM »

It's the increase of airspeed which gives the aircraft lift in thin air.

The stall speed (the minimum speed of air moving front to back over the wing) of a commercial plane is something like 150mph.  If there is a 1000mph+ tail wind that means there is no front to back flow over the wings at all and the plane will drop like a stone.

Your attempts to explain the data in terms of your model clearly are not working.   If you are applying critical thinking, i.e. going where ever the data leads, doesn't that say that your model is wrong?

144

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?

« on: December 30, 2021, 08:42:29 PM »

Further 1000 mph winds would rip even a commercial airliner to pieces let alone something as fragile (once the solar panels are unfolded) as the ISS.
And a tail wind of 1000mph would mean no air was flowing front to back over the wings of the plane so no lift and it would fall.

145

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Opportunity for Texas FEs

« on: December 30, 2021, 07:37:38 PM »

Personally, I'm not sure what value this law brings to anyone. We already work with schools and other educational groups to help them discuss FE and better understand the world around them through critical inquiry. Over-regulating this through laws is only likely to result in a more forced, and ultimately worse, approach.

Do you have a reference or link etc for this work?

146

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Opportunity for Texas FEs

« on: December 30, 2021, 07:36:09 PM »

A new law in Texas (HB 3979) requires educators to present “diverse and contending perspectives” on topics that are debated or controversial.

I do not think that this is correct.  The only use of "controversial" that I find in Texas 3979 is (emphasis mine) page 4:

      (1)a teacher may not be compelled to discuss a particular current event or widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy or social affairs;

So a teacher can NOT be forced to teach a controversial subject and further more this entire bill references only social studies.  I find no mention of science.

147

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator

« on: December 30, 2021, 03:41:09 PM »

Dr. Edward Dowdye says that the medium of the Solar Corona bends light, not gravity. And the observations further away from the edge of the sun fails to match prediction.

http://beyondmainstream.org/nasa-scientist-says-coronas-bend-light-not-gravity/

So what?  Anyone can "say" anything.  Did he publish anything on this in any peer reviewed journal?  Not that I can find.

If you can show beyond reasonable doubt that the journals are unbiased I'll consider your argument.

See this quote:

"Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by a journal today, you will run against a paradigm and the editors will turn it down." -- Fred Hoyle, British Mathematician and Astronomer

Fred Hoyle thought that journals were biased and unwilling to publish certain topics.

Hoyle had no problems getting his ground breaking work on stellar nucleosynthesis published (in 1956). But he simply did not make a good case for the steady state theory or that flu was carried on particles in space and came to earth via solar winds.  Statements like Hoyle's are invariably from folks who did not get their favored items published.

On the other hand he certainly did NOT think the earth was flat.  There in lies the problem with appearling to an individual as your authority.  Why accept his opinion on journals but reject his view of the standard model of our solar system and the galaxy?  What is your basis for picking one but rejecting the other?

Journals are refereed by humans and humans are imperfect and biased so of course bias CAN influence what gets published.  As Iceman points out, it is certainly more difficult to get published the more you are going against the current consensus view.  But if that did not happen routinely, the consensus view would not have changed so much over the last 100 years.  The better your data and analysis the easier it is.  The increasing expansion of the universe made it in in record time due to their undeniable data. But even things with that are purely theoretical (e.g. string theory) can get in if they keep after it (the initial string theory papers were rejected for years but now it is widely though perhaps not univerally, accepted).  Or continental drift or DNA based heredity and on and on.

I also don't see that any journal has refuted and contradicted him.

Contradicted him on what, his opinion that journals are biased for not publishing his pet paper?   It would be extremely unusual (at least) for the editors of a journal to accept a paper countering an (unpublished) opinion.

148

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator

« on: December 15, 2021, 01:53:03 AM »

Dr. Edward Dowdye says that the medium of the Solar Corona bends light, not gravity. And the observations further away from the edge of the sun fails to match prediction.

http://beyondmainstream.org/nasa-scientist-says-coronas-bend-light-not-gravity/

So what?  Anyone can "say" anything.  Did he publish anything on this in any peer reviewed journal?  Not that I can find.  His bio from his own site  (https://einsteinwrong.com/site/dr-edward-dowdye/) says:

"The member is a Laser Optics Physicist and Electronics Engineer (retired) at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. Dr. Dowdye is independent researcher in the area of pure classical electromagnetism and gravitation, not related to his occupation at NASA. He disputes the finding that gravity bends light but claims instead, that light is bent in the corona of suns, not because of space-time."

More properly "was" since he passed away in 2020.  The fact that he was working on laser optics and electronics for NASA does not make him an expert on general relativity.  The way science works, the way we have made such amazing progress is by scientists publishing their work so as to make their case to other scientists, not to gullible lay people.

I notice you had no comment on the results of Gravity Probe B.

149

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator

« on: December 15, 2021, 01:07:12 AM »

Furthermore, and as another point, in order for "gravity" to exist, entirely new and untestable physics must be created for that construct. The phenomenon of pushing is well established and long known to science. After all, the phenomenon of push can occur with existing physics, whereas pulling particles or bendy space requires new physics. This favors the concept of upwards acceleration.

The curvature of space by mass not only is testable it has been tested.  Starting in 1919 a mere four years after General Relativity was published, the images of stars were seen to shift when our view shows them very close to the sun (during a total eclipse). See Testing General Relativity .  This experiment has been done many times since with the same result.  More recently gravitational lensing is the same phenomenon.  The curvature was measured directly with the amazing Gravity Probe B .  Space being curved by the presence of mass also explains the motion we see all over the cosmos and how planets, stars, mons, and galaxies form.  Finally your fantasied "upwards acceleration" only would work for a flat earth, and we know with certainty that the earth is not flat so your claim that it is simpler than GR is irrelevant.

150

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: November 29, 2021, 10:29:09 PM »

So what? If people are healthy and covid poses no risk, we don't have to have all the drama-filled restrictions that go with that. We've had almost 2 years to get people fitter, eating better and looking after themselves and we have done zero. The message is stay at home on your fat arse and wait for science to save you. It's a pretty shitty message.

Nothing in that paper indicates that COVID is "no risk" to healthy fit people.  Only that it is MORE of a risk for obese folks.   I don't know what messaging you are getting but I see a constant stream of fitness exhortations from many sources (along with plenty from the other side we well).  Just how would you propose that the government go about this task of getting everyone fit?

151

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Untrustworthy quotation in the wiki

« on: November 29, 2021, 09:05:49 PM »

Sample size is indeed a key aspect of such a survey.  But as or more important is how the sample was constructed. The Mirror is a tabloid.  Their readers obviously are looking for tabloid style stories.  If the sample was drawn even largely let alone entirely from from Mirror subscribers, it would be very wrong to claim it was representative of all UK residents.

Have you considered finding out who performed the study, and whether or not it had anything to do with the Mirror's readership? This is addressed in the article you forgot to read.

No.  The posts on this page were about sample size.  I merely pointed out that sample construction is also very important.
My only comment about the survey itself was prefaced appropriately by a bold IF which you quoted but do not seem to understand.

152

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: November 29, 2021, 08:24:49 PM »

Its going to stay a constant threat for as long as people are fat as fuck. When people start making sensible health choices, less will be in danger from coronavirus and restrictions will ease. That will likely never happen because most people are lazy and stupid. But that isn't Tom's fault.

There is indeed a correlation between a higher BMI and more sever illness (https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2021/03/10/obesity-coronavirus) among those who received a COVID diagnosis.  But no correlation has been found (that I am aware of or that you have posted) between BMI and the likelihood of getting infected or BMI and vaccine effectiveness.   

153

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: November 29, 2021, 04:24:53 AM »

I bet that pharma companies don't mind covid being an omnipresent threat - maybe vaccines are a good cash cow right now.

For the good of humanity you would think they could release the patents and allow developing countries to manufacture their own. Not every vaccine that has worked requires uber cold storage. Australia had astrazenica pumping out a million doses worth a week. We shut it down because we didn't need it anymore. Disgraceful.

But continents like Africa ensure we continue to get mutated varients. One day enough to require an updated vaccine. Good for their companies bottom line, not so good for millions of victims

I agree.  It's really a question time.  The patent holders can not possibly make enough to vaccinate the world in a timely manner.  Big Pharma is not participating in the African market and does not seem likely to do so any time soon.  Why not let a market you ave not addressing nor likely to address anyway be fulfilled in another way (make it themselves) and get great press and a huge tax deduction?

154

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Untrustworthy quotation in the wiki

« on: November 28, 2021, 11:11:45 PM »

Sample size is indeed a key aspect of such a survey.  But as or more important is how the sample was constructed. The Mirror is a tabloid.  Their readers obviously are looking for tabloid style stories.  If the sample was drawn even largely let alone entirely from from Mirror subscribers, it would be very wrong to claim it was representative of all UK residents.

155

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: November 28, 2021, 10:46:32 PM »

Honestly, with the new Omnicron varient, we probably will
Becaues of people like Tom, this won't go away.  Ever.  So we'll need to keep getting booster shots for the newest strain.

1) We do not yet know how Omnicron reacts to the current vaccines.
2) Mutation is a natural by product of replication.  So the more replication the more chances of mutation.  The vaccines greatly reduce replication as they beat back the infection so much faster. We can wipe out the disease entirely if we  just administered vaccines to everyone..  It is a huge failing of the modern world that while we have produced the vaccines that could have stopped Covid by now if we just vaccinated the world, but the west has not vaccinated nearly enough of their own populations let alone made good on our promises to get vaccines to the poor.  No one is safe unless everyone everywhere is safe.

156

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory

« on: November 12, 2021, 07:00:04 PM »

I completely agree.  The question becomes how to get someone to examine their thinking / methodology?
With ever more sources actively exploiting this common human phenomenon for partisan purposes, it's ever more important to figure out how to encourage such self examination.

Reading about folks who have left "cults" and those that helped them do so, a few things seem common.
* It takes a personal connection (so that will be hard just over the net)
* It takes time
* It takes empathy, no one likes to be made to feel wrong or stupid etc.

157

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory

« on: November 12, 2021, 05:29:52 PM »

My experience of Tom Bishop is that he spends a disproportionate amount of time thinking about and trying to prove something is true which so obviously isn't true to everyone else.  OK make that most people.  There are one or two others who believe the Earth is flat as well.

What can you tell people with that kind of mindset?  Nothing probably!

Right, I don't think you can tell them anything.  I think the person has to be willing to question their own (way of) thinking.  I thought Tom might be up for that, but maybe not.  It's not an easy thing to do.

158

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory

« on: November 11, 2021, 09:48:19 PM »

Its common in science for there to be differing views or competing theories on things.  String theory for example is not universally accepted but its getting there.  Likewise for the multiverse.   (I am not an expert in physics, just an interested layman).  The same happened for climate change which was viewed somewhat skeptically back when it was proposed in the 70s, but is essentially universally accepted now (mostly by the 90s).  The same could be said decades ago for continental drift.  But for the globe earth there are no such differing views.  The entirety of industry, science, engineering, and academia agree on the globe earth.  The FE believers are all layman.  Why is that?

159

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory

« on: November 10, 2021, 01:41:12 AM »

Prior to running an experiment one has to clearly describe what you aim to prove (i.e. so the experiment is falsifiable).
No such formulation of "bendy light" exists.  I do not think any such formulation is possible that would match actual observations.  But that fact that none is even offered clearly shows that this is just FE hand waving used as a crutch by folks who want to believe (or at least claim that they believe) in a FE.  Why is it that (it appears) that no one with the requisite scientific training to create such a formulation will do so?  Is every member of every science faculty and all their students for the last 50? 100? years (that's many millions) part of the conspiracy?
Come on.

Apologies if this sounds harsh, but I don't think professed FE believers really hold that belief, they just like to say so.  How many FE'ers have boarded a long haul flight fully expecting to get to their desired destination (as happens 1000s of times a day) despite the flight being navigated, planned and fueled all on a globe earth model?  How may FE'ers are receiving satellite TV?  How many FE'ers are routinely using GPS?

The globe earth is apparent in aspects of every day modern life in which I suspect many FE'ers readily partake.  Humans have traveled extensively over the earth and all of those distances correspond to the globe earth not the FE.  In all of that travel no dome or wall or infinite plane has ever been observed.  Yet some seem to genuinely persist in their belief in a FE (there are of course trolls here as well).  The interesting question is why?

I ask as I think this is a major issue in our civilization but particularly in the US.  This effect has come up with the pandemic, the 2020 elections, and climate change.  All of which are very very serious issues on which a significant group refusing to accept reality is a major problem.  I chose the FE to ask about this as it seemed the topic where the evidence is the most overwhelmingly clear (that the FE belief is wrong).   But so far not much internal questioning seems to be on the table.  If one is to take the idea of questioning seriously, shouldn't the question of why you believe what you believe be the most fundamental?

160

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The ISS - Who Should I believe?

« on: November 08, 2021, 01:36:54 AM »

Son there is no SPACE as you know it. NO ISS, NO Satellites, No mask will stop germs unless its a full blown respirator type.

Just noticed this bit of gibberish .  Others can/are responding to the FE nonsense, so I'll just touch on the mask misinformation.
It is true that only a full blown respirator can "stop" (as in prevent with 100% certainty) respiratory transmission of disease.  But that
is also largely irrelevant to the issues around mask wearing during the pandemic since the purpose of wearing a surgical mask in public
during a pandemic where the disease is largely airborne is exactly the same as why medical staff wear them during surgery.  That is to
reduce the likelihood of transmission (from the mask wearer to someone nearby as they inhale for the general case or from the medical
staff breathing out towards/into the open wound in the surgical case), not to prevent it with 100% certainty.