181

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: October 14, 2020, 04:07:16 AM »

@james38

Models are meta-scientific tools.  They are not for explanation or understanding.

They are always wrong, but are limitedly useful for a finite time.

RE has profound amounts of assumption, so no - occam the monk does not help you or your case.  Anyway, that was intended for scientific theory, which the "globe model" is not.

The burden of proof is on the claimant.  If a flat earth researcher claims that the earth is flat - the burden of proof would fall on them.  If the flat earth researcher claims nothing, the burden of proof is still required of the presumptive model.

All round earth believers declare (implicitly or otherwise) that the earth is spherical with conviction and certainty. It is a dogma of their faith, and they are punished for dissent (the church never changes).  As such this claim necessarily requires proof (by the convention) in the first instance - and no more "debate" can happen until that is forthcoming.  It always seems easy to RE believers initially, until they try and do it in earnest.  Many flat earth researchers start out this way - trying to disprove this "stupid/crazy/misguided little cult" and such things, and after encountering significant difficulty, begin questioning their beliefs masquerading as fact and science.

In any case, debate is not useful to determine what is going on in reality. That's what science is for!

182

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angular size of the Moon

« on: October 14, 2020, 03:41:43 AM »

@JSS

Until you know how to do that, it's all just speculation.

This is true.  My point was that they are likely not untestable, and so should be tested.

However, there is much speculation masquerading as "fact" in your head seemingly supporting the "massive moon" theory.

Some of that speculation disingenuously/erroneously presented as "fact" is clearly false.  The moon does not control the tides, for just one instance.

You can do parallax measurements.

Yes, but your answers will be wrong.  Parallax doesn't work with the sun or moon - it most likely doesn't work with any of the lights in the sky.  Have you done this? Do you know anyone who has?

Not to mention the Moon landings.

In the words of carl sagan - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No such evidence of any "moon landing" exists, or did exist at any time that we can verify/validate.

It just does not seem plausible that everything we know is ALL lies, and the truth is... completely unknown.

I completely agree. It's just everything we know about "space" and most everything in astronomy/astrophysics that is mythological garbage taught to us disingenuously/erroneously as "science" since childhood.

183

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 14, 2020, 02:42:32 AM »

The experiment was about motion The Interferometer itself was the tool devised to measure hyper-precise distance and as a byproduct motion or no motion.

No, no one thinks that except you. The interferometer was invented for the experiment, and it was designed to measure velocity. Obviously the measurement comes in the form of an infintessimal distance, don't be a pedant just for prides sake.

Even the page you linked to to support your baseless claim, says nothing about it.  I know you are trying so very hard to avoid just saying - I was wrong. Pride is a disability and a liability.  It's not hard.  I say it ALL THE TIME. I make mistakes too!

Or you could provide any support for your claim... I think you just assumed it - didn't you...

As I said, it does SOUND plausible, however with just your assumption to support your claim...

184

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does Flat Earth/UA reject the concept of spacetime?

« on: October 14, 2020, 02:30:49 AM »

@Tumeni

Do you have an example?

There are many questions I don't have answers to - is that "evading" to you?  Or is it because you find my answers unfulfilling / unsatisfying that you think I am doing so intentionally?

185

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angular size of the Moon

« on: October 14, 2020, 02:24:57 AM »

@JSS

If the Moon is not tangible, or the Moon is much closer than science has established, how do you explain radio bouncing off of it and the distance measurements that are now done with hobby level equipment?

Good question.

If tom is correct on this, then I don't have to - it's just more fraud.

If tom is incorrect I have a few speculative ideas :

1.  The moon is intangible, the returns come from the roof/dome which is often taught to us erroneously as "the ionosphere".
2.  The moon is "partially" tangible, but very light.  It is more of an ionization effect / hologram (of ionization effects), perhaps a plasma. Electromagnetic return (very weak, and requiring large broadcast power and focus) could still be potentially possible in this case.
3.  The moon is physical/tangible, and we still have the distance wrong because parallax doesn't work for it and the electromagnetic returns are traveling through unknown media(s) (and or hitting something else that is not the moon - dome etc.)

What do you mean by not tangible?  Not solid like a gas?  Or not physical at all?  What is it made of?

There was a professor in australia in the 60's who was convinced that he had proof the moon was made of plasma, and that the americans and russians would need to admit that they couldn't get to the moon.  His existence and records seem to be missing and/or scrubbed.  The footage we have of him could also be fake, but it appears genuine and comes from a "public" source.  I think this is conceivable.

The moon may be an ionization effect / hologram of the rarefied air in the extreme altitudes.  It is also conceivable that the moon is entirely intangible, and only made of light - more of a reflection - perhaps on the inside of a concave inner dome wall. Total speculation, and yet - there may be ways to test these ideas.

@GreatATuin

Could you explain what a "non-physical" Moon could be?

See speculative answers above.

What's your idea of "very small scales"?

In this context, human scales - i.e. NOT astronomical.
 

When would optics as we know it stop to work, and why?

Generally, light seems to vary considerably with the media it is a pressure wave within.  We don't know for certain what optical effects those media(s) cause to the light waves traveling through them.  Things that work hunky dory on human scales through mostly uniform media over short distances (even for humans) may not work at all over astronomical ones.  For instance, the sun may appear to you on the ground as being over your head when in fact its actual location is very different than what it appears (due to the media through which the light travels).

186

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does Flat Earth/UA reject the concept of spacetime?

« on: October 13, 2020, 10:30:02 PM »

@longitube

Jack, your unsupported opinions are no more credible than the strange guy on the street on a Saturday afternoon shouting about the Martians planning to kill us all.

You are clearly hanging out on some wacky streetcorners! Are you in mesa or phoenix?

I state facts, "matter-of-fact"ly, as most people do.  If you want to know more, you should try asking questions!

You need to back up your claims with evidence if they’re to be considered seriously.

What evidence do you require? What evidence do you have now that needs refuting or is contradicted by the facts I listed?

Other people here, on both sides, produce grounds for their opinions - facts, observations, experimental evidence, and the debate goes on.

I don't engage in debate.  It is beneath me, and all intellectuals.  It's just a silly game / base pageantry for the egotistical sycophants that perform and the entertainment of the audience and judges.  It has no place in establishing what is, or isn't.  It has no place in science.  The fallacies are worth learning, but don't forget about the fallacy fallacy!

You just insist something is bunk but don’t back it up, so there’s no debate or conversation to be had.

That's because you don't ask questions (or disagree, or otherwise "converse" in any way)!  I am not here to submit research papers with detailed citation - I'm here for rational discourse!  You are always free to ignore me, and learn nothing new!

187

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does Flat Earth/UA reject the concept of spacetime?

« on: October 13, 2020, 05:05:45 PM »

Although it should be clear from my user tag (or distinct lack thereof), I should preface with saying that my views are my own.  I do not speak for "flat earthers", other flat earth researchers, or the flat earth society (including UA).  I can only speak for myself.

Spacetime is a joke.  It's profoundly stupid.  It's supposed to keep an idiot busy and it's been, sadly, effective.

There is no time of any kind. It is not a dimension, it cannot be an independent variable; it is a fictional human concept with no reality.  There is no time dilation, travel, or manipulation of any kind.  Light's path can only be diverted by direct interaction with matter.  Most all of relativity is junk/wrong, but like most all of the incorrect frameworks that came before it - it has limited use.

188

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 13, 2020, 04:37:38 PM »

Cool, so we're all on the same page then.

The "mmx" (holy hell...) was for the measurement of velocity by using an interferometer, specifically designed, to measure it (not distance).

I'm glad we cleared that up!

189

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angular size of the Moon

« on: October 13, 2020, 04:18:28 PM »

What causes the variation of the apparent size of the Moon for every observer on Earth over a cycle of about 27 days, slightly shorter than the cycles of lunar phases?

If the moon is a physical/tangible object, I bet it's distance.

What causes the Moon to have an apparent size that's not significantly different whether it's 3000 or 6000 miles away (without ever distorting its shape)?

Likely the distance to the moon is quite large, even if it is vastly less than the made up presumptive number.  It is possibly too far away for the minor distance variance to warp the moon discernably.

Personally I am not convinced that the moon is tangible/physical at all (not exactly anyhow), and if this is the case then optical relationships established on very small scales, with small physical objects, and limited/negligible optical air interaction effects may have no applicability to the moon and other lights in the sky.

190

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 13, 2020, 03:48:44 AM »

@stack

It isn't worth my time.  Every source tells the same history as far as I am aware.

If you have any support for your view, I am intereted in it - however you are not obligated to share (it's just the right/best thing to do - for you and all of humanity)

191

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 12, 2020, 01:48:00 AM »

@stack

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.  I may have been in a foul mood when I was a little harsh with the "reading comprehension bit".  My apologies.

Interesting. You simply say, "Wrong,

I do it to save time.  It is common knowledge, after all - and should hardly be surprising to you.  The "mmx" (j*sus tap dancing chr*st) was not performed to measure distance.  This is historical fact, and I am still waiting on you to provide support for your revisionist claim - assuming you have one.  I've read your entry level article - it does not serve to rewrite history in the manner you require.  If you don't have any support for your claim in historical/scientific text, then why are you so certain about it?

I find it perfectly conceivable that your claim could have some merit, though you have provided no evidence for it so far.  It is widely taught and known that the "mmx" measures velocity (or acceleration, depending on if you were taught correctly or not), not distance.  Great pains were taken to eliminate the noise caused by the "distance" the interferometer would change shape due to vibration.  It is still used today for that same purpose and that is its most common use.

And I have no idea what you are getting at.

That's fair - i did not explain.  An experiment is not merely an observation.  You must have at least one IV and DV and it must validate or invalidate the hypothesis by establishing a causal link between the two - it is not optional.  The michaelson morely "experiment" is merely an observation - not an experiment.  It may seem like a semantic quibble, but it is far more important than that.

What sort of evidence do you have that refutes the evidence I have offered

Roughly all of it.  You are the only one who seems to have been taught the new history that michaelson morely invented the interferometer to measure distance first, and THEN used it to determine motion through space in the "mmx" (shudder...).  I find this view interesting, and potentially plausible - but it has no historical support.  Unless you have some? 

192

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 09, 2020, 08:27:30 PM »

@stack

The instrument devised (interferometer) for the experiment was designed to measure very hyper-exacting distance

Wrong.  Also, please provide some support for your claim that the interferometer was first made to measure distance.  I'm waiting for it...  If your reading comprehension is poor enough that you think that detail was included in the entry level article you posted - you have big problems to address before you can make any further progress learning from reading.

The michelson morely observation is not an experiment.  Words have meanings.

193

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 09, 2020, 03:59:13 AM »

@JSS

If the distance of one of the tunnels change, then the interference no longer cancels out and you get a signal.  This is how it detects gravitational waves. What do you think it's measuring instead?

That is true, however there is nothing adjusting the length of the arms.  The arms stay fixed, and insulated from noise/seismic vibration.  You cannot understand the interferometer or what it does in the currently taught framework of physics.  Perhaps that is why they had you build one for measuring distance - that IS explainable in the current framework.  The era of aether-mcarthyism must come to an end.  It measures motion; Why will undoubtedly take some time and repetition to convey to you - but I'm game if you are!  In the specific case of LIGO, it's irreproducible and hardly worth evaluating until that changes (science MUST be repeatable and repeated rigorously)

If they did not change, what is causing the interference pattern

The speed of the light in each arm.  The amount of time that the light takes to travel in each identical arm is different.  Excellent question.

Again, this is just a statement, not evidence or an explanation.

It's an important point that you have missed, and were intended to.  Cutting edge science is never headline news - ever.  LIGO is a fraud, wether they detected something or not.  It was presented as if "gravity" were finally found - it hasn't of course, because gravity is fiction.  Gravitational waves are not gravity or gravity waves.  They played a semantic trick on the gullible public through mass media.  I doubt the LIGO "researchers" have anything at all to do with it - they are far too poor and have no "pull" to achieve such a result.

@stack

You are incorrect. The whole point of the interferometer was to measure minute distance, not motion

The interferometer was first designed and invented for a purpose.  Do you know what that purpose was? I'll give you a hint - it wasn't measuring distance...  If you do have any evidence to support your assertion, I'd be very interested!

194

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 08, 2020, 05:09:56 PM »

@JSS

LIGO detects gravitational waves.  Why do you think it does not?

Firstly, gravitational waves are fiction.  Secondly, interferometers measure motion.  The length of the arms of the interferometer do not change or move - great pains are taken to assure this (when you aren't using it to measure distance).  Thirdly, gravitational waves are not gravity, nor gravity waves - they have played a semantic trick on you.

195

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 08, 2020, 05:00:13 AM »

@stack

Interesting! I did not know about this!  Thanks for sharing - I'll take a look.

The interferometer was not designed or invented to measure distance, at least initially - as it seems!

@JSS

What does using a laser and timing how long a pulse takes have to do with an interferometer?

Nothing. That's how you measure distances with lasers/electromagnetic waves.  You time return pulses - obviously.

Interferometers measure distance, not motion.

It is interesting that interferometers are also (later after their invention for their primary purpose) used to measure distance (as I said they could potentially do - on infinitesimal scales), though irrelevant to our discussion.  LIGO does not measure distance with interferometers.  Interferometers are not commonly used for distance.

That makes no sense,

Well, stop talking nonsense to yourself then!  Interferometers measure motion - that's their original purpose and that is by FAR their frequent usage today.  Do you really not know that? Or are you simply disingenuous?

196

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 07, 2020, 03:26:46 AM »

@fisherman

The difference is that Einstein's g-field has been experimentally verified as the the curvature of spacetime

No, it most certainly has not.  I entreat you to prove me wrong and let me know when and how this was "experimentally verified".  Spacetime is so ridiculously stupid

197

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 07, 2020, 03:19:26 AM »

@JSS

It is not demonstrable that gravity is instantaneous, in fact we have demonstrated the opposite.

Absolutely untrue. What delay do you believe there is between dropping an object and its falling (too much looney toons?)?  You have been misinformed.  You are still talking about LIGO, but you don't know enough about it (due to propagandist mass advertising under the guise of science).  I am struggling to help you learn. You have an "adversarial" approach which is hindering you.  Discuss, don't debate.  Debate is not for intelligent people, and it has no place in effective communication or learning.

You should read up on what interferometers do and how they work, they don't measure motion, they measure distance.  I've used interferometers, I've even built my own.

Interferometers are not used (typically, anyhow) nor designed/invented to measure distance, why you think that is beyond me - especially with your claim that you've built one.  They are used to measure motion, which does - in fairness - correspond to an infinitesimal "distance" (distance between fringes).  Using a laser and timing its return for distance estimation is in no way an interferometer.  Perhaps you do not need this clarification, however there are likely some reading that do.

That method came up with a result of gravity moving somewhere between -0.0000000000000003% and 0.0000000000000007% of the speed of light.

Yep, they claim to have detected a vibration (motion) that traveled close to the speed of light and coincided with the gamma ray burst detection.  No gravity involved in any way.  Gravitational waves, are not gravity or gravity waves.  They have played a semantic trick on you.

198

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 06, 2020, 06:53:07 AM »

@JSS

If you were taught that gravity travels faster than light then you were taught wrong and might need to revisit the subject.

I was taught that it must for the reasons I explained. You are welcome to try and explain how it can apply the correct and varying force to counter inertia of objects of varying weight instantaneously regardless of distance.  It does not take any time for "information" to travel, this is demonstrable.

Those waves travel at the speed of light,

Whatever ligo and its sister picked up did seem to be going at the speed of light, if we can trust any of that data (highly unlikely).  There is no gravity, they did not detect gravity, and interferometers measure motion. Trying to use them to measure something else is stupid and unscientific.

@fisherman

Look through this thread for toms water balloon diagram.  You missed it.

Einstein solved the coincidence of the equality of inertial mass and gravitational mass with GR by unifying inertia and gravity into one field, like the electromagnetic field.

So he didn't so much "solve" the coincidence as depend on it further, working it into the fundamental fabric of the "theory"...

199

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why? To What End???

« on: October 06, 2020, 06:33:59 AM »

@AATW

There is loads of direct evidence. People routinely observe launches.

Or they did once, at least in my country.  Some of those launches are real, maybe even most of them.

The ISS can be seen from the ground.

That's true, I think.  Something can be seen, but it is the wrong size (WAY too big).

Technology like GPS and satellite TV demonstrably works.

True.  They have no obligation to work the way we are told they do.

As well as the pictures and video there is the testimony of hundreds of astronauts who have been to space.  Then there's the 7 rich private individuals who have paid to go to the ISS.

Most likely, liars all.  The MIC is not your friend, it does not share, and it does not tell the truth.

And in all this time, no whistleblowers?

They iced gus and his crew and thomas baron and his whole f*ing family.  You should read the wiki, or just do some thorough critical study of apollo history.  There are many whistleblowers, and some notable ones - very bad things happened to.

Out of interest what are your thoughts on the Mariana Trench?

I trust the piccards! They are wonderful.

@Tumeni

Top 3 :

1: "Space" is a violation of obvious natural laws.  It cannot exist in the reality we have studied and were taught about.
2: Murdered whistleblowers/dissenters
3: Faked footage

Which are ... what?

Chief among them are the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and fundamental gas laws.

There's the work and observations of thousands, perhaps millions of astronomers, cosmologists, astrophysicists, and the like, over hundreds of years.

None of which have any evidence for "outer space" whatsoever.  The lying (most likely) "astronauts" are the only ones, and they don't have any evidence to share beyond doctored footage and stories that contradict one another.

Those people you mentioned are not scientists.  They do not practice science.  They practice mythology under the guise of science.

There are multiple third-party proofs for the Apollo lunar landings, for example.

Nope, they all come from the serially lying MIC.

There are sets of photographs taken from and of the far side of the Moon.

Art! Nasa makes art - they are a branch of hollywood.  There is much to be learned from history!

@longitube

Jack, you tell us a lot about what you disbelieve, but nothing about what you know

Oh, I manage to slip it in now and again.  I don't talk about belief or disbelief much - neither have any place in knowledge, least of all scientific.

I get an impression your knowledge comes from the web, rather than experience.

There is an old indian sitar master anecdote I quite like : The pupil turns to the master and says, "Master, you are so wise and your art so splendid, please be my teacher and make me a great master too!" to which the master replies ,"You are mistaken.  In life, you are a student... and then you die.". I am a student, and my knowledge comes from all sources - yes including the web.

Who told them to lie in their accounts and histories about the shape of the Earth?

For the vast majority, no one.  They were just taught incorrectly to begin with, then they repeated it.  It isn't a lie when you're misinformed.  You might want to glance at the wiki, it does a good job with "the conspiracy" and the many misconceptions you seem to have about it.  It's a comedy of err's you see - it's about taking a fall.

Was he just really lucky, or did he know something you don’t?

Depending on where he was, what season, and the type of craft - yes, he was crazy lucky.  There is no such thing as "round earth" navigation or "flat earth" navigation - just navigation.  It is hard for the conditioned to grasp such a simple premise/tautology that if the earth is flat then all things that we observe/do occur on a flat earth.

200

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for Flat Earthers

« on: October 04, 2020, 11:20:28 PM »

@iceman

Rigorous and repeated measurement of the earth! (not the sky or any other damned thing - there seems to be significant confusion on this simple point)