101

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel

« on: February 26, 2021, 02:09:04 AM »

I will not attempt to best your ascii art, however I think I can help you understand.

There is a density gradient in our air that causes light to bend (convexly) towards the water as the light travels through it.

The light from the bottom of distant objects is diverted into the water first because of this (primarily/initially)

102

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?

« on: February 23, 2021, 06:05:01 PM »

So why can't we work out how they do this?

That, of course, is not the issue.

You need to understand that cartography is not for determining the shapes of things.   It is for direction and (estimated) duration.  That is how they (maps) are built, and why.

There are small amounts of topographical maps of course, but we don't do these for the ocean's surface (only land, sometimes including some of the land beneath the ocean).

Making a map, and determining the shape of something (especially something that you are standing on, and is too large to measure in one go) are fundamentally different challenges.

Inferring the shape of the world because you took trips on or above it, is stupid.  To determine the shape of the entire world, it must be rigorously and repeatedly measured (no, just riding on a vehicle to get there and timing it is not adequate).

Maps are a military asset, which is one of the many reasons that the maps in the average citizen's hands are always incorrect, historically.  This was a large part of keeping poor european slaves/"commoners" from going to north america during/on from the middle ages.

I know of no one on either side (FE or RE) seriously involved in topographical cartography and I agree that it is an oversight.  In any case, it is a large undertaking and there are bigger fish to fry currently (especially for independent researchers).

103

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The curve

« on: February 16, 2021, 06:25:57 PM »

@razatd

Metabunk is not a website anyone should visit.  It is only useful for reinforcing presumptive bias - never objective evaluation (critical or not).  Debunkers do a for-profit job, and education / balanced objective evaluation are not in the profit motive(s).

Fwiw.

104

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the size of the sun remain the same throughout the day?

« on: February 16, 2021, 06:06:59 PM »

The sun changes apparent size no matter what model you ascribe to.  Whether that change in size is discernable with our level of precision is the only question.

Wether the size of the sun will change depends on how far away it is, how much it moves away from the observer, and what we are looking through (and wilder stuff, like if the sun itself changes shape/size over the time viewed). 

Although we erronrously/disingenuously teach children that we know the answers to those questions - honestly/critically we do not.

There is no flat earth model to debunk.  You are beating up an inanimate strawman by yourself - alone.

105

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?

« on: February 12, 2021, 08:03:31 PM »

@Stack

NASA and other space agencies/companies take a mountain of measurements as well as produce pictures/artwork. Why are you not including measurements in your 100% genuine hypothesis?

There is no hypothesis being discussed here.  I care a lot about science, and it hurts me when people abuse terminology.  Hypothesis, in a scientific context, has a rigorous and inflexible definition (as well as a singular purpose).

It is true that there is a lot of measurement conducted by those agencies/affiliates.  As an independent researcher, you can evaluate and trust any dataset you wish - but the onus is on you to validate it before accepting it as true.

For this reason, many independent researchers choose to avoid datasets that require abject appeal to authority (especially from overtly untrustworthy MIC entities) and cannot be validated/verified independently. 

Why should determining the shape of the earth require blind faith in anything?  Are you saying we can't know the shape of the earth with certainty without blindly trusting data/sources we can't verify independently?

106

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?

« on: February 12, 2021, 07:40:20 PM »

@Razatd

How does the physical/material variances of the world itself cause the local variances in the acceleration of falling objects if UA necessitates that the entirety of Earth is accelerating upwards at the same rate?

I can imagine many ways.  Can't you?  If you are asking how gravity works you will get an equally unsatisfying answer.  In gravitation, an imagined and non-real psuedoforce, it is assumed to be the matter itself causing the variance - I see no reason why that exact same reasoning cannot be used in the case of UA.  UA is mostly just a convention/sign reversal, and causes no issue for the physics (why would it?).

It makes no sense.

I more or less agree with you (in the case of UA and Gravitation which are roughly equivalent, differing by a sign change), however it CAN make more sense if you earnestly try to conceptualize it in GOOD FAITH (not from the heavily biased, and un-objective/anti-scientific, perspective that it MUST be irreconcilable/paradoxical nonsense)

By the way, you can not use gravity to explain it because in the Flat Earth UA replaces gravity.

Why not? UA IS the gravity...  However I can appreciate that currently, afaik, there isn't a proposed mechanism for what UA does - but in my view that is slightly BETTER (and certainly more accommodating to new addendum / caveat as you are suggesting in this case) than the presumptive gravitational view which proposes a mechanism that is ill-defined and demonstrably non-real.

Also let’s grant that There are local variances.

Sure.

That means UA is not universal anymore and parts of the Earth accelerating faster will fly off into the sky. How do you explain this?

The UA could very well still be universal, and another interaction between that UA and the particular matter (or structure/ordering, perhaps) causes the minor variances we detect locally by the surface.  It's easy to explain things - dreadfully easy.  It is much more difficult to demonstrate them, and even more so to experimentally validate them to make them science!  For instance, gravitation has NEVER passed such rigor and is not a part of science as a result.  It is unvalidated speculation at the absolute best, and delusion at worst.  Newton understood gravitation was unscientific, philosophically unsound, and anathema to all of physics when he invoked it - and you can read about it in his own pen if you wish.

Round Earth people talk about conspiracies?  Give me a break.

Right, you come to sites like this where you wrongly assume (due to conditioned bias and propaganda) that everyone interested in studying this topic, or truly considering that the earth may be another shape than we are taught, believe in ridiculous conspiracies.  The ones forwarding and assuming bizarre omnipotent conspiracies are the apologists for RE, like yourself.  If you continue to study this subject, you will likely come to the same conclusion I have about it.  The "flat earth conspiracy" bias helps to keep your largely unevaluated/unvalidated beliefs about the shape of the world safe from ridicule and criticism.  As long as any criticism depends on an "impossible conspiracy", there is no reason to take it seriously (so you tell yourself, as a subconscious mantra no doubt) - which is why this line of "reasoning" is so heavily advertised and propagated/promoted.

No conspiracy of any size is required for humanity to be stupid and wrong as it always is (historically, contemporarily - you name it).

Flat Earthers flat out reject all space agencies and everything that doesn’t conform to their beliefs.

This is a common misunderstanding.  Some do, that is true - but it has nothing to do with conforming to beliefs.  A large part of flat earth research is recognizing, acutely, the difference between knowledge and belief.  Belief has NO place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.   If you BELIEVE the world is round, flat, or dodecahedron - you have FAITH not fact.

The ones who more or less discard the "proof" from MIC agencies do so for valid and defensible reasons.  The wiki here can help you understand some of the perspectives/conclusions of SOME of the researchers here.  For instance, the TFES considers that "space agencies" are not faking the shape of the world.  IF there is a conspiracy of some kind, it is conceivably quite small - and MUCH more likely to be for military purpose (what are rockets REALLY for?) - as is suggested on the wiki here.  I highly recommend giving it a read through to get a sense of the wildly varying (and often incompatible) views out there!

Flat Earth is based on the grand conspiracy that everyone that uses the Globe Earth model is actually lying which is pretty much everyone.

This is yet another, heavily advertised/propagated, misconception.  As I said, it is raised by people like yourself in exactly this context - most generally NOT by flat earth researchers.  YOU are convinced there is some grand conspiracy required, but your reasoning is unsound and indefensible (in fact, you are just repeating someone else's criticism).

In any case, whether or not there are conspiracies involved (A conspiracy is merely a synonym for crime - planned by more than 1.  They happen at all times in huge numbers.) is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant to the shape of the earth and to determining it with certainty as an individual researcher. 

Even if it were true that the pictures/artwork we receive from NASA were all 100% genuine, they are not measurement of the world and they require abject appeal to authority (are unvalidated and unvalidatable), and in this case - that "authority" are, historically/repeatedly, untrustworthy MIC entities with overt military/profiteering/domination agendas.

107

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are lines of latitude longer south of the equator than north?

« on: February 12, 2021, 06:59:32 PM »

@stack

That's not really a solid argument for, well, anything. That would just be your opinion, not fact.

Facts are arbitrary.  They are merely what your authority TELLS you / arbitrates / defines is a fact.

The argument was made pretty clearly - was there something about it that you don't understand or disagree with?  If you understand what I am saying, then you ought to be able to explain/respond why the air DOES in fact completely entrain to the whole world regardless of distance from the surface (ignoring gravity) and why we can ignore the most significant motion within it to support this apologist paradox.

This is just the stupid stuff they teach children/undergrads.  Much of it is oversimplified to the point of being false, just like in this example.  It reinforces cognitive dissonance, and conditions the impressionable/gullible "students" to think they have an answer for the paradox their science cannot explain.  We do it in astronomy every few years.  We find an irreconcilable problem that all but proves our model(s) is(are) wrong, and then we add that in as an exception caused by some more wildly speculative and unscientific fiction - or just teach it as a "great mystery" not the obvious/evident contradiction and refutation of the science we were/are taught.

There are physicists that hold this view, of course.  Finding you one would do ... what, exactly?  I encourage people to evaluate claims on their own merits, and not appeal to an "authority" for validation of any kind.  That said, their steeping in a particular worldview may help them to convey things in terminology/concept that you might more readily understand and accept, so there certainly are valid reasons for wanting to talk to a physicist about this if you can't fully grasp it without assistance.   Credential worship is a scourge and should be excised whenever recognized, in any case.  People conditioned (through rote under the guise of education) to repeat the same things mostly repeat the same things (they are not THEIR perspectives, findings, or science), and the echo of "consensus" (a VERY dirty word in science) can delude you into thinking that it must be the "most right" because a majority of "educated" parrot it.

As I said, the competent ones don't accept this line of reasoning - because it is logically unsound and incompatible with what we know about the motion of the air (and the ground) on earth.

108

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are lines of latitude longer south of the equator than north?

« on: February 12, 2021, 06:54:03 AM »

@iceman

Not a particularly productive contribution to call the physicist insane / incompetent just because you dont believe them.

Did someone call a physicist insane?  In any case, competent physicists SHOULDN'T fall for it (sanity not withstanding).  This isn't an issue of belief or sanity, it is really an issue of competency in physics (even ignoring/accounting for gross oversimplification for accessibility / target audience).

Someone with physics competency would already understand that the air (a semi elastic fluid with varying gravitational attraction which wanes from the surface) of the world does not travel with it.  No layer of it does - the air does many things and the motion of the world is not involved.  Again, basic physics competency - understanding the source of the motion of the air above our heads is caused by the sun and not any rotation of the world is a good first step towards that.  Understanding, acutely, what coriolis IS and is not is a good second one.

@steelybob

Curious to know which part of it, precisely, you disagree with?

Absolutely!

In the hovering helicopter example, the helicopter has whatever velocity that latitude of the earth’s surface has at the point of lift off, as does the air mass around it, give or take local wind speed.

Conservation of momentum is not a problem, though there is no way to keep it indefinitely as is implied in the oversimplification.  The moment the helicopter leaves the ground, it begins to lose that momentum (or gain it in other directions etc.).  Assuming the air were perfectly still (in relation to the helicopter, and the ground beneath it) - "frame dragged" if you prefer, then the description is more or less reasonable/intelligible.

Because of wind, this is not the case.  The wind (caused by the sun, not the presumed rotation of the earth - which is responsible for 0% of the wind on earth) immediately begins to act upon the helicopter and the fanciful dream of eternal conservation of momentum dies immediately.

The only reason physicists play apologist in this way, and make up/parrot dreadful paradoxical tripe like this and then have to do cartwheels to try and rationalize/defend it, is because they are required to.  On some level, they know that the coriolis effect doesn't exist with planes, helicopters, and other flying craft and have "cognitive dissonanced" themselves into the sorry state.  They MUST understand why the coriolis effect doesn't occur, and why you can't wait for the earth to rotate beneath you - even if you could remove the influence of all wind (like on a perfectly still day, for instance).  There is no height at which this magical entrainment, which demonstrably and by consistent measurement of earths weather/air - does not happen, occurs.  It doesn't matter how high you go, or how much air you remove from the equation - you still come down essentially right where you took off, and rather than conclude the obvious (what goes up must come down, and the ground is stationary as it appears) from this fact, they are locked into fantasy which contradicts basic physics and observation.

109

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?

« on: February 12, 2021, 04:50:45 AM »

@razatd

How does UA explain the observed fact that the downward acceleration is different on different parts of the Earth?

One way is by refuting/denying that "observed fact".

Another is by accepting that "observed fact" and attributing it to another cause - perhaps the same one that is currently pointed to - the physical/material variances of the world itself cause the local variances (just without fictional "gravity fields" which exist only in equation).

Or is everyone who has measured a different value in on the conspiracy? 

The people who most frequently talk about conspiracies on this site are the round earth acolytes - such as yourself and in a similar manner.  The flat earth researchers most often prefer to talk about the topics at hand, which are most often considered "scientific" or in the realm of science in any case.

Your incredulity is not helping you to objectively evaluate this subject earnestly, and there is VERY good reason to do so (and it has little to do with the shape of the earth).

110

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki Contradictions: be careful who you quote!

« on: February 12, 2021, 02:02:01 AM »

@scomato

if the effect (and therefore the fact that the Earth revolves around an axis) can be proven with a simple bathtub experiment

This is a tricky topic within a tricky subject.

The coriolis effect is taught correctly to virtually no one.

Coriolis is a PSUEDO-effect which only occurs when one reference frame APPEARS to rotate/deflect when it is - in fact - not (like looking up at the sky spinning when you are twirling like a figure skater - you didn't MAKE the sky spin, nor is it actually spinning as you see it - THAT is the coriolis effect). If the water in the tub merely APPEARED to be rotating due to our distinct rotating (or non-rotating) frame of reference THEN (and only then) would it be an example of coriolis.

Most everything that is referred to incorrectly as a coriolis effect is, in fact, ACTUAL deflection (real measurable/quantifiable forces) PRESUMED to be caused by the rotation of the earth.

how is the reconciled with the notion of a non-revolving, upwardly accelerating flat earth?

Easily.  Reconciling, even, things that are not reconcilable is child's play.  Through imagination all things are possible, but reality is unaffected by that.

One way is to claim that the effect (in the bathtub) is not real.  Most everyone who has ever done it did not get the results they wanted and had to tweak their procedure in order to do so - in science, we often call this fraud.

Another is to claim that the effect is real, however it is not caused by the presumed cause (the presumed rotation of the world) which has never been scientifically/experimentally validated.  The deflection of the gyroscope IS the "proof" that the world is spherical and rotating, and the proof that the cause is certainly the spherical rotating world is the deflection of the gyroscope.  This circular logic is embarrassing, unscientific, and indefensible.

111

Technology & Information / Re: Mind Control Headset!

« on: February 11, 2021, 04:45:51 AM »

It is not impossible to read shapes from the human mind, but it has only ever been done with fmri / serious tech (not simple electrodes) - and even then only with significant margins of error.  It is much like speech recognition, in that the more you calibrate and "learn"/establish patterns the computer can recognize, the better the thing works.

I do not think it is coincidence/stylistic that there were flashing lights above the enemies.  This is old tech.

From around the 80's or so the military and aviation companies were using this tech.  Anyone who knows about epilepsy can understand how it works, and why.

112

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?

« on: February 06, 2021, 06:16:24 AM »

@jss

You need to think of gravity the same way you do with magnets.

That doesn't exactly help any.  At least magnetism is manifestly real (manipulable, generatable etc.), but because it is energy it is constantly exhausted.  Gravitation is inexhaustible currently, not for the least of reasons that it is non-real and undefined (as always).

Perpetual acceleration costs energy, but gravity doesn't wane over time as far as we know / can measure (unlike magnetic fields which demonstrably do).  Matter doesn't self-annihilate (or cool, etc.) to balance the bill - again as far as we know.  There is no proposed mechanism for this loss/expenditure of energy, just as there is no proposed mechanism at all.

But in both cases they are not using any magic or anything miraculous.

On this we are in complete agreement.  Though I think we are also in agreement that they are, undeniably, miraculous.  One of them is just demonstrably real, and the other isn't.  I agree they are both poorly understood.

113

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are lines of latitude longer south of the equator than north?

« on: February 06, 2021, 12:48:11 AM »

I find that nonsense interesting too.

No sane person with competency in physics should ever fall for it.

114

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What did they think would be the end of the story?

« on: February 06, 2021, 12:45:57 AM »

I agree that prisoners (or just those accused of crimes) do not deserve humane treatment of any kind and should be forced to eat the same substandard, non-nutritive, and pesticide/preservative poisoned shit the rest of the slaves do (and die of untimely organ failure from).

115

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?

« on: February 06, 2021, 12:19:45 AM »

@flatearthexpert

You seem to be a little confused about how forums work.  When you put forward a question, it is (by default) directed at all the people in the forum - not a particular person.  Pete isn't avoiding your question, nor was it addressed to them in particular.

What is causing Earth to rise?

The presumptive answer is the same miraculous and unscientific magic that causes all matter to spontaneously accelerate permanently (as described by popular incorrect equation)

The "cause" in both cases is a placeholder for actual science which has never materialized.  In the presumptive view, that placeholder is called "gravity" and in the tfes view it is called "UA" and may well have intrinsic connections to "EA" as well.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the presumptive view is "solid" and therefore other conceptions are not.

116

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Typhoid Mary

« on: February 01, 2021, 01:34:06 AM »

Typhoid mary is propoganda.  Which is why we know about it at all (sensationalist media).

When things go wrong / people get sick, people expect a scapegoat.  Which the media/state delivers to the bloodthirsty monsters/mob, without any concern for justice whatsoever.  "Just kill the rosenburgs and get back to work", they say. Other times it's "the china flu", as blaming the cause of your ills on an existing "enemy" works particularly well.

Establishing causality is notoriously difficult.  Doing so in a medical context with a pathogen, or perhaps a carrier, is even more so.  No such causality was established with mary, she was simply the one who took the blame (repeatedly).

117

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?

« on: February 01, 2021, 12:00:48 AM »

@metatron

I was really surprised by that too!  It was my first post on this site, to tom, essentially arguing "how hard is it for flat earth supporters to integrate/accept a rotating plane?".  At the time it seemed a LOT simpler than the alternatives (such as aether, or things even more arcane/obscure).

I know better now, but I did not then.

The earth is stationary, and I argue that regardless of conceptions we should all arbitrarily agree to that by convention for sanity and simplicities sake.

118

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Personal attack?

« on: January 31, 2021, 06:38:42 PM »

@steelybob

I also think that ad-hom is across purposes to communication of any kind.

In this case, unless this was a discussion hinging on JSS's veracity in some way - in which case this would be a valid raised example demonstrating the lack thereof (potentially, at least in that one instance) - it probably shouldn't have been included. 

As all communication depends on the earnest/good faith of all participants to even have the slim CHANCE at being effective - one may argue that examples of disearnesty and dishonesty are relevant.  In this example I think it was more just frustration with jss (which can be expected due to their approach and tactics/conversational habits)

119

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions about Flat Earth Theory by young students

« on: January 31, 2021, 06:20:32 AM »

The kids are having such a nice time discussing and digging into your answers. They really appreciate your explanations, and if that's ok for you, would like to ask a bunch of follow-ups:

Certainly! However, do you think you might be able to share any details of that conversation?  I imagine that the classroom discussion might be something along the lines of : "Why/how do we know that this isn't the case?"/"How do we know the mainstream science view is correct?" and if that is the case, I would be doubly interested in what evidence/arguments they've researched to that end.

What is the Sun?

No one knows.  One of the stupidest conceptions was held by most all the top scientific minds of the 19th century, in which the sun was a giant burning gas lamp (they had recently gotten gas streetlamps - heady days).  Sadly our modern "theories" have their foundation solidly in that stupid and indefensible idea.

What's its shape and what is it made of?

It is difficult to say with any certainty from this distance away.  Science is very hands on - it can't be performed through a telescope.  The sun certainly appears circular (which is different than spherical), and the ancient egyptians (as well as later cultures that revered them) referred to it as the sun-disc.  Just because we can't answer with much certainty, doesn't mean we can't speculate (as long as we ALWAYS remember that and ALWAYS remember to present it as speculation).

As for its composition (as well as size and distance), we can only speculate (and make basic, tenuous, inferences using spectroscopy etc.).  Some speculate that it is actually an atmospheric effect, and that the ionization of the atmosphere is most responsible for daylight.  In that case the sun is more of a phenomenon caused, presumably, by another energy source and need not generate anything itself (necessarily) - which solves many of the current mysteries of stellar function.

All of the answers presented as science to students for the composition, size, mechanism, and distance are merely speculation with very little (if any) scientific support.  They are parts of astronomical mythology, not actual/real science.

Same for the Moon.

Once again, there are many speculations. For instance, there was an interview discovered by the public australian broadcasting company in their archives of a tasmanian professor in 67-68.  Professor foster claimed that his research demonstrated, without doubt, that the moon was a plasma phenomenon and that there is absolutely no way the americans or russians could land anyone there as they had been posturing/planning.  The moon (and sun) is very possibly immaterial (or of very minimal matter / minuscule density), and perhaps a reflection or (presumed natural) hologram composed of the rarefied air in the upper strata.

How do you conceive outer-space?

The same way absolutely everyone else does; sci-fi.  Sci-fi defines space and the expectations thereof, and always has.  The concept of space and landing on other planets has its inception/foundation purely in fiction, which many overlook (it is NOT coincidence). 

It should come as no surprise that humanity was wrong about the wild unvalidated speculations on things so very far from the totality of their experience.  We barely know what's going on terrestrially, and have no idea whatsoever about anything beyond that - this is the plain reality that we try to obscure by disingenuously teaching mythology as science from childhood.

—People currently believe in the origin of the universe being a great explosion. Have Flat Earthers suggested any theory about the origin of the universe?

Yes, people believe that.  But they should know better!  Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.  Belief is across purposes to knowledge.  If you BELIEVE the world is round, or flat, or dodecahedron - you have FAITH not fact.  So it is with the supposed origins of the universe.  More mythological fiction, disingenuously passed off as science to children.  The big bang was invented by a priest.  It was stupid and unscientific then, and it has had almost a century to stew in its own juices.

Creation myth has no place in the science classroom (or discussions about science, like the one we are currently engaged in) except in the strictest context of speculation and/or potential experimental evaluation.

Ideally, once you earnestly engage in flat earth research (or any other objective/scientific research), your days of tolerating or allowing belief in knowledge are over.

Thanks again!

Anytime.  Let me know if you need any clarification, and/or have any specific criticisms / evidence for or against that would be worth further exploring!

At the core (which we haven't touched) are the incorrect definitions of science, scientific method, experiment, and hypothesis that the vast majority are taught that are largely responsible for the rampant scientific illiteracy we currently "enjoy". You can't hope to discern between actual science, and mythological/philosophical/religious pseudoscience presented as it (like most of that which is taught in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology), unless you learn the proper criteria to do so first.

120

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

« on: January 30, 2021, 05:53:23 PM »

Which 2?

I heard smallpox was back on the market...