1

Technology & Information / Re: Autonomous weapons systems

« on: January 21, 2025, 05:18:55 PM »

And you are correct, Ronj. Your experience alone does not qualify you to be an expert in the field of AI capability.

Your answer is interesting.  With lots & lots of years of experience writing code & troubleshooting computer-controlled equipment I do have a pretty good idea of how AI works.  You are probably assuming that I don’t ever use AI myself, which is false.
 
Currently AI is little more than an automated way to quickly look up details about a particular subject you are interested in.  The AI program is constantly scanning the internet and has created a large database of all kinds of basic information on different subjects. 

When you ask a question, AI can quickly access its database and compile a synopsis of the desired information and present it as an answer to your question.  AI doesn’t, by itself, generate answers, it’s basically a parrot that’s squawking out what’s been recorded in its database that’s been previously generated by experts in their respective fields. I really like it because it saves me countless hours going thru books & manuals looking up details about a software or hardware issue that I'm having.  It may not immediately give me the exact answer I'm looking for, but it usually quickly narrows down the other places I may need to look for a specific answer to my question. 

Want to do a little AI experiment?  Ask it if the earth is flat.

2

Technology & Information / Re: Autonomous weapons systems

« on: January 20, 2025, 05:38:22 PM »

Looks like I'll have to stfu. 
My only evidence (experience) is writing my first code back in 1966 and then off/on until just last week.  Guess that doesn't qualify me, according to someone, to understand the latest issues regarding computer controlled autonomous weapons systems and what it would take for them to become dangerous to the average human walking down the street.     

3

Technology & Information / Re: Autonomous weapons systems

« on: January 20, 2025, 03:01:22 PM »

Computers can still only execute code that humans programmed them to do.  Even when computers can write their own code, who wrote the code that enables them to do that? Humans.   Computers are nowhere near thinking for themselves yet.  Their infrastructure is completely human enabled and until that changes robots will never be able to weaponize themselves and autonomously  go out and start killing humans.  I’m not saying that would not be possible sometime in the future, but we are nowhere even close to that happening yet.

4

Technology & Information / Re: Autonomous weapons systems

« on: January 19, 2025, 06:47:46 PM »

Currently, an autonomous weapons system can only execute computer code that was programmed and then extensively tested by humans.   So far there are no computers that have an independent consciousness that can take over an autonomous weapons system and start killing humans.  If a plant in Ohio starts building autonomous systems, it will only be capable of executing what the programmers tell it to do before it’s launched into the environment.  I wouldn’t be a bit afraid of becoming a stockholder of such a corporation if I thought it was a good financial opportunity and certainly wouldn't worry about the robots they produced coming around to kill me.

5

Technology & Information / Re: Autonomous weapons systems

« on: January 18, 2025, 10:21:10 PM »

There have been autonomous underwater drones in existence for quite a while.  The drones have to be told what the mission is before they are launched.  There is a communications limit to any underwater vessel and unless the robot has been programmed to surface and make some kind of satellite or other WiFi connection to a central control every operation is done autonomously.  An underwater drone could be weaponized but before it was launched the internal computer would have to be programmed with specific instructions to tell the drone what to do if it encounters the enemy.  The enemy would have to be very specifically defined so the drone could tell the difference between the enemy and friendly forces.   

6

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment

« on: January 01, 2025, 07:31:36 PM »

I also don't believe the majority of self-proclaimed FE'ers sincerely believe that the Earth is flat. Instead I believe that flat earth provides them with an avenue of expressing their contempt--disdain--skepticism with things like science, institutions, government agencies, or that which they might not fully understand.

Perhaps there was some initial contempt and/or disdain for science & government at the start for a few of the flat earthers but the ones who jumped all in it also became a career opportunity.  I think it’s a bit strange, but you must admire their entrepreneurial spirit. What’s even stranger is that the round earth community is indirectly helping them out.  Controversy is the needed thing to keep things going.  The ‘final experiment’ did fan those flames a bit and will ultimately help their cause.  Some of the more popular flat earth deniers probably are doing OK for themselves as well.  My hat is off to both sides in that aspect.  I did take a look at the 'Behind The Curve' movie and you can see that the flat earth stars seem to really enjoy their lifestyle.  They can be self-employed and discuss their side of the earth's shape and make a living doing so.  The more they can promote controversy the better things will be for them.  Both sides need their 'fan boys' for support and to keep websites, like this one active.  Both sides need each other to keep things going.  The 'Final Experiment' kind of reminds me of a bull fight.  The bull needs a matador, and the matador needs a bull.  Ole!

7

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment

« on: December 20, 2024, 04:10:25 PM »

It looks like at least one of the flat earthers has wised up after his trip to Antartica. 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/flat-earth-youtuber-admits-mistake-after-trip-to-antarctica/ar-AA1wdgmr?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=2f464ac6c6fe460fa2b66903f8cf103a&ei=10
Perhaps he can use this publicity to enhance his flat earth channel and stack up even more viewers. 

Now the flat earth community will have to concoct an even more comprehensive bendy light theory to explain what was seen and documented.  Maybe this site will have to bring back the dome.  That should be interesting.  I can see the next 'final experiment' where someone organizes a trip to space. Of course, that has already been done but there wasn't any real flat earth involvement.   Just look up the trip taken by Dude Perfect who now is an official astronaut.  Who should be nominated for such a trip?

8

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment

« on: December 17, 2024, 06:28:28 PM »

The discussions here seem typical for this site.  The most significant subject, the 24-hour visible sun in Antartica, seems secondary to the discussion about the perceived temperatures and winds at the site.  Perhaps the underlying intent is to start a rumor that the whole event was being staged somewhere else and not in Antartica?  In that case the flat earth believers also at the site would have to be taking part.  There were some other misconceptions being tossed around as well.  No, you don't have to have a permit to be South of 60 degrees South Latitude if you are on a ship.  You could easily be in international waters, and you don't need a specific permit for that.  But yes, you will have to have some kind of a permit if you wish to go ashore in Antartica.  Why not wait for the reports to come back from the experiment's participants to see what they have to say?  Maybe there was insufficient controls placed on the experiment?  Perhaps there is a video showing continuous second to second coverage of the entire 24-hour period where the sun was above the horizon, but who would really spend all that time watching it second by second, and what would be the advantage of that over a much shorter time lapse video?  Will the flat earth participants verify the validity of the videos after they return, or will they have some other problems or questions?  I think those would be more relevant subjects for discussions.   

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: December 05, 2024, 05:12:26 PM »

There is no mechanism by which mass can affect space-time.

Even if you don't like MEE2024 and think that all the teams 'fake it till they make it' there are also lots of observations of gravitational lensing out there that illustrate the bending of electro-magnetic waves in the presence of very massive objects.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: December 04, 2024, 12:58:32 PM »

To any lay person watching the shimmering of heat waves off hot asphalt and the distortion of the points on the far side of the heat waves, the turbulence of the sun seems to represent a simple insurmountable barrier to the acquisition of highly precise data. It is clear from the outset that Eddington was in no way interested in testing Einsteins theory; he was only interested in confirming it. The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant corruption of science, may have misdirected scientific research for the better part of a century and probably surpasses the Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of all times.

Even if you don't like Eddington for all kinds of irrelevant reasons the basic objectives of his original experiment have been independently verified multiple times over the years.  This last time was this year (MEE2024) using modern equipment.   

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: December 03, 2024, 08:45:48 PM »

Gravity occurs because mass warps space-time.

There is no mechanism by which mass can affect space-time.

Apparently, you are unaware of the Eddington Experiment.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: December 03, 2024, 04:53:35 PM »

I’m a newcomer. I was reading through the “commonly asked questions” part. I just wanted to ask what gravity is? Because in that section, it explains “why gravity doesn’t pull the earth into a spherical shape” and so I just wanted to clarify what the definition of gravity is in regard to that. 

Gravity occurs because mass warps space-time.  The larger the mass the slower that mass moves thru space time.  If you are standing on the earth the mass of your body is trying to go thru space-time at one velocity while the earth is going thru space-time at a slower velocity.  An inertial force is applied to your feet continuously to keep your velocity the same as the earth's.  The more your body mass, the more inertial force will be applied to reduce your velocity to that of the object with the higher mass (the earth).   

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Photo from Plane Proves the Earth Is Round

« on: November 29, 2024, 06:18:44 PM »

You're answering as though it's possible to determine if the earth is round based on the OP. It isn't. The 'curvature' is simply the arc that is described around a center point. Put a compass (not the type that points north, but the geometry tool used to draw circles) on a globe and use it to draw a circle. That circle represents the distance to the horizon from the center of the circle. The higher you are above the center point, the farther away the horizon is, but it will always have the same feature, which is that it's an arc - and that is what you see when you see 'curvature'.

I will agree it would be quite difficult (if not impossible) for you to determine the earth's shape based upon some simple pictures from an aircraft's window.  There are too many variables and not enough controls.  If you take a compass and draw a circle on a sphere you are correct the higher you are above the center point, the farther away the horizon will be.  However, there will be an altitude above the center point where the horizon will be larger than the diameter of the sphere and at that point you won't always have the same features as at a lower altitude.  For the most part you just won't get high enough for this to happen.  What you would see above a sphere could be different than what you would see above a flat disk.  Imagine if you took an airplane ride above a flat disk near the edge.  The circle you would draw outlining the horizon would go off the edge at a much lower altitude than above a sphere, where it wouldn't matter where you were.  Near the edge of a disk the visible horizon would look radically different where part would be off the edge and part would above the earth.  This could be a perfect opportunity for the flat earth crowd to verify their FE thesis by simply chartering an aircraft flight to the South Pole and getting them to go to maybe 30,000 feet and it would be very possible that they could easily see the edge of the earth disk, if it does exist.  Of course, when the edge wasn't spotted the infinite earth argument would be trotted out.

Someone that probably has some interesting pictures (videos) would be 'dude perfect' who, went on a rocket ride up to at least 175,000 feet.  I believe he said that he didn't think that the earth was flat, but what would he know?

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Photo from Plane Proves the Earth Is Round

« on: November 28, 2024, 04:44:42 PM »

There surely is some Round Earth forum you can go to post your nonsense, correct?

Most likely not correct.  I did some searching but didn't come up a site where the subject of a round earth was the main discussion objective.  Perhaps I didn't search in the correct location.  Some of my search efforts directed me back to the flat earth societies' Wiki.  There are some discussions on Reddit but nothing that was very meaningful. 


Perhaps you know of a site where the major forum theme is 'The earth is round' ?


As for the pictures out of the window of an airplane...The solution is to take a series of pictures.  Start at something like 10,000 feet and then 20,000 and so on up to the max cruising altitude.  Then you can compare all the pictures when you get home.  If there's a little more curvature in the max altitude picture than the one at 10,000 feet you can use that for your proof and the aircraft window factor would be compensated for.  It would be difficult to conclusively show much curvature below 40 or 50 thousand feet.  Most airliners don't usually get that high very often.  There are pictures out there from military aircraft that do show curvature, but they don't usually show the series of pictures and that gives the flat earthers a little wiggle room and they shout, 'aircraft window distortion every time'. 

15

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Circumnavigation World Record Sailing Discrepancies

« on: October 06, 2024, 02:38:55 AM »

The most pertinent thing here is what was the estimated sailing distance for the trips around Antartica?  In order to qualify for a record, the trips must be above the 60th Southern parallel.  This opens the door for some serious discrepancies between the flat earth model and the round earth one.  On the (verified) round earth model the distance between all longitude lines decreases the further you go either to the North or to the South of the equator.  The flat earth model appears to have increasing distances between the longitude lines South of the equator.  This would result in a big, estimated distance discrepancy for the trip around Antartica.  A trip around Antartica on the flat earth model would have to be a whole lot longer than on the round earth model.  To make a trip in a specific time would require a lot higher speed on the flat earth model than on the round earth one.  That's the basic discrepancy on this thread. 


Keep in mind that the trip by Lisa Blair was a single handed one.  That makes a big difference.  There has to be time for her to sleep so her sailboat would have to have the sails hauled in and a sea anchor put out to allow for some hours of sleep.  There were plenty of ice bergs to navigate around and lots of ice forming on the mast and sails to make things more difficult. Some of the other sail boats that made the same trip had multiple crew members allowing some to safely sleep while others were on watch.  This means they could be traveling ahead 24 hours a day for the whole trip.     

16

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Circumnavigation World Record Sailing Discrepancies

« on: October 02, 2024, 07:53:05 PM »

One would think that higher wind speeds would help, rather than impede, Antarctic world record racers.

When you are sailing, the wind can help you or hurt you.  It all depends on the wind's direction and your desired course.  You can't sail directly into the wind on a sailboat.  Tacking back & forth is necessary to go against the wind.  That takes longer because you can't take the shortest distance between two points.  If the wind becomes too strong you have to haul in your sails to keep them from being ripped off the mast.  Then a sea anchor is your only option.  Icebergs could be another issue.  You don't want to end up like the Titanic, so you have to stay away from them.  Icebergs can also mess up the wind flow and make going around them while sailing a real challenge.   

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Firmament /Dome

« on: September 18, 2024, 03:14:09 PM »

The real flying altitude of commercial airplanes is some 6-7 km:

Your quote is incorrect.  I know that from personal experiences.  For many years I was an active licensed commercial pilot.  There have been some occasions when the Sun was directly overhead, and we were at an altitude of over 12km.  Your measurements are obviously wrong for that practical reason. 

18

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?

« on: May 15, 2024, 10:46:19 PM »

So, you have one sole instance to offer as a counter and it happens to be in a place you would have been able to visually detect a referenced landmark perhaps matching the flight map.

How in the world would this translate to a transoceanic flight having little if any similarity to the flight you cite?

If you need many more descriptions of long-haul airline flight experiences, I have plenty for you.


While I was working, I took lots of long-haul transoceanic flights.  Some were up to 15 hours long.  On those flights I sat in business class or first-class seats.  There was always a map with the aircraft’s position and ground speed displayed on the screen in front of me.  Sometimes there was even a forward-facing camera allowing me to have the same outside view as the aircraft’s captain on my display.  If I wanted to double check I could pull out my GPS receiver and have a 2^nd source of speed & position data. This worked OK especially when I was in a window seat.  I am an experienced commercial pilot/ship’s officer/ and navigator myself and was never surprised when I could confirm the aircraft’s position with landmarks below.  We would always start flying a great circle route to save fuel and sometime would go way up into the Artic on flights from the USA to Asia.  Sometimes that route would be altered to avoid unfavorable weather conditions. You can be sure that high altitude jet streams were taken into account when the pre-flight planning was done. There were times when we did divert for a refueling stop before reaching our destination but that didn’t happen very often.  When it did happen, there was always bad weather along the way and the pilot would make some diversions to avoid thunderstorms, typhoons, or hurricanes.  We did once land in Beijing, China to refuel on the way to Hong Kong but there were frequent storms along the way, plenty of adverse head winds and the weather was foggy in Hong Kong. It made sense to be safe and have plenty of reserve fuel in case a diversion or a holding pattern was necessary near the end of the flight due to the unpredictable visibility at our final stop. 
 
The bottom line is that I have the experience of many hundreds of trans-oceanic voyages by air and sea during my working years.   You always knew your position and speed over the ground very accurately.  If someone tells you the contrary, they might very well not be able to determine their position correctly, but experienced navigators certainly can, very accurately, determine both their position and speed over the ground.  If they can't then there is a serious problem with their equipment.  I don't believe that I ever had that happen to me in over 40 years of traveling.  I always had a backup or two to fall back on if a single piece of equipment failed.  Sure, in my early years, I had some navigational difficulties, but that was due to inexperience.  I got better & better at using the navigational equipment and reading navigational charts as my training & experience progressed. 

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An honest assessment of the evidence and the Flat Earth model...

« on: January 18, 2024, 06:33:20 PM »

When someone new comes onto this forum and asks ‘what does the flat earth theory say about ‘this’ the usual reply is a link to the Wiki.  Hopefully that person would thoroughly read the Wiki and then would certainly come across ENAG and the Bedford Canal experiment.  I am glad that you agree that upholding ENAG as religious dogma is silly and perhaps it’s only in the Wiki as an example of the silly things people believed in long ago. 


I certainly have no obsession with that book myself but only used it as a contrast to EA. That was part of my assessment of the evidence of the flat earth model. 


Perhaps you don’t wish to take any responsibility for much of the contents of ENAG yourself.  I wouldn't blame you.  It would be a difficult job to explain every single wrong thing that was published in it. 

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An honest assessment of the evidence and the Flat Earth model...

« on: January 18, 2024, 04:04:27 AM »

The thing that Rowbotham asserts in ENAG is that the level of a body of water was parallel to a specified line of sight over 6 miles.  The assumption was then made that the line of sight was flat because light travels in straight lines.  Since the level of the water was parallel to the line of sight over the specified 6 miles the whole earth had to be flat.

Later Parsifal came up with an equation that asserts that light is bendy and can’t define a straight line.  This assertion was used to explain other observable phenomenon like the fact that it’s dark at night.  Of course, the equation is incomplete so must stay undefined until a value of the Bishop Constant is found. 

If Parsifal’s equation is valid then Rowbotham proved with his Bedford Canal experiment that the earth really isn’t flat but must be curved the same way light is. 
If Rowbotham was correct, then there’s some serious problems in FET like why it gets dark at night.