1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 17, 2025, 01:28:47 PM »

I just see a bung of random clips without context. "If I said that, that's quid pro quo", said what? Quid pro quo requires a pro quo. I don't see that Trump has offered anything in return.

I also don't see that there is a history of presidents rejecting gifts. The gifts given to presidents go to the National Archives, which is where the plane is going. So I am not sure what you guys are whining about, exactly.

That's from the june 28 debate.


"Joe could be a convicted felon with all of the things that he’s done. He’s done horrible things. All of the death caused at the border, telling the Ukrainian people that, we’re going to want a billion dollars or you change the prosecutor. Otherwise, you’re not getting a billion dollars. If I ever said that, that’s quid pro quo. That – we’re not going to do anything. We’re not going to give you a billion dollars unless you change your prosecutor having to do with his son. This man is a criminal."

Yes, what Joe biden did is close to quid pro quo because it is a political act in exchange for a financial favor. But more accurately it's closer to blackmail and corruption because it was money they were already supposed to get, which he was threatening to withhold unless they fired the prosecutor, which would coincidentally benefit his son.

I don't see how this relates to the plane situation, however.

Also, Obama is well known for having rejected gifts.

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/01/politics/barack-obama-michelle-obama-gifts

But Obama, like any other federal employee, is legally barred from accepting any of it outright.

This was in 2015.

It says that he can't accept it "outright", by which they mean "personally." Read the rest of that section for context. In the previous paragraph in the same section and topic it says that the Obama Presidency did accept the gifts:

"In the Obamas’ case, most of the items have been dispensed to the National Archives, while a few, including wine and perishables, are handled by the Secret Service."

The Obama Presidency accepted the gifts, even if they didn't get put on display and were not particularly paraded. This affirms that the norm is for the US President to accept the gifts, and that they ultimately go to the National Archives. It is actually inappropriate and rude to tell a King or Queen that you don't want the gift that they made efforts to prepare for you.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 17, 2025, 12:05:10 PM »

I just see a bunch of random clips without context. "If I said that, that's quid pro quo", said what? Quid pro quo requires a pro quo. I don't see that Trump has offered anything in return.

I also don't see that there is a history of presidents rejecting gifts. The gifts given to presidents go to the National Archives and Records Administration, which is where the plane is going. Considering that this is how it has worked in the past, I am not sure what you guys are whining about.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 16, 2025, 04:25:26 PM »

Not according to the domestic and foreign emoluments clauses in the Constitution.  Why do you think that Trump went through the motions of (partially) divesting himself from the Trump Organization for his first term?  This time around he isn't even pretending.

Actually, in this case, he is following US protocols. See this gift to the Obama daughters. The Obamas could not personally keep the items and they were later turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration, the same federal agency Trump is turning the plane over to.

https://www.invaluable.com/blog/most-extravagant-gifts/?srsltid=AfmBOor2izZKBc6aurp0YChaqfJTRqKwmezVct7_B9HqkS5MfAk6g2hw

In 2014, just before his passing, the late Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, King of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at the time, showered then president Obama with gifts. Among the swag was a white gold watch estimated at over $60,000, a jewelry set for First Lady estimated at over $500,000, and jewelry sets worth an estimated $80,000 for the First Daughters, Sasha and Malia Obama. In all, Abdullah presented the Obama family with gifts worth an estimated $1.3 million. While the exchange caused a minor political controversy at the time, many people didn’t realize that the Obama family could not actually keep any of the items. While the gifts were accepted in order to avoid a cultural snafu, per US protocol they must later be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration to avoid any potential conflicts of interest.

The Trump Library is part of the same federal agency:

https://www.trumplibrary.gov - "The Trump Presidential Library is part of the Presidential Libraries system administered by the National Archives and Records Administration, a federal agency."

The only minor clarification I see in any of this is that the President can use the items on official business, but cannot personally keep the items after he leaves office. That's is like saying that if a CEO of a company is given a ceremonial and historic baseball glove by an organization, that he can keep the item at the office and show it off on official company business, but can't keep it personally.

And how would you know if it did or did not?  Are you privy to every conversation and thought Trump has?

No, and I don't particularly care. That is your side's job to bring a case.

Oh it's a ceremonial $400m plane. OK, champ. Nothing to see here then.

Correct. If the Obama daughters were given $400m of jewelry it would also be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration. The value of the item is not in the recipient's control.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 15, 2025, 07:35:44 PM »

If Trump is using his status as POTUS to further his personal financial interests, then that is absolutely a conflict of interest because he is supposed to be putting the interests of America before his own.

That's not the issue in conflict of interest. Conflict of interest issues deal with workplace ethics and responsibilities. It doesn't matter if a bank is giving bigger loans to CEOs. It doesn't matter if celebrities are using their celebrity to get last minute tables at high profile restaurants. The issue arises when that CEO or celebrity utilizes their workplace to give favor to that entity. As long as they are not doing that then they are free to receive benefits and make as much money as they want, and so is Trump.

Trump is in a position to return favors, you are not.   That’s why he’s getting lavish gifts from shady governments and big corporations while you get screwed by footing the bill to upgrade then decommission an Air Force One that probably will never be used as Air Force One.   Pray tell, why decommission it when it would make far more sense for it to serve future presidents?   Trump is trying to cut wasteful spending, isn’t he?  Maybe DOGE should take a look at this deal.

Your argument assumes that every gift received by Trump as president comes with an expectation of future favors, but this view oversimplifies the dynamics of gift-giving in diplomacy and politics. Gifts from foreign governments or corporations are often ceremonial, a norm in international relations, with a long history. If there is evidence that a gift directly influenced policy decisions to benefit a specific entity or government, then that would indeed warrant scrutiny. However, the mere receipt of gifts does not automatically imply corruption or a quid pro quo arrangement.

5

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Physicist Brian Cox on Universal Acceleration

« on: May 14, 2025, 05:53:10 PM »

This statement from someone who postulates Electromagnetic Acceleration and even has a mathematical, as yet, undefined constant named for him is beyond comical.

Your response perfectly illustrates the deflection tactic I predicted at the outset of this thread. Instead of addressing the core argument, you attempt to dismiss the discussion by referencing unrelated topics. This does nothing to defend your position that the Earth is continually exploding apart from itself through speculative mechanisms like space-time curvature.

Instead of providing evidence or a coherent defense of the Round Earth model's reliance on metaphysical constructs like curved space-time, you attempt to derail the discussion by mocking unrelated ideas. This is a textbook example of an ad hominem fallacy. If you believe the Round Earth explanation of gravity is superior, demonstrate it with evidence and logical reasoning, not deflection.

You have provided no evidence or logical argument to support the claim that the Earth is accelerating upward through curved space-time. Instead, you resort to dismissive remarks. This lack of engagement suggests that even you recognize the intractability of the Round Earth explanation, which requires increasingly convoluted abstractions to justify its claims. If the Round Earth model were as robust as you imply, why not defend it directly?

I'm curious about the bizarre physics that would be needed to uniformly accelerate the flat earth and all of the celestial objects.

You should probably first focus on the problem with the official model that the earth is exploding apart from itself in an unseen dimension, and that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through spacetime. Where is the evidence for this? Your reference texts give the acceleration phenomena proofs that the earth is accelerating upwards as proof enough that this is happening, which is insufficient considering that there is another more direct interpretation.

6

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Physicist Brian Cox on Universal Acceleration

« on: May 14, 2025, 05:42:58 PM »

Things do not "fall" to the ground. The so-called "falling" is nothing more than the result of the Earth accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s², as evidenced by direct observations and experiments.

Then why do your cherry-picked quotes not say that then. Literally the first one you quote says:

In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time

And:

That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

Once again you've quoted something which doesn't even say what you're trying to pretend it says.

The quotes I provided support the understanding that the surface of the Earth exhibits effects consistent with upward acceleration. While you continue to come up with an argument in favor of "space-time," the observable phenomena, gravitational redshift, time dilation, and weightlessness, are consistent with upward motion. The distinction between "mechanical" upward acceleration and the "space-time curvature" explanation hinges on interpretation, but the physical effects remain identical. My interpretation is based on direct observations rather than metaphysical constructs.

And in your model why doesn't the acceleration mean the earth is now going faster than the speed of light? Don't worry, bro, special relativity has you covered:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Why_doesn.27t_the_Earth.27s_velocity_reach_the_speed_of_light.3F

Cherry picking again. You dismiss Special Relativity as some "abstract explanation" when it suits you, you accept and use it to explain other things when it suits you.

Actually that section is addressing a believer in SR who believes that there is a speed of light limit. They are incorrect about what SR says. Special Relativity's limit on the speed of light is well-understood, and the explanation provided in the TFES Wiki shows why constant acceleration does not violate this principle. The velocity asymptotically approaches the speed of light due to relativistic effects, meaning it never exceeds it.

Your accusation of cherry-picking is unfounded. Whether Special Relativity is real, or whether it is entirely false and there is no light speed limit, what matters is that the observed phenomena for gravity align with upward acceleration.

It's so intellectually dishonest. And once again you conflate "I don't understand this" with "this can't be true". The rest of your post is a box set of your arguments from incredulity.

The argument is not based on incredulity but on the simplicity and directness of the evidence. The Flat Earth model accepts the observed upward acceleration without invoking unseen dimensions or speculative theories like space-time curvature. The incredulity lies in the need for such convoluted frameworks when the phenomena can be explained more intuitively.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 14, 2025, 02:37:20 PM »

What do you think the Trump Organization’s luxury golf course in Qatar is supposed to be, if nothing less than a conflict of interest?   
https://apnews.com/article/trump-qatar-deal-conflicts-saudi-arabia-emoluments-7379bee2e307d39bd43b534a05ae3207

BTW, you didn’t say how long the plane would be used as Air Force One before it would be decommissioned.  Could the upgrades even be completed before the end of his term?  Do you really think that any savvy businessman would consider a reasonable return on investment for all of the required upgrades?

That's a licensing deal. The article says that he is licensing the name to a Saudi firm who is building in Quatar. If Trump is receiving money from any of these parties, it is irrelevant. It's not a conflict of interest because there has been no proof that this has affected Trump's decisions in the workplace, or that there has been a clash of personal and professional interests. There are just accusations that their could be a clash.

Again, if you or anyone wants to give me money I would just say thanks and be on my way about it. It's not a given that I am going to owe or give you anything back. In fact, any money you give me will be going into a deep dark hole, never to be heard of again. It's probably not a good idea to send me money if you are expecting anything in return.

If you do think that a debt is inherently owed from random gifts, then I challenge you to send me a gift card of any amount and see if the debt is returned.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 14, 2025, 02:27:03 PM »

Tom. Hey! I'm not in a cult! Stop saying that MAGA is a cult!
Also Tom...

Why would he keep it when it can be a main feature of a major tourist destination dedicated to the Trump Presidency and further immortalize him?

All Hail Our Supreme Leader, May His Name Live On Forever!! #notacult

The US Government immortalizes all of its presidents. Every child is provided books praising them all. Trump will be remembered 500 years from now and beyond. The US President is essentially a king, and so it is only right that his name is remembered among the names of kings.

No, that's a bill to allow him to build one without having to follow state or local laws.  It says nothing about actually doing it.

So essentially... It's a concept of a plan.  He can't even be bothered to follow local building laws.  And even if it passes, no obligation to build it there.

Actually the location of Florida is not a coincidence. The Republican party is clearing the way because they intend to build there.

Yeah... You should read the PDF.  They have 36 million in expenses.  So their net profit is -3 million

It doesn't cost $36 million a year to maintain a museum for a President who left office in 1989. This is a reflection of having a lot of other money in their pocket to spend on improvements. The same PDF says on page 16 that they have investments of over 300 million



The revenue of 33.3 million shows that the museum is capable of making millions.

1. He ordered a new plane in 2018.  Now you're saying he didn't have to?
2. So millions in revenue per year while the next president has to spend hundreds of millions on another plane.
3. The Regan Library had a profit of -3 million a year.  Trump is more hated than Regan.  He won't get nearly as many visitors or donations.  So... How would it make money?  Show me the math.

1. He doesn't have a new plane. If it's going to be ready in 2027, the 2028 president can use it.
2. See above, if there is a plane ordered then the money is already spent.
3. I doubt the liberals are flocking to Republican Ronald Reagan's library. So the people who hate Trump are irrelevant to the potential revenue of the Trump library.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 14, 2025, 11:11:46 AM »

Trump is not going to be storing the plane in a nonexistent structure when he leaves office. He is going to be keeping it, and the cowards whose job it is to hold him to account will once again just mumble about how much they disapprove.

Really? Why would he keep it when it can be a main feature of a major tourist destination dedicated to the Trump Presidency and further immortalize him? The museum would be a grander use for it. It is being given to the federally administered Trump library after his term because it will become a part of the Trump library. It's not too hard to understand.

A landmark... where?  Because last I checked, Trump hasn't even made any comments on WHERE his presidential library will be, let alone began to build one.

There is a bill to allow it to be built in Florida.

With this plane as a library feature exhibit it is going to help bring in millions of dollars in tourist revenue, not to mention notoriety. Ronald Regan's library makes 15M a year, and Trump's library will top this easily.

Not sure that's accurate.  in 2020, they were losing $150,000 per week in revenue due to covid.
Which equates to $7.8 Million a year.  Half of what you stated.

From Google AI:

>>ronald reagan museum yearly revenue

"The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum generated approximately $33.3 million in total revenue for the year ending September 30, 2023, according to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute."

They are making plenty of money.

So Trump can use one of these aging planes and not have one be built, which is scheduled to be completed in 2027?

He doesn't need to do that because one was given to his presidency as a gift, which will go on and serve as  a US landmark and help bring in millions to US revenues. It was given to Trump, not any other president. Your proposal appears to be for him to reject it, and thus deny us money.

It absolutely makes sense. It's a free plane to the American taxpayer and is going to be used for decades as a United States landmark.

But how long will it be used as Air Force One?

Thing is, the cost isn't even the worst part.  What sort of quid pro quo will Qatar expect in return for the "gift"?  This is why the Emoluments Clause says that the President may not accept such "gifts" without congressional approval.

It's only a quid pro quo if there is a pro quo. For example, if you sent me a link to redeem a $1000 Amazon gift card to my DM as a gift I would happily keep it and assume that you truly just wanted to give me a generous gift. I would give you nothing in return except for a message of thanks.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 13, 2025, 06:40:09 PM »

Trump wants to use it for 4.  A brand new plane.  Used for 4 years.  Does that make sense to you?

It absolutely makes sense. It's a free plane to the American taxpayer and is going to be used for decades as a United States landmark. With this plane as a library feature exhibit it is going to help bring in millions of dollars in tourist revenue, not to mention notoriety. Ronald Regan's library makes 15M a year, and Trump's library will top this easily.

There are plenty of other aging planes in the federal collection that future presidents can use as Air Force One. The plane Trump is being given is also not "brand new" and is 13 years old.

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 13, 2025, 05:17:37 PM »

Yep, I called it. In a press conference about this Trump even mentions the plane exhibit in Ronald Regan's library as a model for this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTnDlrNPzgc

@3:21
it's something that was done by Ronald Reagan
they actually decommissioned the plane
and he put it in his library and it
actually has made the library I think a
Boeing 707 uh it's actually made the
library uh more successful so it was
good

do you plan to use the plane after you leave office?

no I don't no it would it would go
directly to the library after after I
leave office

Considering that the US Taxpayers are not even paying for this plane…

If Trump ever plans on using it as Air Force One, then the US Taxpayers will most certainly be on the hook for upgrading it to Air Force One standards, and that won’t be cheap.

Yes, and they are going to take the stuff they install back afterwards.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 13, 2025, 04:41:23 PM »

So basically....

"I will gift my plane not to the next president but to...my library.  So the librarian can fly it or something."

>_>

I don't see evidence that anyone is intending to fly it. Several presidents have their vehicles displayed in their presidential library, such as Ronald Regan's library:

https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2012/10/31/archives-spotlight-the-ronald-reagan-presidential-library-and-museum/

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum is located in Simi Valley, California—about 40 miles northwest of Los Angeles—and holds over 60 million pages of documents, 1.6 million photographs, hundreds of thousands of feet of audiovisual material, and 40,000 artifacts.

In the Air Force One Pavilion, you can tour Air Force One (tail number 27000). This airplane carried Presidents Nixon, Carter, Ford, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush all over the world and the United States. This “Flying White House” was integral to Reagan’s presidency: he wrote many speeches, signed legislation, and relaxed while traveling in Air Force One.

You can also visit an exhibit on Presidential motorcades. Vehicles include one of Reagan’s presidential limousines, Secret Service suburbans, and a Marine One helicopter that flew President Johnson.

Considering that the US Taxpayers are not even paying for this plane, the library can more easily justify making the plane a tourist exhibit of Trump's presidency. Since this is a gift to the Trump Presidency which will be used for his presidency, it should logically be immortalized as Trump's flying palace and admired by the world.

If you thought that the goal was simply to give it to Trump as another plane, you were looking too low and thinking too small. Its existence as a opulent Trump exhibit is a far grander vision and is obviously the gameplan with this plane.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 13, 2025, 04:25:09 PM »

The luxury plane, which would be one of the most valuable gifts ever received by the U.S. government, would eventually be donated to Trump's presidential library after he leaves office, the source said.

Like I've said before, there is no Trump presidential library. This plane is a gift to Donald Trump himself, not to the office of the president or the federal government.

This is wrong. There is a Trump Presidential Library and it's part of the federal government. The plane is going back to the federal government.

https://www.trumplibrary.gov - "The Trump Presidential Library is part of the Presidential Libraries system administered by the National Archives and Records Administration, a federal agency."

The federal government will be deciding what to do with the plane after Trump leaves office.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 12, 2025, 07:01:53 AM »

There is barely anything special about it. It's a currency as much as a pencil is a currency. Trump may as well be selling pencils with individualized serial numbers that people are willing to buy from him and then sell to each other for prices that they decide among themselves.

Should politicians be allowed to sell pencils? Yes. The genius comes in convincing people that they should sell the pencils to each other, which gives the pencil potentially more value. Outside of the initial sale of the pencil it has nothing to do with Trump.

Does there need to be laws in selling pencils with serial numbers on them? No. Why would there be? There are many politicians who are business owners and sell products, and many more who are heavily invested in businesses, all potentially corruptible for political influence. This meme coin is just an asset with a serial number on it, which its owners go on to trade among themselves.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 11, 2025, 09:11:33 PM »

You actually don't even have an example that politicians should not receive money from their supporters. Many politicians ask for and receive money from their supporters. There is massive fundraising from Super PACS,  which raise hundreds of millions of dollars for candidates and politicians. Companies write very large checks to these organizations, which are often looked at with suspicion and shade. If your argument is that politicians should not receive money from their supporters, this is blatantly contradicted by a century of fundraising.

In Obama's last term as President he was notably raising money from people to "support his goals".

Trump is ingeniously giving something in return to his supporters through Trump meme coins which could potentially have value based on the success of the very person they are investing in. Usually when you give money to a politician you get nothing in return, so he has improved the process with his innovative business acumen and has made it far more attractive for people to consider investing in him.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 11, 2025, 06:48:58 PM »

If a president wants to lie repeatedly, use his position of power to further enrich himself and his mates, make decisions which push the country in to the brink of recession, take no responsibility for anything and blame everyone but himself for his failings and just generally act like a complete asshat on the world stage and make himself and by association your country a complete laughing stock then you're right, there's no requirements to stop him doing any of that.

And yes, because of the MAGA Cult he gets away with it.
Where we differ is I don't actually think it's a good thing. I'd rather have a world leader with honestly, integrity and competence.
I'm a bit of an old traditionalist when it comes to stuff like that.

You are wrong. Trump does not have control over whether he is successful in his meme coin business. Trump is not enriching himself by selling meme coins. It is his supporters who are enriching him because they have faith that its value will go up based on his success. This is very different to, say, the insider trading Nancy Pelosi and other Congress people blatantly engage in. Because of this insider trading Nancy Pelosi is getting greater rates of returns than Warren Buffet, and is one of the greatest traders of all time. Now that is self-enrichment and blatant fraud.

For the rest of your post, it is just more unsupported liberal accusations without merit.

17

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Physicist Brian Cox on Universal Acceleration

« on: May 11, 2025, 12:00:38 AM »

That was your third post in this thread you have already abandoned Newtonian Gravity and the idea that objects fall "downwards." What will you abandon in another three posts? Will it be the insistence on unseen dimensions, metaphysical curvature, or perhaps the reliance on abstract mathematics that only serves to obscure the reality of the Earth's upward acceleration?

Things do not "fall" to the ground. The so-called "falling" is nothing more than the result of the Earth accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s², as evidenced by direct observations and experiments. The fact that reality is this way shows that the earth is flat, not that we must create abstract explanations to explain it. The flat earth model simply accepts what the evidence directly shows without requiring extra mathematical dimensions or "curvature" that nobody can see. Your theory of gravity, however, attempts to explain these phenomena by resorting to an interdimensional simulation of upward acceleration through curved spacetime. This is not only convoluted but also entirely unnecessary. Inventing bizarre physics to fit a Round Earth paradigm is the wrong approach.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the upwards acceleration of the surface as the  more direct explanation of physical reality. The upwards acceleration of a flat surface does not require the metaphysical gymnastics of curved spacetime or the invention of unseen realms. The earth is not continually exploding apart from itself interdimensionally in a desperate explanation of reality.  It relies on observable phenomena and empirical data, while your Round Earth model continually retreats into abstraction whenever its foundational assumptions are questioned.

You seem to think GR means a flat earth is forever physically accelerating upwards, but GR doesn't make that claim. It instead says that with a suitable reference frame, Earth can be considered as accelerating towards the apple.

The experiments show that there is clear physical evidence supporting the idea that the Earth is accelerating upwards. Yet you dismiss this as merely mathematical, claiming we can "consider" the Earth as accelerating upwards without it being physically real. This is outright denial of physical evidence and a refusal to engage with reality.

Let’s examine your position. How can the surface of the Earth be "accelerating upwards" in some unseen mathematical dimension while its physical effects, such as redshifts, time dilation, and weightlessness in free fall, are undeniably real and observable? If the effects are real and measurable, then why isn’t the mechanical process of upward acceleration also real?

Your response reveals the lengths to which defenders of this absurd theory must go to justify their position. By retreating into abstract, unseen models and redefining physical phenomena as "considerations," you sidestep the evidence at hand. This isn’t an argument grounded in science, it's an exercise in creating convoluted explanations to prop up an outdated paradigm.

When pressed to defend your position, you resort to nonsensical jargon and metaphysical abstractions, which only highlight the weaknesses in your argument. The most direct explanation, supported by experimentation and direct observation, is that the Earth is physically accelerating upwards; no unseen dimensions or "considerations" required.

18

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Physicist Brian Cox on Universal Acceleration

« on: May 10, 2025, 04:58:34 PM »

Your difficulties with Brian Cox are at least partly accounted for by his mischievous nature – in the original video you referenced, he's already mocked people calling him a paid NASA shill by claiming that's how he can afford to stay in the Raffles Hotel, Singapore, lol.

It's not only Brian Cox saying this, see these collected quotes from https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle

Gravity: A Very Short Introduction

From Gravity: A Very Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton, we read:

“ Consider a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. The skydiver falls freely, up to the effects of air resistance. According to Einstein, the skydiver's path is the straightest line possible through the curved space-time around the Earth. From the skydiver's perspective this seems quite natural. Except for the air rushing past her, the skydiver feels no perturbing forces at all. In fact, if it weren't for the air resistance, she would experience weightlessness in the same way that an astronaut does in orbit. The only reason we think the skydiver is accelerating is because we are used to using the surface of the Earth as our frame of reference. If we free ourselves from this convention, then we have no reason to think the skydiver is accelerating at all.

Now consider yourself on the ground, looking up at the falling daredevil. Normally, your intuitive description of your own motion would be that you are stationary. But again this is only because of our slavish regard to the Earth as the arbiter of what is at rest and what is moving. Free yourself from this prison, and you realize that you are, in fact, accelerating. You feel a force on the soles of your feet that pushes you upwards, in the same way that you would if you were in a lift that accelerated upwards very quickly. In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

With this change in perspective the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space. On the other hand, as a person standing on the ground, the pressure you feel on the soles of your feet is due to the rigidity of the Earth pushing you upwards. Again, there is no external force pulling you to Earth. It is only the electrostatic forces in the rocks below your feet that keep the ground rigid, and that prevents you from taking what would be your natural motion (which would also be free fall).

So, if we free ourselves from defining our motion with respect to the surface of the Earth we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually think. Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs! ”

Why Is Spacetime Curved?

In a section titled Why Is Spacetime Curved? of the book Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe by John Richard Gott III, professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University, we read:

“ A famous (perhaps apocryphal) story about Einstein describes one occasion when he fell into conversation with a man at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. During their chat, the man suddenly pulled a little book from his coat pocket and jotted something down. Einstein asked, “What is that?" “Oh,” the man answered, “it's a notebook I keep, so that any time I have a good idea I can write it down before I forget it.” “I never needed one of those," Einstein replied. “I only had three good ideas.”

One of them occurred to him in 1907—what he would later call the “happiest” idea of his life. Einstein noted that an observer on Earth and an observer on an accelerating spaceship in interstellar space would have the same sensations. Follow this chain of thought to see why. Galileo had shown that an observer dropping two balls of different mass on Earth sees them hit the floor at the same time. If an observer in an accelerating rocket in interstellar space performed the same experiment, dropping two balls of different mass, they would float motionless in space—but, since the rocket was firing, the floor of the spaceship would simply come up and hit both of them at once. Both observers thus should see the same thing. In one case, it is the result of gravity; in the other case, it is caused by an accelerating floor with no gravity involved. But then Einstein proposed something very bold—if the two situations looked the same, they must be the same. Gravity was nothing more than an accelerated frame-of-reference. Likewise, Einstein noted that if you get in an elevator on Earth and cut the cable, you and everything in the elevator will fall toward Earth at the same rate. (Galileo again—objects of different mass all fall at the same rate.) So, how do things look to you in the falling elevator? Any object you drop will float weightless in the elevator—because you, the object, and the elevator are all falling at the same rate together. This is exactly what you would see if you were in a spaceship floating in interstellar space. All the objects in the spaceship, including you, would be weightless. If you want to experience weightlessness just like an astronaut, all you have to do is get in an elevator and cut the cable. (This works, of course, only until the elevator hits bottom.)

Einstein's assertion that gravity and acceleration are, the same—which he called the equivalence principle—was influenced, no doubt, by his previous success in equating the situation of a stationary magnet and a moving charge with that of a stationary charge and a moving magnet. But if gravity and accelerated motion were the same, then gravity was nothing but accelerated motion. Earth's surface was simply accelerating upward. This explained why a heavy ball and a light ball, when dropped, hit the floor at the same time. When the balls are released, they just float there—weightless. The floor (Earth) simply comes up and hits them. What a remarkably fresh way of looking at things!

Still one must ask how Earth’s surface could be accelerating upward (away from Earth's center) if Earth itself is not getting bigger and bigger with time like a balloon. The only way the assertion could make sense is by considering spacetime to be curved.

Einstein proposed that mass and energy cause spacetime to curve. It took him 8 years of hard work to derive the equations governing this. He had to learn the abstruse geometry of curved higher dimensional spaces. He had to learn about the Riemannian curvature tensor—a mathematical monster with 256 components telling how spacetime could be curved. This was very difficult mathematics, and Einstein ran upon many false leads. But he didn't give up because he had great faith in the idea. ”

Relativity Visualized

“ Einstein’s view of gravity is that things don’t fall; the floor comes up! ”
                  —Epstein, Lewis Carroll: Relativity Visualized. (Insight Press, San Francisco, 1988) pp. 65 ff.

Tony Goldsmith

Tony Goldsmith, author of a mass-media book Space-time for Absolute Beginners and his Absolute Beginner book series, explains the Equivalence Principle as follows:

“ When you are in a lift you may be accelerated. Where is this coming from? It is the lift pushing you up.

Einstein said that the Earth does the same as a lift (which has an acceleration of g). The Earth isn't in the way; it is doing the pushing. This is his Equivalence Principle. ”

Why Gravity is NOT a Force

A popular science video by Veritasium with over 10 million views, Why Gravity is NOT a Force, explains at the 9:57 mark how in General Relativity you accelerate upwards without changing your spatial coordinates with the General Relativity equation:

“ But if I'm accelerating up and so is everyone else around the world and presumably the whole surface of the Earth, then shouldn't the whole earth be expanding?

No. It is possible for you to be accelerating even though your spatial coordinates are not changing. I will show you one equation from General Relativity...

(equation)

...so in curved space-time you have to accelerate just to stand still. ”

Inner Life of Numbers

In a book on how math relates to the universe One to Nine: The Inner Life of Numbers by mathematician Andrew Hodges, he describes that the earth's surface is accelerating upwards against your feet in the geometry of curved space-time:

“ Earth's mass curves the geometry of space-time in such a way that the Earth's surface is always accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/sec^2 and so presses on your feet. Weight doesn't exist, but the Earth's electromagnetic forces push harder on fat boys than on slim. This sounds crazy, but it is no crazier than the fact that if you steam straight ahead on a sphere you will end up back where you started. Such things are made possible by curvature. ”

Earth’s Surface Accelerates Up (and Out)

A physics student, Berry, came across this subject and made us a brief paper about what he learned in his upper level physics classes, showing the math on how in the globe model of gravity the surface of the earth is actually accelerating upwards.

“ This paper uses the Schwarzchild geometry utilized by the current globe Earth model to show that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards. ”

The video Markjo posted above also has the earth accelerating upwards at the twelve minute mark:

19

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Physicist Brian Cox on Universal Acceleration

« on: May 10, 2025, 03:52:43 PM »

Remarkable. I'll be blunt then, which experiments on Earth's surface tell us it's the Earth physically accelerating upwards, not gravity pulling us towards Earth?

It's mostly all the stuff you have already heard about.

- Light redshifts when pointed at a ceiling. This is predicted by the earth's upward acceleration, as the ceiling accelerates away from the light. It is not predicted by Newtonian Gravity.

- The perceived information from a clock speeds up as the clock increases in height above you. This is predicted by the upward acceleration of a surface, where the observer is accelerating into the broadcasted photons. It is not predicted by Newtonian Gravity.

- Bodies and particles of different masses fall together, despite that they have different inertial resistances and require different amounts of energy to be moved. This is predicted by an upwards accelerating earth, and requires an absurd coincidence in Newtonian Gravity, as described by the above space.com article.

- Bodies are weightless as they fall. A strand of hair or globule of water will have different parts of its atoms moving up and down weightlessly, when a downward pulling gravity should be pulling all atoms "down" together. If a flat falling rope or strand of hair is falling, pulled downwards at every atom, even at the same rate, it should not freely flex and bunch in every direction and deform as if in a weightless environment. In loosely connected matter such as water, a hair, or a rope, there should be resistance against the downwards pulling gravity if some atoms try to go upwards in relation to the rest.

The reason these phenomena are being pointed out with interest by physicists in the relativity articles is because it's not something Newtonian Gravity adequately predicts. The weightless absurdity is Einstein's "Happiest Thought", which led him to his Equivalence Principle. Why would he be so happy if it was something that was adequately explained for centuries? These phenomena are pointed out as wow amazing in the introduction to relativity texts because they go against intuition of a world where things are being pulled downwards, instead suggesting that the surface is being pushed upwards. If Newtonian Gravity predicted everything fine there would be no reason to replace it.

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 10, 2025, 01:34:16 AM »

Selling Trump merch is one thing.  Using meme coins to sell direct access to the president is a whole new level of corruption.
https://news.sky.com/story/us-senators-attempt-to-ban-trumps-profoundly-corrupt-crypto-schemes-13363230

You actually don't need to own a meme coin business to accept money from people. Trump and his family were making multi-million dollar deals as he was President during his first term, and I am still waiting for you guys to prove that bribery occurred as has been alleged.