Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ichoosereality

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: January 12, 2022, 12:40:18 AM »
Assuming you meant "the vaccines only last a few weeks", you are still wrong.  We may indeed need a new jab every year, or maybe every 6 months, but not monthly.
Well I can take your word for it or a doctor's word for it. Imma choose the doctor.
I hate to break it to you but often medical Doctors know little outside of their speciality and are notorious egomaniacs, thinking they know everything.  This one in particular mentions that he likely has better immunity from Covid from getting it than he would have had he been vaccinated.  This is false.  First the two types of immunity are different, and the vaccine induced one has been shown to be  stronger.  From https://healthcare.utah.edu/healthfeed/postings/2021/10/covid-immunity-vs-vaccine.php
Quote
A recent CDC study shows that those who have had COVID-19 and are not vaccinated, are more than twice as likely than those who are fully vaccinated to contract COVID-19 for a second time.
You of course should not have to take my word for it, but look for good sources, not just ones that agree with your point of view.  Here are a couple
https://www.medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2021/05/how-long-will-my-vaccine-protect-me
https://www.verywellhealth.com/length-of-covid-19-vaccine-immunity-5094857

The vaccines don't actually stop you getting the disease. So it can still mutate away inside me once vaccinated and I can still pass it on.
As I said, if you are vaccinated you beat it down faster so there is less chance of passing it on (but not zero chance of course).
And as I said, there is no 'beating it down'. Even with the jab you can still contract and spread the virus.
You are (intentionally?) missing the point.  Of course you must "get" the virus for the vaccines to do anything.  But the point of the vaccines is that they prime your immune system so you can kill it off faster, so it never builds up as much (so you will spread if less) and do so for a (potentially much) shorter time. Not zero possibility of spread, just much less likely.

Eradicate coronaviruses, no of course not.  But eradicate this strain that is causing problems in humans, yes I think that is possible.  And we do not have evidence of it jumping from animals to humans as a common event.
You can't eradicate something that spreads regardless of whether you vaccinated people or not. These are vaccines ... not cures.
See above.  Or see https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/infectious-diseases-that-have-been-globally-eradicated.html, about how we have eradicated the SmallPox virus and are on the verge of doing so for some others as well.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: January 11, 2022, 11:02:23 PM »
The way to stop new variants is to vaccinated the world.
How would that stop new variants?
Variants are a natural outcome of (random mistakes during) replication of the virus.  The less replication, the fewer variants.  The more people that are vaccinated thus beating down the virus faster, the less replication there is.  The closer we can get to eradicating the virus the less chances there will be of new variants.  Do you disagree with that?

No. The virus only lasts a few weeks and then the effectiveness plummets rather quickly. So you'd need a jab once a month.
Assuming you meant "the vaccines only last a few weeks", you are still wrong.  We may indeed need a new jab every year, or maybe every 6 months, but not monthly.

The vaccines don't actually stop you getting the disease. So it can still mutate away inside me once vaccinated and I can still pass it on.
As I said, if you are vaccinated you beat it down faster so there is less chance of passing it on (but not zero chance of course).

It's a coronavirus. It lives in wild animals. Indeed they've found it in everything from Lions in the zoo to people's pet dogs. Vaccinating people wouldn't be enough. you'd have to vaccinate every creature on earth.
The fact that even with vaccines billions of people will still get the disease, you can't eradicate the disease as you mention.
Eradicate coronaviruses, no of course not.  But eradicate this strain that is causing problems in humans, yes I think that is possible.  And we do not have evidence of it jumping from animals to humans as a common event.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: January 11, 2022, 09:54:47 PM »
The way to stop new variants is to vaccinated the world.
How would that stop new variants?
Variants are a natural outcome of (random mistakes during) replication of the virus.  The less replication, the fewer variants.  The more people that are vaccinated thus beating down the virus faster, the less replication there is.  The closer we can get to eradicating the virus the less chances there will be of new variants.  Do you disagree with that?

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: January 11, 2022, 06:47:21 PM »

Why should people feel ashamed if it was always known that the vaccines wouldn't actually provide immunity?

There is a clear answer to this. It wasn't "always known". It simply didn't work. Hence the shame for believing one thing and experiencing another. Cope.
The vaccines DO work even against Omicron.   No vaccine is 100% effective.  The vaccines are less effective against Omicron than the are against Delta but cases, hospitalizations, and death rates are all much lower for the vaccinated and lower still for the vaccinated and boosted (Growing gap).  The way to stop new variants is to vaccinated the world.  Had we done so when the vaccines were first available Omicron might well not have emerged.

So of course no one should feel ashamed for getting vaccinated, everyone TODAY should get vaccinated.  We have to cope with the reality that this is not over yet (as it could have been) thanks to the UNvaccinated.

5
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 10, 2022, 07:00:27 PM »
Experiments are of course good, but observations alone are very useful as at least those tell us what exists and whether or not they match predictions.

Observational science is defined as pseudoscience. Science must follow the scientific method.
The only reference to "observational science" on that wiki page is the U of Madison statement that astronomy is an observational science, sure that's obvious.
You completely ignored my quote from Maxim Sukharev's paper on the scientific method (he is your FIRST quote on the wiki here about the scientific method).  Here is the key part
Quote
4. Predict – this is where it gets really interesting! In order to test our hypothesis, however mystical and crazy it may look, we need to make an experimentally testable prediction: in
10 hours it is going to be dark again.
5. Test predictions – well, is it dark? It is vital in this method that a given test must be done
objectively and could be independently repeated. This is where the scientific method truly distinguishes between what is real (objective) and what is just a figure of our imagination (or fraudulent attempt).
Note that the key part is to make a prediction and test that prediction against observation.  That observation can of course be of a controled experiment where you can modify numerous conditions but it need not be (as it was not in Sukharev's example).

Quote from: ichoosereality
Clearly FE theory falls very flat (pun intended) on this score.
  • FET predicts some sort of atmospheric containment mechanism (all encompassing dome, 70 mile high ice wall, infinite plane, or ...) at the rim of the claimed flat disk yet despite centuries of travel no such thing has ever been observed.
  • FET predicts distances and hence travel times that are significantly different from RET times particularly from the equator to the "rim" (which ever hemisphere your favored FE model uses), yet again after centuries of travel the FET times are not observed while RET times and distances fit perfectly.
  • FET can not deal with sunrise and sunset (or star rise and set) without "bendy light" which is not even specified sufficiently to make a testable prediction.
Does not the methodology laid out by Sukharev clearly show FET to be false?

Some elements in FE are pseudoscience, and some of it is not. Anything astronomy is pseudoscience, like in RE astronomy is largely pseudoscience, since it cannot be directly tested.
My question was not whether FE claims are pseudoscience (that's obvious), but whether FETheory is FALSE according to Sukharev's outline of the scientific method. 

Travel in the South can be tested, and there are various anomalies which are of interest: https://wiki.tfes.org/Flight_Anomalies
We have traveled extensively around the planet and the times/distance match the RE model and are not close to matching the FE model.  Grasping at straws of "well they are not non-stop flights" and "there are storms and unusual winds" does not get you out of this. Such things are not remotely of sufficient scale to account for the extreme distances around the edge of FET claimed disk not to mention no one ever observing this claimed edge despite global travel (much of which should be impossible with the FE model).

Plus of course you completely ignored the atmospheric containment mechanism that FET predicts but has never been observed.

Quote from: ichoosereality
Interesting that none of these references call out modern astronomy as a pseudoscience.  Stanford University doesn't seem to have an issue with the observational nature of astronomy https://physics.stanford.edu/research/experimental-and-observational-astrophysics-and-cosmology.

Scientific American has a problem with the cosmology professed on websites like that:
(link to Jeranism reading a Scientific American article deleted).  If you would like to hold Scientific American up as a source of truth, then show us an article there claiming the earth is flat?
Of course you can not do so.  Further it is not one published paper which makes the case, that is only the first step.  The work must be repeated and verified and stand the test of time.

I agree that cosmology is highly speculative (so do many, maybe even most, cosmologists).  We were not talking about cosmology, if my reference to the astrophysics work at Stanford where they clearly delineate observation vs experiment (clearly finding scientific value in both) side tracked that conversation then my bad  The point of the article is that even in their experimental work, it is often about making a special tool to observe.  e.g. we can not generate gravity waves but the project to detect them is clearly classified as experimental.

Quote from: ichoosereality
This appears to be self published.  Further it is about the claim that stellar parallax proves the earth orbits the sun, which is not at issue here.  This is a classic technique of the FE crowed.  Find some snippet in some paper that you think supports your case.  But its the scientific consensus that we lay folks need to pay attention too.
Refusal to appropriately address the argument provided means that you lost it.
No Tom, your insistence to pluck quotes from random self published papers means you never really made the argument.  The whole point of peer review is that lay folks like you and I and likely everyone on this site, do not have the expertise to know what is being left out, what should the author have addressed, how was the analysis performed etc. 

Quote from: ichoosereality
Offering quotes from people who died centuries ago (Bacon for example) as support for your claims (particularly around things like modern astronomy that Bacon could not have dreamed of) is hardly a strong debate tactic.

Actually it's easy to find that the Scientific Method is still the standard for science, and has nothing to do with only applying to Roger Bacon's time.
The Scientific Method does not require experiments where all conditions can be controlled but predictions which can be tested by observation (potentially of an experiment, but that is not required).  My reference to Bacon who lived 700 years ago was that he could not comment about modern astronomy.

I am not questioning the scientific method, I am asserting that those pushing FET are NOT using it.

6
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 07, 2022, 06:52:48 PM »
Even under those claims, the spacecraft are still just observing, and not experimenting, on the stars to know their true nature.
Experiments are of course good, but observations alone are very useful as at least those tell us what exists and whether or not they match predictions.   Gravity probe B was designed specifically to directly observe the curvature of space and it was successful and confirmed General Relativey on this point as well as Frame Dragging (which I would likely not try to explain even if I understood it, which I do not).

The actual paper by Maxim Sukharev about pseudoscience does not insist on an experiment where all conditions can be controlled but only experimentally testable (i.e. observable) results as to whether or not they match prediction (in his example that our cave got dark at the predicted time or in a more modern example that Gravity Probe B would detect a particular curvature, which it did).
Quote
1. Observe – sometimes it is dark in our cave and sometimes we see the light.
2. Question – we then question these observations as to why we see periodic changes.
3. Hypothesis – we need a possible explanation based on our previously acquired knowledge.
At early stage any hypothesis would work (but remember that it is better to propose simple
and logical hypotheses because they are easier to verify experimentally).
4. Predict – this is where it gets really interesting! In order to test our hypothesis, however mystical and crazy it may look, we need to make an experimentally testable prediction: in
10 hours it is going to be dark again.
5. Test predictions – well, is it dark? It is vital in this method that a given test must be done
objectively and could be independently repeated. This is where the scientific method truly distinguishes between what is real (objective) and what is just a figure of our imagination (or fraudulent attempt).
6. Draw a conclusion – if our prediction was successfully verified, we keep our hypothesis for now and come up with another possible test until we either disprove it or promote it to the level of theory.
Clearly FE theory falls very flat (pun intended) on this score.
  • FET predicts some sort of atmospheric containment mechanism (all encompassing dome, 70 mile high ice wall, infinite plane, or ...) at the rim of the claimed flat disk yet despite centuries of travel no such thing has ever been observed.
  • FET predicts distances and hence travel times that are significantly different from RET times particularly from the equator to the "rim" (which ever hemisphere your favored FE model uses), yet again after centuries of travel the FET times are not observed while RET times and distances fit perfectly.
  • FET can not deal with sunrise and sunset (or star rise and set) without "bendy light" which is not even specified sufficiently to make a testable prediction.
Does not the methodology laid out by Sukharev clearly show FET to be false?

It's also not only his claim that experimentation is required for quality science. See: The Scientific Method, The Scientific Renaissance, Roger Bacon, the Astronomy is a Pseudoscience page
Interesting that none of these references call out modern astronomy as a pseudoscience.  Stanford University doesn't seem to have an issue with the observational nature of astronomy https://physics.stanford.edu/research/experimental-and-observational-astrophysics-and-cosmology.

Quote from: ichoosereality
The distance to "nearby" stars like Proxima Centauri (4.24 ly == 4.88 trillion miles) that appear to move (as the earth orbits the sun) against the background of stars that do not appear to move can be estimated via parallax from opposed sides of the earth's orbit (see https://www.britannica.com/story/how-do-we-know-how-far-away-the-stars-are).  Much more distant stars present much more of a challenge, but even Proxima Centauri is vastly further away that allowed for in the FE model, isn't it?

This is contradicted by the negative parallax that occurs.
This appears to be self published.  Further it is about the claim that stellar parallax proves the earth orbits the sun, which is not at issue here.  This is a classic technique of the FE crowed.  Find some snippet in some paper that you think supports your case.  But its the scientific consensus that we lay folks need to pay attention too.

In many cases the Wiki does not provide content of its own, and its pages are references of sources. I could simply just spam it all here; but I am kind enough to allow you to go there to organized pages with organized sections and see that you are incorrect.

Avoiding addressing the content linked to you is a very weak debate tactic.
Offering quotes from people who died centuries ago (Bacon for example) as support for your claims (particularly around things like modern astronomy that Bacon could not have dreamed of) is hardly a strong debate tactic.

7
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 07, 2022, 04:14:52 AM »
Quote from: ichoosereality
The Scientific American articles that is referenced from the fe wiki page you offered DOES specially deal with stellar angular sizes, but no matter.
So we are all agreed that the method of estimating the size of a distant star by measuring the size of the disk one sees in a telescope is spurious.  I thought you were arguing FOR this technique when you said

Apparently the sizes of the galaxies are also an illusion.

If something is causing the stars and galaxies to enlarge, and the perspective rules don't apply to them, the argument that the Sun would shrink becomes less powerful. Since it is difficult to conduct controlled experimentation on the celestial bodies this argument of what "should" happen exists as an exercise of assumptions.

Recall the quote on this page by Edgar Zilsel - "Natural events are usually compounds of numerous effects produced by different causes, and these can hardly be separately investigated until most of them are eliminated by artificial means. There is, therefore, in all empirical sciences a distinct trend toward experimentation."

Since it is difficult to do experimental work with the stars, and astronomy exists nearly entirely of fallible human assumption and attempt at logic, we can see that we don't know much.
I'd say that the consensus of astronomers/cosmologists is that in the last 20-30 years we have seen the birth of a new era of astronomy clearly departing from the era of assumptions and grounded in observations.  Not merely Hubble and Gaia but the vast number of space telescopes has revolutionized our understanding of the cosmos and that will continue with Kepler.   Since Zilsel died in 1944 we don't know his view.

Quote from: ichoosereality
The distance to "nearby" stars like Proxima Centauri (4.24 ly == 4.88 trillion miles) that appear to move (as the earth orbits the sun) against the background of stars that do not appear to move can be estimated via parallax from opposed sides of the earth's orbit (see https://www.britannica.com/story/how-do-we-know-how-far-away-the-stars-are).  Much more distant stars present much more of a challenge, but even Proxima Centauri is vastly further away that allowed for in the FE model, isn't it?

This is contradicted by the negative parallax that occurs.
Referencing your own wiki as authoritative  come on.

8
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Asking some friendly questions :)
« on: January 06, 2022, 10:11:14 PM »
A perfect cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator would create output that is indistinguishable from the background noise of our universe.
False, see https://ethw.org/Cosmic_Background_Radiation

Even if it were true, so what?  This would not be evidence for being in the matrix but merely of the lack of our understanding of the earliest stages of the universe.

Excellent link, well played.

However a map is a static image of the background radiation. If we just listen to the sound of the cosmos as it washes over us or convert it to stream of digits, it would be random. ( we have to move far enough away from the stars planets and galaxies so we don't detect their cyclical movements.)
Note "would be", and over what time period?  Such "listening" as you describe is observation in a fixed direction that would if you were listening early enough, over time, display the small changes the map depicts.  Once enough time has elapsed such ripples tend to flatten out and become more homogenous.  But again so what?

There is an argument that says if we are in a matrix, there would be no way for us to prove it or know it because we could get nothing from an external frame of reference.
That seems quite reasonable.  I can think of no way to detect such other than inconsistencies so extreme as to be deemed impossible.  Then again if Haldane's 1927 quote "the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." is correct then that method is fundamentally flawed.

9
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Asking some friendly questions :)
« on: January 06, 2022, 08:58:53 PM »
A perfect cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator would create output that is indistinguishable from the background noise of our universe.
False, see https://ethw.org/Cosmic_Background_Radiation

Even if it were true, so what?  This would not be evidence for being in the matrix but merely of the lack of our understanding of the earliest stages of the universe.

10
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 08:43:16 PM »
Quote from: ichoosereality
So unless you want to rely on 1600's thinking as your authoritative source, the claim that angular measurement of stars supports FE is simply wrong.  We well understand this issue today and the stars are indeed very very far away and not vastly bigger than our sun.

The author of the cited articles is clearly indicating that the diameter of the stars we see are spurious and illusions:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200402225228/https://www.vofoundation.org/blog/strange-tales-galileo-proving-splitting-stars/

You see, the disk-like appearance of stars that Galileo saw through his telescope was completely spurious. Telescopes have limitations, brought on by the fact that light is a wave. They cannot concentrate light waves down into a small enough spot to show a star truly (the scientific term for this issue is diffraction). Very small telescopes are particularly limited in this regard. That disk-like appearance of 5 arc seconds in diameter that Galileo writes about is entirely a product of his telescope. That disk is formed inside the telescope. It does not exist outside the telescope. And since it does not exist outside the telescope, it cannot be cut in half by anything outside the telescope. But Galileo did not know this.

This is, in fact, how astronomers first began to figure out that the star disks were spurious. They watched the moon pass in front of stars. They noticed (to their surprise) that the moon did not cut into a star and gradually cover up the star’s disk. Rather, the moon had no effect on the star at all for a while, and then suddenly the star winked out all at once (when the moon finally covered the true body of the star, which is just a vanishingly small point as measured from Earth). But at the time of Galileo and the Dialogue, no one had realized this.
The Scientific American articles that is referenced from the fe wiki page you offered DOES specially deal with stellar angular sizes, but no matter.
So we are all agreed that the method of estimating the size of a distant star by measuring the size of the disk one sees in a telescope is spurious.  I thought you were arguing FOR this technique when you said
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The article quoted on the page I linked says that this is false and that the angular diameter of Sirius is over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon, for example.
apologies if I got that wrong.

The distance to "nearby" stars like Proxima Centauri (4.24 ly == 4.88 trillion miles) that appear to move (as the earth orbits the sun) against the background of stars that do not appear to move can be estimated via parallax from opposed sides of the earth's orbit (see https://www.britannica.com/story/how-do-we-know-how-far-away-the-stars-are).  Much more distant stars present much more of a challenge, but even Proxima Centauri is vastly further away that allowed for in the FE model, isn't it?


11
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Asking some friendly questions :)
« on: January 06, 2022, 06:53:25 PM »
3. Do you believe the earth or reality is real? I've stated my case we live in a simulation. Do you believe that too? Why or why not?
As Sean Carol states in his excellent book The Big Picture (available on Audible and which I highly recommend for anyone wanting an up to date view of what science says about our univese) we can not be 100% positive (maybe 99.9999...%) we are not all "brains in jars".  But he (nor I) see any evidence of that.
What is yours?

12
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 06:03:37 PM »
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Stars are so distant that they are pretty much a point light source, so no.

The article quoted on the page I linked says that this is false and that the angular diameter of Sirius is over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon, for example.
I see two referenced articles and neither say that.
The Scientific American article explores the thinking in the early 1600's, when Kepler made this claim, but ends with:
"By Hooke’s time [1674] a growing majority of scientists accepted Copernicanism, although, to a degree, they still did so in the face of scientific difficulties. Nobody convincingly recorded the annual stellar parallax until Friedrich Bessel did it in 1838. Around that same time, George Airy produced the first full theoretical explanation for why stars appear to be wider than they are, and Ferdinand Reich first successfully detected the deflection of falling bodies induced by Earth’s rotation. Also, of course, Isaac Newton’s physics—which did not work with Brahe’s system—had long since provided an explanation of how Brahe’s “hulking, lazy” Earth could move."

Likewise the Natuilus article ends with
"But the story of the Copernican Revolution shows that science was, from its birth, a dynamic process, with good points and bad points on both sides of the debate. Not until decades after Kepler’s On the New Star and Locher and Scheiner’s Mathematical Disquisitions did astronomers begin to come upon evidence suggesting that the star sizes they were measuring, either with the eye or with early telescopes, were a spurious optical effect, and that stars did not need to be so large in a Copernican universe."

So unless you want to rely on 1600's thinking as your authoritative source, the claim that angular measurement of stars supports FE is simply wrong.  We well understand this issue today and the stars are indeed very very far away and not vastly bigger than our sun.

13
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 05:41:21 PM »
Signal based navigation which gives your coordinates is also based on the stars. Whatever the signal is coming from gets its coordinates from land based stations, which themselves have a known coordinate which was based on a survey of the sky at some point. The LORAN broadcasting towers had to know their own coordinates to be able to provide ships their coordinates via radio wave, which was ultimately derived in the traditional manner from celestial bodies.
I specifically stated GPS as the navigation system.

Also, the stars get dimmer near the horizon as the atmosphere builds up. The assertion that they don't get dim is incorrect.
But then why do they wink out at/past the horizon rather then just continue to get dimmer?  (I'm guessing it will be "bendy light" to the rescue).

14
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 01:06:06 AM »
...In the North the coordinates are based on the altitude of Polaris (which latitude is based on, which is why 90 degrees N is the North Pole) and timezones (which longitude is based on). With that you can travel between any two points in the North.
That may well have been how latitude and longitude emerged, but today you find your position via gps, not looking at constellations.  The distances between at least some places in the southern hemisphere on a flat earth would have to be much further apart than we experience in travel.  How can that be?

And since you brought up the north star.  As you travel south it does not get dimmer but only lower.  As you get to the equator it is near the horizon but still the same brightness.  Then a bit further south and it is quite suddenly no longer visible (drops below the horizon).  FE theory claims its just further away, right?  Why the non-linearity in brightness going bright, bright, ..... bright, gone.  Why can't you see it from the southern hemisphere with a telescope?

oh wait, I forgot, its "bendy light" right?  that aspect of light that can not be precisely stated nor demonstrated in the lab but dominates our observations of the cosmos.  right.  ok, forget that just answer the travel distance question.

15
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 05, 2022, 05:20:16 PM »
I don't think I understand the question. In what way is there no agreed map of the earth?
By "map" here, I don't mean a flat piece of paper. I mean it in the more general sense that the earth has been mapped - we know the size and shapes of land masses and the distances between places.
In what way do you think any of that is in dispute? We have a whole global transport system and technologies like GPS which rely on this being the case.
I'm pretty sure I know what you meant, but just to make it clear:  GPS itself (the satellite system) does not rely on any exiting maps.  It does rely on the know circular orbits of the transmitting satellites which will only happen with a globe earth.  Given the satellite ID and transmission time received from 4 satellites the receiver computes  the globe based latitude, longitude and altitude of the receiver (irrespective of any map), which when plugged into a map (all conveniently done in the various map apps on one's phone these days) will show your position (within 30 ft or so).  The map in your phone is based on the globe model and GPS verifies it to be correct.  e.g. if I am standing on the edge of San Francisco bay and ask my phone "were am I" it correctly shows me at the edge of the bay.

16
DISCLAIMER:. I advocate a South Pole centered Flat Earth that spins once a day, wobbles once a year, is covered by a dome shaped atmosphere that tilts towards a small solar system at about 30deg, and magnets are what holds everything together.
What you are doing is the opposite of critical thinking.  You have a model that for some reason you want to match reality so you are trying to fit observations into it.  But it doesn't work.  If instead you simply ask what do our observations tell us about the earth, the answer is unmistakably that it is a sphere.  What leads you to "advocate" something else?

17
It's the increase of airspeed which gives the aircraft lift in thin air.
The stall speed (the minimum speed of air moving front to back over the wing) of a commercial plane is something like 150mph.  If there is a 1000mph+ tail wind that means there is no front to back flow over the wings at all and the plane will drop like a stone.

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

18
Further 1000 mph winds would rip even a commercial airliner to pieces let alone something as fragile (once the solar panels are unfolded) as the ISS.
And a tail wind of 1000mph would mean no air was flowing front to back over the wings of the plane so no lift and it would fall.

19
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Opportunity for Texas FEs
« on: December 30, 2021, 07:37:38 PM »
Personally, I'm not sure what value this law brings to anyone. We already work with schools and other educational groups to help them discuss FE and better understand the world around them through critical inquiry. Over-regulating this through laws is only likely to result in a more forced, and ultimately worse, approach.
Do you have a reference or link etc for this work?

20
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Opportunity for Texas FEs
« on: December 30, 2021, 07:36:09 PM »
A new law in Texas (HB 3979) requires educators to present “diverse and contending perspectives” on topics that are debated or controversial.
I do not think that this is correct.  The only use of "controversial" that I find in Texas 3979 is (emphasis mine) page 4:

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

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

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >