61

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: July 21, 2023, 01:05:57 AM »

One might want to be cautious about using the Daily Mail for a source:

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/daily-mail-still-not-taking-climate-change-seriously/  says

The ‘Daily Mail’ has a long track record of promoting climate change denial. Its coverage of climate change before and after COP26 has been no exception.

Although it is the most widely-read newspaper in the UK, the ‘Daily Mail’ has a reputation for publishing inaccurate and misleading information. For instance, in 2017, Wikipedia’s editors concluded that there is “established consensus that the Daily Mail was not a reliable source, and that its use in most Wikipedia articles was prohibited”.

62

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: July 16, 2023, 06:15:37 PM »

Sure, Democrats recognize that families work together; the Trump administration saw some epic nepotism, and Democrats definitely recognize that the Trump crime family has been working together shamelessly defrauding people for decades. I guess maybe some day we'll see some concrete evidence that Joe and Hunter conspired to do something similarly illegal together, who knows?

Indeed, who knows?  Further just the perception that a company has gained some sort of "inside track" by putting a member of a powerful and well connected family on their board can be useful to that company, whether said appointment actually provides such or not.

63

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Why was my thread in Angry Ranting locked?

« on: July 07, 2023, 06:41:06 PM »

You tell me, is asking the FEers why there are no FE supporters within the thousands of professional scientists in the related fields, an allowed question?

Dunno, it smacks of disingenuous trolling. After all, you're asking why something that's false is true ...

Perhaps you would care to provide evidence that my assertion is false here

64

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Why was my thread in Angry Ranting locked?

« on: July 07, 2023, 03:32:52 PM »

I was just expressing my previous experience in getting banned for what I thought was a completely reasonable post that was within the posted rules.    You tell me, is asking the FEers why there are no FE supporters within the thousands of professional scientists in the related fields, an allowed question?  If so, where may I post it?

65

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Why was my thread in Angry Ranting locked?

« on: July 06, 2023, 04:33:28 PM »

OK, thanks.   Where would it be appropriate to ask that question?  In "flat earth community" perhaps?

66

Suggestions & Concerns / Why was my thread in Angry Ranting locked?

« on: July 06, 2023, 06:11:36 AM »

My thread entitled "Why are there no scientists pushing the FE idea?" in Angry Ranting was locked.  I'd appreciate knowing why (it's hard to follow rules if not told what they are).  The title did not make clear that I was looking for how FEers answered that question but the post did so.  I thought it was a pretty ordinary question.

67

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 05, 2023, 10:22:01 PM »

I would say that the disclaimer "Paid for by WinRed. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee." is referring to the site itself, not the merchandise sold on the site.  I'm not sure that sorts out the confusion completely since the site does say things like "Trump... Official Merchandise" so its hard to see how that part of the site content would not require approval by Trump both to make sure he likes it and to make sure he is getting a cut.  However I do not think it would intersect campaign finance law (even for "Trump 2024" merchandise) as long as Trump's cut was going to him personally and not Trump's campaign fund as I suspect is the case with such things.  But just speculating and if Lord Dave has it correct then profits ARE going to Trump's campaign.  Color me confused.

68

Science & Alternative Science / Re: “Science” is far too often misrepresented.

« on: April 03, 2023, 10:34:53 PM »

...

Your responses are just personal attacks and insults.  I see no point in continuing this interaction.

69

Science & Alternative Science / Re: “Science” is far too often misrepresented.

« on: April 03, 2023, 06:55:56 PM »

Clearly things like arguing something around velocity or acceleration while not understanding what those are is very poor argumentation. But such failures do not validate the other side.

I didn't propose that they do, and you're extremely disingenuous to strawman me like that. If you'd like to respond to what I actually said, I'm happy to hear you out. Until then, however, I will be reminding you to behave in the upper.

I did not claim that you did so.  Perhaps I should have made that more clear but are you following your own advise about responding to what was actually said?

I also note that you declined to comment on my point about the thousands of successful space flights being a much repeated experiment confirming the standard solar system model.  You are of course free to respond or not as you see fit, but it seems like a pretty glaring omission to me.

extremely small deviations in the path of a light beam

Deviations from what?

From the expected (i.e. straight) path.

who often are selling T-shirts or books or seminar tickets etc

I despise the accusation. Our markups are set to $0 for a reason. I expect you to retract and apologise. I also ask that you be more careful in the future - if you're gonna accuse someone of profiteering, you had best fucking had some evidence. Until then, you serve as excellent proof of my point above.

"Our markups"?  I did not even realize that you were selling such things, I was referring to other places on the net.

Why are there not at least some career scientists in the relevant fields that are championing FET or EA?

Ah, that really is a head-scratcher, that one. Why, oh why, are there no career fascist politicians out there championing communism? A mystery for the ages, that one.

I fail to see how that addresses my point.  Science is of course not perfect.  It can be influenced by commercial or political issues/trends as can pretty much any human activity.  But diverse views are pretty well tolerated and again there have been many upsets over the years.  So your sarcasm does not remotely address the question I actually asked.

70

Science & Alternative Science / Re: “Science” is far too often misrepresented.

« on: April 03, 2023, 04:14:19 PM »

Clearly things like arguing something around velocity or acceleration while not understanding what those are is very poor argumentation. But such failures do not validate the other side.

Don't the thousands of successful space launches over the past 60 years count as a very repeated experiment validating the standard solar system model (with round planets, including the earth, orbiting a much more massive sun) ?

If EA were real why has it never been seen in the lab where extremely small deviations in the path of a light beam can be detected (via things like interference patterns)?

The history of science includes many upsets with a small group going against the status quo and eventually being proven correct.  Yet for FET it seems to be all layman as far as I can tell (who often are selling T-shirts or books or seminar tickets etc).  Why are there not at least some career scientists in the relevant fields that are championing FET or EA?

71

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: April 02, 2023, 03:33:35 PM »

...
There are no straight slopes on a globe. They are all curved. If i walked 1.57 miles due south from someone at the north pole i would be 1 mile lower than them on the globe. But because that doesnt appear to occur then the earth can not be global.

No. The math you suggest is simply wrong and is obviously so just looking at a circle let alone opening a basic trigonometry textbook (there are plenty of such resources online).

If you really do not understand the math here (which I doubt) you might play a bit with the site Mack offered

If that were true then sin(x)-sin(x-1) as x goes from 90 to 1 (i.e. looking at the difference in the Y coordinates of each end of 1 degree arcs 0-1, 1-2, 2-3,....89-90) would be a constant which is obviously not the case.  What you claim is nonsense.

If I'm translating right, I think this website makes your point.  It's pretty cool.  Move the slider in the top right corner.

https://www.geogebra.org/m/hnZMkBdc

72

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: April 02, 2023, 02:55:01 AM »

The reason people are finding it so hard to comprehend is because that's not what it looks like on a globe earth. Now why might that be I wonder?

Ah now we come to it.  Forget the earth just use a circle. You are claiming (at least as I read it)  that the change in height (the y axis) of coordinates on the perimitter of this circle are constant for a constant traversal of circumference i.e. for a constant angle which that circumference subtends.  If that were true then
sin(x)-sin(x-1) as x goes from 90 to 1 (i.e. looking at the difference in the Y coordinates of each end of 1 degree arcs 0-1, 1-2, 2-3,....89-90) would be a constant which is obviously not the case.  What you claim is nonsense.

I am guessing that you understand that and are just trolling a bit to try and make a FE claim.  Math is not your friend in this cause.

73

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: April 01, 2023, 10:51:17 PM »

.... This therefore suggest that for every 1.57 metres I travelled down the global building that I dropped 1 metre in height (and is obviously a constant for a circle/globe). ....

No, it is not a constant for circles/globes.  It would be a constant for a straight slope of constant angle.  This is what you do not or perhaps refuse to understand or acknowledge.  Do you really think that if standing next to someone on the top of this building and that they take only 2 steps away from you that they will then be a full meter lower than you are?

And a circle is constant. Every section no matter how large or small has the same curve as any other section of that circle. Thats constant.

Yes but you are not talking about a drop relative to each section but to the starting point (at N) and that is NOT constant.   Someone moving 2 steps away from a person at N (on your dome) would NOT be 1.57m lower.  As others have pointed a constant rate of your "drop" results in a straight slope not a curve.

74

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: April 01, 2023, 03:18:54 PM »

.... This therefore suggest that for every 1.57 metres I travelled down the global building that I dropped 1 metre in height (and is obviously a constant for a circle/globe). ....

No, it is not a constant for circles/globes.  It would be a constant for a straight slope of constant angle.  This is what you do not or perhaps refuse to understand or acknowledge.  Do you really think that if standing next to someone on the top of this building and that they take only 2 steps away from you that they will then be a full meter lower than you are?

75

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 31, 2023, 10:24:40 PM »

I have revised the image to hopefully better explain this.

Instead of walking from N to E1 imagine walking from N to X. This is half the distance to the equator and represents one eighth (1/8) of the earths circumference ie 3,113 miles.  Can we agree on this?
If so the drop/fall/decrease in height in relation to the north pole (call it whatever) will be equal to 1,982 miles ie one half (1/2) the radius of the earth. Can we agree on this?
If either of the above figures are incorrect please tell me how?

Accepting the above if we divide 3,113 miles by 1,982 miles we get a drop/fall/decrease in height in relation to the north pole of 1 mile per 1.57 miles travelled.

As several folks including myself have pointed out, its incorrect as the drop/fall IS NOT LINEAR.  So computing one value of drop/fall for a particular distance traveled, dividing by the distance to get an average drop per unit distance for that particular distance, and then multiplying it by another distance traveled  is mathematically wrong.  Circles and spheres are not linear.

You can see this for yourself using the chord calculator I posted.   Use that to get the drop for 1 mile walked south from the North Pole (or 1 mile walked away from any other point)  If you multiply that times 1/4 of the circumference of the earth does it come anywhere close the the actual drop that we know must be equal to the radius of the earth?  Of course not.   Its just as wrong doing it with the bigger values going to the smaller distances as you are doing.

76

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 30, 2023, 03:04:44 PM »

....
Looking at it another way. If I walked across the salt flats for 1.57 miles I should be 1 mile lower than when I started. And am sure we all know that this is not the case.
I am not sure if I am explaining this as I intended or indeed correctly but would welcome some genuine advice/debate/discussion on this particular matter as something just doesn't seem right and am sure I haven't miscalculated the actual maths.

The fundamental mistake you are making is an assumption that your "Rate of Drop" is linear; it isn't.  The "rate of Drop" as you call it increases as you travel south. 
....

Exactly.  Perhaps playing a bit with a chord calculator like this one https://planetcalc.com/1421/ would be instructive.

Go down near the bottom to the "Circular segment - complete solution".  The height here is the distance from center of the arc to the center of the chord so to have that stand in for the north pole you will need to double your arc lengths (since its arc length includes the arc on both sides of the height line). Put in radius=3963, arc length=2, increase the digits after the decimal point to 5 and see that the height is .00013 . Since that is in miles that's about 8 inches drop for being 1 mile from the start.  For the last mile set the arc length=12448  and compare that height with the full arc length=12450 and you will see the height difference is 1 mile (actually very slightly less than 1 mile if you were to do the calculation with sufficient precision).

Isn't that non-linearity pretty obvious just thinking about a circle or ball?

77

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Does the Sun appear larger in the morning?

« on: November 30, 2022, 12:57:16 AM »

As other's have said, be very very careful of your eyes here.

I suggest using a pin hole device for such an experiment.  Get yourself a mailing tube in the 2-3 feet long range.  Cover one end with aluminum foil securing it around the tube with tape.  This will be the end in which you poke a tiny hole in the center with a pin.  Do the same on the other end but with paper that is not so heavy that the light will not shine through to some extent.  Wax paper will work but you can not draw on it easily so just light (cheap) white paper is likely good.  Then when you have it aligned with the sun you will see a small dot on the paper (again do not put your eyes in direct line here even with the paper on).  You can then look at it from the side and either measure directly or carefully trace around the dot and measure later.  Positioning the tube and holding it steady will be the hard part.  Attaching it to a camera tripod (even with just duct tape) might work.  Also the image does not have to be centered on the paper, so you can have them move across the paper as the day goes on and then they will be easy to compare.  Not having them centered will make a tiny difference in size since the length is different but only very very slightly.

78

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 24, 2022, 06:42:28 PM »

None of what I wrote is dismissive of the existence of things outside my literal or figurative field of view. It is a statement of the distinct failure of humanity admitting their shortcomings and lack of understanding for those easily attainable things surrounding us; and their predilection to claim to "know," things that could not possibly be known.

https://archive.org/details/kingsdethronedhi00hickrich/page/n5/mode/2up

OK, this:

I believe in what I can sense and mentally fathom.

I can point to the things present around me, occupying the areas I have been or am in, and state, "I understand ..."

And that is just for a very small portion of things.

To claim I can look at things I do not have access to and lay any sort of claim consisting of, "THIS IS REALITY," is just nutso thinking.

Seemed to be to being saying exactly that, but ok.  There are very likely things we can not know or maybe even ask reasonable questions about (like what came before the universe, since that question makes no sense if time started with the universe).  But having only read the preface to KindsDethroned its author is clearly making the classic claim of those whose work can not be replicated by others.  It is not governments nor institutions that pass judgement on scientific claims but the work of other scientists, i.e. peer-review.  Further now, as opposed to in 1920's we have all the evidence of space travel.  To claim a work published only in the popular press 100 years ago somehow proves all of space travel (including the things we all can observe working, like GPS, sat TV, etc) must be false, seems quite ridiculous to me.

79

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 24, 2022, 05:53:41 PM »

We send space craft to Mars (a trip of about 300 million miles) based on the standard solar system view (i.e. RE).
....
What exactly do you not understand?  The TRIP takes nearly 300Million miles (something like 292.5 if you want more accuracy).  https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8785/nasas-perseverance-rover-is-midway-to-mars/

That you profess to believe that doubling the average distance is somehow resulting in high efficiency is only a statement of the depth of delusion you are in.

Sad.

Covering distance in the vacuum of space once at speed is essential free, you can coast forever.  It's accelerating (to gain or reduce speed) that takes fuel and hence is expensive.  Reaching the destination in a reasonable time by coasting as much as possible and accelerating as little as possible is the goal.

No, he didn't make a mistake in writing.
He wrote "trip."

Correct, thank you.

His mistake is believing that nonsense to begin with.

The NASA claim comes from human beings who have the same difficulty in making sense of how to wash dishes in their homes or how to brush their goddamn teeth properly, let alone making sense of what the universe is like beyond what they can see with their own two eyes.

If you do not believe in the existence of anything you have not seen with your own eyes, how many places on teh earth have you visited?  Do the others not exist?  You must not think anything at the atomic/molecular scale exists either.  How do you explain the vast ways that we manipulate that world for the chemistry of pretty much everything around you to atomic power, or electromagnetic radiation?   When you are listening to the radio or watching television is that some sort of magic?  Likewise for the electrons wizzing around the device you are looking at right now.  None of them are visible, so how is your computer working?

80

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 24, 2022, 05:37:50 PM »

Look, ichoosereality has made a mistake here. He's confused the distance to Mars to the distance the Perseverance Rover took.
BuT SuReLy ThAt ShOuLd Be ThE SaMe If It'S GoInG To MaRs?!!!11!
Well, no. Because Mars is orbiting the sun, Perseverance took 7 months to get there so it's not like just planning a route from A to B on earth where A and B are a fixed distance apart from one another.
It's a lot more complex than that.

BUT, the point he's making is pretty clear. The NASA claim is that they sent a craft on a journey of nearly 300 million miles to land on another planet. I've not seen a FE model where that would be possible.

I think I always made it clear I was referring to the total distance traveled, if not I apologize for the confusion.