1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Tom Bishop on Today at 02:21:14 AM »Apparently the left has gone from opposing gay marriage and upholding and respecting religious tenets to trying to get their opponent murdered.
As I mentioned to Tom, the desktop model setup in the YouTube video is highly inaccurate because A) the Earth's atmosphere is being represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and B) the local spotlight Sun is represented as being very large in scale (almost 1:1 scale using a flashlight) to the diameter of the flat earth plane.And what about these factors, in your opinion, makes the depiction "highly inaccurate"? Please highlight a specific contradiction with what's observed under FET. So far, you have suggested that a scaled-down model of FET that makes reasonable adjustments for the consequences of scaling down would be "like" someone creating a scaled-down model of RET that fails to make the same adjustments. At face value, your argument disproves itself - it proposes the same things as the problem and as the solution.
So, I am offering you a chance to fix the errors in your argumentation. It's possible that you have a point there somewhere, but that you've obfuscated it with your inadequate presentation.
Do not simply repeat your incomplete argument - I've read it the first time. Instead, fill the gaps and make yourself clear.
As I mentioned to Tom, the desktop model setup in the YouTube video is highly inaccurate because A) the Earth's atmosphere is being represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and B) the local spotlight Sun is represented as being very large in scale (almost 1:1 scale using a flashlight) to the diameter of the flat earth plane.And what about these factors, in your opinion, makes the depiction "highly inaccurate"? Please highlight a specific contradiction with what's observed under FET. So far, you have suggested that a scaled-down model of FET that makes reasonable adjustments for the consequences of scaling down would be "like" someone creating a scaled-down model of RET that fails to make the same adjustments. At face value, your argument disproves itself - it proposes the same things as the problem and as the solution.
The two are alike in that both would use highly inaccurate model setup's as a claimed "acceptable" model scheme.What makes you believe the FE representation would be "highly inaccurate"? What discrepancies from FE have you observed in Tom's proposed representation? Please be specific - statements like "it's wrong because it's inaccurate" are not very helpful here.In terms of other specific aspects of FET vs. RET it's difficult to know what to use as a basis for comparison, since there is no unifying FE model.Ah, right...
Please let me remind you that the FET subforum is not intended for newcomers with no understanding of the model. If you're not ready to post here yet, please exercise some self-restraint and let the rest of us discuss in peace.
The two are alike in that both would use highly inaccurate model setup's as a claimed "acceptable" model scheme.What makes you believe the FE representation would be "highly inaccurate"? What discrepancies from FE have you observed in Tom's proposed representation? Please be specific - statements like "it's wrong because it's inaccurate" are not very helpful here.
In terms of other specific aspects of FET vs. RET it's difficult to know what to use as a basis for comparison, since there is no unifying FE model.Ah, right...
Your statement seems kind of ridiculous. Using a desktop solid glass magnifying dome as an acceptable model scheme to show how light behaves upon the flat Earth's surface would be like someone launching a desktop model rocket in their backyard and explaining that to be an acceptable model scheme to show how a rocket engine behaves in the vacuum of space.In what way, exactly, would the two be alike? Please detail the necessary aspects of both RET and FET to underline your argument.
Your statement seems kind of ridiculous. Using a desktop solid glass magnifying dome as an acceptable model scheme to show how light behaves upon the flat Earth's surface would be like someone launching a desktop model rocket in their backyard and explaining that to be an acceptable model scheme to show how a rocket engine behaves in the vacuum of space.In what way, exactly, would the two be alike? Please detail the necessary aspects of both RET and FET to underline your argument.
So what you're saying is that if Democrats were Republicans, Republicans would vote for them.
Obama framed his erstwhile position as a good-faith effort to marry his commitment to gay equality with a respect for religiously-based opposition to same-sex nuptials.
"I always felt that same-sex couples should be able to enjoy the same rights, legally, as anybody else, and so it was frustrating to me not to, I think, be able to square that with what were a whole bunch of religious sensitivities out there," he said.
"So my thinking at the time was that civil unions — which I always supported — was a sufficient way of squaring the circle. That, OK, we won’t call it 'marriage,' we’ll call it 'civil unions,' same-sex couples will have the same rights as anybody else, but the word 'marriage' with its religious connotations historically would be preserved for marriages between men and women," Obama continued
And you can keep claiming that Octantis can be seen at all three locations at the same time and that is simply a lie. There is no verified instance of this ever happening.There might be a time when two of the three southern continent locations such as South America and Africa see the night stars at the same time, but never all three (South America, Africa and Australia) at the same time.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html
Here is summer on June 21, 2021 with added green marker for "a star":
Nice cherry picking of data. You've been shown before that this isn't true.
From the same website:
Now locate the star between the southern tip of Aftica and Madagascar on your monopole map and all three continents can view it at the same time except that South America and Australia will be looking nowhere near south as happens in reality.
You're not wrong. I just think it's interesting that of all capeshit films, it's the R-rated psychological thriller with no action or explosions where its most enthusiastic fans quickly make it clear how young and inexperienced they are.