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 - stack

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 92  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy
« on: March 30, 2021, 09:37:20 PM »
A few points of order:
  • You really, really, really don't need to include the entire thread's history in your quotes. Please don't. A cursory look at your own post should do it. Does what you posted look much smaller than what you've quoted? If so, fix your post. If you can't stop yourself, just don't use the quote function.
  • Avoiding derogatory terms should be a common sense request, and doesn't warrant a massive off-topic debate. Stack, I understand that you don't find the term derogatory. Your conversation partner informed you that he does. Exercise common sense.

Which term is derogatory? "Conspiracy"? It's used in the wiki associated with Space Travel. I'm not following.

But my question is can an FE proponent not believe in the "Space Travel Conspiracy" as defined in the wiki?
Of course. Many FE'ers accept that the space travel folk may simply be mistaken.

It never occurred to me that anyone thought NASA and everyone else could just be "mistaken". If they are "mistaken" NASA and other agencies/companies are willfully altering their math and imagery to that of the incorrect shape, a Globe. If so, they would be conspiring to hide the fact that they are mistaken as all that is presented must be doctored in some way. No?

So I guess in rephrasing the question, can an FE proponent not believe that NASA, et al, is mistaken or conspiring?

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy
« on: March 30, 2021, 08:36:31 PM »
That quote has everything to do with it. Since you can't prove that NASA is exploring the solar system it's basically a trust issue.

Ron Paul's argument is that the government is already a disreputable conspiracy which lies through its teeth. We could characterize RE space travel as a claim based on the words of liars who work against the people's interests. RE is massively based on accepting the words of known liars as fact and accepting authority.

That's great and all, but has nothing to do with what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that FE is heavily dependent on a Space Conspiracy. FE, conspiracy exists = Dismiss all evidence from space travel/exploration. FE, if conspiracy does not exist, all evidence from space travel/exploration definitively shows a Globe earth.

No where have I said the space conspiracy exists or not. Bottomline, you, FE, absolutely can't trust NASA or any of the space agencies/companies around the world right out of the gate. And absolutely have to have the Space Conspiracy. I don't know how many other ways of stating it.

I guess a question would be, contrary to my thinking, do you think FE can not believe in a Space Conspiracy?

Nope. It's a terminology issue. What you call belief in a conspiracy I call a skepticism of the words of liars.

A belief in a "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theorist" implies that the government is otherwise good and honest, except for a wayward theory that they are lying about something.

If the government is a group of liars who are prolifically dishonest, then the matter more of basic skepticism against those who lie to us. We don't call the Jews who distrusted Nazi Germany "conspiracy theorists" because we know that Nazi Germany lied a lot and did a lot of bad things against their people's interests.

Who calls the Jews who distrusted Nazi Germany conspiracy theorists? No one.

So, you are stuck with proving that the government should be trusted by default if you want to prove your perception of the matter.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I guess maybe you should change the wiki from "There is a Space Travel Conspiracy" to something like, There is Space Travel skepticism if you're hung up on me using the terminology that you yourself use.

I'm not even remotely arguing whether there is a space conspiracy or not. I'm simply asking you the question, do you think FE can not believe in a Space Conspiracy?

I think there's another aspect to this that you're missing. A global conspiracy does not require a vast number of willing participants, only a select number need know the full extent, and feed snippets of information to those who work beneath them. For example: within Nasa even, it is perfectly possible to emply hundreds of technicians who simply operate within the mathematical parameters handed down to them and never see the active results of their work with their own eyes. Consider a multinational company like Amazon: do you think the employees have the faintest idea of what Jeff Bezos is planning, just because they work at Amazon? Do we look at the amazon delivery driver and berate them for being part of an abusive multinational? No, we strive to improve their working conditions and to empower them. In the same way, we should try to empower all those who think that they are working for an honest employer but who are really working for a corrupt one. Like Nasa.

That's all fine and good and a common argument. And if that's what you want to believe across all the space agencies/companies/contract companies of the world and perhaps that they all fall under the umbrella, guise, and dominion of NASA and only a few would have to be "in on it", and the other 10's of thousands of engineers, scientists and such are just handed the tasks and math they need and don't question it, fine.

But my question is can an FE proponent not believe in the "Space Travel Conspiracy" as defined in the wiki?

3
Interesting, so I recently joined both, not sure which one I should be on. How would you describe the views as diverging?

As far as divergence, I would say maybe there are few things:

- The wiki here is very much maintained and positioned as authoritative. I can't remember the last time the wiki was updated over there
- Moderation styles are different. You'll have to spend a little time on each to see how
- Membership: Some only post there, some only post there, some post on both

That's about all I can think of. I think both are pretty much equally active. Or equally inactive depending on how you look at it.

If you search here and over there, you can find discussions around why they split, some reconciliation efforts and such.

Edit: Just saw Pete's response. And yeah, I would agree with him on those two.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy
« on: March 30, 2021, 08:12:20 PM »
The Jews who were skeptical of the Nazi actions and activities building up to the holocaust fled the country are celebrated. Although Nazi Germany was a massive conspiracy of propaganda, the Jews who fled are not called conspiracy theorists.

We can describe Nazi Germany as a conspiracy without describing the Jews as "conspiracy theorists" or "conspiracy believers". That is just something that you guys are trying to tar things with on this subject, since you guys tend to be dishonest RE trolls.

Wow, are you even reading what I wrote? Your own wiki says there is a "Space Travel Conspiracy". Which, I don't know, call me crazy, but tends to lead one to think that FEr's are believers, for lack of a better term, in a "Space Travel Conspiracy" considering your FE wiki says there is a "Space Travel Conspiracy".

So I'm simply asking you the question, do you think FE can not believe in a Space Conspiracy, Space skepticism, whatever you want to call it?

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy
« on: March 30, 2021, 07:57:59 PM »
That quote has everything to do with it. Since you can't prove that NASA is exploring the solar system it's basically a trust issue.

Ron Paul's argument is that the government is already a disreputable conspiracy which lies through its teeth. We could characterize RE space travel as a claim based on the words of liars who work against the people's interests. RE is massively based on accepting the words of known liars as fact and accepting authority.

That's great and all, but has nothing to do with what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that FE is heavily dependent on a Space Conspiracy. FE, conspiracy exists = Dismiss all evidence from space travel/exploration. FE, if conspiracy does not exist, all evidence from space travel/exploration definitively shows a Globe earth.

No where have I said the space conspiracy exists or not. Bottomline, you, FE, absolutely can't trust NASA or any of the space agencies/companies around the world right out of the gate. And absolutely have to have the Space Conspiracy. I don't know how many other ways of stating it.

I guess a question would be, contrary to my thinking, do you think FE can not believe in a Space Conspiracy?

Nope. It's a terminology issue. What you call belief in a conspiracy I call a skepticism of the words of liars.

A belief in a "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theorist" implies that the government is otherwise good and honest, except for a wayward theory that they are lying about something.

If the government is a group of liars who are prolifically dishonest, then the matter more of basic skepticism against those who lie to us. We don't call the Jews who distrusted Nazi Germany "conspiracy theorists" because we know that Nazi Germany lied a lot and did a lot of bad things against their people's interests.

Who calls the Jews who distrusted Nazi Germany conspiracy theorists? No one.

So, you are stuck with proving that the government should be trusted by default if you want to prove your perception of the matter.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I guess maybe you should change the wiki from "There is a Space Travel Conspiracy" to something like, There is Space Travel skepticism if you're hung up on me using the terminology that you yourself use.

I'm not even remotely arguing whether there is a space conspiracy or not. I'm simply asking you the question, do you think FE can not believe in a Space Conspiracy?

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: March 30, 2021, 07:36:33 PM »
Right. So your counter argument is basically “nuh-uh”?

And sure, Newton probably did believe some crazy stuff. It’s easy to point and laugh at people who lived centuries ago. We are all products of the era we grew up in. As you’ve intimated, it’s likely that in the future people will look back at some of our beliefs and scoff. But our current models are good enough to do the things I’ve mentioned. Just denying them isn’t a counter argument. So I think many of our current beliefs will stand the test of time, as have Newton’s.

So you are picking and choosing. You don't like his theories on turning base metals into gold. Or on a clockwork universe crafted by God. You don't like his work on the elixir of life and immortality. You aren't keen on his work predicting the end of the earth in 2060. But you do like his work on how apples fall off trees because it reassures you that the earth is round.   ::) As time has gone on, more and more of Newton's theories have been scrubbed as farcical. The trend is that one day we'll realise the guy was an absolute nugget who set science back centuries. 

@Stack, no. We aren't arguing 18 points at once. Pick your favourite and go with that.

You're the one that parsed them out...

But in any case. What is that thing in the sky you can track and image known commonly as the ISS?

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy
« on: March 30, 2021, 07:34:18 PM »
That quote has everything to do with it. Since you can't prove that NASA is exploring the solar system it's basically a trust issue.

Ron Paul's argument is that the government is already a disreputable conspiracy which lies through its teeth. We could characterize RE space travel as a claim based on the words of liars who work against the people's interests. RE is massively based on accepting the words of known liars as fact and accepting authority.

That's great and all, but has nothing to do with what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that FE is heavily dependent on a Space Conspiracy. FE, conspiracy exists = Dismiss all evidence from space travel/exploration. FE, if conspiracy does not exist, all evidence from space travel/exploration definitively shows a Globe earth.

No where have I said the space conspiracy exists or not. Bottomline, you, FE, absolutely can't trust NASA or any of the space agencies/companies around the world right out of the gate. And absolutely have to have the Space Conspiracy. I don't know how many other ways of stating it.

I guess a question would be, contrary to my thinking, do you think FE can not believe in a Space Conspiracy?

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: March 30, 2021, 07:24:56 PM »
Because there's a rover sitting on Mars right now.
No there isn't.

How do you know?

Because your phone has GPS.
No it doesn't.

What kind of mobile do you have? Mine has GPS. Maybe you need to upgrade from your Nokia brick.

Because there's an ISS which you can literally see from the ground exactly when the website tells you it will be overhead.
No I can't.

Maybe you can't because your Nokia brick doesn't have app support. But if you upgrade, you can get something like the ISS spotter app (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/iss-spotter/id523486350), track the ISS and when overhead, snap a picture like this:



Here's a beginner's guide for tracking and capturing the ISS:
A Beginner’s Guide to Photographing The International Space Station (ISS)
https://www.universetoday.com/93588/a-beginners-guide-to-photographing-the-international-space-station-iss/

Because they predicted the path of the solar eclipse to the block level.
No, you are being absurd.

You can look this up too, but I'll give you a head start of just how precise the path predictions are and how they come about them:

How Scientists Predict the Path of the 2017 Total Solar Eclipse
https://www.space.com/37128-how-to-predict-eclipse-2017-path.html

Because there's a whole area of expertise which uses gravity to find resources underground.
No, you're just repeating made up lies.

Geodesy & Gravimetry. Look them up.

Now, of course our model of gravity has changed over time, but it's hardly true to say that Newton was some old duffer.
The guy was into alchemy, a creationist, believed that metals vegetate, that the whole cosmos/matter is alive and that gravity is caused by emissions of an alchemical principle he called salniter. But hey, I wouldn't accuse you of picking and choosing.

We didn't stop exploring gravity 300 years ago. Like a lot of things, we've learned a thing or two in the past few centuries.

Einstein's equations reduce to Newton's for all practical purposes.
It is possible they are both wrong being as one leans on the work of the other.

Anything is possible. We sure do rely on building a bunch of stuff because of those two. Even your Nokia brick.

GPS does need to take account of Relativistic effects because if you want a precise position you need a very precise timestamp, but for things like rockets going to Mars Newton will do fine, thanks very much. Of course science should always be looking to improve models, but the ones we have seem to work pretty well for most practical purposes.
And everyone lived happily ever after? I love your little stories.

How does GPS work without Relativistic effects?

Quote
Yes, they only have models that don't work. They'll tell you that themselves.
You'll have to tell that to the ISS and the Perseverance Rover.
They'd have to exist first.

See above.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy
« on: March 30, 2021, 07:06:08 PM »
On the Assorted Quotations page there is a former Congressman who says that we should distrust the government by default.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Assorted_Quotations

“ I tell people that they shouldn't believe what the government tells them. Just start with the assumption that it isn't right, it isn't true, and that they are lying to us. ”
                  —Ron Paul, Former American Congressman (Source 1 2)

I don't see how you can convince us that you know any better, and that the government should be trusted by default.

Where did I say the government is to be trusted? I didn't.

Just simply put, FE is massively dependent on a Space Conspiracy. Because if the is no Space Conspiracy, everything we get from space agencies/companies around the world definitively shows the true shape of the earth as a Globe. With a Space Conspiracy, all Globe evidence from space agencies/companies around the world can be dismissed. Simple as that. No where did I say the conspiracy is true or not or one should trust the government or not.

Why you're bringing up a Ron Paul quote about distrusting the Government is a complete non sequitur. It's neither here nor there to what I wrote.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy
« on: March 30, 2021, 06:17:45 PM »
Hi
I've been reading about Flat Earth Theory since a long time now

You seem to have missed the wiki here!

It does a good job of helping to clear up some of your, common, misconceptions.

The shape of the world has no dependency on "conspiracy" nor does determining the shape of it with certainty.

No conspiracy is required for humanity to be stupid and wrong as it historically always is!  We require no assistance!

The wiki calls it a "Space Travel Conspiracy". Specifically: The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space.

I don't think you'd get much of an argument that NASA was born out of the militaristic need for ICBM's, perhaps militaristic Space dominance, etc. But the issue with conspiracy is this: If NASA is faking space travel for whatever reason, that, in turn, knocks out any evidence, e.g., imagery, of a globe earth. So as a byproduct of a Space Conspiracy, regardless of motive or intent, the conspiracy renders all evidence from space of a globe earth as false. Which is rather convenient for FE. Because if the Space Conspiracy is not true, the evidence is overwhelming regarding the true shape of the earth.

So, in short, FE has to have the "conspiracy". FE relies tremendously on a "conspiracy" regardless of whether said "conspiracy" is to hide the true shape of the earth or not. So yes, FE is massively dependent on the "conspiracy". Without the "conspiracy" there is definitively no flat earth. But a Globe.


11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities
« on: March 30, 2021, 05:20:26 AM »
Quote from: RazaTD
The best example I can give you is the story of discovery of Neptune. Some scientists figured that the motion of Uranus was observed to be quite different than what our models would suggest and he predicted there to be a planet beyond Uranus.

There is a page on that too, to read and comment on - https://wiki.tfes.org/Discovery_of_Neptune

Quote from: stack
So what?

Have you ever seen a heliocentric system based on epicycles? Copernicus's system was heliocentric, but still had epicycles like Ptolmy, arranged differently. Epicycles are fudges to explain something under whatever scheme you wish.

From https://www.physast.uga.edu/~loris/astr1010/ASTR1010_Study_Notes_part2.pdf -



Again, so what? And enter stage right about 70 years later, Johannes Kepler (no more epicycles), and so on:



Do you think the study of heliocentrism came to a dead stop 450 years ago? Do you think we've learned nothing since Babylonian times?

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities
« on: March 30, 2021, 02:32:06 AM »
The Stellarium system is explained on the Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns Page. I would suggest that you read all of it. It is bases on epicycles:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#VSOP

Quote
VSOP

VSOP (French: Variations Séculaires des Orbites Planétaires) is a popular software package used to generate planetary ephemeris, which are the positions of the planetary objects in the sky. It is used in astronomy software such as Stellarium and Celestia. It has been alleged that VSOP uses a geometric RET model to make its predictions, and so VSOP and the astronomy software which uses it is therefore a validation of the theory. On assessment we find, however, that VSOP is based on the ancient epicyclic methods:

Comparing VSOP to the Ptolemaic System

The following is left by an editor on VSOP's Wikipedia Talk Page (Archive):

  “ Modelling VSOP on a ubiquitous PC computer program, starting with only one element for each of the three parameters (L, B R) and then slowly incrementing the number of elements, gives a sense of irony that it is in fact nothing more than a more complex development of the ancient deferent / epicycle system used by Ptolemy. A system that despite being totally dismissed out of hand for being intellectually "wrong", was able to provide a prediction service accurate enough to match the observational resolution available (naked eye, with no reliable mechanical timekeeping). A system that, astoundingly to this author, was able to detect and measure, accurately, the lunar evection, one of the still-used perturbations of the Earth-Moon system. Summing powers of sines and cosines is certainly tantamount to circles upon (or perhaps within) circles; recursing, or perhaps simply nesting, almost endlessly. Whilst of course this is totally irrelevant to the mathematics, it perhaps behoves Wikipedia's wider terms of reference to include this as a philosophical point. ”

Comments from Celestia Developers

Celestia Developers comment on the large number of planet-specific terms used in computing positions:

https://celestia.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8285 (Archive)

  “ VSOP87 is a set of polynomials describing the orbits of the major planets. There are over 1000 terms in each series. ”

https://celestia.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2592 (Archive)

  “ I could add more terms to the VSOP-87 series, but there are already over 1000 per major planet ”


The rest of the page explains how epicycles are used to predict patterns of events and are still used in Astronomy because the three body problem can't be solved.

So what? That whole passage from someone has been in "Talk" since 2014. It certainly doesn't take away from the fact that you are wrong about Stellarium. And I have no idea why it's significant that a poster says the VSOP has over 1000 terms per planet. That poster also says they should use JPL DE405 for greater accuracy. Which is completely heliocentrically based as well like VSOP. And Stellarium has a feature in the client version to toggle over to DE405 if you desire. 

The bottomline, Stellarium and the like use heliocentric mathematical models for planetary movement/tracking. Not your Babylonian pattern-based stuff. Sorry, I guess you'll have to find an FE based celestial program to use instead.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities
« on: March 30, 2021, 02:04:51 AM »
Just open up Stellarium. Someone already studied the patterns of Mars and put them into an application for you. If you think it's based on RE theories then you can go ahead and prove that for us rather than insisting that your assumptions are fact.

In Stellarium, if you change the observer position to the Moon or Mars and then look back on earth, what do you see?

From Mars:


From the Moon:



I'm pretty sure Stellarium is Globe centric.

Not to mention from the Stellarium User Guide:

"By default, Stellarium uses the VSOP87 planetary theory, an analytical solution which is able todeliver planetary positions for any input date (P. Bretagnon and Francou, 1988)."
http://priede.bf.lu.lv/ftp/pub/TIS/astronomija/Stellarium/stellarium_user_guide-0.18.0-1.pdf

VSOP87:
"The semi-analytic planetary theory VSOP (French: Variations Séculaires des Orbites Planétaires) is a mathematical model describing long-term changes (secular variation) in the orbits of the planets Mercury to Neptune. The earliest modern scientific model considered only the gravitational attraction between the Sun and each planet, with the resulting orbits being unvarying Keplerian ellipses. In reality, all the planets exert slight forces on each other, causing slow changes in the shape and orientation of these ellipses. Increasingly complex analytical models have been made of these deviations, as well as efficient and accurate numerical approximation methods.

VSOP87 comes in six tables:

VSOP87 Heliocentric ecliptic orbital elements for the equinox J2000.0; the 6 orbital elements, ideal to get an idea of how the orbits are changing over time
VSOP87A Heliocentric ecliptic rectangular coordinates for the equinox J2000.0; the most useful when converting to geocentric positions and later plot the position on a star chart
VSOP87B Heliocentric ecliptic spherical coordinates for the equinox J2000.0
VSOP87C Heliocentric ecliptic rectangular coordinates for the equinox of the day; the most useful when converting to geocentric positions and later compute e.g. rise/set/culmination times, or the altitude and azimuth relative to your local horizon
VSOP87D Heliocentric ecliptic spherical coordinates for the equinox of the day
VSOP87E Barycentric ecliptic rectangular coordinates for the equinox J2000.0, relative to the barycentre of the solar system."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSOP_(planets)

So, you are incorrect, Stellarium uses mathematical models based upon a heliocentric globe earth. It is not Babylonian patterned-based as you would prefer.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: March 29, 2021, 10:42:43 PM »
According to the official story of Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism the heliocentrists do think it was proven wrong, with the optical illusions. I don't see an issue with that context.

We can see that you won't even attempt to address the contradictions and will just continue quoting sentences out of context, perpetuating your poor defense of this and showing us all that you have nothing.

The context of the article is that 100's of years ago, heliocentrism wasn't well evidenced and wasn't a religious fight as commonly conveyed, it was actually a scientific one. The opening premise:

"Copernicus famously said that Earth revolves around the sun. But opposition to this revolutionary idea didn’t come just from the religious authorities. Evidence favored a different cosmology."

And in the conclusion of the article, which is certainly not out of context at all, the bookend to the opening of the piece, is:

"Back in Galileo’s and Riccioli’s day, however, those opposed to Copernicanism had some quite respectable, coherent, observationally based science on their side. They were eventually proved wrong, but that did not make them bad scientists. In fact, rigorously disproving the strong arguments of others was and is part of the challenge, as well as part of the fun, of doing science."

What could be more contextual than their closing statement and more contradictory to your position? Nothing.

Do I need to cite also in the article where they state the evidence amassed much after Gallileo's age in support of heliocentrism? It's all right there in the article you seemed to have omitted. Do you dispute their closing statement?

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: March 29, 2021, 10:12:08 PM »
I picked one at random;

RE Stars don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

1. The Wiki is about vintage stuff. Astronomers looking through vintage/early telescopes and such. We've moved on since then.

2. How does this have any bearing on the shape of the Earth?

It doesn't matter how old it is. It's still RE cannon. You guys also still quote RE proofs from 300 B.C and call that cannon.

The stars should shrink to perspective in the giant RE universe needed by heliocentrism. They don't. Optical Illusions are postulated. This is a problem because those observations are contradicted by other things, and you also say that the FE sun should shrink to perspective while ignoring your own stars.

Quote from: stack
Funny, I picked the same one to look at as Tumeni. Because it is the one I'm least familiar with. The wiki entry consists solely of citing articles by Prof Christopher M. Graney & Dennis Danielson. One article in particular you mention, "The Case Against Copernicus", is a really interesting historical view into how Copernican theory took hold and why, and how, at the time, there wasn't a lot of evidence to support it, mostly due to technological constraints of the day. However you cite it as some sort of proof that there is something inherently wrong with heliocentrism.

So you went through the article and teased out (read: cherry-picked) some paragraphs that you thought would support your position. However, in your cherry-picking you failed to include in the wiki the conclusion of their article which is as follows:

"Back in Galileo’s and Riccioli’s day, however, those opposed to Copernicanism had some quite respectable, coherent, observationally based science on their side. They were eventually proved wrong, but that did not make them bad scientists. In fact, rigorously disproving the strong arguments of others was and is part of the challenge, as well as part of the fun, of doing science."
https://physics.ucf.edu/~britt/Geophysics/Readings/R2The%20case%20against%20Copernicus.pdf

So there again, you take something completely out of context, from a source that actually contradicts you, and claim that it somehow supports your point of view. This seems to be a trend across the entire wiki, not just isolated here. Why do you do that when you know anyone can just look up the source and see that it's not claiming at all what you say it does?

The Wiki doesn't say that you can't get illusions to work in RE. According to the official heliocentric vs geocentrism story it was proven wrong, by postulating these optical illusions.

The problem is that you are invoking illusions, which Professor Graney says is contradicted by various things. He calls Galileo's experiments that contract it to be lies and Astronomers who use the sizes of planets by their apparent sizes to be "nonsense".

Yet Professor Graney concludes:

"Back in Galileo’s and Riccioli’s day, however, those opposed to Copernicanism had some quite respectable, coherent, observationally based science on their side. They were eventually proved wrong"

See the "They were eventually proved wrong" bit? In summation, Professor Graney directly contradicts you regardless of what he says about Galileo's experiments performed 100's of years ago. Can you not fully comprehend that part of his sentence? Get it? Those opposed to Copernicanism were eventually proved wrong according to your source. Eventually. That's what the good professor's article is all about: Hundreds of years ago there was a great lack of evidence supporting heliocentrism.
But the Professor still concludes that those opposed to Copernicanism were eventually proved wrong.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: March 29, 2021, 09:45:37 PM »
Perspective

The celestial bodies don't shrink according to the laws of perspective.

RE Stars don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

Funny, I picked the same one to look at as Tumeni. Because it is the one I'm least familiar with. The wiki entry consists solely of citing articles by Prof Christopher M. Graney & Dennis Danielson. One article in particular you mention, "The Case Against Copernicus", is a really interesting historical view into how Copernican theory took hold and why, and how, at the time, there wasn't a lot of evidence to support it, mostly due to technological constraints of the day. However you cite it as some sort of proof that there is something inherently wrong with heliocentrism.

So you went through the article and teased out (read: cherry-picked) some paragraphs that you thought would support your position. However, in your cherry-picking you failed to include in the wiki the conclusion of their article which is as follows:

"Back in Galileo’s and Riccioli’s day, however, those opposed to Copernicanism had some quite respectable, coherent, observationally based science on their side. They were eventually proved wrong, but that did not make them bad scientists. In fact, rigorously disproving the strong arguments of others was and is part of the challenge, as well as part of the fun, of doing science."
https://physics.ucf.edu/~britt/Geophysics/Readings/R2The%20case%20against%20Copernicus.pdf

So there again, you take something completely out of context, from a source that actually contradicts you, and claim that it somehow supports your point of view. This seems to be a trend across the entire wiki, not just isolated here. Why do you do that when you know anyone can just look up the source and see that it's not claiming at all what you say it does?

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 28, 2021, 08:22:39 PM »
Did a court declare that Powell's witnesses were lying or misrepresenting the truth?

Yes, in a sense, a court did.

U.S. District Judge Diane Joyce Humetewa began. “Yet the Complaint’s allegations are sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence, and Plaintiffs’ invocation of this Court’s limited jurisdiction is severely strained. Therefore, for the reasons stated herein, the Complaint shall be dismissed.”


18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 27, 2021, 11:12:44 PM »
See bolded above. She believed it, but people would await the court adversary process.

Apparently lots and lots of people did not await the court advisory process. Read: 1/6/2021

And her claims weren't just aired in court where an "advisory process" may take place. There were the countless FOX, OAN and the like appearances where she made her claims.

As such, that will be a part of the plaintiff's argument as well.

The plaintiff doesn’t complain about court filings at all.

I meant, from what I've read, is that part of a Dominion argument from a defamation standpoint, Powell went on all of those outlets, outside of a courtroom, and spouted all the same stuff. Which, in turn, caused reasonable people to actually take her words as factual, regardless of awaiting courts to decide. If that makes sense.

As far as I know, and I'm no lawyer, ruling on filings, that's up to the judge.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 27, 2021, 10:21:09 PM »
See bolded above. She believed it, but people would await the court adversary process.

Apparently lots and lots of people did not await the court advisory process. Read: 1/6/2021

And her claims weren't just aired in court where an "advisory process" may take place. There were the countless FOX, OAN and the like appearances where she made her claims.

As such, that will be a part of the plaintiff's argument as well.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 27, 2021, 09:33:34 PM »
So yes, she is arguing that no reasonable person would believe that these were factual statements. And at the same time, she is arguing that she did actually believe the things that she was saying
It's crazy.

She argued that she believed it but that people wouldn't believe it until it went through the judicial process. What exactly is "crazy" about this statement?

Watch the video and see how he lays out all sides of it. I'm not saying he's right, but he approaches it from a lawyerly point of view as he is a lawyer and you and I are not.

I think the crazy part of it is exactly the quote you referenced. "Crazy" might be a bit of hyperbole, but it is really quite interesting to argue reasonable people wouldn't believe all of her statements as facts, yet she herself believes they are facts. In essence, she is not a reasonable person according to herself. Which, well, seems kind of a weird contradiction.

As he points out, ethically, lawyers are not allowed to argue before a judge and make shit up. So she was presenting what she believed to be facts. That could be a trouble spot. Perhaps not so much for the defamation part, but for the other cases pending against her regarding bar sanctions and such. Like he said, Judges hate to sanction lawyers, but this could be problematic.

In any case, this will cost her a fortune, not the 1.3 billion, but it seems the plaintiff has no interest in settling. So they will draw this thing out till the bitter end. And it also seems that her defense has no interest in presenting whatever "facts" she has claimed to have and is solely relying on the 1st amendment/politcal speech/opinion argument. Which is interesting unto itself. Because she could just present all of her "evidence" and say, "See? All factual..." But we all know, even Tucker Carlson knows, she never had any viable facts to present.

Tucker Carlson: Time for Sidney Powell to show us her evidence
We asked the Trump campaign attorney for proof of her bombshell claims. She gave us nothing

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-rudy-giuliani-sidney-powell-election-fraud

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 92  Next >