61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab

« on: February 02, 2019, 08:06:29 PM »

You cannot use SkyLab: it was a fake mission.

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/audioletters/audioletters_48.htm

Fake mission? From the source you provided, it admitted Skylab was real but the US government covered up how it was destroyed. Maybe think about oh I don't know, reading your sources before posting them. Also, he never provided any evidence, the page is basically a dude talking about his conspiracy theories without any evidence substantiating his claims (like seriously, this dude believes the Soviet Union basically made real life Terminators, just utter bs).

Just asking, how reliable do you think the above source you used is? The guy literally believes that President Carter was replaced by a robot, I don't think you do. Sounds like your source just threw a bunch of shit at the wall and you're just looking for what you think works for you (it says nowhere in the source Skylab was fake, only it's alleged deorbiting or whatever was faked), maybe check out this site https://www.rif.org , you could certainly make use of it's resources, instead of just copy pasting whatever link came up first in your google search for "Fake skylab", actually read the shit you're posting, and stop cherry picking, if you really believe Carter was a robot, then you've got bigger problems.

Now onto the rest of your wall of text.

How do you do this before or in the very early stages of CGI?

They had CGI (and the hardware to go along with it) back in 1968.


http://web.archive.org/web/20080104131143/http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm#Videos

A brief excerpt.

How did they fake so many trips to Venus and Saturn, Mars, etc.?

Well, one day around 1978 I was also wondering the same thing myself. I had seen the pictures of Saturn and it's rings and moons and I was also wondering, wow, 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos were being transmitted from, what was it, Voyager?. I kept wondering, How?  Of course, they could just be models and photos were taken. But, then, one day, just after Star Wars II came out and Star Trek the movie (# 1) came out I had got hold of a movie industry magazine that was called Business Pictures. In it were ads from special effects companies who work for Hollywood. This was the dawn of computer graphics being used in motion pictures. Star Wars I was made using mostly models, but, after Star Wars I, George Lucas used some of the profits to set up a new lab called Pixar, which strove to push the technology and create stunning effects using state of the art Computer Workstations. CG, or Computer Graphics. I was looking at some of the ads and articles in the magazine and I found a peculiar one. Unfortunately I do not recall the name of the company running the ad. But, they were selling computer graphics "programming", not a finished program, but the algorythms and 'basic mathematical building blocks' used to create a program. What they claimed to be was a company that does contract work for JPL, NASA and the military. What they were selling were the software foundations and routines that did texture mapping and perspective, surface reflection, shadow mapping, etc. Then, what really caught my eye and peaked my interest was that the ad stated that the information they were selling had been developed over 10 years prior by NASA and the US military and had, up until now, been considered highly classified and secret information. With this technology and the use of super computers they claimed it was possible to create virtually any special effects scene. The reason given that the information was now being declassified and being offered for sale was that the movie industry (specifically the work done by Lucas's Pixar team - which became the foundation for Industrial Light and Magic, the premiere computer graphics company of the entire industry), had begun to catch up with the secret technology and it was decided there was no longer any reason to keep the information classified.

Wow. The same technology that helped to produce the visual effects of space, planets, and space crafts used for Star Wars II and Star Trek I had been developed and used by NASA and JPL for over 10 years earlier. That would mean that NASA and JPL had the ability to create virtual reality graphics effects as early as the late 1960's. Texture mapping, shadow mapping, light reflection, etc. Then I instantly realized how JPL was turning out 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos of Saturn and space. They had CG technology for a long time before Hollywood finally caught up and learned how to do it. The 'fly-by' probes that mapped Venus and Saturn, etc. all sent back to earth electronic data and photos. It was feasible to generate all of this on computer. JPL had at it's disposal the fastest and most powerful super-computers of the day, like the Cray. All they had to do was bounce signals off a distant satellite so that the ground crews would receive real signals that they thought were coming from deep space.

Interesting. So is there any actual evidence for any of this? You basically just gave us a blog post with nothing substantiating it. Can you show us the ad in question supposedly affirming this? Can you give us actual evidence the US government had invented CGI before academia? Because it seems a lot of the early development of CG happened in universities and research institutes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_animation). Yes, JPL did hire some CG people (https://web.archive.org/web/20150724105628/http://design.osu.edu/carlson/history/tree/jpl.html), but that was for simulations.

Also, your source is talking about NASA making CGI planets for fake photographs, what does this have to do with CGI water (which is way more difficult)? What hard evidence do you have that NASA had CG tech before industry and academia? Your source is basically one guy's speculation from an ad.

62

Flat Earth Theory / Skylab

« on: February 02, 2019, 04:36:53 PM »

This is one question I've never seen flat earthers answer: How do you explain the Skylab missions?

Now, I won't attempt to do better what someone on this forum has done before, so instead I'll just show it. CriticalThinker started a very well informed, evidence based post asking the same question, sadly his thread was proliferated by offtopic posts. So here's his great post again.

I realize that not every member of the FE community believes that NASA is part of a great conspiracy, but I see a general consensus that the majority of the FE community believs that real people haven't been in space to see the curvature of the earth.

So I am interested in their take on certain aspects of this video taken in SkyLab in 1974 and released to the public in 1974.


Specific points of interest as follows.
@ 1:03 the man is able to accelerate his rotation too quickly to be an underwater environment.
@1:18-1:43 The three men execute intersecting 3d pathways that would make wire harnesses tangled, the video segment is too long to be explained by parabolic flight as it exceeds 20 seconds in duration and the SkyLab is too large of an internal volume to fit inside the largest aircraft available at that time.

Photo real CGI in 1974 was not available.


This video provides a time period correct comparison as this was made in 1972.


This is the same effects in 2013.  During the commentary they stated that they had to digitally erase the entire body and create a CGI one.  When you look at the movie footage, the CGI bodies just aren't quite right.  Even with today's technology they look off.


Notice how the actors on the wire harnesses don't intertwine the way the 3 men from the first video do.  That's because they can't.  Only distant background characters are on intersecting courses and they are fully CGI.  They clearly don't look like actual people.

Based on all of this, how did NASA fake the video from skylab in 1974 using 1974 technology?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Thank you CriticalThinker! Now, in addition to the points he's raised. What about this footage? This is a video demonstrating fluid experiments on the Skylab missions. How do you do this before or in the very early stages of CGI? The first CGI water was in 1995 with the movie The Abyss (https://www.filmsite.org/visualeffects14.html), and that doesn't look very real. According to wikipedia, the first realistic CGI was in 1995 with the movie Waterworld, so that certainly doesn't help FE'rs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computer_animation_in_film_and_television)  How would NASA have that level of CGI more than 20 years before? I believe it was stack in a prior post who pointed out the difficulties of CGI water and how you would need server farms and such to pull it off, but he was referring to ISS footage, the same question still applies, how would NASA more than 20 years before that footage, pull off the same feat?



Edit: For all those who say the fluid stuff could be from parabolic flight, it can't be, 5:41 to 6:27 is longer than the 20 seconds of parabolic flight.

I'm very interested in an answer from Bishop and co., especially considering there is no mention in the TFES wiki of Skylab. And given the amount of offtopic posts in CriticalThinker's original thread and how whenever AATW mentions it in any of his posts, it's ignored, it's almost like FE'rs ignore the very existence of Skylab.

63

Flat Earth Community / Re: Pole to Pole Trip Scam

« on: January 24, 2019, 11:49:20 PM »

What's the point of this topic exactly, you're just telling us there's been a fraud, do you want our opinions to it or something? I wasn't able to watch the video, but I did look at the guy's Kickstarter page. So the poor guy got scammed, so? This doesn't prove anything in regards to flat earth or round earth. Are you saying this fraud is part of the conspiracy or whatever and it's part of the cover up or something? If so, then there's zero evidence for that, just speculation branching off the fact that the guy got ripped off. Unless you have something more substantive than you saying that's suspicious or that's odd then what I think you were getting at here doesn't really amount to anything.

64

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about mythbusters

« on: January 22, 2019, 10:30:39 PM »

According to their wiki, that is what we should see (not that I agree with it) https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs
I guess the only objection would be that in the Mythbusters vid, it doesn't look elliptical. About that wiki article, how do we know it's elliptical, sure you can look at it, but what's the difference between an elliptical arc and a small arc from a large circle, wouldn't they look rather similar unless you could see the point where the ellipse takes the sharper turn?

65

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion

« on: January 21, 2019, 08:26:45 PM »

This would only apply if UA were the only source of gravity in the universe. We can safely assume that this is not the case

For something to be a 'source' of gravity it has to have mass, i.e. be ,made of matter. How does Universal Acceleration have mass?  Acceleration only has magnitude and direction.

I think Pete here is saying UA isn't the only source of acceleration? It looks like he's using the word "gravity" as a standin  for the unbalanced resultant force from UA on a flat earth, so what he's saying is from the context of his reply to Stagiri's post is that there are other accelerations balancing out the gravitational acceleration where it's different so the flat Earth doesn't tear apart? That sounds confusing and Pete could tell us what he meant better than me. But if my interpretation of what he said is correct, then shouldn't we not be able to detect the different gravitational accelerations if there are other accelerations (and therefore forces) keeping the flat earth together?

66

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment

« on: January 21, 2019, 04:16:01 PM »

Looking through this thread, it seems a lot of attention was given to Totes' first 5 points, but very little addressed point number 6.

6. He provides no other photographic evidence, data, or witnesses to back up his claim. All we have to go on is his word.

Yet this is probably one of the more important points, where is Tom Bishop's evidence? His "experiment" is listed as experimental evidence for a flat earth, yet there is nothing supporting it, does Tom get a free pass or something because he's a flat earther? If a someone tried to present an experiment with zero evidence backing it up on this forum, but it supported a round earth, they'd be scorched by Tom and others. So what gives?

These were the only flat earth responses I was able to find regarding evidence.

The worst thing you can do is ignore the inconsistencies, and just assume that it was done correctly.

Indeed. It's a good thing that the experiment is so easily reproducible with good results. ...

Nice, would you mind telling us where we can find the replications of the Bishop experiment (they're not listed in the wiki) and do they have any documentation or are they spineless like Bishop's experiment?

13- Acuity of any photographic equipment used to document the results (if someone actually thought to document their results with a camera)
14- Editing or photoshopping done to any of the resulting photographic or video-graphic evidence collected

We're not interested in photographic "evidence". So much of it is fabricated that it's not worth anyone's time. Reproducing Tom's experiment is trivial, and experiencing it is much more convincing that looking at totally-real pictures of Tatooine.

Really Pete? What a lame cop-out. I thought this photo thing applied to only round pictures of the earth. So now it's every picture brought in as evidence? How ironic considering the wiki article about high altitude photographs says most of those photos aren't doctored. Or what about all the pictures of the ice wall touted around? Or the pictures of clouds lit up from the underside posted by people on this forum? And now you're suggesting that photos are inadmissible as evidence because there's a chance Tom could fake them? Then why don't you go around all over the place and call photos people have posted fake since obviously you're not interested in photographic evidence. You're just covering Tom's inability to take a photograph and back up his claims of seeing people playing on the beach 23 miles away with his magical telescope.

And now reproduction is trivial? You've said twice in this thread about how so many times people have reproduced the Bishop experiment (conveniently without providing any links to said reproductions) and now it doesn't matter because experiencing it is so much better? Experiencin it is better, but you can't throw that as a valid reply when pressed for documentation of the Bishop experiment. The burden of proof is on Tom here. If you're basically going to go "Do it yourself"  then either list the Bishop experiment as an open challenge (not as evidence) or remove it entirely .

15-Fudging of the data collected or reported to support a preconception of what should have been observed

It would be a shame if the experiment were repeated a number of times with consistent results by different people...

Again, just telling us there are replications of Tom's experiment isn't very helpful, why don't you actually give us links to the results and their documentation?

Overall the acceptance of the Bishop experiment and it's being presented as evidence on the wiki just does more to highlight the confirmation bias of flat earthers, how else does something with zero evidence backing it up somehow become fact?

67

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: January 20, 2019, 08:23:38 PM »

Uhh Sandokhan, you still haven't addressed my smoke alarm argument. Also, just pointing it out, but one of your images came from NASA/ESA's SOHO telescope, and according to the conspiracy space travel is fake, so by FE logic, the image is fake unless you can show us the real source of the image. So I guess that scraps your point about the ripples, unless I guess you believe some stuff from NASA is good and the stuff showing a round earth is fake.

68

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: January 20, 2019, 07:38:29 PM »

It is acknowledged by FET through observation that the Sun and Moon and planets are all round.  So my question to you then quite simply is why should the Earth be flat?

Recently, sandokhan claimed that the sun, moon, and planets are flat.

If the Sun has a discoidal shape, then so must all of the other planets (including Jupiter).

While the flat earthers are so quick to bark at the slightest errors in RE posts, they completely ignored this statement by sandokhan, which contradicts the wiki as well as statements made by other flat earthers here.

How is that even possible? If the sun and moon were flat, then wouldn't we be able to see an elliptical moon at times, because we'd be looking up at a disc and most of the time we're not directly under it. You can try this at home, look up at your smoke alarm from a little distance and you can see it looks elliptical (I literally did this right now from my desk). Same thing basically goes for the planets because then we wouldn't be able to see them if they weren't above the plane of the flat earth.

What "observations" did this Sandokhan chap make? And how many FE'rs here stand by what he says?

69

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: January 20, 2019, 06:05:34 PM »

It is acknowledged by FET through observation that the Sun and Moon and planets are all round.  So my question to you then quite simply is why should the Earth be flat?

Most flat earth answers I've seen regarding this basically say the sun and moon and planets are celestial objects and we can observe them to be round (that's at least what it says in the wiki, not sure how many FE'rs stand by Sandokhan's fringe theories about Jupiter) while the Earth according to FE'rs can't be directly observed.

Another argument I've seen is something similar to the Earth is special argument from biology from the whole random chance thing about life on earth. Basically, Earth isn't like other planets.

70

Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham

« on: January 19, 2019, 02:40:37 AM »

At this point, we can argue it's a difference of semantics. Did it cure them of nerve pain? Ok, sure. Let's go with that. Did it cure a disease? No.

Did tylenol cure my headache? Yes. Did it cure my stress that caused the headache? No. Is a headache a disease? No. It is a symptom. Is it pain? Yes. Can pain be cured? In a sense of the word, sure.

Can pain be so debilitating that people cannot walk? Yes. But pain is still not a disease.

It has been established that, by the standards of the 19th century in which he practiced medicine, Samuel Birley Rowbotham was well within the mainstream of medical practice in prescribing phosphorus to cure chronic pain. 

Has it been established though?  That prescribing phosphorus to cure chronic pain was well within the mainstream of medical practice back then? So far presented here have been a half a dozen or so Dr's and a few 'studies'. I'm not sure that qualifies as making an argument that it was the norm or mainstream even back then.

It was at least within the range of practices that would be considered acceptable by 19th century standards given the evidence we have seen (studies in professional journals and other doctors who attested to the efficacy of phosphorus as a treatment for chronic pain .)

Evidence? Studies? All Tom has presented us is a list of patients treated with phosphorus. And as I, and several others (Bad Puppy and AATW) have pointed out, a tabulated list is in no way equal to a controlled study. I have yet to see anyone in this thread present a study (a real study by its definition, not whatever Tom Bishop thinks a study is given his stubborn insistence to call the tabulated list he found a "study"). So unless you have some studies testing the effectiveness of phosphorus, there is no evidence. How do other doctors' claims to phosphorus in a few medical texts prove it's mainstream? Is that how you support claims of something mainstream? You just take a thin slice out of the voluminous literature of the medical field and say "It is thus mainstream!"?

71

Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham

« on: January 18, 2019, 04:15:04 PM »

I'll add this to the list of things Tom doesn't understand.

A controlled double-blind study is always preferable as it eliminates factors such as the placebo effect which can be quite powerful - if people are told that they're being given something which will make them feel better then they often do even if the medicine itself has no effect. That's pretty much how homeopathy works. A double blind study with a control eliminates that factor.

Placebos don't cure chronic diseases overnight. Please point out a placebo that cured a disease.

This thread isn't a placebo debate, if you want to do that, make a new thread.

I am requesting that you clarify why your claimed definition of the term that you used "controlled study" is not consistent with the definitions I have seen on medical sites on the internet, and what your source is for your definition.

You are clearly misinformed on the matter. A great number of the controlled studies just refer to previous literature and cases on the disease as their control group.

Clearly you are misinformed on what controlled studies are. Maybe check out rif.org and their resources to help you overcome the inability to understand what Bad Puppy already said. (Thank you junker!). And what are your sources Tom, speculation about a "great number of controlled studies"and what they refer to if not a control group for that specific study is not evidence.

It's not actually necessary to continuously repeat the action of not treating people and causing them to suffer.

Sources? Unless you're a doctor and have a medical degree, your speculation of procedures undertaken during a study is not evidence, and neither is your opinion of the ethics of studies.

72

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a secular reason for the round earth deception?

« on: January 15, 2019, 02:53:22 PM »

The reason I think most flat earthers would give is that we're all sheeple and we accept without question that the earth is round. That's the reason they give (along with money) for NASA allegedly faking space travel, because FE'rs think there's evidence NASA doesn't have the tech to do it so they fake it in line with their own and general populace's expectations of the shape of the earth, which to many is round.

73

Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham

« on: January 14, 2019, 11:37:35 PM »

Where are the evidence-based studies showing phosphorus to be effective? All you've done is given us a list of 35 patients who were treated by phosphorus in the year 1875. That is a tiny sample size to base the efficacy of phosphorus on. We don't even know whether they got the same treatment.

You have given us zero case studies on phosphorous. The fact that the issues were resolved for those people in a very short amount of time upon taking phosphorous is evidence enough. Where is your evidence that it is faked, the doctors were slipping in opium or whatever, and that these doctors, and Rowbotham, are shams?

Tom, your evidence isn't perfect, it doesn't even approach a controlled, rigorous study. There could have been a placebo effect at play. Some lurking variables like lifestyle, age, etc. could have also had an effect. Indeed, if you actually looked at the tables, only 16 patients reported a cure, 1 a partial cure, 9 relief, 1 improvement, 2 temporary improvement, 5 no improvement, and one case actually worsened with the phosphorus! Even better, take a look at this table, from your own source:

That's a lot of diseases reported from the patients, some patients having multiple nervous ailments, are you now going to claim phosphorus as some neuralgia panacea? How do you interpret the results now? Just because a majority of the patients reported an improvement or cure doesn't make it good evidence. There are too many loose ends in the evidence you've provided to make a conclusion without more data, which you haven't provided. I'm not calling the doctors liars, it's just disingenuous of you to present a list as a study , and call it evidence.

Evidence-based medical studies? Maybe if you looked at your own evidence you'd find it's just a list of cases where phosphorus was used. Don't know how you get a medical study out of that. Was there a randomization of the experimental units (i.e. the patients). Was there a control group? Was a placebo used? Was the same treatment even used for all the patients in your list? Phosphorus treatment is a rather vague and general term. What levels of dosage were tested with the treatments? And most importantly, has your "evidence-based medical study" ever been replicated? Don't just throw around words without knowing what they mean.

Dosage is discussed in the texts.

If you can't contradict the claims of the doctors with evidence of equal or greater power, then you have no evidence. Your speculation is not evidence. I would suggest learning what evidence is. It is not speculation. It's nice that you are skeptical. But you have no evidence to base your accusations on. No evidence. None. Once you can show evidence, you may suggest that all of these doctors are liars.

Speculation? You claimed your data was an evidence-based medical study. I said your data was merely a list of patients and I gave you the criteria of what a study is and isn't. Out of that barrage of questions, you were only able to address one, so here they are a little more clearer.

How were the experimental units organized in the experiment, by randomization, blocking, or matched pairs?

Was there a control group?

Was a placebo used?

Was the same treatment even used for all the patients given the variation of treatments from your own sources, from solutions of phosphoric acid to a mixture of phosphoric acid and tea, to pills.

Was your "evidence-based medical study" ever replicated?

Bonus Question: Was any form of blinding used?

If you can't answer those questions, then it's not a medical study. In fact, if you read the title of the page of of your "evidence-based medical study," it says
"Tabulated List of cases Treated with Free Phosphorus," nowhere do I see the word study.

I never claimed my questions based on the definition of a study, or what you call speculation was evidence, I'm merely questioning your evidence, and frankly, your evidence is rather weak to support your claims. You're claiming phosphorus has curative properties towards neuralgia. Now, a general rule of thumb in writing research is finding sources relative to your claims, for example, if you write an art paper about cubism, a lot of your sources might be art critics in the 20's. What you're saying is phosphorus can cure people of nerve ailments, medicine is a very dynamic field, yet your source is 124 years old, is not even a study, and does not have any studies corroborating its claims, not then, nor now, nor any time in between. Your source is not proportional to your claims.

74

Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham

« on: January 13, 2019, 05:56:15 PM »

You need to provide evidence that phosphorous doesn't work, not belief. Are all the physcians who have used it in practice with success lying then?

https://books.google.com/books?id=IhlFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA237#v=onepage&q&f=false

Are all of these case studies lies?

An article where someone believes it doesn't work, or a quote someone who admits that their own experience with phosphorous was limited, but who believes that it probably would not work is not evidence. Have they conducted trials with it? Have they shown it to be ineffective? If not, then such a statement is not evidence. Maybe they just think that drugs and pain killers are better.

You are calling the doctors who have reported success with phosphorous liars. And that their claims and case studies of resolving some medical conditions rapidly with phosphorous as false. Prove it.

Where are the evidence-based studies showing phosphorous to be useless for anyone? An evidence-less quote or opinion by a drug pusher means very little in the face of evidence that it does work.

Where are the evidence-based studies showing phosphorus to be effective? All you've done is given us a list of 35 patients who were treated by phosphorus in the year 1875. That is a tiny sample size to base the efficacy of phosphorus on. We don't even know whether they got the same treatment.

Also, if you read the sentence right after the description of Rowbotham's phosphorous doings, the author himself thinks it's a medicine to do away with.



You said yourself this is a medical text, the author himself is probably a doctor, and here he's presented with all these cases of phosphorous cures, yet he's dismissing it. That can't be without reason.

If you scroll up in his text the author is describing in the previous section how very poisonous phosphorous is if used incorrectly.



He's not calling those doctors who claim success with it liars. But you are.

You do realize the phosphorus poisoning he's talking about is with elemental phosphorus, not the phosphoric acid used by others. If you read WRI's article, it actually talks about that. I never called them liars, I'm merely being skeptical about the evidence, especially considering not only were the results published in 1875, that was also the year the organization was founded, and you've provided no evidence following it up, nothing current from the medical community.

I literally never called them liars.

Then what are you calling them? The doctors are claiming that the symptoms of the issue resolved very rapidly upon taking phosphorous, and there was a list of people who were cured, or at least benefited, from phosphorous, with descriptions.

Either the doctors are lying or phosphorous treatment is helpful. One or the other.

It's not that simple Tom, surely you've heard of the placebo effect. And there are a lot of lurking variables, like lifestyle, what exact treatment and dosage was used (as I pointed out earlier, there seems to be some variation in treatments, like one doctor mixed the acid with tea, and another dispensed pills, and with WRI's and RonJ's posts, was opium used?), etc.

I am beginning to see a pattern here in your worldview. "Everything new is a conspiracy."

No. You are rejecting evidence-based medical studies in favor of an opinion on the internet. You apparently have no idea what evidence is and is not. In order to contradict those studies you need to provide a study of equal or greater thoroughness and sophistication to contradict it.

If you cannot provide such evidence, then you have none.

Why not just be honest and admit that you have no evidence at all except for someone's evidence-less opinion?

Evidence-based medical studies? Maybe if you looked at your own evidence you'd find it's just a list of cases where phosphorus was used. Don't know how you get a medical study out of that. Was there a randomization of the experimental units (i.e. the patients). Was there a control group? Was a placebo used? Was the same treatment even used for all the patients in your list? Phosphorus treatment is a rather vague and general term. What levels of dosage were tested with the treatments? And most importantly, has your "evidence-based medical study" ever been replicated? Don't just throw around words without knowing what they mean.

75

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter

« on: January 12, 2019, 12:11:16 AM »

Actually, FE has a selective gravity called celestial gravitation which covers orbits and stuff like that.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation

About the shadows of the moons, with the sun circling over the Flat earth, I think it would be something like a geocentric model and work about the same I think. The only weird part would be that the sun would be over on the other side of the earth when it's night at your side, so if you look at Jupiter through a telescope, and see moon shadows, then where's the light causing the shadow coming from? If it's the sun, then how is sunlight traveling across the flat earth to Jupiter? If the Sun was a sphere that shone in all directions, then shouldn't sunlight be able to illuminate your night? But with a spotlight sun, the light has to coming from elsewhere, but I've never heard FErs say there was a second star in our solar system. What do I have wrong here?

76

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: January 11, 2019, 11:50:26 PM »

The article says "Prof. Zielinski conducts research in the field of quantum electrodynamics. He is an active member of the Russian Academy of Science and is ambassador of the International Scientists Club with its headquarters at St. Petersburg, Russia." The author of the article is "Prof. A. Zielinski."

Here he is listed on one of those committees as a professor:

http://www.shaping.ru/download/pdffile/inv_eng.pdf

p.1

International Scientists' Club
Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
Saint-Petersburg Department of Physical Society
International Academy of Information Communication and Control
Saint-Petersburg Mining Engineers' Society
Russian Geological Society
Russian Geographical Society

...

p.2

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE OF THE CONGRESS-2004

Zielinski A.          Prof.            Germany

Lastly, the empirical reasoning section, like seriously, is that a joke? In Experiment 1, you could just as equally say you're accelerating toward the earth. It's just a matter of interpreting what you see to what you want to see. In Experiment 2, let me just ask you, do basketball players feel the earth pushing up on their feet every time they dribble the ball? Or if you and a friend just moved some heavy furniture and set it down, do you feel like the earth is pushing your feet? Both these experiments don't really confirm UA.

It's a comparison of mechanisms. We can see the upwardly accelerating earth, but we can't see the mechanism of any other gravitational theory. Why wouldn't that be evidence?

You can say that you are accelerating towards the earth but then you need to invent something invisible to pull you. This is in contrast to the upwardly accelerating earth which can be directly observed as a pusher mechanism.

Also, it's not odd at all that bodies of different masses fall at the same rate despite the laws of inertia saying that it takes more force to push objects with larger masses?

I know what the article says, do you think I can't read, what I asked for was his credentials, like what degrees he has. All it says is he's a researcher at the RAS, a prof., and he's a member of some clubs and committees. It doesn't even say what his degree is in. Also, he says Mi Mo was wrong because they didn't try it vertically but then gives no results or references to vertical Mi Mo experiments to back up his claims. He talks about how "Consequent experiments and observations were so coherent that the existence of aether could not be ignored any longer" so he could continue his QED research, but shows nothing to back up his claims. The whole article is basically one guy's love of aether with zero substantiation to his claims. Classic case of flat earthers finding what they want to hear.

On the empirical reasoning part, you literally regurgitated what the wiki said. But let me ask you this, you say gravity is proven wrong because we have to invent something invisible to pull us and because we can see the earth accelerating up, but don't you likewise have to invent something invisible causing the earth to accelerate upwards, something has to be pushing the earth up, that force had to come from somewhere.

Different masses accelerating the same rate is odd, but it can be explained. WRI and RonJ already did, but I'll add in my two cents anyways. A common example is an elephant and a book accelerating at the same rate. Since the masses are so disparate, FErs I guess see some kind of paradox. But if you look at Fsubg = mg, with g the gravitational field strength (in N/kg), g = Fsubg/m, it's a ratio of force to mass, which is why it works for disparate masses, the Fsubgs are proportional to the mass. The gravitational field strength, when we sub in Fsubg into the Universal Law of Gravitation gives us GM/r^2,(r being distance from the center of the earth to the center of the mass), showing that g is unaffected by the mass in question. On the other hand, accelerations in general aren't tied like g is to something else, they are related to the force applied and the mass it's applied to, which is why more force is required to move more mass, they don't have the proportionality of g in Fsubg = mg.

77

Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham

« on: January 11, 2019, 10:31:20 PM »

From a medical article: "Phosphorous in the Treatment of Nerualgia" in Transactions of the American Neurological Association, Volume 1:



A list of cases appear here.

Rowbotham's advertisement of his product as a nerve tonic and restorative appears to be true. Can someone look at these sources and tell us that phosphorous does nothing for no one?

Uh Tom, that ANA volume was published in 1875, do you have any current sources that attest to phosphorus' value as a "nerve tonic," I'm not saying it doesn't have nutritional value, it certainly does, it's just that all my searches of phosphorus' use in medicine have only related to its use in diet as a supplement. Also, everytime I click on your link to lists of cases, it tells me Error 404, is that just my computer, or are others facing similir problems.

Also, just wanted to point something out





See a general theme here? The unnamed doctor doesn't say the dosage and Rowbotham "forgot" his formula even though he cured a patient with it. Considering what they've done with it, you'd think they'd try to give as much info and documentation as to the specifics of their phosphorous cures so other doctors could try using and adapting it, but unsurprisingly, they basically just say phosphorous cured the patient. Sounds sketchy, with some hints (not proof) of quackery.

Also, if you read the sentence right after the description of Rowbotham's phosphorous doings, the author himself thinks it's a medicine to do away with.



You said yourself this is a medical text, the author himself is probably a doctor, and here he's presented with all these cases of phosphorous cures, yet he's dismissing it. That can't be without reason.

78

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration

« on: January 10, 2019, 11:58:34 PM »

Not sure if this is the right place to post questions about the wiki (it seems like the right place), but I was recently reading through the Evidence of UA wiki entry and most of the evidence hinged on the equivalence principle and how it's a big coincidence that inertial mass is equal to gravitational mass. Just because a lot of sources and people point out this coincidence doesn't tip the scales in favor, you need more substantive proof, the equivalence test still works, which means flat UA and gravity are still possibilities, not spotting EP violations while odd to scientists doesn't rule out gravity.

In addition, I think the "Russian Academy of Sciences" evidence subsection should be removed, I can't find anything on Prof. A Zielinski (Google yields nothing) except for this on the RAS's website, which doesn't lead to anything. http://www.ras.ru/CSearchResults.aspx?SearchString=Zielinksi I also don't speak Russian, so potentially any info on him I might not be able to find (it would be nice if someone could, Google translate is not very good). Until we can find further information on Prof. A Zielinski, his credentials, other papers he published, etc. it should be removed, otherwise it's just a blatant appeal to authority (even that can't be established without credentials on this guy) because flat earthers heard what they wanted.

Lastly, the empirical reasoning section, like seriously, is that a joke? In Experiment 1, you could just as equally say you're accelerating toward the earth. It's just a matter of interpreting what you see to what you want to see. In Experiment 2, let me just ask you, do basketball players feel the earth pushing up on their feet every time they dribble the ball? Or if you and a friend just moved some heavy furniture and set it down, do you feel like the earth is pushing your feet? Both these experiments don't really confirm UA.

79

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sagitta (Globe Earth "Theory")

« on: January 10, 2019, 09:12:22 PM »

There has to be some difference. The arc and chord length can't be equal. The arc length must be greater.

If using that calculator and the two values are the same, try changing to smaller units and/or adjusting the precision. If working with miles and the numbers coming out the same, that might suggest the answer is less than half a mile.

Yeah I realized that, the online calculator wasn't good enough, redoing on my graphing calculator, I got a difference of 0.00007178 miles.

80

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sagitta (Globe Earth "Theory")

« on: January 10, 2019, 08:59:59 PM »

Thanks for giving this a whirl. So as not to confuse the issue, don't rely on any of my numbers to work it out. Just use 30 miles on the arc of a circle with radius of 3959 miles.

What's the difference between arc length and chord length? 1.7 miles?

Sorry for needlessly complicating things, but the difference is 0, there is none between the arc length and chord length.