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.
so again i will ask -- even if these demonstrably false claims about fraud and waste were accurate, why is it better to have no cancer research and no fraud than to have cancer research + some fraud? why is it better for people to die from cancer just to save a couple of bucks?
why should society lose access to alice's cancer research just because bob wasted some money going to a conference or whatever?
The only place "the ua" is defined in the entire internet is the wiki?Incorrect.
And I was supposed to guess that just from a single mention of "the ua" in the op?No. You are supposed to be familiar with the FET prior to posting here. You shouldn't have to guess the very basics, because you're supposed to already know them. You agreed to this when you chose to post here. If you don't like that, post somewhere else.
It feels like you're being exceptionally unreasonable. You're not even giving me a chance lol.I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. I hope you'll be able to find a place online to hang out at that makes you feel better.
Hell, even when I Google "the ua flat earth" it doesn't look like anything from whatever wiki you're referring to comes up on the entire first page of resultsI'm not sure why you'd admit to this. "I can't work a search engine, life is so unfair 😢". Just conceding that you failed to even try would have been a better look.
I don't believe I said anything about a wiki page. What are you talking about?You're in a thread about one - it's where UA is defined. I suggest you failed to read it before posting. It sounds like I didn't go nearly far enough.
Seems to me that in FE models, there is only one possible frame.Highly questionable. If I were you I'd stop relying on your gut feeling - it "seems" to only make things harder for you.
The UA theory says we are accelerating, which implies a location [...] to measure acceleration relative to.It actually specifies the observer. You could have just read the basics section of the UA page.
outside the domeThis is likely incorrect.
As far as I know most flat eathers reject relativity, and gravity altogether.I really don't understand why we have so many people here discussing a wiki page they blatantly haven't read. Aren't you RE'ers supposed to be the enlightened intellectuals in the room? Wouldn't it have been prudent to read the document you're debating before declaring what you "know"?
what's with the large number of people denying the recent antarctica trip as faked?I doubt it's actually "a large number" - the Twitter/YouTube crowd has always been pretty loud, but it's a small group.
If they do leave, and if you think that a country of 55,000 people want to make it on their own as an independent power, you are foolish.Man, you couldn't keep up the "I'm not saying anything at all, dude" schtick for even a single post.
I don't know what that means.Jesus, you don't have to admit that. That should be the kind of stuff I accuse you of, but which I can't quite prove.
And for the record I don't particularly like or dislike any "tribe"I'm sorry, you have YEARS of actions here which speak SO MUCH louder than words. This conversation just makes it worse - we've got an open-and-shut case of some YouTubers doing unsightly stuff. It would be very easy for an honest person to say "yea, these guys are kinda whack", but you're not capable of doing that. Partially because you're not capable of criticising a RE'er, and partially because you never read their crowdfunding pages. You need to understand that, with this sort of track record, no one with a serious interest in debate will show you any good will on this account.
I can't pretend to have looked into this in any detail. I don't know where the money came from to fund the 1 FE and 1 RE place which were prepaid.Indeed. You also don't know how many people were paid for (it's 5 not counting the organiser, so arguably 6; not 2). So, given how little you know, why the fuck are you still talking?
But me not knowing that isn't evidence of fraud, or evidence against it. I wouldn't even know how to investigate that.It's simple. It's well within public interest to see the financials here. You should be able to just ask. Will you?
If I set up a crowdfunding page and say "I'd like a lovely holiday please, could you pay for it kthxpls?" then I'd expect people to tell me to sod off. But if people did want to pay for me then...well, that's up to them, isn't it? That's what crowdfunding is, what's to agree with or disagree about there?As with most intentionally dishonest arguments, the issue lies in the premise, which I bolded for your convenience. However, you know you're not arguing in good faith, so how about we don't waste ach other's time?
But your assertion about my morality seems to be based on the idea that I think it's OK to scam people by lying about what I'm crowdfunding for - but I don't think that.Well, then you'll just gosh darn have to read what's been advertised, rather than imagining it. I made a mistake of assuming thaty you wouldn't defend pitches you haven't read, but I guess you're not just evil - you're evil and incorrigibly stupid. After all, the crowdfunders were very clear about what they're getting money for - and it's not "holidayz plx":
Flattys have claimed for over 150 years that the sun in Antarctica NEVER circles 360 degrees overhead all day. This is because it would destroy the idea of pizzaland. Testing their own claims is an excellent way to settle the question using their own claim. So I'm going there with some flattys to see what happens.
If the Sun is visible for 24 hours, then this will prove that the flat Earth proponents are mistaken. [...] Other things of value to the discussion of the shape of the Earth will be the flight I will be taking across the South Pacific (a flight that is impossible on a flat Earth), and various other experiments related to the unique location.
Following the youtube link in this GoFundMe you will find an experiment put together to try to end this debate once and for all.
The Final Experiment is to educatate the flat earth/globe earth community with actual video evidence from the location of that is ANTARCTICA!
This journey is more than just observing a natural wonder; it's a quest to seek truth through firsthand experience. Some believe that such a phenomenon shouldn't occur under certain world models, and witnessing it ourselves could provide valuable insights. But I don't intend to stop there. During this Final Experiment event, I plan to conduct a series of thorough tests and experiments to explore various questions about our world.
FE and RE disagreed about what the outcome would be. Now, YOU may not disagree about it but (all together now) you aren't the FE authority. Because as you tell me repeatedly, there isn't one.This isn't the gotcha you think it is. RE doesn't have a central authority, either. Indeed, it is the hallmark of the scientific method that Bazza down the pub might be able to shake up the scientific consensus at any moment if he brings the right evidence to the table. There are no material differences here - you just don't like one side of the debate, so you twist my words to mean something they don't. You are a thoroughly dishonest person. That's all there is to it.
Being scammed is in the eye of the beholder. Your claim is that people have been scammed. But for that to be true people would have had to be lied to about what was going to happen.Luckily, I showed that to be the case through my quotes above. More importantly, the fact that you never even tried reading what the scammers said before claiming you've seen no evidence is telling. Yeah, no fucking shit you've seen no evidence - you went out of your way not to look at it.
It's a false equivalence. The shape of the earth is an established fact, most people are taught it and believe it and many don't really understand much science and don't need to in their daily lives. Most people believe a load of stuff without really understanding it or thinking about it too hard. To be a flat earther you must surely have looked in to the matter in some depth and are therefore a de facto FE expert.Wow, way to double down on a double standard. No, you absolutely don't need to be an FE expert to argue for FE on the Internet. Hell, even you could do it! There's literally nothing stopping you, right now, from making pro-FE arguments. Now, the acutal FE'ers might call you slurs for it, but ga-hyuk, they're nOt AuThOrItAtIvE.
Again, you are not the FE Authority, why should I believe you when you say that others aren't the real ones?For the same reason you disregard the folks that don't understand the difference between speed and acceleration. Neither side has an official authority that gets to say what goes. We reject nonsensical fringe arguments not based on their popularity or authoritative appeal, but on their merit.
to claim that you really do have a good explanation for <something>, pinky-promise, but I wouldn't be interested in hearing itI didn't claim that. FE is riddled with holes and inconsisitencies, and this happens to be one of them - we have a partial explanation, one that's easily accesible to you, and it has issues, but you don't know what those issues are. All that information is available to you, but you're not interested in it - so I have to do both the jobs of the FE and RE proponent. It's kinda sad that only one of us is interested in critically evaluating both models.
I trust Google AI moreLmao, Tom trusts stochastic parrots
I'm pretty sure in WWII Hitler took over countries by force and didn't "offer to buy" and suggest that they would be in a better situation if they joined with him.Lmao, Tom doesn't know about Hitler
But it doesn't help that further down the page you have the moon tilt illusion "explained" by EA whenNow you're just being dishonest. There's a pretty comprehensive page on this subject, which you blatantly haven't read. You looked at ONE illustration, didn't understand why it's there, and went "well duh that don't explain things."
It's an optical illusion and easy to prove it is, I have done that myselfIt also has a supplemental page discussing your exact objection. Of course, you haven't read that either. You're entirely disinterested in learning anything, you just want to keep saying the same three things on repeat, for whatever reason.
I've seen no evidence of any impropriety.If only your standards were this low for the tribe you don't like...
Other places have been crowdfunded but that isn't "stealing". If someone sets up a fundraiser for a holiday and people want to contribute then that's their business.I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there. And I'm not gonna hide this - to me, that makes you morally reprehensible. I'm sure you're devastated by that.
"This isn't true. The experiment was specifically picked because FE and RE did NOT agree on the outcome.I despise the fact that you recycle old arguments like this, and just completely ignore any past disucssion on the same subject. Do you suffer from memory loss? We've gone through this loop so many times.
You and other people on here may not have disputed it but you aren't the FE authority - you've already said there isn't one. The FE people they were engaging with claimed there was no 24 hour sun in Antarctica, that's why that experiment was chosen. You may regard those FE people as grifters but...you said you're not the authority. Jeranism has already said he didn't expect the outcome - you may regard him as one of the grifters but he's been quoted on here before.
I've never seen an explanation that I find satisfactory.Right, but your personal satisfaction is not the litmus test here. I've never seen a RE model that I find satisfactory, either.
I'm happy to be educated if you have a detailed explanation.Sorry, but you've firmly convinced me that that would be a waste of my time. You're just going to ask the same questions in 2 months time and insist that the conversation never happened, or that you didn't find it convincing. For all intents and purposes, you're a stochastic parrot.
The best/worst example being Celestial Gravitation. The Wiki page about it literally just says that it might be a thing.Again - stochastic parrot. We've had this conversation before. You know what "gravitation" is, because you made it through compulsory education. Observations suggest that celestial bodies (you know what those are, right?) exhibit gravitation. It's that simple, and that's why the page is that simple. Could it be expanded? Probably, to questionable benefit. Is that high on the priority list? Of course not.
You indeed created the quote "I agree with Pete" and then attributed it to me by replying to me: "You just wrote "I agree with Pete"."It's so funny how obsessed you are with quote fixing. It's part of the old web forum culture, and it's nowhere neat as sinister as you describe it. You had so much time to learn how this place works, but, throughout so many years, across so many alts, you just can't let go of like 3 things.
You aren't unique or special in your prediction that this Antarctic trip would not end up really moving the needle in terms of RE theory or FE theoryAnd? How does that affect anyone I or anyone else has said here?
apparently no-one has been scammed.What makes you think that? As far as I can tell, the opposite happened - known FE grifters teamed up with known RE grifters to get a free holiday and steal a lot of money from fans - all in the name of an "experiment" that FE and RE agreed would produce a consistent outcome long in advance - and you knew this, since you read this thread before posting in it.
Can you explain how the 24 hour sun shown in that video would work on a flat earth?I don't know if A69 can, but I do know you can - you've been here for these conversations, and your memory isn't THAT bad yet. In a critical failure scenario, you could have just scrolled up, which you inevitably would do... so, what gives?
he was the obvious choice for Person of the Year.Nah, they'd be Luigi Mangione