1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly

« on: October 10, 2023, 06:04:08 PM »

... And why does it shut down academic discussion and censors science it doesn't like? Can you please explain? ...

At the risk of stating the overwhelmingly obvious, if what you claim of science were true the scientific view of life the universe and everything would never change, let alone change radically as it has done over the past couple of 100 years.  So there must be some other reason that folks like anti-vaxers or flat-earthers can only self publish on forums like youtube to be taken up by the lay public and can not manage to get published in peer reviewed science journals.  Obviously they simply do not have the data to support their claims and/or are ignoring the data that disproves their claims and/or  are making other similar fundamental mistakes in their methodology.

2

Flat Earth Media / Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record

« on: September 30, 2023, 12:29:36 AM »

The key takeaway here is just as AATW points out, that if the earth was flat this would not be a note worthy event as it would be common place.

If the earth were flat this wouldn't be remarkable, this would be expected. The fact it's newsworthy tells you something...

3

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 25, 2023, 04:17:06 AM »

Also imagine this ichoosenonsense clown telling construction workers and engineers that they need to do their jobs differently and get new tools because level doesn't mean straight, it means curved because the Earth is "round".

For projects where the deviation would make a difference, like the LIGO project they DO take it into account.  For smaller structures it not only would be difficult and expensive but would serve no purpose so they do not do so.

4

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)

« on: September 24, 2023, 09:09:54 PM »

... joe rogan experience video link removed ...

As is often the case with him, this is at best a huge distortion of what the governor actually was talking about.  Which was about ways to prevent developers from rushing in to take advantage of the local people.
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/maui-city-smart-project-state-lands-josh-green/

5

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 21, 2023, 09:38:33 PM »

Does anybody know what he's talking about?

He didn't bother reading the discussion before responding, and he's too proud to do so now, so he's just... saying things. None of it is on topic - which is why he's ranting about multiple observation points in an experiment that only involves one. He also doesn't understand that making RE assumptions in an FE experiment works against his goal, because he does not understand propositional logic.

Watching a target move away from a fixed observation point produces exactly the same effect as moving the telescope to points of increasing distance from a fixed target, nor did I make any assumptions about the shape of the earth in describing the methodology, only in what the expected result would be.  But you don't wish to discuss it, so I'm done here.

6

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 21, 2023, 03:28:56 PM »

Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.

If you want to test a hypothesis, you need to remain true to the hypothesis. Arbitrarily throwing parts of it away will invalidate your results. I get that you'd really like to talk about something else, something that makes you more comfortable, but perhaps you could take that elsewhere, too?

The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away.  But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink.  Thus the earth is not flat.

Here we have an RE-adherent claiming it is possible for an object to be continuously observed over a flat, level surface at a distance of say...400 miles.

I have made no such claim.  The surface need not be continuously level as long as the telescope is leveled at each point of observation (not continuous observation).  Nor did I give any distance which of course would depend on the height of the target object as well as being limited by visibility conditions.

Of course you did. You wrote that the telescope would need to be leveled. If it is already leveled once and remains on the same level ground, affixed to that point, that's your claim.

You claim the object disappears because a telescope mounted as described eventually ends up somehow pointing up.

The telescope needs to be leveled AT EACH OBSERVATION POINT.  Level is perpendicular to the pull of gravity which makes it tangential to the surface.  Since the earth is round the angle of that tangent plane changes at each observation point resulting in the telescope pointing higher relative to the target as the distance between them increases.

7

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 20, 2023, 03:07:51 PM »

Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.

If you want to test a hypothesis, you need to remain true to the hypothesis. Arbitrarily throwing parts of it away will invalidate your results. I get that you'd really like to talk about something else, something that makes you more comfortable, but perhaps you could take that elsewhere, too?

The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away.  But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink.  Thus the earth is not flat.

Here we have an RE-adherent claiming it is possible for an object to be continuously observed over a flat, level surface at a distance of say...400 miles.

I have made no such claim.  The surface need not be continuously level as long as the telescope is leveled at each point of observation (not continuous observation).  Nor did I give any distance which of course would depend on the height of the target object as well as being limited by visibility conditions.

8

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 20, 2023, 03:00:53 PM »

The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away.

No, it emphatically is not. Read the thread before posting again. I will not have you derail it any further.

This thread was derailed long before I joined in, including by your own posts, but whatever.

But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink.

Just asserting it again as fact is unlikely to advance your position. "I said so, duh!" just isn't a sufficient standard of evidence.

Its an easy test to perform, there are plenty of examples on the net but of course you won't accept those nor bother to do the test yourself.

Thus the earth is not flat.

Even if we assume your assertion as true (and, naturally, we don't), this does not follow. In fact, your claim above would disprove RE and FE alike.

Because you say so?  How would this disprove RE?

9

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 20, 2023, 12:28:44 AM »

Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.

If you want to test a hypothesis, you need to remain true to the hypothesis. Arbitrarily throwing parts of it away will invalidate your results. I get that you'd really like to talk about something else, something that makes you more comfortable, but perhaps you could take that elsewhere, too?

The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away.  But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink.  Thus the earth is not flat. 

10

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 19, 2023, 10:07:35 PM »

Curios that this claimed wave never seems to pass

Fascinating - how have you established this given only the specific picture we're discussing? Were you expecting for the contents of a still photograph to change over time?

I was not referring specifically to that photo but the "wave explanation" used so commonly in similar cases.  Here's a video for you

but setting that aside what about observations over land?

Perfectly level land (or reasonably close to), sure

Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.

mountains

Sigh. Try again.

Views of mountains work well for such an exercise but distant skylines or other tall structures work as well if you don't like mountains.

11

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 19, 2023, 05:38:58 PM »

As for obstruction...well yes, that's what I was trying to demonstrate.

Therein lies the problem. You lack the ability to distinguish your hypothesis from the proof. You think the horizon is caused by obstruction, so you take ANY obstruction (in this case, one caused by a tall wave), present it, and go "ta-da!" It does nothing to distinguish between the two hypotheses, but here you are, strutting around like a pigeon and showing the same non-sequitur over and over again.

Curios that this claimed wave never seems to pass, but setting that aside what about observations over land?  There are plenty of posts on the net of careful observations of mountains with precisely leveled telescopes where not only does the bottom of the mountain become obscured but the top of the mountain appears lower as you move further away.   All easily explained via the RE model.

12

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)

« on: September 18, 2023, 09:29:59 PM »

“The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.”

― Harlan Ellison

13

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)

« on: September 17, 2023, 06:37:35 PM »

re the timeline of the fires, the video you present makes very precise claims, like "the Olinda fire was ignited at approximately 10:47pm August 7th".  But the reports I find like this one
https://www.mauicounty.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=12621
only say

Shortly after midnight this morning, a brush fire was reported in the Olinda Road area of Kula. Residents in the Auli’i Drive area were evacuated at 3:45 a.m. At 4:50 a.m. residents of Hanamu Road were also evacuated. Firefighter crews from Kula, Makawao, Kahului, and Wailea are on scene. The Fire Department’s Air One helicopter was launched at daybreak to conduct aerial assessment of the fire.

So could it have started at 10:47pm?  sure, but we do not know that as far as I can tell.  Claiming things that precisely match a particular scenario but are not established facts is a classic misinformation technique.

Well, you would find the source of those claimed timings if you actually did your research instead of trying to misrepresent my claims with "weapons in orbit" when I never talked about weapons in orbit in my entire life. And I also never said that the hurricane "powers the weapon", just that the weapon utilizes the power of the hurricane in some way, which is completely different. So I would appreciate if you don't keep trying to misrepresent what I say.

I am not trying to misrepresent what you say, only to decipher it.  So if not in orbit, where is this weapon you are referring too and in what way does it or even might it (electrically as you say) use the power of a hurricane?

14

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)

« on: September 17, 2023, 05:46:03 PM »

your statement that the weapon, in orbit, "..used the power of the hurricane in some way (obviously electrically)."

You're stitching together a part of my statement with your own garbage and claiming it is still my statement. Now you just went from suspicious to dishonest and next it's going to be you're a liar.

Here is your statement

I never said it was "a laser" or made any claims about the weapon other than it used the power of the hurricane in some way (obviously electrically) - you just took the narrative from the previous video and told me that's now my "script" because you desperately need a straw man to attack and you think everyone's running on a script like you.

What does that mean?  Aren't you talking about a weapon in orbit?  and how would it use the power of a hurricane?


re the timeline of the fires, the video you present makes very precise claims, like "the Olinda fire was ignited at approximately 10:47pm August 7th".  But the reports I find like this one
https://www.mauicounty.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=12621
only say

Shortly after midnight this morning, a brush fire was reported in the Olinda Road area of Kula. Residents in the Auli’i Drive area were evacuated at 3:45 a.m. At 4:50 a.m. residents of Hanamu Road were also evacuated. Firefighter crews from Kula, Makawao, Kahului, and Wailea are on scene. The Fire Department’s Air One helicopter was launched at daybreak to conduct aerial assessment of the fire.

So could it have started at 10:47pm?  sure, but we do not know that as far as I can tell.  Claiming things that precisely match a particular scenario but are not established facts is a classic misinformation technique.

15

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)

« on: September 17, 2023, 04:12:52 PM »

I never said it was "a laser" or made any claims about the weapon other than it used the power of the hurricane in some way (obviously electrically)...

I note you declined to explain your claim.

I would explain nothing to you even if you paid me. You already tried to misrepresent my claim and turn it into "Are you claiming that an object in space was powered by a hurricane a few thousand miles below it?". Wtf are you talking about.

I did not misrepresent anything, I only asked a question.  Obviously I am talking about your statement that the weapon, in orbit, "..used the power of the hurricane in some way (obviously electrically)."

16

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)

« on: September 17, 2023, 03:41:28 PM »

I was referring to the section at 7:10.

Yeah, well, the actual claims are where I told you, so curb your nonsense. That 2:20 pm is just one of the times given for a different satellite and it is in UTC.

True enough, but it still does not match the timeline.

I never said it was "a laser" or made any claims about the weapon other than it used the power of the hurricane in some way (obviously electrically)...

I note you declined to explain your claim.

17

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)

« on: September 17, 2023, 03:23:30 PM »

The video claims they were started at 2:20pm 8/8/23, did you not watch it yourself?

Uuuh no, it doesn't.

The actual claims are at 3:14.

I was referring to the section at 7:10.

I never said it was "a laser" or made any claims about the weapon other than it used the power of the hurricane in some way (obviously electrically)...

Are you claiming that an object in space was powered by a hurricane a few thousand miles below it?  How even in theory would that occur?

As LordDave says, if you do not agree with the contents of something you post it would be good to point that out.

18

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)

« on: September 16, 2023, 11:27:33 PM »

Fires were burning on Maui long before 2:20pm 8/8/23
https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-deadly-wildfires-maui-day-day/story?id=102253075

And?

The video claims they were started at 2:20pm 8/8/23, did you not watch it yourself?

19

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)

« on: September 16, 2023, 09:19:41 PM »

... youtube link deleted ...

Fires were burning on Maui long before 2:20pm 8/8/23
https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-deadly-wildfires-maui-day-day/story?id=102253075

20

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)

« on: September 15, 2023, 06:18:09 PM »

Yes I watched most of it.   The arborist in your video is a self-proclaimed fire expert but simply logic shows him to be wrong.  In many instances we see structures burn but nearby trees or poles do not.  So clearly the house being on fire does not produce sufficient heat to ignite the trees.  The only question remaining then is how does the fire spread from structure to structure.  This also is easily explained by embers which can easily ignite DRY material in and around a house (draperies, wood shingles, rugs, etc.) but will not ignite growing trees which are wetter.   His claim that space based microwave weapons were used is silly.  If sufficient energy were transmitted to ignite a dry house, nearby wet trees would explode.  Further who does he claim is doing this, the US (why?) the Russians (why would we not call them out for such an act of war?).  and doing it for decades?  That makes no sense either.  His whole video is just layering nonsense speculation on top of ignorance.

lol No, that is not the only question remaining. Not even close. Which again tells me you did not watch the video. Or you didn't pay attention. And you're supposed to watch all of it, not "most of it" (whatever that means lol).

I don't care about your opinion, I only care about facts. You haven't addressed any specifics, you just offer "embers explain everything" while ignoring that they do not. Again, not even close.

So, either show facts and start addressing specifics, or stop typing.

I gave facts, the links I offered give more, you simply do not want to hear them.