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 - ichoosereality

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 7  Next >
21
Tom, have you considered that ichoosereality feels very, very strongly about this?

icr, I will not repeat myself. If you have nothing to contribute, do not post in the upper fora. Repeatedly calling your opponents obviously wrong is not contributing.
I did not do so as part of the usually (or supposedly) discussion about evidence or some experiment but about how FE believes come into being i.e. a more epistemological debate) and to be clear, you are "obviously wrong".  I'm not using that assertion as some sort of comeback but to see why another explanation of how an FlEer comes to accept such things is needed.  How do intelligent folks come to such a view?   Its not like "how do some cosmologists think the multi-verse is real while others do not" sort of thing.  Its very different and what makes it different is that the FE position is "obviously wrong", how else can I put it?  I'm not trying to insult anyone or name call etc  But when the worlds cosmologists and earth scientists and space scientists and a large swath of industry all across the nations are 100%, not 99.99% but 100% against you in an area where we have huge amounts of data, isn't that "obviously wrong"?

22
Quote from: ichoosereality
Only if you lie a lot. 

Yet you have been unable to show a blatant lie in the Wiki.
Perhaps you genuinely see it this way.  The wiki here is full of half truths, lies of omission, etc.  The bottom line is that there is zero uncertainty about the shape of the earth (unless of course we are all brains in jars, then anything is possible).  You attempt to paint a known false picture.

The FE claims have been debunked many times even on this site
You guys have been unable to debunk a single article in the Wiki. We have repeatedly asked you to do so with unsatisfactory results on your end.

Pretty pathetic show of results if you think there are "mountains" of evidence against it.
If you want to get into specifics then explain how GPS works on a flat earth?  Likewise for satellite TV or how even with bendy light the light/dark transition is straight (which it is).  If Pete would allow it I'd ask for you to show how lasers can operate with bendy light, but he has made it clear that is off limits.

Since I am guessing you would avoid those topics let me approach it another way.  How does it make sense that you and your fellow FEers with no scientific expertise, who have not studied the cosmos as your life's work see a radially different world than those how do have this expertise and have dedicated their lives to such study?  And that is not an isolated case its the FEers agains the entire scientific community and a huge swath of industry (i.e. all space based industries).  So you have to come up with with a conspiracy to explain it, right?  It just doesn't pass the smell test.   Its not all that different from you claiming you can turn coal into gold, or can teleport yourself to other parts of the (of course flat) earth, etc.   Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you have not remotely come close to providing such.

23
Sorry, I should have been more clear. It’s not that FE-ers themselves should not be taken literally, but that the idea of literally believing the earth is flat seems sort of like missing the point.

Most random people will not have a great 100% sound explanation for why they think the earth is a globe, and I could technically disprove them and make them a flat-earther with some effort. This makes new skeptics feel like there must be some sort of problem with the globe model - after all, shouldn’t it be obvious?
Only if you lie a lot.  The globe model IS obvious if you stick to facts.  Plus its not just about the shape of the earth but the entire cosmos and much of science that has to be denied plus there has to be a massive conspiracy to cover it all up. Even all that can not explain GPS and satellite TV, yet they believe anyway.  Believing all that seems like a gigantic leap to me and I don't think people make it (if they really do so) by being told a few lies.  If there are folks who really think the earth is flat and our entire view of the cosmos is wrong and there is a massive conspiracy I think they have to want to believe that.  That they see believing something so outside the norm as empowering themselves in some way.  There is something about believing in conspiracies that attracts people and FE is the biggest one of all.   The FE claims have been debunked many times even on this site yet the FEers here still claim to believe.  What can it be other than that they want to do so?  FEers are not less intelligent that the rest of us so why are they not convinced when presented with explanations of how wrong the FE idea is?  Why do they think they are smarter than the scientists who study such things their entire lives?  Because they want to.   Another way to see this is that there isn't one FE model FEers think is the case, there are dozens if not more.  It isn't so much thinking a particular FE claim is true but (wanting to) think the RE everyone else accepts is false.  Or at least so it seems to me.

24
Keyworth worked at the Whitehouse, not at NASA. Obviously he might not know exactly what was a lie from an engineering standpoint, but he nonetheless believes he has seen enough to know that they are lying from the top to the bottom, which is noteworthy.
Since there is no context for this comment (its from a private interview) we do not know just what he meant.  Does he mean that everything that NASA claims is a lie?  Or that every paper/report from NASA has some aspect that is not 100% truthful or correct or the best estimate available?  Or (what I suspect) that NASA had a culture of not wanting to pass up bad news and hence lies, even if lies of omission, about program status were common.  This is a common and serious problem in large organizations where the person writing a status report is (often correctly) afraid that the person reading it will have no real understanding of the issues.
It is dishonest to try and claim that Keyworth believed in a globe and not a flat earth, so his statements should be discarded.
Who is saying this?  Clearly he thought the earth was a globe.  But that in no way implies (to folks agreeing that the earth IS a globe) that his stamens should be discarded.  But it IS an inconsistency for you.  You want to agree with him on some things (NASA lies) but claim he is mistaken on something far more all encompassing namely the shape of the earth.  If he is a reliable source why is he not reliable about that?
It is dishonest to claim that Keyworth said something indicating that he believed in space travel because he said [insert Keyworth statement from years prior].
He mentions expendable launch vehicles (ELVs) in the same quote not from years earlier. Plus the quote is about shuttle safety not that the shuttle is some sort of myth/CGI thing.  He clearly thinks that the shuttle exists and works, but that it is not safe (which alas was true).
It is dishonest to try and interpret "from the top to the bottom" as he meant one specific thing.
I have not done so. see above for what I suspect he meant about NASA culture.
Pure dishonesty.  Even if Keyworth actually believes that they are lying at all levels, but that they still make space travel happen somehow, it is still noteworthy.
You people sound like a woman ignoring her partner's lies and denying that she was being cheated on despite knowing that her partner was a serial liar.
Odd choice of analogy.   What we are left with is that you offer a quote from an interview with Regan's science advisor that indicates that he thinks (the part you want to cherrypick) that NASA lies a lot AND (the part you want to ignore) that what NASA does (send things into orbit) is real and hence the earth is a globe.  OK fine.  I am good with accepting all of that, or none of that.  What I think is dishonest is just accepting the part you agree with and ignoring the rest.  To have the option of accepting part and rejecting part you have to show why that is reasonable (e.g. that part was in his area of expertise and part was not) but you have not attempted to do so and since its all about NASA and what NASA does it all seems pretty much in the same bucket.

25
Technology & Information / Re: James Webb telescope launches!
« on: March 18, 2022, 09:14:16 AM »
I think he's just trolling about stuff he doesn't understand, it's kinda his thing. Not worth engaging with.
As for this thread, it is an exciting piece of kit. Hubble has given us a load of amazing images down the years, from what I've read this one is orders of magnitude more powerful so we should get some really spectacular stuff from it.
Yea really exciting stuff.   Here is a page comparing Hubble and JWST, not just much better images but from further back in time so amazing discoveries are likely coming.  https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/comparisonWebbVsHubble.html .   In addition to the difference described another is that the electronics on JWST are a good 30 years newer than Hubble (so faster, more capable, higher resolutions etc).  It's glorious.  The complexities involved with it just "unpacking" itself were incredible and all worked flawlessly.  What an achievement.

26
I did not claim that Keyworth thinks that space travel is entirely fake. He obviously thinks that NASA lies a lot, and that they tell lies "from the top to the bottom." This ties in directly to the honesty of NASA's claims.
So he is a reliable source of information when you agree with his view or at least your interpretation of his view even if that view is a small part of a larger picture that you think is totally false.  That seems like, pretty flawed reasoning to me and well within the bounds of another type of cherry-picking.

It is clearly cherry picking on your part. You want to discard the statements you don't like, which is cherry picking. If we accept all statements we see the fallacy.
I have not accepted or discarded ANY statement he has made.   I claim only that he clearly thinks space travel is real which presumes the globe earth and the standard model of the solar system.

"From the top to the bottom they lie"

Another time he says:

"The shuttle works"

You want to hang onto the second sentence, when it is nullified by the first. Erroneous. He might even believe the second sentence, which is ultimately nullified since he doubts NASA's honesty at all levels. He also made the first quote years after the second one.
Again I have not done this.  His statements could well be inconsistent, I have not examined them in enough detail to know.  All I am claiming is that he clearly accepts the standard globe model of the earth and space travel which you claim are 100% false, yet you want to use his views that are a small part of that as authoritative.  That seems very inconsistent.

27
I did not claim that Keyworth thinks that space travel is entirely fake. He obviously thinks that NASA lies a lot, and that they tell lies "from the top to the bottom." This ties in directly to the honesty of NASA's claims.
So he is a reliable source of information when you agree with his view or at least your interpretation of his view even if that view is a small part of a larger picture that you think is totally false.  That seems like, pretty flawed reasoning to me and well within the bounds of another type of cherry-picking.

28
You left off exactly what he was referring to, "If you believe that the shuttle is going to be cheap relative to ELVs [Expendable Launch Vehicles], then I'm forced to ask you, 'Does that imply that we will spend no money to assure the safety of men on board?' And I think the answer is. "Of course not."

In that quote Keyworth is saying that the claims of the Shuttle are not realistic. This is directly related to the viability of the space travel claims.
But doesn't FET claim nothing has been put into orbit (after all you can not orbit a disk with a dome).  He is only questioning the safety of the MANNED shuttle as opposed to ELVs both of which presume a globe earth and the standard solar system model.  So how is this furthering your position in any way?

29

Yes, because volume is completely different than area and the related equation must not exist. ::)
Yes volume IS completely different than area.  For an object of uniform density AND thickness an "area-density" can be computed, but that is NOT what your wiki page says, it says only "density" and makes no claims about uniformity.

30
Your claimed "alternative" is just a bunch of scribbled equations with no explanation and includes such nonsense as
mass = area * density

Funny, I didn't have a problem verifying that mass is related to density and area/volume.

From the equation:



https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/density.php



I have to wonder if you even read what you post.  My critique is that the page you show says density is mass divided by AREA.  You then say you have no problem finding that density is equal to mass device by VOLUME.  That is correct, VOLUME not AREA.

31
But you do not state that the reason that space is curved (i.e. the presence of the mass of the earth) is clearly antithetical to a FE?

Actually the Wiki has FE gravity theories involving the presence of mass causing gravity - https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Alternatives_to_Universal_Acceleration

Your claimed "alternative" is just a bunch of scribbled equations with no explanation and includes such nonsense as
mass = area * density
but of course meter2 * kg/meter3 would be kg/meter not kg.

I suspect it is from yet another self published paper, i.e. its meaningless.  Peer review is key to how science works.  This is another aspect of your dishonesty.  You cite supposed references that are not legitimate but how many folks go to the trouble of tracking them down to see that?

32
Quote from: ichoosereality
There are many more.  You have cherry picked a book that deviates from the common description of the EP but that describes it to your liking in that it includes "accelerating upwards") and that is a dishonest representation of the EP.

There are three books in the section of the Wiki that describe GR and the EP in that way. It references Gravity: A Very Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton,  the section Why Is Spacetime Curved? of the book Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe by John Richard Gott III, professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University, and Relativity Visualized by physicist Lewis Carroll Epstein.

They are explaining how gravity and the EP works in General Relativity. You quoted passages which do not seek to go into it to explain why space time is curved and how it works as those authors do. The sources in the Wiki are works by physicists who detail why space was decided to be curved.
But you do not state that the reason that space is curved (i.e. the presence of the mass of the earth) is clearly antithetical to a FE?

The main problem this website has is that we are having a discussion with sixth graders.  ::)
And yet it is you who is hurling insults.

33
https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle#General_Relativity_and_Accelerating_Upwards

General Relativity and Accelerating Upwards

The Equivalence Principle is a fundamental tenet of General Relativity, which describes that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time to cause the EP effects as experienced on Earth.

That is not a accurate statement of the EP.  All the references I could find are similar to these and do NOT include the idea of "accelerating upwards though curved space-time".

In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and Albert Einstein’s observation that the gravitational “force” as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.
In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and Albert Einstein's observation that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.
The Newtonian Version
Gravitational mass is the charge to which gravity couples. Inertial mass is a measure of how fast an object accelerates--given the same force, increasing the inertial mass implies decreasing acceleration. The simplest way to state the equivalence principle is this: inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing. Then, gravitational force is proportional to inertial mass, and the proportionality is independent of the kind of matter. This implies the Universality of Free Fall(UFF): in a uniform gravitational field, all objects fall with the same acceleration, e.g. 9.8m/s2 near the surface of the earth.
The Einsteinian Version
All objects fall the same way under the influence of gravity; therefore, locally, one cannot tell the difference between an accelerated frame and an unaccelerated frame.

There are many more.  You have cherry picked a book that deviates from the common description of the EP but that describes it to your liking in that it includes "accelerating upwards") and that is a dishonest representation of the EP.


34
So many argument tactics used by FE proponents are so blatantly dishonest and diversionary.

Really? Prove it. Point out a topic in our Wiki that is blatantly dishonest - https://wiki.tfes.org/
The way you cherry pick is dishonest.
I was thinking the same thing with the example of GPS and satellite TV as the two most obvious ways most people use space technology.  Yet the wiki has no explanation of how they could be possible given a FE (that I could find anyway, there is a video that claims someone claims GPS is ground based but that is very different from explaining how that could work  (hint: it can not)).

35
I agree that investigating things for yourself, even if the answer is well known, is a good thing.
It is a good thing with the caveat that those investigations should be guided.
Totally agree.

36
I agree that investigating things for yourself, even if the answer is well known, is a good thing.  I happened to go to a college (many years ago) where everyone (irrespective of chosen speciality) took the same 2 years of math, physics, chemistry, mechanics, numerical analysis, programming etc. Initially I was a bit annoyed by this wanting to jump into computers/EE. But during a physics lab where I was recreating the early bubble chamber experiments to show that charge was quantized I noticed that despite knowing the outcome, doing it myself changed (if only slightly) how I held that knowledge.  The same thing can be said for just learning to recognize actual scientific work (understating peer review etc) as opposed to just popular press nonsense.
Sadly I see little to none of FE media (this site included) endorsing that view and instead basically being propaganda.

37
... in gravity math we have there is a concept called Zero Point Mass. This is a mass without a volume. Which I think you are aware of is not found in the universe.
You said it correctly but then failed to pay attention to your own words.  The idea of a zero point mass (ignoring black holes for now) is in "gravity math", not the physical universe. If you are computing the gravitational force between two objects t and integrate the force calculation over the volume of the objects you will find that a) that is a difficult calculation and b)  that the answer is the same as if you considered each mass to a be a "point mass" at the center of mass of each object.  It's just an extremely useful calculation simplification and not a description of the actual objects.  Usually in such calculations its the trajectory of the center of mass the you are interested in so things like torque created by uneven mass is not typically of interest.

38
Flat Earth Community / Re: Research
« on: March 10, 2022, 09:32:11 PM »
You could replace FE with RE in your post and it would hold the same value…
Clearly not.  There is no badge (as false as it might be) of "I am a free thinker" self-applied for agreeing with the standard model so that is a clear asymmetry.

The notion that if you consider one thing from the std or alternative side true you might be inclined to do so for others from that side as well, that works both ways.  But even with that things are not symmetrical.  You have to go out of your way to accept an alternative view.

39
Flat Earth Community / Re: Research
« on: March 10, 2022, 06:09:06 PM »
I'd say we're about as diverse as any other group, both religiously and politically.
This of course could be true, but are you basing this on anything other than your own impressions?

I have no idea about a religious belief correlating with FE views, but it seems reasonable that other non-standard views on issues such as
climate change, COVID, COVID vaccinates, the 2020 election, evolution, vast hidden technologies, etc.  might correlate with FE views.  FEers have brainwashed themselves so it seems reasonable to me that those same mental process would be in play for other areas.  It also seems clear that FEers revel in the notion that they are "free thinkers" (despite in my view the opposite being the case) and it is much easier to assign yourself such a badge if the result is a change in thinking as opposed to "I as a free thinker examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that the standard model was correct".  So while I expect that there is such a correlation, I have no evidence one way or the other.

40
Flat Earth Community / Re: Research
« on: March 09, 2022, 06:38:17 AM »
Trying to stick to the theme of the OP and not getting sidetracked into specifics what I find bewildering is why make all this stuff up?  Metatron certainly get high marks for imagination and inconsistency but why bother?  The standard model of mass warping space so as to form into spheres with planets orbiting suns etc explains what we observe.  Why invent all this cray stuff with all sorts of unknown forces and mechanisms mostly unique to the earth and yet even with all that not being consistent with actual observation and needing vast conspiracies on top of it all?  I'm hard pressed to think anyone actually thinks the FE claims or models are true but instead just enjoys claiming that they do.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 7  Next >