21

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: December 25, 2021, 08:34:10 AM »

As stated elsewhere,  more people born 1945-1960 equals more deaths now.

Has nothing to do with a president or politics.

People achieving the end of natural life expectancy.

I'd have to disagree with the conclusions you've drawn.

Of course the older demographic(s) will have a higher rate of death, but it can't be totally correlated
with the incidence of contracting Coronavirus.  You have to consider the far higher incidence of pre-existing
medical conditions as one ages, an increasingly deficient immune system, a degradation of vital bodily
organ function, a slowing metabolic rate, and an inevitable physical body frailty.

In fact, the incidence of contracting Coronavirus is more than three times higher in the 20 - 39 year
age group than it is in the 60- 79 year age group. [Australian NNDSS, 24 December.]

And of course the world record incidence and death rate has everything to do with Trump.  The following
abbreviated list of his stuff-ups is a long one, but proves the fact that Trump actually had not the faintest
notion of what he was talking about, downplayed the seriousness of the pandemic for 4 months, ignored
advice from epidemiologists and CDC data, and caused thousands of unnecessary deaths.

January:  "We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s —going to be just fine".

"We do have a plan and we think it’s going to be handled very well. We’ve already handled it very well. We’re in very good shape".

"It will all work out well".

"We have the best experts anywhere in the world, and they are on top of it 24/7!"

"We have very little problem in this country at this moment —we think it’s going to have a very good ending for us".

February:  "My administration will take all necessary steps to safeguard our citizens from this threat".

Trump again claims  the coronavirus is “under control” in an impromptu South Lawn press conference.

"We’re very —very cognizant of everything going on. We have it very much under control in this country".

"When you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done".

"It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle, it will disappear".

March:  Trump spent much of the month promoting potential treatments like hydroxychloroquine.

He walked back previous statements downplaying the coronavirus by comparing it to the seasonal flu.

"The US has only 129 cases and 11 deaths. We are working very hard to keep these numbers as low as possible!"

Trump says falsely that “anybody that wants a test can get a test”.

He again compares the coronavirus to the common flu, a comparison which at that time had already been debunked.

Trump makes an error-ridden prime-time address from the Oval Office —"The vast majority of Americans, the risk is very, very low".

He incorrectly claims that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine for treating Covid-19.

Trump says "it’s been around for a long time, so we know that if things don’t go as planned it’s not going to kill anybody".

He again touts hydroxychloroquine —"Let’s see if it works. I happen to feel good about it, but who knows, I’ve been right a lot".

Trump says "I would love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter".

"If we have between 100,000 and 200,000 we’ve all together done a very good job", Trump says.

April: Trump claims to have the legal right to overrule governors’ shelter-in-place orders, asserting that the president’s “authority is total.”

He floats bleach as a potential coronavirus treatment:  "And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs".

May:  Trump claims that the US is “the world leader” in responding to the coronavirus, and claims that the US coronavirus response "is the toast of world leaders".

"We are getting great marks for the handling of the Coronavirus pandemic;  Compare that to the Obama/Sleepy Joe disaster known as H1N1 Swine Flu".

Trump tells reporters that he is taking hydroxychloroquine.

Etc, etc, etc...

—The man was an utter disgrace as a world leader, and has made the US a laughing stock amongst
similarly wealthy, enlightened Western countries.     And, sadly, a source of pity.

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: questions about day/night sky

« on: December 24, 2021, 01:24:45 PM »

I think it moves like a rainbow in the sky.  It's image moves as you move around..

I'm not sure what you're referring to here... what is "it"?   And rainbows don't "move around", the observer
is the one that moves.  A rainbow isn't located at a specific distance from the observer, but comes from an
optical illusion caused by water droplets viewed from a certain angle relative to a light source.  It's impossible
for an observer to see a rainbow at any angle other than the usual one of 42º from the direction opposite the
light source.

Interestingly, if you capture the image of a rainbow on monochromatic film, you'll only see one single band of
bright light, rather than seven clear bands as from a colour film.  The perceived colours are simply the result
of an artifact of human colour vision.

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New model of the Universe.

« on: December 24, 2021, 01:05:22 PM »

With thanks to Alexandr Kushnirtshuk, I don't think I've ever seen a forum thread—on any subject, in any
forum—contain so much absolutely absurd, misinformed, fantastical pseudoscience!  Accompanied as it is
by numerous silly diagrams and images repeated endlessly in some sort of attempt to illustrate or explain
what exactly?    Who knows?        Who can know?

I do however thank you Alexsndr for the obvious time and effort you've put into entertaining us with your
apparently endless talent for hokum and hogwash.  I have to apologise though, as I didn't have the time
or the inclination required to read every little tidbit of your creativity.      Still, 10/10 for effort.

24

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: December 24, 2021, 11:18:48 AM »

Nobody has said masks prevent infections. It has always been said it would slow the spread of infections

Everyone who participates in society is going to catch the corona. The idea behind masks was that not everyone is infected at the same time overwhelming healthcare services. Vaccines vastly reduce the chance you'll need hospital care

It's risk reduction.

I agree with yous assertion that mask wearing slows the spread of the Coronavirus, and decreases
the risk of catching it, but to say that "everyone" is going to catch it is not correct.  In an Australian
population of 20,400,000 aged 15+ years, there have been 265,000 confirmed cases to date, which
is only 1.3% of the population.

Not surprising that concept is beyond the grasp of a republican voter though

"The empirical results of [the] paper provide strong evidence that, after controlling for a variety of other
factors, the practice of mask wearing is significantly less in counties where then-candidate Donald Trump
received strong support in the 2016 presidential election. This result is consistent with the theory that
Trump supporters are looking to the president for guidance on the importance of wearing a mask to battle
COVID-19 and the message they are getting is that masks are not important. This message may prove to
be very costly in terms of economic losses, illnesses, and deaths."

—Politicizing the Mask: Political, Economic and Demographic Factors Affecting Mask Wearing Behavior in the USA, Leo H. Kahane, 5 January 2021.



It's been blatantly obvious for nearly two years that Trump and his supporters have undoubtedly increased
both the spread and the incidence, and the US death rate because of their combined inaction and beliefs in
absurd conspiracy theories.  In a just world, Trump would now be fronting the World Court on charges of
crimes against humanity relating to the unnecessary deaths of an estimated 100,000-plus people, due to
his blatant lies about potential cures, his total scientific ignorance, his delays in introducing border closures
and social isolation, his rejection of senior epidemiologists' advice, and his arrogant, dim-witted attitude in
general.  A truly woeful example of a human being, and an embarrassing disgrace for the American people
to bear, even into the near future.     At least we won't be seeing him ever again after 2024.

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Time Dilation on Flat Earth

« on: December 19, 2021, 03:32:55 AM »

The photons and electomagnetic signals aren't physically attached to the building or clocks when they are released. Everything isn't moving upwards together at all times.

I've noted that in another FE thread, it was claimed that all satellites move upwards at the
same time as the Earth, which explains why the Earth never collides with them as it moves
upwards towards them. 

But according to Tom, this is not the case.  How can these conflicting action statements be concomitant?

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?

« on: December 19, 2021, 03:20:03 AM »

Google maps does not appear to be wrong in my opinion.

Google shows the road distance from Melbourne, Victoria, to Perth, Western Australia as 3,624 km
driving on the shortest route, National Highway A1.  I've made that trip nine times—four outbound,
and five homeward, and I can confirm that distance within an accuracy of around +10km or -10km.
This is easy, because we have "Welcome To Perth" or "Welcome To Melbourne" highway markers to
use as measuring points.  It was also consistent with two different vehicles, both with vehicle-maker
tyre specs.

I'm sure any distortion of the Google maps would point up a discrepancy above a mere 20km over
that sort of distance.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: geostationary satellites

« on: December 19, 2021, 03:02:14 AM »

...The idea in FET is that the earth “shields” objects on and above it from whatever force it is which causes the acceleration.

From where is this accelerative [tending to cause acceleration] force sourced?  How is it defined
and what are the values of its constants?  We know that F = ma from Newton's 2nd law.  We know
the mass of the spherical earth (5.972 × 10^24 kg) but we haven't yet, apparently, determined the
mass of the (or 'a') flat earth.  What estimates have been made of the mass of a flat earth, and who
made them, and more importantly, what is that figure?

But that shielding only works up to a certain altitude so if you could get a satellite above that then it would be subject to the same force that the earth is so would accelerate along with the earth and this remain at a constant altitude above it.

What forms, or could form,  this alleged "shield"?  And why would the shield suddenly open up and
allow so many satellites to return to the earth's surface over many decades?

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE proponents explain flying over the south pole?

« on: December 19, 2021, 01:28:39 AM »

I think the atmosphere freezes as it approaches cold temperature and creates kind of an icy containment wall.

In principle this is correct—in a colder atmosphere, water vapour does condense and freeze,
forming ice particles.  But your notion that these ice crystals then coalesce to form some
sort of semi-solid "dome" isn't supported by any current evidence.

The icy shell might be cloudy, transparent, etc...   It's probably thicker at lower altitudes to contain the majority of air density in the troposphere.  Here's an article on Sun Dogs caused by the Sun's light refracting off Atmospheric Ice Crystals...

Yes, that too is correct.  So-called sun dogs—like rainbows—are caused by refraction of the sun's
light, but in no way illustrate any other atmospheric phenomenon such as a solid ice plane or dome.

Within the shell / Within the ice cube, the atmosphere is layered by different densities from heavy to light as you move up in altitude.

Again, that's correct.  As one's altitude increases, the density of the atmosphere decreases.  But there's
no current evidence that supports this phenomenon being due solely to some sort of physical containment
such as an ice "dome".  As the Earth's gravitational force is weaker farther from Earth's centre, at higher
altitudes, air molecules can spread out more, and the atmosphere becomes "thinner".

But near the Poles of earth, the air becomes thinner more quickly.  The very thin stratosphere for example starts at 4 miles in altitude versus 12 miles at the equator.

The tropopause can—as you suggest—indeed vary from around 23,000 ft to 65,000 feet,
but in actuality that's a relatively tiny difference in terms of altitude;  we have planes currently
flying at each of those altitudes without any intrinsic problems.  Commercial aircraft typically fly
between 33,000 ft and 42,000 ft whilst the highest military air-breathing engine airplane was
the SR-71 "Blackbird" with a 90,000 ft ceiling (until their retirement in 1999).

I'm not sure why - I used to think it's because you're closer to space near the northern edge but seeing as it happens in polar south that sort of negates the argument.

Air temperature, location, and the rate of temperature change (per 1,000 ft) affect the lower altitude of the tropopause (on the global model).

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: geostationary satellites

« on: December 18, 2021, 11:25:09 AM »

If the flat earth were moving, wouldn't it eventually collide with all those satellites? 
And what keeps satellites at a constant distance from the earth's surface if it's constantly
moving towards them?  We throw a ball into the atmosphere and the earth collides with
it, so why not satellites?  An apple can be likened to a small satellite as far as physics goes.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the lit area on the FE map vs EA

« on: December 18, 2021, 11:13:26 AM »

The density of the air over the planet varies with altitude according to RE physics.
Climbers that reach high mountain altitudes need auxiliary oxygen to sustain exertion.
Prop-driven planes can't fly at extreme altitudes.

But... the density of the glass half-sphere over the RE map is constant, and simply acts
as any prism does.  Additionally, the light source used is far too small, too focussed, and
is far too close to the surface of the earth in order to represent the sun.

This experiment needs to be better performed with, say, an open 100W incandescent light
bulb at a distance of, say, a couple of metres directly above the glass prism.  The resultant
light pattern on the map will be vastly different. 

To use a penlight torch is simply unrepresentative of the relative sizes of the earth and the
sun and the distance between them.

31

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Untrustworthy quotation in the wiki

« on: December 13, 2021, 08:12:11 PM »

IFLScience is certainly not a "clickfarm of dubious quality".  The majority of its writers are holders
of science degrees; Masters, Bachelors, PhDs etc.

Yes, that's exactly why they cite the Daily Mash as their source. The quality of the article speaks for itself, and I encourage you to approach your sources more critically.

Uh... IFLS obviously understands that The Daily Mash is a satirical website which publishes
spoof articles; it's all fabricated and isn't intended, in any way whatsoever, to be taken as
factual.  I'm guessing you could be taking IFLS's light-hearted approach to science a little
more seriously than they intend?

At any rate, I do attempt my best at qualifying the sites I quote as for their accuracy, lack
of bias or political/religious/corporate leanings, and the actual academic qualifications of the
site's writers in a particular field.

One of my compatriots who writes for the site, professor Stephen Luntz...

Why did you call him a "professor", by the way? Were you just misusing the title due to your lack of awareness?

Uh... because he is. He's a part-time lecturer at the Melbourne University Physics Department.  
Do you have any particular reason not to describe Luntz thusly?

BTW, I note that FEs describe Samuel Rowbotham as Dr. Rowbotham, and/or Dr. Birley. 
Can you clarify that, as the term "Doctor" is reserved for individuals who've obtained a
university doctorate such as a Ph.D.  I couldn't find any evidence of that in Rowbotham's
academic history.  The FE Wiki merely says of him that he was "an English medical doctor".

And that's it; nothing more, no academic qualifications or medical degrees earned, not even a
confirmed institute of learning or its location.

One has only to look at the academic accreditations and scientific achievements of a few of
Rowbotham's contemporaries—Henri Becquerel, Charles Babbage, John Scott Russell, Joseph Lister,
or James Clerk Maxwell—in order to see the total  dearth of Rowbotham's claimed "qualifications".

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Zetetic Society - Scientific Accreditation?

« on: December 13, 2021, 06:45:32 PM »

Yes; modern doctors do know exactly what causes cancer, and it's not germs, as Rowbotham believed.

Please read the quote you posted. This is an incorrect restatement. The quote says that the nervous system can be degraded by germs, as well as by "causes other than germs". The quote is speaking of the nervous system in the role of disease, and not specifically cancer, and states that it is also degraded by causes other than germs. Your statement is incorrect.

Firstly Tom, thank you for your detailed response.

Rowbotham specifically mentioned cancer as being caused by "germs".  Nowhere did he mention gene mutation
as the real and actual cause.

In the mid-1800s, neuroscience, and the human central nervous system (CNS) and peripheral nervous
system (PNS) were not well understood, and certainly not by any lay person such as Rowbotham  It wasn't
until the late 1890s that the brain's neural system was discovered and confirmed to function—as we know it
does today—by Santiago Ramón y Cajal (the so called "neuron doctrine").

Cancer is caused by gene mutations to the DNA within cells. The DNA inside a cell is packaged into a large
number of individual genes, each of which contains a set of instructions telling the cell what functions to
perform, as well as how to grow and divide. Errors in these instructions can cause the cell to stop its normal
function, and can allow the cell to become cancerous.  A number of things can cause gene mutations, such
as smoking, radiation, carcinogens, hormone imbalance, or chronic tissue inflammation.

A nice story, but they don't know what is occurring on a biochemical level and how everything interacts with each other, and how those environmental effects which were identified affects the bodily system in all its pathways and ends up turning into cancer. Cancer research and research of possible in vivo remedies are still ongoing.

Yes we do know what cause cancers at a biochemical level; that's how we now know to use radiation and/or
chemotherapy to cure the majority of cases.  You've claimed that, currently, "60% of cancer patients, die
within five years".  That's debatable, at least here in Australia;  according to the National Cancer Control
Indicators,the 10-year survival was highest for prostate cancer (91%), melanoma (87%) and female breast
cancer (85%). The lowest 10-year survival rate was for pancreatic cancer (8%).

It is seen that smoking and radiation could also degrade the nervous system as well.

Immaterial and irrelevant in Rowbotham's lifetime.  In the mid-1800s nobody believed that smoking could or
would produce illnesses of any sort, and it wasn't until 1896 that French physicist Henri Becquerel discovered
radioactivity, 12 years after Rowbotham's death.

And as a former cancer sufferer (more than 30 years ago) I can assure that doctors do know how to eradicate it.

You can't possibly think that surgery, radiation therapy and chemo are cures or preventatives for cancer, as I indicated were lacking.

Well, actually I do;  I'm living proof after 33 years.  I underwent surgery, and extensive radiation therapy.

Tellingly, in Rowbotham's day, cancer killed everybody who developed it, and he couldn't do anything about it
other than selling his elixir.  Nor could doctors even diagnose it back then.

This is incorrect as well. https://web.archive.org/web/20150310060321/http://thomlatimercares.org/Cancer_Facts.htm

No, it's not incorrect.  Could you please post a citation supporting your claim.  And your link is 25 years out of date!

Modern medicine and its trillions of dollars have added a whopping 15% survival rate,
and this is ignoring the many people who regress years later. How great is modern oncology at fighting cancer, really?

Could you please post links to support those claims I've highlighted?  And it's patently obvious that modern medicine
has advanced cancer (and other life-threatening illnesses) diagnoses and treatments way, way beyond Rowbotham's era.

See, this is the main problem for all of these muh science sentiments in general. In your OP you declare modern science to have created "massive advances" when this could be abjectly false. You are appealing to popular lore and dogma, without actually bothering to show the claims from first principles.

Can you please clarify what you mean by "popular lore and dogma" and also "first principles"?  And yes, my claim
about scientific advancements since Rowbotham's lifetime have, undoubtedly, been massive.  In his day, the
best he could come up with as any sort of cure was nothing more than sugar, water and alcohol.

He was named in numerous cases of wrongful deaths, including a "death by misadventure" for accidentally poisoning
one of his own children. He was also held responsible for several other deaths using his quack cures of phosphorus.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the lit area on the FE map vs EA

« on: December 13, 2021, 05:26:20 PM »

I understand the FE theory of the sun revolving in a circular plane above the flat surface
of the planet at a constant altitude of 3,000 miles (more or less), with its orbital centre
located above the North pole.  Hence the "spotlight" effect on the Earth's surface.

But that seems to ignore the fact that rather than being smaller in diameter than the Earth,
(as per the FE model) in fact the sun is massively larger;  its diameter is 109 times that of
the Earth, measured even with any simple optical telescope.

This leads me to believe that the spotlight effect could not occur as theorised.  Imagine a
table-tennis ball resting on the far side of your room, illuminated by the incandescent bulb
of a table lamp on the opposite side of the room.  This better illustrates the lighting effects
from the sun onto Earth.

The shadow thus formed on the table-tennis ball will not actually form a clearly defined spotlight
on the surface of the ball, but simply its nearside illuminated fully, and it far-side in darkness.
Exactly as per RE theory.

A flat sheet of A4 paper cut to a circular shape and held facing the light will also be fully illuminated
over its entire surface, with again no spotlight effect, and at odds with the FE theory.  How can
this be explained?

And, critically, it makes little difference if the ball and paper are 10 meters distant from the light
source or one metre from the light source.  Which means, in effect, and knowing the size of the
sun, it could be 3,000 miles above the Earth's surface (ouch!) or 93,000,000 miles above, and the
RE model would still hold.

34

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: December 13, 2021, 05:48:32 AM »

Former President Donald Trump ended his presidency more unpopular than any of the last 12 presidents at
the end of their first terms and he is still unpopular post-presidency according to FiveThirtyEight’s new average
of Trump’s favourability numbers. Currently, 41.4% of Americans have a favourable opinion of Trump, while
53% have an unfavourable opinion of him.

A November poll from Suffolk University reports that 11% say they would vote for a third-party candidate, which
is a worry for both the Republicans and the Democrats, as swinging voters often confound the pre-election polls.

35

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Canada is a $#!/hole country

« on: December 13, 2021, 05:32:40 AM »

Firstly, I think it's inappropriate to label Canada a  $#!/hole country because of one
single unfortunate incident such as this.

According to the report, Janet said "she has severe celiac disease and her food cannot
even be cross-contaminated with gluten".

I guess my question would be, if someone has chronic celiac disease, and is travelling
internationally, surely they'd take their own suitable food supply with them—at least
to last a couple of days.  Apparently the woman arrived back in Canada with not one
morsel of food with her?  And then blames the hotel kitchen for not having any gluten
free food?

I had no idea what foods are gluten free and had to check:  fruits and vegetables; beans;
seeds; legumes; non-processed nuts; eggs; lean, non-processed meats; fish and poultry.

So apparently she couldn't carry a few apples or bananas, some nuts, processed cheeses,
or even a couple of little tubs of plain yogurt with her?    What a precious little snowflake!
   

36

Flat Earth Community / Re: Skeptic.org.uk article on the Universal Accelerator

« on: December 12, 2021, 07:54:42 PM »

Dave Hahn, PhD., recently wrote an article called The Bewilder Gambit: a conspiracy theorist tactic designed to distract

The Lorentz equations of Special Relativity are nonsense designed to distract, apparently.

"The formula is not just something that I do not know, but I also don’t know where I begin to look it up."  [Hahn]

Yes, Dr Hahn did say this, but he was simply being honest up front—as scientists inevitably are.
He didn't attempt to lie about his proficiencies in unfamiliar territory.  So 10/10 for honesty at least.

I didn't have that problem...

That may well be so, but I'm guessing that you don't know the intricacies of the Lorentz equations either,
as after their illustration in the FE Wiki, the following line says merely "As you can see, it is impossible for
dark energy to accelerate the Earth past the speed of light".  And this is what Dr Hahn actually means when
he says that FEs "seek to bewilder those asking the question with this impressive looking formula".  He not
once said anything to the effect of the Lorentz equations being "nonsense".  That's your wording, not his.

And if you are trying to educate people on the incorrectness of your opponents why even
make the "you can't travel faster than the speed of light so UA can't work" claim without doing the bare amount
of research into the possibility that you might be wrong?

Well, as you posted, Stephen Hawking's already done the research:



And obviously this immediately falsifies the principle of FE Universal Acceleration (UA), which also relies on some
as yet undefined hypothetical force known as dark energy by scientists, pushing against the "underside" of the
flat planet.  It's of interest here that FE proponents are happy to use two scientific terms to explain UA, that is the
gravitational constant [6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2]  on a mass, and a hypothetical force posited by astrophysicists.

I have to ask:  why is it that the gravitational constant on the flat earth is identical to that on a spherical earth?  Was
this constant determined independently by any FE scientists (names please), or just conveniently borrowed from RE scientists?

[EDIT:  Added last two paragraphs.]

37

Flat Earth Investigations / Bolivia Salt Flat is not Flat

« on: December 12, 2021, 04:39:45 AM »

The Salar de Uyuni is the world's largest salt flat, or playa, at over 10,000 square kilometres in area.
It's in the Daniel Campos Province in Potosí in southwest Bolivia, near the crest of the Andes at an
elevation of 3,656 metres above sea level, and appears to be flat as far as the eye can see.

Using UNAVCO GPS reference stations Walter Bislin has proved that this salt flat curves exactly as
predicted by the WGS84 Globe Model.

You can check out Bislin's site here: Bolivia Salt Flat is not Flat.


The flat is around 125km E-W and around 115km N-S.

I think the accuracy and evidence of this 21st century scientific experiment far exceeds the accuracy and
reliability of Rowbotham's 1838 Bedford Level experiments. Atmospheric refraction can produce the results
observed by Rowbotham, as light rays travelling nearly horizontally close to the Earth's surface bend
downwards, so that the line of sight is a curve.  This downward curve could match the mean curvature
of the Earth's surface. The combined effects of assumed curvature, and refraction, could cancel each other
out, such that the Earth would appear flat in simple optical observations such as Rowbotham's.

38

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Untrustworthy quotation in the wiki

« on: December 12, 2021, 03:03:20 AM »

That aside, I propose that we shouldn't be quoting IFLScience on this. They're a clickfarm of dubious quality...

IFLScience is certainly not a "clickfarm of dubious quality".  The majority of its writers are holders
of science degrees; Masters, Bachelors, PhDs etc.  One of the important aims of the site is to make
the sciences more accessible to the lay person.  One of my compatriots who writes for the site,
professor Stephen Luntz, graduated from the University of Melbourne with degrees in science
(physics major) and arts (English Literature and the History and Philosophy of Science), followed
by a Graduate Diploma in Science Communication from the Australian National University.

The quality of its reporting far outstrips the low tabloid quality of the UK Mirror, which also reported
that 64% of its readers did not believe dinosaurs existed!

Which of course, by extension, means that their alleged 52% of Apollo non-believers is pure nonsense.
Maybe it'd be advisable to amend the FE Wiki accordingly in order to maintain its integrity?

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Zetetic Society - Scientific Accreditation?

« on: December 12, 2021, 01:14:28 AM »

At any rate, it's obvious that the good doctor had not the faintest notion of what actually caused cancer.

You are implying that modern doctors know what causes cancer. If they knew exactly what caused cancer on a biological and biochemical level they would know exactly how to prevent and cure it, which they do not.

Yes; modern doctors do know exactly what causes cancer, and it's not germs, as Rowbotham believed.

Cancer is caused by gene mutations to the DNA within cells. The DNA inside a cell is packaged into a large
number of individual genes, each of which contains a set of instructions telling the cell what functions to
perform, as well as how to grow and divide. Errors in these instructions can cause the cell to stop its normal
function, and can allow the cell to become cancerous.  A number of things can cause gene mutations, such
as smoking, radiation, carcinogens, hormone imbalance, or chronic tissue inflammation.

And as a former cancer sufferer (more than 30 years ago) I can assure that doctors do know how to eradicate it.

Rowbotham had it on the money that nervous system degradation and disorders are associated with cancer though.

No; Rowbotham didn't "have it on the money".  He clearly believed that cancer was caused by germs, which
of course actually have no connection with cancer.  And neither did the "nerve force" that Rowbotham talked
about have anything to do with cancer... whatever his nerve force was even meant to define, as he couldn't
describe it beyond that simplistic description.

Tellingly, in Rowbotham's day, cancer killed everybody who developed it, and he couldn't do anything about it
other than selling his elixir.  Nor could doctors even diagnose it back then.

I think it's important not to credit Rowbotham with medical expertise he didn't possess, and which has never
been evidenced.

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Time Dilation on Flat Earth

« on: December 11, 2021, 11:45:42 PM »

The photons and electromagnetic signals aren't physically attached to the building or clocks when they are released. Everything isn't moving upwards together at all times.

I'm not sure that you fully understand how so-called atomic clocks work Tom.     There are no photons involved at all.

An atomic clock uses the resonance frequencies of atoms as its resonator. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the
resonator is "regulated by the frequency of the microwave electromagnetic radiation emitted or absorbed by the quantum
transition (energy change) of an atom or molecule."  The advantage of this approach is that atoms resonate at extremely
consistent frequencies.

If you take any atom of cesium (for example) and get it to resonate, it will resonate at exactly the same frequency as
any other atom of cesium.   Cesium-133 oscillates at precisely 9,192,631,770 cycles per second.

And this is why each of the ground floor and the top floor clocks of our skyscraper are keeping different times—around
4ns (nanoseconds) for a 2,000 foot building.  The difference is explained by Einstein's theory of relativity, which established
that time is connected to the strength of gravity at the point where it's measured. This phenomenon affects the relative
motion of electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom.

—I'm not sure what you mean by "Everything isn't moving upwards together at all times".  Could you elaborate please?