Recent Posts

21
Flat Earth Community / Re: Any Dubay reconciliation possibilities?
« Last post by Dual1ty on September 23, 2023, 09:29:39 AM »
An issue is that the early version of the FE Wiki didn't have as much technical and background information about the terms it was throwing around and expected its readers to have a physics education. Without the background knowledge, people thought that TFES was just making up upwards acceleration randomly and making up terms. To the novice reader it just looked like technobabble.

Today people read the Wiki and don't have that reaction that Eric Dubey and the early Flat Earth Youtubers had. They now learn from its various pages that the equivalence principle is a substantial principle that has been tested in different physical ways by different testing methods in physics to tell us that gravity physically behaves as if the earth is accelerating upwards. They are satisfied with the claim of upwards acceleration and find it interesting.

The early nay-sayers will eventually see the error of their ways when they come back to re-read the material, as some have. It might take someone ten years to come back to it again, but slowly more FE'ers are coming to reject those early criticisms and see that TFES has some valid points to discuss.

If a FE'er reads all of the Wiki and still vigorously dismisses the possibility, it is frankly because they think the Bible said that the earth is motionless (which it did not, imo) and want to adhere to a biblical earth.

As far as I know, Dubay (not "Dubey") never claimed that it's motionless because the Bible said so. In reality it's only a small group of "biblical flat-Earthers" who claim that it's motionless because the Bible said so (and they also make other ridiculous claims such as a transparent tangible dome with water above, pillars that hold the Earth in place, etc.).

Certainly, that's not the case with me or anyone who talks about Etheric or electrostatic gravity. I don't even know if it's motionless or not, because saying that gravity is not caused by Earth's motion is not the same as saying that it absolutely is motionless.

It is known that magnetism acts much in the same way that gravity does (only magnetism is more "selective"). There is an obvious correlation between the two that rocketship-Earthers dismiss because they don't look into magnetism (it's a big pain in the butt for them :-\). Not the real magnetism research, which already proves that there's something more fundamental/metaphysical going on than just pure Newtonian physics or kinetics. In their view magnetism must be a force and yet it is not. In their view gravity must be a force (rocketship-Earthers claim that an unkown force is applied to the Earth by unknown means, even though they can't prove it and they acknowledge they can't prove it) and yet it is not. They also dismiss observable g variations and they refuse to do experiments themselves that confirm or deny said variations.

Oh, and by the way - there is now a new batch of rocketship-Earthers who claim gravity is the Earth moving, but they don't claim that it's accelerating upwards. That said, who knows what their claim is. I don't think they claim anything concrete - it's all just abstract speculation based on outdated Newtonian physics and kinetics and a bit of unicorn dust (dark energy, etc.) sprinkled on top to explain what powers the purported Earth's motion. Although this particular batch of rocketship-Earthers that I'm talking about never talks about what powers the purported Earth's motion. They just say that it moves because it must be moving (according to their limited understanding of physics and metaphysics that they impose on themselves).
22
Flat Earth Community / Re: Any Dubay reconciliation possibilities?
« Last post by Tom Bishop on September 23, 2023, 03:51:19 AM »
An issue is that the early version of the FE Wiki didn't have as much technical and background information about the terms it was throwing around and expected its readers to have a physics education. Without the background knowledge, people thought that TFES was just making up upwards acceleration randomly and making up terms. To the novice reader it just looked like technobabble.

Today people read the Wiki and don't have that reaction that Eric Dubey and the early Flat Earth Youtubers had. They now learn from its various pages that the equivalence principle is a substantial principle that has been tested in different physical ways by different testing methods in physics to tell us that gravity physically behaves as if the earth is accelerating upwards. They are satisfied with the claim of upwards acceleration and find it interesting.

The early nay-sayers will eventually see the error of their ways when they come back to re-read the material, as some have. It might take someone ten years to come back to it again, but slowly more FE'ers are coming to reject those early criticisms and see that TFES has some valid points to discuss.

If a FE'er reads all of the Wiki and still vigorously dismisses the possibility, it is frankly because they think the Bible said that the earth is motionless (which it did not, imo) and want to adhere to a biblical earth.
23
Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« Last post by Dual1ty on September 22, 2023, 12:00:54 PM »
How normal people measure the curve:



How globe-believing zealots measure the curve:



+

24
Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« Last post by Dual1ty on September 22, 2023, 11:51:30 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".
25
Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« Last post by Action80 on September 22, 2023, 11:47:15 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.
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.
Damn, you need to report this to the surveyors in Kansas...They got their stuff all wrong there...not.../sarcasm.
26
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« Last post by Action80 on September 22, 2023, 11:42:19 AM »
But tell me again how Biden is cognitively impaired and unfit to be President.  ::)
\
Can't you visit your local pre-school and ask one of the students to inform you concerning the facts of this matter?

If you take Brandon along, you would be even more enlightened...amirite?
27
Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« Last post by Dual1ty on September 22, 2023, 11:32:16 AM »
What a guy. Has to constantly contort his answers and do constant quote-mining and misrepresentations to make his beliefs work (well, to pretend they work anyway). And dismiss anything that doesn't fit his beliefs.
 
Imagine 6400 posts of that without getting paid...
28
Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« Last post by AATW on September 22, 2023, 10:46:29 AM »
lol The "Turning Torso globe proofsie" is one of the most cherrypicked observations in history.
Cherrypicked is your get out of jail free card for any observation which doesn't match what you want to believe.
In what sense is it cherry picked? Are there lots of observations of this building from similar distances where you can see all of it?

Quote
You can even clearly see how it seems to get compressed not only due to perspective but due to atmospheric conditions as well. Otherwise damn, did the curvature do that too?
I didn't notice that but feel free to demonstrate that. But yes, the atmosphere does have an effect on observations. Certainly at the furthest distances the building is less clear because of visibility. What's your explanation for where the rest of the building has gone? Why does more of it disappear with increasing distance?

Quote
If things were really following the imaginary exponential curve that globers desperately believe exists, things would gradually tilt exponentially as well along with it. There are zero observations that show any tilt whatsoever. I wonder why?
Indeed. At the furthest distance the building would be tilted away from you. At an angle of...0.45 degrees. You're surprised that's basically impossible to discern?

Quote
Not to mention that they desperately have to dimiss the many long-distance observations that match FE
Can you provide an example?
29
Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« Last post by Dual1ty on September 22, 2023, 09:28:31 AM »
lol The "Turning Torso globe proofsie" is one of the most cherrypicked observations in history. It certainly is not proof of curvature. You can even clearly see how it seems to get compressed not only due to perspective but due to atmospheric conditions as well. Otherwise damn, did the curvature do that too?

If things were really following the imaginary exponential curve that globers desperately believe exists, things would gradually tilt exponentially as well along with it. There are zero observations that show any tilt whatsoever. I wonder why?

And also no observations of curvature at sea level that aren't assumptions of curvature directly in front of the observer due to visual phenomena and perspective hehe!

Not to mention that they desperately have to dimiss the many long-distance observations that match FE by saying "it's just refraction" while not undertanding that refraction would ALWAYS have to occur at the exact same rate as the rate of curvature to make a consistent image. Literally impossible in the real world. Only works with math and equations on a white board.  ;D

Oh, and dismiss any of the JTolan observations because that's too high to account for with refraction equations LOL.
30
Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« Last post by AATW on September 22, 2023, 09:10:51 AM »
You think the horizon is caused by obstruction
I don't know if I'd say "caused". It's the result of the earth being a globe. That means the sea slopes away from you which limits how far you can see.
It also means that as objects move away they will disappear from the bottom first as they go over that curve and eventually you won't be able to see them at all. Like an object going over a hill.
I thought what Dual1ty was saying is that this doesn't actually occur but instead if you zoom in you can "restore" the whole object. You can't. Certainly not always. That's what the photos were intended to demonstrate, as does the Turning Torso video.

Quote
You lack an understanding of what's being said
I'd invite you to consider who I was replying to. He has a habit of declaring things without explanation or evidence.
So sure, it's possible I misunderstood him. From past experience asking questions doesn't yield much of a sensible reply.

Quote
This discussion concerns the horizon.
Dual1ty didn't use the word horizon. He said
"if you live next to the sea and you have a telescope/camera to bring those "boats gone over the curve" back into view".
That's what I was originally responding to.

Quote
Nah, sorry. You saying "ok maybe you're right about X" and then coming back to make THE EXACT SAME BUNK ARGUMENT
It's not the same argument because the two discussions are about different things.
The previous one was about the differences between a RE horizon and a FE one. This is about whether ships really disappear from the bottom first.

Quote
You claim to value logic and evidence. However, you routinely demonstrate utter contempt for these things. That's why I dislike you.
I routinely come to different conclusions to you. You seem to struggle when I don't immediately come to think you are very very right about things.
When you explain things clearly and present evidence and I can see you are right - as you did in that previous thread - then sure, I change my position.
When you're vague, just tell me I'm wrong and don't answer questions then it's a more difficult conversation.