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 - JRowe

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: If Biden Dies?
« on: August 15, 2020, 10:07:10 PM »
It actually precludes them from further litigation under the statue of limitations.
Legal and personal consequences aren't the same thing.

It seems to be an alarmingly common tactic of faux-reasonable people
Whoa whoa whoa. faux-reasonable?  >:(
Absolutely. Those that want the appearance of reasonability by appealing to high-profile topics, but lack any actual solid basis. It's the same kind of thinking that sees REers use their 'do you think you know better than Einstein?' (keeping on-brand with the forum). Appeal to something people respect and associate yourself with something perceived as reasonable, rather than be reasonable yourself.

Court-case legality and personal morality are very different beasts. Take fruit of the poisoned tree; you can have solid evidence someone is a serial murder-rapist, but if that evidence was obtained in a questionable fashion, it's inadmissible. If legality was all we were concerned with, you could know for a fact someone was a monster, but be expected to forgive them and act as though they weren't. Courtroom legality like this exists to try and ensure investigations are carried out in a way that doesn't give unjustified power to every Tom, Dick and Plod, not to tell a private citizen how to live their life. If you know something that's inadmissible in court, you should still adhere to it when you live your life.

Do you even know how legality works? The degree of proof required varies even depending on the crime they're accused of. You can be liable in civil court but not guilty in criminal court, how then should one consider a situation like that?
If you find yourself needing to appeal to high-brow 'statute of limitations,' 'innocent until proven guilty,' 'free speech,' as opposed to just talking about the matter at hand, it's a pretty clear indication your goal is in appearing reasonable as opposed to actually being reasonable. Yes, those things exist, those things are true, but no one lives their life as though every decision is a trial. Bringing in fundamental laws of the land to talk about personal points of view, as opposed to criminal action, is like invoking a tsunami to water your houseplant. Someone might get the idea your goal is something other than the houseplant.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: If Biden Dies?
« on: August 15, 2020, 07:43:58 PM »
I’m not sure what evidence they could provide of an alleged unwanted sexual encounter decades ago.
Yes, waiting decades before reporting a crime will do that to you. However, this does not free them from the burden of proof.

It actually precludes them from further litigation under the statue of limitations.
Legal and personal consequences aren't the same thing.

It seems to be an alarmingly common tactic of faux-reasonable people to fall back on 'respectable' fields, even when they aren't relevant. It's the same guiding principle that sees people crying 'free speech, first amendment!' in what should be a casual discussion between friends. If you're in a situation where you have to talk legality and laws as opposed to simply your opinion of an individual, then you're in a very dicey situation. It's a way to appear as though you have the high ground while having very little to stand on indeed.
Laws aren't synonymous with morality. In many cases they're actively not meant to be an accurate judge of someone's character. What a court of law would make of someone should not necessarily be the same as what an individual concludes.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« on: April 21, 2020, 03:50:52 PM »
Quote
Just what would you like to do with Newton, which is still damn useful when not dealing with extreme speeds or gravity? Throw it all away? And replace it with what?

You're still not explaining well what the problem is.  Science throws stuff away all the time. In fact right now scientists would LOVE to throw out Relativity AND Quantum Mechanics and replace it with something thats compatible, they just haven't found it yet. But they keep looking, to the tune of building massive colliders hoping to find SOME results that don't match. Thats where you are dead wrong. Scientists WANT to find new things, find data that doesn't fit. Because that means they found something NEW, and that, is why they are scientists in the first place.

You're still doing it. You're holding the current system up and expecting me to answer in terms of it. I'm saying no, I'm saying that's the flawed approach. By rights there should be way more than one mainstream, all developed independently, held to the same standard of needing to provide accurate explanations, and allowed to develop to an equivalent standard rather than being rejected simply because a younger model would lack depth. Start from scratch using knowledge, possibilities and conclusions that we have come to using greater technology. Don't throw anything away, but be prepared to build other possibilities. There should be multiple mainstreams, all functional by tweaking and observation, but all with different basic principles. That at least would allow for error. And when there's a new discovery that would alter any starting point, make a new model based on that. The one held as true would be the one that wins an honest comparison to see which requires the most special pleading, but the door would always be open for another to take the reins. Science does technically do this, but on such a piddlingly small scale. It's verboten to question anything 'established,' and I'm saying that's wrong, open the doors to consider far more, put whole models to the test as opposed to tiny side elements on the frontier, that would at least be intellectually honest.
Would it be slower? Yes, absolutely, but speed isn't what matters. Accuracy and truth is.

Science isn't looking to throw out relativity or QT, it's looking to give it the Newton treatment, "Well it works so we'll say it holds in this situation, but not this one..." refining and adding, not replacing.

That's the problem. The scientific community just isn't equipped to deal with a long-held flaw. Even the examples you bring up of things that might get tweaked are more recent, comparatively speaking, developments. If a flaw gets brought up with something like, say, gravity, they're just going to assume the theory was right and invent, say, dark matter or some equivalent to make it work, rather than go back and rethink the starting point. And why? Because almost everything has been built on that starting point. The scientific community has become a top-heavy unwieldy mess, and its refusal to rethink the basics means all that's keeping it going is a hope, prayer and a whole heap of denial.







Quote
Ultimately though, the heliocentric model won out. It took a long time but ultimately science will replace models if new ones come along which fit observations. I don't think in this day and age it would take as long as it did in that case because of better communication and collaboration.

Ultimately, if a model has been demonstrably working for centuries it's going to take some pretty compelling evidence to replace it.
That's a very flawed comparison. Flaws with the geocentric model, under RET, had been identified for ages, there was no good explanation for epicycles, it was merely 'we need this to happen, so it does.' The problem wasn't equipment, the problem was a theocracy. It isn't a sound basis for comparison because nowadays, at least internally, the scientific community lacks those specific pressures. The problem is that a 'new model that fits observations' is never going to happen because of the sheer amount of knowledge we now have compared to then, a new model that fits observations in even half the detail RET does is going to take decades to develop. That's no measure of truth, that just means math takes a while to develop, models time to put together, and the mainstream has been nipped and tucked and tweaked to force it in line with those experiments. Creating another that the mainstream would be willing to even consider is not going to happen regardless of what model is true.
RET hasn't demonstrably been working for centuries. It's run into problem after problem, it's just that they solved those problems internally as opposed to seeing what alternatives could do, and the longer that goes on, the harder it's going to be to make them look at anything outside their comfort zone. If a flaw in it gets pointed out tomorrow, we're a week away from it being heralded as evidence of some new facet of RET. That's how the community works now. There's no room to question the principles.
And that's where the comparison to Galileo comes in. Heliocentrism required fighting against the religiously enforced geocentric worldview to be accepted, but at least there was an enemy to disprove. Now the scientific community has taken on the same religious mindset when it comes to venerating those that came before, it is its own theocracy, and an enemy within cannot be fought so easily.

That's where we enter into 'tear it all down' territory. The modern scientific community has become so poisoned I honestly don't know how it can be fixed.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« on: April 20, 2020, 09:48:44 PM »
Scientists see stuff and make a model about it. They see new stuff and add that to the model. You seem to be angry and upset that scientists don't always throw everything out and come up with totally new models. What is the problem with taking something that works, and making it work better? What bothers you so much?
Because it puts that which came before up on a pedestal. It refines, it doesn't replace.
To take your Einstein example, what the logical approach should have been was to take that, and look back, to start from ground level with the knowledge that such phenomena are even possible, as opposed to building everything up assuming such things never happen. The knock on effects for a new discovery like that should be tremendous, instead they affect only Newton in certain circumstances and affect plenty of things looking forward, but don't alter anything looking back.
Taking something 'that works' is making far too much of an assumption, something isn't above question just because it works, more often than not it works because it was forced to work, it started life as a failure, then was tweaked and made vague enough that values could be assigned that gave it the appearance of working, with no guarantee that the underlying process is actually an accurate description of why what happens, well, happens. It's always easy to answer the what, the why is much harder to figure out, but the scientific community has taken the lazy route of equating the two.

The modern scientific community is far too concerned with building up higher and higher that it's not checking its foundations. What of alternatives? If something is wrong with our current understanding of the world, odds are it isn't going to be something small, it would be some oversight made when our technology and knowledge was far less than it is now and the issues would have gotten bigger and bigger as time went by and more was built upon that error, constantly tweaking and nipping and tucking until it gave the appearance of working, while being an unwieldy, flawed explanation that's only going to keep causing problems.
And what you call science is woefully unequipped to even acknowledge such a possibility, let alone address it.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« on: April 20, 2020, 07:51:20 PM »
Quote
So what is it that you think you've got that all those other people haven't got? A questioning nature? A lack of education?
It's not a matter of having, it's a matter of doing. The modern scientific community is based on building upon certain principles, it's long since ceased re-evaluating them.

Science does move on, that's the problem. It needs to look back. We know more than we did a thousand years ago, why don't we use those things we've established to analyze the starting point they had? Until that happens, every conclusion reached by the modern scientific community is tainted. That's inescapable, like it or not, the only reason I'm saying it and they're not is they have their funding to worry about. It's not at all hard to see if you're willing to contemplate the possibility, it's just that everyone taught science by the mainstream is forced to deny it.

Quote
Their jobs are based around questioning why things works - models only work if they predict reality.
You are confusing cause and effect. The model was tweaked and changed until it reflected reality. When something unexplained comes up again, they'll change the model that little bit more. They create equations with unknowns and then add whatever unknowns are required to make it fit the data they have.

Quote
I'm not questioning whats scientific, I'm asking why you don't question yourselves more. Nothing I've read on here has given anything like definite proof and yet there are people who believe it with such fervour its basically a religion.
I'm not telling you what to believe. I'm giving you  a starting point and letting you come to your own conclusions. You meanwhile are telling me to stop questioning and go along with what They say. Which of those sounds like religion, and which sounds like science, to you?
'Definite proof' betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of any scientific process, what do you expect, a convenient few lines that point to just one option and render impossible all others? You're never going to get that in any scientific field. I've noticed REers have a tendency towards 'gotcha!' arguments, which seems to be the mindset you're expecting us to have: it's a flawed one. There is no 'gotcha' in science, no disproof, just a requirement to refine the hypothesis a little more. The 'proof,' as you call it, is just the comparison of options to see which hypothesis requires more unsubstantiated assumptions to be realized, and to compare that you'll need to learn FET to roughly the same extent that you know RET. That's the only kind of 'definite proof' that exists in science, and I'm at a loss as to how you'd expect to so easily see it.
This ties into the above as well; the RE model is tweaked until it reflects reality the best they can. The issues you'll find are not contradictions, any contradiction that gets exposed would in a week be heralded as evidence for some groundbreaking new Dark String Loop Quantum Teapot theory, you can explain away anything with sufficient imagination, the problem is the sheer amount of convenience that is required in some fields, or the interactions between newer concepts and old claims that were never developed with them in mind. Those are the only ways there could conceivably be objections raised in an actual scientific setting.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« on: April 20, 2020, 02:45:28 PM »
I'm not saying the minority cannot be right I'm just saying that when your position requires you to claim you're more knowledgable in such a wide variety of disciplines than all of those people perhaps you should be prepared to reevaluate that position.
Are you more knowledgeable than Einstein because you know how to work an iphone better than he ever did?

Exactly!
I'm glad someone gets it.

Its like flat earthers have only seen a boxed iphone, maybe talked to a few people who used one or to someone who has a friend who used one....and they're calling up apple and telling everyone that they know what the circuits inside the iphone are.

When apple engineers come out and say "Hey, no, sorry - thats not right" the flat earthers claim that its all a conspiracy and someone is putting words in the mouth of every engineer that thinks they're using component X in the phone.
Aaaand you completely missed the point, well done.

Expertise is not some catch-all. Einstein is not appealed to as an expert in biology, but in physics, and a specific subset of that. A child would be more knowledgeable than any of history's great thinkers when it comes to something outside their field of reference, such as a facet of modern life. Physicists use the round earth model to get their results, true, so? They use observations and contort what the model predicts to allow for them, the model didn't come about in a vacuum, it was nipped and tucked until it worked as much as they could make it, up until some new discovery came along and they had to nip and tuck a little bit more. They are experts in their specific model and nothing more, just as engineers are great with telling you how to get from A to B but really don't concern themselves with why any of it works.
Am I more knowledgeable than, say, Steven Hawking? When it comes to certain topics, yes, just as I'm sure you are. For example, I'd put money on the fact that he wouldn't be able to describe any aspect of any of the major FE models. His expertise is in a set few fields, making claims as to how knowledgeable one is in comparison to him is plainly misleading becaue you are granting him an omniscience no human has.

All those people you mention know only what is within the framework they were taught. That is their expertise, that is their knowledge, if that framework is flawed then who's more knowledgeable about it is meaningless. I contest the foundation of that framework, not the petty bickering about intricacies long after the fact. Forget the geologists, physicists, they're working with fruit from the poisoned tree. What you really need to ask is if you're more knowledgeable than some bloke who thinks the elements are earth, water, wind and fire, or more knowledgeable than someone who thinks sacrificing a rabbit will cure an illness, the 'giants' upon whose shoulders all modern scientific understanding is based.
I'd say yes. We have centuries more knowledge since then, some founded on observation directly as opposed to assumptions and a flawed basis, if we used that to build a model of the world upon, used that as opposed to a blank page as our starting point, we'd have something very different to the mess we now have. The number of cracks that show when you take modern conclusions and try to tie them into established claims is staggering.

Meanwhile, to use the analogy, you're saying iphones are pseudoscience just because Einstein wouldn't have a clue how they worked. It was beyond his knowledge, but according to you admitting that is the height of arrogance. Do you call that scientific?

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« on: April 20, 2020, 02:30:31 PM »
I'm not saying the minority cannot be right I'm just saying that when your position requires you to claim you're more knowledgable in such a wide variety of disciplines than all of those people perhaps you should be prepared to reevaluate that position.
Are you more knowledgeable than Einstein because you know how to work an iphone better than he ever did?
Do you compare yourself to Einstein?
And we're two for two in dishonest comparisons meant to manipulate rather than make a point. Who wants to make it three?

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« on: April 20, 2020, 02:18:12 PM »
I'm not saying the minority cannot be right I'm just saying that when your position requires you to claim you're more knowledgable in such a wide variety of disciplines than all of those people perhaps you should be prepared to reevaluate that position.
Are you more knowledgeable than Einstein because you know how to work an iphone better than he ever did?

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« on: April 19, 2020, 10:33:50 PM »
From a given location, it could be indeed a number of points along a line. From another location, it would have to be along another line. And so on, for any given location within coverage of the satellite. How many floating non-satellite devices do you need to achieve this result?
Offhand, no idea, it's not exactly the easiest thing to calculate with how many unknowns there necessarily are. Again, you have to assume some basic competence on the part of the developers, they're hardly going to release schematics and figures for the whole secret. There can still be intersections of lines, and points that serve alternate purposes.

Quote
You still provide zero explanation on how an alternative system without satellites could even be possible.
You literally responded to me explaining how an alternative system without satellites would be posssible. Don't grandstand, it just makes you look desperate.

Quote
Yet you want us to believe it would be easy to build it and keep it a secret.
Ditto for explaining why. If you object to my explanations, say why, don't just pretend they never happened. You act like " And having no one, ever, just wondering what this infrastructure is actually for. And no one outside the project ever noticing," isn't something I haven't already addressed.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« on: April 19, 2020, 04:25:51 PM »
It's not just "the right direction". It's the EXACT location of a geostationary satellite on its orbit over the equator. From any position on Earth, within range of that satellite. I'm not sure it's even possible to build an infrastructure without satellites that would achieve this result - let alone building it without anyone noticing something weird.
You've already had it pointed out to you how it's easy to build almost anything without people finding it weird. You have to assume some basic competence on their part, they aren't going to share every little detail with every stray contractor and janitor.
It literally is just the right direction, it doesn't point to an exact location, it points to any one of a number of points along a line between the satellite dish and the point at extreme altitude where a satellite is said to be.
We have many people spaced apart receiving from the same satellite with different angles depending on location. All caclulations are correct and based on a round earth and a geosynchronous position.
We can also receive from 20 GPNSS satellites from 4 systems.
Anyone can say anything's true. The hard part would be showing that it and only it is true. Every time I ever see you post, it's always the same assertion, and you always leave the discussion when pushed to give anything more. Grow up.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« on: April 19, 2020, 01:33:18 PM »
It's not just "the right direction". It's the EXACT location of a geostationary satellite on its orbit over the equator. From any position on Earth, within range of that satellite. I'm not sure it's even possible to build an infrastructure without satellites that would achieve this result - let alone building it without anyone noticing something weird.
You've already had it pointed out to you how it's easy to build almost anything without people finding it weird. You have to assume some basic competence on their part, they aren't going to share every little detail with every stray contractor and janitor.
It literally is just the right direction, it doesn't point to an exact location, it points to any one of a number of points along a line between the satellite dish and the point at extreme altitude where a satellite is said to be.

12
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« on: April 18, 2020, 10:00:18 PM »
Quote
Pages and pages of nonsense because of THAT detail?
It's been like half a dozen posts, don't overreact. And, well, yes, it was kind of crucial to the whole discussion. You've done this before. If I'm asking what it would take to catch a flaw in a claim, deciding you don't want to talk about claims and instead shifting the whole topic to something else is not a minor 'detail.' You exchange cause and effect and act like they're somehow symmetrical. That's bs.

And 'vague,' really? It's generally applicable. That tends to be rather important when we're talking about anything wide-reaching. Stop with this goddamn incessant point-scoring. if you don't want to actually discuss anything, piss off.

Quote
How the hell should I know in this made-up example.
Ergo, it doesn't all go one way, hence my point. If you can't make a clear answer then clearly on some occasions old tests alone must suffice.

Quote
Can we put this to rest now?
I would really fucking hope so. How many times have I pointed out you literally agreed with me, and you still wanted to throw a temper tantrum anyway because you couldn't bear the fact an FEer made a point you had to agree with?

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« on: April 18, 2020, 09:54:55 PM »
That's completely out of touch with reality. Satellites are everywhere. You can't cover that up with a couple scientists. The amount of work to build systems that could function just like satellites but without actual satellites is tremendous. If you align your dish with anything different from the position of the geostationary satellite it's supposed to get its stream from, it stops working. You can't build a system that would simulate that with just a few people, and you can even less suppose they'll never question anything or say anything. And that's just geostationary broadcasting satellites. There are many other types, some of them can actually be seen with the naked eye at the exact position they're supposed to be, including for example the ISS.

Assuming it could be "very simple" is delusional.
Reducing the number of even potential whistleblowers is simple. Don't move the goalposts, you asked how such a system could be faked and the secret kept, I answered.
The replacement system itself, yes, that would likely be more complex, but that's how these things go. It's the combination of trapping yourself in a corner because the lie was started, and the simple fact that they could and there are clear benefits to doing so in strictly practical terms. Everyone uses GPS. You're conflating the effects of satellites with satellites themselves though, any directional signal would require you to be pointed in the right direction, that's nothing special, and simply seeing something in the sky does not guarantee that it's in space.

14
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« on: April 18, 2020, 06:21:47 PM »
Quote
Where did I EVER say that the peer review process couldn't make a mistake? Where? Can you point me to where I said that?
AGAIN, you refused to engage with the situation actually presented where it would have made a mistake, instead taking as a premise that an error was caught in the peer review process and the situation I described just didn't exist.
How many times are you going to need that repeated before you pay the slightest bit of attention?

'Say' otherwise all you want, but the way you act means far more than empty words. You have, over the course of this thread, been pathologically incapable of paying any more than lip service to the ideas of there being flaws in the scientific community, and when pushed you always fall back on the premise that it works, that there will never be any flaws, that the approach you describe is the best approach, not for any reason, just because it is. No one ever says they're in a cult, but the way they act can sure as hell tell you. The amount of times you've needed to just straight-up lie to deny the existence of the answers to questions you can't afford to have answered is staggering.
You can repeat "Old papers are not always right, mistakes are found all the time," all you want, but that doesn't mean you're factoring that into any of your reasoning.

Quote
If I try and explain my reasoning, I'm rambling?
Once more: when you completely invent a new situation that has nothing to do with what you are asked, when you don't explain your reasoning as to your response to the situation but rather invent a whole other question, you are rambling.

"explain in reality how it would play out."
Same as ever. 'in reality' it is unthinkable to you that a mistake would be made, you keep saying, oh, no, mistakes might be made, there might be oversights, but when you were actually asked a question about what would happen, your step one was 'the peer review process caught all the flaws! Don't question it!'

So for the umpteenth bloody time as apparently I need to repeat things this often for it to sink in:
I asked you about how we can expose the flaws in a currently stated theory, whether a new test would be necessary or we could rely on an old
Your view of what would happen 'in reality' was that it would never become a theory, and here's how we would redo an old test.

Are you seriously going to pretend those are at all the same?

15
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« on: April 18, 2020, 06:01:33 PM »
I said:

Scientific theory A predicts B.
If a new test found not B, that would suffice to show that A could not hold.
If an old test that hadn't been considered at the time implied not B, that [should] suffice

You started rambling about what would happen if you submitted A as a paper and it got reviewed and they looked over every stray experiment and paper made over the last few centuries and found the old test and...
How can you with any kind of straight face even pretend you were addressing what I said when you were very clearly inventing your own scenario entirely?

16
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« on: April 18, 2020, 05:58:34 PM »
Quote
Because sigh, you're again ignoring the question but I can see I'm getting nowere with this so I'm going to drop it.
I answered the damn thing, it just wasn't the answer you wanted. get over yourself. What would you call 'rejecting the absurd possibilities' if not 'ignoring the highly unlikely options?'


Quote
How are you POSSIBLY misreading my posts so badly you think I'm saying science never makes mistakes and is god-like in it's accuracy?
Because, as ever, you changed the question so that rather than being asked about what happens when the peer review process makes a mistake, you assumed it would never do such a thing and started ranting about something completely disconnected to what you were actually asked and started throwing a temper tantrum and are refusing to even consider the possibility that I might dare question your Holy Scientific Community. Like I pointed out in the last post. And the one before that.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« on: April 18, 2020, 05:54:11 PM »
Assume some basic competence on the part of the conspiracy-makers, seriously. If you assume everyone involved is terrible at their job, maybe you have a point, but otherwise?
Why would everyone involved in satellites need to be in on it? Most of those people just get the data, they don't need to know where it's from, so long as the pseudo-system is sufficiently well-made to simulate a satellite system. As for the people who monitor that pseudo-system, why on earth would you tell them that they're in charge of a replacement for satellites? They don't need to know that. They just need to know, say, they're complementing it, or trying out a new idea... why whistleblow when you don't think you know anything newsworthy?

How many people do you think it takes to make a "sufficiently well-made" system that simulates thousands of satellites monitoring the whole planet in real time? And systems that appear to function exactly like they are supposed to function with a satellite, see for example how to align a satellite dish?

If the data from such systems is fake, do you think the people who get and analyze it would not realize after some time? If it's not, what could possibly simulate it? Balloons everywhere for example? Who launched them, where are them, how come nobody found about them?

No whistleblower, zero, nada in decades of satellite operations. Not a crack for more than 60 years in a global, international conspiracy. How do you explain that?
How many people, who made that system, would need to know that it was being used to help fake the existence of space travel, let alone connect that to the shape of the Earth?
You could hire a dozen or so scientists, invite them to a research facility comparing the possibilities, see if there was anything more efficient than a satellite system, have them put together a few possible models, then bid them goodbye keeping their schematics, leaving them content in the knowledge they helped convince the government of the worth of satellite travel. Then commission or build what would be required, just telling the workers to get on with their jobs, and there you go. Most people who work on projects don't ever know every little detail, especially when the government or some private agency is involved, because why would they need to?
Stratellites in position, basic signals being sent out in specific directions, a line of code in the stratellite to delay the signal strictly on that end so that it appears to be sent from further up... That might mean maybe one or two people involved in the construction to help make it fake, but even then you could spin a story about it helping to work with the existing satellite system and thus it's best if it appears to be up there, and you end up with a very simple situation.

Why are there no well-known whistleblowers? Because nobody cares.
Look at Snowden. Huge, well-known whistleblower, exposed a lot of governmental systems, mostly a household name, but maybe 30% of people could tell you even the barest details of what he did by now and even fewer even tried to do anything about it, and that was dealing with huge-scale government surveillance. If someone came out and, rather talking about how your every move was being spied on, mentioned a couple of dry, technical oddities in how the vastly complex GPS system worked in this weird little corner of Utah specifically, why do you think that would make any kind of splash? Why would they even want to talk about it? Why would they have any reason to think what they did was in any way significant?

18
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« on: April 18, 2020, 05:33:18 PM »
Quote
That is a statement that says science merely concerns itself with the most likely outcome.  You then have repeatedly refused to discuss this statement, instead going on a tangent every time. Science isn't only concerned with probability, that's the Bayesian interpretation of probability you might be thinking of.
I haven't 'repeatedly refused to discuss it,' I've answered it twice now, you just didn't want to hear it. Everything's about probability. You can't prove that you're not a brain in a vat being made to hallucinate various vivid things, it's just impossible to test for and you need to reject it as, not impossible, but sufficiently improbable to not need to constantly footnote every claim with that possibility. Instead of telling me what I said, how about reading?
Rejecting the absurd is focusing only on the most likely options. You can't have one without the other. I notice you again completely refused to engage with that.

Quote
Really. Read that again.  I assume everything is right? Holy cow, I said the opposite ten times! I repeated it over and over JUST to make sure the point got across but you completely ignored it. What part of "Nothing is beyond questioning" made you think I said "every thing submitted is above question".
Because of the way you reframed my question. Read what I said and look at the actual context. You assumed that by the time something was published in a journal, automatically, it would have been compared to past tests already and that there would not have been a single oversight, a single missed opportunity. You completely changed the question, flipped it around, so that you could insist that it was compared and instead you started talking about the validity of the test and not the scientific community. So, yes, you assumed the system worked from the start, exactly as I accused you of, something you have made incredibly clear twice now by refusing to engaging with even the possibility that peer review, performed by humans and not Gods, might have missed some obscure little test.
You are plainly basing everything on the notion that the scientific community does not make mistakes, you just shift around where that divine guidance is depending on your mood. Why else would you consistently avoid answering the question you were actually asked?

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« on: April 18, 2020, 05:24:18 PM »
My personal conclusion is that even as recently as the 60s they did genuinely believe the world was round, that was the conclusion they'd reached, established, and when the time came for space travel the issue had been soaked too much in political rivalry and tension that when they struggled to make it work (using RE physics for calculations), they ultimately chose to fake the images in line with what it was they believed to be the case to score points. Russia came up with that idea first, the US scrambled for a bit before deciding to dedicate their efforts to faking in turn, and one-upping the Russians.
That was how it started, and there's not exactly a good point to come out and say 'oh, no, we made all that up,' particularly when the other side hasn't. At this point it's self-sustaining. There's one RE model because they took the one they believed in at the time and basically put it above question.

And no one involved ever exposed the plot? Such a conspiracy would probaby involve millions of people if not more. At least anyone working with anything related with satellites. Where are the whistleblowers? How do you make so many people keep it a secret?
Assume some basic competence on the part of the conspiracy-makers, seriously. If you assume everyone involved is terrible at their job, maybe you have a point, but otherwise?
Why would everyone involved in satellites need to be in on it? Most of those people just get the data, they don't need to know where it's from, so long as the pseudo-system is sufficiently well-made to simulate a satellite system. As for the people who monitor that pseudo-system, why on earth would you tell them that they're in charge of a replacement for satellites? They don't need to know that. They just need to know, say, they're complementing it, or trying out a new idea... why whistleblow when you don't think you know anything newsworthy?

20
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« on: April 18, 2020, 02:54:38 PM »
Quote
This is a perfect example of deflecting and avoiding answering questions. I asked for a source of your statement, and you mis-represent what you claimed and refuse to back it up, and then start making up things.
What are you talking about? You want a source? For what, the scientific method? The strength of science isn't that it's true because some bloke said it, it's true because it can be demonstrably shown to be so. I didn't provide a source because that was a stupid question as you have to know, what kind of thing do you expect for a source of the scientific method? There's no Bible of science, that's the whole point of it, instead there are explanations of why it holds. That's what I gave because that's all science should need.

As I pointed out:
"Something is considered justified by evidence, on scientific grounds, if of all the possibilities it a) explains the results of tests performed, b) requires as few unverified inventions as possible."
ie, a hypothesis is backed up by experiments, and by the step you keep omitting of actually analysing how much of the hypothesis has been tested.

You seem to be relying on the flawed idea that a test can only support one hypothesis. That seems to be underlying a lot of your claims, and it's obviously unjustifiable. Let's talk, say, wave interference patterns, you have the existing theory of how water waves that pass through two slits will interfere with each other for strictly physical reasons, and the out-there theory that actually invisible fairies will get in the way whenever the waves cross. perform the experiments, send the waves through the slits, the result will be in line with both theories.
However, the fairy portion of the latter theory has not been tested or verified at all, so it is not considered to be equal with the former theory. There's a reason we don't believe in fairies. Thus, we favor the most likely of the two theories.
That is all I have ever been saying. Stop getting mad just because you don't like the fact I'm the one saying it.

Quote
I submit a paper proposing Theory A. During peer review, it's found that a previous paper published results that contradict my Theory. My paper will be rejected, the publisher will not need to to any new tests to reject it. This is how science works.
You assume everything established is right. You assume that every thing submitted is above question, that no one could ever have made an oversight, thus if something gets published it must have passed the test and no publisher could ever have slipped up.
Beyond that, 'no new test would be needed to reject it.' So you actually agree with what I'm saying, you're just throwing a tantrum for no reason.







Quote
The relationship between the two is governed by their geometry.
It would be really, really great if you could stop completely ignoring every post I have made to just obstinately repeat this.

Quote
I don't need to, since travel between the towers does not form part of an observation from one to the other.
You originally talked about the distance between the towers so, er, yeah, travel between them seems pretty important as far as distance goes. But, sure, it isn't strictly relevant, that is why it was only brought up as an illustration, very clearly, you just ignored the actual intent so you could claim straw man and avoid admitting your thought experiment was flawed.

Quote
First prove to us that space is not "uniform", etc. to the extent that the observation would be affected
Why? You're the one making a claim here, if you can't account for alternatives then your situation seems to be lacking.
I'd be more than happy to have this discussion, but not while you are dishonestly peddling this thought experiment as if it actually proves something rather than assuming its own conclusion.

Quote
If all that you can come up with for "what happens between the towers" is to appeal to as-yet-undocumented factors in a big "What if...", then why should I be expected to account for them?
When your whole purpose in bringing up the towers is to criticise 'a big what if...' then the contents of that what if would seem to be very relevant indeed. Everything outside of RET is 'undocumented' from your standpoint, so again, the case you are making is entirely circular.

Yes, if you only pay attention to the mainstream RE view of the world and the limited readings of experiments made, RET will be the only logical conclusion. You're not going to find anyone who'd disagree, but it also doesn't prove all that much. If RET is true, the RET is true. That's your premise and that's your conclusion. Why are you surprised a FEer takes issue with your premise?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24  Next >