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 - existoid

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8  Next >
41
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: May 13, 2021, 05:53:29 PM »
And if they are capable of living as I am currently (even better, in most instances), then yeah, they are not going to work.

I think I have the numbers right:

The max amount you can get is $450 per week of unemployment for usually 26 weeks (Some states are lower, like Missouri is 13 weeks). And that’s the max amount based upon your previous years income. And the max amount varies by State. For instance, California max is $450, Arizona’s is $240, Kentucky’s is $552. So I’m using the rough average max for this, $450.

That’s a total of $11,700.00 ($450 X 26 weeks, 1/2 a year)

Covid has extended the 26 weeks to 39 weeks and added a $300 additional benefit for up to 11 weeks.

So the max would be $450 + 300 for 11 weeks + $450 for 28 weeks for a total of: $8250 + $12600 = $20,850.00

Are you saying you make less than $20k for 3/4 of a year and the unemployed with these benefits are making more than you?

Source on those numbers?

42
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel
« on: May 12, 2021, 05:50:07 PM »

If we leave the distance that light travels on the December solstice constant and try to determine what time sunrise would be on the June solstice we get position 'B'. 

Can you elaborate/show your work on this?  Not disagreeing, I just don't comprehend it.

43
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?
« on: May 12, 2021, 03:43:31 PM »
To continue to control the public and keep the public from realizing that there is a creator.

You can believe in a creator regardless of the shape of the Earth.
None of the religious people that I know believe that the Earth is flat.

For example, I'm very religious and yet accept RET as true...

44
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?
« on: May 11, 2021, 11:45:42 PM »
the notion of American dominance of space is ridiculous when we aren't dominating space by one bit. 

Well, it's a little more complicated than that.  The mere presence of Chinese and Russian space stations is no more proof that the US does not dominate space than the existence of Chinese and Russian navies disproves US dominance of the world's oceans. But the US does dominate the worlds' oceans in a very real sense. Likewise, most IR security analysts accept that the US dominates space - though that could very well be temporary.

Anyway, back to RET vs FET...

I do agree that there's a logical conundrum in the Wiki insofar as exerting military dominance of space is kind of meaningless if there is no space to dominate...what's the point of NASA again, then?

45
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?
« on: May 11, 2021, 06:43:10 PM »
of course the question now becomes why do the scientific community of every other country on earth ALSO agree in RET, when they have no NASA (with some exceptions of course several great powers have space programs but many smaller countries do not).

To answer that question you’ll have to wait for a FETer to answer.

46
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?
« on: May 11, 2021, 06:00:36 PM »
Let’s say the earth is flat, why would nasa hide the truth

Read this page:
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

Key quote:
"The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to)."


47
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: April 06, 2021, 08:05:15 PM »

The plotting boards did not need to have highly accurate measurements, any more than your travel atlas.

Get me within 10 or 20or even 50 miles and it will be just fine.

So. to sum it up the carrier battles took place within the 10th parallel.

Wow.

Kind of lays waste to your observation.

Not at all.

Firstly, the lines of longitude are going to be off by a lot more than 20 miles, even 50 miles. Sadly, we can't really measure that because the wiki proposes zero maps with actual scale for the expanding distance between each line of latitude the further south you go beyond the equator. But we should be able to dispense with the notion that we're talking a small difference.

The massive six month Guadalcanal campaign, which comprised the two biggest carrier battles of the war - Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz - was fought in this area over tens of thousands of square miles (yes, tens of thousands of square miles) in the area of the Solomon Islands and other archipelagos nearby.

Google tells us that the Solomon Islands are 666 miles south of the Equator. So, yes, a huge number of carrier fighters were flying around on the open ocean in the neighborhood of 10 to 12 (or more) lines of latitude south. At that point, according to the FE monopole map as displayed in the wiki, it's pretty clear the lines are quite divergent. If each line of longitude began (at the equator) at about 69 miles apart (something I assume no one disagrees with, FE or RE), then by the time those lines reach the Solomon Islands they're quite a bit off. The error is not going to be a few dozen miles apart, but over a hundred. This means death to the pilots. And that didn't happen.

Furthermore, even if the discrepancy were only, say, 10 miles off, there's the fact that these planes sometimes failed to find their carriers and survive (a minority overall, to be sure), but this means that even with accurate plotting boards mistakes can happen. The visibility of the scouting planes were only about 25 miles out on a clear day. Fighters, whose cockpit had different designs (for different needs) could see even less than that. A deviation of 10 miles, against a ship that is also moving (carriers didn't sit still during any battles, but always moved), often meant the fighters had to circle around looking for their ships even with highly accurate plotting boards. An error of 10 miles likely translates into mistakes of dozens of miles off, which would have resulted in far more sea deaths than recorded. These planes had ranges in the hundreds of miles, but they had to go to the enemy, fight, then return, and didn't usually have the luxury of being able to spending another hour looking for their carrier group. They had to find it fast.

And finally, what about all the other battles in other places further or closer to the equator? There is no record or indication that planes were fitted with different plotting boards for each battle. In fact, carriers and their fighter pilots often didn't know where/when they would be fighting. The plotting boards had to work for any part of the ocean. So, are you arguing that the plotting boards were off by 10 in some places, 20 in others, and 50 in even others? If the pilots didn't even know the margin of error that sounds like a recipe for sea landing disasters almost universally.

48
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: April 05, 2021, 07:35:36 PM »
To again try to get this back on track  ;D

@stevecanuck, - you could add to your OP that RET also explains how WW2 carrier battles were fought as depicted by all sailors and airmen (both US and Japanese), i.e., by the use of plotting boards which would not work south of the equator on a FET monopole map.

As described in detail in my one original contribution to the overall FET/RET debate:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16428.0
Yeah, right...

One, the plotting boards were flat.

Two, the plotting boards were flat.

Elaborate on how many carrier battles were fought south of the equator in WW2.

I think this comment and my reply probably belong on that other thread....(I only linked it to suggest it can be added to the OP list of this thread).  But I'll reply here anyway:

The plotting boards being flat doesn't disprove my WW2 argument any more than an azimuthal projection of the globe disproves that the earth is a globe.

What matters for the plotting boards is that they had to have highly accurate measurements for the distances of longitude south of the Equator. If their measurements were off by as much as the monopole FE map suggests, then virtually none of the WW2 pilots who fought in carrier battles south of the Equator would have survived - they all would have failed to return to their carriers and been lost at sea. (EDIT: WW2 carrier planes had ranges in the hundreds of miles and fought over spaces far far beyond sight of any land or their carrier groups - which is why failing to navigate properly literally was a life or death proposition for them).

As I wrote in that post, 60% (3 of the 5) major carrier battles of the war occurred south of the Equator - Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz. These three battles involved tens of thousands of pilots from Japan and the US. Without accurate distances between lines of longitude on their plotting boards these men would have all died. But they didn't. (EDIT: the two battles of the Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz were both part of Guadalcanal, a six month campaign that involved more sorties of naval planes than the entire rest of the war put together. In other words, the overwhelming majority of carrier fighter combat in WW2 occurred south of the Equator!

We can conclude that the plotting boards had accurate distances between the lines of longitude between each given segment of the lines of latitude. And those plotting boards were based on RE.

49
Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy
« on: April 05, 2021, 07:03:42 PM »

Of course, the eagle-eyed among beings who cannot to cease to be will have already noticed that his proof is impossible - but I am still curious to see him either reach that conclusion himself or deny it.

Got it - I am content now that I understand. 

50
Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy
« on: April 01, 2021, 06:15:50 PM »

Do you presume the Govt innocent until proven guilty?
I have not accused the government (or any government, to stay closer to my question) of having committed a crime. You are the one who made an affirmative statement here (the Government always tells the truth about everything some things). It is your burden to substantiate this claim.

Clarifying question about this -

Is a government agency "telling the truth" if it believes it is doing so, even if what is says is later discovered to be mistaken or incorrect? 

Or is it only "telling the truth" if what it says is 100% accurate and correct with no mistakes?

The distinction seems small, but it's not. "Telling the truth" can be defined as an absence of deception, or as an absence of error (or both).

I would think it's possible to provide examples wherein the govt. always tells the truth because it isn't employing deception, but could involve errors (e.g., the population numbers of Rockwall county, TX, as provided by official county statistics - no one's ever claimed those statistics were deceptively provided to the public).

But it's likely virtually impossible to find examples in which the govt. always tells the truth about something because it is never incorrect about it. The government is full of fallible humans, so it's bound to be incorrect about everything at one time or another.

If we define telling the truth is merely an absence of deception, I'd say Tumeni already provided sufficient examples, and I offered a narrower one from his own list - the specific population of Rockwall county, TX.

51
Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy
« on: April 01, 2021, 04:44:14 PM »
In all manner of mundane, run-of-the-mill, pedestrian ways, Govts tell the truth;

Environmental; reporting studies of bird and animal populations, analysis of flood plains, of coastal erosion, of landslip, of river flows, ship and boat registration, vehicle licencing, town planning and building, etc. etc.

Population; overall numbers, splits by county, city, town and village; splits by age, by sex, etc. etc.

Schooling; overall numbers, splits by private and state-owned, numbers of pupils, splits by sex, etc. etc.

In criminal law, the presumption is of innocence until proven guilty. Guilt by association with another (allegedly) guilty party does not make a valid case. Even if you prove Govt lies about something, somewhere (balance of payments, unemployment stats, number of COVID cases or vaccinations), that is not an automatic proof of lies with regard to space exploration, global mapping, or any of our hot topics here.

Mistakes and errors of incompetence do not equate to "lies". 

Do you presume the Govt innocent until proven guilty?

I largely subscribe to the economics school of Public Choice Theory which essentially says that public officials - politicians/bureaucrats - face the same constraints and influences on behaviors as those in the market, meaning they'll have incentives for (among other things), lying, misrepresentation, and other strongly self-interested behavior. A key example of this is the strong proclivity for bureaucratic entities to experience mission creep wherein each official seeks to gain more power over more things by subtly expanding their areas of jurisdiction.

Needless to say, I do not take a government's word for something as a rule, particularly if the topic is highly political in nature (e.g., remember way back when Fauci first claimed masks didn't protect folks, then admitted he only said that so that nurses could get the available masks first? - I think it's possible this event unintentionally influenced those who don't believe masks are needed, had Fauci never misled on this point, perhaps we'd all be better off, who knows).

All of that said, at least in the US and other democracies with stable political institutions and parties, there are checks on the complete abuse of the truth by the government - namely other political parties and oppositional government agencies. You can see this played out pretty directly all over politics in the US. Trump says a half-truth and his critics jump on it. Biden says a half-truth and now his critics jump on it. If either says a full lie, they jump on it even more. And multiple agencies (at least in the US) vie for influence over the same or similar domains of power, incentivizing them to push back if one makes a false step.

Are there areas where both (or multiple) political parties have incentives to collude in their misrepresentations of the truth to the public? Absolutely. But is that the case for the most part? No.






52
Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy
« on: March 31, 2021, 01:39:07 PM »
If this were true then why would FET not be the prevailing view?
Change takes time, and we do have a schooling system that (in our case) is tailored towards raising good Tory voters, and not people who think critically.


The tall order for FETers to change the prevailing view goes much further than just for folks in the UK.

The prevailing RET view is also true in China, India, Japan, S. Korea, N. Korea(!), Iran, Egypt, Brazil, Norway, Iceland, Singapore, Belorussia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Israel, Thailand, Austria, The Czech Republic, Russia, Portugal, Ethiopia, the UAE...(well, one could list every political entity because in my understanding none exist in which FET is currently the prevailing view, and indeed, it's a phenomenon that only exists in a handful of countries at the moment right now anyway, even in small numbers).

My substantive point here isn't just that it goes well beyond 'fixing' the school system to stop raising "good" Tories in Britain. All of these places have quite diverse schooling systems, and yet all of them produce citizens who generally believe in RET, not FET.

Change is indeed hard if you're going against literally the whole world...










53
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: March 30, 2021, 07:44:35 PM »
To again try to get this back on track  ;D

@stevecanuck, - you could add to your OP that RET also explains how WW2 carrier battles were fought as depicted by all sailors and airmen (both US and Japanese), i.e., by the use of plotting boards which would not work south of the equator on a FET monopole map.

As described in detail in my one original contribution to the overall FET/RET debate:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16428.0

 



54
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 27, 2021, 12:45:50 AM »
So I hope this isn't too much crossing some line, but I laughed harder when I read this than for anything in several days:

https://babylonbee.com/news/mr-biden-why-are-you-a-total-loser-asks-new-white-house-reporter-ronald-crump

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

55
I'm excited to see this because the FET map version I'm most interested in is this monopole one.

Can you put a scale to it that matches south of the equator known distances?  I would love to see that, as the monopole maps I've seen never show actual scale distances, and I've always wanted to see so I can try to find someone to test it out (I have a co-worker who lives in Argentina, and I think I can convince him to do some traveling for me and measure....except there's no monopole map that shows me what it "should" be...).

tl;dr - this is exciting!  Can you make a scale for it and show it closer in?

56
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: March 26, 2021, 08:38:52 PM »
Just read through this whole thing - understood maybe half of it? - (those who remember me from when I first joined and was active a year ago perhaps recall I suck at math  ;D ).

But the thread virtually immediately deviated (as soon as Tom commented  ::)  ) from what observations about the world does RET not explain to whether we can solve the three body problem...

Here's my question (asking in sincerity, since I suck at math, recall), in an attempt to bring it back to the OP and an actual response from the FET crowd:

Does the fact that our maths cannot numerically(?) solve the three body problem* count as an "observation" that RET fails to explain? 

I don't think so.

Tom's response and the entire rabbit hole of this thread regarding numerical/analytic methods is a category error in some sense.

RET does explain the observation that there are orbiting bodies - planets, moons, etc. - in our solar system. And it explains it with comprehensive consistency with other elements of RET and accepted science.

So there's yet to be an observed phenomenon suggested in this thread that actually answers the OP. 

*Hope I didn't butcher that formulation  :(


57
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Black Lives Matter
« on: August 31, 2020, 11:41:58 PM »
Written five days after that NPR article, the Texas Tribune has more info on that Austin shooting:
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/31/daniel-perry-austin-protest-garrett-foster/

Here's one quote from it:
"Broden wrote that “several witnesses” confirmed that Foster pointed his gun toward Perry first."

Foster is the man in the street with a rifle. Perry is the man driving the car who killed Foster. 

Maybe we STILL don't have all the facts, but here's at least one article that creates the plausibility that Perry believed he was protecting his life and acting in self-defense. 

And I think it's telling that Perry has been cooperating with law enforcement. More articles about him:

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/lawyers-of-army-sergeant-who-fatally-shot-garrett-foster-release-new-information-photos

https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2020-08-07/a-show-of-police-force-after-fosters-killer-is-idd/








 

58
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Black Lives Matter
« on: August 31, 2020, 10:59:23 PM »
I have to say the killing in Austin is way harder to draw conclusions from.  The guy in the car could have been justified if the man approaching with a rifle had raised it at the last moment in a threatening way (we don't know that he did, and we don't know that he didn't, right?).  Or possibly he was super unjustified and the guy approaching the car with the rifle had it lowered barrel pointing at the ground the whole time. That seems like he should not have been shot.

But there's also lots of "frame of mind" questions - did the man in the car feel threatened for his life? 

From only this article I don't personally feel we can make a solid judgment on whether it was justified.   (Unlike the Kyle R. event which I think now has tons of exculpatory evidence already).

59

Its #1.
Because most people who shoot someone who didn''t shoot first, are not good people.  And do you want to let a bad guy with a gun escape?  I think not. 


Dave you said you would have shot him without even having all the evidence, which now that you have considered the evidence you realize that you may have been wrong. It’s terrible that you jumped to that conclusion and treated him as a person who deserved summary judgement.
Having all the facts wouldn't change my fact-less actions.  Sorry but if I see someone unarmed get shot, I'm gonna assume the shooter is a bad guy.  Most people with guns do.  Hell, the police manual basically states that everyone is a potential, deadly threat.  So I'm not alone.

This is why I'm against gun ownership: because there are more people like me than not.

That's really your perspective?

If a person shoots another person, and you know you do not have the facts because you don't see the event itself, you believe the "right" thing, and the "justifiable" thing is to immediately and violently attack the person holding the gun?   

That's a seriously messed up mindset.  Attack first, ask questions later, I guess.

EDIT:
Let me add, that it doesn't at all seem like they were being good citizens and "ensuring he didn't escape."  He was NOT running away, but talking on the phone, standing by Rosenbaum.  He didn't run away until someone yelled "get that MFer" and then several men chased and attacked him.

There are ALL sorts of appropriate responses they could have used, instead of to attack him. Since one of them had a handgun, they could have at the minimum, trained it on him and told Kyle to drop his rifle until the police showed up.  They didn't do that or anything similar to it. They attacked him violently.  Why do you keep defending these obviously violent criminals?

Sounds like its best that Dave is anti gun and doesn't get one

No kidding.  I've been lucky to own guns for years but never been directly involved in any violent altercations (just had my home burgled when we weren't home).

Not to get into anecdotes too much, but here are two regarding the usefulness of concealed weapons for lawful self-defense:

My uncle (now deceased from cirrhosis), used to play guitar in a band all throughout the Northwest. He kept a concealed handgun (and had a permit for all the states they played in). It has prevented him from muggings behind bars his band played at at 2 or 3am.  The muggers may not have been armed, but if any were foolish enough to have attacked him without a gun and he shot them, you would say because they "didn't shoot first" - because they can't shoot if they don't have a gun - he's the bad guy in those situations?  You don't need a gun to kill someone. What if they had a knife?

What if Rosenbaum had had a knife when he was inches from Kyle after chasing him in between those cars?Did the guys who yelled "get that MFer" even check to see if Rosenbaum had a knife, and that's why Kyle shot first?  (I understand that there's absolutely no evidence Rosenbaum had a knife, I'm just saying that YOUR point that the "person who shoots a gun first" is automatically in the wrong is a super duper bad mindset, because anything could be going on).

Second anecdote:
I have a lawyer friend who studied law at Georgetown U. He never carried a weapon, and he was mugged by several men, on the street where he lived, walking back from classes in open daylight.  If he had had a weapon, perhaps he would not have gotten his laptop and expensive school books taken.

Obviously my two anecdotes are just that - anecdotes - and they are NOT in the context of a riot, either.  But I think they add to this discussion because the mere fact that if ONE person in an altercation has a gun, that THAT person is automatically "the bad guy" or the "aggressor."  Not in any way true. There are many possibilities.

60

Its #1.
Because most people who shoot someone who didn''t shoot first, are not good people.  And do you want to let a bad guy with a gun escape?  I think not. 


Dave you said you would have shot him without even having all the evidence, which now that you have considered the evidence you realize that you may have been wrong. It’s terrible that you jumped to that conclusion and treated him as a person who deserved summary judgement.
Having all the facts wouldn't change my fact-less actions.  Sorry but if I see someone unarmed get shot, I'm gonna assume the shooter is a bad guy.  Most people with guns do.  Hell, the police manual basically states that everyone is a potential, deadly threat.  So I'm not alone.

This is why I'm against gun ownership: because there are more people like me than not.

That's really your perspective?

If a person shoots another person, and you know you do not have the facts because you don't see the event itself, you believe the "right" thing, and the "justifiable" thing is to immediately and violently attack the person holding the gun?   

That's a seriously messed up mindset.  Attack first, ask questions later, I guess.

EDIT:
Let me add, that it doesn't at all seem like they were being good citizens and "ensuring he didn't escape."  He was NOT running away, but talking on the phone, standing by Rosenbaum.  He didn't run away until someone yelled "get that MFer" and then several men chased and attacked him.

There are ALL sorts of appropriate responses they could have used, instead of to attack him. Since one of them had a handgun, they could have at the minimum, trained it on him and told Kyle to drop his rifle until the police showed up.  They didn't do that or anything similar to it. They attacked him violently.  Why do you keep defending these obviously violent criminals?




Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8  Next >