1441

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: January 30, 2021, 06:43:17 AM »

That's your entire argument then, that the statistics you found on the internet go back longer than mine?  Using 30 years is nothing but 40... that's proof!

So mine are made up and easily dismissed but yours are PROOF of Biden stealing the election simply because I used less years?  That's a huge stretch and you know it.  Again this is conformation bias.. my numbers are wrong but yours are right.

The point is that there are statistical arguments for Trump's win, while you have provided nothing for Biden.

Define a "statistical argument"? What exactly do you mean by that? Are you disputing the exact number of votes a candidate received? Are you advocating for Presidential elections to be determined based upon "statistical arguments" rather than votes?
What other things can you personally statistically predict? Got any stock tips based upon your statistical arguments? What's the statistical argument for GME closing at $325 a share today? If you actually had a statistical argument, whatever that may be, wouldn't you be able to accurately predict the outcome of everything?

1442

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: January 29, 2021, 10:57:49 PM »

Tom. An oval is not a circle.

If you use a circular distortion on an oval it will distort, just like if you try it on a square.  A circular distortion on a circle will not distort the circle.

None of this even matters, because my picture proves you can't tell if an object is distorted or not by looking at lines elsewhere in the image. Every picture you use as proof that star trails are not circular is useless because you can't show what distortion may or may not be in the image as you didn't take the picture and don't know how it was done or what post processing was performed.

Star trails are circular, as all the calculations for predicting their location are circular and my telescope can find any star I want and they never show up somewhere else in the sky. Astronomers across the world would be having all kinds of trouble if the stars didn't behave the way math shows them to. And when I take pictures of star trails with lenses I know are free of distortion, and that I know are centered because I set it up, they also are circles.

You haven't shown any evidence to the contrary.  Unknown pictures you find on the internet are unreliable.

If you admit that a fisheye will make oval shapes more circular, and you think this guy is centering his warped lenses on the center of rotation, then it discredits the observation of circular star trails.

I don't see that there is anything further to discuss if you can't provide further corroborating information showing that the lens did not distort the star trails into circular shapes.

You know you're being beyond disingenuous becasue I know you know what "curves" means in GIMP, photoshop, etc. As well, why didn't you post the technical specs for the photo I posted, which is right here:

Technical information
Location: Observatorio del Teide, Tenerife, Canary Islands
Date and time: 2015 March 14-15, 20:20 WET - 02:20 WET
Camera: Nikon D5100
Mount: Baader Astro & Nature tripod
Optics: Samyang AE 10 mm
Exposure: 620 x 34 sec., ISO 1600, f/4.8
Processing: Adobe Lightroom (NEF development); ProStack (stacking); Adobe Photoshop (curve adjustment)
http://bartoszwojczynski.com/picture-150315-startrails

See that in bold, Adobe Photoshop (curve adjustment). And I know you know what that refers to:


In short: You take specs from another photo and use it so it seems more ambiguous rather than using the specs from the actual photo where Photoshop "curve adjustment" means one thing only. And you know exactly what it means. Stop playing games.

Pretty ambiguous. The same terminology of adjusting a curve can be used in Photoshop to mean geometric curves.

Feel free to quadruple down. Everyone knows you know what "curve adjustment" in PS means. But for the record, even here, the same photographer uses "Adobe Photoshop (curve adjustment)" for this image:


Technical information
Location: Observatorio del Teide, Tenerife, Canary Islands
Date and time: 2015 March 15, 04:19 - 04:22 WET
Camera: Nikon D5300
Mount: Baader Astro & Nature tripod; Vixen Polarie
Optics: Samyang AE 85 mm
Exposure: 33 x 90 sec., ISO 1600, f/4.8
Processing: Adobe Lightroom (NEF development); DeepSkyStacker (alignment, stacking); Adobe Photoshop (curve adjustment)
http://bartoszwojczynski.com/picture-150315-centaurus-crux

Huh, curve adjustment where there are no circles to "curve"? Weird.

Stop playing games.

1443

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: January 29, 2021, 09:52:35 PM »

Wrong. The only person being disingenuous here is you. Modifying or adjusting curves could also refer with the curves in the image. - https://docs.gimp.org/2.10/en/plug-in-curve-bend.html

I also noticed that you blatantly ignored the other query. How did this warped picture from that author produce circular concentric star trails?

You know you're being beyond disingenuous becasue I know you know what "curves" means in GIMP, photoshop, etc. As well, why didn't you post the technical specs for the photo I posted, which is right here:

Technical information
Location: Observatorio del Teide, Tenerife, Canary Islands
Date and time: 2015 March 14-15, 20:20 WET - 02:20 WET
Camera: Nikon D5100
Mount: Baader Astro & Nature tripod
Optics: Samyang AE 10 mm
Exposure: 620 x 34 sec., ISO 1600, f/4.8
Processing: Adobe Lightroom (NEF development); ProStack (stacking); Adobe Photoshop (curve adjustment)
http://bartoszwojczynski.com/picture-150315-startrails

See that in bold, Adobe Photoshop (curve adjustment). And I know you know what that refers to:


In short: You take specs from another photo and use it so it seems more ambiguous rather than using the specs from the actual photo where Photoshop "curve adjustment" means one thing only. And you know exactly what it means. Stop playing games.

1444

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: January 29, 2021, 09:10:23 PM »

I don't see any evidence that that media wasn't edited for artistic reasons to get an ideal result. There aren't many straight line references at all.

Looks like an inability to find satisfactory evidence to me.

In another star trail image that same artist, Bartosz Wojczyński, admits that he's making "curve adjustments" in GIMP:

http://bartoszwojczynski.com/picture-130704-startrails

Ok, now I 100% know you're being wildly disingenuous and playing dumb regarding "curves" adjustments. You know exactly what "curves" does in GIMP, photoshop, and elsewhere. You've mentioned it before.

8.11. Curves
The Curves tool is the most sophisticated tool for changing the color, brightness, contrast or transparency of the active layer or a selection. While the Levels tool allows you to work on Shadows and Highlights, the Curves tool allows you to work on any tonal range. It works on RGB images.

So stop playing games like the, "Oh, lookee here, the photographer mentioned "curves" he must be making curves (circles) in post-production..." bullshit. My goodness, how low can you go? Just straight-up lying is a terrible look for you.

1445

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: January 29, 2021, 07:59:11 PM »

Here's a neat one - Ultra wide-angle lens:



Timelapse of the shoot:



Polish photographer Bartosz Wojczyński pointed his camera straight at the north celestial pole and exposed his camera for a total of six hours...Wojczyński says he was photographing from the Teide Observatory on the Canary Islands, one of the world’s major observatories, from 8PM to 2AM...He captured 620 separate 35-second exposures using his Nikon D5100 and Samyang 10mm lens at ISO 1600 and f/4.8.
https://petapixel.com/2015/04/14/a-six-hour-long-exposure-of-the-celestial-north-pole/

1446

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: January 29, 2021, 07:08:29 AM »

This is why states should not account population. If a majority of the map looks like this, that should be the end of the story.

What would be your alternative proposal?

1447

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: January 29, 2021, 03:05:47 AM »

Here's all the supporting evidence you need that Biden won and is now your President:

Great. You have zero supporting statistical evidence that Joe Biden legitimately won the election, and can't appropriately contradict the items discussed. Thanks for conceding the loss of this discussion.

All the statistical evidence I need that Biden legitimately won the election is that Biden received 306 electoral votes. That's all the statistical evidence required. And the courts all agree. Now 2020's statistical evidence is part of all Presidential election statistical evidence that will be added to the 2024 Presidential election stats and so on. Stats are fun like that.

1448

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: January 29, 2021, 02:42:37 AM »

The evidence is that Biden won the election.

That's what you are supposed to be showing supporting evidence of. So you have nothing. Got it.

Here's all the supporting evidence you need that Biden won and is now your President:

1449

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: January 28, 2021, 12:41:52 AM »

And then there’s Vigo County in Indiana—the quintessential bellwether that has correctly picked the winner in all but two elections since 1888. In both of the missteps, the residents wrongly picked the losing Democrat: Williams Jennings Bryan over President William Taft in 1908 and Adlai Stevenson over President Dwight Eisenhower in 1952.

This year, Vigo went for Trump by nearly 15 points, roughly the same as in 2016. An Emerson poll conducted shortly before Election Day was completely off, showing Trump and Biden neck and neck.

So now it's happened three times since 1888 - Looks like we can add a third misstep to Vigo County. A perfect example why the bellwether argument is lame.

1450

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: January 27, 2021, 07:10:55 PM »

You know you're missing two moles around the neck, right?

Also, is this you?  Because I can't seem to find the original source of the (supposidly) dead marine.

The moles around the neck seem to fade in and out of his body throughout the video, as it is dark against dark. This may be one of them:



Maybe hints of multiple moles here:

So this is where you are with the Falconer & Survivor contestants terabytes of treasonous evidence against Obama, Biden & HRC...Moles?

1451

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: January 25, 2021, 02:25:10 PM »

I don't know.That curley-cue is pretty damning...Must be the same guy...



I guess it should never surprise me to see how low people can go just to support their narrative.

1452

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: January 25, 2021, 12:59:58 AM »

You didn't answer the question, what fraud evidence, specifically, was released "One Hour After Biden Sworn In..."?  That's your claim. Back it up.

I did back it up. It was declared that it was evidence of voter fraud by the judiciary committee. I provided a quote on that. That's why it can be called evidence of voter fraud. If you want more details on the type and kind of evidence that committee has determined, do your own research. I never made a claim on any specificity they determined.

I don't necessarily want to talk about it. It's just exemplary of the sheer metric ton of unsubstantiated claims you glom on to without a smidge of evidence. All because your narrative has been shown to be false. And your Falconer and Survivor contestant's terabytes of treasonous evidence against the Obama administration just so happens to be one of the more fantastical ones you were hanging on to. And then "poof", it disappeared. All in all, you have have less than zero credibility when it comes to your claims, as evidenced by everything you've put forth for the past couple of months.

You were incorrect and wrong about that too. You do not know what evidence is. Claims are evidence. Someone's word is considered to be evidence.

If someone makes a claim or accusation it is considered to be evidence, and is worth talking about.

Cool. So what's the update on the terabytes of treasonous evidence your Falconer and Survivor contestant have on the Obama admin including Joe Biden? The way you were all fired up about the metric ton of evidence they had for their claims - that it would not only take out Biden but erase the entire Obama legacy - seems pretty awesome and a Kraken x10 from your perspective. Do you still support their claims? What's the latest? I mean voter fraud is one thing, but having Navy Seals murdered to conceal a false flag operation seems way, way more devastating. Way more than say, Melissa Carone’s evidence.

1453

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: January 24, 2021, 08:59:33 PM »

If you want to talk about unsubstantiated lies, what fraud evidenced was released "One Hour After Biden Sworn In..."? What was the evidence and who released it?

And if you really want to talk about unsubstantiated lies, how are we doing with your Falconer and Survivor contestant's terabytes of treasonous evidence against the Obama administration? We're still waiting on that. What's the hold-up now?

I gave you a quote that it was already decided that the data contained evidence of fraud. Look into why that was decided if you are interested.

You didn't answer the question, what fraud evidence, specifically, was released "One Hour After Biden Sworn In..."?  That's your claim. Back it up.

If you want to talk about Obama now, and claims that someone made, then it looks like you have given up and are out of ammo, in your poor attempt at substantiating your claims.

I don't necessarily want to talk about it. It's just exemplary of the sheer metric ton of unsubstantiated claims you glom on to without a smidge of evidence. All because your narrative has been shown to be false. And your Falconer and Survivor contestant's terabytes of treasonous evidence against the Obama administration just so happens to be one of the more fantastical ones you were hanging on to. And then "poof", it disappeared. All in all, you have have less than zero credibility when it comes to your claims, as evidenced by everything you've put forth for the past couple of months.

1454

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: January 24, 2021, 08:23:02 PM »

Wrong. The legislative body had already declared and determined that there was fraud and that the data would contain further evidence of fraud, and used its authority and power to issue these subpoenas. That's why it is permissible to say that they are handing over evidence of fraud.

Well the legislative body can say anything they want to, but it's up to a Judge to decide if their evidence is valid, or if they have any evidence at all.

So far, no Judge has ruled that fraud occured, showing that there is no evidence.

The whole 'no judges considered any lawsuits on the merits' is a myth, plenty of judges specifically took the Trump lawyers to task for not providing any evidence. They were very clear on this.

You have provided zero sources on this claim that they assessed the merits of the bulk of the fraud cases, while I have provided plenty to the contrary.

Have 60.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/08/joe-biden/joe-biden-right-more-60-trumps-election-lawsuits-l/

Here is one judge from Pennsylvania ruling on one of Trumps factless lawsuits before throwing it out:

"Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."

You still have not provided quotes which say that the bulk of the cases were decided on merit. The only quote in that link of anything like that comes from Joe Biden.

I directly quoted a Judge saying a Trump case had no merit. I think that certainly qualifies as a valid quote showing that cases were considered on the merits. And for the ones that were dismissed because Trump's lawyers filed cases full of mistakes and using the wrong laws and made other errors that made their cases invalid? That's Trumps fault, not the Judges.  If you want court cases not to be dismissed, you need evidence and to file them without glaring errors and fraudulent practices.

All the dismissed cases are simply proof that Trump can't hire lawyers who know what their doing.

The fact that Trump lost 61 of 62 cases is also very good evidence that the bulk of his lawsuits have none. In fact the only one he won was a lawsuit stopping PA from letting voters fix errors and typos on their addresses. Big win, he stopped a handful of voters from voting. It showed no evidence of fraud.

Here are some more quotes from the Judges who threw them out.

"Judges consistently found there was no substantive evidence to support claims of fraud and irregularities — that Biden’s votes were, in fact, legal votes." - From the article

“This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits.” - District Judge Brett H. Ludwig

Trump’s campaign “did not prove under any standard of proof that illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, due to voter fraud, nor in an amount equal to or greater than” Biden’s margin in Nevada - District Court Judge James T. Russell

“Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.” - Judge Stephanos Bibas

“Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court.” - District Court Judge Diane J. Humetewa

“Plaintiffs have not moved the needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible, which they must do to state a claim under Federal pleading standards,”  - Also from District Court Judge Diane J. Humetewa

 “The court finds that there is no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud.” - Nevada District Judge James Russell

“This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence,” - U.S. District Court Judge Matthew W. Brann

I have now provided quotes from eight Judges showing that those cases had no evidence.

I asked you to provide a quote from a JUDGE where he accepted evidence of Democratic fraud.  All your quotes are from reporters and news articles and lawyers.  Those are not Judges.

If there are mountains of evidence, why isn't any of it being used in court?  Where is this evidence of fraud in any of these lawsuits?  Funny how it's talked about but not used.

I ask again, where have any Judges said that they accept submitted facts showing Democratic fraud? Please provide quotes from Judges in the cases, not the lawyers or TV personalities.

You quoted two judges twice in there, bolded above Looks like you don't really have much.

And we have discussed some of those quotes and they are not actually talking about the fraud cases. They are talking about the procedural cases .There are fraud cases and cases complaining that the state did not properly follow the law. You have some quotes from those mixed in with your quotes; IE the 'strained legal arguments' quote. That's not actually talking about a case about voter fraud.

By providing only a few quotes from judges about merit in a particular case you have not provided evidence that the bulk of the "60 cases" were decided on merit, or that the voter fraud cases did not have merit. In fact, you shown the opposite, that you are unable to substantiate this claim.

Since you are unable to substantiate your claim, kindly cease from repeating this lie.

If you want to talk about unsubstantiated lies, what fraud evidenced was released "One Hour After Biden Sworn In..."? What was the evidence and who released it?

And if you really want to talk about unsubstantiated lies, how are we doing with your Falconer and Survivor contestant's terabytes of treasonous evidence against the Obama administration? We're still waiting on that. What's the hold-up now?

1455

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: January 24, 2021, 08:06:55 AM »

It's about the same subpoenas that the elections officials were refusing to comply with. The orders were issued a while ago and they were refusing to follow it.

The body issuing the subpoenas determined that there was evidence of fraud and that the data contained further evidence of fraud. This is why the title is correct. It was already declared and determined that there is fraud there, hence the issuing of the subpoenas.

Nope, your headline is incorrect. No evidence of "Fraud" was released "One Hour After Biden Sworn In..." That did not happen. No evidence of "Fraud" was released, period. That's already been shown.

1456

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal

« on: January 24, 2021, 07:41:03 AM »

I believe the argument is that the designers may have thought they were accounting for earth's curve, but really they were accounting for the upward deflection of light rays from horizontal due to EA. You would therefore have to demonstrate why the LIGO design cannot support both possibilities - earth's curvature vs EA - which under typical, isolated readings at a similar scale, are argued to be able to produce equivalent results.

According to the FET Wiki: There is an equation stated with an undefined Bishop constant (which makes it useless) that proclaims to show how the underside of clouds could be explained on a flat earth.  It goes on to say: "its accuracy will improve the closer the light ray is to vertical. Therefore, while it is not valid for short-range experiments, it can give an idea of how much sunlight would bend on its way to the Earth, for instance." The LIGO setup is both short-range AND horizontal so the equation in the Wiki wouldn't apply and any EA arguments would be 'undefined'.  What I did show was the LIGO mechanical structure was stated to be designed as a mechanical level surface mounted on an assumed spherical earth.  If the tube was mechanically straight, as designed, and a light beam went from one end to the other and didn't hit any tube walls and hit the opposite end near the center then it would be a good demonstration of a spherical earth.  Effectively the light beam would be forming a tangent to the earths surface.  If the same mechanical mount was placed on a flat earth then the beam tube would have an upwards curvature and the light beam probably wouldn't quite make it to the other end.  This is a nice 'quasi' Bedford level experiment that shows the earth is round.

I do know that they use surveyor/optical levels when building railroads and highways and usually anything that’s a long distance. It’s basically line of sight while level.  Railroads and highways never have to factor in the curvature of the Earth while being engineered or built.     The level we have at work is good for up to 3000’ and there’s better ones than that. 
I guess my question is what kind of level did they use to build it? 
Its not very accurate trying to level something that long of a distance with a hand held level.

There are some papers on what exactly they used from an engineering perspective. I'd have to dig them up - It was a while ago the last time I found them. I remember something about using GPS. Oh wait, here's one:

Precision alignment of the LIGO 4 km arms using dual-frequency differential GPS
The alignment of the Laser Interferomter Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) using the Global Positioning System (GPS) is described. The LIGO project is designed to detect gravitational waves from astrophysical sources by laser interferometery. There are two sites separated by 3002 km that will be operated in coincidence. At each, site laser beams propagate in two orthogonal 4 km long evacuated beam lines 1.2 meters in diameter. The subject of this article is the alignment of the 16 km of beam tubes using dual-frequency differential GPS. A maximum deviation from straightness in inertial space of 5 mm rms and an orthogonality between arm pairs of better than 5 microradians is reported.

The earth model WGS-84, is described by an oblate ellipsoid with its semi-minor axis, b= 6356752.314 m, along z ˆ E, semi-major axis with value a = 6378137 m, and eccentricity given by (1 - e 2) = 0.993306. R[f] is the local radius of curvature of the ellipsoid at latitude f:

https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0072/P000006/000/P000006-A.pdf

1457

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: January 24, 2021, 07:20:52 AM »

Crooked AZ politicians finally give up

https://thedcpatriot.com/one-hour-after-biden-is-sworn-in-arizona-senate-president-releases-evidence-of-voter-fraud/

Wrong again. No evidence of fraud was released:

The claim: Arizona Senate released evidence of voter fraud the day of President Joe Biden’s swearing-in

Conservative Facebook pages have started sharing an online article that falsely claims Arizona government officials released evidence of voter fraud an hour after President Joe Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20.

No evidence of voter fraud
On Jan. 20, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors agreed to negotiate with the Arizona Senate on a deal to release data from November’s election to avoid further court hearings, according to the Associated Press. However, the Senate did not release any evidence of voter fraud.

Our rating: False
The claim that the Arizona Senate released evidence of voter fraud the day of President Joe Biden’s inauguration is FALSE, based on our research. The Arizona Senate and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors are working on an agreement to release data from November’s election so that the Senate can perform an audit.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/21/maricopa-county-agreement-arizona-senate-joe-biden-inauguration/6661033002/

Nope. The title is correct. The Senate Judiciary Committee determined that there was evidence of fraud. This is why the subpoena for a further audit was issued. They said that there was evidence of fraud, that the data will have further evidence of fraud, and that the audit needs to be performed to show that the election was free of fraud.

https://www.azmirror.com/2020/12/14/arizona-senate-will-subpoena-maricopa-county-for-election-audit/



So the Senate Judiciary Committee declared that there was evidence of fraud there. Anyone releasing that data would be releasing further evidence of fraud that the Senate Judiciary Committee has determined.

I really don't understand how your can mess up the facts this egregiously. Your first post says, "One Hour After Biden Sworn In, Arizona Senate President Releases Evidence of Fraud." That did not happen. No evidence of "Fraud" was released. That's already been shown.

Now you post an article from the AZ Mirror which is from December 14th, over a month before the inauguration. What does that have to do with the no fraud evidence released headline that is incorrect. You're all over the place just swatting at anything that strikes your narrative fancy without even looking into it. Stick to the facts.

1458

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: January 24, 2021, 03:23:54 AM »

Crooked AZ politicians finally give up

https://thedcpatriot.com/one-hour-after-biden-is-sworn-in-arizona-senate-president-releases-evidence-of-voter-fraud/

Wrong again. No evidence of fraud was released:

The claim: Arizona Senate released evidence of voter fraud the day of President Joe Biden’s swearing-in

Conservative Facebook pages have started sharing an online article that falsely claims Arizona government officials released evidence of voter fraud an hour after President Joe Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20.

No evidence of voter fraud
On Jan. 20, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors agreed to negotiate with the Arizona Senate on a deal to release data from November’s election to avoid further court hearings, according to the Associated Press. However, the Senate did not release any evidence of voter fraud.

Our rating: False
The claim that the Arizona Senate released evidence of voter fraud the day of President Joe Biden’s inauguration is FALSE, based on our research. The Arizona Senate and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors are working on an agreement to release data from November’s election so that the Senate can perform an audit.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/21/maricopa-county-agreement-arizona-senate-joe-biden-inauguration/6661033002/

1459

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal

« on: January 24, 2021, 01:33:47 AM »

Who said it was impossible on a flat earth?

It was implied when it was brought up to disprove FE. If you think it's possible on a FE then there is no physical impossibility and we're done here.

Yes, it was brought up to disprove flat earth (as many things are and vice versa to disprove a globe earth - That's kinda what is done around these parts, no?), but it wasn't brought up to say it couldn't work on a flat earth.

Why would someone suggest that something disproves FE if they thought it could work on an FE?

I don't think you're looking at it in the same way I am. It would work just fine on a flat earth. No compensation would be needed. No need to engineer a raised height of the laser at either end to compensate for a curved earth. Yet the LIGO engineers did compensate for a curved earth, designed, and constructed LIGO to compensate for a curved earth and mentioned that they did so. And what your argument is, I guess, is that they were mistaken to do so. They went out of their way to compensate for a curved earth when they didn't need to. Is that your argument - They were wrong to bother in engineering and constructing LIGO to take into consideration a curved earth that doesn't exist? Secondarily, if so, why did they bother? Thirdly, what evidence do you have that they incorrectly bothered to do so?

1460

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Behaviour of water under FET

« on: January 23, 2021, 10:16:27 AM »

@Steelybob

I think we should create a new thread to discuss your issues with understanding my perspective - rather than clutter up this one.  What do you think?

One of FET's more strange facets

It only appears that way due to your mental block, and your default apologetics.  Of course waves exist, we weren't talking about waves.  In fact, my statement made explicit "at rest".  No, rising and falling tide is not "at rest".  I was deliberate in my phrasing, and you seem to have missed much of what was written.

What specific "laws of hydrostatics" are you referring to?

And yet directional gyros in aircraft have a 'drift nut

That's true, and is one (though not a primary/chief one) of the things I mentioned that is misinterpreted to be caused by the earth's rotation.  The drift nut is there primarily for mechanical reasons (to adjust for constant sources of error, typically caused by friction), and is not what you think it is for.

You are incorrect that the Latitude Nut is used to correct for friction.

From the Aviation Dictionary:

latitude nut
A correcting nut in a directional gyro or a direction indicator (DI), which is screwed in or out to correct drift caused by the earth’s rotation north or south of equator.

Latitude nut is fitted to side of the inner gimbal on a spindle. A counter-weight on the opposite side exactly balances the nut when it is in the center of the spindle, which is the setting for the equator any movement away from the center sets up a torque force, which compensates for the gyro drift for the set latitude.
https://aviation_dictionary.enacademic.com/4127/latitude_nut

Because the Earth rotates (ω, 15° per hour, apparent drift), and because of small accumulated errors caused by imperfect balancing of the gyro, the heading indicator will drift over time (real drift), and must be reset using a magnetic compass periodically.[1][5] The apparent drift is predicted by ω sin Latitude and will thus be greatest over the poles. To counter for the effect of Earth rate drift a latitude nut can be set (on the ground only) which induces a (hopefully equal and opposite) real wander in the gyroscope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heading_indicator