81
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: May 12, 2022, 05:08:32 PM »Maybe just let women decide on it.
There's no way in hell we can let that happen.
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.
There's no way in hell we can let that happen.
82
Flat Earth Community / Re: What makes the shape of the Earth obvious?
« on: May 06, 2022, 02:58:26 PM »
The other issue with all the dome pictures and videos you find out there is that the views being presented are always from outside the dome. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that everything, sun, moon, stars, satellites all exist within the dome. That makes any view from outside a dome pointless.
83
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: May 05, 2022, 08:01:05 PM »
What's great is when you ask those who are so worried about life if they're signed up to be foster parents or are adoptive parents.
An overwhelming majority of the time it's crickets.
An overwhelming majority of the time it's crickets.
84
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Addressing Wiki Articles #1- Lunar Eclipse due to Electromagnetic Acceleration
« on: May 05, 2022, 06:50:17 PM »
Wasn't going to do this, but, slow day.
Here's the illustration of how the lunar eclipse would behave to an observer positioned on the sun/moon axis at the middle of totality. 4 hour total duration. I showed all the moons as 1/2 moons to make how the terminator would behave more obvious.
The red sun rays show how the terminator would be oriented as the moon and sun rotate the pole. The green lines illustrate how the observer would view the moon. Not super easy to see but the observer would see the shadow rise from the bottom with a slight tilt lit side facing left. As totality is approached, the terminator would become more horizontal. As we leave totality, the terminator would subside going down with lit side now rotating to observer's right.
To reiterate, every FE/EA lunar eclipse would behave this way. There would be slight differences in degree of tilt based upon latitude of the moon's path, but the movement and rotation of the shadow would be identical for every eclipse.
Here's the illustration of how the lunar eclipse would behave to an observer positioned on the sun/moon axis at the middle of totality. 4 hour total duration. I showed all the moons as 1/2 moons to make how the terminator would behave more obvious.
The red sun rays show how the terminator would be oriented as the moon and sun rotate the pole. The green lines illustrate how the observer would view the moon. Not super easy to see but the observer would see the shadow rise from the bottom with a slight tilt lit side facing left. As totality is approached, the terminator would become more horizontal. As we leave totality, the terminator would subside going down with lit side now rotating to observer's right.
To reiterate, every FE/EA lunar eclipse would behave this way. There would be slight differences in degree of tilt based upon latitude of the moon's path, but the movement and rotation of the shadow would be identical for every eclipse.
85
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Addressing Wiki Articles #1- Lunar Eclipse due to Electromagnetic Acceleration
« on: May 05, 2022, 06:19:32 PM »That animation on the Wikipedia page with the Moon sliding from right to left into the shadow is incorrect:
It tries to explain why the shadow is coming in from the top-down. But we can see that the face of the moon is actually tilted in the eclipse:
If we compare that to the Lunar coordinate system means that the shadow is actually coming in from a Western direction to the lunar face, and is not coming in from the North of the Moon:
You're trying to apply RE dynamics to a discussion of FE dynamics. The two are completely different. Yes, there is tilt in the RE model because of the rotation of the earth. In the FE model, tilt comes as a result of rotation about the viewer. The results of those dynamics are completely different. I've illustrated this to you already as linked.
Ending your attempted deflection from the topic at hand, let's get back to FE and how EA would produce a shadow on the moon. To simplify it, let's think of a location where the middle of totality places the moon with the viewer sitting on the straight line between the sun and moon. This person should see the shadow rise nearly straight from the bottom of the moon and then return back to the bottom of the moon. Those off that direct line are going to see some tilt. With an eclipse lasting a few hours, that tilt will change some. What won't change, is that if the observer is between the moon and the sun, the shadow must come from the bottom up.
An additional item, which I've not brought up until now is that every FE/EA lunar eclipse should be identical since the mechanism for creating them has to be identical with the only exception being the duration of totality. That could vary. The position and movement of the shadow must be identical in every case.
86
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Addressing Wiki Articles #1- Lunar Eclipse due to Electromagnetic Acceleration
« on: May 05, 2022, 05:50:01 PM »Yes, the shadow does rotate with the moon's face. It also affects the phases.
In your previous embedded image consider how the shadow could be coming from the top if the observer is in Europe.
The animation here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2015_lunar_eclipse illustrates in RE how the shadow would come in from the top.
The FE explanation of the eclipse as presented in the WIKI is impossible because Europe is between, though off to the side, the moon and the sun. Because of it's position, as the moon moves out of the sun's upward bending rays, the shadow will appear predominantly from the bottom. There will be some tilt (due to the fact that Europe is not on the straight line path between the moon and sun) and in FE that tilt would change some as the moon rotates but the shadow would still appear from the bottom up and then back down again. It's basically simple geometry which, again, I presented to you previously in the link I attached above.
87
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Addressing Wiki Articles #1- Lunar Eclipse due to Electromagnetic Acceleration
« on: May 05, 2022, 05:08:31 PM »Although I think your assessment is incorrect in general on where the shadow would intersects the moon, it's not as simple as asserting whether the shadow should be from one side or the other;
It really is that simple whether you believe it or not. The position and orientation of the shadow is 100% dependent on the relative positions of the sun and moon, nothing else.
the main reason the eclipse shadow sometimes seems to be coming from the top and the side and moves around a lot in different examples is because the face of the Moon rotates over the course of the night. See the Moon Tilt Illusion - https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion
The rotation of the face of the moon would make no difference as to the position of the shadow. Experiment for yourself. Take a ball and shine a flashlight on it. Now spin the ball. Does the line of the shadow move in any way? No. Now move the flashlight to a different position. Does the shadow line rotate to remain 90 deg. from the flashlight? Yes.
I've read the WIKI Moon_Tilt_Illlusion. In fact, I examined one of your personal photos in a discussion of the moon tilt illusion here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17742.msg234844#msg234844
The fact is that someone posted a bunch of stuff on the WIKI with tunnel vision only wanting to address a single aspect without fully understanding how things would actually work.
88
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Addressing Wiki Articles #1- Lunar Eclipse due to Electromagnetic Acceleration
« on: May 05, 2022, 04:23:08 PM »
This image from the WIKI:
also disproves the EA theory.
At the time of this eclipse, the moon was orbiting near the equator. This would place a photographer in Europe well north of the moon. As such, as the moon moves away from and out of the reach of the upward bending rays of the sun, the eclipse shadow must be formed beginning at the bottom moving up. Clearly not the case.
also disproves the EA theory.
At the time of this eclipse, the moon was orbiting near the equator. This would place a photographer in Europe well north of the moon. As such, as the moon moves away from and out of the reach of the upward bending rays of the sun, the eclipse shadow must be formed beginning at the bottom moving up. Clearly not the case.
89
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Addressing Wiki Articles #1- Lunar Eclipse due to Electromagnetic Acceleration
« on: May 04, 2022, 10:12:49 PM »
The moon shadow in this video from the wiki:
is impossible under the EA explanation.
Remember, according to EA we are viewing the bottom of the moon. Also, according to the WIKI, at the time of a lunar eclipse, the sun and moon are opposite the pole and the moon travels away from the sun moving out of the sun's rays momentarily.
When taking both of these into account some observations must be true. First, the terminator must be 90 degrees to the sun with the shadow side the moon furthest from the sun. As the moon moves away from the sun, the terminator will be created at a 90 degree angle to the position of the sun. When you look at the video at the onset of totality, the terminator is roughly 15 deg from veritcal (actual angle isn't important) with the position of the sun needing to be on the other side of the moon from Griffith for the lit side to be facing the way it is as observed from Griffith. This is due to the fact that, according to EA, what appears as the bottom of the moon is the part of the moon which is furthest from the viewer. Since the lit side is at an angle that places it at the bottom of the moon, it means that the sun must be on the opposite side of the moon from Griffith. This is not the case in the FE model as the sun must be opposite the pole from the moon. In other words, based on the north monopole model, any observer located north of the moon's path must see the shadow of the eclipse rise from the bottom of the moon.
Now let's discuss shadow rotation from the same video. Totality lasted roughly 1:20 at Griffith. So the moon and sun rotated roughly 20 deg. during that time. However, if you look at the moon shadow at the end of totality, the sun must now be position over 90 deg. different and somehow to the left rather than the right.
An explanation of this would be interesting.
is impossible under the EA explanation.
Remember, according to EA we are viewing the bottom of the moon. Also, according to the WIKI, at the time of a lunar eclipse, the sun and moon are opposite the pole and the moon travels away from the sun moving out of the sun's rays momentarily.
When taking both of these into account some observations must be true. First, the terminator must be 90 degrees to the sun with the shadow side the moon furthest from the sun. As the moon moves away from the sun, the terminator will be created at a 90 degree angle to the position of the sun. When you look at the video at the onset of totality, the terminator is roughly 15 deg from veritcal (actual angle isn't important) with the position of the sun needing to be on the other side of the moon from Griffith for the lit side to be facing the way it is as observed from Griffith. This is due to the fact that, according to EA, what appears as the bottom of the moon is the part of the moon which is furthest from the viewer. Since the lit side is at an angle that places it at the bottom of the moon, it means that the sun must be on the opposite side of the moon from Griffith. This is not the case in the FE model as the sun must be opposite the pole from the moon. In other words, based on the north monopole model, any observer located north of the moon's path must see the shadow of the eclipse rise from the bottom of the moon.
Now let's discuss shadow rotation from the same video. Totality lasted roughly 1:20 at Griffith. So the moon and sun rotated roughly 20 deg. during that time. However, if you look at the moon shadow at the end of totality, the sun must now be position over 90 deg. different and somehow to the left rather than the right.
An explanation of this would be interesting.
90
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« on: May 04, 2022, 02:56:20 PM »
Not sure this will answer AATW's original thoughts discussed in the first 4 posts of this thread, but I did think about an interesting experiment that could be tried.
To date, I'm unfamiliar with any FE arguments against the generally accepted physics of how waves travel. Specifically, I'm thinking about how sound and pressure waves travel radially outward from a fixed source at equal speed unless an external force acts to change their path. I'm unaware of any proposed FE theory, such as EA, that refutes this.
So, the experiment would be to initiate a sound or pressure wave at a given location, and then use the various measuring sites across the earth to time when that wave reaches them. Knowing the speed of the wave, the distance from the source could then be calculated and various models could be compared to how that data aligns with the model.
The only issue with this experiment, is that the energy required to perform the experiment is quite large and the expense and logistics of performing the experiment basically make it impossible to perform.
Fortunately for all of us, Mother Nature cares nothing about expense and logistics and decided to perform the experiment January 15, 2022 at Tonga.
This would leave FEers to explain how the data from this natural experiment aligns with the RE model but not any of the FE models.
To date, I'm unfamiliar with any FE arguments against the generally accepted physics of how waves travel. Specifically, I'm thinking about how sound and pressure waves travel radially outward from a fixed source at equal speed unless an external force acts to change their path. I'm unaware of any proposed FE theory, such as EA, that refutes this.
So, the experiment would be to initiate a sound or pressure wave at a given location, and then use the various measuring sites across the earth to time when that wave reaches them. Knowing the speed of the wave, the distance from the source could then be calculated and various models could be compared to how that data aligns with the model.
The only issue with this experiment, is that the energy required to perform the experiment is quite large and the expense and logistics of performing the experiment basically make it impossible to perform.
Fortunately for all of us, Mother Nature cares nothing about expense and logistics and decided to perform the experiment January 15, 2022 at Tonga.
This would leave FEers to explain how the data from this natural experiment aligns with the RE model but not any of the FE models.
91
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: GOP are petulant crybabies
« on: April 08, 2022, 04:17:50 PM »You tell us. You're the one protesting at the moment. Do you think, following the long, long history of white men being appointed to the SC, it's too soon for a coloured female appointee?
Again, that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. You're missing the point.
If a person campaigns on nominating only a white man to the Supreme Court, would you have a problem with that?How extreme can it go before we must say "no, no, that's enough, don't do that"? How much racism and sexism is currently the acceptable amount? How much further should it go?
When someone with questionable experience and qualifications (can we say Amy Coney Barret boys and girls) gets nominated to be a Supreme Court justice. That's when it actually becomes the problem.
Perhaps you were, but were you this upset over Trump's 'I need to nominate a good Christian female what's that about no confirmations during an election year' nomination of Barret?
I don't recall Trump specifically promising to nominate only a particular race, gender or religion. Can you source when he said it? I know I sourced when Biden did.
There was no campaign promise, but the focus of his second nomination was strictly to nominate a female.
92
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: GOP are petulant crybabies
« on: April 08, 2022, 03:09:41 PM »How extreme can it go before we must say "no, no, that's enough, don't do that"? How much racism and sexism is currently the acceptable amount? How much further should it go?
When someone with questionable experience and qualifications (can we say Amy Coney Barret boys and girls) gets nominated to be a Supreme Court justice. That's when it actually becomes the problem.
Perhaps you were, but were you this upset over Trump's 'I need to nominate a good Christian female what's that about no confirmations during an election year' nomination of Barret?
93
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
« on: April 06, 2022, 08:59:03 PM »Secondly, why not simply "I thought it was great"? The question was "how did YOU like that game last night?" not "how did YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY like the game last night?". Are teachers incapable of basic language parsing where you come from?
Irrelevant.
This is low content nonsense. Don't do it again. Warned.
OK, I'll be more verbose. Your "But he coulda" response is irrelevant to the question I asked. At what point and in what context does a mention of one's spouse become off limits. All of them? A teacher is never allowed to admit they have a spouse until they are teaching 4th grade or higher? More importantly, if all spouse mentions are not off limits, then are strictly same sex spouses not allowed?
94
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBT School Teachers
« on: April 06, 2022, 08:41:18 PM »Secondly, why not simply "I thought it was great"? The question was "how did YOU like that game last night?" not "how did YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY like the game last night?". Are teachers incapable of basic language parsing where you come from?
Irrelevant.
95
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
« on: April 06, 2022, 08:39:49 PM »
Sorry, missed the part where anything was dictated that everything stopped at the age of 5.
96
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBT School Teachers
« on: April 06, 2022, 08:33:34 PM »Right, but if a male teacher gets asked where they were last week, they shouldn't be able to say, "Oh, I got married and my wife and I went on a honeymoon."
Correct.
Fair enough. Sure as hell glad I didn't go to that school.
Yes, I'm sure you have lots of fond memories about teachers talking about their honeymoon while you were five years old. I'm sure you cannot imagine what you'd do without them.
No, but who determines what's an acceptable personal discussion to have.
Is, "Hey (male) Teach, how'd you like the game last night."
"My husband and I thought it was great."
acceptable?
How 'bout "Hey (male) Teach, how'd you like the game last night."
"My wife and I thought it was great."
97
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBT School Teachers
« on: April 06, 2022, 08:19:08 PM »Right, but if a male teacher gets asked where they were last week, they shouldn't be able to say, "Oh, I got married and my wife and I went on a honeymoon."
Correct.
Fair enough. Sure as hell glad I didn't go to that school.
98
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBT School Teachers
« on: April 06, 2022, 06:49:38 PM »Everything has a nature/nurture component. However, my point is that if you can warp the human mind into killing itself, you can warp it into being homosexual (or any other number of mental states). While I don't think you can convince a kindergartner to be gay through a gay teacher talking about their partner, we do know that very early exposure to sexual topics and sexuality in general can absolutely devastate a child for life (this includes, for example, exposure to pornography). I think ultimately the wording of the law and it's (supposed) purpose should be generally beneficial. If a few gay teachers feel 'oppressed' in the process then that seems to be a decent exchange in my hot opinion.So what your saying is that no teacher should be allowed to talk about their home life with their students.
Why should they ever bring it up in the first place? I don't recall any of my teachers ever bringing up their 'home life' in such a way that it qualifies as introducing sexual topics to a child.
Right, but if a male teacher gets asked where they were last week, they shouldn't be able to say, "Oh, I got married and my wife and I went on a honeymoon."
99
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBT School Teachers
« on: April 06, 2022, 05:06:59 PM »Everything has a nature/nurture component. However, my point is that if you can warp the human mind into killing itself, you can warp it into being homosexual (or any other number of mental states). While I don't think you can convince a kindergartner to be gay through a gay teacher talking about their partner, we do know that very early exposure to sexual topics and sexuality in general can absolutely devastate a child for life (this includes, for example, exposure to pornography). I think ultimately the wording of the law and it's (supposed) purpose should be generally beneficial. If a few gay teachers feel 'oppressed' in the process then that seems to be a decent exchange in my hot opinion.
So what your saying is that no teacher should be allowed to talk about their home life with their students.
100
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: March 29, 2022, 05:13:35 PM »Because it’s America and you guys love this shit. Remember when Louis Dejoy donated $700k to Trump and then immediately got a job as postmaster general? This kind of stuff happens everywhere, all the time in the USA.
Ah yes, the classic liberal "yes he is corrupt and I don't care" defense.
Imagine unironically thinking this is strictly a liberal affliction.