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 - lookatmooninUKthenAUS

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3]
41
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

So
Quote
Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.

This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".

Except that the acceleration due to gravity is easily measured and is not 'Universal' everywhere on the Earth's surface. The reason for these small but perfectly measurable differences is predicted by Newton's law of gravitation but not by the UA. Increases or decreases in height affect the radius to the centre of a spherical Earth and local fluctuations in the density and thickness of the Earth's crust determine the effect of mass. There are other factors (see the link 1 below). In UA such factors would not have any effect indeed the UA theory should predict acceleration to be exactly equal everywhere in the world. Data to support Newtonian gravitational theory is readily available (link 2).

1. http://www.geol-amu.org/notes/m10-1-1.htm

2. New Scientist:
Quote
Mount Nevado HuascarĂ¡n in Peru has the lowest gravitational acceleration, at 9.7639 m/s2, while the highest is at the surface of the Arctic Ocean, at 9.8337 m/s2.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24068-gravity-map-reveals-earths-extremes/

Again, the key here is that fluctuations of +/-0.1 m/s2 are easily measurable using the most basic of kit found in any classroom. Light gate timers, meter sticks, that sort of thing. So if you don't believe NASA or New Scientist or the hundreds of other institutions who measure such data and who's errors are way below the statistically significant limit, go and do the experiment yourself.

In any event, I would say that the non-uniform value for acceleration due to gravity is one of the easiest ways to argue that FE theory is inadequate as a model. Again, any FE's who have data to the contrary and who can describe their methods and the apparatus used, please post here. I would be glad to repeat the experiment to verify or refute.


42
An honest question to the various FE's on here. Physics comes as a package of integrated ideas, layers of logic if you will, each one built upon the last either refining it (e.g Newtonian gravitation --> Eistein's general theory) or destroying it to start again from the last universally agreed point. This is the scientific method, it is not a body of information as such, more a method of establishing the information, agreeing what is fact (stands up to repeated testing and scrutiny of empirical data) or fiction (does not stand up to scrutiny and is not repeatable).

In any argument there comes a fork in the road, a place where people deviate in their interpretation of the data (assuming they are using data). In FE theory there appears to be some acceptance that the Universe is a Physical place with laws that must be obeyed i.e. the universe has logical rules and limits. It does not claim to be a superstitious movement based on claims of faith and belief. The problem for me then is that when the rules of reason and logic are applied via mathematics and laws of Physics FE theory is not complete (I will give a very clear example in a moment). Indeed, there comes a point where FE refutes some Physics law or makes up a new phenomena that superficially explains an observation but at its root is not supported by testable science. see my thread in the Q section 'What do we know about the Sun' and 'Do my eyes deceive me' where I believe I have comprehensively shown that the 'spotlight' model for the sun simply does not agree with experience and measurement. At the tail end of those debates I arrive at the orbital motion of the Sun around the Northern Hub in concentric and fluctuating radii as proof that the solar system proposed by FE simply cannot be. On its own this is more than enough to create a crisis of logic in FE theory. My specific question then is:

Q1. How can the Sun move in concentric orbits (explaining the seasons) and still satisfy the Law of the conservation of Energy. The most basic law of the universe, one which must be obeyed and is the root of ALL logic in the realm of the scientific model. (Specifics: Moving at a constant 24hr period to satisfy night/day would require greater speed in Winter and thus the kinetic and potential energy of the system would be greater).

see the animated model and diagram summarising the situation for orbits in different seasons: https://wiki.tfes.org/File:Flat_Earth_Seasons.svg

and therefor, additionally

Q2. If the sun's orbit in the summer has a smaller radii why does its period not alter as conservation of momentum demands. This would of course shorten the period of a day (which we surely can all agree does not happen). Again, this is a phenomena that any person can model. The classic classroom experiment involves rotating a pupil in a chair, the pupil is holding weights and when they hold them tight to the chest they rotate fast and when extended they rotate slowly, thus conserving momentum. This is analogous to Summer versus winter in the FE model of orbits. 

43
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Sunset
« on: June 21, 2018, 09:33:03 AM »
we appear to have 'gone down the rabbit hole' in my absence from this thread. Lets get back to the data.

Quote
I see that you have neglected to provided any contradictory evidence or anything of merit to discuss in your response. We are empiricists here. That means we have higher standards than you. If you have anything meaningful to say, you will need to show, not tell.

I am somewhat shocked at your assertion 'we are empericists' here as I see virtually no refrences made on you wiki to any sort of data, experimentation or scientific investigation of any kind.

My original post was asking how the sun descending can be explained by it receding. The lack of reduction in size was explained by a magnification effect. To quote the oft referenced Rowbotham:

Quote
"IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium.

As an empiricist you should have no problem linking to the data that supports this statement. It is not a theory I am familiar with. It seems to be a major supporting part of FE theory since the Sun NOT SHRINKING as it recedes is a totally contradictory effect and flies in the face of all other known observations. Presumably planes and other objects must experience this effect if it is atmospheric? Why then do we not see it in those cases?

So, we cannot move on in this particular thread until we see some backup for the central claim. I have NEVER seen this effect and I do not believe it can be measured. If you know different, please set me straight with the data.


44
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What does FE theory say about the sun:
« on: June 21, 2018, 09:04:38 AM »
Quote
That's okay. On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles, 'for either will do as well'.

Estimating in terms of millions of miles is an improvement on one thousand miles but I would love to see the source and context for these quotes.

However, what you appear to be saying here is 'nobody really knows how far away the Sun is' and you have not engaged with the main point of my last post which is that the Earth-Sun distance absolutely cannot be anywhere near 1000 miles AND the spotlight Earth model cannot be right. Indeed, even if the FE model assumed the distance to be 150 million Km's a spotlight configuration would still obliterate life on Earth. So the spotlight model cannot work in ANY situation at all.

However, the basic idea that the sun is much smaller does superficially allow for it to be much closer and thus appear large while not burning us to a crisp.

I did the math's:

If we ignore the sun's overall flux value and instead look at its output per sq meter which of course CAN be established from simple observational measurements we arrive at a total 'Solar Luminosity (LS of 5.25 x10^17 Watts (using the Irradiance value of 63million Watts/sq. meter output).

The equation for solar flux density (Sd) works out how that energy spreads out from the source and is 'diluted' so to speak. It is dependant on the size of the source (Sun) and the distance to the observer (Earth). This is exactly what we are debating.

Sd = LS/4xPixd2  where d is the distance between Sun and Earth.

Now this is very important. The value for Sd is a well established measured property (1348w/m2). Anyone can measure it. It varies across the Earths surface but not substantially. The solar luminosity as previously stated is also easily verified by direct measurement of the Sun's spectral output and using Wien's Law and the Stephan Boltzman law to determine the solar output power. Again, absolutely rock solid theories that work every time and in any circumstance.

Solving for d gives us d = 3431 miles. Not too dissimilar from the FE theory (~350% error) IF YOU ASSUME THE SUN IS ONLY 32 MILES IN DIAMETER AND RADIATES EQUALLY IN ALL DIRECTIONS.

The problem with this is that, again, it creates more problems than it solves. The Sun's size and distance from us does not agree with orbital mechanics, principally Kepler's 3rd law, which agrees absolutely perfectly with the observed motion of all the planets and moons in the solar system. Keppler's laws are a triumph of mathematics and mechanics and are all the more beautiful because any budding astronomer can go out on a clear night and verify the motion of the planets to a incomparable degree of accuracy.

No, you have a big logical car crash on your hands here. FE theory is, if nothing else, unequivocal about certain aspects. It has to be in order to explain certain easily observed effects e.g. the curvature observed from balloons at near space. But these bold assertions create even bigger logical problems that simply cannot be explained away.

Now I am making assumptions that certain aspects of scientific theory are accepted by the FE community but even discounting the Newton's law of gravitation the orbital motion of the Sun and Earth must obey Keppler's laws and the orbital distance of 1000miles would have it orbiting us in hours instead of hundreds of days.

Now before you site the day/night orbital cycle as the explanation...

 https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_you_explain_day.2Fnight_cycles_and_seasons.3F

...lets just put that to bed. If you look at the animation on your wiki we see the sun somehow orbiting in partnership with some other gravitational 'object'. I believe this is called the 'Northern hub'. Until such an object has been actually detected and measured all we have is a completely made up device that as yet still does not explain the motion of the Sun. However, even ignoring this the seasonal position of the Sun in the sky is apparently explained by the increasing and decreasing concentric orbital rings that the sun cycles through. Such a motion would require ENORMOUS changes in rotational energy of a cyclic nature. Unless energy is exchanged from outside with this system then this model unfortunately runs up against the absolutely cast iron bedrock of scientific theory....'energy cannot be created or destroyed'. No, we stop right here, we do not 'pass go' and I am afraid one must go back to the drawing board. It is annoying, it is time consuming, but it is the law as far as science and mathematics is concerned. I'm afraid now we get to my point in this thread. That is that if you jump in at any particular point in FE theory you can find logic, but that logic relies on ever increasing circles of logic built on ever more elaborate assumptions. Eventually those assumptions run up against a logic so great and irrefutable that one must start again. In essence, the house of cards falls down. Scientists meet this all the time. The difference is they seek a better model, they do not endlessly persist with the flawed model. That is how we arrived at the current model for our solar system. The round Earth model, Newton's Laws of gravitation, Keppler's Laws all work. By that I mean they agree with experimental evidence, they never disagree.

Now it will be interesting to see if this thread ends up in the angry ranting section. I believe I have engaged in a thoroughly logical and polite discourse herein. that said, I await with interest evidence that Keppler's laws do not hold and conservation of energy is not an issue. At that point I am afraid we would simply have to agree to disagree. I do not doubt my post will not sway your thinking, but I do find it interesting to see which aspects of provable scientific theory can be sacrificed in order that FE theory maintains. this should be interesting. 

45
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What does FE theory say about the sun:
« on: June 20, 2018, 07:23:37 PM »
Quote
you keep posting questions asking about FE but you wont take any time to read any material.  its like trying to ask a question about a movie you have never seen, in an effort to understand the movie and the ending.  it would be best to watch the movie and then come back and ask questions about items you didn't understand.

I will endeavour to make some time to read the text and/or watch the video. This is not something I will manage overnight but I must seek some answers in the interim.

Given that 'Earth Not a Globe' was written long before Fusion reactions were explained I would gather that it makes no comment on the source of the Sun's power. I raise it here because we now have a very good understanding of the Fusion reactions that power the Sun. These reactions define the Sun's size and its power. The size is relevant as FE theory has the Sun as only a few miles across. Stars ignite because they collapse under the action of huge gravitational forces. When the density and pressure are sufficiently high (hundreds of millions of degrees) the nuclei of the Hydrogen atoms are pushed together (very difficult) and they fuse. The huge amounts of energy released push outwards on the collapsing gases and halt the progress. An equilibrium is established and maintained anywhere from tens of millions of years to over ten billion years. The key part is the radius of the star that causes equilibrium. Nothing less than many hundreds of kilometers is sufficient given the enormous mass of gas involved. The suggestion of 32 miles given in this thread is not possible. Now of course, to follow this explanation involves an acceptance that both gravitational theory and atomic theory are valid. These theories are some of the greatest accomplishments of the 20th century. They explain to an astonishing level of accuracy the action of our sun, other suns (stars) and have led to our splitting the atom to harness fission power. Without the complex mathematics and detailed atomic theory in the form of quantum mechanics we would not be able to predict the countless parameters needed to split an atom. Surely we can all here agree that splitting an atom is no easy feat and anyone that can do it must know a thing or two! This of course also assumes that you do agree that the atom has been split (i.e. nuclear power exists / Hiroshima happened etc.)

Now the Sun's vast power also poses another huge problem for FE theory. Mr Rowbotham claims to have calculated the distance to the Sun of some 700 miles. 'Later calculations' put this at 3000 miles. This is from your wiki. In a recent post regarding the apparent curvature of the earth (that I filmed myself using a balloon at 100 000ft) it was explained to me (again via your wiki) that the Earth's Sun falls as a spotlight with the limits of the light falling at the edges causing shadow effects, hence the apparent curvature. The problem is if we analyse the energy output of the Sun we find it is 63 million Watts/sq meter or a total output of 3.86 x 10^26 Watts. We can do this easily by observing the flux from the Sun and calculating back using the Inverse Square law. This is high school level Physics and my classes perform experiments and associated calculations using this law every year. It works, period. Now, the 'spotlight theory' would have most of the Suns energy falling directly on the Earth's surface. This is a big problem!! Every kilogram of sea water would evaporate in a fraction of a second. Indeed the whole Earth would be evaporated not long after. It would not be pretty. It is simply not possible.

Even if we do not assume a 'spotlight Earth' scenario and return to the spherical sun model radiating in all directions, a separation of 1000 miles would vastly reduce the absorbed energy but nowhere near enough to prevent surface temperatures of many thousands of degrees. Again, not possible.

So we have an impasse. Your own Wiki makes a very clear claim that my direct observations (and those of other balloon enthusiasts) are wrong as the suns light falls in a spotlight configuration and yet the easily determined solar flux is such that it would obliterate planet Earth in seconds.

Now there is no clarification that can be made here that will alter the mathematics and the innevitable conclusions they lead to. The only way this outcome can be refuted is if you

a) Disagree that the Suns flux is 3.86x10^26 Watts

b) Atomic and/or Fusion theories are wrong.

46
Flat Earth Theory / What does FE theory say about the sun:
« on: June 19, 2018, 06:26:51 PM »
Okay, I'm going to have another go at finding out some facts about what FE theory says about the sun.

What does FE theory say:

Q1. is the source of the Sun's energy?

Q2. about the size and shape of the Sun?

Q3. about the apparent rotation of the Sun (as shown by sun spots)?

That's enough for now. I cannot begin to form a picture in my head about FE theory until I see how it fits with the observed motion and nature of the bodies in the solar system.

47
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Sunset
« on: June 18, 2018, 10:17:05 PM »
What is your background in optics? I have a degree in Physics. The link you posted it utter nonsense.

One part of your wiki claims w.r.t to sunsets "The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as a flock of birds overhead will descend into the horizon as they fly into the distance" while here it states "The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer."

So what we are meant to understand is that the sun does not sink down below the arc of the Earth's horizon, rather it is a perspective effect and yet one part of the perspective effect (the shrinking, not the descending) is offset by some type of magnification effect caused by vapours in the atmosphere.

The effect that is being vaguely alluded to and yet carefully never named can only be refraction. Refraction occurs due to the differing density of the medium which light travels through but magnification can only occur under very special conditions, not in the random ones that would occur in an uncontrolled weather system. That is utterly basic science.

If this effect you are referring to is a world effect, visible to all, then I am sure there must be multitudes of flat earther's who have documented it, measured it under various conditions and published (or at least sent you) the results. Please, in the manner of proper scientific discourse point me beyond your own wiki to these independant sources so I might analyse their data and compare it to the standard Physics model.

Otherwise might I suggest removing that part of your wiki before some impressionable child reads it and gets the wrong idea.

respectfully,

Mr B

48
Flat Earth Theory / Q. Sunset
« on: June 18, 2018, 09:21:51 PM »
Quote
The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as a flock of birds overhead will descend into the horizon as they fly into the distance.

This quote above is from the FE wiki.

The perspective effect would cause the already relatively small size of a flock of birds to reduce. Hence the disappearing. The sun, however, does not reduce in size in any way, it simply sinks down. Anyone who has properly watched a sunset can tell that these two effects are not comparable. The sun is not changing as it recedes. Another effect that we should see from a receding sun is the fading of the power of the sunlight. This effect is called the Inverse square law in Physics but we experience it simply as bright objects appearing dimmer the further away they are. We also do not see this occurring.

This is perhaps the most simple observation of all to help us discern which model is rational and which fantastical. It is simply not adequate or indeed sane to suggest that the sun recedes like a flock of birds. It does not match mathematical measurements and calculations, or basic observation or indeed common sense. It is total, utter nonsense in every way and needs desperate logical contortions to allow any aspect to be considered.

If any FE can shed new light (haha) on this issue, please do.

49
Dear Pete,

some questions to help me move forward:

1. Where are your forum rules?

2. Where is the guidance regarding what a 'debate' question should look like. The substance of the post was concerning how observations in the North and South hemispheres can be used as evidence in the FE vs RE debate. Is it the subject heading that you objected to? Was it the discussion of what constitutes the Scientific method? Basically a bit more info would be useful.

3. Why did you change the subject heading?

If you are going to put posts written in good faith under the defamatory heading 'angry ranting' and then further nest them under newly made up subject headings you might as well delete them.


50
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do my eyes deceive me
« on: June 18, 2018, 03:39:55 PM »
https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

Basically: Yeah, you should totally see a curve from a high altitude photograph. That's the shape the sun spotlight takes.

Curious squirrel,

I reviewed the explanation in the link you gave. I have a few questions and I think it would be best to number them very exactly and deal with them one by one. That would be the scientific way to proceed with this.

Q1. If the curvature is an optical effect caused by the observer seeing the edges of the circular light cast by the 'spotlight' sun, that implies that the limits of that light need to be in view? Y/N
(i.e. The effect would not be observable for anyone who could not see the shape of the light being cast.)

Q2. Now let us say for example that the area of light was so great that for a particular observer only lit areas could be seen. Well then it would be impossible for any 'shape of light' effect to be seen? Y/N

Q3. Given that this is impossible for the model to work it must be the case that the illuminated area is far smaller than the total surface area of the Earth and that any given observer is always able to see the edge of the suns projected spotlight? Y/N

Q4. If this is true it must mean that vast areas of the Earth's surface are in darkness while only a relatively small area is in light? Y/N

Q5. If we sum the daylight hours over a full year at any given location there is as much light (day) as there is night (dark) with only minor fluctuations depending on the latitude? Y/N

Q6. Q4 and Q5 are irreconcilable? Y/N

Q7. In addition, it stands to reason that for an spherical light shining on the Earth there would be some observers in the middle of the light zone, some on the edge, some outside and people at every area in between? Y/N

Q8. The edge of a spherical ellipse when viewed from different distances would appear to have different curvatures? Y/N
(The easiest way to visualize this is to picture yourself in the center of a circular hall. All the walls would appear equally circular. Then picture yourself up against one wall. The curve here would seem very pronounced. Looking back over your shoulder the far wall would appear relatively flat).

Q9. Actual observations of the horizon from balloons show a completely uniform curvature from all observation points and altitudes? Y/N

Q10. Qs 8 & 9 are irreconcilable? Y/N


Quote
We can confirm that we are looking down at the sun's circle of light upon the earth by noting that shots from amateur high altitude balloons show an elliptical horizon. If the earth were a globe, curving downwards in three dimensions, all curvature seen in photographs would appear as an arc of a circle. However, curvature does not appear as an arc of a circle.

First of all, just for clarity we need to better define the terms circle and ellipse. A circle actually is an ellipse. A special case where both foci are at the same point. For an ellipse the total distance from any two foci to the ellipse edge is equal. But essentially an ellipse is a squished circle with two flat regions and two pointy regions.

http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/2-how-ellipse-is-different.html

It is not clear why the source you linked to states that the horizon is elliptical. It is not. I challenge you to find any measurements that would confirm this statement. It is an arc of a circle. For such a fundamental assertion to be made that flies in the face of the mainstream one would think there would be some reference to recorded data and associated calculations. The cynic in me wonders if the author simply hoped that people would understand ellipses look flatter and that superficially this matches how the Earth's horizon looks. This is beyond dumb and absolutely refutable and testable in more ways than it is possible to mention.

Here is a geometrical treatment of the circular arc of the Earth's curvature. It assumes a basic understanding of high school geometry. Sin and Cosine rule, that sort of thing. This is a good place to start for a proper understanding of what a circular arc looks like and how to test the data mathematically.

https://chizzlewit.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/working-with-the-curvaure-of-a-spherical-earth/

51
So I have also been PM'd about spamming.

I was unable to reply so directly so here I am.

I wont post the messages again for fear that this also counts as spamming, suffice to say one was quite long and related to some debate that was being made surrounding making observations of the constellations in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Part of my post related to this by adding another method but then digressed into other areas. I'm not sure if this is to be deemed 'spamming' if so, geez I'm in trouble. I live to digress. It makes life so much more interesting.

So, that post was deleted I think but I managed to re-post it in the 'general' discussions topics area. I figured it might be better there as it dealt with more than one thing.

I then posted another message in the 'questions' area. This elaborated on an area touched on in my original message where I recount my efforts putting an balloon with cameras up to 100 000ft + . I end with a question relating to the observations that were made. Still no sign of spamming if you ask me!

I did look for advice on what constitutes spamming and for guidance on what the 'debate' thread should actually look like but couldn't find it. I would appreciate links if they do exist.

all in all, it seems a bit strict to warn me for spamming given that this adjective is usually reserved for more extreme 'bot' or 'troll' type behavour. My posts were made in good faith (or at least as much faith as an atheist can muster).

I await your goodly advice dear Sir's and Madam's.


52
Flat Earth Theory / Do my eyes deceive me
« on: June 18, 2018, 08:29:51 AM »
A common criticism of those proposing that the Earth is round using established scientific 'theories' is that the proposer has not themselves gathered the data or done the data processing to prove the theory works.

So, 3 years ago I started a school club with the sole aim of putting a balloon into 'near space', which is defined as above 100 000ft. Last July (2017) we succeeded in our mission using a Raspberry Pi computer controlling a range of devices including an onboard camera that sent images back via radio linkup.

The images clearly showed the curvature of the earth.

There are no optical effects or aberrations that can explain the same view in every picture at almost every angle in a 360 degree vista. The field of view took in a vast swathe of England from the Wash towards London on the South East.

Care to comment?

(p.s I can provide on board footage of the myself and the team receding from view underneath the balloon using a secondary go-pro camera to prove I have not downloaded the images off the internet. I can also provide full telemetry data as well as pressure, temperature, humidity and magnetometer data.)

53
It seems that most of the obstacles to the 'truth' here relate to how one can ascertain the reliability of objective data. In the scientific sphere (pardon the pun..he he) data must be:

1. Recorded accurately (with well calibrated detection methods) - to satisfy this we will use our eyes. No systematic error can creep in since no calibration is required. Perception can be an issue but not in the case we shall outline below.
2. Recorded without prejudice (a problem even in the scientific realm) - this is normally surmounted by doing a 'double blind' study where the observers and recorders are unaware of the 'desired' outcome. To satisfy this we could allow only one observer to take part, namely the flat earther.  Otherwise we could contact a random sample of people and ask them to report observations to another randomly sampled group of volunteers with adequate mathematical knowledge to draw a graph.
3. Repeat the process: Once a conclusion is made regarding flat/round/otherwise we can repeat the experiment using other test criteria, this is the 'peer reviewing' process. Normally this is done via published articles but the idea of getting other separate parties to review your experiment and/or repeat it is not exclusive to science. Its a common sense approach and removes the 'conspiracy theory' element. All you need are some people willing to make simple observations and send them to you.

Method 1
- Look at the moon (or get others to do so and record the position of key features.
- Fly to different, distant part of the Earth.
- Look at the moon again (or record same features).
- If the moon looks the same from all locations, then the Earth is flat. If it looks different, it is not. Indeed, if any features are upside down, it is because the Earth must be spherical.

The beauty of this method is - you can do it yourself. However, the observations recorded by your observers should be the same no matter how many people take part. Reality is reality after all.

Even better would be to sign up for space-X commercial space flights which should commence within our lifetime. I would imagine the flat Earth society would be all over that one.

Other methods I have thought of involve recording the centripetal force caused by the earth's rotation at different positions. If flat there should be no variation in the vertical component, indeed there should be no vertical component.

I await the responses to my suggestion with interest. If we assume that a person can trust their own eyes to record objective reality on a macroscopic scale then we have somewhere to start. Otherwise we are adrift in a reductionist world of rumour and eternal ignorance where one persons absolute truth is another persons conspiracy theory.



Pages: < Back  1 2 [3]