1

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Size of the Sun

« on: February 24, 2023, 07:25:17 PM »

The problem with his "mathematics" is that if you assume the earth is flat and do this from different latitudes on the earth simultaneously (so that the sun is over the same spot on the earth) you get different values for the altitude of the sun.  Since the sun cannot be at different altitudes at the same time, either math just does not work and we need to throw it out (of course it does work, so we can't throw it out), or the earth is not flat.

It was precisely to patch up results like this in a desperate effort to hold onto the notion of a flat earth that the geniuses around here invented EA, AKA "Bendy Light".  Did you ever read the wiki?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 22, 2023, 09:55:42 PM »

Why not let us know what would convince YOU that the world was a sphere by sitting in a boat in the middle of an ocean with no land in sight?

Well, your answer does not answer the question I asked, but I'll answer you.  I maintain you could never determine the shape of the earth (one way or the other) by such an observation.  The Earth is just too big for that.  So not seeing a curvature by looking out over the sea would convince me of nothing because that is exactly what I expect to see on either a mostly flat Earth or one that is a sphere of 41,804,460 feet in diameter.

However, that is all flat earthers have.  That you don't see any curvature.  The point is, you cannot expect to see any curvature whether the Earth is flat or not because if it is spherical it is just too big to be able to see a curvature

Given that and that you seem to agree with me, why do you think the Earth is flat?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 21, 2023, 08:27:45 PM »

In the above scenario there is nothing that could prove the earth is a ball. Very strange and futile question.

Very good observation Simon.  It's not supposed to.

The question is actually quite simple.  Most flat earthers should be able to answer it without any problem.  You claim the earth is flat because you don't see any curvature, right?  The question is, what would you expect to see on this large Earth such that you would say "Hey, now I'm convinced teh Earth is a sphere!"

The thing is, even if the Earth was a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter, you still could not see a curvature.  Given that, why do you think the Earth is flat?  What is it you are seeing that you should not see on a spherical Earth 12,742,000 meters in diameter?  If you are confused about the whole meters thing, use 41,804,460 feet.  Would you expect to see a curve standing, or boating, on a sphere 41,804,460 feet in diameter?

4

Science & Alternative Science / Sabine explains bad science: Contemporary Particle Physics

« on: February 12, 2023, 03:27:12 AM »

5

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: January 30, 2023, 08:14:46 PM »

All you know is that someone exploded something and now there is radiation. That isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb and you know it.

We know more than that.  We know the extent and profile of the radiation released.  Sure, there were radioactive substances released as a result of the nuclear detonations, but not much.  Compared to the amount of fissionable material involved in the Chernobyl meltdown there is a relatively small amount in an atomic bomb.  A bomb only requires about 10lbs.  A small fraction of what was available in the reactor.  The difference is the huge amount of and type of radiation released and in a very short period of time.  Don't believe the "propaganda" as you call it.  Do some study into the physics.

As to "propaganda", what are the odds that Japan (and the rest of the enemies of the US) would support the US's supposed propaganda about nuclear bombs after they just demolished two major Japanese cities?  Just a bit of a stretch.  But I digress.  It's not an argument, just a little comic relief

Go back and read your OP.   "It's Fake!" is all it says.  No evidence whatsoever.  Typical flat earth "theory" there.

You're right Bill, I can't prove it doesn't exist, but the idea that I need to do so is your logical fault, not my own. I can't prove a variety of nonsense statements, such as whether or not Santa and the tooth fairy exist. However, I don't think this really helps your case. Backing you all the way up to "you can't prove me wrong" shows how little you have to stand on in the first place.

Well, to be honest, if that is what I was basing my argument on, you would have me.  However, it's not.  I am basing it on the completely different fingerprint a nuclear detonation leaves when compared to any other release of nuclear radiation.  As I think I stated before, there is nothing like it.  Not even remotely.  You can come by months or even years later and easily tell whether there was a bomb, a reactor meltdown or a lady scientist walking around with radium in her pockets.

Anyway Rushy.  I'll give you the last word.  I'm not going to change your mind on this.  Only you can do that, and it would not be that hard for you to delve into the science behind it.

6

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: January 28, 2023, 05:00:06 PM »

For example: "The vast majority of the people that died in both of those incidents died due to radiation effects". Marie Curie died of "radiation effects", did someone nuke her, Bill?

No.  She exposed herself to it by carrying radium around in her pockets.

Was Chernobyl a nuclear bomb all along? The answer is no, it wasn't.

Right.  And the result was substantially different than what you get when a bomb is detonated.  In the Chernobyl incident radio active substances like cesium 137 and iodine 131 were released. 

Radiation isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb, but you already know that, so why are you bringing it up when I've already pointed it out in the thread?

Because you are wrong.  There are different types and profiles of radiation release.  Atomic/nuclear bombs are unique in the extreme.  No other process/event produces a radiation release profile like a nuclear bomb.  Nothing.

Perhaps you should read the thread before responding again.

I did.  Perhaps you should learn something about nuclear physics.

Go back and read your OP.   "It's Fake!" is all it says.  No evidence whatsoever.  Typical flat earth "theory" there.

7

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: January 27, 2023, 05:27:29 PM »

You should really read the things you write before you post. Why did you even bother posting it? Did you think stating the wondrous fanciful tales of your imagination was actually relevant to the thread? I can only assume the answer is yes.

I did.  Except for the 10 million ton crates of TNT in my yard (there are only 2).  The rest are all facts.  Your incredulity does not change that.  Sorry.

Also the reality of atomic bombs is a fact.  Nagasaki and Hiroshima were also not fire bombed.  The vast majority of the people that died in both of those incidents died due to radiation effects some time after the detonations.  Specifically from the kind of radiation that is released from a nuclear detonation such as gamma and neutron radiation which make up approximately 50% of the energy released.  Radiation that is singularly missing from fire bombing.  So .. sorry .. you are wrong about that too.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: January 27, 2023, 05:13:16 PM »

If you are in the middle of the Pacific, it will mean no difference.

You are somehow under the impression a body of water encompassing that many million square miles is going to remain consistently level across it's length and width?

Maybe you simply did not understand the question.  I'm not under any impression.  I know from experience exactly how it looks in the middle of the pacific ocean having been there.  Albeit it was in a large boat, but nonetheless, it looks as flat as piss on a platter.

But you folks claim the earth is flat because it looks flat, right?  You see no curvature.

So, the question is, what would you (or any other flat earther) need to see to be convinced the earth is a sphere rather than flat?

Basically I think we are trying to get our heads around why you would expect to see any curvature looking out over a twelve million, seven hundred and forty thousand meter diameter planet.

9

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?

« on: January 27, 2023, 04:07:26 AM »

It's just strange that a magical lightsaber showed up in these very legitimate photos, and its existence was only retconned in after people pointed out that it looked strange.

What makes you think it's a lightsaber?  I'm not claiming it's not, but I'd be interested to know why you are convinced it is.

10

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: January 27, 2023, 03:59:24 AM »

What's this thing called?

[snip]

That's called TNT.

How much TNT?

At least one crate of it.

Oh yeah.  One of those 10 million ton crates of TNT.  I still have 3 or 4 of those in my back yard for clearing tree stumps.

You realize (I'm sure you do) that TNT does not explode with enough speed and force to create a mushroom cloud like that, don't you?

11

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Electricity video - how most people are wrong.

« on: January 27, 2023, 03:50:58 AM »

He does not provide any evidence at all that the field is jumping the gap and not following the wires.

Well, it simply does.  As the field builds on one wire it will quickly (at the speed of light) envelope the other wire, putting that wire into a increasing magnetic field.  This will, of course, induce a current in that wire.  This current will be (and depending on the separation of the wires) be much smaller than the current induced into the drift velocity of the free electrons within the wire but it will be induced very shortly after the circuit is made.  Some time later the increase in the free electron drift velocity will make the trip and add to the induced current.  Both mechanisms are at play.

If one used a sensitive ammeter instead of a big (useless) bulb one would see a small current induced within (depending on a reasonably small wire separation distance) a few picoseconds, then some time later (depending on the loop length and the velocity factor of the conductor) a much larger current added due to electron drift.  Veratasium overstated the induction effect.  He has been dragged through the fence on this.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: January 27, 2023, 03:26:50 AM »

But its the round earthers and occasional pilots and frequent fliers that are the ones claiming to see a curve from left to right its they who you should be addressing.

Frequent flyers and airline pilots that make that claim must have been into the free booze.  Maybe the odd test pilot of hypersonic, experimental ultra high-altitude aircraft might get a glimpse of a curve.

So, the OP's question was to flat earthers.  Flat earthers claim that since they do not see a curvature, the earth must be flat.  On the other side of the fence people say that, since the earth is ginormous and we are tiny, we should not be able to see a curvature.  In essence we are okay and unshaken by that same observation.

Let's say you were out on the middle of the pacific ocean, bobbing up and down in an inner tube, and, for the sake of argument, the world was as science say's it is.  What would you (as a flat earther) need to see that would confirm to you the earth was indeed a sphere 12,742,000 meters in diameter?

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Comprehensive explanation for sunsets

« on: September 28, 2022, 09:48:48 PM »

How did you account for air quality variables between yourself and the sun during your period of observation?

Air quality variables?  You mean like particulate matter, humidity and temperature?  These, under normal physics, would have a negligible effect on the apparent elevation of the sun.  I can only assume that MC Toon was using normal physics as there is very little offered from the FE perspective.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: $$$ inflation $$$ Say it ain't so Joe

« on: September 22, 2022, 05:32:28 PM »

https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/inflation-costing-average-american-family-11500-year

(Inflation Costing Average American Family $11,500 This Year)

Opps I guess Joes a stupid liar.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden insisted earlier this week in an interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes” that inflation “hasn’t spiked” in recent months and remains “basically even.”

+++++++
Personally I've made some changes along the household expenses to prevent such financial instability. My guess is I couldn't dodge 5% of the increases on average. Social Security COLA and higher interest rates once the business turmoil slows will allow many of us to claw back the 5%

Well, to begin with I would not trust anything I read from that user contributed site without checking it out further.  It seems zero fact checking is done on the stories.

Secondly, even calculating past inflation is an extremely difficult thing to do and cannot be done with absolute certainty.  You can't just compare the price of an "item" 20 years ago to the price of the "item" today and substract one from the other, divide by the number of intervening years then declare an average inflation rate.  It just does not work that way.  The first and foremost reason is that the "item" you had 20 years ago will almost certainly NOT be the same "item" you have today.  There are many other considerations too .. hundreds of them.

Thirdly, predicating future inflation is just not possible.  You have a better chance of predicting the weather for January 31st 2022 than you do of predicting what the inflation rate will be then.

You can believe whatever you want to confirm your bias, that's on you, but don't you owe it to yourself to check stuff like this out before using it to denigrate someone?  Or is that the good, bible thumping, Christian way?  Make blind unsubstantiated accusations against your neighbors and spread possible lies about them?

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Queen

« on: September 20, 2022, 10:51:39 PM »

So Biden was in the back because he didn't have a good relationship with the Queen and he deserved to be in the back. That was the premise of the post you are trying to argue against.

No.  Being the leader of a friendly foreign country does not entitle you to be considered related to the queen or being a close personal friend or another royal.  In your life it may be that if you pass within 50' of someone and war does not break out you are then BFF's or a future mate, but the rest of the world is not so alone.  I would guess Biden and the queen had no personal relationship at all.  They met briefly (total time measured in minutes) only twice their lives.  The first time Biden was a relatively young man.

Quit trolling Tom.

16

Science & Alternative Science / TED

« on: September 20, 2022, 12:35:08 PM »

Any of you watch TED talks?

This one is one of the best ever.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Queen

« on: September 20, 2022, 12:28:04 PM »

This is embarassing for Joe Biden, though, to be made to sit towards the back in a room of world leaders.

They back was for world leaders.  The front rows of that section would be reserved for Commonwealth of Nations members.  As is usual in these tings, the very fornt rows were for closer relations.  Family, friends, royals, etc. of which there are many.  I'm sure Joe Biden understood all this.  It's obvious you don't, just like a great many things.

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Conservatives being snowflakes... again.

« on: September 17, 2022, 12:17:12 AM »

Diversity is a good thing.

Maybe for investing and farming. But most diversity you see in the world is merely superficial. People will always segregate themselves by cultural background and social status.

You should visit Toronto sometime.

19

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic

« on: September 14, 2022, 08:10:05 PM »

The wave in Alaska (Lituya Bay, I believe) was over 1700 feet high.
I am not making anything up.

You are.

You are misinterpreting the event.  Read the analysis.   The actual swell in the water (the wave) was about 100 feet however it's momentum drove it (run-up) over 1,700 up the head of the bay.  If there was nothing there to stop it it would never have reached over 100 feet.  It was also an unusual wave that was not traveling at the normal speed of waves in water for that depth.  It was in effect a shock wave that, had it propagated out to open sea, would have slowed dramatically.

20

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic

« on: September 13, 2022, 03:17:29 PM »

I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.

Action gets it wrong again and just makes shit up.  100 feet is the highest wave ever recorded, and that was the largest ever recorded tsunami and occurred in 1958 near Alaska.

Mid ocean waves during storms might reach 33-34 feet, normally they are 5-10 feet.  The earth's diameter is nearly 42 million feet.  So the big stormy mid ocean waves of 34 feet don't amount to a pinch of coon shit.  The ocean is smoother than anything you have ever seen.  Smoother than electropolished metal.