1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no LGBT agenda within the government.

« on: May 25, 2023, 05:26:52 AM »

Whenever the term "hate crime," is used, that indicates a definite agenda.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 21, 2023, 08:14:08 AM »

...Putin's Soviet Union.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth

« on: May 18, 2023, 05:07:46 PM »

[
Are you going to tell us all that you measured the acceleration of an object at rest to be 9.81 m/s²?

No. Because the acceleration of an object at rest in an inertial frame is zero. But there are still forces acting upon it. In the case of our 1kg mass on the end of a spring, at rest, there is a force acting down, equal to its mass x g (ie about 9.81 newtons), and there is an equal opposing force provided by the tension in the spring, meaning the acceleration of the object is zero. Cut the spring, and there is only the downwards gravity force, meaning it will accelerate at 1g towards the floor (ignoring air resistance forces, which will be negligible in this scenario). This is all measurable and yes, I’ve done experiments just like it, as have most school physics students.

Aside from hurling insults around, you, much like Duality, are studiously avoiding providing any answers yourself. Is that because you don’t have any?

Hurling insults?

I provided legitimate commentary directly related to the nature of your posts, which, by the way, supports the notion you have no legitimate business commenting in this thread at all.

Again, providing a measure of the acceleration of an object lends no evidence as to cause.

I provided my explanation.

You don't like my explanation.

Great.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth

« on: May 18, 2023, 04:59:40 PM »

There is no force between the earth and the ball, save the aether (if in what is commonly known as the "air" or water, the two principle fluids).

But the Canvendish experiment and the Schiehallion experiment (https://flatearth.ws/schiehallion) both demonstrate that masses attract.

Neither did anything of the sort. Not all possible variables were accounted for in either experiment.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth

« on: May 18, 2023, 02:40:17 PM »

When things fall, they are universally described to be going "downwards," (unless you ask AATW...)

Do what? Of course things fall downwards. So long as we understand that "downwards" is a relative term, like left and right.
My question is what in your model means that when you release an object it moves downwards rather than upwards or to the side.
You said "aether is a fluid and it acts differently on objects due to their density and mass in different locations, due to the nature of aether"
I mean, honestly, that sounds like word salad to me. But you mention density. A ball is more dense than the air below it, but it's more dense than the air beside it and above it too. So why does it go down? RE's claim is that it's because there's a force acting between the ball and the earth. And the direction of that force is towards the centre of gravity. Which, from any point on the earth's surface, is "downwards"

It would sound like word salad to you, but kindly look up issues relating to fluids and the atmoplane.

It is the pressure aspect of the aether imparting the "downwards," force.

There is no force between the earth and the ball, save the aether (if in what is commonly known as the "air" or water, the two principle fluids).

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth

« on: May 18, 2023, 02:34:15 PM »

That just doesn't make any sense at all. I said at rest, you said bounce. Whatever.

Yeah, you said at rest and I said bounce.

What difference does it make?

Are you going to tell us all that you measured the acceleration of an object at rest to be 9.81 m/s²?

When things fall, they are universally described to be going "downwards," (unless you ask AATW...)

Irrelevant, and a distraction. Focus on the important bit. Your aetheric pool, or whatever you want to call it, can we agree that it exerts a force in proportion to the mass it is acting on?

LOL! WRITES the very word, "downwards" and when I quote him on it, he says "irrelevant" and "a distraction."

Yet complains when I paraphrase his prior post.

That is some extremely mad crapola you got going on there, Bob...do I spell that forwards or backwards, by the way?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth

« on: May 18, 2023, 01:03:16 PM »

If you did not intend to include a spring, then I could have been justly accused of changing your quote or intent of your post. As it stands, now, I know for a fact you wanted to do just that, so your complaint is ignored and I remain in fine form.

So you are struggling with the concept of something being on the end of a spring, at rest? You can only comprehend things bouncing on springs? Thanks for clarifying. I must focus really great on words like bounce and at rest, because my spring example is worthless.

FTFY...

Okay, whatever trips your trigger

I haven't conjured up anything. The aether surrounds you as we write.

We can measure the force of the pressure applied by the aether and its currents.

We can even map them.

Great. And it exerts a force on everything in proportion to its mass, pointing 'downwards', right?

When things fall, they are universally described to be going "downwards," (unless you ask AATW...)

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth

« on: May 18, 2023, 12:53:30 PM »

Forget about falling for a second, and consider objects at rest. (but bouncing on a spring)...

Are you gonna make up your mind anytime soon?

Is the concept of a mass, at rest, on the end of a spring too much for you? And please don't change other people's quotes - that's very bad form indeed.

If you did not intend to include a spring, then I could have been justly accused of changing your quote or intent of your post. As it stands, now, I know for a fact you wanted to do just that, so your complaint is ignored and I remain in fine form.

Look, I know what they call it (I even know how long the spring is gonna be at the end of the day), but at the end of the day, all of it is simply determined by the nature of the aetheric pool and its interaction with the nature of said object of a weight of one kilo.

Pressure and currents within a fluid medium.

That is all we are discussing here.

So your 'aetheric pool' with its 'pressure and currents' exerts a force on all masses in direct proportion to the mass involved? Isn't that essentially the same thing? All you've done is change the title and conjure up some made-up mechanism.

I haven't conjured up anything. The aether surrounds you as we write.

We can measure the force of the pressure applied by the aether and its currents.

We can even map them.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth

« on: May 18, 2023, 12:25:23 PM »

Forget about falling for a second, and consider objects at rest. (but bouncing on a spring)...

Are you gonna make up your mind anytime soon?

Look, I know what they call it (I even know how long the spring is gonna be at the end of the day), but at the end of the day, all of it is simply determined by the nature of the aetheric pool and its interaction with the nature of said object of a weight of one kilo.

Pressure and currents within a fluid medium.

That is all we are discussing here.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth

« on: May 18, 2023, 12:17:42 PM »

Things fall as they do because the aether is a fluid and it acts differently on objects due to their density and mass in different locations, due to the nature of aether, not the nature of the objects.

And what's your evidence for any of that?

My eyes.

I see a different fluid, hereinafter labeled "WATER," and how it acts on objects descending through it, causing the objects to behave differently within the period of descent due to the nature of currents and varying pressures.

No reason to believe aether, another fluid, would not behave likewise.

claiming that gravity is directly proportional to mass (therefore, the actual "measure" of the force of gravity would never vary at all if said where found at a various locations)

Why wouldn't it? The force of gravity is proportional to mass and the distance between the centre of gravity of two objects. But the earth isn't perfectly spherical and not of uniform density, so that affects the strength of gravity in different locations. You know they use that to identify things like fossil fuel deposits under the earth?

Why do you think the existence of gravity needs "justifying"?

Do you see me asking you to justify Aesop or the Brothers Grimm?

I don't care about you justifying anything.

Just don't trot out a measure of acceleration, label it GRAVITY!!!, and expect that label to go unchallenged.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth

« on: May 18, 2023, 11:46:51 AM »

I have yet to see anyone justify reasonably justify the existence of a force called gravity. They trot out a measure of  acceleration and call that g.

The earth is not moving. It is stationary.

We trot out a measure of force.

No.

You trot out a measure of acceleration.

That force is proportional to mass, and causes an acceleration which we call g. We can measure that force very easily - you can do it at home using some weights and springs or a scale / balance. Regardless of your beliefs, you must surely concede that there is a force acting 'downwards' on everything on the earth? Even if you believe the earth to be stationary, you still have to explain what the force is. What is it, and why does it vary slightly depending on our location on the earth?

Things fall as they do because the aether is a fluid and it acts differently on objects due to their density and mass in different locations, due to the nature of aether, not the nature of the objects.

^Here, we have RE adherents admitting "downwards" and. please notice, claiming that gravity is directly proportional to mass (therefore, the actual "measure" of the force of gravity would never vary at all if said where found at a various locations) and:

...objects are also more dense than the air above them so why would they fall down and not up?

^Another RE just typing stuff for laughs.
 

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth

« on: May 18, 2023, 11:25:40 AM »

I have yet to see anyone justify reasonably justify the existence of a force called gravity. They trot out a measure of  acceleration and call that g.

The earth is not moving. It is stationary.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 15, 2023, 09:42:40 AM »

Why is anyone arguing sentence vs judgement? Tom's post made it clear that while both are technically correct for civil and criminal cases, sentence usually is used for criminal cases and judgement for civil cases.

You could be more specific and clearly label the ones arguing...even when presented clear evidence they are wrong. But that is what BS artists do.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 15, 2023, 06:45:14 AM »

We're not talking about sentences, either.

Being ordered to pay an amount of money is a sentence. Look at a legal dictionary. The term sentence is only more often used in reference criminal matters.

Tom, you really should read up on the many differences between criminal law and civil law.  Trump was involved in a civil trial.  Citing criminal law doesn't do anything to strengthen your case.

Civil law and criminal law are two broad and separate entities of law with separate sets of laws and punishments.

Any ruling handed down by any criminal or civil court judge is a sentence.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 11, 2023, 11:01:37 AM »

Excuse me, but didn't the witch trials also simply convict because someone accused them of being a witch without evidence?

I'm not sure they did actually, quite a small percentage of the people accused were actually convicted, but that is the common perception.

"People weren't actually convicted during the witch trials, but some were..."

You said "didn't the witch trials also simply convict because someone accused them of being a witch without evidence?"
The answer is no. More than 200 people were accused, 30 were convicted. If what you're saying was correct then they would all have been convicted.
But anyway, what you said is the common perception. And that is absolutely not what happened here.

A) I didn't write all of them were convicted. I also never brought up "common perception."

II) This was exactly like a witch trial (given your analysis) in that most people would have never been found civilly liable for anything.

Evidently, Trump is just that bad...LOL!!!

See?

The exact state of affairs for which you all have been clamoring is now upon us... When the ouroboros starts to eat, only the humans will need to fear, however... 

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 11, 2023, 09:21:15 AM »

Excuse me, but didn't the witch trials also simply convict because someone accused them of being a witch without evidence?

I'm not sure they did actually, quite a small percentage of the people accused were actually convicted, but that is the common perception.

"People weren't actually convicted during the witch trials, but some were..."

FTFY

The entire trial demonstrated you can simply "rock up to court, say [insert name here] did a thing and collect a check"

Incorrect. I've gone in to some detail above why it's incorrect.

LMMFAO!

You did no such thing!

Listen, like I said earlier, there is truly nothing to this story, as I wrote earlier. and all you are doing is demonstrating the true purpose of stories like these, by echoing a line of continued bull cookies.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 11, 2023, 08:53:44 AM »

It is perfectly possible that Trump is a despicable person and a serial abuser, and that the American justice system is nonsensical at the same time.

Granted.

Countering Rushy's point of "the system is insane" with "but Trump bad" is not really addressing what he's saying.

But, he's not just saying "the system is insane", he said it was a "modern day Salem witch trial".
Now, I'm hopeless at history but witch trials are, in general, a byword for women being convicted just because someone accused them of something ("she turned me in to a newt!") with very little evidence. That absolutely isn't what has happened here and it isn't how the system works.

You can't just rock up to court, say Trump did a thing and collect your cheque. You have to provide a level of evidence such that a jury will believe you. You have to, for example, evidence that you've met Trump. And done so in a context where he had an opportunity to do what you claimed. It helps if you have some witnesses who can corroborate - in this case she had 2, one who said Trump did a similar thing to her, the other who received a phonecall from the lady in question right after the incident and testified to how distressed she was. So this isn't her just saying he did a thing, the jury saying "well, Trump is a piece of shit so yeah, he probably did". She provided a level of evidence high enough that the jury believed her.

If you did just rock up to court making false allegations and it was clear you'd never even met Trump then surely he'd be able to counter-sue you for libel or defamation and you'd be taken to the cleaners. While we are here - Trump basically convicted himself in this trial. If he'd just shut his trap then he'd never have faced criminal chances. So he can fuck the fuck off.

Excuse me, but didn't the witch trials also simply convict because someone accused them of being a witch without evidence? The entire trial demonstrated you can simply "rock up to court, say [insert name here] did a thing and collect a check"

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 10, 2023, 05:32:42 PM »

It's looking more like an activist court or judge was making the case more about things that happened in the present than the actual rape.

Dude. Take a breath.
If Trump had been completely exonerated you'd be championing it as a proof of the vindication of an innocent man.
He's lost 8 out of 10 counts and it's an "activist court or judge".
Maybe it's time to consider that Trump might not be the messiah and may in fact be a very naughty boy.

Did you bother to read those points you are championing? They don't work towards the rapist narrative. Seven of them are clearly talking about things that took place in the present, such as things that were published in 2022. It's debatable on whether the one about sexual abuse is talking about the present or past.

The main point in contention on the rape claim was rape, not the seven points of defamation and injury to reputation. The jury has decided that Trump is absolved of the rape accusations. They listened to her department store rape story and tossed it.

It's ok that you're so confused, I was at first too. They did not toss her department store rape story. The issue was that what she accused him of doing isn't legally rape in New York (even though it is just about everywhere else). They decided that her story holds up, but it's considered sexual assault, not rape. They didn't "toss" anything.

It seems you still may be confused.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 10, 2023, 02:11:12 PM »

Fake fucking news strikes again...LOL!!!

2 mill for sexual abuse?

20k for willful and wanton conduct?

LMMFAO!!!

You guys eat this shit up as if it is real!!!

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Altitude related g... where are the experiments?

« on: April 25, 2023, 05:12:42 PM »

Not really thought this through, have you Action?  What stars?  In addition to the armed guards and killer-drones, its only practical to travel to the South Pole in southern summer months due to the climate and absence of daylight in winter, and the sun doesn't set, so no visible stars.  What you can do, however, is take a sextant reading of the sun.

To be fair the stars thing is my fault, I mentioned that. Then I realised that wouldn't work for the reason you mention so I mentioned the sun and forgot to remove the bit about the stars. The sun going around you in the Antarctic circle is an interesting one though, I don't think the monopole model as outlined in the Wiki can really explain that.

The issue with Action's line of argument is you could apply it to any remote location.
I mean, Uluru (the rock formerly known as Ayers) is in the middle of nowhere. You can go there, you could do the star sightings there, check GPS and so on but if you're determined enough to believe that the real one is either heavily guarded because "they" are hiding something or doesn't exist at all then you could follow Action's line of reasoning there too. Or anywhere. I read an article about this, how some people operate in the sceptical context ("how do we really know that..."), but they do so selectively. So in the real world day to day people rely on GPS and trust it, but in a specific scenario they cast doubt on it because it could be telling them anything.

You can rest the argument of my "selectively," applying the skepticism.