81

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: September 14, 2023, 03:48:14 PM »

You seem to be mistaking age with competency.

I'm not, but there is some correlation between those two things. No-one is as sharp in their late 70s as they are at their prime.

Here is Donald Trump to set you straight

Well, he's nice and impartial. I note he doesn't cite which poll so is this just more stuff he's just making up? He does do that, you know.

Does he mean this poll, maybe?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/28/biden-voters-age

More than three-quarters of respondents in a new US poll said Joe Biden would be too old to be effective if re-elected president next year.
But as many people in the survey said the 80-year-old Biden was “old” and “confused”, so a similar number saw his 77-year-old likely challenger, Donald Trump, as “corrupt” and “dishonest”.

So yeah, a lot of people to think Biden is too old. I'm one of them. I happen to think Trump is too, not as many people agree with that but they're not exactly giving ringing endorsement of him either. Only his cult members are doing that.

82

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)

« on: September 14, 2023, 01:37:43 PM »

Don't get me pissed off because it's not gonna be pretty.

What are you going to do, type in all caps?

He didn't lose everything, it doesn't sound like he was even there or lost anything. He's just whining about rich celebrities asking ordinary people for money.
He has a point to be fair, but it's nothing to do with this thread.

83

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)

« on: September 14, 2023, 10:48:15 AM »

And you studied it... how?

I bet he's dOnE hIs OwN rEsEaRcH.
Yes, I do mean watched a load of YouTube videos. In his world that seems to pass for independent thought. Weird.

84

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)

« on: September 14, 2023, 08:07:29 AM »

And he needs to tell me what evidence is when he hasn't the faintest.

Of course I know what evidence is. It's something which confirms what you want to believe.
Anything that doesn't do that isn't evidence.
Simple!

85

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)

« on: September 14, 2023, 06:48:46 AM »

Well, if you presented actual evidence I would not dismiss it. So you need to try harder.

Your definition of "actual evidence" is "something which confirms which you want to believe". Anything else you just dismiss without explanation.

I already know that evidence doesn't exist

QED

You probably know nothing about 9/11 anyway since you were probably born around that time by my estimations.

I'll add this to the ever growing list of things you're wrong about

But anyway, yes, that pilot, or whoever, made a statement.

And by "that pilot" you mean some person who the YouTuber claims emailed him but wishes to remain anonymous so there's no way of checking his credentials, determining whether he really was a pilot or even if he exists at all. But that's the level of evidence you'll accept when something confirms your worldview. Anything that doesn't is dismissed immediately.

Oh, and btw, forgot to say that he's no longer anonymous.

He was at the time of the YouTube video you presented, but you didn't care about that. He was saying something which fitted your narrative so no further questions.

86

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)

« on: September 13, 2023, 07:36:52 PM »

]
Oh wow, that's definitely evidence of those 1.8 million tons

Where did that figure come from?
The Twin Towers weighed around 500,000 tons:

https://911memorial.org/learn/resources/world-trade-center-history#:~:text=The%20towers%20were%20massive.,its%20own%20zip%20code%3A%2010048.

Your original claim was that there was “barely any rubble left”. This is incorrect, multiple sources testify to that.

It’s hilarious how you hand wave away anything which doesn’t fit your narrative. Compare and contrast with a video you posted the other day which you claimed was real testimony. The video was some YouTuber who claimed he had information from a retired pilot who’d emailed the YouTuber but wanted to remain anonymous. That’s the level of evidence you’ll accept when something does fit your narrative. Embarrassing.

I also noticed that this webpage was seemingly created in 2021 and not 2001 or 2002. Of course, I'm sure it's just coincidence.

Coincidental with what? Why does it matter when the article was written?

87

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)

« on: September 13, 2023, 06:27:37 PM »

There was certainly a lot of dust which was not healthy to breath.  I don't think anyone disputes that.  But you have not begun to establish the mass of material needed to produce that dust so as to claim it was an appreciable porting of the total building mass.

The evidence speaks for itself. Can you show me the 1.8 million tons? Where did they go?

Staten Island

https://www.dsnyremembers.org/fresh-kills-recovery

88

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)

« on: September 13, 2023, 09:43:31 AM »

One has to admire the way Dual1ty hops seemlessly from being an expert on the shape of the earth to being an expert on wild fires to now being an expert on structural engineering and what one would expect to experience and see when two buildings of that size collapse.
The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one...

89

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 11, 2023, 12:00:26 PM »

A physical measurement of the ball would be swell. No need to measure the whole ball, a few miles would be enough.

I have literally no idea what you mean by that. You understand that the earth isn't a perfect sphere, right?
So what would a few miles of "physical measurement of the ball" involve and what would it demonstrate?

90

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: September 11, 2023, 10:38:26 AM »

Imagine having to pretend that this is normal

You understand that Trump will be older than Biden is now at the end of his term if he becomes the next president?
Trump does seem more "with it" than Biden, admittedly - there's other reasons I wouldn't want him being US president. But the whole idea of you electing guys in their 70s to run the country is ludicrous. It has to be one of the most stressful jobs in the country, and you're giving it to people who in pretty much any other career would be long since retired and for good reason - no-one is as sharp in their 70s as they are in their prime.

91

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 08, 2023, 10:24:22 AM »

lol I'm not looking down at anything

Well, you've agreed there is horizon dip. So by definition you are looking down but it's not in a way you can perceive. The horizon is, to all intents and purposes, straight in front of you. Which is what you'd expect on both a RE and a FE.

I simply observe the horizon rising with me

Well, sure. But what I'm not understanding is why you think that's an issue for RE.
As I said, observe a hill which is a few miles away from you. Then move 10m to the right. Assuming you can still see the hill has it significantly moved with respect to you? Of course it hasn't, because it's miles away. This is basic parallax.

92

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 08, 2023, 09:25:05 AM »

No. If the horizon was the curve it would stay fixed as you rise, it would never rise with you. Not even an inch. Of course, it does not rise to eye level and I have never made that claim. But it does visibly rise as you go higher. Impossible if Earth is a ball like I said.

I honestly don't understand why you think this is impossible. The horizon is around 3 miles away, at a normal height on a beach. There is an angle you're looking down at it, but if you're standing on a beach it's so small it's basically impossible to discern. As you ascend that angle does change but very slowly. I did some quick calculations:
2m - 0.0225°
10m - 0.0507°
100m - 0.101°
So it effectively looks like it's at the same position until you get to a significant altitude.

All you have to do to understand this is to drive somewhere and observe that while things on the side of the road whip by quickly, hills a few miles away barely seem to move. They're not moving with you, they're just far away so it takes longer for their position relative to you to change.

93

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 08, 2023, 09:13:49 AM »

All that would do is show examples of ships being "restored" when they are closer than the horizon.
When ships are truly beyond the horizon they cannot be restored

You assert this with no evidence

No I don't. I provided examples. You may dispute the quality of that evidence, and that's fine, but to state I provided "no" evidence is incorrect.
As I've said, I accept the first picture isn't particularly good evidence, I think the second one is better and the Turning Torso video - posted elsewhere - is better still.

and then insist that I accept that as a premise for further arguments. I do not.

I'm not insisting on anything, but I'm not even clear what you're arguing here. You said previously that
"The Sinking Ship Effect is a big hint. It's one of the most elegant proofs of FE out there" - from that it doesn't sound like you dispute the sinking ship effect actually happens, so what are you arguing about? The start of this was when Dual1ty said
"It can if you live next to the sea and you have a telescope/camera to bring those "boats gone over the curve" back into view, though."

He just stated that as a fact, he provided no evidence. Why aren't you picking him up on that?

Once again, you assert this without evidence.

I need to provide evidence that zooming out of a scene would make things smaller? 

Yes. Isn't it remarkable that every time people suggest that you perform a very simple experiment which would help clear your confusion, you refuse to do so and just post pictures you found on the Internet

It isn't that remarkable. I don't live near the coast. Although I did show the results of an experiment I conducted in my front room which demonstrated that objects can be "restored" with optical zoom and demonstrated that it's nothing to do with sinking ships. While we're here, I did actually take some photos during a recent trip to the seaside of a wind farm out to sea, but the results weren't particularly conclusive - I suspect because the turbines weren't far enough away. So it's not like I've made no effort.

94

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 08, 2023, 08:28:54 AM »

Horizon rises with you also

This is incorrect, and can shown to be incorrect in multiple ways

https://flatearth.ws/c/horizon-dip

The horizon dips below eye level in a way which can be measured and demonstrated.

I didn't say it doesn't "dip" - I said it rises with you, which is a fact.

Horizon being apparently below eye level does not debunk that fact. So as always, your "FE debunking" fails the reality test, and you fail to understand what is being said.

It's a common FE claim that "horizon rises to eye level". It doesn't and that can be demonstrated in multiple ways shown in the link I provided.
I thought that's what you were asserting. If not then fine. But I'm not clear why you think this is a problem for a globe earth.
When you say it "rises with you" - the horizon is miles away even at viewer heights close to sea level. So of course when you ascend it doesn't dip noticeably. Why would it?
But I would suggest that the angle dip to the horizon and the distance to the horizon are both consistent with a globe morel. There may be FE explanations, but neither of these things are a problem for RE, it's what you'd expect to observe - you can see further over the curve with more height and the angle you look down at the horizon increases - the latter of these being hard to perceive but can be measured. Why do you think that's an issue?

95

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 08, 2023, 08:06:28 AM »

Horizon rises with you also

This is incorrect, and can shown to be incorrect in multiple ways

https://flatearth.ws/c/horizon-dip

The horizon dips below eye level in a way which can be measured and demonstrated.

96

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 07, 2023, 04:40:16 PM »

I addressed it by showing examples where you CAN'T restore them with optical zoom.

No, you didn't, and I already told you why.

Incorrectly. His point cannot be responded to by "compar[ing]e 2 levels of optical zoom for the same scene".
All that would do is show examples of ships being "restored" when they are closer than the horizon.
When ships are truly beyond the horizon they cannot be restored, so those are the examples I used to address his point. A zoomed out view of those pictures (which I didn't take so can't show anyway) wouldn't demonstrate anything, they'd just be smaller versions of the images I used.

Since you chose not to read my message, I'm not reading yours beyond this point either.

As is your right. But I did read your message, I simply disagree with it and have responded in some detail to explain why.

97

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 07, 2023, 04:21:23 PM »

I responded to a post which, it seemed to me, was the old "boats don't really go over the horizon, you can restore them with optical zoom"

You did. You also completely failed to address it

I addressed it by showing examples where you CAN'T restore them with optical zoom. The second of them is from a timelapse where you can clearly see boats sinking below and emerging from the horizon. It addresses his claim that you can 'bring those "boats gone over the curve" back into view'. You can't. If they've gone behind something (whether that something is the curve of the earth, waves or something else isn't relevant) then you cannot restore them with optical zoom.

The claim that distant things which you can't see with the naked eye can be seen with optical zoom isn't really controversial. Anyone who has mastered object permanence knows that they're not actually gone. I did actually do an "experiment" (not sure this really deserves that word) some time ago where I drew a "boat" with a thin hull and took photos of it from across the room without zoom and then zoomed in



Does that satisfy your request to "compare 2 levels of optical zoom for the same scene"?
And in the zoomed in picture the hull has been "restored". Except...I don't even think I'd used that word. It just wasn't visible from across the room, but optical zoom made it visible again. BUT...and this is the point I made in the previous thread, the hull is at the top, so that doesn't explain the sinking ship effect. All it shows is that when objects are too small to see with the naked eye but you have clear line of sight to them you can see them by zooming in. Which I don't think is an astonishing revelation to anyone. But it isn't anything to do with the sinking ship effect either.

Obviously I adapt to new information if I'm convinced that the new information is valid. We've been through examples before where I have.

You either have it saved somewhere

It's that. But fair enough it's not the best example. Will find some better ones.

The base of the wave is roughly around here

I'm not sure that everything above that line is one big wave but even if it is, or it is waves obscuring the boat (which I admit is plausible), it doesn't change the fact that that ship can't be restored with optical zoom. Whether it's hidden below the curve or a big wave isn't really that relevant. It's the claim of restoration I was addressing. I see Dual1ty is now talking about mirages - which is surely a contraction to his previous post  and given the viewer height of 2 inches in his video I'm sure you can see why that's not a great argument either.

I continue to be interested by your claim that the sinking ship effect is "one of the most elegant proofs of FE out there". Especially given other FE claims that the effect doesn't exist at all. How does the effect prove FE in your view? On a FE I'd expect to be able to see over the top of any wave if my viewer height is higher than the highest wave. If my viewer height is the same as the highest wave then this would be the situation:



It would only hide as much of the building as the height of the wave. So waves aren't an explanation for the Turning Torso video where at greater distances more of the building is hidden. The viewer height looks to be above the height of any waves or swells across a pretty calm channel.

98

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 07, 2023, 11:10:14 AM »

How do you see a message from someone telling you to compare 2 different optical zoom levels of the same scene and think "Oooh, I know, I'll post *one* image of a scene and claim to have performed the test!!!"

I responded to a post which, it seemed to me, was the old "boats don't really go over the horizon, you can restore them with optical zoom" bunk.

Now obviously you can "restore" objects which are not visible to the naked eye, if they're in full view in the first place.
So if something is this side of the horizon then sure, restore away. But my restore above is in quotation marks because you can only do that if the object is not occluded in the first place. If the object IS occluded by the horizon then you can zoom till your heart's content, you'll only see the part of it which is visible.
I have shown Dual1ty plenty of examples of this, the two pictures above, the Turning Torso video are some of them. And here he is claiming that Erf Flat because you can use a telescope/camera to bring boats gone over the curve back into view. You can't. Not if they've actually gone over the curve.
Just pretending that boats don't sink beneath the horizon is moronic and demonstrably false. That's what I was responding to.
Claiming they've actually gone behind waves is a reasonable explanation, but that's not what he's said here.

I don't think you can really tell how big the waves are in that picture by the way, but I'd concede it's not a flat calm. The Turning Torso video is better evidence for this effect

We've ruled out you being a complete idiot

That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

You're right, though. The Sinking Ship Effect is a big hint. It's one of the most elegant proofs of FE out there.

Oh yes? Do carry on. How so? That's not what I would expect to observe on a flat earth. So long as I'm above the viewer height of the waves I'd expect to see pretty much all of distant objects so long as visibility will allow. What would stop me? Refraction is obviously a factor but that typically means you can see more of an object than one would expect, not less.

99

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 07, 2023, 08:51:06 AM »

The idea that a subject can be fully explained by observing it through a 42-inch-diagonal portal is absurd.

It can if you live next to the sea and you have a telescope/camera to bring those "boats gone over the curve" back into view, though.

OK. Where's the rest?


Of these two stills from a timelapse video of a boat coming over the horizon

100

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 07, 2023, 06:12:33 AM »

The oldest and best proof of the Earth's flatness can be seen by looking out your window.

What does that tell you?
The earth could be flat, a cube or a sphere of sufficient size and you’d observe pretty much the same thing. Although ships and other distant objects sinking below the horizon is a bit of a clue…