21

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: August 08, 2022, 03:41:45 AM »

Neither Tom nor Action80 are here to actually debate the merits of anything but merely to argue.

22

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians

« on: August 05, 2022, 05:23:51 PM »

Points 3 and 4 represent the creation of fundamentally new technologies. The Digital Age in on point 5 represents people doing the same things they were already doing, but on a computer.

For someone to say that a personal computer or even the internet was not revolutionary is insane.

We went from the Harvard Mark I in the 40's:



To this, way more powerful, in the oughts:



And that's not revolutionary?

Actually I did say it was revolutionary. I also said that it wasn't as important as the technologies that revolutionized society in the early to mid 1900's.

My main criticism was that the applications used are largely just digital replicas of things which already existed. People already had encyclopedias in their homes and had library passes. People already could compose documents, order things from catalogues, and send letters and notes to each other. Now you can do all of that on a computer with emojis. It provided a convenient platform, but people were still doing the same things they were doing before.

People have been traveling around the planet since being able to walk so according to Tom being able to move yourself or goods anywhere within a few hours (or days for bulk items) is really just the same thing.  Obviously false.

The computer in your pocket can tell you where you are anywhere on the planet.  Even if you delude yourself to think that GPS does not utilize a network of satellites, you can not deny that it works.  That is revolutionary.

Having access to information without having to go to a library or for physical volumes to have to be written and published allows information not only to be universally accessible but also up to date.  That is revolutionary.   It of course also allows false information to be widely distributed.  All aspects of a revolution do not have to be beneficial to be revolutionary.

Not only access to information but access to services like micro banking is revolutionary.  Poor producers can not only sell their goods at prices that match global markets but accept payment safety without the risks of cash.

All that that does not even get to the original purpose of the mobile phone.  Reaching anyone anywhere is pretty revolutionary all by itself.

23

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians

« on: August 05, 2022, 06:12:58 AM »

Yeah.  It's unfortunate that Russia doesn't have a real film industry.  I would love to see ww2 war movies from their perspective.

They'd just show a gazillion Russian army soldiers blasting away Germans with only a few token losses.

Maybe, but maybe not.  Russian losses are well established as the most of any nation in either world war, its not even close.  That (from what little I know about it) is well incorporated into the Russian Heroic stories the nation (like all nations) tells itself.  In their case it is that they defeated the Germans by making a huge Russian sacrifice (and are "owed").

24

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians

« on: August 04, 2022, 06:42:08 AM »

...The era of the early and mid 1900's is also marked by extraordinary revolution from the telephone, automobile, airplane, radio, radar, computer, manufacturing, and medicine, which have only been refined and improved on today without fundamental revolution.

The list of achievements from the recent generations are comparably poor with some achievements in certain areas, but have not provided a comparative revolution to society to dignify the generation on. These later generations have only managed to continue or arguably degrade the status quo.

The digital revolution is all since 1950.  The first transistor was in 1947 but the first chip was 1958, Moore coined what we now call, his famous 2nd law in 1965.  The cell phone in your pocket has far more computing power than a room of equipment even from the 70s.  The internet grew out from the ARPAnet in the 70s.  We have the manufacturing revolution from 3D printing.  Automated low cost genetic sequencing is revolutionizing medicine.  Crop yields that remained stable from 1880-1950 have risen consistently since thus letting us (mostly) feed the world.  Of course there is space flight and its resulting vast increase in knowledge of the universe and our own planet as well as numerous commercial applications in farming, communications, mapping, news gathering, etc (but Tom thinks those are all false of course).  Likely more important than anything is the focus on sustainability.   The practice of burning fossil fuels without regard for the consequences to our environment that was so eagerly embraced in the first half of the 1900s which set the precedent for the 2nd half, has lead our civilization to the very brink of destruction.  If we manage to step back from the edge, which is not yet clear, it will be the greatest accomplishment in history.

None of that later technology is as revolutionary as the technologies from the beginning to mid 1900's. Most of what you cite originate from the time period I cited or even earlier.

So when did digital electronics start?

The 1950's already had radio communication and cell phones were just the natural progression of that technology rather than something truly revolutionary.

This just show how little you know.  Celllphones are a fundamental departure from analog radio.

The 1950's had plastic molding.

If that is supposed to relate to 3D printing its nonsense as the entire point of 3D printing (in plastics or metals) is that there is no mold.

1940 Germany even allegedly had rockets capable of getting to space. Sputnik happened in the 1950's.

So does space flight exist or not Tom?

The 1950's had computers. The internet and personal computing are one of the few new things that are revolutionary to society, but the 1950's had the analog equivalent of digital libraries, photoshop, microsoft office, online shops, and bulletin boards.

Are you talking about actual brick and mortar libraries?   Hardly the same thing as a library in your pocket via your cell phone.

Genetic engineering is still in progress.

Of course but NOW not in 1900 and it has already revolutionized virus detection and vaccine construction.

The Moon Landing was supposed to be a test case for colonies on other worlds, but never came. The best theory about gravity in science comes from 1905.

Special Relativity published in 1905 as On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies is not about gravity but about how space and time are merged.  General Relativity IS about gravity and was first published in 1915 (at which point the 1905 paper became commonly known as Special Relativity) and confirmed in several ways since (time dilation via atomic clocks at varying altitudes and gravity probe B).   Plus the significance of space flight is in the huge amount of knowledge we have and continue to gain on the cosmos and our planet, not the moon landing.  But are you now claiming the moon landing was real? Haven't you claimed it was all faked elsewhere on this site?  If the moon landing (and space flight in general) is real then the earth must be round, the two can not be separated.

25

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians

« on: August 03, 2022, 10:08:59 PM »

...The era of the early and mid 1900's is also marked by extraordinary revolution from the telephone, automobile, airplane, radio, radar, computer, manufacturing, and medicine, which have only been refined and improved on today without fundamental revolution.

The list of achievements from the recent generations are comparably poor with some achievements in certain areas, but have not provided a comparative revolution to society to dignify the generation on. These later generations have only managed to continue or arguably degrade the status quo.

The digital revolution is all since 1950.  The first transistor was in 1947 but the first chip was 1958, Moore coined what we now call, his famous 2nd law in 1965.  The cell phone in your pocket has far more computing power than a room of equipment even from the 70s.  The internet grew out from the ARPAnet in the 70s.  We have the manufacturing revolution from 3D printing.  Automated low cost genetic sequencing is revolutionizing medicine.  Crop yields that remained stable from 1880-1950 have risen consistently since thus letting us (mostly) feed the world.  Of course there is space flight and its resulting vast increase in knowledge of the universe and our own planet as well as numerous commercial applications in farming, communications, mapping, news gathering, etc (but Tom thinks those are all false of course).  Likely more important than anything is the focus on sustainability.   The practice of burning fossil fuels without regard for the consequences to our environment that was so eagerly embraced in the first half of the 1900s which set the precedent for the 2nd half, has lead our civilization to the very brink of destruction.  If we manage to step back from the edge, which is not yet clear, it will be the greatest accomplishment in history. 

26

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians

« on: August 03, 2022, 06:22:15 AM »

I think they manage it physically as they have other folks to do all of life's chores (cooking, cleaning, driving, errands, etc) for them.  But I completely agree that arranging the system to encourage a continuous flow of new folks to enter would be really good.  We might manage that with term limit rules of various sorts but instead I like the idea of rank choice voting.  That way voters can cast a ballot for someone (like a newcomer) that they really want to get in but that they think is unlikely to win against the old-timers political machine while still having a backup of their preferred oldie .  It has made some progress in the US but I'm not sure if that trend is growing or stalling out.

27

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass

« on: August 02, 2022, 03:50:29 PM »

Such wild inconsistencies are not limited to Tom but seem fundamental to the FE view.  Tron claims space craft exist (JWST, Voyager, etc) but does not acknowledge that all launches depend on RE physics.  The real question is whether anyone actually thinks the earth is flat or if its all a sort of trolling or self deception?  There might be some trolling going on here (claiming a position that you do not actually hold), but the shape of the earth is not something that matters to most people's lives so self deception might be in play even more.

If one genuinely thought that the earth was flat clearly they are not going to be employed where that does not work (long haul airline pilot, geographer, GPS engineer, NASA-pretty-much-anything, etc).  But traveling to the corner store is going to work no matter what global map you claim.  People can hold that GPS is somehow based on ground stations, that we know can not be the case, and still use it.  They can point their Sat TV dish at the location of the geosynchronous satellite and tell themselves the signal is bouncing off the dome.  They can claim a vast global conspiracy of 100s of thousands if not millions yet all keeping totally silent for decades, again as it does not impact their day to day life.  I'm guessing that such folks are drawn to the view of themselves of not accepting the standard model everyone else acknowledges.  That they like the self image of being one that thinks way way outside the box and doing so for the shape of the earth does not involve any changes to your daily life for most folks.

The impact is to our civilization where folks holding clearly false notions about reality is a worrisome trend.  Not so much for FE/RE but for elections, pandemics, climate change etc it does matter.  If that can not be resolved even for the shape of the earth how can we do so for other domains that are even more impactful yet require more trust of experts than FE/RE and are more vulnerable to vested interests than FE/RE?

28

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: August 01, 2022, 05:46:02 PM »

There is a very small uptick in deaths from heart disease during the pandemic both from those with or having had covid being weaker and less able to survive a heart attack and from people being reluctant to go to the hospital or clinic when experiencing symptoms due to fears of contracting covid.

How about being plain old denied the opportunity to go to the hospital due to the unnecessary lockdowns and restrictions.

How has anyone been denied the opportunity to go to the hospital in the US due to the response to the pandemic?

During the lockdowns and restrictions, many clinics, medical centers, and hospitals were closed to people needing regular visits to such places for many different types of ailments.

Both my sister and my brother-in-law were denied such visits during the near entirety of 2020.

It doesn't sound like these were visits to the ER in the sense of "I think I might be having a heart attack", but something else.  Certainly many elective procedures were postponed.

It sounds like an overall aging population was denied normally routine follow-up visits that could have prevented further deaths.

Its certainly possible.  If so it should show up in non-covid related deaths in older folks showing up in the stats (which of course take a while to come out). 

update: This Lancet article on this very subject (increased cancer deaths during the pandemic due to fewer screenings) shows an uptick.  (though again for cancer not heart disease, though its possible that might have occurred as well).

29

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: August 01, 2022, 05:38:09 PM »

There is a very small uptick in deaths from heart disease during the pandemic both from those with or having had covid being weaker and less able to survive a heart attack and from people being reluctant to go to the hospital or clinic when experiencing symptoms due to fears of contracting covid.

How about being plain old denied the opportunity to go to the hospital due to the unnecessary lockdowns and restrictions.

How has anyone been denied the opportunity to go to the hospital in the US due to the response to the pandemic?

Action is right.
People had to do phone consultations or go to the hospital.  Action's family members had stage 4 cancer and may have lived an extra month if the doctor caught something sooner via physical inspection.

Losing a family member is always difficult, but I was talking specifically about heart attacks and whether folks were denied access to the ER (I should have made that clear above, since the access  you describe is different).

30

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: August 01, 2022, 04:32:42 PM »

There is a very small uptick in deaths from heart disease during the pandemic both from those with or having had covid being weaker and less able to survive a heart attack and from people being reluctant to go to the hospital or clinic when experiencing symptoms due to fears of contracting covid.

How about being plain old denied the opportunity to go to the hospital due to the unnecessary lockdowns and restrictions.

How has anyone been denied the opportunity to go to the hospital in the US due to the response to the pandemic?

During the lockdowns and restrictions, many clinics, medical centers, and hospitals were closed to people needing regular visits to such places for many different types of ailments.

Both my sister and my brother-in-law were denied such visits during the near entirety of 2020.

It doesn't sound like these were visits to the ER in the sense of "I think I might be having a heart attack", but something else.  Certainly many elective procedures were postponed.

31

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: August 01, 2022, 09:03:35 AM »

There is a very small uptick in deaths from heart disease during the pandemic both from those with or having had covid being weaker and less able to survive a heart attack and from people being reluctant to go to the hospital or clinic when experiencing symptoms due to fears of contracting covid.

How about being plain old denied the opportunity to go to the hospital due to the unnecessary lockdowns and restrictions.

How has anyone been denied the opportunity to go to the hospital in the US due to the response to the pandemic?

32

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass

« on: August 01, 2022, 07:59:36 AM »

It would be helpful if you can be a bit more specific.

If you cannot figure out why providing no content other than an IMDB link to Amazon Women on the Moon is not in line with a well-spirited debate, then you are beyond help and should be ejected immediately. If you do understand why it's not OK, then you've got your final chance to behave.

The content I provided was my question to Tom.  The imdb link was just a little humor, which obviously you did not appreciate.  ok point taken.

33

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass

« on: July 31, 2022, 11:41:15 PM »

In one corner we have every physicist since Newton with massive confirming data and in the other we have Tom with no credentials, papers, education in or understanding of physics or any data at all.    Why Tom would you expect anyone to take your argument as remotely credible?  Of course FE in general falls to the same critique.

You might as well be claiming that there are Amazon women on the moon!

If you can't figure out how to post in the upper, don't post in the upper.

It would be helpful if you can be a bit more specific.   I thought my post was well within rule 3 about being on topic including "...the natural progression thereof" given the conversation about what Tom is claiming.

34

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass

« on: July 31, 2022, 11:17:26 PM »

In one corner we have every physicist since Newton with massive confirming data and in the other we have Tom with no credentials, papers, education in or understanding of physics or any data at all.    Why Tom would you expect anyone to take your argument as remotely credible?  Of course FE in general falls to the same critique.

You might as well be claiming that there are Amazon women on the moon!

35

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: July 31, 2022, 09:17:29 PM »

Heart disease has been the leading cause of death in the US at least since the 50s.  That rate had been coming down starting in the 70s-80s (I'd guess due to lower rates of smoking) and for awhile it looked like cancer (the perennial number 2) would surpass it, but heart disease began to go up again around 2010 so its still the leading cause but not by very much over cancer.

Not surprisingly heart disease has impacted many people.  My GP, a Stanford grad, really great guy, very healthy, no history of heart disease was out bicycling and dropped dead from a massive coronary back in the 90s.  My father had a heart attack though survived it.

There is a very small uptick in deaths from heart disease during the pandemic both from those with or having had covid being weaker and less able to survive a heart attack and from people being reluctant to go to the hospital or clinic when experiencing symptoms due to fears of contracting covid.  But no evidence of heart attacks induced by the vaccines.  That rumor appears to have started from a preliminary report on temporary heart inflammation in some rare cases caused by the vaccines.  But this is a marker for possibly increased risk of heart disease only if the inflammation is NOT temporary.

36

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass

« on: July 31, 2022, 01:14:51 AM »

The fact that not merely the greatest physicists over the last 100 years but the entire physics community over the last 100 years disagrees with your conclusion is reason to believe you have no idea what you are talking about.  How fragile your world view must be to have to constantly fall back on this tired mantra.

Incorrect. Many of the greatest mathematicians did try their hand at the three body problem, with unsatisfactory results. See the quotes here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem#Quotes

How disingenuous this is.  No one is disputes that there is no closed solution to the three body problem.  Of course many have tried.  I did NOT dispute that mathematicians have not been able to produce a closed solution.  What I posted was that the physics community over the past 100 years does not see that issue as a refutation of general relativity.  That is what you are claiming and that is what is wrong.

The theory of gravity is general relativity and that has been directly verified by Gravity Probe B.  Why not respond to that Tom?

37

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass

« on: July 30, 2022, 09:49:21 PM »

The only thing I can’t quite fathom is whether it’s trolling, or genuine lack of understanding. I suspect the former.

I'd modify that only to say its trolling or a willful lack of understanding.  The notion of believing whatever you want to believe irrespective not only a total lack of supporting evidence but of very well established facts to the contrary is an increasing and worrisome trend on several fronts.

38

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass

« on: July 30, 2022, 04:02:28 PM »

You accept that the JWST is real, is making observations of the cosmos and was launched from earth into space.  But everything about that process like all space launches was calculated on the standard (RE) model of the solar system which you claim is completely and radical wrong.   If JWST is real then the earth is round.  You can't have it both ways.

I acknowledge within the "flat earth" system many of the distances are different then in the standard RE model.  But many of these distances are measured without a good frame of reference.  Planes see lots of snow when going fast around the world. The ISS sees lots of water going around the equator.  And spacecraft see a lot of space.

I do not know what any of that means, but only the following pertains to the point I raised:

I accept the standard RE model is adequate for day to day travel needs.  But considering new ideas I have faith will lead to greater understanding and will benefit society.

Launching a spacecraft (like JWST or any others) is a complex process requiring careful calculation as to trajectories, speed, fuel burn, payload weight etc etc etc.  It is not at all like day to day travel.  Just as a tiny example the rotational speed of the launch site is a key factor.

From The JWST launch
Webb was launched from Arianespace's ELA-3 launch complex at Europe's Spaceport located near Kourou, French Guiana. It is beneficial for launch sites to be located near the equator - the spin of the Earth can help give an additional push. The surface of the Earth at the equator is moving at 1670 km/hr.

All of those parameters are calculated based on a round earth and all that that implies.  If you accept that these craft are successfully launched into orbit or whatever their destination was, i.e. that these calculations worked, then you are accepting the RE.

Likewise you seem to accept the pictures from space are real.

The best pictures of our solar system are obviously from space.

But all such pictures show a round rotating earth orbiting the sun. Despite the vast number of such images (still and video) none show a flat earth or the dome or the underside of the flat earth.  Not only could we not have launched such probes if the earth was flat but the data they send back also confirm its roundness.  You seem to accept all of that yet claim that the earth is flat.

39

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass

« on: July 29, 2022, 08:27:31 PM »

The fact that we must use numerical methods to plot the path of multiple masses through space does not invalidate any of that.  That those methods produce very accurate predictions of the paths of celestial bodies and allows us fly around the solar system with great precision only adds further validation.  You either know that or simply refuse to educate yourself about such things.

It is apparent that you guys have abandoned claiming that you have a working model of gravity and are now appealing to space ships "flying around the solar system" to prove disjointed gravitationally selective models.

You conveniently left out the mention that Gravity Probe B has directly verified the curvature of space due to the earth.

Its complex = Humans haven't found a way to calculate it yet = It doesn't exist.

The fact that the greatest mathematicians of human history haven't been able to get gravity to work is a pretty good reason to believe that it doesn't work. If it can't be modeled then that is a reason to believe that the fundamental assumptions are false.

The fact that not merely the greatest physicists over the last 100 years but the entire physics community over the last 100 years disagrees with your conclusion is reason to believe you have no idea what you are talking about.  How fragile your world view must be to have to constantly fall back on this tired mantra.

40

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass

« on: July 29, 2022, 07:51:19 AM »

If we can solve the n-body issue to a high level of accuracy for a given set numerically, what exactly is the problem?

The problem is that it does not use a full version of gravity where gravity is universal. It uses a series of independent two body problems or other cheats. See the link I gave: https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions

The lack of a closed solution to the 3 Body Problem in no way casts doubt on General Relativity.  GR well describes how mass curves space and that has been experimentally verified.  The fact that we must use numerical methods to plot the path of multiple masses through space does not invalidate any of that.  That those methods produce very accurate predictions of the paths of celestial bodies and allows us fly around the solar system with great precision only adds further validation.  You either know that or simply refuse to educate yourself about such things.