1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Astronomy Still Uses Epicycles

« on: September 04, 2025, 04:41:22 AM »

If epicycles are a bad thing in heliocentric astronomy, then why would they be a good thing in geocentric astronomy?

I didn't suggest that it was. The FE solar system model isn't Geocentric. It's Semi-Heliocentric.

Epicycles are simply "a small circle whose centre moves round the circumference of a larger one".
Of course astronomy still uses epicycles because that's how the universe works. The earth orbits around the sun, and the moon orbits around the earth.
On a larger scale the sun orbits the galactic centre.

Please work harder at educating yourself on these topics. Epicycles are not "the earth orbits around the sun, and the moon orbits around the earth". An example of the epicycle Earth-Moon epicycle system is given in an example in the Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns page:

Moon-Earth-Sun: The oldest three-body problem
Martin C. Gutzwiller

...



Caption: FIG. 1. The basic lunar model from antiquity (adopted ever since) consists of an orbital plane for the Moon containing an epicycle for its orbit; the crucial parameters α, ε, γ and the three angles l,g,h have their modern interpretation.

In epicyclic systems bodies move around points in space for no reason at all. It says "adopted ever since" in the caption because the epicycles from antiquity are still used in the modern predictive models. However, the epicycles in the illustration are for purposes of prediction only, and only valid in regards to where the observer will see the Moon in their sky. Neither the base geocentric or heliocentric models actually propose that the Moon is increasing and decreasing its distance to the earth like that.

See this passage from the University of Wisconson:

Deferents and Epicycles:
The Ptolemaic system explains the major motion of the planets with deferents and retrograde (backwards) motion with epicycles.

The diameters and rates of the deferents and epicycles were tweaked until they fit the observed motions of the planets.  The answers turn out pretty well except:

- The Moon's Epicycle required it to vary in its distance from Earth by a factor of 2! (Would you notice if the moon doubled in size every month?)
- There is no underlying physical principle that can explain why an object would go around in an epicycle

The problem is that the model used for prediction is different than the conceptual model, and is limited in the ways it is accurate as we read above. The way it is predicted does not match the underlying model concepts of the moon revolving around the Earth.

2

Flat Earth Investigations / Astronomy Still Uses Epicycles

« on: August 31, 2025, 10:30:22 AM »

I recently came across this quote by Stephan Wolfram:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/stephen_wolfram-computation-all-the-way-down

"One of the important moments in the history of physics was Copernicus' efforts in the 1500s. People like Ptolemy had all these schemes for computing positions of planets based on epicycles, with the assumption that Earth was the center of the universe and you could compute all these positions of planets. It was a pretty accurate way of doing predictions. In fact, the humorous thing is that people say epicycles were bad news, but if you look at how we compute positions of things in the modern world, we are mathematically using the equivalent of 10,000 epicycles."

This observation that astronomy is based on epicycles is also echoed on our wiki page: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns.

This is further evidence that modern astronomy still relies heavily on epicyclic methods. It is an embarrassment to humanity that modern astronomy is using epicycles, despite that epicycles are a classic example of a "wrong" way of doing science.

Jovono - Epicycles of thought

"What are epicycles? If you imagine an object orbiting another, you will of course model that as an ellipse. The problem is that if you think the planets are orbiting the Earth and they are actually orbiting another object, say the Sun, over time you will have observations that fail to fit that model. Rather than treat these deviations as disconfirming evidence of geocentrism, blinded by religious dogma, astronomers added mathematical complications to their models of planetary orbits starting with Apollonius in the 3rd Century BCE. These modifications were called epicycles, and they were very convenient for the committed geocentrist — when the model broke down, an astronomer would just add a new epicycle and create an even more convoluted view of the heavens that could last for a little longer.

The importance of epicycles is not the (interesting) history of science but the fact that they describe a common intellectual pattern. We engage in epicycles all the time to preserve something that we want to believe is true, regardless of whether it actually is."

The fact that epicycles are still being used bolsters the reality of the Three Body Problem and demonstrates the weakness of astronomy. The egregious use of epicycles shows that much of what is presented as settled science in astronomy may be closer to an elaborate illusion. The models of Astronomy are still in the stone age, composed of obtuse math to describe observations, and never really fundamentally matured.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 31, 2025, 01:50:12 PM »

So if any UK denizens here want to insist on their principles that silence suggests or equates to guilt

"If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"
- Donald J Trump.

"If you are innocent, do not remain silent. You look guilty as hell!"
- Donald J Trump

You probably need to explain this to your cult leader too :)

He actually said that he changed his mind:

ABC News - Trump says he changed his mind about taking the Fifth, which he once said was for 'the mob'

"I once asked, 'If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?' Now I know the answer to that question. When your family, your company, and all the people in your orbit have become the targets of an unfounded, politically motivated Witch Hunt supported by lawyers, prosecutors, and the Fake News Media, you have no choice," he said in his statement.

You also need to look up the definition of cult. You are using that word incorrectly.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 31, 2025, 05:23:08 AM »

Pleading the fifth is common in serious legal cases, can't be used against you, and is regular advise from a US lawyer.

It isn't supposed to be used against you, but juries are funny and will often wonder why you're pleading the 5th, even though they aren't supposed to.

It all comes down to jury instruction on the standards they must impose. In the United States juries are instructed that in their verdict they can only accept evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt and are specifically told that silence isn't enough. In contradiction, juries in United Kingdom are told that they can accept silence as guilt and are essentially told that they can make weak rulings in absense of sufficient evidence.

From the above link, the following trial was referenced as a 'commonsense' approach to UK law:

McLernon introduced a trend which commentators have termed the
Court's 'commonsense' approach of the application of the Order. This
approach was delineated in R v. KS Murray. At trial, the defendant Kevin
Murray, was convicted of attempted murder of a part-time member of the
Ulster Defence Regiment ("UDR"). While his house was being searched,
Murray made a short statement in which he told police he had been at a
friend's house at the time of the murder.  Murray further explained that
the mud on jeans found in his possession resulted from a hunting trip that
had occurred two days before. Murray made no further statements after
his arrest, and remained silent during his trial. Judge Kelly not only
drew adverse inferences from Murray's failure to give testimony, but also
signaled that silence equaled guilt.

Here we have a UK judge, a representative of the Crown, signaling to the court that silence equates to guilt. None of this would be acceptable in the United States and would be completely aborent to the principles instilled in every US judge and lawyer.

So if any UK denizens here want to insist on their principles that silence suggests or equates to guilt it needs to be pointed out to them that their society's principles are chronically inferior and have been improved upon in the United States.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 30, 2025, 10:42:05 PM »

Why are you cutting out the parts in my comment which answer this question?

Why not just say no?

Answering a simple "No" to that question could lead to prosecutors bringing up some forgotten event where he had a conversation in front of Trump's daughter, giving a demonstration that Epstein is lying to federal officials.

Lawyers in America advise to plead the fifth on all questions by the police. There is no reason to give them information which can be used against you in unforeseeable ways. Pleading the fifth is common in serious legal cases, can't be used against you, and is regular advice from a US lawyer.

I understand your confusion, however. In the UK you do have the ability to remain silent, but your silence be used against you in a legal proceeding. You are speaking to us from a backwards authoritarian regime.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 30, 2025, 09:58:33 PM »

Remember when Epstein was asked about this and took the 5th?

Question: “Have you ever socialised with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18”

Epstein: “Though I’d like to answer that question at least today I’m going to have to assert my 5th, 6th and 14th amendment rights, sir”

I think that clears this up once and for all, now can we all move on from this Epstein nonsense? There’s clearly nothing to see here.

This is a terrible take. He also pled the 5th on almost every question, which almost every lawyer would advise in this situation. Answering a simple "No" to that question could lead to prosecutors bringing up some forgotten event where he had a conversation in front of Trump's daughter, giving a demonstration that Epstein is lying to federal officials.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 30, 2025, 07:55:46 PM »

The reason there is a focus on a 14 second golf video clip with zero context analysis and sweeping assumptions is that the left is desperate to "get" Trump. They are losing politically in America and worldwide, and this among the little they have left.

A similar phenomena is occurring with the Epstein narrative. In the liberal news articles Trump's name has always been brought up either first or second as a powerful friend of Epstein. The left has been trying to portray Trump as a participant for years, and keep using that old picture of them standing together as their "evidence".

However, the only way to get Trump involved is to create a broad assertion that anyone associated with Epstein is an affiliated pedo client participant and that his scheme was bigger and involved more people. This is why the Democrats are pushing this mass-pedophile-ring theory.

Look up the Juliette Rose Bryant interview, she is a Epstein victim and says the claims are false:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y9ZDZ_ieV8

@17:18

"like you know with the Epstein story. Look how they've lied to us about the Epstein story and where are all the victims? You know, victims aren't able to speak out. Like they won't interview me, the media. They just won't. So, you know, and that's why, you know, 200 victims claim from the fund, but where are the victims? And people want to blame the victims. They want to say, "Oh, these girls were made to have sex with the government and the politicians." And that's not true because I didn't see. Well, I mean, as far as my story goes, that's not true. I didn't see any girls being got um trafficked to politicians or anything. They've completely lied about it. I was never trafficked to anyone other than Epstein when I was taken there. There's a lot more going on and they're trying to cover it up. They've labeled it as sex trafficking."

Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted for supplying girls to Epstein, not to other people. The dispositions of the sex trafficking victims were released publicly, and surprise, they do not describe a mass-trafficking ring with many Johns. See this link: https://d.newsweek.com/en/file/468909/jeffrey-epstein-documents-full.pdf

In the above link there are at least a dozen girls who say that they were sex trafficked only to Epstein. The only other involved people that are brought up in these interviews are a couple of Epstein's close friends like Prince Andrew and the Victoria's Secret guy, who already had public lawsuits surrounding this. Considering this, what reason is there to believe in the theory which involves many celebrities and politicians? The reason this narrative is pushed, along with pictures of Trump and Epstein at a celebrity event, is because this narrative is desperate and almost completely manufactured.

The left's response to this is to say that the victimized girls were too afraid of the powerful johns to mention them to the police, but were not afraid of sleezy multi-millionaire Jeffery Epstein enough to implicate him directly. This, of course, is laughable.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 29, 2025, 04:21:46 PM »

Where is your evidence that cheating is occurring here?

lol

The psychology of Trump is interesting, as is the psychology of his cult members who pretend they can't see what's in front of their nose so they can do anything other than find any fault in their cult leader.

There isn't anything which establishes fault in in this case. There are multiple golf rules which allow movement of the golf ball. Maybe you should become more familiar with the rules of golf before you randomly accuse people of cheating.

Here is another rule:

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/topics/out-of-bounds-lost-ball-provisional.html

If you hit your ball out of bounds or lose it (you have three minutes to search for your ball before it becomes lost), your only option is to go back to the spot of your previous stroke to play under stroke and distance. There are only a few exceptions to this when it is known or virtually certain what happened to your ball.

There is also an optional Local Rule which provides an alternative to stroke and distance relief when it is in effect. This Local Rule is recommended for casual play and not for competitions involving highly-skilled players. If it is in effect, for two penalty strokes, you can estimate the spot where your ball is lost or went out of bounds and then find the nearest fairway edge that is not nearer the hole than the estimated spot. You can drop a ball in the fairway within two club-lengths of that fairway edge point, or anywhere between there and the estimated spot where your ball is lost or went out of bounds.

If you think that your ball might be out bounds or that you might not find it, you can play a provisional ball to save time. You must announce that you are playing a provisional ball before doing so. If you are then unable to find your original ball, or you find it out of bounds, your provisional ball is your ball in play under stroke and distance, and you don’t have to take the time to walk all the way back to the spot of your previous stroke.

Again, instead of relying on assumptions and YouTube video comments, you should show that cheating actually occurred.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 28, 2025, 09:03:21 PM »

"kick his ball back onto the fairway" - this is how you are supposed to play golf when the ball lands in an area with an abnormal course condition though. It is possible that Trump is not cheating at all.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 28, 2025, 08:46:38 PM »

Where is your evidence that cheating is occurring here? In the video you can see that one of the caddies appears to be looking for something in the tall dead grass as the other caddie drops a new ball into the nearby good green grass area.

Learn moar golf:

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/players-edition/rule-16.html

Recap: When a golf ball lies on an abnormal course condition, such as a cart path, ground under repair, or temporary water, the player is typically allowed to take free relief. This involves dropping the ball within a designated relief area, which is determined by the nearest point of complete relief

And which one of those conditions occurred?  Because from what I see the answer is: none.  At best you can say he hit the water hazard.  But given how the caddy just dropped it in what looked like a sneaky way, it doesn't seem so.  Also, the player must decide which relief to persue when it gets into the water hazard.

Considering that it is permissible to move the golf balls around in some situations, you should probably figure out what occured before claiming that cheating is happening from a 14 second clip.

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 28, 2025, 05:02:02 PM »

Where is your evidence that cheating is occurring here? In the video you can see that one of the caddies appears to be looking for something in the tall dead grass as the other caddie drops a new ball into the nearby good green grass area.

Learn moar golf:

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/players-edition/rule-16.html

Recap: When a golf ball lies on an abnormal course condition, such as a cart path, ground under repair, or temporary water, the player is typically allowed to take free relief. This involves dropping the ball within a designated relief area, which is determined by the nearest point of complete relief

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 24, 2025, 04:00:53 PM »

You guys are still trying to justify the bribery of politicians. There is no justification. Nor did anyone force her to commit a crime as a joke.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 20, 2025, 07:39:28 PM »

If Rosie O'Donnell did nothing wrong, then why are you simultaneously attempting to justify her actions by comparing her to allegations against Donald Trump? These are two contradictory positions, and the truth is apparent.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 18, 2025, 06:31:22 PM »

To make your murder analogy work, we'd have to suppose that there's a guy named Joe who killed someone, nothing ever happened to him, and there was a large group of people who outright celebrated the fact that Joe had killed a person and admired just how tough and daring he was for doing it. Then a guy named Bob comes along and kills someone, and the same people celebrating Joe killing a person acted horrified and said, "How dare you kill a person? Murder is never, never, never justified!" and when Bob argued that Joe was celebrated for killing someone, those people stuck their fingers in their ears and shrieked, "Two wrongs don't make a right!"

I am sure that if you murder someone in cold blood, there will be someone in existence who is willing to give you a thumbs up or "celebrate" it. However, the presence of those people and their potential hyprocrisy doesn't justify your murder. You, alone, are responsible for the murder that you commit. Provided that they did not force you to do it, it doesn't matter what other people do or don't do. Other people are not you. It's called self responsibility.

When Trump behaves like a horrible person, you either look the other way or outright praise him for it. When someone who's opposed to Trump behaves poorly, you become a holier-than-thou pompous scold. Is being a bad person cool and acceptable or not? It's a simple question.

You are justifying the bribery of politicians with someone else's alleged crimes. Are you arguing that Trump is so corrupt that Rosie O'Donnell was forced to bribe politicians to vote against a GOP tax bill? This would be a laughable argument. No one forced Rosie O'Donnell to do what she did. She, alone, is responsible.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 18, 2025, 05:16:13 PM »

I see AATW and Honk defending Rosie O'Donnell's actions by trying to point the finger elsewhere. However inaccurate, the main problem is that two wrongs don't make a right. You can't justify killing a person you met on the street because Hitler killed 6 million. Hitler's actions are irrelevant to yours.

Bribing politicians is unjustifiable. It is a disrespect for the political process and is certainly deserving of a revocation of citizenship. You should lose the privilege of being an American if you engage in criminal corruption such as bribery of officials.

Also, committing crimes as a joke isn't a workable defense.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 17, 2025, 04:26:38 PM »

That's not the reason Trump gave for why Rosie O'Donnell should be stripped of citizenship. Stop making things up.

He said she "is not in the best interests of our great country" and that "she is a Threat to Humanity".
Far as I can see he didn't elaborate on either of those claims.
So what does any of that mean? What has she actually done which would make him say that?
The only thing I can actually see she's done, apart from emigrate because she can't stand to be in a country in which he's president, is be an outspoken critic of him.
And he is notoriously and embarrassingly thin skinned. So if he's not talking about her criticism of him then what is he talking about?

If you can't see the way he goes after critics of him as dangerous and "dictatory" then you are beyond help.

Rosie O'Donnell is a public personality has made her positions quite clear. She believes in all of the radical positions of the far left and is intolerant under the guise of tolerance. She has two trans children and is a bad person.

Here she is promoting a game which humorizes killing a politician:

Fox - Rosie O'Donnel Under Fire for Promoting Trump Killing Game

Here she is openly bribing Congressional representatives:

Forbes - Has Rosie O'Donnell Tweeted Her Way Into Bribery Charges?

"After comedian Rosie O'Donnell offered $2 million to two Republican senators to vote against the GOP tax bill on Twitter, conservatives across the Internet began calling for formal charges of bribery against her.

O'Donnell's tweet was directed at Maine Senator Susan Collins and Arizona Senator Jeff Flake, who both ultimately voted for the tax bill. She reiterated the cash offer in several other tweets."

This last one alone, bribing politicians, is something that deserves a revocation of citizenship and deportation and expulsion from the country. She is also likely guilty of violating campaign finance laws. There is a pattern of attempting to tamper with the politicial process.

She said that she fled to Ireland because of Trump and the evil republicans stripping away the rights of citizens. In reality, she was afraid of being prosecuted for her crimes.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 16, 2025, 12:20:30 AM »

Being granted a license isn't a guarantee that you get to keep the license regardless of how you conduct yourself. Being granted a certificate of land ownership isn't a guarantee that you get to keep the land forever, regardless of how you conduct your finances or eminent domain considerations. There are a hundred examples where designations are not permanent.

I don't think there's any controversy there. Yes, of course there are situations where citizenship can and should be revoked.
But someone being an outspoken criticism of the leader of a country isn't one of them. You're supposed to be a democracy in which people have free speech.
Removing people who criticise the administration is a bit...dictatory.
Come on, dude, you surely see there are dangers here. Although all that said it doesn't sound like Trump actually has unilateral power to do this, so there are some checks and balances.

That's not the reason Trump gave for why Rosie O'Donnell should be stripped of citizenship. Stop making things up.

The keyword is that someone is granted citenship.

Citizenship is a right granted by the constitution, therefore only the constitution can revoke citizenship.  Please show me where the constitution outlines the process for revoking citizenship.

The Constitution doesn't say whether it can be taken away or not. Anything not in the Constitution is for the government to decide. It also doesn't say that Citizenship is a right, like the right to free speech and the right to bare arms. If it were a right it would have been explicitly described that way with the other rights. Instead, it merely outlines who qualifies for citizenship.

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 14, 2025, 03:22:22 PM »

That's unfortunate for pretty much everyone. But yes, a largely stupid population voted for a stupid thing for stupid reasons. The fact you think that's a good thing is...odd.
I mean, Trump is pretty funny. But if you think that someone being voted in to power because they're funny is a good thing then you're part of the problem.

Humor is used for multiple puropses beyond the sake of humor. I gave an example of the Kim Jong Un summit and how humor was used to gain the upper hand. Trump's use of humor has won him multiple debates, in final striking blows against his opponents, showing that he is the smartest and most dymanic candiate for the job.

I've read the Constitution. It's not that long. It says who gets citizenship. It doesn't say that anyone specifically has a right to keep their citizenship, or that it can't be stripped away from them. There is nothing about "must be kept" or "must be maintained". This would go to the Supreme Court.

Actually, it has gone before the Supreme Court in the birthright citizenship case. You know, Trump’s challenge to the 14th amendment.

While you’re reading the Constitution, please point out where revoking citizenship is a power granted to the president in particular or the executive branch in general.

Here is Google AI's interpretation of the 1898 case:

"The landmark Supreme Court case regarding birthright citizenship is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, decided in 1898. This case affirmed that the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause grants automatic citizenship to anyone born within the United States, regardless of their parents' citizenship status. "

The keyword is that someone is granted citenship. Being granted a license isn't a guarantee that you get to keep the license regardless of how you conduct yourself. Being granted a certificate of land ownership isn't a guarantee that you get to keep the land forever, regardless of how you conduct your finances or eminent domain considerations. There are a hundred examples where designations are not permanent.

Further, a US Citizen can choose to give up their US Citizenship, proving that citizenship isn't absolute. If it were absolute you would not be able to give it up.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 14, 2025, 03:00:34 PM »

I've read the Constitution. It's not that long. It says who gets citizenship. It doesn't say that anyone specifically has a right to keep their citizenship, or that it can't be stripped away from them. There is nothing about "must be kept" or "must be maintained". This would go to the Supreme Court.

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 14, 2025, 02:27:20 PM »

Trump is a television star comedian

Correct. I'm glad we agree that he shouldn't be in any position of power.

Unfortunately for your opinion, the people liked Trump's jokes and he was partially voted into a position of power because of it. Trump has an uncanny ability to troll his opposition to his benefit, such as making weight comments about Kim Jong Un during an official summit. He put himself into a position of power, dominating the discussions.

In this case, however, I suspect it is more than a joke. At the moment a deporation movement is increasing in momentum across the United States against illegal aliens. There have been calls that the USA should also deport the far left like many countries throughout history have deported its enemies. Rosie O'Donnell has already self-deported herself to Ireland, so stripping her citizenship is a lower bar, which could be suitable for a test case to create a precedent that the Executive can do this.