Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - stack

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 57  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bible Proof
« on: September 16, 2019, 06:47:54 PM »
NLT is a translation, but Strong's Concordance is not a translation. It's an index which shows you how the word is used elsewhere.

From the Strong's Concordance Wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong%27s_Concordance

Quote
The purpose of Strong's Concordance is not to provide content or commentary about the Bible, but to provide an index to the Bible. This allows the reader to find words where they appear in the Bible. This index allows a student of the Bible to re-find a phrase or passage previously studied. It also lets the reader directly compare how the same word may be used elsewhere in the Bible. In this way Strong provides an independent check against translations, and offers an opportunity for greater, and more technically accurate understanding of text.

Isn't Strong's Concordance still based on a translation, in this case, KJV? Perhaps I don't fully understand the breadth and depth of a concordance.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Modern experiments
« on: September 10, 2019, 10:34:03 PM »

Why did you cut half of the image off, specifically removing the Flat Earth Height Hidden table?

It's a moot point. the RE predictions for observations made in a vacuum didn't match the observations we see. In addition the FE predictions for observations made in a vacuum didn't match the observations we see.

To me the take away is that you can't see a ship sinking over the ocean and promptly claim the shape of the earth is ___________. You must at least attempt to factor in chaotic atmospheric and optical variables which have been demonstrated, over and over again, to have a significant impact on what our human brains perceive.

First off, the two tables, one for curved hidden and one for flat hidden, was a single image file. Tom, in order to try and make his point, deliberately cropped out the second table from the image. Shady, at best.

For two, there is a great disparity between the FE and GE observations in this example. FE is way off. And we did factor in atmospheric conditions on the GE side as seen in the table above. But there is no FE explanation for 100's of feet to be obscured.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Modern experiments
« on: September 10, 2019, 10:24:06 PM »
The sinking doesn't match a Flat Earth? Our minds are blown, assuredly.

The matter is demonstrated to be an illusion. The mechanism which causes it is irrelevant. Since it is an illusion it cannot be used as evidence for a Globe Earth. Aristotile's sinking ship proof is inconsistent.  An inconsistent proof is not proof of a globe.

GE can use the illusion of refraction to pull the numbers in line in this example:



For FE it's not just that the sinking doesn't match a flat earth, it's way way off; ex., there's a 321' wall of water in front of a skyscraper with no explanation. Where did that Tsunami come from?

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Modern experiments
« on: September 10, 2019, 09:34:51 PM »
Receding from curving light rays also results in greater curvature with distance.

Refer to the thread on that topic. Your hero Bobby Shafto shows that the amount hidden did not match the Globe Earth curvature. The amount offset from the calculated Globe Earth curvature changed with every shot.

This is a graphic the video author constructed:


And here is something I've made to offer a first suggestion as to elevation heights where each image appears to be "cut-off."

(updated to correct significant errors)


 If anything looks out of whack, please chime in.

~



The curvature of the earth is constantly changing.

You guys point us to what is demonstrably an illusion to claim that the earth is curved.

Why did you cut half of the image off, specifically removing the Flat Earth Height Hidden table?



FE needs to explain why they are so far off, way more than GE. What's the illusion that is hiding all of that elevation on FE?

5
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Gamergate!
« on: September 08, 2019, 01:39:46 AM »
See, I think this is the real slippery slope. Just because you don't wish someone good fortune doesn't mean you want them dead and doesn't mean that if they decide to kill themselves you are responsible for it. Granted, I don't really know where the slope begins or ends. In this particular case, we don't know what caused him to commit suicide. Was it the allegations? Or maybe it was because 2 days later when his studio announced:

"August 28: The colleagues with whom Holowka developed his last hit game “cut ties” with him and cancel his current project after some “agonizing consideration.”

A lengthy Reddit post from his Night in the Woods coworkers emphasizes that the team is “heartbroken” but sheds little specific light. “Enough of the allegations are extremely plausible,” writes Scott Benson, adding that “the things that Alec did during the bad times were worse than we knew.”

It's doubtful she went out of her way hoping he'd kill himself (but it's not entirely out of the question, either). I'm not saying she was legally responsible for his death, but to say she isn't morally responsible for it (like Saddam was saying) is just outright wrong. If you attack someone's social status you can't act surprised if it's actually effective.

You could list off a cadre of folks who committed micro/major aggressions against the guy as being morally responsible as well. I'm not sure where one draws the line on this.

Probably a combination of things. But to your argument, are the folks at his studio "responsible" for his suicide as well? They sided with Quinn, Scott Benson essentially stated that plain as day.

They are. Businesses that are firing people merely for being accused of something are morally responsible for adding to a reprehensible state of affairs. They were more interested in covering their own ass financially and PR wise than bothering to find out what the truth was. But that's not terribly surprising, companies in general are immoral entities.

I don't know, there's a bunch of history with this guy and the company and the industry, none of it is pretty. It's not as knee-jerk "firing people merely for being accused of something" kind of thing. Way more complicated than you make it out to be. Super long read, but pretty interesting. From that same Scott Benson guy. Alec's history goes way back.

https://medium.com/@bombsfall/alec-2618dc1e23e

6
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Gamergate!
« on: September 06, 2019, 10:09:44 PM »
Do we know it was a false accusation?

A man is innocent until proven guilty. An accusation is false until proven to be true. It doesn't sit in a nebulous wonderland of "maybe." To expand on this, if I accuse you, right now, of sexually assaulting me, is it false? To say "well we don't know for certain, it might be true!" is a dangerous road to base our opinions on. Anyone can accuse any other person of anything at any time. It's only logical to assume that without proof, an accusation is false.

I guess that's why I prefer the word 'alleged' to 'false' or 'true'.

It's interesting that she pursued social attacks against this man rather than legal ones.
any time. It's only logical to assume that without proof, an accusation is false.

I agree and referenced this aspect before. Why would someone throw these kinds of allegations up into the twittersphere and not go to the cops? Also, why was his studio so quick to throw him under the bus and back Quinn?

And do we know that she knew such an accusation, false or otherwise, would cause him to commit suicide?

Her knowledge of the result doesn't impact whether or not the result occurred. If I tell you to kill yourself and then you do, claiming I didn't know you would actually do it is irrelevant. She certainly didn't wish him any good fortune, that's for sure.

See, I think this is the real slippery slope. Just because you don't wish someone good fortune doesn't mean you want them dead and doesn't mean that if they decide to kill themselves you are responsible for it. Granted, I don't really know where the slope begins or ends. In this particular case, we don't know what caused him to commit suicide. Was it the allegations? Or maybe it was because 2 days later when his studio announced:

"August 28: The colleagues with whom Holowka developed his last hit game “cut ties” with him and cancel his current project after some “agonizing consideration.”

A lengthy Reddit post from his Night in the Woods coworkers emphasizes that the team is “heartbroken” but sheds little specific light. “Enough of the allegations are extremely plausible,” writes Scott Benson, adding that “the things that Alec did during the bad times were worse than we knew.”

Probably a combination of things. But to your argument, are the folks at his studio "responsible" for his suicide as well? They sided with Quinn, Scott Benson essentially stated that plain as day.


7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Modern experiments
« on: September 06, 2019, 07:13:06 PM »
How was "the latter just being a bit confused about most things and largely unable to comprehend simple instructions," in regard to recreating the Bishop experiment?
I'll let you read through the threads in your own time.

I did and have. There was no confusion on his part, quite clear headed in the approach.  And the comprehension of instructions or lack thereof had to do with where the experiments and findings were posted and how they were conveyed. It had nothing to do with experiments themselves which your statement tries to allude to. Which, in my mind, is a disingenuous way of trying to discredit the work performed. To be expected really.

8
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Gamergate!
« on: September 06, 2019, 07:03:49 PM »
And yes, a woman falsely accusing a man of sexual abuse leading to his suicide absolutely pins the moral blame on her.

Do we know it was a false accusation? And do we know that she knew such an accusation, false or otherwise, would cause him to commit suicide?

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Modern experiments
« on: September 05, 2019, 11:48:04 PM »
So would it be in any way presumptuous of me to suggest that someone who is a devout flat Earth believer would claim an outcome of an experiment that makes it seem as if it supports his own beliefs?
It wouldn't. It would also not be presumptuous of you to assume that someone like AATW and Bobby would claim the inverse for similar reasons, with the former being known to lie to people's faces when it's convenient, and the latter just being a bit confused about most things and largely unable to comprehend simple instructions.

Your best bet is to conduct the experiment yourself (as I and many others have) and draw your own conclusions.

How was "the latter just being a bit confused about most things and largely unable to comprehend simple instructions," in regard to recreating the Bishop experiment?

10
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Gamergate!
« on: September 05, 2019, 11:29:03 PM »
Nobody is responsible for a suicide beyond the person who commits it.

This is possibly the most retarded thing you have ever said. And that is quite the accomplishment.

It's like you read "Nobody is responsible for a suicide beyond the person who commits it." And then stopped reading after that.

Literally no one is responsible for the ultimate act other than the actor though myriad outside and inside forces can lead to one wishing to commit that ultimate act.

On the surface, it seems like an ex girlfriend accused her former boyfriend of essentially illegal acts via twitter (which is weird, why not go to the police?), the accused' workmates basically agreed that he was capable of such deeds and ousted him and then he ran off an killed himself.

Lot's of folks have been through similar I imagine but didn't put the suicide coda on it. That was all him. I was reading that his sister said he suffered from bi-polar, or depression or some such, which puts him squarely into the bullseye of a suicide solution given the circumstances. But again, his final act was in his choosing, others didn't make it for him.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 23, 2019, 07:00:08 AM »
And Lackey, technically it would be P'sOS. Much like how we say 'Attorneys General' when referring to more than one.

I've seen "attorney general" abbreviated AG, but don't recall ever seeing the plural abbreviated A'sG.  Beyond that, the accepted pluralisation of WMD is definitely WMDs, not W'sMD, despite being short for "weapons of mass destruction". And that's a much closer analogue to "pieces of shit" than "attorneys general" is.

I don't enjoy coming to totallackey's defense, but if you're going to try to be pedantic you should make sure you have it right.

I was just messing around with Lackey though I can see where my internal reading of facetiousness doesn't translate well to how it looks outwardly to others. So thanks for closing the unintended pedantic loop with pedantry.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 22, 2019, 06:27:52 PM »
Brings me a bit of hope knowing there are corporations that recognize what the majority of Americans want - A sustainable future - and they also recognize that protecting the environment is a key factor in sustainability. Trump, on the other hand, he's a nitwit.

The only thing that motivates a corporation is how much money a certain decision will make it. If it thinks it will make more money with Candidate A than Candidate B, it supports Candidate A. Not being able to sell Ford cars in California would be a huge hit to the bottom line, so of course Ford will support the new California regulations.

I agree. And it's not just the volume of units sold that would be lost from a non-California participation, it's a branding awareness thing. I'm sure Ford would prefer their brand to rise above others and aligning with and environmental messaging trend that seems to be top of mind and in favor with Americans at the moment can only help them, not hinder.

And Lackey, technically it would be P'sOS. Much like how we say 'Attorneys General' when referring to more than one.

13
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« on: August 22, 2019, 09:03:07 AM »
The experiments work perfectly well . Physics in action - not theory . That is why the rocket engines cannot work in the vacuum , as shown in the experiments .

Hmmm, to me the question was, does a rocket propel in a vacuum? In both experiments and the others I've seen, yes, the rocket propelled in a vacuum. As evidenced in the videos.
So yes, physics in action, in the evacuated vacuum chamber the rockets did, indeed, propel.

But your position is, "Yes they did, but..." I can see why you're making up reasons why the rocket did propel in the vacuum, but according to you, for the wrong reasons. Reasons I disagree with. And that's fine. But what happened to you spouting off about Joule and gas expansion and such as to why a rocket won't work in a vacuum? Why won't a rocket work in a vacuum? What's your 'physics' reason for that notion?


14
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« on: August 22, 2019, 07:52:44 AM »
The mincing of words has begun . There is no controlled ignition - this rocket engine fuel, complete with it's own oxidizer  , will not ignite in that low pressure environment . Now that fact stares you in the face when you watch these experiments unfold.
         Once the rocket engine ignition system is turned into a bomb - by sealing the container with glue under atmospheric pressure and placing this into the vacuum - we can explode this bomb , which pressurises the vacuum.

A bomb with "one end open" is not a bomb - it is a nozzle .

The term "controlled burn" is different to the term "explosion" .

So like I asked, none of these vacuum experiments work for you because you believe that the rocket ignition breaking the seal creates pressure inside the vacuum wich allows the rocket to burn and thrust? Essentially, it's no longer working in a 'vacuum', right?

         I have already directed you to Joules experiment concerning expansion of gas into a vacuum , the results of which show that no work is done in the process .These videos are repeats of those scientific experiments - substituting rocket fuel (which changes to gas when burnt ) for gas .

Actually I can't see where you've directed anyone to Joule and free expansion, etc, I searched, maybe missed it somehow. In any case, why don't you describe why the classic and trite usage of "free expansion does no work" is useful to this discussion and how that applies to rocket propulsion in a vacuum. 
 
I am unable to open your eyes for you because you are conditioned to believe that rocket engines work in a vacuum . You see the principles of rocketry in front of you but cannot understand what you see because you think scientists will not lie or deceive you .

I could easily switch this up for you too:

I am unable to open your eyes for you because you are conditioned to believe that rocket engines don't work in a vacuum. You see the principles of rocketry in front of you but cannot understand what you see because you think Flat Earth YouTube content generators will not lie or deceive you.

So spare us both the soliloquy as they cancel each other out.

Scientists knew this too at one time - the experiments of Joules led them to that conclusion.

Experiments of the likes of Joule and Newton led us to the conclusions we have today, Laws of Thermodynamics and of Motion do not contradict one another. They are bedrocks of physics and seem to work really, really well.

During the 60's I recall our physics teacher outlining the principles of physics applied to the three stage Saturn rocket . Five big nozzles to lift from the launch pad and accelerate quickly in the pressure of the lower atmosphere (stage 1) . These large area nozzles worked well but lost thrust exponentially as altitude increased , hence stage 2. Smaller area of these nozzles increased thrust - which is governed by nozzle area , mass flow and outside air pressure  . Stage 3 rocket gave final acceleration - smallest nozzle area .

In order to keep accelerating nozzle size has to decrease . Plain rocket science . All proven . Rockets don't work in a vacuum . As you see in the videos .

I'm not aware that 'to keep accelerating nozzle size has to decrease'. And I don't know what that would have to with whether rockets work in space or not. I do know that multi-stage rockets tend to be "stepped down" in size due to the reduction in payload mass achieved by doing so.

You could have skipped all of your psuedo-science/analysis above and just responded with, "Plain rocket science. All proven. Rockets don't work in a vacuum." That's basically the the total amount of what you said anyway.

15
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« on: August 22, 2019, 12:15:56 AM »
Clearly , in both videos , rocket fuel with it's own oxidizer cannot ignite in a vacuum . The point is , that is the laws of physics in action .

Are you talking ignition or burn? Yes, it's difficult to ignite, but how the tester ignited it with a little bit of oxygen encasing it got it to ignite and then it burned freely in the vacuum. Once you get it going, it burns.

The ignition of the fuel has to be carried out in a pressurized container - a bomb . That is the point .The experiments are carried out in a small chamber , once the bomb explodes you have pressure in the sealed chamber which allows the fuel to burn and thrust occurs , which will increase as the internal pressure increases until the fuel burns out. 

I'm not really following. You're saying that no matter what these experiments demonstrate doesn't mean anything because the chamber is small?

       
Both videos show that rocket engines - which are not bombs - will not work in a near vacuum , even with oxidizer .

Actually they are bombs, just open on one end which allows the gasses created to escape causing thrust.

In the theoretic vacuum of space you still need pressure outside the rocket nozzle to produce thrust .

Why? Please explain.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 21, 2019, 08:41:19 PM »

OK - but the bible is only suggestive if you take it literally. If you take those scriptures figuratively, it has nothing to do with the earth being flat.

Furthermore, you keep saying "your own source" (referencing the link I posted) says blah blah blah, and using that to discredit what I'm saying, but that is irrelevant to my point about interpreting things as literal or figurative.

Did you even read the link I sent? It argues against using the bible as evidence for a flat earth.

The link you sent does not mention the many verses in which the bible says the earth does not move and the scripture about when the sun stopped moving.

Those are much more clear. Especially when you have a very short chapter and the entire context of the chapter is God and one of the verses says that the earth does not move or can not move.

Its pretty clear. The earth either does not move or it can't move or both. The only way the earth could not figuratively move is if it somehow moved out of this physical plane of existence and moved into some sort of spiritual plane of existence. I believe that moving to a different plane of existence is still "moving" so even taking in a spiritual sense you are still using the literal definition of the word.

What's always interesting is that if you got 20 biblical scholars in a room, 10 would say figuratively, literally, suggestively, whatever, the scriptures say the earth does not move. The other 10 would disagree. Just watch the Skiba/Sungenis debate and how they spent 3/4's of it arguing about whether a hebrew word for 'firmament' meant 'under' or 'in'.

17
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« on: August 21, 2019, 08:34:29 PM »
In both videos you see that the rocket fuel will only ignite when in a container under pressure - they both have to be converted into bombs to ignite lol. As the guy says - it needs pressure , which is absent under vacuum is it not ?

I think you missed the point. The rocket could ignite in both tests yet had a hard time staying ignited until he put the little capsule around it in the second go. In a liquid fuel rocket in space the oxidizer (hence the name) provides the sustained oxygen inside the rocket chamber to keep the ignition going.

But the test isn't so much about ignition, it's about whether the rocket will thrust in a vacuum and in the second test, once burn was achieved, it did in fact thrust.

Bottom line, whether you believe the results of the experiment or not, if you're trying to use it to show that rockets don't thrust in a vacuum you would be showing the exact opposite.

18
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« on: August 21, 2019, 08:02:41 PM »
You can't change physical laws to enable rocket engines to produce thrust in a vacuum .

Just to add to my previous post about Newton's Third Law
Here's a video showing this works:


Things don't run on Newton's third law . The third law is a natural consequence of a force being applied  (Newton's 2nd law ) to accelerate a body in uniform motion , or stationary ( Newton's 1st law ) . Can't put it any simpler than that .

A rocket engine uses thrust to accelerate . Thrust is a reactive force - when a mass flow meets resistance then thrust is generated perpendicular to the direction of the mass flow i.e. back up the nozzle in the rocket engine case , driving the rocket forward . Simple physics . 

Mass flow into a vacuum must meet a resistance in order to generate thrust . It cannot thrust against itself. See joules law for expansion of gas into a vacuum .

Here is a better video of a guy using a proper vacuum chamber in an effort to prove rockets ( won't )work in a vacuum.
 

The principle of geostationary satellites is the invention of science fiction writer A.C. Clarke .  Had to be since no physicist would have come up with that . Same as rockets in a vacuum - fairytale .

Apparently you didn't watch the whole video. Start at 4:30 and watch till the end. The experimenters final words on the subject after a successful test:

"...there you go rocket motors can produce just as much thrust if not a little bit more in vacuum as they can in air because they're not pushing against the air they are pushing against the fuel that is being burned and thrown overboard now the rocket was difficult to ignite in a vacuum because it needed some pressure to get the fuel grain to burn but once I did that it did just fine..."

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 21, 2019, 04:00:03 PM »
Wow, do you actually think rainwater never makes it in to drinking water?
I know rainwater makes its way to the rest of water.

I also know the earth does a remarkably fantastic job at cleaning up after its self and others.

I also know, that despite the best efforts of demonstrably false rhetoric in the media, regulations have done very little in regard to improving the environment. Education and concerned people are required, not laws designed to cripple people and business.

You don’t think there has ever been a regulation that has improved the environment?
I am willing to read any of the proven, cited benefits you post.

Super high level. From a Nat Geo article (I teased out some points):

5 Reasons to Like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1. Air (Clean Air Act)

Complying with EPA’s air pollution rules has been costly—they’re the biggest burden the agency imposes on the economy. But the federal Office of Management and Budget, analyzing data collected from 2004 to 2014, estimates that the health and other benefits of the rules exceeded the costs by somewhere between $113 billion and $741 billion a year.

2. Water (Clean Water Act)

The Clean Water Act led to tens of billions of federal dollars being invested in municipal sewage treatment plants. The law’s simple goal is to make every river, stream, and lake in the U.S. swimmable and fishable. We’re not there yet: The Cuyahoga “is not on fire anymore, but I wouldn’t swim in it,” William Suk of the National Institutes of Health told National Geographic a few years ago. But people do swim in Boston Harbor and the Hudson River. And the toxic cesspools that literally catch on fire have largely become a thing of the past.

3. Pesticides

Beloved birds like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon teetered toward extinction. A colorless, nearly odorless insecticide, DDT had been a valuable weapon against disease-carrying mosquitoes and also a boon to farmers. People had so little notion of its dangers they let their children play happily in the spray.
In 1972, The EPA effectively banned the use of DDT in the U.S., except in limited cases where it was needed to protect public health. That same year Congress passed the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, giving EPA more clear authority to regulate pesticides in general based on their impact on health and the environment.

4. Hazardous Waste

Until the 1970s, hazardous chemical waste was general disposed of like ordinary trash—at best in an unlined municipal landfill from which toxic chemicals could seep into groundwater, at worst in open dumps, where runoff from corroded barrels might contaminate streams. The country was dotted with thousands of such dumps.
As of 2014, nearly half of the more than 1,700 Superfund sites have been fully addressed—but even many of them have to be monitored indefinitely. It’s a project for the century and a lesson for the future. Some 49 million (or nearly one in six) Americans live close to a Superfund site.

5. Climate

In August 2015 the agency finalized its Clean Power Plan, which for the first time sets a national limit on carbon pollution from power plants. The goal is to reduce their emissions by 32 percent by 2030, relative to 2005 levels.

Full text here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/12/environmental-protection-agency-epa-history-pruitt/

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 21, 2019, 02:21:50 AM »
Thought you guys might be interested. Tom has a whole write-up over on the other site titled "Does the Bible say that Earth is Stationary?" It's really quite well thought out. My understanding is that it's sort of in regard to UA. UA, essentially puts the earth in motion, upward. A ton of the FEr's outside of these 2 societies, especially the more scripturally minded ones, have publicly disavowed the societies and called them controlled opposition, shills, what have you, in large part because of UA, earth in motion.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79554.0

In our current understanding of motion is when the position of an object, with respect to it's surroundings, changes. If the entire universe is accelerating upward then the earth, relative to the universe, is not in motion. Again when I went to speak with a preacher about this his take was that the earth does not move outside of the physical universe IE nonliving portion of the planet will never cease to exist within the physical universe and appear somewhere outside the realm of existence such as Heaven.

Yeah, it's actually murkier than that, I mean if everything is in motion together then nothing is in motion... But I agree with your definition of motion. All I'm saying is that Tom has gone to great lengths to point out scriptural references to, and I'm using my words and interpretation, allow for an upward accelerating earth. And that's regardless of whether the universe is moving along with us. And that perception, that any sort of motion is applied to the earth, from what I have seen and read, is the number one reason FEr's outside the societies lash out at the societies. They see it as simply, UA puts the earth in motion and from a scriptural perspective, that is anathema.

So I'm not debating any of these notions, just pointing out a contrary resource of information and why perhaps it's controversial in some circles.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 57  Next >