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 - AllAroundTheWorld

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 120  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof me that the earth is flat
« on: August 07, 2020, 10:08:49 AM »
The necessity of the Earth being a sphere because we see spheres was one of those assumptions.
Not sure if that was ever really true. You know about some of the observations which were made which showed the earth was a sphere.
But the fact we observe spheres everywhere we look - the sun, other planets, moons - does reaffirm the fact that we live on one too.
And we understand why. Gravity will pull any coherent object above a certain mass into a spherical shape.
This is where RET wins, it explains why we live on a sphere. In FET the earth is different from the other objects we observe just because.

And as Tumeni has been pointed out, we no longer live in a world of imagination - since the space race the sphere of the earth has been observed.

I'm not "defaming" anyone - I'm pointing out fairly simple facts, to which your best response is that you've "personally found Snopes reliable" (how did you establish that?).

Right. The bit in bold is a really good question.
How do you fact check the fact checkers? All I can say is they seem to be well regarded in the fact checking area - I provided a source for that. And just generally I can't think of an occasion when I've used the site to check something and then later found that what Snopes told me was wrong.
Have you?

The example you gave wasn't them getting something wrong exactly. The story they reported on was factually incorrect, but it was from a satire site which they obviously knew. They gave examples of people being confused by it but I agree they should have initially labelled it as Satire rather than False/ They admitted this and corrected it. Maybe they only did that in response to a backlash but whatever, they didn't double down like they could have.

they lost their partnerships (plural)

Do you have a source for that? I've been focusing on their partnership with FB which according to all the sources I've found Snopes left.
You're claiming that the "big players" won't touch them, what's your source for that?

My point, which I think I've made quite succinctly, is that an organisation which fails to distinguish between satire and deliberate disinformation (or deliberately blurs the lines between the two) can be described as "not impartial".

How does that term apply to a fact checking site? Their job is to determine truth. Something is either true or it isn't. How does impartiality come into that? Do you mean in terms of the things they choose to cover or choose not to? From what I understand they choose those based on what is trending and things which they're pointed towards.

Ultimately I'd suggest the stature of a fact checking organisation should lie in whether the things they post are accurate. You gave an example where they perhaps approached things in the wrong way but you haven't provided a whole list of things they've published which are just factually incorrect. That would be a better way of discrediting them. Whether they're impartial in terms of the things they cover is a separate issue, I'm willing to concede they might be (although haven't personally seen evidence of that, not that I've really looked. Generally I've used them to check FB memes which tend not to be political. They've served me well for that.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Erathosnes on Diameter (from the Wiki)
« on: August 05, 2020, 08:27:08 AM »
We observe that the sun sets, therefore there must be a mechanism which makes this happen. We also observe the sun move consistently, or near consistently, and so therefore there must be a mechanism that makes this happen. Observationally, there must be mechanisms which make those things happen.
You're an Occam's Razor kinda guy. If something maintains a consistent angular size then what's the simplest explanation?
If something is occluded by another object then what's the simplest explanation?
You only have to invent mechanisms if you discount the simplest explanations...

No, that was after a loud public outcry over how ridiculous their inability to fact-check was.
What's the issue? They acknowledged they made a mistake and they fixed it.

They weren't able to tell the difference

They absolutely were.

Snopes determines what to cover based on reader input via email, Facebook and Twitter as well as what’s trending on Google, social media and its own website searches. As a result, it often covers claims and satire that, to many, may seem obviously false or intentionally humorous.

So of course they know that the site is satirical, but this particular article seemed to be causing confusion because of stupids - examples are listed in the Snopes article - so they responded. In their response they were a bit harsh and questioned whether the BabylonBee article even counted as satire or was appropriate:

The original Snopes piece included the subheadline, “we’re not sure if fanning the flames of controversy and muddying the details of a news story classify an article as ‘satire.’” It called the Bee story a “ruse” and suggested it had been published “in an apparent attempt to maximize the online indignation.”

(source: )

So sure, they went in a bit hard but if you're suggesting they looked at the BabylonBee article and thought "Wow, did that happen?! We must investigate!" then that's obviously bollox.

Luckily, now that Snopes is largely discredited, social media sites mostly stopped relying on it.

Snopes pulled out of the partnership with FB - admittedly my source for that is Snopes but I've not found anything which contradicts it.
I don't think Snopes is largely discredited. They seem to be highly regarded by most.

Obviously people with certain agendas will have a different view

trusting random blogs as your source of facts tends not to work out.

That's why I don't pay much heed to your Wiki (haaaaa) . But Snopes aren't exactly a random blog, their raison d'etre is fact checking.

Your insistence on defending them despite the obvious tells us something about you, too.

Sure. And your insistence on defaming them without much real evidence tells us something about you too.
I wouldn't say I'm "dedicated" to Snopes, but I've found them to be reliable.
Your criticism of them isn't based on a whole load of things on their site which are wrong, your best shot seems to be "They thought a BB article was real!!!1!1!!".
Which clearly isn't what happened here.

I've done some "digging of my own", the NY Times article seemed to give a pretty balanced account.

I gave you one already. They decried the Babylon Bee, an Onion-style satirical website, to be fake news. In my view, if you are so inept as to not be able to tell the difference between the two, you are not reliable.
Except they could tell the difference. They labelled it satire:

THEY could tell the difference, other people seemingly couldn't. They even explain that in the above, they give examples of people who didn't "get" it. And I note this link has this comment:

Editors’ Note: Some readers interpreted wording in a previous version of this fact check as imputing deceptive intent on the part of Babylon Bee in its original satirical piece about Georgia state Rep. Erica Thomas, and that was not the editors’ aim. To address any confusion, we have revised some of the wording mostly for tone and clarity. We are in the process of pioneering industry standards for how the fact-checking industry should best address humor and satire.

So they have the ability to self-correct when they do get things wrong or word things badly.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Erathosnes on Diameter (from the Wiki)
« on: August 04, 2020, 07:26:24 AM »
If the sun moves across the sky consistently or near-consistently (by observation)
...then that proves the sun can't be going in a circle above us. Otherwise the angular size and speed would constantly change.

and if the 500 mile distance between those two points is 1/25th of the total longitude radius of the Monopole model
And how do you establish that?

Latitude and longitude have no meaning on a Flat Earth. They are measured in degrees of angle; angular displacement between two straight-line vectors which meet at a point, with the angle being at that point.

Where do you define this point on a Flat Earth?
The coordinates are perfectly meaningful on a Flat Earth. We observe the altitude (in degrees) of polaris (or sigma octans) to find latitude, and the Greenwich time at which the sun is at its zenith (and multiply by 15) to find longitude. That gives us two coordinates, right?
Right. But if that's how you're doing it you understand that degrees of latitude can only be a consistent distance apart using those observations if the earth is a globe? If it's flat then every degree south will get further and further apart.

I have not seen evidence that Web Mercator (Web-based WGS84 used in Google/Bing Maps) is based on a sphere. Various statements suggest otherwise -

Literally the second sentence:

"WGS84 represents the world with a spherical coordinate system"

What are you looking at?

Keep reading:

"When assessing this claim it is found that the process is a complex system which pulls information from a large collection of smaller flat maps to provide information to users.[1] The measurement and coordinate information is temporarily reprojected and retrieved from flat maps with planar coordinates in order to provide accurate geospatial data.[2] The Latitude and Longitude coordinate system is described as unreliable and is not used to measure distances or area.[3]"
Right. To be honest, I'd missed that the page you referenced was from your own Wiki.
So you're backing up your own argument with your own argument? Compelling...
So are cartographers in on the conspiracy then? Pretending they're mapping a globe earth when they're not really?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 31, 2020, 08:14:45 AM »
He complained about the voting not being satisfactory in 2016 (at least, until he WON)

The bolded part isn't quite true. Trump claimed that millions of people voted illegally in 2016 to account for his loss of the popular vote, remember? I love the unspoken assumption that the millions of illegal voters all must have voted for Hillary and could therefore just be casually subtracted from her total votes.

The number of fraudulent votes he made up even just about matched the number of votes she was ahead of him by. He really might be the biggest narcissist on the planet.
It's stuff like this I don't understand. He makes a claim. Provides zero evidence for it, literally none.
And people just believe it, despite his long history of lying about absolutely everything.
The Trump fans go on about TDS where some people can see nothing good about anything Trump says or does, but there's definitely a different strain of TDS where everything Trump says is defended no matter how batshit crazy or demonstrably false it is.
Fair bit of the evident in this thread.

I have not seen evidence that Web Mercator (Web-based WGS84 used in Google/Bing Maps) is based on a sphere. Various statements suggest otherwise -

Literally the second sentence:

"WGS84 represents the world with a spherical coordinate system"

What are you looking at?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 30, 2020, 01:51:10 PM »
Trump suggests postponing the election!

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 29, 2020, 08:25:30 AM »
So you admit that Bell fled Scotland and migrated to America

I don't know if he fled, but he certainly moved there. He was born, raised and educated and started his inventing career in Scotland.
But it's all moot because he didn't actually invent the telephone anyway, that was an Italian apparently.'s%20career%20extraordinary,a%20patent%2016%20years%20later.

Bell just nicked his work and got the patent. Does that make Bell Scottish again? ;)

If blinking = refraction, then why does the light only blink when the camera was at 5 inches above the surface and not at 12 inches and other higher elevations where refraction would also need to occur?
Because the amount of refraction and the effect of it on observations will vary with height.
What's your take on why the lights blink? It has to be some atmospheric effect. If not refraction, then what?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 28, 2020, 07:39:45 AM »
Telephone - Invented by Alexander Graham Bell, an American

Alexander Bell was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, on March 3, 1847
At an early age, he was enrolled at the Royal High School, Edinburgh, Scotland, which he left at the age of 15
At the age of 16, Bell secured a position as a "pupil-teacher" of elocution and music, in Weston House Academy at Elgin, Moray, Scotland. The following year, he attended the University of Edinburgh
In 1870, 23-year-old Bell travelled with his parents and his brother's widow to Paris, Ontario.
He later moved to America.

Settled the Wild West - America did that

Yes, I'll give you the genocide of native Americans I suppose. Well done.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 27, 2020, 08:56:31 AM »
Trump in claiming things which just aren't true shock exclusive

Again, that "take" is erroneous. There are several ways to hold the string up to the Moon, to connect to points in the sky.
I think I understand your argument but let me try and explain it with a diagram of my own. Let's simplify by representing this in 2D.
So the sun is at the bottom, moon is at the top. All not to scale of course.
The left moon and sun I've drawn the light going in a straight line, on the right the light travels in an arc. This of course would mean a different moon phase than if the light was travelling straight.
On the left I've drawn two orange "strings" at different angles. If you were looking from the left then all 4 of those lines would line up:

So is that your argument? The fact that you can hold a string up doesn't prove the light is travelling in a straight line because it could be bending away from you? I mean, technically that is true, but I don't see how that applies to this situation. The image from your Wiki:

How would you line up a straight piece of string along that apparent curve? The experiment you have apparently done (again, you haven't clarified either way, so I'm surmising from your description) is to hold a short piece of string and observe that it looks as thought it "shoots off into space". But that is a poor experiment because it is just you trying to judge where the line goes. I have shown another optical illusion which demonstrates quite clearly that we are poor at making such judgements. The only way to find out where the line goes is to stretch out more string and find out. I have done so and, contrary to appearances found that it points at the sun.

Can I ask how you think that this effect is a prediction of EA? The light looks to be bending downwards when this effect occurs, not upwards as EA claims.

This whole discussion about panoramas is a diversion. The moon tilt illusion observably happens. Surely what is relevant is why it happens and whether its explanation is a point for (or against) FET or RET.

My take: it’s an optical illusion - the string experiment proves that. Yes, it looks like the string perpendicular to the terminator will shoot off into space but if you keep following the line you’ll see it doesn't. Like all optical illusions it’s an interesting insight into the way our brains process visual information, nothing more.

This isn’t a point for or against either model, in both models the moon is illuminated by the sun (ignoring some models where the moon is self illuminated which are, in my view, just silly).

The only potential point against FE with this illusion, once you understand that it’s an optical illusion, is that in FET would you actually expect the line perpendicular to the moon’s terminator to reach the sun? Wouldn’t EA mean the light should bend? Not sure about this. The Wiki claims that the illusion is a prediction of EA but I don’t understand this as when the illusion happens the light appears to bend the opposite way to the way EA predicts. Although, as discussed, it’s an optical illusion. The light isn’t really bending at all.

I never called the string experiment a lie. I called it erroneous.
You did. But the experiment you seem to have done - which you called "better" - was to stretch a short bit of string perpendicular to the moon's terminator, observe that the string appears to shoot up into the sky and drawn conclusions from that.
You haven't confirmed that's what you did, that's what it sounded like from your description, but you haven't corrected me either.
If that is what you did, I have explained why that is actually a worse experiment.
It's worse because you have inferred where the line goes if continued - I have demonstrated that we are not very good at judging that. How is doing that better than continuing the line and observing where it goes? Those of us who have done that have seen it goes to the sun. I know, it doesn't look like it will. It's an optical illusion. That is literally what optical illusion means - something which isn't as it appears.


Nice cherrys you're picking, as always.
Obviously there will be a range of opinions on any topic and some people's views will be "out there" and not viable. You always present the most extreme views on any topic, or ones which back up your point, and ignore the rest.

It would be nice if we could get to a society where police aren't actually needed, I think almost everyone would agree we probably can't get there. But if some areas are so rough that a heavy police presence is required then surely it is worth exploring whether things can be done about the root causes of that, fix those and maybe you will end up with communities which are less lawless and don't need such a big police presence. I'd suggest that's a good thing and worth considering.

Have they though?
Yes, they have.

My own take is I've found them to be reliable. I don't know how else to judge a fact checking service other than whether the things they post are factually correct. If you have examples of them posting stuff which isn't and especially if they have not later corrected that then show me some and I can have a look.

EDIT: I found this:

Raises some concerns about the way they work. OK, but does it matter how they work if the end result is they get things right?
So are they actually getting things wrong? What examples are there of them doing so?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 120  Next >