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 - existoid

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration
« on: May 27, 2020, 11:41:32 PM »

you cannot tell the difference between yourself falling down and yourself being perfectly still in an ever-accelerating body of air.

I'm not so sure.

Thought experiment -

Imagine you are blindfolded and placed on a chair on a platform near the top of a tall, empty silo. The chair is attached to silent bungee cords.
There are also fans below.

You are told that EITHER the platform will be silently and swiftly removed, and you'll fall OR the fans will blow air that is accelerating at exactly 9.8 m/s squared (or whatever it is).

The bungee cords have been engineered to slow your descent and stop at a specified gently rate, and the fans would slow the airflow at the same rate.

Do you believe you would definitely not be able to tell whether you were actually falling, or whether there was simply a body of air accelerating around you?

(I've probably gone a little overboard and could have made this thought experiment a little simpler). 

Is this yet another body of science that FET will have to contend with?  (not referring to a "science of falling"  ;D  but biology and our understanding of the inner ear that tells us about balance, motion, acceleration of our body).

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 27, 2020, 09:07:09 PM »
Two questions:

Those of y'all who like Trump, can you name two things he's done that you disagree with?

Those of y'all who dislike Trump, can you name two things he's done that you agree with?

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: May 27, 2020, 08:24:30 PM »
Birds of Prey - Very watchable. But also very forgettable. So, I guess that makes it decent entertainment?

That was pretty much my take. It was a couple steps above Suicide Squad, but still kind of short of even the weaker Marvel movies.


Although, despite the fact that I've watched every single Marvel film, I virtually never look forward to any of them anymore.  It's now more of a  chore to watch them.  The fact that they have more "phases" for the MCU endlessly is wearing me down.   Did we really need 20 films, and do we really need 20 more? 

But that's just me.

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Quoting concerns
« on: May 27, 2020, 07:28:01 PM »
This problem is somewhat self-regulating because if someone is misquoted, then that someone is very likely to respond by saying "that's not what I said. I said..."    (yes, an endless loop of misquoting could ensure, but the first mod that sees this start to spiral can easily send it to the dungeon).

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: May 27, 2020, 07:21:41 PM »
I'm not reading all 100+ pages of this thread, so if i'm doing this wrong, too bad:

Shotgun style, existoid's short reviews:

The Lodge - atmospheric and enjoyable horror. Go into it cold, don't watch the trailer or read anything about it. If you like slow burn horror, you will very likely like this.

Fantasy Island - meh teen level horror.  Good enough for me to watch while playing SNES on another other screen.

Creepshow original Shudder series - exceptional anthology series. Must for horror fans. Sadly, Episode 1 is the best one, but it doesn't deteriorate very much from there.

1917 - "Saving Private Ryan" for WW1.

Come to Daddy - fine acting by Elijah Wood (as always), but also great performance from Stephen McHattie (if you don't know him, check out the exceptionally well done Canadian horror film Pontypool). Very good script and directing as well. Recommend.

Gretel and Hansel - I really wanted to like this; it has several good elements - acting, visuals, atmosphere - but in the end only deserved to have been a 30 min. show dragged out to full length feature. A shame.

Arkansas - Fun crime thriller with discount Chris Hemsworth (who does quite a fine job).

Birds of Prey - Very watchable. But also very forgettable. So, I guess that makes it decent entertainment?

Vampire Hunter D - Saw the original 1985 anime for the first time recently. Pretty good.


Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Analytical Analyses
« on: May 26, 2020, 06:33:52 PM »
I think the actual interesting question in this discussion is are there any real, physical systems that are analytically solvable? I think the answer is no. Can we discount all of physics, now?

I am not sure I fully understand what it means for something to be "analytically solvable."   But if what you are writing here is true, would your statement then equally apply to proposed FE physical systems?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Analytical Analyses
« on: May 26, 2020, 03:29:49 PM »
That would be quite a trick if NASA and others weren't able to actually predict these things, but were just amazing guessers.
You've missed the point. The question isn't whether those predictions are accurate (even if imprecise), but what the source of them is. RE'ers like to claim that it's RET, but in this thread we have the smoking gun - it's an observation of patterns and computer modelling based on those patterns. Accuracy aside, as soon as you make this admission, it ceases to be evidence pointing towards RET.
But NASA models not using patterns but 'RET' models (Newtonian Gravity, Relativity etc.). They take the equations of motion from these theories and put them into some code - am I missing something?

That is my understanding as well.  The "computer modelling" is not simple pattern recognition like some fancy AI, but simply highly complex and/or iterative math equations or something.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Political compass
« on: May 25, 2020, 07:42:55 PM »
I wonder how you'd have to answer to get your spot at 0,0 on the chart - exact center of all four quadrants.

And what would that mean?

The only way your position that government conspiracies are generally loony and false can work is to believe that the government is inherently good and working in favor of our interests rather than its own.

So again, why should we believe that?
You really love putting words in to peoples mouths. Not all conspiracies are false and not all governments are the same. So sure, some governments (and dictatorships in general) are bad and some do conspire, but that doesn't mean it's always the case and it doesn't mean every conspiracy is true if one is. You really need to stop being so presumptuous.

Oh, so "some" governments are bad and lie. Can you tell us which ones are good and selfless which ones are bad and selfish?

From what I can ascertain in my short time on this site, Tom, you and I likely share a lot of philosophy about government in general.

As an American (and also one who thoroughly enjoys reading history), I am pretty skeptical of all governments in general - they will invariably seek greater and greater control and authority over time (perfect example: the US presidency which is supposed to be one co-equal branch of three, but in many respects has become "more equal" than the other two).

But the way I would put it, is not that people in government are bad and lie, but rather they are self-interested in their roles, like all people, which leads to mission creep in their organizations, and small power grabs individually that over time lead to something unrecognizable from the standpoint of 1776.

In short, it's due to the issues brought to light by Public Choice Theory:

Now, with that preamble out of the way, there IS a simple way we can tell which governments are "good" and which ones are "bad" in my view:

How much individual liberty (including economic liberty) is available to each individual?  Some nations offer very little, some nations offer a lot more. None offer absolute freedom (although in my view, that's also because pure freedom fails at the outset, since someone free to murder you means you are not free, and so pure freedom is a logical contradiction).  But in practical terms, there are governments that offer immense amounts of freedom relative to virtually any other century in history, and relative to many others currently in power.

Examples of relatively freer countries on the far side of the spectrum include the US, Canada (and the former UK commonwealth nations in general), Taiwan, Japan, S. Korea, and most of what is termed "Western Europe." 

Examples of relatively much less free countries on the other side of the spectrum include China, N. Korea, Iran, Uzbekistan, Myanmar, Libya, Sudan, Algeria, Egypt.

There's a wide variety of country types making it difficult for even those who study these things to classify them. But you can look into how effective governments are at establishing and maintaining the institutions that lead to more freedom (e.g., rule of law, independent judiciary, smaller government, freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, etc.). 


Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: May 25, 2020, 05:42:08 PM »
I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore (dir. Macon Blair)

It's not bad, but it reads like a checklist of lighter David Lynch and Coen brothers tropes mashed together without the respective authorial voices that make them work. Or rather, Macon Blair doesn't have the maturity as a filmmaker to channel the stuff he likes into a genuine expression of his own authorial voice. The film is saved somewhat by the central character, Ruth, being quite ordinary and relatable. They did a good job of building a down to earth character to centre the film around, but the pulpy aspects of the film are played too light to really feel like they impact on her world. Christian and his gang of creeps feel throwaway given how central they are to the story. It's not that they need to be deep characters to be threatening villains, but they are all wardrobe and not much else.

An okay film with some good performances of barebones material.

Glad to read this - I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore was on my radar, but I suspected it was going to fall a little too flat for me, and apparently that's how it comes out.  You saved 90 minutes  of my life.

In other news - any other horror film lovers out there?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flight to Antarctica
« on: May 25, 2020, 05:09:51 PM »
My point wasn't that FE believers should use this to go to the South Pole, but rather that the existence of a trip to the south pole available to all with the means seems to be rather contradictory to the existence of some conspiracy. I'll accept your assertion that only a millionaire can visit the South Pole. There are currently 46.8 million millionaires in the world. That means that at least 46.8 million people are capable of visiting the South Pole if they so desire. Millionaires are powerful people, I feel that the world would hear if the people responsible for the trip took the 50,000 dollars and then kindly told the millionaires "Sorry, but the earth is actually flat, so we can't actually take you to the south pole. Here, have a commemorative beanie instead."

Sure - I was really just commenting on myself.

There are a few celebrities that are FEers, and I'm sure are also millionaires.  It would be really nice of even one of them were to take this trip and then report what they saw.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flight to Antarctica
« on: May 25, 2020, 03:09:51 PM »
If I read that right, it's a little over FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS!  :o  Even if I had that much to spare, I would find a much better use for it.  I guess I'll have to wait until I'm a millionaire to visit the south pole.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Analytical Analyses
« on: May 25, 2020, 02:49:42 PM »
[You] claim that since there is no perfect solution, there is no solution at all.
Ah, how refreshing to hear that from an RE'er. Now, if only you could convince the rest of your side of this...

That said, pattern-based approximations are largely model-agnostic. If this is the best you have, then you no longer have an argument for RE's predictive powers being superior in this case.

Depends on how approximate the predictions can get, though, right?  We can regularly predict with exceptional accuracy everything that happens in our solar system among the celestial bodies we know of - eclipses, comets, etc. - but more spectacularly the arrival of dozens of man-made objects sent off to various places such as a single moon of a distant planet.  That would be quite a trick if NASA and others weren't able to actually predict these things, but were just amazing guessers.


There are very few people in this world that would fully understand every subject matter about the world, and flat earthers would have to dive into a lot of those topics and have a high level of knowledge about them which is obviously not likely possible for one persons lifetime. A Jack of all trades I suppose would be the term. You can't be an expert on everything, so it's possible you can misunderstand things. By you, I mean all of us obviously, not specifically you.

I think this is an extremely important point and one that bears repeating.

If we zoom out to view the entire FET vs RET debate, we see that FET must simultaneously respond to and account for a huge variety of technical, philosophical, scientific, and logical problems. And they have to do so with expert technical knowledge in each one of these areas. Unfortunately, the FE claims do not generally come from experts in these respective fields.

I just made a post recently in the flat earth investigations forum regarding a subject I actually am fairly knowledgeable about - WW2.  My understanding of it squares and comports perfectly with RET. but it contradicts FET (at least as far as the monopole map goes).

In my opinion, FEers  now have to wrestle with a deep and complicated subject that they hadn’t before - the Pacific theater in World War II.

 I have no doubt there are flat earth believers who also know about World War II and I am looking forward to any of them responding to that thread.

But this goes back to the point you made, Chris - you need to be a super deep expert in so many areas that no one can actually do it.

(I suck super bad at math and physics for example).

Those battles also appear to have taken place close to landmasses. It is possible that the distances near the landmasses are correct, but the vast oceans are measured based on theory.

Woke up this morning thinking I had mostly repeated myself in responding to this, and I think I have a better way of putting it:

I understand you to mean that the maps of the oceans near landmasses are correct, but that at some unknown distance the maps (based on RE) are wrong, and the distances are much further, once you're far out to sea.  So as long as these WW2 battles are within that unknown distance "close"  to land, maps would work just fine.

The problem here is that they didn't use maps. Their plotting boards show zero land. They are, instead, abstract charts with numbers and lines representing degrees of longitude and latitude. With these plotting charts you can go to any point of longitude and latitude so long as you knew what longitude and latitude you were at takeoff (which they always knew).  So, you could have used these in the middle of the Eurasian landmass and it would work just fine, even if you had no map of the land below, so long as you knew where your end point was supposed to be. 

And this is why it's a problem for the FET monopole map. Here's a sort of simple syllogism of my argument:
1. The lines of longitude south of the equator on FET do not match up at all with the RET. 
2. Plotting boards are based on longitudes as understood in RET. Plotting boards worked.
3. The monopole map must be wrong.

I believe that planes tend to navigate by listening to radio pings from nearby sources to measure distances, rather than the old-timey way.

1920 is more than 20 years before the battles in WW2.  And yes, there were many ways of navigating, including by radio.  But carrier planes did NOT use radio to navigate when scouting or fighting enemy fleets.  This is why I specifically mentioned that they imposed radio silence, because that could give away your position to enemy ships. These fleet battles, involving hundreds of carrier based planes, happened over distances of hundreds of miles.

Notice also that the article from Wired that you linked repeats the greatest distance as a mere 100 miles.  This is because, in 1920, the range of planes was much shorter. Flash forward to 1942, the year I wrote about, and planes have ranges more than 10 times that - well over 1000 miles. They are using different methods.

Those battles also appear to have taken place close to landmasses. It is possible that the distances near the landmasses are correct, but the vast oceans are measured based on theory.

Yes, most carrier battles took place near islands and land because most of them were prefaces to land invasions.  But this hardly invalidates my argument because they still take place many degrees of longitude from land AND the carriers are many degrees of longitude from each other, on the open ocean.  If they were not accurately navigating on the open ocean, they would have not found the enemy fleet, and they also would not have been to find their way back across hundreds of miles to their carriers.

These battles took place across literally hundreds of thousands of square miles on the ocean. There is absolutely no way they could have found their way back without accurate navigation. And they did this with plotting boards, using lines of longitude and latitude.

What happens when you cannot find your carrier on the way back? It’s highly likely you simply die when you run out of fuel and crash into the ocean. This happened to some.

It seems that you are admitting that it may have happened.

Of course! I'm explicitly stating that it happened. It didn't "probably" happen. There are known accounts of pilots not finding their carriers and landed in the ocean. In some cases they were found, and in other cases they were lost forever. Heck, there was a US pilot this happened to during the Battle of Midway that was picked up by a Japanese warship!

The reason I mentioned this at all was to point out the stakes for all of these pilots. They absolutely had to navigate properly or they would die.  There wasn't guesswork involved. The distances are too great. And so, the navigational methods were accurate, and they followed principles that only work for the RET model. 

EDIT: To follow up with this last point, if the US and Japanese navies had incorrect plotting boards for these battles south of the equator, then that would mean virtually all of the thousands of pilots and planes used in the Battle of Coral Sea; Battle of Eastern Solomons, and Battle of Santa Cruz would have died in the ocean, because the chances of finding their way back without proper navigation is a zillion to one. But they did find their way back - in fact, fighters would go out from a carrier, dive bomb the enemy fleet, fly back, refuel, and then go back out. They were going out and back more than once in the same battle. Across hundreds of miles, and many degrees of longitude.  This wasn't luck, or "theory" that they used to navigate. It was the plotting boards.

As none of you yet know, I am a military history buff (in the middle of reading a series of books on the Eastern Theater of WW2 about how the Red Army stopped Hitler).

This thread ( ) has been an interesting read as experienced sailors give their thoughts. As I’ve pondered the thread, and the fact that Memorial Day is next Monday, I was inspired to think about how the favored Azimuthal (monopole) map for FET doesn’t comport with my understanding of the Pacific Theater in WW2. So, the first post I’m starting in an upper forum will be thematic!

Summation of Argument
This is going to be a longish post. Bear with me, there are several important points that will follow to reach a coherent conclusion. Skipping to the end to read the conclusion only would be akin to not familiarizing yourself with FET before posting ;D . However, I think it will be useful to summarize my argument so you can follow it as I deep dive the sections:

I.   According to the monopole FE model, distances on the ocean south of the equator are necessarily much longer than on the RE model (lines of longitude get further apart the further south you are traveling).

II.   In the Pacific Theater of WW 2, carrier battles were fought over hundreds of miles and so carrier planes had to successfully navigate across many degrees of latitude and longitude to fight and to safely return to their carriers. To do this, they used plotting charts that required accurate scales for latitude and longitude.

III.   Conclusion: lines of longitude do not get further apart as you go further south of the equator, contrary to the monopole FE map.

I: Longitude and Latitudes South of the equator
According to the monopole FE model, lines of longitude diverge the further south (outward) you go on the surface of the world. And each line of latitude further south is a larger circle than the one before.

You can easily see how this works on this map from the Wiki:

The angle that the lines of longitude make extending from the north pole is 1 degree each (which is why they’re called “degrees”). From this knowledge, we should be able to determine how much further apart each line makes the more miles it travels south (outward) towards the Antarctica ice wall. Although I cannot do this, because I suck at even elementary geometry.

APPEAL TO MATHY FOLKS: Since the FET model does not dispute that lines of latitude are about 69 miles apart from each other, it would be super awesome if someone could calculate how far apart any two lines of longitude become along each successive line of latitude. Seems like this would be extra-useful in discussing the monopole FE model. (Assuming this hasn’t been done yet – the Wiki does not show this anywhere that I can find).

Whatever the exact distances between longitudes as you get further south, this monopole model of the earth requires very different scales for naval maps south of the equator than north of the equator.

II: Carrier Battles and Aerial Navigation during WW2
There were many naval battles in the Pacific Theater. Among those, there are five major carrier battles. I focus on carrier battles for this discussion because carrier battles involve much greater distances, as a rule, than surface ship only battles. (Although carrier battles can also involve surface ships). This is because carrier fighters such as the Corsair, Wildcat, Hellcat, and the Mitsubishi Zero had ranges of hundreds of miles (some of them well over 1000, like the Zero).

Since carrier battles take place over hundreds of miles, their planes are flying across several degrees of latitude and longitude. In fact, it was very common for the carriers themselves to never even see each other during the entire battle. This was the case for both the first battle (Coral Sea), as well as the most famous one: The Battle of Midway.

The 5 major carrier battles in WW2:
1.   Coral Sea, May 1942 – south of equator
2.   Midway, June 1942 – north of equator
3.   Eastern Solomons, August 1942 - south of equator
4.   Santa Cruz, October 1942 - south of equator
5.   Philippine Sea, June 1944 – north of equator

Two of these, Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz, were part of the larger land/sea/air battles of the Guadalcanal Campaign that lasted from August 1942 to February 1943. This six month campaign involved more naval battles than all other naval battles of World War 2 put together. It was the most complex and busiest time for naval action in WW2, and perhaps in world history. It involved tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors, pilots, and support personnel. The area of the campaign was very large, encompassing many degrees of latitude and longitude.

And it all happened south of the equator.

For the complex carrier battles to be planned as they were, the sailors of all the ships had to deal with known distances and directions their aircraft and ships must move in relation to each other. Not knowing how far apart different lines of longitude actually were would have created disasters for their battle plans. They would not have worked. But they did.

There was no GPS in WW2. Radar was in its infancy and could not detect over the horizon (this technology wouldn’t exist until after the war). So, finding your enemy in WW2 was done the way it was done in warfare since antiquity: scouting.

In 1942, the typical method for the Japanese was to send scouting plans from their heavy cruisers and carriers in a radial pattern to cover as much area as possible. They would go out several hundred miles along different prescribed routes from their ship, do a “dogleg” of a few dozen miles, and then return back to their ship.

The diagram below is the search pattern undertaken by the Japanese carrier task force in the early morning of June 5, 1942 (battle of Midway). This is north of the equator, as stated above. This is just for illustrative purposes (it’s what I had quickest at hand in my personal military history library). The “dogleg” is the left turn each plane makes. The return paths are not shown.

(See attachment to post)

Notice how they fly across several lines of latitude and longitude on their outbound journey, traveling over 300 (nautical) miles outbound before their doglegs.

What happens when you cannot find your carrier on the way back? It’s highly likely you simply die when you run out of fuel and crash into the ocean. This happened to some.

Before (and sometimes during) any major battle, radio silence was the norm, to avoid detection. Pilots were not allowed to radio their carriers to ask for a position if they can’t find them – as the enemy could easily listen and find their position too. Hiding where you were – and where you were coming from was a vital part of many battle plans (for example, the US surprised the Japanese at Midway by coming from the northwest).

All you had was a knowledge of the route your carrier was supposed to take. Granted, this route can change due to sighting an enemy, making it harder to return. But the planes could see a good 25 miles at their altitudes, so the carriers would have to deviate quite a bit for this to be a problem.

They had to return to their carriers or die. It was literally a matter of life and death.

Navigating with Plotting Boards
In order to avoid death, the pilots needed a way to navigate accurately. One of the primary ways this was done by WW2 pilots was with Plotting Boards.

Here’s a picture of the “Mark 3” plotting board inside an F4F Wildcat cockpit:

Here’s an instruction manual for using the Mark 3 plotting boards in WW2. I admit I do not understand all of it:

But it is clear that it requires correct scales for longitude and latitude to work properly. Specifically, go to pages 70 and 71 (not of the PDF, but the scanned document). Chapter 18, titled “Converting Minutes of Longitude to Nautical Miles According to Latitude.”  The explanation of how to actually do this is on page 71.

If the monopole FET map were correct, these plotting boards wouldn’t work south of the equator. Pilots using these plotting boards would die virtually every time they used it, unless they lucked out and saw a friendly ship.

III: Conclusion
Battle planning for the three carrier battles in WW 2, the methods for scouting for enemy ships, and all aerial navigation in general worked the same both south and north of the equator. The plotting charts they used required it to be so.

Perhaps you could theoretically have a different plotting board for south of the equator, I don’t know. But I’ve never found anywhere it said that different plotting boards were needed depending on if you were north or south of the equator. Each plane was only fitted with one, regardless of where they were in the Pacific.

WW 2 involved a hundreds of thousands of sailors (and pilots) from two belligerent nations aimed at destroying each other. The US and Japanese had no reason to keep some vast conspiracy about a flat earth secret between each other. By contrast, they had every reason to keep advances in science and technology very secret from each other (and they did). At different points in the war, they had different levels of technological advancement in many areas, including ones critical to naval warfare such as radar.

The only way to understand the Pacific Theater of WW2 is through the lens of a spherical earth in which lines of longitude do not diverge the further south you go. I find no reference to WW2 on this website, so I am hoping this is a valuable contribution to the overall debate.

Thank you for reading.

Fun Historical Aside with no bearing on the FET discussion (i.e., feel free to ignore):
The Battle of the Atlantic was a super important part of the allies winning the war - the battle between allied bombers and destroyers against German uboats. By late 1942, the Germans were sinking the ships and transports the US sent over to Europe faster than we were able to build them (sinkings exceeded shipbuilding by something like 200,000 tons per month!). If this were to keep up, no D-Day would have been possible in 1944, and our invasions of Sicily and Italy in mid-1943 (Operations Husky and Avalanche) would have ended in disaster when we couldn’t re-supply. Luckily, by the end of 1943, due to a comprehensive change in approach by the US navy (involving new tactics, new technology, and even a new organizational outlook), the uboats were on the defensive by the end of 1943, and in 1944 were much less of a problem than in 1942. There were tons and tons and tons of naval actions during these years, involving special routes convoys had to take with precise lengths and time periods to cross areas of the ocean. They definitely knew where they were at all times, and how long things would take. Unfortunately for any FET vs RET discussion, nearly all of this happened north of the equator. So, it’s just a fun historical aside for this post.

Thanks for catching that.

No problem at all!  Happy to help the overall improvement of the site.

I apologize if this has been suggested before, but I believe the "Distances in the South" wiki article has a typo.

It reads "[The FE] proposed models predict that the lines of latitude south of the equator will either converge or diverge."  But it's the lines of longitude (the ones going north/south) that diverge (in monopole maps) and converge (in bi-polar FE maps).

I think it's just a matter of a simple typo.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Gravity’s smallest scale
« on: May 21, 2020, 07:39:00 PM »
I am sucky at math and physics, so bear with me.

In that very interesting article, it reads "However, if the universe has more than three spatial dimensions, the inverse-square law would break." 

Is an alternative possibility that there are more spatial dimensions but that gravity only acts on three of them?  Or is that too non-sensical? 

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >