1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: Today at 05:08:33 PM »

Washington Examiner agrees with me. The news media did originate the Chinese virus stuff.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/no-institution-has-failed-the-public-worse-than-the-news-media-during-the-covid-19-pandemic

No institution has failed the public worse than the news media during the COVID-19 pandemic

It seems impossible that this should be the case, especially considering the federal government’s sluggish, incoherent, and unfocused handling of this crisis. But even the federal government has managed to get some things right. The same cannot be said for our self-important Fourth Estate.

From the very beginning, corporate media got the story wrong, publishing article after article assuring readers that the virus was not as dangerous or serious as it sounded.

“Is this going to be a deadly pandemic?” Vox asked on social media on Jan. 31. “No.”

Later, after it became clear the pandemic that began in China was indeed a fatal, fast-moving global disaster and the bodies started to stack up, major newsgroups in the United States changed tacks, abandoning earlier efforts to downplay the seriousness of the disease to champion the Beijing-approved talking point that says it is “racist” and “xenophobic” to refer to the virus by its city or country of origin.

“Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s coronavirus tweet echoes anti-Chinese racism. He must apologize,” the Sacramento Bee’s editorial board demanded on March 10 after the House GOP leader used the term “Chinese coronavirus” in a tweet. Prior to its editorial, the Sacramento Bee published no fewer than five news headlines featuring the exact term “Chinese coronavirus."

As corporate media rushed to condemn the terms it coined, its individual members embraced a number of demagogic talking points and outright falsehoods, perpetuating junk arguments and total lies in a none-too-subtle effort to score political points.

It gets worse.

Since the pandemic came to U.S. shores, members of the White House press corps have attended coronavirus briefings for the explicit purpose of peppering the president and his response team with insipid questions about whether it is racist to use terms such as “Wuhan virus” and “Kung flu.” Members of the press have belittled and talked down to the healthcare experts charged with leading the White House’s response efforts. Reporters and pundits ridiculed a business owner who overhauled his facilities so that they are now focused mostly on producing cotton face masks. NBC News has even suggested that the president is responsible for an Arizona couple who drank fish tank cleaner thinking it would protect them from the virus.

Worst of all, U.S. newsgroups have taken to praising despotic regimes that are hostile to the U.S., including Russia and China, going so far as to parrot their propaganda.

Article goes on to describe the despicable nature of the media.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE maps and Tectonic Plates

« on: Today at 11:44:58 AM »

There is nothing wrong with citing and insisting on that as evidence if you want to do that. I just find it interesting that the direct evidence on this topic requires a space agency.

It doesn't. Although if you're talking about entire plates moving, and moving slowly, then clearly something like GPS which has that global view is a good tool for measuring that. But there is other evidence, you were literally shown some pictures of things shifting over time and you said something silly about "well how do you know that isn't just because of earthquakes". Honestly a very silly statement when yes, it is because of earthquakes because those are caused by the plates slipping against each other. And it's particularly strange dismissal when you'd previously said:

There should at least be a screw which snapped on a fence on a fault line somewhere connecting the continents.

You were shown that exact sort of thing and then immediately went into full dismissal mode, your MO when you're shown something you don't like. I once again remind you how you accept at face value with no scrutiny whatsoever things which confirm your worldview.

No. A metal fence would have been far better than what was shown. It could be shown that elements were scraping along a metal fence, and rustting over, or that it was being deformed over time, moreso than just the separation.

What was shown could be explained by earthquakes. There are literally thousands of pictures like that for what happens after an earthquake. Yet you pretend that those don't exist and that continental drift is the only way for that to occur. Those pictures are not really evidence of anything at all.

That would be such easy evidence to get, by putting something solid between the fault lines.  Yet it can only be shown with the most elaborate methods possible from a space agency.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE maps and Tectonic Plates

« on: Today at 01:03:09 AM »

There is nothing wrong with citing and insisting on that as evidence if you want to do that. I just find it interesting that the direct evidence on this topic requires a space agency.

Another source:

https://books.google.com/books?id=uwTFDwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA344&pg=PA344#v=onepage&q&f=false

In conclusion, the actual path to discovery and confirmation of plate tectonics was slow and painful because many of the Cold War tools were not yet available. The continental drift theory of the 1920s was based on the fit of the continental shorelines, matching fossils and stratigraphies on dispersed continents, and glacial deposits on continents that are now at lOW latitudes Where there is no ice. But there was no direct evidence that continents actually moved. Indeed, Alfred Wegener died on the ice cap of Greenland trying to collect such evidence. Forty years later, paleomagnetic evidence and mapping of sea floor anomalies convinced most earth scientists that the sea floor was moving, while earthquake seismology delineated the shallow plate boundaries and deep subducting slabs. Direct proof of moving continents, however, awaited space-age tools.²⁸

Only the Cold War space tools could settle the controversy.

Not all scientists were on board with continental drift theory. From AAPG:

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-abstract/56/8/1552/35710/Geophysical-Illusions-of-Continental-Drift?redirectedFrom=fulltext

The postulated geometric schemes for mobile plates, moving continents, midocean ridges, and convection cells in general are mutually exclusive. Regardless of which scheme of drift, sea-floor spreading, or plate tectonics is adopted, absurd contradictions result. Areas where plate tectonics should be clearly demonstrable—such as Iceland and India—are the very areas where the nonexistence of plate tectonics can be shown clearly and unambiguously. I conclude therefore that the premises of drift are false; that convection does not take place; and that, with so many contradictions and without a mechanism, drift, sea-floor spreading, and plate tectonics are fruitless exercises in nothingness.

...

From the preceding, it must be clear that the drifter theoreticians are too much in the habit of elaborating on moving ocean floors, of navigating the continents, of producing physical anarchy with their clashing ocean cells, of postulating apparently fixed midocean ridges from which they direct crustal segments in mutually contradictory voyage directions (but refuse to voyage with them as they create contradictory motions elsewhere), and of disregarding the fundamental frame of the earth itself. Thus they have created an incoherent global picture, ignoring even such basic considerations as geography, geology, logic, and common sense. They imagine that they have found a panacea; they have opened, instead, a Pandora's box.

It is very difficult for me to believe that arguments presented without regard to simple rules of geometry, physics, and logic can long survive in serious science.

Finally, I am of the opinion that the proofs against continental drift--presented here and by others whose work I have cited--are overwhelming; that drifters should return to the world of reality and reconsider the feasibility of drift, or sea-floor spreading, or plate tectonics.

The advocates of continental drift have gone to unbelievable lengths to explain and rationalize a unified, unique, fossilized global system of oceanic and continental lithic structures.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: Today at 12:25:37 AM »

Imagine being a liberal democrat and hoping that people die just to make Trump look bad.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE maps and Tectonic Plates

« on: April 01, 2020, 09:56:11 PM »

Space radio telescopes and Space GPS is evidence, sure. I do consider that to be evidence.

About VLBI:

https://space-geodesy.nasa.gov/techniques/VLBI.html

Over its 40-year history of development and operation, the space geodetic technique called very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) has provided an unprecedented record of the motions of the solid Earth. VLBI is unique in its ability to define an inertial reference frame and to measure the Earth's orientation in this frame. Changes in the Earth's orientation in inertial space have two causes: the gravitational forces of the Sun and Moon and the redistribution of total angular momentum among the solid Earth, ocean, and atmosphere. VLBI makes a direct measurement of the Earth's orientation in space from which geoscientists then study such phenomena as atmospheric angular momentum, ocean tides and currents, and the elastic response of the solid Earth.

VLBI is a geometric technique; it measures the time difference between the arrival at two Earth-based antennas of a radio wavefront emitted by a distant quasar. Using large numbers of time difference measurements from many quasars observed with a global network of antennas, VLBI determines the inertial reference frame defined by the quasars and simultaneously, the precise positions of the antennas. Because the time difference measurements are precise to a few picoseconds, VLBI determines the relative positions of the antennas to a few millimeters and the quasar positions to fractions of a milliarcsecond. Since the antennas are fixed to the Earth, their locations track the instantaneous orientation of the Earth in the inertial reference frame. Relative changes in the antenna locations from a series of measurements indicate tectonic plate motion, regional deformation, and local uplift or subsidence.

The heritage of VLBI is 40 years of NASA-led technology development that included the highly successful Crustal Dynamics Project, during which the first contemporary measurements of tectonic plate motion were made. Today VLBI observations, analysis and development are coordinated by the International VLBI Service for Geodesy and Astrometry (IVS), comprising some 80 components (including 45 antennas) sponsored by 40 organizations located in 20 countries. The IVS Coordinating Center is located at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenblet, MD. VLBI determines with unequaled accuracy the terrestrial reference frame (antenna locations on the Earth), the International Celestial Reference Frame (quasar positions on the sky), and Earth's orientation in space. In the future, VLBI development will continue in measurement systems technology, research on the neutral atmosphere, and integration with other space geodetic techniques.

VLBI is a valuable asset in NASA's mission of science-driven technology leadership. Earth science research requires VLBI's Earth orientation data coupled to a stable, accurate terrestrial reference frame.

About the Plate Boundary Observatory (PBO):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_Boundary_Observatory

The Plate Boundary Observatory (PBO) was the geodetic component of the EarthScope Facility. EarthScope was an earth science program that explored the 4-dimensional structure of the North American Continent.[1] EarthScope (and PBO) was a 15-year project (2003-2018) funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in conjunction with NASA.

...PBO precisely measured Earth deformation resulting from the constant motion of the Pacific and North American tectonic plates in the western United States.

...PBO measured Earth deformation through a network of instrumentation including: high-precision Global Positioning System (GPS) and Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers, strainmeters, seismometers, tiltmeters, and other geodetic instruments.

But why is it that only NASA can seem to prove it?

Here is a story:

https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/oreskes_science_and_public_policy.pdf

From continental drift to plate tectonics: the proof of moving continents?

When Alfred Wegener proposed continental drift in 1912 as  a  unifying  theory  of  earth  sciences,  he  also  provided abundant evidence of it (Wegener, 1912, 1915, 1924, 1929). Besides  the  obvious  “jigsaw-puzzle”  fit  of  the  continents,data from paleontology, stratigraphy, and paleoclimatology strongly  suggested  that  the  continents  had  once  been  unified, then broken apart, and drifted into their present configurations. Despite cavils over the details of the data by some specialists, most of this evidence was broadly accepted as factual by earth scientists, and had been used by other scientists to support alternative explanatory frameworks (Marvin, 1973; Le Grand, 1988; Oreskes, 1999). Despite widespread acceptance of the bulk of the evidence and widespread discussion  of  the  theory,  continental  drift  was  generally  regarded as unproven. What would have constituted proof?

Wegener’s own answer was the direct measurement of continental motion. His inference about drift was abductive—the observed phenomena would be expected if continental drift were true—but the resistance of many geologists led Wegener to conclude that indirect reasoning was insufficient. One needed direct proof. One needed to see the thing happening. Happily, geodetic measurements in Greenland seemed to reveal a westward drift, and Wegener planned to take further measurements in a return trip in 1929–1930.Unfortunately he died on that expedition (Greene, 2004).

Wegener’s conclusion was not idiosyncratic; others also believed  that  direct  measurement  of  continental  motions constituted the definitive test. In 1926, a group of international scientists organized the Worldwide Longitude Operation  to  prove  or  disprove  continental  drift  by  measuring inter-continental  distances  through  radio  wave  transmission  times.  While  the  scientists  involved  were  admirably patient,  after  a  decade  the  results  were  still  inconclusive (Oreskes,  1999;  Dick,  2003).  Then  global  political  events made further work impossible.

In the late 1950s, the question of crustal motions was reexamined. In the mid 1960s plate tectonics became the unifying theory of earth sciences,  and  moving  continents became established scientific fact. By the early 1970s, text-books had been rewritten in the framework of plate tectonics,and historical treatments were being published (Cox, 1973;Le Pichon et al., 1973; Hallam, 1973; Frankel, 1979, 1982,1987; Laudan, 1980). Plate tectonics was now accepted by scientists  as  true,  but  was  it  proven?  Not  by  the  standard demanded in the earlier debate.

Like  the  evidence  of  continental  drift,  the  evidence  of plate tectonics was indirect. It consisted of terrestrial rock magnetism,  which  showed  that  the  continents  had  altered their  positions  vis-à-vis  the  magnetic  poles,  marine  magnetic  measurements,  consistent  with  the  creation  of  new oceanic crust at mid-oceans ridges and its lateral displacement,  and  seismic  first-motion  measurements,  consistent with large crustal slabs moving outward from the mid-ocean ridges  and  downward  under  the  continents  in  subduction zones. Again, the relevant inferences were abductive: these phenomena  were  things  that  would  be  observed  if  plate tectonics were true, and would be very difficult to explain if it weren’t. Finally, the data became so abundant and the patterns so clear that no one doubted that it was true. But scientists in 1960s had no more direct evidence of continental motions than they had in the 1920s.³

When did earth scientists finally measure continental motion directly? Nearly 20 years later. In the mid 1980s, very long baseline satellite interferometry made it possible to measure the distances between points on Earth  with  great accuracy, and to detect small changes in these distances overtime. In 1985–1986, a series of papers reported the results,and the general conclusion was that the drift of the continents was now proven (Christodoulidis et al., 1985; Clarket al., 1985; Kerr, 1985; Herring et al., 1986). Given this, it  could  be  argued that for 20 years, earth  scientists  used, taught, and believed in the fundamental truth of plate tectonics without “proof” that plates were moving. Were they wrong to do so? Was this bad science? Of course not. The evidence of plate tectonics was sufficiently overwhelming that direct measurement of continental motion was not required. Plate tectonics was not proven by the standard proposed by the  advocates of the Worldwide Longitude Operation, but it nevertheless met the standards of earth scientists in the1960s, who forged a consensus around it. Geodesists in the1980s received relatively little attention for their work, because they had “proved” what by that time everyone already knew (Oreskes and Le Grand, 2003, p. 406)

No one could really prove it without NASA to tell them that their theories were correct. Funny that.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE maps and Tectonic Plates

« on: April 01, 2020, 09:07:15 PM »

I would accept that there is scientific evidence for this motion if you can find a science information source on the subject that references experimental evidence showing it. You are asking us to ASSUME that this evidence exists.

The last link from Leeds only referenced increasingly elaborate approaches people are using to try to find it, rather than experimental results which would have been presented on that page if it was in favor of the theory.

If there was evidence those experiments would be presented and referenced in these articles as a feature, not hidden away, and which we must assume to exist somewhere. It is very unfulfilling that we must assume that experimental evidence exists for something, rather than having it presented to us.

If this is part of the 'mountains of evidence' for Mainstream, those mountains appear nowhere in sight. This isn't even about FE or RE. It's just about standards of evidence. My standard is that you have to at least reference it in a discussion, and not wave your hands around and plead with others to assume that it exists.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE maps and Tectonic Plates

« on: April 01, 2020, 08:28:51 PM »

You showed us some random pictures of things shifting on the ground and declared that it's proof of constant movement of the plates. What kind of proof is that? You are ignoring that things are seen to shift for other reasons. You should show evidence of this constant movement directly, rather than provide anecdotal information.

You tell me to prove you wrong, while ignoring that science admits that providing evidence of this constant movement is difficult and references no experimental evidence in favor of such. Science provides evidence that it does not occur by providing no experimental evidence for this, despite searching for it over the years.

Explore what they are not telling you. People were searching for direct evidence of this since the inception of the theory. If there was direct evidence, it would be referenced at the very top of all of the science information sources on this subject -- Duh.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE maps and Tectonic Plates

« on: April 01, 2020, 06:35:58 PM »

Those images are interesting, and anecdotal, but not really sufficient as scientific evidence of plate movement. If they are on earthquake fault lines one could easily say that the earthquakes shifted those areas over time, not constant perpetual movement of plates. Have you never seen a foundation of a building shift, splinter, or crack after an earthquake? A more in depth study would be required as to the cause of those shifts.

A desert road shifted from the 1992 Landers earthquake:



I found a shift! Is this, therefore, proof that it was caused by a constant perpetual movement of plates?

No.

The University of Leeds website that was shared above says that they have a difficult time measuring it: "Direct measurement of plate motions is difficult."

The link seems to go on to talk about "some approaches" which are being used, but the results are not shared. If it was known and measured these websites would be saying "plate movement was demonstrated by x experiment in 19xx" at the very top of their pages, not "measurement is difficult, here are some approaches that are being used."

If a science source is not referencing direct experimental evidence, it's just theory imagination.

Worse than that, if a science source is claiming that people have been trying to measure it for ages, but isn't presenting the required evidence, it means that those people tried and failed.

Arguing about fossils is indirect evidence since we don't fully know the conditions of Earth in the past (lower oceans, frozen oceans, higher land ridges, etc).

9

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts

« on: April 01, 2020, 04:30:43 AM »

What you described is called pseudoscience. Astronomy is a pseudoscience.

Sciences based on observation and interpretation were largely abolished during the Enlightenment and preceding Renaissance. The number one lesson learned that it is incredibly weak to observe and interpret. Human logic is fallible. We must test things. The Scientific Method of empirical experimentation brought us to better truths. Huge swaths of 'logical' sciences that came before were thrown away.

Unfortunately Astronomy is one of those sciences in which experimentation is impractical. Rather than throwing it away, we just kept it and continue on with the ancient pseudoscience, piling one interpretation and hypothesis upon the next like a house of cards. As long as you can imagine an explanation it's good enough.

The only other choice to the charade is to admit that you don't know anything and that your science based on interpretation is invalid, just as we decided those sciences were invalid at the birth of the Modern Science and the Era of Enlightenment.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE maps and Tectonic Plates

« on: April 01, 2020, 03:41:10 AM »

The coastlines of the continents only vaguely fit together. Fossil evidence could be explained by migration.

Have the continents ever been physically measured to move? If the continents can move at a rate of 'one to two inches per year', this is theoretically measurable by a 'set and forget it' experiment of some manner. There should at least be a screw which snapped on a fence on a fault line somewhere connecting the continents.

If there is no direct physical evidence of movement, we know how credible that theory is. Don't you think with the hundreds of universities and thousands of people interested in plate tectonics, that they would have attempted to find such direct evidence?

Since we have not heard about it, we should assume that they were unsuccessful with their experiments. We know that they attempt to test everything. Negative experiments are instantly justified by "oh that could be explained by xx" and often go unreported. They want a positive experiment, not a negative one. The key to science is what they are not telling you. We must accept nothing less than direct evidence.

11

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Equinox - daylight/nighttime across earth

« on: March 30, 2020, 11:42:48 PM »

The Monopole model continues to be useful for conceptual reasons. The diagram in the OP can be explained as result of the latitude lines being curved.

A circular area of sunlight would imply that the Sun rises at different times for different observers located on a longitude line which radiates outwards from the North. Yet, we know that the Sun rises from at the same time for all observers on the same longitude line simultaneously. A direct interpretation of RE to an FE Monopole model with straight radial longitude lines would show the following for equinox:



The answer to this is that the longitude lines were historically determined in relationship to the time of day. Applying the original interpretation of longitude to a Flat Earth Monopole Model with a curved area of daylight would show that the longitude lines, and time zones, are curved.

Flat Earth Monopole Timezone Map:
 

The points in a line radial from the North are not necessarily on the same longitude line. If longitude is defined by time and the time zones then sunrise can occur for all observers simultaneously on the same longitude.

See any history on the origin and determination of the Longitude. On the 'History of longitude' Wikipedia article, under the section Time equals longitude, it states "there is a direct relationship between time and longitude".

The Bi-Polar Model answer is that the southern midnight sun exists, and that the Flat Earth model has had two poles since the early 1900's and stop using the 1800's Monopole model. The Bi-Polar model has always been my preference, FYI.

The 2011 Sendai earthquake, east of Japan, triggered a tsunami that hit Hawaii and California. I have yet to see a bipolar model compatible with that fact.

Wind and water currents at large scales can be curved, curving on their own or wrapping around continental features.



Not a lot of straight lines there.

12

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Equinox - daylight/nighttime across earth

« on: March 30, 2020, 05:26:50 PM »

That takes us to Antarctica, where all the information comes from the government, and is not necessarily the best source of information.

And you know, all the tourists who aren't with a government but yea sure everyone who's been to Antartica must be government, OK Tom, let's assume that stupid statement is not stupid, your personal mistrust in all governments of the world isn't evidence of bad sources of information and if it were then you really need to stop cherrypicking articles and papers from government bodies as evidence for flat earth, which is pretty much most of the wiki you helped to write up.

The Monopole Model answer is that the government has a ban on independent travel below the 60th parallel. If there are tourist observations of the midnight sun, it hasn't been documented by those tourists. It is also possible that the sun lights up the ice crystals in the atmosphere around the Earth when it touches that area, and while a perpetual day may exists of some kind, it is not the geometric midnight sun.

The Bi-Polar Model answer is that the southern midnight sun exists, and that the Flat Earth model has had two poles since the early 1900's and stop using the 1800's Monopole model. The Bi-Polar model has always been my preference, FYI.

13

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake

« on: March 30, 2020, 04:53:22 PM »

If we are going to update the FAQ I always thought that it should clarify that we believe that government space claims are, indeed, evidence for a round world. But we also believe that the various things suggesting chicanery is also evidence.

That answers the first frequently asked question of "how is this not evidence???". Perhaps the answer can be expanded on as well.

14

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: RE Lunar Phases With Extreme Perspective Changes

« on: March 29, 2020, 01:52:09 AM »

According to the extreme perspective changes, there is a different view of the Moon when it is overhead, versus at a 45 degree angle.

For the Full Moon:



The view at 45 degrees shows a Moon which is shifted in orientation, and tilted upwards or downwards from the overhead view, as the perspective changes demand.

Here is a to-scale diagram of the Earth-Moon system. There are two observers, Red and Blue. When one viewer views the Moon overhead, the other is viewing it at 45 degrees:



The overhead Full Moon for the Red Observer will be shifted in perspective when viewed at 45 degrees, turning into a Gibbous Moon.

The overhead Gibbous Moon for the Blue Observer will be shifted in perspective when viewed at 45 degrees, turning into a Full Moon.

Q1. If there is a difference in Moon phase when viewed at 90 degrees and 45 degrees for each observer due perspective changes, how can both observers, each with their own personal perspective, view the same Moon with the same phase at the same time?

Q2. Further, if the observer moves from one position to the next, it would suggest that the phase would change, as the observer is observing the Moon at 90 or 45 degrees. A rotating earth would have observers moving from one position to the next.

Please show us a working system which incorporates these extreme perspective effects.

Even if we abandon the idea that there are two observers with their own personal perspective and say that the Earth as a whole is One Observer, and the Moon is shifting in perspective at it moves around the Earth, the Earth is still rotating faster than the Moon is moving, causing the Moon to be 90 degrees overhead or 45 degrees overhead over a span of hours.

Once again, please show us a working system which can get these extreme perspective effects working in a coherent system.

15

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Equinox - daylight/nighttime across earth

« on: March 28, 2020, 02:30:10 PM »

There is an equinox article in the Wiki.

See the links at the end of https://wiki.tfes.org/Sunrise_and_Sunset

They offer no explanation on how the Sun's light could create such strange shapes on a flat Earth.

The animation you posted shows that the discrepancy is the southern midnight sun that wraps around the Earth. That takes us to Antarctica, where all the information comes from the government, and is not necessarily the best source of information.

Alternatively, the southern midnight sun is possible in the bipolar model.

16

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Equinox - daylight/nighttime across earth

« on: March 28, 2020, 05:08:01 AM »

There is an equinox article in the Wiki.

See the links at the end of https://wiki.tfes.org/Sunrise_and_Sunset

17

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: RE Lunar Phases With Extreme Perspective Changes

« on: March 27, 2020, 08:19:28 PM »

None of the explanations above, or the video above, tell us how something can tilt to perspective without us seeing different sides of it. Distance has nothing to do with it. It will occur at all scales.



Applying the same to the Moon's day and night, we see that the observation of the Moon at 45 degrees is the same at all distances:



So again, why don't different observers see different sides of the Full Moon?



E8, E7, and E6 should all see different parts of the Moon's day and night, as they are looking at Moon at different angles. They should see different parts of the Full Moon.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eötvös Effect

« on: March 26, 2020, 03:03:50 PM »

If RE could actually show its claims, they would have done that long ago, and would be able to refer to that body of evidence. Searching YouTube for your proofs would be totally unnecessary. It is frankly embarrassing that you can't rely on science and must rely on Wolfie from the YouTube. This is yet another way we know that RE is wrong.

So, RE is wrong because some guy in this forum didn't provide you scientific experiments proving the effect? Well, my kid didn't show me the evidence for FE, so FE is wrong.

You left out the part that the RE here search through all of human knowledge and science history to try and post something that shows FE to be wrong. They end up finding one single questionable YouTube experiment. That is evidence that science does not have what it takes.

The hypotheses are simply this.
Firstly, if we are living on a spinning ball then a centrifugal force should be acting. The magnitude of that force should vary depending on your latitude. And if you do the maths you'll note that we shouldn't all go "flying off" like some of the sillier FE people claim, but there should be a measurable difference at different latitudes. And oh look, the same dude did another video which demonstrates just that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkhxPm15PFo

This is a different experiment, and not the effect you are talking about. This effect actually does exist in stationary scales at different latitudes, is more substantial than a single video on YouTube, as it has been repeatedly verified by different investigators.

Sadly, this experiment was not conducted in a vacuum chamber to guard against environmental changes between locations.
 
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

You have now abandoned your original experiment and have moved on to different experiments - total jokes which have been insufficiently controlled.

This experiment actually would be a good one for us to test as a community project in which a scale is sent to different members; in a vacuum chamber where the device is controlled against other factors, alongside a scale which is not controlled, performing the basic science which should have been done long ago.

19

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Conventional Medicine V.S Alternative Medicine

« on: March 26, 2020, 02:35:48 AM »

I am talking about natural treatment of cancer. Saying that cancer can be treated naturally and that it can be done without the chemotherapy industry is my opinion and isn't telling anyone to do anything. Show me where I told people to self treat.

The first two sentences in that post that you linked has me saying to see a professional.

This thread contains my own opinion on the possibility of cancer treatment with natural substances. Please consult a medical professional, such as a naturopathic doctor, before attempting to treat yourself or your loved ones for deadly diseases. Make sure to do a lot of research on the options available to you.

I don't tell people to do anything themselves about their cancer. If anything at all, I am encouraging people to treat disease with a naturopathic doctor. It is very possible that a nauturopathic doctor will advise only chemotherapy in some cases. You need to talk to a medical professional about it. They can also order the tests you need to check progress and can't get on your own.

Post the part where I told people to self treat for cancer.

You saw that disclaimer and ignored it. You picked out a sentence and then added your own imagination that I meant to do it on your own rather than to do it with a professional.

"One merely needs to consult nature" - That could mean objectively, for research purposes, or ultimately do under guidance of a professional. Not advice of self treatment. It says nowhere to treat a serious disease on your own. The first two sentences in the post tell you what the advice is. The advice is to do it with a professional. If you do it on your own you might do it wrong, and then you are dead.

With the proper amount of such accusatory arguments, naturopathic studies are limited from gaining traction in mainstream. This is why we may have safe naturopathic treatments that are beneficial, but are not in hospitals helping people. It is that attitude which causes this.

Statement like "Look at this doctor, he said that chemotherapy isn't technically necessary and that cancer can be treated without it" or "he said that x can treat cancer" is really about that doctor's opinion, and can be quite different than what will actually be used in that doctor's practice.  As are the results of any studies, experiments, and so on. Calls to shut them down are inappropriate.The doctor may end up doing something quite different than what is baselessly assumed.

20

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Conventional Medicine V.S Alternative Medicine

« on: March 26, 2020, 01:36:32 AM »

Don't say anything positive about an alternative therapy, even world news about what other countries are doing. The insufferable here will claim that you are telling people to ignore medical advice from their doctor.

I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to push back against people talking about alternate medicine because people do die after being told a chiropractor can cure your cancer. It's a real problem.

Think of it this way. If you are going to go sky diving, are you going to use a parachute designed by experts and packed by a professional or will you use some bed sheet and duct tape contraption some guy on the internet claims works better?  I wouldn't.  And I certainly wouldn't go around posting "Hey you don't need to pay someone lots of money to sell you some overpriced parachute, try this yourself instead!"

I might ask "Hey, anyone know if this thing would work, and how?"

If it was a truly revolutionary idea, it would get studied and tested and refined and eventually adopted and used.

Just like medicine.

The human body is an insanely complex system and people can spend their entire lives studying small parts of it. A doctor with 20 years of medical training and experience is simply going to know better than any of us that read a web page about some miracle cure. There is a ton of crap out there, and as a layman it's not easy to figure out what's real and what's someones delusion and what might be a deliberate scam.

In many cases it is just Naturopathic doctors or researchers reporting the results of their findings. They aren't giving you any advice.

If I said that I had a stomach ache after drinking my city's water, I am merely reporting what I found. I didn't tell you not to drink my city's water.

If you visit an actual Naturopathic doctor for an alternative cancer treatment in a clinical setting they will advise you to try chemotherapy, and tell you that they can treat you with Vitamin C IVs in conjunction. You would need to insist and specifically ask that they only perform Vitamin C IV on you, if you want that, and sign various waivers.

The conversation was never about ignoring a successful (if arguably bad in the future) medical treatment. That is entirely something you guys made up entirely in your heads. If some things other than chemotherapy can help cancer, that can only be a good thing.

It is the whiny liberal crybabies complaining about alternative therapies that are holding us back in medical science.

It is the whining crybabies who are actually harming people, by treating natural therapies in that manner, and always jumping to the worst possible assumption or conclusion. Those are the bad people. Not the good Naturopathic doctors trying to help people.

If a researcher reports a result you should encourage and promote repetitions and wider trials, not try to shut it down, claiming that the researcher wants people to self treat. That is so deceitful to act that way. You have no idea what the doctor would actually prescribe in practice. Many NDs have MDs as well, and prescribe conventional therapies as applicable and necessary, often in conjunction or as primary or secondary lines of treatment. NDs do not encourage you to self treat, and would prefer that you consult with a professional to get appropriate advice for a serious health condition. NDs are also licensed by the state to operate, and you naysayers absolutely have no idea what you are talking about. The attitude displayed is one of assumption and ignorance. It is widespread and causes much harm.

If something was harmful the government would stop it, clearly, not license them to operate and set up boards to oversee that licencing.