1

Flat Earth Community / Re: Sorry were not going to Mars now....Really?

« on: January 20, 2020, 01:30:32 PM »

But space tourism is already a thing - 7 people have paid to spend time on the ISS

Allegedly. Unfortunately, [multi-]billionaires tend not to be the most trustworthy of sources.

Right. But even if we agree that in order to be very successful in business you have to probably stretch the truth somewhat at times, what these people are claiming isn't that they've gone and lived on the moon for 6 months, or discovered the elixer of eternal youth or developed an invisibility cloak.

They're just claiming they paid to spend time on the ISS. Not an every day thing, obviously, but billionaires lives are often out of the ordinary. Most people don't have a private jet or yacht either. The ISS is literally visible from the ground, wasn't it even Jeranism who got some good video of it as it transited the moon? It's (said to be) a space station which is permanently manned, although it's not something that you or I can visit it's not beyond the realms of possibility that someone with enough money could pay to visit it.

If these are hoxes then they're very elaborate, they have been very well documented trips and has anyone called them out on the lie if it is one?
Do you have any evidence that these people haven't visited the ISS as claimed?

2

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment

« on: January 17, 2020, 11:55:25 AM »

1. LEGO experiment link states vaguely that several feet of curvature is accounted for . Which model , pearshape or squashed ball or imaginary R= 6370km is used in this curvature correction? Could just be allowance for topography .

Sigh.

And this is the problem with debating anything with someone like you. You said

Surveyors take no account of ( cannot find ) any curvature over any area of 100sq. miles - because we live on a plane

You provided no basis for that claim or no supporting evidence, you just asserted it.
So I found a link about a large scale project which I imagined would probably have had to take account of the earth's curve and, sure enough, found some information on their website where they said they did have to do that.
This is the people who build the sodding thing saying they did indeed have to take the earth's curve into account because of the scale of it.

This is the point where you're supposed to concede the point and see the error of your ways but instead you're just saying "well, maybe it's this, maybe it's that". Again, with no basis or supporting evidence. It's easy to prove yourself right if you ignore or dismiss all evidence showing you to be wrong...

3

Flat Earth Community / Re: Sorry were not going to Mars now....Really?

« on: January 17, 2020, 09:11:33 AM »

I think we're all frustrated with the lack of progress in this area.
I mean, who wouldn't want to go into space? Space! How cool would that be?! The moon even moreso.
But space tourism is already a thing - 7 people have paid to spend time on the ISS

https://didyouknow.org/lists/spacetourists/

The issue is it's prohibitively expensive, as will Virgin Galactic be if it ever gets off the ground both literally and figuratively.
It seems to be making it cheap which is proving difficult - it's the same reason Concorde was the only supersonic commercial plane. Yes, it's cool to zip across the Atlantic in just over 3 hours rather than 7 but are you going to pay 10 times as much for that? If you're rich enough that money is no object then maybe, 'cos you can. But it wasn't within the reach of most people.

Given how many people have been to space, the fact that the ISS is demonstrably up there - you can literally see it from the ground - and we have technologies like GPS, satellite TV and satellite phones which demonstrably work, it's a pretty big leap from "space tourism hasn't happened, or not in the way people keep promising" to seeing that as a smoking gun of the whole space industry being faked.

4

Flat Earth Community / Re: Sorry were not going to Mars now....Really?

« on: January 16, 2020, 01:14:33 PM »

OK, fine. Maybe I am somewhat misrepresenting him.
BUT the 'x' in your example is "space hotels" or "passenger trips into space" or "moon bases".
Maybe those things aren't possible or, at best, predictions of them have been wildly optimistic in terms of timelines.
I don't know if Branson is "lying". I mean, Virgin Galactic is a thing and Branson is still working on it:

https://spacenews.com/virgin-galactic-continues-work-on-fleet-of-spaceshiptwo-vehicles/

Whether it'll actually happen. Well, we'll see. But it still won't be for "the masses", it'll be prohibitively expensive for most of us. The implication I get from this sort of thread is the idea that "space travel for all" hasn't happened in some ways provides evidence that space travel isn't a thing at all. That is erroneous logic.

5

Flat Earth Community / Re: Sorry were not going to Mars now....Really?

« on: January 16, 2020, 10:16:51 AM »

Do you think the fact that hyper-sonic commercial air travel has not become a reality means that air-planes don't exist?

Why would you mix up aeroplanes and spaceplanes like that? It sounds like you're setting up a strawman.

I don't think I am.

My point is for years there has been talk of planes (air planes, not space planes) whizzing us round the, ahem, globe at very high speeds.
Hasn't happened. Just like moon-bases or space hotels haven't happened. Just like cold fusion hasn't happened - when I was a kid that was thought to be the future solution to the world's energy demands and the by-product was apparently water.

None of these technologies have emerged. I'm sure there are many other examples of people predicting future technologies which never happened.
Airline technology has evolved in different ways - the level of comfort, the entertainment systems - but speed isn't one of them.
Space technology has moved on a bit but the focus has changed, we have the ISS and a load of satellites which give us things like GPS. Hopefully private enterprises will drive more innovation.
Fusion research is ongoing but I don't believe they have found a way of making it happen without putting more energy in than we get out.

One line of attack for conspiracy theorists (not just FE, but people who deny the Apollo landings although the two are linked) is this sort of logic.
"They said we were going to have space hotels, that hasn't happened, that is evidence for the whole thing being fake".
This is faulty logic. Just like I shouldn't use the lack of hyper-sonic commercial air travel as a smoking gun that the airline industry is fake.
Some problems just proved harder to solve than others. Or there wasn't the budget/will to make them happen - wars are often a big motivation for innovation, computers and rockets pretty much came out of WWII.
It really is as simple as that.

Now, obviously it's a bit easier to hop on a plane than a rocket and verify for yourself that air-planes exist but you can go and see a rocket launch if you happen to be in the right place at the right time. As I've said a few times, I saw a Shuttle launch back in the day.

The general point I'm making is the whole tone of somerled's post is a sarcastic implication that because space/air travel hasn't developed as some people predicted, that is in some way evidence that the whole thing is fake. It is not. It's just evidence that predicting the future is difficult.

6

Flat Earth Community / Re: Sorry were not going to Mars now....Really?

« on: January 15, 2020, 11:49:29 PM »

Was all geared up to fly against the earths spin to reach Australia from London in 3hrs with Rich Branson.

Do you think the fact that hyper-sonic commercial air travel has not become a reality means that air-planes don't exist?

7

Science & Alternative Science / Re: How many times must you be wrong before you lose your card?

« on: January 15, 2020, 05:59:50 PM »

Here’s some actual data rather than one off day’s weather

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51111176

8

Science & Alternative Science / Re: How many times must you be wrong before you lose your card?

« on: January 15, 2020, 04:39:09 PM »

Nice cherries you're picking there.

9

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment

« on: January 14, 2020, 06:36:22 PM »

That’s the second time recently you’ve posted a quote which says the earth is a globe. Have you finally seen the light?

I was simply responding to the point that they don’t ever need to compensate for the earth’s curve in engineering projects. They sometimes do in larger scale ones, thanks for backing up my point.

Were the earth flat they wouldn’t need to. Yes, they could have made a sloped tunnel and pointed the laser slightly upwards, but why would they?

10

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment

« on: January 14, 2020, 02:51:15 PM »

The shape of earth is easily measured by survey that doesn't have to include any atmospheric refraction or assumption of shape . Surveyors take no account of ( cannot find ) any curvature over any area of 100sq. miles - because we live on a plane

Incorrect

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/facts

LIGO’s arms are long enough that the curvature of the Earth was a factor in their construction. Over the 4 km length of each arm, the Earth curves away by nearly a meter! Precision concrete pouring of the path upon which the beam-tube is installed was required to counteract this curvature.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lunar Eclipses

« on: January 13, 2020, 06:45:12 PM »

There’s two explanations on the Wiki for lunar phases, one saying if the moon and sun are at the same height then there’s a half moon, and another explanation involving EA. These explanations seem to contradict each other.

And one thing I really don’t understand is how everyone on the night side of the earth would see the same moon phase from all the different angles they’re seeing the moon from.

Is there any evidence for the anti-moon existing, other than that lunar eclipses occur. It feels like another ad-hoc explanation used to explain an observed phenomenon rather than something there is empirical evidence for.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: A question to our resident Brexiteer

« on: January 13, 2020, 01:27:25 PM »

Well let's apply the wisdom of crowds to Brexit.

I've just explained why you can't. It only applies in quite specific circumstances which are not met by an electorate voting in an election.

we come out with the right result.

In your opinion. But look at the polls over time and they're all over the place.

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-there-was-a-referendum-on-britains-membership-of-the-eu-how-would-you-vote-2/

So had the vote come at a different time we'd have got a different result. Would have have been "right"?
A snapshot of public opinion on a day - especially if it's a pretty close result on a complex issue - is a flimsy basis for taking a course of action the effects of which will last generations.

Ultimately, I don't think things like this should be put to "the public". I remember mutterings back in the day about a vote on joining the Euro and I thought "Don't ask me, I failed economics!". I like to think I'm more intelligent than average (well, objective measures of such things tell me I am), but I wouldn't feel qualified to decide on something like that. If asked to I'd try and read up about it and form an opinion, but I'm not a subject matter expert.

We voted to become members of the EEC. Not part of the united States of Europe and it took 40 years for the British to be asked again if they were happy with the imposition.

A fairly reasonable point, but I've already showed that till a few years ago very few people felt it was an important issue.

Who is us?

Us as a country, I take the point about low skilled workers, there is some evidence that their wages have been depressed.

Accusing people who don't agree with you of being racists

And now you're just straw-manning. You are the one who said that Brexit was about a feeling. Immigration is a factor in that feeling.
I never said it was racist feeling, you've used that word.
People don't like change - younger people have grown up in a multi-cultural society and judging by the way they voted in the referendum they quite like it. It's generally older people who have seen the change who don't like it. Doesn't make them wrong, or racist, but it doesn't make them right either - as you get older you do tend to idealise the days of your youth.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: A question to our resident Brexiteer

« on: January 13, 2020, 11:24:45 AM »

FPTP isn't a problem. It is a godsend. If we had proportional representation we'd be still stuck in Brexit limbo forever. Many countries in Europe went PR and it ruined them. They couldn't get anything done. You just end up with coalitions and eventually a broken system.

PR has worked fine in Germany. Democracy should surely about "the people"s views being represented. So in one of the recent elections UKIP got 12% of the vote. 1 in 8 people voted for them and they got 1 in 650 MPs. That tells me it's not a great system. It might have produced strong governments but that's not the same as them being effective or good.

To respond to your other points...I'm going to concede the Boaty McBoatface one, it was a bad example.
The wisdom of crowds thing is something I've heard of but having looked into it two of the criteria for it to apply are:

"For crowds to be wise, they must be characterized by a diversity of opinion and each person's opinion should be independent of those around him or her."

I'd agree the first of those applies to an electorate, the first of those certainly does not. We are all influenced by each other, by the media, now by social media, and by the campaigns of both sides. So yeah, guessing the weight of a cow (an example given as demonstrating this effect) might give you a better result if you ask a lot of people. And that kinda makes sense, some will overestimate, others will underestimate. But as soon as they start discussing the matter and start influencing each other or see a load of headlines about how the EU is making cows fatter then it's going to affect the result.
People aren't idiots because they disagree with me, they're idiots simply because they are. You surely aren't arguing that the electorate are, on average, well educated and understand all the implications of us being an EU member or not being. You said it yourself, it was more of a feeling. Boris is popular because he's funny and likeable, whether a lot of the things he says are true doesn't seem to matter to people. People increasingly don't seem to care what is true.

Sovereignty is generally not something one gives up, it's something which is taken from you, often as the result of a war. Like how we took India's sovereignty and a bunch of other country's when we built our Empire, countries who now celebrate their independence from us since we gave it back or they took it back.
We chose to join the EU, we can choose to leave - because we are sovereign.

And even within the EU we didn't agree to everything, we opted out of being part of the Shengen agreement, for example.
We did sign up to freedom of movement, but the Daily Mail's myth of these immigrants "coming over here" and being given a free house and living it up on benefits are bollox. There are rules on what they can claim and EU rules allow us to deport citizens from other EU countries if they have become a burden on the welfare system. Immigration has been a good thing for us economically and in terms of filling skills gaps. Old people don't like it because of "all them foreigners coming over here", but as you say, that's just a feeling, it's not because of any facts.

14

Science & Alternative Science / Re: How many times must you be wrong before you lose your card?

« on: January 11, 2020, 05:24:09 PM »

We didn’t know they were mistakes for a lot of that time to be fair. But now we do and we are continuing to do so because, yeah, having a car is convenient, sausages and burgers are yummy. We know these things are bad for both us and the planet but we don’t care, or not enough. I guess because right now in the UK climate change has mostly made it nicer (bar the odd flood here and there, but mostly there)

15

Science & Alternative Science / Re: How many times must you be wrong before you lose your card?

« on: January 10, 2020, 10:33:04 PM »

Don't you think it is curious they would disregard mainstream science in placing the blame on humanity?

Who do you mean by "they"? Politicians? As in, why aren't they doing more to change things, despite the science?
I guess because it's difficult and expensive and unpopular. People don't want to give up their cars or meat.
And quite honestly if you've travelled to India or China (I pick those as they are two of the biggest polluters, partly because of their population) is is tempting to think we're screwed anyway and it doesn't matter what we do.
But climate change is a fact - I'm mid-40s and even in a timespan of 30+ years there's been a noticeable difference, yesterday it was almost T-shirt weather in London, that would have never happened in January in London when I was a kid.
And the scientists who know what they're talking about pretty much agree that we are causing it.

16

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment

« on: January 09, 2020, 10:44:27 PM »

Had a quick look on YouTube as I figured someone must have reproduced the experiment. Couldn't find anything but I did find this



It's a similar experiment over a 9 mile stretch of water with no significant waves.
I'll be fair and say they picked some of the crazier flat earthers but it was unsurprising to see results which you'd expect on a globe being declared by Mark Sargent as exactly what he'd expect on a flat earth.

17

Science & Alternative Science / Re: How many times must you be wrong before you lose your card?

« on: January 09, 2020, 10:03:18 PM »

Climate change isn't based on a computer model and it is a reality, even if it's difficult to predict/forecast. The climate is changing, this is something we can observe.

I should have wrote predictions are based on computer modeling.

Sorry...allow me to change that.

Correct. As is the weather forecast.
And they get it wrong too. The weather and climate and complex are chaotic (in the mathematical sense).
That doesn't mean that the science is completely wrong even if the models are imperfect.
The debate about human caused climate change is all but over in science

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: January 09, 2020, 05:32:55 PM »

Are you going to tell me that we can't talk about this odd result that is claimed from Gravity Probe B, either?

Talk about what you like dude but given the number of experiments the results of which dispute when they don't fit your world view - you literally have an entire Wiki page trying to cast doubt on the Cavendish experiment - it's pretty dishonest of you to cherry pick results from experiments which you think support your view. And it's particularly odd to talk about the results from the Gravity Probe B when it was a NASA mission involving a satellite which orbited the globe.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 09, 2020, 02:08:49 PM »

You are calling me a proponent of Orwell?

More a prophesy of his. It's neither an insult or compliment, merely an observation.
You refuse to see the truth of your own eyes. You see 4 fingers but say you see 5.

And I still await your source for the assertion that:

Obama was going to meet with Kim-Jong and give him a pallet full of cash.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: January 09, 2020, 10:13:54 AM »

I think that the earth is accelerating upwards and that gravity probably does not exist. According to various time dilation experiments, the Equivalence Principle has been confirmed to great heights. A new article:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravitational_Time_Dilation

I'm genuinely confused by that page.
You decry the scientific method and dismiss experiments which show gravity is a thing but you cite on that page some scientific experiments which back up your ideas.
You think NASA are faking everything which shows you to be wrong but randomly cite NASA's research here.
Can you honestly not see how dishonest this cherry picking is?