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 - Dr Van Nostrand

Pages: < Back  1 ... 4 5 [6] 7  Next >
101
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The US Northeast is Too White
« on: September 15, 2018, 12:17:35 PM »

Black people aren't talented.


Well dude, not everyone on the planet can be as talented as you. I bet you're a real Liza Minelli.

BTW: Thanks for the new sig line.

102
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The US Northeast is Too White
« on: September 14, 2018, 06:35:29 PM »
Why should we give a crap about any other race? (clipped jongoistic editorializing)

We are all humans.  There is only one race, you couldn't define a race if you wanted to.

I can define multiple races and am more than willing.

At the very least Asian, Caucasian and Negroid.
Your position is untenable.


... and what race would the children of a Caucasian and an Asian be?

 

103
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is God possible?
« on: September 13, 2018, 09:48:40 PM »
You should check out the Raelian believers. You get God and aliens all in one.

Rael dot org

104
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth and the space race
« on: September 11, 2018, 01:55:31 PM »
Don’t all FET roads lead directly back to the moon landing, i.e., human observed direct evidence that earth is a globe?
Absolutely not. There are plenty of FE'ers who fully accept the mainstream view on space travel. Others, like myself, remain cautiously undecided on the subject.


I am extremely interested in this. I've been reading FE media for quite a while(seen dozens of videos too) and have never encountered an FE believer that believes in space travel. The only FE ideologies I've seen that don't center on a space travel conspiracy are the full-matrix people who say that nothing we see is actually real. The astronauts, NASA and everybody is being deceived.

Generally, FE theory posits a conspiracy to cover the fact that space travel is a hoax. It is a foundational principle that the people perpetuating the hoax are evil (evil shills) and people believing the hoax are stupid (lamestream media sheeple.) In FE generally, RE people are either evil or stupid and the only smart, righteous people on the planet is the FE community.

I understand that I will be told that not all FE people believe the same thing and my generalizations come from the evil indoctrination I've been subjected to. But if you have an FE theory that doesn't involve a giant conspiracy of the evil over the stupid, I want to hear about it.

I can't ask Pete to discuss it because it is not his belief, but is there anyone who can tell me more about a flat earth model that allows for space travel. I might sign up for an idea where I'm not stupid or evil.


105
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Just Saying...
« on: September 07, 2018, 04:51:09 PM »
I'd been reading this forum long before I joined and once in a great while I would see a 'moderation' that might have been quick or harsh but generally, I think they do a good job.

I appreciate that I'm allowed to post here despite being an RE. I specifically try to curtail the amount of posting I do because I don't want to see this forum overrun by RE people. RE people are everywhere, I don't come here for them.

Look, I'm a hardcore RE but if you can give me one split second of doubt, that is a great thing. I want to question my beliefs all the time. I want my beliefs tested. If I just wanted to take shots at FE people, I'd be trolling the matrix dwelling moonshrimpers on the 'other' forum.


106
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What Would You Do?
« on: September 07, 2018, 04:04:32 PM »
If Mike Hughes achieved the altitude he was hoping for and crashed into a dome or was torn apart by gravimetric distortions, it would have been a tragedy. However, it would have also been a huge victory for flat earth. Imagine what we would have seen in the final moments of his GoPro recording.

107
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What Would You Do?
« on: September 07, 2018, 02:48:17 PM »

Measuring the gravity field of earth is a scientifically admirable approach but why hasn't anyone mentioned something more basic?

Madman Mike Hughes was on the right track even if his rocket design was so grossly ineffective that it was doomed. Using energy to create steam then using that steam for thrust wastes a lot of energy. Just use your energy for thrust.

Model rockets, weather balloons and personal rockets could be used to get a good pic of the flat earth, assuming it doesn't hit some dome first.

108
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 06, 2018, 12:52:17 PM »
Simple question: Can FET predict the precise viewable characteristics and location of an eclipse anywhere on earth with the pinpoint accuracy that NASA can?
Yes, NASA borrowing our methodology from us does not preclude us from still utilising it.

?


The Saros cycle was determined by observation. It's behavior is perfectly predicted and explained by a round earth model.

How is its behavior predicted by a flat earth model?

109
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 05, 2018, 09:09:21 PM »
I hadn't mentioned NASA, they aren't the only ones who publish astronomic calendars. I was referring to the round earth model more generally.

Even a simple orrery can make accurate predictions of eclipse timing. We have not seen this in a flat earth model.

The globe model predictions agree with the Saros cycle (and the Saros cycle agrees with the globe model.)



(correct me if I'm wrong but,)  I don't think we've yet seen a flat earth model that accurately predicts eclipses, solstices and midnight sun.

110
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 05, 2018, 08:48:09 PM »
For the rest of the world; notice also how the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a globe; thinnest shadow at equatorial regions, wider the further you go North or South ...



The sun and moon are over the equator in the Flat Earth model. When you are casting shadows on parts that are further away, they tend to grow.

How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?


How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?

It shows that the round earth model can predict astronomic events with to the second timing and geographic accuracy.

The flat earth model can't do this. It can't even accurately portray the actual distance from Brisbane to Lima.


I've seen some flat earth models make brave attempts. Is there a flat earth model that can predict eclipses, solstices  and such with the accuracy of a globe model?




111
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Long Way Round
« on: August 31, 2018, 09:52:47 PM »
Yes, an east to west course on the flat earth works like it would on a round earth.

However, distances in the Southern Hemisphere of the flat earth are wrong by a couple of orders of magnitude. This issue is ignored in the wiki. I don't presume to speak for flat earthers but I think they say that our measurement of distances is flawed in the way they are measured or our perceptions of those distances are flawed.

112
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Summer Solstice in Antarctica
« on: August 30, 2018, 08:54:37 PM »
The firmament is the clear dome that is above us. It seperates the waters above us frombelow. The clear & reflective properties create the true prism that refracts and reflects large dome shaped rainbows into the opposite direction of the sun onto raindrops. This dome explains many other “phenomena” but this is what creates the 24hr days & triple sun. If you take a reflective bowl & a lighter holding it upside down you’ll see when the light source is closest to the edge it creates a reflection on both right & left side, hence the triple sun, this light accounts for the extra 4-8 hours of sunlight

Dude, you just made every word of that up. It came completely from your mind with no physical evidence.


113
We don't yet know what AJ's ultimate defense to these charges will be but his first defensive action was struck down just a couple of hours ago. The judge in Austin, TX (AJ has other suits in different jurisdictions) just denied Alex Jones request to throw the case out based on freedom of speech. No one really expected this defense to hold up. Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say whatever you want about other people.

If AJ's defense will be built on the idea that Sandy Hook really did not happen (truth defense.) If he tries to say that the conspiracy is real, he will have to first overcome all the prima facia evidence in witness accounts, hospital reports and death certificates. In that eventuality, his evidence might have to include something radical like exhuming the bodies of the shooting victims to show they don't exist. I can't think of what he could use as evidence to prove his case.

And yes, Pete said it, getting sued is not the same as getting convicted (losing the lawsuit.) Getting a lawsuit in motion doesn't even mean it has any merit at all. Unfortunately, in America, even if you are innocent you still have to mount a legal defense against a lawsuit that could cost thousands of dollars. If Elon Musk sends a 200 foot tall Lawyerzilla after someone, being innocent won't be enough to protect them.

I don't really think any of this will ever affect the (well-moderated, civil) TFES community. It could affect the more radical Youtubers someday.




114
Truth is an absolute legal defense to slander or libel charges.
As is honesty and belief that the person accused of defamation is disclosing information in the public interest, regardless of merit or soundness of their claims. I doubt any case concerning FE would revolve around the soundness of FE, but rather whether or not the accused believed she was acting in the public interest.

In the USofA, the most hilarious of legal systems, matters become even more difficult - a public person who believes she has been defamed has to prove that the defamatory statement was published with knowledge of its falsehood.

Naaaactually, it's not that simple as Alex Jones of Infowars is currently finding out.

Your opinion is protected. If you say, "It is my opinion that Astronaut Zeb is a buffoon with ears like a donkey." that is your opinion and it is protected.
But if you say, "It is my opinion that on April 12th, Astronaut Zeb lied about his participation in a 2016 space flight." that is an accusation.

Also, you can be held liable for reposting defamation even if you thought is was true.

In a brief for the Alex Jones case a first amendment scholar wrote,"It (posting opinion as facts) would allow unscrupulous news organizations to couch their language as opinion and mask their meaning with implication and insinuation. That would leave readers clear as to the message but avoiding all liability for defamatory remarks. This should not be allowed and is not allowed."

One day, an FE youtuber may go too far talking smack about Elon Musk and he will send a horde of zombie lawyers to lay waste to everything in their path.

In America, you can be sued for anything at anytime no matter how ridiculous the cause.




115
If the deliberate falsehood is being said about a specific person then slander laws come into play.

Truth is an absolute legal defense to slander or libel charges.

This could conceivably become an issue for the FE community. It is a fundamental part of the FE ideology that all the astronauts are liars. They will tell anyone associated with aerospace technology that they are flat-out lying about their experience of the round earth. When FEs call a specific astronaut or astronomer a liar, they could be subject to legal action. The subsequent court case would hinge on the truth of flat vs globe.

It's not hard to imagine some NASA astronauts filing a class action lawsuit for defamation against some prominent FE proponent. Actual damages would be hard to show but there could be emotional distress of the astronaut's children or family. Depending on the jurisdiction, punitive damages may come into play.

The truth of FE claims would be tested in court.

116
I find this difficult to get enthusiastic about for several reasons.

1) These people don't like us. We are 'controlled opposition' and trolls and whatever else they think of on the day. Now I'm pretty sure if TFES was controlled opposition, you and me would be on the payroll by now, Tom. We'd have a least had a memo. So when I know they are talking rubbish from the get go, its hard to support.
2) A large portion of their content is toxic. Its a poo flinging contest. Its kind of nice to take the moral high ground and not be dragged into it. A lot of the top FE creators are very weird indeed. Patricia whatshername and that guy who desperately wants to have sex with her. Matt 'I've got 24 hours to save the world Boylan', Lord Steven Christ who not only thinks the earth is flat but that he is the son of God and makes regular demands to be Pope, Eric 'gas the Jews' Dubay ... these people are 2 stars short of a constellation.
3) These people are going to get zapped ... and if their content is all over our site, we are going to be collateral damage. If we started hosting Alex Jones and Tommy Robinson videos, what do you think would happen to our google rank? Its going to be the same with these FE videos.
4) This isn't our fight.

I think these people should be able to say what they want, I think they should allow market forces to dictate what people watch, I think the governments should keep their noses out of online content. But I don't think TFES should be nominating itself to help a youtube community that has from the outset made it clear they want nothing to do with us.


Wow! Thork comes through.  Good stuff....


But Tom's opposing point is also very valid. This conflict is often at the very heart of a religion  or political party.
"How do we deal with the extreme edges of our own ideology?"

The current discussion boils it down nicely. "Those people are NOT us but if their freaky extremism creates interest in us, it's not a bad thing."


Be aware, right now the extremists are merely an embarrassment. If any of them start to talk about using violence to reveal the conspiracy, it will behoove TFES to denounce them openly.  (right?)





117
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reliability of senses
« on: August 27, 2018, 02:47:22 PM »
Is stating that us just looking at stuff is evidence. And sometimes it is, but let's take those examples one by one:

The world looks flat - that isn't evidence either for or against a flat earth.
It certainly is evidence for a flat earth.

If I wrote I saw this (while I was at the zoo or in Australia):

there would be no hesitation on your part to accept that statement as evidence I sensed and winessed the appearance of a kangaroo.
The bottoms of clouds are flat - not even sure that one is true, even if it is I don't know what bearing that would have on the shape of the earth.
The bottoms of clouds are not always flat:

but for the most part, they are.

You are correct I believe as far as what impact this does or not have in terms of earth shape.
The movement of the sun - this one is ironic given that a core FE belief is UA which is used as a substitute for gravity, the claim being that it would be indistinguishable from gravity (true in many ways but the Cavendish experiment is demonstration of gravity as a force). Point being the exact same thing applies here. The sun moving across the sky would look exactly the same if the sun went round a stationary earth or the earth rotates and the sun remains still (relatively, let's not go down that rabbit hole).
UA is not a core belief of FE.
None of these things are evidence for or against a flat earth. And the horizon always at eye level page is basically one long "well, it looks like it's at eye level, so it is". Case closed! No controlled experiments are outlined on that page. Yes, if we do a controlled experiment we are using our senses to look at the results but that's not the same as just looking at the horizon, figuring it looks pretty much at eye level and saying that is evidence for it being AT eye level regardless of altitude.

There seems to be an emphasis of what you can perceive rather than what you can measure.
I disagree as I have personally measured the altitude of the sun over the flat earth.



I'd have no problem accepting your evidence that you photographed a kangaroo unless you tried to tell me it was an alligator, a fish or a hyper-intelligent alien being from another dimension.

A bag inflated with hydrogen gas looks empty unless we move beyond our senses. The world looks flat unless we move beyond our senses.

We don't have the capacity to sense every aspect of the world around us.

Doesn't it seem arrogant to think that any one of us can comprehend all of reality by looking out a window?

118
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Model
« on: August 25, 2018, 05:53:21 PM »
Wow!

Excellent mechanics. Leave it to a Globehead to do real FE science.

If they could just get past that annoying issue with the existence of the South Pole.

 

119
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is Greenland as big as Africa?
« on: August 25, 2018, 01:18:35 PM »
Assuming the earth is flat, google maps is not accurate and shouldn't be used by flat earthers.  Why not use Gleason's map, for example?

It’s my understanding that all FE maps are globe projections. This includes the mono-polar, bi-polar and Gleason maps, as well as others. In essence, there’s no such thing as an FE map.

It's actually the other way around. There's no such thing as globular maps. Any globes you see are simply globular projections of a flat earth.


So producing a map of the flat earth that accurately locates and sizes the continents in the Southern Hemisphere along with time zones and distances across the Antarctic should be no problem right?

Yes, the UN uses it as its primary symbol these days.


I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting anyone else's position.

Are you saying that the UN Logo is an accurate representation of the sizing and location of the major continents?

Do you believe the UN would choose an inaccurate map as their primary logo?

Awesome question...

I believe the UN logo is a stylized image of an azimuth projection used for cosmetic effect, like the Pepsi logo or the Nike swoosh.
That's what I believe.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not sure you've been clear.
You believe the UN logo is the physical map of the flat earth revealing the fact that the distance from Perth to Brisbane is twice the distance of NYC to Sacramento (a secret they've kept for centuries.)

We all understand that there is disagreement in the FET community on this level of detail. We are all entitled to our opinions in areas of disagreement.



 






120
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is Greenland as big as Africa?
« on: August 24, 2018, 09:54:02 PM »
Assuming the earth is flat, google maps is not accurate and shouldn't be used by flat earthers.  Why not use Gleason's map, for example?

It’s my understanding that all FE maps are globe projections. This includes the mono-polar, bi-polar and Gleason maps, as well as others. In essence, there’s no such thing as an FE map.

It's actually the other way around. There's no such thing as globular maps. Any globes you see are simply globular projections of a flat earth.


So producing a map of the flat earth that accurately locates and sizes the continents in the Southern Hemisphere along with time zones and distances across the Antarctic should be no problem right?

Yes, the UN uses it as its primary symbol these days.


I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting anyone else's position.

Are you saying that the UN Logo is an accurate representation of the sizing and location of the major continents?

Pages: < Back  1 ... 4 5 [6] 7  Next >