1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can someone explain to me what why down and up doesn’t exist?

« Last post by gnuarm on Today at 04:01:30 PM »

I watched the Eric Dubai video, but I’m confused. Can someone explain?

Perhaps if you told us a bit about the video, and what issue you are confused about, we might be able to explain it to you?

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Can someone explain to me what why down and up doesn’t exist?

« Last post by watermelon on Today at 03:57:37 PM »

I watched the Eric Dubai video, but I’m confused. Can someone explain?

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars

« Last post by Unconvinced on Today at 03:23:14 PM »

A non-existent telescope they trashed as junk over 200 years ago, are you serious?

If that’s your idea of an argument, it’s pure nonsense.

When our telescopes today, even the cheapest ones have greater magnification than they had back then, better and more accurate lenses than they had, etc.

How could we make smaller telescopes that are better than those before, which were much larger, yet inferior to smaller ones? 

The size of instruments, from telescopes to computers to televisions, is ever smaller and better than before, less bulky and primitive, and size is only one factor in it, like we have tv screens that are much larger than before. Same with larger computers with more memory and speed, etc are larger at times, or so forth.

You can’t see their multiple distinct belts with any telescope we have today, saying there are imaginary telescopes that would show their multiple distinct belts, to prove their scrapped junk saw them too, wow!!

FYI

Size matters for telescopes. The aperture determines that amount of light that can be gathered and the the maximum possible resolution.  Good quality optics are obviously much better than crap optics, but there are hard limits to what lenses and mirrors can achieve that are determined by their size.

It’s the opposite to computers, which get faster the more tightly components are packed together.

Magnification is only part of it.  You can make a cheap telescope with both small and shitty optics with a high magnification, but that doesn’t mean seeing anything clearly through it.  Generally,  higher the magnification, the worse the image quality.  It’s a trade off between the two.

Usually it’s the manufacturers of budget telescopes that try to make a big deal out of their supposedly awesome magnification.  This is mainly marketing bullshit, because capitalism.  Higher end manufacturers know they can’t get away with that nonsense because they are generally selling to people who know a bit about it.

4

Flat Earth General / Re: When FE got popular a few years ago did Congress put pressure on YouTube?

« Last post by Timeisup on Today at 03:05:59 PM »

I was listening to a recent episode of Globebusters and they mentioned Congress got involved to put pressure on YouTube to do something about how popular FE was becoming so I thought I’d try to do some fact finding. I’m not sure this is the right place for that but anyway, perhaps it’s worth a shot.

In your dreams! What gives you the idea that people actually care about what a few wackos believe?

If you want to do some fact finding then find some facts out about just how divorced from reality flat earth believers are.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars

« Last post by JackBlack on Today at 02:23:44 PM »

If that’s your idea of an argument, it’s pure nonsense.

No, that is your BS strawman.

How could we make smaller telescopes that are better than those before, which were much larger, yet inferior to smaller ones?

You can't.
Physics gets in the way.
Magnification is useless without resolution.
We have already been over this.
Why go down this path of pure BS when you have already been refuted on it?

The best telescopes today are much larger than theirs.
Smaller is not better.
Newer is not necessarily better.

How many other claims have been made, without any proof at all, with all the proof showing their claims are false

Try saying it honestly.
Their claims have mountains of evidence supporting it which you simply dismiss as fake or lies.
Meanwhile, you are yet to present any evidence at all to show their claims are false.

And why does that happen? Because it doesn't match your fantasy, so you reject it at all costs.

It’s denial of reality to believe their claims are true, when it’s obviously nonsense.

If their claims were obviously nonsense, you would be able to show that, rather than repeating the same pathetic lies and the same BS arguments which have been refuted countless times.

Likewise, you wouldn't be dismissing so much evidence as lies or fake.
That is denial of reality.

6

Flat Earth General / Re: When FE got popular a few years ago did Congress put pressure on YouTube?

« Last post by gnuarm on Today at 02:17:29 PM »

I think YouTube/Google did testify a few years ago about child exploitation, though.

If I recall correctly, that was from collecting data on children and showing them targeted ads.

Of course, that's where the money is!

7

Flat Earth General / Re: FINALLY! Proof of Truth

« Last post by gnuarm on Today at 02:15:54 PM »

take a trip to salt lake for your proof

Care to explain? 

8

Flat Earth General / Re: When FE got popular a few years ago did Congress put pressure on YouTube?

« Last post by JackBlack on Today at 02:13:48 PM »

I think YouTube/Google did testify a few years ago about child exploitation, though.

If I recall correctly, that was from collecting data on children and showing them targeted ads.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: When FE got popular a few years ago did Congress put pressure on YouTube?

« Last post by Space Cowgirl on Today at 01:07:33 PM »

I don't think Congress put pressure on YouTube, not openly anyway. There were news articles about YouTube's algorithm leading people down conspiracy rabbit holes, so I think most of the pressure came from the media. Right around the same time there were articles claiming YouTube was radicalizing people into the "alt right".  This was all around 2019, the media were desperate for something to blame Trump on.

Not sure about congress, but they’ve definitely been hauled in front of parliamentary select committees in the UK, and probably similar in other countries, along with other social media companies.

Yeah, lately it has been about Twitter in the US. I do believe the govts (all of them) want social media to censor content. It's just in the US, the govt is not supposed to do that, so they tend to be secretive about it. I mean, we have a constitutional right to speak about conspiracy theories!


I think YouTube/Google did testify a few years ago about child exploitation, though.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: When FE got popular a few years ago did Congress put pressure on YouTube?

« Last post by Unconvinced on Today at 12:46:12 PM »

I don't think Congress put pressure on YouTube, not openly anyway. There were news articles about YouTube's algorithm leading people down conspiracy rabbit holes, so I think most of the pressure came from the media. Right around the same time there were articles claiming YouTube was radicalizing people into the "alt right".  This was all around 2019, the media were desperate for something to blame Trump on.

Not sure about congress, but they’ve definitely been hauled in front of parliamentary select committees in the UK, and probably similar in other countries, along with other social media companies.