1

The Lounge / Re: Happy Cinco de Mayo

« on: May 06, 2025, 02:21:54 PM »

You too!

Thanks.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Misunderstanding

« on: May 06, 2025, 06:41:26 AM »

1-

Don't blame religion for the bad deeds of people. God didn't tell you to kill, steal, or do other bad deeds. I believe the Ten Commandments in the Abrahamic religions make that clear.

There is no such thing as God. Religion is not God. Religions are sets of beliefs about the world (most of which have been proven to be false) and sets of rules about how to behave (which fewer than 1% of the believers in any religion actually follow) and sets of principles about right and wrong (which 99% of the believers in any religion ignore).

Two out of the three Abrahamic religions demand that their members actively spread their religion to others, and the historical fact is that when they do so, they use violence, coercion, and lies to do so.

Both the Bible and the Qur'an were written by men. The only things you can learn from these books is what those men believed. And the adherents of all three Abrahamic religions pick and choose from their scriptures, accepting those parts they find convenient, and rationalizing away those parts they find inconvenient. (As for example the way that Christians reject Jesus's commandment to sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, or the way jihadist Muslims reject Mohammed's commandment against killing civilians, just to mention two examples.)

Your claim that Islam was not spread by the sword is as preposterous as the belief that the Earth is flat.

3

The Lounge / Happy Cinco de Mayo

« on: May 05, 2025, 05:39:03 PM »

Happy Cinco de Mayo everybody.

(Sorry to those of you in Europe and Australia, where it's already seis de mayo.)

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Misunderstanding

« on: May 05, 2025, 01:13:46 PM »

Looking back, what seems strange to me now is not that people would wish to embody Jesus’ values, but that others would criticize them for it. What seems even stranger is that few Christians, in the modern day, match this profile. is that Muslims seemed to embody Jesus’ values better than Christians. <...snip...>

We have absolutely no way to know what Jesus looked like or how he dressed other than that he probably dressed like any other destitute person of his era.

As for his values, Muslims are every bit as bad as Christians at emulating Jesus: He preached absolute poverty, love of your enemies, and absolute avoidance of any sort of violence. Muslims hoard wealth as much as Christians do, and Islam was spread by the sword, just as Christianity was. All three Abrahamic religions wage horrible, bloody, brutal wars for the purpose of taking other people's stuff.

All that crap about wearing a beard and washing before prayer has NOTHING to do with VALUES.

There are many reasons why religion is needed for Mankind: <...snip...>

Religion does nothing but create hatred between people, keeping them apart and moving them to kill each other to convert each other. Religion is responsible for at least half of the preventable suffering in the world, and is the most vile and reprehensible scourge ever foisted upon the human race.

ETA: It's because of religion that America now has an absolute idiot and would-be fascist dictator as president.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What keeps us on the ground

« on: May 04, 2025, 06:42:35 PM »

You do understand what acceleration is, don't you? It is a change in speed or direction. If the Earth were constantly accelerating upward its speed would increase without end, and it would soon be traveling at near the speed of light and would cross the entire universe in an eyeblink. This is just absurd. You cannot increase speed forever.

The only way acceleration can continue forever is by orbiting IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD.

Inertia is not a force holding us down. Inertia is just a word for Newton's first law of motion: An object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by a force, and an object at rest remains at rest unless acted on by a force. If inertia were all that was keeping us on the ground, then when you jump up you'd continue to go up. The reason you don't continue to go up is GRAVITY pulling you back toward the center of mass of the Earth.

Lastly, you propose that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards. Where does the energy for this acceleration come from?

You do understand they are appealing to an interpretation of general relativity, where an object in free fall is considered to be in an inertial frame of reference, and Earth is round the surface is accelerating outwards in curved spacetime?

Wait a minute! Are you saying that flat-earthers say the Earth is round and accelerating outwards, i.e. expanding at an ever-increasing rate? If that's the case, how is it "FLAT"?

I do understand that flat-earthers claim that everybody who has ever been in Earth orbit is lying about it, that the Apollo astronauts all lied about it, everybody who's ever been to an Antarctic research station is lying, everybody who's ever gone to Antarctica on an adventure education is lying, the whole world of professional and amateur astronomers are lying, and all the managers and workers at NASA, Roscosmos, and the Chinese space agency are lying. Also that all the engineers and technicians at all the companies and government agencies that operate weather and communications satellites are lying.

But I admit that I an flummoxed by what they believe about the Earth, because there seem to be several, if not many, entirely different and contradictory versions of flat-earth. Is the Earth an infinite plane? Is it a disk? How thick is it? What is underneath it? Or does it go on down infinitely? If it's infinitely thick and accelerating upwards, how is that possible?  If it's a disk accelerating upwards, would we be left behind if we managed to get past the NASA penguins and got over the ice wall and fell off the edge? Are the sun and Moon lamps on tracks or holograms projected on an overhead screen of some sort?

At least Terry Prachett explained clearly and concisely how his Discworld worked. Flat disc, four elephants, one turtle, ocean water flowing off the edge all around.

(The joking way they talk about the NASA penguins is just one reason I think most of them are just in it for giggles and don't actually believe any of it.)

6

Flat Earth General / Re: Katy Perry in space

« on: May 04, 2025, 06:17:49 PM »

... So you are just saying the vast majority of so called feminists do not represent the feminist movement or follow what feminism is about? ...

No, I'm saying that you have found a few exceptions and have decided that they represent what feminism is.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What keeps us on the ground

« on: May 04, 2025, 09:03:01 AM »

2. If the surface of the Earth were constantly accelerating upwards. That is, moving upwards at a constantly increasing speed. This is preposterous because very shortly after the creation of the Earth, it would be moving upwards at nearly the speed of light.

Out of curiosity, how long do you think it would take for it to reach the speed of light?


Also why are you presenting a false dichotomy?

It never reaches the speed of light, but it would be traveling through space at just under the speed of light. And due to the dilation of time and space, we would have reached the furthest galaxies in the universe long ago. It would overtake the stars and we would see them whizzing past us as if they were going the other way at the same speed. We do not see this. Therefore it is not happening. We are not accelerating. We are merely in a gravitational field.

Or to state it another way: You cannot accelerate at 32 ft/sec/sec forever. If you think you can, then you profoundly misunderstand physics. You say you do not deny science, but you make claims which are incompatible with science. Where would the energy come from to accelerate the entire Earth forever? It takes energy to accelerate mass. There is no possible source of energy for what you are proposing. Especially if you adhere to the version of FET that claims the flat Earth is infinite.

What do you think is a false dichotomy? Those are the only explanations for what we perceive as gravity: Either actual gravity, or unending acceleration.

(Obviously, the bit about the FSM was a joke.)

Or relativistic gravity. Which says you are being held to the surface due to inertia. Like I said. Or a million other explanations.

All these problems you bring up are all solved problems with the particular model that purports the earth is accelerating upwards. You also say puzzling things like "you make claims which are incompatible with science" which is one of the primary purposes of non-normal science, one of the historically most useful parts of science.

You thinking those are the only explanations possible just goes to show you haven't thought about the matter much critically.

You do understand what acceleration is, don't you? It is a change in speed or direction. If the Earth were constantly accelerating upward its speed would increase without end, and it would soon be traveling at near the speed of light and would cross the entire universe in an eyeblink. This is just absurd. You cannot increase speed forever.

The only way acceleration can continue forever is by orbiting IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD.

Inertia is not a force holding us down. Inertia is just a word for Newton's first law of motion: An object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by a force, and an object at rest remains at rest unless acted on by a force. If inertia were all that was keeping us on the ground, then when you jump up you'd continue to go up. The reason you don't continue to go up is GRAVITY pulling you back toward the center of mass of the Earth.

Lastly, you propose that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards. Where does the energy for this acceleration come from?

8

Flat Earth General / Re: Katy Perry in space

« on: May 04, 2025, 08:49:23 AM »

... They are not demanding fair and equal treatment, they want special treatment. ...

No doubt there are individuals who do. There is a range of views and opinions in any group or movement. But that is not what feminism is, and it's not what the feminist movement as a whole is demanding.

Since the beginning of history women have been treated as property or as second-class citizens. Even today they have fewer opportunities and are paid less for doing the same work to the same standards. Some men recognize this and support their demands to be treated fairly. Other men, jealous of their own special privilege as men, or angry that their own wives or girlfriends won't bow down to them, rebel and resist, making the false claim that there is no discrimination and that therefore there is no need for change.

And defining a multibillionaire's blatant publicity stunt as "feminism" is just an absurd attempt to disparage what feminism actually is.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What keeps us on the ground

« on: May 03, 2025, 03:11:15 PM »

2. If the surface of the Earth were constantly accelerating upwards. That is, moving upwards at a constantly increasing speed. This is preposterous because very shortly after the creation of the Earth, it would be moving upwards at nearly the speed of light.

Out of curiosity, how long do you think it would take for it to reach the speed of light?


Also why are you presenting a false dichotomy?

It never reaches the speed of light, but it would be traveling through space at just under the speed of light. And due to the dilation of time and space, we would have reached the furthest galaxies in the universe long ago. It would overtake the stars and we would see them whizzing past us as if they were going the other way at the same speed. We do not see this. Therefore it is not happening. We are not accelerating. We are merely in a gravitational field.

Or to state it another way: You cannot accelerate at 32 ft/sec/sec forever. If you think you can, then you profoundly misunderstand physics. You say you do not deny science, but you make claims which are incompatible with science. Where would the energy come from to accelerate the entire Earth forever? It takes energy to accelerate mass. There is no possible source of energy for what you are proposing. Especially if you adhere to the version of FET that claims the flat Earth is infinite.

What do you think is a false dichotomy? Those are the only explanations for what we perceive as gravity: Either actual gravity, or unending acceleration.

(Obviously, the bit about the FSM was a joke.)

10

Flat Earth Debate / Humphrey's Peak

« on: May 03, 2025, 01:13:22 PM »

Until I got too old and started getting overly skittish on the trails, and more and more scared of falling, which was becoming more likely with age, I used to love hiking in the mountains. I was never a climber or a mountaineer, but I loved the mountains and had enough stamina at the start of each hiking season for 1,500 to 2,000 feet of vertical elevation gain, and by the end of the season I was able to do up to 5,500 feet of elevation gain in a day, which I generally did on at least one hike near the end of each season. The summits I climbed to were generally from eight to nine thousand feet above sea level, and surrounded by higher mountains that would have required climbing and mountaineering skills to ascend.

(Hiking is when you're just walking. Anybody can do it. Climbing and mountaineering are technical skills that must be learned. I was just a hiker.)

But one time I spent two or three weeks hiking around Flagstaff, Arizona, and one day we hiked to the top of Humphrey's Peak, which is 12,633 feet above sea level. The trailhead is around 3,500 feel below the summit, so we started hiking at a higher elevation than most of the summits I was accustomed to. Somewhere around 11,500 or 12,000 feet I could feel that it was a little bit harder, due to the lower air pressure and resultant reduced oxygen.

Rounding off the numbers, there's 68% as much oxygen at 10,000 feet as there is at sea level. At 12,000 feet there's 63% as much oxygen. And at the top of Humphrey's Peak there's 62% as much, which explains why I was feeling that climbing was starting to get harder.

And so I get to the point of this post: Humphrey's Peak is the highest point in Arizona, so when you are up there you are higher than anything within eyesight. And from that height, the horizon is very clearly curved. You can hold your hiking pole out in front of you, against the horizon, and see the horizon bend down from it at both ends. When you look at the world from the vantage point of Humphrey's Peak, you can SEE the curvature of the world.

The only other time I've been on the highest point within view was on top of Ben Nevis, in Scotland. Ben Nevis is about 4,400 feet above sea level, and the parking lot where you start your hike is around 100 feet, so you climb 4,300 vertical feet along a wide stone path that's very easy to climb, but can make the bottoms of your feet sore by the end of the hike. From the top of Ben Nevis the curvature of the Earth is not easily apparent to the naked eye.

I recommend that any flat-earther who is reasonably fit (it is a strenuous hike) and can make it to Flagstaff, climb Humphrey's Peak and see for yourself. It's a beautiful hike. If you are not an experienced hiker, bring a friend who is, or hire a guide. Nature is beautiful, but she can be unforgiving to those who are unprepared.

BTW, the reason there's less oxygen high up in  the atmosphere is because there's less air pressure, so there's less of everything. And the reason there's less air pressure is because the weight of overlying air, pulled down by gravity, presses downward and compresses the air below. The lower you are, the more air there is above you being pulled down by gravity.

Something similar happens with water, except that water is not compressible so the density does not increase, but the pressure does, which is why an inflated balloon will get smaller if you force it under water, and why a badly-constructed submarine will implode if it goes too deep.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: if science is fake, do you believe computers are made by hidden wizards?

« on: May 03, 2025, 08:36:38 AM »

I hardly think every flat earther thinks lepidopterists are lying to them, but I guess you are free to believe whatever unreasonable position you wish to take.

Ever heard of hyperbole?

You understand perfectly well what I'm saying and are pretending not to: The number of scientists that would have to be part of a conspiracy to perpetuate the lie that the Earth is round if it were actually flat, is incomprehensibly large. Not to mention all the amateur astronomers and high-school physics teachers and all the people who have visited Antarctica for work or adventure.

If the Earth were really flat, there would have to be a conspiracy so mind-bogglingly enormous that it would collapse under its own weight before it could even be formed. It is utterly absurd, just like FET itself.

Oh, yes, then there are all the people who have Starlink high-speed internet service in places where there are no cell phone towers or cable services. Starlink works by an enormous number of satellites constantly going around and around the round Earth. Everybody who has Starlink service in any remote location would have to be part of the conspiracy, and lying about it.

Speaking of satellites, I'm uncertain about your position in regard to them. A lot of FEers claim that satellites cannot exist, and/or even that space does not exist. But you've referred to satellites in orbit around a hypothetical planet, as well as an "elevator" in space.

Would you be willing to clarify what you believe with regard to space and satellites?

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is there no evidenve

« on: May 03, 2025, 08:09:14 AM »

The Sun does look smaller when seeing it atop a mountain far away. Look at images or videos of the Sun taken from the top of high mountains during sunrises.

Better yet, get a good pair of eclipse glasses. MAKE SURE THEY ARE FROM A REPUTABLE SUPPLIER AND ARE IN PERFECT CONDITION OR YOU CAN DAMAGE YOUR EYES! Then look at the sun through the eclipse glasses. You'll be surprised how small it looks. But it looks the same size no matter where it is in the sky, and no matter where you are on Earth.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What keeps us on the ground

« on: May 03, 2025, 08:02:44 AM »

Inertia.

If the only thing keeping us on the ground were inertia, then every time you jump up, you'd keep going up and up and up and never come down.

Let's say I'm in an elevator in the middle of space far away from any gravity. No windows. The elevator is accelerating upwards. What is holding me to the floor? My inertia countering the elevator rising.

Likewise for me and the ground.

Gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration. In your "elevator" the elevator's acceleration keeps you on the floor. On the Earth, the Earth's gravity acting upon your mass is what keeps you on the ground. A 300-pound sumo wrestler and a pea are both held to the floor of the elevator, or the ground on Earth. You need acceleration or gravity for either to be held down.

Inertia is just the name we give to the tendency for things in motion to stay in motion unless a force acts upon them, and for things at rest to remain at rest unless a force acts upon them.

So there are only three possible ways people and objects remain on the ground:

1. Gravity.
2. If the surface of the Earth were constantly accelerating upwards. That is, moving upwards at a constantly increasing speed. This is preposterous because very shortly after the creation of the Earth, it would be moving upwards at nearly the speed of light. Or for those that reject the speed of light, it would be moving upwards by now at an incomprehensible speed. This is just absurd.
3. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is constantly pressing down on us with His noodly appendages. I like this explanation best, but that does not make it right.

Everything has always existed on Earths surface - ground and waters of Earth. Our greater mass is what keeps us on the Earths surfaces, the air above us is less dense than all things on Earth, but we can create things less dense than air, and they rise up in air, being less dense than air. ...

You are describing buoyancy: The tendency of a less dense object to float upon a more dense fluid, such as water or air. Or negative buoyancy: the tendency of a more dense object to sink in a less-dense fluid, such as water or air.

Buoyancy and negative buoyancy only exist because gravity exerts a force on an object that is proportional to the object's mass. it is the differential pull of gravity against an object, vs its pull on the same volume of the fluid the object is in, that causes the object to rise or sink. Mass does nothing unless a force acts upon it.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: if science is fake, do you believe computers are made by hidden wizards?

« on: May 02, 2025, 06:00:14 PM »

Do you agree that Einstein said that gravity is a pseudo-force that arises from taking a non-inertial frame of reference as an inertial one, such as in his famous Elevator thought experiment?

I am not aware of everything that Einstein said, but no, I doubt he would have said that gravity arises from "taking a non-inertial frame of reference as an inertial one." Gravity is what we experience due to the curvature of space-time in the presence of mass. He might have said that we experience gravity as a force due to "taking a non-inertial frame of reference as an inertial one." But not that it arises by that reason.

Never the less I think we can confidently say there are some flat earthers that do not ignore all of science and the point of this thread is a bit moot, no?

In order to believe that the Earth is flat, in the usual sense of the word "flat," You either need to reject science, or you need to profoundly misunderstand it, or you need to assert that virtually all the world's scientists are lying to us. That last one is pathetically common among falt-earthers, with their grand conspiracy theories about NASA, and, presumably, all the world's other space agencies and astronomers.

In your case, it is clear that you profoundly misunderstand it, with your argument that the Earth is "flat" because of relativity and satellites being inertial frames of reference. (Which they are not.)

(I really hoped that you were joking, because a humorist, even one with a peculiar sense of humor, is more to be admired than someone who is delusional. FET is a delusion. Or rather, a category of delusions, since there are so many mutually-incompatible versions of it.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What keeps us on the ground

« on: May 02, 2025, 05:41:46 PM »

Inertia.

If the only thing keeping us on the ground were inertia, then every time you jump up, you'd keep going up and up and up and never come down.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: Katy Perry in space

« on: May 02, 2025, 03:46:12 PM »

Whenever an oppressed group demands fair and equal treatment, they get accused of wanting special treatment. Not surprising, I suppose: The people who benefit from the racism or sexism of the status quo get very upset about the possibility of losing their privileged status.

17

Flat Earth General / Re: A Survey

« on: May 02, 2025, 01:44:41 PM »

The link doesn't work unless you have a Google account.

Correction: I managed to log in as a guest and answer the survey.

18

The Lounge / Re: The Cooking Thread

« on: May 02, 2025, 01:41:05 PM »

Beets are good.

Especially the golden ones that don't have that indelible red dye in them. When I had a big garden I grew albino beets: Same great flavor, no color at all. I've never seen those in the store, though, so I buy the golden ones.

Damn, now I want some beets.

Oh, yeah, what's REALLY great is when the beets are very fresh and the greens have not wilted, I cut out the crown of the beet (because it's too hard to clean) and then I steam the beets with their own greens. Sooooooooo yummy!!!

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: if science is fake, do you believe computers are made by hidden wizards?

« on: May 02, 2025, 07:01:52 AM »

If the satellite was accelerating you would feel a pull. When you are in a car and you accelerate you feel a pull.

No. Because BOTH you and the satellite are being accelerated equally by being in the Earth's gravitational field. Both are in free-fall, constantly accelerated at an equal rate. You feel weightless because  you are in free-fall, but the acceleration of free-fall means that you are not in an inertial frame of reference.

Really, what you are claiming is silly: You are saying that the Earth is flat because a satellite going AROUND and AROUND it is following a "straight line" through spacetime. Note the part about the satellite going AROUND and AROUND!

I think your problem is that you misequate the relativistic concept of "shortest path between two events" in space-time, with the common conception of "flat." Relativity itself says that space-time is curved by the gravitational field. So the "shortest path" is actually curved, not straight, as you claim.

It is a characteristic of pseudoscientists to believe they understand things better than experts who have actually studied a field of knowledge. FET is pseudoscience, and it's proponents believe they know more than actual scientists.

20

The Lounge / Re: The Cooking Thread

« on: May 02, 2025, 06:41:58 AM »

The red would be beets. Borscht is basically beet soup.

21

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Misunderstanding

« on: May 02, 2025, 06:39:35 AM »

... Muslims implement the teachings of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, more than Christians themselves...

No large religion or denomination follows the teachings of Jesus, as reported in the Gospels. (We don't really know for sure if Jesus was a real person, so I'm speaking of Jesus as he is portrayed in the Gospels.) No Christian sect or denomination follows them. No sect of Muslims follows them. Nobody does other than a few isolated individuals here and there.

Jesus taught that you should own nothing but one set of simple, basic clothing. And perhaps a begging bowl. He said that you should own no wealth, but instead trust to God to provide. He said that you should give away ALL your wealth to the poor. He said that if someone steals from you, you should give them even more than they stole. That if someone strikes you, you should allow them to do so again. He preached total passivity in the face of violence or theft. He preached that you should love your neighbors and your enemies as you love God Himself. He taught that you should never judge another person.

There have been examples in history, and perhaps the present, of people who have given away everything and lived in total poverty and nonviolence. But they are few and far between, and no religion, sect, or denomination lives this way as a group. (Some monks renounce personal possessions, living instead in community where everything is shared, but they do not give their possessions to the poor, as Jesus commanded. Rather, they give their possessions to the community they are joining, to be shared among their fellow monks.)

You are correct that in the first century C.E. there were many Christianities, with many different views of God and Jesus. Eventually the Roman church, started by Paul, managed to convert, buy out, or kill off all other versions. The Unitarians, the Universalists, the Marcionites, and all the others were mostly killed off, and the world was left with Pauline Trinitarianism, which had and has nothing whatsoever to do with the teachings of Jesus.

Of course, all religion is bullshit. Mostly, it's an excuse for people to go to war against those that don't share their beliefs, so they can take their stuff.

22

Flat Earth General / Re: Katy Perry in space

« on: May 01, 2025, 07:10:56 AM »

Feminism is the empowerment of women against the centuries of being denied opportunity. It is getting equal pay for equal work. It is getting equal opportunity in a society that privileges men and routinely hires and promotes men over women who are more qualified.

It is far wider than that.
That is just the very polished portrayal they want of it.

Feminism, in its simplest definition, is advocacy and action in the promotion of women's rights or interests.
It is not about equality and hasn't been pretty much from the start.
e.g. feminists advocating for the right to vote, while opposing given women the responsibilities that come with it like the possibility of being drafted.
And in modern times, like opposing those who want to make newly laws introduced laws criminalising infant genital mutilation being equal for both sexes and instead only wanting that protection being given to women; or actively opposing having the legal definition of rape to include female perpetrators and male victims; and incredibly sexist hiring practices where people are hired because of their sex, or scholarships given to people not based upon merit but because they are female; or being proud of a "gender diverse" committee, where 9 out of the 11 people on it are women; and perhaps even more ridiculous, equal pay for unequal work.

And they select them for their abilities, not their looks. That's feminism.

No, that would be a meritocracy or egalitarianism.
Feminism is hiring them because they are women.

Actually, when we had the draft, feminists advocated for equality, and that women should be subject to the draft equally with men. I was there at the time. I remember. It was the same men who wanted their women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen who opposed drafting women, supposedly to "protect" them.

Feminists also opposed genital mutilation of both boys and girls. None of them opposed laws against the rape of men.

Feminists demanded that the economy be egalitarian rather than discriminatory against women, as it has always been and still is, though to a lesser degree now than before.

What you are describing is a ridiculous caricature of feminism, a "straw women" invented by misogynistic men.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: Trump Knows the Earth is Flat

« on: May 01, 2025, 07:00:33 AM »

So you are on the flat earth society to make yourself mad and direct that into something positive, or are you just here to be a self proclaimed scientist that tells everyone his opinions leaving no room for others.

I'm here for the same reason that 99% of self-professed flat-earthers are: Because it's fun to talk about nonsense. We need some silliness in our lives, especially in this time of insanity in government. I come here for a few minutes a day to get some silliness.   

You forgot to mention the pay you get to come here.

The Round-Earth Conspiracy Institute pays me twenty-seven cents a month to post here once a day. Oops, I wasn't supposed to say that out loud.   

24

Flat Earth General / Re: Katy Perry in space

« on: April 30, 2025, 06:02:16 PM »

No, just BS that has nothing to do with feminism.

No, BS that has a lot to do with it, and the idea of female empowerment and female representation.
I see nothing at all to suggest it is not, and plenty to show it is.

Women are definitely capable of being astronauts, and many are, has has been shown since the Russians started sending female cosmonauts into space. These ladies did nothing! They did not show that they were capable of anything. And nobody needed to show that women were capable of sitting in a space capsule because they've been doing it for fifty years.

The same can be said for lots of feminist BS, yet they still do it.

This was not feminism.

It was.
It being a stupid publicity stunt doesn't mean it isn't feminism.

Feminism is the empowerment of women against the centuries of being denied opportunity. It is getting equal pay for equal work. It is getting equal opportunity in a society that privileges men and routinely hires and promotes men over women who are more qualified.

Feminism is not sending a bunch of pretty women to the edge of space in a rocket that famously resembles a penis, where they do nothing but sit in their seats for three or four minutes, then float around for another two or three, then sit in their seats again for another three or four. Feminism is absolutely not about exploiting pretty women to boost a male billionaire's ego.

NASA and Roscosmos and the CNSA all routinely send women to space to do actual research work in space and increase the store of human knowledge. And they select them for their abilities, not their looks. That's feminism. Giving important jobs to women because they are qualified to do them.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: if science is fake, do you believe computers are made by hidden wizards?

« on: April 30, 2025, 05:48:33 PM »

As for whether or not a satellite is an inertial frame of reference, I wasn't sure. I asked DeepSeek and here is its relevant quote (I can give you its full reply if you like):

Orbiting satellites are constantly accelerating toward Earth (due to gravity), violating the inertial condition.

So to answer both your questions: Yes, the people in the satellite would experience effective (but not absolute) weightlessness, and no, they would not be in an inertial frame of reference, due to the constant acceleration they experience. Even if the orbit was "perfect."

Asking AI isn't all that helpful.
What determines the answer here is how you view gravity.
If you view it in the Newtonian sense, it is a force which accelerates objects so an orbiting satellite is not in an inertial frame of reference.

If you view it in the sense of general relativity, then at least locally it is an inertial frame of reference, as being in free fall is entirely indistinguishable from being in deep space with nothing around you, with you not accelerating at all.
In this view, standing on a hypothetical stationary planet would be a non-inertial reference frame where you are accelerating upwards, equivalent to being in an elevator in deep space accelerating upwards.

The issue then comes when you try to remove the locality of it, going from a local frame where you can consider the gravitational field to be uniform to a much larger frame where the gravitational field changes.

You are mistaken. Whether you use Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity, the satellite is experiencing acceleration. Under Newton, the gravitational force is pulling on the satellite. Under Einstein, the satellite, by virtue of being in the Earth's gravitational field, is experiencing acceleration.

Either way, the satellite is being accelerated, and is therefore not an inertial frame of reference.

It can be used as a frame of reference, just not an inertial one.

I think what you're trying to say is that because of relativity, the satellite is moving in a "straight" line (around the Earth) and maintaining a constant distance from the Earth's surface (since we've postulated a perfectly circular orbit) and therefore the Earth is "flat." But the satellite is going around and around it.

So are you saying that the surface of the Earth, which the satellite is going AROUND and AROUND is "flat" because Einstein?

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: if science is fake, do you believe computers are made by hidden wizards?

« on: April 30, 2025, 02:41:07 PM »

... I believe Relativity describes a flat earth. ...

Your "belief" that "Relativity describes a flat earth" does not make it so. And every single physicist on earth, people who have actually studied relativity and are capable of doing the math, will tell you that relativity does not describe a flat Earth. In fact, as Markjo correctly points out, relativity predicts that an object in space the size of the Earth (or even much smaller) will collapse into a roughly spherical shape. For the Earth to be flat, relativity theory would have to be utterly and completely wrong. Which is why most flat-earthers reject it, rather than citing it in defense of flat-earthism.

And since you are obviously not a stupid person, I'm convinced that you know this and are just having fun pretending to believe the utterly preposterous notion of a flat Earth. I don't think you believe a word you've posted here.

I've talked with several physicists. Many agree in my interpretation, though I imagine would ultimately not say anything in public due to the flack they'd get off it.

Yes, it would appear round to us dumbos assuming we are living in a euclidean work in a non-inertial frame of reference. However in actuality, the very curvature you are trying to say collapses it into a sphere proves it is flat.

I'll ignore your insults. Trying to claim I'm not a real flat earther even though I have done interviews with my real name and photo, am president of the flat earth society, have been at this over 2 decades, ran local groups and receive a significant amount of hate and flack in my real life due to it is pretty rich. Who would fake this this publicly? It has affected my career, personal life, and just about every aspect of life in general. So that's just a bit silly, isn't it?

So let's see if you can actually try attacking the argument rather than trying to claim I don't believe what I believe with no evidence or reason aside from you are bigoted towards the flat earth ideology.

The reason you think relativity says its round is the same reason people mis-attributed gravity to a force in spite of relativity.

Let us take the instance of a theoretical planet, lets call it Terra. It has a satellite, but not just any one. Its a perfectly orbiting satellite - which is to say its at a stable orbit and will continue to be forever. Would you agree a person on said satellite would feel weightlessness, which is to say they would be in an inertial frame of reference? If so I'll continue to the next step.

If you mean a low-mass artificial satellite such as the ISS, then people inside the satellite would experience micro-gravity. I.e. as near as their human senses could discern, they would feel weightless. This is because they are in free-fall around the planet. It is not necessary that the orbit of the satellite be "perfect." Just that it be in free-fall, that is, not using engines or any sort of self-contained propulsion.

There is always gravity, but if you are in free-fall you FEEL as though you are weightless.

You get the same feeling in the so-called "vomit comet," the airplane that flies a series of parabolic arcs so as to be in free-fall for a few minutes at a time.

If you found an actual physicist who agreed with you that relativity is consistent with a flat Earth, then they were just patronizing you. Real scientists live to disprove established hypotheses. It's a slow process because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But it's an ongoing process, and is a characteristic of science: Scientists try to disprove their own theories, and accept them only when they cannot. Pseudoscientists just look for confirming evidence and reject disconfirming evidence out of hand, with claims of conspiracies; and they search out seeming anomalies in established science and then look no further into the explanations of those seeming anomalies.

Flat-earthers cannot even agree on a consistent theory. The details run all over the place. The only thing flat-earthers agree on is that the Earth is "flat." But is it a flat disc like a pancake? Is it flat on top and convex on the bottom? Is it an infinite plane? How thick is it? Is it infinitely thick? Is there anything underneath? Are the sun and Moon lamps or holograms, are they round or flat? Is the Earth covered by some kind of ceiling? Does it cover the whole Earth or just the part where people are? Flat-earthers cannot agree on any of this, and one often gets different answers from the same person depending on which aspect of FE theory is being challenged. In fact, there is no "flat-earth THEORY" because a "theory" is a unified and consistent system that explains something about the observable world. Flat-earth "theory" is just a jumble of unconnected claims that have nothing in common but the word "flat." And it doesn't actually explain anything, and it makes no testable predictions.

As an example, I was watching an excellent video (I can link to it if you like) referring to the claim in some versions of FE theory that the Moon is 3,000 miles above the equator of the "flat" Earth. The presenter demonstrates that if this were the case, the Moon would appear very different from different points on the Earth. But it in fact does not. The only difference in the appearance of the Moon is its apparent orientation, due to the fact that each observer is oriented with their feet toward the center of the ROUND Earth. But no matter where you are on the Earth, if the Moon is up you see the same face, and it appears the same size, with only a slight refractive "enlargement" near the horizon due to the atmosphere, but not nearly enough enlargement to account for the geometry of a Moon 3,000 miles over the equator of a flat Earth. Not to mention that the Moon would never set if it were 3,000 miles above the surface of a flat Earth.

And as for relativity: Stars and planets form because of the gravitational collapse of gas and dust, and above a certain size that same process forces them into approximately spherical shape. The greater the mass and the lower the spin rate, the more nearly spherical an object will be. Until you get to black holes where we cannot see what's going on inside the event horizon. But that's not relevant to the shape of the Earth. The Earth and the other planets and the sun and the other stars are approximately spherical BECAUSE of relativity. Or more precisely, because of gravity, which is explained by relativity.

I am talking about a theoretically perfect satellite in perfect orbit as a thought experiment. Not sure what you are banging on about.

Is it in an inertial frame of reference or do you need me to explain what that is.

Mind you, I am asking you if the textbook example of an inertial frame of reference is an inertial frame of reference.

And I did answer you that people inside a satellite in a "perfect" orbit would indeed experience the sensation of weightlessness, which was what you asked. I further stated that the orbit would not have to be "perfect" for this to be the case. And that there would indeed be microgravity, but too small for them to detect.

As for whether or not a satellite is an inertial frame of reference, I wasn't sure. I asked DeepSeek and here is its relevant quote (I can give you its full reply if you like):

Orbiting satellites are constantly accelerating toward Earth (due to gravity), violating the inertial condition.

So to answer both your questions: Yes, the people in the satellite would experience effective (but not absolute) weightlessness, and no, they would not be in an inertial frame of reference, due to the constant acceleration they experience. Even if the orbit was "perfect."

27

Flat Earth General / Re: Katy Perry in space

« on: April 30, 2025, 02:29:53 PM »

There was nothing feminist about this stunt. It was the opposite of feminism: It was using women to promote space tourism for billionaires.

Certainly seemed like feminism. Trying to make a big deal about an all female team.
To show what women are capable of.
"empowering, groundbreaking and long overdue"

What? To show that women are capable of sitting in a seat in a space capsule? Women are definitely capable of being astronauts, and many are, has has been shown since the Russians started sending female cosmonauts into space. These ladies did nothing! They did not show that they were capable of anything. And nobody needed to show that women were capable of sitting in a space capsule because they've been doing it for fifty years.

This was not feminism. It was a stupid, pointless publicity stunt by Bezos to show that his company could send people to space. And sending celebrities is the way you get publicity.

And what possible realistic motive could they have to do that. ...

Jeff Bezos trying to show off his space penis by sending a bunch of pretty women to the edge of space. (His rockets can't even make it into orbit yet.)

And BTW, if space rockets were fake (as many FEers claim) why can't Bezos fake it as well as Musk can? Why did Bezos have to "fake" a sub-orbital flight?

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: if science is fake, do you believe computers are made by hidden wizards?

« on: April 30, 2025, 10:20:07 AM »

... I believe Relativity describes a flat earth. ...

Your "belief" that "Relativity describes a flat earth" does not make it so. And every single physicist on earth, people who have actually studied relativity and are capable of doing the math, will tell you that relativity does not describe a flat Earth. In fact, as Markjo correctly points out, relativity predicts that an object in space the size of the Earth (or even much smaller) will collapse into a roughly spherical shape. For the Earth to be flat, relativity theory would have to be utterly and completely wrong. Which is why most flat-earthers reject it, rather than citing it in defense of flat-earthism.

And since you are obviously not a stupid person, I'm convinced that you know this and are just having fun pretending to believe the utterly preposterous notion of a flat Earth. I don't think you believe a word you've posted here.

I've talked with several physicists. Many agree in my interpretation, though I imagine would ultimately not say anything in public due to the flack they'd get off it.

Yes, it would appear round to us dumbos assuming we are living in a euclidean work in a non-inertial frame of reference. However in actuality, the very curvature you are trying to say collapses it into a sphere proves it is flat.

I'll ignore your insults. Trying to claim I'm not a real flat earther even though I have done interviews with my real name and photo, am president of the flat earth society, have been at this over 2 decades, ran local groups and receive a significant amount of hate and flack in my real life due to it is pretty rich. Who would fake this this publicly? It has affected my career, personal life, and just about every aspect of life in general. So that's just a bit silly, isn't it?

So let's see if you can actually try attacking the argument rather than trying to claim I don't believe what I believe with no evidence or reason aside from you are bigoted towards the flat earth ideology.

The reason you think relativity says its round is the same reason people mis-attributed gravity to a force in spite of relativity.

Let us take the instance of a theoretical planet, lets call it Terra. It has a satellite, but not just any one. Its a perfectly orbiting satellite - which is to say its at a stable orbit and will continue to be forever. Would you agree a person on said satellite would feel weightlessness, which is to say they would be in an inertial frame of reference? If so I'll continue to the next step.

If you mean a low-mass artificial satellite such as the ISS, then people inside the satellite would experience micro-gravity. I.e. as near as their human senses could discern, they would feel weightless. This is because they are in free-fall around the planet. It is not necessary that the orbit of the satellite be "perfect." Just that it be in free-fall, that is, not using engines or any sort of self-contained propulsion.

There is always gravity, but if you are in free-fall you FEEL as though you are weightless.

You get the same feeling in the so-called "vomit comet," the airplane that flies a series of parabolic arcs so as to be in free-fall for a few minutes at a time.

If you found an actual physicist who agreed with you that relativity is consistent with a flat Earth, then they were just patronizing you. Real scientists live to disprove established hypotheses. It's a slow process because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But it's an ongoing process, and is a characteristic of science: Scientists try to disprove their own theories, and accept them only when they cannot. Pseudoscientists just look for confirming evidence and reject disconfirming evidence out of hand, with claims of conspiracies; and they search out seeming anomalies in established science and then look no further into the explanations of those seeming anomalies.

Flat-earthers cannot even agree on a consistent theory. The details run all over the place. The only thing flat-earthers agree on is that the Earth is "flat." But is it a flat disc like a pancake? Is it flat on top and convex on the bottom? Is it an infinite plane? How thick is it? Is it infinitely thick? Is there anything underneath? Are the sun and Moon lamps or holograms, are they round or flat? Is the Earth covered by some kind of ceiling? Does it cover the whole Earth or just the part where people are? Flat-earthers cannot agree on any of this, and one often gets different answers from the same person depending on which aspect of FE theory is being challenged. In fact, there is no "flat-earth THEORY" because a "theory" is a unified and consistent system that explains something about the observable world. Flat-earth "theory" is just a jumble of unconnected claims that have nothing in common but the word "flat." And it doesn't actually explain anything, and it makes no testable predictions.

As an example, I was watching an excellent video (I can link to it if you like) referring to the claim in some versions of FE theory that the Moon is 3,000 miles above the equator of the "flat" Earth. The presenter demonstrates that if this were the case, the Moon would appear very different from different points on the Earth. But it in fact does not. The only difference in the appearance of the Moon is its apparent orientation, due to the fact that each observer is oriented with their feet toward the center of the ROUND Earth. But no matter where you are on the Earth, if the Moon is up you see the same face, and it appears the same size, with only a slight refractive "enlargement" near the horizon due to the atmosphere, but not nearly enough enlargement to account for the geometry of a Moon 3,000 miles over the equator of a flat Earth. Not to mention that the Moon would never set if it were 3,000 miles above the surface of a flat Earth.

And as for relativity: Stars and planets form because of the gravitational collapse of gas and dust, and above a certain size that same process forces them into approximately spherical shape. The greater the mass and the lower the spin rate, the more nearly spherical an object will be. Until you get to black holes where we cannot see what's going on inside the event horizon. But that's not relevant to the shape of the Earth. The Earth and the other planets and the sun and the other stars are approximately spherical BECAUSE of relativity. Or more precisely, because of gravity, which is explained by relativity.

29

Flat Earth General / Re: Trump Knows the Earth is Flat

« on: April 30, 2025, 09:35:14 AM »

So you are on the flat earth society to make yourself mad and direct that into something positive, or are you just here to be a self proclaimed scientist that tells everyone his opinions leaving no room for others.

I'm here for the same reason that 99% of self-professed flat-earthers are: Because it's fun to talk about nonsense. We need some silliness in our lives, especially in this time of insanity in government. I come here for a few minutes a day to get some silliness.   

30

Flat Earth General / Re: Katy Perry in space

« on: April 29, 2025, 04:33:08 PM »

Nah.  It was a joy ride for insipid celebrities pretending that being glam in space is somehow empowering for women.

i.e. feminist BS.

There was nothing feminist about this stunt. It was the opposite of feminism: It was using women to promote space tourism for billionaires.