1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump

« on: February 23, 2025, 10:37:00 AM »

It's an idealized system. But in reality the role of the President as executor of justice makes him ultimate authority. In the previous article I cited there is a quote:

“The system depends on the president feeling an obligation to follow court orders,” University of San Diego Law School professor Michael Ramsey said.

The Supreme Court could uphold a Congressional removal order and it's not going to happen. The branches have the power to make orders, but the President has the execution power. If the President doesn't agree then the system doesn't work.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump

« on: February 23, 2025, 08:07:56 AM »

But he's not supposed to.  That was the whole point of the Revolutionary War and the system of checks and balances among the three branches of government set up in the US Constitution.

The point of the Revolutionary War was that the US wanted to govern themselves.

There isn't an explicit system of checks and balances mentioned in the Constitution. This is a later interpretation meant for school children and the public to idealize the system as fair. Reality has shown that the President has the ultimate power over the other branches.

If the President is responsible for execution and enforcement of orders, and can refuse them at will, the other branches can't really do anything except declare things.

SCOTUS can overrule anything the president does.
Congress can override a VETO.
Congress can remove a president.

Here is "A brief history of presidents telling ‘so-called’ judges to get lost". They can and have told the Supreme Court to take a hike.

Sure, Congress can "over ride a veto" and issue an "order to remove the president" or declare that the President is "impeached", but they lack any enforcement power. If they lack enforcement power in other areas like marijuana laws and other things the executive simply ignores, what makes you think that they suddenly gain special enforcement power when it comes to override a veto or remove a President?

The President has has the ultimate authority of the law within him, and must voluntarily agree to anything. The fact that he can ignore laws and orders shows that he is King.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump

« on: February 22, 2025, 07:15:23 PM »

It is also the role of Congress and SCOTUS to check the powers the president, lest he begin to think he has the unlimited power of a king.  Or, maybe he thinks that he's the CEO of USA, Inc.  Of course Congress and SCOTUS are doing little check Trump's powers, so we get to sit back and have fun as we watch the chaos ensue.

The US President does have the power equivalent to a King. The reason the President plays the role of King is that the US founders were not particularly original and just took the English system of government and made some minor fixes, rightly making it into an elected King. An active commander of the nation is needed, but that commander should be the person who the populous wants to rule.

As I have posted elsewhere, the President has the power to assassinate US Citizens at will.

The Supreme Court today ruled that presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for official acts, then contended that pressuring the vice president and the Department of Justice to overthrow the government was an “official act,” then said that talking to advisers or making public statements are “official acts” as well, and then determined that evidence of what presidents say and do cannot be used against them to establish that their acts are “unofficial.”

If the US President can murder US Citizens and has absolute immunity from anything he wants to do then he obviously has great king-like power. Read that article. The article also describes that it is within the President's power to overthrow Congress without repercussion. However, historically the US President has simply just ignored them rather than overthrowing them, knowing that he is above their power.

The President is the country's Commander in Chief, and is the executor of justice above the law, very similar to the role of a medieval king. Legislature can make laws, but they don't apply to him. The law does not apply to him because he is the law.  The legislature is meant to make laws for normal citizens, not the President-King who has almost limitless powers.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump

« on: February 22, 2025, 02:17:55 PM »

You need to remember that the president's power is also checked but so far, Trump is trying to bypass all of that.

I am not sure why you guys keep repeating that falsity. It's actually the role of the President to check the powers of the other branches.

This is why the President can pardon someone who has a court order to remain in prison. It is also why the President can choose not to enforce federal marijuana laws passed by Congress, making it effectively legal. These two examples alone, which have nothing to do with Trump specifically, shows that the President can ignore and is above the powers of Congress and the courts.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: The Bipolar model

« on: December 17, 2024, 10:12:19 AM »

Newtonian Physics isn't nearly identical to Relativity Physics. They are incredibly different and contradictory. As mentioned in another thread, in Relativity gravity on earth is the upwards acceleration of the earth's surface through spacetime. That is vastly different to the view of gravity in Newtonian Physics.

Science has a long history of symbolizing and teaching things which have been overshadowed.  Take a look at the common symbol for science: The Atom



Visualized in media and textbooks, the atom is the universal symbol for science. The only problem is that Quantum Mechanics has shown that discrete particles don't exist. The discrete particle billiard-ball model of the atom is false. Matter actually exists as waves.

Not just light: Everything is a wave, including you, Marcelo Gleiser, Big Think -

“ In 1924, Louis de Broglie, a historian turned physicist, showed quite spectacularly that the electron’s step-like orbits in Bohr’s atomic model are easily understood if the electron is pictured as consisting of standing waves surrounding the nucleus. These are waves much like the ones we see when we shake a rope that is attached at the other end. In the case of the rope, the standing wave pattern appears due to the constructive and destructive interference between waves going and coming back along the rope. For the electron, the standing waves appear for the same reason, but now the electron wave closes on itself like an ouroboros, the mythic serpent that swallows its own tail. When we shake our rope more vigorously, the pattern of standing waves displays more peaks. An electron at higher orbits corresponds to a standing wave with more peaks.

With Einstein’s enthusiastic support, de Broglie boldly extended the notion of wave-particle duality from light to electrons and, by extension, to every moving material object. Not only light, but matter of any kind was associated with waves. ”

The Universe and Dr. Einstein, Lincoln Barnett -

“ For subsequent experiments showed that not only electrons but whole atoms and even molecules produce wave patterns when diffracted by a crystal surface, and that their wave lengths are exactly what de Broglie and Schrodinger forecast. And so all the basic units of matter—what J. Clerk Maxwell called “the imperishable foundation stones of the universe”—gradually shed their substance. The old-fashioned spherical electron was reduced to an undniating charge of electrical energy, the atom to a system of superimposed waves. One could only conclude that all matter is made of waves and we live in a world of waves. ”

Quantum Cryptography lecture at University of Alaska Fairbanks, Dr. Lawlor -

“ Many things, like photons or electrons, display several very odd mechanical properties with mystical sounding quantum names. The key point here is that everything is made of waves...

Superposition: an electron can be in several places at once, or several states at once. The terminology here is that the electron's wave function has spread over space. Needless to say, classical particles such as billiard balls cannot do this: the 8 ball is in the corner pocket, or not; but an electron can be around an atom AND not at the same time. ”

No Evidence for Particles, Casey Blood, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Rutgers University -

“ There are a number of experiments and observations that appear to argue for the existence of particles, including the photoelectric and Compton effects, exposure of only one film grain by a spread-out photon wave function, and particle-like trajectories in bubble chambers. It can be shown, however, that all the particle-like phenomena can be explained by using properties of the wave functions/state vectors alone. Thus there is no evidence for particles. Wave-particle duality arises because the wave functions alone have both wave-like and particle-like properties. ”

There are no particles, there are only fields, Art Hobson, American Journal of Physics 81, 211 (2013) -

“ Quantum foundations are still unsettled, with mixed effects on science and society. By now it should be possible to obtain consensus on at least one issue: Are the fundamental constituents fields or particles? As this paper shows, experiment and theory imply that unbounded fields, not bounded particles, are fundamental. This is especially clear for relativistic systems, implying that it's also true of nonrelativistic systems. Particles are epiphenomena arising from fields. Thus, the Schrödinger field is a space-filling physical field whose value at any spatial point is the probability amplitude for an interaction to occur at that point. The field for an electron is the electron; each electron extends over both slits in the two-slit experiment and spreads over the entire pattern; and quantum physics is about interactions of microscopic systems with the macroscopic world rather than just about measurements. It's important to clarify this issue because textbooks still teach a particles- and measurement-oriented interpretation that contributes to bewilderment among students and pseudoscience among the public. This article reviews classical and quantum fields, the two-slit experiment, rigorous theorems showing particles are inconsistent with relativistic quantum theory, and several phenomena showing particles are incompatible with quantum field theories. ”

6

Flat Earth General / Re: The Final Experiment - Antarctic 24 hour sun

« on: December 17, 2024, 08:40:45 AM »

And no one says they are.
However, they are enough to show just how wrong the bipolar model is.
But of course, rather than admit that, you just appeal to more magic to try to save your failed model.

Water swirling and circling in a bucket isn't "magic". The atmosphere is a fluid, so it would behave as a fluid. A disk with rotating fluid systems directly predicts that the outer edges of the system travel faster than the center.

We know that there are swirling weather systems at least the size of oceans, with one of them in the below visualization being as wide as a  RE hemisphere



There are both eastwards and westwards movements. The movement of these massive systems cause counter-rotating effects which planes could take advantage of when traveling in different directions.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148124016719



By the way, in the previous image the seen clockwise and counter-clockwise permanent wind and ocean currents runs contradictory to the Coriolis Effect in those hemispheres, which acts as another proof against the globe.

And none which exist which allow a plane to travel over twice the distance in roughly half the time, and especially not for that happening in both directions.

Even in the Round Earth model, the planes fly at 400 or 800 MPH depending on what wind conditions they are in, so this is wrong.

For example, if there was a persistent wind, such as the wind from Perth to Sydney, you would expect significantly different flight times and likely different routes. But we don't get that.

Actually the flight paths change every day depending on specific conditions within the systems:

https://issuu.com/canso/docs/airspace_quarterone_2008

  “ Another example of the significant change in aircraft routes offered by more flexible use of airspace are the new nonstop flights between the US and India, which overfly Norway, Sweden and Finland one day, but may appear in Portuguese, Spanish and North African airspace the next day, depending on weather and prevailing jet streams. ”

No, given the monopole model is in your FAQ, and with such certainty, it is your fault.
Again, you happily use the monopole model, until it falls apart and then you bring out the bipolar model to just push the problems around.

Yeah, you just quoted the Wiki where it speaks about the Bi-Polar model and how many people switched to it. The Wiki accepts multiple opinions about the Flat Earth, even if others within the community think it is incorrect.

Comparing it to how things are taught in science is quite dishonest.
Do you know a big difference? In the low energy limit, the results from relativity and Newtonian mechanics are virtually identical.

Incorrect. The mechanics are not "virtually identical". In Relativity gravity on earth is the upwards acceleration of the earth's surface through spacetime, which is very different than the Newtonian view of gravity.

And you are not just introducing the monopole model as an approximation.
The FAQ has text clearly incompatible with the bipolar model:

The Earth is surrounded on all sides by an ice wall that holds the oceans back. This ice wall is what explorers have named Antarctica. Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey. What we do know is that it encircles the earth and serves to hold in our oceans and helps protect us from whatever lies beyond.

Here you are claiming to know that Antarctica is a wall of ice which circles Earth.
That is not merely putting forward it as a model. That is effectively making a statement that the bipolar model is wrong.

Actually that is merely a frequently asked question, and it is right that it is the frequent answer on the Ice Wall. The Wiki is otherwise quite clear on the Ice Wall, that it may refer to an Ice Wall around the Bi-Polar model as well.

Many believe that Antarctica is the Ice Wall encountered by Sir James Clark Ross, whereas some believe that Antarctica is simply a 'rim continent' surrounding the known Earth and that the term Ice Wall is misleading. Others believe that Antarctica is an isolated and distinct continent and that though an Ice Wall exists, it is not Antarctica. The latter model generally assumes that the geography of the Earth is quite different to that outlined in the conventional model.

You're mad because the conventional model isn't the same as the latest or latter model, which is a pretty weak argument.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: The Bipolar model

« on: December 16, 2024, 06:22:53 PM »

The Bi-Polar model is the model that the Universal Zetetic Society, which inherited Rowbotham's movement, came up with after they verified the Antarctic Midnight Sun in the 1920's; although they did not have a specific continental layout for it at the time.

Oh yes, well now, you who are so wise in the ways of science.

You made an expedition to Antarctica a century ago, so you suggest and I won't contradict. Is it too much to ask for you to make an expedition to Australia now this decade?

There is actually a Flat Earth expedition to Antarctica occurring as we speak.

I do admit that I am largely responsible for the Flat Earth Youtube community's mistaken belief that the Monopole model was the only Flat Earth model.

The media, the internet, Eric Dubey and the Youtubers got their initial information about Flat Earth from TFES, from a time before the Universal Zetetic Society materials became digitized online. Only Earth Not a Globe was available. When this website started in 2007 the goal for the first couple of years was to get and compile and understand as much as possible about the Flat Earth. The only historical information depicted it as Monopole. It wasn't until several years later, after FE Monopole was already popularized and spread on the web, did other material come online and we realized that the Victorian Flat Earth researchers moved on from Rowbotham and changed the model.

On the TFES wiki the Bi-Polar model is now taught alongside the Monopole model, depicted as the model which many Flat Earthers have moved on to. Even on this forum we find references that Lord Wilmore and Sandokhan have moved to the Bi-Polar model.

However, banishing the Monopole model would be a disservice to those who still argue for it, or use its visualizations, simplicity, or teach from it, so it stays. It stays for the same reason why Newtonian Physics stays as the main model. There is a large historical context and it exists as a stepping stone to the modern Relativity Physics which contradicts many of the Newtonian tenets.

Even when the results of the current Flat Earth expedition shows a repetition of our 1920's result that a midnight sun exists, the main Flat Earth model will still likely be Monopole. Only when the Bi-Polar model is utilized by the majority, will change occur.

After over 100 years Relativity still isn't utilized enough by the majority to become the default model that is taught. Other science theories have even taken over a thousand years to replace each other to become the main theory in their communities, so we can expect that this will take a while as well.

8

Flat Earth General / Re: The Final Experiment - Antarctic 24 hour sun

« on: December 15, 2024, 07:00:47 PM »

This is why the flat earth society at the time, the Universal Zetetic Society, switched to the Bi-Polar model

And as has been explained repeatedly, all that does is push the problem elsewhere. Commonly to the Pacific Ocean.
But countless flights between Australia and North America demonstrate that model is not correct either.

Commercial flights are not a scientific instrument to measure the earth - https://wiki.tfes.org/Issues_in_Flight_Analysis

There are many variables outside of geography which determines flight routes and flight times.

Planes are highly sensitive to the winds along their path. If I stir a bucket of water with a wooden spoon, the velocity of the water at the edges is greater than the center, showing that winds could be traveling faster closer to the edges of a flat earth model. We know that the flights depend on the movement of air for their specific routes, such as jet streams and known optimal paths, so any analysis needs a way to identify the influence of the permanent weather systems.

There is also no indication of an official switch to that model, rather than you just bringing it up when you need to explain Antarctica and the south celestial pole, only to discard it when it is no longer convenient.

Your maps page (Flat Earth Maps) even says:

Generally speaking, the main point of contention among Flat Earthers is the several theories concerning the nature and extent of Antarctica, as well as the overall layout of the continents.

Many believe that Antarctica is the Ice Wall encountered by Sir James Clark Ross, whereas some believe that Antarctica is simply a 'rim continent' surrounding the known Earth and that the term Ice Wall is misleading. Others believe that Antarctica is an isolated and distinct continent and that though an Ice Wall exists, it is not Antarctica. The latter model generally assumes that the geography of the Earth is quite different to that outlined in the conventional model.

Below are images of the two Flat Earth geographic models, which convey the different concepts of Antarctica within Flat Earth Theory:

At the bottom of that page in the bipolar section it says that many flat earthers diverged from Rowbotham's work. This means that it's your fault if you use an old model that others have moved on from.

So if you want to say you have switched to the bipolar model, perhaps you should update your FAQ to clearly say the monopole model is wrong, that Antarctica is a continent in the south, which contains the south pole?

The monopole model is the main and classical model, wrong or not. You are the child who came to me wanting to learn about this. In Physics, you need to teach children the classical Newtonian model before you get to Relativity. Relativity still has not replaced classical Newtonian physics as the "main" model that is taught in schools, even though the school's academics agree that Einstein discredited a lot of what Newton said.

Yes, just like you expect for a RE, and something which has no connection at all to the FE, as you can just arbitrarily have the sun change its speed for no reason as there is no reason for the path of the sun in the FE.
It also has absolutely no connection to the bipolar model.

The displaced nature of the sun images in the Analemma proves that the sun does change speed.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: The Bipolar model

« on: December 15, 2024, 06:08:38 PM »

It's the later discovered Flat Earth model. On the TFES Wiki the Monopole model is often displayed for historical reasons and convenience, like how most people still use the classical Newtonian particle theory of light even though quantum mechanics shows that it actually behaves as a wave or possesses duality. Textbooks still present the old model. Despite the many QM experiments exhibiting wave nature of light, many people and authorities still use the classical point-to-point particle theory of light as the "main" model.

The Bi-Polar model is the model that the Universal Zetetic Society, which inherited Rowbotham's movement, came up with after they verified the Antarctic Midnight Sun in the 1920's; although they did not have a specific continental layout for it at the time.

This is how navigation works on the Bi-Polar model:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model#Circumnavigation

The needle on a compass aligns with the magnetic field lines. Circumnavigation involves traveling Eastwards or Westwards in relation to those field lines, taking you around the nearest pole. On a Bi-Polar model the magnetic field lines would spread out from the North and South poles like the magnetic field lines on a bar magnet.



The needle of a compass would align with those magnetic field lines in the navigator's local area. Since East and West are at right angles to the field lines, moving East or West in relation to those field lines would take one in a circle around the North or South poles. This also implies that if one were to follow the magnetic field lines North or South that they would eventually get to the Northern or Southern poles.

It should be noted that the magnetic field lines which are produced by a magnet always wrap around and connect to the opposite pole, and that none travel unconnected forever into space.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: The Final Experiment - Antarctic 24 hour sun

« on: December 15, 2024, 11:10:54 AM »

No.  I was referring to a large segment of flat earth believers that have the largest presence online.

You would be wrong about "largest presence online". I welcome you to perform a Google search for Flat Earth Society and compare the number of results you get to the number of results for the name of any other Flat Earth group.

I will even allow you to gather as many Flat Earth group names as you can and compare the combined number of all of them to Flat Earth Society.

Anyway.  It highlights how the flat earth community can’t come up with a coherent model. It’s an ad hoc reaction to do anything to ignore the true accuracy of the heliocentric model.  Where you yourself can only make “flat earth work” by trying to bring it closer and closer to the heliocentric model.  But then really kill your own model by ignoring stuff like there are differences in the acceleration rates of gravity across the globe.

The Weird And Wild Story Behind The Mason-Dixon Line

https://www.iflscience.com/the-weird-and-wild-story-behind-the-mason-dixon-line-76032


See, to find the vertical axis, the pair had been using what’s known as a “plumb bob” – basically a weight on a string. The problem, though, is that variations in the landscape – mountains, valleys, and even long-lost ancient glacial sheets – can change how strong or weak gravity is in an area.

It’s not by enough for you or us to feel it, but it was enough to affect the plumb bob.

This is addressed here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Isostasy

Flat earth suffers from the same things as cryptozoology, ufology, the 9/11 truth movement.  The inability to police themselves, with people claiming any outrages things to gain fortune and fame to a target audience that only believe reality is fake.  And they are only the special ones special enough to see that. 

And that’s the problem.  It’s not about “community than this one”.  It’s about coming to a consensus with a model which more accurately predicts our reality.  Flat earth fails.

Considering that no one has been able to combat the tfes wiki with comparable information which contradicts its sources, it really looks like we are winning to me.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: The Final Experiment - Antarctic 24 hour sun

« on: December 14, 2024, 07:21:59 PM »

You are talking about a different community than this one, so it's irrelevant to us that a different community thinks that it is impossible. Most of the FE'ers here are familiar with the Bi-Polar model and would not say that it is impossible on a FE.

I hate to break it to you Tom, but that "different community" is much larger and more influential than this one, so maybe you should familiarize them with your bi-polar model and see if it gets any better traction out there then it has here.

They are not more influential. Every time they talk to the media they preface that they are not the Flat Earth Society, because the Flat Earth Society is the default group the public would assume they are part of. Thus, the Flat Earth Society is far more known than they are.

We don't talk to the media much, but in such an interview would TFES John Davis have to disclaim that he is not part of a different group? No.

Is any other Flat Earth group so known that mainstream bands are making songs dedicated to their name? No.

Do other groups have sections in school books dedicated to their group by name? No.

It's not even a contest. TFES far and away wins in name recognition, even if recent leaderships have chosen not to engage the media much. We are in the public and academic foundation of knowledge, whereas others are essentially unknown in that space. I think last year we saw that this website and the tfes.org wiki were getting about 10K visitors a month combined. Few of the visitors actually create a forum account and most prefer to be site or forum observers. A magnitude more of the public prefers to just read about the TFES from articles and books, which they assume to be authoritative sources, rather than come and find us.

12

Flat Earth General / Re: The Final Experiment - Antarctic 24 hour sun

« on: December 14, 2024, 04:18:54 PM »

Not sure why you guys are stopping at Rowbotham's work for FE.

Because of the amount of flat earther’s that claim the Antarctic 24 hour sun is impossible.

So.  You agree that large portions of the flat earth community just right out lies.  And you ignore that.

You are talking about a different community than this one, so it's irrelevant to us that a different community thinks that it is impossible. Most of the FE'ers here are familiar with the Bi-Polar model and would not say that it is impossible on a FE.

Not that the "rim" model is better; but in those 14 years, what have you done in terms of observations and experimentation to empirically confirm the model you prefer?

I've talked about the details of how observations align with the Bi-Polar model plenty of times. Here is a message exchange from 2013 on how the Analemma of the Sun supports the Bi-Polar model over the Monopole model:

The shape tells me that over the course of the year, frame by frame cut into 365 consecutive days, the sun makes a big figure 8 in the sky, indicating that sometimes the sun is rotating around the North Pole and at other times the sun is rotating around the South Pole. This suggests that the Flat Earth Bi-Polar model is correct.

...

Can you elaborate, please. Rottingroom has provided diagrams of the method behind the RE model. Or, if you don't have diagrams, just further explanation.

Recall these were taken at the same time of day throughout the year. The Bipolar model can explain why the sun would get closer to the horizon, sure, but why the figure-8? I would think it would be just a vertical line.

...

A perfect line does not occur because the sun does not travel at a constant speed throughout the year. What is being captured in the sun's analemma is the offset of motion. As the sun travels towards and away from the North Pole it speeds up and slows down, much like the needle on a record player as it approaches the center. We can see that at the ends of the figure 8 the spacing of the suns are closer together, indicating when the sun is the closest to the poles.

You can see the suns bunching up in the Analemma at the ends of it. They are not equally spaced:

https://starinastar.com/stellarium-see-analemma/

13

Flat Earth General / Re: The Final Experiment - Antarctic 24 hour sun

« on: December 14, 2024, 09:45:50 AM »

If you read the journal Earth Not a Globe Review, you will find that flat earthers already sent people down there to Antarctica in the 1920's, who reported a 24 hour sun. This is why the flat earth society at the time, the Universal Zetetic Society, switched to the Bi-Polar model.

Not sure why you guys are stopping at Rowbotham's work for FE. In fact, the flat earth model prior to Rowbotham's monopole model had multiple poles, and which was based on the observed behavior of the sun at various latitudes.

This "Final Experiment" will merely vindicate what I have been saying for 14 years about which Flat Earth model to use.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: Do FE-ers believe everybody who has a precise accelerometer is a conspirator?

« on: December 07, 2024, 06:45:14 PM »

Those papers are talking about gravimeter surveys. Gravimeters are not the devices you are imagining. They are seismometers. It is possible to find things that are underground with gravimeters, but this is because seismic surveys can find underground structures by studying how the signals from the earth change as you move over different areas.

Again, see: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

When you come up with a collection of evidence which rebuts this, let me know and then we can continue this conversation.

Since you are so wise in the ways of science as is evident here, why don't you do this experiment?

Why don't you do any experiments at all?

Why would I need to buy a gravimeter and do experiments when I can just read multiple experts state directly that gravimeters are seismometers, and see very clearly that the positive gravity areas are associated with the seismic zones?

Anything I do with a gravimeter would just be a small point of information compared to the mountain of information contained in that link. If you feel that you need to buy a gravimeter to try to prove something that is contrary to the details which have been presented to you, have at it. I, myself, am satisfied with the information.

Absolute gravimeters contain a vacuum chamber, it’s literally how they work.

Actually we saw that they work as seismometers. If you have any information which discredits those references please provide them. Otherwise we can simply discard your posts.

What we find in this link are thick clouds of smoke puffed in the air to obscure the fact that, with just an electronic precision scale worth about 150 $, one can prove some aspects of Newtonian mechanics and law of gravity.

Okay, when you have properly controlled experimentation to reference please let us know. Otherwise, I am only interested in discussing actual data.

15

Flat Earth General / Re: Do FE-ers believe everybody who has a precise accelerometer is a conspirator?

« on: December 07, 2024, 04:48:34 AM »

Remember this:

It doesn't vary. The experiments which show variations are uncontrolled. There are also contradicting experiments which show no variation. Show us the experiment and I will show you the fallacy.

Continually ignoring reality wont help you.
We have been over this, the atmosphere doesn't provide a significant enough effect to cause these changes.
And there are countless experiments.
e.g. here is one using variations in g to map granite deposits:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-abstract/78/7/859/6209/Gravity-Investigations-of-Subsurface-Shape-and

Here is one covering a large area (but behind a paywall):
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JB076i020p04855

Here is one for Canadia:
https://ostrnrcan-dostrncan.canada.ca/entities/publication/dc701d1a-870d-4f7d-b67d-929bf13d2fc1

Meanwhile, where are your contradicting experiments which show no variation?

Those papers are talking about gravimeter surveys. Gravimeters are not the devices you are imagining. They are seismometers. It is possible to find things that are underground with gravimeters, but this is because seismic surveys can find underground structures by studying how the signals from the earth change as you move over different areas.

Again, see: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

When you come up with a collection of evidence which rebuts this, let me know and then we can continue this conversation.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: Do FE-ers believe everybody who has a precise accelerometer is a conspirator?

« on: December 07, 2024, 04:35:59 AM »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimetry

Who’d have thunk that the people who design these instruments know what they are doing?

Modern gravimeters are many orders of magnitude more sensitive than needed to detect the differences around the earth.  A decent quality set of scales would be good enough for that.

Yes, we've looked into gravimeters and have discussed this on numerous occasions. They are described by mainstream sources as seismometers which look for gravity signals in the subseismic band. It is not testing gravity directly. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

No, it doesn't.
We have been over this countless times.
Due to the equivalence of a uniform gravitational field and accelerating, an accelerometer cannot tell the difference.

You misunderstand the Equivalence Principle. The Equivalence Principle says that the earth's surface gravity must simulate the effects of the upwards acceleration of the earth. In Einstein's theory of gravity this is simulated through space curvature.

Tony Goldsmith, author of a mass-media book Space-time for Absolute Beginners and his Absolute Beginner book series, explains the Equivalence Principle as follows:

“ When you are in a lift you may be accelerated. Where is this coming from? It is the lift pushing you up.

Einstein said that the Earth does the same as a lift (which has an acceleration of g). The Earth isn't in the way; it is doing the pushing. This is his Equivalence Principle. ”

In Relativity Visualized, physicist Lewis Carroll Epstein says:

“ Einstein’s view of gravity is that things don’t fall; the floor comes up! ” —Epstein, Lewis Carroll: Relativity Visualized. (Insight Press, San Francisco, 1988) pp. 65 ff.

In a book on how math relates to the universe One to Nine: The Inner Life of Numbers by mathematician Andrew Hodges, he describes that the earth's surface is accelerating upwards against your feet in the geometry of curved space-time:

“ Earth's mass curves the geometry of space-time in such a way that the Earth's surface is always accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/sec^2 and so presses on your feet. Weight doesn't exist, but the Earth's electromagnetic forces push harder on fat boys than on slim. This sounds crazy, but it is no crazier than the fact that if you steam straight ahead on a sphere you will end up back where you started. Such things are made possible by curvature. ”

In a section titled Why Is Spacetime Curved? of the book Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe by John Richard Gott III, professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University, we read:

“ A famous (perhaps apocryphal) story about Einstein describes one occasion when he fell into conversation with a man at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. During their chat, the man suddenly pulled a little book from his coat pocket and jotted something down. Einstein asked, “What is that?" “Oh,” the man answered, “it's a notebook I keep, so that any time I have a good idea I can write it down before I forget it.” “I never needed one of those," Einstein replied. “I only had three good ideas.”

One of them occurred to him in 1907—what he would later call the “happiest” idea of his life. Einstein noted that an observer on Earth and an observer on an accelerating spaceship in interstellar space would have the same sensations. Follow this chain of thought to see why. Galileo had shown that an observer dropping two balls of different mass on Earth sees them hit the floor at the same time. If an observer in an accelerating rocket in interstellar space performed the same experiment, dropping two balls of different mass, they would float motionless in space—but, since the rocket was firing, the floor of the spaceship would simply come up and hit both of them at once. Both observers thus should see the same thing. In one case, it is the result of gravity; in the other case, it is caused by an accelerating floor with no gravity involved. But then Einstein proposed something very bold—if the two situations looked the same, they must be the same. Gravity was nothing more than an accelerated frame-of-reference. Likewise, Einstein noted that if you get in an elevator on Earth and cut the cable, you and everything in the elevator will fall toward Earth at the same rate. (Galileo again—objects of different mass all fall at the same rate.) So, how do things look to you in the falling elevator? Any object you drop will float weightless in the elevator—because you, the object, and the elevator are all falling at the same rate together. This is exactly what you would see if you were in a spaceship floating in interstellar space. All the objects in the spaceship, including you, would be weightless. If you want to experience weightlessness just like an astronaut, all you have to do is get in an elevator and cut the cable. (This works, of course, only until the elevator hits bottom.)

Einstein's assertion that gravity and acceleration are, the same—which he called the equivalence principle—was influenced, no doubt, by his previous success in equating the situation of a stationary magnet and a moving charge with that of a stationary charge and a moving magnet. But if gravity and accelerated motion were the same, then gravity was nothing but accelerated motion. Earth's surface was simply accelerating upward. This explained why a heavy ball and a light ball, when dropped, hit the floor at the same time. When the balls are released, they just float there—weightless. The floor (Earth) simply comes up and hits them. What a remarkably fresh way of looking at things!

Still one must ask how Earth’s surface could be accelerating upward (away from Earth's center) if Earth itself is not getting bigger and bigger with time like a balloon. The only way the assertion could make sense is by considering spacetime to be curved.

Einstein proposed that mass and energy cause spacetime to curve. It took him 8 years of hard work to derive the equations governing this. He had to learn the abstruse geometry of curved higher dimensional spaces. He had to learn about the Riemannian curvature tensor—a mathematical monster with 256 components telling how spacetime could be curved. This was very difficult mathematics, and Einstein ran upon many false leads. But he didn't give up because he had great faith in the idea. ”

17

Flat Earth General / Re: Do FE-ers believe everybody who has a precise accelerometer is a conspirator?

« on: December 06, 2024, 04:04:50 PM »

Actually an accelerometer shows that the earth is accelerating upwards.

The effect of the surface's upwards acceleration can be seen in a hanging and falling water balloon (left) and a mechanical accelerometer (right).

See Fig. 3 and Fig. 2 from http://gravityprobe.org/GravityProbe%20Links/Galileo-Undone-Mar-10-2020.pdf



--

With a precise accelerometer, you can measure how the gravitational acceleration decreases as you climb on a mountain.

We haven't seen a proper experiment of this. It needs to be done in a vacuum chamber - https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shape of Our Earth

« on: December 03, 2024, 05:54:03 PM »

Of course, adhering to the belief that the earth is a solid sphere is much easier than adhering to the belief that the earth's surface is a flat disk, because according to the belief that the earth is a solid sphere, the path of light rays is in a straight or almost straight line, while according to the belief that the earth's surface is in a flat disk, the path of light rays is curved in such a way that it is able to show the difference between day and night, solar eclipses, and lunar eclipses.

Actually its easier to believe that things do not naturally travel in straight lines, considering that this is what occurs with all other trajectories and phenomena.

You are starting with an undemonstrated axiom. Large scale straight line light paths are a fantasy fiction which have zero evidence, contrived solely to describe the "perfect" model of the cosm.

Even the official Round Earth Theory states that when you view the sun on the horizon at sunset that the real geometric sun is already fully beneath the horizon. It postulates that you are viewing a false sun when you look a the sunset. In the standard RE model we already have false suns which cannot be easily identified as false. So your incredulity over false suns is discredited.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?

« on: November 11, 2024, 10:48:01 AM »

You are wrong. The numerical method is not limited in its accuracy

In other news, weather doesn’t exist because there are no analytical solutions to calculate airflow.

The argument isn't that numerical methods are inaccurate. The Ancient Greeks could accurately predict the position of celestial bodies with a system of epicycles. It is irrelevant that a model can predict events accurately if the model is fundamentally wrong.

The tides can also be predicted by epicycles, but the tides are not governed by epicycles. See this quote from Gravitation Vs. Relativity by Professor Charles Lane Poor -

https://archive.org/stream/gravitationvers00chamgoog#page/n180/mode/2up

The Tide Predicting Machine of the Coast and Geodetic Survey at Washington is a note-worthy example of the application of the mechanical method [of prediction via epicycles]. The rise and fall of the tide at any port is a periodic phenomenon, and it may, therefore, be analyzed, or separated into a number of simple harmonic, or circular components. Each component tide will be simple, will have a definite period and a constant amplitude; and each such component may be represented mechanically by the arm of a crank, the length of which represents the amplitude; each crank arm being, in fact, the radius of one of the circles in our diagram.

Such a machine was invented by Sir William Thomson and was put in operation many years ago. The machine at present in use at Washington was designed by William Ferrell. It provides for nineteen components and directly gives the times and heights of high and low waters. In order to predict the tides for a given place and year, it is necessary to adjust the lengths of the crank arms, so that each shall be the same proportion of the known height of the corresponding partial tide, and to adjust the periods of their revolutions proportionally to the actual periods. Each arm must also be set at the proper angle to represent the phase of the component at the beginning of the year. When all these adjustments have been made, the machine is started and it takes only a few hours to run off the tides for a year, or for several years. This machine probably represents the highest possible development of the graphical or mechanical method. It is a concrete, definite mechanical adaptation of the epicyclic theory of Hipparchus.

But, because the Coast Survey represents and predicts the movements of tidal waters by a complicated mass of revolving cranks and moving chains, does anyone imagine for a moment that the actual waters are made up of such a system of cranks? No more did Hipparchus believe that the bodies of the solar system were actually attached to the radial arms of his epicycles; his was a mere mathematical, or graphical device for representing irregular, complicated motions.

While the graphical, or mechanical method is limited to a few terms, the trigonometrical, or analytical method is unlimited. It is possible to pile epicycle upon epicycle, the number being limited only by the patience of the mathematician and computer.

So prediction doesn't prove that the mathematical device used to create the prediction is the correct one. There are multiple ways to construct equations to predict a recurring phenomena. This is a prediction of patterns.

The Numerical Solutions page shows that the n-body numerical solutions don't use a full model of gravity.

You guys read the article and then proceeded to play dumb and argue that "it doesn't matter because it's accurate", which is an incredibly poor argument.

20

Flat Earth General / Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?

« on: November 11, 2024, 03:59:43 AM »

Yes, we've talked about numerical solutions many times before, and the page addresses it. On the third paragraph of the Three Body Problem page I linked you guys to it says:

     "A typical response to this is to claim that there are numerical solutions. However, these are approximations which do not fully simulate the situation. See the page Numerical Solutions. We are taught that it should be possible for a star to have a planet which has a moon, yet the greatest mathematicians of human history have been unable to get it to work."

If you click on that link you will understand why this particular line of argumentation fails. Numerical solutions for the n-body problem use cheats and workarounds. They are models that use limited gravitational interaction or ad-hoc falsities. Analytical n-body solutions are the ones which use the correct rules and treat gravity as universal.

A star-planet-moon system that uses cheats that keep it together and ignores the gravitational interaction of some bodies does not constitute a real solution to the Three Body Problem, for the obvious reason that gravity would be universal in the real scenario.

21

Flat Earth General / Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?

« on: November 10, 2024, 06:01:02 PM »

A lot of the focus in the debates is on attacking RE Theory because it is shooting fish in a barrel. RE Science has been funded and studied for hundreds of years, so if there are flaws they have been highly studied and are easily found and supported by traditional sources.

On this forum we have denialists like this guy who sits here posting for years, pretending that he can't read the sources provided to him:

The RE model works. You are yet to show a single instance where it doesn't.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

The simplest models with a star and a planet and a moon do not work.

We won't see anything as comprehensive in response to say otherwise. What we will see, however, is endless whining and creative arguments for why the poster doesn't need to debate the materials presented to them.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Does the FE have any real evidence?

« on: September 25, 2024, 08:35:52 PM »

How about you address my questions on these two pages about your wiki?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92782.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92785.0

Plus I don't think other FEers agree with you:

Its almost like his wiki is on another site and has nothing to do with us because it was largely written by trolls kicked out of decent Society. What you engage in now is much like debating the ethics of philosophy against the engineering of siegecraft. You are but a fool, and a petulant one at that.

Just read the Wiki. It says that there are a few different possibilities on that subject. You are just letting us know that you haven't read it. Your goal should be to actually show something in the FE Wiki is incorrect. If the Wiki is saying that there are a few different possibilities for something, then it is not incorrect.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Does the FE have any real evidence?

« on: September 25, 2024, 08:13:24 PM »

Wrong. No one has been able to debunk a single page of https://wiki.tfes.org for years. In over 10 years of constantly discussing this carefully curated encyclopedia of knowledge only one or two pages has been shown to be incorrect. The articles were made after prolonged and mass discussions about the subjects from both this site and the tfes.org forum, with everyone trying to show it wrong, and so the articles have been vetted and checked dozens of time over to be the correct state of science. These days every time an article is posted from it in a discussion we just get creative arguments for why the RE person doesn't need to argue against it.

If you move past youtube videos about FE you will find that the Round Earth theory is drastically losing.

24

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Should we reconsider our reliance on computer systems?

« on: July 30, 2024, 06:28:17 PM »

Banks and Stock Exchange should maintain the functionality of their old Cobol-based systems so that they could take over the core functionality if the Windows ones experience a Zero Day attack or bug in software updates that corrupts their systems.

....
Ok, how would you integrate a banking system based on html5 into cobol?  And where would you store the extra computers needed to run DOS?

Look, let me explain something.  If a zero day attack hits, typically servers (which manage the core functions) have backups or old copies of the OS prior to patching. 

Example: if my company got hit with a system wide malware attack on all windows servers, we'd stop all the VMs and load up a pre-patch snapshot.  Downtime would be an hour or less, depending on how many servers you have.

Desktops would be trickier.  We could wipe and reimage them all remotely if windows loads.  We can force every PC, using only a few lines of the GPO, to completely wipe themselves and reinstall the OS and all core programs.  Would take a few days for a company of 1,000 PCs but it's doable.

If windows can't boot... Well then you gotta send techs around to fix it manually.

The Cobol mainframe just needs to process incoming transaction requests by clients. HTML5 is not necessary. That client could be on Windows, Mac, a proprietary OS, or whichever technology survives. It's more important that the mainframe is not affected by x bug or x virus.

The problem with relying on Windows image backups is that it's not clear if your backups contain corruptions. It's possible that you are backing up a bugged Windows image in a state that can't be rebooted. Backups also can't account for an attack vector which create incremental data corruptions over months and years without you realizing that your data is degraded. There is plenty of reasoning to keeping the account data in multiple auditable formats and maintaining the old mainframe technology to be capable of switching over to.

25

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Should we reconsider our reliance on computer systems?

« on: July 27, 2024, 09:03:35 AM »

The problem is mainly incompetence. I keep my body in tip top shape with excellent nutrition and regular wellness checks. If I fail in that effort and one of my kidneys goes out, I have another one. If both go out, there is an expensive machine that can fill in.

Banks and Stock Exchange should maintain the functionality of their old Cobol-based systems so that they could take over the core functionality if the Windows ones experience a Zero Day attack or bug in software updates that corrupts their systems.

It is the fault of the companies which went down. When you point a finger, you usually have three pointing back at yourself.

26

Flat Earth General / Re: Anyone amongst the Flat Earth people with an actual scientific background?

« on: July 27, 2024, 08:09:15 AM »

Debating me on this subject with honesty would involve reading my materials and directly addressing them. In the case of the "numerical solutions" for the Three Body Problem, they are cheats which do not simulate the reality of the situation and use a series of disconnected two-body problems and similar methods.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions

We've discussed all of this over the last 17 years. On this website and the other one there have been hundreds of conversations. Discussing these old topics is a bore now, and I mainly do so in the form of charitable education. We've consumed the available knowledge on these topics and have digested it. At this point, without additional science funding on the specific topics, nothing new will be brought to the table.

27

Flat Earth General / Re: Anyone amongst the Flat Earth people with an actual scientific background?

« on: July 23, 2024, 10:19:12 AM »

You don't think I've considered these questions? These are all old things we went over years ago.

> Heliocentrism is accurate!

This is incorrect, and another thing they are not teaching you. The predictive models are full of epicycles.

See this page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

In short, there is no real model. They put in cheats to make things fit prediction, the same cheats which Ptolemy used two thousand years ago.

> FE is inaccurate!

TBD. The Flat Earth EA celestial model appears to explain more astronomical events than the Round Earth celestial model.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

> Muh Slant Range Radar Calculations https://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Slant%20Range.en.html

That page discredits itself on the validity of the slant range calculation:

In practice, however, the propagation of electromagnetic waves is also subject to refraction, i.e. the transmitted beam of the radar is not a rectilinear side of this triangle, but this side is additionally also curved depending on

the transmitted wavelength,
the barometric pressure,
the air temperature and
the atmospheric humidity.

There are other variable to take into account which affects the scenario significantly, so it's impossible to know if this slant range calculation is helpful or not. Often at high altitudes we can see hundreds of miles further than should be possible on a RE.

28

Flat Earth General / Re: Anyone amongst the Flat Earth people with an actual scientific background?

« on: July 22, 2024, 05:15:05 PM »

so maybe "mainstream not teaching about the problems of the model" is because for the same reason you've waved away any round refutations.

It's not a big mystery. The reason the problems are not taught is simply because they are lying to you. The purpose of science is to explain the world and to explain the universe, and if they can't do that then they will hide their failures.

This is academia doing this, indirectly deceiving its learners, and your attempted comparison to what you think I do or don't do is rather weak. If we can't trust academia to give us a full picture then we don't know how strong the argument is for things like evolution, and a hundred other subjects.

No, you wrote a heavily biased opinion piece with lots of dishonestly cherry picked quotes.

If the evidence for a subject is cherry picked, then it should be easy for you to provide the overwhelming evidence of the opposite.

Yet your arguments are mainly all basically various reasons for why you don't need to provide sources or evidence. Do we really need to listen to you argue that for the thousandth time? Arguing about why you don't need to argue is very uninteresting. By having nothing that directly challenges it you lose the discussion every time.

Most of the topics we discuss aren't part of the science curriculum for even Astronomy and Earth Science doctoral students. They don't like teaching about the problems of the model.

Goal of the curriculum is to teach what we know, not what we don't know. That can people figure out after they know what we know. Problem with fe is that they have no science. They can't do predictions. They can't measure. They can't calculate. Zilch for everything.

Not being taught about the problems with the Round Earth model means that you received a poor education. It's not something to be proud of or justify. Really, you should exercise a lot more humility knowing that your model can't keep a planet and a moon in orbit around a star.

29

Flat Earth General / Re: Anyone amongst the Flat Earth people with an actual scientific background?

« on: July 22, 2024, 02:54:59 PM »

They don't like teaching about the problems of the model.

interesting....

so i'm sure you've totaly never ignored simple direct questions before which refute the flat earth?

Not really. I have addressed all of it, and you know where to find it. In my view it is my challenges which are being ignored or unsatisfactorily responded to. I wrote an entire encyclopedia about Flat Earth, known as the TFES.org Wiki. I usually always link and direct you guys there when queried, and I rarely get any coherent rebuttal in response. There is no source which decisively debunks those topics. And it will be difficult to, since the pages largely cite mainstream science discoveries which debunk RE. In the coming years it will be realized that it stands as the reigning champion which has defeated the globe.

30

Flat Earth General / Re: Anyone amongst the Flat Earth people with an actual scientific background?

« on: July 22, 2024, 01:00:50 PM »

Most of the topics we discuss aren't part of the science curriculum for even Astronomy and Earth Science doctoral students. They don't like teaching about the problems of the model.

For example, except for a niche class of astrophysics researchers, few PhDs barely know what the Three Body Problem even is. When students do find and show an interest in it, they are often discouraged from looking into it as a thesis topic and are told that it is an impossible problem that will hurt their career to be associated with or to try to contribute to. They are also told the same when they show an interest in problems with Relativity.