1

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

« on: Today at 02:23:44 PM »

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

No, that is your BS strawman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2

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

« on: Today at 02:13:48 PM »

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

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

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do people believe the earth is flat but the other planets aren't?

« on: Today at 01:34:19 AM »

The operative word being "seems."
Just as an acrobat seems like he can balance on a circus ball, but obviously can't eat and sleep that way

Meanwhile, life on Earth has had no problems living sleeping, eating, etc, on a spherical Earth.

neither birds, nor trees, nor bodies of water can actually balance on a sphere.

Do you mean on your tiny balls, or the massive spherical Earth?
Do you have any proof of your BS claim?

If I were to plant an asparagus seed on a beach ball

You would be setting up a model which intentionally misrepresents the RE model.

Again, the RE model is not a tiny ball sitting on a much larger ball.

Just like your BS model, I can make the same BS for a FE, but just turning the system sideways. I can't seem to grow a tree off a wall, nor do puddles stay on, instead they just go off.

What we observe in both cases are things going towards Earth.

Everything might seem fine with your theory, but this is reality.

Yes, this is reality, a reality where Earth is round, no matter how much you lie about it and misrepresent it.

In fact, that room proves rather than disproves how wrong you are.

No, it proves how wrong you are.
Because notice how they can't walk on the floor when it is at the top.
It shows Earth below them is much more important, and all your pathetic BS claims are just that, pathetic BS.

Normal people subconsciously know the Earth is flat, but education has told them otherwise.

Most normal people don't give a damn what the shape of Earth is, and don't think it is flat because of all the hills they encounter.

Evidence shows it is round, something you lack.

4

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

« on: Today at 01:28:41 AM »

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

Globebusters often spouts pure BS.
Did they offer any evidence at all?

Patently untrue. A few years ago if you typed in the words Flat Earth into the YouTube search box, you’d be shown many useful videos. Now, if you do the same thing you only get videos debunking and mocking Flat Earth. I suggest you’re lying if you want to claim no one has been tampering with the algorithm. Of course our overlords care!

Because a few years ago, there weren't that many crazy people publicly suggesting Earth is flat for it to be noticed, but then it was, and people started posting videos pointing out the BS, and those videos tend to be the more popular ones.

Youtube in general also appears to have made an effort to stop BS being spread, but has done quite poorly.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: Why does the earth look stretched in the flat earth projection?

« on: Today at 01:26:17 AM »

It so obviously isn’t but unfortunately you’re too brainwashed to see that.

Are you sure you aren't the one that is too brainwashed?
Can you offer anything at all to indicate Earth is flat?
If it is so obvious, this should be easy.

6

Flat Earth General / Re: FINALLY! Proof of Truth

« on: May 17, 2024, 03:32:20 PM »

This is happening at the quantum level all the time. There are laws, sometimes they are followed and sometimes they aren't. For advanced machinery to work every piece must do its job perfectly, so how could the big stuff be perfectly consistent even with super complex machinery, if the smallest parts of everything randomly break the rules? Simple. We have had only part of the rules explained to us, to keep us happy sheeple. Enough for everyday citizens to feel like its the truth, but with enough held back to keep us forever in line with the status quo.

This tunnelling is not breaking the rules.
It is a quantum effect which is what allows macroscopic objects to function (like diodes).
But the big thing a math person should know, is probability.
Quantum events, like tunnelling are probabilistic.
When you deal with a single particle, it seems random, like flipping a single coin.
When you get to macroscopic objects, you have so many particles it isn't funny. A single kg of water contains roughly 33 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 molecules.
So now instead of flipping a coin where you can have no idea what the result is, it is like flipping that many coins, and you can have a pretty good idea that it will be ~50% heads and 50% tails.

We see this with how water evaporates over time, with a probabilistic distribution of particle energies resulting in a certain amount being able to go into the gas phase, giving us a repeatable equilibrium vapour pressure for a given temperature.

1. The Bedford Level Experiment was not taken seriously because it was done over too short of an area and it's readings were too limited. It was easy for it to be dismissed with explanations that the earth is so big, that curvature happens over a much larger area than 6 miles. It was also a fundamentally flawed experiment because the level was moved. A 6 mile long bevel would have been perfect, but of course that is unrealistic to make or move. I have a very simple solution to this though involving more advanced reading instruments than a simple level uses, and super cheap building material (the industrial equivalent to popsicle sticks).

The Bedford level experiment was not taken seriously for a variety of reasons.
A big one was that it was then followed up with a wager turning it into more of a joke, with the more carefully controlled replication of the experiment showing curvature.
But the Bedford level experiment was an optical one, they didn't move the level.

With what you have described, it sounds more like you are talking about Cyrus Teed's experiment using a rectilineator which is claimed to show Earth is concave.
https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/256963

The main problem with this is a problem for all such large experiments, no structure is perfectly rigid.
The sag in the equipment can cause a result of flat, concave or convex, depending on how it is supported.

The same issue arises with a 6 mile long level.
How would you construct such a device?

If we are going to stick to optical experiments, we already have that in the form of distant buildings being obscured from the bottom up, showing Earth is round.

2. Atmospheric pressure readings at 3 distinct levels. I believe that only a 5,000 foot interval is necessary, although I would prefer to do 10,000 feet if possible. But using very inexpensive instruments I can get readings at 5,000 feet below sea level, and 5,000 feet above sea level, and I am positive that when comparing them to sea level I will be able to show the same kinds of inconsistencies that we all know are being taken for granted when it comes to how gravity must actually work.

What kind of inconsistencies are you expecting?
We know there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere. We know the pressure gets lower with increasing altitude.

Again I don't think that these experiments will be specific proof many would need to change how they view the world over night. BUT I am positive it would be enough to force people to open their eyes and come to terms with the fact that they have been being lied to for ages. That will shift the conversation, and open mindedness of people with much bigger wallets, and then I believe we will finally be able to put to rest that the earth is most definitely flat, or at least not at all shaped as we have been led to believe.

The issue is that there is already overwhelming evidence for a RE provided by a variety of sources, including photos from space.
If you want to challenge that to convince people or even convince them people are lying, you really need it to be something they can do themselves, not something that needs a lot of funding.
That just leads to people seeing the majority of the world showing evidence earth is round, including some simple observations you can do yourself; vs one lone person showing evidence Earth is flat, with you needing lots of money to replicate.

WHY AM I WRITING HERE NOW?
I am a poor teacher. I wanted to gauge if there would be any interest in helping to fund my experiments from fellow colleagues
of the mind looking to finally shift the conversation in our favor with tangible proof.

This really comes down to why are you here?
Consider it from our point of view.
We have someone who doesn't want to reveal their name, asking for money to do experiments, with no details of the experiments.
To me, that sounds like someone wanting to take money and run.
If you were here for the truth, why not post the details? Why keep the 3rd experiment entirely secret?
Did you want to make sure you are the one doing it and not someone else? If so why?

7

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?

« on: May 16, 2024, 03:34:23 PM »

FYI, Thomas (hit-man) Hearns , 5 weights, 5 world titles.

In a sport with 19 different divisions.
If you instead use the current Olympic weight classifications, that would cut it down to 3 different classes (assuming they actually manage to win the top one, over a period of 8 years (including a large gap of 5 years), and 10 kg. And instead of just going up, they also went down.
And with very few of these people in existence.

Well more importantly i think unco said it months ago - there is no practical logistics to have nba divisions by height.

Its not solely about players.
Its also about the viewers.

Just like fuckface bulma idea to have wood burning/ steam/ diesel / petrol (but oddly NO electric) but lacking the awareness the logistics of supply chain and cost associated with too maby options.

Viewers simopy dont have time or money invest to watch everything and teams cant afford to partial fill stadiums or network tv slots.

Dilution of customers works against marketability.

Tell that to boxing.
Excluding special cases like people wanting to see Musk get the shit beat out of him, the most popular rounds are typically those where you have a champion or overall winner determined.

With multiple divisions, you can do that multiple times in the same short period.

So femalss must be protected from injury and females viewership must be protected from dilution and females protected to compete somehow fairly in obtaining fair stadium and network time (ie not priced unfairly).

WHY?
Why the need to invoke "female"?
Why isn't it athletes must be protected from injury?
Why should female viewership in particular be protected, rather than just viewership in general?
Why is it that female athletes in particular need to be protected to compete fairly? What about the males of comparable ability who are excluded? Why aren't they protected?

Rwasonable.

So show it is reasonable, specifically to discriminate on the basis of sex even thought  rather than just dismissing opposition as nutter.

8

Flat Earth General / Re: Why is moon landing impossible

« on: May 16, 2024, 02:58:39 PM »

No I'm not. I'm a "science" denier.

Yes, you are.
You deny any science that doesn't match your fantasy.
So much so that you even deny things like properties of light and inertia/momentum.

Today the scientific method appears to be:

No, that is just your strawman of it.

If round Earth or heliocentrism are "established science", we ought to immediately question their validity.

The fantasy of a FE was questioned and replaced with the RE.
The RE has since stood the test of time with no one able to show a fault.

Science is not about just rejecting tradition like you want to pretend.
It is about actual scepticism.

Because the goal of science is never to settle.

The goal of science is to understand how the world works and be able to use that to predict what will happen to better prepare us for events and to make new things.
Part of that includes developing models which work and using those models. That is what is meant by "settled".
The RE model works and has been used for plenty of things, without a problem.

Yes, if you find something which shows a problem with the model, and can improve the model, then it will be improved.

But that is not a reason to just throw the model out because you don't like it.

But yes, if my senses show the sun going around the Earth, and someone tells me, "You eyes are lying to you," I immediately recognize that I've heard similar rhetoric from cults that tried to suck me in.

And so you just reject reality, and instead act like a cultist trying to suck others in.
Do you do the same when people tell you that when you are on a merry go round, the entire world isn't spinning around as you remain stationary? And that when you are in a car on a highway or in a plane, it isn't you being stationary with the entire world flying backwards?

Your eyes tell you RELATIVE position. They can't actually tell you which is moving.

Meanwhile, when people recognise things like the sun and moon remain roughly the same angular size so must be roughly the same distance, you entirely ignore that and still lie to everyone and claim it appears to go down because it is getting further away.
Likewise, if we look at distant objects with the bottom obscured by water, which is level.

Modern FEers outright reject what their eyes are telling them because it doesn't fit their fantasy.
So cut the crap about trusting your eyes.
You pretend they are lying to you all the time because you need to to pretend your fantasy works.

Instead, I actually use reason.

So going back to a sunset, or a moon set. I observe that it remains roughly the same angular size the entire time.
And I observe it appearing to go down.
This tells me that its path relative to me is roughly a circular path where it goes "below" my position on Earth, with Earth then blocking the view.
I don't claim to know which is moving from this, because I can't tell from this visual observation alone. I would need something else to determine if I (and Earth) am rotating or the sun is circling.

But not dishonest people like you that are so desperate to cling to a fantasy.
You will claim your eyes alone are pure magic and can tell that it is the sun that is moving, not you, and that even though the sun appears to be the same distance, it is magically getting further away and that is why it magically appears to set, and that even though it looks like Earth is blocking the view, it is actually pure magic.

So you rely upon your eyes to determine something they literally cannot determine, and then reject them for things they can determine.

I don't pretend to know the full mechanism of flat Earth

The problem is you have no mechanism at all.
You have nothing more than hopes and dreams.

Sorry. You're welcome to believe in that science if you want, but I think I'll believe in what I consider real science.

Be honest. You will reject that science and cling to fantasy.
What you are appealing to is not real science at all.

Do you know a key part of real science? Not just blindly trusting your senses and assumptions, but instead testing them and if possible, using other instruments.
For example, you say your eyes tell you the sun is going around Earth, and it isn't Earth rotating.
Do you know the appropriate way to test this?
Make a small model. You want a camera, mounted on a small model Earth, and a small model sun you can control.
Surround this with darkness so you can't see anything else. (If you object to this, then replace the darkness with a star field, e.g. a mainly black surface with little dots of white.)
Then film some shots where Earth is stationary and the sun moves (You can even try different paths, e.g. circling in a plane perpendicular to the surface of Earth at the camera, and in a plane parallel).
Film some shots where the sun is stationary and Earth rotates. (Note: Just the sun, not the starfield if you are using it, if you want, you can even then have that move with the sun as an additional option).
For added fun you can also have both moving.

Then, this is part where ideally you have a friend help out so you don't know which is which.
Mix up the shots, so after you have made your determination (below) you can then identify which is which, but when you viewing the shots you do not know.

Then, watch each shot, and make a determination of which is moving, Earth, the sun or both.
Then see how accurate you were.

Have you even attempted that? No. Instead you just know you want to believe Earth is magically stationary and the sun is moving around us, so you blindly accept it and reject anything to the contrary. That isn't science, that is religion. A cult you have decided to join and promote.

You could also do this in a computer simulation.

Oh and btw, as I've never seen the backside of the moon, I'm gonna decide it's flat.

So based upon nothing more than your wilful ignorance, you are going to decide pure BS.

Observations of the moon show it is not flat, in several ways.
Due to the eccentricity of the orbit, we don't actually see the same portion of the moon the entire time, instead it changes over time appearing to rock back and forth.
With the phases, and the small details like shadows in craters, it acts like a spherical object illuminated by something else.
But also, if it was flat, it would need to continually reorient to face just you, or it should appear to distort as it moves around.

So there is plenty to show the moon is round, and NOTHING to show it is flat.
But because you are desperate to reject reality you cling to whatever BS you can and reject anything that doesn't fit your fantasy.

You know, upright. So unless it has a topside, the primary reason is that round Earthers should agree with me when I say that by your own science, visitors to the moon ought to fall back to Earth.

No, that is by your delusional BS so far removed from science it isn't funny.

It is also incoherent nonsense.
So you say the moon is flat, what is on the other side?
Is it just a flat disc, which has a top and bottom?
Or is it some magical never before seen thing which only has a bottom?
What happens if someone where to hypothetically try to go over the moon? (I hear a cow did it once )

9

Flat Earth General / Re: Why does the earth look stretched in the flat earth projection?

« on: May 16, 2024, 02:15:15 PM »

If Earth is flat, there is no reason for the map to be distorted.
It should simply be a scaled down version of Earth.
The only reason for Earth to look distorted in maps, is if Earth is not flat.

10

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?

« on: May 16, 2024, 04:36:58 AM »

Weight class at the top levels theres natural physical advatangage AND honed skills.

Skill training can only get you so far whih is why women cant hit the peaks male divisions can.
Becaus ethey 15% smaller!!!!!!!

So you were going back to sports.
Again, this is not a simple male vs female.
It is a broad spectrum with lots of overlap.
There are plenty of males which also are smaller which cannot reach the peak of the best.

Why should they be excluded based upon their sex?

You
Are
Nuts

Why? Because I object to sexist BS?

11

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?

« on: May 16, 2024, 04:35:24 AM »

That might explain why you put zero thought into it.

When people like you appear to attack it just on principle, what is the point?

And I suppose none of the American Patriots put any thought into having an elected head of state beforehand?

Notice how you are trying to change the standard?
Put some thought into it, vs having all the specifics.

But once again you’re veering wildly off topic with dumb analogies.  This has nothing to do with sports.

It isn't off topic or dumb. You not liking it because it shows the stupidity of your objection doesn't make it dumb.
It is a simple comparison to highlight just how stupid your requirement of having all the details is.

I don't need to have all the details to know the current system, discriminating on the basis of sex, is broken.

The correct response would be to admit you were wrong, rather than trying to deflect and dismiss.

Either way, you are still trying to tell me that I’m “really complaining” about something that’s miles off anything I’ve said.

How so?

You are the one who is proposing completely overturning the world of sport, so YOU need to show how and why it’s better.  How exactly is it better for all the people in the world who play and watch sport to not have those divisions?

And I have.
It removes the sexism, treating males and females equally, so people will not be unfairly discriminated against based upon their sex.
Are you suggesting sexism makes it better?

Here AGAIN, is what I was replying to, when we were talking specifically about qualifying for high level events like the Olympics-

Or you can make different divisions, based upon non sexist terms, And then people would be eligible for at least one division, and getting too good for their current one and moving up to the next, they are still eligible for it, even if they don't have a chance of winning.

You appeared to change your answer

No, I didn't.
Where is the change in answer?
Being eligible for the next division up does not mean they will automatically go to the Olympics for it. They still need to qualify.

Your proposal for “ability divisions” was based on athletes’ performance.  For boxers that means winning matches, not weight.

And for your objection against that based upon athletes artificially capping their performance so they don't get excluded from that division so it isn't about being the bets, relates directly to boxers capping their weight so they don't get excluded from their division so it is no longer about being the best.

Heavyweight is very far from the next division from featherweight.  Maybe you should have asked a less stupid question.  Boxers can and do move up a weight class and compete at the same level for the next season.  eg world class boxers who compete internationally in their new class.

My bad, but also partly your bad. I asked how long in direct response to your question, and then asked how long it takes to go from featherweight to heavyweight. You just responded with "quite a while".
But do you have an example of a boxer who won a weight division, then went up to the next and won or came close to winning?

None of which is accounted for in your “weight is a proxy for ability” nonsense.

At no point have I ever said it is perfect.

It’s only at the higher competitive levels where boxers carefully manage their weight because they are looking for any advantage.

So it is only the level where it would get you to things like the Olympics where you are really meant to be trying to find "the best" where the athletes decide to artificially restrict themselves to not be the best?
As opposed to amateurs that don't really care because they know they aren't the best?

I’ll remind you again

And I'll remind you again that weight is not a perfect drop in. I have never said it is.
I'm not saying we should switch entirely to weight based divisions. Instead, I am using it to show how your arguments apply equally to an existing system.
And I'll also point out again that you can control your weight, you can't control your sex.

So no, this is not a double standard.

Neither are more significant factors than being good at the sport.

Then you should have no concern with males competing against females, because those males would need to be good at the sport to have a chance of wining.

Not what’s happening now.

Yes what is happening now.
Countries are sending in a mixture of the best and the mediocre.
Some athletes that are better than the mediocre athletes are excluded.

No one is ever told they can’t go to the Olympics because they ranked too high during qualification

Which is not what that statement was.
But they can be told they are too heavy.

So which do you propose?  Do you want to simply abolish women’s sports or are you going to keep flogging the dead horse of your ability division crap?

Again, I propose removing sex based discrimination.
Other than that, I don't have a strong preference either way for just an open competition or multiple divisions.

Then explain why that is better.

Because it removes the sexism. It treats people based upon who they are, not what sex they are.
Do you think that is a bad thing? That we should be treating people based upon what sex they are rather than who they are?

I’ve also compared to how it currently works with age grouping in youth games and, wait for it… weight classes in boxing.

i.e. systems of divisions which most of your arguments apply to as well.
But again, if you want to compare it to the current system I am opposing, you need to appeal to sex, because that sexist division is what I am objecting to.

12

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?

« on: May 16, 2024, 03:49:57 AM »

Based on that males arr 15%larger than females.

For the general population or the prison population?

And there are more of them in prison.

Which means there are fewer of them to be targets, and many more men to be targets.

Dismissal is to communicate that there is like voting

Dismissal by just calling someone nuts is to say you have no way to refute them and you have decided you want to attack them instead.

If you think there can be no further exchange of new information, you can just back out of the conversation.
If you want to "agree to disagree" you don't call the other person nuts.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Polaris Constellation Never Be Seen 90° Height

« on: May 16, 2024, 03:46:57 AM »

No evidence so far for your claim that it can never be seen at 90 degrees.

14

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Predetermined Pi in Calculator Program???

« on: May 16, 2024, 03:46:10 AM »

Jack said:
"The length of the arc MUST fall between the length based upon sine and the length based upon the tangent"

Yes, because it is true, with you unable to show a fault.

>> This is already debunked by analizing tiny angle with big scale of radius. It found out that tangent and sine lengths are relatively IDENTICAL.

Yes, just like we expect.

Just like what happens if you get a right angle triangle.
Consider a right angle triangle, where one of the sides from the right angle is 1 km long, and the other, is 1 m long.
What is the length of the hypotenuse?
sqrt(1000^2+1^2) = sqrt(1000001) = 1000.0005.
Notice how the hypotenuse is basically the same?

It runs beyond tangent length since the beginning.

No, it doesn't.
That is just your pathetic lie.
Look at how you started, with the square. Using a circle with a radius of 1, inscribed in a square with a width of 2, the length from the lines made from the tangents is 4*2 = 8.
The length from the lines made from the sine is 4*sqrt(2) = 5.656854...
The length from the arc is 2*pi = 6.283185...

The length from the arc is ALWAYS between the lengths from the lines from the sine (chord) and tangent.
Even using your phew BS it still is.

So instead of just asserting pure BS with no justification at all, try justifying it.

How does the arc get bigger than the tangent when the arc is literally cutting the corner?

15

Flat Earth General / Re: Why is moon landing impossible

« on: May 16, 2024, 03:37:27 AM »

The moron is you. Despite numerous attempts, you have yet to understand the theory.

You don't have a theory, you have a collection which simply doesn't work.
Explaining why your nonsense doesn't work doesn't mean we don't understand.

If we have a sphere, and stars are bodies of light, shouldn't the brightest and closest of them be visible?

It is, it is commonly called the sun.
It is visible as long as Earth isn't blocking the view.
The rest aren't visible during the day because of the brightness of the sun.
This is also why you typically can't see them through the window from a brightly illuminated room.

shouldn't it likewise be visible even from glare reflected from mirrored satellites or something?

It is.
You can see those satellites reflecting the sun.
But that doesn't magically let you see the sun.

the thick blue sky mysteriously thins and radio signals and such are affected.

The sky doesn't thin, the blue just disappears because it doesn't have the sunlight which causes it.

The light of the sun doesn't shrink due to distance between summer and winter

This BS of yours has already been refuted.
The distance to the sun varies by roughly 3% over the course of a year.
That is not going to have much of an effect on its visual size.
Conversely, in your fantasy there should be a massive difference over the course of a day.

The very closest should be 1/1000th of the size of the sun but it sorta kinda really isn't.

Because once a light gets small enough, it is just an unresolved point.

Do you have something that can resolve that size (~0.0005 degrees)?

Yet you can see tiny lights from thousands of trillions of miles away.

Yes, because that is how light and human vision works.
If you have a light source, which is brighter than the surroundings, it will be visible, regardless of how far away it is. If it is too far, it will just be an unresolved point.

Your weird ideas simply don't work. They require suspension of common sense.

Pure BS.
You are yet to show a single fault, and instead need to repeatedly discard common sense to pretend it doesn't work.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do people believe the earth is flat but the other planets aren't?

« on: May 16, 2024, 02:35:50 AM »

1. Who says they aren't? You need a flat surface to stand on.

No, we don't.
I am fine standing on lots of different shapes.
Meanwhile, a wall is flat, yet I can't stand on that.

2. And who says there are other planets anyway?

Plenty of people. You can even see them with a telescope.

If people managed to convince you Earth is round, how can you be sure that you weren't lied to about this too?

"about this to" implies that Earth being round is a lie, when it is what all the evidence shows.

You see, they aren't designed for life anyway.

There is no evidence Earth was either.

normal life can't thrive on a sphere.

It seems to do just fine on a spherical Earth.

'
And that's before we discuss the behavior of water.

You mean things like how level water obscured distant objects clearly showing it is curved?

The problem with your response is that you assume Earth is flat, with no basis at all, and base your entire line of nonsense on that.
Take away that assumption, and it all falls apart.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Polaris Constellation Never Be Seen 90° Height

« on: May 16, 2024, 02:14:52 AM »

They can, you just have to go to the north pole to see it.

18

Flat Earth General / Re: Why is moon landing impossible

« on: May 15, 2024, 02:52:28 PM »

I can't argue the second point; I am not well versed in astronomy, photography, etc. I've just seen interesting arguments made by some FE and also recognize that the moon landings were staged.

You mean you believe they are staged.
I am yet to see any valid evidence for that.
But I have seen intentional manipulation by people claiming they are fake, who are faking the fake evidence themselves.

I'm caught in a weird zone of skepticism between knowing that all the governments of the world lie constantly about everything and that there's a lot of untested/able theories out there about the real nature of the world.

Not knowing, believing.
That is paranoia, not scepticism.

I don't claim there is, I claim I saw what appeared to be an ABC Australia interview with a known ABC Australia anchor interviewing someone who was allegedly a professor. I find that the abnormal lack of information about this is in the same vein as other scrubbed information I've seen. I observe patterns and think about it, that's all. I wish I could see this alleged professor's prior work (if it exists) and look at it myself, but it doesn't seem possible.

Which could easily just be you not remembering correctly. It happens quite often.
And as it isn't really noteworthy (unless there was actual proof) it isn't an abnormal lack of information.
A crazy person claiming to have proven something, without the actual proof, fading into obscurity is not abnormal.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do people believe the earth is flat but the other planets aren't?

« on: May 15, 2024, 02:49:40 PM »

From what perspective? From the earth, I believe that there's too much between us and these objects to make a sure, clear determination about their nature. From what the world calls space, I have very little confidence that we know what these particular objects are. There are photos and videos I've seen that show celestial bodies looking like noisy blobs, similar to as if you disturbed the surface of water.

Such videos are typically taken by people having them out of focus, or on a day with a particularly turbulent atmosphere, or for the more distant planets with a poor telescope.

But from Earth we can observe the phases of the moon and Venus and mars.
The moon we can see with just our eyes.
These all clearly act as solid objects with their interaction with light.
They do not act as plasma.

I have no confidence in the idea we've landed any rover or other vehicle on the bodies within our solar system, as even the Mars exploration narrative seems contrived.

Why? Because it doesn't fit your worldview?

20

Flat Earth General / Re: How have the flat earthers learned so much that is "secret"?

« on: May 15, 2024, 02:46:39 PM »

Presumably for the same reason there's a growing contingent of people who know 9/11 was a government operation, or that COVID-19 was one big sham, or that JFK was assassinated by the CIA. The powers-that-be aren't infallible and are honestly pretty incompetent at keeping secrets for extended periods of time.

Or because the public is being more uneducated and ignorant and paranoid, and willing to reject reality?

21

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: War

« on: May 15, 2024, 02:45:34 PM »

She wanted the pronoun 'they', which doesn't make any god damn sense because they denotes a group of more than one.

They also denotes a singular person of unspecified sex.
They could be male, they could be female, they could be intersex, they could be a hermaphrodite, they could be asexual.

Non-binary can mean many things, but ultimately that they are claiming they don't fit into the binary sex differentiation of humans and other mammals.
It can mean that they see themselves as a third gender, or that they go back and forth (which is more gender fluid) or that they see themselves as simply neither male nor female (in which case they should just say agender).

Only if you think gender isn't a spectrum.

A spectrum would still imply you can mark a point of division and have male on one side and female on the other, and then someone could be at any point on that spectrum, but still not both male and female.
It would also allow multiple sections to be defined, like male, neuter and female.

With the way it is being used by them, gender is not a spectrum. It is a collection of entirely meaningless labels you can slap onto anything.
And because they are entirely meaningless labels, it is up to the user if they want these meaningless labels to be exclusive or not.

In order to be both, you need it to be a set of criteria that need to be filled, either entirely or partially, without them being exclusive.
e.g. if you define male as "has a penis" and female as "does not have a penis", then you can't be both.
However if you define male as "produces sperm" and female as "produces ova" then a hypothetical person can be both.

And if you do as they do, and define male as "someone who identifies as a male" and female as "someone who identifies as a female" then you can be both.

22

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do people believe the earth is flat but the other planets aren't?

« on: May 15, 2024, 02:36:38 PM »

If I understand what I've researched correctly, then there are no other planets. These are other plasma phenomenon that render themselves differently through the aether. The Earth is alone in existence.

So why do they not behave like plasma at all, and instead appear to behave as a solid object which reflects/scatters and absorbs light?

23

Flat Earth General / Re: Why is moon landing impossible

« on: May 15, 2024, 02:35:58 PM »

As a newbie to the FE concept, my understanding of the theory is that the sun and moon are plasmatic phenomenon and not physical objects.

The sun is plasma. Plasma is a physical object in the sense that it is made of matter.
The moon does not act like plasma at all.

There seems to be a professor who did an ABC interview in Australia prior to the alleged moon landings who supported this theory and claimed that the theory had been proven true before. Unfortunately, his prior work seems to have been scrubbed from the internet, as well as his identity in and of itself.

So you claim there is this professor, while also claiming there is no evidence.
Why do you believe this claim? Is it because you want it to be true? It clearly isn't because of evidence for this claim.

24

Flat Earth General / Re: Which Cone Has The Bigger Volume?

« on: May 15, 2024, 02:32:50 PM »

1. By projection, cone shape is like a triangle. So the segment area equals 0.5 part.

That would be a triangular prism, not a pyramid or cone.

2. Such area needs quadrat of two sides (not diagonals) whose value equals 0.707107 part.

Why this magic BS number?

By the way, in your calculation, what cubic is its size?

I already told you the formula.

We can even go based upon what you said above now. By projection, it is like a triangle.
This applies all around.
This means if you consider thin slices of a cone or any pyramid, and see how the area of them change going from the base to the top.
We see from the projection, that a length (l) is a linear change from 0 (the apex) to l_b (the length of that side).
i.e. if you consider the tip to be x=0, and the base to be x=h, then the length of that projection at any point will be given by:
l=l_b*x/h
And if length is a linear change, then that means the area (A), which is l², will follow a quadratic function:
A = l² = l_b²*x²/h²
Which can be simplified to:
A = A_b*x²/h²

So the volume for a slice, which is A*dx is given as:
dV =

So we now just need to integrate:
V = int(A_b*x²/h² * dx, from x=0 to h)
= [(1/3) * A_b*x³/h²], from x=0 to h
= (1/3) * A_b*h³/h² - (1/3) * A_b*0³/h²
= (1/3) * A_b*h
= A_b*h / 3

i.e. the volume of ANY shape like this, where you go from an apex which is a point, down to a base, where an orthographic projection makes that transition a straight line, the volume will be the area of the base, multiplied by the height, divided by 3.

There is no other option. Any answer MUST be equivalent to that, or it is wrong.

So the volume of a cone will be V = A * h / 3.
And as A =π r², this means the volume of a cone is:
V = π r² * h / 3.

And if the angle at the apex is 90 degrees, so the radius is the height, then it is:
V = π r³ / 3.

If you say otherwise you are wrong.

So for the red cone, if the radius is 1, then the volume is π/3.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: the pop scientist Sabine H. has some sympathy for flat earthers

« on: May 15, 2024, 02:34:51 AM »

Pop physicist Sabine H. needs to learn about the basics of science before making these embarrassing videos.

At the 5:40 mark she says:

"It isn't hard to convince yourself that someone, somehow, did manage to actually calculate when the sun arises and when the solar eclipse occurs. And those are not the people who believe that the earth is flat. Why do Flat Earthers realize this? I suspect what's going on is that Flat Earthers don't have the faintest clue how modern science works."

The people who first made predictions in astronomy were Flat Earthers. Even many of the RE'ers here know this. It was done by the Ancient Babylonians long before the Greeks came up with the Round Earth Theory in classical antiquity. Prediction was done through equations which could predict patterns and trends. They could predict celestial events with surprising accuracy, and came up with the Saros Cycle which is still used for eclipse predictions.

This is apparently her big point in this video; that we should just assume a bunch of stuff about the history of science, and then go on to assume how some of those online calculators work.

You should learn the difference between science and history. History of science is still history, not science.
Also, some of the FEers here claim those Babylonians are REers.


But the ancient FE model of the Babylonians had far more in common with the modern RE model than the modern collections of FE nonsense.
For example, they believed the sun set, by going below Earth, with Earth blocking the view.

But yes, you don't need to know Earth is round to predict it, just to explain it.

26

Flat Earth General / Re: extreme weather forecast

« on: May 14, 2024, 03:16:48 PM »

1. You think it's not okay to be a regular citizen and carry a gun for protection from rape or murder.

The "regular citizen" typically doesn't have training on how to use a gun, making them carrying a gun for "protection" likely to be a danger to themselves and those around them.
There is also the question of what firearms that should be allowed. Do you need a fully automatic assault rifle with a 100 round mag? Or would a 12 shot pistol be enough?

2. You think it's not okay for a country to exist, after being persecuted for centuries, and literally having its enemies all around it.

You mean Palestine?

3. You think it's okay for violent assholes to destroy another people who quite literally experienced a hate crime to the point of a 1/1000th reduction of population.

Like how Israel is attacking Palestine?
As for the "hate crime to the point of a 1/1000th reduction of the population", care to provide a citation for that?
Quickly checking, current estimates put the number killed at around 6 million. For that to reduce them to 1/1000th of the population, that would mean that 6 million needs to account for 999/1000 of the population, meaning the pre-holocaust population would be roughly 6 million, while the post-holocaust population would be 6000. Meanwhile there were over 500 000 serving in the US military.
You also clearly didn't mean that only 1/1000th was killed, as that would require a population of 6 billion, unless you are suggesting the amount killed was much smaller.
What you actually have is roughly 60% of Jews in Nazi controlled Europe were killed.

4. You sympathize not with civilized people but with an Iron Age culture playing pretend as a modern people.

So we sympathise with the Jewish people? That still think infant genital mutilation is a good thing?

Meanwhile, the Jews dragged us out of the muck.

No, they didn't.

Cultural advancement is thanks to religion.

Due the opposition of it?
Quite a lot of advancement is in spite of religion, or entirely separate from it.
Religion continually holds us back.
Look at all the Christians trying to oppose things like gay marriage because of their religion.

Our meals as families, our festivals, our gatherings have created a long slow progress toward peace.

With no need for religion.

Then in the 19th and twentieth century, the rise of atheism has undone much of what religion accomplished.

Quite the opposite. The resurgence of religion is undoing what has been done.

Hitler's writings you figure out that Christians were gonna be the next target.

Yet Hitler was either Christian himself, or used Christianity.

They even look inbred.

Cherry picking photos wont help you.

You might want to examine your life a bit.

You might want to follow your own advice.

27

Flat Earth General / Re: Which Cone Has The Bigger Volume?

« on: May 14, 2024, 02:47:58 PM »

There should be 0.5 multiple coz it's a cone. So the volume of round based cone equals (round side times round side) × 0.5 = (1.58579×0.707107)^2 × 0.5 =  0.62868

Why?

Where's your calculation? Where? ~

Where is your justification for throwing numbers together?

28

Flat Earth General / Re: This website is controlled opposition

« on: May 14, 2024, 02:45:57 PM »

Or if you work for one of the three-letter groups (FBI, CIA, NSA), it would be called counterintelligence.

Not for telling the truth.

If you want to be paid for that, I'm not gonna stop you.

The point is we aren't being paid.
You just lie and call us shills because you can't refute what we say.

People deserve to be able to decide for themselves. That involves having the information needed.

Which includes all the information that shows Earth is not flat.

Yeah, unlike some of the fake FE'ers here (not all of them are), I actually believe in the flatness of the Earth.

Yet you spout just as much ridiculous crap as the next FEer. There is no more reason to conclude any FEer on this site is fake than there is to conclude you are fake.

29

Flat Earth General / Re: to day solar storm

« on: May 14, 2024, 02:43:09 PM »

The moons light is not reflected sunlight. It's a cooling light that doesn't burn the eyes. It's actually better even than the blue light from electronic devices.

Except all the evidence shows it does reflect sunlight. No experiment or evidence shows the moon cools, and plenty of objects that reflect light from the sun can be looked at.

30

Flat Earth General / Re: extreme weather forecast

« on: May 13, 2024, 02:03:03 PM »

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion-poll-wartime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514
90% of Palestinians support Hamas and want the US-backed Palestinian leader to resign.

And yet again you just blatantly lie to everyone.

What your source actually says:
"an overwhelming rejection of Western-backed President Mahmoud Abbas, with nearly 90% saying he must resign."
"support for Hamas typically spikes during periods of armed conflict before leveling out, and that even now most Palestinians do not back the militant group."
"57% of respondents in Gaza and 82% in the West Bank believe Hamas was correct in launching the October attack"
"At the same time, 44% in the West Bank said they supported Hamas, up from just 12% in September. In Gaza, the militants enjoyed 42% support, up slightly from 38% three months ago."

So unlike you BS claim of 90% support Hamas, it is 42% in Gaza. That means by your own standard, in a crowd of 1000 people, you should be trying to save 580 of them, while letting 420 of them die.