1

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

« on: Today at 02:02:02 PM »

The point is that the appearance of planets and their moons is easily verifiable from earth, and can be seen by ANYONE with a telescope or a P1000. It's the fact that ANYONE can take such a video that makes it strong evidence.

I don't think you fully understand the argument that turbo is going for.
They are using footage like that, and ignoring things like atmospheric turbulence, to pretend that the planets are not what people claim, but instead are spinning like crazy.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Re: The strongest arguments of the flat earth theory

« on: Today at 02:01:15 PM »

Some people do.  I had a job for a while at a company designing military radios.  I was very surprised that, in spite of the fact, that all the electronic components were metric based, all designs were done in inches or "mils" which are 0.001 inches.  No one gave any thought to the many issues involved in the conversions.  I suppose at this point, the software makes it very easy to use metric values, and have inches/mils show up on the drawings.  Still...  It just hurts to think that we continue to deal with this crap for so many years and yet aren't thinking about switching.

I wouldn't say all electronic components are metric based.
This comes down to legacy.
Through hole components had a hole spacing of 0.1".
To maintain that compatibility with old components and old boards, lots of things keep that spacing. This includes things like pin headers and ICs.

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: Today at 01:54:54 PM »

I have explained in my AFET the reason for the 9.86 figure, it has nothing to do with gravity, it refers to the DENSITY of the nine subquarks and the 0.86 quantity of the connnecting lines.

But it isn't 9.86. It is a value that varies across Earth.

And seriously, you say it explains gravity, and then say it has nothing to do with gravity. Make up your mind.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GPS disproves flat earth

« on: Today at 01:51:59 PM »

Sagnac

You have had your Sagnac BS refuted countless times.
You can't even remain consistent on how large it should be.

If you want to bring it up again, crawl back to one of the prior threads on it, and try defending your outright lies.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: Re: The strongest arguments of the flat earth theory

« on: May 20, 2024, 03:55:07 PM »

Your claim that satellites move at the same speed as the earth and therefore their movements are not noticed from the ground is completely imaginary and not based on any calculations.

Geostationary satellites are quite well known.
Your argument is based upon wilful ignorance of these satellites.

The earth has a spinning speed around its axis and a speed revove around the sun. In order for an object to move at the same  as the earth, it must accommodate both the rotation around the earth and the rotation of the earth around the sun.

Which is trivial.
As it is in close proximity to Earth, it will be accelerated by the gravitational attraction to the sun similarly to Earth. i.e. it will orbit the sun.
So that takes care of that. Then it just needs to orbit Earth.

would either move towards the sun where it was close to the sun, or would be thrown towards space when it was far from the sun.

Not if it remains in Earth's region of influence.
Care to provide the equations to justify your claim?

While the force that pulls the object to the earth has a very low value of 0.022 kg, the force that forces the object to move away from the earth has a high value of 1.46 kg. To compare;

1,46 / 0,022 = 66.

Except you entirely failed.
Your math is wrong.
Notice how what you have done is scale the weight of the object with altitude, but then used the force for the rotation.
A 1 kg object sitting ont he surface of Earth does NOT have a force of 1 kg acting on it due to gravity. It is ~9.8 N.
So it shouldn't be ~0.022 kg, it should be ~0.22 N.

You have also entirely failed to calculate the angular velocity correctly.
If you want to do that there are a few options.
But R needs to be the radius of the circle, not Earth.

We can also just use angular velocity, instead of linear velocity.
Then F=m*w^2*R.
w=2*pi/T.
T, as a simple approximation (which overestimates it) is 86400 s.
And taking your previous calculated radius of 42 371 000 m, we get F=0.224 N.

If you did want to use the velocity of the satellite, will that is given by 2*pi*R/T, which gives us roughly 3081 m/s.
Sticking that into the formula with the correct value of R, gives us 0.22N.

Either way, YOU ARE WRONG!

And would you look at that?
0.22 N = 0.22 N.
The ratio is 1.

So you are entirely wrong.
Sticking in numbers which are not appropriate, and failing to understand units.

As you can see, I present the mathematics

Math equivalent to just saying 1+1 = 65678.
It is useless and wrong.

6

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: May 20, 2024, 03:04:15 PM »

Aside from the litany of experimental evidence referenced in those pages, the most obvious clue that the Earth is accelerating upwards is in the Equivalence Principle page that you linked, which shows that in the official Round Earth Theory the surface of the earth is also accelerating upwards.

Again, the fundamental issue is that the equivalence principle is local.
It doesn't work with the value of g varying across Earth, not does it explain things like satellites.

The only "experimental evidence" of UA, is evidence of gravity, and when analysed honestly, including the fact that g varies, it refutes UA.

Trying to twist the equivalent principle to pretend Earth is flat and accelerating upwards is quite dishonest.
But I guess that is par for the course for you.

Only a denialist would scroll past this part and want to talk about the intracacies of an equation instead:

You mean your dishonest representation of the moon terminator illusion?
Which is merely a result of you trying to take a wide angle view which necessarily distorts the view and place it on a flat plane?

In this Flat Earth celestial model it's not an "illusion". The light is really bending.

Which just further shows the problem with your model, as it is a quite well known illusion, which disappears if you angle the camera correctly.
There is no need at all for light to bend to explain it.

The Earth is not fully illuminated by the Sun because of the opacity of the atmosphere and the bending of light, which explains practically all visual observations and phenomena associated with light on the flat Earth:

It doesn't explain anything.
Instead it takes the observations and forces light to bend to make it match what is observed on a round Earth.

It also directly contradicts plenty of claims of evidence by FEers.
There is no explanation at all for why light should bend just the right amount to make the same visual observations as a RE.

It is just trying to force the reality of a round earth to fit the fantasy of a flat Earth.

An explanation has to go the other way. You need to explain why the light bends to then produce those results.

And if you use the equation provided, it doesn't work.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/lfhky8uh1s

You can fiddle with the bishop constant all you want, it wont result in the sun in the same location for everyone.
You need an entirely different formula.
Now, the dishonest pile of garbage you linked does say it is just an approximation, but this means you don't even have an explanation.
You have vague, handwavy nonsense to pretend it works, without any actual explanation.

And that only attempts to explain the vertical issue, why the sun appears to set rather than remain high in the sky.
It makes no attempt to explain the horizontal issue, i.e. why pretty much the entire world sees the sun rise due east on the equinox, instead of varying angles from due east to north east, to north north east.

7

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

« on: May 20, 2024, 02:43:33 AM »

No it clearly doesn’t explain it.

It does explain it quite well.

All the stars above Earth have never changed their positions, as seen from Earth

Repeating the same pathetic refuted lie will not save you.
The stars HAVE changed their position as seen from Earth.

Just outright lying will not save you.

One of your main excuses is utterly ridiculous. You say that stars DO move, but are so far ways from Earth they look like they never move at all!!

I say that they are so far away that it takes a long time for that motion to be noticed unless you are using very accurate instruments.

But why is it ridiculous? Because you don't like it?
Sorry, that isn't good enough.
Can you show any actual issue with it? No. You just dismiss it, like you dismiss all of reality that doesn't match your fantasy.

So when you say this ‘accounts for it very well’, you mean it needs multiple made up stories just to make  it look like it’s accounted for.

You mean we need simple things from reality that you hate.

when all of it conflicts with itself

And when would this be? You are yet to show a single contradiction.

Your fable is entirely BUILT on made up stories and super forces you can plug in anywhere you need to

No, that is your fantasy.
Science is built upon evidence and logical thought, with forces which act consistently.
You not liking it doesn't change that.

Distance does not make objects in motion appear to be motionless.

Then how come when I look out a plane window to a distant mountain it appears that there is no relative motion at all, compared to look at power lines beside the road when driving in a car that appear to fly past?
This is really basic geometry.

If an object is a distance of d away, and there is relative motion of x per second, then the angular velocity will be given by atan(x/d) per second.
This also means we can easily scale it down if we keep the ratio x/d constant.

We can even trivially refute it by the very thing you are talking about.
Go outside, and look at the stars for a second. Did they appear to move in that second, or did they appear to be "motionless"?
Yet according to your fantasy they are swirling above Earth at an incredible rate.

Your ISS is supposedly miles above Earth and seen moving across the night sky. Planes that are 35000 feet above Earth also move across the sky, and are seen moving.

Refer to the simple math above.
Yes, the ISS is 400 km away, and moving at a rate of ~8 km/s.
That is equivalent to something 4 m away moving at a rate of 8 cm/s. That is quite fast.
We can also convert this directly to something circling us.
That is just 2*pi*d/x seconds, which in this case gives us around 5 minutes. Quite fast.
A plane moves much slower, but is much closer.
At 10 km, and 1000 km/hr = ~0.3 km/s we have 0.3/10, which is equivalent to 3/100. So moving 3 cm/s at 1 m, or taking around 3.5 minutes.
Now lets look at the stars.
I'll even be nice, and just take the velocity of the sun around the milky way, and use the nearest star.
That is a distance of 4.2 light years which is ~40 000 000 000 000 km, while the velocity of the sun is only 251 km/s relative to the galactic centre, and only 370 km/s relative to the background radiation.
Lets be nice and call it 400 km/s.
That gives us 400/40 000 000 000 000 = 1/100 000 000 000. That is equivalent to moving 1 mm per second at a distance of 100 000 km (I think, feel free to double check).
That gives us a time to circle us of roughly 20 000 years.

Or alternatively, we can go from seconds to days, by multiplying the distance by that, bringing us to 86400 /100 000 000 000.
But lets be generous and say it is moving a bit faster, at 100 000, instead of 86400. That gives us 100 000 /100 000 000 000= 1 /1 000 000.
That is equivalent to moving 1 mm at a distance of 1 km. Even if that was per second instead of per day, you aren't going to notice it.
After 1000 days, roughly 2.7 years, it would only have moved 1 m at a distance of 1 km.

You aren't going to notice this.

The stars also are in motion, and seen in motion over time, as is the Sun and moon.

And notice the key part there? OVER TIME!
As above, if you look at them for just a second (or even 10 seconds) they don't appear to have moved. Yet give them enough time, and they appear to move quite a lot.

the only one that is stationary is the Earth.

Repeating the same lie wont help you.
The evidence shows Earth is moving.
And as you are so fixed on stars, they are a simple one.
Which is more likely, all the stars (except the sun) are circling Earth in unison, or Earth is rotating and making them appear to circle Earth?
If you need a simple analogy, which is more likely, the entire world is circling in unison as you sit stationary on a merry go round, or is the merry go round turning?

But even if you outright reject the orbit, a rotating round Earth fixed at the centre of the universe explains it infinitely better than your delusional BS.

8

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

« on: May 20, 2024, 02:19:16 AM »

No, I’d see a heat haze that blurs my view of a motionless truck at that time, and say my view of the truck was obscured by that heat haze at the time.

Notice how yet again you entirely flee from the question?
Where did this truck even come from?
You entirely ignore the question, just to spout pathetic BS to avoid demonstrating to everyone that you lying scum.

This is so pathetic, it’s almost painful

You are pathetic, truly and completely pathetic.
Continually ignoring that your dishonest BS has been refuted, including with simple questions you refuse to answer.
Yet you keep coming back same same the same refuted dishonest BS.
Why?

Try again, ANSWER THE QUESTION or just save us all the trouble and admit you are lying scum with no interest in the truth at all.

You are at an airport, looking out to a plane on the other side, which you see through a heat haze.
But this plane is staying in the same spot on the apron.

Does this plane appear motionless?
i.e. does the heat haze have no effect on the claim that you are seeing it motionless?
i.e. does atmospheric turbulence distorting the view have no effect on the claim that you are seeing it motionless?

You are at some place, who really cares where, and you are looking off in the distance towards what appears to be a large round object.
You are also seeing this object through a heat haze, so there is the typical distortion associated with the heat haze.
But even through that, you see large patches on the object, which while distorted, appear to be in specific locations on it.
You come back every hour or so, and make another note of your observations.
While doing this, you notice that the patches appear to move to the right between observations. Eventually they disappear off the right hand side, and new ones appear on the left.
You keep doing this for a month, and every time you look, it is effected by the heat haze.
But you make enough observations to determine it is roughly a ball which is rotating roughly once every 10 hours.

Did it appear motionless?
If you claimed it appeared motionless would you be lying because of the heat haze that affected the view?

The fact you flee from this destruction of your dishonest BS, only to bring it up again, just shows everyone that you are lying scum.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Circumnavigation of Antarctica disproves the flat earth

« on: May 20, 2024, 02:17:48 AM »

Except nobody had ever claimed to have circumnavigated it before Byrd said he knew its entire size!

Wrong again.
Captain Cook did it before Byrd was even alive.

Yet again you just spout whatever delusional BS you want to pretend your fantasy is true.

You are also misquoting him.

Many of the first maps of Earth  show a circular boundary around it

You mean they are limited. And they have chosen a circular shape for the edge.
Notice that that circular shape doesn't correspond to Antartica.

Note that it shows two separate halves of Earth, each of them bound by a circle.

Yes, as if you take a globe, cut it in half, and then flatten out each half.
This is nothing like your fantasy.

And again, this had nothing to do with your delusional fantasy of trying to pretend a FE was actually a globe.
It was an attempt to show a spherical Earth on a flat surface.

Why would his maps start with two flat halves of Earth both bound by a circle, then morphed together into an oblong boundary, while having a massive land mass stretching out over the bottom area?

Because if you start with a sphere, one simple thing to do is cut it in half and flatten it out.
But like all flat maps, this has problems.
For starters, it has a large section between the 2 circles which aren't connected, yet in reality are connected.
It is also quite complex with the distortions introduced, and trying to find bearings.
The Mercator projection is a much simpler distortion, only has the disconnection on the one side of the map (the north and south are a point), and while you can't easily draw the shortest path, you most certainly can easily draw the simplest.

As for the bit at the bottom, there are a few suggestions floating around.
One is that the map is primarily for navigation, and it isn't wise to go that far south.
Another is just that they believed there should be a large southern continent to "balance" the mass up north.

Either way, it is not showing Antarctica.

But consider it from your delusional BS.
You are claiming there is an elaborate conspiracy to fake Antarctica, which is so complex and elaborate, yet they fucked up so easily by including such an obvious problem?
You are basically claiming they are geniuses that can do no wrong, yet they are complete imbeciles making such careless errors.

This proves they took flat Earth maps

No, it doesn't.
In order to claim such crap you need to provide this magical Flat Earth map which is accurate and not distorted. Where is it?

You also need to explain how the globe manages to show Earth without distortion.

And this in no way refutes the fact that plenty of people have circumnavigated Antarctica in far too little time for your fantasy.

Why would they use flat Earth maps if they said it was a ball?

Because a flat map is much easier to transport and use than a globe at a comparable scale.

Do you see what they’re trying to do here?

I see what you are trying to do here.
Ignore the evidence that shows Earth is round, spout entirely baseless claims, and pretend your paranoid delusional fantasy is true.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« on: May 20, 2024, 01:55:41 AM »

The earth is stationary in the sense that it does not rotate or translate.

Except the evidence shows it does move.

The earth and the entire observable universe move upward at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2.
 https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
 https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
 https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle

And the massive problem with this claim is that g is not 9.8 m/s^2 across the entire planet.
It varies.
This variation in g accross the planet would literally tear Earth apart.
Even a difference as small as 0.01 m/s^2 would result in a difference in distance of over 37000 km after a day.

And that is after ignoring the problems of what is causing this acceleration?
Why does it accelerate things like the sun and Earth at the same rate, but not things directly above Earth?

UA is caused by dark energy:

Dark energy causes the expansion of space which causes acceleration which is not felt.

The stars are fixed, the rotating ether is what moves them

Make up your mind. Are they fixed or are they moving?

the rotating ether rotates counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere

That doesn't actually help given there is a point due south the stars appear to circle.
And it really screws up at the equator.

the speed of the rotating ether increases with altitude, this also explains the Coriolis effect, the Pendulum Foucault and the movement detected by gyroscopes.

You mean it is a very sad attempt to pretend that all the evidence for a rotating Earth magically happens on a flat Earth, as if nature itself is conspiring to pretend Earth is round.
On one hand, we have the RE model, which actually works to explain things so simply; then you have the FE fantasy which needs to appeal to all this convoluted BS to pretend it works.

11

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

« on: May 20, 2024, 01:42:18 AM »

Universal up

Something which has absolutely no justification at all, and is nothing more than the fantasy of a FEer.
Why should there be a universal up?

Especially when you then proceed to appeal to north being towards the centre? Why isn't there a universal north?
Minecraft has a universal north, why can't your fantasy?

You don't have anything even remotely resembling a logical thought. It is just forcing whatever is present to fit your fantasy.

12

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

« on: May 20, 2024, 01:40:31 AM »

You demand "evidence" then refuse to accept evidence.

You are yet to present evidence.
Your strawmen and your tiny balls are not evidence.

What you have is circular reasoning.

Scientific study reveals that flat planets can exist even with mass attraction:
https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/sci/jupiter-flat-planetary-study.html

Now try reading it again and actually understanding it.
It is saying gas giants formed from the protoplanetary disc and were themselves initially like it, disc like, where it slowly collapsed into a sphere.

13

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

« on: May 19, 2024, 02:51:56 PM »

This has nothing to do with the infinite plane.
Distortions exist because the globe map is the flat surface of the earth mapped onto a sphere and flat maps are re-projections of the globe map.
Distortions are also influenced by the reason that the earth is slightly concave and there are reliefs on the continents.

If this was true, then the globe map would have distortions, and there would be a flat map that doesn't have distortions.
But in reality, the globe map doesn't have distortions and every flat map, unless it is over a fairly small area, has significant distortions.

Which flat map do you think exists which doesn't have distortions?

14

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

« on: May 19, 2024, 02:22:51 PM »

They knew that the Earth had to be fixed in position while all the stars and Sun and moon were cycling above the Earth, it is the only possible account for it.

No, it isn't.
That is one hypothetical possibility, which has no explanation for how it magically works.

The rotating round Earth orbiting the sun accounts for it quite well, and can actually explain it.

Because barter and trade was to both sides as a benefit to them, and it is a fair system of economy.

Barter and trade is a horrible system of economy.
That is why it was pretty much never used except for large groups trading between each other.
Instead, small communities shared things, and money was invented fairly quickly.

The big problem with bartering is that you don't always have what the other person wants, nor do you always have what you can provide.
And if you can only produce your main goods at a particular time of year, then you are desperate to offload it then putting you at a disadvantage.
Likewise, if you are desperate for something, but don't have what they want, then you are at a disadvantage because their personal preferences means your goods are worth much less to them so they can take a lot more, which they might later be able to trade for something much better later on.

That is why money was created. Not by a state, but because of the inherent flaws with bartering.
Instead, it is just something which everyone agrees has some value which they can exchange for goods

And there is NOTHING to show that any society has actually used bartering alone without any form of money and that it is only in times of crisis that bartering is used.
Early forms were salt or gold or other metals.
Minting them into coins approved by a government meant you didn't need to weigh them.

To become our Gods, to be worshipped as our Gods, our saviours, our truth tellers and our protectors against all harm beyond Earth.

Then they are doing an incredibly poor job of it.
Yet again you just spout paranoid, delusional BS with no justification at all.

They already knew that the world was flat

Then why does all the evidence show it is round, with so many problems with the FE fantasy it isn't funny?

The flat Earth didn’t fit their goal of becoming our Gods. It was proof of God as our creator, of the heavens above us, of the waters held above us in the firmament, which explains it being seen as blue, same as waters on Earth are blue.

And more delusional BS which has already been refuted.

Most of all, they hated God, and they wish to become our Gods of all our worship

Is that why most kings where religious, and used that God as a claim of why they allowed to rule?

They had maps of the flat Earth, which had a center point in the middle, which was magnetic, and we made instruments called compasses which were magnetic pointers to the center of Earth. And we knew the stars which guided those who navigated the waters of Earth, only one star above the center point of Earth, which never moved like all other stars did.

Except the north magnetic pole is not in the same place as the north geographic or celestial pole, clearly showing that is pure BS.
And the north pole star does move. Over the course of a day it doesn't move much, but over the course of thousands of years it moves so much that the pole star changes.

Yet again, you are just spouting fantasy BS because you hate reality.

And most maps of Earth did NOT have the north pole at the centre.

15

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

« on: May 19, 2024, 02:07:26 PM »

It certainly doesn’t support any of their claims whatsoever.

By "it" do you mean all the evidence you dismiss as fake, or the evidence you appeal to?

If the latter, again it doesn't need to.
What is important is that it doesn't support YOUR claims, and in fact goes directly against it.
What you claimed was motion in the earlier videos is absent from the latter videos, because it is simply distortion caused by a turbulent atmosphere and bad optics.

motionless

Again, if you wish to continue being such a lying POS, then answer the questions which show quite clearly that you are a lying POS.
If you are not going to do that, NEVER mention a claim of it being motionless, as it just shows your dishonesty.

You are at an airport, looking out to a plane on the other side, which you see through a heat haze.
But this plane is staying in the same spot on the apron.

Does this plane appear motionless?
i.e. does the heat haze have no effect on the claim that you are seeing it motionless?
i.e. does atmospheric turbulence distorting the view have no effect on the claim that you are seeing it motionless?

You are at some place, who really cares where, and you are looking off in the distance towards what appears to be a large round object.
You are also seeing this object through a heat haze, so there is the typical distortion associated with the heat haze.
But even through that, you see large patches on the object, which while distorted, appear to be in specific locations on it.
You come back every hour or so, and make another note of your observations.
While doing this, you notice that the patches appear to move to the right between observations. Eventually they disappear off the right hand side, and new ones appear on the left.
You keep doing this for a month, and every time you look, it is effected by the heat haze.
But you make enough observations to determine it is roughly a ball which is rotating roughly once every 10 hours.

Did it appear motionless?
If you claimed it appeared motionless would you be lying because of the heat haze that affected the view?

The fact you flee from this destruction of your dishonest BS, only to bring it up again, just shows everyone that you are lying scum.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Circumnavigation of Antarctica disproves the flat earth

« on: May 19, 2024, 02:04:25 PM »

They had a great problem when they first tried forming the flat Earth maps into a ball

No, they had a great problem when they were trying to map large regions of Earth onto a flat surface. It simply didn't work.
But doing it on a round surface works fine.
That is why there is just one globe, yet countless flat projections, all of which distort something.

But that has nothing to do with the ability to navigate around Antarctica in far too little time for your FE fantasy.

When they later decided that area will be an entire continent about the size of America, that was never before known to exist, until the late 1800’s and later on

You mean when people later explored more?

Do you say the same things about Australia given it was only discovered by Europeans in 1606?
With the east coast only mapped in 1770?

Or do you only spout such crap for things which contradict your delusional fantasy?

What he then said, was not supposed to be told to us for awhile later, maybe years later.

Based on what?

He was on a tv show at the time.

At what time?
He died in 1920.
At that point television was still in its infancy.
Are you sure you aren't confusing that with Admiral Byrd?

But when he said they knew it’s whole size, and that it was about the size of America, he really botched it all up. That would be completely impossible to have known by a few expeditions to it.

Why?
If you go around the coastline you can easily get an idea of just how large something is.

The truth is just told as it is, there’s nothing to put into it as made up

No, that isn't a truth, that is your pathetic lie to reject reality which destroys your fantasy.

And again, if you want to claim people claimed things, provide a valid citation, because you are known to blatantly lie about what people said.

17

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

« on: May 19, 2024, 01:01:51 AM »

Piling up fake images from fake space and fake soace probes is not evidence, no matter how much is piled up.

Good thing they are real images from real space from real space probes.

Again, you just reject any evidence which doesn't fit your fantasy.
That is your wilful ignorance.

Again you excuse the real evidence we have proving them liars.

You are yet to present any evidence that proves they are liars.
 

You’ve seen Saturn through a far better telescope, and once again you see the same constant motion it is in, and the same one blotchy area in its middle, with its edges constantly changing from its constant rotation.

No, we don't.
There is no sign of any constant motion, just the same kind of distortion we see in footage of lots of objects like that.

That is what we know is valid evidence. It confirms the other videos by matching up to them.

You mean we know it is distortion because of how it shows such a different view to the other videos where the distortions are quite different.

So you’re trying to find anything else to excuse it

I don't need to look.
I just need to analyse it honestly.
What part of the video shows it is in rapid rotation?

after it’s from the same group of liars

This is just your pathetic excuse to dismiss everything that shows you are wrong.
As far as you are concerned anything that shows you are wrong is from the same group of liars.
Even with there is no connection between them, you still call them the same group of liars.
This is because you are desperate to reject reality.

would clearly NOT be considered as valid evidence, nothing can confirm it at all.

Plenty can confirm it.
You just ignore it all.

When you have valid, confirmable, matching evidence, you refuse to accept it as evidence

I don't accept it as evidence for your claims, as that evidence does not support your claims.

You’ll never accept this is exactly what we see, and proves them liars who made it all up and sold it as the truth.

BECAUSE IT DOESN'T PROVE THEM LIARS!
This is not hard to understand.
You may as well have posted a picture of a cat, it would do just as well.

You’re past the point of thinking for yourself, reasoning and logical thought, and denying your own eyes and all senses you were born with to use and understand the world we live on. A trained chimp you’ve become, sorry to be blunt.

Quite the opposite.
I do think for myself, using reasoning and logical thought. Things you appear to entirely lack.
That is why I'm not accepting your BS claims.

Remember, I'm not the one who had to continually flee from questions which exposed your pathetic lies.
I'm not the one that needs to continually flee from issues only to bring up the same refuted BS again and again.
That's entirely you.

18

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

« on: May 19, 2024, 12:12:10 AM »

Telescopes we had 40 or 50 years ago, among the very first ones they so graciously let us have

Stop repeating this same pathetic lie.
NO ONE WAS STOPPING YOU!
Herschel even sold copies of his telescope.

some 400 years later on

You really need to get your story straight.
What person are you talking about?
Stop jumping around by hundreds of years.

But if we compare those back then, to some of those today, which are smaller than they are, and smaller aperture, those of today are far superior to those back then, even though they are bigger and have larger aperture.

Prove it!
Stop just asserting BS and try to actually prove they are better.

Again, what you fail to understand here, is that your  argument is worthless.

Quite the opposite, your argument is entirely worthless and self contradictory.
You claim no ones know what these telescopes were capable of, yet still boldly claim that modern cheap crap is better.

Do you really believe those later and better telescopes which replaced them, and would eventually be replaced afterwards, and so forth, which would render theirs as junk, and were scrapped….would really be better than ours 400 years later?

Again, the state of the art back then was almost certainly better than cheap crap available today.
The cheap crap available today is not made so people can learn about the stars or anything like that, it is made to get money from people, to probably be used once or twice before it is just thrown in a cupboard somewhere.

But the state of the art today is much better.

So stop arguing about it being bigger and having a larger aperture, like that’s all that matters to being better!!

Then stop trying to claim the cheap crap you are appealing to is better.

We only need to see Saturn through that one telescope that you know is better than theirs, and we’ll know for sure, forever afterwards, if we will actually see those multiple distinct rings they claimed to see all the time, by their claims and reports and a feature seen at one position on Saturn, and at other positions after some period of time…

Including making sure you are viewing it through good seeing conditions, and from the relative position so the rings don't block the view.

It’s not relevant to argue if they saw it motionless

Then why did continue down this BS path of lies, repeatedly claiming that they claimed to have seen it motionless so you could pretend they were lying?
And why are you yet again bringing up this same dishonest BS?
The BS which is trivially refuted by simple questions you fled from like the pathetic lying coward you are?

Stop circling back to the same refuted lies.
If you want to come back to them, go and answer the questions you were asked about it.
Either way YOU ARE WRONG AND ARE LYING TO EVERYONE!

Again, if you want to be such a lying POS, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:

You are at an airport, looking out to a plane on the other side, which you see through a heat haze.
But this plane is staying in the same spot on the apron.

Does this plane appear motionless?
i.e. does the heat haze have no effect on the claim that you are seeing it motionless?
i.e. does atmospheric turbulence distorting the view have no effect on the claim that you are seeing it motionless?

You are at some place, who really cares where, and you are looking off in the distance towards what appears to be a large round object.
You are also seeing this object through a heat haze, so there is the typical distortion associated with the heat haze.
But even through that, you see large patches on the object, which while distorted, appear to be in specific locations on it.
You come back every hour or so, and make another note of your observations.
While doing this, you notice that the patches appear to move to the right between observations. Eventually they disappear off the right hand side, and new ones appear on the left.
You keep doing this for a month, and every time you look, it is effected by the heat haze.
But you make enough observations to determine it is roughly a ball which is rotating roughly once every 10 hours.

Did it appear motionless?
If you claimed it appeared motionless would you be lying because of the heat haze that affected the view?

The fact you flee from this destruction of your dishonest BS, only to bring it up again, just shows everyone that you are lying scum.

Videos taken with their iPhones, so not bad videos considering that.

Yes bad videos.
A video taken by a crappy camera in a phone, which someone was holding over an eye piece and moving around all over the place.
That is NOT an appropriate way to take a video through a telescope.

But if there really ARE multiple distinct belts on Saturn, let alone a feature at a fixed position on it, then any level of degradation shown in videos, like these videos, would certainly have any sort of indication that there are multiple distinct belts on Saturn.

Pure BS, that even a child would understand.
Degradation means loss of information.
In the extreme case, you lose all of it.
So if you really think that any level of degradation will still show it, that means you are claiming a single pixel video would show it, and that is quite clearly BS.

What is already very obvious for anyone seeing these videos of Saturn, along with how they match up with many other videos of Saturn, to various levels of quality, of course…..

You mean how they show different levels of distortion from various sources, clearly indicating that what you falsely claimed was motion of Saturn, is just distortion. Proving yet again that you have been lying to everyone?

All that matters is that we do not ever see anything like they claimed to see all the time

i.e. you are wilfully ignorant.
You have not made an honest attempt to see what they claimed.

19

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

« on: May 18, 2024, 11:59:04 PM »

Which video?
I assume you mean this BS:


I assume it is something along the lines of wanting to believe in a magical universal up and down, but in reality, there is no such absolute down.
Instead, for people on Earth "down" is towards Earth and "up" is away from Earth.

The most ridiculous part is that he basically uses this fact in the start of his video.
How do people recognise which way is up and which way is down?
Well up is towards the sky (i.e. away from Earth), while down is towards the ground.
No magical universal up or down.

He claims it is absurd, and contradictions, yet can't explain why.

Someone in the south being upside down relative to someone in the north is as good for his argument as a camera being held upside down and things being upside down relative to it.
Being upside down relative to someone with a different direction of down doesn't show any problem or contradiction.
But it does explain things, like why the sky is so different.

Meanwhile, in his pathetic attempt using a person digging he entirely misrepresents gravity. As they hypothetical digger gets closer and closer to the centre of Earth, the gravitational attraction becomes weaker and weaker. When they get to the centre, they don't feel attraction in any direction, because the mass is equally balanced all around.
If they go further, they start feeling gravity pulling them back to the centre, so they would be digging up.

20

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

« on: May 18, 2024, 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.

21

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

« on: May 18, 2024, 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.

22

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

« on: May 18, 2024, 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.

23

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

« on: May 18, 2024, 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.

24

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

« on: May 18, 2024, 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.

25

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?

26

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.

27

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 )

28

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.

29

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?

30

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.