1

Suggestions & Concerns / Embedded Youtube Videos

« on: February 08, 2018, 07:22:16 PM »

Is there a way to prevent youtube videos from automatically being embedded?

We used to be able to prevent the video from being embedded by shortening the URL from youtube . com/watch?v=abcdefg to youtu . be/abcdefg, but that doesn't work anymore.

Even putting the youtube URL as the source of a quote automatically embeds the video, which looks ugly.

We're no strangers to love...

2

Arts & Entertainment / War on Christmas

« on: December 23, 2017, 09:16:24 PM »

*MUSIC*

A War on Christmas music. I'm declaring one now. From now on, Christmas music shall be limited to December 22 - 28, on pain of death.

Who's with me?

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Al Franken's final speech as a Senator

« on: December 21, 2017, 04:31:27 PM »

RIP

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Net Neutrality: WTF is it?

« on: November 25, 2017, 05:20:18 PM »

When you go online you have certain expectations. You expect to be connected to whatever website you want. You expect that your cable or phone company isn’t messing with the data and is connecting you to all websites, applications and content you choose. You expect to be in control of your internet experience.

When you use the internet you expect Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is the basic principle that prohibits internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from speeding up, slowing down or blocking any content, applications or websites you want to use. Net Neutrality is the way that the internet has always worked.

-- https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now


Beware the propaganda denouncing net neutrality. It relies heavily on misrepresenting facts and straight-up lies.

Much of this propaganda is being posted on the Twitter feeds of the 3 FCC commissioners who want to remove net neutrality:

https://twitter.com/mikeofcc
https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC
https://twitter.com/BrendanCarrFCC

Examples of misleading articles pushing anti- net neutrality:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-net-neutrality-stirs-such-passion-1495230726
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/for-the-internet-we-need-federalism-not-anarchy/article/2641110
https://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/internet-regulation-ted-cruz


Some common myths being pushed by anti- net neutrality propaganda:

1. The internet was perfectly fine during the "light touch" era of internet regulation, before Obama's heavy-handed net neutrality regulations.

The FCC has regulated ISP's with various net neutrality-like principles for a long time. The problem was that these regulations were not very explicit, consistent, and were on a shaky legal foundation. The 2010 FCC Open Internet Order's goal was to make those principles explicit. However, it did not survive it's day in court on a classification technicality. In order to rectify this, ISP's were classified as "common carriers", so they could be regulated under "Title II" common carrier regulations.

This representation of the issue as "light-touch" vs "Obama-era heavy regulations" is nothing but an attempt to gain support from Republican partisans.

2. "Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media."

Is anyone surprised that the Dumbass-in-Chief has no idea what net neutrality is? This doesn't make the tiniest lick of sense. If anything, the exact opposite is true. Removing net neutrality will give ISP's more power to control content served to their customers. Comcast owns MSNBC. AT&T recently announced plans to buy Time Warner, which owns CNN.

3. Net neutrality is overbearing government micromanagement of the internet.

Here are the principles of net neutrality. You can decide for yourself if it constitutes "overbearing micromanagement":

1. ISP's must disclose their basic network performance to customers. No misrepresenting network speeds or other terms of the contract.
2. No blocking anything lawful.
3. No discriminating among internet traffic. No slowing down Netflix traffic in favor of Amazon traffic, or youtube in favor of... other tubes.


Tortured metaphors in a futile effort to explain net neutrality to the technically un-inclined are highly encouraged in this thread.

5

Flat Earth General / Aisantaros' Challenge Submission

« on: November 04, 2016, 05:47:46 PM »

A submission for aisantaros's challenge.

Download the code from GitHub.

* Please feel free to ask for clarification if something isn't clear *

Overview

This model demonstrates the possibility of accurately predicting the location of any star from any location on a flat earth, specifically, the Octans Constellation.

The earth is surrounded by a large "celestial shell", which is normally opaque to visible light. There are numerous holes in the celestial shell, which allows directional light to penetrate the shell and reach the earth. Each hole corresponds to a specific star seen at a specific spot on earth. For each star, there is exactly one hole in the celestial shell that allows a ray of light to hit a specific spot on earth. Given a high enough resolution of the shell (which can be arbitrarily increased by increasing its radius and thickness), the non-continuous nature of the stars would go unnoticed. While this specific arrangement of directional holes seems improbable in the extreme, there is a plausible natural explanation for it, which will be explained in the next section. This plausible natural explanation can be demonstrated to result in the exact same arrangement of stars as what we would expect to see on a globe shaped earth.


Origin of Directional Holes in Celestial Sphere

Imagine a small sphere sitting at the North Pole of the earth. The sphere explodes. Particles are shot outwards in all directions. Once these "guide particles" hit the celestial shell, they drill holes in the shell. These holes allow light from outside the shell to shine back on the earth. Due to the thickness of the celestial shell, the light that penetrates the holes will be highly directional. In fact, the light will only hit the exact spot where the original small sphere exploded. If a person stands in the exact spot where the sphere exploded, he will be able to see light leaking through the numerous holes in the celestial shell. However, if he moves slightly to the side, those holes will disappear, and the sky will again be black.

Now imagine billions (or more) identical small spheres covering the surface of the earth in a single layer. Each sphere is completely identical in every way. When each sphere explodes, it will emit the exact same arrangement of guide particles as every other sphere.

However, each sphere is facing a slightly different direction. Each sphere is rotated towards the North Pole by an amount corresponding to its latitude. Whereas when a sphere at the North Pole explodes, it will shoot a "Polaris particle" straight up, a sphere at 45° north latitude will shoot its "Polaris particle" at an angle of 45°, resulting in a hole that can be seen at an altitude of 45°. The exact same altitude that Polaris would be expected to be seen at from a globe earth.

Likewise, each exploding sphere has its own "Sirius particle", "Betelgeuse particle", "Rigel particle", etc, which allows those stars to be seen from anywhere on earth.

This is roughly illustrated in figure A. This is a side view of the earth. I know it looks like a confetti bomb, but bear with me. Each sphere has exactly 5 rays coming from it, corresponding to 5 major stars. The colored rays are emitted by each sphere at the exact same angle relative to the north (red) side of the sphere. The spheres and rays are each rotated to match the latitude that they are located at.

Figure A: Side view of exploding spheres and guide particles rotated according to latitude

[continued]

6

Flat Earth Debate / Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.

« on: October 11, 2016, 05:58:53 AM »

Inspiration

In Earth Not a Globe, pages 25 - 34, Rowbotham offers an explanation for why objects appear to disappear behind the horizon bottom first on a flat earth. However, it is not enough to merely posit a plausible sounding explanation. We must test it! To test it, we need numbers!

Here is your mission, should you choose to accept it:

1. Hypothesize! Based on Rowbotham's logic, find a way to predict how much of an object will appear to have sunk "behind" the horizon, based on various factors. (distance to the object, height of the observer, etc...). Start by assuming no refraction. Bonus points if you are able to develop an equation that also makes a reasonable attempt at approximating refraction.

2. Test! Compare your calculated values with a wide range of observed values. Make sure that you only use pictures/videos that you reliably know the distances for. Also, compare the values from your equation to the values that we would expect if the earth is round. Bonus points if you also take into account refraction for both a round and flat earth.

3. Analyze! Which set of calculated values matches up better with the observed values? What possible explanations are there for the differences between the calculated and observed values? Does your equation closely follow Rowbotham's logic? Are there any flaws/weakpoints in Rowbotham's logic?

* Feel free to do as little/much as you want, but the more the better. Good luck!
* If you have an alternative to Robotham's explanation, feel free to use that instead. However, please present the alternative explanation as clearly and precisely as possible before presenting your equation. Don't just link to a youtube video.
* Round earthers: let the flat earthers have a go at it before chiming in. Try to keep the snark to a minimum.
* sacred-text.com, which hosted ENAG 2nd edition, seems to be down. All I can find is the first edition in pdf format.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Special spot for the Sagnac Effect

« on: August 28, 2016, 12:34:48 AM »

This is a thread for Sandokhan to discuss the Sagnac Effect to his heart's content, instead of spamming unrelated threads with it.

Sandokhan, if you don't like the title, then just make your own darn thread!

---- Edit: For context, here is my original post ----

The Sagnac effect DESTROYS relativity, no doubt about that.

You have already been given the references which detail the orbital Sagnac effect, it is greater, of course, than the rotational Sagnac effect.

It is completely missing from the GPS satellites recordings.

A quick glance at this paper shows that the Sagnac effect is calculated based on a rotation rate of 7.2921151247 x 10^-5 rad/s. This is the rotation rate of the earth with respect to the stars, not the sun. This takes into account both the rotation of the earth relative to the sun, and the rotation of the earth due to the orbit of the sun. There is no need for a separate "orbital Sagnac effect" calculation.

---- End Edit ----

You lack the most basic knowledge of astrophysics.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/JasonAtkins.shtml

Yes, those values match the rotational speed that I provided quite nicely. What's the problem?

If we multiply, as an example, this value by the Earth's equatorial radius we will of course get an equatorial speed of 465.1 m/s, 1,674.4 km/h or 1,040.4 mph.

However, the orbital speed of the Earth around the Sun is some 30 km/s.

TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS: the GPS satellites must incorporate both the rotational Sagnac effect AND the orbital Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac Effect arises from the different relative velocities of the satellite and the earth's surface. The rotation of the earth affects this. The linear velocity of the system as a whole does NOT affect this.

8

Flat Earth Debate / The South Celestial Pole

« on: August 22, 2016, 02:20:39 PM »

I. The Facts
II. Round Earth Explanation
III. Flat Earth Explanation

I. The Facts

1. Facing North, stars circle around a single point in the sky. This is called the North Celestial Pole.
2. Facing South, stars circle a different point in the sky. This is called the South Celestial Pole.
3. In the Northern Hemisphere, the North Celestial Pole is above the horizon, and the South Celestial Pole is an equal distance below* the horizon.
4. In the Southern Hemisphere, the South Celestial Pole is above the horizon, and the North Celestial Pole is an equal distance below* the horizon.
5. The North Celestial Pole is due north. The South Celestial Pole is due south. They are in exactly opposite directions from one another.



Here are both celestial poles in one image. North Celestial Pole is on the left above the horizon. South Celestial Pole is on the right, below the horizon. Forgive the distortion, it's a panoramic image:



* Obviously we can't actually see the celestial pole that is below the horizon. However, we can approximate it's position by extrapolating the paths of the stars.

II. Round Earth Explanation

The earth is a rotating sphere. From our perspective, the stars appear to be rotating around us. The elevation of each celestial pole depends on your location on the earth.

At 30 degrees north of the equator, the North Celestial Pole will be 30 degrees above the horizon and the South Celestial Pole will be 30 degrees below the horizon. Likewise, at 30 degrees south of the equator, the South Celestial Pole will be 30 degrees above the horizon and the North Celestial Pole will be 30 degrees below the horizon.



You can confirm for yourself that the elevation of each celestial pole corresponds exactly with your own latitude.

III. Flat Earth Explanation

Obviously, the visibility of the South Celestial Pole presents a problem for the flat earth model. If the stars are all rotating around a vertical axis, then the South Celestial Pole should be below the earth. In order to see it, one would have to peek over the edge. "Celestial Gears" are the most common solution to this problem that I have seen. I have never seen a particularly detailed explanation of how they work, but I assume it is something like this:



However, this still presents some problems.

1. There has never been a report of anyone seeing an intersection between the various South Celestial Poles. Considering that mankind has been navigating the oceans by the stars for several hundred years, this seems unlikely.
2. The South Celestial Pole is always exactly due South. It is always 180 degrees in the opposite direction of North. In the "Celestial Gears" model, moving east or west would cause the South Celestial Pole to no longer be due South. There would be a non 180 degree angle between the North Celestial Pole and South Celestial Pole.



In conclusion, the visibility of the South Celestial Pole is in direct contradiction with the flat earth model. The earth isn't flat.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Time and Direction of Sunsets in the Southern Hemisphere in December

« on: August 20, 2016, 09:21:36 PM »

Hello! TotesNotReptilian from the "other" website here! Since the flat earthers on the "other" website seem to have abandoned the debate section, I decided to try here:

If you have ever been south of the Equator, you know that the seasons are reversed: December through January are the hottest months, and have the longest daylight hours. Flat earth theory has a halfway decent explanation for this. The radius of the sun's orbit above the earth increases and decreases with the seasons. During the southern summer months, the sun has a larger orbital radius:



This sort of makes sense for the Northern Hemisphere. But as they say, the devil's in the details. Let's look at a few cities during the December Solstice:

Northern Hemisphere:
New York City: 9 hours 15 minutes of daylight
Los Angeles: 9 hours 53 minutes of daylight

Southern Hemisphere:
Sao Paulo: 13 hours 35 minutes of daylight
Punta Arenas: 16 hours 57 minutes of daylight

I plotted the location of the sun at sunrise and sunset for each city on a Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection Map^[1]:



Sao Paulo and New York City sunset:
Why does the sun set later for Sao Paulo than for New York City, even though New York City is much closer to the sun?

Punta Arenas and Los Angeles sunset:
Notice that the sun sets for Los Angeles before Punta Arenas, despite Los Angeles being directly between the sun and Punta Arenas at the time.

Punta Arenas and Sao Paulo sunrise:
The sun rises for Punta Arenas before it rises for Sao Paulo, despite Sao Paulo being directly between the sun and Punta Arenas at the time.

As you move farther south of Sao Paulo, the days become longer and longer, and the distance from the sun at sunset and sunrise gets farther and farther! In fact, according to this model, in the extreme southern latitudes, much of the northern hemisphere lies between the sun and the southern hemisphere at sunset, despite it being pitch black in many of those northern locations. How is this possible on a flat earth?

From Rounder's follow up post from the "other" website:

The direction of the rising and setting sun is problematic for FE as well.  Sao Paulo should see the sun rising 26° south of due east, and setting 26° south of due west, but that's not what is shown on the Gleason^[2] map.



^[1] Yes, I know this isn't an official flat earth map. But since there isn't an official map, I'll use this one since it seems to be the most commonly referenced.
^[2] This is not the Gleason map, but it is very very close to the Gleason map.