Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Curiouser and Curiouser

Pages: [1]
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Trumpthiness
« on: June 04, 2019, 06:38:50 AM »
If Donald Trump declares in tweets and at rallys often enough "2+2=5" half of America will believe him.

The Satanic Temple has been granted 501(c)(3) non-profit status as a recognized religion by the IRS. If you're near a city that's showing it, consider going to see "Hail Satan?", a documentary by filmmaker Penny Lane now making the rounds in limited release.

Flat Earth Debate / Ice wall thousands of km high
« on: May 07, 2019, 01:55:30 PM »
Continuation of tangent topic originally started in into a separate thread

You heard about an ice wall.

You invented that it was thousands of km high based on nothing other than casual thought.
You stated "It is several thousand km high in order to keep the air in." (Notwithstanding that keeping air "in" would require 200-ish km. Certainly not more than 600 km.)
Nope, you may well be able to orbit in the rarified gases at 200km, 600km, or more and a wall that height would keep 99% of the atmosphere in, but you let that last 1% leak over the top and the 99% that's left will expand and then the top 1% of that will leak away until you've got nothing less. Not 1% you think? Only 0.0001%? Fine, it'll just take longer, the Earth has been here long enough already.

Oh, is that now your invented process with invented values for how things work? (At 600 km, it's about 5 x 10^-12. That's 0.0001% of your 0.0001%). But by your unassailable logic, the same thing happens on a spherical Earth. Atmospheric molecules randomly collide and statistically a small percentage of them acquire sufficient kinetic energy to achieve escape velocity and are ejected into space (i.e., they "leak over the edge" of the gravity well). It's a small fraction, but the rest of the atmosphere will expand and the process continues until there's nothing left. It takes longer, but the Earth has been here long enough. By your reasoning, the Earth therefore has no atmosphere.

So, if you want to shoot this theory down, tell me, what's keeping the air in?

Off-topic. Pointing out your poor logic and rhetorical fallacies does not compel me to solve the problem for you.

You asked why we can't see this wall.
Yes, why can't we?

No one else believes in a wall thousands of km high.
Hardly anyone believes in the FE either, if belief is based on numbers you're on shaky ground too.

Positing a non-existent thing just to argue against it is a straw man.
Right, so now you're saying the whole of Flat Earth is a straw man?

The rest of your post about what I think and how I constructed my reply is rubbish -- another one of your inventions that is not true.
What, you think that what you think  isn't important? I think it is, tell me what you think keeps the air in. You do have an opinion don't you?

Your logical conclusion is that the only possible thing that keeps air in is your invented ice wall. You have shown no "logical conclusion" other than "Well, *I* can't think of anything, therefore it excludes all other explanations." That is why I think you don't understand what a logical conclusion is. Either that, or you do understand, and are intentionally trying to hoodwink readers.

We're never going to progress without a discussion. If you think logic leads in a different direction then tell me. Maybe you're a dome believer in which case you don't need a tall wall in your universe?

I already told you why you can't see the wall ... you invented it and it doesn't exist. Let's not play that game.

Belief isn't based on numbers (another of your inventions). But if no one has presented an explanation except you, and you use that to then argue why that explanation should not be used by your opponents, that's a fallacious argument. (E.g. Dragons at the edge keep the air in. The dragons need to fly around in the air to blow the air back. Why can't we see these dragons that you keep talking about?)

"The whole of Flat Earth is a straw man?" You really either don't understand or are being intentionally thick.

And then more off-topic nonsense.

Who says I have any interest in progressing? Your inability to understand simple logic and common rhetorical fallacies makes discussions like this wearisome and unproductive.

Suggestions & Concerns / Acceptable / unacceptable avatar images
« on: March 18, 2019, 08:25:38 AM »
Is SkepticMike's avatar image, which is visible in upper fora posts, and which can be seen prominently in public by bystanders even if I am scrolling through posts at a reasonable speed on my phone, considered acceptable or unacceptable?

Technology, Science & Alt Science / SpaceX Demo-1
« on: March 01, 2019, 03:14:57 PM »
Scheduled for 2:39 a.m. EST. I'm glad that we'll have something new for dutchy to complain is the fakest looking thing he's ever seen.

Flat Earth General / The Conspiracy
« on: February 22, 2019, 07:52:13 AM »
One of the arguments made against the concept of Flat Earth is that the conspiracy to keep the true shape of the earth secret would be so massive in extent that it could not possibly exist.

But is that necessarily true?

As the old joke goes, I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you.

The conspiracy doesn't have to be very large in extent at all.

The conspiracy doesn't have to be keeping the secret from the whole world.

It just has to keep the secret from you.

It doesn't have to doctor all the photos in the world, just the ones you look at.
It doesn't have to doctor all the books in the world, just the ones you look at.
It doesn't have to fake the flights you take (and really, when's the last time *you* took a flight?) just the ones you take.
It doesn't have to fake all the data and web pages in the world, just the ones you look at.

C'mon. Think about it. How easy it would be to just monitor you, and feed you the fake data and photos? You just sit there at the computer anyway, searching and searching for evidence. You know that you are special. You know that you are right. You know that they monitor you anyway, especially when they saw that you were searching for the truth. You know they want to hide it but you're diligently working to uncover the truth, so they just feed you the false info. Nobody else is really paying attention. They don't bother with them. It's just you. You can feel it in your bones, can't you? They're watching. They're monitoring. On your computer. On your phone. On the street. In your basement. Watching. Feeding you what they want you to know. They're not doing it to everyone else. Just you. That greeter at Walmart? He's in on it. That checkout girl at the Dollar Store? She is, too. Your Mom upstairs? Yeah. Her too. Watching. Waiting.

Suggestions & Concerns / Are bans listed?
« on: February 04, 2019, 02:32:02 PM »

If you're just going to pick up where jimster (who is banned for a week) left off ...

In this post Space Cowgirl may or may not have implied that Googleotomy should have known that jimster was banned. I can't tell if that was a point, or just additional information.

Is there a place where bans are listed?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Nancy Pelosi for President 2019
« on: January 16, 2019, 01:31:12 PM »
Nancy Pelosi for President 2019

Today, SpaceX announced that its workforce would be decimated.

All those disgruntled former employees with knowledge of what really goes on. All those former workers who talked about putting in 12 hour days and weekends (read any of the "What's it like to work at SpaceX?" articles online) who were loyal to SpaceX and are now feeling kicked in the teeth and betrayed.

All of the dirt and dirty secrets will now come out. Anyone who saw something suspicious? Look for it on Twitter. Anyone forced to fake data? Payback to Musk for getting dumped. Whistleblowers will be coming out of the woodwork.

It's everything you've been waiting for.

Truly, here is solid indication some stuff about truth is really expected.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Temper tantrump
« on: January 09, 2019, 01:28:00 PM »
The Great Dealmaker just walked out in a huff of talks to end U.S. Government shutdown that he used to say he owned, but now pawns off on Dems. Paycheck to paycheck workers held hostage by ego of ineffectual poseur. Total indifference and incapacity to empathize with people he says are just like him. Maybe he thinks Fed workers can ask their fathers for a "small loan of $1 million."

Flat Earth Debate / What direction is "down"?
« on: August 14, 2018, 02:37:57 PM »
Is the direction of "down" parallel at all places on the flat earth?

In this context "down" refers to the direction
 - Of the gravity vector, if you believe in gravity
 - Of the opposite of the Universal Acceleration acceleration vector, if you believe in UA
 - That objects stationary with respect to earth will travel when no longer supported and subjected to no additional forces

If yes, thank you for your answer.
If no, can you specify the conditions under which it's not (i.e., Never, not near the edge, not when there's a large mountain nearby, not when the moon is full, not in Grover's Mill, NJ, etc.).
If no, can you quantify the magnitude? (i.e., It differs all over the earth by 10^-6 radians, it changes near the edge by 0.001 degree, it's not exactly parallel but by an unmeasurable amount, etc.)

Flat Earth Q&A / Direction of "down" on Flat Earth?
« on: August 13, 2018, 09:14:47 AM »
[Question deleted]

Flat Earth Q&A / Universal Acceleration 101
« on: July 30, 2018, 10:32:16 AM »
In a previous topic, "Universal Acceleration 101" the OP proposes that the Universal Accelerator only directly affects the earth and not any other objects.

So it doesn't affect everything?
It only affects what it is touching (pushing it upwards), in much the same way as a tennis racket doesn't affect a tennis ball until the ball touches the racket. The Universal Accelerator only affects you if you're standing on the Earth, because it pushes the Earth up and the Earth pushes you up. So if you jump, you're temporarily not affected by it, it just quickly pushes the Earth back into you.

What about the Sun and Moon?
Well, it can't be affecting them, because they're constantly flying above the Earth and consequently above the Universal Accelerator.

Is this true?

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Perception of curvature
« on: July 19, 2018, 05:38:07 PM »
Maybe the difference between the people who see or don't see horizon curvature at low altitudes is attributable to

A common depiction of the Earth is of a disk with relatively small thickness-to-diameter ratio.

Questions related to the other side of the disk or the thickness of the disk are frequently answered with the equivalent of "we don't know; no one has ever been there; it hasn't been measured."

What evidence exists, then, that the Earth is a disk?

Without any evidence that the Earth is a disk, is it not equally likely that the Earth is:

- A cylinder, one circular surface of which is the known Earth, the remainder of the cylinder of arbitrary length (including infinite).
- A frustum of a right circular cone, the smaller circular surface of which is the known Earth, the cone angle arbitrary and the height arbitrary (including infinite).
- An infinite volume below an infinite plane, a portion of which is the known Earth.

What evidence exists to prefer any one of these descriptions over the other three?

Flat Earth General / Sun position
« on: May 29, 2018, 06:59:46 PM »
Is there a method of determining to within an accuracy of one degree the angular position (azimuth, elevation) of the sun for a given location and time?

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Zetetic topics
« on: May 21, 2018, 01:58:56 PM »
Are there any other fields in which the Zetetic method is employed to reach conclusions?

Flat Earth Q&A / Altitude of astronomical objects
« on: April 24, 2018, 08:24:42 AM »
What aspect of flat earth theory regarding the altitudes of astronomical objects is consistent with the following observations?

In airplane at 30,000 ft. sun observed undistorted at sun center = 1 degree below 0 degree level
In airplane at 30,000 ft. moon observed undistorted at moon center = 1 degree below 0 degree level
In airplane at 30,000 ft. Venus observed = 2 degree below 0 degree level
Airplane flying straight at constant altitude

Flat Earth General / Flat Earth International Conference (Canada) 2018
« on: April 18, 2018, 02:21:42 PM »
I have just read that the Flat Earth International Conference (Canada) 2018 is being held in August in Edmonton at the ...

... wait for it ...

... Fantasyland Hotel.

Flat Earth General / Measurement vs. blather
« on: April 10, 2018, 03:42:01 PM »
An example of blather:

"Hey. Look at this picture. I see something curve! 100% proof you ignorant swimpering ninnyhammers!"

An example of measurement:

Stop your blathering, you ignorant swimpering ninnyhammers.

Flat Earth Debate / How flat is the Earth in your preferred FE model?
« on: February 28, 2018, 10:14:12 AM »
What is the tolerance on the flatness of the Earth in your preferred FE Model?

That is, what is the distance between two parallel planes within which the solid surface of the Earth lies?
(The GD&T definition of flatness)

So, for instance, on an infinite flat earth with a perfectly flat sea the flatness would be 29029' (height of Mount Everest) + 36070' (depth of Marianas Trench) = 65099'

If your FE model of choice includes local or total curvature, or a different geometry based on the finite size of the Earth, your value will be different.

Flat Earth General / The Earth is flat ... ish?
« on: February 12, 2018, 09:06:18 AM »
In trying to determine earth curvature / non-curvature by means of looking at objects at distance over water (ship masts, Chicago skyline, bridge supports, etc.) all that is being done, or not done, is looking at the geometry in a very small localized area. A proof of curvature or non-curvature over an infinitessimal fraction of the earth does not prove or disprove a globe or non-globe.

A proof would be to measure amount and direction of localized curvature at one location and proceed with a network of bootstrapped subsequent points until a full globe or shown or not shown. Cherry-picking a tiny handful of points is insufficient.

So why is this attempted "proof" so ubiquitous? Why try to prove a thing that does not -- cannot -- lead to a proof of the big picture?

An absolutely irrefutable argument that the earth is flat.

Consider the following. The earth is flat. Also, I am per the classic philosophical supposition, a "brain in a vat." All my perceived external senses are electrical inputs from a master control computer whose purpose is to deceive me. All data regarding the spherical earth is false. All posters on this board do not exist (that's one aspect of this argument that is appealing) and are simulated by the master control computer. All arguments from logic that lead me to a conclusion that the earth is spherical are constructed by the master control computer to make me think a certain way. Even mathematics is in question. I may think that 2 plus 2 equals 4, but in reality 2 plus 2 may equal 53814, but at the moment I attempt to calculate the sum of 2 plus 2, the master control computer sends signals to my brain to make me think the sum is 4.

There is no argument that can be made to contradict the proposal that the earth is flat.

Flat Earth Q&A / What is a "satellite"?
« on: January 25, 2018, 10:42:08 AM »
Tiny dot of light moves across the night sky.

What are the possible non-traditional explanations that FEers cite?

Brevity appreciated.

Flat Earth General / Flat Earth believer fired
« on: December 30, 2017, 08:21:54 PM »
Does anyone know of and have references to an instance of someone being fired from a job because of their belief in Flat Earth theory?

If so, does anyone know of and have references to any lawsuits filed because of it?

Flat Earth General / Universal Acceleration questions
« on: December 29, 2017, 08:44:19 AM »
 Topic was hijacked and moved.

In the "Flat Earth FAQ - Please Read!" forum, second post ("The Flat Earth Wiki", December 12, 2008), the very end of the post states:

"It's also worth noting that if a person were to look down at the earth from high above, they would expect to see a circular shape where the sun's spotlight was shining. This explains why high altitude photographs are generally curved to produce the illusion of a round horizon."

I agree. This would logically follow from a spotlight sun.

Yet many examples, experiments, and proposed experiments of FE concentrate on showing that there is no visible curvature at altitude.

The two ideas seem mutually exclusive. Which should be expected? To see the curved edge of the illumination from the sun spotlight? Or to see an uncurved horizon?

Pages: [1]