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.

Messages - jack44556677

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Americans being Americans
« on: November 20, 2021, 05:01:58 PM »

You still have to wear a mask at Disney World in FLA:

*Minor correction, feel free to ignore*

Incorrect, but this one is a trick question.

DISNEY requires you to wear masks, however it is illegal for any business in florida to require masks as per the governors executive order.

I know it's hard for you, but do try and get your facts straight.

It's hard for you too! 😊 It is truly difficult for all of us.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air on a Flat Earth
« on: September 18, 2021, 03:41:59 PM »
Wow Jack.. one way or another eh.. that is pretty precise isn't it..

It sounds like you don't understand what I said. Let me try to rephrase for you; everyone knows that we don't lose our atmosphere and from that easily deduce the gas is contained.  This is regardless of conceptions on the shape of the world.  Hopefully you will understand this more clearly.

The Lounge / Re: Let's talk about diabetes.
« on: September 18, 2021, 03:21:55 PM »
I have heard good things about kratom, and it is apparently commonly used to treat diabetes in southeast asia.

Here is one of the studies I found supporting its efficacy.

In any case, it might be worth a whirl as it is pretty benign stuff.

I'm sorry to hear about your struggles (and hospital visit).  I wish you the best of luck, and please let us know how it works out!

Also, have you heard of Dr. J Bart Classen?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air on a Flat Earth
« on: September 18, 2021, 03:00:05 PM »

One or the other, surely?

You'd think so! But you'd be wrong.

Gas behavior is well established as scientific law.  It exhibits different behavior than most other states.

One of those is to always expand as homogenous as possible into an available volume. Nature abhors a vacuum.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air on a Flat Earth
« on: September 18, 2021, 02:57:17 PM »
Solids stack, liquids find their level.

Pascal's law applies in uniform solids and fluids for the same reason - stacking.

No, it wouldn't.

Wrong. Do some scale testing.

So no, an infinite sky vacuum above our heads will not cause the gas to just magically defy gravity

There is no gravitation, and even if there were - it demonstrably doesn't apply here. Do some scale testing, or remain misinformed.  Remember, "gravitation" is believed (never measured, it isn't measurable or real) strongest here on the surface of the earth where we do all science and established all the laws of gas behavior.

Those that conceptualise Earth accelerating upwards do so to substitute for gravity.

Sort of. It's really just a straight convention/sign flip. It is for the purposes of mockery.

People then come up with that as a cop out for why the planets and stars and the like don't fall and crash into Earth.

Because the lights in the sky aren't what you believe, and have been told, they are.  In any case, I agree - the earth is not infinitely accelerating upwards anymore than objects at rest are infinitely accelerating downwards - that's STUPID. What would power this limitless and scientific law defying acceleration? The whole thing is really dumb.

What is around the FE to stop the air spilling off the edge? Or is your Earth infinite?

It is contained one way or another, we ALL know this from deduction and established scientific law - there are no other options even in potentia.  Gravitation (if it were in any way real) isn't powerful enough to do the job you need it to for your worldview - this is plain fact and easy to demonstrate for yourself.  Gas pressure is derived from the container walls - there can be no pressure without them (though the container can in theory, be "fields" of some sort)

The OP didn't want to discuss the inescapable necessity of a container, so I left it out.

The new variants are highly transmissible and are much more lethal.

Completely wrong.

When virii increase in contagiousness, they necessarily decrease in fatality at the same time.  This is virology 101.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air on a Flat Earth
« on: September 16, 2021, 02:08:20 AM »
How does air stay on a flat Earth?

Air has weight.  It stacks on top of itself just like the oceans (and any fluid).  It has no reason to go anywhere.  There is no "infinite sky vacuum" above our heads (without a barrier anyhow) because it would induce the gas to expand into its volume and kill us all.

On a flat Earth accelerating through space

That's fan fiction, and the core of your misunderstanding. There is no flat earth accelerating through "space".  There are some that conceptualize a flat earth accelerating upwards - but they aren't traveling through "space" - all of "space" (as in the celestial lights) is traveling with us!

Flat Earth General / Re: An idea for experiment
« on: August 31, 2021, 04:54:12 PM »
You really need to understand that objects bend, no matter how strong the material is. Nothing is 100% rigid.

That's true, however the design of the rectilineator was supposed to mitigate that.  Each section was built freestanding and then physically attached to each other.

It seems highly likely that the koreshans (or whatever primordial name they had then) already had their belief the world was a contained concave cell before they conducted their observations.

I suggest you do some research before trying to answer questions on subjects you're not familiar with. Maybe talk to a woodworker and ask them about what happens to long pieces of wood with no support in the middle.

12 foot long, 4 foot thick, 19 year old seasoned mahogany ought to do the trick for each section. 

However, I tend to agree that there is probably an error somewhere in their procedure (or there is no procedural error, and this is yet another brilliant example of how infinitely capable we deluded/biased people are in finding what we are looking for - whether its there or not).  I suppose the other option could be, the world/universe is concave - but I'll need some more convincing.

I thought the rectilineator or some variation thereof (like the one the gofundme was for) was a worthy thing to repeat.  I thought the OP might agree as well, as it seemed to fit the bill.

Flat Earth General / Re: An idea for experiment
« on: August 30, 2021, 06:40:28 PM »

As i answered on the sister site, this has been done at least once before and supposedly found the world to be concave!

You may enjoy these.  The youtube one is, I think, a guy who wants to do exactly as you suggest and has set up a crowdfund for it (last I heard, the crowdfund failed just short of its goal :().

It really doesn't make sense that Ivermectin would work for COVID.  It's used to treat parasites.  My dogs' heart worm medicine has Ivermectin in it.

First a quote from the illustrious Dr. Spaceman, "Medicine, is not a science."

Ivermectin is well known/established to have anti-viral properties.  The mechanism, like most of the drugs we consume, is unknown afaiaa. It was not that wacky a thing to try on covid from the pharmacopeia library.

One time a medicine (for blood pressure I think) was causing heart attacks and couldn't be sold in the 1st world.  They re-branded it as a birth control/contraceptive pill in india.  Medicine is wild.

Though if a doctor is going to prescribe it, I'm sure it will be in a dosage much lower than the agricultural supply of it meant for cows and horses, thus not causing harm if it's taken.

I'm not sure about that.  It's been little more than rumors and hearsay so far.  The doctors that prescribe it do prescribe very low doses - however I don't know the dosage on the animal pills.  It's possibly more likely that adulterants / impurities / additives in the farm grade pills are causing illness - or that the whole thing is news cycle bullshit with maybe a handful of anecdotes to support it.

I find it hard to believe that EVEN REDNECKS would just down a bottle of farm grade pills willy nilly. When you go that far "off grid" you tend to do just a LITTLE bit of research before you start experimenting on yourself or loved ones.  Smells like BS to me.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunset in Denver
« on: July 13, 2021, 08:05:13 PM »
At sunset in Denver, in Salt Lake City the dome is light blue in every direction.

The small portion of the dome you can see, that is.  Or - you see none of the dome, because the scattering of light in the air prevents you from seeing it at all (the same reason you can't see the stars)...

I would like either a reasonable explanation of how this could be on FE, or an admission that FE does not know how this works.

It is just as trivial (and meaningless) to concoct a "reasonable" (sounding) explanation for any phenomena assuming the world flat or round.

The explanation, somewhat regardless of the shape of the earth, is that light attenuates over distance (the scattering that causes the "blue" sky included) and that there is a natural convex refraction towards the ground caused by the density gradient in our air.  These are the major reasons for the phenomena of night and day.

Why reject this explanation?

Why reject an alternative?  Why accept this current explanation?

I would, in general, say that too much unvalidated assumption is required to accept it.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is it time to reflect?
« on: July 13, 2021, 09:04:33 AM »
Your incredulity means conspiracy is what you are saying.  Great, you are just another run of the mill FE conspiracy nut.

No, relying on your own personal experience to make determinations does not make one a "conspiracy nut".

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is it time to reflect?
« on: July 10, 2021, 07:33:09 AM »
It is always time to reflect.

That said, commercial "space travel" is not here nor will it be in the foreseeable future.  Those of you too young to recognize it may have missed the fact that commercial space flight has been "just around the corner" since the 1950/60's.  It will forever be thus.

The law of gravity is, what goes up must come down.  Although it is conceivable to dupe a person into believing that law can be broken, bransons trip is just a brief freefall.  If there is any commercial space travel on the horizon (that the average person can validate/verify), it will only go up and then straight back down again.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« on: July 08, 2021, 11:09:04 AM »
Meteors are small fragments of rock or ice that enter Earth's atmosphere from space and burn up due to friction.

So we are taught, yes.

But Flat Earthers say that space is a lie, so where do all the meteors come from?

Some people do say that, however I see no major reason to conclude a lie.  Mythology usually isn't a lie; it's just fiction we use to (apparently) fill the void of ignorance. Space isn't a lie, it's just mythology/fiction.

But this contradicts the day-night model, because since the Sun is inside Earth's sky, it should be hot up there on the top of the sky because the Sun is located all the way up there.

Well, that heat could very well be involved in the "breakage" of the dome (perhaps).  Another possibility is that though there is much light, there isn't much heat in the upper strata (this is also measured and factual).  Air is a poor absorber of the sun's wavelengths.  Most of our heat comes from the matter of the earth (absorbed and re-radiated).

So if they can't be coming from space according to Flat Earthers, and I just debunked one possible explanation for them, then what are meteors?

Debunking is not an honorable pasttime nor any substitute for thorough objective study/research.

Through imagination, all things are possible.  There is always another possibility you haven't considered.

Personally, I don't know what they are or why they luminesce. They are pretty though!

I am doubtful of the idea that they are rocks from the sky (rocks come from the ground), and there isn't much evidence to support that perspective.

Mostly we find odd rocks that we suppose "don't belong" in the area and generally conclude iceage did it, volcanism did it, and/or space did it.

There is no satisfying answer for what the ice blocks that fall from the sky are, or where they come from in the presumptive/"standard" conception.  The dome doesn't seem so unreasonable, however as you rightly point out - we don't have any direct evidence of such a dome - unless of course those ice blocks DID fall from it :)

Flat Earth General / Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« on: July 07, 2021, 10:10:15 AM »
This is not possible.

The logistics are a challenge, I agree - but not insurmountable.  Even the sag can be accounted for (and even functionally negated through various means)

The entire basis of this experiment is flawed, not to mention several peoples lack of understanding how geometry works.

I am not totally convinced, but in any case it would seem a minor alteration to allow the cable to sag below the interim poles (factoring in the sag, measured/established beforehand) and this would be a fine observation.

Flat Earth General / Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« on: July 07, 2021, 06:33:36 AM »
making it indistinguishable from a flat surface.

I think this is possible.  So to accommodate/test your proposed outcome we would simply NOT place the string over the interim poles (the poles other than the first, last, and center) and the string would drop below them - correct?

Isn't this all just a question of scale though? Do you really think there is no circular curved surface which would cause a gap between the taught string and the interim poles?

I thought that is where we are

Yes, that is where we are now.  There is another flat earth society, a “sister” site.  There are actually more than 2, but these are the ones that are established/have active user bases.  The other one is not on the same domain, and it has a somewhat comprehensive wiki, a decent library, and its own forum.

I'm starting to think I would have better luck trying several of the many experiments offered by the spherical earth people.  Surely they do not prove the earth is a sphere, but by eliminating competing theories I will be able to focus my efforts on understanding the true shape of the earth.

Absolutely, however you would be best off coming up with and performing measurement yourself to avoid being misled/biased.  Many (if not all) of the “spherical proofs” are designed to convince, and not to measure.  Their major flaws are usually in the interpretation of the data, not the data itself.

For example: one could repeat eratosthenes’ measurements and calculations and believe that they had measured the world a globe.  Unfortunately what they actually measured were shadows and then performed calculations that DEPEND on the world being spherical to work at all. I think you can understand why this is not a sound way to determine the true shape of the world.

For another example, many look at lights in the sky (eclipses, constellations, etc.) and then perform calculations that often lead to the erroneous belief that they have measured the shape of the world.  What they measured were lights in the sky, and studying the sky to determine the shape of the ground is both foolish and unscientific.  Please let me know if what I am saying is unclear, or if you disagree.

In the meantime, if you should happen to think of an experiment (or observation or measurement) which doesn't involve distance over water, could you please let me know.  I am still hoping to get to the bottom of this myself.

Experiments cannot determine the shape of material objects.  Measuring water is the most straightforward thing to do to estimate/extrapolate the earth’s larger shape, as it is believed (and taught) to comprise > 70% of it.  There is no substitute for measurement, however there is much to learn about the history (including contemporary) of those that have attempted to determine the shape for themselves that you may find useful.

Flat Earth General / Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« on: July 01, 2021, 02:38:54 PM »
You guys seem to be blowing this way out of proportion.

There are minor quibbles to be had about the diagram of the test - but it perfectly describes what the test consists of.

If the line were (let's just assume perfectly) linear/taut from the first to the last stake - all the middle stakes would be expected to be higher than the line if the earth were spherical.

If, as depicted, the taut line were affixed to the farthest poles and the middle pole - we would expect the poles between them to be lower than than the line if the earth were curved.

What's the major problem?

So surface tension and friction to surfaces is caused by the gravity of the car.  Fascinating stuff.

Is there a sister forum?  I googled it, but the results were, shall we say, not safe for work.

Search for "the flat earth society".  You can't miss it.

Do you know of a person I can ask for specific procedures.  I will ask them myself.

I don't have anyone specific in mind (though Scepti is generously already providing you with some), however it is best if you come up with the procedures for measuring yourself in any case.  What you discover/learn will be more meaningful, and is less likely to be corrupted by others ideas and interpretations (instilling bias, the bane of objective study and the slim chance therof) 

Autodidacticism is required to study this subject, and most who do are independent researchers.

Life is like a movie you arrive late to, and are cruelly pulled away from before the ending.  You can ask the other moviegoers what you missed, what the meaning is, what the ending will be, and what they saw, but their responses will usually be brief and curt - and they will most often just ask you to please stop talking.

Continuing the analogy in this context, you can avoid bothering them directly because some have already recorded their ideas/perspectives for your perusal.  Start by searching the forums - and you'll find some procedures you are looking for (as well as some of the people)

Thanks again for being patient with my questions.  I can see that I have a lot to learn.

Don't we all!  I'm most happy to provide direction and answers when I can.

Oh boy, this is more complicated than I thought.

That is what everyone who earnestly evaluates this subject concludes!  Measuring the entirety of the world is no small feat, and there are those who speculate that it is not an attainable goal at all (as the world is speculated by some to be boundless, and by others to be MUCH larger than we currently presume etc.)

Perhaps you could direct me to a few experiments used to determine the shape of the earth which I could repeat myself.

Experiments cannot be used to determine the shape of physical objects.  I cannot be more clear about that.  Experiments are solely for testing hypotheses by establishing, ideally,  causal relationships between IV(s) and DV(s).

In terms of procedures/methodologies for measuring, there are a great many.  You can try using lasers, lidar, radar, sonar, “maser” and other range-finding technologies - though they are not without their own issues and inaccuracies (especially over long distances).  You can also, and I recommend, use more traditional approaches like strings/lines, spirit levels, surveyor's wheels and even wooden stakes. 

The world is big, and measuring it is not trivial.  Whatever methodology you employ, I recommend you validate it (do “sanity checks”) via other (ideally more direct) means as well.  There are many others that have walked down the same road as yourself, and many here may be able to point you to specific procedures you might want to replicate. Searching the forum (as well as the “sister” forum) for such procedures is also a good idea.  “Frozen lake” observations/tests/“experiments” are one such search to begin with.

I, for one, do not speculate as to the size and shape of the entire world because I lack the verified and verifiable data to make such a determination (like everyone else).  Problems that are too large to address are best broken into smaller, more achievable, problems.

Determining the shape of water at rest is one of the most direct ways to determine if the globe model “holds water” or not (yuk, yuk, yuk).  It will not help you determine the true shape of the entire world, but it will help you determine the local shape which can be used to extrapolate within reason (and/or ultimately build a composite).

As I mentioned, I have tried viewing distant objects over water but surely there must be more than one way to measure/observe the shape of the earth.  yes?

There is more than one way to measure, but rigorous measurement is the only way to establish the shape of physical objects.  Measurement is called for, not observation/viewing.

Many get bogged down in trying to “see” the curve of the earth.  What those people have learned, is that there is no such curvature that is observable from the highest heights attainable (hydrogen balloon).  Understanding why the horizon does not curve at any attainable height is valuable in this subject, but through that understanding you also learn why that does not establish the true shape of the world either.

Arguably the most valuable lesson that is learned from going down that road is that merely “seeing” is not measurement, nor can it ever be. Often what we see, is not what is - and empirical science requires rigorous measurement instead for good reason.

As i said, checking the shape of the entire earth will take significant amounts of time (possibly more than you have). 

I would start small (ie locally) and then build a composite.  Be careful to actually measure, and not infer measurement from purely optical means - as those are known to be inaccurate and unreliable especially over long distances and over water (chiefly due to refraction, due largely to the density gradient in our air, and other known light-matter interactions).

As scepti suggested, frozen lakes (when safe to walk upon) are a great place to start.  Let me know if you need any more direction or have any other ideas you are toying with for validation and I will assist if I can!

I'm sorry I don't understand the scientific definition of experiment.

No apology necessary! You are in very good company, besides, as virtually everyone is miseducated as to what science is and how to practice it.  The colloquial definitions that we learn and use are wrong, and extremely few people ever learn the correct ones.  Though if you wish to discuss (let alone practice) science, it is critical to learn the correct ones first.

I'm just looking for some way to check for myself without trusting someone else did their measurements correctly.  That's what I mean by experiment.

Fair enough! I would try to use the word observation/measurement when that is what you mean, as using experiment in this manner (an experiment is NEVER simply an observation and/or measurement) because it helps obscures science further.  That said, the vast majority of people use the word experiment incorrectly and most people (who do not know the correct definitions) will understand what you mean.

Is there any way I can check for myself?

Of course! Unless it is repeatable, it isn’t science.  Science includes mere measurement, but we do not call it an experiment.  When you have performed enough rigorous measurement to establish what is, it is called natural law.

What do you wish to check?  As I said, the surface of water at rest is a good place to begin to dispel the notion that bodies of water can (or do) curve in the manner required by the globe model.  Validating the shape of the entire world will take significant time, perhaps more than is available in a human lifetime (especially with only individual support). Ars longa, vita brevis.


There are no experiments to establish the shape of material objects (the earth very much included).  Rigorous and repeated measurement is the only thing that can do that.

Experiments are for an entirely different purpose, and sadly the colloquial and incorrect usage of the word obscures that. 

Scientific illiteracy is essentially ubiquitous, and the definitions of the vernacular employed are no exception.

There are many measurements and observations that you can perform to establish the general shape (locally), as well as generally establish that the world is not and (most likely) cannot be spherical in the manner we are taught.

I recommend beginning with the shape of water's surface at rest (hydrostatics). All measurements that exist (of water's surface at rest, barring negligible surface tension artifacts) show it is flat and level/horizontal.  It is a natural law, and plainly demonstrable.

As for experiments, you can establish the causal relationship between density of a surrounding fluid and an object which displaces it on gravity, levity, and neutrality (archimedes' principle) to help you better understand what "gravity" (and the law of gravity) is and how it works.  This is only tangentially related to the shape of the world, however.

If it's not Ivermectin, then I wonder what part of Dr Varon's covid treatment is making him have the results he has.

Vitamin C (and to a lesser extent D)

However, varon is "throwing the kitchen sink" at it, and there is undoubtedly synergism that is novel/unknown with all the things in the cocktail.

What we learned from HIV, was that single prong chemical treatments were not effective.  Unfortunately, covid has disturbing things in common with HIV - which is likely ALSO not coincidence.

Flat Earth General / Re: UAPs?
« on: June 27, 2021, 10:49:25 AM »
I have yet to see any compelling flat earth evidence, or evidence that UFS are flying saucers built by aliens.

The point was that there is a ton of compelling evidence (for the earth not being spherical, and for the existence of flying saucers and related craft), but you (one) can always ignore/debunk/rationalize it away with little difficulty.

As for aliens, you are correct. Aliens are completely fiction with no solid evidence to support them (and have been a major discrediting/slander tool by the oss/cia since the very beginning).  All flying craft are only built by one creature known to exist.

But thanks for the insight, for fields like flat earth and ufo-ology where you simply have no supporting evidence or facts to work with, I suppose it makes sense to redefine research to not need any of that.

Independent research is not for everyone.  Most are much more comfortable repeating what they are trained to through conditioning by rote under the guise of education.  Ufology is a great subject to study for developing the critical skills required to research objectively.  As I said, discerning reality from fiction is very difficult for conditioned parrots - and many lose their way even further.

I don't think this use of repentance is quite right.

Repentance isn't a procedure/offering.  It is recognition, acceptance, and enduring sorrow for past wrongdoing...

Sadly, there is a lot of conflation between the two (laws and theories) which occurs largely due to miseducation and the scientific illiteracy it causes.

Scientific law is not about mathematical formulation, nor causation of any kind.  Scientific law is only about what is; it is bore, defined, and comprised of rigorous and repeated measurement alone (no theory).

The law of gravity is ancient, 1000’s of years old, and remains today largely unchanged. What goes up, must come down.

It could be argued that W=mg is a mathematical description (or part of it, at least) of the aforementioned law, but it involves two theoretical entities (bore of theory) which do not belong in scientific law.  As I said, there is a lot of conflation and theory tends to creep into mathematical formulation of natural laws when it is expressly forbidden to do so (by the definition of scientific/natural law).

Sci-fi nonsense.

Does light impart momentum on reflection - no. 

End of transmission (and fantasy).

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What Is A Scientist?
« on: June 10, 2021, 03:22:23 AM »
Good questions, that are at the heart of this subject.

Scientists are people who rigorously adhere to the scientific method for validating and/or gaining provisional knowledge.

Anyone who doesn’t fit the definition above is not a scientist. Anyone who does, regardless of affiliation/accolade/credential, is.

As for who to believe/trust, the answer is none of them.  Science is hindered by trust/belief (it’s called bias), and nothing should be accepted as correct without thorough validation first.  The default position ought be one of doubt/skepticism. One of the things that makes science so wonderful is that it is independently verifiable/repeatable (or it is not science).  The best (and sole) way to evaluate a scientific claim (regardless of source) is to evaluate and repeat the demonstration/experiment yourself - however ubiquitous scientific illiteracy (ie the acute lack of support), among other things, makes this challenging.

Deciding things by consensus, or “democracy” (“all the experts agree”, “science says”, “9 out of 10 dentists...”), is anathema to science and an incredibly stupid, dangerous, and unscientific thing to do.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7