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 - Tom Bishop

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 589
31
It looks like the shadow might be cast upwards in your lower quality version of the experiment to me. Right above the peak, there is a dark area on the cloud deck.



Right after posting the image you said:

Quote
I guess the cardboard mountain with the light source higher than the cutout might approach a shadow casted near parallel with the floor / ground. But not cast upward?

Looks like you missed that there is a dark area right above the peak.

32
The video isn't addressing the sun setting beneath or into the horizon. It is specifically addressing the RE claim that a light source higher than a mountain on a flat plane can't create a shadow that points "upwards" at the cloud deck.

In the artificial experiment the light source only needs to lower to a point to where the light appears to be below the top of the cardboard mountain. When it does so, the shadow points upwards onto the cardboard cloud deck. Obviously, this RE claim regarding the Mt. Rainier picture has been debunked. It did not consider that the projection of shadows operates differently than they think it does, or that the light could also be reflected from the distant surface to cause the shadow to point upwards.

While the experiment is presently in a state where there could be multiple explanations to why the phenomenon occurs, and follow up experiments which artificially deducts variables would be nice, it is enough to see that the position you have taken for years on the Mt. Rainier picture with the shadow and cloud deck was flawed. This is just like the flies on rotting meat reference showcasing humanity's ignorance for 2000 years, except in this case it reflects on you RE bunch who have made these arguments for the past ten years. You just assume things and make wild declarations of the truth without bothering to test your axioms in an artificial experiment.

Experiments are required for truth, not logic. Science without demonstrative experimentation is known as pseudoscience and is shunned in the hard sciences. You are engaging in pseudoscience when you rely on arguments based on "logic" and "rationality".

33
Quote from: DataOverFlow2022
The set up is a mockery of what is witnessed in nature.

I don't see that you are doing any specific experimentation to prove or disprove the axioms involved. Consider whether you have provided anything approaching an artificial experiment in your arguments.

You have made statements and assumptions on how things work or should work, and have 'logically' concluded that you are correct. Logic is insufficient, of course. In 350 BC. Aristotle saw flies buzzing around rotting meat and came up with the Theory of Spontaneous Generation, which concluded that flies would spontaneously generate from nothing in the presence of rotting meat.

Observation and assumption and 'logical deduction' for the workings of the world marked a period of human ignorance known as the Dark Ages. Theories like the Spontaneous Generation of various life forms (along with Aristotle's Round Earth) were taught by the school system as fact, based on observation and assumption. It wasn't until experiments in 1668 with Francesco Redi that the theory of Spontaneous Generation was challenged with experiments of placing meat in covered and uncovered jars that we begun to understand that we can't simply assume things or operate on 'logical' deduction. It wasn't until the mid 1800's until the Theory of Spontaneous Generation was fully abolished with additional experimentation, and mankind learned that they were incredible fools on the basic operation of life for the past 2000 years.

See this quote from Giovanni Comandé, The Rotting Meat Error: From Galileo to Aristotle in Data Mining? -

Quote
“ From 400 BC, with Aristotle, and until the mid-19th century (1830–1850 AD), many scientists have claimed that some organisms can be generated spontaneously from non-living matter, citing larvae as an example and the flies that are generated on decomposing meat. Aristotle had observed the correlation between the rotting of meat, the appearing of larvae on it and the developing of flies. Upon his repeated observations, he found a correlation that developed in a theory (the theory of spontaneous generation). This theory proved wrong (the ‘rotting meat error’ in our story) because it grew out of correlations ‘statistically’ (very) significant but those correlations were wrong ones. Yet, for a long time the theory was constantly applied as ‘scientific’ understanding since Aristotelian logic applied well to it. ”

A grotesque example of humanity's ignorance.

With the Scientific Method we learned that we can't simply assume a bunch of stuff. Each of your assumptions must be demonstrated explicitly in an artificial situation. Observation is limited, since in nature what you are observing is often the product of many different mechanisms which must be separated artificially. Such is the fallacy of the 'soft' observational sciences of Astronomy and other sciences.

34
The video that you quoted at least proves that light physics isn't behaving in the way RE'ers think it is, which disproves anything else you have to say about it. While it does not simulate every aspect of sunset, it does discredit your version of things, which ignores the possibility that shadows can project based on how the mountain sees the sun due to perspective, or that the shadows can project from distant surface reflection. If you want to make a claim about what "should" happen, then you should have something more than you mumbling about your imagination.

The fallacy in these arguments is that they are based on the limited imagination of what one thinks is a perfect world with idealized physics. Logic is not a substitute for reality. Your assumptions and axioms can be wrong or limited, and requires confirmatory tests like what is seen in the video.

35
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Marjorie Taylor Greene is nuts
« on: July 22, 2023, 11:16:04 AM »
Holy shit!  Someone hired a prostitute!

Clearly this requires the full attention of the United States government.

The subject in the video is the leniency the DOJ gives to political families. The DOJ and FBI had photographic evidence of drugs and prostitutes on the laptop, and documentary evidence in the form of chats and emails and receipts, and did nothing.

If you facilitate and pay for a prostitute to cross state lines for purposes of prostitution, that makes you engaged in the crime of prostitution, yes.

And I'm sure she's demanding the woman be tried as well, yes?  She released the prostutes name and had her arrested?

She's not even directly demanding that Hunter should be prosecuted in the video. She is criticizing law enforcement for ignoring these crimes and not prosecuting anyone.

36
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Marjorie Taylor Greene is nuts
« on: July 21, 2023, 02:00:27 PM »
If you facilitate and pay for a prostitute to cross state lines for purposes of prostitution, that makes you engaged in the crime of prostitution, yes.

37
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Marjorie Taylor Greene is nuts
« on: July 21, 2023, 12:17:50 PM »
Here is the full segment of the speech. Hunter Biden is a key member of the Big Guy's crime family engaging in prostitution across state lines, which breaks a federal law.


38
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bill Gates Conspiracy
« on: July 17, 2023, 07:30:29 PM »
And?
You act like waste water processing isn't a thing.

Sure it is. Bill Gates is obviously far too looney to hold as a climate change science authority figure, however. Bill Gates is currently heralded as a liberal science hero for his innovative climate change ideas, such as having us eat bugs and dimming the sun with solar geoengineering.

I am not at all convinced that your band of liberals should be trusted with climate change science. FFS, your climate change hero is a girl who has what is clearly an intellectual disability due to fetal alcohol syndrome.




39
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bill Gates Conspiracy
« on: July 13, 2023, 12:07:18 PM »
Bill Gates is more interested in the more outlandish climate change solutions such as using poop as perfume.


40
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bill Gates Conspiracy
« on: July 01, 2023, 01:49:39 PM »
Apparently there are official promotional videos which show Bill Gates' companies advertising that they are conducting mass experiments on the world.

https://www.sportskeeda.com/health-and-fitness/bill-gates-releases-30-million-genetically-modified-mosquitoes-11-different-countries


42
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« on: June 30, 2023, 04:48:47 PM »
The museum installation guides even tell you to keep adjusting it until it is operating properly:

http://www.academypendulums.com/pdf/Mark2FoucaultInstallation.pdf

  “Pay close attention to the photo beams alignment. This adjustment can effect the Ball’s precession around the pit. It may require a couple of days to determine if precession is operating properly. Precession is a function of the Earths rotation.”

In constructing this Foucault Pendulum we are instructed to spend several days adjusting the alignment of the photo beams, which affects the pendulum's precession, an element which is supposedly a function of the earth's rotation, until we have determined that the "precession is operating properly".

Where does say how to adjust to get the required time around the pit for a given latitude?

I only see adjustments for the magnet on time and power, to maintain a steady swing without it becoming erratic.

This isn't the correct forum to debate your RE carnie sideshows. If you don't have an FE answer, don't post.

43
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bill Gates Conspiracy
« on: June 30, 2023, 02:42:12 PM »
I am not sure that Bill Gates is as trustworthy as some are assuming.

See this CNBC.com article -

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/28/bill-gates-released-swarming-mosquitoes-to-make-a-point-about-malaria.html


44
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« on: June 26, 2023, 10:16:55 PM »
The museum installation guides even tell you to keep adjusting it until it is operating properly:

http://www.academypendulums.com/pdf/Mark2FoucaultInstallation.pdf

  “Pay close attention to the photo beams alignment. This adjustment can effect the Ball’s precession around the pit. It may require a couple of days to determine if precession is operating properly. Precession is a function of the Earths rotation.”

In constructing this Foucault Pendulum we are instructed to spend several days adjusting the alignment of the photo beams, which affects the pendulum's precession, an element which is supposedly a function of the earth's rotation, until we have determined that the "precession is operating properly".

45
The moment IF, AND, OR, ELSE logic operators were invented computers could "solve tasks without being explicitly programmed to do so". This technology is extremely overhyped in general. At the moment "AI" in company marketing is liberally used as a synonym for a computer program with some vague dynamic element. Based on how the term AI is used these days, Clippy from Microsoft Word 95 that corrects your spelling and grammar would be considered AI.

Per ChatGPT, the response to a query in ChatGPT follows a logical path based on pre-determined criteria. It just seems more impressive than it is because the viewer is not familiar with the database of content it is querying.

It is merely an innovative way to pull up information via chatbot and put your name into pre-determined sentences and concepts. That is all. It is not going to be significantly better than it is now without radical breakthrough in new technology on an unprecedented level.

The hype that it is going to replace real jobs is just that: hype. It can barely replace the jobs of the article spinners from India who spin content for a few cents a word that some blog websites use to scam search engines into thinking they wrote something original.

46
It's not actually artificial intelligence. If you give it a specific prompt to tell you "a dramatic poem about the Flat Earth Society which ends in a shocking twist of fate" it will come up with something interesting and impressive at first glance. But if you feed it that same prompt multiple times it gives you the same poem.

It merely follows a tree index of words and associations from its content base to produce the content. Its an advanced chess machine with english language words instead of chess moves. It is not actually thinking for itself.

The expectations of this technology are fantastical. It will replace hardly any jobs and will merely become a replacement for reference material lookup, search engine queries, and provide some assistance to creative and promotional writing. There is no clear path where it could actually replace a job.

Even in the case of script writing, it can take more time to assess, analyze, and revise the content as it takes to produce the content. For a script writer this will just be a tool to create some base material to work from.

An argument of "but it will get better" is completely speculative. Technologies have limits. There is no solution for it to become more than its current form and generate something truly creative. It's not going to come up with a unique script involving a satanist who has a crucifix in a jar of urine on his shelf if that wasn't in its database and didn't exist as a prior concept.

47
There is video above of the Q Shaman being led by multiple police officers, who try to open locked doors for him and escort him around the Capitol building. At one point he walks through a group of over 10 police officers, who do nothing to stop him in his "insurrection" onto the Senate floor. Capitol police are seen escorting and helping him.

Are you seriously suggesting that there are other tapes that show an opposing narrative where he is threatening police officers to force them to escort him into sensitive areas?   ::)

48
It turns out that the footage shows that the Capitol police were opening doors and escorting the Q Shaman around the Capitol and into the senate chambers.


49
You do realize that Tuck does interviews and symposiums, speeches, etc., that are not editorialized by Fox, right?

Yes, and if you listen to those he is usually not presenting anything new, only going over things from the show, and he repeatedly talks about how he and his editorial team vets and produces the content on his show to the point of annoyance. Considering how often it is brought up, it may as well be called the Fox News Editorial Team and Tucker Carlson Show

Quote from: Stash
How do you know what "her job" entails? And you consider her post "wild facts"? A direct quote is now a "wild fact"?

Professional news organizations have a team of editors to vet and sanitize the content, to communicate in they way they want to communicate it. She clearly did not go through the proper channels there.

The CEO of of Fox News Suzanne Scott agreed that Heinrich was in the wrong.

https://news.yahoo.com/tucker-carlson-sean-hannity-discussed-020459584.html

    Hannity responded saying he had already sent Heinrich's tweet to Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott with a "really?"

    After receiving Hannity's message about Heinrich's tweet, Scott wrote in a message to Fox News President Jay Wallace and Fox News Senior Executive Vice President of Corporate Communications Irena Briganti: "Sean texted me — he's standing down on responding but not happy about this and doesn't understand how this is allowed to happen from anyone in news," according to the court filing.

    "She has serious nerve doing this and if this gets picked up, viewers are going to be further disgusted," Scott wrote of Heinrich, according to the filing.

    By the following morning, Heinrich had deleted her fact-checking tweet, the motion said.

The CEO did not approve of this way of reporting.

Who said she was acting as, and stating the official words of a network representative?

She's a Fox News reporter speaking to a politician on a public forum. It doesn't matter if she intended to do it privately or not. No one knows that she is off the clock. Her public actions affect the news organization.

Since the main concern from her action were "how this is allowed to happen from anyone in news" Fox appears more concerned than just the content. Fox has liberal shows in the mornings, and have liberal anchors that criticize Trump. The main concern is clearly that they don't want any reporter to go half cocked starting public twitter fights with politicians and government officials.

There is a process to generate statements and content on behalf of Fox News, and that wasn't it.

AND she wasn't fired.
AND you have no clue what Fox News policies are regarding employees personal twitter feeds, public appearances, interviews, speeches and such. You're literally making things up. You are the one with the wild facts.

She didn't need to get fired, she could have gotten reprimanded. You have completely failed to demonstrate that Fox News does not use editorial teams for their shows. They absolutely do. There is a Chief Editor who is responsible for the editorial teams.

Tucker is a traitor to his country

I just can't believe that people don't see through his schtick. He's been doing the same song & dance since the crossfire days.

If you don't like it, don't watch it. No need to publicly cry to us about how you don't like something on tv.

50
A reporter "fact checking" the sitting president on behalf of the company without editorial review is inappropriate and could definitely get them fired.

Says who? Tuck posts on Twitter all the time...



Should Tuck get fired for "fact checking" the sitting president on behalf of the company without editorial review?

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson

It does sound like his tweets are going through editorial review. In the most recent two posts I see:

    There’s been a lot of talk about our team’s access to the January 6th surveillance. The results of our investigation will air Monday and Tuesday night at 8pm ET on the Fox News Channel.

Notice: "Our team" and "our investigation"

    We've been looking at thousands of hours of unreleased footage from January 6. We'll show you what we've found next week.

Notice: We've, and "We'll".

I do not see individualized Twitter responses from Tucker to Joe Biden saying "Ha You're Wrong Joe Biden!" Most of the posts are talking about things his team has investigated and directions to watch the show.

Having Twitter fights on the internet with a politician outside of the network can obviously be considered inappropriate to the point of grounds for dismissal. Like Tucker, her job is to work with the editorial team to vet and construct stories, not post wild fact checks against politicians on her own.

She deleted and reposted a different version of it, so it is clear that she knew that she goofed up.

Weird that you say she goofed up yet she reposted this:



Did she get fired for reposting basically the same as the original? Nope, she is still a Fox News White House Correspondent & general assignment reporter. Gainfully employed.

Edit: For reference, here's her original tweet that she deleted...



The original post she had was more direct and accusatory. Her replacement post was more of "According to Dominion...." It's clear why she deleted the first one. The first one sounds more like "No, You're Wrong!", which can obviously be seen as inappropriate, especially if she just posted that on her own to fact check a politician.

Even the questions by asked reporters at White House Press Briefings and in interviews are vetted by the company editorial team. Reporters do not get full autonomy to do what they want, or "fact check" what they want. The editorial team has to vet the sources and details for accuracy and give it official approval to be the official words of a network representative.

51
What did this tweet actually look like? It says that she deleted her tweet:

    Hannity indeed had discussed with Scott. Hannity texted his team: “I just dropped a bomb.” Suzanne Scott received the message. She told Jay Wallace and Fox News’ SVP for Corporate Communications Irena Briganti: “Sean texted me—he’s standing down on responding but not happy about this and doesn’t understand how this is allowed to happen from anyone in news. She (Heinrich) has serious nerve doing this and if this gets picked up, viewers are going to be further disgusted.” By the next morning, Heinrich had deleted her fact-checking tweet.

Considering that she has a similar tweet up that was posted around the same time this happened it sounds more like they were upset about the fact check part. She may have realized that posting a fact check was inappropriate for her role and deleted and re-posted a different version of it. A reporter "fact checking" the sitting president on behalf of the company without editorial review is inappropriate and could definitely get them fired.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/tucker-carlson-wanted-to-fire-reporter-who-corrected-trump.html

    Heinrich, according to the Times, deleted her offending tweet, though she posted a nearly identical fact-check of Trump afterwards.

She deleted and reposted a different version of it, so it is clear that she knew that she goofed up.

52
Well no, that is an opinion. He had an opinion that the Fox news reporter was posting inaccurate information and that she should be fired for it because it would hurt the company.

    "The reporter, Jacqui Heinrich, wrote in response to Trump's tweet that top election officials had determined 'there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.'"

This statement is clearly inaccurate that no votes changed. At that time there had been a number of reports of "glitches" and changed votes. If she was paying attention to the rest of Fox News at that time she would have known that and would have avoided posting something blatantly false.

Recount Confirms Trump Won Michigan County That Reported Biden Win on Election Night

https://m.theepochtimes.com/recount-confirms-trump-won-michigan-county-that-reported-biden-win-on-election-night_3624020.html

    "A hand recount on Wednesday confirmed that a Michigan county falsely reported on election night a win for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

    The recount in Antrim County found 9,759 votes for President Donald Trump, versus 5,959 for Biden.

    On Nov. 3, county officials said Biden received over 3,000 more votes than Trump. Two days later, they said Trump won by about 2,500 votes. A third change took place on Nov. 21, with Trump being certified the winner by nearly 4,000 votes.

    Officials blamed the skewed results on human error.

    Antrim County uses Dominion Voting Systems machines and software."

Another source which reported that there were significant discrepancies from the original reported Antrim county election night results:

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-gary-peters-michigan-elections-dc3e16d42a27286fabc5b3e92386d7af

    "BELLAIRE, Mich. (AP) — President Donald Trump didn’t win Michigan, but he can put a small county in the victory column after an unusual second look at the results.

    Trump defeated Joe Biden in Antrim County, getting 56% of the vote, according to revised totals posted Thursday. Republican John James was the favorite in the Senate race.

    “It certainly makes a lot more sense with people who are familiar with Antrim County,” said Jeremy Scott, deputy county administrator.

    Questions were raised after the county first reported a local landslide for Biden, a Democrat, in an area that usually votes Republican. Officials acknowledged the results seemed “skewed” and promised a second look. More than 16,000 votes were cast."

53
From the article:

    Carlson’s messages show that he thought Powell’s claims about election fraud were “absurd” and “insane.” But while he noted on-air that Powell had not produced evidence for her most explosive claims about Dominion’s role in stealing the 2020 election, as Dominion’s brief points out, “he did not say what he believed privately — that she was ‘lying.’” That might offend viewers who believed what she was telling them, and so it went unsaid.

So Carlson didn't actually lie. It's complaining about something that was not said. He didn't believe it, and said on air that there wasn't evidence for it instead of out and out saying that he thought it was a lie.

Wow, how deceptive.  ::)

54
If you guys can point out something that is clearly a lie containing abject falsities, and cannot be construed as an opinion, I would be happy to see it. Fox News talk shows do not post fake stories. They give opinions on real stories and events. Tucker Carlson is usually talking about a widely known story or event.

Until you guys can point out the fake stories and complete fabrications I just hear super mad liberals whining that they can't accept that someone has a different opinion than they do.

I accept that Rachel Meadow has a different opinion on her show and I don't spend time bawwwing on the internet about it. You guys can't accept the opposite, hence the bawwwing. Grow up and learn that there are multiple perspectives to any particular event. Tucker Carlson is relatively popular, which means that the perspectives he gives are also likely shared with many others.

55
To be more accurate, you guys are mad that Tucker Carlson has an opinion about something. He is not deliberately lying or speaking things he knows to be abjectly false. You can't handle that someone has an opinion that opposes yours.

56
To the OP:

Maybe you guys can make it more interesting by asking the members of that community to challenge the Flat Earth Society to debate them about xyz and make event threads on that. The initial post you made sounded like you weren't interested in the FES community and that's why you were not getting the responses you hoped. My reaction was essentially "no, you should come and debate my work" which is why I brought up the wiki.

I appreciate the suggestion, but I will say that is unlikely to happen.   Discussing flat earth on forums seems a bit... antiquated.   Not to mention inefficient.   Creating a post and not getting a response for several hours (or even days) does not seem the most efficient way to carry on a conversation.  As I said, it was just a suggestion to bridge the gap between communities with similar interests.

If the community here knew there would be a YouTube personality debate against the FES on some Saturday at 2PM on your channel, for example, I suspect that a lot of people would be interested in going there and watching the debate. You can probably get better interaction by making it an event. It's more interesting that way. You should suggest to your community that they challenge the FES.

The forum people don't want to go to a chatroom to do what they have been doing here for the same reason you don't want to go to a forum to do what you have been doing there. There are plenty of people here on this forum and there on the chatroom you are on to debate against already. There are probably pros and cons to both formats, and we are stuck in our ways. This forum once tried to start its own discord channel, and there was not much activity. What I suggested was more along the line of making it a friendly debate against a rival community, which is somewhat more interesting of an idea and would generate more involvement.

57
Looks about right.

Yep, looks about right based on the numbers. Throngs visiting your wiki, all 12 of them.

Well, it's 4K a month. You are searching on a specific page url that people can get to in a variety of ways. The previous source told you to go to tfes.org directly.

If you perform a search on this forum since 2007 you would find that I myself have only said "universal acceleration" 16 times , "accelerating upwards" 84 times, and "accelerating" 252 times. You would find a similar ratio on tfes.org. Many sources just refer to the front page of tfes.org or just the society name when talking about the earth accelerating or moving upwards like the previous source, and almost never refer to the full theory by name. What you are talking about likely represents a multiplier of interest.

It is also a very poor argument to try to maintain that the earth accelerating upwards theory is not known or that these theories have not gone anywhere. It is so well known that the #1 top result for the search term "flat earth" describes it as a defining feature of flat earth theory:



From the #1 result: https://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html -



So there it is, at the pinnacle.

If you do search on specific terms related to this you will eventually get to the tfes.org wiki, or possibly the flatearthsociety.org wiki which also has sections on the UA theory with almost identical wording (but is missing the latest associated pages at tfes.org).

So again, this is evidence that the wikis on tfes.org and theflatearthsociety.org are the authoritative sources for detailed information on Flat Earth Theory, whether you agree with what the top search results say about Flat Earth Theory or not.

58
Looks about right. They aren't discussing it by that name. I searched on the term "universal acceleration" on Quora and only got about three relevant results, compared to the many more results on "flat earth" "accelerating".

They don't discuss it by that name because they are explaining it, and when you explain something you need to describe it rather than giving out a term.

But, most people who have looked into this know that you are outright lying to us that this theory isn't known or popularized.

You can read about it in news articles, on sites that talk about FE, and plenty of places. It is even possible to walk into libraries and read about it in various published books, like this 2021 Macmillian Education book, encouraging its readers to visit the FES and think critically.

https://books.google.com/books?id=wBlHEAAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&pg=PA21#v=onepage&q&f=false




59
"Often"? A couple of 5 year old passing mentions from the physics version of Quora? Wow, that's some amazing engagement.
There's also this from your last link...

The question is if people are talking about FES theories. The answer is yes. They talk about UA, and they constantly talk about UA. They were talking about it five years ago in the results I saw, and it is easy to find that it is still being talked about. Here is a quota search with "flat earth" and "accelerating" in the last year. I see over two dozen topics talking about it in the last year on this single site -

https://www.quora.com/search?q=%22flat%20earth%22%20%22accelerating%22&time=year

Going through the threads the comments are certainly interesting:



Others get it:





UA is a very popular FES theory that the society is known for. You can find that mentioned in mass media, books, and a variety of websites. You can even order essays about the FES to cheat on your homework assignments with:


60
Actually no pro-FE websites come up when you Google for terms like "flat earth physics" and "flat earth conspiracy", and it's obvious to see why. Bigger mainstream physics websites and news websites are writing articles with those terms, which outranks them all.

People would have to Google search for "flat earth general physics" to get to that specific page in the top results, which is an unlikely search.

However, even the pages that come up for terms are often talking about FES. I picked the second link for "flat earth physics" and got this page:

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/10.0000269 - It is  an article in a prestigious physics journal called American Journal of Physics trying to rally physicist support in attacking FE. It gives some tips on combatting Flat Earth theory telling physicists that they have to avoid thinking that the sun is far away in their arguments, and says that the perspective sunset model that most of the FE'ers use here is wrong and ends by bringing up UA theory as a point of interest:



They aren't going on a rant about why it's obviously wrong because they know that the modern physics model is founded on the equivalence principle. They apparently didn't think the other gravity theories were worth mentioning.

Google also shows that UA is sometimes discussed on physics discussion sites to show why constant acceleration wouldn't exceed the speed of light:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/356883/special-relativity-is-the-accelerating-earth-possible-as-by-flat-earth-scienc



https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/355132/if-flat-earth-were-accelerating-at-9-8m-s2-how-long-would-it-take-to-reach


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 589