The Legend of Zelda: Windwaker --Flat earth video game?

On a RE at sea level, you are told that because of the angle of curvature, you cannot see more than 3 miles. But on a clea day, people were able to see the shores of Chiacgo 57 miles away.



Instead of admitting this fraud for what it was, reporters doubled down and called it a mirage.



Oh and btw? They mention the azimuth equidistant map. It is a flat Earth map!



Frozen oxygen, not H₂O is (probly) what the ice in "Antarctica" is made of.
https://temperatureask.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-sky-ice/
It's a real term, but they blame it on Rayleigh scattering.

So you have realised your dishonest delusional BS with the sun stands no chance, so you just ditch it as if you never brought it up and move on to more dishonest delusional BS?

Why not stick to it? Or go back to thread on it and explain how your FE magic works?
The behaviour of the sun is consistent with a RE, not a FE.

On a RE at sea level, you are told that because of the angle of curvature, you cannot see more than 3 miles.

No, you are not.
That lie of yours has been exposed repeatedly.

Instead, you are told that for an observer height of roughly 2 m, the HORIZON is roughly 5 km away.
You can still see things beyond the horizon if they are high enough.
And if you go higher you can see further.

And that is without considering refraction.
Refraction is variable and can allow you to see further.

But on a clea day, people were able to see the shores of Chiacgo 57 miles away.

No they weren't.
They were able to see the skyline, on a day with significant refraction.
They were not able to see the shore.
Instead, it looks like the city sunk, with only the tops of the buildings visible.
Where did it go?

Your video also lies, claiming that the top of the tallest building should be 900 feet below the horizon.
But even if you pretend the observer height was 0, using the approximation of 8 inches per mile squared, you end up with 2166 ft for the drop.
The tallest building is 1451 ft (Willis Tower) not including the tip. That would put it 715 ft below the horizon.
Why is your video already so far off. 715 is quite different to 900.
And it just gets worse.

That was for an observer height of 0. But the park has a peak of roughly 128 ft above lake michigan. If you take that, and an observer height of 5 ft, that gives you a total height of 133 ft. That puts the horizon out to roughly 14 miles. That would mean you only have 43 miles beyond the horizon making the building sink.
That gives you 1233 ft hidden.
But as Willis Tower is 1451 ft, it isn't enough to hide it.

Oh and btw? They mention the azimuth equidistant map. It is a flat Earth map!

No, it is a RE map which FEers have taken to pretend it is a map of a flat Earth, even though it only matches reality when apply the distortions due to it being a projection.

Frozen oxygen, not H₂O is (probly) what the ice in "Antarctica" is made of.

No, it isn't cold enough for that.

Unlike the so-called outer space, the Arctic Circle (I suppose we can agree on that term, even though you are talking about a circle that traps ice, and I am talking about a circle that contains this world) is humid. That is, air is thick enough that extreme temperatures matter.

Yes, they say that the temperature at which oxygen freezes is about 50 Kelvin. But your basis for this is what people have told you. Neither you nor I have touched solid oxygen. Maybe dry ice or liquid nitrogen not being touched is the closest we've come. But the FE has a different entire concept of how cold the outside of Earth gets. The edge of Earth is literally approaching absolute zero. The seas near Antarctica themselves are -60 F, and the penguins we see in pictures of "Antarctica" live further north. Yes, there is a tourist Antarctica and a real Antarctica. Kinda like Hawaii. Outside the resorts of Hawaii, you see something much different.

A cold wall cold enough to repair itself if taken down? Yup, we're in full-on Game of Thrones here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/could-a-game-of-thrones-ice-wall-exist-in-real-life/2017/12/15/f8eda2ee-e031-11e7-8679-a9728984779c_story.html
Spoiler: they say it can't, because their model is based on the idea that "Antarctica" has much higher temperatures , instead of getting progressively colder the further you go towards the edge. They actually use the word "magic" to highlight how impossible it is.
Proof the media doesn't really believe in science. It is entirely possible for the outside edge of earth to be permafrost, even without invoking a blue ice made from oxygen. Glaciers themselves can be like giant walls. Not impossible. No, why they say this is impossible is because their sun is outside the Earth, where as a FE sun can entirely be possible as inside the Earth. They also assume it's made out of water, as water has different melt behavior than ultracold air. Which fully explains why there is an ice wall the further south you get. So without further ado...

So no comment at all on you just fleeing from topics that show your claims are pure BS, and that the sun shows Earth isn't flat and that you are desperately lying to try to prop up a FE fantasy?

Unlike the so-called outer space, the Arctic Circle (I suppose we can agree on that term, even though you are talking about a circle that traps ice, and I am talking about a circle that contains this world) is humid. That is, air is thick enough that extreme temperatures matter.

No, the Arctic circle, because of how cold it is, is not very humid at all.

Yes, they say that the temperature at which oxygen freezes is about 50 Kelvin. But your basis for this is what people have told you.

You sure do love pretending that no one has any idea about anything, and a bunch of random people just made up numbers and went with it.
But that isn't the case.
There are plenty of things I have got from my own experience.
And while I haven't played around with solid oxygen, I have seen both liquid nitrogen and liquid oxygen.

But the FE has a different entire concept of how cold the outside of Earth gets.

So you are saying the ice of Antarctica is oxygen based upon pure fantasy? Without any connection to reality?
And then appealing to a story of magic to try to prop it up?

Well we can just entirely skip over that load of BS.

Proof the media doesn't really believe in science. It is entirely possible for the outside edge of earth to be permafrost

No, that is proof you don't believe in science.
If you did accept science, you would accept Earth is round and that there isn't a magical outside edge.
Not accepting your fantasy does not mean not accepting science.

But most of Antarctica is covered by permafrost. Because it is frozen all year round.

No, why they say this is impossible is because their sun is outside the Earth

No, they don't.
It is because Earth is too close to the sun to have oxygen based ice.

They also assume it's made out of water, as water has different melt behavior than ultracold air.

They know it is made of water. It isn't an assumption.

Quote

So you do NOT have an actual source for your bit of clip art being actual alchemy.  How shocking.

What you have is a google search NOT showing the image you posted, and links to other images that are also NOT the source.

And what would you consider an "actual source"? The original name of the picture is alchemyformula(somenumber).jpg, was found through a search specifically for alchemy formula among other alchemy pictures, its very nature seems to be related to chemistry and the physics of atoms.

LOL, right.  You are claiming this is alchemy, I'm saying it's a bit of nonsense clip art because that's where it came from.  JackBLack found the same source I did.

You on the other hand, all you have is that the filename has the word alchemy in it.  Well, the cartoon Fullmetal Alchemist has the word in it, are you going to claim that show is fact and not fiction and evidence that math is wrong because a dude can throw fire around and someone else inhabits a suit of armor?  It would make as much sense as your current argument, I'll give you that.

The fact that you are just pulling unsourced random pictures off of Discord and proclaiming them to be authentic evidence of alchemy and magic and math is pretty absurd.

So unless you can tell me what alchemy isn't, yeah it's alchemy.

Nah. You made the claim it's alchemy, it's your responsibility to prove it.  I can show you a picture of Bruce Campbell and claim he's a shapeshifting magical alien insect overlord but that doesn't make me right unless you can prove it wrong.  You need more remedial logic lessons.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 16, 2023, 09:19:55 AM

Quote

So you do NOT have an actual source for your bit of clip art being actual alchemy.  How shocking.

What you have is a google search NOT showing the image you posted, and links to other images that are also NOT the source.

And what would you consider an "actual source"? The original name of the picture is alchemyformula(somenumber).jpg, was found through a search specifically for alchemy formula among other alchemy pictures, its very nature seems to be related to chemistry and the physics of atoms.

LOL, right.  You are claiming this is alchemy, I'm saying it's a bit of nonsense clip art because that's where it came from.  JackBLack found the same source I did.

You on the other hand, all you have is that the filename has the word alchemy in it.  Well, the cartoon Fullmetal Alchemist has the word in it, are you going to claim that show is fact and not fiction and evidence that math is wrong because a dude can throw fire around and someone else inhabits a suit of armor?  It would make as much sense as your current argument, I'll give you that.

The fact that you are just pulling unsourced random pictures off of Discord and proclaiming them to be authentic evidence of alchemy and magic and math is pretty absurd.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 16, 2023, 09:19:55 AM

So unless you can tell me what alchemy isn't, yeah it's alchemy.

Nah. You made the claim it's alchemy, it's your responsibility to prove it.  I can show you a picture of Bruce Campbell and claim he's a shapeshifting magical alien insect overlord but that doesn't make me right unless you can prove it wrong.  You need more remedial logic lessons.

I think you may have missed the point.
They aren't saying alchemy is real.
They are saying alchemy has formulae in it.
So formulae are nonsense.

Because they can't show anything wrong with the math for a RE, which shows their fantasy is wrong, they are reduced to trying to dismiss all of math because the BS of alchemy uses it.

LOL, right.  You are claiming this is alchemy, I'm saying it's a bit of nonsense clip art because that's where it came from.  JackBLack found the same source I did.

So consensus must mean you're brilliant. After all, it's not like history bears out dumb consensus decisions or anything.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/prudygourguechon/2022/01/25/7-reasons-why-decision-making-by-consensus-is-a-bad-idea-and-what-to-do-instead/?sh=153b68282943
Oh wait, I believe Poland lost its land for awhile, because its policy was unanimous voting. "A nearby country is invading us, should we go to war against them?" One person, "Nah." So they get taken over and lost their country.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 16, 2023, 09:19:55 AM

So unless you can tell me what alchemy isn't, yeah it's alchemy.

Nah. You made the claim it's alchemy, it's your responsibility to prove it.  I can show you a picture of Bruce Campbell and claim he's a shapeshifting magical alien insect overlord but that doesn't make me right unless you can prove it wrong.  You need more remedial logic lessons.

Ah that's nice. Passing the buck back to me. So you don't know what alchemy is, and expect me to know.

Fine, then.

Alchemy is a semi-scientific pseudoscientific movement that predated chemistry and physics. It overlaps into religion, because alchemy is essentially about making the physical world change according to spiritual growth. That is, there are schools of inner and outer alchemy. Inner alchemy is entirely about spiritual change. Outer alchemy is about material change. Each atom has a symbol and a sort of nature (I dunno how to put it). So Sulfur can be compared to a person's personality in that they are a corrosive temperament and they need to evolve themselves to be more like Gold (this is inner alchemy, to turn oneself from "base material" into "noble material"). The idea of inner alchemy is that through study and spiritual growth, one can become immortal.
Outer alchemy is what gets all the press. Stuff like turning lead into gold or universal solvents.
In China, alchemy led to the death of the First Emperor, as he got doped out on mercury and searched for Mount Kunlun.

Alchemy is nonsense. The idea of grace means there is nothing you can do to be more pure than what God already loves. Oh, you can give effort, just as you can donate money to charity to help the poor. But at the end of the day, inner alchemy's premise is broken.
Likewise, outer alchemy, while some processes have led to advances in chemistry or physics (notably gunpowder or in 1941 using particle accelerators gold was able to be synthesized). But the basic premise involves a search for perfection that just isn't in the world. Just as you can't make cement so hard that it will never break down.

Whenever you see a paper with overlap of chemistry, physics, philosophy, and religious disciplines, you have to first check it against being alchemy. If I showed you a picture of astrology, you would be able to know it pertains to astrology without giving me a challenge to prove it right?



I know this is astrology, you know it's astrology. Neither of us has to prove it.




I know this is alchemy (another picture), but you don't seem to understand what alchemy looks like.

Why do I have to prove something, when it is your ignorance that keeps you from knowing it?

You don't think it is? You prove why not!

They are saying alchemy has formulae in it.
So formulae are nonsense.

Because they can't show anything wrong with the math for a RE, which shows their fantasy is wrong, they are reduced to trying to dismiss all of math because the BS of alchemy uses it.

Close. But not right.

I am saying that when formulae become more for symbolic purpose, the formula is basically just a code.
Among one of the uses of alchemy was to smokescreen heretical religious beliefs from the church by disguising them as science or math. Of all things, we see this use in Full Metal Alchemist. Edward is given a formula for the Philosopher's Stone that appears to be a recipe book. Until he looks at the "recipes" against their chemical formulas, and turns it into chemical symbol, and eventually discovers what Philosopher's Stone is made from.
In much the same way, when one demystifies the astronomy of Earth's supposed orbit and rotation, we understand that all of this is just a rehash of previous pagan cosmologies. I have no use for your faith system, and even less use for you trying to give me fake math to hide what is actually something else.
 

There are discernible math processes here, correct? But if they aren't actually doing anything, would you say this is real math?

I'm also saying that the formulas we are given have variables and values that are inserted into the formula, that in fact appeared out of thin air.

There is plenty wrong with RE. Not only does it give completely bogus angles for the sun and moon, not only does it distort people's understanding that tides are a system and not governed by celestial objects like the moon, not only is it completely crazy as we would far more like fall off the Earth (to quote a RE meme about FE) on the underside of a RE, but it's morally wrong, as it puts our entire government in the hands of NASA and their sweet sweet space money.

And still not addressing your lies about the apparent motion of the sun.

Alchemy is nonsense. The idea of grace

So to try to show that alchemy is nonsense, you appeal to other religious nonsense?

Close. But not right.

I am saying that when formulae become more for symbolic purpose, the formula is basically just a code.

No, you aren't.
You are rejecting calculations of distances because they don't match your fantasy, even though these calculations are based upon simple geometry and empirical observations.

In much the same way, when one demystifies the astronomy of Earth's supposed orbit and rotation, we understand that all of this is just a rehash of previous pagan cosmologies.

There is nothing to demystify.
It is all explained quite well.
And you disliking it doesn't magically make it pagan cosmologies or a faith system.
Again, this is just your pathetic dismissal of reality.

There are discernible math processes here, correct? But if they aren't actually doing anything, would you say this is real math?

And again, you are doing the same thing.
You are trying to bring up crap math, to dismiss math you don't like.

How about you stop with the pathetic comparisons and instead try objecting to the actual math used to show it is nonsense?

There is plenty wrong with RE.

Yet you cannot show a single fault and instead need to repeat the same pathetic lies.

Not only does it give completely bogus angles for the sun and moon

How?
It can be used to accurate predict the location of the sun and moon, and the model is consistent with the observed angular sizes.

it distort people's understanding that tides are a system and not governed by celestial objects like the moon

Yet all the evidence shows it is.
This is just you saying you don't like reality.
You not liking it is not a fault with the RE model. It is a fault with you.

we would far more like fall off the Earth

Why?
What magic is making us fall?
Where would we fall to?

the underside of a RE

There is no underside to the RE.
Again, this is you trying to insert your delusional BS of a magical universal down which you have absolutely no evidence for.

it's morally wrong

The RE makes no claims at all about morality.

Again, this is just you hating the model and hating things which people have done based upon the model.

So you are still yet to show a single fault.

Your most recent attempt which was in any way fleshed out was blatantly lying about how the sun would appear, where instead of honestly representing the RE, where the angle of the axis of rotation relative to the surface changes with latitude, you just lied and pretended everyone lives on the south pole regardless of where on Earth they are.
When that lie was pointed out, and explained to be a lie, you just doubled down on your lies and made more and more excuses.
Until you eventually gave up and fled the issue.

This shows problems with you, not a single fault with the RE.

This is because alchemy (the inner alchemy, not the base outer alchemy that ultimately became chemistry) is about spiritual transformation. Alchemy is a sorta religion. I guess. But just as scientific premise needs to be sound (imagine making a hypothesis about the behavior of magnets when misunderstanding fundamentally how magnets work), a religious premise needs good theology.

So yes, alchemy is nonsense, and I will appeal to "other nonsense" to show it.

I already addressed the motion of the sun. If an object is still, and we spin around it, the perspective is a straight line across at different heights. By contrast, if anobject circles overhead of us before angling out due to the range of Earth, we view it as an arc. You can accept it or reject it, but I have told you why this is. An arc is a rotary (like those old telephones) motion, but the motion of a sphere rotating is lateral motion.

9 "planets", Nine Realms. Norse mythology. Yggdrasil, the World Tree. That's what "astronomy" is soft-selling, belief in a pagan multiverse.

I'm trying to impress upon you that the "math I don't like" is crap math. It's crap math because where there should question marks, and where we should just say "we don't know how far the sun is from the Earth" we instead say, "Oh easy, we know the Earth is 150 million km." Liar. There is no way you have that information ! You made it up, and the public just swallows this lie because it sounds like a nice number.

This is because alchemy

No, this has nothing at all to do with alchemy.
You just bring up alchemy to try to dismiss reality.
Again, BS using math doesn't make all math BS.
Lying about how numbers are derived to pretend it is all circular doesn't magically negate how it is actually done.

I already addressed the motion of the sun.

By blatantly lying about it, having your BS refuted, and then fleeing from it.

Again, this is the orientation of the axis of rotation relative to various points on the surface:

Notice how it is only the poles where it is perpendicular to the surface?
That means your "model" only works for the poles.
For other locations, the axis is tilted meaning the sun will not appear to be moving in a horizontal path.
For the equator (on the equinox) it will appear to move in a vertical path, rising in the east, passing directly overhead and setting in the west.

Conversely, if the sun was above a flat plane, circling overhead, it would never go out of view.

You blatantly lying about this will not change that.

An arc is a rotary

Like the ROTATION of Earth.
Which is only lateral at the poles.

9 "planets", Nine Realms. Norse mythology.

With those 8 planets quite different to the various realms of Norse mythology.
So nothing to do with it.
Again, you are trying to make connections with BS to dismiss reality you don't like.

I'm trying to impress upon you that the "math I don't like" is crap math.

No, you are trying to pretend it is.
Because you can't show anything wrong with it.

It's crap math because where there should question marks

As soon as you have a measurement from reality, there will be uncertainty associated with it, or "question marks". Any math based upon that will likewise have uncertainty.

where we should just say "we don't know how far the sun is from the Earth"

Why should we say that lie?
Again, you not liking reality, that reality not fitting in with your delusional fantasy, doesn't magically change reality.

In reality, we know how far away Earth is from the sun, at least fairly accurately. 150 000 000 km is a nice round number, because it is a rounded number, as the distance between the Earth and sun varies.

There is no way you have that information

No, there is no way YOU have that information, as you are wilfully ignorant and reject any part of reality you don't like.

But I explained several ways to get that distance. You just ignore it because it doesn't match your fantasy.

Again, the speed of light can be directly measured, as can the angle for stellar aberration.
This allows us to directly calculate the speed of Earth in its orbit, and from that calculate the orbital distance.

Alternatively, empirical measurements to determine how gravity works allows us to develop Kepler's laws, and from that obtain the ratio of the distance between the sun and Venus to the distance between the sun and Earth.
Many measurements allow us to determine the size of Earth and from that the distance between 2 points on Earth.
Then observations of these points of the transit of Venus let us construct a simple set of triangles to determine the absolute distance between the Earth and the sun, and between Earth and Venus and between the sun and Venus.

Likewise, we can measure the parallax of the moon to determine the distance to the moon, and then determine the angle between the sun and moon during a quarter moon to determine the distance to the sun. But due to how close to 90 degrees that is, that measurement will have a lot of error, effectively providing a lower bound on the distance.

Again, you not liking that we can measure things in reality to show your fantasy is garbage doesn't magically make the math crap.

So stop appealing to alchemy and any other BS as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand and in no way helps show the math is crap.

Why should you say that "lie"? Because that is truth. At a particular point in time, even if we did accept the orbital rotation idea, the Earth might be closer or farther, meaning you DON'T know that Earth is whatever number you put.

As for you not believing I can know this information, it's called looking things up on the internet. You can get a ton of trivia information like "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood."

A more concrete answer was published by the Associated Press in 1988, which reported that a New York fish and wildlife technician named Richard Thomas had calculated the volume of dirt in a typical 25–30-foot (7.6–9.1 m) long woodchuck burrow and had determined that if the woodchuck had moved an equivalent volume of wood, it could move "about 700 pounds (320 kg) on a good day, with the wind at his back". Another study, which considered "chuck" to be the opposite of upchucking, determined that a woodchuck could ingest 361.9237001 cm3 (22.08593926 cu in) of wood per day.

I'm going with the ingestion answer.

But the point being, can we trust this number? Is it based on real study of woodchucks? What about a woodchuck that is abnormally hungry or is on a diet? Is that an average? Is there a range? Or do all woodchucks chuck exactly this amount of wood? See this is the trouble with decimal points, they put a scientific polish on what is actually just estimate. "Roughly 360" really what this decimaled number means, but we've put an exact number to it.
What even is a cubic inch? These are assigned measures. A cubic inch is an inch cubed, but that's not what I am asking. When you ask what an inch or a mile is, you get an answer in feet or cm, respectively. It's a reference, not a fine measure. I've worked with measurements when using a ruler to cut wood to length for various projects.
 But when COVID hit, people were showing fully that they don't understand how far six feet was. It was a distance equal to their level in comfort. So, when we cannot even give a real answer to how far away should you stand from another person, where do you get off saying you "know" this?

Truth is admitting when you don't know things. Liars double down and try to convince people thet are smarter than they are. You just look dumber when doubling down, tbh.

I don't know how far the sun is from me. You don't know how far it is. Kepler doesn't know either. He just has fancier tools, is all.

Also, this is a lateral spin. If you sit in a bedroom, like I do right now, and spin around the room, this is a lateral spin. I see my lamp, then a bookcase, the door to my room (opened), another shelf containing books and dvds, a painting of Chinese landscape (it was a mass production from a tutoring trip to China after college), my closet, my dresser, another door to my room, window behind me, wall behind me, and back to lamp. That's a lateral spin. Even objects above me (there's a picture of an owl) do not rise and fall like sun supposedly does.

In order to see the sun rise and fall, you would need extremely sharp (almost hairpin) turn, quite unlike the regular lateral spin. Rotary spin might work, but that is on the side rather than facing the sun then gradually facing away (quite unlike how you described). But we don't have rotary spin either, or the sky should at times appear to be upside down. It also doesn't adequately explain how you would lose sight of a much bigger sun.
Or... you could be just watching the sun at rotary orbit around you.

 "When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras."
 (A variant expression of Occam's Razor)

Coined in the late 1940s by Dr. Theodore Woodward, professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.

(medicine, informal) When diagnosing a patient's symptoms, common ailments should be considered as more probable than rare ones.

Horses? Or zebras? When watching an object such as a car move, more likely you aren't on a conveyor moving past the car in the opposite direction at 60 mph because the rest of the scenery isn't racing by as you would clearly see when sitting in the passenger seat of a car. If your surroundings see still, and a object moves, the object is moving, not you.

Do I know exactly how the sun behaves? No, unlike some people, I know that truth is not pretending to knowledge. But I can see that one of these things is not the case. Both lateral and rotary rotation fail to adequately explain why an object appears to arc across the sky. Lateral because it should be traveling in a flat motion, rotary because you would not lose sight of it.
A much smaller sun, on the other hand, could simply arc out of sight.

Ah that's nice. Passing the buck back to me. So you don't know what alchemy is, and expect me to know.

You made the claim that the image was alchemy and somehow math is wrong, so you have prove YOUR claim. That's how this whole thing works.

Alchemy is a semi-scientific pseudoscientific movement that predated chemistry and physics. [...]

Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of unrelated stuff cut because it has nothing to do with proving that the image you posted is alchemy. And yes, alchemy is garbage, so what?  So is homeopathy. The only one using alchemy as an example of anything here is you.

If you're going to just post random nonsense images and make weird claims about them while having no idea where they even came from, I can do that too.

So here is a totally serious flat earth argument that real flat earthers claim and is proof that the flat earth theory is nonsense and you all think we live on a giant turtle. If you disagree... well then PROVE IT.



See how easy that is? I just showed all flat earth arguments are nonsense with a random image I found on the internet and made up stuff about. Whee.

There is plenty wrong with RE. Not only does it give completely bogus angles for the sun and moon, not only does it distort people's understanding that tides are a system and not governed by celestial objects like the moon, not only is it completely crazy as we would far more like fall off the Earth (to quote a RE meme about FE) on the underside of a RE, but it's morally wrong, as it puts our entire government in the hands of NASA and their sweet sweet space money.

Wot 

Why should you say that "lie"? Because that is truth.

No, it isn't.
Your wilful ignorance doesn't mean we don't know.

At a particular point in time, even if we did accept the orbital rotation idea, the Earth might be closer or farther, meaning you DON'T know that Earth is whatever number you put.

If you want to play with this idea, then you don't know anything, as all measurements have some level of uncertainty.
But to sane people, that level of uncertainty doesn't mean we don't know. It means we know it is in some range.

As for you not believing I can know this information, it's called looking things up on the internet.

No, it's called if you don't trust anyone, you can go through all the experiments yourself, to get your own observations to calculate the distance yourself.
Although you will need a buddy.

But the point being, can we trust this number?

Again, if you don't trust it, go get the measurements yourself.
Stop pretending that because you are wilfully ignorant and you don't trust anyone with any piece of information which doesn't fit your fantasy that that means no one can possibly know.

Truth is admitting when you don't know things. Liars double down and try to convince people thet are smarter than they are.

Yes, liars like you sure want to pretend they are smart.
Again, your wilful ignorance doesn't mean no one can know.
Falsely claiming they don't know is you lying.

Also, this is a lateral spin. If you sit in a bedroom, like I do right now, and spin around the room, this is a lateral spin.

I know what a "lateral spin" is. The problem for your lies is that on Earth you only get a lateral spin at the poles. For everywhere else that axis of rotation is not perpindicular to the level refrence.

Again, this simple diagram shows you are lying (and this response shows you are just doubling down on your lie):

https://i.imgur.com/phgP07M.png

Again, look at the equator. The axis is parallel to the ground there, not perpendicular to it. So it is a vertical spin.

In order to see the sun rise and fall, you would need extremely sharp (almost hairpin) turn

Or, you can have the axis at an angle. For example, you can have a vertical spin for someone at the equator.
Again, take your stupid lateral spin, and mount a camera at an angle. A simple one would be sideways. Then look at the footage from it. You will see things appear to rise (or set, depending on which way the camera is facing).

But we don't have rotary spin either, or the sky should at times appear to be upside down.

And how would you define "upside down"? Do you mean how you can look to the east horizon at night, shortly after sunset to see a constellation, and then look to the west horizon shortly before sunrise and see that same constellation appear upside down?

It also doesn't adequately explain how you would lose sight of a much bigger sun.

And here you go with doubling down on more pathetic lies.
Just what is there to explain?
Go stand with your face against a wall. Then turn to face away from the wall. Can you still see it? NO!
You aren't looking at it, it is not in your FOV, so you can't see it.

The sun is not magic like you want to pretend.
Unless you are looking towards it such that it is inside your FOV, you will not see it.
And with an angular size of ~0.5 degrees, that is quite easy to do.

Or... you could be just watching the sun at rotary orbit around you.

By this I assume you mean your delusional BS?
If so, no.
That doesn't match is observed at all.
If it was doing that I would expect to always be able to see it (if I'm looking in the right direction), with its apparent size and speed varying throughout the day as it circles around.

"When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras."

Yes, so when we see the sun appear to go below Earth, with Earth obstructing the view, we accept that Earth is obstructing the view and that the angle of elevation of the sun is negative.

We do not think it is above us, with some pure magic magically causing it to magically appear as if it is below us and magically appear as if Earth is blocking the view.
Occam's Razor destroys the FE, because the FE needs so much convoluted BS to pretend it can work to have observations match what is expected for a RE.

Do I know exactly how the sun behaves?

You sure act like it, boldly proclaiming such utter crap, without any possibility of you being wrong, boldly proclaiming the same crap even after it has been refuted.

But I can see that one of these things is not the case.

Yes, your delusional model.
The RE model works just fine.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 21, 2023, 08:37:45 AM

Ah that's nice. Passing the buck back to me. So you don't know what alchemy is, and expect me to know.

You made the claim that the image was alchemy and somehow math is wrong, so you have prove YOUR claim. That's how this whole thing works.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 21, 2023, 08:37:45 AM

Alchemy is a semi-scientific pseudoscientific movement that predated chemistry and physics. [...]

Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of unrelated stuff cut because it has nothing to do with proving that the image you posted is alchemy. And yes, alchemy is garbage, so what?  So is homeopathy. The only one using alchemy as an example of anything here is you.

If you're going to just post random nonsense images and make weird claims about them while having no idea where they even came from, I can do that too.

So here is a totally serious flat earth argument that real flat earthers claim and is proof that the flat earth theory is nonsense and you all think we live on a giant turtle. If you disagree... well then PROVE IT.



See how easy that is? I just showed all flat earth arguments are nonsense with a random image I found on the internet and made up stuff about. Whee.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 21, 2023, 08:37:45 AM

There is plenty wrong with RE. Not only does it give completely bogus angles for the sun and moon, not only does it distort people's understanding that tides are a system and not governed by celestial objects like the moon, not only is it completely crazy as we would far more like fall off the Earth (to quote a RE meme about FE) on the underside of a RE, but it's morally wrong, as it puts our entire government in the hands of NASA and their sweet sweet space money.

Wot 

Yes yes, prove it. Like "I don't know anything about alchemy because I was maybe a C student who had no interest beyong the classroom and I fully believe what I have been taught, but I'll ask someone who spent hours in the library looking up something they are interested in to prove that when they say something is alchemy, they mean it." Seems like if you don't know alchemy when you see it, I don't have to cater to your ignorance.

 The "unrelated stuff" as you put it, is definitional. If you want to stay ignorant, that's on you but the point I was making with this explanation was that a thing which meets those categories is by definition alchemy.

I already proved it. You're so ignorant you can't see it, and ask for proof.

Discworld is a work of parody. It takes the flat Earth to its conclusion by use of hyperbole. In actual fact, the light from the moon wouldn't show the shape of the Earth, flat with turtle and elephants, just flat, or round. It doesn't reflect light from the sun, it gives off its own light. How do I know? I actually looked dead straight at the moon for about an hour coming home from visiting my sister, and my eyes still work. I also never at any point saw the Earth's shape reflected. Not only is the light of the moon safe to view for long term (even glare from a metal object that the sun hits is enough to strongly irritate your eyes, but the moon's light is cool and pleasant, a totally different wavelength and intensity than the sun, a light that doesn't seem to radiate the eyes), but I was able to see that the moon is flat. One of the RE scientists said that we can prove the Earth is sphere by looking at how much a sphere the moon is. Okay, great. But the moon is a flat disc, contrary to doctored images from NASA and National Geographic showing it as three dimensional object. I have an hour of looking straight at it that proves otherwise. What they have is digital artwork.



Artwork.



The closest thing to last night's full moon. Except ours had clouda all dramatically around it.

 "If the the moon is a sphere, then naturally the Earth is a sphere. " Too bad the moon is not a sphere.

But thanks for proving something else! Yoy have proved how easy it is to make a fake image. So here's a model of the moon, available for purchase.

 Wanna find out how easy it is for me to add this in as a layer, and put it into a space picture?

I notice you have yet again fled from all your prior delusional BS and are now jumping topic yet again to lie about reality to pretend there is a different problem with the RE model.

I already proved it. You're so ignorant you can't see it, and ask for proof.

I don't really care if you proved it was alchemy, it doesn't help you prove your claim.
You have not proven any fault with the RE model.

It doesn't reflect light from the sun, it gives off its own light.

Then why does all the evidence show it does?
The phases of the moon are entirely consistent with it being illuminated by the sun, and the lunar eclipse is consistent with Earth's shadow obstructing the path of the light from the sun to the moon.
We even see shadows on the moon consistent with the moon being illuminated from the sun.
There is no evidence at all that it gives off its own visible light.

I actually looked dead straight at the moon for about an hour coming home from visiting my sister, and my eyes still work.

Which proves nothing at all.
You can do the same with a piece of paper illuminated by the sun during the day.
When the light from the sun hits an object, the light scatters (diffuse reflection) on the surface, with some absorbed by the object, significantly reducing the intensity by the time it gets to your eye.
A similar effect is seen with lasers. Pointing a laser at your eye can result in blindness with the light appearing extremely bright, but if it reflects off a surface it is much safer.

The exception is when you have an object that undergoes specular reflection, like a mirror, where it is reflected specularly rather than diffusely. This allows the light to remain coherent and intense.
And for transparent objects which just refract the light, like a magnifying glass.

So great job just proving your own dishonesty.

I also never at any point saw the Earth's shape reflected.

Why would you?
Was it during a lunar eclipse where the shadow of Earth obstructs the light?
If not, you aren't going to see Earth's shape on the moon.

even glare from a metal object that the sun hits

Metal objects typically allow specular reflection.
Try it with dirt, something similar to the moon.

a totally different wavelength and intensity than the sun

No, not a totally different wavelength.
Both the sun and moon cast fairly white light.
If you wish to claim that it is different, you would need to present spectra of the sun and moon to show that.
And you would expect the moon to absorb some wavelengths as it isn't perfectly white, so the spectra likely wont be a perfect match.
Again, just like a piece of paper will have a different spectrum.

And it should have a lower intensity.
So again, you are just proving your dishonesty.
By your dishonest BS, a sheet of paper sitting in the sun is not reflecting the sun's light and instead is magically producing its own light.
Do you not realise how insane that is?

a light that doesn't seem to radiate

A light, by definition, is radiation.

but I was able to see that the moon is flat.

How?

Staring at the moon for an hour doesn't magically prove it is flat.

Taking photos of it over the course of a month, or taking photos from quite far away places on Earth can get you a much better idea, as then you observe that different people see slightly different views, and the view changes over the month, as if the ball is shifting around.

You can also tell it isn't flat due to how shadows are cast on it.

There is nothing to indicate the moon is flat, and plenty to indicate it is round.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 26, 2023, 04:52:45 AM

a light that doesn't seem to radiate

A light, by definition, is radiation.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Ionizing radiation is what I'm referring to. Radiation from a source that harms the body. A light type that does not harm the eyes is a light source that does not give off radiation. Yes, all light may be radiation, but it's a matter of whether it transfers radiation to the eyes.

But feel free to test the difference between the sun and moon if you are inclined to believe that sunlight and moonlight are the same.

Ionizing radiation is what I'm referring to.

So you admit that radiation like that coming from a 5G transmitter isn't ionising and isn't bad?

And you are still wrong. If visible radiation is intense enough, it can harm the eye and cause blindness.
A laser is a simple example of that. If you stare directly into a high power laser you will go blind, even if that laser is just emitting visible (i.e. non ionising) radiation.

But feel free to test the difference between the sun and moon if you are inclined to believe that sunlight and moonlight are the same.

You were the one making the BS claim, so the burden is on you to prove it.
As the moon scatters the light from the sun, the intensity of all radiation is significantly reduced.
Even during a full moon, doing a rough estimate, the radius of the moon is roughly 1737 km. But Earth is roughly 350 000 to 400 000 km away.
That alone already cuts the light down by a factor of 0.000025.
Assuming that was all there was, with the moon not absorbing any light, and ignoring the fact that the moon is collecting the light as a circle, yet scattering it as a sphere, that means an entire 24 hour period exposed to moonlight from a full moon, is equivalent to roughly 2 seconds in the sun.

So that is not going to be enough to be significant at all.

So yet again, you have spouted absolute BS to pretend your delusional fantasy is true and pretend there is a problem for a RE, and when refuted, you just come up with this crap?

You have no evidence at all that the moon gives off its own light or is flat.
All the available evidence clearly demonstrates that the moon reflects/scatters the light from the sun, and is round.

Yes yes, prove it. Like "I don't know anything about alchemy because I was maybe a C student who had no interest beyong the classroom and I fully believe what I have been taught, but I'll ask someone who spent hours in the library looking up something they are interested in to prove that when they say something is alchemy, they mean it." Seems like if you don't know alchemy when you see it, I don't have to cater to your ignorance.

 The "unrelated stuff" as you put it, is definitional. If you want to stay ignorant, that's on you but the point I was making with this explanation was that a thing which meets those categories is by definition alchemy.

I already proved it. You're so ignorant you can't see it, and ask for proof.

You proved nothing.  You posted some random clipart that you yourself have no idea where it came from, who made it or why, and tried to use it to claim math was wrong.

But this is the kind of insanity I'd expect.

Discworld is a work of parody.

You uh, do understand that the Earth being carried on the back of a turtle was an idea formed long before Discworld borrowed it? Do you really think Pratchett invited that idea?

This just shows your ignorance of the world yet again.

I proved nothing of the sort. Hinduism, right?

https://www.ulc.org/ulc-blog/comparative-religion-the-world-turtle

You didn't ask.

 I'm a history major and a religion minor. Formerly a science minor, until I got scared off by organic chemistry. "But you aced the first test!" the teacher said. Yeah after studying for most of the week and not feeling confident I could continue to do so.

You don't even understand why I used it. So let's use something different.



So this thing in school you learned about how to process numbers turned out to be a terrible idea to start with because a student is far more likely to mean 84+86+87/3 as an average (84+86+87)/3 than 84+86+(87/3).

It didn't stop there. You probably learned that the Crusades were Christianity's fault for being terrible zealots starting a "pilgrimage" that turned into a bloody holy war, and not Islam staging a 1400+ year coup against the world instead of the Pope having enough.



So, I've just informed you that two of your teachers (history and math) taught you crap. And I'm sure you know your religion teacher is obviously wrong. Your sociology teacher is a damned racist, classifying people into categories, and you philosophy teacher wants to talk about trees falling in forests and whether or not they can be heard.

But I obviously don't know what I'm talking about when I say that maybe you can question tour science teacher when he tells you that on NASA's authority, he knows the Earth is a sphere.



 

History major who learned zero critical thinking

Amazing

I proved nothing of the sort.

All you have proven is your own dishonesty and inability to honestly and rationally defend your beliefs.

Hinduism

Has nothing to do with your wilful rejection of reality.

a student is far more likely to mean 84+86+87/3 as an average (84+86+87)/3 than 84+86+(87/3).

And if that student was competent, that student would use brackets.

Your hatred of math doesn't make it fake.

So, I've just informed you that two of your teachers (history and math) taught you crap.

No, you have shown that you don't like what you were taught.
So much so that you fail at trivial math.

History major who learned zero critical thinking

Amazing

You have been taught by teachers what critical thinking is supposed to be.  You haven't been taught actual critical thinking, just to believe that you are somehow doing critical thinking when you are doing nothing of the sort. That is truly amazing.

Critical thinking is the ability to question what you have been taught.

I have more critical thinking in my little finger than you have in your entire body.

You assume I have been brainwashed by some cult of FE ppl or something. You forget, until around 3 or 4 years ago, I never questioned RE. But I had already figured out that even things I learned in history classes could be crap. History has a class called Historiography, where this was actually discussed (as an object lesson, in History of the Peloponnesian War, the writer consults with the oracles about the outcome of the war, and the book abruptly ends, as the oracles had some bad news that turned out right).

When you cannot reject what you are taught, when you can't think of at least three different options (including that other people may be right), you cannot talk to me about critical thinking, as you have astounding lack of self-awareness.

I know how to reject what I thought I knew. Are you sure you do?

You have been taught by teachers what critical thinking is supposed to be.  You haven't been taught actual critical thinking, just to believe that you are somehow doing critical thinking when you are doing nothing of the sort. That is truly amazing.

That's not amazing, that is projecting.

Critical thinking is not merely rejecting things you have been taught because you don't like it.
Critical thinking doesn't only apply to things you have been taught.
It applies to everything.
It is about applying rational thought to things.

As an example, you showed some BS alchemy, and tried to use it to dismiss all of math.
But applying critical thinking to that means that you understand that just because it is being misused in this case does not mean it is all wrong. You aren't showing a fundamental flaw with math, you are just showing a bad application.

Likewise, look at your pathetic attempt to discredit observations of Saturn, by comparing it to you driving along a road beside a hitchhiker, entirely ignoring distance and scale.

Or your attempt to pretend everyone on Earth lives at the south pole, by repeatedly ignoring that the angle of the axis of rotation of Earth is at a different angle relative to down depending upon observer location.

Critical thinking clearly demonstrates what you are spouting is pure BS.

Likewise, people have taught me that I need water to live, weather that be from literally drinking water, or consuming it in other forms.
Just mindlessly rejecting that with no basis at all, when so much evidence supports that fact (including people dying from dehydration), is NOT critical thinking.

So you appear entirely incapable of critical thinking.
You spout all sorts of delusional BS to pretend your fantasy works and pretend there are problems with the RE, without any rational thought being applied.

You assume I have been brainwashed by some cult of FE ppl or something.

Because that is how you act.
You reject reality at all costs to cling to your fantasy.
You cannot show any fault with reality, nor can you actually defend the FE.

Previously accepting Earth is round doesn't mean you can't be conned into a FE cult.

I had already figured out that even things I learned in history classes could be crap.

If only there were some simple saying people could have used for ages to make that clear.
Maybe you can make one and try to make it popular.
How about "History is written by the victor."

That isn't anything new. People have known that historical accounts will always lack some information and may present things incorrectly.

When you cannot reject what you are taught, when you can't think of at least three different options (including that other people may be right), you cannot talk to me about critical thinking, as you have astounding lack of self-awareness.

We can, we just aren't going to reject what we have been taught when so far it is the best explanation we have.
The only way for Earth to be flat is if nature itself is conspiring to make it appear round. As all observations are consistent with a RE, while plenty are inconsistent with a FE.

Can you do what you suggest?
Consider the possibility that you are wrong, and that Earth is round?

The crossdressing conservative caling out others for lack of self awareness


Mmmmmmm

You see that kids?

That's called an ad hominem argument.

A logical fallacy of one who has effectively lost an argument. Whether I am black, a woman, or a sea turtle, nothing about who I am has any relevance to whether I am right or not.

Cassandra: Troy is doomed.
Townsperson: Why listen to her?!? She's a woman!

Yes, I am a crossdresser. Yes, I am a conservative. You inherent argument is that somehow these are incompatible with logic. But they aren't. The woke left employs identity politics (basically the heir of this exact ad hominem logic) to tell me that if I am a crossdresser, I ought to automatically agree with their policies. But their policies have literally screwed me out of work in the past, between high taxes and restrictions in how I do business.
The conservatives didn't mind that I was a crossdresser, as long as I was a fanatical leftist. Or they didn't mind, as long as I didn't go into bathrooms and molest their kids. Or they did mind due to religious reasons, and told me so. What they never did, however, was pretend to be my ally while making things harder for me. $250k for misgendering? That causes backlash! I now need to be worried about hate crimes. Free transitions? I don't want one, so that means higher taxes.

 Again.

Critical thinking is the ability to question what you have been taught.

Have you been questioning the RE dogma taught by NASA, numerous major magazines, and probably most schools? Then you're in the brainwashed majority, not the freethinking minority.

Say what you want about atheists, you could probably argue that in a world of religious people, they are freethinkers. But that's true until religion itself is in the minority, then the freethinkers are those who buck the prevailing idea.

So when you accuse others of lacking awareness, and you don't realize how your own ideas sound like parroted nonsense, then yes you are profoundly lacking in that department.

Critical thinking is not merely rejecting things you have been taught because you don't like it.
Critical thinking doesn't only apply to things you have been taught.
It applies to everything.
It is about applying rational thought to things.

An irrational person can easily be convinced to attach the idea that something is rational just because everyone believes it, or because it has the trappings of "rational". Math is a good way to make something appear rational.

But critical thinking is not about accepting that something is rational, it's about accepting rational thinking by disputing ideas that are a bit too carefully prepared.

Suppose a cult made a convincing and perfectly rational-sounding persuasion for jumping off a 150 ft bridge. They use classic Stoic arguments about how poverty, illness, and death are actually not evil
https://www.thoughtco.com/stoics-and-moral-philosophy-4068536
then gradually twist the argument until it suits their purpose of everyone but the cult leader jumping off this bridge today. The reason they aren't there also has a rational excuse. It's not because they are a psychopath bent on deriving pleasure from the pain and death of others. No, they had a business event, and couldn't get away.

If everyone around you jumped off a bridge, would you do it? The answer should be no, no matter how logical their argument seemed. Anything else is not critical thinking but peer pressure disguised as logic.
Thankfully, peer pressure can work both ways. "I don't want to jump off this bridge. Do you?" And gradually the crowd realizes that everyone pressured everyone else.

 I don't want higher taxes, more regulation, and to have to deal with strange immigrants camping out in my town. And I don't want human trafficking. Do you?

That's called an ad hominem argument.

No, it isn't. Because they aren't using that to say your argument is wrong.
They are doing it to point out your hypocrisy.

And notice how you decide to focus on that, to completely ignore the refutation of your BS, and as an excuse to repeat the same pathetic BS.

Critical thinking is the ability to question what you have been taught.

And notice the key part? QUESTION! Not merely reject.
It is also far more than just questioning.
It is applying thought to the issue to consider it.

And it applies to EVERYTHING, including things you come up with yourself, and what other people claim. It is not applied only to things you have been taught.

If you just decide to reject the RE, and claim there is a magical parabola that solves all the problems, then you have NOT applied critical thought, and have shown no signs of critical thinking.

Critical thinking would involve evaluating both.
For example, consider the sun and the horizon.
The RE has the distance to the horizon simply being the distance at which a line from your eye to Earth is tangent to Earth.
You have a magical dome which for some reason magically limits your vision, with that distance changing depending upon how high you are, for no reason at all.
Why do far away objects disappear, and appear to sink, disappearing from the bottom up?
You claim they are just outside the parabola and are magically hidden from view. This doesn't explain why it disappears from the bottom up, or why it appears to sink. Instead, your parabola should show the exact opposite, with it disappearing from the top down, as the top leaves the parabola before the bottom.
The RE, has Earth block the view, which results in an object being hidden from the bottom up.
The higher the object is, the further away it can be before it is gone from view (and vice versa).

Then we go to objects high in the sky.
A plane can be seen for much further than a boat.
For the RE, this is exactly what we would expect - as above, the higher an object is, the further away it can be seen.
Now we try with your nonsense - the plane is above the parabola so it shouldn't be seen at all.

And with the sun, the RE model has it appear to set as Earth blocks the view.
But you claim it magically projects, but how?
It clearly can't just be going in a straight line to the eye because that would produce the same as if the parabola wasn't there.
You want to pretend it goes straight down, but that would mean you could only see it when it is above a region within 5 km of you, making you only see it for a tiny portion of the day.

So using critical thinking, we question the RE model, recognise that it works to explain reality, so we continue to accept it.
And using critical thinking, we evaluate your claims, recognise it doesn't work to explain reality at all, so we reject it as the delusional BS it is.

Again, critical thinking means questioning, not rejecting. And questioning means if there are answers, you accept them; you don't just reject them because it doesn't fit your fantasy.

Then you're in the brainwashed majority, not the freethinking minority.

Again, it is not a simple case of brainwashed majority vs freethinking minority.
You can easily have a brainwashed minority with a freethinking majority.

The majority thinking something is true does not mean you must be brainwashed to think it is true, or to be a free thinker you need to reject it, or to use critical thinking you must reject it.

Even with your strawman definition of critical thinking, it is questioning, nor rejecting.

then the freethinkers are those who buck the prevailing idea.

Again, they aren't.
If they buck the prevailing idea and replace it with delusional nonsense, they aren't free thinkers. They are just a smaller set of brainwashed or delusional fools.

your own ideas sound like parroted nonsense

They don't.
Where is the nonsense?
You are desperate to dismiss it as nonsense, yet you cannot show a single fault.
Instead you just repeat the same pathetic lies again and again.

An irrational person can easily be convinced to attach the idea that something is rational just because everyone believes it, or because it has the trappings of "rational".

You mean like you have done repeatedly with your entirely irrational rejection of the RE?
Just because it has the trappings of allegedly rational arguments opposing the RE, where you need to repeatedly flee from the refutations of those arguments?

But critical thinking is not about accepting that something is rational, it's about accepting rational thinking by disputing ideas that are a bit too carefully prepared.

It has nothing to do with how carefully prepared the ideas are.
It is about applying rational thought to the issue to try to determine what is true.

Arguments being developed to promote the truth for thousands of years does not make it critical thinking to reject and ignore them all to replace reality with a fantasy.

Suppose a cult made a convincing and perfectly rational-sounding persuasion for jumping off a 150 ft bridge.

Again, rational-sounding is not the issue, rational is.

So what you really need me to do is imagine a fantasy where a falsehood is propped up by a rational argument and there is no rational argument to counter it.

And a problem with trying to tell people what to do is the massive is-ought problem.
Rational thought only gets you so far.
It can tell what is. But it cannot tell you what you ought to do, because that is going to be based upon a subjective, i.e. NOT RATIONAL, preference.

Also note that this cult would fit your BS idea of "Critical thinking".
You are rejecting the "brainwashed majority" that thinks jumping of a bridge is a bad idea, and instead going with the "free thinking minority".


Again, your repeated irrational rejection of the RE, complete with repeating the same refuted arguments multiple times; and you then presenting your fantasy as a solution, and ignoring all the problems with it is NOT a sign of critical thinking. It is the exact opposite, a sign of a complete absence of critical thinking from you.

And notice how basically this entire post of yours, is just a long ad-hominem.
You suggest that if you agree with the majority, then you are brainwashed and not displaying any critical thinking; and that if you instead reject it, you are a free-thinker who shows critical thinking.

You don't show anything wrong with what the majority believes, nor support your alternative.
You just throw out insults and claim to be better.

Well you obviously didnt pray hard enough to convert your sexual perversion into a stroct hetero male should be male binary view point.

Watching all them china cartoons has twisted your mind.




And the word you wanted was oxymoron.

Conservatives are many faceted.
Financial.
Regulation.
Religion.
Sex.


Thinking you have the business side of the beliefs means youre accepted by those who hold a majority of the views means you have a lack of self awareness


Which was the original argument.
Hence no, not ad hom, but oxymoron.

If you aren't free to also occasionally reject what you have been taught, the ability to question isn't worth anything.

Order of Operations is a wonderful tool for doing math problems, but if it becomes a stumbling block and you're not able to intelligently use it, you're better off ignoring it entirely.
History without historiography is just a tool for propaganda of whatever group is teaching history. Without the ability to realistically say "Robert E Lee was a regular person," you either get sucked into the camp of those who worship at his altar or those woke who now want to destroy all statues to him.
Science if used as a tool of consensus rather than correctly using the scientific method, ceases to be science. The scientific method consists of setting a hypothesis, making experiments, testing them against the hypothesis, and revising the hypothesis. This is a hint. The goal of science is not to come to consensus but to test hypotheses. Any scientific "law" that you weren't alive to see proven is something that stupid dead people came up with. It needs to be tested by living people to be sure somewhere along the way crooked science using the peer pressure effect wasn't done.

Consensus "science" often works like this. Al Gore slips some money to several climate scientists, or maybe a magazine offers to fund their research if they get a certain result on the next climate conference. Amazing! 98% of all scientists agree that the Earth's climate is in trouble! Just as 98% of all scientists (after NASA slips them a few bucks) agree that the Earth is flat. That most people believe in something does not mean it's right. Even if they have never been handed money, the majority believes the Earth is round because there is nothing at state to them. They do not realize (yet) that globalism is a threat to their freedom.

If you aren't free to also occasionally reject what you have been taught, the ability to question isn't worth anything.

You are free to reject whatever you want, and other people are free to object to your irrational rejection.
If you aren't free to accept what you have been taught, then the ability to question isn't worth anything.

Questioning requires you to be able to accept or reject or ask further questions based upon the answers to those questions.

The scientific method consists of setting a hypothesis, making experiments, testing them against the hypothesis, and revising the hypothesis.

That's right, and the RE passes those just fine, but the FE does not.
The FE has failed so many tests it isn't funny.

Any scientific "law" that you weren't alive to see proven is something that stupid dead people came up with. It needs to be tested by living people to be sure somewhere along the way crooked science using the peer pressure effect wasn't done.

And if you try to do that by yourself, then you will die before you are done. If you try to have a group of people doing it, then as they die more people need to join to continue the process, and you are just wasting loads of time and resources.
Some things are fairly well established and used in every day life without issue.
Some things are fairly well established, and done by school kids to learn science.

Even if they have never been handed money, the majority believes the Earth is round because there is nothing at state to them.

And they can be divided into 2 groups, those that really don't give a damn at all, and those that recognise the RE makes sense and explains what is observed.

They do not realize (yet) that globalism is a threat to their freedom.

That isn't something for them to realise.
That is just your paranoid, delusional BS which you continually use to try to attack the RE because you have run out of excuses.