Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity.

Quote from: turbonium2 on January 08, 2023, 06:41:54 AM

You've never once questioned any claims from your 'astronomers', who have NEVER allow others to see if their claims ARE true, or not true, which means they are NOT telling us the truth, because that is the ONLY reason they don't allow others to validate their claims as true, because they know it is NOT true.

This has got to be one of the strangest claims ever.

There are any number of observatories where you can go and are invited to even look through a mighty large telescope. You can buy your own high-powered telescope and look for yourself at leisure. There are a gazillion amateur astronomer/astro-videographers and photographers around, astronomy clubs, online and offline. Have you even thought to actually seek the "truth" yourself or are you just sitting there on a couch in the basement typing away at what's only inside your head?

If you don't want to be a sheeple, actually go and do something about it. Get out there and explore the cosmos yourself rather than just making up things to satisfy your internal sheeple belief system. Why so lazy?

You can study astronomy in college/uni if you so desire and have access to any data you want. Heck, even my old public high school now has a dome on the roof with a 12-inch Cassegrain telescope inside for upper level students of astronomy.

Just because you as a sheeple choose not to take advantage of the open access available is more a personal problem of yours - An extremely ignorant and bizarre claim that astronomers NEVER allow others to see if their claims ARE true. Have you ever even looked through a telescope? Binoculars?

Actually, it's totally valid.

Suppose I told you I have a painting. But all I let you see in person is this:


I tell you whenever you ask to see my painting, that the oils are very sensitive (and loads of other excuses) and there are spirits that will burn if exposed to air.  I show you a copy of this painting by computer that I tell you that I was able to photograph in a special airless room. This picture looks like this:
 



Shouldn't you be asking to see the painting in person? If only to make sure that I didn't take it from Black★Rock Shooter? Or make it up, for that matter?

But you don't. You never call bullshit on this fraud. You instead tell me, who is trying to get you to ask basic questions, that I am the one doing fraud. Which leads me to believe you are paid shills in order to sustain said fraud.

Quote from: Stash on January 08, 2023, 10:39:02 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on January 08, 2023, 06:41:54 AM

You've never once questioned any claims from your 'astronomers', who have NEVER allow others to see if their claims ARE true, or not true, which means they are NOT telling us the truth, because that is the ONLY reason they don't allow others to validate their claims as true, because they know it is NOT true.

This has got to be one of the strangest claims ever.

There are any number of observatories where you can go and are invited to even look through a mighty large telescope. You can buy your own high-powered telescope and look for yourself at leisure. There are a gazillion amateur astronomer/astro-videographers and photographers around, astronomy clubs, online and offline. Have you even thought to actually seek the "truth" yourself or are you just sitting there on a couch in the basement typing away at what's only inside your head?

If you don't want to be a sheeple, actually go and do something about it. Get out there and explore the cosmos yourself rather than just making up things to satisfy your internal sheeple belief system. Why so lazy?

You can study astronomy in college/uni if you so desire and have access to any data you want. Heck, even my old public high school now has a dome on the roof with a 12-inch Cassegrain telescope inside for upper level students of astronomy.

Just because you as a sheeple choose not to take advantage of the open access available is more a personal problem of yours - An extremely ignorant and bizarre claim that astronomers NEVER allow others to see if their claims ARE true. Have you ever even looked through a telescope? Binoculars?

Actually, it's totally valid.

Suppose I told you I have a painting. But all I let you see in person is this:

No, it's totally invalid. All you have to do is look up a local observatory and most likely they have open hours or classes and such where you can actually look for yourself through their instruments.

A quick google search:

Community Observatory   
Placerville, CA
"The Community Observatory is your window to the night sky! See the stars through the 17-inch and 14-inch reflecting telescopes on a clear, dark night. Follow planets or the moon as they travel across the sky. Bring the whole family for an unforgettable experience in the foothills of El Dorado County."

Whitin Observatory at Wellesley College
Wellesley, MA
"About once a month during the spring and fall semesters, Wellesley students and faculty open the Observatory to members of the public. Visitors are invited to take a tour, listen to talks, and (when clear) look through our 6-inch and 12-inch telescopes."


Adler Planetarium’s Doane Observatory
Chicago, IL
"While we try to open the Observatory on Wednesday nights during Adler at Night (also known as Illinois Resident Discount Days/free days), the weather makes the schedule a bit unpredictable. To know when the Doane will be open, join our Facebook Group. You can also check in at the box office on the evening of your visit to inquire about the availability of the Observatory."


And 100's more around the country, 1000's around the world.

It's just super ignorant, lame, and lazy to say astronomers are hiding everything behind a curtain when if you actually dropped the "Everything is a conspiracy!" bit for just a moment, you would actually see that you can see behind the curtain.

Actually, it's totally valid.

It is based upon pure BS, so it certainly isn't sound.
You CAN check if the claims are true.
You can go and pay for a decent telescope (comparable or better than the ones they used, even your own private observatory if you wanted to) and take it to a location away from big cities and verify the claims. You choosing not to, or it being prohibit expensive to get your own observatory doesn't mean you can't.

But even if it wasn't based upon pure BS, it still wouldn't be valid.
Even if they didn't let, you that doesn't mean the claims are false.
With your example, you could have a painting under it. Notice how even you don't go the full extend of BS that was in that quote you are defending. Instead you say to question it.

But you don't. You never call bullshit on this fraud. You instead tell me, who is trying to get you to ask basic questions, that I am the one doing fraud. Which leads me to believe you are paid shills in order to sustain said fraud.

We don't call BS on this reality (you are yet to demonstrate any fraud), because it doesn't match your fantasy at all.
Plenty of people with their own telescopes have confirmed the findings with similar observations.
So yes, you are the one "doing fraud", because you spout dishonest BS which has no connection to reality.
Because you want to pretend reality is fake, that it is all a lie, you make up lies to pretend you aren't allowed to every verify anything, so you can pretend it is fake.

Actually, it's totally valid.

Suppose I told you I have a painting. But all I let you see in person is this:


I tell you whenever you ask to see my painting, that the oils are very sensitive (and loads of other excuses) and there are spirits that will burn if exposed to air.  I show you a copy of this painting by computer that I tell you that I was able to photograph in a special airless room. This picture looks like this:
 



Shouldn't you be asking to see the painting in person? If only to make sure that I didn't take it from Black★Rock Shooter? Or make it up, for that matter?

But you don't. You never call bullshit on this fraud. You instead tell me, who is trying to get you to ask basic questions, that I am the one doing fraud.

I think you don't have the education and knowledge to ask very much about astronomy.

But, let's play your silly game for the sake of entertainment.  I contend you haven't the slightest idea of what to ask to see.

What would you want to look at?  Be very specific.  It's not a painting in some one's living room.  It's millions of photos.  Tell us specifically what is being withheld from you that you think you need to see for yourself  Just one specific example.

Which leads me to believe you are paid shills in order to sustain said fraud.

Yeah, the Government is paying me and billions of other believers in science trillions of dollars just so they/we can keep on fooling a few hundred sheeples like you.  Do you ever really think about how nonsensical your beliefs really are?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 11, 2023, 08:23:54 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 08, 2023, 10:39:02 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on January 08, 2023, 06:41:54 AM

You've never once questioned any claims from your 'astronomers', who have NEVER allow others to see if their claims ARE true, or not true, which means they are NOT telling us the truth, because that is the ONLY reason they don't allow others to validate their claims as true, because they know it is NOT true.

This has got to be one of the strangest claims ever.

There are any number of observatories where you can go and are invited to even look through a mighty large telescope. You can buy your own high-powered telescope and look for yourself at leisure. There are a gazillion amateur astronomer/astro-videographers and photographers around, astronomy clubs, online and offline. Have you even thought to actually seek the "truth" yourself or are you just sitting there on a couch in the basement typing away at what's only inside your head?

If you don't want to be a sheeple, actually go and do something about it. Get out there and explore the cosmos yourself rather than just making up things to satisfy your internal sheeple belief system. Why so lazy?

You can study astronomy in college/uni if you so desire and have access to any data you want. Heck, even my old public high school now has a dome on the roof with a 12-inch Cassegrain telescope inside for upper level students of astronomy.

Just because you as a sheeple choose not to take advantage of the open access available is more a personal problem of yours - An extremely ignorant and bizarre claim that astronomers NEVER allow others to see if their claims ARE true. Have you ever even looked through a telescope? Binoculars?

Actually, it's totally valid.

Suppose I told you I have a painting. But all I let you see in person is this:

No, it's totally invalid. All you have to do is look up a local observatory and most likely they have open hours or classes and such where you can actually look for yourself through their instruments.

A quick google search:

Community Observatory   
Placerville, CA
"The Community Observatory is your window to the night sky! See the stars through the 17-inch and 14-inch reflecting telescopes on a clear, dark night. Follow planets or the moon as they travel across the sky. Bring the whole family for an unforgettable experience in the foothills of El Dorado County."

Whitin Observatory at Wellesley College
Wellesley, MA
"About once a month during the spring and fall semesters, Wellesley students and faculty open the Observatory to members of the public. Visitors are invited to take a tour, listen to talks, and (when clear) look through our 6-inch and 12-inch telescopes."


Adler Planetarium’s Doane Observatory
Chicago, IL
"While we try to open the Observatory on Wednesday nights during Adler at Night (also known as Illinois Resident Discount Days/free days), the weather makes the schedule a bit unpredictable. To know when the Doane will be open, join our Facebook Group. You can also check in at the box office on the evening of your visit to inquire about the availability of the Observatory."


And 100's more around the country, 1000's around the world.

It's just super ignorant, lame, and lazy to say astronomers are hiding everything behind a curtain when if you actually dropped the "Everything is a conspiracy!" bit for just a moment, you would actually see that you can see behind the curtain.

The problem with is from age six or so onward, you have let your teachers, films, and magazines (notably National Geographic) tell you how to examine the world.

I don't live near big cities (which btw have a messed up skyline because of chemicals, too mant streetlights, and planes).  But I can see ths night sky outside my back porch for free, every night. With my naked eye. It is precisely because of this that I have thrown away RE rhetoric. Because every night, I see similiar to this.



From your cities? "I see a round sky..." No you probably see the round shape of the telescope. Or you forgot the observatoty has a domes shape and looking ar the horizon through a dome creates a sensation of curvature.  You must always, always be aware of hos your surroundings affect what you see.

I'm not believing "conspiracies".  If you were never ever told the Earth is round, you would believe it is flat.

You are the one who need to let go of preconceived notions, not me.

Until about age 34 or so, I fully accept the idea that the Earth was round. Then I saw something that didn't add up, so I decided to test my reality. I discovered that what I had been taught was filled with similar holes. So I threw out this nonsense in favor I what I was personally sure of.

So if I'm not sure of something being true, I reject it as unproven. I certainly don't regard it as science.

The problem with is from age six or so onward, you have let your teachers, films, and magazines (notably National Geographic) tell you how to examine the world.

No, the problem is you had a crap "education" and just had teachers tell you what is true.
If you had a decent education, they would have also taught why we know these things are true, teaching you how to examine the world and understand it.

But I can see ths night sky outside my back porch for free, every night. With my naked eye. It is precisely because of this that I have thrown away RE rhetoric. Because every night, I see similiar to this.

So because you don't know what night is, you throw away the fact that Earth is round?
Because you didn't have a decent education, you just spout ignorant garbage and claim Earth isn't round?

Just what there shows Earth isn't round?
The fact that there is a horizon, limiting your visibility?
The fact that you see different stars there to other locations on the RE?
The fact that you can have night there while in a different location it is day, even after you observe the sun appear to set?

I'm not believing "conspiracies".  If you were never ever told the Earth is round, you would believe it is flat.

Only if you choose to not bother thinking about Earth, or contacting anyone elsewhere on Earth, or travelling to other locations.
And in that position you wouldn't believe Earth is flat either. Instead you wouldn't really think about it and wouldn't form a belief either way.

Then I saw something that didn't add up, so I decided to test my reality. I discovered that what I had been taught was filled with similar holes.

Yet in all the garbage you have presented here so far, you are yet to provide a single thing where the RE doesn't add up.
So it seems more like you just didn't understand, so you rejected reality, because you don't understand it.

Just what have you found that doesn't add up?

So if I'm not sure of something being true, I reject it as unproven. I certainly don't regard it as science.

Pure BS.
You accept plenty of garbage as true, even though you have nothing to support it.

And you not understanding it doesn't mean it isn't true, or that it isn't proven beyond any sane doubt or that it isn't science.

Quote from: Stash on January 11, 2023, 11:02:44 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 11, 2023, 08:23:54 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 08, 2023, 10:39:02 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on January 08, 2023, 06:41:54 AM

You've never once questioned any claims from your 'astronomers', who have NEVER allow others to see if their claims ARE true, or not true, which means they are NOT telling us the truth, because that is the ONLY reason they don't allow others to validate their claims as true, because they know it is NOT true.

This has got to be one of the strangest claims ever.

There are any number of observatories where you can go and are invited to even look through a mighty large telescope. You can buy your own high-powered telescope and look for yourself at leisure. There are a gazillion amateur astronomer/astro-videographers and photographers around, astronomy clubs, online and offline. Have you even thought to actually seek the "truth" yourself or are you just sitting there on a couch in the basement typing away at what's only inside your head?

If you don't want to be a sheeple, actually go and do something about it. Get out there and explore the cosmos yourself rather than just making up things to satisfy your internal sheeple belief system. Why so lazy?

You can study astronomy in college/uni if you so desire and have access to any data you want. Heck, even my old public high school now has a dome on the roof with a 12-inch Cassegrain telescope inside for upper level students of astronomy.

Just because you as a sheeple choose not to take advantage of the open access available is more a personal problem of yours - An extremely ignorant and bizarre claim that astronomers NEVER allow others to see if their claims ARE true. Have you ever even looked through a telescope? Binoculars?

Actually, it's totally valid.

Suppose I told you I have a painting. But all I let you see in person is this:

No, it's totally invalid. All you have to do is look up a local observatory and most likely they have open hours or classes and such where you can actually look for yourself through their instruments.

A quick google search:

Community Observatory   
Placerville, CA
"The Community Observatory is your window to the night sky! See the stars through the 17-inch and 14-inch reflecting telescopes on a clear, dark night. Follow planets or the moon as they travel across the sky. Bring the whole family for an unforgettable experience in the foothills of El Dorado County."

Whitin Observatory at Wellesley College
Wellesley, MA
"About once a month during the spring and fall semesters, Wellesley students and faculty open the Observatory to members of the public. Visitors are invited to take a tour, listen to talks, and (when clear) look through our 6-inch and 12-inch telescopes."


Adler Planetarium’s Doane Observatory
Chicago, IL
"While we try to open the Observatory on Wednesday nights during Adler at Night (also known as Illinois Resident Discount Days/free days), the weather makes the schedule a bit unpredictable. To know when the Doane will be open, join our Facebook Group. You can also check in at the box office on the evening of your visit to inquire about the availability of the Observatory."


And 100's more around the country, 1000's around the world.

It's just super ignorant, lame, and lazy to say astronomers are hiding everything behind a curtain when if you actually dropped the "Everything is a conspiracy!" bit for just a moment, you would actually see that you can see behind the curtain.

The problem with is from age six or so onward, you have let your teachers, films, and magazines (notably National Geographic) tell you how to examine the world.

That sounds like a personal education issue. My experience was the exact opposite.

I don't live near big cities (which btw have a messed up skyline because of chemicals, too mant streetlights, and planes).  But I can see ths night sky outside my back porch for free, every night. With my naked eye. It is precisely because of this that I have thrown away RE rhetoric. Because every night, I see similiar to this.

You don't have to live near a big city to visit an observatory. As I mentioned before, my old high school has one and it's in a very rural place. Zero light pollution. And like I mentioned, there are hundreds of observatories in the US, 1000's around the world, that aren't in major cities and don't suffer from light pollution. You're just making up excuses.

Not to mention the 10's of thousands, if not 100's of thousands of people around the world who have their own telescopes. You're just making up excuses.

I'm guessing you're smart enough to know this and you're just playing games at this point.

From your cities? "I see a round sky..." No you probably see the round shape of the telescope. Or you forgot the observatoty has a domes shape and looking ar the horizon through a dome creates a sensation of curvature.  You must always, always be aware of hos your surroundings affect what you see.

So you've never looked through a telescope? You realize you can look through a telescope not at the sky, you know, like a skyline, a plane, a car. Does it look "round" to you? Do you forsake the notion of people wearing glasses or contacts because they are looking through the round shape of magnifying lenses? Are you actually being serious?

As for observatory domes, if you've ever been to an observatory, or just happen to live in any sort of reality, you would see that the dome is opened and the telescope is pointed out through the opening. Literally anyone can see that. Are you just making up things for giggles, because that is the dumbest most easily refuted idiocy I can think of right now.

Apparently, you have zero sense of your surroundings for actually suggesting this.

I'm not believing "conspiracies".  If you were never ever told the Earth is round, you would believe it is flat.

You are the one who need to let go of preconceived notions, not me.

Actually no, there were plenty of ancients who determined the earth was a globe without having been told. And as a kid, if one had a proper education, there are many demonstrable, measurable, testable things that confirm it.

Until about age 34 or so, I fully accept the idea that the Earth was round. Then I saw something that didn't add up, so I decided to test my reality. I discovered that what I had been taught was filled with similar holes. So I threw out this nonsense in favor I what I was personally sure of.

So what was the thing you saw that changed your mind?

So if I'm not sure of something being true, I reject it as unproven. I certainly don't regard it as science.

That's a tremendous failing on your part then. It pretty much explains everything. You see, the way it is supposed to work is that when you feel something isn't true, you try and confirm that. Not immediately reject it. Your philosophy is a massive crash and burn and no wonder why you're so desperate to glom on to anything that fits your knee-jerk rejections - Making up shit all the time that takes 10 seconds to show that you are, unequivocally, wrong. You don't even stop to think about it. Case in point above: Observatories just point their telescopes at the inside of the roof to trick you. So lame. Everything you've said here is so easily refuted it's ridiculous at this point. You literally just fabricate things that I'm pretty sure you know are wrong. It's very strange that you do that. Why do you do that?

So what was the thing you saw that changed your mind?

It was me. And it was you.

I was on Minds, and I saw a GIF model of a disc world (no elephants) with sun and moon orbiting the Earth. I said to myself, "Yeah that's stupid, even though I'm in a conservative forum and there's all kinds of fringe ideas, flat Earth in this day and age?" But the more I looked at it, the more hypnotized I became ( that's what you want me to say right? That I got brainwashed? Sorry, that's me joking). No, the more I looked it,the more I thought "Hold up, why is it stupid? Here I am, thinking it is stupid because of something that teachers taught me. Something that I never bothered to test." So I spent the next several years on and off looking at the claims of flat Earthers. And then I'd do things like look at angles in the sky, in relation to sun, moon, mountains, clouds, etc. Different elevations, different times of day, and so on. I'd look at perspective, and models of the Earth's motion, and it basically just fell apart. And more importantly , well before that, I was really into health food, and I noticed the stock dodge when someone was lying about stuff. When a food additive gives you diabetes and other issues, they tell you it's "made from corn and fine in moderation." The same stock dodge I noticed with everyone when it came to this. If I were to tell you that Jesus was actually a shapeshifting fox girl, there would be some Christians that would be like "Heresy! Heresy!!!" but alot of them wouldn't care. Nor would Buddhists, Hindus, or atheists. They'd just think I'm a bit weird. But if there's something where 80% of the population seems to rush to defend against a perceived breach of orthodoxy, I kniw that there's something strange going on. That's a visceral reaponse. A conditioned response.



Trained dogs. And sheeple.

Quote

So what was the thing you saw that changed your mind?

It was me. And it was you.

I was on Minds, and I saw a GIF model of a disc world (no elephants) with sun and moon orbiting the Earth. I said to myself, "Yeah that's stupid, even though I'm in a conservative forum and there's all kinds of fringe ideas, flat Earth in this day and age?" But the more I looked at it, the more hypnotized I became ( that's what you want me to say right? That I got brainwashed? Sorry, that's me joking). No, the more I looked it,the more I thought "Hold up, why is it stupid? Here I am, thinking it is stupid because of something that teachers taught me. Something that I never bothered to test." So I spent the next several years on and off looking at the claims of flat Earthers. And then I'd do things like look at angles in the sky, in relation to sun, moon, mountains, clouds, etc. Different elevations, different times of day, and so on. I'd look at perspective, and models of the Earth's motion, and it basically just fell apart. And more importantly , well before that, I was really into health food, and I noticed the stock dodge when someone was lying about stuff. When a food additive gives you diabetes and other issues, they tell you it's "made from corn and fine in moderation." The same stock dodge I noticed with everyone when it came to this. If I were to tell you that Jesus was actually a shapeshifting fox girl, there would be some Christians that would be like "Heresy! Heresy!!!" but alot of them wouldn't care. Nor would Buddhists, Hindus, or atheists. They'd just think I'm a bit weird. But if there's something where 80% of the population seems to rush to defend against a perceived breach of orthodoxy, I kniw that there's something strange going on. That's a visceral reaponse. A conditioned response.



Trained dogs. And sheeple.

I don't know about how Christians would react, but I assume in a contextual setting, like in church or something, they would yell, "Heresy! Heresy!!!" As far as how Hindus, Buddhists, or Atheists would react, they would just dismiss you as they don't care what you believe about Jesus because they don't believe in Jesus anyway. It's of no relevance to them.

The reason why people get riled up about flat earth is because it's rooted in a massive conspiracy theory that claims that 100's of millions of people are liars. People take that somewhat personally.

It's unclear how whatever this health food same stock dodge has to do with physics, but just because a portion of a sector is on the grift doesn't mean the entire sector is and doesn't mean all sectors are across the board are. Seems irrelevant at best.

What about all the other stuff, wrong about everything regarding observatories, etc? Why you just make up stuff like that? Why not actually go to an observatory and ask questions? As someone posted, ask questions about what it is your skeptical about as you haven't made it clear actually what your problem is with telescopes, etc, except making up things that are easily shown as immediately wrong, like what you would like to see, etc. Instead of just making up outlandish completely unfounded claims, why not actually see what's what. Or does that violate your "if I think think it's untrue, I immediately reject it without any thought," mantra?

You seem to be entrenched deeply in the whole fantasy genre thing. Maybe it's that you like to make up stuff, world build, into the fantastical realm just to see if anyone buys into it, gives you some positive acclaim for creativity. It's unclear why you make up stuff like this. It's either trollish or you actually buy into the sheeple global conspiracy bit.

But if there's something where 80% of the population seems to rush to defend against a perceived breach of orthodoxy, I kniw that there's something strange going on. That's a visceral reaponse. A conditioned response.

I think most people react to Flat Earth the same way they would as if you said Hugh Grant was a robot - it's hardly a secret a lot of people find the idea unjustified. But overall, most people I genuinely don't think care one way or another, beyond that immediate gut reaction.
The visceral response tends to be more in set online spaces like this, and god I am not going to defend some of the users here, but I think it's one of those 'Don't assume malevolence when stupidity suffices' situations. FE has a degree of mainstream as an idiom for 'bad idea,' which in turn means the people that tend to come to sites and spaces like this do so because they think it's an easy win. They do it to argue against people they perceive as wrong, and do so expressly to refute and rebut. Some claim a higher purpose but... yeah, generally it is people joining up to mock, because no one else would care enough to join a flat earth space.
The worst people of any group are the loudest, and people can argue badly for both true worldviews and false worldviews. Please don't judge all REers by the dumbasses here.

I've been an advocate for FE many times when one of the people you talk about comes here and fires in with something utterly stupid in defense of RE. I've seen a bunch of REr's do the same.

But I mean, something like this...

No you probably see the round shape of the telescope. Or you forgot the observatoty has a domes shape and looking ar the horizon through a dome creates a sensation of curvature.  You must always, always be aware of hos your surroundings affect what you see.

...Is indefensible. Not to mention that no one even claimed to see the curvature on the horizon from an observatory, nor a telescope for that matter. Just bizarre.

I've been an advocate for FE many times when one of the people you talk about comes here and fires in with something utterly stupid in defense of RE. I've seen a bunch of REr's do the same.

But I mean, something like this...

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 12, 2023, 11:57:12 PM

No you probably see the round shape of the telescope. Or you forgot the observatoty has a domes shape and looking ar the horizon through a dome creates a sensation of curvature.  You must always, always be aware of hos your surroundings affect what you see.

...Is indefensible. Not to mention that no one even claimed to see the curvature on the horizon from an observatory, nor a telescope for that matter. Just bizarre.

I usually find that if someone says something that appears indefensible, there's a non-zero chance what you read isn't what they meant - or they did genuinely slip up and use poor phrasing/got threads confused. The latter especially tends to happen given how many posts end up directed at FEers.
'Round shape of the telescope' if you interpret as 'the lens is a circle so everything it sees is a circle' is indefensible, certainly, but 'Round shape of the telescope' feels believably like it could be referencing something akin to the usual fish-eye lens objection as well. The intention of the post would then be, presumably, 'Our observations of a curved horizon are, in some instances, unreliable, while our most reliable naked-eye (so, sans manipulation) observations appear to show it as flat,' going by the context.
I don't agree with all the implications, nor do I quite get some of the arguments, but I don't agree with the level of shock directed at it. I don't think assuming malevolence is ever a helpful approach.

Not everyone is perfect at putting their thoughts into words, especially when it comes to conveying an alternate view of how the world itself works. Some muddiness is expected. All the aggressive approach does is preclude any chance of someone saying "Okay, fair point, I put that poorly." There have been more than a few times I remember talking to someone, thought they were talking total crap, and then a page in they phrased the same point slightly differently and it was an "Oh, that actually makes way more sense," and it clicked.

Quote from: Stash on January 13, 2023, 08:56:25 AM

I've been an advocate for FE many times when one of the people you talk about comes here and fires in with something utterly stupid in defense of RE. I've seen a bunch of REr's do the same.

But I mean, something like this...

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 12, 2023, 11:57:12 PM

No you probably see the round shape of the telescope. Or you forgot the observatoty has a domes shape and looking ar the horizon through a dome creates a sensation of curvature.  You must always, always be aware of hos your surroundings affect what you see.

...Is indefensible. Not to mention that no one even claimed to see the curvature on the horizon from an observatory, nor a telescope for that matter. Just bizarre.

I usually find that if someone says something that appears indefensible, there's a non-zero chance what you read isn't what they meant - or they did genuinely slip up and use poor phrasing/got threads confused. The latter especially tends to happen given how many posts end up directed at FEers.
'Round shape of the telescope' if you interpret as 'the lens is a circle so everything it sees is a circle' is indefensible, certainly, but 'Round shape of the telescope' feels believably like it could be referencing something akin to the usual fish-eye lens objection as well. The intention of the post would then be, presumably, 'Our observations of a curved horizon are, in some instances, unreliable, while our most reliable naked-eye (so, sans manipulation) observations appear to show it as flat,' going by the context.

You're assuming a lot.

I don't agree with all the implications, nor do I quite get some of the arguments, but I don't agree with the level of shock directed at it. I don't think assuming malevolence is ever a helpful approach.

I disagree. It's kinda shocking when someone makes a claim like the dome of an observatory causes one to see earth curve, as an example, which no one was even claiming to begin with. But I mean c'mon, what if there is no dome, but a flat roof? What if it's just a telescope outside? Does a building look round through a telescope? Does a view through glasses or contacts look round? I just looked through a round magnifying glass and nothing looked round. The list goes on.
It gets ludicrous when someone is just grasping at anything to support a belief system without thinking it through, just for the sole reason it fits their narrative. That is what I consider not a helpful approach. And I find it disingenuous. Which then begs other questions as to why.

And it's shocking still when the implications are that many people I know, based upon their chosen vocations, are deemed liars or en masse somehow not dialed in enough to understand that their worldly endeavors are all a sham. I have a problem with that.

Not everyone is perfect at putting their thoughts into words, especially when it comes to conveying an alternate view of how the world itself works. Some muddiness is expected. All the aggressive approach does is preclude any chance of someone saying "Okay, fair point, I put that poorly." There have been more than a few times I remember talking to someone, thought they were talking total crap, and then a page in they phrased the same point slightly differently and it was an "Oh, that actually makes way more sense," and it clicked.

Sure. But again, you're assuming a lot (just as I am perhaps) and not taking into account post history. There's no "Okay, fair point, I put that poorly" here, in this case, ever.

Sure. But again, you're assuming a lot (just as I am perhaps) and not taking into account post history. There's no "Okay, fair point, I put that poorly" here, in this case, ever.

In general, my experience on this site has been that there are a wealth of FEers that are stereotyped as obstinate and uncommunicative, that were incredibly helpful when approached in a non-confrontational fashion. Scepti, JRowe, Sandokhan, all ones that I've seen referred to similarly to Bulma, and all who I was able to have a genuine discussion and back-and-forth with. The problem is that it just takes one user to turn a discussion to a battleground, and at that point all that happens is people get more entrenched in their perceptions and no one learns anything. There are environments where no human being is ever going to say 'My bad,' and it's when they're forced onto the defensive because they're met with accusations rather than inquiry.
I agree we're both making assumptions, but for me assuming that the person you're talking to is incapable of making a point tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. It seems more beneficial to try to figure out how what they say is relevant, than assume it's not.
I'll admit I haven't talked to Bulma as much as you, but that's because she tends to get mobbed, and I don't like joining mobs. When she's replying to a dozen posts at once, it's inevitable some points might end up rushed. If you just want to jump on ambiguities, that's helpful, but if you want to have a conversation then it kinda sucks.

And it's shocking still when the implications are that many people I know, based upon their chosen vocations, are deemed liars or en masse somehow not dialed in enough to understand that their worldly endeavors are all a sham. I have a problem with that.

Ditto. I just don't think accusation and aggression are helpful solutions. Typically they just turn interlocutors into enemies and prevent any possibility of dialogue.
The ironic thing is that you're echoing Bulma's point - when the people you talk to on the other side act like a wall, you reject them as conversation partners, and in turn they then see you as a wall and reject you, and when the next REer comes along they see that wariness... It's a whole cycle that just pushes people deeper into their own preconceptions. It's unhelpful, no matter your perspective.

 

Quote

    So I spent the next several years on and off looking at the claims of flat Earthers. And then I'd do things like look at angles in the sky, in relation to sun, moon, mountains, clouds, etc. Different elevations, different times of day, and so on. I'd look at perspective, and models of the Earth's motion, and it basically just fell apart. 

You looked, but did you ask?  How big is the FE sun?   How big is the FE moon?  How far away are they?   Did you get answers?  I've asked repeatedly.  No one has answered.

Also, no one looks through an observatory dome.  The dome is made of metal and concrete.  It is there to support the telescope which extends to the outside of the dome.

It's no wonder you believe in a FE.

Did you ever notice those hills have a clear "horizon" and how items on those hills disappear from sight bottom-up?

No, the more I looked it,the more I thought "Hold up, why is it stupid? Here I am, thinking it is stupid because of something that teachers taught me.

i.e. it was because you didn't understand the RE model at all, or any of the evidence supporting it.
So you were easily conned.

So I spent the next several years on and off looking at the claims of flat Earthers.

Yet not the refutations of those claims, and not the claims of science supporting a RE, with the mountains of evidence for it.

But if there's something where 80% of the population seems to rush to defend against a perceived breach of orthodoxy, I kniw that there's something strange going on.

The majority of the population doesn't give a damn that you want to delusional BS like Earth is flat.
Telling someone that you believe Earth is flat, and them calling you an idiot in response is not them rushing to defend against a perceived breach of orthodoxy.

So it seems you just got fooled by FE conmen, buying all their lies; in part due to a horrible education where you likely didn't give a damn.

And now you are just helping those FE conmen, by spouting the same delusional BS. The big difference being people are objecting to it.
People are explaining why your claims against the RE fail, and are blatant misrepresentations of the RE model or just outright lies about reality.
People are pointing out the holes in your attempt to defend a FE.

You have even reached the point of outright ignoring massive problems, like the observed regions of Earth which are illuminated by the sun.

In general, my experience on this site has been that there are a wealth of FEers that are stereotyped as obstinate and uncommunicative, that were incredibly helpful when approached in a non-confrontational fashion.

I would say that highly depends upon how you define "non-confrontational".
If you mean being willing to accept whatever they say without questioning, without showing any fault, including not showing any internal contradiction of the model, then sure. But I would say such conversations aren't helpful at all, and wouldn't count as an actual discussion.
I would say that is more appropriately labelled as preaching or lecturing (and the bad kind of lecturing).

If you mean in the more general sense of the word, then you can be non-confrontational, but as soon as you start showing they are wrong, in a manner they can't refute, they go back to their stubborn ways.

The problem isn't another user turning it into a battleground.
The problem is their reaction to another user not accepting what they are saying, especially if the other user can clearly demonstrate why they are wrong.
That is not intrinsically making it a battleground or being confrontational. It is a key part of having a discussion.

If they don't want a discussion they should be on a forum for debate.

Ditto. I just don't think accusation and aggression are helpful solutions. Typically they just turn interlocutors into enemies and prevent any possibility of dialogue.

And I would say it is the other way around.
They demonstrate that there is no possibility of a dialogue, that they are happy to spout the same refuted claims multiple times, flee from the refutations and the spout it again.
Then because of that, there are conclusions drawn about them.

I would say that highly depends upon how you define "non-confrontational".
If you mean being willing to accept whatever they say without questioning, without showing any fault, including not showing any internal contradiction of the model, then sure. But I would say such conversations aren't helpful at all, and wouldn't count as an actual discussion.
I would say that is more appropriately labelled as preaching or lecturing (and the bad kind of lecturing).

In my mind, it depends on if the first thing you say in answer to anything of theirs is a perceived fault. There's room for posts that are just polite questions, with the expectation that they've heard the question before or have thought about the topic before and have an answer ready. Rushing straight to "And here's why it all falls apart," with the expectation of finding an unambiguous internal contradiction, as opposed to taking the time to confirm it even is even vaguely an accurate reading, is confrontational in my mind. When every post, even to brand new users with views you don't know, seems to be intended as a standalone argument rather than information gathering, all that'll do is give the perception that you're unable or unwilling to understand their viewpoint and prevent any discussion nor any hope of being listened to.

There is a difference between "You can't explain why things fall!!!! fucking idiots." and "How would you account for forces that seem to be exerted by static objects?" even if the meat of the substance of each post is comparable. 

The problem is their reaction to another user not accepting what they are saying, especially if the other user can clearly demonstrate why they are wrong.

And a user that assumes they are wrong while providing straw men as they don't know the position the FEer even holds or the argument they're making in any detail, users that rely on straw men and exhaustion fallacies, or who throw out insult after insult?
Such a user could clearly demonstrate a flaw and it would go ignored because they've shot their own credibility, and turned debate into a mudslinging contest. It's well-established at this point that aggressive debate just makes people dig their heels in, on any topic. FEers do it, REers do it, I do it, you do it, no human is immune, we just do the best we can.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 13, 2023, 03:07:17 PM

I would say that highly depends upon how you define "non-confrontational".
If you mean being willing to accept whatever they say without questioning, without showing any fault, including not showing any internal contradiction of the model, then sure. But I would say such conversations aren't helpful at all, and wouldn't count as an actual discussion.
I would say that is more appropriately labelled as preaching or lecturing (and the bad kind of lecturing).

In my mind, it depends on if the first thing you say in answer to anything of theirs is a perceived fault. There's room for posts that are just polite questions, with the expectation that they've heard the question before or have thought about the topic before and have an answer ready. Rushing straight to "And here's why it all falls apart," with the expectation of finding an unambiguous internal contradiction, as opposed to taking the time to confirm it even is even vaguely an accurate reading, is confrontational in my mind. When every post, even to brand new users with views you don't know, seems to be intended as a standalone argument rather than information gathering, all that'll do is give the perception that you're unable or unwilling to understand their viewpoint and prevent any discussion nor any hope of being listened to.

There is a difference between "You can't explain why things fall!!!! fucking idiots." and "How would you account for forces that seem to be exerted by static objects?" even if the meat of the substance of each post is comparable. 

Quote from: JackBlack on January 13, 2023, 03:07:17 PM

The problem is their reaction to another user not accepting what they are saying, especially if the other user can clearly demonstrate why they are wrong.

And a user that assumes they are wrong while providing straw men as they don't know the position the FEer even holds or the argument they're making in any detail, users that rely on straw men and exhaustion fallacies, or who throw out insult after insult?
Such a user could clearly demonstrate a flaw and it would go ignored because they've shot their own credibility, and turned debate into a mudslinging contest. It's well-established at this point that aggressive debate just makes people dig their heels in, on any topic. FEers do it, REers do it, I do it, you do it, no human is immune, we just do the best we can.

It's a debate forum.  What do you mean non-confrontational?

de·bate
/dəˈbāt/

noun
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

verb
argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.


con·fron·ta·tion·al
/ˌkänfrənˈtāSH(ə)nəl/

adjective
tending to deal with situations in an aggressive way; hostile or argumentative.

Debating is confrontational.

It's a debate forum.  What do you mean non-confrontational?
...
Debating is confrontational.

In my mind, it depends on if the first thing you say in answer to anything of theirs is a perceived fault. There's room for posts that are just polite questions, with the expectation that they've heard the question before or have thought about the topic before and have an answer ready. Rushing straight to "And here's why it all falls apart," with the expectation of finding an unambiguous internal contradiction, as opposed to taking the time to confirm it even is even vaguely an accurate reading, is confrontational in my mind. When every post, even to brand new users with views you don't know, seems to be intended as a standalone argument rather than information gathering, all that'll do is give the perception that you're unable or unwilling to understand their viewpoint and prevent any discussion nor any hope of being listened to.

There is a difference between "You can't explain why things fall!!!! fucking idiots." and "How would you account for forces that seem to be exerted by static objects?" even if the meat of the substance of each post is comparable. 

Or:
"tending to deal with situations in an aggressive way; hostile or argumentative."
You don't need to be hostile to have a debate. You really don't.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on January 13, 2023, 03:47:04 PM

It's a debate forum.  What do you mean non-confrontational?
...
Debating is confrontational.

Quote from: Slime on January 13, 2023, 03:37:58 PM

In my mind, it depends on if the first thing you say in answer to anything of theirs is a perceived fault. There's room for posts that are just polite questions, with the expectation that they've heard the question before or have thought about the topic before and have an answer ready. Rushing straight to "And here's why it all falls apart," with the expectation of finding an unambiguous internal contradiction, as opposed to taking the time to confirm it even is even vaguely an accurate reading, is confrontational in my mind. When every post, even to brand new users with views you don't know, seems to be intended as a standalone argument rather than information gathering, all that'll do is give the perception that you're unable or unwilling to understand their viewpoint and prevent any discussion nor any hope of being listened to.

There is a difference between "You can't explain why things fall!!!! fucking idiots." and "How would you account for forces that seem to be exerted by static objects?" even if the meat of the substance of each post is comparable. 

Or:
"tending to deal with situations in an aggressive way; hostile or argumentative."
You don't need to be hostile to have a debate. You really don't.

OR    Argumentative. 

OR    Argumentative.

'Argue' is open to interpretation. I don't see how 'Don't be hostile or aggressive' is confusing though.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on January 13, 2023, 04:16:14 PM

OR    Argumentative.

'Argue' is open to interpretation. I don't see how 'Don't be hostile or aggressive' is confusing though.

Don't interpret confrontational as only being hostile or aggressive.

Quote from: Slime on January 13, 2023, 04:25:21 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on January 13, 2023, 04:16:14 PM

OR    Argumentative.

'Argue' is open to interpretation. I don't see how 'Don't be hostile or aggressive' is confusing though.

Don't interpret confrontational as only being hostile or aggressive.

Don't jump on the most bad-faith reading imaginable of a post unless you want to get called hostile and aggressive.

Quote from: Stash on January 13, 2023, 09:33:57 AM

Sure. But again, you're assuming a lot (just as I am perhaps) and not taking into account post history. There's no "Okay, fair point, I put that poorly" here, in this case, ever.

In general, my experience on this site has been that there are a wealth of FEers that are stereotyped as obstinate and uncommunicative, that were incredibly helpful when approached in a non-confrontational fashion. Scepti, JRowe, Sandokhan, all ones that I've seen referred to similarly to Bulma, and all who I was able to have a genuine discussion and back-and-forth with. The problem is that it just takes one user to turn a discussion to a battleground, and at that point all that happens is people get more entrenched in their perceptions and no one learns anything. There are environments where no human being is ever going to say 'My bad,' and it's when they're forced onto the defensive because they're met with accusations rather than inquiry.
I agree we're both making assumptions, but for me assuming that the person you're talking to is incapable of making a point tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. It seems more beneficial to try to figure out how what they say is relevant, than assume it's not.
I'll admit I haven't talked to Bulma as much as you, but that's because she tends to get mobbed, and I don't like joining mobs. When she's replying to a dozen posts at once, it's inevitable some points might end up rushed. If you just want to jump on ambiguities, that's helpful, but if you want to have a conversation then it kinda sucks.

Again, you'd have to go into post history. Things you've mentioned have been tried. The nicey-picey stuff. Exhausted, perhaps not, but tried nonetheless.

The, "Why don't you explain how you think this works", is met with bizarre, always conspiratorial things. Always culminating, when very clear, pristine things are presented with, "It's FAKE!" What is one supposed to do with that? It's the ultimate FE out - When observations don't meet with an FE notion, the "It's FAKE!" lever is pulled.

That's 100% discussion killer right there. That's the problem with any conspiratorial debate/discussion. It's super easy (and lazy) to be like, "Well, it's all fake because something is capable of being faked" - Whether it really is or not. Documentation presented, oh that's fake because people can fake documents. Video/imagery is fake because people can fake video/imagery. The list is endless.

Not to mention, lots and lots of musings with zero evidence. Endlessly so.

So in short. It's pretty hard to have a discussion of any sort when regardless of the veracity or volume of evidence, it's all just simply fake.

Quote

And it's shocking still when the implications are that many people I know, based upon their chosen vocations, are deemed liars or en masse somehow not dialed in enough to understand that their worldly endeavors are all a sham. I have a problem with that.

Ditto. I just don't think accusation and aggression are helpful solutions. Typically they just turn interlocutors into enemies and prevent any possibility of dialogue.
The ironic thing is that you're echoing Bulma's point - when the people you talk to on the other side act like a wall, you reject them as conversation partners, and in turn they then see you as a wall and reject you, and when the next REer comes along they see that wariness... It's a whole cycle that just pushes people deeper into their own preconceptions. It's unhelpful, no matter your perspective.

It doesn't really matter. The pre-conception coming in from the get go is conspiratorial and anything that points to otherwise is manufactured to perpetuate the "big lie". Simple as that. There may be this theory, or that theory as to how an observation may meet FE. But again, it doesn't really matter. When an observation is shown not to meet, it's simply disregarded out of hand as fakery. So if you really distill it down, how the discussion goes doesn't really matter.

In my mind, it depends on if the first thing you say in answer to anything of theirs is a perceived fault. There's room for posts that are just polite questions, with the expectation that they've heard the question before or have thought about the topic before and have an answer ready. Rushing straight to "And here's why it all falls apart," with the expectation of finding an unambiguous internal contradiction, as opposed to taking the time to confirm it even is even vaguely an accurate reading, is confrontational in my mind.

So you are saying that they are coming here confrontational.
That they aren't coming here with polite questions about the RE, instead they come with the intent to attack the RE?

The point is, I have never seen a conversation with those users you mention where they are actually willing to engage in a debate.
As soon as you go to anything which they don't have an answer for, the try to shut it down.

If someone comes here claiming that RE is wrong because of X Y and Z, then a perfectly acceptable response should be explaining why those arguments fail. That is not being any more confrontational than they are.

No downwards-pull theory of gravity explains why gravity appears to stop acting on this water bottle while in free-fall. If you thought that  gravity acts as if things are being pulled downwards, you are wrong.



Gravity operates as if gravity doesn't exist and the earth is accelerating upwards, per Einstein's Equivalence Principle.

In fact, General Relativity is an elaborate meta-physical theory arranged to explain that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through space-time in unseen dimensions to explain this effect. Unfortunately this can't really be explained outside of obtuse mathematics. The above experiment can't be explained sensibly with meta-physical bending space and its proponents will opt to try to talk about something indirectly related in defense, ignoring a direct explanation of the weirdness seen above.

No downwards-pull theory of gravity explains why gravity appears to stop acting on this water bottle while in free-fall. If you thought that  gravity acts as if things are being pulled downwards, you are wrong.

Gravity operates as if gravity doesn't exist and the earth is accelerating upwards, per Einstein's Equivalence Principle.

Except the explanation that has already been provided in this thread.
And if you understood the equivalence principle, you would understand that if it can be explained by an upwards acceleration, it can also be explained by a downwards force from gravity.

The distinction, which you continually flee from or make excuses for is that UA can't explain why g varies across Earth, while gravity can.

It doesn't really matter. The pre-conception coming in from the get go is conspiratorial and anything that points to otherwise is manufactured to perpetuate the "big lie". Simple as that. There may be this theory, or that theory as to how an observation may meet FE. But again, it doesn't really matter. When an observation is shown not to meet, it's simply disregarded out of hand as fakery. So if you really distill it down, how the discussion goes doesn't really matter.

I'm not touching the 'Nice stuff has been tried' because I feel we might be coming at it with very different definitions, to say nothing of the difficulty in a conversation with so many users jumping in, but treating this as an end point is... weird. Granting it, okay, then by asking questions without kicking up a fight, you get an idea of the extent the conspiracy needs to cover. That's not nothing.
But there are, inevitably, non-conspiratorial answers - no one denies objects falling, for example, there are simple scientific questions to understand. If someone ends up rejecting the arguments for gravity varying based on altitude - which I don't recall seeing too much of, though maybe it's gotten more common - then that'd be conspiratorial, but it's an answer. If you dislike conspiratorial answers, sure, I'm with you, edges close to near-solipsism levels of unhelpful unknowableness, but is any more achieved by meeting them with aggression? That still doesn't seem to serve a benefit even after what you've said.

So you are saying that they are coming here confrontational.
That they aren't coming here with polite questions about the RE, instead they come with the intent to attack the RE?

The point is, I have never seen a conversation with those users you mention where they are actually willing to engage in a debate.
As soon as you go to anything which they don't have an answer for, the try to shut it down.

If someone comes here claiming that RE is wrong because of X Y and Z, then a perfectly acceptable response should be explaining why those arguments fail. That is not being any more confrontational than they are.

Sure, the "Water always finds its level," kinda stuff, yeah that's an argument to respond to should a FEer make a thread. Misunderstanding of gravity, etc, though yelling about how wrong they are is, again, unhelpful in any discussion.
But it does tend to be less FEers that make threads. They'll make acknowledgements of things in their worldview in discussion, with perceived evidence thrown in, that makes sense and is what ought to be expected - if you're going to jump on any minor mention of something you disagree with though even in a thread that's focused on something else, that's what turns your approach to confrontational rather than any kind of dialogue. If it really bugs you, add a line about "I disagree with your read of this situation, but to focus on the topic of the thread..." because otherwise you come off as relying on exhaustion fallacies and evasion.
Throwback to old users where you couldn't as much as whisper the word Eratosphenes even as an offhand, tangential example without them springing in with a page devoted to trying to show how the experiment refutes FET.

Not every post you make has to be a perfect compendium of arguments against Flat Earth. That's at best hasty, and at worst just comes off as defensive. There's nothing wrong with letting some points slide for the time being, in order to actually dialogue about the subject of a thread.