Flat Earth, are Van Allen Belts real?

Quote from: Slime on January 20, 2023, 06:23:04 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 20, 2023, 06:17:08 AM

Only a person intellectually dishonest would claim it’s a hoax because actual data, and data changed over time as missions and instruments became mote refined, from the original theorized values based on a model with unknowns.  Specially if your stance is “the earth might be flat because we keep learning and our knowledge keeps changing”.

My stance is not "The Earth might be flat," my stance is "Respond to the arguments FEers actually make." Do you disagree?

My stance is to not believe misleading arguments manufactured by flat earther’s.  To check if their arguments are based on actual historical facts, or based on their manufactured mythology. 

Cool. Same. Hence wanting to be able to respond to their actual arguments. Are we on the same page?

You're assuming a lot based upon a simple assertion:

- What "first" reports? (Actually, there were some, but not at all characterized as truly detecting the belts and their potential harm, more, hmmm, I wonder what these reading are all about - But I'll get to that in a bit)
- Who's the 'who' that considered them accurate?

Again, reality context. When questions like that are asked, of this particular individual, you simply get an all caps response yelling things like, "there is NO WAY TO EVER PROVE 'SPACE' EVEN EXISTS," or, "Are you brain damaged, or have memory loss? I've just TOLD you." Helpful.

I'd agree I'm making assumptions, but I'm also a proponent of giving people a chance. (If you want me to be pretentious, I can start quoting the principle of charity and principle of humanity). If there are multiple interpretations of someone's argument, many of which are nonsensical, and one is valid, it just seems more useful to pick the latter. Anything else fails to reach, well, anyone.
Plus, context goes both ways. You've given your perspective on how these conversations go, but look at it from his:

FEer: VAB refute space travel.
REer: No they don't. The data says it's fine.
FEer: Actually the data is unreliable, as the claimed measurements changed as soon as they realised it'd be a problem.
REer: Shush, the data's fine.

Like, if you want to complain his post lacks detail, that's fair. But to claim he gave nothing with an implication seems to me to be just false: "First reports were revised," is a direct attack on the credibility of Van Allen. If sound, you're left with "Van Allen's claims cannot be trusted - the numbers were meddled with, so if the experiments happened at all, they show the impossibility of manned space flight." The response of 'But you don't trust the experiment!' is avoiding the topic, unless you're conceding this, which I'm assuming you're not.
If you disagree with the chain of reasoning, I'm with you, but to not acknowledge the "First reports were changed," claim to at least ask for source or incident is something that would justifiably result in you being accused of ignoring a point. Maybe Turbo puts it aggressively, eh, plenty of REers are just as aggressive. It's not a style I like, but I've got better things to do than become an etiquette teacher. The logic is way more interesting.

The assertion is that there were "two" experiments. Who said there was a "first" experiment? What was the "first" experiment"? As in, how was the "first" experiment carried out? Was it in a petri dish or in space? (Again, I'll get to the "first" ina bit)

The assertion bit is exactly this, "Yeah, well, unknown experiment 1 findings were intentionally contradicted after experiment 2 to hide the dangers that were found in experiment 1 (because experiment 2 never really happened anyway because rockets are fake and so is space!"

The issue with this response is that it misses the core of their argument - like, if you're conceding that the experiments genuinely never happened so nothing can be amiss, sure, that's a response, but I feel like it's not your actual position.
I'd agree more specificity with regards to the experiments would help - I assume he's talking Explorer 1 and Explorer 3 as they were the first direct measurements of the VAB, but it's absolutely possible I'm wrong. It might be a "Theoretical predictions clashed with the supposed actual measurements," which a FEer could easily hold to, though it would be a weaker argument. Either way, there are plenty of avenues for this to be provided justification, just as there would be plenty of ways to critique each subsequent argument.

Is it vague? Sure. I'll happily criticise it for that, it's certainly frustrating when that happens, and if you want me to complain about offhand/poorly expressed arguments, I'll happily do so. It just feels odd to assume they fail, as opposed to asking for clarification. At the same time, this is where context rears its head again. Any time a FEer posts, three or four REers will pop up to tear into their posts, and if these subtleties are lost or ignored then all that happens is they'll feel like three people popped up, straw manned them, and claimed victory. That's not exactly an environment that'll encourage people to make detailed cases or put effort into replying.

At the end of the day, dozens of people have flown through the belt and back again and lived to ripe old ages. Some are still alive. That is just a fact.

So any argument saying this Van Allen Belt prevents space travel is moot. It's been done and no problem. You get more radiation exposure from the longer time spent in regular space even for a ride as close as the moon


Flat Earthers need to accept established and verifyable facts and work their arguments around that. Denying reality only makes them look like a troll or in serious need of mental help.

Not even sure of the logic why space travel is impossible because the earth is flat. There is no need to slap that argument on. Just creates more work for them to ad hoc reasons why

Not even sure of the logic why space travel is impossible because the earth is flat. There is no need to slap that argument on. Just creates more work for them to ad hoc reasons why

The argument I usually see is that, for those that hold scientists to be mistaken as opposed to knowing the Earth is flat and hiding it, then it was the failure to get into space that sparked the fake photos of the Earth from orbit etc. They tried to get to space, couldn't, and with cold war pressures resolved to just lie about it. Thus, a justification for all the photos of the world.
If people have gone to space, it becomes harder to justify conspiracy elements - it's easier to defend "Saving face after the cold war," than it is "They know the shape of the Earth and are hiding it for Reasons." At least for some factions, some definitely tend towards the latter, but seems to be less common here anyway.

Cool. Same. Hence wanting to be able to respond to their actual arguments. Are we on the same page?

No.  I don’t think we are on the same page.  There are some flat earther “arguments” so rooted in propaganda, manufactured myth, and by designed are to distract from reality.  Sometimes you have to call their BS, and keep from getting sided tracked by their delusional rabbit hole, and blatantly argue reality.

Flat earths want to argue otherwise, but…

Tides are caused by the gravity of the moon and sun.

Radar is not sounded waves.

Man made satellites are broadcasting from orbits above earth.

Rocket fuel proportioned right with oxidizer will burn in an inert atmosphere, and in a vacuum.

There is no reason to lie about the working reality the earth is spherical.

You don’t need to build huge vacuum tubes to demonstrate radio and radar waves propagate across a vacuum.

It’s a fact radar and radio waves travel at the speed of light. 

There are experiments that show’s mass has the fundamental force to attract mass.


There is no solid dome and no continuous layer of water with a measurable dimension above the earth. 

Antarctica is a landmass at the South Pole the can be sailed around in a few weeks.  Not an ice wall encircling the whole known world that could be gotten to by traveling in any direction on the compass from any spot on the world, that would take a year to sail its complete circuit. 

Quote from: Slime on January 20, 2023, 01:05:21 PM

Cool. Same. Hence wanting to be able to respond to their actual arguments. Are we on the same page?

No.  I don’t think we are on the same page.  There are some flat earther “arguments” so rooted in propaganda, manufactured myth, and by designed are to distract from reality.  Sometimes you have to call their BS, and keep from getting sided tracked by their delusional rabbit hole, and blatantly argue reality.

Flat earths want to argue otherwise, but…

Is science based on assertion, or repeated evidence and justification?
In my book, the reason we accept those conclusions is because of the evidence. Argue the evidence, show it's solid, and you have a case.
Meanwhile if you just assert, you come off as anti-scientific.

Quote from: Stash on January 20, 2023, 11:33:33 AM

You're assuming a lot based upon a simple assertion:

- What "first" reports? (Actually, there were some, but not at all characterized as truly detecting the belts and their potential harm, more, hmmm, I wonder what these reading are all about - But I'll get to that in a bit)
- Who's the 'who' that considered them accurate?

Again, reality context. When questions like that are asked, of this particular individual, you simply get an all caps response yelling things like, "there is NO WAY TO EVER PROVE 'SPACE' EVEN EXISTS," or, "Are you brain damaged, or have memory loss? I've just TOLD you." Helpful.

I'd agree I'm making assumptions, but I'm also a proponent of giving people a chance.

Again, context and post history. Chances have been given. Typical responses, see above.

(If you want me to be pretentious, I can start quoting the principle of charity and principle of humanity).

Oh, please do...

If there are multiple interpretations of someone's argument, many of which are nonsensical, and one is valid, it just seems more useful to pick the latter. Anything else fails to reach, well, anyone.
Plus, context goes both ways. You've given your perspective on how these conversations go, but look at it from his:

FEer: VAB refute space travel.
REer: No they don't. The data says it's fine.
FEer: Actually the data is unreliable, as the claimed measurements changed as soon as they realised it'd be a problem.
REer: Shush, the data's fine.

FEer: Actually the data is unreliable, as the claimed measurements changed as soon as they realised it'd be a problem.
REer: What claimed measurements? What was changed from what measurements?
FEer: There is NO WAY TO EVER PROVE 'SPACE' EVEN EXISTS!
REer: Shush, here's all the data/findings that shows how to get around the issue....in space...that doesn't exist...therefore there is no VAB...ergo, there is no problem...except for the fact that space doesn't exist. Now what data is unreliable?


Presenting data, papers, evidence, whatever, showing how a solution was engineered is simply disregarded out of hand, because, in this case, space doesn't exist. I'm actually being expedient.

Like, if you want to complain his post lacks detail, that's fair. But to claim he gave nothing with an implication seems to me to be just false: "First reports were revised," is a direct attack on the credibility of Van Allen. If sound, you're left with "Van Allen's claims cannot be trusted - the numbers were meddled with, so if the experiments happened at all, they show the impossibility of manned space flight." The response of 'But you don't trust the experiment!' is avoiding the topic, unless you're conceding this, which I'm assuming you're not.

I see your point. Perhaps the questions should have been:

- What first reports?
- How were these first reports generated and based on what? You know, what methodology?
- What did these first reports actually say?

Answers, lately, would be silence or not addressing the question or not addressing the question because in this case, what prompted VA's first "report" was generated using rockets in space. The "second" report would be the actual detecting and harmful nature derived from the data received from a satellite. Both "reports", contradictory or not (actually not), would be summarily deemed as fake! Now, an entirely new argument: Space is fake, period.
Super helpful.

I'm just cutting to the chase, saving people from having to go and see that whatever there argument is, first study this, second study that, contradiction here or there, VAB is harmful, doesn't matter, space doesn't even exist so it's a non-starter anyway.

Point being, all of this really doesn't matter because everything ultimately distills down to:

1) The truth is being hidden, conspiracy
2) Anything and everything that may show otherwise is fake (see #1)

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 20, 2023, 03:45:49 PM

Quote from: Slime on January 20, 2023, 01:05:21 PM

Cool. Same. Hence wanting to be able to respond to their actual arguments. Are we on the same page?

No.  I don’t think we are on the same page.  There are some flat earther “arguments” so rooted in propaganda, manufactured myth, and by designed are to distract from reality.  Sometimes you have to call their BS, and keep from getting sided tracked by their delusional rabbit hole, and blatantly argue reality.

Flat earths want to argue otherwise, but…

Is science based on assertion, or repeated evidence and justification?
In my book, the reason we accept those conclusions is because of the evidence. Argue the evidence, show it's solid, and you have a case.
Meanwhile if you just assert, you come off as anti-scientific.

Hence this part of my post, “Flat earths want to argue otherwise, but…”

When I mean argue, I mean flat earther’s using false accusations of “it’s a lie”.  With no proof.  Providing no credible alternative explanation. 

I have gone to great links to provide cited sources founded on scientific principles, and provided my own first hand accounts. 

What is the most credible flat earth scientific explanation for tides?   

Again, context and post history. Chances have been given. Typical responses, see above.

I mean you know what I'm going to say in regards to how effective the replies to them previously have been  Dealing with being outnumbered, with a decent number of people straw manning or ignoring, tends to make people terse.
Like, sure, maybe a user is just an asshole, but I've seen enough users that can be dickish in-thread, and much more reasonable without the pressure of being mobbed to at least be inclined to give a chance.

I see your point. Perhaps the questions should have been:

- What first reports?
- How were these first reports generated and based on what? You know, what methodology?
- What did these first reports actually say?

Answers, lately, would be silence or not addressing the question or not addressing the question because in this case, what prompted VA's first "report" was generated using rockets in space. The "second" report would be the actual detecting and harmful nature derived from the data received from a satellite. Both "reports", contradictory or not (actually not), would be summarily deemed as fake! Now, an entirely new argument: Space is fake, period.
Super helpful.

I think speculating on how a conversation would have gone based on if people had actually replied to the post, based on assuming someone would act the same as if they went ignored, may not be the most reliable of tactics. Like, maybe you're right and they'll do that argument swap-out in response to a simple query about sources - which we seem to be agreed would be a better response - and if that's the case, sure you'll find me condemning that. But given that we are just speculating on what reports are being talked about, and as such have multiple ways to talk about potential incongruity, we're getting into very speculative territory.

Point being, all of this really doesn't matter because everything ultimately distills down to:

1) The truth is being hidden, conspiracy
2) Anything and everything that may show otherwise is fake (see #1)

Maybe things have changed with some of the new users, but a lot of the time there are limits set on an actual conspiracy. The typical belief is that the majority of scientists are just mistaken and not 'in on it' and if that's the case, if you can get someone to a position that solidly establishes an individual and their team as needing to be actively deceitful, it may not feel it but that's actually an achievement.

I have gone to great links to provide cited sources founded on scientific principles, and provided my own first hand accounts. 

Yes, and your first hand accounts were always either fine under FET, or 90% smokescreen, so they were kinda crap as arguments, we've been over this. This is why it's important to actually understand FE claims and make informed responses, otherwise you come off as well as the people that claim water always finds its level.
And citing sources is great! If you're willing to put in the legwork to show reliability if you're in a situation where the source is distrusted. Otherwise it's just assertion and/or appeal to authority.

Yes, and your first hand accounts were always either fine under FET, or 90% smokescreen, so they were kinda crap as arguments,

Depends on how they are given…


This BS…

Have you ever flown in blue skies, with clouds seen below you? I've seen it many, many times before, and I will in future.

You can look into countless weather reports, which mention any clouds there, and what types of clouds are seen there.

You're trying to argue that on the only two days those rockets were launched, all the clouds were much higher than normal or average clouds are.....

Good one/

Vs this with context and cited source…

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 17, 2022, 02:50:51 AM

Your irrefutable fact is not irrefutable.

Oh.  You mean like how it was proven to be shown irrefutable that rocket motors work in the absence of oxygen because the fuel has its own oxidizer.  And they work in a vacuum.

Or that you have done nothing to disprove the USSR placed the first man made satellite in orbit

Quote

Tracking Sputnik I’s Orbit

https://distributedmuseum.illinois.edu/exhibit/tracking_sputnik_is_orbit/

The interferometer made crude position measurements of Sputnik along with Doppler tracking data. Students also made visual observations using other instruments, such as theodolites, astronomical clocks, and WWV time signal receivers available at the Observatory.

Astronomers were among the few who knew celestial mechanics, so department chair George McVitte and astronomers Stanley Wyatt and Ivan King used the data to derive Sputnik’s orbital elements, with help from mathematician Donald Gillies and physicist James Snyder, who programed the ILLIAC I computer. The result was an ephemeris, or astronomical data set describing the orbit and position of the satellite in the sky, within two days of its launch and published in Nature by November of 1957.

Or the fact I was able to receive email in the pacific around 2003 because of satellites.

Or people continue to reliably use sat phones in the middle of the pacific.

You have no explanation for the international space station thousands have witnessed for themselves, including myself.


You can’t debunk my use of satellite TV in the 1990’s.  Irrefutable proof of satellites and the services they provide.


Or you ignore you can lookup the catalog of satellites visible to the human eye.  Changing the night sky.  Ignoring the tracking information that allows you to go out to verify for yourself.

You done nothing to debunk the irrefutable fact man made satellites are changing the night sky

Quote

Astronomers ask UN committee to protect night skies from megaconstellations

https://www.space.com/astronomers-night-sky-protection-starlink-megaconstellations

A United Nations committee will discuss whether pristine night sky should be protected against Starlink trains.
 


Image credit: Victoria Girgis/Lowell Observatory)

Yes, and your first hand accounts were always either fine under FET, or 90% smokescreen, so they were kinda crap as arguments,

If they are supported by science, other accounts, and have no proof of being false, they are legitimate arguments.

And if you can’t provide credible evidence that, or refute it in some credible way, then to say it is crap is borderline slander.


Funny you keep claiming you’re not a flat earther. But you seem to try to take any swipe you can at persons that actually try to document something.  You remind me of a quote about critics.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Theodore Roosevelt
Tags: inspirational, politics, presidential

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7-it-is-not-the-critic-who-counts-not-the-man

Funny you don’t do much to support spherical earth, but seems you to try to float and legitimize ever piece of flat earth myth and propaganda when they are obvious BS.

Funny you don’t do much to support spherical earth, but seems you to try to float and legitimize ever piece of flat earth myth and propaganda when they are obvious BS.

Learn the difference between 'Legitimise' and 'accurately present.' It has been pointed out time and time again that the poor tactics of REers is what really drives people into FET. If you only ever argue against a straw man, the impression you give is that you cannot argue against the real FE model. Is that what you believe?
If you just want to argue that, say, gravity has a wealth of evidence behind it and has made multiple testable predictions, then great! Do that! But when you make claims about FE models, don't be shocked when you're expected to actually represent FE models.

The only reason I spend less time arguing for RET is because there are half a dozen users that post before I get a chance to.

Quote from: Stash on January 20, 2023, 05:12:23 PM

Again, context and post history. Chances have been given. Typical responses, see above.

I mean you know what I'm going to say in regards to how effective the replies to them previously have been  Dealing with being outnumbered, with a decent number of people straw manning or ignoring, tends to make people terse.
Like, sure, maybe a user is just an asshole, but I've seen enough users that can be dickish in-thread, and much more reasonable without the pressure of being mobbed to at least be inclined to give a chance.

Sure, dickishness on both sides. There just happens to be more RErs than FErs, so sure, it's going to skew. If you had a 1:1 ratio you would find equal 1:1 straw manning, ignoring, & dickishness.

Quote from: Stash on January 20, 2023, 05:12:23 PM

I see your point. Perhaps the questions should have been:

- What first reports?
- How were these first reports generated and based on what? You know, what methodology?
- What did these first reports actually say?

Answers, lately, would be silence or not addressing the question or not addressing the question because in this case, what prompted VA's first "report" was generated using rockets in space. The "second" report would be the actual detecting and harmful nature derived from the data received from a satellite. Both "reports", contradictory or not (actually not), would be summarily deemed as fake! Now, an entirely new argument: Space is fake, period.
Super helpful.

I think speculating on how a conversation would have gone based on if people had actually replied to the post, based on assuming someone would act the same as if they went ignored, may not be the most reliable of tactics. Like, maybe you're right and they'll do that argument swap-out in response to a simple query about sources - which we seem to be agreed would be a better response - and if that's the case, sure you'll find me condemning that. But given that we are just speculating on what reports are being talked about, and as such have multiple ways to talk about potential incongruity, we're getting into very speculative territory.

Sure. You've done a fair bit of speculating yourself. Don't go pot/kettle on me.

Quote from: Stash on January 20, 2023, 05:12:23 PM

Point being, all of this really doesn't matter because everything ultimately distills down to:

1) The truth is being hidden, conspiracy
2) Anything and everything that may show otherwise is fake (see #1)

Maybe things have changed with some of the new users, but a lot of the time there are limits set on an actual conspiracy. The typical belief is that the majority of scientists are just mistaken and not 'in on it' and if that's the case, if you can get someone to a position that solidly establishes an individual and their team as needing to be actively deceitful, it may not feel it but that's actually an achievement.

You haven't been paying attention. Yes, whenever the aggregate of it would take 10's of millions of people to be "lying", we get the, "not all are lying, most are just duped..." But when you start going a layer or two down, you get the "They are all lying" thing. Not mistaken. For instance, apparently all astronomers, pro/am, are liars because they won't let you look through their equipment. That's not "mistaken". All engineers that rely on 'g' in their designs are liars. Heck, even anyone who has ever used a sextant is a liar.

Quote from: Slime on January 21, 2023, 02:44:24 AM

I mean you know what I'm going to say in regards to how effective the replies to them previously have been  Dealing with being outnumbered, with a decent number of people straw manning or ignoring, tends to make people terse.
Like, sure, maybe a user is just an asshole, but I've seen enough users that can be dickish in-thread, and much more reasonable without the pressure of being mobbed to at least be inclined to give a chance.

Sure, dickishness on both sides. There just happens to be more RErs than FErs, so sure, it's going to skew. If you had a 1:1 ratio you would find equal 1:1 straw manning, ignoring, & dickishness.

If it was 1:1, sure, but the fact it's not 1:1 is not insignificant here. Being straw manned once vs being straw manned five times in a row are different feelings, ditto the pressure of being often the sole representative for a position in a thread. It's a situation that pushes people to dickishness when they might not be so if it were 1:1.

Sure. You've done a fair bit of speculating yourself. Don't go pot/kettle on me.

Wouldn't deny it, but we're trying to do different things with our speculation. My claim is that conversation is possible, and that FEers do make arguments that sometimes go missed - looking for a reading of posts that actually make sense serves that. Looking for a reading/speculating about how it could fail is, well, sure it can always happen. I could turn around and just start cursing you out during this discussion, it could always happen, but if you go in assuming the person you're talking to is irrational, it's what gets you to that end result.
Sure, if someone has history of being dodgy, don't write them an essay, but if you're going to engage then it's worth bearing in mind that there's a non-zero chance that they see you the same way.

Quote from: Slime on January 21, 2023, 02:44:24 AM

Maybe things have changed with some of the new users, but a lot of the time there are limits set on an actual conspiracy. The typical belief is that the majority of scientists are just mistaken and not 'in on it' and if that's the case, if you can get someone to a position that solidly establishes an individual and their team as needing to be actively deceitful, it may not feel it but that's actually an achievement.

You haven't been paying attention. Yes, whenever the aggregate of it would take 10's of millions of people to be "lying", we get the, "not all are lying, most are just duped..." But when you start going a layer or two down, you get the "They are all lying" thing. Not mistaken. For instance, apparently all astronomers, pro/am, are liars because they won't let you look through their equipment. That's not "mistaken". All engineers that rely on 'g' in their designs are liars. Heck, even anyone who has ever used a sextant is a liar.

One, very much depends on the user. Two, don't accuse me of not paying attention when you repeat my point back to me. Getting someone to the point when they state/concede that every physics graduate or whatever knows gravity is false and is lying, if that genuinely happens and it isn't just 'is in denial,' that's significant.
The end result of a discussion doesn't have to be making someone say they were wrong. That's a really dodgy habit too many people have here, and it's just never going to happen. If a FEer concedes 'If the Earth is flat, there must be millions of people that know,' if that happens, that's a heck of a concession from the usual stated norm. You have to ask questions when you care about the answer, rather than just assume there isn't one.

I mean you know what I'm going to say in regards to how effective the replies to them previously have been  Dealing with being outnumbered, with a decent number of people straw manning or ignoring, tends to make people terse.
Like, sure, maybe a user is just an asshole, but I've seen enough users that can be dickish in-thread, and much more reasonable without the pressure of being mobbed to at least be inclined to give a chance.

I don't think one side is out-strawmanning the other.

If it was 1:1, sure, but the fact it's not 1:1 is not insignificant here. Being straw manned once vs being straw manned five times in a row are different feelings, ditto the pressure of being often the sole representative for a position in a thread. It's a situation that pushes people to dickishness when they might not be so if it were 1:1.

I can't help it if there are fewer of one than the other. And I'm not seeing where someone is being strawmanned 5x in a row.

Wouldn't deny it, but we're trying to do different things with our speculation. My claim is that conversation is possible, and that FEers do make arguments that sometimes go missed - looking for a reading of posts that actually make sense serves that. Looking for a reading/speculating about how it could fail is, well, sure it can always happen. I could turn around and just start cursing you out during this discussion, it could always happen, but if you go in assuming the person you're talking to is irrational, it's what gets you to that end result.
Sure, if someone has history of being dodgy, don't write them an essay, but if you're going to engage then it's worth bearing in mind that there's a non-zero chance that they see you the same way.

This feels a lot like, "my speculation is better than your speculation."

Just as your speculation is based upon experience, so is mine.

One, very much depends on the user. Two, don't accuse me of not paying attention when you repeat my point back to me. Getting someone to the point when they state/concede that every physics graduate or whatever knows gravity is false and is lying, if that genuinely happens and it isn't just 'is in denial,' that's significant.
The end result of a discussion doesn't have to be making someone say they were wrong. That's a really dodgy habit too many people have here, and it's just never going to happen. If a FEer concedes 'If the Earth is flat, there must be millions of people that know,' if that happens, that's a heck of a concession from the usual stated norm. You have to ask questions when you care about the answer, rather than just assume there isn't one.

Of course an FEr will never concede, everyone knows that. What I'm simply saying is that regardless of whether someone is nice or not all roads ultimately lead to :

- Required mass conspiracy
- Lies

I'll add in a third just for you:

- Mass mistakeness.

I can't help it if there are fewer of one than the other. And I'm not seeing where someone is being strawmanned 5x in a row.

Not syaing you can help it, just acknowledging that it's a factor. Everyone has a threshold where they get frustrated, and force of numbers make it way easier for a FEer to get pushed across that threshold. Like, if you want to know why I'm more charitable to FEers, that's why. Mobbing massively impedes debate.

Quote from: Slime on January 21, 2023, 12:04:31 PM

Wouldn't deny it, but we're trying to do different things with our speculation. My claim is that conversation is possible, and that FEers do make arguments that sometimes go missed - looking for a reading of posts that actually make sense serves that. Looking for a reading/speculating about how it could fail is, well, sure it can always happen. I could turn around and just start cursing you out during this discussion, it could always happen, but if you go in assuming the person you're talking to is irrational, it's what gets you to that end result.
Sure, if someone has history of being dodgy, don't write them an essay, but if you're going to engage then it's worth bearing in mind that there's a non-zero chance that they see you the same way.

This feels a lot like, "my speculation is better than your speculation."

Just as your speculation is based upon experience, so is mine.

It's not just the speculation, it's the goal - I'm just trying to show possibility. My stance is that if there's a chance that the person you're talking to is going to discuss, even if it's 10%, 1%, you at least give them the opportunity rather than assuming they wouldn't. Being able to provide a situation where they'd be unreasonable doesn't impact that. It's not 'my speculation is better than yours,' it's that I don't think the positions we have are symmetrical.

Of course an FEr will never concede, everyone knows that. What I'm simply saying is that regardless of whether someone is nice or not all roads ultimately lead to :

- Required mass conspiracy
- Lies

I'll add in a third just for you:

- Mass mistakeness.

Again, so? FE has ties to conspiracy theory, that's not unexpected.
If your goal is to dissuade people from FET, then honestly and solidly establishing how far the lies would need to go is useful, and doing so with discussion with a FEer rather than asserting it yourself pre-conversation is necessary. If your goal is to understand FE, then knowing which fields require mistakes and why, and which would need to be deceitful, gives you that knowledge. 'Conspiracy' doesn't need to be the end of a discussion. Find the fields that are reliable and see how far they go before you end up with lies, and see how complex the existing conspiracies would need to guess, and do so by steelmanning rather than strawmanning.
"All roads lead to..." is something I could ramble about. Short version, a) be open to the idea that you could be wrong or that an FEer could surprise you, take their answers on their own merits on each new topic rather than risk twisting a more ambivalent statement to fit your view, b) the road to an end result can be more informative than the actual end result, c) establishing it through dialogue and their words and gauging the extent is still information gained and still an achievement.

B is why I’ve been here for 4 years. When the discussion inevitably leads to conspiracy, everyone is lying, the journey ends.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 19, 2023, 06:56:18 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 17, 2023, 05:31:44 AM

One of the repeating themes of flat earth is the Apollo astronauts could not survive the trip through the Van Allen radiation belts.

Spherical earth, the existence of the belts make sense.  Large sun creating charged particles and the solar wind that gets caught in belts about the earth in earth’s magnetic field from a spinning iron core.

In flat earth, are the Van Allen Radiation belts a thing? If so, what creates them.  How do you rectify the belts with the size of the sun, the dome, and waters of the firmament?

RE ppl say they are a thing.
FE ppl agree they are a thing, and that's why space doesn't work.

This isn't a thing FE ppl came up with. This is your own science. So you tell me.

Why would FE ppl agree that it's a thing?

Because by your own logic, you have just given the best proof against your own beliefs.

The cult of science thinks that Van Allen belt exists as an energy field to explain why radiation from the big bad outer space doesn't give us seven kinds of cancer, and acts as a sort of shell, since science also tells us (correctly, unlike other "science" that NASA uses) that atmosphere ought to diffuse, with the Earth slowly losing atmosphere. This ionizing area keeps gas from leaving the Earth (like it does for Mercury with its no atmosphere), and keeps the cold of space from entering. Even though it's not real. It makes perfect sense.

Great. Now explain how satellites and space shuttles hold up.



Supposedly we've gone to the moon and Mars, no?

So why are they asking "how can we get past them"?

The innermost Van Allen belt sits somewhere between 400 to 6,000 miles above the surface of our planet.

Wikipedia says they extend out to 36,040 mi.

They would have flown past this in every moon and Mars mission.

So basically FE ppl might not care about them personally, but since they are a nail in the coffin of RE, sure why not.

Btw, they screen out radiation, so you'll have to explain how a broadcast from the moon gets past not one but two Van Allen belts. Easy to do in a studio (where Hollywood routinely makes space mission films), not so easy to do for real.

This is what 12 hours of signals is like from the moon with Van Allen radiation.



Yeah. Exactly like that.

Meanwhile, in Hollywood.

Because by your own logic, you have just given the best proof against your own beliefs.

Except as repeatedly explained, IT ISN'T.
The Van Allen belts are not an impenetrable barrier that will kill everything trying to pass through.

The cult of science thinks that Van Allen belt exists as an energy field to explain why radiation from the big bad outer space doesn't give us seven kinds of cancer, and acts as a sort of shell, since science also tells us (correctly, unlike other "science" that NASA uses) that atmosphere ought to diffuse, with the Earth slowly losing atmosphere. This ionizing area keeps gas from leaving the Earth (like it does for Mercury with its no atmosphere), and keeps the cold of space from entering. Even though it's not real. It makes perfect sense.

No, your delusional BS tells us that.

If you use actual science it is quite different.

The belts are a result of the magnetic field, and help prevents charged particles like the solar wind from ripping our atmosphere.
But even without that, the radiation would enter Earth's atmosphere, and interact with that.
The radiation that would give us cancer are UV rays, which still do.

There is no magical cold of space that could enter.
As already explained to you repeatedly, space has such little thermal mass and conductivity (near Earth), that it will not freeze Earth. Earth's temperature is controlled by how much radiation it emits.

Great. Now explain how satellites and space shuttles hold up.

Supposedly we've gone to the moon and Mars, no?
So why are they asking "how can we get past them"?

Why don't you bother watching the video?
It explains how we got past them for the Apollo missions.

Quote

The innermost Van Allen belt sits somewhere between 400 to 6,000 miles above the surface of our planet.

Wikipedia says they extend out to 36,040 mi.

You sure do love your dishonesty.
Wikipedia refers to THEY, i.e. the belts.
Specifically this quote:
"Earth's two main belts extend from an altitude of about 640 to 58,000 km (400 to 36,040 mi)[2] above the surface"

The line you quoted is for the inner belt.
Notice the difference?

So basically FE ppl might not care about them personally, but since they are a nail in the coffin of RE, sure why not.

Except as already demonstrated, they are not a nail in the coffin.

Btw, they screen out radiation, so you'll have to explain how a broadcast from the moon gets past not one but two Van Allen belts.

And more delusional BS.
The magnetic field traps charged particles. They don't magically block EM radiation.

So no, we don't have to explain that. You need to explain why they should stop radio from getting through.

1) Speed/Duration
- Exposure time limited
2) Composite of Capsule
- Heavily shielded
3) Trajectory
- Path taken devised to go through the thinnest part of the inner belt (the really harmful one) and through the outer belt (not so harmful one




Exposure, there and back = 1 CT Scan