WHY would the government trick us?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 18, 2024, 10:29:52 PM

And disproof of gravity.

Then why doesn’t buoyancy work in the vomit comet?  Why do heavy things float just as readily as light things?

BTW, you seem to make an awful lot of typos for an editor.

I am typing on a Kindle. Also, I am not a professional editor, but a writer who has had to self-edit their own work. I edit and playtest things, and after more than twenty rewrites on my book and numerous tests on my games, I am still not satisfied. My editing btw is sufficiently better than say themightykabool, who routinely makes my eyes bleed. The point is, I understand that no matter how perfect something has seemed, I've had to correct and correct...

In a buoyancy system, motion allows a person to swim when they can't float. This means hydrodynamic or aerodynamic objects can move across the surfaces thanks to their shape, motion, and density. At a certain density though, no matter how fast a ship is moving, no matter how suited its shape, it will sink, even while moving. I'm sure there are objects with such density that a vomit comet will not be able to lift them from the ground, despite people nearby flying through the air. This is the difference between gravity and buoyancy. In a buoyancy model, motion is sufficient to lift some objects but not all.

When we start with the colossal arrogance needed to dub a theory "the law of universal gravitation", everything is downhill from there.

The Informal Principle of Buoyancy of Matter, that's how I'd define my system that used Archimedes's displacement ideas instead of gravity. Calling things "universal" or a " law" is a sure way to cement how obnoxiously sure of yourself you are. It's an informal principle. Buoyancy just sorta works most of the time, and when it doesn't, it's usually because that object is lifting due to some sort of propulsion. So why can't this propulsion lift us to space? Well, because we talked about an overfilled ship sinking regardless. The more the difference between the density of objects and surfaces, the greater the resistance it has to being tossed around through motion.

Scientists must correct their ideas, just like book writers or game programmers. Tears of the Kingdom has been very good about closing glitches after they got hacked almost right away. The so-called scientists of today are arrogant assholes who never are called on to account for their flaws, and you think I'm the arrogant one because I dare to point them out. Sorry, it doesn't take much self-worth to admit that the emperor is not wearing clothes. And it should be admitted, as loudly and as often as possible.

Buoyancy just sorta works most of the time, and when it doesn't, it's usually because that object is lifting due to some sort of propulsion.

So buoyancy only sorta works most of the time and not at all during free fall?   What kind of propulsion happens in free fall to make buoyancy not work?  Aren't heavy objects supposed to less susceptible to said propulsion in free fall?  Who's the one coming up with excuses now?

Scientists must correct their ideas, just like book writers or game programmers.

Wow, you do like to go off on some pretty wild and completely irrelevant tangents, don’t you?  Scientists do correct their ideas all the time when new information is discovered.  In fact, you just got through explaining how Einstein correcting Newton’s failure to predict the precession of Mercury’s orbit and made it sound like a bad thing.  So make up your mind, should scientists correct themselves or shouldn’t they?

Back to the original question, "Why would the government lie to us?"

Governments are often seated by narcissists.

Yeah, and narcissists tend to be lazy bastards too. Do you have any idea of how hard it would be to successfully convince people that the flat earth is really round?  Just think about what it would take to convince a major telecommunications company that the satellite that they spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build and have launched into a geostationary orbit at a precise location above the equator is there and working as expected when it really isn’t. Is it really worth all that effort to convince the whole world of such an incredible lie with so little reward?

Back to the original question, "Why would the government lie to us?"

You mean after having more of your dishonest, delusional BS called out; you will yet again jump topics entirely rather than acting like an adulting by admitting you are wrong.

Think about how much narcissism you wind up with

When you reject reality and pretend you are so much smarter than everyone and fully know models that you clearly have no idea about and so on?
You sure seem to be a great example of that.

Jack Black, I am ignoring you because we need to curb just this narcissism. No, your questions aren't all that

Be honest, you're ignoring me because you can't answer the simple questions which show you are wrong, and your narcissism prevents you from admitting that.

Yeah no. I assume nothing.

Pure BS. You make plenty of baseless assumptions with no connection to reality at all.

Flat Earth is a theory.

No, it isn't.
At best it is a refuted hypothesis.

Arrogance is pretending that because your teachers were so incredible, you must be right regardless of what the facts say.

Arrogance is pretending that because your teachers were so crap and you decided to reject reality, you must be right regardless of what the facts say.
i.e. what you are doing.

I care what the facts say, you just ignore them.

And we do the same for our scientists. "Sir" Isaac Newton is so handsome and smart. Let's put absolute trust in his ideas, and continue on as though it is proven as a law.

No, we don't.

Currently skim-reading

i.e. not actually reading.

Basically, there's a hole in the logic of this theory

No, basically, the theory works in most cases, but breaks down in extreme cases.

But thanks for showing that you are spouting pure BS.
Because people know that it is a limit, and know that general relativity actually addresses it.

We don't just say Newton must be right and ignore anything to the contrary.

Rather than a third party calling gravity a law, it is likely Newton himself did. Think about the level of arrogance this takes. "My theory is so unassailable that I will hereby dub it a law."

And more delusional BS, showing a complete lack of understanding.

A law is a mathematical relationship.
F=GMm/r^2 is the law.
That doesn't actually mean it is correct.
The law is only as good as the theory.

Yet Einstein figured out that during free fall, no such gravitational field exists.

And even more BS.
That field still exists, and is acting to accelerate you through space, by you following a geodesic in spacetime. The curvature of spacetime for that is the gravitational field.

And it has been my opinion for the last few years that what is called gravity is actually a combination of several other forces/effects (buoyancy, momentum, centrifugal, velocity, friction, etc).

Yet you cannot defend your opinion at all and instead need to continually lie about gravity and flee from simple questions which expose your delusional BS.

We already have several forces to account for these behaviors.

Except as repeatedly shown, YOU DON"T!

You have no explanation for why things fall.
You appeal to pure magic, which if honestly analysed needs to reduce down to a downwards force proportional to mass, with the density of the object and the surroundings not impact that downwards force.
Instead, it is the pressure gradient caused by this downwards force which results in an upwards force called buoyancy.

Your main attempt at a replacement for gravity does not work at all.
Again, I gave you a simple method to test.
See if there is a pressure gradient.
If your delusional BS was true, where things just go up or down based upon density (and magic) there would be no pressure gradient.
If gravity is real, there would be a pressure gradient.

Measurements show the pressure gradient is there, so it is gravity, not your BS.

In a buoyancy system

Your buoyancy system doesn't work at all.

I'm sure there are objects with such density that a vomit comet will not be able to lift them from the ground, despite people nearby flying through the air.

Do you mean an object so heavy the plane can't take off? If so, sure, but that applies regardless of your BS.
If you mean an object that wont be in free fall, no it won't.

If that was the case, the fluids should still separate, because they don't have anything to make them mix.

This is the difference between gravity and buoyancy.

No, it isn't.
The difference is gravity works while your BS doesn't.

When we start with the colossal arrogance needed

To claim Earth is flat, everything is downhill from there.

The Informal Principle of Buoyancy of Matter, that's how I'd define my system that used Archimedes's displacement ideas instead of gravity.

And more lies.
Again, Archimedes' uses gravity (weight) as a separate force to the upwards force from buoyancy, with the buoyant force based upon the weight of the fluid displaced.

You are not using his principles. You are outright rejecting them and appealing to pure magic.

The more the difference between the density of objects and surfaces, the greater the resistance it has to being tossed around through motion.

Wrong again.
The difference between density of objects and its surroundings (I assume that is what you meant, not surface) has no bearing on the resistance it has to being tossed around.
That is inertia.

Scientists must correct their ideas

And they do, but you don't. Clearly demonstrating you are not a scientist.
You are happy to repeat the same refuted BS again and again.

you think I'm the arrogant one because I dare to point them out

No. You are the arrogant one because you keep lying by pretending there are flaws when they are not.
You are the arrogant one because you keep repeating the same refuted BS.
Even happy to directly contradict yourself.
All while ignoring refutations of that dishonest, delusional BS, and simple questions which expose this BS.

Meanwhile, you ignore the mountains of flaws in your delusional BS, and keep on repeating it as if it magically works.

Again, if you want to appeal to your delusional fake buoyancy you need to explain the pressure gradient, and why the force varies over Earth, and why  down.
These are things you cannot explain at all, but which are explained trivially with the RE model with gravity.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 19, 2024, 05:43:05 AM

Back to the original question, "Why would the government lie to us?"

Governments are often seated by narcissists.

Yeah, and narcissists tend to be lazy bastards too. Do you have any idea of how hard it would be to successfully convince people that the flat earth is really round?  Just think about what it would take to convince a major telecommunications company that the satellite that they spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build and have launched into a geostationary orbit at a precise location above the equator is there and working as expected when it really isn’t. Is it really worth all that effort to convince the whole world of such an incredible lie with so little reward?

Really? That's what you're going for? "It would be super-hard to do."

"No, actually super easy. Barely an inconvenience."

You seem to underestimate the level of corruption in government and commerce.

That satellite that they spent hundreds of millions on? Yeah, uhh, every year, the IRS is sent an expense report about how their itemized expenses involved "a big satellite    " and the IRS is like "Yes, we understand  ."  This is assuming all those in IRS are in the know. If not, they simply trust this expense, and make sure that the numbers match up. And surprisingly, they probably do. For one "satellite" they can buy hundreds of signal towers. They can recoup their losses by broadcasting shows which are then paid for by listeners. Telecommunication companies don't have to be convinced. It's part of their bottom line.

As for the reward, let's crunch the numbers.
https://dgtlinfra.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-build-a-cell-tower/

On average, the total cost to build a cell tower in the United States is $250,000, while in Western Europe it is $135,000, and in Latin America it is $110,000

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/45846/what-is-the-average-weight-and-price-of-a-telecom-satellite

A typical weather satellite carries a price tag of $290 million; a spy satellite might cost an additional $100 million.

They didn't mention a telecommunications satellite capable of broadcasting to millions of people, but I'll go out of a limb here and say maybe $450 million ($450,000,000). One satellite. You regardless of whether such satellites exist at all, still must build telecommunications towers to receive signals, but while you could add a little bit more to make ones that send signals too, instead you have the whatever millions vs $250,000. You may have noticed those extra zeros. If I only made one broadcast tower per thousand miles, I can build nearly 2000 extra towers for the price and then I can reach all kinds of radio and television subscribers, and get loads and loads of money from them.  With that extra money, I could theoretically launch this so-called satellite into so-called space... or, you know, I could tell people this is what I'm doing, and this is why their TV bill must go up, to pay for the satellite equipment, of course.

Yes, it's gonna be super-hard to convince telecommunications companies to go along with this.

There are two models of television.

• Cable: TV/internet travels through lines. The lines are down, cable (including internet, if it's part of the package) is down.
• Wireless:TV/internet delivered through towers. If the tower is down, the electric lines can be intact, but you're still screwed.
• Satellite: See wireless above. The difference in that you use a dish, and they to convince you that cell tower nearby isn't involved. If you're off the main road, they might build a tower near you to give you better reception. But anything beyond that is about maintenance of the tower, not sending a satellite in space to be overhead your house. Even if space travel were possible, the cost doesn't add up to profit.

Really, the only people they have to convince are people like you. Because anyone who makes money from the difference in cost will not object.

I suppose that it's easy to be cynical about communication satellites when you're too young to remember a time when cell phone towers weren't a thing and cable TV wasn't also your internet provider.  Home satellite TV in the 1970's was very, very different than what we have today.

Yeah, uhh, every year, the IRS is sent an expense report about how their itemized expenses involved "a big satellite    " and the IRS is like "Yes, we understand  ."  This is assuming all those in IRS are in the know.

Compare that to the black budget, which is much larger, and has no accountability to the public.

Not to mention, those satellites then actually need to do something.

For one "satellite" they can buy hundreds of signal towers.

Which fails to do what the satellite needs to do.

As for the reward, let's crunch the numbers.
...
cell tower
...
weather satellite

Notice how you switch from cell tower to weather satellite?
Completely different things.

I'll go out of a limb here and say maybe $450 million

i.e. you will just make up a number with no basis at all.

If I only made one broadcast tower per thousand miles

You would have basically 0 coverage.
The other important point is that it is miles squared, not miles.
And then you have the cost of upkeep.
Assuming you get 1000 towers for the cost of a satellite, a single satellite can broadcast to the entire US (and more).
That is an area of roughly 4 million square miles.
That means each tower needs to cover 4 thousand square miles (and there needs to be overlap for good coverage).
Ignoring the overlap that means it needs to have a range of 35 miles.

And again, the cost of upkeep

Satellite:

The difference is you use a satellite, which provides coverage over large areas from a single transmitter.

Even if space travel were possible, the cost doesn't add up to profit.

Except it is, as repeatedly shown.

Now care to stop fleeing and instead try to defend your BS?

The law of universal geavity does NOT mean everything falls to the relative 'down' we see on earth.


Is this what you think?
Os this why you think australia water should drip off the ball earth?

A model of sun worship

We can observe a proliferation of symbols associated with ancient Egypt that go far beyond mere cultural heritage. Worldwide, pyramidal motifs, references to sun worship, and Masonic elements manifest in architecture, logos, the film, music, and gaming industries, on banknotes, and within modern power structures. These symbols are not mere tributes to a bygone civilization but rather reveal a still-dominant ideology subtly embedded in our contemporary society.

The heliocentric model, which represents the sun god Helios, is a representation of sun worship rooted in ancient pagan beliefs. By placing the sun at the center, it reinforces its supremacy and embeds this concept in the collective subconscious. By elevating the sun to the central axis around which everything is organized, the heliocentric model subtly perpetuates sun worship while simultaneously attempting to challenge monotheistic scriptures through a science that contradicts sacred texts.

I never really understood how heliocentrism equates to sun worship.   Granted, most of us like nice, sunny days, but I would hardly call it worship.  Then again, maybe you are onto something.   Maybe we should go back to a geocentric model and encourage earth worship.  Perhaps that would make us want to take care of the earth instead of raping it for resources and poisoning the sea and atmosphere.

BTW, I have never really considered any sacred text of any religion to be a reliable scientific source.

@ markjo

Freemasonry is a religion rooted in Ancient Egyptian traditions, and it's no coincidence that the sun is prominently featured in every Freemason lodge. The Vatican, too, has been influenced by sun worship. You might dismiss this, but the people who rule the world are deeply entrenched in this ideology and are spreading it just as the ancients did.

Sun worship has been a constant in many religious traditions, and this paradigm has also subtly infiltrated Judeo-Christian doctrine. Although biblical texts forbid any form of representation, the Vatican is steeped in solar symbols and engravings. The choice of Sunday—'dies solis' in Latin, meaning 'day of the sun'—as a holy day is a clear indication of this unspoken symbiosis. Moreover, Jesus (as), whom the Vatican describes as 'the light of the world,' is in reality used as a metaphor for the sun. These symbols and practices reveal a hidden veneration of the sun by the Vatican, which starkly contradicts the pure monotheism prescribed in the holy Scriptures.

If Islam is criticized today, it is primarily due to its steadfastness in preserving pure monotheism. Regarding this stance, the idolatrous system attempts to divert people's thoughts toward illusions of power and false concepts, such as heliocentrism, who modelise their cult.

As for you, you are simply the product of the science propagated by the elite. You believe that creation is a result of chance, that man descended from apes, that the Earth is adrift in a so-called universe, and that our home here on Earth is a globe.

But you are a believer too, because God has made it impossible to escape a form of belief. As an atheist, you deny the existence of a Creator, but denial is itself a form of belief. So, whether you accept it or not, you are religious as well.

Why do science and religion have to be incompatible with each other?   Why couldn’t God create an expanding, evolving universe?   Is that beyond His powers, or are we so insecure that we have to believe that we are so uniquely special in God’s eyes that He should make us the center of everything?  To be honest, that sounds like the tantrum of a spoiled child.  If God is all powerful, then why don’t we put Him at the center of everything?

I suppose that it's easy to be cynical about communication satellites when you're too young to remember a time when cell phone towers weren't a thing and cable TV wasn't also your internet provider.  Home satellite TV in the 1970's was very, very different than what we have today.

Yeah, isn't that interesting?

You had satellite TV and it wasn't worth shit.

And then, with the 3G onward, they built bigger and better towers. And suddenly, it's alot better. Now, you could say that it's because they got better at picking up a signal from space, but you could just as easily they got better at broadcasting signals from the tower over there.

Back then, yes, you could believe that signal was from space. It sucked.

I was born in the 80s. I watched as the cellphone infrastructure built and built. We have about seven small towers in our town, spaced about. I sleep in an upstairs room. In terms of bars, I should be picking up all sorts of satellite signals. Instead, we get wireless signals to the (downstairs, other side of the house) wifi box. One or two bars on Kindle, no bars on Switch Lite from my room. Proximity to broadcasting device, not to the sky. And yes, distance matters.

My computer right in the same room as the wifi box can download entire GBs of data in a few minutes, and this isn't even the fastest internet out there.
They didn't launch more satellites into space during that period. In fact, for much of it, NASA had not launched people to the moon since 1972, until Trump reopened it as part of "making America great again" (Obama wanted NASA to focus on climate change). So what changed? Well, it was cellular tech, mostly the building of broadcast towers. And it was changing wiring from dialup to either DSL or wifi.

The broadcast can (and does) come directly from tower feeds. A studio sends out a signal, and the towers pick it up. They send it to other towers, and various television receivers translate it to programming.
 "But my home in the boonies doesn't get a signal." With no satellites launched into space, the guy comes and fixes (or more commonly replaces) the box, or builds another tower up the mountain. Suddenly you get a signal.

Funny how that works. Funny how high elevation, low population areas in Vermont or Colorado get complete crap signals when there should be satellites high in the sky and they are in a high and open location, but once you build towers and FiOS systems and the like, perfect signal.

Funny how a person surrounded by buildings should be in a satellite valley (not high, not open), yet often get a better signal than that guy above trying on a mountaintop.

Yeah, isn't that interesting?

You had satellite TV and it wasn't worth shit.

And then, with the 3G onward, they built bigger and better towers. And suddenly, it's alot better. Now, you could say that it's because they got better at picking up a signal from space, but you could just as easily they got better at broadcasting signals from the tower over there.

Back then, yes, you could believe that signal was from space. It sucked.

Since that’s where the dishes were pointing, that would be a pretty safe bet. Satellite dishes are very directional.  You can’t get a signal from a cellphone tower on the next hill over if your dish is pointed to space.

I was born in the 80s. I watched as the cellphone infrastructure built and built.

I find it interesting that, even with the modern 5G cellular infrastructure, there are still plenty of cellular dead zones where satellite connectivity works just fine.

BTW, FiOs is fiber optic cable.  I would be very pissed if I didn’t get a perfect picture. 

Also, what makes you think that being born in the ’80s qualifies you to tell me that life was like in the ‘70s?

Markjo. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91788.msg2430146#msg2430146

you know you want to.

@ markjo

Why do science and religion have to be incompatible with each other?

Religion is not incompatible with science, as religion is confirmed by science.

Here are some facts that the Quran revealed long before science discerned their implications:
https://la-terre-plate.com/en/createur

Biology, embryology, isostasy, and many other scientific fields are honorable. But what is being presented as science to confuse people and lead them to adopt an ideology that serves certain interests and the market is shameful. And the globe theory is part of it.

You should read the Quran from beginning to end without any preconceived notions, and then reflect on how you want to respond to what you've read.

Funny how that works. Funny how high elevation, low population areas in Vermont or Colorado get complete crap signals when there should be satellites high in the sky and they are in a high and open location, but once you build towers and FiOS systems and the like, perfect signal.

Funny how a person surrounded by buildings should be in a satellite valley (not high, not open), yet often get a better signal than that guy above trying on a mountaintop.

This shows how little you understand communication signals.  Cities are not so much an issue of being in a valley and not able to receive satellites.  The problem is they can receive some signals that are bouncing off buildings, and so are not on a direct path to the satellite.  This gives a false reading of how far away the satellite is from the receiver, screwing up the calculations.  When in the downtown area of larger cities, there are so many buildings, that it may be that none of the signals are direct.  This can result in significant errors in the coordinate calculations. 

These signals in the city may be strong, but with the added delays, they result in bad calculations.  I have never gotten "complete crap" GPS signals outside of cities.  However, there are times when there is simply not a good constellation of GPS satellites and the calculations will be poor.  This typically resolves itself after a few minutes.  Also, the GPS receiver can detect this and inform the user.  But, you do need to actually look at that indicator, rather than just wondering why the device is saying your location is a mile away from where you are.

@ bulmabriefs144

First Flat Earth convinced person I see in that forum.

Although our modern technologies allow us to zoom in on the Moon with remarkable precision, it is strange that there are no satellite photos taken from Earth, even though these satellites are supposedly only a few hundred kilometers away. Additionally, no available satellite video shows an uninterrupted depiction of Earth's rotation over an entire day. It is also peculiar that none of the thousands of airplanes constantly traversing our skies are visible in the supposed satellite images.

When will they start to make better CGI material?

And when discussing communication equipment, you might also point out that when they supposedly went to the moon, 400,000 km away, they had direct communication with Earth. Amazing, right?

Although our modern technologies allow us to zoom in on the Moon with remarkable precision, it is strange that there are no satellite photos taken from Earth, even though these satellites are supposedly only a few hundred kilometers away.

That is simply not true.  The ISS is visible as a bright dot in the sky, but look what happens when you look at it through a decent telescope:

Additionally, no available satellite video shows an uninterrupted depiction of Earth's rotation over an entire day.

Would you even watch such a video for 24 hours?

It is also peculiar that none of the thousands of airplanes constantly traversing our skies are visible in the supposed satellite images.

Again, not true.
https://thenextweb.com/news/google-maps-accidentally-caught-satellite-image-airplane-mid-flight

And when discussing communication equipment, you might also point out that when they supposedly went to the moon, 400,000 km away, they had direct communication with Earth. Amazing, right?

*sigh* Do you think that NASA would send astronauts into space without any sort of communication infrastructure?  They used several relay stations around the world to maintain communication before they sent up several specialized satellites for constant communication ability.

FFS, do any FE’ers do even the least bit of research before they post such ignorant nonsense?

Markjo. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91788.msg2430146#msg2430146

you know you want to.

Probably not a good idea.  For one, my avatar would probably be a dead giveaway.  For another, I would probably want to lynch all of the FE’ers regardless of whether or not I suspect them.

A model of sun worship

No, a model of accepting reality.

The heliocentric model, which represents the sun god Helios

No, it represents reality.
It has nothing to do with sun worship or ancient pagan beliefs.
It just doesn't have the arrogance of assuming Earth must be at the centre.

By elevating the sun to the central axis around which everything is organized

No, just the solar system.

challenge monotheistic scriptures through a science that contradicts sacred texts.

You mean through reality (science) that contradicts ancient garbage text?
There is nothing sacred about those texts.

Sun worship has been a constant in many religious traditions

Because it literally gives us light, it is the light of the world. And it is responsible for almost all life on Earth.
Without it, we would be dead.

which starkly contradicts the pure monotheism prescribed in the holy Scriptures.

No, it is not pure monotheism.
Judaism evolved from polytheism. And the Bible, at least in the original text, still contains elements of polytheism.

If Islam is criticized today, it is primarily due to its steadfastness in preserving pure monotheism.

No, there are plenty of criticize it, and being monotheistic is a fairly minor point.
As a hint, look at all the terrorists using it. Look at the quality of life in Islamic countries, especially for homosexuals and women.
There is plenty to criticise Islam for.

You believe that creation is a result of chance

As opposed to you that believes something as simple as humanity needs a god to create it, but your god just magically exists without any cause.

As an atheist, you deny the existence of a Creator, but denial is itself a form of belief. So, whether you accept it or not, you are religious as well.

I reject your claims of a god, as there is no reason to believe in one.
If you want to present that as a belief, it does not make me religious.
Believing chocolate ice cream is better than strawberry doesn't make me religious. Not believing in your god doesn't make me religious. Just like not collecting stamps isn't a hobby.

Religion is not incompatible with science, as religion is confirmed by science.

Most religions are directly contradicted by science.
This includes religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Here are some facts that the Quran revealed long before science discerned their implications:

You mean here are some claims of dishonest conmen, lying about their religion, reality or both, to pretend it is divinely inspired?

And isn't it amazing how these religious conmen where only able to "discover" the Quran said it, after it was revealed by science?
As if the Quran didn't actually reveal anything, and instead lying conmen just try to manipulate it into pretending it new before.
Just look at the first example from your compilation of BS.
The Quran describes you as starting as a drop of sperm.
Instead of the obvious implication, that it is a drop of sperm, you instead lie to everyone by pretending this is actually talking about individual sperm cells where you start as a single cell out of the hundreds of million of sperm in that drop.
There is nothing in the text at all to suggest that. But that doesn't stop lying conmen pretend it doesn't.

You then proceed further to lie by appealing to a drop of mixed fluids. It doesn't take a genius to see that sperm is not homogenous. And there is the question of if they are actually saying fluid from both men and women.

You then proceed to intentionally mistranslate the Quran, taking what is far more likely to mean blood clot to mean embryo. Because a period has a lot of blood, and an early miscarriage would look like a blood clot.

You are just lying about what the verses mean to pretend they are divinely inspired.
It is dishonest BS.

Here is a simpler one for you:
The Quran describes Earth as flat. Earth is not flat. Therefore the Quran is wrong.

Biology, embryology, isostasy, and many other scientific fields are honorable. But what is being presented as science to confuse people and lead them to adopt an ideology that serves certain interests and the market is shameful. And the globe theory is part of it.

You mean you take no issue with certain scientific fields so you happily accept them.
But there are some, like geodesy, that go against your fairy tale beliefs, so you reject them with no valid justification.

You should read the Quran from beginning to end without any preconceived notions, and then reflect on how you want to respond to what you've read.

You should follow your own advice, and not try to manipulate as much possible into divine inspiration.

Although our modern technologies allow us to zoom in on the Moon with remarkable precision, it is strange that there are no satellite photos taken from Earth, even though these satellites are supposedly only a few hundred kilometers away.

Congrats on failing to understand scale, and being entirely wrong.
There are plenty of pictures of the ISS taken from Earth.
In fact, the most popular ones appear to be the ISS transiting the moon and a simple Google search reveals plenty.

But the reason for the big difference is the difference in size.
The moon is roughly 3500 km wide.
It's distance varies from 350 000 km to roughly 400 000 km.
Taking the extreme of 400 000 km, and using it to scale to LEO at 400 km, that would give an object 3.5 km wide.
The ISS, the largest artificial satellite, is only toughly 100 m on its longest axis. That is already only roughly 3% of the width.
And most satellites are even smaller.

Additionally, no available satellite video shows an uninterrupted depiction of Earth's rotation over an entire day.

If you want that, you need a satellites in L1 or L2 or the like.
Otherwise you have the issue of the satellite moving.
There are plenty of pictures from EPIC showing the rotation of Earth.
And if you want, no one is stopping you contracting to get your own satellite to record a video.

It is also peculiar that none of the thousands of airplanes constantly traversing our skies are visible in the supposed satellite images.

No, it isn't.
But it does show you haven't even thought about it.
Most satellite imagery has a single pixel being several km or even more.
Why would you expect a plane to show up?

Better resolution requires you to zoom in quite a lot to find the plane.

And when discussing communication equipment, you might also point out that when they supposedly went to the moon, 400,000 km away, they had direct communication with Earth. Amazing, right?

Not really.
With a parabolic reflector you get pretty much line of sight range.

You had satellite TV and it wasn't worth shit.

No, it was quite good. Especially compared to the alternatives.
It was just the standard of TV was crap.

And then, with the 3G onward

No, then TV changed, to have higher resolution digital TV.

In terms of bars, I should be picking up all sorts of satellite signals.

No, you shouldn't.
Because your phone isn't made for picking them up so it ignores it.

The broadcast can (and does) come directly from tower feeds.

Some, not all.

Funny how that works. Funny how high elevation, low population areas in Vermont or Colorado get complete crap signals when there should be satellites high in the sky and they are in a high and open location, but once you build towers and FiOS systems and the like, perfect signal.

Because you aren't trying to get a satellite signal.

Stop pretending we are saying everything is coming from satellites.

With satellites you can get signals in the middle of the ocean, with no towers around, assuming they are using a satellite based device. If they try to use a normal phone, no signal.

Would you even watch such a video for 24 hours?

Would you? Face it, like climate change predictions that are far enough in the future that they'll be dead for, they are counting on nobody calling them out on it.

Only people whose job entails exposing RE (which is probably limited to Eric Dubay and five other people in the world) would spend hours doing something so mind-numbingly boring. Still, police officers and lawyers sometimes have to deal with that sort of shit.

As for me, I watched maybe an hour and a half of ISS footage (nonconsecutive), and a remember it being blotted out for a good portion of that time. Did you you realize that if you have a team of fifty people working 30 minutes to make separate recordings, they can collectively come up with 1500 minutes of "footage"? Like radio work, a good chunk of NASA broadcasting is playing with time. They do a broadcast for today, go home have sex with their spouse, and make more pictures of animated crap. The public thinks the thing has been there all along. Nope, this is a team each making thirty minute feeds. If there's a gap, it's because someone goofed off and they need more footage. Then they go on a trip to Bora Bora while pretending to still be in a room of ISS.

Did you you realize that if you have a team of fifty people working 30 minutes to make separate recordings, they can collectively come up with 1500 minutes of "footage"?

i.e. even if you were provide with footage, you would dismiss it as fake, because you don't care about the truth at all.

Face it, like climate change predictions that are far enough in the future that they'll be dead for, they are counting on nobody calling them out on it.

I’m not sure why, but the sheer degree of an FE’er’s willful ignorance never ceases to amaze me.   If you were born in the’80s and you think that the weather now isn’t messed up compared to when you were a kid, then you just aren’t paying attention.

Eric Dubay! Jeez, I have some magic beans you can buy.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 20, 2024, 10:01:27 PM

Face it, like climate change predictions that are far enough in the future that they'll be dead for, they are counting on nobody calling them out on it.

I’m not sure why, but the sheer degree of an FE’er’s willful ignorance never ceases to amaze me.   If you were born in the’80s and you think that the weather now isn’t messed up compared to when you were a kid, then you just aren’t paying attention.

Climate change predictions say that in 10 to 15 years, the air temperature will raise "globally" by 1.5 degrees Celsius.

First off, let me stop you right there. Do you know how air conditioning works? I'm not talking about the current design, I mean the original idea of AC and refrigeration. If was basically melting ice to produce cold air. You see, even if you got the ice caps to start melting by being just over the melting point, they can refreeze.  Second, we don't use Celsius in my country. Fuck off with your metric system. Third, the cause of this heat increase? It's not pollution, as trees can trap carbon very nicely. Ironically, it's the prevalence of solar panels requiring clear-cutting forests to make open land for collecting solar energy. Want someone to blame for raising heat? Blame your green energy lobbyists!

But let's move on.

If emissions remain high over the next few decades, the AI predicts a one-in-two chance that Earth will become 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) hotter on average compared to pre-industrial times by the middle of this century, and a more than four-in-five chance of reaching that threshold by 2060.

Oh noes! Ummm I'll be like what, 80 by then? If not poor diet and exercise hasn't killed me. The AI will be scrap heap, and its programmer will be dead.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01125-x
This one has a past tense science fiction of people living in 2050 looking back, while predicting ahead of worse global catastrophe in 2100.

Here's a list of 120 years of predictions:

1895 - Geologists Think theWorld May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” –Washington Post
1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
1976 - “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
1981 - Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
1988 - I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote andHis superior’s objection for context
1989 -“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Discover magazine, October 1989
1990 - “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth
1993 - “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report
1998 - No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
2001 - “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
2003 - Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
2006 - “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006
2006 – “It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling, at least a few tenths of a degree…” —Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT
2006 – “What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years.” —Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London
2006 - “Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.” –Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006
2007- “I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007
2008 – “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress” – Dr. John S. Theon, retired Chief of the Climate Processes

This is why they now call it "climate change". Because global warming is not accurate. But yes climate does change. And change back.

Oh noes! Ummm I'll be like what, 80 by then? If not poor diet and exercise hasn't killed me.

So you don’t care what happens to the planet after you’re gone?  Screw you future generations, you’re on your own.🖕 And here I thought that millennials were supposed to be more environmentally and socially aware. 

First off, let me stop you right there. Do you know how air conditioning works? I'm not talking about the current design, I mean the original idea of AC and refrigeration.

The original idea of AC was to take the water out of the air. Cooling was a side benefit.

If was basically melting ice to produce cold air. You see, even if you got the ice caps to start melting by being just over the melting point, they can refreeze.

Not unless that energy can get taken away.

Third, the cause of this heat increase? It's not pollution, as trees can trap carbon very nicely. Ironically, it's the prevalence of solar panels requiring clear-cutting forests to make open land for collecting solar energy. Want someone to blame for raising heat? Blame your green energy lobbyists!

Except the heat increase started before wide spread proliferation of solar panels.
Trees aren't magic and can't just magically trap all the carbon.

Oh noes! Ummm I'll be like what, 80 by then? If not poor diet and exercise hasn't killed me.

i.e. you don't care about anyone other than yourself.
As long as you are dead before it gets too bad, you don't care.

That's why conmen would trick you. Because they don't care about you. They don't care what Earth is like after they are gone. They want to be able to profit off everyone.
But that would be the big oil lobbies.

This is why they now call it "climate change". Because global warming is not accurate. But yes climate does change. And change back.

No, it is because it is complex, and doesn't simply cause warming.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 21, 2024, 06:05:41 AM

Oh noes! Ummm I'll be like what, 80 by then? If not poor diet and exercise hasn't killed me.

So you don’t care what happens to the planet after you’re gone?  Screw you future generations, you’re on your own. And here I thought that millennials were supposed to be more environmentally and socially aware. 

The world (not the planet) should have been destroyed by environmentally unconscious Romans or Chinese in ancient times, as they used actual torches all over the place. It was 16 degrees hotter than it was now. Earth goes through warming and cooling phases, and we are in a Little Ice Age. Yes, it's about to get warmer. And then much cooler, and then warmer again. And then warmer still. And then much cooler. There is no reason to set your culture back to the Stone Age for the sick preachy altruism of woke society.

You know why I mentioned being 80? It was because this might happen by that time. Might. Or it might not. We have hot summers, but Chicken Little, unless you can show me that the sky is actually falling and not just a chunk of roofing, I'm gonna tell you and your theory to get lost. Now. As for me, I have one AC unit, on Economy mode, currently not blowing (just cut on), and I'll thank you not to tell me that I can't be cool in the summer and warm in the winter when the consequences of not using power are freezing to death or getting a heatstroke, and the consequences to "the planet" or "the environment" are maybe a few degrees over the course of forty years (maybe), and if we sacrifice everything, living in caves, "the planet" would over 100 years go down maybe 1.5 degrees... if not for the fact that Mexico and China don't fucking care about "the environment" and instead care about the economics of their country and the prosperity and comfort of their people, like any sensible culture should. What this is, at its heart is white guilt and altruism.

I'm sure we can find you some cannibals still left in this world who would be more than happy for you to help feed. But as for me, I don't believe in zero sum game. We have a subsistence farm. About 30% of our food comes from crops we or our neighbors grow. We are perfectly capable of feeding ourselves, that you have trouble imagining this has nothing to do with me.

Two bits of news:
1. A recent study found that most owners of hybrids don't actually use the electric function. In other words they bought the hybrid in the off chance that Deep State tries to force them to switch to electric, and can't see any advantage, because they don't have a decent home charger set up (living either in the country away from that, or in the city with towable street parking, not in the suburban woke bubble where everyone has both the energy and the private driveways), and because it takes fucking hours to charge.
2. Our small town won against Big Green Energy, booing down some asshole who wanted to set up a solar farm on the outskirts of town. The guy reportedly said as he lost the vote "You guys are all tyrants," referencing the tyranny of the majority idea, and the fact that he had lost a potential business opportunity . Yes, well, tyranny of the majority is still preferred to tyranny of the minority, that is one asshole business making life miserable for everyone in the area. 

Environmentalism is something we do try to do. We make sure our farm isn't using alot of chemicals, we recycle what we can. By the way, people from other towns (like yours) drive by our house and toss their plastic trash in our yard. Plastic cannot be easily recycled by the way, unlike paper or metal or glass.

 But the environmentalism you talk about is more akin to getting on an altar (getting strong Solo Leveling vibes) and letting yourself be stabbed. Nope, environmentalism ends with comfort. As for our small farmhouse, yeah, we have bees, wasps, fruit trees, flowers, hummingbirds, crops. What do you have?
Maybe you should do environmentalism, and leave the rest of us the fuck alone. Now, had you read that timeline, you'd notice that every time they predict some great heat or cold, like five or ten years pass and it's the opposite.

What was our topic, before all this? Oh right the ISS. Who btw, if they exist in space even, basically should be liable for a a whole hell of a lot more environmental destruction than our farm is. Let's see: they toss clothes and literal shit out where it burns up in the atmosphere (burning fecal waste seems nice), they burn enormous amounts of rocket fuel every time they want to get to or from ISS, and there's the eventual metal scrap that's supposed to just orbit Earth as NASA never talks about cleaning up any of this (probably because it isn't real).

So either ISS is fake, or you should really go after them for contribution to climate change, and not me, who probably does less damage than the average citizen, since less of our food comes from a supermarket.