what observations prove this? Non. Einstein himself said no terrestrial experiment could prove the motion of earth. The only "proof" you have comes from governmental space agencies whos claims cant be validated by independent sources.
next your gonna say some shit about how its impossible that this secret could be true because it would take all the governments working together to keep this lie going, or some variation of this argument.
then im gonna remind you about covid and how these same governmental and scientific bodies lied to the whole world (and still are) about a fake virus.
they have lied to us all my friend and they will continue till we learn to think for ourselves.
Unfortunately you have no science learning background at all.
Astronomy is centuries old, long before there were governments with space agencies. We have been doing observations for a very long time and they ALL support our knowledge of the place of earth in the larger universe framework.
The 'earth is the center of the universe' argument was disproved long long ago.
Do not try to connect covid and space coverups, the reasoning is completely invalid.
you talk out your arse alot eh. Ancients all believed in a small geocentric universe with us at the center, the Ptolemaic model was geocentric with us at the center. Tycho braha expanded on it and made the most accurate model we've ever hade. It also had us in the center.
your model comes from 17th century Jesuits, namely Copernicus. Who most likely murdered Tycho and then stole his work to create early heliocentrism.
science learning lol how about you learn some history
The 'earth is the center of the universe' argument was disproved long long ago.
Interestingly, no - that was never done. It was originally accepted by the pope on the recommendation by his advisers that it (the heliocentric model) be accepted for purely mathematical reasons (not scientific, or based on any particular observation, proof, or "disproof").
I highly recommend the documentary called "The Principle" on the subject. It is well worth a watch (or two).
Jesus H Christ, you people come out of the woodwork with illogic.
Anyone who has ever taken an astronomy course knows pretty well that it is nonsense to maintain the earth is the center of celestial bodies. The sun does not circle around the earth, the planet earth is a subsidiary of the solar system not its center. Centuries of astronomical observation data shows that. Deferral to religious doctrine bases things on the supernatural and not the real.
The movie The Principle is absolute crackpot, full of bizarre illogic. For heaven's sake do not take it seriously.
What specifically do you find that i've said which is illogical, and why?
Anyone who has ever taken an astronomy course knows pretty well that it is nonsense to maintain the earth is the center of celestial bodies
The whole point is it is taught as "nonsense" and excluded as a "maintainable" model on purely philosophical grounds. Not scientific ones!
The sun does not circle around the earth, the planet earth is a subsidiary of the solar system not its center.
So we are taught, yes. But that does not make it so! Much (if not most) of what we are taught is wrong, just like historically and for the same reasons.
Centuries of astronomical observation data shows that
There is no observational data that fundamentally contradicts a geocentric model. That's the whole point! The reason it is excluded is for philosophical reasons, not scientific ones. Even with strong evidence supporting it and contradicting currently popular models (such as anisotropic cmb/matter etc.).
Deferral to religious doctrine bases things on the supernatural and not the real.
I am not advocating for deferral to religious doctrine.
The movie The Principle is absolute crackpot, full of bizarre illogic.
So you've actually watched it? I didn't find anything illogical, or more importantly - historically inaccurate - about it, though admittedly it is a bit of a catholic (ex-catholic, to be specific) propaganda piece. That doesn't prevent it from being a good documentary.
Again, what specifically did you find illogical? Maybe list a few things and explain what logic they violate?
For heaven's sake do not take it seriously.
I think it worth seriously evaluating and considering - but i agree that nothing should be accepted before your own rigorous critical evaluation and validation.
The Principle rides upon supernatural beliefs. Those are not provable in any scientific way and they cannot be taken as rational grounds for anything.
As for the rest, apparently you are not a disciplined nor well schooled thinker so this is really a waste. I can't spend time on it. And flat earth is a haven for both poor thinkers and trolls, so goodbye to that.
It is remarkably pro bible / traditional catholic views, but the thesis of the documentary is not supernatural. Even if it were, what we are discussing isn't. There is no supernatural belief in the recognition of the historical fact that geocentrism is discarded for philosophical, and not scientific, reasons. The documentary does a great job showing the historical inception and chronology of that philosophical bias, as well as its impacts today with modern cosmology and cosmologists; which, even when presented with compelling evidence that the earth is at the center (as it appears to us by observation), are so disturbed philosophically by such data as to discard it and continue to stubbornly cling to antiquated models which plainly conflict with such data/observations. Bias is pernicious, and as you say - it has everything to do with belief (the enemy of knowledge, and the possibility of objective study of any kind). Scientists are people too and they always deludedly think "we aren't superstitious (now)" in every age.
Those are not provable in any scientific way
Precisely the point! There is nothing provable or disprovable about a geocentric model. In truth, astronomy/cosmology is largely not science at all. One of the more interesting quotes from the documentary is from michio kaku admitting that in no uncertain terms - astrophycisists do not employ the scientific method - and as such are not scientists nor practice science. They are closer to mathematicians - theorists at best.
In any case - can you not answer my question? What specifically from the documentary did you find illogical, and what logic did it violate?
so this is really a waste.
If you say so. I don't think exchanging and exploring views with others of differing views is a waste unless you let it be. In general, it's called learning.
Besides, if you are "the learned" then sharing your wisdom with the less educated is also not a waste of time! It is the responsibility of us with knowledge to share it with others! Hoarding it while simultaneously maligning others for lacking it is cruel and self defeating/reinforcing.
And flat earth is a haven for both poor thinkers and trolls
The heavily advertised (i.e. funded) flat earth psyop - yes, i agree. The actual subject itself, as well as exploring such questions as "what is the true shape of the world, could i be wrong about it, and how can i prove it to myself and others?" is almost exclusively for intellectuals and capable autodidactic students only. It takes a great deal of intellectual fortitude, capacity, and bravery to recognize and admit that you could be (and likely are) wrong about a great many things you were taught. The fools and trolls, on the other hand, can only parrot what they were taught and reflexively/mindlessly attack any heretics which challenge their dogmas :(
I'm putting our differences aside to say: we have to ignore these people. Flat earth threads always blow up with discourse, which to a casual observer, gives validity to their "perspective."
Why can everyone south of the equator see the exact same stars rotating in the same direction around the same fixed central point in the sky due south of them if they’re supposedly all looking in different directions?
Why are the distances between degrees of latitude uniform and don’t grow exponentially away from the equator?
Why does everyone on Earth get the same result for the Eratosthenes experiment, when people nearer the equator should get a much smaller circumference for the Earth than those nearer the poles?
Come to think of it, was Eratosthenes part of the “round Earth” conspiracy?
Surviving records show that the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians based their astronomical forecasts on calculations assuming the Earth is a globe. Did this conspiracy begin at the dawn of civilization, or are all ancient artifacts nothing but Victorian forgeries? If so, why has this never been detected by modern carbon-dating techniques?
Why do arc lengths of given angles of longitude decrease rather than increase south of the equator?
Why does the sun not rise in the northeast and set in the northwest, year round, for everyone on Earth?
Why DOES the sun set, when the law of perspective states that the angular size of the sun’s altitude, like everything else, can’t become negative?
Why does the sun’s angular size not change throughout the day or year, since it is “moving toward and away from us” and is “closer than we’re told”?
Seriously, did you fall asleep during geometry class, or are you just completely demented?
If you believe in zeteticism, why do you keep relying on magical and unprovable solutions, which can’t be shown to exist with your own eyes and clearly don’t exist at all? Apparently, zeteticism is just code for “make any old bullshit up and pretend it’s true.”
If all photographs of a round Earth are a hoax, why not simply create photographs of a flat Earth?
A property of mass is that it has gravitational force regardless of size. If the Earth did not have a gravitational field, wouldn’t that imply that the Earth doesn’t physically exist?
Where is the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station located if the south “pole” is the whole circumference of the Earth?
Wouldn’t creating such elaborate fakes and conspiracies cost an equal–if not greater–amount of money than the science they are supposedly covering up?
The idea of the Earth as a sphere has existed at least since the time of the ancient Greeks, long before NASA. What were their financial motives?
What financial motives could NASA have, since their budget is still cut every year?
How could the sun be a spotlight if it is a sphere? On the flat Earth, the light projection would have to be a semicircle.
Why does the North Star goes to the horizon?
Why do constellations appear to be different in the Southern and Northern hemispheres?
Why is the Coriolis effect stronger near both poles, instead of stronger in the north and weaker in the south?
If the circumferential south pole is preventing the oceans from pouring over the edge of the flat Earth, why didn’t the oceans disappear during the incredible amount of time it would have taken for that ice to form?
If the oceans would–if they could–pour off the edge of the flat Earth, where, then, would they go? Does this mean that whatever keeps the oceans on the surface of the flat Earth only operates in a downward direction on the uppermost surface and is absent on the underneath?
Why are satellites visible from Earth with a pair of binoculars and even the naked eye?
How could a flat body maintain an atmosphere?
Why are other celestial bodies spheres but the Earth is not? How, and why, was the Earth created differently?
Wouldn’t creating such elaborate fakes and conspiracies cost an equal–if not greater–amount of money than the science they are supposedly covering up?
You seem to have me confused with someone else. I am not talking about "elaborate fakes" or "conspiracies".
However, as an aside; In general - no.
Lies and fakes cost vastly less than the actual reality. Lies are cheap - as is cgi/camera tricks. Compare the cost of a model rocket to an actual one and i think you'll find "faking" is vastly more cost effective.
Well there is funding that goes to education facilities to teach this, science shows, lectures, maps, all sorts of things produced that support the globe earth. Why is this cheaper than the truth?
Well there is funding that goes to education facilities to teach this, science shows, lectures, maps, all sorts of things produced that support the globe earth
None of those things support (or depend on) a globe earth, no. The shape of the world simply is - it requires no support whatsoever regardless of what that shape is.
Educational funding happens for an entirely different purpose.
Why is this cheaper than the truth?
Truth is ALWAYS more valuable/expensive than lies. It's a truism.
Is there another time in your life where this happened, where you were confident something was false without knowing the real answer?
Of course! It happens to all people who think critically. It (almost) never happens to those who don't.
It isn't so much a "confidence", as a conclusion based on reasonably rigorous research. Of course i do have confidence in that conclusion, and - like everyone else - have been wrong many times in the past.
I just want to make clear the distinction between a suspicion / gut instinct that something is incorrect and what we are discussing.
An example, one of many, is that consumption of large amounts of fat caused and/or contributed to obesity. I concluded that was false long before it was commonly known.
Knowing it isn't fat consumption causing mass obesity in industrialized nations, sadly - and for the exact same reasons, does not automatically provide you with the true root/primary cause. This is just the way critical evaluation works.
The "low fat" craze was/is all marketing, and bad for your health.
Connected to this was also the incorrect idea that (especially animal) fat consumption was related to cholesterol and heart problems - none of which is correct. The half life of facts in physiology is around 25-50 years (meaning in 25 to 50 years, half of everything you were taught about the human body and its working will be known to be false).
Once you recognize something you were taught is false, you don't automatically gain the correct answer to replace it by gnosis. The correct answer to the majority of questions is "We/i don't know", and likely will always be.
No need to get bogged down in the "exception proves the rule"/"hair splitting" just to avoid understanding what i'm saying so you can half heartedly feign disagreement ;)
"Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon"
Meaning your comment is (once again) an irrelevant aside/non-sequitur. And now you are doubling down because ... ?
The "fact" that most everyone learned or was exposed to was that eating fat was largely responsible for being/becoming fat. This is what i was saying was (and is) incorrect, and recognized that fact through research on the subject without replacing it with something new.
This is the nature of critical evaluation. The vast majority of the times you critically evaluate something to be incorrect, it does not lead to (and never provides, in and of the critical evaluation itself) the correct answer to replace it (that would sure be nice though!)
It is meant to. I recognize that you are not allowing it to, and are using it as an excuse to further derail and avoid the actual conversation. You should stop that.
then all you deserve now is a proper proof that I'm a real human being.
You are being far too sensitive about this. If you aren't a bot, then laugh such baseless accusations off and work on avoiding bot like behavior in the future (which i explicitly outline in my comments).
You can't prove you are a real human being any other way in this forum.
Incorrect. It is YOUR responsibility to not use them in the first place.
Not if you want the conversation to stay on topic. If you want the conversation to stay on topic, as i do, then it is your responsibility to work towards ensuring that (which includes ignoring/suppressing tangent, distraction, and red herring). If you don't want the conversation to stay on topic, then just keep doing what you're doing - but don't delude yourself into believing the lie that you want the conversation to stay on topic or continue.
A literal, parenthetical, non-sequitur in action.
You don't seem to understand. The fact is, you could be a bot. The fact is, i could be a bot. That isn't going to change. It is just something you are going to have to come to terms with. It is a facet of the technological hellscape we inhabit. There is nothing we can do about it - but we can avoid exhibiting the traits/habits of bots as well as engage in meaningful conversation and other actions that they simply cannot perform.
In the meantime, try not to take any offense. None is intended.
You are not telling me I am acting like one. You are directly questioning whether I am
They are effectively one and the same. I am telling you that i am getting closer to concluding you are bot because of the actions which i outline explicitly in the comments which make you appear that way. I am always questioning wether or not you are a bot, and always will be. I highly recommend you do the same with any online discourse - it is the prudent thing to do.
one case lament that you have to assume that I am.
The lament is likewise omnipresent. I would be happier if this hellscape did not involve bots, and there was no possibility that you were one. Alas, reality does not allow it.
Yet another good reason not to let tangent derail conversations from their specific topic
This is your doing, by continuing to bring up the fact that you "doubt" that I am a real human being.
If you aren't a bot, then laugh such baseless accusations off
I'm more interested in ensuring I'm not speaking with someone who continues to make baseless accusations. You are failing here.
(which includes ignoring/suppressing tangent, distraction, and red herring)
When you decide to use tangent, distraction, and red herrings It shows you do not respect the conversation, so why would I?
The fact is, you could be a bot. The fact is, i could be a bot.
But you are not a bot. That isn't under question. However, you are deciding to question whether I am. I don't wish to converse with someone who will hold baseless assumptions, so I would be more interested in directly addressing that before I would take what you say seriously.
Part of growing up is recognizing and taking responsibility for your actions. Don't shirk it - it's for your benefit!
Even if it were true that my criticisms of your bot-like actions/behavior were a distraction from the conversation (which they were not, or at least certainly not intended as) it was YOUR choice to derail and entirely focus the subsequent conversation on those minor comments. If it is important to you, as it is to me, to keep the conversation on topic - then you have to learn how to suppress and/or ignore such distractions. "They started it" is not a valid defense on the playground, or in a conversation for the exact same reasons!
with someone who continues to make baseless accusations
If only they were baseless! We could have skipped this whole waste of time. It is because they are not baseless that this utter waste of breath is transpiring.
It shows you do not respect the conversation, so why would I?
As i've said - i explicitly made such comments because of my respect for the conversation. But even if that were not the case, and i was intentionally trying to derail and disrespect the conversation - that is your excuse for so devotedly helping me to do that? Again, such "they started it" "logic" is embarrassingly childish and best avoided.
You would respect the conversation and seek to keep it on topic merely because you choose to, and for no other reason. Don't ever let the bad habits and actions of others compel you to be worse and stoop to their level! When you let that happen, you become lesser; you become like your enemy.
But you are not a bot.
Perhaps. Or perhaps i am not a bot now, but will be in the near future. As the spooks say : trust, but verify.
That isn't under question
It must always be, sadly. When an online entity exhibits bot like behavior, concluding that they are or may be a bot is completely prudent and warranted.
However, you are deciding to question whether I am
Based on you actions, yes! If you wish to avoid such accusation in the future, then you must work to avoid their behavior and to engage in behavior which they cannot emulate.
so I would be more interested in directly addressing that before I would take what you say seriously.
I think you are being far too sensitive about all this. I receive so many routine baseless accusations online that perhaps i have become a bit callous regarding it, but i am doubtful that this is your first experience with such things if you've spent any significant time on online forums.
As for "taking me seriously", that is completely up to you. I do not seek to manipulate (aka convince) you in any way; quite the opposite in fact. I do my utmost to be both earnest and honest, but that will, can, and should only become evident to you through repeated interaction and demonstration. Even then, such things can change at the drop of a hat and those who deserved to be taken seriously in the past can suddenly stop being worthy (and vice versa, but that is quite a bit more rare).
Thread limit reached again :( Very tiresome, and boring.
if my state of even being human is in question
It always was before, and it always will be in the foreseeable future. Better quit the internet.
Captchas and other bot detections will continue to exist and be levied against you because the very real possibility that you are a bot exists. It's just something we have to live with. No sense in pouting about it.
I'm offering to settle that over a better medium.
You just can't read, can you :( There is no "human authentication" medium - nor one that is inherently better. Besides (as i've said several times now), if you can't avoid bot like tendencies (including the inability to read and comprehend) and conduct meaningful conversation in this medium - there is no hope or point in any others.
You seem to imply though that if you were to converse with an AI over video chat, it would pass the Turing test.
You've already failed the turing test here.. Which means you will necessarily fail there too.
Will you exhibit bot like tendencies over another medium?; of course - and for the same reasons you do on this one regardless of if you are a bot or not.
Please stop being dishonest
Your inability to infer implicit answers (another complex function bots cannot perform) is not an example of my dishonesty.
You are free to feel disrespected anytime you encounter a captcha or any other bot detection method online. But it's foolish. No disrespect is intended - either by those captchas or by me.
That's not what this is.
That's where you are wrong. Bot detection is bot detection. Mine is a bit more sophisticated, but they have an almost identical purpose.
Unless I were human, then the Turing test wouldn't apply.
The turing test would apply to anything being tested with it, obviously. Though i agree that, if you are human, whatever its results - they certainly couldn't establish that you are a machine.
But your dishonesty is an example of your dishonesty.
But your last accusation of dishonesty was literally an example of your difficulty inferring an answer. Can you provide (quote/cite/link) any actual examples of "my dishonesty" or were you just spewing purely hypothetical tautology?
You are free to feel disrespected anytime you encounter a captcha or any other bot detection method online
I don't feel disrespected by that though. I feel disrespected when you, another person, is repeatedly declaring that I must be a bot when I'm attempting to have an honest discussion.
but they have an almost identical purpose.
They do not.
The turing test would apply to anything being tested with it, obviously.
Incorrect. The Turing test is specifically designed to see if machines are exhibiting intelligence on par with human behavior. It is not designed to be tested on humans, because however a human acts would be human behavior.
Can you provide (quote/cite/link) any actual examples of "my dishonesty"
I have already done that. Please refer back to earlier parts of our conversation and the answer will be made clear to you.
Good. When you are accused of being a bot, either through captcha or any other bot detection method - there is no reason or use in being offended at the accusation.
is repeatedly declaring that I must be a bot when I'm attempting to have an honest discussion.
Please cite/quote this declaration. You seem to be seeing/reading things that aren't there, and are being needlessly sensitive. I tend to use verbiage like "likely" and "bot like". As we agree, it is somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible to determine with absolute certainty (in this scenario, anyhow) that you (or I) are a bot - so declarations to that effect would be silly.
They do not.
Bot detection is bot detection - no matter the method, and no matter wether the determination made by that detection method is correct or not. For example - humans fail captchas all the time and that necessarily increases the chances that they are a bot (from the bot detector's perspective) You have exhibited many bot like tendencies which continues to increase the chance that you are one. No need to take any offense at it. Just stop exhibiting those behaviors as best you can.
Incorrect
Don't act like a child if you can help it. Obviously a person can be tested with such a turing test, and you are in this scenario (and others).
I have already done that.
Yes, and like the last baseless accusation i have refuted and dismissed them without contest from you. That means you agree that i have not been dishonest, and are simply pissy about it :( Unless you can quote/cite a particular "lie" that i have not already refuted and dismissed, you should stop lying about "my dishonesty" - as this is another common troll/shill/bot tactic.
I already did answer them - don't you remember? Of course not, because you just mindlessly copypaste this gish gallop for rhetorical purpose and don't have any earnest questions to ask.
Prove me wrong. Ask ONE earnest question; your best/most important question. Unless of course, you don't want answers to them...
Here: Why can I go either East or West from Toronto, and end up in Rome?
Regardless of the shape of the world, it would be because when you are traveling east or west you are actually traveling in a large circle with its center at the north pole.
On a spherical earth, a gyroscope would detect a semi-constant acceleration towards the ground.
Detect? All matter "detects" a semi-constant acceleration towards the ground in your view - doesn't it?
On a flat earth, a gyroscope would detect a semi-constant acceleration to the right or left, but none towards the ground.
The gyro (spin) - scope (see/view) was created for demonstrating the rotation (gyro) of the world - not its shape. If the world were flat, the gyroscope would behave exactly the same way it currently does and for the exact same reasons. Right?
Why do you think its function is dependent on the shape of the world?
What are the results of this experiment -- which is done every day via air-flight?
First of all, this is in no way an experiment - we are talking about mere observations. Secondly, the gyrocompass (and/or artificial horizon in an airplane) works - on that we can agree. Once again the question is why on earth you think that is dependent on the worlds shape. It isn't... and in the case of an airplane, which isn't even touching the ground, it is obviously doubly so.
I don't know, but I suspect that it's the former.
I'm not sure i'm fully understanding you. It seems you aren't properly understanding what the gyroscope is used for on airplanes. Maybe it will become more clear if you can answer some of the questions above.
In any case, your earnest engagement is appreciated!
Jack, I guess rather than gyroscope I should have said accelerometer -- so a device, such as a fiber-optic ring that will tell you your acceleration, both magnitude and direction.
In an airplane that's coasting, there is no acceleration, because gravity is balanced by lift. This is why you can walk in an airplane at cruising altitude. But once you hit turbulence -- well, fasten your seatbelt!
Now, if you're flying east-west on a 'Gleason map' flat-earth, then you have to constantly veer to the left to maintain the circle. You won't notice this effect physically, because it's small. But a sensitive accelerometer will detect it. This is the infamous 'centripetal acceleration' that people struggle with in uni!
Conversely, if you're on a Globe earth, you'll have to constantly veer downwards, otherwise you'd fly off into space. Again, you don't notice this effect, but an accelerometer would detect it.
Jack, I guess rather than gyroscope I should have said accelerometer -- so a device, such as a fiber-optic ring that will tell you your acceleration, both magnitude and direction.
Makes no difference at all. RLG's, mems, gyrocompasses (which do contain gyroscopes) - none of them in any way depend on the earths shape to function. This is an encouraged/popularized mistake/misunderstanding. Ask yourself - why do you think they need the world to be spherical in order to work?
In an airplane that's coasting, there is no acceleration, because gravity is balanced by lift.
That's not what the equations describe, but god knows i agree with you. The plane is (basically) not accelerating towards the ground when it is flying at constant elevation.
Now, if you're flying east-west on a 'Gleason map' flat-earth, then you have to constantly veer to the left to maintain the circle. You won't notice this effect physically, because it's small. But a sensitive accelerometer will detect it.
It certainly could, i agree. In reality, such precision even if present (it isn't) would be massively overwhelmed by local sources (wind, vibration, actual course flown etc.). A very large circle would, and does, seem identical to a straight path. Of course, airplanes don't travel in perfectly straight lines in any case. It's all a bit moot.
Conversely, if you're on a Globe earth, you'll have to constantly veer downwards, otherwise you'd fly off into space.
This is a common mistaken view amongst the "flat earthers" (psyop). They argue that because a plane DOESN'T (and doesn't need to) make any such corrections that this demonstrates the world can't be spherical the way we are taught.
If you agreed with this (flawed) premise, you would likely come to the same conclusion - that the world was not spherical, so it is a bit odd to me that you brought it up!
I hope this clears up what I mean?
A little. I still think you are misunderstanding what gyroscopes (and/or accelerometers) are in planes and what their function is.
Anyway, i once again thank you for earnestly engaging in the conversation. You might be surprised how rare that is! Much appreciated.
Literally no, but that’s also irrelevant because you’re a clinically insane paid shill and the Earth isn’t flat. No one gives a shit about your brain damage. Go back to your containment board.
Ellis is flat out wrong.Observations in fact show and prove earth is not the center of the universe and a lot happens completely independent of earth.
Where do these wingnuts come from?
what observations prove this? Non. Einstein himself said no terrestrial experiment could prove the motion of earth. The only "proof" you have comes from governmental space agencies whos claims cant be validated by independent sources.
next your gonna say some shit about how its impossible that this secret could be true because it would take all the governments working together to keep this lie going, or some variation of this argument.
then im gonna remind you about covid and how these same governmental and scientific bodies lied to the whole world (and still are) about a fake virus.
they have lied to us all my friend and they will continue till we learn to think for ourselves.
Unfortunately you have no science learning background at all.
Astronomy is centuries old, long before there were governments with space agencies. We have been doing observations for a very long time and they ALL support our knowledge of the place of earth in the larger universe framework.
The 'earth is the center of the universe' argument was disproved long long ago.
Do not try to connect covid and space coverups, the reasoning is completely invalid.
you talk out your arse alot eh. Ancients all believed in a small geocentric universe with us at the center, the Ptolemaic model was geocentric with us at the center. Tycho braha expanded on it and made the most accurate model we've ever hade. It also had us in the center.
your model comes from 17th century Jesuits, namely Copernicus. Who most likely murdered Tycho and then stole his work to create early heliocentrism.
science learning lol how about you learn some history
I used to consider you tolerable but now know you are an idiot in a rusty red pickup and a wife-beater shirt and a shotgun. Blahhh.
lol my truck is gray and i don't own a shotgun, I do have a crossbow though.
Interestingly, no - that was never done. It was originally accepted by the pope on the recommendation by his advisers that it (the heliocentric model) be accepted for purely mathematical reasons (not scientific, or based on any particular observation, proof, or "disproof").
I highly recommend the documentary called "The Principle" on the subject. It is well worth a watch (or two).
Jesus H Christ, you people come out of the woodwork with illogic. Anyone who has ever taken an astronomy course knows pretty well that it is nonsense to maintain the earth is the center of celestial bodies. The sun does not circle around the earth, the planet earth is a subsidiary of the solar system not its center. Centuries of astronomical observation data shows that. Deferral to religious doctrine bases things on the supernatural and not the real.
The movie The Principle is absolute crackpot, full of bizarre illogic. For heaven's sake do not take it seriously.
What specifically do you find that i've said which is illogical, and why?
The whole point is it is taught as "nonsense" and excluded as a "maintainable" model on purely philosophical grounds. Not scientific ones!
So we are taught, yes. But that does not make it so! Much (if not most) of what we are taught is wrong, just like historically and for the same reasons.
There is no observational data that fundamentally contradicts a geocentric model. That's the whole point! The reason it is excluded is for philosophical reasons, not scientific ones. Even with strong evidence supporting it and contradicting currently popular models (such as anisotropic cmb/matter etc.).
I am not advocating for deferral to religious doctrine.
So you've actually watched it? I didn't find anything illogical, or more importantly - historically inaccurate - about it, though admittedly it is a bit of a catholic (ex-catholic, to be specific) propaganda piece. That doesn't prevent it from being a good documentary.
Again, what specifically did you find illogical? Maybe list a few things and explain what logic they violate?
I think it worth seriously evaluating and considering - but i agree that nothing should be accepted before your own rigorous critical evaluation and validation.
The Principle rides upon supernatural beliefs. Those are not provable in any scientific way and they cannot be taken as rational grounds for anything.
As for the rest, apparently you are not a disciplined nor well schooled thinker so this is really a waste. I can't spend time on it. And flat earth is a haven for both poor thinkers and trolls, so goodbye to that.
It is remarkably pro bible / traditional catholic views, but the thesis of the documentary is not supernatural. Even if it were, what we are discussing isn't. There is no supernatural belief in the recognition of the historical fact that geocentrism is discarded for philosophical, and not scientific, reasons. The documentary does a great job showing the historical inception and chronology of that philosophical bias, as well as its impacts today with modern cosmology and cosmologists; which, even when presented with compelling evidence that the earth is at the center (as it appears to us by observation), are so disturbed philosophically by such data as to discard it and continue to stubbornly cling to antiquated models which plainly conflict with such data/observations. Bias is pernicious, and as you say - it has everything to do with belief (the enemy of knowledge, and the possibility of objective study of any kind). Scientists are people too and they always deludedly think "we aren't superstitious (now)" in every age.
Precisely the point! There is nothing provable or disprovable about a geocentric model. In truth, astronomy/cosmology is largely not science at all. One of the more interesting quotes from the documentary is from michio kaku admitting that in no uncertain terms - astrophycisists do not employ the scientific method - and as such are not scientists nor practice science. They are closer to mathematicians - theorists at best.
In any case - can you not answer my question? What specifically from the documentary did you find illogical, and what logic did it violate?
If you say so. I don't think exchanging and exploring views with others of differing views is a waste unless you let it be. In general, it's called learning.
Besides, if you are "the learned" then sharing your wisdom with the less educated is also not a waste of time! It is the responsibility of us with knowledge to share it with others! Hoarding it while simultaneously maligning others for lacking it is cruel and self defeating/reinforcing.
The heavily advertised (i.e. funded) flat earth psyop - yes, i agree. The actual subject itself, as well as exploring such questions as "what is the true shape of the world, could i be wrong about it, and how can i prove it to myself and others?" is almost exclusively for intellectuals and capable autodidactic students only. It takes a great deal of intellectual fortitude, capacity, and bravery to recognize and admit that you could be (and likely are) wrong about a great many things you were taught. The fools and trolls, on the other hand, can only parrot what they were taught and reflexively/mindlessly attack any heretics which challenge their dogmas :(
Minor correction, but i believe he is quoted as saying no optical experiment [observation; not experiment] could prove the motion of the earth.
good add on
I'm putting our differences aside to say: we have to ignore these people. Flat earth threads always blow up with discourse, which to a casual observer, gives validity to their "perspective."
I agree.
We have to ban these “people.” They’re not real. They don’t exist. They’re paid shills. It’s all well poisoning.
you promote the moon landing. No one cares about your fed copy paste
Thanks for admitting the Earth isn’t flat. Burn in hell, paid shill.
predictable replyfag response, go cry to a mod about your NASA safe space. Its only thing you do here besides shitting up the comment sections anyway
Thanks for admitting the Earth isn’t flat. You can’t defend any of your claims.
Why can't you ask earnest questions one at a time?
None of them are difficult to answer - regardless of conceived shape of the world.
Could I pick one from his list, and ask that to you?
You may ask me any question, as long as you ask it earnestly.
I'm happy to share my knowledge (and expose it to critical scrutiny) whenever it is of benefit.
Wouldn’t creating such elaborate fakes and conspiracies cost an equal–if not greater–amount of money than the science they are supposedly covering up?
You seem to have me confused with someone else. I am not talking about "elaborate fakes" or "conspiracies".
However, as an aside; In general - no.
Lies and fakes cost vastly less than the actual reality. Lies are cheap - as is cgi/camera tricks. Compare the cost of a model rocket to an actual one and i think you'll find "faking" is vastly more cost effective.
Well there is funding that goes to education facilities to teach this, science shows, lectures, maps, all sorts of things produced that support the globe earth. Why is this cheaper than the truth?
None of those things support (or depend on) a globe earth, no. The shape of the world simply is - it requires no support whatsoever regardless of what that shape is.
Educational funding happens for an entirely different purpose.
Truth is ALWAYS more valuable/expensive than lies. It's a truism.
Replying to https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/17rmSnG7lZ/x/c/4Z7RBNw30ke (sadly thread limit was reached :()
Of course! It happens to all people who think critically. It (almost) never happens to those who don't.
It isn't so much a "confidence", as a conclusion based on reasonably rigorous research. Of course i do have confidence in that conclusion, and - like everyone else - have been wrong many times in the past.
I just want to make clear the distinction between a suspicion / gut instinct that something is incorrect and what we are discussing.
An example, one of many, is that consumption of large amounts of fat caused and/or contributed to obesity. I concluded that was false long before it was commonly known.
Knowing it isn't fat consumption causing mass obesity in industrialized nations, sadly - and for the exact same reasons, does not automatically provide you with the true root/primary cause. This is just the way critical evaluation works.
But it can contribute to obesity.
Not typically, no.
The "low fat" craze was/is all marketing, and bad for your health.
Connected to this was also the incorrect idea that (especially animal) fat consumption was related to cholesterol and heart problems - none of which is correct. The half life of facts in physiology is around 25-50 years (meaning in 25 to 50 years, half of everything you were taught about the human body and its working will be known to be false).
Once you recognize something you were taught is false, you don't automatically gain the correct answer to replace it by gnosis. The correct answer to the majority of questions is "We/i don't know", and likely will always be.
No need to get bogged down in the "exception proves the rule"/"hair splitting" just to avoid understanding what i'm saying so you can half heartedly feign disagreement ;)
Meaning there are instances when it can
"Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon"
Meaning your comment is (once again) an irrelevant aside/non-sequitur. And now you are doubling down because ... ?
The "fact" that most everyone learned or was exposed to was that eating fat was largely responsible for being/becoming fat. This is what i was saying was (and is) incorrect, and recognized that fact through research on the subject without replacing it with something new.
This is the nature of critical evaluation. The vast majority of the times you critically evaluate something to be incorrect, it does not lead to (and never provides, in and of the critical evaluation itself) the correct answer to replace it (that would sure be nice though!)
Continued from https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/17rmSnG7lZ/x/c/4Z7SQHmaQAT due to reaching thread limit - again! Yet another good reason not to let tangent derail conversations from their specific topic. Hopefully something you can recognize and work on ;)
It is meant to. I recognize that you are not allowing it to, and are using it as an excuse to further derail and avoid the actual conversation. You should stop that.
You are being far too sensitive about this. If you aren't a bot, then laugh such baseless accusations off and work on avoiding bot like behavior in the future (which i explicitly outline in my comments).
You can't prove you are a real human being any other way in this forum.
Not if you want the conversation to stay on topic. If you want the conversation to stay on topic, as i do, then it is your responsibility to work towards ensuring that (which includes ignoring/suppressing tangent, distraction, and red herring). If you don't want the conversation to stay on topic, then just keep doing what you're doing - but don't delude yourself into believing the lie that you want the conversation to stay on topic or continue.
You don't seem to understand. The fact is, you could be a bot. The fact is, i could be a bot. That isn't going to change. It is just something you are going to have to come to terms with. It is a facet of the technological hellscape we inhabit. There is nothing we can do about it - but we can avoid exhibiting the traits/habits of bots as well as engage in meaningful conversation and other actions that they simply cannot perform.
In the meantime, try not to take any offense. None is intended.
They are effectively one and the same. I am telling you that i am getting closer to concluding you are bot because of the actions which i outline explicitly in the comments which make you appear that way. I am always questioning wether or not you are a bot, and always will be. I highly recommend you do the same with any online discourse - it is the prudent thing to do.
The lament is likewise omnipresent. I would be happier if this hellscape did not involve bots, and there was no possibility that you were one. Alas, reality does not allow it.
This is your doing, by continuing to bring up the fact that you "doubt" that I am a real human being.
I'm more interested in ensuring I'm not speaking with someone who continues to make baseless accusations. You are failing here.
When you decide to use tangent, distraction, and red herrings It shows you do not respect the conversation, so why would I?
But you are not a bot. That isn't under question. However, you are deciding to question whether I am. I don't wish to converse with someone who will hold baseless assumptions, so I would be more interested in directly addressing that before I would take what you say seriously.
Part of growing up is recognizing and taking responsibility for your actions. Don't shirk it - it's for your benefit!
Even if it were true that my criticisms of your bot-like actions/behavior were a distraction from the conversation (which they were not, or at least certainly not intended as) it was YOUR choice to derail and entirely focus the subsequent conversation on those minor comments. If it is important to you, as it is to me, to keep the conversation on topic - then you have to learn how to suppress and/or ignore such distractions. "They started it" is not a valid defense on the playground, or in a conversation for the exact same reasons!
If only they were baseless! We could have skipped this whole waste of time. It is because they are not baseless that this utter waste of breath is transpiring.
As i've said - i explicitly made such comments because of my respect for the conversation. But even if that were not the case, and i was intentionally trying to derail and disrespect the conversation - that is your excuse for so devotedly helping me to do that? Again, such "they started it" "logic" is embarrassingly childish and best avoided.
You would respect the conversation and seek to keep it on topic merely because you choose to, and for no other reason. Don't ever let the bad habits and actions of others compel you to be worse and stoop to their level! When you let that happen, you become lesser; you become like your enemy.
Perhaps. Or perhaps i am not a bot now, but will be in the near future. As the spooks say : trust, but verify.
It must always be, sadly. When an online entity exhibits bot like behavior, concluding that they are or may be a bot is completely prudent and warranted.
Based on you actions, yes! If you wish to avoid such accusation in the future, then you must work to avoid their behavior and to engage in behavior which they cannot emulate.
I think you are being far too sensitive about all this. I receive so many routine baseless accusations online that perhaps i have become a bit callous regarding it, but i am doubtful that this is your first experience with such things if you've spent any significant time on online forums.
As for "taking me seriously", that is completely up to you. I do not seek to manipulate (aka convince) you in any way; quite the opposite in fact. I do my utmost to be both earnest and honest, but that will, can, and should only become evident to you through repeated interaction and demonstration. Even then, such things can change at the drop of a hat and those who deserved to be taken seriously in the past can suddenly stop being worthy (and vice versa, but that is quite a bit more rare).
Thread limit reached again :( Very tiresome, and boring.
It always was before, and it always will be in the foreseeable future. Better quit the internet.
Captchas and other bot detections will continue to exist and be levied against you because the very real possibility that you are a bot exists. It's just something we have to live with. No sense in pouting about it.
You just can't read, can you :( There is no "human authentication" medium - nor one that is inherently better. Besides (as i've said several times now), if you can't avoid bot like tendencies (including the inability to read and comprehend) and conduct meaningful conversation in this medium - there is no hope or point in any others.
You've already failed the turing test here.. Which means you will necessarily fail there too.
Will you exhibit bot like tendencies over another medium?; of course - and for the same reasons you do on this one regardless of if you are a bot or not.
Your inability to infer implicit answers (another complex function bots cannot perform) is not an example of my dishonesty.
I don't care what i look like.
No need! The issue has only occurred with you in all my years on the internet. Other people are much more respectful.
That's not what this is. I'm referring to a conversation, not a check to see if I am a human logging into my own bank account.
Unless I were human, then the Turing test wouldn't apply. That has yet to be determined, because we haven't tried that medium yet.
I agree! But your dishonesty is an example of your dishonesty.
You are free to feel disrespected anytime you encounter a captcha or any other bot detection method online. But it's foolish. No disrespect is intended - either by those captchas or by me.
That's where you are wrong. Bot detection is bot detection. Mine is a bit more sophisticated, but they have an almost identical purpose.
The turing test would apply to anything being tested with it, obviously. Though i agree that, if you are human, whatever its results - they certainly couldn't establish that you are a machine.
But your last accusation of dishonesty was literally an example of your difficulty inferring an answer. Can you provide (quote/cite/link) any actual examples of "my dishonesty" or were you just spewing purely hypothetical tautology?
I don't feel disrespected by that though. I feel disrespected when you, another person, is repeatedly declaring that I must be a bot when I'm attempting to have an honest discussion.
They do not.
Incorrect. The Turing test is specifically designed to see if machines are exhibiting intelligence on par with human behavior. It is not designed to be tested on humans, because however a human acts would be human behavior.
I have already done that. Please refer back to earlier parts of our conversation and the answer will be made clear to you.
Good. When you are accused of being a bot, either through captcha or any other bot detection method - there is no reason or use in being offended at the accusation.
Please cite/quote this declaration. You seem to be seeing/reading things that aren't there, and are being needlessly sensitive. I tend to use verbiage like "likely" and "bot like". As we agree, it is somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible to determine with absolute certainty (in this scenario, anyhow) that you (or I) are a bot - so declarations to that effect would be silly.
Bot detection is bot detection - no matter the method, and no matter wether the determination made by that detection method is correct or not. For example - humans fail captchas all the time and that necessarily increases the chances that they are a bot (from the bot detector's perspective) You have exhibited many bot like tendencies which continues to increase the chance that you are one. No need to take any offense at it. Just stop exhibiting those behaviors as best you can.
Don't act like a child if you can help it. Obviously a person can be tested with such a turing test, and you are in this scenario (and others).
Yes, and like the last baseless accusation i have refuted and dismissed them without contest from you. That means you agree that i have not been dishonest, and are simply pissy about it :( Unless you can quote/cite a particular "lie" that i have not already refuted and dismissed, you should stop lying about "my dishonesty" - as this is another common troll/shill/bot tactic.
Why can’t you fucking answer them any at a time? Fuck off.
I already did answer them - don't you remember? Of course not, because you just mindlessly copypaste this gish gallop for rhetorical purpose and don't have any earnest questions to ask.
Prove me wrong. Ask ONE earnest question; your best/most important question. Unless of course, you don't want answers to them...
Here: Why can I go either East or West from Toronto, and end up in Rome?
On a spherical earth, a gyroscope would detect a semi-constant acceleration towards the ground.
On a flat earth, a gyroscope would detect a semi-constant acceleration to the right or left, but none towards the ground.
What are the results of this experiment -- which is done every day via air-flight? I don't know, but I suspect that it's the former.
Regardless of the shape of the world, it would be because when you are traveling east or west you are actually traveling in a large circle with its center at the north pole.
Detect? All matter "detects" a semi-constant acceleration towards the ground in your view - doesn't it?
The gyro (spin) - scope (see/view) was created for demonstrating the rotation (gyro) of the world - not its shape. If the world were flat, the gyroscope would behave exactly the same way it currently does and for the exact same reasons. Right?
Why do you think its function is dependent on the shape of the world?
First of all, this is in no way an experiment - we are talking about mere observations. Secondly, the gyrocompass (and/or artificial horizon in an airplane) works - on that we can agree. Once again the question is why on earth you think that is dependent on the worlds shape. It isn't... and in the case of an airplane, which isn't even touching the ground, it is obviously doubly so.
I'm not sure i'm fully understanding you. It seems you aren't properly understanding what the gyroscope is used for on airplanes. Maybe it will become more clear if you can answer some of the questions above.
In any case, your earnest engagement is appreciated!
Wrong.
What, specifically, is "wrong". Use your words
Jack, I guess rather than gyroscope I should have said accelerometer -- so a device, such as a fiber-optic ring that will tell you your acceleration, both magnitude and direction.
In an airplane that's coasting, there is no acceleration, because gravity is balanced by lift. This is why you can walk in an airplane at cruising altitude. But once you hit turbulence -- well, fasten your seatbelt!
Now, if you're flying east-west on a 'Gleason map' flat-earth, then you have to constantly veer to the left to maintain the circle. You won't notice this effect physically, because it's small. But a sensitive accelerometer will detect it. This is the infamous 'centripetal acceleration' that people struggle with in uni!
Conversely, if you're on a Globe earth, you'll have to constantly veer downwards, otherwise you'd fly off into space. Again, you don't notice this effect, but an accelerometer would detect it.
I hope this clears up what I mean?
Aerotrain
Makes no difference at all. RLG's, mems, gyrocompasses (which do contain gyroscopes) - none of them in any way depend on the earths shape to function. This is an encouraged/popularized mistake/misunderstanding. Ask yourself - why do you think they need the world to be spherical in order to work?
That's not what the equations describe, but god knows i agree with you. The plane is (basically) not accelerating towards the ground when it is flying at constant elevation.
It certainly could, i agree. In reality, such precision even if present (it isn't) would be massively overwhelmed by local sources (wind, vibration, actual course flown etc.). A very large circle would, and does, seem identical to a straight path. Of course, airplanes don't travel in perfectly straight lines in any case. It's all a bit moot.
This is a common mistaken view amongst the "flat earthers" (psyop). They argue that because a plane DOESN'T (and doesn't need to) make any such corrections that this demonstrates the world can't be spherical the way we are taught.
If you agreed with this (flawed) premise, you would likely come to the same conclusion - that the world was not spherical, so it is a bit odd to me that you brought it up!
A little. I still think you are misunderstanding what gyroscopes (and/or accelerometers) are in planes and what their function is.
Anyway, i once again thank you for earnestly engaging in the conversation. You might be surprised how rare that is! Much appreciated.
That’s nice. I’m sure you think you answered them, but you didn’t.
Can't you even remember? Or do you just prefer to forget so you can mindlessly spam this copypasta over and over again?
Go ahead, ask your best question (earnestly). Your questions are all trivial to answer.
Are you just afraid of ever receiving an answer, because then you couldn't spam anymore?
Literally no, but that’s also irrelevant because you’re a clinically insane paid shill and the Earth isn’t flat. No one gives a shit about your brain damage. Go back to your containment board.
Gee, that didn't sound like a question...
Too scared to even ask a single one earnestly?
Globetards and moonboys are all low IQ crybabies or literal shills.
It's not a spinning ball.