No, you didn’t make it up.
Correct. I didn’t make it up. I would have come up with something less juvenile and stupid.
Kill yourself for being a flat earther.
Assuming you aren’t a bot (an increasingly frightening possibility), please try to learn to read. It will help you to be literate.
Your existence is gaslighting
Perhaps, to the weak minded. But for the capable and curious, it is intriguing and well worth exploring.
Fuck off, flatty.
Lol. “Flatty” (and “globetard” etc.) is a derogatory made up and popularized by the flat earth psyop to make you sound like a stupid child. I’d recommend avoiding using it for that reason - but suit yourself.
I am not a “flat earther” as i have explained to you many times. I am a flat earth researcher - we study the psyop, the products/agents/“flat earthers” it creates/fosters, and related topics.
No you have not.
Lol. You mean you can’t believe i have done that! More blind faith from the supposed science lover? When a scientist is asked if his shoes are tied, he looks down before answering.
Writing down your rambling thoughts doesn't make a scientific theory.
I agree! Only experiment can bear theory, which is one of many reasons why gravitation never was, and continues to not be today 3+ centuries later, scientific theory! It’s just erroneously/disingenuously misrepresented as such through standardized “education” from childhood.
What is your explanation for the effects that normal people accept are those of gravity?
We can discuss that if you like, but you should recognize how silly and illogical your position is. Demanding a replacement for something before you will even consider it is wrong is stupid and unscientific.
Why can’t you recognize/determine that something taught as science is incorrect without discovering an alternative first? Furthermore, why would one even seek to discover an alternative unless they first suspect/recognize that their current explanation is wrong? One necessarily comes before the other and is the driving engine of both knowledge and all of science. Have you given that any thought?
What is your alternative explanation?
Explanations are cheap - they are merely mythology. What matters is validation. Science is about experiment!
Abandoning the scientific method (newton wasn’t really a scientist, he is just misrepresented that way for modern scientism idolatry purposes) is what got us into this mess and introduced the unscientific fiction/mythology of gravitation into physics in the first place!
The explanation is simple, demonstrable, and experimentally validatable.
Weight is an intrinsic property of all matter. It is not imbued by magical fields of any kind.
What (primarily/chiefly) governs wether an object will rise (levity), fall (gravity), or neither (neutrality) is the relationship/interplay between the weight of the object and the weight of the media it displaces - nothing more. Archimedes had gravity (a scientific law millennia old) most all figured out 2+ millennia ago.
Formulate it and then conduct experiments to confirm it.
I have already done that! But i’m happy to go over it with you at length if you wish!
You’re banned here
After you, good sir ;)
You’re clinically insane
Perhaps, but you are a pathologically belligerent fool. I’d prefer the former over the latter any day.
Besides, has conpro taught you nothing? Still using the poppsy slanders of our enemies eh?
Then present a better explanation and validate it with experiments.
I’ve already done that!
In any case, coming up with an alternative is not necessary to criticize, identify, and/or refute existing pseudoscience or incorrect science. For example, gravitation has never been, and cannot be, experimentally verified nor can the belief that it is responsible for weight or the minuscule attraction we measure between some types of matter.
Newton understood this fully, which is why he famously didn’t even feign a hypothesis that could be experimentally verified, let alone go about creating an experiment to test it! He well understood it was folly, “philosophically unsound” - his words [i.e. unscientific], and attributed its mechanism to the christian god. A very, ahem, scientific “theory” indeed!
That is how science works.
If only!
So we are taught!
What we can actually test and observe are gravitation’s believed effects.
Gravity [gravitation, not gravity] is somewhere between mysterious and pure fiction - i.e. pseudoscience.
We can observe falling (which is the law/phenomenon of gravity - but NOT gravitation. It is merely believed to cause it...), and we can observe minuscule attraction between some types of matter - but gravitation cannot be measured, observed, understood (3+ centuries and counting :(), or manipulated (required for experiment of any kind). It doesn’t exist outside of equation and is often referred to as a “pseudo-force” (pseudo meaning NOT real) as a result.
Oh tallest, as erudite and intellectual as ever i see ;)
To any and all with an interest in this topic (for, against, neutral) please join us on flatearthresearch to exchange views!
observe my dear friend, gravity, drawing things toward a center of of mass. small scale experiments cannot
So you’re fine having faith in something you cannot test or directly observe? Not very “scientific” ... much more of a religious view wouldn’t you say?
things on the same plane as you get as smaller as they recede
Plane has nothing to do with it. Perspective occurs in all directions/dimensions. If something gets farther away from you, it will appear smaller... period, no exceptions whatsoever (under natural/normal circumstances - obviously magnification and such things can be used to counter/nullify that angular size difference)
THINGS WAY UP IN THE SKY DONT, BECAUSE U CANT PERCIEVE THEIR DEPTH
It is true that it is harder to gauge the relative size of something in the sky (without fixed reference to compare it to), but yes we can perceive the apparent size difference of things in the sky (such as planes) as they recede as well.
As for the sun, it too changes size as it changes distance to us and this is measurable - even if it is difficult for us to perceive with the naked eye. Plane has nothing to do with it. The rules of optics work the same no matter which direction/dimension you look, or how far away things are.
aIR DOESNT CAUSE REFRACTION,
As you said, any light traveling from one medium to another with a differing refraction index does refract! This includes air, which behaves as a fluid. Do you think refraction doesn’t happen in water too? Although gas and liquid are certainly different states of matter, they both act similarly - as fluids.
A DENSITY GRADIENT OVER DISTANCE = atmospheric DIFFRACTION
Not really, no. However there are physicists that agree with you that there is no significant difference between diffraction and refraction - they are one and the same. In my view diffraction is caused by light blocking/absorption/reflection and refraction is caused by altering the speed of the light wave. Refraction happens with frequencies of light where the medium (air) they are traveling through is largely transparent. Transparent things that cannot absorb/block/reflect light cannot diffract, but as i said - there are capable physicists and textbook authors that disagree with this view and declare that both are exactly the same. I think this is largely a semantical sinkhole. Wether we call the phenomenon of the light being curved convexly towards the ground as refraction or diffraction doesn’t change its reality at all.
are only ever perceived in 2d
That has to do with the distance to the object, its size, and the distance between our two eyes. It may appear 2D to us, but we can rest assured that like everything else in reality - it is, in fact, 3D. We don’t see it that way, but it is all the same. Do you disagree?
FAR UP. yOUR DEPTH PERCEPTION ENDS AT THE HORIZON
Sort of. I don’t exactly disagree, but the horizon (the distance limit of our vision through air) is NOT the same towards the horizon as it is towards the sky. The horizon is an optical illusion.
We can see farther than the distance to the horizon when looking through less air (i.e. looking up).
sO THE 3D FOREGROUD OCCULTS THE OPAQUE 2D BACKGROUND AT THE HORIZON, THIS IS WHY THE SUN APPEARSD TO SET.
i think this is word salad nonsense. The “2D” background is still plainly visible as the sun sets. There is no “occulting” by the 3D world closer, nor is such a thing possible. The sun can, and does, go far enough away that the amount of atmosphere between us and it is too great for the light to directly reach us anymore (we call it night) - and is “occulted” (I would say blocked) by it. However, if this were the cause of the sunset the sun would never set. It would remain the same size and fade until too dim to see. The bottom of it and/or ships would never disappear.
Again, can you demonstrate this believed principle/phenomena on a smaller scale? If not, why not? It should be easy to make an apparatus with smaller eyes (or use a small child) much closer together to test and observe this in a scale test if it existed - right?
iT SOUNDS LIKE YOU DIDNT WATCH THE VIDEO
I did watch the video, but am happy to admit that i may well have not understood it.
Let’s assume you are correct - how can we observe this occulting phenomenon in a controlled repeatable way? I can demonstrate a mockup of my explanation, and although that does not mean that is for certain what is happening in reality - it is at least conceivable and demonstrable. It sounds like your explanation may not be demonstrable/testable, which makes it far less likely as a possibility.
just because someone is claiming something that is partially incorrect is not "proof" its a psyop
I completely agree. It isn’t partially incorrect though - it is completely incorrect. The sun does not noticeably/perceptibly shrink in size as it sets. If perspective were the cause of the disappearance of the sun during sunset - it would shrink and get smaller until it disappeared. It would NOT set the way that large ships do.
The Sun movement across the sky is 100% due to perspective
I think we are generally in agreement here. The path the sun appears to take is significantly affected by perspective, but the movement of it is due to its movement. The sunset is NOT caused by perspective.
Refraction happens at a point where the medium changes, the horizon is neither a point nor a physical thing capable of doing that which you claim
Right! The air (medium) through which the light travels is not uniform. It is a gradient. As the light from the sun travels through this density gradient it is curved convexly towards the ground due to refraction. The horizon is an optical illusion, and isn’t involved in the refraction. Perspective is the reason the sun appears to collide with the horizon in the distance, however - in reality - the height of the sun has not changed and though it seems like the rays of the sun are coming straight at you during sunset they are really traveling downwards from a great height through the density gradient which causes the optical illusion of “setting” (this is the same way it works with ships/stars - everything that “sets”)
So essentially your claiming something is wrong by not understanding what they are claiming
It is certainly wrong to say that the reason for the sunset is perspective, or at best misleading. Your explanation sounds a little different than that, and you are correct that i do not understand it. It sounds like nonsense. The 3D occults the 2D? It’s all 3D... Can you explain this in any more detail, and more importantly can you demonstrate another example of this 3D occulting 2D on a smaller scale?
some would say that exactly the traditional recipe for how government shills work to influence gullible people
Some like me (though i don’t speculate on the source - government or otherwise)! Though, you argued directly against that in the first line of your comment ;)
Let me know if you still don’t agree / understand how refraction is (or at least conceivably could be) causing the illusion of setting, and how your view can be demonstrated/validated correct!
and there is a need to "keep it simple"
I agree, but just as (if not more) important as that - is to be correct. The statement that the sun only appears to set due to perspective is wrong.
If the sun actually set purely by perspective, it would shrink to a dot. It doesn’t. It goes down like a ship “over the horizon” and for the same reasons.
Encouraging people to believe and repeat this demonstrably incorrect statement is an attack on them from the flat earth psyop.
The real reason for the appearance of the sun setting/rising is due to refraction caused by the density gradient in our air.
What data is available that leads to the conclusion that the moon is a plasma phenomenon
The same evidence that i originally gave you. Sorry for the confusion.
It is a speculation that is consistent with the outliers i mentioned.
Have you seen this verification, or is there somewhere I can read about it?
There are researchers attempting to track it down. However, what we do have is professor fosters statements confirming that the validation was performed, as recorded by the abc (australian broadcasting company). Let me know if you can’t find it.
Where can someone observe this happening?
Probably one of the easiest/commonest places would be in a microwave.
Another common example would be doppler/weather radar. As you project energy (effectively heat) into the air you alter its ability to reflect the radio waves. It is a common/known phenomenon.
I'm not sure where that is,
You don’t remember when you asked for evidence that the moon was not a giant rock floating perpetually in the sky? I can link you to that comment, but you ought to be able to find it as it is towards the beginning of this comment thread.
I'm asking what your findings have led you to believe as the most plausible reality
I work very hard not to believe anything when it comes to knowledge! The evidence that has led me to considering the speculation i mentioned was already given (same place as mentioned above)
Has anything, to your knowledge, been verified?
According to professor foster, yes. As has the evidence that (possibly/ostensibly) supports the speculation that i mentioned originally.
So, is there any other projection that can reflect radio waves that you know existing today?
Yes. You might not understand what you are asking or the answers i’ve already given. By exciting/affecting the matter that is already present (by projection of any other means), you can affect the reflection of radio waves by that matter.
I'm not looking for speculation on if it could happen
But that is what we are discussing - speculation. I made that very clear several times.
Is there any known observed instance of it actually happening at this point in time?
Yes. But “reflection” by interference isn’t truly reflection.
If you’ve ever seen the dotlike shimmer of a laser pointer “spread” you have seen projected light interfere and effectively redirect light.
It's a little unclear what you mean here.
I mean the evidence that you originally requested.
Have you not thought about this yourself?
Casually. I would say, i have mused upon it - but it is merely speculation.
What does it mean that it is a reflection "of sorts"? Is it reflecting image back, like a mirror? Or something else?
All of the above. The (admittedly wild) ideas i have encountered often include a “black sun” or other radiation source we can’t see in the visible spectrum.
Sometimes this is depicted/imagined to be beneath us and radiating through the earth to create an “xray” (for lack of a better term) of the world in excited gas in the sky. Usually a dome is included in these views to concentrate that supposed radiation. I think there are also speculations involving a more straightforward reflection.
This was your word, so I'm using it in the way you intended.
So am i! My usage did not preclude other, perhaps less conventional, meanings for the word projection.
Would that result in a visual projection though?
It could. It all depends on if that redirected light reaches the eye or not ;)
As for using radio waves to excite air molecules and cause them to radiate to create projections there are several companies with working commercial prototypes i’m aware of. The idea isn’t that far out there.
What data is available that leads to the conclusion that the moon is a plasma phenomenon
The data i mentioned originally.
What would keep that "drawing" so consistent each day?
Good question! Any ideas?
It could be related to the sun in some way (likely another and related plasma phenomenon in our air) or perhaps the/an energy source responsible for it.
As for its consistent appearance - one of the more intriguing speculations is that it is a reflection (of sorts) of the world itself. In any case, as i said at the outset - having an explanation is merely mythology - validating that explanation is what really matters.
Is there any other projection that can reflect radio waves
It depends on what you mean by projection. Typically, we speak of the projection of visible light (itself a radio wave). Can you reflect a radio wave with another radio wave? Not to my knowledge, but you can redirect it through interference.
When you project matter, or project energy that excites/reorganizes existing matter - yes.
I don't know
A fine answer. So you don’t think it’s a giant rock circling us in the sky?
What makes you believe that
Nothing! I work very hard to excise belief from where it doesn’t belong (like knowledge). Belief is the enemy of knowledge and objective study of any kind (it’s called bias).
As i said, it is more consistent with the available data - which makes it more conceivable - which is very different than correct.
that it's a projection, or some other entity?
It could be another entity, certainly. And strictly speaking, my speculation and that of “a projection” are not inherently incompatible. However, a typical projection requires something to project upon (that will reflect back to the observer) and this particular “projection” can reflect radio waves.
Whatever that entity is, it must be very low density (or have some other method of staying aloft).
How about yourself? What do you think it is?
That's okay! I don't wish to speculate on alternatives.
Alas, that is all we have. As i said, when we recognize that the things we were taught as fact and science were actually mythology/speculation under its guise - all we are left with is a void. Filling that void once again with more speculation (explanation, in your parlance) is all well and good, but without validation it is just more mythology.
What is your current understanding of what the moon is, in reality?
My speculative suspicion is that the moon is a plasma phenomenon “drawn” in the rarefied air far above us. It is consistent with the outliers/contradictory evidence i originally gave to you - though is far from proven/certain.
Speculating on alternatives is fun, but validation is what really matters!
It definitely does look like that I was taught something contradictory, because what you were taught does not appear to be what I was taught, based on how you're describing it.
As i said, it is the phrasing you take issue with. It is highly unlikely you were taught anything else but the standard view of virtually all “education” available. The moon is a giant rock which perpetually falls towards/around the world in what we are taught as “orbit”.
You can't just make up your own phrasing and claim it's the same lesson, because it isn't.
You can rephrase things and have the rephrasing convey the same meaning. I recognize that the phrasing is logically offensive, but that doesn’t make it inconsistent with what you were taught.
You haven't shared that with me yet.
I don’t think that is correct (either you asking this question, me not providing an answer - or both), but as i said - speculative alternatives are irrelevant. The moon is not and cannot be a rock which floats and never falls - it would be a violation of the law of gravity and many others. This does suggest other alternatives for what it may be, but it does not automatically fill the void of the current nonsense mythology identified and excised as such.
We both know that what i was taught is not consistent with reality, so there's no use discussing it further. The current goal is establishing what reality is
I was not aware you felt that way. What makes you conclude that what you were taught about the moon is not consistent with reality?
As for the latter, I agree - but rushing from one mythology to another out of desperation is a mistake (and a trap). There is no shame in, and in fact it is the first step of all knowledge, accepting and admitting that you do not know.
I don’t know why you say “our.”
Because “education” (conditioning by rote from childhood under its guise) is largely standardized. It is highly unlikely you were taught anything contradictory about the moon than i was - as interesting/fun as that would (and perhaps should!) be!
This isn’t what I was taught either.
Of course it is! You just don’t like the phrasing because it makes plain how stupid it is.
If you truly weren’t taught that the moon is orbiting (i.e. perpetually falling towards/around) the earth, then i’d be interested in hearing what you were taught!
Have you weighed the various possibilities in your mind?
To a certain extent, yes. Though weighing possibilities / speculating is not a good way to study/establish reality. It is, however, somewhat useful to discard ideas that are patently inconsistent with reality - such as that the moon is a giant rock that floats in the sky and never falls.
The primary one isn't evidence, it's just a thought
Thoughts (reasonings) are evidence all the time! In any case, it wasn’t just a thought, it was also a scientific law (the law of gravity) which is entirely demonstrable. Rocks cannot stay aloft perpetually in the sky, and it is an unscientific and ridiculous idea that is only thought acceptable now due to conditioning by rote under the guise of education, from childhood.
my education did not include the explanation that the moon could be a giant rock which floats above us perpetually.
Lol, true - i tease. Our education informed that it perpetually falls without falling - even more stupid then what i said!
I am talking of reasonings that reflect reality, that either come from hard evidence or some sort of confirmed repeated observation
I’m all for that!
If there is no explanation that you have on what the moon is, then there is no way to verify if you're even correct in your theories.
I require no alternative explanation to criticize/refute current ones. That’s silly!
But the moon is something.
Agreed!
Do you just not have any explanation to what the moon is and you're comfortable with that?
It is preferable to indulging mythology and belief (fiction). The beginning of all knowledge is “i don’t know”. I used to believe it was a rock which floated in the sky and never fell - but have put such stupid and unscientific mythology behind me. Alas, that doesn’t automatically reveal the true nature of the moon, but it does open up other possibilities that are scientifically consistent.
Space station videos are often (or always) fake
True.
but the Earth is round
This doesn’t follow from the first statement; they have nothing to do with one another. It is a large, and encouraged, mistake to think one proves/disproves the other. “Space” footage is fake, the world is still whatever shape it is - regardless of that fraud.
So what are they hiding
They are “hiding” a tax embezzlement scheme. Vast quantities of taxpayer money goes in, nothing of value to them comes out. Even if “outer space” did exist, and they were actually going there - this statement would still be objectively correct.
Originally it was a scam concocted as a way to continue building icbm’s when the citizens didn’t support that, as well as circus to distract from chronically unaddressed and widespread socioeconomic inequity.
They wanted a fair wage and health benefits. They were replaced with younger, less uppity, slaves.
Yeah, that evidence isn't really that convincing.
The primary one inarguably is, but not to someone such as yourself steeped in belief. Without those beliefs (learned through conditioning by rote from a very young age) the idea that the moon is, or could be, a giant rock which floats above us perpetually is profoundly stupid and inconsistent with reality (and the law of gravity etc.)
However, the current narrative at least has explanations to questions asked
It is very easy to contrive explanations. That’s the origin of all mythology! What matters is not having explanations, but validating they are correct! Also, lacking an alternative explanation obviously doesn’t prove that a given explanation is correct - as it appears you are assuming.
and you don't seem to have an answer for that
My answer is freely available, but as i said - having or not having a contrived explanation is pretty meaningless.
It seems odd that you are confident in the assertion of what the moon cannot be without having done any research on alternative explanations
Not really (though that obviously isn’t the case in this instance anyway). Refuting/criticizing something does not require a replacement for it - that’s silly!
Lol, because i understand academia, and the journal racket.
I can do as you ask, but what would be the point?
It won’t change your (or their) unwavering faith one bit, sadly. Scientism is a scourge.