You yourself show signs of either being a shill or a bot.
All day, every day :(
I hope more and more as i “interact” with them, for their sake, that they are a bot.
They have extremely poor reading comprehension as well, which is another check in the bot column.
Malcolm X was a staged person that pushed focused anger in the black community and his death was staged to anger them, just like their other faked "heroes" or more properly CIA assets.
Interesting view. I don’t necessarily disagree, per se, but i do think if he was an asset he turned on them and was killed for doing so. Otherwise why not just stage/fake his death like they would, undoubtedly, with other retiring assets - especially if, as you say, his death was only to cause anger in black communities?
At the very least the fbi knew he was going to be killed and did nothing to prevent it.
Was he killed? Was that the end?
The evidence all points to yes, and his death was very public as far as murders go. However it is not impossible that it was faked... Do you have any evidence to support the idea that he lived on after being capped at point blank range with a sawed off shotgun with dozens of witnesses? Or that the undercover (nypd i believe) officer in his entourage that held him as he died was lying?
Wouldn't you agree?
Absolutely! Viva la conspiracies.
So was the other person in the title screenshot (malcolm x)
One of them figured it out, left the black muslim scammer organization, spoke out against them and was killed for it.
The other one didn’t. The end.
nice wall of wrong u created
Well, you could (flippantly) say that about anything! Try not to let your emotion get the better of you. There is no shame in being wrong. It happens to us all the time.
When i tell you that your views are incorrect, I am not insulting you, belittling your intelligence, or intending any offense. You shouldn’t feel threatened or attacked! Discussion necessarily involves disagreement and we must become comfortable with that in order to effectively communicate and learn from one another.
Stay frosty brother or sister!
is an airplane 15 miles above you on the same plane as you
Planes (not airplanes!) are imaginary. If you mean the “plane” of your sight, yes - when you are looking at a plane (normal planes you are likely to see aren’t anywhere near this height) 15 miles above you then yes, it is in the same plane as you. Our vision is spherical, like the eye. I do not understand your fixation with 2d conceptual structures that don’t exist in reality (like declination and ascension).
i never said it was circular, circular is not even a dimension
I agree with the latter! As for the former, you seem to have forgotten what you said. You described moving an object, with respect to an observer, in the dimension of width. There are only three dimensions - they are arbitrary conventions. They are linear, not circular.
You (rhetorically) asked if moving the object in the dimension of width would change its distance (and hence its apparent size) and expected (incorrectly) the answer to be no. The ONLY way for the answer to be no, is for the dimension of width you described to be circular. That is the ONLY way for the object to move horizontally AND remain the same distance (and hence angular size) from the observer. As usual, please let me know if you disagree, or don’t understand what i’m saying!
stop using your bird skill to make up shit r i never said
Bird skill? What does that mean?
I am not making shit up that you never said, and i am not trying to misrepresent your position. I am earnestly interpreting what you say and conveying that interpretation as well as asking earnest questions about it. If my interpretation is incorrect (as it necessarily will be), correct it! And stay frosty! We are not arguing, and we are not debating, we are just having a discussion!
if you think th horizon is the limit of ALL sight, you would never be able to see the sun , cause itsa always further away than that distance, hence it is never perceived in 3d
The visible horizon line is the limit of ALL sight, but not because of its distance from you - it’s because of the stuff in the way (air mostly)! That’s why its distance changes with weather conditions! If you look slightly above that horizon line, you are looking through less air! Hence you can see farther. This is the same reason you can see farther from higher altitude.
cause itsa always further away than that distance, hence it is never perceived in 3d
I agree that the sun is (grossly) not perceived with the naked eye as being 3d, but not because it is beyond the varying distance to the visible horizon line (a few miles) - it’s because it is too far away for the observed location to vary as perceived from the left and right eyes at any instant.
“yes, apparent size change with perspective last forever?” Wrong – stars are only perceived in 2d
I agree with both statements! They are in no way conflicting or contradictory. 2D is all that is required to see differences in size caused by distance. Apparent size change always varies by distance to the observer, regardless of that distance. I have no idea why or how you think they wouldn’t/don’t.
assumption to do calculations are NOT PERCEPTION
Perception is also beyond sight - conception. The stars are perceived by astronomers (and most everyone else) as having depth [distance]. We are in agreement that, at any given instant, their depth cannot be discerned with the eyes and appear in 2D.
of course its only ever perceived in 2d, u assume the 3rd dimension and then tell yourself your not assuming anything
I do presume that the sky is real, as are the lights in it, and that the world/universe we inhabit is three dimensional - including very far away from us where our eyes can’t perceive depth. You don’t?
your the one making the positive claim they should – show me some video of the iss changing size as it crosses the sky and gets bigger as it goes overhead of you, waiting....
I didn’t make any clams about the iss, but as i said - there are people who can get you what you want. Tracking the iss with a telescope is very difficult, and takes a very expensive rig.
Go outside, and watch a plane as it flies away from you. It will change its apparent size as it does so. Or just continue to pretend i’m wrong and believe whatever you want - but then you accept that your view (perception) of the world is from belief instead of study/observation. I don’t recommend the latter.
The diffraction limit has nothing to do with depth. It happens with monocular vision” 14 wrong
You don’t seem to know what the term you are using means. The diffraction limit / angular resolution limit has to do with resolving objects at a distance - perception of depth is not involved.
“You seem to be confusing depth and size. “ 8 – projection, u do
Lol, i am the one saying they are separate and distinct. Apparent size exists and is perceived without any necessary perception of depth. I am not “projecting” my views, and if i were you would no longer confuse the two. If i am misrepresenting your view, it is only because i don’t understand it. Don’t get upset - just try again to explain!
Now close one eye, did depth disappear,
no!
Yes, though that isn’t our perception because the brain (and possibly eye as well) has many ways to estimate depth. The primary perception/experience of depth comes from parallax and requires two eyes. That’s why they don’t make 3D glasses for one eyed people. It isn’t possible to do, but if you were correct it would be! You honestly think a 3D monocle is possible? Please build one - earnestly, i mean it. I want to see it, and lots of people who have sight in only one eye would too!
The diffraction limit is because the reflected light that allows you to preserve thast dimension is no longer able to reach your eyes or eye.
This is wrong. Where did you pick this up? Diffraction limit has nothing to do with depth perception, but to resolving an object. If you can resolve an object then you can see it. If you can see it and it differs in appearance from the left and right eyes then you can see depth. If you can see it and its appearance does not discernibly differ from one eye to another, then you cannot see depth (though your brain/eye has other ways to estimate depth when it can’t see it).
u just cant handle the fact it ends at the horizon,
It would be very interesting if this were true. i could “handle” it just fine and would in fact be happy to learn it if it were true. However, as i said - the distance to the visible horizon varies with weather - whatever fixed limit exists in the eye would not... As eye spacing, ability to focus, and resolving ability/diffraction limit (chiefly governed by receptor density) varies from person to person this fixed limit would also vary (different people would be able to perceive depth up to differing distances) and yet the visible horizon is still the same exact distance from all observers... (this is the reverse of the previous statement).
cause denile is the basis for your space monkey religion (you can drop the stupid claim your a flat earthr, youre not fooling anyone)
Lol. Stay frosty! We are not enemies, and this is not an argument / mindless debate! This is a discussion! We can, and should!, disagree and be able to discuss/explore those disagreements without letting emotion get the better of us. In fact, we MUST if we ever want to learn from one another - which i very much do! Hopefully you are of a similar mind!
I never claimed to be a flat earther, and somewhat constantly deny/correct people when they make that mistaken assumption. I am a flat earth researcher and my perspective on the shape of the world is more accurately dubbed globe skepticism/denial. I share your distaste for the religion of scientism and am fully aware that “outer space” is religious fiction (and always was; the coimbra jesuits are responsible for its invention as far as i can trace back)
LooooooolL, your tears are delicious
You have been suffering/engaging too much with the flat earth psyop. It’s bad for you, and encourages the mindless and self defeating (false) enmity you are exhibiting. Shouldn’t we be working together to understand the world and share our particular views on it in order to learn from each other and to refine our own views? The psyop encourages “flat earthers” and “globers” to mindlessly bicker, condescend, and insult so that they never collaborate and so communication is impossible. Don’t fall for it! Stay frosty!
ok whats the refractive index for Air ... Hit me with your maths dude
Well now we’re getting somewhere! We went from “air doesn’t refract” to “ok, air refracts but it does’t refract much”. That’s progress as far as i’m concerned!
As for calculation and what the refractive index for air is - that is a bit more complicated. The refractive index changes with the airs pressure/concentration/density (which varies, typically, with altitude in a gradient) and with its contents. Air is not just full of gas - there are lots of other things commingling - especially as you get closer to the surface. We may want to put a pin in this sub-discussion and circle back to it later.
citation needed
I typically don’t bother. I’m not writing a research paper - i’m just having a discussion. Believe whatever you want, but when you choose NOT to research a claim don’t delude yourself into thinking you have validated or refuted it as a result! In any case, it isn’t a view i agree with so discussing it further seems moot.
wrong – thy make me vomit with disgust on being so ignorant of reality
Have pity and empathy [heart]. We were most all “globers” once, and we are most all ignorant of reality (and perhaps worse - just plain wrong about what we deludedly think we are NOT ignorant of).
There are no “flatties” or “globetards”. There is no “flat earth theory” or “globe earth theory”. There is no war between them. That’s all flat earth psyop propaganda. There are only people, with varying views on reality which are generally and historically speaking all incorrect. We should be collaborating together to determine the objective reality as best we can - not dividing into balkanized camps. our enemies prefer us divided because it is easier to conquer us that way ;)
ok if u really do ,
I really and truly do. And i am not afraid or ashamed to be wrong or admit that i am/was. None of us should be. We all have tremendous experience with being stupid and wrong, and despite our best efforts we will in the future too. The real tragedy is never recognizing how/why/that we were stupid and wrong, and it is frightfully easy to do.
than air doesnt cause ANY noticeable refraction, EVER.
I disagree, and my position is that that noticeable (observable) refraction is the cause of the optical illusion of setting/rising, the apparent lowering of the visible horizon from altitude, and many other noticeable things.
ALSO YOUR DEPTH Perception ENDs AT THE DIFFRACTION LiMIT , AKA THE HORIZOn
Your (clear) SIGHT ends at the diffraction limit. depth perception likely quits long before that depending on object size and distance.
The visible horizon isn’t exactly the diffraction limit - and the diffraction limit depends on the size of the object as well as the receptor density in the eye. Things that are large enough can be seen/resolved from the distance of the visible horizon (and far beyond those measly few miles). If the horizon were the diffraction limit - this would not be possible. Also, things wouldn’t set or rise into/out of it - they would shrink to points and then disappear. Small boats approaching the horizon are a good example of this. They do shrink to dots and disappear as they approach the diffraction limit and go beyond it. But they do that long before they reach the visible horizon. That is the reason that they can be zoomed in upon and resolved again. This is distinctly different than objects that have gone “over the horizon” (aka “set”). The obscured parts of the objects set cannot be resolved no matter what magnification is used. If your view were correct, they could be. Why do you think they can’t?
u dont need 2 eyes to perceive depth
True. You can (and do) perceive depth from 2D images. But real/actual depth perception comes from parallax - the other kinds are a trick/processing technique of the mind (there are speculations on emission from the eye as well, which would potentially allow for the monocular 3D you believe exists - but perhaps wed better leave such speculative tangents aside for now)
no you demonstrated how you dont get it and you've never encountered it before
I’m not “new on the block”, i’ve encountered the claim that perspective is responsible for sunset many times before - it is very common. If i still don’t get it, help me to! I am starting to think that you may not “get it”, or perhaps just lack the ability to convey it to me. You are saying (my interpretation, not an intentional misrepresentation - don’t get mad!) that the things we see that are close to us (and have perceivable depth) are blocking the view of things that are too far away to perceive depth even though they are not in line with/obstructing one another. I am saying that doesn’t make sense, and isn’t consistent with what we see or well established optical laws. I am also saying you can’t demonstrate that this phenomena exists by scale demonstration (unlike my view, which can). Please correct me if i am wrong!
and you can zoom in on what you thought was the horizon and see a boat is still there
Not if it has gone over the horizon, no. When the ship (or sun, or anything else that sets) is missing its bottom due to setting - it cannot be restored through magnification. this is a common popularized mistake propagated by the flat earth psyop. It is trivial to refute and observe that this is untrue, so people who fall for this claim and repeat it are made to seem uninformed/ignorant/stupid as a result (by design).
thats not what i need
It’s what we all need friend. Repetition is necessary for effective communication. Language is imprecise, interpretation is subjective, and even if they weren’t - we aren’t perfect.
why does the item fall downwards and not in any other direction?
Because that is the direction of its lowest energy state aka “rest”. Things tend towards rest/equilibrium. It’s also got a lot of matter above it pushing down; it’s the easiest way / path of least resistance for it to fall down.
I could easily argue that it is “blindingly retarded” to expect that it ought to fall in any other direction than the opposite of the one you lifted it. Or that “falling” ever could happen in any other direction than down, just as lifting could ever be in any other direction than “up”. It is arguably equally “blindingly retarded” to assume that air could or should support the weight of a physical object of significantly greater density that you lifted and released.
if they only dont fall because the air cant support them then why do things feel heavy?
You may have misunderstood me. Things do fall because the air can’t support their weight, and because they were lifted and released. Things feel heavy because they are made of matter, and matter has weight. It is an intrinsic property of all matter, and because of the interplay between the weight of the object and the media it displaces it exhibits a force that totals downwards.
did you think about this for longer than it took you to type?
I dare say i have thought about it, discussed it, and researched it far more than you have or ever will!
gravitational pull, while we dont quite understand the specifics of how it works, is a well understood fundemental force of reality, it is a key part of what holds literally everything together.
The greeks believed the same thing about zeus. You are describing belief in your mythology - not science. Gravitational pull does not make sense (it is intractable), is not consistent with reality, and is fundamentally unscientific and fictional. I know what i am saying sounds wild, because it is wild.
I recognize the prominent role it plays in the modern creation mythology (and dogma) of scientism. That changes nothing.
we dont know why that happens, but we know the exact way that it happens,
These are contradictory statements. We don’t know why that happens, which is ALSO the same as not knowing the exact way that it happens. You believe it is the cause of observable and well established phenomena, but that’s only because of rote under the guise of education from childhood.
and not knowing something does not proove that it isnt real.
No, but until something is discovered it is NOT discovered. Gravitation is NOT discovered. It was simply made up and weaseled its way into textbooks. No science was involved. In science, things are not real until they are proven to be. We can measure weight. We can measure the speed things fall. We can measure the minuscule attraction between certain types of matter. We cannot measure “gravitational pull”, which makes it unemperical aka unscientific. Things we cannot measure do not belong in science. Belief does not belong in science.
there is far more proof to gravitational force just existing than there is for whatever completely braindead alternative you have come up with.
So we are taught, and required to faithfully repeat. However in reality, it isn’t true. What we have is belief. In science, proof only comes from rigorous empiricism (scientific law - the “what”) and rigorous experiment (scientific theory - the “why/how”). Gravitational force has neither, and never has. Newton understood that it never could. This fact, and the meaning of it, is lost on most modern students :(
“Plane has nothing to do with it.” - wrong
I know you believe that. The question is why? There is no plane/direction/dimension in which objects don’t appear smaller as they recede.
but what if that thing is already 100 feet away from you and moves along as dimension that is not depth , let say width, should it still get smaller as it does so?
Yes, because width is linear not circular. As the object moves horizontally it will necessarily increase distance from the observer and appear smaller. It’s an optical law - there are no exceptions.
If the object remained the same distance from the observer then it wouldn’t change apparent size - but we are talking about when objects do increase distance from the observer. Do you honestly believe that the sun (and ships, and anything else that appears to set “over the horizon”) is really NOT increasing distance from the observer as it moves?
Does this apparent size change with perspective last forever?
Yes, of course. That’s my whole point. It’s called perspective, and it always applies - regardless of size/scale or distance. Including the sun (which does decrease in apparent size as its distance increases), there are no examples of any object NOT decreasing in apparent size as they recede. Please feel free to suggest one (other than the sun), if you disagree!
Thats why thing in the sky are only refereed to in 2 dimensions , Right Ascension and Declination or Length and width, never depth.
This is incorrect. Astronomers talk about/calculate the distances [depth] to those objects (located by ascension and declination) all the time.
You seem to be confusing topography with topology. The sky is not 2D even if our plotting system for locating things in it was (which it also isn’t, it is conceived to be a spherical grid)
Nice baseless claim
You doubt that planes change apparent size as they recede away from you? Go look at them! What better “base” for a claim is there than your own observations?!
You seem to be confusing depth and size. Depth is hard/impossible to determine at some point because the pictures received by the eyes are essentially identical (no parallax) - (apparent) size is not effected and can be easily observed monocularly (one eye, no depth).
Nice baseless claim, please show me a shot of the iss crossing the sky with showing apparent size change. Cant do that
I, personally, wouldn’t bother and there are far better/easier targets than that one. There are certainly those (with powerful, expensive, auto-tracking telescopes) who can get you this shot you want though. Again, why do you believe these silly things? There are no examples of objects receding not changing apparent [angular] size, and i cannot understand why you think there are. It is as if you don’t understand why things appear smaller as they recede...
a slight density charge is not enough to cause refraction
This is obviously wrong, and trivially calculable/demonstrable. The refraction may be slight, but light ALWAYS refracts when the refractive index changes. Again, i cannot understand why you would ever believe it wouldn’t, or what reasoning you could concoct to support that view.
Air does not cause any noticeable refraction
Of course it does. Over short distances (and depending on angle of the light) it is imperceptible, but it is always there (just like angular size differences and for somewhat analogous reasons).
The more air the light travels through and the further it traverses through/across the gradient the more it refracts towards the ground. This is also the reason why the visible horizon appears slightly lower as you increase in altitude. It isn’t actually lower... it is being refracted.
when it YOUR PERCEPTION of light over distance, thats caused by atmospheric diffraction
No, diffraction (like refraction) is also objective and has nothing to do with perception. The object appears fuzzy because the light from it has been scattered by the air/matter in the way. I am not talking about diffraction, i am talking about refraction.
diffraction and refraction - they are one and the same.” wrong
Hey, you’ll get no argument from me. I was just mentioning that many scientists and textbook authors define it that way.
Diffraction is caused by blocking light, refraction is caused by changing lights speed.
using the globr explanation of “light being curved convexly towards the ground” due to refraction ,
There are no “globr” explanations. There are just explanations, and they either right or wrong (usually the latter). Refraction does occur in our air, and though this is commonly used as an “out”/rationalization/excuse by those obligated to the globe model in order to ignore observable evidence of a (mostly) planar earth - that is NOT what i’m doing!
when that is not whats going on at all
And what if it was? Would you want to know? If it wasn’t, and i were wrong - i would like to know that and to know how i can validate/demonstrate that!
This slippery slope false explanation allows glob'rs to claim things are magically refracted up, when they are not.
They can (and do/will) claim anything they want - though the refraction i am talking about tends to curve things down - not up again. If you assumed the world was spherical, as they are required to, then this could be used to explain why things can be seen “too far”. I don’t care about the tactical soundness in regards to the base pageantry and silly game of debate - i care about what is actually happening. Just because the fact that the air refracts can serve their rationalizations, doesn’t make what i am saying incorrect/false in and of itself.
called “the diffraction Limit”, depth no longer diffracts, because that aspect of the reflected light is unable to reach our eyes.
You are mistaken. The diffraction limit has nothing to do with depth. It happens with monocular vision (one eye, no depth). I don’t know where you picked this up.
“the horizon (the distance limit of our vision through air)” wrong, its not the limit to All Vision, its the Limit to depth, the other 2 dimensions of length and width are still perceivable.
This is an interesting claim - but i think it is wrong. The distance to the horizon changes with weather, the limits of the human eye are fixed (assuming you don’t grow old that is!).
Although the brain, and eye, has many ways of interpreting depth (one eyed people can do it too!) - the chief one that most are familiar with is parallax. If the picture the right and left eye receive are different, their comparison can be used to estimate/experience depth. At a certain distance (i expect well beyond the measly few miles to the visible horizon) - the pictures that the eyes receive are not different enough to reliably use that method. This is certainly a limit/function of human sight, but doesn’t have anything to do with the visible horizon or the angular resolution limits (aka diffraction limit).
Its actually so simple to get once you get it.
I think i get it, and have encountered and considered such ideas before. I also think it is clearly wrong, and if it were right - we should be able to observe such an effect on a smaller scale (perhaps with much smaller eyes and much closer together with less pixel density - which IS diffraction limit). The fact that we can’t is very telling.
I've seen demonstration of this with camera showing this effect on objects that's say as few inches tall at 100 feet away, that the bottom becomes occulted or “disappears” not because it went over any physical curve, because our perception of depth ends
Depth perception isn’t necessary for sight in any significant way. Closing one eye doesn’t make anything disappear / “occult” anything. I have seen such demonstrations as well and the cause is likely (once again) refraction (this time caused by the ground temperature causing air column gradient inversion) - the mirror on the hot road effect and/or actual obstruction by the road itself (which is not perfectly flat, sadly).
If “perception” were the cause, then magnification could restore the “occulted” portion. This cannot be done. The reason is because it isn’t perceptional - the light from the bottom of the “set” object is no longer reaching the distant observer.
Also, it wonderful to talk to you, but lets end this on a good note, learn what you can,
Likewise, and agreed!
but i find your just repeating what you think
Repetition is, alas, necessary for effective communication. I do try to avoid it, but if you misunderstand my position - repeating/rephrasing it is prudent. I would hope you would do, and are doing, the same in order for your perspective to be fully understood in kind. I know it is tedious, but education and effective communication are worth it!
you know try to make learning into a debate, thats not really helpful and im not into building a wall of misunderstanding,
Never! I loathe the base pageantry of debate. It’s for fools.
I prefer civil rational discourse and the collaborative pursuit of the truth - as all competent/capable students do.
I will always disagree when it is appropriate, and explain my reasoning/evidence at length - and i hope you can also do the same without letting it devolve into (or feel like it is) an argument/mindless debate.
Debate is a stupid game, and it is best avoided by the intelligent.
but i hope you rewatch the video a few times until you get it , gl.
I may do that, but i think you have helped me “get it”. Now i want to validate/test it. I currently think it is simply wrong.
Are perceptions bias?
Generally, yes. Perceptions are subjective, and subjectivity is bias. Science is the attempt to suppress that inherent human quality and study objectively.
Also, please don't misunderstand, I agree with science
Likewise, i also appreciate and value science as a method of learning about the world and gaining new understanding and capacity/ability.
I believe that science done properly should be believed
Science should NEVER be believed. Belief has no place in science whatsoever - that’s what religion is for. Belief is the enemy of knowledge and objective study of any kind.
One of the best things about science is that it requires no (and is, in fact, significantly hindered by) belief!
and is oftentimes difficult to differentiate
If you don’t know what science is, you can never differentiate between it and pseudoscience/religion/mythology presented under its guise. This is the purpose of the ubiquitous scientific illiteracy we suffer from.
That’s true, things that are heavier than the media they displace fall. That’s the law of gravity! In its simplest form, it is the statement that “what goes up, must come down.
But the commenter i was responding to wasn’t talking about gravity, they were talking about gravitation the magical/mysterious/unknown postulated pseudoforce believed to cause that law. The former is, as you say, real. The latter is not.
Things fall merely because they were lifted and with the exact same energy used to lift them. They fall because the air beneath them cannot support their weight. Things do NOT fall because there is a magical “force” pulling them down. That is a stupid, unscientific, and fictional idea, as it was from its original inception.
science cannot be proved
This is not exactly right. It is true that proof, outside of mathematics, is subjective, provisional, and historically doomed to refutation - but the scientific method is ALL about proving to the best of our abilities.
Experiment is how we prove that our scientific understandings for the cause of phenomena are correct. It isn’t truth, but it is the best we’ve got - and the closest thing (in my estimation) to proof that exists.
Sadly the vast majority of people are scientifically illiterate due to poor education, and so do not actually know what an experiment is or how the scientific method works or why. To make matters worse, they learn and use incorrect colloquial definitions for the vernacular (experiment, theory, hypothesis, etc.) so they can’t even have a discussion, let alone practice or study science - even if they wanted to :(
Assumption has no place in science whatsoever outside of hypothesis generation - which exists only for experimental validation/refutation (ideally). Science has no place for belief/assumption (it’s called bias, and is a four letter word).
This tries to reinvent the wheel
Quite the opposite - it returns to it! It doesn’t reinvent anything, it discards junk and reverts to what was already known, experimentally provable, science for millennia prior to newtons popularized blunder.
which is why a different intrinsic property was proposed, Mass, and weight is now defined as the product of both mass and the local gravitational acceleration.
That’s incorrect, historically. Newton did not invent mass and gravitational attraction because measured weight varied anywhere on earth. This is all retroactively backfilled nonsense/mythology.
Weight varies minisculely for a plethora of known and experimentally validated reasons. Fictional gravitation is not one of those, and is not necessary or real.
Effective weight (what we typically measure - weight with the buoyant force included) is what is changing - intrinsic weight remains the same. Both mass and gravitation are entirely fictional, and exist only in equation. It is NOT coincidence that they annihilate one another and return to the real measured weight they began as.
The problem is that weight doesn't change in vacuum (which btw is how gravity is measured - precisely timed falling mirrors in a vaccum chamber), and that buoyant forces can be measured separately from gravitational forces.
Intrinsic weight - no, hardly at all (nuclear processes and atomic/molecular restructuring can, again minisculely, change it slightly). The rate at which things fall changes (this has to do with effective weight) - most significantly - with the media they displace/travel theough, but temperature, charge, and all sorts of other things can effect it too - again - extremely minisculely.
This part wasn't substance, but it is still wrong
Newton was not practicing science when he introduced the fiction of gravitation to solve an astronomical math problem. He was an alchemist and magician, and much more of a scholar and mathematician than he ever was a scientist. The myth that he is some saint of scientism is just idolatry.
but was a heretic in his time.
Did someone say he wasn’t?
Are you saying the “phantom time hypothesis” comes from newton originally? This sounds like spurious revisionism... But i am intruiged.
'Gravity' as a term literally is defined by phenomenological effects
That’s right! Gravity is a natural/scientific law [i.e. phenomenon] which is multiple millennia old.
The 'cause' behind these effects
Is fully known and understood, in my view. Since newton added the contrived unscientific fiction of “gravitation” into the mix, it’s been a “mystery” for 3+ centuries. We have made no progress on understanding it whatsoever. I know why. It [gravitation] isn’t real, and it never was.
People write huge dissertations on what the causes might be, but nobody really knows.
Many, if not most, natural laws are this way. They are, and we deal with them. They are the empirical bedrock of science.
Falling objects literally demonstrate the PHENOMENA of gravity or gravitation
Ah, but there’s the rub. They aren’t the same and in science cannot be the same. A natural/scientific law (the phenomenon; gravity) can never be the same as the scientific theory (the experimentally verified cause of the phenomenon; what gravitation is billed as but in no way is) to explain it. That would be circular logic at best, un/anti-scientific, and just plain - to use your parlance - retarded.
And yes, gravity has been indeed measured, observed, and understood for many centuries, though the causes are not.
Yes, gravity has been measured - that’s how scientific laws come to be - measurement. It is thousands of years old.
Gravitation is essentially a pseudoscientific hoax/fraud, and is merely a few centuries old. It’s junk, and wrong. Every physicist worth their salt since newton has loathed him for introducing magic into physics. “Spooky action at a distance” - in newton’s own words, “philosophically unsound” nonsense.
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.
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.
We are not discussing a dictionary, and depending on source there are a great many definitions for “gravitation” available to choose from.
I think i have made it pretty explicit how i am using the word. That’s all we need for communication! If you don’t understand how i am defining gravity and gravitation in this conversation (or why!), please just ask!
The “spooky” reference is something einstein said about quantum entanglement - it was an allusion. As for magic, yes gravitation is distinctly magical (i.e. contrived fiction and not science in any way). If it existed, it would be capable of routinely doing things impossible for all other known sources of energy. The ordering of the cosmos we observe - alone - is absolutely impossible with the law (invalid theory in actuality, called a law erroneously) of gravitation. Good thing it is magic ;)
Interesting, as it has been taught as the law of gravitation for centuries... Perhaps it’s been recently demoted?
Gravitation can never be a law in my view. The phenomenon of falling already has a name - gravity. It is the law. Gravitation is the contrived fiction misrepresented as a theory to explain that phenomenon/law.
Scientific laws are only “what is”. They can never include cause - which is what theory is for. it should go without saying, but obviously the scientific law and theory cannot be the same.
Right! Gravity is a known phenomenon [i.e. law] which has existed for multiple millennia.
Not at all! I am acutely aware of that and making explicit mention of that. It is central to my criticism.
In a scientific context, there is no “theory of gravitation”. Gravitation is billed as a law and sold/taught as a theory [explanation for law] when it isn’t one.
At best, gravitation was intended to be a placeholder for a real theory that would come one day, but if you understand it as newton did - you would know why that isn’t possible. Thus the mystery of why 0 progress has been made on understanding this magical pseudo-force over 3+ centuries and counting is solved. It doesn’t exist to discover or experimentally validate.