So you can’t read either?

Try reading and responding - perhaps with what i said that “glowed”, if you can. You’ll get more out of conversations that way.

Otherwise, why bother responding at all?

You "encourage discussion" as much as a tranny school teacher does about the children's gender

Except the discussion/research i am encouraging is entirely optional, and there is no disciplinary penalty for abstaining/refusing. I detest groomers, same as you.

Anything that goes against your cult is attacked

This is a tricky one to respond to. On the one hand, the heavily advertised (i.e. funded) flat earth psyop does encourage, foster, and propagate such false/manufactured enmity and slander. So it is not unreasonable for this to have been your experience with others (not me!).

On the other, many would feel that you - right now - are the one who is (reflexively/conditioned to be) attacking simply because i encourage discussion and research “against your cult”.

For my part, i am strongly opposed to the flat earth psyop, cults, and to the slander/ad hominem/“attack” they encourage. I am equally opposed to the conditioned (through rote under the guise of education, from childhood) response of the globe model believers and proponents to attack others merely for having differing/contrary views - that you seem to be exhibiting.

Discussion is only hindered by such emotional tactic, and that is its clear purpose. Divided we are weak. Working together, we are strong. I’m sure you recognize that our common enemy is acutely aware of this.

Explanations are arbitrary and typically contrived. I don’t put too much stock in them as a result.

But for the sake of discussion, if the sun’s rotation (the path it travels in a day; not axial) caused storm vortices in one direction within the equator - would it not be reasonable to expect an opposite direction to the vortex spin on the outside of that rotation? Just like eddies in water?

Coriolis force is best explained with a spherical shape for the earth

I disagree - especially if the world isn’t spherical! Coriolis is a pseudoforce - an illusion caused by frame of reference. Any actual force would be due to earths supposed rotation - not its shape.

You need the constant movement towards equilibrium to create weather disturbances with rotation and heat aiding in their development.

You don’t think the sun and its motion are responsible for that heat and rotational motion/direction?

Why is flat earther in quotes

Because flat earthers aren’t real. They are agents and products of a heavily advertised (i.e. funded) psyop.

if you're literally the corrupt mod of the retarded flat earth forum?

Gee, that doesn’t make sense huh? Could it be that you mistakenly assumed something again? The community i made is for earnest discussion and research into the subject (very much including critical!).

Are you denying that you make flat earth posts?

Are you denying that you were mistaken that this is a flat earth post (or has anything to do with it)?

I encourage discussion and critical evaluation of the subject of flat earth research. You may mistake that for “flat earth posts”.

I’ve studied atmospheric sciences for 30+ years and understand that weather systems wouldn’t work with a flat earth

What makes you say that? I don’t see any reason to assume the weather depends on the shape of the world.

You're literally the only one saying that

Huh? You’re the one who mistakenly assumed that “flat earthers” had something to do with this thread...

It is a very odd mistake to make / position to have for a revisionist like yourself.

Flat earthers pretending the pyramids are "fake".

I don’t think the OP or the people in the video are “flat earthers”...

Must everyone who has or considers unpopular/controversial views automatically be a flat earther? Wouldn’t that make you a flat earther too?

Great name. Johnny twobears.

There are LOTs of these sorts of recordings.

This was a fascinating video.

Do you agree with that black “preacher” (for lack of a better term)?

He seems to think the pyramids were built by the pharaohs... I don’t think he meant “the pharaohs of the 1700’s when they poured the whole thing from concrete using the “sandbox technique””

Thanks for sharing!

This is well above the standard fare here, and well worth the read/exploration.

He’s the universal soldier and he really is to blame.

Not in my experience, but that is an interesting perspective.

My point was that in the case of opiate addiction, the common “treatment” is addiction/prescription to other opiates (heroin - the hero drug - was developed to treat the morphine addicted from the war, methadone, etc.). Just like in this case, where the “cure” for amphetamines is more amphetamines.

Interestingly enough it is ostensibly consistent with homeopathy, where what poisoned you is the cure. The principal of the similars.

By 'slow light', I guess I mean 'tired light' -- the big 'proof' of the Big Bang/Expanding Universe is that distant stars are red-shifted. But this could also be explained by assuming that light loses energy as it propagates.

Ah, yes - all waves do that and light is no exception.

so the mathematics are irrelevant

Even einstein told them so. Searching for reality in equations (limited and flawed approximations of very small slices of it) is generally crazy (though extremely rarely it does pan out).

be motivated simply using Newtonian gravitation and Planck's law.

And what if there were no newtonian gravitation whatsoever? What if objects just had intrinsic weight, and were not imbued by “mysterious fields/forces” that have defied measurement, manipulation, and basic discovery since newton first invoked the concept and directly causally attributed it to his christian god?

I do miss the pre-covid days where we could pretend that scientists were super-smart and life would constantly get better

I think most have not left that (often comforting) delusion. It is a core dogma (or two) of the secular religion of scientism.

Same as with opiates.

Trolls gonna troll :(

I suspect they may just be “young”, but certainly could be a bot/shill.

If you disagree with them about anything, you are “a shill” and should “drink bleach” :(

A lot of poor suckers fall for the “everyone who doesn’t agree with me is a rabbi/jidf/shill/etc.” routine. It is a sad tactic to ensure an echo chamber, and designed to prevent learning or discussion of any kind.

Hopefully it’s just a phase.

2+2=4

You keep repeating that like it’s your religious mantra...

I can see you want to be left alone to your chanting :(

If you ever feel like having an actual discussion, you know where to find me.

Because you’re mentally defective

More flimsy excuses to indulgently forgive your shameful behavior :(

2+2=4

Right, because we arbitrarily defined that to be true. You seem to think that because we can make arbitrary statements and define them tautologically that reality (like the shape of the world, or anything else) is somehow affected...

Yeah, you’re a paid shill

That’s just your excuse to ignore and avoid considering anything i’ve said (or that you say in “response”). It is the functional equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming like a child.

There are paid shills that are part of the flat earth psyop - but i know of none, like myself, who are actively/overtly against that psyop.

Your saussurean bullshit

Never heard of him. It seems we do agree that language (including mathematics) is arbitrary though. How anyone could seriously think otherwise baffles me.

But, for me, the essence of gravitational waves is their propagation at the speed of light (or information, as it were)

The semantic trick being played is that gravitational waves (what ligo supposedly detected and first measured/calculated as traveling at the speed of light) are NOT gravity waves. Another way to say this is that gravitational waves are not responsible for the phenomenon of gravity, nor does their detection prove that gravitation is real. Gravity waves, a perpetually undiscovered/unknown/speculative cause/composition/mechanism of the phenomenon of gravity, remain - as always - undiscovered, unmeasured, and unproven.

Gravitation requires faster than light information transfer. There is no delay between dropping a lifted object and its falling.

I'd be relatively happy with a real demonstration of gravitational waves

Supposedly they require unfathomable (“astronomical”) amounts of energy to generate - if they exist at all in reality. We can be pretty well assured to die long before such a demonstration could even be imagined, let alone attempted. Ligo was used for a supposed passive observation/“detection” of gravitational waves created by the supposed collision of 2 black holes (which, in my research, i have concluded are also fictional/non-real).

I'm also happy with Newton's laws modified by E-mc@2... or 'slowlight', if you wish.

My views are vastly simpler and consistent with physics than newton’s or einstein’s.

Slowlight is real, but has nothing to do with gravity. Light is merely a pressure wave in a medium. The denser the medium, the slower light travels through it - the same as sound and for the same reasons.

Do you mean something different by “slowlight”?

Wait, I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say

That’s normal :)

Can you elaborate?

I can, but it may not do much good. It would be better if you asked specific questions.

The phenomenon of gravity is every bit as mysterious and unexplained (in commonly taught physics, anyway) as it ever was. Ligo did nothing to change that, and was falsely mass advertised to misrepresent its findings.

Gravitational waves were supposedly (not actually) detected by ligo and then this was misrepresented (intentionally or through ignorance/mistake) as “proof of gravity” through mass media. Even if real gravitational waves had been detected, they would STILL not be the proof of gravitation (i.e. a gravity wave or other detected mechanism/composition responsible for the phenomenon of gravity). The composition, mechanism, and function of gravitation is every bit as unknown now as it was 3+ centuries ago and for the same reasons.

2+2=4

True, because we arbitrarily define it to be true.

Discussion over

But can a discussion end before it even begins?

You’re a bad actor

I assure you, i am not. You are merely assuming that because you won’t listen or engage in good faith yourself :(

You were already disproven

In your imagination, but in reality you said that perspective was the only reason that things are no longer visible...

Did

Then you saw that they unambiguously assume a spherical earth, and that if the earth is not spherical then the calculation is meaningless.

You’re a paid shill

Many who are a part of the flat earth psyop are. However, i am against the flat earth psyop and only advocate for research and discussion.

Wrong

Even someone with only “rudimentary knowledge of physical relationships” couldn’t actually believe that. Your adversarial/reflexively contrarian attitude is hindering you. This not a fight; it’s just a discussion.

But it doesn’t

Of course it does. Look at the equations used!

Thanks for asserting something no one questioned.

You did question that when you asserted that i had “lost” to imply that you had “won” the conversation :(

You haven’t posted one

That’s true, i’ve posted 2. Here, i’ll throw you a bone - one of the assumptions required is that the world is spherical. Can you read through our conversation and find the second assumption i explicitly listed already?

You would always be able to see it

Repeating your assumption over and over again won’t make it true.

There are other reasons why distant things stop being visible than perspective.

Directly addressing it.

Directly addressing it would be responding with either another procedure/measurement we could actually use to validate/measure the spherical shape of the world or refuting what i have said about the eratosthenes procedure. Ignoring that the eratosthenes procedure was never intended to measure or validate the spherical shape of the world is not directly addressing it :(

Nope

Lol. You might want to go back and read the question you tried to answer with the scientific american link. You seem to have forgotten what we were talking about.

Except it does

Then why didn’t eratosthenes say that? How can a procedure that depends on the world being spherical in order to be meaningful ever validate that shape? Can you explain your reasoning?

You lose

You cannot lose a conversation, but you can lose the plot/point of it :(

Mhmm, sure thing.

Why bother listing the others when you’ve already ignored/missed the 2 i did explicitly mention? As i said, if you want to discuss it - i’m game. However, you’ve made it clear you don’t really want to do that :(

It’s how geometry works

You misunderstand. Geometry doesn't control reality, nor does it define what happens. You assume that the point of rotation would always be visible if the world were flat, but geometry doesn’t assure this in any case. Besides, if the world is flat - your assumption is clearly wrong.

Mhmm, because it is

You’re missing the point. You believe it is for the exact same reason eratosthenes did. The question was, “How can we best measure/validate that the world is spherical ourselves?”. Clearly we can’t use eratosthenes procedure, because it doesn’t measure or validate the shape of the world in any way (nor was it supposed to!).

Fun fact: it did

Actually the “fun fact” is that it didn’t and wasn’t supposed to. It was supposed to calculate the circumference of the world assuming the world was spherical (not validating that assumption)

does not preclude its calculability

That was kind of my point. It is only calculable ;)

Your personal inability to name even one

I just didn’t want to waste the time (though i listed 2 of them, explicitly, already). If you are really interested, i’m happy to go over them.