2
throwaway_27_ 2 points ago +2 / -0

Biden doesn't do shit other than his pants.

They keep trying to legitimize the position of the president and the "democracy."

-2
throwaway_27_ -2 points ago +1 / -3

There's an ISS livestream always going on, and when it goes over your area, you can go out and see it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86YLFOog4GM

2
throwaway_27_ 2 points ago +2 / -0

If you want to arrange a call for a group to discuss other subjects

That was in my mind. If there was enough interest, Conspiracies.win could schedule weekly/monthly calls, and hopefully it builds up trust within the community. Although there was already this one guy here saying that it will be just used to gather more data on the userbase, which is likely, so I don't think most folks here would risk it.

1
throwaway_27_ 1 point ago +1 / -0

They're tracking you through the interwebs, get rid of it quickly.

1
throwaway_27_ 1 point ago +2 / -1

While not science, I would at least hypothesize our planet would follow the clear pattern of celestial bodies I can clearly observe.

This is pretty much what I meant to say in the OP by referring to the Sun and the Moon, which don't even need a telescope.

1
throwaway_27_ 1 point ago +1 / -0

The primary reason is to build trust within this community. There's too many folks that think this is just a shill topic.

The secondary reason is to avoid referring to videos and test our own understanding of things in a live setting.

1
throwaway_27_ 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hhaha, well, I'm glad you've bothered enough to respond to many comments here.

I just have this video that's circulating these days on this platform in mind, where this guy questions people on the basic reasoning behind their support for "my body, my choice" + "vaccine mandates".

If there can be such a point that can be made on our subject here, it shouldn't require more than an hour to find in a live discussion and settle things long before a year, I'm thinking.

1
throwaway_27_ 1 point ago +1 / -0

My intention is to build trust within the community, and this subject is one of the most contentious. Users here hold open-mindedness in high regard, and discussing things is the only way out of it. This is why I suggest a live audio call, so we can hear each others voices, literally, and hopefully avoid the shill accusations. You're invited.

1
throwaway_27_ 1 point ago +1 / -0

Great. If it happens, I'd strongly suggest avoiding linking to videos or other material during the call. I realize it seems like a waste of time to repeat same information over and over, but as I replied to u/Nogrim1 below, if you understood a concept clearly, you should be able to explain it to almost anyone in simple terms.

3
throwaway_27_ 3 points ago +3 / -0

And if you understood a concept clearly, you should be able to explain it to almost anyone. It goes both ways. Worst case, you get to show that the other side is dumb.

I'll message the mods and see if they're interested in scheduling something, and maybe it helps this community gain some trust.

u/clemaneuverers u/axolotl_peyotl

4
throwaway_27_ 4 points ago +4 / -0

My point was that he linked my account on conspiracies.win domain which shows this as my first post and trying to say that it's a throwaway account (maybe just intended to stir shit here). Linking to communities.win would show my full activity on the platform, if one was interested.

1
throwaway_27_ 1 point ago +1 / -0

u/Nogrim1 u/cribbage u/VicariousJambi u/Afks u/Iknowitsu u/Celest u/mrsray u/Toatl_Loesr u/DR38 u/clemaneuverers

Any of you willing to have a live audio call? You can bring your popcorn, and we can figure out if we are genuine folks or not while we get to the bottom of it.

We can do a public broadcast on Element at a scheduled time (no registration needed): https://call.element.io/conspiracies.win

1
throwaway_27_ 1 point ago +2 / -1

Are you implying that's a good example for water curving?

It depends on what you really mean by "bending" and "curving". To me, it is a good example of water that is not "contained" adhering to a curved surface.

I'm not really interested in any particular model, but more interested in what explanations exist for what we observe, and if they can be shown wrong.

1
throwaway_27_ 1 point ago +3 / -2

I don't like to hurl shill accusations easily, I realize that's maliciously done to break trust within a community. However I did notice many comments getting upvotes within a minute of being posted. I don't care as long as I think there's a real person on the other side who's willing to discuss things somewhat openly. At least this thread contains this discussion here.

1
throwaway_27_ 1 point ago +2 / -1

What's the point in linking to the Community specific domain where I'm not as active.

You have no posts here (https://ancaps.win/u/Questionable/?type=post), so you're "questionable"?

0
throwaway_27_ 0 points ago +2 / -2

Thats....... not how that works. If you scroll down on that page they go over exactly all of the variables of the equation.

Okay, let's discuss this. If we can't agree on how to use a calculator, what's the point in having it. I did scroll down the page, and it does say to input your eyesight level from the sea level:

h — Eyesight level above mean sea level;

https://files.catbox.moe/rkfn1f.png

If you put in 500 meters for the altitude its like saying you're standing on a 500 meter tall building, not that the balls radius is 500m larger. The horizon is 50 miles away because you're up so high in relation to the radius of the earth.

Yes, this is correct. Which is why I'm asking you, are you accounting for your geographic altitude (from sea-level) when you use that calculator?

3
throwaway_27_ 3 points ago +3 / -0

Since those are short videos, can you lay down the most important points from them here? Makes things easier to quote and respond to, and for everyone to follow.

2
throwaway_27_ 2 points ago +3 / -1

I can see a city thats 20-30 miles away

Do you account for your geographical altitude when inputting the values in the second calculator's eyesight height field? My city is 500 meters above sea-level, so it shows the horizon as 50mi away.

What's your reasoning for not seeing objects much further? Why can't I see the Alps from where I am?

1
throwaway_27_ 1 point ago +2 / -1

And what are the values you are inputting in the first one? Do you account for your geographical altitude when you input the "eyesight level"? What do you see that doesn't match with the calculator's output?

view more: Next ›