unfollowed, thanks.
Discussion
thanks for the signal. cleaning up my own WoT at the moment! 🫡
It always fascinates me how emotional people get over this topic.
Thanks for letting me know.
you got hung up on the fact that your interlocutor wouldn't capitulate on the pendulum thing - and I'll even give you that: sure, it's just motion.
but you haven't addressed any of the other arguments that aren't as easy for your interpretation to deal with all together.
this is classic behavior. I'm not being emotional about it at all.
There wouldn't be much point in expanding that discussion if they cannot even admit to the basis of the experiment. We agree on that.
I can move to other topics, but not without addressing the first.
When I brought up the Allais effect or inconsistencies with pendulum experiments, they didn't seem to want to engage any further.
Ignoring the topic and then throwing out a bunch of other things I need to address is a fallacious way to engage in a productive conversation. The classic behaviour when this topic comes up is to move from one proof to another without having satisfactorily address the initial proof.
I.e. "Here's an experiment that challenges the mainstream belief, how do you explain the results?"
Answering that with, "well then how do you explain _____" is a sure way to get the conversation going round and round in circles.
well say you "won" the pendulum one.
I wouldn't say I won anything, and it's not about being right, it's about truth.
Foucault's pendulum is inconclusive due to a number of reasons and factors, and if this is the single best proof of motion, which tends to be the proof people point to most frequently, then it doesn't appear to be a very strong one. You don't find it odd that there isn't a good single piece of evidence one can point to for motion?
If there was, would there be any need to point to other examples as proofs?
Do you think it is good faith for me to answer a question, only for that to be ignored and move onto a different proof that I have to address?
We all know and accept the heliocentric model by default, in varying degrees. I think the better approach in these discussions would be for the heliocentrists to steelman the geocentric position and prove they have understood it. Can anyone here do that?
I doubt it, since most people are uninterested in examining counter arguments and why strawmen are consistently applied in these discussions.
Shape and motion are two very different topics. There are geocentrists who "believe" in a round earth but still maintain that there is no motion. I don't see much value in jumping from proof to proof unless they are addressed in totality, one by one.
dude. I'm just trying to find any way at all to let that topic rest. it can rest in your court as evidence on your side, can you stop circling back to it and move on to other things?
You're doing the very thing I have pointed out. Why would you move on to another topic if this one hasn't been fully addressed?
Fine. Radio waves.
Does FM largely rely on line of sight for receiving a signal? Is FM radio wave propagation reliant on input power to reach longer distances? Can you achieve line of sight FM transmission over distances further than 30 miles?
Is the high frequency wave band of FM able to even propagate over extremely long distances, or would it dimish before reaching its destination? Its the same argument that suggesting if the earth was flat, why can't I see Europe from America? Is that perhaps to do with the visibility being proportional to atmospheric humidity and temperature?
Are there any line-of-sight systems that have achieved much longer distances? Can you achieve reliable long distance communication with systems such as LoRa without line of sight?
CC nostr:nprofile1qqsvx40pn93j66dhn8md9l8kwt9zme2nhyf0d6apz5feq7hp95mja3gppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp09lmap0
I will add that nothing is stopping you from 'looking into this' yourself.
The thing with this topic is that you have to be able to hold conflicting views. I have admitted in the past that I don't have all the answers, and there are things that I don't have a good explanation for, like the 24 hour sun in Antarctica.
However, to pretend there are zero discrepancies within the heliocentric model is not honest by any stretch. Similarly, if an observation that contradicts the rate of curvature is repeatedly made, then you don't need a hypothesis to replace it with. Falsification is independent of replacement.
The primary reason I maintain this scepticism is because long distance observations are inconsistent with the claim of curvature. Something no one seems to want to address, especially once refraction has been controlled for.
Testing the flat Earth idea with broadcast FM radio signals (roughly 100 MHz):
If the transmitting antenna is on a mountain near Los Angeles, for example, at 300 meters high, and the receiving antenna is on a Pacific island on a hill at say, 300 feet, with only ocean in between, there would be no mountains or other obstacles to alter our calculations.
Let us say that the FM broadcast transmitter is running 50,000 Watts (+77 dBm) into a unity-gain antenna, the receive antenna is also unity gain, and the goal is a 20 dB signal-to-noise ratio, good enough for decent high-fidelity reception. This would typically take a signal strength of -73 dBm at the receiver antenna terminals. Therefore, the allowable path loss is 150 dB.
The question then is, how far away could the island be from Los Angeles?
On a flat Earth, you would only be limited by path loss, the horizon could never block anything at surface level or above. So path loss strictly follows the square law rule (loss increases 6 dB every time you double the distance). Running the numbers, the island could be 4,700 miles away and still give you perfect reception.
On a spherical Earth, the radio horizon must be taken into account. For the antenna heights given, the radio horizon is at 60 miles. The signal would still be more than adequately strong at 60 miles, but would attenuate very precipitately beyond that distance. So, on the real Earth, the island could be no more than 60 miles away.
There actually is a Pacific island in just the right place to use Los Angeles FM stations to test whether or not the Earth is flat. It's called Oahu. It's 2,560 miles from LA.
If Los Angeles FM stations are booming in all the time there, the Earth is flat.
If they are not, then the Earth is not flat.
I'm not doing the thing you said.
I'm saying "hm yea, it looks like the pendulum thing is true. wow, weird ... okay there are about 100 other experiments left to take a look at as we keep a tally. next up...."
I appreciate that you moved along now. we will update our beliefs and priors intermittently along the way.
I read that as you agreeing that the experiment was to demonstrate motion, rather than agreeing or disagreeing with the results. That's why I considered it still 'open' in this context. Just a miscommunication.
The radio wave topic relates to shape. If you think there are other good experiments to look at for motion, I am of course open to hearing them. I have probably heard most since the strongest proofs tend to be presented the most often.
I'm sure the day will come when someone presents some solid refutations and I can finally move on. There are two fundamental points of discussion - one is for shape, the other is for motion.
I think the argument for a stationary Earth - regardless of shape - has the most compelling evidence, or lack thereof to support motion.
The argument for a 'level topographical plane' may not be as strong, but there are enough problems relating to observational experiments that can reasonably put it into question, too. I am fully aware of how stupid it sounds. I think a select few observations are what primarily draw people into it.
Dude is a classic "my one experiment allegedly doesn't fit and that proves your 100+ agreeing experiments are all wrong rather than proving I've made a mistake or misunderstood my 1 experiment"
By all means, science moves forward because we keep poking at the things that don't quite make sense given what we think we know.
The issue is that to disprove all of the standing science you need to FULLY prove that there is no other explanation you missed for your result not fitting and show the mistakes in the 100 other experiments each using unique methodologies that all agreed.
Reversed stupidity is not intelligence. Most people can't explain gravity, pointing that out doesn't mean I can fly.
TLDR, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A YouTube video about a single experiment by an amateur does not constitute extraordinary evidence.
the lack of valid nip-05 is always a bad sign
Man, we have had a number of good exchanges. You even added the book about nukes to your bio after I recommended it. Something most people would call you a retard for considering.
The fact I haven't readded a nip-05 back to my profile after I took the server down is neither here nor there.