Agree with the nukes and viruses. There is very little evidence an average person can observe to actually prove they are real.
Strong disagree with the earth as a spinning ball example. There is a lot of evidence supporting that, which can be observed with the naked eye or with a cheap telescope.
Geocentrism and heliocentrism are both viable models, but the evidence for proving the earth is in motion or round is weak at best.
Its observable for the average person with the right tools and good math skills
Looks like we are not average person's. I am going to buy a spectroscope and see what the fuck is in the rain to verify this chemtrail stuff. Regular people do not even know it exists, how it works and do not have the will to learn and are not excited to investigate. with that couple of thousands they will probably go to Vegas to the casino instead
Just a pendulum recession in two places in the south and north emisphere can show earth shape. Plus a simple measurement of sun rays at different latitudes can easily tell the sun distance. If people didn't study trigonometry that is a different issue.
Pendulum precession is meant to demonstrate movement, not shape. Pendulums have to be manually started, they don't exhibit any movement until they are put into motion.
Most distances to celestial objects are speculated through parallax. What I recommend people try is get a decent telescope, manually focus on the moon and then start panning around to mars or Jupiter and see if you need to change the focal length. They all remain in focus.
Pendulum recession demonstrate shape because the axis of oscillation of the pendulum remains pointed I the same direction so while in the northern emisphere it rotates relative to the spinning earth, it rotates in the opposite direction in the south. If the planet was flat the oscillation axe would rotate the same way north and south. I have a telescope. What do you want to focus? At that distance focus is irrelevant. Still if sun rays go down 70° to the ground here and then go to 60° at a different latitude we have two angles and a side. Law of sines and you get the sun distance easily.
Pendulums are for demonstrating motion homie, not shape.
WRT to telescopes, get the claimed distances to the moon and other bodies, don't change focus and they will all remain in focus, demonstrating that the distance claims to those objects cannot be accurate since they require not focal adjustments. Of course focus is relevant. Depth of field and focal length are important when trying to get something in focus, and you are moving from one body to another without readjusting these parameters, then they would be at similar distances.
Stop reading bullshit internet and do experiments. The fact that they cannot tell the shape of earth with a pendulum just means that they do not know physics and just copy paste the same low level stuff without understanding a word. I am a 55 years old engineer. I know a bit more than Wikipedia man.
Are pendulums primarily used to demonstrate motion or shape?
What does even means primarily used. They are primarily used as a time references in clocks.
The procession effect has more to do with the gyroscopic effect than the time of oscillation of the pendulum.
I mean was the experiment devised to determine motion or shape? It's not a difficult question.
Man in 1850 they didn't have the means to speak to someone on Internet on the other side of the planet and set an experiment of comparison of speed of motion and direction of rotation.
Do you understand how the pendulum set at different latitudes gives proof of shape or should we in 2025 still reference to and experiment of 200 years ago without the ability of using it for a bit more? We have planes now they had horses.
On a sphere the pendulum rotation is related to the position on the sphere. We now can and did test it and earth is a sphere unless the aliens generate hidden forces to steer the experiment results and make us believe. Why should they do that?
It's incredible how you can't answer a simple question.
I completely understand how shape is INFERRED from the presuppositions of the experiment, but that was never ever the point of the experiment.
Who cares we are engineers not philosophers or scientists. Stuff that works works. If it is elegant, nice or bad we do not care.
Okay, so you won't answer, presumably because you think I'm trying to gotcha you rather than have a discussion. Just to be clear, I haven't proposed anything obscure by claiming the experiment was devised to test motion.
What are your thoughts on the Allais effect?
Why are the results with these pendulums so inconsistent?
https://odysee.com/@mitchellfromAustralia:d/at-best,-all-you%E2%80%99ve-done,-is-debunk:0
One have you ever tried to watch at Mars with an amateur telescope? Focus what? Second. Read this at least. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2019.0680 set up an experiment and tell me how your results contradict the theory of a ball rotating earth.
Plus novacula Occami .... Every single liquid when not exposed to external forces turns into an almost spherical shape due to the internal coesion forces that on the scale of a planet are mostly gravity. So why should this planet that obviously is hot and melted how we can see from volcanoes and temperature gradient when you go deep, decide to turn into a flat surface? How gravity points down in on the border of the supposed plane the majority of mass is sideways? Why if every body we can see in the sky with enough definition is a sphere? How radio waves that get reflected by ionosphere sometimes go around the planet doing an echo with a timing that is consistent with the radius of the planet? And so on. Ditch the internet that lies and put your hands in real science. Real science=doing reproducible experiment.
I'm not going to engage with this Gish galloping when you won't even address the initial point.
You use Internet as a proof of something. If your demonstration of reality is sending links to Wikipedia do not pretend to even start discussing.
I didn't link anything from Wikipedia, I was showing you that the mainstream position of pendulums is for motion and you're pretending like this is some fringe idea I have put forward.
unfollowed, thanks.
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.
You can see boats disapearing beyond the horizon. if you dont belive maybe you should go look. i choose to belive the earth is round because i can SEE it
You observe boats going out of sight because of angular resolution, atmospheric density, and perspective. If you extend your optical view with a telescope or camera, you can bring the boat back from 'over the curve'.
No, you can't. Ive spend a lot of time at sea and of coarse i have a scope. with something like a big sailboat or a container ship on a clear still day the horizon very clearly cuts it in half. sometimes you can see just the tip of a white sail but most days you cant even see that far. Idk what to tell ya man just go look at it yourself. its pretty cool actually
I have. If you have any interest in it, I recommend hearing out the problems laid out using some calculations to see why we have this position. Here's a timestamped discussion that addresses this point.
I watched enough to notice these guys math is WAY off. like really far off maybe someone forgot to multiply the 5280 to go from miles to feet idk. but if my line of site it 10' from the waterline and for the horizon to hide half a container ship ~50' it has to be really really far away not the 10 miles these braindead idiots are talking about. if your trolling than congradulations for wasting an hour of my time but if your serious i suggest you look into the properties of tangents its pretty simple
Their math is just fine, not sure what you mean.
If you're intellectually honest and interested, check out:
BTW, I am also a React.js, TS and Next.js developer 😃
That discussion with the physicist was one of the better ones I have seen, and I don't watch many of those anymore. Very respectful and grounded.
I still don't trust Dave with his shitcoin though.
I didn't know Dave had a shitcoin 😂, he is jewish after all.
I don't know much about him but he seems like a nice guy and often does presentations to channels with 100 subs, so I'm guessing he's passionate about this kind of stuff.
I do think he is genuine in his discussions, but whether or not intentional, shitcoins will inevitably collapse and steal money from people. It would be an easy vector for discrediting the topic if it does ever rug people in a meaningful way.
Yes, agreed, it's crazy to me how people like Dave, Stew Peters, etc create shit coins.
I am going to assume that they are both millionaires and very well off, so it doesn't make sense to me.
I guess it could be that you can never have too much money or someone blackmailed them into doing it.
And as you said, you could easily discredit the person and all of their work, even though it's unrelated, with a shitcoin scam.
I don't have a huge amount of insight into Stews shitcoin, but the space I listened to about it rugging was pretty damning to his credibility, especially with his conduct following the rug.
There are snakes everywhere it seems.
Yeah mate, I don't either, but the only reason you'd want to create a shitcoin is to scam your followers.
And I mean the poorer, lower IQ, more desperate portion of his followers as those are the people who generally fall for these scams.
The notion of a noble shitcoin is laughable as he tried to present his.
If you love your people you would never want to have total control over them with a shit coin, you'd just educate them on Bitcoin.
As you said, snakes are everywhere, can't trust anyone.
Also, forgot to mention this is a tweet by Carlos Cortez - the guy who gives financial advice on Stew's show.
He may or may not be retarded.
You need to have some real hatred for your followers to have hired this guy to give them financial advice.
This is the original tweet:
Incredible gaslighting. "Don't complain you're a victim of you don't understand the game!"
Reminds me of people defending trump and his shitcoinery.
Exactly, and in addition every second word is spelled wrong 😂
Stew should take this man's phone away or at least tell him to stay off twitter.
