Nishio Ninja
u/Abdlomax
Feed options
Hot
New
Top
View
Card
Compact
One deception after another.
u/No_Perception7527 Courtesy notification.
Let’s start with some thing simple. Circumpolar navigation is defined as taking off from some airport, flying over one pole, then flying over the other Pole. And then returning to the starting airport. You assume that no u-turn is made. made. You assume that they must exit Antarctica along the opposite line of longitude from which they approached it. .
You are confused. I know the earth is round. GS is the sub that bans globies on sight. I rarely ban any bot trolls after warning. So ask them, if you can. You could ask on r/flatearth_polite.
I’m going to assume that this user is FE. The OP’s question neglects, in spite of explanations involving buoyancy and density, that FE recognizes that objects fall as is readily observable and measurable, with the same acceleration regardles of weight, if we can neglect buoyancy and air resistance, the downward force is called “weight,” and it is balanced by inertia such that, at the earth’s surface, the acceleration is the constant, invariant with weight, the same as in globe theory. The difference is that in FE theory, the acceleration vector is parallel, whereas in globe theory, it is radial. The time to fall is a problem in elementary calculus. I’m not going to bother calculating it. It can be looked up on-line, but anyone can verify those results.
The FE’s answer was an attempt to avoid the question with a tautulogy.
Keep it up everyone, they are getting infuriated they can't disprove anything
Cites a contemptuous globie video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=
u/Elkay-the-hermit Courtesy notification.
There isn’t. I did solve the puzzle by trying pairs. If a choice broke the puzzle (solution count) it was the alternate choice. If not, it was correct. Many complex chains were used. Without that trick, I can’t say that the puzzle was soluble. A “Wrong” choice might take hours to find the contradiction. Someone could say I cheated and I would not argue with them. The Sudoku was difficult enough that it could not be solved merely with the advanced techniques available. Even with all those techniques it took three trials of pairs to crack the puzzle. This is also called trial and error. Effectively three more givens.
u/haldamduck courtesy notification
This sudoku is not merely “hard,” it is what is called an “unsolvable”. I might be able to solve it with simultaneous bivalue nishio, a very powerful technique, but even then it might take many hours. All valid sudoku can be solved, and this one does have a single solution, which sudokuwiki shows, but it was unable to display a difficulty level. That signals the possibility that recursive trials will be necessary. Ordinary techniques are not enough to crack this one. The solution count uses Ariadne’s thread, which can get really difficult and complex. You can play with this puzzle on sudokuwiki.
Sudokuwiki.org/000001002030020040500600000003000007010080020400700500600004000000060010007300900
u/imsotiredofthisbruh Courtesy notification.
The camera was cancelled because it was no longer competitive with more modern products with higher resolution. For the same money you can buy a better camera.
And then distance viewing as a proof of flat earth involves a deep misunderstanding of globe theory, Almost 200 years ago this was debunked by more careful measurements which avoided refraction by raising the line of sight to a fixed distance above the water. There are other methods of measuring the curvature which involve practically no expense, and no special equipment. See r/flatearth_history and the r/flatearth_zetetic, the chapter on “Arcs of the Meridian.”
Sit bubbles in space would immediately would immediately vanish. There is nothing to sustain a bubble memrane. More likeley water droplets willl immediately freeze and sublimate into nothing. Meanwhile they will move in straight lines according to their initial inertia,
Aitpr bubbles in a pool will unliformly rise, rapidly. None of these images look like that. All those quotes about convincing people they have been deluded are true., once they have bought a con.
It accounts for almost all “distance observations.” There is a minor cause, mistaking clouds for distant mountains. How about r/flatearth_200proofs by Eric Dubay?
Careful. I did not see any reference reporting the camera being “strapped on.” How was the camera powered? the reasons it is not possible or not practical are actually many, starting with lack of motive. For most of us, we don’t need what the challenge demands. But when I suggest that I am done answering, be careful about continuing to ping me to prove you are “right.” It is unwelcome and distracts from the purpose of the post. Doubting my reading comprehension is rude.consider this a warning.
They see the connection, but remember, they think it’s all fake. The stage gimbals, not the camera. Somehow this person thinks that one continuous video would be more believable, but really, the expectation is that it won’t be done because space is fake. multiple camera views do not, in any case, satisfy the “challenge,” even though we think it “should”, because of the background belief.
Your URL is defective, the _ s ruin it. You realize that most missions were to LEO and the rocket is rotated to a low angle to achieve orbital velocity. It is not necessary that the entire second stage be covered, only parts that are not streamlined, as Centaur was. A camera “strapped to the outside” would not be pointed at the ground and there would be the issue of telemetry. Got a few hundred million for special engineering?
Atlas-centaur definitely had a protective fairing. Loss of the fairing was a failure mode. I do not trust your claim.
Could a rocket be built that would video continuously, and a special camera the could be protected. Possibly. There is then then the issue of telemetry or recovery of the camera and its images. Got a few hundred million to spare?
No, there are not many designs like that. The second stage is covered by a fairing, lest supersonic speeds rip it apart. Can you show an example of an uncovered second stage that is not specially designed for re-entry (like the space shuttle). “Camera strapped on the outside” sounds like funky engineering to me.
Defending what? I know the earth is round, but I don’t know it from solar eclipses by themselves. Yes, it is an assumption, not contradicted by fact claimed here. I proved that by showing that it had been accepted. By the most prominent FE. L“Observational data that can be verified” is the scientific method, not the zetetic method which only seeks something apparently wrong with accepted wisdom. This sub is for discussions between FEs and GEs, not GE triumphalism.
The creationist astronomer Danny Faulkner did some very careful work on this. https://books.google.com/books/about/Falling_Flat.html?id=7w8CEAAAQBAJ
Hmm... I don’t see that Dubay mentions eclipses at all, see r/Flatearth_200proofs.
This sub prohibits assumptions based on lack of response.
This isn’t just “some globe denier,” it is the founder of the flat earth movement, most famous flat earther ofvall time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rowbotham
Yes, many flat earth influencers now claim a close sun, but the fact remains the solar eclipses, by themselves, do not evidence round earth. They, together with other evidence, show that the sun sets, it doesn’t just move away. But that was not your question.
Again, you assume the sun does not set. If the sum is eclipsed when it has set, it would not be seen. You are assuming the flat earth model which does not allow sunsets, a drastic deviation from the founder of the modern flat earth movement, Samuel Rowbotham. You seem to have ignored my reference to Rowbotham. I know the earth is spheroidal from measurements of the curvature, not from solar eclipses. Lunar eclipses are another matter, because there we see the curved shadow of the earth.
This is one of many incorrect comments in this post. The placenta grows from the blastocyst when it implants in the uterine wall. It is a part of the embryo. It becomes a massive exchange filter between maternal and fetal blood, which ideally never mix. Babies get their oxygen from the maternal arteries in the placenta. No maternal blood flows to the embryo, normally. The baby and its blood are genetically distinct from the mother’s. The blood types may be different. (I was a lay midwife and founded the Arizona School of Midwifery.)
This assumes the sun does not set, which is a separate issue. The sun could set on a flat earth. It’s just that the influencers chose to ignore Rowbotham’s original position. I assume you know who Rowbotham was! My point is not that the earth is flat, it is not, but to show that requires a bit more than shooting down some defective arguments.
Nice view of the earth during an eclipse of the sun.
Not difficult to find. Another : https://scijinks.gov/solar-eclipse/
How many do you need?
Rowbotham, in chapter 11, “CAUSE OF SOLAR AND LUNAR ECLIPSES., has no problem with solar eclipses, but he considers lunar eclipses quite impossible because it requires the earth to move. As to solar eclipses they only require the moon to come between the sun and the earth but as to lunar eclipses, he is rather incoherent. Earthshine has him all confused.
It is a fact that a circumpolar navigation must travel both north and south. Crossing over the Pole causes the direction to reverse. This will happen on the Gleason map as well as any map showing the whole earth. A particular description may start at some arbitrary point, but if it starts anywhere, flies over a Pole, then over the other Pole, then returns to its starting airport, it has done a full circumnavigation. It will need to make refueling stops, which are not relevant to the issue.
The three examples given by the OP could not be loaded by me. But it seems you confuse a description of the journey with the actual full journey. The one map I could see did not show the poles. But Pan Am 50 is well-known, and it carried passengers!
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/pole-to-pole-pan-am-flight-50/index.html
No flight is going to start at the North Pole. This is a bizarre and artificial requirement. Rather they originate somewhere else. Usually the cross over a pole, at which point all directions reverse. At the North Pole, flying in a straight line, North becomes South, and vice verse at the South Pole.
https://old.reddit.com/user/DrPandaaAAa Courtesy Notification.
The Gleason map is a precise Azimuthal Equidistant Projection. The scale is degrees of latitude and longitude. Like all flat maps it is distorted to some extent and in some way. AEP maps are used to give an accurate direction from the center, but not to determine bearing from other points. You could roughly navigate using the map to read the latitudes and longitudes and then calculate bearing and distance using spherical trigonometry. Flatties don’t understand how the map was made. It is thoroughly based on the globe model.
The technology is not to suppress. It is to distinguish. You have imagined much. And you class me as “you people”. Get professional help. I’m temporarily blocking you. You are flooding this post with repetitive, useless complaint and judgement. Enough. You have responded many more times. This is not a conversation, it’s a rant. My roommate died yesterday, suddenly. I’ve got other fish to fry.
Your friend was a bit deranged. He was desperate to enroll someone in the Forum. But he did not have the skills. Nobody got a discount for enrolling people. Discounts were not offered at Introductions. You have confused the alleged one-time discount on the Advanced Course, which in my time was $800, but if you paid at least a $200 deposit, it was $600. My friend, who did the Forum eventually, then didn’t pay the $200 deposit in time. I told him to call the registration manager and see what he could do. He got the discount if he registered into the next AC and paid the full $600. With the personal transformation from the Forum, he had begun getting called for work and he then saw it as a good investment. His life was transformed. He ended up with a job that paid much more than he had even seen. I can tell many stories like that. The technology works.
Yes, your complaints are quite common. But people who do the Forum and go on realize that these are arising from very old, very disempowering beliefs arising from childhood choices or reactions, and very common all over the world. See documents on the Generation of Identity. Some of the complaints are errors, misunderstandings, but some have a validity. There was a “hard sell,” and it offended people, but abuse was very discouraged. That some companies demanded employees take the Forum was found to be illegal, abd properly so. The best results were found with people who knew what they were getting into and wanted it.
That was not you, and your friend has set you up, and instead of helping you with your fairly normal issues, became angry. I can’t speak about the Zoom Forum, and the closure of centers eliminated a source of personal relationship and flexibility.
I don’t know about “we” but I have checked. I can’t personally check the presence in space, but I did work on the Lunar Excursion Module, I’ve done a noon sight, which verified the data in the Nautical Almanac, watched more than hundreds of sunsets (the sun does not shrink), and many other observations.
Your friend failed to actually inform you. How advanced was he in the training? You clearly did not do your own research. Before I took the Forum I read all the critical material I could find on-on line, understanding that some of it could be true.
In a few minutes today I found https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BrF3jGCHnNm9iCCxp/a-review-and-summary-of-the-landmark-forum a rationalist community critique that is both critical and somewhat sympathetic. But he does repeat the canard that “in the original EST they would not let you go to the bathroom.” I doubt that ever happened but some assistant (new and untrained) may have reminded a participant that they had committed to be there, but.circumstances change. If you gotta go, you gotta go. If you have a problem tell the Course Manager and if yout need is urgent, just go out the door. They did not lock people in. And they did not track people who leave, but they notice if a badge is not turned in at the end.
What did you do before attending the forum to find out what it would be like? If your friend actually knew you, he would have known that you were not ready. To the extent there is pressure, it is not to enroll your friends and family into the Forum, but to invite them to an Introduction.
After the launching of the colossal oceanliner »SS Great Eastern« - which was a total outlier, size-wise, remaining the largest ship ever built for a ½Ꮯ - in 1858, cartoonists got busy making-out that if oceanliners were to get any bigger they would have to be bent to fit on Ball Earth!
That is not my attitude toward flatties, not even the open trolls of BallEarthThatSpins.
Landmark has never been therapy. The Forum was not a place where everyone had their five minutes to share, it was not for individuals. Your expectations were inaccurate. You are looking for something from them that isn’t there. There was more individual attention in the Advanced course, but it was mostly peer sharing, not with the leader. In the Self Expression and Leadership Program you got a personal coach. But not the Forum. You were unprepared. Some of the responsibility for that is the old friend. Who may have had no experience with the Zoom version. You could ask for your money back. But I don’t know how Landmark is now being managed. Honestly, I don’t know how they can manage it centrally. The Centers had a Fulfillment Manager who would give new registrants a call to prepare them. Closing the Centers, is that kind of personal attention being given pre-Forum?
You raise very many points. It is tedious to address them all, and the readership is small. What is the most important point?
The possibly faked video is one where the sun appears to shrink over a few seconds while “setting.”
You don’t understand Einstein’s discussion of the “Aether.” Scientifically, the Aether was abandoned because it explained nothing verifiable. I recommend the Wikipedia article, over the rank speculation in the magazine. What you called “black matter” is not “black.” If it were, it would absorb light. However, the concep of dark matter, inferred from gravitational effects, is similar to the concept of the aether, except for the gravitational effects.
You seem to think think that expression of opinion that is incomplete is legally actionable. If they were to actually file suit against the producers, they would probably be assessed for the legal costs of the defense. Defamation law is very difficult. Free speech is heavily protected. Malice must be shown. I know a case where there was malice, but the lawsuit was unskillfully prosecuted, and a British court found that the plaintiff had been libeled, but still ordered that the plaintiff to pay defendant’s costs, because it was mere opinion.
As to the video I watched, the fellow claimed some anomalous results and attributed them to an vortex in the luminiferous aether, no actual data and what would be essential details were totally lacking, and his findings appear to be in total contradiction to what is known about laser gyros.
Timing, temperature and pressure changes?
The link to pbs does not load for me. The refutation video actual, after quoting the discovery channel, lies (or is terminally careless). They did not claim that one needed a helicopter to show the curvature. That video is well-known. Yes, I claim it is not fake, having seen no evidence is fakery. People who claim that others are lying are always suss.
Yes, it is. That’s why the file is so large. I haven’t yet checked to see if text can be copied from the pdf. My favorite evidence for the curvature is the data provided in Rowbotham’s chapter on “Arcs of the Meridian.” It is enough to be compelling evidence for not only rotundity, but also “oblate.”
After the launching of the colossal oceanliner »SS Great Eastern« - which was a total outlier, size-wise, remaining the largest ship ever built for a ½Ꮯ - in 1858, cartoonists got busy making-out that if oceanliners were to get any bigger they would have to be bent to fit on Ball Earth!
Yeah, these were satirical cartoons, drawn for a quick laugh, not serious. Notice that the curvature cartoon assumes an readership that knows the earth is round.
After the launching of the colossal oceanliner »SS Great Eastern« - which was a total outlier, size-wise, remaining the largest ship ever built for a ½Ꮯ - in 1858, cartoonists got busy making-out that if oceanliners were to get any bigger they would have to be bent to fit on Ball Earth!
Only one of the satyrical cartoons mentions the curvature of the earth. Yes, if it was 60 nautical miles long, for the deck to be flat, the deck would need to curve one degree. Practically invisible.
Downloaded, but the file is apparently huge and crashes the browser. Each time I try, I get a little more. It may be downloading in the background and I may be hitting bandwidth limitations. It is a rare Redditor who will read such a thing, unless it is broken down and indexed for fast access. This is much larger than a text file.
They do not dip their nose according to their instruments. Looking at the plane in free space, obviously it rotates, because local level rotates. To maintain their altitude, of course the plane actually rotates with the curvature, but the instruments show them local level.this is transparent to the pilot. A free gyro would show the rotation, but the artificial horizon is not a free gyro.
I found a strange lack of interest in aerogels. My impression is that an aerogel could be made that is actually lighter than air, by filling it with say, helium or hydrogen rather the air. Hydrogen might be chemically reactive with the aerogel structure. Yeah, they are fragile and I don’t see a way around the problem. The vacuum causes the aerogel to explode. Contradicting myself, maybe very slow evacuation? Still a difficult engineering problem!
Not generally. It takes at least two measurements of curvature to show the oblateness. Rowbotham (1883) gives data, but misinterprets “oblate.” The curvature is greater near the equator. On an oblate spheroid, the poles are slightly flattened. Why do you care?
“Oblate” is a tiny detail.
The data: r/flatearth_zetetic , chapter on “Arcs of the Meridian.”
Because the direction of weight is down, by definition. And that defines “bottom.” Same on a flat earth or spheroid the difference is parallel (FE) or radial (GE). From the difference over a small area, the two models cannot be distinguished without very sensitive instruments.
If an object is less dense than the fluid around it, it will not fall. If it is denser, it will fall. Correct? In either case the direction it moves is the direction “ of weight, and is the density matches, it will move in any direction depending on the vector sum of the forces.
u/No_Perception7527 courtesy notification.
There are countless experiments that are not faked. Setting aside “illustrations” which are not claimed to be, I have not seen one fake globie video. As well, I have only seen one possibly fake flattie video. What there are is countless claims of “proof” from untested anecdotes. Details matter, and those are too often missing.
There is no possibility of a successful lawsuit, from the reported facts.
And the luminiferous ether was rejected, after many possible explanations were invented and tested. This led to Einstein’s conclusion that the velocity of light is constant in all frames of reference, leading to many verified predictions with high accuracy.
We could look at each video. I just watched the first. Deception.
You only need to travel a few miles. Sixty nautical miles will give you one degree. But very few Redditors actually do it, be they GE or FE. You do not need sophisticated equipment. I did a noon sight. I had a sextant but didn’t use it. I still measured within one minute of arc. Just a plumb bob, tape measure, and accurate clock. Why do you make it seem complicated?
Requesting Comments from anyone who has done the Zoom Forum. While this fellow obviously was set up for a cult “story”, the Zoom version seems like a disaster. His comment is:
Courtesy notification. (Removed on request from user)
I responded there. In spite of the official corporate denial, the Forum was an LGAT and I worry that the effectiveness has been demolished. Comments?
I can’t really comment on the zoom course. But poor management does not equal cult. The free seminar has always been there. This hour of personal chatter should have been immediately terminated. Nothing like that could have happened in the original Forum. As to inviting three people, it used to be inviting them to an Intriduction.
Your friend was radically unskillful and lost patience with you. After that time, have they continued the training? How far did they go? You were not prepared. But one idiot graduate does not equal “cult.” If they asked you to lie, “con”, yes. You were definitely reactive and you did indeed waste your money, unless you can recognize what happened.The Zoom adaptation to the Forum sounds like a disaster. I plan to ask on r/landmarkgraduates to see other experiences.
LGAT was the essence of the Forum. The structure that supported it was dismantled.
The physics here is misleading. Antimatter “molecules” would be antiprotons (probably) and positrons. This has nothing to do with “air” or “gas.” You are bringing in rationalizations invented by certain flatties, essentially speaking for the to make them wrong, when antimatter has no practical relevance. No FE brought this claim here. You goal is not polities discussion by proving them wrong. I see no flattie responses, from which this sub prohibits drawing conclusions. Do not expect any further response from me unless someone else resfonds.
This post really bothered me. The OP was not working there, and did not know that anyone was asked to work when sick, but seems to have assumed it. All restaurants were dangerous at that point. The restaurant was not concealing anything p, as far as what he knew was concerned. After all, he was notified! In spite of major precautions,, people were getting infected. So the OP may have exaggerated the situation to his friend. There was no reason to think that MacD’s was especially dangerous. Every gathering place was dangerous.
And the OP’s “friend” was an idiot. The was no good reason at all to publish his sourc’ voice. This was gossip and utterly inconsiderate, telling the truth was not a FU. By quitting, he prevented collection of unemployment insurance. Young an inexperienced and reactive. It’s amazing that so many of us survive adolescence,
“Attracted by gravity” continues the confusion. There is a downward force everywhere on earth and at attainable altitudes, affecting all masses. FEs, properly asked, here on this sub, have agreed. The difference between FE and GE is the direction of the force. In FE theory, the direction is parallel”0. In GE it is radial. The question here is about proof that gas molecules are attracted by gravity. what they will agree with — the sane ones— is that air has weight, which causes it to compress. Gravity, as in Newton’s theory, is not necessary to understand this. The research paper goes much further than FEs will accept, and is about antimatter. It was looking for any variation in the gravitational behavior of antimatter, a cosmological issue. I noticed that so far, there is no FE response. It was not about ordinary gases, like air. To prove that gas molecules are attracted by “gravity,” one would study gas molecules, and in ordinary gases there is no antimatter. The paper is irrelevant.
Because the confusion is present in the question. It uses gravity unnecessarily. To repeat, your question introduces “gravity.” I didn’t. Weight is quite adequate to explain sit pressure in a way that does not unnecessarily introduce conflict with FEs. There would still be a limit to the atmosphere on a flat earth.
Air is gas molecules and it has weight. “Weight” is an old synonym for gravity. FEs (and others) confuse the directly observable phenomenon, weight, with the theory or gravity introduced by Newton. We don’t need that complication for this question. The weight of a fluid in which an object is immersed is the cause of buoyancy, from differential pressure between the top and bottom.
That’s way too much content, highly repetitive and sarcaatic. I just looked at the first two. “Professor Dave” does not know how the communicatece with Flatties. You knew there was a problem, but you did it anyway. (I’m a dedicated globie, for many many reasons.1 I am not going to list them unless a flattie asks me). .
Nothing burger. “Space” is not defined. The launch vehicle does not go into orbit. No, show us one video that shows the plane or other probative evidence that the earth is flat. This proposal is nothing but an ignorant red herring. We have measured the earth’s curvature. It is not difficult, but flatties never do it.
