NASA Satellite stops on a dime!? WTF!!!

[PufPuf93]

.
I don't think this is a trolling exercise, PuffPuff, though I can't speak for everyone.
A couple of those videos depict 'amateur researchers' hiking up several mountains, calculating distances, summits, and expected curvatures, and then presenting findings. In other words, beyond mere manipulation/interpretations of various 'models'.
Did you catch that one? What are your thoughts there?

That said, perhaps it truly is all governed by the 'observer'. Any model only exists when observed.
But of course that only applies at the quantum level.

Models are ever more precise and explanatory, descriptive, or predictive because of scientific advances; examples being quantum mechanics, topology, and fractal mathematics.

Science is best viewed as an empirical methodology that builds on prior research (but also prone to blind but useful corridors) that is renewed by emergence of frontiers.

One item in the limited selection of video I watched included that there is no gravity but rather that objects rise or fall because of a difference in relative density.

Another item is that the cosmos is in essence a stage rather than a universe of vast or infinite distance and complexity.

Still another seeming assumption is that some creator (or Creator) exists.

You mention the relatively simplistic measurements of horizon in the simple and Heisenberg's uncertainty in the general regards models.

What the Flat Earth analyzes share in common is no need for highly advanced mathematics or the new mathematic methods destined to come into use.

Flat Earth proponents hypothesize a reality readily observed, not very nuanced, and without limitless unknown to human perception (even aided by "tools" known and to come).

Advances in mathematics do not change the substance of reality but do change the human ability to find utility because models become more precise and explanatory, descriptive, or predictive.

Think of the complexity in a nebulae. How is a nebulae conceived by a Flat Earth proponent? A scattering of defused light on a back drop?

Flat Earth proponents resemble to me the fundamental religious that believe in a Creator, a 6000 year old Earth, and have explanations for fossils and billions of years of geology.

I find wonder some the great detail put into alternative reality theories that fits so readily into a world that can communicate by internet.

Scientists do not (or should not anyway) present themselves as priests and in my experience many found their personal path by the awesome mysteries to be researched.

[82_28]

Here's the thing about suspending Norty. He is a known quotient and contributor and also a shit ton of comedic relief and has been for years. He is an expert at it. Maco is some person who believes in nonsense who I, in particular "lured" out into the somewhat "open" in order to challenge the ideas espoused. He was simply following along and lost a touch of patience. He fully tempered his comment with the nod to the demiurge. I saw the nuance right away. My vote is he was just using normal parlance with knowledge. Everybody knows he ain't no idiot and isn't not versed in the "protocols" here.

[NeonLX]

^^^^^and seven days seems pretty harsh, to me anyway. Of course, I also don't believe in spanking one's child so there's that.

[PufPuf93]

Here's the thing about suspending Norty. He is a known quotient and contributor and also a shit ton of comedic relief and has been for years. He is an expert at it. Maco is some person who believes in nonsense who I, in particular "lured" out into the somewhat "open" in order to challenge the ideas espoused. He was simply following along and lost a touch of patience. He fully tempered his comment with the nod to the demiurge. I saw the nuance right away. My vote is he was just using normal parlance with knowledge. Everybody knows he ain't no idiot and isn't not versed in the "protocols" here.

I agree.

Hard to judge on the internet but I interpreted Norton Ash as being in large part tongue in cheek.

Maco has been dishing too but not as abruptly.

[82_28]

Norton Ash has ALWAYS been tongue in cheek.

[DrEvil]

Let's face it. If someone is committed to the spinning globe model, producing evidence, no matter how compelling, for anything but that spinning globe is futile. "Science", or what passes for science, is the new belief system and you don't dare question anything sanctioned by the science gods.

It' not a "spinning globe model", it's not a theory but an observable fact.

And you're wrong about science. Science is the opposite of belief. It's a method for investigating the world around us through observation and experimentation. It's a tool that can be used or abused, but the abuse doesn't invalidate it, it just shows that some people are assholes.

The whole point of science is to question things. Saying that people don't dare question the "science gods" is laughably naive and shows a complete lack of understanding of what science is really about.

[Luther Blissett]

I think I've mentioned this before on some thread here because I'm obsessed with the concept, but there exists only one spot from which a person can see both the (top of the) World Trade Center in New York City and the (top of the) Comcast Building, the tallest building in Philadelphia: the very apex of the Kingda Ka rollercoaster at Six Flags in New Jersey, where a person has only a split second to do it. There are rumors that both can be seen from a spot in the Delaware Water Gap (though I have trouble believing this), and further rumors that once the new (taller) Comcast Barad-dûr is built, one will be able to see the World Trade Center from the top (and vice versa).

If the earth were flat, wouldn't there be a broad band of land between both cities from which viewers could see both, even with the "law of perspective"? (Still open to holographic universe / simulation theory explanations)

I cant find the footage at the moment but when I first found FE one of the visuals I found very convincing was a view of the philadelphia skyline from a park in upstate NJ. At a distance of ~80 miles between the two there should be no way to see NYC/Philadelphia so there's another opportunity to prove FE. Kingda Ka is 45 stories, surely there must be an office building of that height somewhere in central NJ where that is possible to see Philly and NYC.

EDIT to add crappy low res picture.

This is the best I can find at the moment. IIRC it was something like 60 miles away.

My friend took that picture. Weird.

[Luther Blissett]

About ISS visible in the sky. The FE explanations to seeing ISS are that it is likely some sort of hologram technology (project blue beam). Reasons to be incredulous that you're actually seeing ISS are that it is moving 22x the speed of sound (it should be moving much faster and essentially on fire). Also, it is the size of a sports pitch. Claiming to see something that size at 200+ miles away means you have the vision an eagle would be envious of. Again, we can show that space walks and space station footage is being faked so it is hard to believe that theyre forging that but everything else is legitimate.

Dawg everything is a hologram.

[DrEvil]

^^But only when you look at it.

[Wombaticus Rex]

[Belligerent Savant]

PufPuf, or anyone else: I posted this in the previous page. Take another gander, disregarding for a moment the other aspects of FE theory.

Time and effort was dedicated to reach the conclusions drawn in the above video.

Let's try, for a moment, to forget about all the other "FE" theories. Forget about the words "Flat Earth" altogether. How would one explain the findings in this video? "Refractions" alone won't do it. There are other similar examples of this to be found as well. I've been to the top of Bear Mountain, NY numerous times, and distinctly recall seeing the NYC skyline from the top of the mountain. I'll make it a point to take a snapshot next time I'm up there -- assuming it's a clear day -- and will post the resultant photos of it, along with some calculations Re: summit height, distance to the skyline, and expected curvature.

There may be a straightforward explanation for this, and even if there isn't, it doesn't, by itself, "prove" a FLAT earth, but I remain interested in a workable explanation for this phenomenon beyond 'anecdotal' observations.

[PufPuf93]

I have watched the first 30 minutes of this clip. Clever sort of.

The sequoia and coast redwoods of California exist in "islands" not glaciated during the last Ice Age. They have unique genetics among current species of trees that allow their growth to great size. Their natural range is limited to areas of summer fog. They will grow outside areas of summer fog but their tops die and limit height growth (that can still be substantial). What the narrator has missed is that the petrified trees of Arizona are genetic close but long extinct relatives to the redwoods that now are limited to parts of California.

Not all fibers in tree or other woody or herbaceous plants are octagonal. If Devil's Tower is the base of a giant (6 kilometer in height tree), it grew without growth rings (which may well be an attribute of a silicon tree).

Forest growth is limited by the availability of nutrients. Water (H2O) then carbon then nitrogen then calcium then potassium then phosphorus and so on of various micronutrients in declining amounts and proportion. Forests need soil to anchor within and provide nutrients and of course need sunlight to photosynthesize complex sugars for structure and energy. Forests also need a plethora of symbiotic, parasitic, and associated organisms to function (fungi bacteria, insects etc.). There are limiting factors in any case that limit biomass accrual just as biomass accrual is limited in any ecosystem. Forests need soil that are a product of the bedrock geology or underlying parent material moved (by wind, water, volcanos, etc); organic material including the various life forms and genetic material; climate and micro-climate some of which is a product of the developing forest or past forests or vegetation on the specific site; land relief or morphology (slope, aspect, elevation, soil mineral particle distribution, etc); time; and various others items that may be termed the "state factors" of soil formation. Many soils do not have the resources necessary to grow forests and in all cases the soils (that integrate the state factors) limit forest growth. Forests are alive and soils are alive as well being composed of a vast array of life.

Fossilization (and metamorphism in general) are basic geology, granted a variety of processes that take millions or even billions of years.

The narrator of this clip has zero respect for science which I suppose is a fitting result when one is critical and makes no effort to be rigorous in understanding.

[vanlose kid]

*

[PufPuf93]

*

vanlose k, This is not a functioning video.

[divideandconquer]