Cope
-
03
-
No Space wrote:
Cope
That's the quality response I expected
51 -
Ohhhhhh now you are getting sassy, salty even. Pilots as well as train operators do NOT account for curvature of the Earth. Funny how we get so many pictures of "space" from the "ISS" and yet we never seem to see the thousands upon thousands of man-made "satellites" that are supposedly up there and none of them seem to crash into each other. Hold up, thats because Earth's "gravity" hold them in place. Water ALWAYS finds its level. We don't live on a "globe". NASA and your friends/teachers/peers/friends lied to you because, they, too, were lied to by NASA. You either choose to wake up or you stay indoctrinated. It is a personal decision you and damn near everyone on this post who were taught these lies must make. I'm just sharing goodies out of the kindness of my heart.
22 -
I can tell you don't work in Sales. Stop telling me what's wrong about my world view and sell me yours! If it's not a globe, what is it? What's on the edges? What's over the edges? What shape is it?
62 -
I gave you enough. You get no further goodies from me. You're too sassy.
16 -
No Space wrote:
Ohhhhhh now you are getting sassy, salty even. Pilots as well as train operators do NOT account for curvature of the Earth. Funny how we get so many pictures of "space" from the "ISS" and yet we never seem to see the thousands upon thousands of man-made "satellites" that are supposedly up there and none of them seem to crash into each other. Hold up, thats because Earth's "gravity" hold them in place. Water ALWAYS finds its level. We don't live on a "globe". NASA and your friends/teachers/peers/friends lied to you because, they, too, were lied to by NASA. You either choose to wake up or you stay indoctrinated. It is a personal decision you and damn near everyone on this post who were taught these lies must make. I'm just sharing goodies out of the kindness of my heart.
Wait -- isn't this thread about satellites?
Research Satellite TV:20 -
Hey this is cool:
21 -
Citizen Runner wrote:
serious question asker wrote:
Honest question: Are flat earthers just trolling for jollies because they love the online debate?
I see some anonymous posters but also some real registered people. Which would actually put somewhat of a real name to their posts and beliefs. Is it a game? In real life, do they share their flat earth beliefs with other real life human beings?
There's a adage from the very early days of internet forums to the effect, "The purpose of online forums is to prove you're the smartest guy in the room." A frame work of self-validation explains most of what goes on in social media.
This sort of thread, someone taking and arguing a seemingly absurd position, does demonstrate some cleverness. It involves "arguing like a lawyer", that is making the best case for a (self-assigned and seemingly untenable) position as opposed to "thinking like a scientist" where the goal is to converge on objective truth. On the other hand one doesn't have to be particularly clever to simply reject evidence that doesn't support one's position.
The first take away is that these sorts of threads not about objective truth and if one thinks they are, they're playing by a different set of rule than the instigators.
A second take away is that one's debate opponent may "argue like a lawyer" without realizing they're doing so. In technical matters, the ability for the various parties (debaters and their audience) to fairly evaluate the evidence and argument is important. This is the basis of the "Dunning Kruger" effect. Without sufficient subject matter expertise, one will not only be unable to fairly weigh evidence, they will be unable to recognize their ability to do so. The experts are not always right, but it's almost always the way to bet.
Finally, we live in a complex world and we take for granted an enormous body of knowledge. It is a fair point that no one knows everything and much of what we understand to be true are not things that a random individual could somehow derive proof for. Even for a domain expert proving the existance of man-made satellites is non-trivial.
Edit to add: It's also worth noting that the current trend towards distrusting experts, while not without merit, opens the door to reliance on non-experts which is inherently no more sensible.
This is a great post. Honestly I find conspiracy believers fascinating. Does anyone have any recommended reads or studies on them?
21 -
First mistake is believing in NASA and in "live from space" feeds. There is a Firmament above us. No "Space" organization can or ever have got past it. Research "Operation Fishbowl". The indoctrination is FAR too strong for one individual to fix. The a**clownery is FAR too strong. No goodies or treats for you RekTrunner
25 -
No Space wrote:
First mistake is believing in NASA and in "live from space" feeds. There is a Firmament above us. No "Space" organization can or ever have got past it. Research "Operation Fishbowl". The indoctrination is FAR too strong for one individual to fix. The a**clownery is FAR too strong. No goodies or treats for you RekTrunner
There's more evidence of satellites than there is of the existence of Jesus. You've got no problem believing in Jesus.
You're not interested in actual proof.
51 -
I sense a great deal of saltiness and cringe. You definitely get no goodies. Do better
11 -
Question askerr wrote:
Citizen Runner wrote:
There's a adage from the very early days of internet forums to the effect, "The purpose of online forums is to prove you're the smartest guy in the room." A frame work of self-validation explains most of what goes on in social media.
This sort of thread, someone taking and arguing a seemingly absurd position, does demonstrate some cleverness. It involves "arguing like a lawyer", that is making the best case for a (self-assigned and seemingly untenable) position as opposed to "thinking like a scientist" where the goal is to converge on objective truth. On the other hand one doesn't have to be particularly clever to simply reject evidence that doesn't support one's position.
The first take away is that these sorts of threads not about objective truth and if one thinks they are, they're playing by a different set of rule than the instigators.
A second take away is that one's debate opponent may "argue like a lawyer" without realizing they're doing so. In technical matters, the ability for the various parties (debaters and their audience) to fairly evaluate the evidence and argument is important. This is the basis of the "Dunning Kruger" effect. Without sufficient subject matter expertise, one will not only be unable to fairly weigh evidence, they will be unable to recognize their ability to do so. The experts are not always right, but it's almost always the way to bet.
Finally, we live in a complex world and we take for granted an enormous body of knowledge. It is a fair point that no one knows everything and much of what we understand to be true are not things that a random individual could somehow derive proof for. Even for a domain expert proving the existance of man-made satellites is non-trivial.
Edit to add: It's also worth noting that the current trend towards distrusting experts, while not without merit, opens the door to reliance on non-experts which is inherently no more sensible.
This is a great post. Honestly I find conspiracy believers fascinating. Does anyone have any recommended reads or studies on them?
It really is fascinating how some people's minds work (or don't work).
I think this "no space" guy is a troll, but anyway, it's funny when people who believe in crazy conspiracies like flat earth say "NASA lies" etc. It shows how simple minded they are by ignoring other people and around the world.
More than 600 people from dozens of different countries have gone into space. It's not just NASA. It's Roscosmos, ESA, JAXA, CNSA. Russia, Europe, Japan, China, and other countries are all lying to Mr. No Space, Legit Question, and Bad Wiggins. Them saying "NASA lies" just demonstrates their small mindedness.
It really is fascinating that people as stupid as the names I've mentioned above purport themselves to be really do exist.
21 -
MelRnr wrote:
Question askerr wrote:
This is a great post. Honestly I find conspiracy believers fascinating. Does anyone have any recommended reads or studies on them?
It really is fascinating how some people's minds work (or don't work).
I think this "no space" guy is a troll, but anyway, it's funny when people who believe in crazy conspiracies like flat earth say "NASA lies" etc. It shows how simple minded they are by ignoring other people and around the world.
More than 600 people from dozens of different countries have gone into space. It's not just NASA. It's Roscosmos, ESA, JAXA, CNSA. Russia, Europe, Japan, China, and other countries are all lying to Mr. No Space, Legit Question, and Bad Wiggins. Them saying "NASA lies" just demonstrates their small mindedness.
It really is fascinating that people as stupid as the names I've mentioned above purport themselves to be really do exist.
There are people that sit at home in front of their computer and inadvertently fall down these online conspiracy rabbit holes and wind up believing. They just keep quiet and believe. Lots of Q-Anon are like that.
And there are others that you can tell are getting off arguing online for the sake of arguing. It’s blatantly obvious they have zero interest in a quest for truth. And Because they’re conspiracy is so dumb it gives them great enjoyment because they know it irritates others and suck more people in to argue with.
they will never openly explain their belief from start to finish because that would put them on defense instead of offense. Then their dopamine fix from arguing with more people would dry up.
41 -
No Space wrote:
I sense a great deal of saltiness and cringe. You definitely get no goodies. Do better
Your repeated use of salty and cringe shows your cards.
22 -
No Space wrote:
First mistake is believing in NASA and in "live from space" feeds. There is a Firmament above us. No "Space" organization can or ever have got past it. Research "Operation Fishbowl". The indoctrination is FAR too strong for one individual to fix. The a**clownery is FAR too strong. No goodies or treats for you RekTrunner
Once again, "believe" looks like an awkward verb here -- as if the game you want to play is to choose which religion is the right one.
Although I have yet to see any compelling reason to doubt any information from NASA though, along with about a dozen or so other space agencies.
The only known firmament in this universe is the cosmic background radiation.
I thought the goodies were for those who provided photos of satellites you deem not to be CGI. I wasn't expecting any goodies, because I didn't attempt to go on that wild goose chase.
Thanks for the reference to Operation Fishbowl. Very educational.
31 -
For that response you get THIS.14
-
rekrunner wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:
Those things were not done as of 1800 years ago, that's the point.
Also I haven't done them, and you probably haven't either. So there we are again, just taking someone's word for it.
I didn't say 1800 years ago, but 1800 years before Newton formed his equations. (I was wrong because I don't know how to count centuries. It's closer to 2000 years.)
But, you are quite wrong to say that sailing around the world was the only way. If you had known your history:
"By the 5th century B.C., it was widely accepted that the Earth is a sphere."
"The sphericity of the Earth was established by Greek astronomy in the 3rd century BC,"
You are quoting people guilty of the same fallacy. They "accepted" this stuff in the same way they "accepted" their wider astronomical theories. Those theories were thoroughly debunked more than 1000 years later, despite being protected as religious dogma.
To "confirm" the world is round, observe something empirical that doesn't make you infer or deduce it.This post was edited 41 seconds after it was posted. Reason provided: their standards were lower back then32 -
No Space wrote:
For that response you get THIS.Humorous parody. It's hard to believe that anyone would take any of that seriously though. All of his questions have been answered.
Sure, balloons exist as well as ground towers, but they cannot replicate the reach and performance of satellites. Some points country man fails to address:
High altitude balloon flights typically last 1-2 days before the winds blow the balloons over the ocean, with some as long as 2 weeks above Antarctica (where the winds circle the south pole). Geostationary (TV) satellites operate for about 10-20 years.
100s of millions of homeowners buy satellite dishes and point them at fixed points on the geo-stationary arc calculated according to a geostationary orbit around the equator of a globe earth. These calculations would not work with non-stationary balloons or small height land towers.
Signal delays to and from geostationary (TV) satellites are about 1/4 of a second, suggesting a distance of 22,000 miles at the speed of light -- much higher than land towers and balloons.
10 -
Bad Wigins wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I didn't say 1800 years ago, but 1800 years before Newton formed his equations. (I was wrong because I don't know how to count centuries. It's closer to 2000 years.)
But, you are quite wrong to say that sailing around the world was the only way. If you had known your history:
"By the 5th century B.C., it was widely accepted that the Earth is a sphere."
"The sphericity of the Earth was established by Greek astronomy in the 3rd century BC,"
You are quoting people guilty of the same fallacy. They "accepted" this stuff in the same way they "accepted" their wider astronomical theories. Those theories were thoroughly debunked more than 1000 years later, despite being protected as religious dogma.
To "confirm" the world is round, observe something empirical that doesn't make you infer or deduce it.
I know you are just stirring the pot for its own sake.
These "theories" were never debunked, but only refined with better measurements. The thing is that you can repeat the same experiments and observations they did thousands of years ago, and confirm for yourself. If the earth were truly flat, one mountain top
measurement from a rather modest height of the horizon dip-angle would confirm which is the right model.00 -
rekrunner wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:
You are quoting people guilty of the same fallacy. They "accepted" this stuff in the same way they "accepted" their wider astronomical theories. Those theories were thoroughly debunked more than 1000 years later, despite being protected as religious dogma.
To "confirm" the world is round, observe something empirical that doesn't make you infer or deduce it.
I know you are just stirring the pot for its own sake.
These "theories" were never debunked, but only refined with better measurements. The thing is that you can repeat the same experiments and observations they did thousands of years ago, and confirm for yourself. If the earth were truly flat, one mountain top
measurement from a rather modest height of the horizon dip-angle would confirm which is the right model.BW seems to be making an argument of the form "Eratosthenes* was wrong because Ptolemy** was wrong" which is a silly thing to do in a post ostensibly calling out logical fallacy.
* Eratosthenes calculated an estimate of the (approximately spherical) earth circumference in the 3rd century BC to within a few percent of modern estimates. The general technique can and is commonly reproduced by high school students.
** Ptolemy constructed a geocentric (earth centered) mathematical model of the solar system in the 2nd century CE which was largely superceded by a heliocentric (sun centered) model of the solar system commonly attributed to Copernicus in the 16th century CE. Reference frames are strictly arbitrary, so it's less a matter of Ptolemy being "wrong" than of choosing a reference frame that makes the mathematics less elegant for the purpose of describing planetary motion.
10
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.