With how many people that had never heard more than his name and maybe a few comments of his, when I saw that he was promoting and had a business "teaching" men how to treat women like a pimp (aka; being abusive, hot/cold, and other mind games to make women compliant... or the ones who are already damaged and into that type of thing).
My opinion was that I didn't really care and was potentially crossing lines where that could be true, but no matter how it's sliced the story there is convoluted.
I'll put it this way, there are no photos that aren't composites or misrepresentation that can be spotted with forensic analysis of the images.
That also applies for ALL versions of the "blue marble" images, NASA admits they are composites (which is obvious when you compare the different versions of them and see they are not even consistent on land mass sizes.)
The implication of the earth being flat is, essentially, God is real.
But oddly enough, that's an argument I don't see flat earthers trying to make. Like they haven't bothered thinking out the implications of their conspiracy.
IMO at least, flat earthers tend to avoid making biblical arguments because the people looking to scientific arguments lean towards atheistic and so a biblical argument would be refuted as "unscientific."
I'm something in that middle range, the ideal would be something consistent with biblical views but consistent with scientific principles.
Or that, if you could prove God is real by proving the earth is flat, that faith wouldn't be necessary and thus the entire point of all current Christian doctrine would be moot.
In a sense at least.
I'm no scientist. But then again, neither are flat earthers. Einstein says gravity is space and time warped around mass, and that mass is simply following a straight line in the path of least resistance. If that's the case, then containment of atmosphere is not necessary. It's held in place by gravity, which is the space time warp around the planet mass. That's the problem with flat earther gobbledygook pseudo science. The mere idea that atmosphere needs to be "contained" is inconsistent with known science. If they're asking how it's contained, they don't understand. They're reducing the problem to what they know and understand, like how a jar might contain high pressure air and how that air escapes when the lid is taken off, without any thought given to how gravity isn't a significant part of that example.
Don't worry, I'm just an engineer... BUT, as far as astrophysics goes, Special relativity only works as Einstein described for 5% of the observable universe, so, the scientists, in order to maintain Relativity, had to create the concepts of dark matter and dark energy (dark matter adds mass without any EM signature and dark energy to add extra repulsion without EM signature) in order to maintain Einstein's theories to the observation.
What relativity states is that the mass of an object bends the "space-time" around that object, but that concept is at odds with quantum theories where electrostatics (from electrons that is 10^48 times more powerful than gravity claims to be). So, the "flat earther gobbledygook" is actually a more elegant solution where the electrostatic effect, density and buoyancy generates a far more elegant solution, except that it requires that the atmosphere is contained. That all doesn't mean that there aren't other planets or that travelling between planets is impossible, just that it's not something that can be done through chemical propulsion (consider, in a vacuum, chemical propulsion doesn't work because there's nothing to push against, ).
Gravity is described as a weak force that doesn't exist at the quantum level, except for the Higgs boson that is what provides a mass to the particles and even then is a reification of special relativity and not a proven concept that applies at any macro scale. The problem with the globe earth model as that is concerned is that heat and high pressures will move into lower pressure and temperature systems when they interact and the force of that goes beyond the force of gravity (I've been standing at the air intake of an HVAC system where I felt both the heat of the furnace AND the suction of the air flow which was counter-intuitive because the heater was about 10ft away)
Or better yet, they can come to the realization that some things are unknowable, and picking a side and arguing it to death to the point of obnoxiousness on internet forums is a hill not worth dying on (unless that's their job because they're paid).
This part I can agree with because I understand that as a system increases in scale it also increases in complexity and usually to a greater extent than the increase in scale).
No, it's accepting that, the model presented in that GIF SHOULD have the moon rotating around the earth on the same axis as the north-south geologic pole. That pole is 23.4° North (66.6 degrees from the equator).
The important point is that we ALWAYS, for the entire recorded history, has the moon pointing a constant face towards the earth. 1 rotation of the moon = 1 rotation of the moon around the earth. (Unless you get into some more obscure references that claim the moon was placed in its position and prior to that the earth did not have a moon)
It's my opinion that, while science originated from the desire to explain the universe without an appeal to God, that science is getting to the level where it is being reluctantly dragged into accepting that there was a creator (not just of the earth, but a creator of all). The electric universe theory becomes far more elegant in that context.
Not really
Yes, really, even though they haven't made so compelling of arguments that I would say definitively the earth is a topographical map, these issues revolving around atmosphere adjacent to a vacuum and the electrostatic gradient do REQUIRE containment to be consistent with physical laws that are known and well established.
Why it's important to me boils down more to the philosophical questions over the scientific, something that the modern names that we would look to acknowledge that they preferred the heliocentric models because the geocentric models would have the philosophical implications that the earth was special and placed their by a "God". Further, for me, it's about understanding the universe in the greatest capacity that my smooth brain can comprehend (I am an engineer, only to say that I'm not stupid as I often claimed of people who would entertain the concepts, shit, not even really a year ago).
You may not be aware, but the heliocentric and geocentric stellar model works equally well and only represents a change in the center point, the heliocentric model is just a simpler calculation.
As a contrasting example, look at human trafficking or vaccines or Q. What is the skin in the game? human trafficking: hundreds of thousands of children are suffering and the need to stop it for the sake of humanity vaccines: killing off the population, hundreds of millions of lives being cut short Q: elites eating children, billions stolen from taxpayers, etc. Those are examples of real skin in the game. It is understandable why people would spend all their time online arguing for these issues. ... and yet ... Have you ever seen someone posting on forums (against the forum's rules) about human trafficking? Or vaccines? Not really. As compelling as these issues are, people flock to forums that are centric to the main topic to discuss these (or discuss it on open platforms). You don't see someone going to a forum on knitting and insisting to post about drag racing, for example. And that's when they have actual skin in the game. Flat earthers, on the other hand, cannot explain what skin they have in the game. They can't explain why convincing others of the earth being flat is so important to them. And yet, they INSIST on posting about it on forums where it's explicitly forbidden.
(Edited only spacing to fit in one quote block) Now this part is why I agree that GAW is not really an appropriate forum, and generally agree with the mods that this should be kept at conspiracies.win instead, NOT because the topics don't have merits worthy of debate or discussion but because part of our role is in redpilling normies to the primary issues of human trafficking, vaccines, and the elites who ultimately want to kill off the majority of us all. The only reason I'm even raising these is that it's one of the few times where it was context appropriate to the OP.
People who are raising the topics where they would explicitly be out of context, IMO, are assholes, like in a knitting forum as you raised. Again, I agree that in terms of Q related discussion, an argument can be made where the topic does fit, but I agree with the general mod opinion that it doesn't belong, even if for a different reason (my view is that it will make it easier to smear us all as "Qanons and flat earthers"). However, the germ vs terrain theory does fit more closely with Q topics because of the past couple years and the vaxx issue.
Why? The reason they do it is because they want to conflate false conspiracy theories with real ones in order to muddy the water. Someone new to Q comes to a Q forum and sees 20 posts about flat eartherism, they come to the conclusion we're all insane and leave. The primary goal of flat earthers is to conflate their conspiracy with Q, to taint Q as also crazy by association.
Agreed completely, and why I don't bring up the topics unless the OP is relevant, and don't create topics on those lines. However, I've grown far less antagonistic, so when the thread context applies, I will bring up my opinions. If you look through the thread, I even mention to ashlandog that I agree with why they should keep these topics "on a short leash".
But occasionally, there's always the weak-minded fool who believes the psyop.
This line is where things get tricky... especially in the context of how often we've been told to "trust the science" these past few years when it was clearly not science.... and similarly discussion of the earth and its place in the universe relies heavily on trusting the science. When there are points of scrutiny that are simply dismissed because we've been taught about the globe from kindergarten, and have come to accept it.
That's effectively what my research had shown, that there IS an argument that can be made to make one immune from income taxes, BUT it's very easy to create a situation where you 'opt in' and from then on you have to do the income taxes that it's really a massive gamble where one would truly have to know what they are doing.
For me, it became a fight that I didn't want to take the gamble and risk potential prison time, or massive fines...
That said, I've known people from construction days who owed ~100k in taxes but then negotiated that they could never pay that much and got it reduced 90%.
One factor that most wouldn't consider is that the atmospheric pressure they would need to keep the space suits survivable is balanced by the pressure on the exterior (aka at ground level would be roughly zero pressure), but when you take that into a vacuum it becomes a pretty extreme pressure vessel, and that moon lander looked like it was wrapped in aluminum foil.
Actually that's a strong analog, I'm not strong in the FE camp beyond that they do raise SOME compelling arguments that can't just be handwaved away, and the main ones tend to revolve around evidence that there is a firmament.
Again to the taxes, the longest I went was 7 years and I got a visit, which was funny because I did them all and had about 1000$ worth of refunds.... I went to an accountant because there was 1 of the years I figured I would owe 5-10k, and she told me that same thing, they will spend 10k to get 50$ they think you owe, but if they feel you are getting refunds they won't bother reminding you.
I did exactly the same, that was until I was challenged to look at the ACTUAL discussion and not the repetitions from the Flat Earth Society... and I even had the same tone in my explanations as to how refraction and gravity covers all the experiments they used for demonstration.
There were a few issues that eventually got raised that cored a hole in my brain because they were peer-reviewed, but I had never considered the implications. First, that Einstein and other modern scientists rejected the concept of a stationary earth, NOT for scientific reasons but for the philosophical rationale that it would mean the earth was 'special'. Next, that there's Quantum theories, Newtonian mechanics, and Special Relativity; quantum theory has nothing for gravity (no graviton exists and the Higgs Boson only covers mass), Newtonian gravity is a description of the effect of downward acceleration with no attempt to explain the cause, and special relativity has failed in 95% of the predictions such that they had to create the concepts of dark matter and energy to explain away the rest.
Then third, the electrostatic gradient of the earth measured at 100V per meter up to the ionosphere.... to have that kind of capacitance requires 2 materials, the earth and something above the earth to hold the opposite charge.
None of that makes the "flat earth" definitive, but it does have some serious implications that tend towards the biblical model of the earth as effectively topographical within a container.
It's also tough to balance a counter argument (though I DO agree with the general mod opinion on the matter that those topics should be, for lack of a better term, kept on a short leash around here BECAUSE of how it would be used to smear the group) when there's the unspoken threat of pushing it too far and getting a slap on the wrist.
NVM that you can take the "earthrise on the moon" photo adjust the levels and the photoshopping (manual equivalent) sticks out like a thumb (we know where they allegedly landed and we only ever see the same face of the moon, therefore the earth would always be near perpendicular from the surface from that location).
Which itself doesn't mean that the whole moon landing was fake, I had believed that they faked images to conceal the actual technologies involved for a long while.
Edit: Lots of downvotes on this, but ignores the fact that the earth always sees the same face of the moon, meaning there is NO EARTH RISING on the moon, the earth would be stationary from the moon perspective and relative to the position on the moon where people landed. Can any of the downvoters explain why they expect a surface that always faces towards the earth would see the earth moving in the sky? Not that the moon wouldn't have a day/night cycle, but that the earth should be anything but stationary from that perspective?
In some of the instances there are 'controlled groups' that do that while the more legitimate proponents get silenced or otherwise kept in obscurity.
As for the tax thing, if the tax groups feel you'll be getting refunds, they won't bother you about taxes, but if they view that you would owe, you'll start getting phone calls after about 5 years in...
It is interesting when you look through the original debates when Pasteur was first presenting germ theory.
Of course, the terrain theory would have precluded the profitability of Rockefeller funded medical system that we know and love today. (Of course the link dumbs it down to "viruses aren't real" when it's something closer to viruses are created within the body when conditions of the terrain require it to prevent greater damage, and not something that attacks the body)
Each of those topics do have some serious scientifically minded discussion behind them, and while I agree that it would only be used to better smear the group and should be kept to "conspiracies.win" (as mods have recommended), the dismissal and calling it "boring" to denigrate the topics themselves, IMO at least, is a demonstration of how we have been indoctrinated on those beliefs from a young age.
At risk of a temp ban again, while I agree that these topics are outside of scope of Q discussion, these topics are NOT low effort or low info.
Each topic has some high level science based discussions surrounding them. That said, since we are intending to bring on normies who are just starting to shake off their indoctrination, they should be redirected to more appropriate wins, like conspiracies.win, as opposed to being denigrated in that way.
The article represents the lowest level grasp of the counter arguments, and the referring them as "boring" is the same type of response most Q topics get from normies who will just laugh at before launching insults.
I mean, the germ theory vs terrain theory debate is thoroughly misrepresented, the terrain theory isn't saying viruses do not exist, just do not exist as the germ theory claims. The Rockefeller medical industry could not profit if the terrain theory "won" and so it has been indoctrinated out of "acceptable" viewpoints.
The biggest frustration in applying most of that time was the number of companies (even still) with vaccine requirements... those I would just cancel out.
I don't know how much is people being paid not to work, if companies aren't really wanting to hire but have scheduled job postings going out -or- companies that put job posts for positions they intend to hire internally to fill. All I can say for sure is that I was seeing job postings like it was back in boom time, but getting follow-ups more along the lines of what I went through right after graduation (6 months early there would be 50-100 relevant posts for new grads to 3 months later and I was lucky to have an offer and the others graduating would only have jobs if they ALSO had a trade ticket or other qualifications)
That's part of why I decided to look for a job that actually was good enough to state firmly that vaccines was a choice, and has a wall of employees that stuck with the company for 40 years.
There was a high level retirement, and as that bubbled through the management had a massive shift in the company culture, because these people that had been separated from the process for years or decades had "ideas" and the power to implement them now without any consideration of the implications. In my office that meant a boss whose interpretation had the manager who got a higher level promotion asking (behind closed doors, but I was close enough to overhear) "how many people are you willing to lose if you do this?"
Then my supervisor became a guy whose career had been as a testing then production manager who had never done a day of design work; his introduction to us was his plan to "improve efficiency" which meant adding more documentation to facilitate production (previously handled with "directives" that covered the same information that would apply to all circumstances), then adding more redundant information, and instead of having a package with a quantity of, say, 20 to make 20 copies each with a qty of 1. Then he was asked if we would get more time to complete these extra requirements said "no, design takes too long as it is, and so you will get the same time."
The crazy part is, that only covers a fraction of the craziness that started getting implemented.
I was looking for engineering work to replace my current job, it took over a year and a half of pretty consistent applications and only seldom getting first interviews and I finally got an offer to start in the new year.
Have also been seeing the same with many restaurants that have had help wanted signs out and sometimes letters noting the troubles finding staff and requesting courtesy for delays.
I hope there are many of our frens here who have been buying more gold (and silver if the cost is daunting).