rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[Hyena]

Is there a point to distiguishing between different brands of lunatics?

What I mean is, that site doesn't seem to be bothered with scientific rigour. It's just a collection of "facts" with varying degree of relevance or seriousness which is supposed to paint a complete picture in the mind of the reader without any attempt to provide consistency.

What are you hoping to get? A "peer reviewed" and published mainstream science article? 

If you're too lazy to think for yourself then I cannot help you. Perhaps Admiral Byrd is reputable enough for you to take these theories seriously, if you insist on some authority telling you what's what.

Admiral Richard E Byrd - Hollow Earth Video Interview

As for different brands of lunatics, if you're the guy who would like to call the author of that hollow earth blog a lunatic, then I have no respect for you. The guy is igniting thought and explaining how it is plausible for the planets to form as hollow. You call open-mindedness lunacy? If you're not joking, you have serious problems with your expectation bias which forces you to think inside a really cramped box.

In situations like this I always like to provide a link to the following video:
NASA PROVES HOLLOW EARTH THEORY... PROOF EVIDENCE EARTH IS HOLLOW

Although the title of the video is a bit of an exaggeration, if this doesn't open your mind for the possibility of hollow planets, nothing will.

[infofront]

Thank you Hyena for being the public face of bitcoin.

[AlexGR]

The most mind-blowing "co-incidence" in the sky, is the moon itself.

It is too massive to be caught in the earth's orbit while also being so far away. Yet it is located at exactly the same distance required so that its diameter (as seen from earth) will be the exact same diameter as the sun's, creating phenomena like the full eclipses. As far as I know, this is unheard of in the entire known universe.

The chance of the moon being ~400 times closer than the sun, but also being ~400 times smaller, to produce the full eclipse phenomenon, is ridiculously low (and if you factor the size of the moon and distance of its orbit, it becomes ...impossible).

NASA has this to say:

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/moon-general.html

"The Moon's size and distance contribute to a wonderful coincidence for those of us who live here on Earth. The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun, but it also just happens to be about 400 times closer. The result is that from Earth, they appear to be the same size. And when its orbit around Earth takes the Moon directly between Earth and the Sun, the Moon blocks our view of the Sun in what we call a solar eclipse. "

"wonderful coincidence" 
"just happens".... 

Yeah I mean, it just happened man. Just a coincidence. Sure thing.

[Fatman3001]

Is there a point to distiguishing between different brands of lunatics?

What I mean is, that site doesn't seem to be bothered with scientific rigour. It's just a collection of "facts" with varying degree of relevance or seriousness which is supposed to paint a complete picture in the mind of the reader without any attempt to provide consistency.

What are you hoping to get? A "peer reviewed" and published mainstream science article? 

Yes, please.

If you're too lazy to think for yourself then I cannot help you. Perhaps Admiral Byrd is reputable enough for you to take these theories seriously, if you insist on some authority telling you what's what.

Admiral Richard E Byrd - Hollow Earth Video Interview

As for different brands of lunatics, if you're the guy who would like to call the author of that hollow earth blog a lunatic, then I have no respect for you. The guy is igniting thought and explaining how it is plausible for the planets to form as hollow. You call open-mindedness lunacy? If you're not joking, you have serious problems with your expectation bias which forces you to think inside a really cramped box.

In situations like this I always like to provide a link to the following video:
NASA PROVES HOLLOW EARTH THEORY... PROOF EVIDENCE EARTH IS HOLLOW

Although the title of the video is a bit of an exaggeration, if this doesn't open your mind for the possibility of hollow planets, nothing will.

There's a difference between independent thought and complete and utter detachment from reality.

As is perfectly exemplified here:

I don't believe in a magma filled ball Earth theory either. It simply has too many holes in it. When was the last time Copernicus'es model was proven with a physics experiment?

Every day I do research, in fact. I am an astrophysicist, and in my area of research we regularly have to exactly model the positions of all solar system bodies.

Let me tell you something about science: we do not all conspire together. In fact, science is a free for all. We are all (underpaid) competitors, dying to make a name for ourselves. If someone can show that the entire scientific consensus is wrong, such a person would gain eternal fame. The thing is, you have to do it convincingly. Most people who think they have overthrown the entire scientific consensus, and who are subsequently being ignored, usually just have not shown what they are conjecturing (and usually they are, indeed, wrong). If you think we would all conspire together, you are completely misunderstanding how this world works.

Just because you are an astrophysicist doesn't mean you know anything about the shape of the Earth. You observe the stars, right? Not Earth -- stars. So how can you tell such a story? It's just a bunch of assumptions. If you truly were a proper scientist you would understand that. You don't know how the universe operates, stop making dumb assumptions.

You see what's happening to Europe due to sandnigger wererefugees swarming the whole place due to the activities of ISIS. They're destroying the Europe.

[Fatman3001]

The most mind-blowing "co-incidence" in the sky, is the moon itself.

It is too massive to be caught in the earth's orbit while also being so far away. Yet it is located at exactly the same distance required so that its diameter (as seen from earth) will be the exact same diameter as the sun's, creating phenomena like the full eclipses. As far as I know, this is unheard of in the entire known universe.

The chance of the moon being ~400 times closer than the sun, but also being ~400 times smaller, to produce the full eclipse phenomenon, is ridiculously low (and if you factor the size of the moon and distance of its orbit, it becomes ...impossible).

NASA has this to say:

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/moon-general.html

"The Moon's size and distance contribute to a wonderful coincidence for those of us who live here on Earth. The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun, but it also just happens to be about 400 times closer. The result is that from Earth, they appear to be the same size. And when its orbit around Earth takes the Moon directly between Earth and the Sun, the Moon blocks our view of the Sun in what we call a solar eclipse. "

"wonderful coincidence" 
"just happens".... 

Yeah I mean, it just happened man. Just a coincidence. Sure thing.

et tu...

[suda123]

^^
It's because of a phenomenon called Apparent Magnitude (ie: the brightness that a celestial body presents when observed from Earth). There's a set of calculations that determine how "bright" a planet seems, you might want to take a look there.

I subsequently checked that the 1.2 m ball "Sun" has a temp of 6000°C so above the boiling point of metals. It heats the marble to 460°C by radiation. So this causes it to glow brightly. It seems that despite my initial suspicion, the thing might work after all. The temperature was a key point in opening my eyes.

(The molten metal 3 weeks after 9/11 has not opened the eyes of all to see that issue though, but I see the things both ways when they are pointed out)

 I see a hot ball of metal or something

[macsga]

^^
Ah, you're no fun at all... 

[Hyena]

Hyena, and all you other hollow Earthers out there, this is for you.

It is the Holiday season, I'll bite.

I will try to explain to you why the concave Earth 'theory' is not scientific....

What you just did is what every egomaniac would do. You want me to play your game by your rules so you could defeat me with your tricks. Not going to happen. You are a pawn of the corrupt system. You have your beliefs and if even the slightest part of these theories were to become widely accepted the whole domino chain of scientific studies would start collapsing. This would be too much for you personally and for all the other pawns of the corrupt system. So naturally, you try to defend it while believing that you represent the good guys.

It is you who is arrogant, can't you see it? You fight and ridicule any opposition, you are so insecure inside. There's nothing wrong with the concave earth theory, but it is you who has limited thinking. Your imagination works only in the direction of fortifying your current beliefs and demolishing any threats. Now I agree that your imagination is good and you are talented in what you do but you have one little flaw ---  you are unable to use all that talent to seek for the possibilities of how the concave earth model would work out. You see how it wouldn't work out because that is what you want to see.

To you and every other shit scientist out there, here's what I propose: conduct the fucking rectilineator experiment independently and in different locations on Earth. This has only been done once in the history of man kind and it proved Earth to be concave. Here's your chance to get famous by being the second person in the history to conduct this experiment. I am happy to accept any outcome of that experiment because I am not trying to defend my ego or reputation in the scientific community but instead I am just seeking the truth.

[brg444]

Some people here really couldn't handle being alone by themselves for Christmas  

[Hyena]

...the concave Earth theory is silly...

so it is silly, I agree. It doesn't mean I shouldn't look into it. And to my understanding I did show what is wrong with the convex earth theory. Telescopes and horizons. The ship disappears fully behind the horizon but when you zoom in with a telescope you can still see it. And don't tell me that it is a mirage due to refraction caused by the hot air above and cold air below. The "refraction" and "mirage" straw is way overused to "debunk" conspiracy theories. It's as stupid as a guard hearing some strange noise in Oblivion and saying "these damn rats again" or "it was probably wind". No it is not wind and it is not rats! It's a fucking thief stealing shit from the castle!

The experiment was flawed by construction. With our current material science knowledge, it is impossible to create a structure of any kind that will be straight over the distances required. If you think it can be done, you could make a lot of money. I would not know how to do it, and I am really not tempted to try. Also, I think all the information we need to falsify the concave Earth theory is already out there, despite what you have been claiming.

Did you just suck that out from your thumb? When constructing those straight bars needed for the rectilineator you would make them all from the same template. However, when finally using the bars you would turn one's face downwards and the next bar's face upwards. By doing so you would reset any error in the template that would otherwise cause the drawn line to bend in either direction.

[criptix]

...the concave Earth theory is silly...

The experiment was flawed by construction. With our current material science knowledge, it is impossible to create a structure of any kind that will be straight over the distances required. If you think it can be done, you could make a lot of money. I would not know how to do it, and I am really not tempted to try. Also, I think all the information we need to falsify the concave Earth theory is already out there, despite what you have been claiming.

Did you just suck that out from your thumb? When constructing those straight bars needed for the rectilineator you would make them all from the same template. However, when finally using the bars you would turn one's face downwards and the next bar's face upwards. By doing so you would reset any error in the template that would otherwise cause the drawn line to bend in either direction.

i think this explains pretty good:

Inverting the rectilineator section top/bottom doesn't help either, for the structure will still sag in the same sense, with ends drooping. Could this be the systematic error that accounts for the results? With the materials used in the rectilineator, the sag can't be very large. But a sag of only 0.000003 degree in each section, multiplied by the 1045 sections in a four mile length, gives a cumulative error of 0.003 degree. That would be about the latitude difference between the endpoints of the survey. Such a small error was far too small to be measured or detected in just one, or even a string of a few, rectilineator sections.

This is a subtle source of systematic error. The preliminary tests of the rectilineator were done with only a few of those sections they had (four). The systematic error for these would be far beneath detection level during those tests. An individual section's cross arms might deviate from parallelism in one of two directions, or might, by sheer accident be nearly parallel for one orientation of the rectilinator. If it deviated in one direction, then when the section was inverted, the deviation would flip in the other direction and still be such as to cause the ends to bend downward. Even if by pure accident the first few rectilineator sections were aligned exactly parallel, the procedure of "recycling" sections and inverting them would ensure a systematic error from that point onward of about the same amount over the entire length of the survey.

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow.htm

should read the whole paper it is very informative!

[Hyena]

i think this explains pretty good:

Inverting the rectilineator section top/bottom doesn't help either, for the structure will still sag in the same sense, with ends drooping. Could this be the systematic error that accounts for the results? With the materials used in the rectilineator, the sag can't be very large. But a sag of only 0.000003 degree in each section, multiplied by the 1045 sections in a four mile length, gives a cumulative error of 0.003 degree. That would be about the latitude difference between the endpoints of the survey. Such a small error was far too small to be measured or detected in just one, or even a string of a few, rectilineator sections.

This is a subtle source of systematic error. The preliminary tests of the rectilineator were done with only a few of those sections they had (four). The systematic error for these would be far beneath detection level during those tests. An individual section's cross arms might deviate from parallelism in one of two directions, or might, by sheer accident be nearly parallel for one orientation of the rectilinator. If it deviated in one direction, then when the section was inverted, the deviation would flip in the other direction and still be such as to cause the ends to bend downward. Even if by pure accident the first few rectilineator sections were aligned exactly parallel, the procedure of "recycling" sections and inverting them would ensure a systematic error from that point onward of about the same amount over the entire length of the survey.

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow.htm

should read the whole paper it is very informative!

Interesting piece of information but it's overly pessimistic, almost as if it is trying too hard to discourage people from conducting this experiment. If there is a risk of unavoidable systematic error then results should vary. Some experiments should give a result according to which the Earth is convex. Some may even tell us that the Earth is flat. However, it will always be possible to determine the truth by using the Monte Carlo method. You may get it wrong once but after enough attempts the true curvature of the Earth must start showing up.

I think I am starting to get it why this experiment hasn't been conducted again. It's because of what I just said. Until this experiment has been carried out just once it is plausible to say that the results must not be trusted due to a potential cumulative error. However, if more and more people were to conduct this same experiment, we could start applying probability theory on the results and thereby statistically find out the truth.

edit:
LOL I didn't notice at first who the author of that writing is --- Donald E. Simanek

(picture of a true shit-scientist above)

This guy was paid to debunk results of the original rectilineator experiment. He's not a scientist, he's a fucking investigative journalist. I should have known.

edit 2:
This guy Donald E. Simanek is clearly delusional, look at what he has written:

Today men have walked on the Moon, and the "illusion" idea doesn't survive, unless, like the modern flat-earthers, we assume that the entire space program is a giant conspiracy to deny the truth, faked on a Hollywood sound stage with clever special effects.

He honestly believes that NASA is telling the truth and hasn't faked anything. This guy cannot be taken seriously. I would be willing to accept scepticism from a person without an expectation bias but this Donald guy is full of it. He is whining about the rectilineator guys to have an expectation bias but he himself has a humongous expectation bias in a sense that he expects earth to be convex and NASA to be telling the truth. His writings cannot be taken seriously for that reason alone. Like seriously guys, look at the irony ---- sceptic thinks he has debunked a conspiracy theory by accusing his opposition of having an expectation bias, while the sceptic himself has an even greater expectation bias favouring his own theory.

[vhaasteren]

He honestly believes that NASA is telling the truth and hasn't faked anything.

Just out of curiosity, why would NASA fake anything? Because of the arms race with the Soviets? And if this is all BS, why are private space operations becoming a big business? SpaceX is seriously going to send people to Mars within about a decade. It's their sole reason for existence. Is that going to be fake, too?

[criptix]

hm let us forget and brush the nasa stuff aside for a second.
i fail to see where he gives bad arguments or facts.

his explainations of possible error sources makes sense.

( tbh i cant imagine nasa hoax to be real - like half of the population of the industry nations would be involved...)

[macsga]

I will stop participating in this very beautiful trollfest... err.. brainstorming with an old video with R. Feynman answering a "naive" question by a reporter. It's called "Magnets" or "The Why" questions. I seriously hope you understand what Richard says -in his own unique way- and ultimately *get* the essence of it all; ie: that for two people to have a conversation at a certain level, then those people should agree that they have a "basis" where they both agree to start from. Or if you prefer, "speak the same language".

Hope you'll enjoy it.

Have a nice New Year's Eve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjmtJpzoW0o

[Fatman3001]

I will stop participating in this very beautiful trollfest... err.. brainstorming with an old video with R. Feynman answering a "naive" question by a reporter. It's called "Magnets" or "The Why" questions. I seriously hope you understand what Richard says -in his own unique way- and ultimately *get* the essence of it all; ie: that for two people to have a conversation at a certain level, then those people should agree that they have a "basis" where they both agree to start from. Or if you prefer, "speak the same language".

Hope you'll enjoy it.

Have a nice New Year's Eve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjmtJpzoW0o

Epic

Bookmarked

Thx

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I will stop participating in this very beautiful trollfest... err.. brainstorming with an old video with R. Feynman answering a "naive" question by a reporter. It's called "Magnets" or "The Why" questions. I seriously hope you understand what Richard says -in his own unique way- and ultimately *get* the essence of it all; ie: that for two people to have a conversation at a certain level, then those people should agree that they have a "basis" where they both agree to start from. Or if you prefer, "speak the same language".

Hope you'll enjoy it.

Have a nice New Year's Eve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjmtJpzoW0o

Epic

Bookmarked

Thx

Annnnnd....we're clear. Great show everybody. The network guys are going to love it!

[vhaasteren]

Have a nice New Year's Eve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjmtJpzoW0o

Nice way to conclude this, indeed. Have a great NYE all

[Syke]

And to my understanding I did show what is wrong with the convex earth theory. Telescopes and horizons. The ship disappears fully behind the horizon but when you zoom in with a telescope you can still see it.

I'm having a real hard time following you. Are you saying with a strong telescope you think you could see across the Atlantic from New York to France?

[opennux]

What about sunrise? Ever caught a sunrise in a high-rise, only to take the elevator down to catch it one more time? No? I have.

I also know people who's been on antarctica, and who's been on the north pole.



What is most likely? That satan, illuminati and reptilians exists, gravity doesn't and the earth is flat or someone who are the real baddies put stuff in rptiela's water (and whomever else makes strides against tptb) making him delirious, to the point he pose no danger or harm to the establishment.

It's a pleasant rabbit-hole to keep you in, isn't it?