Forums - General Discussion - How much does the round earth lobby pay you?

I get paid in moon rocks just like the ones NASA gave away to the world leaders.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Around the Network
Aeolus451 said:
Teeqoz said:

Hey, no need to get mad. I didn't do anything rude, I just pointed out what the technical term for your stance on religion was. Most people aren't aware of what the terms agnostic and atheist actually imply (I wasn't either until sometime last year), and I don't see the harm in informing people. Even though I replied to you it doesn't mean you are the only one reading it, it's a public thread in a public forum, maybe someone else found my post useful, and it certainly wasn't offensive in any way.

Again, I didn't ask and I'm not mad. I prefer to use terms everyday people are familiar with so there's little to no misundering or I just elaborate if I can do it quickly. The easiest way is just say I'm an atheist but I'm open to the idea of gods. You're just being a bit pretentious in trying to label me when I didn't ask to be. 

Is there not irony in you objecting to be labeled by others but resisting others' right to label their gender? It struck me as inconsistant. I could be wrong, though. Perhaps you only think gender isn't socially negotiated, as well as psychologically and biologically infulenced but would agree to use the gender label(s) one identifies with. 

As to the greater topic at hand: I'd be cautious in claiming that science is with either political leaning. Many people who subscribe to a plethora of political stances hold positions not based in reason, rationale, or data. Whether it's sects of the right with climate change, evolution, and, well, social sciences as a whole, or parts of the left with GMOs and vaccinations, it's evident not all people of any political persuasion exclusively adhere to scientific findings.



the-pi-guy said:
S.Peelman said:

Because otherwise we'd get blown off?

It rotates reasonably fast.  

What matters though is the acceleration.  Which is very small.  

yea, it's very slowly decelrating, 600m years ago a complete rotation took 21h



barneystinson69 said:
Insidb said:

Understood...but go on!

Well... sometimes the customers won't fall in line. They don't understand the costs to the company, and that they are owned by the company when on the plane. Unfortunently, that stupid old guy had to expose us, so now my beatings are limited to just one job...

...or is it?

Twilight Zone flights are preferrable.



the-pi-guy said:
Qwark said:

Fair enough I am more right wing oriented myself. But I also care about the climate and the environment and when it comes to that Trump is a bit of an idiot. For as far as genders/sex, the only combinations I know are XX girl, XY boy and XXY intersex. If someone wants to feel special and claim there own gender be my guess. But that doesn't change the fact you either have the genetic code XY, XX or XXY

Biologically it's not that simple. 

There are XY females

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis  

There are XX males.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome     

There's also tons of others that are related.  Like XXXY, XXXXX, XXXXY, XXYY, XXY syndromes (and pretty much anything in between).  Most of these are very very rare, but it shows biological that XX=Girl and XY = Boy is scientifically wrong.  

This is genetically.  Not even getting into things like psychology.  

Gender, Sexuality is not black and white, yes or no.
Sexuality for instance is a spectrum, it's not just Gay and Straight.

And having a few Trans friends... It's not overtly difficult to just call them by what they identify as... The Chromosomes don't even matter in that aspect and nor does the reproductive organs that they possess.

What I dislike about the far-right though is that they constitute a significant percentage of the religious demographic... Who will then use their religious perspective over scientific perspectives... Like: Evolution, Big Bang, Sexuality, Gender, Climate Change and more... And tend to opt for "Alternative" news, which propogates conspiracy theories. (Trump being a prime example-of.)



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Lafiel said:
the-pi-guy said:

It rotates reasonably fast.  

What matters though is the acceleration.  Which is very small.  

yea, it's very slowly decelrating, 600m years ago a complete rotation took 21h

Even a constant rotation is an acceleration by itself.



Insidb said:
Johnw1104 said:

I'm a little confused as to what you're claiming here. The speed at which the earth rotates on the equator is indeed a little over 1,000 mph, and the speed does indeed also decrease as you move away from the equator. My best friend's uncle is a very literal rocket scientist (engineer) and he told us (and I've since confirmed via research) one of the main reasons that space agencies tend to be located near the equator (such as the one I live near, Cape Canaveral) is because the additional speed reduces the necessary amount of fuel and therefore also reduces the weight. They've been piggybacking off of that for quite some time.

The surface of the earth is little more than a crust floating atop far hotter and denser materials, all which are being pulled inward by gravity and also being pulled by the orbiting moon, which leads to a great deal of churning. Still, the crust is relatively stable (at least from our short-existence perspectives) as a result of both floating atop said core, but also because of the consistency of its rotation along its axis and the stabilizing force that the moon has served upon the axis itself.

This notion that "the earth's surface would be untenable if the equator rotated faster than polar regions" would likely be true if the earth were suddenly a perfect sphere. It is not, however, a perfect sphere, but is instead an oblate spheroid (picture something closer to a more rounded rugby ball). Those very forces resulting from the earth's rotation caused it to slightly flatten dating back to it first coalescing, which is why we have both an "equatorial diameter (~12,756 km)" and a "polar diameter" (~12,713 km)" (the difference being called an "equatorial bulge", which just about all active planets have), and why we have both an actual highest point on earth in Mount Chimborazu in Ecuador and a "highest point above sea level" in Mount Everest.

These differences have been measured for ages now, with atomic clocks actually being modified to correct for such time dilating relativistic issues back in the 1970's, as altitude, speed, and even the stronger pull of gravity in the polar regions (a result of the earth's shape, with the equator bowing out and the polar regions therefore being closer to the center of gravity) all require clocks equipped to compensate for the differences if they are to maintain a consistent time or communicate with the GPS.

These forces have been measured just about every way it's possible to measure them, so it's not so much theory as it is mandatory that the equator rotates faster than the polar regions; it simply isn't possible for any three dimensional shape to rotate on an axis without experiencing variations of speed along its surface. I'm not sure if we're on the same page or not to be honest.

Was there an actual disagreement here? I know that flat-earthers often use an argument that fails to delineate between angular and linear velocity/momentum.

If you mess that up, I can see a cavalcade of successive errors borne out of the confusion. 

I honestly couldn't tell if we disagreed. He largely explained why the speed of rotation on the equator would have to be faster than it is in the polar regions, but it seemed like he then suggested this means our measurements are wrong as the difference in rotational speeds across would "destroy the earth" or something along those lines. He then followed that up with a thought experiment that largely replicates the circumstances of the earth's rotation along its axis, so I really couldn't tell where he stood on it.



Not very much to be honest. Though I hear there will be talks of bumping up the payments in the next Bilderburg meeting.



Global warming is a lie because we actually have flat-earth warming and it can be solved by moving all the people and animals to the edge of one side and all that weight should tip the opposite edge high up into the air thus cooling it off and then repeat it by moving to the opposite edge , also all garbage should be dumped over the edge.

This global nonsense is why we can't have nice things, an example being , with the belief in a flat earth the game of football with the ball being solely responsible for it's popularity because it's shape is seen as a symbol of a the round earth society would give way to frisbee. the true game of the masses.
btw my payment was postmarked to the edge of the world and I'm heading there to collect it but having trouble with how far I have to go.



pearljammer said:
Aeolus451 said:

Again, I didn't ask and I'm not mad. I prefer to use terms everyday people are familiar with so there's little to no misundering or I just elaborate if I can do it quickly. The easiest way is just say I'm an atheist but I'm open to the idea of gods. You're just being a bit pretentious in trying to label me when I didn't ask to be. 

Is there not irony in you objecting to be labeled by others but resisting others' right to label their gender? It struck me as inconsistant. I could be wrong, though. Perhaps you only think gender isn't socially negotiated, as well as psychologically and biologically infulenced but would agree to use the gender label(s) one identifies with. 

As to the greater topic at hand: I'd be cautious in claiming that science is with either political leaning. Many people who subscribe to a plethora of political stances hold positions not based in reason, rationale, or data. Whether it's sects of the right with climate change, evolution, and, well, social sciences as a whole, or parts of the left with GMOs and vaccinations, it's evident not all people of any political persuasion exclusively adhere to scientific findings.

Well, someone assumed I was religious and I replied that I wasn't then some of them tried to school me on how I wasn't religious when I didn't ask to. I don't know why they kept bringing it up. The main thing is I'm trying to not get pulled into anymore off topics but the rabbit hole is just getting deeper. I'll leave this as my last reply to this sort of stufff. I'm willing to use their preferred gender labels as long as they are passable (at least making an obvious effort to appear as the gender they want or I'm made aware of their preferred pronouns and as long as they are polite. To me, using their labels is a courtesy or being polite. I'm not obligated to remain polite if they aren't.

I also don't think a person can be a male one day and a girl the next day then later on in the week back again. So I'll just address them as they appear. With non-binary trans, it's situational but for the most part, I won't use their preferred labels. I'm not gonna call them a zer or something they made up because it's getting to the point of being absurd.  There's limits to what I'm gonna play along with. Anyone can believe anything they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or force others to believe in it too or to act a different way. You can think yourself as a dragon for all care but I'm not gonna address you as one.