FatPhil
Senior Member.
You quoted a bit that included the reverse-peristalsis technique, which is more akin to chewing the cud, and then followed up by saying the eating poop part was bunk.
How Was I Bunked To Begin With?
- Thread starter obiwanbenobi
- Start date
FatPhil
Senior Member.
How will that be anything apart from a complete failure to explain their ideas? They're welcome to use that technique, its outcome will be predictable.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Any lack of resonance will be matched by an equal and opposite surfeit of resonance in my diaphragm as I laugh.
Admit it - you laughed a bit when you read those posts, didn't you?
Mendel
Senior Member.
I did not.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
I think I've worked out what you were trying to say originally - namely that any pronouncement that attributes the property of being "unclean" to anything because of any reason would still be bunk, becuase the property of "unclean" is itself bunk.
Edit: and technically, you did - that whole page is about things created from reverse peristalsis.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
But the main word is "reingested", which also features in my quote, while reverse peristalsis does not. So technically, I did not quote that bit.
Ann K
Senior Member.
With luck, the last one.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
I so wanted to try this, although I'm not sure exactly what he's getting at. Unfortunately sunny California has lately looked more like what I imagine the UK is like:
Haven't seen the sun but a few days since before Christmas. This is where the sun will set later today. Is the guy trying to say that he used the actual bottom part of the square for his calculations or something like the the 2 trees that line up with the corners of the square?
This leaning tree, zoomed in, lines up with he right right corner of the square. But it's set back from the other tree, so what we want to look at is the red gate near the bottom of the photo:
And this zoomed in tree lines up with the left corner:
According to Google maps, that tree and gate are 880' apart. So one leg of our Pythagorean formula.
But then the guy says he lines the 45* part of the square up with a "crepuscular ray", while the vertical part of the square points at the sun. However, crepuscular rays usually only happen after the sun sets, but the term can be misused:
Crepuscular rays
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crepuscular_raysare sunbeams that originate when the Sun is just below the horizon, during the twilight period.[1] Crepuscular rays are noticeable when the contrast between light and dark is most obvious.
Loosely, the term crepuscular rays is sometimes extended to the general phenomenon of rays of sunlight that appear to converge at a point in the sky, irrespective of time of day.[3][4]
EDIT: I was doing this post on 2 different computers. I often use a crappy PC and type longer posts in Word, then paste, so as to attempt to correct my bad spelling. But my phone is linked to our Mac, so that's where my photos are easily grabbed and inserted, but my wife was using it. So, in the confusion I left out the following section:
I'm thinking of this as an example of trying to engage someone in what they say. Like asking a FE person to create a model of how the sun and moon and stars and such work. This guy said he estimated the height of the sun by holding a speed square up to the sky. I figured, ok, I have lots of speed squares, I can clearly see the horizon and when not in the middle of an atmospheric river, this is where the sun sets.
I'm not great at math, but I figured this wouldn't work, so it's more of showing what I thought the guy was trying to say. Again, meeting an FE person where they are coming from.
Maybe this needs it's own thread, estimating the height of the sun with a speed square or something.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
I really didn't think calculations that put the sun 3000 miles away needed to be debunked here!
Mendel
Senior Member.
I suggest using an astrolabe.
Article: 
Do not look at the sun!
Adjust the astrolabe to make the sun shine through the straw by monitoring the straw's shadow. You can then read off the zenith angle z of the sun (0⁰ means straight up).
The next step is to find the subsolar point.
Article: A place that currently has the sun directly above is called the subsolar point.
The circle shows the current subsolar point. Its position updates automatically and moves from right to left along the yellow line.
Determine your distance d to the subsolar point using a Flat Earth map.
The altitude of the sun is computed as d / tan(z).
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Ya sure? Maybe the speed square method will in fact show the sun is closer than we think
. Actually, I left part of the post out and went back and edited it. I meant it more as engaging someone where they're at and maybe showing what they thought was true doesn't work.
obiwanbenobi
Active Member
I'm not searching for any and didn't much read above.. Not a topic I'm on about at the moment. Sorry!
obiwanbenobi
Active Member
A bit ago I had another conversation with a previously mentioned person here in this thread (or perhaps in other places but I can't hunt that down because I didn't use even a fake name I could search on) and once again they were going on about their vaccinated acquaintenances who were always sick and I had to remind them about how I was doing ok. It was hard to break them out of their diatribe about how the world was going to crap and all their other negative stuff but I just kept trying to get them to pull back and think about other things. In many cases their response was that they'd be dead soon. Nothing like making themselves miserable. Certainly not for me. I'm a realist and I don't like to waste energy on worrying about things I can't change. I know I'm capable of responding to things that happen so they don't worry me, as you get older though, capabilities decline.
Nothing like making themselves miserable. Certainly not for me. I'm a realist and I don't like to waste energy on worrying about things I can't change. I know I'm capable of responding to things that happen so they don't worry me, as you get older though, capabilities decline.
Ann K
Senior Member.
You started this thread with comments about religion and bunk, and when I read this last post I wondered whether that was the reason for this person's negativity. Evangelical Christians in the USA (are you here, or elsewhere?) worked hard to promote conservative policies, and the "vaccinations are no good" attitude is a feature of both the religion and the political party. Combine that with their "world is going to crap" and the "Armageddon is coming" messages, and I can't help but wonder why people flock to the group that offers them that bleak prospect. Thanks for trying to talk sense to the guy, but if his beliefs are based on emotion rather than facts, it's difficult to break that chain.
deirdre
Senior Member.
it's not a bleak prospect if you're on the right side.
obiwanbenobi
Active Member
I would say that this person uses religion as a shield and a comfort but not as an actual believer of the sort that would compare to a fundamentalist (I've known plenty of them and at one time was trying to convince myself I should belong to them).
A part of it is based upon things that likely happened a long time ago and it is very hard to get them to be willing to go back and rethink about those happenings and try to see things from a different perspective.
Pretty much now most of what I'm doing is defensive to try to moderate their negativity and to try to deflect them into talking about more positive things - to point out that even if they think everything is going to heck that some of us don't see it that ways and we're not going down without a fight (or a laugh or a face full of cream pie or ...). I'm not here on this planet to be miserable.
obiwanbenobi
Active Member
Alas they don't even find happiness in that.
Eyorism is a habit of mine at times too and I know where it came from. Still when it is all they wish to talk about I'm like, please let's talk about other things somehow. Sometimes I have to just pick a topic and go along with it a ways just because if I don't say something we'll be back at the other stuff again.
deirdre
Senior Member.
well a virus that culls the herd (as viruses are meant to do) of older and unwell people, isnt a bleak prospect for healthy young people..but it would be weird if they found happiness in that. It's still a bummer when lots of people die.
tinkertailor
Senior Member.
I have family members who get a bit obsessive about vaccines/politics/etc. I've recently made a concerted effort to establish hard boundaries when it comes to talking about hot topics. I basically told my family member that they are welcome to talk about it, but if they talk about it to me I will disengage and, should it continue, remove myself from the situation for a while. I find that sometimes they want to get a rise out of me, and disengaging makes it so they can't get satisfaction. I'm pretty obvious about it, too: I'll pick up my phone and open up Instagram in front of them if they mention vaccines to me in person, then completely stop paying attention to them. If we're texting, I don't read or respond to their messages. Over the phone, I'll give them two passive "mmhmm"s in conversation, and if they continue I'll just say "Look, I'm not changing my mind on this and you're not changing yours. Can we talk about something else? I'm just not into debating this anymore." If they persist, I hang up.
For me, these methods work. Your mileage may vary. I feel like everyone is different, dynamics differ between people and you never really know, but it's working for me. It's enabled me to get to know them outside of their beliefs, and that's been wonderful.
Ann K
Senior Member.
oh, c'mon now!
Similar threads
