Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[LSSBB]

The LOS is between the Ship's Tracking Radar and The Target. If the Target is below "The Horizon" ...then the Target couldn't be Illuminated by the Tracking Radar to begin with.







Unbelievable. You don't FIRE IT unless you have LOS to the Target by the Tracking Radar, Skipper.
If you lose LOS... You MISS. It's a Football Bat






LOS is from the Tracking Radar "ON THE SHIP". Is it your contention that ships are 35 Miles above Sea Level?


regards

If it's a ship over the horizon, don't fire at it. If it's a helicopter at 35 miles high enough, fire at it. It's not only for ships. Geeze.

And I'm not a Captain. Commander, USN reserves, retired.

You can use a missile for multiple purposes. And your own article you linked to described Over The Horizon targeting. Cherry pick much?

 

[LSSBB]

Nope. And "Infinite" doesn't exist mathematically let alone in Reality.







1. Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a. Is gravity a Force?
b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?

2. Oh Never Mind...

"A GAS is a sample of matter that conforms to the shape of a CONTAINER in which it is held and acquires a uniform density inside the CONTAINER, EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF GRAVITY and regardless of the amount of substance in the CONTAINER. If not confined to a CONTAINER, gaseous matter, also known as vapor, WILL DISPERSE INTO SPACE."
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/gas

You can confirm this yourself. Go out and depress the pin on your Tricycle Tire and tell us what happens.






Did I CITE this...? NOPE...Ergo; I'm not responsible to SUPPORT IT.

Ya see... if I CITE from a Reference, Encyclopedia Britannica for example --- lets say in the "A" section Page 3, you can't Invalidate my CITATION or Rationale or "Cry Foul" if: something in Section B Page 3 is FALSE and/or is not RELEVANT... i.e., Red Herring Fallacy, Or say: "Your Claim is Trash because Section B makes a Claim that supports something I said yesterday!!" (rotflol) Follow? (It's Rhetorical at this point).

See ya next year in 8th Grade!
That's why they call them "CITATIONS"!!

ps. Water (liquid) is NOT a Gas.


regards

Gravity has been proven in the laboratory. Several times with the Cavendish Experiment
(Awaiting rebuttal referring to crank physicist who nonetheless believes Earth is a globe)

Also proven more recently with lead blocks and an intererometer.

And you never did really do away with the very visible curve of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain, your very Un-Christian self-declared victory notwithstanding.

Maybe it's time for you to take up Calvin and his doctrine of Accommodation.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You do realise that this...

The mere fact that Air Pressure decreases with altitude

contradicts this...

Let's get specific, shall we...??

"The Narrative" is we have a Vacuum ("Outer Space") attached to a Non-Vacuum ("Earth").
According to the Laws of Entropy: Unless "Physically" hindered, Gases will flow down a Pressure/[ ] gradient until Equilibrium is reached.

"Thus the diffusion of solute particles takes place DOWN the Concentration Gradient (A *PRESSURE GRADIENT* with respect to partial pressure of *GASES* ) until uniform concentration is achieved".
[ i.e., until EQUILIBRIUM is reached ]
Chatterjea, MN., Shinde, R: Textbook of Medical Biochemistry; 8th Edition, p. 817

According to "The Narrative": Interstellar Space Pressure = 10^-17 Torr.

Ergo, Equilibrium MUST = 10^-17 Torr.
Ergo, Sea Level MUST BE...10^-17 Torr !!
But...The Surface Pressure at Sea Level is 760 Torr.
Therefore, either 'The Narrative' is False OR The Laws of Entropy are False.

Guess where my money's going, ALL IN!!
End of Story!
You Live in a Fairytale.

See according to you, the gas has to reach an Equilibrium state, so ergo the pressure at the top must be the same as the pressure at the bottom, you can't have pressure decreasing with altitude, otherwise there is nothing stopping that continual decreasing in pressure from reaching 10^-17 Torr.

You can't advocate for both a system with a graduated pressure different dependant on altitude and one that flows from high pressure to low pressure and reaches equilibrium. They can't exist at the same time.

 

[PhantomWolf]

1. Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a. Is gravity a Force?
b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?

Gravity is a pseudo force created by mass bending space in a fourth dimension.

Newton measured the pseudo-force and because it acts as a force for all purposes considered it a force. Similarly for many purposes we consider Centrifugal Force a force, but it's not a real force either, it's created by the inertia of an object resisting rotational acceleration. Einstein recognised it for what it was, a curvature in space/time that cause objects to appear to change their direction as they pass through the area of curved space. In reality they are still following Newton's laws of motions and travelling in a straight line, it's just that they are following that straight line through curved space/time.

 

[davefoc]

Gravity has been proven in the laboratory. Several times with the Cavendish Experiment
(Awaiting rebuttal referring to crank physicist who nonetheless believes Earth is a globe)

Also proven more recently with lead blocks and an intererometer.

...

I am troubled by these results Daniel. I am new to flat earthery but my faith is waning. These results suggest that gravity and matter are linked. The more matter the more gravity and at some point something as large as the flat earth would begin to self assemble in to something approaching a sphere. What material is the flat earth made of that allows it resist the force of gravity?

The equation above is Newton's gravity equation and it is essentially what the Cavendish experiments seem to confirm. What is intriguing here is that Newton used mathematics including the equation above to predict the motion of the planets throughout their orbits. That certainly suggests there might be something to the idea that Newton was right about gravity. Of course, if flat earth theory makes testable predictions that better explain the nature of the Earth it is time to give up on Newton and all the astronomers and accept flat earth theory.

 

[davefoc]

Y...

See according to you, the gas has to reach an Equilibrium state, so ergo the pressure at the top must be the same as the pressure at the bottom, you can't have pressure decreasing with altitude, otherwise there is nothing stopping that continual decreasing in pressure from reaching 10^-17 Torr.

You can't advocate for both a system with a graduated pressure different dependant on altitude and one that flows from high pressure to low pressure and reaches equilibrium. They can't exist at the same time.

This does seem to be a problem for the theory that a container is necessary for gas to have pressure, Daniel. The idea the round earthers have in their head is that the atmospheric pressure gradually tails off as the altitude increases until the gases at the top of the atmosphere can escape only very slowly because the individual molecules only rarely have enough velocity to escape earth's gravity. No container necessary unless you count the top of the atmosphere as the lid of the container, but beware of this because there is not a boundary where the atmosphere drops from very low pressure to zero. It just keeps falling until someplace in interstellar space where the pressure is extremely low..

 

[Dave Rogers]

And, by the way, Norway has never had an indigenous tank design.

Dave

 

[Andy_Ross]

If it's a ship over the horizon, don't fire at it. If it's a helicopter at 35 miles high enough, fire at it. It's not only for ships. Geeze.

And I'm not a Captain. Commander, USN reserves, retired.

You can use a missile for multiple purposes. And your own article you linked to described Over The Horizon targeting. Cherry pick much?

Indeed you can. We used Seacat at surface targets.

Why has this thread changed from talking about the conference to arguing with a Poe?

 

[davefoc]

...

Why has this thread changed from talking about the conference to arguing with a Poe?

Well thanks for that. First the convention is over so you missed it. Second I thought I'd check out some of the people and their videos. Yikes. There went some neurons that I'm not going to get back.

 

[Arisia]

...

And I'm not a Captain. Commander, USN reserves, retired.

...

US military... and so part of the sphericalist conspiracy, just like all of us with Geography degrees!

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

I don't get the whole air pressure thing.
If Earth was a disc and the pseudo-force we experience as gravity was produced by constant acceleration, than air would still have weight.
So in a column of air pressure at the bottom would HAVE TO BE larger than higher up, there's after all more air weighing down on it.

could we start making a list of all the organizations and groups of people who are in on the conspiracy?

Would all the following be in on it? Who else?

All aerospace organizations
Mountain Climbers
Anyone involved in GPS
Compass makers

The list of organizations and groups of people who are NOT in on the conspiracy would probably be shorter.


My own question: What do flaterists say is the cause of what Round Earthers call Cosmic Rays?

 

[Daniel]

Is the pressure of a gas within its container consistent or does it vary throughout the container?

Still I see. Begging The Question (Fallacy)...Where's the Container to have Gas Pressure (Atmospheric Pressure) to begin with?

After you answer my actual argument, THEN we can get to "Varying" Pressure if you'd like.


regards

 

[Daniel]

Oh crap, can I trust this compass thingy

That's Interesting, thanks for bringing it up. How in the World can a Compass work in the Southern Hemisphere on a Sphere ?? Wouldn't the needle be buried in the ring?


regards

 

[The Big Dog]

Still I see. Begging The Question (Fallacy)...Where's the Container to have Gas Pressure (Atmospheric Pressure) to begin with?

After you answer my actual argument, THEN we can get to "Varying" Pressure if you'd like.


regards

Regards, you are the one who is claiming that there has to be a container, remember?

The factual people have shown using your own cites that atmospheric (spheric, lol) pressure is based on good old gravity.

Regards.

 

[The Big Dog]

That's Interesting, thanks for bringing it up. How in the World can a Compass work in the Southern Hemisphere on a Sphere ?? Wouldn't the needle be buried in the ring?


regards

You don’t know how a compass works?

Wow.

 

[Daniel]

So you just accept that pressure varies over altitude although you don't have an explanation for why?

Well it has nothing to do with "My Argument". Would you like me to post "My Argument" again since you apparently missed it?

Gravity explains it well but, considering you deny gravity I would have though you would have some other explanation.

Factually Incorrect:

1. Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a. Is gravity a Force?
b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?

2. Oh Never Mind...

"A GAS is a sample of matter that conforms to the shape of a CONTAINER in which it is held and acquires a uniform density inside the CONTAINER, EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF GRAVITY and regardless of the amount of substance in the CONTAINER. If not confined to a CONTAINER, gaseous matter, also known as vapor, WILL DISPERSE INTO SPACE."
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/gas

You can confirm this yourself. Go out and depress the pin on your Tricycle Tire and tell us what happens.

I guess I'll give up on a spherical Earth when someone comes up with a better explanation.

1. Well the compelling factor in the matter is not whether there's an "Explanation"; it's whether that "Explanation" is COHERENT and/or Scientifically Viable.

2. What's the "Explanation" of a Spherical Earth that is COHERENT and/or Scientifically Viable that has you adhering to it in the First Place...?


regards

 

[Daniel]

It is hard to tell what flavor of flat earth science you follow.

Well the Flat (or Sphere) Earth or any other shape, isn't "Science" to begin with. Do you need me to explain why (Again)??
Isn't it telling... that I would even need to?

how do you account for gravity?

The same way I account for Invisible 3 Toed Gnomes, I don't.

'gravity' what's that?

THEN: Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a. Is gravity a Force?
b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?


regards

 

[erlando]

Answering a question with further questions is not really answering.

You also conveniently forgot to answer my second question: Is the sun a sphere?

 

[Daniel]

Do you have a source for the underlined?

For Contingent Necessary Facts?? It's called "Logic". Do you need to post a link explaining Necessary and Sufficient Conditions?

Also, are you saying we don't have atmospheric pressure or that there is a container?

I'm saying that since we have Atmospheric Pressure (Gas Pressure)...for it to "EXIST"... then we must have a Container to begin with so to afford that Condition (Gas Pressure).


regards

 

[Andy_Ross]

Stop feeding him. Anyone who asks 'gravity, what's that?' is winding you all up.