Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[erlando]

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

I don't believe for a second that Daniel is a flat earther. He's constantly poking large holes in his own arguments.

Tell me, Daniel. How does a flat earth not have an infinite horizon?

 

[Daniel]

In Daniel's model it can't exist.

Straw Man Fallacy: I don't and never had a 'model'. Why? Well...

'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science:

Please show "models" in the Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!! lol)...?

"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY."
https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis-model-theory-and-law-2699066

Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science"...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being 'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !!
REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!!
Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes FROM Experiments --- (Hypothesis TESTS).
A "Model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE!!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !!


regards

 

[Daniel]

Is the Sun a sphere?

I have no idea. (and neither does anyone else)


regards

 

[DGM]

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

Gravity explains the shape and atmosphere on Earth. It's been verified through experiment. The fact you don't believe it is not my problem.

One important fact, "flat earth" has never be verified and there are no images to support the belief, yet thousands of images prove it wrong.

 

[threadworm]

Please show "models" in the Scientific Method...?

From your link:

The Bohr model of the atom,

https://www.thoughtco.com/bohr-model-of-the-atom-603815

for example, depicts electrons circling the atomic nucleus in a fashion similar to planets in the solar system. This model is useful in determining the energies of the quantum states of the electron in the simple hydrogen atom, but it is by no means represents the true nature of the atom.

Scientists (and science students) often use such idealized models to get an initial grasp on analyzing complex situations.

That last sentence is where models fit into the scientific method.

 

[Daniel]

Begging the question. Who says you need a container?

Factually Incorrect:

1. Common Experience.
2. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
3. The Definition...

"The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF IT'S CONTAINER".
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html

and...

"Kinetic Molecular Theory Explanation of Boyle's Law...

Observations about pressure may be explained using the following ideas. The rapid motion and collisions of molecules with the WALLS OF THE CONTAINER causes PRESSURE (force on a unit area). Pressure is proportional to the number of molecular collisions and the force of the collisions in a particular area. The more collisions of GAS MOLECULES with THE WALLS, the higher the PRESSURE."
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html

Does water pressure increase as you go further down?

1. False Equivalence Fallacy: AGAIN... Water (Liquid) is NOT a Gas even though both are arbitrarily classified as Fluids.

2. You still need a container for water to have... Water Pressure.



regards

 

[erlando]

Straw Man Fallacy: I don't and never had a 'model'. Why? Well...

'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science:

Please show "models" in the Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!! lol)...?

"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY."
https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis-model-theory-and-law-2699066

Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science"...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being 'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !!
REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!!
Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes FROM Experiments --- (Hypothesis TESTS).
A "Model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE!!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !!


regards

Daniel has no idea of how the scientific method works, part 4769

 

[MikeG]

You don’t know how a compass works?

Wow.

Declination is a thing. Pass it on to our science-denying interlocutor, who obviously needs a lot of help.....

 

[Daniel]

That is incorrect

So "Na'ahh" defense, eh? Riveting!

The Kinetic Molecular Theory of Gasses says you're promoting crack pottery.

Really?

"Kinetic Molecular Theory Explanation of Boyle's Law...

Observations about pressure may be explained using the following ideas. The rapid motion and collisions of molecules with the WALLS OF THE CONTAINER causes PRESSURE (force on a unit area). Pressure is proportional to the number of molecular collisions and the force of the collisions in a particular area. The more collisions of GAS MOLECULES with THE WALLS, the higher the PRESSURE."
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchemb...0pressure.html

It's clearly saying "You're" the crackpot.



regards and Thanks!

 

[The Big Dog]

So "Na'ahh" defense, eh? Riveting!

Really?

"Kinetic Molecular Theory Explanation of Boyle's Law...

Observations about pressure may be explained using the following ideas. The rapid motion and collisions of molecules with the WALLS OF THE CONTAINER causes PRESSURE (force on a unit area). Pressure is proportional to the number of molecular collisions and the force of the collisions in a particular area. The more collisions of GAS MOLECULES with THE WALLS, the higher the PRESSURE."
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchemb...0pressure.html

It's clearly saying "You're" the crackpot.

regards and Thanks!

From your cite!

Atmospheric pressure varies with height just as water pressure varies with depth. As a swimmer dives deeper, the water pressure increases. As a mountain climber ascends to higher altitudes, the atmospheric pressure decreases. His body is compressed by a smaller amount of air above it. The atmospheric pressure at 20,000 feet is only one-half of that at sea level because about half of the entire atmosphere is below this elevation.

REGARDS and SUPER THANKS!

 

[Daniel]

Other than that it seems to say what you think it needs to say to make your claim, why is this link gospel?

It's Pathetically Woeful that I even have to provide a link to a topic that an Incoherent 2nd Grader knows as Prima Facie Apodictic and can reconcile in less than a Planck Time.
Dont'cha Think??

Exactly what makes it the perfect truth?

Experience, Millions of Times... Without Exception.

I can provide many links that talk about air pressure and atmospheric pressure that don't talk about having to have a container, rather that air pressure is the force applied to a surface or object created by the weight of the air.

Are ya kiddin me sir? There's a Special Category that will stare: Self-Evident, Scientifically Validated, Indubitable Prima Facie Truths in the Face and DENY THEM. It's called Religious Zealotry.


ps. Thanks for the "kids-fun-science".



regards

 

[Daniel]

If it's a ship over the horizon, don't fire at it.

Begging The Question Fallacy: "over the horizon"...is what you're attempting to prove.

If it's a helicopter at 35 miles high enough, fire at it. It's not only for ships.

Straw Man (Fallacy): I didn't say it was only for ships. jeez

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

And you still can't reconcile this? It indicts you even more!!!

ps. US Army (retired)... Land Lover

You can use a missile for multiple purposes.

Did I say otherwise?

And your own article you linked to described Over The Horizon targeting. Cherry pick much?

Did I CITE it? SEE Multiple Explanations to this fiasco in previous posts.

So you call CITATIONS "Cherry Picking" ??

ALL (52) CITATIONS here, according to your logic, MUST BE "Cherry Picked"...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/

Because they didn't deal with "ALL" the SUBJECT MATTER in each REFERENCE!

Downright Hilarious Sir!! Thanks



oy vey

 

[The Big Dog]

Did I CITE it? SEE Multiple Explanations to this fiasco in previous posts.

Do you still not cotton to the difference between "quoting" something and "citing" something?

Oh dear.

You see when you "quote" something your provide a "cite" for it, which is a place where people can see on their own whether the "cite" supports the "quote."

In this case you have repeatedly "cited" to sources that specifically destroy your flat earth claims.

 

[rwguinn]

Begging The Question Fallacy: "over the horizon"...is what you're attempting to prove.

Since you've already postulated a horizon, -1

Straw Man (Fallacy): I didn't say it was only for ships. jeez

Non Sequitur. -1

And you still can't reconcile this? It indicts you even more!!!

Non Sequitur. -1

ps. US Army (retired)... Land Lover

Thank you for your service. +1

Did I say otherwise?

Straw man. -1

Did I CITE it? SEE Multiple Explanations to this fiasco in previous posts.

So you call CITATIONS "Cherry Picking" ??

ALL (52) CITATIONS here, according to your logic, MUST BE "Cherry Picked"...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/

Outright falsehood and redefinition of "Cite". -10

Because they didn't deal with "ALL" the SUBJECT MATTER in each REFERENCE!

/quote]
Outright falsehood and redefinition of "Cite". -10

Downright Hilarious Sir!! Thanks



oy vey

Argument for incredulity -5

Your score on this examination is -28 points

 

[Daniel]

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.

Really? OK...

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. Then (for both Cavendish and lead blocks and an inter"F"erometer') ...

a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

And you never did really do away with the very visible curve of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

Oh yes, I surely did. Here it is again...

The total distance of these power lines over Lake Pontchartrain is 15.9 Miles.
Per Soundly: Viewer Height was between 35 - 50 Feet, so let's say 40 Feet.
The distance between each Pylon is .18 Miles. (~88 Pylons)
I counted ~ 40 Pylons in Soundly's now infamous "P-900" shot...roughly 7 Miles, with some significant curvature.
Louisiana Length (North/South = 379 Miles)

If these Pics/Video are TRUE; THEN, we MUST LIVE on...

"PLANET LOUISIANA" !!

Furthermore, according to your 'Spinning Ball' Narrative, every point along a Tangent from your feet falls away from you in every direction at 8" per mile².

The horizon at 7 Miles from 90 degrees --- through Zero --- to 270 degrees is 21.5 MILES.

So you're saying that we see significant curvature on the Z Axis....which is at 7 Miles BUT along the X Axis...which is 21.5 MILES: It's FLAT, No Curvature ???


So to remain "COHERENT" with Soundly's Z-Axis, the X-Axis should look like this...

http://imgur.com/iWg9vSZ


Do you need more Gasoline with your Matches?


Moreover, I've been told for about 2 years now that there is no way to see curvature from anything less than (65,000 Feet - 12,000 Miles, and everything in-between ) THEN... Soundly (smh) shows it from 35 Feet!!


Let's take a look at these pics from Lake Ponchartrain...

and ...

^^^ Soundly's pic.


What's going on here between these 2 Pics?


regards

 

[Daniel]

You do realise that this...contradicts this...

It doesn't, You're Confused... and continue with a Red Herring Fallacy.

Can you state "My Argument" please...?

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.

Begging The Question Fallacy (467th Time). Where'd you get Atmospheric Pressure without a Container, FIRST...?

Ya see, before we can discuss "Varying Gas Pressure" we have to Iron Out where we got "Gas Pressure" FIRST. Follow? (It's Rhetorical at this point)

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.

Well the only thing I'm "advocating" for at the moment, ya know -- "My Argument" is that you can't have Gas Pressure Without a Container.


Let me know when you're ready to discuss the ACTUAL Argument, mmm k?


regards

 

[LSSBB]

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

Magnetic fields follow a spherical model around the globe. How do you get consistent magnetic field patterns like that, plus a wandering pole, in a flat Earth?

 

[LSSBB]

Really? OK...

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'...?

1. Gravity is a demonstrable attraction between physical objects based on mass
2. Gravity is the observable attraction between physical objects based on mass
3. Gravitational attraction is a property due to the mass of objects, the underlying communication method has been modeled using theories such as general relativity, however it's observational existence has been verified and needs to be accounted for.

2. Then (for both Cavendish and lead blocks and an inter"F"erometer') ...

a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

Your requests are unnecessary and irrelevant. Gravity has been shown to exist via different experiments. Mt. Everest exists, my theories of how it got there don't have a bearing on that fact.

Oh yes, I surely did. Here it is again...

The total distance of these power lines over Lake Pontchartrain is 15.9 Miles.
Per Soundly: Viewer Height was between 35 - 50 Feet, so let's say 40 Feet.
The distance between each Pylon is .18 Miles. (~88 Pylons)
I counted ~ 40 Pylons in Soundly's now infamous "P-900" shot...roughly 7 Miles, with some significant curvature.
Louisiana Length (North/South = 379 Miles)

If these Pics/Video are TRUE; THEN, we MUST LIVE on...

"PLANET LOUISIANA" !!

Furthermore, according to your 'Spinning Ball' Narrative, every point along a Tangent from your feet falls away from you in every direction at 8" per mile².

The horizon at 7 Miles from 90 degrees --- through Zero --- to 270 degrees is 21.5 MILES.

So you're saying that we see significant curvature on the Z Axis....which is at 7 Miles BUT along the X Axis...which is 21.5 MILES: It's FLAT, No Curvature ???


So to remain "COHERENT" with Soundly's Z-Axis, the X-Axis should look like this...

http://imgur.com/iWg9vSZ


Do you need more Gasoline with your Matches?


Moreover, I've been told for about 2 years now that there is no way to see curvature from anything less than (65,000 Feet - 12,000 Miles, and everything in-between ) THEN... Soundly (smh) shows it from 35 Feet!!

Your math is guesswork and apparently supposition as it is unreferenced, and does not negate the fact that a curve is shown.

Let's take a look at these pics from Lake Ponchartrain...

[qimg]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t97/jstunja/Lake%20Ponchartrain%20Johnny%20Oops_zpssnwow9bk.png[/qimg]


and ...

[qimg]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t97/jstunja/Lake%20Ponchartrain%20Soundly_zpskg0tqcf7.png[/qimg]

^^^ Soundly's pic.


What's going on here between these 2 Pics?


regards

The first picture has no traceability provided nor anything showing it's exact location and time. There is nothing to indicate they are identical points of view under identical circumstances.

 

[Elagabalus]

...Well the only thing I'm "advocating" for at the moment, ya know -- "My Argument" is that you can't have Gas Pressure Without a Container ...

Our beautiful globe Earth is the "container" and the "weight" of the gas itself (many miles thick) is what is causing the pressure.

 

[Daniel]

I am troubled by these results Daniel. I am new to flat earthery but my faith is waning.

What was your "FAITH" based on...?

These results suggest that gravity and matter are linked.

What "Results"...?

[qimg]https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/8c6ee5510ba3c7d6664775c0e76b53e72468303a[/qimg]

The equation above is Newton's gravity equation.

Ahhh, No it's Not. This is Newton's Equation...

Fg ∝ m₁M₂/d²

and it is essentially what the Cavendish experiments seem to confirm.

Factually Incorrect:

1. Equations are "Descriptions"; whereas, Experiments provide "Explanations". So your appeal is Non-Sequitur Fallacy.

2. Your 'scientific community' doesn't follow "Newtonian gravity" ...

"...Einstein created his General Theory of Relativity— which provides OUR MODERN UNDERSTANDING of gravity —with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and NOT AN INVISIBLE FORCE, gives rise to gravitational attraction."
Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality/

Please Reconcile...?

What is intriguing here is that Newton used mathematics including the equation above to predict the motion of the planets throughout their orbits.

1. Mathematics isn't "Science".

2. Equations don't make "Scientific Predictions". Watch...

Please Define:

1. "Scientific Prediction"...?
2. "POST"- diction...?
3. Jeanne Dixon/Jimmy The Greek/Carnival Tent "Prediction"...?
4. Cyclic Repeat - diction...?

Now Juxtapose the Characteristics of each and place Your "Equation Prediction" trainwreck in the appropriate category...?

3. Begging the Question Fallacy (x2): 'planets' and 'orbits'.

That certainly suggests there might be something to the idea that Newton was right about gravity.

So much so that your 'scientific community' (as if) doesn't follow it!

Of course, if flat earth theory makes testable predictions

Now I posted a retort to this Nonsensical Buffoonery a number of times in this thread but you still can't pull yourself away from 'The Narrative' can ya??

The Flat Earth (or Sphere) isn't "Science" to begin with. Ergo...there is no Flat Earth (or Globe Earth) 'theory".

Read this real slow about 5 times, mmm K?? ...

The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method.
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis".

"The Scientific Method is Hypothesis-Driven;"
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~pyo22/students/hypothesis.html

A Scientific Hypothesis is your Experiment Statement; it expresses a TESTABLE proposed CAUSE and EFFECT Relationship - (The Phenomena that was Observed in Step 1) . It's a classic: "If" this "Then" that, motif.

"A Scientific Hypothesis is based on CAUSE-EFFECT reasoning. A scientific hypothesis does not merely state X and Y may be related, but EXPLAINS WHY they are related.
Loehle, C: Becoming a Successful Scientist -- Strategic Thinking for Scientific Discovery; Cambridge University Press, p. 57, 2010

Because Experiments (Hypothesis Tests) ONLY adjudicate 'Cause and Effect'--- How/Why questions. Whatever SHAPE something is (Flat, Sphere, or Spinning/Not Spinning ect)...is a "WHAT/IS" question; it's tantamount to asking:

How/Why is a Breadbox Rectangular, True or False??

i.e., You can NEVER formulate a Viable Alternative Hypothesis;
Ergo...you can NEVER formulate a Viable Null Hypothesis;
Ergo...This isn't "Science"!!

Ergo... by you merely claiming/contemplating this, unequivocally demonstrates that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and WHISTLED DIXIE!!!!!

You just EXPOSED yourself and would "FAIL" 5th Grade General Science.

Thanks for Illustrating, couldn't have done it without'cha

it is time to give up on Newton...

It was "TIME" about 100 Years ago...


"First I want to tell you what goes WRONG with Newtonian Mechanics...the double-slit experiment is a problem; that's what put's THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR NEWTONIAN PHYSICS."
Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale.
Quantum Mechanics II: (3:18 minute mark)


So we have a Double Slit Experiment with a "Newtonian Particle"--- an Electron. We close one slit and fire a Bevy of Electrons and we get 10 hits @ Point A. We close that slit and open the other slit and fire a bevy of Electrons and we get 8 hits @ Point A.
The "Newtonian Prediction" would be if we fired the same bevy of Electrons with both slits open we MUST GET 18 hits @ Point A. Well ...

We Get A Big Fat ZERO !!

And what does that mean? Well...

"That is the End of Newtonian Physics."
Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale.
Quantum Mechanics II
http://openmedia.yale.edu/projects/iphone/departments/phys/phys201/transcript20.html

all the astronomers

Ass'tronomy isn't "Science" either. Crocheting is more Scientific...

Why?? Well Ass'tronomers inherently can't follow 'The Scientific Method'...
"SCIENCE" !!!!

Watch...

Post One Formal Scientific Hypothesis EVER constructed in the entire history of ASStronomy...?

OR...

Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...?

Ya see, AGAIN...

The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method.
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis".

"The Scientific Method is Hypothesis-Driven;"
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~pyo22/students/hypothesis.html

"If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE".
Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds.

"The Final Arbiter of TRUTH in 'Science' is EXPERIMENT!!"
Lewars, EG: Computational Chemistry -- Introduction to the theory and application of Molecular and Quantum Mechanics; Third Edition 2016, p. 5.


"The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is Supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

“EXPERIMENT is the ONLY means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is POETRY, IMAGINATION.”
Max Planck (Nobel Prize, Physics), Quoted in; Atkins P.W.,: Molecular Quantum Mechanics; Oxford University Press, 1983

Uh Ohh...

"Unlike the other sciences, astronomy is ENTIRELY OBSERVATIONAL. You CANNOT run EXPERIMENTS on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work."
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm



So, Crocheting is more "Scientific" than Ass'tronomy. It's nothing but Poetry and IMAGINATION.


regards