Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[Shalamar]

You know. If the flat earth model were, in fact, the correct one, we would be able to view all stars and constellations from pretty much anywhere in the world.

However, we find that there are stars and constellations that are only viewable in the northern hemisphere, and not in the southern, and vice-versa of course. How do the flat-earthers reconcile this?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

You know. If the flat earth model were, in fact, the correct one, we would be able to view all stars and constellations from pretty much anywhere in the world.

However, we find that there are stars and constellations that are only viewable in the northern hemisphere, and not in the southern, and vice-versa of course. How do the flat-earthers reconcile this?

Have you ever *seen* this so-called Southern Hemisphere?

And define Australia!

 

[Shalamar]

Have you ever *seen* this so-called Southern Hemisphere?

And define Australia!

You forgot the random listings of fallacies, and then to demand that you've won.

 

[halleyscomet]

You know. If the flat earth model were, in fact, the correct one, we would be able to view all stars and constellations from pretty much anywhere in the world.

However, we find that there are stars and constellations that are only viewable in the northern hemisphere, and not in the southern, and vice-versa of course. How do the flat-earthers reconcile this?

Videos! There are videos about it!





This discussion seems to gravitate between outright denial and blaming light pollution:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5459.0

 

[halleyscomet]

If you ignore enough data, you can use the stars as proof of the Flat Earth Mythology:
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2016/06/polaris-proves-flat-earth.html

Of course some people look at things a bit further South:
http://www.thecreatorscalendar.com/three-unanswerable-objections-to-the-flat-earth-theory/

Even the folks at "Answers in Genesis" take issue with Flat Earth "logic."
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/danny-faulkner/2016/10/12/flat-earth-star-trails/

 

[Shalamar]

Videos! There are videos about it!

This one hurt my head 'Mirror ball!'

This one was weird. NO idea what they were trying to say.

This discussion seems to gravitate between outright denial and blaming light pollution:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5459.0

A little more interesting, but yes, straight denial.

Several years ago, I was on a trip to Hawaii, and took my Telescope with me. I traveled to the top of Mount Haleakala. which is one of the best Dark Sky sites in the world. Amazing. I watched stars and constellations rise over the horizon, but, no matter where I pointed my Telescope, there were stars that I could not see, yet, there would be those on the southern hemishere who could.

 

[Elagabalus]

Videos! There are videos about it!





This discussion seems to gravitate between outright denial and blaming light pollution:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5459.0

From one of the comments in your first link:


JESUS RAVES!!

 

[LSSBB]

You know. If the flat earth model were, in fact, the correct one, we would be able to view all stars and constellations from pretty much anywhere in the world.

However, we find that there are stars and constellations that are only viewable in the northern hemisphere, and not in the southern, and vice-versa of course. How do the flat-earthers reconcile this?

Not only that, as the picture I attached in a previous post shows, the stars in the southern hemisphere circle the South Pole in a time lapse. Kinda hard to do if Antarctica is shmeared in every direction around a flat Earth.

 

[The Man]

kitty!



Hah! I've never spoken of this absurd strawman, your so-called "metal model".

You are demolished.

Checkmate, ISF not-so-smart man!

You clearly know no more of the fundamental nature of reality than does some extremely stupid person!

Consider yourself devastated, ect, ect, after mind-numbing ect!

Dang, foiled once again by the "I win, you lose" declaration. I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for that...









...and those meddling kids!!!!!!

 

[Dr. Keith]

Wow, so many expending so much energy!

Why?

Chew toys are fun, whether tough or flimsy.

 

[halleyscomet]

I stepped onto the floor. What's next, a query on what happens when I turn a doorknob?

Don't be silly. You don't necessarily need gravity to turn a doorknob.

 

[halleyscomet]

No, "Your" Convoluted Trainwreck that was specifically documented.

You then have the audacity to advise me to read your reply







I know AND THEN I clobbered your 'wiki' PARROTING buffoonery with...

Well then that Rules Out Einsteinian 'gravity'...

"Einstein came up with the theory of general relativity (1915), the prototype of all modern gravitational theories. Its crucial ingredient, involving a colossal intellectual jump, is the concept of gravitation, NOT AS A FORCE, but as a manifestation of the curvature of space-time..."
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/...ekenstein.html

Of course that leads into another 'problem', your "scientific community" (as if) 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/a...e-nonlocality/

Can you reconcile this convoluted trainwreck here for us?


Is there something particularly confusing about the "Debunking" here to your "FORCE" Baseless Assertion Fallacy Claim that's particularly confusing?






1. What's "IT"...?
2. And does "WHAT"...?






So now it's NOT a Force. OK, but you just said above...

"I wrote, gravity exerts a force."

So which is it??

ps. Your feeble semantic gymnastics "exerts" doesn't save your Convoluted Trainwreck here professor.






So NOW it's "A Force" Have you considered "Politics" as a vocation?






So we can treat it as a Force but it's NOT a Force, eh?







I've observed things falling to the ground...but I can call that "Duccolslopelgertz" or "Slopelduccolgertz"; they each have the same Scientific Veracity as your PARROTED 'gravity'.







Really?? I hate to be the one to tell you this but you're in DIRECT CONTRADICTION with your 'scientific community', AGAIN...

"...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/a...e-nonlocality/

Is there something here ^^^^ that's particularly confusing?

regards

Assuming you wish to learn, many of your questions and more are answered here:

The Hunt for Vulcan: . . . And How Albert Einstein Destroyed a Planet, Discovered Relativity, and Deciphered the Universe

It's available in hardcover, paperback, eBook and audio book.

“Delightful . . . a charming tale about an all-but-forgotten episode in science history.”—The Wall Street Journal

“Engaging . . . At heart, this is a story about how science advances, one insight at a time. But the immediacy, almost romance, of [Thomas] Levenson’s writing makes it almost novelistic.”—The Washington Post

“Captures the drama of the tireless search for this celestial object.”—Science

“Levenson’s narrative is a well-structured, fast-paced example of exemplary science writing. A scintillating popular account of the interplay between mathematical physics and astronomical observations.”—Kirkus Reviews (starred review)

“The Hunt for Vulcan is a short, beautifully produced book that tells a cautionary tale. . . . Levenson is a breezy writer who renders complex ideas in down-to-earth language . . . and colorfully illustrates the limits of scientific theory as it faces new data and even more persuasive theories.”—The Boston Globe

“Thomas Levenson wonderfully tells the story of Vulcan. . . . Looping through science history from Isaac Newton onwards, Levenson elegantly reveals the evolutionary nature of scientific thought, and the marvel of the revolution that Einstein wrought.”—Nature

“An essential read . . . a compelling story that successfully portrays how science deals with ambiguity . . . The Hunt for Vulcan succeeds spectacularly at displaying the intricate, confusing, and sometimes quirky way science progresses.”—Ars Technica

“This delightful and enlightening drama tells the story of the hunt for a planet that did not exist and how Einstein resolved the mystery with the most beautiful theory in the history of science. The Hunt for Vulcan is an inspiring tale about the quest for discovery and the challenges and joys of understanding our universe.”—Walter Isaacson

“The Hunt for Vulcan is equal to the best science writing I’ve read anywhere, by any author. Beautifully composed, rich in historical context, deeply researched, it is, above all, great storytelling. Levenson gives a true picture of the scientific enterprise, with all its good and bad guesses, wishful thinking, passion, human ego, and desire to know and understand this strange and magnificent cosmos we find ourselves in.”—Alan Lightman, author of The Accidental Universe

 

[Daniel]

I bet you hate the fact people can see what you actual said:

On the contrary, I love it; That's why I write it.

Care to back peddle now?

Backpedal from what??


I said...: Ya see, when the Military denotes Ranges of its Weapon Systems/Munitions, it's SOP to be Uber Specific and Differentiate if there are limitations with different Targets/Situations (e.g., M203 -- Point vs Area Targets).

Then I SUPPORTED that claim by posting a Reference that showed you that very fact with the M203.
This is 'cut and dry'.

This little Nonsensical Appeal Charade you got going on is and quite boring.


Please respond with a 'Coherent' Substantive argument/position or consider this "Goodbye".

Thanks


regards

 

[Daniel]

Mass defined as the amount of physical substance a physical substance has.

A "Tad" Circular dont'cha think?

Errr...

"Nature does not offer us any concept as 'the amount of matter'. History has struck down every proposal to define such a term. Even if we could count the number of atoms or by any other counting method try to evaluate amount of matter, that number would not equal mass".
Taylor, Edwin., Wheeler, John: Spacetime Physics, p. 248, 1992

Therefore you deny experimental evidence, repeated several times, accurately used to measure the strength of attraction between substances based on their amount of substance.

There are ZERO Experiments let alone anything "Repeated".

Moreover, I'd wager a small fortune that you wouldn't know what an Actual Experiment consists of or be able to differentiate one from a Pipe Wrench. Let's TEST that contention...

Walk us through the Construction of an Experiment regarding ANYTHING...?
(Hint: it starts with the First Step of The Scientific Method)

Since you are in denial of reality

Not quite. I'm in Denial of your "Claims to Evidence" which are nothing more than Baseless Ipse Dixit 'bare' Assertion Fallacies.

I see no point in giving any credence to your thoughts on the actual shape of the Earth.

You see no point because you (and your 'brethren') have gotten your Hats Handed to You so many times in this thread it's ridiculous.



regards

 

[alexi_drago]

On a flat earth, how are these explained?

Sunrise/sunset

Angular size of sun is same from sunrise to sunset

In Australia sunrise can be south of East and sunset can be south of West at some times of year

Circular star trails when looking south in the southern hemisphere

The same stars are visible when looking south in the southern hemisphere no matter if you're in Africa, Australia or south america

 

[Daniel]

Daniel,

Please reconcile the following issue.

You - Earth's Atmosphere is in a Container
Your Link - Gas inside a Container acquires a uniform density inside the container, even in the presence of gravity and regardless of the amount of substance in the container

AGAIN Red Herring Fallacy via Begging The Question Fallacy: Where'd you get "Gas Pressure" to begin with if there's NOT a Container...? <--- Answer this First; THEN we can discuss the mysteries of "Varying Pressure" in a Container.

Observable reality - Earth's Atmosphere is not of a uniform Density!

That's Great!! Red Herring Fallacy (again).

BTW, this is what Scientists's call falsification. See we start with a Hypothesis....

Hypothesis - The Earth's Atmosphere is restrained by a container.

THANKS, Priceless!!!

This isn't a Viable Scientific Hypothesis, professor.

Highlight the:

'Independent Variable': The Cause, i.e., what is being varied/manipulated by you...? So as to Confirm (The Effect) --- Dependent Variable...?

Known Properties of Gases - All gases in containers must be of a uniform density even in the presence of gravity or the amount of gas in the container.

Correct. All Gasses MUST BE in Containers to avail Gas Pressure. You just Proved My Case

Test - Does Earth's Atmosphere have a uniform density?

Ahhh, that's NOT a TEST...it's a Known Fact.

By the way, when we fail to disprove our hypothesis multiple times to the point where it seems to be true, then we get to call our Hypothesis a Theory.

Yes, I know. But you have yet to post a Viable Scientific Hypothesis.

See the normal use of the word Theory, and the Scientific usage are rather different.

You're Preach'n to the Choir.

Scientific Laws are just Theories that we have tested so often and have passed every test we have thrown at them

THANKS AGAIN!! And Unsolicited no less. Errr, professor...

"Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process) and Identify The CAUSE; e.g., Germ Theory. Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED.

"Scientific Laws": "describe" ---The What/IS (The How/Why and "CAUSE" is N/A). They are based SOLELY on OBSERVATIONS of "Natural Laws". Often expressed mathematically. e.g., 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

That's why they're called The Laws of Thermodynamics and NOT the 'Theories' of Thermodynamics.


Scientific Law vs Scientific Theory:

"Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a LAW DESCRIBES WHAT nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A THEORY EXPLAINS HOW nature works..... From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science."
http://facultyweb.kennesaw.edu/rmatson/links/theories.php

Scientific Laws NEVER become Scientific Theories or vice versa they're different domains and answer different questions.

Ergo...You'd "FAIL" 5th Grade General Science.

that we pretty much assume it has to be the truth. So for Scientists there is really no difference in acceptance of the Theory of Relativity and the Laws of Motion, it just means one has been tested a whole lot more than the other.

Thanks Again!!!


Do you need any more Gasoline with your Matches??



regards

 

[Shalamar]

On a flat earth, how are these explained?

Sunrise/sunset

Angular size of sun is same from sunrise to sunset

In Australia sunrise can be south of East and sunset can be south of West at some times of year

Circular star trails when looking south in the southern hemisphere

The same stars are visible when looking south in the southern hemisphere no matter if you're in Africa, Australia or south america

Let me try.

Ahem:

"Begging The question!!"

"Ad Hominiem!"

"Throwing Elephants!"

"A Toddler knows these answers!"

"Define 'Stars'!"

"Define 'West'!"

"I WIN!" *runs off drooling*

 

[Daniel]

You know. If the flat earth model were, in fact, the correct one

There is no Flat (or Sphere) Earth 'model'. 'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science (SEE: Previous Post)

we would be able to view all stars and constellations from pretty much anywhere in the world.

Really? Scientifically Validate please...

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...?



regards

 

[DGM]

Please respond with a 'Coherent' Substantive argument/position or consider this "Goodbye".

All ready done. Readers see your attempt at a victory for what it is, nothing.............

Troll score 2/10

 

[Daniel]

Not only that, as the picture I attached in a previous post shows, the stars in the southern hemisphere circle the South Pole in a time lapse. Kinda hard to do if Antarctica is shmeared in every direction around a flat Earth.

There is no South Pole or South Celestial Pole...

"There is no "South Star". It's just a coincidence that there happens to be a bright star (Polaris) close to the Celestial North Pole. The Southern Hemisphere isn't so lucky. The only star that comes close is Sigma Octans, which is 1 degree away from the South Celestial Pole. But it's only 6th magnitude--too dim to see at all except under optimal conditions."
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ph...gazing/374-is-there-a-south-star-intermediate

So


regards