Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[davefoc]

Here's a definition of pressure:
Pressure is an expression of force exerted on a surface per unit area.

It's from this site: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/pressure

It doesn't use the word container. You seem to believe because you found a definition of pressure that uses the word container a container is necessary for pressure to exist. How does the fact that there is a definition of pressure that doesn't use the word affect your idea about the need for a container for pressure to exist?

Assuming you are serious, I have wondered for awhile if you just don't understand the mechanism by which planets (including earth) prevent their atmospheres from escaping.

This is a link to the Wikipedia article on the atmosphere of the earth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

If you go to the section of "Principal Layers" you will see a description of the layers of the atmosphere. One take away from this section is how the atmospheric pressure of earth gradually declines until it is at the pressure of the interplanetary space. You might in particular take a look at the exosphere article. This is the layer thats pressure gradually declines to the pressure of interplanetary space.

It is reasonable to wonder if some gas doesn't escape from exosphere into interplanetary space. Gas molecule speeds are distributed and even if the average speed of the molecules is not large enough to escape earth's gravity some of the molecules near the edge of the exosphere are going fast enough that they do escape the earth's atmosphere so in a sense you're right in that a solid container would be necessary to completely prevent the loss of gas to interplanetary space. However this is a very slow process that is really only significant for the lighter molecules in the atmosphere like helium and hydrogen.

 

[Shalamar]

Thanks for all of your 'responses'.

Couldn't have EXPOSED "You" without "You". Priceless


regards

That's Nice.

By the way: The planet you stand on, is still a sphere^*.

*Oblate Spheroid.

 

[beachnut]

So I'm Begging The Question and Failed to provide evidence?

That means, I'm assuming there very thing I'm attempting to prove. OK,

I said to have "Gas Pressure" (for the 1879th time ) you MUST HAVE a Container. THEN... because Cognitive Dissonance and Adherence to Fairytales runs rampant in the Spinning-Ball Religion and you remain Willfully Ignorant to Prima Facie Truths, I then provided as evidence:

"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

"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


"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















Well if there wasn't a "Container" you wouldn't have Oceans, because...wait for it...it wouldn't be "CONTAINED".
It Conceptually the same as a Swimming Pool. The light coming on yet?


oy vey

lol, wonder how scuba works in the delusional dumbed down flat earth world of woo.

GPS?
Oh, Celestical navigation.
Right, Gravity does not exist.
No clue Newtonian physics are enough to go to the moon, wait, physics does not exist. (okay, it exists, but flat earth faith based believers don't have a practical knowledge of physics)

The swimming pool analogy is funny.

Don't worry, if you could do physics/math/science, you could cherry pick/quote mine science to support the flat earth woo.

The equations of motion for functions EoM.m and EoMQver2.m are written using the flat-earth assumption, ... http://www.princeton.edu/~stengel/FDcodeB.html

Come on use this quote mining stuff to support a flat earth, use science to support woo; it is what you do without effort, or thinking.

six sigma of stupid, flat earth claims - is there an award for that
https://www.villanovau.com/lp/six-s...7r96wjEzKlrhKflQ6eefyJsDY8Df2B1RoCcUAQAvD_BwE
Is there a six sigma certification for woo

Gee, there is no container for the atmosphere, I have flown near 50,000 feet, did not hit the container, but we needed oxygen because the pressure was too low to sustain a human. Denying science, the woo of flat earth religion. Are your GPS satellites in side the dome of flat earth woo.

You don't understand pressure, and thus have no idea what the pressure is on a standard day at 27,000 feet, or 50,000 feet. Then when we have rapid decompressions or slow decompressions in aircraft, you have to deny we pass out in 10 seconds at 45,000 feet pressure altitude. Or we fall asleep like Payne Stewart's flight crew and passengers, due to the lack of pressure, in the open atmosphere of earth, when we fail to close our "container", the plane. oops, you don't do science, you do woo.

How far is your sun, or the north star? I thought only Russians were flat earthers

 

[EHocking]

Compass discussion dropped hurriedly

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?

yes.
That is exactly what happens. The variation is up to 20^o.

The needle of a compass that works in the SH is balanced differently than one that works in the NH, due to exactly this fact that the horizontal and vertical components of the earth's magnetic field vary considerably in different locations

The compass manufacturers use 5 global zones and 5 corresponding “magnetic balancing zones”.

You have correctly pointed out yet another Fact that demonstrates that the earth is a globe and not a platter.

Daniel?

Any thoughts on the fact that the compass needle weighted to work in the northern hemisphere would indeed "be buried in the ring" when used in the southern hemisphere?

It is your assertion that this would only happen on a global earth.

 

[LSSBB]

"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

Your own quote disagrees with you. It says the pressure is the force the gas exerts on the walls of it's container, not the force the container puts on the gas.

How come this railcar decided to increase it's force? Is it committing suicide?



By the way, you never did explain how on a flat Earth the stars circle above the South Pole place FEfailers refuse to call a South Pole, or go in a straight line, curving away North and South, above the equator thing FEfailers think is a circle on a disk.

 

[DGM]

Thanks for all of your 'responses'.

Couldn't have EXPOSED "You" without "You". Priceless


regards

Thank you. Being exposed as rational and patient in the face of absurdity is a real complement.

I thank you for the test..........

 

[Craig4]

Thanks for all of your 'responses'.

Couldn't have EXPOSED "You" without "You". Priceless


regards

Who have you exposed us to? There's no body of people seriously pondering the spherical nature of our planet. What's the venue of for your victory dance? Is it other flat earth believers? So what? Do you think you're going to make some change in science or technology? Are you expecting some alteration in geography text books? Are you going to show this thread to the Air Force and Navy they'll stop computing terrain masking by curvature of the earth?

In short, you've exposed us to people who never mattered to us, and still don't.

 

[DGM]

Well if there wasn't a "Container" you wouldn't have Oceans, because...wait for it...it wouldn't be "CONTAINED".

You weren't asked if there was a container, the question was what it is in your world.

You really need to pick up your game, or your reading comprehension.

 

[Elagabalus]

So I'm Begging The Question and Failed to provide evidence?

That means, I'm assuming there very thing I'm attempting to prove. OK,

<<SNIP>>

Please tell explain to us why EVERYONE, according to your Flat Earth model, experiences nighttime (no sun shining) when the sun finally sets (goes below the horizon) on your flat Earth?

 

[davefoc]

Please tell explain to us why EVERYONE, according to your Flat Earth model, experiences nighttime (no sun shining) when the sun finally sets (goes below the horizon) on your flat Earth?

I'm not Daniel but I think the basic idea is that the Sun moves around the flat earth illuminating different parts as it passes over them. The only way that I can see remotely how this would work is if the Sun is like a flood light. If it's a big bright ball the transition from dark to light would be gradual and everybody on earth would always be able to see the sun albeit glowing dimly.

A problem with the flood light idea is that it seems like you'd see the dark side of the Sun. (Not that this is the only problem with the idea

)

ETA: In thinking about this a bit more, the flood light needs to produce a pattern that illuminates about half the earth and it rotates around a point that the north pole is continuously illuminated for half the year and in the dark for the other half of the year. But I don't understand something here because I can't see how to produce the seasons. But the sun flood light already needs to be pretty trick since it needs to vary the illumination so that the areas near the edge get as much light as the areas directly under the Sun. So I think what is required here is an arduino processor to carefully control the flood lamp output to make it so that every part of the earth gets the amount of illumination appropriate for the season.

 

[BadBoy]

Do you have a source for the underlined?



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

I’m still catching up here. But presumably a water blob in space zero g would have internal pressure inside the blob with no container. But then I guess that’s not a gas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cosmic Yak]

The question of whether Daniel is actually serious about this, or is simply trolling is an interesting one (at least to me).
Daniel's method of debate consists largely of these things:

• Cherry-picked quotes from articles that often refute his own arguments, or at least do not support them.
• Repetetive phraseology- define evolution, landed on your head, spun around and whistled Dixie, Ipse Dixit Bare Assertion Fallacy, etc. etc. etc.
• An abrasive, mocking and confrontational tone.
• A refusal to answer difficult questions- the compass one, for example.
• A total absence of any positive evidence for his propositions.

It is also notable that the scientists on this forum are unanimous in saying that Daniel is at times misrepresenting science, and at others displaying a woeful ignorance of basic science. At the same time, the Christians on the forum linked to upthread, in which Daniel is engaging in the same (i.e. identical in all the above points) debate, are saying that Daniel is making their faith look ridiculous.

Given all this, I would like to know from Daniel whether anyone has been convinced and converted by these tactics. Personally, I think it highly unlikely, but it is just possible that someone out there has been mocked into submission, or won over by some blatant cherry-picking.
Daniel: has this ever happened?
If not, you might want to consider a couple of options:
Firstly, your approach is not bearing fruit, assuming your aim is to persuade rather than alienate or annoy. Perhaps a change of tactics might be more productive?
Secondly, there is always the possibility that you are just wrong. Have you considered the fact that virtually no-one agrees with you might be worth thinking about?

 

[halleyscomet]

The question of whether Daniel is actually serious about this, or is simply trolling is an interesting one (at least to me).

Daniel's method of debate consists largely of these things:

• Cherry-picked quotes from articles that often refute his own arguments, or at least do not support them.
  
• Repetetive phraseology- define evolution, landed on your head, spun around and whistled Dixie, Ipse Dixit Bare Assertion Fallacy, etc. etc. etc.
  
• An abrasive, mocking and confrontational tone.
  
• A refusal to answer difficult questions- the compass one, for example.
  
• A total absence of any positive evidence for his propositions.
  

It is also notable that the scientists on this forum are unanimous in saying that Daniel is at times misrepresenting science, and at others displaying a woeful ignorance of basic science. At the same time, the Christians on the forum linked to upthread, in which Daniel is engaging in the same (i.e. identical in all the above points) debate, are saying that Daniel is making their faith look ridiculous.



Given all this, I would like to know from Daniel whether anyone has been convinced and converted by these tactics. Personally, I think it highly unlikely, but it is just possible that someone out there has been mocked into submission, or won over by some blatant cherry-picking.

Daniel: has this ever happened?

If not, you might want to consider a couple of options:

Firstly, your approach is not bearing fruit, assuming your aim is to persuade rather than alienate or annoy. Perhaps a change of tactics might be more productive?

Secondly, there is always the possibility that you are just wrong. Have you considered the fact that virtually no-one agrees with you might be worth thinking about?

Everything you describe is typical of some of the Creationist writing I’ve encountered over the years. The point of such an approach is, like a Jack Chick tract, not to convert anyone, but to reassure the extant believers.

Nobody was ever converted by a Chick tract, but they were reassured that they were doing something Godly by giving them out. Daniel’s approach is not about converting anyone. It’s about reassuring himself if he is a true believer and reassuring other true believers if they encountered this thread. The whole point is to preach to the choir.

I suspect Daniel is a troll but he could be a true believer in the flat earth theory who isn’t very good at the harsher creationist style rhetoric.

 

[erlando]

"The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF IT'S CONTAINER".

This just doesn't magically become true no matter how many times you assert it. You have repeatedly been shown this. You have also repeatedly dodged the question of where and what this container is as we undeniably have air pressure on the Earth - unless this is one of the things you also deny.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This just doesn't magically become true no matter how many times you assert it. You have repeatedly been shown this. You have also repeatedly dodged the question of where and what this container is as we undeniably have air pressure on the Earth - unless this is one of the things you also deny.

He doesn't deny that we have air pressure on the Earth; he denies that there is vacuum anywhere else. He also accepts that air pressure varies with altitude, but won't take any notice of the suggestion that it might vary over several orders of magnitude; at that point he fringe resets, repeats the mantra and hurls abuse.

Dave

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Everything you describe is typical of some of the Creationist writing I’ve encountered over the years. The point of such an approach is, like a Jack Chick tract, not to convert anyone, but to reassure the extant believers.

Nobody was ever converted by a Chick tract, but they were reassured that they were doing something Godly by giving them out. Daniel’s approach is not about converting anyone. It’s about reassuring himself if he is a true believer and reassuring other true believers if they encountered this thread. The whole point is to preach to the choir.

I suspect Daniel is a troll but he could be a true believer in the flat earth theory who isn’t very good at the harsher creationist style rhetoric.

Well, firstly let me thank you for the education: I had not heard of Chick tracts before. This is a great site for learning things.
You may be right about this: I really don't think Daniel is here to learn anything, or to engage in any kind of honest conversation. In the years he has been posting, he hasn't changed his tune one whit, and keeps posting the same questions over and over again, whilst ignoring or dismissing the answers. I wonder if the name is a reference to Daniel in the lion's den, and that he is, as you say, merely proclaiming his faith for his benefit, and that of other likeminded zealots.

 

[threadworm]

Well, firstly let me thank you for the education: I had not heard of Chick tracts before. This is a great site for learning things.
You may be right about this: I really don't think Daniel is here to learn anything, or to engage in any kind of honest conversation. In the years he has been posting, he hasn't changed his tune one whit, and keeps posting the same questions over and over again, whilst ignoring or dismissing the answers. I wonder if the name is a reference to Daniel in the lion's den, and that he is, as you say, merely proclaiming his faith for his benefit, and that of other likeminded zealots.

Indeed I believe it is, though it's also a handy anagram of 'denial' Sadly for her, to mix a biblical metaphor, in this forum she can't rely on anyone closing our mouths while she interprets dreams.

Daniel's use of language appears in a number of places on the web in identical forms and presentational style, which is how I came across

This page

and this youtube video.

Are we in danger of focusing attention on the debater rather than the debate? Possibly, but when one side of the discussion is clearly not actually interested in engaging in meaningful debate or an exchange of idea it's useful to know that their tactics are employed elsewhere with the same resulting frustration and annoyance.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Are we in danger of focusing attention on the debater rather than the debate?

What debate? There is none.

Dave

 

[halleyscomet]

What debate? There is none.



Dave

For there to be a debate both sides have to offer opposing points and arguments. What we have in this thread is a large group of people trying to have a conversation with someone who keeps responding with rambling insults best paraphrased as “I reject anything about science that might contradict my claims and I’m boggled you don’t agree with my unsupported, vague assertions! And you’re all poopieheads!”

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Indeed I believe it is, though it's also a handy anagram of 'denial' Sadly for her, to mix a biblical metaphor, in this forum she can't rely on anyone closing our mouths while she interprets dreams.

Daniel's use of language appears in a number of places on the web in identical forms and presentational style, which is how I came across

This page

and this youtube video.

Are we in danger of focusing attention on the debater rather than the debate? Possibly, but when one side of the discussion is clearly not actually interested in engaging in meaningful debate or an exchange of idea it's useful to know that their tactics are employed elsewhere with the same resulting frustration and annoyance.

For there to be a debate both sides have to offer opposing points and arguments. What we have in this thread is a large group of people trying to have a conversation with someone who keeps responding with rambling insults best paraphrased as “I reject anything about science that might contradict my claims and I’m boggled you don’t agree with my unsupported, vague assertions! And you’re all poopieheads!”

There was a similar conversation about what to do with Holocaust deniers, who I think are quite similar in their tactics and lack of interest in honest debate. The conclusion was that we, and others like us, should continue to engage them, and I believe the same reasoning applies here. Continued engagement would have a dual effect: firstly, it would contrast the two approaches (reasoned, evidence-based, at least halfway polite attempts at dialogue, versus scornful, ignorant zealotry), and leave the deniers looking as foolish as they should. Secondly, it would prevent them from claiming victory, which they would if their points went unanswered.