Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[Craig4]

It's similar to the Phenomenon of watching a Plane fly over your head in Missouri but somebody in Chicago won't be able to see it.






Yes, I personally use...

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial

and

https://www.metabunk.org/curve/


regards

So you recognize the Earth is a sphere (spheroid actually) except when you don't. Is this some kind of weird ass live action role play for you?

 

[Lurch]

The container for Earth's atmosphere is gravity. If Earth's gravitational potential were notably weaker due to lower mass and/or lower density (hence a larger radius and weaker surface gravity), we should have a thinner atmosphere like that of less-heavy Mars, or near-vacuum thin like that of the even lighter Moon.

The atmospheric density/pressure gradient with atlitude is very nicely explained by the effect of cumulative gas mass and its as compression the planet's surface is approached. Just like the pressure gradient in the oceans varies as the depth, although essentially linearly due to the near incompressibility of water.

Yep. Good 'ol gravity makes for a mighty fine container.

To say that proof of Earth's shape is beyond the ken of science really is taking the idiocy beyond all sense and reason. Back to kindergarten for such ignorami.

 

[Shalamar]

The container for Earth's atmosphere is gravity. If Earth's gravitational potential were notably weaker due to lower mass and/or lower density (hence a larger radius and weaker surface gravity), we should have a thinner atmosphere like that of less-heavy Mars, or near-vacuum thin like that of the even lighter Moon.

The atmospheric density/pressure gradient with atlitude is very nicely explained by the effect of cumulative gas mass and its as compression the planet's surface is approached. Just like the pressure gradient in the oceans varies as the depth, although essentially linearly due to the near incompressibility of water.

Yep. Good 'ol gravity makes for a mighty fine container.

To say that proof of Earth's shape is beyond the ken of science really is taking the idiocy beyond all sense and reason. Back to kindergarten for such ignorami.

He's going to ask you define, and prove gravity.

 

[Craig4]

He's going to ask you define, and prove gravity.

Shouldn't be hard. Go to the *********** beach and have a look. It all should sort itself out.

 

[Dave Rogers]

By the way, not for Daniel's sake - because he's wilfully incapable of comprehending it - but as a useful exercise:

If you disagree , then Please Post the "Scientific Evidence" from Eratosthenes...

a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?

Variation in maximum altitude of the sun with position on the surface of the Earth.

b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates his claim...?

The formal hypothesis is that the surface of the Earth approximates to a sphere. The experiment that validates his claim is the observation of the altitude of the sun from different locations and the result that the variation in altitude is consistent with a spherical surface of circumference approximately 25,000 miles.

c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?

Position, in the direction north-south.

d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

That the surface of the Earth is flat.

fyi: It'd be easier Resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse than answering these simple questions.

I hear hooves, and I don't think it's zebras.

Dave

 

[Elagabalus]

He's going to ask you define, and prove gravity.

Hah! He's going to ask you what kind of gravity. Newtonian or Einsteinian!!


That's why he's always one step ahead of us!! Fools!!!

 

[MikeG]

.......I hear hooves, and I don't think it's zebras........

Bucephalus, the horse in question, was supposedly polydactyl: it didn't so much have hooves as toes. This is a genetic "throwback", in much the same way as humans born with tails, and is good evidence of the evolutionary background of horses hooves. [/aside]

 

[erlando]

I can take a shot at the Begging The Question/Red Herring Fallacy, After you Respond to MY ACTUAL ARGUMENT...


How do you have a GAS PRESSURE (Atmospheric Pressure) WITHOUT a Container...."TO BEGIN WITH" ?? When...

"The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF IT'S CONTAINER".
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchemb...0pressure.html

The pressure in the atmosphere is caused by gravity. That's the explanation. You don't get to deflect to your "Einsteinian or Newtonian" skit.

There, now it's your turn: Please explain the observable pressure gradient in the atmosphere and how that corresponds to your claim of two different gas pressures needing a wall between them. Thank you.

 

[EHocking]

I can take a shot at the Begging The Question/Red Herring Fallacy, After you Respond to MY ACTUAL ARGUMENT...

You first.

You were the one that made the assertion regarding the behaviour of compass needles.

Originally Posted by Daniel
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?

Originally Posted by EHocking
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.
So do you have ANY explanation why, if by your assertion that this occurs only on a globe, that the earth is not a globe?

Or will you merely continue to ignore the phenomena that you have pointed out that is evidence (if not proof) of a spherical earth?

So do you have ANY explanation why, if by your assertion that this occurs only on a globe, that the earth is not a globe?

Or will you merely continue to ignore the phenomena that you have pointed out that is evidence (if not proof) of a spherical earth?

 

[GlennB]

Daniel (if you even care about all this and are not just having a laugh), can you appreciate that the definition of pressure you're devoted to is just a crappy, superficial definition?

 

[Daniel]

I'm sure they can't. In the case of the Sea Sparrow (40kg warhead) just only quite small ships.

So they can't sink ships... only small ships.

There was the observation that the sin is seen at different angles at different latitudes.

Observations aren't Experiments.

The experiment did not prove Earth was round

Yes because there was no Experiment and is NO EXPERIMENT.

because you might have triangulated some distance to the sun from it. Problem is, a three-point triangulation does not resolve into a single point.

Is this like: it doesn't sink ships...only small ships?

Total nonsense. The scientific method easily shows that Earth is a rotating sphere orbiting the sun.

Ha, THANKS for posting!!!



regards

 

[Worm]

Go to sea on a suitable ship, climb a mast. Observe the difference.

 

[Daniel]

Dude, you too the act too far.

Oh Brother.

If testing the shape of the Earth is beyond the scope of science, why would you bother even HAVING an argument where you try to cite science?

And you thought this was an argument and hit "REPLY"??

I CITE References not "Science". "Science" isn't an ENTITY or a result, It's a Method; The Scientific Method.

You have the wrONG emPHAsis on the wrONG syLLAble.



regards

 

[Dave Rogers]

Observations aren't Experiments.

********. An experiment is a series of observations of specific measurable carried out under specified conditions. In this case, the specified conditions were geographical and temporal, and the specific measurable was the angle subtended between the sun and the horizon; the different observations were correlated, compared to a model and found to derive the value of a parameter used in that model. In every sense, that conforms to any reasonable (as opposed to simplified and misinterpreted in the most moronic way possible) definition of an experiment.

Dave

 

[Daniel]

So you recognize the Earth is a sphere (spheroid actually) except when you don't.

Ahhh No. I take tenets of what the Fairytale 'Spinning-Ball' MUST BE ...THEN, I use those very same Tenets to DEBUNK the Premise ('Spinning-Ball').

It's similar to taking the tenets that make one a Carpenter, THEN using them to DEBUNK the Carpenter.

i.e., ... If you ask a Carpenter for a Framing Square and he hands you a Chalk Line THEN...he's not a Carpenter. Follow? (Obviously Rhetorical)


regards

 

[halleyscomet]

Oh Brother.

Where art thou?

And you thought this was an argument and hit "REPLY"??

Well, no. Your "arguments" are insults blended with ignorant garbage and a refusal to actually engage. Just look at how long you've refused to provide a Flat-Earth explanation for the changes in atmospheric pressure. It's blatantly obvious you have no intention of engaging in an honest discussion so I'm making meta-comments about the quality of your trolling.

I CITE References not "Science". "Science" isn't an ENTITY or a result, It's a Method; The Scientific Method.

That's a bit better. That was a pretty good fake response. You technically wrote a reply, but it's semantic and meaningless, not constructive. You're trying to make an issue out of a vernacular use any reasonable reader would have understood. Regardless of if one used the term "science" or "the scientific method" in the conversation, the fact remains you were asserting that testing the shape of the Earth was beyond the bounds of the scientific method. Such a claim is so flat out dumb that it breaks the suspension of disbelief needed for you to keep people fooled into thinking you seriously believe any of the nonsense you're spewing.

Unless you want this thread to devolve into a meta-discussion about your trolling, you need to tighten up your game a bit. I've already lost one amusing troll thread to meta-discussions about the fundamental dishonesty of the claimant. I'd hate to see your bombastic grade school act dissolve completely.

You have the wrONG emPHAsis on the wrONG syLLAble.

Were you sober when you wrote that line? It really doesn't seem to "fit" unless you're going for a "Time Cube Guy" vibe for the character you're playing.

 

[halleyscomet]

********. An experiment is a series of observations of specific measurable carried out under specified conditions. In this case, the specified conditions were geographical and temporal, and the specific measurable was the angle subtended between the sun and the horizon; the different observations were correlated, compared to a model and found to derive the value of a parameter used in that model. In every sense, that conforms to any reasonable (as opposed to simplified and misinterpreted in the most moronic way possible) definition of an experiment.

Dave

 

[Daniel]

The container for Earth's atmosphere is gravity.

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.

If 'gravity' was a container rolleyes, then why do they distinctly separate each above?


3. A Container is a Physical Barrier (Matter). So lol, please post the: Chemical Formula/Structure, Charge, Mass, Momentum, or Spin of 'gravity'...?

Yep. Good 'ol gravity makes for a mighty fine container.

At best, this is a Good 'ol Reification Fallacy from the Black Lagoon.

To say that proof of Earth's shape is beyond the ken of science really is taking the idiocy beyond all sense and reason.

And...? Like, WHY...?



regards

 

[halleyscomet]

If not confined to a CONTAINER, gaseous matter, also known as vapor, WILL DISPERSE INTO SPACE."

Good find, and a much better post. The term is "Atmospheric Escape." Earth IS losing its atmosphere to space. There's been a lot of research into what causes the atmosphere to escape Earth's gravity well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape

https://phys.org/news/2016-07-curious-case-earth-leaking-atmosphere.html

What is the Flat Earth explanation for the pressure gradient?

 

[Daniel]

By the way, not for Daniel's sake - because he's wilfully incapable of comprehending it - but as a useful exercise:

Can't wait to see you 'Hammer the c4 Fire' with Reckless Abandon Again

Variation in maximum altitude of the sun with position on the surface of the Earth.

This isn't a Phenomenon, it's a Conjured Declaration.

The formal hypothesis is that the surface of the Earth approximates to a sphere.

THANKS!!! Swing Away!!! ...

"Formalized hypotheses contain two variables. One is "INDEPENDENT" and the other is "DEPENDENT". The independent variable is the one you, the "scientist" control and the dependent variable is the one that you observe and/or measure the results.
Notice there are two parts to a formalized hypothesis: the “IF” portion contains the testable proposed relationship and the “THEN” portion is the prediction of expected results from an experiment. An acceptable hypothesis contains BOTH aspects, not just the prediction portion."
http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm

"The scientist applies his/her present knowledge to PREDICT the effect of the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE on the DEPENDENT VARIABLE.
The PREDICTION is a statement of the expected results of the experiment based on the HYPOTHESIS. The prediction is often an "if/then statement ."
https://www2.lv.psu.edu/jxm57/irp/pred.htm

Your offering contains NOTHING... save for a Begging The Question Fallacy.

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

The experiment

You have no Experiment because you have no "HYPOTHESIS".


Thanks Again, Priceless