Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[Elagabalus]

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...

Called it!!

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!!!

What do I win?!


Daniel, it must suck to be sooo predictable.

Also, why do we have Hybrid Solar Eclipses?

 

[halleyscomet]

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

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






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.





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

Thanks Again, Priceless

It's cute, but you're getting bogged down in semantics again. This is fine as a "retreat" position, but unless you occasionally make a stab at addressing the specific issues being raised you're going to have trouble retaining posters long-term. This site just doesn't have enough active members in this topic for you to keep the thread going for any reasonable length of time if you hemorrhage posters.

As it is, the character you're playing has major issues with understanding vernacular use of terms in causal conversation. You're also depicting him as incapable of basic extrapolation of ideas. You aren't defending the Flat Earthy hypothesis, you're highlighting your character's poor communication skills.

Why don't you try explaining the atmosphere's pressure gradient in a Flat earth context? An attempt, even a poor one, would go a long way towards shoring up your flagging reputation and may even draw back in posters who have otherwise abandoned the thread.

 

[Daniel]

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.

Really?? It's Prima Facie Indubitable. Ya see professor(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

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 asserting this, unequivocally demonstrates that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and WHISTLED DIXIE ... and would "FAIL" 5th Grade General Science.

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

 

[Daniel]

Called it!!

You mean to tell me that you witnessed people claiming 'gravity' was the answer to their fairytale roughly 35 times in this thread... then witnessed me asking them to SUPPORT it 35 times; THEN, when somebody claimed 'gravity was the answer AGAIN....You Predicted that I would challenge them again with the same questions??
ASTONISHING Nostradamus, you must be a SEE'ER!!!

What do I win?!

 

[DGM]

Observations aren't Experiments.


regards

Thanks for posting this...................

 

[Elagabalus]

You mean to tell me that you witnessed people claiming 'gravity' was the answer to their fairytale roughly 35 times in this thread... then witnessed me asking them to SUPPORT it 35 times; THEN, when somebody claimed 'gravity was the answer AGAIN....You Predicted that I would challenge them again with the same questions??
ASTONISHING Nostradamus, you must be a SEE'ER!!!

You have yet to tell us the cause of the observable atmospheric pressure gradient on your Flat Earth. Tell us more about the mechanics of your Flat Earth.

 

[Daniel]

The pressure in the atmosphere is caused by gravity.

I'd say there's a better chance of Liberace being resurrected sporting a purple tutu and jumping on a chartreuse hobbled unicorn and riding around the Sombrero Galaxy.

The pressure in the atmosphere is caused by gravity.That's the explanation.

That's not an Explanation, that's a Debunked Fairytale Declaration.

You don't get to deflect to your "Einsteinian or Newtonian" skit.

So asking you to SUPPORT your Belly Laugher Debunked Fairytale Declaration 'gravity' via it's founding prognosticators: "Einsteinian or Newtonian" ...is Deflecting ??
This is tantamount to charging Werner Heisenberg with "Deflecting" when challenged to explain Quantum Mechanics when he brings up The Uncertainty Principle!!!


So back to the Begging The Question/Red Herring Fallacy, eh?? ...

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.

Thanks Again


regards

 

[DGM]

You have yet to tell us the cause of the observable atmospheric pressure gradient on your Flat Earth. Tell us more about the mechanics of your Flat Earth.

I believe he said that was "begging the question". You can't question his belief, it's not allowed...........

 

[halleyscomet]

Really?? It's Prima Facie Indubitable. Ya see professor(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

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 asserting this, unequivocally demonstrates that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and WHISTLED DIXIE ... and would "FAIL" 5th Grade General Science.

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

See now, that's MUCH better. You gave me something to respond to in your post other than dreary observations about the quality of your trolling.

Seriously?

I'm sorry, but arguing that you don't understand how the scientific method can be used to determine the shape of an object and then trying to extrapolate your own rank ignorance into reality is just pathetic as an "argument."

The BreadBox

Let's run with your breadbox example. The hypothesis is that the Breadbox is a three dimensional rectangle. To test this hypothesis we need testable predictions. What are some predictions we can make based upon the assumption that the breadbox is a three dimensional rectangle?

We can predict if we measure the object it will have three dimensions, height, depth and width.

We can predict each side of the breadbox will have four sides and four corners, with the angle of each corner being 90 degrees.

There are other predictions we can make about the dimensions of the breadbox, how the sides connect, and the relative lengths of the sides needed to make it a rectangle, but I don't think we need to go into all the details for this quick experimental summary.

Now, the testing. The test here is simple. We measure the sides and angles of the breadbox. The results of those test will tell us the shape of the box.

Testing the Earth

Now comes the fun part, designing experiments to determine the shape of the Earth. For example, Flat Earth maps have a very different prediction about the shape of Australia than a globe. Measuring Australia by any one of a number of techniques can yield useful results. The differences in the predicted "Globe" shape of Australia and the predicted "Flat" shape are so dramatic that we have a large margin of error to work within.

The specific ratios of North/South distance vs East/West distance would constitute the hypothesis of the experiment. If the Earth is flat we would expect one set of values. If the Earth is round we would expect another.

The test would be to measure these distances by any one of a variety of means.

The South Pole is another area with tantalizing experimental possibilities. All you have to do is keep going South. The globe hypothesis is that eventually you'll find yourself going North again, having gone over the magnetic South Pole on a globe. The flat Earth hypothesis would be that if you keep going south you'll eventually encounter whatever it is that bounds the Earth on all sides, the point where the firmament touches the Earth, forming the seal that holds in the atmosphere. Just THINK what such a discovery would mean for the Flat Earth theory!

The test would be to make the trip, either personally or with a drone of some kind. Flying is an option, as is a robust ground vehicle that can handle the expected terrain.

There are of course many other ways to apply the scientific method to test the shape of the Earth.

 

[Daniel]

You have yet to tell us the cause of the observable atmospheric pressure gradient on your Flat Earth. Tell us more about the mechanics of your Flat Earth.

Sure, Right after you tell us how you got Gas Pressure...to begin with, WITHOUT a CONTAINER.

K?

You do understand that before you can have "VARYING" Gas Pressure you MUST HAVE "Gas Pressure", right?

Or are you gonna continue with the collective ??

It's well beyond comical at this point. However, the Carpet Bomb Barrage of Begging The Question/Red Herring Fallacy appeals are a Screaming Testimony to your Congregations Position. So a THANKS!! is in order



regards

 

[halleyscomet]

You have yet to tell us the cause of the observable atmospheric pressure gradient on your Flat Earth. Tell us more about the mechanics of your Flat Earth.

I don't think he's going to try. He doesn't have a theory of his own, just reflexive, ignorant nay-saying about others.

Sure, Right after you tell us how you got Gas Pressure...to begin with, WITHOUT a CONTAINER.

See? He tucks his tail and runs when confronted with a hard question that he can't answer. If he HAD an answer he'd have provided it by now. He's hiding behind gravity denial.

 

[Elagabalus]

...This is tantamount to charging Werner Heisenberg with "Deflecting" when challenged to explain Quantum Mechanics when he brings up The Uncertainty Principle!!!

Slow down! You're going to hurt yourself.


So how does the air stick to your Flat Earth?

 

[DGM]

You do understand that before you can have "VARYING" Gas Pressure you MUST HAVE "Gas Pressure", right?




regards

Which are you now denying?

Is this also "begging the question"?

 

[Daniel]

See now, that's MUCH better. You gave me something to respond to in your post

I've posted this EXACT same response roughly 5 Times in this thread.

I'm sorry, but arguing that you don't understand how the scientific method can be used to determine the shape of an object

Incoherent Straw Man Fallacy. I DO understand it and EXPLAINED Step by Step why your appeal is a Tear Jerk'n Belly Laugher.

Let's run with your breadbox example. The hypothesis is that the Breadbox is a three dimensional rectangle.

This isn't a Viable Scientific Hypothesis professor, for goodness sakes. SEE Previous Discussion.
You'd "FAIL" 5th Grade General Science.


Thanks Again

 

[halleyscomet]

I've posted this EXACT same response roughly 5 Times in this thread.

Then you should try putting some original thought into your replies instead of copying and pasting spam.

Your act really doesn't have anything other than ignorant, blind contradiction to it, does it?

How sad.

 

[Elagabalus]

Sure, Right after you tell us how you got Gas Pressure...to begin with, WITHOUT a CONTAINER.

K?

You do understand that before you can have "VARYING" Gas Pressure you MUST HAVE "Gas Pressure", right?

Or are you gonna continue with the collective ??

It's well beyond comical at this point. However, the Carpet Bomb Barrage of Begging The Question/Red Herring Fallacy appeals are a Screaming Testimony to your Congregations Position. So a THANKS!! is in order



regards

No, no, no! YOU tell us why U R still alive on your Flat Earth? I'm assuming you're breathing, yes? What are you breathing? The stuff that you are breathing is in a gaseous form, yes?

You, yourself said that in order for the air to have pressure it must be enclosed in a container.

So where's the container on your Flat Earth, Daniel?

 

[halleyscomet]

Here's another atmospheric pressure question the Flat Earthers can't answer:

Atmospheric pressure and barometers

 

[halleyscomet]

Debunked: The Flat Earth Theory. 14 Ways the Flat Earth Theory is False

 

[The Big Dog]

Sure, Right after you tell us how you got Gas Pressure...to begin with, WITHOUT a CONTAINER.

K?

You do understand that before you can have "VARYING" Gas Pressure you MUST HAVE "Gas Pressure", right?

Or are you gonna continue with the collective ??

It's well beyond comical at this point. However, the Carpet Bomb Barrage of Begging The Question/Red Herring Fallacy appeals are a Screaming Testimony to your Congregations Position. So a THANKS!! is in order



regards

The same way you determined that atmospheric pressure differs as the result of altitude, which you admitted in this very thread.

Which I do recall I did thank you for.

Regards

 

[MikeG]

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

Ah, Danielscience again. It isn't science unless Daniel declares it to be science. Astronomy isn't science under this regime. Measuring stuff isn't science. Observing and recording stuff isn't science (so biology can go whistle, geology is just pretend, and geomorphology, oceanography, zoology, cell biology and so on are all a scam). Infantile declarations of what is science, from a science-illiterate, are just standard Daniel stock-in-trade. Obviously genetics isn't science.

I hope you never get ill, Daniel. The clash between the real world and your fantasy when faced with an actual disease, and actual medical technology, would make your brain explode.