Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[LSSBB]

Yes and Pocahontas was a MI6 Mermaid and the mastermind behind the sinking of the Lusitania.






Sure. More than 50 km, right here...

"The ESSM ANTI-SHIP MISSILE is powered by a high performance Mk 134 Mod 0 rocket motor dual-propellant propulsion system that develops high thrust. The motor can operate in temperatures ranging between -14°F to 133°F.
The propulsion system provides the missile with a speed of over Mach 4 and A RANGE OF MORE THAN 50km."
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/evolved-sea-sparrow-missile-essm/

pssst: all in need is "11 km" to Implode the entire "Spinning-Ball" Religion.


regards

I cannot believe you are even trying to still cling to a false interpretation.

Missile can fly 50 km.
Targeting limited by line of sight.


I can fire a bullet from a rifle a mile or two.
I can't hit a target easily by targeting with my eye or scope if the target is out of my sight in a ravine 200 yards away.

It is exactly the same principle.

Enough of the trolling on your part.

 

[Elagabalus]

...The truly disturbing part is that I had to provide citations for a Prima Facie Indubitable Fact that an Incoherent 3rd Grader knows as apodictic...

No, no you didn't. You still haven't told us why you're still breathpng on your pathetic Flat Earth. Whatsa' matter. You need a container?!!

 

[DGM]

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

We ask you to define the properties of a flat earth and you stand there holding a pickle. Follow?

 

[BadBoy]

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.

If the earth was flat, or the jet was far enough away and high enough on the horizon (like a star), you would be able to see it.

Daniel, no one who is capable of working out how to post to a forum like this can be that dumb. What do you get out of this trolling? I mean you tend to put a lot of words in many of your emails, so it is taking up some amount of time for you to do this. What drives your behavior? I am actually more interested in that...

 

[Lurch]

Daniel,
The molecules that comprise the atmosphere have mass, just as do the molecules that make up your body. The same force which pulls you down to the ground when you step off a building pulls atmospheric molecules toward the Earth. The ocean of air responds to this force by compressing to higher density with decreasing altitude, settling to an equilibrium condition.

The vadt bulk of the air does not escape to space because both the temperature (which is a measure of the speed of motion of the molecules) and the density (which determines the mean free path between collisions) are insufficient at lower altitudes. But at the quite high altitudes of the upper thermosphere, where high temperature and very low density permit, atoms and molecules can and do escape to space.

You invoke the air hissing out of a tire when punctured, as proof of the escape of a gas when not contained. That's just an illustration of the equilibriation of a pressure differential; once the internal pressure equals that outside, the air exchange settles down to diffusion via Brownian motion.

But really, all this is moot. The fatal flaw of the flat Earth nonsense is best revealed by this simple fact. A flat disk must everywhere see the Sun (or Moon, or planet, or star) set or rise at the same time. (The fact of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars all rising and setting while they wheel about the sky at essentially fixed angular velocity is not an illusion, right?)

The notion of a 'floodlight' Sun that preferentially illuminates that part of the disk beneath it, in order to account for the differing times of day/night, CANNOT explain how it is that all places see the Sun shining at essentially full brilliance (accounting for the diminution near the horizon) while it's above the horizon. The 'floodlight' model MUST have the Sun fade in/out while still some angular distance above the horizon. The simplest geometry that can be understood by a fifth grader tells us this.

The experiment proposed earlier, whereby three or more people at widely separated places measure the Sun's altitude and azimuth at the same instant, would put the nail in the coffin of a disk world concept. If the Earth were really flat, we would find all lines of sight converging at the same place, some fairly small height above our platter planet.

But no matter how careful our experimenters are, there will be found a wide divergence in their sight lines, with no hint of a common convergence whatsoever. Those same results, though, when placed on a spherical model of Earth, would always be found to be essentially parallel, given that they're pointing to a spot some 93 million miles distant.

The difference between the flat Earth/near Sun and the round Earth/distant Sun is so utterly and markedly apparent that you and two other correspondents in other countries which all see the Sun above the horizon simultaneously could carry out this test so easily and provide your own direct proof. Do it for a star, as well, to show that for our first order purposes the Sun is practically as distant as the stars.

Your equipment need be no more complicated than a compass and a plastic protractor. While the compass may introduce an error of a couple or few degrees, this will be found to be rather smaller than the disparity between the two models.

Once you have your results, obtain a reasonably large map of your flat Earth. For each observer, place a wood skewer oriented to the appropriate azimuth and altirude for that Sun sighting. If your model is correct, all skewers will point to a common point of intersection. The more observers, the better, and from as widely scattered a region of the planet (having the Sun simultaneously seen) as possible.

Such an undertaking would qualify as real and true science. You could probably organize something through this group of folk in this Forum... I'm in Ottawa, Canada, and would be willing to give it a go.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Just out of curiosity Daniel,

We know Venus, Titan and the gas giants are all spheres.
We know they have an atmosphere.
You claim that is impossible.

How does that work?

 

[beachnut]

Flat Earth 'theory' taking over the ... 'globe'?

The truly disturbing part is that I had to provide citations for a Prima Facie Indubitable Fact that an Incoherent 3rd Grader knows as apodictic.

Wo Wo Wo there professor. Why do you need a Plastic Glove (CONTAINER)??


Why do you need a Container?

Provide a Spherical Earth and I'll show you...?

btw: I said a compass wouldn't work South of a Spherical Equator.

regards

You have no clue what pressure is, as you quote mine science to support the fantasy of flat earth. You ignore the science you quote mine. As predicted, you can't support your claims with the science you quote out of context to support the delusion of flat earth.

Thus you can't provide math and physics to explain how far the North star is, the moon, the sun, or anything.

You can't make a diagram of the sunset, or explain why celestial navigation works. It might be true you have no clue what celestial navigation is. You can't do diagram and geometry to support the lie of a flat earth.

I got it, the flat earth no gravity cherry picking quote mining fest of woo is based on projection.

btw: You'd "FAIL" 5th Grade General Science.

Project much -


The Flat Earthers College Professor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHlLmYVCzKY

 

[MikeG]

That's a Pretty Funny Straw Man Fallacy. The better, more apt question...

How in the World can you use your Computer/Smart Phone which is enabled by Quantum Mechanics, and at the same time Stage 5 Cling to with a Kung Fu Death Grip that which Quantum Mechanics has Bludgeoned then Jettisoned into the Incoherent Oblivion !! ...The Fairytale �� Philosophical Naturalism/Realism -- aka: atheism Religion?

A Real Life, Walking Talking Contradiction. Hypocrite Much?

I've forgotten more grammar in the last 10 seconds than you've ever known.

Oh, and if you try and bring religion into this discussion I'll report you for a Rule 11 breach.

You need any more Gasoline with your Matches?......

We have petrol here.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Na, it isn't "Science" unless it conforms to The Scientific Method 'duh':

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Sunlight reaches the bottom of a particular well at noon.

Step 2: Lit Review

In ancient Greek times nobody had commented on the implications of this.

Step 3: Hypothesis

The Earth is a sphere. The altitude of the sun may be used to measure the circumference of the Earth by comparing results at different latitudes.

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Measure the altitude of the sun at two different latitudes at local noon.

Step 5: Analyze Data

Analysis of the data yields a circumference of ~25,000 miles.

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

The hypothesis that the Earth is a sphere of circumference 25,000 miles is consistent with results. The hypothesis that the Earth is flat, is not. The former hypothesis is validated. The latter is invalidated.

Step 7: Report Results

Done so effectively that even flat earthers are aware of them.

It's quite obvious that Daniel doesn't understand his own posts.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes and I'm A Saudi Prince and a Mau Mau Fighter Pilot...

These are no less credible than any other claim you make, actually.

Newtonian Gravity is ... "A Force".
EinSHtienian Gravity is NOT ... "A Force".

Neither of these statements is correct; both are, in fact, theories which describe the actual phenomenon known as "Gravity". The suggestion that there are therefore two different types of gravity is utterly moronic; there are in fact two ways of describing gravity, one of which is outstandingly excellent and the other of which is merely very, very good.

And, of course, if you understood anything about GR, you'd realise that one of its fundamental postulates is that the effect of gravity is locally indistinguishable from acceleration due to a force.

Dave

 

[erlando]

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.

You'd be wrong then.

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

Nope. That's a predictive model that actually fits observed reality. You don't have to believe it or accept it. But it is the model that you're up against.

So asking you to SUPPORT your Belly Laugher Debunked Fairytale Declaration 'gravity' via it's founding prognosticators: "Einsteinian or Newtonian" ...is Deflecting ??

Yes it is, seeing that my model is predicting observations. You don't have to know "what kind of gravity" or even what gravity is.

(BTW, "Einsteinian gravity" reduces to "Newtonian gravity" in this case. Not that it matters.)

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

Nope. Just asking you to support your claims. We have an objective, observable reality easily explained by my model.

You rant on and on and on about the scientific method. Now it's time for you to put up or shut up. Please state your model for how the atmospheric pressure varies by altitude. You don't have to define every little bit (at first) but it does have to be predictive.

This is how science works. In order for a new set of models and hypothesies to claim the throne they must have the same predictive powers as the existing models and hypothesies. In addition they need to explain things that the existing models and hypothesies are not able to explain.

No more deflections. Explain your model or sit the **** down.

 

[beachnut]

... How in the World can you use your Computer/Smart Phone which is enabled by Quantum Mechanics, and at the same time Stage 5 Cling to with a Kung Fu Death Grip that which Quantum Mechanics has Bludgeoned then Jettisoned into the Incoherent Oblivion !! ...The Fairytale Philosophical Naturalism/Realism -- aka: atheism Religion?...

You have one skill - making up up clueless nonsense with ease.

It reminds me of this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJIvBeVKoQA

 

[Kid Eager]

Oh, the one-trick pony has returned? This stuff is just a rehash of same time last year.

2/10 - not even looking like he’s trying.

 

[The Man]

Yes and I'm A Saudi Prince and a Mau Mau Fighter Pilot...

OK, how nice for you.

Newtonian Gravity is ... "A Force".
EinSHtienian Gravity is NOT ... "A Force".

Nope, technically not "A" force, since even in Newtonian Gravity the resulting force would be different for bodies of different mas. What Remains the same, even in Newtonian Gravity, for bodies of different mass in the same gravitational field is acceleration.

"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/ESSAYS/Bekenstein/bekenstein.html

Ever read the actual theory? I have, quote mining for particular internet phrases not from the theory won't help.

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/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality/

They are 'Mutually Exclusive'.

Nope, gave a paper, dispute it on its merits if you want.

They're not even in the same Geometry for cryin out-loud:
Newtonian 'gravity' is Euclidean 3 Space; whereas, EinSHtienian 'gravity' is Pseudo- Riemannian 4 Space.

Yep, that's why the Newtonian limit is generally a flat space time (the Minkowski metric), a different Geometry. Glad you know where that limit be, yet sad you evidently don't even acknowledge the very limit you just asserted.

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

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

Can you reconcile your TRAINWRECK here for us?

It is demonstrably your wreck (train or otherwise), reconcile it however you wish.

General Relativity reduces to a Fairytale. Do you need me to PUMMEL Einstein's Trainwrecks, specifically?? Say When!

Again, dispute the papers assertions if you wish.

'wiki', eh? What's Next the National Enquirer?

OK, Hyperphysics if you want.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/corf.html


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/relcon.html

Thanks!! ...

Again, no problem.

"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 via The Scientific Method.

"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.

A Scientific Law NEVER becomes a Scientific Theory or Vice Versa because they each deal with different questions are in two different domains. 'duh'


*Caveat* : The "Scientific" in 'Scientific Laws' is a Misnomer because they never enter into The Scientific Method -- ( *"Science" -- 'Scientific'* ), as mentioned... they are merely 'descriptions' of Natural Laws.

*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

OK, none of that disputes a scientific theory being based on scientific laws. By all means, please, present your augments for why scientific theory can't be based on scientific laws

btw: You'd "FAIL" 5th Grade General Science.

Nope, one of the few classes I never failed, even back then.

regards

Whatever.

 

[alexi_drago]

Lurch, don't want to spoil your fun of doing the experiment... But

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno

 

[MikeG]

Lurch, don't want to spoil your fun of doing the experiment... But

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno

It's beyond bizarre that in the 21st century, 3000 years since it was first done, someone has to actually do that work to counter the lunatic fringe.

 

[Hellbound]

It's beyond bizarre that in the 21st century, 3000 years since it was first done, someone has to actually do that work to counter the lunatic fringe.

Aha! See, you knew it was flat! You just admitted there's a fringe!

MikeG is part of the conspiracy!

 

[MikeG]

Damn. That's my cover blown.......

 

[Lurch]

Lurch, don't want to spoil your fun of doing the experiment... But

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno

Excellent! It simplifies the protocol to finding the Sun's highest elevation at local noon on a particular day. No having to invoke spherical trigonometry when taking the observations all at the same instant over a range of longitude.

My work has been done for me. Thanks for linking to this. I hope Daniel and other flat Earthers will cogitate on such a simple yet profound experimental proof of the ball of rock we inhabit. As we know, they are hardly inclined to do this for themselves, contenting to navel gaze and parrot idiocy in willful ignorance or obstreporous denial.

 

[LSSBB]

Oh, the one-trick pony has returned? This stuff is just a rehash of same time last year.

2/10 - not even looking like he’s trying.

He's done beating the dead horse, now he's insulting everyone standing around telling him the horse is desd.