Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[halleyscomet]

Earth-Chan

 

[Daniel]

Nope. That's a predictive model that actually fits observed reality.

'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science (and they certainly don't "PREDICT" anything lol)...

Please show "models" in the Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!!)...?

"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY."
https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis-model-theory-and-law-2699066

Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science"...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being 'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !!
REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!!
Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes FROM Experiments---(Hypothesis TESTS).
A "model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE!!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !!

But it is the model that you're up against.

So I'm up against Pseudo-Science. Yes, that's what I've been telling and illustrating to you guys for the entire thread.
You finally GOT IT!! kudos




regards

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you think this is a Viable Scientific Hypothesis then you have more "Pressing Issues" than the shape of the Earth.

Well, let's see how it compares to what you've decided is the only definition of a hypothesis you're prepared to admit to.

"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

First of all, what are our two variables? Well, we can take one of them to be the angular component (α,β) of a vector from the centre of the Earth to the point on which we stand. Since I, the scientist, am able to decide where I stand, clearly this is an independent variable. The other is the scalar distance D between the point where I stand and the centre of mass of the Earth; this is clearly the dependent variable, as by choosing to stand on a certain point I must select a particular value for this distance. The hypothesis is that D is independent of (α,β), and the prediction is therefore that the distance to the centre of the Earth is, within narrow limits, the same wherever I stand.

It matters little that you've carefully chosen your definition of a hypothesis to exclude what science actually does, which is to explore wider implications of a hypothesis - of which Eratosthenes' experiment is a good example - and to validate this hypotheses that cannot be validated by direct measurement. Sane people understand that it's equally valid to infer the sphericity of the Earth from other measurements, rather than only being able to determine it by drilling holes to the centre and dropping a plumb line. What matters is that you're simply slinging mud by complaining that "The Earth is a sphere" is not a scientific hypothesis; as you can see, it conforms to your own preferred definition of one.

Dave

 

[halleyscomet]

Mount Everest, the flat earthers great white whale.

Changing atmospheric pressure! An horizon hundreds of miles away. Can’t see Dubai from there! Gravity is weaker at the top of Everest!

Regards

It's why we'll NEVER see Daniel give an explanation for how that pressure gradient can exist on a Flat Earth capped by a firmament. His act consists of regurgitating second grade level versions of Flat Earth talking points and embarrassing semantics games that even Creationists are abandoning.

 

[Dave Rogers]

1. So the Law of Universal Gravitation is a Theory, eh?

Yes, and one in fact that has been superseded. BTW - you'll note that https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis-model-theory-and-law-2699066, one of your own sources, states that "A scientific theory or law represents a hypothesis (or group of related hypotheses) which has been confirmed through repeated testing, almost always conducted over a span of many years." In other words, a scientific law and a scientific theory are the same thing; so yes, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is indeed a theory, according to your own sources.

2. "...Einstein created his GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

The clue is in the title on that one.

3. And Scientific Theories don't "DESCRIBE" they "EXPLAIN", Big Difference.

As, for example, the Newtonian theory of gravity explains the motion of objects.

Dave

 

[halleyscomet]

 

[Daniel]

Nope, technically not "A" force

Then that scuttles Newtonian 'gravity', so all that's left is Einstein's 'gr'.

Ever read the actual theory?

Yes. However, I was laughing too hard to finish it.

1. It's NOT an ACTUAL Scientific Theory.

2. So Relativity, "sr and gr" via different mechanisms (Speed vs. Gravity), can: Dilate/Bend/Warp...TIME !!

Edited by Agatha: 

trimmed for rule 4. This identical post has been posted several times on ISF and also on other forums such as https://www.worthychristianforums.c...nets-or-moons/?do=findComment&comment=2612312 Please ensure that when presenting copypasta, you quote no more than one or two short paragraphs and provide a link to the source.

 

[Daniel]

You'll note, then, that the figure you have for range is an absolute one as stated by the manufacturer. What's your reason for assuming that this represents the maximum extrinsic limit on range

I've already explained this 5-6 times and illustrated it with the M-203.

And it was Stated by "The Navy" not the Manufacturer...which is an Irrelevant Red Herring Fallacy anyways.


regards

 

[Dave Rogers]

Oh, a GR denier too? Well, what a frickin' surprise. The crank index is off the scale.

Dave

 

[Daniel]

Here's your problem. The pressure at the top of Mount Everest...

For the 128,675th TIME :

Begging The Question and Red Herring Fallacy...

Where'd you get Atmospheric Pressure (Gas Pressure) without a Container to begin with...?


regards

 

[Dave Rogers]

I've already explained this 5-6 times and illustrated it with the M-203.

That's a lie; you've just repeated the assertion.

Dave

 

[Daniel]

On a Flat earth, that LOS would not be a limitation unless something like a mountain got in the way.

The limitation would be the "RESOLVING Power" of your Optics AND the Range of the this particular Weapon. Which scuttles the rest of your arguments.


regards

 

[Dave Rogers]

Begging The Question and Red Herring Fallacy...

As we all know, that means you can't answer the question so you're just going to try and shout it down.

Where'd you get Atmospheric Pressure (Gas Pressure) without a Container to begin with...?

Begging the question and red herring fallacy. Atmospheric pressure exists; it's different at the top of Mount Everest and at sea level. You've admitted both these things. Therefore, the pressure is not the same everywhere in the atmosphere. Rant on about containers all you want; you're simply dodging a question you know you can't answer: Why are these pressures different?

I would suggest to everyone else in the thread that they stop replying to Daniel with anything other than demands to explain why the pressure at the top of Mount Everest is different to that at sea level. As long as he dodges that question his dishonesty remains on public display.

Dave

 

[The Big Dog]

For the 128,675th TIME :

Begging The Question and Red Herring Fallacy...

Where'd you get Atmospheric Pressure (Gas Pressure) without a Container to begin with...?


regards

Even better, how do you get different atmospheric pressures inside the same container? So at the bottom of Everest it is one atmospheric pressure and at the top is another.

 

[Daniel]

Well, let's see how it compares to what you've decided is the only definition of a hypothesis you're prepared to admit to.

What I decided??

1. I didn't invent The Scientific Method.

2. Contact:

Colorado State
California State
Penn State

And post your objections. Please share the substance of your conversation here. K?

First of all, what are our two variables?

That's my Question to you!

Well, we can take one of them to be the angular component (α,β) of a vector from the centre of the Earth to the point on which we stand.

And pray tell, which Variable is that...?

Since I, the scientist, am able to decide where I stand, clearly this is an independent variable.

THANKS AGAIN!!

Errr...the Independent Variable is the "Proposed CAUSE" of the Effect...

"An Independent Variable is the presumed CAUSE, whereas the Dependent Variable is the presumed EFFECT .'
http://www2.uncp.edu/home/collierw/ivdv.htm

So where you are standing is CAUSING (lol) "that the distance to the centre of the Earth is, within narrow limits, the same wherever I stand." ???

Actual Non-Sequitur Fallacies are Blushing!!



my word people

 

[Daniel]

Oh, a GR denier too?

Not simply "Denying", "PUMMELING" THEN... Denying. Big Difference


regards

 

[halleyscomet]

For the 128,675th TIME :

Begging The Question and Red Herring Fallacy...

Where'd you get Atmospheric Pressure (Gas Pressure) without a Container to begin with...?

:

Begging The Question and Red Herring Fallacy...

Where'd you get an Atmospheric Pressure Gradient (Gas Pressure) with a Container to begin with...?

The pressure gradient can't exist in the Flat Earth model as you describe it!

Checkmate!

 

[halleyscomet]

The limitation would be the "RESOLVING Power" of your Optics AND the Range of the this particular Weapon. Which scuttles the rest of your arguments.

Then you concede your constant referencing of the missile is irrelevant, as its range tells us NOTHING about the shape of the Earth. I trust you'll now stop bringing it up, unless of course you're a rank hypocrite who cares more about an insult war than actual discussion.

 

[halleyscomet]

Not simply "Denying", "PUMMELING" THEN... Denying. Big Difference

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy.

 

[Craig4]

For all your smugness nothing you do or say will ever have an impact. You'll be always self satisfied and irrelevant.