Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[Dave Rogers]

You'll get another cut and paste job from another forum, Dave, like most other answers in the thread. It's a great way of not having to think.

True. To be honest, I'm more interested in taxonomy than content here, so to some extent I'm just poking Daniel with a stick to see which standard woo tactics he employs. Clearly his go-to play is taking a teaching text that's intended to give a simple example of how the scientific method's applied and insisting that this simplified example is the totality of the scientific method, which is a sub-genre of cherry-picking that ought to have a name all its own. There's also the supporting ploy of suggesting people contact the authors of his sources, as a means of creating the illusion that they actively support him, which is related to but not identical to "the lurkers support me in e-mail," more along the lines of "these authorities would support me if they knew we were arguing." And then, of course, there's the simple denial that anything he doesn't like the look of conforms to his definitions even when it does. I'm not sure whether these have informal names, but they'd be useful to compile.

Dave

 

[LSSBB]

Being as the earth is a spheroid, it's rather simple. You put an aircraft like an E2-C Hawkeye in the air. It can see over the curvature of the Earth and target for you. The seeker head locks onto the radar return of the E2 instead of the radar on the vessel.

True, and he was narrowing his argument to a Sea Sparrow instruction itself, which focused on the firing platform itself. Via link to other platform targeting systems, it is possible to target beyond that. Since I was not on a Sea Sparrow vessel and have not linked with any, I am not aware of whether the Sea Sparrow is capable of accepting Link targets via the SSDS. It appears it may at some point be able to in one reference I have found.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

Clearly, forward observers don't exist.

The kicker is, I have yet to see a flat Earther provide any kind of viable theory that encompasses all the observations we have. We had enough information to thoroughly disregard flat earth thousands of years ago, so I suppose their only tactics are to deny available facts. E.g: we don't really know the planets are spheres, when you can see the phases of the moon with the naked eye and the phases of Venus with a half decent "birding" scope.

 

[halleyscomet]

Clearly, forward observers don't exist.

The kicker is, I have yet to see a flat Earther provide any kind of viable theory that encompasses all the observations we have. We had enough information to thoroughly disregard flat earth thousands of years ago, so I suppose their only tactics are to deny available facts. E.g: we don't really know the planets are spheres, when you can see the phases of the moon with the naked eye and the phases of Venus with a half decent "birding" scope.

It's a lot like Creationism in that regard. They have no real theory of their own, just a bunch of ignorant nay-saying, deliberate lying, and nit-picking about the opposition.

For example, I have yet to see a Flat Earth explanation for atmospheric pressure gradients. The lower air pressure at the top of Mount Everest is a conundrum I have yet to see any of them even try to explain.

 

[halleyscomet]

There is no South Pole or South Celestial Pole...

"There is no "South Star". It's just a coincidence that there happens to be a bright star (Polaris) close to the Celestial North Pole. The Southern Hemisphere isn't so lucky. The only star that comes close is Sigma Octans, which is 1 degree away from the South Celestial Pole. But it's only 6th magnitude--too dim to see at all except under optimal conditions."
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ph...gazing/374-is-there-a-south-star-intermediate

Speaking of Sigma Octantis, how is it that the star is simultaneously visible from opposite ends of the allegedly Flat Earth, but not the regions of the "Northern Hemisphere?"

You've addressed this topic before, but not in a manner that actually took into account the regions from which Sigma Octantis is visible. Look at that map above. It is visible from the entirety of what would be the outer rim of that map, but not the center. How is that possible on a Flat Earth?

 

[Horatius]

Speaking of Sigma Octantis, how is it that the star is simultaneously visible from opposite ends of the allegedly Flat Earth, but not the regions of the "Northern Hemisphere?"

...

You've addressed this topic before, but not in a manner that actually took into account the regions from which Sigma Octantis is visible. Look at that map above. It is visible from the entirety of what would be the outer rim of that map, but not the center. How is that possible on a Flat Earth?

"But it's only 6th magnitude--too dim to see at all except under optimal conditions."

Clearly, the more advanced Central Hemisphereflat does not have "optimal" conditions.

 

[alexi_drago]

There is no South Pole or South Celestial Pole...
"There is no "South Star". It's just a coincidence that there happens to be a bright star (Polaris) close to the Celestial North Pole. The Southern Hemisphere isn't so lucky. The only star that comes close is Sigma Octans, which is 1 degree away from the South Celestial Pole. But it's only 6th magnitude--too dim to see at all except under optimal conditions."
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/phy...r-intermediate

Is there a south celestial pole or not?

 

[MikeG]

Is there a south celestial pole or not?

Well spotted. Brilliant!!

I predict a few days absence from the thread, and then complete ignoring of this point, however many times it is put to him.

 

[GlennB]

I wonder whether Daniel could explain why atmospheric pressure diminishes with increasing altitude?

I've been wondering about this for years!

 

[DGM]

I wonder whether Daniel could explain why atmospheric pressure diminishes with increasing altitude?

I've been wondering about this for years!

That's called "begging the question". You just can't ask this kind of thing.

 

[The Big Dog]

I wonder whether Daniel could explain why atmospheric pressure diminishes with increasing altitude?

I've been wondering about this for years!

And you're treating the atmosphere as a single entity when it's an inhomogeneous anisotropic mixture of gases.

-Daniel

/i know it does not answer the question

 

[GlennB]

That's called "begging the question". You just can't ask this kind of thing.

Well, I was thinking of a high altitude camping trip and heard that water boils at a lower temperature at altitude, on account of the reduced pressure. Now, I like my tea properly brewed so this whole issue is kind of important for a Brit like me who likes proper tea.

 

[rwguinn]

Speaking of Sigma Octantis, how is it that the star is simultaneously visible from opposite ends of the allegedly Flat Earth, but not the regions of the "Northern Hemisphere?"

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/kIejjco.png[/qimg]

You've addressed this topic before, but not in a manner that actually took into account the regions from which Sigma Octantis is visible. Look at that map above. It is visible from the entirety of what would be the outer rim of that map, but not the center. How is that possible on a Flat Earth?

That where the holes in the firmament line up?

 

[LSSBB]

That where the holes in the firmament line up?

That would be a weak argument - perfect for Flat Earthers!

You only see that particular star in the same arrangement of stars, and always close to the Celestial South Pole, whether you are in Sydney, Cape Town, or Ushuala. Holes lining up would all be visible as such at all three points - if the firmament were in reality a dome with Polaris at the apex, the stars rotating in time lapse about the Celestial South Pole could not happen.

 

[rwguinn]

That would be a weak argument - perfect for Flat Earthers!

You only see that particular star in the same arrangement of stars, and always close to the Celestial South Pole, whether you are in Sydney, Cape Town, or Ushuala. Holes lining up would all be visible as such at all three points - if the firmament were in reality a dome with Polaris at the apex, the stars rotating in time lapse about the Celestial South Pole could not happen.

Maybe they're slots? And
And
And
...
Look! Shiney! What about the sparrowhawk!

 

[LSSBB]

Maybe they're slots? And
And
And
...
Look! Shiney! What about the sparrowhawk!

"Only in silence the word, only in dark the light, only in dying life: bright the hawk's flight on the empty sky."

 

[EHocking]

"Only in silence the word, only in dark the light, only in dying life: bright the hawk's flight on the empty sky."

Whistler: It was one of Wilde's.

Oscar: It sodding was not! It was Shaw!

 

[LSSBB]

Whistler: It was one of Wilde's.

Oscar: It sodding was not! It was Shaw!

What's really going to bake your noodle later on, is: is Earthsea flat?

 

[beachnut]

... How can you "Target" (eye or scope) something out of your LOS (eye or scope) ??

big hint: Don't talk about LOS with regards to over the horizon related issues. Is there a horizon on a flat earth? Another issue flat earth cult members can't explain. The flat earth delusion would have zero LOS issues on the ocean. Talking about it, debunks flat earth. Why is this is beyond FEers LOS.

Funny stuff. How can there be line of sight issues on the fantasy flat earth ocean. It appears LOS is in the same bag FEers have gravity in. A bag labeled complete ignorance.


graders

 

[Craig4]

Clearly, forward observers don't exist.

The kicker is, I have yet to see a flat Earther provide any kind of viable theory that encompasses all the observations we have. We had enough information to thoroughly disregard flat earth thousands of years ago, so I suppose their only tactics are to deny available facts. E.g: we don't really know the planets are spheres, when you can see the phases of the moon with the naked eye and the phases of Venus with a half decent "birding" scope.

I suspect this is a kind of live action role playing and he doesn't really believe this. The trival simplicity that it takes to establish a spheroid earth makes me think he's not for real on this.