Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[LSSBB]

Begging The Question Fallacy: "over the horizon"...is what you're attempting to prove.

Not trying to prove the horizon with the referenced observation, just pointing out the invalidity of your assuming the Navy saying to use LOS with a 35 mile missile means the Navy thinks no horizon exists.

Straw Man (Fallacy): I didn't say it was only for ships. jeez

I didn't state that you did, I am stating why the missile is no example of what the Navy thinks about whether the horizon exists

 

[LSSBB]

An aside, whenever I see big bold font in a post I read it in Owen Meany's voice. Just sayin'...

 

[Daniel]

This does seem to be a problem for the theory that a container is necessary for gas to have pressure

And...? What Problem is that?

The idea the round earthers have in their head is that the atmospheric pressure gradually tails off as the altitude increases

For the 1287th Time: Red Herring Fallacy (Irrelevant/Diversion). Before we discuss "Varying Pressures" we MUST FIRST reckon with how we got "Gas Pressure" to begin with...without a Container

Folks this isn't that hard.



regards

 

[Daniel]

You don’t know how a compass works?

Yea, I do. That's the problem.

Wow.

Feigned Exasperations aren't coherent arguments/positions.



regards

 

[DGM]

Let's take a look at these pics from Lake Ponchartrain...

Provide the source file for the first picture or it can be assumed to be fake.

 

[Daniel]

Answering a question with further questions is not really answering.

Well instead of just telling you, I'm enabling you to find out for yourself. Rather than Catch the Fish for you, I'm teaching you to Fish without me.

You also conveniently forgot to answer my second question: Is the sun a sphere?

I did answer it, I said: "I have No Idea. (and neither does anyone else)"

Do you have vision problems or is Cognitive Dissonance Blinding You?



regards

 

[DGM]

Well instead of just telling you, I'm enabling you to find out for yourself. Rather than Catch the Fish for you, I'm teaching you to Fish without me.

And all the fish caught agree the Earth is a sphere. Thanks for your help.

 

[Daniel]

From your link:

Here we go again Did I CITE it? smh

That last sentence is where models fit into the scientific method.

Here, try this...

"The important point that Becher introduced is that the explanation of a natural phenomenon (i.e., model, theory) must be "TESTABLE" by "EXPERIMENTATION".
In other words once a model is proposed as an explanation of a phenomenon, it can "ONLY" be considered a "SCIENTIFIC MODEL" if it can be objectively "TESTED BY EXPERIMENTATION."
http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/introduction/scientific-method.html

So essentially "You're" Equivocating Fallacy with the Term "model".


regards

 

[The Big Dog]

Yea, I do. That's the problem.





Feigned Exasperations aren't coherent arguments/positions.



regards

No, you don’t. That is the problem..

It wasn’t feigned.

 

[rwguinn]

Here we go again Did I CITE it? smh

yes

 

[The Big Dog]

Here we go again Did I CITE it? smh






Here, try this...

"The important point that Becher introduced is that the explanation of a natural phenomenon (i.e., model, theory) must be "TESTABLE" by "EXPERIMENTATION".
In other words once a model is proposed as an explanation of a phenomenon, it can "ONLY" be considered a "SCIENTIFIC MODEL" if it can be objectively "TESTED BY EXPERIMENTATION."
http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/introduction/scientific-method.html

So essentially "You're" Equivocating Fallacy with the Term "model".


regards

Did you cite it? Yes. An incoherent second grade class would understand that by now.

You keep citing sources that nuke your fantasies from orbit. Convenient!

 

[PhantomWolf]

Well the only thing I'm "advocating" for at the moment, ya know -- "My Argument" is that you can't have Gas Pressure Without a Container.

Fine, please prove this without simply reposting your link as if it is the one and only truth. Especially since you already totally ignored both my link to show that Air Pressure exists both compressed and unrestrained, and also showed you a video of unrestrained air pressure in action.

 

[threadworm]

Here we go again Did I CITE it? smh

You provided a source that you believe proved your point. That same source contradicts you

Here, try this...

"The important point that Becher introduced is that the explanation of a natural phenomenon (i.e., model, theory) must be "TESTABLE" by "EXPERIMENTATION".
In other words once a model is proposed as an explanation of a phenomenon, it can "ONLY" be considered a "SCIENTIFIC MODEL" if it can be objectively "TESTED BY EXPERIMENTATION."
http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/introduction/scientific-method.html

So essentially "You're" Equivocating Fallacy with the Term "model".

Big words. If only you understood them.

If you spent as much time reading the text as you did formatting it you might get somewhere. That sentence quite nicely describes how to use models in the scientific method, here's the bit you didn't quote:

A good model will not only explain the results of an experiment but it will also suggest additional experiments.

If the additional experiments are still explained by the model then the model gains stature and becomes a "theory". If still a large class of experiments are explained by the theory then it graduates to become a "law".

If the model fails to explain additional experiments then the additional experiments are used to revise the model. Is this fashion experiments and scientific models work hand in hand to improve one another.

You have no idea how science works, and you'd get further if you spent less time desperately trying to work out with logical fallacy you can arbitrarily decide to dismiss evidence on and more time producing a coherent and logically thought out argument of your own.

 

[davefoc]

Daniel,
Instead of winding yourself up with word salad that pretty much only means something to you, how about answering a few of the simpler questions?
1. What does the edge of the earth look like? Are photos available? Have you been there or seen it? Has anybody?
2. What prevents the flat earth from forming into a spheroid shape? Aren't all the other planets that we observe spheroid shapes? Have any of them been observed to be flat?
3. Where is this container you keep talking about? Do you have pictures of it? Has anybody seen it? What is in this container, the moon, the sun, the stars?
4. Do you reject the idea that people in the southern hemisphere see a different set of stars than people in the northern hemisphere?
5. Do you reject the notion that there is a force between two objects proportional to the product of their mass? If so what is the source of the force that pulls things toward the earth.
6. The graph below is of atmospheric pressure versus altitude. Do you think the graph is wrong? Do you think the atmospheric drops to zero someplace? The normal idea is that the atmospheric pressure we sense on the surface of the earth is the result of the air above us being pulled towards the earth by the force of gravity. Do you have a different idea in mind?

image credit: By Klaus-Dieter Keller - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25608825

 

[MRC_Hans]

Really? OK...

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'...?

It doesn't matter for this discussion.

2. Then (for both Cavendish and lead blocks and an inter"F"erometer') ...

a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

Gravity was shown. For details, do your own homework. Remember, it is not our duty to convince you. Frankly my dear, we don't give a damn.

The total distance of these power lines over Lake Pontchartrain is 15.9 Miles.
Per Soundly: Viewer Height was between 35 - 50 Feet, so let's say 40 Feet.
The distance between each Pylon is .18 Miles. (~88 Pylons)
I counted ~ 40 Pylons in Soundly's now infamous "P-900" shot...roughly 7 Miles, with some significant curvature.

Yep. Nice demonstration.

Furthermore, according to your 'Spinning Ball' Narrative, every point along a Tangent from your feet falls away from you in every direction at 8" per mile².

Yep, and you always look along the tangent.

The horizon at 7 Miles from 90 degrees --- through Zero --- to 270 degrees is 21.5 MILES.

Irrelevant.

So you're saying that we see significant curvature on the Z Axis....which is at 7 Miles BUT along the X Axis...which is 21.5 MILES: It's FLAT, No Curvature ???

We always look along the tangent. The horizon is at the same distance in all directions.

Moreover, I've been told for about 2 years now that there is no way to see curvature from anything less than (65,000 Feet - 12,000 Miles, and everything in-between ) THEN... Soundly (smh) shows it from 35 Feet!!

Nope. The curvature you mention now is in the X axis. There you need to be far enough from the surface to not look along the tangent. Really simple. You should be able to grasp it.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

For the 1287th Time: Red Herring Fallacy (Irrelevant/Diversion). Before we discuss "Varying Pressures" we MUST FIRST reckon with how we got "Gas Pressure" to begin with...without a Container

We have gas pressure for the same reason that we have a pressure gradient. No, it ain't hard at all.

Hans

 

[EHocking]

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?

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]

Not trying to prove the horizon with the referenced observation, just pointing out the invalidity of your assuming the Navy saying to use LOS with a 35 mile missile means the Navy thinks no horizon exists.

I'm not trying to prove any horizon or what the Navy 'believes', skipper. Your appeal here is a Painfully Incoherent Red Herring Fallacy.

How/What on Earth am I ASSUMING??

Here's "My Argument", read this slowly...

Sea Sparrow (NATO):

"Bistatic, semiactive seekers in the nose of a missile receive a reflected signal from a target that is being “illuminated” with an RF signal transmitted from a fire control radar on a stand-off platform (e.g., aircraft, ship). Such systems REQUIRE that the platform maintain LINE OF SIGHT (LOS) to the target until it is engaged by the missile. Ship-based standard missile (SM) and NATO Seasparrow AAW missiles are examples of such a semiactive mode."
http://m.eet.com/media/1111959/819_radar3.pdf

Range is MORE THAN 35 Miles. http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/evolved-sea-sparrow-missile-essm/
The target is "Illuminated" with a 2 inch Pencil Beam (RF) which has to be maintained "Painted" on the target until detonation. At a more than generous 80 Feet Elevation above Sea LEVEL (Fire Control Radar Height), the target should be hidden behind 385 Feet of Curvature.

Please explain how you can have Line of Site (LOS) 35 Miles Away on a "Spinning-Ball" by showing how an 2" RF Pencil Beam can penetrate 385 Feet (117 METERS) of Target Hidden Height through a WALL OF WATER 24 MILES in Length...??
(ps. 35 miles is "Low Balling" : (The 'Official' Max Effective Range is Classified ---- i.e. it's MUCH MUCH greater than 35 Miles!).

Pretty Easy...What's your response??

I didn't state that you did

You didn't state "WHAT"?

I am stating why the missile is no example of what the Navy thinks about whether the horizon exists

Try this...

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop, True or False??

 

[Daniel]

Daniel,
Instead of winding yourself up with word salad that pretty much only means something to you, how about answering a few of the simpler questions?

I have a Novel Idea, Why don't you refute my ACTUAL ARGUMENTS!!!

my word people


So after I explain to your personally at least 3 Times and to this thread over 50 times, that "Varying Pressure" is an Incoherent Begging The Question Fallacy to My Argument of How do have "Gas Pressure" without a Container to begin with....

You Post a Graph showing "Varying Pressure" !!!!


Gooney Goo Goo. K?


oy vey

 

[The Big Dog]

I have a Novel Idea, Why don't you refute my ACTUAL ARGUMENTS!!!

my word people


So after I explain to your personally at least 3 Times and to this thread over 50 times, that "Varying Pressure" is an Incoherent Begging The Question Fallacy to My Argument of How do have "Gas Pressure" without a Container to begin with....

You Post a Graph showing "Varying Pressure" !!!!


Gooney Goo Goo. K?


oy vey

did you read the source you cited several times? It explains it in really simple language! The one that explains "atmospheric pressure"? You know the one. It was awesome!

Super regards and super thanks for the link!