Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[Daniel]

Wow, so many expending so much energy!

Why?

Well because their Fairytale 'Spinning-Ball' is going down faster than the Hindenburg.


regards

 

[DGM]

I know the answer to the question...fyi: I don't ask questions that I don't know the answer to


regards

I asked for your definition. You seem unable to answer my question. Why should I answer yours?

 

[Daniel]

It's not "Uber specific" as per SOP then is it? Care to try again at supporting your claim?

So:

Point Target --- 150 Meters.
Area Target --- 350 Meters. Is not Uber Specific??

Would you like it in Nanometers?


We can even discover the mysteries of all the Munitions and Characteristics thereof for the M203.


regards

 

[LSSBB]

No.

Define Mass...?


regards

Mass defined as the amount of physical substance a physical substance has.

Therefore you deny experimental evidence, repeated several times, accurately used to measure the strength of attraction between substances based on their amount of substance.

Since you are in denial of reality, I see no point in giving any credence to your thoughts on the actual shape of the Earth.

 

[LSSBB]

My claim, or better said... the US Navy's Claim, is that the Range of the NATO Sea Sparrow is 50 km's. It's Case Closed.
(btw: is also confirmed by a US Navy Missile Instructor )

I "Pass" which IPSO FACTO means your Fairytale "Sphere" is annihilated.


regards

No, because a target can be above the horizon and be line of sight, at 50 km. Self-declared victory by you negated.

You know that self-declared victory in a debate is only useful for ego-stoking don't you? Can you think of better ways to get an endorphin rush that aren't dependant on false pride?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Daniel,

Please reconcile the following issue.

A gas is a sample of matter that conforms to the shape of a container in which it is held and acquires a uniform density inside the container, even in the presence of gravity and regardless of the amount of substance in the container

You - Earth's Atmosphere is in a Container
Your Link - Gas inside a Container acquires a uniform density inside the container, even in the presence of gravity and regardless of the amount of substance in the container
Observable reality - Earth's Atmosphere is not of a uniform Density!

How do you explain that observation contradicts what must be true if your assertion that Earth's atmosphere is in a container is also true?


BTW, this is what Scientists's call falsification. See we start with a Hypothesis....

Hypothesis - The Earth's Atmosphere is restrained by a container.

We then come up with ways to test this in an attempt to disprove our hypothesis (falsify it).

Known Properties of Gases - All gases in containers must be of a uniform density even in the presence of gravity or the amount of gas in the container.

Test - Does Earth's Atmosphere have a uniform density?

Answer - No, density declines with logarithmic proportionality to altitude.

Conclusion - ?????


By the way, when we fail to disprove our hypothesis multiple times to the point where it seems to be true, then we get to call our Hypothesis a Theory. See the normal use of the word Theory, and the Scientific usage are rather different.

Normal Usage - A idea that is based on conjecture but is really unproven.
Scientific Usage - A hypothesis that we have thrown everything at and have been unable to disprove.

Scientific Laws are just Theories that we have tested so often and have passed every test we have thrown at them, that we pretty much assume it has to be the truth. So for Scientists there is really no difference in acceptance of the Theory of Relativity and the Laws of Motion, it just means one has been tested a whole lot more than the other.

 

[alexi_drago]

Conclusion - ?????

Air density at top of Everest must be the same as at sea level because they're in the same container (sky dome)

 

[MRC_Hans]

You then have the audacity to advise me to read your reply

Yes, because I assumed that if you did, you would understand it. Seems I was wrong.

Well then that Rules Out Einsteinian 'gravity'...

Nope. You see, it works just the same.

Can you reconcile this convoluted trainwreck here for us?

"Us"? If that means "you", I'm beginning to doubt it. But, the loss is bearable.

Is there something particularly confusing about the "Debunking" here to your "FORCE" Baseless Assertion Fallacy Claim that's particularly confusing?

That would be something I would have to ask you. Is it hard to understand that, whatever its basic source, it would be OK to regard gravity as a force?

However, it is not my problem. YOU demanded to know whether it is a force, or the Einsteinian explanation. The proper answer is "both", but ... if that's a problem for you, I suggest you study literature till you can make a personal decision. I don't really care much.

1. What's "IT"...?
2. And does "WHAT"...?

1. Gravity.
2. Makes stuff fall down.

So now it's NOT a Force. OK, but you just said above...

"I wrote, gravity exerts a force."

So which is it??

Look, it I press your button, I exert a force, but I ain't one.

I've observed things falling to the ground...but I can call that "Duccolslopelgertz" or "Slopelduccolgertz"; they each have the same Scientific Veracity as your PARROTED 'gravity'.

Whatever. And your point is? Do things fall to the ground? Does a column of fluid exert a pressure? Does air pressure diminsh with altitude?

Hans

 

[DGM]

So:

Point Target --- 150 Meters.
Area Target --- 350 Meters. Is not Uber Specific??

Would you like it in Nanometers?


We can even discover the mysteries of all the Munitions and Characteristics thereof for the M203.


regards

Maximum range: 1312.4 feet (400 meters)

There's 250 meters of not so "Uber" gray area there..................

Where is the "Uber" range specs for the Sparrow?

 

[The Man]

No, because a target can be above the horizon and be line of sight, at 50 km. Self-declared victory by you negated.

You know that self-declared victory in a debate is only useful for ego-stoking don't you? Can you think of better ways to get an endorphin rush that aren't dependant on false pride?

Actually the sudden appearance of a target over the local horizon and the limited engagement time due to their speed was one of the reasons for the development of the Sea Sparrow and other similar point defense systems.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-7_Sea_Sparrow

Initially the mark 115 manned director would paint the target with a radar beam. Thus requiring line of sight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-7...ea_Sparrow_Mark115_Fire_Control_Director.JPEG

The current Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (range 50km) makes use of more advanced guidance systems.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-162_ESSM

However, the actual need for illuminating radar for at least terminal engagement won't be dispensed with until 2020 with the block 2's active radar.

Unlike Block 1, Block 2’s active radar homing seeker will support terminal engagement without the launch ship’s target illumination radars. The improved ESSM Block II will be fielded by the US Navy from 2020.[8][9]

 

[Arisia]

Well because their Fairytale 'Spinning-Ball' is going down faster than the Hindenburg.


regards

Oh the humanity of the sphericalist conspiracy, eh?*



* - full disclosure - I'm a card-carrying member of the conspiracy, Geography/Cartography section. You seem to be doing most of your arguing with the Physics and Military sections. But hey, as long as everyone is still having fun, keep at it! Don't forget to save some energy for a nice flounce at the end, of course.

 

[Octavo]

More evidence emerges of the true nature of the firmament.

 

[MikeG]

There was a "supermoon" last night (perigee syzygy). Do the flat earthers have any theory as to why the moon is sometimes closer and sometimes further away from the earth? I mean, it obviously can't be in orbit, because that would require gravity, and gravity rather ***** up their whole fantasy. So what is it doing?

 

[davefoc]

There was a "supermoon" last night (perigee syzygy). Do the flat earthers have any theory as to why the moon is sometimes closer and sometimes further away from the earth? I mean, it obviously can't be in orbit, because that would require gravity, and gravity rather ***** up their whole fantasy. So what is it doing?

The story of the precise collection of data about the paths of solar system objects (Tycho Brahe), the use of that data to show that objects in our solar system follow elliptical orbits(Kepler), the discovery of a mathematical way of predicting the path and speed of the objects (Kepler) and finally Newton's coupling of his gravitational theory and the mathematics he invented to prove the connection between the orbits of the planets and gravity is stirring. For a moment in time Newton had a deeper understanding of the solar system than anybody before him.

I don't know that Daniel truly believes what he has put forth here, but if he does he has failed to appreciate one of the most magnificent stories of human achievement in all history.

A few other things of note here:
1. Tycho Brahe believed in a geocentric theory of the universe
2. Tycho Brahe did not believe in a flat earth as far as I could tell. It had been determined to be roughly a sphere sometime before 500 BCE
3. Erasthenes came up with a very good estimate for the circumference of the earth by observing the angle of a shadow in two different cities at the summer solstice in 240 BCE. This is a technique anybody can use today and you don't need to wait for a solstice. You can just use clocks and call up a buddy in a different city to get the angle of a shadow at noon.
4. Kepler made two important discoveries using Brahe's data:
4A. The planets and the moon follow elliptical orbits
4B. He came up with a mathematical technique for estimating the speed of the planets based on where they were in their orbits.
5. Newton used the information about the orbits of the planets discovered by Kepler, his gravitational theory and his mathematics to explain why the planets moved in elliptical orbits.
6. One of the reasons that Brahe rejected the heliocentric theory of the universe was that he couldn't detect the parallax of angles to the stars he expected to find if the earth was orbiting the sun. He didn't believe that the stars could be so far away that he couldn't calculated their position using parallax measured where the heliocentric model predicted two positions of the earth separated by half a year.
7. It wasn't until sometime in the 1800's that the technology was available to make fine enough measurements to the stars that it was possible to determine how far away they were from earth.

 

[halleyscomet]

Well because their Fairytale 'Spinning-Ball' is going down faster than the Hindenburg.





regards

Your replies are getting lower energy as the thread proceeds. I give that one a 1 out of 10, but only because a 0 is not responding at all.

You’ve reached the point where you might as well be calling anyone who disagrees with Flat Earth mythology a “poopiehead” with no further elaboration.

 

[halleyscomet]

Straw Man Fallacy: I don't and never had a 'model'. Why? Well...



'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science:



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



"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 !!





regards

Ah, then you admit you have no explanation for phenomena that contradicts your mythology and you further admit you see no problem with this.

Your admitted and enthusiastic reality denial has been noted.

I find it amusing you accuse me of the straw man fallacy and then proceed to construct a comically bloated straw man of your own. I give your post a 3/10 on the Trolling scale. I’m grading you on a curve because most your entries have been so poor to begin with.

 

[LSSBB]

More evidence emerges of the true nature of the firmament. [qimg]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171204/2bc0985184a0727ae4f1b3c9e4ed0b9f.jpg[/qimg]

Funny!

On the subject of the firmament, I've attached a couple of photos showing how the concept fails (aside from Barnard's star, that is.)

 

[rwguinn]

There is apparently a "thought" process that believes that "random **** just happens" is not a model...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[The Man]

Ah, then you admit you have no explanation for phenomena that contradicts your mythology and you further admit you see no problem with this.

Your admitted and enthusiastic reality denial has been noted.

I find it amusing you accuse me of the straw man fallacy and then proceed to construct a comically bloated straw man of your own. I give your post a 3/10 on the Trolling scale. I’m grading you on a curve because most your entries have been so poor to begin with.

Naw, I don't think Daniel constructed that strawman as it is practically word for word what another poster claimed on another thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=319960

So it seem like just a general use strawman to decry models without, obviously, understanding them, their almost ubiquitous use (we even construct them in our heads about how, the world, universe, things, animals and people might behave, we couldn't function with out it), and just the nature of a hypothesis in general (that it is specifically limited in it's validity by what it asserts).


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

Heck, even just the absolutist approach that something must be totally valid or totally invalid is a metal model that isn't externally consistent nor even capable of accepting one's own limitations.

 

[calebprime]

More evidence emerges of the true nature of the firmament. [qimg]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171204/2bc0985184a0727ae4f1b3c9e4ed0b9f.jpg[/qimg]

kitty!

Naw, I don't think Daniel constructed that strawman as it is practically word for word what another poster claimed on another thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=319960

So it seem like just a general use strawman to decry models without, obviously, understanding them, their almost ubiquitous use (we even construct them in our heads about how, the world, universe, things, animals and people might behave, we couldn't function with out it), and just the nature of a hypothesis in general (that it is specifically limited in it's validity by what it asserts).


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

Heck, even just the absolutist approach that something must be totally valid or totally invalid is a metal model that isn't externally consistent nor even capable of accepting one's own limitations.

Hah! I've never spoken of this absurd strawman, your so-called "metal model".

You are demolished.

Checkmate, ISF not-so-smart man!

You clearly know no more of the fundamental nature of reality than does some extremely stupid person!

Consider yourself devastated, ect, ect, after mind-numbing ect!