Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[beachnut]

I can take a shot at the Begging The Question/Red Herring Fallacy, After you Respond to MY ACTUAL ARGUMENT...

How do you have a GAS PRESSURE (Atmospheric Pressure) WITHOUT a Container...."TO BEGIN WITH" ?? When...

"The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF IT'S CONTAINER".
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchemb...0pressure.html


regards

With respect to pressure you have no argument, you have cherry picked quotes, you have nonsense.

Take a plastic glove. Tie it off at or near sea level. Now travel to the mountains, and watch the glove expand. Oh noes, the walls of your container, the glove, have expanded due to pressure differences between sea level and higher up the mountain. Don't do this, the FEer anti-science fantasy of no gravity and flat earth will evaporate.

Why do fantasy anti-science claims require cherry picking and quote mining sources to support the lies of flat earth no gravity woo?

http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html
Your source says.

Atmospheric pressure varies with height

oops, the walls come tumbling down...
You cherry pick quotes, and debunk yourself by including the source.

You have no argument. Regressing to the middle ages in thinking, is not an argument, it is a failed education, and willful ignorance.

This is comedy anti-science? You are joking right? Oh, your world has no gravity. Do you have hills in your world? Does this mean on a mountain your compass points down towards what?

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?

regards

Really?
Add magnetic fields to the list of science FEers don't understand.
Prove a compass can't work on a spherical earth, and use some math/science/physics. Wait, FEers don't do science, they make up failed questions and think the delusions are arguments.

Is there a diagram how a compass works on a flat earth? How far away is the current north star in the flat earth fantasy world?
Post your flat earth map. How far is the sun? Show the geometry for the sun on the flat earth in a diagram.

What will globalist grandkids think when they see post by flat earth no gravity grandad posts? How do the flat earth fanatics explain eclipses.


FLAT EARTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE - it is all about the money.

 

[LSSBB]

Factually Incorrect. As spoken about previously (about 10 Times, complete with Examples) ... If there was a Limitation(s) in Range, then it/they would be Identified.
It's NOT Identified anywhere, Ergo...Range is not limited by anything other than it's inherent ballistics.

You are lying. The limitation in effective range for a surface target is identified. It is the horizon. That is also the limit for air targets, when they happen to be below the horizon.

 

[MRC_Hans]

So they can't sink ships... only small ships.

SO they are not primarily anti-ship missiles. They are anti missile missiles.

Observations aren't Experiments.

Yes because there was no Experiment and is NO EXPERIMENT.

So what? You have to get over your obsession with formal experiments.

Daniel, where is the Sun? How far away and how large is it? Show your data.


Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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'...?

2. Oh Never Mind...

Irrelevant.

"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. If not confined to a CONTAINER, gaseous matter, also known as vapor, WILL DISPERSE INTO SPACE."
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/gas

Yes. I have news for you: Internet sites are not always the truth. In this case, while sincere, the explanation and definition is imperfect. Distribution of gas IS affected by gravity.

If 'gravity' was a container rolleyes, then why do they distinctly separate each above?

I don't know, why don't you ask them?

3. A Container is a Physical Barrier (Matter). So lol, please post the: Chemical Formula/Structure, Charge, Mass, Momentum, or Spin of 'gravity'...?

Fine. Then a container is not needed. Air has weight. Air can be retained by gravity. Live with it.


Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

This isn't a Phenomenon, it's a Conjured Declaration.

(Sun height depending on position on Earth)

No, it is an observable and verifiable fact. You can verify it yourself, if you will.



Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

"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.

Yep.
Independent variable: Latitude of observation. Or, if you prefer, distance from the North Pole. You make observations in variable distances from the North Pole.

Dependent variable: Observed angle to the Sun at a given time.

Testable hypothesis: Observations will confirm that we observe the sun from a spheroid object.

Prediction: Sun angle will vary in a way that cannot be explained by triangulating the sun from a flat surface.

That's your experiment. If you don't believe the recorded results (hypothesis confirmed) you are welcome to go out and do the experiment yourself. It is relatively easy.


Have fun!

Hans

 

[The Man]

1. Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

General relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity in the appropriate limit.

http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2010/REUPapers/Tolish.pdf

a. Is gravity a Force?

Technically it is a field. Like electro-magnetism is a field. However, unlike the electro-magnetic forces (resulting from those fields) the force of gravity is a fictitious or inertial force.

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

b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?

It is a Scientific Theory based on Scientific Laws.

c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?

Matter and energy distribution. In general relativity that is represented by the stress energy tensor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress–energy_tensor

2. Oh Never Mind...

No problem. At least the Sea Sparrow shtick was new but this ignorance of gravity routine is really old and played out. Again almost literally word for word that of another poster on another thread.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I see Daniel's found another random insult to repeat ad nauseam:

ps. You'd "FAIL" 5th Grade General Science.

My D.Phil examiners might not concur.

Dave

 

[DGM]

I see Daniel's found another random insult to repeat ad nauseam:



My D.Phil examiners might not concur.

Dave

Daniel would certainly fail 5th grade science. It's odd he says this considering "flat earth" and denial of gravity, combined with his lack of understanding of the word science would certainly lend a fail.

For him, this should be a complement...........

 

[DGM]

ps. You'd "FAIL" 5th Grade General Science.

I'm curious, do you feel you would have passed 5th grade general science with your views/arguments?

I'd argue you would have failed hard and likely had your mom and dad called in for a conference..........

 

[The Man]

SO they are not primarily anti-ship missiles. They are anti missile missiles.

Yep, Daniel's own citation notes it as a Surface to Air Missile in the very first sentence and then a number of times later. For the quote mined phrase I think the author was going for more of anti anti ship missile missile (an anti missile for anti ship missiles) but it didn't survive editing.

 

[Daniel]

Ah, Danielscience again.

Na, it's just "Science".

It isn't science unless Daniel declares it to be science.

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

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

Cut and Dry.

Astronomy isn't science under this regime.

asstronomy isn't "Science" because it doesn't conform to The Scientific Method...

Watch...

Post One Formal Scientific Hypothesis EVER constructed in the entire history of asstronomy...?

OR...

Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...?

Ya see professor...

The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method.
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis".

"The Scientific Method is Hypothesis-Driven;"
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~pyo22/students/hypothesis.html

"If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE".
Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds.

“EXPERIMENT is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is POETRY, IMAGINATION.”
Max Planck (Nobel Prize, Physics), Quoted in; Atkins P.W.,: Molecular Quantum Mechanics; Oxford University Press, 1983

"The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is Supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

Uh Ohh... ...

"Unlike the other sciences, astronomy is *ENTIRELY OBSERVATIONAL*. You CANNOT run EXPERIMENTS on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work."
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm

So, Crocheting is more "Scientific" than asstronomy.

Cut and Dry

Measuring stuff isn't science.

Not Solely. no. SEE: The Scientific Method above. My 8 year old just measured a Bread Box...he's not a Scientist as a result.

Observing and recording stuff isn't science

Not Solely, no. Stuff, eh?

(so biology can go whistle, geology is just pretend, and geomorphology, oceanography, zoology, cell biology and so on are all a scam).

geology and geomorphology are most assuredly Pseudo-Sciences, it's Prima Facie.
Biology, zoology, and cell biology would have to be dealt with on a Case by Case basis.

Infantile declarations of what is science, from a science-illiterate, are just standard Daniel stock-in-trade.

Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacies (Like Here) are Infantile Declarations.
I forgot more Science yesterday than you'll ever know.

Obviously genetics isn't science.

Genetics, Biochemistry/Chemistry, and Quantum Mechanics are The REAL "Sciences" in a General Sense. Meaning, each claim would still have to be evaluated on a Case-by-Case basis to see if it conformed to The Scientific Method, respectively.

I hope you never get ill, Daniel. The clash between the real world and your fantasy when faced with an actual disease, and actual medical technology, would make your brain explode.

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?
You need any more Gasoline with your Matches?


regards

 

[Daniel]

With respect to pressure you have no argument,

you have cherry picked quotes, you have nonsense.

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.

Take a plastic glove. Tie it off at or near sea level. Now travel to the mountains, and watch the glove expand.

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

Oh noes, the walls of your container, the glove, have expanded due to pressure differences between sea level and higher up the mountain.

Why do you need a Container?

Prove a compass can't work on a spherical earth

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

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


regards

 

[Daniel]

You are lying.

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

The limitation in effective range for a surface target is identified.

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

 

[Daniel]

General relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity in the appropriate limit.

http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2010/REUPapers/Tolish.pdf

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

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

"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

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'. 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.

Can you reconcile your TRAINWRECK here for us?

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

Technically it is a field. Like electro-magnetism is a field. However, unlike the electro-magnetic forces (resulting from those fields) the force of gravity is a fictitious or inertial force.

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

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

It is a Scientific Theory based on Scientific Laws.

Thanks!! ...

"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


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


regards

 

[alexi_drago]

I'll add to the highlighting.

The propulsion system provides the missile with a speed of over Mach 4 and A RANGE OF MORE THAN 50km."

Unless you're arguing that it doesn't have enough fuel, your highlighted part is irrelevant and has nothing to do with what is or isn't visible on sea or in the sky.

 

[Shalamar]

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.

Amazing You continue to be.. wrong. about everything.

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

It's an experiment. You should try it sometime.

Why do you need a Container?

It's an experiment. Try it sometime.

I notice you didn't actually address the reasoning WHY a plastic glove filled with air, sealed, will expand if taken to higher latitudes.

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

Sure. You're standing on a spherical^* earth

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

Australians disagree with you.

Have you managed to provide scientific evidence that the Earth is flat?


*Oblate Spheroid.

 

[Shalamar]

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

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

"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

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'. 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.

Can you reconcile your TRAINWRECK here for us?

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






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






Thanks!! ...

"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


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


regards

everything you said is wrong. All of it. You don't understand, well, anything it seems. You'd fail science at all grades, because you refuse to understand it. You refuse to learn. You refuse to answer any questions.

You are wrong.

 

[Worm]

Post One Formal Scientific Hypothesis EVER constructed in the entire history of asstronomy...?

 

[Craig4]

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

Understanding that your insults mean nothing to me, how then would terrain masking by curvature of the earth work if the earth were flat?