Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[davefoc]

cough... Galapagos... cough...

Is this because the Galapagos islands are close to the ice wall that keeps the oceans from draining off the edge?

 

[The Big Dog]

Unbelieveable.


regards

Oh brother indeed! You are not suggesting a "container" can have an infinite amount of gas pressures are you? Perhaps what we are seeing when one measures atmospheric pressure is gravity?

I know lets take a long hard gander at YOUR SOURCE:

Atmospheric pressure varies with height just as water pressure varies with depth. As a swimmer dives deeper, the water pressure increases. As a mountain climber ascends to higher altitudes, the atmospheric pressure decreases. His body is compressed by a smaller amount of air above it. The atmospheric pressure at 20,000 feet is only one-half of that at sea level because about half of the entire atmosphere is below this elevation.

Atmospheric pressure at sea level can be expressed in terms of 14.7 pounds per square inch. The pressure in car or bicycle tires is also measured in pounds per square inches. A car should have 26-30 lb/sq.in. and bicycle tires 40-60/sq.in.

literally the next sentences! fantastic.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You continue to 'Whistle Past The Graveyard' and Beg The Question (Fallacy), smh.

Read this slowly, then answer...

How can you have Atmospheric Pressure (Gas Pressure) without a Container, when...

"The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF IT'S CONTAINER".
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html

In other words, How can you have a Rib Eye without The Cow?



regards

Is the pressure of a gas within its container consistent or does it vary throughout the container?

 

[BillC]

Daniel's interest in doing this seems to be as an intellectual exercise in defending an indefensible position. Anyway, have a super weekend all.

 

[Daniel]

To you, apparently, the word "and".

Profound.

You have no evidence to suggest that it has

What's "IT" and has "WHAT"...?

you simply have the deliberate confabulation of the range of a missile, determined primarily by its fuel capacity

1. Baseless Ipse Dixit 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.

2. Red Herring Fallacy. smh, What's the Range of the NATO Sea Sparrow...?

, with the limitation imposed on the range for one specific use of that missile, despite the fact that the very links and excerpts you post indicate that it has other uses (there's that tricky word "and," you see) such as anti-aircraft where the greater missile range would be significant.

Non-Sequitur Fallacy. Just because it has other uses, doesn't PRECLUDE the fact that it can engage Surface Targets.

The Sea Sparrow, as its name suggests, is an adaptation of the AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missile for ship-based use.

And where did the Guidance System for the AIM-7 come from...?
This is Irrelevant to my argument anyways.


Can you wake me up when you're ready to reckon with the Actual Argument?? Just in Case you forgot with the Barrage of Red Herring Fallacies...

"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 (Tracking 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!).



regards

 

[Daniel]

Is it fair to assume that Daniel believes that the earth is accelerating at a constant 32 ft per second square?

Ahhh NO. It's an Incoherent Straw Man Fallacy; The Earth is Stationary. They have a saying regarding "Assumptions".


regards

 

[Daniel]

I highlighted the part you don't understand.

That's Great, AND...? Like, How is the Atmosphere "Physically Hindered"...?

Let's see if "YOU" understand.

regards

 

[MikeG]

Daniel's interest in doing this seems to be as an intellectual exercise in defending an indefensible position. Anyway, have a super weekend all.

Particularly as he formerly held the diametrically opposed view. He's doing it for the sake of the reaction he garners, no doubt.

 

[The Big Dog]

Particularly as he formerly held the diametrically opposed view. He's doing it for the sake of the reaction he garners, no doubt.

Now, lets not be too hasty. He is indeed doing a magnificent job in proving the world is spherical!

 

[The_Animus]

1. Appeal to Motive/Intent (Fallacy).

2. Well you can't have a Flat/Non-Spinning/Domed/Geocentric Earth in Shangri-La, the "Jig is Up" in a Prima Facie sorta way.

regards

1. Asking you that question wasn't an argument. I just wanted to know out of my own curiosity.

But as long as you bring it up...

2. You're making an exceptional claim, that the earth is flat, and part of that claim involves huge numbers of people supposedly conspiring to mislead everyone that the earth is a sphere. While you don't need to provide a reason for the conspiracy in order to prove the earth is flat, to not have one would be bizarre.

 

[Imhotep]

I'm going to keep going West until I hit something. I'll report in later.

 

[Daniel]

SENSATIONAL!

I thought so.

You quote a book that says this:

"Atmospheric pressure varies with height just as water pressure varies with depth. As a swimmer dives deeper, the water pressure increases. As a mountain climber ascends to higher altitudes, the atmospheric pressure decreases. His body is compressed by a smaller amount of air above it. The atmospheric pressure at 20,000 feet is only one-half of that at sea level because about half of the entire atmosphere is below this elevation."

Did I CITE this...? NOPE...Ergo; I'm not responsible to SUPPORT IT.

Ya see... if I CITE from a Reference, Encyclopedia Britannica for example --- lets say in the "A" section Page 3, you can't Invalidate my CITATION or Rationale or "Cry Foul" if: something in Section B Page 3 is FALSE and/or is not RELEVANT... i.e., Red Herring Fallacy, Or say: "Your Claim is Trash because Section B makes a Claim that supports something I said yesterday!!" (rotflol) Follow? (It's Rhetorical at this point).

See ya next year in 8th Grade!
That's why they call them "CITATIONS"!!

ps. Water (liquid) is NOT a Gas.

Golly how do we just keep passing through "walls' that causes atmospheric pressure to decrease?

Golly, For the 376th Time...How can you have Atmospheric Pressure (Gas Pressure) without a Container, when...

"The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF IT'S CONTAINER".
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html


regards

 

[Daniel]

We never said there was no container.

Really, Well the post directly above yours from "Threadworm" just said it

You just don't understand it.

Can you be "A Tad" more Specific?

How do you explain the observed difference in pressure with altitude?

I don't attempt to, it's Red Herring Fallacy (Irrelevant/Diversion) to my Argument.


regards

 

[davefoc]

...

Yes, you need a Container to have Gas Pressure. So where's the Container?
...

I think I know what the round earthers idea is here. They think that the air pressure on earth gradually declines with increased altitude until the pressure of the atmosphere is at the near vacuum of empty space in the solar system.

Interestingly, some round earthers claim that the pressure is about 10 ^-7 torr at about 100 km above the earth and continues to decline until it is around 10^-11 torr on the moon and most of the space between the planets. Some of the round earthers also claim that the pressure drops to about 10^-15 torr in the space between the stars in our galaxy.

The round earthers claim that this tiny amount of atmosphere produces enough drag on satellites in low Earth to cause their orbits to gradually decay.

Of course, all these round earthers are part of the world wide conspiracy to delude the masses into believing the earth is round. If it weren't for the courage of people like Daniel to speak out against this conspiracy and proclaim the truth that we'd all be just a bunch of gullible round earthers swallowing the BS pushed by the round earth conspirators.

ETA: A little more on what the round earthers think about this: The idea the round earthers have in mind is a gradual drop off in air pressure as you get farther from Earth, so the round Earthers don't see any need for a container to keep the air in. And the round Earthers claim that since no container has ever been found enveloping the earth to hold the atmosphere in there isn't one. This is one of the arguments the round Earthers use to claim the firmament doesn't exist. They don't see it, and with their primitive understanding of physics they think it is impossible that there is one.

 

[The Big Dog]

I thought so.

Did I CITE this...? NOPE...Ergo; I'm not responsible to SUPPORT IT.

Ya see... if I CITE from a Reference, Encyclopedia Britannica for example --- lets say in the "A" section Page 3, you can't Invalidate my CITATION or Rationale or "Cry Foul" if: something in Section B Page 3 is FALSE and/or is not RELEVANT... i.e., Red Herring Fallacy, Or say: "Your Claim is Trash because Section B makes a Claim that supports something I said yesterday!!" (rotflol) Follow? (It's Rhetorical at this point).

Did you "cite" it? Yep you sure did, you linked right to it as part of your argument. We get that you didn't "quote" it (because lies of omission) but you did indeed "cite" to it.

And what is super extra special is that I absolutely can and did invalidate your argument by quoting to the remainder of the material YOU CITED!

USCS Fed Rules Evid R 106 provides "When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it." This is known as the "Rule of completeness is a principle of evidence law that when a party introduces part of a writing or an utterance at trial, the adverse party may require the introduction of any other part to establish the full context."

So you "cite' a book and cherrypick one section. TBD uses that same "cite" to execute great vengeance upon the argument with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am TBD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them.

 

[Daniel]

Oh brother indeed! You are not suggesting a "container" can have an infinite amount of gas pressures are you?

Nope. And "Infinite" doesn't exist mathematically let alone in Reality.

Perhaps what we are seeing when one measures atmospheric pressure is gravity?

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...

"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

You can confirm this yourself. Go out and depress the pin on your Tricycle Tire and tell us what happens.

I know lets take a long hard gander at YOUR SOURCE:

Atmospheric pressure varies with height just as water pressure varies with depth. As a swimmer dives deeper, the water pressure increases. As a mountain climber ascends to higher altitudes, the atmospheric pressure decreases. His body is compressed by a smaller amount of air above it. The atmospheric pressure at 20,000 feet is only one-half of that at sea level because about half of the entire atmosphere is below this elevation.

Atmospheric pressure at sea level can be expressed in terms of 14.7 pounds per square inch. The pressure in car or bicycle tires is also measured in pounds per square inches. A car should have 26-30 lb/sq.in. and bicycle tires 40-60/sq.in.

literally the next sentences! fantastic.

Did I CITE this...? NOPE...Ergo; I'm not responsible to SUPPORT IT.

Ya see... if I CITE from a Reference, Encyclopedia Britannica for example --- lets say in the "A" section Page 3, you can't Invalidate my CITATION or Rationale or "Cry Foul" if: something in Section B Page 3 is FALSE and/or is not RELEVANT... i.e., Red Herring Fallacy, Or say: "Your Claim is Trash because Section B makes a Claim that supports something I said yesterday!!" (rotflol) Follow? (It's Rhetorical at this point).

See ya next year in 8th Grade!
That's why they call them "CITATIONS"!!

ps. Water (liquid) is NOT a Gas.


regards

 

[Daniel]

He's doing it for the sake of the reaction he garners, no doubt.

Appeal to Intent/Motive (Fallacy).

i.e., No coherent argument/position.

regards

 

[The Big Dog]

"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

Falls over in rapture! But you just said that as we go up the pressure decreases, so you have once again managed to contradict your entire argument in literally one fell swoop!

Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man getteth understanding!

 

[Daniel]

I think I know what the round earthers idea is here. They think that the air pressure on earth gradually declines with increased altitude until the pressure of the atmosphere is at the near vacuum of empty space in the solar system.

Stone Cold 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Laws of Entropy) Violation.

ps. “If your theory is found to be AGAINST the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for [your theory] but to COLLAPSE IN THE DEEPEST HUMILIATION.”
Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1930), p. 74.



regards

 

[turingtest]

Daniel's interest in doing this seems to be as an intellectual exercise in defending an indefensible position. Anyway, have a super weekend all.

Well, some kind of exercise, anyway. It's no more to do with intellect than whatever it takes to learn to type one-handed, though- the kind of exercise one really should do (and be left to do) alone. (Shrug) Some folks just gotta be exhibitionist about it, I guess...