Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[CORed]

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

In the unlikely event that you ever provide an argument that is not self-refuting, somebody here might take the time to refute it.

 

[CORed]

It doesn't matter for this discussion.



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.



Yep. Nice demonstration.



Yep, and you always look along the tangent.



Irrelevant.



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



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

I kind of doubt that he is able to understand it. If he had even a bit of a clue about geometry, he wouldn't be a flat earther.

 

[LSSBB]

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??

Easy.

Surface target? LOS is to the horizon and a little past.

Air target? LOS can be to 35 miles (plus some) depending on elevation.

 

[CORed]

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

It is your bare assertion that gas pressure requires a container. Observed reality says otherwise.

 

[DGM]

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??

Strawman. The system is designed for both air and sea targets. The range of a sea target would be less then air. Do you deny the system is also used for air target (like your cite says)?

 

[Daniel]

1. Gravity is a demonstrable attraction between physical objects based on mass
2. Gravity is the observable attraction between physical objects based on mass
3. Gravitational attraction is a property due to the mass of objects, the underlying communication method has been modeled using theories such as general relativity, however it's observational existence has been verified and needs to be accounted for.

1. 
   
   
   So I ask you...
   
   1. Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??
   
   Your Answer: skipped.
   
   a. Is gravity a Force?
   
   Your Answer: Gravity is a demonstrable attraction between physical objects based on mass.
   
   Non-Sequitur Fallacy.
   
   
   b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
   
   Your Answer: Gravity is the observable attraction between physical objects based on mass.
   
   Another Non-Sequitur Fallacy.
   
   
   c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?
   
   Your Answer: Gravitational attraction is a property due to the mass of objects...la la la.
   
   Another Non Sequitur Fallacy.
   
   Why did you even post??
   
   
   
   
   

   Your requests are unnecessary and irrelevant.

   
   
   Yes because they force you to SUPPORT your mindlessly 'wiki' PARROTED Claims.
   
   
   
   

   Gravity has been shown...

   
   
   'gravity' What on Earth is that??
   
   THEN, 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'...?
   
   
   
   
   

   Gravity has been shown to exist via different experiments.

   
   
   Yes and Aphrodite was actually Elmer Fudd in drag and was directly responsible for the TET Offensive.
   
   
   
   
   

   Mt. Everest exists, my theories of how it got there don't have a bearing on that fact.

   
   
   Clumsy False Equivalence Fallacy: Mt Everest is a Physical Place that people can Stand On. Show the Physical Attributes and people standing on 'gravity'...?
   
   
   
   
   

   Your math is guesswork and apparently supposition as it is unreferenced

   
   
   Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy (x2).
   
   
   
   
   
   

   The first picture has no traceability provided

   
   
   So?
   
   
   
   

   nor anything showing it's exact location and time.

   
   
   So? What's the Point of either?
   
   
   
   
   

   There is nothing to indicate they are identical points of view under identical circumstances.

   
   
   1. Identical Points?? Of what are you referring to?
   2. What is the significance of Identical Circumstances? And what do you mean by "Circumstances"...?
   
   
   regards

 

[Daniel]

Strawman.

Yes, Like Hydrogen is Straw Man to Water.

The system is designed for both air and sea targets.

Yes, that's Correct.

The range of a sea target would be less then air.

Why??

Ya see, when the Military denotes Ranges of its Weapon Systems/Munitions, it's SOP to be Uber Specific and Differentiate if there are limitations with different Targets/Situations (e.g., M203 -- Point vs Area Targets).
In this Particular Case, they DID NOT; Ergo...50 km's (Again, "Low Ball") is the Range for ALL Targets and the limitations are inherent to the Weapon System/Munition itself, nothing else.

Do you deny the system is also used for air target (like your cite says)?

Nope.



regards

 

[Daniel]

Did you cite it? Yes.

Why didn't you post it then... so as to SUPPORT your claim? Ergo...this is a Baseless Ipse Dixit 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.

Also, do you know the difference between a CITATION and a Reference (Source)? smh

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

Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.



regards

 

[DGM]

Strawman. The system is designed for both air and sea targets. The range of a sea target would be less then air. Do you deny the system is also used for air target (like your cite says)?

Why??

Because the Earth is not flat.

Ya see, when the Military denotes Ranges of its Weapon Systems/Munitions, it's SOP to be Uber Specific and Differentiate if there are limitations with different Targets/Situations (e.g., M203 -- Point vs Area Targets).In this Particular Case, they DID NOT; Ergo...50 km's (Again, "Low Ball") is the Range for ALL Targets and the limitations are inherent to the Weapon System/Munition itself, nothing else.

Show proof of this "SOP" that you claim and that it is always made avalible to the public.

 

[Daniel]

It is your bare assertion that gas pressure requires a container.

Really?? LOL...

"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

Yep, 'Bare' Assertion.


"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

Again, 'Bare' Assertion.


"Kinetic Molecular Theory Explanation of Boyle's Law...

Observations about pressure may be explained using the following ideas. The rapid motion and collisions of molecules with the WALLS OF THE CONTAINER causes PRESSURE (force on a unit area). Pressure is proportional to the number of molecular collisions and the force of the collisions in a particular area. The more collisions of *GAS MOLECULES* with THE WALLS, the higher the PRESSURE."
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html

And yet another, 'Bare' Assertion.

Observed reality says otherwise.

Yea, if your Reality is Shroom-Induced.


oy vey

 

[The Big Dog]

From your cite!



REGARDS and SUPER THANKS!

Why didn't you post it then... so as to SUPPORT your claim? Ergo...this is a Baseless Ipse Dixit 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.

Also, do you know the difference between a CITATION and a Reference (Source)? smh


Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.


regards

Fun! I did quote your source that you referenced repeatedly, and I posted it again! So, FUN!

And I do know that you cited to a reference/source, which source absolutely curb stomped the arguments you were making.

Fun regards!

 

[Elagabalus]

Why didn't you post it then... so as to SUPPORT your claim? Ergo...this is a Baseless Ipse Dixit 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.

Also, do you know the difference between a CITATION and a Reference (Source)? smh






Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.



regards

You're like a broken record:

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/212611-a-question-for-flat-earth-proponents/?page=8

 

[Daniel]

Because the Earth is not flat.

That wasn't why I asked "WHY "?

I asked "Why " in response to your comment: "The range of a sea target would be less then air."

So you wanna try that one more time...?

Show proof of this "SOP" that you claim and that it is always made avalible to the public.

Well this is something that is self-evident (a 'duh') to those of us who served in the Armed Forces.

However, here it is for my Example: M203 -- http://www.armystudyguide.com/conte...e_topics/m203/m203-equipment-informatio.shtml


regards

 

[davefoc]

...

"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

...

What does a barometer measure?

 

[Daniel]

Easy.

Surface target? LOS is to the horizon and a little past.

Air target? LOS can be to 35 miles (plus some) depending on elevation.

Yea, it sure is "Easy" to Make Stuff Up

Cite Source Please...?


regards

 

[Daniel]

What does a barometer measure?

Atmospheric Pressure. What's next, what does a Voltmeter measure??


regards

 

[DGM]

That wasn't why I asked "WHY "?

I asked "Why " in response to your comment: "The range of a sea target would be less then air."

So you wanna try that one more time...?

Because the Earth is not flat. Line of sight is less at sea level. Better?

Well this is something that is self-evident (a 'duh') to those of us who served in the Armed Forces.

However, here it is for my Example: M203 -- http://www.armystudyguide.com/conte...e_topics/m203/m203-equipment-informatio.shtml


regards

Your source does not prove your claim. So it's believed by soldiers that capabilities and limitations of their weapon systems are made known to the public? Say that out loud a couple times and you should see how stupid that claim is.................

 

[Daniel]

You're like a broken record:

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/212611-a-question-for-flat-earth-proponents/?page=8

Well that's the Beauty of TRUTH...it doesn't Change.


regards

 

[The Big Dog]

That wasn't why I asked "WHY "?

I asked "Why " in response to your comment: "The range of a sea target would be less then air."

So you wanna try that one more time...?


regards

Can I? Because the earth is a sphere!

You and I are a hell of a team! You keep serving up softballs and I keep hitting them into orbit around our planet earth, which is a sphere!

 

[davefoc]

Atmospheric Pressure. What's next, what does a Voltmeter measure??


regards

You seem to be claiming that a container is necessary for there to be gas pressure.

1. Is that what you are claiming?
2. If so where is the container that you are talking about? Do you have pictures of it? Has anybody seen it? Can it be detected?