Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[Daniel]

Line of sight is less at sea level. Better?

Yes. Now... what does that have to do with My Argument??

Your source does not prove your claim.

So a "Na'ahh" defense, eh? Riveting!! You wouldn't happen to be Pre-Law by chance?

So it's believed by soldiers that capabilities and limitations of their weapon systems are made known to the public?

There's no 'belief' involved; Errr...I just showed you

Say that out loud a couple times and you should see how stupid that claim is....

You lecturing me on Military Matters is tantamount to Elmer Fudd lecturing Tiger Woods on Back Swings!


regards

 

[DGM]

Yes. Now... what does that have to do with My Argument??





So a "Na'ahh" defense, eh? Riveting!! You wouldn't happen to be Pre-Law by chance?






There's no 'belief' involved; Errr...I just showed you






You lecturing me on Military Matters is tantamount to Elmer Fudd lecturing Tiger Woods on Back Swings!


regards

Dodge noted...............

In fact the article you posted on the gun is not specific as to why maximum range and effective range is different. Not very "Uber" specific there.

 

[Daniel]

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

"Seem"? So after 9 Pages...you finally got it. Kudos to you.

Is that what you are claiming?

2. If so where is the container that you are talking about?

It MUST BE Enclosing the Earth.

Do you have pictures of it?

Nope. It's Conceptually the same as having a Rib-Eye...I really don't need to see the Cow or pictures thereof.

Has anybody seen it?

Chances are good.

Can it be detected?

You need to ask the people that were in Charge of Operation "Dominic" (Of The Lord) and Operation Fishbowl (and their Russian counterparts) that launched a Barrage of Nuclear Weapons into the Upper Atmosphere from 1958-1961. I'm sure they know


regards

 

[Daniel]

In fact the article you posted on the gun is not specific as to why maximum range and effective range is different.

Yes, well they assume that the readers can 'fog a mirror'.



regards

 

[DGM]

Yes, well they assume that the readers can 'fog a mirror'.



regards

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

 

[The Big Dog]

It MUST BE Enclosing the Earth.

regards

But you and I already established that the atmospheric pressure decreases as the altitude increases, which means (using your source, your cite, your reference) that it cannot be contained within a structure enclosing the Earth!

Not kidding, you and I are peas and carrots, we are a veritable, verifiable flat earth debunking MACHINE!

 

[DGM]

................................... I'm sure they know

Nothing like being sure to anchor a belief..........

 

[LSSBB]

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

Cite Source Please...?


regards

http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/ew-radar-handbook/radar-horizon-line-of-sight.htm

Plus common sense.

 

[LSSBB]

You lecturing me on Military Matters is tantamount to Elmer Fudd lecturing Tiger Woods on Back Swings!

You still have yet to demonstrate military expertise.

 

[Blue Mountain]

It MUST BE Enclosing the Earth.

Are you able to answer a few questions regarding this container?

• How far above the surface of the Earth is it?
• Is it solid like glass or metal, or is it more like a mesh?
• It it above or below the Moon and the Sun?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

What I do wonder about Daniel, is why you think the conspiracy exists.

What use is it?

It can't have anything to do with any current government or religion as the circumference of the earth was calculated at least as early as 240 BC. (possibly earlier, but those are the earliest records we have).

 

[davefoc]

Are you able to answer a few questions regarding this container?

• How far above the surface of the Earth is it?
• Is it solid like glass or metal, or is it more like a mesh?
• It it above or below the Moon and the Sun?

These sound like good questions to me. Let's wait for answers before we move on.

 

[alexi_drago]

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.






Yea, if your Reality is Shroom-Induced.


oy vey

Notice the bit that says
"Observations about pressure may be explained using the following ideas"
The use of a container is just an idea for explanation.

Also, is there or isn't there a pressure gradient that varies with altitude that is measurable? Does your container (sky dome) have uniform pressure from the atmosphere applied over its entire internal surface?

 

[Oystein]

And...? What Problem is that?






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

For the 1288th time: through gravity. Like the sea has water pressure despite being contained only at the bottom.

It doesn't make a difference whether Einsteinian or Newtonian gravity.

Mass is the cause of gravity. This has been measured and confirmed in countless experiments.

You're welcome. Please spare me your hypocritical regards.

 

[Oystein]

Yea, I do. That's the problem.

Please explain how a compass works, in your own words

 

[Arisia]

Wow, so many expending so much energy!

Why?

 

[MRC_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.

I suspect you are right, but we can't have him claim he didn't receive an explanation. Whether he gets it is of limited concern to me.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

So I ask you...

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

a. Is gravity a Force?

Gravity exerts a force. It is a force that causes masses to attract.

The cause of gravity is currently understood as curvature of spacetime around a mass. Thus, it is not a "basic force". This, however, is of no consequence for everyday use.

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

'gravity' is considered a physical law. This is, however, semantics. Suffice to say that no exceptions have ever been observed.

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

Well, try standing on a chair. Now take one step to the side. You will now, for a short while, be "standing on gravity". Seriously though:

- Post any evidence against the existence of gravity.

Failing that,

- Post a coherent, evidence-backed theory that might supply an alternative explanation to the phenomenon that we can all observe as 'gravity'.


Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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



"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

Not really a problem. You can have your container. But what is the definition of a 'container'?

Hans

 

[LSSBB]

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 questions were, and are, irrelevant to whether gravity exists. The real question is why do you even bother to ask them at all?

...<all clipped because it is more bluster riffing on the same theme as above>...

Yes or no question before we continue this line of conversation:
Has an attraction between physical objects dependant on mass been observed to exist?