Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[The Big Dog]

There is no South Pole or South Celestial Pole...

"There is no "South Star". It's just a coincidence that there happens to be a bright star (Polaris) close to the Celestial North Pole. The Southern Hemisphere isn't so lucky. The only star that comes close is Sigma Octans, which is 1 degree away from the South Celestial Pole. But it's only 6th magnitude--too dim to see at all except under optimal conditions."
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ph...gazing/374-is-there-a-south-star-intermediate

So

regards

Cool cite! There you are posting facts showing the earth is a sphere!

FANTASTIC!!!!

 

[DGM]

There is no South Pole or South Celestial Pole...

"There is no "South Star". It's just a coincidence that there happens to be a bright star (Polaris) close to the Celestial North Pole. The Southern Hemisphere isn't so lucky. The only star that comes close is Sigma Octans, which is 1 degree away from the South Celestial Pole. But it's only 6th magnitude--too dim to see at all except under optimal conditions."
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ph...gazing/374-is-there-a-south-star-intermediate

So


regards

Lame................try again. You do know people actually live in the southern hemisphere?

 

[Daniel]

On a flat earth, how are these explained?

Sunrise/sunset
Angular size of sun is same from sunrise to sunset
In Australia sunrise can be south of East and sunset can be south of West at some times of year
Circular star trails when looking south in the southern hemisphere
The same stars are visible when looking south in the southern hemisphere no matter if you're in Africa, Australia or south america

Well the thing is, we're not into "Explanations" (aka: "Just-So" Stories). We side with Validated Experiments.

So why don't you "Explain" them?? mmm K? With each, Scientifically Validate...

a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?


After you're Finished...I'll go ahead and take them to the Woodshed.


regards

 

[DGM]

Cool cite! There you are posting facts showing the earth is a sphere!

FANTASTIC!!!!

The best debunker for "flat earth" I've seen so far..............

 

[Shalamar]

There is no Flat (or Sphere) Earth 'model'. 'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science (SEE: Previous Post)

Nope. A Part of science. Which is why we know the Planet we stand on is round (Oblate Spheroid).

Really? Scientifically Validate please...

a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?

Someone viewing the Stars in the Northern hemisphere views different stars than someone in the Southern Hemisphere.

b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?

Hypothesis:
Positing a 'flat earth', someone in the Northern Hemisphere would be able to observe the stars in the Southern Hemisphere and Vice Versa.

Experiment:
Using observed phenomena, some Stars and constellations are not visible in the opposing hemisphere, or only during certain times of year.

c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?

Telescopes.

d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

rejected: A 'Dome' on which the stars are visible. Since certain stars (Southern Pole Star for example) is only visible from the Southern Hemisphere, The same 'dome' cannot be possible across both Hemispheres.

While certain stars may not be visible from extreme edges of a 'flat earth', the same cannot be said of telescopes in the Northern Hemisphere, especially those at extreme altitudes. We can thus reject the 'common' view and model of the 'flat earth'.

 

[alexi_drago]

Well the thing is, we're not into "Explanations" (aka: "Just-So" Stories). We side with Validated Experiments.

So why don't you "Explain" them?? mmm K? With each, Scientifically Validate...

a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?


After you're Finished...I'll go ahead and take them to the Woodshed.


regards

You can't answer, flat earth is dead, I WIN \o/

 

[The Man]

Telescopes.

Technically that might be equipment used. The independent variable in your experiment would be the location of the observer, the "Someone viewing the Stars".

 

[Daniel]

Nope.

So another "Na'ahh" Defense, eh? Riveting! You wouldn't happen to be Pre-Law by Chance?

A Part of science.

Yea, Science Fiction.

Which is why we know the Planet we stand on is round (Oblate Spheroid).

Somebody forgot to tell 'nasa' it's "Oblate".

Someone viewing the Stars in the Northern hemisphere views different stars than someone in the Southern Hemisphere.

Astonishing!!


Here we go again, lol...

Hypothesis:
Positing a 'flat earth', someone in the Northern Hemisphere would be able to observe the stars in the Southern Hemisphere and Vice Versa.

This isn't a Scientific Hypothesis, professor. What's your Independent Variable: Eyelids, Imagination, Other??

Experiment:
Using observed phenomena, some Stars and constellations are not visible in the opposing hemisphere, or only during certain times of year.

Where's the Independent Variable ("Telescopes") at??

[Independent Variable] Telescopes.

rotflol. Why wasn't it mentioned in your Hypothesis?

So is it your contention that "Telescopes" CAUSE (Independent Variable) constellations and stars to be visible/not visible -- (Dependent Variable) ??


Absolutely Hilarious Sir <snip>
regards

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rules 0/12

 

[Elagabalus]

...

a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?

Gravity! Don't you remember the Chair experiment?

 

[DGM]

So another "Na'ahh" Defense,

You do know the number of irony detectors is finite?

 

[Daniel]

The independent variable in your experiment would be the location of the observer, the "Someone viewing the Stars".

He didn't have a Viable Scientific Hypothesis; Ergo...he didn't have a Viable Experiment -- (Hypothesis TEST). See The Connection?? (Obviously Rhetorical)


ps. smh..."Locations" are NOT "Causes" (Independent Variables), for goodness sakes.

The reaaaally scary thing is not that you thought this, BUT... You actually hit "Submit Reply".



regards and Thanks!

 

[Shalamar]

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Post deleted in its entirety. It was solely responding to moderated content.

 

[DGM]

The reaaaally scary thing is not that you thought this, BUT... You actually hit "Submit Reply".

There you go...........tearing into the finite supply.

 

[The Man]

Somebody forgot to tell 'nasa' it's "Oblate".

Nope, they already knew.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0426(2001)018<0187:TLLROS>2.0.CO;2

 

[The Man]

He didn't have a Viable Scientific Hypothesis; Ergo...he didn't have a Viable Experiment -- (Hypothesis TEST). See The Connection?? (Obviously Rhetorical)


ps. smh..."Locations" are NOT "Causes" (Independent Variables), for goodness sakes.

The reaaaally scary thing is not that you thought this, BUT... You actually hit "Submit Reply".



regards and Thanks!

In the experiment noted the location is the independent variable and the stars seen the dependent ones. You simply scaring yourself won't change that.

 

[DGM]

Nope, they already knew.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0426(2001)018<0187:TLLROS>2.0.CO;2

Come on.....I'm sure he looked this word up and figured it would score points.

Troll score= 2/10

 

[Craig4]

He didn't have a Viable Scientific Hypothesis; Ergo...he didn't have a Viable Experiment -- (Hypothesis TEST). See The Connection?? (Obviously Rhetorical)


ps. smh..."Locations" are NOT "Causes" (Independent Variables), for goodness sakes.

The reaaaally scary thing is not that you thought this, BUT... You actually hit "Submit Reply".



regards and Thanks!

That's nice dear. Now kindly explain why The Southern Cross is visible from Tasmania but not from British Columbia.

 

[The Man]

Come on.....I'm sure he looked this word up and figured it would score points.

Troll score= 2/10

Extra negative troll points for noting where the paper cites even just the spherical method is more accurate than the earlier, well, flat Earth methods.

 

[LSSBB]

A "Tad" Circular dont'cha think?

Errr...

The experiments are real. The lead weights attract to each other. The particles in the interferometer device are attracted to the lead. Are you denying this occurs?

 

[LSSBB]

There is no South Pole or South Celestial Pole...

"There is no "South Star". It's just a coincidence that there happens to be a bright star (Polaris) close to the Celestial North Pole. The Southern Hemisphere isn't so lucky. The only star that comes close is Sigma Octans, which is 1 degree away from the South Celestial Pole. But it's only 6th magnitude--too dim to see at all except under optimal conditions."
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ph...gazing/374-is-there-a-south-star-intermediate

So


regards

Blatant avoidance. They circle something, which is in the direction of the South Pole. Doesn't happen in a flat Earth.

ETA: I notice you studiously avoided the picture of the stars going in a straight line at the equator. Double dodge!