Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[PhantomWolf]

AGAIN Red Herring Fallacy via Begging The Question Fallacy: Where'd you get "Gas Pressure" to begin with if there's NOT a Container...? <--- Answer this First; THEN we can discuss the mysteries of "Varying Pressure" in a Container.

Yes you are begging the question, because you continue to claim that air pressure can only exist in a container, but have repeatedly failed to prove this claim.

In the real world there are a lot of examples of air pressure without a container, from Yacht sails, to aircraft wings, to hurricanes, to tornadoes, to breezes, to the fan I am sitting in front of right now.

I noticed that you claimed that the oceans have a container, what container is that, and how does it differ to say, air in a valley or depression?

You are the one making the claim here, time to prove that air pressure can only exist in a container, and since you expect Experimental proof, so do I, linking to a website is not an acceptable proof.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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!

I thought it was funny that he claimed that the Celestial South Pole doesn't exist and then promptly posted a quote saying that it does.

ETA: Do you think he's noticed the flag in my sig and realised where I live yet? The whole Flat Earth thing would be painfully obvious to anyone living down here. For a start, it'd take longer than three hours to fly Auckland to Sydney, but I have noticed that Flat Earthers stubbornly ignore things like Flight times between Perth and Cape Town, or Sydney and Auckland, or the experiences of sailors that routinely sail between South Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand. It takes a ship about 25 days to get here from South America, impossible on a flat Earth, yet ignored by people like Daniel. That I can go outside at night and physically see the starts rotating about the South Celestial Pole over a matter of hours also seems to go over their heads when they make such foolish claims as that the South Celestial Pole doesn't exist. Funny thing, I have been to the Northern Hemisphere, I have seen the Big Dipper and the Pole Star. I can't see them when I am here, but I can see the Southern Cross. I see Canopus all year around, along with Sirius, but I hardly get to see Vega or Capella. These are facts of life here, and it's crazy anyone would dispute them, it would be as crazy as someone claiming that Australia didn't exist.

 

[LSSBB]

I thought it was funny that he claimed that the Celestial South Pole doesn't exist and then promptly posted a quote saying that it does.

ETA: Do you think he's noticed the flag in my sig and realised where I live yet? The whole Flat Earth thing would be painfully obvious to anyone living down here. For a start, it'd take longer than three hours to fly Auckland to Sydney, but I have noticed that Flat Earthers stubbornly ignore things like Flight times between Perth and Cape Town, or Sydney and Auckland, or the experiences of sailors that routinely sail between South Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand. It takes a ship about 25 days to get here from South America, impossible on a flat Earth, yet ignored by people like Daniel. That I can go outside at night and physically see the starts rotating about the South Celestial Pole over a matter of hours also seems to go over their heads when they make such foolish claims as that the South Celestial Pole doesn't exist. Funny thing, I have been to the Northern Hemisphere, I have seen the Big Dipper and the Pole Star. I can't see them when I am here, but I can see the Southern Cross. I see Canopus all year around, along with Sirius, but I hardly get to see Vega or Capella. These are facts of life here, and it's crazy anyone would dispute them, it would be as crazy as someone claiming that Australia didn't exist.

Believe it or not, I've encountered a Flat Earth Australian at one point. They're all around the globe!

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes you are begging the question, because you continue to claim that air pressure can only exist in a container, but have repeatedly failed to prove this claim.

In the real world there are a lot of examples of air pressure without a container, from Yacht sails, to aircraft wings, to hurricanes, to tornadoes, to breezes, to the fan I am sitting in front of right now.

I noticed that you claimed that the oceans have a container, what container is that, and how does it differ to say, air in a valley or depression?

You are the one making the claim here, time to prove that air pressure can only exist in a container, and since you expect Experimental proof, so do I, linking to a website is not an acceptable proof.

He has repeatedly proven his claim about pressure and a container is false.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Yoohoo, Daniel! This is from post #370 in this thread.

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?

Please be a sound chap and address this question.

 

[Octavo]

Assuming you wish to learn, many of your questions and more are answered here:

The Hunt for Vulcan: . . . And How Albert Einstein Destroyed a Planet, Discovered Relativity, and Deciphered the Universe

It's available in hardcover, paperback, eBook and audio book.

Here's another reason, beyond Dr. Keith's chew toy answer, that this thread is actually useful. I just added a great new book to my shopping list, so thanks for that halleyscomet.

Every now and then I'm reminded why I keep reading these crazy threads and funny as it sounds, this book recommendation is an example.

 

[threadworm]

Nope, they already knew.

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

They knew even before that:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

We can all save ourselves a lot of time here by leaving "Daniel" to stew in her own juices. She has no interest in proper discussion, just bludgeoning everyone she disagrees with by demanding everyone conforms to her vaguely understood version of the scientific method without actually applying it to herself. She will just accuse everyone of applying ad hominems but cheerfully throw them around herself, and will spend all of her time trying to think of any feeble excuse she can think of that will allow her to duck out of answering questions. She will demand evidence without supplying any herself, and cherry pick the literature to find things she thinks validates her argument while ignoring things that prove her wrong in those same pieces of literature. Her favourite phrase is ipse dixit, which given that her entire modus operandi is "because I said so" is massively ironic.

It's an aggressive debating style increasingly common amongst conspiracy nuts, and this site is not the first one to experience it and realise what her game is. All you need to do to realise that is to search her stock phrases.

 

[erlando]

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

You dropped your mask again.

You have also repeatedly failed to address the fact that you asserted that the horizon gets farther away as elevation increases. How is this possible when the Earth is supposedly flat as you claim? A flat earth would have a horizon infinitely far away.

 

[halleyscomet]

Here's another reason, beyond Dr. Keith's chew toy answer, that this thread is actually useful. I just added a great new book to my shopping list, so thanks for that halleyscomet.

Every now and then I'm reminded why I keep reading these crazy threads and funny as it sounds, this book recommendation is an example.

Glad to oblige. I’ve listened to the audio book. It’s a fascinating account.

At some of the creationist religious schools I went to as a kid Einstein‘s theory of relativity was routinely attacked as having never been proven. I found it fascinating that Einstein‘s theory only gained traction because he proved it by solving a mystery that had endured since the time of Newton. The theory topped Newton right out of the gate!

I highly recommend the book.

 

[halleyscomet]

This image seems custom made for Flat Earth threads:

That's what the Flat Earth theory boils down to, trying desperately to claim that some dreams priests had 5,000+ years ago are more accurate than thousands of years of observation and testing.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

What was your "FAITH" based on...?


What "Results"...?


Ahhh, No it's Not. This is Newton's Equation...

Fg ∝ m₁M₂/d²

Factually Incorrect:

1. Equations are "Descriptions"; whereas, Experiments provide "Explanations". So your appeal is Non-Sequitur Fallacy.

2. Your 'scientific community' 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/

Please Reconcile...?


1. Mathematics isn't "Science".

2. Equations don't make "Scientific Predictions". Watch...

Please Define:

1. "Scientific Prediction"...?
2. "POST"- diction...?
3. Jeanne Dixon/Jimmy The Greek/Carnival Tent "Prediction"...?
4. Cyclic Repeat - diction...?

Now Juxtapose the Characteristics of each and place Your "Equation Prediction" trainwreck in the appropriate category...?

3. Begging the Question Fallacy (x2): 'planets' and 'orbits'.


So much so that your 'scientific community' (as if) doesn't follow it! :


Now I posted a retort to this Nonsensical Buffoonery a number of times in this thread but you still can't pull yourself away from 'The Narrative' can ya??

The Flat Earth (or Sphere) isn't "Science" to begin with. Ergo...there is no Flat Earth (or Globe Earth) 'theory".

Read this real slow about 5 times, mmm K?? ...

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

A Scientific Hypothesis is your Experiment Statement; it expresses a TESTABLE proposed CAUSE and EFFECT Relationship - (The Phenomena that was Observed in Step 1) . It's a classic: "If" this "Then" that, motif.

"A Scientific Hypothesis is based on CAUSE-EFFECT reasoning. A scientific hypothesis does not merely state X and Y may be related, but EXPLAINS WHY they are related.
Loehle, C: Becoming a Successful Scientist -- Strategic Thinking for Scientific Discovery; Cambridge University Press, p. 57, 2010

Because Experiments (Hypothesis Tests) ONLY adjudicate 'Cause and Effect'--- How/Why questions. Whatever SHAPE something is (Flat, Sphere, or Spinning/Not Spinning ect)...is a "WHAT/IS" question; it's tantamount to asking:

How/Why is a Breadbox Rectangular, True or False??

i.e., You can NEVER formulate a Viable Alternative Hypothesis;
Ergo...you can NEVER formulate a Viable Null Hypothesis;
Ergo...This isn't "Science"!!

Ergo... by you merely claiming/contemplating this, unequivocally demonstrates that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and WHISTLED DIXIE!!!!!

You just EXPOSED yourself and would "FAIL" 5th Grade General Science.

Thanks for Illustrating, couldn't have done it without'cha :


It was "TIME" about 100 Years ago...


"First I want to tell you what goes WRONG with Newtonian Mechanics...the double-slit experiment is a problem; that's what put's THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR NEWTONIAN PHYSICS."
Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale.
Quantum Mechanics II: (3:18 minute mark)


So we have a Double Slit Experiment with a "Newtonian Particle"--- an Electron. We close one slit and fire a Bevy of Electrons and we get 10 hits @ Point A. We close that slit and open the other slit and fire a bevy of Electrons and we get 8 hits @ Point A.
The "Newtonian Prediction" would be if we fired the same bevy of Electrons with both slits open we MUST GET 18 hits @ Point A. Well ...

We Get A Big Fat ZERO !!

And what does that mean? Well...

"That is the End of Newtonian Physics."
Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale.
Quantum Mechanics II
http://openmedia.yale.edu/projects/iphone/departments/phys/phys201/transcript20.html


Ass'tronomy isn't "Science" either. Crocheting is more Scientific...

Why?? Well Ass'tronomers inherently can't follow 'The Scientific Method'...
"SCIENCE" !!!!

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, AGAIN...

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.

"The Final Arbiter of TRUTH in 'Science' is EXPERIMENT!!"
Lewars, EG: Computational Chemistry -- Introduction to the theory and application of Molecular and Quantum Mechanics; Third Edition 2016, p. 5.


"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

“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

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 Ass'tronomy. It's nothing but Poetry and IMAGINATION.


regards

Snort. Well, everyone’s got to have a hobby.

 

[beachnut]

anti-science Religious cult rises from ignances - Flat Earth Conference goal - $$$

The religious cult of flat earth, based on overwhelming ignorance.



The religious flat earth cult of overwhelming ignorance, quote mines science (debunking flat earth) in a never ending dumbed down Gish Gallop.

(big hint for cult members of the flat earth religion, don't talk about stars, don't use stars to support the delusion of a flat earth. It will expose your overwhelming ignorance of all science/physics/math. Also; don't use anything about physics to support the flat earth delusion, it expose there is no practical knowledge of physics in the flat earth cult of overwhelming ignorance.)


As usual, the cult leaders are not flat earth nuts, they are $$$-nuts.
http://fe2017.com/tickets/

But your ticket, and pay for cult leaders lunch. Flat earth, a scam to make money for the fringe few of the fringe few, from the fringe few believers. A faith based exercise in ignorance.

 

[threadworm]

The religious cult of flat earth, based on overwhelming ignorance.



The religious flat earth cult of overwhelming ignorance, quote mines science (debunking flat earth) in a never ending dumbed down Gish Gallop.

(big hint for cult members of the flat earth religion, don't talk about stars, don't use stars to support the delusion of a flat earth. It will expose your overwhelming ignorance of all science/physics/math. Also; don't use anything about physics to support the flat earth delusion, it expose there is no practical knowledge of physics in the flat earth cult of overwhelming ignorance.)


As usual, the cult leaders are not flat earth nuts, they are $$$-nuts.
http://fe2017.com/tickets/

But your ticket, and pay for cult leaders lunch. Flat earth, a scam to make money for the fringe few of the fringe few, from the fringe few believers. A faith based exercise in ignorance.

But...but...they have experiments, and hypotheses, and verifiable peer reviewed oh wait...

 

[MarkCorrigan]

(To the tune of Daniel by Elton John)

Daniel is typing up nonsense again.
He says you should be able to see, Austral-ia from Spai-n,
Oh and, he just waves science goodbye,
God it looks like Daniel, put more crap before our eyes.

He says space is rigid though I've never been,
I know that's the biggest pile, I've e-e-ever seen,
Oh and, we should know we've seen quite enough.
Lord I miss reason, I miss science so much.

Daniel my brother are you, sure you can't read
All of the reasonings, that your posts are just screeds,
Your sources lied, but you still say they're right,
Did you know the stars, are millions of mi-iles away?

Daniel is typing up nonsense again.
He says you should be able to see, Austral-ia from Spai-n,
Oh and, he just waves science goodbye,
God it looks like Daniel, put more crap before our eyes.
Oh God it looks like Daniel, put more crap before our eyes.

 

[MikeG]

Blatant attempt at the TLA award. Revised song lyrics always get lots of votes.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

It only took about 5 minutes as well!

Still, I'm quite proud of it. If you want to nom it be my guest.

 

[Dr. Keith]

He has repeatedly proven his claim about pressure and a container is false.

He's actually pretty good at it. But, it is subtle and some of us would overlook it if you weren't there to make sure we don't miss his brilliance. Many thanks.

As an aside, do you think it is some sort of socratic method? "People these days are so bad at science that they can't even defend one of the most obvious realities in our modern world."

As a teacher in logic may ask a student to lay out an argument that the sky is blue. The blue-sky-denying teacher appears a bit crazy but forces the student to think more clearly about how an argument is constructed.

 

[MikeG]

.......If you want to nom it be my guest.

Nah, like I said.........too obvious.

 

[Daniel]

Yes you are begging the question, because you continue to claim that air pressure can only exist in a container, but have repeatedly failed to prove this claim.

So I'm Begging The Question and Failed to provide evidence?

That means, I'm assuming there very thing I'm attempting to prove. OK,

I said to have "Gas Pressure" (for the 1879th time ) you MUST HAVE a Container. THEN... because Cognitive Dissonance and Adherence to Fairytales runs rampant in the Spinning-Ball Religion and you remain Willfully Ignorant to Prima Facie Truths, I then provided as evidence:

"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


"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

In the real world there are a lot of examples of air pressure without a container, from Yacht sails, to aircraft wings, to hurricanes, to tornadoes, to breezes, to the fan I am sitting in front of right now.

I noticed that you claimed that the oceans have a container, what container is that

Well if there wasn't a "Container" you wouldn't have Oceans, because...wait for it...it wouldn't be "CONTAINED".
It Conceptually the same as a Swimming Pool. The light coming on yet?


oy vey

 

[Daniel]

Thanks for all of your 'responses'.

Couldn't have EXPOSED "You" without "You". Priceless


regards