81

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 19, 2013, 10:35:27 PM »

I would say he needs to supply some of his articles or sources where he looked at.  Not just "well I looked and I couldn't find it"
He needs to say I looked here and here and here.  Supply the sources, then supply a logical argument. 
In the case of the coin.

The data from this video shows 500 coin flips, all coming up heads.
The odds of a single coin(assuming it is a standard issue coin that has both heads and tails) flip coming up heads is 1/2.
We know that each subsequent coin flip is also 1/2.
Therefore the odds of all 500 coin flips coming up heads is (1/2)^500, or a really small number.
The odds of getting 500 heads in a row is such a small chance that this makes me believe that there is no tails on this coin.

He can't just say "prove me wrong" the burden of proof is on you now.

82

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 19, 2013, 09:48:12 PM »

Asking for proof is not the same as making a contrary claim.  It is asking the one who claimed it to back up that claim with either evidence or a coherently logical explanation.

For example. 

Person 1 "This coin does not have a tails"
Person 2 "Why do say that?  Please provide proof that it doesn't"

Person 2 did not at all state that the coin must have a tails.  Just asked for evidence to back up the claim.

Now in this case, Person 1 could simply show both sides of the coin to Person 2 to prove the negative claim of the coin not having tails.  Or back it up with some evidence such as "I flipped the coin 500 times and every time it landed heads.  Here is the video with the results of every flip. With eye witnesses testimony." 

However, they cannot just say "Prove me wrong" without supplying some supporting evidence.

83

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 19, 2013, 01:14:53 PM »

There is also a huge difference between believing and knowing.

For example, say I flip a coin 500 times.  If they all come up heads, I might be believe that there is no tails on the coin.
Until I physically look at both sides of the coin, there is no way of knowing 100% if there is not a tails on the coin.

However, if my data is limited to just 2 flips, then my belief that there is no tails on the coin really isn't substantiated.

Now say I still claim there is no tails, my opponent asks me why I beloved there is no tails.  The burden of proof lies on me.  I need to show him my data.  I can't just say, "you can't proove a negative, the burden of proof is on you" and walk away.

Now I know this is an oversimplified example, but the premise holds for any claim.

84

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 18, 2013, 09:56:44 PM »

So you are saying that if it is not on wikipedia it does not exist?

Burden of proof is on the claimant.

You are the one who claims that GOCE never corroborated their data with any ground-based source.  Now you can either show that explicitly to be true, or you can maintain your current position, which is that you did not find it on the wikipedia page.  Either is fine, except the latter position is fallacious.

A third option is to make an inductive argument, but you are a long way from that as well.

An expression of skepticism is not a positive claim.

No an expression of skepticism is not.  However, you do claim to know something here

I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.

Which when asked to supply your source of this claim, you failed to do so.  Instead you then shifted, and essentially, said "prove me wrong".  Sorry, you need to prove yourself right.

85

Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch

« on: December 15, 2013, 02:43:01 PM »

The analogy is apt for several reasons. As admitted, a car engine cannot simply be "scaled up" to reach 800mph. This makes the argument that rocket technology is already available to the public invalid. It necessarily does not follow that because small rockets are possible and exist, that a large one weighing hundreds of tons could exceed the speeds necessary to get into space or achieve escape velocity.

Way to move the goal posts.  You claim was reach between 400 and 800mph.  We showed you that internal combustion engines have reached that range. 

Also, it doesn't matter one bit if a car can't reach a certain speed or not.

Your argument of
Car engines can't reach a speed of 800mph has no correlation whatsoever to rocket technology and what a rocket can achieve.

86

Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch

« on: December 13, 2013, 11:46:58 AM »

Your claim was that a gasoline engine could not be "scaled up" to achieve a speed of over 400 mph.  I gave you a list that contained internal combustion engine powered vehicles that have essentially done the exact thing that you are claiming is impossible. 
As for me saying the technology differs but the theory is the same, let me clear that up for you since it seems to have confused you some how.

A car from the 50s versus a modern day car.
Both run on internal combustion engines, same theory behind their opperation.  Inject gas and air, ignite it, the explosion causes the pistons to move which rotate the crankshaft.

Yet the technology in the two are different.  There are more sensors and electronics in the modern day car. Different manufacturing techniques. Different materials.  The list goes on.  Yet the same basic principles behind the internal combustion engine are the same.

87

Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch

« on: December 12, 2013, 05:16:10 PM »

I think that you are using a creative definition for the word "technology".  As I have clearly shown, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is available to the public.  Of course the specific components vary depending on the fuel/oxidizer combination and the overall size of the engine, but the fundamental technology itself is essentially the same from a small reaction control thruster to to the mighty F-1B.  Generally, the biggest obstacle to building liquid fuel rockets is the actual manufacturing of the engine components, which requires some pretty high precision tools.

Gasoline and car engines are available to the public. However, this does not imply that you can take a consumer car engine, 'scale up', and achieve 400mph or 800mph. Your theory that all engines are the same and it was only a matter of NASA 'scaling up' is absurd. As requirements grow to achieve escape velocity, and as fuel and chassis weight increases, it becomes a substantially different situation requiring a substantially different technology.

There are plenty of internal combustion powered cars that can achieve over 400mph.  The theory behind engines is the same.  The Technology differs. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel-driven_land_speed_record

88

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global earth v concave earth.

« on: December 07, 2013, 09:09:10 PM »

Now if I get this correct, altitude is represented by the Y axis correct?
Then sea level would be represented by 0 on the Y axis.

Water always flows from a higher altitude to a lower altitude.

On RE, sea level follows the curve of the earth.  It would stand to reason that the X axis, which is 0 on the Y axis, would be curved also.  All vertical lines would start at the center of the earth and radiate outwards.

I will try to draw a picture if this would help with the imagery, need to download a decent program.

You are backing my point. The x axis should be curved. But it never is in these calculations. Gradient is based on straight edged triangles. Its flat earth mathematics.

That is because the measurement is Feet above sea level. The X axis does not need to be curved to work on a curved surface. 

89

Technology & Information / Re: How to Subnet, an Example

« on: December 07, 2013, 06:35:56 AM »

How does subnetting let me hack youtube videos?

90

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched

« on: December 06, 2013, 09:12:47 PM »

Mary Poppins
My 3 year old loves the dancing penguins.

91

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Nelson Mandella is dead

« on: December 06, 2013, 01:54:52 AM »

You beat me to it Yaakov.

92

Technology & Information / Re: Laptop needed

« on: December 06, 2013, 01:34:54 AM »

I personally would avoid Dell.  I have had personal issues with their customer service.  We got my dad a laptop years ago for Christmas we also knew that he was rough on his stuff, so we purchased the accidental damage warranty on top of it.  We were told it would cover any sort of accidental damage from dropping to spillage for 2 years.  Well a little over a year later, he spilt his coffee all over it.  When we sent it in for service, they wouldn't cover it because of liquid damage.  I just feel that they are not honest with their sales tactics.

For brands, I would recommend Asus or Toshiba.  I had a Toshiba laptop for 8+ years before it finally went out.  I currently have an Asus X550C laptop that I like.  I build all my desktops with Asus motherboards and have not had any issues with the brand. 

93

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global earth v concave earth.

« on: December 06, 2013, 01:26:19 AM »

Now if I get this correct, altitude is represented by the Y axis correct?
Then sea level would be represented by 0 on the Y axis.

Water always flows from a higher altitude to a lower altitude.

On RE, sea level follows the curve of the earth.  It would stand to reason that the X axis, which is 0 on the Y axis, would be curved also.  All vertical lines would start at the center of the earth and radiate outwards.

I will try to draw a picture if this would help with the imagery, need to download a decent program.

94

Flat Earth Community / Re: Space rocket launches.

« on: December 04, 2013, 04:42:40 PM »

In case you are not aware, sceptimatic deleted his account.

Well I'll be damned. 

95

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Text Boxes don't appear when using the forum in Google Chrome

« on: December 04, 2013, 04:37:58 PM »

I am using Chrome and the text box looks fine.
What version are you using?
I have Version 31.0.1650.57 m
on Win 8.1

96

Flat Earth Community / Re: Space rocket launches.

« on: December 04, 2013, 04:22:35 PM »

Since you didn't answer before, I will ask again.

Why wouldn't a rocket going to fly in a CURVED orbit around a CURVED planet not fly in a CURVED path to reach the CURVED orbit?

Notice something there?  They are all curved.  The flight path curves to add velocity to get up to the orbital velocity that is required.

Two curved lines can intersect. 

97

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global earth v concave earth.

« on: December 04, 2013, 02:14:18 PM »

Then why are there ones in Chicago?

They aren't close to the sea.

98

Technology & Information / Re: Adobe pushing McAfee crapware

« on: December 03, 2013, 08:35:11 PM »

Well that is bull shit then.

99

Technology & Information / Re: Adobe pushing McAfee crapware

« on: December 03, 2013, 08:29:39 PM »

Yeah, I noticed that when I installed reader.  Apparently, when you download it, you have to uncheck it prior to downloading the file. Not when you install it like every other program.

100

Flat Earth Community / Re: Space rocket launches.

« on: December 03, 2013, 08:16:13 PM »

We are told that rockets launch into space and yet we all observe (on TV) that the rockets go into the sky and are followed by camera, even to the point of the camera looking at the rocket against the darkness of space.
Take a loot at footage of launches, "through clouds" and ask yourself how the rocket can still be observed.
Secondly, ask yourself how a  rocket (in a lot of footage) tends to arc, not long after take off.

If the earth is curved, then how could an arced rocket ever achieve a so called trajectory through the atmospheric barrier into so called space.
Have a real think about this people, because it makes no sense, seriously.

Take a look at as many launches as you want to and it does not add up.
Of course, we can be told that it arcs to help it into space, but that makes no sense, because if that was the case, it would arc when it's close to space, if space is what they tell us, which it isn't, but that's another story.

Arcing as low as the rockets do arc, would render them useless and only good enough for a splash down into the ocean. Hmmmm.
Your space rockets are ballistic missile launches. Simply fuel filled missiles aimed towards the sea.
What you see on TV, is CGI, manipulated footage and what anyone sees from their REAL LIFE vantage point, is a ballistic missile launch, which if anyone has had the luck to see one, they will notice that missile go into an arc in short order.

I fully expect quite a few global earth proponents to come in and say " I've seen one and it's a real space rocket and I watched it all the way into space"...I'm expecting that, so save yourself the bother of telling me that...just in case you thought it would sway me.

Any genuine people here that's seen a launch and can describe it from a LIVE vantage point?

Tell me.  Why wouldn't a rocket that is flying into an orbit fly in a curved flight path? Please assume for this example that the earth is a globe.

In order to go into orbit, it needs to obtain some sort of lateral velocity.  It would not be practical to fly up to the height needed, stop, then add the lateral velocity.

I am including this image to illustrate what I am talking about.


http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktrflght.html