1
Flat Earth Community / Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« on: December 21, 2016, 05:56:23 AM »
Forget it loser. You are just like every other flat-earther - stupid beyond measure.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:
So you have no evidence, then. Gotcha.
I'll ask that you don't continue to derail threads with your nonsense. You're either trolling or being intentionally obtuse at this point. Either way, it isn't conducive to discussion and you've failed to support a single claim you've made so far in this thread.
If you want to debate, then make a point and support it with evidence.
Thank you all for your responses. Please respond to me one more time.
I realize this is problem for both camps. But in the FE model, the pilot would need to constantly adjust the positioning of the plane so it's going slightly left or right so it looks like it's going straight but it's really going AROUND the circle. If you are a globe-earth person it seems to me the pilot would constantly need to adjust the plane DOWNWARDS slightly as a straight plane would fly further and further away from earth as it curves downward. Any comments?
you MUST be intikam's relative!
Have a day off for low-content and a personal attack
I claim the earth is a sphere.Yes you have, and you've provided no evidence to support that claim.QuoteAS supporting evidence I cite the existence of satellitesYou haven't cited anything. You've made another claim with no evidence.Quotethe 10 million photos of the earth... as a sphere.Citation needed.QuoteI claim boats disappearing over the horizon.Yet you still provide no evidence to support your position. You do well at making claims, though.QuoteI claim air travel times as evidence.Air travel times exist in both models. You're really not very good at supporting your points, even anecdotally (as it's established you never provide evidence for your claims).QuoteNow. YOU provide some SOLID evidence for your flat-earth hypothesis.I'd suggest reviewing the FAQ and wiki. Those resources offer infinitely more evidence than you have put forth so far.QuotePS. it is absolutely unacceptable to simply claim that all photgraphic evidence is faked as you will undoubtedly do.As I will undoubtedly do? Where have I done that? You're attacking an argument I never made. Do you know what the term for that tactic is? You should because you do it an awful lot...Quoteif you want to try that stunt then you have to actually provide evidence that they are faked and not merely claim it.Given that I've made no such claim, this is literally irrelevant. You really need to brush up on basic logic.
I claim the earth is a sphere.Yes you have, and you've provided no evidence to support that claim.QuoteAS supporting evidence I cite the existence of satellitesYou haven't cited anything. You've made another claim with no evidence.Quotethe 10 million photos of the earth... as a sphere.Citation needed.QuoteI claim boats disappearing over the horizon.Yet you still provide no evidence to support your position. You do well at making claims, though.QuoteI claim air travel times as evidence.Air travel times exist in both models. You're really not very good at supporting your points, even anecdotally (as it's established you never provide evidence for your claims).QuoteNow. YOU provide some SOLID evidence for your flat-earth hypothesis.I'd suggest reviewing the FAQ and wiki. Those resources offer infinitely more evidence than you have put forth so far.QuotePS. it is absolutely unacceptable to simply claim that all photgraphic evidence is faked as you will undoubtedly do.As I will undoubtedly do? Where have I done that? You're attacking an argument I never made. Do you know what the term for that tactic is? You should because you do it an awful lot...Quoteif you want to try that stunt then you have to actually provide evidence that they are faked and not merely claim it.Given that I've made no such claim, this is literally irrelevant. You really need to brush up on basic logic.
I simply asked you to provide PROOF or at least significant evidence. This is a classic Flat Earth position: deny all round-earth evidence and then provide zero proof of your own.
Proof or evidence for what? You are the one making claims and then dodging all requests to provide evidence.QuoteI am quite happy to debate, but debate what? Mere claims without any evidence and a mountain of contrary proofs?
You should try debating, then. Your position thus far has been to make claims with no supporting evidence, followed by you essentially saying "prove me wrong." That isn't how debates work at all.
QuoteIf the sun is only 3000 miles away, wouldn't mathematicians have noted it centuries ago?Not if they had started out by assuming that the sun is large and faraway. Applying calculations to the natural universe presupposes that those calculations accurately reflect what reality is. However, determining what reality is requires a more complex inclusion of one's fundamental conceptions of reality. One must use not only math, but rationally informed empirical observation as well. The globularists start out with faith in the scientific method, and then apply math towards what they think science predicts what reality should be. Mathematicians did not notice that the sun is much closer to the surface of the earth because their system of belief led them to assume it was faraway, and they based their calculations on that improper assumption. But in reality, using simple geometry shows that the sun is close to the surface of the earth:
Using the crepuscular rays pictured above, simply measuring the the angle of the rays shows geometrically that the sun is not 93,000,000 million miles away.QuoteHow are the calculations of "the Universe being 13 billion light years across" faked?I am not personally aware of tfes official position on the size of the universe. But as a Planar Theorist I can say that any facts put forth by nasa, or studies based on information disseminated by nasa should be regarded with a grain of salt. But again, nasa's "calculations" are based on a system of belief that presupposes the universe is large. What observations have shown this?QuoteSince astronomy is so top-heavy with mathematics, wouldn't astronomers discover a fakery?Again, what is the assumed structure of reality to which the mathematics are being applied? Math is always true. But just because you assume reality happens to exist in a certain way, applying math to that conception does not make it true. I could cite you the blue prints of the the Enterprise from Star Trek, and the math underlying its architecture and engineering would "work". But that does not make the Enterprise real.
Ironic that you talk of 'burden of proof' and then talk about FE while providing ZERO proof.
Still waiting for you to provide evidence for your claims. You have literally proven my point that many round earthers don't understand their own model well enough to criticize someone else's.QuoteAt least my hypothesis has no evidence of being wrong.
Your "hypothesis" has no evidence at all, because you refuse to provide any. You simply make baseless claims and then deflect when called out.
I'll have what you're having please
I will answer two of your questions. Curvature. yes, you can see it and it has been witnessed about a gazillion times. But I have noticed that FEers cant see it no matter how pronouced. We see it from aircraft - but FEers dont. We see it from space, but FEers dont. We see it on very large fat areas, but FEers dont. So yes, billions of people have seen the curvature.
What were the conditions which you have seen it from an aircraft? Do you know what would be required to notice curvature assuming a round-earth? Also, where do you see it on "very large fat areas?" I am actually interested in your response. This goes back to my previous statement that many of you round earthers don't understand your own model, but sure to like to repeat things they've heard from others. I'd like for you to prove me wrong.QuoteLow IQ. It is an observation that FEers tend to be poorly educated and of below-average intelligence and/or have mental health challenges. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Going to need some evidence for this one, champ.QuoteIf you can find me a prominent scientist who is a FEer I will retract that claim forthwith. ad when I mean scientist I mean university educated and qualified, not some self-proclaimed 'scientist' with a year 8 education
This request is irrelevant. Other than satisfying your own arbitrary conditions, it is also a logical fallacy.
So far, there is only one person I have seen in this thread guilty of what you are claiming, and that is you. It seems you have some issues with projection. You might want to work on that. You should also work on providing evidence for your bold claims, otherwise it is simply nonsensical conjecture.
Like shooting fish in a barrel. if FE had any credbility as a viable alternative model, there would be at least ONE reputable scientist who supports it or gives it credence. All I asked is that you show me ONE. But naturally you declined.
So you have no evidence for your claims. GotchaQuoteAnd my claim is that Flat Earthers are of low IQ and poorly educated. Now if you wish to dispute that then show me evidence that disproves it. For the vast majority of people, belief in FE itself is evidence of poor education and low IQ.
You really don't understand how burden of proof works, do you? It isn't my job to provide evidence to counter your baseless, nonsensical claims. It your job to prove your claims. Of course you can't prove it, so you try to deflect. I do appreciate you showing everyone that you lack a grasp of simple logic, though.QuoteOver to you to see if you can offer any evidence or proof to counter my claims. I dont expect much for the aforementioned reasons.
Sorry friend, you've failed again. I would suggest doing some research to understand the basics of how logic works. You clearly don't understand it, and your failures are making you look worse with every post. Good luck, friend!
Quite simply, gravity is by far the easiest and most consistent explanation for our universal observationsExcept for the part where the scientific consensus acknowledges that it's not consistent, and that a the model needs to be improved before it can be considered accurate. But hey, let's not let that get in the way of your beliefs.
As far as I know, all "Laws" have a limited scope where they are known to be accurate.
The gas "laws" fail at extremely low and high temperatures and pressures.
Newton's "laws of motion" fail at extreme velocities (approaching "c" - UA would be deeper doo-doo without it).
Neither Newtonian gravitation nor GR fits into Quantum Mechanics.
I don't doubt there are numerous other cases.
In other words essentially all of the "Laws of Physics" have a limited range of validity.
So, Newtonian Gravitation or even General Relativity may not be applicable on a very huge or very small scales.
Both, however, explain gravitation very accurately in our local environment and even over the whole of the solar system any corrections are minute.
But, and this is the crux of the whole matter, you would have no idea about these "discrepancies" if they were not publicised by these scientists that you claim are so dishonest!
So, what about sticking to
the here (let's say earth, Solar System and the "nearby stars") and leave cosmology to the cosmologists, and
the now (say recorded history), and leave the origins to those who like delving into the dusty past.
not really as long as you have a relative size of 1.80 m for a 9.8 m/s2 or 90 cm for 19.6 m/s2
as a clue ill tell you that the giants are time travellers, travelling in space is travel in time
if you take mass as inflating in front of space you can take as well space shrinks in front of mass
if you tke an shrinking frame of reference you expect to find a place in the cog moon earth where space spands and mass shrinks the opposite to gravity a wormhhole or time portal
i think movies are real obtained with a chronovisor and news and nasa stuff false
this is accurate:
We see it from aircraft - but FEers dont. We see it from space, but FEers dont.Well, yes, that would be a geometric impossibility bearing in mind the size of the round Earth model, and the altitudes at which aircraft fly. If you can see curvature from aircraft, then you have just dismissed the scientific consensus. Welcome aboard, brother!Low IQ.Interesting. I would never brag about my Mensa membership, but...It is an observation that FEers tend to be poorly educated and of below-average intelligence and/or have mental health challenges. EVERY SINGLE ONE.I hold a Master's degree, and I'm currently in very early stages of my PhD (much to Jura's dismay).If you can find me a prominent scientist who is a FEer I will retract that claim forthwith.Eh, I guess you'll have to give me like 10 years before I get there. Watch this space.
I will answer two of your questions. Curvature. yes, you can see it and it has been witnessed about a gazillion times. But I have noticed that FEers cant see it no matter how pronouced. We see it from aircraft - but FEers dont. We see it from space, but FEers dont. We see it on very large fat areas, but FEers dont. So yes, billions of people have seen the curvature.
What were the conditions which you have seen it from an aircraft? Do you know what would be required to notice curvature assuming a round-earth? Also, where do you see it on "very large fat areas?" I am actually interested in your response. This goes back to my previous statement that many of you round earthers don't understand your own model, but sure to like to repeat things they've heard from others. I'd like for you to prove me wrong.QuoteLow IQ. It is an observation that FEers tend to be poorly educated and of below-average intelligence and/or have mental health challenges. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Going to need some evidence for this one, champ.QuoteIf you can find me a prominent scientist who is a FEer I will retract that claim forthwith. ad when I mean scientist I mean university educated and qualified, not some self-proclaimed 'scientist' with a year 8 education
This request is irrelevant. Other than satisfying your own arbitrary conditions, it is also a logical fallacy.
So far, there is only one person I have seen in this thread guilty of what you are claiming, and that is you. It seems you have some issues with projection. You might want to work on that. You should also work on providing evidence for your bold claims, otherwise it is simply nonsensical conjecture.
Quite simply, gravity is by far the easiest and most consistent explanation for our universal observationsExcept for the part where the scientific consensus acknowledges that it's not consistent, and that a the model needs to be improved before it can be considered accurate. But hey, let's not let that get in the way of your beliefs.
If manned lunar landings were so easy in the 60's and 70's why has no one else done it? Or why haven't we done it since Apollo Missions?
No one claimed that it was easy. In fact, it was really, really expensive, which is why no one else has done it since, including us.QuoteI can imagine many different scientific benefits to experimenting technology or developing it on the moon.
Like what? We already have the ISS for zero-g experiments.
The other problem was that the success of the moonlandings was getting there and getting back safely. UNfortunately, the moon offers little else beyond a place to plant a flag. Mars however...
What does Mars offer? Besides no atmosphere and no magnetic field...
What does Mars offer? Maybe you should aquaint with the reasons so many countries and agencies want to go there. It DOES have an atmosphere albeit thin. It has gravity and a near 24hr rotational cycle. Also, it is the only planet we can reach capable of supporting life.
So what does Mars offer??? A chance to explore and increase our knowledge. it has ice caps, probable water in aquifers.
Why is everyone so worried about making Mars the new Earth instead of the fact that we're making Earth the new Mars?
Wouldn't it make much more sense to build a survival camp on the moon? It's a lot closer, and don't we have a track record of landing on the moon, somehow taking back off of the moon, and returning gently to Earth? Seems like the more logical choice to me. Any system we would plan for mars should probably be tested closer to home first, wouldn't you agree?