*

Offline kasai

  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Follower of Ptolemy
    • View Profile
Re: Are flat-heads willing to admit that they are wrong?
« Reply #60 on: May 04, 2018, 06:36:22 PM »
He got "destroyed" because he didn't do the calculations?
Well, if you refuse to do your own calculations, and are presented with someone else's calculations, then you must either accept them, find significant fault in them, or concede that you don't understand the equations used.
Quote
Well whoop-dee-doo he didn't do the calculations... apparently he got destroyed because he didn't know how or was simply uninterested in your thread. Yeah sure he got destroyed.... Let's just go with that.
Well, as John stated, it was also the fact that they misunderstood conservation of energy, made up some crap that AP Chemistry students can tell is wrong, and lied about SAT scores.
Well still, lying about SAT scores or not, he didn't get destroyed in the thread you guys have, the common misconception you guys have about us is that we're not getting destroyed in these threads at all, we simply get bored, get frustrated (because you guys are ignorant), or just because it's very exhausting arguing with you guys, it's like arguing with a wall.

Re: Are flat-heads willing to admit that they are wrong?
« Reply #61 on: May 04, 2018, 07:16:36 PM »
Well still, lying about SAT scores or not, he didn't get destroyed in the thread.
You seem to have a different definition of "destroyed". Have you seen the first Trump v. Clinton debate? Trump got "destroyed" in that. Even some the Trump supporters had to admit that.

I consider this word to mean, in the context of a debate, that one person is making points that their opponent has an easy rebuttal to, and/or struggles to make rebuttals to their opponent's points.

How about you? Unless you state your definition of "destroyed", it's a fairly straightforward No True Scotsman fallacy:
"No true scotsmen do X."
"My friend is from Scotland, he does X."
"Then clearly they are not a true scotsman."
Quote
We simply get bored,
Just come back a day later. Boredom will pass.

This really doesn't work as an excuse, since a lot of the time I see FEers "getting bored" with a thread, yet still actively posting in other threads.
Quote
get frustrated (because you guys are ignorant), or just because it's very exhausting arguing with you guys, it's like arguing with a wall.
Kinda how Round Earthers sometimes feel. Do you ever see us randomly leaving just one thread, without commenting about such?
Recommended reading: We Have No Idea by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson

Turtle Town, a game made by my brothers and their friends, is now in private beta for the demo! Feedback so far has been mostly positive. Contact me if you would like to play.

Re: Are flat-heads willing to admit that they are wrong?
« Reply #62 on: May 06, 2018, 05:16:29 PM »
Quote
Ah, yes, Pickel B Gravel again. That signature admittedly triggered me the first time I read it, but now I'm used to it. Let's see... You have a rather short memory, right? I dug up a rather engaging thread I had with you https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8013.60
You got destroyed. Remember?

I didn't get destroyed at all. You completely misrepresented my positions and engaged in such cowardice, resorting to strawman fallacies, ad hominem attacks, and red herring attacks. And you kept doing it even after I requested you to refrain from such.

Quote
It was you who didn't understand the conservation of energy.

Of course I understand it. As I've said on that thread, I haven't provided all the details for the proposed model of the Sun. You take the lack of detail I provide and use it to discredit me and the proposed Sun model. Would you like me to do the same? Alright, the Sun isn't billions of years old because comets still exist, which violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Quote
It was you who couldn't do the basic calculations for black body radiation from the Sun.

I don't believe in the premise that the calculations of black body radiation are based on. And asking you why you believed the sun was a certain temperature doesn't mean I couldn't do the basic calculations.

Quote
It was you who made up some electrolysis junk while we tried to explain to you that the energy just wasn't there (aka not addressing/understanding the argument).

You are absolutely wrong. I have addressed the arguments you've made. You kept making too many assumptions and resorted to ad hominem attacks, red herring attacks, and strawman attacks that it just became pointless to argue. You didn't want to have a meaningful discussion of the proposed scientific theory that I was proposing; you simply wanted to insult, fight with, and misrepresent me.

Quote
We then reduced you to asserting that the water came from somewhere and you didn't really understand where the energy came from (and that there's a water stream in space that we cannot see).

I have stated quite clearly that the water vapor formed into clouds and then reversed back into separate hydrogen and oxygen via natural electrolysis. These separate molecules would then diffuse into the Sun to be recombined into h2o and released back into the atmosphere. The water came from the Sun. I've made this clear.

Quote
Not to mention the many different posts douglips and I had to make explaining that combustion reactions cannot make the Sun as hot as 5700 K.

When have I ever said the Sun was that hot? NEVER.

Quote
You also asserted that the Sun is in the atmosphere (wtf?). You don't think a 30-mile wide ball of flaming gas at 5700 K would cause extreme winds? Well, pardon me.

If the Sun was 5700 k, which I never typed that it was, then it would cause extreme winds. But, again, this is a prime example of you resorting to strawman cowardice by insisting (or assuming) that I accept the Sun to be 5700 k.

Quote
And then I caught you in a lie about a 1595 on the SAT, which I know isn't true.

I didn't lie. I told you that the essay is graded in one-point intervals. You just can't admit you're wrong.

Quote
TL;DR: You got destroyed.

And let's not start on the Holocaust denial...

No, I didn't get destroyed. I did get insulted and misrepresented. I did have to argue with many aggressive round earthers. And the holocaust? Everything I've typed about it has not been disproved. Now WHY is that?
Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.

Re: Are flat-heads willing to admit that they are wrong?
« Reply #63 on: May 06, 2018, 05:20:29 PM »
Round earthers take cheap shots and gang up on us that it becomes too tedious and time-consuming to continue the debates.

Ah, there it is AGAIN. The "I don't have the time for this", or "I'm bored with this conversation" get-out clause.

It's not a get-out clause. The round earthers I've come across here are never satisfied with an answer, and they often resort to some form of strawman or red herring cowardice. This question itself refers to flat earth theorists as "flat-heads". If that isn't a derogatory term meant to deride flat earth theorists, then I don't know what is.
Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.

Re: Are flat-heads willing to admit that they are wrong?
« Reply #64 on: May 06, 2018, 06:06:06 PM »
Round earthers take cheap shots and gang up on us that it becomes too tedious and time-consuming to continue the debates.

Ah, there it is AGAIN. The "I don't have the time for this", or "I'm bored with this conversation" get-out clause.

It's not a get-out clause. The round earthers I've come across here are never satisfied with an answer, and they often resort to some form of strawman or red herring cowardice. This question itself refers to flat earth theorists as "flat-heads". If that isn't a derogatory term meant to deride flat earth theorists, then I don't know what is.
Still waiting for you to explain satellite tv.

Re: Are flat-heads willing to admit that they are wrong?
« Reply #65 on: May 06, 2018, 07:41:28 PM »
Quote
Ah, yes, Pickel B Gravel again. That signature admittedly triggered me the first time I read it, but now I'm used to it. Let's see... You have a rather short memory, right? I dug up a rather engaging thread I had with you https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8013.60
You got destroyed. Remember?

I didn't get destroyed at all. You completely misrepresented my positions and engaged in such cowardice, resorting to strawman fallacies, ad hominem attacks, and red herring attacks. And you kept doing it even after I requested you to refrain from such.
Could you point me to a few examples?
Quote
Quote
It was you who didn't understand the conservation of energy.

Of course I understand it. As I've said on that thread, I haven't provided all the details for the proposed model of the Sun. You take the lack of detail I provide and use it to discredit me and the proposed Sun model. Would you like me to do the same? Alright, the Sun isn't billions of years old because comets still exist, which violates the second law of thermodynamics.
How exactly does that violate the second law again?
Quote
Quote
It was you who couldn't do the basic calculations for black body radiation from the Sun.

I don't believe in the premise that the calculations of black body radiation are based on. And asking you why you believed the sun was a certain temperature doesn't mean I couldn't do the basic calculations.
Just curious, but which part of it do you reject?

  • Particles in a material will tend towards a particular distribution of kinetic energy.
  • When two collide a photon is emitted.
  • That photon's frequency is proportional to the energy that it releases.
Quote
Quote
It was you who made up some electrolysis junk while we tried to explain to you that the energy just wasn't there (aka not addressing/understanding the argument).

You are absolutely wrong. I have addressed the arguments you've made. You kept making too many assumptions and resorted to ad hominem attacks, red herring attacks, and strawman attacks that it just became pointless to argue. You didn't want to have a meaningful discussion of the proposed scientific theory that I was proposing; you simply wanted to insult, fight with, and misrepresent me.
I really would like to know what arguments of yours didn't get addressed.
Quote
Quote
We then reduced you to asserting that the water came from somewhere and you didn't really understand where the energy came from (and that there's a water stream in space that we cannot see).

I have stated quite clearly that the water vapor formed into clouds and then reversed back into separate hydrogen and oxygen via natural electrolysis. These separate molecules would then diffuse into the Sun to be recombined into h2o and released back into the atmosphere. The water came from the Sun. I've made this clear.
Does that answer where the energy comes from, though?
Quote
Quote
Not to mention the many different posts douglips and I had to make explaining that combustion reactions cannot make the Sun as hot as 5700 K.

When have I ever said the Sun was that hot? NEVER.
Then why do we see the spectrum that we see?
Quote
Quote
And then I caught you in a lie about a 1595 on the SAT, which I know isn't true.

I didn't lie. I told you that the essay is graded in one-point intervals. You just can't admit you're wrong.
And either way the SAT doesn't cover any science or chemistry.
Quote
And the holocaust? Everything I've typed about it has not been disproved. Now WHY is that?
Have you actually tried using Google?
Recommended reading: We Have No Idea by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson

Turtle Town, a game made by my brothers and their friends, is now in private beta for the demo! Feedback so far has been mostly positive. Contact me if you would like to play.

JohnAdams1145

Re: Are flat-heads willing to admit that they are wrong?
« Reply #66 on: May 07, 2018, 03:46:07 AM »
I didn't lie. I told you that the essay is graded in one-point intervals. You just can't admit you're wrong.

The rest of the stuff in your post isn't worth addressing, as any quick Google search on black-body radiation and basic chemistry will get you those answers. So, since when is the SAT scored out of 1624 points? Yeah, give me a break. Ya lied. Nobody adds the essay to the composite score. I suggest you send me a picture of a College Board score report (no inspect-element tomfoolery), although a screenshot of your score report will definitely win some credibility points. For those who aren't familiar with this issue, Pickel claimed she has a 1595 SAT score, when it's scored on 10-point increments... The essay is scored separately out of 24 points (8 points per scoring criterion). By the way, you shouldn't brag about this, as I'm fairly confident I could get a 1600 on the SAT if I prepared my test-taking skills for a few weeks (it's been a few years), and I know many people who can do the same. Also, I just realized this golden nugget: if she got a 1595 on the SAT, that means she got a 5/24 (or 15/24, but that makes it far less impressive amirite) on the essay LOL.

Hey, perhaps you should actually take a class on thermodynamics and read up on Planck's Law instead of just spouting stuff and claiming to be a member of Mensa... Just a thought... The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one.




And I'm sorry, but I can't resist this guilt-by-association attack: comets and the Sun == 2nd law of thermodynamics? What are you smoking?
By the way, none of the attacks I used were ad hominem. I merely pointed out that you clearly have not taken and/or passed basic physics, and additionally that you are not truthful about your intelligence --- therefore, your outrageous claims should be taken with an ocean of salt.

Actually, for everyone else, I will address why Pickel's argument is the product of an improperly-trained biological neural network:
1. We know the Sun's surface is about 5778 K. I just chose to floor it to 5700 K. This is confirmed by virtually every trained astronomer, a qualification that Pickel thinks she's somewhere close to (hint: you're not.). A complicated way to see this is through measuring the Sun's spectrum and applying Planck's Law. A simple way is to build a solar scorcher -- by the second law of thermodynamics, one can easily see that the Sun must be at least as hot as the temperature of the object being heated up. If you can't see why, well that's what physics class is for. Of course, pretty much every astronomer also says that the core of the Sun is many millions of K.
2. Now that we know that the Sun is extremely hot, we see that water pretty much doesn't exist at such a temperature -- it decomposes to its constituent elements.
3. Therefore, combustion of hydrogen and oxygen cannot yield any energy in such an environment.

Extra information:
Pickel doesn't even know where the energy to split the water comes from. Even if it were magic and somehow worked, it wouldn't work for the reason given above.


I feel like I've repeated myself enough. Pickel and co cannot accept that they are wrong and need to study a ton more before literally assailing almost all of science. I don't see how this isn't a clear-cut disproof of Pickel's argument. Why, then, won't she admit she's just wrong?
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 04:08:47 AM by JohnAdams1145 »