The Geometry of Circumpolar Stars

Geoff, I'm glad you're no longer responding to me, please carry that behavior over to other threads as you never have anything to add beyond a foul temper and assertion.

LOL... at least you've had the decency to indirectly admit you can't even name 6 scientists that accept that the earth is anything other than an oblate spheroid.     And so many to choose from?   Tsk, tsk, tsk.....

   

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 05, 2015, 03:19:27 AM

Geoff, I'm glad you're no longer responding to me, please carry that behavior over to other threads as you never have anything to add beyond a foul temper and assertion.

LOL... at least you've had the decency to indirectly admit you can't even name 6 scientists that accept that the earth is anything other than an oblate spheroid.     And so many to choose from?   Tsk, tsk, tsk.....

   

that is word for word a fallacy. every new idea was once held by just a handful of people. every new idea faced opposition, even if it was true. your inability to ever respond to logic presented to you, and your constant evasion, and changing the topic to something that doesn't even matter as it is a clear appeal to authority speaks for itself. your worship of scientist and refusal to admit they're motivated by money not truth, and your refusal to defend that notion, also says a lot.

face it. you're a broken record, and not even a very good one.

Every new idea was once held by just a handful of people. every new idea faced opposition, even if it was true.

Fair enough comment.  And I agree.

So... who are those half dozen accredited scientists that accept that the world is flat?  You know... that "handful" you've mentioned?

Surely if there's just a handful, you must be familiar with their research and their opinions that support your own flat earth claims?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 05, 2015, 06:56:19 AM

Every new idea was once held by just a handful of people. every new idea faced opposition, even if it was true.

Fair enough comment.  And I agree.

So... who are those half dozen accredited scientists that accept that the world is flat?  You know... that "handful" you've mentioned?

Surely if there's just a handful, you must be familiar with their research and their opinions that support your own flat earth claims?

face it. you're a broken record, and not even a very good one.

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 05, 2015, 08:20:34 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 05, 2015, 06:56:19 AM

Every new idea was once held by just a handful of people. every new idea faced opposition, even if it was true.

Fair enough comment.  And I agree.

So... who are those half dozen accredited scientists that accept that the world is flat?  You know... that "handful" you've mentioned?

Surely if there's just a handful, you must be familiar with their research and their opinions that support your own flat earth claims?

face it. you're a broken record, and not even a very good one.

At last... you admit you can't name even ONE single scientist that accepts that the earth is flat.

Thank you.  I rest my case.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 05, 2015, 08:25:47 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 05, 2015, 08:20:34 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 05, 2015, 06:56:19 AM

Every new idea was once held by just a handful of people. every new idea faced opposition, even if it was true.

Fair enough comment.  And I agree.

So... who are those half dozen accredited scientists that accept that the world is flat?  You know... that "handful" you've mentioned?

Surely if there's just a handful, you must be familiar with their research and their opinions that support your own flat earth claims?

face it. you're a broken record, and not even a very good one.

At last... you admit you can't name even ONE single scientist that accepts that the earth is flat.

Thank you.  I rest my case.

i don't need to
you need to stop your worship and blind following of people out for money, and start using logic instead of a verbatim fallacy.

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 05, 2015, 08:42:28 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 05, 2015, 08:25:47 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 05, 2015, 08:20:34 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 05, 2015, 06:56:19 AM

Every new idea was once held by just a handful of people. every new idea faced opposition, even if it was true.

Fair enough comment.  And I agree.

So... who are those half dozen accredited scientists that accept that the world is flat?  You know... that "handful" you've mentioned?

Surely if there's just a handful, you must be familiar with their research and their opinions that support your own flat earth claims?

face it. you're a broken record, and not even a very good one.

At last... you admit you can't name even ONE single scientist that accepts that the earth is flat.

Thank you.  I rest my case.

i don't need to
you need to stop your worship and blind following of people out for money, and start using logic instead of a verbatim fallacy.

You don't need to?  Are you serious?  Do you expect us to believe your silly notions about the earth being allegedly flat with not even one single scientist agreeing with you?  Why should anyone accept the delusional rantings of a lone flat earther? 

And why don't any scientists agree with you?  Could it be that they too—all 6 million of them—think you're a whack-job?

You've really brought yourself undone now haven't you.  Even your flat earth peers have deserted you, and that in itself says something LOL.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 05, 2015, 08:46:55 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 05, 2015, 08:42:28 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 05, 2015, 08:25:47 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 05, 2015, 08:20:34 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 05, 2015, 06:56:19 AM

Every new idea was once held by just a handful of people. every new idea faced opposition, even if it was true.

Fair enough comment.  And I agree.

So... who are those half dozen accredited scientists that accept that the world is flat?  You know... that "handful" you've mentioned?

Surely if there's just a handful, you must be familiar with their research and their opinions that support your own flat earth claims?

face it. you're a broken record, and not even a very good one.

At last... you admit you can't name even ONE single scientist that accepts that the earth is flat.

Thank you.  I rest my case.

i don't need to
you need to stop your worship and blind following of people out for money, and start using logic instead of a verbatim fallacy.

You don't need to?  Are you serious?  Do you expect us to believe your silly notions about the earth being allegedly flat with not even one single scientist agreeing with you?  Why should anyone accept the delusional rantings of a lone flat earther? 

And why don't any scientists agree with you?  Could it be that they too—all 6 million of them—think you're a whack-job?

You've really brought yourself undone now haven't you.  Even your flat earth peers have deserted you, and that in itself says something LOL.

i'll just wait for you to even try to respond to logic rather than evade and persistently change the subject. your round earthers have deserted you.

broken record.

No, I agree and stand with Geoff on this.

You aren't a tool, you're a toolshed.

Nope.
AusGeoff isn't basing his argument on voices from inanimate, possibly fairy tale substance that can't be tested in any way.  He doesn't use that same substance to plug into everything he doesn't understand.  He also uses logic in many of his arguments.
So nope, no one here disagrees with his assessment of you being quite a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

"that boy's cheese done slid off his cracker"  The Green Mile

face it. you're a broken record, and not even a very good one.

Says the child who has whined on for 5 pages about how he has beaten my million pound challenge, when he didn't even bother to read the rules and won't accept he's failed harder than a bullet into concrete.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 01:06:53 PM

I'll wait for you to supply anything.

And while you're waiting, you might like to address my earlier question, which you seem to have ignored thus far for some reason:

Can you name 6 scientists who accept the flat earth theory—from the worldwide pool of 6,000,000?

If i took away from you any of these presumptions...

1. alleged tilt of the earth
2. alleged rotation of the earth
3. alleged revolution of the earth

...would you still be able to explain DAY AND NIGHT on the supposedly ROUND earth?

Find me one scientist in the world who is able to do that!

You can begin with Alpha2Omega...

Now, since you can't do that, the only way how you can save your face (and faces of all scientists in the world) is to give us the name of at least ONE SINGLE SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT (that has EVER been done) which results unequivocally have proven that any of the above hypothesis could be anything else but hypothesis.

Since you can't do that, then you and all scientists in the whole world have nothing. Nothing at all!!!

If i took away from you any of these presumptions...

1. alleged tilt of the earth
2. alleged rotation of the earth
3. alleged revolution of the earth

...would you still be able to explain DAY AND NIGHT on the supposedly ROUND earth?

Find me one scientist in the world who is able to do that!

...what

Lets have an exercise in circular argument.

Ill counter your argument with:

If I took away only one thing from your side.  The Conspiracy.

flat Earth theory completely is crushed by NASA, Southern circumpolar stars, Southern midnight sun, Thousands of experiments done in space, pictures from space, Science, etc.

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 04, 2015, 03:30:49 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 01:06:53 PM

I'll wait for you to supply anything.

And while you're waiting, you might like to address my earlier question, which you seem to have ignored thus far for some reason:

Can you name 6 scientists who accept the flat earth theory—from the worldwide pool of 6,000,000?

If i took away from you any of these presumptions...

1. alleged tilt of the earth
2. alleged rotation of the earth
3. alleged revolution of the earth

...would you still be able to explain DAY AND NIGHT on the supposedly ROUND earth?

Find me one scientist in the world who is able to do that!

You can begin with Alpha2Omega...

Now, since you can't do that, the only way how you can save your face (and faces of all scientists in the world) is to give us the name of at least ONE SINGLE SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT (that has EVER been done) which results unequivocally have proven that any of the above hypothesis could be anything else but hypothesis.

Since you can't do that, then you and all scientists in the whole world have nothing. Nothing at all!!!

How about Michelson, Gale and Pearson for a start - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment

How about Michelson, Gale and Pearson for a start - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment

1. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660101#msg1660101
2. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003

Quote from: cikljamas on March 05, 2015, 11:27:20 AM

If i took away from you any of these presumptions...

1. alleged tilt of the earth
2. alleged rotation of the earth
3. alleged revolution of the earth

...would you still be able to explain DAY AND NIGHT on the supposedly ROUND earth?

Find me one scientist in the world who is able to do that!

...what

You know, if I took the engine out of your car you couldn't drive around, so cars don't exist.

Quote from: neimoka on March 05, 2015, 12:27:03 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on March 05, 2015, 11:27:20 AM

If i took away from you any of these presumptions...

1. alleged tilt of the earth
2. alleged rotation of the earth
3. alleged revolution of the earth

...would you still be able to explain DAY AND NIGHT on the supposedly ROUND earth?

Find me one scientist in the world who is able to do that!

...what

You know, if I took the engine out of your car you couldn't drive around, so cars don't exist.

Which is obviously CONCLUSIVE PROOF for flat earth that anyone who can think for themselves must realize or ur dumb. Omg, we've been wrong about it all.

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 04, 2015, 03:30:49 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 01:06:53 PM

I'll wait for you to supply anything.

And while you're waiting, you might like to address my earlier question, which you seem to have ignored thus far for some reason:

Can you name 6 scientists who accept the flat earth theory—from the worldwide pool of 6,000,000?

If i took away from you any of these presumptions...

1. alleged tilt of the earth
2. alleged rotation of the earth
3. alleged revolution of the earth

...would you still be able to explain DAY AND NIGHT on the supposedly ROUND earth?

Find me one scientist in the world who is able to do that!

You can begin with Alpha2Omega...

Now, since you can't do that, the only way how you can save your face (and faces of all scientists in the world) is to give us the name of at least ONE SINGLE SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT (that has EVER been done) which results unequivocally have proven that any of the above hypothesis could be anything else but hypothesis.

Since you can't do that, then you and all scientists in the whole world have nothing. Nothing at all!!!

Since we're not revolving, then we can't have a Sun either, so there is no day; only night. Not a lot to explain.

I don't think that's what you meant, though. Extending the hypothetical even further (we're already in this deep, so why not), if we still get to have the Sun, and the Earth is somehow suspended motionless 93,000,000 miles from it, then "day" is the half of the Earth always receiving direct sunlight, and "night" is the part facing away from the sun and never receiving even sunlight scattered by the atmosphere (sure, why not say we can still have an atmosphere). Between is a permanent Twilight Zone (kinda like where we already are in this scenario). Slightly more than half of Earth is always day, part is always night, part is perpetual twilight. Anything else to explain?

I just did it! Do I get a million Lugies or whatever your currency is? Would a million be enough to buy a cold beer?

Fortunately for us, we live on a spherical earth that's orbiting the sun at a distance that puts the planet in "the Goldilocks Zone" (not too hot, not too cold... just right  for liquid water at the surface), spinning (so the heat and light of the Sun gets distributed around the planet) around an axis tilted about 23 degrees from perpendicular to the plane of the orbit (causing seasonal changes, which keep the atmosphere and oceans stirred up, which may have been a factor in creating, and perhaps sustaining, life). This model is the only coherent one consistent with results of a myriad of independent observations of unrelated phenomena. It also has the advantage of being simple.

While we have a lot: an excellent model, with mountains of data independently and consistently confirming it, we still won't be able to prove the above model is correct. Science doesn't traffic in proof, it deals only with evidence and models that fit the evidence. No other model can even get off the ground (so to speak), so the heleocentric-orbit, spinny-tilty model will stand as correct until something better comes along. It'll have to be a hella lot better to take over.

Let me reword it for you cik.
If there is no conspiracy
The pictures from NASA show a round Earth
The tilt of the Earth coupled with the revolution around the sun therefore explains the Seasons
The Revolution of the Earth explains night and day
Since the Earth is not flat, Gravity explains why we stay on the Earth
Gravity reinforces the Earth being round since a large enough mass will form a sphere under gravitational forces

There I used a cik style rational to completely crush the Flat Earth.  Think for yourself stop being a sheep to fit in with these Flat Earth people.
GAME OVER cik  you lose.

How does that feel there?  Kinda silly ain't it.  To assume something then base all your arguments off of it.  Only my assumption is backed up by very large amounts of data, experiments, People who study how to think for themselves and are trained to question the world around them (they are called Scientists), Tons of observations that are backed up, no magical aether, etc.

If i took away from you any of these presumptions...

1. alleged tilt of the earth
2. alleged rotation of the earth
3. alleged revolution of the earth

...would you still be able to explain DAY AND NIGHT on the supposedly ROUND earth?

Find me one scientist in the world who is able to do that!

You can begin with Alpha2Omega...

Now, since you can't do that, the only way how you can save your face (and faces of all scientists in the world) is to give us the name of at least ONE SINGLE SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT (that has EVER been done) which results unequivocally have proven that any of the above hypothesis could be anything else but hypothesis.

Since you can't do that, then you and all scientists in the whole world have nothing. Nothing at all!!!

The Socratc model of the universe actually explains what you said was impossible to explain, it states that the round Earth is stationary while everything revolves around it.  That model can actually explain sunsets, unlike FET.

The Socratc model of the universe actually explains what you said was impossible to explain, it states that the round Earth is stationary while everything revolves around it.  That model can actually explain sunsets, unlike FET.

Would you be content with an "Inverse-Toroid" version of the flat earth concept?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map_edit.jpg

If you were to take a doughnut and press it into wet cement and then remove the doughnut, the rounded impression it left in the cement would be what is known in mathematics as an inverse toroid.

"How strange it appears, that one of the most ingenious mathematicians the world ever produced, assumed for certain purposes that the earth was a globe, that it revolved, that its revolutions caused the fluid and plastic matter of its substance to determine towards the equator--causing it to "bulge out" to a greater extent than the diameter in the direction of the axis, and therefore the circumference .at the equator must be greater than the circumference at right angles, or in the direction of latitude; or, in other words, that the degrees of latitude must diminish towards the poles, and yet "men of the greatest skill," with "instruments of the most perfect construction," having availed themselves of "all that science can do," have succeeded in making measurements the most exact "ever made on the face of the earth," have found results the very reverse of all that the Newtonian theory deemed essential to its consistency and perfection! Instead of the degrees diminishing towards the pole they were found to increase; as if the earth were egg-shaped or prolonged through its axis, and not, like an orange, flattened at the sides--"as if;" to use more scientific language, "the earth were an oblong instead of an oblate spheroid."

Read more : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za40.htm

Nope.
AusGeoff isn't basing his argument on voices from inanimate, possibly fairy tale substance that can't be tested in any way.  He doesn't use that same substance to plug into everything he doesn't understand.  He also uses logic in many of his arguments.
So nope, no one here disagrees with his assessment of you being quite a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

"that boy's cheese done slid off his cracker"  The Green Mile

i use logic. your refusal to accept it is no one's fault but your own.

we know the earth is not round because there is no way for this to form when matter is being accelerated (even round earths admit this). the natural shape is a disc. what makes a disc work the way we see? we then deduce the presence of aether. even without my personal experience of it, it requires the least assumptions to explain what we see: the acceleration and celestial bodies. we also see, for example, that the moon provides light and does not reflect it because rocks are not that bright. blind adherence to spectroscopy rather than observational evidence and deduction are all we need for that. the correct deduction from spectroscopy making an obviously star-like object (stars being metal heated white-hot by friction with the aether) seem like mere rock is "well something must be interfering with our measurements." that is more proof of aether.
there are many more. your ignorance only speaks of your inability to read.

Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on March 05, 2015, 09:53:15 AM

Nope.
AusGeoff isn't basing his argument on voices from inanimate, possibly fairy tale substance that can't be tested in any way.  He doesn't use that same substance to plug into everything he doesn't understand.  He also uses logic in many of his arguments.
So nope, no one here disagrees with his assessment of you being quite a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

"that boy's cheese done slid off his cracker"  The Green Mile

i use logic. your refusal to accept it is no one's fault but your own.

we know the earth is not round because there is no way for this to form when matter is being accelerated (even round earths admit this). the natural shape is a disc. what makes a disc work the way we see? we then deduce the presence of aether. even without my personal experience of it, it requires the least assumptions to explain what we see: the acceleration and celestial bodies. we also see, for example, that the moon provides light and does not reflect it because rocks are not that bright. blind adherence to spectroscopy rather than observational evidence and deduction are all we need for that. the correct deduction from spectroscopy making an obviously star-like object (stars being metal heated white-hot by friction with the aether) seem like mere rock is "well something must be interfering with our measurements." that is more proof of aether.
there are many more. your ignorance only speaks of your inability to read.

Go out at night.
Get a rock.
Shine a bright torch on to it.
It will appear very very bright.

If you went as far as actually measuring the light levels you would see that it would probably reflect more light than the moon does.

Also, see how bright the reflections of headlights from cars are from the surface of a road, and that is a surface that is very dark.

If i took away from you any of these presumptions...

1. alleged tilt of the earth
2. alleged rotation of the earth
3. alleged revolution of the earth

...would you still be able to explain DAY AND NIGHT on the supposedly ROUND earth?

Uh... what?  This is totally absurd.  Are you serious?

It's not up to someone like you to simply ignore these sorts of scientific tenets at a mere whim, and then fabricate a new set of your own rules for the planet.  You'd be immediately laughed out of every university in the world.  Exactly as I'm laughing at you right now.

I use logic. Your refusal to accept it is no one's fault but your own.

Nope. you don't use "logic".  You don't even understand what logic actually is.  You seem to think it entails proposing outlandish pseudo-scientific notions that contradict all the laws of science, and then insulting the intelligence of anybody who points out all the obvious errors in those notions.

Logic involves rules of inference and defined axioms.  You use neither.  End of story.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 03:46:52 AM

I use logic. Your refusal to accept it is no one's fault but your own.

Nope. you don't use "logic".  You don't even understand what logic actually is.  You seem to think it entails proposing outlandish pseudo-scientific notions that contradict all the laws of science, and then insulting the intelligence of anybody who points out all the obvious errors in those notions.

Logic involves rules of inference and defined axioms.  You use neither.  End of story.

logic is logic. if logic defies your precious science, then your science is wrong unless you would rather say it depends on something other than logic.
i'm waiting for you to make one relevant point, or one thing that's more than assertion.

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 06, 2015, 05:43:32 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 03:46:52 AM

I use logic. Your refusal to accept it is no one's fault but your own.

Nope. you don't use "logic".  You don't even understand what logic actually is.  You seem to think it entails proposing outlandish pseudo-scientific notions that contradict all the laws of science, and then insulting the intelligence of anybody who points out all the obvious errors in those notions.

Logic involves rules of inference and defined axioms.  You use neither.  End of story.

logic is logic. if logic defies your precious science, then your science is wrong unless you would rather say it depends on something other than logic.
i'm waiting for you to make one relevant point, or one thing that's more than assertion.

Logic = math and math doesn't go against science.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 08:17:13 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 06, 2015, 05:43:32 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 03:46:52 AM

I use logic. Your refusal to accept it is no one's fault but your own.

Nope. you don't use "logic".  You don't even understand what logic actually is.  You seem to think it entails proposing outlandish pseudo-scientific notions that contradict all the laws of science, and then insulting the intelligence of anybody who points out all the obvious errors in those notions.

Logic involves rules of inference and defined axioms.  You use neither.  End of story.

logic is logic. if logic defies your precious science, then your science is wrong unless you would rather say it depends on something other than logic.
i'm waiting for you to make one relevant point, or one thing that's more than assertion.

Logic = math and math doesn't go against science.

if you define science as truth, that is accurate. what you call science is not truth, if it can be defied by simple logic. please don't make me repeat myself again, i am very tired of doing so.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 06, 2015, 08:42:40 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 08:17:13 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 06, 2015, 05:43:32 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 03:46:52 AM

I use logic. Your refusal to accept it is no one's fault but your own.

Nope. you don't use "logic".  You don't even understand what logic actually is.  You seem to think it entails proposing outlandish pseudo-scientific notions that contradict all the laws of science, and then insulting the intelligence of anybody who points out all the obvious errors in those notions.

Logic involves rules of inference and defined axioms.  You use neither.  End of story.

logic is logic. if logic defies your precious science, then your science is wrong unless you would rather say it depends on something other than logic.
i'm waiting for you to make one relevant point, or one thing that's more than assertion.

Logic = math and math doesn't go against science.

if you define science as truth, that is accurate. what you call science is not truth, if it can be defied by simple logic. please don't make me repeat myself again, i am very tired of doing so.

You didn't actually answer his post. He accurately said, Logic = Math.

Mathematics is literally just logic boiled down to its most simple form. It is humans attempt to remove words from the process of looking at things logically. Mathematics is literally Logic distilled.

Round Earth science is 100% backed up by math, ergo 100% backed up by logic.

Think for yourself. Use logic(math) and then come back when you have.