A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements

  • 24 Replies
  • 5525 Views
?

RingwallTheTeacher

  • 135
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earth Factiest
And I quote:

"Once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?"
 
Here is the first assumption I spotted: gravity only pulls directly down. Please, go make yourself a glass of hot chocolate. Excellent. Now that you are back, stir it well until there are some bubbles, a little less than half on the surface of the cup. Now put the blade of the spoon in the middle. Notice when you move near a bubble, it sticks. Now these bubbles are not adhesive, even when you put your hands in dish soap suds they eventually slip off. Now why would this happen? This is an example of the theory of gravity. Because the spoon has such a great gravitational field (greater mass) and the bubble has such a minute mass (gravitational field), the bubble is drawn to the spoon. Much like the enormity of the earth as the spoon, and us bubbles, drawn to the spoon because of it's great mass.
 
I quote again:

"Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion."
 
This is assuming that the beach ball is on, let's say, an earth. Flat or round, this statement would work either way. Ok, so the sand slides off. But this is because it is attracted to the ground, and the beach ball is so light in comparison to the earth, the sand must therefore attract to the earth. But then what about the last statement:
"The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion." This is assuming that the earth is sitting upon a surface greater mass than itself, let's say a giant alien table. Well if the earth was round, then yes, the sand would slide to the table, but not the earth. However, this is assuming that our earth is sitting upon a giant alien table, flat or round.

And yet another quote:

"Now imagine, if only for the sake of argument, that the person on top and the person on bottom can both manage to remain attracted to the ground "below" them. What would happen if the person on one side decided to visit the other? Since the man at the North Pole has a different idea of what is down and up (and in fact experiences an opposite pull from the Earth's gravity) than the person at the South Pole does, when the denizen of the frozen Arctic visits his Antarctic counterpart, they will experience gravitational pulls exactly opposite of each other! The human from the North Pole will "fall up", never returning to the ground, and will continue falling forever into the deep void of outer space!"

But clearly, this is assuming that the gravitational pull of a human is that of the flat earth. Let's say the earth is round- then the gravitational field is a sphere as well, for it must cover the earth. This gravitational field pulls to the very center of the earth, not in any other direction. This is another assumption of a great mass is beneath the earth (south pole in relation to the north ender). But then why would this only affect the north ender? And if there is, say a large hollow ball which surrounds the round earth, and it pulls a direct ray gravitational field. But then the great mass of the hollow ball would then explode from the gravitational "push" from every direction of the earth.

Please comment and discuss.
Volcanoes are caused by the Conspiracy commisioning Goverment Agents to use photoshop hax on the core of a volcano, causing it to erupt when dark matter collides with it (resulting in emissions of bendy light).

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2007, 01:32:23 AM »
Clearly, Tom, you have completely run out of account ideas.  ::)
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

RingwallTheTeacher

  • 135
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earth Factiest
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2007, 01:35:34 AM »
Excuse me? Tom? My name is actually Charles, commonly Charlie, and the only thing that Tom rings a bell as in Tom Marvolo Riddle, commonly Lord Voldemort from the Harry Potter series. Now no matter who you believe I am do discuss. It is not my wish to argue my identity, it is to discuss the theory and proof of RE and FE.

Edit: Ringwall is a username one of my sisters invented, and the teacher is a reference to my own need to enlighten the mistaken.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2007, 01:54:41 AM by RingwallTheTeacher »
Volcanoes are caused by the Conspiracy commisioning Goverment Agents to use photoshop hax on the core of a volcano, causing it to erupt when dark matter collides with it (resulting in emissions of bendy light).

?

RingwallTheTeacher

  • 135
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earth Factiest
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2007, 01:59:01 AM »
And yet I fail to get an explanation as to any of my arguments. I think I'll go make a fresh cup of hot chocolate now.
Volcanoes are caused by the Conspiracy commisioning Goverment Agents to use photoshop hax on the core of a volcano, causing it to erupt when dark matter collides with it (resulting in emissions of bendy light).

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2007, 02:01:59 AM »
I rest my case. :)
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

RingwallTheTeacher

  • 135
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earth Factiest
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2007, 02:05:21 AM »
Then I am assumed to believe that by resting your case, you either cannot answer these unanswerable questions or are just much too lazy on your part to explain. Also, inreference to Hot chocolate, if I receive a viable explanation other than gravitational fields, I will be inclined to believe that you have no case to rest.
Volcanoes are caused by the Conspiracy commisioning Goverment Agents to use photoshop hax on the core of a volcano, causing it to erupt when dark matter collides with it (resulting in emissions of bendy light).

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2007, 02:11:10 AM »
Lazy? I will admit that one. I am lazy because you are asking questions that have been covered before. Nothing you have posited is new, fascinating, or otherwise deserving of the time it would take to expound upon, when the answers you seek, and the debate you seem to yearn for, is plastered before you, all around.

Therefore, the meaning behind your first post can only be assumed to be one thing: You, yourself, are a lazy, armchair scientist, who, rather than allowing themselves to be bothered with reading the site and searching for what they seek, you deign to drop your questions on our collective laps, when they have been asked, time and again, with only a modicum of wording difference.

Thus, we are one of a kind, from different angles.  :-*
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • +0/-0
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2007, 02:12:51 AM »
Ignore midnight. He's borderline insane, and apparently paranoid.

Midnight, stop abusing ringwall. He doesn't seem like Tom, even if he does post the occasional false argument.

Quote
Please, go make yourself a glass of hot chocolate. Excellent. Now that you are back, stir it well until there are some bubbles, a little less than half on the surface of the cup. Now put the blade of the spoon in the middle. Notice when you move near a bubble, it sticks. Now these bubbles are not adhesive, even when you put your hands in dish soap suds they eventually slip off. Now why would this happen? This is an example of the theory of gravity. Because the spoon has such a great gravitational field (greater mass) and the bubble has such a minute mass (gravitational field), the bubble is drawn to the spoon. Much like the enormity of the earth as the spoon, and us bubbles, drawn to the spoon because of it's great mass.
This is false. The amount of gravity due to the spoon is negligible, and the mass of the bubble is more or less irrelevant, because the amount of acceleration produced by gravity is independent of the mass of the accelerated object. The reason the bubble moves is that there are naturally currents in the glass, and adding a spoon only increases the number of currents. Once the bubble comes into contact with the spoon it sticks due to surface tension. You can see that gravity is not at work by trying the same experiment with a wooden spoon; the bubble behaves the same way, even though the wooden spoon is less dense than the water around it, and so attracts the bubble less strongly than the water it displaces would.
-David
E pur si muove!

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • +0/-0
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2007, 02:14:21 AM »
Lazy? I will admit that one. I am lazy because you are asking questions that have been covered before. Nothing you have posited is new, fascinating, or otherwise deserving of the time it would take to expound upon, when the answers you seek, and the debate you seem to yearn for, is plastered before you, all around.
Interesting. I found his first argument both novel and interesting. It was completely false, of course, but interestingly so!
-David
E pur si muove!

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2007, 02:18:19 AM »
Ignore midnight. He's borderline insane, and apparently paranoid.

Borderline insane? *looks down at the next quote*

Midnight, stop abusing ringwall. He doesn't seem like Tom, even if he does post the occasional false argument.

I made no insulting comment. I simply pointed out what someone else would have regardless. His questions are not new.

Many of you tell new faces to read the FAQ. This one clearly did not do so, and here it goes again and again.

Borderline insane, I expected better character from you. I learned something new. So be it. Have your fun then.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • +0/-0
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2007, 02:20:49 AM »
I was kidding with the borderline insane and paranoid bit. Apparently my internet sarcasm transmitter needs retuning. But if accusing someone of being Tom Bishop isn't an insult, I don't know what is.
-David
E pur si muove!

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2007, 02:26:18 AM »
I was kidding with the borderline insane and paranoid bit. Apparently my internet sarcasm transmitter needs retuning. But if accusing someone of being Tom Bishop isn't an insult, I don't know what is.

I will give ground, because it is you I am dealing with, and not Tom himself.

My point in my little Tom Bishop tagline is not that I believe this person IS Tom Bishop, himself. I am saying this person is A Tom Bishop, the same kind of posting animal. They will post random paragraphs of data from a paragraph generator (google the OP until you find such things, and watch midnight once again prove his echelon).

The pattern of Tom's posts is as clear as a glass of water here. A question is posed that has absolutely no known basis in reality, when the same questions are asked around here on a daily basis. This is intentional. If this were NOT intentional, basic internet common sense would dictate this person would have lurked a bit, learned the ropes, understood the level of debate some of you engage in, and then responded in kind. Instead, he created a blanket statement, carbon copy thread, and he knows this.

I don't have anything against people asking a question when they are genuinely seeking knowledge, but when the questions they are asking are merely reworded to get attention, I comment a little less tactful. The guy's a Tom.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2007, 02:27:58 AM by Midnight »
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

KingBunny

  • 189
  • +0/-0
  • King of the Bunnies
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2007, 02:31:09 AM »
"Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball.

I'm aware there's a 99.9% chance whoever you're quoting is trying to be nonsensical on purpose, and a .1% chance that they are really.. um.. special. But anyways:

Obviously setting sand on a Beach ball is nothing like the RO theory. Beach balls do not have gravity.. and neither do SPOONS. It's called water tension. The implication that there's some magical source of gravity positioned just below the Earth is not even something most people would consider.. again, I have no idea who you're quoting, but they seem to understand less about physics than I did in Kindergarten.
Proving FE + Invisible Pink Unicrons simultaneously:
*There's no proof of FE(unicorns) because of a conspiracy(they're invisible).
*There's no proof of a conspiracy(invisibility) because it's a conspiracy(they're invisible!)

?

The Communist

  • 1217
  • +0/-0
  • Paranoid Intellectual & Pedantic Twat
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #13 on: August 21, 2007, 07:24:28 AM »
"Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball.

I'm aware there's a 99.9% chance whoever you're quoting is trying to be nonsensical on purpose, and a .1% chance that they are really.. um.. special. But anyways:

Obviously setting sand on a Beach ball is nothing like the RO theory. Beach balls do not have gravity.. and neither do SPOONS. It's called water tension. The implication that there's some magical source of gravity positioned just below the Earth is not even something most people would consider.. again, I have no idea who you're quoting, but they seem to understand less about physics than I did in Kindergarten.

Correction: massless beach balls and massless spoons possess no gravitation.
On FES, you attack a strawman. In Soviet Russia, the strawman attacks you
-JackASCII

Do you have any outlandish claims to back up your evidence?
-Raist

Quote from: GeneralGayer date=1190908626
Yeah I love gay porn.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #14 on: August 21, 2007, 10:43:54 AM »
I don't think this is Tom.  Tom would have edited that first post at some point.  ;D

And I quote:

"Once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?"
 
Here is the first assumption I spotted: gravity only pulls directly down. Please, go make yourself a glass of hot chocolate. Excellent. Now that you are back, stir it well until there are some bubbles, a little less than half on the surface of the cup. Now put the blade of the spoon in the middle. Notice when you move near a bubble, it sticks. Now these bubbles are not adhesive, even when you put your hands in dish soap suds they eventually slip off. Now why would this happen? This is an example of the theory of gravity. Because the spoon has such a great gravitational field (greater mass) and the bubble has such a minute mass (gravitational field), the bubble is drawn to the spoon. Much like the enormity of the earth as the spoon, and us bubbles, drawn to the spoon because of it's great mass.
 
I quote again:

"Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion."
 
This is assuming that the beach ball is on, let's say, an earth. Flat or round, this statement would work either way. Ok, so the sand slides off. But this is because it is attracted to the ground, and the beach ball is so light in comparison to the earth, the sand must therefore attract to the earth. But then what about the last statement:
"The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion." This is assuming that the earth is sitting upon a surface greater mass than itself, let's say a giant alien table. Well if the earth was round, then yes, the sand would slide to the table, but not the earth. However, this is assuming that our earth is sitting upon a giant alien table, flat or round.

And yet another quote:

"Now imagine, if only for the sake of argument, that the person on top and the person on bottom can both manage to remain attracted to the ground "below" them. What would happen if the person on one side decided to visit the other? Since the man at the North Pole has a different idea of what is down and up (and in fact experiences an opposite pull from the Earth's gravity) than the person at the South Pole does, when the denizen of the frozen Arctic visits his Antarctic counterpart, they will experience gravitational pulls exactly opposite of each other! The human from the North Pole will "fall up", never returning to the ground, and will continue falling forever into the deep void of outer space!"

But clearly, this is assuming that the gravitational pull of a human is that of the flat earth. Let's say the earth is round- then the gravitational field is a sphere as well, for it must cover the earth. This gravitational field pulls to the very center of the earth, not in any other direction. This is another assumption of a great mass is beneath the earth (south pole in relation to the north ender). But then why would this only affect the north ender? And if there is, say a large hollow ball which surrounds the round earth, and it pulls a direct ray gravitational field. But then the great mass of the hollow ball would then explode from the gravitational "push" from every direction of the earth.

Please comment and discuss.
tl; dr
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Jimmy Crackhorn

  • 545
  • +0/-0
  • Not the Physics Wiz everyone else seems to be here
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #15 on: August 21, 2007, 11:18:28 AM »
This guy got his stuff from alaska.net. It's a parody website, and has nothing to do with this one.

?

RingwallTheTeacher

  • 135
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earth Factiest
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #16 on: August 21, 2007, 01:57:45 PM »
Actually, having began read the 'FAQ', I find that all theses answers are nothing but assumptions and wild guesses. One of the most humorous was the one about what the earth was resting on; some rubbish about four elephants and a turtle. And simple answers to hard to answer questions :

The government could not pull off this.
Actually, they could.

It makes as much sense as a child proclaiming they really can fly.  And about the ice wall, exactly where does it split in the map of a RE map? In the Atlantic? Well that can't work, becuase Christopher Columbus travelled across that. let's say going west of America? Ooops, that land bridge from russia is actually the end of the ice wall.
Honestly, how do you think planes fly from country to country?
Volcanoes are caused by the Conspiracy commisioning Goverment Agents to use photoshop hax on the core of a volcano, causing it to erupt when dark matter collides with it (resulting in emissions of bendy light).

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • +0/-0
  • ^_^
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2007, 02:00:59 PM »
Most if not all of your questions are answered here.
OMG!

*

Jimmy Crackhorn

  • 545
  • +0/-0
  • Not the Physics Wiz everyone else seems to be here
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2007, 02:01:34 PM »
Actually, having began read the 'FAQ', I find that all theses answers are nothing but assumptions and wild guesses. One of the most humorous was the one about what the earth was resting on; some rubbish about four elephants and a turtle. And simple answers to hard to answer questions :

The government could not pull off this.
Actually, they could.

It makes as much sense as a child proclaiming they really can fly.  And about the ice wall, exactly where does it split in the map of a RE map? In the Atlantic? Well that can't work, becuase Christopher Columbus travelled across that. let's say going west of America? Ooops, that land bridge from russia is actually the end of the ice wall.
Honestly, how do you think planes fly from country to country?
It's OBVIOUS that the turtle thing is a joke. The FAQ is a outdated. Ask TheEngineer or Dogplatter when the new one is coming. When going across large distances, like oceans, they need a compass. They use the compass to make sure they don't turn. In RE, they go straight. In FE, they turn.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2007, 02:02:09 PM »
It makes as much sense as a child proclaiming they really can fly.

A child can fly. They may board a plane like everyone else.

And about the ice wall, exactly where does it split in the map of a RE map? In the Atlantic? Well that can't work, becuase Christopher Columbus travelled across that. let's say going west of America? Ooops, that land bridge from russia is actually the end of the ice wall.
Honestly, how do you think planes fly from country to country?

Did you see the polarization of the RE?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +2/-4
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2007, 02:48:57 PM »
Quote
In RE, they go straight. In FE, they turn.

The directions of east and west are also curved on a Round Earth.

?

Ferdinand Magellen

  • 651
  • +0/-0
  • REALLY now....
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2007, 03:11:35 PM »
Yes, thats true, tom. But thats primarily because of gravity's effect. A personal FoR allows for a "straight" line, as opposed to RE, where the FoR would still necessitate a curved line.
Ignoring the truth does not make it go away, it just makes you ignorant and disempowered.

Can you change reality by inventing new names for ordinary things?

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2007, 03:17:20 PM »
Yes, thats true, tom. But thats primarily because of gravity's effect. A personal FoR allows for a "straight" line, as opposed to RE, where the FoR would still necessitate a curved line.
I agree that it's true (except on the Equator and under the spherical geometry's definition of straight).

I disagree that gravity is the key to understanding the problem. Remember TomB's example of standing 10 feet south of the NP and traveling due east.

I do think that it's perfectly understandable for someone to express that the "parallels" of RE are straight lines, given our background is seeped in Euclidean plane geometry.

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #23 on: August 22, 2007, 04:20:11 AM »
This guy got his stuff from alaska.net. It's a parody website, and has nothing to do with this one.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: A Civil Discussion about Assumption and Hypocritical Statements
« Reply #24 on: August 22, 2007, 08:07:17 AM »
Actually, having began read the 'FAQ'
...
It makes as much sense as a child proclaiming they really can fly.  And about the ice wall, exactly where does it split in the map of a RE map? In the Atlantic? Well that can't work, becuase Christopher Columbus travelled across that.
Keep on reading the FAQ, your answer to this is right there.

Quote
Honestly, how do you think planes fly from country to country?
Well, you see, airplanes generate these things called lift and thrust...


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson