1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...

« on: November 07, 2017, 04:03:09 AM »

Ban rocks and sticks too. They can do a lot of damage or even kill.

Ban assault trucks, high capacity gas tanks and fully automatic transmissions!!

Common sense assault truck laws now!!!!

Trucks have many uses other than killing people.  What uses do assault rifles have other than killing people?

what about guns for hunter or sport.

as I said, I think the better thing to do would be to have a stricter gun control not a gun ban.
a gun ban would not help anything,

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's go do an experiment

« on: November 06, 2017, 06:05:56 PM »

And second?

When you can manage the first part we'll talk.

How about you show the evidence that makes you believe that the earth is a globe.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump

« on: November 06, 2017, 04:45:43 PM »

if he really said that, its only another prove that he is not capable to be a president of a country.

  It's a joke, FFS...

As we know what stupid stuff Trump is saying I can believe that he would say something like this.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's go do an experiment

« on: November 06, 2017, 04:40:45 PM »

teach me, what is a good argument for the global earth.

And second?

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...

« on: November 06, 2017, 01:58:59 PM »

My own take.

I would feel a lot LESS safe with a gun if it meant everyone else potentially had a gun

I feel MORE safe, not having a gun, knowing the chances of anyone else having one is SFA.

If an intruder breaks into my house armed with a baseball bat, I can still have a chance of defending myself. If I am allowed to have a gun, chances are he will too and it wouldn't be a baseball bat anymore, but a gun I have to defend myself against.

I would feel more safe if I have a gun and there is a good gun control and I know that other person with guns are also gone thru the good gun control and can be trusted with a gun and they know how to handle it.

That a pretty massive IF even for a fantasy land.

Also, I might be fine today and able to pass any check with flying colours. Tomorrow my life could turn upside down, lose everything, spiral into a deep depression and drink/drug away all my problems. No one is going to say I have to return those guns even if I would massively fail the checks with my new situation

The best a background checks does is basically say, this person at some point in their life passed a background check. There is no requirement after that to conduct yourself in a manner that would continue to see you pass background checks.

Also, with guns so prevalent, who is to say someone who didn't pass the check just didn't go out and steal one?

therefore the repeated check if someone is able to have a gun.

easier to control than a total ban of guns.
what about hunter or security personal or sports?
if you want to ban fire arms what about bow and cross bow?

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump

« on: November 06, 2017, 01:54:54 PM »

if he really said that, its only another prove that he is not capable to be a president of a country.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me any argument that proves the flat earth, I will refute it.

« on: November 06, 2017, 01:28:03 PM »

I am not a flat earther, I believe in the round earth 🌏 and I will prove flat earth is not real, give me any argument that “proves” the flat earth and I will refute it with the correct scientific explanation. Now try prove your flat earth, let’s see if it is coherent and follows the laws of physics. Good luck, you will need it. 😁😛

Prove the Earth is a globe

the existence of a horizon, sun set, sun rise, lunar eclipse, solar eclipse, space travel, gravity ....

you need more?

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...

« on: November 06, 2017, 01:25:54 PM »

My own take.

I would feel a lot LESS safe with a gun if it meant everyone else potentially had a gun

I feel MORE safe, not having a gun, knowing the chances of anyone else having one is SFA.

If an intruder breaks into my house armed with a baseball bat, I can still have a chance of defending myself. If I am allowed to have a gun, chances are he will too and it wouldn't be a baseball bat anymore, but a gun I have to defend myself against.

I would feel more safe if I have a gun and there is a good gun control and I know that other person with guns are also gone thru the good gun control and can be trusted with a gun and they know how to handle it.

with an intruder you never know if that person has a gun or not, does anybody really think that a person that breaks in into private homes to steal stuff with the change that people are in it, care about gun law. they can have guns even if they are total illegal. that would not stop them for having a gun.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's go do an experiment

« on: November 06, 2017, 01:20:34 PM »

teach me, what is a good argument for the global earth.

There is a horizon, most importantly, one on water, which remains level. It is often quite visible and clear and sharp.
This indicates it is an edge.
If Earth was flat, the only edge would be the edge of Earth, and thus to have a clear, sharp horizon, it would be that edge and thus you should be able to see to the edge.
However, the atmosphere is not perfectly clear and thus it would obstruct the view to the horizon unless you were close to the edge, which would result in the sea/land fading to a blurr like it does on very foggy days.

So because the horizon exists and is clear and sharp and is not the edge (as it moves with you), this shows Earth cannot be flat.
As it varies in distance based upon height above the ground, and is always continually moving with you this indicates no particular point is special and that every location would be an edge. The only shape which fulfills these requirements is a sphere. However due to our imperfect perception it Earth may not be a perfect sphere and instead be a shape which is approximately spherical, like an oblate spheroid.

lets see what Jane has to say to your argument.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Have To Bring This Up

« on: November 06, 2017, 01:18:35 PM »

do you teach your children the same way?
if they explain something that is correct in a way you don't like you start to argue against them with incorrect statements?

I certainly would, and I do the same with students.
I don't care if what they say is correct, I care if they are able to justify it.

If they say Earth is round because they like doughnuts and they are round, I will point out that their argument is pure garbage.
I might even make up an equally flawed argument against their claim to show them the error of their ways.

but would you present this flawed argument (and a lot more) all the time and a student ask you to show evidence for that argument simply ignore that request and still keep arguing with that flawed argument (and a lot more)?
you would have at one point show why you present a flawed argument and tell why his argument was wrong for a correct system.

that would be the complete way to teach, not like Jane, who stopped half way and keep arguing for a wrong system.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's go do an experiment

« on: November 06, 2017, 01:01:03 PM »

and you still not explain why you argue against your own believes and knowledge.

you really need to learn the difference between pointing out a bad argument, and arguing against a point of view,

teach me, what is a good argument for the global earth.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Have To Bring This Up

« on: November 06, 2017, 12:59:25 PM »

You can fake a little of 0g underwater. Ask the Chinese regarding their latest 'space walk'.

but you need a diving equipment under water.
the astronauts in the ISS do not wear diving equipment.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Have To Bring This Up

« on: November 06, 2017, 12:57:36 PM »

you do a very bad job, as I post in the other thread, why do you do the good arguing for you believe and knowledge and only arguing against it.
do you teach your children the same way?
if they explain something that is correct in a way you don't like you start to argue against them with incorrect statements?

What on earth are you talking about?
You are arguing against FET with logic that does not hold. Why are you getting so incensed when that gets pointed out?

what logic does not hold? the logic of reality?

you are way more unlogic, you argue for denpressure that is impossible in reality.

and if you want to claim that it is possible than you have to provide any evidence for that claim.
but not one person was able to present any evidence that denpressure is possible.
there are only incomplete explanations or explanations that are completely wrong.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's go do an experiment

« on: November 06, 2017, 12:52:41 PM »

why do you not provide the good arguments for the global earth?
you believe it anyway therefore you should be able to do a good arguing for the global earth.
why you only argue against your believe and knowledge.

There are plenty of people arguing for RET. And you really need to learn the difference between pointing out a bad argument, and arguing against a point of view, I'm getting tired of repeating that.

and you still not explain why you argue against your own believes and knowledge.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Have To Bring This Up

« on: November 06, 2017, 12:31:46 PM »

you and the FEIB argue that all pictures and videos and evidence and proves from science are wrong.
you and the FEIB argue that all claims of FEIB are correct and should be considered.

No, you're just apparently incapable of addressing any post someone makes and instead make up your own version. We have had this exact discussion before,s top ignoring me.
I'm not saying anything's correct or wrong, I'm just pointing out that if you want to be able to refute FET you have to a) make an actual argument, and b) pay attention to what people say rather than just repeating irrelevant nonsense.

you do a very bad job, as I post in the other thread, why do you do the good arguing for you believe and knowledge and only arguing against it.
do you teach your children the same way?
if they explain something that is correct in a way you don't like you start to argue against them with incorrect statements?

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's go do an experiment

« on: November 06, 2017, 12:28:20 PM »

Yes, 'at large,' what percentage of the world would you say actually accept FET? And for that matter, so what, what do you think the terrible arguments and vitriol that get thrown at FEers achieve beyond getting them to dig their heels in? You're not exactly in any position to take the moral high ground.

You are aware providing them with evidence and rational arguments can do the same, with them just digging their heels in even more?

Sure, for the believers whose opinions you're never going to change, but the few people who're open to FET and might change their mind, do you think they'd 'see the light' when they see REers never making informed arguments and just spamming the same vitriol over and over?

If you're just here to feel superior and insult people then for crying out loud just admit it rather than acting as though you're achieving anything else.

why do you not provide the good arguments for the global earth?
you believe it anyway therefore you should be able to do a good arguing for the global earth.
why you only argue against your believe and knowledge.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...

« on: November 06, 2017, 12:25:37 PM »

This was horrible.

Honestly the medias constant fear mongering and scare campaigns I feel are partly responsible for this.


From his Facebook page.

More than cleverness, we need kindness. For all of the law is fulfilled in one word.

Our hearts thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and families.

what do you want to say with this picture?
that he was an atheist and that is why he did what he did?

I hope I am wrong with this interpretation of your post.

Not even Trump has said something that disgusting. 

My guess is that D1 is inferring that cnn has brainwashed him into massacring a church.

Trump is only saying that the guy was a deranged person and the whole thing does not have anything to do with gun control.
on the other hand he was last time very quick of yelling to close the border for Islamic person and emigrants.
why does he not yell to imprison all mentally instable persons.

I think there should be a stricter gun control of who is allowed to get a weapon.
it would even be good to implement a constant control if a person is still able to be allowed to have a gun.
like a checkup every 2 years if a person is still physical and mental able to handle a weapon.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: About density and buoyancy that I don't see people bring up.

« on: November 06, 2017, 11:15:28 AM »

Why does the interior air not move as an equally pressurized whole with the rest of the train car?

It does if the train car is at a steady speed, because the excess pressure is equalised and even though it's marginally more compressed inside the entire car, it creates no added push onto a person in any specific direction and is not severe enough around a person to be mindful of it in terms of identifying it and any excess.

What about when it is not a steady speed?  While accelerating, why doesn't the interior air move as an equally pressurized whole?

Because the vehicle is pushing into atmosphere with more energy and continuously compressing it in one direction which never has the chance to equalise until the vehicle ceases to accelerate.

Yes, you're explaining what happens in this situation in your model, but you're not explaining 'why'. 

Why is the air inside acting that way under acceleration?

  I see you're back Scepti.  Have you figured out an answer for that question yet?

look at his response to my post:

so you say that water act like gas as it sloshes in its containment.
than I say that solid bodies also "slosh" like water and gas do in a containment.
so the body get "slosh" in the car the same way as the atmosphere does.
so the body moves forward because of that sloshing, or we could call it inertia

you explanation does not support you denpressure is even more disprove it.

Ok no problem. You carry on.

thanks for confirming my conclusion that you explanation does not support your claim and is therefore useless for your claims.

I think we can that take that way that he admit that his explanation does not support his idea of denpressure.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Have To Bring This Up

« on: November 06, 2017, 11:11:26 AM »

so you believe that the earth is a globe, but why?
you question all the evidence for a global earth but you still believe that the earth is a globe.
what are the evidence that you believe in a global earth and not in a flat earth?

I don't question the evidence, I just point out when people argue for it badly. There are good arguments, they just weren't given in the OP. Pretty sure I've explained this to you before.

For a couple of examples of poor arguing, we have:

2: Ever realize why we switched away from the flat earth model? In science we go with what we think is right for the time based on calculations. We did not have the tools in the past to measure the curve properly, so we thought it was flat, since we got the new technology we experimented, measured, tested, and found the earth was round!

This isn't really a question that can be answered. If you want people to engage then give instances of new technology, new measurements, and why it proves RET.

the global earth is proven many time because science developed more accurate methods to examine problems.

And:

I say that movie is not able to fake all the video that are made from outer space.
if you say I am wrong, prove it

you do not point out bad arguing, you doing it yourself and all the FEIB.


you and the FEIB argue that all pictures and videos and evidence and proves from science are wrong.
you and the FEIB argue that all claims of FEIB are correct and should be considered.

if something is proven to be wrong, than we can not consider as the reality.

it is explained to you many time that the claims from the FEIB are proven to be wrong.

you also did not explain why you believe that the earth is a globe.

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...

« on: November 06, 2017, 09:41:33 AM »

This was horrible.

Honestly the medias constant fear mongering and scare campaigns I feel are partly responsible for this.


From his Facebook page.

More than cleverness, we need kindness. For all of the law is fulfilled in one word.

Our hearts thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and families.

what do you want to say with this picture?
that he was an atheist and that is why he did what he did?

I hope I am wrong with this interpretation of your post.

21

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump

« on: November 06, 2017, 09:37:33 AM »

Donald and Shinzo together 4evar.

I think Shinzo has him over to have a lot of fun.

he will have a lot of stories for his friends after Trump leaves:

"I had the President of the USA to visit and he did ....." and than they will laugh their ass off.   

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Denspressure vs Reality

« on: November 06, 2017, 07:36:42 AM »

so you say that water act like gas as it sloshes in its containment.
than I say that solid bodies also "slosh" like water and gas do in a containment.
so the body get "slosh" in the car the same way as the atmosphere does.
so the body moves forward because of that sloshing, or we could call it inertia

you explanation does not support you denpressure is even more disprove it.

Ok no problem. You carry on.

thanks for confirming my conclusion that you explanation does not support your claim and is therefore useless for your claims.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Denspressure vs Reality

« on: November 06, 2017, 06:49:00 AM »

the air molecules nitrogen and oxygen do not fit into that space.

Don't bring up molecules! You definitely do not want to hear Sceppy's ideas on molecules.

It's not that hard 
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921462#msg1921462

Sure, but I would prefer something backup by expermental evidence and not dragged up simply from someone's imagination.

The imaginations of mainstream so called scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity and such is what requires sifting through when it can be seen to be the nonsense it becomes after mildly thinking on it.
If more people questioned it they would start to see the duping.

I ask you a question about your idea and you simply ignored that and not even try to explain it.

scientist have for almost all your questions an answer, you may not like it but there is a logical explanation that fits with the reality. they even can show experiments that supports their explanations.
you on the other hand only present claims and some of these claims you explain but you are not able to show us one little experiment that supports your claims.

you say people should question science, you are right with that, but they also should question your ideas.
and as they can expect evidence from science for their explanations, they also can expect evidence for your explanations, equal for both.

now I demand and explanation and evidence for your explanation: why does the atmosphere in a car sloshes?

compressive force of atmosphere due to applied energy and then quick release of that energy that creates a rebound back towards the front until equalisation.

If you want a quick visual analogy just think about water sloshing in a tank with you immersed in it and assuming that the water could compress. I have a massive feeling this will go right over your head and you'll come back with " water doesn't compress so your analogy fails" and what not.
Do it and you can eff off.

so you say that water act like gas as it sloshes in its containment.
than I say that solid bodies also "slosh" like water and gas do in a containment.
so the body get "slosh" in the car the same way as the atmosphere does.
so the body moves forward because of that sloshing, or we could call it inertia

you explanation does not support you denpressure is even more disprove it.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words

« on: November 06, 2017, 06:36:57 AM »

If perpetual motion is impossible, how does the Earth orbit the Sun?

gravity.

also the earth orbiting the sun is not a perpetual motion, the orbiting will not last for ever.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Have To Bring This Up

« on: November 06, 2017, 06:33:38 AM »

1: Lots of people say "Oh that's a fish eye lenses" to debunk the curve of the Earth, but Fisheye lenses can make flat things look round, and make round things look flat, so you have no proof either way.

It's not used to debunk the curve, just debunk the evidence of the curve. It's not meant to be proof either way.

but you forget that it is not debunked.
as you said, fisheye does not prove it either way, therefor it does not disprove it either way.

2: Ever realize why we switched away from the flat earth model? In science we go with what we think is right for the time based on calculations. We did not have the tools in the past to measure the curve properly, so we thought it was flat, since we got the new technology we experimented, measured, tested, and found the earth was round!

This isn't really a question that can be answered. If you want people to engage then give instances of new technology, new measurements, and why it proves RET.

the global earth is proven many time because science developed more accurate methods to examine problems.

3: For those who say the ISS videos were fake, how can you fake 0g environments?

Movies manage it.

I say that movie is not able to fake all the video that are made from outer space.
if you say I am wrong, prove it

4: Many people say we never made it to space, got any proof? You can say the same to space, but if we did not make it, what about the Hubble pictures? Hm?

What makes Hubble pictures inherently accurate? Images have been faked for pretty much as long as humans have had photography.

I am a Round Earther, just to note.

Same here, but if you want to ask meaningful questions you have to give your reasoning as to why you see them as issues.

so you believe that the earth is a globe, but why?
you question all the evidence for a global earth but you still believe that the earth is a globe.
what are the evidence that you believe in a global earth and not in a flat earth?

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Denspressure vs Reality

« on: November 06, 2017, 06:16:04 AM »

the air molecules nitrogen and oxygen do not fit into that space.

Don't bring up molecules! You definitely do not want to hear Sceppy's ideas on molecules.

It's not that hard 
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921462#msg1921462

Sure, but I would prefer something backup by expermental evidence and not dragged up simply from someone's imagination.

The imaginations of mainstream so called scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity and such is what requires sifting through when it can be seen to be the nonsense it becomes after mildly thinking on it.
If more people questioned it they would start to see the duping.

I ask you a question about your idea and you simply ignored that and not even try to explain it.

scientist have for almost all your questions an answer, you may not like it but there is a logical explanation that fits with the reality. they even can show experiments that supports their explanations.
you on the other hand only present claims and some of these claims you explain but you are not able to show us one little experiment that supports your claims.

you say people should question science, you are right with that, but they also should question your ideas.
and as they can expect evidence from science for their explanations, they also can expect evidence for your explanations, equal for both.

now I demand and explanation and evidence for your explanation: why does the atmosphere in a car sloshes?

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's go do an experiment

« on: November 05, 2017, 12:18:25 PM »

And you are somebody that repeats claims that have not one little bit of evidence to be possible in reality.

And all that repeating and your additional claim that you not even believe thus claims as you said you are not a FEIB

It is possible to argue poorly for the correct point of view. All I'm doing is pointing that out.

No you are only repeating claims of FEIB.
That are poorly argues for a wrong point.

Why do you not pointing out the flaws in the FEI?
What good is an idea that has no evidence to work in reality.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Denspressure vs Reality

« on: November 05, 2017, 11:49:06 AM »

What dies push my body forward when I slow down in my car?

The slosh of atmospheric compressed air.

Except the atmosphere compresses in the front of the car.  If anything it should push you back when you stop and forward when you accelerate. 
This is what happens to helium balloons in a car.

Yes it compresses in front of teh car and has to decompress as the car keeps moving into it, which is why it's pushed around the car to fill the lower pressure created by the rear of the car moving away through normal atmospheric pressure.
That compressed air slams into the air at the back constantly and back onto the car which creates a natural reaction to action in equal terms.
The same thing is happening inside the car, except inside of it it's closed so acts like a internal compression tank which holds a compression as long as a speed is attained but sill immediately slosh once brakes are applied, which is why you see the actions of what you see with a person in that car.

Still no explanation why I do not feel the pressure at the back of my body.
I only feel the pressure from the belt that holds me back.
With your idea I should feel the same pressure at my back from the atmosphere.

Please explain that for us.

Also you could address my other questions.

Sometimes you have to look a bit deeper into answers.
Try it.

It is not explained where the pressure of the sloshing atmosphere act on my body.
It can not my back because I do not feel it.

You have to explain it better that it is understandable.

You do feel it. You just don't register it as anything like that.
I'll try and make this a bit more simpler.
Imagine you are in a tube secured in a seat and at each end of that tube is a plunger with you in the middle.

You are in equal atmosphere at this time.
Now imagine one plunger starts to compress the air towards you. You would feel it but not be too mindful.

Now imagine that plunger moving towards you a little bit faster.
If you weren't secured into your seat your body would start to be pushed further back until that plunger stops but more pressure would be on you and you would feel it and know it because of that environment.

Now imagine the other plunger towards your back gets sharply pushed towards it in a sort of super fast effect.
This would be like braking and it would slam you forward but then hit a compression barrier and slam back with much less force before equalisation.

This is what's happening in your vehicle.

I say that is Bullshit what you claim there.
And as it is your claim you have to prove it right.
Do the experiment and show us the results.

Also again still no explanation why the atmosphere sloshes, as you claim inertia does not exist.
Looks like you ignore this because you can not explain it.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's go do an experiment

« on: November 05, 2017, 11:43:55 AM »

Than they do a very bad job as there are so much photos that you claim prove the complete ice wall at the Antarctica.

You're starting to get it, well done.
Do you see how utterly pointless this whole subject of discussion is yet?

You are right, because all claims of the big fleat and the ice wall are pointless because expeditions have proven them wrong.

So close, and yet so far. You almost drew a logical conclusion, but instead you had to snap back to assuring everyone that "RET, RET, RET! Did I mention RET?"
We all know you're a REer, we all know you accept RET, so do I, but not every argument made for RET is a good one and not every post you make has to insist that RET is true.

And you are somebody that repeats claims that have not one little bit of evidence to be possible in reality.

And all that repeating and your additional claim that you not even believe thus claims as you said you are not a FEIB

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Denspressure vs Reality

« on: November 05, 2017, 11:31:18 AM »

What dies push my body forward when I slow down in my car?

The slosh of atmospheric compressed air.

Except the atmosphere compresses in the front of the car.  If anything it should push you back when you stop and forward when you accelerate. 
This is what happens to helium balloons in a car.

Yes it compresses in front of teh car and has to decompress as the car keeps moving into it, which is why it's pushed around the car to fill the lower pressure created by the rear of the car moving away through normal atmospheric pressure.
That compressed air slams into the air at the back constantly and back onto the car which creates a natural reaction to action in equal terms.
The same thing is happening inside the car, except inside of it it's closed so acts like a internal compression tank which holds a compression as long as a speed is attained but sill immediately slosh once brakes are applied, which is why you see the actions of what you see with a person in that car.

I'm really not following you on this.  From what I can tell you say it is the air pressure pushing you forward but the air pressure is now greater in the front of the car so it should be pushing you back like it does the helium balloons.

Also as I said, you should feel this pressure change and also be able to measure it.

And Scepimatic still did not explain why the atmosphere sloshes in the car.